Milcon Appropriations

Floor Speech

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there is a proposal by the Federal Government that relates to a small town in the State I represent. The town is Thomson, IL. It is in Carroll County. It is 150 miles from Chicago in the northwestern portion. Carroll County is one of the small, rural counties which has been struggling because a lot of employers have gone and a lot of people have moved. Those who remain are hit hard by the recession and desperate for employment. The mayor of Thomson, Jerry ``Duke'' Hebeler, wrote a letter to me and Governor Quinn and others asking for us to consider a prison which had been opened there for expansion as a Federal prison, and the administration is now looking at that possibility. If the Federal Government moves to take over this prison, it could create up to 3,000 jobs in the area, good-paying jobs with benefit packages. It would be a dramatic infusion into the local economy. In fact, it is estimated it would increase growth in the local economy by over $200 million a year, almost $1 billion over 4 years.

There is nothing that could be brought more quickly to have that kind of positive impact on a local economy. Part of this is to transfer the detainees from Guantanamo to this new prison and basically close Guantanamo. Guantanamo detainees cost the Government about $430,000 a year per detainee. It is an extremely expensive facility, manned by the Department of Defense. Of course, we have to provide barracks and accommodations and creature comforts that we want our men and women in uniform to have at Guantanamo. Moving it to Thomson, IL, will dramatically reduce that cost.

There are those who resist this and do not want to see us move forward. I say they don't understand these detainees would be placed in a portion of this Thomson facility run by the Department of Defense. They would be in what is virtually the most secure prison in America today, where there has, incidentally, never been an escape from the supermax facility since it was built. They would be housed in this situation with no visitors. In military prisons, there is no requirement for visitation, even though some critics have said otherwise. They would not be released into the general population under any conditions because we have passed laws saying that will never happen, prohibiting release of these detainees into America. The net result is to create a dramatic number of new jobs.

Today we are going to consider amendment No. 2774 to the Military Construction appropriations bill, offered by Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma. It prohibits any funds in this bill from being used to construct or modify a facility to hold a detainee from Guantanamo. The Obama administration strongly opposes this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will join. This morning Senators Reid and McConnell received a letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Attorney General Eric Holder, expressing strong opposition to the Inhofe amendment. It reads, in part:

Like the President and numerous others, both Republicans and Democrats, we are convinced that closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center is in the national security interests of the United States. ..... We acknowledge that closing Guantanamo has proven difficult, but that is not a reason for the Congress to preclude this important national security objective. ..... We need to get on with the work of enhancing our national security by finally closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center. The Inhofe amendment would have the opposite effect and would likely prevent further progress on this important issue. We ask that you join us in opposing the Inhofe amendment.

Let me be clear. This amendment would not prevent Guantanamo detainees from being transferred to the United States. Under current law, detainees can be transferred to the United States to be prosecuted. The Inhofe amendment does not change this. Here is what it would do: It would prohibit the Obama administration from upgrading security at any facility in the United States where Guantanamo detainees would be held. That is unwise and unprecedented. It certainly is not in the best interests of homeland security in the United States.

Let's take a hypothetical situation. In fact, let's move beyond a hypothetical. Let's take a real-life example. Last Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced five Guantanamo detainees who were allegedly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack will be prosecuted in Federal court in the Southern District of New York. They include Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. I agree with Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of New York, who recently said:

I support the Obama Administration's decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists here. It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center where so many New Yorkers were murdered. ..... I have great confidence that the [New York Police Department], with federal authorities, will handle security expertly.

Federal courts are clearly capable of prosecuting terrorists. Since 9/11, we have successfully prosecuted 195 terrorists in our article III Federal courts. I strongly support the Attorney General's decision to prosecute these suspects in Federal court. But regardless of how one feels about the issue, every Member of Congress should know what the Inhofe amendment means. Under the Inhofe amendment, the government could not spend any money to upgrade security facilities in New York City to make certain any of these terrorist suspects are held safely. We would be prohibited from spending money because Guantanamo detainees are involved. How much sense does that make? If there is the need to upgrade security so they can be tried in a safe environment with no danger to the people of New York City, we want to spend that money, if necessary. The Inhofe amendment stops us, precludes us from spending that money. Why would the Senator from Oklahoma want to tie the President's hands?

In his zeal to keep open Guantanamo, he is trying to limit this administration. I think that is a mistake. He believes--others do as well--we should not close Guantanamo. I agree with GEN Colin Powell. He said: If I had my way, I wouldn't close Guantanamo tomorrow. I would close it this afternoon. He knows, and we know, it has become a dangerous symbol to the world, a dangerous symbol being used by terrorist organizations to recruit more for their ranks. That is why GEN Colin Powell has called for the closure of Guantanamo. That is why it has also been called on to close by former President George W. Bush, who on eight different occasions called for its closure. GEN David Petraeus has also called for its closure, as has ADM Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense under Presidents Bush and Obama. I urge colleagues to oppose the Inhofe amendment, give this administration the tools it needs to keep America safe. Let us not second-guess them when it comes to safety and security for America's people. That is what the Inhofe amendment would do. That, in and of itself, would be a serious mistake.

Source