Senate Session 2011-11-30 (16:37:58-17:39:12)


THAT IS WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES, AND I ENCOURAGE EVERY COLLEAGUE TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I YIELD THE FLOOR AND NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. QUORUM CALL: MADAM PRESIDENT. THE
12
00:00:42,000 –>00:00:41,999
I ASK UNANIMOUS SENATOR FROM ARIZONA. CONSENT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE QUORUM CALL BE SUSPENDED. WITHOUT OBJECTION. I OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT FOR ONE SIMPLE REASON. IT REQUIRES THE PRESIDENT TO SUBMIT A PLAN TO CONGRESS FOR AN
22
00:00:58,000 –>00:00:57,999
AFGHANISTAN. FROM AN ACCELERATED WITHDRAWAL. NOT JUST THE WITHDRAWAL THAT’S ALREADY PLANNED, NOT THE WITHDRAWAL THAT’S ALREADY BEEN ACCELERATED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, BUT A NEW ACCELERATED DRAWDOWN. NOW, THE PRESIDENT IS SUPPOSED TO SUBMIT A PLAN TO CONGRESS FOR
33
00:01:17,000 –>00:01:16,999
AFGHANISTAN. AN ACCELERATED DRAWDOWN FROM NOW, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES COULD SEE A PLAN FOR AN ACCELERATED WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN? IS IT REQUIRED THAT IT BE IMPLEMENTED BY CONGRESS OR IS IT A NICE INFORMATIONAL, NOTIONAL KIND OF THING? HERE’S A PLAN. HEY, LET’S GET TOGETHER. I HAVE GOT A PLAN. AND THE PRESIDENT’S DRAWDOWN PLAN, WHICH OUR SENIOR MILITARY COMMANDERS HAVE STATED IS
50
00:01:46,000 –>00:01:45,999
ACCELERATED THAN THEY ARE ALREADY, ALREADY MORE COMFORTABLE WITH. SO, FIRST OF ALL, I DON’T GET THE POINT OF THE SENATOR’S
55
00:01:55,000 –>00:01:54,999
AMENDMENT, WHICH IS TO SUBMIT A PLAN. IT DOESN’T REQUIRE THAT THE PLAN BE ACTED ON, JUST A PLAN. I CAN SUBMIT A PLAN FOR HIM IF
60
00:02:04,000 –>00:02:03,999
IN. IT’S PLANS THAT HE IS INTERESTED BUT THE FACT IS THAT WE ARE ACCELERATING OUR WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN AT GREAT RISK AS OUR MILITARY COMMANDERS HAVE TESTIFIED, MUCH GREATER RISK, SO I GUESS ANOTHER ACCELERATED PLAN WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE THE RESULT OF EVEN GREATER RISK TO THE MEN AND WOMEN IN THE MILITARY. I UNDERSTAND THE SENATOR FROM OREGON’S OPPOSITION TO THE WAR, THAT’S FINE. I RESPECT THAT. BUT AN AMENDMENT THAT A PLAN IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITHOUT ANY REQUIREMENT THAT IT BE IMPLEMENTED, A PLAN WHICH WOULD ALREADY ACCELERATE MORE WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCELERATED, I GUESS IS SOME KIND OF STATEMENT. A MAN IS REQUIRED BY THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE BASED ON
84
00:02:53,000 –>00:02:52,999
COMMANDERS. INPUTS FROM OUR MILITARY I CAN TELL THE SENATOR FROM OREGON WHAT OUR MILITARY COMMANDERS IN AFGHANISTAN HAVE SAID IN TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE THAT MORE ACCELERATION WOULD MEAN GREATER RISK, THE ACCELERATION THAT’S ALREADY TAKING PLACE MEANS GREATER RISK, BUT THE SENATOR FROM OREGON
96
00:03:12,000 –>00:03:11,999
GUESS. WANTS A MORE ACCELERATED PLAN, I AND THEN CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN TESTIFIED BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON JUNE 23, THIS IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, THAT THE PRESIDENT’S DRAWDOWN PLAN, THAT’S THE PRESENT PLAN, NOT AN ACCELERATED PLAN SUCH AS THE AMENDMENT PROPOSES, WOULD BE — QUOTE — “THE PRESIDENT’S DRAWDOWN PLAN WOULD BE — THAT’S THE PRESENT ONE — QUOTE — MORE AGGRESSIVE AND INCUR MORE RISK THAN I WAS ORIGINALLY PREPARED TO ACCEPT.” NOW, I WONDER IF THE SENATOR FROM OREGON HEARD THAT. THE PRESENT PLAN IS — QUOTE — “MORE AGGRESSIVE AND INCUR MORE RISK THAN THE CHAIRMAN OF THE WOULD HAVE
120
00:03:59,000 –>00:03:58,999
BEEN PREPARED TO ACCEPT.” UNQUOTE. SO NOW THIS AMENDMENT WE ACCELERATE EVEN MORE. ON THE SAME DAY, IN TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS STATED THAT NO MILITARY COMMANDER RECOMMENDED WHAT THE PRESIDENT ULTIMATELY DECIDED. THAT’S THE PRESENT PLAN. THEIR CONCERNS WERE WELL GROUNDED. OUR COMMANDERS HAVE WANTED TO KEEP THE REMAINING SURGE FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF NEXT YEAR’S FIGHTING SEASON, WHICH ROUGHLY OCCURS WITH THE ONSET OF THE COLDER MONTHS. THAT WAS THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE PRESIDENT. SO NOW THE PRESIDENT SHALL DEVICE A PLAN BASED — DEVISE A PLAN BASED ON INPUT FROM MILITARY COMMANDERS. I CAN TELL THE SENATOR WHAT THE INPUT IS. THE SAME INPUT HE GOT WITH THE FIRST ACCELERATED WITHDRAWAL. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS PICK UP THE PHONE AND ASK THEM. DON’T HAVE TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT. THIS WAS THEIR RECOMMENDATION. HOWEVER, THE PRESIDENT CHOSE TO DISREGARD THAT ADVICE AND ANNOUNCE THAT ALL U.S. FORCES WOULD BE WITHDRAWN FROM AFGHANISTAN BY THE END OF NEXT SUMMER. THAT GUARANTEES JUST AS THE FIGHTING SEASON NEXT YEAR IS AT ITS PEAK, U.S. SURGE FORCES WILL BE LEAVING AFGHANISTAN. IN MY VIEW, THAT’S A HUGE AND UNNECESSARY RISK TO OUR MISSION, BUT THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. I THINK THERE WILL BE GREAT LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES TO IT. HER STORY WAS RELATED TO ME JUST RECENTLY. A FORMER MEMBER OF THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, HIGH RANKING, IN A MEETING WITH ONE OF THE HIGHEST RANKING MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SPHAK. HE SAID TO THIS HIGH-RANKING GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE CHANCES FOR PEACE WITH THE TALIBAN ARE? THAT INDIVIDUAL JUST LAUGHED AND SAID WHY SHOULD THEY MAKE PEACE? YOU ARE LEAVING. FACTS. THE PRIMARY REAP FOR MAINTAINING ALL OF OUR SURGE FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN THROUGH NEXT YEAR’S FIGHTING SEASON IS BECAUSE OF ANOTHER TIME THE PRESIDENT CHOSE TO DISREGARD THE ADVICE OF HIS MILITARY COMMANDERS. IT’S WELL KNOWN THAT OUR MILITARY LEADERS HAD WANTED A SURGE TO BE 40,000 U.S. TROOPS, BUT THE PRESIDENT ONLY GAVE THEM 33,000, SO RATHER THAN BEING ABLE TO PRIORITIZE THE SOUTH AND EAST OF AFGHANISTAN AT THE SAME TIME AS THEY HAD PLANNED, OUR COMMANDERS HAD TO FOCUS FIRST IN THE SOUTH, WHICH THEY DID LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR, AND THEN CONCENTRATE ON EASTERN AFGHANISTAN NEXT YEAR, ALL
206
00:06:38,000 –>00:06:37,999
BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS. NOW, THAT’S NOT MY OPINION. THAT IS THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF MILITARY LEADERS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE. THE PRESIDENT’S DECISION MADE THE WAR LONGER, AND NOW OUR COMMANDERS WILL NOT HAVE THE FORCES THEY SAID THEY WANTED AND NEEDED TO FINISH THE JOB IN AFGHANISTAN. SO BEFORE WE CAN MANDATE A PLAN TO FURTHER ACCELERATE THE DRAWDOWN OF U.S. FORCES FROM AFGHANISTAN, I SUGGEST WE REVIEW THE FACTS AND CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE OVERLY ACCELERATED DRAW DOWN WE ALREADY HAVE. BEFORE WE BASE SUCH A PLAN ON THE VIEWS OF OUR MILITARY COMMANDERS, I CERTAINLY RECOMMEND THAT MY COLLEAGUES TRAVEL TO AFGHANISTAN AND SPEAK WITH THOSE COMMANDERS WHO CAN EXPLAIN FAR BETTER THAN I CAN WHY FURTHER ACCELERATING OUR DRAWDOWN IS RECKLESS AND WRONG. SO, MADAM PRESIDENT, I DON’T GET THE AMENDMENT. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THE TITLE OF IT TO REQUIRE A PLAN FOR THE EXPEDITED TRANSITION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR MILITARY AND SECURITY OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN TO THE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN, AS I SAID, IN CASE THE SENATOR FROM OREGON MISSED IT, WE HAVE ALREADY AND IN THE VIEW OF OUR MILITARY COMMANDERS, UNANIMOUSLY, IT’S FAR GREATER RISK. AND SO THE PRESIDENT SHALL DEVISE A PLAN, IT SAYS DEVISE A PLAN BASED ON INFRUSTRATES MILITARY COMMANDERS, MINORITY AND — NATO AND COALITION ALLIES AND DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS IN THE REGION AND APPROPRIATE MEMBERS OF THE CABINET ALONG WITH THE CONSULTATION OF CONGRESS FOR EXPEDITING THE DRAWDOWN OF UNITED STATES COMBAT TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN AND ACCELERATING THE TRANSFER OF SECURITY AUTHORITY. APPARENTLY, THE SENATOR FROM OREGON IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE PRESIDENT’S ALREADY ACCELERATED PLAN FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN BEGINNING IN THE FULL — IT’S ALREADY BEGUN BUT THE SERIOUS WITHDRAWAL IN THE FALL, SEPTEMBER OF 2012. AND I CAN ASSURE, I CAN ASSURE THAT IF OUR WITHDRAWAL, WHICH I GREATLY FEAR NOW WILL HAVE LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES, A FURTHER ACCELERATED WITHDRAWAL WILL ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE THAT AFGHAN BECOMES A COCKPIT, A COCKPIT OF COMPETING INTERESTS FROM IRAN, FROM INDIA, FROM PAKISTAN, FROM OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE REGION. AND I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN DESERVE BETTER. SO I WILL, OBVIOUSLY, OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. CALL: A SENATOR: MADAM PRESIDENT. THE SENATOR FROM UTAH. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE QUORUM CALL BE SUSPENDED.
296
00:10:44,000 –>00:10:43,999
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
298
00:10:46,000 –>00:10:45,999
MADAM PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE CURRENT AMENDMENT BE SET ASIDE SO I MIGHT SPEAK BRIEFLY REGARDING AMENDMENT NUMBER 1126. RESERVING THE RIGHT I WONDER IF THE SENATOR WOULD JUST SEEK — THE SENATOR HAS A RIGHT TO SPEAK ON ANOTHER AMENDMENT WITHOUT SETTING ASIDE THIS AMENDMENT. I ASK THAT THE SENATOR NOT SET ASIDE THE PENDING AMENDMENT BUT SIMPLY SPEAK ON WHATEVER AMENDMENT HE WISHES TO SPEAK ON. WONDERFUL. THE SECOND REQUEST IS WITHDRAWN.
315
00:11:16,000 –>00:11:15,999
WITHOUT OBJECTION. I RISE TODAY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT NUMBER
319
00:11:22,000 –>00:11:21,999
1126 TO THE CURRENT PENDING LEGISLATION. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE UNITED STATES SHALL NOT DETAIN FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD U.S. CITIZENS IN MILITARY CUSTODY. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A LOT OF DEBATE. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THIS WOULD BE A BREAK NOT ONLY WITH THE CURRENT PENDING LEGISLATION BUT ALSO WITH CURRENT PRACTICE. BASED ON SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT AND LOWER COURT PRECEDENT THAT SOME HAVE INTERPRETED TO DEEM THIS A CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE PRACTICE. BEEN SUGGESTED BY SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES THAT IT IS THE PROVINCE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AS FAR AS IT GOES. BUT IT’S NOT THE BEGINNING OF THE ANALYSIS AND THE END OF THE ANALYSIS. WE AS U.S. SENATORS INDEPENDENTLY HAVE AN OBLIGATION CONSISTENT WITH AND REQUIRED BY OUR OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH I TOOK JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO, A FEW FEET FROM WHERE I STAND NOW, TO UPHOLD THE
354
00:12:24,000 –>00:12:23,999
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. AND THAT MEANS DOING MORE THAN SIMPLY THE FULL EXTENT OF WHATEVER THE COURTS WILL TOLERATE. IN THIS INSTANCE, WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE RIGHT OF THE U.S. MILITARY TO DETAIN INDEFINITELY WITHOUT TRIAL A U.S. CITIZEN SIMPLY ON THE BASIS THAT THAT PERSON HAS BEEN DEEMED AN ENEMY COMBATANT. NOW, THERE IS A REAL SLIPPERY SLOPE PROBLEM HERE AND IT’S THE VERY KIND OF SLIPPERY SLOPE PROBLEM FOR WHICH WE HAVE PROTECTIONS LIKE THE FIFTH
372
00:12:57,000 –>00:12:56,999
AMENDMENT AND THE SIXTH AMENDMENT. YOU SEE, UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT A PERSON CAN’T BE HELD FOR AN INFAMOUS CRIME UNLESS THEY’VE BEEN SUBJECTED TO A
378
00:13:08,000 –>00:13:07,999
INDICTMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED. PROCESS WHEREBY A GRAND JURY AND A PERSON CAN’T BE HELD AND TRIED FOR A CRIME WITHOUT HAVING COUNSEL MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM AND WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL IN FRONT OF A JURY OF THE PEERS OF THE ACCUSED WE CAN SCARCE AFFORD AS AMERICANS TO SURRENDER THESE FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL LIBERTIES FOR WHICH WARS HAVE BEEN FOUGHT, FOR WHICH THE FOUNDING ERA, THE FOUNDING GENERATION FOUGHT SO NOBLY AGAINST OUR MOTHER COUNTRY TO ESTABLISH AND THEREFORE TO PROTECT. WE HAVE TO SUPPORT THESE AND I THINK AT A BARE MINIMUM THAT MEANS THAT WE WON’T ALLOW U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL TO ARREST AND INDEFINITELY DETAIN U.S. CITIZENS REGARDLESS OF WHAT
401
00:13:54,000 –>00:13:53,999
