Floor Statements

Mr. President, I will try to frame the issue the way it deserves. It is going to be hard hitting. Senator Reid told me something one time, that we shouldn't run the Congress down. I generally agree with that except here. What we are about to do is take one of the most successful military operations in American history by any measure, the surge, and undercut it by one of the most dysfunctional Congresses in American history, by denying the funding to the troops in the field who have performed.

The House bill would replace military commanders with a dysfunctional Congress that is being led around by its nose by Code Pink and moveon.org, who don't understand success on the battlefield. All they see is the next election, the potential for an ad. Listen to the inflammatory rhetoric.

We are not going to allow the dysfunctional Congress to replace a successful commander. We are not going to send the message to our enemies: You are back into the fight. We are not going to tell our troops: You are a loser; you don't get any more money. We are not going to tell our allies and the brave Iraqis who have jumped on our side that we are leaving. This is ridiculous. It is undercutting America's vital national security interests, and it is telling our soldiers: You are losers--when they are winners. We are going to defeat it now and forever.

Mr. President, I would ask for 5 minutes.

And I thank the Senator from Vermont. I appreciate that.

Mr. President, I will be voting for Judge Mukasey because I think he is the solution, not the problem. My good friend from Colorado made a very eloquent statement, and I respect him

greatly. This has been a good debate, and it has been long overdue.

Where do we go, and how do we get there? What do we want to do to fight this war? What is in bounds, what is out of bounds? It is very tough, America. We are fighting a vicious enemy, one not in uniform, and one that will do anything to wreak havoc on this world; an enemy that would kill a child in a heartbeat and not think about it, in the name of God. So we have a real task ahead of ourselves, very difficult, and we have a great military.

My question for my colleagues is, the fact that our military would do the things that Senator Salazar said, consciously take waterboarding off the table, does that make us weaker? I don't think so. I go to bed at night feeling pretty good about America when our military lawyers come before the Congress and say: We don't do that. We don't do that.

Now, what does our enemy do when they capture one of our soldiers? We all know. They are brutal. They are horrible. The fact we don't cut their heads off, is that a sign of weakness? The fact that we will give them a lawyer when they won't give us one; that we will base our judgments on evidence, not revenge and hatred, does that make us weaker? No.

The ticking time bomb is not the scenario of a terrorist who may possess some special knowledge. The ticking time bomb is a world that is losing its way. There is no shortage of people who will cut your head off in this world. There is a shortage of people who will stand up for a better way. We know what bad people will do to good people. The question is, what do good people do to bad people?

We are good people, and we are struggling. And I think Judge Mukasey is part of the solution. He has lived a good life in the law, and he has been asked a question about solving a problem not of his making.

If I thought, I say to Senator Salazar, he really believed that waterboarding, at the end of the day, was the legal way to do business, I wouldn't vote for him. He is in a bind. He can't answer that question. But he will one day because I have asked him. And he doesn't have this theory of the law that there is only one branch of Government in a time of war that has been pushed by this administration to the point of being absurd.

He is a mainstream legal thinker. He answered my question that there is no power given to the President, inherent or otherwise, to avoid the Geneva Conventions obligations of this country or to set aside the McCain amendment. That was music to my ears. He is bound.

The question for us, as we have been a part of the conventions for a long time, and we have led the world for a long time by being different from our enemy, do we reserve to our Executive in those special circumstances the right to set the conventions aside? You see, we are threatened by someone out there who has no boundaries, a group that has no boundaries. So do we reserve to ourselves the ability to treat them any way we want to because the means justifies the end?

Well, let me tell you what will happen if we go down that road, and where we will wind up. What will we say to the Chinese Communist dictator who waterboards the Christians because they are threatened by the Bible? What do we say to people in China who will torture the Buddhist monk because they are threatened by a humble, decent religion? What do we say in Venezuela? What do we say anywhere in the world when people who feel threatened use horrible tactics simply because they are threatened?

This is a good man of the law, Judge Mukasey. Over time, Senators Schumer and Feinstein will be shown to have done the country some good--a lot of good. And to those who cannot vote for Judge Mukasey because he didn't answer this question as directly as you would like, I understand. But we are about to fix a problem in the Justice Department that needs to be fixed, and we are going to have an honest, good debate about how to win this war.

I can tell you right now, the only way we will win this war is not just by killing because this is not about how many of them we can kill. That is an endless number. This is not about a capital to conquer, an air force to shoot down, or a navy to sink. This is about ideas. Our way of living is better than theirs, only if we will have the courage and the common sense to embrace it and not be afraid to be good in a time where there is evil.

God bless you.

Mr. President, as we are confronted by the deep sadness of this tragic loss, may we never lose sight of the life, vitality, and youth that was suddenly taken from us on October 27, 2007, in Ocean Isle, NC. Today and in the difficult days to come, we offer our sincerest condolences to the family and friends of these seven young men and women. The University of South Carolina, Clemson University, and the State of South Carolina feel the immeasurable pain of losing seven of our most precious sons and daughters, and as the family South Carolinians are, we share in your grief and offer our love and support.

Not only do we mourn the loss of sons and daughters, but we mourn the loss of future leaders and scholars, peacemakers and trailblazers, parents and friends. The world was vastly open to these young men and women. I ask others to find the courage and resolve to fulfill their suspended hopes and dreams, ensuring that futures overcome flames and aspirations prevail over ashes.

Though it is grief that connects us now, let it be the spirit of their lives that forever bonds our community. We should honor these students by taking up the load they left for us to carry and seeing their earthly aspirations through to their full fruition.

Mr. President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing Major General Harry B. Burchstead, Jr. on the occasion of his retirement from the South Carolina Army National Guard. Since entering the United States Army as a commissioned officer through the ROTC program at Clemson University, General Burchstead has remained a dedicated serviceman for his entire career. Immediately after his graduation from Clemson, General Burchstead loyally answered his call of duty and deployed for combat service in the Vietnam War.

After leaving active duty in 1971, General Burchstead went on to pursue his law degree at the University of South Carolina. While in law school, General Burchstead continued his military service by joining the South Carolina Army National Guard in 1972. For the next thirty- five years, General Burchstead proudly served the State of South Carolina as a traditional citizen soldier through many levels of military service.

In 1997, General Burchstead was appointed to serve as the Deputy Adjutant General of South Carolina. In this capacity, he was critical in advising the Adjutant General's oversight of the South Carolina Army and Air National Guard. For six years, General Burchstead's strategic and diligent counsel was integral to the effective military operations of our state's full-time servicemen and women.

As a distinguished leader, General Burchstead was selected to command the 263rd Army Air and Missile Defense Command in 2003. In his role as Commander, General Burchstead led Joint Task Force Cobra in its execution of the Juniper-Cobra Missile Defense Exercise in Israel. Additionally, General Burchstead was successful in commanding the Joint Project Optical Windmill Air and Missile Defense Exercise in Europe, as well as the U.S.-Russian Federation Missile Defense Exercise at Fort Bliss, Texas.

A dedicated patriot, General Burchstead formally retired from the South Carolina Army National Guard on September 30th, 2007. Over his thirty-five years of service General Burchstead has amassed numerous awards and decorations including the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Purple Heart, the U.S. Meritorious Service Medal and the Army Commendation Medal. His military career will be forever marked by his selfless devotion and sacrifice to both our country and the State of South Carolina. I wish General Burchstead the very best in his retirement and ask that the United States Senate join me in thanking him for his lifelong career of service.

Mr. President, I thank both of my colleagues for speaking on the amendment. Senator Kyl knows as much about this issue as anyone I have ever met. Senator Isakson has made it a point to educate himself. He has been to the border several times and was instrumental in trying to find a comprehensive approach, which fell last time, to ensure that the border would be secure before anything else happened. We are building off his work, basically. The $3 billion we have available in this amendment is designated as an emergency, an oft-used term around here when it comes to spending money. But I can assure everyone that securing our border is a national emergency, because it is a national security problem not to be able to control who comes into your country. The $3 billion appropriations in this amendment will allow us to complete projects already designated and to build out border security in a way never known before.

I hope it is a confidence builder. The goal of the amendment is prove to the public that Congress is very serious about securing the border, and we are putting money on the table that has never been there before. We are sort of prepaying the cost of border security as a statement by the Congress to the American people that we are very serious about securing our border. This is one piece of the puzzle. Fencing is part of it, additional border security, Border Patrol agents, more bed space to keep people who have been caught coming across the border illegally. It will create a deterrent. It all works together. The verifying of employment, the magnet that draws people to our country is employment, jobs. We are trying to find a way to verify who is here legally so our employers will be able to tell, if someone is applying for a job, their legal status. Right now that is difficult to do. This $3 billion is an emergency appropriations, properly designated, that will fundamentally change border security for the better. It will put money on the table that is needed, help build a fence that is needed, hire more Border Patrol guards who are needed, create more bed spaces to house people who have broken the laws--all is needed as part of the puzzle. This by itself will not solve the immigration problem, but it is a start. For people who want border security first, this is a recognition that we have listened to you. We understand what you are saying. We are putting money aside to make sure we secure the border.

