[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18239-18268]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be laid aside so that an amendment by Senator Specter and 
myself be in order for discussion, with the understanding that then 
that amendment will eventually be set aside so we can go back to the 
prior amendment.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I object on behalf of another Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEAHY. I withdraw my request, but I would note that the Senate 
this week is considering the National Defense Authorization Act. 
Senator Specter and I will introduce an amendment at such a point as we 
do not receive objection from the Republican side. What we will 
introduce will be the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007.
  I want to, first and foremost, thank and actually praise Senator 
Specter for his strong and consistent leadership on this issue. It is 
not just leadership this year, it has been leadership in past years. I 
hope all Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, join us in restoring 
basic American values and the rule of law while making our Nation 
stronger.
  Last year, Congress committed a historic mistake by suspending the 
great writ of habeas corpus. They did this not only for those confined 
at Guantanamo Bay but for millions of people who are legally residents 
in the United States.
  We held a hearing on this, the Senate Judiciary Committee did, in 
May. That hearing illustrated broad agreement among people of very 
diverse political views and backgrounds, that the mistake committed in 
the Military Commissions Act of 2006 has to be corrected. The Habeas 
Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 has 25 cosponsors, and the Senate 
Judiciary Committee passed it last month with a bipartisan vote.
  Habeas corpus was recklessly undermined in last year's Military 
Commissions Act. Like the internment of Japanese Americans during World 
War II, the elimination of habeas rights was an action driven by fear, 
and it has been a stain on America's reputation in the world. In many 
places around the world where we had been so admired in the past, they 
have asked why would America turn its back on one of its most basic 
rights.
  We are at a time of testing. Future generations will look back to 
examine the choices we made during a time when security was too often 
invoked as a watchword to convince us to slacken our defense of liberty 
and the rule of law.
  The great writ of habeas corpus is the legal process that guarantees 
an opportunity to go to court and challenge the abuse of power by the 
Government. It is enshrined in the Constitution, and as stalwart a 
Republican conservative as Justice Antonin Scalia has recently referred 
to it as ``the very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system 
of separation of powers.''
  The Military Commissions Act rolled back these protections by 
eliminating that right permanently for any non-citizen labeled an enemy 
combatant. In fact, a detainee does not have to be found to be an enemy 
combatant; it is enough for the Government to pick up someone, hold 
that person with no charges, and say: They are awaiting determination. 
When we make up our mind this year, or next year, or 10 years from now, 
then we may label them an enemy combatant. In the meantime, they do not 
even have the power to say to a court: They picked up the wrong guy. 
They don't even have my name right. They picked me up by mistake. You 
can't even do that.
  Is this America? Is this America?
  The sweep of this habeas provision goes far beyond the few hundred 
detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, and it includes an 
estimated 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States 
today. Under this law, the people who can be picked up are people who 
work and pay taxes, who abide by our laws, and should be entitled to 
fair treatment.
  Under this law, any of these people can be detained forever without 
any ability to challenge their detention in court. Stanford Professor 
Mariano-Florentino Cuellar called this an issue about which the Latino 
community, which encompasses so many of the Nation's legal permanent 
residents, must be concerned.
  Giving the Government such raw, unfettered power should concern every 
American. Since last fall, I have been describing a nightmare scenario 
about a hard-working, legal permanent resident who makes an innocent 
donation to, among other charities, a Muslim charity, that the 
Government secretly suspects of ties to terrorism. I suggested that on 
the basis of this donation, and perhaps a report of suspicious

[[Page 18240]]

behavior of an overzealous neighbor or a cursory review of library 
records, this permanent resident can be brought in for questioning, can 
be denied a lawyer, and confined indefinitely. Such a person would have 
no recourse in the courts for years, or for decades, or forever.
  When I said this, some people thought this nightmare scenario was 
fanciful. I wish it were, but it was not. In November that scenario was 
confirmed by our Department of Justice in a legal brief submitted in a 
Federal court in Virginia. They asserted that the Military Commissions 
Act allows the Government to detain any non-citizen designated an enemy 
combatant without giving that person any ability to challenge his 
detention in court. This is true, the Justice Department said, even for 
someone arrested and imprisoned in the United States. In other words, 
we could do what we always condemned other countries for doing, 
countries behind the then-Iron Curtain, where they would pick up 
somebody, hold them indefinitely, and that person had no recourse in 
court.
  Rightly so, Republican and Democratic Presidents condemned those 
countries for doing that. Now we have given ourselves the same power. 
The Washington Post wrote that the brief ``raises the possibility that 
any of the millions of immigrants living in the United States could be 
subject to indefinite detention if they are accused of ties to 
terrorist groups.'' I might add, this accusation can be totally 
erroneous.
  This is wrong; it is unconstitutional. But more than that, it is 
truly un-American. It is designed to ensure that the Bush-Cheney 
administration will never again be embarrassed by court decisions that 
review their unlawful abuses of power.
  The conservative Supreme Court, with seven of its nine members 
appointed by Republican Presidents, has been the only check in this 
administration's lawlessness. The Supreme Court and other conservative 
Federal courts, and recently even military judges, have repeatedly 
overturned the lawless systems set up by this administration governing 
detainees. Many have hoped the courts will come to the rescue again on 
the issue of habeas corpus. With the continued drift of the Supreme 
Court toward endorsing greater executive power, we cannot count on the 
intervention of this conservative, activist court. Besides, are we 
going to pass the buck? Congress cannot and must not outsource its 
moral responsibility.
  We all want to make America safe from terrorism. We come to work 
proudly every day, in a building that was targeted by those criminals 
who hijacked planes on 9/11. We do not hesitate to come to work here. 
We do it proudly. I implore those who support this change to think 
about whether eliminating habeas corpus truly makes America safe from 
the world. Does it make us any safer in this building? Does it comport 
with the values and liberties and legal traditions we hold most dear?
  Top conservative thinkers such as Professor Richard Epstein and David 
Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, agree this change 
betrays centuries of legal tradition and practice. Professor David 
Gushee, head of Evangelicals for Human Rights, submitted a declaration 
calling the elimination of habeas rights and related changes ``deeply 
lamentable'' and ``fraught with danger to basic human rights.''
  GEN Colin Powell recently advocated habeas corpus rights for 
detainees, asking:

       Isn't that what our system's all about?

  General Powell has it right.
  But probably the most powerful for me was the testimony of RADM 
Donald Guter, who was working in his office in the Pentagon as Judge 
Advocate General of the Navy. He was working there on September 11, 
2001. He saw firsthand the effects of criminality and terrorism. He saw 
his colleagues killed by the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I 
believe his credibility is unimpeachable when he says that denying 
habeas rights to detainees endangers our troops and undermines our 
military efforts. In testimony to the committee, Admiral Guter wrote:

       As we limit the rights of human beings, even those of the 
     enemy, we become more like the enemy. That makes us weaker 
     and imperils our valiant troops, serving not just in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan, but around the globe.

  The admiral was right. Whether you are an individual soldier or a 
great and good nation, it is difficult to defend the higher ground by 
taking the lower road. The world knows what our enemies stand for. The 
world also knows what this country has tried to stand for and live up 
to in the best of times but especially in the worst of times.
  Now as we work to reauthorize the many programs that comprise our 
valiant Armed Forces, it is the right time to heed the advice of 
Admiral Guter and so many of our top military lawyers who tell us that 
eliminating basic legal rights undermines our fighting men and women, 
it does not make them stronger. Elimination of basic legal rights 
undermines, not strengthens, our ability to achieve justice.
  It is from strength that America should defend our values and our way 
of life. It is from the strength of our freedoms and our Constitution 
and the rule of law that we shall prevail. I hope all in the Senate, 
Republican and Democrat alike, will join us in standing up for a 
stronger America, for the America we believe in, and support the Habeas 
Corpus Restoration Act of 2007.
  That is why I am proud to be here with the distinguished senior 
Senator from Pennsylvania. We have worked together. You know, every one 
of us serves here only for a certain time. When we leave, we have to 
ask ourselves: If we had the privilege of being only 1 of 100 people to 
get to represent 300 million in America in this great body, what do we 
do to make America better? If we leave this blight--if we leave this 
blight--on our laws, we have not made it better, we have made it 
weaker.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Vermont, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his generous 
remarks. I compliment him on his leadership on the committee and for 
his work generally, but especially on our efforts to restore habeas 
corpus.
  The Great Writ has been the law since 1215 for Great Britain, and it 
has been the law of the United States of America since the founding of 
the Constitution. That writ allows someone in detention to receive 
evidence of a reason for detention before the detention can continue. 
Regrettably, the legislation in the Military Commissions Act, passed 
last year, eliminated the writ of habeas corpus. I offered an amendment 
last September, which was defeated narrowly 48 to 51, and then on 
December 5, 2006. Again on January 4 of this year, with the new 
Congress, I reintroduced legislation to bring back the writ of habeas 
corpus.
  We have on the detainees in Guantanamo a procedure on what is called 
the Combat Status Review Board. The procedures there are fundamentally 
unfair in not establishing any colorable reason for detention. That has 
been demonstrated in a variety of contexts.
  One which I would quote at the outset is an opinion which appears in 
355 F. Supp. 443, in a case captioned ``In re Guantanamo Detainee 
Cases,'' where the court comments about the procedures in the case 
captioned ``Boumediene v. Bush.'' This involves an individual, a 
detainee, who was charged with associating with al-Qaeda. This is what 
the transcript says.

       Detainee: Give me his name.
       Tribunal President: I do not know.
       Detainee: How can I respond to this?

  Then the detainee goes on to comment about his inability to respond 
to the charges that he associated with someone from al-Qaeda because he 
does not have any way to identify the individual with whom he was 
supposed to have associated. Nobody could even give him his name.
  At one point the detainee comments about his difficulty in responding 
to a charge when there is no charge, and as the opinion says, everyone 
in the tribunal laughs. The court notes the laughter reflected in the 
transcript is

[[Page 18241]]

understandable. This exchange might have been truly humorous had the 
consequences of the detainee's enemy combatant status not been so 
terribly serious and had the detainee's criticism of this process not 
been so piercingly accurate.
  But here is a case reported where the Combat Status Review Board 
upheld detention when they could not even tell the detainee the 
identity of the person who was supposedly an al-Qaeda person with whom 
he was supposed to have been associated.
  There has been considerable comment about the fundamentally unfair 
tactics in the Combat Status Review Board, but none came into sharper 
focus than the declaration of LTC Stephen Abraham, who worked on the 
Combat Status Review Board, and who found, with some substantial 
detail, the process was fundamentally flawed. Results were influenced 
by pressure from superiors rather than based on concrete evidence.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the text of the 
declaration of LTC Stephen Abraham be printed in the Record at the end 
of my remarks to permit me to abbreviate the length of this floor 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia came 
down with the decision in the Boumediene case saying that the act of 
Congress was effective in eliminating habeas corpus, but in so doing, 
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia really ignored the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Rasul v. Bush.
  To read the opinion of the Court of Appeals, for a student of the 
law, is not hard to understand; it is impossible to understand. I think 
a fair reading of the circuit opinion, simply stated, is that they 
flagrantly disregarded the holding of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, which under our system of laws they are obligated to uphold. 
They analyzed Rasul and said Rasul was based on the statute providing 
for habeas corpus and not on the constitutional mandate that habeas 
corpus is a part of the Constitution of the United States.
  There can be no doubt that habeas corpus is a constitutional mandate 
because the Constitution explicitly states that habeas corpus may be 
suspended only in time of invasion or rebellion, and no one contends 
that we have either invasion or rebellion. The opinion of Rasul is 
explicit.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that relevant portions of the 
Rasul opinion be printed in the Record following my statement--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Without taking the time to read them into the Record now 
because they are apparent on their face that the opinion by Justice 
Stevens goes through the chronology of the writ, starting with King 
John at Runnymede in 1215 and running through the adoption of the 
constitutional provision in the U.S. Constitution.
  Now, it is true there is also a statute which provides for a writ of 
habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals said the portion of Justice 
Stevens' opinion as to the constitutional basis for habeas corpus was 
dictum and that the holding involved the statute. The Court of Appeals 
says since the holding involved the statute, the statute could be 
changed. It is true the statute was changed by the Congress of the 
United States, but the Congress of the United States, by statute, 
cannot change the constitutional mandate of habeas corpus.
  For the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to say the 
constitutional basis for habeas corpus in Rasul was not the holding but 
only the statute was the holding is, simply stated, ridiculous. It is 
insulting to the Supreme Court of the United States for what the Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia did. Pretty harsh words, but 
accurate words, and I say them with respect for every court. But as a 
lawyer who has worked with the Constitution for a number of decades, it 
was hard for me to comprehend how the District of Columbia Court of 
Appeals could come to that conclusion. But they did. Well, I think it 
is about to be corrected.
  There has been a curious history on the petition for a writ of 
certiorari to review the decision by the Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia. There were only three votes for the original 
petition for a writ of certiorari, which surprised people because 
Justice Stevens did not vote for certiorari. But, instead, he joined 
with Justice Kennedy in an opinion saying they would await another 
appeal from the Combat Status Review Board. The speculation by the 
analysts was that Justice Stevens was reluctant to see certiorari 
granted because Rasul might be overruled.
  But then after the declaration of LTC Stephen Abraham appeared in the 
public press, there was a petition for reconsideration of the writ of 
certiorari. On this occasion, it was granted in a very unusual 
procedure. It made the front pages. I have studied the Constitution for 
a long time, and I did not know that a petition for reconsideration on 
a writ of certiorari takes five votes. Perhaps my distinguished 
colleague from Vermont knew that. I asked that question of quite a few 
lawyers. I have not found one yet, and some very learned in 
constitutional law who knew if you petition for reconsideration on a 
writ of certiorari, it takes five votes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield on that point, 
when I saw that in the press I went and looked it up too. It was a 
surprise to me. It will be interesting to see what might come out of 
it, but I think it goes back, though, to what the Senator and I have 
talked about. We should not have to be bucking this to the Supreme 
Court for them to decide. We should correct the error here.
  I will be leaving the floor at this moment, Mr. President, but I want 
to assure the Senator from Pennsylvania, when they do allow our 
amendment to come up, I will be here with him proudly side by side on 
this issue. We can correct what otherwise would become a historic 
mistake. With his help, his leadership, we will do that.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont for 
those comments. I do not think there is a more important issue to come 
before this body. What happens in Iraq, obviously, is of enormous 
importance. But if we lose the basic fundamental rights to require 
evidence before somebody is held in detention, if we lose the right of 
habeas corpus, it is a very sad day in America.
  But, in any event, now the Supreme Court of the United States has 
granted certiorari in the Boumediene case. The speculation is that 
Justice Kennedy was the fifth vote, along with Justice Stevens. They do 
not tell you who the five votes are, but we know there were three votes 
initially from Justice Souter and Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg 
granting it, voting to grant certiorari before, and Justice Stevens and 
Justice Kennedy writing a separate opinion, and the other four Justices 
voting to deny certiorari.
  So I think this case is headed to the Supreme Court of the United 
States for reversal by the opinion by the Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia. But I believe the Congress should act in the 
interim. That is why Senator Leahy and I are pressing this issue on the 
Department of Defense authorization bill. I hope it will not be cited 
as grounds for veto if we are successful in putting this amendment 
through. We cannot offer it yet because there is an amendment pending, 
and the request to set the amendment aside, which requires unanimous 
consent, was objected to. But this is a very important amendment. The 
procedures in Guantanamo under the Combat Status Review Board are 
woefully inadequate, do not satisfy the requirements of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in having a collateral proceeding which is 
adequate to protect the rights of someone who is in detention. So when 
we are permitted to offer the amendment, we will do so. But I ask my 
colleagues to consider the background as to what has happened here, the 
importance of it and its abrogation, what is happening with Guantanamo, 
the disrepute there,

[[Page 18242]]

and what is happening with the Combat Status Review Board so that the 
Congress can correct what I consider to be an error made last year and 
stand up and not await a decision by the Supreme Court of the United 
States.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

Declaration of Stephen Abraham, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Army 
                         Reserve, June 15, 2007

       I, Stephen Abraham, hereby declare as follows:
       1. I am a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army 
     Reserve, having been commissioned in 1981 as an officer in 
     Intelligence Corps. I have served as an intelligence officer 
     from 1982 to the present during periods of both reserve and 
     active duty, including mobilization in 1990 (``Operation 
     Desert Storm'') and twice again following 9-11. In my 
     civilian occupation, I am an attorney with the law firm Fink 
     & Abraham LLP in Newport Beach, California.
       2. This declaration responds to certain statements in the 
     Declaration of Rear Admiral (Retired) James M. McGarrah 
     (``McGarrah Dec.''), filed in Bismullah v. Gates, No. 06-1197 
     (D.C. Cir.). This declaration is limited to unclassified 
     matters specifically related to the procedures employed by 
     Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of 
     Enemy Combatants (``OARDEC'') and the Combatant Status Review 
     Tribunals (``CSRTs'') rather than to any specific information 
     gathered or used in a particular case, except as noted 
     herein. The contents of this declaration are based solely on 
     my personal observations and experiences as a member of 
     OARDEC. Nothing in this declaration is intended to reflect or 
     represent the official opinions of the Department of Defense 
     or the Department of the Army.
       3. From September 11, 2004 to March 9, 2005, I was on 
     active duty and assigned to OARDEC. Rear Admiral McGarrah 
     served as the Director of OARDEC during the entirety of my 
     assignment.
       4. While assigned to OARDEC, in addition to other duties, I 
     worked as an agency liaison, responsible for coordinating 
     with government agencies, including certain Department of 
     Defense (``DoD'') and non-DoD organizations, to gather or 
     validate information relating to detainees for use in CSRTs. 
     I also served as a member of a CSRT, and had the opportunity 
     to observe and participate in the operation of the CSRT 
     process.
       5. As stated in the McGarrah Dec., the information 
     comprising the Government Information and the Government 
     Evidence was not compiled personally by the CSRT Recorder, 
     but by other individuals in OARDEC. The vast majority of the 
     personnel assigned to OARDEC were reserve officers from the 
     different branches of service (Army, Navy, Air Force, 
     Marines) of varying grades and levels of general military 
     experience. Few had any experience or training in the legal 
     or intelligence fields.
       6. The Recorders of the tribunals were typically relatively 
     junior officers with little training or experience in matters 
     relating to the collection, processing, analyzing, and/or 
     dissemination of intelligence material. In no instances known 
     to me did any of the Recorders have any significant personal 
     experience in the field of military intelligence. Similarly, 
     I was unaware of any Recorder having any significant or 
     relevant experience dealing with the agencies providing 
     information to be used as a part of the CSRT process.
       7. The Recorders exercised little control over the process 
     of accumulating information to be presented to the CSRT board 
     members. Rather, the information was typically aggregated by 
     individuals identified as case writers who, in most 
     instances, had the same limited degree of knowledge and 
     experience relating to the intelligence community and 
     intelligence products. The case writers, and not the 
     Recorders, were primarily responsible for accumulating 
     documents, including assembling documents to be used in the 
     drafting of an unclassified summary of the factual basis for 
     the detainee's designation as an enemy combatant.
       8. The information used to prepare the files to be used by 
     the Recorders frequently consisted of finished intelligence 
     products of a generalized nature--often outdated, often 
     ``generic,'' rarely specifically relating to the individual 
     subjects of the CSRTs or to the circumstances related to 
     those individuals' status.
       9. Beyond ``generic'' information, the case writer would 
     frequently rely upon information contained within the Joint 
     Detainee Information Management System (``JDIMS''). The 
     subset of that system available to the case writers was 
     limited in terms of the scope of information, typically 
     excluding information that was characterized as highly 
     sensitive law enforcement information, highly classified 
     information, or information not voluntarily released by the 
     originating agency. In that regard, JDIMS did not constitute 
     a complete repository, although this limitation was 
     frequently not understood by individuals with access to or 
     who relied upon the system as a source of information. Other 
     databases available to the case writer were similarly 
     deficient. The case writers and Recorders did not have access 
     to numerous information sources generally available within 
     the intelligence community.
       10. As one of only a few intelligence-trained and suitably 
     cleared officers, I served as a liaison while assigned to 
     OARDEC, acting as a go-between for OARDEC and various 
     intelligence organizations. In that capacity, I was tasked to 
     review and/or obtain information relating to individual 
     subjects of the CSRTs. More specifically, I was asked to 
     confirm and represent in a statement to be relied upon by the 
     CSRT board members that the organizations did not possess 
     ``exculpatory information'' relating to the subject of the 
     CSRT.
       11. During my trips to the participating organizations, I 
     was allowed only limited access to information, typically 
     prescreened and filtered. I was not permitted to see any 
     information other than that specifically prepared in advance 
     of my visit. I was not permitted to request that further 
     searches be performed. I was given no assurances that the 
     information provided for my examination represented a 
     complete compilation of information or that any summary of 
     information constituted an accurate distillation of the body 
     of available information relating to the subject.
       12. I was specifically told on a number of occasions that 
     the information provided to me was all that I would be shown, 
     but I was never told that the information that was provided 
     constituted all available information. On those occasions 
     when I asked that a representative of the organization 
     provide a written statement that there was no exculpatory 
     evidence, the requests were summarily denied.
       13. At one point, following a review of information, I 
     asked the Office of General Counsel of the intelligence 
     organization that I was visiting for a statement that no 
     exculpatory information had been withheld. I explained that I 
     was tasked to review all available materials and to reach a 
     conclusion regarding the non-existence of exculpatory 
     information, and that I could not do so without knowing that 
     I had seen all information.
       14. The request was denied, coupled with a refusal even to 
     acknowledge whether there existed additional information that 
     I was not permitted to review. In short, based upon the 
     selective review that I was permitted, I was left to 
     ``infer'' from the absence of exculpatory information in the 
     materials I was allowed to review that no such information 
     existed in materials I was not allowed to review.
       15. Following that exchange, I communicated to Rear Admiral 
     McGarrah and the OARDEC Deputy Director the fundamental 
     limitations imposed upon my review of the organization's 
     files and my inability to state conclusively that no 
     exculpatory information existed relating to the CSRT 
     subjects. It was not possible for me to certify or validate 
     the non-existence of exculpatory evidence as related to any 
     individual undergoing the CSRT process.
       16. The content of intelligence products, including 
     databases, made available to case writers, Recorders, or 
     liaison officers, was often left entirely to the discretion 
     of the organizations providing the information. What 
     information was not included in the bodies of intelligence 
     products was typically unknown to the case writers and 
     Recorders, as was the basis for limiting the information. In 
     other words, the person preparing materials for use by the 
     CSRT board members did not know whether they had examined all 
     available information or even why they possessed some pieces 
     of information but not others.
       17. Although OARDEC personnel often received large amounts 
     of information, they often had no context for determining 
     whether the information was relevant or probative and no 
     basis for determining what additional information would be 
     necessary to establish a basis for determining the 
     reasonableness of any matter to be offered to the CSRT board 
     members. Often, information that was gathered was discarded 
     by the case writer or the Recorder because it was considered 
     to be ambiguous, confusing, or poorly written. Such a 
     determination was frequently the result of the case writer or 
     Recorder's lack of training or experience with the types of 
     information provided. In my observation, the case writer or 
     Recorder, without proper experience or a basis for giving 
     context to information, often rejected some information 
     arbitrarily while accepting other information without any 
     articulable rationale.
       18. The case writer's summaries were reviewed for quality 
     assurance, a process that principally focused on format and 
     grammar. The quality assurance review would not ordinarily 
     check the accuracy of the information underlying the case 
     writer's unclassified summary for the reason that the quality 
     assurance reviewer typically had little more experience than 
     the case writer and, again, no relevant or meaningful 
     intelligence or legal experience, and therefore had no skills 
     by which to critically assess the substantive portions of the 
     summaries.
       19. Following the quality assurance process, the 
     unclassified summary and the information assembled by the 
     case writer in support of the summary would then be forwarded 
     to the Recorder. It was very rare that a Recorder or a 
     personal representative would seek additional information 
     beyond

