Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROBERTS. I want to make certain that my colleagues understand my position on this matter. My hold on Eric Fanning's nomination is not in relation to his capabilities, expertise, or character, and it is certainly not intended to bring undue stress to our U.S. Army. Rather, my hold on the nominee is to protect the security of the United States and especially the people of Kansas.

I will be more than happy to vote for Mr. Fanning once the White House addresses my concerns regarding the President's efforts to move Guantanamo Bay terrorist detainees to the mainland, with Fort Leavenworth, KS, the intellectual center of the Army, very high on the list.

I have been clear, honest, and flexible with the White House. I am simply asking that they communicate to me what all those who have reviewed Fort Leavenworth already know; that Fort Leavenworth is not a suitable replacement for the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. The White House has not reciprocated.

I have prepared lengthier remarks on my position in this matter.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Arizona, our distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee and my friend, has made a very impassioned plea for me to remove my hold on Eric Fanning to be Secretary of the U.S. Army. I want to be very clear that as a veteran and marine, I support the nominee for this post.

Kansas is the proud home to two Army posts, Fort Leavenworth, the intellectual center of the Army where the commandant staff school is located, and Fort Riley, home of the Big Red One--two proud posts with very rich histories.

I want the Army to have a highly qualified Secretary just as much as the distinguished Senator from Arizona, but it is due to my deep respect and concern for the men and women in uniform at Fort Leavenworth, and those who live and work in the region, that I am compelled to issue my hold on the President's nominee in the first place.

As I have publicly stated from the beginning, and personally to Mr. Fanning, former Army Secretary John McHugh, and Defense Secretary Ash Carter, my quarrel is not with the nominee but with the President.

President Obama continues to insist that he will close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility before he leaves office, transferring the remaining detainees to the U.S. mainland, with Fort Leavenworth under serious consideration. Quite frankly, this is a legacy item for the President. After much study and review, I can name countless reasons why this plan is wrong and it is also illegal. The President's own Cabinet has acknowledged this, and the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General have publicly stated that current law prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the mainland. Yet the President is undeterred. He continues to insist it will be done, even if he has to resort to Executive power in defiance of the law and the will of the Congress. As a result, I have been left with very little choice other than to do what I can as an individual Senator to block the transfer of detainees to Fort Leavenworth.

I understand and share the concerns of the distinguished Senator, but if there is any anger, concerns, or frustrations, it should be directed at a White House that intends to ignore laws written and introduced by the Senator from Arizona himself. We should be speaking today, not about my attempts to protect the people of my State and Fort Leavenworth, we should be speaking about a White House that ignores the National Defense Authorization Act and every appropriations bill passed in this Chamber since 2009. We should be angry at a White House that wants to bring this terrorist threat to our shores without so much as an intelligence assessment as to the risk and benefits of such an action to our citizens at home or to our men and women in uniform. An intelligence assessment regarding these concerns does not exist.

The administration is responsible for refusing to come forward with a real plan to relocate prisoners, instead of a weak and veiled attempt to honor a campaign promise, which is the only way to characterize the actions to date.

Just days ago, I received the most classified report from the Department of Defense on moving the detainees from Gitmo. This report-- far from clearing up any reports--made it even more apparent to me that it is virtually impossible to safely relocate terrorists at Fort Leavenworth.

The assessment is there. All I am asking is for the White House to assure me that Fort Leavenworth is not a viable alternative. Cities and towns across America are holding their collective breath while we await the White House's judgment as to where to house these detainees.

For those of us in the crosshairs, we are left with very few options to fight a President who is willing to break the law. With this hold, I have used one of the tools--perhaps the only tool other than a filibuster--afforded to me as a U.S. Senator, and I will continue to do everything in my power to fulfill the obligations of the security of the United States. It is what Kansans expect and have demanded of me.

If the White House calls and assures me that terrorists held at Guantanamo will not come to the Fort Leavenworth, I will gradually release this hold immediately. As a matter of fact, we just had a conversation with the White House this morning in the hopes that this could be worked out, but the White House simply would not give me that assurance.

