[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24804-24844]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1585, the Department of 
Defense Authorization Act. 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 amendment 
     No. 2011), to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the 
     United States.
       Warner (for Graham-Kyl) amendment No. 2064 (to Amendment 
     No. 2011), to strike section 1023, relating to the granting 
     of civil rights to terror suspects.


                           Amendment No. 2022

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to 60 minutes of debate prior to a vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on amendment No. 2022, offered by the Senator 
from Michigan, Mr. Levin, with the time equally divided and controlled 
between the leaders or their designees.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
South Carolina.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I compliment Senator Inhofe in that moving 
tribute to a fallen marine.
  The issue we have before the Senate is one of great importance to the 
country. It will affect the future of this bill. It will affect the 
national security needs of our Nation for a long time to come. It is a 
bit complicated, but at the end of the day, I don't think it is that 
difficult to get your hands around.
  We are talking about a habeas corpus amendment to the Defense 
authorization bill that will confer upon any combatants housed at 
Guantanamo Bay, and maybe other places, the ability, as an enemy 
prisoner, to go to a Federal court of their choosing to bring lawsuits 
against the Government, against the military--something never granted 
to any other prisoner in any other war.
  We had thousands of Japanese and German prisoners housed on American 
territory during World War II and not one of those Germans or Japanese 
prisoners were allowed to go to Federal court to sue the troops who had 
caught them on the battlefield or the Government holding them in 
detention as a prisoner of war.
  To start that process now would be an absolute disaster for this 
country and has never been done before and should not be done now.
  Now, the history of this issue: Guantanamo Bay is the place where 
international terrorists are sent, people suspected of being involved 
in the war on terror. Shaikh Mohammed is there, some very high-value 
targets are there, bin Ladin's driver. People who have been involved 
with al-Qaida activity and other terrorist groups are housed at 
Guantanamo Bay under the theory that they are unlawful enemy 
combatants. They do not wear a uniform as did the Germans and the 
Japanese, but they are very much at war with this country. They attack 
civilians randomly. Nothing is out of bounds in

[[Page 24805]]

terms of their conduct. So they fit the definition, if there ever was 
one, of an unlawful enemy combatant. What they do in the law of war is 
unlawful. They certainly are enemies of this country. Shaikh Mohammed's 
transcript regarding his Combatant Status Review Tribunal--take time to 
read it. I can assure you he is at war with us. We need to be at war 
with him.
  The basic premise I have been pushing now for years is that the 
attacks of 9/11 against the World Trade Center, against the Pentagon, 
the hijacking of the airplanes were an act of war. It would be a huge 
mistake for this country to look at the attacks of 9/11 as criminal 
activity. We are at war, and we should be applying the law of armed 
conflict.
  The people whom we are fighting very much fall into the category of 
``warriors'' based on their actions and their own words. What is the 
law of armed conflict? The law of armed conflict is governed by a lot 
of international treaties, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and 
American case law.
  What rights does an unlawful enemy combatant have? Well, our court 
looked at Guantanamo Bay. Habeas petitions were filed by detainees at 
Guantanamo Bay alleging that they were improperly held. The U.S. 
Supreme Court in the Rasul v. Bush decision in 2004 said: There is a 
congressional statute, 2241, that deals with habeas rights created by 
statute.
  The Government argued that Guantanamo Bay was outside the 
jurisdiction of Federal courts; it was not part of the United States. 
The Supreme Court said: No, wait a minute. Guantanamo Bay is 
effectively controlled by the Navy; it is part of the United States.
  The question for the court is, Did the Congress, under 2241, intend 
to exclude al-Qaida from the statute? And the answer was that Congress 
had taken no action. So the issue, 6 years after the war started here: 
Does the Congress wish to confer upon enemy combatant terrorists housed 
at Guantanamo Bay habeas corpus rights under section 2241, a statute we 
wrote? That is the issue.
  Now, imagine after 9/11 if someone had come to the floor of the 
Senate and made the proposal: In case we catch anybody who attacked us 
on 9/11, I want to make sure they have the right of habeas corpus under 
2241 because I want to make sure their rights exceed any other prisoner 
in any other war. I think you would have gotten zero votes.
  Well, that is the issue.
  Now, last year, Congress spoke to the courts, and the DC Circuit 
Court of Appeals understood what we were saying. Congress affirmatively 
struck from 2241 the ability of a noncitizen alien enemy combatant to 
have access to Federal court under the habeas statute. Why is that so 
important? From a military point of view, it is hugely important. Under 
the law of armed conflict, if there is a question of status--is the 
person a civilian? Are they part of an organized group? Are they an 
unlawful combatant? There are many different categories that can be 
conferred upon someone captured on a battlefield.
  Under Geneva Conventions article 5, a competent tribunal should be 
impaneled--usually one person--to determine questions of status, and 
the only requirement is they be impartial. The question of who an enemy 
combatant is is a military decision. We should not allow Federal 
judges, through habeas petitions, to take away from the U.S. military 
what is effectively a military function of labeling who the enemies of 
America are. They are not trained for that. Our judges do not have the 
military background to make decisions as to who the enemy force is and 
how they operate.
  So a habeas petition would really intrude into the military's ability 
to manage this war because if habeas rights were granted by statute to 
the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, they could pick, through their 
lawyers, any district court in this country. They could go judge 
shopping and find any judge in this country they believed would be 
sympathetic and have a full-blown trial, calling people off the 
battlefield, having a complete trial as to whether this person is an 
enemy combatant in Federal court and let the judge make that decision. 
Well, that has never been done in any other war, and it should not be 
done in this war. Judges have a role to play in war, but that is not 
their role. The role of the U.S. military in this war, as it has been 
in every other war, is to capture people and classify them based on 
their activity within that war, and habeas would undo that. That is why 
last year Congress said: No, that is not the way we should proceed in 
this war.
  This is not unknown to our courts. In World War II, there was a 
habeas petition filed by German and Japanese prisoners who were housed 
overseas asking the Federal courts to hear their case and release them 
from American military confinement. Chief Justice Jackson said:

       It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering 
     of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he has 
     ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his 
     own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from 
     the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.

  Justice Jackson was right. And what has happened since these habeas 
petitions have been filed? Hundreds of them have been filed in Federal 
court before Congress acted. Here is what they are alleging:
  A Canadian detainee who threw a grenade that killed an American medic 
in a firefight and who comes from a family with long-standing al-Qaida 
ties moved for a preliminary injunction forbidding interrogation of him 
or engaging in cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of him. This was 
a motion made by an enemy prisoner for the judge to sit in there and 
conduct the interrogation or at least monitor the interrogation. I 
cannot think of anything worse in terms of undermining the war effort.
  A motion by a high-level al-Qaida detainee complaining about base 
security procedures, speed of mail delivery, medical treatment, seeking 
an order that he be transferred to the least onerous conditions at 
GITMO, asking the court to order that GITMO allow him to keep any 
books, reading materials sent to him, and report to the court on his 
opportunities for exercise, communications, recreation, and worship.
  Hundreds of these lawsuits have been filed under the habeas statute. 
That is why Congress said: No, dismiss these cases because they have no 
business in Federal court.
  Surely to God, al-Qaida is not going to get more rights than the 
Nazis. Surely to God, the Congress, 6 years after 9/11, will not, 
hopefully, give a statutory right to some of the most brutal, vicious 
people in the world to bring lawsuits against our own troops in a 
fashion never allowed in any other war.
  Here is what we did last year: We allowed the military to determine 
whether a person is an enemy combatant, whether they were an unlawful 
enemy combatant through a competent tribunal called a Combatant Status 
Review Tribunal made up of three officers. The legislation allows every 
decision by the military to be appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of 
Appeals so the court can look at the quality of the work product and 
the procedures in place.
  There is Federal court review over activity at Guantanamo Bay where 
judges review the work product of the military. To me, that is the 
proper way to move forward because some people at Guantanamo Bay, 
because they are so dangerous, may not be released anytime soon or may 
never be released. More people have been released at Guantanamo Bay 
than are still at Guantanamo Bay. They were thought not to be a threat. 
Thirty of them have gone back to the fight. We have released people at 
Guantanamo Bay to take up arms against us again. That is the result of 
a process where you make a discretionary decision.
  It would be ill-advised for this Congress to confer on American 
courts the ability to hear a habeas petition from enemy prisoners 
housed at Guantanamo Bay where they could go judge shopping and sue our 
own troops for anything they could think of, including a $100 million 
lawsuit against the Secretary of Defense. That will lead to

[[Page 24806]]

chaos at the jail. It will undermine the war effort.
  I am urging a ``no'' vote to this amendment. We have in place Federal 
court review of every military decision at Guantanamo Bay and a way to 
allow the courts to do what they are best trained to do--review 
documents, review procedures, review outcomes--not to take the place of 
the U.S. military. I cannot think of a more ill-advised effort to 
undercut what I think is going to be a war of a long-standing nature 
than to turn it over to the judges and to take away the ability to 
define the enemy from the military, which is trained to make such 
decisions, and give it to whatever judge you can find, wherever you can 
find him or her, and let them have a full-blown trial at our national 
security detriment.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I believe I have 10 minutes reserved at 
this time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time is divided between the 
leaders or their designees.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will act as the acting designee since 
no one is on this side of the aisle.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. I see that the Senator from Vermont 
is yielding 10 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania. The Senator 
from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Pennsylvania is the lead cosponsor of 
this amendment. I proudly yield him 10 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my distinguished colleague from Vermont.
  Mr. President, the arguments advanced by the Senator from South 
Carolina a few moments ago are outdated. The Supreme Court of the 
United States has held in the Rasul case that the Guantanamo detainees 
have rights under the Constitution to proceed in court in habeas 
corpus. In my view, that decision was based on both constitutional and 
statutory grounds. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
has held that it is a matter of statutory interpretation. I believe 
that will be reversed by the Supreme Court in a case now pending there. 
But the existing law is governed by the Military Commissions Act, and 
the question is whether the Congress should now correct the provision 
in the Military Commissions Act which eliminated the right of 
Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detention by habeas corpus 
proceedings in Federal court.
  The District of Columbia Circuit has held that the provisions of the 
Combatant Status Review Tribunal are adequate. I believe that an 
examination of those proceedings will show that they are palpably 
deficient and obviously inadequate on their face.
  The constitutional right of habeas corpus is expressly recognized in 
the Constitution, with a provision that habeas corpus may be suspended 
only in time of invasion or insurrection, neither of which situation is 
present here. That fundamental right has been in existence since the 
Magna Carta in 1215. As noted earlier, the Supreme Court, in Rasul, has 
recently applied that constitutional right to Guantanamo Bay detainees.
  Now, Congress has acted to legislate to the contrary. Of course, 
Congress cannot legislate away a constitutional right; that can be done 
only by amendment to the Constitution. That matter is now pending 
before the Supreme Court, and I believe on the precedents it will be 
held that it remains a constitutional right.
  But the issue which we confront today is the statute, the Military 
Commissions Act passed by Congress 2 years ago which eliminates habeas 
corpus. The Supreme Court has held, in the case of Swain v. Pressley, 
that habeas corpus in the Federal courts may be eliminated by an 
adequate substitute. In that case, the substitute held to be adequate 
was a proceeding in the District of Columbia courts. The Supreme Court 
said: That was adequate judicial review to superintend executive 
detention.
  But when we take a look at the provisions of the Combatant Status 
Review Board, as examined by the District Court in the District of 
Columbia, in the In re: Guantanamo cases, this is illustrative. An 
individual was charged with being an associate of al-Qaida individuals. 
When asked to identify whom he was supposed to have associated with, 
the tribunal could not identify the person. I discussed this case at 
some length yesterday, and the courtroom broke into laughter. It was a 
laughing matter to be detaining somebody who was allegedly associated 
with someone from al-Qaida when they could not even identify who the 
person was.
  Now, there has been a very revealing declaration filed by LTC Stephen 
Abraham, who was a member of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal and 
observed the process.
  This is the way Lieutenant Colonel Abraham described the process:

       Those of us on the panel found the information presented to 
     try to uphold detention 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 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 
     credibility of the sources.

  I put this in the Record yesterday, but it shows a proceeding totally 
devoid of any substance. You don't have to have sufficient evidence to 
go to court to detain someone at Guantanamo, but there has to be some 
basis for the detention. An examination of what is happening with the 
Combatant Status Review boards shows they are entirely inadequate under 
the standards set down by the Supreme Court in the case of Swain v. 
Pressley. Therefore, the alternative established by Congress in the 
Military Commissions Act is totally insufficient to provide fair play.
  The Supreme Court of the United States has laid it on the line. Even 
the Guantanamo detainees are entitled to fairness. Guantanamo has been 
ridiculed around the world and Guantanamo is not being closed. No 
alternative has been found for it. But at a minimum, those who are 
detained at Guantanamo ought to have some proceeding to establish some 
basis, however slight, for their continued detention.
  When Congress established the Military Commissions Act and provided 
for Combatant Status Review boards, we did so with the thought that we 
could have an alternative to going to Federal court, which would 
provide a basic rudimentary element of fairness required by the Geneva 
Conventions and required by the Supreme Court, which brushed aside the 
practices from World War II, overruling the prior precedents. So now it 
is up to the Congress of the United States to correct that mistake 
which we made 2 years ago. I believe any fair reading of what happens 
with the Combatant Status Review boards would demonstrate that we ought 
to correct the 2005 legislation. This amendment ought to be adopted.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New Mexico 
wants 3 minutes. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise in support of 
the amendment being offered by Senators Leahy and Specter to restore 
the writ of habeas corpus. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this 
legislation, and it is my sincere hope that it will be adopted.
  One of the most troubling aspects of the administration's onslaught 
on basic civil rights, which has largely been carried out with the 
acquiescence of Congress, is with regard to the suspension of habeas 
corpus.
  The ``great writ,'' as it is known in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, is 
simply the basic right to challenge the legality of one's confinement 
by the Government. It is based on a core American value that it is 
unacceptable to give the executive branch unchecked

[[Page 24807]]

authority to detain whomever it wants without an independent review of 
the legality of the Government's actions. The right dates back to the 
Magna Carta, and our Founding Fathers included it as one of the 
fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
  I would like to take a moment to briefly recount how we ended up 
where we are today.
  In 2004, in the case Rasul v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 
individuals held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base have the right to 
challenge the legality of their detention by filing a habeas petition 
in a U.S. Federal court.
  In November 2005, in response to the Supreme Court's decision, and at 
the behest of the Bush administration, Senator Graham offered an 
amendment to the 2006 Defense Authorization bill that sought to 
overrule the Rasul decision and strip Federal courts of jurisdiction to 
hear habeas claims filed by Guantanamo prisoners.
  I offered an alternative amendment aimed at preserving the right to 
habeas corpus. My amendment was voted on the day before the Senate 
recessed for Veterans Day. No hearings had been held in either the 
Senate Judiciary Committee or the Armed Services Committee regarding 
the impact of eliminating this longstanding right. After very little 
debate on the Senate floor, my amendment was defeated by a vote of 49-
42. The next week I offered a second amendment also aimed at preserving 
habeas rights, but it was also defeated after a deal was reached as 
part of what is known as the Graham-Levin compromise.
  Under the Graham-Levin compromise, which was ultimately included in 
the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, habeas rights were curtailed but 
the D.C. Circuit was granted very limited jurisdiction to review the 
determination of a Combatant Status Review Tribunal. That compromise 
was adopted 84-14. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdan case 
that it was unclear as to whether Congress intended to prospectively 
repeal habeas rights and that the military commissions in Guantanamo 
were improperly constituted in violation of the Geneva Conventions and 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  Once again, the Senate had the opportunity to restore our Nation's 
commitment to the rule of law.
  Unfortunately, rather than standing up for the rights enshrined in 
our Constitution, the Senate passed, by a vote of 65-34, the Military 
Commissions Act of 2006, which explicitly eliminated habeas rights.
  Today is almost exactly a year after the Senate voted to pass the 
Military Commissions Act, and the Senate once again has the opportunity 
do what is right. We have the chance to restore one of the most 
fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution, and I hope the 
Senate will take this important step in restoring our Nation's 
commitment to the rule of law.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. KYL. Might I inquire how much time exists on both sides?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is approximately 18\1/2\ 
minutes on both sides.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
  I request the Chair to advise me when I have spoken for 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me respond to some of the arguments that 
have been made in support of this amendment and urge my colleagues, as 
they have done in the past, to reject it. The first thing that must be 
clarified is that the writ of habeas corpus is not being restored. It 
can't be restored because it has never existed to question detention. 
POWs and enemy combatants, detainees, have never, in the history of 
English common law or American jurisprudence, had the constitutional 
writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention--never. So it is a 
mistake for those who support this amendment to claim that somehow we 
need to restore the right. It has never existed for this purpose; no 
case in the history of English or American jurisprudence or anywhere 
else in the world, for that matter.
  Yesterday our distinguished friend and colleague Senator Dodd praised 
and upheld the honor and wisdom of those like his father who 
participated in the Nuremberg tribunals after World War II. It is well 
that he should. Along with his father, Thomas Dodd, is, of course, 
Robert H. Jackson, who became a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 
1941 and who returned to the Court after serving as chief counsel at 
the Nuremberg tribunals from 1945 to 1946. The heroes of American 
justice and the lions of Nuremberg did not become evil men or ignorant 
in the law in the period between 1946 and 1950, the year that Johnson 
v. Eisentrager was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a case in 
which Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the court that enemy 
combatants have no constitutional right to habeas corpus. That was the 
holding in the case by the very jurist who presided over the Nuremberg 
trials. He knew what he was talking about. That precedent remains the 
law of the United States to this day.
  My colleague from South Carolina quoted Justice Jackson in that 
decision in which he said he could think of nothing that would fetter 
our commanders more than granting to enemy POWs a right to contest 
their detention, a constitutional habeas corpus right to question their 
detention in American courts. He said the very act of war is to subdue 
your opponent and for that opponent to have the right to require you to 
go into the courts of your land to defend your capturing of that enemy 
would be, from the commander's standpoint, an impossible burden to 
bear. He was right. It is the wisdom and correctness of that decision 
and all of the precedents that we defend today.
  So, first, this is not about restoration of a right. With respect to 
questioning detention, that right has never existed. The reasons why 
should be evident to us all.
  Secondly, to the extent there needs to be a process for determining 
whether an individual should be detained, this Congress has gone 
further than ever in the history of our country and granted an 
unprecedented process and procedure for that issue to be resolved. 
After the military tribunals sort out the people who have been captured 
and they determine, based upon the evidence they have, whether to 
detain these individuals, what we have granted to these detainees is a 
right never before granted. It is unprecedented in the history not just 
of the United States; no other country has done this. We allow that 
detainee to appeal that detention to a court in the United States, a 
Federal court, and not just any Federal court, the U.S. Circuit Court 
for the District of Columbia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia, which many view as the court directly below the 
U.S. Supreme Court. And from a decision of that DC Circuit Court, the 
losing side can petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme 
Court. Never has such an unprecedented legal right been granted to a 
POW or a detainee. So we should not be suffering under the illusion 
that by not granting habeas, they don't have any rights. They have more 
rights than they have ever had.
  I would briefly respond to my good friend and colleague Senator 
Specter, who cited an affidavit of an individual who said, from his 
perspective, the evidence of the Government was inadequate in a case or 
in a series of cases, there are three remedies for that. The first is 
that the tribunal says the evidence is inadequate. The detainee gets to 
go. The second is for the court to ask for more evidence and say this 
isn't sufficient; do you have anything else you can provide. Of course, 
it is usually a question of classified information that the Government 
is loathe to release because frequently it is from a source to which a 
commitment has been made that the source would not be revealed or that 
the intelligence wouldn't be revealed, or sometimes it is from another 
country that we have gotten the information from and we have also made 
agreements with those countries not to air intelligence they provided 
to us. So there is always a

[[Page 24808]]

tension between how much evidence the United States wants to reveal of 
a classified nature in order to keep this person in detention. But that 
is the second remedy.
  The third remedy is if the court nonetheless decides that there is 
sufficient evidence, the individual is detained, he can appeal that 
detention to the circuit court. The circuit court can make all of those 
same inquiries. So you have one of the most prestigious courts in the 
country making the final decision about whether the evidence is 
sufficient. That is certainly adequate process.
  The Congress has ratified that twice through our decisions in dealing 
with the statutory right of habeas. Remember, there is the 
constitutional right and a statutory right of habeas. What Congress did 
2 years ago, in consideration of the Detainee Treatment Act, was to 
develop a compromise that provided this procedure and make it clear, we 
thought, that the statutory right of habeas did not apply to these 
detainees.
  A subsequent court decision said: Well, you made that clear with 
respect to future cases, but for pending cases we think you have not 
made it clear. So we came back and made it clear that the statutory 
right applied to neither the existing cases nor future cases. Of 
course, Congress has the right to limit the statutory right of habeas 
corpus. So neither the statutory right nor the constitutional right has 
provided a remedy for these detainees.
  There is an alternative remedy that is perfectly adequate. When the 
Military Commissions Act was marked up by the Armed Services 
Committee--the bill that is before us--it was adopted with an even more 
specific provision removing Federal court habeas jurisdiction over 
enemy combatants to clear up any remaining doubt after the Supreme 
Court's interpretation of the DTA in the Hamdan decision. That vote, 
last September, was 15 to 9, including all the committee's Democratic 
members. Were they all wrong about the Constitution at that time? After 
subsequent negotiations that did not change the habeas provisions in 
the bill, the MCA passed this body on a vote of 65 to 34.
  We have acted on this matter. I urge my colleagues, when they vote in 
a few minutes, to refer to their previous vote. It was correct at that 
time. It remains correct today. If, by some reason, we are wrong, and 
the case the Supreme Court has before it decides that this fall, then 
there is no necessity for us to act in a statutory way now. It is not 
going to change what the Court decides. The Court will say that right 
exists, and nothing we do will affect that. It would be unnecessary in 
any event. But if the Court confirms we are right, then it would not 
only be unnecessary but wrong for us to change that law by supporting 
the habeas amendment in a few minutes.
  The final point I wish to make is that the consequences of granting 
the habeas right would be horrendous. Justice Jackson referred to this 
in the Eisentrager decision. I can be more explicit. But as he said: No 
decision of this Court supports the view. None has ever even hinted 
that the right of habeas existed in this case.
  What would the consequences of granting habeas be?
  At least 30 detainees who have been released from the Guantanamo Bay 
facility have since returned to waging war against the United States 
and our allies. A dozen released detainees have been killed in battle 
by U.S. forces. They went right back to fighting us. Others have been 
recaptured. Two released detainees later became regional commanders for 
Taliban forces. One released Guantanamo detainee later attacked U.S. 
and allied soldiers in Afghanistan, killing 3 Afghan soldiers. Another 
former detainee killed an Afghan judge. One released detainee led a 
terrorist attack on a hotel in Pakistan and also led a kidnaping raid 
that resulted in the death of a Chinese civilian. This former detainee 
recently told Pakistani journalists he plans to fight America and its 
allies until the very end.
  The point here is even detainees whom we have released, either 
because there was insufficient evidence to hold them or because we 
deemed they no longer posed a threat to us, have gone back to the 
battlefield and have fought us and fought our allies, have killed and 
been killed. These are dangerous killers.
  This is not some law school exercise we are going through here. This 
is not the American criminal justice process. This is dealing with 
terrorists who are fighting us on the battlefield, and will continue to 
do so if they are released improperly. That is why dealing with 
something such as habeas is a very serious--very serious--matter.
  I mentioned the problem of classified evidence. In a habeas trial, 
there clearly would be a right of the defendant or the detainee to both 
call witnesses--he would literally be able to call his captors, the 
people who captured him on the battlefield and require them to verify 
his identity and the reasons why he was held and why he needs to 
continue to be held--totally disrupting our operations--and classified 
evidence would probably be required in most of the cases because these 
are people on whom we have gotten good intelligence as to their 
intentions and their past activities. Much of this intelligence is 
highly sensitive as it comes from foreign sources and human sources to 
whom we have made commitments that we would not reveal the information 
they provided to us.
  It is a Hobson's choice, then, if you treat this like an American 
trial, where you say either the Government has to come and make this 
classified evidence available--and then it becomes public--or you have 
to withhold the classified information and let the detainee go. That 
cannot be the case in the case of these detainees. That is another 
practical reason why you cannot have the habeas granted to allow them 
to contest detention.
  Again, put this in the context. What we have is a process that allows 
them to contest their detention at several stages. It allows counsel to 
have access to at least some of the classified information. It allows 
the court--and, in fact, the court of appeals has said it has the 
right--to review this information, all of the information that is 
relevant to a particular detainee's case.
  The process is not lacking. It is not as if you have to grant habeas 
in order for these individuals to have a fair determination of their 
detainee status. They have that today. What they do not have is the 
extra right that habeas accords American citizens, people here in the 
United States, to call the witnesses to the court who captured you, to 
call up all of the classified evidence that is used against you--for 
the detainee to have a right to that.
  The judge who tried the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case and the 
Padilla case made the point that when information was granted to the 
lawyers of the detainees in that case, within 10 days the information 
that was supposed to remain classified--the lawyers were not supposed 
to reveal it to anyone because it was highly classified; it included 
the names of coconspirators--within 10 days that information was in 
Sudan and was in the hands of Osama bin Laden. He knew because his name 
was on the list that we were after him. He was named as a coconspirator 
in the case.
  So when the habeas right exists, and you have an even greater 
requirement to release this information, it is inevitable that highly 
sensitive information in fighting this war on terror will find its way 
into enemy hands. So the detainees can get back to the battlefield and 
the highly sensitive information will be very much jeopardized.
  These are reasons not to grant, for the first time, a writ of habeas 
corpus. It is a reason to sustain what we have established for these 
detainees--a very fair procedure. I urge my colleagues not to grant the 
cloture motion, to vote ``no'' on cloture, so we do not open up this 
can of worms, so we can continue to fight the war against these 
terrorists.
  I reserve the remainder of the time on this side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask to be yielded 2 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the senior Senator 
from Michigan.

[[Page 24809]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the law we passed last Congress stripped 
the Federal courts of jurisdiction to grant habeas corpus despite a 
constitutional prohibition which says that habeas corpus may not be 
suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion, neither of which is 
the state of affairs today.
  I want to make in this 2 minutes one essential point. The Specter-
Leahy-Dodd amendment does not grant any individual the affirmative 
right to go to court. It does not grant a right of habeas corpus. It 
simply removes a legislative barrier to such action, restoring the law 
as it was before we enacted this provision in the last Congress, 
leaving it up to the courts--where it belongs and it always has been--
as to whether habeas corpus should be granted.
  When we debated this provision in the last Congress, we received a 
letter from three retired Judge Advocates General who urged us not to 
strip the courts of habeas corpus jurisdiction. That letter, signed by 
Admirals Hutson and Guter, and General Brahms, said the following:

       We urge you to oppose any further erosion of the proper 
     authority of our courts and to reject any provision that 
     would strip the courts of habeas jurisdiction.
       As Alexander Hamilton and James Madison emphasized in the 
     Federalist Papers, the writ of habeas corpus embodies 
     principles fundamental to our nation. It is the essence of 
     the rule of law, ensuring that neither king nor executive may 
     deprive a person of liberty without some independent review 
     to ensure that the detention has a reasonable basis in law 
     and fact. That right must be preserved. Fair hearings do not 
     jeopardize our security. They are what our country stands 
     for.

