[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1725-1735]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 UNITED STATES CAPITOL POLICE ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT 
                                OF 2009

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a 
message from the House with respect to H.R. 1299, the U.S. Capitol 
Police administrative authorities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate a message 
from the House.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, that the House agree to the amendment of the 
     Senate to the bill (H.R. 1299) entitled ``An Act to make 
     technical corrections to the laws affecting certain 
     administrative authorities of the United States Capitol 
     Police, and for other purposes,'' with a House amendment to 
     the Senate amendment.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment, and I have a cloture motion at the desk on the motion to 
concur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     1299, the United States Capitol Police Administrative 
     Technical Corrections Act.
         Harry Reid, Byron L. Dorgan, Russell D. Feingold, Patrick 
           J. Leahy, Daniel K. Inouye, Kay R. Hagan, Jeff 
           Bingaman, Robert Menendez, Richard J. Durbin, Jack 
           Reed, Mark Begich, Patty Murray, Bernard Sanders, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Barbara Boxer, Jon Tester, John 
           D. Rockefeller IV.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I thought it was important that the clerk 
read those names. Sometimes they are hard to read.


                           Amendment No. 3326

  I move to concur in the House amendment with an amendment, which is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to concur in the 
     House amendment to the Senate amendment with an amendment 
     numbered 3326.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:
       The provisions of this Act shall become effective 5 days 
     after enactment.

  Mr. REID. I now ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3327 to Amendment No. 3326

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a second-degree amendment now at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3327 to amendment No. 3326.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In the amendment, strike ``5'' and insert ``4''.


                Motion to Refer with Amendment No. 3328

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to refer with instructions, which 
is also at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to refer the House 
     message to the Senate Committee on Rules with instructions to 
     report back forthwith, with an amendment numbered 3328.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, insert the following:
       The Senate Rules Committee is requested to study the 
     benefit of enacting a travel promotion measure, and the 
     impact on job creation by its enactment.

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3329

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have an amendment to my instructions, 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3329 to the instructions of the motion to refer.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, insert the following:
       ``and include reasonable statistics of job creation.''

  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 3330 to Amendment No. 3329

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3330 to amendment No. 3329.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end, insert the following:
       ``including specific data on the types of jobs created.''

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 
quorum be waived with respect to the cloture motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say for the benefit of Members, under 
the rules, this cloture motion will ripen Friday morning. I do not 
think there is going to be a lot of talk during the next 2 days on this 
matter, and I would certainly be happy to move up this time and have 
the vote earlier. But we will wait until we hear from the Republicans.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, we have today taken a very strong, 
positive step forward in terms of responding to the No. 1 crisis in our 
economy, and that is jobs for all of our people. Under Leader Reid's 
leadership, we were able to get a bill through, with a huge majority, 
and it signals, I hope, not only attention to jobs but also the 
willingness and the ability to find common ground to serve the people 
of our country.
  We are now on the travel promotion bill, which is another piece of 
legislation designed to encourage job creation in the travel industry. 
All of this is good news. The legislation we propose this morning 
combines elements of tax breaks for small businesses so they can 
expense their items, increase their cashflow, and hire more people with 
credits for hiring people. There is a huge investment in our 
infrastructure, which will put people to work in the building industry 
and in industries that supply all these infrastructure projects, and 
there is also a significant commitment to Build America Bonds. These 
are good programs, and they are fully paid for.
  We are now taking up the challenge to put people to work, to do it in 
a responsible way, and to do so in a way that we can attract bipartisan 
support. But there is much more to do. There is the recognition that we 
have to not only create jobs but for the foreseeable future deal with 
those people who have been looking unsuccessfully for jobs and who are 
unemployed. In my home State of Rhode Island, the unemployment rate is 
12.9 percent. That is the

[[Page 1726]]

