Press Conference With Senator Carl Levin And Senator John McCain

Press Conference

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

SEN. LEVIN: Good afternoon everybody. Sorry we're late.

The Armed Services Committee unanimously reported out a bill today, our 2010 Defense Authorization Bill. It was a unanimous vote. There's a handout, which you now have, showing some of the key decisions. The outcome is at least 90 percent supportive of Secretary Gates' initiatives and reforms that he announced in April 6th and that were included in the president's budget.

And those initiatives and reforms included terminating some troubled programs, such as the airborne laser, the kinetic energy interceptor, the presidential helicopter, the manned ground vehicle portion of the future combat system, the no-line-of-sight cannon. We did not authorize additional funds where we didn't believe they were needed for the C-17s.

We shifted the emphasis, as the secretary of Defense recommended in a number of other programs, including missile defense. We accepted the cuts in the ground-based interceptor and the deployed ground-based interceptors to limiting them to 30, as recommended by the secretary of Defense. We increased a number of missile defense programs as recommended, and that included the THAAD program and the Standard Missile 3.

As recommended, we delayed starts when the programs were not adequately defined. And there's a number of places where we did not follow the recommendations of the secretary of Defense. We added seven F-22s by a vote of 13 to 11. And also, I would say the couple of other key differences, we did not stop the development of the second Joint Strike Fighter engine. That was a vote of 12 to 10 to continue that second engine. We also added some F-18s because of the shortfall in the deck aircraft for the Navy. We went from nine, as recommended, to 18 on the F-18s.

And there was a few other differences between us and the recommendations, but those are some of the key ones.

We spent a lot of time on the question of military commissions. President Obama has stated that he believes that some detainees should be tried by military commissions. But in order for that to happen and to survive legal challenge, those commissions and procedures have got to be changed to ensure that they are consistent with American principles of justice.

Military commissions, we decided and believe, can play a legitimate role in prosecuting violations of the law of war, but only if they meet standards of fairness which have been established by the Supreme Court. In its 2006 decision in the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court held that the Geneva Convention prohibits the trial of detainees for violations of the law of war -- in other words, by military commissions -- unless the trial is conducted by, quote, "a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people."

The Supreme Court added that, quote, "The regular military courts in our system are the courts martial, established by congressional statutes, and that a military commission can be regularly constituted by the standards of our military justice system if some practical need explains deviation from court martial practice."

We have a very carefully crafted provision here for those procedures. And we believe that they will pass scrutiny by the courts. We hope so. We put a lot of time in this. But we did decide that we were going to adopt the procedures for the military commissions.

The language which we adopted addressed some of the following issues that have been discussed relative to military commissions and where we modified previous language in law.

The use of coerced testimony. We have put in our bill it is not going to be admissible.

When is hearsay admissible? We modified that rule from the existing law.

When can classified and how can classified evidence be used? We addressed that issue.

We addressed the issue of detainee access to exculpatory evidence and jurisdiction over detainees.

Now, those are just some of the highlights, but this was an all- encompassing provision relative to the procedures I emphasized just on the military commissions.

And the way that -- one other thing is that we worked very closely with the White House on this matter. And when I say we, I'm talking about Senator McCain, Senator Graham and myself. We spent a lot of time on it. These provisions take the place of the procedures in the existing law.

There are some few areas where we have not completed our agreement. Hopefully we can between now and the time this goes to the Senate floor, which could be as early as the week after next. But we are in agreement on almost all of the language on these procedures for military commissions that are in the bill, enough that we felt comfortable in presenting it to the full committee. And the entire committee voted for it. And we'll continue to work on language as we get to the Senate deliberation.

It was, as I said, a unanimous vote. It took bipartisan efforts on the part of everybody. But I especially want to compliment my ranking member, Senator McCain, and all the members of the committee for pulling together, doing this in a very expeditious way, but doing it in a bipartisan fashion.

Senator McCain.

SEN. MCCAIN: Thank you very much, Chairman Levin. And I congratulate you on the successful mark-up. Your leadership has been one of patience, one of in-depth knowledge of the issues. And we have, in a closed mark-up, many times very spirited discussions, and we come out generally united on these issues thanks to Chairman Levin's leadership. And I'm honored to serve with you.

