A bill to provide military retirement credit for certain service by National Guard members performed while in a State duty status immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mr. President, first, I advise the Senate that last night for a period of 2 hours we had a very thorough debate on amendments of my distinguished colleague from Michigan and amendments that I put in with our distinguished leader, Mr. Frist, and I believe cosponsors of Senator Levin, and we were joined by another colleague, Senator Lieberman. Of course, Senators don't have access to that Record yet. But I assure you the merits of both cases were thoroughly stated.

As we have 30 minutes divided between the two of us this morning, my distinguished friend and I talked this morning, and he expressed an interest in having his amendment voted first. As a matter of comity and courtesy, we offer that to the Senator from Michigan. If that is his desire, I ask unanimous consent that be the order in which votes be taken.

Mr. President, to inform the Senate, there are two amendments. Basically, as we will explain momentarily, the amendments are almost identical except in three areas. They are important areas, and we will go into that in some detail here in a moment.

The Levin amendment will go first, and ours will go second. There will be votes on both amendments.

We had the option to draw up an entirely different amendment, to go into many ramifications and many issues that we feel very strongly about on this side of the aisle. I take the responsibility. Or if anyone wishes to share it with me, they may well do so. I felt that it is so critical at this point in history with regard to the United States policy towards Iraq, together with our coalition forces, that the extent to which the Senate could speak with one voice had great merit. Therefore, essentially on this side we looked at the amendment of the Senator from Michigan and made, in my judgment, several minor modifications and one very significant modification. That is the standing.

As Senators vote, they will note the similarity between these amendments. But I felt the Senator from Michigan and I have a very strong feeling that the basic purpose of these amendments--whichever one is voted and survives--is to send the strongest possible message to the Iraqi people, the new government that will be formed subsequent to December 15, that our country, together with our coalition partners, has made enormous efforts, enormous sacrifice of life and limb, contributions by the people not only from our country but a number of other countries, to let them establish for themselves a form of democracy.

I believe we have made great progress with several transitional governments, a referendum vote, and now on the verge of what I perceive--and I think the Senator from Michigan shares the view--of an even stronger and larger vote to elect the permanent government.

The next 120 days, in my judgment, are critical--absolutely critical. Every word that comes from the Congress of the United States will be carefully scrutinized not only by the Iraqi people but by the nations throughout the Middle East and indeed our coalition partners. We have to be extremely careful in the formulation of those words and messages so they are not misconstrued.

I feel, with all due respect to the amendment originally drawn by my colleague from Michigan and others, that the last paragraph phrases a timetable of withdrawal requiring the President to file a report every 90 days giving specific dates and other factors.

That is the major change between these two amendments. The amendment of the Senator from Virginia strikes that last paragraph. I will go into further detail momentarily as to exactly why. We made the effort to have a bipartisan amendment. It is forward-looking.

Again, it is my intention to have the amendment on this side of the aisle not contain any language that could be misconstrued as a timetable which could establish and set up a fragile situation, particularly on the eve of another election on December 15.

I thank my distinguished colleague from Michigan. I commend him for much of the language he included in the amendment. I was privileged to draw on it. However, it sends that message on which we have absolute unity to the Iraqi people: We mean business. We have done our share. Now the challenge is up to you.

I yield the floor.

At this juncture, the distinguished Senator from Michigan and I would like to offer our managers' package to this bill. I send a managers' package of some 64 amendments to the desk. They have been cleared by both sides.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the amendments en bloc, the amendments en bloc be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to any of these individual amendments be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the past several years the Senate has been very engaged in producing a comprehensive energy policy. This summer we took a positive step forward passing the first Energy bill in more than 14 years.

It is my hope that this Energy bill will expand domestic supply, encourage alternative sources, and help reduce our overall demand for energy. Alternative energy sources will continually play a larger role in the Nation's future and I believe wind power is a part of that solution.

The Energy bill shifted the inadequate permitting process for alternative energy production on outer continental shelf lands from the Army Corps of Engineers to the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service. Given the Minerals Management Service's experience with permitting offshore oil and gas leases, the inclusion of alternative energy production such as windmills is a natural fit. Now the permitting of wind farms, whether on or off shore, follows a strong permitting process with input from the local, State, and Federal Governments.

However, as windmills become a more prevalent part of the Nation's energy landscape, we must be fully aware of the effects these facilities may have on other aspects of the country's well being.

I have been prompted to look into this based upon the experiences of the United Kingdom, which has studied in detail the potential adverse effects of wind turbines on their radar abilities. The UK Ministry of Defence is now a part of the permitting process for potential wind farms in that country and some of these findings are currently being shared with our own Department of Defense. However, we need more study.

Today I offer an amendment to provide a study regarding the effects of wind turbines on military readiness, including an assessment of the effects such farms may have on military radar. My amendment also requires the report to include an assessment of technologies that could mitigate any adverse effects wind projects could have on military operations. As the entire world continues the development of alternative sources of energy, it is imperative that the Department of Defense and the Congress understand the effects that those energy sources may have on the military's ability to do its job.

Whether it is a wind farm in the middle of the Arizona desert, several miles off the Alaska Coast, or set along the shore of South Africa, this Nation's military simply must be able to adequately deal with the potential effects.

I thank the Senate for agreeing to include this study in the Defense Authorization bill and look forward to its findings.

Amendment No. 1345

Mr. President, as the world economy continues to develop, populations and economies grow, and energy demand continues to rise, it is imperative that we diversify our supply of energy. Nuclear power provides approximately 20 percent of our Nation's electricity needs and it is a clean air alternative to fossil fuels. The safety record of our commercial nuclear industry is a positive story and one that we need to share. In an era where resources have become increasingly scarce and expensive, it is unfortunate that nuclear power hasn't seemed to be a part of the readily accepted solution. We have not been building nuclear power plants in the past 20 plus years because of environmental and safety concerns and this is a trend that I feel must be reversed.

