John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, who has the floor?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first I thank my friend and colleague from South Carolina for his comments in support of this amendment. He does occupy a unique position in this body, having served 20 years--6\1/2\ years on active duty as an Air Force lawyer and member of the JAG Corps, and remains in the Reserves to this day. He obviously brings a perspective to this issue which is very important. I think the Senator from South Carolina described the confusion that existed over a period of time about this whole issue of treatment of prisoners. There was a set of instructions issued which were in effect for a couple of months, which were strongly objected to by the uniformed legal corps in the Pentagon. Yet their concerns were overridden. The Senator from South Carolina quoted one of them. Another one was by RADM Michael Lohr, the Navy's Judge Advocate General. He said the situation at the American prison in Guantanamo, Cuba, might be so legalistically unique that the Geneva Conventions and even the Constitution did not necessarily apply. But, he asked, 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? General Rives said if the White House permitted abusive interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, it would not be able to restrict them to that single prison. He argued that soldiers elsewhere would conclude that their commanders were condoning illegal behavior. And that is precisely what happened at Abu Ghraib after the general who organized the abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo went to Iraq to toughen up the interrogation of prisoners there. I think it is clear that the White House ignored those military lawyers' advice a couple of years ago. We now have, thanks to the yearlong effort of the Senator from South Carolina, those communications of deep concern to every uniformed JAG in the Department of Defense, about the issuance of instructions which basically violated our commitment to the Geneva Conventions. In order to have the record complete, a couple of months later those were rescinded and different orders were issued at that time. But what if you are at the end of the chain and you get these kinds of mixed messages? So I thank the Senator from South Carolina for pointing out from his unique perspective how important this is, since it is the men and women who are in the JAG Corps who are responsible for prosecuting those who violate Geneva Conventions, and they need clear guidance; or defending someone who is accused of violating them, as our men and women of the military are entitled to defense just as they are subject to prosecution. Again, I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I appreciate the defense of the Senator from Alaska of the administration's position on this issue. I do not think he has been well informed by the administration, particularly concerning the Army Field Manual. The Army Field Manual has a classified section which would not be available to anyone except for those who have a need to know. The Army Field Manual has been used for decades. The Army Field Manual is being revised as we speak to try to meet the new challenges we face. But the Army Field Manual, I am confident, will be in keeping with the fundamental commitments we have made. All my career I have supported the rights and prerogatives of the Commander in Chief. We need a strong President, and in wartime this is more important than ever. I understand the administration would want to preserve the President's flexibility and wartime powers, and I do not believe that we can afford to have 535 Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, or even Presidents of the United States. I would like to point out the Congress not only has the right but the obligation to act. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[.] I repeat: . . . make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[.] Someone is going to come down to the floor and say that applied back in the time of the Framers of the Constitution; it didn't apply to today. At least from my point of view, unless there is an overriding need to change the Constitution of the United States--if that clause of the Constitution no longer applies, then lets amend the Constitution and remove it; otherwise, lets live by it. The Congress has the responsibility: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[.] I do not see how anyone could view this as an unwarranted intervention in an issue such as this. The courts, as the Senator from South Carolina pointed out so well, are asking us--that well-known liberal judge, Justice Scalia, has said we need the Congress of the United States involved in this issue. We, the courts, cannot do it ourselves. As the Senator from South Carolina pointed out, if we do not fulfill our constitutional role, we are negligent. We owe it to our troops and our country to speak on this issue. I very much respect my friend, the Vice President of the United States, Vice President Cheney. He and I have been friends for many years. I respect the way that he carefully guards the prerogatives of the President. But on this issue, I hope he and others would understand that we are dutybound to take action. I would like, again, to refer back to Captain Fishback. He is what I view as the tip of the iceberg that exists in the military today. They know how important this war on terror is. They are the ones who are fighting it. Captain Fishback served in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and the ones I hear from are men and women in the military who have a very strong commitment to winning the war on terror. They have laid their lives on the line to win it. But they want clear, unequivocal guidelines as to how to treat prisoners of war. I would like to believe that this is the last war in which the United States will ever be involved. I would like to believe that from now on, after we win this war on terror, we will have peace and the United States will never send its men and women in harm's way again. History shows me otherwise. What happens in the next conflict when American military personnel are held captive by the enemy and they make the argument, with some validity, that we have violated the rules of war? What happens to our men and women in the military then? There are some who will say they wouldn't respect the rules of war, anyway. If they are not sure they are going to win, as the Germans weren't in World War II, they might treat our prisoners according to certain standards if we insist upon those standards. I think there is a lot at stake. I respect the position of the administration, that these should be under the authority and responsibility and would erode the flexibility of the President of the United States. I don't believe so. This amendment basically restates what we have been practicing for certainly all of the 21st and the 20th centuries. I think we owe it to the people, these brave young Americans such as Captain Fishback, who want and deserve a clarification in the way they can carry out their responsibilities and duties as they travel into harm's way. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from Illinois, and my friend from South Carolina for their eloquent statements on this issue. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, from my conversations with the Senator from Alaska, the chairman, I believe he agrees we will move forward; therefore, I call up amendment No. 1977, which is filed at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would do two things: one, establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees; and, two, prohibit cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of prisoners in the detention of the Government. It is pretty simple and straightforward. Mr. President, I regret, of course, as all my colleagues do, that this amendment has to be brought up on an appropriations bill. We are only doing so because so far we have been unable to get sufficient agreement to bring up the Defense authorization bill. I have made it very clear, over a long period of time, my feeling about how important it is to take up and complete the authorization bill, but that is a subject for another day. I know good-faith efforts are being made on both sides to try to get the authorization bill up. But that has not happened so, therefore, we are addressing this issue. By the way, I have had a preliminary ruling that this amendment is germane because there is reference made to it in the House version of the appropriations bill. The Senate has an obligation to address the authorizing legislation, as it has an obligation to deal with the issue that apparently led to the bill being pulled from the floor, which is America's treatment of its detainees. Several weeks ago, I received a letter from CPT Ian Fishback, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and a veteran of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a West Point graduate. Over 17 months, he struggled to get answers from his chain of command to a basic question: What standards apply to the treatment of enemy detainees? But he found no answers. In his remarkable letter, he pleads with Congress, asking us to take action to establish standards to clear up the confusion, not for the good of the terrorists but for the good of our soldiers and our country. Captain Fishback closes his letter by saying: I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for. This comes from a young captain in the U.S. Army who has served his country both in Iraq and Afghanistan and who says it in a far more eloquent fashion than I have ever been able to. By the way, I thank God every day that we have men and women the caliber of Captain Fishback serving in our military. I believe the Congress has a responsibility to answer this call, a call that has come not just from this one brave soldier but from so many of our men and women in uniform. We owe it to them. We sent them to fight for us in Afghanistan and Iraq. We placed extraordinary pressure on them to extract intelligence from detainees, but then we threw out the rules that our soldiers had trained on and replaced them with a confusing and constantly changing array of standards. We demanded intelligence without ever clearly telling our troops what was permitted and what was forbidden. And when things went wrong, we blamed them, and we punished them. I believe we have to do better than that. I can understand why some administration lawyers might have wanted ambiguity so that every hypothetical option is theoretically open, even those the President has said he does not want to exercise. But war doesn't occur in theory, and our troops are not served by ambiguity. They are crying out for clarity. The Congress cannot shrink from this duty. We cannot hide our heads, pulling bills from the floor and avoiding votes. We owe to it our soldiers during this time of war to take a stand. So while I would prefer to offer this amendment to the DOD authorization bill, I am left with no choice but to offer it to this appropriations measure. I would note that I am offering this amendment in accordance with the options afforded under rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. The amendment I am offering combines the two amendments I previously filed to the authorizing measure. To fight terrorism, we need intelligence. That much is obvious. What should also be obvious is that the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women. To do differently would not only offend our values as Americans but undermine our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, in the war on terror. First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture, a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy--if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can't let prisoner abuse tarnish our image. Yet reports of detainee abuse continue to emerge, in large part, I believe, because of confusion in the field as to what is permitted and what is not. This amendment will go a long way toward clearing up this confusion. The first part of the amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees. The Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well through wars against both regular and irregular foes. It 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. The Army Field Manual authorizes interrogation techniques that have proven effective in extracting lifesaving information from the most hardened enemy prisoners. It is consistent with our laws and, most importantly, our values. Let's not forget that al-Qaida sought not only to destroy American lives on September 11, but American values, our way of life, and all we cherish. We fight not just to preserve our lives and liberties, but also American values. We will never allow the terrorists to take those away. In this war--that we must win, that we will win--we must never simply fight evil with evil. This amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in DOD custody. The manual has been developed by the executive branch for its own uses, and a new edition, written to take into account the needs of the war on terror and with a new classified annex, is due to be issued soon. This amendment would not set the field manual in stone. It could be changed at any time. 