Chairman Levin covered most of the issues. It wasn't all that I wanted, particularly on the issue of the F-22. And we will fight that more on the floor, the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, and some other disagreements that we will continue to vote on both on the floor and in conference. But I want to add -- well, another thing is we are giving our military members a 3.4 percent pay raise, which obviously we all feel that they have richly deserved and earned.

On the issue military commissions, we are working with the White House.

Senator Graham, who I think people know, is a military JAG, lawyer in the United States Air Force, our very seasoned and experienced staff, and I think we have come a long way. Military commissions, the situation regarding detainees, the whole issue of detainees is one that's very important to the American people. We have addressed in this bill, I think, to a large degree, the military commission side of it.

We are still going to have to work on the issue of what we do with foreign fighters who are at Bagram, what we do about detainees that we feel that we may not be able to try but can't release. So there is more to come on this whole issue of detainee treatment, including where they may be situated if Guantanamo is closed. But I think we've made significant progress on this issue. And clearly, the American people want us to get this resolved.

We're not going to be out of this kind of conflict for a long, long time. We will have situations that continue, such as in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. And I am pleased overall with the product that our committee was able to produce on how we bring these people to trial and under what conditions.

Thank you, Chairman Levin.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you, Senator McCain.

So we have a few minutes for questions.

Q Yes, sir. Overall, it seems that you pretty well accepted President Obama's decisions on missile defense. The one thing that I didn't see in the list was the European missile defense system. What did you decide there? The president had, I think, a $51 million small amount, and that was it, and some restrictions on it. How did the committee handle that?

SEN. LEVIN: Well, on policy basis, we did not change any current policy on the European missile defense. And in terms of the so-called third site, there's language in here that also encourages the exploration of a possible cooperation between Russia and NATO and the United States on information which could be obtained from two very well-located Russian radars, located in a way that any effort by Iran to have long-range missiles, for instance, could be very quickly noted by Russian radars.

And if we can work out something with Russia, we would be, number one, gaining valuable information in the event Iran ever moves in that direction, very unwisely but in case they did. But if we were able to work out something with Russia on the use of that information, it would be a very powerful statement to Iran that Russia, NATO and the West view Iran and their moving towards long-range missiles and possible nuclear weapons as a threat.

SEN. MCCAIN: Could I just add? As far as the Czech and Polish missile defense situation is concerned, the committee tried not to influence that particular policy. Because in testimony before the Senate, Mr. Lynn and others and I think the president stated that they have not made a decision on whether to go forward with missile defense systems located, parts of which, as you know, are in the Czech Republic and in Poland.

So there may be more debate on the floor on that. I happen to be a supporter of continuing with that. Senator Levin, as he just stated, believes that we might be able to -- there's a good possibility of an agreement with Russia. But we tried not to disturb that situation, at least until the administration has come down to a decision on the Czech and Polish missile defense situation.

SEN. LEVIN: Yes.

Q Senator Levin, the White House has already issued a statement of policy threatening a veto on the House version, which includes money for the F-22s and the alternate engine. Can you just tell us how you think this is going to sort of shake out? Is this going to be a big showdown with the White House on these issues?

SEN. LEVIN: No, not necessarily for a number of reasons. Number one, as Senator McCain mentioned, this now goes to the floor. And we presume that there will be amendments on both subjects. And one of those amendments I will join in it, because I think that we should have terminated the F-22, and I voted that way. On the other one, on the second engine, I voted the other way, I voted to maintain that second engine. So when that amendment is offered, if it is, there will be a debate on that as well. And we don't know the outcome. We don't know the outcome from conference.

So I don't think anybody is looking for a battle here with the White House at all. We have really done very, very well in terms of supporting these initiatives on the part of the White House and Secretary Gates. We obviously were not in lockstep. I don't think any congressional body would be in lockstep with any executive branch, regardless of party.

But you know, 90 percent on the scorecard is pretty good. And those other issues will be, as Senator McCain (said ?), they will be argued and debated, as they should be, on the Senate floor. There's good arguments, it seems to me, which are going to be made on both sides of the issue. And I agree with Senator McCain on the F-22, but he and I differed on the second engine.

