Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. If I could speak on this very important issue addressed previously by the Senator from Illinois, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, I have been restrained in making comments on this process, although I admit I have had to bite my lip a few times because I believed the process that was underway was responsible. Let me go back and talk a little bit about the beginnings of why this act is necessary and where we are now. We have been in some very difficult times and some uncharted waters when it comes to the war on terror since September 11. It has challenged us in many ways to deal with problems we have not had to deal with before, with an amorphous enemy which does not line up in uniform, in rank, but takes the vehicle of suicide bombers or roadside bombs--the worst of all possible attacks on innocent men and women and children--with no uniform, with no concern for what it does to these innocent people, not to mention those who are trying to bring about greater peace and democracy and opportunity and security in the world, in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Middle East and, yes, here at home. We are working through this as we go forward. These are unique times. In this process, we have been able to capture and deter some of the worst of the worst jihadists in the world, intent on killing our soldiers and innocent men and women. We have had to deal with them. These are not people who ordinarily have been captured who would be covered by the Geneva Conventions. They are not serving in a country's military; they are murderers of the worst sort. We have had to deal with this issue. This administration has dealt with it. They have done it responsibly. Have they made some mistakes? Why, of course; we are human beings. All of this led to a very unfortunate Supreme Court decision, referred to--again, unfortunately--as the Hamdan decision. The Supreme Court clearly made a mistake. I must admit I was disappointed in some of the rulings of the judges, but it has forced our hand to try to make it clear in the law and with the administration how we are going to deal with this question of interrogating these terrorists, how we are going to deal with some of the evidence that is acquired through that process. The administration has been working with the lawyers, with the Congress, and with the Senate to try to work through this issue. Some people were very distraught last week that we seemed to be having disagreement within our own ranks on the Republican side of the aisle where three or four Senators or some Senators had some concerns. I felt very differently. Finally, we were dealing with issues that really matter. Questions of law, how we deal with the terrorists, how we deal with the evidence--these are very serious discussions, the kinds of things the Senate should be doing a lot more of. While one can disagree with who was doing what, we went through a process, took up legitimate questions of the law--how to deal with the Geneva Convention; how is it perceived--and came to an agreement. I still had my doubts. There are parts I still do not particularly like. I thought it was a very good process, with a lot of different people, a lot of lawyers, a lot of military people, a lot of leadership in the Congress, and they came up with a conclusion. I have had occasion now to take a look at what they came up with, had questions about, and it is pretty good. However, it is an area where we must act because if we do not act, we are not--the administration, the Government--going to know how to deal with interrogation or with the terrorists or how to deal with the evidence. This is a case where we do not have the luxury of not dealing with this issue. We have to do it. In some other areas, we should act. The electronic wiretaps matter-- we should deal with that, but we don't have it. We can go forward on the law as it is. In this case, we have to clarify the situation, or these people who are being held in Guantanamo Bay are going to be hanging in limbo. If you are worried about them, which I am not particularly, there needs to be a process of how we will deal with them. That is how we got where we are. That is now pending as an amendment to the border security bill that provides for a fence along our southern border with Mexico. That is not the way it should be done. It should be considered clean. But it is typical of what has happened all year long in the Senate. The whole operation from the other side of the aisle is delay it, drag it out, don't cooperate. Why can't we at least debate? Why have we gone through a day and a half of nothingness instead of considering and debating the substance of the amendment which should be a bill and also the substance of border security? Does anyone here want to leave to go home for an election period--and that is what this is really all about--without having addressed how we do the military trials and without having done something more significant about border security? Not me, although I suspect there are some who say: Yes, let's don't let anything happen; then we can blame Senators, certain people, leaders, whatever, the administration, because nothing happened. Nice deal if you can pull it off. I don't believe the American people will buy that deal. Also, in listening to some of the comments in the Senate, it stuns me. First of all, I am an attorney. I have not practiced for a long time. I find myself now involved in a lawsuit. Whenever they say, ``Bring on the lawyers,'' look out, because now we are going to get into a huge, big discussion of the niceties of trials and evidence and all of that, and we are guaranteed