[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24612-24626]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 
1585, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2008 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Nelson (NE) (for Levin) amendment No. 2011, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       Levin (for Specter/Leahy) amendment No. 2022, to restore 
     habeas corpus for those detained by the United States.
       Warner (for Graham/Kyl) amendment No. 2064, to strike 
     section 1023, relating to the granting of civil rights to 
     terror suspects.

  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my 
amendment No. 2067.

[[Page 24613]]


  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will 
object. I say to my friend from Oregon, I understand this is the hate 
crimes bill. I appreciate his passion and commitment on this issue. 
There is no one more respected in the Senate who has had the situation 
of my distinguished friend from Oregon. But we are on the Defense bill. 
We have to move forward with the amendments. We have to get it done. We 
have both Iraq as well as the impending 1st of October date staring us 
in the face. At this time I object to the request by the Senator from 
Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we have had an informal discussion. I am 
sad that there is not an opportunity on this bill to bring up the hate 
crimes bill. I do hope there is a way, following this session, to bring 
up the hate crimes bill. It has broad support and deserves to be heard 
and, I hope, passed. I discussed with Senator McCain the possibility 
that the Senator from Delaware would now be recognized. We agreed that 
he would at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2335.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I reserve the right to object.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I will not call it up at the moment. I 
withdraw the request.
  I do ask unanimous consent that Senators Graham, Casey, Brown, and 
Sanders be added as cosponsors to amendment No. 2335.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. I want to explain briefly what this amendment does. It 
adds $23.6 billion to allow the Army to replace all of its up-armored 
HMMWVs with mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, the so-called 
MRAPs. It also adds a billion dollars to increase the cost of the 8,000 
MRAPs we are trying to purchase today. In terms of the specifics of 
this amendment, the idea is simple. If we can prevent two-thirds or 
more of our casualties with a vehicle that is basically a modified and 
armored truck, we have to do all in our power to do it, in my view.
  Last, it provides $400 million for better protection against 
explosively formed penetrators or EFPs. These are those shaped-charges 
that hit our vehicles from the side and are increasingly deadly.
  I want to be straight with my colleagues. This is a very expensive 
amendment. Twenty-five billion dollars is a lot of money. But compared 
to saving the lives and limbs of American soldiers and marines, it is 
cheap.
  Our commanders in the field tell us that MRAPs will reduce casualties 
by 67 to 80 percent.
  The lead commander on the ground in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno, told us 
months ago that he wanted to replace every Army up-armored HMMWV in 
Iraq with an MRAP.
  Instead of adjusting the requirement immediately, the Pentagon has 
taken its time to study this issue and just recently they have agreed 
that the general needs a little over half of what he asked for. 10,000 
instead of approximately 18,000.
  This makes no sense. Are we only supposed to care about the tactical 
advice of our commanders in the field when it is cheap?
  I don't think that is what the American people or our military men 
and women expect from us.
  More importantly, while we argue about the best strategy for Iraq, we 
must still protect those under fire. I disagree with the President's 
strategy in Iraq. I do not believe a strong central government will 
lead to a stable, self-sufficient Iraq.
  I think we need a new strategy that focuses on implementing the Iraqi 
constitution's call for federalism and re-focuses the mission of 
American forces on fighting al-Qaida, border protection, and continuing 
to train the Iraqi forces.
  While we disagree on strategy, the fight continues in the alleys of 
Baghdad and the streets of Diyala Province. American soldiers and 
marines are targets every day they are there. So every day they are 
there, we must give them the best protection this nation has.
  The American political process is designed to make change and 
decisionmaking a slow and deliberative process. Those of us who want a 
change in strategy have three options.
  One, we must convince enough colleagues to sustain a veto from the 
President; or, two, we must convince the American people to elect 
enough new Senators and House Members willing to sustain a veto. Or, 
finally, three, we must convince the American people to elect a 
President willing to change strategies. That is reality. I believe in 
this system, which means I will not walk away from my duty to try to 
convince both my colleagues and the American people that there is a 
better path to stability in Iraq.
  It also means that I will not give up on my obligation to our 
military men and women.
  While we take the time necessary to move the political process for 
change, they face improvised explosive devices, rocket propelled 
grenades, explosively formed penetrators, sniper fire, and suicide 
bombers every day. We have an obligation to protect each and every one 
of them to the best of our ability. I agree with the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps, GEN James Conway when he said, ``Anything less is 
immoral.''
  In terms of the specifics of this amendment, the idea is very simple. 
If we can prevent two-thirds or more of our casualties with a vehicle 
that is basically a modified and armored truck, we must do all in our 
power to do that.
  Will it be a challenge to American industry to build close to 23,000 
MRAPs in the next 12 to 15 months? Absolutely. Can they do it? Only if 
we give them a real chance. If we provide funding up front for all that 
is needed, we give business the ability to increase capacity to 
produce. If we give little bits here and there, they and their 
subcontractors will be limited in their ability to produce these life-
saving vehicles. Less will be produced and more Americans will return 
injured or dead.
  I gave a statement on July 19, when I first introduced this 
amendment, that laid out some of the history of the MRAP program. I 
won't go into all of that again, but I will reiterate the key choice my 
colleagues have to make: Do we do our best to save American lives, 
knowing that the only downside is the possible need to reprogram 
funding at the end of the year, or do we care more about some unknown 
topline wartime funding number than those lives?
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I thank the managers of the bill and yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, 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. REID. 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. REID. Madam President, I have had conversations with the two 
managers, Senator McCain and Senator Levin. I would hope people who 
feel strongly about the amendment that is pending; that is, the habeas 
corpus amendment, would come and speak on this amendment. The floor is 
open for debate on that issue. It is an extremely important amendment. 
No matter how you feel about it, it is important--whether you are for 
it or against it. I would hope Senators would come and talk about that 
amendment.
  I have also spoken with Senator Levin and Senator McCain about how we 
proceed from this point forward. We have been somewhat tepid in moving 
forward because we did not know how the vote would turn out on the DC 
voting rights. We know that now, so we are moving ahead as quickly as 
we can on the Defense authorization bill because that matter is out of 
the way procedurally.

[[Page 24614]]

  What I have spoken to the two managers about is that we would have 
the Defense authorization bill, and as a sidetrack, we would have Iraq 
amendments--a finite number from the Democrats, a finite number from 
the Republicans. We would work on time agreements for those amendments. 
Our floor staff is trying to draw something up and submit that to the 
Republican leader. I have not today--even though I have spoken to him 
in the past about that--spoken to him about that, although we have 
spoken to Senator Kyl, Senator McCain, Senator Lott, and others. The 
distinguished Republican leader was simply off the floor at the time. 
So our two staffs are coming up with something in writing to see if 
there is a way we can move forward on that; otherwise, we will offer 
them as part of the Defense authorization bill.
  On this matter, I have the greatest comfort level with Senator 
Levin's ability to manage this bill. He has, in years past, done such a 
remarkably good job. For many years, it has been Senator Warner working 
with him. Now, because of the change in the ranking membership of that 
committee, it is Senator McCain, who also is very experienced. So we 
should be able to move this legislation along, I hope, quickly.
  There is a lot to do on this bill, and I would hope Members on this 
side would listen to what Senator Levin has to say and come when it is 
to their interest, and maybe even sometimes when it is not to their 
interest, but at least in an effort to dispose of this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak as in morning business for up to about 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Stevens are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning business.'')
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, 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. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to repeat what my friend 
and distinguished chairman said: We need to get opening statements 
done. The debate has now begun on the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008. We are looking at the date of September 18, 
and we want to get this bill done as quickly as possible and to 
conference with the House so we can provide the much needed equipment, 
training, pay, and care for our veterans as well as our military 
personnel. I urge my colleagues, if they have any statements to make on 
this bill, that they come over and make them.
  I also would like to point out, as my friend from Michigan has, that 
we will be working on the large number of amendments on the bill as 
well as the provisions on Iraq. The sooner we complete action on this 
legislation, the sooner we can get it to conference with the other body 
and to the President's desk for signature.
  This is not the first time we have addressed this bill, and I hope it 
is the last for the National Defense Authorization Act, at least for 
fiscal year 2008. I again express my appreciation and admiration for 
the distinguished chairman, Senator Levin, who has not only worked 
closely with this side of the aisle but also has worked very hard to 
forge a bipartisan bill that received a unanimous vote from the 
committee upon its reporting to the floor of the Senate. Obviously, we 
have a great debate here again on the issue of Iraq with the 
consideration of several amendments, so I hope we will be able to also 
dispose of those as quickly as possible.
  As all of my colleagues know, we have received the much anticipated 
testimony of GEN David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and the 
Senate now begins a debate of historic proportions. In my opinion, at 
stake is nothing less than the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and the 
security of all Americans for decades to come. The Senate faces a 
series of stark choices: whether to build on the success of the surge 
and fight for additional gains or whether to set a date for Americans 
to surrender in Iraq and thereby suffer the terrible consequences that 
will ensue. As we consider each of the Iraq-related amendments filed on 
this bill, let us understand the enormous consequences of decisions 
that are taken here.
  Henry Kissinger framed the debate in a Washington Post article this 
weekend, saying:

       American decisions in the next few months will affect the 
     confidence and morale of potential targets, potential allies, 
     and radical Jihadists around the globe. Above all, they will 
     define the U.S. capacity to contribute to a safer and better 
     world.

