[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24844-24857]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               DWELL TIME

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Webb-Hagel 
dwell time amendment. Our service men and women are under constant 
strain, spending more time in theater than they have with their 
families. These men and women are risking their lives to protect this 
country, some on their fourth tour in Iraq. Their bodies

[[Page 24845]]

are aching and their minds are stressed, but by the time they become 
acclimated to home life, they are sent back into combat. Something must 
be done to prevent the breakdown of our military and the men and women 
who serve. This amendment would provide our troops ample rest and 
recuperation, time to visit with family, and an opportunity to extract 
our troops from the stress of war.
  The Oregon National Guard has served admirably since we began combat 
operations in 2001. I could not be more proud of their contributions to 
the war on terror while still serving as the foundation of their 
families and communities.
  Many citizen-soldiers have been on multiple deployments for over a 
year at a time, placing a significant strain on their families, 
employers, and communities. The amendment will give our soldiers 
predictability by preventing surprise deployments. Providing a 
consistent schedule allows them to plan for this disruption. Often, 
these men and women are the core of the community, the major 
breadwinner of their family or a needed caregiver and require advanced 
notice to plan for such a major disruption in their lives.
  If current enlistment levels do not allow us to provide our troops 
with the rest and recuperation needed to protect our Nation, then we 
must examine increasing the number of volunteer troops, both Active 
Duty and Reserve.
  For the past 10 years, we have shrunk the National Guard and ignored 
their call for needed resources. As a country, we are finally realizing 
the importance of our citizen-soldiers. They serve admirably in combat 
operations overseas, they provide help at home in the face of a natural 
disaster or emergency, and they are the bedrock of our community. 
Giving them some stability in their lives is the least we can do.
  I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting the Webb-Hagel 
dwell time amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for 4 long years, our Nation has been 
engaged in a war without a clear objective, exit strategy, or 
international mandate, and the consequences of such policies have been 
devastating. Our moral standing in the world has plummeted. Iraq is now 
mired in civil war, and terrorists have found a recruiting and training 
ground for attacking American troops. But few effects of this war are 
more troubling than the destructive impact this war has had on our 
Armed Forces.
  Approximately 3,800 brave American servicemembers have been killed in 
Iraq, and tens of thousands have been severely wounded. Military 
families have been forced to endure long and repeated stretches of time 
without their loved ones. And most significant, our forces have been 
stretched thin to a near-breaking point. This can be seen in the ever 
increasing number of suicides among our returning servicemembers, 
alltime low reenlistment rates, and the destruction of our military 
families. The adage is true--we recruit a soldier, but we retain a 
family. And if that family is broken, so, too, will be the soldier.
  While long deployments are testing our troops in the field, they are 
also taxing critical stocks of combat gear and training time. According 
to some reports, over two-thirds of our Army and 88 percent of our 
National Guard are unable to report for duty due to equipment 
shortfalls and insufficient military instruction stateside.
  The bipartisan Webb amendment is an important step toward restoring 
our military's readiness and providing the important support that our 
servicemembers and families need and deserve.
  It would implement two simple principles--if a unit or member of a 
Regular component of the Armed Forces deploys to Iraq or Afghanistan, 
they will have the same time at home before they are redeployed. No 
unit or member of a Reserve component, including the National Guard, 
could be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within 3 years of their 
previous deployment.
  These are the very principles incoming Secretary of Defense Robert 
Gates committed to months ago. And now, the distinguished junior 
Senator from Virginia has modified his proposal to address objections 
raised concerning both the time the Pentagon needs to implement it and 
the flexibility needed for our special operations forces, SOF.
  Senator Webb's amendment now allows 120 days for the Department to 
implement its provisions and provides exceptions for SOF. But as is 
clear, the administration still objects to any interference by this 
body in how we expect our troops to be treated. Of course, this body 
has a unique role in the governance of our Armed Forces. Specifically, 
article 1, section 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress shall 
have the power to, `` make rules for the Government and Regulation of 
the land and naval Forces.'' Obviously, the Founding Fathers of this 
great Nation had a very specific idea of how the Congress should behave 
with respect to the troops--that Congress, and Congress alone, should 
have the power and authority to govern and regulate our forces. We can 
see first hand the tragedy that occurs when the administration is given 
a free hand to engage our troops in conflict without any oversight from 
this body--and we should reassert our constitutional prerogative.
  Since the war's beginning I have tried to advance initiatives that 
would reverse the administration's irresponsible defense policies, so 
that our troops would be prepared and protected in combat and our 
country made safer. In 2003, I offered an amendment to the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill to add $322 million for critical 
protective gear identified by the Army that the Bush administration had 
failed to include in their budget. But it was blocked by the 
administration and their allies. In 2004 and 2005, I authored 
legislation, signed into law, to reimburse troops for equipment that 
they had to purchase on their own because the Rumsfeld Pentagon failed 
to provide them with the body armor and other gear they needed to stay 
safe. And last year, working with Senators Inouye, Reed, and Stevens, I 
offered an amendment to help address a $17 billion budget shortfall to 
replace and repair thousands of war-battered tanks, aircraft, and 
vehicles. Without these additional resources, the Army Chief of Staff 
claimed that U.S. Army readiness would deteriorate even further. This 
provision was approved unanimously and enacted in law. But much more 
remains to be done.
  Senator Webb's amendment is an important first step, but it is only 
the first step. Ultimately, we need to withdraw our combat forces as 
quickly as possible. This can only be accomplished by changing our 
mission in Iraq, and it will only be accomplished when this body 
finally stands up to the administration and their failed policies and 
enacts legislation that will bring our troops home. I strongly support 
this amendment and hope all of our colleagues do as well.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the war in Iraq has severely 
overstretched and strained our military personnel and their families. 
According to many of our foremost experts, we're actually in danger of 
breaking our military.
  Frequent and extended deployments are over-taxing our brave military 
men and women and their families and our support structures at home. 
It's reducing our ability to adequately train our soldiers, sailors, 
airmen and Marines.
  The men and women of our military forces signed up in the belief that 
they were going to defend America, and preserve our way of life. 
Instead, they find themselves entangled in an Iraqi civil war that is 
not theirs to win or lose.
  Their repeated and extended deployments breach the trust they have in 
their government. We as a Congress must do everything we can to ease 
the strain.
  The Department of Defense itself has set a goal of 2 years at home 
for every year deployed, and that makes sense. It gives servicemembers 
time to be with their families, and re-establish the bonds that we all 
take for granted.
  It also gives our servicemembers time to train--not just for a return 
to Iraq, but for other missions we may ask them to undertake.
  Because of the President's misguided war and his so-called surge, the 
Department of Defense can no longer meet this goal.

[[Page 24846]]

  As General Casey, Chief of Staff for the Army said last month, 
``Today's Army is out of balance. We're consumed with meeting the 
current demands and we're unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as 
we would like for other contingencies; nor are we able to provide an 
acceptable tempo of deployments to sustain our soldiers and families 
for the long haul.''
  What does the General mean when he says the army is ``consumed with 
meeting current demands?''
  Over 1.4 million American troops have served in Iraq or Afghanistan; 
More than 420,000 troops have deployed more than once.
  The Army has a total of 44 combat brigades, and all of them except 
one--the First Brigade of the Second Infantry Division, which is 
permanently based in South Korea--have served at least one tour of duty 
in Iraq or Afghanistan, and the majority of these 43 brigades have done 
multiple tours: 17 brigades have had two tours in Iraq or Afghanistan; 
13 brigades have had three tours in Iraq or Afghanistan; and 5 brigades 
have had four tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.
  Army recruiting is struggling to maintain the current force 
structure, let alone meet its goal of increasing its overall end 
strength over the next 5 years.
  The Army missed its recruiting goals for both May and June by a 
combined total of more than 1,750, and it's borrowing heavily on future 
commitments to meet its goals for this year.
  Spending on enlistment and recruitment bonuses tripled from $328 
million before the war in Iraq to over $1 billion last year.
  The Commandant of the Marine Corps, James Conway, says his marines 
can't focus on conventional operations because training time is too 
scarce.
  It's an impossible situation. Our military is strained--some would 
say already broken--and we face a crisis in recruiting.
  We can't continue to sacrifice our Nation's security and the 
readiness of our forces while Iraq fights this civil war. This 
amendment will give General Conway and General Casey the time they need 
to make sure that our forces are ready and able to defend our country 
against any threat. It will also show our appreciation for the men and 
women who serve our country so well. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, over 4 years of war have stressed our 
Armed Forces to the breaking point. Our Army and Marine Corps are 
stretched dangerously thin. They are performing magnificently, as they 
always do. Chronic personnel and equipment shortages plague our 
nondeployed forces resulting in dangerously low readiness. As a nation, 
we simply do not have the ground forces necessary, nor are the few 
uncommitted forces trained and ready, to protect our interests against 
other threats around the world. As Army Chief of Staff GEN George Casey 
put it:

       The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply.

