Floor Statements

Mr. President, yesterday the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case that has critical ramifications for our ability to detain foreign nationals safely outside our borders during wartime at the U.S. naval station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The case also provides insight into the question of the best place to detain and try foreign terrorists.

The case involves a group of ethnic Chinese Uighurs who are detained at Guantanamo Bay. The Uighurs won their habeas corpus petition to be released from custody. Many of these Uighurs, however, had received terrorist training in the Tora Bora Mountains of Afghanistan, including weapons training on AK-47 assault rifles at a camp run by the head of a group that our State Department has designated a terrorist organization and that the United Nations has listed as a group associated with Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, or the Taliban.

Not surprisingly, it has not been easy to find countries eager to accept the Uighurs into their civilian populations. So the Uighurs sued to be released into the United States. Federal District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina granted the Uighurs' request and ordered them released in our country. It did not matter to Judge Urbina that the Uighurs did not have an immigration status or that they had received military-style weapons training or that they had associated with a terrorist group. He was persuaded by their argument that justice required that they be released right here in the United States.

Fortunately, the DC Circuit Court reversed Judge Urbina. It ruled that even though the Uighurs had won their habeas corpus petition, they did not have a right to be released into the United States. In other words, it ruled that even if the government had to release them, it did not have to release them into Alexandria or Annandale or Falls Church or anywhere else in Northern Virginia that the Uighurs might like to go.

The DC Circuit's ruling is important to national security in general and to the debate over where we should try foreign terrorists in particular. The DC Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has held that foreign nationals, without property or presence in the United States, have fewer legal rights than foreign nationals who are present on American soil.

The DC Circuit also noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that a sovereign has a right to control its borders, and that means it has a right to bar from being released into its territory foreign nationals whom it has not admitted onto its soil.

In short, because these detainees remain at Guantanamo outside our borders, they have fewer legal rights than they would have if they were brought within our borders, including the right to be released into our civilian population.

We don't know how the DC Circuit would have ruled if the Uighurs had been present on U.S. soil. But we do know a couple of things. First, the DC

Circuit's reason for not releasing them into the United States was that they had not been brought into the United States. Let me say that again. The DC Circuit's reason for not releasing them in the United States was that they had not been brought here. Second, other foreign nationals who have committed murder and other serious crimes who were in the United States have been released here when our government could not transfer them to another country, either because they did not want to go to another country or because other countries did not want to take them.

The administration and its defenders in the Senate say that because we have tried terrorists in civilian courts before, we should do so again. They say there is no problem with us doing so because the administration would never release detainees into the United States, by which they really mean to say the administration would not intentionally release detainees into the United States. Both assertions miss the mark.

First, whether we can try terrorists here is not the issue. The issue is whether we should try terrorists here. We can try them here, but should we? Before he became Attorney General, Michael Mukasey was a noted Federal trial judge who presided over civilian trials of terrorists such as the trial of the so-called Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He has written that there are very good reasons we should not try terrorists in a civilian court. This is a judge who presided over a terrorist trial in a U.S. civilian court, and this is what he says: We should not try terrorists in civilian court, including the additional legal rights terrorists will receive if they are brought here.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks General Mukasey's recent op-ed on the topic.

Mr. President, second, once the administration brings detainees into the United States--right here in our country--it is no longer simply a matter for the administration. In other words, once they get here, the administration cannot entirely control the issue of whether they are going to be released. It is no longer about what it will or will not do. It is also about what a Federal judge will or will not do.

As we saw with Judge Urbina and the Uighurs, a judge may very well agree with the legal arguments of Guantanamo detainees and order them released right here in the United States. In other words, no matter what the administration's intention may be, once we bring them here, they do not control the situation; the courts do.

Those risks do not exist if the Obama administration does not bring the Guantanamo detainees into the United States. That risk does not exist if it leaves them at Guantanamo and tries them at the modern, multimillion-dollar courtroom at Guantanamo Bay under the very military commission rules it has now rewritten to its liking and which we will soon vote on when we consider the Defense authorization conference report.

The Supreme Court should affirm the DC Circuit Court's decision and let the political branches maintain control over our borders, including deciding whether and how foreign nationals outside our borders may be admitted within them.

If it does, it will bring clarity to the debate over whether terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay ought to be transferred to the United States. That clarity is this: If we want certitude that foreign terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay are not released into the United States, then do not bring them here in the first place.

Mr. President, I repeat. We could try terrorists in the United States--we could do that--but the issue is should we do that. The answer is no.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 19, 2009]

Civilian Courts Are No Place To Try Terrorists

(By Michael B. Mukasey)

The Obama administration has said it intends to try several

of the prisoners now detained at Guantanamo Bay in civilian

courts in this country. This would include Khalid Sheikh

Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist

attacks, and other detainees allegedly involved. The Justice

Department claims that our courts are well suited to the

task.

Based on my experience trying such cases, and what I saw as

attorney general, they aren't. That is not to say that

civilian courts cannot ever handle terrorist prosecutions,

but rather that their role in a war on terror--to use an

unfashionable harsh phrase--should be, as the term ``war''

would suggest, a supporting and not a principal role.

The challenges of a terrorism trial are overwhelming. To

maintain the security of the courthouse and the jail

facilities where defendants are housed, deputy U.S. marshals

must be recruited from other jurisdictions; jurors must be

selected anonymously and escorted to and from the courthouse

under armed guard; and judges who preside over such cases

often need protection as well. All such measures burden an

already overloaded justice system and interfere with the

handling of other cases, both criminal and civil.

Moreover, there is every reason to believe that the places

of both trial and confinement for such defendants would

become attractive targets for others intent on creating

mayhem, whether it be terrorists intent on inflicting

casualties on the local population, or lawyers intent on

filing waves of lawsuits over issues as diverse as whether

those captured in combat must be charged with crimes or

released, or the conditions of confinement for all prisoners,

whether convicted or not.