LABEL WE HAPPEN TO APPLY TO THEM. THESE PEOPLE AS U.S. CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED TO A GRAND JURY INDICTMENT TO THE EXTENT THEY’RE BEING HELD FOR AN INFAMOUS CRIME, THEY’RE ALSO ENTITLED TO A JURY TRIAL IN FRONT OF HER PEERS AND TO COUNSEL. WE CANNOT FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE SURRENDER THESE IMPORTANT LIBERTIES. I’M NOT WILLING TO DO THAT. THAT’S WHY I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT NUMBER 1126 TO THE PENDING LEGISLATION. I ENCOURAGE EACH OF MY COLLEAGUES TO DO SO. NOW, I WANT TO POINT OUT, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT YESTERDAY I VOTED AGAINST WHAT BECAME KNOWN AS THE UDALL AMENDMENT. I DID SO IN PART BECAUSE I DON’T BELIEVE THAT THAT FIXED THE
425
00:14:35,000 –>00:14:34,999
HERE. PROBLEM THAT I’M TALKING ABOUT THE UDALL AMENDMENT DIDN’T EVEN PURPORT TO ADDRESS CURRENT PRACTICE OR THE POLICIES AS THEY’VE BEEN ESTABLISHED IN RECENT YEARS THAT THIS KIND OF DETENTION IS IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES ACCEPTABLE. IT CALLED FOR A STUDY AND IT ELIMINATED CERTAIN PROVISIONS IN THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION DID YOU BUT IT DIDN’T FIX THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM. THIS FEINSTEIN AMENDMENT,
440
00:14:58,000 –>00:14:57,999
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1126 DOES FIX THAT. THAT’S WHY I SUPPORT IT. I ENCOURAGE EACH OF MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME. WHEN WE TAKE AN OATH TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO UPHOLD IT, TO PROTECT IT, TO DEFEND IT, WE’RE DOING MORE THAN SIMPLY AGREEING TO DO WHATEVER THE COURTS WILL TOLERATE. WE’RE TAKING AN OATH TO THE PRINCIPLES EMBODIED IN THIS 224-YEAR-OLD DOCUMENT THAT HAS FOSTERED THE GREATEST
455
00:15:22,000 –>00:15:21,999
CIVILIZATION THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT. I NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. THE CLERK ROLL. CALL: THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN. I’D ASK THAT FURTHER
465
00:20:10,000 –>00:20:09,999
CALL — PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE QUORUM
467
00:20:11,000 –>00:20:10,999
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: WITHOUT OBJECTION. LET ME JUST ASK SENATOR MERKLEY A QUESTION AND THEN I THINK WE CAN FREED THERE. IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE IN THIS AND RELATED AMENDMENTS HAD THE DATES 2012 AND 2014 IN THEM AND IT COULD BE INTERPRETED YOU WERE TRYING TO PRESS THOSE DATES FORWARD RATHER THAN AS I INTERPRET YOUR AMENDMENT, THE PACE OF REDUCTIONS AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE PEOPLE YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED. AM I CORRECT?
484
00:20:48,000 –>00:20:47,999
THE SENATOR IS CORRECT. THE AMENDMENT IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE TO INCREASE THE PACE OF THE REDUCTION OF U.S. FORCES AND THE TRANSFER OF TO AFGHANISTAN’S FORCES. IF THERE IS SOMEONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK, I
494
00:21:13,000 –>00:21:12,999
THE YIELD. QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT AS MODIFIED. IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DEBATE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY. THE AYES APPEAR TO HAVE IT AND THE AYES DO HAVE IT. THE AMENDMENT AS MODIFIED IS AGREED TO. I MOVE TO RECONSIDER, LAY ON THE TABLE. I MOVE TO LAY THAT MOTION ON THE TABLE. WITHOUT OBJECTION. MICHIGAN. THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE — MR. McCAIN: MR. PRESIDENT THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE HAD INTENDED TO TALK ABOUT HER AMENDMENT AND WITHDRAW IT AND SHE MAY BE COMING.
519
00:22:10,000 –>00:22:09,999
HER. I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO NOTIFY
521
00:22:16,000 –>00:22:15,999
DELAY. THERE MAY BE A COUPLE-MINUTE SO I HAVE TO SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL. QUORUM CALL: QUORUM CALL: MR. PRESIDENT? THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA. REQUEST UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
534
00:24:42,000 –>00:24:41,999
URN THE QUORUM CALL DISPENSED WITH.
536
00:24:43,000 –>00:24:42,999
WITHOUT OBJECTION. IN A EXCHANGE HI ON THE FLOOR ABOUT — AND I MENTIONED THE WONDERFUL LONG PEOPLE — WONDERFUL LONG ISLAND, I MADE A JOKE. I’M SORRY THERE’S AT LEAST ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES THAT CAN’T TAKE A JOKE AND SO I APOLOGIZE IF I OFFENDED HIM AND HOPE THAT
547
00:25:02,000 –>00:25:01,999
HUMOR. SOMEDAY HE WILL HAVE A SENSE OF I YIELD MR. PRESIDENT? THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA. MR. PRESIDENT, I’VE BEEN WORKING FOR SOME TIME TO WRESTLE WITH THIS QUESTION OF THE RIGHT NUMBER OF MILITARY FORCES WE NEED IN EUROPE. IT’S AN ISSUE THAT’S GIVEN ME SOME PAUSE AND I THOUGHT WE HAD AN AGREEMENT SEVERAL YEARS AGO TO MAKE SOME NOTICEABLE CHANGES IN THAT FORCE STRUCTURE. SOME CHANGES HAVE, INDEED, BEEN MADE AND OTHERS WERE IN THE WORKS AND THEY APPARENTLY HAVE BEEN PUT ON HOLD AND ALTERED. SO I JUST WANT TO SHARE SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT IT. I THANK SENATOR LEVIN AND SENATOR McCAIN FOR WORKING WITH ME TO DEVELOP AN AMENDMENT TO THIS BILL THAT HELPS CALL ATTENTION TO THIS PROBLEM WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. WE’VE HAD A LONG AND HISTORIC RELATIONSHIP WITH EUROPE AND OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES. THEY REMAIN THE BEST ALLIES WE HAVE IN THE WORLD. WE HAVE LARGE NUMBERS OF TROOPS STILL IN EUROPE BUT THEY’RE NOT NEARLY AS MANY AS THERE HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST. BUT THE NUMBERS ARE STILL EXTRAORDINARY. WE HAVE AT THIS TIME 80,000 UNITED STATES TROOPS IN EUROPE. AND I DON’T BELIEVE MILITARY THREATS JUSTIFY THAT LARGE A TROOP PRESENCE, AND OUR HISTORIC EVEN LARGER NUMBER WAS BASED ON THREAT, THE FOLDER GAP, THE WEAKNESS OF OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES AFTER WORLD WAR II AND THEIR LACK OF STRENGTH AND THE BOND THAT NATO MEANT. AND WE STUCK TOGETHER AND TRANSFORMED THE ENTIRE NORTH
599
00:27:12,000 –>00:27:11,999
ATLANTIC REGION IN A POSITIVE WAY. A BOOK HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT WHERE WE ARE TODAY CALLED “PARADISE AND POWER.” THE ESSENCE OF IT — PRETTY SIGNIFICANT BOOK, FRANKLY — THE ESSENCE OF IT IS THAT THE EUROPEANS ARE IN A PARADISE, PROTECTED BY AMERICAN POWER, AND THEY DON’T FEEL ANY NEED TO SUBSTANTIALLY BURDEN THEMSELVES WITH NATIONAL DEFENSE BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES IS THERE. WE HAVE A NUCLEAR PRESENCE. WE HAVE 80,000 TROOPS. WE HAVE THE FABULOUSLY TRAINED, HIGHLY SKILLED MILITARY WITH THE LIFT CAPABILITY OF MOVING TO A TROUBLED AND DANGEROUS SPOT AT ANY TIME. AND I DO THINK IT’S FAIR TO SAY
621