I certainly will. I want to get to the point on both borders, but I will yield to my friend Senator Tester.

I thank the Senator for his question. That is correct. They can be. It is our intent that the money in this amendment is not specifically for the southern border but should be used to improve staffing and technology deployment on the entire border, including the Canadian border. It can be used for those purposes. I know the Senator has been very insistent that these funds be allocated to all of our border security needs, including our northern border, and they will be. I appreciate his efforts to make that a reality.

In conclusion, this has drawn bipartisan support in the past, 89

to 1. I expect it will do the same now. There is a lot of division in the Nation over the war and many other issues, but we have come together along the lines that for America to be secure, we have to control who comes into our country. This amendment will provide funds that are missing today to allow us to secure both borders and deal with our employment problems. It is a good first step, but it is only a first step. I appreciate all my colleagues rallying around the idea.

One last comment to the chairman. I don't know if people have been watching a PBS show called ``The War.'' It is a documentary by Ken Burns. I have been riveted every night watching the story of World War II told through the eyes of those who lived it from four communities across the country--I believe Sacramento, CA, a small town in Minnesota, Mobile, AL, and Waterbury, CT. The documentary has been trying to explain to my generation and others what it was like to live and fight during World War II. One of the people showcased in that documentary was Senator Inouye. I wanted to say for the record that I have never been more proud to call him my friend, and I would hope every American, particularly young Americans, will get a chance to see this documentary about World War II and what that generation went through to secure our freedom. There is much to be learned from his sacrifice. I end this debate about the challenges of my time, of our time regarding border security, to let America know that there was a time in the past where this country rallied together, pushed the ball up the hill, and secured victory against some very vicious enemies. I hope we can recapture that spirit. This amendment is offered in the spirit of trying to bring the country together to secure our Nation from a broken immigration system.

But to Senator Inouye, he has my undying respect and gratitude for his service to our Nation. And for all those who fought in that war and served here at home and made the outcome possible, well done.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I would like 5 minutes, if that is possible, to speak against the Feingold-Reid amendment.

To my dear friend from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, I appreciate his passion. I know he is acting on his beliefs. We need more of that. I disagree with him fairly dramatically about the consequences of his proposal. As I understand it, it would stop funding in many areas of military operations that are ongoing in Iraq now and, by using funding, restrict the mission in a way that would be ill- advised for our own national security interests.

The biggest winner of a change in mission through restricted funding would be Iran. The Iranian regime is actively involved in trying to kill American servicemembers to drive us out. Their biggest fear in Iran is to have a functional democratic representative government in Iraq on their border that would create problems for the way they run their own country. They are not going to stand on the sideline and watch Iraq be transformed into a representative form of government without a fight. They have chosen to be involved in militia groups with the goal of killing Americans. The goal is to create casualties and break the will of the American people so we will leave Iraq.

In terms of al-Qaida, the biggest loser of the surge militarily has been al-Qaida. They have been diminished because of a new way of confronting this enemy where we get out behind the walls. We live with the Iraqi Army and police forces. We are taking the fight to al-Qaida, and we have been able to marginalize and diminish their presence.

This amendment would embolden an enemy that is literally on the mat. It would send the wrong message to Iran at a time when they need to hear something different than America is going to leave. They need to hear the message that America is going to stand behind the forces in Iraq to create a stable Iraq. The last thing this Congress should do is create a change in mission through funding that will undercut an operation that has produced results on the security front never known before.

Under the rules of engagement, how do you determine who al-Qaida is with any certainty over there?

So the idea of restricting the military mission against the advice of General Petraeus seems to me to be ill-advised. The Congress has a robust role in time of war. But at the end of the day, we have to make a decision: Whose advice are we going to follow in terms of military strategy: General Petraeus and his colleagues or are we going to try to rewrite the mission based on what we think is best on the ground militarily?

I think it would be a huge mistake for this Congress to adopt this amendment because it would be welcome news in Tehran. It would be seen by a very oppressive regime that, America is going to leave Iraq, and they would be the big beneficiary of what would be left behind, which would be a chaotic situation.

Does Iran want chaos in Iraq? To some extent. Does Iran want a representative government in Iraq? Absolutely not. They are going to do everything within their power to make sure that does not happen. It is in our national security interest to make sure it does.

Al-Qaida has been diminished greatly from the surge. If this amendment was adopted, it would be cheered on by al-Qaida operatives-- we are back in the fight because we know when America is going to leave. We know when the mission is going to be changed.

So I would argue this amendment comes at the worst possible time for American national security interests, and it is ill-advised in concept and impossible to execute.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment I would like to send to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment I have offered would appropriate $3 billion in emergency spending for border security operations. It is virtually the same amendment we had on the DHS appropriations bill.

The amendment will allow purchases to be made for unmanned aerial vehicles, ground sensors, and vehicle barriers. It provides funding for the construction of 700 miles of fencing. It would establish operational control over all of our borders. It provides funding to obtain more bed space to detain immigrants for overstaying their visas, and it provides funding for States and localities that undergo training to assist the Federal Government in enforcing immigration law.

There has been a veto threat on the DHS bill. I am hoping that this amendment, which passed 89 to 1--a similar version of it on the DHS appropriations bill--will find its way on this legislation, which I hope will get signed into law by the President.

With that, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before my colleague from Oregon leaves, I don't think there is anybody in this body who is more respected than Senator Gordon Smith. He is a very sincere, thoughtful guy who tries to personalize issues that affect people throughout this country. I know he is motivated by all the right reasons, but somebody needs to talk about the politics.

This legislation has been placed on the Defense authorization bill in the past. It never made it out of conference because we knew, with the makeup of the conference, the amendment would fall. Given the makeup of this conference, the amendment will be part of the bill and it is going to be vetoed. That is the politics. Whether one agrees with President Bush, he said he is going to veto this bill, and if I were him, I would as Commander in Chief. I would not buy into this way of legislating.

Another reason for this amendment, if you think there is a gap in military law that without this kind of amendment the military is not going to prosecute people who act on their prejudices, you are wrong. If someone in uniform commits a crime against a civilian or another person in uniform, I don't care why they did it; if they beat somebody up, hurt somebody, they are going to get prosecuted. That is the way the military law works.

We are not doing the military a favor by passing this legislation because there is no problem in the military in terms of how justice is administered. Whatever motivates you to hurt someone or to take the law in your own hands or act on your prejudices, you are going to be dealt with because we cannot have good order and discipline in the military when people can hurt someone based on their individual prejudice because the whole unit falls apart. This is nothing the military needs. They are going to take care of violence in the ranks based on the law they already have.

I can assure my colleagues that no one in the military gets a pass because of the status of their victim. If you engage in violent conduct, inappropriate behavior, illegal behavior, the law is going to come down on your head because we need good order and discipline.

The politics of this amendment is that this bill will get vetoed. The President is not going to agree to this social legislation on the Defense authorization bill, and we have to take responsibility for that action. Whether one agrees with him or not, we are going to put in jeopardy items the military does need. They don't need a hate crimes bill to make it an effective fighting force. We already have disciplinary tools to discipline people. They need pay raises and MRAP protection, and this bill provides those items.

Members of this body have different views about hate crimes legislation. We can argue those differences any time, anywhere, on any other piece of

legislation. It can be brought up as a freestanding bill. But to put it on this bill is going to put in jeopardy items our men and women who are in combat and being shot at need. When I go to Iraq, I don't have a lot of people coming up to me saying we need to pass a hate crimes bill. They do need better body armor. They do need pay raises. They do need better MRAPs.

I think this is a very poor use of the legislative process knowing the end game. The end game is, we are going to hijack the Defense authorization bill by legislation not needed in the military, that is contentious, and that has an opportunity to be debated somewhere else. I hope reason prevails eventually.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, I would like to add my voice to what Senator Kyl has echoed. There are two votes today--I hope sometime today--and one is about whether we should adopt a resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. I think that would be a pretty easy vote for most of us, given the evidence out there about their involvement in international terrorism, particularly the Quds Force, which is sort of a subsidiary, regarding our troop presence in Iraq.

The question, I guess, we need to ask ourselves is: Why would the Iranian Government, through the Quds Force and other organizations, be sponsoring militia groups that are trying to kill Americans in Iraq?

There is a purpose for everything. I know why we are there. From my point of view, we are there to try to stabilize a country in a post- Saddam Hussein era that would allow the three groups to live tolerantly together and be an ally in the war on terror, be a place to check Iran, and deny al-Qaida a safe haven, and it could be a model for future Mideast expansion of representative government and the democratic process.

What would Iran be up to? My belief is the reason the Iranian regime is so hellbent on making sure the Iraqi experiment in tolerance fails in representative government--from a theocracy point of view, from the Iranian Government's point of view, the biggest nightmare for them would be a representative government in Iraq on their border. So they are not going to give that to the Iraqi people without a fight. They certainly are not going to give it to us without a fight.

