[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9301-S9313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 1585, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1585) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2007 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Nelson (NE) (for Levin) amendment No. 2011, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       Levin amendment No. 2087 (to amendment No. 2011), to 
     provide for a reduction and transition of U.S. forces in 
     Iraq.
       Reed amendment No. 2088 (to amendment No. 2087), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Cornyn amendment No. 2100 (to amendment No. 2011), to 
     express the sense of the Senate that it is in the national 
     security interest of the United States that Iraq not become a 
     failed state and a safe haven for terrorists.
       McConnell amendment No. 2241 (to the language proposed to 
     be stricken by amendment No. 2011), relative to a sense of 
     the Senate on the consequences of a failed state in Iraq.
       Durbin amendment No. 2252 (to amendment No. 2241), to 
     change the enactment date.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized.


                Amendment No. 2274 to Amendment No. 2011

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mr. Levin, for 
     himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kerry, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2274 to amendment No. 2011.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S9302]]

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for a reduction and transition of Untied States 
                            forces in Iraq)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 1535. REDUCTION AND TRANSITION OF UNITED STATES FORCES 
                   IN IRAQ.

       (a) Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.--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 the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Implementation of Reduction as Part of Comprehensive 
     Strategy.--The reduction of forces required by this section 
     shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, 
     political, and economic strategy that includes sustained 
     engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international 
     community for the purpose of working collectively to bring 
     stability to Iraq. As part of this effort, the President 
     shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to 
     the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of 
     the United States at the United Nations to seek the 
     appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the 
     auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the 
     authority of the international community to engage political, 
     religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive 
     political process.
       (c) Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition.--After 
     the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United 
     States forces to a limited presence as required by this 
     section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain 
     members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following 
     missions:
       (1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and 
     infrastructure.
       (2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to 
     the Iraqi Security Forces.
       (3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations 
     against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other 
     international terrorist organizations.
       (d) Completion of Transition.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall complete the transition of United States forces to a 
     limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) 
     by April 30, 2008.


                Amendment No. 2275 to Amendment No. 2274

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr. 
     Reed, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Biden, 
     Mr. Obama, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2275 to amendment No. 2274.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for a reduction and transition of United States 
                            forces in Iraq)

       In lieu of the language to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1535. REDUCTION AND TRANSITION OF UNITED STATES FORCES 
                   IN IRAQ.

       (a) Deadline for Commencement of Reduction.--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 the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Implementation of Reduction as Part of Comprehensive 
     Strategy.--The reduction of forces required by this section 
     shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, 
     political, and economic strategy that includes sustained 
     engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international 
     community for the purpose of working collectively to bring 
     stability to Iraq. As part of this effort, the President 
     shall direct the United States Permanent Representative to 
     the United Nations to use the voice, vote, and influence of 
     the United States at the United Nations to seek the 
     appointment of an international mediator in Iraq, under the 
     auspices of the United Nations Security Council, who has the 
     authority of the international community to engage political, 
     religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in Iraq in an inclusive 
     political process.
       (c) Limited Presence After Reduction and Transition.--After 
     the conclusion of the reduction and transition of United 
     States forces to a limited presence as required by this 
     section, the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain 
     members of the Armed Forces in Iraq only for the following 
     missions:
       (1) Protecting United States and Coalition personnel and 
     infrastructure.
       (2) Training, equipping, and providing logistic support to 
     the Iraqi Security Forces.
       (3) Engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations 
     against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups, and other 
     international terrorist organizations.
       (d) Completion of Transition.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall complete the transition of United States forces to a 
     limited presence and missions as described in subsection (c) 
     by April 30, 2008.
       This Section shall take effect one day after the date of 
     this bill's enactment.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Arizona 
is now going to be making some remarks. I ask unanimous consent that 
after the Senator from Arizona finishes his remarks, Senator Kennedy be 
recognized.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, I would ask Senator Levin, for the benefit of all, what our 
plans for the day are and what we can expect. I understand that the 
Senate intends to stay in throughout the evening and debate this issue. 
I will not object, but I reserve the right to object. Perhaps the 
Senator from Michigan would illuminate me and the other Members as to 
what we can expect throughout the day and the evening.
  Mr. LEVIN. Well, I think on our side there will be many speeches 
supporting this amendment, perhaps some opposing the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. We will be debating the Reed-Levin amendment throughout 
the day?
  Mr. LEVIN. I hope so. And I hope people will want to speak, will come 
and speak on the amendment, because hopefully we can get to enough 
votes tomorrow so that we can actually have a vote on Levin-Reed, that 
we can get to 60 votes, to achieve cloture. We would then be able to 
have a vote on the pending amendment. Other than that, we would be 
thwarted. There would be a procedural roadblock in reaching a vote on 
Levin-Reed.
  So that is the goal, if everyone is given a chance to speak on Levin-
Reed, whatever side they are on, so that we can then, hopefully, end 
the debate on Levin-Reed and actually get to a vote on it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not object, but I ask unanimous 
consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Michigan about 
our plans for the day. For example, I understand there is a Cornyn 
amendment which may be voted on as well?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is indeed, as I understand it, a 
consent which has been already reached that there be a vote on the 
Cornyn amendment at 2:45. There was an offer yesterday, as a matter of 
fact, to, I believe, simply accept that amendment, but someone wanted 
to have a rollcall vote on it. That is their right.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I could ask my colleague further, I understand we also 
have well over 100 pending amendments on the bill as well. I would hope 
that at some point, Senator Levin and I can sit down and maybe start 
sorting through those if we have any hope whatsoever of completing this 
bill.
  I would remind all of my colleagues that this body has passed--and 
has been signed into law--a Defense authorization bill for the last 45 
years. There are aspects of this bill, as the Senator well knows as the 
distinguished chairman, that we worked very hard on, such as pay raises 
and other authorizations for much needed equipment, training, et 
cetera. I would hope the Senator from Michigan and I can start working 
on those aspects of the bill, if we have any hopes of passing an 
authorization bill this year.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would yield, it is my fervent hope that we 
have a bill this year. It is not only my intent to try to work out 
amendments, it has been our intent for many days to work out those 
amendments. I understand there is some kind of a procedure that some 
Members on your side have insisted upon which has slowed down that 
process significantly. So our staffs and I, and I know the Senator from 
Arizona, the ranking member on the committee, are more than ready to 
work out these amendments, as many as possible. Usually, we can work 
out as many as 100 on an authorization bill. I think there are 190 
amendments filed. We are up to the task. Our staffs are up to the task. 
We have to be allowed to proceed. I understand there is some kind of 
roadblock that perhaps the Senator from Arizona could identify and help 
to remove.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senator Levin. As I understand it, we will be 
debating the amendment of the chairman and the Senator from Rhode 
Island throughout the day and through tonight, and perhaps a cloture 
vote sometime tomorrow. Is that your understanding?

[[Page S9303]]

