|
 |
|
|
|
Este informe no está disponible en español. M2 PresswireDoD News BriefingU.S. SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HOLDS A HEARING ON NOMINATIONSJune 8, 2001 (Also participating: Rear Admiral Stephen Pietropaoli, Navy Chief of Information) Adm. Quigley: Afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Q: Okay. On the issue of Vieques , the governor of Puerto Rico proposed legislation and the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico , the leadership, has decided that they will be approving next Tuesday a local referendum which will include another option that's not provided in the Defense Authorization Bill for the Navy to leave. This referendum will take place on July the 29th. Is that a real option? Adm. Quigley: Well, we still do not understand the legal impact if there is to be a local referendum outside the terms of the agreement, which is the law, and the law stipulates that there'll be a referendum on the 6th of November. So other than saying that we don't understand yet the impact, if any, of a local referendum on the 29th of July, the distinction you point out of there being an option, if you will, in the referendum, choices not covered by the law, is very real. And again, that would be something that -- the recognition of that we would just have to take a look at and assess. Q: And to follow up, according to the legislation and the presidential directives, the Navy has to define, 90 days before the election of the referendum, Option B, which is provided in the federal referendum in terms of what would happen after 2003; the Navy is going to conduct exercises, or what are they proposing in order to stay in Vieques . Has the Navy finally decided on what that option will -- that appear on the ballot? Adm. Quigley: I think the due date for that is August. I -- so I -- my guess is I don't think so. And I don't -- I think that would be working towards that goal of August. But I don't believe on the 7th of June that it's completed, no. Q: Where was -- what do you make of the testimony from several people from Puerto Rico before the Hispanic Caucus on the Hill that, you know, they were subjected to body cavity searches and other unsavory things like that, I mean, after they were arrested? Adm. Quigley: Steve, perhaps? For those of you who don't know him, this is Rear Admiral Steve Pietropaoli, the Navy's Chief of Information. Adm. Pietropaoli: Hi. I told Craig I'd take him off the hook on Vieques today after the Hispanic Caucus. Let me just say at the outset we understand the caucus is interested in the events that surrounded both the demonstrations, of course, which we support the right of protestors to protest, and then those that chose to break the law and trespass onto the federal property. In terms of the allegations about body cavity searches, the Atlantic Fleet has done a -- first of all, it's not part of our standard operating procedure. The type of search that's done by the security forces there in -- pursuant to the detention of these individuals who break the law is basically a frisking to ensure that there are no sort of hidden weapons, things that could hurt them, or hurt the security forces. A pretty standard pat-down-type of thing. Women prisoners were searched by female security personnel and men by men. There were no body cavity searches, there were no strip searches, and no requirement for that. The unfortunate recollections of these individuals who were -- who broke the law and were detained are unfortunate but not surprising. I don't think very many people who wind up in custody with law enforcement and security people have a particularly fond memory of that experience. But it is a necessary element of detaining individuals who have broken the law that you maintain some control. Therefore they are searched, they are handcuffed, in this case with the flexible wire-wrap cuffs, and they are -- generally speaking, your security forces, there are frequently more law-breakers and more detainees than there are security forces. And it's important to maintain control for their safety and for the safety of the security forces. So no matter how much you think it's appropriate for you to get up when you've been told to stay down, from the security officer's perspective it's important you stay down. And unless you've explained to them before you start to rise why you need to get up, you're probably going to be put back down in the position they asked you to maintain. We are unfortunately at a big disadvantage during the briefing for the Hispanic Caucus, because there are ongoing legal cases that the Justice Department continues to bring before the courts, and we are not at liberty to discuss events surrounding cases that have not been resolved. I can say that the issue of the detention, as it was handled by both Navy security forces and by U.S. marshals and others, has been brought up in the court systems down there as these have been tried, and essentially the procedures have been validated and accepted by the courts down there as appropriate for the situation that presented itself. Our security forces -- I think Edward James Olmos brought up in the briefing for the Hispanic Caucus, you know, that many of these young petty officers who are part of the security force had been up at this for some time and were tired and, you know, had been working the fence line, patrolling. And they're right. It is unfortunate, from our perspective, that those who choose to go beyond peaceful protest and cut fences, break the law, enter the federal property require us to put a number -- dozens -- of our