We need to realize we are in a proxy war with Iran over the outcome of Iraq. For those who have determined this is a civil war only in Iraq, that the outcome is about who runs Iraq, I think you misunderstand the role Iran is playing. Iran is trying to shape Iraq in a way not to be a threat to the theocracy in Iran. They are trying to shape Iraq in a way that would be detrimental to our long-term national security interests. They are trying to be able to say to the world they stood up to America and drove us out. They are trying to expand their influence by defeating us in Iraq and in trying to destabilize their representative form of government, which would, again, be a nightmare.

So this resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is well founded based on the evidence that is being gathered against this organization. There is more to come. I have had a chance to be over in Iraq a couple times now looking at some cases involving Iranian involvement with the killing and kidnapping of American soldiers. So there is more evidence to come about Iran's involvement in trying to kill Americans and destabilize this representative government in Iraq.

Now, the second resolution is: What role should we play in dictating the outcome of this representative experiment in government in Iraq? I have great respect for Senator Biden. I think it is ill advised for us in the Senate to be adopting a resolution basically dictating or trying to give our sense of what should happen in Iraq because that destroys the whole underpinning of what we are trying to do.

The idea that the three groups can live separate and apart from each other without regional consequences is unfounded. The Shias, who wish a theocracy for Iraq, could never achieve that goal without pushback from their Sunni Arab neighbors. The Kurds, who wish to have an independent Kurdish state in the north, are going to run right into the teeth of Turkey. The Sunnis, who wish for the good old days of Saddam where they ran the country--that is never going to happen. The region is not going to allow that to happen.

So at the end of the day, I believe the effort to reconcile Iraq in central Baghdad will be successful not by a sense-of-the-Senate resolution but by a desire and sense of the people of Iraq. The one thing I have learned from my last visit is that local reconciliation in Iraq is proliferating because people are very much tired of the killing. They are war weary. There is a suicide bomber wave going on right now against reconciliation efforts in Diyala Province, where 21 people were killed who were meeting to reconcile that province.

So al-Qaida is alive and well in Iraq. They are greatly diminished, but they show up where reconciliation is being discussed. The reason they show up where reconciliation is being discussed is because their big nightmare is to have Iraq come together and a woman to have a say about her children and Sunnis and Shias and Kurds living in peace and rejecting their extremist view of the Koran.

So the players in Iran and al-Qaida are very much pushing back hard. The question for this country is, Will we stand up to them and push back equally hard and stand by the moderate forces in Iraq, imperfect as they may be?

So I hope one amendment is adopted, designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. I hope the other amendment, trying to give our sense of what to do in Iraq from the Senate's point of view, fails and we allow the Iraqi people to work out their problems with our help but insist they get on with it.

So with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, this has been a very spirited and meaningful debate. The amendment that has

been offered by two people I respect greatly. I do not question their motives about loving our country anymore than I do. They are trying to find out what is best for Iraq and a very difficult situation. We have an honest disagreement.

I think it has been a very healthy debate of reaching the same goal; that is, a successful outcome in Iraq. But make no mistake about it, from my point of view, the reason I oppose this resolution, it is a change in military strategy.

Senator Reed talked about similarities between what General Petraeus said and what this resolution would do. There are some similarities, but it is a fundamental change in military strategy. After General Petraeus testified, is that wise for us to do that? Is it wise for the Congress to basically take operational control of this war from General Petraeus?

Because that is what this resolution would do, it restructures our forces in a way he did not recommend. It would be a very overt rejection of General Petraeus's leadership, his strategy, his vision, and his recommendations. I think we need to understand that would be the consequence of passing this resolution.

It would be saying, respectfully, no to General Petraeus and yes to the Congress in terms of how to run a war. I think that is not wise. It is the de facto return to the old strategy. For 3\1/2\ years, we had the strategy on the ground in Iraq that did not produce results that were beneficial.

I am a military lawyer, and I have no expertise about how to invade a country or manage a population once the invasion is over. But I can tell you this based on common sense and 3\1/2\ years of experience. The old strategy was not working. The first trip to Baghdad after the fall of the capital, you were able to move around, it was a bit chaotic, but you were able to go downtown and do some things you have a hard time even doing today.

But by the third trip to Baghdad after the fall, we were in a security environment, almost in a tank. So it was clear to me, training the Iraqi troops, having a small military footprint, was not achieving the security we needed for reconciliation. And the few ``dead-enders'' were the most resilient people in the world. If the insurgency was in its last throes, it was a deep throe.

Every time I asked the people coming back who were running the old strategy and testifying to Congress, what is the general number of insurgents, about 5,000 hard-core insurgents. It is the most resilient 5,000 in the world. They were able, certainly, to do a lot of havoc. Thank goodness we changed strategies.

Senators Levin and Reed and others have been arguing for a very long time to change course and change strategies. The President heard that call. He sat down with military leaders and put a new commander in the field. We have, in fact, changed strategies. What did we do? We went a different way. Instead of withdrawing troops and doing more of the same, we added troops. As Senator Inhofe said, it is the best thing we have done. These additional 30,000 combat troops being interjected into the battlefield have paid off in security gains we have never seen before.

Hats off to the surge. To those who are part of the surge, those who have been in Iraq for a very long time, I acknowledge and respect your success because the success has been undeniable. The challenges are also undeniable. But without the surge, there would have been no turnaround in Anbar. The people in Anbar had had enough of al-Qaida. We can't take credit for that. Al-Qaida overplayed its hand, and we had additional combat power in place to take advantage of a population that was ready to make a choice, a choice for the good. Their rejection of al-Qaida is not national political reconciliation, it is not embracing democracy. But it is good news because you have Sunni Arabs rejecting the al-Qaida agenda, and that is great news.

This resolution not only is a rejection of General Petraeus's strategy, his vision for how to be successful, it has an impractical effect. The rules of engagement one would have to draft around implementing this strategy are almost impossible from my point of view. Just to train and fight al-Qaida, how do you do that, when you have all kinds of enemies running around Iraq, including Iran, including sectarian violence? The idea that we are going to change missions and adopt this resolution as a new mission and have such a limited military ability is unwise and impractical.

It is a dangerous precedent for the Congress to set to withdraw from a military commander who has been successful the power to implement a strategy that has proven to be successful.

The basic premise of the resolution is, if we change strategies, reject General Petraeus and go to the old strategy, which is, in essence, what we would be doing, it would bring about better reconciliation. My fundamental belief is that we will never have political reconciliation until we have better security. The new strategy, the surge, has brought about better security than we have ever had before in Iraq. Even though it is still a very dangerous place, there is no evidence to suggest that reconciliation would be enhanced by rejecting Petraeus and adopting the Congress's plan for Iraq. Quite the opposite. I think all of the evidence we have before us is that a smaller military footprint, when you are training and fighting behind walls, empowers the enemy. If we adopted this resolution, the security gains we have achieved would be lost. We would be abandoning people who have come forward to help us. We wouldn't have the military power to seize the momentum that has been gained from the surge. We would actually roll back the momentum that has been gained. We would put people at risk who have come forward to help us. For example, 12,000 people have joined the police force in Anbar in 2007. In 2006, only 1,000 people joined the police in Anbar. There is local reconciliation going on. There is a realization by the Iraqi people that now is the time to step forward. Their politicians are lagging behind the local population, but it will not be long before Baghdad understands that they have to reconcile their country through the political process. They will only do that with better security.

When you reach across the aisle in America, you can pay a heavy price in terms of your political future. When you reach across the aisle in Baghdad, your family can be killed. Better security will breed more political reconciliation, not less. To abandon this strategy now, to substitute the Congress's judgment for General Petraeus's judgment, is ill-advised and unwarranted. Quite frankly, General Petraeus and the troops serving under him deserve our support and our respect, and they have earned the ability to carry on their mission. They have earned, based on success on the battlefield, the right to move forward as they deem to be militarily sound.

The Congress is at 11 percent. Part of the reason we are at 11 percent is that we don't seem to be able to come together and solve hard problems. Why do we believe we have a better insight into how to win this war than a battlefield commander who has produced results never known before? I don't think we do.

I will end this debate in a respectful manner. We have the same goal, and that is to bring about political reconciliation and success in Iraq. Unfortunately, this goes backwards at a time when we need to go forward.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I don't believe Senator McConnell is coming.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes to speak in opposition to the Feingold amendment.

Mr. President, as to the author of the amendment, no one should ever question his motivation, his patriotism. He has been a firm believer that we should be out of Iraq as soon as possible. Senator Feingold believes our continued presence in Iraq is creating more terrorism in terms of solving the problem; it is creating the problem in a larger sense. I personally disagree.

