[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9317-S9366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--Continued


                           Amendment No. 2100

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 2100 offered by the 
Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  I rise to discuss my amendment which lays out the consequences of a 
failed state in Iraq. As every parent of a teenager knows, one of the 
things you have to impress upon your teenager is the consequences of 
their actions. I think we need to have an adult conversation and talk 
about the consequences of our actions in Iraq.
  The one thing we all agree on is that we want to bring our troops 
home. We want to bring them home as soon as we can. The line of 
division between us seems to be between those who want to do so based 
upon an arbitrary political timetable and those who want to do so based 
on conditions on the ground. So I think it is important to have--as any 
adult would say to their child--a conversation about the consequences 
of your actions because I think these are the birds that are going to 
come home to roost should the Levin amendment be adopted.
  As we know from the Iraq Study Group as well as the National 
Intelligence Estimate, the consequences of a failed state in Iraq are 
numerous, but they are significant and highly dangerous to the United 
States.
  First of all, Iraq would become a safe haven for Islamic radicals, 
including al-Qaida and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the 
United States and U.S. allies. The Iraq Study Group found that a 
chaotic Iraq would provide a still stronger base of operation for 
terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally. That is not me 
talking; that is the Iraq Study Group. The Iraq Study Group also noted 
that al-Qaida will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as 
a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit 
for their cause in the region and around the world.
  The National Intelligence Estimate presented by the intelligence 
community, which consists of the best and the brightest America has to 
offer, concluded that the consequences of a premature withdrawal from 
Iraq would be

[[Page S9318]]

that al-Qaida would attempt to use Anbar Province for further attacks 
outside of Iraq, neighboring countries would consider actively 
intervening in Iraq, and sectarian violence would significantly 
increase in Iraq, accompanied by massive civilian casualties and 
displacement. The Iraq Study Group found that a premature American 
withdrawal 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, much as they did when the 
Soviet Union was run out of Afghanistan.
  A failed state in Iraq could lead to a broader regional conflict 
involving Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. The Iraq Study Group 
noted that Turkey could send troops into northern Iraq to prevent 
Kurdistan from declaring independence. The Iraq Study Group noted that 
Iran could send troops to restore stability to southern Iraq and 
perhaps gain control of oilfields. The regional influence of Iran could 
arise at a time when that country is on a path to producing a nuclear 
weapon, as we know they are all about.
  A failed state in Iraq would lead to massive humanitarian suffering. 
I know we are all concerned about what we see as the genocide in the 
Darfur region of Sudan, but those of us who are concerned about that 
huge humanitarian crisis there must also be concerned about the 
humanitarian crisis in Iraq should we prematurely withdrawal our troops 
and that country descend into massive ethnic cleansing and genocide and 
massive dislocation of refugees to other areas of the Middle East.
  A recent editorial in the New York Times said Americans must be clear 
that Iraq and the region around it could be even bloodier and more 
chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those 
who work with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, and even 
genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan, 
Syria, and Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make a power grab. The 
Iraq Study Group found that if we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, 
the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States 
to return.
  My amendment commits the Senate to take no action that would lead to 
a failed state in Iraq that would invariably, in the opinion of the 
Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan group of experts, as well as the 
National Intelligence Estimate, lead to consequences that would not 
only be devastating for the Iraqis, it would be destabilizing in that 
region and would lead to greater loss of life and greater insecurity in 
the United States.
  So I hope all of my colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment 
at 2:45 when that vote is scheduled. I can't imagine any possible 
objection to this sense of the Senate on the consequences of a failed 
state in Iraq.
  Finally, I would say this is an important part of the overall debate 
where we talk about not only what our preferred policy is but what the 
consequences of a failure would be. I think part of a responsible adult 
debate is talking about what the consequences would be as we commit 
ourselves to take no action that would lend an increased likelihood to 
that failed state.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair notify me when I have 
spoken for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for 
explaining his amendment. But when I hear him describe the Levin-Reed 
amendment, I am afraid I don't recognize it because, unfortunately, the 
Senator from Texas has failed to include some of the most important 
elements of this Levin-Reed amendment.
  This is the only amendment the Senate will consider during debate on 
this bill which will change the policy of the war in Iraq. It is the 
only amendment which establishes a timetable to bring this war to a 
responsible end. It is the only amendment which in law will require 
American troops to start to come home, the Levin-Reed amendment.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas is a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution. A sense-of-the-Senate resolution is done on a 
regular basis on the floor of the Senate. It does not have the power 
and impact of law. It is an observation made by the Senate. That is 
all. It is not binding on the President. It won't change the policy. 
There is no suggestion that it even could.
  What the Senator from Texas brings to us is the possibility that 
things could get worse in Iraq than they are today, and that is a 
possibility. But let's be very honest about the state of Iraq today. It 
is a nation in chaos. It is a nation that is engulfed by its own civil 
war. It is struggling to decide which faction within its nation will 
govern. Frankkly, some question whether it will be a nation. I think 
the Kurds, for example, given their way, would be independent of Iraq 
as we know it today. This struggle to define Iraq is part of the chaos 
and consternation we find in that country.
  Finally, of course, this civil war is driven by so many elements--
criminal elements, al-Qaida elements, Ba'athist elements, Iranian 
elements, and, yes, a civil war generated by a division within Islam 
that has gone on for more than 14 centuries. It is into this crucible 
of hate and killing that we have sent 170,000 American troops who each 
morning get up, strap on their armor, and go out and pray to God they 
will live for another day. Is that what we bargained for when President 
Bush said we had to rid ourselves of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass 
destruction?
  The Senator from Texas makes the argument that if we leave, things 
could get worse. It is possible. But I will tell you this: 
Stabilization will occur on Iraqi terms whenever the American military 
departs, and it is likely to be chaotic. We have to acknowledge that. 
Whether we leave in 10 months or 10 years, the Iraqis have to decide 
their own future.
  The elements of the Levin-Reed amendment which the Senator from Texas 
does not acknowledge are absolutely essential. He will find, when he 
reads the Levin-Reed amendment, on page 3, paragraph 3, we will still 
have troops engaged in targeted counterterrorism operations against al-
Qaida and al-Qaida-affiliated organizations and other international 
terrorist organizations.
  The Senator from Texas suggests that we will leave and walk away from 
the scene and hope for the best. That is not true. Under Levin-Reed, we 
will continue to fight al-Qaida, the fight which we should have been 
dedicated to from 9/11 forward and a fight which by this time should 
have brought us Osama bin Laden and his major lieutenants.
  Secondly, the argument made by the Senator from Texas is that the 
Levin-Reed amendment is going to lead to a broader regional conflict as 
American troops start to come home. I recommend for reading by the 
Senator from Texas page 2 of the amendment, which goes into graphic 
detail about our hope that as we start to withdraw, as our troops start 
to withdraw from Iraq, we will initiate a comprehensive, diplomatic, 
political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement 
with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for working out 
collective stability in that country.
  I would say to my friend from Texas, what he has suggested as part 
and parcel of the result of Levin-Reed is already taken care of. We 
want to start bringing American troops home. Losing 100 American 
soldiers every month, 1,000 seriously wounded, $12 billion in 
taxpayers' money, put into a situation which is nothing short of a 
civil war, is unacceptable.
  The future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqis. They have to stand 
up and defend their own country. They have to decide their own future. 
Is it likely to be smooth sailing as we leave? No. But it is a process 
which will take place whether we leave within a few months or a year or 
wait much longer.
  I encourage my colleagues to look honestly at this Cornyn amendment. 
As I reflect on it, I don't think it offers any serious challenge. None 
of us want to see a failed Iraq. But let's remember that the bottom 
line is the only

