Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. That is fine.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, it is beautiful, the way my colleague from Hawaii remembers things that happened in his own life and puts in perspective what we are dealing with. I hope the Senate listens because the problem that the Senator from Hawaii had as a platoon leader is exactly the problem the Commander in Chief has right now: How much are they going to spend and where are they going to spend the money. The Senator from North Dakota wants us to tell the President, submit a budget to tell us how money will be spent, and we don't know what the plan is because the contingencies are so great. Let me mention to you what we have just come through. We originally intended to send part of our forces into Iraq through Turkey. When we found out we had a difficulty there because of the change in administration in Turkey, we had to take those troops out, send them back through the canal and then come back up through the Persian Gulf into Kuwait. Could we have anticipated those costs? Could the President have submitted us a budget for that operation? Absolutely not. One of my tasks is to handle the appropriations bills and try to assist in handling the funding for our executive branch and all branches of the Government. But one thing continues to bother me about the emphasis on the current deficit. It is big. It is going to get bigger. Do you know why? Our whole economy is getting bigger. When I first came to Washington, I had a mortgage of about $45,000. I sort of choked about that. My God, how could I do that? Our income at the time was $30,000 a year. I thought, this is a pretty tough thing but we had to have a house for our family of seven. Now our mortgage is 10 times that. Do you know why? My income has expanded. The same thing has happened to our Nation. Our overall gross domestic product is so large that $450 billion, $500 billion is not as great as the deficit was at least 3 years of the Clinton administration. Percentage-wise we have to start thinking about what the debt is and how it relates to overall economic activity. I hope one of the joint economic committees will come forth and explain this deficit to us. It is bad. I don't like high deficits. I don't like to owe a mortgage either. I hope the Senate will concentrate on what we are spending and not what the size of the deficit is right now. We want to hold down expenses. I think the best way to hold down expenses is to follow the precedent we have followed in every war to date. I am reading a book right now about the revolutionary period and how Washington tried to get the Continental Congress to give him money. He was forced to spend money and then have them help him pay for it. We borrowed money around the world, particularly from France in those days. You talk about a deficit; my God what the Continental States must have had in terms of a deficit. Somehow or other, the country survived based upon faith and trust in the system. The system we have followed so far is that we do not fund wars in advance. I hope the Senate will defeat this amendment. Does the Senator have any further time? What is the time situation?

Mr. STEVENS. How much time on the other side?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. Under the previous order, that vote will occur later, and the order of the stacked votes will be determined by the leaders; is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, soon after the war in Afghanistan started, I joined with others to go with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to Guantanamo Bay to assure ourselves that the Department of Defense is complying and will comply with provisions of the Geneva Convention with regard to the treatment of prisoners who are held at Guantanamo Bay and other places arising from that war. It is my understanding the individuals who are detained are those who have participated in the battles in Afghanistan against our soldiers, and those who are, at the request of the Department of Justice, held for suspected terrorist activities in the United States in the war against terrorism. The Department of Defense does not have control over these personnel. I believe they are really under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. I do not intend to make any kind of point of order based on legislation. I think we should just face this directly. I think the concept of Senator Bingaman's amendment is directly contrary to what we should be doing with regard to activities of people who have conducted themselves as enemies of the United States in war and those who are involved in the terrorist activities as part of the terrorist war against the United States. Placing a requirement that we disclose and give a schedule as required by this Bingaman amendment is totally contrary to the best interests of the United States. It would place an unwarranted pressure on the administration to decide on charging and prosecuting enemy combatants prior to completion of intelligence and law enforcement analysis. These people in Guantanamo Bay were held incommunicado from one another. One of the reasons was the concept of the knowledge of who else was detained might deter one of these people from giving us the information we needed to find the leaders in the war on terrorism against the United States. The process of investigation is a very long and tedious one. These people use different languages. We found they are using names and declaring they are from countries that are totally untrue. The real problem is how to deal with these people in a way to end the war in Afghanistan and to end the war on terrorism. It is the executive branch's authority and responsibility to conduct the global war on terrorism. It is the executive branch's responsibility to conduct the war in Afghanistan. For Congress to impose a restriction on the activities that are consistent with precedent and consistent with the manner in which similar people have been detained over the years when we have been involved in war, such as World War II, and the Germans came to our shores and the spies who were intercepted throughout the world--they were held in the combatant status. These people are in combatant status and, as such, their treatment is subject to the Geneva Convention. Only this basic law would impose