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. The Armed Services Committee has held hearings with a slew of high-level Defense Department officials, from regional commanders to judge advocate generals to the Department's deputy general counsel. A chief topic of discussion in these hearings was what specific interrogation techniques are permitted, in what environments, with which DOD detainees, by whom and when. The answers have included a whole lot of confusion. If the Pentagon's top minds can't sort these matters out, after exhaustive debate and preparation, how in the world do we expect our enlisted men and women to do so? Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field. We need a clear, simple, and consistent standard, and we have it in the Army Field Manual on interrogation. That is not just my opinion but that of many more distinguished military minds than mine. I refer to a letter expressing strong support for this amendment signed by 28 former high- ranking military officers, including GEN Joseph Hoar, who commanded CENTCOM; GEN John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; RADM John Hutson and RADM Don Guter, who each served as the Navy's top JAG; and LTG Claudia Kennedy, who served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence. These and other distinguished officers believe the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere 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. Why wouldn't any of us do whatever we could to have prevented that? By passing this amendment, our servicemembers can follow the manual consistently from now on. Our troops deserve no less. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from 29 retired military officers be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. The second part of this amendment should not be objectionable to anyone since I am actually not proposing anything new. The prohibition against cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment has been a long-standing principle in both law and policy in the United States. Before I get into why the amendment is necessary, let me first review the history. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states simply: No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United States is a signatory, states the same. The binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by this body, 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 those terms. All of this seems to be common sense, in accordance with longstanding American values. But since last year's DOD bill, a strange legal determination was made that the prohibition in the Convention Against Torture against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment does not legally apply to foreigners held outside the United States. They can apparently be treated inhumanely. This is the administration's position, even though Judge Abe Soafer, who negotiated the Convention Against Torture for President Reagan, said in a recent letter that the Reagan administration never intended the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment to apply only on U.S. soil. What all this means is that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhuman treatment. But the crazy thing is, it is not even necessary because the administration has said it will not engage in cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment as a matter of policy. What this also means is that confusion about the rules becomes rampant again. We have so many differing legal standards and loopholes that our lawyers and generals are confused. Just imagine our troops serving in prison in the field. The amendment I am offering simply codifies what is current policy and reaffirms what was assumed to be existing law for years. In light of the administration's stated commitment, it should require no change in our current interrogation and detention practices. What it would do is restore clarity on a simple and fundamental question: Does America treat people inhumanely? My answer is no. And from all I have seen, America's answer has always been no. I travel a lot around the world, usually at taxpayers' expense. Everywhere I go, I encounter this issue of the treatment of prisoners and the photos of Abu Ghraib and what is perceived in the world to be continued mistreatment of prisoners. It is harming our image in the world terribly. We have to clarify that that is not what the United States is all about. That is what makes us different. That is what makes us different from the enemy we are fighting. The most important thing about it is not our image abroad but our respect for ourselves at home. Let me close by noting that I hold no brief for the prisoners. I do hold a brief for the reputation of the United States of America. We are Americans. We hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people, no matter how evil or terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for something more in the world, a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will win. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy. But this isn't about who they are; this is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator know how many detainees have been brought to trial in Guantanamo Bay?

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, aren't there two different Court decisions now that are in direct contravention of each other as to the disposition of these cases?

Mr. McCAIN. Could the Senator describe those.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield further for a question, I guess my fundamental question is, aren't things in one heck of a mess?

