[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15076-15077]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the state of 
affairs and where we are in the Senate, particularly with regard to the 
Defense authorization bill. Right now in the Senate--I am a freshman 
Member of this body--it has been over 2 years since we passed a budget. 
We have only passed one appropriations bill. Last week, the Democrats 
changed the rules in the Senate because they did not want to vote on 
amendments.
  For the first time in my lifetime, the Defense authorization bill is 
not being brought to the floor by the majority leader. This is at a 
time when we are engaged in two wars and the threats to us and our 
allies from the Islamist terrorists remain. In fact, today authorities 
broke up an alleged plot to bomb the Israeli and Saudi Arabian 
Embassies in Washington and to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador 
to the United States. At a time such as this, when there is nothing 
more important we can do in the Senate than to ensure the national 
security of the American people, the majority leader is refusing to 
bring forward the Defense authorization bill to this floor because he 
objects to one provision in it addressing detainees.
  I am concerned that this is no longer the most deliberative body in 
the world. I am new here, and I am often asked what has surprised me 
most as a new Senator, and I have to say, honestly, how few votes I 
have taken since I have been in the Senate. In fact, the number of 
votes I have taken in the Senate since I have been here is far below 
what we took last year and what we took the year before.
  What could be more important than voting on the Defense authorization 
bill when our country faces issues such as these in terms of our 
national security?
  I would ask my distinguished colleague from Arizona, who is a senior 
Member of this body, whether he has seen the Senate like this. Is this 
how the Senate is supposed to operate?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to respond to my colleague--by the way, I 
noticed she said it would be the first time in her lifetime that we had 
not passed a Defense authorization bill. It would not be the first time 
in my lifetime since it has been 41 years.
  I would say to my friend and colleague, who has played a very 
important and essential role on many issues before the Armed Services 
Committee, not only because of the military background of her family, 
including a husband who is a distinguished A-10 pilot, but also as a 
former attorney general of her State, you are very familiar with many 
of the detainee issues.
  I would like to say to my colleague that it was her amendments that 
were passed in the committee concerning detainee treatment that became 
part of the legislation. I believe the legislation in that section was 
passed by a vote of 25 to 1 in the committee. It is not as if there 
were sharp divisions between both sides of the aisle on the issue of 
detainee treatment. Yet apparently that seems to be the objection of 
the administration not only to the bill but even to taking up the bill 
for consideration before the full Senate, as the Senator from New 
Hampshire has pointed out, for the first time in 41 years.
  I would like to explore with her for a second this whole issue of 
detainee treatment. Just in the last week or so, we were able to kill 
one of the leading al-Qaida operatives. I think that action was 
supported by the majority of opinion in America, thanks to passage of 
legislation after 9/11 including the fact that the President had a 
finding that this individual was a terrorist. Yet somehow the 
President's counterterrorism expert seems to say that under our 
legislation, we would never be able to turn the page on Guantanamo--and 
I quote from his speech at Harvard--and he went on to say:

       Our counterterrorism professionals would be compelled to 
     hold all captured terrorists in military custody.

  First of all, I would ask my colleague, isn't there a national 
security waiver the President could exercise if he wanted to in the 
legislation? Second of all, is it not true that you would have to be a 
designated member of al-Qaida before you would be required to be held 
in military custody?
  So my question is, Is Mr. Brennan misinformed or simply contradicting 
what is actually the case in the legislation we passed by a unanimous 
vote

[[Page 15077]]