  Nearly 1.6 million servicemembers have been deployed to Iraq or 
Afghanistan. Of the Army's 43 active brigades available for rotation, 
10 brigades have been deployed three or more times. All others have 
been deployed once or twice, with the exception of one new brigade just 
forming. Of course, the single brigade stationed in Korea does not 
deploy as part of the Iraq or Afghanistan rotation. All of our National 
Guard combat brigades have at least one rotation to Iraq, Afghanistan, 
or Kosovo. Two National Guard combat brigades have two rotations. Guard 
brigades from Indiana, Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and New 
York have been notified that they should be prepared to deploy at the 
end of this year.
  Through the first part of this year, units pushed to Iraq as part of 
the surge strategy barely had enough time to make up their personnel 
and equipment shortages or complete their training. Inadequate time to 
prepare for war puts a unit at risk when sent into harm's way.
  We have the responsibility to make sure that our forces have adequate 
time available to prepare and then use that time to best advantage. We 
have accepted too much risk for too long.
  Senator Webb's amendment goes to the heart of this obligation, 
ensuring that our forces have the time they need to recover and 
prepare. Multiple rotations and insufficient dwell time inherently 
raise readiness risks. Units must have the time necessary to fully man, 
equip, and train prior to their next deployment. Readiness reports we 
receive here in Congress consistently show that most of our nondeployed 
units are not ready to deploy, and those getting ready to deploy to 
Iraq and Afghanistan do not have personnel and equipment necessary for 
comprehensive training until very late in their preparation. In order 
to provide some relief for the personnel shortages in next-to-deploy 
units, the Army is cutting training at its important officer and NCO 
schools. The Army has gone so far as to institute a 6-day training week 
at many of these schools to accelerate getting troops back to their 
units. For soldiers, especially young leaders and instructors just back 
from deployment, working a 6-day week starts to make dwell time feel a 
lot like deployment. Insufficient dwell time contributes to retention 
challenges, especially among young officers.
  There is ample evidence that multiple long deployments are impacting 
our troops' mental health and family stability. Servicemembers and 
their families, particularly among our young officers and NCOs, are 
voting with their feet, leaving the military rather than endure the 
uncertainty and turmoil in their families' lives. There is no greater 
threat to the quality and viability of our all-volunteer force than the 
loss of these combat-experienced young leaders.
  The Webb amendment exempts our special operations forces. Their 
deployment cycles are always irregular, their readiness sustained at 
much higher levels, and their ability to respond to emergencies is 
critically important. The exemption in this amendment preserves that 
flexibility.
  Servicemembers and their families are weary of the deployment cycle 
and uncertainty about timing and length of deployments. They are eager 
for greater predictability about when and for how long troops will be 
at home or deployed. The Webb amendment will require the DOD to make 
earlier strategic and operational decisions which will result in 
greater predictability and stability for troops and their families.
  The Webb amendment will incentivize the Department of Defense to 
greater certainty in the implementation of unit and individual rotation 
policies. Controlling deployment cycles is the only way to rapidly stop 
the dramatic loss of readiness in our nondeployed and next-to-deploy 
units. Controlling deployment cycles is the only way to provide the 
fastest possible relief to our troops and their families. Controlling 
deployment cycles is a critical step in preserving our all-volunteer 
military system. The Webb amendment deserves the support of this 
Senate.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the issues relating to Iraq have been 
very complex, have aroused an enormous national reaction, and have been 
consuming for those of us in the Congress trying to decide what is the 
best course of action.
  Had we known Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, 
I do not think we would have gone into Iraq. But once there, we do not 
want to leave precipitously, and we do not want to leave Iraq in an 
unstable condition with all of the potential forces that might bode ill 
for the United States in the future with respect to terrorism, with 
respect to Iran moving into a vacuum, and many complex problems which 
might arise.
  The President, in his recent speech, and General Petraeus and 
Ambassador

[[Page 24847]]

Crocker, in their testimony before Congress, have gone to considerable 
distance in trying to move toward some of the areas of concern. There 
have been commitments of troop withdrawal before Christmas. There are 
projections for additional troop withdrawal next year. There has been a 
modification to some extent of the mission. But still there is an 
unease with the current policy.
  I voted against the Levin-Reed amendment when it came before the 
Senate because I think it is unwise to fix a firm date of withdrawal. 
It just gives the insurgents a target date to shoot at to declare 
victory.
  I think the provisions of the Warner-Lugar amendment had much to 
recommend them and joined as a cosponsor. I have already expressed on 
the floor my concern that the Warner-Lugar amendment was not called 
before the Senate. I think its thrust to have required a report by the 
President by October 15 and the possibility of a withdrawal date later 
but leaving the ultimate discretion to the President would have been a 
step forward. It would have imposed an obligation on the part of the 
President, the administration, to come forward with a plan.
  I have also cosponsored the Salazar-Alexander amendment, which 
incorporates the findings of the independent study group. I believe 
that is a general outline which is desirable to follow. Again, I 
expressed my concern when the majority leader took down this bill 
before calling up the Salazar-Alexander amendment. I have cosponsored 
that as an outline. Again, it does not place the administration in a 
straitjacket but outlines certain goals and certain objectives.
  I believe the idea advanced by Senator Biden for some time now, to 
divide Iraq into three parts--the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds--
where those factions have been engaging in violent warfare, is an idea 
which is worth pursuing. Again, that is a matter which has to be 
decided by the Iraqi Government, not by the Congress of the United 
States, but Senator Biden has couched it in the form of a resolution, 
really, on what amounts to a recommendation.
  I have been considering the amendment offered by the junior Senator 
from Virginia, Mr. Webb. I discussed the issue with him last week and 
since that time have undertaken to try to find out what the impact of 
the Webb amendment would be on force projection.
  I met with LTG Carter Ham last week. General Ham is in charge of 
operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  During the course of that meeting, General Ham outlined the 
projection by the Department of Defense that they could meet that 1-to-
1 ratio--12 months in Iraq and 12 months at home, which is the thrust 
of the Webb amendment--that they could meet that objective by October 
1, 2008, the beginning of the next fiscal year. General Ham was not 
supportive of the Webb amendment because he raised a number of concerns 
that on its face, if you enact the Webb amendment, there are troops in 
Iraq now who will have to stay longer. There would have to be 
additional calls to the Reserves and National Guard. There might be a 
need to take people out of units which would impact on morale, but that 
if there were an October 1 date, 2008, that the 1-to-1 ratio could be 
achieved, according to the Department of Defense projections.
  Earlier today, at the invitation of Senator Warner, I met to talk 
again to LTG Carter Ham and to LTG Lovelace who works with General Ham. 
During the course of that meeting, the target date of October 1, 2008, 
to be the 1-to-1 ratio was reaffirmed. There was an additional factor 
injected into the discussion, and that is the factor of some 5,500 
additional troops in a variety of categories, special forces and 
others, where this 1-to-1 ratio could not be met by October 1.
  Following that meeting, I have had telephone conversations with 
Secretary of Defense Gates and National Security Adviser Hadley to get 
some sense of the position of the Department of Defense and the 
administration. Secretary Gates confirmed the ability of the Department 
of Defense to meet in general terms the 1-to-1 ratio by October 1, 
2008. He talked about some other difficulties and, obviously, is not 
endorsing any plan. The administration would prefer not to have any 
congressional action on this subject. Similarly, after an extended 
telephone conversation with National Security Adviser Hadley, I heard 
the reasons there is opposition--the difficulty of knowing whether the 
factors on the ground will be as they are projected now, and they are 
resisting congressional action which would tie the hands of the 
administration.
  In considering these issues, I have been very concerned about the 
problems of micromanaging the Department of Defense by the Congress. 
There is no question we are not equipped to do that. I have studied the 
constitutional law aspects, and I studied the case of Fleming v. Page 
[50 U.S. 603 (1850)], a decision by Chief Justice Taney, and the case 
of the United States v. Lovett [328 U.S. 303 (1946)], decided by the 
Supreme Court in 1946. I am well aware of the authority, the broad 
authority the Constitution vests in the President under Article II as 
Commander in Chief, but I am also cognizant of the authority of the 
Congress under Article I, Section 8: ``To raise and support Armies;'' 
``To provide and maintain a Navy;'' ``To make rules for the government 
and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;'' ``To provide for 
organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing 
such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United 
States.''
  We have seen the Supreme Court recently strike down executive action 
on military commissions, saying it is the function of the Congress of 
the United States, and the Congress has acted there. So there is 
authority for the Congress on that premise, in addition to our power of 
the purse, our power of appropriation.
  I have discussed the matter with Senator Webb and have indicated--
have stated an interest on my part in supporting the Webb amendment, if 
the concerns which have been expressed to me by the Department of 
Defense could be accommodated, and that is a change of date to October 
1, and an accommodation of the 5,500 specialty forces that cannot be 
enumerated. Of course, there is the waiver provision which is already 
present in the Webb amendment. I asked about the possibility of 
deferring the vote. I think that if there was an understanding by other 
Senators about the ability of the Department of Defense to meet a 2008 
October 1 date, and the flexibility needed on some 5,500 additional 
troops, there might be some additional interest in the amendment. I am 
told, at least as of this moment of 4:36, the vote is going to go ahead 
5:15. But I have discussed the matter, as I say, with the sponsor of 
the amendment, Senator Webb.
  There is also the obvious factor that what we do here is unlikely, in 
any event, to have the full effect of law. If the Webb amendment gets 
60 votes and is embodied in congressional enactment, it is virtually 
certain to be vetoed by the President of the United States, and there 
are not 67 votes to override a Presidential veto. But our function in 
the Congress is to exercise our best judgment and pass what we think is 
appropriate. Then, under our constitutional system, it is the 
prerogative of the President to either sign or veto. So we take all of 
these matters a step at a time. There is a lot of concern in the 
Congress of the United States about what is happening now, and an 
interest in, if it can be structured, congressional action which would 
be helpful. All of this is obviously very involved and requires a lot 
of analysis and consideration.
  I think it would be a very helpful thing for the U.S. effort, 
generally, if the Congress and the President could come to an agreement 
on a policy and a plan without leaving it solely to the discretion of 
the executive branch. The Congress is going to continue funding, and I 
have voted for that. We are not going to put the troops at risk. We are 
not going to set times for withdrawal. It is possible we could use the 
Vietnam model, where funding existed up to a certain date on the 
condition that the troops be reduced to a certain number