[[Page 18243]]

     that information provided by the case writer.
       20. It was not apparent to me how assignments to CSRT 
     panels were made, nor was I personally involved in that 
     process. Nevertheless, I discerned the determinations of who 
     would be assigned to any particular position, whether as a 
     member of a CSRT or to some other position, to be largely the 
     product of ad hoc decisions by a relatively small group of 
     individuals. All CSRT panel members were assigned to OARDEC 
     and reported ultimately to Rear Admiral McGarrah. It was well 
     known by the officers in OARDEC that any time a CSRT panel 
     determined that a detainee was not properly classified as an 
     enemy combatant, the panel members would have to explain 
     their finding to the OARDEC Deputy Director. There would be 
     intensive scrutiny of the finding by Rear Admiral McGarrah 
     who would, in turn, have to explain the finding to his 
     superiors, including the Under Secretary of the Navy.
       21. On one occasion, I was assigned to a CSRT panel with 
     two other officers, an Air Force colonel and an Air Force 
     major, the latter understood by me to be a judge advocate. We 
     reviewed evidence presented to us regarding the recommended 
     status of a detainee. All of us found the information 
     presented to lack substance.
       22. What were purported to be specific statements of fact 
     lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively 
     credible evidence. Statements allegedly made by percipient 
     witnesses lacked detail. Reports presented generalized 
     statements in indirect and passive forms without stating the 
     source of the information or providing a basis for 
     establishing the reliability or the credibility of the 
     source. Statements of interrogators presented to the panel 
     offered inferences from which we were expected to draw 
     conclusions favoring a finding of ``enemy combatant'' but 
     that, upon even limited questioning from the panel, yielded 
     the response from the Recorder, ``We'll have to get back to 
     you.'' The personal representative did not participate in any 
     meaningful way.
       23. On the basis of the paucity and weakness of the 
     information provided both during and after the CSRT hearing, 
     we determined that there was no factual basis for concluding 
     that the individual should be classified as an enemy 
     combatant. Rear Admiral McGarrah and the Deputy Director 
     immediately questioned the validity of our findings. They 
     directed us to write out the specific questions that we had 
     raised concerning the evidence to allow the Recorder an 
     opportunity to provide further responses. We were then 
     ordered to reopen the hearing to allow the Recorder to 
     present further argument as to why the detainee should be 
     classified as an enemy combatant. Ultimately, in the absence 
     of any substantive response to the questions and no basis for 
     concluding that additional information would be forthcoming, 
     we did not change our determination that the detainee was not 
     properly classified as an enemy combatant. OARDEC's response 
     to the outcome was consistent with the few other instances in 
     which a finding of ``Not an Enemy Combatant'' (NEC) had been 
     reached by CSRT boards. In each of the meetings that I 
     attended with OARDEC leadership following a finding of NEC, 
     the focus of inquiry on the part of the leadership was ``what 
     went wrong.''
       24. I was not assigned to another CSRT panel.
       I hereby declare under the penalties of perjury based on my 
     personal knowledge that the foregoing is true and accurate.
     Stephen Abraham.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

                 (Cite as: 542 U.S. 466, 124 S.Ct. 2686

       [1] Congress has granted federal district courts, ``within 
     their respective, jurisdictions,'' the authority to hear 
     applications for habeas corpus by any person who claims to be 
     held ``in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 
     treaties of the United States.'' 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2241(a), 
     (c)(3). The statute traces its ancestry to the first grant of 
     federal-court jurisdiction: Section 14 of the Judiciary Act 
     of 1789 authorized federal courts to issue the writ of habeas 
     corpus to prisoners who are ``in custody, under or by colour 
     of the authority of the United States, or are committed for 
     trial before some court of the same.'' Act of Sept. 24, 1789, 
     ch. 20, Sec. 14, 1 Stat. 82. In 1867, Congress extended the 
     protections of the writ to ``all cases where any person may 
     be restrained of his or her liberty in violation of the 
     constitution, or of any treaty or law of the United States.'' 
     Act of Feb. 5, 1867, ch.28, 14 Stat. 385. See Felker v. 
     Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 659-660, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 
     827 (1996).
       Habeas corpus, is, however, ``a writ antecedent to statute, 
     * * * throwing its root deep into the genius of our common 
     law.'' Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471, 484, n. 2, 65 S.Ct. 
     363, 89 L.Ed. 398 (1945) (internal. quotation marks omitted). 
     The writ appeared in English law several centuries ago, 
     became ``an integral part of our common-law heritage'' by the 
     time the *474 Colonies achieved independence, Preiser v. 
     Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 
     439 (1973), and received explicit recognition in the 
     Constitution, which forbids suspension of ``[t]he 
     Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus * * * unless when 
     in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may 
     require it,'' Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 2.
       As it has evolved over the past two centuries, the habeas 
     statute clearly has expanded habeas corpus ``beyond the 
     limits that obtained during the 17th and 18th centuries.'' 
     Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 380, n. 13, 97 S.Ct. 1224, 
     51 L.Ed.2d 411 (1977). But ``[a]t its historical core, the 
     writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the 
     legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context 
     that its protections have been strongest.'' INS v. St. Cyr, 
     533 U.S. 289, 301, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001). 
     See also Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 533, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 
     L.Ed. 469 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring in result) (``The 
     historic purpose of the writ has been to relieve detention by 
     executive authorities without judicial trial''). As Justice 
     Jackson wrote in an opinion respecting the availability of 
     habeas corpus to aliens held in U.S. custody:
       ``Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and 
     lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man 
     should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save 
     by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The 
     judges of England developed the writ of habeas corpus largely 
     to preserve these immunities from executive restraint.'' 
     Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 
     218-219, 73 S.Ct. 625, 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953) (dissenting 
     opinion).
       Consistent with the historic purpose of the writ, this 
     Court has recognized the federal courts' power to review 
     applications for habeas relief in a wide variety of cases 
     involving executive detention, in wartime **2693 as well as 
     in times of peace. The Court has, for example, entertained 
     the habeas petitions of an American citizen who plotted an 
     attack on military installations during the Civil War, Ex 
     parte *475 Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 18 L.Ed. 281 (1866), and 
     of admitted enemy aliens convicted of war crimes during a 
     declared war and held in the United States, Ex parte 
     Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S.Ct. 2, 87 L.Ed. 3 (1942), and its 
     insular possessions, In reo Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 66 
     S.Ct. 340, 90 L.Ed. 499 (1946).
       The question now before us is whether the habeas confers a 
     right to judicial review of the legality of executive 
     detention of aliens in a territory over which the United 
     States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, but not 
     ``ultimate sovereignty.''

       Application of the habeas statute to persons detained at 
     the base is consistent with the historical reach of the writ 
     of habeas corpus. At common law, courts exercised habeas 
     jurisdiction over the claims of aliens detained within 
     sovereign territory of the realm, [FN11] as well as the 
     claims of **2697 persons *482 detained in the so-called 
     ``exempt jurisdictions,'' where ordinary writs did not run, 
     [FN12] and all other dominions under the sovereign's control. 
     [FN13] As Lord Mansfield wrote in 1759, even if a territory 
     was ``no part of the realm,'' there was ``no doubt'' as to 
     the court's power to issue writs of habeas corpus if the 
     territory was ``under the subjection of the Crown.'' King v. 
     Cowle, 2 Burr. 834, 854-855, 97 Eng. Rep. 587, 598-599 
     (K.B.). Later cases confirmed that the reach of the writ 
     depended not on formal notions of territorial sovereignty, 
     but rather on the practical question of ``the exact extent 
     and nature of the jurisdiction or dominion exercised in fact 
     by the Crown.'' Ex parte Mwenya, [1960] 1 Q.B. 241, 303 
     (C.A.) (Lord Evershed, M. R.).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of and as a 
cosponsor of amendment No. 2012. I salute Senator Webb and my 
colleagues who joined in this effort which would set a standard for how 
much time our troops get at home between deployments. We owe it to our 
troops and to our families to have a rational and reasonable troop 
rotation policy that allows our fighting forces to be at their best.
  The ever-quickening operational tempo over the last 4 years of combat 
in Iraq and Afghanistan has stretched our military beyond reason and 
endangered our national security. Continuing to shorten the time our 
troops are able to spend at home while extending deployments is simply 
not a sustainable policy. It is bad for operational readiness, it is 
bad for retention, it is bad for morale, and it is bad for the health 
of our military members and their families. We must do better to 
protect our national security, and this amendment moves us in the right 
direction.
  In the time I have spent with our servicemembers in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, at Fort Carson and at the many military installations 
around Colorado, I have always found our servicemembers to be serving 
proudly and honorably. They rarely look at you and talk about the 
sacrifices they are being asked to make or of the effects that failed 
policies are having on them and on their families. But you can still 
see in their eyes the evidence of the strain that the operational tempo 
is placing

[[Page 18244]]

on them and on their families. You see the strain at installations all 
around the country.
  In my State at Fort Carson where I have visited often over the last 
several years, the families of the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry 
Division learned earlier this year that their soldiers' tours of duty 
in Iraq are being extended by 3 months, so that they will stay in the 
theater for a total of 15 months rather than the 12 months they 
anticipated when they went to Iraq. The 2nd Brigade is currently today 
in a block-by-block battle with insurgents in eastern Baghdad. The 2nd 
Brigade lost 6 soldiers over the Fourth of July week, and they have 
lost 37 since they arrived in Iraq last October. The brigade was 
supposed to be returning this fall. They were supposed to be returning 
this fall, but now it will be winter before they might be able to come 
home.
  The 3rd Brigade, also at Fort Carson, returned from Iraq late last 
fall after a full year deployment. They could well be sent back to Iraq 
before they have the time they need here to recuperate, to train, and 
to prepare for a new deployment. They deserve some consistency and 
certainty in their deployment cycle.
  We see the impacts of the current operational tempo in our Guard and 
Reserve units as well. We have come to rely on the Guard and Reserve to 
an unprecedented degree in Iraq. At one point in 2005, the Army 
National Guard contributed nearly half of the combat brigades on the 
ground in Iraq. These troops, once thought of as ``weekend warriors,'' 
have been shouldering burdens similar to their Active-Duty counterparts 
and are facing the same extended deployments and the same shortened 
time at home.
  We are quickly learning about the impacts of this operational tempo 
on the health and well-being of our troops. The impacts and the facts 
here are beyond dispute. A study at Fort Carson showed that around 18 
percent of returning soldiers had traumatic brain injuries. These are 
soldiers who have come back to Fort Carson after having served in Iraq. 
They need time to recover from those injuries. A recent service-wide 
report of the DOD's Task Force on Mental Health showed that 38 percent 
of soldiers, 31 percent of marines, and 49 percent of the National 
Guard report psychological problems following combat deployments. The 
prevalence of psychological problems increases with increased frequency 
of deployment and with longer deployments. Our troops need more time at 
home to recuperate and readjust with their families.
  Amendment No. 2012 is a sensible and much needed rotation policy for 
our troops. I can think of no better author for this amendment than 
Senator Jim Webb who has had a long and storied history of service to 
our country and who has an intimate understanding of the military and 
knowing what it takes to have a strong military for the United States 
of America.
  For our regular forces, the amendment requires that if a unit or a 
member is deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, they will have equal time at 
home before being redeployed. That is to say, if they are deployed for 
6 months, they must be at home for at least 6 months before being sent 
back into combat. For the National Guard and Reserve, no unit or member 
could be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within 3 years of their 
previous deployment.
  The amendment includes an important provision that I hope my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle pay attention to. It is an 
important provision that allows the President to waive these 
limitations. The President can waive these limitations if he certifies 
to Congress that the deployment is necessary in response to an 
operational emergency posing a vital threat to the national security of 
the United States of America. So the President can waive the 
requirements of this readiness legislation we are proposing in the 
Chamber today. Another waiver would authorize the Chief of Staff of 
each branch to approve requests by volunteers to deploy.
  This is an amendment which supports our troops and their families who 
have been called upon to make ever-increasing sacrifices in the course 
of this war. It is an amendment which I ask my colleagues to support 
and which I hope we will pass on behalf of our troops and their 
families.
  I wish to conclude by simply stating my appreciation to the leaders 
who have put together the DOD authorization legislation which is before 
the Senate. The Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Carl Levin, is often referred to by me and I know 
many of the Members of this Chamber, as a Senator's Senator because he 
is one of those people who are here for absolutely the right reason--
their devotion to this country. His standing up for our military is 
something which is a great example of a Senator who puts purpose above 
the politics that sometimes typify Washington perhaps too much of the 
time. He, in his work with the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. 
Warner, who was also the key coauthor of this legislation, exemplifies 
the best of what there is here in this Senate Chamber. I just wanted to 
publicly state my appreciation to Senator Levin and his staff and to 
Senator Warner and his staff for the great work they have done on this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank my dear friend, Senator 
Salazar, for his comments. They are particularly meaningful coming from 
somebody who as much as anybody in this body strives to bring Members 
together in common causes. I want to tell him how grateful I am for his 
comments but also, even more importantly, how grateful we all are for 
the effort he makes to cross the aisle and bring Senators together on 
important issues of the day.
  Last night, I was not able to be present when our bill came to the 
floor. I was chairing a subcommittee meeting which I could not leave. I 
asked a number of colleagues on the Armed Services Committee if they 
could fill in for me, and very graciously and, as always, very 
competently, Senators Ben Nelson and Bill Nelson fulfilled that role 
and responded to that request, and I am very grateful to them for 
having done so. I wasn't able then to present the bill, as a bill of 
this magnitude should be presented, and I will take a few minutes at 
this time to do that.
  The Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 would fully fund 
the fiscal year 2008 budget request of $648.8 billion for national 
security activities of the Department of Defense and the Department of 
Energy.
  The Senate Armed Services Committee has a long tradition of setting 
aside partisanship and working together in the interest of the national 
defense. That tradition has been maintained this year. I am pleased 
that our bill, S. 1547, was reported to the Senate on a unanimous 25-
to-nothing vote of our committee. Additionally, S. 1606, the Dignified 
Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act, which we will be taking up either as 
part of this bill or as a freestanding measure, was also reported by 
the committee on a unanimous 25-to-nothing vote. These votes stand as a 
testament to the common commitment of all of our Members to supporting 
our men and women in uniform.
  Our bill contains many important provisions that will improve the 
quality of life of our men and women in uniform, provide needed support 
and assistance to our troops on the battlefields of Iraq and 
Afghanistan, make the investments we need to meet the challenges of the 
21st century, and require needed reforms in the management of the 
Department of Defense.
  The bill before us, perhaps most importantly, continues the increases 
in compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and 
their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing 
military operations around the world. For example, the bill contains 
provisions that would authorize a 3.5-percent across-the-board pay 
increase for all uniformed military personnel, which is a half a 
percent more than the administration's request. Our bill authorizes

[[Page 18245]]

increases in the end-strength of the Army and the Marines--13,000 for 
the Army and 9,000 for the Marines. Our bill authorizes payment of over 
25 types of bonuses and special pay aimed at encouraging the 
enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by Active-Duty and 
Reserve military personnel. Our bill authorizes payment of combat-
related special compensation to servicemembers medically retired for a 
combat-related disability. We reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals to 
Department of Defense personnel by authorizing the use of Federal 
pricing for pharmaceuticals dispensed through the TRICARE retail 
program.
  The bill also includes important funding and authorities needed to 
provide our troops with the equipment and support they will continue to 
need as long as they remain in Iraq and Afghanistan. For instance, the 
bill contains provisions which would add $4 billion above the amount 
requested by the administration for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 
Vehicles, so-called MRAPs, which improve protection for our troops 
exposed to improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Our bill fully funds 
the budget request of $4.5 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive 
Device Defeat Office, while directing that office to invest at least 
$50 million in blast injury research and over $150 million for the 
procurement of IED jammers for the Army.
  We invest more than $70 million in research and new technologies to 
enhance the force protection of deployed units, including advanced 
materials for vehicle and body armor, active protection systems that 
shoot down incoming rocket-propelled grenades, and sniper detection 
systems. And we add $2.7 billion for items needed by the Army but not 
contained in the President's budget, including $775 million for 
reactive armor and other Stryker requirements, $207 million for 
aviation survivability equipment, $102 million for combat training 
centers, and funding for explosive ordnance disposal equipment, night-
vision devices, and machine guns.
  The bill would also enhance our national security by aggressively 
addressing the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In 
this regard, the bill would increase funding over the administration's 
request for Department of Energy nonproliferation programs by $87 
million, increase funding for the Department of Defense Cooperative 
Threat Reduction Program, CTR, by $100 million, eliminate funding 
restrictions that limit the use of CTR funds, and we expand the CTR 
Program to countries outside of the former Soviet Union.
  The bill contains a number of provisions that will help improve the 
management of the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. For 
example, the bill contains provisions that would establish a Chief 
Management Officer, finally, for the Department of Defense to provide 
continuous top-level attention to the high-risk management problems of 
the Department as recommended by the Comptroller General. I note that 
our Presiding Officer is a member of the committee which takes a 
particular interest in management issues, and the committee on which we 
both serve, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 
has been interested in this subject for years, as long as probably both 
of us, the Presiding Officer and I, have been here together. We need a 
chief management officer for the Department of Defense and we would 
establish that office.
  We would establish an acquisition workforce development fund to 
enable the Department of Defense to increase the size and quality of 
its acquisition workforce as needed to address systematic deficiencies 
in the Department's purchases of products and services.
  We would tighten the rules for Department of Defense acquisition of 
major weapons systems and subsystems, components, and spare parts to 
reduce the risk of contract overpricing, cost overruns, and failure to 
meet contract schedules and performance requirements.
  Our bill also contains a provision that would require increased 
competition in large so-called ``umbrella contracts'' awarded by the 
Department of Defense. The Armed Services Committee held a hearing in 
April on the Department of Defense's management of the $20 billion 
LOGCAP contract, under which KBR--until recently a subsidiary of 
Halliburton--has provided services to U.S. troops in the field. There 
is a history of highly favorable treatment of that contractor 
throughout this contract. For example, the company was given work that 
appears to have far exceeded the scope of the contract. All of this 
added work was provided to the contractor without competition. There 
were almost $2 billion of overcharges on the contract, and the 
contractor received highly favorable settlements on these overcharges.
  When asked why the Army had waited 5 years to split the LOGCAP 
contract among multiple contractors so as to allow for the competition 
of individual task orders, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics responded:

       I don't have a good answer for you.

  The provision in our bill would avoid these kinds of abuses we get in 
sole-source contracts by ensuring that future contracts of this type 
provide for the competition of task and delivery orders unless there is 
a compelling reason not to do so.
  There are far too many provisions in the bill to describe all of 
them, but there are a few more I wish to put some focus on.
  Section 1023 of the bill would protect our troops, uphold our values, 
and help restore our image around the world by providing a fair process 
for reviewing the status of the Department of Defense detainees at 
Guantanamo and elsewhere. This provision would require for the first 
time that long-held detainees receive legal representation, provide for 
legal rulings to be made by military judges, and prohibit the use of 
coerced statements.
  Section 871 of the bill would require the Department of Defense to 
provide much-needed regulation for contractors operating on the 
battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over the past 4 years, contractor 
employees have frequently fired weapons at people and property in 
Iraq--including insurgents, civilians and, on occasion, even our own 
coalition forces. Yet we have no consistent system in place for 
regulating the conduct of these armed contractors, or for enforcing 
compliance with those regulations that do exist, that are supposed to 
govern the activities of our contractors we hire. The provision in our 
bill would ensure that commanders on the battlefield have the authority 
they have long needed to establish rules of engagement--as well as 
systems for reporting and investigating incidents involving the use of 
force--for armed contractors of ours in an area of combat operations.
  Finally, shortfalls in the care and treatment of our wounded warriors 
came to the attention of the Nation in a series in the Washington Post 
last February. These articles described deplorable living conditions 
for some servicemembers in an outpatient status. They described a 
bungled, bureaucratic process for assigning disability ratings that 
determine whether a servicemember would be medically retired with 
health and other benefits for himself and for his family. A clumsy 
handoff was described and exists between the Department of Defense and 
the Department of Veterans Affairs when a military member transitions 
from one department to another. The Nation's shock and dismay reflected 
the American people's support, respect, and gratitude for the men and 
women who put on our Nation's uniform. They deserve the best, not 
shoddy medical care and bureaucratic snafus.
  I am very proud our Armed Services Committee approved S. 1606, the 
Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors, by a unanimous 20-to-0 vote on 
June 14. This bill, which we worked on so closely with the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, would address the issues of inconsistent application 
of disability standards, disparate disability ratings, substandard 
facilities, lack of seamless transition from the Department of Defense 
to the Veterans' Administration, inadequacy of severance pay, care, and 
treatment for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress 
disorder. It

