Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want the record to show that I support President Obama's supplemental request for the remainder of fiscal year 2009. This supplemental provides critical funding for military and security efforts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. A small portion is for international programs, including assistance to Jordan, one of our important allies in the Middle East. Jordan is struggling with a huge influx of Iraqi refugees that strains its national services and particularly its water resources. Jordan has been a friend and ally, and it is right that in the supplemental bill we give them a helping hand because the war in Iraq has created a situation which we should address in Jordan.

It also provides additional support to the Global Fund which partners with other nations to tackle AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. I have worked with my colleagues for years to provide adequate funding for the Global Fund. I am glad this supplemental request from the Obama administration continues critical food assistance to help meet urgent needs of the world's poorest, which is also included. Funding is provided to help stem the flow of drugs and violence across our border in Mexico.

At home, the supplemental includes money to prepare and to respond to a global disease pandemic, including the recent H1N1 virus. This $1.5 billion went through my subcommittee and is money well spent so the President can have resources to respond quickly to any outbreak of disease or pandemic; that we would have adequate money for vaccinations, as well as providing medications, should people be stricken. We are looking ahead, planning ahead, thinking ahead, hoping the H1N1 will disappear from the world scene before the next flu season but being prepared if it does not or if something else threatens us.

This bill also provides funds critical to helping President Obama meet a key campaign promise--bringing an end to the war in Iraq. In late February, President Obama made an important announcement to thousands of marines at Camp Lejeune: bringing an end to the war in Iraq. After only 5 weeks into office, he delivered on his major campaign promise to end one of the longest wars in American history.

The President's plan is measured, thoughtful, and will bring an end to this costly and unnecessary war. The supplemental also wisely shifts resources to the real sources of the September 11 attacks on America--Afghanistan. For too long, this war in Afghanistan did not receive adequate civilian and military resources as they had been diverted to the war in Iraq. The supplemental corrects this mistake.

It also focuses resources on Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation struggling with insurgents based in the border area with Afghanistan. It provides pay and allowances to our brave men and women in the U.S. military. These are some of the many important needs which deserve our support.

The President should be commended for recently presenting a budget for 2010 which moves away from repeated supplementals. This got to be a habit around here. We didn't go through an orderly debate on the budget about wars. Every time President Bush wanted money for a war, he said: I am declaring this an emergency. It will not be considered in the ordinary budget process. Here it is.

An emergency is defined as something unanticipated. After 5 or 6 years
of emergencies, you begin to realize you can anticipate next year we are going to have another unanticipated emergency.

This President, President Obama, wants to change that so that we go to an orderly budget process. This supplemental bill will be the last of the requests, and I think it is one we should honor as he tries to tackle some situations that were given to him when he took office just a few months ago. The President inherited many challenges at home and abroad, and I hope, on a bipartisan basis, we can help him address them.

This supplemental appropriations bill will provide critical funding for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I hope Congress passes it.

Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to use this legislation to open a debate about the future of Guantanamo. They have filed a number of amendments related to this issue. I am sure it is not their intention, but these amendments will have the effect of slowing down delivery of critical funding for our troops. Nevertheless, it is their right to offer these amendments, and though they are not germane to this legislation, they raise policy questions which we can debate.

Senator Inouye, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has offered an amendment, which has broad support on both sides of the aisle, that will eliminate any funding in this bill for closing Guantanamo and make clear that none of the funds in this bill can be used to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States.

Here is the bottom line: There will not be any Guantanamo funding in this bill. So for the Republicans to bring up a series of Guantanamo amendments tells me they are more intent on raising an issue than on responding to the critical need this supplemental addresses.

These amendments are also premature. President Obama has not yet presented his plan for closing Guantanamo to the Congress and the American people. When he does, we will have plenty of opportunity to debate it. This bill, which will provide critical funding for our troops, is not the right place for this debate. This is not the right time. In fact, some of the amendments would have the effect of tying President Obama's hands, preventing him from moving forward with the closure of Guantanamo before he has even had the chance to present his plan.