00:28:00,000 –>00:27:59,999
COMPLACENT. THEY HAVE BECOME A BIT AS PART OF A CODEL THAT I LED IN 2004, WE VISITED EUROPE BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES WAS GOING THROUGH A BRAC, A REDUCTION OF UNITED STATES BASING, AND WE DIDN’T HAVE THE SAME TYPE POLICY
629
00:28:21,000 –>00:28:20,999
BASES. WITH REGARD TO INTERNATIONAL AND WE VISITED, SENATOR CHAMBLISS, SENATOR ENZI AND I, BASES IN EUROPE, PARTICULARLY BASES WE FELT WOULD BE ENDURING, LIKE ERODA, SPAIN, AND CIGENELLA AND VINCENZA AND OTHER BASES IN RAMSTEIN, GERMANY. BUT THERE ARE OTHERS, LOTS OF OTHERS. SO PART OF THE NATO COMMITMENT IS THAT EACH NATION IN EUROPE WOULD INVEST AND SPEND 2% OF ON DEFENSE. WE HAVE BEEN 4%, SOMETIMES OVER THAT RECENTLY, AS WE’VE — IN RECENT YEARS, AND SO OUR NATO MEMBERS, HOWEVER, ARE FALLING BELOW THAT. GERMANY, THE STRONGEST ECONOMY IN EUROPE, GERMANY IS AT 1.2% OF G.D.P. ON DEFENSE AND THEY SPEND A LARGE PORTION OF THAT ON SHORT-TERM, LESS THAN ONE YEAR MILITARY TRAINING OF YOUNG PEOPLE IN GERMANY. AND THE FACT IS THAT A NINE-MONTH TRAINEE IS NOT SOMEONE IN THE MODERN WORLD YOU CAN SEND INTO COMBAT. THEY’RE JUST NOT SUFFICIENTLY TRAINED. MANY MILITARY EXPERTS BELIEVE THAT THIS IS JUST A WASTE OF MONEY. SO EVEN THE MONEY THEY’RE SPENDING IN MANY WAYS IS N EFFECTIVELY AND WISELY SPENT TO CREATE THE KIND OF MODERN MILITARY YOU HAVE TO HAVE TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN SERIOUS MATTERS. SO WE DO, THOUGH, BELIEVE THAT EUROPE IS NOT FACING THE KIND OF THREATS THAT WE HAVE AND I THINK APPROPRIATE FOR US TO TALK TO OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES AND SAY WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH A DRAWDOWN WHERE POSSIBLE. THIS NATION IS BORROWING 40 CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE SPEND. THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE SEQUESTER THAT WILL OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF THE COMMITTEE OF 12 TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WILL BE FACING DRAMATIC CUTS IN SPENDING, OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS BASED ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PROJECTED BUDGET, OVER TEN YEARS AND WE NEED TO LOOK FOR EVERY REASONABLE SAVINGS THAT WE CAN. THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT IS TAKING TOO HEAVY A CUTS IN MY OPINION, FAR MORE THAN ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, WE CAN’T SUSTAIN THAT. I DON’T SUPPORT THAT LARGE A CUT BUT IT WILL BE REDUCING SPENDING BY A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT AND SO I BELIEVE WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT OUR FOREIGN DEPLOYMENTS. THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
703
00:31:16,000 –>00:31:15,999
AUTHORIZATION ACT REPRESENTS A VISION FOR DEFENSE SPENDING. WE ARE NOW DOWN FROM $548 BILLION SPENT ON DEFENSE DEPARTMENT LAST YEAR TO $527 BILLION THIS YEAR, AN ACTUAL REDUCTION IN NONINFLATION DOLLARS OF OVER $20 BILLION. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT AGREEMENT CALLS FOR A REDUCTION OF TOTAL SPENDING IN THE DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNT THIS YEAR OF $7 BILLION, WHEREAS DEFENSE DEPARTMENT IS TAKING $20 BILLION. OTHER DEPARTMENTS, THEREFORE, ARE RECEIVING INCREASES TO GET THE NET 7 THAT’S CLAIMED, AND, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT’S NOT AN ACCURATE NUMBER BECAUSE WE DON’T ACHIEVE EVEN THE $7 BILLION PROMISED. NOW, SINCE 2004, THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAD A PLAN TO TRANSFER TWO OF ITS FOUR HIGHLY TRAINED COMBAT BRIGADES IN EUROPE BACK TO THE UNITED STATES AS PART OF THE LARGER POST-WORLD WAR REALIGNMENT. AND HOWEVER, IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD MAINTAIN THREE COMBAT BRIGADES AND NOT BRING THE FOURTH ONE HOME UNTIL 2015. I’VE ASKED CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, GENERAL DEMPSEY, AT THE ARMED SERVICES HEARING, AND THE GENERAL UCON COMMANDER, FOR AN EXPLANATION
743
00:32:55,000 –>00:32:54,999
THAT’S IN PLACE. WHY WE ARE ALTERING THE PLAN SO MY AMENDMENT HAS BEEN AGREED TO ON BOTH SIDES AND WOULD REQUIRE THREE THINGS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. NUMBER ONE, ASSESSMENT OF THE APRIL 2011 DECISION TO STATION THREE ARMY BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS IN EUROPE. NUMBER TWO, AN ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL AND STRATEGIC COSTS AND BENEFITS OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF FORWARD BASED MILITARY PERSONNEL IN EUROPE TO THAT RECOMMENDED BY THE 2004 GLOBAL POSTURE REVIEW. AND, THREE, TO DESCRIBE THE METHODOLOGY USED BY THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT TO ESTIMATE THE CURRENT AND FUTURE COSTS OF U.S. FORCE POSTURE IN EUROPE. SO IS EUROPE MORE THREATENED TODAY THAN BEFORE? I DON’T THINK SO, AND THE UNITED STATES HAS GOT A TOUGHER FINANCIAL CONDITION TODAY THAN
770
00:33:45,000 –>00:33:44,999
BEFORE. YES. I KNOW THATI BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS MORE CAREFULLY. I THANK SENATOR LEVIN AND SENATOR McCAIN FOR WORKING WITH ME TO RECOMMEND AN AMENDMENT THEY BELIEVE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS I’M SEEKING WITHOUT MICROMANAGING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I THANK THE CHAIR. I’M PLEASED THAT THIS AMENDMENT WILL BE CONSIDERED AND PERHAPS WE CAN MAKE SOME PROGRESS TO ANALYZING MORE PROPERLY THE DEPLOYMENT OF FORCES IN EUROPE. AND FINALLY, I WOULD SAY THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES IS BENEFITED IF A BRIGADE IS HOUSED IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE COST OF SUPPORT AND FAMILIES ARE IN THE UNITED STATES STRENGTHENING OUR ECONOMY RATHER THAN TRANSFERRING THE WEALTH OF OUR NATION TO A FOREIGN AREA. AND I HOPE THAT WE’LL CONSIDER THAT AS WE DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE. AND I THANK THE CHAIR AND WOULD
801
00:34:52,000 –>00:34:51,999
MR. PRESIDENT? YIELD THE FLOOR. THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA. MR. PRESIDENT, I’D CALL UP AMENDMENT NUMBER 1229
807
00:34:58,000 –>00:34:57,999
ASK FOR ITS IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION. THE CLERK WILL REPORT. THE AMENDMENT IS ALREADY PENDING. I NOTE THE PRESENCE OF MY COLLEAGUE, SENATOR LIEBERMAN, ON THE FLOOR, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE, AND WE HAVE HAD A DISCUSSION AND A COLLOQUY THAT I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD AT THIS TIME.