I feel these concerns and that opposition to nuclear power are simply a result of a lack of information. Today I offer an amendment that will provide objective data for the public to see. Specifically, my amendment calls on the Department of Energy to report to Congress on the technologies for advanced nuclear power reactors and the potential for safety enhancements as a result of those technologies.

This amendment will build on the nuclear provisions in the recently passed Energy bill. Specifically, the extension of Price Anderson insurance, incentives for nuclear power production, and support for the construction of new nuclear reactors are positive policy developments. In addition, there are several security related provisions regarding security exercises, worker screening, and minimum facility standards that will further enhance the safety and security of our nuclear facilities. However, I feel there is information that would help many understand the safety record of the industry and the potential enhancement of that through new technology in the future.

I believe we must expand our nuclear power output as part of a comprehensive energy policy and it is my hope that this study helps the public better understand the safe and reliable contribution nuclear power can make.

I thank the Senate for including this amendment.

Returning to the debate on the two amendments, I yield from my time 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I assume that a minute comes to this side likewise.

Mr. President, I regret the term ``cut and paste'' was used. Senator Levin and I have worked together now for 27 years in the Armed Services Committee. I worked with him and told him we decided not to completely rewrite the amendment. This in an effort, as the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, a member of our committee, so eloquently stated, to reach a sense of bipartisanship at this very critical time, on the eve of another and perhaps the most significant election in Iraq, to show strong bipartisan support on those points on which we agree. And we agree almost on every point, with the exception of the last paragraph.

I was interested in listening to each of the debates thus far, and I did not hear anyone on that side specifically reinforce this last paragraph, which we cannot accept, nor should the country have Congress send across the airwaves of the world this message:

A campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased

redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq as

each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected

contingencies may arise.

Therein is a short paragraph that could completely destabilize this forthcoming election on December 15, sending the wrong message. It is not needed.

This amendment, as drawn, is a very powerful, very powerful statement by the Congress--hopefully, if the House adopts it, but certainly by the Senate--of the need to tell the Iraqi people that we have done our share, we are not going to leave them, but we expect from them equal, if not greater, support than they have given to this date.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my understanding is that I have 2 minutes remaining on the 15-minute allocation.

Given that we have no time to speak of before the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina and Senator Levin, I yield my 2 minutes for a matter other than the Iraqi debate, the habeas corpus issue, to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Warner amendment.

Mr. President, beginning with this vote, all remaining votes will be 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I am very grateful for the bipartisan support on this amendment. Our amendment is simply taking portions of the Levin amendment, putting them into an amendment that we put together, rather than draw up a totally new amendment, so we can have the maximum bipartisanship but carefully crafting the Warner amendment so that not any words can be construed to indicate there is a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition forces, most particularly U.S. forces.

We are on the verge of an historic election in Iraq for a permanent government in a matter of weeks, and thereafter they have 60 days in which to stand up that government. The next 120 days are absolutely critical. The Warner amendment is forward-looking. It clearly sends a message to the Iraqi people that we have stood with them; we have done our part. Now it is time for them to put their government together, stand strong so that eventually they can exercise total sovereignty and select their own form of democracy. We cannot allow any verbiage to come out of the Congress of the United States that can be construed as a timetable of withdrawal at this critical time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, may we have order?

I ask the Presiding Officer to once again restate the sequence of votes that are about to take place.

I thank the Presiding Officer and again remind the Senators the votes are 10 minutes.

The time reserved to me under the Bingaman amendment I yield to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2515, as Amended

Mr. President, we now turn to the underlying amendment. It is my understanding the Senator from South Carolina has agreed to a voice vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Order for Recess

Mr. President, I presume, now that the quorum call has been withdrawn, that under the unanimous consent agreement, the Senate may now move to third reading of the bill.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut. He has raised a significant concern that we both, and many others in this body, share. There is no question we must continue to provide our magnificent soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with the finest equipment available to meet the mission requirements in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. In Iraq, there is no doubt that efforts to train and equip Iraqi Security Forces are decisive to Iraq's future and a major element in the policy of the United States. Lieutenant General Petraeus performed masterfully as Commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq that was charged with training the Iraqi Security Forces and now Lieutenant General Dempsey has the reins on this mission. During the most recent elections in Iraq, the performance of Iraqi Security Forces was an important contributor to that success. The Iraqi Security Forces provided protection to more than 6,000 polling sites. That was a very positive step in the right direction, but we still have some way to go in training and equipping the Iraqi Security Forces. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am monitoring the readiness of these Iraqi units. The viability of Iraqi units must be measured by a series of indicators, including efforts to measure intangibles such as morale and unit cohesion, as well as quantifying the military training of Iraqi Security Forces and the distribution of weapons and equipment. As the Senator from Connecticut indicated, the quality of the weapons and equipment we provide to the Iraqis must be of the caliber that contributes to the discipline, confidence, and morale of the Iraqis we are training. It is in the best interest of all that we move quickly to equip the Iraqi Security Forces with the proper equipment. We cannot ask the Iraqi Security Forces to conduct patrols or engage in battle in pickup trucks and SUVs while the embedded American forces are in up-armored HMMWVs and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. I am prepared to work with my colleague and the Secretary of Defense to provide suitable equipment for the Iraqi Security Forces. I am also prepared to work with other elements of the administration to engage our Allies and partners in this effort. I, for one, do not believe we have time to build and then rebuild the Iraqi Security Forces.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1042, as amended, be printed as passed.

Mr. President, I now ask further unanimous consent that the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration en bloc of S. 1043 through S. 1045, Calendar Orders Nos. 103, 104, and 105; that all after the enacting clause of those bills be stricken, and the appropriate portions of S. 1042, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof according to the schedule which I am sending to the desk; that these bills be advanced to third reading and passed; that the motions to reconsider en bloc be laid upon the table; and that the above actions occur without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I will use leader time.

Mr. President, today, Senate Democrats offer the most important amendment to this most important bill. Our amendment asks the Bush administration to give our troops in Iraq a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifices and heroic service.

