Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise again this year to remind my colleagues that October 1 to 7 is Nuclear Medicine Week. Nuclear Medicine Week is the first week in October every year and is an annual celebration initiated by the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Each year, Nuclear Medicine Week is celebrated internationally at hospitals, clinics, imaging centers, educational institutions, corporations, and more.

I am particularly proud to note that the Society of Nuclear Medicine is headquartered in Reston, VA. The Society of Nuclear Medicine is an international scientific and professional organization of more than 16,000 members dedicated to promoting the science, technology, and practical applications of nuclear medicine. I commend the society staff and its professional members for their outstanding work in the field of nuclear medicine and for their dedication to caring for people with cancer and other serious and life-threatening illnesses.

Some of the more frequently performed nuclear medicine procedures include bone scans to examine orthopedic injuries, fractures, tumors or unexplained bone pain; heart scans to identify normal or abnormal blood flow to the heart muscle, to measure heart function or to determine the existence or extent of damage to the heart muscle after a heart attack; breast scans that are used in conjunction with mammograms to detect and locate cancerous tissue in the breasts; liver and gallbladder scans to evaluate liver and gallbladder function; cancer imaging to detect tumors; treatment of thyroid diseases and certain types of cancer; brain imaging to investigate problems within the brain itself or in blood circulation to the brain; and renal imaging in children to examine kidney function.

I thank all of those who serve in this very important medical field and join them in celebrating Nuclear Medicine Week during the first week of October.

Mr. President, it is my privilege today to speak in honor of a longtime servant to the Federal judiciary, the Honorable Glen Morgan Williams, U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Virginia.

I have been in the Senate now for 28 years. During that time, I have participated in the Senate's advice and consent process more than 2,000 times with respect to Federal judges. In fact, of all active Federal judges on the district court bench in Virginia, I have had the distinct privilege of voting for every single one.

There are two judges whose chambers exist in Abingdon, VA, whose service predates mine: Judge H. Emory Widener, Jr., and Judge Glen Morgan Williams. Judge Widener was confirmed to the district court in 1969, and then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 1972. Judge Williams received his first judicial appointment, that of Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, in 1963. Following 12 years as a magistrate, Judge Williams was nominated to be a district court judge by President Gerald R. Ford in 1976, and he was confirmed for this position by the Senate on September 17, 1976. Both judges are distinguished fixtures in the Virginia legal community, admired and respected by all who are fortunate enough to know them.

Because this year marks the thirtieth year that Judge Williams has served as a Federal district judge in the Western District, I join with my colleague from Virginia, Senator George Allen, in commending this exceptional jurist for his efforts.

As a young man, Glen Williams answered his Nation's call to duty in World War II. Earning a commander's citation, Mr. Williams served with distinction in the U.S. Navy from 1942 to 1946. Remarkably, his experience included the Atlantic, Pacific, and Mediterranean theaters and the Allies' invasion of southern France.

Mr. Williams and I followed similar paths to our respective careers after our naval tours in World War II; like me, he also received his training in law from the University of Virginia. Starting out as a sole practitioner after law school, Mr. Williams began his career in civilian public service as a Commonwealth's Attorney, followed by a term in the Virginia State Senate. During his career in private practice, he established himself as a leading expert on Social Security law, and Mr. Williams' testimony on this subject was sought by the Congress.

During his career on the bench, Judge Williams has produced more than 300 published opinions on a number of matters of great importance for our country, and certainly for those who live and work in the coal- mining regions of Virginia's beautiful Western District. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court cited Judge Williams' opinions with respect to the funding of health care for beneficiaries of the United Mine Workers Health and Retirement Funds in its interpretation of the Coal Act.

While Judge Williams assumed senior status in the Western District in 1988, he remains active in both the Abingdon and Big Stone Gap divisions through the present day. In particular, he is to be commended for his diligence in reestablishing the Big Stone Gap division and for the reopening of both the clerk's office and the courthouse in this division.

Judge Williams remains an asset for our Federal judicial system, for his knowledge and insight as well as for his mentorship of the many judicial law clerks who have had the opportunity to work with him, including Senator Allen. In honor of his 30 years of service to our Federal judiciary as a Federal district court judge, I simply say to Judge Glen Williams, ``Well done, Your Honor.'' Your longevity and commitment to our Constitution, to our third branch of government, and to those four words that are forever engraved into the marble at the United States Supreme Court--``Equal Justice Under Law''--remain the hallmarks of your remarkable career.

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

Parliamentary inquiry: At this time the Senate is now proceeding on the Hamdi bill; is that correct?

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which would authorize military commissions for the trial of an alien enemy unlawful combatant.

I take a moment to say my colleagues and others with whom I have served in the Senate the last 28 years stand at a moment of critical importance in the history of our Nation. What we do today will impact how we conduct the war on terror for as long as it lasts. In the estimate of this humble Senator, that could be for decades. It will fundamentally impact our relationships with our allies. It will fundamentally impact the image of the United States of America in the eyes of the world. It is crucial to our ability to keep America safe. It will speak most loudly about the core values, the principles of this great Republic known as the United States of America.

From the outset, I make it clear I respect the views of all participants in this dialog, from the President and his team, to those particularly in the Congress, but elsewhere in the Congress, on both sides of the aisle. I have certain core principles I share with several of my colleagues. I have endeavored to see this particular bill reflects those principles to the best of my ability, as have they. Nevertheless, I respect the views of others who may differ.

The goal of this legislation, from my point of view, and I think it is shared by others, is first and foremost to meet the challenge for withstanding review by the Supreme Court. Out of respect for that Court, the Hamdi decision, which was quite an interesting decision in many of its findings, divided by different panels within that Court, it is quite likely in one or more instances, if this becomes law, the bill now presently before the Senate, that will likewise be taken to the Supreme Court. That is the way we do things in the United States of America.

We hope we who have labored to craft this, and the 100 Senators who will finally cast their votes, together with the other body, will give to the President a bill that will effectively enable him to do those things to keep America free, to fight the war on terrorism and, at the same time, pass the Federal court review--whether it is the district, appellate, or the Supreme Court--such as likely will take place.

In late June, the Supreme Court struck down the President's initial plan to try detainees by military commissions. In its opinion, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court held by a fractured five-Justice panel that the present system for trials by military commission violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and particularly Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. There were some four conventions put together in 1949. In particular, the Common Article 3 was common to all four of those conventions.

That historic moment in world history was a culmination from the learning experience of what took place all across our globe during World War II in an effort to see that certain injustices, in terms of the basic core values of the free world, would never occur again.

It is my fervent hope and conviction that whatever the Congress does, the

legislation we produce must be able to withstand further security review and scrutiny of the Federal court system, particularly the Supreme Court.

From my own personal perspective, it would be a very serious blow to the credibility of the United States--and I have said this a number of times in connection with the debate--not only in the international community but also at home, if the legislation as prepared by the Congress now and enacted by the President failed to meet another series of Federal court reviews.

To meet the mandate of the Court in its decision, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, this legislation provides for a military commission that, in the words of Common Article 3, affords ``all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.''

That is what we are striving to obtain. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 provides these essential guarantees in the following ways. The bill generally follows the current military rule on the use of classified information at trial. That has been an area of concern probably to each and every Senator but most particularly to this Senator and others who worked closely in our group. We have, to the satisfaction of all interested parties, resolved that.

That is a very fundamental thing we must maintain; that is, the ability of our continued gathering of evidence, the protection of source and methods--nevertheless, to provide, on a real-time basis intelligence for our fighting men and women and, indeed, intelligence to protect us here at home.

However, our bill goes further by creating a privilege that protects classified information at all stages of a trial and prohibits disclosure of classified information, including sensitive intelligence sources and methods, to an alleged terrorist accused.

As a fundamental matter--and one we feel is crucial for this bill to survive judicial review--the bill would not allow an accused, however, to be tried and sentenced--perhaps even being given the death penalty-- on evidence that the accused has never been allowed to see. That, in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of many, would be establishing a precedent that is without foundation in American jurisprudence or, indeed, the jurisprudence of the vast majority of nations in the world.