Even after conviction, the issue is not whether a maximum-

security prison can hold these defendants; of course it can.

But their presence even inside the walls, as proselytizers if

nothing else, is itself a danger. The recent arrest of U.S.

citizen Michael Finton, a convert to Islam proselytized in

prison and charged with planning to blow up a building in

Springfield, Ill., is only the latest example of that

problem.

Moreover, the rules for conducting criminal trials in

federal courts have been fashioned to prosecute conventional

crimes by conventional criminals. Defendants are granted

access to information relating to their case that might be

useful in meeting the charges and shaping a defense, without

regard to the wider impact such information might have. That

can provide a cornucopia of valuable information to

terrorists, both those in custody and those at large.

Thus, in the multidefendant terrorism prosecution of Sheik

Omar Abdel Rahman and others that I presided over in 1995 in

federal district court in Manhattan, the government was

required to disclose, as it is routinely in conspiracy cases,

the identity of all known co-conspirators, regardless of

whether they are charged as defendants. One of those co-

conspirators, relatively obscure in 1995, was Osama bin

Laden. It was later learned that soon after the government's

disclosure the list of unindicted co-conspirators had made

its way to bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, where he then

resided. He was able to learn not only that the government

was aware of him, but also who else the government was aware

of.

It is not simply the disclosure of information under

discovery rules that can be useful to terrorists. The

testimony in a public trial, particularly under the probing

of appropriately diligent defense counsel, can elicit

evidence about means and methods of evidence collection that

have nothing to do with the underlying issues in the case,

but which can be used to press government witnesses to either

disclose information they would prefer to keep confidential

or make it appear that they are concealing facts. The

alternative is to lengthen criminal trials beyond what is

tolerable by vetting topics in closed sessions before they

can be presented in open ones.

In June, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the

transfer of Ahmed Ghailani to this country from Guantanamo.

Mr. Ghailani was indicted in connection with the 1998 bombing

of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He was captured in

2004, after others had already been tried here for that

bombing.

Mr. Ghailani was to be tried before a military commission

for that and other war crimes committed afterward, but when

the Obama administration elected to close Guantanamo, the

existing indictment against Mr. Ghailani in New York

apparently seemed to offer an attractive alternative. It may

be as well that prosecuting Mr. Ghailani in an already

pending case in New York was seen as an opportunity to

illustrate how readily those at Guantanamo might be

prosecuted in civilian courts. After all, as Mr. Holder said

in his June announcement, four defendants were ``successfully

prosecuted'' in that case.

It is certainly true that four defendants already were

tried and sentenced in that case. But the proceedings were

far from exemplary. The jury declined to impose the death

penalty, which requires unanimity, when one juror disclosed

at the end of the trial that he could not impose the death

penalty--even though he had sworn previously that he could.

Despite his disclosure, the juror was permitted to serve and

render a verdict.

Mr. Holder failed to mention it, but there was also a fifth

defendant in the case, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim. He never

participated in the trial. Why? Because, before it began, in

a foiled attempt to escape a maximum security prison, he

sharpened a plastic comb into a weapon and drove it through

the eye and into the brain of Louis Pepe, a 42-year-old

Bureau of Prisons guard. Mr. Pepe was blinded in one eye and

rendered nearly unable to speak.

Salim was prosecuted separately for that crime and found

guilty of attempted murder. There are many words one might

use to describe how these events unfolded; ``successfully''

is not among them.

The very length of Mr. Ghailani's detention prior to being

brought here for prosecution presents difficult issues. The

Speedy Trial Act requires that those charged be tried within

a relatively short time after they are charged or captured,

whichever comes last. Even if the pending charge against Mr.

Ghailani is not dismissed for violation of that statute, he

may well seek access to what the government knows of his

activities after the embassy bombings, even if those

activities are not charged in the pending indictment. Such

disclosures could seriously compromise sources and methods of

intelligence gathering.

Finally, the government (for undisclosed reasons) has

chosen not to seek the death penalty against Mr. Ghailani,

even though that penalty was sought, albeit unsuccessfully,

against those who stood trial earlier. The embassy bombings

killed more than 200 people.

Although the jury in the earlier case declined to sentence

the defendants to death, that determination does not bind a

future jury. However, when the government determines not to

seek the death penalty against a defendant charged with

complicity in the murder of hundreds, that potentially

distorts every future capital case the government prosecutes.

Put simply, once the government decides not to seek the death

penalty against a defendant charged with mass murder, how can

it justify seeking the death penalty against anyone charged

with murder--however atrocious--on a smaller scale?

Even a successful prosecution of Mr. Ghailani, with none of

the possible obstacles described earlier, would offer no

example of how the cases against other Guantanamo detainees

can be handled. The embassy bombing case was investigated for

prosecution in a court, with all of the safeguards in

handling evidence and securing witnesses that attend such a

prosecution. By contrast, the charges against other detainees

have not been so investigated.

It was anticipated that if those detainees were to be tried

at all, it would be before a military commission where the

touchstone for admissibility of evidence was simply relevance

and apparent reliability. Thus, the circumstances of their

capture on the battlefield could be described by affidavit if

necessary, without bringing to court the particular soldier

or unit that effected the capture, so long as the affidavit

and surrounding circumstances appeared reliable. No such

procedure would be permitted in an ordinary civilian court.

Moreover, it appears likely that certain charges could not

be presented in a civilian court because the proof that would

have to be offered could, if publicly disclosed, compromise

sources and methods of intelligence gathering. The military

commissions regimen established for use at Guantanamo was

designed with such considerations in mind. It provided a way

of handling classified information so as to make it available

to a defendant's counsel while preserving confidentiality.

The courtroom facility at Guantanamo was constructed, at a

cost of millions of dollars, specifically to accommodate the

handling of classified information and the heightened

security needs of a trial of such defendants.

