Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 102 (Monday, July 25, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 102 (Monday, July 25, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8772-S8803]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1042, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1042) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2006 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Frist modified amendment No. 1342, to support certain youth
organizations, including the Boy Scouts of America and Girl
Scouts of America.
Inhofe amendment No. 1311, to protect the economic and
energy security of the United States.
Inhofe-Collins amendment No. 1312, to express the sense of
Congress that the President should take immediate steps to
establish a plan to implement the recommendations of the 2004
Report to Congress of the United States-China Economic and
Security Review Commission.
Inhofe-Kyl amendment No. 1313, to require an annual report
on the use of United States funds with respect to the
activities and management of the International Committee of
the Red Cross.
Lautenberg amendment No. 1351, to stop corporations from
financing terrorism.
Ensign amendment No. 1374, to require a report on the use
of riot control agents.
Ensign amendment No. 1375, to require a report on the costs
incurred by the Department of Defense in implementing or
supporting resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council.
Collins amendment No. 1377 (to amendment No. 1351), to
ensure that certain persons do not evade or avoid the
prohibition imposed under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act.
Durbin amendment No. 1379, to require certain dietary
supplement manufacturers to report certain serious adverse
events.
Hutchison-Nelson of Florida amendment No. 1357, to express
the sense of the Senate with regard to manned space flight.
Thune amendment No. 1389, to postpone the 2005 round of
defense base closure and realignment.
Kennedy amendment No. 1415, to transfer funds authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Energy for the National
Nuclear Security Administration for weapons activities and
available for the robust nuclear earth penetrator to the Army
National Guard, Washington, District of Columbia, chapter.
Allard-McConnell amendment No. 1418, to require life cycle
cost estimates for the destruction of lethal chemical
munitions under the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives
program.
Allard-Salazar amendment No. 1419, to authorize a program
to provide health, medical, and life insurance benefits to
workers at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site,
Colorado, who would otherwise fail to qualify for such
benefits because of an early physical completion date.
Dorgan amendment No. 1426, to express the sense of the
Senate on the declassification and release to the public of
certain portions of the Report of the Joint Inquiry into the
Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, and to urge the
President to release information regarding sources of foreign
support for the hijackers involved in the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001.
Dorgan amendment No. 1429, to establish a special committee
of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of
contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and
to fight the war on terrorism.
Salazar amendment No. 1421, to rename the death gratuity
payable for deaths of members of the Armed Forces as fallen
hero compensation.
Salazar amendment No. 1422, to provide that certain local
educational agencies shall be eligible to receive a fiscal
year 2005 payment under section 8002 or 8003 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Salazar-Reed amendment No. 1423, to provide for Department
of Defense support of certain Paralympic sporting events.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am very pleased the Senate has turned to
this important legislation. It was first brought up Wednesday night
with activity on Thursday and again on Friday. I thank all those who
participated.

[[Page S8773]]

I am reminded that at 2 o'clock today, all first-degree amendments
need to be filed in view of the pending cloture motion. This is a
motion which the distinguished leader, Mr. Frist, and I will discuss,
together with others. It ripens tomorrow morning. So as a protection, I
ask Senators to consider their own interests in the context that it
could be ripened, but that decision has not yet been made.
At this time, even though the distinguished ranking member is not
with me, there is a matter by the Senator from Maine about which I hope
she will find the opportunity at this time to address the Senate. I
yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.

Amendments Nos. 1489, 1490, and 1491, En Bloc

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
committee for his courtesy. I ask that the pending amendment be set
aside, and on behalf of the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Thune, I
call up three amendments that are at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the
amendments en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for Mr. Thune,
proposes amendments numbers 1489, 1490, and 1491, en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

Amendment No. 1489

(Purpose: To postpone the 2005 round of defense base closure and
realignment)

On page 371, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

SEC. 2887. POSTPONEMENT OF 2005 ROUND OF DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE
AND REALIGNMENT.

The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part
A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note)
is amended--
(1) by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 2915. POSTPONEMENT OF 2005 ROUND OF DEFENSE BASE
CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT.

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this part, the round of defense base closure and realignment
otherwise scheduled to occur under this part in 2005 by
reasons of sections 2912, 2913, and 2914 shall occur instead
in the year following the year in which the last of the
actions described in subsection (b) occurs (in this section
referred to as the `postponed closure round year').
``(b) Actions Required Before Base Closure Round.--(1) The
actions referred to in subsection (a) are the following
actions:
``(A) The complete analysis, consideration, and, where
appropriate, implementation by the Secretary of Defense of
the recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas
Military Facility Structure of the United States.
``(B) The return from deployment in the Iraq theater of
operations of substantially all (as determined by the
Secretary of Defense) major combat units and assets of the
Armed Forces.
``(C) The receipt by the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives of the report on
the quadrennial defense review required to be submitted in
2006 by the Secretary of Defense under section 118(d) of
title 10, United States Code.
``(D) The complete development and implementation by the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security
of the National Maritime Security Strategy.
``(E) The complete development and implementation by the
Secretary of Defense of the Homeland Defense and Civil
Support directive.
``(F) The receipt by the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives of a report
submitted by the Secretary of Defense that assesses military
installation needs taking into account--
``(i) relevant factors identified through the
recommendations of the Commission on Review of Overseas
Military Facility Structure of the United States;
``(ii) the return of the major combat units and assets
described in subparagraph (B);
``(iii) relevant factors identified in the report on the
2005 quadrennial defense review;
``(iv) the National Maritime Security Strategy; and
``(v) the Homeland Defense and Civil Support directive.
``(2) The report required under subparagraph (F) of
paragraph (1) shall be submitted not later than one year
after the occurrence of the last action described in
subparagraphs (A) through (E) of such paragraph.
``(c) Administration.--For purposes of sections 2912, 2913,
and 2914, each date in a year that is specified in such
sections shall be deemed to be the same date in the postponed
closure round year, and each reference to a fiscal year in
such sections shall be deemed to be a reference to the fiscal
year that is the number of years after the original fiscal
year that is equal to the number of years that the postponed
closure round year is after 2005.''; and
(2) in section 2904(b)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Congressional
Disapproval'' and inserting ``Congressional Action'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``the date on which
the President transmits such report'' and inserting ``the
date by which the President is required to transmit such
report''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``such report is
transmitted'' and inserting ``such report is required to be
transmitted'';
(C) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
(D) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) The Secretary may not carry out any closure or
realignment recommended by the Commission in a report
transmitted from the President pursuant to section 2903(e) if
a recommendation for such closure or realignment is specified
as disapproved by Congress in a joint resolution partially
disapproving the recommendations of the Commission that is
enacted before the earlier of--
``(A) the end of the 45-day period beginning on the date by
which the President is required to transmit such report; or
``(B) the adjournment of Congress sine die for the session
during which such report is required to be transmitted.'';
and
(E) in paragraph (3), as redsignated by subparagraph (C),
by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1)
and (2)''.

Amendment No. 1490

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Air Force to develop and
implement a national space radar system capable of employing at least
two frequencies)

At the end of subtitle B of title IX, add the following:

SEC. 912. NATIONAL SPACE RADAR SYSTEM.

The Secretary of the Air Force shall proceed with the
development and implementation of a national space radar
system that employs at least two frequencies.

Amendment No. 1491

(Purpose: To prevent retaliation against a member of the Armed Forces
for providing testimony about the military value of a military
installation)

On page 371, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

SEC. 2887. TESTIMONY BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE 2005 ROUND OF DEFENSE BASE
CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT.

(a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the Secretary of Defense should permit any member of the
Armed Forces to provide to the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission testimony on the military value of a
military installation inside the United States for purposes
of the consideration by the Commission of the Secretary's
recommendations for the 2005 round of defense base closure
and realignment under section 2914(d) of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of
Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(b) Protection Against Retaliation.--No member of the Armed
Forces may be discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened,
harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against
because such member provided or caused to be provided
testimony under subsection (a).

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments now be set aside.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before my distinguished colleague leaves
the floor, she had the courtesy, as she always does, to show me the
amendments. One of them relates to BRAC. The distinguished Senator from
South Dakota offered a BRAC amendment the other night. I glanced at
this one. It seems to be similar in form, but I have not had a chance
to examine it.
The purpose of my colloquy with the Senator would be to encourage
Senators who are concerned about the important issues on BRAC to take
note that we had an extensive colloquy between myself and the
distinguished Senator from South Dakota, with the Senator from
Michigan, the ranking member joining in, the other evening on the
subject. I hope that other Senators who may be cosponsors or otherwise
interested in this issue will find the opportunity to examine the
original amendment and this amendment and that we hopefully today can
have a continuation of this important debate on the issues relating to
BRAC which are of great concern to a number of colleagues.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would accept the comments of the
distinguished chairman of the committee. This is a very important issue
to many of us. I understand the chairman and the ranking member did
debate this issue at some length last week. I am sure the chairman is
correct in saying we would all benefit from reading that colloquy as we
prepare to debate these issues further and ultimately cast our votes.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I do bring to the
attention of colleagues that today is a

[[Page S8774]]

good opportunity for debate such that we can have a vote on it as
quickly as the proposers and others think it is appropriate.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMINT). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 1492

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up an amendment that Senator Levin
has offered, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for Mr. Levin,
for himself, and Mr. Reed proposes an amendment numbered
1492.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make available, with an offset, an additional $50,000,000
for Operation and Maintenance for Cooperative Threat Reduction)

At the end of subtitle C of title II, add the following:

SEC. 330. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
PROGRAMS.

(a) Increased Amount for Operation and Maintenance,
Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs.--The amount authorized
to be appropriated by section 301(19) for the Cooperative
Threat Reduction programs is hereby increased by $50,000,000.
(b) Offset.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 201(4) for research, development, test, and
evaluation, Defense-wide activities, is hereby reduced by
$50,000,000, with the amount of the reduction to be allocated
as follows:
(1) The amount available in Program Element 0603882C for
long lead procurement of Ground-Based Interceptors is hereby
reduced by $30,000,000.
(2) The amount available for initial construction of
associated silos is hereby reduced by $20,000,000.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment was offered by Senator Levin
and myself would do several very critical and important things. First,
the amendment would increase funding for the Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program by $50 million. The offset would be twofold: $30
million would be taken from the long lead procurement of ground-based
interceptors as part of the National Missile Defense Program and
another $20 million would be taken from the funding for initial
construction for silos to house these interceptors.
Essentially what Senator Levin is doing with this provision is to
recognize the fact that a more immediate threat to the United States
rests with literally thousands of locations where nuclear material
might be housed from the breakup of the old Soviet Union, and other
locations that need attention with respect to the reduction of these
materials. I believe the greatest threat we face in this country is the
fact that--hopefully not, but the situation where a terrorist might
gain control of these materials, bring them into this country and use
them with devastating effect.
So this amendment recognizes the most immediate threat comes from
these materials and therefore is putting additional resources from the
National Missile Defense Program, modest changes, to approach this
major effort with respect to cooperative threat reduction.
The funds would come from our ground-based midcourse defense system.
The interceptors and silos where the offsets occur are now currently
being deployed at Fort Greely, AK, and Vandenberg Air Force Base in
California. Because of recent developments, we have an opportunity to
address the critical issue of loose nukes by transferring these funds.
I would argue this is a most worthy cause. The offset will not affect
the missile defense system at all. In fact, as we understand it, in the
last several months the missile defense system has been reevaluating
itself, looking at whether the technical issues are challenging, in
fact, and have not conducted tests as they thought they could over the
last several months. So I think now is the opportune time to put more
resources in cooperative threat reduction.
We are all aware, as I have mentioned before, that the greatest
threat to us today is the possibility that terrorists will acquire
nuclear weapons or nuclear material and use it with devastating effect
against us. Of course, one country with enormous amounts of this
nuclear material is Russia.
It is estimated that Russia has approximately 16,000 nuclear weapons
stored at between 150 and 210 sites. While that is a significant
reduction from the 40,000 weapons at the end of the Cold War, it is
still a huge number of weapons and also a large number of storage
sites.
Indeed, there is some imprecision about where all the sites might be.
Of course, we have also heard reports of potential sites for, if not
nuclear material, other dangerous material in former components of the
Soviet Union, the newly independent states. So this is a challenging
issue we have to face.
Only about 25 percent of the total number of weapons sites have
received any upgrades in the past five years. Many of them still lack
adequate security and safeguards. At the rate planned for in the fiscal
year 2006 budget request, it would be around 2011 or 2012 before the
work at only a portion of the sites would be completed to bring them up
to levels of security and safety that we would feel confident this
nuclear material would not be stolen, misplaced or somehow find itself
in the world community.
The Defense Department only expected work to be scheduled on one or
two sites in fiscal year 2006 so they budgeted approximately $60
million in the process. But then in February, when President Bush and
President Putin met at the summit in Bratislava, Slovakia, the two
agreed on a way to address security upgrades at 15 key nuclear weapons
sites. With this agreement, we have the opportunity to accomplish in 2
years what we thought would take 10.
The issue, of course, is funding. The total cost of these upgrades is
approximately $350 million. With this amendment, we are adding $50
million to this project, which is not the total needed but will allow
for a good start. Again, this is a huge breakthrough that occurred
after the President's budget submission. It is a major opportunity we
simply must take advantage of.
As I have indicated before, the proposal of Senator Levin is to move
this $50 million into cooperative threat reduction from the National
Missile Defense Program. I think it is useful to look at this program
to indicate where these transfers are possible, available, and even
desirable.
When President Bush first took office in 2001, he made missile
defense one of his highest priorities. In May 2000, President Bush said
America must build effective missile defense based on the best
available options at the earliest possible date. Missile defense must
be designed to protect all 50 States, our friends, allies, and deployed
forces overseas from missile attacks by rogue nations or accidental
launches. President Bush's first major action was to significantly
increase funding for missile defense.
Since fiscal year 2002, approximately $45 billion, including fiscal
year 2006 requests, has been provided for missile defense. That is $45
billion and here we are talking about a transfer of $50 million from
that huge program. This amount is half of what has been spent on
missile defense since President Reagan launched the Strategic Defense
Initiative in 1984. We have seen a huge acceleration of funding with
respect to missile defense. Another aspect of President Bush's plan
for missile defense was that the systems would be developed and
acquired under an approach called spiral development. As the
Congressional Research Service succinctly summarizes: A major
consequence of the administration's proposed evolutionary acquisition
strategy is that the Missile Defense Program would not feature the
familiar phases and milestones of the traditional DOD acquisition
system. Another consequence is the Missile Defense Agency cannot
provide Congress with a description of its final missile defense
architecture, the capabilities

[[Page S8775]]

on any near or longer term system, the specific dates by which most
elements of the emerging architecture are to be tested and deployed, or
an estimate of the eventual costs of the Missile Defense Program.

So President Bush's plan was to spend an enormous amount of money in
a short period of time with little plan and no traditional checks and
balances with respect to traditional procurement programs.
This program has, in fact, come under self-generated pressures. Tests
that were proposed to be conducted over the last several months have
been postponed and cancelled. There is a hard relook at the technology.
There is potential here, but certainly there is not the kind of
progress that would justify the robust spending to date and certainly
not indicate that they need an additional $50 million to keep doing
what they are doing.
In the past, we have looked very carefully at this program of
national defense. Like so many others, I believe if we can produce--and
I think we can ultimately--a workable system to protect this country,
protect its allies, our troops in the field, we have to do that, but we
have to do it with deliberate speed, and I would emphasize deliberate
speed, not all-out haste, which generally means waste.
I believe we should pursue this system, but I also believe we should
take the time to determine that the technology, which is
extraordinarily complex, is mature and effective. So beginning in 2002,
I offered amendments which I felt would improve the Missile Defense
Program. In the fiscal year 2003 bill, I introduced an amendment
requiring a report on flight testing of the ground-based midcourse
defense, or the GMD, system. In fiscal year 2004, I offered an
amendment which would direct that the Missile Defense Agency provide
information on procurement, performance criteria, and operational test
plans for ballistic missile defense programs. In fiscal year 2005, I
introduced an amendment requiring operationally realistic testing and
independent evaluation of the ballistic missile defense system.
All of these amendments were modified by the majority. Then they were
passed. Indeed, it is unclear if they were not modified whether they
would have passed.
Furthermore, when the Missile Defense Agency met these requirements,
in many instances details and quality of reporting were lacking. For
the most part, the Missile Defense Agency has been doing what it wants
to do with very little detailed supervision by the Congress and it has
led to a situation now where the program is being seriously looked at.
We certainly have not made the kind of technological breakthrough which
was anticipated. One thing is certain, we have spent a great deal of
money in this pursuit.
Now, where we are today, interceptor tests are the critical tests
which involve a real missile defense interceptor hitting a real target
missile. These tests are the only means to truly assess whether a
missile defense system has the chance of working against a real enemy
missile. There is nothing elaborate or sensational in this proposition.
In order to see if a system works, one has to take it out and use it.
One missile has to be fired against another missile and knock down the
intruding missile. If that is done with enough frequency and enough
confidence, then the system is ready to go.
The first intercept flight test of the system was conducted in
December 2002 and it failed. Six days after that test failure,
President Bush announced the United States would deploy the missile
defense system. Usually such announcements are reserved for success,
not failure. In effect, it is almost like looking at a new, expensive
jet fighter prototype going down the way, malfunctioning and then
turning around and saying let us buy a lot of them, let us put them in
the sky. That is not what most people believe is the appropriate
criteria for being operational.
Over the next 2 years, seven other planned tests were cancelled. Yet,
in September 2004, the system was declared nearly operational, with six
interceptors at Fort Greely, AK, and two interceptors at Vandenberg Air
Force Base. Three months later, in December 2004, the Missile Defense
Agency then conducted the only second integrated flight test on a
multibillion system. It too failed, and the system was now described as
operational in the near future.
On February 14, there was another integrated flight test and it too
failed. After these three consecutive failures, Lieutenant General
Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency, established an
independent review team to examine test failures and recommend steps
for improving the test program. The team made some very interesting
observations.
First, I believe they confirmed suspicions that there was a rush to
deployment, a rush not justified by the technology, its maturity, and
by the operational techniques that were necessary to deploy it, but
simply to get it deployed. The team report states:

There were several issues that led to the flight test
failures of the Integrated Flight Tests . . . With the focus
on rapid deployment of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense
system, there was not always adequate opportunity to fully
ground test the system prior to each flight attempt.
Again, skipping over critical steps to rush to a
deployment. The team also found:
Schedule has been the key challenge that drives daily
decision making and planning in the program.

Not the technological maturity of the system, not technical issues,
but schedule was driving the technology, not the other way around.
The independent review team also took issue with the spiral
development and lack of testing. Again, in their words:

Due to the lack of application of a few well-known
verification specification and standards by the GMD program,
failure evidence suggests that some problems might have been
during the launch. The team feels that considerable
opportunity exists to improve the confidence in the
reliability of hardware and software by adopting industry
best practices that exist as specification and standards.

In effect saying, we have to have requirements, we have to have
standards, we have to have specifications, we have to be able to
measure this program and its components before we rush to deploy it,
much of it echoing comments made on this floor by myself and many
others.
The team report further states:

There are not enough ground tests available to verify/
validate system operational performance and reliability. The
Joint Program office should consider redirecting some
production assets for ground tests to gain a higher
confidence in the GMD system performance.

The GMD review team would again recommend, in their words:

The Ground-based Midcourse Defense Program enter a new
phase focused on Performance and Reliability Verification, in
which Missile Defense Agencies make tests and mission success
the primary objective. The new phase should validate the
technical baseline and should be event driven rather than
schedule driven.

In effect, build on success, don't build based on schedule.

General Obering also requested Rear Admiral Kate Paige to
direct a Mission Readiness Task Force to study the review
team's recommendations and put the program on a path to
flight test and management success.
The Mission readiness task force, under the Admiral, made
the following recommendation: Four interceptors previously
planned for near-term operational deployment will be diverted
to serve as ground test missiles. There will be a significant
increase in ground testing of all systems, components, and
processes before resuming flight testing. Contractors will be
held accountable for their performance. The first flight test
will not be an intercept test and the first intercept test
will not take place for more than a year.

Let me commend General Obering and the Missile Defense Agency for
implementing these recommendations. I believe they will go a long way
toward improving the missile defense system, an objective we all share.
However, I note these recommendations sound very familiar and one could
only contemplate how much effort and money would have been saved if we
had approached the system this way from the beginning--not rushing to
failure, but building for success.
There are presently six ground-based interceptors in silos at Fort
Greely and two in silos at Vandenberg Air Force base. The
administration also requested, and the Congress has already approved,
most of the funding for these 30 interceptors. As I have noted, there
has yet to be a successful flight test of these interceptors, so we are
already buying an additional 30 interceptors when we do not know how to
make the first 6 work. I think a responsible approach is to slow the
allocation of

[[Page S8776]]

funds for the procurement of these interceptors until they are proven
operational and to use that funding for more pressing needs. This
amendment does that.
The President's budget request seeks long-lead funding for 10
operational interceptors and 8 flight test interceptors, 18 missiles in
all. However, the actual production rate capacity for the interceptors
is 1 per month, or 12 per year. That means the Defense Department is
seeking funds for more missiles than they can build in 1 year. There is
no need to pay for more interceptors than can be built in 1 year.
Instead, we can provide 1 year's worth of funding for 1 year's worth
of missiles--12 instead of 18. This amendment will not cause a break in
the production line.
I also note the House Armed Services Committee, in its fiscal year
2006 Defense authorization bill, reduced the long-lead funding for five
of the operational interceptors. The administration has not indicated
that the proposed reduction would cause any serious problems for the
program.
I also want to state that the President's budget request includes $53
million in long-lead funding for eight test missiles. It is essential
to produce missiles for testing. This amendment would not reduce that
funding for the test missiles at all. We realize we are in the test
phase. The problem becomes we are attempting to buy operational
missiles before we are sure the test missiles will really work. That, I
think, is at the heart of much of the criticism.
Our missile defense systems are robustly funded in this bill with
about $7 billion. What this amendment does is take money that cannot
even be spent this year and allocate it to a new opportunity to prevent
loose nukes, which is truly an imminent threat, an existential threat
to this country. This amendment, which enhances security by funding one
program without causing any harm to another program, is a win-win
situation, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
We are trying to exploit a diplomatic breakthrough that was
engineered by President Bush in his meeting with President Putin that
allows the expansion, rapidly, of inspection and securing of sites in
the former Soviet Union and Russia. We are taking a truly modest amount
of money, given about $6 or $7 billion for overall missile defense, and
using that to try to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and
nuclear materials across the globe, which is the most serious threat
that we face as a nation.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might ask my distinguished colleague
a question or two. We are all good, strong supporters of the CTR
program. But I am informed that you are taking $50 million from the
missiles. I will address that question momentarily. But I think the
Senate should know this--and I ask if I am in error, if the Senator
would correct me, if not now, perhaps one of your staff members, in due
course, could assist. The Senate should know there is $500 million of
unspent 2005 money in the CTR program. The amendment would take this
program, which as you point out has some test problems, and to give it
the body blow this amendment would render, for $50 million will
virtually cause a very severe perturbation in the production line. The
Senator is familiar with how the production lines work. There are
estimates of cost up to as much as $270 million to restart the line at
some point in the future. But with $500 million for 2005 unexpended in
CTR, I hope, if colleagues look at this amendment fairly and
practically, maybe judge it on the merits--the use of these funds, to
me, is not a justification for supporting the amendment.
Mr. REED. I thank the Chairman for the question. My understanding is
that the production cycle for the system, these interceptors, is 12 per
year. Yet the budget is asking for more than that. So I don't think
taking $50 million--as I understand the amendment, $30 million taken
from long-lead, ground-based interceptors--taking $30 million away I do
not think would upset the production line schedule. There is no intent
to do that, and I think the effect would not be to do that also.
With respect to your point, which I think is well taken, about the
buildup in funds in the comprehensive threat reduction, some of that--
we will check more dutifully--but some of that to my knowledge is the
result of the inability to agree on a way to deal with some of these
sites. We hope that difficulty has been substantially reduced by
President Bush and President Putin's discussion in Bratislava. Now that
they have agreed on a framework, they can start applying this money.