Further, the bill would prohibit the use of evidence that was allegedly obtained through the use of torture. A statement obtained before the date of enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005-- December 30, 2005--in which the degree of coercion is in dispute could be used only--and I repeat--only at trial if the military judge finds that it is reliable and tends to prove the point for which it was offered.

A statement obtained after the date of enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, in which the degree of coercion is in dispute, may only be admitted in evidence if the military judge finds that the first two tests are met and finds that the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

The bill would generally follow the rules of evidence that apply to courts-martial. However, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, would be authorized to make substantial exceptions due to the unique circumstances presented by the conduct of military and intelligence activities so long as those exceptions are not inconsistent with the statutory provisions provided by this new law.

Most importantly, this bill achieves the President's benchmark objective by clearly defining those grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that would be a criminal offense under the U.S. domestic law in the War Crimes Act.

That term, ``grave breaches,'' is set forth in that Convention of 1949. And in conjunction with working on this, we extensively examined the legislative history. Doing so allows our military and intelligence interrogators to know what conduct is prohibited under U.S. law. Moreover, this bill provides that no foreign sources of law may be used to define or interpret U.S. domestic criminal law implementing Common Article 3.

This bill does not provide as a matter of law that this legislation fully satisfies Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. My colleagues and I feel that to make such a statement a matter of statute would amount to a reinterpretation of our obligations under the Geneva Conventions some 57 years after the United States signed those treaties. Such an action could open the door to statutory reinterpretation by a host of other nations with less regard for human rights than the United States, and would result in possibly our U.S. troops being put at greater risk should they become captives in a future conflict.

However, in addition to clearly defining grave breaches of Common Article 3 that are war crimes under the War Crimes Act, this bill acknowledges the President's authority under the Constitution to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions, and to promulgate administrative regulations for violations of our broader treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. To ensure transparency, such interpretations are required to be published in the Federal Register and are subject to congressional and judicial oversight.

We have had a robust discussion of these issues among Members and with administration officials for some several months, most particularly the last few weeks. I strongly believe this bill achieves the best balance for our country. It will allow terrorists to be brought to justice in accordance with the founding principles and values that have made our Nation the greatest democracy in the world.

This bill will also provide the clarity needed to allow our essential intelligence activities to go forward--I repeat: go forward--under the law. And this bill is consistent with the Geneva Conventions, which have helped protect our own forces in conflicts over the past 57 years.

I thank my colleagues for their support. I wish at this time to thank the many staff members who have worked on this thing tirelessly. And I might add, in my 28 years here I have never known the legislative counsel's office to literally work 24 hours around the clock. Perhaps they have, but certainly they did in this instance. I want to give a special recognition and thanks to that office for assisting the Senate in preparing this bill.

Now, Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator from Michigan may well have an amendment he would like to bring forward.

Mr. President, will the Senator kindly yield for me to address his comments?

Mr. President, the Senator has recited that our committee had a markup on a bill. That was after receiving from the administration its own bill. So in a sense, the Senate had before it two bills. Perhaps the formalities I will not go into. But the Senate had the administration's bill and the draft of the committee bill at the time we went into the markup.

The Senator referred to the administration's huge pressure, but those are matters we can go into at another time. But I want you to know the group I was working with, and other Senators, were working with the administration right up until the hours before the markup started.

As the Senator proceeds with his amendment, I am going to ask that the Senator from South Carolina, at the conclusion of your remarks on the amendment, be recognized for the purpose of giving his statement which, indeed, addresses the current bill in the context of the bill that was drafted by the committee, as I understand it from the Senator from South Carolina. And then we will proceed further with discussion on your bill.

We have 3 hours to consider matters here. But I point out, we have your substitute bill, which is basically a 60-minute proposition; the Rockefeller congressional oversight, which is 60 minutes; the Kennedy interrogation, which is 60 minutes; the Byrd sunset which is 60 minutes; and the Specter-Leahy habeas corpus--and I expect you might be a part of that habeas corpus amendment--which is 120 minutes.

Yes.

Yes, correct. I don't know if I stated that, but it should be here as a part of it.

Yes.

Mr. President, I would have to inquire of the Chair if the Chair has knowledge of that.

Does the Senator from Michigan wish to address that request?

Mr. President, I would suggest the following to work our way through this: I call on the Chair to inform the Senate as to the time agreement which I understand has been agreed upon by our leaders.

At this time, I advise my colleagues that I would oppose any change to that unanimous consent and ask any Members who so desire to address the UC to do so to their respective leadership.

Yes.

Do I see another Senator wishing to speak?

Mr. President, I will yield the floor, and the Senator from Michigan will regain his right to the floor.

Mr. President, I was particularly taken by Senator Levin's reference to General Washington and what General Washington said with regard to prisoners. But we must be mindful that General Washington was facing the King's Army. Those were uniformed individuals. Those were individuals acting on behalf of the Crown. That is totally different--totally different--from what we as a nation and many other nations today are facing with these terrorists.

Consequently, as a part of the evolution of this extraordinary proliferation of terrorism across the world has come the definitions and terms relating to the unlawful enemy combatant--I repeat, unlawful--because those individuals are not wearing uniforms, they are not following any code of laws or conduct that has overseen much of warfare in the history of the world. They are not affiliated with any state. They are driven, in my judgment, by convictions, much of it religious convictions which are totally antithetical to their own religion, and willing to sacrifice their own lives to foster their ambitions and goals.

We expanded this definition of ``unlawful enemy combatant'' when we went from the committee bill to a bill that was worked on by, again, Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and myself, and in conjunction with the White House and our leadership and other colleagues.

It was pointed out to us that perhaps our bill is drawn so narrowly that we would not be able to get evidence and support convictions from those who are involved in hiding in the safe houses, wherever they are in the world, including here in the United States.

It is wrong to say that this provision captures any U.S. citizens. It does not. It is only directed at aliens--aliens, not U.S. citizens-- bomb-makers, wherever they are in the world; those who provide the money to carry out the terrorism, wherever they are--again, only aliens and those who are preparing and using so many false documents.

There were a lot of categories which we, with the best of intentions, perhaps did not fully comprehend when we were working through that markup session. So at this time, I yield the floor because I see my distinguished colleague from South Carolina. I thank the Senator. He is recognized for his knowledge as an officer in the U.S. Air Force, a colonel who has practiced and studied military law for many years, and we are fortunate to have had his services and continue to have them in addressing this legislation.

I would also point out to my colleagues that Senator McCain, who worked with us throughout this process, is away attending a funeral of a very dear and valued colleague, and he will be returning later this afternoon and will be fully engaged from that point on.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from South Carolina will be placing in today's Record the correspondence from the judge advocate generals. I think that is very important. I think for those following this debate, it would be of great interest to give an example of how in response to the letter sent by the distinguished Senator from Michigan to a judge advocate they respond. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record first at this juncture a letter from Senator Levin to Bruce MacDonald, Judge Advocate General of the Navy, on this point of what we call the two categories of evidence.

Mr. President, it is a clear indication by those who are currently given the responsibility of defending the men and women of the United States military how this provision in the bill now before the Senate is consistent with their understanding of international and domestic law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I inquire of our distinguished colleague, is he now drawing time on the Levin amendment?

Mr. President, we are anxious to go on with the matters before the Senate this afternoon in connection with this pending bill.

As I understand it, the amount of time remaining on the Levin substitute amendment is how much?

It had been my hope we could set this amendment aside pending instructions from the leadership as to a time of vote and proceed to another amendment.

At this point in time, I see another colleague who is seeking recognition.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are prepared to yield back the time on this side. First, I simply say to my colleagues that this has been a good debate. But I assure colleagues that the bill now before them has been very carefully reviewed by the Department of Justice, and I have even reached out to scholars--lawyers who I know have a considerable depth of knowledge about international matters as well as our own fabric of law as it relates to criminal prosecution. I myself served as assistant U.S. attorney for close to 5 years.