Nevertheless, critics of Guantanamo seem to believe that if

we put our vaunted civilian justice system on display in

these cases, then we will reap benefits in the coin of world

opinion, and perhaps even in that part of the world that

wishes us ill. Of course, we did just that after the first

World Trade Center bombing, after the plot to blow up

airliners over the Pacific, and after the embassy bombings in

Kenya and Tanzania.

In return, we got the 9/11 attacks and the murder of nearly

3,000 innocents. True, this won us a great deal of goodwill

abroad--people around the globe lined up for blocks outside

our embassies to sign the condolence books. That is the kind

of goodwill we can do without.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I don't know of a single person who wants to see reimbursements cut to doctors who treat Medicare patients, but if Congress is going to step in and prevent it, we shouldn't do it by racking up more debt on the government's credit card.

On Friday, the Treasury Department announced that the government ran a deficit of $1.4 trillion in the fiscal year that ended just a few weeks ago--a deficit about three times the size of the previous alltime high. This should have been a wake-up call but, instead, within days of the sobering proof of Congress's chronic inability to live within its means, Democrats in Congress want to borrow another $\1/4\ trillion to keep doctors from getting a pay cut. Republicans want to fix this problem as well, but there are ways to pay for it. When this matter comes before the Senate, Republicans will offer ways to pay for it without asking taxpayers to take on another $\1/4\ trillion in debt.

It is perfectly obvious why Democrats want to resolve this issue outside the larger debate over health care. They are doing it so they can say their health care plan doesn't add to the deficit. It is a gimmick and a transparent one at that.

Americans are tired of gimmicks and tired of Congress putting everything on the national charge card. We are not teenagers. Our parents aren't going to pay our bill at the end of the school year. The American people--our children and grandchildren--are the ones getting stuck with the bill. It is time we act as if we are aware of that.

Higher debt is just one aspect of the Democrats' health care plan that concerns Americans. At the outset of this debate, everyone agreed on one thing: Any reform would have to address the primary problem with health care; that is, cost. Yet every day we hear about some accounting gimmick that is being used to conceal the true cost of this bill, and now we are hearing it will drive up premiums as well.

The Director of the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, indicated in recent congressional testimony that parts of the Finance Committee proposal would lead to higher premiums; in other words, that health care costs would go up, not down. As a result of the Democrats' latest health care proposal, that is exactly what will happen. This is a proposal that is only going to get more expensive as the process moves forward in closed-door discussions between a handful of Democratic lawmakers and the White House. This is what the American people have feared all along, that lawmakers would lose sight of the purpose of reform and end up making problems worse, not better.

The Finance Committee bill includes a new tax on health insurance that most experts, including the CBO, agree would be passed straight to consumers, leading to higher premiums. One estimate suggests this new tax on insurance plans will be passed on to families, costing them nearly $500 per year in higher premiums starting next year, long before any of the purported benefits of reform would take effect. The Oliver Wyman Group, an international management consulting firm, has also looked at how the Finance Committee bill would impact premiums in a number of States. This is important because every State has different insurance laws. In States such as Kentucky, Arizona, and Virginia, which have flexible insurance laws and generally lower premiums, the impact would be dramatic.

Currently, the average family premium in those States is about $9,500 a year. Under the Baucus plan, that premium is expected to rise to nearly $17,000. That is $7,500 more that the government is telling families they have to spend on health insurance. That is $7,500 these families can't use for the college fund or to plan for retirement. While the Baucus plan may subsidize some insurance plans, the subsidies likely will not be enough to offset these massive new costs imposed on many of these families.

The bottom line is this: The Finance Committee bill has now been out for a few weeks. The experts are starting to estimate what it would mean for insurance premiums. What we have seen so far isn't good. This is precisely why Americans want us to debate these bills out in the open. This is why they want us to take our time until the true cost is known. This is why they should have ample time to look at proposed changes before Congress acts.

We knew this proposal would raise taxes. We knew it would slash Medicare. Now we know it will raise health insurance premiums. Americans support reform, but higher premiums, higher taxes, and cutting Medicare, that is not reform.

Gag Rule

Mr. President, the administration made a noteworthy admission over the weekend. In a late afternoon memo on Friday, the Department of Health and Human Services said health plans could now communicate with seniors about pending legislation that affects them. By lifting its prior ban on communicating the impact of Democratic plans for health care, the administration was admitting--admitting--the ban amounted to a gag rule, a gag rule that has no place in a society that prizes free speech and open debate. The administration's reversal is certainly welcome and, frankly, not unanticipated. However, many questions remain about the initial order itself and about the administration's willingness to constrain the free flow of information to seniors about their health care. The administration has admitted its error, though its proposed solution, frankly, needs further review.

The fact is, what health plans were telling seniors is precisely what the Congressional Budget Office also said; namely, that Democratic health care plans could cause seniors with Medicare Advantage to lose benefits--the absolute truth.

Americans believe strongly in the importance of the first amendment. I am glad to see the administration has recognized the error of its ways and rescinded this gag rule in the midst of such an important national debate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, from the very outset of the debate over

health care, Americans have made it known that they support reform. But over the course of the past several months, Americans have come to realize that not all reforms are created equal.

And while they still support reform, very few of them support the specific proposals they have seen from Democrats in Washington. Americans want reform. But higher premiums, higher taxes, and cutting Medicare is not reform.

Somewhere along the way, the terms of the debate shifted.

At the outset, nobody expected that reform would lead to higher premiums. In fact, most people thought the whole point was to reduce costs, not raise them.

At the outset of this debate, nobody expected they would be paying higher taxes, particularly in the midst of the worst recession in generations. Yet that is what they are now being told, that middle class Americans will take the brunt of a whole slew of new taxes to pay for a trillion-dollar experiment with our health care system.

