John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on Monday I offered an amendment that would prohibit cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the custody or control of the U.S. Government. I was pleased that Senators Warner, Graham, and Collins joined as original cosponsors, and Senators Chafee and Alexander have also joined as cosponsors. After I offered the amendment, I agreed to modify it at the manager's request to include a Presidential waiver--section (b) of the pending amendment. It is now clear, however, that this would be inconsistent with the overall intent of my amendment, which is to ensure that there is full compliance with our treaty obligations, including with the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment included in the Convention Against Torture, which was signed by President Reagan and ratified by the Senate. For this reason, I have filed a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 1556 that would strike the waiver. When the Senate resumes consideration of the Defense authorization bill, I will either modify the pending amendment, seek action on the second-degree amendment, or simply file a new amendment without the waiver. In short, I will offer for consideration--and seek passage of--a statutory prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, without a Presidential waiver.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, once again, I am proud to join my friend Senator Feingold as a co-sponsor of legislation that will require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports in electronic form. This bill will finally remove the exemption the Senate has given itself from an important requirement of campaign finance disclosure laws that apply to everyone else, including candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and Political Action Committees (PACs). Political committees active in Federal elections must submit their quarterly financial reports for disclosure by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Anyone interested can nearly instantaneously download the reports from the FEC website and conduct computer searches to learn about the contributions and expenditures of individual candidates for the House, non-Senate national party committees and PACs. The current problem is that they cannot do the same for Senate candidates and parties because of the Senate's insistence on paper rather than electronic filing. The FEC must do more processing of Senate paper reports than of House electronic ones. This involves printing or copying the Senate reports, up to 10,000 pages a day at times, hand- coding transactions that cannot be automatically processed, the keypunching the data into the electronic database. House electronic reports do not need the same treatment. The end result is that in contrast to the House, information from the Senate paper reports are often not available until well after the election has occurred. Because of this problem, it is impossible for voters to be well- informed about the campaign finance information of their Senators and Senate candidates. If a voter wants to consider the nature of the campaign finance support received by a Senate candidate and compare that support to Senate legislative votes as a factor in deciding for whom they will cast a vote, they simply cannot do so due to the antiquated nature of the reporting system. To address this problem, our legislation requires Senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate. Within 24 hours of receipt of those reports, the Secretary is required to forward those reports to the FEC. The FEC, in turn is required to make those reports available on the Internet within 24 hours as they do other reports. Therefore, electronic versions of Senate reports will be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing. Electronic reports are not only transmitted instantly but are more accurate than paper submissions because software can easily correct mistakes. On the other hand, hand entering of data is always prone to error. Furthermore, the data in electronic reports can be rapidly searched via the Internet for answers to specific questions. Voters will no longer have to go through the time consuming process of reading pages and pages filed by Senate candidates or Senate party committees to figure out the major donors and their employers, and the major recipients of campaign spending. Instead, they can downlown a filed report from the FEC website onto their personal computers and quickly locate the information they need. This creates effective public disclosure. The Senate's current failure to provide its constituents with electronically disclosed, timely information is unconscionable. Senate filings should follow the same criteria as other campaign finance reports. There must not be a separate standard for the Senate. Ironically, while they do not currently file electronically, Senators and Senate candidates already use electronic software in compiling their paper reports. If Senators and Senate candidates can use technology to run their offices and websites, why can't they use it to better inform their own constituents about how their campaigns are funded? Our constituents have a right to that information.