John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, when you use the term ``we,'' let's be more specific. You mean the Congress in its various oversight capacities? Maybe the Intelligence Committee, which basically has primary jurisdiction over intelligence issues, like you point out the intelligence aspects of this? The Foreign Relations Committee has held hearings on this issue. Indeed, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has held some hearings. So I judge that the ``we'' you refer to is the broad responsibilities of the several committees in the Congress?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are going to take this amendment and study it. Senator Inhofe, who is quite interested in this subject, is unable to be here at this time, but tomorrow we will have further opportunity to debate it. I am advised that the Department does not try to manage these programming agendas in such a way as to exclude, I am told, any particular political bent or bias. Rather they go out and use nationally known and presumably credible organizations that establish ratings and select programs which have very high ratings. In other words, people want to listen to them. That is the procedure, as I understand it, that is being followed by the Department. I think Mr. Di Rita, who was trusted with this recently, made a statement to the effect that is the process. I will read from at this juncture a letter to Senator Levin from Lawrence Di Rita, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. It says: Thank you for your October 19th letter to Secretary Rumsfeld concerning the radio programming distributed by the Armed Forces Radio and Television Services on its American Armed Forces Network. The [Armed Forces Radio] attempts to make available to forces stationed overseas a breadth of programming that reflects the quality and diversity that would be available to servicemembers and their families if they were in the United States. AFRTS provides 105,000 hours of programming choices per year to programmers at 33 stations around the world. I understand we have 33 stations geographically around the world so that the beam can reach even the most remote of men and women in the Armed Forces. I am paraphrasing my own thoughts at this time. They are the ones, the 33 stations, that make pretty much the decision as to their region and the consumer interest among the uniform people in certain programs. So they provide 105,000 hours of programming at 33 stations around the world. Programmers at individual stations choose from the . . . mix of content they wish to air on their multiple broadcast channels. So there is a mix of Armed Forces Radio and Television Services programming, and then each of the 33 has a certain degree of autonomy. They go into that list and pick those programs they think their listeners will enjoy and utilize. I am advised that the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service managers are updating the programming mix and have decided to include additional programs, including the Ed Schultz Show, that apparently meet the criteria for that [Armed Forces Radio and Television Service] managers apply to such decisions. As is the practice, these programs will be made available to local [Armed Forces Radio and Television Service] programmers. Local programmers decide which programs are broadcast. These programmers typically are military or civil servants who have the best insights into the interests and preferences of their local audiences. [Armed Forces Radio and Television Service] managers will continue to monitor the programming mix and do their best to provide a broad, high quality range of choices for local station managers. I think the Senator's points are well taken, but it appears that this system is working well at the moment. But I judge the Senator has views to the contrary. The Senator from Iowa can respond on my time.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not object, but we do have a 5-minute request from the other side of the aisle, I say to my distinguished colleague. We have the proponents of the amendment of the Senator from Colorado and others. I ask unanimous consent that the proponents of the amendment and those in opposition have at least 5 minutes each in addition to that. So that is 15. That would leave time for further debate by others on this amendment. So I would say at the hour of 5:15 that 5 minutes be allocated to Senator Salazar; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. To be followed by Senator Allard, to be followed by those of us who oppose the Allard amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is that the majority leader and minority leader have determined that we will not have further votes tonight, but I advise colleagues we have a number of amendments which are almost completed and ready for a vote tomorrow. We anticipate--and I will, hopefully, be joined by my ranking member here--we can, during the course of business tomorrow, hear out the remainder of the amendments. I would hope so.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is that the clerk will require a period of time within which to compile this list.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I wish to recognize our distinguished colleague from Maine, former member of the Armed Services Committee. We deeply regret that the Senator moved on, but she is now on the Tax Committee. As someone said, that is where the money is. It is with great reluctance that I say to my good friend that we will have to very strongly oppose this. She makes an equitable argument, persuasive argument. But we have to take a look at the broad picture. This is the fifth BRAC round. When the original legislation was written, there was quite an analysis put into that bill as to what happens to the properties if the BRAC Commission declares it to be closed. That framework of laws has guided four previous BRAC Commissions. Let us step back and think. While this particular base, Brunswick-- and I know it well, having been Secretary of the Navy--served the Nation magnificently, I was somewhat surprised to see it was closed, but the decision was made. And believe me, BRAC also hit my State severely. The decision was made to close it. That is over. We can't repeal that. But this base property does not just belong to the citizens of Maine but all Americans. It is Federal property. As such, it is owned by all Americans. All Americans, through their tax collections, provided the funds to improve this base over the years and to maintain the base. We have to be careful as the BRAC Commission lays down a matrix of closure adjustments all over America. In some instances, some communities would benefit enormously. Mind you, this bill governs BRAC decisions, wherever it was in the United States of America on BRAC round 5, the one currently being administered. When Congress enacted the first BRAC law, they very carefully assessed that there would be so many different locations, different circumstances that we had to put down a series of steps that the BRAC Commission and subsequently those that are entrusted with the closing-- namely, the DOD--must follow by law. For example, when a facility such as this is closed, the first thing to determine is, is there another military operation that could utilize this base? This was primarily a Naval base. It could