[[Page 18246]]

addresses also medical care for caregivers not eligible for TRICARE, 
and the sharing of medical records between the Department of Defense 
and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  In consultation with the leadership and with the Committee on 
Veterans Affairs, since there is unlikely to be available floor time to 
bring this critically needed bill to the floor as freestanding 
legislation, it will be offered instead as an amendment to the bill we 
have on the floor now. I will be offering this on behalf of a very 
large bipartisan group of Senators coming from not only both the Armed 
Services Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee but from all 
Senators, just about, who will be offering this amendment. We owe it to 
our men and women in uniform to take up and pass this important 
legislation.
  As of today, roughly 160,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines are engaged in combat and combat support operations in Iraq. 
Almost 20,000 are engaged in combat and combat support operations in 
Afghanistan, and tens of thousands more are supporting the war effort 
through deployments thousands of miles from home.
  While many of us believe the time has come to start bringing these 
troops home, we all know we must provide our troops the support they 
need as long as they remain in harm's way. We in the Nation are divided 
on the administration's war policy, but we are united in our 
determination to support our troops. Senate action on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 will improve the quality 
of life of our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools 
they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. 
Most important of all, it will send an important message that we, as a 
Nation, stand behind them and we appreciate their service.
  Finally, as I did earlier this morning, I note that this bill--a 
bipartisan bill--would not have been possible without the support and 
leadership of Senator McCain, my ranking member, and each member of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. We owe a special debt of gratitude to 
those who served as subcommittee chairs and ranking members of the 
Armed Services Committee. This bill takes a long time to put together 
and then to mark up. It takes many months to perform those functions 
and many days in the markup process itself.
  I also give a special thank-you to our former chairman, Senator 
Warner, who again did yeoman service to make it possible for this bill 
to come to the floor in a bipartisan manner, which it has. I look 
forward to working with colleagues to pass this important legislation. 
I hope we can proceed to the prompt consideration of it, and I hope 
that as soon as we address the amendment of Senator Webb, we are going 
to be able to move on to other amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I feel fortunate that Senator Levin was 
unable to be here yesterday to present the bill from the committee he 
chairs. As the Presiding Officer a few minutes ago, and now listening 
for 5 minutes or so, I have become better acquainted with some of the 
details of a very large and complex piece of legislation. I want to 
start off by saying a special thanks to him and his staff, to Senator 
McCain and Senator Warner and their staffs, and other members of the 
committee. They have crafted a very difficult bill.
  As one who likes to work across the aisle, I applaud them for the way 
they have done that, bringing near unanimity from your committee in 
support of this legislation. I especially salute the Senator from 
Michigan and his team for the work they have done in providing for a 
chief management officer within the Department of Defense--God knows we 
need that--along with many other aspects of the bill.
  I want to take a moment to talk about the amendment Senator Webb is 
offering and has laid down. I know there are folks who have concerns 
within the Senate and outside of the Senate about this legislation. I 
want to speak in support of his proposal. You may recall he is calling 
for us to try to ensure that there is some downtime for active-duty 
personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan--that once they have served 
in those theaters, they be able to come home, train, rest up, 
reacquaint with their families, and to prepare to go back, if 
necessary. He is saying if you are on active duty for 6 months abroad, 
then they could come home for 6 months. If it is 12 months, there would 
be a 12-month respite. They would be training and working on readiness 
and trying to reunite themselves with their families. There is plenty 
to do during the time they are not deployed.
  Also, he would say if they happen to be reservists or National Guard, 
they should have the opportunity for every year spent abroad to have 3 
years downtime. The obvious question that came to mind for me is: What 
if we get into a jam somewhere in another part of the world and we need 
somebody who has been promised that 6 months back home, or 2, 3 years 
back home, and we need them to come back and serve on active duty? What 
if a member of the Guard or Reserves or active duty wanted to serve 
sooner again in Afghanistan or Iraq, would they be able to? Those are 
good questions. It was discussed over lunch with Senator Webb. I was 
pleased with his response. Regarding the question about the guardsmen, 
reservists, and active-duty personnel who want to come back and serve 
in the theaters again prior to the end of their period of respite, 
their time at home, they could go back if they express that they want 
to serve. That request will be honored.
  Secondly, if we get into a jam as a country in another part of the 
world and we need a unit to go there, whether you are Army, Navy, Air 
Force, or Marine, there is a Presidential waiver included in the Webb 
amendment that says the President can waive the language in the bill, 
in the amendment, and direct those forces to serve back in the theater 
where they are needed. I think those are positive and important aspects 
of the Webb amendment. We ought to keep them in mind.
  Prior to coming to serve in the Senate, I was privileged to be 
Governor of my State for 8 years. As Governor of Delaware--or of any 
State, whether it is Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Delaware--you serve as 
commander in chief of your National Guard.
  We had Army Guard and Air Guard who served, and I was honored to be, 
for those 8 years, their commander in chief. I felt a great affection, 
a great affinity for them, an allegiance to them and to their families.
  When I was in Iraq 3 or 4 weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet 
with members of our 198th Signal Battalion of the Delaware National 
Guard. On the morning I came back from having been in Iraq, I flew into 
Dulles and hotfooted it up to a place called Delaware City in time to 
send off the 153rd unit of the Delaware National Guard, a military 
police unit, who were going to Fort Dix and then on to Iraq. It is a 
unit we actually created when I was Governor, and I feel a special spot 
for them in my heart. I wanted to be there when they were sent abroad, 
sent to Fort Dix and then on to Iraq.
  Having talked with a number of them, having been with them and their 
families literally weeks ago as they prepared to depart, I have a 
special sense from being overseas in Baghdad with folks from the 198th 
Signal Battalion for what their concerns are with respect to an 
extended deployment.
  These are people who did not sign up for one, two, three deployments 
in the war zone. Before I served in the House of Representatives, I was 
a naval flight officer. I served during the Vietnam war. I wasn't a 
hero such as Jim Webb, and I wasn't a hero such as John McCain and some 
others with whom we serve--Danny Inouye. My job in the Vietnam war in 
P-3 airplanes was to hunt for Red October, track Soviet nuclear 
submarines. We flew missions off the coast of Vietnam as well.
  Interestingly enough, we had other Reserve squadrons come out and fly 
missions with us during the Vietnam war. Almost without exception, we 
never gave them difficult jobs to do. Almost without exception, they 
were

[[Page 18247]]

not given challenging jobs to do because we didn't want them to mess it 
up. We would basically take the harder jobs for ourselves. We were not 
confident in their ability to take on the tougher missions with which 
we were burdened, were subscribed to carry out.
  That has changed today. Go over to Iraq or Afghanistan where some of 
us have been recently. Our Guard and Reserve units are doing the 
toughest work, the most dangerous work, the most demanding work of any 
Active-Duty Force. They are in harm's way. They are getting shot at, in 
some cases getting wounded, in other cases dying. They leave behind, 
particularly those on active duty, Active-Duty Guard and Reserve, not 
just families in many cases--spouses, children, in some cases dependent 
parents--in many cases they have businesses they own and run 
themselves. It is one thing to be away from an employer who would like 
to have you there, who needs you there and to be away for a month, 2, 
or 3 months on active duty. But try leaving your business that you may 
have started, built, and it depends on you being there, and go away for 
15 months, come back for a little while to the States to try to get it 
started again and have to go away again for 15 months.
  After 5 years active duty, I served another 18 years as a Reserve 
naval flight officer. I stayed current on my airplane. I flew with a 
squadron out of the naval air station at Willow Grove. If members of my 
unit--and they were great guys, they were all guys, and they loved the 
Navy, they loved the service, they loved our mission--if you had taken 
most of us and said: We are putting you on active duty for 15 months, 
let you come home a little while and put you back for another 15 months 
on the other side of the world, I am not sure how many would sign up 
again, reup, renew our commitment. I guess a lot of people said: No, 
thank you; been there, done that. I served my Nation on active duty and 
in the Reserve, and we wouldn't have taken on that obligation, at least 
not with great enthusiasm. Some would have; I suspect others would not.
  What Senator Webb is trying to do is to say: Look, if you have gone 
over there, if you are on active duty, if you serve in the Army, Navy, 
Air Force, Marines in the theater for 6 months, we are going to make 
sure you have a chance to catch your breath, to come back, hopefully, 
with your unit to retrain here, have downtime to reconnect with your 
family, to begin to put your personal life together a little bit before 
we put you back over there in harm's way. To the extent you happen to 
be a reservist or a member of the National Guard and you have other 
commitments, you are not on active duty, have your own job, business, 
family with children, we are going to give you a chance to make sure 
you can get that business going again, stand it up, strengthen it, 
reacquaint yourself with your family, make sure your kids and spouse 
are doing all right, maybe your parents, before we put you back in 
harm's way again.
  I think that makes a whole lot of sense. It is humane, in terms of 
actually being able to keep people on active duty, Reserve status, and 
Guard status. I think it will increase our ability to recruit and 
retain people, when their term of enlistment expires, to reup. It will 
increase the likelihood they will stick with us.
  The other point I wish to make, for those who are not aware of the 
waiver authority that is granted in this amendment, we say to a 
President: You can waive these requirements for Active-Duty personnel 
or for Guard personnel. You can waive them. If we find ourselves in a 
bind in another part of the world and we need those forces, those 
assets to be on active duty again, the President can waive those 
requirements.
  Also, if I or any of us happen to be on active duty or in the 
Reserves and we have done our time and have a chance to come back and 
we want to go back, we feel an obligation to go back--and God bless 
them, some of our troops today are serving second and third tours over 
there--they would have the opportunity to do that, not be barred from 
doing that. If they chose to take that course, they could.
  For those reasons and for others I mentioned today, I believe Senator 
Webb's amendment should be supported. It deserves to be enacted. It is 
one of those deals where the more I learned about it, the more 
comfortable I have become with it. As a number of my colleagues who 
actually served active duty, served in the Reserves and had the 
privilege of leading a State's National Guard, this is one I thought 
about. This wasn't a knee-jerk reaction, yep, this is the way to do it. 
I thought it through and put on my hats of earlier roles I played 
outside the Senate, outside the Congress.
  I think the Webb amendment is the right way to go. My hope is, when 
the votes are cast, it will be adopted and added to this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I first express my thanks to the Senator 
from Delaware for his service and also for his comments on this 
amendment.
  I come to the floor because I heard the other side of the aisle may 
be deciding to filibuster this amendment. I wish to, first of all, 
express my surprise that this filibuster might occur which, as the 
Chair knows, would increase the requirement of 60 votes in order for 
the amendment to proceed.
  This is a very simple and very fair amendment. I would like to 
express my opinions about some of the comments that have been made, as 
I was outside listening to different people from the media telling me 
what some of the reservations from the other side have been on this 
amendment. The comments that have been made are not accurate.
  There are people who are saying this amendment is unconstitutional in 
the sense that only the Commander in Chief should be able to make 
decisions regarding the deployment of troops during a war.
  First of all, article I, section 8 of our Constitution is very clear 
on this point. It states that ``The Congress shall have the Power . . . 
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval 
Forces. . . .''
  This is well within the Constitution. In fact, there is much 
precedent when people who are opposed to this amendment discuss that it 
might be tying the President's hands unnecessarily. We can go back to 
the dark days of the Korean war, where because of the national 
emergency that was caused from the invasion of South Korea by the 
North, we didn't have enough troops available, and the administration 
at the time started sending soldiers into Korea who had not been fully 
trained and the Congress acted within its constitutional purview and 
passed a law that said no individual who is brought into the U.S. 
military can be sent overseas unless they have been in the military for 
120 days.
  The reason the Congress acted was to protect the well-being of those 
who served, and that is exactly what we are proposing to do today. We 
are saying that whatever your beliefs are about this war, whether you 
want it to end in 5 weeks or whether you want it to go on for the next 
10 years, we have to come to some common agreement among the leadership 
of the United States that we are going to protect the well-being of our 
troops, the people who step forward to serve in these times.
  The minimum we can do is to set a floor that basically says: However 
long you are deployed, you can have that much time back at home. Or if 
you are in the National Guard or Reserve, if you have been deployed, 
you deserve to have three times that much time at home.
  The historical standard is if you have been deployed overseas or if 
you have been deployed on a deployment, you should have twice as much 
time at home. The Commandant of the Marine Corps earlier this year, 
when he undertook the duties of being Commandant, said that his goal 
was to bring in a 2-to-1 rotational cycle for the Marine Corps. Given 
the requirements of Iraq, 2 to 1. We are now at 1 to 1, with a good 
portion of that time back home being spent in workups for these units 
and for these individuals to go back.
  The Army, as a result of this surge, now has a policy where they are 
saying

[[Page 18248]]

you go to Iraq for 15 months, and we will guarantee you 12 months at 
home. That is not even 1 to 1.
  Our amendment establishes a floor. It is reasonable. It doesn't have 
anything to do with political objectives of the war downstream. That 
can be sorted out later. We are simply saying, if you have been gone 
for a year, you deserve to be back for a year. If you have been gone 
for 7 months, you deserve to be back for 7 months, unless you want to 
go back. If you want to go back, fine. You can volunteer to go back. 
Our amendment does not stop that. Or if there is an operational 
emergency where the President certifies there is a requirement, then 
the President can waive this amendment. We are trying to set a policy 
of stability so military families can predict what their cycle is going 
to be and have enough time to truly become involved with their families 
again, have some downtime, then refurbish, retrain, and go back.
  I suggest to the other side that if they believe this is an amendment 
that is incompatible with military service, they might want to consider 
a letter I received today from the Military Officers Association of 
America. This is the largest and most influential association of 
military officers in the country. It is composed of 360,000 members 
from every branch of the military. They wrote me today. I will read 
portions of this letter:

       On behalf of the 368,000 members of the Military Officers 
     Association, I am writing to express our support for your 
     amendment. The MOAA is very concerned that steps must be 
     taken to protect our most precious military asset--the all-
     volunteer force--from having to bear such a disproportionate 
     share of national wartime sacrifice. If we are not better 
     stewards of our troops--

  This is the president of the MOAA, VADM Norbert Ryan, U.S. Navy 
retired, saying this--

       If we are not better stewards of our troops and their 
     families in the future than we have been in the recent past, 
     we believe strongly that we will be putting the all-volunteer 
     force at unacceptable risk.

  I submit to the President and this body, this is not the kind of 
statement that would be made from a group of 368,000 military officers 
unless they believed in the constitutionality and the propriety of what 
we are attempting to do.
  I say to my colleagues, and particularly to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, I am very disappointed in the notion that an 
amendment with this simplicity that goes to the well-being of our 
troops might even be considered as a filibuster. I say to my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle that the American people are watching us 
today, and they are watching closely, with the expectation that we 
finally can take some sort of positive action that might stabilize the 
operational environment in which our troops are being sent again and 
again. The American people are tired of the posturing that is giving 
the Congress such a bad reputation. They are tired of the procedural 
strategies designed to protect politicians' accountability and to 
protect this administration from judgment. They are looking for 
concrete action that will protect the well-being of our men and women 
in uniform.
  The question on this amendment is not whether one supports the war or 
whether they do not. It is not whether someone wants to wait until mid-
July or September to see where one particular set of benchmarks or 
summary might be taking us. The situation is simply this: More than 4 
years into the ground operation in Iraq, we owe stability and a 
reasonable cycle of deployment to the men and women who are carrying 
our Nation's burdens. That is the question.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a question?
  Mr. WEBB. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senator from 
Virginia first for offering this amendment. For those who are new to 
this debate, it is the first amendment on the Defense authorization 
bill, and it is about our troops' readiness to go to battle. There is 
no better author of this amendment than the Senator from Virginia, as 
one of only two combat veterans who is here, proud combat veterans, 
serving in the Senate.
  I would like to ask the Senator, if I understand his amendment 
correctly, it says that if we are going to deploy American soldiers 
into fields of battle, in Iraq and Afghanistan or NATO missions, that 
they not be deployed any longer than they are given an equal amount of 
time for rest or dwell time, as they call it, for training and 
preparation for returning to battle. So if a soldier is being sent to 
Iraq for 15 months, then he or she should have at least 15 months back 
home at the end of that period--or reassigned to a peaceful setting--
before they can be deployed again, for Active-Duty soldiers. Is that 
the gist or substance when it comes to active duty?
  Mr. WEBB. First, I would say to the Senator from Illinois just for 
factual clarification that Senator Hagel and I are the only two ground-
combat veterans from Vietnam in the Senate, but I certainly do not want 
to in any way reduce my respect for the distinguished Senator from 
Hawaii who won the Congressional Medal of Honor during World War II.
  The question the Senator poses is correct. What this basically says 
is that if you have been gone for a year, you deserve to have a minimum 
of a year back. And a lot of people misunderstand what dwell time is. 
Dwell time is not downtime. There is a workup cycle for these units 
before they go back, which is considerable. So even if we are giving 
them a 1-to-1 ratio here, this is not equal time down as compared to an 
equal time deployed. That is why the traditional goal is 2 for 1.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask, if the Senator from Virginia will 
yield further, it is my understanding when it comes to Guard and 
Reserve that he also has some protection for the amount of time they 
will have after they have served. I have been told there is an implicit 
understanding, for example, with Guard members that they would serve 1 
year, for example, and have 5 years before redeployment. In fact, that 
has not been the case in my home State of Illinois, where over 80 
percent of the Illinois Guard units have been deployed into combat 
during the course of this war, and many have been deployed repeatedly. 
So, obviously, the promise that was supposed to be kept hasn't been 
kept, and I ask the Senator from Virginia, how do you protect Guard and 
Reserve when it comes to redeployment in terms of the time they have?
  Mr. WEBB. I would say first to the Senator that I had the privilege 
of being the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs for 3 
years, where we had oversight of the National Guard and Reserve 
programs during a very critical time when we were transitioning into 
what we called the total force concept, and the President's use of the 
Guard and Reserve is certainly something we were not contemplating in 
the 1980s.
  But this amendment sets a floor for the Guard and Reserve of a 3-to-1 
ratio with a goal--a written goal--in the amendment of a 5-to-1 ratio, 
which is the traditional standard.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Virginia has not covered it in his 
floor remarks earlier, what has been the impact of these frequent 
redeployments on Active Guard and Reserve with regard to retention and 
recruitment? In other words, if my Guard unit in Illinois knows they 
are going to be deployed and redeployed within a year or two, it seems 
to me that for some citizen soldiers it would create a hardship which 
they couldn't impose on their families for a period of time.
  Can the Senator from Virginia point to any specific information he 
has about retention and recruitment relating to this redeployment?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, may I ask my friend to yield? Senator 
McConnell and I need to transact some business.
  I would ask that the record reflect that we stopped the Senator from 
Virginia but that he maintain the floor and that the record appear as 
his having not been interrupted. Will that be okay with the Senator 
from Virginia?
  Mr. WEBB. By all means.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

[[Page 18249]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last night, the Republican leader indicated 
that he would have an alternative amendment to Senator Webb's amendment 
and that we would work out an agreement so we would not need cloture, 
and I appreciate that very much. But a problem has developed. We do 
have a side by side from Senator Graham, but what I didn't understand 
is that there would be a requirement of 60 votes on Senator Webb's 
amendment and Senator Graham's amendment. I just don't think it is 
appropriate that there be a filibuster on this amendment, and that is 
what it is.
  I would be happy to enter into an agreement that would provide for a 
majority vote on both the Graham and Webb amendments. So I now ask 
unanimous consent that amendment No. 2013 be withdrawn; that there now 
be 4 hours equally divided to run concurrently on Senator Webb's 
amendment and Senator Graham's amendment, as provided to us this 
morning--we have that amendment, we have looked at it, we understand 
it--and that at the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate 
vote on Senator Webb's amendment, no. 2012, followed by a vote on 
Senator Graham's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, we have 
been here before. Every Iraq amendment we have voted on this year--and 
there have been numerous amendments--in fact, I have sort of lost track 
of how many we have had--every single one of them, as most things in 
the Senate that are remotely controversial, requires 60 votes. I 
believe I am correct in saying that every Iraq amendment we have voted 
on this year, no matter what the underlying bill was to which the 
amendment was being offered, was in a 60-vote contest.
  What we have frequently done is simply negotiated an agreement to 
have the 60 votes we know we are going to have anyway, and the reason 
for that is--well, there are several reasons. No. 1, if a cloture vote 
were invoked, it would further delay consideration of the bill because 
potentially 30 more hours could be used postcloture on an amendment. So 
what we have done, in a rational response to the nature of the Senate 
in this era, is to negotiate 60-vote votes.
  We are perfectly happy to enter into an agreement, as I suggested 
yesterday, for a vote on the Webb amendment and the alternative that we 
would have, the Graham amendment, by consent, two 60-vote requirements. 
That is not unusual in the Senate; it is just common practice in the 
Senate, certainly for as long as I have been here. So, therefore, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I guess rationality is in the eye of the beholder. The real 
facts here are that, on Iraq, for example, the bill the President 
vetoed was not filibustered. We sent a measure to the President that he 
vetoed that had 51 or 52 votes. It was in the majority. That is what we 
should do here.
  It appears to me we are arriving at a point where, even on the 
Defense authorization bill, amendments leading up to a final vote on 
the Defense authorization bill, which is so important, are going to be 
filibustered. It is really wrong. It is too bad. We don't have to have 
this 60-vote margin on everything we do. That is some recent rule that 
has just come up in the minds of the minority.
  Mr. President, we should move forward on this Webb amendment, move 
forward on the Graham amendment. We have confidence that a majority of 
the Senate supports Senator Webb. I don't know about Senator Graham's 
amendment. But why don't we let the body work its will and then move on 
to other things. We have the amendment we are waiting to offer very 
quickly, which is the one that has been worked on for a long time, 
which is the Levin-Reed amendment.
  So, Mr. President, since there is an objection and based on the 
filibuster of Senator Webb's troop readiness amendment, I send a 
cloture motion to the desk.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Webb, et 
     al., amendment No. 2012, to H.R. 1585, Department of Defense 
     Authorization, 2008.
         Jim Webb, Richard Durbin, Daniel K. Akaka, Jack Reed, 
           Carl Levin, H.R. Clinton, Russell Feingold, Jeff 
           Bingaman, Christopher Dodd, Frank R. Lautenberg, John 
           Kerry, Patty Murray, Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown, Ken 
           Salazar, B.A. Mikulski, Joe Biden, Harry Reid.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory live quorum be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator McCain is here and will be 
seeking recognition momentarily, but let me suggest that this is not 
the most efficient way to move forward with the bill. We have been down 
this path before on virtually every measure that comes before the 
Senate. The most expeditious way to move forward is by agreement, not 
by the filing of cloture.
  Having said that, I hope that once it is clear cloture is not going 
to be invoked, we can get back to the normal way we handle debate on 
these matters and therefore have a better chance of processing this 
very important bill and moving it toward passage.
  I don't know if my friend from Arizona wanted to ask a question or 
wanted to get recognition.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to seek recognition, but I 
see the assistant majority leader is up, and I will be glad to wait on 
him.
  Mr. REID. If I could, Mr. President, Mr. Webb has the floor. I asked 
him to yield to me to do this, and that was the agreement.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would gladly yield the floor, but I don't 
know to whom I am yielding. Where are we?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to first thank the Senator 
from Virginia for his leadership on this amendment, and I am troubled 
by what just occurred on the floor. What the Democratic majority leader 
offered was to allow the Webb amendment, an amendment from the 
Democratic side--which, incidentally, has bipartisan sponsorship with 
Senator Hagel of Nebraska--that it be an up-or-down vote, a majority 
vote, on whether we will give our troops an opportunity to rest before 
they are redeployed back into battle. I think the Senator from Virginia 
has made a compelling argument that it is in the best interest of our 
military--certainly our soldiers and their families--to give them this 
chance for rest and recuperation and retraining before they are 
redeployed.
  The fact is, we know many of these soldiers are being deployed and 
redeployed repeatedly at great personal hardship. We have reports that 
come in that trouble us about family difficulties many of these 
soldiers are going through because of these long periods of separation 
and the fact they are overseas so often.
  Secondly, we know many of the soldiers who return after the stress of 
battle need to sit down and talk to some people, go through some 
counseling to make sure they are dealing with post-traumatic stress 
disorder and other issues which in previous wars had never been 
mentioned and we know now to be very important.
  So the Senator from Virginia is saying: For goodness' sakes, don't we 
owe it to our troops to give them a period of rest before we send them 
back into battle? So he wanted a vote on his amendment, a majority 
vote, up or down.
  We said to the other side, the Republican side: Do you have an 
approach you would like to use on this same issue?
  They said: Senator Graham of South Carolina has an amendment on the 
same issue; we would like that to be offered.

