Jim Webb

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. But I would like to mention some points out of this outline. It is a very good survey of the types of things our soldiers have to do. So put yourself in the mind of a soldier who has just finished a 15- month deployment in Iraq. When they come home for a year, which is all they get now after a 15-month deployment, they do not sit around and get to know their family and have rest time. There is a little bit of that, but month by month during these 12 months of dwell time before they have to redeploy, these are the types of things they do: In the first month, they have 1 to 2 weeks of redeployment from the theater back home. That is a part of that first month. They have what is called reintegration training for a couple weeks. In the second month, there is ``block leave,'' but then they activate the headquarters. They begin recovery of equipment that was shipped. In the third through the fifth months, they have recovery operations of their equipment. They have the requirement of bringing in newly assigned people, the typical adjustment at the top and at the bottom which requires a great deal of command supervision in terms of bringing these people and assimilating them into the units. In the sixth month, they have individual training, crew training, team training, squad-level training, and begin platoon training. A small core of their personnel at the top actually have to deploy back to Iraq or Afghanistan for 10-day reconnaissance. In the seventh month, they have more platoon and company-level training, and 2 to 3 weeks out of that 1 month are out in the field. In the eighth month, they have command and control exercises. They have units beginning to report their readiness status to the Department of the Army. They do collective training, just below the battalion level. And 2 to 3 weeks, again, out of that month are in the field. In the ninth month, they start shipping equipment, which is a 24/7 process, shipping equipment to a national training center, shipping equipment back to theater. The 10th month, they have rehearsal exercises, brigade and battalion level. These are 3 to 4 weeks out of that one month where they--and at this point these units are approximately 75 percent full strength. So what happens then? You have a unit which is 75 percent full strength which is going to deploy, and they start bringing people in. They call it backfill. It is also predominant in the Marine Corps. They start bringing people in who have been home, in many cases, less than even the people in this unit. The 11th month, you have the advanced party personnel leaving, packing their gear and going. You have your final personnel being selected. You go back to individual training, major equipment systems returning to the unit, inspected, packed, and shipped to theater. The 12th month, you activate rear detachments, you assimilate your final replacements, and you deploy. So that is the year, which is called dwell time after a 15-month deployment. Obviously, what occurs after that 12-month cycle of dwell time is another combat deployment. So that is the situation we are addressing. That is the situation that, in my view, we need to bring the Congress in as a referee. Why? I will give you one example. When the Chief of Staff of the Army called me to tell me they were going to 15-month deployment cycles several months ago, moving from 12- to 15-month deployment cycles, I was stunned. I said: How can you do this? How can you not stand up and resist the notion that your troops are going to be deployed for 15 months with only 12 months at home? He said: Senator, I only feed the strategy; I don't make the strategy. Yet when we had General Petraeus before the Armed Services Committee and Senator Nelson of Florida asked him about this dwell-time problem, he basically said: Talk to the Chief of Staff of the Army. He is the person who gives us our people. So when you have that kind of a situation, and this sort of activity that goes on when people are arguably out of theater, we need a result. We need a resolution. We need people who are going to stand up and say, basically, however long you have been gone, you get that much back. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to take the opportunity, since it looks as if there are no other Senators who wish to speak at this moment, to clarify a few items in this amendment with respect to some of the criticisms that have been leveled against it. Again, let me emphasize, this is a minimum amendment. It wants to make a small adjustment to our operational policy that is needed because of these continuous rotations that have been going on for the last 4\1/2\ years. With respect to the constitutionality issue which has been mentioned a number of times, my staff has put together a fact sheet, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. WEBB. I have mentioned many times the situation in Korea during the Korean War, where the Congress passed legislation to provide that every person inducted into the military would receive full and adequate training for a period of not less than 4 months, and that no personnel during that 4-month period would be assigned duty overseas. This was the Congress stepping in to correct a situation that had been created by the executive branch in sending people to Korea before they were trained. In 1940, the Selective Training and Service Act stipulated that people inducted into the land forces of the United States would not be sent beyond the limits of the Western Hemisphere, except in U.S. territories. The Congress acted in similar ways multiple times prior to World War II. In 1915, the Army Appropriations Act restricted Army tours of duty in the Philippines to 2 years, and tours in the Canal Zone to 3 years. There are a number of other examples here. This is a matter that is clearly within the constitutional prerogative of the Congress should it choose to act. There was a comment earlier by the junior Senator from Arizona regarding Secretary Gates's concern about the strain on the Guard and Reserve if this amendment were to pass. Again, let me reiterate that this amendment addresses the Guard and Reserve. It specifically states that National Guard and Reserve units that have been deployed will not be redeployed for a period of 3 years. This is not going to result in a greater strain on the Guard and Reserve if this amendment passes. There was also some comment about individuals being difficult to manage if the amendment were passed, because we do single out in this amendment that not only units being deployed should be protected, but also individuals. The reason that language was inserted into this amendment is because there is a common practice now to backfill individuals who may have returned from a tour of duty much more recently than the unit they have been assigned to. At the same time, we do have this goal, a laudable goal, of having units train together and then deploy together. But even under today's circumstances--for instance, in the data sheet that Lieutenant Colonel Martinez has put together for us--and I have heard this from many people, that even by month 10, on a 12-month dwell time back here, the units are still putting people together. So you want them to train together, but it is a fallacy to say they have been training for this entire period before they are deployed. Most importantly, this is not difficult to manage. Everyone in the U.S. military has a service record book of some sort, and in that record book, there are indications of when they have served overseas. In today's computer age, it is not very difficult to figure out who has come back and what period of time. Units are tagged to deploy at least 6 months before they deploy. So you know who in your unit has recently been returned and who has not. It is not a difficult problem to fix. I wanted to make these clarifications. Exhibit 1 Fact Sheet: Constitutionality of Senator Webb's Bipartisan Dwell-Time Amendment (1) There is clear constitutional authority and extensive legislative precedent for Congress to impose minimum periods between operational deployments. As then-Acting Secretary