Liberated Text -> Congressional Record -> Nine Senators of Shame
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Thune): The Senator from Arizona is recognized but should be aware of the unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. McCain: I understand. I rise in an attempt to modify the unanimous consent agreement, with the agreement of the Senator from West Virginia.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for not longer than 4 minutes, to be immediately followed by the Senator from West Virginia.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I have had to come to this Chamber many times and have had the privilege of doing so since 1987 when I entered this body. I never thought I would have to come to the Senate floor to defend the integrity and the reputation of a brave young American who has put his life on the line for his country defending the freedom of Afghan and Iraqi people.
The remarks of the Senator from Alabama concerning his allegations of abuse and his disparagement of his word and his conduct is unacceptable. This young man, Captain Fishback, served in Afghanistan and Iraq, is a member of the 82nd Airborne, was highly decorated, and had the courage to come forward because of his deep-seated dedication to this Nation and his desire to see that we do the right thing in the treatment of prisoners of war.
He says very eloquently:
. . . Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage . . .
Captain Fishback is a noble, brave young American. He does not deserve to be disparaged on the Senate floor by any Senator, and the Senator from Alabama owes him an abject and deep apology.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Amendment No. 1955
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, the Senate will vote within the next few minutes on a procedural motion relating to the amendment offered by Senator Warner and Senator Levin. This amendment proposes to add much of the Defense authorization bill to the Defense appropriations bill. The Defense authorization bill is most complex legislation. The bill deals with a broad array of policy matters, ranging from providing for increased pay and benefits for our troops to changing laws relating to nuclear nonproliferation programs to authorizing military construction projects and so on.
The committee report that accompanies this bill is 494 pages in length. It is legislation that deserves close scrutiny, full and open debate, and an opportunity to freely amend. If this motion carries and the amendment is adopted, the Senate will only have a bobtailed debate of just a few hours on this very important bill.
I am a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as the Appropriations Committee. I attended a portion of the markup of the Defense authorization bill which lasted several full days. Senator Warner and Senator Levin conducted the markup in an exemplary bipartisan manner, and I commend them for their outstanding efforts. They are always fair and very considerate of others and always courteous to every other Senator.
The bill was reported from the committee on May 12 of this year, and it was brought to the floor on July 20. For reasons which have been widely discussed, the Defense authorization bill was pulled from the floor on July 27, after only five votes on amendments to the bill. The Senate could have finished consideration of the Defense authorization bill within a matter of 2 or 3 days or perhaps a week, if necessary, if the leadership had not pulled it from the floor.
This was a precipitous act, and because of this precipitous action most Senators have had no opportunity to offer amendments and no opportunity to receive votes on their amendments. That is not the way the Senate ought to operate. That is not the way the Senate used to operate. We used to have full and open debates on this floor, take a week perhaps or 2 weeks on a bill this size. As I have stated, here is the history of this important legislation.
The matter before the Senate is whether to allow the Defense authorization bill to be added to the Defense appropriations bill as an amendment. What a way for the Senate to operate. What a way to conduct this important business of the people. This is not the way the Senate is supposed to conduct its business. This is a forum for free, open, and unlimited debate. This is how the Senate is so different from other upper bodies throughout the world today. This is why the Senate is such an incredibly powerful and important forum of free debate, open debate, unlimited debate, the full airing of legislation, time to ask questions, time to answer questions, time to explain, explore, deliberate, and time to offer amendments. What a travesty.
The Senate is an institution sui generis, one of its kind in this country, a forum where there can be free, open, unlimited debate, freedom of debate, freedom of speech. So the Senate is an institution where freedom of speech, freedom of debate, and the freedom to amend reign.
Attaching such a massive bill, the Defense authorization bill, to another important bill, the Defense appropriations bill, will mean that the Senate will never have an opportunity to focus its undivided attention on the important matters of the Defense authorization bill. This is a travesty on freedom of debate. It is a travesty that strikes at the heart of the Senate: freedom of speech, freedom of debate, and freedom to amend.
Freedom of speech has its roots buried in antiquity. Henry the Fourth in 1407 said that the members of commons would have freedom of speech. They could say whatever was on their minds about the king, if necessary. Freedom of speech, there it was in the English Declaration of Rights, February 3, 1689. And there it was, in the English Bill of Rights, placed there on December 6, 1689: Freedom of speech. The freedom of commons to speak on any subject, not to be questioned elsewhere in the English House of Commons, and that freedom of speech is enshrined in the American Constitution.
Here we are putting a limitation and we are self-imposing it--on ourselves. I am a member of both the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee, and I believe there is a great importance to allowing the Senate to consider the authorization bill and the appropriations bills separately. Debate about funding our military should take place on the appropriations bill and debate about defense policy should take place particularly on the authorization bill. They are both important bills, and they should be considered separately.
The Defense authorization bill should be brought to the floor of the Senate for debate and amendment as a freestanding bill, not as a massive rider to another bill, the appropriations bill. There ought to be a debate about the important matters addressed by the Defense authorization bill. Let there be amendments and let there be votes about such important matters as health care benefits for National Guardsmen and about the war in Iraq.
The immediate question before the Senate is procedural in nature, but the heart of the matter is whether the Senate will allow parliamentary maneuvers to conduct an end run around how important legislation should be considered on the floor of the Senate.