Three years ago, America invaded Iraq with the finest Armed Forces in the world. Our military forces were unchallenged and unmatched, and they remain so today. Unfortunately, the President and this administration have not exercised the leadership our troops deserve. They place our troops in harm's way without a plan for success and have damaged our standing in the world.

It is long past time for the President, the Vice President, and the rest of the Bush White House to level with the American people and present a winning plan and strategy for Iraq and our troops and for the American people. They both deserve this, the troops and the American people.

For the last 3 years, Democrats have stood with our troops and have tried to make certain we did everything we could to help them succeed. From the outset, we offered the administration concrete proposals that would have greatly increased our prospects for success.

We called on the administration to put more troops on the ground, but the administration rejected this call. We fought to provide more body armor and equipment for our troops, but the administration rejected this call. We urged the administration to increase international participation to secure and rebuild Iraq, but the administration rejected this call. We stressed the importance of putting together a plan to win the peace, but the administration rejected this call.

Now, to remind my colleagues, it was not just the advice of Democrats that the administration chose to ignore. It ignored the advice of our senior generals, our friends and allies around the world, teams of weapons inspectors, and even senior officials in the previous Bush administration.

The President and his team also chose to disregard the Powell Doctrine, which holds that military actions should be used only as a last resort where there is a clear risk to national security.

According to this doctrine, if we do choose to fight, we should use overwhelming force, we should ensure that the conflict is strongly supported by the American people, and we should develop a clear exit strategy before we get into the conflict. That is the Powell Doctrine.

Before this administration took office, the Powell Doctrine was supported by the previous two Presidents, our military leaders, and congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle. But this administration turned the Powell Doctrine upside down. They determined that military action should be a first resort, not a last. When the risk to our national security was not clear, they manipulated and cherry-picked intelligence to hype the threat. Instead of using overwhelming force, this administration rejected our senior military leaders' advice and deployed a smaller force. And as we all know, there was not, and is not, an exit strategy to win the peace and bring our troops home.

While we are determined to understand the mistakes this administration made that brought us to this point, we are just as committed to finding a way forward to succeed in Iraq. Every day that goes by, it becomes increasingly clear that the administration's Iraq policy is adrift and rudderless. All they are offering is a bumper- sticker slogan: ``Stay the course.''

``Staying the course'' is not a winning strategy. More than 2,050 soldiers

have died and about 16,000 have been wounded. Iraq now risks becoming what it was not before the war: a haven for international terrorists and, as we saw in Jordan, a new launching pad for terrorist attacks.

In addition, America's taxpayers have already contributed more than $250 billion and are spending an additional $2 billion every week this war continues. In short, our troops deserve more than a slogan. They deserve a real, clear strategy for completing their mission in faraway Iraq.

Our amendment sets forth in the clearest terms the Democrats' view of what the President and the Iraqi people must accomplish to succeed in Iraq and complete our mission.

First, it is time to see a significant transition toward full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi forces helping to create the conditions that will eventually lead to the phased redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces. Two thousand six should be a year we take the training wheels off the Iraqi government and let the Iraqi people run their own country.

Second, the administration must tell the Iraqi people, clearly and unambiguously, that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely and that Iraqis must achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency.

Third, the President must submit to the Congress and the American people a plan for success in Iraq. The American people deserve to know the conditions we seek to establish, the challenges we face in achieving these conditions, and the progress, if any, being made. As an example, the administration said repeatedly that our forces can stand down as Iraqi forces stand up. The American people deserve to know what that means in real and clear terms. How many capable Iraqi security forces are needed so that we can begin phased redeployment of U.S. forces as our tasks are achieved? How long will it take? Is it no longer acceptable that the President refuses? The answer is yes, it is no longer acceptable not to answer these and many other basic questions about his policy in Iraq. It is not acceptable to this Member of Congress, and it is certainly not acceptable to our troops. Many of those troops are serving their third tour of duty with no apparent end in sight.

With this amendment, Democrats are standing with our troops and the American people, insisting that the President and the Republican- controlled Congress do their jobs. The President must be held accountable and tell our troops and the American people his plan for Iraq and what additional sacrifices will be expected of our troops and the American people. We must honor our troops. We must preserve our national security. We must protect the American people. That is the least we should expect from our Commander in Chief.

I am going to vote for both amendments. Understand that the Democratic amendment and the Republican amendment have the same purpose. It is on both amendments. Purpose: To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United States in Iraq and to require reports of matters relating to Iraq. That is the purpose.

Based on what I see here today, the Republicans have no plan and no end in sight. We want to change the course. We can't stay the course. I appreciate, though, the Republicans following the Democrats as far as they have on this amendment. It is a tremendous step forward because we all agree--all 100 Senators, obviously--to clarify and recommend changes in the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on matters relating to Iraq. That is the purpose of both amendments. We stand united. The Democrats stand united. We appreciate the support of the Republicans in this amendment process.

I yield my leader time to the Senator from Michigan.

I yield time to the Senator from Michigan. I think I have a minute or 2.

Mr. President, in a series of votes last Thursday and today, the Senate has voted to deny the availability of habeas corpus to individuals held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I rise to explain my vote against the Graham amendment last week, and my votes in favor of the Bingaman amendment and the Graham-Levin amendment earlier today.

First, let's put the whole issue of the rights of suspected terrorists in context. As Senator McCain said over the weekend, terrorists are ``the quintessence of evil. But it's not about them; it's about us.'' This debate is about respect for human rights and adherence to the rule of law. It is about the continued moral authority of this Nation.

For the past four years, the Bush administration has advocated a policy of detaining suspects indefinitely and largely in secret, without access to meaningful judicial oversight. This policy is inconsistent with our core

values as Americans. In addition, a policy so inconsistent with human rights will further damage America's image abroad and provide more ammunition for those who wish to do us harm.