  Well, we received similar letters from nine distinguished retired 
Federal judges and from hundreds of law professors from around the 
United States, and from many others.
  I urge our colleagues to support the Specter-Leahy-Dodd amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am cosponsoring this amendment because 
I strongly support the restoration of the right to habeas corpus for 
noncitizens detained as enemy combatants.
  This bill will reinstate one of the cornerstones of the rule of law. 
Habeas corpus protects one of our most fundamental guarantees: that the 
Government may not arbitrarily deprive persons of their liberty.
  President Bush and Congress undermined that guarantee last year by 
enacting the Military Commissions Act, which stripped courts of 
jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions by enemy combatants. That 
legislation is a stain on our human rights record and an insult to the 
rule of law. It is almost surely unconstitutional.
  For centuries, the writ of habeas corpus has been a core principle of 
Anglo-American jurisprudence. Since the days of the Magna Carta in the 
17th century, it has been a primary means for persons to challenge 
their unlawful government detention. Literally, the Latin phrase means 
``have the body'' meaning that persons detained must be brought 
physically before a court or judge to consider the legality of their 
detention.
  The writ prevents indefinite detention and ensures that individuals 
cannot be held in endless detainment, without indictment or trial. It 
requires the Government to prove to a court that it has a legal basis 
for its decision to deprive such persons of their liberty.
  The Framers considered this principle so important that the writ of 
habeas corpus is the only common law writ enshrined in the 
Constitution. Article I, section 9, clause 2, specifically states, 
``The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, 
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may 
require it.''
  Mr. President, 9/11 was a tragic time for our country, but we did not 
set aside the Constitution or the rule of law after those vicious 
attacks. We did not decide as a nation to stoop to the level of the 
terrorists. In fact, we have always been united in our belief that an 
essential part of winning the war on terrorism and protecting the 
Nation is safeguarding the values that Americans stand for, both at 
home and throughout the world.
  Instead of standing by these principles, however, the Bush 
administration used 9/11 to justify abandoning this basic American 
value. It has consistently undermined habeas corpus, claiming that the 
Constitution, statutory habeas corpus, and the Geneva Conventions, 
which Alberto Gonzales described as ``quaint,'' do not apply to enemy 
combatants held at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere.
  The administration even went so far as to establish detention 
facilities outside the United States to avoid the reach of U.S. courts 
and the application of basic legal protections such as habeas corpus. 
The administration's purpose was to hold these combatants indefinitely 
and try them in military commissions.
  The commissions, however, have severely limited the rights of alleged 
enemy combatants. The accused have no access to the evidence which the 
Government claims it possesses and no ability to provide a meaningful 
defense. The tribunals are a sham and an insult to the rule of law.
  The administration's lawlessness failed. Last year, the Supreme Court 
ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Federal courts have jurisdiction over 
habeas corpus petitions brought by detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Justice 
Stevens reminded the administration that ``in undertaking to try Hamdan 
and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to 
comply with the Rule of Law.''
  In the face of this clear Supreme Court precedent, the administration 
and Congress recklessly responded with the Military Commissions Act, 
which eliminated the right of all noncitizens labeled by the executive 
as enemy combatants to be heard in an Article 3 court. This bill will 
repeal these disgraceful provisions of the Military Commissions Act and 
restore the right to habeas corpus for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay 
and elsewhere. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule of law and to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to once again voice my support for 
the Specter-Leahy-Dodd amendment to the Department of Defense 
Authorization Act. This amendment will restore habeas corpus rights to 
individuals held in U.S. custody.
  Just as importantly, it will begin to undo the damage done by the 
Military Commissions Act of 2006--legislation that undermined our 
values and our commitment to the rule of law. In a struggle with 
terrorism in which our credibility, our good name, is a powerful 
weapon, the Military Commissions Act was not simply wrongheaded; it was 
dangerous. The amendment we offer today is a first step out of that 
danger and back to our moral authority.
  Critics of this amendment in the Bush administration and elsewhere 
have argued that restoring habeas corpus rights will clog Federal 
courts and hamper our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This 
is simply not true.
  First, in keeping with long tradition, this amendment only applies to 
individuals held on clearly defined U.S. territory, including 
Guantanamo--but not to individuals held in U.S. custody in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Several individuals filing habeas petitions from Iraq and 
Afghanistan have already been denied. The truth is that a relatively 
small number of individuals are covered by this amendment. Right now, 
fewer than 500 people are held in Guantanamo Bay. It is simply not 
credible to suggest that thousands or millions of petitions would 
deluge our courts and grind them to a halt. From 2002 to 2006, when 
detainees had the ability to file habeas petitions, the Federal courts 
continued to run smoothly. Last year, a distinguished group of retired 
judges wrote to Congress, stating clearly that habeas petitions from 
detainees in no way tied up our courts.
  Second, habeas petitions heavily favor the Government's position. 
They are often decided solely by paper filings by the Government, and 
Federal judges have wide discretion in determining what type of 
evidence they need to make their determinations. In

[[Page 24810]]

addition, usually only a minimal amount of evidence is needed to 
justify continued detention. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that U.S. 
servicemembers will be called from the battlefield to testify before a 
Federal judge.
  Finally, many of those who oppose this amendment have relied on 
Justice Jackson's opinion in Johnson v. Eisenstrager to defend the 
stripping of habeas rights to detainees. But Eisentrager has been 
overtaken by more recent cases. Justice Jackson's opinion in that case 
relied in part on the fact that the petitioners were German prisoners 
of war who were imprisoned outside the United States. In 2004, however, 
the Supreme Court held in Rasul v. Bush that the U.S. courts have 
jurisdiction to hear challenges to the legality of detention of foreign 
nationals held there because the United States had complete 
jurisdiction and control over the base at Guantanamo. In other words, 
the Supreme Court itself rejected the Government's reliance on 
Eisentrager as it applies to individuals held in Guantanamo. That was 
the very decision that prompted the President and Congress to strip 
detainees of habeas rights with the Military Commissions Act.
  In ignoring the most recent precedent, President Bush and his 
supporters are ignoring the history of the very bill they are now 
fighting to uphold. Their reliance on outdated rulings is, at best, 
disingenuous. Willfully or not, they have once again distorted the 
facts.
  I believe that returning to the legal framework that was in place 
prior to the Military Commissions Act would not undermine our security. 
In fact, I believe reaffirming our commitment to the rule of law will 
strengthen our efforts to combat terrorism--we can protect our security 
and uphold our values at the same time. And so I ask my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
Leahy-Specter amendment to restore habeas corpus, as part of the 
Defense authorization bill. This amendment is identical to S. 185, the 
Habeas Restoration Act, which was introduced earlier in this Congress 
and enjoys bipartisan support. I was pleased to sign onto that bill as 
one of its earliest cosponsors, and I am pleased to speak in favor of 
this amendment today.
  I strongly disagree with the provisions in the Military Commissions 
Act that were passed last fall, eliminating the jurisdiction of 
American courts to consider any petition for a writ of habeas corpus 
filed by an alien detained by the United States after either being 
determined to be an enemy combatant or while awaiting such a 
determination.
  I believe the Leahy-Specter amendment would rectify this provision, 
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I firmly believe that we must do all we can to fight the war on 
terrorism. But we also must preserve the core principles that create 
the foundation of this country.
  The right to habeas corpus is one of those fundamental principles. 
Habeas corpus is the right secured in the Constitution, allowing a 
person to seek relief from unlawful detention. It has roots that date 
back to the Magna Carta of 1215.
  Habeas corpus has been suspended only a few times in our history--and 
then only temporarily, such as during our Civil War. Never in history 
have we suspended habeas corpus indefinitely, for a war that has no 
foreseeable end.
  This is not simply a matter affecting a few hundred detainees at 
Guantanamo. The Military Commissions Act went far beyond eliminating 
the rights of the remaining detainees at Guantanamo--it also 
potentially can reach all 12 million lawful permanent residents in the 
United States, as well as visitors to our country. Under this law, any 
of these people can be detained, potentially forever, without any 
ability to challenge their detention in Federal court, simply based on 
the Government declaring them enemy combatants.
  In fact, the Government need not even find that a noncitizen is an 
enemy combatant for their habeas rights to be stripped. It is enough 
for someone to be ``awaiting'' a determination--of a mere accusation is 
enough for a person to lose this basic right.
  Here is what the Military Commissions Act says:

       No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear 
     or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed 
     by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who 
     has been determined by the United States to have been 
     properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such 
     determination.

  Most of the remaining detainees at Guantanamo have been held without 
charges for years. While they did receive very limited due process 
through DOD-sponsored administrative tribunals, designed to evaluate 
whether they can continue to be classified and held as enemy 
combatants, in these review tribunals, detainees can often face: secret 
and hearsay evidence, evidence obtained from ``enhanced interrogation 
techniques,'' and no right to counsel. Appeals from these review 
tribunals are limited to the question of whether the Government 
followed its own limited procedures. There are even recent reports that 
when some of these tribunals found that a detainee was not an enemy 
combatant, the Defense Department arranged for the tribunals to be 
repeated, until Government officials got a result that they wanted.
  Rather than abolishing habeas corpus, I believe the judiciary plays a 
vital role in evaluating and reviewing whether due process has been 
provided and whether innocent persons are being held.
  This is not a partisan issue, as demonstrated by the fact that the 
lead Senators are the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee. In addition, conservatives like Kenneth Starr, Professor 
Richard Epstein, and David Keene of the American Conservative Union 
have all called for restoration of habeas, as have a long list of 
liberal and other scholars, retired Federal judges, and military 
leaders such as RADM Donald Guter, former Judge Advocate General of the 
Navy, who wrote that the elimination of habeas corpus rights for 
detainees ``makes us weaker and impairs our valiant troops.''
  The right of habeas corpus is a key component of what keeps our 
system of justice fair and balanced. It is time for Congress to ensure 
that it remains available. I urge my colleagues to support the Leahy-
Specter amendment to restore the rule of law at Guantanamo and 
elsewhere and the Great Writ of habeas corpus to its rightful place in 
our American system of justice.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to----
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator from Alabama a 
question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Is it the Senator's intention to close for his side?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, let's see how the time looks. I think 
perhaps so. How much time is left on this side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Three minutes remain.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would utilize that 3 minutes and allow 
the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee to close with his 
remarks.
  First, I express my appreciation to Senator Lindsey Graham and 
Senator Jon Kyl, who meticulously explained the origin of the situation 
we find ourselves in today and why we have never provided the writ of 
habeas corpus to enemy combatants and why we should not do so.
  Let's back up a little bit and go to the core of it. The Senator from 
New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, I think correctly gave us the status of the 
case. Congress passed section 2241, part of the United States Code, a 
statutory provision of Congress dealing with habeas. At that time, I 
suggest, without any doubt in my own mind, Congress had no idea that 
years later the Supreme Court would conclude that language--and rightly 
or wrongly on the Supreme Court ruling--that language would provide 
habeas rights to combatants captured on the battlefield. OK. But the 
Supreme Court ruled that based on the way the statute was written. It 
was an unintended consequence.

[[Page 24811]]

I would note, three members of the Supreme Court dissented and did not 
think that statute covered that.
  So after that happened, we had to ask ourselves: Is the Supreme Court 
saying: You, Congress, provided habeas rights to prisoners. You did it 
when you passed the statute. We are not saying the Constitution 
requires it. We are not saying the Supreme Court requires it. What we 
are saying is you did it when you passed the statute?
  So Congress said: OK, we did not mean that. Then we passed the 
amendment last year Senator Graham offered that fixed it, and did not 
provide, for the first time in the history of American history--or 
world history, for that matter--enemy prisoners be given the right to 
sue the generals who have captured them.
  All right. So we did that, and we passed it. The DC Circuit Court of 
Appeals, in interpreting that statute, has followed it and concluded 
that Congress has changed the law and that the prisoners in Guantanamo 
are not entitled to habeas rights that we provide to every American 
citizen.
  Now, that is the right thing. This is exactly what we should do. So I 
am somewhat taken aback by the suggestion of those who are promoting 
this amendment that somehow Congress denied the Great Writ and changed 
the law and they are here to restore it.
  This is purely a matter of congressional policy and national policy 
on how we want to conduct warfare now and in the future. How are we 
going to do that? Are we going to do it in a way that allows those we 
capture to sue us? Now you can utilize those rights if we choose to try 
a prisoner of war and to lock them up or to execute them. You can use a 
lot of legal rights. A prisoner can use those rights, but not in this 
circumstance. This is merely to restore the historical principles of 
habeas that already existed. The current law does that. The new 
amendment would change it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator's time has 
expired.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, at the beginning of this debate, I said 
Congress committed a historic error when it eliminated the Great Writ 
of habeas corpus because it did it not just for those detained at 
Guantanamo Bay--that raises enough questions about our sense of history 
and our sense of our own basic jurisprudence in this country--but 
Congress also eliminated it for millions--millions--of permanent legal 
residents here in the United States. Some of them are professors in our 
finest schools, others are medical people in our hospitals, and some 
are actually serving in our law enforcement and in our military. 
Listening to the arguments these past few days of those opposed to 
restoring habeas rights, it becomes ever more apparent that this was a 
mistake the last Congress and the administration made based on fear. I 
cannot think of a greater mistake than one based on fear in the most 
powerful Nation on Earth.
  Opponents make the alarmist argument that if we permit people to 
challenge their detention in Federal court, we will jeopardize our 
national security and place ourselves in greater danger. In fact, of 
course, the opposite is true.
  We have heard these kinds of arguments before during trying and 
turbulent times in American history, such as when the Government 
shamefully interned tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans during 
World War II. We should know by now that it hurts this country, and 
especially our men and women in uniform, when we allow public policy to 
be guided by fear, rather than by American values and freedoms.
  The critics of habeas restoration resort to scare tactics because 
they know that history and the facts are against them.
  The truth is that casting aside the time-honored protection of habeas 
corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away 
from our core American values and calls into question our historic role 
as the defender of human rights around the world. It also allows our 
enemies to accomplish something they could never achieve on the 
battlefield--the whittling away of liberties that make us who we are, 
the liberties we fought during the Revolutionary War to preserve, the 
liberties we fought a civil war to preserve, the liberties we defended 
not only our own freedom but the freedom of much of the Western World 
in two world wars to preserve.
  The need for the Great Writ has never been stronger than it is today. 
We have an administration that at every opportunity has aggressively 
sought unchecked executive power while working to erode or to eliminate 
constitutionally enshrined checks on that power by the courts and by 
Congress. Stripping away habeas rights which allow people to go to 
court to challenge detention by the executive is just the latest brazen 
attempt in a 6-year-long effort to consolidate power in the executive 
branch. You could have picked up somebody, locked them up, and all that 
person wants to say is: I am not the person named here. Before we did 
this, someone could at least get a writ of habeas corpus, go to the 
court, and say: I am not going to contest the case or anything else, 
but just the fact that you picked up the wrong person. They can't even 
do that now. This is America?
  The writ of habeas corpus is not some special benefit to be honored 
only when it is convenient. As no less a conservative than Justice 
Antonin Scalia has written, ``[t]he very core of liberty secured by our 
Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite 
imprisonment at the will of the Executive.'' Habeas has served for 
centuries to protect individuals against unlawful exercises of state 
power.
  Habeas corpus is the only common law writ enshrined in the 
Constitution. Article I, section 9 provides that the ``Writ of Habeas 
Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of rebellion or 
invasion the public Safety may require it.'' The Judiciary Act of 1789 
specifically empowered federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus 
``for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.'' In more 
than 2 centuries since then, habeas has only been suspended 4 times, 
all of them at times of active rebellion or invasion. Even this 
administration does not claim that we are at such a point now.
  The Military Commissions Act of 2006 spurned centuries of tradition 
and empowered the executive to detain noncitizens potentially forever, 
with no meaningful check by another branch of Government. With this 
act, Congress permanently eliminated the writ of habeas corpus for any 
noncitizen determined to be an enemy combatant or even awaiting such 
determination. If the determination hasn't been made, we are going to 
spend a few years making up our minds whether you are an enemy 
combatant, but you still can't contest the fact that we have picked up 
the wrong person. So a mere accusation by the executive is enough to 
keep a person in custody indefinitely, and that detention is not 
subject to review. As our Founders knew well, no administration--no 
administration, not this one, not the next one, not the one after 
that--can be trusted with that kind of power.
  The Specter-Leahy amendment would restore the proper balance of power 
between the branches of Government by reestablishing the law on habeas 
as it existed prior to the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act and 
the Military Commissions Act. It creates no new legal rights. The U.S. 
Supreme Court confirmed in the Rasul case that American and British 
courts have routinely assumed jurisdiction over habeas claims made by 
aliens.
  British courts in the 18th century considered habeas claims of aliens 
held as enemy combatants, as did the U.S. Supreme Court during World 
War II, a war where we faced the possible destruction of democracy. 
These courts considered habeas claims of alien enemy combatants who had 
already received military trials--meaning even before their habeas 
claims, they had already received more process than most noncitizen 
detainees will ever get now. Our legendary Chief Justice, John 
Marshall, in one instance granted relief to an alien enemy combatant 
bringing a habeas claim. In most of these historical cases, though, 
habeas petitioners

[[Page 24812]]

lost and were not granted any relief, and indeed most habeas 
petitioners have their claims dismissed with a simple, one-page ruling 
from a judge. This historical record is evidence that habeas can be 
relied upon as a necessary, but entirely reasonable, check on Executive 
power.
  As in the past, noncitizen detainees alleged to be enemy combatants 
should at least have the right to go into an independent court to 
assert that they are being held in error--not to have a trial but at 
least to say: Hey, we read the warrant, this is not the person--I am 
not the person named; you picked up the wrong person. They can't even 
ask an independent court to determine that.
  As in the past, a court will only grant habeas relief if the 
petitioner is able to, in fact, establish this effort. We are not 
talking about having a trial with all of these red herrings we have 
heard from those on the other side, who say that somehow we would have 
to bring in battlefield tactics or we would have to bring in classified 
information. That is not it. That is not it. We are talking about just 
being able to at least contest the fact that they have been picked up.
  If the detainees held at Guantanamo truly are the worst of the worst 
of our enemies, as this administration claims, surely it will be easy 
for the Government to make a baseline showing in court that they are 
lawfully detained. If they are really such enemies, we ought to at 
least know that and know that they were lawfully detained. Of course, 
senior government and military officials have told the press a story 
very different from the party line. They have told the New York Times 
that the Government detained many of the Guantanamo detainees in error.
  In any case, the sweep of the Military Commissions Act goes well 
beyond the few hundred detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. It threatens 
the civil liberties of an estimated 12 million lawful, permanent 
residents of the United States. They work here, they pay taxes in this 
country, and under current law, any of these people can be detained 
forever without the ability to challenge their detention in Federal 
court simply on the executive say-so, even if the Government made a 
mistake and picked up the wrong person. As we heard from Professor 
Mariano-Florentino Cuellar at the Judiciary Committee's hearing on this 
issue, this is of particular concern to the Latino community, which 
includes so many of the hard-working lawful permanent residents in this 
country.
  The cursory review process set up by Congress for detainees, called 
combatant status review tribunals or CSRTs, is no substitute for habeas 
corpus because, among many other deficiencies, it does not provide a 
neutral arbiter--a Federal judge--to review the factual record for 
error. This summer, LTC Stephen Abraham, a military lawyer who 
participated in the CSRT process, said in a sworn affidavit that the 
evidence presented to CSRTs ``lack[s] even the most fundamental 
earmarks of objectively credible evidence.'' He also said that 
superiors pressured the officers on review panels to find detainees to 
be ``enemy combatants.'' That is neither just nor fair, and rigged 
tribunals are not the way this country has ever dispensed justice, nor 
the way it should. Court review allowed under current law that relies 
on the findings of such a flawed system falls well short of the 
independent review that our system of checks and balances demands.
  Restoring habeas would send a clear message that when we promote 
democracy and the importance of human rights to the rest of the world, 
we are practicing what we preach. I have heard so many speeches on the 
floor of this body--and I agree with them--criticizing other countries 
for doing what we have done. How do we go to these other countries and 
say: You can't do this. And they say: But you do it. And we say: Oh, 
well, that was the war on terror; we are facing this great threat, so 
we have to do it, but you shouldn't do it. Well, we need to listen to 
our military leaders and our foreign policy specialists on this point 
who disagree with what we have done.
  The former Navy Judge Advocate General Donald Guter told the 
Judiciary Committee in May that by stripping even our enemies of basic 
rights, we are providing a pretext to those who capture our troops or 
our civilians to deny them basic rights. What do we say the next time 
an American civilian, lawfully in another country, is picked up and 
detained and not even allowed to raise the point that they picked up 
the wrong person, and we go to that country, and they say: Hey, wait a 
minute, that is what you do in your country; don't preach to us. Your 
American citizen is going to stay behind bars. We are just doing to you 
what you are allowed to do to us.
  William H. Taft IV, former Deputy Secretary of Defense under 
President George H. W. Bush, and a former State Department adviser in 
the current administration, told us that stripping the courts of habeas 
jurisdiction sacrificed an important opportunity to enhance the 
credibility of our detention system. Restoring habeas to detainees will 
improve our strategic and diplomatic positions in the world and remove 
a rallying point for our enemies.
  The right to habeas corpus is a limited right. Habeas, as I said 
before, does not give a person the right to a trial. It does not give a 
habeas petitioner a right to personally appear in court. It most 
certainly does not mean that U.S. service men and women will be pulled 
from the battlefield to testify in such proceedings, notwithstanding 
the alarmist comments made on the other side of the aisle. All the 
Government must do to defeat a habeas claim is demonstrate to a judge 
by a preponderance of the evidence that the detainee is being lawfully 
held. That is all.
  Most habeas petitions are rejected by the Federal courts without the 
need to call a single witness. I certainly knew that when I was a 
prosecutor. Any time I ever sent anybody to prison for more than a 
year, I knew there would be half a dozen habeas petitions filed. They 
would usually be denied without even ever having called a single 
witness. In fact, habeas petitions can be, and routinely are, disposed 
of in Federal court based on a single affidavit by a Government agent 
explaining the basis for detention. I simply sent over an affidavit 
showing the date and time of conviction to the court clerks. That is 
all I had to do. Habeas simply provides an opportunity for a detainee 
to argue to an independent Federal judge that he or she is being held 
in error. If the detainee is properly held, the Government can easily 
overcome that claim. The distinguished Presiding Officer was a 
distinguished U.S. attorney. He understands very well that point.
  Recent history makes clear that restoring habeas will not invite 
habeas litigation from abroad, as some have claimed. The Supreme Court 
found habeas jurisdiction at Guantanamo Bay because Guantanamo is, for 
all intents and purposes, a U.S. territory. U.S. courts have found no 
habeas jurisdiction in the case of enemies captured, detained, and held 
in Iraq. There was no flood of international habeas petitions following 
the 2004 Rasul decision validating the extension of habeas rights at 
Guantanamo, and there is not going to be if habeas is restored now.
  Guantanamo detainees had habeas rights until those rights were 
conclusively taken away last year. Between 2002 and late 2006, these 
claims were handled by judges in the U.S. District Court in Washington, 
DC. The judges in that court released no detainees, and they issued no 
orders compelling the Government to alter the detainees' conditions of 
confinement. Habeas is a necessary and appropriate check on executive 
power, but it is a far cry from a get-out-of-jail-free card.
  Opponents of habeas restoration suggest other countries will not open 
their courts to petitions from enemy aliens. But if a foreign country 
imprisoned an American, as I said before--say an aid worker or a nurse 
or a civilian contract employee--and held that person without any 
charge as a combatant, or simply said: We are going to ``determine'' 
whether that person is a combatant because he or she has supported the 
U.S. military, for example, or had a ``Support Our Troops'' sticker on 
their car, the U.S. Government would surely demand that American have a 
chance to

[[Page 24813]]

go to court. Our consul would be down there immediately demanding that. 
What kind of a reaction would there be in this country if we read in 
the paper where another country said: No, you have no right to 
challenge the fact that we picked them up; you have no right to 
challenge even that we picked up the wrong person. When we screamed 
about that in editorials all over this country saying how horrible that 
is, they would simply answer: We are just doing what you do. By denying 
basic rights to alien detainees, we encourage other nations to do the 
same to American civilians, and they will. They will. That is why we 
hear from so many of our military, so many distinguished people that we 
should change this.
  Critics of the Specter-Leahy bill also point to released detainees 
who they assert went back to the battlefield, as a reason not to 
restore habeas rights. But the truth is that those Guantanamo detainees 
who have been released since 9/11 have been freed by the military 
following its own process, not by Federal judges on habeas review.
  The critics' assertions that habeas proceedings in Federal court will 
somehow lead to the sharing of classified information with terrorists 
is cockamamie. It is merely fear-mongering. This argument demeans our 
Federal judiciary. It ignores the procedures established by Congress to 
ensure that classified information is safeguarded in Federal 
proceedings. Federal judges have significant discretion in determining 
what kinds of evidence to consider, what witnesses, if any, to allow 
for a habeas claim. Many detainee habeas claims could be resolved with 
no recourse to classified documents at all. Where classified evidence 
is relevant, all Federal judges are cleared to view such information, 
and they are well equipped to deal with it without compromising 
national security.
  We must not succumb to baseless, fear-driven arguments. The sky will 
not fall if we vote to restore habeas. Quite the contrary: Congress 
will take a positive step toward returning to our core American values 
of liberty, due process, and checks and balances. In doing so, we will 
increase America's security and bolster our place in the world. That is 
why this amendment has support from across the political and 
ideological spectrum.
  I thank Senator Dodd, Senator Menendez, Senator Bingaman, Senator 
Levin, and Senator Specter for coming to the floor and eloquently 
calling for a return to basic American values and the rule of law.
  Yesterday, 41 Republicans voted to filibuster a bill that would have 
given to hundreds of thousands of residents of the District of Columbia 
the fundamental right to vote for Congress--the District of Columbia, 
which has roughly the same population as my own State of Vermont. I 
hope they will not follow that sad day with a filibuster today of 
legislation to restore the fundamental right of someone held by the 
Government without any charge to at least go to court and ask why.
  The most daunting challenge in the age of terrorism is to strike the 
proper balance between maintaining our national security against very 
real threats but also preserving the liberties that are the proudest 
legacy of our Founders. It is our Founders who were willing to risk 
capture and hanging to bring about a nation based on the principles 
that you, Mr. President, and I have always supported and which we 
supported in our oath of office.
  More than ever, especially in the wake of September 11, we have to 
remain vigilant against security threats, but let's never forget that 
our values are the foundation that makes our Nation strong. Now is the 
time to reaffirm those values, to be renewing this country's 
fundamental, longstanding commitment to habeas corpus review. I urge 
every Senator to support the Specter-Leahy amendment to restore habeas 
corpus.
  Mr. President, I wish Members would look at those who support this. 
Support from this amendment goes across the political spectrum, from 
the American Conservative Union to liberal groups, to some of our 
leading citizens, including former Secretary of State Powell and others 
who have spoken out for this. We should pass this amendment.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if the yeas and nays 
have not been ordered, I will ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are mandatory.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on amendment No. 
     2022, regarding restoration of habeas corpus, to H.R. 1585, 
     the Department of Defense Authorization bill.
         Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, Christopher Dodd, 
           Jeff Bingaman, Barack Obama, Robert Byrd, Ken Salazar, 
           Debbie Stabenow, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, 
           Sheldon Whitehouse, Daniel K. Akaka, Russell D. 
           Feingold, Amy Klobuchar, Bill Nelson (FL).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call be waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 2022, offered by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, to 
amendment No. 2011 to H.R. 1585 shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 340 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Chambliss
       
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. 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. 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.

[[Page 24814]]


  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have been talking with Senator McCain, 
and it is our understanding the agreement now is the Graham amendment, 
which would be next in order under the previous UC, would be laid aside 
temporarily--we think we are making some progress on working out that 
amendment--and then we would now have Senator Webb recognized to 
introduce his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my friend from Michigan. 
We would like to get a time agreement on debate on the Webb amendment, 
but I do not know how many speakers we have on our side. We will be 
proposing an amendment that has been put together by my other colleague 
from Virginia, Senator Warner, as a sort of side-by-side effect.
  I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for working on an 
amendment that I think expresses very clearly we all want all our 
troops home. We understand the stress and the strain that has been 
inflicted on the men and women in the military--and the Guard and 
Reserves--and we admire the motivation and the commitment of Senator 
Webb from Virginia. We are, obviously, in opposition to his amendment 
and think his colleague from Virginia has an alternative idea that 
expresses the will of practically all of us to relieve this burden on 
the men and women in the military.
  So I wish to thank my friend from Michigan, and I also wish to say 
again, hopefully, within a relatively short period of time we can get a 
time agreement on debate and vote as soon as possible on this issue. 
This same amendment has been debated before in the Senate and it is 
pretty well known to our colleagues, although it is very clear that 
many want to speak on it because of its importance.
  So I thank my friend from Michigan and both Senators from Virginia, 
for whom I have the greatest respect, and we will look forward to a 
rather unusual situation here in the Senate--a vote on a resolution by 
one Senator from Virginia and a resolution from another Senator from 
Virginia on the same issue. I look forward to this debate. I know it 
will be both educational and, I hope, enlightening and informative not 
only to our colleagues but to the American people.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendments be set aside and that Senator Webb be recognized to 
offer his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I would not object, 
but I ask my friend from Michigan, will the vote on this amendment have 
a 60-vote requirement?
  Mr. LEVIN. I think that is the intention, as part of a unanimous-
consent agreement. It is my understanding that is the intent, however, 
that will be part of a larger UC.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I assume you are calling on this particular 
Senator from Virginia.
  I rise to offer, along with Senator Hagel, as the lead Republican 
cosponsor, and 35 of my colleagues a bipartisan amendment that speaks 
directly to the welfare of our servicemembers and their families.
  I have learned from Senator McCain's comments that Senator Warner 
will be offering a side-by-side amendment that goes to the sense of the 
Congress rather than the will of the Congress, and I would like to 
state emphatically at the outset this is a situation that calls for the 
will of the Congress. It calls for the Congress to step in and act as, 
if nothing else, an intermediary in a situation that is causing our men 
and women in uniform a great deal of stress and which again calls for 
us in the Congress to do something about this.
  We have been occupying Iraq for more than 4 years--more than 4\1/2\ 
years. During that time, it is sensible to assume our policies could 
move toward operational strategies that take into account the number of 
troops who are available rather than simply moving from one option to 
another, one so-called strategy to another, and continually going to 
the well and asking our troops to carry out these policies. This 
amendment would provide a safety net to our men and women in uniform by 
providing a minimum and more predictable time for them to rest and 
retrain before again deploying.
  If you are a member of the regular military, this amendment basically 
says that as long as you have been gone, you deserve to have that much 
time at home. This is a 1-to-1 ratio we are trying to push. Many of our 
units and our individuals are below that, even when the Department of 
Defense's stated goal and the restated goal of the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps not long ago was to move back to 2 to 1. In other words, 
our troops right now are being deployed in environments, many of them, 
where they are spending more time in Iraq than they are spending at 
home, when traditionally they should have twice as much time in their 
home environments to refurbish their units, retrain, get to know their 
families, and then continue to serve their country. For the Guard and 
Reserve, we have a provision in here that would require that no member 
or unit be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within 3 years of a previous 
deployment.
  I would like to emphasize this amendment is within the Constitution. 
There have been a number of Members, including the Senator from 
Arizona, who have stated publicly this is blatantly unconstitutional. 
It is well within the Constitution, and I read from article I, section 
8:

       The Congress has the power to make rules for the government 
     and regulation of the land and naval forces.

  This constitutional authority has been employed many times in the 
past, most significantly during the Korean war, when the administration 
in charge at the time was sending soldiers to Korea before they had 
been adequately trained. The Congress stepped in under that provision 
of article I, section 8 and mandated that no one be deployed overseas 
until they had at least 120 days of training. We are doing essentially 
the same thing in terms of a protective measure for the troops of our 
military but on the other end. We are saying, as long as you have been 
deployed, you deserve to have that much time at home.
  This amendment is responsible. It has been drafted with great care. 
We have put waivers that would apply to unusual circumstances into it. 
The President can waive the limitations of this amendment in the event 
of an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security 
interests. People who want to go back, can go back. It does not stop 
anyone from volunteering to return if they want to waive this 
provision.
  I have spoken with Secretary Gates, spoken with him at some length 
last week. I listened to his concerns. We put in two additional 
provisions in this amendment to react to the concerns the Secretary of 
Defense raised. The first is a 120-day enactment period, which is 
different from the way this amendment was introduced in July. In other 
words, the Department of Defense would have 120 days from the passage 
of this legislation in order to make appropriate plans and adjust to 
the provisions.
  I also have a provision in this bill that would exempt the special 
operations units from the requirements of the amendment. Special 
operations units are highly selective, their operational tempos are 
unpredictable, and we believe it is appropriate they be exempted.
  This amendment is not only constitutional, not only responsible, but 
it is needed. It is needed in a way that transcends politics. After 
4\1/2\ years in the environment in Iraq, it is time we put into place 
operational policies that sensibly take care of the people we are 
calling upon to go again and again.
  That is one reason why the Military Officers Association of America 
took the unusual step to actually endorse this amendment. The Military 
Officers Association of America is not like the Veterans of Foreign 
Wars, not like the American Legion. They rarely step

[[Page 24815]]

into the middle of political issues. But this organization, which 
comprises 368,000 members, military officers, took the step of sending 
a letter of endorsement for this amendment, calling upon us in the 
Congress to become better stewards of the men and women who are 
serving.
  It is beyond politics in another way. We are asking our men and women 
in uniform to bear a disproportionate sacrifice as the result of these 
multiple extended combat deployments with inadequate time at home. We 
owe them greater predictability.
  This is this week's issue of the Army Times. The cover story in the 
Army Times this week talks about brigade redeployments, who has gone 
the most, who has gone the least, who is going next. At least eight of 
the Army's active combat teams have deployed three or four times 
already. These are year or 15-month deployments. Another six, including 
three from the 101st Airborne, leave this month for either round three 
or round four.
  There is one brigade in the 10th Mountain Division, which is now 
nearing the end of its 15-month deployment, that is on its fourth 
deployment. When these soldiers return in November, they will have 
served 40 months since December 2001. That is about two-thirds of the 
time we have been engaged since December 2001. This amendment is needed 
for another reason, and that is that it has become clearer since the 
testimony of General Petraeus and Admiral Crocker that the debate on 
our numbers in Iraq and our policy in Iraq is going to continue for 
some time. We have divisions here in the Senate. We have divisions 
between the administration and the Congress. We are trying to find a 
formula, the right kind of a formula that can undo what I and many 
others believe was a grave strategic error in going into Iraq in the 
first place. But we have to have this debate sensibly. In the meantime, 
because this debate is going to continue for some time, we need to put 
a safety net under our troops who are being called upon to go to Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  I noted with some irony on Monday, as I was presiding, when the 
Republican leader expressed his view that it would not be an unnatural 
occurrence for us to be in Iraq for the next 50 years. This comparison 
to Korea and Western Europe is being made again and again.
  I go back to 5 years ago this month when I wrote an editorial for the 
Washington Post, 6 months before we invaded Iraq. One of the comments I 
made in this editorial 5 years ago was that there is no end point, 
there is no withdrawal plan from the people who have brought us to this 
war, because they do not intend to withdraw.
  I said that 5 years ago. It is rather stunning to hear that ratified 
openly now by people in the administration and by others who have 
supported this endeavor. We need to engage in that debate. We need to 
come to some sort of agreement about what our posture is going to be in 
the Middle East. And, as we have that debate, it is vitally important 
that we look after the well-being of the men and women who are being 
called upon, again and again, to serve.
  We are seeing a number of predictable results from these constant 
deployments. We are seeing fallen retention among experienced combat 
veterans. We are seeing soldiers and marines--either retained on active 
duty beyond their enlistments in the ``Stop Loss'' program or being 
recalled from active duty after their enlistments are over--being sent 
again to Iraq or Afghanistan. We are seeing statistics on increased 
difficulties in marital situations and mental health issues.
  There was a quote in this week's Army Times by one Army division's 
sergeant major who was saying:

       After the second deployment, it's hard to retain our 
     Soldiers. They have missed all the first steps, they've 
     missed all the birthdays; they've missed all the 
     anniversaries.

