[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 112 (Friday, July 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9189-S9190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEVIN-REED AMENDMENT
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senate has now had a full day to
debate the Levin amendment. The questions I raised about it yesterday
remain unanswered. Americans need to know what they are being asked to
consider. The troops fighting al-Qaida in Iraq also need to know. I
will ask my questions again.
The Levin amendment says the Secretary of Defense shall ``commence
the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later
than 120 days after the date of enactment of this act.'' What would
this reduction involve? The Levin amendment calls for U.S. forces in
Iraq to have a limited presence after the reduction. What is a
``limited presence''? The Levin amendment says our Armed Forces should
only be used to protect U.S. personnel, to train Iraqis to fight, and
to engage in ``targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida.''
What does ``targeted'' mean? The Levin amendment says the Secretary of
Defense shall complete the transition of U.S. forces in Iraq to a
limited presence and missions by April 30. How does the author define
``complete''?
A number of papers across America reported this morning that
yesterday's House vote means that most U.S. troops will be out of Iraq
by April. I ask the authors of the Levin amendment, is this true?
This 1\1/2\-page amendment is the centerpiece of the Democratic
leadership's strategy for Iraq. They want us to choose this over the
Petraeus plan. Listen to General Petraeus. Just before we began this
debate, he made a simple request. He said:
I can think of few commanders in history who wouldn't have
wanted more troops, more time, or more unity among their
partners. However, if I could only have one thing at this
point in Iraq, it would be more time.
Our Democratic-led Senate voted 81 to nothing to send General
Petraeus into Iraq. A bipartisan majority of 80 Senators told him in
May that he had until September to report back on progress. His
strategy has led to what even skeptics describe as an encouraging
turnaround against al-Qaida in Anbar, a province which accounts for
[[Page S9190]]
about one-third of Iraq's territory. Yesterday, just 1 month after this
strategy became fully manned, Democrats are declaring it a failure and
asking us to rally behind a 1\1/2\-page alternative that raises more
questions, frankly, than it answers.
We have been down this road before. When the President decided to
change course in Iraq last year, Democrats said his new strategy
wouldn't work. They called it a failure before it began. Now just 1
month after that strategy became fully manned, they are calling it a
failure again, even as it has started to show signs of military
success.
The Iraq Foreign Minister told us what would happen if America walks
away from this fight right now: a sharp increase in violence, thousands
of civilian deaths, and a regional conflict that could involve several
other countries in that area. Yet the Democratic leadership has yet to
address the consequences of withdrawal. Here is their response to
concerns about a victory by al-Qaida, genocide, and a regional war in
the Middle East: Blame Bush. That may work on the stump, but it is not
a very sophisticated foreign policy, and it is not going to solve the
great problems we face in Iraq and in the broader Middle East.
Fortunately, many brave people are facing this problem head-on. Our
top commander in Iraq says he can win this fight. He told us he
wouldn't risk a single American life if he didn't think he could. All
he is asking for is time. Can we at least give him what we agreed to in
May?
This amendment is not a responsible alternative to the Petraeus plan.
It is a page and a half of vague proposals.
Now, look, all of us are frustrated with the war, but we have
committed to listen to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. We did
so through legislation. We need to listen to our top commander in the
field. He deserves 60 days. More than 160,000 American soldiers and
marines are fighting in Iraq right now. They believe in this mission.
They are executing the plan, and they have a leader. He is asking for
more time. Let's be fair and honor the legislation we passed in May.
Let's wait for the report.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Levin-Reed amendment requires the
President to take steps to responsibly end the war that the country and
our brave men and women in uniform deserve and demand, but it does not
set specific troop levels and, certainly, schedules other than what we
have already indicated, and that is the House-passed version, similar
to ours, 120 days to start redeploying troops; as of April 1, according
to the House, and May 1, according to us. There must be a change of
mission. That change of mission will be directed toward
counterterrorism, protecting our assets in the area, and also training
the Iraqis. That is simply what it says.
Senators Carl Levin and Jack Reed are uniquely qualified to offer
this amendment. They have been joined in this amendment by others,
including Senator Hagel. This amendment sets a firm date and an end
date to transition the mission to begin the reduction of U.S. forces. I
have talked about that. It limits the U.S. mission.
This policy of the President--it is not Petraeus' policy; it is the
President's--has, during the last 6 months, caused the deaths of over
600 more American soldiers and cost the American taxpayers more than
$60 billion. The amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from
Virginia, Mr. Webb, was a step in the right direction. It was defeated.
We were not allowed to vote on that. It was offered to give our troops
the relief they need--15 months in country, 15 months out of country.
That is serious and important to our troops.
Our troops are in a difficult position. We are 3,000 officers short.
The morning news reports that 13 percent of recruits, even though they
are 15 percent down in recruitments, 13 percent of those they have,
even though they have lowered qualifications significantly, 13 percent
have criminal records and are going into the military.
Of course, the amendment that is offered by Senators Levin and Reed
requires that the reduction in force be part of a comprehensive
diplomatic, regional, political, and economic effort.
The votes we have taken on Iraq thus far make two things very clear:
First, the Democratic caucus is united in our commitment to changing
the course of this Iraq intractable civil war. Our resolve has never
been stronger. Second, until and unless the President awakens to his
grievous misjudgments, it will take significant Republican support to
end the war.
This week's vote on the Webb amendment was not encouraging. The
Republican leadership blocked an up-or-down vote on an amendment to
support our troops by increasing rest time between deployments.
Republicans have every right to vote against bills and amendments they
oppose. If they oppose troop readiness, let them go on record voting
against it. But to block an amendment like that shows clearly that some
Republicans are protecting the President and not the troops. Plenty of
Republicans are talking the right way on Iraq now. They are expressing
their disapproval for the President's policy, and this is a welcome
step. But speeches won't end the war; only votes will.
We have a constitutional obligation. Section 1, article 8 says that
we have an obligation to take care of our troops. We have a
constitutional obligation. When we return to the Levin-Reed amendment
next week, a final vote will come. We hope it is not blocked again
procedurally. I hope all my colleagues, Democratic and Republican
alike, will embrace this opportunity to finally end a war that has
caused our country so much harm.
____________________