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, first, I thank the Senator from Alaska for his cooperation. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his unique and very important perspective on this issue. But I also point out it is very unfortunate--very unfortunate--the Senator from South Carolina has to put this on an appropriations bill. I do not want to get off the subject too much, but there is something wrong with our process here that I have to, for my amendment, find some narrow germaneness in order to get around my commitment to not authorize on an appropriations bill. Technically, I am not authorizing on an appropriations bill. It is very unfortunate the Senator from South Carolina has to authorize on an appropriations bill. There may be some objection from someone in the minority. There may be some question. That is because we are not going through an orderly process. This should have been as an amendment on the authorization bill, and that should have been taken up. If someone did not like it, they could have voted to take it out. Now we are in a process where the Senator from South Carolina has to put it in. Our system here is broken, and we need to properly authorize. I certainly am not blaming the Senator from Alaska. He has his responsibility to get the appropriations bill done. But there is something wrong when we are in a war--in a war; Americans' lives are on the line as we speak--and somehow we do not have room in our agenda to authorize the training, the equipping, the benefits, the pay, all of the things that go with an authorization bill, including the amendment of the Senator from Carolina. A lot of us have repeatedly decried that this process of legislating is so badly broken today that we cannot even take care of the men and women in the military in an orderly fashion. It cries out for fixing. I would hope at some point we, as a body, would fix this system so we authorize before we appropriate funds. Again, this is meant as no criticism of the Senator from Alaska. He is playing the hand he is dealt. But there is something very badly wrong when we are in a war and somehow we cannot find time in our agenda and ought to authorize the much-needed pay raises, equipment, training, and all of the other things that go along with the authorization of our Nation's defenses. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, war is an awful enterprise and I know that. I do not think I am naive about how severe are the wages of war and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valued their service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail. I do not mourn the loss of any terrorist's life, nor do I care if in the course of serving their noble cause they suffered great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next. What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we, the American service man and woman, and the great Nation they defend at the risk of their lives, when by official policy or by official negligence we allow, confuse, or encourage our soldiers to forget that the best sense of ourselves, that which is our greatest strength, that we are different and better than our enemies, that we fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies? Well, they drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies did not adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane, and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that if the roles were reversed, we would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor. The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt as they hold in contempt the international conventions that enshrine them, such as the Geneva Conventions and the Treaty on Torture. I know that. But we are better than them, and we are stronger for our faith, and we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our service men and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans and the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others, even our enemies. Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. Those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history and by the sacrifices, the many terrible sacrifices, that they have made in our defense. We are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their honor or their country's honor to prevail; that through the violence, chaos, and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, they are always Americans, and different, better, and stronger than those who would destroy us. God bless them as He has blessed us with their service.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for not longer than 4 minutes, to be immediately followed by the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit for 1 year the transfer.

Mr. McCAIN. I understand. I rise in an attempt to modify the unanimous consent agreement, with the agreement of the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me tell you what the Uzbek Government did. They arrested some people. Here is what happened. This is Reuters: Uzbekistan: Defendants in Andijon Trial Reiterate Guilt, Blame Others. The defendants allegedly behind the May uprising in the eastern Uzbek town of Andijon are confessing to the charges and saying foreign countries initiated the revolt. One of the defendants, Tavakkalbek Hojiyev, said yesterday that the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent financially supported the uprising. Mr. President, here is the old Stalinist trial where they beat the defendant into submission, have him confess, and then blame the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, and we are going to give them 23 million bucks? As I said: . . . that the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent financially supported the uprising. He did not provide any evidence but said he was informed about the fact by another man . . . whom the Uzbek government has accused of helping instigate the violence. ``He told me that the U.S. Embassy has allocated the money [for the uprising,]'' Hojiyev said. ``And if our action in Andijon would not succeed we had to leave for Kyrgystan. He said that this was the plan. . . . Parpiev was among the protesters who seized