official rate. Unofficially, it is much higher, as many people have 
dropped out of the workforce. If you look at sectors in terms of 
ethnicity or age, the numbers are even more startling. The bill we 
passed this morning is a good first step forward, but we have to do 
much more.
  I think one of the first jobs we have to address is the extension of 
unemployment benefits. They will expire this Sunday. We have to 
recognize that, despite many efforts here, there are millions of 
Americans who are looking every day and not finding work. They need 
support.
  All of the economists who have looked at these programs indicated 
that not only do they support individuals and families, they provide a 
tremendous multiplier of economic activity for every dollar we commit 
to the program. There is, as they say, a big bang for the buck. People 
who are without a job will take their benefits and invariably they will 
have to support themselves in terms of going to the grocery store--
doing the things you have to do just to get by day by day. They are not 
typically saving this money. That helps in the sense of increasing 
demand in the economy overall, increasing our economic growth.
  If Congress fails to act swiftly, 1,200 Rhode Islanders will start 
losing their benefits each week. It is a small State and that is a big 
number. We have never before in our history, at least postwar history, 
ever terminated extended unemployment and emergency unemployment 
benefits until unemployment was at least 7.4 percent. At that point it 
appears, in most cases, that there is a self-sustaining economic growth 
that will itself begin to continue to lower the unemployment rate. We 
are far from 7.4 percent. As I said, in my State it is 12.9. The 
national average is hovering around 10.
  We have to do this. Congress has acted eight times--1958, 1961, 1971, 
1974, 1982, 1991, 2002, 2008--to establish temporary federal 
unemployment benefit programs beyond regular unemployment compensation 
and extended benefits. Not to extend these benefits would essentially 
reject the consistent record of this Congress of helping Americans when 
the unemployment rate has reached such extraordinary proportions as it 
is today, whether the majority is Republican or Democrat. Last 
November, we did approve, without opposition, an expansion of up to 20 
weeks, but now we need to pass a further extension.
  As I said before, this is not just about helping families and 
individuals, it is also about helping the economy. For every $1 we 
invest in our unemployment benefits, we see $1.90 in economic activity 
overall throughout the economy.
  One of the reasons I heard to oppose this morning's legislation: 
There is not enough demand to justify these tax incentives; they will 
not be used.
  One of the things that does generate demand, consumer demand 
particularly, is the unemployment compensation program. It is not the 
way we want to do it. What we would like to see is a productive economy 
with jobs where the demand comes not only from people working but their 
being compensated and also being able, with discretionary income, to 
make consumption choices that today they cannot.
  As I said before, we have to think about an agenda for jobs. We 
passed one piece of legislation today. We are discussing the travel 
legislation at this moment. We have to then move to the legislation 
with respect to unemployment compensation. We also have to think about 
supporting the States with additional FMAP, that is, the funds for 
Medicaid, because, again, not only will that help our States, but 
without it you are going to see a contraction in our health care 
industry in terms of hospitals being able to hire or willing to hire. 
So we have many steps to go forward.
  One aspect of this issue, which I would like to mention is that many 
of these programs we have talked about--for example, the tax credits 
for hiring--are nationwide and they miss the point that there are some 
areas that are much more affected by unemployment than other areas. We 
have States--and their good fortune is something we should be proud 
of--that have rates as low as 4.7 percent for unemployment. Yet they 
will qualify for these general, generic programs.
  As we go forward and start thinking about additional steps, I think 
we also have to think about how we can target those programs to areas 
that have critical unemployment situations. Rhode Island, at 12.9 
percent, is one, but there are many others. If you look within States, 
there are regions that have significant unemployment problems. Again, 
we have taken steps to extend our benefits, but as we go forward, as we 
consider additional legislation, let's also think seriously about how 
to make it more effective, more efficient, more targeted.
  I again urge all my colleagues to continue the effort and spirit 
which resulted today in an overwhelming vote for a program that will 
help Americans and move our country and our economy forward.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. 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.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the legislation on the floor of the Senate 
at this point includes legislation that I have worked on with my 
colleagues for about 3 years. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation 
called the Travel Promotion Act. I wish to talk just a bit about it 
today, but before I do, let me describe the reasons for its importance.
  When we began to put this together--as I said, 3 years ago last 
month, working with a good number of sectors in our economy to try to 
evaluate how do we promote international tourism to the United States--
we were not in a very deep recession. We were in a period of economic 
growth. In the intervening period, our country has fallen into a very 
significant and deep recession. It makes the urgency all that much 
greater to create new jobs and to do so as soon as possible.
  Somewhere around 15 million to 17 million people, according to 
official estimates, woke up this morning in this country of ours 
without a job. They want a job. They want work. They have looked for 
work, but they can't find a job in the United States of America.
  Now, that number of 15 million to 17 million is ominous enough. Just 
think of one person this morning who woke up not able to work because 
they can't find a job, and then think of 15 million or 17 million, and 
then fast-forward and think of perhaps 25 million to 26 million, which 
is what is estimated to be the total population of people who are 
unemployed in America, many of whom have stopped looking for work 
because they couldn't find work at all. This is a very big problem, and 
it affects our country in many ways. It affects the economy in a 
devastating way. It is very hard on American families when they are not 
able to find work to be able to take care of themselves. It results in 
more Federal spending for unemployment insurance and the other things. 
So we are trying to find ways to put people back to work.
  Earlier this week we passed, with the leadership of Senator Reid and 
many others--work that I and Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer, and many 
others have done--a jobs bill that will begin putting people back to 
work when it is signed by the President. The legislation that Senator 
Reid brought to the floor today includes the Travel Promotion Act, 
which will also put people back to work. I wish to talk through this 
and explain why this is important.
  Let me begin by saying that on 9/11/2001, we were the victims of a 
devastating terrorist attack on our country. Thousands of Americans 
were killed that day. As a result, since that period of time we have 
been engaged in an effort to prevent terrorism, to track down the 
terrorists and destroy the terrorist networks that would visit that 
kind of tragedy upon our country. But also during that period and 
following, it became clear to the rest of

