Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I believe they will be constitutional. If you think there has been a miscarriage of justice in any case, that will go to court. If you think something happened in the CSRT that is laughable, then the Federal court is going to get to look at every case. I can assure you and every other American that every decision made by the military on Guantanamo Bay will work its way to the Federal court, and our judges will look at the record and the process, and they will tell us in individual cases and as a group whether this works. Give them a chance to do it. With that, I have to leave.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I believe I am recognized for 10 minutes, is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, this is billed as an unusual Saturday session where the Senate is working on Saturday. I argue we are not working, we are having a political, theatrical debate that does more harm than good. There are a lot of people working on Saturday; not us. We are trying to jockey for political positioning among ourselves and for 2008. Yet there are people working in Baghdad and Iraq, trying to secure our future against the most violent extremists on the face of the Earth. To my good friend Senator Nelson, if you think we are in the middle of a civil war, cut off funding. If you believe half of what you are saying in these resolutions, then have the courage of your convictions to stop this war by cutting off funding. But, no, no one wants to do that because they do not know how that will play out at home. Everybody is trying to hedge their bets a little bit, bashing this new effort to secure victory, wanting to be seen in history, I guess, or for the next election, that this was not my idea, this was Bush's fault. Bush is not going to Iraq; 21,500 brave young men and women are going to Iraq behind a general who believes he can win. This is a low point in my time in the Senate. Senator Reid said a few weeks ago, Republicans can't run and hide from this debate. Well, I am here. I am not running and hiding from any idea any Senator has. I am not running and hiding from Senator Warner's resolution. I look forward to voting against it and talking about how ill-conceived it is. All I am asking for is a chance for the Senate to play its role in our democracy and not become the House. All I am asking of my fellow colleagues who are certain they are right and want to send a message to our President is they give the courtesy to the others, such as myself, who believe they are dead wrong. And let's have a vote that reflects where the Senate is and not become the House. What is the Senate? In the Senate you have to get 60 votes to move an idea forward. Do you want to abandon that because of the political moment? I don't. Do you want to abandon your colleagues who have a different view of what we should do? I don't. I have been there on an emotional issue called immigration. There was an effort to shut down debate. I, along with Senator John McCain and several other Senators who were very much for a comprehensive immigration reform, told critics within our caucus, we will not leave you behind. I am extremely disappointed in our colleagues who want to shut off debate, not understanding whether people such as myself and Senator Gregg will be left behind. I am not afraid of your ideas. I respect the differences we have. I am extremely disappointed you will throw us over. That is not what the Senate is about. The Senate is about a debate on a full range of ideas that shows a difference from the House. Here is the crux of the matter: The reason we are here on a Saturday playing stupid political games while people are over in Iraq trying to win this war is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid to take a vote on cutting off funding. I believe what happened in the House in a nonbinding fashion is the worst possible situation for this Congress, but it is a precursor to a movement toward bleeding this war dry in terms of funds and cutting off funding. If I am wrong, then let's have a vote on cutting off funding. The reason we are not going to have a vote on the Judd Gregg resolution, which is a legitimate position, is because 70-plus Senators will vote for it. The overwhelming majority of this Senate understands that cutting off funding at this crucial time in the war on terror in Iraq is ill-advised, but they don't want to be on the record. The reason they don't want to be on the record is because the radical left will eat Democrat 2008 hopefuls' lunch. They will create a fight on that side of monumental proportions between the radical left and the bloggers of the left who want to get out yesterday. That is why we are having a truncated debate. If Members do believe we are in the middle of a civil war, take the floor and get people out of the middle of the civil war. This is the politics of abandonment. This is abandoning the role the Senate has played for generations, to make our country stronger, not weaker. This is abandoning colleagues with contrary ideas who are going to be cut off. Unfortunately, these nonbinding resolutions abandon those who are going to the fight voluntarily. This is a very sad Saturday for the Senate, on the heels of a disaster in the House where a majority, a bare majority of the House, wants to send a political message at a time of war that does not keep one person from being shot at. I don't know where this thing is going to go. I don't know how it is going to end, but I can promise this: As long as I am in the Senate, I am going to take this Senate and make sure the Senate acts like the Senate. I came to the Senate for a reason. I want to be part of great debates. The way this process will be structured is Members will get cut out. Judd Gregg will get cut out because of the politics of the moment. The 60-vote rule will have meaning in this debate as long as I am here. I hope my colleagues will understand whatever differences we have, no matter how sincere they are, please don't throw us over. At this moment in time, I will read another resolution of sorts. This is from General Petraeus. He is addressing the coalition forces: To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Civilians of Multi-National Force--Iraq: We serve in Iraq at a critical time. The war here will soon enter its fifth year. A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder- to-shoulder with our Iraqi comrades, we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher. Our task is crucial. Security is essential for Iraq to build its future. Only with security can the Iraqi government come to grips with the tough issues it confronts and develop the capacity to serve its citizens. The hopes of the Iraqi people and the coalition countries are with us. The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however barbaric. They will do all they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them. Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our enemies. And together we must prevail. The way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we must remain steadfast in our effort to help improve security for the Iraqi people. I am confident that each of you will fight with skill and courage, and that you will remain loyal to your comrades-in-arms and to the values our nations hold so dear. In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to save their country. To do that, many of us will live and fight alongside them. Together, we will face down the terrorists, insurgents, and criminals who slaughter the innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude, and initiative--qualities that you have in abundance. Do we have those qualities in Congress? I appreciate your sacrifices and those of your families. Now, more than ever, your commitment to service and your skill can make the difference between victory and defeat in a very tough mission. It is an honor to soldier again with the members of the Multi-National Force--Iraq. I know that wherever you serve in this undertaking you will give your all. In turn, I pledge my commitment to our mission and every effort to achieve success as we help the Iraqis chart a course to a brighter future. Godspeed to each of you and to our Iraqi comrades in this crucial endeavor. I end with this thought: If Members believe this is a lost cause and victory cannot be achieved, that our people are in the middle of a mess, a civil war, and not one person should get injured or killed because we have made huge mistakes that cannot be turned around, then cut off funding. Have a vote on something that matters. This political theater empowers our enemy, disheartens our own troops, is not worthy of the Senate time, and it has never been done in history for a reason. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I wanted to take this opportunity to say a few words about my close friend and colleague who passed away yesterday, Congressman Charlie Norwood. There is no doubt that with the death of Charlie Norwood the State of Georgia has lost one of her favorite sons. We were elected to serve in the House of Representatives the same year and represented adjoining districts in Georgia and South Carolina. Charlie was a dear friend of mine. I have never met anyone in politics with more passion about what they believe than Charlie Norwood. He was a great representative for the people for the people of the 10th district of Georgia, and in his years of service he made a real difference in the Congress. There is no doubt Charlie's leadership, his wisdom, and his wit will be sorely missed. Now is the time to keep Charlie's family in our prayers. But we should also celebrate a life well-lived. Knowing Charlie Norwood like I do, I am confident he would not have wanted it any other way.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this whole debate regarding what the Senate should do and how to send the right messages regarding Iraq war policy is important, but the most important message the Senate can send, to me, would be to our troops and to our potential enemies. Everybody in America understands the war is not going well. Those who don't understand it are in denial because it clearly has not been the success we were hoping for. The new strategy we are about to embark on, the Petraeus doctrine, for lack of a better word, I do believe has the best chance left for us to succeed, and additional troops in Iraq can make a huge difference. We have been able to clear in the past but never hold. We don't need any more combat power to clear. We have won every battle we have ever been in with the insurgents. But we have been unable to hold the territory. Mr. President, 17,500 more troops in Baghdad would allow us to hold territory for the purpose of political reconciliation. The ultimate question for the body is how to bring out the best in the Iraqi political leadership. Some say we need to send a strong message that we are going to leave at a date certain, threaten to cut off funding for the Iraqi military, quit providing security to political leaders in Iraq. My answer is that democracy is hard without being shot at. The reason we don't solve immigration, Social Security, and other emotional problems is because in our own country we get locked down by pretty extreme voices who have political action committees and run 527 ads. The problem the Iraqi political leadership has to deal with is a violent country, to the point where it is hard to get political compromise. It is tough to go to Baghdad and do an oil-sharing revenue agreement among Sunnis, Kurds, and Shias when 100 of your constituents have been shot in the head and left out in the street that day. So I believe precondition to political reconciliation is better security and the better security can only be achieved by going into militia strongholds that were previously off limits, by more combat capability on the ground to hold territory cleared, and by putting the Iraqi troops out front with a sufficient support network behind them and American hands to give them the capacity they are lacking today to deal with the insurgency. The McCain-Graham-Lieberman resolution understands a million troops won't matter if the Iraqi political leadership doesn't reach political consensus on oil, rule of law, and on a million other problems they have. But the benchmarks in our resolution are an acknowledgment that it takes political compromise in Iraq to bring about stability, but we cannot have that political compromise with this level of violence. The resolution also talks about a failed state in Iraq and the consequences to this country. They are long lasting and far reaching. A failed state in Iraq is partitioned, where the civil war environment spreads to the region, as a disaster. So if you throw in the towel on Iraq, you don't stop the fight; you guarantee a larger fight. The debate for the Senate is how many votes should we have to express the differences we have in this body? If the Warner-Levin resolution--I respect both authors, but I just disagree with the message it sends--if Warner-Levin is ever adopted by this body, the headlines throughout this world will be: Senate condemns surge. Baghdad lost. The resolution disapproves of sending more troops. I believe we need more troops in the short term to bring about political reconciliation. But it is not only me saying it. It is General Petraeus, the commander. I think the message from the resolution considers his efforts lost before they have had a chance to be implemented. It is a lack of resolve in terms of the enemy. The enemy will see this as a lack of resolve on our part, and no good comes from it because it doesn't stop the troops. Secondly, it says you can continue operations in Anbar, the Sunni area where al-Qaida is operating, but you can't go into Baghdad. Baghdad is a mess. Baghdad is a very violent place where they have sectarian violence occurring. The question is: Do we stop it now or let it grow bigger? There are 6 million people in Baghdad. The nightmare I worry about is an open civil war, where we have a bloodletting that will bring in Sunni Arab nations to come to the aid of their Sunni brothers, Iran will get involved in the south of Iraq, and nothing good will come of that. The reason we are having this sectarian violence is because al-Qaida struck the mother lode when it bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra, the third most holy religious site in the Shia religion. That has created sectarian fighting that has gotten out of control. For decades, Sunnis and Shias married and lived together in Baghdad and other places. The Shia population was terribly oppressed during the Saddam Hussein regime, but the Shia majority had remarkable restraint up until the bombing of the mosque, which was al-Qaida inspired. I don't want to give in to acts of terrorism that bring out the worst in people. Our goal is not to get the oil from Iraq; it is not to create a puppet state for the United States in Iraq. It is to bring out the best in the Iraqi people, to allow the moderates in the region a chance to conquer and defeat the extremists who have no place for anybody other than only their way of doing business, including us. We can't kill enough of the terrorists to win, but we surely can empower the moderates so they have a chance of winning. I am glad we did not take a vote in isolation on Warner-Levin. It would have been 50-something votes, less than 60, and the headlines throughout the world would read: Surge condemned. Baghdad lost. It would have been embarrassing to the President. This is not about President Bush being embarrassed. It is about the message we send to our troops and our enemies. The reason the Senate is not the House is because we have a chance for the minority; we have a chance to have a healthy, full debate. We were asking for two votes, not one. If you are going to vote on Warner- Levin, fine, I will come to the floor and take the responsibility for opposing it, vote against it, and argue vehemently that it undercuts our efforts in Iraq. But there was another vote being proposed on the Judd Gregg amendment that simply said we will not cut off funding, we will not cap troops as a statement of this body. It would have gotten 70 votes. And the reason we couldn't have those two votes, in my opinion, is because the Democratic left--and we have them on the right--would have ginned up and gone nuts over the idea that the Democratic caucus would not cut off funding for a war that the Democratic left thought should have ended last week. I know what it is like. I have been through this on immigration. Once your base gets mad at you, it is not pleasant, but you can't build policies around bloggers. So I am glad the Senate did not take a single vote that was designed to embarrass a single political element in the country. If we are going to debate Iraq on the floor of the Senate, we should be willing to take more than one vote. Two votes is not too much to ask. Where we go from here, I don't know. I can't promise success from this new strategy, but I can promise the consequences of failure, and these young men and women who will leave to go off as part of this new strategy, I know every Member of the Senate wishes them well and prays for their safety. But I do hope as they leave, we do not take any action to undercut their efforts because of 2008 politics. The war in Iraq is much bigger than the next election. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business on Iraq.

