Executive Session
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my Republican colleagues have frequently come to the Senate floor to criticize President Obama for his handling of terrorism cases. They have argued regularly and consistently that terrorism suspects should never be interrogated by the FBI and should not be prosecuted in America's criminal courts but, instead, they argue, they should only be held in military detention and prosecuted in military commissions.
Today, I have noticed no one on the Republican side has come to the Senate floor to make those arguments. Why not? It may be because yesterday Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pled guilty in Federal court to trying to explode a bomb in his underwear on a flight to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009. Mr. Abdulmutallab, who will be sentenced in January, is expected to serve a life sentence.
I commend the men and women at the Justice Department and the FBI for their work on this case. America is a safer country today thanks to them.
My colleagues on the other side were very critical of the FBI's decision to give Miranda warnings to Abdulmutallab. Let me quote Senator McConnell, the minority leader. This is what he said on the floor of the Senate:
He was given a 50-minute interrogation.
He was referring to Abdulmutallab.
The Senator went on to say:
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 an interesting statement, but here are the facts. Experienced coun ter ter ror ism 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 proved useful in the fight against al Quida.'' After this initial interrogation, Abdulmutallab refused to cooperate further with the FBI. Only then, after Abdulmutallab stopped talking, did the FBI give him a Miranda warning.
What the FBI did in this case was nothing new. During the Bush administration, the FBI consistently gave Miranda warnings to terrorists detained in the United States.
Here is what Attorney 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, under the Bush administration, they adopted new policies for the FBI that say that ``within the United States, Miranda warnings are required to be given prior to custodial interviews.''
Let's take one example from the Bush administration: Richard Reid, also known as the Shoe Bomber. Reid 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 compare with the Obama administration's handling of the Underwear Bomber? The Bush administration detained and charged Richard 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.
Later, Abdulmutallab began talking again to FBI interrogators and providing valuable intelligence. FBI Director Robert Mueller, for whom I have the highest respect, 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.
Now, how did that happen? How did the FBI get even more information from the suspect after they gave the Miranda warning? The Obama administration convinced Abdulmutallab's family to come to the United States, and his family persuaded him to start talking to the FBI. That is a very different approach than we have heard in previous administrations. Sometimes when a detainee refused to talk, in the Bush administration, in some isolated cases, there were extreme techniques used to try to get information from him, such as waterboarding. But real life isn't the TV show ``24.'' On TV, when Jack Bauer tortures somebody, the suspect immediately admits everything he knows. Here is what we learned during the previous administration: In real life, when people are tortured, they lie. They will lie and say anything to make the pain stop. Oftentimes they provide false information, not valuable intelligence.
Richard Clarke was the senior coun ter ter ror ism adviser to President Clinton and President George W. Bush. Here is what he said 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.
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that Abdulmutallab should have been 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 Holder said:
Since the September 11, 2011 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.
Many of my Republican colleagues also argue that terrorists such as Umar Abdulmutallab should be tried in military commissions because Federal courts are not well-suited to prosecuting terrorists.
That argument is simply wrong. Look at the facts. Since 9/11, more than 200 terrorists have been successfully prosecuted and convicted in our Federal courts. Here are just a few of the terrorists who have been convicted in Federal courts and are serving long prison sentences: Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheik; the 20th 9/11 hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui; Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber; Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber; Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma City coconspirator; and now Abdul Abdulmutallab. Compare this with the track record of military commissions. Since 9/11, only 4 individuals have been convicted by military commissions--more than 200 in the courts, 4 in military commissions--and 2 of those individuals spent less than 1 year in prison, having been found guilty by a military commission, 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. This is from General Powell:
The suggestion that somehow a military commission is the way to go isn't borne out by the history of the military commissions.
Many military commissions, when it comes to terrorism cases, are an unproven venue, unlike Federal courts.
Former Bush administration Justice Department officials James Comey and Jack Goldsmith also support prosecuting terrorists in Federal court. Here is what they said:
There is great uncertainty about the commissions' validity. This uncertainty has led to many legal challenges that will continue indefinitely. ..... By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. Federal courts to incapacitate terrorists.
I say to my colleagues, after a steady parade of speeches on this Senate floor by the Senate Republican leader and others about how we cannot trust our Federal court system to prosecute terrorists, how we should take care to never let the FBI do this important job, the facts speak otherwise.
In Detroit, in the Federal court, we should give credit where it is due. The FBI did its job. Our courts did their job. The Department of Justice prosecutors did their job. Abdulmutallab pled guilty. He pled guilty because the evidence was overwhelmingly against him. He was convicted openly in the courts of America, which is an important message to send to the rest of the world, and he will pay a heavy price--a life sentence--for his terrible attempt to down an aircraft in the United States. That prosecution and that confession were obtained in our court system.
To argue that military commissions are the only way to go and that using the FBI and Department of Justice and our article III courts as a venue for terrorism is wrong is not proven by the facts, the evidence, or the most recent information coming forward. I would hope some of my colleagues who are now holding up the Defense authorization bill on this issue will at least be hesitant to argue their case now that the Abdulmutallab prosecution has been successfully completed. Over 200 terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in America's courts.
My message to them and I think the message of America to every President is, you use the court, you use the agency you think will be most effective in protecting America. Congress should not tie the hands of any President when it comes to this important prosecution.
This success that we have seen in Detroit is evidence that if we give to a President--whether it is a Republican or Democratic President--the tools to prosecute those accused of terrorism, the President can use them wisely, sometimes in military commissions but more often in our court system, an open system that says to the world we can bring the suspected terrorist to justice and do it in a fashion consistent with American values.
I hope all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, will join me in commending the Justice Department and FBI for their success in bringing Abdulmutallab to justice, and I sincerely hope this case will cause some Members of the body to reconsider their opposition to handling terrorism in the criminal justice system.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the events of this week are an indication that much needs to be done in Washington to deal with the state of our economy. With 14 million Americans out of work, it is high time that both political parties find a way to develop a plan to move this country forward and to create jobs.
When the President spoke to Congress a little over 4 years ago, he laid out at least the foundation of a plan and later provided the details. But time and again, President Obama has said to the Republican leadership: I am open to your ideas. Bring them forward. Let's put them in a combined effort to make America a stronger nation and to find our way out of this recession.
Unfortunately, we have not heard suggestions from the other side. We had an important vote Tuesday night. Sadly, the Republican filibuster prevailed. Republicans, because they did not want to move the President's bill to consideration on the floor of the Senate, voted--every single one of them--against President Obama's efforts to put America back to work. I do not think that is going to be a position which is easily defended back home. Whether one agrees or disagrees with President Obama, the American people expect Democrats and Republicans to enter a dialog to help this country. We have to give on the Democratic side, and they should be prepared to give on the Republican side, and let's try to find some common ground. There are too many instances where we fight to a face-off and then leave.
The suggestion that yesterday's efforts to pass three free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia are going to turn the economy around, I am not sure of being close to accurate. I supported two of those trade agreements, and I think they will help create jobs and business opportunities in America in the longer run but in the near term not likely so.
What we need to do is to work on what has been proven to be successful to move this economy forward. Let's start with the basics. Working families struggle from paycheck to paycheck. Many families do not have enough money to get by. They are using food pantries and other help to survive in this very tough economy. So President Obama said the first thing we need to do is to give a payroll tax cut to working families so they have more money to meet their needs. What it boils down to in Illinois, where the average income is about $53,000 a year, is the equivalent of about $1,600 a year in tax cuts for working families. That is about $130 a month, which many Senators may not notice but people who are struggling to fill the gas tank and put the kids in school can use $130 a month.
The President thinks that is an important part of getting America back on its feet and back to work, and I support it. That was one of the elements that was stopped by the Republican filibuster on Tuesday night.
The second proposal of the President is that we give tax breaks to businesses, particularly small businesses, to create an incentive for them to hire the unemployed, starting with our returning veterans. It is an embarrassment to think these men and women went overseas and risked their lives fighting an enemy and now have to come home and fight for a job. We ought to be standing by them, helping them to get to work, and that is one of the elements in the President's bill that was also defeated by the Republican filibuster on Tuesday night.