[[Page 1727]]

the world that our country was clamping down on visitation to our 
country. Many people believed: The United States doesn't want us to 
visit them anymore. It is harder to get a visa to come to the United 
States. We are not welcome in the United States. So what happened was, 
there was a dramatic reduction in visitation to our country by overseas 
travelers.
  Why is that important? When you have millions of people who are 
traveling around the world to go experience and see the sights and take 
vacations and so on, they are spending a fair amount of money on those 
trips. They are creating jobs in many areas, not just hotels and cars 
and restaurants and so on but in many other areas as well. Our country, 
for the last 6 to 8 years, has had the experience in which the rest of 
the world has said: We are going to visit Italy, France, Japan, and 
India. But fewer of us are going to visit the United States of America.
  In fact, we have seen a circumstance where after 9/11, we had fewer 
and fewer visitors coming to our country; that is, fewer than came 
before, and last year, in 2009, we had 2.4 million fewer people visit 
our country than visited our country in the year 2000. Let me say that 
again because I think it is important. We had 2.4 million fewer people 
come to the United States of America to visit as overseas travelers 
than visited in the year 2000.
  The Presiding Officer is from the State of New Mexico. It is a 
wonderful State, and I know it is a State that attracts a lot of 
visitation not only from people in our country but from people who come 
from outside of America to see the wonders of New Mexico. But it 
doesn't matter whether it is the wonders of New Mexico or Old Faithful 
in Yellowstone or Niagara Falls or you name it--the cities or the 
wonders of our country, the great national parks--2.4 million fewer 
people showed up last year to visit our country.
  Let me explain why that has happened. Here are some headlines. The 
Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney, Australia, headline: ``Coming to America 
Isn't Easy.'' It describes the difficulty of getting visas and coming 
to America.
  The Guardian in England says: ``America: More Hassle Than it's 
Worth?'' Again, difficulty coming to America.
  The Sunday Times in London: ``Travel to America? No Thanks,'' says 
the headline.
  The newspaper says:

       It is already a nightmare, but now they want to make entry 
     into the U.S. tougher, so let's not go.

  Well, let me describe what is happening in other countries at the 
same time we are taking leave on this issue. Other countries are very 
busy advertising to the world to say: Are you traveling? Are you taking 
a vacation? Are you seeing the world? Come to our country. Come to see 
what is happening.
  The poster says: Looking for an experience to remember? Be part of an 
adventure you will never forget. Come and see Australia. See the 
wonders. It is true what they say: To find yourself sometimes you need 
to lose yourself. In Australia they call this ``going walkabout.'' So a 
big campaign: If you are traveling, come to Australia. Come and see 
what we have to offer.
  A campaign for the Emerald Isle: Go where Ireland takes you. If you 
are taking a trip, be sure and visit Ireland. Come to Ireland, it says. 
It is an international campaign.
  Japan says: Sweet secrets from Japan. With its many unique culinary 
arts, they entice travelers; a stunning array of specialties, and on 
and on. Come to Japan. Thinking of traveling? Show up in Japan.
  Are you taking a trip with your family? How about coming to the 
Eiffel Tower. Come to France in 2009. Vive la France. So France and 
Japan and India and Ireland say: Come and see us.
  Belgium's national campaign says: If you are traveling with your 
family, come to Belgium where fun is always in fashion.

       Brussels, sophisticated simplicity, the capital of cool.

  I think you get the point. This one says:

       One special reason to visit India in 2009. Any time is a 
     good time to visit the land of Taj, but there is no time like 
     now.

  So we have millions of people traveling around the world. On average, 
overseas travelers spend over $4,000. All of these countries are saying 
to those overseas travelers: Come to our country. See our country and 
the wonders of what we have to offer the world.
  In the United States of America, we have not done that. That is why, 
in my judgment, at least in part, we had 2.4 million fewer visitors 
last year than we had in 2000. That is pretty unbelievable.
  This proposition is simple. There is a problem. The number of people 
between the years 2000 and 2009 visiting other countries--overseas 
travel--has increased by 31 percent. During the same period the number 
of overseas travelers coming to the United States has decreased nearly 
10 percent. So overseas travel is up, but travel to America is down.
  There is another important point here. There has been a lot of 
polling done, and it is clear that to visit America is to have great 
respect for and love for this country. There is almost no one who comes 
to this country and tours and travels and visits our country who 
doesn't leave America with a special understanding of the wonders of 
this great place. At a time when we want people to understand more 
about our country, we ought to be inviting them here and saying: Come 
to America, see what we have to offer.
  We ought to be engaged in this process, but we are not. This 
legislation we are bringing to the floor of the Senate is legislation 
that will actually increase jobs, we think, by close to 40,000 jobs, 
according to the estimates. So you will increase 40,000 jobs and, in 
addition to that, the CBO says this will reduce the Federal budget 
deficit by nearly $\1/2\ billion. How many pieces of legislation come 
to the floor of the Senate that will both create jobs and reduce the 
budget deficit and also give us the opportunity to tell the rest of the 
world what a wonderful and great place this country is?
  That is the reason for this legislation. As we build, one step at a 
time, opportunities to create additional jobs, this is part of it. The 
Congressional Budget Office has said that enacting S. 1023 would reduce 
the budget deficit. I think it will do that and help our country.
  The specifics of this legislation will encourage international travel 
to all parts of this country. I think it will provide economic growth 
to all parts of our country. This creates a corporation for travel 
promotion. That is what we create--an independent, nonprofit 
corporation to be governed by an 11-member board of directors appointed 
by the Secretary of Commerce, and it creates the Office of Travel 
Promotion in the Department of Commerce--one that used to exist but no 
longer does, and it hasn't for a long while.
  The purpose of this is to engage in the kind of campaign that exists 
in most other countries in the world and to say to those traveling 
around the world: Come here. You are welcome here. We want you here. 
Come and understand and experience this country called the United 
States of America.
  Let me pay special attention to the work Senator Reid has done, and 
Senator Ensign who is a cosponsor and worked on this in the Commerce 
Committee with me, Senator Inouye, Senator Vitter, and Senator 
Klobuchar. Let me say that Senator Klobuchar, in the Commerce Committee 
working on tourism following my chairmanship of the tourism 
subcommittee, has taken on this issue with gusto and is a very 
important part of getting this done. My hope is that when we finish 
this, when the President signs this bill, all of us will understand 
that at a time when there is so much partisanship, and when it appears 
to the American people that so little can be agreed upon and that so 
little gets done--there is all that notion out there--the fact is, this 
is bipartisan, good for the country, will reduce the budget deficit, 
and it will increase jobs and put people back to work.
  If ever something had all of the things that are necessary to have 
merit and to be worthy, this legislation surely does that.