And at the outset of this debate, seniors had no idea they would be asked to help foot the bill for this massive experiment in government health care through cuts to Medicare. Yet that is precisely what they're now being told--that Medicare will be cut by half a trillion dollars, whether the 40 million seniors who depend on it like it or not.

Let us focus for a moment on those Medicare cuts.

For months, Americans have been hearing that if they like the health care plans they have, they will be able to keep them. Evidently, that pledge didn't apply to the millions of seniors currently enrolled in the popular Medicare Advantage program, because the Finance Committee bill explicitly calls for more than $130 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, cuts that will undoubtedly alter the plans that more than 11 million seniors on Medicare Advantage now enjoy.

These cuts might lead to fewer benefits; or they might force seniors off their plans altogether. But under either scenario, seniors would no longer enjoy the plans they have and like. No one expected that at the outset of this debate.

And this is just a fraction of the Medicare cuts that the Finance Committee calls for as the cost of reform. Other cuts include more than $120 billion in cuts to hospitals that care for seniors. The Kentucky Hospital Association warned earlier this year that these kinds of cuts would affect the services hospitals provide in my State. I am sure if my colleagues talked to doctors and hospitals back home, they would hear the same.

Then there is more than $40 billion in cuts to home health agencies which give seniors the option of receiving care in their homes.

The bill also takes another $15 billion in cuts to nursing home which care for seniors who can no longer be cared for at home.

And then there is nearly $8 billion in cuts to hospice care.

Nobody expected a free lunch when it came to health care reform. But no one expected this either. Americans are doing the cost-benefit analysis, and they don't think half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare is an acceptable tradeoff, especially since none of these cuts would do anything to strengthen and protect Medicare.

It would be one thing if Medicare reforms were used to ensure its solvency for future generations. But the proposals we have seen do nothing of the sort. Instead, they use Medicare as a piggy bank to create another government program that will undoubtedly face the same financial stresses that we see in Medicare and in just about every other entitlement program.

The President thought this was a bad idea on the campaign trail. It is still a bad idea today.

Americans know the dangers of holding off on Medicare reform. When Medicare Part A was created in 1965, it was projected to spend out $9.1 billion on hospital services and related administration in 1990. As it turned out, costs that year were more than seven times the original estimates. Forty-four years after its creation, Medicare is already paying out more money than it is taking in. It is already committed to spend nearly $40 trillion it doesn't have, and current forecasts indicate that Medicare will face bankruptcy in less than a decade.

It is time to restore this vital program for the sake of our seniors, not raid it to pay for a massive government-driven experiment that could make our health care worse.

The American people want reform. But higher premiums, higher taxes, and cutting Medicare, that is not reform. That is why they overwhelmingly oppose this proposal, and they shouldn't have to apologize for it. They should expect Congress to listen to them, and keep up the pressure until Congress listens.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, most Americans recognize that our continued success in preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil depends on our ability as a nation to remain vigilant and clear-eyed about the nature of the threats we face at home and abroad. Some threats come in the form of terror cells in distant countries, others come from people plotting attacks within our own borders, and still others can come from a failure to recognize that distinction between everyday crimes--everyday crimes--and war crimes.

This last category of threat is extremely serious but sometimes overlooked, and that is why Senators Graham, Lieberman, and McCain have offered an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill that would reassure the American people the Senate has not taken its eye off the ball.

The amendment is simple and straightforward. It explicitly prohibits any of the terrorists who were involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks from appearing for trial in a conventional U.S. courtroom. Instead, it would require the government to use military commissions; that is, the courts proper to war for trying these men.

By requiring the government to use military commissions, the supporters of this amendment are reaffirming two things: first, that these men should have a fair trial; and, second, we are reaffirming what American history has always shown; namely, that war crimes and common crimes are to be tried differently and that military courts are the proper forum for prosecuting terrorists who violate the laws of war.

Some might argue that terrorists such as Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the 9/11 coconspirators, are not enemy combatants, that they are somehow on the same level as a convenience store stickup man. But listen to the words of Moussaoui himself. He disagrees.

Asked if he regretted his part in the 9/11 attacks, Moussaoui said:

I just wish it will happen on the 12th, the 13th, the 14th,

the 15th, the 16th, the 17th, and [on and on].

He went on to explain how happy he was to learn of the death of American servicemen in the Pentagon on 9/11. Then he mocked an officer for weeping about the loss of men under her command, saying:

I think it was disgusting for a military person to pretend

that they should not be killed as an act of war. She is

military. She should expect that people who are at war with

her will try to kill her. I will never cry because an

American bombed my camp.

There is no question Moussaoui believes he is an enemy combatant engaged in a war against us.

The Senate has also made itself clear on this question. Congress created the military commissions system 3 years ago, on a bipartisan basis, precisely to deal with prosecutions of al-Qaida terrorists consistent with U.S. national security, with the expectation that they would be used for that purpose. The Senate reaffirmed this view 2 years ago when it voted 94 to 3 against transferring detainees from Guantanamo stateside, including 9/11 coconspirators.

We reaffirmed it, again, earlier this year when we voted 90 to 6 against using any funds--any funds--from the war supplemental to transfer any of the Guantanamo detainees to the United States. Just this summer, the Senate reaffirmed the view that military commissions are the proper forum for bringing enemy combatants to justice when we approved, without objection, an amendment to that effect as part of the Defense authorization bill.

Sometimes it seems like the only people who do not believe that men such as 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be treated as enemy combatants are working in the administration. How else can we explain the fact that over the summer the administration flew Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Ghailani to New York to face trial for bombing Embassies of the United States in Kenya and Tanzania, an attack that killed more than 200 people, including 12 Americans? This was an act of war. Ghailani does not belong in civilian court alongside con men and stickup artists.