The writ of habeas corpus is one of the pillars of the Anglo-American legal system. It is the mechanism by which people who are held by the government can seek an independent review of the legality of their detention. Very often the people who rely on habeas corpus are unpopular, whether they are convicted criminals or suspected terrorists. But habeas corpus protects all of us--it is the way we ensure that the executive branch acts within the bounds of the law.

The amendment offered by Senator Graham last week created an exception to the habeas corpus rights established in title 28 of the United States Code. It contained a separate, essentially hollow review of whether the Defense Department had complied with its own procedures in declaring someone an enemy combatant. In a practical sense, the amendment put the actions of U.S. officials with respect to the Guantanamo detainees beyond the reach of the law, and created a legal no-man's land. I opposed the Graham amendment for this reason.

Nobody thinks that detainees should be able to file habeas petitions about what kind of peanut butter they are served or whether they can watch DVDs. That is not what this is about. This is about whether we are going to permit the President to detain a human being indefinitely without independent judicial review.

I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to an op-ed published in the Washington Post yesterday by one of the pro bono lawyers for the Guantanamo Bay detainees. The lawyer describes the importance of habeas review for his client, who remains in jail despite the military's determination that his client was innocent and was not associated with al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The writ of habeas corpus is for people like this. It is for figuring out whether those held at Guantanamo are in fact terrorists--and whether they are held lawfully and in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution.

In addition, the Senate recently passed, by a vote of 90 to 9, the McCain amendment to prohibit the use of torture at Guantanamo and elsewhere. The Graham amendment would undermine this prohibition by preventing its enforcement by the Federal courts. The Federal courts exist to vindicate important rights. In general, this jurisdiction- stripping amendment would trample on the independence of the judiciary and violate principles of separation of powers.

Today the Senate voted on two amendments to improve the Graham amendment. I supported the Bingaman amendment, because it would have preserved the fundamental right of habeas corpus, while at the same time streamlining judicial review of Guantanamo cases and ensuring that only the most serious cases are before the Federal courts. I applaud the Senator from New Mexico for his defense of habeas corpus and I regret that his amendment did not pass.

I also voted in favor of the Graham-Levin amendment because it is an improvement over the original Graham amendment, which, as the vote last week demonstrated, would have passed the Senate with or without improvements. Importantly, the Graham-Levin amendment would allow courts to consider whether the standards and procedures used by the Combatant Status Review Tribunals are consistent with the Constitution and U.S. laws, and would allow for court review of the actions of military commissions.

As a supporter of the Graham-Levin amendment, let me state my understanding of several important issues. First, I agree with Senator Levin that his amendment does not divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear the pending case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. I believe the effective date provision of the amendment is properly understood to leave pending Supreme Court cases unaffected. It would be highly irregular for the Congress to interfere in the work of the Supreme Court in this fashion, and the amendment should not be read to do so.

Second, I do not understand this legislation to represent a congressional authorization of the military commissions unilaterally established by the executive branch at Guantanamo Bay. We would hardly authorize these commissions based upon a few hours of floor debate. Instead, I regard this legislation as establishing a process for the federal courts to review the constitutionality of the commissions. To the extent that question turns on whether Congress has authorized or recognized the commissions, nothing we have done today lends support to the argument that the commissions are a valid exercise of executive authority.

Third, Senator Specter raised the question of whether the grant of ``exclusive jurisdiction'' to the DC Circuit precludes Supreme Court review of the DC Circuit's final orders in these cases. I do not understand the amendment to strip the Supreme Court of such appellate jurisdiction. Congress often grants ``exclusive jurisdiction'' to one court or another, but that phrase is not understood to preclude appeals through the usual means.

Finally, there may be questions about what Congress meant when it directs the courts to review ``whether subjecting an alien enemy combatant to such standards and procedures is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.'' In my view, the Federal court should hear any factual or legal challenge by a detainee who contests being classified as an enemy combatant in the first place.

Even after adoption of the Graham-Levin amendment, the underlying Graham amendment still strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions. For this reason, I oppose the final Graham amendment as amended. I hope it is either improved in conference or deleted altogether.

But even if the Graham amendment is enacted into law, the Judiciary Committee should hold hearings to define the rights of the detainees at Guantanamo with greater care and to develop sensible procedures for enforcing those rights. It is of the utmost importance that this Congress work to preserve the principles of human rights and the rule of law upon which this Nation was founded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for the recess, which is already part of the order of the Senate, be extended until 2:30. I am sure both caucuses have a lot of work to do, and we could convene at 2:30.

Of course.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, Senators Shelby and Mikulski, for being understanding. I ask unanimous consent that the recess be extended until 2:30.

Mr. President, the Senate today is considering the Department of Defense authorization bill for the 2006 fiscal year. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have attended numerous hearings and participated in the markup of this legislation. And I want to commend the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and the ranking member, Senator Levin, for the serious, bipartisan approach they have taken in preparing this bill for consideration on the Senate floor.

I just returned from an International Rule of Law symposium focusing on the need to create an international rule of law movement. As we talk today about providing our troops with the support they need to serve our Nation, it is also important to recognize that we should be doing all we can to make sure that we are not tarnishing their service. As we promote the rule of law in other societies, we need to begin by recognizing that the United States has a special heritage and a special responsibility--a responsibility not to be perfect, for that is impossible, but to admit our mistakes and use the rule of law to mend them, not to cover them up. When we fail that standard, we harm the ideals we most seek to promote--and undermine the foundations of our own society and our influence around the world.

That is why it is so important that we send a clear signal that the mistreatment of prisoners under our control was a mistake that will not happen again. Our commitment to the rule of law demands it. The men and women who signed up to defend our country, not to defend accusations of torture, deserve it.

It is very unclear whether any good information ever comes from torture--many experienced intelligence officers say no. But it is crystal clear that the bad consequences of this high-level political decision will haunt us for years--in how hostile armies treat our soldiers; how foreign governments judge our trustworthiness; and how foreign citizens respond to our best shared values, like faith in the rule of law.

This DOD authorization bill is critically important, particularly with our service men and women serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to do everything we can to support them.