  Mr. LEVIN. I believe it is set for 1 hour after the Senate convenes.
  Mr. McCAIN. What is the parliamentary procedure, I would ask?
  Mr. LEVIN. There is no time for that yet, for the Senate to come in 
tomorrow. We have to await that.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senator Levin.
  This is the second week, as we know, we are on this bill. We have not 
gotten to many of the amendments that have anything to do with other 
aspects of defending this Nation besides the issue of Iraq. I look 
forward to working with him as we can try to not break a 45-year custom 
here that we provide the much needed authorization for the men and 
women in our defense establishment and provide for our Nation's 
security, which I think we all agree is our highest priority.
  So, if I may continue the colloquy for just one moment, I know that 
there are--now we will be beginning, and I will give a statement after 
the chairman, if it is his desire, and then we will have speakers 
coming all day long on either side of this issue. I know many want to 
speak, and I hope they will be prepared to do so.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would yield further, last week, we did 
accomplish a major achievement in terms of the wounded warrior 
legislation, which is now on this bill, and I believe, on Friday, there 
were speakers on the Iraq issue, on Levin-Reed and other amendments, 
and there were yesterday as well. So the debate on the Iraq amendments 
has taken place, and it is now going to continue today and into the 
night. Hopefully, we can get to a vote on Levin-Reed and not be 
thwarted by this 60-vote procedural roadblock.
  Again, I want to say something that has been the case before. We had 
a number of votes on Iraq in the last authorization bill, and those 
were 50-vote votes. There was not a threat of a filibuster that 
deprived the Senate of voting on those amendments in the last 
authorization bill. For instance, there was a Levin-Reed amendment in 
the last authorization bill which I believe received 39 or 40 votes. 
There was also a Kerry amendment on Iraq which was voted up or down 
without that procedural roadblock.
  I would hope that on this bill, given the absolute importance of this 
issue and the expression of opinion of the American people last 
November about this issue, that we would be allowed to vote up or down 
and to remove that 60-vote filibuster threat, the roadblock that has 
now been put in the way, and will determine tomorrow whether cloture 
will be invoked and that roadblock can be removed. But the Senator is 
correct, there is ample opportunity for people to come down today to 
continue the debate on the Iraq amendment should they choose.
  Mr. McCAIN. Finally, I thank Senator Levin for all the great work we 
have been able to do together and the wounded warrior legislation, 
which Senator Levin, under his leadership, we have now adopted as part 
of the bill.
  There is another compelling argument to complete the bill. If we are 
going to take care of our wounded veterans and we are going to take 
care of the men and women who have served, I think it is a compelling 
argument that we get this legislation passed.
  Finally, we have been back and forth on this issue. I do not like to 
get into the process and go back and forth. But 60 votes was not 
invented on this side, nor was it invented on the other side. The 60-
vote procedure has been employed by the minority in recent years--in my 
view, all too often. But the fact is, to somehow say it was invented 
here on this side of the aisle obviously is not the case. There were 
many times, when the Democratic Party was in the minority in this body, 
where I saw 60 votes invoked, the procedure invoked, because it was 
felt, appropriately, because that is the way the Senate works, as the 
criteria for moving forward because of the urgency or the importance of 
the pending legislation.
  So what is missing here, I would say to my friend from Michigan--and 
I think he agrees with me--is what we have seen is the erosion, over 
the past 20 years I have been here, of an ability to sit down and 
discuss and agree and move forward. That is what is the missing 
ingredient here, and it has been missing for some years.
  I regret it. I may be a little optimistic, but I think if it were 
only between the Senator from Michigan and me, we could dispose of most 
of these issues rather readily and establish a procedure for moving 
forward. We are now at the point--let's have some straight talk--that 
this entire bill is in jeopardy because of the imbroglio of the war in 
Iraq being added to an authorization bill which was not intended to be 
a national security piece of legislation. It was intended to be a bill 
to authorize the necessary funding, training, and equipping of the men 
and women in the military, and care for our wounded veterans has been 
added. I regret the situation as it is, but that is the way it is. We 
will spend today debating this issue and discussing it. I hope at some 
point we will realize the war is going to be going on. This bill, if it 
is passed with the Reed-Levin amendment on it, would be vetoed by the 
President. That would be a bad thing to happen. The war will be 
discussed in September again--we all know that--when General Petraeus 
is ready to report to the Senate. At some point I would hope we could 
move forward on the authorization bill and do the things that are 
necessary to help equip and train and ready the men and women serving 
in the military and preserving our national security.
  Again, I appreciate the efforts the Senator from Michigan, 
distinguished chairman of the committee, is making in this direction.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend for his willingness to always sit down 
and try to work things out. The roadblock here to our proceeding will 
be either kept in place or removed tomorrow with the vote on whether to 
allow Levin-Reed to come to a vote. The Senator is right that there 
have been times when people have filibustered matters. There have been 
times when they have decided not to. On the Iraq issue, on the last 
authorization bill, there were votes up or down without a 60-vote 
procedural roadblock being put in place to the then Levin-Reed and 
Kerry amendments. So that is the precedent we established last year 
that I would hope the Republican leader would allow to be followed, 
because--one other comment--I can't think of a more appropriate place 
to be debating Iraq policy, frankly, than on an authorization bill. 
Whether I am right or wrong, that is what happened last year. I hope it 
will again be followed this year.
  I thank my good friend. My remarks will be coming this afternoon.
  Senator Kennedy will be following the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, the foregoing 
request to have the Senator from Massachusetts follow the Senator from 
Arizona is agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by the 
chairman and the Senator from Rhode Island. Let's be very clear what 
this amendment would do. It would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. forces 
from Iraq. The debate that has taken place on this floor for some 
months now comes down to a simple choice. The sponsors of this 
amendment would have us legislate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces 
from Iraq within 120 days of enactment, leaving in place only forces 
authorized to carry out specific, narrow missions. That is one choice, 
to force an end to the war in Iraq and accept thereby all the terrible 
consequences that follow. The other is to defeat this amendment, to 
give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and 
support they have requested to carry out their mission, to allow them 
to safeguard vital American interests and an Iraqi population at risk 
of genocide. That is the choice.
  Though politics and popular opinion may be pushing us in one 
direction, to take the easy course, we, as elected leaders, have a 
greater responsibility. A measure of courage is required, not the great 
courage exhibited by the brave men and women fighting today in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, but a smaller measure, the courage necessary to put our 
country's interests before every personal or political consideration.
  I wish to spend a few moments reviewing the state of affairs in Iraq 
today. The final reinforcements needed to implement General Petraeus's 
new counterinsurgency strategy arrived several weeks ago. From what I 
saw and heard on my recent trips and from briefings and reports since 
then, I believe our military, in cooperation with Iraqi security 
forces, is making progress in a number of areas. The areas where they 
are operating have

[[Page S9304]]

not suddenly become safe, but they do illustrate the progress that our 
military has achieved under General Petraeus's new strategy. The most 
dramatic advances have been made in Anbar Province, a region that last 
year was widely believed to be lost to al-Qaida. After an offensive by 
U.S. and Iraqi troops cleaned al-Qaida fighters off of Ramadi and other 
areas of western Anbar Province, tribal sheikhs broke formally with the 
terrorists and joined the coalition side.
  Ramadi, which just months ago stood as Iraq's most dangerous city, is 
now one of its safest. In February, attacks in Ramadi averaged between 
30 and 35. Now many days see no attacks at all--no gunfire, no IEDs, 
and no suicide bombings.
  In Fallujah, Iraqi police have established numerous stations and have 
divided the city into gated districts, leading to a decline in 
violence. Local intelligence tips have proliferated in the province. 
Thousands of men are signing up for the police and the army, and the 
locals are taking the fight to al-Qaida. U.S. commanders in Anbar 
attest that all 18 major tribes in the province are now on board with 
the security plan. They expect that a year from now, the Iraqi Army and 
police could have total control of security in Ramadi. At that point, 
they project, we could safely draw down American forces in the area.
  The Anbar model is one our military is attempting to replicate in 
other parts of Iraq with some real successes. A brigade of the 10th 
Mountain Division is operating in areas south of Baghdad, the belts 
around the capital which have been havens for al-Qaida and other 
insurgents. All soldiers in I brigades are living forward and 
commanders report that local sheikhs are increasingly siding with the 
coalition against al-Qaida, the main enemy in that area of operations.

  Southeast of Baghdad the military is targeting al-Qaida in safe 
havens they maintain along the Tigris River, and MG Rick Lynch, 
commander of operations there, recently reported that attacks on 
civilians in his area of operations were down 20 percent since April 
and civilian deaths have declined by 55 percent. These and other 
efforts are part of Operation Phantom Thunder, a military operation 
intended to stop insurgents present in the Baghdad belts from 
originating attacks in the capital itself.
  In Baghdad, the military, in cooperation with Iraqi security forces, 
continues to establish joint security stations and deploy throughout 
the city in order to get violence under control. These efforts have 
produced positive results. Sectarian violence has fallen since January. 
The total number of car bombings and suicide attacks declined in May 
and June, and the number of locals coming forward with intelligence 
tips has risen. Make no mistake: Violence in Baghdad remains at 
unacceptably high levels. Suicide bombers and other threats pose 
formidable challenges, and other difficulties abound. Nevertheless, 
there appears to be overall movement in the right direction.
  North of Baghdad, Iraqi and American troops have surged into Diyala 
Province and are fighting to deny al-Qaida sanctuary in the city of 
Baquba. For the first time since the war began, Americans showed up in 
force and did not quickly withdraw from the area. In response, locals 
have formed a new alliance with the coalition to counter al-Qaida. 
Diyala, which was the center of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Islamic 
caliphate finally has a chance to turn aside the forces of extremism.
  I offer these observations not in order to present a rosy scenario of 
the challenges we continue to face in Iraq. As the horrific bombing in 
Salah ad-Din Province illustrates so graphically, the threats to Iraqi 
stability have not gone away, nor are they likely to go away in the 
near future. Our brave men and women in Iraq will continue to face 
great challenges. What I do believe, however, is that while the mission 
to bring a degree of security to Iraq and Baghdad and its environs in 
particular, in order to establish the necessary precondition for 
political and economic process, is still in its early stages, the 
progress our military has made should encourage all of us.
  It is also clear that the overall strategy General Petraeus has put 
into place, a traditional counterinsurgency strategy that emphasizes 
protecting the population and gets our troops off of bases and into the 
areas they are trying to protect, is the correct one.
  Some of my colleagues argue we should return troops to forward 
operating bases and confine their activities to training in targeted 
counterterrorism operations. That is precisely what we did for 3\1/2\ 
years, which I, time after time, said was doomed to failure. The 
situation in Iraq only got worse. I am, frankly, surprised that my 
colleagues would advocate a return to the failed Rumsfeld-Casey 
strategy. No one can be certain whether this new strategy, which 
remains in the early stages, can bring about ever greater stability. We 
can be sure, however, that should the Senate seek to legislate an end 
to the strategy as it is just commencing, then we will fail for 
certain.
  Now that the military effort in Iraq is showing some signs of 
progress, space is opening for political progress. Yet rather than 
seizing the opportunity, the government of Prime Minister Maliki is not 
functioning as it must. We see little evidence of reconciliation, and 
none of the 18 benchmarks has yet been met. Progress is not enough. We 
need to see results. Today. I am sorry to report the results are not 
there. The Iraqi Government can function. The question is whether it 
will. If there is to be hope of a sustainable end to the violence that 
so plagues that country, Iraqi political leaders must seize this 
opportunity. It will not come around again.
  To encourage political progress, I believe we can find wisdom in 
several suggestions put forward recently by Henry Kissinger. An 
intensified negotiation among the Iraqi parties could limit violence, 
promote reconciliation, and put the political system on a more stable 
footing. At the same time we should promote a dialog between the Iraqi 
Government and its Sunni Arab neighbors, specifically Egypt, Jordan, 
and Saudi Arabia, in order to build broader international acceptance 
for the Iraqi central Government in exchange for that Government 
meeting specific obligations with respect to the protection and 
political participation of the Sunni minority. These countries should 
cease their efforts to handpick new Iraqi leaders and instead 
contribute to stabilizing Iraq, an effort that would directly serve 
their national interests.
  Finally, we should begin a broader effort to establish a basis for 
aid and even peacekeeping efforts by the international community key to 
political progress in Iraq. In taking such steps, we must recognize 
that no lasting political settlement can grow out of a U.S. withdrawal. 
On the contrary, a withdrawal must grow out of a political solution, a 
solution made possible by the imposition of security by coalition and 
Iraqi forces.
  Secretary Kissinger is absolutely correct when he states 
``precipitate withdrawal would produce a disaster'' and one that 
``would not end the war but shift it to other areas, like Lebanon or 
Jordan or Saudi Arabia,'' produce greater violence among Iraqi 
factions, and embolden radical Islamists around the world.
  Let us keep in the front of our minds the likely consequences of 
premature withdrawal from Iraq. Many of my colleagues would like to 
believe that should the withdrawal amendment we are currently debating 
become law, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. 
Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would 
mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous, and more 
arduous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement.