Also, again, I think this money would be well spent, would not
disrupt the production of the missile systems, and just the sheer
scale--this is $50 million total, $30 million from the ground-based
interceptors, $20 million for initial construction of silos and housing
for the interceptors--again, this is truly long-lead procurement. We
have, in my view, and I believe that of Senator Levin, much more of a
problem in the site in Russia that contains the nuclear materials.
We have all heard the horror stories of people being able to walk in,
walk around, and walk out of these sites without anybody interfering
with them--no electronic equipment or sensors that would detect or
report their presence to anyone's attention. So our view--my view,
speaking for myself--is that this money could be much better spent,
without disrupting the missile defense program, by applying it to
comprehensive threat reduction.
Frankly, $500 million is an impressive amount of money that has not
yet been spent, but we all recognize, if any of this material made its
way outside these sites and got into the hands of irresponsible people,
it would be serious.
Mr. WARNER. I agree with the Senator's premise but I wouldn't want
Senators to believe that, if I am correct, the shortage of money is in
CTR. I am informed there is, in the bank, $500 million of 2005
unexpended funds. Does the Senator want to address that now?
Mr. REED. I could say, Mr. President, we will try to determine this,
but unexpended does not mean that it is not committed. Some of these
funds could in fact be committed to specific sites already so that
money can't be spent again elsewhere. We will try to get a number on
that.
But the scale of the problem, the number of sites--it is in the
order, just within Russia, of 200 sites.
Mr. WARNER. I am a big supporter of CTR. I happened to be in the room
on the day CTR was born--by Sam Nunn. I will never forget it. I have
followed the program. I have been a supporter. I think there is quite a
bit of funding in this budget for CTR right now. I point out, if the
Senator is persuaded by the fact that CTR needs the money more than the
missile program--and I will argue the point strenuously that is not the
case--there is quite a bit of money. We are way into the 2005 cycle. As
a matter of fact, September is on the horizon.
So I hope the Senator could carefully research that point, come back,
and if I am in error, I would certainly like to hear his views.
I point out the current bill is consistent with the President's
program that allocated $50 million toward this next tranche of the
long-lead, cumulative money for ground-based interceptors. If you take
$30 million out of the $50 million, I assure you, that does
considerable disruption to the production line.
Then I point out the amount available for construction of associated
silos, reduced by $20 million. I wonder if you might take the chance to
check on the fact that the President's budget in this bill only
allocates $13.5 million to the initial construction of the associated
silos, and therefore your $20 million is considerably in excess of the
$13.5 million.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, my information indicates the fiscal year
2006 budget for expansion, there is $20.682 million. I will ask my
staff to coordinate with your staff.
Mr. WARNER. We will have our staffs check those figures. I thank the
Senator.
Mr. President, I would like to vigorously oppose this amendment for
the following reasons. The impact of the amendment would be, first and
foremost, to send a message that we are not supporting, as a nation,
wholeheartedly the ballistic missile defense capabilities to defend
ourselves. It is clear North Korea has capabilities. This program was
engendered in large measure, and accelerated in large

[[Page S8777]]

measure because of the threat posed by North Korea.
I noted here recently that Japan is now building its missile defense
system. So it is not that the United States alone, in the world of
nations, considers it a threat; other nations consider the North Korean
capabilities a threat. It is correct we have had these test bans, but
the failures that more or less have been in the mechanical phase--
somehow the missile is adjusted in its launch pad as opposed to the
actual failure of the missile itself. And then I will address this
question of the break in production which could result--assuming the
program is restarted in its full measure--maybe up to $270 million is
one estimate I have been given to restart it.

Again, I agree with the sponsors of the amendment that the
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is an important national security
issue for the defense of our homeland against the growing threats. But
asking us to choose between missile protection and CTR is a false
choice. We need both. This bill funds the President's requested amount
fully for both programs.
The bill before the Senate authorizes the requested amount of $415.5
million for CTR programs within the Department of Defense and $1.6
billion for other nonproliferation efforts in the Department of Energy.
There is a very strong recognition in this bill before the Senate, the
authorization bill, of the importance of CTR. There is no current need
for extra CTR funds. That is our basic proposition. They have in the
bank very substantial amounts from 2005. They are unexpended. Whether
they have been committed, I will have that checked. With a backlog that
large and only roughly 70 days left in the fiscal year--that is an
awful lot of money if someone is going to try to commit it and expend
it in that period of time.
The President's budget for missile defense, on the other hand, has
already taken a considerable amount of cuts. Due to last-minute
decisions made at the Department of Defense as the fiscal year 2006
budget was being finalized, the missile defense budget request was
reduced by $1 billion in 2006 and $5 billion overall between 2006 and
2011.
The sponsors of this amendment argue we should not provide long-lead
funding for the GBI missiles 31 to 40 because of test failures. I am
mindful of the recent difficulties encountered by the GMD system test
program, but it is my view and that of the Department--and, indeed,
independent authorities have looked at this problem--that these
difficulties do not represent serious technological hurdles by the GMD
program. Indeed, such problems are to be expected during the R&D and
development phase of complicated weapons systems.
To get at the root cause of the testing problems, the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency, to his great credit, commissioned the
Independent Review Team, called the IRT, to examine the recent GMD test
failures. The IRT found, one, that no fundamental GMD system design
flaws are related to the recent test failures. Moreover, this
independent panel found no evidence that major modifications of the
current system hardware or software will be required. In other words,
it is unlikely that future testing will find some major fault in the
system that will require costly retrofit to the already fielded and
those in production line of the GBIs.
For those of my colleagues concerned about testing, I point out that
this bill before you contains a provision--developed in a bipartisan
fashion during the committee's markup--which requires the Missile
Defense Agency, the service operational test agencies, and the Director
of Operational Test and Evaluation to plan and conduct tests that
demonstrate the operational capability of the ballistic missile defense
system. The bill also reallocates $100 million from longer-term
development efforts to GMD testing, consistent with the recommendations
of the Independent Review Team.
The current and growing threat posed to our country by long-range
ballistic missiles argues for proceeding without delay with the
Department's approach of concurrent testing and fielding of ballistic
missile defense capabilities for the homeland.
Some of my colleagues suggest that because the current system is not
fully proven, we should not procure additional missile interceptors. To
this I would respond that General Cartwright, Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command--the senior military official charged with advising
the Secretary of Defense and the President on missile defense matters--
has testified, with respect to the current GMD system, that ``in an
emergency, we are in fact in the position that we are confident that we
can operate and employ it.''
In addition, the Pentagon's chief independent weapons tester, the
Director for Operational Test and Evaluation, noted in his most recent
Annual Report to Congress that ``the test bed architecture is now in
place and should have some limited capability to defend against a
threat missile from North Korea.''
In my view, it is a good thing that we have some capability--albeit
limited--to defend the homeland against long-range missiles. For as
General Cartwright testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee
in April, ``we have a realistic threat here; we have an imperative.''
General Cartwright is referring to CIA and DIA estimates that the
North Korean Taepo-Dong 2 ballistic missile is capable of reaching the
United States with a nuclear warhead--and that North Korea could resume
flight testing of the Taepo-Dong 2 at any time. The Defense
Intelligence Agency also estimates that Iran will have the capability
to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile, ICBM, by 2015.
We simply can't wait until the threat is upon us to deploy missile
defenses; we can't wait until the GMD system is fully and completely
tested before we start providing some measure of protection against
this threat. It is our responsibility to field what capabilities
currently exist, even while we continue to test and improve the system.
By continuing to field missile defenses today, we send a message to
potential adversaries that we will not be deterred or coerced by their
possession of long-range ballistic missiles.
In summary, I ask my colleagues to reject the amendment offered by
Senator Levin. This amendment would needlessly delay the fielding of a
ballistic missile defense capability to protect the homeland. As the
Commander of STRATCOM warns, the threat is real. We must continue on
the current path of fielding available capabilities--even while testing
continues to improve the system over time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President I express my gratitude to the distinguished
chairman and other members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services
for the work they do. The chairman has worked long and hard to try to
bring this bill to the Senate floor and do things in the best interest
of our country, and others have worked with him. I appreciate that.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as an ardent supporter of the
F/A-22 Raptor. I am pleased that the Armed Services Committee has
agreed to authorize appropriations for 24 F/A-22 Raptors. However, I am
deeply troubled that the Department of Defense has made the decision to
only purchase this extraordinary aircraft through fiscal year 2008, in
effect, limiting the number of Raptors to 180. This is far below the
381 aircraft that the Air Force has repeatedly stated are required for
that service to meet its responsibilities as outlined in the National
Defense Strategy.
Over the past year and half, I have made two trips, to be briefed on
the capabilities of this extraordinary aircraft. The first was to
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, where our pilots are learning to fly the
Raptor and second to Langley Air Force, VA, where the first operational
F/A-22 units will be based. As a result of these meetings and
discussions with the pilots who are training to fly the aircraft and
the ground personnel who are learning to maintain the Raptor, I have
come to conclusion that purchasing sufficient numbers of Raptors is
absolutely vital to our national security.
Over the past 30 years, the United States has been able to maintain
air superiority in every conflict largely due to the F-15C. However,
with the great advancements in technology over the past several years,
the F-15 has struggled to keep pace. For example,

[[Page S8778]]

the F-15 is not a stealth aircraft and its computer systems are based
on obsolete technology. My colleagues should remember that the F-15
first flew in the early 1970s. During the ensuing years, nations have
been consistently developing new aircraft and missile systems to defeat
this fighter.
Realizing that the F-15 would need a replacement, the Air Force
developed the F/A-22 Raptor. The result is a truly remarkable aircraft.
The F/A-22 has greater stealth capabilities than the F-117 Nighthawk.
This is a powerful attribute when one remembers that it was the
Nighthawk's stealth characteristics that enabled that aircraft to
penetrate the integrated air defenses of Baghdad during the first night
of the 1991 gulf war.
The Raptor is also equipped with super-cruise engines. These engines
do not need to go to after-burner in order to achieve supersonic
flight. This provides the F/A-22 with a strategic advantage by enabling
supersonic speeds to be maintained for a far greater length of time. By
comparison, all other fighters require their engines and these are
foreign fighters, as well--to go to after-burner to achieve supersonic
speeds. This consumes a tremendous amount of fuel and greatly limits an
aircraft's range.
The F/A-22 is also the most maneuverable fighter flying today. This
is of particular importance when encountering newer Russian-made
aircraft which boast a highly impressive maneuver capability.
Yet a further advantage resides in the F/A-22's radar and avionics.
When entering hostile airspace, one F/A-22 can energize its radar
system, enabling it to detect and engage enemy fighters far before an
enemy's system effective range.

However, one of the most important capabilities of the Raptor is
often the most misunderstood. Many critics of the program state that,
since much of the design work for this aircraft was performed during
the Cold War, it does not meet the requirements of the future, I
believe that this criticism is misplaced. The F/A-22 is more than just
a fighter, it is also a bomber. In its existing configuration it is
able to carry two 1,000 pound GPS-guided JDAM bombs and the aircraft
will also be able to carry the Small Diameter Bomb. In 2008, the F/A-
22's radar system will be enhanced with a ``look-down'' mode enabling
the Raptor to independently hunt for targets on the ground.
All of these capabilities are necessary to fight what is quickly
emerging as ``the'' threat of the future--the anti-access integrated
air defense system. Integrated air defenses include both surface to air
missiles and fighters deployed in such a fashion as to leverage the
strengths of both systems. Such a system could pose a very real
possibility of denying U.S. aircraft access to strategically important
regions during future conflicts.
It should also be noted that--for a comparably cheap price--an
adversary can purchase the Russian SA-20 surface-to-air missile. This
system has an effective range of approximately 120 nautical miles and
can engage targets at greater then 100,000 feet, much higher then the
service ceiling of any existing American fighter or bomber. The
Russians have also developed a family of highly maneuverable fighters,
the Su-30 and 35s, which have been sold to such nations as China. Of
further import, 59 other nations have fourth generation fighters.
It has also been widely reported in the aviation media that the F-
15C, our current air superiority fighter, is not as maneuverable as
newer Russian aircraft, especially the Su-35. However, the F/A-22 is
designed to defeat an integrated air defense system. By utilizing its
stealth capability, the F/A-22 can penetrate an enemy's airspace
undetected and, when modified, independently hunt for mobile surface-
to-air missile systems. Once detected, the F/A-22 would then be able to
drop bombs on those targets. Some, correctly state that the B-2 bomber
and the F-117 could handle these assignments. However, the F/A-22
offers the additional capability of being able to engage an enemy's air
superiority fighters such as the widely proficient Su-35. Therefore,
the Raptor will be able to defeat, almost simultaneously, two very
different threats that until now have been handled by two different
types of aircraft.
I should like point out that these potential threats are not just
future concerns, but they are here today. For example, last year the
Air Force conducted an exercise called Cope India, as part of our
effort to strengthen relations with India. The Indian Air Force has a
number of Su-30 MKKs, an aircraft which is very similar to a version of
aircraft sold in large quantities to the People's Republic of China.
During this exercise, it has been widely reported in the aviation and
defense media that the Indian Air Force's Su-30s won a number of
engagements when training against our Air Force's F-15s.
So let me be clear on this point: a developing nation's air force was
able to defeat the F-15. This was a stunning event and one that
requires our immediate attention.
Despite the obvious advantages, and now necessity, of this aircraft,
the Department of Defense has made the decision to purchase only 180 F/
A-22s.
Some argue that the cost of this aircraft is too high.
In response, the supporters of the
F/A-22 devised a new procurement strategy called ``Buy to Budget.''
This strategy capped the total cost for the procurement of the aircraft
and forced the Air Force and the Raptor's primary contractor, Lockheed
Martin, to cut the cost of plane. These efforts have so far been
successful, and two years ago an additional F/A-22 was procured solely
based upon savings.
I am also pleased to state that recent articles in the media report
that the ``fly-away'' price for an F/A-22 is now approximately $130
million, down from $185 million an aircraft. Officials of the
manufacturer are quoted as saying that each new lot of Raptors costs on
average 13 percent less than its predecessor. The manufacturer also
believes that this price can be further brought down to the $110
million range. Now, of course, this is still a lot of money. However,
when compared to similar aircraft such as the nonstealth Eurofighter,
which cost approximately $110 million an aircraft, coupled with the
estimated cost, as high as $90 million, for a new F-15, one easily
conclude that the F/A-22 is much better deal then its critics contend.
I wish to reiterate a point that is deeply troubling. I have always
listened very closely when our servicemembers have outlined their
equipment requirements based upon the national security goals that our
Government has outlined. As I have studied this issue, I have been
struck by the unanimous opinion of all the members of the Air Force to
whom I have spoken.
What is their expert opinion? That if the Air Force is to succeed in
the tasks outlined in our National Defense Strategy that they require
additional F/A-22 aircraft.
I should also add that this is not just the opinion of those
stationed here in Washington but the opinion of the pilots and ground
crew in the field such as those of Tyndall Air Force Base and Langley
Air Force Base. They were truly excited about the F/A-22 Raptor's
potential.
They understand that this aircraft will ensure American dominance of
the skies for the next half century.
These young men and women stand ready to sacrifice so much for us, we
owe them the best that our country has to offer. Therefore, I
respectfully urge my friends in the Department of Defense to rethink
their plans for this aircraft and provide our warfighters sufficient
numbers of this remarkable fighter/bomber.
I ask that the pending amendment be set aside so I can call up
another amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1516

Mr. HATCH. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself, Mr. Inhofe,
Mr. Bennett, and Mr. Chambliss, proposes an amendment
numbered 1516.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S8779]]

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the investment
of funds as called for in the Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master
Plan of the Air Force)

On page 66, after line 22, insert the following:

SEC. 330. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DEPOT MAINTENANCE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan of the
Air Force reflects the essential requirements for the Air
Force to maintain a ready and controlled source of organic
technical competence, thereby ensuring an effective and
timely response to national defense contingencies and
emergency requirements;
(2) since the publication of the Depot Maintenance Strategy
and Master Plan of the Air Force in 2002, the service has
made great progress toward modernizing all 3 of its Depots,
in order to maintain their status as ``world class''
maintenance repair and overhaul operations;
(3) one of the indispensable components of the Depot
Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan of the Air Force is the
commitment of the Air Force to allocate $150,000,000 a year
over 6 years, beginning in fiscal year 2004, for
recapitalization and investment, including the procurement of
technologically advanced facilities and equipment, of our
Nation's 3 Air Force depots; and
(4) the funds expended to date have ensured that
transformation projects, such as the initial implementation
of ``Lean'' and ``Six Sigma'' production techniques, have
achieved great success in reducing the time necessary to
perform depot maintenance on aircraft.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the Air Force should be commended for the
implementation of its Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master
Plan and, in particular, meeting its commitment to invest
$150,000,000 a year over 6 years, since fiscal year 2004, in
the Nation's 3 Air Force Depots; and
(2) the Air Force should continue to fully fund its
commitment of $150,000,000 a year through fiscal year 2009 in
investments and recapitalization projects pursuant to the
Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan.

Mr. HATCH. Today I rise to propose an amendment that is cosponsored
by fellow members of the Senate Air Force Depot Caucus, specifically
Senators Inhofe, Bennett and Chambliss. Before I proceed to discuss the
merits of my amendment, I thank publicly my colleagues, and their
staffs, of the depot caucus, not only for their assistance in
supporting this amendment, but for the tireless work that we have all
performed over the past several years to modernize and recapitalize our
Nation's Air Force Depots.
Why is that important? Why do we need our Air Force Depots? Simply
put, today the United States boasts the most formidable military that
the world has ever known. However, history has shown, that a
technologically superior force can be defeated if the weapons systems
being utilized by that force cannot be maintained or repaired in a
timely fashion.
Mindful of this lesson, the Department of Defense and Congress have
created an infrastructure designed to meet the unique sustainment
challenges faced by a nation that harnesses the advantages of
technology on the battlefield. It bears remembering that one of our
Nation's primary means of maintaining this advantage is through the
integrated sustainment support provided by the Air Force's depots. This
is true for the maintenance of tactical aircraft, such as the F-16 and
A-10, which is performed in my home State of Utah at Hill Air Force
Base. Tactical aircraft require this level of maintenance due to the
stress caused by supersonic flight and high-g turns. Our tanker and
airlift fleets also require this level of service due to corrosion and
metal fatigue.
Equally impressive, this support is accomplished while simultaneously
providing supply chain management for millions of components and pieces
of equipment. However, what makes our depots truly vital to national
security is their ability to provide immediate support during periods
of conflict or urgent need. In fact, no one matches our Nation's depots
in meeting the critical ``surge'' requirements of our Nation.
Unfortunately, during the 1990s, our Nation did not make the
necessary investments in our depots to build and procure
technologically advanced facilities and equipment technologies.
Therefore, the depots were not meeting their full potential. Congress
and the Air Force identified this problem and, I am proud to say,
worked together to find a solution. That solution was the Air Force
Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan. This strategy reaffirmed
our Nation's commitment to the ``essential requirement for the Air
Force to maintain a ready and controlled source of organic technical
competence to ensure an effective and timely response to national
defense contingencies and emergency requirements.''
But more than just a piece of paper articulating lofty goals, this
strategy committed the Air Force to allocating $150 million a year for
6 years in order to achieve the objectives of maintaining the depots
status as ``world class'' maintenance repair and overhaul operations.
One of the most clear examples of how this money has been
constructively allocated can be found in the success of the initial
implementation of revolutionary lean production techniques at our
Nation's depots. Lean manufacturing principles, first developed by the
Toyota Corporation, aim to eliminate waste in every area of production.
In practice, workers are no longer just responsible for a specific
section of production. Workers are challenged to develop new skills and
trades so they are responsible for more portions of the production
process.
The results have been outstanding. Workflow days, the days it takes
to provide maintenance to a part or system, are down. At Hill Air Force
Base, the C-130 and F-16 aircraft maintenance lines have achieved and
sustained 100-percent on-time delivery rates, a large extent due to the
efficiencies created by lean techniques. When you tour our depots, you
can sense the excitement and renewed pride the workers have, in part,
because of the lean processes and the new tools and infrastructure
provided by the funds allocated by the Depot Strategy which make lean
possible. This has truly been a successful investment.
Another example of how the funds allocated under the Depot Strategy
are assisting the war fighter while providing value to the taxpayer can
be found in a project in this year's Defense authorization bill. Hill
Air Force Base is home to one of only two Carnegie Mellon-rated capable
maturity model level 5 software centers in the Department of Defense. A
level 5 designation facility indicates that the facility is in the top
2 percent of all software development centers. In addition, Hill's
Software Engineering Division affords the Air Force a $40-per-hour
labor rate savings over its major industry competitors.
For these reasons, the Air Force decided to increase the amount of
work performed by the division by 176,000 direct product standard
hours. However, the existing building is full and unable to support the
increase in personnel necessary to accomplish this new workload. The
funding allocated under the Depot Maintenance Strategy provides the
solution, and this bill authorizes appropriations to build a new
extension to the facility. Not too bad when it has been determined that
this project will pay for itself in 8.75 years.
We are only halfway through the 6-year investment plan as called for
by the Depot Maintenance Strategy. I rise with my colleagues to say to
the Air Force: Well done. But I must add--and this is the essential
point of my amendment--the Air Force must keep going. The depots have
made enormous progress in even further efficiently supporting the war
fighter, which now is more important than ever. However, if we are to
support our war fighters in the manner in which they deserve, this
investment must continue. The first steps have been made. Completing
the full 6 years of Depot Strategy modernization funding is an
essential component to ensure we will always provide the best to the
men and women who risk so much to keep us free.
Mr. President, I also desire at this time to thank three individuals
who have been steadfast supporters of the Depot Maintenance Strategy.
First, I must recognize retiring Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
Nelson Gibbs, who is one of the authors of Depot Strategy. We would not
be where we are today without his support and guidance. I wish him well
in his well-deserved retirement. I also wish to thank the implementers
of the Strategy, GEN Lester Lyles, the former commander of Air Force
Materiel Command and its present commander, and

[[Page S8780]]

my good friend, GEN Gregory Martin. You will not find two finer
officers who have ever served. To them I say: Thank you for your
leadership and guidance in modernizing our infrastructure so we can
most efficiently and effectively support the war fighter. I thank them.
I thank my colleagues, all of whom support this as well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will first make a comment or two.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may the manager of the bill address the
Senate for a moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the way we run is the managers usually try
to get recognition.
What we would now like to do, Mr. President, is to have the Senator
from Oklahoma address his amendments--for what period of time?
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a few minutes to
respond to some of the substance of the two subjects discussed by the
Senator from Utah. Then I would like to describe the amendments I have
offered. It will probably take me 20 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
The Senator from Florida desires recognition, so I would ask the
Senator from Florida if he could give a rough estimate of the time he
would like following the Senator from Oklahoma.
Fifteen minutes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senator from Oklahoma now be recognized for a period not to exceed 20
minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Could we act on the UC request, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say I was listening
intently while the senior Senator from Utah talked about the F/A-22. I
would like to add one thing that perhaps he assumes everyone is aware
of, but I keep finding people are not aware of it, and that is the
Chief of the Air Force now, General Jumper, not too long ago, I think
1997, made a very courageous observation. He called to the attention of
the American people that the Russians were making--at that time he was
referring to the Su-30, a strike vehicle, that it was actually better
than anything we had in our inventory, our F-15 or F-16.
I think a lot of people assumed automatically that when we go onto
the battlefield America has the very best of equipment. That is not
true. It is kind of scary when you think about a strike vehicle that is
out there that has greater capability than our very best and the fact
that the American people expect the United States to have the best of
everything.
I have talked on this floor many times about the fact that our
artillery piece is not as good as one that is made in five different
countries. The old Paladin technology is World War II technology. That
is something we are going to correct with our future combat system.
But I commend the Senator from Utah for his comments about the F/A-
22. When we get the joint strike fighter and the F/A-22, we will be
back in a position where we will be sending our young people out there
with the best of equipment. We need to get there as rapidly as
possible.
I also want to make a comment about the depot funding plan amendment
that is offered by Senator Hatch. It supports the important and vital
work being performed by our aircraft depot facilities.