to have a lot of confusion moving forward. I wish to again emphasize what we are dealing with. We are dealing with, I believe Colin Powell was quoted as saying, the most vicious killers in the world. These are bad people. These are the people who admit they are jihadists. And if they get out, they would do everything to kill Americans, Europeans, Asians--anyone they think does not agree with their religious positions. These are not citizens, these are not employees of the government, and these are not soldiers. These are extremist jihadists of the worst sort. Now we have people worrying about how they are going to be incarcerated or interrogated or what evidence would be admissible. Lawyers can work that out. I know enough about the law to know that judges and juries can decipher the legitimacy of evidence and how it was obtained. The parsing we have been through is a disgrace, in my opinion. In terms of the interrogation, yes, we have to be concerned about our treaty obligations. Our President and our Government have to be concerned about that. Senators, too. We have already voted, and I voted, to clarify our position that we are opposed to torture. I voted for the McCain position. But now, what we are arguing over, I am concerned. What are we going to do in terms of interrogation to get information that can save one marine's life or thousands of innocent people? Are we going to ask them: Please, pretty please? When they let on like some of the techniques that have been used are such horrible things--being threatened by a dog? Come on. Have they never delivered laundry to someone's house and had a dog come after them? Have they never lived? Now being threatened by a dog is considered what--torture? Oh, by the way, we can't have them in stressful positions. What is that? You mean like standing up? Some of these complaints are absolutely ludicrous. Are we going to be careful not to insult them in some way? How are we going to get this information? And by the way, now our men and women who have to find a way to get information from these worst of the worst vicious killers in the world could be liable, and even worse than that, when they thought they were complying with the law as they understood it and as their superiors told them, they could be liable to be tried--after the fact. This legislation at least says that prospectively, here is going to be what is expected. If you exceed this, if you get over into the torture area, yes, you will be liable. But to go back and say, now, wait a minute, what you did could make you liable, when we have people trying to do their job for the American people--our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan now could be sued, and there are complaints that we are not going to make sure these people are not going to be, after the fact, ex post facto, tried? These same people are talking about amnesty for people illegally in America. Yet when they talk about amnesty for people doing their job as best they could, as they understood the law, no, we do not want to give them amnesty. That would be a horrible mistake, if we do not provide some clarity and some protection for those who may have exceeded that clarity in the past even though they understood what they were doing was wrong. Now we have this huge discussion about habeas corpus. Bring on the lawyers. What a wonderful thing we can do to come up with words like this. Our forefathers were thinking about citizens, Americans. They were not conceiving of these terrorists who are killing these innocent men, women, and children. These are not citizens. These are not people in America. We want them turned loose arbitrarily and then on the other hand turn around and, say, criticize the administration because some people who were caught in this process were subsequently released when you find out maybe they shouldn't have been? Ladies and gentlemen, this is the political season, I am sorry to say. I would have thought the Senate could rise above all this partisan political stuff. Everybody is trying to rewrite history or rewrite the law or prove a mistake was made or this intelligence was available which was different from that intelligence. Who is taking the time and looking at where we are now? Where do we want to be? How are we going to handle interrogations? How are we going to handle evidence? How are we going to do a better job for our men and women in the decisions we make in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who is looking for the future around here? No, we are all throwing political spears at each other. I don't think the American people appreciate that. It is embarrassing, quite frankly, to me. I have been on the Intelligence Committee for 4 years, and for 4 years we have been going back trying to refigure the intelligence. We have found out the intelligence we were receiving in that committee-- the Senators, Congressmen, and the President--was not as good as it should have been. Okay, good. Admit that. Now what are we going to do about it? How many hearings do we have where the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence were asked: What are you doing to implement the law we put in place to address the problems we found? Where are we going to be in the future? What have we done to actually go to meet with our CIA agents around the world and hear what the real country situation is in critical parts of the world? Not one time have we done that. No, even the Intelligence Committee, which for years the Senate worked to make sure it stayed nonpartisan, bipartisan, and worked together for the good of the country, in close quarters, now is just another partisan committee. Staff fight each other; intelligence