  I have seen that again and again with people I have known throughout 
their young lifetimes. One young man who is a close friend of my son 
just returned with an army unit, back for his second tour in Iraq. One 
of his comments at his going-away party was: 15-month deployments mean 
two Thanksgivings, two Christmases, two birthdays.
  What we are trying to do with this amendment is to bring a sense of 
responsibility among the leadership of our country in terms of how we 
are using our people. It is an attempt to move beyond politics as the 
politics of the situation are sorted out. Again, it is constitutional, 
it is responsible, it has been drafted with care, it is needed beyond 
politics. I hope those in this body will step forward and support it to 
the point that it could become law.
  I note my colleague, the Senator from Nebraska, has arrived, my 
principal cosponsor, for whom I have great regard. He and I have worked 
on many issues over nearly 30 years. I am grateful to be standing with 
him today and I yield my time and hope the Senator from Nebraska is 
recognized.


                Amendment No. 2909 to amendment no. 2011

  Mr. President, I had assumed the amendment was called up by the 
chairman. I erred. I ask amendment No. 2909 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Webb] for himself, Mr. Reid, 
     Mr. Hagel, Mr. Levin, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Smith, Mr. Obama, Mrs. 
     Clinton, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
     Brown, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Biden, Mr. 
     Lautenberg, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Tester, Mrs. 
     McCaskill, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Sanders, Ms. Mikulski, 
     Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Johnson, Mr. 
     Carper, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
     Akaka, and Mr. Menendez, proposes an amendment numbered 2909.

  Mr. WEBB. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To specify minimum periods between deployment of units and 
 members of the Armed Forces deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
                      Operation Enduring Freedom)

       At the end of subtitle C of title X, add the following:

     SEC. 1031. MINIMUM PERIODS BETWEEN DEPLOYMENT FOR UNITS AND 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DEPLOYED FOR 
                   OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING 
                   FREEDOM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Congress expresses its grateful thanks to the men and 
     women of the Armed Forces of the United States for having 
     served their country with great distinction under enormously 
     difficult circumstances since September 11, 2001.
       (2) The all-volunteer force of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States is bearing a disproportionate share of national 
     wartime sacrifice, and, as stewards of this national 
     treasure, Congress must not place that force at unacceptable 
     risk.
       (3) The men and women members of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States and their families are under enormous strain 
     from multiple, extended combat deployments to Iraq and 
     Afghanistan.
       (4) Extended, high-tempo deployments to Iraq and 
     Afghanistan have adversely affected the readiness of non-
     deployed Army and Marine Corps units, thereby jeopardizing 
     their capability to respond quickly and effectively to other 
     crises or contingencies in the world, and complicating the 
     all-volunteer policy of recruitment, as well as the 
     retention, of career military personnel.
       (5) Optimal time between operational deployments, commonly 
     described as ``dwell time'', is critically important to allow 
     members of the Armed Forces to readjust from combat 
     operations, bond with families and friends, generate more 
     predictable operational tempos, and provide sufficient time 
     for units to retrain, reconstitute, and assimilate new 
     members.
       (6) It is the goal of the Armed Forces of the United States 
     to achieve an optimal minimum period between the previous 
     deployment of a unit or member of a regular component of the 
     Armed Forces and a subsequent deployment of such a unit or 
     member that is equal to or longer than twice the period of 
     such previous deployment, commonly described as a 1:2 
     deployment-to-dwell ratio.
       (7) It is the goal of the Department of Defense that units 
     and members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces of 
     the United States should not be mobilized continuously for 
     more than one year, and that a period of five years should 
     elapse between the previous deployment of such a unit or 
     member and a subsequent deployment of such unit or member.
       (8) In support of continuous operations in Iraq, 
     Afghanistan, and other contested areas, the Army has been 
     required to deploy units

[[Page 24816]]

     and members to Iraq for 15 months with a 12-month dwell-time 
     period between deployments, resulting in a less than 1:1 
     deployment-to-dwell ratio.
       (9) In support of continuous operations in Iraq, 
     Afghanistan, and other contested areas, the Marine Corps 
     currently is deploying units and members to Iraq for 
     approximately seven months, with a seven-month dwell-time 
     period between deployments, but it is not unusual for 
     selected units and members of the Marine Corps to be deployed 
     with less than a 1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio.
       (10) In support of continuous operations in Iraq, 
     Afghanistan, and other contested areas, the Department of 
     Defense has relied upon the reserve components of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States to a degree that is unprecedented 
     in the history of the all-volunteer force. Units and members 
     of the reserve components are frequently mobilized and 
     deployed for periods beyond the stated goals of the 
     Department.
       (11) The Commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq 
     recently testified to Congress that he would like Soldiers, 
     Marines, and other forces have more time with their families 
     between deployments, a reflection of his awareness of the 
     stress and strain placed on United States ground forces, in 
     particular, and on other high-demand, low-density assets, by 
     operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
       (b) Minimum Period for Units and Members of the Regular 
     Components.--
       (1) In general.--No unit or member of the Armed Forces 
     specified in paragraph (3) may be deployed for Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom (including 
     participation in the NATO International Security Assistance 
     Force (Afghanistan)) unless the period between the deployment 
     of the unit or member is equal to or longer than the period 
     of such previous deployment.
       (2) Sense of congress on optimal minimum period between 
     deployments.--It is the sense of Congress that the optimal 
     minimum period between the previous deployment of a unit or 
     member of the Armed Forces specified in paragraph (3) to 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom and a 
     subsequent deployment of the unit or member to Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom should be equal 
     to or longer than twice the period of such previous 
     deployment.
       (3) Covered units and members.--The units and members of 
     the Armed Forces specified in this paragraph are as follows:
       (A) Units and members of the regular Army.
       (B) Units and members of the regular Marine Corps.
       (C) Units and members of the regular Navy.
       (D) Units and members of the regular Air Force.
       (E) Units and members of the regular Coast Guard.
       (c) Minimum Period for Units and Members of the Reserve 
     Components.--
       (1) In general.--No unit or member of the Armed Forces 
     specified in paragraph (3) may be deployed for Operation 
     Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom (including 
     participation in the NATO International Security Assistance 
     Force (Afghanistan)) if the unit or member has been deployed 
     at any time within the three years preceding the date of the 
     deployment covered by this subsection.
       (2) Sense of congress on mobilization and optimal minimum 
     period between deployments.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that--
       (A) the units and members of the reserve components of the 
     Armed Forces should not be mobilized continuously for more 
     than one year; and
       (B) the optimal minimum period between the previous 
     deployment of a unit or member of the Armed Forces specified 
     in paragraph (3) to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation 
     Enduring Freedom and a subsequent deployment of the unit or 
     member to Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring 
     Freedom should be five years.
       (3) Covered units and members.--The units and members of 
     the Armed Forces specified in this paragraph are as follows:
       (A) Units and members of the Army Reserve.
       (B) Units and members of the Army National Guard.
       (C) Units and members of the Marine Corps Reserve.
       (D) Units and members of the Navy Reserve.
       (E) Units and members of the Air Force Reserve.
       (F) Units and members of the Air National Guard.
       (G) Units and members of the Coast Guard Reserve.
       (d) Inapplicability to Special Operations Forces.--The 
     limitations in subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply with 
     respect to forces that are considered special operations 
     forces for purposes of section 167(i) of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (e) Waiver by the President.--The President may waive the 
     limitation in subsection (b) or (c) with respect to the 
     deployment of a unit or member of the Armed Forces specified 
     in such subsection if the President certifies to Congress 
     that the deployment of the unit or member is necessary to 
     meet an operational emergency posing a threat to vital 
     national security interests of the United States.
       (f) Waiver by Miliary Chief of Staff or Commandant for 
     Voluntary Mobilizations.--
       (1) Army.--With respect to the deployment of a member of 
     the Army who has voluntarily requested mobilization, the 
     limitation in subsection (b) or (c) may be waived by the 
     Chief of Staff of the Army (or the designee of the Chief of 
     Staff of the Army).
       (2) Navy.--With respect to the deployment of a member of 
     the Navy who has voluntarily requested mobilization, the 
     limitation in subsection (b) or (c) may be waived by the 
     Chief of Naval Operations (or the designee of the Chief of 
     Naval Operations).
       (3) Marine corps.--With respect to the deployment of a 
     member of the Marine Corps who has voluntarily requested 
     mobilization, the limitation in subsection (b) or (c) may be 
     waived by the Commandant of the Marine Corps (or the designee 
     of the Commandant of the Marine Corps).
       (4) Air force.--With respect to the deployment of a member 
     of the Air Force who has voluntarily requested mobilization, 
     the limitation in subsection (b) or (c) may be waived by the 
     Chief of Staff of the Air Force (or the designee of the Chief 
     of Staff of the Air Force).
       (5) Coast guard.--With respect to the deployment of a 
     member of the Coast Guard who has voluntarily requested 
     mobilization, the limitation in subsection (b) or (c) may be 
     waived by the Commandant of the Coast Guard (or the designee 
     of the Commandant of the Coast Guard).
       (g) Effective Date.--In order to afford the Department of 
     Defense sufficient time to plan and organize the 
     implementation of the provisions of this section, the 
     provisions of this section shall go into effect 120 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. WEBB. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge my friend, the junior 
Senator from Virginia, and also recognize his leadership, not just on 
this issue that he has framed over the last few minutes on which the 
Senate will be voting, as we did in July, but his years of 
contributions to this country--specifically his efforts on behalf of 
our military. I think most of us recognize the distinguished record of 
Senator Jim Webb, that service to his country. We appreciate that, and 
in particular his leadership on this amendment is important.
  Senator Webb and I wrote this amendment many months ago. We 
introduced it on the floor of the Senate in July. We received 56 
bipartisan votes for it. As Senator Webb has noted in his explanation 
of what this amendment does, it is relevant to our Armed Forces, to our 
country, and to our future. I wish to take a little time to expand on a 
couple of the points Senator Webb has made.
  First, a democracy of 300 million people, the greatest democracy in 
the world, the oldest living democracy in the world, finds itself in a 
situation today where we are asking about 1 percent of our citizens to 
carry all the burden, make all the sacrifices. We will be dealing with 
this issue for many years to come, because the consequences of what has 
been going on are that we are doing great damage to our military force 
structure, great damage to our Army and our Marines.
  Senator Webb noted some examples. These are not isolated episodes. 
The fact is, you cannot grind down your people, you cannot grind down 
your force structure as we have been doing to our force structure over 
the last years--redeployment after redeployment, and longer and longer 
deployments.
  We know, because our generals and admirals tell us, that this will 
come to an end sometime next spring, the rate of redeployments. Why is 
that the case? That is the case because we can't sustain the force 
structure we have assigned in Iraq today. It is not because I say it or 
Senator Webb says it, but our professional military leaders say it.
  It doesn't do us much good to go back and review the mistakes we have 
made over the last 5 years, first when we invaded and occupied a 
country. The fact is, we never had enough force structure in that 
country. Many Senators, including the distinguished ranking Republican 
on the Armed Services Committee, our friend John McCain, noted that. He 
still talks about it, as many of us do. This administration refused to 
take the counsel of the then Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, General 
Eric Shinseki, when he,

[[Page 24817]]

in open hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, was asked 
the question: What will it take, General, to invade, occupy, and help 
stabilize Iraq? He said it would take hundreds of thousands of American 
forces.
  He was right. He was right. But this administration chose not to 
listen to the Chief of Staff of the Army, who knew far more about the 
details of manpower requirements than anyone in the White House.
  We are not going to go back and unwind all that series of bad 
decisions. We are where we are, and we are in a mess in Iraq today by 
any dynamic, any measurement, any qualifications. We heard about that, 
I think in some detail, as we probed General Petraeus and Ambassador 
Crocker's testimony last week--two distinguished Americans. General 
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are two of our best. But the military 
doesn't set policy. The civilian leadership sets policy. So we hand 
that off to the military. They salute; they say, Yes, sir. Now, you go 
implement the policy.
  What we are addressing in this amendment is not only a basic 
component of fairness in how you treat your people--because, after all, 
as we know, it is people who represent the greatest resource of an 
institution, of a country, of a society. When you grind those people 
down to a point where they just cannot be effective, but when the 
morale is gone, when they leave the institution as we are seeing happen 
in the Army and Marines, when you are 15,000 short of Army captains and 
lieutenant colonels and majors, and senior enlisted, and story after 
story--every Senator in this body can relate these specific stories 
like I had in my office yesterday. A Marine Corps officer, couple of 
years in Iraq, 14 years in the Marines, got out. He loved the Marines. 
It pulled his heart out to leave the Marines.
  I said, Why did you leave?
  He said, Sir, I tried to balance my family life. The last time I got 
back from Iraq my youngest daughter said, Daddy, I am going to tape you 
to the refrigerator so you don't have to leave again.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, said in 
his confirmation hearing a few months ago, and I quote from Admiral 
Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

       I am concerned about the number of deployments, the time 
     when they're home--in fact, even when they are home, there's 
     training associated with that, so they spend weeks, if not 
     months, out of their own house, again, away from their 
     families, and I believe we've got to relieve that.

  That is the end of the quote from the new Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff. So, are we really asking so much here when we say that 
our brave fighting men and women, who are bearing all the burden, 
carrying all the sacrifice for this country, that 1 percent of our 
society, that we say they ought to have at least the same amount of 
downtime off as they serve in a war zone in combat? Is that outrageous?
  We in this town are very good at abstractions. We talk about 
policies. We act like moving men and brigades in combat--that somehow 
this is a chess game. Somehow these people are objects.
  No, humanity is always the underlying dynamic of the world and life 
and it always will be. As Senator Webb has often said: Who speaks for 
the military? The National spokesmen.
  Their leaders are appointed by the President. They have spokesmen, 
they are Governors, if no one else. But who speaks for the rifleman? 
Who speaks for the people whom we ask to go fight and die and their 
families?
  Now, let's be very clear about another issue. As Senator Webb has 
noted, this certainly is within the constitutional authority and 
responsibility of the Congress of the United States. Senator Webb said 
article I of the Constitution is about the Congress. Section 8 of the 
Constitution, in article I, speaks specifically to Congress's 
responsibilities. We can have disagreements about policies and 
strategies, and that is appropriate, should be, absolutely, in a 
democracy. But let's not be confused about our responsibilities as 
well.
  The fact is, as General Shinseki warned us in his comments before the 
Senate Armed Services Committee before we invaded Iraq, that it would 
take hundreds of thousands of American soldiers.
  What has happened is we have a mission that does not match our 
manpower capabilities. So what is this administration's answer? Keep 
grinding down the people out there who have been fighting and dying. 
Keep grinding them down more because we do not have any choice. Are you 
going to suit the Boy Scouts up on the weekends?
  Where is the manpower going to come from? So the easy answer is--
because who speaks for the rifleman? Who speaks for the military? You 
keep asking them to do more. You keep pushing more down on them.
  By the way, the so-called surge the President of the United States 
announced to America in January--by the way, I do not find the term 
``surge'' in any military manuals. Surge is not a policy, it is not a 
strategy, it is a tactic.
  But the President said: This is temporary. That escalation of troops, 
that 30,000 more troops on top of the 130,000 troops they already had 
over there, that is temporary. Because we are going to buy time for the 
Iraqi Government to find an accommodation so there can be political 
reconciliation. In the end, that is all that counts. As General 
Petraeus and everybody, every one of our great generals has said, there 
is no military solution in Iraq.
  General Petraeus and every general has said that. They know it better 
than anyone knows it. The only solution in Iraq is going to come from, 
must come from, some political accommodation resulting in a political 
reconciliation.
  So let's buy more time, let's grind those guys down more. Well, it 
will automatically come to some kind of an end. But in the process, 
what are we doing to our society, to our country, to our Armed Forces, 
that is going to take years to rebuild, just as General Schwarzkopf and 
General Powell and other great generals after Vietnam, they stayed in 
the military and rebuilt the military after what we had done to it 
during Vietnam.
  This is a very modest step forward, of clear thinking. This is 
relevant. It is rational. This has at least a modicum of humanity in 
it. If we do not take these steps, the consequences we are going to 
continue to face are going to be severe.
  I know the questions, the concerns on the other side of this issue 
are appropriate. Is this not a back-door way of trying to micromanage 
the war, micromanage our force structure? Well, the fact is, as I have 
already noted, we have inverted the logic. In order to carry out a 
mission or a policy or strategy, you have to match the resources for 
that. Those resources were never matched to that mission.
  So the easy answer for all of us in Washington, and 99 percent of the 
American people, is: Well, let those guys over there do more. So we 
have 15-month deployments, in some cases they are 18-month deployments, 
in some cases they are longer than that. So what if they go over there 
three times.
  That is not a good enough answer. That is a failed answer. That is 
irresponsible.
  So I hope our colleagues take a hard look at this, and I hope they 
would give some intense thought to what we are doing, not only for the 
immediate term but for the long term. This is essential for our 
country. This has ramifications, societal implications that go far 
beyond our force structure.
  I am very honored to be the original cosponsor and coauthor of this 
amendment with my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Virginia.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before I begin my comments on the pending 
amendment, I think--I hope it is appropriate to mention our colleague 
from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, has announced his intentions not to seek 
reelection in this body.
  I have the highest degree of affection and respect for my friend; we 
have adjoining offices in the Russell Senate

[[Page 24818]]

Office Building. He has served this Nation in many capacities, 
including in combat during the Vietnam War. I think he has been an 
outstanding Member of this body and a dear friend. I will say a lot 
more about him in many venues, but I wish to express my appreciation 
for his outstanding service in the Senate, to the people of Nebraska, 
and to this country.
  On July 11 of this year, I spoke against Senator Webb's amendment on 
dwell time, as it is now called. The amendment has not changed 
substantially since then. I thought the debate at the time was 
comprehensive and adequately addressed the merits of the proposal. But 
here we are again. Here we are again. Why?
  In July, Senator Webb said:

       This is an amendment that is focused squarely on supporting 
     our troops who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan; it 
     speaks directly to their welfare and the needs of their 
     families by establishing minimum periods between deployments.

  More recently, he has called it a ``safety net for the troops.'' I 
have no doubt of Senator Webb's sincerity and his concern for our 
ground troops and their families. No one in this body has served his 
family more honorably than Senator Webb.
  I share Senator Webb's concerns for the well-being of our troops and 
their families, as I know all Senators do. But let me be clear: Senator 
Webb's amendment is not a litmus test for whether you care about the 
troops. Would it not be great if our choices were that easy.
  I argued back in July, and I repeat today, that the amendment would 
do more harm than good and should not pass. But the question remains: 
Why are we arguing again? Why are we arguing again about this proposal?
  Unfortunately, the reason is obvious. It was spelled out in a New 
York Times article on September 15, by David Herszenhorn and David 
Cloud, who stated:

       The proposal by Senator Webb has strong support from top 
     Democrats who say that the practical effect would be to add 
     time between deployments and force General Petraeus to 
     withdraw troops on a substantially swifter timeline than the 
     one he laid out before Congress this week.

  Senator Biden was quoted in the article as calling the proposal the 
``easiest way for his Republican colleagues to change the war 
strategy,'' to change the war strategy. The reporters referred to the 
amendment as a ``backdoor approach'' aimed at influencing the conduct 
of the war. That is what this amendment is about.
  I say to my colleagues, I will say it again and again, the 
President's present strategy is succeeding. If you want the troops out, 
support the present mission, support the mission that is succeeding. 
Don't say you support the troops when you do not support their mission. 
Excuse me, I support you but not the mission you are embarking on today 
as you go out and put your life and limb on the line in a surge that is 
succeeding--that is succeeding.
  We will have a lot of discussion on the floor of this body about the 
Maliki Government and the national police and the other challenges we 
have, but the military side of this is succeeding. This goes at the 
heart, this goes at the heart of the surge that is showing success in 
Anbar Province, in Baghdad, and other parts of Iraq.
  Now, maybe someone does not agree with that. Maybe that is the point. 
But the effect of this amendment--the effect of this amendment--would 
be to emasculate this surge. That is why the Secretary of Defense, Mr. 
Gates, sent a letter to my colleague, Senator Graham, which I intend to 
quote from in a minute. So what is this debate about? This debate is 
about whether we will force, as Senator Biden was quoted, as the 
easiest way for his Republican colleagues to change the war strategy, 
this backdoor approach aimed at influencing the conduct of the war.
  Not only that, it is blatantly unconstitutional. Are we going to 
have, in conflicts the American people engage in--if it is unpopular 
with the American people, the way the Korean war was unpopular--and 
somehow designate who should stay and who should not and how long?
  That is a micromanagement of the military that is very difficult to 
comprehend. The President is the Commander in Chief because he is the 
Commander in Chief. Nowhere in the Goldwater-Nickles bill, nowhere in 
the Constitution do I see the role for Congress to play in determining 
the parameters under which the men and women who have enlisted and are 
serving in the military, in an enterprise which the majority of this 
body voted to support, being embarked on.
  Secretary Gates echoed this assessment last weekend in various 
interviews, stating the Webb amendment is:

       Really pretty much a backdoor effort to get the President 
     to accelerate the drawdown so that it is an automatic kind of 
     thing, rather than based on conditions in Iraq.

  So I would say to my colleagues, let's not conceal or fail to mention 
the intended effect or purpose of this amendment. I wish to repeat, 
every one of us, every one of us cares about the men and women who are 
serving in the military, every single one of us on an equal basis. It 
is clear that in the wake of General Petraeus's report, the majority 
has brought this back in order to reduce the numbers of fully trained 
and combat-experienced troops available to our military commanders and 
thus to force an accelerated drawdown of troops and units in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Why don't we be clear about that? Let's consider the impact of this 
amendment on the force. The effect of the amendment would be to exclude 
fully trained, combat-experienced officers, NCOs, soldiers, and marines 
from military units that need them to perform in combat. I think we 
should ask the question: Will an unintended consequence of this 
amendment be to cause harm to our troops? I argued in July, as did 
various other Senators, that the amendment would cause harm to the 
mission, the units, and members who would have to succeed in combat 
despite the obstacle this amendment would impose.
  Now we have the view of Secretary Gates to consider in a letter 
regarding the Webb amendment, which without objection, Mr. President, I 
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                               Washington, DC, September 18, 2007.
     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: Thank for your recent letter 
     requesting my views on the Webb amendment.
       I understand that the specifics of this amendment may be 
     changing so my comments are based on the version filed for 
     Senate consideration in July (the only version available 
     publicly).
       As drafted, the amendment would dramatically limit the 
     nation's ability to respond to other national security needs 
     while we remain engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan. Although the 
     amendment language does provide the President a waiver for 
     ``operational emergencies,'' it is neither practical nor 
     desirable for the President to have to rely on waivers to 
     manage the global demands on U.S. military forces. Moreover, 
     the amendment would serve to advance the dangerous perception 
     by regional adversaries that the U.S. is tied down and 
     overextended.
       Further, the amendment, if adopted, would impose upon the 
     President an unacceptable choice: between 1) accelerating the 
     rate of drawdown significantly beyond what General Petraeus 
     has recommended, which he and other senior military 
     commanders believe would not be prudent and would put at real 
     risk the gains we have made on the ground in Iraq over the 
     past few months, and 2) resorting to force management options 
     that would damage the force and its effectiveness in the 
     field.
       The first choice is not acceptable. The latter choice would 
     require one or more of the following actions for units 
     deployed or deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan:
       Extension of units already deployed beyond their current 
     scheduled rotation.
       Creating ``gaps'' in combat capability as units would 
     rotate home without a follow-on unit being available to 
     replace them. Rearranging schedules to close such gaps would, 
     even if possible, further limit the ability to continue the 
     sound practice of overlapping unit rotations to achieve 
     smooth hand-offs and minimize casualties.
       Increase in the use of ``in lieu of'' units that are either 
     minimally or not normally trained for the assigned mission. 
     We will always deploy trained units, but the quality, depth 
     of experience and thus combat capability associated with the 
     broader use of ``in

[[Page 24819]]

     lieu of'' forces will invariably degrade combat readiness.
       Return to the cobbling together of new units from other 
     disparate units or unassigned personnel. We have discouraged 
     this practice by adopting a unit rotation policy.
       As the options for and availability of active duty units is 
     constrained, the broader and more frequent mobilization of 
     National Guard and Reserve units would be inevitable.
       I am told that one of the possible modifications to the 
     original amendment is to allow a transition period of a few 
     months before its requirements are binding. While transition 
     periods are generally helpful, such a modification would not 
     alleviate the damaging impact this amendment would have on 
     our military force and our efforts against violent 
     extremists.
       In sum, the cumulative effect of the above steps necessary 
     to comply with Senator Webb's amendment, in our judgment, 
     would significantly increase the risk to our service members. 
     It would also lead to a return to unpredictable tour lengths 
     and home station periods that we have sought to eliminate for 
     our service members and their families.
       The above impacts on managing the flow of military units 
     pale in comparison to the disruptive and harmful effects the 
     amendment would have if we have to comply with its 
     requirements at the level of each individual service member. 
     Such an approach would make it exceedingly difficult to 
     sustain unit cohesion and combat readiness.
       Finally, the amendment would unreasonably burden the 
     President's exercise of his Constitutional authorities, 
     including his authority as Commander in Chief. In particular, 
     the amendment would hinder the President's ability to conduct 
     diplomatic, military, and intelligence activities and limit 
     his ability to move military forces as necessary to secure 
     the national security.
       I believe that the intent of those who support this 
     amendment is honorable and motivated by a desire to advance 
     the welfare of our service members. Unfortunately, I also 
     believe the amendment would in fact result in the opposite 
     outcome while restricting our nation's ability to respond to 
     an unpredictable and increasingly dangerous world.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Robert M. Gates.

  Mr. McCAIN. He said:

       As drafted, the amendment would dramatically limit the 
     nation's ability to respond to other national security needs 
     while we remain engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan.

  He said the amendment would cause the Army and Marine Corps to resort 
to force management options that would further damage the force and its 
effectiveness on the field and would result in the following actions 
for units deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan:

       Extension of units [in Iraq and Afghanistan] already 
     deployed beyond their current scheduled rotation.
       Creating ``gaps'' in combat capability as units would 
     rotate home without a follow-on unit being available to 
     replace them.

  This, in turn, would squeeze ``the ability to continue the . . . 
practice of overlapping unit rotations to achieve smooth hand-offs and 
minimize casualties.'' And minimize casualties. That seems important, 
minimizing casualties.
  Secretary Gates goes on. The Webb amendment would:

       Increase the use of `in-lieu of' units that are either 
     minimally or not normally trained for the assigned mission.
       [Would] return to the cobbling together of new units from 
     other disparate units or unassigned personnel.