Since the Bush administration came into office, we have seen a
renewed interest in the Air Force's depots. To kind of fill us in where
we are right now with that, I can remember when the last Secretary of
the Air Force came in, his first trip was to Tinker Air Force Base to
see how creative they were, to kind of personally examine the kind of
work they were doing. He recognized we have to handle the problem that
has been there for many, many years; that is, we need to have an in-
house capability for depot maintenance on core issues.
The problem has always been: How do you define the core issue? The
core issue is not an easy thing to describe and define. But until it is
properly defined, we have been using the ratio of 50-50; in other
words, to have the in-house capability to handle 50 percent of the
functions in the case of a war so we would not be held hostage to a
single source contractor.
The key to this overall reinvigoration has been the Air Force's Depot
Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan that will ensure America's air and
space assets are ready to rapidly respond to any national security
threat. Because of this plan we have begun a restoration and
modernization of our Air Force's three depot facilities located in
Oklahoma, Utah, and Georgia, which will ensure the United States is
able to maintain world-class aircraft repair and overall facilities.
If we are to realize the end result of this Maintenance Strategy and
Master Plan, it is incumbent upon Congress to fulfill the Air Force's
commitment for allocating $150 million a year, over a 6-year period,
for recapitalizing, investing, and procuring advanced facilities,
equipment, and operation. This funding began in fiscal year 2004, and
significant in-roads have already been made.
In one year alone, with this funding support, the Air Mobility
Command reported that the rate of aircraft grounded due to parts issues
decreased by 37.6 percent. It bettered its flying hour goal by 922,000
hours. The rate of aircraft incidents due to parts issues decreased by
23.4 percent. Logistics response time increased by 20.4 percent. And
the level of spare parts in stock improved by 5.5 percent. Such
improvements are an indication of the impact of this funding, and this
was only a single 1-year period.
We have spoken frequently in this body about the advanced age and
challenges of some of our most critical low-density, high-demand
aircraft, such as the C-130 tactical airlifter, and the KC-135
refueling tanker. The average age of the C-130 E and H models flying
today is 40 years. The average age of the KC-135 E and R models flying
today is 44 years. We went through some arduous times, several years
ago--about 15 years ago--getting the C-17 on line. It was a recognition
that we have to modernize this fleet. I am very thankful we have
increased the numbers as the years have gone by. No one would have ever
believed, prior to Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the need we
would have on these heavy-lift vehicles.
We could go on and on, but the point we want to make is, if we are
going to keep our aging fleet of aircraft flying, we must not only
maintain them but we must also modify them and give them the latest
technology, avionics and things, so we will provide our young people
with the same advantage that some of our prospective opponents would
have.
At our Air Force depots today, we require engineers and fabrication
technicians to solve ever-challenging design and structural problems
due to aircraft stress and fatigue that were never anticipated when the
aircraft were manufactured. But because of age, we are seeing such
flaws. The civilian aviation industry recapitalizes, buying new
aircraft when their planes are no longer feasible to fly.
Unfortunately, our Air Force does not have such a luxury. The effort
the Air Force has started with the Depot Maintenance Strategy and
Master Plan must be sustained, and Congress must provide the necessary
resources.
In light of this, I applaud the sense of the Senate being offered by
Senator Hatch. This has been a problem we have seen coming. We know it
is there. We have been able to now give our depots some of the same
resources, some of the same modernization. They have, on a competitive
basis, proven they can do a very good job.

Amendment No. 1313

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have two amendments I have already
filed. The second amendment is going to require a new number. The two I
am going to be discussing are the ICRC amendment. I have several
cosponsors of the amendment, including Senator Kyl. I ask unanimous
consent that Senator Enzi be added as a cosponsor to amendment No.
1313.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. The other amendment has a new number. We have talked
about it before. It is the U.S.-China

[[Page S8781]]

Commission amendment. It is now No. 1476. It is my intention to make a
few comments about these two and then to ask for the yeas and nays. We
would like to get to a vote on these amendments by tonight.
First, the amendment concerning the ICRC. I simply want to clarify
some people's thinking that the ICRC is not the American Red Cross.
This is the International Committee on the Red Cross. It has no
relationship to the American Red Cross.
My first concern is for American troops. The ICRC has been around
since 1863 and has been there for American soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and marines throughout two world wars. I thank them for that work.
Likewise and moreover, I thank all Americans for military service to
America. I did have occasion to be in the U.S. Army. It was the best
thing that ever happened in my life. In my continuing preeminent
concern for American troops, however, I am compelled to note some
concerns and pose some questions about a drift in focus of the ICRC
away from its core principles in its mission statement. Indeed, I fear
the ICRC may be harming the morale of our American troops by
unjustified allegations that detainees and prisoners are not being
properly treated.
For example, an ICRC official visited Camp Bucca, a theater
internment facility for enemy prisoners that is, as of January 2005,
being operated by the 18th Military Police Brigade and Task Force 134,
near Umm Qasr in southern Iraq. As of late January 2005, the facility
had a holding capacity of 6,000 prisoners but only held 5,000. These
prisoners were being supervised by 1,200 Army MPs and Air Force airmen.
According to the Wall Street Journal, citing a Defense Department
source, the ICRC official told U.S. authorities:

You people are no better than and no different than the
Nazi concentration camp guards.

I ask unanimous consent that this entire article be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks about the ICRC.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
The Senate Armed Services Committee has now held 13 hearings on the
topic of prisoner treatment.
Sometimes we get bogged down in all the detail and we forget about
the overall picture, the big picture. And I'm shocked when I found,
only last Tuesday, from the Pentagon's report, that after 3 years and
24,000 interrogations, there were only three acts of violation of the
approved interrogation techniques authorized by Field Manual 3452 and
DOD guidelines.
The small infractions found were found by our own government,
corrected and now reported. In all the cases no further incidents
occurred. We have nothing to be ashamed of. What other country attacked
as we were would exercise the same degree of self-criticism and
restraint. Again, keep in mind, 24,000 interrogations, and they only
found three. And they were found by us, not somebody else snooping
around.
Most, if not all, of these incidents are at least a year old. I am
very impressed with the way the military, the FBI, and other agencies
conducted themselves. The report shows me that an incredible amount of
restraint and discipline was present at Gitmo.
Having heard a lot about the Field Manual 3452, I asked, ``Are the
DOD guidelines, as currently published in that manual, appropriate to
allow interrogators to get valuable information, intelligence
information, while not crossing the line from interrogation to abuse?''
The answer from Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, Commander of U.S. Southern
Command was, ``I think, because that manual was written for enemy
prisoners of war, we have a translation problem, in that enemy
prisoners are to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions--
that doesn't apply. That's why the recommendation was made and I
affirmed it. We need a further look here on this new phenomenon of
enemy combatants. It's different, and we're trying to use, I think, a
manual that was written for one reason in another environment.''
Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, the senior investigating officer said,
``Sir, I agree. It's critical that we come to grips with not hanging on
a Cold War relic of Field Manual 3452, which addressed an entirely
different population. If we are, in fact, going to get intelligence to
stay ahead of this type of threat, we need to understand what else we
can do and still stay in our lane of humane treatment.''
Brig. Gen. John T. Furlow, the investigating officer, stated, ``Sir,
in echoing that, F.M. 3452 was originally written in 1987, further
updated and refined in 1992, which is dealing with the Geneva question
as well as an ordered battle enemy, not the enemy that we're facing
currently. I'm aware that Fort Huachuca's currently in a rewrite of the
next 3452, and it's in a draft form right now.''
It is clear that our military has humane treatment placed at the
forefront of their concerns.
At the same time I want to ask: What other country would freely
discuss interrogation techniques used against high-value intelligence
detainees during a time of war when suicide bombers are killing our
fellow citizens?
That was disturbing to me. The last of the many hearings we had was
one where they were describing in detail our interrogation techniques,
knowing full well that the terrorists are watching on live TV and
training their people on how to handle those. I think it is something
on which we have gone far enough. That is another subject we will be
discussing in a few minutes.
In the past 15 years, the United States has provided more than $1.5
billion in funding to the ICRC. I ask for some accountability for the
use of this money and a modicum of oversight. For example, I think it
is fair to ask: How is our money being spent? What are the activities
of the ICRC to determine the status of American POWs/MIAs, unaccounted
for since World War II? What were the efforts of the ICRC to assist
America's POWs held in captivity during the Korean war, the Vietnam
war, and other subsequent conflicts? Has the ICRC exceeded its mandate,
violated established practices or principles, or engaged in advocacy
work that exceeds the ICRC's mandate as provided under the Geneva
Convention? That essentially is what this amendment does.
At this point I will read the very last paragraph of the Wall Street
Journal article. It says:

We are trying to understand how a representative of an
organization pledged to neutrality and the honest
investigation of detainee practices could compare American
soldiers to Nazi SS. And considering the timing and content
of several ICRC confidentiality breaches concerning the U.S.
war on terror, it's fair to ask if similar views aren't held
by a substantial number in the organization.
The world needs a truly neutral humanitarian body of the
sort the ICRC is supposed to be. But the Camp Bucca
incident--in addition to leaked Gitmo and Abu Ghraib
reports--is evidence it isn't currently up to the task.

Exhibit 1

[From the Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2005]

As Bad as the Nazis?

The International Committee of the Red Cross is granted a
privileged status to inspect the conditions of prisoners of
war and other detainees in return for confidentiality. But in
recent years it has demonstrated a habit of selective media
leaks damaging to American purposes. This is the backdrop for
two recent incidents that make us think the U.S. should
reconsider the ICRC's role.
The first concerns a story we heard first from a U.S.
source that an ICRC representative visiting America's largest
detention facility in Iraq last month had compared the U.S.
to Nazi Germany. According to a Defense Department source
citing internal Pentagon documents, the ICRC team leader told
U.S. authorities at Camp Bucca: ``You people are no better
than and no different than the Nazi concentration camp
guards.'' She was upset about not being granted immediate
access shortly after a prison riot, when U.S. commanders may
have been thinking of her own safety, among other
considerations.
A second, senior Defense Department source we asked about
the episode confirmed that the quote above is accurate. And a
third, very well-placed American source we contacted
separately told us that some kind of reference was made by
the Red Cross representative ``to either Nazis or the Third
Reich''--which understandably offended the American soldiers
present.
The world needs a truly neutral humanitarian body of the
sort the ICRC is supposed to be. But the Camp Bucca
incident--in addition to the leaked Gitmo and Abu Ghraib
reports--is evidence it isn't currently up to the task.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been informed I will be asking for
the yeas and nays for two different amendments. I will do that after
explaining the second amendment.

[[Page S8782]]

I know the Senator from Florida, under UC, now has 15 minutes. My
time is about to expire. I would ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Florida, I be recognized
to present what was amendment 1312 and now is No. 1476. And at the
conclusion, I will be asking for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized following the
Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 15
minutes, followed by the Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to speak on the Defense
bill to point out a major national asset with regard to our military
preparation. What I am about to say actually involves some subterranean
negotiations that are going on outside of the light of day on another
bill, on the Energy conference bill, but it relates directly to what we
are doing here. I want to point it out.
One of the great national assets we have is off the coast of Florida
called restricted airspace. As you can see, off the northeast coast of
Florida from Cape Canaveral north all the way to Savannah, GA is a
considerable bit of restricted airspace. You will also notice on this
map of the peninsula of Florida and the Gulf of Mexico that almost the
entire area of the Gulf of Mexico off of the State of Florida is
restricted airspace. It is not any puzzle to understand when the
Atlantic fleet, U.S. Navy training, was shut down on the island of
Vieques off of Puerto Rico, that most of that training came here to
northwest Florida. Not only because of the major military facilities at
Pensacola, Whiting, Eglin Air Force Base, Tindale Air Force Base,
where, by the way, we have been talking about the FA-22, the training
for the pilots is at Tindale Air Force Base right here. The training
for the pilots for all branches of Government for the new F-135, the
joint fighter, is done at Eglin Air Force Base. Why? Because we have
the restricted airspace in which that training can occur and where
land, sea, and air exercises can be coordinated. That is a major
national asset.
Alas, people, certain interests, want to come out here and drill for
oil in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. You can't be conducting these
military maneuvers, this training that is so essential to our mission
in the Department of Defense, you can't be doing that if you have to
worry about oil rigs on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico below. That
is the same right over here on the east coast, a battle I had to wage
15, 20 years ago when it was proposed to drill from Cape Hatteras, NC
all the way south to Fort Pierce, FL. Ultimately, we won that battle
with the recognition by the DOD and NASA that you can't have oil rigs
where you are dropping the solid rocket boosters from the space shuttle
and where we are dropping the first stages of the expendable booster
rockets coming out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force station.
We took on this fight a month or so ago when the Energy bill was here
and we won this fight, thanks to the agreement of the chairman and the
ranking member of the Energy Committee that they would not support any
amendments that would allow drilling out here in the eastern gulf.
Speaking of that, just so you can see how dramatic it is that the
eastern gulf does not have this drilling, I want you to look at this
particular map of the gulf coast--Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, Florida. You will notice the drilling, as represented by the
green, is where the oil is. The geology shows that there is no drilling
in the eastern gulf. There is no oil there. But there is another reason
there are not rigs there, besides the dry holes they came up with, and
it is all of that area is restricted air space. Now, all well and good.
Mr. President, we have just intercepted an e-mail from the White
House, and it is an e-mail sent to energy conference conferees--
something that has some significance to the occupant of the chair.
Attached is the administration's proposal. The proposal would allow for
new leasing activities in the eastern gulf. They define it in Louisiana
waters as defined by the use of seaward lateral boundaries. They go on
in this White House e-mail to say:

Interior and the Office of Management and Budget have
signed off on this language.

Well, let's sound the alarms because here is what they plan to do. We
went through this drill a couple months ago when the Energy bill was
here. Why? We got the chairman of the Energy Committee and the ranking
member to agree to oppose these amendments--this is in the
Congressional Record--because this line, which is the Florida-Alabama
line, beyond which there is no leasing in any of the waters of the
gulf, well, suddenly, they are going to draw the line of the State of
Louisiana, which is over here, to be a line that comes out here and
goes into the eastern Gulf of Mexico, under the fiction that that line
would be the waters of Louisiana and, thus, giving a pretext to invade
the waters off of Florida, including the waters underneath the
restricted airspace, to allow oil and gas drilling.
The administration is pushing a proposal in the conference between
the House and the Senate that does not have such a provision in either
bill. To the contrary. The House took a position against drilling in
the eastern gulf, and the Senate did likewise in the agreement of the
chairman and the ranking member.
So I want to alert the Senate. I hope this is not going to be the
case because we are down to a week before everybody wants to go home
for the August recess and do all of their town hall meetings, and so
forth. I know there is the interest in passing an energy conference
bill, if they reach agreement. Clearly, I don't want to slow up the
energy conference bill if they reach agreement. But, of course, if the
representations and the agreements that were made in good faith are
broken--in fact, that were made on the floor of the Senate and are part
of the Congressional Record--if those agreements are broken, this
Senator from Florida will have no choice.
This would represent a reversal of administration policy because this
administration has pledged to uphold the moratorium on the Outer
Continental Shelf from drilling until the year 2012. Although a portion
right there is not included within the moratorium, nevertheless, the
line they have drawn clearly includes other portions of the moratorium.
It is a reversal of administration policy.
It would also give this area, called lease-sale 181, to the State of
Louisiana. If lease-sale 181 is part of the State of Louisiana, off of
the coast of Florida, then why did the administration negotiate in 2001
to cut back lease-sale 181 from 6 million acres to a million and a half
acres, so it would not go over the Florida-Alabama line? There are all
kinds of inconsistencies here. It is purely--call it what it is; it is
an intent to drill for oil and gas off of the coast of Florida.
I can tell you that 18 million people in Florida don't want oil rigs
off their shores. In the first place, the geology shows, along with
many dry holes, that there is not much oil and gas. In the second
place, we have an extraordinary $50 billion a year tourism industry
that depends on what? It depends on what is depicted in this picture.
This other picture is not what we want. This is a photograph from a
month and a half ago when we had the Energy bill on this floor of 100
pelicans that were killed as a result of an oil spill off of
Louisiana--that is a recent photograph--and another 400 were severely
damaged. We don't want that. We want the other.
The third reason is one I had explained at the outset. This is what
we want for the defense of our country. We want to continue to do our
training. We want all of that training that has come from Puerto Rico
to go unhampered off of the coast of Florida, where land, sea, and air
military exercises can be coordinated without the threat of
interference from oil rigs below.
The fourth reason is the coast of Florida has something besides our
natural beauty and beaches. It has some of the most pristine and
ecologically sensitive estuaries, rivers, and bays that come into the
gulf. That is a very important place to keep so that the balance of
nature can occur with the oceans.
For all of these reasons, I wanted to share with the Senate that I
hope I don't have to be out here later this

[[Page S8783]]

week making these speeches again because I took it at face value and in
good faith that the representations that were made here were going to
stick. If they do not, then the Senator from Florida will have to judge
accordingly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Amendment No. 1313

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, so we can get procedurally back where we
should be, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set
aside for the consideration of amendment No. 1313.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator brings up this matter--
and he has the floor--I wonder if I can clarify this among my
colleagues, to try to accommodate others. We have Senator Dorgan to be
recognized under the previous unanimous consent. I understand 10
minutes would be sufficient there.
Mr. REED. Fifteen minutes, I believe.
Mr. WARNER. We are anxious to get going, but we will do 15 minutes. I
see the Senator from Colorado here. I know the Senator from Arizona and
the Senator from South Carolina called within the hour. They need time.
Can the Senator advise me as to what his desires might be?
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I think 10 minutes would be fine. I was
going to make an argument on an amendment that will be presented. I
don't know where it is before us. I do have a couple of amendments I
would like to propose. I think for the debate on those two amendments
and a floor statement, I probably need 10 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. If the Senator from Colorado could be recognized
following Senator Dorgan, I would like to reserve an hour for myself
and Senator McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham.
Mr. REED. Senator Levin will need some time, also.
Mr. WARNER. He will certainly get that time. I ask unanimous consent
for that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REED. Would the Senator restate the UC?
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma
continue for about 10 minutes; Senator Dorgan for 15 minutes; the
Senator from Colorado for 10 minutes; and 1 hour equally divided
between Senators Warner, McCain, and Graham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REED. Reserving the right to object, I just want to protect the
ability for Senator Levin to have time.
Mr. WARNER. He can be recognized following the hour of three of us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment
No. 1313.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 1476

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 1313 be set aside
for the consideration of amendment No. 1476, which I send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 1476.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that the President should
take immediate steps to establish a plan to implement the
recommendations of the 2004 Report to Congress of the United States-
China Economic and Security Review Commission)

At the end of title XII, insert the following:

SEC. 1205. THE UNITED STATES-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY
REVIEW COMMISSION.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The 2004 Report to Congress of the United States-China
Economic and Security Review Commission states that--
(A) China's State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) lack adequate
disclosure standards, which creates the potential for United
States investors to unwittingly contribute to enterprises
that are involved in activities harmful to United States
security interests;
(B) United States influence and vital long-term interests
in Asia are being challenged by China's robust regional
economic engagement and diplomacy;
(C) the assistance of China and North Korea to global
ballistic missile proliferation is extensive and ongoing;
(D) China's transfers of technology and components for
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems
to countries of concern, including countries that support
acts of international terrorism, has helped create a new tier
of countries with the capability to produce WMD and ballistic
missiles;
(E) the removal of the European Union arms embargo against
China that is currently under consideration in the European
Union would accelerate weapons modernization and dramatically
enhance Chinese military capabilities;
(F) China's recent actions toward Taiwan call into question
China's commitments to a peaceful resolution;
(G) China is developing a leading-edge military with the
objective of intimidating Taiwan and deterring United States
involvement in the Strait, and China's qualitative and
quantitative military advancements have already resulted in a
dramatic shift in the cross-Strait military balance toward
China; and
(H) China's growing energy needs are driving China into
bilateral arrangements that undermine multilateral efforts to
stabilize oil supplies and prices, and in some cases may
involve dangerous weapons transfers.
(2) On March 14, 2005, the National People's Congress
approved a law that would authorize the use of force if
Taiwan formally declares independence.
(b) Sense of Congress.--
(1) Plan.--The President is strongly urged to take
immediate steps to establish a plan to implement the
recommendations contained in the 2004 Report to Congress of
the United States-China Economic and Security Review
Commission in order to correct the negative implications that
a number of current trends in United States-China relations
have for United States long-term economic and national
security interests.
(2) Contents.--Such a plan should contain the following:
(A) Actions to address China's policy of undervaluing its
currency, including--
(i) encouraging China to provide for a substantial upward
revaluation of the Chinese yuan against the United States
dollar;
(ii) allowing the yuan to float against a trade-weighted
basket of currencies; and
(iii) concurrently encouraging United States trading
partners with similar interests to join in these efforts.
(B) Actions to make better use of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) dispute settlement mechanism and
applicable United States trade laws to redress China's unfair
trade practices, including China's exchange rate
manipulation, denial of trading and distribution rights, lack
of intellectual property rights protection, objectionable
labor standards, subsidization of exports, and forced
technology transfers as a condition of doing business. The
United States Trade Representative should consult with our
trading partners regarding any trade dispute with China.
(C) Actions to encourage United States diplomatic efforts
to identify and pursue initiatives to revitalize United
States engagement with China's Asian neighbors. The
initiatives should have a regional focus and complement
bilateral efforts. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
forum (APEC) offers a ready mechanism for pursuit of such
initiatives.
(D) Actions by the administration to hold China accountable
for proliferation of prohibited technologies and to secure
China's agreement to renew efforts to curtail North Korea's
commercial export of ballistic missiles.
(E) Actions by the Secretaries of State and Energy to
consult with the International Energy Agency with the
objective of upgrading the current loose experience-sharing
arrangement, whereby China engages in some limited exchanges
with the organization, to a more structured arrangement
whereby China would be obligated to develop a meaningful
strategic oil reserve, and coordinate release of stocks in
supply-disruption crises or speculator-driven price spikes.
(F) Actions by the administration to develop a coordinated,
comprehensive national policy and strategy designed to meet
China's challenge to maintaining United States scientific and
technological leadership and competitiveness in the same way
the administration is presently required to develop and
publish a national security strategy.
(G) Actions to review laws and regulations governing the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS),
including exploring whether the definition of national
security should include the potential impact on national
economic security as a criterion to be reviewed, and whether
the chairmanship of CFIUS should be transferred from the
Secretary of the Treasury to a more appropriate executive
branch agency.