people up 24/7 along those fence lines, to ensure that the law is upheld and that the integrity of the federal property is maintained. And we would much prefer not to have to put that many people out there in the hot sun in full battle uniform, patrolling those fence lines. But as long as those who wish to make a statement by breaking the law continue to do so, we'll have to provide that security presence. Lena? Q: Mr. Olmos mentioned that some of the security officers had been awake for about 72 hours. Adm. Pietropaoli: Yeah, I -- Q: Is that true? Adm. Pietropaoli: I don't know that. I heard that yesterday. We've asked down there to check. I doubt it. I mean, it is -- almost certainly every military officer back here or sailor back there can tell you that they have spent in their careers many hours, many stretches of duty in which you are catnapping, in which you are, you know, working long as 24/7 along that line -- not for each individual, but the presence has to be maintained. And as most of you know, these intrusions went on throughout the day and throughout the night. So our requirement wasn't to be out there for 12 hours and then catch a good night's rest and go back at it in the morning. We had to be out there throughout the day and the night. Q: Some of the detainees said that some security officers made slurs or ethnic remarks against Puerto Ricans and other Hispanics in general. Is that going to be investigated? Is that an issue of concern? Adm. Pietropaoli: Again, we have affidavits -- I mean, the Atlantic Fleet has done a review of the treatment of the detainees. I don't know if they've completed that. I know the basic review was done by Admiral Gaudio, who was in charge of the operation down there, and it's under review at Atlantic Fleet. There are affidavits attesting to that. Many of the members of the security force are Hispanic themselves. We don't see, the Navy doesn't see this as a Hispanic issue. I mean, this is an issue about training, about the importance of training Naval forces. We don't see this as an Hispanic issue any more than we would see training in North Carolina as a Tarheel issue, or Texas as a Lone Star -- I mean, it's about training American forces that are going overseas and giving them the tools they need to defend American interests. So I understand the Hispanic Caucus's interest in it, but we really don't see this as a Hispanic issue. It's an issue of the importance of training our forces before we deploy them. Q: The caucus says they have requested videotapes or pictures that the Navy took during the whole detainment process. Will those documents or that evidence ever be turned over to the caucus? Adm. Pietropaoli: I think, on one level -- and I think Mr. Molzahn, who was up at the hearing, spoke to this -- on one level, there are, in fact, with ongoing legal cases, there are real issues with respect to releasing any of that information about specific cases, documentary or otherwise. Beyond that, I have serious questions about the propriety of releasing footage shot -- documentary footage shot by security forces or by the Navy of people in custody. I can tell you that if people released footage of people that were detained by other countries or by other people of our sailors or soldiers, we'd be not very happy about it. So even with permission, this was not shot for public release. The activities along the fence-line, the protests that occurred in public areas, the rock-throwing, slingshots of fishing weights and batteries, that we released still photos and videotape. But once an individual is in the custody of the U.S. government, I have serious doubts about the propriety of releasing videotape of that. It's done for documentary purposes. It's not meant for public release. Q: Many accused of the detainees are people who testified before the Hispanic Caucus that the prisoners detained on Vieques April 27th, 28th, 29th and May 1st, I believe -- were treated in worse conditions than our Navy personnel in Hainan Island. How do you respond to those claims, or accusations? Adm. Pietropaoli: A, I wasn't on the scene for either one of them. B, the people that were on Hainan, our sailors, Marines and airmen that were on Hainan Island, had broken no laws and, in fact, were, in our view, being detained improperly, as opposed to those who on Vieques openly and freely admitted they were there to break the law. And one of the consequences of breaking the law is being detained by the security forces and turned over for processing in the legal system. And as I said at the outset, I don't think very many people look back on those kinds of experiences and remember them fondly. It's unfortunate, but that's just the way it goes. Q: Well, what measures are you taking for the upcoming exercises scheduled for next week? Adm. Pietropaoli: We will be prepared, as we were in this case, with the proper procedures in place, with the assistance -- we had great support last time from U.S. marshals, from the FBI, from the Coast Guard providing some water-borne security. Overall, despite these allegations, which we have not been able to substantiate, we think that it went pretty well. It would be wonderful if there were no people who went beyond protesting. We support the right of those people who come in from the main island of Puerto Rico or from the United States or New York or wherever they're coming from who want to express their political opinions about the importance of Navy training in Vieques . When it goes beyond protest and goes into law-breaking, we'll have to implement the same procedures we've used in the past. Q: Could you just fill us in on what's happening next week, who's going down and which ranges they're going to be using? Adm. Pietropaoli: To be perfectly honest with you, I think the DDI desk has that, but I don't have the details in front of me; I was only going to come back for the caucus. So if that's it, I'll turn it back to a guy who actually may have that information. Adm. Quigley: Thank you. ***** U.S. SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HOLDS A HEARING ON NOMINATIONS Political Transcripts by Federal Document Clearing House June 7, 2001 SPEAKERS: U.S. SENATOR CARL LEVIN (D-MI), CHAIRMAN U.S. SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY (D-MA) U.S. SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD (D-WV) U.S. SENATOR JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN (D-CT) U.S. SENATOR MAX CLELAND (D-GA) U.S. SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA) U.S. SENATOR JACK REED (D-RI) U.S. SENATOR DANIEL AKAKA (D-HI) U.S. SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R-VA), RANKING MEMBER U.S. SENATOR STROM THURMOND (R-SC) U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ) U.S. SENATOR ROBERT C. SMITH (R-NH) U.S. SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE (R-OK) U.S. SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-PA) U.S. SENATOR PAT ROBERTS (R-KS) U.S. SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD (R-CO) U.S. SENATOR TIM HUTCHINSON (R-AR) U.S. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL) U.S. SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME) U.S. SENATOR JIM BUNNING (R-KY) U.S. SENATOR BILL NELSON (D-FL) U.S. SENATOR BEN NELSON (D-NE) U.S. SENATOR JEAN CARNAHAN (D-MO) U.S. SENATOR MARK DAYTON (D-OH) WITNESSES: SUSAN LIVINGSTONE, TO BE UNDERSECRETARY OF THE NAVY JESSIE ROBERSON, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ENERGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT THOMAS CHRISTIE, TO BE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TESTING AND EVALUATION LEVIN: Good morning, everybody. The committee meets today to consider the nominations of Susan Livingstone to be undersecretary of the Navy, Jessie Roberson to be assistant secretary of energy for environmental management and Thomas Christie to be director of operational testing and evaluation. LEVIN: And let me begin, Ms. Livingstone, with you first on Vieques . LEVIN: Over the past couple years, our naval forces have been unable to conduct live-fire training on the Navy's training range on Vieques . This has degraded the readiness of our forces to execute their wartime missions. Senator Inhofe and others on this committee have been particularly active in this area, relative to this problem. An agreement was reached with the previous governor of Puerto Rico to try to resolve the issue, but the current governor of Puerto Rico does not appear to support the agreement. How do you believe that the issue should be resolved? LIVINGSTONE: Sir, if confirmed, I perceive my role as being the strongest possible advocate on behalf of the Navy and Marine Corps, in terms of meeting their training needs. And in terms of meeting those training needs, I think there's no substitute for the ability to train as they fight, which would include live fire. Vieques , as you know, is a very unique training range or capability, in terms of providing not only integrated, but also combined arms training. And really, for the near term, I do not see any possible alternative to meeting those kind of training requirements other than, hopefully, being able to work somehow to continue to train at Vieques . LEVIN: The president has said that the Navy needs to find another base to replace Vieques . Do you know of any plans under way to find another location or to renegotiate the agreement reached by President Clinton and the Navy with Puerto Rico ? LIVINGSTONE: No, sir. I don't. I do believe that the Navy is looking into possible alternatives for live-fire capability, but Vieques is a very unique asset, as you know. And if there were some longer-term area or longer-term option other than Vieques for combined integrated and live-fire training, it would really need to look like and be like Vieques and also provide the instrumentation and evaluation capability that Vieques does. But I know of no specific options review of alternatives at this point, other than I believe one on live fire. LEVIN: As part of the agreement, Puerto Rico was supposed to make sure that the exercises could continue there until an election was held, a referendum was held. Have they kept their end of the bargain? LIVINGSTONE: Sir, I only know what I've read in the newspapers. It appears the exercises have been able to move forward. I know there have been some protests and some difficulties in that regard, but the training has proceeded and I believe that there's been announcement that additional training will occur soon. LEVIN: With the support of the government? LIVINGSTONE: Pardon? LEVIN: With the support of the government? LIVINGSTONE: That I cannot answer, sir. I just simply do not know. LEVIN: Back to Vieques for a moment. The referendum is scheduled for November 6. Will you support the result of that referendum? LIVINGSTONE: Mr. Chairman, my inclination is to, again, go back to what my perceived role would be, if confirmed, and that is to serve as the strongest possible advocate for the training requirements and needs of our Marine Corps and our Navy team. That said, I know there is an agreement. I know there is also congressional statutory language, and, obviously, within the parameters of what's appropriate, I