Inhofe Co-Sponsors Veterans Legislation

Senate Reverses Course on U.N. Global Taxes

Inhofe Proposes Amendments to Omnibus Bill

Inhofe Warns ‘Durbin Doctrine' is New ‘Fairness Doctrine'

Inhofe Honors Women in the Military

Jim's Journal: Sen. Inhofe's Reaction to Democrats' Refusal to Prevent Funding for Coercive Abortions

Jim's Journal: Sen. Inhofe Cosigns Pro-Life Letter to Appropriations Committee

Jim's Journal: Sen. Inhofe visits with the Edmond Memorial High School Band

In The News: Inhofe: Senate Democrat Amendment Threatens Christian Radio (Business & Media Institute)

In Case You Missed It: McConnell Blasts Obama's Plan to Close Gitmo

Enid
302 N Independence
Suite 104
Enid, OK 73701
(580) 234-5105
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office

McAlester
215 E Choctaw Ave
Suite 106
McAlester, OK 74501
(918) 426-0933
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office

Oklahoma City
1900 NW Expressway St
Suite 1210
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
(405) 608-4381
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office

Tulsa
1924 S. Utica Avenue
Suite 530
Tulsa, OK 74104
(918) 748-5111
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office

Washington
453 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4721
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office

Inhofe Co-Sponsors Veterans Legislation

On Thursday, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) a Senior Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, announced that he is a co-sponsor of legislation that will go a long way in support of our nation’s veterans. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), is a long overdue bi-partisan fix to the unfair Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) offset and was introduced on Thursday. 

“I am proud to join Sen. Nelson and my colleagues in co-sponsoring this important piece of legislation,” Senator Inhofe said.  “In the last few weeks, I’ve met with many veterans groups and assured them that I will continue to fight for this long overdue fix to the unfair Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) offset. The bill clearly states that the surviving spouse and dependents of our veterans should receive the full value of SBP and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) without any offset.

“This legislation does more than increase benefits. It acknowledges the selfless sacrifice and constant devotion of our men and women in uniform, from those courageously fighting abroad and serving here at home, to all the veterans who have so honorably served before them. Just as they have selflessly done for us, we must be steadfast in our commitment to improving the quality of care and services to America’s veterans and the families that support them. 

INHOFE VOTES FOR VETERANS AMENDMENT

###

Senate Reverses Course on U.N. Global Taxes

U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe’s (R-Okla.) amendment (S.Amdt. 613) to the omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 1105) was voted on Thursday in the Senate and failed by a vote to 43-51. Senator Inhofe’s amendment sought to reinstitute a long-standing policy of preventing the United Nations from using any U.S. funds from appropriations bill to pursue global tax schemes.  This provision has appeared in every annual appropriations bill since 1996, and this year marks the first time an annual appropriations bill will not contain this policy.

“Prohibiting U.S. taxpayers funding of U.N. global taxes in annual appropriations bills has been a bipartisan U.S. policy that began over a decade ago under the Clinton Administration,” Senator Inhofe said. “My amendment to the FY’09 omnibus appropriations bill would have reinstated this important U.S. policy and ensured that officials at the U.N. and other international bureaucracies who receive generous funding from U.S. taxpayers do not pursue or implement policies of international taxes on U.S. taxpayers.

“I am disappointed that the Democratic Majority in the Senate today has reversed course on this longstanding US policy.”

Link to Senator Inhofe’s Floor Speech upon introduction of the amendment

 ###

Inhofe Proposes Amendments to Omnibus Bill

On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, spoke on several amendments he plans to offer to the omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 1105). Senator Inhofe’s amendment (S.Amdt. 613) seeks to reinstitute a long-standing policy of preventing the United Nations from using any U.S. funds from appropriations bill to pursue global tax schemes.  This provision has appeared in every annual appropriations bill since 1996, and this year marks the first time an annual appropriations bill will not contain this policy.