Back when we first considered the DOD authorization bill in July, the Senate accepted an amendment Senator Graham and I offered to make Tricare available to all National Guard members and reservists.

This week, the Senate has accepted another amendment I offered--this one with Senator Collins--that will improve financial education for our soldiers. This is a problem that has plagued military service men and women for years: a lack of general knowledge about the insurance and other financial services available to them.

This amendment instructs the Secretary of Defense to carry out a comprehensive education program for military members regarding public and private financial services, including life insurance and the marketing practices of these services, available to them. This education will be institutionalized in the initial and recurring training for members of the military. This is important so that we don't just make an instantaneous improvement, but a truly lasting benefit to members of the military.

This amendment also requires that counseling services on these issues be made available, upon request, to members and their spouses. I think it is very important to include the spouses in this program, because we all know that investment decisions should be made as a family. Too many times, a military spouse has to make these decisions alone, while their husband or wife is deployed.

This amendment requires that during counseling of members or spouses regarding life insurance, counselors must include information on the availability of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, SGLI, as well as other available

products. It requires that any junior enlisted member--those in the grades of E1-E4--that they must provide confirmation that they have received counseling before entering into any new contract with a private sector life insurer. It is my expectation that this will help prevent our young troops from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous insurance companies.

I am proud my fellow Senators support this legislation and I look forward to working hard during conference to ensure its incorporation in the final bill put before the President.

Today, I would also like to speak about several issues that, while unlikely to be brought up as amendments to this bill, we will have to seriously consider during conference.

The first is the extremely important issue of the role of women in combat. In the House Armed Services Subcommittee markup of the Defense bill, a provision was inserted that would have turned back the clock on the roles that women play in our military. The uproar over this provision from the public and from the Pentagon was strong. General Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, wrote a letter to the House Armed Services Committee explaining that such a provision would disrupt our forces serving overseas. The House Armed Services Committee withdrew the offending provision and instead included a provision to codify the Pentagon's 1994 policy regarding women in combat. I am uncertain that this policy needs to be codified and will be looking at this language closely in conference.

Because of the House's efforts to restrict the role of women, I want to take a few minutes to recognize the enormous contributions that women have made and continue to make to our military.

Women have a long history of proud service in our Armed Forces. Women have served on the battlefield as far back as the American Revolution, where they served as nurses, water bearers, cooks, laundresses, and saboteurs. Since that time, opportunities have increased, especially since 1948 when the Women's Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 was passed.

More than 200,000 women currently serve, making up approximately 17 percent of the total force. Thousands of women are currently serving bravely in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. During my own visits to Iraq--and as I am sure that many of my colleagues who have also visited Iraq can also attest--I witnessed women performing a wide range of tasks in a dangerous environment. In Iraq, the old distinctions between the front lines and the rear are being blurred, and women are ably shouldering many of the same risks as men. And when I have met with women soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have not complained that they are being placed in harm's way. To the contrary, they have expressed pride in being able to contribute to the mission.

At a time when our Armed Forces are struggling to meet recruiting and retention goals, it makes no sense to further restrict the role of our women in uniform. Doing so would only add to the strain on our Armed Forces and undermine the morale of our service members.

Since September 11, our Armed Forces have stretched to meet new and growing needs. It is essential that we fu1ly utilize and retain personnel. Women in uniform have increasingly served in the line of fire, performing honorably and courageously in service to our country. Over 100,000 women have been deployed in support of military operations since September 11. Imagine the strain that our forces would suffer if many of these women were suddenly deemed ineligible to serve in their current roles.

Our soldiers, both men and women, volunteered to serve their Nation. They are performing magnificently. There should be no change to existing policies that would decrease the roles or positions available to women in the Armed Forces. Earlier this year, I introduced, along with several of my colleagues, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution stating that there should be no change to existing laws, policies or regulations that would decrease the roles or positions available to women in the Armed forces.

As we approach the conference, I will oppose any efforts that would send a negative signal to women currently serving and I hope my colleagues will join me in preserving the ability of women to fully serve their country.

As we talk about honoring those who serve, I would also like to draw the attention of my colleagues to another piece of legislation that I have introduced in the Senate, the Cold War Medal Act of 2005.

It is important that we remember and honor the contributions of all veterans, from our World War II veterans to those just returning from Iraq. It is especially important that we not forget those who served during the Cold War, a decades-long struggle that, even in the absence of a formal declaration of hostilities, was for nothing less than the future of the world.

Our victory in the Cold War was made possible by the willingness of millions of Americans in uniform to stand prepared against the threat from behind the Iron Curtain.

That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 1351, the Cold War Medal Act of 2005, to create a military service medal to members of the Armed Forces who served honorably during the Cold War.

This is the companion bill to legislation that was introduced on the House side by Congressman Andrews. This legislation would establish a Cold War Medal for those who served at least 180 days from September 2, 1945 to December 26, 1991. About 4.8 million veterans would be eligible to receive this medal.

Our victory in the Cold War was a tremendous accomplishment and the men and women who served during that time deserve to be recognized. This legislation has been included in the House-passed version of the Defense authorization bill and I intend to encourage my colleagues in both the House and Senate to support its inclusion in the bill that emerges from the House-Senate conference.

It is also important that we honor those men and women who are currently serving. One issue that has come to my attention is the status of National Guard members who served at Ground Zero in the aftermath of September 11. In the rush to send National Guard members to Ground Zero immediately after the attacks on September 11, New York's Governor activated them in their State status. However, many of these Guard men and women ended up serving at Ground Zero for over a year. Since they were in their State status, these Guard men and women did not qualify for Federal retirement credits. However, other New York National Guardsmen who were activated to protect Federal installations after September 11 were activated in their Federal status. The result was that two groups of Guardsmen were created. Each group served honorably after September 11, but the Guardsmen serving at Ground Zero did not earn retirement credit, while the Guardsmen protecting Federal installations did earn that credit. Several months ago, I introduced legislation, S. 1144, to remedy this injustice. This legislation was included in the House's version of the Defense authorization bill and I will once again urge my colleagues to support this in the House-Senate conference on the legislation.