  I ask unanimous consent to have the article by Dr. Kissinger from the 
Washington Post over the weekend printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    The Disaster of Hasty Withdrawal

                        (By Henry A. Kissinger)

       Two realities define the range of a meaningful debate on 
     Iraq policy: The war cannot be ended by military means alone. 
     But neither is it possible to ``end'' the war by ceding the 
     battlefield. The radical jihadist challenge knows no 
     frontiers; American decisions in the next few months will 
     affect the confidence and morale of potential targets, 
     potential allies and radical jihadists around the globe. 
     Above all, they will define the U.S. capacity to contribute 
     to a safer and better world. The imperative is for bipartisan 
     cooperation in a coordinated political and military strategy, 
     even while the political cycle tempts a debate geared to 
     focus groups.
       The experience of Vietnam is often cited as the example for 
     the potential debacle that awaits us in Iraq. But we will 
     never learn from history if we keep telling ourselves myths 
     about it. The passengers on American helicopters fleeing 
     Saigon were not U.S. troops but Vietnamese civilians. 
     American forces had left two years earlier. Vietnam collapsed 
     because of the congressional decision to reduce aid by two-
     thirds to Vietnam and to cut it off altogether for Cambodia 
     in the face of a massive North Vietnamese invasion that 
     violated every provision of the Vietnam Peace Agreement.
       Should America repeat a self-inflicted wound? An abrupt 
     withdrawal from Iraq would not end the war; it would only 
     redirect it. Within Iraq, the sectarian conflict could assume 
     genocidal proportions; terrorist base areas could reemerge. 
     Lebanon might slip into domination by Iran's ally, Hezbollah; 
     a Syria-Israel war or an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear 
     facilities might become more likely as Israel attempted to 
     break the radical encirclement; Turkey and Iran would 
     probably squeeze Kurdish autonomy. The Taliban in Afghanistan 
     would gain new impetus. Countries where the radical threat is 
     as yet incipient, such as India, would face a mounting 
     domestic challenge. Pakistan, in the process of a delicate 
     politica1 transformation, would encounter more radical 
     pressures and might even turn into a radicai challenge 
     itself. That is what is meant by ``precipitate'' withdrawal--
     a withdrawal in which the United States loses the ability to 
     shape events, either within Iraq, on the antijihadist 
     battlefield or in the world at large.
       The proper troop level in Iraq will not be discovered by 
     political compromise at home. To be sure, no ``dispensable'' 
     forces should be retained there. Yet the definition of 
     ``dispensable'' must be based on strategic and political 
     criteria. If reducing troop levels turns into the litmus test 
     of American politics, each withdrawal will generate demands 
     for additional ones until the political, military and 
     psychological framework collapses. An appropriate Iraq 
     strategy requires political direction. But the political 
     dimension must be the ally of military strategy, not a 
     resignation from it.
       Symbolic withdrawals, urged by such wise elder statesmen as 
     Sens. John Warner and Richard Lugar, might indeed assuage the 
     immediate public concerns. They should be understood, 
     however, as palliatives; their utility depends on a balance 
     between their capacity to reassure the U.S. public and their 
     propensity to encourage America's adversaries to believe that 
     they are the forerunners of complete retreat.

[[Page 24615]]

       The argument that the mission of U.S. forces should be 
     confined to defeating terrorism, protecting the frontiers, 
     preventing the emergence of Taliban-like structures and 
     staying out of the civil war aspects is also tempting. In 
     practice, it will be difficult to distinguish among the 
     various aspects of the conflict with any precision.
       Some answer that the best political result is most likely 
     to be achieved by total withdrawal. The option of basing 
     policies on the most favorable assumptions about the future 
     is, of course, always available. Yet nothing in Middle East 
     history suggests that abdication confers influence. Those who 
     urge this course need to put forward their recommendations 
     for action if what occurs are the dire consequences of an 
     abrupt withdrawal foreseen by the majority of experts and 
     diplomats.
       The missing ingredient has not been a withdrawal schedule 
     but a political and diplomatic design connected to a military 
     strategy. The issue is not whether Arab or Muslim societies 
     can ever become democratic; it is whether they can become so 
     under American military guidance in a time frame for which 
     the U.S. political process will stand.
       American exhortations for national reconciliation are based 
     on constitutional principles drawn from the Western 
     experience. But it is impossible to achieve this in a six-
     month period defined by the ``surge'' in an artificially 
     created state racked by the legacy of a thousand years of 
     ethnic and sectarian conflicts. Experience should teach us 
     that trying to manipulate fragile political structures--
     particularly one resulting from American-sponsored 
     elections--is likely to play into radical hands. Nor are the 
     present frustrations with Baghdad's performance a sufficient 
     excuse to impose a strategic disaster on ourselves: However 
     much Americans may disagree about the decision to intervene 
     or about the policy afterward, the United States is in Iraq 
     in large part to serve the American commitment to global 
     order, not as a favor to the Baghdad government.
       It is possible that the present structure in Baghdad is 
     incapable of national reconciliation because its elected 
     constituents were chosen on a sectarian basis. A wiser course 
     would be to place more emphasis on the three principal 
     regions and promote technocratic, efficient and humane 
     administration in each. The provision of services and 
     personal security coupled with emphasis on economic, 
     scientific and intellectual development may represent the 
     best hope for fostering a sense of community. More efficient 
     regional government leading to a substantial decrease in the 
     level of violence, to progress toward the rule of law and to 
     functioning markets could over time give Iraqis an 
     opportunity for national reconciliation--especially if no 
     region is strong enough to impose its will on the others by 
     force. Failing that, the country may well drift into de facto 
     partition under the label of autonomy, such as already exists 
     in the Kurdish region. That very prospect might encourage the 
     Baghdad political forces to move toward reconciliation. Much 
     depends on whether it is possible to create a genuine 
     national army rather than an agglomeration of competing 
     militias.
       The second and ultimately decisive route to overcoming the 
     Iraqi crisis is through international diplomacy. Today the 
     United States is bearing the major burden for regional 
     security militarily, politically and economically in the face 
     of passivity of the designated potential victims. Yet many 
     other nations know that their internal security and, in some 
     cases, their survival will he affected by the outcome in 
     Iraq. That passivity cannot last. These countries must 
     participate in the construction of a civil society, and the 
     best way for us to foster those efforts is to turn 
     reconstruction into a cooperative international effort under 
     multilateral management.
       It will not be possible to achieve these objectives in a 
     single, dramatic move: The military outcome in Iraq will 
     ultimately have to be reflected in some international 
     recognition and some international enforcement of its 
     provisions. The international conference of Iraq's neighbors 
     and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council has 
     established a possible forum for this. A U.N. role in 
     fostering such a political outcome could be helpful.
       Such a strategy is the best path to reduce America's 
     military presence in the long run; an abrupt reduction of 
     American forces will impede diplomacy and set the stage for 
     more intense military crises down the road.
       Pursuing diplomacy inevitably raises the question of how to 
     deal with Iran. Cooperation is possible and should be 
     encouraged with an Iran that pursues stability and 
     cooperation. Such an Iran has legitimate aspirations that 
     need to be respected. But an Iran that practices subversion 
     and seeks regional hegemony--which appears to be the current 
     trend--must be faced with lines it will not be permitted to 
     cross: The industrial nations cannot accept radical forces 
     dominating a region on which their economies depend, and the 
     acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is incompatible with 
     international security. These truisms need to be translated 
     into effective policies, preferably common policies with 
     allies and friends.
       None of these objectives can be realized, however, unless 
     two conditions are met: The United States needs to maintain a 
     presence in the region on which its supporters can count and 
     which its adversaries have to take seriously. The country 
     must recognize that whatever decisions are made now, multiple 
     crises in Iraq, in the Middle East and to world order will 
     continue after a new administration takes office. 
     Bipartisanship is a necessity, not a tactic.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, let us proceed with this debate, keeping 
in mind that the underlying bill, the National Defense Authorization 
Act, contains many non-Iraq provisions which constitute good defense 
policy and which will strengthen the ability of our country to defend 
itself. That is why the committee voted unanimously to report the bill, 
which fully funds the President's $648 billion defense budget request, 
authorizes a 3.5-percent pay raise for all military personnel, 
increases Army and Marine end-strength, reforms the system that serves 
wounded veterans, and provides necessary measures to avoid waste, 
fraud, and abuse in defense procurement. It is a good bill. It is a 
bipartisan bill. I believe we need to send it to the President's desk.
  While the Senate moved off the bill in July and on to other things 
and then went on to a month-long recess, America's soldiers, marines, 
sailors, and airmen continued fighting bravely and tenaciously in Iraq 
in concert with their Iraqi counterparts. Some Senators undoubtedly 
welcomed the delay in considering the Defense bill, believing that 
General Petraeus would deliver to Congress a report filled only with 
defeat and despair. If this was their hope, they were sorely 
disappointed. As we all now know, General Petraeus and Ambassador 
Crocker reported what some of us argued before the bill was pulled 2 
months ago: that the surge is working, that we are making progress 
toward our goals, and that success, while long, hard, and by no means 
certain, is possible. We are succeeding only after 4 years of failures, 
years which have exacted an enormous cost on our country and on the 
brave men and women who fight in Iraq on our behalf.
  Some of us from the beginning warned against the Rumsfeld strategy of 
too few troops, insufficient resources, and a plan predicated on hope 
rather than on the difficult business of stabilization and 
counterinsurgency. We lost years to that strategy, years we cannot get 
back. In the process, the American people became saddened, frustrated, 
and angry. I, too, am heartsick at the terrible price we have paid for 
nearly 4 years of mismanaged war. But I also know America cannot simply 
end this effort in frustration and accept the terrible consequences of 
defeat in Iraq. We cannot choose to lose in Iraq. I believe we must 
give our commanders the time and support they have asked for to win 
this conflict.
  Ralph Peters, the distinguished military strategist, summed it up 
best, noting that Congress's failure to support General Petraeus:

       Would be a shame, since, after nearly 4 years of getting it 
     miserably wrong in Iraq, we are finally getting it right.