[[Page 24848]]

and then by another date. That hasn't been tried, but I think it 
unlikely the Congress is going to go that route. We are too concerned 
about the troops and we want to support them, but we are also gripped 
with a sense of unease as to what is happening.
  There is agreement between the Department of Defense, for the purpose 
of Senator Webb's amendment, that the stays in Iraq are too long. We 
have noted the increase in the suicide rate, the increase in the 
divorce rate, the increase in psychiatric problems and stress 
disorders. The policy of the Department of Defense is to have 2 months 
at home for every 1 month in Iraq for the Army; 5 months at home for 
every 1 month in Iraq for the Reserves. We are far from that. So we are 
struggling and groping to try to find an answer. In the course of the 
remaining time before the roll is called, I am going to see if it is 
possible to find some constructive way forward and some rational basis 
for the vote I will cast.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I have watched and listened to the 
debate today on the floor of the Senate. It is a debate in many ways 
that is similar to debates we have had on previous occasions, and I 
know there are people on all sides who feel passionately about these 
issues. I respect differences of opinion. I respect those who come to 
the floor and say: Here is how I see it, here is what I believe, and 
here is what I think we should do.
  This is a very important issue. There is so much at stake for our 
country with respect to this issue of the war in Iraq. It casts a 
shadow on virtually everything else we consider and do in public policy 
and our relationships around the world. It is a situation I think that 
requires us to do the best we can to develop public policy that finds a 
way to extract ourselves from what has largely become a civil war with 
sectarian violence in the country of Iraq, and take the fight to the 
terrorists.
  I wish to raise a few points about fighting terrorism, even as I come 
to the floor to support the amendment offered by Senator Webb. I think 
it is an amendment that has great merit and an amendment that will be 
supportive of the best interests of this country in pursuing the war 
against terror.
  Let me say there have been a series of reports--an almost dizzying 
number of reports and speeches and testimony over the last several 
weeks--about the status of the war in Iraq and the performance of the 
Iraqi Government. There are claims and counterclaims; I expect there is 
spinning on all sides of these issues. Much of it has been about 
whether the U.S. military surge of 30,000 troops since January 2007 has 
worked and about the benchmarks--about whether the Iraqi Government has 
been willing to or has made progress in meeting benchmarks it has 
promised to meet to do its job, to justify U.S. troops fighting and 
dying in their country. Through all of that, it seems to me there are 
three facts that are clear. First, only political reconciliation among 
the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds will stop the civil war that 
rages in Iraq. Only political reconciliation will ultimately solve this 
problem.
  Second, the Iraqi Government has made very little progress--perhaps 
some in several areas but in the main very little progress toward the 
needed reconciliation.
  Third, terrorism remains the No. 1 threat to the United States. The 
July National Intelligence Estimate makes the case. This is not coming 
from me; this comes from a July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. 
The unclassified portion says:

       Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist 
     threat to the homeland. We assess that the group has 
     protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack 
     capability, including: A safe haven in the Pakistan federally 
     administered tribal areas, operational lieutenants, and its 
     top leadership.

  Let me say again that it says that ``al-Qaida is and will remain the 
most serious terrorist threat to the homeland.'' We know that as of 
last week, Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaida, al-Zawahiri, and 
others who lead al-Qaida are still speaking to us through videos and 
through voice tapes, giving us their version of the world. These are 
people who have boasted about murdering innocent Americans on 9/11, and 
six years later, they remain in what the National Intelligence Estimate 
says is somewhere on this planet that is secure or safe. It is almost 
unbelievable to me that there is a ``safe haven'' anyplace on this 
planet for the people who have boasted of initiating the 9/11 attacks 
against this country, but that is what our National Intelligence 
Estimate says--they are in a safe haven.
  There ought not be 1 square inch on planet Earth that is safe for the 
leadership of al-Qaida. How did we come to this point of having a safe 
haven for those very terrorists who initiated the attacks against this 
country and who, as our most recent National Intelligence Estimate 
says, remain the most serious terrorist threat to our country? How have 
we reached that point? What has been happening while we have surged 
troops in Iraq? Well, as I indicated, Osama bin Laden released two 
videos, one on September 7 and one on September 11. He boasted about 
the 19 hijackers who did the killings on September 11 and rambled on 
about the coming downfall of America, as is his custom.
  Regardless of what Osama bin Laden has said, our National 
Intelligence Estimate says that al-Qaida is back stronger than ever and 
terrorism remains the No. 1 threat to the U.S. homeland. I think we 
need a set of policies that focuses on fighting terrorists first. 
Frankly, what is happening in Iraq is not the central fight on 
terrorism. It seems to me the central fight on terrorism is to 
eliminate the leadership that represents the greatest threat to our 
country, and they are not in Iraq. That leadership, we are told by the 
National Intelligence Estimate, is in a safe haven in the Pakistan 
federally administered tribal areas.
  I don't mean to say that dealing with that would be easy or without 
difficulty. I do mean to say that if this represents the judgment of 
our National Intelligence Estimate, and if we know--and we all do--that 
those who boasted about initiating the 9/11 attacks are there and are 
pledging additional attacks against our homeland, it seems to me that 
should be where we focus our country's priority of action.
  We are told, by the way, that the leadership of that terrorist 
organization that is, again, the most serious threat to this country--
we are told they have regenerated.
  Here is a September 11 story quoting our intelligence officials. The 
headline is ``Al-Qaida's Return: The Terrorists Have a Sanctuary Once 
Again.'' In the last week or so, we have seen terrorist arrests in 
Denmark and in Germany, and we see that these arrests, particularly in 
Germany, are for terrorists plotting attacks against large U.S. 
military bases. Those attacks against our military base in Europe are 
being plotted by terrorists who have trained in Pakistan, which is the 
very area where the Intelligence Community says Osama bin Laden has 
regenerated his terrorist training camps in the tribal area.
  Madam President, this issue of a sanctuary for terrorists to begin 
planning additional attacks against our country, as they are apparently 
now doing, it seems to me ought to claim our attention and ought to 
claim the policy debate about what is the approach this country might 
best use.
  My colleague from Virginia comes to the floor with respect to this 
issue of the war in Iraq. What are we doing in the war in Iraq? What 
about the surge and the road ahead? What about the Petraeus report? My 
colleague has made an important argument on the Senate floor about the 
strength of the U.S. military if you don't provide ample opportunity 
for the U.S. military to have sufficient time home from

[[Page 24849]]

the battlefield to rest and regenerate and also sufficient time for 
additional training.
  Madam President, the point of the amendment offered by Senator Webb 
is to provide a sufficient opportunity for troops who are on station, 
on duty in a war zone 24 hours a day, to give them time to retrain, 
rest, and refresh. You cannot have a fighting force that doesn't have 
that opportunity. That is what my colleague from Virginia is suggesting 
in his amendment.
  My point about this is that as we discuss how to deal with these 
issues in Iraq, we are, on a course at the moment that says our mission 
in Iraq is to go door to door in Baghdad in the middle of sectarian 
violence or a civil war. My point is, while that is going on, while we 
are in the middle of a civil war in Baghdad with our soldiers--and, 
yes, there is some al-Qaida presence there, but that is not the 
majority of what is happening there; it is largely a civil war. While 
we are doing that, here is what we are understanding and knowing. This 
is not a claim, this is what we know: ``Europeans Get Terror Training 
Inside Pakistan.'' We picked them up in Denmark and Germany. We find 
out that the terrorists are being trained in Pakistan. We are told that 
is where the al-Qaida leadership is, reconstituting its base, its 
strength, building new training camps. We picked up the people who are 
threatening to attack the largest military installation owned by the 
United States in Europe.
  Should that surprise us? Not if we have been reading the newspaper. 
We don't have to read the intelligence; we can just read the newspaper.
  This is a New York Times newspaper story from February 19 of this 
year. This is from our intelligence officials talking about what they 
know:

       Senior leaders of al-Qaida, operating from Pakistan over 
     the past year, have set up a band of training camps in the 
     tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American 
     intelligence and counterterrorism officials. American 
     officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin 
     Laden and his deputy, al-Zawahiri, have been steadily 
     building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistan tribal 
     area of north Waziristan.