  A practice discouraged by the adoption of a unit rotation policy. As 
a result of the Webb amendment, it would result in the ``broader and 
more frequent mobilization of National Guard and Reserve units [which] 
would be inevitable.''
  Secretary Gates, in his letter, said the Webb amendment would impose 
an unacceptable choice upon the President and our military to either, 
one, accelerate the rate of drawdown significantly beyond what General 
Petraeus has recommended, which he and all of our military commanders 
believe would not be prudent and would put at real risk the gains we 
have made on the ground in Iraq in the last few months; two, resorting 
to force management options that would further damage the force and its 
effectiveness in the field.
  Not surprisingly, Secretary Gates has stated unequivocally that if 
this amendment were included in the authorization act, he would 
recommend the President veto it. I urge my colleagues to reject, again, 
the Webb amendment.
  My friend from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, pointed out accurately--and 
he has played an incredible role--the terrific mistakes made in the 
conduct of this conflict under Secretary Rumsfeld and other leaders. 
This strategy, the Senator from Nebraska and I knew, was doomed to 
failure. As far back as 2003, we came back from Iraq and said: This 
strategy has to change or it is doomed to failure. As I have said, it 
was very much like watching a train wreck. Those mistakes and errors in 
the strategy have been well chronicled in a number of books that have 
been written, among them, and which I strongly recommend, ``Fiasco'' by 
Tom Ricks and ``Cobra II'' by General Trainor and Michael Gordon But we 
are where we are.
  I would be glad, along with my friends from Nebraska and Virginia, to 
chronicle those many mistakes. Those mistakes were made with 
expressions of optimism which were, on their face, not comporting with 
the facts on the ground in Iraq: a few dead-enders, stuff happens, last 
throes, on and on. The fact is, the American people became frustrated, 
and they have become saddened and angry. Nothing is more moving than to 
know the families and loved ones of those who have sacrificed, nearly 
4,000 in this conflict, not to mention the tens of thousands who have 
been gravely wounded. But we have a new strategy. We have success on 
the ground.
  As I said earlier, all of us are frustrated by the fact that the 
Maliki government has not functioned with anywhere near the 
effectiveness we need. We also acknowledge that there are portions of 
the national police which are ``corrupt,'' which is a kind word, a kind 
description. But the facts were made very clear last week by the 
President of Iran, the President of a country that has dedicated itself 
to the extinction of Israel, a country that is developing nuclear 
weapons, a country that is exporting explosive devices of the most 
lethal kind into Iraq today that are killing young Americans. He said: 
When the United States of America leaves Iraq, we will fill the void. 
That is what this conflict is now about. It may not have been that when 
we started. The President of Iran has made Iranian intentions very 
clear. The Saudis will feel that the Sunnis have to be helped. Syria 
continues to try to destabilize the Government of Lebanon and continues 
to arm and equip Hezbollah. By the way, there is a standing United 
Nations Security Council resolution that calls for the disarmament of 
Hezbollah. Has anybody seen any effect of that lately? Jordan has 
750,000 refugees in their small country.
  The situation as regards Afghanistan, as far as Pakistan is 
concerned, is certainly murky at best, and perhaps we could see a 
nuclear-armed country, which Pakistan is, in the hands of people who 
may not be friendly to the United States or interested in controlling 
the Afghan-Pakistan border areas which are not under control now.
  As Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post over the weekend, a 
precipitous withdrawal would have profound consequences. As GEN Jim 
Jones testified, on the results of his commission, his last words were, 
a precipitous withdrawal would cause harm to America's national 
security interests, not only in Iraq but in the area.
  The reason I point this out is because the effect of the Webb 
amendment--and whether it is intended by the Senator from Virginia or 
not but it is interpreted by many, including others whom I have 
quoted--would be to force precipitous withdrawal before the situation 
on the ground warranted.
  I hope we understand that America is facing a watershed situation. We 
have grave challenges in Iraq. I believe if we set a date for 
withdrawal or, through this backdoor method, force a date for 
withdrawal, we will see chaos and genocide in the region, and we will 
be back.
  I fully acknowledge to my friends and colleagues that we have paid a 
very heavy price in American blood and treasure because of failures for 
nearly 4 years. I understand their frustration. I understand their 
anger. But I am also hearing from the men and women serving in Iraq as 
we speak. Always throughout this long ordeal, the most professional and 
best- equipped and best-trained and bravest military this Nation has 
ever been blessed with

[[Page 24820]]

were doing their job. They were doing their job under the most arduous 
conditions of warfare that any American, Army and Marine Corps and 
military, has ever been engaged, ever.
  But now in the last few months, we are hearing a different message 
from these brave people; that is, they believe they are succeeding. 
They believe they are succeeding. In Anbar Province, the marines are 
walking in downtown Ramadi, which used to be Fort Apache. Neighborhoods 
in Baghdad are safer. They are not safe, but they are safer. Al-Qaida 
is being rejected in many areas. I pointed out the difficulties in the 
other part of it, but I also believe, from my study of history, that 
when you have a condition of military security, it is very likely and 
much more possible that the commercial, social, and political process 
moves forward in a successful fashion. I keep saying over and over: We 
have not seen that with the Maliki government, and we have every right 
to see it. But I believe the conditions have been created, if they 
seize it, that we will also see political progress in that country.
  I believe the people of Iraq, not wanting to be Kurds or Sunni or 
Shia but Iraqis, harbor the same hopes and dreams and aspirations to 
live in a free and open society where they can send their kids to 
school and live in conditions of peace and harmony. That can be 
achieved over a long period of time.
  Let me finally say that success in Iraq is long and hard and 
difficult, but I also believe the options are far worse than to pursue 
what has been succeeding.
  This amendment will probably define our role in Iraq as to how this 
whole conflict will come out. I question no one's patriotism. I 
question no one's devotion to this country. I am sure there are Members 
on the other side of this issue, supporting this amendment, who are 
more dedicated than I am, perhaps. But the fact is, this is a watershed 
amendment. We need to defeat it. We need to make sure these brave young 
men and women who are now serving and succeeding have more opportunity 
to succeed and come home with honor. We all want them home. We don't 
want to see the spectacle of another defeated military. Overstressed, 
overdeployed, weary, but not defeated--that is our military today. The 
Webb amendment could easily bring about their defeat.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to yield further time to the 
Senator from New Jersey, but before doing so, I would like to respond 
to some of the things the Senator from Arizona said in his statement, 
just to clarify the intention of this amendment and the environment in 
which it is being offered.
  Contrary to what the Senator from Arizona said, this amendment has 
been changed since July. There is a 120-day implementation provision in 
it, after my discussion with Secretary Gates. There is also an 
exclusion of special operations units from the requirements of the 
amendment. There are, as always, clear waiver provisions in here which 
would address a number of the situations Secretary Gates mentioned.
  The Senator from Arizona may believe the impact of this amendment 
would be to alter the strategy in Iraq, and he has made a few 
implications that people cannot support our military people unless they 
support a political mission. I don't believe that is correct. I believe 
it is the role in American society to question missions when one 
believes they are heading in the wrong direction. I believe many of our 
troops have that option and also exercise it. You can look at poll 
after poll on that.
  The one thing we can say about the U.S. military is that it has 
always controlled the tactical battle space into which it has been put. 
We can clearly say that in Iraq today. We can say that about other 
engagements. That is the job the military is being called upon to do.
  When the Senator from Arizona talks about what is this debate really 
about, to characterize this as a debate about defeat is inappropriate. 
The narrow purpose of this amendment is not to question so much whether 
the strategy is working but how do you feed troops into an operational 
environment. Where do we draw the line? I suppose we could have a 
decision from an administration that we would put all of American 
forces in Iraq until the war was over. When does the Congress decide 
that the policies of the executive branch have reached an imbalance? 
This is a very modest amendment.
  With respect to the constitutional implications, this is a tired old 
argument. I addressed it in July. I addressed it again today. There is 
a third provision in article I, section 8, which clearly gives Congress 
the authority to make these sorts of decisions.
  Senator McCain rightly talks about the loss of qualified officers and 
NCOs. My experience, looking at the U.S. military today, is that we are 
now losing them permanently. If you look at the retention rates from 
West Point, they are clearly on a marked downside. That is the canary 
in the bird cage.
  With respect to the letter of Secretary Gates, I respect Secretary 
Gates. I talk with him. He is a political appointee. We can expect 
political answers to a number of these questions.
  When Senator McCain speaks of the implications of withdrawal, we are 
in a box, I agree. The same implications being addressed right now for 
withdrawal were the implications that people such as myself, General 
Zinni, General Scowcroft, General Hoar, and many others with long 
national security experience were warning about if we went in in the 
first place. We have a region that is on the edge of chaos. We have oil 
now at $82 a barrel. We have a situation with the Turks, who once were 
our greatest supporters in the region, being roundly critical of the 
United States, complaining about guerilla activities emanating out of 
the Kurdish areas. We need to get the Saudis to the table. We need to 
address Iran. The only way for us to do that on a permanent basis is 
through aggressive diplomacy.
  I, too, read Henry Kissinger's article last Sunday. A big portion of 
it at the end was about the need to move forward more strongly with 
diplomacy.
  All of those issues are legitimate. They are all going to be 
thoroughly debated. The purpose of this amendment, again, is to put a 
safety net under our Active-Duty military and our Guard and Reserve 
while these debates are taking place.
  With that, I yield the floor and note the Senator from New Jersey 
wishes to speak. Perhaps the Senator from Arizona wants to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his 
comments. I would like to point out that the Senator from Virginia says 
his amendment has a waiver associated with it, so, therefore, it should 
be acceptable to us. I would like to quote from Secretary Gates's 
letter to Senator Graham. He says:

       Although the amendment language does provide the President 
     a waiver for ``operational emergencies''--

  ``Operational emergencies''--not just a waiver, but there has to be 
an operational emergency--

     it is neither practical nor desirable for the President to 
     have to rely on waivers to manage the global demands on U.S. 
     military forces. Moreover, the amendment would serve to 
     advance the dangerous perception by regional adversaries that 
     the U.S. is tied down and overextended.

  So I think we ought to understand what this waiver really means. Of 
course, Secretary Gates is a political appointee. That is the way the 
Government functions. But to somehow, therefore, question his judgment 
because he is a political appointee is inappropriate, I say to the 
Senator from Virginia.
  GEN Brent Scowcroft, whom the Senator from Virginia referred to, 
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.
  Now, that is the view of one of the most respected men in America. He 
also was a political appointee at one

[[Page 24821]]

time as the President's National Security Adviser. He believed very 
strongly we should not have gone to Iraq, and I would be glad someday, 
along with Senator Webb and Senator Hagel, to talk about all the 
reasons why we should or should not have. But the fact we are where we 
are today, in his view, is very clear.
  Now, on the issue of constitutionality, it clearly violates the 
principles of separation of powers. Congress has no business in wartime 
passing a law telling the Department of Defense which of its fully 
trained troops it can and cannot use in carrying out combat operations.
  As we all know, this dwell time provision, as I said, has been tried 
before. The President, when it was included in the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, said:

       [T]he micro-management in this legislation is unacceptable 
     because it would create a series of requirements that do not 
     provide the flexibility needed to conduct the war.
       This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to 
     direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that 
     infringes upon the powers vested in the Presidency by the 
     Constitution, including as Commander in Chief of the Armed 
     Forces.

  The Senator from Virginia referred to article I, section 8 of the 
Constitution, which gives Congress the power ``to make Rules for the 
Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.'' Well, clearly 
that applies to pay, equipment, end strength, basing, and most of the 
training, equipping, and organizing functions that are vested in the 
services under the Goldwater-Nichols Act. But the article I power 
cannot be employed to accomplish unconstitutional ends, and that would 
include restricting the President's authority as Commander in Chief in 
wartime to direct the movement of U.S. forces.
  Justice Robert Jackson, who served as President Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt's Attorney General, said:

       The President's responsibility as Commander in Chief 
     embraces the authority to command and direct the armed forces 
     in their immediate movements and operations, designed to 
     protect the security and effectuate the defense of the United 
     States.

  I submit that current policies regarding combat unit rotations, tour 
length, and dwell time that affect our brave men and women in uniform 
fall squarely under that authority.
  In his letter, as I mentioned before, Secretary Gates addressed this 
constitutional question. He said:

       The amendment would unreasonably burden the President's 
     exercise of his Constitutional authorities, including his 
     authority as Commander in Chief. In particular, the amendment 
     would hinder the President's ability to conduct diplomatic, 
     military, and intelligence activities and limit his ability 
     to move military forces as necessary to secure the national 
     security.

  Let's consider other legislation--the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986--
which fundamentally reorganized the Department of Defense and reflected 
some serious thought about how wars ought to be conducted. The act 
says:

       Unless otherwise directed by the President, the chain of 
     command to a unified or specified command runs--
       from the President to the Secretary of Defense; and
       from the Secretary of Defense to the commander of the 
     combatant command.

  I see no mention of Congress in that chain of command.
  The Goldwater-Nichols Act also has a section titled 
``Responsibilities of the Combatant Commanders'' that says: The 
commander of a combatant command is responsible to the President and to 
the Secretary of Defense for the performance of missions assigned to 
that command by the President or by the Secretary with the approval of 
the President. Again, no mention of Congress in that chain of command.
  I want to clarify to my friend from Virginia, I have--again, I 
repeat, and I am sure I will repeat several times in the conduct of 
this discussion--I have no doubt that the intent of the Senator from 
Virginia is to relieve this terrible burden of service that is being 
laid upon a few Americans. He and I both know people who have been to 
Iraq and Afghanistan three and four times--an incredible level of 
service. The National Guard has never, ever that I know of in my study 
of history borne the burden they have today. These citizen soldiers 
have performed not only at the same level but sometimes at a higher 
level of our professional standing Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and 
Navy. But the fact is, the amendment of the Senator from Virginia--I 
believe and am convinced from my study of the Constitution, my view of 
the role of the Commander in Chief, what is at stake in Iraq, as I 
pointed out--will have the effect of reversing what has been a 
successful strategy employed by General Petraeus, General Odierno, and 
the brave men and women. I have no doubt of the intention of the 
Senator from Virginia in this amendment, but I have great concerns and 
conviction that the effect of this amendment would have impacts that 
would lead to greater consequences and require, eventually, over time, 
because of chaos in the region, greater sacrifice of American blood and 
treasure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Webb-
Hagel amendment. Both of our colleagues have served our country not 
only in the Senate but also in uniform, and they have done so 
honorably. So they speak from experience, and I, for one, do not 
question their sincerity of purpose. I do not know how every Member of 
the Senate will decide on how they will cast their vote, but I do not 
question their sincerity or the purpose of what they are driving at.
  This is about preserving our troops, enhancing their ability, and in 
the long term being able to continue to enlist people who want to serve 
their country, who bear the overwhelming burden of the national 
security of the United States by a small percentage of the population. 
That is what I believe Senator Webb is doing, and that is why I join 
him strongly in support of his and Senator Hagel's amendment.
  This amendment provides an important opportunity to recognize the 
courageous efforts of our men and women in uniform. This amendment 
provides a critical opportunity to ensure the care and safety of our 
troops--the care and safety of our troops--now, but I would argue not 
only now but for the long term. To those who believe this amendment is 
only about now, to change the current course of events, I believe the 
amendment has longstanding import now and for the long term. It sets 
our policy as to where we are going to be headed in the deployment of 
troops--the respites they need, the ability for us to sustain a 
voluntary Army under all of the circumstances.
  This amendment provides a great opportunity for us in the Senate to 
ignore politics and work together on behalf of our troops. This 
amendment simply says that our troops should have at least--at least--
the same time at home as they spend deployed abroad. It ensures that no 
unit, including the National Guard, which is clearly citizen soldiers 
who have been asked to do far beyond what many of them thought they 
were ever going to be called upon to do on behalf of their Nation--they 
would get the same treatment.
  This amendment simply says that after 4\1/2\ years of bravely 
fighting for our country, we must honor the sacrifice of the troops and 
their families. This amendment simply says we must make sure we are 
taking care--underline ``taking care''--of our troops. We believe we 
must protect our troops fighting in combat now, just as we must take 
care of our veterans when they return home from combat.
  Let me be clear. I do not believe this amendment ties the hands of 
the administration in the case of a clear threat to our national 
security. Senator Webb has been responsive in providing a fair and 
reasonable waiver for the President, as well as a waiver for those 
individuals in service who want to volunteer to return early. If they 
want to return, if they feel they are ready to return, they will be 
able to do so and provide the continued leadership they have been 
providing. I am sure many may. But the bottom line is, there are many 
who may not feel they can do that. So, therefore, their ability to 
perform at the optimum is not being preserved under the present 
circumstances.

[[Page 24822]]

  This amendment also responds to specific concerns raised by the 
Secretary of Defense and other military leaders. It allows the 
Department of Defense time for a transition period, for an 
implementation period that is well within the scope that is necessary. 
It also provides a specific exemption for special operations forces 
since the nature of their deployment schedule is much different.
  So I think Senator Webb has listened and responded since the last 
time he offered this amendment, as has Senator Hagel.
  Now, unfortunately, the war in Iraq has taken a terrible toll on our 
military. I am deeply concerned about our ground forces. I am deeply 
concerned about severe mental health issues, such as post-traumatic 
stress syndrome, which comes out of extended and repeated deployments. 
I am deeply concerned about our ability to retain experienced 
servicemembers and our ability to recruit new forces.
  Clearly, if someone is looking at whether to be engaged, in addition 
to their great desire to serve their country, especially if they have 
family, they are going to be looking at: Well, how are these 
deployments taking place? Are they taking place in a way to respond to 
my desire to serve but also to be able to sustain my family? That is 
why we have to adopt this amendment. It is about now and the long term.
  Some here have argued that Congress should not interfere. But the 
Founding Fathers put it right up there early in the Constitution. They 
did not wait for various later articles; they put it right up there in 
article I. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution is where they gave 
the Congress the right, the power ``to make Rules for the Government 
and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.''
  I have heard other statutory references here, but none of those 
statutory references have the power to undermine the Constitution. The 
Constitution is supreme. It comes first above all other acts. So, 
therefore, the Founders understood how important it was for the 
Congress to have the role ``to make Rules for the Government and 
Regulation of the land and naval Forces,'' and they put it up early in 
the Constitution to make it very clear. Those who wish to ignore or 
reject that provision of the Constitution, in my mind, undermine the 
Constitution by doing so.
  This President often acts as if the only role for the Congress is to 
provide a blank check for his failed war policy. I believe he is 
definitely wrong in believing that Congress's only role is to provide a 
blank check. That is not the role of the Congress. As a matter of fact, 
that would be an abdication of the duties and responsibilities of the 
Congress in its role under the Constitution. We have a fiduciary 
responsibility to the American people, both in national treasures and, 
most importantly, in lives. We have a responsibility to the men and 
women in uniform.
  This amendment before us reflects the reality on the ground and the 
will of the American people, but most importantly the welfare of those 
sacrificing the most. I have heard a lot from our colleagues in the 
time I have been in the Senate, and before in the House, about 
supporting our troops. Well, we are providing here a plan to fully 
support our troops who volunteer to put their lives on the line for our 
country. Senator Webb has referred to the Military Officers 
Associations' unusual movement or action of supporting this amendment. 
I think we need to listen to those who serve, especially when they act 
out of the norm and say: We believe this is in the interests of those 
men and women who serve. And it comes from the association of those men 
and women who are actively engaged in serving. I have so often heard 
our colleagues say: Let's listen to those on the ground. Well, this is 
a reflection of those in boots in service. Our brave troops have 
answered the call of duty. Let us now answer the call to do what is 
right by them.
  I urge all of our colleagues to support this amendment. It goes to 
the heart of how we truly honor those people who are serving our 
country, sacrificing for our country, and in my mind, when we talk 
about supporting the troops, making sure our long-term security can be 
preserved and enhanced goes to the very core of how we are going to 
treat them in their service. That is why I strongly support Senator 
Webb's and Senator Hagel's amendment, and I hope all of our colleagues 
will do so as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Webb 
amendment. I guess if I can pick up where my colleague from New Jersey 
left off, what is the best thing for the Congress to do in terms of 
supporting our troops? What are our duties? What are our obligations? I 
would argue the worst thing the Congress can do at a time of war is to 
start taking over operational control of deployments.
  Many of us are up for reelection next year. This Iraq war has become 
one big political commercial. There are commercials being run out 
there--I don't know if they are on the air right at this moment, but 
every time there is a vote in this body, a Republican in a tough State 
will have an ad run in their State saying: Senator so-and-so has voted 
six times not to withdraw from Iraq. There are political commercials 
being run around every policy debate we have regarding this war. This 
is a political consultant's dream, this war.
  Well, this war is not about the next election; this war is about 
generations to come. The commercials will keep coming. Every time we 
have a vote like this, somebody is going to take a work product, turn 
it into a political ad, and try to get some political momentum from the 
dialog we have on the floor.
  None of us question each other's patriotism. That is great. To those 
who have served in combat, my hat is off to you. But we all have our 
independent obligation to make our own decisions here, and those who 
have never worn the uniform, you are just as capable of understanding 
this issue as I think anybody else. If you have been to Iraq, you 
understand how tired people are. They are tired. If you visit the 
military on a regular basis, you know they are stressed.
  Let me give my colleagues some numbers here. The 1st Cavalry 
Division, their retention rates are 135 percent; The 25th ID, 202 
percent; the 82nd Airborne, 121 percent retention rates. Recruiting and 
retention is very good because people who are in the fight now 
understand the consequences of the fight and they don't want to lose. I 
was in Baghdad on July 4. We had 680-something people reenlist in 
theater.
  The troops are tired. That is not the problem. They understand the 
war. They understand the enemy because they deal with the enemy face-
to-face, day-to-day. They realize that if we don't get this right--and 
in spite of the mistakes we have made, we can still get it right--if at 
the end of the day we don't get it right in Iraq, their kids are going 
to go back. The No. 1 comment I get from the troops after having been 
there many times is: I want to do this, Senator Graham, so that my 
children do not have to come over here and fight this war. Let's get it 
right now.
  Well, let's help them get it right. I think we are not helping them 
if the Congress mandates troop rotations that will undercut the ability 
for the surge to continue.
  Everyone cares about the troops, but the politics of this amendment 
are such that it would get--the bill would be vetoed. The President has 
said that if this amendment gets to be part of the underlying Defense 
authorization bill, he would veto it. I think any President would veto 
this bill. The Secretary of Defense's letter to me is a chilling 
rendition of what would happen to the force if this amendment was 
adopted. So we know the Defense authorization bill would get vetoed, 
and all the good things in it we do agree on--about MRAPs, support for 
the troops, better health care--all that gets lost.
  Now, why are we doing this? Some people have a very serious concern 
that the force is stressed, and they want to take pressure off the 
force by giving

[[Page 24823]]

them as much time at home as they have in the theater. Some people want 
to use this amendment to make sure the surge can't go forward because 
that would be the effect of it. People are all over the board. The 
consequence to the Defense authorization bill is it would get vetoed 
over this provision. Now, if that is what my colleagues want to happen, 
this is a way to make sure it happens.
  The idea of telling the Department of Defense how long someone can 
stay in combat once they are trained and ready to go to the fight is 
probably the most ill-advised thing any Congress could do in any war. 
The Congress is a political body that is driven, appropriately, by the 
moment, by the next election, the voices of constituents, concerns of 
the public. Wars are not fought that way. Decisions in wars are not 
poll-driven--I hope. Decisions of politicians appropriately incorporate 
political consequences to the Member. Let's not make military policy 
based on the political consequence to the Member of Congress. That is 
what you would be opening a can of worms to.
  If we take on this responsibility of managing troops from a 
congressional point of view, setting their rotation schedules, how many 
can go and how long they can go, then their presence in whatever 
battlefield or theater we are talking about in the future is very much 
tied to the political moment back home. Think about that. If we begin 
to adopt this way of managing a war where the Congress takes this bold, 
unknown step of saying: You can only go in theater this long and you 
can't do A and you can't do B, but you can do C, what happens in the 
next war? Is it wise for political people who worry about their own 
reelection--which is an appropriate, rightful thing to be worried about 
if you are in politics--to have this much power? Is it good for the 
military for the Congress--535 people--to have this much power over 
military deployments? Our Constitution gives them a political Commander 
in Chief--a single person--who has to answer to the public at the 
ballot box.
  The Congress can, as part of our constitutional responsibilities, 
terminate any war because our constitutional role allows us to fund 
wars. So to my colleagues on the other side and those on this side who 
want to support this amendment, you would be doing the country a 
service and eventually, I think, the troops a service by trying to stop 
this war by cutting off funding, if that is your goal. If you think the 
war is lost and you believe it is the biggest foreign policy mistake in 
a generation and that it is a hopeless endeavor and that Iraq will 
never get any better, then just come to the floor and offer an 
amendment on the appropriations bill to say we will not continue to 
fund this war and create an orderly withdrawal. If you do that, I will 
disagree with you, but you will have followed a constitutional path 
that is well charted, and if you believe all the things I have just 
said, you will be doing the troops a great service because you will not 
create a precedent in the future where some other politician may take 
up your model and use it in a way you never envisioned.
  Once we legitimize politicians being able to make rotation deployment 
schedule decisions, once we go down that road, we have opened up 
Pandora's box where the politics of the next war could dramatically 
affect the ability to operate on the battlefield. If we limit our 
actions to cutting off funding, that will be a sustainable way for 
Congress to engage in terms of wars they believe have been lost.
  Now, the majority leader, Harry Reid, said the war was lost in April 
and the surge has failed. If you really believe that, let's have a 
debate not about micromanaging troop schedules and deployment 
schedules; let's have a debate that would be worthy of this Congress 
and this Nation. Let's come back onto the floor and put an amendment on 
the desk to be considered that would end the war by stopping funding 
for the war. That is not going to happen. The reason that is not going 
to happen is because the surge has been somewhat successful and the 
politics of ending this war--everybody is trying to hedge their bet a 
little bit now. The politics of the next election are affecting the 
politics of this body when it comes to war policy in a very unhealthy 
way.
  We have a side-by-side alternative to Senator Webb that puts 
congressional voice behind the idea that we would like the policy of 
Secretary Gates to be implemented of ensuring the dwell time at home is 
consistent with the amount of time one is in theater. It is a sense-of-
the-Senate that gives voice to Secretary Gates's goal and policy of 
dwell time without retreating into the Commander in Chief's functions, 
without getting out of our constitutional lane. Senator McCain has 
introduced this side-by-side. It will be called up at an appropriate 
time, and I can talk about it later on. It is a sense-of-the-Congress 
where we all agree that it would be a great policy to have if the 
conditions on the ground would warrant it, to give our troops a little 
bit of rest.
  But what our troops need more than anything else is a commander who 
knows what he is doing and who can carry out his mission unimpeded by a 
bunch of politicians who are scrambling to get an advantage over each 
other. This whole debate is unseemly. It is destructive to our 
constitutional system. It brings out the worst in American politics. 
You have an ad being run against the very general in charge of our 
troops that is sickening and disgusting, and we are just absolutely 
going to a new low as a nation over this war.
  So if you think all the things I said before--the war is lost, 
hopeless, stupid; the worst decision ever made in terms of U.S. foreign 
policy--end the thing. End it. Cut off funding. Don't play this game of 
having 535 people become generals who have no clue of what they are 
talking about. I respect everybody in this body, and those who have 
served, I respect you, but there is not one person here who I think has 
anywhere close to the knowledge of General Petraeus in how to fight a 
war. You could dig up Audie Murphy, and he could come back and tell me 
to vote for this amendment, and I would respectfully disagree. To those 
who have been in battle: God bless you. You deserve all the credit and 
honor that comes your way.
  This is about winning a war we can't afford to lose. This is about 
who should run this war--a group of politicians who are scared to death 
of the electorate and who will embrace almost anything to get an 
advantage over the other, who is at 14 percent approval rating in the 
eyes of their fellow citizens? You want to scare the military? You want 
to give them something to be afraid of? Let them read in the paper 
Congress takes over operational control of Iraq. We would have some 
retention problems then. Anybody in their right mind would get out.
  There are a lot of choices to be made in our constitutional democracy 
about war and peace. The one choice we have never made before is to 
allow the Congress to set rotation schedules, deployment schedules, and 
if we do it now, not only will we hurt this war effort, we will make it 
impossible for future commanders and future Presidents to protect us.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding that Senator Graham, the senior 
Senator from South Carolina, is a member of the Air Force Reserve and 
the JAG Corps; is that correct?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.
  Mr. McCAIN. I understand you just spent a couple of weeks in Iraq 
serving in active duty and in your capacity as an Air Force colonel?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.
  Mr. McCAIN. And despite the mistake that was made in the promotion 
system, you did form impressions over there from the day-to-day 
interface with the men and women who are serving there?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I think it might be appropriate, given the Senator's 
recent probably longer stay than any Member of Congress has ever had in 
Iraq, maybe he can talk to us a bit on the record not only about where 
the troops' morale is, what they believe in, and about

[[Page 24824]]

the issue that was the reason he went there, and that is this enormous 
challenge of the rule of law, and whether we are making progress in 
that area, and what he expects, particularly in the area of the 
prisoner situation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will try my best. No. 1, my time in the 
service has been as a military lawyer. I am not a combat operational 
guy. If you want to talk about my experiences in the military, I am 
glad to talk about them, but they are limited, and I know how far they 
should go--not very. As a JAG colonel, I cannot tell you how to deploy 
troops. I don't know. That is out of my line. I have to make a decision 
as a Senator when the general comes, as Senator McCain says, as to 
whether it makes sense to me. I would not advise any Member of this 
body to follow a four star general's recommendation just because of the 
number of stars.
  Here is what I would advise the Members of this body to do. Listen to 
what the general says. Use your own common sense. Go in theater and see 
if it makes sense. For 3\1/2\ years, we went to Iraq and we were told 
by the generals in the old strategy that things were fine. On about the 
third trip with Senator McCain, I would say we were in a tank. I am a 
lawyer, so I don't understand military deployments and how to deploy 
combat troops. But I can tell you this from a lawyer's perspective and 
from good old South Carolina common sense: After the third visit to 
Iraq, if you thought things were getting better, you were crazy. We 
blamed it on the Republican side. The media doesn't tell the story 
right. It wasn't the media's fault. We were losing operational control 
of Iraq because we didn't have enough troops. You could see it if you 
wanted to look. If you were blinded by the partisanship that exists in 
this building, you will find some other group to blame it on. But it 
was there to be seen.
  I have been seven times--twice in uniform--working on issues where I 
think I have a little bit to offer. My contribution is insignificant, 
inconsequential, but I am honored to have been able to be allowed to 
go, because I am cheering on people over there and I am still in 
uniform and I am the only one left, and I wish I could stay over there 
longer because I feel an obligation to do so.
  Here is the morale as I see it this time around. A year ago, I was in 
Iraq--maybe a little bit longer--sitting at lunch across the table with 
a sergeant. I asked him: Sergeant, how is it going? He said: Senator, I 
feel like I am driving around waiting to get shot. Not going very well.
  This last tour, when I was there for 11 days, I got to have three 
meals a day with them in Baghdad and meet folks with different missions 
and responsibilities, including combat guys coming in from the field. I 
sat down with them every night and I asked: How is it going? I was 
told: Colonel, we are kicking their ass.
  Morale is high because of the new strategy. They are fighting and 
living with the Iraqi troops out in the field. Their army is getting 
better. When you talk to the marines in Anbar, they will tell you with 
pride: Look at what we did here.
  For us politicians to deny what they did is an insult to their hard 
work. They liberated Anbar Province because there were enough of them 
this time around to join up with the Sunnis in Anbar to make a 
difference and drive out al-Qaida. This new strategy--and everybody has 
been asking for something new for a long time--is working. It is 
working. There are areas in Iraq, as Senator McCain described, that are 
liberated from a vicious enemy.
  On the rule-of-law front, judges have a new level of security because 
of the surge that they have never known before. The first thing General 
Petraeus did when he went in theater was create a rule-of-law green 
zone for judges. We have taken an old Iraqi base and built housing for 
judges and created a perimeter of security. We have a jail inside the 
complex, judge housing, a police station, and a brandnew courtroom, so 
that the judges can implement the law without fear of assassination. I 
have never seen such growth in an area as I have in the rule of law 
since the surge began. The judges now are able to do their job without 
their families being assassinated, and we have seen dramatic 
improvements.
  I will give you two examples. There was a Shia police captain accused 
of torturing Sunnis at the police station he was in charge of. He is 
now facing a long-term prison sentence because the Iraqi legal system 
didn't listen to the fact that he was a Shia and the people he abused 
were Sunni. They gave a verdict based on what he did, not who he did it 
to. It is sweeping the whole legal system.
  Judges are going into areas that al-Qaida operated from just months 
ago and they are rendering justice, but not based on what sect you come 
from; it is based on what the person was accused of. I witnessed a 
trial downtown Baghdad where two people of the three were Shia police 
officers in the Iraqi police force. There was a raid on the house they 
were living in by the American forces. Coalition troops were the only 
witnesses and these two defendants who were in a house full of IED 
material, rocket-propelled grenades, explosive devices that were meant 
to kill Americans. The defense said: Who are you going to believe, us 
or the invader? The lawyers in the trial looked the judge in the eye 
and started citing one verse of the Koran after another to tell the 
judge he had a duty to stand beside his Muslim brothers and reject the 
testimony of the infidels. I was there; I saw it.
  The three judges conducted a trial that everybody who witnessed that 
trial would have been proud of. They asked hard questions. They 
separated the defendants, and rather than listening to dictates from 
the Koran coming out of the mouth of their lawyer, they asked questions 
such as how were they in the house, and how could they not have known 
the weapons were there? They did a great job proving these guys were 
lying through their teeth. When they reconvened, they got convicted, 
getting 6 years in jail.
  There is progress going on in Iraq. There are people in Iraq who are 
bigger than sectarian differences. There are judges, lawyers, and 
average, everyday people who are risking their lives to make their 
country better. One of the biggest problems they have had is that we 
screwed up early on and let security get out of hand. With better 
security, people are beginning to engage in a way I have never seen 
before.
  This idea of pulling back now, reducing our military footprint, at a 
time when we have made a real difference, is too disheartening to the 
troops. They are watching what we are doing. I was stopped every 30 
feet with questions such as: What are we going to do? Is the war going 
to go on? Are they going to cut it short? The people fighting want one 
thing, and that is the ability to finish the job. Do they want to come 
home? Yes, God knows they want to be home. Are they tired of going 
over? Yes. But above all others, they want to win.
  Senator McCain said he met people for the third and fourth time. 
Well, nobody stays in this military unless they volunteer, to begin 
with, and when their enlistment is up, there are stop-loss problems, 
but there is an end to this war for them; it is an end of their 
choosing. This force, unlike others, chooses when to end the war for 
them when their enlistment comes. What they are choosing to do we need 
to understand. They are choosing to reenlist at numbers greater than 
any other area of the military. Why can't this body sit down and think 
for a moment; what do they see about this war that I don't see? Why do 
they keep leaving their families and going to a dangerous place time 
and time again, in numbers larger than any other group in the military? 
Do you know why they do it? I think they do it because they interact 
with the judges I have just described to you. They see hope. They 
understand the enemy. They know an enemy that will take a 5-year-old 
child and put that child in front of their parents, douse him with 
gasoline and set him on fire, is an enemy to their family. They 
understand that Iran is trying to drive us out of Iraq because they 
want to be stronger. And they understand that will mean they are likely 
to have to fight a bigger war.