through the Senate Armed Services Committee?
  Ms. AYOTTE. Senator McCain, first of all, is absolutely right. This 
was an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote in support of the detainee 
provisions, according to Senator Reid, and that is why they are not 
being brought forward to the floor.
  In my view, the President's counterterrorism adviser, Mr. Brennan, 
has it wrong. I am not sure he has read this legislation based on the 
objections he has raised because we are giving the President authority 
to detain, which is very important authority which he can exercise 
based on the national security of this country.
  In order to have military custody, you have to be a member of al-
Qaida or an affiliated force and planning an attack against us or our 
coalition partners. That is where the military custody comes in place, 
and I think that is very important because, of course, if you are a 
member of al-Qaida and you are planning an attack against the United 
States of America or our coalition partners, it seems to me that is a 
very appropriate instance for military custody given that we remain at 
war with al-Qaida and that the threats from al-Qaida are still very 
grave to our country, as demonstrated by----
  Mr. McCAIN. So the statement Mr. Brennan made in his speech on 
September 16 at Harvard Law School saying that our counterterrorism 
professionals would be compelled to hold all captured terrorists in 
military custody is not correct?
  Ms. AYOTTE. I am really concerned that Mr. Brennan, again, has not 
read this legislation because that statement is not correct. As the 
Senator knows--he worked very hard on a compromise with the chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Levin, and Senator Graham, and 
in that compromise provision that we passed in a very strong, 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote to have military custody, you have to be 
a member of al-Qaida and planning an attack against us or our coalition 
partners. It is limited to a very narrow category of very dangerous 
individuals. It isn't every single terrorist who is encountered.
  The important issue is that when you read Mr. Brennan's speech, did 
you see anywhere in his speech to Harvard where he talked about this 
topic where he ever mentioned what is happening with those who have 
been released from Guantanamo?
  Mr. McCAIN. It is interesting that he didn't because those who have 
been released, the latest number I have is about a 20-percent, 
roughly--and I don't know if the Senator from New Hampshire has 
different information, but at least one out of every five has returned 
to the fight and some of them in leadership positions of al-Qaida, 
which is, obviously, unacceptable.
  Mr. President, I ask for an additional 3 minutes for the Senator from 
New Hampshire and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I just want to mention very quickly--because in some 
respects, the Senator from New Hampshire comes from a military family--
that it is so important that we care for the men and women in the form 
of pay raises, in the form of housing, in the form of benefits, in the 
form of all of the things that are Congress's obligation to the men and 
women who are serving in the military. Now we are telling those men and 
women: Well, because of one provision in this legislation, which should 
be resolved through debate and amendments and votes, we are not going 
to take up the bill that authorizes the men and women the things that 
are necessary and vital for the men and women fighting in two wars.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Senator McCain is absolutely right. It is outrageous that 
one provision that was a bipartisan provision is holding up the 
authorization from coming forward when it addresses things such as pay 
raises for our military. It addresses services for our wounded 
warriors. It addresses military construction that is needed for our 
soldiers. Those are very important issues. To hold this up at a time 
when we are at war, at a time when our soldiers need to know we are 
fully behind them, does a huge disservice to our country. This is an 
issue that, if there are problems with the detainee issues, should be 
debated on the floor. The American people deserve to know.
  Guantanamo Director Clapper testified before the Intelligence 
Committee that the recidivism rate now is 27 percent for those 
reengaging in the battle, detainees whom we have released who are 
encountering our soldiers and our coalition partners, trying to harm 
Americans. So to not bring forward the Defense authorization bill, A, 
to help our soldiers and, most importantly, to do what is right for 
them, but also, B, to have a rigorous debate over this very important 
issue of protecting our soldiers from those detainees who have gone 
back and making sure we are protecting them and that we have a place to 
put those who are captured now, seems to me to be a disservice to this 
body and to our country.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, who has played a 
very important role in the Armed Services Committee, particularly on 
the issue of detainee treatment, which is important to the American 
people. As she just mentioned, one out of four returns to the fight. It 
is a badge of courage and legitimacy and leadership now in al-Qaida for 
someone who has been released from Guantanamo.
  I hope the majority leader and our colleagues would agree that we 
could sit down and bring this bill to the floor, have votes, 
amendments, and then let the men and women who are serving and those 
who have served, including our wounded warriors, know we care enough to 
pass legislation that is vital to their ability to defend this Nation 
and to make sure they are properly equipped and properly compensated.
  I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I thank very much the Senator from Arizona. No one has 
been more dedicated to our military through his own service and the 
service of his family but also as a ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee who has worked across the aisle to bring forward 
this Defense authorization bill. I would share in his comments, and I 
hope the majority leader will bring this forward. It is so important 
for our country.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________