  No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality 
of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our 
efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against 
violent Islamic extremism. Already, the terrorists are emboldened, 
excited that America is talking about not winning in Iraq but is, 
rather, debating when we should lose. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-
Qaida's deputy chief, said the United States is merely delaying our 
inevitable defeat in Iraq and that the Mujahedin of Islam in Iraq of 
the caliphate and Jihad are advancing with steady steps toward victory. 
He called on Muslims to travel to Iraq to fight Americans and appealed 
for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, a group established 
by al-Qaida.

[[Page S9305]]

  General Petraeus has called al-Qaida ``the principal short-term 
threat to Iraq.'' What do the supporters of this amendment believe to 
be the consequences of our leaving the battlefield with al-Qaida in 
place? If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will 
interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great 
power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory. We 
saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al-Qaida following 
the Soviet Union withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United 
States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that 
history is on their side, that they can bring their terrible rule to 
lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from 
Zawahiri to Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi before his death. That plan is to 
take shape in four stages: Establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the 
``jihad wave'' to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with 
Israel--none of which will commence until the completion of stage one: 
Expel the Americans from Iraq. The terrorists are in this war to win 
it. The question is, Are we?
  The supporters of this amendment respond that they do not, by any 
means, intend to cede the battlefield to al-Qaida. On the contrary, the 
legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward-
operating bases, to carry out targeted counterterrorism operations. But 
our own military commanders say this approach will not succeed and that 
moving in with search and destroy missions to kill and capture 
terrorists, only to immediately cede the territory to the enemy, is the 
failed strategy of the last 3\1/2\ years.
  MG Rick Lynch, who is directing a major part of the Baghdad 
offensive, said over the weekend that an early American withdrawal 
would clear the way for the enemy to come back to areas now being 
cleared of insurgents. ``When we go out there,'' he said, ``the first 
question they ask is: `Are you staying?' And the second is: `How can we 
help?' ''
  General Lynch added that should U.S. forces pull back before the job 
is complete, we risk ``an environment where the enemy could come back 
and fill the void.''
  On Monday, last Monday, Lieutenant General Odierno, the No. 2 
commander in Iraq said:

       My assessment right now is I need more time. I'm seeing 
     some progress now here in Iraq. We have really just started 
     what the Iraqis term ``liberating'' them from al-Qaida.

  Withdrawing before there is a stable and legitimate Iraqi authority 
would turn Iraq into a failed State and a terrorist sanctuary in the 
heart of the Middle East. We have seen a failed State emerge after U.S. 
disengagement once before, and it cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 
Afghanistan, terrorists found sanctuary to train and plan attacks with 
impunity. We know that today there are terrorists in Iraq who are 
planning attacks against Americans. We cannot make this fatal mistake 
twice.
  As my friend, GEN Brent Scowcroft, has said recently, one of the men 
I respect more than most any in America:

       The costs of staying are visible. The costs of getting out 
     are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is 
     stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble 
     Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution.

  Natan Sharansky has recently written:

       A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces could lead to a 
     bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by 
     comparison.

  Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of stability, we 
will invite further Iranian influence at a time when Iranian operatives 
are already moving weapons, training fighters, providing resources, and 
helping plan operations to kill American soldiers and damage our 
efforts to bring stability to Iraq. Iran will comfortably step into the 
power vacuum left by a U.S. withdrawal, and such an aggrandizement of 
fundamentalist power has great potential to spark greater Sunni-Shia 
conflicts across the region.
  Leaving prematurely would induce Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi 
Arabia and Jordan, Egypt to Israel, Turkey and others, to feel their 
own security eroding and may well induce them to act in ways that 
prompt wider instability. The potential for genocide, wider war, 
spiraling oil prices, and the perception of strategic American defeat 
is real, and no vote on this floor will change that.
  Don't take my word for it. Consult, perhaps, the Iraq Study Group, 
which says:

       A chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base of 
     operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even 
     globally. Al-Qaida will portray any failure by the United 
     States in Iraq as a sinificant victory that will be featured 
     prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and 
     in the world.

  The report goes on to say that:

       A premature American departure from Iraq would almost 
     certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further 
     deterioration of conditions. The near-term results would be a 
     significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional 
     destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al-Qaida 
     would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory.

  Or perhaps ask the Iraqis. BG Qassim Attam, the chief Iraqi spokesman 
for the Baghdad security plan, said last Sunday the Iraqi military and 
police force need more time before they are capable of assuming control 
of the country's security.
  Or maybe our intelligence agencies which in the January National 
Intelligence Estimate concluded:

       If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term 
     of this estimate, we judge this almost certainly would 
     lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of 
     sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to 
     the Iraqi government, and have adverse consequences for 
     national reconciliation. The ISF would be unlikely to 
     survive as a nonsectarian national institution; 
     neighboring countries might intervene openly in the 
     conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced 
     population displacement would be probable; AQI outside 
     Iraq would attempt to use parts of the country to plan 
     increased attacks in and out of Iraq, and spiraling 
     violence and political disarray in Iraq, along with 
     Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, 
     could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion.

  These are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal. I hope 
the supporters of such a move will tell us what they believe to be the 
likely consequences of this course of action. Should their amendment 
become law and U.S. troops begin withdrawing, do they believe that Iraq 
will become more or less stable? That al-Qaida will find it easier to 
gather, plan, and carry out attacks from Iraqi soil or that our 
withdrawal will somehow make this less likely? That the Iraqi people 
become more or less safe? That genocide becomes a more remote 
possibility or ever likelier?
  This fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than 
that and, more important still, about whether America still has the 
political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for 
defeat with all the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk 
away gracefully from defeat in this war.
  How we leave Iraq is very important. As the Iraq Study Group found:

       If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range 
     consequences could eventually require the United States to 
     return.

  General Petraeus and his commanders believe they have a strategy that 
can, over time, lead to success in Iraq. General Petraeus and 
Ambassador Ryan Crocker will come to Washington in September to report 
on the status of their efforts and those of the Iraqis. They request 
two things of us: the time necessary to see whether their efforts can 
succeed and the political courage to support them in their work. I 
believe we must give them both.
  Right now, as we continue our debate on the war in Iraq, American 
soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen are fighting bravely and 
tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult, and 
consequential as the great battles of our armed forces' storied past. 
Americans who fought in France's hedgerow country; those who bled in 
the sands and jungles of the Pacific Islands, who braved the onslaught 
of the Chinese Army in the frozen terrain of Korea and who fought a 
desperate battle to retake Hue from the enemy during the Tet Offensive 
and against numerically superior forces in an isolated Marine base at 
Khe San, will recognize and honor the sacrifice of Americans who now 
fight with such valor, determination, and skill to defend the security 
interests and the honor of our country in desperate battles in Iraq.
  The hour is indeed late in Iraq. How we have arrived at this critical 
and

[[Page S9306]]