We bring before this Chamber a work product which we believe is consistent with international as well as domestic law. It strikes a balance. We have no intention to try to accord aliens engaged as unlawful combatants with all the rights and privileges of American citizens, but we recognize that they are human beings, and this country has standards that respect life and human beings. But at the same time, we are engaged in a war on terror. Let there be no mistake about that.

One of the challenges in this war on terror is with these individuals who are willing to act as human bombs. It doesn't have a lot of precedent. We have been very careful to try to strike a balance between the standards and principles that guide this Nation, at the same time recognizing that we need the tools to fight this war on terror-- fighting it in a way that not only enables our men and women in the Armed Forces in forward deployments to carry out their missions but to preserve and protect us here at home from tragic incidents like we experienced on 9/11.

As I have worked through each of these provisions and consulted with my colleagues, I always bring up the images of 9/11. I think our President has done his best to try to prepare this Nation, in many ways, to protect ourselves from the repetition of that or any incident like it--a lesser incident or a greater incident. It is a constant challenge.

But the bill before this body represents our best product that we could achieve, working together and in consultation with a wide range of individuals who have an expertise in these complicated legal matters and can provide to us their own corroboration of our judgments as to how best to structure this legal document and strike the balance that we must between our standards of law and our recognition of international law. I think that is the hallmark of what Senators McCain, Graham, and myself set out to do--to make sure this Nation cannot be perceived as trying to rewrite in any way Common Article 3, which is the law of our land, I remind citizens who are following this debate. It is the international treaties to which we, with the advice and consent of the Senate and that of the President, acceded and signed, and it has become part of the law of the land. I am proud of the work we have done, certainly, in that complicated area, as well as others.

Mr. President, at this time, I am prepared to yield back all the time on this side and ask for the yeas and nays.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I ask to reclaim about 6 minutes of my time so that I can engage my colleague in a colloquy.

Mr. President, I wish to make clear that category of evidence cannot reach those established standards of torture. No evidence that was gained by means that are tantamount to the torture can be admitted.

Mr. President, I ask my colleague, am I not correct in that statement?

Does the Senator concur in that statement?

Correct, but the judge of the court is going to look at that evidence. We have set forth certain standards that have to be met, but one standard that judge cannot violate is the standard of torture. If that case can be made, then that judge has no ability to admit any evidence which is tantamount to torture. I ask my colleague, is that not correct?

Lastly, Mr. President, I ask my colleague, he makes reference to the illegal searches and seizures, which is the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That Constitution does not give protection to aliens who are the subject of these trials; am I not correct in that?

Mr. President, we have clearly debated it, but I want to make, in conclusion, the observation that no evidence which is the consequence of torture can be admitted. The aliens are not entitled to the constitutional provisions of the fourth amendment and, therefore, I urge our colleagues to think carefully through those arguments which we believe we have fully answered and carefully written this bill to be in conformity with our Constitution.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, the managers, working with our leadership, of course, have a designated number of amendments. My understanding at this time is that the Senator from Pennsylvania will be recognized for the purpose of proposing an amendment.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment, I ask

the Chair to recite the unanimous consent agreement with regard to the amendment of Senator Specter, the time limitation being?

Mr. President, if I could just use such time as I want, I will not take much because I am anxious for my colleagues to address this issue.

The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania made the statement that they have constitutional rights. I wish to respectfully sort of differ with the Senator. The Supreme Court, in the Rasul case, ruled that rights of aliens held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 28 U.S.C, 2241--the Court did not reach the question of the constitutional right of habeas corpus that applies to a U.S. citizen; of course, they being aliens. In the Rasul case, the Court interpreted the habeas corpus statute, section 2241, to apply to an alien held at Guantanamo Bay. That holding is based in large part due to the unique long-term lease that the Court took judicial notice of and other evidence brought before the Court, the long-term lease tantamount to U.S. territory.

For more than 50 years, the Court held that aliens in military detention outside the United States had no right to petition the Federal courts for review of their military detention. So I question whether you can elevate that to a constitutional status.

There are a variety of divided opinions on that point.

At this time, I will regain the floor and discuss this issue. I am anxious to hear from my two colleagues, one from South Carolina and one from Texas, who seek recognition.

I yield the floor on my time.

I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from South Carolina desires.

I thank the Chair.

I would say to my colleague, there is an interesting thing we best watch here as we are trying to determine the rights of these people because it seems to me if there is such a fundamental right of constitutionality attached to this thing, then someone might argue: Well, if it is actionable in Guantanamo--this lease thing is to me a fairly weak basis on which to do it--what about 18,000 in our custody in Iraq now? So we just better exercise a little caution as we begin to use that because if we begin to extend habeas corpus to 18,000 in Iraq, we have a problem.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I address the Senate on this issue and pose a question to my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. I will put into the Record, following the conclusion of my remarks and my colloquy with the Senator from Pennsylvania, additional material.

Before I yield the floor, it is my desire to conclude the time on our side with the Senator from Missouri, and then reserve the remainder of my time for tomorrow. It would be my hope that the Senator from Pennsylvania, likewise, would save such remarks he may wish to make for tomorrow. As he knows, there is a function going on now, which I think most of us are trying to attend.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, at this time, I observe no other Senators desiring to address the subject with regard to the pending bill. Having said that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we have had a very good debate. We have voted on one amendment. We have time remaining on the Specter amendment. We should be able to conclude that debate in the morning and proceed, I presume, to a prompt vote on the Specter amendment, and then proceed with the other two amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator George Allen to introduce the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act, which would provide parity to civilian Federal employees by extending the tax credit currently received by military personnel in combat zones to the civilian Federal employees working along side them. My fellow Virginian, Congressman Frank Wolf, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives.

In addition, several Federal employee organizations, such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the Financial Management Association (FMA), the Senior Executives Association (SEA), the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), strongly support this legislation.

As of today, I have made eleven separate trips to Iraq and Afghanistan to see firsthand the work of our military personnel, which is essential to success in these regions. In addition, the work of our Federal civilian employees in these regions is significantly important.

At the moment, a majority of the work in the reconstruction of these countries is being done by the military and the Department of State (DOS). These dedicated men and women deserve our gratitude. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, our challenging task requires the coordination and work of Federal agencies across the spectrum.

Regardless of whether one is in the military or a civilian, there are certain risks and hardships associated with working overseas. As a result, the Federal Government provides certain incentives to individuals when they take on extremely challenging jobs. For example, those in the military working in a combat zone receive the Combat Zone Tax Credit.

This tax credit permits military personnel working in combat zones to exclude a certain amount of income from their Federal income taxes. This benefit for the military was established in 1913.

Private contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan get a similar benefit. Under the Foreign Earned Income Tax Credit, contractors are allowed to exclude a portion of their income from taxes while they work abroad, like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To date, however, no similar benefit exists for Federal employees serving in the same combat zones. I do not believe it is fair for our Federal employees to be excluded from the same benefits available to military personnel and private contractors in the same combat zone.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, of which I have been honored to serve for the last 28 years in the Senate, is home to over 200,000 Federal employees. I have long been a strong supporter of our Federal employees as I have been for our military personnel.

Our efforts in the war on terrorism can only be successful with a highly skilled and experienced workforce. I can personally attest to the dedication of civil service employees throughout the Federal Government. Since the September 11th attacks, Federal employees have been relocated, reassigned, and worked long hours under strenuous circumstances without complaints, proving time and again their loyalty to their country is first and foremost.

During my service as Secretary of the Navy during which I was privileged to have some 650,000 civilian employees working side by side with the uniformed Navy, I valued very highly the sense of teamwork between the civilian and uniformed members of the United States Navy. Teamwork is an intrinsic military value, in my judgment, and essential to mission accomplishment. A sense of parity and fairness is important for developing this teamwork.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the teamwork of the entire Federal Government is essential to harness our overall efforts to secure a measure of democracy for the peoples of those countries, and

we need to make it easier for our Federal employees to participate.