If the Defense authorization bill is attached to the Defense Appropriations Committee bill, these important and controversial matters will not have a full hearing on the floor of the Senate. Instead, any changes that may be made to the Defense authorization bill will only occur behind closed doors in a large, unwieldy conference committee. That is not the right place for debate on these important issues. These issues should first be debated on the floor of the Senate as they were on the floor of the House many months ago, but even more so because this is the forum for free speech--freedom of debate. The Senate should not be cutting corners on the legislative process because what ends up being cut out is the freedom of speech, freedom of debate, and freedom to amend.
It is also worth noting that the amendment now pending does not encompass all of the provisions of the Defense authorization bill. The sections of the bill that relate to military construction projects and nuclear weapons issues have been left out. Those are very important matters, considering the base closure round that occurred this year and the multitude of important matters relating to the thousands of nuclear weapons that the United States still possesses.
What would happen to these provisions of the Defense authorization bill? Would they be left in limbo or would they be slipped into a conference report in the dark of night, never to receive any debate on the floor of the Senate? That is the wrong way to go.
I have very great affection for Senator Warner and Senator Levin. I serve on their committee, the Committee on Armed Services. They are knowledgeable and able leaders of the Armed Services Committee. But I oppose this effort to attach the Defense authorization bill to the Defense Appropriations Committee bill. It is the wrong way to go, the wrong thing to do. It shortchanges debate. It shortchanges the American people, in that they will not be fully informed as to what is in each bill. Their representatives, their elected representatives in this Senate, will not have had an opportunity to fully debate, to answer questions, to ask questions, and to amend freely.
What is happening to the Senate? What is happening to the Senate, I ask? What is happening to freedom of debate in the Senate? What is happening to an orderly process, the legislative process by which the elected representatives of the people in the Senate have a full opportunity to debate, to ask questions?
Woodrow Wilson said the informing aspect was as important as the legislating aspect of the Senate, the informing aspect. And debate brings out information that the American people need and that they are entitled to.
So what is happening to this Senate? I think all Senators should stop and think about this question. Those of us who have been here many years have seen the Senate when it was somewhat different than it is today. There was time to debate. We just weren't in session 3 days a week and then gone; in 3 days a week, out 4 days a week, and the 3 days a week often begin with a vote, which is kind of a bed-check vote at 6 o'clock in the evening on Tuesday. So you have, really, nothing on Tuesday but a bed-check vote anymore, and then Wednesday and Thursday. What a shame.
What is happening to the Senate? What is happening to this forum, this forum of freedom of debate, freedom of speech, freedom to amend-- what is happening to this Senate, and why?
I am sorry that the Senate is going in this direction. What is happening? This institution has built its distinguished reputation, its distinguished character on the principle of freedom to debate--freedom of debate, freedom of speech, freedom to amend.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for another 5 minutes?
Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, I would say to the Senator, we are scheduled to start at 7:30, and 6 minutes before that was equally divided between the Senator from Virginia and myself. So the Senator has probably about 3 minutes that he could proceed.
Mr. Byrd: Yes, if I could have 3 more minutes.
Mr. Stevens: Three more minutes to the Senator.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Byrd: But the Senate has begun to fall short on those important constitutional principles. We have just a handful of votes each week and then the rush is on to get out that door, out that door, out this door here--get out. The rush is on to wrap up business on an artificial timetable.
So what has happened to the Senate? The American people need to know. Why can't the Senate take the time for important debates on the important issues before our Nation. Our troops are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are doing an outstanding service for our country. The Senate ought to give its undivided attention to each of the bills that relate to our troops. If the members of the National Guard are able to put their lives on hold to go fight for our country overseas, then the Senate ought to be able to surely spare whatever time it takes to debate the Defense appropriations bill and the Defense authorization bill as freestanding measures. America deserves that. Our troops deserve that.
The Defense authorization bill ought to be brought up as a freestanding measure so that the Senate may work its will on that legislation. It should be open to debate and amendment. That is why I oppose the motion on the defense of germaneness for the Warner-Levin amendment. The Senate should not cut corners on the legislative process.
Therefore, I shall vote no on the motion on the defense of germaneness, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.
Let's stand up for freedom of speech in this Senate, freedom of debate, freedom to offer amendments. Let's do right by the American people.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, I thought I had a unanimous consent to do a series of modifications in the managers' package. I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed now for 10 minutes, to take care of this managers' package?
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Mr. Sessions: Mr. President, I ask if I might be given, as a matter of personal privilege, 2 minutes to respond to the statement of Senator McCain?
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection? Does the Senator from Alaska so modify his request?
Mr. Stevens: With the understanding that the Senator has 2 minutes, I then have 10 minutes, and then the 6 minutes starts before the 7:30 vote.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. Sessions: Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona has asked that I apologize for disparaging Captain Fishback in my earlier remarks. I do not believe I did so in any way. The Captain has a distinguished record in the military. Nobody questions that.
I did note, however, that his allegations contained in the New York Times article said that he had:
. . . seen at least one interrogation where prisoners were being abused and was told about other ill treatment of detainees by his sergeants.
In my statement I simply raised the question of what "abuse" meant precisely, and whether, by implication, if this was a basis for a charge, as the newspapers were making and others were, that there was systematic abuse of prisoners--which I do not believe to be the case.
I did note that, when asked to name the individual sergeants who admitted they had been misbehaving or that bad activities had occurred, he refused to give those names.
If something is in error about that--I simply quoted from the New York Times--I would be pleased to apologize. But I think those in this Senate who have accused the up-and-down members of the chain of command of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marines, and Department of Defense of promoting policies to abuse prisoners, they ought to think about whether they should apologize. I believe that accusation is false.
I thank the chairman and I yield the floor.