the senate will come to order the chaplain dr very black will lead the prayer of eternal spirit who brings a rich harvest with your footsteps mountains melt in your presence you are robed with honor and majesty we praise your name and celebrate your goodness remind us that without your he there is no national security may we focus less on what we can accomplish and more on your unstoppable providence send your peace into the hearts of our senators take away distracting worry and fill them with fake cleanse them from any bitter or unforgiving  give them contentment in serving you and this great nation inspire them with the courage to work to build a world without dividing wall the bill we spent five or six days on it several months ago under the consent agreement from last thursday we will debate the final amendments to the defense authorization bill today and then tomorrow morning we'll have a series of votes on the remaining amendments concluding with a vote on final passage of that bill those amendments include two amendments relating to our policies in iraq and second degree amendments to the on the status of detainees we will start of both at about ten forty five tomorrow morning and therefore we will finish to defense appropriations or authorization bill prior to our normal recess that we take on tuesdays for our respective policy lunches i also want to my my colleagues at four thirty today will begin our debate on the energy and water appropriations conference report this will be our six conference report we've done homeland security and interior agriculture ledge branch and then foreign ops of this will be number six as we continue to to bring these bills across the floor one by one we will have a vote at about five thirty today after that hour of debate on energy and water appropriations in addition to those two matters we have a whole host of other important issues used to address prior to adjourning for thanksgiving most common question i get is on the schedule and what time we will we will be getting out for thanksgiving and of course the holidays in december as well in the short term this week we may consider the tax reconciliation under the statutory time limitation as provided by the budget act the budget act provides for up to twenty hours of debate on that bill and therefore we could have late nights during this week in order to finish that tax bill we have five remaining appropriation conference reports and we will consider them over the course of the week as they become available we have defense labor h h s milk on the transportation bill and d c appropriations as i mentioned we'll finish the energy and water conference report today and we're ready to lock in a short time agreement on commerce justice and science conference report which is now at the desk and following that one that i will do six we will have done seven of the appropriations conference addition to the deal the authorization bill and the conference reports we have other things to address this week the conference report on the patriot act which is expected this week a lot of work done over the course of the last two weeks and over the course of the weekend we will complete that prior to our thanksgiving time away as well another item that we have worked on a lot of the last five six weeks that will be back on the floor is pension legislation and we are very very very close to an agreement on that and we will be able to do that before thanksgiving as well if we continue to make the progress that we've made over the last two weeks we are hoping to reach a unanimous consent request that would allow the senate to proceed on that pensions bill in a a reasonable period of time and i keep stressing reasonable period of time and keeping time requirements down because in order to accomplish all of this it is going to take a lot of organization and efficiency and understanding and tolerance on the part of all of my senators all all of our colleagues as we go through finally i would mention our continued efforts on the executive calendar as well as a number of other legislative items that will go in wrapped up we will consider those nominations in clear legislation each day this week as they come available a lot of work over a very short period of time i guess is true this week and then people say what about next week and until we see the pacing of the next several days it's going to impossible for me to really know exactly what we're going to be out but i remain hopeful that we can work through the issues that i just a minute mentioned and finish this week and next question be when is this weekend is it in friday afternoon or saturday or sunday and camp answer that yet until we get a little bit further there's a chance if we could we could do all that by li friday afternoon however if it becomes necessary to stay longer either into the weekend on saturday or into next week and we will certainly do just that senators are going to have to remain bill with their schedules beyond friday and i do want to lease throw out the weekend schedule would be possible because i know a lot of people have things scheduled and so please keep your calendars flexible and in december i can also say that the following is just for planning purposes and that is that we will not be in for a vote in december before monday december  twelfth i will not know until later this week or saturday night or maybe monday night of next week exactly what the plans will be for the week beginning december twelfth so again i ask  our colleagues to keep the schedule flexible in case we have no choice but to return sometime during that week and what i've just said is going to start the pot with lots of questions coming forward but that's about as much as i know right now and i will share the information on schedule with colleagues is soon as it becomes apparent to me based on how much work we get done today tomorrow the next day the course of this week authorization act of two thousand and six day number six and we will complete that bill tomorrow i do want to thank senator warner for his steady leadership under the guidance of our chairman we've been able to proceed in a very orderly manner a very smooth manner on a very very important bill last month i sent a request to the minority leader asking for his agreement to keep amendments limited to issues that are important to  military personnel in arms services in that are within the jurisdiction of the senate armed services committee and fortunately we were able to reach agreement and do just that and i do want to thank our colleagues for their patien cooperation in allowing us to move forward on a bill that is central to america's national security these are momentous and really historic times for america in just four years we've toppled two of the most brutal regimes in human history and liberated fifty million people fifty million people from tyranny afghanistan and iraq are now governed by the consent of the people under constitutions that have been ratified by the popular vote many people simply would not have believed that just several years  ago next month on december fifteenth the iraqi people will vote to form a permanent government in on that day they will show once more their tremendous courage their boldness their afforded to and moving their country toward full democracy and independence while the news media focuses on the terrorist activity and the terrorist insurgency by any standard of history iraq and afghanistan are making remarkable progress only four years ago saddam hussein and the taliban same like permanent malignant fixtures in the middle east but today saddam sits in prison on trial for his life and the taliban no longer rule that danny people meanwhile progresses cropping up all over the region again the news media simply does not cover it and we always hear excuses why that might the the case but if you just look back you see that egypt as just killed its freest elections in history this spring and i had to operate opportunity to be in lebanon about a month after this in april but this spring on march fourth to think the lebanese people rose up in a remarkable protest that was indeed televised throughout the world we all saw it and after thirty years of occupation syria was forced to withdraw libya has given up its weapons of mass destruction program and is now cooperating with international inspectors kuwait has granted full political rights to women and democracy is slowly beginning to take root in saudi arabia in all of this has been made possible by the bravery and the valor and the strength of our men and women in uniform they deserve our deep  respect and our gratitude and our own wavering commitment to the success of their mission the young people heard the call of duty and they went to the front lines to defend america every day at risk to their own lives our soldiers are helping the iraqis to secure a democratic future their training iraqi forces to defend and protect the iraqi people and real progress is being made and the iraqis are getting stronger and they're getting more skilled at the dangerous work of facing down that terrorist enemy in the recent teller operation iraqi forces outnumbered coalition forces for the first time in a major engagement eleven iraqi combat battalions were independently employed they are twice the number inclusion operations it's yours that is progress currently one hundred sixteen iraqi security forces are conducting operations one hundred  sixteen in iraq he said millions are gaining confidence in their handling the matters there and in providing tips in providing information to help defeat the insurgents that are in the region meanwhile iraq continues to build and improve its infrastructure again you don't see it on the nightly news or on the twenty four hour coverage since the liberation coalition forces have helped complete over four thousand wrecked be construction projects including three thousand four hundred one hundred public schools three hundred four water projects two hundred fifty seven fire and police stations and one hundred and forty nine health facilities under saddam iraq's infrastructure was in shambles citizens were not allowed free access to the media or to communicate freely with one another saddam maintained his iron grip by keeping his people fearful and totally cut off from the outside world but now that has changed slowly but surely under the democratic leadership iraq is emerging as a modern country internet subscribers have risen from five thousand a hundred and ninety six thousand it's opening up a light shining in to the country into the peoples of iraq now over four point five million iraqis have telephone service and that's a four fold increase as to what it was before the war under saddam there was nothing like that there was really no independent media but today iraq has more than one hundred newspapers and magazines there are over forty commercial televisions stations broadcasting through an eager iraqi public they are hearing or seeing things for the first times and there are lines you know we hear the level charges against the administration that's disappointing we know that some are indeed trying to rewrite history we hear it on the senate floor and we see it  on the shows on the the television the new shows this rewriting of history is wrong it shows and i am a very little respect for the very things the freedom the democracy the transparency the letting the the sort of things that our men and women are fighting for overseas at the same time we hear this this invective and this these false charges brave men and women american and i just mentioned iraq a coalition forces at gannett are working hard to promote democracy and freedom in the heart of the middle east and we salute them governments that were once sworn enemies of the united states are now sworn enemies of the terrorist they want harbored in people who feared their government are now active participants in this trans formation it's huge progress the defense authorization bill before us provides our soldiers with the resources and the training with the technology the equipment and authorities they need to win this global war on terror from cutting edge technologies to personnel protection the authorization bill keeps our military strong so that our men and women in uniform can keep america say its present i look forward to passage of the defense authorization bill tomorrow the united states senate has no higher duty then to protect and defend our fellow citizens sound judgment energy and friendship with any successful enterprise there is the heart of the operation and our case julie has been the heart the legs the mind the backbone and spirit of our staff in addition to her professional service she has always subsumed her interests to mine to the senate's to the public interest and most important to the interests of our country and the nation she's been a loyal public servant the first first order and a true patriot from time from the time she first marched into my office she's been a friend remarkably from that first day the president through nineteen congressional sessions free elections marriage motherhood and her bravely defiant and prevailing fight against cancer she's never stopped chemotherapy has met its match she never rested and she never let the rest of us rest even s caught this year alone said action is character in that case julie is character some moves out with her would say that character is in the irony appropriate designation for i don't have many unique talents is what i've learned is referred to as multitasking at any given time she can be talking with me listening to c span blackberrying instructions to the staff checking out the statistics of previous minnesota vikings game and evaluating their potential draft picks nine months in advance when she's talking we all this as fast as we can but sometimes it's hard for us to keep up our great country sends a lot of talent and integrity to washington to staff our congressional offices and julie is as good as i have seen if you understand the high profile issues that are in the papers every day julie co these big issues that is extraordinary with the issues that are low on visibility high on complex of it complexity and of significance she's handled the issues in depth including farm credit patent protection voting reform postal reform highway transportation funding formulas california's clean air and forcemeat regulations just to mention a few of the most recent ones our intellectual dexterity has earned her extraordinary respect among colleagues who work with her and particularly those who have worked against her journey began to work in the senate and one nine hundred seventy nine as an intern with senator rudy boschwitz eventually coming to washington in committee who seemingly was interested in more than just her highly regarded agricultural aqim and newfound interest in budget and appropriations issues have actually paid off and they were married  hundred eight election of course they both enjoyed politics history golf and german beer as a legendary green bay packers coach once said on third and long i'll take the beer drinkers to the milk drinkers any day eighty being hurt appropriations bill we were able to expedite completion of the bill by successfully appealing to senators that julie needed to leave the floor to have or second daughter who was due to arrive that day now betting on the all the proceedings and wanted to see that a bill finished first she's been an invaluable help in all legislative activities and helped us this shepherdess through my partner and good friends that are mccullough skee my ranking member of the was born in rosedale minnesota and graduated from the university of minnesota where she became a regret to tell you that die hard go for likings in twins fan pretties indiscretions she was forced to undertake an amnesty program and extensive but unsuccessful bond office missouri rehabilitation program the fact that she was able to stay in my employ after the twins cardinals world series in one thousand nine hundred eighty seven and epic tragedy which occurred in the horrible chambers that the twins call a baseball stadium speaks volumes to her otherwise high value in fact the only successful indoctrination resulted in the staff being forced to root against the arch rival green bay packers even one of my leatherneck marines on staff christan has learned to mind his manners around julie ross father a native of germany but juliet to football packers n f l action picture for christmas one year as a joke it sat in the garage and opened for a year tell it was really gifted to a friend in germany do you really believe that opposition sh be given little room to breathe and then us citizenship is a privilege we should not be abused as well competitive she always respected the process and people on both sides working diligently to pursue the agenda they were elected or hired to pursue their all the pressures high expectations and fast city life i think that julie may be proudest of her terrific family and proudest that to this day she quite obviously remains a small town late dr paul has bargain and mrs urbina has bargain made washington a better place i producing julie and lending her to the federal government for me having julie has been one of the great blessings in my public life in this case it's unlikely losing one member of the family because i'm so simultaneously losing a colleague a trusted adviser and yes and sometimes even a mother we know that she will be very successful in the private sector if your intelligence experience and dr senators back from the veteran's day recess today dealing with the two thousand and six defense authorization bill later today at four thirty senators will begin consideration of the fiscal two thousand and six energy water appropriations conference agreement and then they vote on that on a conference report slated for five thirty this afternoon the house meanwhile is in today at six in the legislative business pro forma session at six p m in fact for legislative business on a tuesday tomorrow also this evening at six o'clock  by the way can follow the house on c span right after the house cancels out some night we will take you to the senate finance committee they're meeting to mark up or make changes to the tax portion of the budget reconciliation package that's coming up tonight it's  six or so on c span businesses are catching without objection the president i was just asked by a news reporter about the president's chip trip to asia the president is now going to japan and korea and will be talking presumably about a wide range of issues including trade and my hope certainly is they will talk about trade the last month we had a trade deficit of sixty six billion dollars sixty six billion dollars in one month one third of it from china now the president when he goes to china could visit a lot of american jobs because the jobs that used to be here in america exist now in china the jobs that made bicycles the jobs that made radio fire little red wagon the jobs that made tony lama boots the jobs that used to make a wide range of products you know exist in china so an american president any american president visiting china could visit a lot of american jobs now they're not the same kind of jobs that existed in america because in america in most cases those jobs were formed by employees who made a decent wage and had benefits no longer in most cases those jobs in china are being performed by people who are paid a very small amount of money with no benefits and oh by the way if they complain about their working conditions they'll find themselves either fired or in prison so as the president goes to china in the shadow of last month's devastating announcement of a sixty six billion dollar monthly trade deficit with one third of it coming to china what should coming from china rather what should the president do it seems to me the president should with respect to china japan korea all three of those countries begin to get tough and exhibit on the part of this country a backbone a backbone that says to countries with whom we do business we expect and demand and deserve a fair trade fair trade means that it be neutral and beneficial it is not fair and is not mutually beneficial when last month when the last month for which we had reporting we bought one dollar's worth of goods from china and for every dollars for the goods from china we sold them ten cents a dollar and ten cents that is not  sixty six billion dollars trade deficit with nearly twenty of it coming from the country of china alone we ought to expect something to substantially different now the commerce department announced that the trade deficit shattered all records last month the month of september our country had a rate that's of sixty six billion dollars this is what it looks like our country is choking on red ink behind this red of course are american jobs leaving for china companies that know that they can simply get rid of their american workers save a lot of money by hiring people in third world countries in this case china and they can presumably boost their profits believing apparently the feet a lot like wren just get rid of them when you're done with them find something less expensive go higher that less expensive come out of the in this case come out of ties ing labor well this is what our trade deficit looks like with china running two hundred twenty billion dollar annual deficit with china you can see what's happened we are sinking into a deep abyss with respect to the trade deficit with china now one of the reasons for the trade deficit is that's just one of the reasons but let me just describe something interesting this happens to be the logo for the two thousand and eight chinese and one thinks it says beijing two thousand and eight it's a great looking glo it actually belongs to the chinese the chinese know how valuable a local like this is because in greece they had the local for the greek a lot of expensive i'm told they raise something over eight hundred fifty million dollars with this logo so the chinese now first of all this logo belongs to them secondly it's very valuable and some people on the streets of china decided we're going to counterfeit this going to pirate this and they started selling mugs coffee mugs and banners and all kinds of things with the oficial chinese logo on it for the two thousand electrics well guess what the chinese government can in fact control piracy in counterfeiting they demonstrated it here the president won't if he gets out of the car and walks down the street in beijing he won't find someone selling counterfeit goods they're gone they're in prison they're off the streets the chinese government shut them down just like that in an instan so when it's their money that's at stake they understand how to stop piracy and counterfeiting they do it two thirds of all the counterfeit and pirated goods coming into this country from china  i could put up a chart that shows japan sixty seventy billion dollars a year every single year in trade deficits i could put up a chart that shows korea and talk about my favorite subject with a career and that's that little old truck pickup truck called the dodge dakota which i kind of like the name of because it's after my state dodge dakota decoders rugged it's it's wonderful so they named a pickup truck after an editorial when seven hundred thousand vehicles come into this country on the high seas from korea to be sold to the american consumers were able to sell if we're lucky about thirty eight to thirty nine hundred u s vehicles in korea so seven hundred thousand this way thirty eight thirty nine hundred in korea w that what the koreans don't want american cars in korea ninety nine percent of the vehicles on the roads in korea are korean made vehicles that's what the korean government wants and so the dodge dakota folks decided you know they thought they'd have a niche in korea to sell some dodge dakota pickup trucks and for about three four months before they started selling some all of a sudden people started buying a few pickup trucks chinese government shut them down just like that and so it is with japan excuse me i meant the korean  government with japan with korea with china the fact is in all of these cases governments take action to complete trade arrangements with us that are not mutually beneficial trade arrangements that hurt us ship our jobs overseas and help them and you know this trip by this president is very important the question is will this country stand up for in its own economic interest there's no evidence in the past that we will my colleague and i senator and i have offered several pieces of legislation on these very issues but there is a giant yawn on the part of united states congress not very interested giant yawn at the white house not very interested why is that because most of this policy i'm talking about policies  affect jobs of our citizens policies that affect this country's economy and whether we grow or not whether people have good jobs that pay well with benefits most of this is viewed through the lens of soft headed foreign policy not hard nosed economic policy and that's problem you have to run all these things the united states state department to see what could we begin to be a little bit tough and take some action maybe with respect to unfair trade for the chinese with dissenters you know we're worried about offending the chinese don't do that on their part to attributable to unfair trade practices on behalf of the channel it's one thing to be outworked in and if people work hard and you do and they're smarter than you are and you lose market share shame on you but i believe and i think as you do that a lot of the market share that we're losing in the trade deficit explosion has to do with the chinese government policy when it comes to trade behavior rather than just simply out working the american worker who's your view on that well i don't have enough and answered numeric answer that but i think it's self evident that most of the trade deficit we have a china has to do not with fair competition but instead of manipulation of the currency a refusal to deal with piracy and counterfeiting a refusal to open their markets i mean i think that's what it's about just give you a point of importance here the u s trade and basters office on april twenty ninth of this  had issued its report this is our official government report concludes that chinese piracy was at epidemic levels and that the chinese had broken promises that indicate it was but despite the fact that the chinese continued to break the promises and the piracy of our intellectual property was at epidemic levels and two thirds of the pirated products that are coming into this country are coming from china despite that our trade investor says it was not ready to file a w t o case against china why because instead we were going to put china on a watch list or that a feature you put somebody on a watch list that a strike fear in the hearts of almost anybody this abyss and now all of a sudden we're going to put them on a priority watchlist on behalf of farmers in north dakota i can say that i know that inside the administration in the trade policy review group they made a recommendation that we should take action against china with respect to unfair trade dealing with wheat but the state department said and this is a quote they thought it would be too much quote in your face unquote so they wouldn't do it so they went to the state department with this will send somebody if we decide that they are to play fair yeah i might offend them so you know let's not do that now i've said many times that it is not anyone in this chamber whose job is jeopardized by this unfair trade with these three asian countries i could also describe unfair trade with canada and mexico and the european union as well but i'm because the president is on a trip to asia and talking about the problems we confront there but it's safe to say there is no one in this chamber no one serving in the i state senate that's going to lose his or her job due to a bad trade agreement or due to an us not having the background backbone rather to demand of other countries that they play fair nobody here is going to lose a job we just all sit around and some our suspenders include our horns and talk about all this and put on a blue suits every morning but nobody's jobs in jeopardy it's just a lot of other people whose jobs are in jeopardy all the people to me that's a sketch of that little etch a sketch you played with that when you were a kid everybody played with that's a sketch you got two knobs on it you have some sand in there and you try to do a picture on it a sketch gone gone to china and they're all gone and i could just go through a list of one hundred  companies fact i should bring over just the first six months of this year the first six months of this year the department of labor report that's thirty three pages on both sides single spaced of the names of companies that have outsourced jobs off of our company off of our shores thirty three pages single spaced the names of companies not the companies it is unbelievable what's happening we are selling this country piece by piece when today we import two billion dollars more than we export the financial transactions we put in the hands of foreigners either currency or securities by which they own a part of america each day they buy two billion dollars more of this country and it doesn't seem to mean a whit to anybody last week was the announcement of the sixty six billion dollar monthly trade deficit did you hear any outrage from this chamber i came over and gave a little speech but nothing it's almost like you know everybody calls or some girl down and takes a big siesta and sleeps forever on this epic and then what's going to happen is some day because i think every economist understands this cannot stand you can't keep the this you that but nobody's saying much because we're all for this jingle istic free trade you know give folks some tambourines and some roads and put them on a street corner let them but i'm banging around out there chanting free trade when it seems to be the american people have had enough of it at some point they're go say stop already these are our jobs we fought for one hundred years for good jobs that pay well with the benefits and the right to organize and i are going to pull vault over that and ship all these jobs elsewhere and then go visit them as you talk about trade i mean i think it's some point when this collapses and it will this can't stand this can't continue when it when it collapses of its weight we're all going to stand around here thumbing our pockets saying well we knew it couldn't last oh really read the washington post and oh by the way if you do read the washington post you wrote you won't read both sides of this debate because the washington post will run only one side has actually gone back for six years and we get a column in to praise all of what the way we'd love to run them but if you're on the other side if you believe in fair trade and that this free trade these these these monumental differences are hurting this country and shipping jobs overseas try to get enough ed piece published in the washington post good luck fix the medicine it's going to take a while it just doesn't happen i mean the whole town is like that on this issue and i understand understand that when you have that much invested in failure you certainly want to defend it but there'll come a time in my went all of us have to understand this this is not representing the interests the long term economic interests of our country producing products for thirty cents an hour with kids working seven days a week she can chip in to a big box retailer in this country and sell it for pennies might be good in the short term for corporate profits but it is not good for the long term economic interest of this country and one day enough members of this congress will wake up hasn't happened yet didn't happen on the central american free trade agreement which we just had in this chamber another chapter of the book of failures didn't happen nothing will said well you know what first let me agree that will bind our hands and not allow any amendments so that's agree not to be original and let's not think about this stuff and then second we have the vote but also agree to treaty and it is a treaty but it's called an agreement so that doesn't need sixty six votes sixty seven votes will agree to something that was negotiated behind closed doors somewhere else and that we will continue to open the new testament of the trade dogma believing that somehow it will have a happy ending it will not so mr president should say rather than addressing the present president bush is on his way to asia i want to succeed but i doubt whether he will raise these hard nosed tough trade issues in a significant way that tells these countries enough is enough i want our country to stand up for its economic interests its economic interests and rooted is rooted yes it's an expanded trade no question about that but it is written especially in the requirements demand fair trade mr president might make just one additional observation i know th others perhaps would like the floor one other observation the same companies that are shipping jobs overseas all in the name of profits because they don't say the pledge of allegiance in those boardrooms anymore those same companies by the way don't want to pay taxes in most cases let me tell you an interesting statistic in the cayman islands there is a five story white building and that five story white building is home to twelve thousand seven hundred forty eight corporations oh they don't all live there no no they just get their mail there it's a mail box and the mail boxes for the purpose of being able to say that they belong to the grand cayman islands and they can avoid paying taxes in the united states isn't that interesting and also disgusting twelve thousand companies claiming one white five story building in the cayman islands as their home and finally as part of all of this this congress yes this congress decided to give a special gift so those that  repatriate those earnings and you get a special income tax rate that no whether american gets five and a quarter percent you get to pay that rate five and a quarter percent as mrs smith get the pay that mr jones mr johnson the people of north dakota  get to pay that people of tennessee no no only one group just a group that have moved their jobs overseas among other things made a lot of money overseas who expected to have to pay income taxes on it when they bring it back to this country they're told bring it back we'll give you a sweetheart deal five and a quarter percent that was called a jobs act and in fact we now see the result of it companies are bringing somewhere around three hundred billion dollars back and the very companies that are repatriating this earnings and paying five and a quarter percent income taxes a fraction of what the lowest income american is paying they are in fact cutting jobs and moving jobs overseas and my colleague who sat in this desk he offered the amendment that would have stripped that little sweetheart deal for this companies and  i supported him spoke for him and he lost why because just as in the rest of trade there are sufficient numbers who will stand up in this chamber and say will sign me up let me let me give a special deal to those companies that not only do business in that five story white building in the caymans but but also give them an opportunity to pay five percent income tax when they repatriate the money to the us i would hope one day that all of those workers in america who had good jobs were proud of them and were taking care of their families but some day march on this cap and ask the question what is my job what do you do to my job and how much do you reward the people that took my job and look overseas be an interesting question and one that ought to be answered by people in this chamber carolina and michigan for giving me the privilege to share with the senate what i have just experienced since i have just returned from a meeting in west palm beach with senior citizens concerned about the implementation of the prescription drug benefit for medicare which starts it broke the principles of free enterprise economics by not allowing the federal government through medicare to negotiate the prices of prescription drugs downward by bulk purchases as has been the case in the u s government for the past two decades through the veterans administration also through the department of defense that earns today pay seven dollars per month for their prescription drugs after part of that is subsidized but a large part of that also is the fact that the veterans administration by prescription drugs in huge quantities and therefore negotiates a lower price not so with the prescription drug benefit was passed from medicare and this chamber of which almost half of  maybe not quite half of the senate including this senator voted against it but nevertheless it is the law so it is being implemented tomorrow and the current law says that the senior citizens of this country have until next man a in order to make a determination which one of these planes often they may be through an h may be through from some organization created for the dispensing of the drugs which one of these plans that they will choose or choose nothing especially if their employer their former employer now that they're retired is providing under their retirement a prescription drug plan well it sounds like that on the surface that a decision could be made but the fact is that i had a senior citizen and west palm beach this morning tell me that there were on hundred and thirty plan that that senior citizen was trying to choose between there is confusion there is concern there is fear that if they don't choose the right plan then they're not going to be able to change for a whole year so with all of this confusion with with additional concerns maybe the senior citizen lives in a small town that has only one or two pharmacies and naturally the senior citizen wants to continue to get their prescription drugs from that pharmacy but what happens if the plan that they choose does not use that pharmacy again concern for instability concern for not being able to get the kind of drugs they want and need another concern that was voiced to me this morning in that meeting in west palm beach was what if i choose a plan that in fact provides the drugs that my doctor prescribes for me now but what happens if the doctor changes the prescription to a drug that is not covered by that a clear plan they're stuck and they're stuck for a year until at the end of that year that they can change plans ok these are the questions that senior citizens are asking all around this nation and i can tell you they're asking these questions in my state of florida so what should we do i think a very practical approach is for us to extend the deadline so that senior citizens will have more time to make up their mind to evaluate the plans to be cal soul in order to get the right plan for them remember with the advances of modern medicine through the miracles of prescription drugs so often the quality of life is dependent upon the right prescription and that prescription being available to the person and especially so to the senior citizen so it is my hope that the senate will recognize that we need to buy some time for our seniors i have filed a bill that would extend the deadline from may until december and that legislation would also allow in the course of that year up to the end of two thousand and six if the senior citizen makes a mistake and chooses the wrong plan and then realizes their mistake that they will be able to change their and furthermore for the those with the great uncertainty of whether or not they're going to stick with their former employer based prescription drug plan that if they choose and make a mistake and want to go back to their employer that they have that grace period of one year up to the end of december of next year in order to be able to go back to their employer based plans now is this too much to ask for our seniors out of all of the confusion out of all the concern and what is now turning into fright for our seniors this is after all what was enacted supposed to help senior citizens the department of h h s says oh you can clarify this mr senior citizen if you will go on our website but senators i bet you all have a number of senior citizens who are not accustomed to using the computer and going on the web site and i think we need to give them some relief now the veil of files i'm looking for the legislative vehicle to attach it to as an amendment and i wanted the senate to know directly express to me in this meeting this morning the great confusion in consternation that is being felt out there among many of those in what tom brokaw had labeled as the greatest generation who have helped us to enjoy the freedoms that we i think for us to do less and to help them out would certainly be less than the honor that which we should pay to our seniors and at an appropriate time with an appropriate legislative vehicle i will offer this bill as an amendment now in the meantime i want to thank the leadership of our senate armed services committee for the great job that you all have done and handling this legislation and i want to thank you for the privilege of serving on that committee it's been a great blessing to me and and to work with people of such caliber as we have on our senate armed services committee mr president i yield four under the previous order the leadership time is reserved under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of and for defense activities of the department of energy and so forth and for other purposes as president senator from michigan as president before the senator from florida leaves the floor i just want to do two things first i want to thank him for the energy for the perception that he has shown in pointing out the problems some of the problems with this prescription drug benefit which was voted on he has a lot of seniors in his state and he is unusually aware of sensitive to and determined to see if we can't make some changes in this process which will make what we've done a lot more friendly to seniors and i can't think of anybody in this body is knows more about this subject was more determined to make the changes necessary for the benefit of our seniors because the confusion out there in the uncertainty is rife we don't have quite as many seniors as they do in florida but our seniors are telling me pretty generally what the seniors down in florida are saying to the senator from florida i just want to thank him and commend him for the leadership he's taking in for the proposed change that he's proposing now secondly i just want to thank him for his service on the armed services committee to the wonderful committee of bipartisan committee and the senator from florida senator nelson makes a really important contribution to what he is there all the time with very perceptive questions that are intended to support the men and women in our military and i want to just thank him for his participation because president the senator from new mexico i believe now is ready to offer an amendment which is referred to in the unanimous consent agreement and i would yield to  him fifteen minutes should he so need fifteen minutes on our side of the debate for that purpose senator from new mexico mr president thank you i think my colleague from michigan for  to senator graham's amendment the underlying amendment that was adopted by the senate on thursday addressed some of the mistaken claims that were made last week during the debate on that amendment there were a lot of statements made last week it's important to be clear about what the graham amendment does the amendment as drafted as voted on last week here in the senate would overrule a supreme court case issued earlier this year that recognize the  longstanding right to file a petition for a via scores this right is absolutely fundamental it is the right of an individual who's being detained by the executive branch of our government to question th legality of that person's detention contrary to what senator graham has said i do not believe we are giving prisoners new rights in the amendment that i just sent to the desk or in the underlying bill i believe that we need to just keep in place the rights that have already existed that currently exist and that the supreme court has recognized we need to prevent the courts from being stripped of their authority that they have and have always had let me take a moment to address the notion that we should not care about these individuals because these individuals are terrorists frankly i have no doubt that some of the individuals being detained at guantanamo are a threat and it is for this reason that i have never advocated that we release these prisoners but we need to recognize that not all of these prisoners are necessarily terrorists in the sense that we debating that here was a january two thousand and five wall street journal article stating that quote american commanders acknowledge that many of the prisoners should not have been locked up here in the first place because they weren't dangerous and they did not know anything of value in quote the article also quoted brigadier general jay hood the commander at guantanamo saying quote sometimes we just didn't get the right folks in quote the deputy commander general martin lewis sente was also quoted as saying that quote most of these guys weren't fighting they were running in quote my point is simple it is reasonable to insist that when the government deprives a person of his or her liberty and in this case for an indefinite period of time that the individual have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention and challenge that brings me to the second point last week senator kyl compared challenges by guantanamo prisoners to a frivolous prison or a lawsuit filed by an inmate in arizona who was unhappy with the type of peanut butter he was being served at his meals let's be clear we are not talking about depriving a person of their right to eat a certain type of peanut butter we're talking about individuals challenging their indefinite imprisonment if a claim is filed frivolous a court can simply refuse to hear the claim we are also not talking about suits against u s soldiers there were statements made in last week's debate about we don't want these prisoners going and suing our soldiers there's nothing in what i'm proposing or what is currently in place that permits that we're talking about suits challenging the legality of a person's imprisonment by our own government the right to challenge the legality of one's detention by the government is one of the most fundamental human rights the right to be free from being unlawfully detained by the government was also argued last week that virus fusing to quote here's the one thing i can tell you for sure as a military lawyer the p o w or an a p o davia or an enemy combatant facing the laws of armed conflict charges has not been given the right davis corpus for two hundred years because our own people in our own military facing court martials who would be sentenced to death do not have the right to habeas corpus it's about military law i'm not changing anything i'm getting us back to what we have done for two hundred years frank in quote frankly that statement is completely an incorrect representation of what the graham amendment does if a u s soldier is detained for committing a crime then that soldier is charged provided an attorney tried pursu captain dwight sullivan's article the last line of defense federal habeas review of military death penalty cases by in the military law review nine hundred ninety four to see that u s servicemen are also allowed to seek a vs review in death penalty case i also ask unanimous consent that a letter that was sent to me by the chief counsel for the office of military commissions objection with regard to these guantanamo prisoners the administration has refused to apply the laws of war only a handful of the five hundred prisoners held at guantanamo have been charged none have been tried as yet and it is unreasonable to say that these prisoners are being granted more rights than our military personnel i'd also like to take a moment to read to you the names of some of the many people who oppose the graham amendment john huts judge advocate general of the navy has written to me indicating his strong opposition john givens a former nixon appointee who served on the third circuit court of appeals eugene fidel the the president of the national inst military justice advice sullivan the chief defense counsel for the office of military commissions and a long list of other distinguished former officials in our military they have joined and i will enter letters that they have given to me as as part of the record in just a moment these these leaders have dedicated their lives to fighting for and preserving our freedom democracy human rights respect for the rule of law they oppose the graham amendment because they see it as contrary to the values and rights that the men and women of our armed services have fought for i have no doubt that some of my colleagues are concerned that if they vote against the graham amendment or if they vote for the graham amendment they would face a thirty second attack ads accusing them of being soft on terrorism no if they voted against it that this is not about our resolve to defeat terrorists this is about our resolve to maintain in place the legal protections is that our country was established on is a hard decisions are tough votes this is the u s senate we have taken an obligation to uphold the constitution of the united states even in times of war the amendment that i'm going to offer would maintain the right to seek a meaningful judicial review specifically the amendment would allow individuals any individual to see review but would provide that the u s court of appeals for the district of columbia would have exclusive jurisdiction to hear these claims it would also limit the ability of a court to consider claims regarding ones living conditions such as whether or not they were being given peanut butter or particular type or access to particular d v d s or whatever other frivolous claim might be envisioned it would however allow a person review regarding whether he or she is being unlawfully imprisoned if a court determines that the detention is lawful the court can simply deny the petitioners application there are good provisions in the graham amendment but there are also some extremely problematic sections both the chairman of the ranking member of the judiciary committee have argued here on the senate floor last thursday that this is the nation you that needs careful consideration before the senate  committee unfortunately it appears that this proposal they have the votes to to move forward the amendment that i'm offering will keep in place the necessary protections in our constitution and in our common law and and there it will also take the necessary steps to ensure that there is a proper a proper and  expedited procedure for these proceedings mr president let me just briefly before i yield the floor call my colleagues attention to some of these letters that that i think are are extremely important and make the case extremely well i have previously alluded to the to the letter that i have received from white sullivan the colonel u s marine corps reserve chief defense counsel for the office of military commissions this is the office that we established that was established in the department of defense to defend people who are charged by military commissions  sullivan in this letter goes step by step through the various statements that have been made in support of the graham amendment and refutes those those contentions at every step there's also a letter i would ask unanim consent mr president to include also following my remarks a letter from the national institute of military justice objection this president this of this letter from eugene fidel says it's a very brief letter let me just read it to my colleagues here it says on behalf of the national institute of military justice as citizens in military custody as enemy combatants the proposed amendment would sanction unreviewable executive detention that cannot be harmonized with our nation's long standing adherence to the rule of law military detention without due process is antithetical to our fundamental values values that our men and women in uniform have put their lives on the line to protect the practical effect of the amendment would be to validate actions by non democratic countries around the world some of these countries may try to jail our citizens including but not limited to g i s on trumped up grounds and then deny them access to judicial forums in which they might at least try to gain their freedom or their for fairer treatment we should not take a step that we would be would be willing to see others apply we should not take a step we would be unwilling to see others apply to our own citizens we disable ourselves from objecting to flagrant lawlessness elsewhere when we shut the doors to our courts which are the jewel in the crown of our democracy it will only add that's i will only add that oftentimes when  organization considers taking a position on a matter of public policy our directors and advisors have a range of views this is one of our strengths as an organization but on this one we are emphatically of one mind president i also have a letter here from the brennan center for justice in opposition to the graham amendment from the franklin pierce law center and opposition to the amendment and a letter signed by  advocate indicating their strong opposition to the graham amendment unless it is changed as my man would change it mr president i i don't know how much time remains of the fifteen minutes that i was allotted one minute remained well let me let me just reserve the right that then and at this point in the yield the floor i know my colleague from south carolina is here and allow him to speak senior senator from south carolina i'll be glad as president to get a letter from the prosecutor at the military commission about the procedures and i'll bet you one hundred dollars he'll say they're great the point is we're talking about two different things and my and then that is designed to get us back to what we've been doing for a couple hundred years senator bingaman what i'm concerned about is that an enemy prisoner and that's what i'm talking about not someone charged with a crime an enemy prisoner is having access to federal courts to sue or own troops about the food about the mail about whether or not they should have an internet access about whether or not they should get d v d s there are one hundred sixty lawsuits now in federal court suing to stop interrogations unless the federal judge oversees the interrogation never in the history of law of armed conflict as a military prisoner an enemy combatant been granted access to any court system federal court or otherwise to have a federal judge to come in and start running the prison and determining what's  argue that the military is the proper body to determine who an enemy combatant is and how to run a war and how to interrogate people not that all judges who are not trained in the art of military science here's what these lawsuits are about and here's why i'm so adamant that we stop this number one what are we stopping we're not stopping a constitutional right that exist under our law for an enemy prisoner in our in our hands to be able to question the detention to federal court action there is no constitutional right under hey vs corpus in american jurisprudence for an enemy prisoner to go to federal or and challenge whether or not they should have internet access or the d v d access and all the other things that they are alleging suing the faithful for medical malpractise that is never been the case the germans in world war two that were housed in us in the united states and the japanese prisoners none of them are allowed to go to federal court and get a federal judge to come in and oversee their treatment we don't allow that that's not part of the law of armed conflict and hey vs petitions are not coming from the constitution is coming from an interpretation of section twenty two forty one the roseville case was a supreme court case that said mr president that contrary to the government's argument guantanamo bay cuba is in the control of the united states even though it's not part of our own territory because of the lease arrangement and because the department of defense is an agency covered by the jurisdiction of the federal courts the argument that it's outside the jurisdiction of federal courts because of this location was defeated that led to the decision that since you're within control of our jurisdiction guantanamo bay section twenty two forty one applies unless congress says otherwise and here's the question i'll ask you and every member of this body does the united states senate want enemy terrorists al qaida members being detained at guantanamo bay unlimited access to our federal courts t and for building interrogation and pm or engaging in cruel inhuman or degrading treatment of him that was a waltz brought in a federal court by a person who blew up one of our medics warning a federal judge to supervise his terry interrogation if we start doing that we might as well close guantanamo bay down there's more of a kuwaiti detainees these are not people being charged they're being kept off the battlefield because they've been captured on the battlefield and they've been labeled an enemy combatant and the procedures of what i'm trying to get in place that will comply with the law of armed conflict twelve of the people have been let go at guantanamo bay over two hundred in total have been let go they've been found no longer to have intelligence value of be a threat the united states once those two determinations are made their let go even if they're enemy combatants twelve of them have been recaptured a couple of them have been killed they go back to the fight so maybe make no mistake about it the people at guantanamo bay are captured as part of the war on terror and some of them may be running the point is that when you join al qaeda where you stand or fight or run you've lost your right to be considered anything other than what you are an enemy combatant taking up arms against the united states and here's my message to the terrorists if you join a terrorist organization taking up arms against the united states and you get involved in combat with you you're likely to get killed if you get captured you'll be taken off the battlefield as long as necessary to make sure that our country is protected from you and under the law of armed conflict there is no right to try them are let them go shaikh mohammed the mastermind of nine eleven is in u s control right now he is not a criminal that you've got to charge within ninety days or let go he is an enemy combatant the mastermind of nine eleven nine eleven was and that the war wasn't a crime and the law of war needs to apply so anybody it's  should have unlimited access to the federal courts to get a federal judge to superclasses interrogation is fundamentally changing the laws of war and making us less safe and he will not be let go if you don't want be captured detained for a long time don't join al listen to this acquainting detainees thigs court orders that they be provided dictionaries in contravention of get most force protection policy and that their counsel be given high speed internet access at their lodging on the base and be allowed to use classified d telecommunication facilities all in the theory of right to cancel a motion by high level al qaeda detainees complaining about basic european procedures speed of mail delivery and medical treatment seeking in order that he be transferred to the least owner engaged in a war against the united states because of twenty to forty one's interpretation or congress hasn't spoken is petitioning the court to come in and supervise his opportunity to exercise communicate  and where he should be have in other words federal judges are going to determine how we run the war and it's people quite the war never in the history of warfare has an enemy prisoner been allowed to do such things that didn't happen in w why because we have a right as a country catcher in any prisoner to take them all the battlefield they're not common criminals we have an obligation to treat them humanely under the law of armed conflict and emergency motion seeking a court order requiring get mode to set aside his normal security policies and showed a deniz d v d set or purported to be family videos a hundred and sixty of these cases  forty or fifty suing our own people one for one hundred million dollars suing the doctor that treated the guy this is an absurd result proudly stand before the senate asking the senate to fix this absurd result the court in result is asking the senate in the house do you intend for al qaeda terrorists enemy combatants to have access to federal courts under hey vs right to challenge the detention as if they were american citizens the answer should be no we never intended that and that's what my memo does it says to the courts and to the world that an enemy combatant is not going to have the rights of an american citizen and wiggle stop all these loafers that are undermining our ability to protect ourselves and what i've done in place i've stopped their procedure th never been granted before because it is totally out of bounds of what we need to be doing what we have done i'll allow federal courts to review each enemy combattants determination at the circuit court of appeals for the district of columbia to look at whether or not the combat status review tribunal the group deciding whether or not you're an enemy combatant follow the procedures in the standards that we set up what just the geneva convention give our own troops if our own troops fall into enemy hands on the geneva convention if there's a question about their status it says a confident tribunals a competent tribunal under the geneva convention is the ability to challenge the combat status review tribunals that we set up at guantanamo basement august of two thousand and four is geneva convention protections on steroids they have a full blown hearing a right every year to have their status read determined and what do you look at more than enemy combatant engaged  armed conflict against the united states do they present intelligence value or a continuing threat and united states that determination every year a full blown adversarial process was beyond what the geneva convention requires in such situations and we've added to that a federal court oversight to see if the people at guantanamo bay are following the rules and procedures set up in accordance with the law of armed conflict senator bingham is a very fine man fine senator i just deeply disagree with him and any letter that anybody writes and i've got my own letters from jags it's a simple proposition his amendment allows unlimited hate b s petitions regarding detention requesting that a condition of stay of litigation pending related pills emergency motion detainees accusing military health professionals gross and potential malpractise they're swapping the system americans are losing their day in court because him somehow we've allowed enemy combatants people who signed up to kill us all to take us into federal court and so it's about everything that is not part of the law of armed conflict our troops are not going to get that right if they're in the hands of and then some even allowing us a federal court review of the process down there but i will not now or ever sit on the sidelines and give a right to enemy combatants who have been caught on the battlefield in the war  never been a constitutional right for that to happen section twenty two forty one is what we're talking about here congress wrote it congress has restricted hague its rights for illegal immigrants congress has restricted t v s rights of its own citizens numerous times because these petitions can get out of control and take over a court room the question for this congress is whether or not you after nine eleven want to give enemy combatants detained at guantanamo bay who have been captured on a battlefield the unlimited right to go into any federal court in its land and to sue over everything they can think of if you do then we've made a huge mistake in the war on terror i convention we've done that and then will allow a limited federal court review more than anybody has ever gotten in history and we get back on track and when it comes to military commissions those will be charged a lot of armed conflict conflict violations i'm working with sen levin and others to try to find a way to get a federal court of appeal right there let it be said how much time to have this president senator has two minutes from now will try to retain one that let it be said that the people who attacked us on nine eleven committed an act of war not a crime and they're going to be tried in a military commissions not in our federal courts because they're engaged in a war and they are violating the law of armed conflict they will get their day in court and will come up with a fair process to make sure they have a fair day in court but we're not going to take a war and turn it into a crime i reserve the b who use time this president senator from new mexico this president let me use the remaining minute that i have and then i'll ask permission to to speak for another four minutes if possible but  let me just say that i think the senator obviously hadn't read the amendment that i've offered a minute that i've offered makes it very clear that the federal court is available only to hear claims regarding whether the status to consider whether the peanut butter as is the peanut butter the prisoner would like or anything else so to try to trivialize this this debate by suggesting that that's what we're talking about i think does a disservice to the of this president ask permission to speak for an additional four minutes as if in morning business is there objection i don't mind if the center wants four more men to stake on is a man and i mean without jackson no i appreciate my colleagues courtesy of this president first let me just say we've got a real difference of opinion here as to what has been the law of this land for the last couple hundred years senator from south carolina continues to say that that we have never recognized the right of a right of petition for people in conflict armed conflict to petition for behaviors corpus the truth is we have now the truth pursue federal hevia sky lit litigation to challenge their susceptibility to trial by federal commission by military commission it's very clear that that that right has been there all i'm trying to do is to be sure that we do not strip the courts of the right to consider these types of petitions if we strip the courts of the right to consider petitions in these cases how many other areas can we find where we will deny people within the jurisdiction of the creditor a court system the right to to proceed with a petition for hagan's corpus in the federal judiciary as president this is the most fundamental right that any of us can can conceive of when you start talking about imprisoning a person and not allowing that person any opportunity to have a court review the legality of that imprisonment you are talking about the most fundamental of rights and unfortunately that is what the the amendment by senator graham would would do it would deny that right it would be an unfortunate act by this congress it would be a extraordinary act by this congress to do that and i believe it would be very contrary to the traditions at this country was built on i strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment that i've offered which maintains the right to petition for his corpus on the part of every because there's nothing in our constitution there's nothing in the history and tradition of this country that says this is only available for citizens it is available for all individuals who become imprisoned within the confines of the you know it states and within the jurisdiction of the federal courts our department of defense tried to locate these prisoners outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts a put them in guantanamo and argued to the spreader of courts they are now outside your  the federal court said no they are not united states government is the sovereign in guantanamo we have one hundred year lease on that property and we operate that facility and we are responsible for the treatment of those individuals so the federal courts have authority to look at whether or not the detentions that occurred there are legal or illegal that's how that's the law as it's always been in this country that's the law today we should not change that by allowing the gra amendment to remain as it is we need to adopt a refinement of that amendment and improvement of that amendment and that's the second degree amendment that i have i have offered at this point the president i'll yield the floor i see my combatant al qaeda terrorists to be able to go in our courts and start selling our own troops i don't want that i don't think many people in this body do i don't think the american people do i want al qaeda members to be detained in accordance with the law of armed conflict they have due process rights letter said stands determination was supported by sufficient evidence and reached in accordance with due process of law provided that statements attained through into court and torture cruel learning human trait meant they not be used as a basis for the term nation and see the lawful and their detention at such a forbidding the interrogation of him or engaging in cruel inhuman or degrading treatment of him in other words under this and then that claim stand he could come in and ask a federal judge i want you sitting there while they interrogate me and we're turning the war over away from military people to federal judges we can't do that we will lock compromise our own defense our own freedom the people at guantanamo bay who are going to be charged with a crime and i'm working with senator  levin to come up with a military commission model we all can be proud of four hundred ninety of them are down there is any combatants are not going to be charged with crimes and if we allow them unfettered access to the american courts to have federal judges stop military interrogations and get into the battles of running this war not only is that never been done i challenge anybody to bring one case down here where a enemy prisoners been able to go to federal court and complain about their detention once you're charged with a crime you have rights and we're working on that but four hundred ninety of them are going to have unfettered access under twenty two forty one unless the congress acts and if you want to stop this kind of litigation and not turn over the running of the war to federal judges then you need to tell the court that twenty to forty one doesn't apply to a foreign national in any combatant no ball in the history of law of armed conflict has allowed this to happen and it needs to stop now twelve people have been released down there under the procedures we already have and they've gone back to try to kill us nothing's perfect nothing's perfect we may let some people go that go back to the fight but what we're going to do is we're going to have a process we can be a proud of fairly determined to an enemy combatant is and who's not following the geneva convention law of armed conflict we're not going with not a minute to turn the the al qaeda member into an american citizen still an esper anything they can think of about due process of law in the way they're being detained this is a fundamental moment in terms of values in the law of armed conflict the american value system is being maintained by due process and thence on the american value system that you can allow people who are trying to kill you on better access to the federal courts to see young troops that becomes our value we're going to lose this war thank you were sent into iraq for war now over two and a half years later that war continues and those brave men and women are waiting for what they should have gotten a long time ago and that's a clear realistic military mission with a flexible timetable for achieving that mission and of course that timetable has to include a plan for withdrawing our troops from from iraq when the mission is done and tuesday the senate can start to put our wrecked policy on the right course by demanding a public plan and a flexible timetable for achieving our military goals and bringing our troops home the absence of any kind of timetable is not fair to our troops and their families it's making the american people increasingly anxious and it's hurting mr president hurting not helping our wrecked policy and our broader national security strategy mr president why is it hurting us well for one thing the perception that u s true will be there indefinitely discourages iraqi ownership of the political process it also fuels the insurgency which thrives on conspiracy theories about our intentions and presence in iraq the failure to put forth a timetable is helping the recruitment of foreign fighters and it's unifying elements of the insurgency that might otherwise turn on each other former republican defense secretary and wisconsin congressman melvin laird recognized that when he said that quote our presence is what feeds the insurgency and quote general george casey recognized that when he said that the perception occupying occupation in iraq quote fuels the insurgency unquote so to the top military commander i spoke with anorak who told me off the record that nothing would take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents more than a public timetable for finishing the mission for president drawing down our troops in iraq is also essential if we're going to prevent the u s army from being hollowed out and ensure our military readiness and it's essential if we're going to make sure that our rec policy is consistent with our broader national security priority and that priority mr president is going after the global terrorist networks that threaten the united states despite the administration's almost desperate efforts to link them iraq has been a dangerous and self defeating diversion from that central fight against global terrorism unfortunately the president is one of  dwindling group of people who don't support a timetable president the ministration argue that a timetable will embolden the insurgency actually mr president it will undermine the insurgency the argue that fighting insurgents in iraq means we won't have to fight them elsewhere but mr president that's just wishful thinking of course the idea that all of our terrorist enemies will somehow be irresistibly drawn to irak like bees to honey doesn't make a whole lot of sense they ar insurgents will latest out if we have a timetable of course mr president if they're way to want to wait us out they could do that right now if that's what they wanted they could lay low and wait until we leave the argue that we leave prematurely iraq will fall into the only problem is that the insurgency isn't letting up and there's not very much expectation that it will as long as our troops remain with no end goal in sight the president for months i ha been calling on the president to provide a flexible public timetable for our mission in iraq and not calling for a rigid timetable or a deadline i mean one that is tied to clear and achievable benchmark estimated dates for meeting those benchmarks mr president please to tell you that today at the opportunity to join with some of my distinguished colleagues including senator levin and four other senators in the senate in offering an amendment that demands just that i hope that the senate will finally tell the administration that stay the course isn't a strategy for success in fact it's not even a strategy we need to correct the course that we are on to do that we need openness we need honesty and we need clarity about our military mission in iraq the american people and our troops in iraq have been waiting for that for far too long we now and four thirty be divided as follows that the senator from massachusetts be recognized for for thirty minutes then the senator from connecticut the recognized for ten minutes  during that period the manager as the floor manager on the republican side indicate time is required on the republican side he would then have to get to the best we could to make arrangements for that to happen loaded for mean the the four thirty time table here's the senator from south carolina we're trying to accommodate two senators here one is senator from massachusetts who needs half an hour when the senator from connecticut who needs a ten minutes i got a call like so we're trying to figure out how we can do this and accommodate make sure that you folks checked i would suggest the following senator from massachusetts go for a half an hour senator from connecticut for ten minutes unless you know of someone on your side and then if there are people or a person on your side that you need some time for that before thirty shift to the appropriations bill be delayed by five or ten minutes to accommodate republican side i can't think of anything better without knowing exactly who wants to speak all right i would ask unanimous consent that the senator from massachusetts be recognized for thirty minutes the senator from connecticut for ten minutes the other balance the time between now and four thirty not be assigned at this time and we would do our best to accommodate  us president veteran's day as a very special day in our country's history there are a lot of veterans who believe that veterans day just plain sacred a lot of families gold star mothers mothers wives for whom it is a day set aside to memorialize the unbelievable sacrifice of generations of americans have given themselves for our country veteran's day is sacred it's a day to honor veterans not a day to play attack politics the president who is commander in chief should know and respect us veterans day originally marked the eleventh hour  eleventh day of the eleventh month when the guns of world war one the war to end all wars finally fell silent instead of honoring that moment instead of laying a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier at arlington instead of laying out a clear plan for success in iraq the president laid into his critics with an eleventh hour rhetorical assault that i believe dishonors that day and does a disservice to veterans and to those serving today and he did so even as he continued to distort the truth about his war of choice perhaps most striking of all that is his almost desperate sounding veterans day attack on those who have told the truth about his distortion was itself accompanied by more distortion does the president really think that the many generals former top administrati officials and senators from his own party who have joined over two thirds of the country in questioning the president's handling of the war in iraq are they all unpatriotic to this is america place where we thrive on healthy debate that something we're trying to take to act afghanistan and iraq it's something we're trying to export to the rest of the world the president doesn't have have a monopoly on patriotism and this is not a country where only those who are green with them support the troops or care about defending our country you could cared just as much about defending our country and have just as much support for the troops by being a critic of policies no matter what the president says asking tough questions isn't pessimism it is patriotism and fighting for the right policy for our troops sends them exactly the right message that all of us here take very seriously the decision to put them in harm's way and that our democracy is alive and well ironically the president even used the solemn occasion of veterans day to continue his campaign of misrepresenting the facts and throwing up smokescreens his statement that democrats saw and heard the same intelligence that he did is just flat out untrue unless of course the president the administration didn't do their job and study the additional intelligence given only to them and not the congress as the washington post said it on saturday bush and his aides had access to much more of the luminous intelligence information than lawmakers who are dependent on the administration to provide the material but that whole discussion is nothing more than an effort to distract attention from the issue that matters most and can be answered most simply did the administration go beyond what even the flawed intelligence would support in making the case for war did they use obviously inaccurate intelligence despite being told clearly and repeatedly not to did they use the claims of known fabricators and rely on those claims of known fabricators the answer to each and every one of these questions mr president is yes and the only people who are now trying to rewrite that history are the president and his allies there is no greater breach of the public trust then knowingly misleading the country into war in a democracy we simply cannot tolerate the abuse of this trust by the government to the extent this occurred in the lead up to the war in iraq those responsible must be held accountable that is precisely why democrats have been pushing the senate intelligence committee to complete a thorough and balanced investigation into the issue when the president tried to pretend on friday that the intelligence committee had already determined that he had not manipulated intelligence and misled the american public he had to have known full well that they have not yet reported on that very question and that is precisely why democrats were forced to shut down the senate into secret session and go into that secret session in order to make our colleagues on the other side of the aisle take this issue seriously when the president said that his opponents were throwing out false charges he knew all too well that these charges are anything but false but the president and the republicans s more interested in confusing the issue and attacking their opponents than in getting honest answers let's be clear mr president let's be clear my fellow americans there is no question that americans were misled into the war in iraq simply put they were told that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction when he did not the issue is whether they were misled intentionally just as there is a distinction between being wrong and being dishonest there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and making statements that you know are not supported by the intelligence the bottom line is that the president and his administration did mislead america into war in fact the war in iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in american history the facts are incontrovertibly the act of misleading was pretending to americans that no decision it really did made to go to war and that they would seriously pursue inspections when the evidence now strongly suggests that they had already decided as a matter of policy to take out saddam hussein were anxious to do it for ideological reasons and hope that inspections which vice president cheney had opposed and tried to prevent would not get in their way the president misled america about his intentions and the manner in which he would make this decision we now know that his speech in cincinnati right before the authorization vote was carefully orchestrated window dressing where again he misled america by promising quote if we have to act we will take every precaution that is possible we will plan carefully and we will go with our allies mr president we didn't take every precaution possible we didn't plan that is evident for every american to see and except for great britain we did not go in with our allies the of misleading was just going through the motions of inspections and while it appears all the time the president just couldn't wait to kick saddam hussein out of power the activists leading was tending to americans the real concern was weapons of mass destruction when the evidence suggests that the real intent was to finish the job as father wisely refused and remove saddam in saying in order to remake the middle east for modern times the act of misleading was saying in a cincinnati speech that quote approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable when the evidence suggests that all along that goal was always to replace saddam hussein through an invasion for most of us in congress the goal was to destroy the weapons of mass destruction president bush weapons of mass destruction were just the first public relations means to the end of removing saddam hussein for most of the rest of us removing saddam hussein was incidental to the end of removing any weapons of mass destruction in fact the president was misleading america right up until two days before launching his war of choice when he told americans that we had exhausted all other avenues the truth is that on the sunday preceding the tuesday launch of the war there were offers of security council members to pursue an alternative to war but the administration and its race and rushed to go to war rebuffed them saying the time for diplomacy is over by shortcutting the inspections process and sidestepping his own promises about planning coalition building and patience the president used wm d as an excuse to rush to war and that was an act of misleading contrary to everything the president told americans about the walk up to war the very worst that members of congress can be accused of is trusting the intelligence we were selectively given by this administration and taking the president at his word  taking a president of the united states at his word but unlike this administration there is absolutely no suggestion that the congress intentionally went beyond what we were told by the facts that is the greatest offense by this administration just look at the most compelling justification for war i quote saddam's nuclear program and his connections with al qaeda the facts speak for themselves the white house has admitted that the president told congress and the american public in the state of the union address that saddam was attempting to acquire fuel for nuclear weapons despite the fact that the cia specifically told the administration three times in writing and purposely not to use this intelligence obviously democrats didn't get that memo in fact similar statements were removed from a prior speech by the president and colum powell refused to use it in his presentation to the u n this is not relying on faulty intelligence as democrats did it is knowingly and admittedly misleading the american public on a key justification for going to war this is what the administration was trying so desperately to hide when it attacked and bassett or wilson and compromised national security by outing his wife it is shameful that to this day republicans continue to attack and  it wilson rather than condemning the fact that those sixteen words were ever spoken and that so many lies were told to cover it up how are the same republicans who tried to impeach a president over whether  nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war the state of the union was hardly an isolated event in fact it was part of a concerted campaign to twist the intelligence to justify a war that had already been decided was more preferable again playing on people's fears after nine eleven the administration made statements about the relationship between al  that went beyond what the intelligence supported as recently reported by the new york times in the cincinnati address the president said quote we've learned that iraq has trained al qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases despite the fact that the defense intelligence agency had previously concluded that the source was a fabricator the president went on to say that iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned and manned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons despite the fact that the air force disagreed with that conclusion as the wall street journal reported quote the air force dissent was kept secret even as the president publicly made the opposite case before a congressional vote on the war resolution that's two more memos that the congress never got in fact when faced with the intelligence community's consensus conclusion that there was no formal relationship between saddam and al qaida the administration then proceeded to set up their own intelligence shop at d o t to get them some answers that were better suited to their agenda again there is a fundamental difference between believing incorrect intelligence and forcing or making up your own intelligence for this president where w republicans in the president draw the line how else how else would seventy percent of the american public be led to conclude that saddam hussein was involved in nine eleven that wasn't an accident in fact i remember correcting the president the united states and our first debate when he said to america it was saddam hussein who attacked us why else did vice president cheney cite intelligence about a meeting between one of the nine eleven hijackers and iraqis that the intelligence community and the nine eleven commission concluded never took place why else they false statements about saddam's ability to launch a chemical or biological weapon attack in under an hour without ever clearing that statement with the cia which in itself mistrusted the source and refused to include it in the national intelligence estimate why else would they say we would be greeted by liberators when their own intelligence report said we could be facing a prolong and determined insurgency why else tell americans that iraqi oil would pay for the invasion when they had to know that the dilapidated oil infrastructure would never permit that to happen and what about the president's promises to congress that he would work with allies that he would exhaust all options that he would not rush to war if the president wants to use quotes of mine from two thousand and two he might just look at the ones that were not the result of relying on the faulty intelligence and trusting the president's word as i said in my floor statement before the authorization vote and i wish the president would read this if we go it alone without reason we risk inflaming an entire region breeding a new generation of terrorists a new cadre of anti american cell it's and we will be less secure not more secure at the end of the day let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this i will support a multi lateral effort to disarm him by force if we ever exhaust those other options as the president has promised but i will not support a unilateral u s war against iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has proven not possible in my speech at georgetown on the eve of the war i said the united states should never go to war because it wants to the united states should go to war because we have to and we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available built legitimacy and earned the consent of the american people we need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms created so many reluctant partners abused the trust of congress or strained so many relations that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult i say to the president show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right it can make america stronger and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition mr president do not rush to war today our troops continue to bear the burden of that promise broken by this administration mr president we need to move forward with fixing the mess administration has created in iraq i have laid out in detail five or six occasions my views about exactly how we can accomplish that and how we can get our troops home within a reasonable period of time but that does not excuse our responsibility to hold the administration accountable if they knowingly misled the country when american lives were at stake we need to do both this president and those colleagues on the other rile need  stop pretending that it doesn't matter if the administration stretched the truth beyond recognition and they need to start working to find out the real answers that the country deserves and the real leadership that our troops in iraq to serve and they deserve it from the commander in chief not just a campaigner in chief this president senator from tennessee the routine is the senator from connecticut is to recognized by ten minutes followed by a republican mr president i understand the center of tennessee would seek recognition as the senator from connecticut  if this request is approved it would delay the beginning of the consideration of the conference report how long to address these tenets i have on the issue of the memmott that will be offered by our colleague from michigan i believe and several others of us have worked over the last week or so i'm trying to co opt us and ideas that could build bipartisan support here for how we go from where we are today in iraq to a successful conclusion of that conflict it is critically important all of us recognize that we have got ourselves into a mess in iraq no matter how you want to characterize i was disappointed that the president chose veteran's day last week to use it as an opportunity to attack those who have agreed with him at certain points in disagree that others it seems to me we need from the administration far more clarity a greater sense of vision some concrete ideas on how we intend to conclude our involvement in iraq how we hope to increase the likelihood that the iraqi people can have a stable government with a brighter future and they certainly do today tubes the used to construct nuclear centrifuges there were no significant stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons allegations linking iraqi officials to al qaeda we now know are just untrue and to make matters worse in my view the administration's penchant for discarding international norms respect to our missions in iraq afghanistan and elsewhere has unraveled decades of american diplomacy dedicated to enshrining the rule of law the course that by this administration has cost of course america its treasure but also the lives of more than two thousand of our servicemen and women who have died another fourteen thousand or more who have sustained serious injury injuries who are now spending somewhere around six billion dollars every month of u s military operations alone in that country there have been intangible costs as well the suppressed most significantly the cost to america's favorite public image at home and abroad a cause that is seriously impaired our ability to shape global responses to global challenges is challenges include north korea's nuclear weapons iran's ambitions to develop their own weapons capability genocide in sudan's darfur region possibility of an avian flu epidemic all are being held hostage to one degree or another because of the missteps in my view that we've taken in iraq these missteps have tarnished i think america's image allow the disaffected in iraq and elsewhere to capitalize on these misfortunes distort our i use in intentions to inspire violence their own purposes we saw a recent protest as i said in argentina we are seeing it to a certain extent and the ongoing violence in france conviction here that this is not going to be an indefinite struggle and that's why i joined with senator levin and others in crafting an amendment that will offer before the conclusion of this debate that we hope will be embraced in a vise partisan bas require the president to publicly lay out for the first time a strategy in framework for our troops to follow so they can successfully complete the mission in iraq and come home recently the president told the american people are rac has made incredible political progress from tyranny to liberation to national elections new constitution in the space of two and a half years i agree with that assessment of suppression but that's not a strategy for success it's a statement of discrete events that  this far occurred in iraq albeit positive events our troops the american people deserve more than that my view they certainly deserve more than simply being told that the strategy is when they stand up we'll send down it's a present when our troops are looking for what the american people i think are looking for what iraqi and iraq neighbors are looking for are a clearly articulated strategy a timetable which culminates in the election of a sovereign inclusive iraqi government with the expertise and courage to govern effectively for that to be a reality competent iraqi security and political a police forces rather respectful of the civilian authority must be at the ready to secure acts borders and provide security within it territory thus far the administration has failed to articulate such a strategy or such a timetable fundamental to achieving success in my view is the vast of the vast majority of iraqis kurds sunni's shias have bought into and although the latter may be a minority it is painfully evident that they have the capacity to derail progress for all iraqis with more than one hundred sixty thousand american servicemen interact our presence and our policies are going to be pivotal iraq's future that the united states the fight despite all of our military strength cannot through force alone remake arac moreover the longer u s troops remain an occupying force there the greater in my view the hatred and disaffection among iraqis and a larger attraction for foreign jihadists that is why i think it's especially important that the administration proceed with some sense of urgency in setting forth its strategy for involving iraqis neighbors and addressing the political ethical and ethical and tribal divisions that exist in iraq and fuel instability particularly so in light of the sizable no vote cast by sunni voters against the new call in the new constitution the levin amendment as the president views the administration with that strategy it states the united states forces should not remain in iraq indefinitely it establishes expectations that calendar year two thousand and six should be a period of significant transition to full iraqi sovereignty creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of u s forces from iraq it stresses the need for compromise among iraqis to achieve a sustainable sovereign government and most importantly as the president calls upon the present no later than thirty days after and that going to this bill to tell the american people his campaign plan an estimated dates for the redeployment of u s forces this to present a level amendment provides concrete ideas for completing our mission in iraq successfully resources have been diverted from programs to maintain our readiness of our armed forces and to strengthen our homeland security in order to pay and not to pay for the continuing occupation of iraq it's time for the bush administration to make a major occurred but also laying out a strategy of how we can succeed and he's coming months you cannot continue the path we're on a definite it will not work it's going to cost us dearly home it's going to cost us dearly abroad and  here to take a close look at this proposal i think it's one that many of my colleagues to be drawn to it doesn't lay out timetables definitely but it does lay out a framework which we can solicit information to get a better understanding of where we're headed with this tragic war tennessee my friend the senator from connecticut is on the floor i'd like to change the subject just for two or three two or three minutes and talk about the issue of babies born premature prematurely an area that he and i have been in working on premature infants are fourteen times more likely to die in the first year of their lives this is prematurity awareness month and tomorrow is prematurity awareness day it is the number one cause of infant death in the first month of life in the united states premature babies who survive may suffer long lifelong consequences including cerebral palsy mental retardation chronic lung disease vision and hearing loss half the cases of premature birth have no known cause in any pregnant woman is it risk that is why the senator from connecticut and i have introduced the prematurity research explains education for mothers who deliver infants early act which we call the premium act it explains research into the causes and prevention of prematurity increases education and support services related to pre mature i ask unanimous consent that the following senators be added to our legislation in honor of prematurity awareness day which is tomorrow senators bennett the human clinton bond campaign it will have a symposium on november twenty first and twenty second with sen yes search could you get my name plate i ask unanimous consent and the name of the senator from south carolina without objection it calls for the creation of federal research i want to thank our colleagues for joining us in this effort we hope the legislation will pass congress this year and with the permission of the senator from rhode island i would ask unanimous consent the senator from connecticut so to make his comment on the legislation i think i talked about and i pleased to join this to president with my colleague from tennessee in this effort here and i commend our colleagues from around the country who have joined this week leading up friend from south carolina a most recent co sponsor of this of this effort one out of every eight babies that are present born in our country is born premature at thirteen hundred infants every single day in our country that are born premature in the problems associated with prematurity allegiant that's over four hundred seventy thousand children every year every born in the under these conditions while making clear little advances and this area of how we treat these children but we need to do a lot more i'm not going to great lengths here except to commend my colleague from tennessee and tell him how much i've enjoyed working with him on this this is a critically important issue it's the kind of issue that deserves more attention we hope to get that attention with these efforts years like commend him for his leadership i'm pleased to be a partner with him in this effort and i'm grateful to my colleagues for joining us in this particular endeavor time  kerry senator feingold and candy senator durbin in particular senator dodd senator dodd and i had the privilege of traveling together to iraq just about three weeks ago and our trip was very illuminating and his participation is one i deeply appreciate we all understand mr president that there are over one hundred twenty thousand american troops in iraq they are serving magnificently and they have paid a difficult price for their service we've lost soldiers sailors and airmen marines and we know how important it is to succeed in iraq but the american people are concerned pure research poll conducted last week found that those pol felt iraq was the most important problem facing the country today a second poll conducted by n b c news in the wall street journal however found that sixty four percent of those polled disapprove of the way president bush is handling the situation in iraq and at the heart of that i believe is the sense that there is no plan there are slogans stay the course there are slogans when the iraqis stand up we stand down but a slogan is not a plan and the american people and this congress should demand a plan and that is the essence of the levin amendment we are not collectively the commander in chief and we should not presume to think so he is responsible for such a plan and he has to provide not just to us but to the american people a sense that there is a plan that is leading to an outcome which is successful  time frame which is feasible what the american people are seeing however is chaos without a plan i did not vote to authorize the use of force in iraq at that time my concerns were accurate initial decisive military victory would be swept up in a difficult difficult situation and that is what has come to pass i thought the course would be huge then but i didn't expect that we would enter the phase after military operations the conventional attack with essentially no plan that was a surprise to me a surprise that so many others according to article in the was simply this quote to be provided we're still waiting we're still waiting for a plan that works that is measurable and that will give the american public the confidence that our course ahead was far from the mark sector wolfowitz called it outlandish in fact it was very accurate very perceptive prophetic indeed because our initial entry into iraq after the first days of fighting it became more and more obvious we needed more troops to secure m o dumps that were political throughout the country perhaps we've lost that window where more troops will make a difference but we certainly have not gone past the point where a good plan will make a difference and we need that good plan that rational research service has summarized dozens of reports and articles cataloging mistake after mistake after mistake in their words the lack of a reconstruction plan the failed to  worked and it's working today we need this plan and that's what the eleven and them and asking ultimate give us a plan not just us but give the american people a plan we've made progress in iraq  we have had elections but that progress is fragile and reversible we have to have a coherent way ahead and again hope is not a plan for this and then that is not as some troops just today in london prime minister blair talked about british troops coming out next year two thousand and six taliban and the iraqi president said troops are coming out in two thousand and six british defense secretary john reid no re said that we're likely to see troops come out next year if conditions allow so the idea of looking ahead with a good plan and making a good faith estimate as to troop levels seems to me if propre thing to do is a campaign plan is a campaign plan will give us an idea of how long will be there and we need this not simply to reflect what's happening on the ground or rack we cannot sustain indefinitely one hundred sixty thousand one hundred forty thousand american troops in iraq it will bring our land forces our army our marines their knees they're overstretched they have billion dollars of built up maintenance on helicopters on vehicles and the personnel turmoil is excruciating we owe it to them to have a plan and we must be able to show how we're paying for this point america this plan would also ask the president to talk about a definition of success talk about the conditions for care about situations which are of course those conditions to be reevaluated the leaven and then that is asking for the obvious show us the way ahead not in a slogan but in concrete measurable elements that will constitute a good plan and we've been waiting for two and a half years for such a plan at the heart of it as i said before is the mission what is the mission it's changed initial mission one of them was to deny the iraqi government weapons destruction they had not then of course the mission was to root out terrorists and insurgents that might be collaborating with the saddam hussein regime the evidence strongly suggests there was no such material collaboration but today there are thousands of hardened terrorists that were in the process of rooting out asking the attack not before and then of course there was the the mission of creating a democratic says in iraq that we transformative of the entire region is that still the mission because if it's the mission we're going to need many many decades billions of dollars and mobilizing the strength of this country not just militarily but the technical assistance and the political assistance and we haven't done that yet and the president doesn't suggest i think in everything i've seen that he intends to do that so what is the mission and then what are the resources we're spending about four to six billion dollars a month in iraq and afghanistan how long we spend that much money and when we finish how much will we have to spend to really deploy our equipment to  our troops tell us it's important because we make decisions on this floor that are based upon assumptions about how much will be spending for years ahead in iraq and we have to have those assumptions and we need the conditions and more or more than that we need all this tied into our troops in iraq because that is essentially what the american people are looking at very consciously how long with their sons and daughters committed to this struggle i believe we have to succeed and i'm here because we can't succeed without a coherent plan not just one that is made up of slogans and good intentions but one that's premised on real conditions really hard nosed and something that will help us and help the american people to understand our commitment and help us succeed in that commitment i hope very very strongly that eleven of them is adopted the republican counterpart the opposing and then it would strip out something vital in eleven a minute a minute and that is a campaign plan that would help show us project the phase with redeployment of american troops and i think that's essential if tony blair can speak off the cuff in london today about the phased withdrawal of british troops and tell of any the iraqi president can do it and john reid the fence sector of great britain can do it and certainly the president of states can do it and we can ask him to do it in fact if we pass and then that we can require him to do it and i think my colleagues for there are adults and i yield the floor under the previous order the hour for thirty having arrived the senate will proceed to the consideration of development for the fiscal year ending september thirtieth two thousand and six and for other purposes happened that have agreed that the house received from its just agreement to the amendment of the senate and agreed to the same with an amendment and the senate agreed to saying signed by all the time phrase on the part of both houses hundreds previous order there will now be thirty minutes of debate equally divided between the deal manager's teeth and under the control the senator from arizona mr mccain fifteen minutes in the control center senator this president we think we indicated last week that while the time was limited as it has been prior to this point in terms of debate on the iraq other amendments that there would be time either on the and then events themselves or and morning business tonight after the vote is a very limited period of time under the unanimous consent agreement for tomorrow we had hope that that could have been extended that apparently there is no agreement to that so i just would remind colleagues who have not had a chance to speak on the iraq amendments that are pending and that the best time to do that given the very limited time that at the moment remains tomorrow on these amendments would be after the vote on the appropriations bill tonight we're waiting for senators to get back underway here you've heard them today talking about the defense programs the two thousand and six defense authorization bill some four hundred ninety two billion dollars they had been working on that last week trying to get that wrapped up this week we're told this is the hour they said they'd begin consideration of the energy water appropriations conference agreement for two thousand and six we expect an hour of debate and then a vote slated for about five thirty eastern time this afternoon the house coming in for pro forma session at six o'clock eastern time we'll have coverage on c span and then right after that the senate finance committee is going to mark up the tax portion of the budget reconciliation package we think that will be about six or six fifteen or so and we'll have coverage on c span as soon as the house recesses and again waiting for senators to come back to the floor continue their work today they've been working on defense authorization and we are expecting them shortly to come back and work on this fiscal year two thousand and six energy water appropriate for appropriations conference agreement we expect been slated an hour of debate i don't know if we'll see all of that and a vote about five thirty this afternoon and president bush left today for a trip to asia he's attending an economic summit with the leaders of the pacific rim nations will also visit china and other countries in the region and at capital news dot org our poll of the day asking what's the most important issue for president bush to discuss with the chinese leaders later this week you could cast your vote online and you'll see the results there as we update them throughout the day also you'll catch up on the latest from congress the white house and politics at five thirty without objection i've checked with the other side and mr president the parliamentary inquiry how much time remains and how is it a lot heat side has ten minutes at this time and there are four centers to be equally divided in you need side i have four senators each have ten minutes i didn't hear that or senators each have ten minutes i thank you mr president my first i ask consent to call up the conference report to accompany h r twenty four nineteen and ask that be considered the report is now before the senate thank you totality went to this bill was seven hundred fifty million dollars more than came back when we completed this bill nonetheless we have been able to accomplish in my opinion a well rounded adequate bill and that the major areas that this bill addresses most people think energy and water bill deals with energy and certainly if it deals with water people are very confused what that is so let me just quickly start with water this subcommittee has historically had the united states corps of engineers and if you are reclamation in this bill the corps of engineers  will recede one point five billion dollars of present request now in the wake of the hurricanes this budget does not accept a budget proposal because it's clear that we need to invest more critical water infrastructure assets in their assets rather than less this also funds a major study to investigate the various storm protections needs that are needed for new orleans and the surrounding vicinity as well as a ten million dollars coastal evaluation money report does not provide the supplemental needs that resulted from katrina and rita because that is contemplated a supplemental and clearly these hearings and this bill was prepared before katrina and katrina and rita would not be a normal budgetary item congress would have to decide it separately now  reclamation is about a billion one billion sixty million and that's about one hundred fourteen million in the president's it's sixteen million below the senate's and fifty three million above the house but i think anyone that's interested in that in detail will find that clearly if you're reclamation is doing some very necessary projects in the country in the area of reclamation but it's changed direction substantially a sense that was other projects that they used to do the deal appropriation bill before us moving to the next part is not understood by most people contains a very large portion of funding for the national nuclear safety nuclear security administration now that is the nuclear weaponry on thing for the united states government and it does not sound very logical that we had the co engineers before reclamation then we jump right over to the and an essay i just described but that's that you're sticking we have and that's what we find in the arguments regarding the allocation of resources that's become very difficult we're not just talking about energy which people think we're talking about when i just describe this spill for all of the nuclear activities is two hundred fifty million below the senate's number it's two hundred seventeen  reason for that we can explain in detail and it's in my statement in detail but we have certainly taken care of what we perceive to be the major needs of the nuclear programs of the country there are some major things here that we could talk about there in my statement who are very worried about the inability of the department in building its nuclear nuclear weapons facilities the high science the one time very sophisticated innovative science projects and we recognize there that have been unable recently to keep within schedule and on on the money than if the project had modern the program out in california this directed at national ignition which if it works is going to push laser beams onto a little tiny pin of a needle and cause an explosion a little slogan that will be exactly the same as a nuclear weapon we need that to make sure that our weapons are right safety as part of a big research project that's very late much more expensive than it should be but i want to say to the senate this senator urge the senate to stop its funding but because the secretary of energy and defense officials representing the president and the house convinced us that we must continue a productive program that is important to determine the safety of our nuclear weapons even though it's costly we have to pursue it because and everyone should know the alternative to this and a couple of other programs not working now you know myself two minutes off my reservation if this program doesn't work everybody should know the united states is going to have to seriously consider underground testing of nuclear weapons to determine their validity value and long term safety now i'm going to move ahead in that area because most of the projects and programs are things that everybody can read for themselves and understand that there are a couple of independent agencies that we have been required to fund as part of our jurisdiction there is a appalachian regional commission this is consistent with the president's request of sixty five million dollars there's twelve million  my ear and we will continue to fund it so long as it meets its its responsibilities and we have adequate resources also there's a nuclear regulatory commission i close with this everybody knows that we're ahead with nuclear power and a rapidly there are a number of early permits and some people love with knowledge and information are predicting that the next energy cycle in america will see for the first time civilian nuclear power plants built in america i hope so excuse me the senator hopes so many others do it's gaining momentum the nuclear regulatory commission perfect the licenses make sure that everything is done right and their budget is seven hundred and thirty four million it's forty one million much of that comes from fees but that's adequate we think based on what they've told us to do their broad based new job bigger job that the advent of a renaissance of nuclear power will will cause with that i ask unanimous consent to be half a senator feinstein to give up your privileges to josh  still expecting that vote at about five thirty about twenty five minutes from now senators voting on the fiscal two thousand and six energy water appropriations conference agreement as we wait for either more debate or that vote to get under bring you an event from earlier today senate democrats talking about iraq we'll hear from the minority leader in the senate senator harry reid and carl levin senator levin from michigan the ranking democrat on the senate armed services committee deserve a strategy in iraq that's worthy of the sacrifices they're making every day that's why for three years democrats have pushed the white house lay out his plan for success unfortunately the president rejected our call and instead time after time says america simply needs to stay the course with more than two thousand fifty americans having been killed in iraq with the taxpayers putting a bill to this point of two hundred fifty billion dollars about two billion dollars or more a week in iraq and no end in sight after three years of war staying the course is no longer an option together we can do better the democrats have developed a very clear path forward there are three areas we believe need to be addressed first two thousand and six should be a significant year of transition to full iraqi sovereignty with iraqis taking more and more responsibility for their own security it's time to take the training wheels off the iraqi government rocky's must begin to run their own country and two thousand and six the united states and around lines must do everything we can to make that possible second the bush administration must advise the iraqi people that united states military forces will not stay indefinitely in iraq and that it is their responsibility to achieve the broad based and sustainable political environment essential for disks feeding the insurgency third president bush needs to submit on a quarterly basis of plan for success to congress and to the american people this plan must specify the challenges and progress being made in iraq timetables for achieving our goals and estimated dates for redeployment from iraq as these goals are met apparently as you can see from the amendment that we offered and the republicans have agreed to accept basically our amendment with a few changes we'll talk about that our approach is the right it cannot be understated that by except accepting our mehmet both the republican leader and the chairman the armed services committee agree that the administration needs to come forward and explain to congress the american people the strategy for success and completing our mission and faraway iraq it's not easy for the president to admit mistakes as we've come to learn a lot easier for him to lash out at those who question his policies of political or tax political attacks are not going to get the job done our troops have done their job and they're doing it every day it's time for the president and this republican controlled congress to do their senator levin do you off copies of the amendments they've been handed out ok so as i work through it you teach be able to follow this apparently the republicans now are going to accept most of the democratic amendment the purpose of that amendment is to clarify and to recommend changes to the policy of the united states on iraq and the require reports on certain matters relating purpose as they went through our amendment but you have in front of you is our amendment basically what they republicans have done is crossed of the names of all the democrats on it just inserted senators warner frist and made a few changes in amendment that's what they've done and i want to focus on a number of those changes there are some significant differences between our amendment and the republican version of our memon first of all republicans would change the language that u s forces should not stay in iraq indefinitely that language is significant language and it's on page two line twenty we say the united states military forces should not stay in iraq indefinitely and the people of iraq should be so advised we believe it's a critically important message to send to the people of iraq the republicans have changed the wording definitely to read any longer than required a problem with that is that it is open ended means that if u s if the iraqis are consent to be allowed to use the five minutes of senator mccain's a lot of time until you see mr president for just a few moments i wanted to recognize the work that has been done on that h r twenty four nineteen energy and water to the development appropriation act of two thousand  a good number of years some of us who work on the physical sciences in the senate by that i mean on committees that recognize the kind of research dollars that are applied to new technologies beyond health care but more in the physical sciences have been increasingly concerned that we've dedicated almost exclude sibly all research money to health care and medical science biological sciences and not to the physical science we had once invested heavily in the space program and for decades it is it advanced our country beyond all other countries in technology in all of the high tech that has led our economy today and is now leading the world economy much of that was a spinoff from the early days of the investment in the space program when few saw the opportunities or the benefits some in congress did and it was well funded while i am not standing on the floor in any way to criticize our investment in the biological sciences or health care and clearly that has advanced technology today well beyond where we thought we could go and in a much more rapid way to look at cancer and diabetes and other of our chronic illnesses in this country that are causing tremendous problems and death loss the one thing that has been obvious in tight budget years is that we've not been willing to commit the kind of investment dollars  the physical sciences that i think this bill begins to speak to very clearly today for example we are spending more money than ever before on nuclear energy pushing the technology curve once again to become leaders in the world on a technology that we once led on but we left move away and now for a variety of reasons and most importantly because of the need for clean energy we're recognizing once again we've got to put the hard dollars back in to the technologies that takes us beyond the light water reactor to the high temperature gas reactor and even beyond that some day out there forty or fifty or sixty years to even technologies as fission that's in part with this budget and this is procreation bill speaks to them and certainly i want to come to the floor tonight to thank the chairman of the appropriation tremendous treasures in this country to advance these types of technologies once reference laboratories during the cold war they are transforming themselves into lead research facilities well beyond what they were a decade or two ago and clearly that is true whether it's in my state of idaho or in new mexico or california or in the other states that have the privilege of housing these laboratories and the quality of work they do  this conference did not come about easily and while there are many more dollars that could be spent very productively to advance our country and our leadership in the world of science this is a major step in the right direction under tight budget constraints i'm proud to be a conservative i believe in balanced budgets i believe in bringing down deficits and i believe it all apart parts of the appropriating process have to share in that responsibility clearly we've shared here in the energy and water development appropriations at the same time we've worked cooperatively with the house and in a common cause events to a variety of the new mexico i apologize thank you mr president responded see mr president let me say to the senator thank you very much and he too is a very very significant part and plays a very important role in the not only the matters he discussed but many others in this bill and i commend important his state has an egg nipples migratory performing some great activity in terms of the future generation of civilian nuclear power and that's very important to ours in the world's future i ask consent that the request is and then prove on both sides committees to meet during to session the senate they approval as i said from both sides they are printed in the record without objection i would like to take a moment to thank the staff and recognize their fairly hard work long hours many and everybody should understand that these appropriation bills are gathered by very small excellence and professional staff some people think that more oversight should occur i hope the authorizer would do management and i work on this bill for a long long time and i see this bill year after year we worked hard to put a bill together some years are easier than others this was not an easy it was a very very difficult year we have a lot of senators who are not happy with what we've been able to do but we've done the best we can in a very trying circumstance our conference allocation seven hundred fifty million dollars above the president's request of that imo amount six hundred million dollars went to the corps of engineers the flood control and navigation projects and this is  relation to post katrina world which is certainly obvious why we need to do this this is a wise investment our nation's resources scrutiny of the core activity is only going to increase in the coming years so it's imperative that they conduct themselves in a completely open and transparent manner moving forward unfortunately the result of placing such a high priority on flood control is that important programs of the party energy are essentially flat not be any easier for renewable and energy efficient programs the office of science or the critically important vironment all clean up at nuclear weapon sites nationwide we must do better in future years in fact we have to find more resources for these very important activities secondly this conference report is a product of thousands of compromises not hundreds but thousands of compromises none of the four principal s conferees agrees with every provision contained in this conference report and that's an understatement for example so far as i'm concerned we're carrying a small amount of funding and some report language directing the  partment set a nationwide competition to see if there's a state out there willing to volunteer except spent fuel reprocessed to this except a spent fuel reprocessing facility while i've always supported reprocessing research  prudent investment i've never supported moving forward in any way on it actually fussing reprocessing facility for many of the same reasons that i oppose centralized shortage danger transportation outweigh the benefits however i completely respect the desire of chairman hobson chairman domenici and ranking member of the sklansky to do something and i appreciate and i congratulate  each of them to do something to change that dynamic surrounding what i believe is a failed yucca mountain project i've worked with senator domenici as i've indicated for many many years he's my friend and goes without saying that we have difficulties in this bill but there's never anything personal we have communication that i think is as good as any two senators in this congress  good give and take process senator domenici understands that legislation is the art of compromise where both realists i've been the chairman of this subcommittee on a number of occasions he's been the ranking member we've always worked well together to thank both a house and senate staff are doing a tremendous job under the most trying circumstances a lot of times we're home our safety and security of our home and we have staff members working into the night well into the night into the morning trying to come up with a product that they summit us that we can get through this body has been a long difficult road this year and my hat is off to all the house and senate staff for sticking with it and bringing forward the recommendations that will be accepted this evening on the house side thanks to kevin cook i couldn't spend too much time what he has done crafting working to craft this legislation not for me not percent of men and she not for the senate but for the people of this country words cannot express adequately i appreciation for his good work no one i say that without any qualification reservation no one knows this bill any better than he does and his work is something that the american people should understand they got their money's worth and the work that he's done a tough year product we can all be proud of thank you mr president so he is back senator from new mexico i thought he made a part of the record and accepted at this point without objection present i quickly want to mention senator reed talked about renewables and i want to tell the senate while we were day will do everything in each of the r and d those we're very pleased about that move over to nonproliferation the nonproliferation budget which everybody says is terrifically important for our country is up an area which the occupant of the chair is very familiar with that is the mox mixed oxide which is a part of nonproliferation but is america's first significant effort moving ahead with reprocessing and it starts ver giant steps at converting plutonium to tone and that comes from thousands of nuclear weapons that have been reduced eliminated and and if we tony and remains we're trying to convert it to savannah river project as bennett has accepted it and while the united states house had zeroed it out a big mistake in my opinion we were able to fund it by law and hard negotiations it was one of the items that hell is still a lot it is funded not as much as it should be but sufficient to keep this terrific valuable almost necessary project  going and that's good likewise there should be no doubt harkening back to nonproliferation that the president was right in this budget he asked for a very big increase while the rest was either zeroed out or slightly reduced there was a eleven or twelve percent increase we retained that and it will now see us make a very major effort in the detection the cleanup the safety of items that could proliferate in all the areas but predominately in the area of nuclear with that i yield the floor mr leahy mr leaven mr lieberman mrs lincoln mr l mr lugar mr martinez mr mccain mr murray mr nelson of florida mr nelson of nebraska mr obama mr senators voting in the affirmative alexander bennett bond coleman kreg and greg isaacson johnson pryor reid of nevada sarbanes and spect mr allen mr allen talent mr talent it's a labor man mr lieberman  the senator from michigan as president i would ask unanimous consent that the senator from proceed in morning business for five minutes and then we return to the bill pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement that we reached is their will not thank i thank the presiding officer we will continue to have a debate tonight on those amendments are going to be voted in the morning and such other matters as any senator wish to bring up relative to the field we should again put our colleagues on notice that there is a very limited time tomorrow morning under the unanimous consent agreement that there was an effort made to extend that time it did he ever did not succeed and so there was just literally be i think thirty minutes tomorrow morning equally divided between both iraq amendments and the a b s corpus matter which is a very small window of time tomorrow morning and we would i think my good friend from virginia would agree that people who wish to senators that wish this either of those matters should make a real effort to here tonight but i say let's not leave the impression that this started al is rushing to judgment repeat we're going to continue on shortly after our two colleagues are addressing narration without objection the senator from hawaii will be recognized for five minutes as if instead of morning business the senator from wine  thank you i am grateful for this sign as president i rise today to celebrate one of the most important books in the history of mankind the bible as the senate cochairman of the two thousand and five national bible week it is my honor to join the national bible bible association and our nation citizens and celebrating the good book and its teachings during the week of november twenty two twenty seven i encourage everyone to participate in this fine tradition by reading and reflecting on the important lessons of the bible as a child growing up in hawaii my parents introduced me to the bible has always played an important role in my life i turn to it on a regular basis in search of and spiration the bible is a resource of profound but fundamental truths that retain relevance throughout the ages they are the lessons that serve as the building blocks of good services good families good communities and good government one of my favorite scriptures in the bible teaches us that god loved us so that he sent us is only begotten son so that we might live through him because god so loved us we ought also to love one another and his love will be perfected in us and this time of international strife natural disaster and political turmoil this basic instinct of caring f of love for our neighbor is a good place to begin the holy bible is one of man's greatest legacies i congratulate and commend the national viable association for its efforts to promote the good book and to encourage better understanding of it universal truths among people of all faiths aloha those of us who have questioned or criticized his conduct of the iraq war once again he tried to portray his critics as opposing our own troops or aiding their enemies once again he was wrong once again he tried to blame others for his mistakes and for the failures of his policies mistakes and failures that have trapped one hundred fifty eight thousand of america's best and bravest soldiers in iraq for over two and a half years since the fall of saddam hussein  end in sight let's be clear mr president that every person in this senate supports our troops one thousand percent we've provided every dollar requested for defense authorizations appropriations and supplementals with overwhelming bipartisan and often unanimous support some of us have tried drugs i had more funding and the administration would support for our returning troops and veterans we have never accused them of being against our troops or on american together on senate armed services committee which i'm proud to say that republicans and democrats have repeatedly asked our civilian and military commanders what more do you need to win this war as soon as possible but you need to bring our troops home as safely and quickly as possible with the victory that they won in three weeks in the spring of two thousand and three secured finally by the iraqis tell us what you need and it's yours mr president the senate has not failed our troops this senator a critic of your policies has not failed our troops you sir have failed our troops and you sir have failed the american people by the failures of your policies in iraq last friday president bush stood in front of a banner said strategy for victory for enough years ago he stood on the aircraft carrier abraham lincoln before a banner mission accomplished unfortunately he had the banners mixed up if he had a administration and is available for all to reread the president the vice president their top advisors repeatedly presented their rationales for this war and predicted its outcomes and they were repeatedly wrong on just about everything they were wrong and i say that with sorrow because when the president of the united states is wrong all americans suffer the consequences there's no better or worse summary  administration's prewar fallacies than the transcript of vice president cheney's appearance on meet the press with tim russert the sunday before the invasion began i had excerpt of those remarks for brevity but without altering their meaning vice president said on the program as he's had said repeatedly during the previous seven months quote we believe saddam hussein has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons what we know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the al qaeda organization where mr russert queried and even though the international atomic energy agency has said he does not have a nuclear program we disagree by president cheney replied i disagree yes what we believe he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons i think mr robert l bharati is frankly is wrong mr russert went on to ask if your analysis is not correct and if we're not treated as but conquerors and the iraqis begin to resist particularly in baghdad do you think the american people are prepared for a long costly and bloody battle with significant american casualties ice president cheney replied well i don't think it's likely to unfold that way tim because i really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators i talked with a lot of iraqis of the last several months myself had them to the white house the reason get on the people of iraq is that there was no question but what they want to get rid of saddam hussein and they were welcomed as liberators the united states when we come a top general said that we will have to have several hundred thousand troops there for years in order to maintain stability vice president cheney replied i disagree to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after the military operation ceased after the conflict ends i don't think is accurate i think it's an overstatement mr russert continued we have had fifty thousand troops in kosovo for several years a country of just five million people this is a country of twenty three million people it will take a lot in order to secure it  president cheney replied there's no question about what we'll have to have a presence there for a period of time it is difficult now to specify how long we will clearly want to take on responsibilities in addition to conducting military operations and eliminating saddam hussein's regime we need to be prepared by human tarion assistance medical care food all of those other things that are required to have iraq up and running again and we are well equipped to do that we have got a lot of effort that's gone into that i'm going to rest are going to said every analysis said this war will cost about eighty billion dollars recovery of baghdad perhaps of iraq about ten billion dollars a year which is expect as american citizens that this would cost at least one hundred billion dollars for through your involvement as president cheney replied i can't say that to him in iraq you've got a nation that's got the second largest oil reserves in the world second only to saudi arabia it will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their production of roughly three million barrels a day in the relatively near future on every one of those key assertions vice president cheney was wrong whether he was misinformed misguided mistake and or knowingly misleading the american people i cannot say i can say that he was consistently wrong and because he and the president were wrong over two thousand of our best and bravest americans have lost their lives in iraq many thousands more every turn home wounded or maimed for life hundreds of thousands more of been separated from their families for years with more separations for more years still to come because the bush administration's assumptions and expectations were wrong because their preparations for post saddam hussein iraq were wrong and because their predictions before and after the war began were wrong america's standing in the world is worse than before the terrorist organizations who hate the united states are stronger than before and our national security is tragically and terribly weaker than before this war began when i voted against the iraq war resolution in october of two thousand and two i said i hoped i was wrong and the war's proponents for right because the stakes were too high for partisanship when i disagreed with president bush's decision to invade roc in march of two thousand and three i said i hoped i was wrong and he was right because the sakes were too high for anything but patriotism i deeply regret when he has been wrong i deeply regret the mistakes of his policies and the failures of his practices because of presidents mistakes and failures become america's mistakes and failures and america the greatest nation on earth the leader of the world's hopes and opportunities for peace and prosperity america cannot afford mistakes and failures in this difficult and dangerous world and this world cannot afford america's mistakes and failures to an ass years after our troops toppled saddam hussein is to long for one hundred fifty eight thousand american soldiers the world's best and bravest to be still doing most of the patrolling the policing the fighting the bleeding and the dying in iraq too long and there's no end in sight and it's because we support our troops because they are so our sons and daughters and we love them that we want to bring them home safely as soon as possible with our military successes of two and a half years ago secured by iraqis not americans the president and the vice president  show their support for our troops by telling them and us what the strategy for victory in iraq really is and how and when we will achieve it and what are the timetables and measures of that success or lack of it so that our courageous fighting  mr alexander waiting for senators come back to the floor and continue their work on this defense authorization bill some four hundred ninety two billion dollars in authorization for fiscal year two thousand  just a few minutes ago senators passing the fiscal two thousand and six energy water appropriations conference agreement we expect more debate on amendments tonight with votes moved to build tomorrow morning and senate leaders bill manager saying they hope to have a  vote on final passage of the defense authorization bill at some point tomorrow as we wait for senators to come back to the floor we're going to show you senate democrats speaking earlier today a couple of democratic leaders the minority leader senator harry reid and the ranking member of the armed services committee senator carl levin talking about iraq deserve a strategy in iraq that's worthy of the sacrifices they're making every day that's why for three years democrats have pushed the white house to lay out its plan for success unfortunately the president has rejected our call and instead time after time says america simply needs to stay the course with more than two thousand fifty americans having been killed in iraq with the taxpayers footing a bill to this point of two hundred fifty billion dollars about two billion dollars or more a week in iraq and no end in sight after three years of war staying the course is no longer an option together we can do better the democrats have developed a very clear path forward there are three areas we believe need to be addressed first two thousand and six should be a significant year of transition to full iraqi sovereignty with iraqis taking more and more responsibility for their own security it's time to take the training wheels off the iraqi government rocky's must begin to run their own country in two thousand and six the united states and our allies must do everything we can to make that possible second the bush administration must advise the iraqi people that united states military forces will not stay indefinitely in iraq and that it is in their responsibility to achieve the broad based and sustainable political environment essential for disks defeating the insurgency third president bush needs to submit on a quarterly basis of plan for success to congress and to the american people this plan must specify the challenges and progress being made in iraq timetables for achieving our goals and estimated dates for redeployment from iraq as these goals are met apparently as you can see from the amendment that we offered and the republicans have agreed to accept basically armament with a few changes we'll talk about that our approach is the right it cannot be understated that by accepting accepting armament both the republican leader and the chairman the armed services committee agree that the administration needs to come forward and explain to congress the american people the strategy for success and completing our mission and faraway arac it's not easy for the president to admit mistakes as we've come to learn a lot easier for him to lash out at those who question his policies of political or tax political attacks are not going to get the job done our troops have done their job and they're doing it every day it's time for the president and this republican controlled congress to do their senator lev do you have copies of the amendments they've been handed out ok so as a work through it you teach be able to follow this apparently the republicans now are going to accept most of the democratic amendment the purpose of that amendment is to clarify and to recommend changes to the policy of united states on iraq and the require reports on certain matters relating to iraq how that purpose is stated here's the top of the amendments that you have in front of you and they did not the republicans did not change that purpose as they went through our amen but you have in front of you is our amendment basically what they republicans have done is crossed of the names of all the democrats on it just inserted senators warner frist made a few changes in the amendment that's what they've done and i wan focus on a number of those changes are some significant differences between our amendment and the republican version of our amendment first of all republicans would change the language that u s forces should not stay in iraq indefinitely that language is significant language and it's on page two line twenty we say the united states military forces should not stay in iraq indefinitely and the people of iraq should be so can buy we believe it's a critically important message to send to the people of iraq the republicans have changed the wording definitely to read any longer than required a problem with that is that it is open ended means that if u s if the iraqis are being told that if you need american forces there forever you have them there forever any longer than required could mean without any and it's an open ended commitment that the republicans want to substitute for the democratic statement that the iraqis should be told that our military forces should not stay in iraq indefinitely and that the people of iraq should be so advised our message it seems to me is critically important if we're going to get the iraqis to make the compromises that they must make politically in order to prevail everybody us to succeed in iraq the course that we're on now is not a course it is a fact that we need to change the course in iraq in a number of ways if we're going to succeed in iraq and one of them is to inform the iraqis is our amendment says to tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency in iraq within the schedule that they have set for themselves at the bottom of page two in the top of page three the republicans have not changed that language it's been to me critically important and missing so far that the iraqis have not been told what our military leaders say is essential that the iraqis must make the political compromises to unify against the insurgency or else the insurgency cannot be defeated militarily and so the political unification is critical here that message must go out to the leaders of the iraqis that's one of the things that our amendment states and finally as our leaders said at the end it's not just for if we adopt a timetable for success laying out what kind of training of their troops will lead to the possible reduction of our troops it's not only necessary that we lay out the numbers of the talionis of the iraqi armed forces the must be operate independently or to take the lead by what period of time it's not only important that the iraqi special police units the able to operate independently and that there via a plan for success which says when that is expected to occur that must be made available to the american people that plan needs to be made public so that the american people will have some appreciation some feeling that there is going to be a phase redeployment of u s forces from iraq as the conditions what your plans upon are met we are very explicit in paragraph seven that we understand that unexpected contingencies may arise that's explicit in our amendment they have crossed out her graphs and the problem with that is that what they then say is that ok it's useful to have a plan they've left that part in but what they've crossed out is the part of our amendment which says we not only need to know how many units of iraqis will stand up to what level of capability and will lead to how many u s forces will be reduced but we need to know by when is it planned for that to happen we not only need to know that there are conditions which could affect these plans but we need to know what those conditions are if we're going to have confidence that this administration is in fact planning on phased redeployment and reduction of american forces in iraq you after more than three long years this national debate and dialogue over iraq reaches a critical point this week in the united states and as the president of the people into congress there are two choices the senator from south carolina mr graham proposes an amendment over twenty five twenty four to amendment number twenty five fifteen i think mr president this president this time what i would like to do in conjunction with staff they've been working on this with senator kyl and other senators for the last couple of days in i don't say to others just been a lot of fun and in tough at times but i think we've come out with a product that the senate can be proud of and hopefully the country can be proud of when it comes to how to treat detainees at guantanamo bay senator levin would you like to give an overview you want me to go to here's what we're trying to do foreign alien enemy terrorist suspects from seeking haven as petitions in federal court about their confinement in detainment as in the combat and the result was a result of the supreme court rejecting the government's argument the guantanamo bay was outside the jurisdiction of the federal court a role that one time of a was constructively within the jurisdiction of the federal court and in that opinion basically challenge the congress now that we've decided that since there are no really due process rights in place at the time we're going to provide havey as petitions for these detainees until congress comes in and says otherwise and  was congress being on the record that twenty two forty one behavior statute then used to broad havior corpus rights by congress to american citizens that we do not intend for an enemy combatant foreign national someone captured in a conflict against the united states to have hey vs rights to our federal courts to complain about their confinement in their detention in other words we're not going to allow enemy prisoners of war right to go into the civilian courts and start challenging their detention the military commissions are operating at guantanamo bay with a different purpose they're going to try people who are charged with violations of armed conflict right now they're about ten or fifteen cases almost five hundred people who are to been detained as enemy combatant senator levin last week when he was arguing with me about him and i think makes a very good point i don't know how to deal with some of his concerns too so i really do see it as a win win what we're trying to do here is instead of changing what has been the rule of law for two hundred years in terms of enemy prisoner rights we're creating a process that not only mirrors the geneva convention it goes well beyond the geneva convention and enemy combatant is a legal term of art is g s for those people it applies to those people involved in hostilities against the united those people who commit hostilities or engaged in acts of war but shed the cloak of being part of the uniform force so the term enemy combatant is a is been well recognized in our law what we do with an enemy combatant once one has been persons been determined been enemy combatant is that we can detain them like you would a prisoner of war the geneva convention says if there's a question about whether a person's status is rightfully conferred whether or not you're prisoner of war in any combat an irregular combatant or a civilian who is done nothing wrong the geneva convention requires the host country to have a competent tribunal set up to determine status well since august of two thousand and four guantanamo bay the combat status review tribunal system has been in place in my opinion it is geneva convention article five tribunals on steroids it gives a a a right to confront it gives a adversarial process provides an adversarial process to the suspected enemy combatant it also allows a yearly review of an enemy combatant status and what they're looking at  is whether or not the person was engaged in hostile acts against the united states in their regular fashion was it the person has intelligence value to the united states or poses a threat if those three conditions are met or two of those three conditions  met they can be detained at guantanamo bay and every year there's a reevaluation we've had some people caught up in the net that we found later that probably did not have all three requirements and they've been let go we've also had about a dozen people that were caught up in the net in the world terror that we thought were no longer a threat in the united states and we released them in a dozen at least have gone back in the fighting some have been killed some of them captured yet again so the process we use is important but no process is perfect but we're trying to come up with a process the country can be proud of that applies the law of armed conflict standards and doesn't turn the war on terror into a crime so right now every we've come up with a right of every enemy combatant to go to federal court instead of replay instead of having unlimited hay b s opportunities under the current system suing about everything under the sun we're going to give every  combat and all five hundred a chance to go to federal court the circuit court of appeals for the district of columbia on top of everything else we're doing and they can challenge their status determination in a federal court in the federal court will look at the process y standards all other standards this will allow a federal court oversight of enemy combatant status it will be a one time deal it will not be an opportunity for the enemy proof or to sue us about everything they can think of now that to me is unprecedented that is well beyond what the geneva convention requires or in visions that is something i think we ought to do and we can be proud of because it is a federal court oversight of a military action in a way that doesn't erode the military's ability to conduct the war and we can go to other people in the world and say our courts are now involved in looking at what we do we can also say that congress is highly involved because in addition to the right that just described under our i'm in that the person who determines whether an enemy combatant is retained or released will be confirmed by the senate that will give the senate a connection to what's going on at guantanamo bay if you change the c s r key regulations and in any way you have to send those changes to the congress that way we're involved and we have a statement and our bill the make sure you don't use statements that were result of and of co determine if you're naming the combat so now you've got congress involved in the oversight function you've got the courts involved in oversight function you've got to due process right well beyond the geneva convention requirements that's before is it did not have a right of appeal from a military commission verdict to a federal court and war war to the enemy saboteurs that i just described to you before war all tried by military commissions that president roosevelt created by executive order for the six were sentenced to death but the supreme court reviewed the military commission process and  and found that military commissions were lawful and the person being tried was truly an enemy combatant so there is a historical precedent in our country for the federal courts the supreme court to look at military commission trials to make sure they're lawfully constituted what we've done working with senator levin powell and others is we've created that same type appeal process for all military commission decision under the amendment that we've come up with any case resulting in a capital punishment finding any person who isn't is given the death penalty by the military commission has an automatic direct right of appeal to the circuit court of appeals for the district of columbia and the will determine if they were tried in accordance with the military commissions standards and procedures and whether or not the military commission was constitutional anybody who receives a sentence of ten years or more will also have an automatic right to appeal the same court if you receive a sentence of ten years less than ten years the circuit court of appeals for the district of columbia were determined whether or not they want to hear your case based on a procedures in the military commission procedures will be reviewed the federal courts and the court will have the ability to determine whether or not they're constitutional and we'll have an ability an individual case to determine whether or not the enemy combatant or the person  many people on this side who've worked on this issue as well as on the republican side there's a lot of thought that's been given to this matter the amendment that was approved last thursday had some real problems with it  my judgment and i voted against it this i think forty one senators did the amendment which was approved last thursday which is the not is the one which is now awaiting this event meant would have provided for review only for status determine a finn's and not of convictions convictions by military commissions and as a friend from south carolina just pointed out that is a omission which he and others knowledge and i think it's a real indication of his commitment to try to figure out what the right course of action here is that he does acknowledge that omission it was one of the reasons that i voted against the amendment last thursday is that it did not provide for that directs you  of convictions by military commissions that is i would say the major change in the amendment before so called graham levon kyle amendment which is before us there's a number of other changes as well but i'd say that of all the changes this amendment does is add to the graham amendment which was adopted last thursday it adds a direct appeal for convictions by military commissions not just for status determinations and that direct appeal but of course go to a federal court  provides the amendment which we're now going to consider consider tomorrow morning after we consider the bingaman amendment will also provide it also provides for a view of whether or not the standards and procedures which are referred to in the amendment are consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states those are important words said all of us really believe that we must operate according to our constitution and our laws and the review which is provided for now if we adopt this amendment to the adapted graham amendment would explicitly make it clear that the review of a court would look at whether or not standards and procedures that have been adapted are consistent with our constitution and our laws the other problem which i focused on last thursday with the first gra was that it would have stripped all the courts including the supreme court over jurisdiction of jurisdiction over pending cases now what we have done in this amendment is we have said that the standards in the amendment will be applied in pending cases but the amendment will not strip courts have jurisdiction over those cases for instance the supreme court jurisdiction in hand and is not affect however what our amendment does is soon as it is enacted in the next man is effective does provide that the standards that we set forth in our men will be the substance standards which we would expect would be applied in all cases including cases which are pending as of the effective date of this amend president we will first vote on the bingaman amendment tomorrow i will vote for that amendment it does preserve some havey as corpus review of constitutional issues relative to the detention of of over the provision which the senate approved last thursday for the specifically for the two main reasons which i've just done if i the director review that it would provide for convictions  f by the commissions the military commissions and because it would not strip courts have jurisdiction over these matters where they have taken jurisdiction it does again apply the substance of law and assume that the courts would apply the substance of law in this amendment if it's adopted but it does not the strip the courts of jurisdiction now my friend from south carolina has pointed out what the scope of the review would be if this amendment is adopted and i just want to clear to read actually something which  reference to that i think it's important that it be very clear as to what this grant of review is and that's on page six of paragraph the with respect to a capital case in which the alien was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ten years or more that review would be as of right and with respect to any other case it review would be at the discretion of the united states court of appeals for the columbia sort of  the scope of review is set forth here it gets the congress back into the business of laying out the ground rules for these reviews which has been the main goal of senator from south carolina it's a goal which i would hope all of us share we may disagree as to what the ground rules are but i would hope that all of a share in that goal the congress become really involved in setting the ground rules for both the commissions and vote for this amendment it does make a significant improvement over what the senate did last thursday and again is one senator will first be supporting the bingaman amendment but if it is not adopted but the congress regulates captures on land and the the congress is involved in issues about detention interrogation and prosecution of enemy combatants and those who are trying to do harm to the country my goal last week was to do two things get the congress involved and for us to start thinking what do we want as a nation to happen in this war now and down the road what do we want the shaikh mohammed's and people like him who do we want to have happen to them do we want them to be common criminals no we want them to be people involved in armed conflict considered under the law of armed conflict my and then that last week was a direct result of what i think was a growing problem for our country twenty two forty one a b s rights were being exercised by non citizens foreign terrorists suspects to the point that they were flooding our courts and they were bringing lawsuits based on one canadian detainees threw a grenade that killed an american medic in a firefight he comes from canada of a long standing al qaeda ties he wanted a  interrogation of him or engaging in cruel inhumane or degrading treatment of him in other words he wanted the judge to come in and stop his interrogation before it started in sit there basically in supervising another detainees complained about basic your procedures speed of mail delivery medical treatment seeking ordered that he be transferred the least honors conditions that get low asking the court get him to keep any books and reading material sent to him and report to the court on his opportunities for exercise communication recreation the worship as i said last week we've never allowed any prisoners to go into civilian court and they asked judges to come over and take over the military prison them in a time of war the nazis didn't get that right and war today we had plenty of nazi prisoners housed in military prisons all over the united states they were unable to go to federal court and complain about the books and the then have d v d s and whatever they raskin for there's an emergency motion seeking a court order requiring it motive set aside his enormous security policies and show detainees d v d s that are purported to be family videos there's another law also warning the lawyer to have internet access at guantanamo bay that's what i objected to this is not the law of armed conflict being applied this is giving an enemy prisoner a right tha the prisoners never enjoyed before in the law of armed conflict it was creating litigation against our troops one medical malpractise claims there are over forty cases suing for monetary damages can you imagine after nine eleven if the senate were asked the question do you want an al qaeda suspect who is captured to be able to go into federal court on limited fashion bring lawsuits against our own troops for their behavior than sort of the no but the senator levin was right the military commission part of it  is written in a way without a direct appeal to federal courts there is historical precedent for doing it in house but there is a supreme court review president so i am willing to take that part of the i'm in that wasn't really the focus of the lawsuit abuse and come up with a compromise that the country should be proud of now as to senator bingaman attempt to strike a language senator bingaman and then i will vote against them all urge all those who voted right to still exist he addressed some of the concerns are raised he says they view as petition cannot consider claims based on living conditions because i've just described how outrageous these claims are about the exercise regimes or the re ading materials most americans would be highly offended to know that terrorists are suing us in our own courts about how what they read he's got two exceptions however they can still bring lawsuits a b s lawsuits like an american citizen whether such status determination was supported by sufficient evidence and reached in accordance with due process of law provided the statements attained through on due course and torture cruel inhuman treatment maybe not may not be used as a to look at every condition of the enemy prisoners lie and do again what we're trying to prevent that you could go into federal court and start asking for a federal judge to intervene in your interrogation before it even stops my believe comprehensive package when it comes to how we're going to conduct the war on terror and i'll end with this thought for the first time that i know of since september eleventh two thousand and one we've sat down as a ministration started thinking this thing through and we've come up with i believe a darn good package center calev and i have enjoyed working with you on this i've been  lawyer for over twenty years there's a lot of things that go on in the senate and i don't know as well as i should that feel very comfortable that the war on terror is truly a war that nine eleven was an act of war wasn't a crime and if we apply the law of armed conflict we can be proud as a nation and your own them and mind them together have gotten us back to where we should have been i think years ago applying the law of armed conflict to these terrorist suspects and a way that goes beyond the geneva convention because we're a nation that wants to do it right and then some but we're also preserving our own ability to defend ourselves so to the world if you're wondering what's going on in america now if anybody goes to guantanamo bay the congress will be told about what goes on and will have a say about what goes on if anybody is a guantanamo bay determined to be an enemy combatant not only will congress be involved in how they are kept and how long they're kept our federal courts will review the actions of our military to see if it complies with the constitution of our nation and that is a huge change and i congratulate you for helping me work together working together to come up with a review process for the world can know for sure that what we're doing makes our own constitutional standards so any because bands are going to get a chance to go to federal court the federal courts go look at the big picture and see whether or not what we've done is constitutional and when it comes to that individual's case to look at whether or not the perceivers in standards that were involved or properly applied in the world should respect for their respect as for that and i'm proud of them part of that process to those who go to court and have their liberty answers dealt with those who are going to be tried for laws of armed conflict violations we can tell the world that those people will be tried at guantanamo bay will not be tried in secret they will be tried in public to the extent that we can there's an op ed piece today in the washington post by defense counsel and god bless them i've been a defense counsel now and every right and it is a defense counsel saying that the trials at guantanamo bay are a lot different than the ones in nuremberg he's right in this regard nuremberg was trying to people after the war was over will be trying to put guantanamo bay while the war is going on and what we want to do is make sure the public knows as much as possible about the process that the defended understands the evidence against them they have the right to challenge the evidence call witnesses testify and as to what we're doing and how we're doing it we're still at war that's important that we understand we're still at war but we can tell the world that every person that goes to a military commission trial will be as open as we possibly can be without compromising our own security and when that verdict is rendered the federal courts of the united states of america will look at the military action and see if it comports with  buyer nation the pram that legal document in the world and we'll also review the individual's case i am proud of that it's going further than we probably absolutely have to but i the american thing is putting american values on display and ladies and gentlemen of the senate tomorrow is a historic day in the war on terror you have a chance to put some label and legal infrastructure in place that will be a model for the world that will help us win this war on our terms and i am proud to have been part of it senator from virginia i i want to commend the senator from south carolina and my colleague from michigan whom i've worked with these many years if the se because the chairman speaks i just wanted to say i think i thank my distinguished colleague because i look upon the work by members of the senate towards a resolution of these very difficult issues regarding prisoners prisoners taking in this series of conflict to see we've witnessed in terrorism no clear precedents in many ways in history for this non state sponsored aggression which as we witnessed in the tragedy of jordan here is just not restricted to iraq and afghanistan as general abizaid has briefed the senate and indeed briefed the american public on television this is a worldwide move the way from spain to indonesia and you don't know where they'll hit next or whom they'll hit or by what means they will but i do believe the work initiated by our distinguished coll but it is and i say this with great respect to the president in ministration this is a co equal branch of government the united states senate and the congress has a very clear mandate in the constitution that we should take care of the men and women of the armed forces and this is part of this is part of it and so i say to my good friends who worked on this michigan with his distinguished leader senator from nevada and one by myself together was sent frist now i just like to make an opening comment and then i'd like to yield the floor such that my distinguished colleague can speak and then i'll make some closing comments but it was important in our bill and particularly on the last day to dress that situation in iraq but indeed it's broader than iraq it's is i said moments ago the militant jihad us attacking from spain to in these you wherever they want to bring freedom and current government to a standstill so we could have devised on this side an entire amendment out of whole cloth but it seemed to me and i'm just going to take responsibility seemed to me that i we could show the maximum bipartisanship if we took the amendment as drawn by my distinguished colleague from michigan sent to read this and made a minimal number of changes and that is exactly the posture of these two amendments that to me indicates how much we really agree upon page after page paragraph after paragraph and it is carefully drawn so first the senate expresses the sense of the senate not binding on the executive branch it is the sense of the senate and then the second portion it's a reporting requirement but those supporting acquirements are looking forward mr president we're not going back to debate history history will debate that fully we're going forward because i think the next hundred twenty days with the rack in particular in mind but the election december the formation in new government this next hundred twenty days we must maintain a stability a clarity of understanding among american people in iraqi people and we cannot adopt any language get sense of the senate or in report language in any way race is speculation everything we say about the implementation of our armed forces should be with complete clarity secondly mr president it's just that the amendment by my good friend from michigan left only the option  reporting to the president of putting out an classified information and that to the maximum executive branch will do but there are certain aspects and i think every member should because of this there are certain aspects of this very complicated war on terrorism that have to be put and given to the congress in a classified version so that's the sum and substance of our amendments take away any indication of timetable give the president a option to do unclassified and classified and have a full work looking approach as we go into these next hundred twenty critical days and i think this d two amendments pending is an effort to to indeed try to improve the situation in iraq to try to change the course for the better so there's no date for withdrawal in our amendment it is not saying that we withdraw troops at any particular date specific date we've done that because we think it be a mistake to set a specific date least most of us do on the other hand we believe it's essential that we change course in a number of directions in order to improve our chances of iraq becoming a success america's going to be less secure if iraq is a failed state i think everybody agrees on that the question is how can we improve the chances of iraq not becoming a failed state what could we do here carrying out our responsibility what contribution can we make here to success in iraq is things are not working very well in iraq in many ways and the people who will point to progress in iraq and obviously there are some things that one could point to but on the other hand there are also some things that are not working well and this amendment intends to address those in a constructive in a positive way staying the course is not a threat that's a slogan how do we improve the chances for success how do we modify our course so that we can achieve hopefully or help the iraqis achieve more accurately a nation and how can we also look forward to the day when our troops come out sooner rather than later this amendment looks at the year two thousand and six as a transition year with iraqi forces taking over security functions to a far greater extent for that to happen this amendment points out that a number of things this needs to happen first we've got to value the iraqis that we are not there for an indefinite period of time that they must take the steps necessary to achieve a broad based political settlement which is so essential to defeating the insurgency our military advisers are unanimous on this point there is no purely military solution unless the iraqis come together politically unless they unify politically they will not be able to defeat the insurgents it's a point which was must be made to the iraqis they cannot simply continue to squabble over the content of a constitution they've got to come together or else they are not going to be able to succeed and we are not going to be able to succeed in helping them to achieve the security which they want so we need to advise the iraqis we're not there indefinitely they've got to take the steps necessary to achieve the broad based political settlement which is critically important to defeating the insurgency we need a plan for success we don't have a plan for success and i'm a speak more about that in a moment starts by saying something that i think every member of this body would agree with that members of the united states armed forces who are serving or have served in iraq and their families deserve the utmost respect in the heartfelt gratitude of the american  for their unwavering devotion to duty service to the nation and self the sacrifice under the most difficult circumstance we start with that our troops and their families deserve the very best  any way or criticized as being less american than those that support it ministrations policy lock stock and barrel there is a place for constructive criticism for different points of view in a democracy that's what our troops have always fought for that's what men and women have died for so that we would have an opportunity to have the kind of the policy which is going on now so first our heartfelt gratitude t troops second the sense the senate recognizes that the iraqi people have made enormous sacrifice that the overwhelming majority of iraqis want to live in peace and security there's no disagreement and that the alternative of resolution that will be the voting on the amendment more accurately that will be voting on does not differ with that the next paragraph there's no difference on either both amendments have the same language there's no change in our version to the warner version or the frist warner version and that is calendar year two thousand and six should be a period of significant transition to or it's a full iraqi sovereignty that iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign iraqi thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of united states forces from iraq that is in paragraph three of the sense of the senate there is no change in that language for the frist warning that's paragraph the three creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of united states forces from iraq that surely ought to be a goal for united states military forces should not stay in iraq and here's where there's a difference in language which is significant united states military forces should not stay in iraq indefinitely the iraqi people should be celibate it's an important statement to the iraqi people and it's an important statement to our we should not be staying in iraq indefinitely that is the wrong message to send for a number of reasons for the iraqi people what the warner version does is it changes the word strikes the word definitely and says united states military forces should not stay in iraq any longer than required and the people of iraq should be celebuzz the problem with that is they could be required forever that's open ended it's unlimited it's the wrong message but that's the difference and it's the first difference the next paragraph there's no difference on the did ministration should tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad based political settlement that's essential to defeat the insurgency within the schedule that they set for themselves and by the way the schedule that they set for themselves is to appoint a commission when the new assembly takes office in january to appoint a constitutional commission to review the constitution make recommendations for changes within four months that's their s and the there's no disagreement on this language he administration needs to explain to congress and the american people its strategy for successful completion of the mission in iraq so differen that language now two paragraphs see the reports we've is going to change and the number of days as it is to help those following you have now concluded that section entitled the sense of the senate both amendments have it raise such not binding on in ministration that is and as you carefully pointed out but i'd like just to repeat the entire section that you've referred to we have except i say i accepted it recommended to my colleagues except for that one change of striking indefinitely and any longer than required and when i regained the floor explain why i felt that modest one word change was important so other than that mr president i stated colleagues and all following we have stepped in it's entirety that section entitled sense of the senate except for a one word change the senator is correct now on the report section there is a change from thirty days to ninety days which i'm not going to spend time on i think it's a fairly technical change that there's not a particular difference or  but after that first report whether it's thirty days or ninety days thirty days in our version ninety days in senator warner's version and every three months thereafter until all united states redeployed from iraq the president shall submit to congress an unclassified report on united states policy and military operations in iraq each report we say in our version show include the following but the warner version adds to the extent practicable on classified information and by the way it's clear that there are classified information that cannot be in a report and we don't suggest to the contrary we just want an unclassified report to the extent you can have an unclassified report on each of the following items current military missions diplomatic political economic and military measures that have been undertaken to successfully complete that mission so far no difference on that one efforts to convince iraq's main communities to make the compromises necessary for a broad based and sustainable political settlement that's what i referred to before so critically important that we must convince the communities in iraq that they must make the compromises necessary for a broad based political settlement though difference on that language no proposed change in that next in our amendment we need  engage the international community and the region in the effort to stabilize iraq and to forge a broad based and sustainable political set of no difference and that we need to in that report just reports us every thirty days what is being done to strengthen the capacity of iraq's current government ministries to accelerate the delivery of basic services to secure the delivery of pledged economic assistance from the international community and additional pledges of assistance to train iraqi security forces to train and transfer security responsibilities to those forces in the government of iraq no difference and that in terms of what must be in this report next we need it in this report to know whether the iraqis have made the compromise serry to achieve the broad based and sustainable political settlement we need to keep the pressure on the iraqis we need the administration to tell us have the iraqis made the compromises necessary without that kind of keep in the iraqis feet to the fire it's less likely the iraqis are going to make the kind of broad based compromises that are necessary excuse me the compromises that are necessary to achieve that broad based political settlement that is essential in our words to defeat the insurgency in iraq and now we get down to the heart of the matter where there seems to be a difference and i want to spend another couple minutes on this this report according to this agreed to on the with the warner men must include specific conditions that were included in a april two thousand and five campaign action plan and any subsequent updates to that campaign plan that must be met in order to provide for the transition of security responsibility to iraqi security forces there seems to be no objection to that there's no change in that so we want that document that report from the administration to set forth any specific conditions that were in the april two thousand and five campaign action plan and any updates to that campaign plan that need to be met in order to provide for a transition of security responsibility by no change in our language that there was a report containing conditions that there's a need for updates to that campaign plan that need to be met in order to provide for the these issues of security responsibility to the iraqi force now we don't have language which on this whole next page is not objected to which is accepted which is that to the extent these conditions are not covered as i just outlined the following needs to be addressed and we lay out here one two three four conditions number  battalions of iraqi armed forces that have to operate independently or take the lead in counterinsurgency operations the number of iraqi special police units that have to operate independently or take the lead in maintaining law and order and fighting the insurgents number of regular police that must be trained and equipped to maintain law and order the ability of the rx gutteral ministries of provincial and local governments to independently sustain directing coordinate iraq's security forces now so far there's apparently no problem we laid out all of those conditions that need to be set forth in the report it has to come in every thirty days after that first report then in subsection six we have a requirement in the report that is also not objected to which is a schedule a schedule for meeting such condition there's no objection to that and in the warner amendment is no language changed in his version so we require a schedule for meeting those conditions which i've just outline an assessment of the extent to which such conditions have been that information regarding variables that could alter that schedule and their reasons for any subsequent changes to that schedule so far so good though changing the language now just for those folks we covered first the sense of the senate you have now covered very carefully all the other at it seems to me that there really has been no disagreement whatsoever between the two sides you pointed out yes i asked for ninety days you have thirty but i don't think that that was particularly troublesome and i pointed out that paragraph would that be correct not quite because there was that one change which you that the senator from virginia may in the sense of the senate language though i've pointed that out i know i'm going to there's been no change other than this i'm saying there was that probably one which we agreed was a cha was referring to now the statutory report language there's really no difference until you get to the last time i would not last pared for reasons beyond me has been stricken referred to the campaign plan that out objection there was a campaign plan that we referred to in which said what are the conditions in that plan that must be met in order to provide for the transition of security responsibility to iraqi security forces there is a campaign plan there are the conditions which have been laid out what which of those conditions must be met in order to achieve the goals which we have agreed on in this document transition of security responsibility to security forces and then we've agreed that the reports gotta contain a schedule for meeting those conditions what are the conditions what's the schedule for me three times you are for the schedule in that same paragraph no objection so far that now we say that that campaign plan should also contain estimated dates for the phased redeployment of the united states armed forces from iraq as each condition is met the conditions are already laid out what's the campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment as those conditions are met and then we explicitly acknowledge that with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise it's we've already made reference to the phased redeployment that the first time we've made a reference to phased redeployment this president in a sense of the senate paragraph the one three we've said calendar year two thousand thousand and six should be a period of significant transition to full iraqi sovereignty with iraqi security forces taking the lead for security of a free and sovereign iraq thereby creating the conditions for the phase redeployment of united states forces from iraq so which makes reference to the campaign plan we've already described but that is no objection to it estimated dates for the race phased redeployment united states armed forces from iraq we've already made reference to the goal of phased redeployment united states armed forces as each condition is met we've already got agreement on everything up to now talking about all those conditions in the need that they be met with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may which i can't imagine anybody would object which is there are on expected contingencies that always arise we've acknowledged that why why it is that there's objection to acknowledging what is obvious that a campaign plan needs to have dates estimated dates for the phased redeployment that we've already agreed is desirable as conditions allow and as each condition is met why that would be objectionable is frankly a mystery to me unless unless there is a reluctance to do what we do in an earlier paragraph which is to say folks we can't stay there forever we've got to have a plan for success where there is a takeover of the major security operations by the iraqis so that we can in a phased way we do lloyd are force eliminating that part of the plan it seems to me is a limb in aiding what is essential but clearly follows from everything that pre it which has been agreed to and i think it would just send exactly the wrong message to agree to all of the pieces that come up to that conclusion including the conditions which need to be met the desir phased redeployment the fact that there is a campaign plan the fact that that campaign plan has conditions in it that need to be met in order to provide for the transition of security responsibility it's all there it's all there in the pieces leading right up the paragraph seven suddenly in the order version paragraph seven is stricken again i  close with this emphasis we have not said in this document that there should be a date for withdrawal we said there should be a plan what are the conditions for a phased redeployment what would it take for this to happen what number of the tally is need to be brought up the capability on the part of the iraqis in order for there to be a number of our forces that are reduced and under what conditions what are those circumstances and conditions which will allow us to reduce our forces and for the administration to resist stating to the american people what are the condition that need to exist for us to reduce our forces in iraq it seems to me is wrong it means that there is no plan there is no strategy that they're willing to lay out for the american people and for the makea people as well so there there's no misunderstanding as to where this responsibility must fall ultimately which is on the people of iraq to come together senator from virginia then my colleague i think i have a very fairly and i believe there's been concurrence the document that paired by yourself and others is virtually excepted in our amendment the changes that i put out once a full change in the sense of the senate you understood that then we get to the conditions just changed ninety days instead of thirty so i say to my colleagues and i think you have been very fair and objective about the amendments are parallel every respect  vesting the estimated dates for the phase redeployment of the united states armed forces from iraq no mention about the other coalition forces then a section of the constitution by referendum then the election of a new legislative body and then that has got to stand up and begin to function and strengthen the ministries and take hold in such a way that it is clear to the iraqi people and the world that that government is in control to put any language like this in there  i inadvertently said that the report would be every thirty days after the first report and i misspoke it would be every ninety days is the senator from virginia correctly stated of every ninety days after the first report mr president center connecticut i thank the chair mr president this is one of those quiet moments in the senate with very few people here in the chamber when in my opinion something very important is happening and it's happening in good measure because of the two good men my colleagues from virginia and michigan who lead the armed services committee that i'm privileged to be a member of two gentleman two patriots two people who have known each other for a long time work closely together respect other even seem to like each other and most important of all trust in each other those qualities have been those qualities of that personal trust and personal relationship have been too absent from our nation's consideration of the ongoing war in iraq among our political leadership and we have  overwhelming bipartisan support as i look back on it and i followed the debates about pre war intelligence i have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons that we had in our national security interest to remove saddam hussein from power a brutal murdering dictator and aggressive invader of his neighbors a supporter of terrorism a hater of the united states of america he was for us a ticking time bomb that if we did not remove them i'm convinced would have blown up metaphorically speaking in america's face so i am grateful to the american military for the extraordinary bravery and brilliance of their campaign to remove saddam hussein i know that we are safer as a nation the obvious the iraqi people are free here as a people the middle east has a chance for a new day and more stability was saddam was seen gone will come to another day to debate the past about prewar intelligence let me just say very gravely the questions raised in our time are important but what the international intelligence community believed that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction probably most significant and i guess historically puzzling is that saddam hussein acted in a way to send a message that he had a program of weapons of mass destruction he wouldn't in response to one of the seventeen u n security council resolutions  violate it wouldn't declare that he had eliminated the inventory of weapons of mass destruction that he reported to the u n after the end of the gulf war in one thousand nine hundred one i don't want to go off on that i want to say that the debate about the war has become much too partisan in our time and something is happening here tonight that i believe i hope i pray  look back and say was a turning point and opened the road to republican democratic cooperation white house congressional cooperation to complete the mission as senator levin said no matter what anyone thinks about why we got into the war and whether we should have been there it's hard to find anybody around the senate i haven't heard anybody who doesn't want us to successfully complete our mission there and i feel that deeply if we don't if we withdraw prematurely from iraq there will be civil war and there's a great probability that others in the neighborhood will come in the iranians will be tempted to come in on the side of the shia muslims in the south the turks will be will be tempted to commit against the kurds in the north the other sunni nations like the saudis and the jordanians will  be sorely tempted to if not come in at least aggressively support the sunni muslim population they'll be instability in the middle east in the hope of creating a differ model for a better life in the middle east than this historic center of the arab world iraq will be gone if we successfully complete our mission we will have left the country that is self governing with a with an open economy with an opportunity to for the people of iraq to do what what they clearly want to do which is to live a better life to get a job to have their kids get a decent education to live a better life so so there seems to be broad consensus on that and yet the partisanship that characterizes our time here gets in the way of realizing those broadly expressed and shared goals politics must end at the water's edge that's what senator arthur vandenberg of michigan said articulating the important idea will that we seem to have lost too often in our time i found a fuller statement of senator vander berg's opposition the ideal i found it to be in some ways more complicated and in other ways much more compelling to read from it senate of amber vanderburgh said to me bipartisan foreign policy means a mutual effort under our indispensable two party system to unite our a vision official voice at the water's edge so that america speaks with maximum off already against those who would divide and conquer us and the free world how that doesn't speak to us today th of islamic terrorism the desire they have to divide us and in that sense to conquer us in the free world center of a number continued in his definition of what he meant by  bipartisanship in foreign policy it does not involve the remotest surrender of free debate in determining our position on the contrary frank cooperation and free  vandenberg ideals the most recent disconcerting evidence of this was the lead story from the washington post that was in papers all over the country last saturday nov twelfth and i read from that story president bush and leading congressional democrats lob angry charges that each other friday in an increasingly personal battle over the origins of the iraq war although the two sides of long skirmished over the war the sharpton or friday resembled an election year campaign more than a policy disagreement and a quote from saturday washington post campaign rhetoric over policy debate and about what about how we got into the war two and a half years ago not about how we gather can successfully complete but war complete our mission in iraq the questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant they are not  but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in iraq and protect the hundred fifty thousand men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there i go back to vanden bird's phrase the question is not how democrats the question is how democrats and republicans can unite our boys at the water's edge against those who would divide and conquer us and the free world in iraq ayad and beyond the danger is that by spending so much attention on the past  we contribute to a drop in public support among the american people for the war and that is consequential terrorists know that they can't defeat us in iraq but they also know that they can defeat us in america by breaking the will and steadfast support of the american people for this cause is a wonderful phrase from the bible that have put it here before if the sound of the trumpet be uncertain who will follow into battle in our time i'm afraid that the trumpet has been replaced by public opinion polls and if the public opinion polls are uncertain if support for the war seems to be dropping who will follow into battle and when will our brave and brilliant men and women in uniform in iraq begin to wonder whether they have the support of the american people when will that begin to affect their morale so i worry that the the partisanship of our time on has begun to get in the way of the successful completion of our mission in iraq and i urge my colleagues at every moment when we do anything regarding this war that we consider the ideal and and we are confident within ourselves not that we're stifling free debate free debate as vandenberg said is the necessary precondition to the unity we need to maximize our authority against those who would divid but the point is to make sure that we feel in ourselves that that our the aim of our acts and and our words is national security not partisan advantage now we come to today after reading th paper on saturday i took the original draft amendment submitted by senator warner and senator frist wasn't actually introduced but was around senator levin and senator reid i brought them home and i was back in connecticut over the weekend i spent last night looking them over and neither one of them quite fully expressed what i hoped it would but as i stepped back and i said you know these two amendments one republican one democrat unfortunate in a way that breaking by parties explicitly cited the progress that has been made and i do think that senator levin's a moment doesn't quite do this part enough about the progress particularly among the political leaders of iraq they've done something remarkable in a country that lived through thirty years under a dictator suppressed all political activity encouraged the increasing division and bitterness among the shias the sunni's the kurds that these people with our help and encouragement begun to negotiate like real political leaders in a democracy that it's not always pretty what we do here is not always the most attractive had some ocracy most important of all eight million iraqis came out in the face of terrorist threats in january to vote on that interim legislature almost ten million came out to vote on a constitution which is a pretty good document a historically good document in the context of the the arab world and what happened when the sunni's felt that they weren't getting enough that they wanted in the referendum they didn't go to the streets most of them went with arms to start a civil war they registered to vote that's that's an american lisicki ferment and a change in attitude and action they came out to vote in great numbers and they will come out i predict again in december in the elections and elect enough sunni's to have an effect on the constitution next year so i wish that some of that had been stated in senator levin's amendment it i would the great work of our troops but i just want to because i thought i heard the senator from connecticut and i have no dear friend in the senate i thought the senator suggested today and wish that my men that would be more fulsome relative to progress i just want to assure the sen that there's no change in that language in the version which was subsequently filed by the senator from virginia i think my friend from michigan what it was said and i know that the center for national is involved in a conversation i was actually going back