[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24986-24989]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 24986]]


        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

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

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

  Pending:

       Nelson (NE) (for Levin) amendment No. 2011, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       Warner (for Graham/Kyl) amendment No. 2064 (to amendment 
     No. 2011), to strike section 1023, relating to the granting 
     of civil rights to terror suspects.
       Cornyn amendment No. 2934 (to amendment No. 2011), 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 the integrity of General 
     Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed 
     forces.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator 
Boxer offers an amendment related to the subject matter of the pending 
Cornyn amendment, the Boxer and Cornyn amendments be debated 
concurrently for 20 minutes, with the time equally divided and 
controlled between Senators Boxer and Cornyn or their designees; that 
no amendments be in order to either amendment; that upon the use or 
yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the 
Boxer amendment; that upon disposition of that amendment there be 2 
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Cornyn amendment; 
that each amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold, and if the 
amendment does not achieve 60 votes, the amendment then be withdrawn, 
with the above occurring without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. I wonder if my friend would modify that to have the second 
vote for 10 minutes rather than 15 minutes?
  Mr. LEVIN. I so modify the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
think the distinguished chairman and I have had a conversation that, 
following that, for the benefit of our colleagues, we would move to the 
Feingold amendment and with it we will seek a time agreement. Then with 
the cooperation of our colleagues, we will at least try as much as 
possible to dispose of Iraq amendments today, if we could.
  I remind my colleagues we still have the basis of this bill, which 
has Wounded Warriors, pay raises, housing, training, and equipping of 
the men and women of the Armed Forces. We do have a number of pending 
amendments on the bill. I think, in fairness, we should try to dispose 
of the Iraq issue as soon as possible so we could move on to the rest 
of the bill and pass it so we can get to conference and get it signed. 
There are vital parts of this bill on which the chairman and members of 
the Armed Services Committee have worked literally months, and I hope 
we could get to that aspect of the legislation as well.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield for a moment, on that point I 
agree totally with what he just said about the importance of this bill. 
We are circulating a request to our Members on this side that no 
amendments be in order to this bill--that no amendments be filed after 
a certain point this afternoon, which I believe we have tried to 
identify as 3 o'clock. I don't know, I didn't have a chance to talk 
with my friend from Arizona about that, but hopefully on your side 
something similar could be hot-lined so we could bring this to an end.
  We have literally 250 amendments already. We have disposed of a lot. 
We disposed of 50. We can dispose of more today at some point, but we 
can't have more amendments coming in than we are able to work out.
  I hope on both sides we can get a unanimous consent agreement that no 
amendments will be in order to this bill in the first degree if they 
are filed later than a fixed time this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the initial unanimous 
consent request, as modified, by the senior Senator from Michigan?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time? The Senator from California is recognized.


                Amendment No. 2947 to Amendment No. 2011

  (Purpose: To affirm strong support for all the men and women of the 
   United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the 
 honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or 
 has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person 
                            or organization)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2947 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr. 
     Levin, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 2947:
       At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

     SEC. _ SENSE OF SENATE

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces and 
     our veterans deserve to be supported, honored, and defended 
     when their patriotism is attacked;
       (2) In 2002, a Senator from Georgia who is a Vietnam 
     veteran, triple amputee, and the recipient of a Silver Star 
     and Bronze Star, had his courage and patriotism attacked in 
     an advertisement in which he was visually linked to Osama bin 
     Laden and Saddam Hussein;
       (3) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and 
     Vietnam veteran as ``reprehensible'';
       (4) In 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who is a Vietnam 
     veteran and the recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with 
     Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, was personally attacked 
     and accused of dishonoring his country;
       (5) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and 
     Vietnam veteran as ``dishonest and dishonorable.''
       (6) On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York 
     Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus, 
     who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and 
     carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of 
     the United States; and
       (7) Such personal attacks on those with distinguished 
     military service to our nation have become all too frequent.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
       (1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and 
     women of the United States Armed Forces; and
       (2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, 
     integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or 
     has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by 
     any person or organization.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the clerk for reading those words. 
I hope Members of the Senate heard them well because in this amendment, 
what we are doing is saying that there is essentially a terrible trend 
in America today: to launch attacks on honorable people who serve in 
the military. By the way, it isn't just folks who were mentioned or 
alluded to. I have an article I would like to have printed in the 
Record from the San Diego Union Tribune, April 16, 2004, and another 
from the Seattle Times of May 13, 2007.
  I ask unanimous consent to have two articles printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the San Diego Union Tribune, Apr. 16, 2004]

              Retired General Assails U.S. Policy on Iraq

                            (By Rick Rogers)

       Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday 
     how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off 
     guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 
     Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 
     20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of 
     returning home as planned.
       ``I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a 
     lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be 
     thus,'' said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former 
     commander of the U.S. Central Command. ``Anyone could know 
     the problems they were going to see. How could they not?''
       At a Pentagon news briefing yesterday, Rumsfeld said he 
     could not have estimated how many troops would be killed in 
     the past week.
     