SEN. MCCAIN: I do take Secretary Gates' comments very seriously.

Q Just to follow up on the F-22, are you at all supportive of the efforts that are under way to possibly lift the ban on exports and create a modified version that could be exported to Japan?

SEN. LEVIN: We adopted language on that to look at that possibility.

Q What was the language? Could you --

SEN. LEVIN: I don't have it handy. But we want that possibility to be explored. There's particularly one country, I think it was Japan, but we'll wait until tomorrow, I think, for you to read it, unless my staff or his staff can confirm it.

Was it Japan? Was that --

(Off mike commentary.)

Not tied to a particular country.

SEN. MCCAIN: And I think a lot of us are favorably inclined but, obviously, we worry about the technology transfer. This is true of almost every modern weapon system that we produce. But I think we'll be able to (look it up ?).

Q Senator Levin, Senator McCaskill has criticized the committee for holding their debate and discussions behind closed doors, outside the view of the public and the press. As you know, your House counterparts held their discussions in an open forum. She also said that there was no classified information at the discussions. And she said that it was in the public interest to have these in an open and transparent manner. So could you please explain why you felt it was necessary to hold these meetings behind closed doors?

SEN. LEVIN: There is classified information, and there was reference to classified information on a number of occasions. It's very clumsy when you're dealing with classified information is the principal reason that I would give. Senator McCain, I think, agrees with Senator McCaskill on this, and I'll let him speak for himself. But I think that, given the number of times that classified information is not only referred to but the need to go in and out of classified information very quickly, there was a number of occasions where the reference was made, and then something was said, and then we move on to something else. It would make, I think, a much clumsier kind of a mark-up, number one.

Number two, all of our votes are recorded votes. They're all going to be available to you. So those are the reasons that I gave. But I don't want to obviously speak for Senator McCain.

SEN. MCCAIN: I agree with Senator McCaskill, but I also agree that our mark-ups would probably be extended in length by a factor of five or 10.

SEN. LEVIN: There's another problem, which is they might be a lot less, give or take. They're not canned. Some of the open mark- ups that I've seen in my short tenure here in the Senate are canned in advance.

So yeah, they're open in theory. But when all the work is done in advance and all that is done is ratified in an open meeting, you can maybe feel better that it's open. But you're not seeing where the real debate is held.

Yes.

Q It looks like you're rejecting a -- (inaudible) -- of the Air Force tanker and also rejecting --

SEN. LEVIN: No.

Q No.

SEN. LEVIN: I don't think we took a position on that at all.

Q Well, was there any debate on that? Or could you explain your positions on that matter?

SEN. LEVIN: We are going to wait for the completion of the Air Force's study. We didn't take a position on pro or con against the -- (inaudible) -- issue.

Q What about the presidential helicopter, the idea of using some of the materials already developed?

SEN. LEVIN: I don't know that we took a position on that. If we did, I've have to look to our staff on that. But we ended, as requested, the presidential helicopter production.

Yes.

Q Chairman Skelton today said on the House floor that he planned to hold hearings on the question of repealing don't ask, don't tell. Do you have any plans to hold hearings in your committee on that issue?

SEN. LEVIN: Not at the moment we don't. I've not favored the policy right from the beginning, but it's going to require presidential leadership on this. This cannot be addressed successfully, from my perspective, without that kind of leadership. One thing which could be done, which I hope will be done, will be for the secretary of Defense to have a survey inside of the services, to get the attitudes of members of the armed services.

And these attitudes, you know, change over time. As the younger generation comes in, I think there may be a different response to such a survey than there might have been 10 years ago or 20 years ago. But it's going to take a presidential leadership, and I think it's going to take some real kind of preparation work, perhaps with a survey inside of the services, for us to successfully, from my perspective, deal with that question.

Q Senator, would you care to comment on that?

SEN. MCCAIN: No. I've said for a long time this is really something that our military commanders should be involved in since we give them responsibility to lead. And I'd like, among other things, to have the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to conduct an in-depth study and come up with recommendations.