[[Page S9319]]

amendment which will change the policy in Iraq is the amendment by 
Senators Levin and Reed which we will vote on, after an all-night 
session, first thing tomorrow morning.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished 
majority whip, the Senator from Illinois, but I do see things a little 
differently.
  First of all, when he talks about a civil war in Iraq, he seems to 
overlook the fact that al-Qaida is present in Iraq and is the 
precipitating cause for the sectarian strife we are all concerned 
about. What would he do to deal with al-Qaida in Iraq, which they 
regard as the central front in their war against the West?
  When my friend from Illinois says we need a limited presence of our 
American troops in Iraq, I am not sure what that means, but I sure 
would rather have the four star Army GEN David Petraeus determining the 
appropriate tactics to deal with the threat on the ground rather than 
politicians, armchair generals here in Washington, DC.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CORNYN. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will make this very brief. Isn't it a fact that over 
the weekend, the Prime Minister of Iraq invited us to leave at any 
time?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, to my knowledge, we are of one mind that 
we do want to leave Iraq. The question is, Under what conditions? I 
don't believe Prime Minister Maliki certainly is on record as saying he 
wants us to leave at a time when his government would be rent asunder 
and Iraq would descend into sectarian war and perhaps a regional 
conflict. But the fact is, GEN David Petraeus, the general whom we 
confirmed unanimously just a short time ago, has recommended to the 
Commander in Chief a new strategy known as the surge, which was 
completed just last month, a few short weeks ago. Now he has said to 
give that surge an opportunity to do its job and he will come back and 
report to us in September. I think we ought to give that a reasonable 
chance.
  While the distinguished majority whip wants to talk about the Levin 
amendment, I think we will have plenty of time to talk about that 
during the course of the evening.
  The irony is, we are ready to vote on the Levin amendment at almost 
any time. But we are going to have a big political theater tonight. We 
will have a lot of fun having a Senate slumber party for the benefit of 
organizations such as moveon.org, which is having a press conference at 
8:30 tonight. We ought to be having a serious debate and voting on 
these amendments, which we are happy to do at virtually anytime.
  I worry when I hear my friend say stabilization will take place on 
Iraqi terms, as if the only consequences of a failure in Iraq would be 
borne by the Iraqis. The fact is, according to the National 
Intelligence Estimate, the intelligence community, the Iraq Study 
Group, and others, it will make America less safe by creating a safe 
haven for organizations such as al-Qaida to plot, plan, train, and to 
export future terrorist attacks against the United States.
  If we think they are modest in their goals, I think we need to think 
again. Rather than a crude instrument like an airplane flying into the 
Pentagon and the World Trade Center, this terrorist organization in 
Iraq, which considers Iraq the central front in their war against the 
West, is trying to get biological, chemical, and even nuclear weapons. 
Woe be the day that they get their hands on those and use them against 
America or its allies.
  So I think we should be of one mind with this sense of the Senate 
that says we would take no action that would make it more likely that 
Iraq would descend into a failed state to create that haven for 
terrorists.
  I yield the floor and reserve my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, I think everybody in this body would like to leave 
Iraq better than we found it. That is not the current situation. The 
current situation is chaos and violence in Iraq. It is an Iraq that is 
torn apart by sectarian violence. When you have group slaughtering 
group in a civil war, a sectarian type of war, it requires that the 
Iraqi political leaders take action to end the violence. The only way 
to end the violence is if the Iraqi political leaders will reach a 
political settlement. I think almost everybody agrees with that. I 
think our uniformed military agrees with that, our civilian leaders 
agree, and almost everybody agrees that there is no military solution 
in Iraq, and that the only solution, the only way to end this violence 
is if the Iraqi political leaders accept the responsibility to work out 
political agreements on a number of disagreements they have identified 
for themselves.
  We talk a lot about benchmarks, and the President said the other day 
that on eight benchmarks we are making progress, and on eight we are 
not--to make it sound like we have a glass that is half full. But that 
is not what the facts sustain or support. The facts are that we have a 
glass called Iraq which has a hole in the bottom. Whatever we pour into 
Iraq goes right through that hole. It is going to continue to do that 
until one thing happens, and that is that the Iraqi political leaders 
decide they are going to work out a political settlement. There is a 
consensus about that, I believe, among almost all of us.
  The Iraqi Prime Minister made the following statement, and every one 
of us, when we vote on Levin-Reed, ought to keep this one statement in 
mind, I believe, first and foremost. This is what Prime Minister Maliki 
said:

       The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the 
     cycle of bloodletting of innocents are the politicians.

  Well, it is long overdue that the politicians in Iraq step up to 
their responsibility. The amendment before us, it seems to me, states 
something which is clear. I believe it is obvious that it is in 
everyone's interest that Iraq not be a failed state. I agree with my 
friend from Texas. That should be a goal of everybody. The problem is 
that Iraq is the No. 2 most unstable state in the world right now. That 
is the status quo. That is what we have to end. The only way to end it 
is with a political settlement by the Iraqis.
  There was an article a few days ago in Foreign Policy magazine called 
``The States That Fail Us.'' It is about failed states. It has a list 
of about 60 states, and they give all of the indicators of instability. 
Iraq is No. 2 on the list, right after Sudan. That is the status quo. 
That is what we are trying to end--the failure of a policy in Iraq 
which has led the Iraqi leaders to believe that there is an open-ended 
commitment on the part of the United States to give them protection in 
that green zone to the extent that it exists. It is that open-ended 
commitment of the United States that must end--if we are going to prod 
the Iraqi leaders to finally step up, look into the abyss and make a 
decision, do they want a civil war or do they want a nation?
  Mr. President, we cannot save them from themselves. To say that we 
don't want a failed state in Iraq is to say we don't want the status 
quo to continue, that the course must change in Iraq.
  So I will vote for the Cornyn amendment because I think it states, in 
general terms at least, what I hope Members of the Senate would all 
agree on--that a failed state in Iraq is not in the interest of this 
Nation.
  Mr. DURBIN. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan controls 4 minutes. 
The Senator from Texas controls 5 minutes. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am grateful for the statement of the 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the 
Senator from Michigan, in support of this amendment. I believe it is 
noncontroversial. If there is one thing we ought to be able to agree 
upon in this debate, it is that it is not in our self-interest to leave 
Iraq as a failed state.
  Where we diverge is where the Senator says we have to put more 
pressure on the politicians. I think we need to

[[Page S9320]]

do that, but not so much pressure that they simply collapse, which is 
my concern. That is why I believe what General Petraeus has said, which 
is that the situation in Iraq is hard but not hopeless. That gives me 
some hope that we can provide them the space they need in order to make 
those hard political decisions, which are extraordinarily difficult. If 
you think about it, the kind of decisions they are being called upon to 
make--for example, the sharing of oil revenue--I might suggest that is 
equivalent to the U.S. Congress trying to solve the Social Security 
insolvency problem. It is not easy for to us do. We have not done it 
yet. How in the world can we expect this new democracy, particularly 
under such stressful and difficult circumstances, to do things that we 
ourselves would find extraordinarily difficult to do? Talking about 
debaathification and things like that--the Baathist Party, under Saddam 
Hussein, was guilty of the most heinous sorts of crimes against the 
Shiite majority. This is a country traumatized from years of a police 
state under the boot heel of a terrible, blood-thirsty dictator like 
Saddam Hussein, where hundreds of thousands of people were killed by 
Saddam Hussein.