Our past experiences with terror trials in civilian courts have clearly been shown to undermine our national security. During the trial of the mastermind of the first Trade Center bombing, we saw how a small bit of testimony about a cell phone battery was enough to tip off terrorists that one of their key communication links had been compromised.

We saw how the public prosecution of the Blind Sheik, Abdel Rahman, inadvertently provided a rich source of intelligence to Osama bin Laden ahead of the 9/11 attacks. We remember that Rahman's lawyer was convicted of smuggling orders to his terrorist disciples. These are just some of the concerns that arise from bringing terror suspects to the United States.

Trying terror suspects in civilian courts is also a giant headache for local communities, as evidenced by the experience over here in Alexandria, VA, during the Moussaoui trial. As I have pointed out in previous floor statements, parts of Alexandria became a virtual encampment every time Moussaoui was moved to the courthouse. Those were the problems we saw in Northern Virginia, when just one terrorist was tried in civilian court. What will happen to Alexandria or other cities if several men who describe themselves as ``terrorists to the bone'' are tried in civilian courts there?

It is because of dangers and difficulties such as these that we established the military commissions in the first place. If we cannot expect the very people who masterminded the 9/11 attacks to fall within the jurisdiction of these military courts, then whom can we?

Democratic leaders, including the President, assure us they would never release terror suspects into the United States. But lawyers have repeatedly

warned about our inability to control the process once the suspects are given civilian trials. Once you bring them here, you cannot control the process.

To illustrate the point, last year a Federal judge ordered the Uighurs, a group of men detained at Guantanamo, including some who received combat training in Afghanistan, to be released into the United States. Fortunately, the DC Circuit reversed this order. Why? Because the Uighurs had not been brought to the United States and, therefore, did not have a right to be released here. We do not know what would have happened if they had been transferred here already. But we do know that because they were not, they remain outside our borders, safely away from our communities.

The American people have made themselves clear on this issue. They do not want Gitmo terrorists brought into the United States, and they certainly do not want the men who conspired to commit the 9/11 attack on America tried in civilian courts--risking national security, their potential release, and civic disruption in the process.

Congress created military commissions for a reason. But if the administration fails to use military commissions for self-avowed combatants such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, then it is wasting this time-honored and essential tool in the war on terror.

The amendment by Senators Graham, Lieberman, and McCain gives us all an opportunity to express ourselves, once again, on this vital issue. The question is not whether terror suspects should be brought to justice. The question is where and how. The answer is perfectly clear: The right forum is military commissions at the secure facility we already have at Guantanamo, not in civilian courts in the United States.

Mr. President, sometime in the coming days, the Treasury Department will make an announcement that should startle all of us. It will announce that in the fiscal year that ended just 2 weeks ago, the Federal Government spent $1.4 trillion more than it actually had. What this announcement means is that lawmakers in Washington ran up a Federal deficit in 2009 greater than the deficits of the last 4 years combined.

This is a staggering statistic. It is impossible for most of us to imagine sums of money this large, let alone the unprecedented amount of money we have borrowed this year alone. But one way to think of it is to realize that since January 20 of this year, the Federal Government has borrowed $1.2 trillion or more than $10,500 for every household in the United States--this year alone: $10,500 for every household in our country. Just since last January, the Federal Government, as I indicated, has borrowed more than $10,500 for every single household in America.

As you can imagine, there is a limit to how much we can borrow without facing serious consequences, such as dramatically higher interest rates that will further hamper job creation and massive spending cuts and taxes down the road. That is precisely why Congress sets a limit on how much debt the government can carry at any one time. But the administration has decided to worry about all these things at a later date. For now, it wants to continue to borrow and spend, borrow and spend, as it has done all year.

But we are in dangerous territory. As a result of all this borrowing, Congress is about to reach the limit on the amount of debt it can legally carry. The administration expected this would happen, and that is why it recently asked Congress to raise the debt ceiling. Rather than cut spending or implement reforms that would reduce costs, the administration is proposing we borrow even more to finance its industry bailouts and now its health care proposal. What this amounts to is a public admission it cannot live within its means.

Think about the message that sends to American people. At a time when millions of Americans are experiencing a financial hangover from overusing their own credit cards, the government is still at it. Rather than pay down some of the principal, the government is asking the credit card company to increase its limit. What does it plan to buy with the room it gets on its credit card? More government spending programs.

This is fiscal madness. The primary reason we are in so much trouble financially is the fact that we cannot afford our current spending patterns. The projected deficit for 2009 is nearly twice as large as the previous postwar record from 1983. Yet instead of reforming existing programs such as Medicare and Social Security in order to make them financially sound and stable, the administration does not want to make any hard choices.

This is one of the reasons the administration has a problem on its hands with the American people when it comes to health care. Most of the health care bills the administration supports would raise our debt by hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet the administration knows Americans are concerned about all this spending and debt; otherwise, it would not have touted a report last week saying that a conceptual version of one of several health care bills being discussed in Congress could cut the deficit by $80 billion over 10 years.

Leaving aside the fact that this particular bill will never see the light of day, an important question arises: How can an administration that is asking Congress for a $1 trillion increase on its credit card limit claim with a straight face to be excited about $80 billion in deficit savings? That is like putting a new Mercedes on the government credit card and then calling a press conference on frugality because the dealer threw in a complimentary cup holder.

Americans do not buy any of it, and that is why they are overwhelmingly opposed to the administration's health care proposals. At the outset of this debate, there was one criterion for success: Reform would lower the cost of health care. Yet no one--no one--outside Washington believes that creating a new $1 trillion entitlement will do anything but increase costs and increase debt.

We are headed down a dangerous road. It is long past time for the administration and its allies in Congress to face the hard choices Americans have had to face over the past several months: No more spending money we do not have on things we do not need; no more debt. Real reform will lower costs and debt, not raise both when we can least afford it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when we started the debate over health care reform, we knew what the American people wanted. First and foremost, they were telling us health care costs are too high and any effort at reform would have to focus on driving down those costs.