desperate moment has been well chronicled, and history's judgment about 
the long catalog of mistakes in the prosecution of this war will be 
stern and unforgiving. But history will revere the honor and the 
sacrifice of those Americans who, despite the mistakes and the failures 
of both civilian and military leaders, shouldered a rifle and risked 
everything--everything--so the country they love so well might not 
suffer the many dangerous consequences of defeat.
  We read in our leading newspapers about those veterans of the Iraq 
war who have organized to oppose its continuation. They have fought for 
America's freedom, and they have every right to exercise their freedom, 
to oppose their Government's policies. I wish, though, that the press 
would pay at least equal attention to the many veterans--many more 
veterans, many more veterans--who have fought, suffered, and witnessed 
the ultimate sacrifice, the loss of their dearest friends, and yet are 
still committed to America's success in Iraq, and to those who have 
served multiple tours in this terrible war and yet reenlist because 
they remain steadfast in the belief that they can achieve the mission 
they have already risked so much to achieve. The American public, those 
who still support our effort in Iraq and those who desire a quick end 
to it, should be daily reminded that although our country is deeply 
divided about this war, most of the many thousands of Americans who 
have suffered its worst miseries are still resolved--still resolved--
that it not end in an American defeat.
  Our new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding where our previous 
tactics failed us. We are taking from the enemy and holding territory 
that was once given up for lost. Those who have falsely described 
General Petraeus's efforts as ``staying the course'' are the real 
advocates of continuing on the course of failure. Many of those who 
decry the way we got into this war and the way we fought it are now 
advocating a way out of it that suffers from more willful refusal to 
face facts than they accuse the administration of exhibiting. Although 
we all seem to be united in recognizing the mistakes and failures of 
the past, the proponents of reducing our forces in Iraq and keeping 
them in secure bases from which they could occasionally launch search 
and destroy missions are proposing to return to the very tactics that 
have brought us to the point of trying to salvage from the wreckage of 
those mistakes a last best hope for success.
  That is what General Petraeus and the Americans he has the honor to 
command are trying to do--to fight smarter and better, in a way that 
addresses and doesn't strengthen the tactics of the enemy and to give 
the Iraqis the security and opportunity to make the necessary political 
decisions to save their country from the abyss of genocide and a 
permanent and spreading war. So far, the Maliki Government has not 
risen to that challenge, and it must do so. It is obvious that America 
is losing our resolve to continue sacrificing its sons and daughters, 
while the Iraqi Government will not take the political risks to do what 
is plainly in the best interests of the Iraqi people.
  But we do not fight only for the interest of Iraqis, Mr. President, 
we fight for ours as well.
  We, too, we Members of Congress, must face our responsibilities 
honestly and bravely. What is asked of us is so less onerous than what 
we have asked from our servicemen and women, but no less consequential. 
We need not risk our lives, nor our health, but only our political 
advantages so that General Petraeus has the time and resources he has 
asked for to follow up on his recent successes and help save Iraq and 
America from the catastrophe that would be an American defeat. That is 
not much to risk compared to the sacrifices made by Americans fighting 
in Iraq or the terrible consequences of our defeat. For if we withdraw 
from Iraq, if we choose to lose there, there is no doubt in my mind, no 
doubt at all, that we will be back--in Iraq and elsewhere--in many more 
desperate fights to protect our security and at an even greater cost in 
American lives and treasure.
  Little is asked of us to help prevent this catastrophe, but so much 
depends on our willingness to do so, on the sincerity of our pledge to 
serve America's interests before our own. The Americans who must make 
the greatest sacrifices have earned the right to insist that we do our 
duty, as best as we can see it, and accept willingly and graciously 
whatever small sacrifice we must make with our own personal and 
partisan ambitions. Ours is a noisy, restive, and contentious 
profession. It has always been thus, and it always will be. But in this 
moment of serious peril for America, we must all of us remember to whom 
and what we owe our first allegiance--to the security of the American 
people and to the ideals upon which we our Nation was founded. That 
responsibility is our dearest privilege and to be judged by history to 
have discharged it honorably will, in the end, matter so much more to 
all of us than any fleeting glory of popular acclaim, electoral 
advantage or office. The history of this country, after all, is not 
merely a chronicle of political winners and losers, it is a judgment of 
who has and who has not contributed to the continued success of 
America, the greatest political experiment in human history.
  It is my sincere wish that all of us, Republicans and Democrats, 
should know in our hearts whatever mistakes we have made in our lives, 
personally or politically, whatever acclaim we have achieved or 
disappointment we have suffered, that we have, in the end, earned 
history's favor. I hope we might all have good reason to expect a 
kinder judgment of our flaws and follies because when it mattered most 
we chose to put the interests of this great and good Nation before our 
own, and helped, in our own small way, preserve for all humanity the 
magnificent and inspiring example of an assured, successful and ever 
advancing America and the ideals that make us still the greatest Nation 
on Earth.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, these are very difficult days in our 
history, and I welcome the comments of my friend and colleague from 
Arizona and his views about the position of the United States and its 
policy with regard to Iraq. He reminds us that we ought to free 
ourselves from these political considerations. This situation is too 
demanding. The value of our involvement in terms of American service 
men and women is too dear. The resources of this country are too 
important to squander them.
  A number of us had serious reservations about involving the United 
States in military engagement, a war with Iraq. A number of us still 
remember being on the Armed Services Committee and listening to the 
combat commanders--the first panel in the Armed Services Committee on 
that particular day. We listened to General Hoar, from Hyde Park, MA, a 
highly decorated marine. We saw a number of decorations for bravery and 
courage in Vietnam. We listened to General Nash, who had been in the 
first gulf war and had been our Commander in Bosnia. We read through 
General Zinni's comments at that time. We listened to General Clark as 
well. They are a group of combat commanders, and all urged that the 
United States keep its focus and attention on those who brought the 
tragedy to the United States on 9/11.
  Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida were the real danger and threat to the 
United States. They were located in Afghanistan. They said that is 
where our focus and attention should be and that involvement in Iraq 
would be clearly not in our interest. I remember those extraordinary 
words of General Hoar, who said if we become involved in Iraq, the 
battle in Baghdad that he foresaw would make the first fifteen minutes 
of ``Private Ryan'' look like a church picnic. ``Private Ryan'' was 
that extraordinary film by Steven Spielberg. That made a very profound 
impression upon me. That impression was enhanced when we listened to 
the statements that were made by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld when they 
talked about the weapons of mass destruction being on the north, south, 
east, and west of Baghdad.
  The ranking member of our committee, the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Carl Levin, had suggested that we give information 
to the inspectors. The response was that we cannot give it to the 
inspectors because Saddam Hussein will move them. Senator Levin said: 
Well, why don't we then watch where they are being

[[Page S9307]]

moved to, to be able to convince the world community about these 
weapons of mass destruction?
  At least it was assumed by the response that was given at that time 
that we were going to make available to the inspection teams the 
locations of those weapons of mass destruction. We found out, 
historically, that never happened because there weren't any. So there 
was important debate and discussion within the administration.
  Should we follow the precedent of President Bush 1, which said this 
is a very important issue about going to war in Iraq, and rather than 
attaining it in the course of an election, let's have an election and 
then have the Congress make a judgment and decision. The decision said 
public opinion at that time was overwhelmingly to go to war, and we 
were going to have that vote just prior to the election. I hope we are 
going to spare ourselves this idea that those of us who are supporting 
the Levin-Reed amendment are looking at the politics of it. We saw the 
realities of it when we made the mistake in going to war.
  Secondly, we are very mindful that Iraq is a country with 26 million 
or 27 million people. It basically has an extraordinary history and 
incredible culture, amazing oil reserves, many different kinds of 
assets. But it was defeated 10 years ago by the United States of 
America in a war--defeated. We had the air space, controlling that over 
Iraq. We have the best fighting force in the world over there now for 
in excess of 4 years fighting.
  As many of us have said, the military has done everything they were 
called to do. Does anybody doubt the finest military force which swept 
through western Europe and Africa and Italy, went through the Pacific 
in less time in World War II? We have had them over there bogged down 
in this country of 27 million people. Has anybody doubted that we need 
more than a military resolution and solution, and the fact that we 
continue to keep the American service men and women in harm's way, that 
we are somehow protecting them? Is that what we are being asked to 
believe after they have been over there for 4 years, when they are able 
and capable of doing everything which they have done, and done so 
bravely, I say it is time to bring them home. I say it is time to 
support the Levin amendment.
  I hope during this debate we are not going to have the continued 
references on the issues of patriotism. We have worn out that argument, 
and we heard it all. It didn't work in the last election, where many of 
us who were strongly opposed to the war faced those kinds of drum 
beats.
  Secondly, our Founding Fathers had a very important view about what 
the Senate of the United States should be and the importance of 
protecting minority views in this body. This was going to be the 
institution that was going to be able to permit individuals who 
represented minority views, differing views, to be able to express 
themselves. As we have learned historically so often, those expressed 
by a small group often become the majority accepted views in future 
years. The Founding Fathers understood that. They wanted to make sure 
those ideas and concepts were going to be protected.
  What the Founding Fathers never anticipated was that rules were going 
to be used to abuse the American people's right to be able to express 
themselves, particularly on issues of war and peace. That is what we 
are seeing now--delay for delay's sake, not delay so that we can have 
greater information about what is happening over in Iraq. That is not 
the issue. It is delay for delay's sake, a refusal to permit the Senate 
to express itself.
  The House has expressed itself. Permit the Senate to express itself. 
Let's have a debate and discussion. The American people have made up 
their minds on this issue. We don't have to doubt that. The American 
people have made up their minds. They want their elected 
representatives to speak. I understand why the Republicans don't want 
their name on that rollcall as supporting this President, this war, at 
this time. I understand it. That, my colleagues, is really what this is 
about. People just refuse, don't want it.
  Let's have some process or procedure, some way to avoid calling the 
roll and taking a stand on an issue of war and peace. That is what this 
debate, at least for the next several hours, is going to be about.
  Are we going to be able to permit this institution to function in the 
way it was intended to function; that is, at a time when the American 
people have made a judgment and a decision on a particular issue, to be 
able to call the roll and have accountability, or whether we are going 
to be denied that. After all of the rhetoric about the role in history 
and the importance of this issue, that is where it comes down.
  So, Mr. President, this is an extremely important debate. What is so 
important to understand is this is not an issue that is going away. 
Those of us who were opposed to the war continue to be opposed to it. 
Listen to the argument about what the consequences are going to be. 
What are the consequences going to be now, what are they going to be in 
3 years, what are they going to be in 5 years, what are they going to 
be in 7 years? Many of us are sufficiently uncertain about this issue 
that we voted ``no'' in terms of giving to this President the authority 
to move this country and commit it in a way we have done so.
  America is paying an enormous cost for a war we never should have 
fought, and it is time to bring it to an end. The war has divided us at 
home. It has made us more isolated in the world. Never before, even in 
the Vietnam war, has America taken such massive military action with so 
little international support.
  As the intelligence community confirmed yet again today, the war has 
become a significant recruitment tool for al-Qaida. What was the surge 
intended to accomplish? The surge was meant to reduce violence; it has 
not. To permit reconstruction; it has not. To promote reconciliation; 
it has not. All we have to do is read the Administration's own reports.
  As the intelligence community confirmed yet again today, the war has 
become a significant recruitment tool for al-Qaida. The NIE says:

       We assess that Al Qaeda's association with Al Qaeda Iraq 
     helps Al Qaeda to energize the broader Sunni extremist 
     community, raise resources, and recruit and indoctrinate 
     operatives, including for homeland attacks.