  Now we have picked up terrorists who were trained there. We are told 
by the National Intelligence Estimate that the greatest threat to our 
country is from the al-Qaida organization and the leadership of al-
Qaida, who are now planning terrorist attacks against our homeland. 
That is the greatest threat to our country. So what are we doing? We 
are going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war while 
there is a ``safe haven'' on this Earth, apparently, for the leadership 
of al-Qaida. Is there common sense missing here? Would one not think 
those who boasted of murdering 3,000-plus Americans on 9/11, 2001, that 
they would have long ago been apprehended? President Bush was asked 
about this, and he said, ``I don't think about Osama bin Laden and the 
leadership of al-Qaida.'' I really think we ought to take the fight to 
what the National Intelligence Estimate insists is the greatest threat 
to our country, and I don't believe that is happening.
  I support the effort of my colleague from Virginia. I think that 
amendment is one which will give our military the opportunity to 
retrain, rest, and be refreshed and represent the kind of fighting 
force we want and need. All of us are proud of our American soldiers 
who walk in harm's way.
  There is a verse about those soldiers and patriots:

       When the night is full of knives and the drums are heard 
     and the lightning is seen, it's the patriots that are always 
     there ready to step forward and fight and die, if necessary, 
     for their country.

  We have a lot of patriots who got up this morning and put on body 
armor and are walking in harm's way on behalf of this country. What we 
owe them, it seems to me, as policymakers is our unyielding support for 
whatever they need to finish their job. In addition, we owe them good 
policy that focuses on attacking and destroying and eliminating the 
greatest terrorist threat to this country. And nobody should take it 
from me; take it from the National Intelligence Estimate of July of 
this year. The greatest terrorist threat to our country is Al-Qaida.--I 
will put the chart back up:

       Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist 
     threat to the homeland.

  The NIE says that they have a safe haven in Pakistan. So that is the 
fight--to eliminate the greatest terrorist threat to our homeland. 
There ought not to be a square inch of safe haven anywhere on this 
planet for that group.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
between now and 5:20 p.m. be for debate with respect to the Webb 
amendment 2909, with the time divided as follows: Senator Durbin be 
recognized for 5 minutes; at 5:05, the majority leader be recognized 
for 10 minutes; and at 5:15, for 5 minutes, which would be immediately 
prior to the vote, it be equally divided and controlled between 
Senators McCain and Webb or their designees; and that at 5:20, without 
intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on the 
amendment; further, that upon disposition of the Webb amendment, there 
be 10 minutes of debate with respect to the McCain-Graham amendment No. 
2918, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators 
McCain and Webb; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate 
proceed to vote on the amendment; that no amendment be in order to 
either amendment in this agreement; that each amendment must achieve 60 
votes to be agreed to, and if neither vote achieves 60 votes, it be 
withdrawn; that if either amendment receives 60 votes, then it be 
agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Mr. CARPER. Reserving the right to object, earlier I asked for some 
time. I asked for 10 minutes, but I would like to have at least 5 
minutes before the vote. If we can do that, I would appreciate it.
  Mr. McCAIN. That would make the vote at 5:25. I have no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. So Senator Carper would be after Senator Durbin for 5 
minutes, and everything else will be delayed for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Is it necessary to call up 
amendment No. 2918 or is it in order according to the unanimous consent 
agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will need to be called up.


                Amendment No. 2918 to amendment No. 2011

  Mr. McCAIN. At this time, I call up amendment No. 2918 to be in order 
according to the unanimous consent agreement propounded by the Senator 
from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2918.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress on Department of Defense 
                      policy regarding dwell time)

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

     SEC. 1031. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY 
                   REGARDING DWELL TIME RATIO GOALS FOR MEMBERS OF 
                   THE ARMED FORCES DEPLOYED IN SUPPORT OF 
                   OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING 
                   FREEDOM.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the wartime demands in support of Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) placed on 
     the men and women of the Armed Forces, both in the regular 
     and reserve components, and on their families and loved ones, 
     have required the utmost in honor, courage, commitment, and 
     dedication to duty, and the sacrifices they have made and 
     continue to make in the defense of our nation will forever be 
     remembered and revered;
       (2) members of the Armed Forces who have completed combat 
     deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan should be afforded as 
     much ``dwell time'' as possible at their home stations prior 
     to re-deployment; and
       (3) consistent with wartime requirements, the Department of 
     Defense should establish a force management policy for 
     deployments of units and members of the Armed Forces in 
     support of Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring 
     Freedom (including participation in the NATO International 
     Security Assistance Force (Afghanistan)) as soon as 
     practicable that achieves the goal of--
       (A) for units and members of the regular components of the 
     Armed Forces, providing for a period between the deployment 
     of the unit or member that is equal to or longer

[[Page 24850]]

     than the period of the previous deployment of the unit or 
     member;
       (B) for units and members of the reserve components of the 
     Armed Forces, and particularly for units and members in the 
     ground forces, limiting deployment if the unit or member has 
     been deployed at any time within the three years preceding 
     the date of the deployment; and
       (C) ensuring the capability of the Armed Forces to respond 
     to national security needs.
       (b) Certifications Required.--The Secretary of Defense may 
     not implement any force management policy regarding mandatory 
     ratios of deployed days and days at home station for members 
     of the Armed Forces deployed in support of Operation Iraqi 
     Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom until the Secretary 
     submits to Congress certifications as follows:
       (1) That the policy would not result in extension of 
     deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces already 
     deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan beyond their current 
     scheduled rotations.
       (2) That the policy would not cause broader and more 
     frequent mobilization of National Guard and Reserve units and 
     members in order to accomplish operational missions.
       (c) National Security Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of 
     Defense may waive the provisions of any force management 
     policy and any attendant certification requirement under 
     subsection (a) or (b), and the applicability of such a policy 
     to a member of the Armed Forces or any group of members, if 
     the Secretary determines that the waiver is necessary in the 
     national security interests of the United States.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, with that modification, I ask that the 
unanimous consent request be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I understand that under the agreement, I 
have 5 minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the Webb amendment. 
What is the Senator from Virginia, a Marine Corps veteran from Vietnam, 
trying to do? It is actually easy to state. He wants to make sure that 
when our troops are deployed, they have at least as much time home 
between deployments as they do the length of the deployment. If they 
are deployed for a year, they will have a year at home before they are 
deployed again. If they are deployed 15 months, they will have 15 
months at home before they are deployed again.
  Madam President, you have been to Iraq and I have been there, too--
three times. I do not profess to be an expert on the military. That is 
not a field of my training or expertise, but I talk to those who are. 
The last time I visited Iraq, I went to Patrol Base Murray, south of 
Baghdad 12 miles, part of the surge, the Third Infantry Division, Fort 
Stewart, GA, and saw the Illinois soldiers and others. I had a little 
lunch with them.
  As I was starting to leave, one of the officers came over to me and 
spoke to me privately. Do you know what he told me? He said: Senator, 
15 months is too long. These troops have to be on guard every moment of 
every day for roadside bombs and snipers and other dangers.
  He said: After 12 months, I work so hard to keep them on their toes 
so they come home safe and protect the soldiers who are with them. 
Fifteen months is too long. He told me: I am a career soldier. My wife 
knew what we were getting into long ago. So I leave, but it is tough on 
my family.
  He said: When I left Fort Stewart, GA, my daughter was in the sixth 
grade. When I get back home, she will be in the eighth grade. I will 
have missed a year in her life. That is the price we pay.
  He said: These young soldiers with babies at home, they are e-mailing 
their wives every single day. They are hearing how the babies are 
growing up and the problems the family is having. At the end of the 
year, they can't wait to go home, and we tell them: Give us 3 more 
months.
  I said: What about the 12 months in between deployments?
  He said: It is not enough; 12 months is not enough time to 
reconstitute our unit, retrain them, equip them, give them time with 
their families so they can get their lives back together. Twelve months 
is not enough.
  I said: How much time do you need?
  He said: Twice that. Give us 2 years. That is what it takes.
  That is the reality of this war on the ground. So when we hear the 
arguments being made by Senators that somehow we should not, as a 
Senate, be sticking our nose into the business of how they manage the 
military overseas, I am sorry, but that is part of our constitutional 
obligation. We do not just declare the war and send the money; we have 
responsibilities that reach far beyond that.
  Over the years, Congress has spoken to the number of troops our 
country will have. It has spoken to whether those troops can be 
deployed overseas. It has passed laws restricting Presidents from 
sending troops overseas without at least 4 months or 6 months of 
training. We have restricted the roll of women in the military. Time 
and again, Congress has spoken under its constitutional authority to 
make certain our military is treated properly. That is part of my 
responsibility as a Senator. It is part of every Senator's 
responsibility.
  Calling this micromanagement is unfair to our troops. Our soldiers 
and their families are making more sacrifices than any of us serving in 
this Chamber today. They are risking their lives at this very moment. 
All they ask for is a little more time to be with their families, a 
little more time to get their unit combat ready before it is sent out 
again.
  Senator Webb knows this story because he lived it in Vietnam as a 
marine. He knows it as a father of a soldier who is in Iraq today. We 
should know it too, and we should understand something as well. It is 
true, as someone once said, war is hell, but politicians should not 
make it any worse, and we are making it worse when we push these 
soldiers to the limit.
  Look at the numbers coming back to us: Divorce rates among our 
soldiers now reaching record highs, suicide rates higher than any time 
since Vietnam, cash incentives to bring people into the military and 
keep them at a record level of $10,000 and $20,000, waiving the 
requirements so we can fill the ranks with people who have not 
graduated from high school or have some criminal records. These are the 
realities of the Army today.
  For the President to stand and boldly say, ``I am sending the troops 
into battle'' is to ignore the reality. Many of our warriors are weary. 
Having fought the good fight and stood up for this country, they 
deserve for this Senate to stand up for them and adopt the Webb 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise in support of the Webb amendment. 
I have had a chance to think about this issue that is before us today 
wearing a hat other than my hat as Senator. During my time in the 
Vietnam war, I served 5 years active duty as a naval flight officer. I 
spent 3 tours in Southeast Asia with my squad. I spent another 18 years 
after that as a Naval Reserve flight officer, staying current in the P-
3 aircraft and was made mission commander of that aircraft.
  Then for 5 years before I came to the Senate, from 1993 to 2001, I 
wore another hat. I was commander in chief of the Delaware National 
Guard, a force that served in the last 15 years in two wars--the 
Persian Gulf war and the Iraq war to date.
  So I have had a chance to think about this issue, not just as a 
person who helps set policy for our country but someone who has worn a 
uniform on active duty in a hot war, wore a uniform in the Cold War, 
and then as commander in chief of my State's National Guard.
  When I first heard of this idea that Senator Webb had come up with of 
equaling the Active-Duty deployed time with the dwell time folks have 
to catch up, to retrain, reunite with their families for Active-Duty 
personnel, I had some questions about it. I know others do as well.
  One of the questions I had was, what if the President or what if the 
Secretary of Defense felt a particular individual with certain skills 
or unit that