This meant our measure for success would be fairly simple: Would our reform proposals lead to lower premiums and lower costs or would they not? That is why an analysis of the Finance Committee bill over the weekend by PricewaterhouseCoopers should give us all pause.

The report showed that the Finance Committee proposal that is being voted on today would increase health insurance premiums dramatically. It said this bill would cause health care costs to go up--not down--for millions of Americans who currently have health insurance. This report confirms what many of us have feared: that the bills we have been debating will not reduce costs for the American people, but will actually drive costs up--an outcome that is fundamentally opposed to the original purpose of health care reform as we all understood it at the outset of the debate.

Specifically, this report shows that premiums for a family policy will rise to about $26,000 in the next decade under the plan proposed by Senator Baucus--about $4,000 more than they would under current law.

One of the reasons for this is that new taxes on health insurance plans, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device makers will be passed on to consumers--something many of us, including the independent Congressional Budget Office, have been saying all along.

The bottom line is this: Americans were asking for step-by-step reforms, of the kind I have called for in nearly 50 floor speeches since June. The administration's failure to present such a commonsense plan is the primary reason that Americans overwhelmingly oppose its plans for health care reform.

Americans wanted lower costs and greater access. They never wanted the administration or Democrats in Congress to vastly expand the government's role in people's health care decisions, to slash Medicare, to raise taxes and health insurance premiums,

as well, and to limit the health care choices Americans now enjoy.

The American people are not happy with any of these things, and they are not happy with the process they are seeing here on Capitol Hill. Americans are understandably unhappy that a handful of Senators and White House staffers are about to put the finishing touches on the Democratic proposal behind closed doors, especially after the President pledged to broadcast negotiations on C-SPAN.

The administration did not particularly like what PricewaterhouseCoopers had to say about the Finance Committee bill. It hastily dismissed this report, just as it dismissed commonsense Republican proposals and the concerns of ordinary Americans throughout this debate.

Indeed, the administration and its allies seem to view any opposing viewpoint in this debate as hostile. It is perfectly obvious why. The administration does not want to hear criticism because it does not want people to know what its proposals will actually do.

At a time of nearly 10 percent unemployment, Americans do not need higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums. Yet one thing that is perfectly clear about the administration's health care proposal is it promises higher taxes on virtually everyone in America.

Here is the breakdown: Under this legislation, if you have insurance, you are taxed; if you do not have insurance, you are taxed; if you use a medical device such as a hearing aid, you are taxed; if you take prescription drugs, you are taxed; if you are a business owner who cannot afford to provide coverage for your employees, you are taxed. And the Joint Committee on Taxation and the CBO have both said that many of these taxes will hit the middle class hardest, at a time when unemployment stands at a 25-year high.

Add all these up and you get a bill that raises taxes, raises premiums, and leads to more government control. You can call this many things, but it is not what the vast majority of Americans would consider reform.

Madam President, on the vote just cast, as my friend well knows, we had worked on an amendment list not only last week but earlier today. We were down to what I thought was a manageable list. There is no one on this side of whom I am aware trying to prevent the Commerce-Justice-State bill from passing. So far this year we have had a very good amendment process. Members have been able to offer their amendments and get votes. I thought until about 5:15 this afternoon we were going to be able to get an amendment list. It broke down somehow in the discussions. So I wouldn't make more out of this than it is. We were very close to being able to finish this bill.

I suggest we continue to work on the amendment list, which was quite reasonable, and wrap up the bill in the very near future.

With all due respect to my good friend, the majority leader, I don't know what the vote we just had had to do with the President winning a Nobel Peace Prize. I congratulate him for that. I think all Members are proud that he was able to achieve that. I don't know what it had to do with health care. What it had to do with is the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill.

We had agreed to all of the amendments on a list but one. We said to the majority that we would eliminate the one. So I don't know why they can't take yes for an answer. We basically had an agreement on our amendment list but for one amendment which they objected to, and we said we would take it off the list. It strikes me rather than having a spirited debate about health care and other matters, we ought to agree to the amendment list and finish the bill.

Mr. President, yesterday morning, our friends across the aisle came to the floor to defend the health care plan that they and their colleagues are pushing through Congress--a plan that has as its foundation a trillion dollars in spending, half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare, higher premiums, higher taxes on just about everyone at a time of near double-digit unemployment, and limits on the health care choices that millions of Americans now enjoy. Later in the day, we got a cost estimate. It is irrelevant. The bill it is referring to will never see the light of day.

What matters is that the final bill will cost about a trillion dollars, vastly expand the role of government in people's health care decisions, increase premiums, and limit choice.

For months, Republicans have taken every opportunity to talk about the kinds of commonsense reforms we need and that Americans actually want. Personally, I have spoken just about every day we have been on the floor since June about step-by-step reforms to lower costs, commonsense ideas that we should all agree on like malpractice reform, equalizing the tax treatment for businesses and individuals, and prevention and wellness programs--all of which would get right at the heart of our health care problems.

We have talked about these things because they address the problems we have, problems of cost and access, without limiting the choices Americans now enjoy. We have talked about these things because these are the reforms Americans want.

I have spoken about reform 43 times on the Senate floor. Yet some don't seem to be listening. And this is precisely the problem Americans have identified with some of the advocates of the Democrats' health care plans.

They are not listening to our commonsense proposals any more than they are listening to the concerns of the American people.

In fact, listening to the proponents of these plans, one gets the sense they are more concerned about their legacies than what the American people actually want. ``This is the moment'' . . . ``Be a part of history . . .'' These are the kinds of things they say to each other about health care reform. Here is an idea: How about asking the American people what they want instead?

Everyone wants reform. I have said so almost every day on the floor for months. But a 1,000-page, trillion-dollar bill that cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars, raises taxes on virtually everyone, raises premiums, and limits the health care choices Americans now enjoy is not the kind of reform Americans want. And what matters more than that?