conditions upon the right of the administration and the Departments of the executive branch to fully exploit the intelligence and investigative capabilities of the detention in a combatant status in order to deal with these two terrible scourges we face right now. Unfortunately, the war in Afghanistan seems to be taking unfortunate turns lately, and I hope we can meet that situation. We meet it through information that we gather from some of these people. I am reliably informed that some of these people, in the way they have been treated, have divulged information to us that has led to the capture and detention of others in a similar capacity as having been enemies of the United States. In short, I think it would be highly inadvisable to adopt the Bingaman amendment, and it would have a negative impact on both the war on terrorism and the conduct of wartime operations in Afghanistan. There are cases pending in the courts now that this amendment, I understand, would terminate because there are people who, through civil rights cases, filed to determine the court's opinion as to the ``combat status'' designation, and I do not think we should take action now as a Congress to interrupt that process. Madam President, does Senator Inouye wish to comment?

Mr. STEVENS. There are 2 minutes equally divided before a vote on each amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, for the information of the Senate, the Intelligence Committee has access to information about enemy combatants who are being detained, including names the Red Cross is fully engaged with in the continuing meaningful access to detainees. This Congress was briefed about the creation of the military tribunals and the handling of detainees. The tribunals were created by Executive order. That was published in the Federal Register. It has been a matter of public record for some time. Any detainees brought before military tribunals have full access to military and, at their request, civilian counsel. We are talking now about the requirement to publish, to release these names. By the way, they have been released, in effect, in classified form, but with the intervention of our Intelligence Committee, which is the oversight committee for this body in regard to information such as this. I cannot believe we would be faced on an appropriations bill with a matter of this kind. It does not get into money, but it does deal with something the Department of Defense has connection with. It is relevant and therefore we must deal with it. However, the broad release of the names of these individuals, even in classified form, could compromise our ability to access information which could prevent more terrorist attacks, could prevent more attacks on our military in Afghanistan. This is a military problem in that sense. That is why the Department of Defense is involved. It is the Department of Justice's sense in terms of deciding how they are prosecuted. If they are prosecuted in civilian courts is another matter. Then they would be fully accounted for in the public sector. If the prosecutor in the tribunals--the tribunals themselves can be closed, if that is the decision. The person would still have the right to counsel and a right to be tried before the tribunal, but we would not necessarily have public access to that trial because of the information involved. If people want to go to Guantanamo and know who is there, go there. We went there. I don't understand why we should take this action now. By the way, the Senator is not quite correct; it not only says the names and the nationality but also whether they are to be charged, repatriated, a statement of what procedure is going to be followed to determine whether they are charged or repatriated. That is intelligence information. And with respect to such individuals in the United States, intention to charge, a schedule for the filing of the charge and the date for the trial. If it is a military tribunal, it could well be classified. To require the determination now of what would be done--it is true there is an exclusion here; the Secretary can omit. But if he omitted one or more individuals, then he would include in the report an explanation of the mission of the individual or individuals. It could include a classified index. If it could include a classified index, why should it be published? We do not publish a classified index. The term ``enemy combatant'' means an individual held under the authority of military order of November 13, 2001, as published in the Federal Register, or an individual designated as an enemy combatant and held under other legal authorities. In both instances, they have quality access to courts that protect their rights. Other people are pursuing those cases. The interrogation process of people like this is ongoing and very timely. It does not lend itself to detailed plans, firm dates, and firm schedules. We saw some of that when we were in Guantanamo, but the interrogation efforts in many ways require somehow to get through to an individual who has lied to us about who the person is, where they are from, and refused to give any data at all concerning their own background. They were captured under wartime conditions. This amendment is an attempt to poke Congress' nose under a tent, that we belong only if we are in an unclassified area. That is what the Intelligence Committee has already done. I am reliably informed the Intelligence Committee has access to information about these enemy combatants in detention, including their names. If they started releasing the names of these individuals, even in classified form, it could compromise sources and methods of their acquisition and compromise the possibility of gaining information on them that might prevent further terrorist activities. If the Senator wishes further time, I will be glad to not yield back my time but I intend to yield back the time and move to table.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Before that, I ask unanimous consent that the second and third votes in this stack of three votes be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the remainder of my time, I move to table the Senator's amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. The first vote will be on tabling the Dorgan amendment; the second vote will be on the Bingaman amendment; and the third vote will be on Burma.

Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have to take credit on this one, I say to my friend. I asked that it not be completed until I completed a conference that I had conducted.

Mr. STEVENS. Did the Senator modify his amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is that the subparagraph 5?

Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I sense the Senator from Massachusetts wants to place the responsibility for those who are in harm's way, who do lose their lives, who do, as we say, make the ultimate sacrifice for democracy; and he wants to have a plan in advance. It is true I voted for that resolution. It was precatory. It was a sense of the Senate saying to the President of the United States we think he ought to get as many people in there to help as possible. We think we ought to get the U.N. involved. We think we ought to use NATO forces to the extent we think we can. We think we ought to get a burden-sharing arrangement in Iraq because it is in the best interests of the whole world that we have eliminated Saddam Hussein. It is in the best interests of the world that peace be restored in Iraq. I firmly believe that. We passed a resolution that told the President to use all necessary means to achieve the objectives we outlined. He asked for our approval of his intention to deploy our forces to take down the Saddam Hussein regime. I absolutely agree. I voted for the resolution. It had nothing to do with asking the President to make the statements and to give us within 30 days a statement of justification for his actions in seeking or failing to seek NATO participation or a United Nations Security Council resolution: Thirty days; tell us now; and, if you haven't done it in 30 days, you failed. How is that consistent with the Constitution? If we want to sort of assess blame for the deaths that are occurring in Iraq or Afghanistan, as far as that is concerned, we all share the blame. We are Americans who asked young people to volunteer. We didn't conscript them. Every single one over there--God bless them--is a volunteer. I think we are the only nation in the world today that has a totally volunteer military. We asked them to join. We asked them and told them what their duties would be. Their duty is to obey the commands of the Commander in Chief and to support the Constitution of the United States. Again, God bless them; that is what they are doing very well. I almost puddle up thinking about the young people who die because of the request of this Congress and the President's compliance with that request. How we get out of this in terms of satisfying the demands of people who want a daily plan for what we are going to do tomorrow: We were privileged to see part of the plan that dealt with the embarkation of our forces going to Iraq. As I said here before, part of that plan was to go through Turkey. If that plan had been published about going through Turkey, and had it been discussed here, and had Turkey changed its mind, then the question would be, What was your contingency plan? Would we have published a contingency plan? We have contingency plans right now in case there are people who come back into Iraq who want to really restore war there. The Senator says the President said the war was over. We all thought it was. Today, the military forces who are there in uniform are there because we don't have a civilian component capable of maintaining security in an atmosphere such as Iraq. I just visited with some of the people who came back from there. They say it is sort of a scary place. There are places where you can drive down the road just like you would drive from here to Chicago. There are other places where you wouldn't cross the street. Our job is to maintain forces there to protect people who have to cross the street. Until our job is done, the President will keep our people there. Until that happens, and until he makes the decision to bring them back, I will vote for the money to support them. I will give them the authority and whatever he needs to protect them. And I will ask the Congress to make certain that we understand we will get further requests for money for Iraq. That is for sure. How much, I couldn't tell you. Again, back to my great friend from Hawaii who made the statement about his time as platoon leader and how he would not have known how many grenades would be used in the next week. How does the President know how many forces he is going to have to use next week to protect those who are there? I understand that some of them are coming home. I saw a young man in my office who told me about his experience there. But I don't think we are in a position yet where we can demand an estimate of the personnel of the Armed Forces in foreign countries and who are needed in Iraq and for reconstruction. That even implies that the forces would be used to reconstruct Iraq. I don't think they are going to use military people to reconstruct Iraq. I think we will have the council