  So it is not surprising that this traumatized nation is having 
challenges coming back from that and that they are slow to make 
decisions that we think they should be making. But the basic minimum is 
that they need the security in order to have the space in order to make 
those difficult decisions. That is what this new plan is, which is only 
in the early stages of being implemented by General Petraeus, designed 
to do.
  What are the early reports? We are beginning to see some progress, 
particularly in Anbar Province in dealing with al-Qaida that up until 
recently basically had the run of the place. The tribal sheiks and 
others are coming forward and volunteering for the police and security 
forces. So I guess we are seeing the most hard-bitten cynics, but there 
are some signs that things are getting a little bit better in terms of 
the security context. It seems obvious that basic security has to 
prevail in order for the Iraqis, in exercising their new democratic 
government, to try to reconcile some of these terrible and difficult 
decisions.
  I am delighted that the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee has said he will support this amendment. My hope is 
that this is one thing in the course of all of this fractious debate 
that we can unify behind.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to address two comments made 
earlier by the Senator from Texas. He referred to the possibility of an 
all-night session in the Senate as a so-called Senate slumber party. 
Trust me, that is not what this is about. What we are facing on the 
Republican side of the aisle is an objection to an up-or-down vote, a 
majority vote, on the Levin-Reed amendment. That amendment is the only 
amendment which establishes a time line and a timetable for ending this 
war responsibly and beginning to bring our troops home within 120 days. 
It is the only amendment before us that will achieve that. Other 
amendments are interesting. None of them have the power of law.
  The Levin-Reed amendment has the power of law. The President will 
have to follow it or veto it. Those are his choices. That is why it is 
so serious. That is why the Republican leadership has opposed our 
having a majority vote on this in the Senate. They are filibustering 
it, trying to stop us from getting to a vote on that amendment.
  Ordinarily, when you filibuster something, it is so sanitized and 
civilized, you don't even know it is happening. Members of the Senate 
file a cloture motion and go out for dinner and say: We'll see you in 
the morning for the vote. Tonight they will stick around. If they want 
to filibuster this amendment that will change the policy in Iraq, they 
will have to stay and debate it. It will be a real filibuster. If they 
believe this is still right, we will see if they feel that way at 4 
a.m. tomorrow morning. That is what this is about. It is not a slumber 
party.
  The Senator from Texas said, ``We are ready to vote.'' Therefore, I 
ask unanimous consent to vote on the Levin-Reed amendment No. 2087 at 6 
p.m., with the time between 3:05 and then equally divided in the usual 
form.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if this were the first time that a 60-vote 
requirement were made, I would have some sympathy for the Senator from 
Illinois. I am having staff compile the number of times when the other 
side of the aisle was in the minority, they demanded 60 votes as well. 
You cannot do it with a straight face.
  You cannot say that all we are going to do here in the Senate is have 
us govern by 51 votes; otherwise, we may as well be unicameral because 
we would have the Senate and the House exactly the same.
  So, of course, I will object, Mr. President. I wish we would get off 
this horse of saying that somehow the other side never employed the 60-
vote requirement in the Senate, because they did. It is a tradition in 
the Senate, and it is within the rules of the Senate. It may be 
frustrating. It certainly was to us when we were in the majority and 
the Democrats were in the minority and they employed it. But to somehow 
act as if what is being done is unprecedented--I will tell you what is 
unprecedented; it is taking a Defense authorization bill that is there 
for the training and equipping and pay raises and necessities of life 
for the men and women serving in the military, when we should be 
passing this--we all know it is going to come up in September. We 
should be passing this so the men and women can get what they need and 
deserve in order to defend the security of this Nation. Instead, Mr. 
President, what we are doing is having, again, for the eighth or ninth 
time, without having passed one appropriations bill, including the 
Military Construction appropriations bill, which is ready to be 
passed--instead, we will have this ``argument'' against the filibuster.
  Mr. President, it doesn't pass the smell test. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The time in opposition has 
expired.
  The Senator from Texas has 1 minute.
  Mr. CORNYN. I have 1 minute remaining?
  Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Arizona, of course. My 
belief would be that if our friends on the other side of the aisle 
wanted to move up the cloture vote on the Levin amendment to 6 p.m. 
tonight, we could expedite things and get right to the vote that 
perhaps the distinguished majority whip wishes to have. I think there 
is no objection on this side to providing a vote on that cloture vote. 
We could do that sooner rather than later. I certainly would support 
that action. I will have to consult with the leaders on this side of 
the aisle, but that certainly might help us get to the bottom of things 
that much sooner.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote in support of the amendment before 
us that would be a vote against any action that would enhance the 
likelihood of a failed state in Iraq, which is not in America's best 
security interests.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I need 
Senator McCain to listen. Apparently, the time the Senator from Arizona 
took on his reservation came out of our time, and I am wondering if he 
would give us a minute.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to give that to the 
distinguished chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, on the question of the 60 votes, there is a 
procedural roadblock which is being placed here. It is not the first 
time in history, of course, but a decision has to be made here whether 
the verdict of the American people last November that there be a change 
in policy is going to be thwarted by that procedural roadblock, and the 
Republican leader has apparently decided it will be.
  In terms of precedent, last year on the Defense authorization bill, 
there

[[Page S9321]]

were at least two votes on Iraq, both majority votes. That is the 
precedent. Last year, there was a Levin-Reed amendment that received 39 
votes and a Kerry amendment, both on Iraq on the Defense authorization 
bill, the most recent experience. This issue is so vital. It is so much 
in the minds of the American people that we should not throw up 
procedural roadblocks to allowing the Senate to vote. That is why we 
have asked that we be allowed to vote up or down on this amendment, and 
that apparently has now been objected to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2100. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 248 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Byrd
     Feingold
     Harkin

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Biden
     Inouye
     Johnson
  The amendment (No. 2100) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, late this morning, I sent a letter to the 
distinguished minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell. I addressed the 
letter ``Dear Mitch,'' and I will read the letter.

       There are no more solemn decisions facing Members of 
     Congress than the conduct of the war and the placing of our 
     troops in harm's way. As you know, more than 3,600 brave 
     Americans have lost their lives and more than $400 billion 
     has been expended on the war in Iraq, which has now moved 
     into its fifth year, with no end in sight. Yet Senate 
     Republicans have chosen to prevent an honest debate, an 
     action on legislation to provide an Iraq strategy that will 
     allow us to responsibly redeploy our troops and refocus our 
     attention on the very real threat posed by al-Qaida. This is 
     partisan obstruction that I fear will make us less, not more, 
     secure, and I urge you to reconsider your course.
       Today's headlines confirm the importance of allowing the 
     Senate to consider amendments to change the course in Iraq 
     and refocus our resources so we can more effectively wage the 
     war on terror. The news reports indicate that the violence in 
     northern Iraq has escalated at the same time the Director of 
     National Intelligence released a new assessment that al-Qaida 
     has regenerated key elements of its homeland capability. As 
     long as our troops are mired in policing an Iraq civil war, 
     they cannot focus on the enemy that attacked us nearly 6 
     years ago, an enemy that, regrettably, has regenerated its 
     attack capacity since 9/11.
       Furthermore, contrary to your previous assertions, there is 
     a long, bipartisan tradition of allowing Senators to offer 
     defense-related amendments on the Defense authorization bill 
     without the obstruction Senate Republicans are employing 
     today. The record also clearly shows that both Senate 
     Democrats and Republicans have recently foregone the 
     opportunity to block action on important Iraq-related 
     amendments.
       For example, just last year the Senate voted up or down on 
     two Iraq-related amendments on the Defense authorization 
     bill. Additionally, Senate Democrats did not place a 60-vote 
     hurdle in front of Republican amendments to strike Iraq 
     policy language in the Iraq supplemental spending bill, nor 
     did votes on final passage of the Iraq supplemental require 
     60 votes.
       Therefore, I renew the proposal I offered to you recently 
     to permit the Senate to act on a series of amendments 
     pertaining to Iraq. Under my proposal, the Senate would hold 
     up-or-down votes on the bipartisan amendments offered by 
     Senators Levin and Reed, Lugar and Warner, Salazar and 
     Alexander, and Nelson and Collins. There are other amendments 
     Republican and Democratic Senators wish to offer related to 
     Iraq, and I would be willing to work with you to ensure these 
     amendments also receive up-or-down votes.
       For the sake of our troops and the American people, I hope 
     you reconsider your decision to obstruct Senate action on 
     critical amendments that would change the course of the war 
     in Iraq.