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, once again, I am proud to join my friend Senator Feingold as a co-sponsor of legislation that will require Senate candidates to file campaign finance reports in electronic form. This bill will finally remove the exemption the Senate has given itself from an important requirement of campaign finance disclosure laws that apply to everyone else, including candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and Political Action Committees (PACs). Political committees active in Federal elections must submit their quarterly financial reports for disclosure by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Anyone interested can nearly instantaneously download the reports from the FEC website and conduct computer searches to learn about the contributions and expenditures of individual candidates for the House, non-Senate national party committees and PACs. The current problem is that they cannot do the same for Senate candidates and parties because of the Senate's insistence on paper rather than electronic filing. The FEC must do more processing of Senate paper reports than of House electronic ones. This involves printing or copying the Senate reports, up to 10,000 pages a day at times, hand- coding transactions that cannot be automatically processed, the keypunching the data into the electronic database. House electronic reports do not need the same treatment. The end result is that in contrast to the House, information from the Senate paper reports are often not available until well after the election has occurred. Because of this problem, it is impossible for voters to be well- informed about the campaign finance information of their Senators and Senate candidates. If a voter wants to consider the nature of the campaign finance support received by a Senate candidate and compare that support to Senate legislative votes as a factor in deciding for whom they will cast a vote, they simply cannot do so due to the antiquated nature of the reporting system. To address this problem, our legislation requires Senate candidates to file their campaign finance reports electronically with the Secretary of the Senate. Within 24 hours of receipt of those reports, the Secretary is required to forward those reports to the FEC. The FEC, in turn is required to make those reports available on the Internet within 24 hours as they do other reports. Therefore, electronic versions of Senate reports will be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing. Electronic reports are not only transmitted instantly but are more accurate than paper submissions because software can easily correct mistakes. On the other hand, hand entering of data is always prone to error. Furthermore, the data in electronic reports can be rapidly searched via the Internet for answers to specific questions. Voters will no longer have to go through the time consuming process of reading pages and pages filed by Senate candidates or Senate party committees to figure out the major donors and their employers, and the major recipients of campaign spending. Instead, they can downlown a filed report from the FEC website onto their personal computers and quickly locate the information they need. This creates effective public disclosure. The Senate's current failure to provide its constituents with electronically disclosed, timely information is unconscionable. Senate filings should follow the same criteria as other campaign finance reports. There must not be a separate standard for the Senate. Ironically, while they do not currently file electronically, Senators and Senate candidates already use electronic software in compiling their paper reports. If Senators and Senate candidates can use technology to run their offices and websites, why can't they use it to better inform their own constituents about how their campaigns are funded? Our constituents have a right to that information.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Gila River Indian Community Reservation Contracts Act of 2005 was originally introduced as a component of the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005. I'm pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Byron Dorgan, on this bill. The Gila River Indian Community reservation contracts, is a technical amendment to allow binding arbitration in all contracts and not just leases on the Gila River Indian Community reservation. S. 1483--Definition of Indian Student Count Act of 2005

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Definition of Indian Student Count Act of 2005 was originally introduced as a component of the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005. I'm pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Byron Dorgan, on this bill. The definition of Indian student count, amends the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Act of 1998 to include the registration of Indian students in the Spring semester.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Indian Land Probate Reform Technical Corrections Act of 2005, was originally introduced as a component of the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005. I'm pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Byron Dorgan, on this bill. The Indian probate reform technical corrections amendments, amends the American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 by correcting provisions relating to non-testamentary disposition, partition of highly fractionated Indian land, and Tribal probate codes. s. 1482--gila river indian community reservation contracts act of 2005

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Certification of Indian Rental Proceeds Act of 2005 was originally introduced as a component of the Native American Omnibus Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by the vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Byron Dorgan, and Senator Tim Johnson as original co-sponsors of this bill. The Certification of Indian rental proceeds amends Title 25 USC Section 488 to permit actual rental proceeds from a lease to constitute the rental value of that land, and to satisfy the requirement for appraisal of that land. S. 1481--Indian Land Probate Reform Technical Corrections Act of 2005

