[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 11, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8968-S8969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESTING THE TROOPS
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am sorry the Republican leader would not
yield for a question. My question would have been, the 60-vote
requirement for this amendment so that our troops have time to rest
before they are redeployed into combat, this 60-vote requirement which
the Republican leader says is routine and normal, I was going to ask
the Republican leader, in the two previous Defense authorization bills
brought to the floor of the Senate, how many times did we impose a 60-
vote requirement on amendments to that bill? The answer is none, never.
It was always a majority vote. Now the Republican side has said: We
insist on 60 votes for every amendment to the Defense authorization
bill. Those following this debate, watching it either in the galleries
or on C-SPAN, may wonder what is the big deal. Why? What is the
difference?
The difference is obvious. We are about to consider a debate on the
war in Iraq. This Senate is evenly divided. With Senator Johnson
recuperating, it is a 50/49 Senate with 50 Democrats and 49 Republicans
on the issue of Iraq. One of the Democratic Senators votes on the other
side. So on any given issue, it is 49 to 50, closely divided. Now the
ranks on the Republican side are breaking and changing. We now have
Republican Senators who are stepping out and publicly saying they
disagree with the President. At least five of them have publicly said
we need to change the direction of our policy in Iraq. Do the math. If
we start with 49 and pick up 5 Republicans, we have 54. That is a
majority. We could start carrying amendments to change the policy of
the war in Iraq. The Republican leader knows that. So how does he
protect the President's position? How does he stop the will of the
Senate? By imposing a new standard of 60 votes. Now it takes 60 votes,
not just a majority. For the last 2 years, a majority was good enough
when it came to every amendment on the Defense authorization bill,
including amendments about the war policy in Iraq. But not this time.
This time, Senator McConnell has come up with a new McConnell standard
when it comes to the Iraq war policy, that it takes 60 votes in the
Senate.
The Republican leader can come up with procedural obstacles also. He
can make it more difficult. He can continue to slow down the debate on
ethics reform. He can slow down the debate when it comes to the war in
Iraq. But there are a lot of Senators on this floor on both sides who
are going to stick to this task. We are not going to give up that
easily. We understand what is at stake. We have lost over 3,600 of our
best and bravest American soldiers. For us to prolong this debate, to
set up these artificial obstacles in order to perpetuate a policy which
is taking the lives of our men and women in uniform, is unacceptable.
The Senator from Kentucky, of course, has his rights under Senate
rules. I respect that. But to impose this new standard of 60 votes and
then to say on the floor that this is routine and normal is not a fact.
That is why I wanted to ask him that question. In the last 2 years, a
majority vote was what was used on the Senate floor over and over again
when it came to these important issues. We should return to that same
majority standard.
I would say to the Senator from Kentucky who tried to defend the
President's position, he should go back to his State, as all of us
have, and speak to the families of the soldiers, understand what they
are going through. Of course, every family of a soldier overseas is
lost in prayer and worry every single day about their loved one in
battle. But this administration, this President sends these soldiers
over again and over again without rest, without retraining, without the
equipment they need in battle. That is unacceptable. That is not a
standard we should allow when it comes to our defense of America.
Senator Jim Webb, who has offered this amendment, is a ground-combat
veteran of Vietnam, as is Senator Hagel, another cosponsor of this
amendment. They and Senator Inouye, a veteran of World War II, know
what it is like to put on that uniform and risk your life in battle.
What they are asking for is time for these soldiers to come home and
have a chance to be with their families, to rebuild their lives, to
rest, try to put their lives back together, reassociate themselves with
their families, retrain, and be ready if they are called again. What I
hear from the Senator from Kentucky is: That is unacceptable. This is
the President's call. He can keep sending these men and women over
again and again, even though it is more dangerous every time they are
sent into battle without appropriate rest and training.
When it comes to the vote, the Senator from Kentucky tells us a
majority of the Senate is not enough; we need 60 votes to give our
soldiers an opportunity to get the rest and retraining they deserve.
That is unfortunate. It is part of the obstructionism we are now seeing
every single day from the Republican side of the aisle. That isn't why
we were sent to Washington. If five or six Republican Senators want to
join the Democrats in trying to change the policy in Iraq, they should
be given that chance. Using these procedural obstacles is unfortunate
for this country and certainly unfortunate for the soldiers.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is
recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
for up to 12 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S.
1766
[[Page S8969]]
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is
recognized.
____________________