  We have completed a vote, yet another example of an Iraq-related 
amendment with a majority vote. We didn't demand a 60-vote margin on 
Cornyn. It is another example of how amendments should be handled; that 
is, with a simple majority vote.
  The American people deserve up-or-down votes, yes or no: Vote on the 
amendment. The Levin-Reed amendment is a bipartisan amendment. For me, 
one of the most significant paragraphs in that legislation was authored 
by Senator Hagel of Nebraska. It basically says we need to have the 
United Nations involved in this intractable civil war. It is a 
wonderfully written paragraph that strengthens this bipartisan 
amendment.
  We have three Republican cosponsors of this amendment.
  A vote on this bipartisan amendment will be a vote to change course. 
A ``no'' vote would be a vote to stay the course, to continue the 
President's failed strategy indefinitely.
  President Bush's term of office is winding down. We should not have 
to wait until he completes his term of office before we change course 
on this war in Iraq. A ``yes'' vote on this bipartisan amendment would 
finally bind President Bush to responsibly reduce combat operations and 
return our focus on the real and growing threats we face. That is why 
I, once again, request unanimous consent to move to an up-or-down vote 
on Levin-Reed, along with the amendments my Republican colleagues wish 
to offer and other Democrats who wish to offer amendments.
  I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2088 be withdrawn and at 
6:30 p.m. today the Senate vote on the Levin-Reed amendment, No. 2087, 
with the time between now and then equally divided in the usual form, 
with no second-degree amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, either yes or no on this?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I believe I 
do have the right to at least explain my reservation.
  Mr. REID. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has asked for the regular 
order. The Senator has to object or not.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do object. I would like to ask if the 
distinguished majority leader will give me an opportunity to at least 
respond to some of the things he had to say. I think that would be the 
way we usually do business around here.
  Mr. REID. I will be complete in a matter of minutes. We will have a 
filibuster. He can speak for as many hours as he wants or minutes he 
wants. We are now at the time when the time for speeches has ended. It 
is time for voting. We want a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. That is 
what we want. We have had a lot of good words from the other side of 
the aisle. We want some votes, and that is what this is all about. This 
is not the time for reserving. Voting--that is what we want.
  Mr. LOTT. If the majority leader yielded the floor, I seek 
recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Yes, once again what we have seen with my friend from 
Mississippi, and he is my friend--we have seen Republican leadership 
resort to technical maneuvers to block progress on this crucial 
amendment. It would be one thing for Republicans to vote

[[Page S9322]]

against this amendment. It is their right to do so. If they honestly 
believe stay the course is the right strategy, they have the right to 
vote no. But now Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from 
even voting on an amendment that could bring this war to a responsible 
end. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our 
troops. They are denying us an up-or-down vote, yes or no, a vote on 
the most important issue our country faces today.
  I am speaking today for the American people; 67 percent of the 
American people think the surge has been a failure--Democrats; not even 
a majority of Republicans favor the surge. Of course, a significant 
majority of Independents recognize that the surge has not been good. We 
are speaking for the American people on this bipartisan amendment.
  We have no choice, as I have indicated earlier, but to stay in 
session. The Republicans have a right to talk. Let them talk. It is 
their filibuster. But we will continue to speak in spite of that. When 
they finish their filibuster, we will still be speaking, continue 
speaking out on behalf of our troops and all Americans--all Americans: 
Democrats, a majority of the Republicans, and the Independents--to 
continue requesting consent for an up-or-down vote on our amendment to 
end this war.
  I don't want to make any more calls to the families in Nevada who 
have lost a loved one. Tens of thousands of our bold, brave Americans 
have been injured, wounded--a third of them grievously. When we hear 
that there was an improvised explosive device and two soldiers were 
killed, it doesn't talk about the maiming of other soldiers. 
Thousands--thousands of American troops have lost multiple limbs. We 
have heard from the experts about the head trauma. I can't get out of 
my mind my trip to Walter Reed, where a woman said: I have been in the 
military--I have been in the Army for 22 years. I have a master's 
degree. My specialty was numbers. I worked in the Pentagon with 
numbers. She said: I don't even know my own phone number. She said: I 
have never had my skin pierced, but I have been knocked down; I have 
been in these explosions numerous times. I have no mind anymore.
  That is what this amendment is all about--to change course. Is it 
necessary we wait 60 more days until this magic day in September to 
change course? How many more Americans soldiers are going to be killed? 
How many are going to be maimed, wounded, lose their arms, lose their 
minds? So we have no choice but to stay in session and continue 
speaking out on behalf of our troops and all Americans, to continue 
requesting consent for an up-or-down vote on this amendment.
  Our troops in Baghdad are 8 hours ahead of us here on the east coast. 
As we begin our debate in earnest tonight, our troops are going to be 
waking up. They will be waking up to the 1,582nd day of this war. They 
will wake up, and it is very hot in Iraq this time of the year. They 
are a long ways away in some foreign land we call Iraq, far from their 
families, and facing, every minute of the day, danger.
  This is not a war where the troops gather and face each other. This 
is a war in an urban setting, most of the time, where people are blown 
up driving vehicles up streets buying groceries in a marketplace. What 
happened yesterday? In a place that there had been no violence, more 
than 100 were killed and more than 200 injured. The picture in the 
paper--there is a hole where that bomb went off as big and deep as this 
Chamber we are in today.
  The violence is escalating. The new report is out. It was leaked last 
week; it is out today. ``Al-Qaida stronger,'' so says the report. The 
President disagrees, but that is what the report says. Can't have it 
both ways.

  So our valiant troops are going to wake up with this war facing 
them--more than any one of us can understand, with the exception of 
maybe Senator Webb, Senator Kerry, maybe John McCain--I am sorry if I 
missed others--Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens. Senator Hagel, of 
course--with his brother--fought in Vietnam. They are going to wake up, 
as I said, far from their families, facing constant danger, for what? 
For what? Mr. President, 69 percent of the Iraqi people don't want us 
there. They are saying we are doing more harm than good. Al Maliki said 
a couple of days ago he can do without us. We can leave whatever time 
we want. They can handle the situation with the billions and billions 
of dollars we have spent training Iraqi troops.
  We as Senators owe it to each of our men and women in Iraq to debate 
the war openly and honestly, and we owe it to all Americans to finally 
vote for a responsible end to the war that has been so long in coming. 
I hope by the time this night is through and dawn has broken that we 
will have the opportunity to vote.
  We are willing to vote before that. Whenever we have an opportunity, 
we are going to ask reasonably that we have a vote on the bipartisan 
amendment. It is the right thing to do. It is what the American people 
deserve.
  We are spending, now, $12 billion a month. Is that enough to get our 
attention? We are trying to do other things. What are we trying to do? 
Get health care for kids. The President is very concerned about these 
appropriations bills which we are going to try to pass. Where is the 
money to pass them, giving the American people what they deserve? It 
has been taken in the sands of Iraq, to the tune of more than a half a 
trillion dollars.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question without the Senator 
yielding his right to the floor?
  Mr. LOTT. Does the majority leader yield the floor?
  Mr. REID. I will not do that. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask the distinguished majority leader if he has not had 
experiences similar to mine. I was in Vermont over the weekend, as I am 
most weekends. I get stopped by people in the grocery store or putting 
gas in the car--we are a small State, and you tend to know everybody; 
they are Republicans and they are Democrats--and I get asked the 
constant question, if the President will not listen to us about getting 
out, can you people in Congress vote on something? Can you vote? Can 
you either vote to keep us there or vote to get us out, but stand up? 
My answer to them is we are prepared to vote on our side of the aisle. 
Senator Reid and those following him are prepared to vote, but we are 
stopped from voting.
  I am wondering whether the distinguished majority leader, when he 
goes home to Nevada, whether he doesn't hear similar sentiments about: 
Let us vote. Let us vote.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the distinguished chair of the 
Judiciary Committee, I don't have to go home. People call me. I talk to 
my brothers. They tell me what they think is wrong. I talk to my 
friends. I have tried every weekend when I have some time and I am 
here--I try to reach some people in Nevada I haven't talked to in a 
while. They say exactly what my friend from Vermont says: Get us out of 
there. Get us out of there.
  That is what this Levin-Reed amendment is all about, to change course 
in Iraq. The American people deserve that.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the majority leader, first, he has focused on the 
most important part of this debate, the war that is claiming American 
lives. But, unfortunately, this debate also focuses on the rules of the 
Senate. I ask the Senate majority leader if he is aware of the fact 
that in the last 7 years that the Defense authorization bill has been 
brought to the floor, every amendment which has been offered was 
subject to a majority vote, simple majority vote, except in five 
instances which required a budget waiver, a specific provision in our 
Senate rules when there were budget waivers required as with the 
minimum wage and so forth, 60 votes. But is the majority leader aware 
of the fact that in every authorization bill, Defense authorization 
bill, in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, that 
every amendment has been judged by a majority vote and that the 
decision by the Republicans to obstruct the majority vote on this is 
the first time in this long period of time that we have ever done this 
on a Defense authorization bill?