As the Ranking Amendment of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe voiced strong support for an amendment he has co-sponsored with Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Mark Begich (D-AK) to revise Section 429 of the omnibus.  Without amendment, Section 429 allows agencies to make dramatic changes to Endangered Species Act (ESA) rules and regulations, without having to comply with long-standing federal laws that require public notice and public comment by the American people and knowledgeable scientists. This provision could be a detriment to the majority of the construction projects funded by the recent stimulus bill.
 

“Once again we are faced with a back-handed attempt to regulate greenhouse gases without the transparency of public debate,” Senator Inhofe said.  “Section 429 of the omnibus appropriations bill currently includes yet another Congressional handout to extreme environmental interests and the trial bar.  This rider is clearly an attempt to legislate on a spending bill – just the sort of bad habit that Democrats in Congress and the White House promised to give up during the last election.
 

“If enacted, this implementation of Section 429 could mean that any increase in carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas emissions anywhere in the country could be subject to legal challenges due to assertions that those activities are harming a polar bear, or that there has not been sufficient consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding activities that are funded, carried out or authorized by the federal government.  Any permit for a power plant, refinery or road project that increases the volume of traffic anywhere in the US could be subject to litigation if it contributes to total carbon emissions.   Lawsuits and ESA prompted delays could extend to past fossil fuel-linked projects too if those projects that could increase greenhouse gas emissions or reduces natural carbon dioxide uptake.  If this provision is allowed to stand, it will likely endanger the delivery of the majority of the construction projects funded by the recent stimulus bill since these projects have not gone through a Section 7 consultation regarding their impacts on the polar bear.   

Senator Inhofe has also introduced legislation preventing GITMO prisoners from being transferred to the U.S. To read more, click here.  

Link to Full Remarks on GITMO Amendment 

Inhofe Warns ‘Durbin Doctrine' is New ‘Fairness Doctrine'

On Wednesday, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) issued a warning on the Senate Floor about the dangers of Democrats’ latest attempt to stifle Free Speech through their efforts to promote diversity in communication media ownership and promote Broadcast Localism.  Though the Senate last week passed legislation (S.Amdt.573) that prohibits the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstituting the fairness doctrine, it also approved an amendment by Senator Dick Durbin (R-Ill.), “encouraging and promoting diversity in communication media ownership,” which is really just a new means of censorship on the airways and will give the FCC unfettered authority to interpret the language of the legislation in any way they please. The following are excerpts from Sen. Inhofe’s floor speech: 

“Last week’s vote was the first nail in the coffin of the fairness doctrine, but it was not the end of the attempt on the part of liberals to regulate the airwaves,” Senator Inhofe warned. “I have long been outspoken on this issue, and it gives me great satisfaction that so many of my colleagues voted in favor of free speech over government regulation last week, but the debate has changed. In a straight party-line vote, Democrats chose to adopt Senator Durbin’s amendment 591, which calls on the FCC to ‘encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest,’ and essentially makes an end-run around the fairness doctrine. 

“This legislation is so incredibly vague and so potentially far-reaching that I can’t say with any certainty what the end result will be. This is not good governance and it is not good legislative practice to cede such authority to any agency of our government, especially when the right to speak freely over the airwaves will most certainly be impacted. 

“Not only do I continue stand firm in my opposition to the fairness doctrine, but I am adamantly opposed to any attempt aimed at regulating the airwaves, such as broadcast localism, more stringent licensing requirements, and vague diversity regulations aimed at an industry whose authorizing authority is the First Amendment to the Constitution. I intend to fight against the regulation of free speech, not just the Fairness Doctrine, but in all its various forms. Let this be a warning, just as the Fairness Doctrine has always been a loser for the left, so too will any infringement upon the free speech of the American people.”  

Senator Inhofe’s Full Remarks as prepared for Delivery:
 

MR. INHOFE. Mr. President, last week I joined 86 of my colleagues and passed Senate Amendment 573, offered by Senator Jim DeMint to the DC Voting Rights Act, which prohibited the Federal Communications Commission from reinstituting the fairness doctrine.  