[[Page 18250]]

  So the Democratic majority leader said: Fine, we will treat both 
amendments exactly the same way--have a limited debate, 4 hours, split 
up, and then we will vote on them, a majority vote, up or down.
  But there was an objection, an objection because the Republican 
leader now says: For the amendments, even those dealing with the 
readiness of our troops, we need an extraordinary majority, we want 60 
votes, even on an amendment about the readiness of soldiers where we 
have offered both sides the same opportunity.
  What it tells us is that when it comes to the issue of the war in 
Iraq, I am afraid that the minority--the Republican leader--has made it 
clear that they are going to filibuster every amendment. They are going 
to do their best to slow down and stop this debate on the war in Iraq. 
Instead of coming to the issue in a straightforward and honest way, for 
an up-or-down vote, they prefer to drag this out, drag it out as long 
as they can, try to put off the inevitable. We can't put off the 
inevitable, and the inevitable is this: This is a costly, deadly war. 
As our debate winds on day after day and week after week, American 
soldiers are still in the line of fire. Some of our best and bravest 
will be falling in battle as we stand and debate. That really is not 
acceptable.
  We owe it to our men and women in uniform to do our duty, and our 
duty is fair deliberation, open debate, and then an up-or-down vote, 
and move to the next issue. But according to the Republican side of the 
aisle, that is not the way it will be. They want to filibuster this 
debate on the war in Iraq--everything they can do to slow it down. That 
is unfortunate, and I will tell you something. If they were paying 
attention to the people back in their home States, the people have lost 
their patience with Congress caught up in this kind of procedural 
slowdown. They want us to act, and act decisively; make a decision one 
way or the other; decide whether an amendment is good or bad, but don't 
drag it out in this kind of parliamentary maneuver over an amendment 
which on its face is easily understood, which I think is eminently 
reasonable, and where the other side, the Republican side, has ample 
opportunity to put their own idea up for a vote at the same time.
  It could not be any more fair, and yet the Republican leader objects. 
I hope he will reconsider. Now we are going to move from this 
amendment, the Webb amendment, and the Graham amendment, to substantive 
important amendments on timetables about bringing American soldiers 
home--doing it in a reasonable way but to start redeploying our troops 
out of harm's way. It appears now the strategy on the other side of the 
aisle is, in every respect, to try to slow this down, delay the 
ultimate decision.
  I think Senator Reid, the majority leader, has made it clear. We are 
going to stay here until our job is done. We are committed to making 
this national debate on Iraq a meaningful debate, and no use of any 
procedural tool or tactic is going to stop us from the ultimate 
decision this Senate has to make. It should be done in an open, honest, 
courteous, and civilized way. When we made that offer, I am afraid to 
say the Republican leader objected. I hope we can return to the 
substance of this debate.
  I would like to say that Senator Webb's amendment is not about the 
politics of the Iraq war, and it is not about whether we should be 
there or not be there. It is not about a Republican or Democratic view 
of the war. It simply is about taking care of our troops. We are going 
to spend a lot of hours in debate over the next several weeks debating 
the war policy, but one thing we should not debate is the welfare and 
safety of our troops.
  I believe I can safely say every Senator in this body would agree 
that no matter what else we do, our first duty is to ensure the welfare 
and safety of those who are fighting, sacrificing, and even dying in 
this struggle. This is exactly what the Webb amendment does. Our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have performed their duties 
gallantly over the past 4-plus years. They have not complained and 
returned time and time again into battle. We owe them and their 
families gratitude that no single Member of the Senate could properly 
express.
  But as this war stretches on, it takes its toll. All of us have met 
with Guard units being deployed, other units that are returning. We 
know what they have been through, just vicariously, by talking with 
their families and hearing their stories. Many have returned for 
second, third, and fourth deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Our soldiers spend 12 months of time in theater, and now they are 
going to be spending 15 months, by the latest decision of the Pentagon. 
Is it unreasonable to allow them to spend at least that much time at 
home before they again put themselves in harm's way? I don't think so. 
These short turnaround times affect our men and women in uniform 
professionally and personally. After 15 months in battle we ask them to 
turn around and be ready to leave again in less than a year. That is 
just not enough time. Under normal conditions, the preparations and 
training for deployment can take up to a year. After 15 months in the 
desert, there are going to be significant tasks our soldiers will have 
to accomplish to get themselves and their equipment back in fighting 
condition. After so long away from home base, many individual and unit 
qualifications and training standards have lapsed. It will take time to 
correct it, but how can they possibly accomplish these tasks if as soon 
as they get home they have to begin preparing for the next deployment?
  Without a doubt we have the finest military in the world, capable of 
doing great things. But are we really being fair to them? Are we really 
preparing them for battle as we should, by squeezing so much into such 
a short period of time? Are we shortchanging valuable training that 
will help to keep them alive?
  This effect is not limited to their professional performance because, 
certainly, with this kind of burden at work over such a short amount of 
time, you can be sure that 12 months at home is really not 12 months at 
home. Our soldiers don't complain and always put mission accomplishment 
above all else. So rather than spending time at home with the spouse 
and children, building the strong families necessary to sustain long 
separations and deployment, they will spend longer and longer hours at 
work training.
  All we are asking with the Webb amendment is to remember the 
sacrifices of our soldiers and their families. Soldiers deploy. That is 
what they do. They know when they sign up. A soldier's family is 
strong. They persevere and adapt to ever-changing schedules. But the 
strain these families have been put under in the past few years and 
will have to face in the future is too much. We are seeing divorce 
rates skyrocket, and rates of alcohol abuse have been increasing in the 
military. Pressures of these long deployments and short stays at home 
are taking their toll, as they would in most every circumstance. It is 
not fair to ask them to continue to make this kind of sacrifice.
  There are many out there who say our Army is near the breaking point. 
I can't answer whether it is or not. But I certainly can speak for 
families from Illinois and the families with whom I have spoken, and 
they are courageous without a doubt, but they are being pushed to the 
limit. We hear all the time about supporting our troops. What does it 
mean? Many people say the phrase but do not really know what it means. 
This amendment is exactly what it means. Our military personnel and 
their families have borne almost the entire burden of the struggle our 
Nation has undertaken since September 11, 2001. They have done it 
spectacularly.
  One of the critiques I have heard that I think is fair is, after 9/11 
our country was ready to move together. I can't recall a period of 
greater national unity. Had the President made an appeal for shared 
sacrifice to fight this war on terrorism, I am certain he would have 
received resounding support from both sides of the aisle all across the 
Nation.
  But, sadly, that appeal was not made. He has asked for sacrifice from 
our

[[Page 18251]]

military and their families, and they have certainly gone above and 
beyond the call of duty. For the rest of us, life is all but normal 
every single day. There is hardly any sacrifice because of this war on 
terror or war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is it too much to ask in the Webb 
amendment to at least acknowledge the sacrifices already being made by 
our soldiers before we push them back into the danger of battle?
  There will be an amendment offered by Senator Graham. I read the 
amendment. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Graham, but in 
all fairness there are two obvious omissions. First, there is no 
reference at all in his amendment to the National Guard. I think that 
is an important consideration, not just Active military and Reserve, 
but the sacrifice being made by our National Guard. Second, taken in 
its entirety, the Graham amendment is just a sense of the Senate. It is 
a little note that is being passed around. It has no impact of law, as 
the Webb amendment would. A sense of the Senate is not enough. We owe 
our fighting men and women so much more.
  Our soldiers have not asked us to do this, but Senator Webb, Senator 
Hagel, and those who have been in battle, as Senator McCain has been, 
understand we need to stand up and speak for them even when duty keeps 
them quiet, when they do not come forward to ask for this helping hand.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the Webb amendment. I hope the 
Republican leadership will reconsider its position and allow these 
amendments to be voted up or down and get on with this debate after a 
reasonable period so we can complete this important bill on the Senate 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I paid attention to the statement of the Senator from 
Illinois, as well as that of the Senator from Nevada. We may be 
approaching--not a historic moment in the history of the Senate but 
certainly one worthy of note; that is, according to my staff, that is 
not always accurate but is well meaning, we are about, maybe, at least 
26 years since we have not had a Defense authorization bill passed by 
this body. Clearly from this beginning it appears, as on most other 
issues that have come before this body recently, we will be gridlocked.
  Cloture motions will be filed. Votes will be taken. Time passes and, 
unfortunately, during that period of time, the men and women who are 
serving in our military will be without their pay increase. They will 
be without the increase in numbers that are called for in this bill, 
from 512,000 in the Army to 525,000; from 180,000 in the Marines to 
189,000.
  The best way, probably, to relieve the stress on the men and women in 
the military and the overdeployment that, unfortunately, we all regret 
they have had to bear, their unfair share of sacrifice in defense of 
this Nation and its security, is to increase the size of the military. 
That is in this bill.
  Frankly, the reason we arrived at these numbers is it is just about 
as many as can be recruited additionally; otherwise, I think you would 
see additional numbers.
  Instead of the 3.5-percent pay increase, instead of increasing size 
in the Army and Marine Corps, which we all know is badly needed, some 
of us, including my friend from Michigan, have known for many years how 
badly it was needed. One of the many mistakes made by the previous 
Secretary of Defense was not to call for a dramatic increase in the 
size of our Marine Corps and Army, for which our military families have 
paid a very heavy price.
  Here we are, gridlocked in a battle whether we are going to have 60 
votes and whether we are going to have to file a cloture motion which 
will ripen after a couple of days and all the arcane things that very 
few Americans understand. It took me a number of years to finally 
comprehend some of the procedures around here.
  So we are, again, going to probably maintain that historic low in 
approval that was recently, in a recent Gallop Poll that has been taken 
for many years--I have forgotten the number now. I think it was in the 
teens as the approval rating of the Congress on the part of the 
American people.
  Anybody who just watched the proceedings that went on and the 
exchanges between the two leaders make that disapproval rating far more 
understandable. The average citizen watching these debates really 
doesn't understand why we don't just go ahead and take care of the men 
and women in the military, to give them the arms and ammunition they 
need, to give them the much needed equipment we have talked about on 
this list--the $2.7 billion items on the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded 
requirements list, things like the $4.1 billion for the MRAP, the Mine 
Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. We all know how bad the situation 
is, as far as IEDs are concerned.
  What are we going to do? Are we going to sit down and say: Hey, you 
know what. When the Democrats were in the minority around here they 
insisted on 60 votes on just about every issue, particularly important 
ones. We are now insisting on 60 votes, now that we are in the 
minority. Yet somewhere along the way the issue of c-o-m-i-t-y and the 
national interest suffers and is abandoned by the wayside of politics.
  The Senator from Michigan and I will sit here this afternoon and we 
will have statements made by various Members as they come to the floor. 
There are, if my past experience with this bill is accurate, probably 
100, maybe more, amendments that will be pending because there are so 
many issues that are important to Members and important to the defense 
of this Nation. It is very likely, from this scenario I am seeing, that 
we will for the first time in at least 26 years not pass a Defense 
authorization bill--certainly not in a timely manner. We are already 
into the month of July, and, obviously, we will not spend all 4 weeks 
on this issue.
  I think in days gone by--and we all have a tendency to remember the 
good parts and not the bad parts--there was a tendency for the managers 
of the bill and the majority and whatever party was in the minority 
leaders would sit down and say: OK, we are going to narrow down the 
amendments. We are going to have agreement for a certain number of 
amendments and votes, and it would take us a while. I can remember 
sometimes it taking 2 weeks. That is why we usually bump it up against 
a recess because one thing in the 20 years I have been here we have 
never missed is a recess. Now we are going to sit here for this 
afternoon. It is Tuesday afternoon, and we are going to have various 
statements. Members on both sides will display their dedication to the 
men and women in the military. I appreciate that. I appreciate the 
patriotism of every single Member of this body. But are we really going 
to do anything for them? Are we really going to try to help them? Or 
are we going to be locked in combat on an issue that should not be on 
this bill?
  We probably have taken up the issue of the war in Iraq eight or nine 
times. I don't know exactly how many times. We have amendments, we have 
debates, we have 60 votes, and then we move on to something else. 
Meanwhile, we have not done a single appropriations bill, I might add, 
and we are in the month of July.
  Everybody knows, even though I don't happen to agree with it, that 
September will be a seminal time on the Iraq issue.
  General Petraeus will be coming back, and he will be issuing his 
report, which, by the way, I can predict what it is going to be right 
now; mixed, some success and some frustration. Then, guess what, in 
September, we are going to go through another debate. We are going to 
have amendments, and we are going to have 60 votes again.
  Meanwhile, the American people are wondering what in the heck we are 
all about here, and why in the world, in all due respect to the deputy 
majority leader, do we have to keep taking up the Iraq issue when we 
know full well that in September there will be a major debate on this 
issue?
  Meanwhile, the men and women in the military who are serving, to whom 
I see declaration after declaration of our dedication and devotion to 
their welfare and benefit, then what is going to equip them? What is 
going to train them? What is going to give them the

[[Page 18252]]

pay raise? What is going to take care of them is somehow lost in the 
rhetoric of 60-vote requirements, which again, most Americans do not 
understand nor should they be required to, because they expect us to 
come here and act in their benefit. Certainly they should be asking us 
to act on an issue, on a piece of legislation such as the Defense 
authorization bill which has to do with the defense of this Nation.
  Well, I could go on for a long time.
  I do not want in any way my comments to be construed as a lack of 
respect and appreciation for the chairman of the committee, and the 
many years we have worked together, because I am convinced he and I 
could sit down in a very short period of time and work out the number 
of amendments and schedule votes and time agreements. But we are not 
going to do that. We are not going to do that. But please do not come 
to the floor, I ask my colleagues, and talk about your dedication to 
the men and women in the military and how difficult it is for them in 
these times, when we have before us a bill to increase the size of the 
military, we have before us a bill to give them a pay increase that 
they deserve, and it probably is not going to be passed by this body, 
at least before we go out for the August recess. Then we get into 
September. Then we will get into another fight on the issue of whether 
we should withdraw troops in Iraq.
  I don't think we should be very proud of ourselves. I don't. When the 
men and women in the military whom we again, as I say, all profess our 
devotion and dedication to, do not get the equipment they need 
authorized, do not get the increases in pay, do not get the increases 
in numbers that we are trying to authorize, then do not be too 
surprised with the cynicism of the American people and voters and, 
indeed, the men and women who are serving, about the way we do 
business.
  I hope the majority leader and the Republican leader can sit down and 
work this thing out. Look, it is a fact the way the Senate works. It 
happened when the other side was in the minority, that they required 60 
votes on issues of importance. I am sorry they did. I am sorry we did. 
I wish we could have simple up-or-down votes on all of these 
amendments. But to claim that somehow we are filibustering, when that 
was the standard procedure on the other side, I don't think is, 
frankly, too forceful an argument.
  As I say, my staff tells me it has been at least 26 years, probably 
more, since we have not passed a Defense authorization bill. I hope we 
will not break that record. I hope we can sit down together and work 
this out. Again, recognizing these votes on Iraq are votes that will be 
taken again in the month of September, they will be taken again in the 
month of September when the President comes, when General Petraeus 
comes with his report, I would hope we could set the whole issue of 
Iraq aside, go ahead with the authorization for equipping and training 
and protection and welfare and benefit of the men and women who are 
serving us in the military. Unfortunately, I think that is not going to 
happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while we disagree on a very critical issue, 
I as always look forward to working with Senator McCain to work out 
agreements so we can move this bill forward. I am confident we will 
pass the authorization bill this year, the way we have every other 
year, for the reasons Senator McCain gives, which are the critically 
important provisions in here for the men and women in our military and 
their families.
  The difference is apparently as to whether this is an appropriate 
place to debate Iraq policy. It is an authorization bill, which, it 
seems to me, is a very appropriate place to debate policy; in fact, I 
think is the most appropriate place to debate a policy issue such as 
Iraq.
  I have not wished this to be debated on an appropriations bill, 
because I don't think we ought to try to have a policy debate and 
decision when it involves the funding of our troops because I think 
hopefully all of us want to fund our troops. This is an issue as to 
whether we should change course in Iraq. This is a debate which is a 
healthy debate, it is an essential debate. I look forward actually to 
working with Senator McCain to see if we cannot come up with time 
agreements on debates on Iraq--on these amendments on Iraq.
  There is going to be more than one amendment. There are going to be a 
number of amendments and hopefully we can come up with time agreements 
so we can have these debates, have votes on the Iraq issue, and then 
move on, and move forward and adopt an authorization bill with a lot of 
other amendments that are pending as well.
  I am, as always, an optimist. I am particularly an optimist when I 
look at Senator McCain, when I realize that we have worked together 
before, as I have with Senator Warner, on issues that look intractable 
but which are not and can be worked out, and hopefully there can be 
time agreements on these amendments relative to Iraq--which are 
important amendments.
  I cannot think of anything that affects the well-being of our troops 
or our Nation, frankly, more at this moment than the question of policy 
in Iraq, as to whether that policy needs to be changed. There are 
differences as to whether we ought to change course in Iraq, and there 
are some who feel that apparently the policy is working. There are some 
of us who feel the status quo is not working, we need to change it.
  It is not the debate we should have or can have at this moment. We 
are in the middle of a discussion on the Webb amendment. But it is 
appropriate that on this bill, the Senate act. If anything, it has been 
too long, as far as I am concerned, since the Senate has taken a 
position on this. The last time we did it 4 months ago, the President 
vetoed it. We were unable to have our will expressed in a way that was 
not vetoed.
  Waiting until September is not an answer, because there is no reason 
to believe that an effort in September will not be filibustered. There 
is no reason why in September, the people who oppose the change in 
course, the Senators who oppose it, will not get up and say: Well, 
let's wait until October when there is another report which is due. We 
cannot simply delay carrying out our responsibility. We cannot delay a 
debate which is on the most critical subject on the minds of the people 
of America. Waiting for September, when a general is going to give us a 
recommendation, and the President is going to give us a recommendation, 
is a delaying tactic on an issue which is the single most important 
issue on the minds of Americans today. There is no more appropriate 
place to debate this issue than on the Defense authorization bill, 
because it is here where policy issues can and should be debated; a 
better place than on an appropriation bill where the message which 
would be sent to our troops has more to do with whether we are going to 
fund the troops than whether we should continue a policy in Iraq which, 
so far at least, is not working.
  So I am going to continue to be the optimist. I look forward to 
working with Senator McCain. I think our leaders can continue to work 
together to try to work on time agreements for the Iraq amendments. I 
hope and expect we will adopt an authorization bill this year.
  There is nothing unique about the Senate having healthy, vigorous 
debate. That is not unique. Sometimes it looks as though we are not 
going to be able to get something done and, lo and behold, we are able 
to get something done because the American people want us--Senator 
McCain is right--the American people want us to act. We are on the 
verge of acting on the single most important issue on the minds of the 
American people. It was an issue which, more than any other, impacted 
the last election. It was an issue where the Senate spoke in April, and 
where what we did was vetoed by the President. It is an issue where now 
we must face an historic decision: Is the course in Iraq working or 
does it need to be changed? And, if it needs to be changed, what is our 
responsibility in terms of bringing about that change?

[[Page 18253]]

  Those are issues we cannot duck. Those are issues we should not 
avoid. Those are issues which belong on our desks, and require the best 
possible judgment we can bring.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have been blessed in the Armed 
Service Committee to have outstanding chairmen. I was pleased to serve 
under Senator McCain and Senator Levin. A lot of hard work has gone 
into the Defense authorization bills each year I have been here. It is 
remarkable how much we agree on in committee. We come out with very few 
differences, and those are reasonable differences that we sometimes can 
bridge and sometimes we have to vote on and let someone decide. Some of 
the questions are pretty close questions, whether to fund that system 
or that program or not, and good people can disagree regardless of 
their political party.
  I have been pleased to serve with Senator Bill Nelson on the 
Strategic Subcommittee. I chaired that when the Republicans were in the 
majority. He chairs it now that the Democrats are in the majority. We 
have very few differences. I respect his judgment. He is committed to 
serving his country.
  We have produced a bill that I think, all in all, is a good piece of 
legislation that will actually strengthen our Department of Defense, 
the ability of our men and women in uniform to serve their country, and 
take better care of them. So that is a good thing.
  But now we get the bill on the floor, and I guess that group I have 
been referring to in recent weeks as ``masters of the universe''--
somebody up there, up high--decides that this is the time we are 
supposed to have fights, and we are supposed to utilize this 
opportunity to push and push and push on various different areas.
  Now, of course, it is legitimate to debate our commitment and 
strategy in Iraq at this time. But I think what Senator McCain is 
telling us is this, that this bill fundamentally is a bill to deal with 
and strengthen our military, that we just had debates in April and May 
and great detail about our Iraq policy, and we decided on that policy.
  We all know that we will expect a report from General Petraeus in 
September. This is not the time to alter the policy we established 
about 2 months ago. I agree with Senator McCain about that. We can talk 
about it. We can do those things. But is it the right thing to 
jeopardize this bill over other issues--over the issues relating to 
Iraq?
  Let me say a couple of things. The fundamental debate we are having 
here with regard to our Iraq policy, when you boil it down to basics, 
is whether to reverse the policy we established in May.
  That was a decision by an 80-to-14 vote to fund the surge in Iraq, 
after having voted on it in April. We had another vote back in May, and 
we funded this operation through the fiscal year, through September 30, 
if not longer--at least through September 30. And we affirmed and 
confirmed General Petraeus as the commander of that surge by a 99-to-0 
vote. He is a fabulous commander, and he received a bipartisan, 
unanimous vote in the Senate. That is what we decided, after great 
debate.
  Now, what I will say to my colleagues is this: A great nation has to 
conduct itself as such. We are not able to flip-flop around week after 
week and change our minds every few weeks based on this or that event. 
If a serious situation occurs, we can change our mind at any time. But 
great nations are more akin to great battleships. They do not dart 
around similar to a speedboat. They set their course and have to 
justify it carefully before they act. Once they act, they need to stay 
that course, subject to any changes that occur.
  So what I would say is this: I am worried we are doing what some 
political consultants would like to see Democratic leadership do and 
talk about the war because they think that is politically beneficial. 
We ought to be talking about those soldiers we have committed out 
there, placed in harm's way, who are, this very day, walking the 
streets of Baghdad and Al Anbar Province and Tikrit and Mosul, 
executing the policies we voted 80 to 14, in May, to send them to do. 
We voted 99 to 0 to send General Petraeus.
  At that time, we made clear to him we expected a report in September. 
I think that is what we are about here, and we ought to be about, that 
we would go forward--and always subject to our constitutional 
responsibilities to make any changes that are required--but go forward 
to allow the general to carry out the surge we told him to carry out.
  This surge, let me say to my colleagues, has only reached its full 
effort--what?--2 weeks ago when the last brigade reached Iraq. So we 
only reached full capacity of that surge a few weeks ago.
  We know it is difficult now. They said: Well, the bombings are 
occurring outside Baghdad now. Why is that? Well, it is a given that it 
is tougher for them in Baghdad, so they have gone outside Baghdad to do 
bombings. What does that suggest? I would suggest that would lead us to 
conclude the work in Iraq, in Baghdad itself, has already made 
progress. Indeed, if the capital city of Iraq, the biggest city, cannot 
maintain order, it is difficult to see how we can have a political 
settlement all of us wish to occur.
  General Petraeus has taken the case to the enemy. He is moving 
forward aggressively and making military progress. The difficulty--and 
we all know it--is that the Government of Iraq is not performing at the 
level it needs to perform. This is a matter we are not able to deny. I 
know when I traveled to Iraq with Senator Levin--and when I was there 
more recently with Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska--we raised the 
importance with the Iraqi people and the Iraqi leaders of having a 
functioning government.
  Senator Levin has strongly believed and consistently argued that one 
way to get them to perform is to threaten to pull out our troops. I 
have come to believe their failure to perform cannot be altered by 
threats to pull out troops. I wish it could be. I wish we could do it 
that way. But it is more difficult than that.
  So they are struggling, and I do not know whether they can pull this 
Government together. I certainly hope so. But I will tell you one 
thing. Progress is being made in a number of different areas 
militarily. This gives me some hope they can pull this Government 
together. That is where we are at this point. I do not see any other 
way to analyze it, honestly, to the American people. That is what I say 
to them as best I can.
  I believe our military is performing magnificently. I believe the 
Government in Iraq continues to have serious problems in effectuating 
the kind of stability and reconciliation they need to effectuate so we 
can have a better capability of reducing the troop levels we have in 
Iraq today.
  Now, the way this deal went down--and we voted to send General 
Petraeus there. We talk about making reports back to us. I remember 
distinctly in the Armed Services Committee, when he was up for 
confirmation, I asked General Petraeus did he believe we could be 
successful in Iraq. He said: Yes, sir, I do. General Petraeus had been 
there when the initial invasion occurred. He commanded the 101st 
Airborne in Mosul. He came home for, I think, less than a year and went 
back to take over the training of the Iraqi military. He then came 
back, wrote the Department of Defense manual on how to defeat an 
insurgency operation--the very project he executes--and the President 
has asked him to go back to Iraq to execute a strategy to defeat the 
insurgency that is going on in that country at this time.
  So I asked him, would he tell the American people and the Congress 
truthfully whatever the situation was when he was there? He previously 
said this was a difficult but not impossible task he was taking on. He 
said: Senator, you can count on it.
  I asked Secretary Gates, the Secretary of Defense, at a hearing: 
Secretary Gates, will you tell the American people if this military 
effort in Iraq cannot succeed and we ought to do something else? He 
said: Yes, sir, Senator. I feel that is my responsibility as Secretary 
of Defense.