[[Page S9323]]

  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, during the years you have mentioned, 
there have been democratically controlled Senates, Republican 
controlled Senates, but it doesn't matter who is controlling the 
Senate, we have always done these bills with simple majority votes.
  For example, I can remember last year we had one vote, as I recall, 
on minimum wage because it required 60 votes to waive a budget point of 
order. So this new thing about 60 votes on everything is something that 
has been ginned up in the minds of people who want to avoid votes to 
change the course in Iraq.
  That is what it is all about. The war is not going well. We all know 
that. We need to sit back and understand that it needs to change 
course. There is a column written today, I read it, op-ed about 
President Bush being stubborn. And he is. We all know that. That is not 
all together always a bad trait.
  But, boy, I will tell you, he is sure showing his streak of 
stubbornness on this. He was unwilling to listen to anyone who 
disagreed with him, and there are a number of people who have been 
dumped from the administration as a result. Someone who suggested the 
war would cost $150 to $200 billion, Lindsey, he was gone quick.
  We had one of our good generals who suggested we needed a lot more 
troops there. Out the door he went. We could go through a list of 
people who disagreed with the President who hit the road.
  I would hope that on this issue, when so many people all across this 
country, on a bipartisan basis, agree that something needs to change in 
Iraq, my friends, the Republicans, recognize that they also have 
responsibility to the American people more so than the President.
  Now, I would say this. My friend, Senator Lott, is still here. I am 
going to yield the floor and whoever grabs the floor can have it. I say 
to my friend, Senator Lott, who has always been a gentleman to me in 
the many areas we have worked together here: This was a time that I 
wanted a ``yes'' or ``no'' response. He is a real pro in here. He knows 
that he can get the floor again to explain whatever his position was. 
This was in the middle of my speech. That is why I followed the rules.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Nevada, the distinguished majority 
leader and my friend for many years, points out that in previous years, 
the Defense authorization bill was passed without requirements for a 
60-vote majority. There is a simple answer to that. We never took up an 
issue such as this on the Defense authorization bill.
  In fact, our focus and our attention was, for 45 years, providing men 
and women who are serving in the military with what they needed to 
defend this Nation. Instead--instead, of doing what is necessary, 
including the 3.5-percent pay raise, including the Wounded Warriors 
legislation on it to take care of our veterans--we are now gridlocked 
in the Senate because the Senator from Nevada knows he is not going to 
pass a withdrawal from Iraq on this bill. If he did, the President 
would veto the bill, because the President has said it. We all know 
that in September this issue is going to come to a head, whether I 
happen to favor that or not.
  Most people believe that September is a time where we could make the 
kinds of judgments necessary to see whether we are making the kind of 
progress that will justify continued effort in this new strategy, which 
I, of course, would remind my colleagues again, the last part of which 
was put in place a few weeks ago.
  Of course, we did not have requirements for 60-vote majorities in the 
past few years because no one had the temerity to put an issue such as 
this on the very vital needs of the men and women in the military to do 
their job. So, of course, there was not a controversial necessity for a 
60-vote majority.
  I am happy to tell my friend from Mississippi that Senator Levin and 
I are moving forward with clearing amendments so we can, we hope, wrap 
up this bill by the end of this week. I hope that once this display 
that is going to take place tonight, all night, is concluded, and there 
is not sufficient votes in order to get the Levin-Reed amendment 
passed, at some point we can go back to the Defense authorization bill 
and get them the 3.5 percent pay raise they have earned; get them that 
MRAP equipment that they need; get this Wounded Warrior legislation 
through the Senate and to the desk of the President of the United 
States.
  We never grow tired, nor should we, of praising the men and women in 
the military, particularly those who have sacrificed so much. All of us 
are embarrassed and ashamed at what happened at Walter Reed. Well, 
let's pass this Wounded Warrior legislation on this bill and get it 
done.
  Who is holding up passage of the Defense authorization bill? Who is 
requiring us to stay up all night to discuss it? My friends, this is 
not necessary. We all know that General Petraeus was affirmed in his 
position by the Senate by an overwhelming vote. General Petraeus, at 
the time of his hearings, said we were going to have a new strategy--
that strategy is called surge--and that it would require additional 
troops.
  He also said at that time it would take time, that it would take a 
period of time before we would know whether it succeeded. Here we are, 
literally weeks after the last part of this new strategy is in place, 
the last detachment of an increase in troops, and we are telling them 
to set a date for withdrawal.
  Now, you know, I share the frustration that my friend from Nevada 
stated about a failed policy. It was a failed policy. The Rumsfeld-
Casey policy strategy was doomed to failure, and some of us recognized 
that and stated that at the time. We said we had to have a new 
strategy. It has to be the classic counterinsurgency strategy if we are 
going to succeed in Iraq.

  Well, we got a new general. We got a new strategy. There are signs of 
success. There are clearly some signs of progress, and those are 
readily apparent. Now, is the Maliki Government acting in the way we 
want them to? No, they are not. Is it disappointing that they are not? 
Absolutely, it is disappointing.
  But as far as Anbar Province is concerned, as far as some parts of 
Baghdad are concerned, yes, there is some progress which has been 
purchased at great and tragic cost, the sacrifice of young American's 
lives.
  I would like to again assure my friend of many years, from Nevada, I 
understand the frustration that he shows is shared by many Americans. 
Our failure and our employment of a failed strategy for more than 3 
years is well articulated. But I also would plead with my colleagues to 
at least know that we are not going to stop this now. We are not going 
stop it now. Even if the majority leader got the 60 votes and got this 
included in the bill in some way, the President of the United States 
would veto it. We do not want that to happen. We do not want that to 
happen.
  We know that in September, whether I happen to like it or not--I 
would like to personally give it more time than September--we know that 
in September this whole issue is going to come to a head. Here we are 
in the middle of July. Can't we sit down and work out the amendments in 
a way that Senator Levin and I and Senator Warner and previous chairmen 
and ranking members have for the last 20 years, get this bill done, get 
it out and get it to the President's desk? Then we go into recess. We 
come back in September. I think that that is not an unreasonable path 
to follow.
  So, my friends, we will continue to debate this issue all night 
tonight. I understand that. Hopefully, when the majority sees that, the 
leader sees there is not the votes, maybe we could then get down to the 
nuts and bolts of the Defense authorization bill of which at last count 
there are over 100 amendments pending that Members have on both sides 
of the aisle, they want to be considered and voted on.
  I fear--I fear--that the majority leader, because of a lack of time, 
may feel it necessary to pull the bill from the floor. I think that 
would not be in any way helpful to our Nation's national security 
interests.
  My friends, if we could lower the rhetoric around here a bit, let us 
sit down and talk about the best way to proceed, recognizing that 
September will be a very important point, and pass this authorization 
bill and not for

