Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE I'M A PROUD
COSPONSOR OF HER POSITION AND I
SUPPORT IT.
AND MR. PRESIDENT I ASK MY WHOLE
STATEMENT BE MADE PART OF THE
WITHOUT
RECORD.
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
I KNOW SENATOR DURBIN
DURBIN -- I UNDERSTAND FROM
SENATOR DURBIN THE DISTINGUISHED
SENATOR FROM MISSOURI IS GOING
NEXT, AND IN ANY EVENT, I
YIELD THE FLOOR AND I THANK MY
COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR COURTESY.
THE
SENATOR FROM MISSOURI IS
RECOGNIZED.
BY LIKE UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO ADDRESS THE SENATE
BUSINESS.
FOR 10 MINUTES UNDER MORNING
WITHOUT
OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
I APPRECIATE MY GOOD
FRIEND FROM ILLINOIS ALLOWING ME
TO GO AHEAD AND TALK ABOUT THE
DEFENSE BILL AT THIS TIME BUT
DOING IT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHERE
WE ARE IN THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW.
DEFENDING THE COUNTRY IS THE
CONGRESS' MOST IMPORTANT
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN SAID THAT
GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO FOR PEOPLE
ONLY THOSE THINGS THAT PEOPLE
CANNOT BETTER DO FOR
THEMSELVES, AND IF THERE'S
ANYTHING AT THE TOP OF THAT
LIST, THIS IS AT THE TOP OF
THAT LIST.
SO IT'S CRITICAL,
MR. PRESIDENT, THAT WE HAVE
THIS DISCUSSION, THAT WE PASS
THIS BILL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IN
ORDER TO GIVE OUR MEN AND WOMEN
IN UNIFORM THE TOOLS THEY NEED
TO DO THEIR JOB AND THE
CERTAINTY WE NEED TO KNOW HOW
THAT JOB IS GOING TO BE DONE
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF WHAT
THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO PROVIDE.
WHILE THIS BILL IS ONLY ABOUT
NEXT YEAR'S DEFENSE PROGRAM, WE
SHOULDN'T LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT
THAT OUR BUDGET ENVIRONMENT IS
MORE CHALLENGED ALL THE TIME,
AND WHETHER THE AUTOMATIC BUDGET
CUTS TO FUTURE DEFENSE FINDS --
HAPPEN OR NOT, WE DO KNOW THAT
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE MORE
THOUGHTFUL, MORE CAUTIOUS ABOUT
HOW WE GET THE MOST FOR OUR
INVESTMENT IN DEFENSE.
YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY ELSE IN
AMERICA HAS SPENT THE LAST 20
YEARS FIGURING OUT HOW YOU FOCUS
ON A BETTER RESULT FOR LESS
INVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE IS
GOING TO HAVE TO BE THERE AS
WELL.
BUT STILL, THAT DOESN'T MEAN
IT'S NOT A TOP PRIORITY FOR THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT MY
FRIEND, SENATOR LEVIN AND
SENATOR McCAIN HAVE DONE TO
GET THIS BILL TO THE FLOOR.
I'M FROWD REPRESENT A STATE
THAT -- PROUD TO REPRESENT A
STATE THAT IS REALLY INVOLVED IN
OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE.
MISSOURI IS THE HOME OF FORT
LEONARD WOOD, WHITEMAN AIR
FORCE BASE, THE MARINE CORPS
KANSAS CITY.
MOBILIZATION CENTER?
WE HAVE DOZENS OF NATIONAL GUARD
AND RESERVE FACILITIES IN OUR
STATE.
OUR STATE HAS 17,184 ACTIVE DUTY
SOLDIERS, MARINES AND AIRMEN
RIGHT NOW, 34,000 GUARD AND
RESERVISTS, WE'RE THE HOME OF
LARGE AND SMALL DEFENSE
CONTRACTORS THAT PROVIDE
THOUSANDS OF JOBS IN OUR STATE,
AND THOSE DEFENSE CONTRACTORS
CAN DO THEIR WORK BETTER AND OUR
DEFENSE DOLLARS ARE BETTER SPENT
IF WE KNOW WHAT THE PLAN IS.
AND THE ONLY REAL WAY TO KNOW
TO HAVE AN
AUTHORIZATION BILL THAT WORKS.
SINCE THE BEGINNING OF OPERATION
ENDURING FREEDOM AND IRAQ
FREEDOM, 134 MISSOURIANS HAVE
GIVEN THEIR LIVES, OVER 1,000
HAVE BEEN WOUNDED IN THE LINE OF
DUTY.
IN FACT, ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS
THAT I HAVE THAT I HOPE FINDS
ITS WAY INTO THIS BILL IS JUST
RESEARCH ASSOCIATED WITH
REHABILITATING THOSE WOUNDED
WARRIORS WHO HAVE EYE INJURIES.
THOUSANDS OF VISION-RELATED
INJURIES HAVE OCCURRED AS A
FIGHTING NOW.
RESULT OF THE WARS WE'RE
TREMENDOUS WORK IS BEING DONE BY
ST. JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND MISSOURI
STATE UNIVERSITY IN SPRINGFIELD
TO SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE TO
DEVELOP BETTER WAYS TO DEAL WITH
THOSE EYE WOUNDS, OTHER
I.E.D.'S AS A PRINCIPAL TOOL OF
OUR ENEMIES OF OUR OPPONENTS,
OUR ENEMIES IN THIS WAR, YOUR
THING TO
ULTIMATELY PROTECT.
AND EVERY WOUNDED WARRIOR, 12%
OF THEM HAVE EYE WOUNDS AND
HOPEFULLY WE CAN LOOK TO SEE
WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE GREATER
PROTECTION AND GREATER RECOVERY
FROM THOSE WOUNDS.
I JOIN ALL MISSOURIANS IN
THANKING THOSE WHO SERVE.
I THINK ALL OF US WILL SHOW
GREATER COMMITMENT TO THOSE WHO
SERVE BY ACTUALLY HAVING A
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL THAT
SETS OUT A PLAN FOR THE FUTURE.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'M PARTICULARLY
PLEASED THAT THIS BILL CONTAINS
FUNDING FOR MODIFICATIONS OF THE
B-2 BOMBER'S MIXED LOADING
CAPACITY.
MOST OF OUR STEALTH BOMBERS
OPERATE OUT OF WHITEMAN AIR
FORCE BASE IN MISSOURI AND WE
DISCOVERED AS RECENTLY AS LIBYA
THAT OPERATIONS WITH OUR B-2
BOMBERS AREN'T AS EFFICIENT AS
THEY NEED TO BE OR COULD BE
SIMPLY BY MAKING THAT LOADING
CAPACITY WORK DIFFERENTLY.
THAT'S THE KIND OF THING WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO DO AS WE LOOK
AT MORE DIFFICULT TO GET DEFENSE
DOLLARS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO
FIGURE OUT HOW WE SPEND THOSE
DEFENSE DOLLARS IN THE BEST
POSSIBLE WAY.
I HOPE THE SENATE LANGUAGE AS
IT'S IN THE BILL NOW PREVAILS IN
A FINAL BILL.
I ALSO WANT TO CALL ATTENTION TO
THE BILL'S FULL AUTHORIZATION OF
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEXT
GENERATION LONG-RANGE STRIKE
BOMBER, AND I'M PLEASED WITH
THE FUNDING THIS BILL HAS FOR
MAINTENANCE FACILITY AT FORT
LEONARD WOOD AND WEAPONS STORAGE
AT WHITEMAN.
I'VE FILED A FEW AMENDMENTS
IN THIS BILL AND I'LL JUST
MENTION A COUPLE.
ONE IS I'M WORKING WITH SENATOR
GILLIBRAND FOR AN AMENDMENT
WHERE NATIONAL GUARD SOLDIERS
ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME
DOMESTIC EMERGENCY JOB
PROTECTION AND EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
AS OTHERS DO WHEN THEY COME
BACK.
SENATOR GILLIBRAND AND I HAVE
ALSO WORKED ON A BILL TO ENSURE
THAT PEOPLE IN THE GUARD AND
RESERVE AND THEIR FAMILIES HAVE
ACCESS TO FINANCIAL AND MARITAL
AND OTHER KINDS OF COUNSELING AS
BACK TOGETHER.
THEY TRY TO PUT THEIR OTHER LIFE
I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL TO THE
FLOOR.
WE FACE A WIDE VARIETY OF THREAT
TODAY, INCLUDING SOME THAT ARE
NEW AND CONSTANTLY EVOLVING.
CYBER WARFARE, W.M.D., ALL
SERIOUSLY.
THINGS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE
THIS IS A PRINCIPAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING
THIS BILL PASS THE SENATE TODAY
AND THEN TO WORK WITH THE HOUSE
TO GET A BILL ON THE PRESIDENT'S
DESK SO THAT ALL THAT ARE
INVOLVED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE
COUNTRY KNOW WHAT THE LONG-TERM
PLAN IS.
AND I WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR,
MR. PRESIDENT.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM MISSOURI
AND I CERTAINLY CONCUR WITH HIS
COMMENTS ABOUT OUR AMERICAN
MILITARY.