[[Page 18254]]

  I will say to you, my colleagues, let's not flip-flop around here 
every week with another amendment trying to set another strategy, 
written by a group of us sitting in air-conditioned offices, when we 
have some of the best military minds this Nation has ever produced, 
with great depth of experience--by the way, General Petraeus has his 
Ph.D. from Princeton and was No. 1 in his class at the Command and 
General Staff College. He is over there right now, and we have it set 
for him to come back and go through a very deep and serious evaluation 
of what has happened, where we are, and where we need to go in the 
future.
  So it is all right. I know we are going to have people talk about 
strategy and alteration in our policy. But I think, in truth, it would 
be more responsible for us to pass this Defense authorization bill, 
which will make the lives of our military men and women far better, 
will make our Defense Department more effective, and will give us a 
better chance of being successful in Iraq. We need to pass this bill. 
We will be coming back in September, no doubt, for a very serious 
debate on how we go from here in Iraq. That is where we are, in my 
opinion.
  I respectfully disagree with some who see it otherwise, who think 
they have divine strategy--reading a few newspaper articles, I guess, 
and talking to a few folks and going to Iraq once or twice; I have been 
there six times--and trying to come back and formulate a policy. I do 
not think that is wise right now. I urge our colleagues not to go in 
that direction.
  I will take one brief moment to say I respect my colleague from 
Virginia, Senator Webb. I recognize the goals and the desires reflected 
in that amendment--his belief that soldiers ought to have guaranteed 
time of deployments passed by statute by the Congress of the United 
States. But I do not agree. I think this is a very significant 
amendment. I believe it is an amendment that alters the traditional 
power of the President as Commander in Chief. I think it could put us 
in very difficult circumstances in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to remember the amendment is not limited to 
Iraq, it covers any military activities we get involved in, in the 
future, any war now or series of wars we may find ourselves in, in the 
future. War is very difficult, indeed.
  I remember our former colleague, Senator Strom Thurmond, I think at 
age 40, volunteered to go in the Army. He had to make them take him. He 
was a sitting judge. He was not required to go. He was deployed to 
England. I do not know how long he had been in at the time D-Day 
occurred. He volunteered to go in on a glider behind enemy lines in the 
nighttime at the time of the D-Day landing to try to protect the 
soldiers on the beach from counterattacks.
  I remember asking Strom--former chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, I will note--I asked: Strom, well, how long did you stay in? 
Did you stay in until Germany surrendered? He said: Yes, sir, we stayed 
in until Germany surrendered--there to the day they surrendered. He 
said: In fact, after Germany surrendered, I was on a train heading 
across the United States to the Pacific. They were going to send us to 
Japan when they dropped the bomb on Japan.
  I wish to say, I do not know what General Eisenhower, General 
Marshall, General MacArthur would think about a policy that says, in a 
time of war, Congress is going to decide how long people are deployed. 
I do not think it is good policy for a lot of reasons. I would express 
my objection to the amendment. I know it is well intentioned.
  I say this: The military understands it. The military is determined 
to reduce deployment times in Iraq. Secretary Gates has made that 
clear. But had he not been able to extend for 3 months those soldiers 
he extended, it would have required as much as five new brigades to be 
sent over there. Some of them would not have had their full time at 
home that he wanted them to have at home. He thought it was better to 
do it that way than the other way. I believe, under the circumstances, 
that was a correct decision. People could debate that, but I think he 
made the right decision there. So it is better to do it that way. To 
pass a law, sitting here in air-conditioned offices, that is going to 
direct how the military deploys its troops in times of war is something 
I think we should not do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I also thank the members of the Armed 
Services Committee, the Senators from Michigan and Arizona, for all the 
work they have done on this Defense authorization bill.
  I hope the Members of the Senate would have an honest discussion and 
debate and vote on these amendments and to uphold the 60-vote threshold 
on something that is as important as this Defense authorization bill, 
the many amendments that are going to come before us today, I think, 
takes away from the process, quite honestly.
  As far as the air-conditioning goes in this body, I have advocated 
since I got here, if we shut the air-conditioning down, we would 
probably be a little more concise and gotten to the point a long time 
ago.
  I rise today in support of an amendment offered by my friend, Senator 
Webb. As many colleagues here in this body know, Senator Webb is a 
highly decorated marine and Vietnam veteran. I respect his judgment. I 
trust his counsel enormously on these issues. I am proud to cosponsor 
his amendment as one part of a strategy to strengthen our military and 
change course in Iraq.
  I also rise today to honor those who have served in Iraq, in honor of 
those who have been hurt there, and in honor of those 3,600 who never 
came home. Twenty brave men from my State paid the ultimate sacrifice 
in Iraq. They are our friends, our neighbors, our brothers, our 
sisters, our parents, and our children.
  The war in Iraq has dominated this country's dialog and conscience 
for 5 long years. It is now costing us more than $2.5 billion every 
week; some say it is $3 billion. That is over $100,000 every minute of 
every hour of every day in Iraq.
  Like many of my colleagues in the Senate, one of the most difficult 
things for me is the struggle in my heart. I balance two seemingly 
contradictory ideas: I stand here today proud to support our men and 
women in service, and I also stand here today proud to say that I 
adamantly oppose this war. I lie awake trying to think of ways to give 
our troops the resources they need to do their jobs in Iraq but all the 
while trying to figure out ways to bring them home to their families, 
friends, and communities.
  Let me be clear about this: The men and women fighting this war have 
my full and unconditional support as a Montanan, as an American, and as 
a Senator. This country's service men and women have performed their 
jobs with honor and distinction in the most difficult conditions 
imaginable. I have supported them since the beginning, and I will 
continue to support them in the field and, just as importantly, after 
they come home--something our Nation has fallen behind on doing.
  For more than 2 years, I have been asking the President of this great 
country to develop a plan to get us out of Iraq. I am disappointed to 
report that I no longer believe President Bush will use any of his 
remaining 559 days in office to do so. Think of this. We were told in 
2003 that we were invading Iraq for the following 3 reasons: to find 
and destroy weapons of mass destruction, to topple Saddam Hussein's 
regime, and to give the Iraqi people a chance to establish their own 
government. While certainly no weapons of mass destruction were found, 
any infrastructure that may have been in place to create such weapons 
of mass destruction has been destroyed. Saddam Hussein's government has 
been dissolved, and an evil dictator has been captured and put to 
death. The Iraqi people have voted on several occasions on their 
Government, their Constitution, and their future. I would say our work 
in Iraq is done. It is time for American troops to stop refereeing a 
centuries old civil war and come home after a job well done.

[[Page 18255]]

  The President has not come up with a plan to bring the troops home. 
Instead, he jeopardized their funding, their equipment, and their 
training by vetoing legislation that would have funded those vital 
needs and begun the process of getting them home. The President uses 
our fighting men and women as pawns in this political game that is 
dividing our own people at home. That is totally unacceptable. 
President Bush's intention is clear--to leave our troops in the middle 
of this bloody civil war until he leaves office. That is why I am 
announcing I can no longer give the President the benefit of the doubt 
that he will end the Iraq war.
  I am going to take a moment today to share with my colleagues 
thoughts on a possible three-point plan I hope will bring the Iraq war 
closer to an end, make our troops safer around the world, and refocus 
our efforts on those terrorists who attacked this Nation on September 
11.
  First, we must support the Webb amendment that protects the mental 
and physical health of our troops. We all know a neighbor or a friend 
whose son or daughter has been deployed two, three, or even four times 
with seemingly no rest at home. That is why I am cosponsoring this 
amendment with Senator Webb. It deals with troop readiness. His 
amendment basically says that if you are going to send a unit into war, 
make sure they are well trained, well rested, and ready for the fight. 
It is very simple. It is common sense.
  More and longer deployments of units with less time to rest and 
recuperate between means we are going to see more casualties in Iraq, 
more cases of post-traumatic stress disorder, and more suicides after 
they get home. According to the Army's own data, soldiers serving 
repeated deployments are 50 percent more likely than those with only 
one tour to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Let's think 
twice before we let the President send a unit to this war or any other 
of the world's hot spots without the proper training and time between 
deployments. The strength and long-term health of our Armed Forces is 
at stake. This war has taken its toll on our readiness. If we don't 
start now to rebuild and fortify our troops, we will not be able to 
effectively go after the bad guys who continue to threaten our national 
security. We need to pass this Webb amendment, period. It is the right 
thing to do for our troops.
  Second, we must redouble our efforts in Afghanistan. Afghanistan 
threatens to slide back from the progress that was made there 
immediately following the attacks of September 11. But the war in 
Afghanistan is rapidly and dangerously becoming a forgotten war, and 
our lack of effort there helps to explain the rise of al-Qaeda in a 
nuclear and highly volatile Pakistan.
  The link between the 9/11 attacks and the current war in Iraq does 
not exist, period. It never has. Reports confirm that our invasion of 
Iraq has created more terrorists than it has eliminated. Yet the 
terrorist who plotted the most deadly attack on U.S. soil, Osama bin 
Laden, remains at large and ignored by this administration.
  The recent news out of England and Scotland is a grim reminder that 
the threat of world terrorism is still very real. While we pour our 
resources into policing violence in Iraq, extremists are busy plotting 
ways to target us and our allies. It is that kind of terrorism, that 
kind of extremism we need to set our sights on. We need to do it with 
the full might and vigilance of our military and other security forces, 
and we must do it while working to regain the trust of so many allies 
who have become wary of us under the President's leadership. Unlike 
Iraq, we must not ask the U.S. military to shoulder this entire burden 
in Afghanistan by themselves. The United States can and should be 
leaders in the war against terrorism, but we cannot go it alone. We 
have an obligation to our troops and our families to regain the 
diplomatic footing we have lost and involve our allies in this effort. 
We have lost the focus on the war on terrorism and we must regain it.
  Finally, I am proud to announce my support for the amendment authored 
by Senator Byrd deauthorizing the 2002 use-of-force resolution. The 
resolution Congress passed in 2002 is tragically outdated. The mission 
in Iraq is not the mission Congress authorized 5 years ago. The 
President needs to ask Congress and the American people for approval to 
prosecute what seems to be a very different mission in Iraq.
  Proposed legislation to deauthorize the 2002 resolution would make a 
few things crystal clear. Our current mission in Iraq is over on 
October 11, 2007. Let me repeat that. The war in Iraq is over on 
October 11 of this year. After that, the President would have to make a 
new case for a new mission, one that more accurately reflects what the 
U.S. troops are now doing in Iraq. If he cannot make that case to 
Congress and the American people, then our troops need to come home.
  Now, we understand al-Qaeda is going to try to exploit the situation 
in Iraq for their own purposes, and there are measures we can take to 
deal with that. We must not let Iraqi al-Qaeda units get a foothold in 
the country, especially in the western part of Iraq. So I would support 
a no-fly zone in Iraq, which would ensure that the United States and 
our allies can keep reconnaissance eyes on efforts to restart terrorist 
training camps there. To fight the growing number of terrorist camps, 
we will need warships in the area and aircraft that can reach those al-
Qaeda targets. We must not hesitate to strike against al-Qaeda. The 
safety of this country and the world depends on that.
  We need to continue to improve our ability to gather intelligence on 
the ground in Iraq, but we do not need and I will not support U.S. 
troops policing a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiite militias. 
I will not support our military personnel guarding bridges and 
disarming roadside bombs. It is in our national interest to fight al-
Qaeda but not this civil war.
  The mission in Iraq has changed, and the American people realize it. 
It is time the President did as well. In February of this year, I said 
the President must tell the American people what success means and how 
it should be quantified. If success means free elections in Iraq, then 
we should have been gone 2 years ago. If success means toppling Saddam 
Hussein, then we should have been gone 3 years ago. If it means 
something else, then the President must identify a clear and achievable 
outcome. At this point, that has not happened, and enough is enough.
  For 2 years, as a Montana State Senator, a candidate for the U.S. 
Senate, a Senator-elect, and a U.S. Senator, I have given the Commander 
in Chief the benefit of the doubt that he would tell Congress and the 
American people how to define success in Iraq and how he meant to 
achieve it. He has not done so. The President refuses to support our 
troops by keeping them in the middle of a civil war with no end in 
sight. They fight every day in a war with no plan and no definition of 
success, and, most importantly, they are dying every day in a war the 
American people do not want to be fighting. We and our troops deserve 
better. They deserve the truth.
  Since the President refuses to support the troops by developing a 
plan to bring them home, then we must and we should and we will. But 
above all, we must stand by our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. 
We support them wholeheartedly while they fight and support them for 
what they will endure after they get home from Iraq. It is on behalf of 
those troops and those who fought before them that I am cosponsoring 
the Webb amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to talk about the 
amendment before us and some of the other amendments. These amendments 
generally are intended to change our military policies, our presence in 
Iraq, and essentially to begin, one way or the other, a politically 
staged withdrawal from Iraq. We are talking about how we are concerned 
about and support the troops. Do you know what I hear from the troops? 
I have been there, I have talked to them, and I have heard from them at 
home. The one thing they say is: We are over here

[[Page 18256]]

risking our lives. We are fighting a mission which we believe is 
succeeding. We are making progress. The last thing we want is Congress 
to declare a military end or take over the management of the war from 
our commanders. Time after time, they have told me: We have made too 
many contributions and sacrifices to walk away now and see all we have 
done go for naught. I will talk about going for naught later on. But 
the point is that, yes, America has made contributions, large-dollar 
sums of contributions. But families who have lost loved ones, who have 
had them maimed, and their comrades-in-arms know the sacrifices these 
men and women have made. The one thing they implore us to do is not to 
see these sacrifices be made in vain.
  Well, we have seen a lot of negative stories. The media has more than 
adequately covered those. So people are concerned about what is going 
on in Iraq. We ought to be concerned. But we are not hearing the 
stories about what is positive, about the successes of this new 
strategy, the Petraeus strategy.
  I was in Ramadi and Al Anbar 2 months ago and traveling elsewhere, 
and I found some amazing things. The new counterinsurgency strategy, 
with the cooperation of the Sunni sheiks who are now working with our 
military, has really essentially driven al-Qaeda out of Ramadi, and 
they are driving them out of the Al Anbar Province. Make no mistake, 
when we heard ``civil war, civil war,'' the people over there--the 
marines, the soldiers--know they are fighting for and looking for al-
Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is the driving force that is keeping it stirred up, and 
they are on the mission to search and destroy al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is 
there big time.
  But we have been hearing lots of arguments now in favor of--and they 
are heartfelt arguments and people believe them--it is time for 
retreat; it is time to cut back; it is time to withdraw. The cost of 
lives and treasure is too high. The war has not been properly managed. 
The war cannot be won.
  Over the last several weeks on break, when I was traveling, I had the 
opportunity to read ``Team of Rivals'' about Abraham Lincoln and the 
conduct of the Civil War. Over a century and a half ago, many of these 
same arguments were offered abundantly as reasons for President Lincoln 
to accept defeat of the Civil War, and they are now being made for 
President Bush to accept defeat in Iraq. As noted in historian Shelby 
Foote's ``The Civil War: A Narrative,'' Members of Congress playing 
general urged the troops to abandon the cause. That great Ohio 
Representative Clement Vallandigham, leader of the Copperhead 
Democrats, campaigned for office by calling upon soldiers to desert. He 
declared the South was invincible.
  As noted in passages in ``The Civil War,'' in late 1862, ``Senate 
Republicans caucused and, with only a single dissenting vote, demanded 
that Lincoln dismiss Secretary of State Seward'' because they thought 
he was responsible for the conduct of the war.
  Republican Leader Thurlow Weed observed that ``the people are wild 
for peace. . . . Lincoln's election is an impossibility.'' They were 
after him in full force. I don't need to elaborate on the enormity of 
the Civil War, and I don't need to explain what would have happened had 
Lincoln relented to those politically popular sentiments at the time.
  Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed 
the enemy had to be defeated. Despite being reviled for staying the 
course, President Lincoln did stay the course. Unfortunately, too many 
of my colleagues today don't seem to be willing to see this one 
through. Here we are again, barely weeks into the full implementation 
of General Petraeus's surge, and the naysayers continue to argue for 
defeat. It was only a few months ago this body had been calling for and 
looking for a new strategy, which I believed we must have, which 
changed the unsuccessful strategy we had, which argued for the Baker-
Hamilton report, which said in essence you have to have a new strategy, 
you cannot precipitously withdraw. We came forward and General Petraeus 
drafted a counterinsurgency strategy. That is what he told us he was 
going to do, supported by the surge. Now people want to pull the rug 
out from under him. He said at least give him until September to see if 
this new counterinsurgency strategy works.
  They are bringing in American soldiers and marines to go in with 
Iraqi security forces, Iraqi Army, Iraqi police, embedded with them in 
command centers, barracks; they stay there, live among the people they 
are protecting, and they have cleaned out the areas. They have cleaned 
out Ramadi. Two months ago, four Members of Congress walked through 
downtown Ramadi, which had been an al-Qaeda command center. Al-Qaeda 
has been driven out, but naysayers continue to argue for defeat.
  Now, there may be some short-term political benefits for those 
calling for withdrawal. There is popular sentiment for it. Some people 
honestly believe that. But let me quote 1LT Pete Hegseth, an Iraq war 
veteran and director of Vets for Freedom:

       Iraq today is the front line of global jihad being waged 
     against America and its allies. Both Osama bin Laden and 
     Ayman al-Zawahiri have said so.

  He is correct. Our intelligence services said so. They warned us in 
January in an open intelligence hearing that if we withdrew on a 
political timetable and took our troops out without making sure that 
the Iraqi security forces were adequate, there would be chaos. There 
would be chaos and greatly increased killings among Sunni and Shia. Al-
Qaeda would be able to establish a safe haven in which to launch 
recruitment, training, command and control, and weapons of mass 
destruction development. The violence and chaos in Iraq would likely 
bring in coreligionists from other countries of the region as they went 
in to protect their fellow religionists. We could have a regionwide 
civil war, Shia versus Sunni.
  That is what will happen if we withdraw. Most of us concede there was 
poor management and costly mistakes were made in the post-invasion 
phase in Iraq. But they are not compelling reasons for why we should 
retreat and, like all mistakes, we should learn from them and not go 
back and commit them again by drawing down forces to the point where we 
don't have adequate troops to work with the Iraqi security forces.
  Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson recently pointed out that 
those who are calling for retreat are not learning from previous 
mistakes but repeating them. Gerson writes:

       History seems to be settling on some criticisms of the 
     early conduct of the Iraq war. On the theory that America 
     could liberate and leave . . . force levels were reduced too 
     early . . . security responsibilities were transferred to 
     Iraqis before they were ready, and planning for future 
     challenges was unrealistic.
       And now Democrats running for President have thought deeply 
     and produced their own Iraq policy: They want to cut force 
     levels too early and transfer responsibility to Iraqis before 
     they are ready, and they offer no plan to deal with the chaos 
     that would result six months down the road. In essential 
     outline, they have chosen to duplicate the early mistakes of 
     an administration they hold in contempt.

  I agree with Gerson, we should not make those mistakes. We must 
fulfill the mission that over 3,600 brave men and women have made the 
ultimate sacrifice for.
  To quote a Missouri guardsman, COL Bob Leeker, who just returned from 
commanding the 507th Air Expeditionary Group in Iraq:

       I only hope that the American people will give us the time. 
     The American people must understand that this is not only 
     about Iraq, it is a fight against Muslim fanaticism, Muslim 
     extremists. If we pull out in the near term, or at the wrong 
     time, there will be an incredible amount of blood running 
     throughout Iraq, and the blood and sweat that I and my 
     brethren in arms have already given will be for nought.

  These are compelling words. They ought not to be taken lightly. Not 
only is the security and safety of our Nation and allies at stake, but 
so too is our credibility.
  Critics frequently claim the war has damaged the United States image 
and credibility throughout the world. Yet these same critics ignore 
what irreparable harm would be done were we to leave this mission 
unfilled. If you

[[Page 18257]]

think our mission has made our image and reputation plummet, wait and 
watch it nosedive after we leave Iraq before finishing the job. Think 
about the millions of Iraqi citizens and leaders who have taken a stand 
against terrorism, who have committed to work with us, to rebuild their 
country, to fight against the forces of radical Islamists and 
terrorists. What are we to say to the millions of Iraqis who trusted 
Americans and believed we would stay until the mission was completed? 
We would, regrettably, see them slaughtered by terrorists as a result 
of our abandoning them before they were able to stand on their own.
  What did we say to the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese or 
millions of Cambodians who trusted America and were slaughtered after 
Congress dictated that we abandon them?
  History has taught us when American abandons its commitment to 
spreading liberty and freedom, we are not the only ones who suffer. 
Rest assured, it will come back to harm us in our own homeland.
  Just as our intelligence community has warned and terrorist leaders 
have stated, Iraq will become a base and safe haven from which to plan 
and launch future attacks.
  Let me be clear, the enemy in Iraq consists of murderous, barbaric 
terrorists. They are not ``insurgents'' or ``jihadists.'' Let's get 
terms straight because we fall into the trap of taking their terms. 
Jihad in the Muslim religion is the individual journey to moral 
improvement. It has been misrepresented to be a philosophy that permits 
encouraging the killing of innocents, the slaughter of fellow Muslims, 
the slaughter of women and children. The real Arabic term for that is 
hirabah. The people who commit it are not insurgents or jihadists, but 
mufsidoon. These people are condemned to live with Satan because they 
have committed blasphemy. These are the people we are fighting. It is 
not a civil war. They are the people who violate the tenets of Islam. 
They try to hijack it, try to claim the Islamic banner; but they are 
not practicing the religion of the Prophet Mohammed.
  Well, there is another reason these people want to sanitize the 
description we use of them. Calling them insurgents implies they have 
the support of the local population. But the local population is being 
victimized, killed, evicted from their homes, or beheaded by the so-
called insurgents. That is why the Sunni sheikhs in al-Anbar are 
working with us. They have lived under al-Qaeda. They want an end to 
the terror. That is why they are helping us to identify who they are, 
where the weapons caches are, and where the IEDs are hidden. They are 
sending in young Sunnis to sign up. They want to be free of the 
terrorists.
  Precipitous withdrawal would be a rallying cry for terrorists and al-
Qaeda around the world. It would invite further aggression and attacks 
from the barbarians. It would be a total loss of freedom, liberty, and 
peace, and would be a victory for totalitarianism, terrorism, and 
treachery.
  In a recent book by J. Michael Waller, a scholar at the Institute of 
World Politics, he defined terrorism as:

       A form of political and psychological warfare; it is 
     protracted, high intensity propaganda aimed more at the 
     hearts of the public and the minds of decisionmakers and not 
     at the physical victims.

  By Waller's definition and what I have heard from some people in this 
body and the media, the terrorists are certainly hitting their targets. 
Our words should inspire our troops and the millions of Iraqi citizens 
who actually trust that Americans will not embrace defeat and leave 
them. Instead, the words of the retreat-and-defeat crowd inspire al-
Qaeda and the murderous terrorists attempting to ignite sectarian 
strife.
  Now is not the time to pull out when we are seeing encouraging signs 
in places where the surge has been implemented. Al-Anbar Province shows 
tremendous signs of progress. Even the New York Times' Michael Gordon 
reported last Friday how young American soldiers are executing General 
Petraeus's new strategy on the ground, and how they are fighting and 
defeating al-Qaeda.
  Here is a quote from Frederick Kagan, a resident scholar at AEI:

       Al-Qaeda's operations in Baghdad--its bombings, 
     kidnappings, resupply activities, movement of foreign 
     fighters, and financing--depend on its ability to move people 
     and goods around the rural outskirts of the capital as well 
     as in the city. Petraeus and Odierno, therefore, are 
     conducting simultaneous operations in many places in the 
     Baghdad belt: Fallujah and Baquba, Mahmudiya, Arab Jabour, 
     Salman Pak, the southern shores of Lake Tharthar, Karma, 
     Tarmiya, and so on. By attacking all of these bases at once, 
     coalition forces will gravely complicate the enemy's movement 
     from place to place, as well as his ability to establish new 
     bases and safe havens. At the same time, U.S. and Iraqi 
     forces have already disrupted al-Qaeda's major bases and are 
     working to prevent the enemy from taking refuge in the city. 
     U.S. forces are also aggressively targeting Shia death squad 
     leaders and helping Iraqi forces operating against the Shia 
     militias.