of the Army Geren stated during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Armed Forces earlier this year, ``Article I of the Constitution makes Congress and the Army full partners.'' (2) Among the many congressional authorities the Constitution delineates with regard to the armed forces and the nation's common defense, Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress ``to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.'' The Congress has exercised this authority to regulate land and naval forces many times with regard to military training and operational assignments. The most noteworthy example occurred during the height of the Korean War, when Congress passed legislation to require all service members to receive no less than 120 days of training before being assigned overseas. (a) Despite pressing wartime exigencies in Korea, Congress amended the Selective Service Act in 1951 to provide that every person inducted into the Armed Forces would receive ``full and adequate training'' for a period not less than 4 months and no personnel, during this 4-month period, would be assigned for duty at a land installation located outside the United States, its territories, or possessions. (b) This Korean-War legislation had as its precedent similar congressional action before and after World War II. In 1940, for example, the Selective Training and Service Act stipulated that persons inducted into the land forces of the United States under the Act would not be employed beyond the limits of the Western Hemisphere, except in U.S. territories and possessions. In 1948, the Selective Service Act provided that 18- and 19-year-old enlistees for 1-year tours could not be assigned to land bases outside the continental United States. (c) Congress acted in similar ways multiple times prior to World War II. In 1915, for example, the Army Appropriations Act restricted Army tours of duty in the Philippines to 2 years and tours in the Canal Zone to 3 years--unless the service member requested otherwise or in cases of insurrection or actual or threatened hostilities. (d) Congress has continued to exercise its constitutional authority to pass laws to govern and regulate the armed forces. In 1956, a public law prohibited the assignment of female service members to duty on combat aircraft and all vessels of the Navy. Congress subsequently saw the wisdom of repealing this legislation. (e) Later, during the 1980s and 1990s, Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution in the ``Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution'' to authorize Marines to remain in Lebanon for 18 months. In 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to stipulate that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 1994. Congress also prohibited the expenditure of funds to support personnel end-strength levels above specific limits in NATO countries and other nations outside the United States during the post-Cold War era of the 1990s. Other examples also exist.

Mr. WEBB. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes and clarify, from my perspective, the intention of this amendment in the context of a number of the things the Senator from South Carolina spoke about. That was quite a lengthy speech. There was a lot of material in it. This amendment is a very narrow amendment. It is talking about a minimal adjustment in terms of troop rotation ratios. That is all this amendment is doing. When the Senator from South Carolina mentioned we should not have the politics of the next election being the driving force in these sorts of situations, I hasten to clarify that my election occurred last year. It is going to be a while before that decision is faced again. The principal cosponsor on the Republican side, Senator Hagel, has indicated he is retiring from the Senate. These issues we are attempting to put before the Senate have nothing to do with the politics of being reelected. Another point that I think needs to be made is that no one I know of is trying to push a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The Senator from South Carolina made a lot of comments about if you want to end the war, if you believe it is the worst strategic error we have ever made, we should call for cutting off the funding. There are a lot of us, including myself, who believe this was a huge strategic blunder and said so before we went in. As I said to General Petraeus when he was testifying: That was then, this is now. We have to find a way out of Iraq, for those of us who want to remove our residual forces eventually. That doesn't include everybody in this body. For those of us who want to remove all residual forces eventually, we have to do so in a way that will not further increase the instability in the region and will allow us to focus on international terrorism and our other strategic interests around the world. There is no debate on that. That is not what this amendment is about. We must do that through a proper, regionally based diplomatic solution. That will only take place with the right sort of leadership out of the administration. But that is not on the table. That is not what we are trying to address in this amendment. There have been questions on the constitutional issues. Again, I go to article I, section 8. The Congress has the power ``To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. . . .'' There has been some discussion about how this should not apply to movement of forces during a time of war. I don't see this as a movement of forces in a time of war, and I do see precedent, again, from the Korean war. This is a very similar situation; it is on the other end of it. In the Korean war, an administration was sending our troops into combat before they had been properly trained. The administration would say that is proper. The Secretary of Defense would come in and say that is proper, we need these troops in Korea. But the Congress decided it was not proper, that once our people step forward and take the oath of enlistment or oath of office, there is some protection that should come if there is a belief from the Congress that the executive branch has not used them properly. This is an intrinsically limited power. It is limited by the nature of this process. All one has to do is take a look at the votes we need today to move it forward. But it is a power that belongs in the Congress when the right vote is taken. Senator McCain and Senator Graham had a lengthy colloquy about service. Believe me, I am indebted to both of them and to the others who have served our country for the service they have given. Thirty years ago this year, I started as a committee counsel in the Congress. I was the first Vietnam veteran to work as a full committee counsel. At that time, two-thirds of the Members in the Congress had served in the military. That number is a very small percentage today. So it affects, in some cases, the ability of people to understand the movements on the ground, but it also increases the importance of people such as Senator McCain and Senator Graham, both of whom I respectfully disagree with on this particular amendment, but it increases the importance of what they are saying and the insight they are bringing. I greatly respect both of them for their service. I know there is going to be a sense of the Senate submitted after our vote is taken--I assume after our vote is taken. I wish to say again this is basically a figleaf. This is not a time for the Congress to be giving advice. It is a time for the Congress to step in and put a floor under those people who are serving us. This is a very minimal adjustment, but it is, in my view and in the view of others, an essential adjustment in terms of how we are handling the welfare and well-being of people who are going again and again. On that point, I again remind the Senate that for the first time in all the years we have been involved in Iraq, we are seeing people from the administration and from the other party openly saying they expect we might be in Iraq for the next 50 years. I was warning 5 years ago this month, in an editorial in the Washington Post, that there was no exit strategy from the people who wanted us to go into Iraq because they didn't intend to leave. Now we are seeing graphic evidence of that. That is a debate we are going to have. That is a debate we are going to have separate from this amendment. The only purpose of this amendment is to provide some stability in the rotational cycles, particularly of our traditional ground forces in the Army and Marine Corps, so we can have that debate in a way that calms down the instability in the forces. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB. That is agreeable.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to yield further time to the Senator from New Jersey, but before doing so, I would like to respond to some of the things the Senator from Arizona said in his statement, just to clarify the intention of this amendment and the environment in which it is being offered. Contrary to what the Senator from Arizona said, this amendment has been changed since July. There is a 120-day implementation provision in it, after my discussion with Secretary Gates. There is also an exclusion of special operations units from the requirements of the amendment. There are, as always, clear waiver provisions in here which would address a number of the situations Secretary Gates mentioned. The Senator from Arizona may believe the impact of this amendment would be to alter the strategy in Iraq, and he has made a few implications that people cannot support our military people unless they support a political mission. I don't believe that is correct. I believe it is the role in American society to question missions when one believes they are heading in the wrong direction. I believe many of our troops have that option and also exercise it. You can look at poll after poll on that. The one thing we can say about the U.S. military is that it has always controlled the tactical battle space into which it has been put. We can clearly say that in Iraq today. We can say that about other engagements. That is the job the military is being called upon to do. When the Senator from Arizona talks about what is this debate really about, to characterize this as a debate about defeat is inappropriate. The narrow purpose of this amendment is not to question so much whether the strategy is working but how do you feed troops into an operational environment. Where do we draw the line? I suppose we could have a decision from an administration that we would put all of American forces in Iraq until the war was over. When does the Congress decide that the policies of the executive branch have reached an imbalance? This is a very modest amendment. With respect to the constitutional implications, this is a tired old argument. I addressed it in July. I addressed it again today. There is a third provision in article I, section 8, which clearly gives Congress the authority to make these sorts of decisions. Senator McCain rightly talks about the loss of qualified officers and NCOs. My experience, looking at the U.S. military today, is that we are now losing them permanently. If you look at the retention rates from West Point, they are clearly on a marked downside. That is the canary in the bird cage. With respect to the letter of Secretary Gates, I respect Secretary Gates. I talk with him. He is a political appointee. We can expect political answers to a number of these questions. When Senator McCain speaks of the implications of withdrawal, we are in a box, I agree. The same implications being addressed right now for withdrawal were the implications that people such as myself, General Zinni, General Scowcroft, General Hoar, and many others with long national security experience were warning about if we went in in the first place. We have a region that is on the edge of chaos. We have oil now at $82 a barrel. We have a situation with the Turks, who once were our greatest supporters in the region, being roundly critical of the United States, complaining about guerilla activities emanating out of the Kurdish areas. We need to get the Saudis to the table. We need to address Iran. The only way for us to do that on a permanent basis is through aggressive diplomacy. I, too, read Henry Kissinger's article last Sunday. A big portion of it at the end was about the need to move forward more strongly with diplomacy. All of those issues are legitimate. They are all going to be thoroughly debated. The purpose of this amendment, again, is to put a safety net under our Active-Duty military and our Guard and Reserve while these debates are taking place. With that, I yield the floor and note the Senator from New Jersey wishes to speak. Perhaps the Senator from Arizona wants to speak.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to emphasize yet again the very minimal adjustment this amendment is asking for in terms of policy and to also emphasize again it is well within the Constitution and within precedent--article I, section 8. The precedent is a similar phenomenon as to the issues that are facing us today, just on the other side of the deployment schedule, from the Korean war. When our troops were being sent into harm's way without proper training, the Congress stepped in. It overruled an administration that was doing that. It set a minimum standard of deployment. We are attempting to do the same thing on the other end. There seems to be a great deal of question in our national debate as to what exactly ``dwell time'' means. I was in a discussion with Lieutenant Colonel Martinez, who is an Army fellow in the Senate who has extensive command experience at all levels up to the battalion level, as I recall, in many different theaters, just trying to put together notionally what goes on when military units are home after deployment. So I have an outline, Mr. President, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. WEBB. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I assume you are calling on this particular Senator from Virginia. I rise to offer, along with Senator Hagel, as the lead Republican cosponsor, and 35 of my colleagues a bipartisan amendment that speaks directly to the welfare of our servicemembers and their families. I have learned from Senator McCain's comments that Senator Warner will be offering a side-by-side amendment that goes to the sense of the Congress rather than the will of the Congress, and I would like to state emphatically at the outset this is a situation that calls for the will of the Congress. It calls for the Congress to step in and act as, if nothing else, an intermediary in a situation that is causing our men and women in uniform a great deal of stress and which again calls for us in the Congress to do something about this. We have been occupying Iraq for more than 4 years--more than 4\1/2\ years. During that time, it is sensible to assume our policies could move toward operational strategies that take into account the number of troops who are available rather than simply moving from one option to another, one so-called strategy to another, and continually going to the well and asking our troops to carry out these policies. This amendment would provide a safety net to our men and women in uniform by providing a minimum and more predictable time for them to rest and retrain before again deploying. If you are a member of the regular military, this amendment basically says that as long as you have been gone, you deserve to have that much time at home. This is a 1-to-1 ratio we are trying to push. Many of our units and our individuals are below that, even when the Department of Defense's stated goal and the restated goal of the Commandant of the Marine Corps not long ago was to move back to 2 to 1. In other words, our troops right now are being deployed in environments, many of them, where they are spending more time in Iraq than they are spending at home, when traditionally they should have twice as much time in their home environments to refurbish their units, retrain, get to know their families, and then continue to serve their country. For the Guard and Reserve, we have a provision in here that would require that no member or unit be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within 3 years of a previous deployment. I