There is a great irony here. For 8 long years,

Republicans opposed congressional oversight of the Bush administration's counterterrorism efforts. When Democrats in the minority during the Bush years would ask for oversight by congressional committees so that we could get more information about a variety of issues relative to terrorism, we were told: No, the President has an important job to do and don't bother him, Congress; leave him alone.

For 8 years, Republicans criticized Democrats who asked questions about the misguided war in Iraq and controversial policies related to interrogation, detention, and warrantless surveillance.

For 8 years, they claimed congressional oversight was nothing more than micromanaging the important and critical work of the Commander in Chief.

Now, after 8 long years, the Republicans are unwilling to give President Obama a few short months to formulate and present a plan for closing Guantanamo.

Let's take one example. The distinguished minority leader, Senator McConnell, has offered an amendment that would require the President to submit a detailed report to Congress on each detainee at Guantanamo Bay, including a summary of the evidence against each detainee.

For many years, the Bush administration refused to provide Congress with even a list of the names of the detainees at Guantanamo. They claimed that a disclosure of those names would threaten national security. I don't recall Senator McConnell or anyone from his side of the aisle protesting this lack of disclosure by the previous administration.

Yesterday, Senator McConnell said his amendment is designed to prevent released Guantanamo detainees from getting involved in terrorism. He said:

Recidivism is of great concern for those of us who have oversight responsibilities here in Congress.

I do not recall Senator McConnell, or any other Republican, protesting when the Bush administration, over the course of many years, released hundreds of Guantanamo detainees, some of whom have actually been involved in acts of terrorism since they were released.

So during the Bush years, while Guantanamo was churning hundreds of detainees, some being released and returned to their countries, there was not a whimper or a peep from the Republican side of the aisle. Now that President Obama has said the days of Guantanamo are numbered, they are coming in asking for detailed accounting of every single detainee. It is clearly a double standard.

There is also concern that the McConnell amendment could taint prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees by requiring the Obama administration to turn over critical evidence to Congress. Imagine for a moment that we gathered evidence that can be used successfully to either detain or prosecute one of the detainees, and Senator McConnell insists that it be shared with Members of Congress. Is that in the interest of national security? I don't think so.

For 7 years after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration failed to convict any of the terrorists who planned these attacks. At President Obama's direction, career prosecutors are now reviewing the files of each Guantanamo detainee and gathering evidence to determine if each detainee can be prosecuted. Isn't that what we want, an orderly process looking at each detainee to determine whether they are guilty of wrongdoing, deciding whether they can be prosecuted, whether they should be detained and doing this with the understanding that a lot of the information is classified and most of it should be carefully guarded so as not to jeopardize the prosecution?

The McConnell amendment would say: Let Congress take a look at each detainee and all the evidence. That does not make sense, and I hope Members of the Senate will reject it.

The last thing Congress should do is interfere with the efforts of the Obama administration to gather evidence against terrorists that could ultimately bring them to justice.

There is another amendment. Senator John Cornyn of Texas has an amendment that has 18 detailed findings about the Bush administration's use of abusive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.

Among other things, the Cornyn amendment claims these techniques ``accomplished the goal of providing intelligence necessary to defeat additional terrorist attacks against the United States.'' To say the least, we could debate that proposition for quite some time.

Former Vice President Cheney has been burning up the cable channel airwaves in recent weeks. He claims waterboarding produced valuable intelligence in the interrogation of al-Qaida leader Abu Zubaydah. But back in 2004, Vice President Cheney also told us the Bush administration had learned from interrogations at Guantanamo that the Iraqi Government had trained al-Qaida in the use of biological and chemical weapons. We now know there was no such link between al-Qaida and Iraq. This was part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq, and Vice President Cheney told us the interrogation at Guantanamo was producing the information to confirm a link that never existed.

What about Abu Zubaydah? Just last week in the Judiciary Committee we heard testimony from a former FBI agent who actually interrogated him. He testified under oath in our committee that he obtained valuable intelligence from Abu Zubaydah using traditional interrogation techniques and that abusive techniques, such as waterboarding, are ``harmful, slow, ineffective, and unreliable.''