822
00:35:44,000 –>00:35:43,999
WITHOUT OBJECTION. AND I THANK MY FRIEND FROM CONNECTICUT FOR HIS SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT AND THE IMPORTANCE WITH THE FULL REALIZATION OF THE KEY ROLE THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE PLAYS IN THE ISSUE OF CYBER SECURITY, WHICH IS THE MOST — IN MANY RESPECTS ONE OF THE MOST LOOMING THREAT TO OUR NATION’S SECURITY. MR. PRESIDENT?
836
00:36:09,000 –>00:36:08,999
THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT.
838
00:36:11,000 –>00:36:10,999
I THANK MY FRIEND FROM ARIZONA. I APPRECIATE THIS AMENDMENT THAT HE’S OFFERED AND I’M — I BELIEVE I’M NOW LISTED AS A COSPONSOR. IF NOT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT I SO BE — BE SO LISTED. WITHOUT OBJECTION. THIS AMENDMENT ESSENTIALLY CODIFIES A VERY IMPORTANT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND THE N.S.A., THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY. THIS IS A — THIS IS A PERFECT BALANCE AND EXACTLY THE KIND OF OVERCOMING OF — OF STOVE PIPES
858
00:36:48,000 –>00:36:47,999
GOVERNMENT. THAT WE NEED TO SEE IN OUR UNDER EXISTING LAW, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROTECTING NON-DEFENSE GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CYBERSPACE, CYBER NETWORKS. AND THE PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED CYBERSPACE. WHICH — WHICH ACTUALLY AMOUNTS TO SOME OF THE MOST CRITICAL CYBER INFRASTRUCTURE IN OUR COUNTRY IS PRIVATELY OWNED, AND TODAY WOULD BE, AS SENATOR McCAIN SAID — SUGGESTED, A TARGET OF ATTACK BY AN ENEMY WANTING TO DO US MARM BY ATTACKING — US HARM TBAIKING FOR INSTANCE OUR TRANSIT SYSTEM, FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, ELECTRIC GRID, AND THE LIKE. AND WHAT IS EMBODIED IN THIS MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN D.H.S. AND N.S.A., WHICH CODIFY CODIFY INTO LARKS ISINTO LAW — UTILIZING THE UNSURPASSED CAPABILITIES OF N.S.A. I APPRECIATE THAT IN THIS COLLOQUY THAT SENATOR McCAIN AND I ARE ENTERING INTO WE BOTH MADE CLEAR — AND I APPRECIATE THAT HIS INTENTION HERE IS NOT IN OFFERING THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT TO CIRCUMVENT THE NEED FOR BROADER LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR CYBERSPACE, OUR AMERICAN CYBERSPACE FROM THEFT, FROM EXPLOITATION AND FROM ATTACK. IT HAPPENS THAT THE CURRENT OCCUPANT OF THE CHAIR, THE DISTINGUISHED JUNIOR SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND HAS REALLY BEEN A LEADER IN THIS CHAMBER IN PUSHING US TO DEAL WITH THESE KINDS OF PROBLEMS. SENATOR REID HAS ANNOUNCED THAT HE WILL BRING A COMPREHENSIVE CYBERSECURITY BILL TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE IN THE FIRST WORK PERIOD OF 2012. AND THAT’S VERY GOOD NEWS FOR OUR SECURITY. AS SENATOR McCAIN SAID, I DON’T KNOW THAT WE HAVE A MORE SERIOUS THREAT TO OUR SECURITY THAN THAT REPRESENTED BY THOSE WHO WOULD DO US HARM BY ATTACKING OUR CYBER SYSTEMS, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. SO THIS COLLOQUY MAKES CLEAR THAT THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT FIRST STEP BUT THAT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO DOING IT ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS. IN THE FIRST WORK PERIOD OF 2012. THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA. I WANT TO THANK
930
00:39:35,000 –>00:39:34,999
DEAR FRIEND. THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT, MY AND THE AMENDMENT DOES ESTABLISH A STATUTORY BASIS FOR THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
937
00:39:44,000 –>00:39:43,999
CYBERSECURITY SUPPORT. SECURITY ON COOPERATIVE NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT HOW SERIOUS THIS ISSUE IS. THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, PANETTA, TESTIFIED IN JUNE “THE HARBOR WE CONFRONT COULD VERY WELL BE A CYBER ATAFNLGT” ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN IN A TEARING ON 9/22 REFERRED TO THE CYBER THREAT AS AN EXEXTENSION THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY. SO THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE AND ONE, AS THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT JUST POINTED OUT, IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO OUR NATION’S SECURITY AND MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE COLLOQUY BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT APPEAR AS — IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT. WITHOUT OBJECTION, IT SHALL BE SO. I MOVE THE AMENDMENT. IS THERE FURTHER DEBATE? IF NOT, THE QUESTION IS ON THE AMENDMENT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NO. THE AYES APPEAR TO HAVE IT. THE AYES DO HAVE IT. THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT SENATOR LIEBERMAN AND I BE ALLOWED TO ENGAGE IN A COLLOQUY.
