Military Commissions Act of 2006

MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 -- (Senate - September 28, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I may engage my distinguished chairman in a colloquy. I am privileged to serve on his committee. Some years ago I served on the committee and at one time was vice chairman of the committee. So I draw on, if I may say with some modesty, a long experience of working with the Intelligence Committee, and, as the chairman knows, the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee have always had a role of participation in his committee. I guess if I can add up all the years as chairman and ranking, it is about 12 or 15, I think, of my 28 years on the Armed Services Committee. I have watched this committee and have been a participant for many years.

As I read through the amendment offered by our distinguished colleague from West Virginia--he has the title of vice chairman. That came about because the chairman and the vice chairman traditionally on this committee work to achieve the highest degree--I guess the word is the committee working together as an entity.

I say to the chairman, it is my judgment that this amendment is really in the nature of a substitute for the oversight responsibilities of the committee.

As we both know, the world environment changes overnight. This business of trying to operate on the basis of reports is simply, in my judgment, not an effective way for the committee to function. The Senator from Kansas, as chairman, in consultation with the vice chairman, has to call hearings and meetings and briefings in a matter of hours in order to keep the committee currently informed about world situations.

I say with all due respect to my colleagues here and to our vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, this amendment is a substitute for the committee's responsibilities, the basic responsibilities to be performed by this committee. It is for that reason I oppose the amendment. But I would like to have the chairman's views.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if the chairman will yield.

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Let me repeat what I said in my statement--and I share the distinguished Senator's views, more especially from his experience on both committees, the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee. We both face the same kind of responsibilities, our oversight responsibilities. We take them very seriously. We may have differences of opinion on the Intelligence Committee or on the Armed Services Committee, but we do our oversight.

The simple fact is that the vice chairman, myself, and other members of the committee--and let me stress now full membership of the committee; we worked very hard to get that access--have been fully briefed in the past and the present and also prospectively of the CIA's detention and interrogation operations.

The vice chairman and other members of the Intelligence Committee, if people have problems, if people have questions, if people need to get more briefs, if people want to basically get into some--I say ``some'' because I think some of the questions are not reasonable--say they have questions about this, all they have to do is ask. I can guarantee as chairman that those in charge of this particular program at the CIA will be there and have been there.

The inspector general of the CIA has briefed the committee--I am not going to get into the details of that briefing--both the vice chair and myself in regards to any question on what has happened, with what has gone wrong allegedly or otherwise with the interrogation and detention program, and we get an update as to where are those cases. If there was egregious behavior, what is happening to those people? Are they being prosecuted? And the answer to that is yes.

All we have to do is ask. As I look at this, I must say in scope, it is unprecedented. They ask questions that I think, quite frankly, if I were an interrogator working within the confines of the Central Intelligence Agency, would have a very chilling effect on me to know that four times a year I would be held responsible for all of these questions which I think those in charge at the Agency can certainly respond to any committee request in terms of a briefing. I would be a little nervous.

And that is not the case because, as I said in my remarks, the CIA will not be detecting and interdicting unlawful alien combatants; it will be writing one report after another, four times a year. If we look at the length, breadth, and depth, it is not whether we get this information, it is how we get the information. All we have to do is ask.

This is a tremendous burden. I must tell my colleagues that I don't know where we are going to get enough staff on the committee to respond to these four mandated reports. It is going to be a rather unique situation when we have a lot of work to do. We have briefings, as the Senator from Virginia indicated, every week. We have one this afternoon--it is terribly important--requested by members. Yet I think we are going to have to hire more people to do this if, in fact, we do this, and I think the CIA will as well.

I am not too sure, again, if I were an individual interrogator that I would want to stay in the business.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Another observation of all of us who have had the responsibility of being a chairman and ranking member of committees, I know it is sometimes difficult to get witnesses to appear, but I found thus far, certainly with General Hayden--and I have known him for a number of years--I have a high degree of confidence in his ability to administer this Agency, the CIA. It is of great importance to this Senator because it is in Virginia, if I may say. I view the agency and each and every one of its employees as someone for whom I have an obligation to speak on their behalf when necessary.

I find that General Hayden is very forthcoming, very responsive. When the Chair and ranking member desire to see him, my understanding is he makes himself available. It is not as if we have to wait until a report comes, read it, and then decide to bring him down. The Chair, in consultation with the ranking member--he and his team are quite responsive; am I not correct in that?