Senator Cornyn does not serve on the Intelligence Committee. I don't know the basis for his claim that waterboarding produced intelligence that prevented terrorist attacks. I do know the Intelligence Committee, under Senator Dianne Feinstein's leadership, is now conducting a detailed, thoughtful, and thorough investigation into the Bush administration's detention and interrogation practices. I have said publicly--others have said it as well, including the majority leader, Senator Reid--that before we talk about creating an outside commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee should be allowed to do its work so Members of Congress can at least learn, through open and classified information, what did happen. But Senator Cornyn can't wait. Senator Cornyn wants to pass out ``get out of jail free'' cards to the previous administration before we even have a thorough examination of what happened.

One of the things the Intelligence Committee is reviewing is the effectiveness of these techniques in obtaining useful intelligence. The Senate is certainly not in a position today to go on record with conclusions such as those in Senator Cornyn's amendment before the Intelligence Committee even completes its investigation. It is not only premature, it certainly is questionable as to whether we should be engaged in this debate until their work is done.

I might remind Senator Cornyn, and those following this debate, that the Intelligence Committee is a bipartisan committee. It works in a bipartisan fashion. Senator Bond and Senator Feinstein and others can continue to work together to come to good conclusions, to provide the Senate with good evidence, before we jump at the Cornyn amendment, which reaches conclusions not based on fact.

Senator Cornyn's amendment would also express the sense of the Senate that no one involved in authorizing the use of abusive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, should be prosecuted or sanctioned. It is inappropriate for Congress to interfere in ongoing investigations by the Justice Department.

During the Bush administration, political interference significantly undermined the credibility and effectiveness of the Justice Department. Attorney General Holder has pledged to restore the integrity and the independence of that department.

There are two ongoing investigations into the Bush administration's interrogation practices. One investigation is looking into the CIA's destruction of evidence of interrogation videotapes. The other is an investigation of Justice Department attorneys who authorized abusive techniques such as waterboarding.

Here is the reality: Both of these investigations didn't begin under President Obama. They began under the Bush administration. Both are being conducted by Department of Justice attorneys. So the suggestion that this is some partisan witch hunt is obviously false.

You wonder, with these two Department of Justice investigations underway and with the Senate Intelligence Committee doing a thorough investigation of this subject, why does Senator Cornyn want to come to the floor and have the Senate go on record saying that nothing possibly could have been done that was illegal or wrong? That would be the height of irresponsibility, should we pass that amendment.

Decisions about whether crimes were committed should be made by career prosecutors based on the facts and the laws, not political considerations or statements made by Senators on the floor without evidence to back them up. I urge my colleague from Texas to withdraw his amendment and allow the Justice Department to do its work.

There is an organization which I like and respect very much called Amnesty International. When you take a look at John Cornyn's amendment, he would qualify for some amnesty award because he wants the Senate to go on record offering amnesty when it comes to the interrogation of detainees by not only--and let me go through the list--any person who relied in good faith on those opinions at any level of our Government, but also it includes Members of Congress who were briefed on the interrogation program.

To offer this kind of a statement ahead of time, without any gathering of evidence or fact, is, in my mind, an indication of how nervous some people are on the other side of the aisle. We should let this run its course in a professional manner. We shouldn't make a political decision, and we should defeat the Cornyn amendment.

Several of my Republican colleagues came to the floor yesterday to criticize President Obama's intention to close Guantanamo and argue it should remain open. I listened carefully to their arguments, and, frankly, there were enough red herrings to feed all the detainees at Guantanamo.

One of my colleagues said President Obama wants to close Guantanamo ``to be more popular with the Europeans.''

Well, I know President Obama. I served with him. He was my colleague in the Senate. His first interest is the United States and its safety. But the safety of the United States also involves being honest about what has happened. What happened at Abu Ghraib and what happened at Guantanamo has sullied the reputation of the United States and has endangered alliances which we have counted on for decades. President Obama is trying to change that. By closing Guantanamo and responsibly allocating those detainees to safe and secure positions, he is going to send a message to the world that it is a new day in terms of America's foreign policy.