[[Page S8784]]

(H) Actions by the President and the Secretaries of State
and Defense to press strongly their European Union
counterparts to maintain the EU arms embargo on China.
(I) Actions by the administration to discourage foreign
defense contractors from selling sensitive military use
technology or weapons systems to China. The administration
should provide a comprehensive annual report to the
appropriate committees of Congress on the nature and scope of
foreign military sales to China, particularly sales by Russia
and Israel.
(J) Any additional actions outlined in the 2004 Report to
Congress of the United States-China Economic and Security
Review Commission that affect the economic or national
security of the United States.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this amendment is similar to one that I am
not going to offer that was previously going to be offered, No. 1312.
There have been several changes made, so a new number is assigned to
it.
Mr. President, in October 2000, Congress established the United
States-China Security Economic Review Commission to act as a bipartisan
authority on how our relationship with China affects our economy,
China's military and weapons proliferation, and our influence in Asia.
For the past 5 years, the Commission has been holding hearings and
issuing annual reports to evaluate ``the national security implications
of the bilateral trade and economic relationship with the United States
and the People's Republic of China.'' Their job is to provide us in
Congress with the necessary information to make decisions about the
complex situation. However, I fear their reports have gone largely
unnoticed.
This has been very disturbing. I have had occasion to give four
rather lengthy speeches concerning the recommendations. I will not be
redundant, and I certainly will not take the time I took previously,
but it is something that is very significant. This was a bipartisan
commission, made up of Democrats and Republicans, some Members of
Congress, and some former Members of Congress. They came out with
recommendations over a period of years.
I found the recommendations of the Commission's 2004 report--this is
the most recent approach--objective, necessary, and urgent, and I am
offering an amendment to express our support for these viable steps.
This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that China should,
first, reevaluate its manipulated currency level and allow it to float
against other currencies. In the Treasury Department's recent report to
Congress, China's monetary policies are described as ``highly
distortionary and pose a risk to China's economy, its trading partners,
and global economic growth.''
Second, the appropriate steps ought to be taken through the World
Trade Organization to hold China accountable for its dubious trade
practices. Major problem issues, such as intellectual property rights,
have yet to be addressed.
Third, the United States should revitalize engagement in the Asian
region, broaden our interaction with organizations such as ASEAN, which
is the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Our lack of influence
has been demonstrated by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization recently
demanding that we set a troop pullout deadline in Afghanistan. This
clearly shows we do not have much influence there.
Fourth, the administration ought to hold China accountable for
proliferating prohibited technologies. Chinese companies, such as
NORINCO, have been sanctioned frequently and yet the Chinese Government
refuses to enforce their own nonproliferation agreements.
Fifth, the U.N. should monitor nuclear, biological, and chemical
treaties and either enforce these agreements or report them to the
Security Council. The United States-China Commission has found that
China has undercut the U.N. in many areas, undermining what pressures
we have tried to apply on problematic states, such as Sudan and
Zimbabwe.
Sixth, the administration ought to review the effectiveness of the
one-China policy in relation to Taiwan to reflect the dynamic nature of
the situation. The Defense Department's annual report to Congress,
released 2 days ago, states that China's military ``sustained buildup
affects the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.'' We have been watching
this for a number of years. We have also been watching the growth and
enhancement of China's conventional military capability. We have known
about their nuclear capability for some time. Now we see, as the
Senator from Utah was mentioning a few minutes ago, that countries are
buying these superior strike vehicles from Russia, such as the SU-30s.
China, in one purchase, I understand, bought some 240. One has to stop
and think about this. It puts them in the position to have better
strike vehicles than we do. Of course, we have seen the buildup, the
effect on their relationship in the Taiwan Strait.
Seventh, various energy agencies should encourage China to develop
its strategic oil reserve in order to avoid a disastrous economic
crisis if oil availability becomes unstable. We have to understand that
we have a serious problem in this country with the fact that we are
relying upon foreign countries for some 65 percent of the oil we
import. We are now starting to compete with China which has that great
problem, too.
As one travels around and looks at countries such as Iran, Sudan,
Nigeria, and other countries where they are establishing
relationships--we have seen what they are doing in Venezuela right
now--we have to recognize they are going to be our chief competition in
becoming self-sufficient in our ability to fight a war without
dependency upon foreign countries.
Eighth, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States,
called CFIUS, should include national economic security as a criterion
for evaluation and the chairmanship to be transferred to a more
appropriate chair allowing for increased security precautions.
Right now CFIUS has actually reviewed some 1,500 cases of purchases
by foreign countries, and they have only questioned 24. They relented
on those and only stopped one. That is 1 out of 1,500. There is
something wrong. We see some things that are going on right now, such
as Unocal, that have received a lot of publicity. This is a very
strong recommendation. In fact, I have a separate resolution that
covers just this issue and this alone. It will recommend that the
chairmanship be changed from the Secretary of Treasury to the Secretary
of Defense.

Ninth, the administration should continue its pressure on the EU to
maintain its arms embargo on China. The recent Defense Department
report states the EU would not have the capability to monitor and
enforce any limits if the arms embargo is lifted.
Tenth, penalties should be placed on foreign contractors who sell
sensitive military use technology or weapons system to China from
benefiting from U.S. defense-related research development in production
programs. What is going on is sales are taking place to China on
technology that has been subsidized by the United States. In other
words, we are putting ourselves in a situation where our national
security would be impaired by our own research for which we have paid.
Eleventh, the administration should also provide a report to Congress
on the scope of foreign military sales to China.
Finally, Congress should support the recommendations of the
Commission's 2004 report to Congress. Unless our relationship with
China is backed up with strong action, they will never take us
seriously. We will certainly see more violations of proliferation
treaties. It is happening over and over. We are looking at it right
now. They continue to manipulate regional global trade through currency
undervaluation and other unhealthy practices. They will develop
unreliable oil sources and energy alliances with countries that
threaten international stability. They will continue to escalate the
situation over Taiwan, raising the stakes in a game neither country can
win.
In today's world, we see how the unpaid bills of the past come back
to haunt us in full. Ignoring these problems is unacceptable.
The United States-China Commission was created to give us in Congress
a clear picture about what is going on. They have done their job. It is
time for us to do our job.
I repeat, this is a commission that has been working now for 4 years.
It is a bipartisan commission. These are specific recommendations. This
amendment is a sense of the Senate to follow these recommendations.

[[Page S8785]]

This is amendment No. 1476.

Amendment No. 1312 Withdrawn

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I withdraw amendment No. 1312.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 1312 is
withdrawn.

Amendment No. 1476

Mr. INHOFE. We are considering amendment No. 1476. I ask for the yeas
and nays on amendment No. 1476.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, am I now recognized for 15 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague has sought to have the yeas
and nays on his amendment. Let me do the same. I have two amendments
pending. Should there be cloture invoked on this underlying bill, as my
colleague from Oklahoma has suggested, I would like my amendments to be
considered prior to cloture. I have an amendment No. 1429, which is
offered. I ask for the yeas and nays on both of my amendments. Then I
will speak on the amendments ever so briefly.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 1426 and 1429

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask that we consider amendment 1429. I
previously filed that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to make that the
regular order. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment
No. 1429.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we consider
amendment No. 1426, which I previously filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can make that the regular order.
The amendment is now pending.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment
No. 1426.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will briefly describe amendment No.
1426. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. That amendment one
that I described at some length on Friday. It has to do with the joint
inquiry of the two Intelligence Committees into the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001. It has to do with the 28 pages in this joint
inquiry that have been redacted and classified as top secret. The
American people should see these 28 pages. The chairman and the ranking
member of the Intelligence Committee at the time said they believe the
American people should see these 28 pages. The Government of Saudi
Arabia said the American people deserve to see these 28 pages. This
book went to the White House for publication. The White House redacted
it and classified it as top secret.
I have read the 28 pages. My colleagues have had an opportunity to
read them. My former colleague from Florida, who was chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee, described the question of whether the
hijackers on 9/11--and 15 of the 19 were Saudi citizens--whether the
hijackers received support from foreign interests and, if so, what kind
of support, which foreign interests. The American people have a right
to see this.
I hope the Senate will finally vote on asking the President to
declassify these pages and give the American people the right to
understand what is in those 28 pages.
Again, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the ranking
member, a Republican and a Democrat, believed at the time those 28
pages should not have been classified.
I will now turn to amendment No. 1429. It deals with waste, fraud,
and abuse in contracting in Iraq, and it deals especially with
Halliburton, but not exclusively with Halliburton. I have offered this
amendment previously as well.
It is unbelievable to me the billions and billions of dollars being
spent. A substantial portion of it is being wasted. We know that, and
yet no one seems to care or do much about it.
Let me show some charts, if I may. This is a chart of someone who
testified before a policy committee hearing I held. This fellow--you
cannot see his face--this fellow in the blue striped shirt testified.
He was in Iraq when this picture was taken. This is Saran-wrapped
bundles of 100-dollar bills, some millions of dollars in 100-dollar
bills. He said in this particular area they often played football with
these Saran-wrapped bundles of 100-dollar bills.
What was he doing with bundles of 100-dollar bills? The area where
this cash was stored, subcontractors in Iraq were told: Bring a bag
because we pay in cash; bring a bag. Show up here and want to get paid
for whatever you are doing? Bring a bag because we pay in cash.
Let me talk for a moment about the five hearings we held. We heard
about cash transactions that were unrecorded, $9 billion that was
unaccounted for. ``Uncle Sam Looks into Meal Bills: Halliburton Refunds
$27 Million as Result.'' A company that was a Saudi subcontractor doing
business through Halliburton billed the Government for 42,000 meals a
day, but they only served 14,000 meals to our troops. Let me say that
again. They were charging the Government for 42,000 meals served every
day to our troops; they were only serving 14,000 meals.
This was not the first time Halliburton has been questioned about
this. This was in February 2004.
Also in February 2004, ``Halliburton Faces Criminal Investigation.''
They focus on efforts to solicit bids that transport fuel to Baghdad.
Prices Halliburton charged for that work were substantially higher than
the cost of trucking in fuel from Turkey. Pentagon launches criminal
investigation for possible fraud.
``Ex-Halliburton Workers Allege Rampant Waste.'' Said one employee:
They did not control costs at all. Their motto was do not worry about
costs. It is cost plus.
Henry Bunting--who testified, incidentally, before one of our Policy
Committee hearings--said that they spent $7,500 a month to rent
ordinary vehicles, cars and trucks, when the vehicles could have been
rented for less than $2,000 a month through the Internet. He also held
up some towels. He said they had purchased monogrammed towels for
$7.50--these are hand towels for the troops--that should have cost
$2.50. Why $7.50? Because Halliburton wanted their logo on the towels.
Now it is May. In February, they talked about overcharging 42,000
meals when they only served 14,000 meals. Now it is May of last year, 4
months later, and the Pentagon says: We are suspending $159 million in
meal charges to Halliburton for feeding soldiers because the fact is
they were charging for meals they were not serving.
They are still engaged in the same contract, still cheating, and
nobody does a thing about it.
``Millions in U.S. Property Lost.'' Halliburton lost $18.6 million in
Government property in Iraq. Auditors could not account for 6,975 items
on the ledgers of Halliburton's unit.
``Halliburton is Unable to Prove $1.8 Billion in Work, Pentagon
Says.'' This has gone on and on. Has Congress done a thing about it,
any oversight hearings? None. Nobody seems to care much.
Let me read from a hearing we held in the Policy Committee, a hearing
we held because the oversight committees do not hold these hearings.
Let me read what the top civilian in the Corps of Engineers, who is
engaged in these contracts and approves these contracts, said. This is
a woman named Bunnatine Greenhouse. She rose to the highest level in
the Corps of Engineers for civilian employees, and now she is losing
her job because she was honest. Here is what she said: I can
unequivocally state that the abuse related to

[[Page S8786]]

contracts awarded to Halliburton represents the most blatant and
improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my
professional career.
This courageous lady comes forward to testify to say these things,
and now her career pays a price for it because we do not want to upset
the good old boy network around here. They want to give a sweetheart
deal to a company, suspend the rules, and give a sweetheart deal. They
cheat you, cheat you again and again, do not worry about it. Do a
little investigation down at the Pentagon, but don't anybody in
Congress call attention to it. It would be uncomfortable and
embarrassing to somebody.
In 1941, Harry Truman, the Senator from Missouri, served in this
Chamber. He was a flinty, tough independent. A member of his own party
was in the White House, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A Democrat in the
Senate took on the task of identifying the waste, abuse, and fraud that
was occurring in spending on our defense. They held hearing after
hearing, and they unearthed a massive amount of fraud, waste, and
abuse. I am sure that was uncomfortable for the Democrat in the White
House, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, because a Democrat Senator was
leading the fight. He did it through the Truman Committee that took a
hard look at this kind of fraud and abuse.
My amendment would reestablish a Truman-type committee, with Members
of both parties on it. When we are shoving tens of billions of dollars
out the door to companies such as Halliburton in sole-source contracts,
somebody has to watch the cash register.
We had a fellow named Rory testify recently at the Policy Committee.
Again, we are holding hearings only because there are not aggressive
oversight hearings held in the rest of the Congress because the
majority party worries it would embarrass somebody. So Rory comes to
testify. He is running a food service unit for Halliburton in Iraq and
he says: We are getting food that is in some cases over a year expired
on the date stamp for the food. What do they do? They are told: Feed it
to the troops.
We get food that comes in on a convoy that has been attacked. What do
they do? The supervisors say go into those trucks and remove the
shrapnel and remove the bullets and save the bullets as souvenirs for
the Halliburton supervisors and feed the food to the troops.
Yes, this fellow ran one of those agencies. Here is what he said:
When I was an employee for Halliburton and they were doing this sort of
thing, we were told if a Government auditor comes around, do not dare
talk to the Government auditor. If you do, one of two things will
happen: You will either be sent to a fire zone in Iraq, one under
attack, one with significantly more danger than where you work now, or
you will be fired summarily. Do not talk to Government auditors.
The question is: When will someone care enough to begin to take a
hard look at the money we are spending? Nearly $200 billion has gone
out of here, all of it emergency funding, none of it paid for. A
substantial portion of that goes to contractors and much of it sole-
source contractors, no-bid and cost-plus contracts. The American
taxpayers, in my judgment, are paying the price for very substantial
abuse and very substantial waste and fraud.
The moment someone comes to the Senate floor and mentions the word
``Halliburton,'' they say: You are attacking the Vice President. I am
not. The Vice President used to run Halliburton Corporation. He does
not and has not since the year 2000. None of the examples I have cited
have happened prior to that time, they have happened since that time.
This is not the Vice President's corporation. It is not on his watch as
CEO of Halliburton. But these are sweetheart contracts, sole-source
contracts.
Fifty thousand pounds of nails are ordered to the country of Iraq,
and they are the wrong size. So if one wants some nails, they are
laying on the ground somewhere there in the sand, just another piece of
waste. Seventy-five hundred dollars to rent a vehicle for a month. Buy
new trucks for $85,000, get a flat tire, leave them by the roadside to
be trashed. Buy new trucks for $85,000 and have a fuel pump plugged,
leave them by the roadside to be trashed and looted. All of that comes
from testimony from people who used to work for Halliburton. They have
come before our Policy Committee and told these stories that describe
outrageous amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse. The question is: Why
does no one in this Congress seem to care? My hope is that this
Congress would agree to create a Truman-type committee, a committee of
Republicans and Democrats that would take a hardnosed, flinty look at
how money is being spent.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, some of my colleagues have said they would
like a vote on their amendments prior to cloture. My hope is that we
will not have a cloture vote, by the way. I think the best Defense
authorization bills that we have had in the Congress have been those
that have been debated on the Senate floor for a week or two where we
have had a substantial opportunity to think through and debate
significant and difficult issues. So I would hope we will not have a
cloture vote tomorrow. If in fact we do, I will join my colleague from
Oklahoma and others who suggest that I would like a vote prior to
cloture because his amendments and mine would fall postcloture. That is
one of the dilemmas of cloture.
Clearly, my amendment deals with something that is very important,
that attends to the money we are spending on defense and the money we
are going to authorize to be spent on defense, but because of the way
it is written and the subject, it will fall postcloture. For that
reason, I hope we will not invoke cloture tomorrow.

I thank my colleagues for the time and hope they will seriously
consider both amendments I have described today.
Mr. WARNER. I thank our colleague. It will be given careful
consideration. It relates to an important subject matter.
I understand the Senator from Colorado has about 10 minutes, followed
by Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner for 1 hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the chairman for yielding me 10 minutes.
There are three amendments that I have offered and I would like to
ask for their consideration, and then I wish to make some comments
relating to one of them and then finally some comments on the Levin
missile defense amendment offered earlier today.

Amendment No. 1419

I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment, and
I ask for the consideration of amendment No. 1419.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLARD. I ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 1383

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to lay aside
that amendment, and I ask for the consideration of amendment No. 1383.
That amendment has been previously filed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an
amendment numbered 1383.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a program for the management of post-project
completion retirement benefits for employees at Department of Energy
project completion sites)

On page 378, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

SEC. 3114. MANAGEMENT OF POST-PROJECT COMPLETION RETIREMENT
BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
PROJECT COMPLETION SITES.

(a) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Energy shall carry out a
program under which the Secretary shall use competitive
procedures to enter into an agreement with a contractor for
the plan sponsorship and program management of post-project
completion retirement benefits for eligible employees at each

[[Page S8787]]

Department of Energy project completion site.
(2) Requirement of no reduction in total value of
retirement benefits.--The total value of post-project
completion retirement benefits provided to eligible employees
at a Department of Energy project completion site may not be
reduced under the program required under paragraph (1)
without the specific authorization of Congress.
(b) Agreement for Benefits Management.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Energy shall, in
accordance with procurement rules and regulations applicable
to the Department of Energy, enter into the agreement
described in subsection (a) not later than 90 days after the
date of the physical completion date for the Department of
Energy project completion site covered by the agreement.
(2) Terms of agreement.--The agreement under this section
shall--
(A) provide for the plan sponsorship and program management
of post-project completion retirement benefits;
(B) fully describe the post-project completion retirement
benefits to be provided to employees at the Department of
Energy project completion site; and
(C) require that the Secretary reimburse the contractor for
the costs of plan sponsorship and program management of post-
project completion retirement benefits.
(3) Renewal of agreement.--The agreement shall be subject
to renewal every 5 years until all the benefit obligations
have been met.
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after signing of
the agreement described in subsection (a), the Secretary of
Energy shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
report on the program established under such subsection.
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall describe--
(A) the costs of plan sponsorship and program management of
post-project completion retirement benefits;
(B) the funding profile in the Department of Energy's
future year budget for the plan sponsorship and program
management of post-project completion retirement benefits
under the agreement entered into under subsection (b);
(C) the amount of unfunded accrued liability for eligible
workers at the Department of Energy project completion site;
and
(D) the justification for awarding the agreement entered
into under subsection (b) to the selected contractor.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Physical completion date.--The term ``physical
completion date'' means--
(A) the date of physical completion or achievement of a
similar milestone defined by or calculated in accordance with
the terms of the completion project contract; or
(B) if the completion project contract specifies no such
date, the date declared by the site contractor and accepted
by the Department of Energy that the site contractor has
completed all services required by the project completion
contract other than close-out tasks and any other tasks
excluded from the contract.
(2) Department of energy project completion site.--The term
``Department of Energy project completion site'' means a
site, or a project within a site, in the Department of
Energy's nuclear weapons complex that has been designated by
the Secretary of Energy for closure or completion without any
identified successor contractor.
(3) Post-project completion retirement benefits.--The term
``post-project completion retirement benefits'' means those
benefits provided to eligible employees at a Department of
Energy project completion site as of the physical completion
date through collective bargaining agreements, projects, or
contracts for work scope, including pension, health care,
life insurance benefits, and other applicable welfare
benefits.
(4) Eligible employees.--The term ``eligible employees''
includes--
(A) any employee who--
(i) was employed by the Department of energy or by contract
or first or second tier subcontract to perform cleanup,
security, or administrative duties or responsibilities at a
Department of Energy project completion site; and
(ii) has met applicable eligibility requirements for post-
project completion retirement benefits as of the physical
completion date; and
(B) any eligible dependant of such an employee, as defined
in the post-project completion retirement benefits plan
documents.
(5) Unfunded accrued liability.--The term ``unfunded
accrued liability'' means, with respect to eligible
employees, the accrued liability, as determined in accordance
with an actuarial cost method, that exceeds the present value
of the assets of a pension plan and the aggregate projected
life-cycle health care costs.
(6) Plan sponsorship and program management of post-project
completion retirement benefits.--The term ``plan sponsorship
and program management of post-project completion retirement
benefits'' means those duties and responsibilities that are
necessary to execute, and are consistent with, the terms and
legal responsibilities of the instrument under which the
post-project completion retirement benefits are provided to
employees at a Department of Energy project completion site.

Amendment No. 1506

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay that
amendment aside, and I ask for the consideration of amendment No. 1506.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard], for himself and Mr.
Salazar, proposes an amendment No. 1506.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Energy to purchase certain
essential mineral rights and resolve natural resources damage liability
claims)

On page 378, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:

SEC. 3114. ROCKY FLATS ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY SITE.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Essential mineral right.--The term ``essential mineral
right'' means a right to mine sand and gravel at Rocky Flats,
as depicted on the map.
(2) Fair market value.--The term ``fair market value''
means the value of an essential mineral right, as determined
by an appraisal performed by an independent, certified
mineral appraiser under the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice.
(3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``Rocky
Flats National Wildlife Refuge'', dated July 25, 2005, and
available for inspection in appropriate offices of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of
Energy.
(4) Natural resource damage liability claim.--The term
``natural resource damage liability claim'' means a natural
resource damage liability claim under subsections (a)(4)(C)
and (f) of section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9607) arising from hazardous substances releases at or from
Rocky Flats that, as of the date of enactment of this Act,
are identified in the administrative record for Rocky Flats
required by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan prepared under section 105 of that
Act (42 U.S.C. 9605).
(5) Rocky flats.--The term ``Rocky Flats'' means the
Department of Energy facility in the State of Colorado known
as the ``Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site''.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(7) Trustees.--The term ``Trustees'' means the Federal and
State officials designated as trustees under section
107(f)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9607(f)(2)).
(b) Purchase of Essential Mineral Rights.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, such amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (c) shall be available to the
Secretary to purchase essential mineral rights at Rocky
Flats.
(2) Conditions.--The Secretary shall not purchase an
essential mineral right under paragraph (1) unless--
(A) the owner of the essential mineral right is a willing
seller; and
(B) the Secretary purchases the essential mineral right for
an amount that does not exceed fair market value.
(3) Limitation.--Only those funds authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (c) shall be available for the
Secretary to purchase essential mineral rights under
paragraph (1).
(4) Release from liability.--Notwithstanding any other law,
any natural resource damage liability claim shall be
considered to be satisfied by--
(A) the purchase by the Secretary of essential mineral
rights under paragraph (1) for consideration in an amount
equal to $10,000,000;
(B) the payment by the Secretary to the Trustees of
$10,000,000; or
(C) the purchase by the Secretary of any portion of the
mineral rights under paragraph (1) for--
(i) consideration in an amount less than $10,000,000; and
(ii) a payment by the Secretary to the Trustees of an
amount equal to the difference between--

(I) $10,000,000; and
(II) the amount paid under clause (i).

(5) Use of funds.--
(A) In general.--Any amounts received under paragraph (4)
shall be used by the Trustees for the purposes described in
section 107(f)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9607(f)(1)), including--
(i) the purchase of additional mineral rights at Rocky
Flats; and
(ii) the development of habitat restoration projects at
Rocky Flats.
(B) Condition.--Any expenditure of funds under this
paragraph shall be made jointly by the Trustees.
(C) Additional funds.--The Trustees may use the funds
received under paragraph (4) in

[[Page S8788]]

conjunction with other private and public funds.
(6) Exemption from national environmental policy act.--Any
purchases of mineral rights under this subsection shall be
exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
(7) Rocky flats national wildlife refuge.--
(A) Transfer of management responsibilities.--The Rocky
Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (16 U.S.C. 668dd
note; Public Law 107-107) is amended--
(i) in section 3175--

(I) by striking subsections (b) and (f); and
(II) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as
subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively; and

(ii) in section 3176(a)(1), by striking ``section 3175(d)''
and inserting ``section 3175(c)''.
(B) Boundaries.--Section 3177 of the Rocky Flats National
Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (16 U.S.C. 668dd note; Public Law
107-107) is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting
the following:
``(c) Composition.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
refuge shall consist of land within the boundaries of Rocky
Flats, as depicted on the map--
``(A) entitled `Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge';
``(B) dated July 25, 2005; and
``(C) available for inspection in the appropriate offices
of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Department of Energy.
``(2) Exclusions.--The refuge does not include--
``(A) any land retained by the Department of Energy for
response actions under section 3175(c);
``(B) any land depicted on the map described in paragraph
(1) that is subject to 1 or more essential mineral rights
described in section 3114(a) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 over which the
Secretary shall retain jurisdiction of the surface estate
until the essential mineral rights--
``(i) are purchased under subsection (b) of that Act; or
``(ii) are mined and reclaimed by the mineral rights
holders in accordance with requirements established by the
State of Colorado; and
``(C) the land depicted on the map described in paragraph
(1) on which essential mineral rights are being actively
mined as of the date of enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 until--
``(i) the essential mineral rights are purchased; or
``(ii) the surface estate is reclaimed by the mineral
rights holder in accordance with requirements established by
the State of Colorado.
``(3) Acquisition of additional land.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (2), upon the purchase of the mineral rights or
reclamation of the land depicted on the map described in
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
``(A) transfer the land to the Secretary of the Interior
for inclusion in the refuge; and
``(B) the Secretary of the Interior shall--
``(i) accept the transfer of the land; and
``(ii) manage the land as part of the refuge.''.
(c) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology
Site for fiscal year 2006, $10,000,000 shall be made
available to the Secretary for the purposes described in
subsection (b).