[[Page 1728]]

  My colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, as I indicated, has 
done yeoman's work with me and others to put this together. We hope, of 
course, those who would come to our country would especially visit 
North Dakota and Minnesota and stay for a very long period of time--
yes, we all have parochial interests--and perhaps North Dakota even 
more than Minnesota, I might say from my own perspective. I do think it 
is seldom that we can come to the floor and say here is a piece of 
legislation that Republicans and Democrats support.
  We had one vote on it already. It had 79 votes in support in the 
Senate. Seldom can we say here is a bill that is bipartisan that does a 
lot of good things for our country.
  Thanks to the majority leader for putting this back on the floor. I 
congratulate him for his work on it and my colleague Senator Klobuchar 
as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dorgan for his great 
leadership. For so long, he has been working on this. I have a feeling 
this is finally going to get done. It is true and we invite the 
Presiding Officer to visit North Dakota and Minnesota. I think he 
thinks the State of New Mexico is pretty cool, but he has never been to 
Teddy Roosevelt Park in North Dakota.
  So often marketing campaigns for our country are done by specific 
cities such as Las Vegas and New York, which is important. But when you 
look at this country, marketing our country as a whole is going to mean 
something. We are competing against countries the world over that do 
this all the time. That is why we have seen a 20-percent decrease in 
international visitors.
  When I held a hearing on this issue, along with former Senator 
Martinez, this past year, there was a story in the Washington Post, in 
good humor, about all the Senators hawking their own States and the 
deals you could get--whether it was Senator Begich's $99 cruise in 
Alaska or the stuff I talked about with Duluth, MN. We were doing that 
because people need to know about the opportunities in America. Doing 
it at a Commerce Committee hearing is not going to be anything compared 
to what France, Indonesia, and other countries are doing. They are 
bringing in visitors. They spend thousands and thousands of dollars.
  We are doing this jobs bill this week, and an important part of that 
is the travel industry because it employs one out of eight Americans.
  What will this bill do? One, as Senator Dorgan mentioned, it will 
give us the ability to market our country. Second, it will give us the 
funds we need to better process the visas because it is expected to 
bring in--and this is the estimate of the nonpartisan organization--1.6 
million new international visitors each year. They spend $4,500 on 
average when they come here. You can do the math--1.6 million new 
visitors times $4,500 every single year. There is some expectation that 
the bill could generate $4 billion in new spending and $321 million in 
Federal tax revenue. In addition, the bill is estimated to create 
41,000 new jobs.
  What is the cost to the taxpayer? I have been pushing on deficit 
reduction, but what is the cost to the taxpayer? Zero. I think that is 
a great thing about this bill. We are doing something to create jobs. 
We are doing it at zero cost. As you know, there is a small fee on 
foreign visitors to our country, like other countries do to our people 
when they visit--with Canada exempted.
  What I found out is that the people who care about this bill are not 
just in the Halls of Congress and in our major cities. When I was in 
Grand Marais, International Falls, Bemidji, and the Brainerd Lakes 
area--home of the statue of Paul Bunion and Babe the Blue Ox--they were 
excited about this because they have seen a decrease in visitors from 
Canada. They want to be able to market our country.
  We have gotten so far behind. A lot of people living in, say, France 
are deciding where to go on their summer vacation. They are thinking: 
Am I going to go to America, where maybe it will take months to process 
my visa, or am I going to spend my vacation in England, just across the 
channel or maybe I will go to Mexico. That is what is happening. That 
is where we have lost 20 percent of the overseas travel.
  Look at this chart. There were 48 million more global overseas 
travelers in 2008 than in 2000. More people are traveling. We have seen 
the marketing power across this world. There were 633,000 fewer who 
have visited the United States than in 2000. So world travel is going 
up. You can see the big increase globally. But the number of people 
coming to the United States has gone down. That means less jobs in this 
country.
  Mr. President, I believe we need to be on an equal playing field with 
the rest of the world. If we want to compete in our goods that we want 
to produce and send overseas, we also have to compete in the tourism 
market. In Duluth, MN, it was hard times in the 1980s. It was so bad 
that they put up a billboard that said:

       Will the last person to leave turn off the lights.