WE HAVE THE BEST IN THE WORLD.
THESE MEN AND WOMEN SERVE US
EVERY DAY.
WELL, WITH COURAGE AND HONOR
AND WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE
THEM A.
TBOARNT, THOSE OF US THAT ENJOY
THE BLESSINGS AND LIBERTY AND
THE SAFETY OF THIS NATION, TO
HAVE MEN AND WOMEN WILLING TO
RISK THEIR LIVES FOR AMERICA.
THIS UNDERLYING BILL, THIS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION BILL, IS A BILL
THAT AUTHORIZES THE CONTINUED
OPERATIONS OF OUR MILITARY AND
EVERY YEAR WE PASS THIS BILL, AS
WE SHOULD, IN A TIMELY MANNER.
I HAVE SUPPORTED IT CONSISTENTLY
OVER THE YEARS WITH VERY FEW
EXCEPTIONS AND BELIEVE THAT THE
WORK PRODUCT BROUGHT TO US BY
SENATORS LEVIN AND McCAIN IS
EXCELLENT, BIPARTISAN AND MOVES
US IN A DIRECTION TOWARD AN EVEN
SAFER AMERICA.
AND I THANK THEM FOR ALL THE
WORK THEY'VE PUT INTO IT.
BUT THERE ARE PROVISIONS WITHIN
THIS BILL TODAY WHICH TROUBLE ME
GREATLY, PROVISIONS WHICH I HOPE
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE WILL
REFLECT O. ONE IN PARTICULAR
THAT I'LL ADDRESS AT THIS TIME.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S OFFERING
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1125 AND I'M A
COSPONSOR.
I WOULD SAY THAT THIS AMENDMENT
RAISES A SERIOUS QUESTION ABOUT
SECTION 1032 IN THIS BILL.
I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS SECTION
WOULD LIMIT THE FLEXIBILITY OF
ANY PRESIDENT TO FIGHT TERRORISM
TERRORISM.
I'M CONCERNED THAT IT WILL
CREATE UNCERTAINTY FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT, INTELLIGENCE, AND
OUR MILITARY REGARDING HOW TO
HANDLE SUSPECTED TERRORISTS.
AND I THINK IT RAISES
FUNDAMENTAL AND SERIOUS
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS.
THIS PROVISION, 1032, WOULD FOR
THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF
THE UNITED STATES REQUIRE OUR
MILITARY TO TAKE CUSTODY OF
CERTAIN TERRORISM SUSPECTS IN
THE UNITED STATES.
ON ITS FACE, THAT DOESN'T SOUND
OFFENSIVE BUT, IN FACT, IT
CREATES A WORLD OF PROBLEMS.
WHERE DO WE START THIS DEBATE?
WE UNDERSTAND THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF CONGRESS IN PASSING LAWS AND
THE PRESIDENT WITH THE OPTION TO
SIGN THOSE LAWS OR VETO THEM AND
THE COURTS WITH THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO INTERPRET THEM
THEM.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE PROTECTION
OF THIS COUNTRY AND FIGHTING
TERRORISM, MOST OF US HAVE FELT
EXECUTIVE FUNCTION UNDER
THAT THIS IS PRIMARILY AN
PRESIDENTS OF BOTH POLITICAL
PARTIES.
WE MAY DISAGREE FROM TIME TO
TIME ON PATRIOT ACT AND OTHER
ASPECTS OF IT AND DEBATE THOSE
THINGS, BUT BY AND LARGE, I
THINK WE HAVE CEDED TO
PRESIDENTS OF BOTH PARTIES THE
POWER TO PROTECT AMERICA.
MY COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND, SENATOR
LAY SEE GRAHAM, A REPUBLICAN OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, ON SEPTEMBER 19,
2007, STATED -- AND HE STATES
THINGS VERY COLORFULLY AND
CLEARLY -- HE SAID, "THE LAST
THING WE NEED IN ANY WAR IS TO
HAVE THE ABILITY OF 535 PEOPLE
WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE NEXT
ELECTION TO BE ABLE TO
MICROMANAGE HOW YOU FIGHT THE
WAR.
THIS IS NOT ONLY
MICROMANAGEMENT, THIS IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL SHIFT OF POWER."
THAT WAS SENATOR GRAHAM'S
STATEMENT IN 2007.
THOUGH I WOULD CAREFULLY AND
JEALOUSLY GUARD THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF
CONGRESS WHEN COMES TO THE
DECLARATION OF WAR, EVEN THE
WAGING OF WAR, I DO BELIEVE
THERE'S A LINE THAT WE SHOULD
HONOR.
PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT, THOSE WHO WORK FOR
HIM IN KEEPING AMERICA SAFE BY
SECOND-GUESSING DECISIONS TO BE
MADE.
TODAY AGAIN ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE OF THE AISLE CAME
COLLEAGUES WHO MAKE THE ARGUMENT
THAT IT IS A SERIOUS MISTAKE FOR
US TO TAKE A SUSPECTED TERRORIST
AND PUT THEM INTO OUR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM.
THEY ARGUE THE LAST THING IN THE
WORLD YOU WANT TO DO IS TAKE A
SUSPECTED TERRORIST AND READ
THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS, THE RIGHT TO REMAIN
SILENT, EVERYTHING YOU SAY CAN
BE USED AGAINST YOU, THE RIGHT
TO COUNSEL.
THEY ARGUE THAT'S WHAT
TERRORISTS WILL CLAM UP AND STOP
TALKING.
THEREFORE, THEY ARGUE, SUSPECTED
TERRORISTS SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED
TO MILITARY JURISDICTIONS WHERE
MIRANDA RIGHTS WILL NOT BE READ.
ON ITS FACE, IT SOUNDS LIKE A
REASONABLE CONCLUSION.
IN FACT, IT IS NOT.
IT IS NOT.
SINCE 9/11, WE HAVE ARRESTED AND
DETAINED 300 SUSPECTED
TERRORISTS, READ THEM THEIR
MIRANDA RIGHTS AND THEN WENT ON
TO PROSECUTE THEM SUCCESSFULLY
AND INCARCERATE THEM.
THEY COOPERATED WITH THE FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
THEY GAVE INFORMATION, IN MANY
CASES GAVE VOLUMES OF
INFORMATION EVEN AFTER HAVING
BEEN READ THEIR RIGHTS.
SO TO ARGUE THAT IT CAN'T BE
DONE OR SHOULD NOT BE DONE IS TO
IGNORE THE OBVIOUS.
300 TIMES WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY
PROSECUTED SUSPECTED TERRORISTS
AND AMERICA HAS REMAINED SAFE.
9/11.
FOR THESE TEN YEARS PLUS SINCE
HOW MANY HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED
UNDER MILITARY TRIBUNALS IN THAT
PERIOD OF TIME?
RELEASED.
SIX, AND THREE HAVE BEEN
SO WE ARE KEEPING THIS COUNTRY
SAFE BY GIVING TO THE PRESIDENT
AND THOSE WHO WORK FOR THE
PRESIDENT IN THE MILITARY
INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
COMMUNITY THE OPTION TO DECIDE
THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WHEN
IT COMES TO ARRESTING,
DETAINING, INVESTIGATING AND
PROSECUTING AN INDIVIDUAL.
REMEMBER THE MAN WHO WAS ON THE
PLANE FLYING INTO DETROIT A
COUPLE YEARS AGO?
PLANE?
TRIED TO DETONATE A BOMB ON THE
HIS CLOTHING CAUGHT FIRE AND THE
OTHER PASSENGERS SUBDUED HIM,
RESTRAINED HIM.
HE WAS ARRESTED, INVESTIGATED BY
RIGHTS.
THE F.B.I. AND READ HIS MIRANDA
WITHIN A DAY, HIS PARENTS WERE
BROUGHT OVER.
THE FOLLOWING DAY, HE DECIDED TO
COOPERATE WITH THE UNITED STATES
AND TOLD US EVERYTHING HE KNEW.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, HE WAS
PROSECUTED, BROUGHT TO TRIAL AND
PLED GUILTY.
HE WENT THROUGH OUR REGULAR
CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM THOUGH HE
WASN'T AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND
HE WAS SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED.
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD THE RIGHT TO
DECIDE WHAT WAS THE BEST THING
TO DO TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE AND
HE DID IT.
WHY WOULD WE WANT TO TIE HIS
HANDS?
NOW LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT
THIS SECTION, 1032, AND WHY IT
IS A SERIOUS MISTAKE.
1032 IN THIS BILL WOULD FOR THE
FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY
REQUIRE THE MILITARY TO TAKE
CUSTODY OF CERTAIN TERRORISM
SUSPECTS IN THE UNITED STATES.
FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW,
IT COULD BE A DEADLY MISTAKE FOR
US TO REQUIRE THIS.
LISTEN TO WHAT WAS SAID BY THE
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN EXPLAINING
WHY.