  In 2 days of testimony and countless interviews, General Petraeus and 
Ambassador Crocker described how we are finally getting it right. We 
finally have in place a counterinsurgency strategy, one we should have 
been following from the beginning, which makes the most effective use 
of our strength and does not advance the tactics of our enemy. This new 
strategy, backed by a tactical surge in troops, is the only approach 
that has resulted in real security improvements in Iraq.
  General Petraeus reported that the overall number of ``security 
incidents'' in Iraq has declined in 8 of the last 12 weeks and that 
sectarian violence has dropped substantially since the change in 
strategy. Civilian deaths nationwide are down by nearly half since 
December and have dropped by some 70 percent in Baghdad. Deaths 
resulting from sectarian violence have come down by 80 percent since 
December, and the number of car bombings and suicide attacks has 
declined in each of the past 5 months. Anyone who has traveled recently 
to Anbar or Diyala or Baghdad can see the improvements that have taken 
place over the past months. With violence down, commerce has risen,

[[Page 24616]]

and the bottom-up efforts to forge counterterrorism alliances are 
bearing tangible fruit. This is not to argue that Baghdad or other 
areas have suddenly become safe--they have not--but such positive 
developments illustrate General Petraeus's contention that Americans 
and Iraqi forces have achieved substantial progress.
  There are many challenges remaining, and the road ahead is long and 
tough. The Maliki government has not taken advantage of our efforts to 
enable reconciliation and is not functioning as it must. While violence 
has declined significantly, it remains high, and success is not 
certain. We can be sure, however, that should the Congress choose to 
lose by legislating a date for withdrawal, and thus surrender, or by 
mandating a change in mission that would undermine our efforts in Iraq, 
then we will fail for certain. Make no mistake, the consequences of 
America's defeat in Iraq will be terrible and long lasting.
  There is in some corners a belief that we can simply turn the page in 
Iraq, come home, and move on to other things. This is dangerously 
wrong. If we surrender in Iraq, we will be back--in Iraq and 
elsewhere--in many more desperate fights to protect our security and at 
an even greater cost in American lives and treasure. Two weeks ago, 
General Jim Jones testified before the Armed Services Committee and 
outlined what he believes to be the consequences of such a course: ``a 
precipitous departure which results in a failed state in Iraq,'' he 
said, ``will have a significant boost in the numbers of extremists, 
jihadists, in the world, who will believe that they will have toppled 
the major power on Earth and that all else is possible. And I think it 
will not only make us less safe; it will make our friends and allies 
less safe. And the struggle will continue. It will simply be done in 
different and in other areas.''
  Some Senators would like to withdraw our troops from Iraq so we can 
get back to fighting what they believe to be the real war on terror. 
This, too, is inaccurate. Iraq has become the central front in the 
global war on terror, and failure there would turn Iraq into a 
terrorist sanctuary, in the heart of the Middle East, next door to 
Iran, the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism. If we fail in 
Iraq, we will concede territory to jihadists to plan attacks against 
America and our friends and allies. The region could easily descend 
into chaos, wider war, and genocide, and we should have no doubt about 
who will take advantage.
  The Iranian President has stated his intentions bluntly. This is the 
same fellow who announced his dedication and his nation's dedication to 
the extinction of the state of Israel the same President of the country 
that is exporting lethal explosive devices of the most lethal and 
dangerous kind into Iraq, killing American service men and women. This 
President said this:

       Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of 
     course, we are prepared to fill the gap.

  We cannot allow an Iranian dominated Middle East to take shape in the 
context of wider war and terrorist safehavens. General Jones is just 
one of many distinguished national security experts who warn against 
the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. As Brent 
Scowcroft said, ``The costs of staying are visible; the costs of 
getting out are almost never discussed . . . If we get out before Iraq 
is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq 
today. Getting out is not a solution.'' Natan Sharansky has, written 
that a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces ``could lead to a 
bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by comparison.'' And 
Henry Kissinger warns that, ``An abrupt withdrawal from Iraq would not 
end the war; it would only redirect it.''
  The proponents of withdrawal counter that none of these terrible 
consequences would unfold should any of their various proposals become 
law. On the contrary, they argue, U.S. forces could, when not engaged 
in training the Iraqi forces, engage in targeted counterterrorism 
operations. But our own military commanders say that such a narrow 
approach to the complex Iraqi security environment will not succeed, 
and that moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture 
terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is a 
recipe for failure. How can they be so sure? It's simple--this focus on 
training and counterterrorism constitutes the very strategy that so 
plainly failed for the first four years of this war. To return to such 
an unsuccessful approach is truly ``staying the course,'' and it is a 
course that will inevitably lead to our defeat and to catastrophic 
consequences for Iraq, the region, and the security of the United 
States.
  General Petraeus and his commanders have embraced a new strategy, one 
that can, over time, lead to success in Iraq. They are fighting smarter 
and better, and in a way that can give Iraqis the security and 
opportunity to make decisions necessary to save their country from the 
abyss of genocide and a permanent and spreading war, and in a way that 
will safeguard fundamental American interests. They ask just two things 
of us: the time to continue this strategy and the support they need to 
carry out their mission. They must have both, and I will fight to 
ensure that they do.
  As we engage in this debate, I hope that each of us will recall our 
most solemn allegiance, which is not to party or politics but to 
country. I have heard on this floor the claim that our efforts in Iraq 
somehow constitute ``Bush's war'' or the ``Republican war.'' Nothing 
could be farther from the truth. Presidents do not lose wars. Political 
parties do not lose wars. Nations lose wars and suffer the 
consequences, or prevail and enjoy the blessings of their success.
  All of us want our troops to come home, and to come home as soon as 
possible. But we should want our soldiers to return to us with honor, 
the honor of victory that is due all of those who have paid with the 
ultimate sacrifice. We have many responsibilities to the people who 
elected us, but one responsibility outweighs all the others, and that 
is to protect this great and good Nation from all enemies foreign and 
domestic.
  This is a serious debate and one we engage at a time of national 
peril. The Americans who make the greatest sacrifices have earned the 
right to insist that we do our duty, as best we can and remember to 
whom and what we owe our first allegiance--to the security of the 
American people and to the ideals upon which our Nation was founded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, earlier in the day, there was the 
attempt of my friend and colleague, Senator Smith, to at least try to 
propose an amendment that deals with hate crimes and try to get it into 
an order and to be able to have consideration of that amendment during 
the Defense authorization bill. There has been objection. I can 
understand the importance of the underlying amendment. I certainly 
believe that underlying amendment has great significance and 
importance, and we are going to have an opportunity, I believe, 
tomorrow to vote on it.
  I wish to indicate I have every intention, with Senator Smith, of 
offering at some time the hate crimes legislation. I know the question 
comes up: Why are we offering hate crimes legislation on a Defense 
authorization bill? The answer is very simple: The Defense 
authorization bill is dealing with the challenges of terrorism, and the 
hate crimes issue--to try to get a handle on the problems of hate 
crimes, we are talking about domestic terrorism. We have our men and 
women who are over in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world 
fighting for American values. One of the values we have as Americans is 
the recognition that we do not believe individuals ought to be singled 
out because of their race, religion or sexual orientation and be the 
subject of hate attack.
  This has been an ongoing and continuing issue for our country. At 
another time, I will get into greater detail about the nature of the 
challenges we are facing on this particular issue. We passed hate crime 
legislation at the time of Dr. King, but it was somewhat

[[Page 24617]]

restrictive in terms of its application. We have been reminded about 
this challenge probably most dramatically with Mr. Shepard out in the 
Wyoming countryside, who was selected to be a victim of a hate crime 
and suffered a horrific death.
  I, for one, and I think others do, understand we have voted on this 
on other Defense authorization bills. It has been carried on other 
Defense authorization bills. I know my friend and colleague, Senator 
Smith, would not have taken an unreasonable period of time. We have 
voted on this issue. We voted in 2004 and in 2000 on this issue. 
Members are familiar with the substance of the issue. So we don't need 
a great deal of time. We are glad to cooperate with the floor managers 
in terms of the time.
  I didn't want to let the afternoon go by and leave any doubt. I have 
had the opportunity to mention this to Senator Levin on other 
occasions. I mentioned it, as well, to our majority leader, Senator 
Reid, who has been supportive. I know Senator Levin has been supportive 
of the substance of it. It seems to me we are talking about Defense 
authorization and we are talking effectively about the national 
security and about the values of our country and why our men and women 
are involved in defending our country and these values. Certainly, we 
ought to be able to say, as we are dealing with the problem of hatred 
and violence around the world, that we will battle hatred and violence 
as it is applied here at home.
  As I mentioned, at another time I will go into detail on the history 
of the legislation and, again, the reasons for it and the facts on this 
particular issue in recent times.
  At a time when our ideals are under attack by terrorists in other 
lands, it is more important than ever to demonstrate that we practice 
what we preach, and that we are doing all we can to root out the 
bigotry and prejudice in our own country that leads to violence here at 
home.
  Crimes motivated by hate because of the victim's race, religion, 
ethnic background, sexual orientation, disability, or gender are not 
confined to the geographical boundaries of our great Nation. The 
current conflicts in the Middle East and Northern Ireland, the ethnic 
cleansing campaigns in Bosnia and Rwanda, or the Holocaust itself 
demonstrate that violence motivated by hate is a world-wide danger, and 
we have a special responsibility to combat it here at home.
  This amendment will strengthen the Defense Authorization Act by 
protecting those who volunteer to serve in the military. The vast 
majority of our soldiers serve with honor and distinction. These men 
and women put their lives on the line to ensure our freedom and for 
that, we are truly grateful. Sadly, our military bases are not immune 
from the violence that comes from hatred.
  In 1992, Allen Schindler, a sailor in the Navy was viciously murdered 
by two fellow sailors because of his sexual orientation. Seven years 
later, PFC Barry Winchell, an infantry soldier in the Army, was 
brutally slain for being perceived as gay. These incidents prompted the 
military to implement guidelines to prevent this type of violence, but 
there is more that we can do. We have to send a message that these 
crimes won't be tolerated against any member of society.
  A disturbing trend has also been discovered in the military. Last 
year, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that members of hate 
groups have been entering into the military. As recruiters struggle to 
fulfill their quotas, they are being forced to accept recruits who may 
be extremists, putting our soldiers at higher risk of hate motivated 
violence. This can't be tolerated. We must stem the tied of hatred and 
bigotry by sending a loud and clear message that hate crimes will be 
punished to the fullest extent of the law.
  Since the September 11 attacks, we've seen a shameful increase in the 
number of hate crimes committed against Muslims, Sikhs, and Americans 
of Middle Eastern descent. Congress has done much to respond to the 
vicious attacks of September 11. We have authorized the use of force 
against terrorists and those who harbor them in other lands. We have 
enacted legislation to provide aid to victims and their families, to 
strengthen airport security, to improve the security of our borders, to 
strengthen our defenses against bioterrorism, and to give law 
enforcement and intelligence officials enhanced powers to investigate 
and prevent terrorism.
  Protecting the security of our homeland is a high priority, and there 
is more that we should do to strengthen our defenses against hate that 
comes from abroad. There is no reason why Congress should not act to 
strengthen our defenses against hate that occurs here at home.
  Hate crimes are a form of domestic terrorism. They send the poisonous 
message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of 
who they are. Like other acts of terrorism, hate crimes have an impact 
far greater than the impact on the individual victims. They are crimes 
against entire communities, against the whole nation, and against the 
fundamental ideals on which America was founded. They are a violation 
of all our country stands for.
  Since the September 11 attacks, the Nation has been united in our 
effort to root out the cells of hatred around the world. We should not 
turn a blind eye to acts of hatred and terrorism here at home.
  Attorney General Ashcroft put it well when he said:

       Just as the United States will pursue, prosecute, and 
     punish terrorists who attack America out of hatred for what 
     we believe, we will pursue, prosecute and punish those who 
     attack law-abiding Americans out of hatred for who they are. 
     Hatred is the enemy of justice, regardless of its source.

  Now more than ever, we need to act against hate crimes and send a 
strong message here and around the world that we will not tolerate 
crimes fueled by hate.
  The Senate should not hesitate in condemning countries that tolerate 
crimes motivated by the victim's race, religion, ethnic background, 
sexual orientation, disability, or gender. Hate is hate regardless of 
what nation it originates in. We can send a strong message about the 
need to eradicate hate crimes throughout the world by passing this hate 
crimes amendment to the Defense Department Authorization Bill.
  We should not shrink now from our role as the beacon of liberty to 
the rest of the world. The national interest in condemning bias-
motivated violence in the United States is great, and so is our 
interest in condemning bias-motivated violence occurring world-wide.
  The hate crimes amendment we are offering today condemns the 
poisonous message that some human beings deserve to be victimized 
solely because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation and must 
not be ignored. This action is long overdue. When the Senate approves 
this amendment, we will send a message about freedom and equality that 
will resonate around the world.
  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. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Madam President, first, I concur with something Senator 
McCain said which is that the floor is open now for people to come down 
and speak, either on the bill, on the pending habeas corpus amendment, 
or on any other matter on which they wish to speak. There will be no 
more votes today, I am authorized to say. Also, there will be a cloture 
vote tomorrow at approximately 10:30 a.m. on the Specter-Leahy-Dodd 
amendment. Then we hope to take action relative to the Graham 
amendment. There are some discussions going on relative to that 
amendment. Then, hopefully, we would promptly move to take up the Webb 
amendment. It is the intention of this manager that the Webb amendment 
then be called up immediately after the disposition of, first, the 
Specter-Leahy-Dodd cloture vote and then the Graham amendment, and it 
is my intention that Senator Webb then have his amendment called up. I 
believe

[[Page 24618]]

Senator Webb will be ready to proceed at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, will the distinguished chairman yield 
for a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is my understanding in my 
conversations with the chairman, we are moving forward in narrowing 
down amendments so we have an additional managers' package so we have a 
manageable number of amendments that need to be debated and voted on, 
and we will try to get time agreements on those, as well as the Iraqi 
amendments.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. I did fail to mention that the 
leaders are meeting to see if there can't be a unanimous consent 
agreement worked out relative to the Iraq amendments. Senator Reid 
described that proposed unanimous consent agreement, but that is going 
on.
  The Senator from Arizona is correct, we are going to seek to reduce 
the number of amendments that require rollcalls. We are going to seek 
time agreements. We have a huge number of amendments which have been 
filed, in the two hundreds. We made some progress because we disposed 
of 50 amendments the other day.
  We very much thank Senator McCain, by the way, and his staff, and 
Senator Warner, for the efforts they are putting into this legislation. 
Senator McCain is a very easy person with whom to work. We are used to 
having people on the committee who are both chairman and ranking 
member, regardless who is in control of the committee, work on a 
bipartisan basis. Senator McCain is surely in that tradition. We are 
grateful for that effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
his kind remarks. All things considered, I would rather the situation 
be reversed, but I certainly do appreciate the opportunity.
  One of the nice things about this body is that over a 20-year period, 
the Senator from Michigan and I have had the honor of working together 
on behalf of this Nation's defense on this very important committee, 
the Armed Services Committee. One of the previous chairman's statues 
presides in the office named after him--the office in which we both 
work and where we spend our time on the committee. I believe given our 
past history, I say to the chairman, that it is very possible we could 
dispose of this bill by the end of the week. One of the reasons why the 
chairman and I both made the argument to our colleagues to get it done 
is because we have to go to conference with the House, the other body, 
which has a number of different provisions that have to be reconciled. 
Then we have to get it to the President's desk, and October 1 is the 
beginning of a new fiscal year. So I hope our colleagues all appreciate 
the urgency.
  One of the provisions of this legislation is the Wounded Warriors. We 
were all appalled at the conditions at Walter Reed. That is why we in 
the committee, with some guidance from a distinguished commission--a 
lot of guidance from a distinguished commission, headed by Senator Dole 
and former Secretary Shalala. These are very important issues for the 
medical care of the men and women who are serving. It will not happen 
unless we get this legislation passed. So we are kind of asking for a 
higher calling here to understand the necessity to get this bill to the 
President's desk before the October 1.
  Of course, we can have a continuing resolution. We have done that, 
not on the DOD bill, as I recall. I don't know if the chairman recalls 
it. That, obviously, does not do what these thousands of hours of hard 
work on our part and on the part of the military leaders and the 
members of staff do.
  It is my fine hope, I say to the chairman, that we are able to finish 
this bill this week with the cooperation of all involved.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, while we hope the Senator from Arizona is 
right and we can complete the bill this week, we also are aware of the 
fact that on Friday, we do have to leave here somewhat early because of 
the Jewish holidays. That will be only part of the day. I hope we can 
make tremendous progress this week. It may be a bit optimistic in terms 
of finishing it this week. That is going to depend on the cooperation 
of our colleagues. We have hundreds of amendments. We need colleagues 
who can clear many of them, and we need time agreements on the rest. It 
depends on our colleagues.
  We are going to do everything we can to continue a great tradition 
here. May I say, this is the 46th year in a row that the authorization 
bill has come to the floor, and we are not going to break the record of 
having an authorization for every one of those previous 45 years. We 
always had it because of the provisions of the bill which are so 
important--the pay and benefits and the support of not only our troops 
but also their families.
  When the Senator from Arizona made reference to the Wounded Warriors 
legislation, I know our Presiding Officer, Senator McCaskill, because 
of her active role and participation in that legislation, understands 
precisely what we are saying. That legislation is so important that it 
is not only in the bill but it is in a separate bill which was passed 
that is now awaiting, hopefully, a resolution between the Senate and 
the House. But in any event, the Senator is correct, the presence of 
that legislation in this bill may be the greatest assurance we have 
that legislation is going to become law. There are a lot of reasons, 
hundreds of reasons, why we need this authorization bill passed. That 
is surely one of the most important ones, one that has had the support 
of so many of our Members. So many of our Members and our Veterans' 
Affairs Committee have been so active with that legislation as well.
  I join in the comments of my good friend from Arizona and hope our 
colleagues will come to the floor now. We can take up matters. We can 
get unanimous consent. We can even set aside pending matters. There are 
things we can do this afternoon. I do hope our colleagues will come to 
the floor and give their speeches on habeas corpus or other subjects.
  I 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. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today in the course of this 
Defense authorization bill to discuss an amendment which I am working 
on and preparing to offer. It is an important amendment to this bill. 
It is a critically important amendment for our Nation. It is an 
amendment known as the DREAM Act.
  The DREAM Act is a narrowly tailored bipartisan measure that I have 
sponsored with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Republican 
Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, and in past years with Senator Orrin 
Hatch of Utah. It would give a select group of students in America a 
chance to become permanent residents only if they came to this country 
as children, are long-term U.S. residents, have good moral character, 
and enlist in the military or attend college for at least 2 years. The 
DREAM Act is supported by a large coalition in the Senate, and also by 
military leaders, religious leaders, and educators from across the 
political spectrum and around the country.
  During the 109th Congress, the DREAM Act was adopted unanimously as 
an amendment to the immigration reform legislation that passed in the 
Senate. In the 108th Congress, the DREAM Act was the only immigration 
reform proposal reported to the Senate floor on a bipartisan 16-to-3 
vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  Now, obviously, in the midst of the Defense authorization bill, some 
people question why one might bring up an immigration issue. The answer 
is simple: The DREAM Act would address a very serious recruitment 
crisis facing

[[Page 24619]]

our military. Under the DREAM Act, tens of thousands of well-qualified 
potential recruits would become eligible for military service for the 
first time. They are eager to serve in the armed services, and under 
the DREAM Act, they would have a very strong incentive to enlist 
because it would give them a path to permanent legal status.
  First, let us look at the recruitment crisis we face today. Largely 
due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army is struggling to meet 
recruitment quotas. Because of these recruitment difficulties, the Army 
is accepting more applicants who are high school dropouts, have low 
scores on military aptitude tests, and, unfortunately, have criminal 
backgrounds.
  The statistics tell the story. In 2006, almost 40 percent of Army 
recruits had below-average scores on the military aptitude test. That 
is the highest rate of students with low scores since 1985. In 2006, 
almost 20 percent of Army recruits did not have a high school degree. 
This is the highest rate of high school dropouts enlisting in the Army 
since 1981. By comparison, from 1984 to 2004, 90 percent or more of 
Army recruits had high school diplomas. Why does this matter? The Army 
said itself that high school graduation is the best single predictor of 
``stick-to-itiveness'' that is required to succeed in the military and 
in life.
  Charles Moskos, a Northwestern University sociologist, is an expert 
in military culture, and he says:

       The more dropouts who enlist, the more discipline problems 
     the Army is likely to have.