978
00:41:04,000 –>00:41:03,999
WITHOUT OBJECTION. CONSTITUTION, MR. PRESIDENT. OBTAINING INTELLIGENCE FROM HIGH-VALUE TERRORIST DETAINEES IS AN URGENT FLAT SECURITY PRIORITY — NATIONAL SECURITY PRIORITY THAT IS ESSENTIAL TO PROTECTING AMERICANS. UNFORTUNATELY, UNDER CURRENT LARKS TERRORISTS NEED LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE INTERNET TO FIND OUT EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT OUR INTERROGATION PRACTICES AND HOW THEY CAN CIRCUMVENT THEM. UNDER THE PRESIDENT’S 2009 EXECUTIVE ORDER 134 THE 1, ALL’S GOVERNMENT INTERROGATIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AND PRESCRIBED IN THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL. AS A RESULT, ALL MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE NONDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS WHO SUPPORT THE HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP, MUST CONFORM TO THE PROCEDURES OF THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL, WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY THE U.S. ARMY FOR THE U.S. ARMY. THAT IS, THERE IS LITTLE FLEXIBILITY PERMITTED UNDER THESE RULES, AND THEY ARE EASY FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO HARM US TO CIRCUMVENT THEM AND TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TECHNIQUES WE WILL USE TO GATHER INFORMATION TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY IF THEY’RE DETAINED AS AN ENEMY COMBATANT. WOULD THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE YIELD FOR A QUESTION? YES, I WOULD, THANK YOU. LET ME FIRST THANK MY FRIEND, SENATOR AYOTTE, FOR ASSUMING AND CARRYING OUT SUCH A LEADING ROLE IN OUR DEBATES ON THIS CRITICAL ISSUE OF HOW OUR COUNTRY HANDLES DETAINEES AND GATHERS INTELLIGENCE IN OUR WAR ON TERRORISM. I SHARE HER CONCERNS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO OUR INTELLIGENCE-COLLECTION EFFORTS INFLICTED BY ADDHERENCE TO THE EXIST — ADHERENCE TO THE EXISTING RESTRICTIONS ON INTERROGATORS, AND THAT’S WHY I’M PLEASED TO BE WITH OTHERS A COSPONSOR OF THE AMENDMENT SHE’S INTRODUCED, WHICH IS AMENDMENT NUMBER 1068. I WILL SAY THAT I’M MOSTLY DISTURBED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MISINFORMATION THAT SEEMS TO BE CIRCULATING ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT AND SIMILAR EFFORTS IN THE PAST THAT I’VE SUPPORTED. SO LET ME NOW ASK THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE, DOES
1055
00:43:36,000 –>00:43:35,999
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1068 AUTHORIZE TORTURE? I THANK MY FRIEND, THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT, FIRST OF ALL, FOR HIS LEADERSHIP WITHIN THIS BODY ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND AS WE BOTH HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING OUR STATES AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OUR STATES. AND I THANK HIM FOR THAT
1066
00:43:54,000 –>00:43:53,999
“NO.” QUESTION BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS IS AN AMENDMENT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT NOT ONLY IS SENATOR LIEBERMAN SPONSORING THIS AMENDMENT — AND I APPRECIATE HIS EXPERIENCE AND LEADERSHIP ON THESE VERY MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES — BUT SENATOR CHAMBLISS, WHO IS THE VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS SENATOR GRAHAM, SENATOR CORNYN, BOTH MEMBERS OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, AS
1081
00:44:19,000 –>00:44:18,999
COMMITTEE. WELL AS THE SENATE JUDICIARY IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD AND WOULD NOT DO. THIS PROPOSAL TAKES EVERY POSSIBLE MEASURE TO PUT IN PLACE INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING PRACTICES THAT HONOR OUR AMERICAN VALUES AND LAWS. OUR AMENDMENT IN NO WAY CONDONES OR AUTHORIZES TORTURE, AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY WHO HAVE BEEN TRYING TO MISREPRESENT WHAT IS IN THIS AMENDMENT. ANY NEW INFAIR INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE U.N. CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE, THE MILITARY ACT, THE DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT AS WELL AS SECTION 2441 OF TITLE 18 U.S. CODE THAT RELATES TO WAR CRIMES. I THANK MY FRIEND, SENATOR AYOTTE, FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE IT’S VERY IMPORTANT AND VERY CRITICAL, PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE WHO MISUNDERSTOOD THIS AMENDMENT, TO UNDERSTAND THE HOST OF PROTECTIONS THAT THE AMENDMENT PUTS IN — COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AGAINST TORTURE AS WELL AS EXPLICIT PROHIBITIONS IN AMERICAN LAW AGAINST
1117
00:45:43,000 –>00:45:42,999
INTERROGATION THAT AMOUNTS TO TORTURE. BUT I WANT TO ALSO ASK MY FRIEND ANOTHER QUESTION. RIGHT NOW ALL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTERROGATORS, ALL IN THE MILITARY OR IN THE CIVILIAN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, ARE LIMITED TO USING THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL. SO WHY DO YOU THINK IT’S SO CRITICAL TO GIVE INTERROGATORS THE ABILITY, THIS LIMITED ABILITY TO GO BEYOND THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL? WELL, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION FROM MY SENATOR — MY COLLEAGUE FROM CONNECTICUT. AND THE DECISION BY PRESIDENT OBAMA TO LIMIT INTERROGATIONS TO THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL WAS, I BELIEVE, BASED IN PART ON THE HORRIBLE ABUSES THAT OCCURRED AT THE ABU GHRAIB PRISON IN IRAQ. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE ABUSES AT ABU GHRAIB FAILED TO REFLECT AMERICA’S VALUES AND CERTAINLY DAMAGED OUR INTERESTS. HOWEVER, RESPONDING TO THESE REFLEX CIVIL APPLYING THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL — WHICH THE TERRORISTS CAN GO ONLINE AND KNOW EXACTLY WHICH TECHNIQUES THEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO IF CAPTURED, TO APPLY THAT TO ALL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTERROGATORS DOES NOT REFLECT THE THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVIDING OUR NONMILITARY INTELLIGENCE COLLECTORS ALL OF THE LAWFUL TOOLS THAT THEY NEED TO GATHER INTELLIGENCE TO PREVENT FUTURE ATTACKS AND PROTECT OUR COUNTRY. WELL, I THANK SENATOR AYOTTE FOR THAT ANSWER, AND OF COURSE I COMPLETELY P AGREE WITH HER. IT IS FOREIGN STEP BACK AND JUST PERHAPS STATE THE OBVIOUS: WHY DO WE CAPTURE ENEMY COMBATANTS? WHY DO WE TAKE PRISONERS OF WAR? THERE ARE REALLY TWO REASONS. THE ONE OBVIOUS ONE IS TO GET THEM OFF THE BATTLEFIELD AGAINST US. CAN NO LONGER ATTEMPT TO KILL AMERICANS IN UNIFORM AND IN THE CASE OF THE WAR WE’RE IN WITH ISLAMIST TERRORISTS, TO KILL CIVILIANS. THAT’S THE FIRST GOAL TO GET THEM OFF THE BATTLEFIELD. BUT THE SECOND GOAL TO — AND THIS IS A TRADITIONAL PURPOSE OF TAKING PRRNTION PRISONERS IN WAR FOR AS LONG AS THERE HAS BEEN WAR. THE SECOND PURPOSE IS TO GATHER INTELLIGENCE FROM THEM, WHICH
1188