"WHILE THE LEGISLATION PROPOSED
AS A WAIVER IN CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS, THIS PROPOSAL INSERTS
CONFUSION AND BUREAUCRACY WHEN
F.B.I. AGENTS AND
COUNTERTERRORISM PROSECUTORS ARE
MAKING SPLIT-SECOND DECISIONS IN
A RAPIDLY DEVELOPING SITUATION,
LIKE THAT INVOLVING NAJI BULAZI,
TRAVELING TO NEW YORK IN
SEPTEMBER OF 2009 TO PLANT A
BOMB ON THE NEW YORK SUBWAY,
THEY NEED TO BE COMPLETELY
FOCUSED ON GETTING THE SUSPECT
AND INTERROGATING HIM ABOUT HIS
PLANS.
INSTEAD, THIS PROVIDER, 1032,
WRITTEN INTO THIS LAW WOULD
REQUIRE A HANDOFF OF
AUTHORITIES.
OF SUSPECTS TO MILITARY
SO WHAT DOES OUR MILITARY THINK
ABOUT THIS?
WELL, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
LEON PANETTA, MADE IT ABUD NOTLY
CLEAR WHEN HE SAID -- ABUNDANTLY
CLEAR WHEN HE SAID, "THE FAILURE
OF THE REVISED TEXT TO CLARIFY
THAT SECTION 1032 APPLYING TO
INDIVIDUALS CAPTURED ABROAD, AS
WE'VE URGED, MAY NEEDLESSLY
COMPLICATE EFFORTS BY FRONTLINE
LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS TO
COLLECT CRITICAL INTELLIGENCE
CONCERNING OPERATIONS AND
ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES."
WHAT WE'VE SEEN THEN IS OUR
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TELLING US,
CEDING TO THE MILITARY THIS
AUTHORITY COULD COMPROMISE
AMERICA'S SECURITY AT A CRITICAL
MOMENT, WHEN EVERY SECOND
COUNTS, WHEN THE GATHERING OF
INTELLIGENCE COULD LITERALLY
SAVE NOT JUST A LIFE BUT
THOUSANDS OF LIVES.
NOW, SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S
AMENDMENT MAKES IT CLEAR, AS THE
ADMINISTRATION WANTS TO MAKE IT
CLEAR, THAT THOSE TERRORISM
SUSPECTS WHO ARE ARRESTED ABROAD
WILL BE DETAINED BY THE MILITARY
BUT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WE
ARE TOLD BY THIS ADMINISTRATION
THIS PROVISION WILL JEOPARDIZE
COUNTRY,
WILL REQUIRE A PROCEDURE NOW TO
HAND OFF THESE INDIVIDUALS TO
THE MILITARY SIDE IN PLACES
WHERE THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE
HANDED OFF QUICKLY OR
SEAMLESSLY.
WE HAVE 10,000 F.B.I. AGENTS
DEDICATED TO THE SECURITY OF
THIS COUNTRY.
SECURITY.
WHEN IT COMES TO THESE NATIONAL
IN 56 DIFFERENT OFFICES AND WE
DON'T HAVE ANYTHING NEAR THAT
CAPACITY WHEN IT COMES TO THE
MILITARY PICKING UP THE
INTERROGATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL
WHO MAY HAVE KNOWLEDGE THAT IF
WE CAN GLEAN IT FROM THAT PERSON
COULD SAVE THOUSANDS OF LIVES.
WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE WANT TO
TIE THE HANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
ENFORCEMENT?
WHY DO WE WANT TO TIE THE HANDS
OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY?
WHY DO WE WANT TO CREATE THE
SITUATION OF GIVING TO THE
MILITARY THIS RESPONSIBILITY
WHEN THEY'RE NOT PREPARED AT
THIS MOMENT TO TAKE IT?
I THINK SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S
DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THIS COUNTRY.
HER POSITION IS SUPPORTED NOT
ONLY BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, AND BY
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB
KEEPING AMERICA SAFE.
THEY HAVE ASKED US, PLEASE, DO
NOT MICROMANAGE, DO NOT PRESUME,
DO NOT CREATE ANOTHER HURDLE FOR
US WHEN IT COMES TO GATHERING
INFORMATION THAT CAN SAVE LIVES
IN AMERICA.
WHY WOULD WE DO THAT?
AFTER MORE THAN TEN YEARS OF
SUCCESS AND AVOIDING ANOTHER
9/11, LET US NOT MAKE THE
SITUATION WORSE BY THIS 1032,
THIS SECTION OF THE BILL THAT IS
BEING PRESENTED TO US.
I KNOW YOU'LL HEAR ARGUMENTS ON
THE FLOOR, WELL, THERE ARE
A WAIVER.
OPPORTUNITIES HERE FOR A WAIVER,
SO IF A PERSON IS DETAINED BY
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, THEN IT'S
DETERMINED THAT THIS IS A
SUSPECT THAT FALLS IN THE
CATEGORY AND NEEDS TO GO TO
MILITARY DETENTION, THEN WE NEED
TO TURN TO THE EXECUTIVE SIDE
FOR A WAIVER OF THAT MILITARY
DETENTION.
HOW MUCH TIME WILL BE LOST?
MINUTES?
HOURS?
DAYS?
COULD FORD THAT YOU AFFORD THAT IF WHAT IS
AT STAKE IS THE POTENTIAL LOSS
OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN LIVES?
WHY?
WHY MAKE IT MORE COMPLEX?
I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE OTHER
SIDE OF THE AISLE IS NOW SO
DETERMINED WITH THIS
PRESIDENT -- THIS PRESIDENT --
TO MICROMANAGE THE DEFENSE OF
THIS COUNTRY WHEN IT COMES TO
TERRORISM.
WHEN IT WAS A REPUBLICAN
PRESIDENT, ANY SUGGESTIONS ALONG
THOSE LINES WERE DISMISSED AS
ILLOGICAL.
UNPATRIOTIC AND UNWISE AND
NOW UNDER THIS PRESIDENT,
EVERYTHING'S FAIR GAME.
THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE RULES,
RULES WHICH HAVE SUCCESSFULLY
PROTECTED THE UNITED STATES FOR
MORE THAN TEN YEARS.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES, SUPPORT
SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S AMENDMENT
1125, AMEND THE SECTION 1032,
MAKE SURE THAT OUR DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT, MILITARY AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT, AS WELL AS
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAVE THE
TOOLS THAT THEY NEED TO CONTINUE
THE
TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE.
SENATOR'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
RECOGNIZED.
SENATOR FROM TEXAS IS
MR. PRESIDENT, I'D
ASK UNANIMOUS --
I WOULD BE GLAD TO YIELD TO
THE --
[INAUDIBLE]
I WAS GOING TO ASK
AND WILL ASK, MR. PRESIDENT,
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT I BE
RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK AS IF IN
MINUTES.
MORNING BUSINESS FOR UP TO TEN
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
WHEN WE RETURN TO THE BILL,
WHICH WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY AFTER
SENATOR CORNYN, THAT THEN WE
MOVE IMMEDIATELY TO THE
FEINSTEIN AMENDMENT NUMBER 1125
AND THAT THERE BE A 30-MINUTE --
THERE BE 30 MINUTES OF DEBATE
EVENLY DIVIDED AND THAT THE VOTE
WOULD OCCUR IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING --
THE
SENATOR FROM TEXAS IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. PRESIDENT, I
WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING
THAT IS ALL TOO RARE AND THAT IS
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR AN
IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION
THAT NOT ONLY FULFILLS AMERICA'S
COMMITMENTS TO OUR ALLY, TAIWAN,
UNDER THE TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT
OF 1979, BUT HELPS STABILIZE A
CRITICAL REGION OF THE WORLD AND
THAT WOULD BE IN ASIA AND
PARTICULARLY THE GROWING
TENSIONS BETWEEN TAIWAN AND
AND ALSO CREATES JOBS HERE
IN AMERICA BY FACILITATING
FOREIGN MILITARY SALES OF THINGS
MADE HERE IN AMERICA BY
AMERICANS THAT WE ARE GOING TO
STOLE PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES,
OUR FRIENDS IN OTHER COUNTRIES,
FOR CASH AND DOESN'T COST
TAXPAYERS A PENNY.
MY AMENDMENT 1200 IS PENDING
BEFORE THE SENATE, AND I WAS
PLEASED IN INTRODUCING THIS
AMENDMENT TO BE JOINED BY
SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES ON A
BIPARTISAN BASIS: SENATOR
MENENDEZ FROM NEW JERSEY,
SENATOR INHOFE FROM OKLAHOMA,
SENATOR LIEBERMAN FROM
CONNECTICUT, SENATOR WYDEN FROM
OREGON, AND SENATOR BLUMENTHAL
FROM CONNECTICUT.
THIS AMENDMENT IS
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND SIMPLE.
IT WOULD REQUIRE THE PRESIDENT
TO CARRY OUT THE SALE OF 66 F-16
C AND D AIRCRAFT TO TAIWAN.
THESE ARE AMERICAN-MADE
FIGHTERS, OUR DEMOCRATIC ALLY
INIFY WASN'T HAS BEEN TRYING TO
PURCHASE -- IN TAIWAN HAS BEEN
TRYING TO PURCHASE SINCE 2507.
THAT IS WIN-WIN AMENDMENT.
IT REFLECTS THE RIGHT NATIONAL
SECURITY POLICY.