that has just been nominated put forth an Iraqi government that will seek support to use their own income from their oil and start bringing about an economic system that is based upon supply and demand and have reward for every individual for their contribution to their society. I expect to see a really vibrant economy and a vibrant democracy in Iraq before I leave this world because of what we are doing now. Again, I urge Members of the Senate to support the Constitution. Don't get in the position where we try to dominate the executive branch by requiring a schedule in a bill which he cannot veto because of the circumstances which exist today. He cannot do that. We must protect this bill against any threat of veto. Certainly there would be a threat of a veto. If I were President of the United States, I would certainly veto a bill that had that direction to me. I urge Members to vote to table the amendment. I will do so when the Senator is finished with his time. I yield such time to the Senator from Hawaii as he might use.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to table the Senator's amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the law we passed authorizing the President to proceed requires reports to the Congress: The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after-- ``after''-- such actions are completed. . . . That is in the resolution we voted for. That is the authorization for use of force. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Paul Bremer, the President's representative, our representative, in Iraq, which was an op-ed piece he provided to the New York Times, dated July 13, 2003, be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS. In it, Ambassador Bremer states: In all this, the coalition is working closely with Iraqis who will eventually be responsible for their country's well- being. For our three priorities--security, politics and the economy--the strategy provides for the successful transition to a stable and reformed Iraq. This does not mean that the road ahead is without danger. The combination of a broken infrastructure and acts of sabotage could mean a rough summer. We will suffer casualties, as the bitter-enders resort to violence. We are also braced for an increase in terrorism by non-Iraqis, but no one should doubt our determination to use our power in the face of violent acts. Once our work is over, the reward will be great: a free, democratic and independent Iraq that stands not as a threat to its neighbors or the world, but as a beacon of freedom and justice. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, July 13, 2003] The Road Ahead in Iraq--and How To Navigate It (By L. Paul Bremer III) Baghdad, Iraq.--Americans can be proud of the role their fighting men and women played in freeing Iraq of Saddam Hussein and his cronies. The people of Iraq are now on the road to political and economic independence. The first official step in this political transition at the national level occurs today, with the convening of the Iraqi Governing Council. This is the latest sign of progress. For the first time in decades, Iraqis are truly free. More than 150 newspapers have been started since liberation. All major cities and 85 percent of towns now have a municipal council where Iraqis are increasingly taking responsibility for management of local matters like health care, water and electricity. Iraqis are speaking out and demonstrating with a vigor borne of 35 years of imposed silence. This is not yet a full democracy, but freedom is on the march, from north to south. Sadly, this progress is despised by a narrow band of opponents. A small minority of bitter-enders--members of the former regime's instruments of repression--oppose such freedom. They are joined by foreign terrorists, extreme Islamists influenced by Iran and bands of criminals. These people do not pose a strategic threat to America or to a democratic Iraq. They enjoy no support since their only vision is to reimpose the dictatorship hated by Iraqis. Our military will hunt them down and, as President Bush said, ``They will face ruin, just as surely as the regime they once served.'' These shadowy figures are killing brave Iraqis working with us, attacking soldiers and civilians, and trying to sabotage the fragile infrastructure. The attacks have drawn concern worldwide. My coalition colleagues and Iraqi friends have noticed that the attacks are often aimed at successes in the renewal of this nation. A week ago, an American soldier was mixing with students at Baghdad University, which reopened on May 17. Their presence was testimony to the educational progress that is blossoming here (public schools have also reopened). But our enemies fear enlightenment, so one of them killed the soldier. The day before, 250 Iraqi police recruits graduated, the latest success in re-staffing law enforcement. Tens of thousands of Iraqi policemen are now on duty. But the enemies of freedom correctly felt