  This has obviously made the war on terrorism harder, not easier, to 
win. Nevertheless, the administration still continues to turn a deaf 
ear to all the voices calling for change. It continues to plead for 
more and more time to pursue its failed course in Iraq. Republicans in 
the Senate continue to filibuster any effort to outline a clear 
timetable for the withdrawal of American troops.
  The disastrous consequences of our policy could have been avoided if 
the President and his advisers had asked the right questions before 
rushing headlong into an unnecessary and unjust war.
  In my church, there are six principles which guide the determination 
of just war. They were developed by Saint Augustine in the 5th century 
and expanded by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. To be just, a 
war must have a just cause, confronting a danger that is beyond 
question. It must be declared by a legitimate authority acting on 
behalf of the people. It must be driven by the right intention, not 
ulterior, self-interested motives. It must be a last resort. It must be 
proportional so that the harm inflicted does not outweigh the good 
achieved. And it must have a reasonable chance of success.
  These are the sound criteria by which the President should have 
judged our war in Iraq, but he failed our men and women in uniform by 
refusing to seek honest answers to these important questions before 
recklessly plunging the Nation into war.
  We now know with crystal clarity that the war in Iraq did not meet 
these criteria. Saddam did not pose the kind of threat that justified 
this war, but we went to war anyway without legitimate support from the 
international community. The administration was wrong to allow the 
anti-Iraq zealots in its ranks to exploit the 9/11 tragedy to make war 
against Iraq a higher priority than the war against terrorism in 
Afghanistan.
  War with Iraq was most certainly not the last resort. All options 
were not pursued. We should have given inspectors more time to reveal 
that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction.

[[Page S9308]]

  The human cost of this war has been unacceptable. More than 3,600 
Americans have been killed and nearly 27,000 wounded. Tens of thousands 
of Iraqis have been killed and Iraq has descended into civil war.
  The administration's incompetence in waging this misguided war has 
left no reasonable chance for success. Americans have spoken clearly 
and urgently about the need to end the war, and it is time for the 
President to listen to their pleas. We should end this war with a 
scaled-back mission for our troops and a clear timetable for withdrawal 
specified in the Levin-Reed amendment.
  America has been sadly diminished in the world because of this 
colossal blunder. Anti-Americanism is on the rise. We have seemed to 
have lost our way, our vision, and our confidence in the future.
  In his farewell address to the Nation in January 1989, Ronald Reagan 
described one of the singular triumphs of his Presidency: the recovery 
of America's standing and morale. I believe he was right when he said:

       America is respected again in the world and looked to for 
     leadership.

  Other nations understood that the best guarantee of peace and 
stability was for the United States to live up to its ideals as a 
beacon of hope for the rest of the planet. We were admired for our 
democracy and respected for our economic strength.
  Today, others have stopped listening to us the way they once did. At 
the end of June, the Pew Global Attitudes Project reported that since 
2002, the image of the United States has plummeted throughout the 
world. Our image is abysmal in most Muslim countries and continues to 
decline among the people of many of America's oldest allies. We have 
strained the extraordinary alliances that advance our ideals, as well 
as our interests.
  At the root of much of the anti-Americanism that has surfaced in 
recent years is the perception of American unilateralism in 
international affairs. I am astonished when some say it does not matter 
that so many in the world no longer respect the United States. Of 
course, it matters. It matters to our security, as it has mattered 
since the first days of our Republic.

  The opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence acknowledges 
the importance of a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. That 
respect is as important today as it was when our Founders signed the 
Declaration, affirming it on the first Fourth of July.
  To restore America's standing and strength, we must end the war in 
Iraq and recapture that combination of realism and idealism that has 
inspired Americans for generations. Ending this unacceptable war is 
essential to our security and to regaining our respect in the world.
  The great challenges facing our fragile planet require an abundance 
of hope that only a united and a determined America can provide. 
America has to lead. America has to inspire. But we cannot do so if we 
remain bogged down in Iraq's civil war. Might alone cannot make America 
right. By prescribing our own rules for the modern world, we have 
deprived our great Nation of the moral claim that is the basis of our 
being, the purpose of our power, and we are paying an exorbitant price.
  We can and sometimes must defend democracy by force, but we cannot 
impose it by force. Democratic principles are universal, but democracy 
must find its champions within each country's culture and traditions. 
We need to end the war and regain a time when America is able to seek 
common ground with our friends. We need to renew the alliances that 
kept the world safe for human rights and human survival when the threat 
for nuclear war was a clear and present danger.
  We will always defend our interests, but we put them at grave risk 
when we act unilaterally in an independent world. We live in a time of 
enormous possibility and enormous risk. No nation is guaranteed a 
limitless future of prosperity or security. We have to work for it. We 
have to sacrifice for it. The sacrifices we are making in Iraq are no 
longer worth the immense cost in human lives or the immense cost to our 
national prestige and interest.
  President Bush has squandered every opportunity to stabilize Iraq. 
Any honest assessment can realistically lead to only one conclusion: 
America's interest will best be served when our military disengages 
from Iraq. Certainly, there will be violence when our combat troops 
leave, but there will be far more violence if we continue to police 
Iraq's civil war indefinitely, as the President proposes.
  Last week President Bush said, ``There is war fatigue in America. 
It's affecting our psychology.'' For once the President is right. There 
is fatigue in America. Americans are tired of an administration whose 
ill-conceived notion of a preventive war plunged this Nation into 
Iraq's bloody civil war. Americans are tired of an administration that 
told us the mission was accomplished when the tally of American dead 
was only beginning to mount. Americans are tired of an administration 
that continues to promise that hope is just around the corner and begs 
for time for a policy that stands no chance of succeeding now, in 
September, or ever.
  Years ago, one of the giants of the Senate said:

       Partisanship should stop at the water's edge.

  Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican from Michigan, who was chairman of 
the Foreign Relations Committee, worked closely with President Truman 
to lay the foundation for the foreign policy of the United States that 
could guide us through the Cold War. Senator Vandenberg set the bar 
high for us in the Senate. We can aspire to that idea, but it is hard 
to achieve it in this Congress, as it has been in other Congresses.
  Over the past few weeks, a shift has begun to take place, not as 
quickly as many of us feel is necessary, but nonetheless a change. Two 
weeks ago, in a speech on this floor, one of the successors of Arthur 
Vandenberg as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, our 
distinguished colleague from Indiana who was himself chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, reminded us that we do not owe the 
President our unquestioning agreement, but we do owe him and the 
American people our constructive engagement.
  Last Friday, Senator Lugar was joined by the senior Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner, in offering an amendment that would require the 
administration to review our Iraq strategy and outline plans for an 
orderly redeployment of our troops.
  Two weeks ago in a statement on this floor, Senator Lugar said:

       The United States has violated some basic national security 
     precepts during our military engagement in Iraq. We have 
     overestimated what the military can achieve, we have set 
     goals that are unrealistic, and we have inadequately factored 
     in the broader regional consequences of our actions. Perhaps 
     more critically, our focus on Iraq has diverted us from 
     opportunities to change the world in directions that 
     strengthen our national security.

  I agree with that judgment, although I believe the Warner-Lugar 
amendment does not go far enough in bringing this war to an end. It is 
undeniable that the American people have turned against this war, and 
it is imperative for the President to understand and accept that basic 
fact. We call for the President to end the war, not as Democrats or 
Republicans, but as Americans who are deeply concerned about the 
perilous path on which the Nation is moving.
  The American people understand there are no easy options, but they 
also understand that the President's strategy simply does not protect 
U.S. interests. They understand it is wrong to buy time, to hand off 
the mess in Iraq to the next President, and to keep our troops in 
harm's way with a policy that is not worthy of their sacrifice.
  The overarching question is not whether we leave Iraq but how we 
leave Iraq. Disastrous choices and disastrous leadership have brought 
us to this dangerous point. We need to redefine our strategic goal in 
Iraq and the region and have a realistic policy that supports that 
objective. Whatever we do, it is going to be difficult, but we need to 
move forward and begin the process, and soon.
  We need to work with Iraq's neighbors to mitigate the damage the 
President's policies have created and minimize outside intervention, 
but we cannot allow the fear of instability to put the brakes on the 
process of military disengagement.
  Majorities in free countries bordering Iraq--Turkey, Jordan, and 
Kuwait--say

[[Page S9309]]