I recently offered additional legislation to achieve this goal. My bill, S. 2600, would provide the heads of agencies other than DOS and the Department of Defense (DOD) with the authority, at their discretion, to give their employees who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those provided to State Department and DOD employees serving in those countries.

Currently, the agency heads of non-DOD and DOS agencies do not have such authority, and it is essential, as part of the U.S. effort to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan, that agency heads be able to give their workers in those countries the same benefits as those they work beside.

In the last estimate, there are almost 2,000 Federal employees working a variety of jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am grateful for their hard work in potentially dangerous situations. And, I know there are many other Federal employees who are anxious to serve their country and engage in these efforts, but it is a lot to risk.

Providing parity in this important tax credit would provide a significant incentive for individuals to take on this challenge--a challenge that America desperately needs Federal employees to undertake.

Throughout the world, America's civil servants are serving our government and our people, often in dangerous situations. They are on the ground in the war on terrorism taking over new roles to relieve military personnel of tasks civilian employees can perform. They are playing a vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have a long tradition in Congress of recognizing the valuable contributions of our Federal employees in both the military service and in the civil service by providing fair and equitable treatment. This bill gives us the ability to continue this tradition while at the same time providing an important incentive to help America meet its needs.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague Senator George Allen to introduce the Federal Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act, which would provide parity to civilian Federal employees by extending the tax credit currently received by military personnel in combat zones to the civilian Federal employees working along side them. My fellow Virginian, Congressman Frank Wolf, has introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives.

In addition, several Federal employee organizations, such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the Financial Management Association (FMA), the Senior Executives Association (SEA), the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), and the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), strongly support this legislation.

As of today, I have made eleven separate trips to Iraq and Afghanistan to see firsthand the work of our military personnel, which is essential to success in these regions. In addition, the work of our Federal civilian employees in these regions is significantly important.

At the moment, a majority of the work in the reconstruction of these countries is being done by the military and the Department of State (DOS). These dedicated men and women deserve our gratitude. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, our challenging task requires the coordination and work of Federal agencies across the spectrum.

Regardless of whether one is in the military or a civilian, there are certain risks and hardships associated with working overseas. As a result, the Federal Government provides certain incentives to individuals when they take on extremely challenging jobs. For example, those in the military working in a combat zone receive the Combat Zone Tax Credit.

This tax credit permits military personnel working in combat zones to exclude a certain amount of income from their Federal income taxes. This benefit for the military was established in 1913.

Private contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan get a similar benefit. Under the Foreign Earned Income Tax Credit, contractors are allowed to exclude a portion of their income from taxes while they work abroad, like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To date, however, no similar benefit exists for Federal employees serving in the same combat zones. I do not believe it is fair for our Federal employees to be excluded from the same benefits available to military personnel and private contractors in the same combat zone.

The Commonwealth of Virginia, of which I have been honored to serve for the last 28 years in the Senate, is home to over 200,000 Federal employees. I have long been a strong supporter of our Federal employees as I have been for our military personnel.

Our efforts in the war on terrorism can only be successful with a highly skilled and experienced workforce. I can personally attest to the dedication of civil service employees throughout the Federal Government. Since the September 11th attacks, Federal employees have been relocated, reassigned, and worked long hours under strenuous circumstances without complaints, proving time and again their loyalty to their country is first and foremost.

During my service as Secretary of the Navy during which I was privileged to have some 650,000 civilian employees working side by side with the uniformed Navy, I valued very highly the sense of teamwork between the civilian and uniformed members of the United States Navy. Teamwork is an intrinsic military value, in my judgment, and essential to mission accomplishment. A sense of parity and fairness is important for developing this teamwork.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the teamwork of the entire Federal Government is essential to harness our overall efforts to secure a measure of democracy for the peoples of those countries, and

we need to make it easier for our Federal employees to participate.

I recently offered additional legislation to achieve this goal. My bill, S. 2600, would provide the heads of agencies other than DOS and the Department of Defense (DOD) with the authority, at their discretion, to give their employees who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those provided to State Department and DOD employees serving in those countries.

Currently, the agency heads of non-DOD and DOS agencies do not have such authority, and it is essential, as part of the U.S. effort to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan, that agency heads be able to give their workers in those countries the same benefits as those they work beside.

In the last estimate, there are almost 2,000 Federal employees working a variety of jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am grateful for their hard work in potentially dangerous situations. And, I know there are many other Federal employees who are anxious to serve their country and engage in these efforts, but it is a lot to risk.

Providing parity in this important tax credit would provide a significant incentive for individuals to take on this challenge--a challenge that America desperately needs Federal employees to undertake.

Throughout the world, America's civil servants are serving our government and our people, often in dangerous situations. They are on the ground in the war on terrorism taking over new roles to relieve military personnel of tasks civilian employees can perform. They are playing a vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have a long tradition in Congress of recognizing the valuable contributions of our Federal employees in both the military service and in the civil service by providing fair and equitable treatment. This bill gives us the ability to continue this tradition while at the same time providing an important incentive to help America meet its needs.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent a fellow from Senator Graham's staff, Adam Brake, have floor privileges for the duration of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I now request the opportunity to address the Senate under that provision.

Yes, Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, at the present time, the members of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and the members of the Armed Services Committee of the House are in a conference. A great deal of confidentiality is attached to that procedure. I do not in any way intend to violate that confidentiality.

But before the conference--and this is not a matter of confidentiality--is a provision in the bill of the House of Representatives which is related to military chaplains. I will read from the House bill.

Each Chaplain shall have the prerogative to pray according

to the dictates of the Chaplain's own conscience, except as

must be limited by military necessity, with any such

limitation being imposed in the least restrictive manner

feasible.

That is the end of the proposed bill language. That is what I would like to address at this time.

I first want to say that the Senate has no such provision, and therefore we have to resolve the difference between the two bodies. The House of Representatives put this provision in during markup, which is the time they go over their bill. Another amendment was offered in that markup and rejected. It is referred to as follows: ``Amendment to H.R. 5122, offered by Mr. Israel,'' Member of Congress, and it provides in section 590, which I just read, relating to military chaplains: at the end of the quoted matter inserted by each of the subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), insert the following: ``, except that chaplains shall demonstrate sensitivity, respect, and tolerance for all faiths present on each occasion at which prayers are offered''.

I personally have not decided on what version I personally feel should

address this problem, so I remain of an open mind. But I remain very firmly of a mind that in the brief time that we have had an opportunity to look at it and examine it here on the Senate side, the time is inadequate to address an issue which I regard as of enormous importance. This is an issue that I would hope this Chamber would have the opportunity to discuss, whether to put into law a provision as proposed by the House or a provision as proposed by Mr. Israel, a Member of Congress, which addresses the perspectives of this issue from a different angle. This is just an example of the diversity of views on this important issue.

Among the conferees--I cannot name names; I will not--there is a strong division, those in favor of certain language other than what is in the House bill. Some conferees think that the provision by Mr. Israel should be included. So there is at this time just an enormous uncertainty among the conferees.

The House book that contains what we call report language, which is a very helpful instrument to try to explain the background of how provisions come into our legislation, trying to explain what some of the words mean, this book is silent. The only report language is a recitation, exactly, of the proposed bill language. So there is no guidance that Congress is providing on this important phrase.

I hasten to point out that, as is the case in just about all matters that we take up in the Armed Services Committee regarding the annual authorization bill, the Secretary of Defense transmits to us opinions that he has, on behalf of the Department, with regard to proposed legislation. I now will have printed in the Record what is entitled:

The Department of Defense Appeal, FY 2007 Defense

Authorization Bill; Subject: Military Chaplains; Language/

Provision: House section 590 established chaplains at each of

the Military Services would have the prerogative to pray

according to the dictates of their own conscience, except as

must be limited by military necessity. The Senate included no

similar provision.

The Department of Defense position is they oppose this provision. This reads as follows:

This provision could marginalize chaplains who, in

exercising their conscience, generate discomfort at mandatory

formations. Such erosion of unit cohesion is avoided by the

Military's present insistence on inclusive prayer at

interfaith gatherings--something the House legislation would

operate against.