00:48:30,000 –>00:48:29,999
ENEMY AND PROTECTING — WILL ASSIST US IN DEFEATING THE ACHIEVING OUR GOALS, PROTECTING THE LIVES OF OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM. THAT TRADITIONAL PURPOSE FOR TAKING PRISONERS OF WAR IS ALL THE MORE CRITICAL IN THE UNCONVENTIONAL WAR WE’RE IN AGAINST A BRUTAL ENEMY THAT FROM BATTLESHIPS OR TACTICAL AIR FIGHTERS OR MILITARY TANKS OR EVEN IN UNIFORM, BUT STRIKES US FROM THE SHADOWS AND STRIKES CIVILIANS AS WELL. SO I THINK IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO APPROACH THIS AMENDMENT UNDERSTANDING THAT WE’RE TRYING TO INCREASE IN A REASONABLE WAY THE CAPACITY OF THOSE WHO WORK FOR US TO PROTECT OUR SECURITY AND FREEDOM TO INTERROGATE DETAINEES THAT WE HAVE CAPTURED IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM. AND ONE OF THE PURPOSES IS TO GATHER INTELLIGENCE WHICH WILL HELP US PROTECT THE LIVES OF OUR — OF AMERICANS AND OF OUR ALLIES. THE PREFACE TO THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL SAYS, AND I QUOTE, THAT “IT APPLIES TO THE ACTIVE ARMY, THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD, THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVE UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.” END QUOTE. SO, THAT’S FROM THE FIELD MANUAL. RECOGNIZING THAT THESE WORDS CREATE LIMITED APPLICABILITY OF THE MANUAL OUTSIDE THE ARMY — THE ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND AUTHORS HAD THE WISDOM
1233
00:50:18,000 –>00:50:17,999
ARMY DOCTRINE. TO WARN THAT THIS MANUAL WAS THAT IS, THE VERY AUTHORS HAVE SAID, THIS IS ARMY DOCTRINE AND WOULD HAVE TO BE ADAPTED, ALTERED TO APPLY TO OTHER MILITARY DEPARTMENTS OR OTHER MILITARY SERVICES. SO IF THE INTERROGATION TACTICS INTOTACK INTHIS MAN PULE ARE NOT IDEALLY SUITED FOR MILITARY SERVICES OTHER THAN THE U.S. ARMY, WHY SHOULD CIVILIAN INTERROGATION PROFESSIONALS IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE HIGH VALUE OF DETAINEE INTERROGATION — THAT THE MOST SERIOUS, MOST POWERFUL, INFLUENTIAL, DANGEROUS PRISONERS OF WAR — BE FORCED TO COMPLY WITH A DOCUMENT WRITTEN FOR A DEFINED MILITARY UNIT, WHICH IS THE U.S. ARMY? AND SO I ASK MY FRIEND FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE THAT QUESTION. WELL, I THINK — I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION FROM THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT, AND
1263
00:51:23,000 –>00:51:22,999
ABSOLUTELY, AS YOU’VE PONTSED OUT, THEY SHOULDN’T. THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL WAS NOT CREATED FOR THIS PURPOSE. AND AS YOU’VE MENTIONED, THE HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP IS A GROUP CONSISTING OF THE C.I.A., F.B.I., AND DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO INTERROGATE THE WORST TERRORISTS WHO ARE LIKELY TO HAVE VALUABLE INFORMATION ABOUT FUTURE ATTACKS AND INFORMATION WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY. TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM, WHAT OUR AMENDMENT DOES IS WE HAVE DRAFTED THE AMENDMENT TO THIS AUTHORIZATION THAT WOULD ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHO ARE ASSIGNED IN SUPPORT OF THE HIGH-VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP TO UTILIZE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH OUR LAWS AND VALUES.
1289
00:52:11,000 –>00:52:10,999
OUR AMENDMENT WOULD ASK THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, WORKING WITH THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO DEVELOP A CLASSIFIED ANNEX THAT TERRORISTS COULD NOT SEE — UNFORTUNATELY NOW THEY CAN GO RIGHT ON THE INTERKNIT AND LOOK AT WHAT TECHNIQUES ARE GOING IT BE USED — A CLASSIFIED ANNEX TO THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL THAT WOULD PROVIDE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT COULD BE USED BY THAT IMPORTANT SELECT GROUP OF INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING PROFESSIONALS TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE AT THEIR USE THE TECHNIQUES THEY NEED TO PROTECT AMERICANS AND TO GATHER INFORMATION TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY. AGAIN I THANK MY FRIEND FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE. I WANT TO COME BACK TO SOMETHING I SAID EARLIER. PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT, WHAT I CALL THE DUE PROCESS THAT WE PUT INTO IT, THE MANDATE THAT IT COMPLY WITH EXISTING INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND TREATIES AND OBVIOUSLY COMPLY WITH OUR LAW. I WANT TO ASK MY FRIEND, NONE OF THE ADDITIONAL MEASURES — LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY. IS CERTAINLY NOT OUR INTENTION — AND I ASK YOU, IS IT YOUR INTENTION THAT NONE OF THE MEASURES THAT WE ARE AUTHORIZING HERE, INTERROGATION TACTICS FOR THE WORST OF THE TERRORIST DETAINEES SHOULD OR COULD EQUAL WHAT IS CONVENTIONALLY KNOWN AS TORTURE. IN OTHER WORDS, WE’RE NOT ATTEMPTING TO LEGALIZE TORTURE WITH THIS AMENDMENT? THANK YOU, SENATOR LIEBERMAN. NO, WE ARE NOT. WE BELIEVE THAT TORTURE VIOLATES OUR LAWS AND RUNS COUNTER TO AMERICAN VALUES. THAT’S WHAT I BELIEVE. THAT’S WHY WE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE THAT THE TECHNIQUES DEVELOPED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE U.N. CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND ALL APPLICABLE LAWS INCLUDING THE DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT. THUS THE ACLU’S CLAIM THAT THE AMENDMENT THREATENS TO REVIVE THE USE OF TORTURE IS PATENTLY FALSE, UNFORTUNATELY. CURRENTLY THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY INTERROGATORS MUST FOLLOW ARE PUBLICLY LISTED ONLINE. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. THIS WOULD BE LIKE THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS GIVING THEIR OPPONENTS THEIR PLAY BOOK DAYS OR WEEKS BEFORE THE GAME BEGINS. IN MY EXPERIENCE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND AS A MURDER PROSECUTOR, NO DETECTIVE OR COP JUST IN A COMMON CRIMINAL CASE WOULD TELL THE CRIMINALS WHAT TECHNIQUES ARE GOING TO BE USED TO GATHER INFORMATION. MR. PRESIDENT? COULD I ASK MY FRIEND FROM NEW ALLOW ME TO ASK A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST? MR. PRESIDENT, I
1379
00:55:00,000 –>00:54:59,999
THANK YOU. WOULD GRANT THAT REQUEST. THE MAJORITY LEADER IS RECOGNIZED. THE REASON SENATOR LEVIN AND I HAVE A BRIEFING, A CLASSIFIED BRIEFING THAT STARTS AT 5:30. I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT FOLLOWING THE STATEMENT OF THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE — IS THE SENATOR FROM LISTENING?
1391
00:55:19,000 –>00:55:18,999
HOW MUCH LONGER ARE YOU GOING TO SPEAK? IT DOESN’T MATTER. I WOULD SAY, LEADER, THAT PROBABLY FIVE MINUTES. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT FOLLOWING HER STATEMENT OF TEN MINUTES — BECAUSE SHE’S BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH.
1402
00:55:38,000 –>00:55:37,999
SHE’S LEARNED TO KEEP SENATOR’S TIME.
