From Senator Webb's office:
Hagel-Webb Introduce Amendment to Protect Readiness of U.S. Troops and Limit DeploymentsWASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Jim Webb (D-VA) introduced a bipartisan amendment today to the Iraq War supplemental pending bill. The amendment:
* ensures that units and individuals in the Armed Forces be certified as "fully mission capable" 15 days prior to deployment;
* limits the length of overseas deployments of the Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard;
* establishes a minimum time between deployments for the Army, Marine Corps and National Guard;
* provides additional appropriations totaling approximately $3.1 billion to reset Army National Guard and Reserve equipment and to address funding shortfalls for Army National Guard training, operations and maintenance; and to fund the acquisition of additional Mine Resistant Ambush Protection vehicles for the Marine Corps;
* and requires the President to report to Congress on the comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic strategy of the U.S. regarding Iraq.
"This amendment puts the focus where it should be: on the men and women of our military. No American wants to allow a single soldier or Marine to be deployed without meeting the military's standard of readiness. Yet that is what we are doing. We are breaking our military and this amendment will put a stop to it. This amendment is about taking care of our troops," Hagel said."I have long advocated that the U.S. strategy in Iraq should embrace concerted regional and international diplomacy," said Senator Jim Webb. "This bipartisan amendment will advance efforts to achieve that goal. Moreover, we will take critical and necessary steps to strengthen congressional oversight regarding military readiness and the administration's policies for deploying and redeploying personnel and units to Iraq. The amendment's increased appropriations for military readiness and force-protection vehicles reflect a determination to assist our ground forces reverse their worrisome decline in readiness-especially the National Guard in both its domestic and federal missions."
This is a very smart approach, in my opinion. What do you think?
In 2002-2003 I was on the longest Naval Deployment ever in history because of Iraq. We were extended.
Most of you know Jimmy Webb, his unit was extended.
My wife's cousin a fresh 2nd Lt. from the Naval Academy, also in Iraq his unit was extended.
Then, we come home and we are deployed again.
Donald Rumsfeld wanted to cut our forces in HALF while we were sending them in harms way.
How can we fight a war without the adequate number of troops?
How can we defend our nation without the adequate number of troops?
Again, thank you Sen. Webb and Sen. Hagel for doing this 2 veterans who haven't forgotten where they came from.
Bush and Cheney may by this very evening find themselves in the completely surprising position of "zugzwang."
The following is the floor statement of Senator Jim Webb upon introduction of his Iran amendment to the Iraq supplemental bill. Text of the amendment is available upon request.Madam President, I've been on the floor on a number of occasions to discuss the amendment which I'm introducing today. I introduced it on March the 5th as S. 759, which is a bill to prohibit the use of military funds for military operations in Iran without the consent of the Congress.
I'm offering the legislation today as an amendment to the fiscal 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill with the support of the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. This bill has received a good bit of discussion and also a good bit of correspondence from various citizens' groups that have gone to members' offices.
I won't take a great deal of time in terms of going through a lot of the debate about it. I would like to say at the outset that I've taken great care in the preparation of this bill to ensure that it will not in any way prevent our military forces from carrying out their tactical responsibilities in places such as Iraq and in other areas that are on the coastlines and borderlines of Iran. But I would like to emphasize that in my view, this amendment is essential to revitalizing the constitution health of our governmental process.
The purpose of this legislation is to restore a proper balance between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the commencement of war and any general attack on Iran would be beyond cavil the commencement of a new war in a region that is already enduring two costly and debilitating wars. If this action is to be taken, it should be done only with the full and considered consent of the Congress. At the same time, the legislation allows American forces to directly respond to attacks or possible attacks that might be initiated from Iran as well as those that might be begun elsewhere and then carry over into Iranian territory.
Specifically, the amendment requires that the President seek congressional authorization prior to commencing any broad military action in Iran and it allows the following exceptions: First, military operations or activities that would directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran. Second, those activities that would directly thwart an imminent attack that would be launched from Iran. Third, military operations or activities that would be in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter would enter Iran. And finally, those intelligence collection activities that have been properly noticed to the appropriate committees of Congress.
The major function of the amendment, again, is to restore the constitutional balance. No administration should have the power to commence unprovoked military activities against Iran or any other nation with the approval of the Congress.
But the issue of the day is Iran. I am offering this amendment partly due to my concern over President Bush's signing statement that accompanied the 2002 Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. That amendment, if you read it carefully, indicates that this Administration believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military action without the consent of the Congress. And it should not be left unanswered by this body.
This amendment, again, will not take any military operations off the table - any options off the table - it will not tie the hands of this Administration if our military forces are actually attacked from Iranian soil or territorial waters or by forces that retreat into Iranian territory. Madam President, this is responsible legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, and I yield the floor.
This is a great first step, and I'm so pleased to see this bill has some good things for the guy's fighting this war. Sometimes the anti-war movement gets so caught up in the cause they forget the soldiers, and we know the Republican don't give a damn about them.
It's also interesting, because this is the first time that Hagel has walked the walk. Gordon Smith saw his electoral writing on the wall a long time ago and turned as such, but Hagel has really converted here (which strikes me as a final nail in a coffin that he'd ever be able to win a Republican presidential nomination, so it's all the more commendable). It's also striking that such 'moderates' as Snowe, and especially Collins and Sununu, who are both up for election in '08, proved once again how immoderate they are -- they tow the party line, no matter what. Collins, Sununu, Coleman, Domenici -- they will regret this vote. I assume they'll vote for the final bill in order to try and mitigate the effects on their reputations, but this vote should be carved in stone by their Dem opponents next year.
It feels like the worm has turned legislatively, and credit has to be given to Pelosi for securing the narrow victory. That Webb might pull the Senate quietly further towards exit with this amendment is really hopeful stuff.