[[Page 24825]]

  From the troops' perspective, from my view, they want to come home, 
and they want a lot of things; but they want, above all others, the 
chance to win a war they believe they can win and one we cannot afford 
to lose.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the author 
of the amendment, Senator Webb, be recognized, and that following his 
comments, Senator Warner from Virginia be recognized, Senator Vitter be 
recognized, and that I follow Senator Vitter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at this point, I have to object, unless 
the Senator from Georgia will agree that if there is a person on the 
other side who wants to speak in opposition, we can go back and forth. 
If we can modify the request that a speaker in support of the amendment 
may be interjected into that lineup, if there is a speaker in support 
of the amendment, I will not object. Is that agreeable to the Senator 
from Virginia?
  Mr. WEBB. That is agreeable.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I say to my friends, I already discussed that with 
Senator Webb. I agree to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the request, as modified, 
is agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, can I hear the unanimous consent request 
again, please?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Virginia, Senator Webb, be recognized; that following him, Senator 
Warner be recognized; that following him, Senator Vitter and myself be 
recognized; that if there is a member of the other side of the aisle 
who comes in after Senator Warner or after Senator Vitter, they be 
given the opportunity to be interjected into the rotation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Vote Explanation

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I neglected to vote on rollcall vote 
No. 340. Had I voted, I would have voted negatively.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes and clarify, 
from my perspective, the intention of this amendment in the context of 
a number of the things the Senator from South Carolina spoke about. 
That was quite a lengthy speech. There was a lot of material in it.
  This amendment is a very narrow amendment. It is talking about a 
minimal adjustment in terms of troop rotation ratios. That is all this 
amendment is doing.
  When the Senator from South Carolina mentioned we should not have the 
politics of the next election being the driving force in these sorts of 
situations, I hasten to clarify that my election occurred last year. It 
is going to be a while before that decision is faced again. The 
principal cosponsor on the Republican side, Senator Hagel, has 
indicated he is retiring from the Senate. These issues we are 
attempting to put before the Senate have nothing to do with the 
politics of being reelected.
  Another point that I think needs to be made is that no one I know of 
is trying to push a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The Senator from 
South Carolina made a lot of comments about if you want to end the war, 
if you believe it is the worst strategic error we have ever made, we 
should call for cutting off the funding. There are a lot of us, 
including myself, who believe this was a huge strategic blunder and 
said so before we went in. As I said to General Petraeus when he was 
testifying: That was then, this is now.
  We have to find a way out of Iraq, for those of us who want to remove 
our residual forces eventually. That doesn't include everybody in this 
body. For those of us who want to remove all residual forces 
eventually, we have to do so in a way that will not further increase 
the instability in the region and will allow us to focus on 
international terrorism and our other strategic interests around the 
world. There is no debate on that. That is not what this amendment is 
about. We must do that through a proper, regionally based diplomatic 
solution. That will only take place with the right sort of leadership 
out of the administration. But that is not on the table. That is not 
what we are trying to address in this amendment.
  There have been questions on the constitutional issues. Again, I go 
to article I, section 8. The Congress has the power ``To make Rules for 
the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. . . .''
  There has been some discussion about how this should not apply to 
movement of forces during a time of war. I don't see this as a movement 
of forces in a time of war, and I do see precedent, again, from the 
Korean war. This is a very similar situation; it is on the other end of 
it.
  In the Korean war, an administration was sending our troops into 
combat before they had been properly trained. The administration would 
say that is proper. The Secretary of Defense would come in and say that 
is proper, we need these troops in Korea. But the Congress decided it 
was not proper, that once our people step forward and take the oath of 
enlistment or oath of office, there is some protection that should come 
if there is a belief from the Congress that the executive branch has 
not used them properly.
  This is an intrinsically limited power. It is limited by the nature 
of this process. All one has to do is take a look at the votes we need 
today to move it forward. But it is a power that belongs in the 
Congress when the right vote is taken.
  Senator McCain and Senator Graham had a lengthy colloquy about 
service. Believe me, I am indebted to both of them and to the others 
who have served our country for the service they have given. Thirty 
years ago this year, I started as a committee counsel in the Congress. 
I was the first Vietnam veteran to work as a full committee counsel. At 
that time, two-thirds of the Members in the Congress had served in the 
military. That number is a very small percentage today. So it affects, 
in some cases, the ability of people to understand the movements on the 
ground, but it also increases the importance of people such as Senator 
McCain and Senator Graham, both of whom I respectfully disagree with on 
this particular amendment, but it increases the importance of what they 
are saying and the insight they are bringing. I greatly respect both of 
them for their service.
  I know there is going to be a sense of the Senate submitted after our 
vote is taken--I assume after our vote is taken. I wish to say again 
this is basically a figleaf. This is not a time for the Congress to be 
giving advice. It is a time for the Congress to step in and put a floor 
under those people who are serving us.
  This is a very minimal adjustment, but it is, in my view and in the 
view of others, an essential adjustment in terms of how we are handling 
the welfare and well-being of people who are going again and again.
  On that point, I again remind the Senate that for the first time in 
all the years we have been involved in Iraq, we are seeing people from 
the administration and from the other party openly saying they expect 
we might be in Iraq for the next 50 years. I was warning 5 years ago 
this month, in an editorial in the Washington Post, that there was no 
exit strategy from the people who wanted us to go into Iraq because 
they didn't intend to leave. Now we are seeing graphic evidence of 
that. That is a debate we are going to have. That is a debate we are 
going to have separate from this amendment. The only purpose of this 
amendment is to provide some stability in the rotational cycles, 
particularly of our traditional ground forces in the Army and Marine 
Corps, so we can have that debate in a way that calms down the 
instability in the forces.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, while my friend from Virginia is on the 
floor--my other friend from Virginia--

[[Page 24826]]

I apologize to him for misspeaking this morning about his sponsorship 
of any amendment. I know he has a number of proposals he may bring 
before the Senate in the course of this debate, and I apologize to him 
for assuming he hadn't had any of those ready at that particular time.
  Again, I thank him for the enormous input he has made in this debate 
and his wisdom and knowledge, and his leaving will create a void around 
here. Voids are always filled, but I think it may exist for a long time 
because of the many years of leadership on national security issues he 
has provided to this body, the State of Virginia, and the Nation. I say 
to the Senator, please accept my apologies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. The factual basis 
that this follows--I wish to thank him and I wish to indicate to my 
colleague from Virginia the exact background. I first saw the 
amendment, prepared by, I believe, Senator McCain and Senator Graham, 
yesterday when it was circulated to the members of the Armed Services 
Committee. At that time, I promptly suggested a change in the amendment 
or, more specifically, an addition that a waiver be put in. I suggested 
the President. The draft now has the Secretary of Defense.
  I say to my good friend--and, indeed, Senator Webb and I share a very 
strong bond of friendship. It actually goes back over 30 years, when I 
was in the Navy Secretariat. Senator Webb, at that time, a young--still 
young but anyway a bit younger--Marine captain who, fortunately for me 
and others in the Secretariat, was assigned to our staff. He had just 
finished his tour in Vietnam, where he displayed a measure of courage 
few in uniform in the history of our country can equal. For that he 
received our Nation's second highest decoration.
  I stand in awe of his military career. My modest career pales in 
comparison to his. Nevertheless, we did form at that time a friendship 
and resumed it once he came here.
  I would like to also say, Senator Webb and I were both privileged to 
serve as Secretaries of the U.S. Navy. As I look back on the good 
fortune I have had in life, that was a chapter--5 years, 4 months, 3 
days as Secretary of the Navy--that I cherish as the very foundation 
for whatever I have achieved thereafter in life. It was the 
association, the learning I had from men and women of the Armed Forces, 
that gave me a certain sense of confidence and inner strength that has 
enabled me to go on and do other things, most humbly, I say, to serve 
Virginia for now my 29th year in this chamber.
  I have come to know Senator Webb, of course, in the perspective of 
being a Senator. I said to others that he possesses the intellectual 
ability, the sincerity, the feeling about people to make him a great 
Senator. His career is before him; my career is behind me. When I leave 
some 14 months from now, having finished 30 years in the Senate, I 
leave with a sense of confidence that this fine young Senator will 
represent Virginia well, and they can take righteous pride in his 
leadership.
  But the amendment by Senator Graham is one I somewhat disagree with 
my colleague on. It embraces the principles he put forth in his 
amendment, principles which led me to join him when he first laid down 
his amendment and vote for that amendment. So the question arises: Why, 
at this point in time, would I go into a very intense deliberative 
process of reconsidering that process? I will enumerate those reasons.
  But I wish to go back again to the service we both had as Secretary 
of the Navy. It was the management of a force of men and women in 
uniform. During my period, it was somewhat larger in number than when 
Senator Webb was Secretary of the Navy. But nevertheless, we both 
learned the difficulty, the challenges of managing under the all-
volunteer force the men and women of our Armed Forces.
  One of the reasons I joined my good friend was the all-volunteer 
force. I was in the Department of Defense, as I stated, from 1969 
through 1974, serving under three Secretaries of Defense, Melvin Laird 
being the first. He had the concept of going to the all-volunteer 
force. That concept was not by any means readily accepted. There was 
considerable and, I think, justified doubt among the uniform ranks at 
that time, in the White House, and elsewhere, that this daring concept, 
this unique concept would be able to adequately serve America, given 
the troubled world, not only at the time of Vietnam but subsequently 
and particularly at that time in the midst of the Cold War when the 
Soviet Union, in many respects, had challenged us potentially in terms 
of their military prowess. Nevertheless, in the wisdom of the executive 
branch, we went forward, and the Congress subsequently endorsed it.
  Senator Webb's amendment, I say without any equivocation, is designed 
to help protect the concept of the all-volunteer force. It was for that 
reason that I joined him because I felt, having been in the Department 
of Defense at the period of time when the formative stages of that 
concept were developed, I had a stake in it.
  I have said many times on this floor it is a national treasure that 
the members of today's Armed Forces, every one of them, are men and 
women who have raised their hands and volunteered. They were not 
subjected, as previous generations had been, to a draft and compelled 
to go into uniform. They were there, every one of them, because they 
wanted to be there, they wanted to be a part of the Armed Forces that 
would protect our country.
  If we add up all the men and women in the Armed Forces today and 
include the very valuable Reserve and Guard--because the Reserve and 
Guard are as much a part of our defense structure, more so than they 
have ever been--and how magnificently the Reserve and Guard have proven 
throughout the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, their ability to take 
on in every way responsibilities, dangers, and personal risk equal to 
the regular force.
  I come back to that little chapter when both of us served as 
Secretary, and then he subsequently served in the Department in other 
capacities where Senator Webb gained a basic knowledge of personnel 
management, management of not only the Navy Secretariat but prior 
thereto, when he was looking at all the force structures of the 
Department of Defense. I readily acknowledge he is an expert and, in 
some ways, more current than I am, in terms of the management of our 
forces in uniform.
  We have a difference, Senator Webb and I, and I will spell it out, 
with regard to the amendment. I endorsed it. I intend now to cast a 
vote against it. The reasons are as follows:
  I went forward some months ago and informed the Senate and, indeed, 
informed the country, having returned from my 10th trip to Iraq, that I 
was gravely concerned about the situation over there and gravely 
concerned about the turbulence here at home, gravely concerned that the 
U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps were being pushed to the limits, 
greatly concerned that our Guard and Reserves were being pushed to the 
limit. Furthermore, I felt that the surge--although I did not fully 
support the surge, and the record of this body, the Senate, clearly 
reflects my concerns--at that time, I felt that far more of the 
responsibility should be borne by the Iraqi forces. In January of this 
year, 2007, when the President announced his policy regarding the 
surge, I believed that Iraqi forces should take on a far greater role, 
particularly as it related to the sectarian violence--the criminal 
elements that are striking against our forces, and for nothing more 
than a few bucks undertaking, to put at risk the lives of our great 
soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors. I thought that the Iraqi force 
should take on that and we should concentrate more on the security of 
that nation, to maintain the sovereignty and integrity of its borders 
and tighten the borders.
  I won't go into the details, but the record is clear that I 
questioned the surge. Once the decision was made, I think I felt, like 
most Senators, that I should support the President, and I have tried to 
do so.

[[Page 24827]]

  But back again to the force structure problem. At that time, I felt 
that we should send a signal to the Iraqi Government by putting some 
teeth in what the President had repeatedly said; namely, we are not 
going to be there forever. Our Ambassador in Iraq at that point in time 
had said something to that same effect. At the time that I announced 
the recommendation to reduce the forces and have that reduction take 
place so they could be home by Christmas, Ambassador Crocker had said: 
We are not giving you a blank check. They were just verbal statements 
directed at the Maliki government and all levels of the Iraqi 
Government to say that we are not going to be there forever, but you 
had to put teeth in it.
  I felt if we first announced that we were going to take the first 
group home--and I carefully said that the President should consult with 
the ground commanders before he accepted any recommendation from me or 
anybody else to reduce force levels and begin to send people back such 
that they would be back home with their families before Christmas, and 
the President obviously did that. In his message of a week or so ago, 
he indicated--not necessarily agreeing with me--that he agreed with the 
concept; that after consultation with General Petraeus and other on-
scene commanders, that they could now, based on certain successes of 
the operation of the surge and visible successes that the intelligence 
community verified. Indeed, Senator Levin and I, on our trip a few 
weeks ago, saw with our own eyes, where there had been measurable 
success of the surge--but consequently the President agreed with the 
thought that troops could begin to depart Iraq ahead of schedule and 
come home. There are further details of that well-known to Members of 
this body.
  So first and foremost, I asked for that, the administration and the 
uniformed side agreed with it, and it was done. That put me in a 
different posture because I felt my thought that it was time to bring 
some people home was accepted, and therefore I could then turn to the 
Webb amendment and the need to go back and get a clear understanding 
from the U.S. military, the uniformed side, of the consequences of the 
well-intentioned principles of the Webb amendment.
  I would like to also digress momentarily to talk about politics. The 
Senator felt challenged. I wasn't here for the earlier debate. I was 
holding a briefing with senior members of the military from the 
Department of Defense on this very subject--the Webb amendment. And I 
can tell you without any equivocation whatsoever, knowing Senator Webb 
as I do, that politics is not a factor in his judgment. He honestly 
believes--he honestly believes--based on his long experience and his 
current knowledge of the readiness of the situation of our Armed Forces 
today that we need a policy, and we need it now, of a 1-month home for 
every month served abroad in a combat zone.
  As I said, I agreed with him. But in that subsequent period of time, 
I have had consultations with a lot of senior military officers and 
just concluded a briefing with Lieutenant General Ham, the Director of 
Operations of the Joint Staff and Lieutenant General Lovelace, the 
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations for the U.S. Army. Two respected 
three-star generals, whom I invited to come over here and further brief 
me and several other Senators who were present. They are not 
politically motivated. They are motivated by what they have to do to be 
fair to those serving in Iraq today.
  It is their professional judgment that if this amendment were to be 
adopted and become law--and I will put aside all the other issues of a 
possible veto, and I just don't want to see another veto scenario here 
right in the middle of the war, and that is another reason--but they 
are absolutely convinced, and have now convinced me, that they cannot 
effectively put into force that amendment at this time, without causing 
severe problems within the existing forces and those who are serving 
there.
  One of the consequences that could change in some fashion could be 
the very thing I advocated--namely, let us bring some of the troops 
home by Christmas. That might not be feasible if this amendment were 
adopted. The announced schedule of withdrawals--bringing the force 
structure down by July 2008 to what we call the pre-surge level, 
announced by the President and General Petraeus that might not be 
achievable, the reason being that on any day, if you look at the 
totality of the U.S. Army, about one-third of it is globally deployed 
beyond our shores--some 250,000 men and women in uniform. There is a 
rotation in and out of Korea of roughly 20,000 a year and rotation in 
other areas of concentration. You just cannot simply look at Iraq or 
Afghanistan; you have to look at the totality of the Army.
  A soldier coming out of, say, Korea, having spent a year over there 
and expecting to have a year back at home, joins a unit for further 
training, and that unit is suddenly called to go to Iraq. Well, the 
only recourse is to begin to pull that soldier and some others out 
because of their need to have 12 months back here. In fairness, that 
soldier should have 12 months back here, but that unit has to deploy.
  These generals, again putting all politics aside, they have not been 
ordered to do this; they are simply trying to manage the U.S. Army 
today in a way that is equitable to every single soldier, and they have 
convinced me they cannot manage it in this time period. If this 
amendment were changed to be effective at, say, the beginning of fiscal 
year 2009--starting in October of 2008--they feel they could manage it, 
certainly with regard to the combat units that are going over. But they 
still have a problem with--for example, in Iraq today there are some 
50,000 soldiers who are in what we call combat support roles, not just 
cooks and bakers, although they are essential, but the people who are 
performing the removal of the IEDs over which the combat trucks roll to 
go forward to the front. If there is any single front in Iraq, and I 
don't think there is, the concept being they are deployed there to 
different parts of Iraq. Iraq is a 360-degree battle zone, in my 
judgment. And how well we know that the IED is causing the most severe 
damage to our soldiers in terms of loss of life and limb in Iraq today. 
They explained to me that the persons, the explosives experts who know 
how to go in and detect and remove these lethal weapons, are in short 
supply. The Army is doing everything it can, the Marine Corps 
everything it can, to train sufficient numbers of these individuals to 
come in and do these jobs, but they, too, have to be treated with a 
sense of fairness. They cannot be subjected to having to stay there 
maybe 15 months, maybe even longer, because we have no replacement for 
them.
  So at another time, because I don't want to go into greater detail 
here--there was point after point these generals made in our briefing 
and that I have studied that clearly documents the difficulty, the 
unfairness, to others now serving in Iraq if this amendment were to 
become law.
  Now, to the credit of Senator Webb and in my conversations with him--
although I don't know that I was the one who persuaded him--he went 
ahead and added an extension to his amendment, so that it goes into 
effect 120 days after the authorization bill is signed into law. Well, 
that still does not carry it anywhere near the October 2008 date, which 
is the earliest date that the Army feels it can now follow the Webb 
amendment and its goals. These generals told me there is no one who 
wants to move to the 1-to-1 ratio with any greater fervor or desire 
than the senior military staff of the U.S. Army and, indeed, others in 
the Department of Defense. They want it. They would do everything 
within their realm of professional responsibility to make it happen. 
But they simply cannot make it happen in the time frame as it is now 
couched in the provisions of the Webb amendment.
  Mr. President, for those reasons and others--and I know I am taking 
generously of the time of others here--I feel I will have to cast a 
vote against my good friend's amendment. It is a change of vote for me, 
I recognize that, but I change that vote only after a lot

[[Page 24828]]

of very careful and analytical work with the uniformed side of the 
Department of Defense.
  The Secretary of Defense has written me on this subject, in a very 
detailed letter. I have a great deal of respect for him. I traveled 
with him this week and talked to him, and I tried to explain that 
possibly there are changes which could be made to the Webb amendment 
which would enable us to go forward and enact it into law, as opposed 
to a sense of the Senate, which I do hope we vote on later, but that 
was not achievable. I did my very best, but it was not achievable.
  So I say to my good friend from Virginia, I agree with the principles 
you have laid down in your amendment, but I regret to say that I have 
been convinced by those professionals in uniform that they cannot do it 
and do it in a way that wouldn't invoke further unfairness to other 
soldiers now serving in Iraq.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Virginia 
for his knowledge, his wisdom, and his in-depth analysis of the 
situation. All of us who know him are appreciative of the very 
difficult process he has gone through as he has attempted to balance 
the needs of the military, America's national security, and the 
frustration and sorrow and anger that is felt by many Americans over 
our failures in this war. I thank him for the consultation process he 
has gone through. I have never known the Senator from Virginia to 
arrive at a decision without a thorough and complete analysis of it. He 
has used the wisdom he has acquired since World War II, when he served 
as a brave marine.
  Mr. WARNER. Sailor, you rascal. How could you forget that?
  Mr. McCAIN. Excuse me--sailor, and later in the Marine Corps. He went 
wrong--I mean he did very well by serving both in the U.S. Navy and the 
U.S. Marine Corps, and then, of course, as Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy and as an outstanding chairman of the Armed Services Committee. So 
I thank him for his in-depth analysis, I thank him for his leadership 
and guidance to all of us and to all of our citizens, and for a very 
thoughtful and persuasive discussion.
  As we move forward on this issue, no matter what happens with the 
Webb amendment, we will be faced with the situation in Iraq. I hope the 
situation improves and these debates can be eliminated over time. I am 
not sure they can. I hope and pray they can, but in the meantime we 
will rely on the judgment and guidance of our friend from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might ask the Senator a question 
because, indeed, the Senator has a career of active-duty service to the 
country that cannot be paralleled, certainly by this humble Senator or 
many others. But don't you believe in your heart of hearts the Webb 
concept of 1 to 1 is a good one, and if it were possible for the 
military to achieve it they would do so, and we would all vote for this 
amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend, he is exactly right. He is exactly 
right. Among the many failures, as my friend from Virginia knows very 
well, is that at the onset of this conflict it was believed by the then 
Secretary of Defense and others in the administration, including the 
President of the United States, this was going to be quick, it was 
going to be easy, it was going to be over.
  There were people such as the Senator from Virginia--and, I might 
add, and me--who said you have to have a bigger Army. You have to have 
a bigger Marine Corps. The Army and Marine Corps is one-third smaller 
than it was at the time of the first gulf war. We should have paid 
attention to our friend and comrade, General Powell, and the Powell 
doctrine, and we obviously should have understood the requirements in 
the postinitial combat phase, which I think would have relieved this 
terrific burden we have laid on the men and women in both the Active 
Duty and the Guard and Reserve. God bless them for being able to 
sustain it. It is a remarkable performance on their part.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on that point, I grilled these officers 
today very intensely. You may recall that in January, subsequent to the 
President's announcement of the surge, the Secretary of Defense stepped 
up and said: Hold everything. I am going to put in place a callup 
policy for the Reserve and the Guard which will enable them to have a 
clearer understanding of how much active service they will be called 
upon to do and, more important, once that active service is completed, 
how much time they can remain home.
  Now, a reservist has to maintain two jobs, in a way: his Reserve job 
and his job with which he puts, basically, the bread on the table for 
his family, in the private sector. So they are different than the 
regulars.
  I was told today that, if the Webb amendment became law, they would 
have to go back and revisit and change that policy that the Secretary 
of Defense enunciated for the Guard and Reserve in January, this year.
  Is that your understanding?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is my understanding, I would say to the Senator from 
Virginia, and I also say that is why I think we need to have a Sense-
of-the-Senate resolution, to reflect the overall opinion of the Senate 
that we need to fix this situation. Obviously, the unintended 
consequences of putting it into law at this time are myriad. The 
Senator from Virginia has, in the most articulate fashion, described 
those. I agree with the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I conclude my remarks by saying--others 
are waiting to speak--the reason I brought up Senator Webb's 
distinguished career as former Secretary of the Navy, and indeed in the 
Department of Defense in an earlier assignment, is he understands these 
arguments. He has looked at them. I respect his views. We have a 
personal difference of opinion on the professional viewpoints, that it 
can or cannot be done.
  He believes honestly it can be done. I believe, based on what I 
related this morning and that my ranking member has stated--we feel it 
can't be done. Therein is the problem.
  I, in no way, in any way denigrate what Senator Webb is trying to do. 
It is just that we have an honest difference of opinion, mine based on 
basically the same facts that have been given to him. He has a 
different analysis than do I.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to add one additional point, 
though, that I think is important. I also believe that it is 
unconstitutional for this body to dictate the tours of duty and the 
service of the men and women in the military and how that is conducted. 
I am absolutely convinced, from my reading of history and of the 
Constitution, that to enact such an amendment would be an encroachment 
on the authority and responsibility of the Commander in Chief which 
could have significant consequences in future conflicts, particularly 
if those conflicts at some point may be unpopular with the American 
people. So I have additional reasons, besides our desire to--the 
impracticability, as the Senator has so adequately pointed out.
  I see my friend from Illinois is waiting.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my utmost 
support for Senator Warner. I am absolutely convinced of his commitment 
to our troops. I do not think there are many people in this Senate 
Chamber who understand our military better or care more deeply about 
our military. So I have the highest regard for him.
  I have to say I respectfully disagree on this issue and must rise in 
strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Webb to require 
minimum periods between deployments for members of our armed services 
who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. This amendment protects our 
brave men and women in uniform and ensures that our Armed Forces retain 
their ability to meet any challenge around the world. That is something 
that ultimately all of us have to be concerned

[[Page 24829]]

about. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment.
  I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and have called 
repeatedly for a responsible end to the foreign policy disaster that 
this administration has created. Over 3,700 American service men and 
women have died in this war. Over 27,000 have been seriously wounded. 
Each month, this misguided war costs us a staggering $10 billion. When 
all is said and done, it will have cost us at least $1 trillion.
  There are different views of the war in this Chamber, but there is no 
disagreement about the tremendous sacrifice of the men and women who 
are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have performed valiantly 
under exceedingly difficult circumstances. They have done everything we 
have asked of them. But they have also been stretched to the limit. The 
truth is, we are not keeping our sacred trust with our men and women in 
uniform. We are asking too much of them, and we are asking too much of 
their families. We owe it to our troops and their families to adopt a 
fair policy that ensures predictable rotations, adequate time to be 
with their families before redeployment, and adequate time for 
realistic training for the difficult assignments we are giving them.
  Our service men and women will always answer the call of duty, but 
the reality is extended deployments and insufficient rest periods are 
taking their toll. The effects of the strain are clear: Increasing 
attrition rates, falling retention rates among West Point graduates, 
increasing rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and unprecedented 
strain on military families.
  This amendment is a responsible way to keep our sacred trust while 
restoring our military to an appropriate state of readiness. It ensures 
that members of our Armed Forces who are deployed to Iraq or 
Afghanistan have at least the same amount of time at home, before they 
are redeployed. It would also ensure that members of a Reserve 
component, including the National Guard, cannot be redeployed to Iraq 
or Afghanistan within 3 years of their previous deployment.
  After 4\1/2\ years of fighting in Iraq and almost 6 years of fighting 
in Afghanistan, we owe it to our troops and their families to provide 
them with a more predictable schedule with sufficient time home between 
deployments. As the Military Officers Association of America, which 
represents 368,000 members, has stated:

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

  There are scores of anecdotes that bear out the strain on our 
families. One woman from Illinois recently wrote my office telling me 
how her husband was facing his fourth deployment in 4\1/2\ years. She 
described how her husband had spent so much time in Iraq that, in her 
words: ``He feels like he is stationed in Iraq and only deploys home.'' 
That is not an acceptable way to treat our troops. That is not an 
acceptable way to treat their families.
  This amendment is not only important for military families, it is 
also important for our national security. Our military simply cannot 
sustain its current deployments without crippling our ability to 
respond to contingencies around the world.
  This is all the more important since the administration has 
squandered our resources on the war in Iraq and neglected to address 
serious threats to our safety. According to the National Intelligence 
Estimate in July, al-Qaida has ``protected or regenerated key elements 
of its homeland attack capability,'' including a safe haven in 
Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants, and its top 
leadership.
  Ensuring the readiness and capabilities of our troops will be crucial 
to confronting the threat of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and other parts of 
the world and deterring other threats to America's national security.
  Over the coming months, I will continue to push for a new course in 
Iraq that immediately begins a safe and orderly withdrawal of our 
combat troops, that changes our military mission to focus on training 
and counterterrorism, that puts real pressure on the Iraqis to resolve 
their grievances, and that focuses our military efforts on the real 
threats facing our country.
  I believe this amendment is an important part of that new course. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I was on the floor when the Senator 
from Virginia, Senator Warner, made his comments a little bit earlier. 
I hope a lot of the American people were listening to what Senator 
Warner had to say because there is nobody in this Senate who has more 
respect, not just on military issues but principally on military 
issues, than does Senator Warner. He not only has a lot of expertise, 
and great experience, but he is known to be very thoughtful in his 
deliberations. He doesn't arrive at decisions of major importance very 
easily or very quickly. For him to come to the floor and to make the 
statement he made earlier this afternoon, having thought through this 
issue and having now decided to change his vote on this particular 
amendment, is of monumental importance. It is the type of decision that 
makes all of us proud to serve in this great institution.
  I rise in opposition to the Webb amendment. This amendment is about 
restricting the President and his military leaders' ability to 
prosecute a war we have asked them to execute and which we unanimously 
confirmed General Petraeus to carry out. It is an unwise and harmful 
effort to limit the ability of the President and his military 
leadership and to handicap their use of personnel and resources 
available to them.
  Senator Webb's amendment would preclude deployment of certain Active 
and Reserve Forces based on the number of days they have spent at home. 
Keep in mind, these restrictions would apply to the Nation's most 
experienced and capable troops during a time of war, when we face an 
unpredictable and highly adaptive enemy.
  That statement is very similar to what Senator Warner said a little 
bit earlier.
  There is no one in this body who would not like to see every single 
one of our troops come home tomorrow. There is nothing pretty about a 
military conflict. There have been times in the history of our country 
when we have had to bow our backs and when we have had to stand up to 
an enemy that sought to destroy what America stands for. That is 
exactly what we are doing in Iraq today.
  What Senator Warner said is that if we make a decision in this body 
to micromanage the war, let's make no mistake about it, if this 
amendment passes, what we are really going to be doing is subjecting 
our men and women to greater harm and to the possibility of even 
greater inflicting of injuries and greater numbers, possibly, of making 
the ultimate sacrifice. This amendment says there are 435 Members of 
the House of Representatives and 100 Members of the Senate who have 
determined that this is the rotation that should be carried out by our 
military leadership relative to the conflict in Iraq, and that is a 
micromanagement of the war from the Halls of Congress versus the 
management of this conflict on the ground in theater by our military 
leadership in Iraq.
  If we do micromanage this war, exactly what Senator Warner said is 
what is going to happen, and that is, today in Iraq, the most dangerous 
weapon that is being fired at our brave men and women who wear our 
uniform and are protecting the freedom is what we call the IED and the 
EFPs. These particular weapons are inflicting injuries on our men and 
women, and are inflicting death on our men and women, requiring them to 
make the ultimate sacrifice for our sake. We have a very limited number 
of trained military personnel who are experts in the area of detecting 
and defusing IEDs and EFPs. If we put those men and women on a 
mandatory rotation, then we are setting our men and women in uniform up 
for failure.
  I have had a policy since I have been elected to Congress of not 
trying to

[[Page 24830]]

make decisions on military issues relative to my personal feelings and 
my personal beliefs. My decisions have been based upon information I 
have received from our military leadership, both inside and outside the 
Pentagon, some civilian folks as well as men and women in uniform, who 
are more expert in these areas than I am.
  In this case, I listened very closely last week as General Petraeus 
and Ambassador Crocker came to Congress and spent the whole day Monday 
with the House of Representatives, the whole day Tuesday in the Senate, 
testifying, answering every question that was propounded to them about 
what is going on relative to the new vision and the new strategy on the 
ground in Iraq. What I heard from those men who are the leaders from a 
diplomatic standpoint as well as from the military standpoint is we are 
seeing great progress made on the ground by our military that is unlike 
any progress we have seen during the last 4\1/2\ years. That is 
significant.
  If you are not impressed by that, then you simply did not hear what 
they had to say. So I think now to say to them: Well, we appreciate the 
great job you have done leading our troops, but we are going to take 
the decision-making process out of your hands, and we are now going to 
decide how the war is going to be prosecuted, that, I think would be a 
huge mistake.
  The Pentagon and the civilian side have responded to the Webb 
amendment and said this, that if the Webb amendment passes:

       Operations and plans would need to be significantly 
     altered. Units or individuals without sufficient dwell time 
     would need a waiver to deploy based on threat. This waiver 
     process adds time, cost, and uncertainty to deployment 
     planning.