IT IS GOOD FOR AMERICAN -- FOR
OUR AMERICAN ECONOMY AND JOBS.
AND WE KNOW THAT TAIWAN'S AIR
FORCE CONTINUES TO DETERIORATE.
BUT FIRST LET ME JUST REMIND MY
COLLEAGUES WHAT TAIWAN IS
LOOKING AT IN TERMS OF THE
DISPARITY IN THE COMBAT AIRCRAFT
BETWEEN COMMUNIST CHINA AND
DEMOCRATIC TAIWAN.
COMMUNIST CHINA HAS ROUGHLY
2,300 OPERATIONAL COMBAT
AIRCRAFT.
OUR ALLY AND FRIEND, DEMOCRATIC
TAIWAN HAS 490 OPERATIONAL
COMBAT AIRCRAFT.
OBVIOUSLY A GROWING IMBALANCE IN
THE TAIWAN STRAIT.
BUT THAT ONLY TELLS PART OF THE
STORY, BECAUSE AS MY COLLEAGUES
ALSO KNOW, AS THIS CHART
INDICATES, THE INCREDIBLE
SHRINKING TAIWAN AIR FORCE, THAT
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
ARE F-5 AIRCRAFT, WHICH AMERICA
HAS PREVIOUSLY SOLD TO TAIWAN
BUT WHICH ARE NOW BECOMING OLDER
AND MORE OBSOLETE AS TIME GOES
2000 AIRCRAFT.
BY, AS WELL AS FRENCH MIRAGE
AS THIS CHART INDICATES, ROUGHLY
OVER 20-CLOSE TO 20/20, MAYBE
MORE, THESE AIRCRAFT ARE
BECOMING OBSOLETE.
IT EXACERBATES THE DISPARITY
BETWEEN COMMUNIST CHINA AND OUR
DEMOCRATIC ALLY TAIWAN.
THIS F-16 SALE WOULD BE AN
EXPORT-DRIVEN JOB MACHINE FOR
OUR COUNTRY AT A TIME WHEN
UNEMPLOYMENT IS AT 9% AND WHEN
THE NUMBER-ONE ISSUE ON
AMERICA'S AGENDA IS JOB
CREATION.
PEOPLE WITHOUT JOBS CAN'T PAY
THEIR MORTGAGE AND THEY LOSE
THEIR HOME DUE TO FORECLOSURE.
WHY IN THE WORLD, WHEN THIS SALE
IN 32
DIFFERENT STATES AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WOULD
ANYONE OBJECT TO THIS AMENDMENT?
AND, INDEED, AS I INDICATED, I
BELIEVE THERE IS STRONG
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR IT.
THIS SALE WOULD SUPPORT MORE
THAN 60 JOB YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT,
GENERATE SOME $8.7 BILLION OF
ECONOMIC OUTPUT, AND YOU KNOW
WHAT?
IT WOULD ALSO GENERATE $768
MILLION IN TAXES FOR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
AS I INDICATED, TAIWAN'S AIR
FORCE IS FACING A LOOMING
FIGHTER SHORTFALL, AND THE FACT
OF THE MATTER IS, THIS FALLS
SQUARELY IN CONGRESS'S
WHEELHOUSE.
THE TAIWAN RELATIONS ACT THAT I
REFERRED TO EARLIER, 1979,
SIGNED BY PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER
WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT,
REQUIRES THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE TAIWAN,
ALLY, WITH THE
DEFENSE ARTICLES NECESSARY FOR
THEM TO DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST
COMMUNIST CHINESE AGGRESSION,
AND IT INSTRUCTS THE PRESIDENT
AND THE CONGRESS TO DETERMINE
THE NATURE AND QUANTITY OF SUCH
DEFENSE ARTICLES BASED ON THEIR
JUDGMENT OF THE NEEDS OF TAIWAN.
47 DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS IN
THE UNITED STATES SENATE --
ALMOST HALF -- HAVE SIGNED A
LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
SALE.
UNITED STATES SUPPORTING THIS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
181 DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
HAVE SIGNED A LETTER TO THE
PRESIDENT SUPPORTING THIS SALE.
THE SENATE, AS YOU'LL RECALL,
MADAM PRESIDENT, IN SEPTEMBER
PREVIOUSLY VOTED ON AN AMENDMENT
LIKE THIS IN THE TRADE
ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE
BILL, WHICH ENDED UP IN A 48-48
TIE.
ALTHOUGH THE BILL HAD STRONG
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES SAID THEY PREFERRED
NOT TO OFFER THAT AMENDMENT ON
THAT PARTICULAR LEGISLATIVE
VEHICLE BUT SAID THAT IF I CAME
BACK ON AN APPROPRIATE
LEGISLATIVE VEHICLE, THEY WOULD
SUPPORT IT.
AND IF THERE'S A MORE
APPROPRIATE LEGISLATIVE VEHICLE
THAN THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
BILL, I HOPE SOMEONE WOULD POINT
THAT OUT TO ME.
THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE VEHICLE.
THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO
FOR JOB CREATION IN AMERICA.
IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN
TERMS OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
AND STABILITY IN ASIA.
AND THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE THAT
THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE TIME FOR
US TO TAKE UP THIS AMENDMENT.
I WAS ADVISED, MADAM PRESIDENT,
THAT -- BY THE PARLIAMENTARIAN
POSTCLOTURE THAT MY ORIGINAL
AMENDMENT AS DRAFTED WOULD NOT
BE GERMANE POSTCLOTURE.
HOWEVER, IN CONSULTATION WITH
THE PARLIAMENTARIAN, WE'VE COME
UP WITH A TECHNICAL MODIFICATION
WHICH ESSENTIALLY WOULD STRIKE
WHAT I WOULD CALL -- WHAT ARE
THE FINDINGS THAT WOULD
SUPPORT THE NEED FOR THE
LEGISLATION.
BUT IT WOULD IN ESSENCE STRIKE
THE "A" SECTION AND THE "B"
SECTION AND LEAVE ONLY THE "C"
SECTION REMAINING.
THIS OF COURSE AT THIS POINT IN
THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD REQUIRE
UNANIMOUS CONSENT, AND IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE -- WITH
SENATOR McCAIN, THE RANKING
MEMBER OF THE SENATE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE, I'M ADVISED
THAT OUR FRIENDS ACROSS THE
AISLE WILL NOT GRANT UNANIMOUS
CONSENT FOR US TO MODIFY
RELATELY WHAT IS A TECHNICAL
MODIFICATION FOR THIS AMENDMENT
SO WE CAN GET A VOTE ON IT.
I REALIZE AT THIS POINT THAT WE
ARE IN MORNING BUSINESS, AND
IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE PERHAPS FOR
ME TO ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT, BUT
I WILL ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT AT
A LATER APPROPRIATE TIME.
AND BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO GET AN
EXPLANATION FROM THE
DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN OF THE
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE WHY IN
THE WORLD -- WHY THERE WOULD BE
AN OBJECTION TO A BILL THAT
ENJOYS SUCH BROAD, BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT ON A CLEARLY APPROPRIATE
LEGISLATIVE VEHICLE.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I DO SEE THE
DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN ON THE
FLOOR, AND SO I WOULD AT THIS
APPROPRIATE TO ASK UNANIMOUS
TIME, IF IT'S -- IF IT'S
CONSENT TO MODIFY MY PENDING
AMENDMENT, TO STRIKE THE
FINDINGS UNDER SECTION "A" AND
UNDER SECTION "B" AND TO LEAVE
SECTION "C" WHICH IS THE STATE
-- WHICH STATES IN FULL "SALE OF
AIRCRAFT THE PRESIDENT SHALL
CARRY OUT THE SALE OF NO FEWER
TAIWAN."
THAN 66 MULTIFIGHTER AIRCRAFT TO
WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE
PARLIAMENTARIAN THAT THAT IS
INDEED GERMANE AND WOULD BE
ELIGIBLE FOR A VOTE AND WITH
THAT MODIFICATION SO I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SO MODIFY
MY AMENDMENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT?
IS
THERE OBJECTION?
THE SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
THIS IS OBJECTION EN THIS ON THIS SIDE
AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO BRING
OBJECTORS.
TOGETHER SENATOR CORNYN WITH THE
BUT IN MY JUDGMENT, I OBJECT --
BUT, IN THE MEANTIME, I OBJECT.
THE
SENATOR FROM TEXAS.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
I'M DISAPPOINTMENTED BUT MORE
THAN DISAPPOINTED, I LOOK
FORWARD 20 THAT EXPLANATION.
I HOPE IT WILL BE -- THERE WILL
BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A
COLLOQUY AND A DISCUSSION HERE
ON THE FLOOR SO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE CAN SEE WHY WHEN A PIECE
OF LEGISLATION THAT ENJOYS SUCH
BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT CAN'T
EVEN GET A VOTE, WHEN PEOPLE
WATCH WHAT'S HAPPENING IN
WASHINGTON THESE DAY, I THINK
THEY'RE TEMPTED TO AVERT THEIR
GAZE BECAUSE THEY ASK THE
QUESTION OF ME AND I'M SURE
WHEN, MADAM PRESIDENT, YOU'RE
BACK IN NORTH CAROLINA, PEOPLE
WILL SAY, WHY CAN'T PEOPLE GET
ANYTHING DONE?