will support the law. LEVIN: My time's expired. Senator Warner? BILL NELSON: Mr. Chairman? LEVIN: Yes? Please, Senator Nelson. We yield to you on that, because you... BILL NELSON: If you could give us some clarification on that. If I understand, and perhaps Senator Warner could help clarify for this new member of the committee, the United States made an agreement, as I understand, with Puerto Rico , specifically with the island of Vieques , that there would be a November 6 referendum. WARNER: That's correct. It was sanctioned by the Congress in statute. BILL NELSON: Then is there any question that we should not honor that agreement that we made? Because that wasn't the answer of the witness. WARNER: If I may say, Senator, I don't think there's any question on the part of the previous administration or this administration that that agreement should be honored. The practical effect is, that with the change of the political landscape down there, the current administration in Puerto Rico decided not to accept the agreement which was entered into by the previous administration. And that places before the military services, in particular the Navy and the Marine Corps, a very serious dilemma. Because adequate training with live-fire ammunition is essential for those elements of our military who are being deployed now into the gulf region, where so often we find within the matter of days or weeks after arriving on scene to relieve the previous contingents they're in a combat situation. So we have a very serious problem. And I think there's been a natural sequence between the administrations of a joint view and a law and everything else. So we have kept our word. Regrettably, the current administration in Puerto Rico desires not to do it. And this places a tremendous burden on the chiefs of services of our Navy and Marine Corps, together with their civilian bosses, the secretary and the undersecretary. I think our witness today has responded as best as she or any other witness placed in this position this morning and with these questions can offer to this committee. LEVIN: Senator Nelson, my recollection is that there was an agreement. Part of that agreement was that the government of Puerto Rico was to assure us access to that base during the interim, until the election. We made certain commitments in that agreement as well. I'm one who believes we ought to keep our commitments. I also believe that Puerto Rico ought to keep its commitments. And when the governor started a lawsuit to prevent us, as I understand it -- and I want to double-check this -- but to prevent us from having the ability to do exactly what the agreement said we were supposed to have the ability to do in the interim, I was troubled by the lawsuit, because it seemed to me that was inconsistent with the agreement. Now, that gets into a legal situation which is not up to us -- at least I'm not going to try to comment on resolve, because I don't know the precise wording of it. But I happen to believe that both parties to an agreement ought to keep their agreement. And where that leaves us, I don't know. I thank you for that follow-up question about the referendum. I think it is very important. Senator Warner? WARNER: Senator, if I just might say, I think the committee would welcome your active participation in this. I would suggest you talk with Senator Inhofe. He has really put in a lot of time on behalf of this committee and made many, many trips down there. And to have someone from your side of the aisle join in that volume of work, it would be very helpful. It's a challenge. Ms. Livingstone, I just want to chat a little minute or so. I remember experiences I had when I was in your office. And one I'll never forget: I went to the retirement ceremony overseas of a four-star admiral, who was renowned for his extraordinary career in the United States Navy. And when I arrived, I had a very modest role to represent the president at his retirement and so forth, put in, I think, some 40 years in the Navy. And when I arrived the ceremony was being put in place. It was quite a grand ceremony, which was befitting his distinguished career. And he asked if he could sit down and talk with me. And he started the conversation. And he said, "I'm not going to go down there and retire until I get your assurance that you're going to protect the heart and soul of the United States Navy." At which time he proceeded to lecture me in great length. Although I had a very modest career in the Navy, I have studied it, and I learned from him. WARNER: I want to put you on alert there because you're going to have to work to try and resolve that. It's not unlike Vieques . There you know the essential need for that training site to maintain our readiness. The same with our airspaces here at home. Fortunately, we have no breakout of real hostile viewpoints on this as yet. But it's something you had better take a look at and get ahead of the power curve on it. Because with the commercial air system growing so rapidly, and it is juxtaposed in many instances with our military requirements in airfields, look at it and get ahead of the curve on this thing. LIVINGSTONE: Senator Warner, I appreciate the question very much, and also appreciate the opportunity to respond for the record later on. But It is an important issue. Thank you. WARNER: Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I think you're off to an excellent start. That completes my questions. LEVIN: Senator Warner, thank you. We thank our nominees, congratulate you again, look forward to a prompt confirmation and to your service. Thank you.
|