would like to emphasize this amendment is within the Constitution. There have been a number of Members, including the Senator from Arizona, who have stated publicly this is blatantly unconstitutional. It is well within the Constitution, and I read from article I, section 8: The Congress has the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. This constitutional authority has been employed many times in the past, most significantly during the Korean war, when the administration in charge at the time was sending soldiers to Korea before they had been adequately trained. The Congress stepped in under that provision of article I, section 8 and mandated that no one be deployed overseas until they had at least 120 days of training. We are doing essentially the same thing in terms of a protective measure for the troops of our military but on the other end. We are saying, as long as you have been deployed, you deserve to have that much time at home. This amendment is responsible. It has been drafted with great care. We have put waivers that would apply to unusual circumstances into it. The President can waive the limitations of this amendment in the event of an operational emergency posing a threat to vital national security interests. People who want to go back, can go back. It does not stop anyone from volunteering to return if they want to waive this provision. I have spoken with Secretary Gates, spoken with him at some length last week. I listened to his concerns. We put in two additional provisions in this amendment to react to the concerns the Secretary of Defense raised. The first is a 120-day enactment period, which is different from the way this amendment was introduced in July. In other words, the Department of Defense would have 120 days from the passage of this legislation in order to make appropriate plans and adjust to the provisions. I also have a provision in this bill that would exempt the special operations units from the requirements of the amendment. Special operations units are highly selective, their operational tempos are unpredictable, and we believe it is appropriate they be exempted. This amendment is not only constitutional, not only responsible, but it is needed. It is needed in a way that transcends politics. After 4\1/2\ years in the environment in Iraq, it is time we put into place operational policies that sensibly take care of the people we are calling upon to go again and again. That is one reason why the Military Officers Association of America took the unusual step to actually endorse this amendment. The Military Officers Association of America is not like the Veterans of Foreign Wars, not like the American Legion. They rarely step into the middle of political issues. But this organization, which comprises 368,000 members, military officers, took the step of sending a letter of endorsement for this amendment, calling upon us in the Congress to become better stewards of the men and women who are serving. It is beyond politics in another way. We are asking our men and women in uniform to bear a disproportionate sacrifice as the result of these multiple extended combat deployments with inadequate time at home. We owe them greater predictability. This is this week's issue of the Army Times. The cover story in the Army Times this week talks about brigade redeployments, who has gone the most, who has gone the least, who is going next. At least eight of the Army's active combat teams have deployed three or four times already. These are year or 15-month deployments. Another six, including three from the 101st Airborne, leave this month for either round three or round four. There is one brigade in the 10th Mountain Division, which is now nearing the end of its 15-month deployment, that is on its fourth deployment. When these soldiers return in November, they will have served 40 months since December 2001. That is about two-thirds of the time we have been engaged since December 2001. This amendment is needed for another reason, and that is that it has become clearer since the testimony of General Petraeus and Admiral Crocker that the debate on our numbers in Iraq and our policy in Iraq is going to continue for some time. We have divisions here in the Senate. We have divisions between the administration and the Congress. We are trying to find a formula, the right kind of a formula that can undo what I and many others believe was a grave strategic error in going into Iraq in the first place. But we have to have this debate sensibly. In the meantime, because this debate is going to continue for some time, we need to put a safety net under our troops who are being called upon to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. I noted with some irony on Monday, as I was presiding, when the Republican leader expressed his view that it would not be an unnatural occurrence for us to be in Iraq for the next 50 years. This comparison to Korea and Western Europe is being made again and again. I go back to 5 years ago this month when I wrote an editorial for the Washington Post, 6 months before we invaded Iraq. One of the comments I made in this editorial 5 years ago was that there is no end point, there is no withdrawal plan from the people who have brought us to this war, because they do not intend to withdraw. I said that 5 years ago. It is rather stunning to hear that ratified openly now by people in the administration and by others who have supported this endeavor. We need to engage in that debate. We need to come to some sort of agreement about what our posture is going to be in the Middle East. And, as we have that debate, it is vitally important that we look after the well-being of the men and women who are being called upon, again and again, to serve. We are seeing a number of predictable results from these constant deployments. We are seeing fallen retention among experienced combat veterans. We are seeing soldiers and marines--either retained on active duty beyond their enlistments in the ``Stop Loss'' program or being recalled from active duty after their enlistments are over--being sent again to Iraq or Afghanistan. We are seeing statistics on increased difficulties in marital situations and mental health issues. There was a quote in this week's Army Times by one Army division's sergeant major who was saying: After the second deployment, it's hard to retain our Soldiers. They have missed all the first steps, they've missed all the birthdays; they've missed all the anniversaries. I have seen that again and again with people I have known throughout their young lifetimes. One young man who is a close friend of my son just returned with an army unit, back for his second tour in Iraq. One of his comments at his going-away party was: 15-month deployments mean two Thanksgivings, two Christmases, two birthdays. What we are trying to do with this amendment is to bring a sense of responsibility among the leadership of our country in terms of how we are using our people. It is an attempt to move beyond politics as the politics of the situation are sorted out. Again, it is constitutional, it is responsible, it has been drafted with care, it is needed beyond politics. I hope those in this body will step forward and support it to the point that it could become law. I note my colleague, the Senator from Nebraska, has arrived, my principal cosponsor, for whom I have great regard. He and I have worked on many issues over nearly 30 years. I am grateful to be standing with him today and I yield my time and hope the Senator from Nebraska is recognized. Amendment No. 2909 to amendment no. 2011 Mr. President, I had assumed the amendment was called up by the chairman. I erred. I ask amendment No. 2909 be called up.