One issue that is not addressed in either the House or the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill is our spending priorities for science and technology at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA. I would like to use the remainder of my time to raise some concerns that I have regarding the Department of Defense's investments in science and technology and disturbing trends in our investments in the longer term, basic research--investments that will develop the next generation of capabilities on which our military superiority will depend. To put it plainly, I am concerned that DARPA is losing its focus on basic and early stage research.

The Department's science and technology programs make investments in research at our nation's universities and innovative high-tech small businesses in areas such as robotics, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology. In the past, we have seen these investments grow into revolutionary capabilities that our military takes for granted today. We have seen the fruits of these investments support our efforts in the global war on terrorism and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is why I am concerned that the Department of Defense seems to be systematically underinvesting in fundamental and long-term research programs that will shape the military of the future. I note that the Department's science and technology request for 2006 was down $2.8 billion from the 2005 appropriated level and even $28 million below the original 2005 budget request. In fact, the request is so low it has triggered a congressionally mandated Defense Science Board review of the effects of the lowered S&T investment on national security. I look forward to seeing the results of that review. I am pleased that this bill has increased those funding levels by over $400 million. While I understand the need to focus efforts on current events and operational issues--we cannot do it at the expense of sacrificing the research base that shapes the military of the future.

Of particular concern to me are the trends in funding of DOD's premier research agency. DARPA has been the engine of defense innovation for nearly 50 years--spawning innovations such as the Internet, unmanned air vehicles, and stealth capability--a record of unmatched technological accomplishments of which we should all be proud. However, I am concerned that in recent years--despite tremendous overall budgetary increases--DARPA has lost some of its unique, innovative character and is no longer funding the ``blue sky'' research for which it is famous.

Concern over DOD's, and especially DARPA's support for early stage research has come from a number of distinguished scientific circles. The National Academy of Sciences, in a recent report requested by the Senate Armed Services Committee, recommended that ``DOD should redress the imbalance between its current basic research allocation'' and its needs to support new technology areas, new researchers, and especially more unfettered or long-term research.

President Bush's own Information Technology Advisory Committee, PITAC, recently noted that DARPA had decreased funding in the critical area of cybersecurity research, stating, ``. . . very little, if any, of DARPA's substantial cybersecurity R&D investment was directed towards fundamental research.'' They also noted a ``shift in DARPA's portfolio towards classified and short-term research and development and away from its traditional support of unclassified longer-term

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate was finally able to debate and pass the Defense authorization bill. It was inexcusable that this bill that is so critical to our men and women in uniform was allowed to languish for over half a year. Vital defense policies are set every year in the authorization bill, including policies with a direct impact on military families such as pay and benefits. I am very pleased that we were able to include a 3.1 percent pay raise for all of our men and women in uniform and am proud of the Senate's strong bipartisan efforts to make TRICARE available for the Guard and Reserve. I was pleased to support these efforts and the successful efforts to eliminate the SBP-DIC offset and reduce the retirement age for those in the Reserve component.

One of the key policy debates that took place during the Senate's consideration of this bill involved our Nation's Iraq policy. For months, I have been calling on the President to provide a flexible, public timetable for completing our mission in Iraq and for withdrawing our troops once that mission is complete. I am not calling for a rigid timetable I mean one that is tied to clear and achievable benchmarks, with estimated dates for meeting those benchmarks. I worked with some of my distinguished Democratic colleagues in the Senate to draft an amendment that demanded just that, and I am pleased that 40 Members of the Senate agreed that we need a flexible timetable for achieving our military mission in Iraq and withdrawing our troops. They recognize what increasing numbers of military leaders and experts are saying, that having such a timeline will help us defeat the insurgency.

Our servicemembers deserve to know what their military mission is and when they can expect to achieve it. And the American people deserve to know that we have a plan, tied to clear benchmarks, for achieving our military goals and redeploying our troops out of Iraq so we can focus on our most pressing national security priority, defeating the global terrorists who threaten this country. I will keep fighting for a timeframe for our military mission and I am heartened by the fact that an increasing number of my Senate colleagues agree with me, and with the American people, on the need for such a timeframe.

I am pleased that the Senate passed my amendment to enhance and strengthen the transition services that are provided to our military personnel by making a number of improvements to the existing transition and post-deployment/pre-discharge health assessment programs. My amendment will ensure that members of the National Guard and Reserve who have been on active duty continuously for at least 180 days are able to participate in transition programs and requires that additional information be included in these transition programs, such as details about employment and reemployment rights and a description of the health care and other benefits to which personnel may be entitled through the VA. The amendment also requires that demobilizing military personnel have access to follow-up care for physical or psychological conditions incurred as a result of their service. In addition, the amendment requires that assistance be provided to eligible military personnel to enroll in the VA health care system. I thank the chairman and the Ranking Member for their assistance on this important issue.

This bill also contains a provision I authored establishing the Civilian Linguist Reserve Corps, CLRC, pilot project. It became abundantly clear

after the attacks of September 11, 2001, that the U.S. Government had a dearth of critical language skills. The 9/11 Commission report documented the disastrous consequences of this deficiency that, unfortunately, we still have not made enough progress in addressing 4 years after the 9/11 tragedy.

CLRC is designed to address the Government's critical language shortfall by creating a pool of people with advanced language skills that the Federal Government could call on to assist when needed. The National Security Education Program completed a feasibility study of CLRC and concluded that the concept was sound and ``an important step in addressing both short- and long-term shortfalls related to language assets in the national security community.'' It also recommended that a 3-year pilot project be conducted to work out any potential problems. My amendment establishes this pilot project. I want to thank the managers of the bill for working with me to include this worthwhile measure and thank Senator Coleman for cosponsoring my amendment.