WELL, IT'S BECAUSE,
LIKE THIS.
UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF THINGS
THESE ARE TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS
THAT ARE NOT BASED ON THE
SUBSTANCE OR THE MERITS OF THE
LEGISLATION.
I RESPECT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE WHO
SAYS THERE IS AN OBJECTION ON
THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE AND HE IS
PERSONALLY NOT MAKING THAT
OBJECTION BUT IS ON BEHALF OF
SOME UNNAMED OTHER PARTY.
HYPOCRITE THAT PERSON WILL BE --
I HOPE THAT PERSON WILL BE
NAMED.
FLOOR.
I HOPE THEY WILL COME TO THE
I HOPE THEY WILL EXPLAIN TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TO OUR
DEMOCRATIC ALLIES IN TAIWAN WHY
IT IS THEY OBJECT A VOTE ON THIS
AMENDMENT.
I DO BELIEVE THAT IF WE ARE ABLE
TO GET A VOTE ON THE DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION BILL THAT THIS HAS
A HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF PASSAGE,
AND I THINK WOULD SEND A STRONG
MESSAGE TO OUR FRIENDS AND
ALLIES AROUND THE TWHOORLD, YES,
YOU CAN -- AROUND THE WORLD
THAT, YES, YOU CAN COUNT ON YOUR
FRIEND AND ALLY, THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA.
CONVERSELY, IF WE ARE THWARTED
IN OUR AMENDMENT TO TRY TO GET
THIS AMENDMENT VOTED ON AND
PASSED, THEN THIS WILL SEND A
COUNTERVEILING MESSAGE THAT YOU
CANNOT DEPEND ON AMERICA, AND IT
WILL EMBOLDEN BULLIES AROUND THE
WORLD.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE SNO
SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THE SENATE PROCEED
TO THE CONSIDERATION OF PENDING
FEINSTEIN AMENDMENT NUMBER 1125,
THAT THERE BE 30 MINUTES FOR
DEBATE EQUALLY DIVIDED AND
CONTROLLED IN THE USUAL FORM.
THAT UPON THE USE OR YIELDING
BACK OF TIERNLG THE SENATE
PROCEED TO VOTE IN RELATION TO
THE FEINSTEIN AMENDMENT WITH NO
AMENDMENTS IN ORDER PRIOR TO THE
VOTE.
IS
THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MORNING BUSINESS IS CLOSED.
UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE
SENATE WILL RESUME CONSIDERATION
OF S. 1867, WHICH THE CLERK WILL
REPORT.
CALENDAR NUMBER
230, S. 1867, A BILL TO
AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2012 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION, AND SO FORTH AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
UNDER
THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THERE WILL
BE 30 MINUTES OF DEBATE UNDER
THE FEINSTEIN AMENDMENT.
THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
BEFORE WE BEGIN THE DEBATE,
COULD I -- AND WOULD THE SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA -- AND WITH THE
SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA ON THE
FLOOR AND THE BENEFIT FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR
COLLEAGUES AND THE CHAIRMAN --
THERE ARE TWO PENDING FEINSTEIN
AMENDMENTS,CY AND IT.
THE SENATOR HAS AGREED TO THE
HALF-HOUR, EQUALLY DIVIDED, AS
THE CHAIR JUST SAID.
THEN, I UNDERSTAND THE SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA WANTS -- OR
WOULD HAVE AGREED TO THE SECOND
AMENDMENT AT 4:00 P.M.
IS THAT CORRECT?
SO PRIOR TO THAT, I WOULD ASK MY
FRIEND, THE CHAIRMAN, IF WE
COULD HAVE AN HOUR STARTING AT
3:00 OF -- EQUALLY DIVIDED
DEBATE BEFORE THE VOTE AT 4:00
ON THE SECOND FEINSTEIN
AMENDMENT?
RESERVING THE RIGHT
TO OBJECT, I OBVIOUSLY DON'T
INTEND TO, I JUST WANT TO -- I'M
JUST WONDERING WHETHER'S WHETHER
OR NOT THE SENATOR FROM
CALIFORNIA UNDERSTANDS THAT THE
VOTE ON THE SECOND FEINSTEIN
AMENDMENT WOULD BE AT 4:00 AND
THAT THE DEBATE WOULD BEGIN AT
3:00 WITH THAT HOUR EQUALLY
DIVIDED.
I DO.
I HAVE A FOUR CORNERS MEETING ON
THE ENERGY AND WATERS
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
THAT'S MY PROBLEM.
SO THE LATER IT IS, THE BETTER
IT IS FOR ME.
SO IS A 4:00 VOTE
ACCEPTABLE?
AFTER AN HOUR OF DEBATE
MIND SOMETHING
THAT THE HOUSE CHAIRMAN ONLY HAS
-- MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE
HOUSE CHAIRMAN ONLY HAS UNTIL
4:00, BUT I ANTICIPATE THAT WE
WILL TAKE ALL THAT TIME.
SO I'LL -- I CAN'T CHANGE IT
IS IT AGREEABLE
NOW.
THAT THERE WILL BE AN HOUR OF
DEBATE STARTING 359:00 WITH A
VOTE SCHEDULED AT --
YES, I'LL DO
MY BEST.
I WOULD ALSO ADD TO
THAT THERE WOULD BE NO
SECOND-DEGREE AMENDMENTS IN
AMENDMENT.
ORDER TO THE SECOND FEINSTEIN
IS
THERE OBJECTION?
THE SENATOR FROM TEXAS.
I OBJECT.
OBJECTION IS HEARD.
THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
OBVIOUSLY WE CAN CALL A VOTE AT
ANY PARTICULAR TIME.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST AGAIN THAT WE
BEGIN -- WE TRY TO DISPOSE OF
OTHER AMENDMENTS AFTER THE VOTE
ON FEINSTEIN AMENDMENT AND THE --
THE FIRST ONE -- AND THEN WE TRY
TO DISPOSE OF ADDITIONAL
AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE
DISPOSITION OF THE FIRST
FEINSTEIN RAIMENT AND THE
SECOND.
THE
DISPOSITION OF THE FIRST
FEINSTEIN AMENDMENT AND THE
SECOND ONE.
WITH THE TIME -- THE HOUR OF
EQUALLY DIVIDED AND
SENATOR FEINSTEIN --
MADAM
PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I RISE TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT AMENDMENT NUMBER 1125
WHICH WILL LIMIT MANDATORY
MILITARY CUSTODY TO TERRORISTS
CAPTURED OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES.
IS COSPONSORED BY
SENATORS REID, CASEY, SHAHEEN,
INOUYE -- EXCUSE ME, LEAHY, DUR
IMINE, UDALL, KIRK, LEE, HARKIN
AND WEBB.
MADAM PRESIDENT, THIS IS A VERY
SIMPLE AMENDMENT.
IT ADDS ONLY ONE WORD, THE WORD
"ABROAD"," TO SECTION 1031 OF THE
UNDERLYING BILL.
I STRONGLY BELIEVE, IF IT ISN'T
BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.
AND THE ABILITY TO HAVE MAXIMUM
FLEXIBILITY IN THE UNITED STATES
IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND I TOTALLY
SUPPORT THE EXECUTIVE HAVING
THAT FLEXIBILITY.
THIS BILL
CREATES A PRESUMPTION THAT
MEMBERS OR PARTS OF AL QAEDA OR
ASSOCIATED FORCES WILL BE HELD
IN THE MILITARY SYSTEM.
AND THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME,
THE MILITARY SYSTEM HAS
NOT REALLY PRODUCED VERY WELL
OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS.
AND I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO
CONTRAST SOME CASES.
ON THIS CHART WE HAVE
SENTENCES, FIVE OF THEM, WITH
MILITARY COMMISSIONS, AND FIVE
OR SIX FROM FEDERAL COURTS.
THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE ACTUALLY
CONVICTED OVER THE LAST 10 OR 11
YEARS NOT 300 PEOPLE BUT 400
PEOPLE.
MILITARY COMMISSIONS ARE REALLY
LIMITED TO SOME SIX CONVICTIONS.
AND LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT
THEY ARE.
A VERY SAMEOUS ONE WAS SALIM
HAMDAN.
HE WAS BIN LADEN'S DRIVER.
HE WAS ACQUITTED OF CONSPIRACY,
ONLY CONVICTED OF MATERIAL
SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM AND HE
RECEIVED A FIVE-MONTH SENTENCE
BY A MILITARY COMMISSION AND WAS
SENT BACK TO HIS HOME IN YEMEN
TIME BEFORE BEING
RELEASED IN JANUARY OF 2009.
NUMBER TWO, DAVID HICKS ENTERED
INTO A PLEA ON MATERIAL SUPPORT
FOR TERRORISM, WAS GIVEN A
NINE-MONTH SENTENCE, MOSTLY
SERVED BACK HOME IN AUSTRALIA.
OMAR KHADR PLED GUILTY IN
EXCHANGE FOR AN EIGHT-YEAR
SENTENCE BUT HE WILL LIKELY BE
TRANSFERRED TO A CANADIAN
PRISON.