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today, along with my friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, is very simple. The Obligation of Funds Transparency Act of 2005 would prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds which have been earmarked only in congressional reports. This legislation is designed to help reign in unauthorized, unrequested, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects. As my colleagues may know, report language does not have the force of law. That fact has been lost when it comes to appropriations bills and reports. It has become a standard practice to load up committee reports with literally billions of dollars in unrequested, unauthorized, and wasteful pork barrel projects. According to information compiled from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004. That's an increase of 240 percent. In terms of dollars, the earmarking has gone from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same period. The practice of earmarking funds in appropriations bills has simply lurched out of control. At a conference in February, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said this: ``If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. GAO's long-term budget simulations paint a chilling picture. If we do nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending by more than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and a half times to balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo is both unsustainable and difficult choices are unavoidable. And the longer we wait, the more onerous our options will become and the less transition time we will have.'' Is that really the kind of legacy we should leave to future generations of Americans? Referring to our economic outlook, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that: ``(T)he dimension of the challenge is enormous. The one certainty is that the resolution of this situation will require difficult choices and that the future performance of the economy will depend on those choices. No changes will be easy, as they all will involve lowering claims on resources or raising financial obligations. It falls on the Congress to determine how best to address the competing claims.'' It falls on the Congress my friends. The head of the U.S. Government's chief watchdog agency and the Nation's chief economist agree--we are in real trouble. We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. We need to be thinking about the future of America and the future generations who are going to be paying the tab for our continued spending. It is simply not fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and good deals for special interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time. We can't put off the inevitable any longer. Here is the stark reality of our fiscal situation. According to the Government Accountability Office, the unfunded federal financial burden, such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 trillion or $140,000 per man, woman and child. To put this in perspective, the average mortgage, which is often a family's largest liability, is $124,000--and that is often borne by the family breadwinners, not the children too. But, instead of fixing the problem, and fixing it will not be easy, we only succeeded in making it bigger, more unstable, more complicated, and much, much more expensive. The Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities jointly stated that, ``without a change in current (fiscal) policies, the federal government can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5 trillion over the next 10 years.'' They also stated that, ``after the baby boom generation starts to retire in 2008, the combination of demographic pressures and rising health care costs will result in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security growing faster than the economy. We project that by the time today's newborns reach 40 years of age, the cost of these three programs as a percentage of the economy will more than double--from 8.5 percent of the GDP to over 17 percent. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has issued warnings about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. In a report issued at the beginning of the year, CBO stated that, because of rising health care costs and an aging population, ``spending on entitlement programs--especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security--will claim a sharply increasing share ofthe nation's economic output over the coming decades.'' The report went on to say that, ``unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies will probably be financially unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public would have a corrosive. . . effect on the economy.'' Where is it going to end? We have to face the facts, and one fact is that we can't continue to spend taxpayer's dollars on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects or cater to wealthy corporate special interests any longer. The American people won't stand for it, and they shouldn't--they deserve better treatment from us. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today, along with my friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, is very simple. The Obligation of Funds Transparency Act of 2005 would prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds which have been earmarked only in congressional reports. This legislation is designed to help reign in unauthorized, unrequested, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects. As my colleagues may know, report language does not have the force of law. That fact has been lost when it comes to appropriations bills and reports. It has become a standard practice to load up committee reports with literally billions of dollars in unrequested, unauthorized, and wasteful pork barrel projects. According to information compiled from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994 to 14,040 in fiscal year 2004. That's an increase of 240 percent. In terms of dollars, the earmarking has gone from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion over the same period. The practice of earmarking funds in appropriations bills has simply