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, today I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing Dr. Dennis Merrell on the occasion of his retirement from York Technical College in Rock Hill, SC. Dr. Merrell officially stepped down last week as president of York Tech following over 30 years of service at the vocational college. For the last seventeen of those thirty years, Dr. Merrell led York Tech as the school's president. He leaves York Tech having transformed the college into a powerful source of economic development and manufacturing workforce creation for South Carolina and the country. After serving 2 years in the military, Dr. Merrell earned a bachelor's degree in business and computer science from Winthrop University and a master's degree in computer science from Virginia Tech. He joined the faculty at York Tech to teach computer technology and programming in 1976 and in time became chair of the Computer Technology Division. Eventually Dr. Merrell was named the college's Vice President of Instruction. He served in that capacity until he was appointed president of the school in 1989 following the death of his predecessor, Dr. Baxter Hood. To deliver true quality technical education, Dr. Merrell understood that York Tech would need to rely on resources outside of those provided by State and local government. To that end, Dr. Merrell developed a culture of industry partnerships from which the school has tremendously benefited during his tenure. Under Dr. Merrell's leadership, enrollment in the college's continuing education programs nearly doubled. Six buildings including a child development center, library, student services building, continuing education center, institute for manufacturing productivity, and science and technology building were all constructed on Dr. Merrell's watch. Construction on a new economic development training center is also currently underway-- the product of a collaboration with 3D Systems Corporation. Like the relationship with 3D Systems, Dr. Merrell also championed partnerships with regional construction companies and other manufacturing businesses to address practical job-training issues. In the last year, York Tech has also joined with utility companies and contractors in the Carolinas to help meet the growing need for entry- level line workers in the region. For efforts like these York Tech was recognized as a Bellweather Awards Finalist in 2006 for its unique approach to industry alliances. The United States Department of Education has even acknowledged York Tech for its innovative approach to meeting the local and national workforce needs in the area of manufacturing. Dr. Merrell even promoted distance learning, namely online instruction, allowing countless students the opportunity to reach educational goals without giving up their jobs. As such the American Association of Community Colleges named York Tech the number one digital-savvy college among the country's largest and urban community colleges. Dr. Merrell's community service outside of his work at York Tech includes leadership roles at the Rock Hill and York County Economic Development Boards, the Rock Hill Rotary Board, the Charlotte Area Education Consortium Board, and the York County Red Cross Board, among a host of other technical education organizations. York Tech is sure to miss Dr. Merrell's leadership and vision, but I am confident that the school will build on his impressive legacy. In conclusion, I ask that the Senate join me in wishing Dr. Merrell a healthy and happy retirement.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, the reason I rise to take the floor is this afternoon--I think the Presiding Officer was present in the Armed Services Committee hearing when General Petraeus testified about the new strategy in Iraq. I hope that over time more Americans will be familiar with him and his view of what we can do to go forward. In his testimony, General Petraeus clearly indicated we have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. We never had enough troops to secure the country, and the debaathification program basically was a mistake. Other agencies involved in nationbuilding have not done their part. Militias have grown. The biggest event in the sectarian violence was the bombing of the Shia Golden Dome Mosque, and since that event, which was al-Qaida-inspired, we have been going backward instead of forward and the sectarian violence in Baghdad has gotten worse. But General Petraeus believes this new strategy is not more people doing the same thing. It is a fundamentally different shift in policy. I agree with him and hope the country will listen closely to what he says. I have a lot of confidence in General Petraeus. I intend to support him. I will not vote for any resolution that declares a strategy of failure before he has a chance to implement it because if we do that, it is going to be a very bad sendoff for our troops going into battle. It will embolden the enemy and weaken the moderates we eventually have to rely on in the Mideast to help us in the war on terror. The strategy will be similar to this: We will be increasing reinforcements on all fronts. We have had enough military people in Iraq to clear territory but never hold it. We never lost a battle with insurgents. We can clear out a town or sector of Baghdad, but once we leave, we turn it over to an immature Iraqi Army or corrupt police force. What we are doing by having 21,500 more troops is it doubles the combat capability of American forces in Baghdad to 17,500, and that will allow some soldiers to stay behind with the Iraqis to hold territory. Hold for what purpose? To give the political leadership in Iraq a chance to reconcile their differences through the political process. Ask General Petraeus: Do you believe Iraq is part of the overall global war on terror? I do. If you believe it is a Vietnam which is a lost cause and not worth fighting for and we need to get out, don't pass a resolution condemning the action. Cut off funding. If you believe it is part of the global war on terror, as I do, we need to fight to win. I think that is exactly what we are trying to do. We are going to reinforce the military so we can hold, to give the Iraqi leadership a chance to reconcile the problems politically. I don't believe any political group could find democracy or common ground in this much violence. It is hard enough for us to find a solution to immigration and none of us being shot at. Can you imagine trying to reconcile a country oppressed by dictators for over 30 years with this level of violence? If we can control the violence, I think it will lead to a better political result. They have to share the oil revenues with the Sunnis. The Sunnis have to have something to fight for, not against. That has to happen. At the end of the day, a million troops won't change Baghdad or Iraq if the Iraqi people are not willing to make the accommodations they need to make. They are under siege. They need reinforcements. On the economic front, 70 percent of our casualties come from improvised explosive devices, somebody planting a bomb along the side of