IC A HIM AHMED MAHMOUD AL-QOSI
PLED GUILTY TO CONSPIRACY AND
MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISM.
HIS FINAL SENTENCE WAS TWO YEARS
PURSUANT TO A PLEA DEAL.
NOOR USMAN MUHAMMAD PLED GUILTY
TERRORISM.
TO MATERIAL SUPPORT FOR
HIS FINAL SENTENCE WILL BE LESS
THAN THREE YEARS PURSUANT TO HIS
PLEA AGREEMENT.
ALI HAMSA RECEIVED A LIFE
SENTENCE AFTER HE BOYCOTTED THE
ENTIRE COMMISSION PROCESS.
YOU HAVE
COURT.
SENTENCES FROM THE FEDERAL
BOMBER.
YOU HAVE RICHARD REID, THE SHOE
LIFE IN PRISON.
BLIND SHEIK OMAR ABDEL RAHMAN,
LIFE IN PRISON FOR THE PLOT TO
BOMB NEW YORK CITY.
20th HIJACKER ZACARIAS
MOUSSAOUI, LIFE IN PRISON.
RAMSEY YOUSEF, LIFE IN PRISON
FOR THE 1993 WORLD TRADE CENTER
BOMBING AND THE MANILA AIR PLOT.
UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB,
PROBABLY LIFE IN PRISON WILL BE
SENTENCED IN JANUARY, 2012.
AND NAZI BULLA GLAZI WHO WAS
GOING -- ZAZI WHO WAS GOING TO
BOMB THE NEW YORK SUBWAY.
THERE IS DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE
THAT IS IRREFUTABLE THAT THE
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE DONE A MUCH
JOB THAN THE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS.
WHY THIS CONSTANT PRESS THAT IF
IT'S NOT BROKE, WE'RE GOING TO
FIX IT ANYWAY, I DON'T
UNDERSTAND.
WHY THE CONSTANT PUSH TO PUT
PEOPLE IN MILITARY CUSTODY
RATHER THAN PROVIDE THE
FLEXIBILITY SO THAT EVIDENCE CAN
BE EVALUATED QUICKLY, THIS
PERSON WILL GET LIFE IN A
FEDERAL COURT VERSUS AN
INABILITY OR A PROBLEM IN A
MILITARY COMMISSION, OR VICE
VERSA.
I THINK THE EXECUTIVE SHOULD
HAVE THAT.
AND I THINK THE LAST TEN YEARS
HAVE CLEARLY SHOWN THAT THIS
COUNTRY IS SAFER THAN IT HAS
EVER BEEN.
TERRORISTS ARE BEHIND BARS WHERE
THEY BELONG.
AND PLOTS HAVE BEEN THWARTED.
SO THE SYSTEM IS WORKING.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD MAKE CLEAR
THAT UNDER SECTION 1032, UNITED
STATES ARMED FORCES ARE ONLY
REQUIRED TO HOLD A SUSPECTED
TERRORIST IN MILITARY CUSTODY
CAPTURED ABROAD.
ALL THAT AMENDMENT DOES IS ADD
ONE WORD, AND THAT'S THE WORD
"ABROAD" TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE
MILITARY WILL NOT BE ROAMING OUR
STREETS LOOKING FOR SUSPECTED
TERRORISTS.
THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT REMOVE
THE PRESIDENT'S ABILITY TO USE
THE OPTION OF MILITARY DETENTION
OR PROSECUTION INSIDE THE UNITED
STATES.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
THREATENED TO VETO THIS BILL,
HAS SAID, AND I QUOTE, IT
STRONGLY OBJECTS TO THE MILITARY
CUSTODY PROVISION OF SECTION
1032, BECAUSE IT WOULD TIE THE
HANDS OF INTELLIGENCE AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS.
PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY,
ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF THIS
AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY ON
NOVEMBER 15, DEFENSE SECRETARY
LEON PANETTA WROTE THIS, AND I
QUOTE -- "THE FAILURE OF THE
THAT
SECTION 1032 APPLIES TO
INDIVIDUALS CAPTURED ABROAD MAY
FRONT-LINE LAW ENFORCEMENT
NEEDLESSLY COMPLICATE EFFORTS BY
PROFESSIONALS TO COLLECT
CRITICAL INTELLIGENCE CONCERNING
OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES WITHIN
THE UNITED STATES.
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE, JIM CLAPPER,
ALSO WROTE A LETTER NOVEMBER 23
TO SAY THAT HE OPPOSES THE DOIRN
PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL --
DETAINEE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL
BECAUSE THEY OTHER COULD -- AND
I QUOTE -- "RESTRICT THE
ABILITY OF OUR NATION'S
PROFESSIONALS TO ACQUIRE
VALUABLE INTELLIGENCE AND
PREVENT FUTURE ATTACKS."
THE ADMINISTRATION SUGGESTED
THIS CHANGE TO THE ARMED
SERVICES COMMITTEE BUT IT WAS
REJECTED, AND SO THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS HAD TO
THREATEN A VETO ON THE BILL.
I MEAN, WHO KNOWS WHERE THEY
WILL?
I CERTAINLY DON'T KNOW.
THIS AMENDMENT LIMITING
MANDATORY MILITARY CUSTODY TO
DETAINEES OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES IS A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT TO
THE BILL.
AND I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO
SUPPORT IT.
I HAVE A VERY HARD TIME BECAUSE
I HAVE WATCHED DETAINEES
CAREFULLY AS PART OF THE SENATE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, AND WE
ARE DOING A STUDY ON THE
DETENTION AND TREATMENT OF
HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES.
THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR TWO
YEARS NOW.
IT'S GOING TO BE A 4,000-PAGE
DOCUMENT, AND IT'S GOING TO BE
CLASSIFIED, BUT IT WILL
DOCUMENT WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE
WITH EACH OF THE HIGH-VALUE
DETAINEES AND WHAT WAS LEARNED
FROM THEM.
AND IT SHOWS SOME VERY
INTERESTING THINGS.
BUT THE UPSHOT OF ALL OF THIS IS
KEEP
MILITARY CUSTODY TO PEOPLE
ARRESTED ABROAD, AND HAVE THE
WIDE OPTION IN THIS COUNTRY,
WHICH IS THIS CASE NOW AND NOT
MANNED -- MANDATE, MANDATE,
THAT MILITARY CUSTODY AND
MILITARY COMMISSION TRIAL MUST
BE FOR EVERYONE ARRESTED IN THE
UNITED STATES.
YOU WILL HEAR THAT ANYONE WHO
COMES TO THE UNITED STATES, WHO
CARRIES OUT A CRIMINAL ACT, A
TERRORIST ACT, UNDER THE LAWS
OF WAR REALLY SHOULD BE SUBJECT
TO MILITARY CUSTODY.
THE PROBLEM IS, TEN YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE HASN'T WORKED.
HOW MANY YEARS' EXPERIENCE DO WE
NEED?
HOW MANY SENTENCES -- SIX CASES
AND THIS IS ALL THERE IS IN TEN
YEARS.
GOT
QUESTION VERY UPSET WHEN
ABDULMUTALLAB WAS MIRANDIZED.
THE FACT IS EVERY BELIEF IS
ABDULMUTALLAB WILL DO A LIFE
SENTENCE, IN A FEDERAL PRISON,
PUT AWAY IN A PLACE HE CANNOT
ESCAPE AND WHERE THE TREATMENT
IS VERY SERIOUS.
I THINK -- I JUST HAVE,
AGAIN, A HARD TIME KNOWING WHY
IF IT'S NOT BROKE, WE NEED TO
FIX IT.
AND WHY WE NEED TO SUBJECT
EVERYBODY THAT MIGHT BE ARRESTED
IN THIS COUNTRY TO A RECORD
THAT'S LIKE THIS.
FIVE-MONTH SENTENCE, NINE-MONTH
SENTENCE, EIGHT-YEAR SENTENCE,
TWO-YEAR SENTENCE, THREE YEARS
PURSUANT TO A PLEA AGREEMENT,
AND ONE LIFE SENTENCE.
WHEN YOU HAVE 400 CASES THAT
HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF IN A
PROMPT WAY IN A FEDERAL COURT
WHO ARE SERVING LONG SENTENCES
IN FEDERAL PRISON.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD THE
REMAINDER OF MY TIME AND HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE
DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN AND
RANKING MEMBER.
THE
SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
I'D LIKE TO YIELD -- MR. LEVIN:
BEFORE THE SENATOR YIELDS --.
THE
SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
I UNDERSTAND IT IS
NOW PREFERABLE FROM OUR LEADER
THAT THE VOTE BE AT 2:00, NOT
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS
HALF-HOUR OF DEBATE.
IF THAT'S
POSSIBLE, BUT IT'S WHAT YOU
WANT.
OKAY, ALL RIGHT.
SO NOW IF YOU WOULD
YIELD.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE VOTE
WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED
AT THE END OF THE HALF-HOUR OF
DEBATE ON THIS AMENDMENT NOW BE
RESELD -- RESCHEDULED FOR 2:00.
IS THERE
OBJECTION?