Mr. ROBERTS. I am happy to respond to the distinguished chairman. What he has described is accurate. It may be the situation with General Hayden, the Inspector General, or anybody else we request to appear before the committee that they may be in a situation where there would be sensitive intelligence information that at that particular time would not be provided, but there certainly would be the promise that it will be provided if at all possible.

So I am not saying that it is a carte blanche kind of situation. That is to be expected. But the great preponderance of requests we make of the General and of the Inspector General have been very prompt and very full, and, again, all we have to do is ask.

It is just that--I don't want to call it a book report, but that is about where we are. It is on some very important matters. I know members of the committee feel very strongly about this. I can't recall a time when members on the committee have asked me for help to get information from the executive or from the CIA or from any of our intelligence agencies where I haven't worked overtime to get that job done.

I thank the chairman for his question.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I think we have framed for the full Senate the parameters of what I regard are the points to be considered at such time we vote on this amendment.

On that matter, I see the distinguished vice chairman and my colleague. How much time remains under the control of the Senator from Virginia?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are about to receive a copy of the amendment. But I listened very carefully to my distinguished colleague's remarks. As he well knows, in my relatively short 28 years in the Senate, I have listened to him and I have the highest respect for his judgment, and particularly as it relates to how the legislative body should discharge its constitutional responsibilities and how, also, it should not try to discharge its constitutional responsibilities. And I guess my opposition falls, most respectfully, in the latter category because I find this Congress has a very high degree of vigilance in overseeing the exercise of the executive powers as it relates to the war against those whom I view as jihadists, those who have no respect for, indeed, the religion which they have ostensibly committed their lives to, and those who have no respect for human life, including their human life.

It is a most unusual period in the history of our great Republic. The good Senator, having been a part of this Chamber for nearly a half century, has seen a lot of that history unfold. The Senator and I have often discussed the World War II period. That is when my grasp of history began to come into focus. And, indeed, the Senator himself was engaged in his activities in the war effort, as we all were in this Nation.

The ensuing conflicts, while they have been not exactly like World War II, have been basically engaging those individuals acting in what we refer to as their adhering to a state, an existing government that has promulgated rules and regulations, such as they may be, for the orders issued to their troops, most of whom wore uniforms, certainly to a large degree in the war that followed right after World War II, the Korean war. Most of those individuals in that conflict had some vestige of a uniform, conducting their warfare under state-sponsored regulations. I had a minor part in that conflict and remember it quite well.

Vietnam came along, and there we saw the beginning of the blurring of state sponsored. Nevertheless, it was present. The uniforms certainly lacked the clarity that had been in previous conflicts. And on the history goes.

But this one is so different, I say to my good friend, the Senator from West Virginia. And I think our President, given his duty as Commander in Chief under the Constitution, has to be given the maximum flexibility as to how he deals with these situations. We see that in a variety of issues around here. But, nevertheless, it is the exercise of executive authority, and that exercise of executive authority must also be subject to the oversight of the Congress of the United States.

But I feel that in the broad powers conferred on the executive branch to carry out its duty to defend the Nation in the ongoing threat against what we generally refer to as terrorism--but more specifically the militant jihadists--we have to fight with every single tool we have at our disposal, consistent with the law of this Nation and international law. And, therefore, we are here in this particular time addressing a bill which provides for meting out justice, a measure of justice, to certain individuals who have been apprehended in the course of the war against this militant jihadist terrorist group.

I find it remarkable, as I have worked it through with my other colleagues, that they are alien, they are unlawful by all international standards in the manner they conduct the war. Yet this great Nation, from the passage of this bill, is going to mete out a measure of justice as we understand it.

Now, the Senator's concern is--and it always should be; it goes back to the time of George Washington and the Congress at that time--the fear of the overexercise of the authorities within the executive branch. But I think to put a clause and restriction, such as the Senator recommends in his amendment, into this bill would, in a sense, inhibit the ability of the President to rapidly exercise all the tools at his disposal.

I say to the Senator, your bill says:

The authority of the President to establish new military commissions under this section shall expire. ..... However, the expiration of that authority shall not be construed to prohibit the conduct to finality of any proceedings of a military commission established under this section before that date.