Last week’s vote was the first nail in the coffin of the fairness doctrine, but it was not the end of the attempt on the part of liberals to regulate the airwaves. I have long been outspoken on this issue, and it gives me great satisfaction that so many of my colleagues voted in favor of free speech over government regulation last week, but the debate has changed. In a straight partly-line vote, Democrats chose to adopt Senator Durbin’s amendment 591, which calls on the FCC to “encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest,” and essentially makes an end-run around the fairness doctrine. Those on the other side of the aisle believed that this would allow them to proclaim their opposition to a reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, which has always been a losing issue for them, while at the same time replacing it with an equally-heinous piece of legislation that gives the FCC unfettered authority to interpret that language however they please.  

So we’ve potentially taken away the threat of the fairness doctrine, which requires broadcasters to “present controversial issues of public importance in an equitable and balanced manner,” and replaced it with “encouraging and promoting diversity in communication media ownership.” At least with the fairness doctrine, broadcasters had an initial choice of how to interpret “controversial issues of public importance” before answering to the FCC, but this new authority gives all the power to a government agency and none to the people of the broadcast industry. One thing that I know, when you take choice out of the market, and when you impose government’s will on an industry, that market and that industry will suffer, and that is exactly what Senator Durbin’s legislation attempts to accomplish. What was once the Fairness Doctrine has now become the Durbin Doctrine. 

What, I ask, does “encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership” even mean? I certainly can’t tell you what it means, and the legislation offers no words of clarification or specificity. If I were an FCC commissioner, I wouldn’t know what to do with this language, and in any other line of work I’d send it directly back with a little note attached asking to please be more specific. But federal agencies love this kind of language because it gives them greater leeway to interpret it however they like and impose their will upon the industry that they regulate. And my democratic colleagues who promoted this amendment like this type of language because it (1) means that they don’t have to spend the time drafting quality legislation aimed at solving a specific problem, and (2) means that they can disavow their true intention of having greater government regulation of the airwaves. This legislation is so incredibly vague and so potentially far-reaching that I can’t say with any certainty what the end result will be. This is not good governance and it is not good legislative practice to cede such authority to any agency of our government, especially when the right to speak freely over the airwaves will most certainly be impacted.  

Another threat to our freedom of speech is a stealth proposal called localism, which could force local radio stations to regulate the content they broadcast. It is important to note that “localism” as FCC policy already exists, but new policies that have been proposed reach far beyond ensuring that broadcasters serve their local communities. The FCC gave notice of proposed rulemaking on January 24, 2008. While the regulations were ultimately dropped, they are indicative of future attempts to regulate the airwaves through localism and something that all Americans need to know about. Among other things, the proposal would have required radio stations to: (1) adhere to programming advice from community advisory boards; (2) report every three months on the content of their programming, the producers of their programming, and how their programming reflects community interests, and (3) meet burdensome license renewal requirements. The localism rule, had it been promulgated, would have meant that radio stations would have to comply with blanket regulations and broadcast programming that may not be commercially viable, rather than taking into account the diverse needs of communities across the country. One of my constituents, Dan Lawrie, who is Vice President and Manager of Cox Radio Tulsa, and President of the Oklahoma Association of Broadcasters, stated that “regulations requiring additional and unnecessary documentation of programming in order to show proof of broadcasting that we already provide to our local communities is entirely unnecessary. To burden our Tulsa radio group with this type of ascertainment documentation would cause us to lay off several staff members to offset the expense of completing the increased paperwork.” As you can see, this is a real threat to broadcast media as a whole. 

Let’s look at this from a market standpoint—stations strive to endear themselves to the local community to be successful. It makes programming sense to cover local news and events because that increases ratings. Why should Washington regulate what local stations are doing already? The reason is this: these community advisory boards, or local content boards, coupled with the threat of license renewal requirements, are just one more way that liberals can affect what is broadcast over the airwaves. They have created a regulatory avenue by which to accomplish their goal of silencing talk radio because they are incapable of competing in the broadcast radio market. President Obama has expressed support for new localism regulations, and it is expected to come up again under his administration. All those who value their right to listen to the things that are important to them and important to their community must be aware of the great potential for infringement on free speech that localism will bring. 