[[Page S9324]]

the first time in 45 years have us not do what we need to do for our 
Nation's security and the men and women who are serving.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have the greatest respect for the 
Senator from Arizona. We disagree on a number of issues. We have worked 
together on many others. I would like to respond to several things he 
said. Senator McCain asked us who is holding up this bill? Well, those 
who followed the debate know that a few minutes ago the majority 
leader, Senator Reid of Nevada, asked to move to vote on the amendment 
by Senators Levin and Reed. He asked for unanimous consent to move to a 
vote within a matter of hours.
  Where did the objection come from? From the Republican side of the 
aisle. So in answering Senator McCain's question, who is holding up 
this bill, it is your side of the aisle, and specifically the Senator 
sitting next to you who objected to moving to a vote. That is what is 
holding up this bill.
  The second question asked by the Senator from Arizona: Why are we 
debating the war on this bill? This bill happens to be the 
authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense. If you do not debate the war 
in Iraq on the bill authorizing appropriations for the Department of 
Defense, where would you turn, the agriculture bill? I don't think so. 
This is the appropriate bill.
  The Senator from Arizona has made that point. Included within the 
amendments to this bill are provision for our warriors who are coming 
home wounded. I have been part of putting that together. I thank 
Senator Levin, I thank Senator McCain. It is an important provision. 
But let's be very honest. The reason they are coming home wounded is 
because there is a war. It is fit and proper for us to ask whether that 
war is being waged effectively and whether our policy should be changed 
in this bill? If not on this bill, what bill would we use? I think, 
frankly, that many would rather we did not debate this at all; give 
permission to the President to wage the war as he wants as long as he 
wants: step out of the way, Congress, the President is in charge.
  I don't accept that. Each of us represents our own State, represents 
people who expect us to articulate their point of view and speak for 
them. We do not cede all power in this Government to one branch, not to 
the executive branch. We have our own responsibility.
  Let me say a word about waiting until September. Waiting until 
September, what difference would it make if we wait until September? 
What could it possibly cost us if we wait until September? Well, it is 
likely to cost us 200 American lives. We are losing 100 Americans, on 
average, every single month of this war. It is likely to cost us 2,000 
more injured soldiers; that is what 2 months means.
  It is likely to cost us $24 billion from America's Treasury. It is 
not a matter of waiting for a convenient moment chosen by some to make 
this decision. Many of us believe this decision should be made now and 
it should be made here, and it should be made with the Levin-Reed 
amendment which is a reasonable bipartisan amendment.
  The Republican side objects. They are filibustering. We have said 
this will not be the most modern form of filibuster. This goes back to 
the roots of the Senate. We will stay in business during the period of 
time when we are supposed to be debating. Whether we go to this 
amendment, we will invite members from both said of the aisle to 
express their point of view. I will tell you this, the people I 
represent in my State, the ones whom I meet, as Senator Leahy said of 
his voters in Vermont, want us to change this policy in this war. They 
want us to bring this war to an end. They understand, as we must 
understand, we never bargained for where we are today. America was 
misled into this war. We were told there were weapons of mass 
destruction, nuclear weapons, they threatened the Middle East, they 
threatened America. Not a single one has been found.
  We were told that this dictator, Saddam Hussein, was the reason for 
this invasion. He is long gone--dug out of a hole in the ground, put on 
trial, and executed by his own people. Yet we still stay in this war, a 
war that has changed so drastically to the point that it is now a civil 
war and our soldiers, as good as they are, are caught in the crossfire 
of sectarian violence, now victims of al-Qaida terrorism that did not 
exist when we invaded Iraq, not in that country.
  They are the ones who are the victims of bad planning and bad 
decisions. It is interesting to me how many Republican Senators see how 
poorly executed this war has been.
  We all know our military is the best. But when it comes to the 
Commander in Chief and the generals, so many bad decisions have been 
made at the expense of our troops. It is interesting to me, they 
concede that point and yet want to continue: Let's just wait a few more 
months, maybe another year, maybe a year and a half, and then see what 
happens.
  I was one of 23 Senators who voted against this authorization to go 
to war.
  Mr. BYRD. So was I.
  Mr. DURBIN. Senator Byrd, I remember your leadership on this issue as 
well. I can tell you it was not the most popular position to be in at 
the time.
  Mr. BYRD. No.
  Mr. DURBIN. The overwhelming majority of the American people heard 
their President say weapons of mass destruction, ruthless and 
bloodthirsty dictator, and said: Yes, maybe we should invade. But it 
didn't add up. It didn't add up in terms of the threat or in terms of 
whether we were prepared to accept the reality that it is far easier to 
get into a war than it is to get out of one. Here we are in the fifth 
year of a war that has lasted longer than World War II, a war with no 
end in sight. This President's response: Send more American soldiers 
into harm's way in Iraq.
  That is unacceptable. It is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend 
their own nation. They will not do that until American soldiers start 
coming home. That is what the Levin-Reed amendment is about.
  I am sorry the Republican side has initiated this filibuster to block 
a vote on this important amendment. I am sorry they are insisting on a 
60-vote margin which was rarely, if ever, used on a Defense 
authorization bill over the last 7 years. Those are the facts. They 
have done it because their ranks are starting to change. Three 
Republican Senators have now stepped out and said they will join us in 
this effort to change the policy of the war. Many more back home have 
said they have decided we need a new policy in Iraq. We want to give 
them a chance for a vote that is significant.
  Will the President veto it if we pass it? Probably. But does that 
mean we shouldn't try? Don't we owe it to these soldiers and their 
families and to our Nation to change this failed policy before it 
claims more American lives, sends more American warriors back wounded 
from battle and costs Americans the treasure we have gathered in the 
taxes of our citizens?
  I say to my friend from Arizona, we see this war differently, but I 
think it is clear who is holding up this bill: the Republican minority 
with their filibuster. Why this bill? Because if you didn't debate a 
war on a Defense authorization bill, where would you debate it? Should 
we wait until September? The cost is too high.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I was just given information by my 
staff. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Disposition of Measures Undergoing Rollcall Votes in the Senate, 109th 
                                Congress


                   109th congress, 1st session (2005)

     Number of measures on which there were rollcall votes in 
         2005: 40
     Passed without a vote on cloture or another 60-vote 
         requirement: 29
       (1) London Terrorist Attacks (S. Res. 193; passed 76-0)
       (2) Homeland Security Appropriations (H.R. 2360; 96-1)
       (3) Burma Sanctions Extension (H.J. Res. 52; 97-1)
       (4) Americans With Disabilities Act Commemoration (S. Res. 
     207; 87-0)
       (5) CAFTA (S. 1307: 54-45; H.R. 3045: 55-45)
       (6) Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 18: passed 51-49; 
     Conference Report, H. Con. Res. 95: passed 52-47)

[[Page S9325]]