That could be misconstrued. This war we are engaged in, most notably on the fronts of Afghanistan and Iraq today, we see where it could spread across our globe and has--not to the degree of the significance of Iraq or Afghanistan, but it has spread. Other nations have become the victims, subject to the threats, subject to the overt actions such as took place in Spain and other places of the world.

We should not have overhanging this important bill any such restriction as you wish to impose by virtue of what we commonly call a sunset. I think that would not be correct. It could send the wrong message. We have to rely upon the integrity of the two branches of the Congress to be ever watchful in their oversight, ever unrestrained in the authority they have under the Constitution. As we commonly say around here, what the Congress does one day, it can undo the next day.

If, in the course of exercising our authority under the doctrine of the separation of powers--how many times have I heard the distinguished Senator from West Virginia discuss the doctrine of the separation of powers? So often. I remember when we were vigilantly trying to protect those powers reserved unto the Congress from an encroachment by the executive branch.

So for that reason I most respectfully say that I do not and I urge other colleagues not to support this amendment but to continue in their trust in this institution, in the Senate and in the House, to exercise their constitutional responsibilities in such a way that we will not let the executive branch at any time transcend what we believe are certain parameters that we have set forth in this bill regarding the trials and the conduct of interrogations.

I think an extraordinary legislation that I was privileged to be involved in, which garnered 90-some votes, was the Detainee Act, sponsored by our distinguished colleague, Mr. McCain. That was landmark legislation. From that legislation has come now what we call the Army Field Manual, in which we published to the world what America will do in connection with those persons--the unlawful aliens who come into our custody by virtue of our military operations, and how they will be dealt with in the course of interrogation. That was an extraordinary assertion by the Congress, within the parameters of its powers, as to what they should do, the executive branch.

But a sunset date for the authority to hold military commissions, in my judgment, is not in the best interests, at this time in this war, of our country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator knows my great respect for him. It is an abiding respect. When I look at him, I see a man--a Member of this Senate--who has had vast experience and worn many coats of honor. I see a man who stands by his word, who keeps his word, and is always very meticulous in criticizing another Senator or criticizing legislation. He is most circumspect, most respectful to his colleagues, and most respectful to the Constitution. But I am abhorrent--I cannot write very well anymore. I would like to be able to write down words that other Senators say in a debate. But I cannot write. So I may have misinterpreted, or I may misstate the words. But I cannot understand why this legislation would not be in the best interests of my country.

I believe the Senator said--he certainly implied strongly--that this legislation would not be in the best interests of our country. If I am wrong, I know the Senator will correct me. Let me read, though, the amendment:

On page 5, line 19, add at the end the following: ``the authority of the President to establish new military commissions under this section shall expire on December 31, 2011. However, the expiration of that authority shall not be construed to prohibit the conduct to finality of any proceedings of a military commission established under this section before that date.''

Mr. President, what is wrong with that language? How would that language not be in the interest of our country? I think we are all subject to terror. Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden because of error. So from the very beginning of history, the very history of mankind, this race of human beings, there has been evidence of errors, mistakes. People did not foresee the future, and this language is a protection against that.

What is wrong with providing an expiration date for the authority given to the President in this bill, after a period of 5 years? Can we not be mistaken? Might we not see the day when we wish that we had an automatic opportunity to review this? Five years is a long time. Five years is ample time.

So I must say that I am somewhat surprised that my friend, the great Senator from Virginia, would seek to oppose this amendment. Let me read it once again. This is nothing new, having sunset provisions in bills. I think they are good. We can always review them, and if mistakes have not been made, we can renew them. There is that opportunity. But it does guarantee that there will come a time when this legislation will be reviewed. Only the word of Almighty God is so perfect that there is no sunset provision in the Holy Writ. No. But the sunset provision there is with us, and the time will come when all of us will take a voyage into the sunset.

Mr. WARNER. May I reply at the appropriate time?

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. I will yield right now.

Mr. WARNER. Many times, the two of us have stood right here and had our debates together. It is one of those rich moments in the history of this institution when two colleagues, without all of the prepared text and so forth, can draw upon their experience and knowledge and their own love for the Constitution of the United States and engage.

I say to my good friend, 3 weeks ago, there were headlines that three Senators were in rebellion against their President, three Senators were dissidents, and on and on it went. Well, the fact is, the three of us--and there were others who shared our views, but somehow the three of us were singled out--believed as a matter of conscience we were concerned about an issue.