     
     [[Page 24987]]
     
       Zinni made his comments during an interview with The San 
     Diego Union-Tribune before giving a speech last night at the 
     University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & 
     Justice as part of its distinguished lecturer series.
       For years Zinni said he cautioned U.S. officials that an 
     Iraq without Saddam Hussein would likely be more dangerous to 
     U.S. interests than one with him because of the ethnic and 
     religious clashes that would be unleashed.
       ``I think that some heads should roll over Iraq,'' Zinni 
     said. ``I think the president got some bad advice.''
       Known as the ``Warrior Diplomat,'' Zinni is not a peace 
     activist by nature or training, having led troops in Vietnam, 
     commanded rescue operations in Somalia and directed strikes 
     against Iraq and al Qaeda.
       He once commanded the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at 
     Camp Pendleton.
       Out of uniform, Zinni was a troubleshooter for the U.S. 
     government in Africa, Asia and Europe and served as special 
     envoy to the Middle East under the Bush administration for a 
     time before his reservations over the Iraq war and its 
     aftermath caused him to resign and oppose it.
       Not even Zinni's resume could shield him from the 
     accusations that followed.
       ``I've been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning 
     these things,'' said Zinni, 60. The problems in Iraq are 
     being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, 
     such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide 
     security.
       Zinni said the United States must now rely on the U.N. to 
     pull its ``chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq.''
       ``We're betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed 
     during the run-up to the war,'' Zinni said. ``Now we're back 
     with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives 
     lost.''
       Several things have to happen to get Iraq back on course, 
     whether the U.N. decides to step in or not, Zinni said.
       Improving security for American forces and the Iraqi people 
     is at the top of the list followed closely by helping the 
     working class with economic projects.
       But it's not the lack of a comprehensive American plan for 
     Iraq nor the surging violence that has cost allied troops 
     their lives--including about 30 Camp Pendleton Marines--that 
     most concerns Zinni.
       ``In the end, the Iraqis themselves have to want to rebuild 
     their country more than we do,'' Zinni said. ``But I don't 
     see that right now. I see us doing everything.
       ``I spent two years in Vietnam, and I've seen this movie 
     before,'' he said. ``They have to be willing to do more or 
     else it is never going to work.''
       Last night at the Kroc institute during his speech ``From 
     the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table: Preventing Deadly 
     Conflict,'' Zinni detailed the approach he believes the 
     United States should take in the Middle East.
       He told an overflow crowd that the United States tries to 
     grapple with individual issues in Middle East instead of 
     seeing them as elements of a broader question.
       ``We need to step back and get a grand strategy,'' he said.
                                  ____


                 [From the Seattle Times, May 13, 2007]

                 Retired Gen. Batiste Lashes Out on War

                           (By Thom Shanker)

       Rochester, NY.--John Batiste has traveled a long way in 
     four years, from commanding the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq 
     to quitting the Army after 31 years in uniform, and, now, 
     from overseeing a steel factory in Rochester to openly 
     challenging President Bush on his management of the war.
       ``Mr. President, you did not listen,'' Batiste says in new 
     TV ads being broadcast in Republican congressional districts 
     as part of a $500,000 campaign financed by Vote Vets.org. 
     ``You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking 
     our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest 
     in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our 
     nation in peril.''
       Those are inflammatory words from Batiste, a retired major 
     general.
       Many senior officers say privately that such talk makes 
     them uncomfortable; they say that when your first name 
     becomes ``General,'' it is for the rest of your life. But 
     Batiste says he has received no communications from current 
     or former officers challenging his stance, although he 
     occasionally gets an anonymous e-mail with the heading 
     ``Traitor.''
       Having quit the Army in anger over what he calls 
     mismanagement of the Iraq war, he says he chose a second 
     career far from Washington and the Pentagon so he could speak 
     freely on military issues.
       ``I am outraged, as are the majority of Americans,'' he 
     said. ``I am a lifelong Republican. But it is past time for 
     change.''
       Officials of VoteVets.org, an Internet-based veterans 
     advocacy organization, say the TV ads, which challenge the 
     president's argument that he listens to his commanders and 
     say his Iraq policies endanger U.S. security, will run in the 
     home districts of more than a dozen members of Congress.
       Two other retired generals, Paul Eaton and Wesley Clark, 
     speak in the VoteVets.org campaign's other ads.
       In response, White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore said: 
     ``We respectfully disagree.'' She said Bush confers routinely 
     with senior officers, citing a meeting Thursday with the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff and a conversation last week with Gen. 
     David Petraeus, the senior U.S. commander in Iraq.

  Mrs. BOXER. This is one where General Zinni, who criticized the war 
in Iraq, said, ``I have been called a traitor and a turncoat for 
mentioning these things.'' Outrageous--because he spoke out against the 
war in Iraq.
  Then you have retired General Batiste, who lashed out on the war and 
says he gets e-mails with the heading, ``Traitor.''
  My friend from Texas is taking one example, attacking an organization 
that he doesn't agree with--I am sure of that--and we are going to be 
pretty busy in the Senate if we turn into the ad police. When Senator 
Cleland was attacked we didn't have a resolution on the floor of the 
Senate. When Senator Kerry was attacked we didn't do it. When General 
Batiste was attacked we didn't do it. For General Zinni we didn't do 
it. We did speak out, and we did speak out about the ad, all of us on 
both sides of the aisle, that attacked General Petraeus. But we didn't 
have a resolution all these times.
  Suddenly, now, a political organization is attacked by name in a 
resolution in something that reminds me of the old, bad days in America 
when organizations were attacked by the Government. So what we have 
done is we have written this. I thank Senators Levin and Reid and 
Durbin and other Senators who believe what we see is a trend to attack 
heroes. We say it is wrong. We don't go after one organization. We say 
it is wrong.
  Let me show you the Max Cleland ad. We have the picture of Max 
Cleland in the same ad with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
  This is what Senator McCain had to say about that ad. Here is what he 
said:

       I've never seen anything like that ad. 
     . . . Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden 
     next to a man who lost three limbs on the battlefield, it's 
     worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible.

  But we didn't come down and pass a resolution attacking the campaign 
that ran this ad. But now we have an attack on one organization. It is 
wrong. It should be defeated. This amendment I have offered is the one 
that ought to pass this Chamber.
  I yield to Senator Durbin my remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to be notified when I have spoken for 2 
minutes and leave the remaining time under the control of Senator 
Boxer.
  This is a balanced amendment that Senator Boxer, Senator Levin, and I 
have offered to this bill. I am not sure this is a debate in which we 
ought to engage on a regular basis, but Senator Cornyn has the right to 
raise this issue, and he has raised it.
  The point we want to make is this: The Cornyn amendment focuses on 
one organization and one attack on an honorable, patriotic leader of 
our military, General Petraeus. If this resolution that he offers would 
be fair, it would also take into consideration the situations that we 
have raised in our amendment with Senator Boxer.
  I asked Senator Cornyn last night: Will you amend your resolution so 
other attacks--unwarranted, disgraceful attacks--on the military can be 
included? And I gave him two examples, and he said no because those 
were involved in a political campaign.
  I am sorry, but that isn't good enough. If the principle is sound, it 
is sound whether it is in the course of a political campaign or not. If 
we are going to stand up for the honor, integrity, and patriotism of 
those who serve our country in uniform, let's do it without partisan 
favor and certainly not arguing that a political campaign is somehow 
fair game to say anything about anybody. That is what is wrong with 
American politics, and that is what has to change.
  The Boxer amendment, which I am honored to cosponsor, changes it. I 
think the examples we have cited in this amendment include not only the 
MoveOn ad, which has been dismissed 



[[Page 24988]]

and criticized by many on both 
sides of the aisle, but also goes to the so-called Swift Boat Veterans 
for Truth out of Texas, an organization that attacked our colleague, 
Senator John Kerry, in what I think was one of the lowest moments in 
Presidential politics. It goes to the attacks on Senator Max Cleland, a 
man who used to sit in a wheelchair, having lost three limbs in 
Vietnam, a disabled veteran struggling to be a Senator from Georgia 
whose patriotism and courage were attacked in a political ad--something 
which I am sure is going to remain a shameful chapter in American 
politics.
  Those who want to join in standing up for men and women in uniform, 
past and present, have a chance to do it with the Boxer amendment. I am 
honored to be a cosponsor.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in decrying the tone 
of modern politics where there are all too many personal attacks. But 
what they fail to recognize is those who volunteer to put ourselves up 
for public office, to run for public office, we know what we are going 
to be subjected to in the back and forth of a political campaign. What 
this amendment seeks to do, what the Boxer amendment seeks to do, is to 
change the subject. The subject is this ad. The subject of my amendment 
is this ad put in the New York Times on September 9, 2007, attacking a 
four-star general wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army, the Commander 
of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq--not only this individual, but 
everyone under his command, 170,000, approximately, members of the U.S. 
military.
  What does it accuse him of? Cooking the books for the White House. 
The ad asks: Is it General Petraeus or General Betray Us? My friends on 
the other side of the aisle want to change the subject. They do not 
want to confront organizations such as MoveOn.org, which have the right 
to express their view thanks to the first amendment of the 
Constitution, thanks to people like General Petraeus and the brave men 
and women of the U.S. military who protect moveOn.Org's right to have 
its say. But we ought to have our say, too, and to condemn, in the 
strongest possible words and by our actions, this kind of irresponsible 
ad. It is clear, according to the New York Times Magazine of September 
9, this was a part of an orchestrated effort, both on the Hill and off 
the Hill, to disparage this general before he even had a chance to make 
his report to the Congress.
  The Boxer amendment, with all due respect, is an effort to change the 
subject, is a smokescreen to try to distract colleagues on the floor 
from holding MoveOn.org and those who would slander and by character 
assassination attack the reputation of leaders of the U.S. military who 
are doing nothing more than their duty and what the Commander in Chief 
and this Congress asks them to do. This is an attempt to excuse this 
kind of conduct by trying to change the subject. I would urge my 
colleagues to reject it.
  Frankly, if colleagues are going to vote against my amendment, it 
will be tantamount to saying this kind of character assassination is 
okay. It is my hope that on a bipartisan basis we would rise up and we 
would say it is not okay, it is unacceptable.
  If, in fact, there are colleagues who think the amendment offered by 
my distinguished colleague from California is going to be a fig leaf, 
well, I tell you, it is not big enough, as most fig leaves are, to 
cover up the shame that will be on this body if we see colleagues vote 
against--basically vote for this kind of irresponsible ad.
  There is a difference in kind, and I hope colleagues would, on calm 
reflection, recognize the differences between those of us who run for 
public office and hold public office, and while we may all decry the 
kinds of personal attacks that have become all too common in political 
campaigns, it is a difference in kind for MoveOn.org and those who 
support them to make personal attacks against a four star general in 
the U.S. military commanding 170,000 American military servicemembers 
in a war zone in Iraq.
  It is my hope that colleagues would vote unanimously for the 
amendment which I have offered and reject the Boxer amendment as an 
attempt to change the subject and obscure the fact that this shameful 
ad is out there without the disapproval, so far, of this body.
  I think we all recognize that political campaigns are different. We 
do not necessarily like them, but we are all volunteers, and we 
volunteer to subject ourselves, unfortunately, to the tone of modern 
political campaigns today. I wish we could change it, and if there was 
a way to do so, I would support that effort. But I do not support the 
Boxer amendment because it fails to recognize the key distinction 
between those who are public figures by choice and those who are public 
figures by duty, people such as General Petraeus. It is a shame that we 
have not been able to get a vote yet on this amendment, but I am glad 
we will here in the next few minutes. I encourage my colleagues to vote 
in favor of my amendment on this character assassination against this 
good man and to vote against the Boxer amendment for the reasons I 
mentioned.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I might say that my friend and colleague--
maybe he didn't read the Boxer amendment because we specifically 
pointed to the Petraeus ad, and we say, in fact, that it was an 
unwarranted personal attack. I will just tell you right now, if my 
colleague wants to vote no on all such attacks, whether it is against 
General Batiste or Zinni, then vote no on the Boxer amendment. If you 
want to vote no on the amendment that says two things here--we reaffirm 
our strong support for all the men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces, 
and we strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and 
patriotism of any individual who is serving as or has honorably served 
in the U.S. Armed Forces by any person or organization--if my friend 
wants to vote against this, then so be it because just to attack one 
organization and not look at the larger problem of what is happening 
out there in our country seems to me a political vendetta and nothing 
more.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wish to join with Senator Boxer in saying that there is 
no way I know of that one can justify or rationalize the attacks on 
Senator Cleland or on Senator Kerry. You can't, I believe, do that by 
saying: Oh, no, they are in a political campaign; therefore, we can 
impugn their service because they run for office. To say it is 
different to impugn the honor of veterans such as Senator Cleland and 
Senator Kerry, it seems to me, is totally unacceptable. It is an effort 
to justify, differentiate, rationalize attacks which I consider to be 
abhorrent, just as I do the attack on General Petraeus, and I have said 
so very publicly. And this amendment, the Boxer amendment, makes it 
very clear that attacks on men and women who have worn the uniform 
honorably, attacking their service, their patriotism--this was not an 
attack on Senator Cleland's politics; this was an attack on his 
patriotism. Aligning him with Osama bin Laden in an ad is an attack on 
his patriotism. You can't just single out one attack which you 
dislike--and we all do, I hope; I hope we all condemn the ad in the New 
York Times. I have personally, and I feel very personal about it. I 
thought it was a disgraceful ad. But you can't just then say: But we 
are not going to talk about other attacks on men and women who have put 
their lives on the line, given up parts of their body, because they 
decide to run for public office.
  No, I am afraid the Cornyn amendment is the effort to justify and 
rationalize something which cannot be justified or rationalized just 
because a veteran who has served honorably, put his life on the line, 
decides to run for public office. They are all disgraceful ads, and we 
ought to treat them the same way. They impugn the honor, integrity, and 
patriotism of real heroes.


[[Page 24989]]


  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four and a half minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I offered this resolution on the 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill about 
10 days ago, and it was objected to at that time, so that is the reason 
I am back again today and yesterday. It took until today for our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come up with some reason 
not to support this amendment which condemns this ad against this four 
star general who wears the uniform of the U.S. Army and commands 
170,000 soldiers currently serving in harm's way in Iraq.
  There is too much venom and too much poison in the political arena 
today. I do not like it any more than my colleagues on the other side. 
But we have a tradition in this country of, after the campaigns are 
over, trying to work together in the best interests of the American 
people. That is what we all try to do despite our differences, despite 
our party affiliation. But I would think we ought to rise up 
unanimously and condemn this character assassination of General 
Petraeus. And the fact that political campaigns in 2002 and 2004 
involved ads that I think we all would find over the line as far as the 
political discourse in a contested election should not detract from or 
dilute our condemnation of this particular ad.
  You know, there is an unfortunate trend in our society today by 
people refusing to take personal responsibility for their conduct by 
saying: Well, we ought to condemn everybody, as if we should not 
condemn those individuals and those organizations which have clearly 
crossed the line in this case by saying: Well, we have to condemn 
everybody.
  Well, I think this is the place to start, by condemning this ad, this 
irresponsible ad run in the New York Times at a discount by that 
organization, by that business entity, in favor of MoveOn.org, for the 
kind of ad I would hope we would unanimously condemn. Rather than 
relitigating political campaigns in the past, my hope is we would vote 
for this amendment and vote against the Boxer amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  I ask the Senator from Texas, I was down here yesterday spending 
quite a bit of time on this particular issue. I was not aware the 
Senator from California was going to come in with her amendment. I 
assume the first vote we have is going to be on the Boxer amendment; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. Well, let me just suggest to you, I think if the defining 
moment--if you really agreed with what MoveOn.org did and what they 
said and how they demeaned one of the finest officers in the history of 
this country--the guy has a Ph.D. from Princeton; he is not just a 
normal person. The guy was unanimously agreed to and supported by the 
group here to go and do this work and take over the war in Iraq. This 
is the right guy for the right time. Huge successes are taking place.
  I listened with some interest this morning to the House Foreign 
Relations subcommittee proceedings yesterday, and the very people who 
were complaining that General Petraeus consulted with the White House 
to come up with his information are now saying he should have consulted 
with White House and did not do it. You can't have it both ways.
  I would just say this: The vote we are about to take is not a vote on 
an amendment by Senator Boxer; it is a vote as to whether you agree 
with MoveOn.org coming in and saying the things they have articulated 
about one of our top military leaders. That is what the vote is all 
about.
  I urge everyone to oppose the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, when General Petraeus was confirmed, the 
majority leader called him a great man. My colleague from California 
referred to him as an amazing man, saying: Of course I listen to 
General Petraeus.
  The Senator from Delaware said: I do not know anyone better than 
Petraeus. This is the thanks he gets after 9 months of service in Iraq.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, 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 the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and 
the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Colorado (Mr. Allard).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 343 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Allard
     Biden
     Cantwell
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
47. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.

                          ____________________