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I wish to first say I am grateful to all the Senators who participated in the debate today, including my good friend Senator McCain, for whom I have had respect for a long time. I wish to emphasize again that this amendment provides a minimal adjustment in our rotation policies, and it does so with the notion that we can get a minimum floor underneath the deployment cycles of people who have been conducting the operational policies of the United States for 4\1/2\ years. If we were attempting to be obstructionists or we were attempting to shut down a system, we would probably be arguing for the 2-to-1 ratio which is the goal of the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the historical tradition of the U.S. military. We are simply saying for every period you have been gone, you should have that amount of time back here at home. This amendment is constitutional. It is well within the Constitution. I have given a memorandum that shows at least a half dozen different examples of when the Congress has put these sorts of restrictions in place when the executive branch has gone too far. It is responsible. It was drafted with a great deal of care. We have listened. This amendment is an adjustment from the amendment that was offered last July. We have spoken with Secretary Gates. We modified the language of it. It is needed. It is needed in a way that is beyond politics, and certainly would not contribute to what some people are calling defeat. It is needed for troop and family reasons, and that is why the Military Officers Association of America, 368,000 military officers, has supported the amendment. It is needed because the state of the debate on the Iraq war is going to continue for a long period of time. We all know that now. We know it specifically since General Petraeus's testimony. We are going to have to resolve this in the political environment. We need to do so under a framework that protects our troops. I ask my colleagues to support it. I am very pleased we have 36 cosponsors on this amendment, and I would hope the Senate passes it. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I wish to begin this statement the same way I did the last one, by thanking the Senator from Arizona for his service and also for the quality of the debate I believe we had on the other amendment. I would be very anxious to try to find some common ground here on something that we could agree upon that would help move this forward. There are portions of this amendment that I think are fairly useful. But I am unable to support it. I urge my colleagues to vote against it. The first part of it is nothing more than a statement of existing policy even with the language that the Department of Defense ``should'' establish a force management policy. On the second part, I have attempted several times to read it carefully. As an attorney, and as someone who used to be a committee counsel, the certifications required are very confusing. It is kind of gobbledy-gook. I believe it would, on one level, be redundant to current policy and on the other be confusing. I don't think it is useful, and I intend to oppose it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the senior Senator from Virginia and express my appreciation to him for having caught this inaccuracy that was being spoken about on the floor. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my letter to Senator Byrd regarding my absence for rollcall vote No. 315.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask for regular order with respect to my amendment No. 2618, which is a pending amendment to the Children's Health Insurance Program bill.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, and I now send the modification to the desk.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, the technical modification to my amendment simply makes clear that the amendment strikes section 701 of the bill, which is the tobacco tax revenue-raising section, and replaces section 701 with a section eliminating the current law on tax deferral of foreign corporate income. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague Senator Jeff Sessions and 14 of our Senate colleagues to introduce the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2007. This bipartisan legislation was recently introduced in the House by Congressmen Gary Miller of California and Bart Gordon of Tennessee and presently enjoys the support of 26 Members of Congress. Our bill is a straightforward, 5 year extension of the 2002 Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act. The purpose of this legislation remains the same as when Congress first passed it: to preserve and protect nationally significant Civil War battlefields through conservation easements and fee-simple purchases of battlefield sites. In addition, the legislation fosters partnerships among State and local governments, regional entities, and the private sector to preserve, conserve, and enhance nationally significant Civil War battlefields. The legislation continues to protect private property rights by limiting land acquisitions to willing sellers only. It also requires a 50-50 match in order for projects to be eligible to receive Federal funds. Finally, the program limits the effect on the burgeoning National Park Service's maintenance backlog because non-Federal entities are responsible for the long-term maintenance of sites not within National Park Service boundaries. In 1990, Congress established the Civil War Sites Advisory commission, a blue-ribbon panel empowered to investigate the status of America's remaining Civil War battlefields. Congress tasked the commission with the mission of prioritizing these battlefields according to their historic importance and the threats to their survival. The commission ultimately looked at the 10,000-plus battles and skirmishes of the Civil War and determined that 384 priority sites should be preserved. The results of the report were released in 1993 and they were not encouraging. The 1993 commission report recommended that Congress create an emergency program to save threatened Civil War battlefield land. The result was the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program, which was first funded in fiscal year 1999 and originally authorized in 2002. To date, the preservation program has saved over 14,000 acres of land in 15 States. The key to the success of the preservation program is that it achieves battlefield preservation through collaborative partnerships between State and local governments, the private sector and nonprofit organizations, such as the Civil War Preservation Trust. But for the preservation program and its non-Federal partners, we would have lost key sites from national shrines at Antietam. Chancellorsville. Fredericksburg. Manassas. Harpers Ferry. Bentonville. Mansfield. Champion Hill. Their names of these legendary battlegrounds continue to haunt us to this day. Had the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program not been available as a tool to preserve threatened battlefield land, these sites and others like them would have surely been lost forever to commercial and residential development. It is not every day you can visit battlefield sites and have an immediate, direct connection with your ancestors. We must preserve these sites so that future generations might see and touch the very places where so many sacrifices were made, by soldiers and civilians alike. We are a stronger, more diverse and free Nation because of these sacrifices. I would remind my colleagues that the preservation program has enjoyed bipartisan, bicameral support since its inception. In 2002, program funding was authorized through the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act at the level recommended by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, $10 million a year. These Federal funds have, and will continue to, leverage millions more in private and other charitable donations; thereby increasing our ability to preserve more threatened battlefield sites. The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act has become an essential tool for protecting our nation's Civil War battlefields. I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to reauthorize this important federal program. The clock is ticking against these threatened historical sites and we must keep the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program as a valuable tool to preserve them. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside in order that I might bring up my amendment No. 2618 to the bill.