lurched out of control. At a conference in February, 2005, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said this: ``If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. GAO's long-term budget simulations paint a chilling picture. If we do nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending by more than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and a half times to balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo is both unsustainable and difficult choices are unavoidable. And the longer we wait, the more onerous our options will become and the less transition time we will have.'' Is that really the kind of legacy we should leave to future generations of Americans? Referring to our economic outlook, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that: ``(T)he dimension of the challenge is enormous. The one certainty is that the resolution of this situation will require difficult choices and that the future performance of the economy will depend on those choices. No changes will be easy, as they all will involve lowering claims on resources or raising financial obligations. It falls on the Congress to determine how best to address the competing claims.'' It falls on the Congress my friends. The head of the U.S. Government's chief watchdog agency and the Nation's chief economist agree--we are in real trouble. We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. We need to be thinking about the future of America and the future generations who are going to be paying the tab for our continued spending. It is simply not fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and good deals for special interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time. We can't put off the inevitable any longer. Here is the stark reality of our fiscal situation. According to the Government Accountability Office, the unfunded federal financial burden, such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 trillion or $140,000 per man, woman and child. To put this in perspective, the average mortgage, which is often a family's largest liability, is $124,000--and that is often borne by the family breadwinners, not the children too. But, instead of fixing the problem, and fixing it will not be easy, we only succeeded in making it bigger, more unstable, more complicated, and much, much more expensive. The Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities jointly stated that, ``without a change in current (fiscal) policies, the federal government can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5 trillion over the next 10 years.'' They also stated that, ``after the baby boom generation starts to retire in 2008, the combination of demographic pressures and rising health care costs will result in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security growing faster than the economy. We project that by the time today's newborns reach 40 years of age, the cost of these three programs as a percentage of the economy will more than double--from 8.5 percent of the GDP to over 17 percent. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office has issued warnings about the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. In a report issued at the beginning of the year, CBO stated that, because of rising health care costs and an aging population, ``spending on entitlement programs--especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security--will claim a sharply increasing share ofthe nation's economic output over the coming decades.'' The report went on to say that, ``unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies will probably be financially unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public would have a corrosive. . . effect on the economy.'' Where is it going to end? We have to face the facts, and one fact is that we can't continue to spend taxpayer's dollars on wasteful, unnecessary pork barrel projects or cater to wealthy corporate special interests any longer. The American people won't stand for it, and they shouldn't--they deserve better treatment from us. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed S. 161, the Northern Arizona Land Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005. It is my hope that this bill will be considered quickly by the House of Representatives and sent to the President for his signature in the near future. I want to thank Senator Kyl and his staff for their work in helping to develop this compromise legislation. I also want to thank Senators Domenici and Bingaman, and their staffs on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for their efforts in reaching an agreement on this legislation during the last Congress and helping to move it through the legislative process. In addition, I want to recognize the work of Congressmen Renzi and Hayworth who have championed this legislation in the House of Representatives. Late last year, after several years of negotiation and compromise, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a nearly identical measure. This bill provides a sound framework for a fair and equal value exchange of 50,000 acres of private and public land in Northern Arizona. It also addresses water issues associated with the exchange of lands located within the Verde River Basin watershed by limiting water usage on certain exchanged lands and by supporting the development of a collaborative science-based water resource planning and management entity for the Verde River Basin watershed. The Arizona delegation and a broad array of local area officials are strongly supportive of the legislation because it will offer significant benefits for all parties. Benefits will accrue to the U.S. Forest Service and the public with the consolidation of checkerboard lands and the protection and enhanced management of extensive forest and grasslands. The communities of Flagstaff, Williams, and Camp Verde also will benefit in terms