The reason al-Qaida went to Iraq is not because we were in Iraq. They went to Iraq because of what the Iraqi people are trying to do. We are all over the world. They have not followed us to every country we have been in. They have decided to make Iraq a central battlefront in their war against moderation because they fear a successful outcome among the Iraqis. The biggest fear of an al-Qaida member is that a group of Muslims will get together and be tolerant of each others' differences when it comes to religion, and elevate

the role of a woman so she can have a say about her children. That is why al-Qaida is in Iraq.

The military surge has produced results beyond my expectation. The old strategy clearly was going nowhere. After about my third visit to Iraq, after the fall of Baghdad, I had lost faith in the old strategy and those who were proposing it was working. This new general has come up with a new idea. This is not more of the same with more people. You are getting out behind walls. You are getting out into the community. We are living with the Iraqi Army and police force--very good gains in terms of operational capabilities of the Iraqi Army. We are going to have to start all over with the police.

But the surge has allowed a real diminishment of the al-Qaida footprint in Anbar Province. Anytime Sunni Arabs turn on al-Qaida anywhere in the world, that is good news. So the surge has provided us a level of security not known before. It has been al-Qaida's worst nightmare. There is still a long way to go.

Senator Feingold's amendment would basically bring the surge to a halt. It would withdraw troops at a very rapid pace. We would be out of Iraq by June of next year. My big fear is, instead of reinforcing reconciliation, it would freeze every effort to reconcile and people would start making political decisions based on what happens to their country when there is no security.

The American mistake of the ages was letting Iraq get out of control, not having enough troops. We paid heavily for that mistake. Now we have it turned around. Militarily, politically they are not where they need to be in terms of the Iraqis. But the best way, I believe, to get political reconciliation to happen in Baghdad is to make sure those who are trying to reconcile their country--families--are not killed. So the better the security you can provide, the more likely the reconciliation.

One thing is for sure: more troops have helped embolden the Iraqi people in terms of extremists. They are taking on extremists after the surge better than they had ever done before the surge. I think this confidence given to the Iraqi people by a surge of military support has paid dividends.

We need political, economic, and military support to continue, not just because of Iraq but because of our own national interest. If I thought it were only about who ran Iraq, I would be willing to leave. It is not about who controls Iraq. It is about whether we can create a stable, functioning government in Iraq that would contain Iran and deny al-Qaida a safe haven. If it were only about sectarian differences and a power struggle for Iraq, it would be a totally different dynamic.

To me, Iran is ready to fill a vacuum. If we have a failed state, that is a military, political, and economic problem far worse than the ones we are dealing with now. A failed state is a state that breaks apart, people stop trying to work with each other, and regional players come in and take sides.

A dysfunctional government is what we have in Iraq, probably what we have here. A dysfunctional government has hope of getting better because people keep trying. So the way to have a government go from a dysfunctional status to a secure, stable status is to provide security. I want this dysfunctional government to act sooner rather than later, just as you do, I say to the Presiding Officer. The best way to make that happen is to ensure that the politicians involved understand we have a commitment to their cause that will embolden them.

The Feingold amendment, no matter how well intentioned, will reenergize an enemy on the mat and make it harder to reconcile Iraq. That is why I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back.

No objection.

Let's call it a day.

Mr. President, while we are awaiting other Senators to arrive, I would like a few minutes to speak against my good friend's amendment.

Mr. President, the choice for the Congress is whether or not we retreat from a policy that appears to be working by adopting this amendment which would redeploy troops in a fashion very inconsistent with what we are doing on the ground. What we are doing now is a long overdue change in strategy. We have more forces than we have ever had before, and they are very much needed.

The one thing I can say without any doubt is the old strategy, before the surge, was not producing the results we were hoping for in terms of security and political reconciliation. After about the third trip to Baghdad, it was obvious to me the game plan we had in place after the fall of Baghdad was not working. I was told time and time again, we have enough troops, the insurgency is in its last throes, and there are a few dead-enders. Well, that was the furthest thing from the truth.

The truth is the security environment in Iraq got completely out of hand, al-Qaida flourished under the old strategy, they were able to thrive in parts of Anbar, and it was evolving into complete chaos. Thank God we had the ability and the willingness as a nation, through our Commander in Chief and through this Congress, to appoint a new general with a new idea. The idea that he is employing now is long overdue. More troops have provided better security, and they have been able to accomplish this by partnering with the Iraqi Army in a new way.

The old strategy, which we are trying to go back to with this amendment, had us in a training role. We were living behind walls, training during the day, and pretty much disengaged from the fight. We are now out from behind those walls, living with the Iraqi troops in joint security stations all over Baghdad and all over the country. We are living, eating, training, and fighting with the Iraqi Army. And General Jones tells us they are getting better.

Anbar Province is dramatically different. Six months ago, it was reported by the Marine Corps to have been lost to the enemy called al- Qaida. Well, a couple of things happened that are indeed good news. No. 1, the people who lived in Anbar, who had a taste of al-Qaida life, decided they did not want to live that way. Why? Well, what happened in Anbar Province when al-Qaida was in charge? Awful, terrible, vicious things that really cannot even be talked about on the floor of the Senate. They imposed a way of life on the Anbar Sunnis that did not meet the test of human decency, and the people living in Anbar rejected al-Qaida because they overplayed their hand.

The difference between us and our enemy in Iraq, al-Qaida, is pretty obvious. This organization that is tied to bin Laden, but also has Iraqi members, they are the type of people if you don't do what they say, they will take the family out into the street, take a 5-year-old child in the presence of the parents, cover the child in gasoline, and set the child on fire. That is our enemy. That is the enemy of everybody

who loves freedom and human decency. That happened in Anbar, and things like that happened time and time again.

The agenda that al-Qaida has for the world is a very dark view of the world, particularly for women. And, thank God, it has been rejected by those in Anbar. The surge gave the ability to those living in Anbar to make a choice they never had before. The additional military support provided by the surge came along at a magic moment in time when the people in Anbar were ready to take on al-Qaida. This additional combat capacity cannot be underestimated in terms of how it has changed Iraq. It certainly liberated Anbar from the clutches of al-Qaida. And the fact that Sunni Arabs are willing to turn on al-Qaida and join coalition forces is good news for the world.

This amendment would basically undo many of the successes we have had in terms of adding more combat power. Things are getting better around Baghdad. There is still a lot of fighting. Al-Qaida has not been completely vanquished, but they are certainly diminished. Iran is playing hard in Iraq right now. They understand what is going on on the floor of the Senate.

Why are the Iranians trying to kill American forces? What is the goal of the Iranian regime when it comes to Iraq? I think the goal is to drive us out. Does Iran want a completely chaotic Iraq? No. Does Iran want a representative government in Iraq? Absolutely not, because the biggest threat to this Iranian theocracy would be a representative government on their border where Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds would live together and elect their own leaders. The biggest threat to Syria, this dictatorship in Syria, would be a representative democracy on their border.

So if you are waiting on Iran and Syria to come in and help us form a moderate way of doing business, where people can elect their leaders and accept each other's differences and live together with tolerance, you can forget it because it is a threat to the dictatorships and the theocracies that exist.

I think it is in our national security interests to allow General Petraeus to continue a strategy that is bringing about better security than we have ever seen before. Now is not the time to pull back. Now is the time to recommit American forces, and the political, military, and economic power to finish the job that has been started.

I think the idea that the war in Iraq is a civil war just misses the boat. The truth is, there are many things going on in Iraq. Some of them are local to Iraq, but many of them have international implications and longstanding national security consequences for this country. Why did the Iranian President say he stood ready to fill any vacuum created in Iraq? Because he would like to expand his power. The question for us is, is it in our national security interest to allow a vacuum to be created?

Now, my good friend, Senator Levin, has a view that the more troops we have in Iraq, the longer we stay there with large numbers, the less likely the politicians in Baghdad will reconcile their differences through the political process. I have a totally opposite view. I understand what he is saying, but there is no evidence that less troops will provide quicker reconciliation. The Iraqis are dying three to one compared to our deaths and our injuries. The sacrifices of this country are enormous, but do not forget the Iraqi people are fighting and dying against extremist forces, and they are not indifferent to their fate.

The political reconciliation necessary to occur to bring this war to a successful conclusion has not occurred in Baghdad, but it is occurring at the local level. So, in my opinion, it is just a matter of time before the local reconciliation we see in Anbar and other places in Iraq comes to Baghdad. And the best pressure to put on any politician in any place in the world where people vote to elect their politicians is for all people to speak up and put pressure on their elected officials--not for Senator Graham or Senator Levin or Senator Clinton or Senator McCain to tell the Maliki government what to do, but their own people telling them what to do.

After being there eight times, the people in Iraq I meet are more war weary than ever. They are coming together more at the local level than at any other time. Better security is emboldening the Iraqi people to make the hard decisions that will eventually reconcile their country. The idea of terminating this operation now, putting a deadline or a timeline to withdraw will undercut everything we have achieved. The politicians will change their attitude. Instead of looking at how to reconcile their country, they will be looking at how to protect their families when the Americans leave.