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

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I strongly support this bill. As an initial matter, I express my thanks to Senators Baucus and Grassley for their hard work on this bipartisan bill which will help provide health insurance to millions of children nationwide and hundreds of thousands of children in my home State of Virginia. For too long in this country, low-income families have been unable to afford health insurance for their children. Reauthorizing this program helps meet this urgent need. But, unfortunately, this bill does so by singling out one form of conduct, tobacco smoking, and then taxing many of the very same people the program is intended to assist. Not only are lower income workers more likely to smoke, they spend a greater percentage of their income on tobacco when they do because an estimated half of American smokers come from the same income groups as those families who are eligible for this program. In my view, this amounts to robbing Peter to pay Paul. Additionally, the very form of conduct that we are supposedly attempting to discourage has become the same form of conduct that we are implicitly hoping will continue to finance this program. I find this logic odd. At some level, I find it counterproductive to the very goals of the legislation that is before us. And here is another problem. This is a targeted tax on commercial transactions that are disproportionately engaged in by people with lower incomes. At the same time, our country is experiencing a vast accumulation of wealth amongst our highest income earners. Income disparities in this country are at levels that we have not seen for at least 70 years. Moreover, corporate profits are at an all- time high as a percentage of our national wealth, while wages and salaries on our working people are at an all-time low. There is, in my view, a better way, a fairer way to pay for this program. That is why I have offered this amendment. Under the Federal Tax Code, American corporations are allowed to defer payment of American taxes on the profits earned by their overseas subsidiaries. Under current law, taxes on the business income of foreign subsidiaries are not payable until the profits are repatriated back to the American parent corporation and, in reality, this means they are not going to be paid at all. Companies can defer ever paying taxes in the United States by keeping their income overseas and making money from it indefinitely. The Tax Code, in other words, creates an incentive to move jobs overseas, to not invest in American operations, and also provides a method to shelter overseas profits from fair taxation. In just one recent example reported by the New York Times, a major biotech corporation--Amgen--with offshore subsidiaries used American tax laws to escape hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, taxes that should have gone into the American treasury. Although this corporation reported that 80 percent of its billions of dollars of sales occurred in the United States, it paid only 22 percent of American taxes on its profits. This corporation got away with this specifically because of American tax policies, like many other corporations do today. My amendment would eliminate this deferral provision in the Tax Code. This critical reform would discourage these companies from moving American investments and jobs to foreign tax havens and raise the revenue necessary to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program. This reform also would protect American workers by reversing the consistent flow of American jobs that corporations are outsourcing abroad. I have been unable at this point to receive an official estimate of the revenues this amendment would raise, but I have consulted multiple credible sources and have no doubt this amendment would raise the new funds needed under the new policy, which are approximately $7 billion a year. These sources include the Joint Committee on Taxation, which estimated last year that deferral would raise $6.4 billion in 2008 and rise to $7.5 billion by 2010. It also includes the President's own budget proposal for fiscal 2008, which estimates that tax expenditures for the deferral of income of this sort would be $12.8 billion in 2008 and rise to $16.7 billion in 2012. Opponents of this amendment would argue that deferral is needed to avoid corporate exposure to double taxation. However, in my view, that is a disingenuous argument. American corporations investing overseas currently receive a tax credit, a Federal tax credit, for their payment of foreign taxes of up to 35 percent. My amendment does not affect the availability of this credit and therefore would not result in double taxation, nor does my amendment affect in any way the current provisions regarding allocation of corporate expenses, which are related but separate. Some opponents might contend this is a new tax. But this is not a new tax. This is a way to reclaim monies that already should have been paid into the National Treasury by companies earning skyrocketing profits. This amendment closes a loophole. The Children's Health Insurance Program is probably the greatest achievement of our Congress in terms of health care insurance in the past decade. It has provided cost-effective health coverage to more than 137,000 children in Virginia in 2006 and millions of children across the country, reducing the number of uninsured children by one- third. We must, however, further strengthen our investment in children's health coverage. Millions of children remain uninsured. That is why this legislation is important. I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity to help children from America's low-income families, but I respectfully argue that we need to do so not with a regressive tax on people who have little ability to pay but, instead, by eliminating a corporate tax provision that would be one small step toward restoring fairness in our society and reinforcing the proper notions of how our Government should operate. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a county in the Commonwealth of Virginia that is celebrating its bicentennial anniversary. Throughout this year, Nelson County residents will gather to celebrate their county's history and founding. Nelson County is nestled in the rolling foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, midway between Charlottesville and Lynchburg. It was settled by colonists of English and German descent, as well as by the Scotch- Irish, whom I proudly recognize as my ancestors. The county was officially founded in 1807 and named in honor of Thomas Nelson, Jr., third Governor of Virginia. Nelson County is now home to about 14,500 people. For those who call Nelson County home, it is a comfortable place to work and live. Nelson County is also a community in the truest sense of the word. This was most clearly demonstrated when neighbors came together and offered comfort and helping hands after Hurricane Camille caused widespread destruction in the county in 1969. Today community members can look to each other and remember with pride how they came together under hard circumstances to make Nelson County prosper once again. Nelson County's economy is based on agriculture and natural resource- based industries such as timber and quarrying. The scenic surroundings have also attracted recreational development in recent years, making the county an outdoor enthusiast's haven. Outdoor recreation opportunities include hiking along the magnificent Appalachian Trail or to the top of Crabtree Falls, the highest cascading waterfall east of the Mississippi River, as well as canoeing and fishing on the James or Tye Rivers and skiing at Wintergreen Resort. Many Americans may not be familiar with Nelson County by name, but millions have had a glimpse of what life was like in this rural community due to the writings of Nelson County native, Earl Hamner, Jr. During the Great Depression, Hamner began writing of his experience growing up in Nelson County. These writings eventually provided the substance for ``The Waltons'' television series. The Nelson County Museum of History, which is currently being developed, will soon offer visitors opportunities to learn the rich heritage and rural culture of Nelson County through events, exhibits, and educational programs. The rural community of Nelson County has much to remember and much to be proud of. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Nelson County and its residents on their first 200 years and in wishing them well in the future.