of economic development opportunities, water supply, and other important purposes. While facilitating the exchange of public and private lands is a very important objective of this legislation, and indeed, was the original purpose when we began working on it several years ago, the provisions concerning water management are perhaps even more important. Since introducing the original legislation over 2 years ago, I have heard from hundreds of Arizonans and learned first-hand of the significant water issues raised by the transfer of Federal land into private ownership. We have modified the bill to take into account many of the concerns raised during meetings held throughout northern Arizona, including removing certain lands entirely from the exchange. There is growing recognition of the need to develop and promote the wise management of Arizona's limited water supplies, particularly with the extended drought coupled with rapid population growth. As such, the bill passed by the Senate would not only limit water usage on the exchanged lands, but also provide an opportunity to encourage sound water management in northern Arizona through the creation of a collaborative, science-based decision-making body to advance essential planning and management at the State and local level in Northern Arizona. To be successful, this effort will require the involvement of all the stakeholders with water supply responsibilities and interests. It will also require a solid foundation of knowledge about available resources and existing demands. We are fortunate to have an existing model of collaborative science-based water resource planning and management with the Upper San Pedro Partnership in the Sierra Vista subwatershed of Arizona. In my view, the establishment of a similar, cooperative body in the Verde Basin will be a vital step in assuring the wise use of our limited water resources. Again, I want to thank all of the parties involved with this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a brief comment on the chairman's amendment. Leaving it in the hands of the Secretary of Defense is what caused the huge amount of problems we have today. I have here--in fact, thanks to the tenacity of the Senator from South Carolina--finally, after a year and a half, 2 years, the memoranda that were submitted by the uniformed JAGS when the rules for the treatment of prisoners were set up the first time, I say to my friend from Virginia. They all objected to it. They were overruled by the Secretary of Defense and the general counsel. So now, if I understand it, the amendment of my dear friend from Virginia is going to return that to the Secretary of Defense. I urge him to read these memoranda which we finally got thanks to, again, the Senator from South Carolina: treating OEF detainees inconsistently with the Conventions; arguably lowers the bar for the treatment of U.S. POWs in future conflicts, even when nations agree with the President's status determination. Many would view the more extreme interrogation techniques as violative of international law, other treaties, or customary international law; perhaps violative of their own domestic law. This puts the interrogators and the chain of command at risk of criminal accusations abroad, either in foreign domestic courts or international fora, to include the ICC. I remind my colleagues, these are the memoranda that were sent to comment on the Secretary of Defense guidelines for interrogations of prisoners, which were overruled. And then, a couple months later, they were rescinded. So in all due respect, my friend from Virginia has a degree of confidence in the Secretary of Defense which, frankly, is not validated by what took place and many argue is one of the reasons why we had Abu Ghraib. So I thank my colleague and yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thought my colleague wanted me to wait on the additional amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the distinguished chairman. For the information of my colleagues, the second amendment, which would be before the Senate for consideration at a different time, basically says that cruel and inhumane treatment will not be inflicted upon any prisoner, and we would adhere to the Geneva Conventions as well as other international agreements concerning the treatment of prisoners. But on this issue it says this amendment would prohibit cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners in the detention of the U.S. Government, and it is basically fairly straightforward and simple, as I read. The Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well, through wars against both regular and irregular foes. The manual embodies the values Americans have embraced for generations while preserving the ability of our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from ruthless foes. Never has this been more important than today in the midst of the war on terror. I think we all agree to fight terrorism we must obtain intelligence. But we have to ensure that it is reliable and acquired in a way that is humane. To do otherwise not only offends our national morals but undermines our efforts to protect the Nation's security. Abuse of prisoners harms--harms, not helps--us in the war on terror because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our honorable country in the eyes of millions. Mistreatment of our prisoners also endangers U.S. servicemembers who might be captured by the enemy--if not in this war, then in the next. I want to emphasize to some of my friends who say that we should do anything that is necessary to extract intelligence, No. 1, torture doesn't work; No. 2, if extraneous or extraordinary actions have to be taken--and there may be cases, and we will get into this in the next amendment, where someone has information that it is believed poses an immediate threat to the United States--then I would suppose that it would be entirely appropriate, under