information is leaked; classified intelligence information is leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post. No one is identified. No one is punished for that. What worries me, this is not just about politics; this is about people's lives. People get killed based on the intelligence we get or don't get or the oversight we have. I hope we can complete our work. Hopefully, it will be good work by the end of the week. Let's go home and get this political period over with, but when we come back next year, I think it is time we assess where we are. How are we going to do a better job? What is America's agenda? What can we do together in a bipartisan way? Is there anything left? And if we do not, I think there will be a pox on all of our houses. So on this particular subject of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, let's get it up, let's debate it, and let's have a vote. We have to do it. I think they have done pretty good work. If I could get in a room with my lawyers, yes, I would write it differently. I think more of that evidence should be admissable with less restraints. I think more of the techniques that have been used in the interrogation of terrorists should be used than are in this provision. Once again, it is not perfect, but it is good enough. It is the right thing to do. Madam President, observing no Senator wishing to speak at this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to again express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico--I know this is a feeling shared by a lot of Senators--for his efforts and leadership over many years in the Senate but particularly in the energy area. He has been persistent. We did pass a good energy policy bill last year. Obviously, he would like for it to have been, perhaps, even broader, but we got it done. It is making a contribution and will continue to have a positive contribution into more diverse energy policy in this country from which the American people will benefit. I thank the Senator for his leadership on this particular area of the nuclear repository. We must deal with this issue. We can do it. His input was critical. I thank him.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to again express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico--I know this is a feeling shared by a lot of Senators--for his efforts and leadership over many years in the Senate but particularly in the energy area. He has been persistent. We did pass a good energy policy bill last year. Obviously, he would like for it to have been, perhaps, even broader, but we got it done. It is making a contribution and will continue to have a positive contribution into more diverse energy policy in this country from which the American people will benefit. I thank the Senator for his leadership on this particular area of the nuclear repository. We must deal with this issue. We can do it. His input was critical. I thank him.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a committee markup on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 10 a.m.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, at a time and location to be determined, following a vote on the Senate Floor, to consider favorably reporting the nominations of John K. Veroneau, to be Deputy United States Trade Representative, with the Rank of Ambassador, Executive Office of the President, and Robert K. Steel, to be Under Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 27, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the nominations of Mr. Christopher A. Padilla, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of the Department of Commerce; and Mr. Bijan Rafiekian, of California, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``Development of an Artificial Pancreas: Will New Technologies Improve Care for People With Diabetes and Reduce the Burden on the Health Care System?''

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``The Potential of an Artificial Pancreas: Improving Care for People With Diabetes.''

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, to hold a meeting to mark up the nomination of Robert T. Howard to be Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology, Department of Veterans' Affairs. The meeting will take place in the Reception Room off the Senate Floor in the Capitol following the first roll call vote of the day.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 27, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on bioterrorism and Public Health Preparedness, be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in SD-430.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Oversight Hearing: U.S. Refugee Admissions and Policy'' on Wednesday, September 27, at 3 p.m. in SD-226. Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Ellen Sauerbray, Assistant Secretary of State, Population, Refugees and Migration, Department of State, Washington, DC; Jonathan ``Jock'' Scharfen, Deputy Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC. Panel II: Michael Horowitz, Director, Project for Civil Justice Reform and Project for International Religious Liberty, Hudson Institute, Washington, DC; Father Kenneth Gavin, S.J., Vice-Chair, Refugee Council U.S.A. and National Director, Jesuit Refugee Service, U.S.A., Washington, DC.