  Even more disturbing, the number of so-called moral waivers for Army 
recruits who have committed crimes has increased by 65 percent in the 
last 3 years, from 4,918 in 2003 to 8,129 in 2006. Many of these 
waivers are for serious crimes--aggravated assault, burglary, robbery, 
and even vehicular homicide. In fact, individuals with criminal 
backgrounds were 11.7 percent of the 2006 recruiting class. Now, in 
contrast, under the DREAM Act, all recruits would be well-qualified 
high school graduates with good moral character.
  Let me tell you how the DREAM Act would work. Currently, our 
immigration laws prevent thousands of young people from pursuing their 
dreams and really becoming part of America's future. Their parents 
brought these children to the United States when they were under the 
age of 16. For many, it is the only home they know. They are fully 
assimilated into American society. They really don't want much more 
than just to be Americans and to have a chance to succeed. They have 
beaten the odds all of their young lives. The kids who would be helped 
by the DREAM Act face a high school dropout rate among undocumented 
immigrants of 50 percent. So it is a 50-50 chance that they would even 
qualify to be part of this act.
  Incidentally, the dropout rate for legal immigrants is 21 percent and 
for native-born Americans, 11 percent. So already these young people 
would have to beat the odds and graduate from high school to even 
qualify to be considered.
  They have also demonstrated the kind of determination and commitment 
that makes them successful students and points the way to significant 
contributions they will make in their lives. They are junior ROTC 
leaders, honor roll students, and valedictorians. They are tomorrow's 
soldiers, doctors, nurses, teachers, Senators, and Congressmen.
  Over the years, I have had a chance to meet a lot of these DREAM Act 
kids. That is what they call themselves, incidentally. Let me give you 
one example. Oscar Vasquez was brought to Phoenix, AZ, by his parents 
when he was 12 years old. He spent his high school years in Junior ROTC 
and dreamed of one day enlisting in the U.S. military. At the end of 
his junior year, the recruiting officer told Oscar he was ineligible 
for military service because he was undocumented. He was devastated.
  But he found another outlet for his talent. Oscar, because of the 
help of 2 energetic science teachers, was enrolled in a college 
division robot competition sponsored by the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration. With 3 other undocumented students, Oscar worked 
for months in a windowless storage room in his high school and tested 
their invention at a scuba training pool on the weekends. Competing 
against students from MIT and other top universities, Oscar's team won 
first place in this robot competition.
  Oscar has since graduated from high school. You know what he does? He 
is not in the military. He is not using his scientific skills. He is an 
undocumented person in America. He hangs sheetrock for a living. It is 
the best job he could get without a college education or the 
opportunity to enlist in the military. He wants to save his money in 
hopes that someday--just someday--the door will open and give him a 
chance to be part of this Nation, the only Nation he has really ever 
known. Couldn't we use his talent? Couldn't the military use someone 
like Oscar? The DREAM Act would help students just like him. It is 
designed to assist only a select group of students who would be 
required to earn their way to legal status.
  Now, the fundamental premise of the DREAM Act is that we shouldn't 
punish children for the mistakes their parents made. That isn't the 
American way. The DREAM Act says to these students: America is going to 
give you a chance. It won't be easy, but you can earn your way into 
legal status. We will give you the opportunity if you meet the 
following requirements: If you came to the United States when you were 
15 years old or younger, if you have lived here at least 5 years, are 
of good moral character, and you graduate from high school and then 
serve in the military or attend college for at least 2 years.
  The DREAM Act doesn't mandate military service. There is a college 
option. A student who is otherwise eligible could earn legal status 
that way. It would be inconsistent with the spirit of our volunteer 
military to force young people to enlist as a condition for obtaining 
legal status, but the DREAM Act creates strong incentives for military 
service.
  Many DREAM Act kids come from a demographic group that is already 
predisposed to serve the United States in the military. A 2004 survey 
by the RAND Corporation found that 45 percent of Hispanic males and 31 
percent of Hispanic females between ages 16 and 21 were very likely to 
serve in the Armed Forces, compared to 24 percent of White males and 10 
percent of White females.
  It is important to note that immigrants have an outstanding tradition 
of service in the military. There are currently 35,000 noncitizens 
serving in the military and about 8,000 more will enlist each year. 
These are not citizens; they are legal residents who are willing to 
serve our country.
  I have met them. The second trip I made to Iraq was to a Marine Corps 
base west of Baghdad. They lined up a group of young marines from 
Illinois to whom I could say hello. It was a hot and dusty day. They 
stood there waiting for this Senator to show up. The last one of them 
in line was a young Hispanic man from Chicago named Jesus. Jesus had 
with him a brown envelope. He said: Senator, I would like to ask you a 
favor. He said: I enlisted in the Marines and I am glad to be a marine, 
but the one thing I would like to do someday is to vote. I am not a 
citizen and, he said, I need a chance. He said: I hope you can help me 
get a chance to become a U.S. citizen.
  I said to myself, what more could we ask of this young man? He 
volunteered for the U.S. Marine Corps to go to a battle zone and risk 
his life for America.
  I listen to speeches on the floor here. My friend from Alabama, 
Senator Sessions, comes to the floor on a regular basis and criticizes 
the DREAM Act. He criticizes this bill that would give young people who 
are undocumented and graduate from high school, of good moral 
character, without a criminal background, who want to serve our Nation 
in the military on their path to becoming legal. He criticizes this 
bill. He calls it amnesty.
  Do you know what, an amnesty is a giveaway. Amnesty is a card to pass 
``Go'' and collect $200 in America. Do

[[Page 24620]]

you think those who would volunteer for the military, who are willing 
to risk their lives for our country, are going to receive amnesty? Is 
this a gift? It is a gift to America that they are willing to risk 
their lives for our country. It is a gift to America that once having 
served, they will come back as proud Americans, voting and living in 
this country. It is a gift to America that they will use their skills 
and talent to make this a greater nation. For my colleagues to come to 
the floor and call this amnesty is to, in some ways, denigrate the 
fantastic sacrifice these young people would be willing to make, who 
serve in the military to become citizens.
  I will concede this is not the only path to citizenship under this 
DREAM Act. Those who finish 2 years of college would also have a 
chance. I think that is only fair. To make this contingent only on 
military service I think would create a situation which is not 
consistent with a volunteer military. I hate to see us lose these young 
men and women who want to be part of America and are willing to risk 
their lives for that opportunity.
  A recent study by the Center for Naval Analysis concluded ``non-
citizens have high rates of success while serving in the military--they 
are far more likely, for example, to fulfill their enlistment 
obligations than their U.S.-born counterparts.''
  The study also concluded there are additional benefits to enlisting 
noncitizens. For example, noncitizens ``are more diverse than citizen 
recruits--not just racially and ethnically, but also linguistically and 
culturally. This diversity is particularly valuable as the United 
States faces the challenges of the global war on terrorism.''
  The DREAM Act is not just the right thing to do; it would be good for 
America. The DREAM Act would allow a generation of immigrants with 
great potential and ambitions to contribute to the military and other 
sectors of American society.
  I am not just speaking for myself here, as the sponsor of this 
legislation. The Department of Defense recognizes it, and we have 
worked with them. Bill Carr, the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for 
Military Personnel Policy, recently said the DREAM Act is ``very 
appealing'' to the military because it would apply to the ``cream of 
the crop'' of students, in his words. Mr. Carr concluded the DREAM Act 
would be ``good for [military] readiness.''
  On the Defense authorization bill, I don't believe it is unusual or 
improper for us to consider a bill that a leader in the Department of 
Defense said would be good for military readiness.
  Last year at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the 
contributions of immigrants to the military, David Chu, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, said:

       There are an estimated 50,000 to 65,000 undocumented alien 
     young adults who entered the United States at an early age 
     and graduate from high school each year, many of whom are 
     bright, energetic and potentially interested in military 
     service. They include many who participated in high school 
     Junior ROTC programs. Under current law, these young people 
     are not eligible to enlist in the military . . . Yet many of 
     these young people may wish to join the military, and have 
     the attributes needed--education, aptitude, fitness and moral 
     qualifications. . . .

  The Under Secretary went on to say:

        . . . the DREAM Act would provide these young people the 
     opportunity of serving the United States in uniform.

  Military experts agree. Margaret Stock, a professor at West Point, 
said:

       Passage of the DREAM Act would be highly beneficial to the 
     U.S. military. The DREAM Act promises to enlarge dramatically 
     the pool of highly qualified recruits for the U.S. Armed 
     Forces . . . passage of this bill could well solve the Armed 
     Forces enlistment recruiting woes.