the road. Some people are planting those bombs because they don't have a job. They don't have any way to support their family, so they are taking money from the insurgents. Let's create an economy to give them an option other than planting bombs. Secondly, some people are planting bombs because there is no downside. Once you get caught, you get released. We need a robust rule of law. If you want to change the way our troops are treated in Iraq, put people in jail for a very long time for attacking our troops. That will be a deterrent. Finally, more military presence will put pressure on those making these explosive devices. This is a surge on all fronts. He is confident this plan will work. He understands the Iraqi political leadership has to do their part. The Iraqi military has to do their part. But the sectarian violence has come about because al-Qaida hit the motherload when they blew up the Golden Mosque. We cannot let al-Qaida win in destabilizing Iraq. They went to Iraq behind us because they understand that the consequences of success in Iraq are not confined to Iraq. If you can have a stable, functioning democracy that is tolerant, then it will spread to other areas of the Mideast and will be a mighty blow to the al-Qaida agenda. We need to understand that a failed state in Iraq creates chaos for not just us but the world. Iran becomes a big winner. The south of Iraq becomes a puppet state of Iran. We could have a war between Turkey and the Kurds in the north. And if there is a bloodbath in Bagdad, which there surely will be if we leave, then Sunni Arab nations are going to get involved, and the whole region becomes much more unstable. I urge my colleagues to listen to General Petraeus and ask the question: Do you have confidence in this man to do what he says he can do? And if the answer is yes, don't undermine him before he leaves. Give him the resources he needs. If you don't have confidence in him and our military and our leadership to change policy and strategy and be successful, don't let one more person go to Iraq to get killed or wounded in a lost cause. You should have the courage of your convictions to cut off funding. A middle-ground solution is the worst of all worlds. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. The Haiti Hope Act, incorporated into the package that we are debating today, poses a serious threat to the American textile industry. This bill has had no hearings in the Senate, no opportunity for discussion, no opportunities for amendments, and the industry that this bill affects most has had no official opportunities to voice their concerns. While it is questionable as to how everyday Haitians will benefit from this deal, there is no doubt the deal will only exacerbate the problems the U.S. textile industry faces today. The provisions of this legislation will be difficult if not impossible for Customs to enforce. This could open the door to the transshipment of Chinese goods into the United States duty free. In order to ensure that Customs can enforce this legislation, Senator Dole, Senator Sessions and I request that the Senate Finance Committee hold a hearing prior to the President certifying that Haiti has met the requirements set forth in the legislation at which representatives of the textile industry can voice their concerns over the impact of this legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I ask that the Senate observe the recent passing of Sister Cynthia ``Cindy'' Mahoney and recognize her tireless service to this country. A former emergency medical technician, Sister Mahoney volunteered at Ground Zero in New York City on September 11, 2001, blessing victims and providing medical and spiritual attention to survivors. In the days following, Sister Mahoney helped set up a respite program for first responders at St. Paul's Chapel across from the World Trade Center. She also became an official Red Cross volunteer chaplain serving as a grief counselor at the Pier 91 Federal Emergency Management Agency center. In October 2001 Sister Mahoney joined the Red Cross Medical Examiner's Fatality Team as a chaplain working out of the morgue to bless human remains excavated from Ground Zero. She served on the Fatality Team well into 2002. In September 2002 Sister Mahoney moved to South Carolina to establish a spiritual practice but was unsuccessful. By this time, Sister Mahoney was experiencing symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic materials like asbestos. Sadly she soon became homeless, and her physical condition continued to deteriorate. Last summer she was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD. Sister Mahoney died on November 1, 2006, from complications related to her pulmonary condition. I ask that the Senate join me in commemorating Sister Mahoney for her actions at Ground Zero on September 11 and in the months that followed that fateful day.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to echo what the Senator from New Mexico said. He has a very good idea, and I hope the House will act on his recommendations. Very briefly, I rise in support of the nomination of Dr. Bob Gates for Secretary of Defense. I believe he is the right guy at the right time. He has the background to be successful. I know this body will overwhelmingly confirm him. I wish him well in his very difficult but important task that lies ahead for the country and particularly for Dr. Gates. Very briefly, here is what I expect from Dr. Gates and really everyone involved in the war on terror: a winning strategy. He said at the hearing in one of the answers to one of the questions I posed to him that he believed the war in Iraq was one of the central battlefronts of the war on terror. If you believe that, as he does and I do and the President stated, then you have to throw everything you have at winning because the outcome in Iraq really will affect the outcome of the war on terror. If you believe that, you fight it to win. He also said something I thought was equally true and very candid: We are not winning. Our military has won every battle, but the extremists are trumping the moderates, and extremism is winning out over moderation in Iraq because we don't have enough security in place to allow moderation to flourish. My question to the country is, If we all agree we are not winning, can we all agree that we must not lose? I hope the country will rally around the concept that losing in Iraq will be devastating to our efforts in the war on terror. It will be devastating to forces of moderation in the region. It will empower extremists, religious extremists, al-Qaida, and others who have as their goal to topple all forms of moderation in the Middle East, to drive us out of the region-- not just Iraq--and one day destroy the State of Israel. If you believe it is the central backbone of the war on terror, I hope we can come together as a people in this country to make sure we have the resources on the ground to win. Dr. Gates said that we did not have enough troops after the fall of Baghdad to bring about security. I think everybody believes that now. If General Shinseki was right and we needed 