What is perhaps most concerning to me is the enforcement procedure for breaches of localism and diversity promotion. We simply do not know which pathway the FCC will choose when it comes time to enforce these nebulous regulations. License revocation is a real threat to the willingness of broadcasters to appeal to their market rather than conform to FCC regulations. Senator Durbin’s amendment requires affirmative action on the part of the FCC, stating: “the Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity.” It doesn’t stipulate what actions, or to what degree, but instead leaves the enforcement mechanism up to the determination of the FCC, and I find this to be extremely dangerous. 

Any enforcement of government regulation of the airwaves could have a serious detrimental effect, not only on talk radio, but also on the willingness of Christian broadcasters to air political, and perhaps even religious, messages. It is well known that the only radio station ever taken off the airwaves was a Christian radio station, WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. In that particular instance the supposed ‘offense’ was a personal attack against the author of a political publication. The ACLU and other liberal organizations could attempt to file lawsuits against anyone who presents a message that they deem to be counter to federal localism and diversity regulations, and though I believe these lawsuits would ultimately fail on First Amendment grounds, the chilling effect that the mere threat of a lawsuit will have on religious broadcasters could be substantial. 

Free speech is fundamental to what it means to be an American, and it must be protected.  Re-imposing any form of a fairness doctrine threatens First Amendment rights.  Some on the Left of the political spectrum are frustrated that more talk radio shows have a conservative political leaning than have a liberal political leaning. In response, I say that the content is market driven. If more people want to listen to a certain type of talk radio, then those programs in demand will be sustained by advertising, donations, and other sources of income. Within the current market system, American consumers are getting what they want. If the demand for liberal programming were greater, there would be more shows with that content. Any attempt by a few liberals to reinstate regulation of the airwaves clearly goes against the will of Congress and the American people.           

Not only do I continue stand firm in my opposition to the fairness doctrine, but I am adamantly opposed to any attempt aimed at regulating the airwaves, such as broadcast localism, more stringent licensing requirements, and vague diversity regulations aimed at an industry whose authorizing authority is the First Amendment to the Constitution. I intend to fight against the regulation of free speech, not just the Fairness Doctrine, but in all its various forms. Let this be a warning, just as the Fairness Doctrine has always been a loser for the left, so too will any infringement upon the free speech of the American people.  

Inhofe Honors Women in the Military

Link to Pictures from the Event 

On Thursday, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and co-chair of the Senate Army Caucus, spoke at the Army’s Women’s History Month seminar recognizing the contributions of women in the Armed Forces. The following are Senator Inhofe’s remarks as prepared for delivery:

"It’s a pleasure to have the opportunity to make a few remarks at this event recognizing Women’s History Month and, especially, the proud history of women in the United States military,” Senator Inhofe said.  “It’s always an honor to speak in front of such an incredible group of Americans who have selflessly chosen to serve their country, especially during a time of war. 

“Women serving with the U.S. military is not a new concept; they have proudly served our nation from the Revolutionary War period and the days of ‘Molly Pitcher,’ to female Soldiers driving Stryker vehicles or serving as fighter pilots on the front lines today.  There are over 250,000 women currently serving in the military including over 27,000 deployed.  They serve alongside, and now very often in front of male soldiers from all the services. 

“I had the recent opportunity to meet an impressive young Air Force Major, Nicole Malachowski.  Major Malachowski is a combat fighter pilot and the first female member of the Air Force Thunderbirds.  In her spare time and in honor of the women veterans before her, Major Malachowski represents over 1,000 Women Air Force Service Pilots (WASP) from WW II who helped blaze the trail for our servicewomen today. I was amazed and humbled by her drive, determination and pride to serve her country.  We are so blessed to have Servicewomen like her and like so many of you here today.  

 “On behalf of the Congress, we are indebted to you for your sacrifice and willingness to serve.  We, in Congress, must remain committed to providing our Servicemen and women and our military’s future leaders with the best training and equipment available.  Thank you again for your service and future service in the military and to our nation.” 