The Department urges exclusion of this provision.

We have not decided as yet. But that is another dimension to the diversity of thinking on this very important provision.

As all Members in this body fully appreciate and understand, when a matter of this controversy comes along you are often singled out by a variety of people who disagree. I have not taken a position, but nevertheless I am being besieged by telephone, by bloggers, by everything else--that I have taken this or that position. I will state momentarily what I think should be done. But I am very proud of my background.

I was blessed with two magnificent parents. We were active in the Episcopal Church, and I have remained active in that faith nearly all of my life, nearly 80 years now. My uncle was a rector of a very prominent parish here in Washington, DC, in the shadow of the Washington Cathedral where I was raised, not more than three blocks from his church, and I was a regular attendee of Sunday school through that. I am just sorrowful that people attack me personally, as if I had no religious foundation. I have that foundation.

I have had the privilege to serve in uniform. Not a career--and I have said it many times here on the floor of the Senate--of any great note, a very modest career, but as a young, 17, 18-year-old in the last year of World War II, just in the training command. We were trained to be replacements to go overseas to the Pacific. The war ended. We were sent home.

But many a time in the course of that period in military service, the second chapter, this time as a United States Marine, a young officer serving in Korea, the First Marine Air Wing, at a time when, indeed, certainly the infantry troops in the front lines, where I visited on occasion, were being subject to the most difficult combat under rigorous conditions in Korea, but I knelt and prayed many, many times with my fellow soldiers--men and women, fellow marines, fellow sailors.

So I speak as one who has benefited through the years from the religion that was instilled in me through my parents and the church of my choice, and it has given me a great strength to face up to the trials and tribulations that all of us experience in a lifetime.

I respect the chaplains. I went to chaplains on occasion, and I am grateful for the counseling that they gave me. So I say, I look back with a sense of humility on what the military has taught me. Many times have I said I don't think I would ever have achieved the opportunity to be a U.S. Senator had I not had the opportunity, the privilege of serving in uniform during the periods of two conflicts of our Nation and the learning that I received throughout the military. I have often said the military did more for me than I ever did for the military. But I just will stand my ground against anyone who wishes to challenge my religion.

Now, in my 28th year in this magnificent Chamber, many is the time I stood here as our Senate opens and listened to either our chaplain or a visiting clergy. Each of us have the privilege of inviting from our several States a visiting clergy to come and deliver a prayer. It is part of the life of the U.S. Senate. I know of no effort ever to try and censor or legislate the prayers given here in the Senate, either by our chaplain or by the many who come from all over America to give their prayers here. So I am not suggesting the military is like the Senate. But it is an example of the use of prayer.

The military is different. It is for that reason, that it is different, that I think it is important that we proceed to resolve such problems as may exist today in the military regarding how our chaplains pray, that we resolve that only after the institutions of the Senate and the House of Representatives go through a careful and deliberative process, not just try in the heat of resolving a conference report, in brief meetings here and there among just a very few--well, sometimes all the conferees, sometimes in small groups--trying to reconcile the differences between legislative provisions in the House bill and those in the Senate bill.

I would like to call our attention to the Constitution of the United States. It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the

right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition

the government for a redress of grievances.

This is such a fundamental part of our democracy. It is a pillar of strength in this Republic. But it is constantly reviewed by the courts against the different factual situations that come up.

I think the military deserves no less than to have the most careful and deliberative review of this suggested language rather than to put it into law at this time. My recommendation--I will cooperate with the conferees--is that I am not prepared to take any position on how this language should be put into law or not put into law at this time. But I do say that I will strongly recommend to the Committee on Armed Services that the seriousness of this issue literally demands that as soon as the new Congress convenes in January, the committees of the Armed Services of the Senate and the House put on hearings at the earliest possibility. You could start with this language as recommended by the House of Representatives--the Senate has no language--to go through a process where people can come in.

For example, I asked each of the chiefs of the chaplains of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force to come in and speak to the conferees--there were only four conferees there at that time--which they did. I attached the utmost confidentiality as to what they said. But I was left with the impression that now is not the time to try to quickly put this one sentence into law by virtue of incorporating it into the final draft of the conference report. Those chaplains would be quite willing to come before the Congress in open session. Let the whole of the United States see this debate unfold, as it should.

Prayer is very important to the men and women of the Armed Forces. I remember so well the old maxim, ``There

is no atheist in the foxholes of war.'' Military people, military families are heavily dependent upon the comfort that is given by prayer--prayer alone or prayer with others.

I urge this Congress not to do at this time this one sentence. I will read it again. I have difficulty, as many times as I have read it, understanding exactly what it means.

It says: Each chaplain shall have the prerogative to pray according to the dictates of the chaplain's own conscience except as must be limited by military necessity.

What is that? What is military necessity? We should define that very carefully. I continue:

With any such limitation being imposed in the least

restrictive manner feasible.

That, to me, is a complicated sentence and a complicated message to put forth.

In conclusion, I will recommend to the conferees that at this time Congress not enact this bill language in the House, that we defer it to a time when the entire Senate and the entire House in open before the public invites in as many as we can possibly accommodate to give their views on the institution of the chaplain in the Armed Forces of the United States, an institution that I have known since the closing days of World War II and have known for over a half century and have seen it function and have seen it work. Before we change those rules, I think we owe no less to the men and women in the Armed Forces to have these deliberative bodies of the House and Senate have their hearings, debate the language, and then decide whether they wish or not to write language that in many respects we were admonished by the Founding Fathers to be careful, at least at the most under the First Amendment.

In addition, some of the concern--and I think it is a legitimate concern--of those proposing this language emanates from actions taken by the Department of the Air Force, the Department of the Navy, and I believe--I have not seen it--the Department of the Army in issuing certain guidance. The guidance was issued recently about this subject of prayer and other matters relating to the chaplain.

I will not go into it, but I will put in today's Record the documents that were issued by several military departments. You can read it for yourselves.

I think that we should put in report language in our bill two things: First, that the Secretary of Defense will stay--that means hold in abeyance--enforcement of these newly promulgated regulations until such time as the Congress has had an opportunity to hold its hearings, go through a deliberative process, and then decide whether it wishes to act by way of sending a conference report to the President for purposes of becoming the law of the land.

So it is twofold: let the system of the chaplain, which has been operating for my lifetime, half a century, serving the needs of the men and women of the Armed Forces, continue to do as they have done but stand down any regulations until studied by this coequal branch of the Government, which under the Constitution has a very special language provision that says we have a responsibility to care for the needs in general of the men and women of the Armed Forces. That is what the conference report does.

I am hopeful that the conferees will see the wisdom of this action, let this bill go forward to the President's desk so it can become law, and it can care for the men and women of the Armed Forces.

That will be written in report language. It does not have the force of law. But I am basically assured by the Department of Defense that they will comply; stay for the time being the most recent regulations, whatever they wish to call them, that have been sent out to their respective commands until Congress has had a reasonable time within which to decide whether they feel it is necessary to prepare for the President's signature a new law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional materials regarding this subject be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would make an inquiry. I inquire of the distinguished majority leader if the Senate Armed Services Committee could be added to that list and, therefore, be able to continue our hearing.

Mr. President, I thank our distinguished leader. With the concurrence of the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Levin, we have agreed to resume in open session a markup in the Armed Services Committee in Hart 216 at 2:15.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. That is well known to this Senator--that the Senator from Michigan and that side of the aisle has been totally cooperative in having a markup.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I will eventually address my own remarks, but as the distinguished Democratic leader spoke, we had the majority leader here. It was his intention, of course, to follow the Democratic leader with his remarks. He was called to the White House, and therefore we will have to hear from our distinguished majority leader later in the day on this matter.

If I could ask my colleagues across the aisle, perhaps we could alternate. Senator Stevens has spoken; perhaps I could follow your next speaker as a matter of comity.