So I am not for an unending, unlimited commitment of 160,000 troops. I am for keeping an American military presence in Iraq that helps my country--helps our country. We need to look at every decision we make in Iraq now and in the future from the viewpoint of, does it enhance our national security? Is it better to have 160,000 American forces in Iraq now to stabilize a dysfunctional government or is it better to bring them home, knowing the most likely result will be a failed state?

A dysfunctional government exists in Iraq and here in Washington. But there is a big difference between a dysfunctional government and a failed state. A dysfunctional government is one that keeps trying but fails to do the hard things. A failed state is a place where no one tries anymore. They go back to the corners of their own country and the regional players begin to take sides and you have absolute chaos. Iran is the biggest winner of a failed state because they will dominate the southern part of Iraq.

Another problem of a failed state is that the Kurds will likely go to war with Turkey over an independent movement in the north. If the Sunnis think they are going to win in Iraq and have the good old days of Saddam come back by using force, they are crazy and they are naive. If the Shias think they are going to create a theocracy in Iraq, like Iran, and no one will say anything about it, they misunderstand the region.

I am convinced all three groups are better off working together than trying to work apart. I know this: We are better off if they do that. If they break apart and this country becomes a failed state, 160,000 troops for a limited period of time will not be what our country will be faced with in terms of choices. We will have a large American military presence in the Mideast, containing a variety of conflicts that do not exist today because the problems in Iraq will spill over in the region.

I believe that is a likely consequence. That is a reasonable consequence of a failed state. I cannot promise that they will go from a dysfunctional government to a stable government, a secure government, one that is an ally on the war on terror with us that would reject al- Qaida and contain Iran. But I believe this: the best shot to bring that about is to continue the mission and the surge as planned out by General Petraeus, to continue the strategy that we have now that has shown results we have never known before. If we pull back now, it will undo all the accomplishments that have come from a lot of sacrifice, a lot of blood, and a lot of treasure.

At the end of the day, the Iraqi political leadership has to embrace the hard decisions necessary to pull their country together. They are more likely to do that when they are less worried about their families being killed as they reach across the aisle.

It is hard to reach across the aisle here. The Presiding Officer and I have worked on immigration. We know how hard it is. We will keep coming back and bringing up hard issues such as Social Security and immigration until we find a solution. But imagine reaching across the aisle in Iraq where the consequence would be that your family is murdered.

The better security we can bring about in terms of Iraq for the judges, the politicians, and the population as a whole, the more likely they are to do the hard things. And I do believe they are ready to do the hard things because they have had a hard life. The Iraqi people are not perfect. I don't think we realized how hard it was to have lived in that country under Saddam Hussein. The fear that if your daughter walked down the street, she might catch the eye of one of Saddam's sons; the way they have had to live under Saddam Hussein is unimaginable, and the chaos that they have experienced from al-Qaida coming there, throwing bombs at different mosques and bringing up old

wounds has been very difficult to deal with. But they keep trying. When one police officer is killed, someone else takes their place. When an army person is killed, someone else joins the army. When a judge is assassinated, somebody else comes forward to be a judge.

They are trying. And I do believe, if we will continue the strategy employed by General Petraeus, even though political reconciliation is lagging behind security, it will not be much longer until the politicians in Baghdad embrace the hard decisions necessary to bring reconciliation to their country. And I believe that for a couple of reasons. No. 1, their people want it; and, No. 2, they have the opportunity now, through better security, to bring it about.

So to my good friend, Senator Levin, I understand exactly his concern. It is a judgment call. I think when you are dealing with extremists, when you are dealing with the Iranian President, the last thing in the world you do is to show weakness. You make sure they understand, al-Qaida and Iran, and any other extremist group, that America is going to do what is necessary to defend her vital interests and that we are going to stand with forces in moderation.

My biggest fear, if we begin to withdraw now and redeploy to the old mission, is that all of those who have risked their lives to help us will surely meet the fate of that 5-year-old boy. And that is not in our national interest. That is not the right thing to do. We will come home. But as Senator McCain says, we need to come home with honor. Equally important, we need to come home with a more secure America.

I think we are on the road to bringing about withdrawal with honor and a more secure America by having a more stable Iraq. The worst thing to do now is to go back to a strategy that has failed when the one that we have in place is beginning to work.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I compliment Senator Inhofe in that moving tribute to a fallen marine.

The issue we have before the Senate is one of great importance to the country. It will affect the future of this bill. It will affect the national security needs of our Nation for a long time to come. It is a bit complicated, but at the end of the day, I don't think it is that difficult to get your hands around.

We are talking about a habeas corpus amendment to the Defense authorization bill that will confer upon any combatants housed at Guantanamo Bay, and maybe other places, the ability, as an enemy prisoner, to go to a Federal court of their choosing to bring lawsuits against the Government, against the military--something never granted to any other prisoner in any other war.

We had thousands of Japanese and German prisoners housed on American territory during World War II and not one of those Germans or Japanese prisoners were allowed to go to Federal court to sue the troops who had caught them on the battlefield or the Government holding them in detention as a prisoner of war.

To start that process now would be an absolute disaster for this country and has never been done before and should not be done now.

Now, the history of this issue: Guantanamo Bay is the place where international terrorists are sent, people suspected of being involved in the war on terror. Shaikh Mohammed is there, some very high-value targets are there, bin Ladin's driver. People who have been involved with al-Qaida activity and other terrorist groups are housed at Guantanamo Bay under the theory that they are unlawful enemy combatants. They do not wear a uniform as did the Germans and the Japanese, but they are very much at war with this country. They attack civilians randomly. Nothing is out of bounds in terms of their conduct. So they fit the definition, if there ever was one, of an unlawful enemy combatant. What they do in the law of war is unlawful. They certainly are enemies of this country. Shaikh Mohammed's transcript regarding his Combatant Status Review Tribunal--take time to read it. I can assure you he is at war with us. We need to be at war with him.

The basic premise I have been pushing now for years is that the attacks of 9/11 against the World Trade Center, against the Pentagon, the hijacking of the airplanes were an act of war. It would be a huge mistake for this country to look at the attacks of 9/11 as criminal activity. We are at war, and we should be applying the law of armed conflict.

The people whom we are fighting very much fall into the category of ``warriors'' based on their actions and their own words. What is the law of armed conflict? The law of armed conflict is governed by a lot of international treaties, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and American case law.

What rights does an unlawful enemy combatant have? Well, our court looked at Guantanamo Bay. Habeas petitions were filed by detainees at Guantanamo Bay alleging that they were improperly held. The U.S. Supreme Court in the Rasul v. Bush decision in 2004 said: There is a congressional statute, 2241, that deals with habeas rights created by statute.

The Government argued that Guantanamo Bay was outside the jurisdiction of Federal courts; it was not part of the United States. The Supreme Court said: No, wait a minute. Guantanamo Bay is effectively controlled by the Navy; it is part of the United States.

The question for the court is, Did the Congress, under 2241, intend to exclude al-Qaida from the statute? And the answer was that Congress had taken no action. So the issue, 6 years after the war started here: Does the Congress wish to confer upon enemy combatant terrorists housed at Guantanamo Bay habeas corpus rights under section 2241, a statute we wrote? That is the issue.

Now, imagine after 9/11 if someone had come to the floor of the Senate and made the proposal: In case we catch anybody who attacked us on 9/11, I want to make sure they have the right of habeas corpus under 2241 because I want to make sure their rights exceed any other prisoner in any other war. I think you would have gotten zero votes.

Well, that is the issue.

Now, last year, Congress spoke to the courts, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals understood what we were saying. Congress affirmatively struck from 2241 the ability of a noncitizen alien enemy combatant to have access to Federal court under the habeas statute. Why is that so important? From a military point of view, it is hugely important. Under the law of armed conflict, if there is a question of status--is the person a civilian? Are they part of an organized group? Are they an unlawful combatant? There are many different categories that can be conferred upon someone captured on a battlefield.

Under Geneva Conventions article 5, a competent tribunal should be impaneled--usually one person--to determine questions of status, and the only requirement is they be impartial. The question of who an enemy combatant is is a military decision. We should not allow Federal judges, through habeas petitions, to take away from the U.S. military what is effectively a military function of labeling who the enemies of America are. They are not trained for that. Our judges do not have the military background to make decisions as to who the enemy force is and how they operate.

So a habeas petition would really intrude into the military's ability to manage this war because if habeas rights were granted by statute to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, they could pick, through their lawyers, any district court in this country. They could go judge shopping and find any judge in this country they believed would be sympathetic and have a full-blown trial, calling people off the battlefield, having a complete trial as to whether this person is an enemy combatant in Federal court and let the judge make that decision. Well, that has never been done in any other war, and it should not be done in this war. Judges have a role to play in war, but that is not their role. The role of the U.S. military in this war, as it has been in every other war, is to capture people and classify them based on their activity within that war, and habeas would undo that. That is why last year Congress said: No, that is not the way we should proceed in this war.