###

Jim's Journal: Sen. Inhofe's Reaction to Democrats' Refusal to Prevent Funding for Coercive Abortions

Jim's Journal Blog Post:

On Thursday, Sen. Inhofe issued the following statement after the Senate failed to pass an amendment, which he cosponsored, that would prevent taxpayer dollars from going toward programs under the United Nations Population Fund that perform coercive abortions around the globe. The Wicker Amendment #607 to the Omnibus Appropriations Act (H.R. 1105) failed by a vote of 39-55. 

“I am deeply disappointed that Senator Wicker’s Amendment was not adopted today. The amendment would have required that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations that support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization. I am strongly opposed to the use of taxpayer dollars for these purposes and for these organizations. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion in the United States or abroad.   

“The amendment we voted on today is not a new policy. It is simply reinstating the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which has protected women’s rights for almost 25 years. By eliminating this vital protection, we are going down a very dangerous road.  It is morally reprehensible that we would not only send taxpayer dollars to organizations that perform abortions across the globe, but are also not taking the necessary steps to prevent the practice of coercive abortion in developing countries.  If we want to protect women, funding organizations that engage in forced abortions is certainly not the way to do it.  This should have been vehemently supported by people on both sides of the abortion issue. Instead, it failed by a party-line vote.”

Related Links:

Senators Re-Introduce the Life at Conception Act

Inhofe Disappointed in President’s Reversal of Mexico City Policy on Taxpayer Funded Abortions

Senator Inhofe Seeking Hope for Orphaned Children Co-hosts Adoption Reception with Senators Landrieu, Brownback, and Pryor

 ###

Jim's Journal: Sen. Inhofe Cosigns Pro-Life Letter to Appropriations Committee

On Wednesday, Sen. Inhofe and 27 other United States Senators sent a letter (see below) supporting pro-life riders in the FY10 appropriations bills to the Senate Appropriations Committee. These pro-life riders prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to promote abortion.

Here’s what it says:

Dear Chairman Inouye and Vice-Chairman Cochran,

We ask for your support of important and longstanding pro-life provisions that have been included in appropriations bills for many years.  Often referred to as pro-life riders, these provisions are included in legislation reported by the Appropriations Committee each year.

We understand these critical pro-life policies may become contentious in the upcoming appropriations process.  As you know, for many years pro-life measures have been added to the various appropriations bills to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to promote or perform abortion, protect the consciences of health care professionals, and prevent funding for unethical human embryo experiments. 

Some of these measures have been in place for over thirty years.  For example, the Hyde Amendment was enacted in 1976 under a Democratic Congress and has been renewed by each administration and congress since then, regardless of party control.  Members of both parties have expressed strong support for these measures, which reflect the moral concerns of many Americans.

We respectfully request that the pro-life riders be included in any legislation reported by the Appropriations Committee.  We believe that failure to include all of the current policies with regard to the sanctity to life would be a mistake. Thank you for your time and consideration of our request.

###

Related Links:

Senators Re-Introduce the Life at Conception Act

Inhofe Disappointed in President’s Reversal of Mexico City Policy on Taxpayer Funded Abortions

Jim's Journal: Sen. Inhofe visits with the Edmond Memorial High School Band

During a trip to Washington, D.C., the Edmond Memorial High School Band took a minute to drop by Senator Inhofe's office.  Senator Inhofe updated the students on the latest news from Congress and visited with them about their trip. This is a picture of their visit: 

In The News: Inhofe: Senate Democrat Amendment Threatens Christian Radio (Business & Media Institute)

Oklahoma senator explains Durbin's amendment is a veiled attack on talk radio, specifically religious radio. 


By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
March 4, 2009

Link to Article

On March 3, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., took the Fairness Doctrine and its often overlooked potential threat to Christian radio to the Senate floor. The Oklahoma senator gave a lengthy floor speech and mentioned that Sen. Jim DeMint’s effort to force an up-or-down vote on the Fairness Doctrine issue, which passed 87-11 in the Senate, was a good beginning.

 “Last week’s vote was the first nail in the coffin of the Fairness Doctrine, but it was not the end of the attempt on the part of some people to regulate the airwaves,” Inhofe said. “Now, I have long been outspoken on this issue, and it gives me great satisfaction that so many of my colleagues voted in favor of free speech over government regulation last week, but the debate has changed.”