our troops should be removed. In Turkey, one of our most important 
allies in the region bordering Iraq, only 9 percent support our 
position. Even in Iraq, just a few months ago, tens of thousands 
marched demanding an end to what they call the ``American occupation.''
  Each country in the region has an interest in Iraq's stability, and 
we need to work with them diplomatically to find common ground and 
mitigate the damage caused by the President's failed policy. They need 
to come forward and work with our Nation and play a constructive role. 
Part of that effort needs to address the growing needs of the millions 
who have fled the violence in Iraq.
  More than 2 million Iraqis have fled to neighboring Jordan and Syria, 
and they are a destabilizing force in the region. The toll of suffering 
is immense. The danger these tragic circumstances pose for our national 
security and the countries in the region hosting these vulnerable 
people is real. The anger, the desperation, the hopelessness that 
envelope these refugees is a breeding ground for terrorists and will 
undoubtedly be exploited by our enemies.
  America has a fundamental moral obligation to help, especially those 
who have supported America in Iraq. There is no doubt that Iraqis who 
have worked in positions in direct support of the United States have 
been killed or injured in reprisals for that support. Many more Iraqis 
associated with the United States have fled in fear and lost all they 
had. We must keep faith with those who now have a bull's-eye on their 
back because of their ties with our country.
  At a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, 
Iraqis offered chilling testimony about the dangers they face because 
of their association with America. A translator for U.S. and coalition 
forces told of seeing his name posted on death lists and said his 
friends turned on him because they believed he was a traitor. An Iraqi 
truck driver who delivered water to American forces said that terrorist 
groups had targeted him, his wife, and their six children because of 
his support for our soldiers.
  Not only do we have an obligation to help those who have helped us, 
we have a precedent for action. As the war in Vietnam drew to a close, 
President Ford emphasized America's duty to rescue those who had helped 
and assisted us. He called our response to that refugee crisis a 
reaffirmation of America's awareness of the roots and ideals of our 
society, and he personally greeted Vietnamese refugees on their arrival 
here.
  But, sadly, there are many Iraqis working with our Armed Forces, our 
diplomatic mission, and our reconstruction teams in Iraq who have 
performed valiantly but have been abandoned by our Government in their 
hour of need. Because of this support, insurgents have threatened and 
attacked their family members. Many have lost their lives, and many 
more have lost their houses, property, and livelihood. For some, it 
will be too dangerous to ever return.
  America cannot resettle all of Iraq's refugees, but we must show 
leadership by accepting far greater numbers of refugees closely 
associated with our military operation. Keeping our troops in Iraq 
indefinitely, as the President proposes, is simply not the solution to 
the humanitarian and refugee crisis.
  The consequences of the decisions we make here in Congress profoundly 
affect our military, their families, and the communities they have 
left. We have an obligation to our soldiers to make sensible decisions 
that will not place them needlessly in harm's way. In February, I spoke 
about the 65 soldiers from Massachusetts who had died in Iraq. Since 
then, Massachusetts has lost 10 more. We in Massachusetts feel 
especially deeply the loss of these sons and daughters killed in Iraq:
  PVT John Landry, SGT Adam Kennedy, CPT Anthony Palermo, SSG William 
Callahan, 1LT Ryan P. Jones, SPC Kyl Little, LCpl Walter O'Haire, LT 
Andrew Bacevich, SGT Daniel Newsome, and SSG Robb Rolfing.
  We salute them, we pray for their families, we honor their sacrifice 
today and every day. We must insist on a policy worthy of their 
sacrifice.
  The choice is clear: We can continue on the same failed course as 
those who are leading this filibuster in the Senate are proposing or we 
can adopt the Levin-Reed amendment and begin to bring our troops home 
to the hero's welcome they have earned and so obviously deserve.
  For the sake of our men and women in uniform and our national 
security, I hope we will change course and approve the Levin-Reed 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will respond very briefly to the 
comments of the Senator from Massachusetts on several points in his 
thoughtful statement.
  He talks about indefinite--indefinitely the United States Armed 
Forces in Iraq. I think that is a far cry from what we are seeking 
here. What we are seeking here is an opportunity for the surge strategy 
to have a chance to succeed, the last part of which was put in place a 
few weeks ago. In fact, as the Washington Post points out:

       Generals have devised a new strategy, believing they are 
     making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the Iraqi 
     army, and encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions. Before 
     Congress begins managing rotation schedules and ordering 
     withdrawals, it should at least give those generals the 
     months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer 
     some new hope.

  It is not about indefinite presence, it is about giving a new 
strategy a chance to succeed. I find it ironic, in a way, that I was 
one of the greatest critics of the Rumsfeld-Casey strategy--which was 
doomed to failure--which was a replica of the old search and destroy, 
where we went in and tried to kill people and left. This new strategy, 
this new general, I think, is showing some signs of success, and--not 
leaving our forces there ``indefinitely''--allowing this strategy a 
chance to succeed is important.
  There are very few people in the world I admire more than Natan 
Sharansky, a man who knows the meaning of oppression, imprisonment, and 
suffering, and he lives in the region. Natan Sharansky says:

       A precipitous withdrawal--

  Which is what we are talking about here, Mr. President, not an 
indefinite U.S. presence.

       A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces could lead to a 
     bloodbath that would make the current carnage pale by 
     comparison. Without U.S. troops in place to quell some of the 
     violence, Iranian-backed Shiite militias would dramatically 
     increase their attacks on Sunnis. Sunni militias backed by 
     the Saudis or others would retaliate in kind, drawing Iraq 
     more and more into a vicious cycle of violence. If Iraq 
     descended into a full-blown civil war, the chaos could 
     trigger similar clashes throughout the region as Sunni-Shiite 
     tensions spill across Iraq's borders. The death toll and 
     displacement of civilians could climb exponentially.

  I am quoting from a piece Natan Sharansky wrote entitled ``Leave Iraq 
and Brace for a Bigger Bloodbath.''
  We are not seeking an indefinite presence of the United States of 
America in Iraq. We are seeking the opportunity for this surge to have 
a chance to succeed. As General Lynch was quoted as saying:

       Surge forces are giving us the capability we have now to 
     take the fight to the enemy. The enemy only responds to 
     force, and we now have that force. We can conduct detailed 
     kinetic strikes, we can do coordinate searches, and deny the 
     enemy sanctuaries. If those surge forces go away, that 
     capability goes away, and the security forces aren't ready 
     yet to do that mission.

  I am not asking us to blindly follow the lead of our military 
leaders, but I am asking us to give the person whom we unanimously 
voted to confirm as our military commander in Iraq, knowing full well 
what his strategy and surge was, a chance to succeed.
  Time after time we hear General Lynch, the 3rd ID commander, say:

       Pulling out before the mission was accomplished would be a 
     mess. You would find the enemy regularly gaining ground, 
     reestablishing sanctuaries, building more IEDs, and the 
     violence would escalate.

  I share the frustration that all Americans do. This war has been 
mishandled. We have paid an enormous sacrifice, both the sacrifice of 
American blood and treasure, but I believe, as the Washington Post 
said:

       Before Congress begins managing rotation schedules and 
     ordering withdrawals, it should at least give these generals 
     the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can 
     offer some new hope.

  I hope we understand what this debate is about, whether we will set a 
timetable for troop withdrawals within

[[Page S9310]]

120 days or whether we will give General Petraeus and his able 
commanders and the brave young men and women who are serving an 
opportunity to see if this new strategy can succeed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had made arrangements with the managers 
to speak between 12 and 12:30 on another matter, the pending nomination 
of Judge Leslie Southwick for the Fifth Circuit. Others have spoken 
longer, so I would ask unanimous consent that at this time I be 
permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes. I will try to make it a little 
shorter.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Specter, Klobuchar, and Harkin, in that order, each be recognized for 
up to 10 minutes as in morning business, and that at the conclusion of 
those remarks the Senate stand in recess, as previously ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I need a little more time than that. I 
will try to be shorter, but I would like the leeway of up to 15 
minutes, as I had asked a few moments ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WEBB. I so modify my request, unless there is objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                nomination of judge leslie h. southwick

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as stated a moment ago, I have sought 
recognition to speak about the nomination of a Mississippi appellate 
court judge, Leslie H. Southwick, to be a Federal judge on the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals. I have asked for this time because Judge 
Southwick has been before the Judiciary Committee on several occasions 
and, because there is not much known about his record, there have been 
certain objections raised. I have talked to our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, and when they hear about his record, they are 
surprised that he is not moving through expeditiously. I thought it 
would be important to take a few moments to acquaint Senators with his 
record and, beyond that, to acquaint the public with the pending 
nomination.
  This Chamber has seen some very contentious moments, going back over 
the past two decades, of partisanship on judicial nominations and 
extensive filibusters in 2004. Judges of both sides have been held up, 
with Republican Presidential nominees held up by a Democratic-
controlled Senate, and the same thing with President Clinton's nominees 
being held up by a Republican Senate. I moved and supported President 
Clinton's nominees when they were qualified, and broke ranks. It seems 
to me that we ought to be looking at the merits of these nominees and 
not engaging in partisanship to block nominations when courts such as 
the Fifth Circuit are urgently in need of additional judicial manpower.
  Judge Southwick has a very outstanding record, which I will detail 
briefly. I also want to deal with the objections which have been raised 
against him, which I do not think are substantial--not disqualifiers by 
any sense. Judge Southwick is 57 years old--a perfect age to come to 
the court of appeals, considering his background. He is a cum laude 
graduate of Rice University in 1972 and has a law degree from the 
University of Texas. He served as a law clerk on the Texas Court of 
Criminal Appeals, and then he was a law clerk to Judge Charles Clark on 
the Fifth Circuit. So he has had experience in a clerk's capacity on 
the court to which he has now been nominated. He practiced law for 12 
years, with a distinguished practice first as an associate and then as 
a partner at a respected Mississippi law firm. He was Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice for 4 
years between 1989 and 1993.
  He is an adjunct professor at the Mississippi School of Law. He has 
been a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity doing community service. He 
was the recipient of the Judicial Excellence Award from the Mississippi 
State Bar and was rated by the American Bar Association as unanimously 
well qualified.
  When he was 42 years old, in 1992, he obtained an age waiver in order 
to join the Army Reserve. Then, in 2002, he volunteered, at the age of 
53, to transfer to a line combat unit, and he served on forward-
operating bases near Najaf in Iraq.
  Major General Harold Cross characterized Judge Southwick's 
volunteering for duty in Iraq as follows:

       This was a courageous move; as it was widely known at the 
     time that the 155th was nearly certain to mobilize for 
     overseas duties in the near future.

