National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012--Conference Report

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would like to join in the comments of my colleague from New Hampshire and the concerns she has expressed, along with my other colleagues who serve on the Armed Services Committee.

But, first of all, I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain again for their tremendous leadership on the Defense authorization bill. We have conducted a tremendous amount of work in a short period of time, continuing the long-running, proud tradition of the Senate Armed Services Committee of professionalism and bipartisanship in support of our troops and our national security.

This is a bill of which we can be proud. In a time of war, this bill supports the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families and authorizes the equipment, training, and resources our servicemembers need to complete their missions.

While I am very proud of this bill and pleased that many of my provisions to reduce wasteful spending and maintain military readiness have been included in the final conference report, I also share the concerns of my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, and other colleagues who serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee--both substantive and procedural concerns--regarding the depot provisions, sections 321 and 327, that were included by the House in the conference report.

When we were informed of this significant language--only last week--I joined a bipartisan group of Senators, including my colleague Jeanne Shaheen, to express our concern and our opposition to including the depot provisions in the final Defense bill.

As ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee--which has oversight over depots, shipyards, arsenals, and ammunition plants--I am troubled that such a significant rewrite of depot statutes was hastily included in the final bill without consulting with key stakeholders and without conducting more complete analysis involving the Senate.

In the coming years, as we ask the Department of Defense to do more with less, the role of our depots and shipyards will become even more important. This is certainly true for our four public shipyards, including the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, where many of my constituents work on a daily basis to sustain the world's best submarine force.

I share the pride my colleague from New Hampshire Senator Shaheen and my colleague from Maine Senator Collins feel about the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Portsmouth conducts maintenance on the Los Angeles- and Virginia-class submarines. In fact, Portsmouth has led the way for the entire Navy with the first-in-class maintenance availability on the USS Virginia.

While I am troubled by the process through which the depot provisions were included in the conference report, I am encouraged that both Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain have expressed similar concerns and have committed to addressing these concerns in the coming months.

This process should include an inclusive and thorough vetting of the provisions to ensure we understand all the ramifications of what was included by the House.

As ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee, I plan to propose to Chairman McCaskill that we hold a hearing on these depot provisions at the earliest opportunity next year.

The capabilities of our depots and shipyards and their role in sustaining military readiness are too important to hastily adopt such potentially far-reaching provisions.

Let me conclude by again thanking my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Despite the partisanship that often characterizes Washington, it is encouraging to see that bipartisanship continues to prevail in the Senate Armed Services Committee. That is largely due to the leadership of Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain.

I am proud of this bill, and I look forward to it becoming law in the coming days.

I thank my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I rise today in support of the National Defense Authorization Act. In particular, I wish to speak briefly about the detainee provisions contained in the conference report.

I have spoken many times over the last few months about this issue, but due to the importance of these issues--and I think because of some of the unfortunate mischaracterizations we have heard about the bipartisan compromise that passed this body already overwhelmingly and came out of the Armed Services Committee overwhelmingly--I wanted to come to the floor to make some closing points on this.

I would like to start with this proposition: No member of al-Qaida, no terrorist, should ever hear the words ``you have the right to remain silent.'' That fundamental principle is at the heart of the issue we confronted in the Armed Services Committee in addressing the detainee provisions that are contained within the Defense authorization report. The central issue is, how do we best gather intelligence to protect our country from future attacks?

It is common sense that if we tell a terrorist they have the right to remain silent, they may exercise that right. What if they do so and they have additional information about future attacks on our country or, as in the case of the so-called Underwear Bomber--which, unfortunately, in my view, has been cited by some of my colleagues as a success--if that event had been part of a series of events such as the events that occurred on 9/11 where we were attacked on our own soil, what would we have lost? After 50 minutes, the so-called Christmas Bomber was told he had the right to remain silent and he exercised that right and we did not get to question him again until 5 weeks later, after law enforcement officials tracked down his parents in another country and convinced him to cooperate. That is not a good policy to gather intelligence to protect our country, and that is at the heart of what we are trying to address on a bipartisan basis in the Defense authorization bill.

We have to ask ourselves: The events of 9/11, were they acts of war or were they a crime against our country? I firmly believe we are at war with members of al-Qaida; that what happened on September 11 was an attack against the United States of America. Innocent Americans were killed not because of what they did but because of what we believe in and what we stand for as a country.

So when I hear some of my colleagues suggest there are problems with the detainee compromise that was achieved on a bipartisan basis in this body--because we have basically said, if a foreign member of al-Qaida comes to the United States of America, seeks to commit another 9/11 against us, seeks to attack our country or its citizens, that the presumption will be military custody. That those provisions are misguided in some way deeply troubles me. If this wasn't an act of war, then I don't know what is. We need to make sure we treat enemies of our country for who they are and make sure they are not read their Miranda rights.

So in this bipartisan compromise we said there is a category of individuals--members of al-Qaida or associated groups--who want to come to America to attack us or our allies and for whom, yes, there is a presumption of military custody. That way they don't have to be read their Miranda rights or be provided the rights of our civilian system.

We also address the administration's concerns by giving them a national security waiver, by allowing our law enforcement officials the flexibility to come up with the procedures on how to implement the provisions of this bill.

I wish to address what I heard from FBI Director Mueller yesterday, just to be clear on the record, because yesterday FBI Director Mueller raised concerns about these detention provisions saying there is a possibility that looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain cooperation from individuals we have been able to obtain cooperation from in the past.

Well, I am concerned because when FBI Director Mueller came to a group of us, including the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and Ranking Member McCain, he raised operational concerns about this provision, and we said we want to address those concerns. So in the final conference report there is language that was given to us by the FBI to address their operational concerns. It was included in this bill without a comma changed.

So it makes me concerned when we put their language in to address their concerns, saying nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with respect to a covered person regardless of whether such covered person is held in military custody.

So I say to Director Mueller: We put your language in directly, and it makes me concerned when I hear, in my view, what are political viewpoints rather than what is the reality of what is in this bill, which will allow the FBI to continue its work and will allow for us to hold in military custody those who are seeking to attack our country and will ensure that Miranda rights do not have to be given if that is the best investigative way to go forward to protect our country.

I see my colleague, the Senator from South Carolina, on the floor. I wish to ask him a question about the bill and the detainee provisions, particularly about the authorization for the use of military force. I have heard some people on the floor of the Senate--including the Senator from Colorado, the Senator from Illinois, and the Senator from California--express concerns about the fact that this bill reaffirms the authority of the President of the United States to detain an American citizen who has joined with al-Qaida and who has, as a member of al-Qaida or an associated force, joined arms against our country and sought to kill Americans.

I wish to ask the Senator from South Carolina about this provision and why it is important for our country.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. Would the Senator from South Carolina yield for a question?

Mr. GRAHAM. I am pleased to.

Ms. AYOTTE. Isn't it true that included within the Defense authorization language in the detainee provisions is that:

Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

In other words, what is the law today--as you just described it--we are reaffirming in this bill. But we are not adding or subtracting from the President's authority that he has, as the Commander-in-Chief of our country, to protect our country against members of al-Qaida.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source