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, No. 1506 deals with the mineral rights at
Rocky Flats. This basically will provide for the Secretary to purchase
these mineral rights. There is money that has been provided for this in
previous legislation and that is pending. This allows for the transfer
of those mineral rights on Rocky Flats. It is based on the owner of the
mineral rights being willing to sell.
In 2001, I successfully inserted a provision in the National Defense
authorization bill that authorized the creation of the Rocky Flats
National Wildlife Refuge. Under this legislation, the Department of
Energy was required to transfer most of the Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site to the Department of Interior for the purposes of
creating a wildlife refuge to preserve Colorado's rare Front Range
habitat.
Earlier, 2 months ago, the Departments of Energy and Interior signed
a memorandum of understanding that stipulated how and when the
Department of Energy would transfer the management of most of the Rocky
Flats Environmental Technology Site to the Department of Interior.
However, this memorandum of understanding was incomplete. It completely
deferred the issue of the disruptive surface mining of privately owned
mineral rights that is occurring on the site until later this year.
This deferral did not meet the legislation requirement under the Rocky
Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act and represented a critical
impediment to the closure of Rocky Flats.
The Department of Interior contended that surface mining such as that
now occurring at Rocky Flats is fundamentally contrary to its refuge
management goals, and makes the achievement of refuge purposes on those
lands impossible.
To better understand this issue, I requested that the Department of
Energy hire an independent contractor to conduct an appraisal on the
value of the mineral rights. The independent contractor determined the
owners and provided a preliminary cost estimate as to the fair market
value of those mineral rights containing sand and gravel.
After the appraisal was completed, my staff personally contacted each
mineral rights owner. I wanted to see if they would be interested in
selling if they were offered money for the fair market value of the
mineral rights. I also reassured them that the owners would not be
forced to sell if they didn't want to.
Shortly thereafter, it was brought to my attention that the purchase
of mineral rights could be included as part of a comprehensive natural
resource damage settlement. I am pleased to announce that the State of
Colorado, my colleague from Colorado, Senator Salazar, and I have
worked out legislation providing for such an arrangement. I am
confidant that this arrangement will be acceptable to the Department of
Energy and the Department of Interior.
Under the amendment I am introducing today, the Secretary of Energy
will be required to purchase essential mineral rights necessary to
transition Rocky Flats to a national wildlife refuge.
The Secretary can only purchase these mineral rights once the
following conditions are met: (1) The owner of the minieral right is a
willing seller; (2) the Secretary purchases the mineral right at fair
market value; and (3) the Trustees for Rocky Flats release the
Department from its natural resource damage liabilities under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980, CERCLA.
Also included in this legislation is a provision that states that if
the owner of the mineral right refuses to sell, the Secretary of Energy
may satisfy the Department's natural resource liability obligation by
paying the trustees of the site an amount equal to the fair market
value of the mineral right owned by the unwilling seller.
I believe this amendment makes too much sense for us to pass up. We
have winners, winners, and winners. It is certainly a win for the State
of Colorado--the State mechanism that would provide more dollars for
Colorado than most likely would have been gained through the normal
natural resources damages settlement process. The owners of the mineral
rights win because they now have an opportunity to sell their mineral
rights at fair market value, a possibility that never existed before.
The Department of Energy wins because it is able to pay off its natural
resource damage liabilities that would have arisen under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980. The Department of Interior wins because this legislation would
remove the last impediment to the memorandum of understanding between
Interior and the Department of Energy so that Interior can move forward
with creating a wildlife refuge at Rocky Flats. Most importantly, the
people of Colorado win because now they will be able to enjoy the
pristine beauty and splendor of the Rocky Mountain's Front Range
through the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Hundreds of acres of
rare xeric tallgrass prairie will be preserved. The natural wildlife in
the refuge will be protected.

As I said, this is a win-win proposal. Everyone gains. I urge my
colleagues to support my amendment.

Amendment No. 1492

I rise in opposition to the Levin missile defense amendment. This
amendment eliminates $30 million--there has been $50 million
requested--for long-lead funding for ground-based interceptor missiles
31-40 and $20 million for associated silo construction. The $50 million
would be used to plus-up the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which
is already fully funded at $415.5 million, with an additional $1.6
billion for DOE nonproliferation programs.

[[Page S8789]]

The CTR currently has $500 million in unobligated funds for 2005. So
I would hope we could keep these provisions in the current
authorization bill.
DOD already directed a $1 billion reduction in MDA funding in fiscal
year 2006 and $5 billion in 2006 through 2011. To add upon that an
additional reduction in long-term funding puts this program in
jeopardy. We need to have those long-term plans in place, funded,
because they are very important to the security of this Nation.

This amendment would unnecessarily delay the fielding of ground-based
interceptors in 2009 and 2010. We simply cannot afford such a delay
because the threat is ``real and imminent,'' as General Cartwright has
testified. The CIA and DIA assess North Korea as ready to flight test
an ICBM that can reach the United States, and Iran may have such a
capability in 2015, according to the DIA.
A production break, by the way, would cost $270 million to restart,
so there is a cost in delaying these funds.
Despite recent test failures, the technology is mature enough to
proceed with fielding even though we continue to test and improve
reliability.
STRATCOM, the Director of Operational Tests and Evaluation, and the
Independent Review Team agree that the ground-based midcourse defense
test bed has some limited capability. The Independent Review Team also
found no fundamental design flaws with the GMD system, and that we need
to concentrate on manufacturing quality control.
I happen to be in favor of more operational testing. The MDA is
pursuing a prudent approach by delaying further testing until
reliability issues are addressed. Four flight tests were scheduled for
2006, starting in October and ending with an intercept next September.
Also, the SASC adopted the Nelson amendment that directs increasing
cooperation between independent testing agencies and MDA, and calls for
more operationally realistic testing that will be evaluated by the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
I have been out to visit the southern parts of the test bed. I am
convinced our technology is there. I am convinced the threat is real.
As a result, I think we need to move forward and we need to move
forward in a long-term way so the manufacturers who provide the
missiles and technology for the program have some reliable source of
revenue as we move forward. We should not interrupt the program. The
agencies that are responsible for administering the program need to
have that funding there so they can continue to plan in the future for
the defense of this country.
There is an emerging threat. There is a threat that continues to
emerge, I would say, from North Korea. I think we have to be concerned
about Iran.
I have always been a strong proponent of missile defense. I think
this particular amendment that Senator Levin has introduced tends to
make it difficult for us to meet our long-range goals, to protect the
borders of this country, and protect the American people from some type
of missile attack. In today's environment, it is important that we have
that insurance for the future of America.
I wanted to make the comments on the Levin amendment because I think
it is ill-advised in light of the state of the world today.
Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the
chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent requirement,
Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and I are now recognized for an hour. I
ask our distinguished colleague from Arizona--I would like to amend
that to allow Senator Salazar to go for 2 minutes. I request that
unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.

Amendment No. 1506

Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona, also my
friend from Virginia, and my friend from Rhode Island for agreeing to
let me speak for a couple of minutes on this amendment.
The amendment both Senator Allard and I are proposing, amendment No.
1506, is very important as we move forward with the Department of
Energy complex. We have created a great model for the rest of our
country as to how we clean up the remnants of the Cold War. How we do
this in an appropriate fashion to bring the cleanup of Rocky Flats to
completion is a very important part of our Nation's efforts to clean up
these facilities.
Amendment No. 1506 is a great step in the right direction because it
will help us bring to conclusion, in a final form, the cleanup at Rocky
Flats. I commend my colleague from Colorado, Senator Allard, for his
leadership on this effort over the years. I also commend him and both
of our staffs for having worked out the issues with the Department of
Energy and Department of Interior over the weekend.
I also want to inform my colleagues that I have had a hold on four
nominees who had been passed out of the committee, out of the Energy
Committee. I am lifting the holds on Jill Sigal, David Hill, James
Rispoli, and Thomas Weimer so that they can move forward and hopefully
be confirmed by the Senate before we get into the August recess.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we now turn to the three Senators. I would
like to take 1 minute to address both Colorado Senators.
I followed with interest your amendments. I do hope we now have on
the record a clear statement of support by the Secretary of Energy. Am
I correct in that?
Mr. ALLARD. As I have discussed with the Chairman's staff--I assume
you are talking about the amendment on the mineral rights.
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. ALLARD. That provision is before the OMB, so I cannot publicly
state their position until we get a decision back from OMB.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
Now, Mr. President, we would like to commence the 1 hour. I yield the
floor so Senator McCain can gain recognition. But I would want to say
this is a subject that is enormously important. I commend Senator
McCain and Senator Graham. It merits the full attention and hopefully
the support of the Senate. These are issues that go far beyond just the
question of detention. It goes to the perception of the great Nation of
which we are privileged to be citizens, the United States of America,
as it relates to how we treat those people who come into our custody in
the course of defending freedom, on battle fields, and elsewhere in the
world. I have such great respect for Senator McCain.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1557, as Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to modify my amendment No. 1557, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside,
and I call up amendment No. 1557, which is at the desk. I ask the clerk
continue the reading of the amendment because it is short and
important.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Graham, and Ms. Collins, proposes an amendment
numbered 1557, as modified:

At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1073. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS
UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.

(a) Limitation on Interrogation Techniques.--
(1) In general.--No person in the custody or under the
effective control of the Department of Defense or under
detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be
subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not
authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field
Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
(2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to with
respect to any person in the custody or under the effective
control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal
law or immigration law of the United States.

[[Page S8790]]

(3) Construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to affect the rights under the United States
Constitution of any person in the custody or under the
physical jurisdiction of the United States.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I asked that amendment be read because
there may be various interpretations of what this amendment is and what
it means. What it means to the sponsors--and I am grateful to my
friend, Senator Warner, the distinguished chairman of the committee,
and Senator Graham and others, including Senator Collins and others who
have supported this. Basically, it says the U.S. Army Field Manual on
Intelligence Interrogation shall be the document that governs
interrogation of prisoners who are under Department of Defense custody.
Some of us may like to see this expanded to treatment of prisoners
who are under custody of different agencies of Government. This applies
to the Department of Defense.
Before I proceed further, I ask my friend from Virginia--as he knows,
we have two amendments. One is this one which we have just read, and
the other one concerning cruel and inhumane treatment, which we are
sort of still working on. Is it the desire of the Chairman we take up
both amendments at this time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest we take up the other one--you
and I have discussed it--as soon as the other one is completed because
I am a cosponsor on the one that is now pending.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the distinguished chairman. For the information
of my colleagues, the second amendment, which would be before the
Senate for consideration at a different time, basically says that cruel
and inhumane treatment will not be inflicted upon any prisoner, and we
would adhere to the Geneva Conventions as well as other international
agreements concerning the treatment of prisoners.
But on this issue it says this amendment would prohibit cruel and
inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners in the detention of the
U.S. Government, and it is basically fairly straightforward and simple,
as I read.
The Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America
well, through wars against both regular and irregular foes. The manual
embodies the values Americans have embraced for generations while
preserving the ability of our interrogators to extract critical
intelligence from ruthless foes. Never has this been more important
than today in the midst of the war on terror.
I think we all agree to fight terrorism we must obtain intelligence.
But we have to ensure that it is reliable and acquired in a way that is
humane. To do otherwise not only offends our national morals but
undermines our efforts to protect the Nation's security.
Abuse of prisoners harms--harms, not helps--us in the war on terror
because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel
actions of a few darken the reputation of our honorable country in the
eyes of millions. Mistreatment of our prisoners also endangers U.S.
servicemembers who might be captured by the enemy--if not in this war,
then in the next.
I want to emphasize to some of my friends who say that we should do
anything that is necessary to extract intelligence, No. 1, torture
doesn't work; No. 2, if extraneous or extraordinary actions have to be
taken--and there may be cases, and we will get into this in the next
amendment, where someone has information that it is believed poses an
immediate threat to the United States--then I would suppose that it
would be entirely appropriate, under law, that the President of the
United States could make that judgment and take whatever actions are
necessary. In the meantime, the Army Field Manual authorizes
interrogation techniques that are proven effective in extracting
lifesaving information from the most hardened prisoners. It also
recognizes that torture and cruel treatment are ineffective methods
because they induce prisoners to say what their interrogators want to
hear, even if it is not true.
It is consistent with our laws and, most importantly, our values. Our
values are different from those of our enemies. When colleagues or
others may come on this floor and say: Well, they do it, others do it,
al-Qaida does it, other nations in the world do it, what differentiates
us, the United States of America, from other countries is the fact that
we do not. We do not abuse human rights. We do not do it. I would argue
the pictures, terrible pictures from Abu Ghraib, harmed us--not only in
the Arab world, which is an area of great concern but it also harmed us
dramatically amongst friendly nations, the Europeans, many of our
allies.
Of course, they were appalled. Of course, we were all appalled. As we
go through this later on, there were interesting exchanges between the
civilian general counsel in the Pentagon and the military judge
advocate general's--members of the judge advocate general, who were
deeply concerned about regulations that were proposed for adoption, and
exhibited very serious and fundamental concerns. For a short period of
time, unfortunately, those objections by the uniform lawyers in the
Pentagon were overruled, and we went through a period of time--thank
God only a few months--where interrogation techniques were allowed
which were then repealed, I am happy to say.

Our friends in London and elsewhere find themselves confronting the
same evil that we do. Preserving the common values we hold dear is more
important than ever. We fight not just to preserve our lives and
liberties but our morals, and we will never allow the terrorists to
take those from us. In this war that we must win--that we will win--we
should never fight evil with evil.
As I said, the amendment I am offering would establish the Army Field
Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in
Department of Defense custody. The manual has been developed by the
executive branch for its own uses, with a new edition written to take
into account the needs of the war on terror for the new classified
annexes due to be issued soon.
The advantage of setting a standard for interrogation based on the
field manual is to cut down on the significant level of confusion that
still exists with respect to which interrogation techniques are
allowed. Two weeks ago, the Committee on Armed Services held hearings,
under the chairmanship of Senator Lindsey Graham, with a slew of high-
level Defense Department officials from regional commanders to judge
advocate generals from the various branches to the Department's deputy
general counsel.
A chief topic of discussion was what specific interrogation
techniques are permitted, in what environment, with which DOD
detainees, by whom and when. The answers included a whole lot of
confusion. We got a bunch of contradictory answers. Several: I would
have to take a look at that. A few: Let me get back to you.
Let's think about that for a second. If at the highest level of the
Pentagon they do not know what exact techniques are allowed and what
aren't, what is going on in the prisons? What is going on with the
soldiers, the sergeant, the corporal, those who are supposed to do the
actual interrogations? What we are trying to do is make sure there are
clear and exact standards set for interrogation of prisoners which have
held for other wars and are now being updated to take into
consideration the kind of war that we are in.
Confusion results in the kind of messes that once again could give
America a black eye around the world. We need a clear, simple, and
consistent standard. We will have it in the Army Field Manual on
interrogation. That is not my opinion but that of many more
distinguished military legal minds than mine.
I received a letter recently from a group of people, 11 former high-
ranking military officers, including RADM John Hutson and RADM Don
Guter, who each served as the Navy's top JAG, and Claudia Kennedy, who
was Deputy Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence. These and other
distinguished officers believe that the abuses took place in part
because our soldiers received ambiguous instructions which, in some
cases, authorized treatment that went beyond what the Field Manual
allows and that had the Manual been followed across the board we could
have avoided the prisoner abuse scandal.
I am not sure we could have, Mr. President, but wouldn't any of us
have done whatever we could to have prevented that?

[[Page S8791]]

I ask unanimous consent this letter, dated July 22, 2005, be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

July 22, 2005.
Dear Senator McCain: We strongly support your proposed
amendments to the Defense Department Authorization bill
concerning detainee policy, including requiring all
interrogations of detainees in DOD custody to conform to the
U.S. Army's Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation (FM
34-52), and prohibiting the use of torture and cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment by any U.S. government agency.
The abuse of prisoners hurts America's cause in the war on
terror, endangers U.S. service members who might be captured
by the enemy, and is anathema to the values Americans have
held dear for generations. For many years, those values have
been embodied in the Army Field Manual. The Manual applies
the wisdom and experience gained by military interrogators in
conflicts against both regular and irregular foes. It
authorizes techniques that have proven effective in
extracting life-saving information from the most hardened
enemy prisoners. It also recognizes that torture and cruel
treatment are ineffective methods, because they induce
prisoners to say what their interrogators want to hear, even
if it is not true, while bringing discredit upon the United
States.
It is now apparent that the abuse of prisoners in Abu
Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere took place in part because
our men and women in uniform were given ambiguous
instructions, which in some cases authorized treatment that
went beyond what was allowed by the Army Field Manual.
Administration officials confused matters further by
declaring that U.S. personnel are not bound by longstanding
prohibitions of cruel treatment when interrogating non-U.S.
citizens on foreign soil. As a result, we suddenly had one
set of rules for interrogating prisoners of war, and another
for ``enemy combatants;'' one set for Guantanamo, and another
for Iraq; one set for our military, and another for the CIA.
Our service members were denied clear guidance, and left to
take the blame when things went wrong. They deserve better
than that.
The United States should have one standard for
interrogating enemy prisoners that is effective, lawful, and
humane. Fortunately, America already has the gold standard in
the Army Field Manual. Had the Manual been followed across
the board, we would have been spared the pain of the prisoner
abuse scandal. It should be followed consistently from now
on. And when agencies other than DOD detain and interrogate
prisoners, there should be no legal loopholes permitting
cruel or degrading treatment.
The amendments proposed by Senator McCain would achieve
these goals while preserving our nation's ability to fight
the war on terror. They reflect the experience and highest
traditions of the United States military. We urge the
Congress to support this effort.
General Joseph Hoar (Ret. USMC).
Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (Ret. USA).
Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy (Ret. USA).
Major General Melvyn Montano (Ret. USAF Nat. Guard).
Rear Admiral Don Guter (Ret. USN).
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson (Ret. USN).
Brigadier General David M. Brahms (Ret. USMC).
Brigadier General James Cullen (Ret. USA).
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote (Ret. USA).
Brigadier General David R. Irvine (Ret. USA).
Brigadier General Richard O'Meara (Ret. USA).
Ambassador Douglas ``Pete'' Peterson.
Former Vietnam POW Commander Frederick C. Baldock (Ret.
USN).
Former Vietnam POW Commander Phillip N. Butler (Ret. USN).
____

General Joseph Hoar (Ret. USMC)--General Hoar served as
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Central Command. After the first
Gulf War, General Hoar led the effort to enforce the naval
embargo in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, and to enforce
the no-fly zone in the south of Iraq. He oversaw the
humanitarian and peacekeeping operations in Kenya and Somalia
and also supported operations in Rwanda, and the evacuation
of U.S. civilians from Yemen during the 1994 civil war. He
was the Deputy for Operations for the Marine Corps during the
Gulf War and served as General Norman Schwarzkopf's Chief of
Staff at Central Command. General Hoar currently runs a
consulting business in California.
Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (Ret. USA)--General Gard is
a retired Lieutenant General who served in the United States
Army; his military assignments included combat service in
Korea and Vietnam. He is currently a consultant on
international security and president emeritus of the Monterey
Institute for International Studies.
Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy (Ret. USA)--General
Kennedy is the first and only woman to achieve the rank of
three-star general in the United States Army. Kennedy served
as Deputy Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence, Commander of
the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, and as Commander of the
703d military intelligence brigade in Kunia, Hawaii.
Major General Melvyn Montano (Ret. USAF Nat. Guard)--
General Montano was the adjutant general in charge of the
National Guard in New Mexico from 1994 to 1999. He served in
Vietnam and was the first Hispanic Air National Guard officer
appointed as an adjutant general in the country.
Rear Admiral Don Guter (Ret. USN)--Admiral Guter served as
the Navy's Judge Advocate General from 2000 to 2002. Admiral
Guter is currently CEO of Vinson Hall Corporation/Executive
Director of the Navy Marine Coast Guard Residence Foundation
in McLean, Virginia.
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson (Ret. USN)--Admiral John D.
Hutson served as the Navy's Judge Advocate General from 1997
to 2000. Admiral Hutson now serves as President and Dean of
the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire.
Brigadier General David M. Brahms (Ret. USMC)--General
Brahms served in the Marine Corps from 1963-1988. He served
as the Marine Corps' senior legal adviser from 1983 until his
retirement in 1988. General Brahms currently practices law in
Carlsbad, California and sits on the board of directors of
the Judge Advocates Association.
Brigadier General James Cullen (Ret. USA)--General Cullen
is a retired Brigadier General in the United States Army
Reserve Judge Advocate General's Corps and last served as the
Chief Judge (IMA) of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals.
He currently practices law in New York City.
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote (Ret. USA)--General Foote
was Commanding General of Fort Belvoir in 1989. She was
recalled to active duty in 1996 to serve as Vice Chair of the
Secretary of the Army's Senior Review Panel on Sexual
Harassment. She is President of the Alliance for National
Defense, a non-profit organization.
Brigadier General David R. Irvine (Ret. USA)--General
Irvine is a retired Army Reserve strategic intelligence
officer and taught prisoner interrogation and military law
for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School. He last
served as Deputy Commander for the 96th Regional Readiness
Command, and currently practices law in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Brigadier General Richard O'Meara (Ret. USA)--Brigadier
General Richard O'Meara is a combat decorated veteran who
fought in Vietnam before earning his law degree and joining
the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps. He retired from the
Army Reserves in 2002 and now teaches courses on Human Rights
and History at Kean University and at Monmouth University.
Ambassador Douglas ``Pete'' Peterson--Ambassador Peterson
served as the ambassador to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
until 2001. Prior to his diplomatic posting, Ambassador
Peterson served three terms as a member of the United States
House of Representatives, representing the Second
Congressional District of Florida. He served 26 years in the
United States Air Force having served in worldwide
assignments as a fighter pilot and commander. He is a
distinguished combat veteran of the Vietnam War and was
incarcerated as a POW during that conflict for more than six
years. He completed his military service in 1981 and has
extensive experience in the private sector.
Commander Frederick C. Baldock (Ret. USN)--Commander
Baldock was a Navy pilot and is a combat veteran of the
Vietnam War. His plane was shot down over North Vietnam in
1966, and he spent seven years in captivity as a POW.
Commander Phillip N. Butler (Ret. USN)--Commander Butler
was a Navy pilot and is a combat veteran of the Vietnam War.
His plane was shot down over North Vietnam in 1965, and he
spent nearly eight years in captivity as a POW.

Mr. McCAIN. I read from the letter:

We strongly support your proposed amendments to the Defense
Department Authorization bill concerning detainee policy,
including requiring all interrogations of detainees in DOD
custody to conform to the U.S. Army's Field Manual on
Intelligence Interrogation (FM 34-52), and prohibiting the
use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by
any U.S. government agency.
It is now apparent that the abuse of prisoners in Abu
Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere took place in part because
our men and women in uniform were given ambiguous
instructions, which in some cases authorized treatment that
went beyond what was allowed by the Army Field Manual.
Administration officials confused matters further by
declaring that U.S. personnel are not bound by longstanding
prohibitions of cruel treatment when interrogating non-U.S.
citizens on foreign soil. As a result, we suddenly had one
set of rules for interrogating prisoners of war, and another
for ``enemy combatants;'' one set for Guantanamo, and another
for Iraq; one set for our military, and another for the CIA.
Our service members were denied clear guidance, and left to
take the blame when things went wrong. They deserve better
than that.
The United States should have one standard for
interrogating enemy prisoners that is effective, lawful, and
humane. Fortunately, America already has the gold standard in
the Army Field Manual. Had the Manual been followed across
the board, we would have been spared the pain of the prisoner
abuse scandal. It should be followed consistently from now
on. And when agencies other than

[[Page S8792]]

DOD detain and interrogate prisoners, there should be no
legal loopholes permitting cruel or degrading treatment.