The concern was that the bill proposed by the administration, in our judgment, could be construed as in some way--maybe we were wrong--indicating that America was not going to follow the treaties of 1949--most particularly, Common Article 3. Common Article 3 means that article in each of these three treaties. As my good friend knows--and we draw on our own individual recollections about the horrors of World War II. I was involved in the foreign battlefield. We certainly knew about it back here at home and studied it. I was a youngster, a skinny youngster in my last year in the Navy. So much for that. But we were very conscious of what was going on, and the frightful treatment of human beings as a consequence of that war.

The world then came together--and I say the world--after that and enacted these three treaties. The United States was in the lead of putting those treaties in. Those treaties were for the purpose of ensuring that future mankind, generations, hopefully, would not experience what literally millions of people experienced by death and maiming--not only soldiers but civilians.

Mr. President, we believed that the administration's approach to this could be interpreted by the world as somehow we were not behind those treaties. If we were to put a sunset in here after all of the deliberation and all of the work on the current bill that is before this body, it could once again raise the specter that, well, if in fact the United States was trying to not live up to the treaties that brought on this debate in the Senate, then at the end of 5 years we go back to where we were. That could happen. We do not want to send that message. We want to send a message that this Nation has reconciled, hopefully, this body, as we vote this afternoon, and will send a strong bipartisan message that we are reconciled behind this legislation to ensure that in the eyes of the world we are going to live fully within the confines of the treaties of 1949.

Mr. BYRD. We are not dealing with the treaties of 1949.

Mr. WARNER. I respectfully say that our bill does, in my judgment. Clearly, it constitutes an affirmation of the treaties. I would not want to send a message at this time that there could come a point, namely, December 31, 2011, that such assurances as we have given about those treaties might expire. That is what concerns me.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am almost speechless. I listened to the words that have just been uttered by my friend. My amendment does not affect, in any way, the portions of this bill that relate to the Geneva Conventions.

It sunsets only the authority of the President to convene military commissions and, of course, the Senate can renew that authority. That is done in many instances here. I think it is insurance for our country and the welfare of our country and the welfare of the people who serve in the military.

We say 5 years. Do we want to make that 6 years? Do we want to make it 7 years? Fine. It will expire at that time. It simply means that the Senate and the House take a look at it again and renew it. What is wrong with that?

Mr. WARNER. I say to my friend, Mr. President, from a technical standpoint, he is correct. He is going in there and incising out regarding commissions. But the whole debate has been focused around how those commissions will conduct themselves in accordance with the common understanding of Article 3, particularly.

So while the Senator, in his very fine and precise way of dealing with the legislation, takes out just that, it might not be fully understood beyond our shores. The headline could go out that there is going to be an expiration.

I say to my good friend, it is just not wise to go in and try and put any imprint on this that expiration could occur. It could raise, again, the debate, and I do not think that is in the interest of the country. I think this debate, this legislation has been settled, and I don't think it was ever the President's intention in the course of the preparation of his legislation, but some fear it could.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it could be a Democratic President, as far as I am concerned. I think this is wise on the part of the Senate in conducting its constitutional oversight, to say that we will do it this far and then we will take another look at it in the light of the new day, in the light of the new times, the new circumstances; we will take another look at it. We are not passing any judgment on that legislation 5 years out.

I am flabbergasted--flabbergasted--that my friend would take umbrage at this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, I fully understand what you endeavor to do here, and I respectfully strongly disagree with it. I think many of us share this. This is going to be a very long war against those people whom we generically call terrorists. In the course of that war, this President and his successor must have the authority to continue to conduct these courts-martial--these trials under these commissions--and not send out a signal to terrorists: If you get under the time limit and you don't get caught, this thing may end.

Mr. WARNER. If you are not caught within this period of time, when this went into effect, then you are no longer going to be held accountable. I, and I think every Member of this body, regret that this Nation or other nations or a consortium of nations have not captured Osama bin Laden. There is a debate going on about that, and I am not going to get into that debate, but the fact is he is still at large. There could be other Osama bin Ladens, and it may take years to apprehend them, no matter how diligently we pursue them. We cannot send out a signal that at this definitive time, it is the responsibility of the President, of the executive branch, to hold those accountable for crimes against humanity. They would not be held accountable if this provision went into power.