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 27 at 10 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 3000, a bill to grant rights-of-way for electric transmission lines over certain native allotments in the State of Alaska; S. 3599, to establish the Prehistoric Trackways National Monument in the State of New Mexico; S. 3794, to provide for the implementation of the Owyhee Initiative Agreement, and for other purposes; S. 3854, to designate certain land in the State of Oregon as wilderness, and for other purposes; H.R. 3603, to promote the economic development and recreational use of National Forest System lands and other public lands in Central Idaho, to designate the Boulder-White Cloud Management Area to ensure the continued management of certain National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands for recreational and grazing use and conservation and resource protection, to add certain National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands in Central Idaho to the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for other purposes; and H.R. 5025, to protect for future generations the recreational opportunities, forest, timber, clean water, wilderness and scenic values, and diverse habitat of Mount Hood National Forest, Oregon, and for other purposes.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 27, 2006, at 10 a.m., to receive testimony on U.S. policy and practice with respect to the use of riot control agents by the U.S. Armed forces.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side of the aisle in morning business?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to say, while he is still on the Senate floor, what an outstanding job the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, has done in this area of homeland security and border security. I doubt there is any other Member of the Congress, House or Senate, who has done more to actually produce results. There is very little we could be doing in the Congress, now and in the foreseeable future, more important than security for our homeland. It is an integral part of the War on Terror. It is a part of why we have not had another major attack since 9/11. Once again, the Senator from New Hampshire has shown real leadership. He has produced a bill we have to have this year, to provide the appropriations for this important Department and the agencies within it and to put funding in it for border security. This is a major achievement. No matter what else we get accomplished this week, this will probably be, overall, the most important. I thank him for it. I have been very involved in the reform of FEMA because I have seen how FEMA did not always have the authority and didn't have the power, if you will, didn't have the people or the money to do the job after Hurricane Katrina. This reform will help make FEMA stronger, and I believe it will be a benefit to the Department of Homeland Security. There are a lot of those saying we should be accomplishing more. I am hoping before this week is out we will pass a major border security bill. I am hoping we will pass the Outer Continental Shelf energy package. I believe we will get Defense authorization and Defense appropriations and hopefully several other good bills. I have never seen a Senate more paralyzed than I have seen over the past few months. There is no doubt in my mind that a conscious decision was made by the Democratic leadership January a year ago to slow-roll, obstruct, delay everything. Every time you take a week or two on a bill that should be done in a day or two, that is that many days you cannot use to do other things which need to be accomplished. But I think, rather than trying to have a list with a whole lot of things on it-- little things, in many instances--it is more important to keep a focus on the big issues. What have we done to really help the American people? Quite often some people say, please don't pass more laws. Leave me alone; allow the private sector, allow the markets, allow us to do our job, and let the States and localities do their jobs. I think we overemphasis sheer numbers. But I think it is important that we look at the list of what this Senate has passed this year. When you add to that the other things which we hope we will complete this week--the most effective week of a session is always right before the end of the year. I remember one night when we passed something like 67 bills after almost everybody had gone home. The Democratic and Republican leadership had a blast. We passed a lot of good legislation. Look at what we have already done. The Patriot Act. Under the title of Homeland Security, we have taken major actions and they have made a difference in securing our country and have been a critical part of the War on Terrorism. The Patriot Act, border security, and we have funded the war on terror. On taxes and in the budget area, once again Senator Judd Gregg did a great job as chairman of the Budget Committee. We cut entitlements somewhat. We cut taxes by $70 billion. Other than Homeland Security and Defense, we have basically held the line on appropriations. A lot of the credit goes to my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. We passed a comprehensive energy policy bill last week. It is having a positive effect. It takes time for legislation in that area to have an effect. We passed the Pell grants in the area of math and science competitiveness in education. We passed lawsuit abuse reform. In the area of health for the benefit of Americans, health information technology, it sounds as though it wouldn't make that much difference, but it is going to control costs and make information more available to the patients so they can make the right decisions for their health needs. We have tremendous fights over judges. We have confirmed two Supreme Court judges--outstanding judges. We have confirmed 14 circuit court judges and 34 district court judges. Hopefully, we will confirm more this week. But there again, the Democrats chose to filibuster on judges--in my opinion, clearly unconstitutional. In