This is signed by GEN Joseph Hoar, LTG Robert Gard, LTG Claudia
Kennedy, MG Melvyn Montano, RADM Don Guter, RADM John Hutson, BG David
Brahms, BG James Cullen, BG Evelyn Foote, BG David Irvine, BG Richard
O'Meara, et cetera, and all of these people, including General Hoar,
served as Commander in Chief United States Central Command. These are
very credible people. If we had chosen, we could have gotten many more
signatories to this amendment.
We are Americans. We hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment
no matter how terribly evil or awful they may be. To do otherwise
undermines our security, and it also undermines our greatness as a
nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for a lot more
than that in the world: a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy
and human rights at home and abroad.
We are better than the terrorists, and we will win because we are
better than they are. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life
or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy. But this is not about
who they are--it is not about who they are. It is about who we are.
These are values that distinguish us from our enemies.
President Bush understands that the war on terror is ultimately a
battle of ideas, a battle we will win by spreading and standing firmly
for the values of decency, democracy, and the rule of law. I stand with
him in this commitment. By applying to ourselves the basic standards we
rightly preach to others, I believe we will only increase our
effectiveness as the world's ultimate champion of liberty.
I thank Senator Warner and Senator Graham and others who have shown
an interest. Senator Warner has had a series of hearings for a long
period of time. I believe we can do a great service for the military
and for the country if we adopt this simple two-paragraph amendment
that basically says that prisoners will be treated according to the
Army Field Manual, which, by the way, is the tradition of treatment of
prisoners for many wars.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend Senator McCain. I have been
privileged to know him ever since I was Secretary of Navy in the
closing years of the war in Vietnam. I know no military family that has
served our Nation with greater distinction than the McCain family. This
is a subject about which my dear friend has knowledge that none of us
possess. I have absolute confidence they are doing the right thing.
The two of us do have some technical differences of opinion. His
amendment is predicated on the Army Field Manual which he mentioned is
being revised. The current Army Field Manual basically dealt with
State-sponsored conflict. I have every reason to believe that the
follow-on manual, in due course, presumably in both classified and
unclassified form, will be completed.

Amendment No. 1566

There is another approach here. I ask unanimous consent, if it is
agreeable, to set the McCain amendment aside temporarily and ask
amendment 1566 be brought up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. And in no way do I wish it to substitute for Senator
McCain's amendment. This is a complicated subject.
Essentially, my amendment simply says it will be the Secretary of
Defense that will establish uniform standards and procedures for two
separable subjects, detention and interrogation.
While I have not had a chance to go through in detail the Army's
Field Manual, I am not sure there is the emphasis placed on the
detention rule in such a manner as equivalent to the detention and
regulation that will be and is on the interrogation. Those responsible
for detention are often quite different than those responsible for
interrogation. If there is any mistreatment in the course of the
detention, depending on the timing between such treatment and the
follow-on interrogation, it seems to me we have a problem.
Therefore, my amendment entrusts to the Secretary of Defense the task
to put together basically all of the objectives as enunciated by my
distinguished friend from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia, [Mr. Warner], proposes an
amendment numbered 1566.

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for uniform standards and procedures for the
interrogation of persons under the detention of the Department of
Defense)

At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1073. UNIFORM STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR TREATMENT OF
PERSONS UNDER DETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.

(a) Uniform Standards and Procedures Required.--The
Secretary of Defense shall establish uniform standards and
procedures for the detention and interrogation of persons in
the custody or under the control of the Department of
Defense.
(b) Consistency With Law and Treaty Obligations.--The
standards and procedures established under subsection (a)
shall be consistent with United States law and international
treaty obligations.
(c) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--The standards and procedures established
under subsection (a) shall apply to all detention and
interrogation activities involving persons in the custody or
under the control of the Department of Defense, and to such
activities conducted within facilities controlled by the
Department of Defense, regardless of whether such activities
are conducted by Department of Defense personnel, Department
of Defense contractor personnel, or personnel or contractor
personnel of any other department, agency, or element of the
United States Government.
(2) Exception.--The standards and procedures established
under subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any
person in the custody or under the control of the Department
of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of
the United States.
(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall affect
such rights, if any, under the Constitution of the United
States of any person in the custody or under the control of
the Department of Defense.
(e) Notice to Congress of Revision.--Not later than 60 days
before issuing any revision to the standards and procedures
established under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense
shall notify, in writing, the congressional defense
committees of such revision.
(f) Deadline.--The standards and procedures required by
subsection (a) shall be established not later than 60 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Mr. WARNER. There are considerable parallels between the two
amendments, with the exception that the subject should be adjusted to
the Secretary of Defense. He may well designate the Army Field Manual
as his work product, but then I would need, under the amendment, the
assurance that equal emphasis is put on the detention phase as well as
the interrogation phase.
Recent history has shown we must have uniform standards for detention
and interrogation across the Department of Defense. We cannot have
different standards for different theaters.
Soldiers, as Senator McCain pointed out, have to be trained and well
understand the rules and regulations as they relate to both detention
and interrogation. That is the goal of the McCain amendment. I
wholeheartedly support it. It is best to entrust the entire subject to
the Secretary of Defense and hold him accountable, as opposed to the
designation of the specific document which is in the process of being
changed.

Amendment No. 1557, As Modified

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to
consideration of the McCain amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, seeing our other colleague, Senator
Graham, I yield the floor. But I also see Senator McCain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Amendment No. 1566

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a brief comment on the chairman's
amendment. Leaving it in the hands of the Secretary of Defense is what
caused the huge amount of problems we have today.
I have here--in fact, thanks to the tenacity of the Senator from
South Carolina--finally, after a year and a half, 2 years, the
memoranda that were submitted by the uniformed JAGS when

[[Page S8793]]

the rules for the treatment of prisoners were set up the first time, I
say to my friend from Virginia. They all objected to it. They were
overruled by the Secretary of Defense and the general counsel.
So now, if I understand it, the amendment of my dear friend from
Virginia is going to return that to the Secretary of Defense. I urge
him to read these memoranda which we finally got thanks to, again, the
Senator from South Carolina: treating OEF detainees inconsistently with
the Conventions; arguably lowers the bar for the treatment of U.S. POWs
in future conflicts, even when nations agree with the President's
status determination. Many would view the more extreme interrogation
techniques as violative of international law, other treaties, or
customary international law; perhaps violative of their own domestic
law. This puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of
criminal accusations abroad, either in foreign domestic courts or
international fora, to include the ICC.
I remind my colleagues, these are the memoranda that were sent to
comment on the Secretary of Defense guidelines for interrogations of
prisoners, which were overruled. And then, a couple months later, they
were rescinded.
So in all due respect, my friend from Virginia has a degree of
confidence in the Secretary of Defense which, frankly, is not validated
by what took place and many argue is one of the reasons why we had Abu
Ghraib.
So I thank my colleague and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could reply to my good friend, you
are absolutely right. And I know that chapter as you do and have
studied it. But under the law, the Secretary of Defense is still the
head of the Department, and as such I suppose he can alter the field
manual of the Army and make it less in the present form and in the
revised form in due course. But I think it is important we have a clear
chain of authority and accountability. I look up the chain, and there
are the laws established by the Secretary of Defense as opposed to
those who might be involved in drawing up the Army Field Manual. I
presume the Secretary of the Army is at the top of that pyramid.
But that is the reason I put in this amendment. I say to my good
friend from Arizona, I hope we can sort this out before final passage
and possibly amend it. I will withdraw mine because I want you to take
the lead in every respect on this important amendment.
If I might add, I say to my friend from Arizona, there is another
important amendment you needed to get completed.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thought my colleague wanted me to wait
on the additional amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Well, whatever.
Mr. McCAIN. But I will be glad to proceed. Why don't we let the
Senator from South Carolina talk, and then maybe, if it is all right, I
will offer the other amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Fine.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I ask
unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 1557,
which is the field manual amendment to which they have been referring.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could be recognized just for 1 minute
to comment on this amendment, and then I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate Senator
McCain. I do not think there is anybody in this body who speaks with
greater authority on the subject matter he has spoken to in this
amendment. I commend him for the distinction he is making. It is a
critical distinction. In addition to the fact that the field manual is
there for everybody to see and has historic meaning, the difference
between the McCain amendment and the one which was offered by the
Senator from Virginia--another difference--is that the field manual is
a public document. You can read what is in the field manual. The
Secretary of Defense memoranda too often have been classified
``unavailable.'' We have been spending sometimes months and years
trying to just find out what is in those memoranda.
So there is a very important difference between these two amendments
in a number of regards. I very much believe that the first amendment,
amendment No. 1557, is the way which is most consistent with our
values. It makes it very clear, in public, what the authorities are and
what the standards and criteria are. The contrast between that and
something amorphous, which gives the Secretary of Defense a power he
already has anyway, which is to issue regulations but to do so in
secret and in a classified way, leads to more vagueness, more
uncertainty, more conflict, more inability of Congress to perform
oversight.
So I commend the Senator from Arizona for this amendment. I believe
the differences between these two amendments are significant.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I accept my good friend's critique, but I
do point out, as the Army Field Manual is under revision, there will be
both a classified and unclassified portion of that manual.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could just comment briefly on that, at
least with the unclassified portion, we have access to it, unlike the
documents that are issued by the Secretary of Defense memoranda. They
are classified, but they are also, too often, unavailable to Congress.
They just use one excuse after another not to make those memoranda
available to Congress. So there may be a classified version of the
field manual, but at least Congress has access to that unclassified
version.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am well aware of the efforts of my good
friend from Michigan to get documents from the Department of Defense
and his modest success and some lack of success.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from
South Carolina such time as he deems necessary.
Could the Chair advise us as to the amount of time remaining under
the hour that I requested?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has 20
minutes.
Mr. WARNER. That is the full time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 13 minutes. The
Senator from Arizona has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. WARNER. Well, we will allocate the time among the three of us in
an equitable way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 1557, As Modified

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator McCain's
amendment. The point that Senator Warner is making, I fully understand.
But I think we are at a crossroads in the war on terror. Guantanamo Bay
has great potential to make us safer as a nation. But one of the
problems we have experienced in this war is a problem of image. It is a
new kind of enemy with a lot of nuances. But one thing we cannot do as
a nation is forget who we are, what got us here for 200-something
years. We can fight this enemy aggressively, no-holds-barred, go after
them, and not lose who we are.
Senator McCain is addressing one of the problems we have found crop
up in different areas of the world when it comes to noncitizen foreign
terrorists, and that is how you interrogate and stay within the
boundaries of who you are as a people and not getting your own people
in trouble by cutting corners.
So the reason I am supporting his amendment--and we are not just
saying: Secretary of Defense, come up with a solution here--is because,
after a lot of thought and study, it is clear to me that the Army Field
Manual gives you everything you need to aggressively interrogate and
seek good intelligence from foreign noncitizen terrorists held at GTMO
and any other place under DOD control.

[[Page S8794]]

Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record several memos
that have just been recently declassified. They were requested on
October 7 of last year by myself, Senator Levin, and Senator McCain.
The first one is a 27 February 2003 memo from BG Kevin M. Sandkuhler,
U.S. Marine Corps, Staff Judge Advocate to CMC. The next one is from MG
Thomas J. Romig, U.S. Army, the Judge Advocate General, dated 3 March
2003. The next is from MG Jack L. Rives, Deputy Judge Advocate General
of the U.S. Air Force, dated 6 February 2003. The next is from RADM
Michael F. Lohr, Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, dated 6 February
2003. The next is Rear Admiral Lohr, dated 13 March 2002. And the final
memo is from Major General Rives, Deputy Judge Advocate General, U.S.
Air Force, dated 5 February 2003. I ask unanimous consent those
memorandums be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of the Navy,

Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps,

Washington, DC, February 27, 2003.
Memorandum for General Counsel of the Air Force
Subject: Working Group Recommendations on Detainee
Interrogations

1. In addition to comments we submitted 5 February, we
concur with the recommendations submitted by the Navy (TJAG
RADM Lohr), the Air Force (TJAG MGen Rives), and the Joint
Staff Legal Counsel's Office. Their recommendations dealt
with policy considerations, contention with the OLC opinion,
and foreign interpretations of GC IV (Civilians) and
customary international law, respectively.
2. The common thread among our recommendations is concern
for servicemembers. OLC does not represent the services;
thus, understandably, concern for servicemembers is not
reflected in their opinion. Notably, their opinion is silent
on the UCMJ and foreign views of international law.
3. We nonetheless recommend that the Working Group product
accurately portray the services' concerns that the
authorization of aggressive counter-resistance techniques by
servicemembers will adversely impact the following:
a. Treatment of U.S. Servicemembers by Captors and
compliance with International Law.
b. Criminal and Civil Liability of DOD Military and
Civilian Personnel in Domestic, Foreign, and International
Forums.
c. U.S. and International Public Support and Respect of
U.S. Armed Forces.
d. Pride, Discipline, and Self-Respect within the U.S.
Armed Forces.
e. Human Intelligence Exploitation and Surrender of Foreign
Enemy Forces, and Cooperation and Support of Friendly
Nations.
Kevin M. Sandkuhler,
Brigadier General, USMC, Staff Judge Advocate to CMC.

[SECRET/NOFORN] DECLASSIFIED

Comments on Draft Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations

1. Change p. 54, fifth paragraph, to read as follows (new
language italic):
([S/NF]U) Choice of interrogation techniques involves a
risk benefit analysis in each case, bounded by the limits of
DOD policy and law. When assessing whether to use exceptional
interrogation techniques, consideration should be given to
the possible adverse effects on U.S. Armed Forces culture and
self-image which suffered during the Vietnam conflict and at
other times due to perceived law of war violations. DOD
policy indoctrinated in the DOD Law of War Program in 1979
and subsequent service regulations, greatly restored the
culture and self-image of U.S. Armed Forces by establishing
high benchmarks of compliance with the principles and spirit
of the law of war and humane treatment of all persons in U.S.
Armed Forces custody. In addition, consideration should be
given to whether implementation of such techniques is likely
to result in adverse impacts for DOD personnel who are
captured or detained [become POWs,] including possible
perceptions by other nations that the United States is
lowering standards related to the treatment of prisoners and
other detainees, generally.
2. Add to p. 68, a paragraph after the seventh paragraph
that reads:
(U) Comprehensive protection is lacking for DOD personnel
who may be tried by other nations and/or international bodies
for violations of international law, such as violations of
the Geneva or Hague Conventions, the Additional Protocols,
the Torture Convention, the Rome Statute of the ICC, or the
Customary International Law of Human Rights. This risk has
the potential to impact future operations and overseas travel
of such personnel, both on and off duty.
____

Department of the Army, Office of the Judge Advocate
General,
Washington, DC, March 3, 2003.

MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Subject: Draft Report and Recommendations of the Working
Group to Access the Legal, Policy and Operational Issues
Related to Interrogation of Detainees Held by the U.S.
Armed Forces in the War on Terrorism (U)

1. (U) The purpose of this memorandum is to advise the
Department of Defense (DOD) General Counsel of a number of
serious concerns regarding the draft Report and
Recommendations of the Working Group to Access the Legal,
Policy and Operational Issues Related to Interrogation of
Detainees Held by the U.S. Armed Forces in the War on
Terrorism (Final Report). These concerns center around the
potential Department of Defense (DOD) sanctioning of detainee
interrogation techniques that may appear to violate
international law, domestic law, or both.
2. (U) The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Department of
Justice (DOJ), provided DOD with its analysis of
international and domestic law as it relates to the
interrogation of detainees held by the United States
Government. This analysis was incorporated into the subject
draft Report and forms, almost exclusively, the legal
framework for the Report's Conclusions, Recommendations, and
PowerPoint spreadsheet analysis of the interrogation
techniques in issue. I am concerned with several pivotal
aspects of the OLC opinion.
3. (U) While the OLC analysis speaks to a number of
defenses that could be raised on behalf of those who engage
in interrogation techniques later perceived to be illegal,
the ``bottom line'' defense proffered by OLC is an
exceptionally broad concept of ``necessity.'' This defense is
based upon the premise that any existing federal statutory
provision or international obligation is unconstitutional per
se, where it otherwise prohibits conduct viewed by the
President, acting in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, as
essential to his capacity to wage war. I question whether
this theory would ultimately prevail in either the U.S.
courts or in any international forum. If such a defense is
not available, soldiers ordered to use otherwise illegal
techniques run a substantial risk of criminal prosecution or
personal liability arising from a civil lawsuit.
4. (U) The OLC opinion states further that customary
international law cannot bind the U.S. Executive Branch as it
is not part of the federal law. As such, any presidential
decision made in the context of the ongoing war on terrorism
constitutes a ``controlling'' Executive act; one that
immediately and automatically displaces any contrary
provision of customary international law. This view runs
contrary to the historic position taken by the United States
Government concerning such laws and, in our opinion, could
adversely impact DOD interests worldwide. On the one hand,
such a policy will open us to international criticism that
the ``U.S. is a law unto itself.'' On the other,
implementation of questionable techniques will very likely
establish a new baseline for acceptable practice in this
area, putting our service personnel at far greater risk and
vitiating many of the POW/detainee safeguards the U.S. has
worked hard to establish over the past five decades.
5. (U) I recommend that the aggressive counter-resistance
interrogation techniques under consideration be vetted with
the Army intelligence community before a final decision on
their use is made. Some of these techniques do not comport
with Army doctrine as set forth in Field Manual (FM) 34-52
Intelligence Interrogation, and may be of questionable
practical value in obtaining reliable information from those
being interrogated.

Thomas J. Romig,

Major General, U.S. Army,
The Judge Advocate General.
____

Department of the Air Force, Office of the Judge Advocate
General,
Washington, DC, February 6, 2003.

MEMORANDUM FOR SAF/GC

From: AF/JA
Subject: Comments on Draft Report and Recommendations of the
Working Group to Assess the Legal, Policy and Operational
Issues Relating to Interrogation of Detainees Held by the
U.S. Armed Forces in the War on Terrorism (U)

1. (U) Please note that while I accept that the Department
of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (DoJ/OLC), speaks for the
Executive Branch and that its legal opinions in this matter
are to be followed, I continue to maintain that DoJ/OLC's
opinions on several of the Working Group's issues are
contentious. Others may disagree with various portions of the
DoJ/OLC analysis. I believe we should recognize this fact and
therefore urge that certain factors should be prominently
provided to the DoD/GC before he makes a final recommendation
to the Secretary of Defense. I recommend the following
specific modifications to the draft report dated 4 February
2003:
a. Page 2, add the following sentence to the end of
paragraph 2:
It should be noted that several of the legal opinions
expressed herein are likely to be viewed as contentious
outside the Executive Branch, both domestically and
internationally.
b. Page 54, change fourth full paragraph to read as
follows:
(U) Choice of interrogation techniques involves a risk
benefit analysis in each case, bounded by the limits of DOD
policy and law. When assessing whether to use exceptional
interrogation techniques, consideration should be given to
the possible adverse effects on U.S. Armed Forces culture and
self-

[[Page S8795]]

image, which suffered during the Vietnam conflict and at
other times due to perceived law of armed conflict
violations. DoD policy, indoctrined in the DoD Law of War
Program in 1979 and subsequent service regulations, greatly
restored the culture and self-image of U.S. Armed Forces by
establishing high benchmarks of compliance with the
principles and spirit of the law of war, and humane treatment
of all persons in U.S. Armed Forces custody. U.S. Armed
Forces are continuously trained to take the legal and moral
``high-road'' in the conduct of our military operations
regardless of how others may operate. While the detainees'
status as unlawful belligerents may not entitle them to
protections of the Geneva Conventions, that is a legal
distinction that may be lost on the members of the armed
forces. Approving exceptional interrogation techniques may be
seen as giving official approval and legal sanction to the
application of interrogation techniques that U.S. Armed
Forces have heretofore been trained are unlawful. In
addition, consideration should be given to whether
implementation of such techniques is likely to result in
adverse impacts for DoD personnel who become POWs,
including possible perceptions by other nations that the
United States is lowering standards related to the
treatment of prisoners, generally.
Alternatively, change the last paragraph on page 68, to
read as follows:
(U) The cultural and self-image of the U.S. Armed Forces
suffered during the Vietnam conflict and at other times due
to perceived law of armed conflict violations. DoD policy,
indoctrinated in the DoD Law of War Program in 1979 and
subsequent service regulations, greatly restored the culture
and self-image of U.S. Armed Forces. U.S. Armed Forces are
continuously trained to take the legal and moral ``high-
road'' in the conduct of our military operations regardless
of how others may operate. While the detainees' status as
unlawful belligerents may not entitle them to protections of
the Geneva Conventions, that is a legal distinction that may
be lost on the members of the armed forces. Approving
exceptional interrogation techniques may be seen as giving
official approval and legal sanction to the application of
interrogation techniques that U.S. Armed Forces have
heretofore been trained are unlawful. General use of
exceptional techniques (generally, having substantially
greater risk than those currently, routinely used by U.S.
Armed Forces interrogators), even though lawful, may create
uncertainty among interrogators regarding the appropriate
limits of interrogations, and may adversely affect the
cultural self-image of the U.S. armed forces.
c. Page 68, add the following new paragraphs after the
sixth full paragraph:
(U) Several of the exceptional techniques, on their face,
amount to violations of domestic criminal law and the UCMJ
(e.g., assault). Applying exceptional techniques places
interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal
accusations domestically. Although one or more of the
aforementioned defenses to these accusations may apply, it is
impossible to be certain that any of these defenses will be
successful as the judiciary may interpret the applicable law
differently from the interpretation provided herein.
(U) Other nations are likely to view the exceptional
interrogation techniques as violative of international law
and perhaps violative of their own domestic law. This places
interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal
accusations abroad, either in foreign domestic courts or in
international fora, to include the ICC.
d. Page 68, add the following new paragraphs after the
eighth full paragraph:
(U) Employment of exceptional interrogation techniques may
have a negative effect on the treatment of U.S. POWs. Other
nations may disagree with the President's status
determination regarding Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF)
detainees, concluding that the detainees are POWs entitled to
all of the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Treating
OEF detainees inconsistently with the Conventions arguably
``lowers the bar'' for the treatment of U.S. POWs in future
conflicts. Even where nations agree with the President's
status determination, many may view the exceptional
techniques as violative of other law.
2. (U) Should any information concerning the exceptional
techniques become public, it is likely to be exaggerated/
distorted in both the U.S. and international media. This
could have a negative impact on international, and perhaps
even domestic, support for the war on terrorism. It could
likewise have a negative impact on public perception of the
U.S. military in general.

Jack L. Rives,

Major General, USAF,
Deputy Judge Advocate General.
____

Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate
General,
Washington, DC, February 6, 2003.
Subj: Working Group recommendations relating to interrogation
of detainees.

1. Earlier today I provided to you a number of suggested
changes, additions, and deletions to the subject document.
2. I would like to further recommend that the document make
very clear to decision-makers that its legal conclusions are
limited to arguably unique circumstances of this group of
detainees, i.e., unlawful combatants held ``outside'' the
United States. Because of these unique circumstances, the
U.S. Torture Statute, the Constitution, the Geneva
Conventions and customary international law do not apply,
thereby affording policy latitude that likely does not exist
in almost any other circumstance. (The UCMJ, however, does
apply to U.S. personnel conducting the interrogations.)
3. Given this unique set of circumstances, I believe policy
considerations continue to loom very large. Should service
personnel be conducting the interrogations? How will this
affect their treatment when incarcerated abroad and our
ability to call others to account for their treatment? More
broadly, while we may have found a unique situation in GTMO
where the protections of the Geneva Conventions, U.S.
statutes, and even the Constitution do not apply, will the
American people find we have missed the forest for the trees
by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are
inconsistent with our most fundamental values? How would such
perceptions affect our ability to prosecute the Global War on
Terrorism?
4. I accept the premise that this group of detainees is
different, and that lawyers should identify legal
distinctions where they exist. It must be conceded, however,
that we are preparing to treat these detainees very
differently than we treat any other group, and differently
than we permit our own people to be treated either at home or
abroad. At a minimum, I recommend that decision-makers be
made fully aware of the very narrow set of circumstances--
factually and legally--upon which the policy rests. Moreover,
I recommend that we consider asking decision-makers directly:
is this the ``right thing'' for U.S. military personnel?