law, that the President of the United States could make that judgment and take whatever actions are necessary. In the meantime, the Army Field Manual authorizes interrogation techniques that are proven effective in extracting lifesaving information from the most hardened prisoners. It also recognizes that torture and cruel treatment are ineffective methods because they induce prisoners to say what their interrogators want to hear, even if it is not true. It is consistent with our laws and, most importantly, our values. Our values are different from those of our enemies. When colleagues or others may come on this floor and say: Well, they do it, others do it, al-Qaida does it, other nations in the world do it, what differentiates us, the United States of America, from other countries is the fact that we do not. We do not abuse human rights. We do not do it. I would argue the pictures, terrible pictures from Abu Ghraib, harmed us--not only in the Arab world, which is an area of great concern but it also harmed us dramatically amongst friendly nations, the Europeans, many of our allies. Of course, they were appalled. Of course, we were all appalled. As we go through this later on, there were interesting exchanges between the civilian general counsel in the Pentagon and the military judge advocate general's--members of the judge advocate general, who were deeply concerned about regulations that were proposed for adoption, and exhibited very serious and fundamental concerns. For a short period of time, unfortunately, those objections by the uniform lawyers in the Pentagon were overruled, and we went through a period of time--thank God only a few months--where interrogation techniques were allowed which were then repealed, I am happy to say. Our friends in London and elsewhere find themselves confronting the same evil that we do. Preserving the common values we hold dear is more important than ever. We fight not just to preserve our lives and liberties but our morals, and we will never allow the terrorists to take those from us. In this war that we must win--that we will win--we should never fight evil with evil. As I said, the amendment I am offering would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in Department of Defense custody. The manual has been developed by the executive branch for its own uses, with a new edition written to take into account the needs of the war on terror for the new classified annexes due to be issued soon. The advantage of setting a standard for interrogation based on the field manual is to cut down on the significant level of confusion that still exists with respect to which interrogation techniques are allowed. Two weeks ago, the Committee on Armed Services held hearings, under the chairmanship of Senator Lindsey Graham, with a slew of high- level Defense Department officials from regional commanders to judge advocate generals from the various branches to the Department's deputy general counsel. A chief topic of discussion was what specific interrogation techniques are permitted, in what environment, with which DOD detainees, by whom and when. The answers included a whole lot of confusion. We got a bunch of contradictory answers. Several: I would have to take a look at that. A few: Let me get back to you. Let's think about that for a second. If at the highest level of the Pentagon they do not know what exact techniques are allowed and what aren't, what is going on in the prisons? What is going on with the soldiers, the sergeant, the corporal, those who are supposed to do the actual interrogations? What we are trying to do is make sure there are clear and exact standards set for interrogation of prisoners which have held for other wars and are now being updated to take into consideration the kind of war that we are in. Confusion results in the kind of messes that once again could give America a black eye around the world. We need a clear, simple, and consistent standard. We will have it in the Army Field Manual on interrogation. That is not my opinion but that of many more distinguished military legal minds than mine. I received a letter recently from a group of people, 11 former high- ranking military officers, including RADM John Hutson and RADM Don Guter, who each served as the Navy's top JAG, and Claudia Kennedy, who was Deputy Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence. These and other distinguished officers believe that the abuses took place in part because our soldiers received ambiguous instructions which, in some cases, authorized treatment that went beyond what the Field Manual allows and that had the Manual been followed across the board we could have avoided the prisoner abuse scandal. I am not sure we could have, Mr. President, but wouldn't any of us have done whatever we could to have prevented that? I ask unanimous consent this letter, dated July 22, 2005, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I asked that amendment be read because there may be various interpretations of what this amendment is and what it means. What it means to the sponsors--and I am grateful to my friend, Senator Warner, the distinguished chairman of the committee, and Senator Graham and others, including Senator Collins and others who have supported this. Basically, it says the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation shall be the document that governs interrogation of prisoners who are under Department of Defense custody. Some of us may like to see this expanded to treatment of prisoners who are under custody of different agencies of Government. This applies to the Department of Defense. Before I proceed further, I ask my friend from Virginia--as he knows, we have two amendments. One is this one which we have just read, and the other one concerning cruel and inhumane treatment, which we are sort of still working on. Is it the desire of the Chairman we take up both amendments at this time?