200,000 to pacify the country and secure the country after the fall of Baghdad, what has happened in the intervening months and years to require less troops? Nothing. It is far worse today in Baghdad than it was a year ago when I last visited. I was there on election day in December. People were walking around voting, very happy, very upbeat. Now people are afraid to go outside, and their children are under attack when they go out for the most simple things. So I do hope that not only will he take over this job and start over with the Congress and the American people, that he will commit himself to winning this war, and the way to win, in my opinion, is to provide security so the political process can be successful. No Prime Minister, no historical figure or great politicians of the past could bring about a democracy in Iraq with this level of violence. It is chicken-and-egg stuff to me. You cannot have a political solution until you control the violence. When you have a high-crime neighborhood, you don't send in less police, you send in more. Our mistakes in the past have come back to haunt us. We have never had enough troops. The situation on the ground has gotten out of control. I do believe we can control it with a surge of American troops. The goal is to come home, but the goal is victory. History will judge us not by when we left but what we left behind. The consequences of winning or losing in Iraq are central in the war on terror, and we have no other option, in my opinion, other than to win. The way to win over extremists is you stand boldly with moderates, and the way you win against people who could care less about humanity is to embrace the better parts of humanity and show the people who are trying to drive us out of Iraq that their agenda will lose to a better agenda, that their idea is second to ours. People in the Mideast are dying for their freedom. People in Iraq are dying for their freedom. If you become a judge in Iraq, they try to kill your family. If you are a politician in Iraq, they don't say bad things about you, they try to kill your family. Let's stand with the moderate forces in Iraq. Let's make sure we win this war which is central to the war on terror, and the only way I know to win a war is to fight it with overwhelming force. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Change of Vote

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in 15 minutes I will try to explain the processes as I know it to be in terms of how we arrived at this moment. No. 1, I am glad we are here. I think the country is better off having the bill voted on in the current fashion. I have gotten to know Senator Warner very well over the last 30 days. I had a high opinion of the Senator before this process started, but I, quite frankly, am in awe of his ability to stand up for the institution as a U.S. Senator, who was a former Secretary of the Navy, who tried to have a balanced approach about what we are trying to do. It is no secret that Senator McCain is one of my closest friends in this body, and I respect him in so many ways. But unlike myself and most of us, Senator McCain paid a heavy price while serving this country. He and his colleagues in Vietnam were treated very poorly as prisoners of war. When he speaks about the Geneva Conventions, he does so as someone who has been in an environment where the Conventions would not apply. But Senator McCain believes very strongly in the Geneva Conventions. When it comes to the Vietnam war, he has told me more than once that if it were not for the insistence of the United States and the international community that constantly pushed back against the North Vietnamese, he thought the torture would have continued and all of them would eventually be killed. But the North Vietnamese became concerned about international criticism after a point in time. While the Geneva Conventions were not applied evenly by any means, it did have an effect on the North Vietnamese. I have been a military lawyer for over 20 years. I have had the honor of wearing the Air Force uniform while serving my country and being around great men and women in uniform. It has been one of the highlights of my life. I have never been shot at. The only people who wanted to kill me were probably some of my clients. But I do appreciate why the Geneva Conventions exist and the fact that the law of armed conflict is a body of law unique to itself and has a rich tradition in our country and throughout the world and it will work to make us safe and live within our values if we properly apply it. The reason we are here is because the Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdan case that the military commissions authorized by the President were in violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. They were not regularly constituted courts. It surprised me greatly that the Supreme Court would find that the Geneva Conventions applied to the war on terror. It was President Bush's assumption and mine, quite frankly, that humane treatment would be the standard. But this enemy doesn't wear a uniform; it operates outside the Conventions, doesn't represent a nation, and, therefore, would not be covered. But the Supreme Court came to a different conclusion. Thus, we are here. I say to my fellow Americans, it is not a weakness, it is strength that we have three branches of government. It is not healthy for one branch of government to dominate the other two at a time of stress. I have pushed back against the administration when I believed they were pushing the executive power of the inherent authority of the President too far. Even though we are in a time of war, there is plenty of room for the Congress and the courts. What I tried to do in helping draft this bill, working with the President and working with our friends on the other side, is come up with a product that would create a balance that I think would serve us well. My basic proposition that I have applied to the problem is we are at war, that 9/11 was an act of war, and since that moment in time our Nation has been at war with enemy combatants who do not wear a uniform, who do not represent a nation but are warriors for their cause, just as dedicated as Hitler was to his cause, and they are just as vicious and barbaric as any enemy we have ever fought. But we don't need to be like them to win. As a matter of fact, we need to show the world that we are different than them. When the Geneva Conventions were applied to the war on terror, we had a problem. We had to renew the Military Commission Tribunal in line with Common Article 3. Common Article 3 is a mini-human-rights tree that is common to all four Convention articles. You have one about lawful combatants and unlawful combatants, civilians and wounded people. Common Article 3 is throughout all of the treaties regarding the Geneva Conventions. It says you would have to have a regularly constituted court to pass judgment or render sentences against those who are in your charge during time of war; that is, unlawful combatants. The problem with the military commission order authorized by the President was that it