SEEING NONE, SO RULED.
RELATIVE TO THE TIME
THAT HALF-HOUR AND
2:00, THAT TIME HOPEFULLY WOULD
BE USED, IT WILL BE BY ME FOR
MY REMARKS ON THIS AMENDMENT, BY
THE WAY, AND -- BECAUSE AFTER
THE 30 MINUTES IF IT'S USED
TOTALLY, I WOULD WANT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK DURING THAT
IN MORNING BUSINESS.
PERIOD OF TIME AS IF NECESSARY,
THERE ARE OTHER AMENDMENTS WE
BELIEVE CAN BE VOICE VOTED
DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME.
I BELIEVE MY FRIEND FROM ARIZONA
WOULD AGREE.
SO THAT TIME WILL BE FRUITFULLY
USED.
BUT THE TIME NOW IS 2:00 FOR THE
VOTE ON THAT FIRST FEINSTEIN
AMENDMENT.
THE
SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
THE VOTE WILL BE
AT 2:00.
SENATORS FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE AND
SOUTH CAROLINA WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE CHAIRMAN
WOULD LIKE TO BE BEFORE OR
DURING THAT OR IN BETWEEN.
BUT ALSO, IT DOES NOT CHANGE
THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WHICH
HAS NOT BEEN AGREED TO BUT WE
HAVE AGREED WE WILL ATTEMPT TO
HAVE A VOTE ON THE SECOND
4:00 STILL.
FEINSTEIN AMENDMENT AT
IS THAT CORRECT?
WE WILL ATTEMPT TO DO THAT?
THAT CONTINUES TO BE
OUR INTENT.
IT WAS OBJECTED TO BEFORE BUT WE
HOPE THAT OBJECTION WILL BE
REMOVED.
IF NOT, IF IT'S NOT REMOVED,
WE JUST WILL HAVE TO HAVE ALL
THESE VOTES AT THE END OF THE
DAY INSTEAD OF DURING THE DAY.
SO BEGINNING AT
3:00 WHETHER WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS
CONSENT AGREEMENT, BECAUSE THE
FEINSTEIN AMENDMENT IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
I WOULD ASK THAT INFORMALLY IF
WE DO NOT HAVE A UNANIMOUS
CONSENT AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE
AN HOUR EQUALLY DIVIDED
BEGINNING AT 3:00 SO THAT WE CAN
AMENDMENT.
DEBATE THE SECOND FEINSTEIN
IN THE MEANTIME, AS THE
CHAIRMAN SAID, WE WILL TRY TO
DISPENSE WITH UNANIMOUS -- WITH
VOICE VOTES AND OTHER
AGREED-UPON AMENDMENTS AND
PERHAPS EVEN A RECORDED VOTE IF
AMENDMENTS.
NECESSARY ON ONE OF THE
I WOULD JUST REMIND MY
COLLEAGUES THAT WE RUN OUT OF
TIME AT 6:00 THIS EVENING, AND
DO IT IN A
MEASURED FASHION, ALLOWING
DEBATE BEFORE THOSE RECORDED
VOTES BECAUSE THOSE PENDING
AMENDMENTS WILL BE VOTED ON
AFTER 6:00 P.M. TONIGHT.
I HOPE THAT I DIDN'T SAY
AGREE WITH.
ANYTHING THE CHAIRMAN DOESN'T
THE
SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
NO, I AGREE WITH WHAT THE
INTENT IS HERE, WE COULD
HOPEFULLY COULD HAVE AN HOUR OF
DEBATE STARTING AT 3:00.
WE'LL TRY TO LOCK THAT IN AFTER
GIVING FOLKS NOTICE.
BUT IF THERE IS OBJECTION TO
VOTES BEFORE THE TIME RUNS OUT,
THE 30-HOUR CLOCK RUNS OUT,
THEN WE HAVE TO HAVE ALL THOSE
VOTES AFTER THE 30-HOUR CLOCK
RUNS OUT AND IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY
SENSE TO DO THAT, BUT IF
THERE'S GOING TO BE AN
OBJECTION, THEN THAT'S THE WAY
IT WILL HAVE TO BE.
WHAT SENATOR McCAIN IS SAYING
AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH HIM,
EVEN IF WE PUT IN THAT POSITION
AND I HOPE WE'RE NOT, AT LEAST
WE CAN USE THE TIME BETWEEN NOW
AND THEN FOR DEBATE ON THOSE
AMENDMENTS WHICH WE THEN HAVE TO
A LATER TIME AND I
TOTALLY AGREE WITH MY FRIEND
FROM ARIZONA.
THE
SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
I YIELD SEVEN
MINUTES TO THE SENATOR FROM NEW
HAMPSHIRE AND SIT MINUTES TO THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
THE
SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.
THANK YOU,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE SENATOR
1125.
FROM CALIFORNIA, AMENDMENT
AND I WOULD START WITH THIS:
WE'VE HEARD REPEATEDLY NOT ONLY
FROM THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
BUT ALSO FROM THE SENATOR FROM
ILLINOIS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF
CASES IN OUR CIVILIAN SYSTEM
WHERE WE'VE TRIED TERRORISTS
VERSUS THE NUMBER OF MILITARY
COMMISSIONS.
I THINK THERE'S ONE THING THAT
NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED UP FRONT
HERE, THAT ONE OF THE FIRST
ACTS THAT THE PRESIDENT TOOK
WHEN HE CAME INTO OFFICE WAS TO
ACTUALLY SUSPEND ALL MILITARY
COMMISSIONS FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS.
SO TO COMPARE THE NUMBER OF
CASES IN OUR CIVILIAN SYSTEM
VERSUS THE NUMBER OF MILITARY
COMMISSION TRIALS WE'VE HAD IS
JUST A FALSE COMPARISON WHEN
WE'VE SUSPENDED THESE TRIALS FOR
OVER TWO YEARS.
I JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT UPFRONT THAT I
THINK THAT THE CHART THE SENATOR
SHOWS ACTUALLY MISSES THE POINT
OF WHY WE HAVE THIS AMENDMENT
BEFORE US AND THAT IS WE NEED TO
GATHER INTELLIGENCE.
WHEN WE HAVE CAPTURED A MEMBER
OF AL QAEDA WHO IS PLANNING AN
ATTACK AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, THE FIRST GOAL HAS
TO BE, OBVIOUSLY, GETTING THAT
PERSON AWAY FROM WHERE HE CAN
THREATEN US AGAIN, TO KILL
AMERICANS, BUT ALSO JUST AS
IMPORTANTLY, TO GATHER
INTELLIGENCE TO PROTECT AMERICA.
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS
SET UP TO SEE THAT JUSTICE IS
SERVED IN A PARTICULAR CASE NOT
TO SEE THAT WE HAVE THE MAXIMUM
TOOLS IN THE HANDS OF OUR
INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS TO GATHER
INFORMATION, YET IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT IF YOU LOOK IN CONTEXT OF
FEINSTEIN'S AMENDMENT
1126 THAT WE'VE ALREADY TALKED
ABOUT ON THE FLOOR, SHE WANTS TO
LIMIT THE ADMINISTRATION.
THE CASE LAW OF OUR SUPREME
COURT THAT GOES BACK TO WORLD
WAR II WOULD TAKE US BEFORE
9/11, AND HEAVEN FORBID IF WE
HAD AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO WAS
ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN AN
INCIDENT LIKE WE HAD OCCUR ON
OUR SOIL ON 9/11, OUR MILITARY
WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO HOLD
THAT PERSON AND TO QUESTION THEM
TO GET THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
INFORMATION AND PROTECT OUR
COUNTRY.
AND WITH RESPECT TO THIS
AMENDMENT THAT SHE HAS PENDING
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE -- EXCUSE
ME, BEFORE THE FLOOR, 1125, I
JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE
AMENDMENT WOULD LEAD TO A VERY,
VERY ABSURD RESULT.
ESSENTIALLY, WHAT IT WOULD SAY
IS IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF
AL QAEDA PLANNING OR COMMITTING
AN ATTACK AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, A FOREIGNER,
AND YOU MAKE IT TO OUR SOIL, AS
THE 9/11 CONSPIRATORS DID, WHO
COMMITTED THAT HORRIBLE ATTACK
ON OUR COUNTRY, THEN YOU CANNOT
BE HELD IN MILITARY CUSTODY,
THERE'S NO MANDATORY MILITARY
CIRCUMSTANCES.
CUSTODY UNDER THOSE
YET WE WILL HOLD YOU IN
MANDATORY MILITARY CUSTODY IF
YOU ARE FOUND OVERSEAS.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, PLEASE, THEIR
GOAL IS, UNFORTUNATELY, TO COME
TO THE HOMELAND, TO COME TO OUR
COUNTRY TO ATTACK US HERE, AND
IN OUR COUNTRY, WE NEED THE
AUTHORITY TO, IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE, THE PRESUMPTION SHOULD
BE TO HOLD THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN
MILITARY CUSTODY SO THAT WE
AREN'T READING THEM MIRANDA
RIGHTS.