  They rebuilt because they were smart; the businesses were smart about 
tourism. They have beautiful Lake Superior right there. When we did a 
tourism hearing--a field hearing there--they were talking about, 
obviously, how in many areas of the country, with the recession, 
business in convention centers had gone down nationally, and someone 
whispered, ``Ours has gone up.'' People are looking for different 
things, and maybe we will have our convention in Duluth, which is a 
little less expensive. They can look at Lake Superior instead of 
looking at the Pacific Ocean.
  We are proud of this country, and we want other people to visit. We 
want them to spend their money in America and help create 41,000 new 
jobs. That is what this bill is about. I am very hopeful that we are 
going to finally get this bill passed and support the tourism part of 
our economy, which employs one in eight Americans. Let's keep it strong 
and going.
  I see that Senator Dorgan is back. I thank him so much for his 
tremendous leadership. I am proud that I got the opportunity to take 
over the subcommittee that deals with tourism. A lot of the work had 
been done on this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I mentioned that there are incremental 
ways to create jobs, which is important. Senator Reid has taken the 
lead to bring bills to the floor to do that with, earlier this week, 
the jobs bill that was passed and, in addition, the Travel Promotion 
Act.
  I want to mention as well that the majority leader indicated he 
intends to bring the FAA Preauthorization Act to the floor of the 
Senate, probably during this work period. It is also going to be job 
creating. I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee in the Senate. It is very 
important that we reauthorize the FAA and pass the legislation called 
NextGen, to do the next generation of air traffic control systems. We 
have an archaic system of ground-based radar that controls the 
airplanes in the American skies.
  Most people are walking around with cell phones that have a much more 
sophisticated way of tracking anything--a GPS. Most kids have the 
opportunity to be able to track--if their friends want them to--the 
location of their friends at any moment. They can track up to 20 
friends.
  Teenage kids can track their friends, but we cannot track an airplane 
in the sky with a GPS. More commercial airliners are not equipped. We 
don't have the NextGen system that would modernize our air traffic 
control system and allow them to fly more direct routes from place to 
place, with less spacing, using less fuel, better for the environment. 
All of those things will

[[Page 1729]]

be capable when we modernize the air traffic control system and go from 
a ground-based system to a GPS system for aviation flights.
  That is so very important. It is very job creating.
  I appreciate the majority leader saying that needs to be a priority 
to bring to the floor, get to a conference with the House, and get a 
bill passed and signed by the President.
  There are also safety issues we have to deal with in the FAA 
Reauthorization Act. Tomorrow I will be chairing a hearing in the 
Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation on the Colgan crash in Buffalo, NY, 
the tragedy that occurred on that winter icy evening, in which the Dash 
8 crashed and took the lives of so many wonderful people and took the 
life of the pilot and copilot as well.
  There are so many questions about that flight and the circumstances 
that led to the crash. The National Transportation Safety Board will be 
testifying tomorrow at my subcommittee. I will not go into all of the 
issues, but the issue of pilot fatigue, the issue of training--so many 
different issues--the icing issue that occurred that evening. It will 
be a very important hearing tomorrow.
  The reason I raise it is the safety issue is so important. Yes, we 
have a system in which we fly people all over this country and the 
world. We have not had fatal accidents, by and large, in commercial 
aviation. It has been enormously safe. The most recent accidents have 
been accidents that have been very substantially investigated. The 
Colgan crash in Buffalo, NY, has been investigated now at great length, 
and we will have the results of that and a discussion of that at our 
subcommittee hearing tomorrow. That will also give us a roadmap of what 
we might need to address in the FAA reauthorization bill on the safety 
issues.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to speak just briefly about 
today's vote. Today, this body, in a rare but very welcome moment of at 
least partial bipartisanship, voted to pass Leader Reid's jobs bill. 
While that bill does not include every provision I would like to see, 
it is certainly an important step, and I commend my colleagues from 
both parties for supporting these provisions to put people back to 
work.
  As a Senator from Rhode Island, which currently faces one of the 
highest unemployment rates in the Nation, at near 13 percent--I know 
the help contained in this bill, which builds on the programs we passed 
last year in the Recovery Act, cannot come soon enough. I hope the vote 
is a watershed.
  Over the past few months, I have heard from hundreds of Rhode 
Islanders who are struggling just to find work. I have heard from 
Carole in North Providence, RI, who had worked all her life but was 
laid off 2 years ago from her position as a construction project 
manager. Carole has a bachelor's degree in business administration and 
an associate's degree in architecture and she has plenty of experience 
as a construction project manager. But for 2 years, she has been unable 
to find any work--talented, hard working, and unemployed.
  I also heard from Nathaniel in Coventry, RI, who recently graduated 
from law school. That is a wonderful achievement and is ordinarily a 
benchmark that kids pass through on the way to success--certainly to 
employment. But Nathaniel is carrying $100,000 in student loans and 
cannot find a job.
  I heard from Brian in Saunderstown, an unemployed construction worker 
who has been unable to find a job for more than a year. He has been 
receiving unemployment benefits, but he is justifiably concerned that 
those, too, might soon run out. He loves to work. He doesn't want to be 
on unemployment. But right now, in this economy, there is no other 
option for Brian and for his family.
  Leader Reid's jobs bill--the HIRE Act--will help put Rhode Islanders 
back to work. The bill provides a payroll tax holiday for businesses to 
encourage hiring, increased cashflow for small businesses that can be 
used for investments and payroll expansion, and an expansion of the 
Build America Bonds program to subsidize and encourage local 
infrastructure projects. In addition, the HIRE Act extends Federal 
highway funding through the end of the year, which will make a $225 
million difference for Rhode Island alone in 2010.
  This legislation will be a big help for my home State, but it is only 
a first step toward restoring economic growth. It is certainly not the 
last step we need to take in this work session. As I said, I hope the 
vote yesterday and today is a watershed. Outside in Washington, the 
heavy snows of February are melting away. Perhaps--just perhaps--the 
blockade that has stifled the Senate is melting away a little also.
  We must now act to extend unemployment insurance and COBRA subsidies 
to make sure unemployed workers, such as Brian, and their families 
continue to be able to pay their bills and to maintain their family 
health insurance coverage. I hope we will soon thereafter turn to new 
investments in our failing transportation, water, and school 
infrastructure.
  We had a hearing in the Budget Committee this morning with 
Transportation Secretary LaHood, and he agreed very strongly that where 
you have decrepit infrastructure--and everyone knows the United States 
of America has an enormous deficit of decrepit infrastructure--we are 
going to need to repair that sooner or later.
  If we need to repair it sooner or later, why not do it now, while we 
need the jobs? If we need to repair it sooner or later, repairing it 
now does not add anything to our Nation's long-term liabilities. 
Indeed, under the old Yankee principle that a stitch in time saves 
nine, under the commonsense principle that when you get to maintenance 
and repair earlier rather than later, it costs less to do the 
maintenance and repair, there is actually a very strong case to be made 
that there are net savings from moving the repair of our decrepit 
infrastructure forward. So it is really a win-win, as Secretary LaHood 
acknowledged.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues as we go 
forward past today's watershed votes and into the following votes to 
help restore our economy and meet the needs of Carole and Nathaniel and 
Brian and millions of Americans who are unemployed and need help now.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Africa