[[Page 24851]]

brought certain attributes to a fight were needed. Could the President 
or the Secretary of Defense intercede and be able to say: We need this 
individual, we need this unit. As it turns out, that concern has been 
addressed.
  What if you had an individual who said: I know I am entitled to 12 
months downtime or 2 years downtime, dwell time back home. I don't want 
to use it. I want to go back and serve. The question is, Does this 
amendment allow that to happen? And it does.
  A number of legitimate questions have been raised not just as to the 
intent but the practical effect of the legislation, and I believe they 
have been addressed in a good way.
  Another concern was, if we adopt this amendment, if it is passed as 
part of a Defense authorization bill and the President signs it, does 
it take effect immediately. If this provision were to take effect 
immediately, I would not want to be Secretary of Defense or Secretary 
of the Navy. I would want to have time to try to make this work. It is 
not going to be easy, but given a reasonable amount of time, it could 
work.
  To his credit, Senator Webb changed the early language of the 
amendment, I think after consulting with Secretary Gates, in order to 
say we are going to provide, after enactment of this provision, after 
it is signed into law, 4 months during which the Secretary of Defense 
and our services have a chance to figure out how we actually work with 
this provision and make it work.
  I thank the Senator from Virginia for providing the kind of 
flexibility that is needed if we are going to enact this kind of 
legislation. I think it is good policy. I believe some major concerns 
that I and others had have been addressed.
  My last point is I wish to talk about what it is like to be a 
reservist or guardsman. My Active-Duty squad flew out of the naval air 
station at Willow Grove, PA, north of Philadelphia. I tell my 
colleagues, if the men--and we were all men in my squadron at that 
time--if we thought we were going to be deployed a year or two, come 
back and then go back a year or two, we would not have had much in 
terms of reenlistment and reupping. They would be gone. It is not a 
question of patriotism, that is the fact. They have families to 
support. They have jobs. In their own lives, they have businesses, in 
some cases, to run. They need the kind of break that is envisioned in 
this legislation to enable them to not just be a patriot, to be a 
reservist, to be a citizen twice over but to always keep commitments to 
their families, keep commitments to their employers, and keep 
commitments, in many cases, to their employees, to the businesses they 
have started and gone on to run.
  This is a good provision. It is a good proposal. It is better 
actually than the proposal we voted on several months ago. I urge my 
colleagues, particularly those who are on the fence--most people have 
made up their minds--particularly those on the fence, they can vote for 
this amendment not just in good conscience but I think knowing the 
questions that needed to be addressed have been addressed and that the 
people who will benefit from this will very much appreciate our taking 
this step.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, there will come a time in the not-too-
distant future when people will write about what we as a Senate did, 
what we as a Congress did regarding this intractable war in which we 
find ourselves in faraway Iraq.
  I approach my comments today recognizing people are going to look 
back at what we do to make sure our country is safe and secure and that 
we have done everything we can to make sure not only is our country 
safe and secure but we do everything we can to allow the men and women 
in our military to be safe and secure.
  The fight to end the war in Iraq and refocus our efforts against 
those who attacked us on 9/11 has now raged in this Chamber and 
throughout the country for months--no, not months, for years.
  On one side, Democrats stand united to responsibly end the war, to 
begin to bring home our brave soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors, 
and refocus our attention to Osama bin Laden, his al-Qaida operatives, 
and others around the world who seek to do us harm.
  On the other side, most of our Republican colleagues, including some 
who have publicly questioned the current course, stand with the 
President and his failed policies. Seven Republicans have previously 
voted courageously for this amendment. The amendment is better than it 
was last time. Certainly they should vote that way again.
  We on this side of the aisle are not going to stop waging the hard 
but necessary fight to responsibly end this war. Today we have the 
opportunity to take an important step in that direction by voting for 
an amendment upon which all of us, Democrat or Republican, can and 
should agree.
  Regardless of where we stand on this war, we should stand as one in 
our commitment to keeping our military the strongest in the world. We 
can only sustain that strength if our men and women in uniform are 
given the respect they deserve and the opportunity to reset, rebuild, 
and restore their capabilities. That is not a Democratic talking point 
or a Republican talking point. It is common sense, and in this debate 
it is long overdue.
  On President Bush's watch, our military and their families have been 
stretched to the breaking point. This is not idle talk. Every single 
one of the Army's 38 available combat brigades is either deployed, just 
returning or scheduled to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, leaving no fresh 
troops to replace the five extra brigades sent to Iraq earlier this 
year. Most Army brigades have completed two or even three tours in Iraq 
or Afghanistan, with one, the 2nd Brigade of the 10th Mountain 
Division, having served four tours already.
  The Army has been forced to rely on a so-called $20,000 ``quick-
ship'' bonus to meet recruiting goals, paying soldiers $20,000 to stay 
in the military, in part to make up for last year's shortage of 
military officers. We are 3,000 officers short, and the number is only 
projected to rise.
  Eighty percent of our National Guard and Reserves have been deployed 
to Iraq or Afghanistan and are serving an average of 18 months per 
deployment.
  Those National Guard and Reserves remaining in the United States have 
30 percent of the essential equipment they need because so much of it 
has been shipped overseas, destroyed, in need of repair, or now 
obsolete. Thirty percent is what they have in case of an emergency, and 
they have to help in this country. We have all heard of the heavy 
personal toll this overburdening of our military is taking. Let me give 
two examples.
  First, the heartbreaking story of Army PFC Travis Virgadamo of Las 
Vegas. Travis was a boy who loved his country. What did he want to do? 
He wanted to go in the military, and he did that. He loved serving in 
the military. He saw it, as his family said, as his calling. Yet after 
months of serving in Iraq--and here is how he described it, ``being 
ordered into houses without knowing what was behind strangers' doors, 
walking along roadsides fearing the next step could trigger lethal 
explosives''--and he said other things, but that is enough--the horrors 
were more than this 19-year-old could take.
  He sought therapy. He wanted to have somebody help him with his 
emotional status while he was overseas, but he got nothing. He came 
home, asked for help, and was given some medicine and forced to go back 
to Iraq. He felt as if he wasn't going to be able to do his job. His 
family knew it. They talked about it. As I said, he was given medicine 
and sent back for his second tour of duty. Travis was, I repeat, 19 
years old when he committed suicide after going back to Iraq for just a 
matter of weeks.
  The ordeal he went through was sadly far from unique. Is this fair? 
Is this fair to those other troops he was asked to serve with and who 
relied upon him? The answer is no.
  Last year, the Veterans Affairs Department reported that more than 
56,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan had been diagnosed with mental 
illness--56,000. Many of them had been sent back into battle without 
receiving adequate care.

[[Page 24852]]

  A second example. SGT Anthony J. Schober, a 23-year-old from northern 
Nevada, was killed in May in an ambush while serving his fourth tour of 
duty. I had the chance to speak with Anthony's family--his grandfather. 
Before returning to Iraq for the last time, Anthony told his 
grandfather and other family members he knew he wouldn't be coming 
home. He had survived too many explosions, in his words. Too many of 
his buddies were killed who were with him.
  Madam President, if my time expires, I will use my leader time.
  Travis and Anthony died as heroes. Our troops are all heroes, but 
Anthony and Travis weren't machines, they were people, one 19 years 
old, one 23 years old. They sacrificed so much--all our troops have--
and asked for so little in return. We want to give them something in 
return. That is what this amendment is all about.
  With gratitude for their service and recognition that our national 
security demands no less, I rise to once again support the amendment 
offered by Jim Webb, representing the Commonwealth of Virginia. They 
sent to Washington to represent them in the Senate a brave man. It is 
more than his ability to talk and say the right thing courageously. 
Here is a man who is qualified to talk about this. He has been in 
combat. The author of this amendment is a Naval Academy graduate, a 
Marine Corps commander, received a Silver Star award for heroism, the 
Navy Cross, the Bronze Star for heroism, a couple of Purple Hearts, and 
was a Secretary of the Navy. His amendment, his readiness amendment, 
begins the critical and long overdue process of rebuilding our badly 
overburdened military.
  It is simple, his amendment. It states:

       If a member of the active military is deployed to Iraq or 
     Afghanistan, they are entitled to the same length of time 
     back home before they can be redeployed.