fact, the majority leader now on almost every bill has to file cloture. Why? Because otherwise you can't get to the substance of a bill. When you spend 30 hours on a motion to proceed to a bill which has major consequences for border security, then you know there is something wrong with the institution. Instead of us finding ways to work together, we find ways to expound and put out more hot air instead of taking action. We have done some other things in protecting families, and also moving toward sound government. We passed the Voting Rights Act. I am here today for some reasons and for efforts that are not listed on this board. One year ago, I was standing on this floor pleading with my colleagues to help us in dealing with the aftermath of the biggest natural disaster to ever hit this country. We tend to forget about it. But most of last fall we spent on passing in a bipartisan, bicameral way Katrina relief legislation. We passed major appropriations. I am not talking about a few millions. I am talking about well over $100 billion. When we came back from the August recess, instead of going to some of the things that were scheduled--such as repeal of the death tax--we went immediately to Katrina legislation. But in providing appropriations, in providing tax incentives for businesses and industries to rebuild, to stay in the area, or come to the area to help us recover, we did that. Medicaid changes--we allowed the States of Louisiana and Mississippi to cope with the great increase in the number of people who needed Medicaid assistance; assistance through that bill to help many of our hospitals that were primary care hospitals. They treated everybody who showed up. It ran into hundreds of millions of dollars. And right across the board, we have Stafford Act changes in the law, help for our schools and colleges. All of our schools in Mississippi were back and open by November 7. In many instances, they were in pretty dilapidated facilities, without air conditioning, or temporary buildings. But every one of them opened by November 7, partially because Congress made a commitment to help them with the costs of what they had lost, to deal with the gap between what their insurance provided and what they were going to need to recover. I am here to thank the Congress for helping us. Have we had continued problems? Yes. Have we been disappointed in FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security and the Corps of Engineers? Yes, even though a lot of good people have done good work. I have to admit that at the State level and the local level, we have had problems sometimes in making decisions dealing with elevation requirements, dealing with national flood insurance, and actually even distributing the money. When you are trying to distribute $3 billion to 17,000 people, you do not throw it out the window. You have to have a process to make sure these people actually lost their homes, or had damaged homes, and that they are going to deal fairly with their mortgage holders, that they would have a way to get their homes back in place. That process is still underway. It has been a very difficult one. So you can be critical of what happened after Katrina, but there are a few places where a lot of credit should be given and it has not been adequately done. The Congress did the job after Hurricane Katrina. Every committee chairman and ranking member came to our aid. The Mississippians, the Louisianians, the Texans, the Alabamians told you what our problems were. We poured our hearts out, and the Senate did its job. Senator Cochran, my colleague from Mississippi, deserves enormous credit for the very calm, cool, and determined way he handled that legislation. I am here to say thank you. When you make this list of Senate accomplishments, you must add to this list the things we did after Hurricane Katrina. The system worked. Congress did its part. For that I will be eternally grateful. By the way, we ate up the major part of 3 months trying to make sure we were doing it right, appropriately, to help the people who needed it and to make sure it was done in an honest way. Sure, I complained we didn't do more. I complain about the way we do things. I don't like the totally partisan political seasons we get into. We all do it and I do it. But I think that while we are doing that, we ought to take a little credit for what we did do and what we did right. I wanted to make that point this morning. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 19, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the following nominations: General Bantz J. Craddock, USA, for reappointment to the grade of general and to be Commander, U.S. European Command; Vice Admiral James G. Stavridis, USN, for appointment to the grade of admiral and to be Commander, U.S. Southern Command; Nelson M. Ford to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller; and Ronald J. James to be Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 19, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Combating Child Pornography by Eliminating Pornographers' Access to the Financial Payment System.''

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a full committee business meeting off the floor on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at a time to be determined.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a full committee hearing on Online Child Pornography on Tuesday, September 19, 2006, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on Iran.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 19, 2006 at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``Prison Radicalization: Are Terrorist Cells Forming in U.S. Cell Blocks?''