Need I remind this institution of the most elementary fact that every Senator understands, that what we do one day can be changed the next. If there comes a time when we feel this President or a subsequent President does not exercise authority consistent with this act, Congress can step in, and with a more powerful action than a sunset, a very definitive action.

Mr. President, it is my understanding I have a few minutes left under this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The time of the Senator from Virginia is 9 1/2 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. I would like to have that time transferred under my time on the bill as a whole. I hope Senator Cornyn, who has expressed an interest in this, gets the opportunity to use that time to address this amendment.

Now, Mr. President, as I look at the number of Senators who are desiring to speak on my side--and I think perhaps it would be helpful if you could, I say to my colleague, the ranking member, check on the other side--we still have some debate, and we are prepared to get into debate on the Kennedy amendment now. Therefore, I will undertake to do that just as soon as I finish.

But then we are in that time period where all time has expired or utilized or otherwise allocated on the several amendments. We will soon receive an indication from the leadership as to the time to vote on the stacked votes. But under the time reserved for the bill, I have, of course, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and Senator Graham are going to be given by me such time as they desire, and then subject to the time utilized by those two Senators, I would hope to have time for Senator Hutchison, Senator Chambliss, and again Senator Cornyn, Senator Grassley, and Senator McConnell, the distinguished majority whip.

So I am going to manage that as fairly and as equitably as I can. That is what we propose to do. I will go into the subject of the Kennedy amendment right now.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would now like to address the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Massachusetts.

I have read this very carefully and I have studied it, I say to my good friend. There are certain aspects of this amendment that are well-intentioned. But I strongly oppose it, and I do encourage colleagues to oppose it, because the question of the separation of powers is involved here, and that is the subject on which this Chamber has resonated many times. But here I find the amendment invades the authority of the executive branch in the area of the conduct of its foreign affairs by requiring the Secretary of State to notify other state parties to the Geneva Conventions of certain U.S. interpretations of the Geneva Conventions, in particular Common Article 3 and the law of war.

It is up to the executive branch in its discretion to take such actions in terms of its relations with other several states in this world--not the Congress directing that they must do so--such communications with foreign governments. But in the balance of powers, it is beyond the purview of the Congress to say to the Secretary of State: You shall do thus and so.

This bill speaks for itself by defining grave breaches of Common Article 3 that amount to war crimes under U.S. law. Any congressional listing of specific techniques should be avoided simply because Congress cannot foresee all of the techniques considered to maybe fall within the category of cruel and inhuman conduct, and therefore, they would become violations of Article 3. We can't foresee all of those situations. Again, it is the responsibility of this body to administer, to see that this bill becomes law in a manner of oversight.

Senator Kennedy's amendment, depending on how the vote comes--and I am of the opinion that this Chamber will reject it--I don't want that rejection to be misconstrued by the world in any way as asserting that the techniques mentioned in the amendment are consistent with the Geneva Conventions or that they could legitimately be employed against our troops or anyone else. We must not leave that impression as a consequence of the decision soon to be made by way of a vote on the Kennedy amendment.

The types of conduct described in this amendment, in my opinion, are in the category of grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. These are clearly prohibited by our bill. Rather than listing specific techniques, Congress has exercised its proper constitutional role by defining such conduct in broad terms as a crime under the War Crimes Act. The techniques in Senator Kennedy's amendment are not consistent with the Common Article 3 and would strongly protest their use against our troops or any others.

So I say with respect to my good friend, this is not an amendment that I would in any way want to be a part of this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague used two phrases just now. He said: Burden. He used the word burden. He then said the word bother. Senator, you walk straight into the constitutional separation of powers in your language and you say: The Secretary of State shall--that is a direct order--notify other parties to the Geneva Conventions. You are putting a direct order to the executive branch. I say that is a transgression of the long constitutional history of this country and the doctrine of separation of powers.

Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator support it if we changed it to ``shall,'' that you, the chairman of our committee, will make that request and the President will go ahead and notify and follow those instructions?

Mr. WARNER. Senator, I am not in the business of trying to amend your amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am just trying to accommodate you. You are saying that this is a constitutional issue. I just offered to try to accommodate the Chairman so we can ensure we are protecting American servicemen from torture--from torture. And the response is: Well, it is going to violate the Constitution. I am interested in getting results.