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague Senator Warner which will authorize a one-time capital grant by the National Archives to establish a Presidential library to honor the life of Woodrow Wilson. Virginia is fortunate to have 8 native sons that went on to become President of the U.S. This is a distinction that has led our fair Commonwealth to be known as the ``Mother of Presidents.'' The bipartisan bill we introduce today honors the most recent of the eight and a native of Staunton, Virginia: Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson was one of the most influential statesmen, scholars, and Presidents in American history. His impact on domestic and international affairs is undeniable. Only now, nearly 100 years after his presidency, are we able to fully appreciate the contributions President Wilson made to the U.S. and to the world. As a professor and President of Princeton University, Wilson created a more accountable system for higher education. Through curriculum reform, Wilson revolutionized the roles of teachers and students and quickly made Princeton one of the most renowned universities in the world. As a scholar, Wilson wrote numerous books and became an accomplished essayist. Highly regarded for his work in political science, Wilson's dissertation, entitled Congressional Government, is still admired today as a study of federal lawmaking. He did this notwithstanding the fact that he could not read until he was ten years old and may have suffered from a learning disability such as dyslexia. As a statesman and President, Wilson compiled a record of domestic legislation that set the groundwork for modern America and reflected his belief in the ideal that: ``Liberty does not consist . . . in mere general declarations of the rights of man. It consists in the translation of those declarations into definite action.'' He spearheaded groundbreaking reform in finance, trade, industry and labor, including anti-trust and child labor laws and women's suffrage. During his two terms in office, he oversaw the birth of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Trade Commission. In spite of Wilson's significant contributions to American history and his instrumental role in shaping the framework of the modern international landscape, there exists no authorized Presidential library dedicated to his achievements. For the last 70 years, the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Foundation in Staunton, Virginia has admirably served as caretaker of Wilson's papers and artifacts, dedicating itself to the preservation of Wilson's legacy. But it has done so without the resources afforded to other Presidential libraries in the Federal system. Over time, the Foundation has outgrown its current space and facilities. Now, with each day that passes, the prevailing physical infrastructure severely limits educational capabilities and opportunities to share the profound legacy of President Wilson. Indeed, the foundation has even become reluctant to take on many new major new Wilson collections because its current controlled archival system is filled to capacity and cannot protect additional collections in the absence of the new facility. Accordingly, the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Authorization Act authorizes a one-time capital grant from the National Archives for the establishment of an independent Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library. This library will serve as the center for education and study of Woodrow Wilson's life and legacies, and will enable people from this country and abroad to learn more about the life and work of our Nation's 28th President. To be clear, this bill would establish the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library as an independent, privately-run institution operating outside the existing Presidential Library System. The Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Foundation will use the Federal funds to offset costs associated with the construction of a 29,000 square foot Presidential library honoring President Wilson. As planned, the library would include a research library, archives, lecture hall, reception hall, orientation theater, ceremonial space, and exhibit hall. These funds authorized under this legislation represent the full Federal share of the project. Significantly, the bill does not authorize ongoing operating subsidies on any other ongoing expenses. This is a one time authorization. The foundation's endeavor to construct the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library will create the only site in the country dedicated to the exploration of the full life and legacies of the 28th President, at his birthplace in Staunton, VA. A new library will alleviate stress on existing foundation facilities and to allow for increased educational outreach to the benefit of students in Virginia and across the U.S. Construction of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library would achieve the following objectives: Make possible collaboration with the National Archives and other presidential libraries, thereby fostering increased awareness and study of American history and the institution of the Presidency. Integrate cutting-edge digital archive development. Promote tourism to Staunton and the Commonwealth of Virginia to the benefit of all local economies. Sensitive to the budgetary constraints faced by the National Archives, let me reiterate we have crafted this legislation to minimize and cap the financial burden on the Federal Government posed by this project. First, the bill ensures the existence of a strong public- private sponsorship by mandating that any Federal dollars are matched two-for-one by the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Foundation and only after the nonfederal funds are certified to be in possession of the nonprofit entity, an arrangement that Congress has used in the past. This legislation States that the Federal Government shall have no role or responsibility for the operation of the library and guarantees that the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library will operate outside the existing Presidential Library System. This is not an effort by the nonprofit foundation to secure annual operating subsidies along the lines of what Congress provides all Presidential Libraries in the existing system. This legislation enjoys broad, bipartisan, bicameral support in Congress and broad support among individuals, organizations and officials across the country. This bill is identical to legislation approved by the House of Representatives by voice vote in the 109th Congress on September 28, 2006, and which the entire Virginia House delegation has reintroduced in the 110th Congress. I would note that the Governor of Virginia has written Senator Warner and me to endorse the project. So too have other regional officials, historians, and representatives of other Presidential sites throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, including Monticello, Poplar Forest, Montpelier, Ash-Lawn, and Mount Vernon. This project has the potential to benefit not only the greater Staunton region, but Virginia and the Nation as a whole, both from a historical/educational sense and by strengthening an important cultural asset in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley. We are advised that a new building will be an open, welcoming forum for the hundreds of thousands of American and foreign visitors who will visit each year to learn about Woodrow Wilson and his democratic legacies. The project sponsors believe that the country's best museum designers will work with historians to turn the story of Woodrow Wilson into an unforgettable experience that is fun, educational, and permanently memorable. In order to increase the awareness and understanding of the life, principles and accomplishments of the 28th President of the U.S., I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure that Wilson's legacy is more accessible and available for a wider audience for years to come. I am hopeful that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will consider this legislation favorably and that we can enact it during the remainder of this Congressional session. With the 100th anniversary of his election just 5 years away, this is the time for Congress to accept its responsibility to help preserve President Woodrow Wilson's legacy and to improve its accessibility for