Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2012--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there are two amendments that are likely to be called this evening, and I want to address them briefly because I believe both these amendments should be carefully scrutinized.

One amendment is by Senator Ayotte of New Hampshire. What she would do in her amendment is restrict the authority of the President of the United States to refer suspected terrorists to our criminal justice system to be investigated, prosecuted, and tried. She would make it mandatory those terrorists--particularly associated with al-Qaida--would be tried before military commissions and tribunals.

I listened as she and Senator McConnell came to the floor to explain their point of view. It is an interesting point of view, that we are at war with al-Qaida and, therefore, any trials of suspected terrorists associated with them should be before a military tribunal. Unfortunately, the logic of their argument falls flat when you look at reality. Here is the reality.

Since September 11, 10 years ago, President Bush and President Obama have faced time and time again allegations that individuals are suspected terrorists. Each President--Bush and Obama--has had to consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and other leaders in their administration to determine the appropriate place to investigate and try these cases.

Here is the record. Since 9/11, the Department of Justice advises us that on as many as 300 separate occasions--300--these suspected terrorists have been taken to the article III criminal courts of America and successfully tried and prosecuted. In that same period of time, exactly three suspected terrorists have been sent to military commissions and tribunals.

For the Senator from New Hampshire to now argue that all cases have to go to military commissions is to ignore the obvious. The President, as our Commander in Chief, with the premier responsibility to keep America safe, should decide the best place to try those who are accused. This has been a recurring theme on the Republican side--to take the terrorist cases out of our criminal courts. In fact, almost on a weekly basis Senator McConnell has come to the floor making this argument.

The argument goes something like this: Do you mean to tell me we are going to take a suspected terrorist in and read them their Miranda rights; that they have the right to remain silent? You know what is going to happen. They will lawyer up and shut up and we won't get the information we need to keep America safe. That is why, he has argued time and time again, we shouldn't allow the FBI to be involved and we shouldn't refer these cases to article III criminal courts. And that is why Senator Ayotte is offering her amendment this evening.

The fact is that argument isn't borne out by the facts. Look what happened 2 weeks ago. Remember the underwear bomber--the somewhat crazed individual--maybe crazed--who got on an airplane and was apprehended over Detroit with the argument that his clothing was on fire, and when they apprehended him and took him in, the FBI asked him questions? He answered questions for some period of time and at that point stopped talking.

The scenario at that point would have ended, according to Senator McConnell. He lawyered up and shut up. But it didn't end.

The FBI continued the investigation. They went overseas and brought this man's mother and father to the United States and they sat down and talked to him. After they talked to him, he said he would cooperate fully with the FBI. He talked for day after day after day, telling them all the information about al-Qaida. Then his case was referred to a criminal court in Detroit, and 2 weeks ago he pled guilty.

If you follow the logic that has been given to us by Senator Ayotte and Senator McConnell, this never would have happened. The fact is, it did. The FBI did its job, the Department of Justice did its job. The man was prosecuted in our criminal courts; he pled guilty; he is likely to be sentenced in January to life in prison. It is because the President had the authority, as Commander in Chief, to pick the forum to try the individual. He picked the most effective forum, and when he did, we ended up in a situation where this man pled guilty and is going to be sentenced. It isn't an isolated case. In fact, it is the overwhelming likelihood that when a person is suspected of terrorism, they are more likely to be successfully prosecuted in one of our article III courts.

I note today that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin of Michigan, pointed out on the Senate floor that when Senator Ayotte raised this issue in the Armed Services Committee markup on the Defense authorization bill, her amendment was defeated on a bipartisan rollcall. Six Republicans voted against her, including Senator McCain, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Graham, the only military lawyer serving in the Senate. But the amendment will still come to the floor.

I urge my colleagues, whatever they think of President Obama--and I respect him very much. Whatever they think of him, do not tie the hands of any President when it comes to picking the proper forum to try a terrorist. If the proper forum is a military commission and tribunal, I will back the President. If the proper forum is an article III criminal court, let's proceed that way as well.