  Why has this Senate chosen to debate timelines, restrictions, and 
retreat despite encouraging signs that the surge is working, despite 
the fact that this new strategy has only been in place fully for barely 
a month, and despite the fact that those who want to withdraw and 
retreat have failed to offer any constructive alternatives on how they 
would deal with a chaos that would ensue from their retreat? It is a 
huge disappointment that this debate is not about how we can achieve 
victory, but how quickly can we cede defeat.
  This has become a political debate and the focus of our national 
security has been sidetracked. We should not pass legislation that 
provides our enemy a clear path to victory--a victory which, sadly, 
many in this body are ready to award al-Qaeda, without ever having 
given the surge a fighting chance. The surge is indeed the best hope we 
have for establishing safety and stability in the area, which will 
allow the Iraqi security forces to take over and give the Iraqi 
Government the space to develop a workable government that can rule 
their country.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  I ask unanimous consent that after completion of the remarks of the 
Senator from Arizona, that Senator Reed of Rhode Island be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the committee, the 
Senator from Michigan, for his courtesy. I rise today to discuss the 
pending business, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. 
There was a lot of work done on this important legislation. I wish to 
discuss five key areas of the bill--Iraq, our nuclear deterrent, 
missile defense, space threats, and our approach to the war against 
terrorists.
  This bill has fundamental flaws and must be improved, not only so it 
can pass this body, but so it can be signed by the President and not be 
vetoed. Remember, this bill does not need to become law, and failure to 
improve some critical areas of the bill will ensure that it doesn't. To 
that end, it is important that the Senate have sufficient time to 
debate the bill. We have already seen a record number of cloture 
motions filed this year, by my count over 40. And, as I understand it, 
another has recently been filed dealing with the so-called Webb 
amendment. This is probably not a good way to consider a bill as 
significant as the Defense authorization bill.
  Let me, first of all, address the subject of Iraq, the central front 
in the global war against terrorists. Many Senators will spend a 
significant amount of time focusing on Iraq policy, and I welcome the 
opportunity to do that. Iraq, after all, is the central front in the 
global war against the terrorists. This is what Osama bin Laden says. 
This is not my own definition. Our success there is not only important 
to the people of Iraq, but it is critical to the national security of 
the United States.
  I mentioned Osama bin Laden. He once referred to Iraq as the capital 
of the caliphate. That is the area he would like to establish over 
which he

[[Page 18258]]

would rule, and Baghdad would actually be the center part of that new 
area. He has argued that ``the most serious issue today for the whole 
world is this third world war that is raging in Iraq.''
  Let there be no doubt that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are very much 
present in Iraq and very intent on defeating the United States there. 
The junior Senator from Virginia has offered an amendment that will 
codify what the Pentagon, according to the service chiefs and Secretary 
of Defense, is already attempting to do with so-called dwell time. That 
policy is for the Commander in Chief to determine, not the Congress.
  Other Senators will offer other amendments relating to Iraq. Among 
them are amendments to withdraw our troops or make it harder for the 
administration to prosecute the war. I look forward to a debate on all 
of these amendments, but I make two points to my colleagues who might 
use this bill to attempt to prematurely leave Iraq or undercut our 
current strategy there.
  One, we need to give the plan that is being executed by General 
Petraeus time to succeed. We are already seeing signs of progress in 
the early stages of the surge, and we need to await his report in 
September before making judgments about what to do next.
  Second, advocates of withdrawal need to confront the likely 
consequences of their proposed policies, none of which, in my opinion, 
are good.
  To the first point, the last of the five combat brigades of the surge 
just became operational a couple weeks ago, June 15. According to the 
U.S. military spokesman, LTC Chris Garver,

       This is the first time we'll be able to do the entire 
     strategy as it was designed.

  So it would be premature, to say the least, to judge the effect of 
the surge at this point and make important strategic decisions based on 
that judgment. We are already beginning to see Iraqi forces assuming 
more responsibility over their security, coalition forces receiving 
more cooperation from Iraqi civilians, and humanitarian and economic 
conditions improving.
  The second point. Advocates of withdrawal have the duty to tell the 
American people how they propose to grapple with the consequences of 
their withdrawal. What will you do about the likely ethnic cleansing 
and genocide against Iraqi citizens who supported coalition forces? GEN 
Anthony Zinni said:

       This is no Vietnam or Somalia or those places where you can 
     walk away. If we just pull out, we'll find ourselves back in 
     short order.

  What would the proponents of these amendments do when Iraq and al-
Qaeda are emboldened by our retreat, and terrorists enjoy a new safe 
haven from which to plot attacks against the United States and our 
allies?
  Terrorism expert Peter Bergen said this:

       [A U.S. withdrawal] . . . would fit all too neatly into 
     Osama bin Laden's master narrative about American foreign 
     policy. His theme is that America is a paper tiger that 
     cannot tolerate body bags coming home; to back it up, he 
     cites President Ronald Reagan's 1984 withdrawal of United 
     States troops from Lebanon and President Bill Clinton's 
     decision nearly a decade later to pull troops from Somalia. A 
     unilateral pullout from Iraq would only confirm this analysis 
     of American weakness among his jihadist allies.

  What would proponents of amendments do if violence in Iraq escalates 
and draws in neighboring countries? Here is what a recent Brookings 
Institution study said about that point:

       Iraq appears to have many of the conditions most conducive 
     to spillover because there is a high degree of foreign 
     ``interest'' in Iraq. Ethnic, tribal, and religious groups 
     within Iraq are equally prevalent in neighboring countries 
     and they share many of the same grievances. Iraq has a 
     history of violence with its neighbors, which has fostered 
     desires for vengeance and fomented constant clashes. Iraq 
     also possesses resources that its neighbors covet--oil being 
     the most obvious, but important religious shrines also figure 
     in the mix. There is a high degree of commerce and 
     communication between Iraq and its neighbors, and its borders 
     are porous. All of this suggests that spillover from an Iraqi 
     civil war would tend toward the most dangerous end of the 
     spillover spectrum.

  What would the proponents of these amendments say to America's 
moderate allies in the Muslim world, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and 
Pakistan, who would justifiably question our commitment to them and to 
the long war in which we find ourselves?
  And how would the proponents convince them not to begin hedging their 
bets and cooperate less with the United States, thus further enabling 
and emboldening the terrorists?
  Do the proponents of these amendments believe withdrawing our forces 
will end our war against the terrorists? Do they believe they would not 
simply follow us home and attack us on our own soil?
  The Petraeus plan may not offer an easy way forward, but it is the 
only plan I have heard that does not promise defeat. But as I said, we 
will have our debates on Iraq policy, as we should. There are other 
debates about this bill that we should also have.
  I respect the work that many have done on the bill, but an outside 
observer, I suggest, might wonder exactly how this bill is going to 
make us safer. It is supposed to set the national defense policies for 
the United States, but it is not enough to simply provide funding 
authorizations. Leaving threats undefended against will not be excused 
simply because we have spent more money than last year. In fact, some 
of the biggest flaws in the bill are policy changes, not just funding 
changes.
  Let me discuss what some of these flaws are. Our nuclear deterrent, 
the reliable replacement warhead, our nuclear weapons complex, the 
language regarding stockpile stewardship and nuclear weapons complex, 
and, finally, a recommendation regarding the Comprehensive Test-Ban 
Treaty. First, to the reliable replacement warhead.
  I am deeply troubled by what appears to be a strategy of slow, 
inconspicuous disarmament of our strategic deterrent in this bill and 
the other authorization and spending bills of the new majority in the 
Senate.
  The administration's request for development of the first reliable 
replacement warhead programs was completely eliminated by the House in 
its appropriations bill, a fate that thankfully was avoided in the 
Senate subcommittee markup. Yet there is a clear signal sent by this 
bill which cut the administration's request by $43 million out of a 
total of $195 million, and which handcuffs the administration from 
moving beyond all but the earliest phases of development of the 
warhead. This leaves the U.S. nuclear deterrent absolutely reliant on 
weapons designed and built in the 1980s.
  The stockpile stewardship and nuclear weapons complex: Actions taken 
by the new majority in the House cut approximately $500 million from 
the upgrade and modernization of facilities in the nuclear weapons 
complex. These are responsible for refurbishing deployed bombs and 
warheads, storing older ones, and dismantling those no longer needed. 
This, obviously, further erodes the reliability of our current 
stockpile.
  What signal does this send not only to our enemies but to our allies, 
allies who for over 60 years have relied on the umbrella of protection 
of our nuclear deterrent?
  I mentioned the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. Perhaps the most--it 
is hard to find the right word--shall I say irregular part of the bill 
is the language that would attempt to short-circuit what is this body's 
most serious responsibility: the role of the Senate in treaty 
ratification.
  Tucked away near the end of this bill, very much in the fine print, 
is an unprecedented attempt to preordain the ratification of a treaty--
a treaty already overwhelmingly rejected by this body--the CTBT. Unlike 
the very reasoned rejection of the CTBT 8 years ago following extensive 
debate after committee hearings, consideration of intelligence, and the 
like, this language in the bill presumes to state that the will of the 
Congress, without the benefit of a single hearing or single committee 
action of this body, let alone reference to intelligence and debate in 
the full Senate, is to ratify the treaty.
  The solemn responsibility of this body to consider treaties cannot be 
so cavalierly disregarded. How can Senators who were not even in the 
Senate

[[Page 18259]]

in 1999 be expected to evaluate the CTBT without the kind of serious 
consideration that occurred in 1999? This sense of the Senate should be 
called just what it is--a sham. The whole section of the bill reads as 
a throwback to the days of the nuclear freeze.
  Apart from the hortatory verbiage in section 3122, it is clear the 
bill leaves us without the resources needed to develop a smaller and 
safer next generation nuclear stockpile and without resources needed to 
maintain our current stockpile.
  In a fundamental contradiction, the cuts in the nuclear programs will 
actually increase the likelihood of needing to return to testing, the 
very option that would be permanently denied through the ratification 
of the CTBT.
  Next, let me turn to missile defense. I am very troubled by what this 
bill does to undermine the substantial progress made in protecting this 
country from ballistic missile threats.
  During the North Korean July 4 demonstration a year ago, which 
included firing the Taepodong 2 missile with the capability to reach as 
far as Alaska, the President of the United States had an operational 
defense missile system on alert for the first time in history. But this 
bill moves to deny that flexible authority that we have used to 
simultaneously research, test, and deploy an operational missile 
defense system in record time.
  What is more, the bill significantly cuts funding for the 
construction of a European missile defense site, which will allow 
better defense against the Iranian threat, improved coverage of the 
United States, and extension of our missile defense system to provide 
coverage for Europe. This while we are in the middle of negotiations 
with Poland and the Czech Republic, while the Russians threaten a new 
arms race, and while Iran tests the West's resolve.
  The subject of space threats. One of the most significant failures of 
this bill is it does nothing to defend the eyes and ears of this 
country's political, cultural, diplomatic, economic, and military 
might. Since the Chinese antisatellite, or ASAT, test earlier this 
year, very little has been done to defend our global constellations.
  Modest requests from the administration to provide defensive 
capabilities, such as the space test bed, for which only $10 million 
was requested, have been zeroed out by both the House and Senate Armed 
Services Committee.
  What is more, the bill inflicts significant cuts, some $55 million, 
to the space tracking and surveillance system, the next generation 
constellation of satellites that will allow improved tracking and 
targeting of ASAT weapons and midcourse ballistic missile.
  Other space programs, for example, space situational awareness, 
received increases above the administration's request. And I applaud 
the committee for this, but I remind the Senate that this program only 
allows us to see a threat approaching our satellite constellation. It 
does nothing to enable us to defend against the threat. Have we learned 
nothing from recent experience?
  Our enemies have proven they know better than to engage our armies 
and navies directly. They have observed our weaknesses and seek to 
exploit them through asymmetrical attacks. Blind us, and the best navy 
in the world can't repel an attack.
  Who can dispute the fact that the $504 billion that we authorize for 
the Department of Defense in this bill would be virtually meaningless 
if we can't defend our satellite systems from attack? Our satellite 
system is the backbone of our entire national defense.
  Finally, let me conclude by talking about what this bill does with 
respect to the terrorists with whom we are engaged in a life-and-death 
struggle.
  The bill basically would return us to pre-9/11 days, to the law 
enforcement approach to terrorists.
  We should think very carefully about the damage that would be wrought 
in a global war against these terrorists if we have to fight it by 
using the ill-conceived proposals in this bill. One would require us to 
give trials to every detainee we are holding in combat in places such 
as Iraq and Afghanistan. Another would give them access to classified 
information; allow them to compel testimony of witnesses, including our 
own soldiers on the battlefield.
  Have the authors of these provisions thought about where we will get 
the military lawyers needed to implement their criminal law ACLU 
approach to warfare? There are barely enough of them to provide legal 
services to our own troops. Have they thought about what our 
intelligence community will say to the foreign allied intelligence 
agencies, many of which are already concerned about sharing their 
sources and methods of intelligence with us; and who may very well 
completely cease sharing important intelligence information, knowing it 
will be shared with captured terrorist combatants? We know that more 
than 30 detainees have been released from our custody and have returned 
to waging war against the United States and its allies. What will the 
release of potentially thousands of detainees do to our national 
security?
  The Senate must give very careful consideration to this dangerous 
return to the pre-9/11 notion of terrorism as a law enforcement 
problem. Terrorists have made no secret they are at war against our 
civilization. We ignore their warnings at our peril, and we will not 
prevail if we must deal with them as criminal defendants in American 
courts.
  Madam President, I conclude by asking my colleagues to carefully 
consider the impact these several policies I have highlighted will have 
on our national security. Our first obligation is to provide for the 
common defense. Unfortunately, as it is presently written, this bill 
falls well short of that solemn duty, and it could get worse if some of 
the amendments proposed are adopted. I urge my colleagues to take very 
seriously our obligation to provide for the common defense. It begins 
by confining the policies in this bill to the traditional areas of 
defense preparedness. I hope we will be disciplined enough to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I will suggest the absence of a quorum 
for a brief minute. Senator Jack Reed is scheduled to be next, and he 
is within, I think, 30 seconds of getting here. He delayed, as a 
courtesy to Senator Kyl, and so I will put in that quorum call for a 
minute so he can get here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, today I wish to speak on the Senate Armed 
Services Committee bill being considered by the Senate, S. 1547, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. It is, I 
believe, a very good bill.
  I wish to commend the chairman, Senator Levin, and his ranking 
member, Senator Warner, for their efforts and particularly the staff 
and all the work they have done which has contributed to this product 
today. It was reported favorably to the floor of the Senate by a 
unanimous vote of the committee, which shows its bipartisan support.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have had the privilege 
of serving as the chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
Subcommittee, and I would like to share with my colleagues the 
highlights of our bill that originated in the Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee.
  Before I describe those highlights, I also wish to commend and thank 
Senator Dole, the ranking member of my committee. It was a partnership 
and a pleasure to work together with her. She certainly gave valuable 
service, along with her staff, and I appreciate very much her personal 
contribution and her leadership on this issue.
  I would also like to thank staff for their great contribution and 
their great effort.
  By way of background, the Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
Subcommittee, also known as the ETC subcommittee, is responsible for 
looking

[[Page 18260]]

at new and emerging threats and considering appropriate steps we should 
take to improve our capabilities to enhance our security in the light 
of these new emerging threats. Two of our committee markup objectives, 
in preparing the bill, were to improve the ability of the Armed Forces 
to meet nontraditional threats, including terrorism and weapons of mass 
destruction; second, to promote the transformation of the Armed Forces 
to meet the threats of the 21st century.
  In a nutshell, that is what the ETC subcommittee should be all about, 
and I hope this legislation represents the sum of all our efforts in 
that regard.
  This year, there are a number of issues, or themes, that the ETC 
subcommittee's portion of the bill addresses based on the emerging 
threats or challenges facing the United States and on capabilities we 
need to address these challenges. The first thing is the Defense 
Department's need for improved and alternate sources of energy. The 
Department is a massive consumer of energy, including for its military 
vehicles and platforms, and advanced technology may offer improved 
effectiveness at a reduced cost for our military in the area of energy 
conservation and energy demands.
  The second area relates to the language of cultural challenges facing 
our military forces operating overseas. We held a very fine hearing on 
this subject, and there is clearly a need to improve the language and 
cultural awareness capabilities of the military and to make use of 
improved technology in this area. This would improve our military 
effectiveness and our mission success.
  The third issue, or theme, is the threat from the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction and the need to improve U.S. efforts to 
reduce this proliferation risk. We held an excellent hearing with the 
former Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Lugar, as well as witnesses 
from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, on these 
nonproliferation programs, and I think we all must recognize the debt 
we collectively owe, not only ourselves but the Nation, to both 
Senators Nunn and Senator Lugar for their path-breaking work on 
limiting nuclear proliferation and we commend and thank them for that. 
Given the potentially catastrophic damage that could result from such 
proliferation, we must always look for ways to strengthen and improve 
our nonproliferation programs.
  The final and related theme and issue that we discussed is the threat 
of a terrorist incident within the United States involving a chemical, 
biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive device, which 
is known by the acronym CBRNE, a CBRNE device. The challenge is to be 
prepared to manage the consequences of such a domestic CBRNE incident 
and for the Defense Department to have the right capabilities, plans, 
and equipment to provide support to the civil authorities, if 
requested.
  I will address the committee's action on these issues as I describe 
the highlights of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee's 
portion of the bill being considered by the Senate today. Let me start 
with the area of science and technology.
  The bill authorizes increased investment in science and technology 
programs by over $450 million. These programs perform cutting-edge 
research that is developing the capabilities that will ensure the 
effectiveness of our Armed Forces in the future, while strengthening 
the Nation's high-technology innovation sector.
  These additional S&T investments, which reflect military value and 
technical merit, are intended to enhance Defense Department activities 
in a number of areas--advanced and alternate energy technologies; new 
manufacturing capabilities; advanced medical technologies aimed at 
improving the care of combat casualties; and increased funding for 
defense-related university research that will provide the foundation 
for future military capability and, in fact, will probably contribute 
to our overall economy.
  The Armed Services Committee bill authorizes investments of nearly 
$75 million for advanced energy technologies, including programs to 
develop fuel cells, hybrid engines, build hydrogen infrastructure such 
as fueling stations at military bases, and explore the use of biofuels 
for military systems.
  These kind of technologies will save money and improve war-fighting 
capabilities, reduce America's dependency on foreign oil, and help DOD 
lead the way in the widespread droppings of alternative energy 
technologies.
  The bill includes a provision sponsored by Senator Pryor that would 
enhance the Department's nanotechnology research program to reflect the 
maturation of nanotechnology in industry and in universities. It would 
push the Department to have a greater emphasis on issues such as 
nanomanufacturing, moving nanotechnology into major defense systems, 
and monitoring international capabilities in nanotechnology.
  Following a recommendation of the Defense Science Board, the bill 
would require the Defense Department to produce a strategic plan for 
the development of manufacturing technologies. Advanced manufacturing 
processes are the key to ensuring that our defense industrial base can 
respond to the surge of production needs of our deployed forces for 
items such as body armor, vehicle armor, and jamming devices that are 
being used to defeat Improvised Explosive Devices. Manufacturing is 
also one of the keys to our overall global competitiveness.
  I am pleased to note the committee bill authorizes nearly $85 million 
in additional funds for the development of advanced manufacturing 
technologies to support critical defense production capabilities.
  In relation to the threat from proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, the bill authorizes additional funding for important 
nonproliferation programs at the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Energy. This additional funding includes $100 million for 
the Cooperative Threat Reduction--CTR--Program and $87 million for 
nonproliferation programs of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration.
  The bill also authorizes $50 million to support the International 
Atomic Energy Agency proposal for an international nuclear fuel bank. 
This promising idea, if successfully implemented, could remove the 
incentive for countries, such as Iran, to develop indigenous uranium 
enrichment programs for nuclear power reactor fuel. This would address 
the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows uranium 
enrichment for civilian power purposes to serve as a cover for uranium 
enrichment for weapons purposes.
  In addition, S. 1547 includes a provision that would finally repeal 
all the precertifications for the CTR Program. These conditions delay 
the program annually, waste program funds, and have long outlived any 
usefulness. Senator Lugar has worked for several years now to remove 
these restrictions, and I am pleased we have been able to include this 
provision in the bill.
  The additional funding for CTR would allow the program to accelerate 
and expand work into some biological materials and weapons areas that 
have become an increasing concern, and allow for the first time the CTR 
Program to address issues outside the former Soviet Union in a planned, 
nonemergency fashion. The National Nuclear Security Agency Program has 
a number of challenges with respect to the proliferation of nuclear 
weapons, materials, and technology, and much more needs to be done. The 
North Korea nuclear tests last October highlighted an area where we 
need a lot of additional work. That is the area of nuclear forensics 
and attribution. The bill authorizes additional funding to develop new 
technology to detect and identify the sources of nuclear material and 
to support the Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence efforts to 
develop a nuclear material forensic library.
  The real challenge we have that faces us, an existential challenge, 
is the threat that someday a terrorist--not a nation state but a 
terrorist--might detonate a nuclear device in the United States or in 
an allied country. They