1404
00:55:41,000 –>00:55:40,999
FIVE MINUTES REALLY ISN’T FIVE MINUTES. THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT WISH TO SPEAK? MR. PRESIDENT, I’D SAY TO THE LEADER I’M IN
1410
00:55:48,000 –>00:55:47,999
HAMPSHIRE. THIS WITH THE SENATOR FROM NEW WE’LL COMPLETE OUR COLLOQUY WITHIN THE TEN MINUTES. FOLLOWING THE COLLOQUY IN TEN MINUTES, I ASK THE SENATE PROCEED TO A PERIOD
1417
00:55:57,000 –>00:55:56,999
HOUR. OF MORNING BUSINESS FOR ONE FOLLOWING THAT, WE GO BACK TO THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL.
1421
00:56:03,000 –>00:56:02,999
IS THERE OBJECTION? THERE WILL BE NO MORE VOTES THIS EVENING, MR. PRESIDENT.
1426
00:56:08,000 –>00:56:07,999
WITHOUT OBJECTION. I EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO MY FRIEND FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE. THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I THANK OUR LEADER FOR GIVING US
1436
00:56:20,000 –>00:56:19,999
COLLOQUY. THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THIS I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL IS ONLINE, AND MY EXPERIENCE AS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL — I KNOW MY
1443
00:56:32,000 –>00:56:31,999
COLLEAGUE SERVED AS ATTORNEY GENERAL AS WELL.
1445
00:56:35,000 –>00:56:34,999
PRIOR TO THAT I WAS A MURDER PROSECUTOR. AND NO DETECTIVE OR COP ON THE BEAT WOULD IN A COMMON CRIMINAL CASE — AND WE’RE DEALING WITH A SITUATION WHERE WE’RE AT WAR WITH TERRORISTS — WOULD EVER GIVE A CRIMINAL THEIR PLAY BOOK AS TO WHAT TECHNIQUES THEY WOULD USE TO QUESTION THEM TO GET INFORMATION TO SEE IF A CRIME IS COMMITTED AND TO SEE THAT JUSTICE IS SERVED. AND WE’RE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE ONLINE THE TECHNIQUES FROM THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL WHEN WE’RE AT WAR WITH TERRORISTS WHO WANT TO KILL US. AND SO WHAT WE’RE SAYING WITH THIS AMENDMENT IS THAT WE NEED TO ALLOW THE INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS TO DEVELOP TECHNIQUES PUT IN A CLASSIFIED ANNEX CONSISTENT WITH OUR LAWS THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO GATHER INTELLIGENCE AND NOT TELL THE ENEMIES, OUR ENEMIES WHAT TECHNIQUES WILL BE USED TO GATHER INFORMATION. NOT SURPRISINGLY, AL QAEDA TERRORISTS HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF OUR WILLINGNESS TO TELL THEM PUBLICLY ON THE INTERNET WHAT WE WILL — WHAT WILL AND WON’T HAPPEN DURING THE INTERROGATION SHOULD THEY BE CAPTURED. AL QAEDA TERRORISTS HAVE FAMILIARIZED THEMSELVES WITH INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THEY WOULD CONFRONT IF CAPTURED AND
1485
00:57:47,000 –>00:57:46,999
RESPOND. THEY’RE TRAINING ON HOW TO AND THAT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO GATHER INFORMATION. THE UNITED STATES WILLINGNESS TO GIVE THE EQUIVALENT OF CLIFF NOTES TO TERRORISTS PLACES OUR INTERROGATORS AT A DISADVANTAGE AND MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO GATHER INFORMATION WE NEED TO SAVE AMERICAN LIVES. SO DEVELOPING A CLASSIFIED ANNEX OF LAWFUL TECHNIQUES FOR INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE INTERROGATING THE WORST TERRORISTS WOULD MAKE IT HARDER FOR TERRORISTS TO TRAIN TO AVOID AND RESIST INTERROGATION. THE KEY TO OUR AMENDMENT IS GIVING THIS LIMITED GROUP OF INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY — COMMUNITY INTERROGATORS THE TECHNIQUES THEY NEED TO GATHER INFORMATION BUT TO DO SO WITHOUT RESTORING — RESORTING TO TORTURE AND WHILE RETAINING AN OPERATIONAL ADVANTAGE THAT MAKES IT MORE LIKELY THAT AN
1514
00:58:41,000 –>00:58:40,999
INTERROGATION WILL BE SUCCESSFUL. MR. PRESIDENT,
1517
00:58:43,000 –>00:58:42,999
HAMPSHIRE. I THANK THE SENATOR FROM NEW JUST LISTENING TO HER JUST SEEMS SO UNACCEPTABLE THAT WE’RE BASICALLY TELEGRAPHIC TO OUR EN– TELEGRAPHING TO OUR ENEMY THE RANGE OF TACTICS WE’LL USE AGAINST THEM AS PART OF THE INTERROGATION. I MEAN, WE’VE SET SOME QUITE APPROPRIATE CONSTRAINTS HERE IN THIS AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH OUR VALUES AND OUR LAWS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT WE’RE NOT
1531
00:59:12,000 –>00:59:11,999
GOING TO GET ANYWHERE NEAR TORTURE. BUT WHEN A MEMBER OF AL QAEDA OR A SIMILAR ASSOCIATED TERRORIST GROUP IS CAPTURED, I WANT THAT PERSON TO BE TERRIFIED ABOUT WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THEM IN AMERICAN CUSTODY. I WANT THEM NOT TO KNOW WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN. I WANT THAT TERROR THAT THEY INFLICT ON OTHERS TO BE FELT BY THEM AS A RESULT OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF NOT KNOWING THAT THEY CAN LOOK ON THE INTERNET AND FIND EXACTLY WHAT OUR INTERROGATORS ARE GOING TO BE LIMITED TO.
1549
00:59:51,000 –>00:59:50,999
AND, AGAIN, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE TORTURE. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE WHAT AT ABU GHRAIB. THE LIMITING INTERROGATION TO THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL WAS AN UNDERSTANDABLE BUT EXCESSIVE REACTION TO THE EXTREME AND UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR BY AMERICANS AT ABU GHRAIB. I HOPE THIS AMENDMENT WILL FACILITATE A RETURN TO A KIND OF SENSIBLE MIDDLE GROUND ON WHICH WE WILL NOT BE SHACKLING OUR INTERROGATORS AS THEY TRY TO GET INTELLIGENCE WITHIN THE LAW TO PROTECT OUR FREEDOM AND THE SAFETY OF THOSE WHO ARE FIGHTING FOR US. I WANT TO ASK MY FRIEND FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE WHETHER SHE THINKS THAT WE’VE NOW GOT A KIND OF ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL APPROACH TO
1572
01:00:47,000 –>01:00:46,999
INTERROGATION THAT’S POSTED ONLINE. IN OTHER WORDS, OUR LAWS SHOULD MAKE IT EASIER WITHIN THE LAW — NOT HARDER — TO GATHER INTELLIGENCE TO KEEP AMERICANS SAFE. AND YET, IT SEEMS THAT THE CURRENT POLICY ACTUALLY RUNS COUNTER TO THAT BASIC PRINCIPLE. DOES MY FRIEND FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE AGREE? I DO. I DO AGREE, BECAUSE IT — I MEAN, AS A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE, THIS AMENDMENT SHOULD GO FORWARD BECAUSE THE REALITY IS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *