Supplemental War Spending

Floor Speech

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today, the Senate takes up the supplemental war spending bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The need to consider such wartime supplementals is familiar to the Senate, but their importance has not diminished over time. Our Armed Forces have fought valiantly against global terrorism for more than 7 years, and our intelligence community has made invaluable contributions to that effort. This week, the Senate will show, once again, that we are grateful for the service and dependent on the heroism of every American fighting to help protect us at home and abroad.

Similar to any supplemental war spending bill, this week's bill must be viewed in the context of the broader fight against terrorism. This is a fight that began in earnest after the events of 9/11 but which found its justification in a long series of attacks that culminated on that terrible day. Eight years before 9/11, several Americans were killed in the first World Trade Center bombing. Two years later, five Americans were killed in an attack on a U.S. military site in Riyadh. In 1996, 19 U.S. servicemen lost their lives in the Khobar Towers bombing. In 1998, 12 Americans were killed in Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. In 2000, 17 American soldiers were killed in the attack on the USS Cole. Of course, on September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers killed 3,000 Americans in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

What is clear from all this is that terrorists were at war with us long before we were at war with them. But then, after 9/11, the Northern Alliance and U.S. forces, along with our allies, took the fight to al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Coalition forces later toppled Saddam Hussein and subsequently mounted a successful counterinsurgency against al-Qaida in Iraq that continues to this day. The supplemental we will consider this week funds all those efforts, and it provides vital assistance to Pakistan in its ongoing battle against insurgents.

One of the more contentious issues that has arisen in the course of this protracted fight is the fate of captured terrorists. Since 9/11, the United States has captured hundreds of terrorists who wish to harm Americans. Many of them have been brought to the secure detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Current inmates include some of the key coconspirators in the Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, as well as Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is also there, as are a number of his 9/11 coconspirators.

Guantanamo was established to house terrorists such as these--dangerous men who pose a serious threat to Americans. The fact that we have not been attacked at home since 9/11 confirms, in my view, the fact that this facility, when taken together with all our other efforts in the global fight against terrorism, has been a success.

There is no doubt that some of the men who are held at Guantanamo are eager to launch new attacks against us. Of those who have been released from Guantanamo, about 12 percent have returned to the battlefield. One of these men is currently a top al-Qaida deputy in Yemen. Another is the Taliban's operations commander in southern Afghanistan. These are men who were thought to be safe for transfer.

More recently, the Defense Department has confirmed that 18 former detainees have returned to the battlefield and that at least 40 more are suspected of having done so. Earlier this year, the Saudi Government said that nearly a dozen Saudis who were released from Gitmo are believed to have returned to terrorism. This is a good reason to keep these men at Guantanamo until the administration can present us with a plan for keeping terrorists off the battlefield.

Some have argued that the existence of the Guantanamo prison serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists. But it is hard to imagine that moving this facility somewhere else and giving it a different name will somehow satisfy our critics in European capitals. Even less likely is the notion that by moving detainees from the coast of Cuba to Colorado, terrorists overseas will turn their swords into ploughshares.

The global terror network we are fighting targeted and killed Americans long before 9/11 and long before we opened the gates of Guantanamo. Shutting this facility now could only serve one end; that is, to make Americans less safe than Guantanamo.

The supplemental spending bill that the Senate votes on this week will fund an effort to combat terrorism that has been hard fought. We have seen victories and we have seen setbacks and keeping detainees off the battlefield is part of the battle. Al-Qaida's terrorist networks remain vital and lethal, and releasing detainees to return to terror in places such as Yemen would be at cross-purposes with the underlying bill itself. If we are committed to funding the global fight against terrorism, then we will come up with a good alternative to Guantanamo before we move to close it.

The administration has shown a willingness to change course on other matters of national security. It is my hope that it will show a similar willingness on Guantanamo. As the Senate considers this supplemental, we will have an opportunity to encourage such a shift in their thinking by expressing our opposition to closing Guantanamo until a good alternative emerges. This is the only way to ensure the same level of safety that Guantanamo has delivered and the supplemental itself is intended to promote.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source