This is not unknown to our courts. In World War II, there was a habeas petition filed by German and Japanese prisoners who were housed overseas asking the Federal courts to hear their case and release them from American military confinement. Chief Justice Jackson said:

It would be difficult to devise a more effective fettering

of a field commander than to allow the very enemies he has

ordered to reduce to submission to call him to account in his

own civil courts and divert his efforts and attention from

the military offensive abroad to the legal defensive at home.

Justice Jackson was right. And what has happened since these habeas petitions have been filed? Hundreds of them have been filed in Federal court before Congress acted. Here is what they are alleging:

A Canadian detainee who threw a grenade that killed an American medic in a firefight and who comes from a family with long-standing al-Qaida ties moved for a preliminary injunction forbidding interrogation of him or engaging in cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of him. This was a motion made by an enemy prisoner for the judge to sit in there and conduct the interrogation or at least monitor the interrogation. I cannot think of anything worse in terms of undermining the war effort.

A motion by a high-level al-Qaida detainee complaining about base security procedures, speed of mail delivery, medical treatment, seeking an order that he be transferred to the least onerous conditions at GITMO, asking the court to order that GITMO allow him to keep any books, reading materials sent to him, and report to the court on his opportunities for exercise, communications, recreation, and worship.

Hundreds of these lawsuits have been filed under the habeas statute. That is why Congress said: No, dismiss these cases because they have no business in Federal court.

Surely to God, al-Qaida is not going to get more rights than the Nazis. Surely to God, the Congress, 6 years after 9/11, will not, hopefully, give a statutory right to some of the most brutal, vicious people in the world to bring lawsuits against our own troops in a fashion never allowed in any other war.

Here is what we did last year: We allowed the military to determine whether a person is an enemy combatant, whether they were an unlawful enemy combatant through a competent tribunal called a Combatant Status Review Tribunal made up of three officers. The legislation allows every decision by the military to be appealed to

the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals so the court can look at the quality of the work product and the procedures in place.

There is Federal court review over activity at Guantanamo Bay where judges review the work product of the military. To me, that is the proper way to move forward because some people at Guantanamo Bay, because they are so dangerous, may not be released anytime soon or may never be released. More people have been released at Guantanamo Bay than are still at Guantanamo Bay. They were thought not to be a threat. Thirty of them have gone back to the fight. We have released people at Guantanamo Bay to take up arms against us again. That is the result of a process where you make a discretionary decision.

It would be ill-advised for this Congress to confer on American courts the ability to hear a habeas petition from enemy prisoners housed at Guantanamo Bay where they could go judge shopping and sue our own troops for anything they could think of, including a $100 million lawsuit against the Secretary of Defense. That will lead to chaos at the jail. It will undermine the war effort.

I am urging a ``no'' vote to this amendment. We have in place Federal court review of every military decision at Guantanamo Bay and a way to allow the courts to do what they are best trained to do--review documents, review procedures, review outcomes--not to take the place of the U.S. military. I cannot think of a more ill-advised effort to undercut what I think is going to be a war of a long-standing nature than to turn it over to the judges and to take away the ability to define the enemy from the military, which is trained to make such decisions, and give it to whatever judge you can find, wherever you can find him or her, and let them have a full-blown trial at our national security detriment.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Webb amendment. I guess if I can pick up where my colleague from New Jersey left off, what is the best thing for the Congress to do in terms of supporting our troops? What are our duties? What are our obligations? I would argue the worst thing the Congress can do at a time of war is to start taking over operational control of deployments.

Many of us are up for reelection next year. This Iraq war has become one big political commercial. There are commercials being run out there--I don't know if they are on the air right at this moment, but every time there is a vote in this body, a Republican in a tough State will have an ad run in their State saying: Senator so-and-so has voted six times not to withdraw from Iraq. There are political commercials being run around every policy debate we have regarding this war. This is a political consultant's dream, this war.

Well, this war is not about the next election; this war is about generations to come. The commercials will keep coming. Every time we have a vote like this, somebody is going to take a work product, turn it into a political ad, and try to get some political momentum from the dialog we have on the floor.

None of us question each other's patriotism. That is great. To those who have served in combat, my hat is off to you. But we all have our independent obligation to make our own decisions here, and those who have never worn the uniform, you are just as capable of understanding this issue as I think anybody else. If you have been to Iraq, you understand how tired people are. They are tired. If you visit the military on a regular basis, you know they are stressed.

Let me give my colleagues some numbers here. The 1st Cavalry Division, their retention rates are 135 percent; The 25th ID, 202 percent; the 82nd Airborne, 121 percent retention rates. Recruiting and retention is very good because people who are in the fight now understand the consequences of the fight and they don't want to lose. I was in Baghdad on July 4. We had 680-something people reenlist in theater.

The troops are tired. That is not the problem. They understand the war. They understand the enemy because they deal with the enemy face- to-face, day-to-day. They realize that if we don't get this right--and in spite of the mistakes we have made, we can still get it right--if at the end of the day we don't get it right in Iraq, their kids are going to go back. The No. 1 comment I get from the troops after having been there many times is: I want to do this, Senator Graham, so that my children do not have to come over here and fight this war. Let's get it right now.

Well, let's help them get it right. I think we are not helping them if the Congress mandates troop rotations that will undercut the ability for the surge to continue.

Everyone cares about the troops, but the politics of this amendment are such that it would get--the bill would be vetoed. The President has said that if this amendment gets to be part of the underlying Defense authorization bill, he would veto it. I think any President would veto this bill. The Secretary of Defense's letter to me is a chilling rendition of what would happen to the force if this amendment was adopted. So we know the Defense authorization bill would get vetoed, and all the good things in it we do agree on--about MRAPs, support for the troops, better health care--all that gets lost.

Now, why are we doing this? Some people have a very serious concern that the force is stressed, and they want to take pressure off the force by giving them as much time at home as they have in the theater. Some people want to use this amendment to make sure the surge can't go forward because that would be the effect of it. People are all over the board. The consequence to the Defense authorization bill is it would get vetoed over this provision. Now, if that is what my colleagues want to happen, this is a way to make sure it happens.

The idea of telling the Department of Defense how long someone can stay in combat once they are trained and ready to go to the fight is probably the most ill-advised thing any Congress could do in any war. The Congress is a political body that is driven, appropriately, by the moment, by the next election, the voices of constituents, concerns of the public. Wars are not fought that way. Decisions in wars are not poll-driven--I hope. Decisions of politicians appropriately incorporate political consequences to the Member. Let's not make military policy based on the political consequence to the Member of Congress. That is what you would be opening a can of worms to.

If we take on this responsibility of managing troops from a congressional point of view, setting their rotation schedules, how many can go and how long they can go, then their presence in whatever battlefield or theater we are talking about in the future is very much tied to the political moment back home. Think about that. If we begin to adopt this way of managing a war where the Congress takes this bold, unknown step of saying: You can only go in theater this long and you can't do A and you can't do B, but you can do C, what happens in the next war? Is it wise for political people who worry about their own reelection--which is an appropriate, rightful thing to be worried about if you are in politics--to have this much power? Is it good for the military for the Congress--535 people--to have this much power over military deployments? Our Constitution gives them a political Commander in Chief--a single person--who has to answer to the public at the ballot box.

The Congress can, as part of our constitutional responsibilities, terminate any war because our constitutional role allows us to fund wars. So to my colleagues on the other side and those on this side who want to support this amendment, you would be doing the country a service and eventually, I think, the troops a service by trying to stop this war by cutting off funding, if that is your goal. If you think the war is lost and you believe it is the biggest foreign policy mistake in a generation and that it is a hopeless endeavor and that Iraq will never get any better, then just come to the floor and offer an amendment on the appropriations bill to say we will not continue to fund this war and create an orderly withdrawal. If you do that, I will disagree with you, but you will have followed a constitutional path that is well charted, and if you believe all the things I have just said, you will be doing the troops a great service because you will not create a precedent in the future where some other politician may take up your model and use it in a way you never envisioned.

Once we legitimize politicians being able to make rotation deployment schedule decisions, once we go down that road, we have opened up Pandora's box where the politics of the next war could dramatically affect the ability to operate on the battlefield. If we limit our actions to cutting off funding, that will be a sustainable way for Congress to engage in terms of wars they believe have been lost.

Now, the majority leader, Harry Reid, said the war was lost in April and the surge has failed. If you really believe that, let's have a debate not about micromanaging troop schedules and deployment schedules; let's have a debate that would be worthy of this Congress and this Nation. Let's come back onto the floor and put an amendment on the desk to be considered that would end the war by stopping funding for the war. That is not going to happen. The reason that is not going to happen is because the surge has been somewhat successful and the politics of ending this war--everybody is trying to hedge their bet a little bit now. The politics of the next election are affecting the politics of this body when it comes to war policy in a very unhealthy way.