The American people want to see that. They want a safer world and believe that if the United States can work closely with our allies around the world who are opposed to terrorism, we will be safer. That is what President Obama is setting out to do. Some of those allies may, in fact, be European. They may be African or Asian. They could be from all corners of the Earth. But if they share our values and want to work for common goals, President Obama wants to work with them.

GEN Colin Powell and many other military leaders have said for some time that closing Guantanamo will make America safer. Experts say Guantanamo is a recruitment tool for al-Qaida and hurts our national security. That is why President Obama, like President Bush, Senator John McCain, and many others, wants to close Guantanamo.

Some of my Republican colleagues argued that Guantanamo is the only appropriate place to hold the detainees because ``we don't have a facility that could handle this in the United States'' and American corrections officers would ``have no idea what they are getting into.'' Well, I would say to my colleagues who made those statements that they ought to take a look at some of our secured facilities in the United States and they ought to have a little more respect for the men and women who are corrections officers, who put their lives on the line every single day to keep us safe and who make sure those who are dangerous are detained and incarcerated.

The reality is, we are holding some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world right now in our Federal prisons, including the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the ``shoe bomber,'' the ``Unabomber,'' and many others.

Senator McConnell said yesterday, ``No one has ever escaped from Guantanamo.'' Well, that is true, to the best of my knowledge. But it is also true that no prisoner has ever escaped from a Federal supermaximum security facility in the United States.

In fact, the Bureau of Prisons is currently holding 347 convicted terrorists. Is Senator McConnell going to come to the floor and say they should be moved from these Federal correctional facilities because they pose a threat to the United States being incarcerated in the continental United States? I haven't heard that. But in his efforts to keep Guantanamo open at any cost, he wouldn't even consider allowing a detainee to be brought to the United States for trial and being held, even temporarily, in any type of secure facility.

Republicans are criticizing the President, but the reality is, they do not have a plan themselves to deal with Guantanamo. I assume, from Senator McConnell's statements, he would leave it open. He doesn't care about the impact this might have on the United States around the world. If he has a plan to close it, I would like to hear it. I think he ought to come forward and join with President Bush, join with President Obama, join General Powell, join Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and others who have said Guantanamo should be closed. Otherwise, unfortunately, he is being critical of the President's intentions without producing his own approach.

The Bush administration had many years to deal with Guantanamo, but they didn't follow through. President Obama has taken on the challenge of solving one of the toughest problems his administration faces, beyond the state of our economy. The President is taking the time to carefully plan for the closing of Guantanamo, with the highest priority being the protection of America's national security.

I urge my Republican colleagues to withdraw these

Guantanamo amendments. These amendments don't fit in the supplemental appropriations bill. They tie the President's hands and keep him from making the necessary decisions to keep us safe and to make sure terrorists do not, in any way, threaten the United States. They also slow down our efforts to provide critical funding for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I hope when this matter comes before the Senate in the hours ahead, my colleagues will read carefully and closely, particularly the amendments by Senator Cornyn and by Senator McConnell. The amendment by Senator Cornyn, which grants a sense-of-the-Senate amnesty to those who were involved in interrogation techniques, is not consistent with a nation that is guided by the rule of law. For that Senator to make conclusions in his amendment that have not been supported by evidence and fact should be grounds enough for us to reject his amendment.

I don't know where these investigations in the Department of Justice or the Intelligence Committee will lead, but if we are truly sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of our land, we should allow them to run their course with the facts and law being honestly considered by those different panels.

Senator McConnell's amendment, which asks for more detailed information about detainees at Guantanamo than any Republican ever dared ask under the Bush administration, could jeopardize the prosecution of terrorists. Is that a good idea? It is certainly not. I certainly hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the McConnell amendment as well.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, one of the amendments which is being discussed and has been filed by the minority leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, relates to detainees at Guantanamo. I am hoping we will have an opportunity to debate this amendment because I think it is an important amendment, and I hope colleagues will pay close attention to it. It is not an amendment which is casual or inconsequential. It is an amendment which could have a very negative impact on our treatment of detainees who are guilty of crimes or involved in terrorist activities.