Mr. McCAIN. As modified.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, with all due respect to the chairman, I don't think that is going to quite work because the Senator from Alabama needs 10 minutes. And if you are using your 9 and I only have 2, that doesn't get it done. I ask unanimous consent that I have 3 minutes to discuss my amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I read from the letter: We strongly support your proposed amendments to the Defense Department Authorization bill concerning detainee policy, including requiring all interrogations of detainees in DOD custody to conform to the U.S. Army's Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation (FM 34-52), and prohibiting the use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by any U.S. government agency. It is now apparent that the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere took place in part because our men and women in uniform were given ambiguous instructions, which in some cases authorized treatment that went beyond what was allowed by the Army Field Manual. Administration officials confused matters further by declaring that U.S. personnel are not bound by longstanding prohibitions of cruel treatment when interrogating non-U.S. citizens on foreign soil. As a result, we suddenly had one set of rules for interrogating prisoners of war, and another for ``enemy combatants;'' one set for Guantanamo, and another for Iraq; one set for our military, and another for the CIA. Our service members were denied clear guidance, and left to take the blame when things went wrong. They deserve better than that. The United States should have one standard for interrogating enemy prisoners that is effective, lawful, and humane. Fortunately, America already has the gold standard in the Army Field Manual. Had the Manual been followed across the board, we would have been spared the pain of the prisoner abuse scandal. It should be followed consistently from now on. And when agencies other than DOD detain and interrogate prisoners, there should be no legal loopholes permitting cruel or degrading treatment. This is signed by GEN Joseph Hoar, LTG Robert Gard, LTG Claudia Kennedy, MG Melvyn Montano, RADM Don Guter, RADM John Hutson, BG David Brahms, BG James Cullen, BG Evelyn Foote, BG David Irvine, BG Richard O'Meara, et cetera, and all of these people, including General Hoar, served as Commander in Chief United States Central Command. These are very credible people. If we had chosen, we could have gotten many more signatories to this amendment. We are Americans. We hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment no matter how terribly evil or awful they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, and it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for a lot more than that in the world: a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than the terrorists, and we will win because we are better than they are. The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy. But this is not about who they are--it is not about who they are. It is about who we are. These are values that distinguish us from our enemies. President Bush understands that the war on terror is ultimately a battle of ideas, a battle we will win by spreading and standing firmly for the values of decency, democracy, and the rule of law. I stand with him in this commitment. By applying to ourselves the basic standards we rightly preach to others, I believe we will only increase our effectiveness as the world's ultimate champion of liberty. I thank Senator Warner and Senator Graham and others who have shown an interest. Senator Warner has had a series of hearings for a long period of time. I believe we can do a great service for the military and for the country if we adopt this simple two-paragraph amendment that basically says that prisoners will be treated according to the Army Field Manual, which, by the way, is the tradition of treatment of prisoners for many wars. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. That is an additional 3 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that following that, the Senator from Alabama be recognized for 10 minutes in addition to the unanimous consent agreement, and then the Senator from South Carolina be allowed to propose his amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1557, which is at the desk. I ask the clerk continue the reading of the amendment because it is short and important.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment and the previous amendment, No. 1557.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is it the desire that I call up 1556 at this time?

Mr. McCAIN. But I will be glad to proceed. Why don't we let the Senator from South Carolina talk, and then maybe, if it is all right, I will offer the other amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have amendment No. 1556 at the desk. I ask unanimous consent for its modification.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask, maybe we could take a maximum of 5 minutes, 3 or 4 minutes on this amendment, for which I had unanimous consent, and then go back to allow the Senator from Alabama to speak.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator Collins be added as cosponsors. I believe we are still scheduled for a vote at 5:30. Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. Government. The amendment doesn't sound like anything new. That is because it isn't. The prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 states simply that: No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory, is the same. The Binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration, ratified by the Senate, prohibits cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. On last year's DOD authorization bill, the Senate passed a bipartisan amendment reaffirming that no detainee in U.S. custody can be subject to torture or cruel treatment as the U.S. has long defined these terms. All of this seems to be common sense and in accordance with longstanding American values. I will be glad to explain that amendment more if anyone wants. In the meantime, I know the Senator from Alabama is waiting. I yield back the remainder of my time on this amendment. I ask unanimous consent we return at this time to amendment No. 1557, according to the previous unanimous consent agreement.