  It also states:

       Members of the Reserves may not be redeployed within 3 
     years of their original deployment--which will not only give 
     them time to recover from deployment, but will also restore 
     our reserve forces ability and availability to respond to 
     emergencies here at home.

  Some have tried to confuse this issue by calling it an infringement 
of Presidential authority. That argument was debunked the first time 
anyone ever suggested it. The Constitution of the United States, 
article I, section 8, says Congress is empowered:

       To make rules for the government and regulation of the land 
     and naval forces.

  This argument is undercut even further by the fact the amendment 
provides ample authority for the President to waive these requirements 
in case of an emergency that threatens our national security. The Webb 
amendment establishes a new policy, but it doesn't tie the President or 
Congress's hands to respond to any emergency.
  If we are committed to building a military that is fully equipped and 
prepared to address the challenges we face throughout the world--and I 
know we are--then we must support this amendment. If we are committed 
to repaying in some small measure the sacrifices our brave troops are 
making every day--and I know we are--then we must support this 
amendment.
  The decision by Republican leadership to thwart the will of the 
majority in this body from adopting this troop readiness amendment back 
in July was discouraging, to say the least. And after 3 more months of 
keeping our troops enmeshed in a civil war, their continued effort to 
undermine this legislation today is simply inexplicable to me. If 
Republicans oppose troop readiness, they are entitled to vote against 
this. If Republicans don't believe our courageous men and women in 
uniform deserve more rest and mental health, they can vote ``no'' on 
this amendment. If they do not agree constant redeployments and 
recruitment shortages are straining our armed forces, they can vote 
``no'' on this amendment. If they believe it is in our national 
security interest to push our brave troops and their families beyond 
their breaking point, then let them vote ``no'' on this amendment. But 
to stop the majority of this body from acting shows yet again that most 
of my Republican colleagues are much more concerned about protecting 
the President than protecting our troops.
  Some in the administration have argued that this amendment would be 
too complicated for the Defense Department to enact. We, our military, 
can develop and deploy the best technology on Earth, and we have done 
that. Our stealth fighters can enter undetected into enemy territory. 
We can launch terrain-hugging missiles from thousands of miles away and 
hit a single target the size of a small window in a building. We can 
pay, clothe, feed, train, and manage a military force of over 2 
million, plus their families. Yet we are supposed to believe that the 
Department of Defense can't follow one simple rule, that each and every 
soldier, sailor, airman, and marine must receive rest equal to their 
time of deployment.
  Senators, please don't fall victim to the White House talking points. 
This amendment is for Travis Virgadamo and his family, for Anthony 
Schober and his family, and for the 50 other Nevadans who have given 
the ultimate sacrifice, and the approximately 2,800 other Americans who 
have died.
  Because some in the minority are choosing obstruction doesn't mean 
all Republicans must follow in lockstep. We almost overcame Republican 
obstructionism on this amendment in July. We can finally do the right 
thing here today. So I say to my friends, my Republican friends, this 
is Bush's war. Don't make it also the Republican Senators' war.
  I know every single one of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, 
would agree that America's Armed Forces are the envy of the world and 
must continue to be. This amendment puts that commitment into action 
and honors our troops and prepares our Armed Forces for the serious 
challenges that lie ahead--and they do lie ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I understand I have 2\1/2\ minutes; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I think we ought to understand what this 
amendment is all about. In the view of the Secretary of Defense, he 
says:

       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 goes on to say:

       The amendment would impose upon the President an 
     unacceptable choice between 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, or to 
     resort to force management options that would further damage 
     the force and its effectiveness in the field.

  That is what this amendment is about. Nowhere in the Constitution 
does it say the President of the United States is deprived of the 
authority to decide when and where to send troops in a time of war. 
Nowhere. Nowhere in the history of this country have such restrictions 
been imposed or privileges assumed by the Congress of the United 
States. We have one Commander in Chief, and one only. To somehow assume 
that we would begin with Congress's 535 commanders in chief, I think, 
would reduce our ability to ever fight another war effectively.
  Let me sum up by saying that clearly the message I am getting from 
the troops in the field is not that the war is lost, as the majority 
leader in the Senate stated last April. We are succeeding and we are 
winning. And with the enactment of this amendment, we will choose to 
lose. This is setting a formula for surrender, not for victory.
  I am hearing from the troops in the field three words, three words: 
Let us win. They have sacrificed a great deal, as the majority leader 
described very dramatically. Now give them a chance to win. That is 
what they want. They do not want that sacrifice to be in vain.
  This amendment would do exactly what the Secretary of Defense says, 
as

[[Page 24853]]

well as other interested observers. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment. Allow this new strategy and for this great general, whom the 
American people had a great opportunity to see last week as he spoke to 
the Congress and the American people. Reject this amendment and let us 
win.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I wish to first say I am grateful to all 
the Senators who participated in the debate today, including my good 
friend Senator McCain, for whom I have had respect for a long time.
  I wish to emphasize again that this amendment provides a minimal 
adjustment in our rotation policies, and it does so with the notion 
that we can get a minimum floor underneath the deployment cycles of 
people who have been conducting the operational policies of the United 
States for 4\1/2\ years.
  If we were attempting to be obstructionists or we were attempting to 
shut down a system, we would probably be arguing for the 2-to-1 ratio 
which is the goal of the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the 
historical tradition of the U.S. military. We are simply saying for 
every period you have been gone, you should have that amount of time 
back here at home.
  This amendment is constitutional. It is well within the Constitution. 
I have given a memorandum that shows at least a half dozen different 
examples of when the Congress has put these sorts of restrictions in 
place when the executive branch has gone too far.
  It is responsible. It was drafted with a great deal of care. We have 
listened. This amendment is an adjustment from the amendment that was 
offered last July. We have spoken with Secretary Gates. We modified the 
language of it. It is needed. It is needed in a way that is beyond 
politics, and certainly would not contribute to what some people are 
calling defeat.
  It is needed for troop and family reasons, and that is why the 
Military Officers Association of America, 368,000 military officers, 
has supported the amendment. It is needed because the state of the 
debate on the Iraq war is going to continue for a long period of time. 
We all know that now. We know it specifically since General Petraeus's 
testimony.
  We are going to have to resolve this in the political environment. We 
need to do so under a framework that protects our troops. I ask my 
colleagues to support it. I am very pleased we have 36 cosponsors on 
this amendment, and I would hope the Senate passes it.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 341 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--44

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Under the previous order, 
requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2918

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 10 minutes of debate equally 
divided before a vote on amendment No. 2918.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I again wish to express my appreciation 
and respect for the author of the amendment that was just considered by 
the Senate. I appreciate the courtesy and the level of debate that was 
conducted. I also always appreciate very much his brave service to our 
Nation.
  I hope I could convince my friend from Virginia that perhaps we could 
have a voice vote on this, because as we know, it is a sense-of-the-
Senate amendment. I will not take all of my time except to say that all 
Senators share the concern for the men and women of the Armed Forces 
and their families, as a result of the operational demands of 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This amendment expresses a sense of Congress--a sense of Congress, 
not a mandate--that consistent with wartime requirements, DOD should 
put into place force management policies that reflect the dwell time 
ratios in the Webb amendment.
  The amendment is clear, however, that such dwell time policies cannot 
be implemented if to do so would prevent mission accomplishment or harm 
other members of the force. That is why it includes a certification 
requirement that would have the Secretary of Defense assure Congress 
that such a policy would not result in extending deployments of units 
or members beyond their current scheduled rotation.
  The amendment also includes a waiver provision that Senator Warner 
suggested. It wisely provides authority to the Secretary of Defense to 
waive the requirements of any existing dwell time policy and an 
attendant certification if the Secretary of Defense determines it is 
necessary to do so in the interest of national security.
  I again want to thank Senator Warner, our distinguished former 
chairman and long-time Member of this body, who played such an 
important role in this whole debate and continues to.
  I realize this debate on Iraq is far from over, that this is only one 
amendment. But I also appreciate the level of dialog, debate, and 
discussion on this very important issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I wish to begin this statement the same 
way I did the last one, by thanking the Senator from Arizona for his 
service and also for the quality of the debate I believe we had on the 
other amendment.
  I would be very anxious to try to find some common ground here on 
something that we could agree upon that would help move this forward. 
There are portions of this amendment that I think are fairly useful. 
But I am unable to support it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against it. The first part of it is 
nothing more than a statement of existing policy even with the language 
that the Department of Defense ``should'' establish a force management 
policy.
  On the second part, I have attempted several times to read it 
carefully. As an attorney, and as someone who used to be a committee 
counsel, the certifications required are very confusing. It is kind of 
gobbledy-gook.
  I believe it would, on one level, be redundant to current policy and 
on the other be confusing. I don't think it is useful, and I intend to 
oppose it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Like the previous vote, this 
amendment requires 60 votes?