deviated from the formal Code of Military Justice, the court-martial model, without showing a practical reason. Within our Uniform Code of Military Justice, it says military commissions are authorized, but they need to be like the court-martial system to the extent practicable. What I am proud of is we have created a new military commission based on the UCMJ and deviations are there because of the practical need. A court martial is not the right forum to try enemy combatants--non- citizen terrorists--the military commission is the right forum, but we are basing what we are doing on UCMJ, and the practical differences, I think, will be sustained by the Court. The confrontation rights that were originally posed by the administration gave me great concern. I do not believe that to win this war we need to create a trial procedure where the jury can receive evidence classified in nature, convict the accused, and the accused never knows what the jury had to render a verdict upon, could not answer that accusation, rebut or examine the evidence. That was the proposal which I thought went too far and that would come back to haunt us. As a result of this compromise, it has been taken out. We have a national security privilege available to the Government to protect that prosecutor's file from being given over to the defense or to the accused so our secrets can be protected. But we will now allow the prosecutor to give that to the jury and let them bring it out on the side of the accused and the accused never knowing what he was convicted upon. That could come back to haunt us if one of our soldiers falls into enemy hands. We would not want a future conviction based on evidence that our soldiers and CIA operative never saw. I think we have a military commission model that affords due process under the law of war that our Nation can be proud of, that will work in a way to render justice, and if a condition is abstained, it will be something we can be proud of as a nation. I am hopeful that the world would see the condition based on evidence, not vengeance. My goal is to render justice to the terrorists, even though they will not render justice to us. That is a big distinction. People ask me, Why do you care about the Geneva Conventions? These people will cut our heads off and they will kill us all. You are absolutely right. Why do I care? Because I am an American. And we have led the way for over 50- something years when it comes to the Geneva Conventions applications. I am also a military lawyer, and I can tell every Member of this body--some of them have served in combat unlike myself; some know better than I. But we have had downed pilots in Somalia. A helicopter pilot was captured by militia in Somalia. We dropped leaflets all over the city of Mogadishu. We told the militia leaders, ``If you harm a helicopter pilot, you will be a war criminal.'' We blared that throughout town on loudspeakers with helicopters. After a period of time, they got the message, and he was released. We had two pilots shot down over Libya when Reagan bombed Qadhafi. I was on active duty in the Air Force. We told Qadhafi directly and indirectly, if they harm these two pilots, they will be in violation of the Geneva Conventions, and we will hunt you down to the ends of the Earth. I want to be able to say in future wars that there is no reason to abandon our Geneva Conventions obligations to render justice to these terrorists. So not only do we have a military commission model that is Geneva Conventions compliant; we have a model that I think we should be proud of as a nation. The idea that the changes between the committee bill and the compromise represents some grave departure, quite frankly, I vehemently disagree with. I didn't get into this discussion and political fight to take all the heat that we have taken to turn around and do something that undercuts the purpose of being involved in it to begin with. The evidentiary standard that will be used in a military commission trial of an enemy combatant was adopted from the International Criminal Court. I will place into the Record statements from every Judge Advocate General in all four branches of the services that have certified from their point of view that the evidentiary standard that the judge will apply to any statements coming into evidence against an enemy combatant are legally sufficient, will not harm our standing in the world, and, in fact, are the model of the International Criminal Court which try the war criminals on a routine basis. The provision I added, along with Senator McCain, dealing with the provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act, 5th, 8th, and 14th amendment concepts within the Detainee Treatment Act, will also be a standard in the future designed to reinforce the relevance of the Detainee Treatment Act in our national policy, in our legal system, not to undermine anything but to enforce the concept the Detainee Treatment Act and the judicial standard that our military judges will apply to terrorists accused is the same that is applied in International Criminal Court. I have been a member of the JAG court for over 20 years. I have had the honor of serving with many men and women who will be in that court- martial scene. The chief prosecutor, Moe Davis, I met as a captain. There is no finer officer in the military than Colonel Davis. He is committed to render justice. I am very proud of the fact that the men and women who will be doing these military commissions believe in America just as much as anybody I have ever met, and they want to render justice. What else do we try to accomplish? We reauthorize the military commissions in a way to be Geneva Conventions-compliant to afford the defendants accused due process in the way that will not come back to haunt us. What else did we have to deal with? A CIA program that is classified in nature that needs to continue. There is a debate in this country: Should we have a CIA interrogation program classified in nature that would allow techniques not in the Army Field Manual to get good intelligence from high value targets? The answer, from my point of view, is yes, we should, but not because we want to torture anybody, because we want to be inhumane as a nation. The reason we need a CIA program classified in nature to get good information is because in this war information saves lives. Mutual assured destruction was the concept of the Cold War, where if the Soviet Union attacked us, they knew with certainty they would be wiped out. That concept doesn't work when your enemy doesn't mind killing themselves when they kill you. The only way we will protect ourselves effectively is to know what they are up to before they act. The way you find that out is to have good intelligence. But you have to do it with your value system. Abu Ghraib was an aberration, but it has hurt this country. Anytime the world believes America has adopted techniques and tactics that are not of who we are, we lose our standing. So what we did regarding the CIA, we redefined the War Crimes Act to meet our Geneva Conventions obligations. The test for the Congress was, how can you have a