  Secondly:

       In emergency situations, the waiver process could affect 
     the war fight itself by delaying forces needed in theater.

  Thirdly:

       Units would need to be selected for deployment based on 
     dwell criteria that may in fact cause significant disruption 
     to needed reset, planned transformation or unit training 
     schedules.

  Fourthly:

       The Department routinely deploys units at less than a one-
     to-one deployment-to-dwell ratio if the individuals within a 
     unit meet minimum dwell requirements.

  The proposed language stipulates minimum periods between deployments 
for both units and individuals. The requirement to meet both criteria 
for unit and individuals before deployment could severely limit the 
options for sourcing rotations.
  And more specifically and directly to the point, in a letter dated 
September 18, 2007, from the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to 
Senator Lindsey Graham, I quote a comment made by the Secretary. He 
says:

       The cumulative effect of the above steps [and he had 
     outlined the Webb amendment] necessary to comply with Senator 
     Webb's amendment, in our judgment, would significantly 
     increase the risk to our servicemembers.

  Now, this is one of the military experts in the United States of 
America, the chief civilian military officer, saying: If this amendment 
passes, it could significantly--it would significantly increase the 
risk to our servicemembers. And yet some folks are going to vote in 
favor of this amendment in spite of the fact that the chief civilian 
military leader of the United States says it has the potential to 
significantly increase the risk to our men and women in uniform.
  The power of Congress under article I of the Constitution to make 
rules for the Government and the regulation of the land and naval 
forces is well understood, as is the President's authority under 
article II, to command our military forces as commander-in-chief. This 
amendment, however, is an unprecedented wartime attempt to limit the 
authority of the President and the military leaders by declaring a 
substantial number of troops and units unavailable.
  Now, again, let me close by saying I wish we could bring everybody 
home tomorrow and that this conflict would be over. We know we are 
going to be in this conflict for a long time. The President could not 
have been clearer on that issue when, on September 17, 2001, in a 
statement to a joint session of both the House and the Senate, he said:

       This is going to be a long and enduring war.

  He was right then, and he is right now. This is a long and enduring 
war. It is not dictated by the brave and professional job our men and 
women are doing, but it is dictated by a vicious enemy that seeks to 
destroy everything that is good about America.
  We have men and women who are serving today in an all-volunteer Army, 
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps. They are very dedicated men and women. 
They know the mission they have to carry out in Iraq. I know because I 
have been there five times. I have talked with them with their boots on 
the ground, including about 3 months ago when I had an opportunity to 
visit with a number of soldiers in an area that had just been cleaned 
out, an area in Al Anbar Province called Ramadi.
  Ramadi, a year ago this month, was the self-declared capital of al-
Qaida in Iraq by al-Qaida itself. Today, because of the great job and 
the professional job our men and women, fighting side by side with 
members of the Iraqi Army and other coalition forces, is clear of al-
Qaida. But if we seek to limit the ability of our leadership, if we 
seek to micromanage the war from the Halls of Congress versus on the 
ground by our leadership in Iraq, then the potential is certainly there 
for an immediate return of al-Qaida in Iraq to places such as Ramadi.
  There is no more important time in the history of our country than 
the present. That has been the case in so many situations. Certainly 
this is a very critical time in the history of our country from the 
standpoint of the ability of future generations to live in the same 
safe and secure America every previous generation has enjoyed. There is 
no better way to ensure that, than to make sure we prevail and we win 
in Iraq.
  It is my opinion and the opinion of military leadership, the passage 
of this amendment leads this nation down a trail of exposure to those 
who seek to do us harm, when what we need to be doing is listening 
those men and women who are serving proudly to secure our future 
generations from the enemy.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore (Mr. CARDIN). The Senator from 
Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as a supporter of the Webb 
amendment. I want to compliment the Senator from Virginia for offering 
that amendment. Although he is a freshman Senator, he certainly is no 
stranger to war a combat veteran, a warrior's warrior, and he is fully 
aware of the stresses the men and our military are facing along with 
their families.
  I support the Webb amendment, and I support it for several reasons. 
One, I want to talk about the surge. I called it an escalation. The 
escalation was to send more troops to give the Iraqis more time to come 
up with a political solution.
  Well, I wish to salute our troops. For those who are on the ground, 
the basic number, for those who were part of the escalation, we want to 
support them for doing their duty, and doing their duty so well. I 
think by every account, regardless of how one feels about the war, one 
is very proud of the men and women who are part of our military, who 
have been on the ground, and have been on the job. They have done their 
part. And that is what the two reports we got last week are, that if 
you send in more people, the violence will temporarily come down. But 
what happens when you do not keep that level? Well, that is a point of 
discussion.
  Let's go back to why they went. They went this summer, in blazing 
heat, with blazing guns, to give the Iraqis more time. And what did the 
Iraqis do while our guys and gals were out there in 100-pound armor, 
trying to avoid IEDs? The Iraqis took a vacation. More time. More time. 
More time. What is wrong with this picture? So what did more time get 
us? It got us nowhere. With their 2-month break, they still did not go 
anywhere near a political solution. Now we are told we have got to

[[Page 24831]]

keep this up, and we could be there indefinitely because of what? The 
Iraqis need more time.
  Well, I think we are out of time. I think we are genuinely out of 
time. This is why I support the Webb amendment, because I think we need 
a different direction. I think we need a different direction in Iraq to 
do what we can to contain the violence and also to move ahead with a 
political solution. I am going to support the Webb amendment because I 
am never going to vote to cut off money. I will vote to protect our 
troops, and the best way is at least to give them more time while we 
are giving the Iraqis more time.
  How about giving our troops more time to be at home? I am really hot 
about this. One hundred six degrees in July, they took a break; 110 
degrees in Baghdad, our troops are there, they took a break--they, the 
Iraqis, took a break.
  I am also going to be supporting the Biden amendment, because if the 
Iraqis will not come up with a political solution, now with the so-
called soft position, it is time to go to the international community 
and see if there needs to a hard solution.
  I am beginning to explore and believe that perhaps Iraq needs to be 
partitioned. Part of our solution, though, is while the Iraqis want 
more time, I want more time for our troops. I want more time for our 
troops to be at home. That is why I am supporting this brilliant 
amendment by Senator Jim Webb, for our men and our women in the 
military.
  We know what his amendment says is that they have to be at home for 
at least as long as the length of their last deployment. So if they 
were there for 15 months, they should be home for 15 months. Then, for 
the National Guard and for the Reserves, no one would be redeployed 
within 3 years of their previous deployment.
  Why is that important? It is not only important for the Guard and the 
Reservists, but as the Presiding Officer knows, when a National Guards 
person goes to meet their duty, their employer in many instances is 
required to keep that job open, or they at least have that as a 
commitment of honor.
  That used to be 6 months. Now it is 15 months, and home again, back 
again, while the Iraqis want more time. Our employers are wondering how 
they can keep those jobs open because they don't want to turn their 
backs on the military.
  We have to get real here. A $20,000 bonus for a quick fix, quickly 
trained military doesn't cut it. Jim Webb is really onto something. Our 
military is overstretched. Our troops are exhausted. Their families are 
living with tremendous stress. Every day they wonder what is happening. 
Every day a family that hears a news report about another attack 
wonders if their loved one was in it. Every time they are at home and 
they hear: CNN, breaking, 4 U.S. military killed, 10 killed, 4 killed, 
they first listen; is it in the zone where my husband or my wife or my 
son or daughter is? Then when they hear that, they think: Is it the 
Army or the Marines? They want to know because what they are doing is 
wondering how close to home it is.
  Then they hear that news. For some, it is unbearable news. But all of 
the news is unbearable for the families at home. We are crushing the 
very spirit these families have to keep them going. It is not that they 
went once; it is that they go again. And no sooner do they come back 
and say: Hello, honey, I think your name is Mary Beth, than they have 
to go back out again. What are we doing to our families?
  I want more time for the troops. I want to give them more time the 
way the Iraqi politicians want more time. When we think about our 
troops, we know what they are laboring under. You have heard me say it 
before. I check the temperature every day in Baghdad. Yesterday, it was 
102 degrees. For us, it was 73, a beautiful day. What a day to be out 
on the bay. I know a lot of our National Guard already deployed would 
love to be there. I think about our troops, carrying 100 pounds of 
armor in brutal heat, being shot at, being attacked by IEDs, while we 
have a policy that is going to give the Iraqis more time, while they 
are there doing their duty. Let's talk about these families.
  In World War II, the military would say: If the Army wanted you to 
have a wife, we would have issued you one. It was primarily a single 
military. That is not true today. For our families, the stress of 
maintaining a family during all of this while a spouse is at war is an 
enormous stress. Not only are they facing traumatic stress, but so is 
the spouse at home. They are trying to protect their children. They are 
trying to shield their children. The children wonder: How is daddy 
doing; how is mommy doing? The children learn e-mail. They e-mail mom. 
They e-mail dad. I know how they communicate. Mom and dad will 
communicate by e-mail. The little guys and gals will often read the 
first paragraph, but the last two paragraphs are spouse-to-spouse 
talking about what is going on. The tension, the fear, the anxiety and, 
I might add, the financial stress as well is amazing. We are talking 
about 19-year-olds, 21-year-olds. We are talking about people with two 
and three children. But we have to give the Iraqis more time.
  Well, we are out of time. I know my time is up on the floor, but I 
will tell you, I am going to vote for this Webb amendment because I am 
going to give our troops more time. I am going to vote to give our 
troops more time at home.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
speaker on our side be Senator Kyl. He has asked to be in line on this 
side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I last came to the floor to speak on the 
subject of the way ahead in Iraq. Since that time, significant events, 
both good and bad, have occurred. First and foremost, General Petraeus 
has presented to the Congress a candid and encouraging assessment that 
the new strategy in Iraq has shifted the momentum in our favor. The 
testimony by the general and by Ambassador Crocker reinforced what I 
and my congressional delegation in May saw in Iraq and what I have 
heard directly from troops on the ground. The Petraeus 
counterinsurgency strategy, which is clear an area, move in with local 
forces, hold it, and then help them build their community, enlisting 
the locals in fighting the terrorist and showing them security is 
working--this is the strategy which, last year, I and many of our 
colleagues were asking for. The old strategy without enough people, 
without a permanent presence in the community, was not working. Well, 
it is starting to work now. But General Petraeus has proposed minor 
immediate withdrawals, withdrawals that are based on the commander's 
recommendations and security conditions, not Washington politics or 
micromanaging from this wonderful air-conditioned building.
  The President used the term ``return on success.'' That is the term I 
hope we will embrace. These brave men and women went over there as 
volunteers to accomplish a mission. We need to allow them to work with 
the commanders to accomplish that mission. Even General Petraeus 
testified that the new strategy had reversed the trajectory of the war. 
He said: ``Al Qaeda is on the run. Security incidents'' since the surge 
began have fallen in 8 of the last 12 weeks. Civilian deaths have 
decreased by 45 percent. Ethno-sectarian deaths are down 55 percent, 
and attacks in Al Anbar are down 85 percent.
  For all the attempts by the antiwar movement to discredit General 
Petraeus--and I will address that--he demonstrated enough military 
progress from his new counterinsurgency strategy to conclude that ``we 
have a realistic chance of achieving our objectives in Iraq.''
  Secretary Gates on Monday gave a speech in which he said:

       For America to leave Iraq and the Middle East in chaos 
     would betray and demoralize our allies there and in the 
     region, while emboldening our most dangerous adversaries. To 
     abandon an Iraq where just two

[[Page 24832]]

     years ago 12 million people quite literally risked their 
     lives to vote for a constitutional democracy would be an 
     offense to our interests as well as our values, a setback for 
     the cause of freedom as well as the goal of stability.
       We must realize and recognize that the institutions that 
     underpin an enduring free society can only take root over 
     time.

  Secretary Gates was absolutely right. One only needs to look at our 
own history to understand this. After a long, bloody revolution, a 
civil war, a struggle for women's suffrage, and a civil rights 
movement, some 150 years later, democracy is still a work in progress.
  Just as Ambassador Crocker testified:

       Iraq is experiencing a revolution, not a regime change.

  Difficult challenges remain. Political progress in Iraq has been too 
slow. They have done some things. Actually, they have passed a few 
bills. In this body, we haven't passed an appropriations bill or a 
Defense authorization bill yet. We took August off ourselves. It is 
kind of tough for us to claim that the Iraqi Parliament is not doing 
its job when we can't seem to get our job done.
  On the political front in Iraq, the Government is already sharing oil 
revenues among provinces. They are reaching out to former Baathists, 
allowing them to participate in the army and the Government. As I said, 
millions turned out to vote. It will take time for them, just as 
America's revolution did, but the benefits of a stable Iraq as an ally 
to the United States in the most volatile region of the world would be 
a major blow to terrorism, al-Qaida, and Iran's religious extremists.
  Let me be clear: Our national security interest for the near and 
intermediate term is preventing chaos, genocide, and a regionwide war. 
That is our interest there, that is why our troops are there, because 
if they left, we could be facing far greater challenges, likely attacks 
on the United States and potentially a regionwide war. Our Intelligence 
Committee has long warned that precipitous withdrawal would create 
chaos and those impacts. If we were to be driven out of Iraq on the 
terms of terrorists and political timelines, terrorists from the Middle 
East to Southeast Asia to Europe to Africa would be emboldened to 
spread their fear, oppression of women, death and destruction, just as 
they were emboldened when we failed to respond appropriately to 
bombings of the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, embassies in Iraq, and the 
1993 attack on the World Trade Center--all instances in which civilians 
and servicemembers were murdered.
  Despite General Petraeus's testimony, despite our intelligence 
community warnings, and despite Secretary Gates's recent remarks, some 
war opponents continue to want to cede defeat. They refuse to listen to 
the advice of commanders. They ignore the consequences of a political 
withdrawal and the problems about which the Intelligence Committee 
warned.
  I am very concerned about the amendment before us. I urge my 
colleagues to think about it and then vote against it. This is an 
amendment which would micromanage the war. Even a few of its supporters 
have been forthright enough to admit that it is a backdoor way of 
achieving what they want, which is defeat in Iraq by a premature 
withdrawal, because they know the chaos this would spread. They know 
what would happen if we tried to implement this into law. As Secretary 
Gates said on FOX News, such congressional meddling would mean force 
management, make problems that would be extremely difficult, and affect 
combat effectiveness and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops. He 
said when lawmakers intrude into this process, they could produce gaps 
during which one unit pulling out would not be immediately replaced by 
another, and as a result, they would have an area of combat operations 
with no U.S. forces, and the troops coming in would be at greater risk.
  Contrary to the notion of its supporters that the measure would give 
the Armed Forces relief, it actually might force greater use of the 
National Guard and reservists. I am concerned about the National Guard 
and Reserve; they have been overstressed. I am concerned about our 
military; they have been overstressed. You know what happened? After 
the first gulf war in the 1990s, we slashed the size of our military. 
We slashed it far too much. The President recommended; the Congress 
went along with it. We slashed it too far. We are starting to rebuild. 
We have a very dangerous world. We need to have a military ready to 
respond.
  Let me talk about the troops. I hear from a lot of them. I hear from 
my son, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He is a sniper platoon 
commander. He says he can only speak for 30 or 40 marines, but the one 
thing they understand is they want to complete their mission. They want 
to come home. Sure, they would like to be home. But they signed up for 
a mission. They don't want to withdraw, see all their contributions and 
sacrifices go for naught. They know that meddling in the war strategy, 
cut and withdrawal, cut and jog, or tying up the management of the war 
would be a disaster. They know that al-Qaida and the enemy is hoping 
that will happen.
  This amendment is not as straightforward as cutting funding or 
withdrawing the troops, but it is perhaps more dangerous. That is why I 
urge my colleagues to stand up for the men and women who might be put 
at greater risk, and our national security interests, by refusing the 
amendment.
  I want to talk about another part of this debate that is very 
shameful. MoveOn.org's attack depicting General Petraeus as ``Betray 
Us'' should be condemned, period.
  It was an attack on the integrity of an intellectual, distinguished, 
and patriotic officer serving his Nation during a time of war, with the 
confidence of his troops behind him.
  Make no mistake about it, discussing and condemning MoveOn.org's ad 
is not a sideshow or a distraction. In fact, it is paramount in a time 
of war we condemn the trashing of decorated military officers highly 
respected by their troops, and this one unanimously approved by this 
body, in order to achieve a political objective.
  Marty Conaster, commander of the American Legion said:

       As Americans, we all have a duty to speak up when our 
     uniformed heroes are slandered.

  He went on to say:

       The libelous attack on a general is not the American 
     Legion's primary concern about the anti-war movement. Our 
     concern is for the private, the sergeant, the lieutenant and 
     the major. If a distinguished general could be attacked in 
     such a manner, what can the rank-and-file soldier expect when 
     he or she returns home?

  Sadly, the MoveOn.org ad is emblematic of a broader struggle by 
opponents of the war to muzzle other experts and discredit their views.
  It is this tactic of desperation and, ironically, one that attempts 
to distract the American people from the realities of the threat our 
Nation and our allies face from terrorism.
  Sadly, Mr. Presiident, this effort is being used to attack another 
distinguished military man approved by this body. It has to do with the 
field of intelligence, and this is another area we learned is 
critically important on our Intelligence Committee delegation to Iraq 
in May.
  When we were in Iraq, one of our key generals expressed his great 
frustration that old provisions of the FISA law were blocking him from 
keeping our troops in the field safe. Well, I have some good news on 
that front, and I thank the Members of this body on both sides of the 
aisle who, on a bipartisan basis, approved the Protect America Act on 
August 3 and August 4. That has opened up the lines of communications, 
the lines of intelligence for our troops in the field, for our safety 
here at home and homeland security. It has been very important and it 
eliminated a blockage that was critical.
  Now, after we passed it, I have heard some critics, most recently, 
notably, in the House who have been trying to rewrite history and say 
the law did things it did not do. They have tried to discredit ADM Mike 
McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. I am compelled to set 
the record straight.
  As vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and sponsor of 
the

[[Page 24833]]

Protect America Act, I was the lead negotiator during the final hours 
as Congress acted to pass a critical short-term update to our Nation's 
law governing terrorist surveillance. As one who was there, I dispute 
the misinformation being spread by some, and largely those who were not 
there, and I will outline the events as they occurred. For my 
colleagues and members of the press who are interested in the other 
side of the story, here is what happened.
  First, the timeline of events:
  In January, the President announced his Terrorist Surveillance 
Program was being put under the FISA Court, the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act Court. Our Director of National Intelligence, the DNI, 
subsequently stated that after that time the intelligence community 
lost a significant amount of its collection capability because of the 
fact that the law, as interpreted, did not square with the technology 
now in place and it was imposing unwarranted limitations we had not had 
when we were collecting radio communications, and he asked the Congress 
to modernize FISA sooner rather than later.
  As I said, when we toured Iraq in May, our Joint Special Operations 
Commander, LTG Stan McChrystal, told us the blockage in electronic 
surveillance by FISA was substantially hurting his ability to gain the 
intelligence he needed to protect our troops in the field and gain an 
offensive advantage.
  On April 12, the DNI sent his full FISA modernization proposal to 
Congress. On May 1, DNI McConnell presented it in open session to the 
Senate Intelligence Committee. Immediately following the admiral's 
testimony, I urged that our committee mark up FISA legislation. The 
reply was until the President turned over certain legal opinions from 
the surveillance program, Congress would not modernize FISA.
  That Congress would hold American security hostage to receiving 
documents from a program that no longer existed was disheartening. We 
have received an inordinate amount of documents from the Department of 
Justice and the DNI. Yet I do not dispute the desire or the right of 
Members to seek a few important documents from the executive branch. In 
fact, I have joined in requesting those. But I did disagree with 
holding up FISA modernization when those documents are not necessary to 
do that. Now, despite the urging from the DNI and knowing this outdated 
law was harming our terrorist surveillance capabilities, for more than 
3 months Congress chose to do nothing.
  In late June, Admiral McConnell briefed Members of the Senate again 
urging us to modernize FISA. Finally, his pleadings began to gain 
traction.
  In mid-July, Members of Congress agreed to discuss a short-term, 
scaled-down version of FISA to protect the country for the next few 
months before we could address comprehensive reform this fall. Admiral 
McConnell immediately sent Congress his scaled-down proposal.
  Over the next week, Admiral McConnell was given nearly a half dozen 
versions of unvetted proposals from various congressional staffs across 
Congress and then pressed for instant support of these proposals. The 
admiral returned a compromise proposal, including some of the 
provisions requested.
  Finally, we in this body on August 3 and in the House on August 4 
passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Protect America Act.
  I am pleased that the admiral and I could include in the measure we 
passed several important changes suggested by members of the majority 
party. We recognized this legislation still needs to be clarified, but 
it allowed the intelligence community to collect very important foreign 
intelligence targeted at foreign sources to keep our troops and 
Americans here at home safe.
  After the passage of the act, I spoke with a number of members of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, and I am confident now that we will be 
able to craft an improved, permanent version of FISA. So there is good 
news on that front. But now that I have laid out the timeline of sorts, 
I do need to address some recent attempts, primarily in the other body, 
to discredit our Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell.
  As I said with General Petraeus, unfortunately, the M.O. for some is 
attacking military leaders. Here, as others attacked Petraeus, they are 
attacking personally another honorable man. I am disappointed with 
those who are charging Admiral McConnell with partisanship and 
duplicity for their own political gains.
  Despite accusations to the contrary, Admiral McConnell never agreed 
to any proposal he had not seen in writing by congressional staff. 
There were indeed several dialogs where concepts were discussed, but I 
noted that Admiral McConnell at the end of every discussion said he 
needed to see and review with these leaders the congressional language 
in writing before he could support it. It is a good thing he objected 
because I was present when several elements of FISA were agreed to that 
the DNI and I wanted but subsequently and notably were absent from 
congressional proposals later sent to the admiral.
  Unfortunately, this bait-and-switch during negotiations was not the 
only disappointment. There were efforts by some to circumvent the 
committee process and craft legislation behind closed doors without 
input from the relevant committee or from the minority side of the 
aisle. Even as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I was 
excluded from most of the key meetings. Not only was I excluded, but 
most members of the Intelligence Committee, Republicans and Democrats, 
were left out of the process. Despite attempts to leave out key Members 
of Congress during the last negotiations, I think we are on the right 
track. I am confident the Senate Intelligence Committee can pass 
comprehensive FISA reform, and we have engaged in very positive and 
encouraging talks, not just--obviously, I have talked with the 
chairman, Chairman Rockefeller. The Democrats and Republicans in the 
Senate are making great progress. We are working on the issue, and I 
have confidence that colleagues on both sides of the aisle can come 
together on this issue.
  Unfortunately, again, today, another Member of the House is trying to 
demonize to the American public the Protect America Act that we passed 
in August, saying the bill went too far and was a power grab of 
executive power. They wrongly claim the law allows warrantless searches 
of Americans' homes, offices, and computers and reduces the FISA Court 
to a rubberstamp. That is absolutely flat dead wrong.
  While I agree, as I said earlier, the law can be improved, clarified, 
nothing could be further from the truth. Quite the opposite, the law 
gave the FISA Court a greater role than it was ever meant to have when 
FISA was passed in 1978. This Protect America Act in no way allows for 
warrantless physical searches of Americans' homes, offices, and 
computers. This sort of inaccurate fear-mongering should have no place 
in this debate.
  I am counting on cooler heads to prevail in the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, and in the committee we are making real progress. I think 
with the members we have on our committee, we have a great chance to 
get an even better bill forging bipartisan solutions that will deal 
with some questions probably not contemplated when the initial proposal 
came up to us. We have a lot of different opinions, but all our members 
want to do what is best for national security and best ensures privacy 
protections. The key is working out just the right balance, and I am 
optimistic we will do so.
  As we saw in the strong bipartisan support for the Protect America 
Act, we can act in a bipartisan manner to protect terrorist 
surveillance--a critical early warning system--while protecting the 
civil liberties of ordinary Americans.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a brief editorial from 
Investor's Business Daily called ``Mettle Vs. Meddle,'' referring 
essentially to the amendment before us, printed in the Record.

[[Page 24834]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Mettle Vs. Meddle

       After last year's elections gave them a slim majority, 
     Senate Democrats enthusiastically endorsed President Bush's 
     choice of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as 
     secretary of defense--with not a single one of them voting 
     against his nomination.
       As Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, the Democrat 
     from Michigan, wished Gates well at that time, he said he 
     hoped the new Pentagon chief would ``speak truth to power.'' 
     Gates certainly did that on Fox News Sunday--telling the 
     powers that be in Congress the truth about their impending 
     attempts at micromanaging the war in Iraq. Gates called the 
     Democrats' plan to require that troops spend as much time at 
     home as in the field ``pretty much a back-door effort to get 
     the president to accelerate the drawdown so that it's an 
     automatic kind of thing, rather than based on the conditions 
     in Iraq.'' While on Fox News, Gates also said:
       ``The president would never approve such a bill,'' and the 
     secretary would personally recommend a veto.
       Such congressional meddling would ``force management 
     problems that would be extremely difficult and . . . affect 
     combat effectiveness and perhaps pose greater risk to our 
     troops.''
       Intrusions by lawmakers would produce gaps during which ``a 
     unit pulling out would not be immediately replaced by 
     another, so you'd have an area of combat operations where no 
     U.S. forces would be present for a period, and the troops 
     coming in would then face a much more difficult situation.''
       Contrary to the Democrats' notion that the measure would 
     give the armed forces relief, it actually might force greater 
     use of the National Guard and reservists.
       Gates stressed that ``the consequences of getting this 
     wrong--for Iraq, for the region, for us--are enormous.''
       He added: ``The extremist Islamists were so empowered by 
     the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, if they were 
     to be seen or could claim a victory over us in Iraq, it would 
     be far, far more empowering in the region than the defeat of 
     the Soviet Union.''
       Compare that sober warning with House Defense 
     Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha's appearance 
     at the National Press Club on Monday, in which the 
     Pennsylvania Democrat blustered that Iraq would cost as many 
     as 50 House Republican seats in the 2008 elections.
       Gates and his boss are obviously interested in America and 
     the rest of the free world winning the global war on terror. 
     The war Murtha and so many of his fellow top Democrats seem 
     interested in winning is the political one being waged in 
     Washington.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to emphasize yet again the very 
minimal adjustment this amendment is asking for in terms of policy and 
to also emphasize again it is well within the Constitution and within 
precedent--article I, section 8.
  The precedent is a similar phenomenon as to the issues that are 
facing us today, just on the other side of the deployment schedule, 
from the Korean war. When our troops were being sent into harm's way 
without proper training, the Congress stepped in. It overruled an 
administration that was doing that. It set a minimum standard of 
deployment. We are attempting to do the same thing on the other end.
  There seems to be a great deal of question in our national debate as 
to what exactly ``dwell time'' means. I was in a discussion with 
Lieutenant Colonel Martinez, who is an Army fellow in the Senate who 
has extensive command experience at all levels up to the battalion 
level, as I recall, in many different theaters, just trying to put 
together notionally what goes on when military units are home after 
deployment.
  So I have an outline, Mr. President, which I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Major Tasks That Occur During A One Year Dwell Time

       Month 1: One week-two weeks to redeploy the BCT from 
     theater; ``Re-integration'' training; normally 2-3 weeks 
     long; Single Soldier Barracks reassignments.
       Month 2: 21 days to 30 days ``Block Leave''; Activation of 
     Headquarters; Rear-Detachment Headquarters disbanded; Begin 
     recovery of equipment that was shipped from OIF or OEF.
       Months 3-5: Recovery operations of equipment; Personnel 
     receive orders (if they haven't already) for reassignment--
     needs of the Army (Recruiting, Drill Instructor, Instructors 
     at Training Centers); for individual requirements; and to 
     fulfill reenlistment options; Newly assigned personnel 
     arrive--intent is to create a one-for-one equation for 
     losses.
       Month 6: Individual training, crew training, team training, 
     squad-level training; very limited platoon level training; 
     Major reset and refit of major pacing items of equipment--
     major weapon systems are enrolled into maintenance; 
     Leadership and key personnel receive plans and operational 
     guidance for pending deployment (D-180); Small core of 
     personnel deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan for a 10-day 
     reconnaissance; logisticians deploy to Kuwait to inspect 
     pending stocks; Deployment orders lock in personnel.
       Month 7: Platoon and company level training--limited 
     resources to conduct quality training; 2-3 weeks deployed in 
     the field; Deployment training continues--key leaders deploy 
     to a National Training Center (Fort Polk, Fort Irwin, 
     Hoensfel, GE); 2-3 weeks deployed to these centers; 
     Maintenance of critical weapon systems and equipment 
     continues.
       Month 8: Leadership and Key Leaders tied into Command and 
     Control exercises and begin interfacing directly with units 
     in Iraq or Afghanistan--reverse training cycle (evenings) to 
     stay in touch with Baghdad and Kabul times-zones; Units begin 
     reporting combat readiness and deployment issues to DA; 
     Battalion (minus) collective training--2-3 weeks deployed to 
     the field; Maintenance of critical weapon systems and 
     equipment continues.
       Month 9: Ship equipment to a National Training Center for 
     Mission Rehearsal Exercise; Ship equipment to theater; Short 
     block leave period (2 weeks).
       Month 10: Brigade and Battalion level Mission Rehearsal 
     Exercise--3-4 weeks deployed (units at 75% strength, at 
     best).
       Month 11: Advanced Party Personnel pack equipment and 
     depart; Final Non-deployment personnel are identified--unit 
     request for fills is submitted; other divisional units and 
     the Army begin to provide replacements; Main Body Personnel 
     pack equipment; Limited individual to squad level training 
     continues; Major equipment systems return to unit; inspected, 
     packed, shipped to theater as required or will be taken with 
     Main Body.
       Month 12: Active Rear Detachment; Replacements continue to 
     arrive; Begin final packing; Deployment Training 
     (Administrative Tasks); Begin Deployment.