The President went on to say we ought to be investing our money in America. If we put people to work, let's build something that has long-term value. One of those he suggested was school modernization. I visited some schools around my State, and I am sure in the State of Colorado and other places there are plenty of school districts struggling because the tax base has been eroded by declining real estate values and these districts need a helping hand. When I went to Martin Grove and visited a middle school there, I found great teachers doing the best they could in classrooms where the tiles were falling from the ceiling and where the boiler room should be labeled an antique shop because it was a 50- or 60-year-old operation that was kept together with $150,000 of repairs each year. We ought to buy new equipment and install it in American schools so they can serve us for many years to come.
The same holds true in investing in our infrastructure, whether it is highways, bridges or airports. Make no mistake, our competitors around the world are building their infrastructure to beat the United States, and those who want us to retreat in this battle are going to be saddened by the consequences if they have their way. President Obama said invest this money in putting Americans to work to build our infrastructure, rebuild our schools, build our neighborhoods in a way that serves us for years to come.
The President is also sensitive to the fact that in many parts of America, including Illinois, there are school districts and towns that have had to lay off teachers and firefighters and policemen. It doesn't make us any safer, and it doesn't make our schools any more effective. Part of the President's jobs package is to make sure, for those teachers as well as policemen and firefighters, at least some of their jobs will be saved. In Illinois, over 14,000 of those jobs will be saved by the President's bill.
What really brings this bill to a screeching halt in the debate is the fact the President said we should pay for this. Let's come up with the money that is going to pay for the things I just described. And his proposal is a simple one. It says those who make over $1 million a year will pay a surtax of 5.6 percent--over $1 million a year in income. That is over $20,000 a week in income. These folks would pay a 5.6-percent surtax, and that surtax would pay for the jobs bill.
If the jobs bill works, and I believe it will, I guarantee a thriving American economy will be to the benefit of those same wealthy people. So asking them to sacrifice a little in this surtax is not too much to ask.
Unfortunately, although some 59 percent of Republicans support this millionaires' surtax, not one of them serves in the Senate. We need to have a bipartisan effort to make sure this is paid for in a reasonable way. The alternative we have heard from the other side that mounted this filibuster against President Obama's jobs bill is, we ought to return to the old way of doing things: tax cuts for wealthy people--not new burdens but tax cuts for wealthy people.
They argue the people who make over $1 million a year are the job creators. That is a phrase they use, ``job creators.'' A survey came out yesterday from the Government Accountability Office, and what it said was 1 percent of those making over $1 million a year actually own small businesses. Most of them are investors. Although there is, I am sure, a worthy calling in being an investor, they are not the job creators they are described to be.
So I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, this notion of protecting those making over $1 million a year at the expense of a jobs program to move America forward is backwards. We have to come together, and I hope we can start as early as next week. We have to find provisions in this jobs bill we can agree on.
I hope the Republicans would agree we should modernize our schools and build our infrastructure in this country. I hope they agree we should not shortchange our schools and our communities when they need teachers and policemen and firefighters. I hope they would agree that it is a national priority to put our returning veterans to work. I certainly think that should be a bipartisan issue.
But the filibuster this week that stopped the President's jobs bill has stopped the discussion. The trade bills yesterday will not make up the difference. We have to focus on putting Americans to work with good-paying jobs right here in our Nation, creating new consumer demand for goods and services which will help businesses at every single level. The President has put his proposal forward and has challenged our friends on the other side of the aisle to step up and put their proposals forward.
My suspicion is that most people in America would be delighted to see a breakthrough in Washington, DC, where Democrats and Republicans actually sat down at the same table and tried to work out a plan to put America back to work. We can do this. In order to do it we have to give on both sides. We have to forget about the election that is going to occur in November 2012 and focus on the state of America's economy right now in October 2011. If we put aside the campaign considerations and focus on the economy, I think we can get a lot done. I trust that there are some on the other side of the aisle who feel the same way. I hope they will break from their leadership on their filibuster and join us in this effort.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source