  Do you know what we are offering to young people now to enlist in our 
military? For many of them, a $10,000 cash bonus, right out of high 
school, if they will enlist in the military. And if they will show up 
within 6 weeks, we double it to $20,000, the largest cash incentive we 
have ever offered. These young people aren't looking for a cash 
incentive. All they want is a chance to fight for America, to defend 
our country and to become part of our Nation's future.
  Conservative military scholar Max Boot agrees. When asked about the 
DREAM Act, he said:

       It's a substantial pool of people and I think it's crazy we 
     are not tapping into it.

  These experts are right. The DREAM Act kids are ideal recruits. They 
are high school graduates, they have good moral character, and they 
desperately want to serve America. At the time when the military has 
been forced to unfortunately lower many of its standards to meet 
recruitment targets, we should not underestimate the significance of 
these young people as a national security asset.
  This is the choice the DREAM Act presents us. We can allow a 
generation of immigrant students with great potential and ambition to 
contribute more to America, or give them the future of living in the 
shadows, uncertain about what they can do, uncertain about where life 
will lead them.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I 
hope they will, for a moment, pause and reflect. There have been a lot 
of things said about immigration during the course of this debate. I 
look back on this issue as one who doesn't come to it objectively. I am 
the son of an immigrant. My mother came to this country as a young girl 
at the age of 2 from Lithuania. Her naturalization certificate sits 
behind my desk upstairs. She became a naturalized citizen at the age of 
25. She lived long enough to see me sworn into the Senate, and I was so 
proud of that day and so proud to be a Senator from the State of 
Illinois.
  I believe in immigration. I believe the diversity of America is our 
strength; that Black, White, and Brown, from every corner of this Earth 
we have come together to create something no nation on Earth can rival.
  There are those who will always see immigration differently, those 
who will question it, and those who will be critical. For those people, 
I ask them to step back and take an honest look at this. Step back and 
take an honest look at these young people, meet them, sit down with 
them, as I have. They will bring tears to your eyes when they talk to 
you about how hard they are working to make it in this country. They 
don't get many of the breaks which other kids get, but they keep on 
trying.
  One of my friends is getting his graduate degree in microbiology at 
the University of Chicago. He keeps going to school because, as he 
said: Senator, I don't know what to do when I get out of school. I am 
not a legal American. I am undocumented. My dream is to work for a 
pharmaceutical company, to do medical research one day. Can we afford 
to let him go? Can we afford to turn our back on what he will bring to 
America?
  It is interesting to me, before the end of this year we are likely to 
debate H-1B visas. The debate behind H-1B visas is that we don't have a 
large talent pool in America. We need to bring the best and brightest 
from India, from Asia, from Africa, and from Europe. We need to bring 
them in so our companies in America, starved for talent, that can't 
find it here, could find it in these visa holders coming in from 
foreign countries. We will let them work for 3 years or 6 years. Some 
them may try to stay. Some of them will go home.
  But if we are at a point where we don't have a large enough talent 
pool in America, can we honestly say that these young people, the 
people who would be benefitted by the DREAM Act, are a talent we can 
waste? I don't think so.
  Just last year I was eating in a restaurant in Chicago. It is a 
pretty famous breakfast place called Ann Suther's. Tom Tully is an 
alderman for the city of Chicago, and his family owns the restaurant. 
He introduced me to a young man with an apron on. He called him Juan 
and he said: Juan, come over and meet the Senator. He explained to me 
that Juan, who came to this country illegally, was allowed to stay and 
become a citizen under the amnesty that was offered by President Reagan 
20 years ago. Juan went on to get an engineering degree and went on to 
work with an engineering firm, but because he remembers that this 
restaurant offered him a chance to wash dishes when nobody else would 
give

[[Page 24621]]

him a job, he shows up every once in a while on a Saturday and works 
for a few hours for nothing, just to be around his old friends.
  Those are heart-warming stories and there are many of them out there. 
I know there are people who seriously question whether immigration can 
be debated successfully on the floor of the Senate. I am hoping it can 
be and I am hoping my colleagues on the Democratic side and the 
Republican side will join me in this bipartisan effort for these young 
people, to give them a chance to serve and a chance to excel. It will 
make their lives better and make America a better nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  (The remarks fo Mr. Conrad and Mr. Gregg pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 2063 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements of Inroduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, let me say I applaud both 
of the Senators who are working in an exemplary way to try to achieve 
something that is very difficult to achieve. I applaud them for their 
effort.
  Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is amendment No. 2022 
offered by the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. INHOFE. All right. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to 
set the pending amendment aside for the purpose of considering my 
amendment No. 2271 and then to revert back to this pending amendment. 
It is my understanding that this amendment is one of 10 amendments that 
is going to be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am constrained to object on behalf of 
the managers of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. INHOFE. All right.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion since 
last week when MoveOn.org, with a very liberal antiwar stance--which we 
understand has been their position for quite some time, raising 
millions of dollars for various Democratic Party candidates--ran an ad. 
Up until the September 10 ad in the New York Times calling General 
Petraeus ``General Betray Us,'' MoveOn.org seemed to be in line with 
the Democrat's public statements supporting the troops but opposing the 
war.
  It is my understanding my good friend, the junior Senator from Texas, 
is going to be having a resolution that will be coming up shortly. I 
want a chance to talk a little bit about that resolution.
  I believe that MoveOn.org's ad crossed the line by attacking the 
character and integrity of America's top military leader in Iraq.
  General Petraeus is a man of honor, honesty, and integrity. He is a 
West Point graduate. He has held leadership positions in airborne, 
mechanized, and air assault infantry units in Europe and the United 
States, including command of a battalion in the 101st Airborne 
Division, as well as a brigade in the 82nd Airborne Division.
  He was the aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; battalion, 
brigade, and division operations officer; he has done it all. He was 
the Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  He was the top graduate--not one of the top graduates, but the top 
graduate--of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. He earned 
M.P.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Princeton University. We are talking 
about a Ph.D. from Princeton University. This is not an ordinary 
officer. This is a man with incredible credentials.
  He has won multiple awards and decorations, including being 
recognized by US News & World Report as one of America's 25 best 
leaders in the year 2005.
  He is our top military commander in Iraq and commander of the Multi-
National Force-Iraq, confirmed by the Senate as the right man for the 
job. He was confirmed, I might add, unanimously by the Senate.
  The very day General Petraeus sat before Congress to offer his latest 
report, MoveOn.org ran a full-page ad in the New York Times attacking 
his message before they even heard his message.
  The ad accused General Petraeus of ``Cooking the Books for the White 
House'' and called him ``a military man constantly at war with the 
facts.'' Their shameless attack on his character did not stop there. 
They accused him of being a traitor, calling him ``General Betray Us.''
  Well, anyway, MoveOn.org's attempt to discredit General Petraeus is 
deplorable, and I join with other Members of the Senate in condemning 
its actions.
  I have no issue with news agencies or individuals offering and 
debating opposing views. That is what we do on this floor every day. 
However, MoveOn.org crossed the line when they ran the ad attacking the 
motives and honor of our No. 1 commander on the ground in Iraq.
  I support Senator Lieberman's condemnation of MoveOn.org's attempt at 
character assassination, and I call on them to retract their scurrilous 
ad with another full-page ad apologizing for their error in judgment. 
But they would not do it. You know they would not do it. Still, we can 
try. They don't have the character to do it.
  While no American is above scrutiny, this was clearly a calculated 
move on the part of this organization to undermine the noble efforts of 
this patriot to execute his duties that we in Congress unanimously sent 
him to accomplish.
  It amazes me how far some will go to root for American failure in 
Iraq. MoveOn.org clearly placed their political agenda ahead of the 
best interests of the United States and particularly the men and women 
of the military when they chose to run that ad.
  Now, something interesting happened. A reporter from the Washington 
Post came up with this, did a little research. According to the 
director of public relations for the New York Times, the open rate for 
an ad of that size and type is $181,000. According to a September 14 
Washington Post article, the New York Times dramatically slashed its 
normal rates for the full-page ad.
  A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to the Post they paid only 
$65,000 for the ad. The Post reporter called the Times advertising 
department without identifying himself and was quoted a price of 
$167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday. The New York 
Times refused to offer any explanation for why the paper would give 
them a rate one-third of their published rate.
  Now, my first visit to Iraq was in August of 2003, and my latest 
visit was on the August 30, 2007. The Iraq I saw last time is not the 
Iraq I visited in 2003. I would like to say also that between those 
years I have actually been to the Iraqi AOR, area of operations, some 
15 times. During that period of time I have seen these things.
  I knew what General Petraeus was going to say when he came here last 
week because I was with him a few days before that. I read General 
Petraeus's and Ambassador Crocker's prepared statements and listened 
intently to their testimonies. I compared their assessment with the 
assessments I have made over the past 4 years visiting Iraq. It appears 
our assessments are based on similar events that have occurred in Iraq.
  I watched Ramadi as it changed. You might remember a year ago they 
claimed Ramadi was going to become the terrorist capital of the world. 
Ramadi is now totally secured.
  I visited Fallujah. I have been there several times. I was there 
during all the elections. I watched those Iraqi security forces go and 
vote. I watched the American marines go door to door World War II 
style. Fallujah now--

