Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 114 (Tuesday, July 17, 2007)

[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.

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.

____________________