  Mr. DURBIN. Last week I joined my colleague Senator Sherrod Brown of 
Ohio on a trip to East Africa. It was an important trip that took us to 
Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, and Sudan. We 
went in to observe American development assistance, to look at programs 
that help the victims of HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, child and 
maternal mortality, victims of sexual violence, clean water, sanitation 
issues, democracy, governments, refugees.
  In a matter of 6 days of traveling on the continent of Africa, 
Senator Brown and I did not have much time to ourselves, but we were 
not planning any. We spent a lot of time meeting with people, meeting 
with government officials, meeting with individuals who are part of the 
current political environment of Africa, but also many of their

[[Page 1730]]

lives are touched by programs in which the United States is involved.
  I could not help but notice as I traveled the extraordinarily 
dedicated Americans who are in our Foreign Service. Many of them are 
posted in places around the world that are not glamorous by any means. 
Their jobs are hard and sometimes dangerous, and they go to work every 
day without complaint. We need to tip our hats to them as Americans. 
Let me add in there Peace Corps volunteers, many who work for the 
nongovernment organizations, the NGOs. Many Americans serve our best 
interests around the world every day without fanfare or praise.
  We went to Tanzania. In Mwanza in Tanzania, we encountered a group of 
young Baylor University doctors who are doing part of their residency 
at a regional hospital, one that serves a population of several million 
people. Can you imagine one hospital serving that many people? That is 
what the people are up against in Africa.
  We met a representative from Abbot Labs from my home State of 
Illinois who was there helping to build a modern laboratory and train 
local staff for the hospital.
  In a small rural village several hours down a dusty, bumpy road from 
the nearest city, we witnessed a program by the nongovernmental 
organization CARE that helped build a rudimentary but critically 
important health clinic.
  It is hard to describe this to an American, what an African would 
call a health clinic. It is, in fact, a building without windows but 
with openings for air to flow through. It is a building that is so 
basic it does not have running water or electricity. But it is, in 
fact, a building where 168 babies were born last year.
  When you see this and meet the people who are delivering the babies, 
you realize that in many parts of Africa health care is very basic. The 
man who runs this clinic has about a year or two of education beyond 
high school. The woman who serves him is one who is gifted with not 
only personal skills but a lot of human experience in delivering 
babies.
  What happens if there is a complication in the middle of this village 
in the middle of nowhere with no means of communication? Well, they try 
to get the message to the man who runs the ambulance. The ambulance in 
Mwanza is a tricycle, a tricycle with a flat bed on the back. They take 
a woman who is needing a Caesarean section, for example, put her on the 
back of this tricycle and take her off for a 4-hour trip to the closest 
hospital. That is maternal and childcare in Africa, in Tanzania. We are 
trying to help through the organization CARE that I mentioned earlier.
  With their help, they have not only brought them the money necessary 
for their ambulance, this tricycle, they have helped the local 
residents develop a savings and loan where their modest earnings they 
make by selling agricultural produce are banked away for a better day. 
They are allowed to borrow small units of money for buying sewing 
machines, which can dramatically change a life in these poor villages, 
or livestock or to help to pay for their kids to go to school.
  In Tanzania as a whole, the PEPFAR program, which is the United 
States bilateral program for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and 
the Global Fund Program, a much larger undertaking from many other 
countries, have made real progress in HIV, TB, and malaria.
  We also visited Ethiopia, a country I have been looking forward to 
seeing. It has the distinction in Africa of being the only country in 
Africa that was never colonized. There was a period, a short period of 
occupation by the Italians. But they have been a kingdom under their 
own control, except for that period of time since the early parts of 
the third and fourth century and maybe even before that. They are very 