[[Page 24622]]

which was the hotbed in Anbar Province of Iraq--is now under total 
security, and not with U.S. forces but with Iraqi security forces.
  I visited Patrol Base Murray, south of Baghdad, and met with local 
Iraqis who came forward and established provisional units of 
neighborhood security volunteers. These individuals heard the Americans 
were coming and were there and cheering, waiting for them to arrive.
  I watched these Neighborhood Watch and Concerned Citizens groups take 
root in Anbar Province and slowly make their way to other cities 
spreading across Iraq--local civilians willing to stand up and take 
back their neighborhoods, their cities, and province.
  Citizens are marking IEDs with orange paint--undetonated IEDs and 
PRGs--identifying al-Qaida in their towns and testifying against them. 
It is something that was not happening a few months before or prior to 
the surge. They are guarding critical infrastructure and working side 
by side with the U.S. forces.
  I saw the anti-American messages at the mosques. Our intelligence 
goes into the mosques for each of their weekly meetings. Up through 
December of this past year, they averaged that 85 percent of the 
messages were anti-American messages. Since April of this year, there 
have been no anti-American messages. I guess I learned something that 
no one else seems to agree with; that is, we spend entirely too much 
time talking about the political leaders, when the religious leaders 
are the ones responsible for these major changes. These are the ones 
who are standing in the mosques and talking about Americans and the 
coalition forces as their allies, not as adversaries, as they were 
before.
  I visited the Joint Security Stations in Baghdad. It used to be our 
kids would go out on a mission during the daytime, and they would come 
back at night to the green zone. They do not do that anymore. These 
Joint Security Stations--even as to the report that came in, our goal 
was to have 34, and there are now 32 of those Joint Security Stations. 
These guys go out, and instead of coming back, they sit and become 
friends with the Iraqis and actually sleep in the homes of the Iraqi 
security forces.
  I watched the surge operations take effect, visited a former al-Qaida 
sanctuary, and saw a strengthening of Iraqi forces resulting in an 
increase in burden sharing.
  I observed a steady decrease in the number of attacks in Anbar from 
40 to less than 10 a day.
  I visited the markets. There is a lot of talk about that. A lot of 
people go and visit the markets with all kinds of protection. I went to 
the markets without any protection, and I talked, through an 
interpreter, to people. I picked out people holding babies, and they 
were all glad to see us.
  I met with U.S. and coalition leaders and commanders, Iraqi leaders 
and commanders, and local civilian groups on each trip.
  I watched the political, economic, and diplomatic growth over time. 
It has been uneven and frustrating, but it has been a movement in the 
right direction.
  I guess the bottom line is Iraq is achieving progress. No one can 
debate that. It is not just General Petraeus. It is what the Iraqis 
say. It is what they are saying, the religious leaders and the 
political leaders. It is happening, happening since the surge. The 
surge is clearly working.
  The coalition forces are handing back control of Iraq to the Iraqis 
and to the Iraqi security forces. Local leaders who want better lives 
for their people are bravely standing up and rejecting the fatalist, 
cynical, and hate-filled diet fed to them by al-Qaida and other 
extremists.
  Iraqis are realizing that al-Qaida does not offer a long-term vision 
of hope or an opportunity for them any more than it would for the 
average Californian or New Yorker or Oklahoman.
  A backlash and rebellion against al-Qaida has been going on over the 
last 6 months in places such as Anbar Province and Babil Province south 
of Baghdad. When the tribal leaders and clerics in Anbar made the 
conscious decision to reject al-Qaida, they virtually overnight 
transformed their province into a model for the rest of the country to 
emulate. The ``concerned citizens'' of Babil Province--I was there--
recognized the progress made in Anbar and decided they wanted to do the 
same thing. So it is spreading. It is spreading into areas even up 
toward Tikrit, the hometown of Saddam Hussein.
  So al-Qaida understands the importance of the collective American 
will when it comes to prosecuting the war on terror. They understand 
they have absolutely no chance of winning this war over the long run 
militarily. They understand their only chance of achieving victory is 
to get the American people to call for a withdrawal. If we pull out of 
the fight, they win. There is no other way to characterize it. This is 
a strategic military objective for them. Like with any military 
objective, they have developed a tactic to achieve it. Their tactic in 
this case is to tear away the American will to win by committing 
horrific and brutal attacks against innocent victims. They understand 
that Americans agonize over the pictures and the news reports of those 
atrocities.
  Let there be no doubt about it, our will as Americans to fight for 
freedom and democracy around the world is under attack by a brutal and 
ruthless enemy. That enemy would be emboldened by a victory in Iraq. 
Iraq would become a safe haven for terrorists and extremists from which 
they can launch their wicked atrocities around the world.
  We could accept the offer of Iran's President to step in and fill the 
vacuum. He has clearly said: If the Americans pull out, we go in. 
However, this offer comes from a man who has vowed the extermination of 
the Jewish State of Israel, and he has vowed to expand his nuclear 
program and clearly puts us in jeopardy of being held hostage.
  It is not in the American ethic to turn our back on people who are 
striving for a better way of life for their children. It is not in our 
national interest to leave a failed Iraqi State.
  The surge is working, largely due to the leadership of one great 
American--GEN David Petraeus. MoveOn.Org should just once retreat from 
their attack on America and apologize to that great American hero, GEN 
David Petraeus.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I see Senator Specter on the floor. I ask 
unanimous consent that after Senator Specter is recognized, if Senator 
Graham is on the floor, he be recognized for debate only on the bill, 
and then that Senator Chambliss be recognized, if he is on the floor, 
for debate only, and that then the Senate proceed to a period of 
morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and my friend from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 20 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the amendment to restore the constitutional right of habeas corpus--an 
amendment that is pending before the Senate and will be voted on 
tomorrow morning at 10:30 on a motion to invoke cloture.
  The issue of the availability of habeas corpus for the detainees at 
Guantanamo is a matter of enormous importance. It is a matter of a 
fundamental constitutional right that people should not be held in 
detention unless there is an evidentiary reason to do so, or at least 
some showing that the person

[[Page 24623]]

ought to be in detention. It is a constitutional right that has existed 
since the Magna Carta in 1215, and it has been upheld in a series of 
cases in the Supreme Court of the United States.
  In the decision of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice O'Connor, speaking for 
a plurality, said that they ``all agree that, absent suspension, the 
writ of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained 
within the United States.'' What Justice O'Connor was referring to was 
the express constitutional provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, 
that habeas corpus may not be suspended except in time of invasion or 
rebellion. Obviously, if there cannot be a suspension of the writ of 
habeas corpus, there is a provision in that clause recognizing the 
existence of the constitutional right of habeas corpus. You cannot 
suspend a right that doesn't exist.
  As amplified by Justice Stevens, in the case of Rasul v. Bush, the 
statutory right to habeas corpus applies to those held at the United 
States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Although Guantanamo Bay is 
not within the territory of the United States, it is under the complete 
jurisdiction and control of the United States.
  In that case, Justice Stevens noted that ``application of the [writ 
of] habeas corpus 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, as well as the claims of 
persons detained in the so-called `exempt jurisdiction,' where ordinary 
writs did not run, and all other dominions under the sovereign's 
control.'' That is obviously a conclusive statement of the Supreme 
Court that in Guantanamo, under the control of the United States, the 
writ of habeas corpus would apply in accordance with the historic reach 
of habeas corpus under the common law. Although Justice Stevens wrote 
as to statutory habeas, his historic analysis implicates the right to 
habeas under the common law and the Constitution.
  Justice Stevens went on to point out:

       Habeas corpus is, however [citing from Williams v. Kaiser] 
     ``a writ antecedent to statute, . . . throwing its root deep 
     into the genius of our common law.''

  And continuing, he said that the writ had ``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.'''
  Obviously, the exceptions--Rebellion or Invasion--do not apply in the 
Guantanamo situation.
  Justice Stevens went on to say:

       [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.

  Justice Stevens then went on to note this--referring to the opinion 
of Justice Jackson, concurring in the result in the case of Brown v. 
Allen:

       The historic purpose of the writ has been to relieve 
     detention by executive authorities without judicial trial.

  And he goes on to say:

       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.

  Going on, Justice Stevens pointed out:

       Consistent with the historic purpose of the writ, this 
     Court has recognized the federal court's power to review 
     applications for habeas corpus in a wide variety of cases 
     involving Executive detention, in wartime as well as in times 
     of peace.

  In a very curious decision, in Boumediene v. Bush, the Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia ignored the historic common law 
analysis of the Rasul case in concluding that the Supreme Court's 
decision was based solely upon the statutory provision for habeas 
corpus. The Boumediene court reasoned that Rasul could be changed by an 
act of Congress, the Military Commissions Act, which was passed in 
2006. In that case, instead of looking to Rasul, as noted in the New 
York Times article by Adam Liptak on March 5 of this year, the 
Boumediene court looked to case law decided before Rasul. Liptak points 
out:

       Instead of looking to Rasul, which was recent and concerned 
     Guantanamo, the appeals court, reverting to the Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia, justified its decision 
     by citing a 1950 Supreme Court decision, Johnson v. 
     Eisentrager. That case involved German citizens convicted of 
     war crimes in China and held at a prison in Germany. The 
     court ruled that they had no right to habeas corpus.

  Liptak points out the inapplicability of the Eisentrager case, 
stating:

       The Court's reliance on Eisentrager was curious. Both 
     Antonin Scalia, dissenting in Rasul, and John Yu, an 
     architect of the Bush administration's post-9/11 legal 
     strategy, have written that they understood Rasul to have 
     overruled Eisentrager.

  The Boumediene decision seemed to ignore the finding in Rasul that 
the Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay fell within the jurisdiction and 
control of the United States. If detainees at Guantanamo Bay fall 
within United States jurisdiction, as Rasul found, the aliens held at 
Guantanamo have a greater claim to habeas corpus rights. For example, 
Courts have held that aliens within the United States cannot be denied 
habeas corpus without violating the Suspension Clause.
  Following its discussion of Rasul and Eisentrager, the Boumediene 
decision relied upon the proceedings in the Combatant Status Review 
Tribunals which, realistically viewed, are totally insufficient. The 
procedures of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were taken up by 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a case 
captioned: In re Guantanamo Detainees Cases, 355 F.Supp.2d 443 (2005).
  Beginning on page 468 of the opinion, the district court noted a 
proceeding in the Combatant Status Review Tribunal where an individual 
was accused of associating with al-Qaida personnel. The court noted:

       ``. . . [T]he Recorder of the [Combatant Status Review 
     Tribunal] asserted, `While living in Bosnia, the Detainee 
     associated with a known Al Qaida operative.'''