the regional administration building in Andijon on 13 May. He escaped when Uzbek forces fired on protesters. . . . It goes on and on. It is the age-old Stalinist tactic: Take somebody, torture them, and force them to confess. And they are blaming the United States of America. This is the Karimov Government that we are going to give $23 million and that is now alleging that the United States of America not only was responsible for this uprising in Andijon, but the ``colored revolutions'' all over the world--Lebanon, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine. Former hostages and other witnesses testified Wednesday in the trial of 15 alleged participants in a May uprising that was brutally suppressed by Uzbek government troops. . . .Former hostage Rakhimjon Kurbonov, a van driver, said he was shot in the back and leg when rebels used him as a human shield. He also said he had been beaten up by relatives of some of the 23 religious businessmen. . . . On and on and on. Yesterday, the U.S. Department of State denounced the accusations that the U.S. Embassy in Uzbekistan had allegedly orchestrated and financed the May revolt in Andijon. Defendants standing trial for participation in the revolt announced the conspiracy against the Uzbek authorities had been arranged by the Americans, journalists, and human rights activists. This is an echo of the days of the Cold War, Mr. President. This is when the Stalinists were in charge. Finally: Upwards of 1,000 civilians may have been killed in Andijon on 13 May, according to some human rights groups, when security forces opened fire on protesters demonstrating against the government of President Islam Karimov, who has ruled Central Asia's most populous state since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Despite international pressure, Tashkent has rejected all requests for an independent international inquiry, placing the official death toll at 187. The 15 men-- Guess what-- have pleaded guilty . . . Is that a surprise that the defendants have all pleaded guilty, condemning themselves to life sentences or death? The 15 men have pleaded guilty to trying to overthrow the Uzbek Government and create an Islamic state in a violent uprising that prosecutors maintain was stoked by Western media. More than 100 people face charges that include murder, fomenting mass arrest and an attempted coup. Mr. President, I will curtail my remarks and just say to my friend from Alaska--I know he has a very busy agenda--if I were able to authorize on an appropriations bill--which I am not--I would say at the completion of a thorough investigation of the massacre of Andijon. I cannot do that because this is an appropriations bill, so the amendment basically says no money shall be spent in 2006. My whole purpose in this is to have the investigation by an international organization, find out who is guilty, and recognize we are dealing with a very brutal, repressive, old-time Stalinist regime. I thank the chairman for his courtesy. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1978, which is at the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is a pretty simple one. It would prohibit for 1 year the transfer of millions of dollars in cash to the Government of Uzbekistan; I believe $22 or $23 million. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Biden, Graham, Leahy, and DeWine, who have cosponsored the amendment. The Pentagon notified the Congress this summer that it intends to pay $23 million in ``coalition support funds'' to Uzbekistan, designed to cover past costs associated with the use of the K2 base there. If you have seen this base in the news lately, it is because it is the location from which the Government of Uzbekistan recently evicted all U.S. personnel. Uzbekistan was at one point a partner in the war on terror. It is no longer. And turning over ``coalition support funds,'' at this point, debases the meaning of the term ``coalition.'' The amendment I am proposing would prohibit this payment for 1 year at which point the Congress can decide whether to renew the prohibition or make the payment. America keeps its promises to our coalition partners, but we also expect our partners to keep their promises to us. We are not in the business of paying dictatorial, repressive, brutal governments. Let me review a few of the more egregious examples of Uzbekistan's relationship with us and their abuse of human rights. In May, the Government launched a brutal crackdown in the city of Andijan after protestors stormed a prison and local government headquarters. Eye witnesses estimated the dead at somewhere between 500 and 1,000 and said that the vast majority were unarmed men, women, and children protesting the Government's corruption, lack of opportunity, and continued oppression. In addition to those killed, many others were wounded, and at least 500 fled across the border into Kyrgyzstan. The Government has rejected all calls for an independent international inquiry into the massacre. The entire European Union has demanded an investigation into the massacre. Tashkent has put the official death toll at just 187 and blamed a foreign conspiracy for the protest. It even placed blame on the United States for the events saying that rebels received money from the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent. The Uzbek Government launched a campaign of anti-American propaganda after its massacre, staging rallies to denounce the United States and accusing the United States of fomenting Islamic extremism in the guise of promoting democracy. President Karimov--and I use the term ``president'' loosely-- President Karimov suggested that the United States was behind both the events in Andijan and the ``colored revolutions'' in other countries. I remind my colleagues that Uzbekistan agreed to host U.S. forces on its soil to support continuing coalition combat efforts in Afghanistan. Our troops in Afghanistan are still fighting the Taliban. Insurgents have killed hundreds of people, including dozens of Americans, in the last few months. Yet with this going on and with our mission clearly unfinished, in July Uzbekistan ordered the United States to leave the country. Just last week, the Washington Post ran an