The views of the American people are relevant in a debate about legislation that will have a profound and lasting effect on their lives. And these same Americans overwhelmingly oppose the 1,000-page, trillion-dollar plans they have seen from the administration and Congress. They have been saying so for months.

Take the issue of cost. One of the things Americans are concerned about is how much this legislation will cost. They are asking the question. They are not getting a straight answer.

We have seen a lot of numbers thrown around. As I have already noted, yesterday we got another one from the CBO. It doesn't tell the whole story. The fact is, the bill it is referring to will never see the light of day. That is because the real bill will soon be cobbled together in a secret conference room somewhere in the Capitol by a handful of Democratic Senators and White House officials.

The other numbers we have seen are intended to explain how much this bill will cost over 10 years. What most people do not realize is that the new plans would not go into effect for another 4\1/2\ years. So what is being sold as a 10-year cost is really a 5\1/2\ year cost. That means you can take the numbers you are getting and nearly double them.

Here is what we know about the true cost of the three bills we have seen so far: The Budget Committee has determined that the Finance Committee Bill, as introduced, will cost $1.8 trillion over 10 years, and we do not expect it to get any better from here on out. The HELP Committee bill will cost $2.2 trillion over 10 years. And the House bill will cost $2.4 trillion over 10 years. So the average cost of these bills, when fully implemented, is more than $2 trillion.

Americans are concerned about all this spending. They want straight answers. Advocates of the administration's health care proposal seem to think that the bigger the proposal, the more complicated, the more expensive, the better. That is not what the American people think. They are making it clear. It is about time we listen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the latest trillion-dollar, 1,000-page Democrat plan raises some questions--questions such as: What happens to Medicare?

Tens of millions of American seniors want to know.

Here is what we can say for sure.

The Democrat plan is a trillion-dollar experiment that cuts Medicare, raises taxes, and threatens the health care choices that millions of Americans now enjoy.

We know the Democrat plan will make massive cuts to Medicare--$500 billion worth--to fund more government spending.

We know Medicare Advantage benefits will be slashed almost in half, causing many of the 11 million seniors enrolled in it to lose benefits, such as hearing aid coverage and dental care.

We know it contains nearly $120 billion in cuts to hospitals that care for seniors, more than $40 billion from home health agencies, and nearly $8 billion from hospices.

And we know this: Medicare is already on the path to bankruptcy. Yet instead of trying to fix it, the Democrat plan is to use it as a piggy bank to pay for new government-run health care programs.

Republicans have tried to protect Medicare throughout this debate. Our amendments to do so were rejected in committee. We proposed an amendment to prevent cuts to skilled nursing facilities, long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation, hospice care and home health care. They rejected it. We offered an amendment to strike cuts that wouldn't improve Medicare. They rejected it. We offered an amendment to eliminate an unaccountable commission that would have the power to decide payments to Medicare providers. They rejected it. This isn't reform, and America's seniors know it.

Americans are demanding that their voices are heard in this debate. They want their questions answered, particularly when it comes to Medicare. They don't want the status quo. But they don't want what Democrats are pushing either: a trillion-dollar experiment that cuts Medicare, raises taxes, limits choices, and makes health care more expensive. Americans have questions. They are not getting the answers they deserve.

I yield the floor.

I say to my friend from Illinois, I have an appointment in my office. I am happy to yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the American people have made their voices heard in the health care debate. Their message is clear. They want reforms that bring down the staggering cost of health care and increase access,

and they do not want insurers turning people away.

In short, Americans are not happy with the status quo. But they are just as concerned, if not more so, with the alternatives that the White House and a handful of Democrats on Capitol Hill are pushing through Congress.

Soon, the last of the five committees involved in this debate will finish its work. After that, a handful of Democratic Senators will get together in a closed conference room somewhere in the Capitol to hash out a final product. Their proceedings may be private, but based on their stated preferences we have got a good sense of the basics.

We know that the bill they send to the Senate floor will cut seniors' Medicare by half a trillion dollars; we know that it will raise taxes on virtually everyone; we know it will limit the health care choices Americans now enjoy. And we know it will be a big government bonanza: a $1 trillion pricetag and 1,000 pages of indecipherable text.

For the past 2 weeks, Americans have been focused on the Senate Finance Committee. The real focus should be on the conference room where the final bill will be decided. That is because it is in that room that the Democratic leadership from the White House and Congress will attempt to decide the fate of health care for everyone. Their deliberations will be secret. And there is only one direction these Senators plan to take this legislation, and that is to the left.

We have seen what happens in these kinds of closed deliberations before. Over the summer, members of the HELP Committee discovered after a month-long markup that a wellness measure they had agreed to unanimously in front of the cameras in July was mysteriously taken out away from the cameras sometime after a final vote was taken on the bill.

And we all remember how executives at AIG ended up with multimillion dollar bonuses after nearly driving the company off a cliff. Those bonuses were blessed in a closed-door meeting somewhere in the Capitol after a final vote on the stimulus bill had already taken place.

This bill already starts out with a flawed foundation of Medicare cuts, more taxes, more debt, and fewer health care choices. That is reason enough for Americans to oppose it. Now the finishing touches will be added on in secret before a rush to the finish.

Proponents of the administration's health care plan have been working hard over the past 2 weeks to convince the American people their concerns are being heard. We will see if that has just been window dressing. The fact is, the final bill will be worked out, out of sight, by a mere few whose decisions will affect everyone in America. Away from the cameras, they will make decisions that affect every single American and one-sixth of our entire economy.

Americans want commonsense reform. Reshaping the entire economy, limiting their choices, expanding government control over health care, cutting Medicare, and raising taxes in the middle of the worst economy in memory, and then pushing it through with as little public scrutiny as possible is not what they would call reform.