proud of their own language, their own customs, their own history. They 
have tremendous international efforts underway to help the Ethiopian 
people, who are basically poor, struggling people. They are struggling 
against the economics of a poor nation, as well as HIV, AIDS, 
tuberculosis. They are resettling refugees from the war-torn 
neighboring state of Somalia. They are trying to build a health system.
  One program, in particular, was provided by a nongovernmental 
organization called AMREF in the Kechene slum area of the capital of 
Addis Ababa. Senator Brown and I went to this area. It is a slum with 
380 people living there, that has basically had to carry in water for 
years because there was no running water. But because of an AMREF 
project, they were able to build 22 water kiosks in the country and one 
in this slum area. It seems like something so simple, but it has 
changed their lives. They now have a source of safe drinking water. 
Very near the small little lean-tos they live in, they have two showers 
for 380 people that they share and can use where they had none before. 
They have basic sanitation and toilet facilities, which they did not 
have at all.
  We were greeted by two beautiful little girls who gave us flowers and 
invited us to a coffee ceremony.
  They couldn't help but beam with pride as we took a look at the 
source of water and sanitation that did not exist before. So many 
thousands of people in Africa spend hours every day carrying water back 
and forth. Young girls are often denied the opportunity to go to school 
because they have work to do. They have to carry water. Something as 
basic as water that we take for granted becomes a centerpiece in their 
lives every single day. Improvements are being made in Ethiopia and 
other places. I returned to Goma in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 
It is in the eastern section of that country. The capital, Kinshasa, is 
far west and removed not only physically but politically from many of 
the things happening in eastern Congo.
  I try to describe Goma to those who haven't been there. It is almost 
impossible. Imagine one of the poorest places on Earth, where people 
are literally starving, where they are facing the scourge of disease, 
where malaria is the biggest killer of children. Imagine HIV/AIDS and 
the problems they face with that. Then superimpose over that the 
misfortune of an ongoing war that has been taking place in the eastern 
part of the Democratic Republic of Congo for years. There is an ongoing 
debate about how many people have been killed in this war. The debate 
ranges from the low number of about 2\1/2\ million to the high number 
of 6 million, and they debate very violently about whether it is 6 or 
2\1/2\ million. Regardless of which number, it is an outrage. It is a 
genocide which is occurring in this section of Africa with little or no 
attention from anyone.
  What has caused this? Their neighbor is Rwanda. If you recall, in 
Rwanda, I believe the year was 1994, a terrible genocide killed 800,000 
people in the span of a matter of days. Those who were accused of the 
genocidal acts, many of them escaped into the neighboring country of 
Congo and set up their armed militias. They continued their violence. 
Not only is Goma an area the surrounding towns and villages fought 
over, it also happens to be an area that is dominated by a volcano 
which erupted in 2002 and killed hundreds of people and destroyed 
thousands of basic shelters. It is also an area filled with minerals 
and timber, gold, diamonds, basic minerals needed for the cell phones 
we take for granted every single day. There is money to be made, even 
if you just take out your shovel and dig into the hillside and find 
some of these for sale. It is a rich area in mineral resources.
  It is also rich in other resources. Dian Fossey has her operation 
there for the silverback gorillas, which many of us have seen on 
television. They are caught in the middle of the crossfire of the civil 
war. I came back to Goma. I had been there several years ago. I was 
surprised at how many people said they remembered I had been there and 
never thought I would return because few people do; it is such a hard, 
difficult place. We visited a hospital there called Heal Africa. We 
were greeted by a lady with a British accent. As I came in, she said: 
Welcome back. I thought she made a mistake. She thinks I am somebody 
else. It turns out that, in fact, I had visited her hospital 5 years 
ago. It had changed so much, I didn't recognize it, but she was still 
there.

[[Page 1731]]