generations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague Senator Warner which will authorize a one-time capital grant by the National Archives to establish a Presidential library to honor the life of Woodrow Wilson. Virginia is fortunate to have 8 native sons that went on to become President of the U.S. This is a distinction that has led our fair Commonwealth to be known as the ``Mother of Presidents.'' The bipartisan bill we introduce today honors the most recent of the eight and a native of Staunton, Virginia: Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson was one of the most influential statesmen, scholars, and Presidents in American history. His impact on domestic and international affairs is undeniable. Only now, nearly 100 years after his presidency, are we able to fully appreciate the contributions President Wilson made to the U.S. and to the world. As a professor and President of Princeton University, Wilson created a more accountable system for higher education. Through curriculum reform, Wilson revolutionized the roles of teachers and students and quickly made Princeton one of the most renowned universities in the world. As a scholar, Wilson wrote numerous books and became an accomplished essayist. Highly regarded for his work in political science, Wilson's dissertation, entitled Congressional Government, is still admired today as a study of federal lawmaking. He did this notwithstanding the fact that he could not read until he was ten years old and may have suffered from a learning disability such as dyslexia. As a statesman and President, Wilson compiled a record of domestic legislation that set the groundwork for modern America and reflected his belief in the ideal that: ``Liberty does not consist . . . in mere general declarations of the rights of man. It consists in the translation of those declarations into definite action.'' He spearheaded groundbreaking reform in finance, trade, industry and labor, including anti-trust and child labor laws and women's suffrage. During his two terms in office, he oversaw the birth of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Trade Commission. In spite of Wilson's significant contributions to American history and his instrumental role in shaping the framework of the modern international landscape, there exists no authorized Presidential library dedicated to his achievements. For the last 70 years, the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Foundation in Staunton, Virginia has admirably served as caretaker of Wilson's papers and artifacts, dedicating itself to the preservation of Wilson's legacy. But it has done so without the resources afforded to other Presidential libraries in the Federal system. Over time, the Foundation has outgrown its current space and facilities. Now, with each day that passes, the prevailing physical infrastructure severely limits educational capabilities and opportunities to share the profound legacy of President Wilson. Indeed, the foundation has even become reluctant to take on many new major new Wilson collections because its current controlled archival system is filled to capacity and cannot protect additional collections in the absence of the new facility. Accordingly, the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Authorization Act authorizes a one-time capital grant from the National Archives for the establishment of an independent Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library. This library will serve as the center for education and study of Woodrow Wilson's life and legacies, and will enable people from this country and abroad to learn more about the life and work of our Nation's 28th President. To be clear, this bill would establish the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library as an independent, privately-run institution operating outside the existing Presidential Library System. The Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Foundation will use the Federal funds to offset costs associated with the construction of a 29,000 square foot Presidential library honoring President Wilson. As planned, the library would include a research library, archives, lecture hall, reception hall, orientation theater, ceremonial space, and exhibit hall. These funds authorized under this legislation represent the full Federal share of the project. Significantly, the bill does not authorize ongoing operating subsidies on any other ongoing expenses. This is a one time authorization. The foundation's endeavor to construct the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library will create the only site in the country dedicated to the exploration of the full life and legacies of the 28th President, at his birthplace in Staunton, VA. A new library will alleviate stress on existing foundation facilities and to allow for increased educational outreach to the benefit of students in Virginia and across the U.S. Construction of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library would achieve the following objectives: Make possible collaboration with the National Archives and other presidential libraries, thereby fostering increased awareness and study of American history and the institution of the Presidency. Integrate cutting-edge digital archive development. Promote tourism to Staunton and the Commonwealth of Virginia to the benefit of all local economies. Sensitive to the budgetary constraints faced by the National Archives, let me reiterate we have crafted this legislation to minimize and cap the financial burden on the Federal Government posed by this project. First, the bill ensures the existence of a strong public- private sponsorship by mandating that any Federal dollars are matched two-for-one by the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Foundation and only after the nonfederal funds are certified to be in possession of the nonprofit entity, an arrangement that Congress has used in the past. This legislation States that the Federal Government shall have no role or responsibility for the operation of the library and guarantees that the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library will operate outside the existing Presidential Library System. This is not an effort by the nonprofit foundation to secure annual operating subsidies along the lines of what Congress provides all Presidential Libraries in the existing system. This legislation enjoys broad, bipartisan, bicameral support in Congress and broad support among individuals, organizations and officials across the country. This bill is identical to legislation approved by the House of Representatives by voice vote in the 109th Congress on September 28, 2006, and which the entire Virginia House delegation has reintroduced in the 110th Congress. I would note that the Governor of Virginia has written Senator Warner and me to endorse the project. So too have other regional officials, historians, and representatives of other Presidential sites throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, including Monticello, Poplar Forest, Montpelier, Ash-Lawn, and Mount Vernon. This project has the potential to benefit not only the greater Staunton region, but Virginia and the Nation as a whole, both from a historical/educational sense and by strengthening an important cultural asset in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley. We are advised that a new building will be an open, welcoming forum for the hundreds of thousands of American and foreign visitors who will visit each year to learn about Woodrow Wilson and his democratic legacies. The project sponsors believe that the country's best museum designers will work with historians to turn the story of Woodrow Wilson into an unforgettable experience that is fun, educational, and permanently memorable. In order to increase the awareness and understanding of the life, principles and accomplishments of the 28th President of the U.S., I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure that Wilson's legacy is more accessible and available for a wider audience for years to come. I am hopeful that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will consider this legislation favorably and that we can enact it during the remainder of this Congressional session. With the 100th anniversary of his election just 5 years away, this is the time for Congress to accept its responsibility to help preserve President Woodrow Wilson's legacy and to improve its accessibility for generations. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.