I also want to thank the bill managers for continuing to work with me in assisting the families of injured servicemembers. I was pleased that Congress included my amendment on travel benefits for the family of injured servicemembers in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005, P.L. 109-13. My amendment corrected a flaw in the law that unintentionally restricted the number of families of injured servicemembers that qualify for travel assistance. Too many families were being denied help in visiting their injured loved ones because the Army had not officially listed them as ``seriously injured,'' even though these men and women have been evacuated out of the combat zone to the United States for treatment. The change in the law now ensures that families of injured servicemembers evacuated to a U.S. hospital get at least one trip paid for so that these families can quickly reunite and begin recovering from the trauma they have experienced. I introduced my amendment to this bill because the family travel provision in P.L. 109- 13 was sunset at the end of the 2005 fiscal year by the conferees. I thank the Senate for adopting my amendment that will make the provision permanent.

The Senate also adopted an amendment I authored requiring the Department of Defense to report on the steps it is taking to clearly communicate the stop-loss policy to potential enlistees and re- enlistees. One of my constituents, a sergeant in the Army, wrote to me earlier this year articulating his frustration with the Army's stop- loss policy. He had been scheduled to be released from service prior to his unit's deployment to Iraq but the stop-loss order kept him in uniform making him feel that his service was completely unappreciated. Part of this sergeant's frustration and the frustration experienced by others who have been put under stop-loss orders stems from the fact that many don't know that the military can keep them beyond their contractual date of separation. They may find out about this policy only shortly before they are deployed to a war zone, as was the case with my constituent. This situation is simply unacceptable.

The sergeant who shared his story with me was killed in Iraq only days after he wrote his letter. With thousands of soldiers still on stop-loss, I am certain that similar tragic stories have played out many times over the last few years. The very least we owe those who volunteer to serve our Nation is full disclosure of the terms under which they are volunteering. My amendment includes a finding that states exactly that. I hope that, by pushing the Department to report on the actions it is taken to ensure that potential recruits know the terms of their service, the Department will take quick action to do just that. One good place for it to start would be to revise DOD Form 4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, the service contract new enlistees and reenlistees must sign to join the military. Form 4/1 does not currently include information that tells those joining the active component that they may be kept on stop-loss during partial mobilizations. The Department must immediately fix this flaw and take other steps to clearly communicate to our men and women in uniform the terms under which they are volunteering to serve.

Congress has a crucial role in defense oversight and I am disappointed that the Senate has again failed to adopt Senator Dorgan's amendment that would have created a Truman Committee to oversee our efforts in Iraq. This measure was a commonsense way to assure that we carry out our policies in the most effect way possible and not, as now, waste millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars. After all, our shared goal is to get needed resources to our troops and rebuilding efforts not to profiteers.

One measure the Senate adopted that should assist in our oversight responsibilities is my amendment requiring DOD to report on how it will address deficiencies related to key military equipment. According to a recent GAO report, DOD has not done a good job in replacing equipment that is being rapidly worn out due to the military's high operational tempo or even tracking its equipment needs. Military readiness has suffered as a result. My amendment requires DOD to submit a report in conjunction with the President's annual budget request that details DOD's program strategies and funding plans to ensure that DOD's budget decisions address these equipment deficiencies. Specifically, the Department must detail its plans to sustain and modernize key equipment systems until they are retired or replaced, report the costs associated with the sustainment and modernization of key equipment, and identify these funds in the Future Years Defense Program. Finally, if the Department chooses to delay or not fully fund their plan, it must describe the risks involved and the steps it is taking to mitigate those risks.

Although I am voting for the Department of Defense authorization bill, I am disappointed with the mixed messages that the Senate continues to send to the administration and the country on issues related to the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Even as the Senate passed the important McCain amendment on torture, the Senate also included in this bill the Graham amendment, which even as modified would still eliminate habeas review for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The modification worked out by Senators Graham and Levin would provide detainees with only limited review in the DC Circuit of the procedures for determining whether they are enemy combatants and the procedures the military commissions used to try them. This is an improvement over the original amendment offered by Senator Graham, but it would not allow a court to review any claim that an individual detainee is not, in fact, an enemy combatant. I was very disappointed that this became part of this bill, although I am pleased with the amendment's ban on the use of evidence obtained by undue coercion. It is troubling that after 4 years of congressional acquiescence to the administration on this issue, it took a Supreme Court decision allowing habeas review for the Senate to take action. It is good that the Senate is finally paying attention to this issue, but this amendment is the wrong result. It sends the wrong message about this country's commitment to basic fundamental fairness and the rule of law.

I must also note with some disappointment that this bill continues the wasteful trend of spending billions of dollars on Cold War era weapons systems while at the same time not fully funding the needs of the military personnel fighting our current wars. I think the Senate missed some opportunities when it rejected amendments that could have made the bill better. However, on balance this legislation contains many good provisions for our men and women in uniform and their families and that is why I support it.

Mr. President, this debate today is going to be a significant debate because you are going to hear from both sides of the aisle that we are voting for change. We will reject the status quo. We will reject the President's call for blind loyalty to his policies in Iraq because we cannot be blind to the fact that we have lost over 17,000 American soldiers who have been killed and wounded. We cannot be blind to the fact that there is no plan for success in Iraq. We cannot be blind to the fact that it does no favor to our troops and their families to ignore the obvious.

We need new leadership and new direction. The vote today on the Warner amendment and the vote on the Levin amendment are both votes for change. They are not votes to cut and run. Even though the Republicans have done a cut-and-paste job on the Democratic amendment, both amendments say to the administration: It is time to change the course for success, to make certain that 2006 is a significant year, so that we move toward a success and victory for our troops and for our Nation.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I support the Bingaman second-degree amendment to the Graham detainee amendment.

The Senator from South Carolina has been a leader on the issue of detention and interrogation policies. I share his goal of setting clear rules for the detention of enemy combatants.

This amendment would do some positive things that I support. It would require the Defense Department to report to Congress on the procedures for determining the status of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. It would prohibit the Defense Department from determining the status of a detainee based on evidence obtained from torture.

However, I am concerned that one section of the Graham amendment would have very dramatic unintended consequences.