  Her name is Lynne Lucy. Her husband Joe is a Congolese surgeon and 
they married years ago and decided to start a hospital for the poorest 
people in that part of Congo. They focus on children with club feet and 
cleft palates. They focus on trauma victims, setting fractures, victims 
of fires, and other accidents that occur. Their major area of focus is 
on the women who are the victims of the civil war. One of the most 
horrible things about this war isn't only that people die, but they 
have now built in hideous torture techniques as part of this civil war. 
Women are raped and gang raped and children are mutilated in hideous, 
awful ways. They bring them into this hospital and try to rebuild their 
bodies and rebuild their lives. God bless them for doing it, Joe and 
Lynne Lucy.
  When I was there last, I worried because they only had a handful of 
doctors. This time I walked into a classroom filled with doctors. 
Standing in front of them was a doctor from the University of 
Wisconsin, right smack-dab in a part of the Midwest of which I am proud 
to be a part, training these doctors on how to treat these poor people. 
There is evidence of the caring and compassionate people of the United 
States all around the world. In this sad situation in Goma, certainly 
it is needed.
  We have a 20,000-member U.N. peacekeeping force known as MONUC that 
has been in the area for more than 10 years trying to bring peace. 
Unfortunately, rebel groups continue campaigns of brutal violence. 
Known war criminals such as Jean Bosco Ntaganda continue to play a role 
in the violence, despite being wanted for awful war crimes. The 
Congolese military has tried to root out several groups but has 
embraced others. It is hard to figure out the good and bad people in 
this conflict. But you can certainly figure out the victims because you 
see them everywhere.
  We went to what is known as an internally displaced persons camp just 
south of Goma. I find it hard to imagine how people live there. There 
are 1,800 people living there. Imagine that they are living on volcanic 
rock. It is hard to walk on it even with shoes because it is jagged and 
hurts your feet. They live on it. They pitch tents on it. They walk 
their kids to school on it. We went to a little health clinic there and 
a baby was handed to me that was a heartbreaking situation, clearly 
malnourished, who had just been brought in for a few days. They were 
trying to rescue its life. Many of the children there struggle with 
basic health needs. They have a school which is better than most would 
find in their home villages and some security. But each of them told 
me: We don't have enough food. You look at their sources of water, they 
are limited. It is a tough situation. These people are there because 
they were caught in the crossfire of a war that continues. They didn't 
do anything wrong. Some of them are trying to rebuild their lives and 
stay safe in a very difficult situation.
  Finally, we had a chance to visit Sudan. I wished to go there because 
I have stood on the floor so many times and given speeches about Darfur 
and the genocide that occurred there. In addition to that troubled part 
of Sudan, there has been an ongoing battle between north and south 
Sudan which appears to have resolved itself peacefully with an election 
that will be held in the near future for the national legislature and 
then early next year to decide if south Sudan will be a separate 
country. There are about 8 million people living in south Sudan. We 
traveled on the only road in south Sudan. We met with the man who is 
Vice President of Sudan now and would be President, I believe, of the 
new south Sudan, Mr. Salva Kiir. He is a former rebel who fought in the 
bush for years, surrounded by Governors in south Sudan who went through 
the same experience. In just a few months, they may need to build a 
nation. It is a daunting task.
  I worry about it because when there is a power vacuum and a failed 
state in Africa, people move in on it and use it for exploitive and 
terrorist purposes.
  We then went to Khartoum, which is a legendary city in Africa, and 
met with representatives of the government there, talking about many of 
the issues they face and the status of Darfur today which, thank God, 
is more peaceful than in years gone by. One of the more interesting 
conversations we had in Khartoum was with one of the Ministers. I 
brought up the issue of global warming, wondering if this man in the 
middle of Africa, near the Equator, felt there was a need for us to be 
concerned about global warming.
  He said: I can take you 300 meters from where we are meeting now. I 
will show you the Nile River, and I will show you the impact of global 
warming. We could walk out into stretches of land that used to be 
islands in the middle of the river. You can walk there now because the 
river is so low. Many people in that part of Africa depend on the Nile 
for irrigation. We believe in global warming.
  If you want to know one of the causes of the genocide in Darfur, it 
was because that area is becoming a desert, and people are fighting 
over what is left of land that can be cultivated. I think about debates 
we have had on the floor of the Senate. In fact, there are Senators who 
proudly say there is no such thing as global warming. I wish they could 
have been with me in Khartoum and spoken to this man about evidence he 
is seeing in that faraway place about changing climate and changes in 
lifestyle, genocide, and war that have followed global warming. It is 
not just an environmental issue. It is a security issue.
  There are frequent debates about the value of U.S. foreign 
assistance. When Americans are asked, how much do we spend in foreign 
aid, the most common response is, about 25 percent of the Federal 
budget. The fact is, it is just over 1 percent in foreign aid around 
the world. We spend far less as a percentage of our gross domestic 
product than many nations. But the work we do is so absolutely 
essential for maintaining life, fighting disease, for making certain 
that young people have a fighting chance.
  President Obama recognizes that. I hope we can have bipartisan 
support to continue our help with foreign aid, even in this difficult 
time.
  The last issue I will discuss on this trip Senator Brown and I took 
is one I will save for a separate presentation. But without fail, in 
every African nation, I would ask them the same question: What is the 
presence of China in your nation? Without fail, they would say: It is 
interesting you would ask.
  The Chinese are moving into Africa in a way we should not ignore. 
They are providing capital assistance and loans to countries all over 
Africa, which can provide them with minerals and resources for their 
economy and, ultimately, with markets for their products. Leaders in 
Africa, such as the President of Ethiopia, say to me: When the West 
walked away from Africa, China stepped in.
  The Chinese have a strategy and a goal. If we don't become sensitive 
to it and what it will mean to the next generation of people living in 
each of those countries, we will pay a heavy price. We have to 
understand that these people now may be in underdeveloped countries and 
struggling, but tomorrow they will have a middle class, and they will 
be purchasing goods and services. They will remember that their 
highways and stadiums and schools were built with loans from the 
Chinese. Incidentally, those loans come with strings attached. When the 
Chinese loan money to a country such as Ethiopia, it is so a Chinese 
construction company can build the project using Chinese engineers, 
technicians, and workers. So they are providing work projects with the 
money they are loaning to each country and being repaid in local 
resources such as oil and minerals.
  We can't ignore this reality. It is happening all over the world. The 
Chinese have a plan. I am not sure America has a plan. We should.


                     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

[[Page 1732]]

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 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

[[Page 1733]]

     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 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

[[Page 1734]]

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 
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

[[Page 1735]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________