Mr. President, at this point in time, I reserve, with the understanding that I encourage it be agreed to, but the distinguished Senator from Texas, the Senator from Alaska, and others are going to work on the sequencing over here, so I wonder if we could just informally say we will follow that until such time as one of these two come over and agree.

A list, thank you.

Mr. President, at this time, we seek the benefit of the comments of the Senator from Texas.

Mr. President, before my colleague departs, I wonder if I might engage in a colloquy with him. I am the next speaker on this side. I have allowed my colleagues to go ahead of me to accommodate them. If the Senator wants to recite his unanimous consent request, we have absolutely no objection, and I would simply add to it that following the speaker on the Democratic side who follows me, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire be recognized to speak on our side.

Mr. President, we have no objection. I would simply ask that it be amended such that following my taking the floor on our side, as I understand it, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts will speak, and then the Senator from New Hampshire on our side will be recognized.

Mr. President, I say to my good friend and colleague, we have had 28 wonderful years together on the Armed Services Committee. Now, with the passage of time, the responsibility of the management of that committee rests on our two shoulders, I as chairman at the present time, incidentally succeeding my good friend as chairman before me for a brief period, and he is now a distinguished ranking member. But I would like to start my remarks with a question to my good friend by asking Senators as we participate in this debate to consider what I regard as a very interesting approach to this debate as characterized by our President in a news conference on August 21.

He said the following:

You know, it is an interesting debate we are having in

America about how we ought to handle Iraq. There is a lot of

people--good, decent people--saying: Withdraw now. They are

absolutely wrong. It would be a huge mistake for this

country.

And I continue to quote the President:

There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now.

Vote for me. I will do everything I can, I guess, to cut off

money, is what they will try to do to get our troops out.

That, too--

The President said--

is a big mistake. It would be wrong, in my judgment, for us

to leave before the mission is completed in Iraq.

I will refer to this later. But this is the tenor. It seems to me that it is a very balanced and respectful tenor because the President went on to say:

I will never question the patriotism of somebody who

disagrees with me. This debate has nothing to do with

patriotism.

I take my cues from his approach and the manner in which he addressed the importance of the debate and how those who participate in it hopefully will be guided by his impressions.

To my good friend from Michigan, I listened very carefully to much of what he said, and I commend him in the sense that he is consistent in his approach. But what I want to draw the Senator's attention to is, what are the consequences--to the whole region, to the people in Iraq, to the war we are waging against terrorism, to our people here at home--what are the consequences if this somewhat fragile and new Government struggling to put down its roots and exercise the full reigns of sovereignty, what are the consequences should it fail to be able to exercise the full spectrum of responsibilities of a sovereign nation that Iraq is now? It is a sovereign nation. I believe those consequences, of their inability to govern, the inability of those in control of their armed forces--we are not in control of their armed forces--they are a sovereign nation. It is the Prime Minister who will issue the orders to their armed forces, not General Abizaid or General Casey. We work in concert with them, but they are a sovereign nation.

What are the consequences if this Government were not able to exercise the reins of sovereignty because of such conditions of further deterioration in the security situation? What are the consequences, I ask my good friend?

I would name several, in my judgment. First and foremost, that nation is sitting on the second largest oil reserve in the world--the second largest oil reserve. There it is. It is not the property of the United States. It is not the property of the coalition forces. We are not there to fight over the oil. But we are there to try to elect a government--or not elect, but let a government handle those natural resources which can quickly, if properly extracted, turn into hard cash. If those reserves fall into the wrong hands, hands which are dealing with terrorism, which support terrorism, which are antithetical to every principle of free democracies in the world, ours or other free nations, it would give terrorists unlimited cash to pursue their goals on terrorism--unlimited. And you couple unlimited cash with the cruelest, yet regrettably most effective weapon of war of the terrorists; namely, the human bombers, who, regrettably, they can purchase for dollars--for Dinars--you are facing not only the coalition forces in Iraq but the forces of freedom the world over, a very dangerous combination of unlimited funding and the human bomber.

The world stood in awe as we watched the human bombers inflict time and time again disastrous consequences on Israel. Now we have watched how they inflict disastrous consequences on our coalition forces in Iraq and, unfortunately, in a growing number of instances in Afghanistan.

Secondly, if that Government were to fail after all of the courage that the coalition of nations, working with the United States, has shown in trying to give the Iraqi people a sequence of free elections, a freely elected government, a constitution; if that Government were to fail, it would seriously affect the credibility of the United States of America in that region and complicate the already complicated problem posed by Iran, a nation that is thus far manifesting an unrelenting intent to acquire the capabilities to manufacture and possess nuclear weapons.

I would love to hear this Chamber debate what would be the consequences to that region if Iran were to obtain that capability and put it in its arsenal. There is no chapter in world history to match that threat--not the Cold War that our Nation and other nations faced with the Soviet Union. We always knew the Soviet Union had a degree of rational, objective understanding of the consequences of the use of the nuclear weapon. I have not seen any manifestations of this current Government in Iran that they operate in any rational, objective way.

So I ask my friend, as you spell out your fervent belief that we should begin, as you said just now--I copied it down--a ``phased withdrawal,'' could that not trigger instability in that fragile Government? Take, for example, their legislative body which just convened again this week. Each of us travels to and from this Chamber with a sense of absolute security in this country that we can do so safely. But each member of that legislative body, as they traverse Iraq, given the instability of that country in many areas, questions the personal safety of individuals serving in this Government. If the message were that we are going to start to withdraw, it might well cause that individual legislator or member of the Cabinet of the Maliki government to say: Wait a minute. Am I going to take all these personal risks to myself and to my family if this Government is not going to succeed? And what if this withdrawal were to trigger, in the minds of many of those brave people stepping up to serve in public service in Iraq today--it might well trigger to them: I better consider my own personal safety rather than trying to continue this public service.

Mr. President, I respect my colleague's views. We have had this debate several times before. I recognize and feel, as do you, as do I and I think every Member of this Chamber, the extraordinary losses in this country of 2,600-some men and women who have given their lives and some over 20,000 who are trying to recover from wounds and the impact on their families. That is an enormous sacrifice.

But what I say to you, my dear friend: You pose a big gamble. If you are not right and this legislature interprets that as a signal, the public servants in Iraq interpret that as a signal, the members of the Iraqi security forces--namely, the army--hear that their support base, logistically and other ways, the United States, that we are beginning a phased withdrawal, this could trigger the opposite reaction. If that Government were not able to function because of the lack of security and they lose reins of sovereignty, I ask my good friend, what happens? If these oilfields--maybe not all at once but fractionally--what happens if this country begins to divide in three parts: the Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in al Anbar, and down south in the Bosra region, the Shia? Iran is flexing its muscles in various ways, and as you and I know their influence is being felt in that country. What happens if they see we are not there with the resolve that our President, time and time again, has stated?

Yesterday, I was privileged, along with others, to be in the audience when he delivered what I thought was one of his strongest and best speeches, sketching the whole history of the war on terrorism and with direct quotes of the principals who are fighting against our interests here in this country. I ask, what happens if that Government fails to exercise the full range of democracy? What is your anticipation?

Mr. President, I have one other question for my colleague, and let me preface it with the following. You are a signatory of a letter, dated September 4, to the President, along with a number of your colleagues and the distinguished Democratic leader and the distinguished House Democratic leader and others. In it, you say the following:

In short, Mr. President, the current path for our military,

for the Iraqi people and for our security is neither working

nor making us more secure.

That is your basic thesis. And you list in here:

Therefore, we urge you once again to consider changes to

your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which would

include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to

counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection;

(2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from

Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi

leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based

and sustainable political settlement, including amending the

Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and

resources; and (4) convening an international conference and

contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to

preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled

economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. These

proposals were outlined in our July 30th letter and are

consistent with the ``U.S. Policy in Iraq Act'' you signed

into law last year.