[[Page 24854]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 342 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyde
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
45. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Senator from Texas, I understand, is 
now ready to offer an amendment. We have been alternating. My 
understanding is he will lay down his amendment tonight, then he will 
speak on his amendment for some period of time, and then we will pick 
that up tomorrow morning. There may very well be a side-by-side 
amendment relative to the Cornyn amendment. We do not know, though, 
until we see that amendment.
  Then I would ask unanimous consent that--I do not have my ranking 
member here, however, so I am going to withhold the unanimous consent 
request. It is my intent to ask unanimous consent that after Senator 
Cornyn lays down his amendment and speaks on it, that we then move into 
morning business. That is my intent as soon as--all right, it turns out 
that has been cleared on that side.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Cornyn is 
recognized, lays down his amendment, speaks to it, we then go into 
morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes 
each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the 
pending amendment aside to send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I could say for the record--and I am going to withdraw 
my objection--we passed a rule that provided something that many 
Members are not aware of: that before an amendment would be considered 
at the desk, a copy would be given to both sides of the aisle before 
the amendment debate begins. I am not picking on my colleague and 
friend from Texas, but I only object for the purpose of raising that 
rule so we can start enforcing it. I think it is only fair that both 
sides see the amendment before the debate begins.
  I withdraw my objection because I do not want to prejudice my friend 
from Texas at this point. But in the future, I hope we can all live by 
that rule.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I renew my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, could the request be restated? I 
apologize.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, that I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?


                      Amendment No. 2022 Withdrawn

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will 
not object--I understand Senator Leahy has now authorized me to 
withdraw his amendment which is pending, so it will avoid, perhaps, 
that pendency requirement for future amendments.
  So I withdraw now the Leahy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Texas?
  Mr. LEVIN. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2934 To Amendment No. 2011

       (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that General 
     David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-
     Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly 
     condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of 
     General Petraeus and all the members of the United States 
     Armed Forces)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2934:

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

     SEC. 1070. SENSE OF SENATE ON GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Senate unanimously confirmed General David H. 
     Petraeus as Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, by 
     a vote of 81-0 on January 26, 2007.
       (2) General Petraeus graduated first in his class at the 
     United States Army Command and General Staff College.
       (3) General Petraeus earned Masters of Public 
     Administration and Doctoral degrees in international 
     relations from Princeton University.
       (4) General Petraeus has served multiple combat tours in 
     Iraq, including command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air 
     Assault) during combat operations throughout the first year 
     of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which tours included both major 
     combat operations and subsequent stability and support 
     operations.
       (5) General Petraeus supervised the development and 
     crafting of the United States Army and Marine Corps 
     counterinsurgency manual based in large measure on his combat 
     experience in Iraq, scholarly study, and other professional 
     experiences.
       (6) General Petraeus has taken a solemn oath to protect and 
     defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
       (7) During his 35-year career, General Petraeus has amassed 
     a distinguished and unvarnished record of military service to 
     the United States as recognized by his receipt of a Defense 
     Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Service 
     Medals, two Defense Superior Service Medals, four Legions of 
     Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department 
     Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and 
     other awards and medals.
       (8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in 
     the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, 
     impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all 
     the members of the United States Armed Forces.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
       (1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of 
     the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. 
     Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;
       (2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and 
     integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the 
     United States Armed Forces; and

[[Page 24855]]

       (3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal 
     attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group 
     Moveon.org.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, if this amendment sounds familiar, it is 
because I offered this amendment roughly 10 days ago. In response to my 
colleague from Illinois, this is virtually the same amendment I offered 
during the consideration of the Transportation and Housing and Urban 
Development appropriations bill, to which the other side of the aisle 
raised a point of order, and it was judged not germane.
  I respect that ruling on that bill, but we are back here today, 10 
days later, on the Defense authorization bill--a bill to which this 
amendment is clearly germane. I want to make a few points.
  First of all, for my colleagues' recollection, I have in the Chamber 
a copy of the ad that ran on September 9, 2007, immediately before GEN 
David Petraeus came to testify before the Congress, along with 
Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the Ambassador to Iraq from the United States.
  It is important for colleagues to recognize that this ad ran before 
the general came to testify, even though it had been well known the 
general would come back in September 2007 and report on progress on the 
fight in Iraq, both from a military as well as a diplomatic 
perspective.
  So it is clear, at least to me, the purpose of this ad was to smear 
the good name of this four-star U.S. Army general, the commander of 
multinational forces in Iraq, before he even had a chance to make his 
report to the Congress and to the American people on the progress of 
the surge of forces and of operations in Iraq.
  As the amendment, which has been read, indicates, General Petraeus is 
the senior commander on the ground for the United States and coalition 
forces in Iraq. Before the general testified, this ad placed in the New 
York Times--apparently at a discounted rate below the $167,000 ad rate 
which ordinarily would be charged for a full-page ad in the Sunday New 
York Times--this ad, which was sold at a discount by the New York Times 
to MoveOn.Org, asks the question: ``General Petraeus or General Betray 
Us?'' and accused this professional soldier of ``Cooking the Books for 
the White House.''
  It goes on--and all of us can read--to further disparage the good 
reputation of this professional soldier and someone who is responsible 
for roughly 170,000 American men and women wearing the uniform of the 
United States military in Iraq.
  The reason why MoveOn.org bought this false ad was because they were 
afraid of what General Petraeus would indeed report when he testified 
before Congress a week or so ago.
  In fact, General Petraeus testified that ``the military objectives of 
the surge are, in large measure, being met.''
  He told us the ``overall number of security incidents in Iraq has 
declined in 8 of the past 12 weeks,'' preceding his testimony.
  He said: ``Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to 
Al Qaeda-Iraq.''
  He said: ``We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists.''
  He went on to testify that ``Coalition and Iraqi operations have 
helped reduce ethno-sectarian violence, as well [as] bringing down the 
number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across 
Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December.''
  He said: ``The number of civilian deaths has also declined during 
this [same] period.''
  If that sounds familiar, it is because General Petraeus's testimony 
was preceded by the issuance of the National Intelligence Estimate on 
Iraq, issued just the preceding month, which basically came to the same 
conclusions as General Petraeus.
  The National Intelligence Estimate, of course, represents the 
considered opinion of the intelligence community of the U.S. 
Government. It is delivered by the Director of National Intelligence 
pursuant to requirements of Congress in law.
  The National Intelligence Estimate, issued just last month by the 
U.S. intelligence community, found there have been ``measurable 
improvements'' in Iraq's security situation since last January before 
General Petraeus's implementation of the new strategy.
  The NIE, or National Intelligence Estimate, found that if our troops 
continue to execute the current strategy, Iraq's security environment 
will continue to improve over the next 6 to 12 months; and that 
changing the U.S. mission in Iraq would erode security gains achieved 
thus far.
  Well, it is not just General Petraeus's testimony. It is not just the 
National Intelligence Estimate that was rendered last month. We had a 
commission created by the Congress, headed by former Marine GEN James 
Jones, and with a group of commissioners whose cumulative military 
experience exceeds 500 years. Also on this commission were a number of 
police chiefs and other law enforcement personnel with more than 150 
years of law enforcement experience.
  So it is clear by virtue of their experience they have a solid basis 
for the judgment they rendered. Well, it is important to note that not 
only did General Petraeus testify, as I have indicated, not only has 
the National Intelligence Estimate said what I quoted, the Jones 
Commission also found that the Iraqi Armed Forces--the Army, Special 
Forces, Navy, and Air Force--are increasingly effective and are capable 
of assuming greater responsibility for the internal security of Iraq.
  The commission--we were told before a hearing in the Armed Services 
Committee, on which I sit--thinks that over the next 12 to 18 months 
the Iraqi forces will continue to improve their readiness and 
capability.
  I noted during the testimony of General Petraeus that this is one of 
the first times I can think of where the messenger was shot for 
delivering good news. In other words, this ad run in the New York Times 
before the general testified is contradicted by not only his testimony 
but by the National Intelligence Estimate I mentioned and the Jones 
Commission, representing more than 500 years of military experience. It 
is sad to say but true that this ad represents what I would consider to 
be a sign of the times.
  Now, I know the distinguished majority whip is on the floor, and I 
recall that when I offered this bill on the Transportation, Housing and 
Urban Development appropriations bill, we had a colloquy talking about: 
Well, everybody makes mistakes. Occasionally, people will misspeak and 
not accurately say what they intend to convey. But since this ad ran, 
since the time the distinguished majority whip and I had this colloquy, 
MoveOn.Org has expressed its pride at running this ad. In other words, 
they said they were glad for what this ad conveys. They are not ashamed 
of it. They didn't say it was a mistake or they misspoke; they continue 
to stand behind this slur on the good name of General Petraeus, a man 
who is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States 
and to do everything in his professional ability to win the conflict in 
Iraq.
  So even before Congress received the Petraeus-Crocker reports, we 
know some critics had already declared the surge to be a failure. There 
are those who said they didn't care what General Petraeus had to say.
  Now, after General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have reported, 
some of these same people are, such as MoveOn.Org, questioning their 
judgment--which is their right--but also their motivation, which I 
think if they are agreeing with the motivation that is expressed in 
this ad, I respectfully disagree with them.
  It is puzzling why some of my colleagues insist on moving the 
goalpost for our military. In fact, I think what they experience is 
what happens when anybody bets against the U.S. military. It is 
dangerous to do because they are going to lose if they are betting 
against the men and women of the U.S. military. I cannot fathom how the 
success of our troops in improving the security situation in Iraq could 
possibly be construed as a bad thing for our Nation, but some 
apparently, including MoveOn.Org, seem to think it is.