SEN. LEVIN: (Inaudible) -- share this burden here. (Laughs.)

Q Have you included any provision banning the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United States?

SEN. LEVIN: No, we don't address that issue at all. It may come up --

Q What do you plan to do on the floor, Senator McCain, on Guantanamo detainees?

SEN. MCCAIN: I have said consistently that we need an overall policy that addresses all of the issues surrounding detainees. I think we've made significant progress in the Military Commissions Act, but there are other issues that have to be resolved as well before we think of closing Guantanamo, in my view. I want it closed. But unless you have an overall policy that addresses all of the issues surrounding it, then that's not viable, in my view.

SEN. LEVIN: The Senate has spoken on that and so has the Congress on the requirement for that policy to be resolved. So it's not, I would say, necessarily -- it's not necessarily even likely that we're going to have to revisit that issue a week and a half from next since we just recently spoke on it, saying that we require a policy on that issue as Congress.

Q I have a couple of F-22 follow ups. What was the common theme among the 13 members who voted for the funding? And two, is this funding for the full airplanes, about 1.75 billion (dollars), or it simply advanced funding for parts?

SEN. LEVIN: This is full funding. It's 1.7 billion (dollars), I believe, for seven planes. The House has less money but it's more planes because theirs is the advanced funding. I don't think either one of us are the rights ones to give you the arguments for the --

Q Well, you're a lawyer, you can argue both sides. (Laughs.)

SEN. LEVIN: Well, usually when I argue, I believe in one side or the other. (Laughter.)

SEN. MCCAIN: Let me just say that it's the rarest of occasions when a fully mature weapon system, with all of the contracts and subcontracts, is terminated by the Congress of the United States.

Q (Inaudible) -- use the jobs argument, the 13, or was it more national security?

SEN. LEVIN: No, their arguments were based on the --

SEN. MCCAIN: You'll have to ask them. Ask them what their --

SEN. LEVIN: I'm sure they will. But no, it was not mainly a jobs argument. They argued on the capability of the plane and the ultimate threats and the need for the plane. We didn't accept the arguments that were -- (inaudible) -- didn't want to pretend to give the full thrust of their argument, as weak as they were. (Laughter.)

Yes.

Q Senator Levin and Senator McCain, how optimistic are you that you'll be able to combat those arguments on the floor, those F-22 arguments?

SEN. LEVIN: Well, I think we have a fair chance of winning on the floor. It was a closed vote in committee, and I think that given the position of the administration -- and here, this goes back to the possible veto threat -- but also on the merits -- you have the secretary of Defense and you have the president weighing in as heavily as they have, as previous presidents have, by the way, I think, at least one previous president.

SEN. MCCAIN: I'd also like to point out that the high regard and respect that all of us feel on both sides of the aisle for Secretary Gates, I think, gives him significant weight in this argument, it certainly does with me and I'm sure with all of my colleagues.

SEN. LEVIN: I would join in that. The secretary has got tremendous respect here and people. It's got nothing to do with which party people belong to. There is strong feelings about his capability and his objectivity among all of our colleagues. I haven't heard a colleague yet that did not say very positive things about Secretary Gates, and that will have weight in these debates, whether it's F-22 or anything else.

SEN. MCCAIN: Can we do just one more because we've got only a couple of minutes left.

Q Can we ask an Iraq question?

Q (Inaudible) -- that there was money --

SEN. LEVIN: You saw what?

Q On your (news card ?) that there was additional money included for F-18s. But did you also address the issue of multi-year procurement, as the House did?

SEN. LEVIN: We did not have a multi-year. We added the nine, I believe, additional.

Q And how do you feel about the House provision -- (inaudible)?

SEN. LEVIN: The problem is that it did not meet threshold for a multi-year, which I believe is a 10 percent saving or something like that, that we've set as a criteria for when we're going to commit ourselves to a multi-year, and it didn't meet that test in terms of savings. So I don't think that there will be a great deal of support for it, but there could be.

SEN. MCCAIN: Thanks very much.

SEN. LEVIN: Thank you. We've got to run to vote.

Source