       (7) Legislative Branch Appropriations (H.R. 2985 Conference 
     Report; 96-4)
       (8) Hurricane Katrina Resolution (S. Res. 233; 94-0)
       (9) Katrina Emergency Supplemental (H.R. 3673; 97-0)
       (10) Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations (H.R. 2862; bill 
     passed 91-4; Conference Report passed 94-5)
       (11) Agriculture Appropriations (H.R. 2744; bill passed 97-
     2, Conference Report passed 81-18)
       (12) Military Construction Appropriations (H.R. 2528; 98-0)
       (13) Customs Treaty (Treaty Doc. 108-6; 87-0)
       (14) Transportation-Treasury-HUD Appropriations (H.R. 3058; 
     93-1)
       (15) Foreign Operations Appropriations (H.R. 3057; bill 
     passed 98-1; Conference Report passed 91-0)
       (16) Energy and Water Appropriations (H.R. 2419; bill 
     passed 92-3; Conference Report passed 84-4)
       (17) Pension Reform (S. 1783; 97-2)
       (18) Tax Relief Act (S. 2020; 64-33)
       (19) Iraqi Election (S. Res. 38; passed 93-0)
       (20) Class Action Reform (S. 5; 72-26)
       (21) Genetic Nondiscrimination (S. 306; 98-0)
       (22) Disapproval of Canadian Beef Rule (S.J. Res. 4; 52-46)
       (23) Vocational Education Reauthorization (S. 250; 99-0)
       (24) Mourning the Death of Pope John Paul II (S. Res. 95; 
     98-0)
       (25) Airbus Subsidies Resolutions (S. Con. Res. 25; 96-0)
       (26) Interior Appropriations (H.R. 2361; 94-0)
       (27) Continuing Resolution (H.J. Res. 68; passed by voice 
     vote after a vote on an amendment)
       (28) 2nd Continuing Resolution (H.J. Res 72; passed by 
     voice vote after a vote on an amendment)
       (29) Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation (S. 1932; 
     bill passed 52-47; the Conference Report passed 50-50 with 
     Vice President Cheney voting aye)
     Passed after a cloture vote and/or other 60-vote requirement: 
         7
       (1) Firearm Liability Reform (S. 397; cloture on the motion 
     to proceed invoked 66-32; bill passed 65-31)
       (2) Defense Appropriations (H.R. 2863; cloture invoked 94-
     4; bill passed 97-0; cloture on the Conference Report failed 
     56-44; after ANWR provisions removed, Conference Report 
     passed 93-0)
       (3) Labor-HHS Appropriations (H.R. 3010; cloture invoked 
     97-0; bill passed 94-3)
       (4) Bankruptcy Reform (cloture invoked 69-31; bill passed 
     74-25)
       (5) Highway Bill (H.R. 3; cloture on the motion to proceed 
     invoked 94-6; cloture on the Inhofe substitute invoked 92-7; 
     motion to waive the Budget Act on the Inhofe substitute 
     agreed to 76-22; bill passed 89-11; Conference Report passed 
     91-4)
       (6) Emergency Supplemental (H.R. 1268; cloture invoked 100-
     0; bill passed 99-0; Conference Report passed 100-0)
       (7) Energy Bill (H.R. 6; cloture invoked 92-4; bill passed 
     85-12; motion to waive the Budget Act for consideration of 
     the Conference Report agreed to 71-29; Conference Report 
     passed 74-26)
     Passed after failure of cloture: 1
       (1) Defense Authorization (S. 1042; cloture failed 50-48 on 
     July 26; the bill later passed 98-0 November 15)
     Defeated by cloture: 1
       (1) Patriot Act Conference Report (H.R. 3199; cloture 
     failed 52-47; the bill was passed in 2006)
     Defeated on an up-down vote: 1
       (1) Mercury Regulation Resolution of Disapproval (47-51)
     Amendments voted on but no final action taken on the bill: 1
       (1) Foreign Affairs Authorization (S. 600)


                   109th congress, 2nd session (2006)

     Number of measures on which there were rollcall votes in 
         2006: 38
     Passed without a vote on cloture or another 60-vote 
         requirement: 16
       (1) Tax Hike Prevention (H.R. 4297; bill passed 66-31; 
     Conference Report passed 54-44)
       (2) Patriot Act Short-Term Extension (H.R. 4659; 95-1)
       (3) Debt Limit (H.J. Res. 47; 52-48)
       (4) U.S.-Oman FTA (S. 3569: 60-34; H.R. 5684: 62-32)
       (5) Homeland Security Appropriations (H.R. 5441; 100-0)
       (6) Human Fetus Farming Prohibition (S. 3504; 100-0)
       (7) Nondestructive Stem Cell Research (S. 2754; 100-0)
       (8) Stem Cell Research (H.R. 810; 63-37)
       (9) Water Resources (H.R. 5117; passed by voice vote after 
     votes on amendments)
       (10) Voting Rights Act (H.R. 9; 98-0)
       (11) Pension Reform (H.R. 4; 93-5)
       (12) Defense Appropriations (H.R. 5631; bill passed 98-0; 
     Conference Report passed 98-0)
       (13) Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 83; 51-49)
       (14) Interrogation and Trial of Terrorists (S. 3930; 65-34)
       (15) India Nuclear Energy (S. 3709; 85-12)
       (16) Military Construction (H.R. 5385; passed by voice vote 
     after a vote on a motion to request the attendance of absent 
     Senators)
     Passed after a cloture vote and/or other 60-vote requirement: 
         10
       (1) Patriot Act Additional Amendments (S. 2271; cloture on 
     the motion to proceed invoked 96-3; cloture on the bill 
     invoked 69-30; bill passed 95-4)
       (2) Patriot Act Conference Report (H.R. 3199; cloture 
     invoked 84-15; bill passed 89-10)
       (3) LIHEAP Aid (S. 2320; motion to waive the Budget Act 
     agreed to 66-31; cloture invoked 75-25; bill passed by voice)
       (4) Lobbying Reform (S. 2349; cloture was first rejected 
     51-47 due to a Dubai port amendment, after that issue was 
     resolved, cloture was invoked 81-16 and the bill passed 90-8)
       (5) Emergency supplemental (H.R. 4939; cloture invoked 92-
     4; bill passed 77-21)
       (6) Illegal and Legal Immigration (S. 2611; cloture invoked 
     73-25; bill passed 62-36)
       (7) Defense Authorization (S. 2766; cloture invoked 98-1; 
     bill passed 96-0)
       (8) Gulf of Mexico OCS (S. 3711; cloture on the motion to 
     proceed invoked 86-12; cloture on the bill invoked 72-23; 
     bill passed 71-25)
       (9) Port Security (H.R. 4954; cloture invoked 98-0; bill 
     passed 98-0)
       (10) Secure Fence Act (H.R. 6061; cloture on the motion to 
     proceed invoked 94-0; cloture on the bill invoked 71-28; bill 
     passed 80-19)
     Defeated by cloture or other 60-vote requirement: 10
       (1) Asbestos compensation (S. 852; cloture on the motion to 
     proceed invoked 98-1; motion to waive the Budget Act failed 
     58-41)
       (2) Illegal Immigration (S. 2454; cloture on the substitute 
     amendment failed 39-60; cloture on the motion to commit 
     failed 38-60; cloture on the bill failed 36-62)
       (3) Medical Care Access (S. 22; cloture on the motion to 
     proceed failed, 48-42)
       (4) Mothers & Babies Medical Care (S. 23; cloture on the 
     motion to proceed failed, 49-44)
       (5) Small Business Health Insurance (S. 1955; cloture on 
     the motion to proceed invoked, 96-2; cloture on the bill 
     failed, 55-43)
       (6) Marriage Constitutional Amendment (S.J. Res. 1; cloture 
     on the motion to proceed failed, 49-48)
       (7) Death Tax Repeal (H.R. 8; cloture on the motion to 
     proceed failed, 57-41)
       (8) Race Government for Native Hawaiians (S. 147; cloture 
     on the motion to proceed failed, 56-41)
       (9) Death Tax/Minimum Wage/Extenders (H.R. 5970; cloture on 
     the motion to proceed failed, 56-42)
       (10) Child Custody Protection Act (S. 403; bill passed 65-
     34; cloture on the motion to concur with the House amendment 
     to the bill failed 57-42; bill died)
     Defeated on an up-down vote: 1
       (1) Flag Protection Constitutional Amendment (S.J. Res. 12; 
     defeated 66-34; \2/3\ present and voting required)
     Amendments voted on and no final action taken on the bill: 1
       (1) Agriculture Appropriations (H.R. 5384)