  The detainee then said:

       ``Give me his name.''

  The Tribunal President said:

       ``I do not know.''

  The detainee then said:

       ``How can I respond to this?''

  The detainee went on to say:

       ``. . . I asked the interrogators to tell me who this 
     person was. Then I could tell you if I might have known this 
     person, but not if this person is a terrorist. Maybe I knew 
     this person as a friend. Maybe it was a person that worked 
     with me. Maybe it was a person that was on my team. But I do 
     not know if this person is Bosnian, Indian, or whatever. If 
     you tell me the name, then I can respond and defend myself 
     against this accusation.''

  Later in the court's opinion, the detainee is quoted to the following 
effect:

       ``That is it, but I was hoping you had evidence that you 
     can give me. If I was in your place--and I apologize in 
     advance for these words--but if a supervisor came to me and 
     showed me accusations like these, I would take these 
     accusations and I would hit him in the face with them.''

  And at that, everyone in the tribunal room burst into laughter.
  This is illustrative of what goes on in the Combatant Status Review 
Tribunals. They charge someone with being an associate of al-Qaida, but 
they cannot even give the person a name.
  There was a very informative declaration filed by Stephen Abraham 
about what goes on in a Combatant Status Review Tribunal.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks this declaration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Colonel Abraham identified himself as a lieutenant 
colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves who served as a member of a Combatant 
Status Review Tribunal and had an opportunity to observe and 
participate in the CSRT process.
  Among other things, Colonel Abraham points out:

       On one occasion, I was assigned to a CSRT panel with two 
     other officers. . . . We reviewed evidence presented to us 
     regarding the recommended status of a detainee. All of

[[Page 24624]]

     us found the information presented to lack substance.
       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 any 
     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.
       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.

  The details of Colonel Abraham's statement are very much in line with 
the opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 
the matter captioned: In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases. They had charges 
but presented absolutely no information. Consequently, there can be no 
contention that Combatant Status Review Tribunals are an adequate and 
effective alternative approach to Federal court habeas corpus. There 
must be a type of review which presents a fair opportunity for 
determination as to whether there was any basis to hold a detainee. For 
such a purpose, Combatant Status Review Tribunals are totally 
inadequate.
  It is for that reason that I urge my colleagues to legislate in the 
pending Department of Defense authorization bill to reinstate the 
statutory right of habeas corpus. It is my judgment that the Supreme 
Court of the United States will act on the case now pending there to 
uphold the constitutional right, disagreeing with the decision of the 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Boumediene v. Bush.
  Initially, the U.S. Supreme Court had denied to take certiorari in 
the case, and it was curious because Justice Stevens did not vote for 
cert. where three other Justices had. But then after the declaration by 
Colonel Abraham was filed on a petition for rehearing, which required 
five affirmative votes by Supreme Court Justices, the petition for 
rehearing was granted, and the Supreme Court of the United States now 
has that case.
  I have filed a brief as amicus curiae in the case, urging the Supreme 
Court to overrule the District of Columbia case and to uphold the 
decision in Rasul v. Bush, which holds that there is a statutory right 
to habeas corpus and that is rooted in historic common law that 
predates the Constitution, tracing its roots to the Magna Carta with 
John at Runnymede in 1215. But pending any action by the Supreme Court 
of the United States, which is not by any means certain, 
notwithstanding my own view that the Supreme Court will reaffirm Rasul 
and reverse the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's ruling 
in Boumediene, the Congress should now alter the statutory provision in 
2006 and make it clear that the statutory right to habeas corpus 
applies to Guantanamo because of the total inadequacy of the fairness 
of the procedures under the Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

                               Exhibit 1

                     Declaration of Stephen Abraham


             Lieutenant Colonel, United States Army Reserve

       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

[[Page 24625]]

     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 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in opposition to 
the Leahy-Specter amendment on the Defense authorization bill. The 
Leahy-Specter amendment will strike an important change made by the 
Military Commissions Act of 2006 that strips courts of jurisdiction to 
hear habeas corpus petitions from alien unlawful enemy combatants 
detained by the United States.
  This amendment would restore jurisdiction to the Federal courts to 
hear habeas petitions from detainees who are currently pending trial 
before a military commission. Essentially, this amendment would grant 
habeas corpus rights to all non-U.S. citizens, regardless of location, 
who are detained by the United States.
  The amendment would have the effect during the current global war on 
terrorism or during a large-scale protracted war on the scale of World 
War II of giving any noncitizen detained by U.S. forces, regardless of 
where they are detained and regardless of the reason for their 
detention, the right to challenge that detention in the U.S. court 
system.
  I can think of few better ways to ensure that the United States is 
defeated in any conflict in which we engage and few better ways to 
undermine the national security of the United States than to adopt this 
amendment.
  In 2004, the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld held that 
the President is authorized to detain enemy combatants for the duration 
of hostilities based on longstanding law-of-war principles. It also 
held that Congress could authorize the President to detain persons, 
including U.S. citizens, designated as enemy combatants without trial 
for a criminal offense so long as the enemy combatant has a process to 
challenge that designation.
  As a result of the Hamdi decision, the Department of Defense created 
the Combatant Status Review Tribunal, a process where detainees may 
challenge their status designations.
  Congress passed and the President signed the Detainee Treatment Act 
on December 30, 2005, which included the Graham-Levin amendment to 
eliminate the Federal court statutory jurisdiction over habeas corpus 
claims by aliens detained at Guantanamo Bay.
  After a full and open debate, a bipartisan majority of Congress 
passed the Military Commissions Act just last fall. The MCA amended the 
Detainee Treatment Act provisions regarding

[[Page 24626]]

appellate review and habeas corpus jurisdictions by making the 
provisions of the DTA the exclusive remedy for all aliens detained as 
enemy combatants anywhere in the world, including those detained at 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The MCA's restrictions on habeas corpus codified 
important and constitutional limits on captured enemies' access to our 
courts.
  The District of Columbia Circuit upheld the MCA's habeas restrictions 
in Boumediene v. Bush earlier this year. The Supreme Court, in a rare 
move, reconsidered their denial of certiorari and will make a decision 
on this case in the near future. In the meantime, Congress should not 
act hastily.
  Before the Supreme Court decision in Rasul v. Bush in June 2004, the 
controlling case law for over 50 years was set out in the Supreme Court 
case of Johnson v. Eisentrager, a 1950 case which held that aliens in 
military detention outside the United States were not entitled to 
judicial review through habeas corpus petitions in Federal courts. The 
Court recognized that extension of habeas corpus to alien combatants 
captured abroad ``would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort 
to the enemy,'' and the Constitution requires no such thing.
  The Rasul case changed the state of the law for detainees held at 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, due to the unique nature of the long-term U.S. 
lease of that property. The Supreme Court reasoned that the habeas 
corpus statute and the exercise of complete jurisdiction and control 
over the Navy base in Cuba were sufficient to establish the 
jurisdiction of U.S. Federal courts over habeas petitions brought by 
detainees.
  The Supreme Court ruled that the status of a detainee as an enemy 
combatant must be determined in a way that provides the fundamentals of 
due process--namely, notice and opportunity to be heard. The executive 
branch established Combatant Status Review Tribunals, or CSRTs, to 
comply with this mandate. Judicial review of CSRT determinations of 
enemy combatant status by article III courts is provided by the 
Detainee Treatment Act. Under the DTA, appeals of CSRT decisions may be 
made to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
  In his dissent in the Rasul case, Justice Scalia wisely pointed out 
that at the end of World War II, the United States held approximately 2 
million enemy soldiers, many of whom no doubt had some complaint about 
their capture or conditions of confinement. Today, approximately 25,000 
persons are detained by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at 
Guantanamo Bay.
  Restoring jurisdiction over alien enemy combatants could result in 
providing the right of habeas corpus to all those detainees held 
outside the United States so long as their place of detention is under 
the jurisdiction and control of the U.S. Armed Forces.
  In fact, habeas challenges on behalf of detainees held in Afghanistan 
have already been filed.
  The Supreme Court recognized in Johnson v. Eisentrager that allowing 
habeas petitions from enemy combatants forces the judiciary into direct 
oversight of the conduct of war in which they will be asked to hear 
petitions from all around the world, challenging actions and events on 
the battlefield. This would simply be unworkable as a practical matter 
and could greatly interfere with the Executive's authority to wage war. 
As the Supreme Court revisits these issues, Congress should not undue 
what it has done.
  Federal courts have ruled twice--in December 2006 at the district 
court level on the remand of the Hamdan case from the Supreme Court and 
again in February 2007 at the DC Circuit Court level in the 
consolidated cases of Boumediene and Al Odah--that the Military 
Commissions Act is constitutional and that alien enemy unlawful 
combatants have no constitutional rights to habeas corpus.
  The Supreme Court, at the end of June, decided it would hear these 
cases on expedited appeal this fall. It is appropriate for Congress to 
allow the Supreme Court to review the decision made by the DC Circuit 
Court of Appeals, applying the standards of review enacted in the DTA 
and the MCA before granting habeas rights to and opening the Federal 
courts to thousands of detainees held outside the United States.
  For these reasons, and simply because it represents extremely bad 
policy, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Leahy-Specter amendment.
  Mr. President, I had also intended to talk a little while today about 
Senator Graham's amendment seeking to strike section 1023 of the 
underlying bill. It is my understanding now that there are discussions 
ongoing relative to the possibility of trying to work that amendment 
out. So if that amendment does come to the floor for consideration, I 
will be back to talk about the support of that amendment at that time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________