[[Page 24856]]

  I refuse to stand by while a group such as MoveOn.Org demeans the 
good name of an American soldier who represents, in turn, 170,000 
American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and Coast Guard. I 
refuse to stand by while this group demeans the good name of our men 
and women in the U.S. military who have given so much for our country. 
The military service of General Petraeus alone is spotless, and he has 
proven time and time again, with his blood, his sweat and his tears, 
his patriotism and his love for our country. As a matter of fact, one 
would be hard-pressed to find another military officer with the 
qualifications that are as impressive as General Petraeus. Currently 
serving his third combat tour in Iraq, he has literally been there and 
done that, and he has done it with dignity, with honor, and devotion to 
service.
  Today, I offer all my colleagues a chance to clear the air and set 
the record straight. For some of them, voting for this amendment may 
represent a chance to show true moral courage and true political 
courage as well. My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that 
GEN David Petraeus and all the members of our Armed Forces are to be 
supported and honored and that any effort to attack their honor and 
their integrity should be condemned; particularly before the general 
was able to even deliver his testimony, where MoveOn.Org and these 
critics could not have known what he was going to say, and that clearly 
the goal of this ad and MoveOn.Org was to undermine public confidence 
in the messenger before the messenger even had a chance to deliver that 
message. My amendment expresses a sense of the Senate that General 
Petraeus and all the members of our Armed Forces should be protected 
and defended against an attack on their honor and integrity.
  By introducing this amendment, I call on all Senators to tell America 
they do not condone such character assassination of those who are sworn 
to protect the very freedom we enjoy and the very system of government 
in which we all serve. Our military servicemembers simply deserve 
better. I hope all Members of the Senate would join with me in 
supporting this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CORNYN. I yield for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the 2004 Presidential campaign, I 
might ask the Senator from Texas, there was a group from Texas that 
attacked Senator John Kerry and said he was undeserving of the 
commendations and decorations he received for his courage in fighting 
in Vietnam and raised questions about others who served in the military 
who were part of his swift boat operation. One would have to say, by 
any stretch, that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were attacking the 
honor and integrity of one of our colleagues who served with honor in 
the Vietnam war.
  I would like to ask the Senator from Texas if he is prepared to 
remain consistent and if he is also prepared to amend his amendment to 
repudiate the activities, actions, and statements of the Texas-based 
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization with their unwarranted 
attacks on our colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, during 
the 2004 campaign.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am not willing to amend my amendment, 
as the distinguished majority whip requests. He keeps emphasizing this 
is a Texas-based group. I have no idea whether it is. But let me tell 
my colleague what the differences are between this ad and what 
MoveOn.Org tried to do to this good soldier and the difference between 
that and a political campaign.
  Senator Kerry chose to run for President of the United States. You 
and I and others may disagree with the tactics employed by third 
parties in the course of a Presidential campaign, but this is not a 
Presidential campaign. General Petraeus did not volunteer to run for 
political office and subject himself to the spears we all sometimes 
catch as part of the political process. All this general has sworn to 
do is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and to 
protect this country from attacks from our enemies.
  So I would say it is apples and oranges to compare what happens in a 
political campaign with the attack on this general in such a 
premeditated and vicious way as MoveOn.Org did before he was to deliver 
his testimony before the Congress.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, my friend and colleague from Texas, 
Senator Cornyn, has offered this amendment before. I so stated on the 
floor before, and I will state again, I respect GEN David Petraeus. I 
voted to confirm him as the commanding general of our forces in Iraq. 
He has served our country with distinction. It has been my good fortune 
to spend time with him in Iraq on two different occasions. Both times I 
have felt he was forthcoming and answered questions and demonstrated 
time and again that he was willing to wear our country's uniform and 
risk his life. I think the language chosen in this ad by this 
organization was wrong and unfortunate.
  Having said that, I am troubled by the conclusion of my colleague 
from Texas that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth could attack Senator 
John Kerry for his valor and courage fighting for America in Vietnam 
and that for some reason we shouldn't repudiate that attack; that it is 
OK because it happened, as my colleague said, during a political 
campaign. If this is about the honor and integrity of our Armed Forces, 
past and present, whether it takes place during a political campaign or 
at half time at a football game should make no difference. If the 
Senator from Texas believes we should stand on a regular basis and 
condemn those who would attack the honor and integrity of warriors who 
have served this country with valor in past wars and present wars, then 
he should be consistent. It is totally inconsistent for him to pick one 
organization and to ignore the obvious: There are others who have done 
the same thing.
  Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a classic example of an organization 
that distorted the truth about Senator John Kerry and others who served 
our country during the Vietnam war. The fact that they did it during a 
Presidential campaign should have absolutely nothing to do with it, if 
this is a matter of principle. However, if it is not a matter of 
principle and something else, then you would pick and choose those 
organizations you want to condemn or repudiate. Unfortunately, the 
Senator from Texas has picked one organization. He doesn't want to talk 
about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He certainly doesn't want to 
repudiate them. I think they should be repudiated. What they did cast a 
shadow on the combat decorations given to others during the course of 
that war.
  What Senator John Kerry did was to volunteer to serve our country, 
put his life on the line, face combat, stand up and fight for his 
fellow sailors on that swift boat, and then come back to the criticism, 
the chief criticism of a group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for 
Truth.
  Now, if the Senator from Texas is going to be filled with rage over 
those who would cast any disparaging remarks about our military, he 
should be consistent. He should amend his amendment--and I will seek to 
do it for him, incidentally--to add the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 
as a group that should be repudiated. If we are going to get into this 
business of following the headlines, responding to advertisements and 
repudiating organizations, let's at least be consistent.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, will my friend yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to thank my colleague very much 
for pointing out the inconsistency of an attack on one organization 
that I guess my friend doesn't admire anyway, and that is his right. It 
is also our right to speak the truth on this floor. The fact of the 
matter is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth went after a war hero and 
told stories to the American people that were not true and tried to 
sully a hero's reputation.
  But he is not the only Senator who was attacked, as my friend 
remembers

[[Page 24857]]

what happened to our colleague, Max Cleland. I know he does. Here is a 
veteran who gave three limbs for his country--three limbs. It is harder 
for him, for the first 2 hours of every day, to get ready for the day 
than it is for the Senator from Texas or myself or the Senator from 
Illinois to do our work for a month. Yet this man was viciously 
attacked and his patriotism called into question. Oh, yes, my friend 
might say, it was during a political campaign. It was disgusting. So we 
raise these issues.
  What I wish to ask my friend is this: I was thinking--as the Senator 
from Texas, my friend and colleague, was speaking--I was thinking about 
some retired generals who spoke out against this war and said they were 
called traitors and worse. So I am looking at ways to incorporate into 
this a condemnation of anyone who would attack a retired general for 
speaking out against a war because I think that was low and it was 
horrible. It was frightening because, in a way, it was saying to these 
retired generals that they had no voice, no independent voice.
  So I wish to thank my colleague, and I wonder if he recalls these 
generals. I will have more details as I put together my second-degree 
amendment as well.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would say in response to my colleague 
from California that if we are going to get into the business of 
standing up for members of the military, past and present, who were 
attacked for their positions on issues, then so be it. Let's be 
consistent about it. Let's remember our fellow colleague from Georgia, 
Senator Max Cleland, and remember what happened to him, when someone, 
during the course of a campaign, ran an ad suggesting he was somehow 
consorting with Osama bin Laden--a man who had lost three limbs to a 
grenade in Vietnam and who was attacked in a way that none of us will 
ever be able to forget.
  The Senator from Texas includes in his whereas clauses, his sense-of-
the-Senate clauses, to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor 
and integrity of all the members of the U.S. Armed Forces. I hope if 
that is his true goal, he will allow us to amend his resolution to not 
only include the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but those who attacked 
Senator Max Cleland during the course of his campaign.
  I don't think the fact that it happens during a campaign absolves 
anybody from the responsibility of telling the truth and honoring those 
who served. In this case, two Democrats, Senator Max Cleland and 
Senator John Kerry, were attacked, and there wasn't a long line of 
people on the floor to condemn the attackers. Now that the Senator from 
Texas has decided we should bring this up as part of the Defense 
authorization bill, I hope he will be consistent, and I hope he will 
consistently stand up for the reputations of the men and women in 
uniform, starting with General Petraeus but including those who served 
in this war and other wars in the past.
  Each of them deserves our respect. I might add, parenthetically--it 
is worth saying--even if we disagree with their political views, they 
still deserve our respect. To attack their honor and integrity is 
wrong.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, last year the Senate enacted legislation 
that stripped the courts of jurisdiction to hear pending habeas claims 
brought by unlawful enemy combatants. It was with sadness then, as it 
is now, that the Senate failed to restore and protect this great writ. 
The writ of habeas corpus is a cornerstone of the rule of law. The 
right of an individual to learn of his or her detention by the 
government in a court of law is fundamental to our Constitution. 
Permanent detention of foreigners, without reason or charges, 
undermines our moral integrity in the world and does violence to our 
Constitution. It troubles me greatly that we have limited the ability 
of the judicial branch to ensure that detainees are being held fairly 
and justly by the American Government. It is my sincere hope that we 
will take up this amendment again in the near future.

                          ____________________