  He is a man with an outstanding background and a courageous man who 
stepped forward at an advanced age to volunteer for service in Iraq, 
something that doesn't happen very often. It is a very rare occurrence.
  On the Mississippi Court of Appeals, Judge Southwick has participated 
in between 6,000 and 7,000 cases--it is hard to be precise because many 
of them are unreported. He has written 985 opinions himself in the 
course of some 12 years.
  The objections to Judge Southwick have focused on two cases. I wish 
to discuss very briefly these cases because I think, on their face, 
they show there is not any reason this man should not be confirmed. I 
discussed these cases with him. I met with him at length and talked 
with him about his judicial career and his service in Iraq. He is a 
mild-mannered professional who is a confident man--not flamboyant and 
not overstated. We talked about legal issues. He is a solid lawyer and 
has been a solid judge.
  But the objections to him have focused on two cases. In one, a case 
captioned Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Services, the 
case involved a State social worker, Ms. Bonnie Richmond, who used, 
admittedly, an outrageous racial slur. The administrative board 
reviewing the matter to determine whether she should be dismissed or 
censured made the determination that she should not be dismissed based 
on the evidence before it: the racial slur was an isolated comment made 
outside the target's presence, it was followed by an apology which was 
accepted, and it did not result in significant disruption of the 
workplace. Under these circumstances, the review board concluded the 
dismissal of a public employee was not warranted.
  Under Mississippi law, the board's ruling could be reversed only if 
it was arbitrary and capricious. That is the general standard for 
reversing an administrative decision. The Mississippi Court of Appeals 
applied that standard, which is deferential to the fact finder, to 
determine if there was sufficient evidence to support it, and the court 
decided that there was sufficient evidence.
  This is a case where Judge Southwick did not write the opinion, only 
concurred in the opinion. The Mississippi Supreme Court, while finding 
that the administrative board needed to give more detailed reasons for 
its conclusions, nonetheless concluded that dismissal was not 
warranted--agreeing with the appellate court on which Judge Southwick 
sat.
  In the hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Southwick was 
asked about the case, and he said the slur was ``always offensive,'' 
``inherently and highly derogatory,'' and said there was ``no worse 
word.''
  In the face of his overwhelmingly good record, how can a man be 
denied confirmation on the basis of that situation?
  There was another case about which Judge Southwick has been 
questioned, S.B. v. L.W., a custody case where the chancellor awarded 
the father custody of a child instead of the child's bisexual mother.
  There were numerous factors leading to the award for the father, all 
of which were considered and weighed in favor of the father--steady 
job, higher income, owner of a large residence, and roots in the 
community.
  The objection came because the majority and concurring opinions--
again, not Judge Southwick's opinions, but ones that he joined--made 
reference to ``homosexual lifestyle.'' But, that is the same phrase 
used in Mississippi Supreme Court precedent. It is also a phrase which 
was used by the majority in the Lawrence case, Lawrence v. Texas, and 
has been used by many people, including President Clinton. So, there is 
hardly a basis for objecting to that kind of a reference, it seems to 
me.

[[Page S9311]]

  My record on civil rights and on rights for people regardless of 
lifestyle is well accepted. I can't see how this man can be pilloried 
on this basis. Moreover, he wrote an opinion, in a case called Hughey 
v. State of Mississippi, where he affirmed the trial court's decision 
to disallowed cross-examination as to the victim's sexual preference, 
saying he recognized the victim was homosexual, but that was not 
relevant to the defense and that such a line of inquiry would produce 
undue prejudice.
  If there is a case where lifestyle is not involved, the trial court 
would not allow a party to try to smear someone with a reference to his 
or her being a homosexual. Judge Southwick affirmed it, as anybody 
would. But it shows his own sensitivity on this matter.
  There are a couple of comments by some individuals who are very 
supportive--one a woman named La'Verne Edney, a distinguished African-
American lawyer who is a partner in a prominent Jackson, Mississippi 
firm. She had some very complimentary things to say about Judge 
Southwick. He hired her as a clerk at a time when few others would hire 
a young African-American woman. Similarly, a practicing attorney named 
Patrick Beasley, also African American, wrote about Judge Southwick's 
sensitivity on racial matters. Because of limited time, I ask unanimous 
consent their statements be printed in the Record without my going into 
them.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     June 6, 2007.
     Re letter of Endorsement for Leslie Southwick's appointment 
         to the United States Court of Appeals.

     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: Judge Leslie Southwick has received a 
     nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Fifth Circuit. I feel Judge Southwick would make an 
     outstanding addition to the Court of Appeals. I write to 
     support his application. My name is Patrick Earl Beasley. I 
     am a licensed attorney in Mississippi and Georgia and have 
     had the pleasure of knowing Judge Southwick for nearly a 
     decade; I was also employed as his law clerk while he served 
     as Presiding Judge on the Mississippi Court of Appeals. 
     Additionally, we have both served as members of the 
     Mississippi Army National Guard. From these contacts, I 
     believe I can comment knowledgeably about his intelligence, 
     his character, and his commitment to excellence at large.
       During my tenure as Judge Southwick's law clerk, I was 
     impressed by the constraint Judge Southwick exhibited as a 
     jurist on the appellate court. His most notable quality was 
     his commitment to following established precedent. This often 
     required him to put aside his personal convictions to uphold 
     his role on the Court. In my opinion, this is a quality more 
     jurists should emulate. His intellect is unsurpassed and be 
     approached his job as a public servant with the same vigor 
     and dedication that one would expect from a partner at a 
     major law firm.
       Lastly, on the issue of fairness to minorities, I speak 
     from personal experience that Leslie Southwick is a good man 
     who has been kind to me for no ulterior reason. I am not from 
     an affluent family and have no political ties. While I 
     graduated in the top third of my law school class, there were 
     many individuals in my class with higher grade point averages 
     and with family ``pedigrees'' to match. Yet, despite all of 
     typical requirements for the clerkship that I lacked, Judge 
     Southwick gave me an opportunity. Despite all the press to 
     the contrary, Judge Southwick is a fair man and this is one 
     of the qualities that makes him an excellent choice for the 
     Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
       I would be pleased to provide any additional information in 
     support of Judge Leslie Southwick's appointment to the Fifth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals. If you need any additional 
     information, please contact me at your convenience.
           Very truly yours,
     Patrick E. Beasley.
                                  ____

                                       Brunini, Grantham, Grower &


                                                  Hewes, PLLC,

                               Jackson, Mississippi, June 5, 2007.
     Re Judge Leslie Southwick Nomination.

     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: I am an African-American partner at 
     the law firm of Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes, PLLC, 
     where Judge Southwick was once a member. I believe in 
     fairness for all people and salute our leaders for giving 
     their lives to assure that fairness. While I share the 
     sentiments of other African-Americans that the federal 
     judiciary needs to be more diverse, I believe that Judge 
     Southwick is imminently qualified for the United States Fifth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals and write in support of his 
     nomination.
       I met Judge Southwick during my third year of law school 
     when I interned with the Court of Appeals of Mississippi. 
     That internship allowed me an opportunity to work with most 
     of the Judges on the bench at that time. I was most impressed 
     with Judge Southwick because of his work ethic and his serene 
     personality. When I finished law school in 1996. I believed 
     that my chances for landing a clerkship were slim because 
     there was only one African-American Court of Appeals judge on 
     the bench at the time and there were very few Caucasian 
     judges during the history of the Mississippi Supreme Court or 
     the Court of Appeals (which was fairly new) who had ever 
     hired African-American law clerks. In spite of the odds, I 
     applied for a clerkship. Judge Southwick granted me an 
     interview and hired me that same day. While Judge Southwick 
     had many applicants to choose from, he saw that I was 
     qualified for the position and granted me the opportunity.
       During my tenure as clerk with the Court, Judge Southwick 
     thought through every issue and took every case seriously. He 
     earned a reputation for his well thought out opinions and his 
     ability to produce the highest number of opinions in a term. 
     It did not matter the parties' affiliation, color, or 
     stature--what mattered was what the law said and Judge 
     Southwick worked very hard to apply it fairly. Judge 
     Southwick valued my opinions and included me in all of the 
     discussions of issues presented for decision. Having worked 
     closely with Judge Southwick, I have no doubt that he is 
     fair, impartial, and has all of the other qualities necessary 
     to be an excellent addition to the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
       In addition to serving our State, Judge Southwick has also 
     honorably served our country. During his mission to Iraq in 
     2005, Southwick found the time to write me often to let me 
     know about his experiences there. Upon his return to the 
     United States, Judge Southwick shared with others his 
     humbling experience serving our country. It is clear from his 
     writings and speaking that he served with pride and dignity.
       Over the years, Judge Southwick has earned the reputation 
     of being a person of high morals, dignity, and fairness. It 
     is unfortunate that there are some who have made him the 
     chosen sacrifice to promote agendas and have set out to taint 
     all that Judge Southwick has worked so hard to accomplish. I 
     am prayerful that those efforts will not preclude Judge 
     Southwick from serving as our next Judge on the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
       If additional information is needed, please feel free to 
     contact me.
           Yours truly,
                                                A. La'Verne Edney.