TO TELL A TERRORIST "YOU HAVE
THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT" IS
DO TO
PROTECT AMERICANS AND MAKE SURE
THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, I WILL USE
THE CHRISTMAS DAY BOMBER AS AN
EXAMPLE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN CITED
FLOOR.
SO MANY TIMES HERE ON THIS FLOOR
THAT DAY WHEN HE WAS FOUND ON
THE PLANE, AFTER 50 MINUTES OF
QUESTIONING, HE WAS READ HIS
MIRANDA RIGHTS AND HE INVOKED
HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS AND REMAINED
SILENT.
IT WAS ONLY FIVE WEEKS LATER,
AFTER WE TRACKED DOWN HIS
PARENTS AND CONVINCED HIM TO
COOPERATE, THAT HE ACTUALLY
PROVIDED MORE INFORMATION.
WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE THAT HE
WAS ONLY INVOLVED IN ONE EVENT,
THAT IT WASN'T A 9/11 TYPE EVENT
WHERE THERE WERE MULTIPLE EVENTS
ON AMERICAN SOIL PLANNED.
BUT WHAT IF AFTER THAT 50
MINUTES WE WAITED FIVE -- FIVE
WEEKS TO GET MORE INFORMATION
YET THERE HAD BEEN MORE EVENTS
COMING THAT DAY?
THAT IS WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE.
CAN YOU IMAGINE THAT IF WE
HAD CAUGHT -- LET'S BRING
OURSELVES BACK TO SEPTEMBER 11.
WHAT IF WE HAD CAUGHT ONE OF
THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE ON
ONE OF THOSE PLANES BEFORE IT
TOOK OFF ON 9/11?
AND WHAT IF IN THAT INSTANCE TO
SAY THAT WE WOULD NOT HOLD THOSE
MEMBERS OF AL QAEDA IN MILITARY
CUSTODY THAT INSTANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE COULD GET THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF INFORMATION
FROM THEM TO HOPEFULLY, GOD
FORBID, THE LIFTING OFF OF THE
OTHER FLIGHTS AND WHAT HAPPENED
ON THAT HORRIBLE DAY IN OUR
COUNTRY'S HISTORY.
I HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT IF WE
WERE STANDING HERE IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THE EVENTS OF 9/11, I DO
NOT THINK THAT WE WOULD BE
DEBATING THIS AMENDMENT,
DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT IF YOU
MAKE IT TO OUR HOMELAND, WE WILL
NOT HOLD YOU IN MILITARY CUSTODY
CUSTODY, AS THE FIRST INSTANCE,
TO FIND OUT HOW MUCH INFORMATION
YOU HAVE, TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU
MULTIPLE ATTACKS
ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
IF THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA'S
AMENDMENT PASSES, WHAT KIND OF
MESSAGE ARE WE SAYING TO MEMBERS
OF AL QAEDA, FOREIGNERS WHO ARE
PLANNING ATTACKS AGAINST THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
WE'RE -- WE'RE LAYING OUT,
UNFORTUNATELY, IN MY VIEW, A
WELCOME MAT TO SAY, IF YOU MAKE
IT TO AMERICA, YOU WON'T BE HELD
IN MILITARY CUSTODY.
BUT IF YOU ATTACK US OVERSEAS,
THEN YOU WILL BE HELD IN
MILITARY CUSTODY.
WHY WOULD WE CREATE A DUAL
STANDARD WHERE WE SHOULD BE
PRIORITIZING PROTECTING OUR
HOMELAND, PROTECTING THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA?
THIS LEADS TO AN ABSURD RESULT,
AND I WOULD HOPE THAT MY
COLLEAGUES WOULD REJECT THE
SENATOR'S AMENDMENT TO SAY THAT
ONLY THOSE MEMBERS OF AL QAEDA
WHO DON'T MAKE IT TO OUR
HOMELAND TO ATTACK US RIGHT HERE
IN THE
FIRST INSTANCE IN MANDATORY
MILITARY CUSTODY, BECAUSE OUR
GOAL HAS TO BE HERE TO PROTECT
AMERICANS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE DON'T CREATE A DUAL STANDARD
WHERE IF YOU'RE LUCKY -- IF
YOU'RE CAPTURED OVER THERE,
WE'RE GOING TO HOLD YOU IN
MILITARY CUSTODY, BUT IF YOU'RE
CAPTURED AND YOU MAKE IT HERE,
YOU'RE GOING TO BE GETTING
GREATER RIGHTS, WE'LL TREAT YOU
IN THE CIVILIAN SYSTEM AND WE'LL
TELL YOU, "YOU HAVE THE TRITE
REMAIN SILENT."
WE SHOULD NOT BE TELLING
TERRORISTS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT
TO REMAIN SILENT.
WE SHOULD BE PROTECTING
AMERICANS.
AND IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS
AMENDMENT, IT WOULD CREATE AN
ABSURD STANDARD, WHERE YOU GET
GREATER RIGHTS WHEN YOU ARE HERE
ON OUR SOIL.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT -- I
THINK THAT MAKES US LESS SAFE
AND I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES
TO REJECT BOTH OF THE SENATOR'S
AMENDMENTS, BOTH 1126 THAT WOULD
BRING -- WOULD DENY THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH THE AUTHORITY
TO HOLD --
THE
SENATOR'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I THANK YOU,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, FOR THIS, AND I
WOULD ASK FOR 30 SECONDS JUST TO
WRAP UP, ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT
FOR 30 SECONDS.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
THANK YOU,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO
REJECT 1126 AS WELL, WHICH WOULD
TAKE US -- WOULD TAKE AWAY THE
AUTHORITY OF THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH AS ALLOWED BY OUR SUPREME
COURT AND WOULD BRING US BACK,
WOULD MAKE US LESS SAFE IN THIS
COUNTRY, AS WELL AS 1125.
WE HAVE TO PROTECT AMERICA AND
MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE
MAXIMUM INFORMATION TO PREVENT
FUTURE ATTACKS ON THIS COUNTRY.
THANK YOU, MADAM PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
HOW MUCH TIME --
THE
SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU.
HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE?
THE
SENATOR HAS THREE MINUTES
REMAINING OF THE ORIGINAL 30
MINUTES.
WELL, THANK YOU,
VERY MUCH.
WOULD THE SENATOR
WITHHOLD FOR ONE MOMENT?
YES.
TIME.
WELL, NOT ON MY TIME ON, YOUR
ON MY TIME.
AFTER THE 30 MINUTES EXPIRES,
BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE
A VOTE NOW THERE, WOULD BE
ADDITIONAL TIME SHOULD YOU NEED
IT AFTER THAT 30-MINUTE PERIOD.
THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
I MAY WELL USE IT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I REALLY OBJECT
TO THE STATEMENT JUST MADE THAT
THIS WILL MAKE THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA LESS SAFE.
TEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE HAS SEEN
THIS IT HAS NOT.
PLOT AFTER PLOT AFTER PLOT HAS
BEEN INTERRUPTED.
I HAVE SERVED ON THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FOR 11
YEARS NOW.
WE FOLLOW THIS CLOSELY.
THIS COUNTRY IS MUCH MORE SAFE
BECAUSE THINGS HAVE FINALLY COME
TOGETHER WITH A PROCESS THAT IS
WORKING.
THE F.B.I. HAS A NATIONAL
SECURITY DIVISION WITH 10,000
PEOPLE.
THERE ARE 56 F.B.I. OFFICES.
MILITARY DOESN'T HAVE OFFICES TO
MAKE ARRESTS AROUND THIS COUNTRY
COUNTRY.
THIS CONSTANT PUSH THAT
EVERYTHING HAS TO BE
MILITARIZED.
THEY WERE WRONG ON HAMDI.
THEY WERE WRONG ON HOMDON, AND
IT IS WRONG.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT CREATES A
GOOD COUNTRY.
BECAUSE WE HAVE VALUES.
AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS ONE OF
THOSE VALUES.
AND SO I OBJECT, I OBJECT TO
HOLDING AMERICAN CITIZENS
WITHOUT TRIAL.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MAKES US
MORE SAFE.
AND I OBJECT TO SAYING THAT
EVERYTHING -- THERE'S MANDATORY
MILITARY COMMISSION AND MILITARY
CUSTODY IF ANYONE FROM ABROW
COMMITS A CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS USED THE
THE --
CRIME IN THIS COUNTRY.
IF ANYONE FROM ABROAD COMMITS A
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS USED THE
FLEXIBILITY IN A WAY THAT THEY
HAVE WON EVERY SINGLE TIME.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO FAILURES AND
THAT'S UNLIKE THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION AS WELL, USED THE
FEDERAL COURTS WITHOUT FAILURE.
THEY HAVE GOTTEN CONVICTIONS.
FAILED ESSENTIALLY.
THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS HAVE
SIX CASES OVER 10, 11 YEARS.
AND I -- I POINTED OUT THE
SENTENCES.
SO TO SAY THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING
IS TO MAKE THIS COUNTY LESS SAFE
MAY BE GOOD FOR A 30-SECOND
SOUND BITE BUT IT IS NOT THE
TRUTH.
I THANK THE CHAIR.
THE
SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
TO MY GOOD FRIEND
FROM CALIFORNIA, YOU ARE A