The evidence overwhelmingly tells us that going through our criminal court system, terrorists pay a price--a heavy price--with up to 300 convictions since 9/11 and more than 100 convicted since President Obama took office. Let's respect the President's authority. Let's do the best thing to secure our Nation.

Let's not let the Senate presume to know exactly where every suspected terrorist defendant is to be tried.

Mr. President, there is also another amendment that is likely to be considered this evening, and that I wish to speak to. Senator Stabenow of Michigan, as chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee, has a special responsibility when it comes to nutrition programs and especially the program known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the SNAP program, which is known to most Americans as the Food Stamp Program.

Senator Sessions has introduced an amendment that would eliminate the use of what is known as categorical eligibility for people to qualify for the SNAP program. Forty States use it. What they basically say is if you are eligible for some other programs, then we believe, in establishing that eligibility, you are also eligible for the SNAP program. It turns out that only 1 percent of SNAP households have net incomes over 100 percent of the Federal poverty level. The Federal poverty level, incidentally, is $22,350 per family of four. So when these people are judged to be part of a program, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, LIHEAP, Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, and the Social Security disability benefit program, they are eligible then for the SNAP program, the Food Stamp Program.

The Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions, would change that. What he would add to it is a new redtape requirement that these people, who are by and large some of the poorest people in America, will now have to go through another bureaucratic process and fill out another application. I don't think that is necessary, and I am urging my colleagues not to support Senator Sessions' amendment.

He recently said on the floor something I want to point out. He said: No program in our government has surged out of control more dramatically than food stamps. Then he went on to say: We need people working with jobs, not receiving food stamps.

I will readily concede to the Senator from Alabama that the number of hungry Americans has increased. It is not only evident in the Food Stamp Program; it is evident at the food pantries, at the breakfast and lunch and dinner feeding programs that are available across Illinois and across America. I have been there and I have watched who comes through the door, and I want to tell you it is a heartbreak for them and for me to watch. Many of these people have never in their lives asked for anything, and now they have no choice. And many, to the surprise, I think, of many Senators, are actually working. But they make so little money that they have to go in and ask for help.

I agree, we need to put Americans back to work in good-paying jobs. The Senator from Alabama and others will have the chance to vote for part of President Obama's jobs program this evening. The fact is, 14 million Americans are currently unemployed, another 10 million underemployed, and these feeding programs are essential for them to keep their families together.

The Senator from Alabama points out one example to give a reason why we need to change the law across America. He talks about a case where someone actually won the lottery and then went on to get food stamps. That case got a lot of media attention, but the fact is it was highly unusual. If the Senator from Alabama wants to ensure that people who win the lottery and a windfall of income are not eligible for SNAP, I will be glad to work with him. Let's get that job done. But this amendment is not that legislation. That single, highly unusual situation doesn't merit kicking people who are out of work or in a low-income job out of a program that feeds their families. To impose that new obligation, new paperwork, new redtape obligation on families who are struggling because one person abused the system I think goes too far.

SNAP, in fact, has one of the lowest error rates of all Federal programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows us that over 98 percent of those receiving SNAP benefits are eligible, and over 95 percent of payments are accurate. The system has good quality controls, and I will work with the Senator from Alabama and any other Senator to make them even better.

The problem isn't food stamps in America. The problem is hunger in America. Let's address the hunger problem and put people back to work. We will have less demand for food stamps and food pantries.

I think what we face in this country is serious. I know it is in my State. In Senator Sessions' home State of Alabama, 17.3 percent of residents live in poverty and the same percent live in households that have food insecurity. Sadly, children are disproportionately impacted with hunger. In Senator Sessions' home State, it is over one out of four kids who is in a situation with food deficiencies. And 873,174 people in Alabama rely on food stamps, the SNAP program. Are we going to make their life more difficult because one person who won the lottery abused the system? I think that goes too far.

I hope we can work together to make this a better program. For those who are angry about food stamps or angry about food pantries, direct your anger toward hunger, toward unemployment. That is what is driving up the numbers in this system. We can work together to make it a better system. But the approach being suggested by the Senator from Alabama will just add redtape, paperwork, and unnecessary hardship to a lot of people who are already struggling.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source