  Mr. SPECTER. I also ask unanimous consent that the following 
statement highlighting praise for Judge Southwick be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Support for Leslie Southwick

       Simply listening to those who know Judge Southwick best 
     makes it easy to understand why the American Bar Association 
     unanimously concluded that he is ``Well Qualified'' to serve 
     on the Circuit Court. Judge Southwick is free from bias and 
     committed to equal justice under the law.
       La'Verne Edney, a distinguished African-American woman who 
     is a partner at a prominent Jackson, Mississippi law firm, a 
     member of the Magnolia Bar Association, the Mississippi Women 
     Lawyers' Association and a member of the Mississippi Task 
     Force for Gender Fairness, has shared her compelling story of 
     Judge Southwick giving her an opportunity when few would:
       ``When I finished law school . . . I believed that my 
     chances for landing a clerkship were slim because there was 
     only one African-American Court of Appeals judge on the bench 
     at the time and there were very few Caucasian judges during 
     the history of the Mississippi Supreme Court or the Court of 
     Appeals . . . who had ever hired African-American law clerks. 
     . . . While Judge Southwick had many applicants to choose 
     from, he saw that I was qualified for the position and 
     granted me the opportunity.''
       As a clerk, Ms. Edney observed, ``It did not matter the 
     parties' affiliation, color or stature--what mattered was 
     what the law said and Judge Southwick worked very hard to 
     apply it fairly. Judge Southwick valued my opinions and 
     included me in all of the discussions of issues presented for 
     discussion. Having worked closely with Judge Southwick, I 
     have no doubt that he is fair, impartial, and has all of the 
     other qualities necessary to be an excellent addition to the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.''
       Patrick E. Beasley, a practicing attorney in Jackson, 
     Mississippi, who also happens to be African American, 
     endorsed Judge Southwick for, among other qualities, his 
     fairness to minorities. Beasley wrote, ``I speak from 
     personal experience that Leslie Southwick is a good man who 
     has been kind to me for no ulterior reason. I am not from an 
     affluent family and have no political ties. While I graduated 
     in the top third of my law school class, there were many 
     individuals in my class with higher grade point averages and 
     with family `pedigrees' to match. Yet, despite all of the 
     typical requirements for the clerkship that I lacked, Judge 
     Southwick gave me an opportunity. Despite all the press to 
     the contrary, Judge Southwick is a fair man and this is one 
     of the qualities that

[[Page S9312]]

     makes him an excellent choice for the Fifth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals.''
       Jose Alberto Cantu, a self-described lifelong Democrat, 
     expressed outrage over what he considered to be the unfair 
     characterization of his friend from Edinburg, Texas. After 
     reading an article in the Houston Chronicle, he wrote, ``I 
     was shocked to read about the opposition to his nomination on 
     this basis [race]. I was a classmate of Judge Southwick in 
     high school and knew him very well. I always found him to be 
     extremely polite and absolutely fair with everyone. What the 
     paper and the political activist referenced in the article 
     imply is that Judge Southwick is a racist because of the 
     ruling on the Court. This is absolutely ridiculous and 
     totally unfair. The Valley has a large Hispanic population, 
     and Leslie never showed the type of discriminatory attitudes 
     that were implied in the article. To the contrary, I remember 
     him as treating everyone fairly and with respect.''
       John C. Hengan, a lifelong Democrat and former Chief of 
     Staff to a Democratic Governor of Mississippi strongly 
     refutes the mischaracterizations of Judge Southwick's 
     character. ``I cannot disagree more strongly with the 
     personal attacks that are being made against his character, 
     integrity, or fitness for office, or about his commitment to 
     civil rights for all people regardless of their race, color, 
     sex, creed, religion, or national origin. It is an 
     abomination that he should have to experience these unfair 
     and unjust personal attacks because they are quite simply 
     untrue and cannot be made by anyone who has had the 
     opportunity to meet, work, or be around Leslie for even an 
     abbreviated period of time.''
       Former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice James L. 
     Robertson, who has known Judge Southwick for 20 years, 
     attests to the judge's commitment to fairness. He observed, 
     ``Importantly, there is not a hint of racism in Judge 
     Southwick's being. I am certain that Chief Judge Leslie D. 
     King, and Judge Tyree Irving, his two African-American 
     colleagues on the Court of Appeals with whom Judge Southwick 
     served for many years, would be the first to tell you this, 
     were they not prohibited [by judicial ethics canons] from 
     such endorsements. . . . It is common knowledge in this area 
     that I do not support President Bush on very many of his 
     policy initiatives. I voted for Vice President Gore in 2000, 
     and I voted for Senator Kerry in 2004. But even a blind hog 
     will root up an acorn every once in a while. Judge Leslie 
     Southwick just might turn out to be a golden nugget.''
       Phillip L. McIntosh, Associate Dean at the Mississippi 
     College School of Law, noted that Judge Southwick was 
     unanimously approved for a faculty position by ``a 
     politically and racially diverse faculty'' and that ``not one 
     note of concern about Judge Southwick's integrity, fairness, 
     or impartiality was sounded.''
       Robert H Canizaro, a self-described ``Liberal Democrat,'' 
     expressed his ``strong[ ] support'' for Judge Southwick as 
     ``an intelligent, dedicated, hard working, moderate judge who 
     respects the rights of all.'' Canizaro stated that the New 
     York Times's suggestion to the contrary is ``ludicrous.''
       Judge Southwick's temperament is what we hope for in a 
     federal judge.
       Justice Kay B. Cobb, former Presiding Justice of the 
     Supreme Court of Mississippi, has written, ``Judge 
     Southwick's scholarship and character are stellar. The 
     opinions he wrote during his ten years on the Mississippi 
     Court of Appeals reflect his thoroughness and fairness as 
     well as the depth of his knowledge and the quality and 
     clarity of his reasoning and writing. . . . His awareness and 
     attention to promoting fairness and equality with regard to 
     race and gender are exemplary. Our country needs 
     conscientious and independent judges of impeccable integrity 
     and I cannot think of anyone who better qualifies for this 
     appointment!''
       Jim Rosenblatt, Dean of the Mississippi College of Law, 
     wrote, ``In all my dealings with Leslie Southwick he has 
     shown himself to be respectful of others no matter their 
     station in life, their religious convictions, or their ethnic 
     background. He takes a genuine interest in people and spends 
     a great deal of time listening to others and little time 
     talking about himself. He is modest and self-effacing . . .''
       Bronson E. Newburger, who worked with Judge Southwick on 
     the Board of the Jackson Servant Leadership Corps, an 
     organization that places recent college graduates in a 
     communal home where they can devote themselves full time to 
     serving the underprivileged in the inner city, came to know 
     Judge Southwick well. ``I found him to be levelheaded, 
     sensitive, and compassionate . . . He is a decent, fair, and 
     compassionate public servant dedicated to equal rights and 
     protections for all.
       David J. Anderson, a retired career civil servant who 
     worked with Judge Southwick at the Justice Department, was 
     similarly impressed with Judge Southwick's character. Mr. 
     Anderson, who describes himself as ``a Democrat'' who is 
     ``moderate to liberal'' in his politics, wrote ``I have to 
     say that Leslie Southwick was an outstanding public servant, 
     head and shoulders above most political appointees I served 
     with during my 35 years in government. He was intelligent, 
     thoughtful, fair minded, and devoted to the rule of law. He 
     was no ideologue. I never saw him make a decision on any 
     basis other than the merits of a particular issue or 
     problem.''

  Mr. SPECTER. How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A little more than 3 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. In conclusion, in the last 3\1/2\ minutes I have, I wish 
to point out what has happened in this matter.
  Chairman Leahy advised me this nomination would go through the 
Judiciary Committee on a voice vote. Then, when that effort was made, 
Senator Feingold objected and any member of the Judiciary Committee has 
the right to hold over a nominee for 1 week. So, it did not go through 
on a voice vote, notwithstanding the fact that Senator Leahy, the 
chairman, said that was his plan.
  Senator McConnell has advised that the majority leader, Senator Reid, 
had said the nomination would be confirmed before the Memorial Day 
recess, which is some time ago now. So, this nomination was on the 
brink of confirmation, according to the chairman's statement that it 
would go through committee on a voice vote. He didn't expect someone to 
raise an objection, and he was powerless to move it on a voice vote 
once an objection was raised, but that was his expectation and mine.
  And, as I said, the majority leader told the Republican leader there 
would be a confirmation before the Memorial Day recess.
  It is my hope we will not allow partisanship to once again grip this 
body. This Senate, under Republican control, wouldn't give hearings to 
President Clinton's nominees and wouldn't bring them up for floor 
votes. I objected to that, bucking my party, crossing party lines, and 
voting for Clinton nominees.
  We had protracted filibusters in 2004 and threats of the 
Constitutional--or ``nuclear''--option. I hope we do not go back to 
that. This body, as we all know, works on unanimous consent. Any 
Senator can raise an objection to dispensing with a reading of an 
amendment or a reading of the record, as we saw during the immigration 
debate, and can tie up this Senate endlessly if someone wants to impede 
the work of the Senate. It is my hope we will not descend to that.
  We have very important matters to take up--Iraq, the Department of 
Defense reauthorization bill, the override of the President's veto on 
stem cells, and many appropriations bills. This man, Judge Southwick--I 
have gone through his record in detail. My own record on the Judiciary 
Committee is one of nonpartisanship. If I have found nominees submitted 
by Republican Presidents to be objectionable, I have not hesitated to 
say so. But this man has an impeccable record, an outstanding record, 
with 985 authored opinions. The two opinions that have been called into 
question are opinions which he didn't write, but merely joined, on 
matters which--while they might have been articulated differently, 
might have been more sensitive--certainly are not disqualifiers. This 
man ought to be confirmed. I have taken the time to go into some detail 
on his record because I have told my colleagues about his record and 
many people have been surprised there is controversy.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for sitting 
overtime and my colleague from Minnesota for her patience--I think she 
has been patient--and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the Senate is in its second week of 
debate on the future of U.S. military engagement in Iraq. It is a very 
timely and momentous debate which reflects the American people's 
concerns with events in Iraq, and I am hopeful more of my colleagues 
will join those of us who have voted over and over again to limit the 
U.S. engagement in Iraq.
  I opposed this war from the start, and I have long advocated for 
responsible change of course in the administration's policy. I believe 
the best that we can do for our troops, for our national interests, and 
for the Iraqis themselves is to begin transitioning to Iraqi authority 
and to begin bringing our troops home in a responsible way, to remove 
the bulk of U.S. combat forces by the spring of next year.
  I remember being at the funeral for one of our brave, fallen soldiers 
in Minnesota and hearing a priest say--he noted that this young man was 
a strong, strapping boy. He was over 6 feet tall. He said the kids we 
are sending over there may be over 6 feet tall,

[[Page S9313]]

but they are still our children. If they are over 6 feet tall, then our 
leaders must be 8 feet tall in making these difficult decisions. I hope 
this week this Congress stands tall, this Senate stands tall and makes 
the right decision.

                          ____________________