In reply, a letter, a very respectful letter, was forwarded to all signatories on September 5. It was signed by the Chief of Staff of the President, Joshua B. Bolton. It is interesting, his observations. You say stay the course. Did you have an opportunity to look at this letter? Fine. Let me just read it. He cites as follows:

Thank you for your September 4 letter to the President. I

am responding on his behalf.

A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires

an accurate and fair-minded description of our current

policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq

that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In

order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along

three main tracks--political, economic, and security. Along

each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics

to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both

successes and setbacks [acknowledging that, Senator] along

the way, which is the story of every war that has been waged

and won.

Your letter recites four elements of a proposed ``new

direction'' in Iraq.

This I think most important. He cites in this letter that three of those elements reflect well-established administration policy and the fourth is dangerously misguided.

I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record following this paragraph.

He recites the changes in the administration adaptation to the ever-changing situation on the ground and with the Government. He recites each of the four points raised in your letter and addresses how this administration is pursuing a revised strategy.

To say we are staying the course is an inaccurate statement.

I understand.

This outlines the course we will embark on at this point in time. I urge my colleagues to read this letter in the context of our debate today.

I thank my colleague.

Exhibit 1--Response From the Chief of Staff Josh Bolten to a Democratic

Letter

September 5, 2006.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Reid: Thank you for your September 4 letter to

the President. I am responding on his behalf.

A useful discussion of what we need to do in Iraq requires

an accurate and fair-minded description of our current

policy: As the President has explained, our goal is an Iraq

that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself. In

order to achieve this goal, we are pursuing a strategy along

three main tracks--political, economic, and security. Along

each of these tracks, we are constantly adjusting our tactics

to meet conditions on the ground. We have witnessed both

successes and setbacks along the way, which is the story of

every war that has been waged and won.

Your letter recites four elements of a proposed ``new

direction'' in Iraq. Three of those elements reflect well-

established Administration policy; the fourth is dangerously

misguided.

First, you propose ``transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq

to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force

protection.'' That is what we are now doing, and have been

doing for several years. Our efforts to train the Iraqi

Security Forces (ISF) have evolved and accelerated over the

past three years. Our military has had substantial success in

building the Iraqi Army--and increasingly we have seen the

Iraqi Army take the lead in fighting the enemies of a free

Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces still must rely on U.S.

support, both in direct combat and especially in key combat

support functions. But any fair-minded reading of the current

situation must recognize that the ISF are unquestionably more

capable and shouldering a greater portion of the burden than

a year ago--and because of the extraordinary efforts of the

United States military, we expect they will become

increasingly capable with each passing month. Your

recommendation that we focus on counter-terrorism training

and operations--which is the most demanding task facing our

troops--tracks not only with our policy but also our

understanding, as well as the understanding of al Qaeda and

other terrorist organizations, that Iraq is a central front

in the war against terror.

Second, your letter proposes ``working with Iraqi leaders

to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and

sustainable political settlement, including amending the

Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and

resources.'' You are once again urging that the Bush

Administration adopt an approach that has not only been

embraced, but is now being executed. Prime Minister Nouri al-

Maliki is pursuing a national reconciliation project. It is

an undertaking that (a) was devised by the Iraqis; (b) has

the support of the United States, our coalition partners and

the United Nations; and (c) is now being implemented.

Further, in Iraq's political evolution, the Sunnis, who

boycotted the first Iraq election, are now much more involved

in the political process. Prime Minister Maliki is head of a

free government that represents all communities in Iraq for

the first time in that nation's history. It is in the context

of this broad-based, unity government, and the lasting

national compact that government is pursuing, that the Iraqis

will consider what amendments might be required to the

constitution that the Iraqi people adopted last year. On the

matter of disarming militias: that is precisely what Prime

Minister al-Maliki is working to do. Indeed, Coalition

leaders are working with him and his ministers to devise and

implement a program to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate

members of militias and other illegal armed groups.

Third, your letter calls for ``convening an international

conference and contact group to support a political

settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to

revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding

effort.'' The International Compact for Iraq, launched

recently by the sovereign Iraqi government and the United

Nations, is the best way to work with regional and

international partners to make substantial economic progress

in Iraq, help revitalize the economic reconstruction and

rebuilding of that nation, and support a fair and just

political settlement in Iraq--all while preserving Iraqi

sovereignty. This effort is well under way, it has momentum,

and I urge you to support it.

Three of the key proposals found in your letter, then, are

already reflected in current U.S. and Iraqi policy in the

region.

On the fourth element of your proposed ``new direction,''

however, we do disagree strongly. Our strategy calls for

redeploying troops from Iraq as conditions on the ground

allow, when the Iraqi Security Forces are capable of

defending their nation, and when our military commanders

believe the time is right. Your proposal is driven by none of

these factors; instead, it would have U.S. forces begin

withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year, without regard

to the conditions on the ground. Because your letter lacks

specifics, it is difficult to determine exactly what is

contemplated by the ``phased redeployment'' you propose. (One

such proposal, advanced by Representative Murtha, a signatory

to your letter, suggested that U.S. forces should be

redeployed as a ``quick reaction force'' to Okinawa, which is

nearly 5,000 miles from Baghdad).

Regardless of the specifics you envision by ``phased

redeployment,'' any premature withdrawal of U.S. forces would

have disastrous consequences for America's security. Such a

policy would embolden our terrorist enemies; betray the hopes

of the Iraqi people; lead to a terrorist state in control of

huge oil reserves; shatter the confidence our regional allies

have in America; undermine the spread of democracy in the

Middle East; and mean the sacrifices of American troops would

have been in vain. This ``new direction'' would lead to a

crippling defeat for America and a staggering victory for

Islamic extremists. That is not a direction this President

will follow. The President is being guided by a commitment to

victory--and that plan, in turn, is being driven by the

counsel and recommendations of our military commanders in the

region.

Finally, your letter calls for replacing Secretary of

Defense Rumsfeld. We strongly disagree. Secretary Rumsfeld is

an honorable and able public servant. Under his leadership,

the United States Armed Forces and our allies have overthrown

two brutal tyrannies and liberated more than 50 million

people. Al Qaeda has suffered tremendous blows. Secretary

Rumsfeld has pursued vigorously the President's vision for a

transformed U.S. military. And he has played a lead role in

forging and implementing many of the policies you now

recommend in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld retains the full

confidence of the President.

We appreciate your stated interest in working with the

Administration on policies that honor the sacrifice of our

troops and promote our national security, which we believe

can be accomplished only through victory in this central

front in the War on Terror.

Sincerely,

Joshua B. Bolten,

Chief of Staff.

Identical Letters Sent To:

The Honorable Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader.

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader.

The Honorable Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic

Leader.

The Honorable Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip.

The Honorable Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed

Services Committee.

The Honorable Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed

Services Committee.

The Honorable Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign

Relations Committee.

The Honorable Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House

International Relations Committee.

The Honorable Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate

Intelligence Committee.

The Honorable Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House

Intelligence Committee.

The Honorable Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense

Appropriations Subcommittee.

The Honorable John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense

Appropriations Subcommittee.

I return to the President's August 21 news conference. That sets the tenor for how we should address this debate not only in the Senate but across the land as we direct our attention to this important subject. The President concludes another paragraph in that news conference:

And so we will continue to speak out in a respectful way,

never challenging somebody's love for America when you

criticize their strategies or their point of view.

That is the context in which I wish to address the Senate this afternoon and have tried to do so in a respectful way, just as the President said.

I turn to another part of the letter I referred to, written by the Democratic leadership, in which they say:

We also think there is one additional measure you can take

immediately to demonstrate that you recognize the problems

your policies have created in Iraq and elsewhere, consider

changing the civilian leadership at the Defense Department.

Everyone has a perfect right to do that. That has been stated in this letter.

We go back to the basic strategy of this great republic, as laid down by our forefathers in the Constitution. The President was given the responsibility as Commander in Chief, as President, to assemble the Cabinet of his choosing--or her, in the future, if we have a female President. He has exercised that. This Senate has given its advice and consent, as is required under the Constitution for each of the Members, including Secretary Rumsfeld.