But I hear the Senator say that it is unconstitutional that my amendment says Department of State shall notify other countries that if they are going to torture, they are going to be held accountable, and we are being defeated on the floor of the U.S. Senate because the opponents are saying that is unconstitutional and we cannot find a way to do it. I find this unwillingness to compromise is outrageous.

Mr. President, I am prepared to call the roll on this one.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this point I wish to have such time as remains under the control of the Senator from Virginia accorded to me under the control of the time on the bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will be so allocated.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to inform the Chamber that we are at that juncture where we will consider the statements of others, very important statements to be made. I listed them in a recitation of those who have indicated their desire to speak. But I also bring to the attention of the body that I have just been told by the leadership they are anxious to proceed to the votes.

At this time I would ask--if I can get my colleague's attention--that there be yeas and nays on all of the pending amendments remaining.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the yeas and nays may be requested on all pending amendments.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator withhold that request for 2 minutes? Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. WARNER. Surely.

Mr. President, we will now put in a quorum call to accommodate the ranking member, such that the time is not charged to either side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the managers, together with the guidance from their respective leaders, are endeavoring to do the following. There are three amendments to be voted on and then final passage. We hope to have as much time used on the bill as we can, to be consumed prior to the initiation of the votes. But then subsequent to the three votes, there will be a block of time. A Senator on this side has reserved 12 minutes. I intend to reserve, on my side, time to Senator McCain. I am trying to work in that category of time following the votes. But until we are able to reconcile this, I ask that we now proceed.

Let me allow the Senator from Georgia to proceed. He has indicated a desire to speak for 5 or so minutes at this time. But I hope Senators are following what the two managers are saying. Those desiring to speak on the bill, with the exception of Senator McCain, would they kindly come down and utilize this time before the amendments start?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we now have an additional speaker, the Senator from Texas.

As the Senator from South Carolina has just completed his remarks, I have to say it has been an unusual experience for all of us these past weeks. Working together with Senator McCain and the Senator from South Carolina has enabled this Senate to proceed in a way that is consistent with Senate practices: namely, have a committee go through a bill, have a markup, and then proceed to work on a product. It brought together the consensus.

I say to my friend from South Carolina, although I have had some modest experience as Secretary of the Navy dealing with court-martials, and, indeed, when I was a young officer in the Marines, I was involved in court-martials, the Senator brought together in this bill, in this deliberation, a very special expertise of the years he has had.

Now he is a full colonel in the U.S. Air Force and a Judge Advocate General recognition. I thank the Senator for his invaluable contribution to putting the series of bills we have had--putting into those bills matters which he believed were in the best interests of the men and women of the Armed Forces and, indeed, his consultation throughout this process with the Judge Advocate Generals and other past and present Judge Advocates and some of the younger officers who will be future Judge Advocate Generals. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his strong contribution to this deliberative process in the Senate.

Now I yield the floor to our last speaker before we proceed to the votes. As I understand, we will be voting at the conclusion of this statement?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I spoke in strong opposition to this amendment. Again, I think it tries to displace the oversight that is performed by the Intelligence Committee. I would like to add the following bit of information.

On September 28 of this year, GEN Michael V. Hayden, who is the current Director of the CIA, wrote a letter to Chairman Pat Roberts of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate. In it he said:

On September 6, 2006, I briefed the full SSCI membership on key aspects of the detainee program, providing a level of detail
previously not made available to SSCI members. I made clear to the committee that upon passage of the new detainee legislation, I would brief the SSCI on how CIA would execute the future program, and I agreed to promptly notify the committee when any modifications to the program were proposed, or when the status of any individual detainee changed.

I think that is dispositive of a very clear indication by the executive branch to allow the Senate to perform its oversight through the properly designated committee, the Senate Committee on Intelligence.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to our most distinguished senior colleague that this amendment was well debated on the floor, but I would bring to the attention of all Senators that we do not have any estimates of how long the war on terrorism against the jihadists is going to take place. We may be having those who commit crimes today not apprehended until after this sunset provision. Then they go free. They are not subject, unless the Senate at that time somehow restores the importance of the next President to continue--to continue, Mr. President--bringing to justice and trial under our rules these individuals who are committing war crimes. So I urge all Senators to oppose this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov