the senate this week working is considering the national defense authorization act of service packs and i will introduce to the memo that such a point as we do not receive judging from the republican side to that they all of the the what we will introduce will be the hay vs corpus restoration act of two thousand and seven i wanted first and foremost because at some it's been new ship in past years and i hope that all senators both republicans and democrats will join us in restoring basic american values and the rule of law make it our nation stronger last year congress committed and historic mistake by suspending the great will of a b s corpus and they do this not just for those combined at guantanamo bay for millions of people who are legally very diverse political views and backgrounds that the mistake committed in the military commissions act of two thousand and six has to be corrected and they be as corp has been a stain on america's reputation in the world many many places around the world where we have been sort mired in the past if that is why would america turn his back from one of his most basic rights and so mr president we're at a time of testing future generations will look back to examine the choices we made during a time when the guarantees not paternity to go to court and challenge the abuse of power by the government is in shrine in the constitution as stalwart a republican conservative as just as recently referred to is the very core of liberty secured by our angle saxon system of separate powers the military commissions act rollback the protections by limiting that right permanently for any non citizen labeled an enemy combatant in fact a detainee designed to be found to be an enemy combatant is the not for the government to pick up somebody hold them no charges and say they are awaiting determination when we make up our mind this year or next year or ten they picked up the wrong guy they don't even have my name right they picked up some bite me by mistake you can't even do that this is america this is america without any ability to challenge their detention in court stanford professor mariano florentino well our call this an issue about which the latino community which encompasses so many of the nation's legal permanent residents must be concerned given the government such raw unfettered power should concern every american since last fall i have been describing a nightmare scenario about a hard working legal permanent resident makes an innocent donation to among other charities a muslim charity the government secretly suspected ties to terrorism suggested that on the basis of this donation prancer report is suspicious behavior from an overzealous dave or cursory review of library records this permanent resident could be brought in for questioning it died a lawyer and compliant indefinitely and such a person would have no recourse in the courts for years or for decades or forever well when i  department of justice a legal brief submitted in a federal court in virginia they asserted that the military commissions act allows the government to detain any non citizen designated an enemy combatant without giving that person any ability challenges detention in court this is through the justice province and even for someone arrested in prison in the united states now other words we could do what we always condemned other countries were doing countries behind the then iron curtain where they would pick up somebody hold them indefinitely they had no recourse is in the court and rightly so republican and democratic presidents condemn those countries for doing that now we've given ourselves the same power the washington post wrote of the breach raises the possibility they the millions of immigrants living in the united states could be subject indefinite detention if they're cute use of ties to terrorist groups accusation i might add mr president that could be totally erroneous this is wrong it's unconstitutional but more than because servitude supreme court was seven of his nine members pointed by republican presidents as been the only check on this administration's lawlessness the supreme court and other conservative federal courts recently even military judges have repeated really overturn the law is system set up by this administration governing detainees many opposed to the courts will come to the rescue again on the issue  though with the continued drift of the supreme court toward endorsing greater executive power we cannot count on the intervention of this conservative activist court besides which mr president we didn't pass the buck congress cannot and must not outsource its moral responsibility we all want to back  america save terror's president you and i come to work every day proudly in the billing building that was targeted by those criminals to hijack planes on nine eleven we don't hesitate to come to work here we do it pro whether comports with the values the liberties and legal traditions we hold most dear top conservative thinkers like professor richard epstein and david keene has the american conservative union pentagon as judge advocate general of the navy is working there in september eleventh two thousand and one he saw firsthand  he saw his colleagues killed by the plane that crashed into the pentagon and i believe mr president that his credibility is unimpeachable when he says that  denying habeas rights to detainees and dangers our troops undermines our military efforts and testimony in the committee at magruder wrote as we limit the rights of human beings even those of the enemy we become more like the enemy that makes us weaker and imperils our valiant troops serving not just in iraq and afghanistan difficult to defend the higher ground by taking the low road the world knows what i enemy stand for the world also knows what this country has tried to stand for a and our constitution and the rule of law that we shall prevail i hope all the senate republican and democratic alike will join us in standing up for a stronger from pennsylvania we work together on this you know every one of us every one of the servers here only for a certain time really we have to ask as soon as we had the privilege of being only one of only one hundred people get to represent three hundred million americans in this great body what do we do to receive evidence of a reason for detention before the detention can continue regrettably the legislation on the military commission act passed last year two thousand and six and again on january fourth this year with new congress reintroduced legislation to bring back the corpus we have all the detainees in guantanamo a procedure on what is called the combat status review board and the procedures there are detainee tases where the court comments about the procedures in the case caption who'd met a hen versus bush and this involves an individual o detainees who was charged with associating with al qaida and this is what the chris script that the transcript says the detainee give me his name tribunal president i do not know detainee how can i respond to this them the detainee goes on to comment about his inability to respond to the charges that he associated with someone from al qaeda because he doesn't have any way to identify the individual with whom he was supposed to have associated nobody could even give him his name laughs and the court notes the laughter reflected in the transcript is understandable and this exchange might have been truly humorous had the consequences of th where the combat status review board have held detention when they couldn't even tell the detainee the identity of the person who was supposedly at al qaida person with whom he was supposed to have a there has been considerable comment about the fundamentally unfair tactics in the combat status review board but none came into sharper focus than the declaration of lieutenant colonel ste abraham who worked on the combat status review board and who found that with some substantial detail the process was fundamentally flawed of the supreme court of the united states which under our system of laws they're obligated to uphold they analyze rosicky will and said that w the statute providing for haiti as corpus and not on the constitutional mandate that haiti is corpus is a part of the constitution of the united states resume of the opinion be included in the record following my statement without without objection without taking the time to read them into the record now because they are apparent on the face that the opinion by justice stevens goes through the chronology of the writ starting with king john at runnymede in twelve fifteen and running through the adoption of the constitutional provision in the united states constitution now it is true that there is also a statute which provides for a writ of habeas corpus the court of appeal said that the portion of justice stevens opinion as to the constitutional basis for hey be a score for us was dictum and that the holding involved the statute and the court of appeal says th the holding involved the statute the statute could be changed and it is true that the statute was changed by the congress of the united states but the congress of the united states by statute cannot change the constitutional mandate of a b s corpus and for the court of appeals for the district of columbia to say that the constitutional basis for haiti's corpus in hurty harsh words but accurate words and i say them with respect for every corner but as a lawyer who has worked with the constitution for a number of decades it was hard for me to comprehend how the defense of columbia court of appeals did come to that conclusion they did well i think it is a bout to be corrected there's been a curious history on the petition appeal from the combat status review board and the speculation by the analysts was so that justice stevens was reluctant to see sir granted because russell might be overruled but then after the declaration of lieutenant colonel stephen abraham appeared in the public press there there was a petition for reconsideration of the from pennsylvania and they do allow remember to come up i will be here with him proudly so i buy so i don't this we can we can we can correctly otherwise you become a historic mistake iraq obviously is of enormous importance but if we lose the basic fundamental rights to require evidence before somebody is held in detention if we lose the right of habeas corpus it is a very sad day in america briar and justice ginsburg ran and voting to grant cert before and justice stevens and justice kennedy writing a separate opinion and the other four justices voting to  so i think this case is headed to the supreme court the united states for reversal by the opinion by the court of appeals from the district of columbia but i believe that the congress should act in the in the interim and that is why senator leahy and i are pressing this issue of the department of defense authorization bill and i hope that it will knock the side of this grounds for a veto if we're successful important amendment and the procedures in guantanamo under the combat status review board are woefully inadequate do not satisfy the requirements of the supreme court of the united states and having a collateral proceeding which is adequate to protect the rights of someone who who is in detention so when we are permitted to offer the amendment we will do so but i standard for how much time our troops get home between deployments we owe it to our troops and to their families to have a rational and reasonable troop rotation policy that allows our fighting forces to be at their best the ever quickening operational tempo over the last four years of combat in iraq and afghanistan have stretched our military beyond reason and endangers our national security continuing to shorten the time that our troops are able to spend at home while extending deployment deployments is simply not it's a sustainable policy it is bad for operational readiness it is bad for retention it is bad for morale it is bad for the health of our military members and their families we must do better mr president to protect our national security and this amendment moves us in the right direction mr president in the time that i have spent with our service members in iraq and afghanistan at fort carson and in the many military installations around colorado i've always found our service members to be serving proudly and honorably they rarely look at you and talk about the sacrifices they are being asked to make or of the effects that failed policies are having on them and on their families but you can still see in their eyes the evidence of the strain that the operational tempo is placing on them and on their families you see the strain at installations all around the country i might say at fort carson and colorado where i have visited often the last several years the families of the second brigade of the second infantry division learned earlier this year that their soldiers tours of duty in iraq are being extended by three months so that they will stay in the theater for a total of fifteen months rather than the twelve months that they anticipated when they went to iraq the second brigade mr president is currently today in a block by block battle with insurgents in western baghdad the second brigade lost six soldiers over the fourth of july week and have lost thirty seven cents a ride in iraq last was supposed to be returning this fall they were supposed to be returning this fall but now it will be when to or before they might be able to come home the third brigade also at fort carson returned from iraq late last fall after a full year deployment they could well be sent back to iraq before they have the time that they needed here to recuperate to train and to re prepare for a new deployment they deserve in my view some consistency and certainty in their deployment cycle you see the impacts of the current operational temple in our guard and reserve units as well we have come to rely on the guard and reserve the degree in iraq a one point in two thousand and five the army national guard contributed nearly half of the combat brigades on the ground in iraq these troops that we all thought once were the weekend warriors have been shouldering burdens similar to their active duty counterparts and are facing the say the same extended deployments and shortened time at home very quickly learning about the impact of this operational temple on the health and well being of our troops the impact and the fact here are beyond dispute a study at fort carson showed that around eighteen percent that's eighteen percent of returning soldiers had traumatic brain injury these are soldiers and have come back to fort carson after having served in iraq they need time to recover from those injuries a recent service wide report of the d o d s task force on mental health showed that thirty eight percent of soldiers thirty one percent of marines and forty nine percent of the national guard report psychological problems following combat deployments the prevalence of psychological problems increases with increased frequency of deployment and with longer deployments our troops need more time at home to recuperate and readjust with their families as a president senate amendment s two thousand and one is a sensible and much needed rotation policy for our troops i can think of no better author for this man meant then senator jim webb who has had a long and storied history of service to our country and who has an intimate understanding of the military and knowing what it takes to have a strong military for the united states of america for regular forces the amendment requires that if a unit or a member is a ploy to iraq or afghanistan they will have an equal time at home before being redeployed that is to say if they are deployed for six months they must be at home for at least six months before they're being that back into combat for the national guard and reserve or no unit or member could be redeployed to iraq or afghanistan within three years of their previous deployment the amendment includes a provision an important provision an important provision that i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pay attention to that's an important provision that allows the president to waive these limitations the president can waive these limitations if he sort of finds to congress that the deployment is necessary in response to an operational emergency posing a viable threat to the national security of the united states of america so the president can waive the requirements of the of this readiness legislation that we're proposing here in the chamber today another waiver would offer right the chief of staff of each branch who approve requests by volunteers to deploy this is an event which a president that supports our troops and their families who've been called upon to make ever increasing sacrifices in the course of this war is an amendment that i asked my colleagues to support and which i hope we will pass on behalf of our troops and their families as the president i also want to conclude by simply stating my appreciation to  the leaders that have put together the d o d authorization legislation that is before the floor the senator from michigan the chairman of the armed services committee carl levin is often referred to by me and i know many of the members of this chamber as a senator senator because he is one of those people who is here for absolutely the right reason his devotion to this country his standing up for our military  is something which is a great example of a senator that puts purpose abab the politics of sometimes typify washington perhaps too much of the time and he in his work with friend senator salazar for his comments is particularly meaningful coming from somebody who is much as anybody in this body strives to bring members together and common causes and i i just want to tell him how grateful i am for his comments but also even more importantly how grateful we all are for the effort that he makes to cross the aisle and to bring senators from both parties together on important issues of the day as president last night i was not able to come to the floor when our bill came to the floor chairing a subcommittee meeting which i could not leave and asked number of colleagues on the armed services committee if they could fill in for me and very very gracious unable then to present the bill as a bill show of this magnitude should be presented and i'll take a few minutes at this time to do that the defense authorization act for fiscal year two thousand and eight i would eight budget request of six hundred forty eight point eight billion dollars for national security activities and the department of defense and the department of energy the senate armed services committee has a long tradition of setting aside partisanship and working together in the interest of national defense that tradition has been maintained this year i'm pleased that our bill senate bill fifteen forty seven was reported to the sen twenty five to nothing vote of our committee additionally senate bill sixteen zero six the dignified treatment of wounded warriors act which we will be taking up either as part of this bill or as a freestanding measure was also reported by the committee on a unanimous twenty five to nothing vote these votes stand as a testament to the common commitment of all of our members to supporting our men and women in uniform our bill contains many important provisions that will improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform provide needed support and assistance to our troops in the battlefields of iraq and afghanistan make the investments that we need to meet the challenges of the twenty first century and require needed reforms in the management of the department of defense the bill before us perhaps most importantly continues the increases in compensation and quality of life that our servicemen and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world for example the bill contains provisions that would authorize a three and a half percent aboard the across the board pay increase for all uniformed military personnel which is a half a percent more than the administration's request our bill authorizes increases in the end strength of the army and the marines thirteen thousand for the army one thousand for the marines our bill authorizes payment of over twenty five types of bonuses and specialties aimed at encouraging  reenlistment and continued service by active duty and reserve military personnel our bill authorizes payment of combat related special compensation to servicemembers medically retired for a combat related disability and we reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals to department of defense personnel by authorizing the use of federal pricing for pharmaceuticals dispensed to the tri care retail program the bill also includes important funding and authorities needed to provide our troops with the equipment and support that they will continue to need as long as they will continue to need as long as they remain in iraq and afghanistan for instance the bill contains provisions which would add four billion dollars above the amount requested by the administration for mine resistant ambush protected vehicles so called m raps that improve protection for our troops by directing that office to invest at least fifty million dollars in blast injury research and over one hundred fifty million dollars for the  we would invest more than seventy million dollars in research and new technologies to enhance the force protection of the floyd units including in vance materials for vehicle and body armor active protection systems that shoot down incoming rocket propelled grenades and sniper detection systems and we had two point seven billion dollars for items needed by the army but not contained in the president's budget including seven hundred seventy five million dollars for reactive armor and other stryker requirements two hundred seven million dollars for aviation survivability equipment one hundred two million dollars for combat training centers and funding for explosive ordnance disposal equipment night vision devices and machine guns the bill would also enhance our national security by aggressively addressing the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in this regard the bill would increase funding over the administration's request for department of energy nonproliferation programs by eighty seven million dollars increase funding for the department of defense cooperative threat reduction program c t r by one hundred million dollars eliminate funding restrictions that limit the use of c t r funds and we expand the c t r program to countries outside of the former soviet union the bill contains a number of provisions that would help improve the management of the department of defense and other federal agencies for example the bill contains provisions that would establish a chief management officer finally the department of defense to provide continuous top level attention to the high risk management management's problems of the department as recommended by the controller general and i note that our presiding officer is a member of the committee which takes a particular interest in management issues in the committee on which we both serve the homeland security governmental affairs committee has been interested in this subject for years as long as probably both of us if residing officer and i have been here together we need a chief management officer for the department of defense and we would establish that office we would establish an acquisition workforce development fund to enable the department of defense to increase the size and quality of its acquisition workforce as needed to address systematic deficiencies in the department's purchases of products and services we would tighten the rules for department defense acquisitions and major weapon systems and subsystems components and spare parts to reduce the risk of contract overpricing cost overruns and failure to meet contract schedules and performance requirements our bill also contains a provision that would require increased competition in large so called umbrella contracts awarded by the department of defense the armed services committee held a hearing in april on the department offenses management of the twenty billion dollar log cap contract under which k b r until recently a subsidiary of halliburton has provided services to us troops in the field now there's a history of highly treatment of that contractor throughout this contract for example the company was given work that appears to have far exceeded the scope of the contract all of this added work was provided to the contractor without competition the contractor resisted providing us with information that we needed to monitor and control costs there were almost two billion dollars of overcharges on the contract and the contractor received highly favorable settlements on these overcharge now when i ask why the army it waited five years to split the log cap contract among multiple contractors so as to allow for the competition of individual task orders the assistant secretary of the army for acquisition technology and logistics responded quote i don't have a good answer for you close quote well provision in our bill would avoid these kind of abuses that we get in sole source contracts by ensuring the future contracts of this type provide for the competition of task in the livery orders unless there is a compelling reason not to do so  president there is far too many provisions in this bill for me to describe all of them but there are a few more that i would like to put some focus on section ten twenty three of the bill would protect our troops uphold our values and help restore our image around the world by providing a fair process for reviewing the status of the partment defense detainees at guantanamo and elsewhere this provision would require for the first time that long h detainees receive legal representations provide for legal rulings to be made by military judges and prohibit the use of co heirs states section eight seventy one of the bill would require that apartment  defense to provide much needed regulation for contractors aberrated on the battlefield in iraq and afghanistan over the past four years contractor employees have frequently fired weapons a people in property in iraq including insurgents civilians and on occasion even our own coalition forces yet we have no consistent system in place for regulating the concept the conduct of these armed contractors or for enforcing compliance with those regulations that do exist that are supposed to govern the activities of arm contractors and we hire a provision in our bill would ensure the commanders on the battlefield have the authority that they have long needed to establish rules of engagement as well as systems for reporting and investigating incidents involving the use of force for armed contractors of ours in an area of combat operations finally mr president shortfalls in the care and treatment of our wounded warriors came to the attention of the nation in a series of articles in the washington post last february these articles describe deplorable living conditions for some service members in an outpatient status they describe the bungled bureaucratic process for assigning disability ratings that determine whether a service member will be medically retired with health and other benefits from self and for his family  clumsy handle was described and exists it's between the department of defense in the department of veterans affairs when a military member transitions from one department to another the nation's shock and dismay reflected the american people's support respect and gratitude for the men and women who put on our nation's uniform they deserve the best not shoddy medical care and bureaucratic snafu and so i'm very proud that our armed services committee approved senate bill sixteen zero six the dignified treatment of wounded warriors by a unanimous twenty five to nothing vote on june fourteenth this bill which we worked on so closely with the committee on veterans affairs would address the issues of inconsistent application of disability standards disparate disability ratings sub standard facilities lack of seamless transition from the department of defense to the veterans administration inadequacy event of severance pay care and treatment for traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder that it addresses also medical care for caregivers not eligible for tri care and the sharing of medical records between the department of defen department of veterans affairs now in consultation with the leadership and with the committee on veterans affairs since there's unlikely to be available floor time to bring this critically needed bill to the floor as freestanding legislation it will be offered instead as an amendment to the bill that we have on the floor now  very large diaper that bipartisan group of senators coming from not only both of our armed services committee the veterans affairs committee but from all senators just about will be offering this bill  on this amendment and we owe it to our men and women in uniform to probably take up and pass this important legislation has of today roughly one hundred sixty thousand u s soldiers sailors airmen and marines are engaged in combat in combat support operations in iraq almost twenty thousand are engaged in combat in combat support operations in afghanistan and tens of thousands more supporting the war efforts through deployments thousands of miles from home by many of us believe that the time has come to start bringing these troops home we all know that we must provide our troops the support that they need as long as they remain in harm's way we in the nation are divided on the administration's war policies but we are united in our determination to support our troops senate action on the national defense authorization act for fiscal year two thousand and  will improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform it will give them the tools that they need to remain the most effective fighting force in the world most important of all it will send an important message that we as a nation stand behind them and we appreciate their service finally as i did earlier this morning i want to note that this bill a bipartisan bill could not have been possible without the support and leadership of senator mccain i ranking member and each and every member of the senate armed services committee we are a special debt of gratitude to those who service subcommittee chairs and ranking members of the armed services committee this bill takes a long long time to put together then to mark up takes many months to perform those functions and many days in the markup process itself  i also want to give a special thank you for our former chairman senator warner again did yeoman service to make it possible for this bill to come to the floor in a bipartisan manner which to working with our colleagues pass this important legislation i hope that we can proceed to prompt consideration of it and i hope that is as soon as we address the amendment of senator complex piece of legislation and i want to start off by saying a special thanks to you and your staff to senator mccain senator warner their staff and the other members of your committee you crafted i think a very very difficult bill and as one who likes to work  of his for polls we may recall is that what he's calling for is the try to ensure that there is some downtime for active duty personnel who are serving in iraq or serving in afghanistan once they've served a period of active duty in those theat d that came to mind for me is what if we get into a jam somewhere what if we our country gets into a jam or another part of the world and we actually need somebody who's been promised that six months back home where there are two three years back on that we need them to to come back and serve an active duty or what if a member of the guard or the reserves or active duty personnel want to come back and serve again in afghanistan or on iraq where they be able to those are good questions there's a question is it discussed over lunch with the center whether i was pleased with that with his response or the second question for the guardsman reservists active duty personnel who wants to come back in which to serve in those theaters iraq or afghanistan prior to the  their period of rest but if you will their time time home their downtime they can go back they express that they volunteer they say they want to serve they made that request will be honored and secondly if we get in a jam in a country in another part of the world and we actually need a direct those forces to serve back in the theater from which to where they are needed i think those are very positive important aspects of the web and then and we ought to keep them in mind prior to coming to serve here in fly missions with us during the vietnam war almost without exception we never give them difficult jobs to do almost without exceptions we did not give them challenging jobs to do and we didn't want them to mess it up they leave behind here not just families in many cases spouses children some cases dependent parents in many cases they have this is that they own and run themselves and it's one thing to be away from an employer that  would like to have you there we need you there and to be away for a month or two or three or for you to exact a duty try leaving a business that you may have started built and depend on you being there and gone away for you take take take take and most of us and say we're going to put you on active duty for fifteen months and let you come home for a little while and stick you back on active duty for another fifteen months on your war on the other side it will i'm not so sure how many of us would sign up again and  renew our commitment my guess a lot of people said no thank you then they're done that i've served my nation on active duty and in the reserves in and we wouldn't have taken on that out obligation at least not with great enthusiasm somewhat but i suspect others months we're going to make sure that you have a chance to catch your breath come back hopefully with your unit to retrain here to have a little down time to reconnect with your family to begin to put your personal life together a little bit of what we put you back over there in harm's way and to the extent that you happen to be a reservist or remember the national guard you have other commitments you're not on active duty you have your own job maybe on business your own family with children were t give you a chance to to make sure that you can get that this is gone again stand up strengthen it reacquaint yourself with your family make sure that your kids and your spouse your are right maybe your parents before they put you back over and in harm's way again the president can waive those those obligations and also if the virus any of us who happen to be on on active duty or in the reserves and we've done our time and had a chance to come back in and we want to go back we feel an obligation to go back and dod bus them some of our troops do their serving second third tours over there but they would have the opportunity to do that not be barred from doing that if they chose to take that course they could and for those reasons and for others that i've mentioned t say yep that's the way to do it so i thought it through putting on my hat in the early roles that i've played outside of the united states senate outside of congress and i think the webb amendment is is the right way to go my hope is when the votes are cast that there will be adopted in added to president senator from virginia mr president i would like to express my thanks to the senator to delaware from delaware for his service and also for his comments on on this amendment i come to the floor because i heard that the other side of the aisle may be deciding to filibuster this amendment and i would first of all like to express my surprise that this filibuster might occur which is the chair nos would increase that we cram it vote to sixty votes in order for the moment to proceed this is a very simple and a very fair a nt i would like to express my opinions about some of the comments that have been made just as i was outside listening to different people from the media telling me what some of the reservations from the other side have been on this amendment and they are not accurate the comments that have been made there are people who are saying that this amendment is unconstitutional in the sense that only the commander in chief should be able to make decisions regarding the deployments of troops during war first of all article one section eight it is very clear on this point of ark of our constitution it states that the congress has the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces this is well within the constitution in fact there is much precedent when people who are opposed to this amendment discuss it might be tying the president's hands sara lee we can go back to the dark days of the korean war where because of the national emergency that was caused from the invasion of south korea by the north we didn't have enough troops available and the administration at the time started sending soldiers into korea who had not been fully trained and the congress acted within its purview and it passed a law that said no individual who is brought into the united states military can be sent overseas unless they have been in the military for one hundred twenty days the reason that the congress acted was to protect the well being of those who serve the nets exactly what we are proposing to do today we are saying that whatever your beliefs are about this war whether you want to in five weeks or whether you want to go on for the next ten years we have to come to some common agreement among the leadership of the united states that we are going to protect the well being of our troops are the people who step forward to serve in these times minimum we can do is to set a floor that basically says however long you were deployed you could have that much time back at home or if you're in the national guard and reserve if you've been deployed you deserve to have three times that much time at home a standard the historical standard is if you've been deployed overseas or if you've been deployed on a deployment you should have twice as much time holmes a commandant of the marine corps earlier this year when he undertook the duties of a being calm and said that his goal was to bring in a two to one rotational cycle for the marine corps given the requirements of iraq two to one we're now at one to one with a good portion of that time back home being spent and work up to go back for these units and for these individuals the army as a result of this surge now has a policy where they're saying you go to iraq for fifteen months and will guarantee you twelve months of home that's not even a one to one armament a stablish is a floor it's reasonable it doesn't have anything to do with the political objectives of the war downstream that can be sorted out later we're simply saying if you've been gone for a year be back for a year if you've been gone for seven months you deserve to be back for seven months unless you want to go back if you want to go back fine you can volunteer to go back our men doesn't stop that or if there's a national emergency and operational emergency where the president certifies that as a requirement then the president can waive this or trying to set a policy of stability so that military families can predict what their cycle is going to be and have enough time to truly become involved with their families again have some downtime in refurbish and retrain and go back and i would suggest to the other side that if they really believe that this is an amendment that is incompatible with military service they might want to consider a letter that i received today from the military officers association of america this is the largest and most influential association of military officers in the country it is composed of three hundred sixty thousand members every branch of the military and they wrote me today i'll read portions of this letter on behalf of the three hundred sixty eight thousand members of the military officers association i am writing to express our support for your amendment very concerned that steps must be taken to protect our most precious military assets the all volunteer force from having to bear such a disproportionate share of national war time sacrifice if we are not better stewards of our troops and this is the executive the president vice admiral norbert ryan united states navy retired saying this if we are not better stewards of our troops and their families in the future then we have been in the recent past we believe strongly that we will be putting the all volunteer force at an acceptable risk i would submit to the president of this body that this is not the kind of a statement that would be made from a group of three hundred sixty eight thousand military officers unless they believed in the constitutionality and the propriety of what we're attempting to do i  would like to say to my colleagues and particularly to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle very disappointed in the notion that an amendment with th of the well being of our troops might even be considered as a filibuster i would like to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the american people are watching us today and they're watching closely with the expectation that we finally can take some sort of positive action that might stabilize the operational environment in which our troops are being sent again and again the american people are tired of the posturing that is giving the congress such a bad reputation they're tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability and to protect this administration from judgment they are looking for concrete action that will protect the well being of our men and women in uniform and the question on this amendment is not whether one supports the war and whether they do not it's not whether someone wants to wait until mid july or september to see whether one particular set of benchmarks or summary might be taking us the question is simply this more than four years into the ground operations in iraq we owe stability and a reasonable cycle of deployment to the men and women who are carrying our nation's burdens that's the question for question as the center of gladly yields majority whip i'd like to just commend the senator from virginia first for offering this amendment for those who are new to this debate it is the first amendment on the defense authorization bill and it's about our troops readiness to go to battle there's no better offer of this amendment than the senator from virginia as the only one of two combat veterans who is here ground combat veterans serving in the united states senate and i'd like to ask senator if i understand his amendment correctly it says that if we are going to deploy american soldiers into fields of battle in iraq afghanistan or nato missions that they not be deployed any longer than they are given the equal amount of time for rest or to dwell time as they call it for training and preparation to return to battle so if soldiers being sent to iraq for fifteen months then they'd have at least fifteen months back home at the end of that period are resigned to a peaceful setting before they can be deployed again for active duty so gist or substance when it comes to active duty first i would say to millin oil that just for factual clarification senator hagel and i are the only two ground combat veterans from vietnam in the senate but i certainly would not want to in any way reduce my respect for the distinguished senator from hawaii who won the congressional medal of honor during world war two but the question you put what you pose is correct what this basically says is if you have been gone for a year you deserve to have a minimum of a year back and a lot of people misunderstand what well time is well time is not down time there's a work up cycle for these units before they go back which is considerable so even if we're giving them a one to one ratio here this is not equal time down as compared to an equal time deployed that's why the traditional goal is to for one like to ask the senator from virginia would yield further it's my understanding that when it comes to guard in reserve that he also has some protection for the amount of time they will have after they have served i've been told that there is an implicit understanding for example with guard members that they would serve a year for example and have five years before redeployment in fact that's not been the case in my home state of illinois over eighty percent of the only guard units have been deployed into combat during the course of this war very deployed repeatedly so obviously they the promise that was supposed to be kept hasn't been kept and i asked the senator from virginia how do you protect guard and reserve when it comes to redeployment in terms of the time we're transitioning into what we call the total force concept and the present use of the guard and reserve is certainly something we were not contemplating in the one nine hundred eighty s but this amendment sets a floor for the guard and reserve a three to one ratio with a goal or a written goal in the memmott of a five to one ratio which is the traditional standard could i ask the senator from virginia if he's not covered in his four remarks now what has been the impact of these frequent redeployments active guard and reserve on retention and recruitment in other words if my guard unit in illinois knows that they're going to be deployed and  redeployed within a year or two it seems to me that for some citizen soldiers it would create a hardship which they couldn't impose on their families for a period of time can the senator from virginia point to any specific information he has about we stop we should be just a few minutes and senate from virginia maintain a floor in the in the record not appear as having been interrupted would that be ok with senator from virginia mr president majority leaders recognize you very a problem has developed we do have a side by side from senator graham but when i didn't understand is there would be a requirement of sixty votes on center webb's amendment twelve followed by a vote on s being offered was and wasn't a sixty vote context and what we have frequently done is simply negotiated an agreement to have the sixty votes that we know we're going to have anyway and the reason for for that is that if there are several reasons number one if they cloture vote were or were in vote it would further delay consideration of the bill because a potential thirty more hours could be used to post cloture on amendment so what we have done is just sort of a rational response to the nature of the senate in this era is to negotiate a sixty vote votes were perfectly at happy to enter into an agreement as asked yes yesterday for a vote on the that's really wrong it's too bad we don't have to have the sixty vote margin everything we do have some recent rule is just come up in the minds of the minority we mr president should move forward on  amendment move forward on the ground a minute we have confidence that majority of the senate supports senator webb i don't know about senator graham's member but why don't we let the body work its  and then move on to other things we have we have the amendment there waiting offer very quickly which is once been worked on for a long long time which is the leaven read amendment so miss present sense there is an cloture motion with the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule twenty two the standing rules of the senate do here by need to bring to a close the debate on the web and then that number twenty twelve to h r fifteen eighty five department defense authorization two thousand seven signed by expeditious way is to move forward is by agreement not by the filing of cloture having said that i hope that once it's clear the closure is not going to be invoked that we can get back to the normal way we handle debate on these matters and therefore have a better chance of processing this very important bill and moving it toward passage out of my friend from arizona wanted to ask a question i wanted to get the recognition but majority leader offered was to allow the web that memet from the democrat side which incidentally has bipartisan sponsorship with senator hagel of nebraska that it be an up or down vote a majority vote on whether or not we will give our troops an opportunity to rest before they're redeployed back into battle and i think the senator from virginia has made a compelling argument that it's in the best interest of our military and certainly our soldiers and our families to give them this chance for rest and recuperation and retraining before they're redeployed we know the fact is that many of these soldiers are being deployed and redeployed repeatedly at great personal hardship we have reports that come in the trouble us about family difficulties that many of these soldiers are going through because of these long periods of separation and the fact that they're overseas so often secondly we know that many of the soldiers who return after the stress of battle need to sit down and talk to some people to go through some counseling to make sure they're dealing with post traumatic stress disorder and other issues which in previous wars have never been mentioned and we know now to be very important so what the senator from virginia is saying for goodness sakes don't we owe it to our troops to give them a period of rest before they're sent back into battle and so he wanted to vote on his amendment a majority vote up or down and we said to the other side of the republican side do you have an approach you'd like to use on the same issue and they said yes senator graham of north carolina has a south carolina has an amendment on the same issue we'd like that to be offered so the democratic majority leader said fine we'll treat both of them it's exactly the same way have a limited debate for our split up and then we'll vote on a majority vote up or down and there was an objection and objection because the republican leader now says for the amendments even those dealing with the readiness of our troops we want an extraordinary majority we want sixty votes even on an amendment about the readiness of soldiers we've offered both sides the same opportunity what it tells us is that when it comes to the issue of the war in iraq i'm afraid that the minority the republican leader has made it clear they are going to filibuster every amendment they're going to do their best to slow down and stop this debate on the war in iraq instead of coming to the issue in a straightforward and honest way for an up or down vote they prefer to drag this out drag it out as long as they can try to put off the inevitable well we can't put off the inevitable and the inevitable is this this is a costly deadly war as our debate winds on day after day and week after week american soldiers are still in the line of fire some of our best and bravest will be falling in battle as we stand in the bait now that really isn't acceptable we owe it to our men and women in uniform to do our duty and our duty is fair deliberation open debate and then an up or down vote and move to the next issue but according to the republican side of the aisle that is the way it'll be they want to filibuster this debate on the war in iraq everything they can do to slow it down that is unfortunate and i will tell you something if they are paying attention to the people back in their home states the people have lost their patience with congress caught up in this kind of procedural slow down they want us to act and act decisively make a decision one way or the other decide whether an amendment is good or bad but don't drag it out in this kind of parliamentary maneuver over an amendment which on its face is easily understood i think is eminently reasonable and where the other side the republican side has ample opportunity to put their own idea up for a vote at the same time it could not be any fair and yet the republican leader objects i hope that he'll reconsider we now are going to move from this at the webb amendment graham amendment two substantive important moments about timetables on bringing american soldiers home doing it in a reasonable way but to start redeploying our troops out of harm's way and it appears now that the strategy on the other side of the aisle is in every respect to try to slow this down and delay the ultimate decision i think senator reid the majority leader's made it clear we're going to stay here until our jobs done we are committed to making this national debate on iraq a meaningful debate and no use of any procedural tool or tactic is going to stop us from the ultimate decision the senate has to make it should be done in an open honest courteous and civilized way when we made that offer free to say the republican majority objected republican the leader i'm sorry objected so i hope that we can return to the substance of this debate mr president i would like to say that senator webb's memon is not about the politics of the iraq war and it's not about whether we should be there or not be there it's a but it's not about a republican or democratic view of the war it's quite simply is about taking care of our troops we're going to spend a lot of ours and debate over the next several weeks debating the war policy but one thing we should debate is the welfare and safety of our troops i believe i can safely say that every senator in this body would agree that no matter what else we do our first duty is to ensure the welfare and safety of those who are fighting sacrificing and even dying in the struggle this is exactly what the webb amendment does our soldiers sailors  their duties gallantly over the past four plus years they have not complained and return time and time again into battle we owe them and their families gratitude that no single member of the senate could properly express but as this war stretches on it takes its toll all of us have met with guard units being deployed other units that are rich turning we know what they've been through just by curiously by talking to their families and hearing their stories many of return for second third and fourth deployments to iraq and afghanistan our soldiers spend twelve months of time in theater and now they're going to be spending fifteen months by the latest decision pentagon it is unreasonable sorry it unreasonable to allow them to spend at least that much time at home before they again put themselves in harm's way i don't think so the the short turnaround times affect our men and women in uniform professionally and personally after fifteen months of battle we're asked them to turn around be ready to leave again in less than a year that's just not enough time under normal conditions the preparations and training for deployment can take up to a year after fifteen months in the desert they're going to be significant tasks our soldiers will have to accomplish to get themselves and their equipment back into fighting condition after so long away from home base many individual and unified qualifications and training standards have lapsed it'll take time to correct them but how can they possibly accomplish these tasks if as soon as they get home they have to begin preparing for the next deployment without a doubt we have the finest military in the world capable of doing great things but are we really being fair to them or are we really preparing them for battle as we should by squeezing so much into such a short period of time are we shortchanging valuable training that will help to keep them alive and this effect is not limited to their professional performance because certainly with this kind of burden at work over such a short amount of time you can be sure that twelve months at home is really not twelve months at home our soldiers don't complain and always put mission accomplishment above all else so rather than spending time at home with the spouse and children building the strong families necessary to sustain long separations of deployment they'll spend longer and long hours at work training all we're asking with the webb amendment is to remember the sacrifices of our soldiers and their families soldiers deployed that's what they do they know that when they sign up a soldier's family is strong they persevered adapt to ever changing schedules but the strain that these families have been put under the past few years and will have to face in the future is just too much we're seeing divorce rates skyrocket rates of alcohol abuse are increasing among the military pressures from these long deployments and short stays at home or taking their toll as they should you know as they would i should say in most every circumstance it is not fair to ask them to continue to make this kind of sacrifice there are many out there who say that our army is near the breaking point i can't answer whether it is or not but i certainly can speak of soldiers from illinois and their families that i've spoken of and they are courageous beyond doubt but they are being pushed to the limit we hear all the talk about supporting our troops what does it mean many people say the phrase really they say that for his not really know what it means well this amendment is exactly what it means our military personnel and their families a burn almost the entire burden of the struggle our nation has undertaken steps a third party said september the eleventh two thousand and one they've done it spectacularly one of the criti that i've heard that i think is fair is that after nine eleven this country was ready to move together i can't recall a period of greater national unity had the president made a an appeal for shared sacrifice to fight this war on terrorism i certain that he would have received resoundingly support from both sides of the aisle all across the nation but sadly that appeal was not made he's asked for sacrifice from our military and her family's and they have certainly gone above and beyond the call of duty for the rest of us life is all that normal every single day hardly any sacrifice because of this war on terror the war in iraq or afghanistan is too much to ask the webb amendment to at least be acknowledging the sacrifice already made by our soldiers before we pushed them back in to the danger of battle there being a member offered by sen graham i've read the amendment i have great deal of respect for senator graham but in all fairness there are two obvious omissions first there's no reference at all in his amendment to national guard i think that's an important consideration not just active military and reserve but the sacrifice being made by our national guard and secondly taken in its entirety the great amendment is just a sense of the senate it's a little note it's being passed around it really has no impact of law as the web amendment would a sense of the senate is not enough we owe our fighting men and women so much more now our soldiers haven't asked us to do this but senator web and those who have been in battle as senator mccain has been understand that we need to stand up and speak for them even when duty keeps them quiet and when they don't come forward and ask for this helping hand and encourage my colleagues to support the webb amendment i hope that the republican leadership will reconsider its position and allow these amendments to be voted up or down after a reasonable debate so that we can get on with the support until a year before senator from arizona president thank you  i paid attention to the center from illinois statement as well as the senator from nevada and we may be approaching not in as stark moment in the history of the senate but certainly one worthy of note and that is that it's been going to my staff was not always accurate but well meaning we're about maybe at least twenty six years since we have not had a defense authorization bill passed by this body clearly from this begin think it appears that as on most other issues that have come before this body recently that we will be gridlocked cloture motions will be filed votes will be taken time passes and unfortunately during that period of time the men and women who are serving in our military will we be without their pay increase they'll be without the increase in numbers that called for in this bill from five hundred twelve thousand in the army to five hundred twenty five thousand from one hundred eighty thousand marines to hundred eighty nine thousand you know mr president the best way probably to relieve the stress on the men and women in the military and over  nt that unfortunately we all regret they've had to bear their unfair share of sacrifice in defense of this nation and its security is to increase the size of the military that's in this bill and frankly the reason why we arrived at these numbers is it's just about as many as can be recruited additionally otherwise i think you would see additional numbers so instead of the three and a half percent pay increase instead of increase in size in the army and marine corps which we all know is badly needed some of us clued in my friend from michigan have known for many years how badly it was needed and one of the many mistakes made by the previous secretary of defense was not to call for a dramatic increase in the size of our marine corps an army for which our families have paid a very military families have paid a very heavy price so here we are gridlocked in a battle over whether we're going to have sixty votes and whether we're going to have to file cloture petition which will ripen after a couple days and all the arcane things that very few americans understand took me a number of years to finally comprehend some of the procedures around here and so we're going to again probably maintain that historic low in approval that was recently on the part of the american people and that was recently in a recent gallup poll it's been taken for many many years i've forgotten the number now i think it was in the teens as the approval rating of congress on the part of the american people now anybody who just watched the proceedings that went on in the exchanges between the two leaders may make the disapproval rating far more understandable the average citizen watching these debates really doesn't understand why we don't just go ahead and take care of the men and women in the military to give them the arms and ammunition they need to give them and the much needed equipment that we have talked about on this list the two point seven billion dollars for all items on the army chief of staff unfunded requirements list things like the four point one billion dollars for the rap mine research ambush protected vehicles we all know how badly the situation is as far as i d s are concerned so what are we going to do are we going to sit down and say hey you know what when the judge when the democrats were in the minority around here they insisted on sixty votes on just about every issue particularly important ones and we're now insisting on sixty votes now that we're in the minority and yet somewhere along the way the issue of c o m i t y and the national interest suffers and is abandoned on the way side of politics so senator from michigan i will sit here this afternoon and we will have statements made by various members as they come to the floor they are of probably if my past experience with this bill is probably accurate probably maybe one hundred maybe more amendments that will be pending because there are so many issues that are that are important to members and important to the defense of this nation and it's very likely from th scenario that i'm seeing that we will for the first time in at least twenty six years not pass a defense authorization bill certainly not in a timely manner or already into the month of july and obviously we will not spend all four weeks on this issue i think that that in days gone by and we all have a tendency to remember the good parts and not the bad parts it was a tendency that the managers of the bill in the majority and and whatever party was in the minority leaders would sit down and say ok we're going to narrow down the amendments we're to have agreement for certain number of amendments and votes and it would take us a while i can remember sometimes it taken two weeks that's why we usually bump it up against a recess because the one thing in the twenty years i've been here we never misses a recess so now we're going to sit here for this afternoon tuesday afternoon and we're going to have various statements and members on both sides will display their dedication to the men and women in the military and i appreciate that and i appreciate the patriotism of every single member of this body but are we really going to do anything for him are we really going to try to help them are we going to be locked combat on an issue that should not be on this bill we probably had taken up the issue of the war in iraq eight or nine times i don't know exactly how many times we have amendments we have debates we have sixty votes and then we move on to something else meanwhile we haven't done a single appropriations bill i might add and we're in the month of july and so we will and everybody knows everybody knows even though i don't happen to agree with it that september will be a seminal time on the iraq issue general petraeus will be coming back and he will be issuing his report which by the way i can predict what it's going to be right now mixed some success and some frustrations and then we're going to guess what in september we're going to go through another debate and we're going to have amendments and we're going to have sixty votes again and meanwhile the american people are wondering what in the heck we are all about here and why in the world in all due respect in all due respect to the to the deputy majority leader why do we have to keep taking up the iraqi issue when we know full well that in september there will be a major debate on this issue meanwhile the men and women in the military who are serving who we i see declaration after declaration of our dividend occasion and devotion to their welfare and benefit then acquit them what's going to train them what's going to give them pay raises and what's going to take care of them is somehow lost in the rhetoric of sixty vote requirements which again most americans do not understand nor should they be required to because they expect us to come here and act in their benefit and certainly they should be asking us to act on an issue of something on a piece of legislation  defense authorization bill which has to do with the defense of this nation well i could go on for a long time and i don't want in any way my comments in to in any way be construed in my lack of respect and appreciation for the chairman of the committee and the many years we have worked together because i'm convinced that he and i could sit down in a very short period of time and work out the number of amendments and schedule votes and time agreements but we are going to do that we are going to do that but please don't come to the floor i ask my colleagues and talk about our dedication to the men and women in the military and how difficult it is for them these times when we have the force of built in to increase the size of the military we have before us a bill to give them a pay increase that they deserve and it probably is not going to be passed by this body at least before we go out and for the for the august recess then we get into september then we'll get into this and another fight on the issue of whether we should withdraw troops from iraq or not i don't i don't think mr president we should be very proud of ourselves i really don't and when the men and women in the military who we again as i say all profess our devotion and dedication to don't get the equipment that they need to authorize don't get the increase in pay don't get the increase in numbers that we're trying to authorize then i don't  to surprised when the cynicism of the american people in the voters and indeed the men and women who are serving about the way we do business is pretty significant so i hope that that the majority leader and republican leader can sit down and work this thing out look it's a fact the way the senate works and it happened when the when the the other side was in the minority that they required sixty votes on issues of importance so sorry they did it i'm sorry we did i wish we could have simply up or down votes on on on all of these amendments but to claim that somehow we are are filibustering when that was the standard procedure on the other side i don't think is really frankly too forceful an argument mr president as i say my staff tells me it's been at least twenty six years probably more since we have not  d a defense authorization bill i hope that we won't break that record and i hope that we can sit down together and work this out again recognizing that these votes on iraq are votes that will be taken again in the month of september that will be taken again in the month of september when the president comes when general petraeus comes with his report i would hope we could set the whole issue of iraq aside go ahead with it with the authorization for the equipping and training and protection and welfare and benefit of the men and women who are serving in the military unfortunately i think that's not going to happen mr president a little as the senator from michigan president well we disagree on a very critical issue i was always look forward to working with senator mccain to work out agreement so that we can move this bill forward i'm confident that we will pass an authorization bill this year the way we have every other year for the reasons that senator mccain gives which are the critically important provisions in here for the men and women in our men and our military and their families the difference is apparently as to whether or not this is an appropriate place to debate iraq policy it's an authorization bill which seems to me is a very appropriate place to debate policy and in fact i think this is the most appropriate place to debate a policy issue such as iraq i have not wish this to be debated on an appropriations bill because i don't think we ought to try to have a policy debate and decision when it involves the funding of our troops because i think hopefully all of us want to fund our troops this is an issue as to whether or not we should change course in iraq and this is a debate which is a healthy debate it's an essential debate and i look forward actually to working with senator mccain to see if we can't come up with time agreements on these move on and move forward and adopt a authorization bill with a lot of other amendments that are pending as well so i'm is always an optimist a minute sickly an optimist when i look at senator mccain and realize that we've worked together before as i have a senator warner we've been able to work out issues sometimes which look intractable but which are not and can be worked out and hopefully will be time agreements on these amendments a relative to iraq where there are important amendments i can think of anything that affects the well being of our troops or our nation frankly more at this moment then the question of policy in iraq as to whether or not that policy needs to be changed or not there are differences on this as to whether we ought to change course in iraq there are some who feel that apparently the policy is working there are some of us who feel that the status quo is not working and we need to change and it's not the debate we should have or can have at this moment we're in the middle of any discussion of the webb amendment but it is appropriate that on this bill the senate act if anything it's been too long far as i'm concerned since the senate has taken a position on this the last time we did it for months ago the president vetoed it we were unable to have our will expressed in a way that was not vetoed waiting till september is not an answer because there's no reason to believe that an effort in september would not be filibustered and there's no reason why in september the people who opposed the change in course the senators who oppose it will not get up and say well let's wait until october when there's another report which is due we can't simply delay carrying out our responsibility we can't the late  which is on the most critical subject on the minds of the people of america waiting for september when a general is going to give us a recommendation in the president is going to give us a recommendation is a delaying tactic on an issue which is the single most important issue on the minds of americans today there is no more appropriate place to debate this issue than on the defen authorization bill because it is here where policy issues can and should be debated a better place than on an appropriation bill where the message which would be sent to our troops has to the has more to do with whether we're going to fund the troops than whether or not we should continue a policy in iraq which so far at least is not working so i'm going to continue to be the optimist and i look forward to working with senator mccain i think our leaders can continue to work together to work out to try to work on time agreements for the iraq and then months and i hope and expect that we will adopt the authorization bill this year there's nothing unique about the senate having healthy vigorous debates that is not unique sometimes it looks as though we're not going to be able to get something done and lo and behold we are able to get something done because the american people want us and senator mccain is right the american people want us to act we are on the verge of acting on the single most important issue on the minds of the american people it was an issue which more than any other impacted the last election it was an issue where the senate spoke in april and where what we did was vetoed by the present it is an issue where now we must face in historic decisions is the course in iraq working or does it need to be changed and if it needs to be changed what is our responsibility in terms of bringing about that change those are issues we cannot duck those are issues we should not avoid those are issues which belong on our desks and require the best possible judgment that we can bring and with that hopefully optimistic note i yield the floor armed services committee to have outstanding chairman and play been played a servant of senator warner and senator levin a lot of hard work has gone into the defense authorization bill as each year that we've that i've been here and it is remarkable how much we agree on in committee and we come out with very few differences and those are reasonable differences that we some can sometimes can bridge and sometimes we just have to vote on and let somebody decide and some of the questions are pretty close questions whether the fund this system of that program or not in good people can differ disagree regardless of their political party i have been pleased to serve with senator bill nelson on the strategic subcommittee a chair that when the republicans were in the majority he now chairs it that the democrats in the majority  we have very few differences our respect his judgment he's committed to serving his country and we've produced a bill that i think all in all it is a good piece of legislation that will actually strengthen our department of defense will strengthen the men in the build the of our men and women in uniform to serve their country and to take care of them in a better way than the present way so that is a good thing but now we get the bill on the floor and i guess that group i've been referring to in recent weeks is masters of the universe somebody up their path decided that this is the time we're supposed to have fights and we're supposed to utilize this opportunity to push and push on various different areas now of course it's a legitimate  debate our commitment and strategy in iraq at this time but i think what senator mccain is telling us is this that this bill fundamentally is a bill to deal with and strengthen our military that we just had debates in april and may in great detail about our act policy and we decided on that policy and we all know that we will expect a report from general petraeus in september and we're going to do that again and that this is not the time to alter the policy we just established about two months ago and i agree with senator mccain about that we can talk about it we can do those things but is it the right thing to jeopardize this bill over other issues over the issues relating to iraq let me just say a couple of things the fundamental the bite that we're having here with regard to our iraq policy when ball ball you boil it down to it's basics it is to reverse the policy we established in may and that was a decision by an eighty to fourteen vote to fund the surge in iraq after having voted on it in april and another back in may and we funded this operation through the fiscal year through september thirtieth if not longer at least through september thirtieth and we and that was why we decided after great debate now what i would say to my colleagues is this our great nation has conducted itself as a great nation we are not able to flip flop around week after week and change our minds every few weeks based on this or that of then if a serious situation occurred we can change our mind in a time like great nations are more like great battleships they don't dawdle around like a speedboat they set their poll course and have to  justify carefully before they act and once they act they need to stay that course subject to any changes that occur so what i would sigh is this am i'm worried that we're doing what some political consultants would like this democratic leadership do it talk about the war because i think that's politically beneficial when we really ought to be talking about those soldiers we've committed out there placed in harm's way who are this very day walking the streets of baghdad in the al anbar province and to create and muzzle executing the policies voted eighty to fourteen and may to send them to do and we voted ninety eight to not in the sense general petraeus that at that time we made clear to him we expected a report in september i think that's what we're about here and we ought to be about that we would go forward and always subject to our constitutional responsibilities to make any changes that are required to go forward to allow the general to carry out the surge that we told him to carry out and this surge let me say to my colleagues has really only reached the full capacity of that surge just a few weeks ago so we know it's difficult now they said well you know the bombings are currying outside of baghdad now why was that well it's just a given that it's tougher for him in baghdad so they've gone outside of baghdad to do bombings what does that suggest i would suggest that that would lead us to conclude that the work in iraq in baghdad itself has already made progress indeed if the city the capital city of baghdad of iraq the biggest city cannot maintain order it's difficult to see how we can have a political settlement that all of us wish to occur so now general petraeus is taking the case to the enemy he's moving forward aggressively and making military progress the difficult we all know it is that the government of iraq is not performing at the level it needs to perform it this is a matter we're not able to deny people and their raqi leaders having a functioning government senator levin has strongly believed and consistently argued that one way to get them to perform is to threaten to pull out our troops  are believe their failure to perform is not a result cannot be altered by threats to pull out troops i wish it were i wish we could do it that way but it more difficult than that so they are struggling and i don't know whether they can pull this government together or not i certainly hope so but i'll tell you one thing progress is being made  number of different areas militarily and this gives me some hope that they can pull this government together that that's where we are at this point i don't see any other way to analyze it honestly to the american people that's what i say stability and reconciliation they need to affect your way so that we can have a better capability of reducing the troop levels we have in iraq today in the armed services committee when he was up for confirmation i asked general betray us did he believe that there that we could be successful in iraq he said yes sir  had been there when the initial invasion occurred he commanded the one hundred first airborne in mosul he came home for think less than a year went back to take over the training the iraqi military then came back wrote the department offense manual on how to defeat a an insurgency operation a very project he now executes and the president has asked him to go back to iraq to execute a strategy to defeat the insurgency that's going on and country at this time so i asked him would he tell the american people and the congress truthfully whatever the situation was when he was there it bravely said that this was a difficult but not impossible task he was taking on and he said senator you can count on it i asked secretary gates the secretary of defense at the hearing secretary gates will you tell the american people if this military effort in iraq cannot succeed and we are to do something else yes sir senator abseil that is my responsibility as secretary of defense our would you say to you my colleagues left flip flop around here every week with another amendment trying to set another strategy written by a group of us sitting here at air conditioned offices but we've got some of the best military minds this nation has ever produced with great depth of experience by the way general petraeus has his d from princeton and was number one in his class in command and general staff college he's over there right now and we have it set up for him to come back and this nation go through a very deep and serious evaluation of what as it happened where we are and where we need to go to the fi in the future so it's all right i know we're going to have people talk about strategy and alteration in our policy but i think in truth they would be more responsible for us to pass this defense authorization bill which will make the lives of our military men and women far better will make our defense department more effective and will give us a better chance of being successful in iraq we need to pass this bill and we'll be coming back in september no doubt almost more of a very serious debate on how we go from here in iraq and that's just where we are in my opinion and i respectfully disagree with some who see it otherwise who think that they have divide and reading a few newspaper articles i gassed and talking to a few folks and and go into iraq once or twice i've been there six times and trying to come back and formulate a policy i just don't think that's wise right now and i would urge our colleagues to not go in that direction and i would like one brief moment to say that respect my colleague from virginia senator webb recognize the goals and the and the desires reflected in that amendment his belief that soldiers ought to have guaranteed  deployments passed by statute by the congress of united states but i don't agree i think this is a very significant amendment i believe it is a an amendment that alters the traditional power of the president as commander in chief i think it could put us in very difficult circumstances in the future and i would urge my colleagues to remember that the amendment is not just limited to iraq it's a limited in it covers any military activities that we get involved in in the future  war now are riza wars we may find ourselves in the future war is very difficult indeed i remember after former colleague senator strom thurmond i mean age forty volunteered to go in the army had to make him take him he was a he was a sitting judge he wasn't required to go he was deployed to england i don't know how long he'd been in at the time d day occurred he volunteered to go in services committee allen no i said strom well how long did you stay and did you study until germany surrendered he said yes sir we stayed in the germany surrendered there to the day they surrendered and he said in fact after germany surrendered hours on a train heading across the united states to the pacific they were going to send us to japan when they dropped the bomb on japan i'm just once i don't know what general  eisenhower general marshall general macarthur would think about a policy that says in a time of war congress is going to decide how long people are deployed i don't think it's good policy and for a lot of reasons and i would just express my objection to the amendment i know it's well intentioned i would say this the military understands the military is determined to reduce deployment times in iraq secretary gates has made that clear but had he not been able to extend for three months those soldiers that he extended it would require as much as five new brigade to be sent over there some of them would not have had their full time at home that he wanted them to have at home he thought it was better to do it that way than the other way and i believe on his circumstances that was a correct decision and people could debate that but i think he made the right decision there so it was better to do it that way and a pass i lost sitting here nak air conditioned offices th direct how the military deploys its troops and in time of war is something i think we should not do much bread and i say my colleague senator biden from  missouri he is a champion military defense issues a long time and now ranking member on the senate intelligence committee who sign i princeton graduate as the senator from montana thank you mr president i'd also like to thank the members on the armed service committee or senator from michigan arizona for all the work they've done this descent defense authorization bill i would hope that the members of the senate would have an honest discussion and debate and vote on these amendments and to uphold the sixty vote threshold on something that is important is this defense authorization bill in the many amendments that are going to come forth today i think takes away from the process quite honestly and as far as air conditioning goes in this body of advocated since i got here if we've shut the air conditioned down we'd probably a little more concise and get to point a long time ago mr president i rise today in support of an m m it offered by my friend senator webb as many colleagues here in this body know senator webb is a highly decorated marine  vietnam veteran i respect his judgment i trust his counsel enormously on these issues and i am proud to co sponsor his amendment as one part of a strategy to strengthen our military and change course in iraq mr president i also rise today to honor those who have served in iraq and honor those who are hurt there and honor of those thirty six hundred who never came home twenty brave men of which from my state pay the ultimate sacrifice in iraq they are our friends our neighbors our brothers our sisters our parents our children the war in iraq has dominated this country's dialogue and conscious for five long years it  now costing us more than two and a half billion dollars every week some say it's three billion that's over one hundred thousand dollars every minute of every hour of every day in iraq like many of my colleagues in the senate one of the most difficult things for me is is to balance the struggle in my heart i balance two seemingly contradictory ideas i stand here today proud to support our men and women in service and i also stand here today proud to say that i adamantly oppose this war i lie awake trying to think of ways to give our troops the resources they need to do their jobs in iraq but all the while trying to figure out ways to bring them home to their families friends and communities let me be clear about this the men and women fighting this war have my full and i think is conditional support as a montanan as an american and as a u s senator this country's armed service men and women it before their job jobs with honor and distinction in the most difficult conditions imaginable i have supported them since the beginning and i will continue to support them in the field and just as importantly after they come home something that our nation is falling behind on doing for more than two years i've been asking the president of this great country to develop a plan to get us out of iraq i am disappointed to report that i no longer believe that president bush will use any of his remaining five hundred fifty nine days of office to do so think of this we were told in two thousand and three that were invading iraq for the following three reasons to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction to topple saddam hussein's regime and to give the iraqi people a chance to establish their own government while certainly no weapons of mass destruction were found in any infrastructure that may have been in place to create seps weapons has been destroyed saddam hussein's government has been dissolved and an evil dictator has been captured and put to death the iraqi people have voted on several occasions on their government their constitution and their future mr president i would say our work in iraq is done it is time for american troops to stop refereeing a centuries old civil war and come home after a job well done the president's not come up with a plan to bring the troops home instead  jeopardizes their funding their equipment and their training by vetoing legislation that would have funded those vital needs and begun the process of getting them home the president use or fighting in men and women is as pawns in this political game that's dividing our own people at home and that is totally unacceptable president bush's intention is clear to leave our troops in the middle of this bloody civil war and teles office that's why i'm announcing that i can no longer give the president the benefit of the doubt that he will and the iraq war i'm going to take a moment today to share with you thoughts on a possible three point plan that i hope will bring the iraq war closer to an end make our troops safer around the world and refocus our effort on those terrorists who attacked this nation on september eleventh first we must support the way that webb amendment that protects the mental and physical health of our troops we all know a neighbor or a friend whose son or daughter has been deployed two three or even four times with seemingly no rest at home that's why i'm co sponsoring this amendment with senator webb it deals with troop readiness is based is a mammoth basically says if you're going to send a unit into war make sure they're well trained well rested and ready for the fight it's very simple it's common sense more and longer deployments of units with less time to rest and recuperate between means we're going to see more casualties in iraq more cases of post traumatic stress disorder and more suicides after they get home according to the army's own data soldiers serving repeated deployments are fifty percent more likely than those with only one tour to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder let's think twice before we let the president send a unit to to this or any other of the world's hotspots without the proper training and time between deployments mr president the strength of a long term health of our armed forces is at stake in this war has taken its toll on our readiness if we don't start now to rebuild and fortify or troops will we will not be able to effectively go after the bad guys who continue to threaten our national security we need to pass this webb amendment period it's the right thing to do for our troops second we must redouble our efforts in afghanistan afghanistan threatens to slide back from the progress that was made there immediately following the attacks of september eleventh but the war in afghanistan is rapidly dangerously becoming a forgotten war and our lack of effort there helps to explain the rise of al qaeda in a nucular and highly volatile pakistan the link between the nine eleven attacks in the current war in iraq does not exist period never has reports confirmed that our invasion of iraq has created more terrorists than it has eliminated yet the terrorists who plotted the most deadly attack on u s soil asama bin ladin remains at large and ignored by this administration the recent news out of england in scotland is a grim reminder that the threat of world terrorism is still very real while we poor our resources in the policing violence in iraq extremists are busily plotting their ways to target us and our allies it's that kind of terrorism that kind of extremism we need to set our sights on we need to do with the full might and build vigilance of our military and other security forces and we must do it while working to regain the trust of so many allies that have become wary of us under the president's leadership and unlike iraq we must not ask the u s military to soldier this entire burden up in afghanistan by themselves the united states can and should be leaders in the war against terrorism but we cannot go it alone we have an obligation to our troops and their families to regain the diplomatic put footing that we have lost and involve our allies in this effort we have lost the focus on the war on terrorism we must regain it finally mr president i'm proud to announce my support for the member by senator byrd the authorizing the two thousand and two use of force resolution the resolution that congress passed in two thousand and two is tragically outdated the mission in iraq is not the mission the congress authorized five years ago the president needs to ask congress and the american people for approval to prosecute what seems to be a very different mission in iraq for prose legislation to do authorize a two thousand and two resolution that would make a few things crystal clear our current mission in iraq is over on october eleventh two thousand and seven let me repeat this the war in iraq was over on october eleventh of this year after that the president would have to make a new case for a new mission one that more accurately reflects with the u s troops are doing now in iraq if you cannot make that case to congress and the american people that our troops need to come home now we understand that al qaeda is going to try to exploit the situation in iraq for their own purposes and there are measures that we can take to deal with this we must not let al units get a foothold in the country especially in the western part of iraq so i would support a no fly zone in iraq which would ensure that the united states and rallies can keep our economists and eye on efforts to restart terrorist training camps there to fight the growing number of terrorist camps who lead warships in the area an aircraft that can reach those al qaeda targets we must not hesitate to strike against al qaeda the safety of this country in the world depends on that and we need to continue to improve our ability to gather intelligence the ground in iraq but we will not need and i will not support u s troops policing a civil war between the sunni's and the shiite militias and i will not support our military personnel guarding bridges and disarming roadside bar bombs it is in our national interest to fight al qaeda but not this civil war the mission in iraq has changed in american people realize that it's time the president did as well in february of this year as to the present must tell the american people what success means and how it should be quantified is success means free elections in iraq then we should have been gone two years ago his success means toppling saddam hussein then we should have begun three years ago if it means something else the administration has to be honest with the american people and then a fire a clear and achievable outcome at this point that has not happened and enough is enough for two years as a montana state senator a candidate for the u s senate senator elect a u s senator and given the commander in chief the bennett that is a doubt that he would tell congress and the american people how to define success in iraq and how he meant to achieve it is not done so the president refuses for our troops by keeping him in the middle of a civil war with no end in sight they fight every day in a war with no plan and no definition of success and most importantly they are dying every day in a war that the american people do not want to be fighting we and our troops deserve better they deserve the truth and since a president refused to support the troops by developing a plan to bring them home then we must and we should and we will but above all we must stand by our soldiers sailors marines and support them wholeheartedly while they fight and support them for what they will endure after they get home from iraq it isn't behalf of those troops and those who fought before them that i'm the senator from missouri the president thank floor and appreciate the chance to talk about the amendment before us and several of the other amendments these amendments generally are intended to change our military policies our presence in iraq and essential e two began in one way or the other a politically staged withdrawal from iraq talking about we're concerned about support the troops you know what i hear from the troops and i've been there and i've talked to them i've heard from them that whole the one thing they say is we're over here risking our lives we're fighting a mission which we believe is succeeding and we're making progress and the last thing we want is congress to declare where a military end or take over the management of the war from our commanders time after time they've told me we've made too many contributions and sacrifices to walk away now and see all that go that we've done go for naught and i will talk about going for naught later on but the point is yes we as america's made contributions large dollar s of contributions but families who have lost loved ones who've had the maimed and their comrades in arms know the sacrifices that these men and women have made and the one thing they implore us to do is not to see the sacrifices be made in the well we've seen a lot of negative stories and the media has more than adequately covered those so people are concerned about what's going on in iraq we ought to be concerned but we're not hearing the stories about what is positive about the successes of this new strategy the but training strategy i was in ramadi and al anbar two months ago traveled elsewhere i found some amazing things new counterinsurgency strategy with the cooperation of the sunni sheikhs who are now working with our military have really essentially driven out  and they're driving them out of al anbar province and make no mistake much present when we heard civil war civil war the people over there the marines the soldiers but we've been hearing lots of arguments now in favor of and their heartfelt arguments and people believe them it's time for retreat it's time to cut back it's time to withdraw the cost of lives and treasure rivals about abraham lincoln in the conduct of the civil war you know over a century half ago many of these same arguments were offered abundantly is reasons for president lincoln to accept defeat calling upon soldiers to desert he declared the south was invincible as noted in the passage use in the civil war in the late eighteenth sixty two senate republicans caucus and w only a single dissenting vote demanded that lincoln dismiss secretary of state seward because they thought he was responsible for the conduct of the war republican leader thurlow weed observe that people are wild for peace in lincoln's election is an impossibility they were after him in full force now we don't need to elaborate on the enormity of the civil war and i don't need to explain what would have happened had lincoln relented to those politically popular sentiments at the time lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had the division be defeated but despite being reviled for staying the course president lincoln did stay the course unfortunately too many of my colleagues today don't seem to be willing to see this one through here we are again barely weeks into the full implementation of general naysayers continue to argue for defeat it was only a few months ago that this body which had been calling for and looking for a new strategy which i believe we must had we must have wished change the unsuccessful strategy that we had which are good for the baker hamilton report which said in essence you've got to have a new strategy you can't precipitous lee withdraw we came forward and general petraeus drafted a counterinsurgency strategy and that's what he told us he was going to do supported by the surge now people are wanting to want to pull the rug out from under him he said he at least give him until september to see if this now new counter insurgency strategy works they're bringing in americans using marines to go in with iraqi security forces iraqi army iraqi police embedded with two months ago four members of congress walked through downtown ramadi which had been an al qaeda al qaeda command center they al qaeda has been driven out but continued to argue for defeat now there may be some short term political benefits for those calling for withdrawal there may be popular there's popular sentiment for and some some people honestly believe it but let me quote first lieutenant pete hegseth an iraq war veteran and director of vets for freedom he stated quote iraq today is the front line of global jihad being waged against america and its allies both osama bin laden and i am in awe of our here you've said so close quote and he's correct our intelligence services have said so and they have warned us our intelligence services warned us in january in an open intelligence hearing that if we withdrew on a political timetable if we took our troops out without making sure that they are rocky security forces  there would be chaos there would be chaos and there would be greatly increased killings among sunni and shia al qaida would be able to establish a safe haven in which to launch recruitment training command and control and weapons of mass destruction development third the violence and chaos in iraq would likely bring in from other countries in the region if they went in to protect their fellow religious we could have a region wide civil war shia versus sunni now that's what happens when we withdraw most of us can see there was poor management of costly mistakes made in the post invasion phase in iraq but they are not compelling reasons for why we should and like all mistakes we should learn from them and not go back and commit them again by drawing down the forces to the point where we don't have adequate troops to work with the iraqi security forces washington post columnist michael gerson recently it out those are calling for retreat are not learning from previous mistakes but repeating them gerson writes quote history seems to be settling on some criticisms of the early conduct of the iraq war on the theory that america could liberate and leave force levels were reduced to early security responsibilities were transferred to iraqis before they were ready and planning for future challenges was unrealistic and now democrats running for president have thought deeply and produce their own iraq policy they want to cut force levels too early and transfer responsibilities to iraqis before they are ready and they offered no plan to deal with the chaos that would result six months down the road an essential outline they have chosen to do duplicate the early mistakes of an administr hold in contempt close quote i agree with gerson we should not make those mistakes further and of paramount importance we must fulfill the mission that over thirty five hundred thirty six hundred brave men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice to quote a missouri guardsman colonel bob leaker who just returned from commanding the five zero seventh erik's position area group in iraq quote i only hope that american people will give us the time the american people must understand that this is not only about iraq it is a fight against muslim fanaticism muslim extremists if we pull out in the near term or at the wrong time there will be an incredible amount of blood running throughout iraq and the blood and sweat that i and my brother  arms have already given will be for not close quote compelling words mr president they ought to be not to be taken lightly not only is the security and safety of our nation allies at stake but so  too is our credibility critics frequently claim that the war has damaged united states image in credibility throughout the world yet these same critics ignore what irreparable harm would be done were we to leave this  you think our mission has made our image and reputation deployment just wait and watch it nosedive after we leave iraq before finishing the job think about the millions of iraqi citizens and leaders who have taken a stand against terrorism who committed to work with us to rebuild their country to fight against the forces of radical islamists and terrorists what do we say the millions of  americans of iraqis who trusted americans and believe we would stay until the mission was completed we would regrettably see them slaughtered by terrorists as a result of our of banning them before they were able to stand on their own what did we say to the hundreds of thousands of south vietnamese or millions of cambodians who put their trust in america and were slaughtered after congress dictated that we abandon them history has taught us a great america bennet's its commitments to spreading liberty and freedom we are not the only ones who suffer rest assured it will come back to harm us in our own homeland just as our gins community has warned us in terrorist leaders have stated iraq would become a base in a safe haven from which to plan and launch future attacks let me be clear the enemy in iraq consists of murderous barbaric terrorists they're not insurgents they're not jihad is let's get some let's get some terms straight because we fall into the trap of taking their terms jihadi and in them in the muslim religion is the individual journey to moral improvement it has been misrepresented to be a philosophy that permits in encouraging the killing of innocents the slaughter of fellow muslims the slaughter of women and children the real arabic term for that is how to rob the people who committed are not insurgents or jihad as they're mostly do these people are condemned to live with satan because they've committed blasphemy and these are the people that we're fighting it's not a civil war they're musi do the people who violate the tenets of islam they try to hijack it they try to claim the islamic banner but they're not practicing their religion of the prophet muhammad well there's another reason these people want to sanitize description we use of them all human surgeons implies they have the support of the local population but the local population is being victimized killed evicted from their homes are beheaded by the so called insurgents and that's why that's why the sunni sheikhs and al anbar are working with us they've seen al qaida they lived under al qaida they want an end of terror that's why they're helping us and then a five hundred terrorists are where the weapons caches are where the invert invite further aggression and attack from the barbarians it would be a total loss of freedom liberty and peace and a victory for totalitarianism terrorism and treachery a recent pamphlet by institute of world politics he defined terrorism as quote a form of political and psychological warfare it is protected high intensity propaganda a more at the hearts of the public in the minds of decision makers and not at the physical victims wallers definition and by what i've heard from some people in this body in the media that terence the terrorists are serving certainly hitting their targets our words should inspire our troops in the millions of iraqi citizens who actually trust that america will not embrace defeat and leave them instead the words of retreat and defeat crowd in so they inspire al qaeda and the murderous terrorists attempting to ignites sectarian strife now is not the time to pull out when we're seeing encouraging signs in places where the surge has been implemented allen barr province as i said shows tremendous signs of progress even the new york times michael gordon reported last friday how young american soldiers are executing general but betrays his new strategy on the ground and how they're fighting in defeating al qaeda one more quote a quote from frederick kagan resident scholar i described the new strategy quote al qaeda is operations in baghdad its bombings kidnapping resupply activities movement of foreign fighters and financing depend on its ability to move people and goods around the rural outskirts of shores of lake start our karma harmony and so on by attacking all these bases at once correlation forces gravely complicating the enemy's a movement from place to place the same time u s and iraqi forces are already disrupting al qaida is major bases and are working to prevent the enemy from taking refuge u s forces are aggressively targeting she had death squads and helping iraqi forces operating against the shia militias close quote why is this senate chosen to debate timelines restrictions and retreat despite encouraging signs the surge is working despite the fact that this new strategy has only been in place bully for barely a month and despite the fact that those who want to withdraw our retreat have failed to offer any constructive alternatives are how they would deal with the chaos that would ensue from their retreat it is a huge disappointment that this debate is not about how we can achieve victory that how quickly can we see defeat this has become a political debate the focus of our national security has been sidetracked we should not pass legislation that provides our enemy a clear path to victory a victory which sadly many in this body are ready to or doubt god without ever having given the surge a fighting chance and the surge is indeed lot of work done on this important legislation and i'd like to discuss five key areas of the bill iraq our nuclear deterrent missile defense space bill has fundamental flaws and must be improved not only vetoed remember this bill does not need to become law to that end it is important that the senate have seen a record number of cloture petitions filed this year by my count over forty and as i understand it another has recently been filed dealing with the so called webb amendment this is probably not a good way to consider a bill as significant as the defense authorization bill let me first of all address the subject of iraq the central front in the global war terrorists and a president many senators will spend a significant time focusing on iraq policy and i welcome the opportunity to do that iraq after all is the central front in the global war against the terrorists this is what osama bin laden said this is my own definition our success there is not only important to the people of iraq but it's critical to the national security of the united states i mentioned to some of bin laden he once referred to iraq as the capital of the caliphate that's the area that he would like to establish over which he would rule and and baghdad would actually be the center part of that new area he has argued and i'm  now the most serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war that is raging in iraq let there be no doubt that al qaeda and osama bin laden are very much present in iraq and intent on defeating the united states there the junior senator from virginia has offered an amendment that will cut a five at the pentagon according to the service chiefs and the secretary of defense is already attempting to do with regard to so called dwell time that policy is for the commander in chief to determine not the congress other senators will offer other amendments relating to iraq among them amendments to withdraw our troops or make it harder for the administration to prosecute the war i look forward to a debate on all of these amendments but i make two points to my colleagues who might use this bill to attempt to prematurely leave iraq or undercut our current strategy there what we need to give the plan that's being executed by general petraeus time to succeed we're already seeing signs of the progress early and that's in the early stages of this of the surge and we need to await his report in september before making judgments about what to do next second advocates of withdraw need to confront the likely consequences of their proposed policies none of which in my opinion are good to the firstborn the last of the five brigades combat brigades of the surge just became operational a couple weeks ago june fifteenth according to the u s military spokesman colonel chris garver this is the first time we'll be able to do the entire strategy as it was designed so man a president it would be premature to say the least to judge the effect of the surge at this point and make important strategic decisions based on that judgment we're already beginning to see iraqi forces assuming more responsibility over their security coalition forces receiving more cooperation from iraqi civilians and humanitarian and economic conditions and proving the second point advocates a duty to tell the american people how they propose to grapple with the consequences of their withdrawal what will you do about the likely ethnic cleansing and genocide against iraqi citizens who supported coalition force general anthony zinni said and i quote this is no vietnam or somalia or those places where you can walk away if we just pull out we'll find ourselves back in short order what would the proponents of these amendments do when iran and al qaeda are emboldened by our retreat and terrorists enjoy a new safe haven from which to plot attacks against the united states and our allies terrorism expert peter bergen said this the u s withdrawal would fit all too neatly into some of bin laden master narrative about american foreign policy his theme is that america is a paper tiger that cannot tolerate body bags coming home back it up he cites president ronald reagan's one nine hundred eighty for withdrawal of u s troops from lebanon and president bill clinton's decision nearly a decade later to pull troops from somalia a unilateral pullout from iraq would only confirm this analysis of american weakness among his jihadist allies into quote what will the proponents of amendments do if violence in iraq escalates and draws in neighboring countries here's what a recent brookings institution study said about that iraqi appears to have many of the conditions most conducive to spillover because there is a hiding of foreign interest in iraq ethnic tribal religious groups within iraq are equally pro prevalent in neighboring countries and they share many of the same grievances iraq has a history of violence with its neighbors which is sponsored desires for vengeance and foment and constant clashes rock also possesses resources that its neighbors covet oil being the most obvious but important religious shrines also figure in the mix there is a high degree of commerce and communication to interact and its neighbors and its borders are porous all of this suggests that spillover from iraq civil war would tend toward the more dangerous in of the spillover spectrum and what will the proponents of these amendments say to america's moderate allies in the muslim world including egypt saudi arabia and pakistan who would justifiably question our commitment to them and to the long war in which we find ourselves and how would the proponents convince them not to begin hedging their bets and cooperate less with the united states thus further enabling and embolden the terrorists do amendments believe that withdrawing our forces will end our war against the terrorists if they believe that they would not simply follow us home and attack us on our own soil a transplant may not offer an easy way forward madam president but it is the only plan that i've heard that does not promise and defeat but as i said we'll have our debate on iraq policy as we should there are other debates about this bill that we should also have i respect the work that many have done on the bill but an outside observer i suggest might wonder exactly how this bill is going to make us safer it's supposed to set the national defense policies for the united states but it's not enough to simply provide funding authorisation leaving threats undefended against will not be excused simply because we've spent more money than last year in fact some of the biggest flaws in the bill are policy changes not just funding changes let me discuss what some of these are first discuss saying our nuclear deterrent the reliable replacement warhead our nuclear weapons complex the language regarding the stockpile stewardship of the nuclear weapons complex and finally a recommendation regarding the comprehensive test ban treaty first to the reliable replacement warhead i am deeply troubled by what appears to be a strategy of slow in conspicuous disarmament of our strategic deterrent in this bill and the other authorization and spending bills of the new majority in the senate the administration's request for development of the first reliable replacement warhead program was completely eliminated by the house and its appropriation bill a fate that thankfully was avoided in the senate subcommittee markup yet there's a clear signal sent by this bill which cut the administration's request by forty three million out of a total of one hundred ninety five million and which handcuffed the administration for moving beyond all but the earliest phases of development of the work that this leaves the united states nuclear deterrent absolutely reliant on weapons designed and built in the one nine hundred eighty s to the stockpile stewardship and nuclear weapons complex actions taken by the new majority in the house cut approximately five hundred million dollars from the upgrade and modernization of facilities in the nuclear weapons complex these are responsible for refurbishing deployed bombs and warheads storing older ones and dismantling those no longer needed this obviously further erode the reliability of our current stockpile what signal does this send not only to our enemies but to our allies allies which are over sixty years have relied upon the umbrella of protection of our nuclear deterrent i mentioned the comprehensive test ban treaty perhaps the most it's hard to find a bill extensive debate after committee hearings consideration of intelligence and the like this language in the bill presumes to state that the will of the congress without the benefit of a single hearing or a single committee action of this body let alone reference to intelligence and debate in the full senate is to ratify the treaty or the solemn responsibility of this body to consider treaties cannot be so ca whole section of the bill reads it is a throwback to the days of the nuclear freeze apart from the word tory verbiage in section thirty one twenty two it's clear that the believes is without the resources needed to develop a smaller and safer next generation nuclear stockpile and without resources needed to maintain our current stockpile and in a fundamental contradiction the cuts in the nuclear programs will actually increase the likelihood of needing to return to testing the very option that would be permanently denied through the ratification of a c t p t next when a present let me turn to missile defense i'm very troubled by what this bill does to undermine the substantial progress made  protecting this country from ballistic missile threats during the north korean july fourth demonstration just a year ago which included firing the type of bomb two missile with the capability to at leats at least reach as far as alaska the president of the united states had an operational missile defense system on alert for the first time in history but this bill moves to deny that flexible authority that we have used to simultaneously research test and deploy an operational missile defense system in record time much more the bill significantly cuts funding for the construction of the european missile defense site which will allow better defense against the iranian threat improve coverage for the united states and extension of our missile defense system to provide coverage for europe this fall we're in the middle of negotiations with poland and the czech republic while the russians threaten a new arms race and while iran tests the west's resolve to subject the spacecraft one of the most significant failures of this bill is that it does nothing to defend the eyes and ears of this country's political cultural diplomatic economic and military might since the chinese anti satellite or a sat test earlier this year very little has been done to  global satellite constellations modest request from the administration provide defensive capabilities such as the space test bed which only ten million dollars was requested have been zeroed out by both the house and senate armed services committee what's more the bill inflicts significant cuts of some fifty five million dollars to the space tracking and surveillance system the next generation constellation of satellites that will allow improved tracking and targeting of ace a weapons and mid course ballistic missile other space programs for example space situational awareness received increases above the administration's request and i applaud the committee for this but i remind the senate that this program only allows us to see a threat approaching our satellite constellation and does nothing for an able us to defend against the threat that we learned nothing from recent experience our enemies have proven that they know better than to engage our armies and navies directly they've observed our weaknesses and seek to exploit them through asymmetrical attacks blindness and the best navy in the world can't repel an attack who can dispute the fact that the the excuse me five hundred four billion dollars that we authorized for the department of defense in this bill would be virtually meaningless if we can't defend our satellite systems from attack our satellite system is the backbone of our entire national defense and finally met a president let me conclude by talking about what this bill does with respect to the terrorists with whom we are engaged in a life and death struggle the bill basically would return us to preen nine eleven days to the law enforcement approach to terrorists we should think very carefully about the damage that would be wrought in the global war against these terrorists if we have to fight it by using the old conceived proposals in this bill one would require us to give trials to every detainee we are holding in combat in places like iraq and afghanistan another would give them access to classified information and allow them to compel testimony from witnesses including our own soldiers on the battlefield have the authors of these provisions thought about where we will get the military lawyers needed to implement their criminal u approach to warfare there barely enough of them to provide legal services to our own troops have they thought about what our intelligence community will say to the foreign allied intelligence agencies many of which are already concerned about sharing their sources and methods of intelligence with us and who may very well completely cease sharing important intelligence information knowing that it will be shared with captured terrorist combat we know that more than thirty deeds deniz have been released from our custody and every turned of waging war against the united states and its allies what will the release of potentially thousands of detainees do to our national security set up must be a very careful consideration to this dangerous return to the pre nine eleven notion of terrorism as a law enforcement problem the terrorists have made no secret that they are at war against our civilization we ignore their warnings at our peril and we will not prevail if we must deal with them as criminal defendants in american courts and present i conclude by asking my colleagues to carefully consider the impact that these several policies of highlighted will have on our national security our first obligation is to provide for the common defense unfortunately as it is presently written this bill falls well short of that solemn duty and it could get worse of so if some of the amendments proposed were adopted i urge my colleagues to take  very seriously our obligation to provide for the common defense it begins by confining by confining the policies in this bill to the traditional areas of defense preparedness i hope we will be disciplined enough to do so