Michael F. Lohr,

Rear Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy,
Judge Advocaate General.
____

Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate
General,
Washington, DC, March 13, 2002.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE AIR FORCE GENERAL COUNSEL

Subject: Comments on the 6 March 2003 Detainee Interrogation
Working Group Report

1. My comments on subject report are provided below. These
comments incorporate and augment those submitted by my action
officer earlier this week. New comments are highlighted
within the previously submitted text.
1. (U) Page 2, second paragraph: Add new penultimate
sentence to read, ``In addition this paper incorporates
significant portions of work product provided by the Office
of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice.'' In
the last sentence change ``by a Department . . .'' to ``by
the Department . . .'' Finally, add new footnote to reference
the OLC opinion to read ``Memorandum dated March xx, 2003.,
Re: xxxxxxxxxx.
Rationale: this WG paper contains large segments of DOJ
work product, rather than being ``informed'' by DOJ. We
believe the OLC opinion should be incorporated by reference
into the WG report.
2. (U) Page 24, second paragraph, last sentence: delete.
Rationale: this sentence is not true. There are domestic
limits on the President's power to interrogate prisoners. One
of them is Congress's advice and consent to the US
ratification to the Geneva Conventions that limit the
interrogation of POWs. The willingness of the Executive, and
of the Legislative Branch, to enforce those restrictions is a
different matter.
3. (U) Page 24, footnote 20: delete or rewrite to read,
``This is the stated view of the Department of Justice.''
Rationale: Mr. Yoo clearly stated that he believes the
viability of these defenses is greatly enhanced by advance
Presidential direction in the matter. He specifically
recommended obtaining such direction in writing.
4. (U) Page 26, first full paragraph, first sentence:
delete.
Rationale: this statement is too broad. The similar
language used at the end of the following paragraph is more
accurate.
5. (U) Page 29, second paragraph, fifth sentence: Rewrite
sentence to read, ``A leading scholarly commentator . . .''
and later in the sentence change ``. . . section 2340 would
be justified under . . .'' to ``. . . section 2340 should be
justified under . . .''
Rationale: There is only one article written by one person
cited. Also the quoted language from the commentator
indicates his view that torture should be permissible, not a
statement that international law allows such.
6. (U) Page 29, second paragraph, last sentence: delete.
Rationale: this conclusion is far too broad but the general
principle can be inferred from the discussion.
7. (U) Page 31, para d, third sentence and penultimate
sentences: delete.
Rationale: This analogy is inapt. There is nothing in law
enforcement that would authorize the use of torture or
excessive force against persons for intelligence gathering.
8. (U) Page 41, second paragraph, penultimate sentence:
delete.
Rationale: it is not clear what the meaning of the sentence
is.
9. (U) Page 59, second paragraph: it is unclear if SECDEF
must approve exceptional techniques on a case-by-case basis,
or just approve their use generally.
10. (U) Page 63, footnote 86. The text of this footnote
does not correspond to its citation

[[Page S8796]]

in the paper. It appears that the current text of footnote 86
belongs as part of the discussion of API in the paragraph
above, or as part of the text of footnotes 83 or 84. Footnote
86 should detail the rationale for the Justice Department
determination that GCIV does not apply.
11. (U) Page 67, technique 26: Add last sentence to read,
``Members of the armed forces will not threaten the detainee
with the possible results of the transfer, but will instead
limit the threat to the fact of transfer to allow the
detainee to form their own conclusions about such a move.''
Rationale: threatening the detainee with death or injury
(by the transfer) may be considered torture under
international law.
12. (U) Page 72, second paragraph: in the last sentence
replace ``protections of the Geneva Conventions'' with
``protections of the third Geneva Convention.''
Rationale: clarity
13. (U) Page 72, second paragraph: add new last sentence to
read: ``Under international law, the protections of the
fourth Geneva Convention may apply to the detainees.''
Rationale: this view is shared by Chairman's Legal and all
the services.
14. (U) Page 72, third paragraph: at the beginning add,
``In those cases where the President has made a controlling
executive decision or action . . .''
Rationale: this is the standard by which the President may
``override'' CIL.
15. (U) Page 73, sixth paragraph: Add new last sentence to
read, ``Presidential written directive to engage in these
techniques will enhance the successful assertion of the
potential defenses discussed in this paper.''
Rationaie: much of the analysis in this paper is premised
on the authority of the President as delegated/directed, in
writing, to SECDEF and beyond. This point needs to be made
prominently.
16. (U) Matrix Annex, Technique 33: delete.
Rationale: It is not clear what the intent of this
technique is. If it loses its effectiveness after the first
or second use, it appears to be little more than a gratuitous
assault. Other methods are equally useful in getting/
maintaining the attention of the detainee. It also has the
potential to be applied differently by different individuals.
17. (U) Page 75, first paragraph, in the discussion re
technique 36: Rewrite 3rd to last and penultimate sentences
to read, ``The working group believes use of technique 36
would constitute torture under international and U.S. law
and, accordingly, should not be utilized. In the event SECDEF
decides to authorize this technique, the working group
believes armed forces personnel should not participate as
interrogators as they are subject to UCMJ jurisdiction at all
times.''
This is a correct statement of the positions of the
services party to the working group, who all believe this
technique constitutes torture under both domestic and
international law.
18. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My action
officer in this matter is CDR Steve Gallotta.

Michael F. Lohr,

Rear Admiral, JAGC, U.S. Navy,
Judge Advocate General.
____

Department of the Air Force, Office of the Judge Advocate
General,
Washington, DC, February 5, 2003.

memorandum for saf/gc

From: AF/JA
Subject: Final Report and Recommendations of the Working
Group to Assess the Legal, Policy and Operational Issues
Relating to Interrogation of Detainees Held by the U.S.
Armed Forces in the War on Terrorism (U)

1. (U) In drafting the subject report and recommendations,
the legal opinions of the Department of Justice, Office of
Legal Counsel (DoJ/OLC), were relied on almost exclusively.
Although the opinions of DoJ/OLC are to be given a great deal
of weight within the Executive Branch, their positions on
several of the Working Group's issues are contentious. As our
discussion demonstrate, others within and outside the
Executive Branch are likely to disagree. The report and
recommendations caveat that it only applies to ``strategic
interrogations'' of ``unlawful combatants'' at locations
outside the United States. Although worded to permit maximum
flexibility and legal interpretation, I believe other factors
need to be provided to the DoD/GC before he makes a final
recommendation to the Secretary of Defense.
2. (U) Several of the more extreme interrogation
techniques, on their face, amount to violations of domestic
criminal law and the UCMJ (e.g., assault). Applying the more
extreme techniques during the interrogation of detainees
places the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of
criminal accusations domestically. Although a wide range of
defenses to these accusations theoretically apply, it is
impossible to be certain that any defense will be successful
at trial; our domestic courts may well disagree with DoJ/
OLC's interpretation of the law. Further, while the current
administration is not likely to pursue prosecution, it is
impossible to predict how future administrations will view
the use of such techniques.
3. (U) Additionally, other nations are unlikely to agree
with DoJ/OLC's interpretation of the law in some instances.
Other nations may disagree with the President's status
determination regarding the Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF)
detainees; they may conclude that the detainees are POWs
entitled to all of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Treating OEF detainees inconsistently with the Conventions
arguably ``lowers the bar'' for the treatment of U.S. POWs in
future conflicts. Even where nations agree with the
President's status determination, many would view the more
extreme interrogation techniques as violative of other
international law (other treaties or customary international
law) and perhaps violative of their own domestic law. This
puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of
criminal accusations abroad, either in foreign domestic
courts or in international fora, to include the ICC.
4. (U) Should any information regarding the use of the more
extreme interrogation techniques become public, it is likely
to be exaggerated/distorted in both the U.S. and
international media. This could have a negative impact on
international, and perhaps even domestic, support for the war
on terrorism. Moreover, it could have a negative impact on
public perception of the U.S. military in general.
5. (U) Finally, the use of the more extreme interrogation
techniques simply is not how the U.S. armed forces have
operated in recent history. We have taken the legal and moral
``high-road'' in the conduct of our military operations
regardless of how others may operate. Our forces are trained
in this legal and moral mindset beginning the day they enter
active duty. It should be noted that law of armed conflict
and code of conduct training have been mandated by Congress
and emphasized since the Viet Nam conflict when our POWs were
subjected to torture by their captors. We need to consider
the overall impact of approving extreme interrogation
techniques as giving official approval and legal sanction to
the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. forces
have consistently been trained are unlawful.

Jack L. Rives,

Major General, USAF,
Deputy Judge Advocate General.

Mr. GRAHAM. Now, over time, we are going to learn more about what
these memos tell us, but basically these memos are telling us that the
proposed interrogation techniques dealing with the war on terror,
suggested by the Department of Justice, sent over to Department of
Defense, were such a deviation from the normal way of doing business
that it would get our own people in trouble. It was such a deviation
from the normal way of doing business that we would lose the moral high
ground in fighting the war on terror.
General Rives sums up:

Finally, the use of the more extreme interrogation
techniques simply is not how the U.S. armed forces have
operated in recent history. We have taken the legal and moral
``high-road'' in the conduct of our military operations
regardless of how others may operate. Our forces are trained
in this legal and moral mindset beginning the day they enter
active duty. It should be noted that [the] law of armed
conflict and code of conduct training have been mandated by
Congress and emphasized since the Viet Nam conflict when our
POWs were subjected to torture by their captors. We need to
consider the overall impact of approving extreme
interrogation techniques as giving official approval and
legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques
that U.S. forces have consistently been trained are unlawful.

He talks about a slippery slope that we are about to embark on that
will result in some of our own people being subject to being court-
martialed because the Uniform Code of Military Justice has many
provisions dictating how you will treat someone who is in your custody
as a detainee. And they were trying to tell the Department of Justice
and the Department of Defense civilian lawyers: Do not go down this
road. You are going to bite off more problems than it is worth.
Admiral Lohr says that some of the techniques would violate the
torture statute. I will read in more detail later what these memos are
telling us the rules of the road are. But these are not from the ACLU.
These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle
foreign terrorists. These are all professional military lawyers who
have dedicated their lives, with 20-plus year careers, to serving the
men and women in uniform and protecting their Nation. They were giving
a warning shot across the bow of the policymakers that there are
certain corners you cannot afford to cut because you will wind up
meeting yourself.
What Senator McCain is trying to do is build upon their advice by
putting in

[[Page S8797]]

place an interrogation technique that this country can be proud of,
that we all will understand, and that can be implemented to make us
safer without having a black eye throughout the world.
I asked the question--when I went to GTMO with the chairman about a
week or 2 ago--to all the interrogators there: Is there anything
lacking in the Army Field Manual that would inhibit your ability to get
good intelligence? And they said no. I asked: Could you live with the
Army Field Manual as your guide and do your job? They said yes.
The reason the Army Field Manual is a good source is because it has
been part of who we are for years. People are trained on it. What was
happening is, the Department of Justice, understandably, after
September 11, wanted to come up with the most aggressive techniques
possible to deal with foreign terrorists. But the JAGS are telling us
you cannot look at this one event in isolation. You have to understand
what we have been standing for for 60 years and what the law actually
says. The DOJ's interpretation of the torture statute from a lawyer's
point of view was absurd. And the JAGS were telling the policymakers:
If you go down this road, you are going to get your own people in
trouble. You are on a slippery slope. You are going to lose the moral
high ground. This was 2003. And they were absolutely right.
To Secretary Rumsfeld's credit, when he heard about the working group
having problems with the DOJ's suggested interpretations of
``interrogation,'' he reconvened and the techniques changed. But as
Senator McCain has said very well, we need to bring certainty to this
process of interrogating foreign terrorists to make sure we can get
good, reliable information. We can do it in a way that people
understand, our troops will not get in trouble, and we can show the
world we are truly a rule-of-law nation.
There is nothing inconsistent with interrogating people to get good
information to protect our country and using the Army Field Manual.
What has got us in trouble is when we try to make it up as we go, when
we forget who we are, when we will not listen to people who have worn
the uniform, who are in uniform, telling us: Do not go down this road,
our people are trained to do it one way, you are confusing the heck out
of them.
What have we learned in the last 2 years? If you know what the rules
are about interrogating anybody, come tell me because I can't figure it
out. I have spent 20 years as an Air Force lawyer myself. There is much
confusion, and confusion in war is dangerous. Anyone who misunderstands
what we are doing here in terms of our view of terrorists is playing
politics. No one supporting this amendment wants a foreign noncitizen
terrorist not to be aggressively detained, prosecuted, if appropriate,
and interrogated to make our country safer. We can prosecute, we can
detain, and we can interrogate aggressively, but we have to have rules
that our people can understand and don't deviate from who we are as a
Nation. That is why I am supporting this amendment.
Everyone who works at GTMO dealing with the 500 foreign noncitizen
terrorist suspects, enemy combatants, has told me, because I asked the
question, if you use the Army Field Manual, we have everything within
that manual we need to do the job right. If you use the Army Field
Manual, we will be back in a good place with the law. We will be back
in a place where our people can understand what is going on. We will
again capture the moral high ground which is the ultimate way to win
this war.
There is no downside to this. The upside is huge. We are able to get
good information, not get our people in trouble, and have a better
image in the world. That is why I am supporting this amendment.
I have included these memos for the record. It would serve every
Senator well to spend 5 or 10 minutes reading through them because
these people were telling us in 2003, if you go down this road, the
road we chose initially, you are going to get everybody involved in
trouble. That is exactly what happened.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1556, As Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 1556 at the desk. I
ask unanimous consent for its modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is it the desire that I call up 1556 at
this time?
Mr. WARNER. Yes, Mr. President, I suggest that we have amended the
present one which is referred to as the Army Field Manual, and I am a
cosponsor on that. Now there is a second amendment. I submitted to the
Senator a suggestion, I believe that is----
Mr. McCAIN. It is modified.
Mr. WARNER. Let's bring that up now and have that pending.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
No. 1556 be considered at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, I know the discussion
has been going on about the field manual issue. Is the Senator now
going to that amendment or are we leaving that amendment? I would like
to at least make a few remarks about that subject.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the field manual amendment has been laid
aside for the moment. This goes to a second amendment which is----
Mr. SESSIONS. Was there a unanimous consent request made for that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair heard a unanimous consent request to
move to a new amendment.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. And the Chair asked if there was objection.
Did the Senator from Alabama object?
Mr. SESSIONS. I object at this point because I don't understand what
we are doing. I want to be able to speak on the amendment dealing with
the field manual.
Mr. WARNER. I believe the Senator has just come on the floor. We have
been on this now for about 45 minutes covering the parameter of the
issues that would be brought up. I respect his desire to speak. We will
try to accommodate you at any point. I would urge that we allow the
Senator from Arizona to perfect this amendment and then in due course
he will speak to it. I will speak to it, and we will lay it aside. And
we will find the time for the distinguished Senator from Alabama to
speak.
Mr. SESSIONS. Well, everybody has spoken for it. Nobody has spoken
against it.
Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask, maybe we could take a maximum of 5 minutes,
3 or 4 minutes on this amendment, for which I had unanimous consent,
and then go back to allow the Senator from Alabama to speak.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
Mr. SESSIONS. That would be fine. If I could have 10 minutes, if I
could share a few thoughts on the previous amendment in the next 10
minutes, I would be happy.
Mr. WARNER. We definitely will make that happen. But I want to
inquire of the Senator from South Carolina, you also have a third
amendment. I am not sure of the status. You have it at the desk. You
have spoken to it.
Mr. GRAHAM. I would like at this time to submit it to the desk if I
may.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to propose this
amendment, the Senator from Alabama be allowed to speak for 10 minutes,
the amendment be set aside, and the Senator from South Carolina be
allowed to propose his amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think that is a very orderly manner in
which to accommodate. Then the Senator from Alabama--let's get the time
remaining and I will yield some of my time to the Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion on the floor right now is to call
up, as I understand it, amendment No. 1556 by the Senator from Arizona
as modified.
Mr. McCAIN. As modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Reserving the right to object, I don't intend to
object, I understand we are working out some amendments. I also have an
amendment I would like to offer. I wanted to raise, as the agreement is
being put together, that I have the opportunity to do that.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will assure you, working with the
distinguished Senator from Michigan, we

[[Page S8798]]

will arrange--he has time immediately following the 1 hour being
divided between three Senators and now a fourth. I want to make sure we
have the time remaining to satisfy the needs of the Senator from
Alabama. We now are proceeding on the second McCain amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to reporting amendment No.
1556 by the Senator from Arizona?
Mr. McCAIN. As modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. As modified. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 1556, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1073. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING
TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER
CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT.

(a) In General.--No individual in the custody or under the
physical control of the United States Government, regardless
of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
(b) Presidential Waiver.--(1) The President may waive the
prohibition in subsection (a), on a case-by-case basis, if
the President--
(A) determines that the waiver is required for a military
or national security necessity; and
(B) submits the appropriate committees of Congress timely
notice of the exercise of the waiver.
(2) The authority of the President under paragraph (1) may
not be delegated.
(c) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall not be
construed to impose any geographical limitation on the
applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment under this section.
(d) Limitation on Supersedure.--The provisions of this
section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law
enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which
specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions
of this section.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
(A) the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations and
the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
(B) the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations and
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House
of Representatives.
(2) The term ``cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment
or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as
defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and
Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against
Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we would like to have the Senator from
Arizona take such time as he desires to explain this. I wish to be
added as a cosponsor to this amendment. Then we will yield the floor to
the Senator from Alabama to speak for up to 10 minutes on the subjects
of these three amendments. Then the balance of the time will be
accorded to the Senator from South Carolina to bring forth his
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will notify the Senators that the
Chair is still working under the original previous order of an hour
equally divided, 20 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina, 20
minutes to the Senator from Virginia, and 20 minutes to the Senator
from Arizona.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct. Would the Chair advise of the three
Senators in the original order, what is the time remaining for each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has 2 minutes
remaining. The Senator from Virginia has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. WARNER. I can't hear the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 9 minutes
remaining. The Senator from South Carolina has 2 minutes--10 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WARNER. I yield from my 9 minutes such time as the Senator from
Arizona may need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, with all due respect to the chairman, I
don't think that is going to quite work because the Senator from
Alabama needs 10 minutes. And if you are using your 9 and I only have
2, that doesn't get it done. I ask unanimous consent that I have 3
minutes to discuss my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. That is an additional 3 minutes. I ask unanimous consent
that following that, the Senator from Alabama be recognized for 10
minutes in addition to the unanimous consent agreement, and then the
Senator from South Carolina be allowed to propose his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this
amendment and the previous amendment, No. 1557.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request to ask for
the yeas and nays on two amendments at this time?
Without objection, it is in order to so request.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Warner, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator Collins be added as
cosponsors. I believe we are still scheduled for a vote at 5:30.
Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit cruel, inhuman, and
degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. Government.
The amendment doesn't sound like anything new. That is because it
isn't. The prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law
and policy in the United States. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights adopted in 1948 states simply that: No one shall be subject to
torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S.
is a signatory, is the same. The Binding Convention Against Torture,
negotiated by the Reagan administration, ratified by the Senate,
prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. On last year's DOD
authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment
reaffirming that no detainee in U.S. custody can be subject to torture
or cruel treatment as the U.S. has long defined these terms. All of
this seems to be common sense and in accordance with longstanding
American values.
I will be glad to explain that amendment more if anyone wants. In the
meantime, I know the Senator from Alabama is waiting.
I yield back the remainder of my time on this amendment. I ask
unanimous consent we return at this time to amendment No. 1557,
according to the previous unanimous consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Alabama is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will withhold, I want to endorse the
McCain amendment. Essentially what he is doing is codifying what is
policy now. I think it is of such importance that it would require this
bill to do so.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1557

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will share a little bit of the history
of what has happened, as I recall it. I am sorry, I just got back from
Alabama and was not able to participate earlier in the debate. We have
had maybe 29 hearings involving prisoner abuse. That is a lot of
hearings. I serve on the Judiciary and Armed Services Committees.
Probably 20 of those have been in those 2 committees of which I have
been a member and tried to participate as much as I could in each one
of them. I remember that the U.S. military announced they had problems
in Abu Ghraib with prisoner abuse. They indicated they were conducting
an investigation of it. Members of the Senate, like dogs that chase a
car down the road, sometimes I thought they thought they were making
the car go because they were chasing it.
The military commenced, on its own accord, an investigation that has
culminated in the conviction of a number of people who have gone to
jail for rather substantial periods of time for

[[Page S8799]]

violating the policies of the Department of Defense and the laws of war
on those prisoners in Abu Ghraib. It took place on a midnight shift and
was not justified. It was beyond the law, and they have been punished
for it. That has been morphed into allegations about what happened at
Guantanamo.
We apprehended 17,000 prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. We brought
700 to Guantanamo. There are only 500 left. Some of those are the worst
of the worst. Allegations were made that they were being abused. A
thorough investigation has been conducted of that. Once again, we had a
committee hearing to rehear the report. General Schmidt said there were
24,000 investigations. He found three areas in which he felt things had
gone awry at Guantanamo. All happened right quickly after 9/11, not
going on now, because I was there at Guantanamo Friday a week ago and
they absolutely assured us, Senator Graham and others who were with us,
Chairman Warner, that nothing like that is going on today.
But what were the three complaints? Mr. Khatani, the 20th hijacker,
he found, had been abused cumulatively, three different things
happened. He was interrogated for 20 hours. He was made to listen to
loud music. And at certain times he had been put in shackles. The
general found that was not torture under the definition of torture. It
was not inhuman. But together, they violated the standards the U.S.
military adheres to, and he felt that was in error.
One individual was screaming loudly repeatedly and would not stop.
Someone said he should be stopped. They found some duct tape, and
Americans, I guess, are good with that. They put it around his mouth.
He took it off, and they did it again. He took it off, and they did it
again. So they put it all the way around his head. He felt that was an
abuse. A woman interviewer-interrogator, perhaps losing her temper, or
whatever, issued a threat to one of the prisoners and their family.
There were 3 out of 24,000 matters in Guantanamo.
So, first, I reject the idea that this Defense Department and our
Army and our military is out of control, is confused about what their
powers and duties and responsibilities are. I reject that. I don't
believe that is accurate.
Now, the field manual is good. We had a number of witnesses before
the committee. In one of the many hearings, General Taguba and several
others, when asked, or they just volunteered that the current rules of
interrogation under the field manual aren't appropriately applicable to
all the kinds of new threats we face today and the kind of prisoners we
deal with today. These prisoners today are not under the Geneva
Conventions and aren't prisoners of war. They are unlawful combatants.
They sneak into countries. They don't wear a uniform. They don't carry
their arms openly. They make bombs. They direct them not at military
targets but at men, women, and children who are going about their
peaceful business. So it is indisputable that the Geneva Conventions
don't apply to them.
We have a statute in this country that prohibits torture of anybody
in our control, and that statute stands firm and clear, and that is
certainly a basis for a criminal prosecution for anybody who goes too
far in interrogating witnesses.
Now, you are limited in what you can do when you interrogate a
prisoner of war. We are told to give only name, rank, and serial
number, and others have similar instructions from their countries. You
are limited as to how much you can interrogate them and how much you
can expect them to say. These people are not prisoners of war. They are
terrorists, unlawful combatants, determined to savage the peaceful
people of Spain and their railroad, the people of London, or the people
of New York City. Thank God that because we have been aggressive and
been after them and obtained intelligence from interviews and
interrogation and techniques within the rules of warfare, we have been
able to prevent another attack on this country--Lord be praised--for
almost 4 years now. It can happen again at any time.
I am proud of what our men and women are doing. I was at one of the
committee hearings when a young lieutenant commander in the Navy
testified that the prosecutor blocked him from interviewing a witness.
He told him what to do. He told him he could only plead guilty.
I said: Sir, you are a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy--I was
in a JAG officer slot. Unlike Senator Graham, I was not trained at the
JAG officer school. But I had some training in it and taught the laws
of warfare to our soldiers in the Army Reserve. At any rate, this guy
said he was ordered by the prosecutor.
I said: I never heard of a defense counsel saying a prosecutor could
order them around.
He said: Well, he told me I could not see the prisoner.
I said: You could not see the prisoner?
He said: Except at limited times.
It was out of this that he came up with this bizarre allegation that
he was somehow defending the terrorist. He was given a letter, and he
said he could only represent him to plead guilty. The letter that
appointed him to defend the guy said he was to represent him in all
categories. I was disappointed in the quality of his complaints. I
don't think they held up to be nearly what he was saying publicly.
Whatever got into people's craw about how these matters were handled is
a bit out of whack.
Let's say this: The field manual is the manual that controls our
handling of a lot of things in the Army, including interrogation. But
the President of the United States is Commander in Chief of the
military, and these kinds of prisoners, as the witnesses told us in
committee, were not contemplated when the field manual was written.
Different techniques could be legitimate against them that would not be
legitimate against lawful combatants--the kinds of people we have seen
so many times in the history of warfare. It is a weird thing. We should
not treat them inhumanely. It is an order of the President that we
cannot. We cannot torture them. We have a criminal statute that defines
that and says you cannot do it. You can go to jail if you do.
I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wonder if
we can line up some time at this point. I will not object, but after he
is recognized, I believe then the majority has additional time for
another amendment going up to what time?
Mr. WARNER. We are operating under an original 1-hour agreement that
was modified to give 10 minutes to the Senator from Alabama. I think
under the original 1 hour the Senator from Virginia has time and the
Senator from South Carolina has time. Would I be correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from
Virginia has 9 minutes remaining. The Senator from South Carolina has
10 minutes remaining. We still show the Senator from Arizona, Mr.
McCain, with 2 minutes remaining.
The Chair also notifies Senators that under the previous order, at 5
o'clock, the Senate is to go to 30 minutes of debate on the Americans
with Disabilities resolution.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is followed by a vote, is my
understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is scheduled for 5:30.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
following the completion of those three time periods on the Republican
side, I be allocated 10 minutes on this side, which I will provide
equally between the junior Senator from Michigan, the Senator from
Washington, and myself, so that four amendments can be introduced and
laid aside.
Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, and I do not wish to
object, it seems to me that reality dictates that in 6 minutes we will
go on the ADA; am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. In effect, the Senator from South Carolina, unless he
wants to take the 6 minutes and put his amendment in, we would have to
come back to it at the conclusion of the ADA. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. GRAHAM. I don't want to stop Senator Sessions from finishing. I
can come back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request right now is 2
additional minutes for the Senator from Alabama.