He warned that an amendment offered by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., which passed 57-41, was an equally threatening. 

“In a straight party-line vote, Democrats chose to adopt Sen. Durbin’s Amendment 591, which calls on the FCC to quote, ‘encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership … and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.’ That’s a quote and essentially it makes an end-run around the Fairness Doctrine.” 

Inhofe explained it could be potentially most threatening to Christian radio, since legal precedence has been established for the FCC to regulate the content of that medium. 

“Any enforcement of government regulation of the airwaves could have a serious detrimental effect, not only on talk radio, but also on the willingness of Christian broadcasters to air political, and perhaps even religious, messages,” Inhofe warned. “It is well known that the only radio station ever taken off the airwaves was a Christian radio station, WGCB in Red Lion, Pa. In that particular instance the supposed offense was a personal attack against the author of a political publication.” He explained that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) might look toward that precedent to to force Christian radio to clamp down on its messages.  “The ACLU and other liberal organizations could attempt to file lawsuits against anyone who presents a message that they deem to be counter to federal localism and diversity regulations,” Inhofe continued. “And although I believe these lawsuits would ultimately fail on First Amendment grounds, the chilling effect that the mere threat of a lawsuit will have on religious broadcasters could be substantial.” 

Since the Durbin’s amendment was left vague, it could give the FCC a much wider reaching authority to enforce it however they wish and thus leave any potential outcome up to that bureaucracy. 

“This legislation is so incredibly vague and so potentially far-reaching that I can’t say with any certainty what the end result will be,” Inhofe said. “This is not good governance and it is not good legislative practice to cede such authority to any agency of our government, specifically when the right to speak freely over the airwaves will most certainly be impacted.

Related Links:

Inhofe Warns ‘Durbin Doctrine’ is New ‘Fairness Doctrine’

In Case You Missed It: McConnell Blasts Obama's Plan to Close Gitmo

CNSNews.com
McConnell Blasts Obama's Plan to Close Gitmo
Monday, March 02, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

Link to Article

Washington (CNSNews.com) - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) opposes plans by the Obama administration to close the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects.

McConnell, in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Friday, said the administration has some explaining to do:

"The Obama administration has not answered one simple question: ‘Where exactly will you send them?'" McConnell said. "I'll tell you where they ought to be ... right there in jail at Gitmo."

McConnell's criticism of the administration's plans to close Gitmo within the next year came in the same week that a Department of Defense study found the prison in compliance with international human rights standards set by the Geneva Convention -- and just days after Attorney General Eric Holder visited the prison.

Holder spoke well of the prison's management. However, he also said it was the intention of the administration to close Gitmo within a year because of allegations that terror suspects had been tortured there.

"This new administration should show more concern for safety than symbolism," McConnell said. "The new attorney general said it was a well-run facility and was impressed with the people in charge, and that the prisoners needed to be moved out of there as quickly as possible and shut it down in a year."

Earlier last week, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Republican Caucus, told CNSNews.com that Republicans in Congress would fight the administration's plan to shut down the prison.

The 81-page Pentagon report, ordered by the Obama administration, concluded: "After considerable deliberation and a comprehensive review, it is our judgment that the conditions of confinement in Guantanamo are in conformity with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention."

The report also noted that the prison keeps its thermostat set between 75 and 80 degrees, provides art classes to the prisoners, and holds a library of 13,000 books, 900 magazines, 300 DVDs and regular TV programs. Also, there is a "detainee newsletter."

The task force assigned to review Gitmo was headed by Admiral Patrick Walsh, vice chief of Naval Operations, who told reporters Monday that the investigation was conducted over 13 days and consisted of more than 100 interviews including prisoners and guards.

"All interrogations are voluntary; approximately one-third of the sessions are at detainees' request," the report states. "Given the length of time that most detainees have spent at Guantanamo, the primary focus of the interrogation is to gather security and force protection information related to the operations of detention camps. The current nature of the intelligence mission lends itself to the use of direct approaches and small incentive items to encourage detainees to volunteer information."

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which requires humane treatment of prisoners of war, says, "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."