It is interesting that Senator McConnell has brought this amendment before the body to be considered. It appears that when President Bush--the previous President--announced that he was closing Guantanamo, we didn't have this rush to the microphones on the Republican side of the aisle and objecting. In fact, I don't recall any objection from their side of the aisle when President Bush made that recommendation.

It is also interesting that during the years the Guantanamo Detention Facility has been open the requests that are being made now of this President were not made of the previous President. All the suggestions that perhaps there would be release of detainees from Guantanamo who may cause harm in some part of the world, those suggestions weren't made under the previous President.

Literally hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo have been released by President Bush in the previous administration. It was found that many of them were either brought in with no charges that could be proved or once investigation of the evidence was commenced, they learned there was nothing that could be established. They were released and returned to countries of origin and other places around the world--hundreds of them in that case. I don't recall a single Republican Senator, or any Senator for that matter, coming to the floor and objecting to the release of those hundreds of detainees from Guantanamo by President Bush. It happened. They did not object.

But now there is a new President and a new approach by the Republican side of the Senate. Senator McConnell has come forward with a proposal that calls on the President--not the Attorney General but the President--to provide detailed information about every detainee at Guantanamo--information which has never been requested by previous Senators and the previous administration.

I will make an exception to what I just said. At one point, when the Bush administration was asked for the names of the detainees and their countries of origin, the Bush administration objected and said it could compromise national security to release their names. That was the only request made. It was denied.

Now come the Republicans, with the new Obama administration, with a brandnew outlook, and they want to know everything about the detainees. It is a long amendment. It goes on for five pages and a lot of detail here about the detainees at Guantanamo. Basic information--name and country of origin, and it goes on for quite a while. Most of it, I think, may be salutary and wouldn't have a negative impact, but there is one paragraph in particular which I think is dangerous. It is a request for information in the McConnell amendment of the President of the United States, and let me read what the request is. It is a request for ``a current summary of the evidence, intelligence, and information used to justify the detention of each detainee listed under paragraph (1) at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay.''

Paragraph (1) refers to all the detainees in custody at Guantanamo. So what Senator McConnell is asking for is a summary of the evidence, intelligence, and information justifying detention. This could compromise a prosecution of a detainee. It could put us in a position where someone who truly is dangerous cannot be prosecuted because of this request for information by Senator McConnell.

Senator McConnell wants, I guess, 535 Members of Congress to have a chance to read through the evidence, intelligence, and information about each detainee. Well, some of that may be classified; some may not. Even the information that is classified may leak, with 535 Members of Congress and other staff people. Do we want to run the risk of jeopardizing the prosecution of someone who is a danger to the United States to satisfy the curiosity of a Senator? I don't think so.

Secondly, once this has been presented, if Senator McConnell has his way, then there is a very real possibility that should someone--a known terrorist--be brought to the United States, or any other place for trial under the laws of the United States, they could, in fact, ask--as they do in ordinary criminal cases--for the presentation of all the evidence the State has against them, which would include this document, which would include not only the evidence, intelligence, and information, but quite possibly the work product of the prosecutors who are holding this detainee.

We could not only compromise his prosecution, we could end up with a ``not guilty'' of someone who is dangerous to the United States simply to satisfy the curiosity of a Senator who files this amendment. I think that goes too far. I can't believe that it is in the best interests of the safety of this country for us to allow this McConnell amendment to pass and to require the President to provide to Senator McConnell a current summary of the evidence, intelligence, and information used to justify the detention of each detainee.

Why? Why in the world would we want to compromise any attempt at prosecution? We don't want to do that. Men and women--career prosecutors--are currently reviewing each of these cases to determine whether we can go forward with prosecution. The record of the previous administration is not very good when it comes to prosecuting these detainees. President Obama has said he wants to put that behind us and to deal with these people on an honest basis.

I have listened to the statements that have been made on the floor by the Republican Senators who have come forward with amendments. Many of them clearly want to keep Guantanamo open forever. They talk about a $200 million state-of-the-art facility in glowing terms. Well, I have been there, and I have seen it. I have seen the men and women in uniform who toil there each day under tough climate conditions. It gets pretty hot down there. I know they are working hard for their country. But I think they know, and we know, that continuing Guantanamo is going to continue to deteriorate the reputation of the United States around the world--not because of what our soldiers and sailors and military have done there, but simply because it has become a symbol that is being used by terrorists around the world to recruit enemies against the United States.