threatened by the cooperation and professionalism the day represented, so they set off a bomb that killed seven new officers. Before the war, women had to travel miles for propane. Now, local councils are establishing distribution centers that make the gas readily available to households. On June 18, one American soldier was killed while guarding a center. The June 24th explosion at an oil refinery in Barwanah is another example of political sabotage on Iraq's energy supply. With these attacks on Iraq's new successes, citizens of coalition nations ask how long we will remain in Iraq--and some Iraqis may doubt our ability to improve their lives. As President Bush has made clear, we are committed to establishing the conditions for security, prosperity and democracy. America has no designs on Iraq and its wealth. We will finish our job here and stay not one day longer than necessary. We have a plan to support the establishment of this government of, by and for Iraqis. After months of consultations with Iraqis, we have take the first step in establishing an interim administration. Today, the Governing Council of Iraq will meet. It represents all the strands from Iraq's complicated social structure--Shiites, Sunnis, Arabs, Kurds, men and women, Christians and Turkmens. The council will immediately exercise real political power, appointing interim ministers and working with the coalition on policy and budgets. At the same time, the council will establish procedures to write Iraq's new constitution. Once it is ratified by the people, elections can be held and a sovereign Iraqi government will come into being. So the question of how long the coalition will stay in Iraq depends in part on how quickly the Iraqi people can write and approve a constitution. The coalition recognizes the urgency of marrying economic well-being to political freedom. For 35 years, the country's assets were misappropriated or stolen. We are pouring resources into re-establishing basic services and creating jobs. Our economic reform plan will entail a major shift of capital from the value-destroying state sector to private firms. We are also creating a social safety net for any resulting disruptions. And we believe that a method should be found to assure that every citizen benefits from Iraq's oil wealth. One possibility would be to pay social benefits from a trust financed by oil revenues. Another could be to pay an annual cash dividend directly to each citizen from that trust. In all this, the coalition is working closely with Iraqis who will eventually be responsible for their country's well- being. For our three priorities--security, politics and the economy--the strategy provides for the successful transition to a stable and reformed Iraq. This does not mean that the road ahead is without danger. The combination of a broken infrastructure and acts of sabotage could mean a rough summer. We will suffer casualties, as the bitter-enders resort to violence. We are also braced for an increase in terrorism by non-Iraqis, but no one should doubt our determination to use our power in the face of violent acts. Once our work is over, the reward will be great: a free, democratic and independent Iraq that stands not as a threat to its neighbors or the world, but as a beacon of freedom and justice.

Mr. STEVENS. That is agreeable. I state to the Senate that Senator Corzine will offer an amendment and then Senator McCain will offer an amendment. We will vote on those two amendments. Hopefully, we will start at 7 o'clock on those two amendments. I want to tell the Senate, I have been negotiating with my great friend, our great leader--can I call you the great leader?--about the process. Senator Frist has agreed that I can state, if we can finish this bill tomorrow night, there will not be any votes on Friday. The Senate will be in session. And on Monday we will be in session but there will be no votes. It will be our intention to call up and start statements and even consider amendments, if Senators wish to raise them, on homeland security on Monday, but no votes. That is conditioned upon us finishing this bill before we go home tomorrow night. I know a lot of people want to make plans to travel west. You can leave in the morning or late at night where I live. As a practical matter, I urge Senators to cooperate with us and find ways to raise their amendments. We will be pleased to stay in session tonight and have amendments offered and have them voted on at a time to be determined tomorrow. We are going to try to do our best to continue through tomorrow. We do have a Joint Meeting of Congress for the leader of Britain tomorrow. That will interrupt this process a little bit. But we will continue after that tomorrow and finish if Members will cooperate.

Mr. STEVENS. We can turn this into a little prayer meeting. So others might follow the example, I yield to the Senator who wishes to state he will not raise an amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?