  Mr. WEBB. But I would like to mention some points out of this 
outline. It is a very good survey of the types of things our soldiers 
have to do.
  So put yourself in the mind of a soldier who has just finished a 15-
month deployment in Iraq. When they come home for a year, which is all 
they get now after a 15-month deployment, they do not sit around and 
get to know their family and have rest time. There is a little bit of 
that, but month by month during these 12 months of dwell time before 
they have to redeploy, these are the types of things they do:
  In the first month, they have 1 to 2 weeks of redeployment from the 
theater back home. That is a part of that first month. They have what 
is called reintegration training for a couple weeks.
  In the second month, there is ``block leave,'' but then they activate 
the headquarters. They begin recovery of equipment that was shipped.
  In the third through the fifth months, they have recovery operations 
of their equipment. They have the requirement of bringing in newly 
assigned people, the typical adjustment at the top and at the bottom 
which requires a great deal of command supervision in terms of bringing 
these people and assimilating them into the units.
  In the sixth month, they have individual training, crew training, 
team training, squad-level training, and begin platoon training. A 
small core of their personnel at the top actually have to deploy back 
to Iraq or Afghanistan for 10-day reconnaissance.
  In the seventh month, they have more platoon and company-level 
training, and 2 to 3 weeks out of that 1 month are out in the field.
  In the eighth month, they have command and control exercises. They 
have units beginning to report their readiness status to the Department 
of the Army. They do collective training, just below the battalion 
level. And 2 to 3 weeks, again, out of that month are in the field.
  In the ninth month, they start shipping equipment, which is a 24/7 
process, shipping equipment to a national training center, shipping 
equipment back to theater. The 10th month, they have rehearsal 
exercises, brigade and battalion level. These are 3 to 4 weeks out of 
that

[[Page 24835]]

one month where they--and at this point these units are approximately 
75 percent full strength. So what happens then? You have a unit which 
is 75 percent full strength which is going to deploy, and they start 
bringing people in. They call it backfill. It is also predominant in 
the Marine Corps. They start bringing people in who have been home, in 
many cases, less than even the people in this unit.
  The 11th month, you have the advanced party personnel leaving, 
packing their gear and going. You have your final personnel being 
selected. You go back to individual training, major equipment systems 
returning to the unit, inspected, packed, and shipped to theater.
  The 12th month, you activate rear detachments, you assimilate your 
final replacements, and you deploy.
  So that is the year, which is called dwell time after a 15-month 
deployment. Obviously, what occurs after that 12-month cycle of dwell 
time is another combat deployment.
  So that is the situation we are addressing. That is the situation 
that, in my view, we need to bring the Congress in as a referee. Why? I 
will give you one example. When the Chief of Staff of the Army called 
me to tell me they were going to 15-month deployment cycles several 
months ago, moving from 12- to 15-month deployment cycles, I was 
stunned. I said: How can you do this? How can you not stand up and 
resist the notion that your troops are going to be deployed for 15 
months with only 12 months at home? He said: Senator, I only feed the 
strategy; I don't make the strategy. Yet when we had General Petraeus 
before the Armed Services Committee and Senator Nelson of Florida asked 
him about this dwell-time problem, he basically said: Talk to the Chief 
of Staff of the Army. He is the person who gives us our people.
  So when you have that kind of a situation, and this sort of activity 
that goes on when people are arguably out of theater, we need a result. 
We need a resolution. We need people who are going to stand up and say, 
basically, however long you have been gone, you get that much back.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will take a minute to say to my 
colleagues we have several speakers lined up, and if Senators would 
come over and speak and also call as to whether you wish to speak and 
how much time, because we, I think, are close to entering into an 
agreement on speakers and also a time agreement so we can set a time 
for the vote on the Webb amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition 
of the Webb amendment, that a side-by-side alternative to the Webb 
amendment be considered, which is in keeping with the agreement--well, 
I withdraw my request because I will wait until Senator Levin comes so 
there is no misunderstanding, except to say we do intend, after the 
disposition of the Webb amendment, to propose a side-by-side amendment 
which then we, I hope, could act on quickly because it is basically the 
debate we have been having. There is also the habeas amendment pending, 
as I understand it, and negotiations I think are still going on with 
regard to that issue. I hope we could get that resolved, and then we 
will try to nail down the number of amendments so we can address the 
issue of Iraq and associated amendments so we can then move forward 
with the rest of the DOD authorization bill.
  I will very soon have conversations with Senator Levin, but in the 
meantime, if there are those on either side who wish to speak on this 
amendment, please make their wishes known, and the length of their 
statement, so we can begin to put together a unanimous consent 
agreement, which would then allow for a vote on the Webb amendment. I 
say this after having had discussions with Senator Webb on the issue.
  I wish to make one additional comment. Dr. Kissinger had a piece in 
the Washington Post on Sunday which I had printed in yesterday's 
Record. I also commend to my colleague an article by Frederick W. Kagan 
entitled ``A Web of Problems.''
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will be brief. I know there are others who 
wish to speak. I would like to reiterate what Senator McCain and 
Senator Warner have said with regard to the pending amendment. All of 
us have the utmost regard for the junior Senator from Virginia and his 
intentions with respect to this amendment, but it is also true that 
despite those best intentions, there would be very unfortunate 
consequences should his amendment be adopted. It has been well 
presented by a number of my colleagues as to what those consequences 
are. Secretary Gates himself has personally responded to the 
possibility of such an amendment being adopted by noting the adverse 
consequences for his ability and those of the military commanders to 
deal with the constraints that such an amendment would place on their 
ability to deal with individuals and units being deployed.
  Part of the problem, as I understand it, is the amendment applies not 
just to the units of military combat but the individuals within those 
units because it relates to the specific amount of time those 
individuals spend back home either in training or at rest while they 
are not deployed. Part of the problem, as Secretary Gates personally 
related to me, is the fact that when you get ready to send a unit 
abroad into theater, especially for a combat mission, you want them to 
be not only trained together but prepared to do everything our military 
does in the middle of combat with a unit-cohesive approach to 
protecting their friends and carrying out their mission. They do this 
by training together and fighting together.
  The concern expressed was that if you get into a situation where 
Congress imposes a law on the Executive, which is then binding on the 
military commanders about the exact amount of time that is permitted 
for troop rotation, that the individuals responsible for putting these 
units together are going to have to review each and every member within 
that battalion, for example, to determine whether the appropriate 
amount of time back home has been spent as opposed to in theater and, 
therefore, to the extent they do not meet the criteria, pull them out 
of the units so others then can be plugged in. This may be on the eve 
of deployment. It could be at any point. The result is you do not have 
the kind of unit cohesiveness you would otherwise. You have people who 
have been plugged into military units who should have been training 
with them all along, so when they go into combat, they fight as one. 
That could put forces at risk.
  In addition to that, because you will have to draw people from other 
places, the concern is it could put greater strain on the Guard and on 
the Reserve, filling in for slots that are vacant from Active-Duty 
personnel. The Secretary has spoken to this, as I said. It has been 
well presented by Members on the floor as to what his concerns are.
  The last point I would mention, and it is not a small point, is the 
attempt by Congress to dictate very specific terms of operational flow 
of individual members of our military, which is clearly not within the 
purview of Congress's jurisdiction. I know there has been an attempt to 
make an argument that the Constitution does not prohibit this. You have 
to stretch pretty far as a lawyer to make that argument. It is clear 
under the Constitution the Founders thought it would be best if the 
President, the Executive, be the Commander in Chief of the military 
forces. If anything should fall within his purview as Commander in 
Chief, and then within the chain of command to his military commanders, 
it should be the individual soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 
fighting in theater, it should be the individual--the decision of those 
commanders with respect to the deployment of those individuals. That is 
about as specific and personal as you can get with respect to a 
Commander in Chief's jurisdiction

[[Page 24836]]

over these fine men and women who serve for us.
  To suggest that Congress actually has the authority to override or to 
bind any future Commander in Chief in this regard I think is to stretch 
the Constitution way beyond what the Founders thought and way beyond 
what makes sense. Somebody has to be in charge. You can't have all of 
us, as smart as we are, as ``armchair generals'' deciding all of these 
details of deployments with respect to the members of our military. It 
does not make sense. As Secretary Gates said, it could put our folks at 
risk. Why would we want to do anything that might put them at risk? I 
know this isn't the intent of the author of the amendment, but it is 
very clear that one of the unfortunate consequences of this is the 
indirect--the backdoor--influence on the amount of time we can spend in 
this surge.
  It is probably true that as a result, were this amendment to be 
adopted, the way the surge is carried out, the time within which troops 
could be redeployed home will be adversely affected. That is an 
unfortunate consequence of the amendment.
  So for all these reasons, I hope my colleagues will be very careful 
about binding future Presidents, about getting very close to the line 
in terms of constitutional policy--I think going over the line--and 
intruding into an area that could put our forces at risk. Take the 
concerns of the Secretary of Defense--whom I think all of us have a 
great deal of confidence in--take those concerns into account. Don't 
dismiss them. They are very real. I think he has expressed them in a 
most serious way.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Washington be recognized for 14 minutes and then followed by the 
Senator from Kentucky for 12 minutes; and then I see the Senator from 
Montana on the floor, so the Senator from Montana for 5 minutes, 
followed by the Senator from Connecticut--this is going back and forth 
on both sides--for 14 minutes. I hope by then we will have been able to 
have the speakers and their times together so we could set a limit on 
this debate when everybody is heard.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
helping us work through that.
  More than 4\1/2\ years into this war in Iraq, our troops are 
stretched thin, we all know the equipment is deteriorating, and the 
patience of the Nation is wearing out. We have now seen 3,700 of our 
servicemembers die and thousands and thousands more have been injured. 
Month after month, our fighting men and women are pushing harder and 
harder and our troops are leaving their loved ones behind for months 
and years and putting their lives on the line without complaint. We owe 
them the best treatment and the best training possible. Unfortunately, 
the Bush administration has continually fallen short in doing that.
  Our country is home to some of the finest fighting forces in the 
world, and we can all be very proud of that. We need our military to 
remain the best trained, the best equipped, and most prepared force in 
the world. Tragically, however, the war in Iraq and the President's use 
of extended deployments are now undermining our military's readiness. 
The current deployment schedule hampers our ability to respond to 
threats around the world. We know it causes servicemembers to leave the 
military service early. It weakens our ability to respond to disasters 
at home. It unfairly burdens family members and intensifies the combat 
stress our servicemembers experience.
  We do need to rebuild our military, and the first step is giving our 
fighting men and women the time they need at home to prepare and train 
for their next mission. So that is why I am on the floor today, to 
speak to the readiness challenges that threaten our military strength 
and ultimately our Nation's security.
  Two months ago, I came to the floor and spoke those very same words 
in my effort to support the Webb amendment--virtually the same measure 
we are now, this afternoon, considering. Member after Member did the 
same, pleading with our colleagues to join us in this most basic effort 
to truly support our troops. Unfortunately, even though 56 Senators 
voted in favor, it was blocked by the Republican Senators. Now since 
that time, 2 months later, more of our troops have died, more have been 
wounded, and more have been subjected to 15-month deployments, without 
hope for the same amount of time at home. Meanwhile, the administration 
has told us 15-month deployments will continue, and they have 
maintained their plan to keep 130,000 troops in Iraq.
  Today we have another chance--another chance to support our troops, 
to support their families, and to return some common sense to our troop 
rotations. We need a few more courageous Senators to join us. Today I 
hope they will.
  Sadly, our forces are being burned out. Many of our troops are on 
their third and even fourth tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Months ago, 
the Department of Defense announced that tours would be extended from 
12 months to 15 months. On top of all that, they are not receiving the 
necessary time at home before they are sent back to battle.
  This is not the normal schedule. It is not what our troops signed up 
for. And we in Congress--those of us who represent these people--should 
not simply stand by and allow our troops to be pushed beyond their 
limits like this.
  Traditionally, active-duty troops are deployed for 1 year and then 
they rest at home for 2 years. National Guard and Reserve troops are 
deployed for 1 year and they rest at home for 5 years. But that, as we 
know, is certainly not the case today. Currently, our active-duty 
troops are spending less time at home than they are in battle, and 
Guard and Reserve forces are receiving less than 3 years rest for every 
year in combat.
  With the increasing number and length of deployments, this rest time 
is even more critical for our troops. Unfortunately, though, our forces 
are not receiving the break they need, and that increases the chances 
that they become burned out. But this administration has decided to go 
in the other direction, pushing our troops harder, extending their time 
abroad, and sending troops back time and again to the battlefield.
  The current rotation policy not only burns out servicemembers, but it 
hurts our military's ability to respond to other potential threats.
  For the first time in decades, the Army's ``ready brigade,'' that is 
intended to enter troubled spots within 72 hours, cannot do so; all of 
its troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The limited time period between deployments also lessens the time to 
train for other threats. Numerous military leaders have spoken to us 
about this problem.
  GEN James Conway said:

        . . . I think my largest concern, probably, has to do with 
     training. When we're home for that seven, eight, or nine 
     months, our focus is going back to Iraq. And as I mentioned 
     in the opening statement, therefore, we're not doing 
     amphibious training, we're not doing mountain-warfare 
     training, we're not doing combined-armed fire maneuvers, such 
     as would need to be the case, potentially, any other type of 
     contingency.

  Those were not my words; those were the words of GEN James Conway, 
who spoke before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of 
this year.
  GEN Barry McCaffrey said that because all ``fully combat ready'' 
active-duty and Reserve combat units are now deployed in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, ``no fully-trained national strategic Reserve brigades are 
now prepared to deploy to new combat operations.''
  This current deployment schedule is making us less ready for other 
contingencies we need to be ready for. It is also making us less secure 
at home. The current rotation policy has left

[[Page 24837]]

our Guard units short of manpower and supplies, and it has severely 
hindered their ability to respond to any kind of disaster they might 
face here at home.
  For years, those kinds of problems were the exception, not the rule. 
But I fear that the balance has shifted. Recently, USA Today reported 
that National Guard units in 31 States say 4 years of war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan have left them with 60 percent or less of their authorized 
equipment. Last month, LTG Steven Blum said the National Guard units 
have 53 percent of the equipment they need to handle State emergencies, 
and that number falls to 49 percent once Guard equipment needed for 
war, such as weapons, is factored in. In fact, Blum said:

       Our problem right now is that our equipment is at an all-
     time low.

  That is deeply concerning to a lot of us who worry about national 
disasters in our States. Out in the West, where I live, we face forest 
fires; along the gulf coast, we have seen the destruction of hurricanes 
this season; and in the Midwest, entire towns can be decimated by 
tornadoes in minutes. So we are deeply concerned about our Guard and 
Reserve being ready for a disaster here at home.
  This problem is about more than equipment. It is about retention 
rates. It is about real people and real families. We all know military 
life can be very tough on our troops and their families. They go for 
months, and sometimes years, without seeing each other. Our troops--
these men and women--need adequate time at home to see their newborns, 
to be a part of their children's lives, to spend time with their 
husbands or wives, and to see their parents. This current rotation 
policy decreases the time families are together, and that places a 
tremendous strain on everyone. Our troops, who are facing these early 
deployments and extended tours today, have spoken out. When the tour 
extensions and early deployments were announced, our troops themselves 
expressed their displeasure.
  In Georgia, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

       Soldiers of a Georgia Army National Guard unit were hoping 
     to return home in April, but instead they may be spending 
     another grueling summer in the Iraqi desert. At least 4,000 
     National Guard soldiers may spend up to 4 extra months in 
     Iraq as part of President Bush's troop increase announced 
     last month.
       SGT Gary Heffner, a spokesman for the 214th, said news of 
     the extension came as a ``little bit of a shock'' to the 
     Georgians.

  In the 1st Cavalry Division, according to the Dallas Morning News:

       Eighteen months after their first Iraqi rotation, the 2nd 
     Battalion, 5th Cavalry regiment, and the last of the Fort 
     Hood, Texas-based 1st Cavalry Division, returned to Iraq in 
     mid-November.

  These are the words of Brandon Jones, a veteran from my State of 
Washington. He testified before a field hearing on mental health care 
that I held in Tacoma last month. He said:

       In November 2003, I was called to full-time duty with the 
     81st Brigade. I was given very short notice that my unit was 
     being mobilized. In that time, I had to give up my civilian 
     job--an income loss of about $1,200 a month--and my wife had 
     to drop out of classes at Olympic College to care for our 
     children.
       I went from living at home and seeing my children on a 
     daily basis to living on base--just a mile from home--and 
     visiting my children periodically. To my kids, I went from 
     being their dad to the guy who drops by the house for a visit 
     once in a while.
       The 3 months of mobilization before my deployment were very 
     stressful. We struggled financially. Although we reached out 
     for help, we were told that the only financial resources 
     available were strictly for active duty soldiers at Fort 
     Lewis. It wasn't until we were threatened with eviction and 
     repossession of our car that my wife was able to obtain a 
     small amount of assistance generally reserved for active duty 
     soldiers. Our families helped us make up the rest--about 60 
     percent of what we were in need of.
       The stress made it difficult for my wife to keep a positive 
     attitude, for our children to feel comfortable, and for me to 
     concentrate on the mission ahead of me. When my wife and I 
     reached out for marriage counseling prior to my deployment, 
     we were made to feel that the few sessions we were given were 
     a favor to us and that we were taking up a resource meant for 
     active duty soldiers from the base.
       Let me remind you that all of this happened before I was 
     even deployed.

  As Brandon said, that was before he was even deployed. Just imagine 
the sacrifice these families have made when they go through these 15-
month deployments. To me, it is very clear that we need to pass the 
Webb amendment. We hear a lot of rhetoric on the floor about supporting 
our troops, but I believe this amendment is the opportunity we need to 
end the rhetoric and start with action.
  Troops should be at home for the same amount of time as they are 
deployed. That seems to me like a basic commonsense requirement. I 
applaud our colleague from Virginia for being a champion for our troops 
and for crafting this bipartisan measure that he and the entire Senate 
can be proud of.
  Our troops have sacrificed a lot. They have already gone above and 
beyond the call of duty. We need to institute a fair policy for the 
health of our troops, for the health and well-being of their families, 
and for our Nation's security and our ability to respond to disasters 
here at home. This amendment does all of those things. I urge our 
Senators to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan, the chairman, 
will be recognized to point out that we will have a side-by-side 
amendment, which I will be prepared to introduce soon. We also wish to 
move forward with speakers so we can set a time for a vote on the Webb 
amendment, in keeping with the wishes of the respective leaders.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I discussed this with the Senator from 
Arizona. I ask unanimous consent that after the current lineup of 
speakers, Senator Brown be recognized for up to 10 minutes, Senator 
Stabenow be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and then, as the Senator 
from Arizona mentioned, we will try to see if in the next few minutes 
we are able to come up with an agreement to schedule a vote--probably, 
I guess, around 5 o'clock, for the convenience of Senators.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong objection 
to the Webb amendment. I voted against this amendment when it was 
offered 2 months ago, and I will vote against it again today.
  I will not support this slow-bleed strategy from Iraq. It ties the 
hands of our commanders. I cannot remember a time in history when the 
Congress of the United States has dictated to our commanders on the 
ground how to conduct their mission to this extent.
  This is an extremely dangerous amendment. The junior Senator from 
Virginia would like for you to believe it helps our troops and that a 
vote in support of his amendment is a vote to support our troops. 
Wrong. Nothing can be further from the truth.
  This amendment would be a nightmare to execute. It says a soldier 
must spend 1 day at home for every day the soldier is deployed. That 
may sound reasonable on its face, but anyone who knows how the military 
plans its missions knows it will be a logistical roadblock for our 
military planners.
  The problem is when a unit returns from a deployment, its personnel 
are often reassigned to other units and other assignments. Divisions, 
brigades, battalions, and units don't stay together forever. In a 
military of millions of people, there are a lot of people reassigned 
each day.
  This amendment would essentially require the Army and Marine Corps 
staff to keep track of how long each service man or woman has spent in 
Iraq or Afghanistan, how long they have been at home, how long their 
unit was deployed, and how long it was home. This is absurd. This would 
mean pulling soldiers out of units scheduled to deploy if the 
servicemembers did not have enough dwell time.
  This breaks up leadership and soldier teams, the formations of which 
are the purpose of the Army and Marine training system. Requiring the 
President to issue a certification to Congress to

[[Page 24838]]

waive this requirement for every individual servicemember who might be 
affected by this is even more absurd.
  This amendment takes tools and flexibility away from our commanders 
on the ground, such as General Petraeus. That is why it is being 
offered today.
  Commanders make estimates about the forces they need based on 
assumptions about current and future threats. If a commander in Iraq or 
Afghanistan concludes that some event might require the deployment of 
additional forces to his theater, this amendment would restrict the 
units and personnel that could be sent.
  The junior Senator from Virginia claims to be concerned for the 
welfare of our troops. Not one Member of this body is opposed to troops 
getting rest after a long deployment. But we need to be equally 
concerned about the dangers our soldiers face when they do not have the 
necessary resources and reinforcements available to do their mission. 
This is the true purpose of this amendment. It cripples the ability of 
Secretary Gates, General Petraeus, and our other commanders on the 
ground to accomplish their mission and forces a drawdown of our troops 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I will not support this strategy out of Iraq. It puts troops in 
harm's way, restricting the resources and reserves they need to 
successfully accomplish their mission.
  This is not supporting our troops. It is wrong to cloak a troop 
pullout amendment in language that relates to troop rest, but that is 
exactly what this amendment does.
  This week I had the pleasure of visiting with two brave Kentuckians 
who recently served in Iraq. They came to me directly to ask me to vote 
against the Webb amendment. These Kentuckians know the sacrifices their 
fellow soldiers and families make. They know and understand the 
importance of rest back home. They know the strains of war. They have 
experienced the heat of Iraq and the tragedy of knowing that some of 
their fellow soldiers never made it home.
  But these two Kentuckians also know the intent of this amendment. 
They know why it was offered, and they do not want to tie the hands of 
the military so we are forced to leave Iraq and Afghanistan before the 
mission is completed. That is why they came from Lawrenceburg, KY, and 
Hebron, KY, to ask me to oppose the Webb amendment.
  It is not Congress's role to mandate individual soldiers and unit 
deployments. I know the Democrats like to try to micromanage the war, 
but I am not the Commander in Chief and neither are any of my 
colleagues across the aisle. I want to remind everyone in this body of 
this fact.
  If you want to truly support our troops, then vote against the Webb 
amendment. It was defeated 2 months ago on the Senate floor, and I can 
only hope it will be defeated again today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Webb amendment. I 
am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. Much has been made 
about this amendment and the well-being of our troops and their 
families. Make no mistake, this amendment is about ensuring that we do 
not do permanent damage to the military's most valuable asset--its 
people.
  Congress must make the health and well-being of our men and women 
overseas a priority. We know multiple deployments with short periods of 
rest back home raise the incidence of PTSD. Studies have shown that the 
likelihood of a soldier being diagnosed with PTSD rises by 50 percent 
when he or she is on a second or third deployment.
  We know multiple deployments are causing a massive strain on our 
junior officer corps. Earlier this year, the Army's Deputy Chief of 
Staff told Congress these officers are getting out of the Army at 
nearly double the rate that the Army says is acceptable. That is why 
until this war, we have always given our active-duty soldiers a ratio 
of 2 days at home for every day in combat, and we have always given the 
National Guard and Reserve 5 days at home for every day in combat. That 
has been the standard until this war.
  That is why the National Military Families Association supports this 
amendment. That is why the Military Officers Association of America 
supports this amendment. The Military Officers Association says:

       If we are not better stewards of our troops and their 
     families . . . we will be putting the all-volunteer force at 
     unacceptable risk.

  I urge my colleagues to listen to what our officers and their 
families are saying through their support of the Webb amendment.
  As my colleagues know, I am a farmer; I am not a military expert. But 
I believe and the people of my State believe in no uncertain measure 
that we need to continue to have the strongest military in the world, 
not only today, not only 6 months from now, but 6 years from now as 
well.
  The good news is we have a strong military. I represent 3,500 Air 
Force personnel, more than 300 of whom are serving in Iraq and other 
places around the world today. I represent another 3,600 Guardsmen, 
many of whom have spent a tour or two in Iraq. I can tell my colleagues 
that these people are the best in the world at what they do, and I am 
proud to represent them.
  But the bad news is what I am hearing is we are in danger of losing 
too many young leaders in our military today who are leading a platoon 
but whom we will be relying on to lead brigades and entire divisions in 
the future.
  I know some people on both sides of the aisle have raised the 
question of how this measure will impact the schedule for the surge 
General Petraeus has outlined. The fact is, even if this amendment 
becomes law, the Pentagon would still have another 4 months to prepare 
for the change in policy, and if there is a national emergency, there 
is an opportunity for even more time. The fact is, this amendment will 
have a much greater impact on tomorrow's military than it will impact 
on the military surge.
  I believe we need the Webb amendment to ensure that we maintain a 
strong military today, tomorrow, and for years to come.
  I congratulate Senator Webb for this amendment. This has been a good 
debate. For the most part, it has been thoughtful and respectful. There 
have been differences of opinion, but it is time to allow this measure 
to have an honest vote before the Senate. Let's not simply debate 
whether to debate this amendment. Let's have an up-or-down vote on the 
measure. Our troops, their families, and the American people deserve 
nothing less.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Connecticut has 
14 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to respectfully speak against 
the amendment offered by my colleague from Virginia.
  Let me put this in context, as I see it. One week ago, the commander 
of our military forces in Iraq and our top diplomat in Baghdad returned 
to Washington to address the Members of this Congress. What General 
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker offered us last week was not hype or 
hyperbole but the facts. They offered us the facts. What we heard from 
them was reality--hard evidence of the progress we have at last begun 
to achieve over the past 8 months--progress against al-Qaida, progress 
against sectarian violence, progress in standing up the Iraqi Army, 
progress that all but the most stubborn of ideological or partisan 
opponents now acknowledge is happening.
  What we also heard from General Petraeus last week was a plan for the 
transition of our mission in Iraq which he has developed, together with 
our military commanders on the ground, that builds on facts on the 
ground, not on opinions over here, that builds on the successes our 
troops have achieved on the ground which will allow tens of thousands 
of American troops to begin to return home from Iraq starting this 
month.
  So the question now before the Senate is not whether to start 
bringing some of our troops home. Everyone

[[Page 24839]]

agrees with that point. Beginning this month, some of our troops will 
be coming home. The question before the Senate now is whether we are 
going to listen to the recommendations of our commanders and diplomats 
in Iraq, or instead whether we will reject them and try to derail the 
plan they have carefully developed and implemented and that is working. 
The question is whether we build on the success of the surge and the 
strategy of success led by General Petraeus, or instead whether we 
impose a congressional formula for retreat and failure.
  I believe the choice is clear because we have too much at stake for 
our national security, our national values, and most particularly, of 
course, freedom is on the line and the outcome in Iraq. Are the victors 
going to be the Iraqis with our support and the hope of freedom and a 
better future for them or are the victors going to be al-Qaida and Iran 
and Iranian-backed terrorists? That is the choice. It is in that 
context that I believe the Webb amendment is a step in precisely the 
wrong direction. That is its effect.
  The sponsors of the amendment say they are trying to relieve the 
burden on our men and women in uniform. I, of course, take them at 
their word. They have an honorable goal that all of us in this Chamber 
share. It is not, however, what the real-world consequences of this 
amendment will be.
  On the contrary, Secretary of Defense Bob Gates has warned us in the 
most explicit terms that this amendment, if enacted, would have 
precisely the opposite effect that its sponsors say they desire. It 
would create less security, more pressure on more soldiers and their 
families than exists now.
  As many of my colleagues know, Secretary Gates is a man who chooses 
his words carefully. He is a former member of the Iraq Study Group. He 
is a strong believer in the need for bipartisan consensus and 
cooperation when it comes to America's national security, particularly 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. He does not practice the politics of 
polarization or partisan spin. So when he tells us this amendment would 
do more harm than good, so much harm, in fact, that he, as Secretary of 
Defense, would feel obliged to recommend to the President that if this 
amendment is adopted, the President veto the entire underlying 
Department of Defense authorization bill, well, then, when Bob Gates, 
Secretary of Defense, says that, I think we have a responsibility to 
listen and to listen to his words very carefully.
  The reason for Secretary Gates' opposition to this amendment is not 
political, it is practical. As he explained in a letter to Senator 
Graham of South Carolina earlier this week, the Webb amendment ``would 
significantly increase the risk to our servicemembers''--significantly 
increase, not decrease, the risk to our servicemembers--and ``lead to a 
return to unpredictable tour lengths and home state periods and home 
station periods.'' Exactly the opposite of the intention of the 
amendment.
  By injecting rigid inflexibility into the military planning process, 
this amendment would force the Pentagon to elevate one policy--the 
amount of time individual members of the military spend at home--above 
all other considerations, above the safety and security of those same 
soldiers and their colleagues when they are deployed abroad, above the 
impact of implementing that policy would have on our prospects for 
success in Iraq and all that means to our country and, I add, to our 
soldiers. Secretary Gates also described a range of grim consequences 
that would result if this amendment is adopted.
  To begin with, it would likely force the Pentagon to extend the 
deployments of units that are already in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond 
their scheduled rotations. So some of those units which are now 
scheduled to be there for 15 months might have to be extended beyond 
that because of the provision in this amendment that says you have to 
have an equal amount of time at home as deployed. Why? Because there 
aren't enough capable units to replace them that meet the inflexible 
requirements imposed by this amendment.
  Far from relieving the burden on our brave troops in battle deployed 
overseas, this amendment would actually add to their burdens and keep 
our soldiers away from their families, certainly a goodly number of 
them, for even longer. It would also mean more frequent and broader 
callups of our National Guard and Reserve units, pulling forces into 
the fight that would otherwise be able to remain at home.
  In other cases, this amendment will require the Pentagon to deploy 
units trained for one mission to go fight another mission, not because 
it makes military sense to do so but because they are the only ones 
left that meet this amendment's inflexible dwell-time rule. In plain 
English, we are going to be forced by this amendment to send less-
capable units into combat.
  In addition to imposing greater dangers thereby on our individual 
service men and women, this amendment would also have other baneful 
effects on our national security. At a time when our military is 
stretched and performing brilliantly, it would further shrink the pool 
of units and personnel available to respond to events, crises, not just 
in Iraq and Afghanistan but around the world. In doing so, this 
amendment--and again I quote Secretary Gates--``would dramatically 
limit the Nation's ability to respond to other national security needs 
while we remain engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan.'' Is that what any one 
of us desire? Is that what the men and women who serve us in uniform 
desire? No.
  All of us recognize the extraordinary services our troops are giving 
our country and the burden that places on their family in this time of 
war. All of us want to do something to help relieve the burden they 
bear. But the answer is not to impose a legislative straitjacket on our 
men and women in uniform. The answer is not to impose an inflexible 
one-size-fits-all rule that will endanger their safety and hobble our 
military's ability to respond to worldwide threats. The answer is not, 
in our frustration, to throw an enormous wrench into the existing, 
well-functioning personnel system of the U.S. military. The answer is 
most definitely not to make it harder for us to succeed in Iraq.
  I know there has been some disagreement among the supporters of this 
amendment about whether it is intended to be a backdoor way to 
accelerate the drawdown of our troops from Iraq, for which there is not 
adequate support in this Senate Chamber, fortunately, and thus discard 
the recommendations of General Petraeus and, if I may say so, put us on 
a course for failure instead of the course of success we are on now. My 
friend, the Senate majority leader, said he does not see this as a 
backdoor way to accelerate the drawdown. On the other hand, Congressman 
Murtha said that is exactly what it is supposed to do and he hopes it 
will do.
  The fact is many in this Chamber have argued honestly and openly for 
months that General Petraeus and his troops were failing to make 
meaningful progress in Iraq and that Congress should, therefore, order 
them to begin to withdraw. That could be done by cutting off funding or 
mandating a congressional deadline for withdrawal.
  I have argued against those recommendations, as my colleagues know. 
But I must say I respect the fact that those arguments by opponents of 
the war accept the consequences of their beliefs, and they are real and 
direct. Those in the Chamber who want to reject the Petraeus 
recommendations and his report of progress and impose on him their own 
schemes for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, I think ought to do 
it in the most direct way, rather than any attempt to derail this now 
successful war plan by indirection.
  The fact is, regardless of the intention of its sponsors, the Webb 
amendment, if enacted, will not result in a faster drawdown of U.S. 
troops from Iraq. The fact is the Commander in Chief and the military 
commander in Iraq are committed to the success of this mission. On the 
contrary, therefore, it would only make it harder for those troops, 
along with their brothers and sisters in uniform in Afghanistan, to 
complete their mission successfully, safely, and return home but to 
return home with honor to their families and their neighbors.
  Yesterday, a couple of Connecticut veterans from the Iraq war were in