We have a side-by-side alternative to Senator Webb that puts congressional

voice behind the idea that we would like the policy of Secretary Gates to be implemented of ensuring the dwell time at home is consistent with the amount of time one is in theater. It is a sense-of-the-Senate that gives voice to Secretary Gates's goal and policy of dwell time without retreating into the Commander in Chief's functions, without getting out of our constitutional lane. Senator McCain has introduced this side-by- side. It will be called up at an appropriate time, and I can talk about it later on. It is a sense-of-the-Congress where we all agree that it would be a great policy to have if the conditions on the ground would warrant it, to give our troops a little bit of rest.

But what our troops need more than anything else is a commander who knows what he is doing and who can carry out his mission unimpeded by a bunch of politicians who are scrambling to get an advantage over each other. This whole debate is unseemly. It is destructive to our constitutional system. It brings out the worst in American politics. You have an ad being run against the very general in charge of our troops that is sickening and disgusting, and we are just absolutely going to a new low as a nation over this war.

So if you think all the things I said before--the war is lost, hopeless, stupid; the worst decision ever made in terms of U.S. foreign policy--end the thing. End it. Cut off funding. Don't play this game of having 535 people become generals who have no clue of what they are talking about. I respect everybody in this body, and those who have served, I respect you, but there is not one person here who I think has anywhere close to the knowledge of General Petraeus in how to fight a war. You could dig up Audie Murphy, and he could come back and tell me to vote for this amendment, and I would respectfully disagree. To those who have been in battle: God bless you. You deserve all the credit and honor that comes your way.

This is about winning a war we can't afford to lose. This is about who should run this war--a group of politicians who are scared to death of the electorate and who will embrace almost anything to get an advantage over the other, who is at 14 percent approval rating in the eyes of their fellow citizens? You want to scare the military? You want to give them something to be afraid of? Let them read in the paper Congress takes over operational control of Iraq. We would have some retention problems then. Anybody in their right mind would get out.

There are a lot of choices to be made in our constitutional democracy about war and peace. The one choice we have never made before is to allow the Congress to set rotation schedules, deployment schedules, and if we do it now, not only will we hurt this war effort, we will make it impossible for future commanders and future Presidents to protect us.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Yes.

Mr. President, I will try my best. No. 1, my time in the service has been as a military lawyer. I am not a combat operational guy. If you want to talk about my experiences in the military, I am glad to talk about them, but they are limited, and I know how far they should go--not very. As a JAG colonel, I cannot tell you how to deploy troops. I don't know. That is out of my line. I have to make a decision as a Senator when the general comes, as Senator McCain says, as to whether it makes sense to me. I would not advise any Member of this body to follow a four star general's recommendation just because of the number of stars.

Here is what I would advise the Members of this body to do. Listen to what the general says. Use your own common sense. Go in theater and see if it makes sense. For 3\1/2\ years, we went to Iraq and we were told by the generals in the old strategy that things were fine. On about the third trip with Senator McCain, I would say we were in a tank. I am a lawyer, so I don't understand military deployments and how to deploy combat troops. But I can tell you this from a lawyer's perspective and from good old South Carolina common sense: After the third visit to Iraq, if you thought things were getting better, you were crazy. We blamed it on the Republican side. The media doesn't tell the story right. It wasn't the media's fault. We were losing operational control of Iraq because we didn't have enough troops. You could see it if you wanted to look. If you were blinded by the partisanship that exists in this building, you will find some other group to blame it on. But it was there to be seen.

I have been seven times--twice in uniform--working on issues where I think I have a little bit to offer. My contribution is insignificant, inconsequential, but I am honored to have been able to be allowed to go, because I am cheering on people over there and I am still in uniform and I am the only one left, and I wish I could stay over there longer because I feel an obligation to do so.

Here is the morale as I see it this time around. A year ago, I was in Iraq--maybe a little bit longer--sitting at lunch across the table with a sergeant. I asked him: Sergeant, how is it going? He said: Senator, I feel like I am driving around waiting to get shot. Not going very well.

This last tour, when I was there for 11 days, I got to have three meals a day with them in Baghdad and meet folks with different missions and responsibilities, including combat guys coming in from the field. I sat down with them every night and I asked: How is it going? I was told: Colonel, we are kicking their ass.

Morale is high because of the new strategy. They are fighting and living with the Iraqi troops out in the field. Their army is getting better. When you talk to the marines in Anbar, they will tell you with pride: Look at what we did here.

For us politicians to deny what they did is an insult to their hard work. They liberated Anbar Province because there were enough of them this time around to join up with the Sunnis in Anbar to make a difference and drive out al-Qaida. This new strategy--and everybody has been asking for something new for a long time--is working. It is working. There are areas in Iraq, as Senator McCain described, that are liberated from a vicious enemy.

On the rule-of-law front, judges have a new level of security because of the surge that they have never known before. The first thing General Petraeus did when he went in theater was create a rule-of-law green zone for judges. We have taken an old Iraqi base and built housing for judges and created a perimeter of security. We have a jail inside the complex, judge housing, a police station, and a brandnew courtroom, so that the judges can implement the law without fear of assassination. I have never seen such growth in an area as I have in the rule of law since the surge began. The judges now are able to do their job without their families being assassinated, and we have seen dramatic improvements.

I will give you two examples. There was a Shia police captain accused of torturing Sunnis at the police station he was in charge of. He is now facing a long-term prison sentence because the Iraqi legal system didn't listen to the fact that he was a Shia and the people he abused were Sunni. They gave a verdict based on what he did, not who he did it to. It is sweeping the whole legal system.

Judges are going into areas that al-Qaida operated from just months ago

and they are rendering justice, but not based on what sect you come from; it is based on what the person was accused of. I witnessed a trial downtown Baghdad where two people of the three were Shia police officers in the Iraqi police force. There was a raid on the house they were living in by the American forces. Coalition troops were the only witnesses and these two defendants who were in a house full of IED material, rocket-propelled grenades, explosive devices that were meant to kill Americans. The defense said: Who are you going to believe, us or the invader? The lawyers in the trial looked the judge in the eye and started citing one verse of the Koran after another to tell the judge he had a duty to stand beside his Muslim brothers and reject the testimony of the infidels. I was there; I saw it.

The three judges conducted a trial that everybody who witnessed that trial would have been proud of. They asked hard questions. They separated the defendants, and rather than listening to dictates from the Koran coming out of the mouth of their lawyer, they asked questions such as how were they in the house, and how could they not have known the weapons were there? They did a great job proving these guys were lying through their teeth. When they reconvened, they got convicted, getting 6 years in jail.

There is progress going on in Iraq. There are people in Iraq who are bigger than sectarian differences. There are judges, lawyers, and average, everyday people who are risking their lives to make their country better. One of the biggest problems they have had is that we screwed up early on and let security get out of hand. With better security, people are beginning to engage in a way I have never seen before.

This idea of pulling back now, reducing our military footprint, at a time when we have made a real difference, is too disheartening to the troops. They are watching what we are doing. I was stopped every 30 feet with questions such as: What are we going to do? Is the war going to go on? Are they going to cut it short? The people fighting want one thing, and that is the ability to finish the job. Do they want to come home? Yes, God knows they want to be home. Are they tired of going over? Yes. But above all others, they want to win.

Senator McCain said he met people for the third and fourth time. Well, nobody stays in this military unless they volunteer, to begin with, and when their enlistment is up, there are stop-loss problems, but there is an end to this war for them; it is an end of their choosing. This force, unlike others, chooses when to end the war for them when their enlistment comes. What they are choosing to do we need to understand. They are choosing to reenlist at numbers greater than any other area of the military. Why can't this body sit down and think for a moment; what do they see about this war that I don't see? Why do they keep leaving their families and going to a dangerous place time and time again, in numbers larger than any other group in the military? Do you know why they do it? I think they do it because they interact with the judges I have just described to you. They see hope. They understand the enemy. They know an enemy that will take a 5-year-old child and put that child in front of their parents, douse him with gasoline and set him on fire, is an enemy to their family. They understand that Iran is trying to drive us out of Iraq because they want to be stronger. And they understand that will mean they are likely to have to fight a bigger war.

From the troops' perspective, from my view, they want to come home, and they want a lot of things; but they want, above all others, the chance to win a war they believe they can win and one we cannot afford to lose.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to talk a little bit about what I think is a very important debate, and that is about Iraq war policy. Next week, I believe, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will be coming to the Congress to brief us about the situation as they see it. I think most of us in the Senate are very anxious to hear what our Ambassador has to say and our leading general in Iraq. There are GAO reports about benchmarks. The idea that we are trying to evaluate performance and progress in Iraq is a good thing. Some of the benchmarks have not been met, apparently, some have. It depends upon how you measure. The one thing I would caution my colleagues to not forget is that the biggest benchmark is whether our presence in Iraq should be maintained in terms of our national security interests or should we leave. If we do leave, how does that affect our long-term security interests?

I think the biggest issue facing each Senator is how they view the war in Iraq. This is a legitimate debate. There are two different ways of looking at the engagement in Iraq. Some Senators believe our military presence in Iraq at such levels is propping up the Iraqi Government; they are relying too much upon us, they are putting off the hard decisions because we are doing the fighting and they can kind of take their time, and that we should put more pressure on the Iraqi Government by beginning to withdraw troops.