However, subsection (d) of the amendment would eliminate habeas corpus for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. In so doing, it would overturn the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Rasul v. Bush. It would strip federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, of the right to hear any challenge to any practice at Guantanamo Bay, other than a one-time appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court on the limited question of whether the Defense Department is complying with its own rules for classifying detainees. It applies retroactively, and therefore would also likely prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on the merits of the Hamdan case, a pending challenge to the legality of the administration's military commissions.

For these reasons, I am opposed to Senator Graham's amendment.

I will support Senator Bingaman's second degree amendment to the Graham amendment. It would preserve the positive elements of the Graham amendment and would strike subsection (d) of the amendment. It would replace subsection (d) with a streamlined judicial review system that would preserve habeas for Guantanamo detainees, consolidate habeas claims in the D.C. Circuit Court, allow claims challenging the legality of detention, and prohibit claims based on ``living conditions,'' e.g. the type of food a person is provided. These restrictions would not apply to people who have been charged by military commissions or who have been determined not to be enemy combatants by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, CSRT.

The Graham-Levin substitute amendment would somewhat improve the underlying amendment by expanding the scope of review by the D.C. Circuit Court to include whether the CSRT's procedures are legal, but not whether a particular detainee's detention is legal. It would also allow for post-conviction review of military commission convictions. However, the amendment would still eliminate habeas review and overrule the Rasul case. As a result, I will oppose it.

No one questions the fact that the United States has the power to hold battlefield combatants for the duration of an armed conflict. That is a fundamental premise of the law of war.

However, over the objections of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and military lawyers, the Bush administration has created a new detention policy that goes far beyond the traditional law of war.

The administration claims the right to seize anyone, including an American citizen, anywhere in the world, including in the United States, and to hold him until the end of the war on terrorism, whenever that may be.

They claim that a person detained in the war on terrorism has no legal rights. That means no right to a lawyer, no right to see the evidence against him, and no right to challenge his detention. In fact, the government has argued in court that detainees would have no right to challenge their detentions even if they claimed they were being tortured or summarily executed.

U.S. military lawyers have called this detention system ``a legal black hole.''

Under their new detention policy, people who never raised arms against the United States have reportedly been taken prisoner far from the battlefield, including in places like Bosnia and Thailand.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has described the detainees as ``the hardest of the hard core'' and ``among the most dangerous, best trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth.'' However, the administration now acknowledges that innocent people are held at Guantanamo Bay. In late 2003, the Pentagon reportedly determined that 15 Chinese Muslims held at Guantanamo are not enemy combatants and were mistakenly detained. Almost 2 years later, those individuals remain in Guantanamo Bay.

Last year, in the Rasul decision, the Supreme Court rejected the administration's detention policy. The Court held that detainees at Guantanamo have the right to habeas corpus to challenge their detentions in federal court. The Court held that the detainees' claims that they were detained for years without charge and without access to counsel ``unquestionably describe custody in violation of the Constitution, or laws or treaties of the United States.''

The Graham amendment would protect the Bush administration's detention system from legal challenge. It would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's decision. It would prevent innocent detainees, like the Chinese Muslims, from challenging their detention.

Yesterday, I received a letter from Colonel Dwight Sullivan of the U.S. Marine Corps. Colonel Sullivan is the Chief Defense Counsel in the Office of Military Commissions. He and other military lawyers have gone to court to challenge the legality of the administration's detention policies.

Colonel Sullivan opposes the Graham amendment. In his letter to me, he said:

I am writing to call your attention to serious errors in

the arguments advanced by proponents of Amendment No. 2515 to

the FY 2006 DOD Authorization Act that would strip Guantanamo

detainees of habeas rights.

In his initial floor speech supporting the Amendment,

Senator Graham stated, ``Never in the history of the law of

armed conflict has an enemy combatant, irregular component,

or POW been given access to civilian court systems to

question military authority and control, except here.'' That

claim simply is not true. As discussed in greater detail

below, the Supreme Court considered habeas petitions filed on

behalf of seven of the eight would-be German saboteurs in Ex

parte Quirin and on behalf of a Japanese general who was a

prisoner of war in In re Yamashita.

Senator Graham stated:

Here is the one thing I can tell you for sure as a military

lawyer. A POW or an enemy combatant facing law of armed

conflict charges has not been given the right to habeas

corpus for 200 years because our own people in our own

military facing court-martials, who could be sentenced to

death, do not have the right of habeas corpus.

Again, Senator Graham's argument is factually incorrect. U.S. servicemembers do have a right to challenge court-martial proceedings through habeas petitions, in addition to the direct appeal rights.

Colonel Sullivan is not the only military leader who has raised concerns about the Graham amendment. Yesterday, every member of the Senate received a letter from nine retired military officers, including seven Generals and one Rear Admiral. Here is what they said about the Graham amendment:

For generations, the United States has stood firm for the

rule of law. It is not the rule of law if you only apply it

when it is convenient and toss it over the side when it is

not.

The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus has been at the heart of

U.S. law since the first drafts of the Constitution. Indeed,

it has been part of Western culture for 1000 years, since the

Magna Carta . . . The restriction on habeas contemplated by

Amendment 2516 would be a momentous change. It is certainly

not a change in the landscape of U.S. jurisprudence we should

tack on to the Defense Department Authorization Bill at the

last minute.

The practical effects of Amendment 2516 would be sweeping

and negative. America's great strength isn't our economy or

natural resources or the essentially island nature of our

geography. It is our mission, and what we stand for. That's

why other nations look to us for leadership and follow our

lead. Every step we take that dims that bright, shining light

diminishes our role as a world leader. 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. We are proud to be Americans. This Amendment, well

intentioned as it may be, will diminish us.

These American patriots, who served our country for decades, say it better than I ever could. This is not about giving rights to suspected terrorists. It is about American values. Secret indefinite detention is not the American way. Eliminating habeas corpus is not the American way. I urge my colleagues to support the Bingaman second-degree amendment.