article entitled ``Uzbeks Stop Working With U.S. Against Terrorism,'' which describes how Tashkent has decided to abridge its 2002 agreement with President Bush and terminate its counterterrorism cooperation with America. One sentence in this article bears particular notice: ``The Bush administration,'' the article reads, ``has concluded that Karimov fears democracy more than terrorism, officials said.'' This is the same country that Pentagon officials were describing quite recently as a ``very valuable partner and ally in the global war on terror.'' But Uzbekistan is not a valuable partner and ally; it is part of the problem. This week, the European Union announced that it will impose sanctions against the Uzbek Government for its refusal to accept an international inquiry into the Andijan massacre. This is the kind of response we should be considering to these outrageous actions, not the best way to transfer $23 million in funds from the U.S. Treasury. The Pentagon wants to pay Tashkent on the principle that America pays its bills for services rendered. I support that principle, but so, too, do I support America standing up for itself in the world and spending taxpayers' money wisely, avoiding the misimpression that we overlook massacres, and avoiding cash transfers to the treasury of a dictator just months after he permanently evicts American soldiers from his country. I intend to have printed in the Record the assessment of every human rights organization in the world of this brutal, oppressive dictatorship. This is a person who just orchestrated a massacre of somewhere, estimates are, around 1,000 of its citizens. This is a government that is illegitimate in that Karimov keeps himself in power through edict. This is a corrupt government in that there is continued repression and oppression of human rights. Mr. President, I suggest that if the Government of Uzbekistan allowed a full-scale investigation by the European Union and the results are known, then maybe at that time it would be appropriate to give them this money. Also, let's keep in mind what this brutal and oppressive dictator will do with $23 million of American money. His prisons are full. There is no free press. There is no freedom of movement. It is an oppressive, repressive regime of the old Stalinist style. I am not saying the United States should not pay its bills. What I am saying is that we should demand at least an investigation of what happened in Andijan some months ago when hundreds, if not a thousand, of its citizens innocently gathered to protest the policies of their government: they were fired on and killed in the most wanton fashion. The Washington Post article reads: The government of President Islam Karimov, one of the most authoritarian to emerge from the collapse of the Soviet Union, has made a broader strategic decision to move away from the 2002 agreement made with President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and is cooling relations with Europe as well. . . . The move follows tough criticism from Washington-- I might say not the Pentagon-- and the European Union over Uzbekistan's crackdown on protests in May in the Andijan province, where human rights and opposition groups say hundreds died. Uzbekistan has charged that terrorists initiated the violence. As tensions deepen, Karimov is shifting his strategic alliance toward Russia and China. . . . In July, Tashkent banned U.S. troops and warplanes from what is known as the [K2 airbase] which was used for counterterrorism, military and humanitarian missions. The European Union is not renowned to take the lead on some issues. I am proud that the European Union imposed sanctions on Uzbekistan today seeking to punish, according to the New York Times, October 3, 2005: . . . seeking to punish the Central Asian nation for its refusal to allow an international investigation into the bloody crackdown of an uprising in May in the northeastern city of Andijon. The sanctions against Uzbekistan impose an embargo on exports of arms and equipment that might be used for internal repression and suspend meetings between the European Union and Uzbekistan that were aimed at accelerating the former Soviet state's rapprochement with the West. They will also forbid the travel of Uzbek officials directly involved [in] the crackdown to the 25 European Union states. Survivors and independent organizations claim-- This is survivors, their actual statements-- and independent organizations claim that hundreds of people were killed, almost all of them unarmed. Uzbekistan, an autocratic state that had been an ally with the Bush administration's counter-terrorism efforts, has argued that the crackdown was a necessary counter-terrorism operation, and said only 187 people, principally Islamic terrorists, were killed. It has stubbornly resisted calls for an open investigation of its crackdown of the uprising. As criticism over the violence mounted in the spring and summer, Uzbekistan sharply shifted its foreign policy, aligning itself more closely with Russia and China and trimming its relations with the West. In July, it ordered the United States to leave an airbase it has been using since 2001, an eviction now scheduled for early next year. Last month, Uzbekistan hosted a small joint military exercise with Russian troops, signaling its new allegiances. Meeting in Luxembourg, the foreign ministers of European Union states approved the sanctions an initial period of one year, allowing for a review in 2006 of Uzbekistan's willingness to ``adhere to the principles of respect for human rights, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms.'' A fundamental pillar of this administration's policy and previous administrations is the adherence to principles of respect for human rights, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms, all of which are routinely violated by this thug Karimov and his government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article, the Washington Post article I just cited, an article from Defense News, an article from Reuters, and an article entitled ``Andijan Show Trial Proceedings'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. At a time to be determined by the distinguished chairman.