[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26132-26133]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on some of the 
votes that this body held yesterday related to the fiscal year 2006 
Department of Defense authorization bill. Overall, this year's Defense 
authorization bill was a step in the right direction--for supporting 
our troops, for strengthening our military, and for securing our 
country. While I regret the limited time that we had to debate 
amendments, the end result here is, on balance, positive.
  There are, however, a couple of important votes on amendments that I 
would like to take this opportunity to discuss. First, the two 
amendments on Iraq--one offered by Senator Levin, which I cosponsored, 
and the other a Republican alternative offered by Senator Warner, which 
I voted for.
  These two amendments were very similar, and they were both steps in 
the right direction. They both express the Senate's belief that U.S. 
forces should not remain in Iraq indefinitely. They both establish 
expectations that calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant 
transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, thereby creating the conditions 
for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. They both stress 
the need for compromise among Iraqis to achieve a sustainable sovereign 
government. And they both require the

[[Page 26133]]

President to begin sharing with the American people his campaign plan 
for success in Iraq.
  But these two amendments, despite all of their similarities, have a 
fundamental difference. The Democratic amendment would have gone one 
important step further than the Republican amendment that we ended up 
adopting. It would have required the President to tell the American 
people not only his campaign plan, but estimated dates for the 
redeployment of U.S. forces--in other words, a timetable and strategy 
for success in Iraq. The Levin amendment acknowledged that unexpected 
contingencies might arise, and that such contingencies might change 
some of the projected redeployment dates, but I still believe that 
without these projected dates, we have left ourselves in an open-ended 
commitment. That is not good for us, it is not good for Iraq, and it is 
not good for stability in the region.
  Ultimately, I supported the Warner amendment because, as I have said, 
it is a step in the right direction. But it frankly doesn't take us any 
closer to convincing the American people that the President has a plan 
or a timetable for bringing our operations in Iraq to a successful 
conclusion. And I believe that our soldiers and the American public 
deserve better.
  I would also like to briefly address three related amendments offered 
by Senators Graham, Bingaman, and one by both Senators Graham and 
Levin, dealing with the issue of habeas corpus and detainees who are in 
U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
  I voted against Senator Graham's underlying amendment on this issue 
because I believe that it would have been a step in the wrong direction 
for our country. That is not to say that we should be providing 
sanctuary to terrorists. We shouldn't. Any coward who is complicit in 
terrorist attacks against the U.S. and the civilized world must be 
brought to justice.
  I also recognize that the new threat posed by international terrorist 
organizations such as al-Qaida, and their murderous henchmen, requires 
law-abiding nations to adapt in how they combat this threat.
  But as we adapt to the terrorist threat, we have to make sure that we 
don't hurt ourselves, and the cause of freedom, in the process. 
America's judicial system is part of the bedrock of our country. 
Protecting its integrity should be a cause of highest concern. That is 
why I voted for Senator Bingaman's second-degree amendment to strike 
the Graham amendment's text that would have stripped U.S. courts of the 
ability to review writs of habeas corpus submitted by or on behalf of 
foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I regret that Senator Bingaman's 
amendment failed on a party line vote.
  I commend, however, Senator Levin for working with Senator Graham to 
strike a compromise on this issue. The Graham-Levin compromise is not 
perfect. It certainly doesn't go as far as this Senator would have 
liked in fixing the underlying text. But faced with the prospect of the 
original Graham amendment being sent to conference in its original 
form, I chose to support the Graham-Levin compromise, which is a 
definite improvement over the underlying text. What is particularly 
heartening is that Senator Graham, upon reflection, realized that his 
amendment went too far and accepted the moderating suggestions proposed 
by Senator Levin. My hope is that the conferees on this bill will 
continue to improve upon the Graham-Levin text.
  Mr. President, as I said at the outset, the Defense authorization 
bill that the Senate passed yesterday is not perfect. But on balance, I 
believe that it sends a message to our troops that we are here to 
support them, and that we remain committed to providing them with 
everything that they need to come home from their missions abroad 
safely and securely. At the end of the day, that is a good start.

                          ____________________