There is another view that any presence in Iraq is creating more terrorism than it is preventing, that our presence in Iraq is creating instability and problems for the Mideast as a whole, and that we should basically get our eye back on the ball, Afghanistan, al-Qaida operations in other areas.

Those are a couple of views. I hope I fairly summarized it. I do not want to put words in people's mouths. But I think there are a couple of ways of looking at Iraq.

There is another way. It is my way--it does not mean it is right, it is just the way I have come out on this--that Iraq, to me, is part of a global struggle, not just an isolated event.

Whether we should have gone into Iraq is sort of a moot question. The question for the country is: What happens in Iraq in terms of our national security interests? Does it really matter? I would argue that the enemy we are facing in Iraq is threefold. There is sectarian violence within the country. There is Sunni-Shia violence, or people within the Shiia community using violence to try to get the upper hand politically.

There are people, Sunni insurgents, who do not want to have a democracy. They do not want to have a representative government. They are trying to achieve power by the use of violence. So there is definitely some sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shias. That is very real.

But there is also an element in Iraq called al-Qaida. Their goal is not to dominate the Shiia population in Iraq. Their goal is much broader. It is to make sure that representative government does not take hold in the Mideast in a way that would allow religious tolerance. Their goal is to make sure no representative government would spring up where a woman would have a say about her children.

You know, we are all over the world militarily. You can see what is going on in Germany today. But al-Qaida chose to come to Iraq, I believe not because of what we are doing there or the fact that we are there, but because of what the Iraqi people may try to do. I do believe al-Qaida's international leadership has gone to Iraq to organize extremist forces within that country, religious extremists, because they fear more than anything else another Muslim nation, Islamic nation, Arab nation, being able to come together and live through representative democracy. That is why they are there.

If they can defeat this effort at moderation, destabilize this government and drive us out, I think our worst days lie ahead. No matter how we wish to view Iraq, there is no doubt in my mind what that enemy would say, al-Qaida international would say: They beat America in the Land of the Two Rivers. Bin Ladin has called on all of those who believe as he does: Go to Iraq, join the fight, because now is the time to win a battle in the third world war and America must be defeated, not the Iraqi Shiia population but America.

Now the Iranian involvement in Iraq. I have been on an 11-day tour over there as a Reserve lawyer. That was a wonderful experience, a very small contribution on my part. I learned how hard people work and how smart they are. I am awed by our military. I think every Senator shares that view. But one of the things I have learned from working on rule- of-law programs is how deeply involved the Iranian Quds force and other organizations are in funding militia groups.

The question for us all is why should Iran be involved in trying to fund groups dedicated to killing Americans? The Lieberman amendment that passed without objection in the authorization debate in July was a damning indictment of the Iranian involvement in Iraq. The question must be asked and answered: Why? Why does Iran want to destabilize this government? Why are they supporting extremist groups, mostly in the Shia community but not exclusively, designed to kill Americans? Why are they providing aid and comfort to those groups who wish to destroy our forces?

I argue they view Iraq as a threat, just as al-Qaida does, if the Iraqi Government is able to stabilize itself. The Sunni and Shia Arabs coming together, along with their Kurdish colleagues, to form a representative government that will allow the people to elect their leaders is the biggest threat to Iranian theocracy. They are involved in Iraq from their own self-interest, not the interests of the Iranian people, but the self-interest of the radical leadership within Iran. They understand clearly if Iraq is able to stabilize itself and create a moderate form of government, representative in nature, their nightmare just begins. That is why they are trying to drive us out.

The President of Iran, a questionable character at best, said, I think, last week, they stand ready to fill the vacuum created when we leave. I argue that we need not leave a vacuum that Iran can fill.

There are three enemies: al-Qaida, sectarian violence, and the Iranian elements trying to destabilize the Iraqi Government. One of the biggest problems we have had since the fall of Baghdad is we didn't have enough troops to provide security. After about five or six visits, it was clear to me that the situation was deteriorating in Iraq. Before the surge, I came back more depressed after each visit. The level of violence grew and the secure environment deteriorated.

Now we have a new strategy. We have put more combat power in place. It has made a real difference on the security front. Anbar Province, the western part of Iraq where the Sunnis dominated 6 months ago, was declared lost. It was an al-Qaida safe haven. We have heard the story time and time again. The news of Anbar is not so much that we beat al- Qaida military, not so much that the Sunni Arabs turned on al-Qaida, joined the fight with us against al-Qaida. That is understandable given the way that al-Qaida treated the population in Anbar. What is the most exciting and encouraging is that in 2007 over 12,000 people have joined the local police force in Anbar. The sons of Anbar were called upon by the sheiks to take up arms by joining the police. This new police presence, once it is trained and equipped, will allow Anbar Province to be held by Iraqis.

More encouraging than that, not only are people in Anbar beginning to join institutions that would allow al-Qaida to be defeated in a permanent fashion, they are beginning to reach out to Baghdad, and there is a movement going on between the Maliki government and leadership in Anbar to try to find a relationship where Baghdad is seen by the people of Anbar as a place you can do business. There is a lot of money being spent now by the central government on rule-of-law projects in Anbar. There is an old palace of one of the sons of Saddam that is going to be converted into a legal center where you can have terrorism courts, basic civil trials. You will have housing for judges that will be secure so they won't be assassinated. You will have a police training center there. There is a lot going on in terms of a relationship between Baghdad and Anbar that could lead to reconciliation.

It is very true the political progress we had hoped for at the national level has not yet transpired. But what has astounded me is the amount of local reconciliation going on. Better security has led to better choices. People now feel more secure. They are telling us where al-Qaida operatives are hiding. They are giving us more information than we have ever received before about how al-Qaida operates, and other extremist groups. People are getting more confident to speak out. More than anything else, they are just war weary.

The one thing I have learned on this trip that was more abundant than any other is that Iraqis at the local level, in provinces all over the country, are very war weary. They are trying to bring the country together, their local communities together. They are tired of the killing and the dying.

So as we listen to what Ambassador Crocker has to say, and General Petraeus, we should be mindful of the challenges. To me, the successes are obvious, but the challenges are equally obvious. I never said, for the last 3\1/2\ years before the surge, that things were going great in Iraq because, to me, they weren't. Things were getting worse. It was obvious they were. But I do see a turnaround. I think the surge has accomplished some things militarily that have led to better choices, and there is an effort to reconcile the country from the bottom up. It is very real.

The big pressure being applied to Baghdad is not what Senator Graham says or what any other Senator from the United States may say about the Maliki government. The pressure I see on the ground is coming from the people themselves. The people are war weary. They would like their representatives in Baghdad to come together and create a stability that they haven't known for 4 years.

I am hopeful there will be political breakthroughs. Sunday a week ago the five major players in Iraq recommitted themselves to a plan to come back together, reform the government, and reconcile the Iraqi people, passing major legislation. Debaathification, the ability of Sunnis to hold jobs in the government, is a big piece of legislation that would transform Iraq. Local elections, allowing local people to pick their governors and representatives rather than Baghdad politicians making those appointments, if there were local elections, the Sunnis would participate in large numbers. In 2005, they boycotted the election. Now they are ready to engage in politics.

I predict that based on the success of the surge militarily, the efforts of local reconciliation are real, that they are going to move up to the national level, and soon, very soon, we will have some breakthroughs in Baghdad in terms of political benchmarks that will transform the country. That is my hope, my desire. The way we can achieve that is to pour it on, continue the surge, let it run its course. It has been in place now, I think, since April. Let's keep pouring it on militarily, politically, and economically. We have the enemy on the mat. Let's don't let them up. Morale is sky high. Now is the time for America to exercise good judgment, long-term thinking, and reinforce Iraq instead of withdrawal.

The message to withdraw, no matter how well intended, will not push Iraqi politicians to do anything faster. It will encourage an insurgency that is not being diminished.

Those are the issues that face the Senate as we await news from Iraq. Let's concentrate on the long term. The year 2008 will be here before we know it, but the decisions we make about Iraq will have consequences long after the election of 2008.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matt Guenther, a military fellow in my office, be accorded the privilege of the floor for the duration of the 110th Congress.

Mr. President, the Finance Committee's proposal reauthorizing the SCHIP program for 5 years is funded by a permanent tobacco tax increase. That is a $35.2 billion expansion of SCHIP, which is above the $25 billion in the baseline budget. The money for this comes from a cigarette tax increase of 61 cents to $1 per pack. There will be a tax increase on cigars by 53 percent, with the sales price up to $10 per cigar.

Despite being a 5-year reauthorization, the tax part of it goes in perpetuity. So it is a very simple amendment. When the program itself is sunset to be reviewed, let's sunset the tax part of it to be reviewed. That is all it is. If you are going to sunset the program, sunset the tax increases and make an intelligent decision at that point.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable points of order under the Congressional Budget Act with respect to the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.