[[Page 18261]]

would get that material from some national source. If we can 
effectively trace materials, and we know and we can identify where such 
materials come from, that goes a long way in helping remove the 
incentives for any nation state to provide these types of materials to 
terrorists. I think this is important research, and I am particularly 
pleased that we have incorporated this language in the legislation.
  In the area of homeland defense there is a concern about the enormous 
challenge of dealing with the chemical, biological, radiological, 
nuclear, or high-yield explosives, the CBRNE incident in the United 
States. Such an incident could quickly overwhelm local and State 
emergency response capabilities. The bill contains a provision 
requiring an advisory panel to address the capabilities of the 
Department of Defense to provide support for civil authorities for 
consequence management of a domestic CBRNE incident. The panel would 
report to Congress with any findings and any particular 
recommendations.
  I thank particularly Senator Dole and her staff for leading the way 
on this issue.
  In the area of chemical and biological matters, the bill adds nearly 
$70 million for the Defense Department's chemical and biological 
defense program, including procurement of chemical agent detectives and 
monitors for the Army National Guard. These systems can be used for 
overseas deployments or for domestic consequence management 
initiatives.
  The bill also authorizes the restoration of $36 million for the 
chemical demilitarization program and includes a sense-of-Congress 
resolution that the United States should do everything practicable to 
meet our chemical weapons destruction obligations under the Chemical 
Weapons Convention deadline of April 2012, or as soon as possible 
thereafter. This sense-of-Congress provision includes a number of 
recommendations made by the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell. 
I thank him for his contribution.
  The sooner we destroy the stockpile, the sooner we will remove the 
risks to the communities around the stockpile sites throughout the 
United States.
  Let me turn also to the area of special operations forces, and in 
particular language issues. The bill contains additional funding for 
the Special Operations Command, SOCOM, to meet critical language and 
cultural awareness training requirements, and for various SOCOM 
technology and training programs. All told, the bill authorizes more 
than $20 million additional funding to improve the foreign language and 
cultural awareness capabilities of our military forces.
  The bill also contains a provision creating a National Foreign 
Language Coordination Council, an initiative proposed by Senator Akaka 
of Hawaii, and I thank him for this contribution. This council will 
ensure that the initial steps that the administration has taken will 
develop into an organized and concerted effort to improve the Nation's 
foreign language capabilities.
  S. 1547 includes, in addition, a provision that would require the 
Government Accountability Office to review the ongoing reorganization 
of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The 
committee has expressed strong reservations about this reorganization, 
especially as it pertains to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. The study 
would examine some of the specific committee concerns.
  The bill also authorizes an additional $124 million to cover unfunded 
requirements of the Special Operations Command to procure Mine 
Resistant Ambush Protected, or MRAP, vehicles. This is part of a 
committee-wide $4 billion increase to ensure that U.S. military 
personnel in Iraq receive the best protection available against 
improvised explosive devices, the primary cause of injury and death to 
our personnel.
  I might add, I just returned yesterday from Iraq. One of the points 
that was raised by Major General Mixon, Commander of the 25th Division, 
was the need for these MRAP vehicles. I communicated that directly to 
the Secretary of Defense. I must commend Secretary Gates for his 
aggressive leadership to ensure that these MRAP vehicles are being 
produced and being sent overseas to our forces, particularly our forces 
in Iraq. His leadership on this point is very much appreciated.
  Finally, in the area of counterterrorism and counterdrug policy, the 
committee took a number of actions. On counterterrorism, the committee 
authorized the Department of Defense to provide increased rewards for 
assistance in counterterrorist operations. This is intended to provide 
additional incentives for others to help us find and defeat terrorists. 
The committee also funded the Department's ``train and equip'' program 
to build the capacity of partner nations to conduct counterterrorism 
operations and to operate with U.S. forces in military or stability 
operations. The committee has authorized funding for this program, also 
known as section 1206, at the level authorized last year for fiscal 
years 2007 and 2008. Congress has given the Defense Department this 
authority as a pilot program to the end of this fiscal year, at which 
time Congress can evaluate the program's effectiveness.
  On counterdrug policy, the committee authorized the Department to 
provide counterdrug training and equipping assistance to Mexico and the 
Dominican Republic. This would expand a list of countries to which we 
provide such assistance to these neighbors who are facing serious drug 
challenges. With regard to funding, the committee authorized an 
additional $22.5 million to boost drug interdiction efforts, especially 
in the U.S. Southern Command's area of responsibility.
  Madam President, that is a summary of the highlights of the Emerging 
Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee portion of the Armed Services 
Committee bill. I urge the Senate to support the entire bill, as the 
subcommittee does.
  Now I would like to turn my attention to the matter pending before 
the Senate, and that is the amendment proposed by my colleague, Senator 
Webb of Virginia.
  I rise to commend him. I think this is an important amendment that 
underscores and highlights the strain that our troops are under, given 
the operational demands of efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan and 
many places in the world. No one in this Senate--and particularly in 
this caucus, this Democratic caucus--understands on a firsthand basis 
the strain that soldiers, marines, and airmen and sailors live under 
constantly more than our colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, who is 
a distinguished and heroic veteran of the conflict in Vietnam and 
someone to whom we look for his insight and leadership, particularly 
with respect to the welfare and the safekeeping of our military 
personnel.
  Since 2003, the United States has maintained an average of 138,700 
troops in Iraq. Today we know we are at a level approaching 160,000. At 
the same time, there are approximately 25,500 military personnel in 
Afghanistan and an additional 175,000 military personnel performing 
missions in 130 countries around the world. Nearly every nondeployed 
combat brigade in the Active-Duty Army has reported that they are not 
ready to complete their assigned war missions.
  Let me repeat that. Nearly every nondeployed combat brigade, those 
not in Iraq and Afghanistan, are reporting they are not ready in terms 
of personnel or equipment to complete their assigned war missions. We 
all know if they are ordered to, they will go into the fight and they 
will do well. But they are not going in with the same level of 
personnel, equipment, and in many cases training that we expected of 
them just a few short years ago. This is as a result, a direct 
consequence of the strategy being pursued by the President in 
Afghanistan and Iraq and the size limitations on our military forces.
  Such a sustained operational demand has had a significant effect on 
our ground forces' ability to train, deploy, and conduct their missions 
effectively. The way we measure our military's ability to perform 
effectively is called their readiness. Readiness is composed

[[Page 18262]]

of three elements: Personnel, equipment, and training.
  First let's look at the personnel issues. Since 2002, 1.4 million 
military troops have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The standard ratio 
the U.S. military likes to use for deployments is 1 to 2--meaning for 
every year deployed, 2 years back at the home duty station for 
recuperation, retraining--all those things you need to restore the 
professional skill and a high degree of spirit and morale necessary for 
successful military forces.
  Since the beginning of the Iraq war, however, Army brigade combat 
teams have been on a 1-to-1 ratio: 1 year deployed, 1 year back. That 
puts a huge strain on not only soldiers but the families of those 
soldiers. This ratio was further strained on April 11, 2007, when the 
Pentagon announced that all Active-Duty Army units in the Central 
Command area of responsibility, principally Iraq and Afghanistan, would 
be extended to 15-month tours. The Marine Corps has also moved to a 1-
to-1 ratio: 7 months deployed, 7 months at home station.
  There is another aspect to this, and that is known as stop-loss. It 
has been imposed on 50,000 troops. What this means is that an 
individual is eligible, having served out their enlisted time, to leave 
the military forces, but they are involuntarily held behind in order to 
meet the missions of the Army because of this huge personnel crunch.
  That stop-loss is affecting 50,000 individuals who have served 
honorably and well, who have made plans to return to civilian life. 
Those plans are on hold now. That is another manifestation of this 
strain our land forces are under at this moment.
  The reality of this operational tempo is that many Active-Duty 
soldiers and marines are on their third or even fourth tour of duty in 
Afghanistan or Iraq. Of the Army's Active 44 combat brigades, all but 
the 1st Brigade of the Second Infantry Division, which is permanently 
based in South Korea, have served at least one term in Iraq or 
Afghanistan. Breaking that down further, 12 brigades of Army have had 1 
tour, 20 have had to 2 tours, 9 have had 3 tours, and 2 brigades are on 
their fourth tour. This is an extraordinarily aggressive operational 
tempo to subject any force to.
  Although the deployment for our special operations forces are 
classified, it is known that the average weekly deployment for special 
operations forces was 61 percent higher in 2005 than in 2000. Every 
aspect of our Active Force and many of our Reserve components are being 
stressed with extraordinary contributions to the operations today that 
are worldwide.
  This strain extends to our National Guard and Reserve. More than 
417,000 National Guard and Reserve, or about 80 percent of the members 
of the Guard and Reserve, have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan 
with an average of 18 months per mobilization. Of these, more than 
84,200, or 20 percent, have been deployed more than once. Presently, 
the Army National Guard has 34 brigades; 16 are considered an 
``enhanced brigade,'' which means they are supposed to be fully manned, 
equipped, and able to deploy rapidly.
  Since 2001, every enhanced brigade has been deployed overseas at 
least once, and two have already been deployed twice.
  When the President announced the surge, the Pentagon was forced to 
recall to active duty several thousand Guard and Reserve personnel who 
had already served in Iraq and Afghanistan. In order to do this, the 
Pentagon had to revise its rules that limited the callup time of Guard 
members to no more than 24 months every 5 years.
  With respect to this decision, the Commission on the National Guard 
and Reserve recently concluded:

       Overall, if the reserve component, including the National 
     Guard, continues its high operational tempo, current 
     indicators cast considerable doubt on the future 
     sustainability of recruiting and retention, even if financial 
     incentives continue to increase. There is a real cost to this 
     operational tempo.

  The cost is not only in the immediate near term but also in the 
longer one. Our current policies overseas have overstretched our 
military. The burdens of the past few years will have consequences for 
years to come. We risk rendering our military a weakened force, and we 
want to do all we can to avoid it.
  We are already seeing indications of the stress that is being borne 
by our military forces, and they are manifested in many different ways.
  Yesterday the U.S. Army announced it fell short of its active-duty 
recruiting goal by 15 percent. It is the second month in a row that the 
Army's enlistment efforts have fallen short. This is in the context of 
a belated attempt, I would argue, by the administration to increase the 
overall end strength in the Army.
  You have a situation now where the Army is under huge pressure. There 
is an attempt to increase the numbers overall. That attempt is being, 
at least seems to be being frustrated by the inability to recruit new 
personnel into the Army.
  The Army expressed concern but repeats the fact that the Army has met 
its recruiting goals for the past 2 years. Technically, that is true. 
But a closer look shows there are some disturbing trends that may have 
long-term negative consequences. In order to meet the demands of today, 
the Army is drawing heavily on its delayed entry program, or pool of 
future recruits, which will leave it empty handed in the future as they 
try to enlist more soldiers.
  The Army has also begun to lower standards in order to meet 
recruiting goals. The Army granted approximately 8,500 ``moral 
waivers'' to recruits in 2006, as compared to 2,260 of these moral 
waivers given in 1996. These waivers cover misconduct and minor 
criminal offenses. Again, the trend is not less but more in terms of 
trying to achieve recruiting goals by waiving some incidents that 
otherwise would disqualify a person from joining the Army. Waivers for 
recruits who committed felonies, for example, were up 30 percent in 
2006 from the year before.
  Last year, 82 percent of Army recruits had high school diplomas. That 
is the lowest level since 1981. Only 61 percent of Army recruits scored 
above average on the service's aptitude test last year. That is the 
lowest score since 1985.
  Last year, the Army would not have met its recruiting goals without 
lowering its weight standards and increasing the acceptable recruiting 
age to 42 years old. Frankly, you know, thinking back, not long ago the 
idea of actually trying to recruit people who were 42 years old, might 
have physical problems, who might have minor criminal violations, was 
considered anathema by the military as they prided themselves on the 
ability with each succeeding quarter to indeed try to raise the 
standards. But the pressure on personnel has produced these results.
  Despite these lower standards, basic training graduation rates have 
increased from 82 percent in 2005 to 94 percent in 2006, leaving one to 
wonder whether the training program standards are also being modified 
so that these individuals can get through and get into the brigades 
that need support. That would have long-term, unfortunate consequences 
for the overall effectiveness of our military forces.
  The Army is also using some extraordinary means to maintain retention 
rates. There are problems recruiting, but also they are making special 
efforts to keep those soldiers they have. The biggest incentive, of 
course, for retention is providing financial compensation to those who 
decide to extend. However, the level of funding we are putting toward 
keeping soldiers simply cannot be sustained. In the past 4 years the 
Army has increased the amount spent on retention bonuses from $85 
million to $735 million.
  At the same time, the cost of supporting each soldier has increased 
from $75,000 in 2001 to $120,000 in 2006, because of the inducements, 
pay benefits that are appropriate but very expensive, and again raise 
the question of: How long they can be sustained?
  Despite the increases in pay, the Army is still having difficulties 
with retention, particularly retaining officers. Last year the active 
Army was short 3,000 officers and it is projected this shortage will 
increase to 3,500 officers this year. The Guard and Reserve

[[Page 18263]]

are facing a shortfall of almost 7,500 officers.
  Army reenlistment rates for mid-grade soldiers dropped 12 percent in 
the past 2 years. According to the New York Times, more than a third of 
the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible 
moment, after completing their 5-year obligations.
  For Special Forces, recruitment and retention are most difficult. For 
the past 6 years, 82 percent of the active-duty Special Forces 
specialties were underfilled, many with shortfalls over 10 percent.
  I had a chance to sit down and have lunch with three soldiers at a 
patrol base which had only been in operation for 3 weeks, just about 2 
days ago in Iraq. All three of those soldiers were on their second or 
third tour. Two had already decided they were getting out, and a third 
had not yet decided. They have served their country magnificently. They 
have done it with great dedication, and for many different reasons are 
leaving. That is a very imprecise scientific sample, I would admit, but 
still it suggests that because of operational stress, because of the 
demands on soldiers who are performing magnificently, they are also 
thinking about their future and thinking about leaving the force rather 
than staying on for extended periods of time.
  The soldiers recruited today define the quality of our Army in the 
future. Focusing on filling slots today without regard for maintaining 
high standards can have dire consequences down the road. We have 
serious challenges before us as a nation.
  I have spent time talking about personnel because at the heart of 
Senator Webb's amendment is the recognition that ultimately a military 
force is about people--the soldiers, the marines, the sailors, the 
airmen, and their families. And if we keep this operational tempo, if 
we do not provide the respite, time for recuperation, what he is 
suggesting, at least an equal time out of the war zone as you spend in 
a war zone, then these personnel issues become more and more acute and 
become more damaging to the overall capability of our military force.
  There is another aspect, too, of readiness. That is equipment. In 
order to meet the equipment needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army 
requires that active and reserve units leave behind certain essential 
items that are in short supply, including up-armored humvees and long-
range surveillance and communications systems.
  This system ensures that incoming soldiers can receive 100 percent of 
the equipment, and it reduces transportation costs. But there is a 
downside. As the GAO pointed out, while this equipment approach has 
helped meet current operational needs, it has continued the cycle of 
reducing the pool of equipment available to nondeployed forces for 
responding to contingencies and training.
  Forty percent of the marines' ground equipment has been deployed in 
Iraq over the past 3 years and is being used at nine times its planned 
rate. I can recall last year being in Iraq and was told just before we 
got on the helicopter that it was flying at many more times the number 
of hours that it was planned to fly in a peacetime environment. They 
assured us, of course--and they are right--that it was very well 
maintained. But the stress on the equipment is just as telling as the 
stress on personnel. We are using this equipment and overusing this 
equipment as we operate in all of those theatres of conflict.
  According to Lieutenant General Blum, the Army National Guard 
presently has on hand only 30 percent of its essential equipment here 
at home, while 88 percent of the Army National Guard that is in the 
U.S. is very poorly equipped. Nearly 9 out of every 10 Army National 
Guard units in Iraq and Afghanistan have less than half the equipment 
needed to respond to a domestic crisis, and less than 45 percent of the 
Air National Guard units have the equipment they need. Again, one of 
the other major missions of the National Guard is responding to 
domestic contingencies. They are severely constrained in that regard. 
Lieutenant General Blum, who is the chief of our National Guard, 
states:

       This is the first time such a shortfall in equipment 
     readiness has occurred in the past 35 years.

  He estimates that the total cost of the shortfall is about $36 
billion. In March 2007, the Commission on the National Guard and 
Reserves reported that nearly 90 percent of National Guard units are 
not ready to respond to crises at home or abroad.
  The chairman of the Commission on the National Guard summed it up:

       We cannot sustain the National Guard and Reserves on the 
     course we are on.

  Again, the military is doing not only everything they are asked but 
much more. But we need to ensure that they have the opportunity to rest 
and to refit. We have to ensure they have equipment that is well 
maintained and not overly used.
  There is a huge shortfall in equipment. The Marine Corps has a $12 
billion equipment shortfall in 2007. The Army estimates it will need 
$12 billion annually for as long as the Iraq war continues, and for 2 
years thereafter. These significant costs will have to be borne, but 
the biggest cost, I believe, is the one that is being borne today for 
our soldiers, marines particularly, and the fact that they are 
operating in a war zone, coming back, and all too shortly thereafter 
being required to go back.
  There is another effect. It has an effect on training. We pride 
ourselves, as we should, as the best trained military force in the 
world, perhaps of all time. But that training cannot operate if there 
is insufficient time back at home station to do it. And that, I think, 
also is the heart of Senator Webb's amendment. He understands that one 
of the great factors that holds a unit together is the sense of skill, 
the sense that they not only know how to do the job, but they practice 
that job time and time again. They are ready for any contingency, any 
eventuality. That readiness, that sense of confidence does not come 
without spending the time at home station training. That, too, is being 
sacrificed.
  I commend Senator Webb. I think from his heart and from his essence 
as a marine, he understands that our soldiers, marines, airmen deserve 
the time to prepare, to train, to regroup before they go back again. At 
a minimum, his amendment is calling for equal time at home station that 
equates to time deployed in a war zone as the minimum that we should 
provide these brave young men and women.
  I hope we can support this amendment. I hope we can do it, get it 
back and send a message to our troops: We know what you are doing for 
us. We appreciate it. After serving with distinction with courage and 
great sacrifice, you deserve time to come home, to see family, to 
retrain, to rest, and to prepare again to defend the Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, before my distinguished colleague from 
Rhode Island leaves, I thank him for the incredible contributions I 
know he made to this legislation that is in front of us. He, too, has 
had a distinguished career serving his country in the armed services as 
well as in the Senate, and we congratulate him for his service.
  I also start by congratulating our Michigan senior Senator whom we 
are all so proud of for all of the important work he does, and none is 
more important for Michigan and for the country than serving as 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  This National Defense Authorization Act and all that it brings in 
terms of additional tools for our troops, issues that directly relate 
to supporting the troops and their families, the equipment, the new 
technology, the new policies for the future that they need, all of 
these things are incredibly important, and Senator Levin has been the 
leader on these issues for us. We in Michigan are extremely proud of 
all he has done.
  I specifically today raise my voice in support of the Webb amendment 
to the National Defense Authorization Act. Tonight in Iraq, 1,644 
members of the Michigan National Guard will bed down after a long day 
of working and fighting. They work in 100-degree weather,

[[Page 18264]]

sand blowing in their faces, facing dangers at every turn, in the 
harshest physical conditions imaginable. For every single one of those 
men and women, there is a family at home in Michigan who will go to bed 
tonight worried and saying a prayer for the safety of their loved one, 
for the safe return of their son, their daughter, father, mother, 
sister, brother.
  The true cost of this war cannot be measured in dollars and cents, 
although there is a huge financial cost to what is happening. But the 
true cost is measured by the sacrifices of our troops and their 
families; every single day, day in and day out. The cost is more than 
just the possibility and the reality of physical danger; the cost 
includes the sacrifices that entire families are making, financial 
sacrifices, emotional sacrifices, sacrifices being made because they 
are apart day after day, month after month, and now year after year.
  It is not right; it is not fair; it is not safe. We need to change 
this policy. That is what the Webb amendment does. In Michigan, 1,644 
Guard members, 1,644 families, 1,644 missed birthdays, Father's Day, 
Mother's Day, missed high school graduations, baby's first steps, 
anniversaries, family funerals, Christmas, other holidays.
  It is also 1,644 missed paychecks. It may be the only paycheck in the 
family--the paycheck that is paying the mortgage, the paycheck that is 
there to help send the kids to college, to pay the car payment, to be 
able to have the standard of living we all want for ourselves and our 
families--sidetracked careers, small businesses and farms put in 
economic danger, 1,644 lives that will never be the same, 1,644 sets of 
missed opportunities, missed moments that can never be replaced.
  These members of the Michigan National Guard make up only a fraction 
of the 160,000 men and women in uniform currently serving in Iraq and 
countless others who have served. In too many cases, these men and 
women are back in Iraq for their second, third, and now fourth 
redeployment.
  Our fighting men and women are the greatest resource we have. They 
make us proud every single day. But, unfortunately, this Government is 
abusing this resource, these people. America puts its trust in our 
military to defend us. When our sons and daughters join the military, 
they put their trust in us, in the Congress, in the President of the 
United States, to give them the tools and the resources they need and 
to treat them with the respect they have earned. Current administration 
policies on redeployment have violated that trust. These policies have 
let our troops down. They have let their families down.
  I am proud to join with my colleague from Virginia in saying: Enough 
is enough--enough is enough--when it comes to abusing our Armed Forces 
by stretching them to the breaking point with redeployment after 
redeployment.
  Our armed services have traveled a tough road since we invaded Iraq. 
They have shouldered a heavy burden with pride and confidence and 
honor. We have asked extraordinary things--extraordinary things--from 
them at every turn. And at every turn they have delivered. They have 
made us all proud. They have faced tough situations, made tough 
choices, and have done their duty.
  Now we need to do our duty. We need to do what is right for them. It 
is our time to face the tough situations. It is our time to make the 
hard choices. It is our time to make them proud. That is what this 
amendment is about. That is what this bill is about. That is what 
further discussions we will have about how to end this war will be all 
about.
  America's soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines are always 
there for us when they are called. The question is, Will we be there 
for them? Will we be there for them today and tomorrow and the next 
day?
  This legislation Senator Webb has proposed is something that is 
simply the right thing to do and is a very important piece of 
supporting our troops.
  First of all, for our regular forces, the amendment requires that if 
a unit or a member deploys for Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation 
Iraqi Freedom, they will have the same time at home--what is called 
``dwell time''; down time, as I would say; our forces would call it 
dwell time--before being redeployed. So if someone is deployed for 6 
months, they would have dwell time for 6 months, whether that is being 
home with the family, whether that is retraining, whether that is time 
to regroup. If they are deployed for 12 months, they would have 12 
months at home; 15 months, 15 months.
  For the National Guard and Reserve, no unit or member will be 
redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within 3 years of their previous 
deployment. Now, this is strictly a floor, but it will stabilize Guard 
and Reserve deployment cycles in a much more predictable way. It is 
good for them, it is good for us from a safety standpoint, preparedness 
standpoint, and it certainly is good for the families we are asking to 
make such sacrifices.
  We understand this is a dangerous and unpredictable world we live in, 
so this amendment also includes an important provision, a provision 
enabling the President to waive these limitations if he certifies to 
Congress that deployment is necessary in response to a vital national 
security interest of the United States.
  Now, why is this down time or dwell time so important? Longer and 
more predictable dwell time is needed for many reasons. Most 
importantly, it allows for members to readjust from combat and spend 
time with their families. It also allows troops the time they need to 
be ready for the next combat mission. We have to remember that when our 
people return from their deployments, the majority of their time is 
spent retraining, refurbishing, and reequipping prior to being 
redeployed.
  The bottom line is that the Webb amendment will ensure that our men 
and women in uniform have a more predictable deployment schedule, with 
adequate time between tours. We have a responsibility to prevent 
further needless damage to our military, and the Webb amendment does 
that.
  Five years ago, I was proud to stand on this floor as one of 23 
Members who believed this war was the wrong choice. For the past 5 
years, I have been proud to cast vote after vote supporting the troops, 
working to ensure they have the resources they need so they can get the 
job done as soon as possible and come home safely.
  Today, I stand on the floor and once again say: Enough is enough. The 
American people are saying: Enough is enough.
  This administration failed our troops by committing them to this war 
without a clear reason or goal. This administration failed our troops 
by not having a clear mission for our Armed Forces in Iraq. They failed 
our troops by not providing the proper equipment, body armor, or 
logistical support for our forces. They failed our troops with their 
poor planning for the invasion of Iraq and their total lack of planning 
for how to secure the country, despite the best efforts of our brave 
men and women. And they have failed our troops by sending them back 
into harm's way over and over and over again without the proper down 
time between redeployments. History will judge this administration on 
how they have handled this war. History will judge us now on what we do 
for the troops and what we do to end this war.
  We need a new strategy for Iraq, a strategy that brings our troops 
home safely and responsibly. We need to treat our troops with respect--
the respect they deserve, they have earned--while they are serving us. 
They put their lives on the line every day for us. The least we can do 
is to make sure they have what they need and they have the time they 
need between combat deployments to be with their families and to 
prepare for the future. And they need a strategy. They are asking us to 
be paying attention to what is going on.
  So many of us have been to Iraq and have seen what is happening on 
the front lines. They are in the battle every day. They are focusing on 
their mission, on staying alive, keeping their buddies alive. They are 
counting on us to have their back. They are counting on the President 
to have their back. They are counting on people here getting it right, 
doing the right thing--