Mr. President, I say congratulations from this side of the aisle to the distinguished Senator from Montana on his 11,000th vote, which he is about to cast. The majority leader pointed out his great physical prowess in running these marathons. As he also indicated, presiding over the Finance Committee in the last few weeks has certainly qualified him for another long run.

For over 30 years, Senator Baucus has represented Montana in the State legislature, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and in the U.S. Senate. He grew up on his great-grandfather's ranch, and he has always fought hard for the people of the Big Sky State. He has had a simple message: Montana comes first. He has fought to strengthen our Nation's transportation infrastructure. As we have seen over the past couple of weeks, he has a pretty strong work ethic, which should not surprise any of us for a guy who, as the majority leader pointed out, walked across the entire length of Montana.

Senator Baucus has given three decades of dedicated service and has kept his pledge to put Montana first. I join the majority leader in congratulating him on his 11,000th vote.

(Applause.)

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the Southgate Volunteer Fire Department for celebrating its centennial this October. Over the past century, the Southgate Volunteer Fire Department has been comprised of numerous men and women who have dedicated their lives to serving their community.

The record of excellence at Southgate Volunteer Fire Department has made all the difference in reaching this glorious milestone in its history. This year the department won its fourth State Fire Olympics; the State Fire Olympics hosts five different events that test the skills of firefighters and explorer teams. The extensive 3,000 hours spent per year on training has no doubt aided in the achievements made by the department. The Southgate Volunteer Fire Department became one of the first in Campbell County to develop life squads, and it has also been recognized as one of the first in Kentucky to carry semiautomatic external defibrillators.

The strength and dedication of the department was tested at the Beverly Hills Supper Club Fire in May of 1977, surely the most difficult day in its 100-year history. The Southgate Volunteer Fire Department was at the forefront of that firefighting effort and was aided by another 500 firefighters from throughout Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio. There were 3,800 people rescued from the fire that night, all because of the valor and dedication shown by these heroes.

The department's current chief, John Beatsch, manages 75 members of the Southgate Volunteer Fire Department, and in 2004 and 2005 the Southgate Volunteer Fire Department boasted the induction of two previous chiefs into the Firefighters Hall of Fame. Early in 2000, with aid from the State, the department received a new administration office, sleeping quarters, new dress and work uniforms, and two new semiautomatic external defibrillators.

The foundation of excellence that began 100 years ago still stands as the volunteers of this brave department have dedicated their lives to protecting their community. I am confident that tradition will continue on for the next 100 years as the Southgate Volunteer Fire Department continues to keep the people of Kentucky safe. I know all of my colleagues join me in congratulating the men and women of the Southgate Volunteer Fire Department for their service and their heroism.

Mr. President, I rise to honor our colleague and good friend, the senior Senator from Utah, who is about to cast his 12,000th vote. Today, Senator Hatch becomes part of a small group. He is now one of fewer than 15 Senators in history, and the only Senator in the history of Utah, to have cast 12,000 votes in the well of the Senate.

The people of Utah have elected Orrin Hatch to this body six times, and I am sure they couldn't be more proud to see him reach this milestone. For more than 32 years, he has been a phenomenal representative of the Beehive State. He has made sure no one in Washington, as he likes to put it, has been able to push Utah around. He has also made a lot of sacrifices in the process. A few years ago, when Senator Hatch was deciding whether to run for reelection, his wife Elaine asked him if maybe it was time to leave Washington so they could have a life. Orrin responded with the words of a public servant: ``This is our life,'' he said. ``My life is a life of service.''

It actually started out early. As a young man growing up in Pittsburg, Orrin was elected to the student Senate and then as student body president at Baldwin High School. Later, at Brigham Young University, thanks to an alphabetical seating chart, he met Elaine Hansen. It was probably the only thing he ever got in his life simply by way of good luck.

Orrin was always a hard worker. As a boy, he sold eggs from his family's chickens. He worked as a janitor in college. He left Brigham Young with a degree in history and went on to make some history himself, becoming the longest serving Senator in the history of Utah and one of the most influential and well-known Senators of our time.

Politics came naturally and quickly. Before winning a Senate seat, he had never held elected office. A tireless campaigner, Orrin set out across his State to meet the people of Utah and to tell them how he could help them in Washington. His message and his work ethic earned him their respect and it earned him 54 percent of the vote.

From the moment he was sworn in, Orrin kept his early pledge. He has helped the people of Utah and all Americans keep more of their hard- earned money by sponsoring tax relief legislation. He has been a champion of health care reform, particularly children's health, through his work on the Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committees.

Senator Hatch is also known to millions of Americans as a veteran member of the Judiciary Committee. He has been involved in the debate over eight--eight--sitting Supreme Court Justices.

He has been a major player in recent debates over national security, energy, labor, the second amendment, and the current debate over health care, and he has done it all in the spirit of bipartisanship, earning the friendship and respect of every Senator in this Chamber. No one who has ever met Orrin Hatch isn't struck by his courtesy and the dignity with which he carries out his duties. For Republicans, he is a good friend, a constant ally, and one of the best advocates we have. To Americans, he is the very picture of a Senator.

Incidentally, he is also one of the most prolific songwriters ever to serve in Congress. He wrote all 13 songs from one of his albums over the course of one weekend, and well-known musicians such as Gladys Knight have sung his songs. But he will never be accused of false modesty when it comes to his

talents as a songwriter. Orrin once told a reporter: Everybody loves my music.

In everything else, though, Orrin is happy to share the credit. He will be the first to tell you that his success wouldn't be possible without his family. So today we also honor Elaine, their 6 children, and their 23 grandchildren on this very historic occasion.

These milestones are important because they testify to hard work and commitment. But they also give us an opportunity to recognize colleagues whom we admire and respect, colleagues such as the senior Senator from Utah.

(Applause, Senators rising.)