clandestine CIA program and then not run afoul of the Geneva Conventions? What are the Geneva Conventions requirements of every country that signs the treaty to outlaw domestically gray areas of the treaty? In Article 129 and 130 of the Geneva Conventions, it puts the burden on each country to do it internally, to create laws to discipline their own personnel who may violate the treaty in a grave way. It lists six offenses that would be considered grave breaches of the treaty under the conventions. Those six offenses were taken out of the treaty and put in our domestic law, title 18, the War Crimes Act, and anybody in our Government who violates that War Crimes Act is subject to being punished as a felon. We added three other crimes we came up with ourselves. Torture has always been a crime, so anyone who comes to the Senate and says the United States engages in torture, condones torture, that this agreement somehow legitimizes torture, you don't know what you are talking about. Torture is a crime in America. If someone is engaged in it, they are subject to being a felon, subject to the penalty of death. Not only is torture a war crime, serious physical injury, cruel and inhumane treatment mentally and physically of a detainee is a crime under title 18 of the war crimes statute. Every CIA agent, every military member now has the guidance they need to understand the law. Before we got involved, our title 18 War Crimes Act was hopelessly confusing. I couldn't understand it. We brought clarity. We have reined in the program. We have created boundaries around what we can do. We can aggressively interrogate, but we will not run afoul of the Geneva Conventions. We are not going to let our people commit felonies in the name of getting good information, but now they know what they can and cannot do. Who complies with that treaty? Who is it within our Government who would implement our obligations under the treaty? The Congress has decided what a war crime would be to prohibit grave breaches of the treaty. The President, this President, like every other President, implements treaties. So what we said in this legislation, when it comes to nongrave breaches, all the other obligations of the Geneva Conventions, the President will have the responsibility constitutionally to comply with those obligations, not to rewrite title 18, not to sanction torture, not to violate the Detainee Treatment Act, but to fulfill the treaty the way every other President has in our constitutional history. That is all we have done. To say otherwise is just political rhetoric. Not only have we allowed the CIA program to go forward in a way not to violate the Geneva Conventions, we have delegated to the President what was already our constitutional responsibility to enforce the treaty--not to rewrite it but to enforce it and fulfill it. My concern was that in the process of complying with Hamdan, we would be seen by the world as redefining the treaty for our own purposes. We have not redefined the Geneva Conventions. We have, for the first time in our domestic law, clearly defined what a crime would be against the Geneva Conventions, and we have told the President, as a Congress: It is your job to fulfill the other obligations outside of criminal law. That is the way it should be, and it is something of which I am extremely proud. We have been at war for over 5 years. Here we are 5 years later trying to figure out the basic legal infrastructure. It has been confusing. It has been contentious. We have had two Supreme Court cases where the Government's work product was struck down. My hope is that our homework will be graded by the Supreme Court, that this bill eventually will go to our Federal courts, as it should, and the courts will say the following: the military commissions are Geneva Conventions compliant and meet constitutional standards set out by our country when it comes to trying people. I am confident the court will rule that way. I am confident the Supreme Court will understand that the power we gave the President to fulfill the treaty is consistent with his role as President and the war crimes we have written to protect the treaty from a grave breach from our own people is written in a way to sustain legal scrutiny. I am also confident that Congress has finally cleared up what has been a huge problem. What role should a judge have in a time of war? Who should make the decision regarding enemy combatant status? In every war we have been in up until now, the military has decided the battlefield issues. Under the Geneva Conventions, it is a military decision to consider who an enemy combatant is. The habeas cases that have existed in our courts from the last 3 or 4 years have led to tremendous chaos at Guantanamo Bay. Our own troops are being sued by the people we are fighting. They are bringing every kind of action you can think of into Federal courts. Over 200 cases have been filed. It is impeding the war effort. A judge should not make a military decision during a time of war. The military is far more capable of determining who an enemy combatant is than a Federal judge. They are not trained to do that. We have replaced a system where the judges of this country can take over military decisions and allow judges to review military decisions, once made, for legal sufficiency. That is the way every other country in the world does it. Habeas has no place in this war for enemy prisoners. The Germans and the Japanese--no prisoner in the history of the United States has ever been able to go to a Federal court and sue the people they are fighting who are protecting us against the enemy. We are allowing the Federal courts to review every military decision made about an enemy combatant as to whether they made the right decision based on competent evidence and whether the procedures they used are constitutional. We have rejected the idea as a Congress of allowing the courts to run the war when it comes to defining who an enemy combatant is. That was a decision which needed to be made. It is not destroying the writ of habeas corpus. It is having a rational, balanced approach to where the judges can play a meaningful role in time of war and not play a role they are not equipped to play. This will mean nothing if it does not withstand court scrutiny. I hope soon we will have an overwhelming vote for the final product after the amendments are disposed of. My goal for 2 years has been to try to find national unity, to have the Congress, the executive branch, and eventually the courts on the same sheet of music where we can tell the world at large that we have detention policies, interrogation policies, and confinement policies that not only are humane and just but will allow us to protect ourselves from a vicious enemy and live up to our obligations as a nation. We are very close to that day coming. I thank every Member of this Senate who has worked to make this product better. When you cast a vote, please remember, we are at war, we are not fighting crime.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the chairman.

Mr. GRAHAM. On the Warner side.

Mr. GRAHAM. Would 15 minutes be OK?