well be needed by the Army or other departments of the military. That is the first thing. Are there other DOD missions? Second, other Federal agencies are constantly relocating and reestablishing areas. The Federal Government is disbursing a lot of it out of Washington. Could not this property, owned by all citizens of America, be utilized by another Federal agency? It is rather interesting. Through the years, there has crept in a doctrine that the next priority should be, for example, maybe the Indian tribes. Oftentimes, there are agreements that go back years and years regarding Federal property that was once occupied by the Indians. Sometimes it might revert to the Indians. Maybe the Senator would seek to advise the Senate. I understand that the Senator recently amended the amendment to protect the interests of the Indians. But the Indians are only one small segment. A number of base installations, through the 16 years of BRAC, have been provided as shelters for the homeless. Then we move down to the public benefit conveyances. Sometimes it was determined that these Federal facilities should be transferred to local transportation or to airport authorities or veterans centers. In other words, there is another whole category of not quasi-Federal but certainly uses paralleling what the Federal Government provides people--that whole category. Then they have economic redevelopment conveyances; again, as the Senator said, either at fair market value or DOD can determine certain circumstances so they could follow the very narrow provisions of the Senator's bill, turn it over to the local LRA. That is established maybe at no cost. It is important that we don't take a carefully crafted, a carefully time-tested framework of laws regarding how the properties are to be used following a closure and suddenly wipe it off the books. There are a number of old deeds. For example, one installation I have--Fort Monroe, which has been in business for a very long time-- under the deed, if BRAC were to close it--and indeed this time BRAC did close it--then it reverts to certain community interests. This amendment, as I read it, would wipe out that deed. I am not speaking from a selfish point of view. I am simply saying that there are other Senators who should very quickly, if they are inclined to support Senator Snowe's amendment, check with your local State to make sure that if you are affected by this round, the fifth round of BRAC, there may be some old deeds, conveyances, and agreements, with a facility having been closed in your State, as to how that facility then reverts to other interests. This is not a very simple thing. You pull at the heartstrings when you talk about, yes, Maine can use it. I don't doubt that Maine can use it. It is a first-class facility. But it belongs to the taxpayers. They have paid for the construction of it. They have paid for years and years of maintenance. I suggest the framework of laws which has been in existence these 16 years remain intact and this closure be conducted in a manner consistent with the closures that have taken place in the several States represented in this Senate over a period of some 16 years. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, just to add a note, the Senator touched on this, but we cannot and do not--and I do not think this will--erode the base of pay and benefits given to the regular force. Those individuals have committed to a career in the military. In a career of 20 years, they will move 10 or 12 times. On the other hand, the reservist is at home, most of them, in a status where there is an ever-present risk of being called up. For that, I think they should be given some special recognition. I believe the Senator has that embraced in these valuable ideas that the Senator has in this amendment. That is because they are ready to respond and they have to, not just move on a set of orders, but they have to try to keep their families in place in their homes; they have to try to work out some relationship with their employers so they can go back. They have a whole set of problems that are quite different than those in the regulars. I do not think in any way this legislation encroaches on the important category of benefits for the regular forces, but does things that recognize the importance of the Guard and Reserve. I see another distinguished colleague on the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might add, last year an amendment somewhat similar to this, but considerably more extreme in its reach, was considered by the Senate. At that time I, along with others, established the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve. It was included in our Defense Authorization Act. That commission is now in operation. As a matter of fact, the distinguished Senator from Georgia and I attended the opening meeting here just days ago. It has an extraordinary list of members. I ask unanimous consent to have a fact sheet and a list of membership printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. They have begun their work and they will examine issues related to your amendment and to other structural missions and compensation of the Guard and Reserve Forces in the coming years. I do not believe this commission, which is underway, should be used as a deterrent for the Senate to consider at this time the Senator's amendment. I point out that the subject he raised, that is intrinsic to this amendment, is under careful study by an extraordinary group of individuals appointed by myself, Senator Levin, our leaders, and others. That will be part of the Record. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has an amendment. It is one of the 12 amendments we have under the unanimous consent agreement. There is a time limit on it, of which the Senator is aware.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator talks about cleanup, but over the years $1.4 billion has been recouped by the Department of Defense. That money simply goes to the Treasury to an account earmarked for precisely what the Senator from Michigan said, for cleanup and other expenses. Again, the Federal taxpayers who once owned the land now do not have to add additional burdens out of their pockets for cleanup as a consequence of this existing framework of laws that has been there for 16 years that enable some properties to bring about money for the Federal Government, but it goes precisely into that account for the cleanup, to save Federal taxpayers the added burden of cleanup expenses. The Senator made a key point.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Allard amendment No. 2423, with no amendments in order to that amendment prior to the vote. My understanding is this request has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the bill is open for further amendment, as Senator Levin and I are here.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first I want to clarify one thing. The distinguished Senator from Michigan, as the ranking member of our committee, participated in all of the hearings of the Armed Services Committee. There were many hearings on the issue of the detainees, Abu Ghraib. Then we went through the series of analyses by the Army inspector general. And on and on we went. I do hope when he made a reference to sweeping things under the rug-- I do not think our committee ever tried to sweep anything under the rug.