[[Page 18265]]

whether it is making sure they have the time they need, which the Webb 
amendment does, to focus on their needs and their families' needs or 
whether it is to make sure there is a strategy that makes sense. That 
is what we are now debating on this floor.
  I believe the American people have spoken very loudly and very 
clearly, and it is time for us to listen. It is our job to listen, to 
do the right thing for the troops, to do the right thing for their 
families, to do the right thing for communities and for our country.
  When I look around the Senate, I am struck by the fact that we have 
all taken different paths to get here, to this debate right now. It has 
been a long 5 years. Some of us have stood up against this war since 
day one. Many have come to understand the tragedies of this war and the 
failures of this administration and have come at a different time. But 
no matter what path each of us has taken, no matter how we have gotten 
here today, now we have the opportunity to do the right thing. That is 
what this debate is about.
  I am so grateful to our Senate leader, Harry Reid, for making sure we 
stay focused on what is clearly the most critical issue in front of us, 
what is happening in the war in Iraq and with our troops and our 
families, and what we need to do to focus on the real threats--the real 
threats--here at home, through his leadership, on the 9/11 Commission 
legislation, as well as focusing on the real threats abroad.
  So we have seen leadership bringing us back to this issue, creating 
this opportunity now for us to do the right thing. We need to do the 
courageous thing. The Webb amendment is an opportunity to do the 
courageous thing for our troops. We cannot change the past, but we have 
to change the future, and that means acting now.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Webb amendment for the 
brave men and women who are serving us and counting on us to understand 
what we are expecting of them as they do their duty, with the 
sacrifices they are making, their families are making. They are 
counting on us to do the right thing. They are counting on us to do the 
right thing on the overall strategy on this war.
  This legislation, this time, this debate in the next few days is an 
opportunity for us to tell the American people: We hear you. We hear 
you. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. It is time to get this right 
and to bring our men and women home safely and responsibly.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am going to speak for about 12 minutes. 
Will you let me know when that 12 minutes is up?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise the Senator. The 
Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the hope of anybody in politics is to 
serve in a body, such as the Senate, at a time when it matters. Our 
hopes and dreams have come true. We in Government decide what matters. 
What we are doing on this Defense authorization bill matters. It 
matters to the men and women in uniform. It matters to everybody in the 
world because during these difficult times the world is facing, 
increasingly the world is turning to the American men and women, our 
fighting men and women, to make things right.
  Imagine a world without the brave Armed Forces of the United States. 
What would that world look like? It would be a very dangerous place, 
more so than it is now. So I wish to say the one thing we have in 
common as Republicans and Democrats is admiration for those who are 
carrying the burden of fighting a worldwide global struggle called the 
war on terror.
  Now to Iraq. We are going to have amendments this week that have one 
common theme to them. It would take the current strategy in Iraq and 
change it. General Petraeus was unanimously approved by this body to go 
to Iraq and do something different. He told us before he left: I need 
more troops. The reason I need more troops is because the mistakes we 
made in the past have caught up with us.
  What is the biggest mistake America made right after the fall of 
Baghdad? Not having enough security to keep the country from spiraling 
out of control, not having enough security to suppress the militias. 
One thing I have learned in life, where there is lawlessness, people 
fill in the vacuum. If the Government cannot protect you, then you will 
find groups who will protect you.
  What happened in Iraq is the security got out of control, and we had 
sectarian violence spawned by al-Qaeda. The thing we have to realize as 
a nation is this organization called al-Qaeda has one common goal. It 
is not about Sunni, Shia, and Kurds; it is about moderation. They hate 
moderation in any form. It doesn't matter if it is wearing a Sunni 
face, a Shia face, or a Kurdish face. They have come to Iraq to destroy 
this infant democracy.
  The report card on the political progress in Iraq: It is about like 
here at home. I give it a very low grade. Unlike here at home--we do 
have a stable society, for the most part--in Iraq they have a very 
unstable society, so they need political leadership desperately.
  After my sixth or seventh visit on the Fourth of July week past, I am 
here to say there is bad news. The bad news, from my point of view, is 
the Iraqi political leadership that exists today is paralyzed, very 
much like we are here at home. I don't see them anytime soon having a 
breakout when it comes to political reconciliation, but I do have hope 
for the future that they will do that, and it is not an unrealistic 
hope.
  There is some emerging movements in Iraq politically that can bring 
about reconciliation. But here is the good news. The strategy of 
additional combat power getting out from behind the walls, out of the 
fortresses, out into the hinterlands of Iraq to fight al-Qaeda is 
working.
  The one thing I can tell my colleagues with certainty is, for 3\1/2\ 
years, I went to Iraq and I came back every time despondent because I 
could see the security situation spiraling out of control and I was 
told time and time again: No, the training strategy is working. Our 
goal is to train the Iraqi Army and police forces, and we are doing a 
good job.
  The first time I went to Iraq, I went rug shopping. The last time I 
went before the change in strategy, I was in a tank. It was clear to 
me, being a military lawyer, not a combat commander, that the situation 
on the ground was getting worse. This time around, after the new 
strategy has been in place, things are getting better on the ground 
when it comes to suppressing the No. 1 enemy of this Nation right now 
for the moment and that is called al-Qaeda.
  Al-Qaeda in Iraq flourished under the old strategy. They were able to 
dominate different regions of Iraq. Sunni populations were being 
terrorized, and a lot of bad things happened when we were in Baghdad 
training and not fighting.
  General Petraeus, when he got in charge, when he got in place said we 
are going to change strategy. What he has done is he has sent 
additional combat power into areas previously held by al-Qaeda. He went 
to the tribal leaders in those areas and said: If you are fed up, we 
are here to help.
  Here is the good news. To a person almost, the people who lived under 
al-Qaeda's regime in Iraq said: No, thank you. That is not the life I 
want for myself or my family or my friends or my group.
  Al-Qaeda overplayed their hand. They were incredibly vicious and 
brutal and they overplayed their hand. What has happened in the last 
few months is this additional combat capability that now exists in Iraq 
has married up with a desire by the Sunnis, who have been oppressed by 
the al-Qaeda elements in Iraq, to join forces.
  It is undeniable that in Anbar, the situation has changed in the last 
6 months in a dramatic way. The Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar have 
broken with al-Qaeda, they have joined with

[[Page 18266]]

General Petraeus and Iraqi security forces and literally that province 
has changed. There are areas in Anbar Province where you could not go 
before that you can go to now, where there is a new alliance in place. 
There has been a surge in police recruits, Sunnis joining the police 
force to protect their hometown against al-Qaeda.
  So the formula General Petraeus had in mind is not dependent upon 
central Government reconciliation. He went out into the troubled areas, 
and he told the people living under al-Qaeda: If you choose to, we will 
help you, and you need to help yourselves. And they have chosen to help 
themselves. They have chosen to tell us where al-Qaeda is operating. 
They have given us better intelligence than we have ever had in the 
past. They have joined the fight, and we are winning. Al-Qaeda today is 
on the run. They are on the run because the Iraqi people have broken 
with their way of life.
  The big question for a lot of Americans is: Is everybody in the 
Mideast committed to extremism? Is there any hope that people in the 
Mideast want a different way of life than bin Laden charted for them? 
The answer is yes, and the best evidence I can give is what is going on 
in Iraq. Where American combat power has been in place in sufficient 
numbers and levels, the Iraqis have chosen to side with us and reject 
al-Qaeda. That should be heartening news. Given a choice, given the 
opportunity, those who have lived under the al-Qaeda regime and 
ideology have said: No, thank you.
  The permanent solution is political reconciliation, but if we can 
focus as a nation on defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq, it would be a much 
better world. The political reconciliation yet to come in Iraq would be 
enhanced if we could destroy elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The global 
war on terror would be enhanced if we destroy al-Qaeda in Iraq. The way 
we do that is, again, by forming alliances with Sunnis who reject their 
ideology, and once we defeat al-Qaeda in a neighborhood or city, we 
have gotten the local people to step up to the plate and become 
policemen.
  The number of police in Anbar Province has gone up dramatically, and 
they are providing what was missing before: A stable law-and-order 
regime that is rejecting extremism.
  The police forces in the Sunni areas in Anbar are doing very well. 
They have the trust of the people, and they are marrying up with Iraqi 
Army units, where most of the officers are Shias. But we found the Shia 
Iraqi Army leadership and the Sunni police forces have worked well 
together in Anbar.
  What did the enemy do? They moved to Diyala. We are going to the 
Diyala Province, another Sunni area, more mixed than Anbar, and we are 
getting the same results. Extreme violence is the first thing we get, 
terrorism. This spectacular attack will continue for a long time to 
come, but the actual situation on the ground has changed dramatically 
in Anbar, and it is beginning to change in Diyala. Why? We never before 
had combat capability in the Diyala Province. The tribal leaders in 
that province have joined with us, as they did in Anbar. More people 
are joining the police and, again, al-Qaeda is moving down the road.
  The goal for us as a nation is to sustain this capability until we 
defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq. I don't believe that is going to take much 
longer because what we have left behind in Anbar in a few months is 
going to be mature enough that we will not need that many troops. In a 
few months from now, we are going to have a mature police force and a 
well-trained Army to control areas in Anbar Province that previously 
were in the hands of al-Qaeda. It is going to take some time.
  When General Petraeus comes back in September, I think he will give 
us a mixed report. That will be the honest truth. There are still areas 
in Iraq very much in doubt. But where we go in force and where people 
have the choice to make, they are making the choice we hoped they would 
make.
  Our choice in Congress is whether we change course. Do we, in July, 
adopt amendments that will destroy the Petraeus strategy and replace it 
with the old strategy? One thing my Democratic and Republican 
colleagues have in common is they are trying to do what is best for the 
country.
  This is what I think is best. I think it is best not to do anything 
now that would give al-Qaeda a second chance in life. I don't want the 
Senate to be the cavalry for al-Qaeda. By that I mean, I don't want us 
to adopt an amendment that will destroy the ability of General Petraeus 
to go after the enemy in an aggressive fashion and continue forming 
these alliances by undercutting his ability to have the manpower he 
needs. The old strategy has failed. To go back to the old strategy is a 
godsend to al-Qaeda and is a death blow to those who have come out of 
the shadows to say: I want a better way; I want a better Iraq.
  We have a chance to give this general and the troops who have gone as 
part of this surge a chance to do something that I think is in our 
national security interest: Keep al-Qaeda on the run and destroy it. I 
am convinced now more than ever that the ability to destroy al-Qaeda in 
Iraq is within our grasp, and it is a combination of additional 
American military power and the will and the desire of the Iraqi people 
to reject al-Qaeda.
  Let's not be the cavalry for al-Qaeda. Let's not do something 
politically in Washington that will put them back in the fight. We are 
going to be taking casualties as long as al-Qaeda exists anywhere on 
the planet. My goal and the military's goal is to fight them over 
there, suppress them over there, bring out the best in the people in 
the Mideast, and we are seeing, slowly but surely, that the people in 
Iraq who have lived under al-Qaeda are turning away. That is indeed 
good news. Are they turning to democracy and political unity? No, not 
yet. But the precondition, the forming of a new Iraq is to take those 
who wish to destroy this new democracy and isolate them and destroy 
them before they can destroy this idea called moderation.
  The al-Qaeda agenda is not limited to Iraq, but they see it as a 
central battlefront in the war on terror. We should see it as the 
central battlefront in the war on terror. Any amendment that is adopted 
in July that would undo the Petraeus strategy is shortsighted and, in 
the long run, very devastating to our national security interests.
  I urge my colleagues to look closely and ask the questions that need 
to be asked, not for the next election but for the next generation of 
young Americans and people in the Mideast, and that question is: If we 
do not stay committed to this fight against an enemy who hates 
everything we stand for now, what are the consequences later? I can 
tell my colleagues, and I will close with this thought, that history 
tells us the answer to that question. Every time extremism has been 
appeased, good people die unnecessarily. We have good people in Iraq. 
The Iraqi people have good people among their population. Our men and 
women in uniform are the best we have to offer. This alliance between 
the good will defeat the evil, as it always has done, only if we have 
greater will than our enemy.
  The votes we are about to take are about political will. I hope we 
will choose the path that history tells us we should take. Say no to 
extremism and yes to moderation.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, lobbying and ethics reform, the most 
significant change in the history of the country, has been passed by 
the House and the Senate. Why is it not signed into law? Because the 
Republicans are stopping us from going to it.
  There are all kinds of excuses they are using. The latest excuse is 
they want the provision dealing with earmarks in this bill--the 
amendment passed 98 to nothing--they want that set out separately. But 
that is a ploy; it is a diversion. They do not want to go to the meat 
of this bill. They have blocked this now for weeks. The Senator from 
South Carolina, who was the

[[Page 18267]]

last to come and block this important legislation from going forward, I 
know thinks earmarks are important. I do too. Earmark reform is 
important. But it is in this bill. Earmark reform is in it. It is hard 
to believe that his objection isn't anything more than a smokescreen to 
prevent us from making progress on the rest of the bill.
  Here are the facts: No one has any intention of taking out the 
earmark disclosure provisions in the bill. It is a fantasy. Second, 
Senate Democrats have already imposed earmark provisions through the 
committees. Right now, anyone with an Internet connection can go on 
line to the Senate Web site and find earmarks and earmark sponsors in 
appropriations bills that the press has reported. I repeat: Anyone who 
can go on the Internet can find out what the earmarks are on any bill 
that has been reported out of any one of our committees. Every 
subcommittee that has reported a bill, an appropriations bill, has to 
have that in it. And we are even doing it with authorizing committees.
  Right here I have the appropriations bill which is for the Department 
of Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies for 2008. No secret. 
All the earmarks are herein listed in detail--the amounts, the Senator 
sponsoring the earmark--and they have to sign a disclosure in addition 
to this that they have no financial interest in the earmark. It is 
here. Every subcommittee in the appropriations process that has 
reported out a bill has the same information I have just presented to 
the Senate.
  So it is really hard to believe the earmark complaint is genuine. Let 
us remember all the other provisions in this bill the Senate 
Republicans are blocking progress on--campaign expenses, campaign 
contributions. As we have read in the press, they feel it is important 
that we do something dealing with bundling. That is lobbyists who agree 
to raise money for Senators. There should be some disclosure of that. 
In this bill we have it--the one they won't let us go to conference on. 
Bans on gifts from lobbyists and corporations are in this bill. They 
have prevented us from going to conference on that. No more corporate 
jets.
  One of the issues around here--and I don't think it was necessarily 
corrupting anyone, but it was corrupting--flying these beautiful 
corporate jets and paying first-class airfare, even though it cost 10 
times that to fly on these airplanes. This is eliminated in our bill. 
But we can't eliminate it because they won't let us go with it. They 
have obstructed this.
  The Abramoff situation, brought to the attention of the American 
people, this is the culture of corruption the Republicans brought to 
Washington, DC, when they controlled the Congress. For the first time 
in 121 years, someone who works in the White House has been indicted. 
That man has now been convicted, and his sentence has partially been 
commuted by the President of the United States.
  In the House of Representatives, the former majority leader of the 
House of Representatives, a Republican, was convicted three times of 
ethics violations by the ethics committee. He was indicted twice in 
Texas. He still is under indictment. One Member of Congress is even 
serving time now as part of the Abramoff corruption program. Numerous 
staff people are either in jail or under probation or now being 
investigated. The American people think we should improve the 
situation, and we can do that with this legislation.
  One of the problems the Abramoff program allowed was people flying 
all over the country. Let's go to Scotland and play golf, and then they 
flew on a corporate jet and played golf in Scotland. Under our 
legislation, this would not be permitted. We significantly improve 
disclosure of lobbying activities.
  We also prevent stealth coalitions. What does that mean? It means 
there is a company--I will pick this out of the air--Americans for 
Health Care, and they run these ads. It is a stealth organization. It 
is a phony organization because it is paid for by, let's say the 
pharmaceutical industry, someone who has an interest in the health care 
industry. Pick any name you want. And if you look behind it, it is some 
large, usually multilevel corporation that is paying for this.
  Our legislation would slow the revolving door by former Members of 
Congress. Our legislation would put an end to the pay-to-play K Street 
Project that was also part of the Republicans' culture of corruption.
  The list goes on and on. They are stopping us from doing these 
things. I don't want to file cloture in order to appoint conferees, but 
I will if I have to. We cannot let the Senate action on something so 
important be held up by the minority. It is wrong. They send one person 
out to do it, but this is reflective upon the Republicans. They do not 
want us to complete this legislation, but we owe it to the American 
people to get this bill completed. We need to restore the faith the 
American people want to have in government. They want a government as 
good and honest as the people it represents.
  I appreciate very much indeed the Washington Post's writing an 
editorial saying this has to be done, and they said to me in that 
editorial, if they continue to stop us from going to conference, I 
should make them filibuster so they have to come here and vote against 
completing ethics and lobbying reform.
  Maybe the culture of corruption is something they want to maintain. 
Maybe they are still flying in corporate jets. Maybe they are still 
doing some of the things we are trying to prevent. I don't know the 
reasons, but it appears very evident that they do not want us--they, 
the Republicans--to complete this legislation, and that is too bad.
  I repeat, the earmarking is a guise. Right now every committee 
reports out, under the Democratic leadership, the earmarks in detail. 
We are complying with this legislation even though it is not law now. 
So for someone to come here and say we are not going to allow the 
conference to go forward because we want earmarks to be separate and 
apart from this is a guise. They are diverting attention from the work 
of the American people and this Congress.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I will be glad to answer a question of my distinguished 
friend from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would say to the Senate majority leader 
that this afternoon, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations 
for Financial Services, we reported out of subcommittee a bill, and 
that bill, page by page, specifies every earmark from the White House, 
earmarks for Members of the Senate, and goes into detail as to each one 
and the specific name of the Senator or Senators requesting them, which 
I think complies with everything that has been asked for by those who 
were asking for earmark reform.
  So I would say to the Senator from Nevada that if the Senator on the 
Republican side who has been objecting to our conference on this ethics 
bill would take some time to look at the appropriations bills, he would 
understand we have already accepted this reform. We already are making 
this change.
  I would ask the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, right now, 
what is stopping us from going to conference to pass these changes in 
ethics laws, these historic changes in ethics laws, so that once and 
for all we can have the kind of reform and changes that are needed here 
in Washington?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, it is this. It is the Republicans who 
are stopping us from going to conference on this bill. They may send 
one person out, and it could be a rotating person, but they are 
stopping us from going forward. The ploy of the day is they want to 
take the work we have done in this bill dealing with earmarking out of 
the bill and set it up as a Senate rule.
  This is what conferences are all about. We want to do all these 
things I have enumerated in this legislation. We want disclosure of 
bundling, bans on gifts from lobbyists and corporations, no more 
corporate jets, major limits on privately paid travel, significantly 
improved disclosure of lobbying activities, disclosure of stealth 
coalitions, slow the revolving door of former

[[Page 18268]]

Members of Congress, put an end to the pay-to-play K Street Project. 
That is what is being held up, and it is being held up by the 
Republicans.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for a further question, today 
on this Defense authorization bill, while we are debating the war in 
Iraq and good treatment for our soldiers, the Republican leader comes 
to the floor and insists they cannot bring up for a vote the amendment 
that is pending by Senator Webb of Virginia even though you offered a 
Republican amendment to be voted on at the same time. The Republican 
leader has said: No, we want to delay this. We want to delay this until 
tomorrow and then perhaps another 2 days beyond and to filibuster it 
during that period of time.
  It would seem there is a pattern emerging, a very clear pattern where 
it comes to the important business. Whether it is ethics reform or 
changing the policy in Iraq, the Republican position is to stop the 
process, slow down the process, throw in every obstacle they can find.
  I ask the majority leader if this pattern has been evidenced in terms 
of, for example, filibusters, delaying tactics on the part of the 
Republicans?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, everything we have done for the past 7 
months has been in spite of the roadblocks, the obstruction tactics the 
Republicans have put up. We have done it in spite of that. We have to 
this point 43 different cloture motions--43. We have never done that 
before, 43.
  I say to my friend, on a Defense authorization bill--the bill that 
takes care of our troops around the world, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 
the work we are doing with NATO forces, to get pay increases, get them 
the right equipment, the right medical care--this is being held up.
  I would also, in a way of response, ask my friend, what has happened 
in the past dealing with Defense authorization bills? Has there ever 
been anything like this that you can imagine?
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the majority leader, for those who are trying to 
follow this debate and are not familiar with a cloture motion, what a 
cloture motion means is that those who are opposing a vote on an issue 
delay it as long as possible and then try to create a higher vote total 
that you need to bring this amendment to passage or defeat. So it is a 
delay tactic to slow down the Senate, slow down deliberation.
  Today, when the Democratic majority leader offered to the Republicans 
that we would call up Senator Webb's amendment to make sure our troops 
are rested and ready before they go into battle and allow Senator 
Graham, a Republican Senator, to have his similar amendment up at the 
same time with the same vote, it was rejected. The Republicans rejected 
it. Then one of the Senators came to the floor and said that is the way 
it has always been around here. It has always been this way, this is 
not unusual. It takes 60 votes to agree to these amendments. Now we 
know what it is going to take.
  We did a little research, I might say to the majority leader. We 
looked at the last two Defense authorization bills which were called up 
and considered in this Senate. Not a single amendment required a 
cloture vote, required this delay tactic, required the 60-vote margin, 
even those amendments specifically relating to the war in Iraq. What 
the Republican leadership is doing now has not happened in the last 2 
years on this same bill. They have come up with a new slowdown, a new 
delay tactic, a new obstacle they have tossed in our path.
  I think it is very clear. The Senator from Nevada will recall that 
the last time the Defense authorization bill was up, there were two 
very important amendments on the war on Iraq, one by Senator Kerry of 
Massachusetts and another by Senators Levin and Reed. Both related to 
when the troops would come home. In each instance, cloture was not 
necessary, 60 votes were not required; the amendments were called on a 
simple majority vote.
  So I say to the Senator from Nevada, it is very clear, the strategy 
the Republicans in the Senate are using. They are trying to avoid 
facing the tough issues America wants us to face. We were sent here to 
deal with cleaning up the mess in Washington, the culture of 
corruption. We were sent here to deal with the war in Iraq. Instead, 
day in and day out, week in and week out, every month for 43 different 
times now they have tossed an obstacle in front of us to stop the 
debate. The American people can see this, and today they can see it 
very graphically.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate so much my friend from 
Illinois. I have such fond memories of our relationship. It seems now 
only yesterday, but it was 25 years ago that the Senator from Illinois 
and I came to the House of Representatives together. We were elected in 
the great class of 1982. At least I thought it was great, and I think, 
looking back, we have had some good experiences. I appreciate very much 
his laying out the facts.
  The facts are that for Defense authorization bills, you should not 
have to file cloture on amendments. My counterpart, my friend from 
Kentucky, says this is the way we do business around here. That is not 
the way we have done business around here. This is the way we do 
business here because of the envy of the Republican minority, envious 
of our being in the majority, so they are making us jump through every 
procedural hoop, they are obstructing everything we are trying to do.
  It is hurting, not the Democrats. It is hurting the American people. 
I say--I want it spread on the record--in spite of all of the obstacles 
we have had to jump through, we have been able to get things done. We 
have had to do it. It has been hard. We have had to fight with the 
White House. We have been able to get minimum wage passed, we have been 
able to get funding for Katrina, we have been able to get funding for 
homeland security, which we have never been able to do before, over the 
President's objections. We have been able to fund SCHIP through the 
first of the year, which was extremely difficult and hard to do. We 
have been able to do some things for farmers and ranchers. We have been 
able to do some good things. Disaster relief, 3 years overdue--we were 
able to get that done. That money is now out helping those people who 
desperately need it.
  As I speak, all over the West, wildfires are burning. In Nevada, we 
have had 245 square miles burn. A 100-mile stretch of freeway in Utah 
has been shut down because of fires. We were able to get, over the 
President's objection, money for wildfires that burned last year and 
the year before that we have been trying to get.
  In spite of all the hurdles we have had to jump through, we have been 
able to accomplish things for the American people. But the shame of it 
is we could be doing so much more but for the obstructions continually 
thrown up in our path by this minority.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________