Mr. GRAHAM. What I am trying to stress to the body is that this is a war we are fighting, not crime, and habeas corpus rights have not been given to any other prisoners under U.S. control in the past, for very good reason. It impedes the war effort. Let me give you a flavor of what is coming out of Guantanamo Bay. This is what is happening to the troops defending America by the people who are incarcerated, determined by our military to be an enemy combatant. A Canadian detainee, who threw a grenade that killed an Army medic in a firefight and who comes from a family with longstanding al- Qaida ties, moved for a preliminary injunction forbidding interrogation of him or engaging in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In other words, he was going to ask the judge to take over running the jail and his interrogation. A Kuwaiti detainee sought a court order that would provide dictionaries in contravention of Gitmo force protection policy and that their counsel have high-speed Internet access. Another one applied for a motion that would allow them to change the base security procedures to allow speedy mail delivery medical treatment. He sought an order transferring him to the least onerous condition at Gitmo. He asked the court to allow him to keep any books and reading materials sent to him and report to the court over his opportunities for exercise, communication, recreation and worship. We are not going to turn this war over to a series of court cases, where our troops are having to account for a bunch of junk by people trying to kill Americans. They will have their day in court, but they are not going to turn this whole war into a mockery with my vote. I yield back.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, if I may, examples of the habeas petitions filed on behalf of detainees against our troops.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this has been a very spirited debate and I am going to give you a spirited answer to what I am proposing with my vote. No. 1, my moral compass is very much intact, and when people mention moral compasses and the conscience of the Senate, I am going to sleep very good casting my vote. I think I have a decent moral compass about what we should be doing to people: What is humane, what is not; what is right, what is wrong. I have tried to balance the interests of our troops and the interests of our country when it comes to dealing with people who find themselves in our capture. Why not habeas for noncitizen, enemy combatant terrorists housed at Gitmo? No. 1, the whole Congress has agreed prospectively habeas is not available; the Detainee Treatment Act will be available. The only reason we are here is because of the Hamdan decision. The Hamdan decision did not apply to the Detainee Treatment Act retroactively, so we have about 200 and some habeas cases left unattended and we are going to attend to them now. Why do we--I and others--want to take habeas off the table and replace it with something else? I don't believe judges should be making military decisions in a time of war. There is a reason the Germans and the Japanese and every other prisoner held by America have never gone to Federal court and asked the judge to determine their status. That is not a role the judiciary should be playing. They are not trained to make those decisions. Under the Geneva Conventions article 5, the combatant tribunal requirement is a military decision. So I believe very vehemently that the military of our country is better qualified to determine who an enemy combatant is over a Federal judge. That is the way it has been, that is the way it should be and, with my vote, that is the way it is going to be. What is the problem? Why am I worried about having Federal judges turning every enemy combatant decision into a trial? In 1950 the Supreme Court, denying habeas rights to German and Japanese prisoners, said: Such trials would hamper the war effort and bring aid and comfort to the enemy. I agree with that. They would diminish the prestige of our commanders not only with enemies, but wavering neutrals. I agree with that. 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. I agree with that. That is why we shouldn't be doing habeas cases in a time of war. Nor is it unlikely that the result of such enemy litigiousness would be conflict between judicial and military opinion-- highly comforting to the enemies of the United States. These trials impede the war effort. It allows a judge to take what has historically been a military function. What I am proposing for this body and our country is to allow the military to do what they are best at doing: controlling the battlefield. Let them define who an enemy combatant is under the Geneva Conventions requirements, under the Combatant Status Review Tribunal system, which is Geneva Conventions compliant, in my opinion, and let the Federal courts come in after they made their decision to see if the military applied the correct law, the procedures were followed, and the evidence justifies the decision of the military. To substitute a judge for the military in a time of war to determine something as basic as who our enemy is is not only not necessary under our Constitution, it impedes the war effort, it is irresponsible, it needs to stop, and it should never have happened. I am confident Congress has the ability, if we choose to redefine the rights of an enemy combatant, noncitizen--what rights they have in a time of war and what has happened.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I wish to call attention to the good work of the Columbia, SC, Urban League and the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. On September 11, 2006, the Columbia Urban League and the VA cohosted a training seminar for church leaders in South Carolina to help address the growing population of troubled military veterans returning from combat zones. This Veterans Ministry Workshop was led by a panel of 10 physicians from the Dorn VA Medical Center in Columbia, each of whom explained the various psychological challenges that face veterans returning from conflict. The panelists discussed methods for dealing with veterans' children and spouses while offering practical tips for church members to follow. Around 100 church leaders attended the event. I salute the VA, the Columbia Urban League, and in particular its president, Mr. James T. McLawhorn, for their initiative in organizing the Veterans Ministry Workshop. It was Mr. McLawhorn, a member of the VA Advisory Committee on Minority Affairs, who originally proposed the idea in response to studies released by the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA. Without his leadership and the cooperation of VA officials on the ground in South Carolina, the Veterans Ministry Workshop may have never happened. I am confident that the workshop will have a tremendous impact on the veteran community in South Carolina, and I hope that the Columbia Urban League and VA will build on its success.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, I would invite the chairman--I cannot remember what paragraph the language is in, but Justice O'Connor gave some guidance to the military--I think it is Army Regulation 190-dash- something--that she indicated would be a proper mechanism or at least a guide of how to set up due process rights for this administrative determination. So after that decision, I know the military looked at the Army regulation that she cited and built the CSRT process off that concept. I am of the opinion that the Combat Status Review Tribunal does afford the rights Justice O'Connor indicated and is more than the Army regulation would allow that she cited, and it is fully compliant with article 5 of the Geneva Conventions--competent tribunal--but if you look in that decision, she mentions an Army regulation as a guide as to how to do this. I think the military, the Department of Defense, has gone beyond that.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. I will try my best.

Mr. GRAHAM. I will try.