[[Page S8800]]

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, we have not had any time
prior to the ADA matter, and it was intended that we have some time.
There is a prepared UC that would perhaps assist us, which has been
handed to us. I wonder if the manager will read this.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding the previous order, the Senate resume consideration of
S. 207 at 5:15 today, with 15 minutes to debate under the control of
Senator Harkin. I further ask that following the use or yielding back
of the time, the Senate proceed to a rollcall vote on the resolution as
under the previous order.
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I ask that that be modified
to allow 10 minutes between 5:15 and 5:30 to be granted to this side
for the introduction of those amendments. They will be introduced, with
a minute on each, and then set aside.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe that will accommodate our
distinguished colleague from South Carolina to introduce his amendment
beginning now, concluding at 5:10, at which time the Chair will
recognize the junior Senator from Michigan for a period not to exceed 5
minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. No.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, can we include my 2 minutes?
Mr. LEVIN. The junior Senator from Michigan, 2 minutes; the Senator
from Washington, 2 minutes; and me for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator modify the unanimous consent
request?
Mr. WARNER. I do so to accommodate Senator Levin. We have 2 minutes
now for the Senator from Alabama to complete his remarks before the
Chair recognizes the Senator from South Carolina; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request by the
Senator from Alabama?
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, does that include the UC
which the Senator from Virginia read?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The separate unanimous consent request of the
Senator from Virginia would incorporate that. There is one request for
2 additional minutes for the Senator from Alabama; 9 minutes for the
Senator from Virginia--
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, the Democratic leader is
going to want 2 minutes prior to the vote on leadership time, or prior
to 5:15. You all figure it out.
Mr. WARNER. We certainly want to accommodate the Democratic leader.
The Senator from South Carolina indicated that perhaps he would like to
take up his amendment following the vote, giving him then such time as
he requires, and giving the Senator from Michigan such time as he may
require. So perhaps let us allocate the remaining time between now and
5:15 between the Senator from Alabama, the two colleagues on that side,
and the distinguished Democratic leader.
Mr. GRAHAM. That is acceptable to me.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, following the completion of the rollcall
vote, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from South Carolina be
recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Chair understands the now-modified
unanimous consent request, it is a request that the Senator from
Alabama be recognized for 2 additional minutes, the time between that
and 5:15 would be the Senator from Michigan, and at 5:15, under the
previous order, the Senate would consider the Americans with
Disabilities resolution, followed by a vote at 5:30, followed by the
Senator from South Carolina being recognized to offer his amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object, I would like to be able to
state some general areas of agreement and disagreement concerning
Senator Sessions' statement. Is that possible when I introduce my
amendment?
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield. We need only 7\1/2\
minutes before 5:15. I wonder if the chairman will agree to this: After
Senator Sessions, go to the Senator from South Carolina for 5 minutes,
and then come to me.
Mr. WARNER. That is acceptable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will try to conclude and sum this up.
This country was attacked by a very dangerous group of people. I
certainly respect my colleagues' concern and commitment that our
prisoners be treated humanely and consistent with the rules of war. I
have also said that the rules of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to
these unlawful combatants. The field manual is an Army Department of
Defense document that sets the rules for our conduct. But the DOD can
alter that.
As I understand what this amendment would do, it would make the field
manual, with regard to the section involving interrogation and
intelligence, the equivalent of law; that before the Army or Department
of Defense could make any changes in those field manuals, somebody
would have to offer legislation in the House and the Senate, which
would be subject to a filibuster and maybe we could fix it and maybe we
could not. It becomes force of law. I think that is a mistake.

Finally, alterations in procedure by which these prisoners or
detainees were handled was done with review by the Department of
Justice. We had Attorney General Gonzales, when he was White House
counsel and Attorney General, testify about how it came about and all
the legal research that went into it. We had the Department of Defense
leadership discuss this. They reviewed it. The generals reviewed the
heightened techniques personally, individually, and carefully on a
case-by-case basis, and they recommended this general at Guantanamo,
Miller, be disciplined because these combination of events exceeded
what was proper. It was overruled later, but that is how seriously they
take this.
I don't think this is the way to fix this situation. Some prisoners
need to be handled differently than others. We should not bind by law
what the field manual states.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Under the
unanimous consent agreement, the Senator from South Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to build on what Senator
Sessions said. If this amendment did the things suggested, I would
support it. One, the Army Field Manual is being revised, as we speak,
with two groups in mind--lawful combatants and unlawful combatants. The
amendment says that the Army Field Manual be the guide in whatever form
it is in. It does not lock in this version. They are going to have a
version part of it classified so our enemy does not have a chance to
prepare for interrogation techniques that deal with lawful combatants
and unlawful combatants.
The reason we are doing that is because what the JAGs told us over 2
years ago. The common thread among our recommendations is concern for
servicemembers.
If we put people on the line in this war in terror, we want to give
them everything they need as far as equipment. If we put people on the
line in terms of handling detainees, we want to give them everything
they need, the tools to get good information, but what we do not want
to do is put our own people at risk.
We are trying to armor all our vehicles. What we are trying to do
with the people who are holding these terrorists and interrogating them
is not getting them in trouble. The Office of Legal Counsel, on 27
February 2003, from a Marine general, not exactly the ACLU, said:

The common thread among our recommendations is concern for
our service members. The Office of Legal Counsel does not
represent the services, thus understandably concern for
service members does not reflect in their opinion. Notably,
their opinion is violent on the foreign views of
international law.

This is what the judge advocate general of the Army said:

I recommend the aggressive counterresistant interrogation
techniques under consideration be vetted with the Army
intelligence community before a final decision on their use
is made. Some of these techniques do not comport with Army
doctrine as set forth in the Field Manual, FM 34-52,
intelligence interrogation, and may be of questionable
practical value in obtaining reliable information of those
being interrogated.

What we are trying to do is have a guide our troops can understand
with

[[Page S8801]]

two parts--one for lawful combatants and one for unlawful enemy
combatants. We will know what the rules of the road will be. We are
putting congressional approval on those rules.
We have had the White House, Congress, and eventually the courts
saying you can aggressively interrogate prisoners not covered by the
Geneva Conventions. We have been all over the board for the last couple
of years. We are trying to bring it together in symmetry where the
military can write the rules. They know better than I do. I am not
saying I am an expert on interrogations. They are going to write the
rules the way they need to be written, and Congress is going to say you
are good to go.
These JAGs were telling us you have confused concepts, so we are
trying to do away with that confusion to make it stronger, not weaker,
to make us better at gathering intelligence and avoid the problems we
have had in the last 2 years.
I think it is a very smart thing to do. I look forward to trying to
help change it if it needs to be changed, but nobody is locking the
military into a set of rules that does not allow them to aggressively
get what they need to make us safe. We are trying to provide the
military and all those in charge of detainees clear guidance so they
will have the flexibility they need and we will not get our people in
trouble. That is what we have been working on for 2 years. We are at a
point where we can actually accomplish something that will be good for
this country, good for the military, and help win this war on terror.
Part of this war is about image.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, I yield.
Mr. SESSIONS. It did say ``not authorized in the field manual.'' But
the Senator from South Carolina interprets that to mean that the
military could amend it at any point in time.
Mr. GRAHAM. Absolutely.
Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is more acceptable, but even then the
policies in the field manual should reflect the executive branch, it
seems to me, being able to use extraordinary events and extraordinary
circumstances.
Mr. GRAHAM. And it will be. There will be a section that is specific
for unlawful enemy combatants. That is not a traditional way to deal
with them versus POWs.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Michigan has the time remaining up to 5:15 p.m. under his control.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from
Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 1435

(Purpose: To ensure that future funding for health care for veterans
takes into account changes in population and inflation)

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend and distinguished
colleague. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment,
and I call up amendment No. 1435.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for herself, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Salazar, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr.
Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 1345.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of July 23, 2005 under ``Text
of Amendments.'')
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today's soldiers are tomorrow's
veterans, and America has made a promise to these brave men and women
to provide them with the care they need and deserve. Senator Johnson
and I and others are offering an amendment today to provide full
funding for VA health care to ensure that the VA has the resources
necessary to provide quality care in a timely manner to our Nation's
sick and disabled veterans.
The Stabenow-Johnson amendment provides guaranteed funding for
America's veterans from two sources. First, the legislation provides an
annual discretionary amount that would be locked in for future years at
the 2005 funding levels and, second, in the future, the VA would
receive a sum of mandatory funding that would be adjusted year to year
based on the changes in demand from the VA health care system and the
rate of health care inflation.
This is about whether we are going to fully support our brave men and
women who are fighting today and have fought in the past and will fight
tomorrow, whether we are going to continue to debate year to year
whether there is adequate funding for veterans health care or whether
we will make a statement in this bill that part of national defense is
making sure that when our men and women come home and put on the
veteran's cap, they will, in fact, be assured that the health care they
need will be there, not dependent on the Appropriations Committee
entirely, not dependent on what happens year to year, but knowing there
is a full commitment that we have made to them for veterans health
care.
I will speak further at a later time. I understand there are other
colleagues who wish to speak on other amendments. I simply ask
colleagues to support this very important commitment, keeping our
promises to our veterans, starting with the fact that we say very
loudly and clearly that veterans health care, in the full amount
needed, will be available to each and every one of our brave veterans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Washington.

Amendment No. 1348

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the
pending amendment aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to
call up two amendments, and in the event cloture is invoked on the
underlying bill, I will ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments.
First, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1348 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an
amendment numbered 1348.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the assistance to local educational agencies with
significant enrollment changes in military dependent students due to
force structure changes, troop relocations, creation of new units, and
realignment under BRAC)

Strike section 582 of the bill and insert the following:

SEC. 582. ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES WITH
SIGNIFICANT ENROLLMENT CHANGES IN MILITARY
DEPENDENT STUDENTS DUE TO FORCE STRUCTURE
CHANGES, TROOP RELOCATIONS, CREATION OF NEW
UNITS, AND REALIGNMENT UNDER BRAC.

(a) Availability of Assistance.--To assist communities
making adjustments resulting from changes in the size or
location of the Armed Forces, the Secretary of Defense shall
make payments to eligible local educational agencies that,
during the period between the end of the school year
preceding the fiscal year for which the payments are
authorized and the beginning of the school year immediately
preceding that school year, had (as determined by the
Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of
Education) an overall increase or reduction of--
(1) not less than 5 percent in the average daily attendance
of military dependent students enrolled in the schools served
by the eligible local educational agencies; or
(2) not less than 250 military dependent students enrolled
in the schools served by the eligible local educational
agencies.
(b) Notification.--Not later than June 30, 2006, and June
30 of each of the next 2 fiscal years, the Secretary of
Defense shall notify each eligible local educational agency
for such fiscal year--
(1) that the local educational agency is eligible for
assistance under this section; and
(2) of the amount of the assistance for which the eligible
local educational agency qualifies, as determined under
subsection (c).
(c) Amount of Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the Secretary of Education, make assistance
available to eligible local educational agencies for a fiscal
year on a pro rata basis, as described in paragraph (2).
(2) Pro rata distribution.--

[[Page S8802]]

(A) In general.--The amount of the assistance provided
under this section to an eligible local educational agency
for a fiscal year shall be equal to the product obtained by
multiplying--
(i) the per-student rate determined under subparagraph (B)
for such fiscal year; by
(ii) the overall increase or reduction in the number of
military dependent students in the schools served by the
eligible local educational agency, as determined under
subsection (a).
(B) Per-student rate.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
the per-student rate for a fiscal year shall be equal to the
dollar amount obtained by dividing--
(i) the amount of funds available for such fiscal year to
provide assistance under this section; by
(ii) the sum of the overall increases and reductions, as
determined under subparagraph (A)(ii), for all eligible local
educational agencies for that fiscal year.
(d) Disbursement of Funds.--The Secretary of Defense shall
disburse assistance made available under this section for a
fiscal year, not later than 30 days after the date on which
the Secretary of Defense notified the eligible local
educational agencies under subsection (b) for the fiscal
year.
(e) Consultation.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry out
this section in consultation with the Secretary of Education.
(f) Reports.--
(1) Reports required.--Not later than May 1 of each of the
years 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives a report on the assistance provided under
this section during the fiscal year preceding the date of
such report.
(2) Element of report.--Each report described in paragraph
(1) shall include an assessment and description of the
current compliance of each eligible local educational agency
with the requirements of part A of title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).
(g) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated
to the Department of Defense for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and
2008 for operation and maintenance for Defense-wide
activities, $15,000,000 shall be available for each such
fiscal year only for the purpose of providing assistance to
eligible local educational agencies under this section.
(h) Termination.--The authority of the Secretary of Defense
to provide financial assistance under this section shall
expire on September 30, 2008.
(i) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Base closure process.--The term ``base closure
process'' means the 2005 base closure and realignment process
authorized by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C.
2687 note) or any base closure and realignment process
conducted after the date of the enactment of this Act under
section 2687 of title 10, United States Code, or any other
similar law enacted after that date.
(2) Eligible local educational agency.--The term ``eligible
local educational agency'' means, for a fiscal year, a local
educational agency--
(A)(i) for which not less than 20 percent (as rounded to
the nearest whole percent) of the students in average daily
attendance in the schools served by the local educational
agency during the preceding school year were military
dependent students that were counted under section 8003(a)(1)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 7703(a)(1)); or
(ii) that would have met the requirements of clause (i)
except for the reduction in military dependent students in
the schools served by the local educational agency; and
(B) for which the required overall increase or reduction in
the number of military dependent students enrolled in schools
served by the local educational agency, as described in
subsection (a), occurred as a result of--
(i) the global rebasing plan of the Department of Defense;
(ii) the official creation or activation of 1 or more new
military units;
(iii) the realignment of forces as a result of the base
closure process; or
(iv) a change in the number of required housing units on a
military installation, due to the military housing
privatization initiative of the Department of Defense
undertaken under the alternative authority for the
acquisition and improvement of military housing under
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code.
(3) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 8013 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7713).
(4) Military dependent student.--The term ``military
dependent student'' means--
(A) an elementary school or secondary school student who is
a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces; or
(B) an elementary school or secondary school student who is
a dependent of a civilian employee of the Department of
Defense.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Kennedy as a cosponsor of that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment No. 1348.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 1349

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the
pending amendment aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 1349 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an
amendment numbered 1349.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To facilitate the availability of child care for the children
of members of the Armed Forces on active duty in connection with
Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom and to assist
school districts serving large numbers or percentages of military
dependent children affected by the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, or by
other Department of Defense personnel decisions)

At the end of subtitle E of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 653. CHILD CARE FOR CHILDREN OF MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES
ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM
OR OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

(a) Child Care for Children Without Access to Military
Child Care.--
(1) In general.--In any case where the children of a
covered member of the Armed Forces are geographically
dispersed and do not have practical access to a military
child development center, the Secretary of Defense may, to
the extent funds are available for such purpose, provide such
funds as are necessary permit the member's family to secure
access for such children to State licensed child care and
development programs and activities in the private sector
that are similar in scope and quality to the child care and
development programs and activities the Secretary would
otherwise provide access to under subchapter II of chapter 88
of title 10, United States Code, and other applicable
provisions of law.
(2) Provision of funds.--Funds may be provided under
paragraph (1) in accordance with the provisions of section
1798 of title 10, United States Code, or by such other
mechanism as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(3) Priorities for allocation of funds in certain
circumstances.--The Secretary shall prescribe in regulations
priorities for the allocation of funds for the provision of
access to child care under paragraph (1) in circumstances
where funds are inadequate to provide all children described
in that paragraph with access to child care as described in
that paragraph.
(b) Preservation of Services and Programs.--The Secretary
shall provide for the attendance and participation of
children in military child development centers and child care
and development programs and activities under subsection (a)
in a manner that preserves the scope and quality of child
care and development programs and activities otherwise
provided by the Secretary.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Department of Defense $25,000,000
to carry out this section for fiscal year 2006.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``covered members of the Armed Forces'' means
members of the Armed Forces on active duty, including members
of the Reserves who are called or ordered to active duty
under a provision of law referred to in section 101(a)(13)(B)
of title 10, United States Code, for Operation Enduring
Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
(2) The term ``military child development center'' has the
meaning given such term in section 1800(1) of title 10,
United States Code.

SEC. 654. EMERGENCY FUNDING FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES
ENROLLING MILITARY DEPENDENT CHILDREN.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Help
for Military Children Affected by War Act of 2005''.
(b) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense is
authorized to award grants to eligible local educational
agencies for the additional education, counseling, and other
needs of military dependent children who are affected by war
or dramatic military decisions.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible local educational agency.-- The term
``eligible local educational agency'' means a local
educational agency that--
(A) had a number of military dependent children in average
daily attendance in the schools served by the local
educational agency during the school year preceding the
school year for which the determination is made, that--
(i) equaled or exceeded 20 percent of the number of all
children in average daily attendance in the schools served by
such agency during the preceding school year; or

[[Page S8803]]

(ii) was 1,000 or more,
whichever is less; and
(B) is designated by the Secretary of Defense as impacted
by--
(i) Operation Iraqi Freedom;
(ii) Operation Enduring Freedom;
(iii) the global rebasing plan of the Department of
Defense;
(iv) the realignment of forces as a result of the base
closure process;
(v) the official creation or activation of 1 or more new
military units; or
(vi) a change in the number of required housing units on a
military installation, due to the Military Housing
Privatization Initiative of the Department of Defense.
(2) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 9101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7801).
(3) Military dependent child.--The term ``military
dependent child'' means a child described in subparagraph (B)
or (D)(i) of section 8003(a)(1) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1)).
(d) Use of funds.--Grant funds provided under this section
shall be used for--
(1) tutoring, after-school, and dropout prevention
activities for military dependent children with a parent who
is or has been impacted by war-related action described in
clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subsection (c)(1)(B);
(2) professional development of teachers, principals, and
counselors on the needs of military dependent children with a
parent who is or has been impacted by war-related action
described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subsection
(c)(1)(B);
(3) counseling and other comprehensive support services for
military dependent children with a parent who is or has been
impacted by war-related action described in clause (i), (ii),
or (iii) of subsection (c)(1)(B), including the hiring of a
military-school liaison; and
(4) other basic educational activities associated with an
increase in military dependent children.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Defense such sums as may be necessary to
carry out this section for fiscal year 2006 and each of the 2
succeeding fiscal years.
(2) Special rule.--Funds appropriated under paragraph (1)
are in addition to any funds made available to local
educational agencies under section 582, 583 or 584 of this
Act or section 8003 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703).

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on amendment
No. 1349.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their
consideration. I will come to the floor later to discuss both of these
amendments, but essentially they deal with the children of our Guard
and Reserve. I think all of us understand the impacts to families
across our country. Our members from home have been called up for Guard
and Reserve duty.
The first amendment I offered will help schools handle the sudden
changes in student enrollment and help schools handle base closures,
deployment, and force realignments. And the second amendment will make
sure our military students get the counseling and support they need.
Our Guard and Reserve families are spread across our States, not
necessarily close to a base, and the schools are impacted across this
country. When they are impacted, our children are impacted.
Both of these amendments will help all of our students in our schools
make sure they reach the goals we all desire. I will be here again
later to talk about both of these amendments. I thank the managers for
their consideration in allowing me to call them up at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1494

(Purpose: To establish a national commission on policies and practices
on the treatment of detainees since September 11, 2001)

Mr. LEVIN. I call up amendment 1494, cosponsored by Senators Kennedy,
Rockefeller, and Reed of Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment
numbered 1494.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment would establish an
independent commission on the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. U.S. policies, and too often
practices, in the treatment of detainees have veered off the course
which was established by decades of U.S. leadership in international
humanitarian law and has been a champion of the Geneva Conventions on
the treatment of prisoners of war and other detainees.
Our troops serve honorably and courageously across the globe. Their
honor is besmirched when some of those who are captured are abused. Our
troops' future security is jeopardized when people we detain are not
treated as we rightfully insist others treat our troops when they are
captured.
The amendment we are proposing today would help reaffirm the values
we cherish as Americans. It would protect our troops should they be
captured. It is going to be argued that there have been dozens of
inquiries and hundreds of interviews and thousands of pages provided to
Congress, but the fact is that huge gaps and omissions remain.
First, we do not know the role of the CIA and other parts of the
intelligence community in the mistreatment of detainees or what
policies apply to these intelligence personnel.
Second, we do not know what the policies and practices of the United
States are regarding the rendition of detainees to other countries
where they may be interrogated using techniques that would not be
permitted at U.S. detention facilities.
Third, we have insufficient information on the role of contractors in
U.S. detention and intelligence operations.
Fourth, the detention and interrogation of detainees by special
operations forces need close examination.
Fifth, we are still missing key documents, including legal documents,
from the Office of Legal Counsel.
Sixth, there are just too many significant questions which have been
left unanswered.
I hope we can appoint an independent commission on the treatment of
these detainees, on policies involved, patterned after the 9/11
Commission. We owe it to our military personnel who might someday be in
enemy custody to demonstrate our commitment to the humane treatment of
detainees, to strengthen our standing, to object and to take
appropriate action against anyone who would mistreat an American
prisoner of war.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might bring to the attention
of the Senate that we now have 215 amendments offered on this bill; 27
amendments have been proposed and are pending, a number desiring to
have rollcall votes. I know of five rollcall votes that I think are
ready to go. I ask the Senator, might we advise our leaders that we can
continue tonight with rollcall votes and hopefully that can be
facilitated.
Mr. LEVIN. I would have to check with our leadership on that. In
terms of continuing tonight, I surely would be happy to do that, but
let me check with our leaders.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague because it is
important that we keep momentum going forward on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I mentioned to Senator Warner I would be
saying this. He suggested the possibility of votes tonight. My response
to him privately, and now publicly, is we would be happy to try to see
if we could work out additional amendments that are pending where we
could agree on rollcall votes tonight. I will work with Senator Warner
to see if those amendments can be identified mutually during this
rollcall vote.

____________________