Make no mistake, I remain adamantly opposed to placing detainees anywhere on the mainland. The distinguished Senator from Arizona knows that, and I think he shares those views. However, if the plans and studies from the administration rule out Fort Leavenworth as an option, all they have to do is tell me.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROBERTS. Will my friend from Arizona yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, if this is a bad precedent and all that the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has said it is with regard to my actions, I will remind him that there has been a precedent before this time. The year was 2009, and this issue came up. Obviously, it was a campaign promise by the President. There was a lot of concern, a lot of frustration, a lot of anger. I asked myself at that particular time what on Earth I could do to stop this effort to move detainees to Fort Leavenworth. Again, I would stress that it is the intellectual center of the Army. The commander staff school is there--think Pershing, think Eisenhower, think MacArthur, think Petraeus. Bad fit. Sixteen thousand people at Leavenworth have signed a petition saying no to the detainees.

Back then, in 2009, John McHugh--a wonderful Congressman, a great friend to me, and a great Secretary of the Army--was being nominated. I took the very same action, I would tell the distinguished Senator from Arizona, and put a hold on John.

I called him up. I said: John, I have some bad news and some good news.

He said: Well, give me the bad news.

I said: Somebody here in the Senate has put a hold on you.

He said: Who on Earth would do that?

I said: It is me.

He was a little stunned--I think a lot--and would probably make the same statement and speech the Senator from Arizona has given.

I said: Not to worry. All that has to happen is for the administration to give me assurance--it could be vocal; I don't expect him to write it down--that the detainees will not be moved to Fort Leavenworth.

John went to work to try to carry that message to the administration. I am not saying that Eric Fanning should do that, but John McHugh did. And it wasn't very long after that that the legal counsel from the White House--and I won't get into names here--called me and assured me that would be the case. I immediately lifted the hold.

So there is a precedent in 2009, and it worked.

Again, I really regret--my hold on Eric Fanning's nomination is not in relation to his capabilities, his expertise, his character, and certainly not intended to bring undue stress to the U.S. Army. I understand that. But when we are faced with a situation like this, and the situation could be further explained by a call that I just received prior to the distinguished Senator coming to the floor--the White House knows this--we had a very frank conversation. The conversation pretty well ended up: I can't give you that assurance, but we won't surprise you; i.e., if we have an Executive order and we are moving detainees into Fort Leavenworth, we will certainly tell you.

So I can't release this hold, as I did in 2009. I don't think the statute of limitations is here with regard to the previous assurance I got from the White House. If there is, maybe it is because that is-- when the legal counsel left, all of a sudden we were back to where we are.

So the ball is in the court of the White House. All they have to do is give me another call and indicate that things will be fine. I am not telling them what language to use or anything else.

I might add that there are two other Senators who are very concerned about this--Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Cory Gardner.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield again for one last comment?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, every Senator listening to this--every person listening to this--should understand, with the summation the Senator has just given, what an outstanding chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee he has been and what a stalwart he has been for our men and women in uniform. I cannot think of a chairman--and there have been a lot of very great chairmen in the Senate Armed Services Committee, but none so well qualified as the Senator from Arizona. His remarks are right on point with regard to his point of view. His remarks sing, if you will, in behalf of our national defense. He is a great friend. He is a personal friend. I respect him more than he knows, and I appreciate him. I think he mentioned Eric Fanning to be Secretary of the Navy. That might be an alternative. But at any rate, I want to thank him for his remarks.

But if this has no bearing on anything, why did the White House call me just before we came down here trying to work it out? And saying that in 2009--OK, they did let me know that Fort Leavenworth was not being considered. As I say again, there is no statute of limitations, I don't think, except just ``Oh well, by the way, we are going to change our mind'' and a couple of little campaign assurances by the President saying ``Well, we can always use an Executive order''--not to mention his Press Secretary. So if there is nothing to bear here--this doesn't have any relationship to the issue at hand--why did the White House call and say ``Well, we will make a decision down the road, but we won't surprise you''?

I shouldn't even be talking about this with regard to the communications this morning. So I just disagree with my good friend. I thank him for his leadership, and I thank him for his position. Were I in his position, I probably would be saying the same thing.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source