[[Page 24840]]

town and came to see me. At the end of a good discussion, in which they 
did urge me to vote against the Webb amendment, one of them said to me: 
Senator, we want to win in Iraq, and we know we can win. I said to 
them: Thanks to your bravery and skill--and now a good plan--and with 
the help of God, you are going to win, so long as the American people 
and their representatives in Congress don't lose their will. That 
victory will not only secure a better future for the people of Iraq and 
more stability and an opportunity for a course in the Middle East that 
is not determined by the fanatics, the haters, the suicide bombers of 
al-Qaida and Iranian-backed terrorism but is determined by the people 
themselves who pray every day and yearn every day for a better future.
  I will say something else. There are different ways to burden men and 
women in uniform. One is the stress of combat, another is to force them 
into a position where they fail. I have had many conversations with 
soldiers from Connecticut and elsewhere who have served in Iraq, and I 
have had the conversations in Iraq and here. I don't want to mislead my 
colleagues in what I am about to report. I don't get this in 100 
percent of those conversations, but in an overwhelming number of those 
conversations, they are proud of what they are doing, they believe in 
their mission, they believe they are part of a battle that can help 
make the future of their families and our country more secure. They are 
proud. They are reenlisting at remarkable numbers. That is the best 
indicator of this attitude.
  If you want to burden them and their families in a way we can never 
quite make up for, then take us from the road of success, leading to 
the road of victory, and force us directly, force them directly or 
indirectly, to a retreat and defeat. That can break the will of an 
army. We don't have to do it, we must not do it, and I believe this 
Senate will not allow this to happen. I, therefore, urge my colleagues 
to vote against the Webb amendment.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Webb for his 
leadership on this important issue as I rise in support of the Webb 
amendment.
  This amendment, first and foremost, is about supporting our troops. 
It is about supporting the military families. Every Member of this 
body, some even more than others, talk about their support for our 
troops. Many put the yellow ribbon magnets on their cars, many wear 
other kinds of clothing to show their support for the troops. They talk 
about it at home, they talk about it here. This vote will put that 
support for our troops into action.
  This amendment ensures that our military gets the rest at home they 
deserve; that our military readiness gets the support it needs. This 
amendment will ensure that our National Guardsmen will stay at home for 
at least 3 years after returning from deployment, the men and women of 
the Guard who leave businesses, jobs, and families on hold while 
bravely serving our Nation.
  The current Iraq policy is overextending our troops and placing 
unacceptable burdens on families back home, with spouses often acting 
as single parents, doing their very best, in sometimes worse economic 
times, to keep their families together.
  I have met with these families for 4 years, going back as early as 
2003, soon after tens of thousands of American troops were deployed in 
Iraq. They would talk frequently about the shortage of body armor. They 
talked frequently about the shortage of bottled water, about hygiene 
products, and all kinds of things our troops needed as our Government 
rushed into war in 2003 without adequately supplying them. Families 
would raise money at events to provide the body armor and to send 
bottled water and hygiene products or whatever their loved ones needed 
in Iraq.
  Our Government didn't do what it should have done back then because 
of the poor civilian leadership and its lack of preparation for this 
war in Iraq. I heard comments over and over about the difficulty of 
adjusting, as those troops came back home, due to the lack of foresight 
and the lack of planning on the part of the civilian leadership of our 
military.
  Our Armed Forces have served bravely and honorably again and again, 
deployment after deployment, often without, as I said, the proper body 
armor, proper vehicle protection, proper training, and dwell time 
between deployments. We fought in this body and in the House for more 
body armor, we fought for more MRAPS, the triangular-bottomed vehicles. 
We shouldn't have to fight to allow our soldiers the proper amount of 
time between deployments.
  The requirement in this amendment for dwell time is something the 
military has voluntarily done for decades because they know that serves 
the troops well, they know it serves the families well, and they know 
principally it serves the military well to have that dwell time between 
deployments. The 1-to-1 standard in the Webb amendment is actually 
below the historic standard of the Department of Defense for dwell 
time. We could do even better than this.
  We can debate about our role in Iraq's civil war, we can debate 
timelines for ending our involvement, we can debate how much money we 
should spend in Iraq, but we shouldn't need to debate how much rest, 
preparation, and training our troops get before they go back off to 
war. Everyone in this Chamber talks about supporting our troops, even 
as our President failed to provide body armor and MRAPs, failed to 
provide support and supplies, and even as our President has failed to 
provide enough money for medical care for the Veterans' Administration 
for when our troops return home. Everyone in this Chamber talks about 
supporting our troops, but this amendment puts the soldiers and their 
families first.
  They have done their job. It is time we do ours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from 
Michigan, whom we are so proud of, for all his efforts in supporting 
our troops and leading our efforts as it relates to the defense of our 
country and for once again leading this very important bill on the 
Defense reauthorization.
  It is time to put aside for a brief moment the overall debate of the 
war and focus on the troops. Regardless of whether you supported going 
into Iraq or, as I did, voted no on going into that war, we come 
together and we hear frequently from colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle that, of course, we support our troops. We want what is best for 
the brave men and women who are fighting in harm's way, who didn't take 
that vote and didn't decide the policy but who are, in fact, stepping 
up to defend that policy and defend our country.
  The question is, What is best for the troops on the ground right now, 
in the middle of these conflicts that have gone on now for over 4\1/2\ 
years? We are here today to talk about what is best for our military, 
our troops, and for their families.
  We are not here to debate the merits of the mission. I certainly am 
willing to do that and do that with other amendments. But this 
particular amendment, the amendment of Senator Webb, is an effort to 
determine what makes sense when it comes to deploying our armed 
services, what is best for those who have been willing to put their 
lives on the line for our country, who follow the leadership of the 
Department of Defense and operate under the policies that have been set 
by this Congress and this President.
  What is very clear is that the current system is broken for our 
troops. We are forcing our troops into longer and longer combat 
deployments and giving them shorter and shorter rest periods. We are 
demanding multiple combat deployments over very short periods, with 
many units on their second, their third, or even their fourth 
redeployment in the war in Iraq. We are denying the men and women who 
put their

[[Page 24841]]

lives on the line for America the time they need off from the front 
lines to recuperate, to retrain, to prepare themselves physically and 
mentally to return to combat and, just as important, to spend time with 
their families, to be able to reconnect with the loved ones they have 
left behind when they have gone into this war.
  We are placing an unfair and unreasonable burden on those military 
families, families who are willing to sacrifice, who have sacrificed; 
families who count on us to be there for them, representing their 
interests and the interests of their loved ones who are on the front 
lines. They are doing all of it in the name of a policy that the 
military itself has indicated is not only unreasonable but unsafe. The 
Department of Defense itself has said that the conditions under which 
they are operating have been unreasonable and unsafe.
  Historically, the Department of Defense, as has been said, has 
mandated a combat-to-rest ratio of 1 to 2--1 month on, 2 months off as 
an example; 1 year in combat, 2 years at home--to rest, retrain, and 
prepare for the next deployment. In fact, the historic 1-to-2 ratio is 
currently the stated policy of the DOD. We are hearing from colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle as if this is some outrageous idea, that 
we put some parameters around the deployment and redeployment of our 
troops. Yet it is the stated policy of the Department of Defense: 1 
month or 1 year on, 2 months or 2 years here at home.
  The Webb amendment merely sets a 1-to-1 ratio, a floor that only gets 
us halfway to the standard the Department of Defense itself has called 
for. The policies pursued by this administration have stretched our men 
and women in uniform to the breaking point. Our Armed Forces are 
getting the job done under the most extreme and trying conditions 
imaginable. Most of us have had an opportunity, firsthand, to see them 
in action, to see what they are doing and the conditions under which 
they are operating. They are getting the job done. No one is surprised 
because we have the best and the brightest, but they are under extreme 
and trying conditions. They face an enemy who often cannot be 
identified. They face an environment that is harsh and hot and 
unbearable. They do their jobs with pride, with honor, with dignity, 
and most certainly with excellence.
  The current deployment schedule places an unfair burden not only on 
our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines but on the families 
they leave behind. Military families have, in their own way, been 
called to serve this country, been called to sacrifice. They demand our 
respect and support for the sacrifices they are making. What we are 
currently asking of them is simply unreasonable. When our troops go 
into combat, the people they leave behind shoulder the burden of 
keeping the family together while mom or dad--mother, father, sister, 
brother--is fighting in service to their country. They are left to face 
not only the practical problems that come with having a family member 
gone for long stretches of time but also the constant uncertainty and 
stress of simply not knowing what is happening to their loved one. Are 
they safe? Will they come home safely? Our troops and their families 
have done everything we have asked of them. They have been there for 
America. And now the answer to the question must be that we will be 
there for them.
  The young Americans who volunteer to put on the uniform and fight for 
our country are truly our best. They are the best-trained, the best-
equipped, the bravest fighting forces in the world, and they are one of 
the Nation's most valuable assets and greatest resources. Current 
administration policy is abusing their willingness and desire to serve. 
This has to stop. By straining and stretching our military, we are 
undercutting our own national security. We are compromising everything 
we have done to build up a force that can defend America and properly 
respond to the dangers we face in today's uncertain world.
  Senator Webb has crafted an amendment that addresses the concerns of 
our military leaders. It includes reasonable waivers in the face of 
unexpected threats to America. It includes a transition window that 
will allow a shift in the deployment schedule without a disruption of 
our fighting forces. We have worked with the military to develop a 
policy that makes sense. I commend Senator Webb for his foresight and 
his willingness to work with the Secretary of Defense and others to 
make the changes, to make this even more workable. We compromised where 
it makes sense to strengthen the legislation, but we will not 
compromise on the safety of our troops or on the support for their 
families.
  This amendment is not about where we stand on the war. It is not 
about partisan politics. It is about doing the right thing for our 
troops and for their families. I urge my colleagues to stand up and 
vote for the Webb amendment. Stand with the people we have sent to war 
and their families waiting at home, and stand with all Americans who 
want us to have the right kind of policy to support our troops and to 
keep us safe for the future.
  Mr. 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. CARDIN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time first to thank Senator 
Webb for bringing forward his amendment that I strongly support. I 
believe it is in the best interests of our troops, their families, our 
military readiness, and the proper deployment of our troops.
  I also thank Senator Levin and Senator Reid for their efforts in 
allowing us the opportunity to try to change our mission in Iraq. I 
believe it is not only in the best interest of the United States to do 
that but also the Iraqi people.
  I also compliment Senator Biden for his efforts to bring forward an 
amendment that would give us a more realistic and achievable political 
game plan in Iraq. As has been recently reported, the Iraqi Government 
is dysfunctional, and the only way we are going to be successful in 
Iraq is if we can have a political solution to their problems.
  On September 3, 2007, President Bush told troops at Al-Asad Air Base 
that the troop buildup has strengthened security--and that the military 
successes are ``paving the way for the political reconciliation and 
economic progress'' in Iraq. ``When Iraqis feel safe in their own homes 
and neighborhoods,'' said President Bush, ``they can focus their 
efforts on building a stable, civil society.''
  I believe that the last part of that statement, when an Iraqi can 
walk into the street without fear of being attacked, blown up, or 
bribed, of having family harmed, his house or his business taken, when 
he is confident that his children will have enough food and water and 
be able to attend school in peace, he will be able to focus on building 
a more stable civil society.
  But what I don't see is any independent evidence that the increased 
U.S. troop presence has, as promised, led to greater civilian security, 
let alone paved the way for political and economic success.
  The 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill required 
President Bush to report to Congress and the American people in July 
and September on the progress Iraqis are making toward achieving 
certain critical benchmarks put forward by the Iraqi Government and 
affirmed by President Bush in his January ``New Way Forward'' speech. 
These were not benchmarks established by Congress. These were 
benchmarks established by the Iraqis, in this legislation. That same 
legislation asked the independent Government Accountability Office to 
undertake the same investigation and chartered the Independent 
Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq to investigate the progress 
those institutions are making toward independence. We now have each of 
those reports.
  Not even President Bush claims that substantial progress toward 
political or

[[Page 24842]]

economic benchmarks has occurred. As reported by his administration in 
July and September there has been little progress on debaathification 
reform, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, or amnesty laws.
  The GAO reports that the Iraqi Government has met only \1/8\ of the 
legislative benchmarks. The rights of minority party political parties 
in the Iraqi legislature are protected, though the same is not true for 
the Iraqi population whose ``rights are often violated.''
  Any prospects for further progress toward these goals have been 
dashed by the withdrawal of 15 of the 37 members of the Iraqi cabinet. 
The Congressional Research Service reported that the boycott has left 
``the Iraqi Government in essential collapse.''
  That is another reason why we need The Biden amendment, and more 
important, for us to move forward implementing a new strategy in Iraq.
  Just as important, there is no independent evidence that increased 
troop presence has created the security necessary to foster future 
political and economic progress in Iraq.
  The GAO reports that it is not clear whether sectarian violence has 
been reduced and that the average number of daily attacks aqainst 
civilians has remained about the same.
  The August National Intelligence Estimate reports that the level of 
overall violence in Iraq, including attacks on and casualties among 
civilians, remains high and will remain high over the next 6 to 12 
months.
  According to figures compiled by the Associated Press, Iraqis are 
suffering double the number of war-related deaths throughout the 
country compared to this time last year.
  In an August op-ed, seven non-commissioned officers wrote:

       [T]he most important front in the counterinsurgency, 
     improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on 
     which we have failed most miserably. . . . Cities lack 
     regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. . . .
       In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the 
     streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a 
     death-defying act. . . . When the primary preoccupation of 
     average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, 
     we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an 
     Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, ``We 
     need security, not free food.''

  Even if we assume a decline in violence, in certain regions in Iraq 
it is far from clear that increased U.S. troops are responsible. There 
are over 2 million refugees that have fled Iraq.
  Internally displace persons are estimated at 2 million and are 
increasing by 80,000 to 100,000 each month. At that rate, Washington, 
DC would be empty by March.
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees found that 63 
percent of those displaced moved because of threats to their security. 
Sixty-nine percent left homes in Baghdad. Baghdad is undergoing 
sectarian cleansing. If the death toll in a Sunni district falls 
because its residents have fled, the resulting reduction in violence is 
not attributable to increased troops, and that kind of development is 
not ``progress.''
  The bottom line: the GAO report found the Iraqi Government has not 
eliminated militia control over local security or political 
intervention in military operations. It has not ensured evenhanded 
enforcement of the law or increased the number of army units capable of 
independent operations.
  Are Iraqis more secure? For me, the 100,000 people fleeing their 
homes each month in fear for their safety answer the question. The 
truth, as everyone acknowledges, is that the security that Iraqi man 
wanted instead of free food will only come with political 
reconciliation.
  Those same seven NOC's explained that:

       political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our 
     insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will 
     happen on Iraqi terms. . . .
       [I]t would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis 
     take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced 
     policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them 
     resolve their differences as they see fit.

  President Bush predicted that increased U.S. troop levels taking a 
more visible--rather than marginal--role would stabilize the country so 
that its national leaders could reach political agreement. They would 
enable us to accelerate training initiatives so that Iraqi army and 
police force could assume control of all security in the country by 
November 2007. President Bush sent over 28,000 more soldiers into Iraq 
to fulfill these goals.
  The reports before us in September, like the reports before us in 
July, show us that President Bush's troop escalation is ineffective. It 
has failed to make Iraq more secure, failed to stem the civil war going 
on in Iraq, and failed to lead to political reconciliation. That 
failure was clear when I last came to the floor to discuss this issue 
in July, and it is clear today.

  Since July, 150 more American soldiers have died; nearly 5,000 more 
have been wounded. My home State of Maryland has lost three more of its 
bravest citizens. One of those seven NOC's, whose wisdom and insight I 
have quoted at length, was shot through the head and, just last week, 
two others were killed. Every month in 2007 has seen more U.S. military 
casualties over the same month in 2006.
  Six years after 9/11, our policy in Iraq has distracted us from 
confronting the weaknesses those attacks revealed. Terrorist attacks 
around the world continue to rise. No progress has been made on the 
Arab-Israeli conflict. Our military might has been stretched thin.
  The most recent intelligence analysis reports that al Qaeda in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan is stronger now than at any other time since 
September 11, 2001. Iran is as dangerous as ever.
  Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, cochairs of the 9/11 Commission, 
wrote that ``we face a rising tide of radicalization and rage in the 
Muslim world--a trend in which our own actions have contributed.'' Last 
week, Senator Warner asked General Petreaus whether continuing the 
strategy the general laid before Congress would make our country safer. 
General Petreaus responded, ``Sir, I don't know actually.''
  He didn't know because he has been ``focused on . . . how to 
accomplish the mission of the Multi-national Force in Iraq.'' That is 
what he should be focused on. That is his job. But the people focused 
on our Nation's safety and our overall strategy in the Middle East 
agree with Kean and Hamilton.
  Admiral Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees 
Middle East operations, has argued for accepting more risks in Iraq in 
order to have the necessary forces available to confront other 
potential threats. The Joint Chiefs have been sympathetic to Admiral 
Fallon's view.
  In order to bolster our military and refocus attention on the global 
terrorist threat, this Congress has attempted to change the mission of 
our operation in Iraq. But President Bush and a minority in Congress 
have rebuffed the effort.
  We cannot wait any longer to change the mission in Iraq. The cost of 
further delay in lives, materiel, treasure, and our standing in the 
world is too great. President Bush's strategy has put this Nation at 
greater risk--a risk that metastasizes each day that we sit by and 
wait.
  A new policy starts by removing our troops from the middle of a civil 
war and giving them a more realistic mission: counterterrorism, 
training, and force and border protection.
  The Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, chaired by 
retired GEN James L. Jones, and composed of prominent senior retired 
military officers and chiefs of police, suggests that:

       Coalition forces begin to be adjusted, realigned, and re-
     tasked . . . to better ensure territorial defense . . . 
     concentrating on the eastern and western borders and the 
     active defense of the critical infrastructures essential to 
     Iraq.

  The Commission also emphasized the importance of transferring 
responsibility to Iraqis, noting the ``fine line between assistance and 
dependence.'' Iraqi citizens turn to our military for protection and 
the basic services the government has failed to provide. We want Iraqis 
to become loyal to their government, not to the local U.S. military 
commander.

[[Page 24843]]

  We must begin to extricate ourselves and hand responsibility to the 
Iraqis themselves.
  As the bipartisan Iraq Study Group noted, ``There is no action the 
American military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in 
Iraq.'' But any effort must include stepped-up diplomacy--a 
``diplomatic surge,'' if you will. Iraq's neighbors have a stake in 
Iraq's stability. The war in Iraq means the spread of fundamentalist 
insurrection and sectarian violence, and an increase in basic crime and 
lawlessness, and not just in Iraq.
  We must begin to have a broader diplomatic and economic vision in the 
Middle East. Currently, all of Iraq's neighbors are involved in the 
conflict, but they operate under the table. Iran supports the Shiite 
militias. Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni militias. Turkey plays a role 
in the North, Syria exerts control over Iraq's western border.
  The United States engaged all of Afghanistan's neighbors at the 
highest levels and secured their cooperation at the beginning of that 
conflict. We must engage in that same high level effort with Iraq's 
neighbors no matter how much we wish circumstances or the current 
balance of power in the region were different.
  We need our Nation's most senior officials engaged in bringing other 
nations and international entities such as the United Nations and the 
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to the table.
  The various agencies of the United Nations are well-suited to tackle 
matters of economic and community development and providing 
electricity, water, and sanitation service. OSCE could assist Iraq with 
collective border security, police training, and immigration and 
religious tolerance efforts.
  A change of mission, an increased diplomatic effort, and a movement 
to engage international entities presents the best chance of helping 
the Iraqis build a government that has their confidence and would 
strengthen our own national security and military readiness.
  The world has an interest in a safe and secure Iraq. We can no longer 
ignore the overwhelming evidence or recoil from the cold reality the 
facts on the ground reveal. It is time to change the mission, step up 
our diplomatic efforts with a realistic and workable game plan, 
recognize the limits of deployment of our troops and internationalize 
the effort to bring stability to the country and to the Middle East.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to take the opportunity, since it 
looks as if there are no other Senators who wish to speak at this 
moment, to clarify a few items in this amendment with respect to some 
of the criticisms that have been leveled against it.
  Again, let me emphasize, this is a minimum amendment. It wants to 
make a small adjustment to our operational policy that is needed 
because of these continuous rotations that have been going on for the 
last 4\1/2\ years.
  With respect to the constitutionality issue which has been mentioned 
a number of times, my staff has put together a fact sheet, which I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WEBB. I have mentioned many times the situation in Korea during 
the Korean War, where the Congress passed legislation to provide that 
every person inducted into the military would receive full and adequate 
training for a period of not less than 4 months, and that no personnel 
during that 4-month period would be assigned duty overseas. This was 
the Congress stepping in to correct a situation that had been created 
by the executive branch in sending people to Korea before they were 
trained.
  In 1940, the Selective Training and Service Act stipulated that 
people inducted into the land forces of the United States would not be 
sent beyond the limits of the Western Hemisphere, except in U.S. 
territories.
  The Congress acted in similar ways multiple times prior to World War 
II. In 1915, the Army Appropriations Act restricted Army tours of duty 
in the Philippines to 2 years, and tours in the Canal Zone to 3 years. 
There are a number of other examples here. This is a matter that is 
clearly within the constitutional prerogative of the Congress should it 
choose to act.
  There was a comment earlier by the junior Senator from Arizona 
regarding Secretary Gates's concern about the strain on the Guard and 
Reserve if this amendment were to pass. Again, let me reiterate that 
this amendment addresses the Guard and Reserve. It specifically states 
that National Guard and Reserve units that have been deployed will not 
be redeployed for a period of 3 years. This is not going to result in a 
greater strain on the Guard and Reserve if this amendment passes.
  There was also some comment about individuals being difficult to 
manage if the amendment were passed, because we do single out in this 
amendment that not only units being deployed should be protected, but 
also individuals. The reason that language was inserted into this 
amendment is because there is a common practice now to backfill 
individuals who may have returned from a tour of duty much more 
recently than the unit they have been assigned to.
  At the same time, we do have this goal, a laudable goal, of having 
units train together and then deploy together. But even under today's 
circumstances--for instance, in the data sheet that Lieutenant Colonel 
Martinez has put together for us--and I have heard this from many 
people, that even by month 10, on a 12-month dwell time back here, the 
units are still putting people together.
  So you want them to train together, but it is a fallacy to say they 
have been training for this entire period before they are deployed. 
Most importantly, this is not difficult to manage. Everyone in the U.S. 
military has a service record book of some sort, and in that record 
book, there are indications of when they have served overseas. In 
today's computer age, it is not very difficult to figure out who has 
come back and what period of time. Units are tagged to deploy at least 
6 months before they deploy. So you know who in your unit has recently 
been returned and who has not. It is not a difficult problem to fix.
  I wanted to make these clarifications.

                               Exhibit 1

 Fact Sheet: Constitutionality of Senator Webb's Bipartisan Dwell-Time 
                               Amendment

       (1) There is clear constitutional authority and extensive 
     legislative precedent for Congress to impose minimum periods 
     between operational deployments. As then-Acting Secretary of 
     the Army Geren stated during his confirmation hearing before 
     the Senate Committee on Armed Forces earlier this year, 
     ``Article I of the Constitution makes Congress and the Army 
     full partners.''
       (2) Among the many congressional authorities the 
     Constitution delineates with regard to the armed forces and 
     the nation's common defense, Article I, Section 8 empowers 
     Congress ``to make rules for the government and regulation of 
     the land and naval forces.'' The Congress has exercised this 
     authority to regulate land and naval forces many times with 
     regard to military training and operational assignments. The 
     most noteworthy example occurred during the height of the 
     Korean War, when Congress passed legislation to require all 
     service members to receive no less than 120 days of training 
     before being assigned overseas.
       (a) Despite pressing wartime exigencies in Korea, Congress 
     amended the Selective Service Act in 1951 to provide that 
     every person inducted into the Armed Forces would receive 
     ``full and adequate training'' for a period not less than 4 
     months and no personnel, during this 4-month period, would be 
     assigned for duty at a land installation located outside the 
     United States, its territories, or possessions.
       (b) This Korean-War legislation had as its precedent 
     similar congressional action before and after World War II. 
     In 1940, for example, the Selective Training and Service Act 
     stipulated that persons inducted into the land forces of the 
     United States under the Act would not be employed beyond the 
     limits of the Western Hemisphere, except in U.S. territories 
     and possessions. In 1948, the Selective Service Act provided 
     that 18- and 19-year-old enlistees for 1-year tours could not 
     be assigned to land bases outside the continental United 
     States.
       (c) Congress acted in similar ways multiple times prior to 
     World War II. In 1915, for example, the Army Appropriations 
     Act restricted Army tours of duty in the Philippines to 2 
     years and tours in the Canal

[[Page 24844]]

     Zone to 3 years--unless the service member requested 
     otherwise or in cases of insurrection or actual or threatened 
     hostilities.
       (d) Congress has continued to exercise its constitutional 
     authority to pass laws to govern and regulate the armed 
     forces. In 1956, a public law prohibited the assignment of 
     female service members to duty on combat aircraft and all 
     vessels of the Navy. Congress subsequently saw the wisdom of 
     repealing this legislation.
       (e) Later, during the 1980s and 1990s, Congress invoked the 
     War Powers Resolution in the ``Multinational Force in Lebanon 
     Resolution'' to authorize Marines to remain in Lebanon for 18 
     months. In 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers 
     Resolution to stipulate that U.S. forces should be withdrawn 
     from Somalia by March 1994. Congress also prohibited the 
     expenditure of funds to support personnel end-strength levels 
     above specific limits in NATO countries and other nations 
     outside the United States during the post-Cold War era of the 
     1990s. Other examples also exist.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we hope to be able in the next few moments, 
perhaps after Senator Martinez has gone, to enter into a unanimous 
consent agreement which would hopefully schedule votes on both the Webb 
amendment and on the McCain amendment. We expect those votes would 
begin at approximately 5:15. We do not have a unanimous consent locked 
in yet, but we do expect, perhaps after Senator Martinez has completed, 
to be able to offer a unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I mention to my friend, I think by 4:40 we 
would know for sure. That is when the meeting the principals are in now 
is over. But we fully anticipate that at 5:15 a vote would be agreed 
to.
  If there are other Senators who want to speak between now and about 
5:00, please come down and do so. But my understanding is that this 
agreement is, following the Webb amendment vote, there would be 10 
minutes equally divided and a vote after that.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is the expectation. So two votes and 10 minutes 
interviewing between the two, and then move on to other amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition of 
the current amendment, the Webb amendment, to the fiscal year 2008 
National Defense authorization bill.
  The fact is that this amendment, in its good intentions to think 
about the care and condition of our men and women in uniform who have 
so bravely served us, in fact is very much misguided in that it 
attempts to dictate to the military leaders exactly what type and how 
troop rotations should take place.
  I think it is a dangerous amendment because it could also interfere 
with the ability of our country to respond in times of a national 
emergency, even though it has a waiver provision in the amendment for 
the President's ability to respond to the dangerous situations that can 
occur in the very dangerous world in which we live.
  The fact is--I know it has been mentioned, but I reiterate--the 
Secretary of Defense, the person charged with the constitutional 
responsibility of deployment of the Armed Forces, has foursquare 
clearly stated that this amendment, while well intended, is certainly 
not a good amendment. It would dramatically limit the Nation's ability 
to respond to other national security needs while we remain engaged in 
Iran and Afghanistan. Secretary Gates, in a letter of September 18 to 
Senator Graham, indicated clearly his concern. He goes on to mention 
some other concerns.
  General Petraeus announced--and the President affirmed--that there 
would be troop drawdowns in Iraq in the upcoming weeks. In fact, this 
amendment could have the effect of extending the tours of duty of 
troops in Iraq beyond their currently scheduled rotation.
  There is another thing that bothers me. I think we also need to think 
about our constitutional scheme, how our Government is organized and 
ordered. Constitutionally to enact an amendment such as this would 
clearly be an encroachment on the constitutional duties of the 
Commander in Chief. This is not an area where the Congress is welcomed 
to dictate. We have one Commander in Chief, not 535. We only elect one 
at a time. This Commander in Chief has a Secretary of Defense. It is 
their responsibility under our form of Government to determine what our 
troop rotations should be.
  There are other very practical considerations of why this should not 
happen, why this is a bad idea. The Secretary of Defense goes into 
several items in his letter. But it does make sense, when you look at 
it, that units do not always stay together. Following an individual 
rather than a unit and following the deployment of an individual rather 
than that of a unit is something that would be cumbersome, difficult, 
and, in fact, not a way in which we would be, in this very dangerous 
time, having to run our military. The fact is, there is something here 
which is maybe the most underlying and important reason of all why this 
amendment is not a good idea, which is the clear desire and design of 
the amendment to limit the options of our military forces to maintain 
the current policy in Iraq. We ought to not use the good intentions and 
the good ideas about our soldiers, about our troops and their 
rotations, to have an underlying mission of simply saying, they can't 
keep this up so they will have to pull troops out. We will change 
policy by dictating how troops are rotated in and out of the 
battlefield. The fact is, that could have serious consequences for our 
Nation as other nations would view this as a vulnerability. It would be 
viewed as a weakness, as a fact that the United States is overextended 
and incapable of responding to crisis. It is these kinds of 
misperceptions and misunderstandings that can lead irresponsible states 
to take irresponsible actions that could lead to frightening scenarios 
in the very dangerous world in which we live.
  It is important to also note that many of the members of our Armed 
Forces consider it a privilege and an honor to serve this Nation at 
this difficult time. My recent trip to Iraq was in Tikrit. While there, 
I visited with a number of troops, some of them Floridians, all proud 
of their service. Over 90 percent of those troops had already 
reenlisted, knowing full well of our involvement in Iraq, knowing what 
the expectations of their service would be during their time of 
reenlistment, and they had voluntarily reenlisted. Reenlistment rates 
of those serving in the theater are larger than those of any other. It 
is a testament to their courage, valor, and sense of duty to their 
country. We would demean their service if we were to say to them that 
there had to be parity between the time in service out of the country 
and the time at home.
  The goal ought to be for us not to have 15-month deployments. The 
hope would be that these would never be necessary. But a mandate from 
Congress that this is how we must operate our Armed Forces is ill-
conceived. It is dangerous and does not serve either the national 
interest of the Nation or the interest of the soldiers on the field 
whom it is intended to serve. We should not have a subterfuge of policy 
to change direction in Iraq heaped on the backs of our brave men and 
women in uniform. If, in fact, there is the thought that this policy is 
wrong and it should be changed--and I know many Members feel that way; 
there has been plenty of debate about this issue--there ought to be the 
courage to say: We will not fund the troops. If you can't do that, you 
shouldn't do it this way. This is unnecessary. It is cumbersome, and it 
will be detrimental to the national security of the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Michigan.

                          ____________________