Mr. WARNER. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to make certain.

Mr. WARNER. In our committee, you have sat side by side through almost every minute of the many hours of hearings we have had on this subject. While there may be areas which our committee may yet probe on this matter--as a matter of fact, I do not think the whole series of hearings we have had has come to a conclusion. We still have the issue of the overall accountability. So there may be some point in time--but I have always felt we should allow more of the court-martial and various Uniform Code of Military Justice prosecutions, which are underway, to be completed. I will be discussing that further with the Senator. But I just did not want it indicated that our committee had brushed anything under the table.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see our distinguished colleague from Iowa has taken the floor on a matter relating to the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in my judgment, a further investigation is simply unnecessary. The Department of Defense has conducted 12 major investigations. Over 400 criminal investigations and hundreds more informal investigations have been or are being conducted to determine the responsibility and, if appropriate, culpability and accountability. The combined investigations are unprecedented in scope. The CIA and the Department of Justice are also conducting investigations into the actions of their employees related to detention and interrogation activities. Responsibility and accountability have been assessed. Over 400 criminal investigations have been conducted and 168 remain open; 95 military personnel have been criminally charged with misconduct, and 75 have been convicted to date. In addition, 177 military personnel have been administratively disciplined. Almost 20 percent of those disciplined have been officers. Congress has held 30 open hearings, received over 40 closed briefings, and countless staff briefings. The Department has been very forthcoming, providing complete investigations that include over 2,800 interviews and over 16,000 pages of related documents. The combined investigations have made 442 recommendations, over 300 of which have been implemented, and the rest are in progress, including standardization policy and procedures for detention and interrogation operations, revising policies regarding the International Committee of the Red Cross visits and reports, improved training and clear policy guidance for interagency detention activities. Investigations have universally concluded that there was no policy of abuse and that no policy led to abuse. As the Schlesinger report stated--that was a commission established by the Secretary of Defense, indeed at the urging of the Congress and our committee, but it was Secretary Schlesinger and Secretary Harold Brown, both former Secretaries of Defense, one a Republican and one a Democrat, men who have had extraordinary reputations throughout their lives. I feel that was one of the major landmark investigations connected with this ongoing problem. They stated: No approved procedures call for or allow the kind of abuse that, in fact, occurred. There is no evidence of a policy of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military authorities. Any discussion of detainee abuse must be kept in perspective. Substantiated cases of abusive conduct by DOD personnel are small in comparison to the 70,000 persons who have been detained and the hundreds of thousands of interrogations that have been conducted humanely, safely, and effectively over the past 4 years. An independent commission would send potentially the wrong message to our Armed Forces of our lack of confidence in their conduct and would seriously undermine ongoing intelligence-gathering activities. On a daily basis, we collect intelligence from detainees that provides valuable information to our troops in the field, whether it is Iraq or Afghanistan or other farflung posts. Simply put, this information saves American lives, certainly of the men and women in uniform, and I firmly believe it has helped prevent further serious attack, such as 9/11, on our Nation. The investigative process has reassured the American people, strengthened the Armed Forces, and demonstrated to the world that we are a nation of laws. Last month, 90 Senators voted in the affirmative for an amendment that required civilized treatment of prisoners at detention facilities. That is the McCain amendment, and I have been a partner with him in the very initiation of those efforts. The amendment banned cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. That vote sent a strong signal. Who among us was not affected when Senator McCain said that he and fellow prisoners in Hanoi knew and took great strength from the belief that ``we were different from our enemies, that we were better than they, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them.'' Move on we must to win this war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Replaying these dreadful and inexcusable instances again in public forum will bring no remarkable insights and no lessons learned, nor will it do anything to reduce the fighting. It will, in fact, draw resources from the war effort by placing a heavy burden on senior commanders and key civilian leaders. The Committee on Armed Services held over half a dozen hearings on this issue. We still have these matters under review. Still, the question of accountability remains, but we have to wait until there is a conclusion of more of the military cases before I think we probably will do our final work on this chapter, a chapter that I characterize-- that is Abu Ghraib--as one of the most serious I ever witnessed in my many years of public service, either in the Pentagon or in the Senate as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from Georgia. For that purpose, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on that point, I suggest that we now go to the bill. I believe there is a pending amendment which requires a UC to be laid aside; am I not correct?

Mr. WARNER. I so ask at this time.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, seeing no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Given that, Mr. President, I suggest that this bill now be laid aside, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do have the privilege of being an ex officio member of the Intelligence Committee. I served 8 years on that committee, and my concluding years was as ranking member. I have a very high respect for that committee and find, from my participation, together with others on it, under the leadership of Chairman Roberts and Senator Rockefeller, that the committee does a very good job. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition about this question of the need for this country to establish an independent commission to investigate the detention and interrogation operations conducted by the Department of Defense and other elements of the Government in conjunction with the war on terrorism. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.