That is why President Bush called for the closure of Guantanamo, and that is why President Obama has done the same thing. Yet the Republican platform now seems to be ``Guantanamo forever.'' They have built this platform on fear--fear that somehow this administration would be so negligent that it would release terrorists into the United States, into the communities and neighborhoods of this country. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not this President, or any President I can recall of either political party, would ever find themselves in a position to jeopardize the safety of this country by releasing detainees who would be dangerous to the United States.

But this fear mongering is what has been the basis for their position on the other side of the aisle when it comes to the security of the United States.

Those who are arguing that we cannot safely hold a terrorist in the prisons of America--that is the argument; don't let a detainee from Guantanamo ever be considered for a jail or prison of the United States--have overlooked the obvious. Currently, we have 208 inmates in the Bureau of Prison facilities of the United States who are sentenced to international terrorism--208 already there; 66 U.S. citizens, 142 non-U.S. citizens. In addition to that, 139 inmates in our U.S. Bureau of Prisons have been sentenced for domestic terrorism; 137 U.S. citizens and 2 non-U.S. citizens. Do the math. That is 347 people who have been convicted of terrorism, international and domestic, currently being held in the prisons of the United States.

Do I feel less safe in Illinois--in Springfield or Chicago--because of that? No, because I know they are being held by professionals in facilities that have a record of safely holding these individuals.

The other side suggests if we put one of these Guantanamo detainees in a U.S. prison, they will be on the street in a heartbeat. I can't imagine that. That is not going to happen. The President wouldn't let it happen. Our Bureau of Prisons wouldn't let that happen either.

Then there is this other aspect. If we decided at some point to prosecute a Guantanamo detainee in the courts of the United States for a crime, some of the language that has been brought to us by the Republicans would make that impossible. You know why. Well, one amendment by the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, would not allow the Attorney General to bring that person from Guantanamo Naval Station into the continental United States. The amendment prohibits that. We couldn't even bring them in to try them for a crime, couldn't even bring them in to hold them accountable in a court of law for terrorism.

Another amendment says we can't hold these prisoners in any U.S. prison facility. How do we try a person in the United States and not at least, when they are not in trial, hold them in some prison facility? That is just common sense. The person is dangerous. They are, of course, detained in a secure facility during the course of the trial. Some of the Republican amendments would make that impossible.

I don't understand what they are headed to. I think they want to keep this Guantanamo facility, as we have known it, open forever, without resolution of the people who are there. That is fundamentally unfair. I have said on the floor of the Senate before, and it is worth repeating, that there are people being held at Guantanamo for whom there are no charges. I know one person in particular who is being represented by a pro bono lawyer in Chicago. This man has been held for 7 years at Guantanamo. Originally, he was from Gaza in the Middle East. There was a report that he was dangerous. With that report, he was arrested, taken to Guantanamo, and held. After 6 years, he was notified there were no charges against him; he would be free to go if he could figure out where to go. And that has been the problem. He has been waiting for a year for permission to return to Gaza. He is now 26 years old. From the age of 19 to 26 he has been sitting in Guantanamo. Guantanamo forever? For him, it must feel like forever.

It is about time that we mete out justice. For those being held unfairly, they should be released. For those where there are no charges, we should acknowledge that and return them as quickly and safely as possible. For those who are a danger to the United States, we should continue to detain
them so they never pose a hazard to our country. For those who can be tried, let's try them before our courts of law.

President Obama is going through that arduous, specific process now on each one of these detainees. While his administration is working to clean up this mess that he inherited from the previous administration, the Republicans in the Senate are doing everything they can to block his way and make it impossible for him to resolve the situation at Guantanamo.

I would say the McConnell amendment, page 3, paragraph (2), is a dangerous amendment. It is an amendment that could compromise the ability of the United States of America to prosecute those who could be a danger to our country. Why would we possibly do that?

I urge my colleagues, if I am not given the authority under the rules of the Senate to strike that paragraph, to oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source