I draw upon my distinguished colleague from Alaska, his comments about Secretary Rumsfeld. Similar to the Senator from Alaska, I, too, have known Secretary Rumsfeld for a very long time. When I was Secretary of the Navy, he was in the White House at that time. I had some contact with him. In the ensuing years, I served under three Secretaries of Defense in my 5 years in the Department of Defense. In the ensuing years, in my

years in the Senate, I have worked with each and every one of the Secretaries of Defense, so I have some understanding, modest though it be, with regard to that office and those who have served in that office.

I find in my dealings with Secretary Rumsfeld over the years he has been in office--I worked on his confirmation, as a matter of fact, at that time--I have found him, much like the Senator from Alaska, to be an individual with whom I could work very successfully. I have established a working relationship and a mutual respect. I believe it is a fundamental right of the President to make his choice.

This debate, in a way, is an attack on the President as to his choice and to his constitutional right to select his own Cabinet. In so doing, we must respect that Constitution and his right to do so. He has chosen Secretary Rumsfeld. Within the past day or two, he has reiterated his unwavering support. Consequently, we must recognize it comes down to the Constitution, the Presidential right to select members of his Cabinet.

I join my colleague from Alaska and other colleagues in resisting, in every way, any call by which to indicate a lack of confidence in the President's choice for the Office of Secretary of Defense.

I may have further remarks to deliver on this subject as the debate continues, but at this point I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this initiative by my fellow colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. It is rather interesting, I went back and studied a lot of military treatises and precedents, trying to analyze what constitutes a civil war--Webster's Dictionary; Edward Luttwak, ``The Dictionary of Modern War''; Pennsylvania State University's ``The Classic International War''; and other treatises. It was interesting. There is another academic, with a last name spelled K- A-L-L-Y-V-A-S. He put out a treatise on warfare in civil wars. He talks about a conventional civil war, an irregular civil war, an asymmetric, nonconventional civil war.

This is an academic exercise that yields nothing. The one thing that comes out in this study is that there are no two civil insurrections alike. There is not a blueprint that can be put on this problem in Iraq to say definitively that it constitutes a civil war.

In fact, the situation in Iraq, no matter how disturbed all of us are about the rising number of deaths and the sectarian violence, it is very disturbing and I acknowledge that. It was never, in my judgment, foreseen that this level of insurrection would take place once we had a series of elections by the people of Iraq and a government put into place.

But the basic formula of civil war has the principle in it that if the government is still functioning and if the Armed Forces of that country are still acting in support of the government, then it does not constitute a civil war.

I urge my colleagues to turn their attention to the key fact here: What are the consequences if this government fails to have a security situation that enables it to exercise the full range of sovereignty? What are the consequences? What are the consequences if these valuable oilfields--maybe not all at once, but part of them--fall into the hands of terrorists who seize them? What are the consequences of the situation devolving to the point where the nations around it feel they must inject themselves into the situation? For example, those nations with Sunni populations, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and indeed Syria and Egypt; they are not going to stand on the sidelines.

So I say to my colleague, we better look at what happens if this Government fails to receive that measure of support from the coalition forces, principally the United States, to enable it to continue to exercise the reins of sovereignty and continue to have the allegiance and loyalty of the Armed Forces which we have painstakingly trained in large numbers now and equipped.

Therein is the debate we should have to let the American people know what are the consequences. If the oilfields were to fall into the wrong hands, they would provide an unlimited source of cash for the terrorists--terrorists who have the most frightful of all weapons today; namely, the human bomber. Couple that unlimited cash and what appears to be a number of human bombers and we have a serious problem. The Middle East would be thrown into a convulsive state. The credibility of our Nation, in the eyes of the world, would be tested, and we could no longer be a strong voice in trying to bring about order in this region and to contain the most serious problem, as I see it; that is, the possibility of Iran becoming a power enabling it to have nuclear weapons.

We must maintain a strong presence and we cannot let this Government be in a situation where it can no longer exercise the reins of sovereignty.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I support the President's nomination of Kimberly Ann Moore of Falls Church, VA, to be a U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Federal Circuit. I was pleased, along with Senator Allen, to introduce Ms. Moore to the Judiciary Committee on June 28, 2006, and it is my privilege to speak again on her behalf.

All of us recognize the importance of the position to which President Bush has nominated Ms. Moore. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stands as one of the 13 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals that operate just under the U.S. Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit, which consists of 12 judges, is a unique court in that it has nationwide jurisdiction in a variety of subject areas, including international trade, government contracts, patents, trademarks, certain money claims against the U.S. Government, and veterans' benefits cases.

Given the court's highly technical jurisdiction, there is no doubt that serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a challenging task. In my view, based on Ms. Moore's educational background and her legal and technical expertise, she is clearly up to the task.

Ms. Moore received her undergraduate degree in 1990 in electrical engineering from the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A year later, she earned her masters of science and earned an impressive grade point average of 4.8 out of a 5-point scale. The nominee then went on to graduate cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 1994.

Subsequent to graduation, Ms. Moore entered private practice where she worked as an associate at the well- respected law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. While at the firm, Ms. Moore specialized in intellectual property litigation.

In 1995, the nominee left private practice to serve as a law clerk for the Honorable Glenn L. Archer, Jr., then-chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Ms. Moore served a 2-year clerkship on the court.

After her clerkship, the nominee joined the faculty at the Chicago- Kent College of Law and, later the University of Maryland School of Law. At both law schools, Ms. Moore taught patent and trademark law. Beginning in 2000, Ms. Moore spent 3 years as an intellectual property litigation counsel at the firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Washington DC. At the same time, however, she still managed to work in academia, teaching law as an associate professor at the George Mason University School of Law. In 2004, Ms. Moore became a full professor of law at George Mason University where she teaches intellectual property law.

It is impressive to note that throughout her legal career the nominee has written and delivered over 60 published articles, books, and speeches, mostly in the realm of intellectual property law. Moreover, Ms. Moore has earned accolades from the National Law Journal, which recently selected her as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America.

In my view, Ms. Moore is obviously very well qualified to serve as a judge on this prestigious court. I look forward to the Senate confirming this fine nominee overwhelmingly.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss my absence today during rollcall vote No. 224. The vote was in reference to Senate amendment No. 4785, offered by my colleague, Senator Coburn. Senator Coburn's amendment, which sought to ensure fiscal integrity of travel payments made by the Department of Defense, passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0.

During the vote, I was serving as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, chairing a very important hearing on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism. Witnesses at the hearing included Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace; and General John Abizaid, Commander, United States Central Command. My vote would not have affected the outcome of this amendment.

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the retirement and to honor the service of a fellow Virginian, a true patriot, and a career civil servant of the Department of Defense who has given 39 years of dedicated military and civilian service to our country. Mr. Ralph Conte was born in Ponza, Italy, in 1940. He immigrated to the United States in January 1956 whereupon he studied engineering at New York University. He was commissioned as an Air Force officer through OTS in June 1967, and his first assignment was at Aviano Air Base, Italy. His military career included serving in Vietnam as a member of the premier combat engineering unit in the Air Force, known as RED HORSE. He further served at Kunsan Air Base in Korea and at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. In 1975 he separated from active duty and continued service to his country as a civilian manager at Air Force Logistics Command and a NATO program manager at Ramstein Air Base, Germany. He finally settled in Virginia in June 1986, working for the Air National Guard eventually as the chief of programs.

I believe everyone in the Air National Guard will attest that very few individuals have had a greater positive impact on providing the finest facilities and installations for the Air National Guard to accomplish their missions. During his tenure at the Air National Guard, Mr. Conte was directly responsible for planning and programming facility and real property requirements worth over $7 billion to support 177 Guard locations throughout the 50 States, 3 territories, and the District of Columbia. His leadership, outstanding technical expertise, and unlimited energy have created a blueprint for success for which generations of Air National Guardsmen will reap the benefits. I offer sincere appreciation and thanks for his service, and wish him and his family the best in retirement.