  Mr. McCAIN. Passed after a cloture vote and/or other 60-vote 
requirement in 2005, seven; passed after a cloture vote and/or a 60-
vote requirement in 2006, 10; defeated by cloture or 60-vote 
requirement, also in 2006, 10.
  It is clear that when the Senator from Illinois was in the minority, 
they used the 60-vote provision as well, and that is their right to do 
so. I don't in any way object to their having done that. I do object 
strenuously to somehow conveying the impression that this is a 
``filibuster'' because we require 60 votes, that this is some Earth-
shattering, precedent-shattering procedure. In fact, it is not. In 
fact, the Senator from Illinois knows very well that 60 votes is often 
required, whether it be a budget point of order or whether a cloture 
vote, and it has been used quite often by the minority as a tool to 
assert their rights as the minority. I understand that.
  The Senator from Illinois talks about the bill that this has to be 
on. This is either the eighth or ninth time we have brought up Iraq. He 
didn't need the authorization bill to do it then. It is the right of 
the majority to bring up whatever they want, whenever they want. I can 
assure my colleagues, the Defense authorization bill will probably not 
be on the floor in September, and one thing I am pretty confident of is 
that we will be taking up the issue of Iraq in September. So to somehow 
say that this is appropriate, it is not appropriate because it is 
controversial, and we know it will not be passed with a provision that 
requires what the Senator from Illinois wants on it. It will never 
become law because the President will veto it in the unlikely--in fact, 
highly unlikely--situation where this bill was passed by both Houses of 
Congress.
  What we are doing--have no doubt about it--is keeping the 3.5-percent 
pay raise from going into law. We are keeping the wounded warrior 
legislation from being enacted by both Houses and us acting as quickly 
as possible. The Senator from Illinois, I believe, and all other 
Senators voted on behalf of the nomination of General Petraeus in 
February, knowing full well what General Petraeus's strategy was. That 
was

[[Page S9326]]

very well articulated. So now we find ourselves some months later 
saying: Well, we have to end it.
  The distinguished majority leader, who is no longer on the floor, 
declared the war lost. I was astonished. Because if we lost the war, 
then somebody won. Does that mean that al-Qaida has won the war? I 
don't think the 160,000 young men and women who are serving in Iraq, 
whom I visited about a week ago, think the war is lost. I don't think 
the majority of Americans do either. Are they frustrated by what has 
happened here? Of course, they are frustrated. They want to bring it to 
an end. But it is the obligation of people such as me to point out what 
happens when we withdraw in 120 days.
  Literally, in the view of every expert on national security, we will 
pay a much heavier price in the long run. Chaos, genocide will ensue. 
Quite often I hear from the other side: What is plan B, if the surge 
doesn't work?
  What is plan B if the withdrawal results in chaos and genocide in the 
region? According to most experts--including Henry Kissinger, Brent 
Scowcroft, General Zinni according to most people who have spent their 
lives on national security issues, it will be chaos and genocide. What 
is plan B there?
  I hope after the show is over tomorrow morning sometime--and it is 
clear to all that we will not set a 120-day withdrawal date from Iraq 
on this legislation--we will then be able to sit down and move forward 
on the bill so that we can get it passed into law. That is what we 
should be doing. To somehow think that we have not required, as the 
majority leader on many occasions required, 60 votes for passage of an 
amendment or legislation, of course, flies in the face of the clear 
record which I have just asked to be printed in the Congressional 
Record.
  America is now at a crossroads. America is now at a point where, 
according to Natan Sharansky:

       A precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces could lead to a 
     bloodbath . . .

  From Anthony Zinni, who was opposed to us going into Iraq:

      . . . reality is that we simply cannot pull out [of Iraq], 
     as much as we may want to. The consequences of a destabilized 
     and chaotic Iraq, sitting in a critical region of the world, 
     could have catastrophic implications . . . there is no short-
     term solution.

  We have a system of government where the military is subordinate to 
the civilian leadership, and it should be. It is the most appropriate 
way. But to completely ignore, as apparently my friend from Illinois 
is, the leaders whom we have appointed to fight over there and do the 
dying and carry out the leadership responsibilities, to completely 
ignore their advice and counsel, they are on the ground. They know what 
is going on.
  General Lynch, 3rd ID commander, says:

     [pulling out before the mission was accomplished] would be a 
     mess.

  By the way, these will be the guys who will be required to clean up 
the mess, if we pass this resolution and we have a mess.
  Continuing from General Lynch:

     . . . you'd find the enemy regaining ground, reestablishing 
     sanctuaries, building more IEDs . . . and the violence would 
     escalate.

  I have already quoted before from Henry Kissinger.
  General Lynch:

     [our soldiers] want to fight terrorists here, so they don't 
     have to fight terrorists back home . . . I now have the 
     forces I need to conduct that mission.

  General Lynch, the 3rd ID commander, says he has the troops and the 
wherewithal and the success to get the job done.
  The Senator from Illinois wants to say, no, you have to come home in 
120 days. I don't think that is right. I don't think General Lynch is 
reading any polls. I think General Lynch and General Petraeus are 
fighting an enemy that, according to them, they will be fighting here 
if we have a precipitous withdrawal.
  General Lynch:

     . . . 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.

  That is the force that the Senator from Illinois wants to withdraw 
within 120 days.

       We can conduct detailed kinetic strikes, we can do cordon 
     and searches, and we can deny the enemy sanctuaries . . . If 
     those surge forces go away that capability goes away, and the 
     Iraqi security forces aren't ready yet to do that [mission].

  Brent Scowcroft, who opposed our entry into the Iraq conflict:

     [reduction of American presence in Iraq] should follow 
     success in our efforts, not the calendar or the performance 
     of others.

  I hope that sometime my friends who were involved in this debate will 
listen to the people we have delegated to lead the best Armed Forces in 
the history of mankind who are doing one of the most difficult jobs in 
history.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I have been waiting 1 hour to respond to 
some comments that were directed at me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. I had hoped that in this debate and in this Congress, we 
would be able to maintain some semblance, some modicum of courtesy. But 
it appears we have lost it all. I have been in Congress 35 years. I 
have been in the Senate 19 years. I have been in a variety of 
positions. Never before have I been denied or did I ever deny any 
Senator the opportunity to have a reservation on his right to object to 
a unanimous consent request. Now that has occurred. So that courtesy, 
one of the few remaining ones we have left in this institution, is 
gone.
  Let me correct some of the things that have been said here that the 
record will show, certainly, in the debate. The other side speaks about 
a new standard for 60 votes. That is interesting.
  During this Congress, 47 clotures have been filed. In the 106th 
Congress, there were 71; 107th, 72; 108th 62; the 109th, 68. This is 
not a new phenomenon. It has occurred all the time, regardless of 
whether Republicans or Democrats were in the majority. Even Senator 
Reid said twice this year:

       In the Senate it has always been the case you need 60 
     votes. I don't have 60 votes--

  The particular issue he was referring to--

     60 votes are required for just about everything.

  That was what Senator Reid had to say earlier this year.
  We are ready to vote. We could have a vote on this amendment, the 
Levin-Reed amendment, right now. We are ready to go. We can have the 
cloture vote that would be scheduled in the morning in an hour, to be 
fair to everybody, so we could have wrapup statements. Everybody knows 
we can have that vote now, or 5:30 or 6:30, or in the morning. I have 
been involved in these all-night discussions. Interestingly, the last 
time we had one of these so-called all-night debates, it was because 
the Democrats wanted to require 60 votes to confirm a Federal judge, 
which had not been the practice throughout the history of this great 
country.
  I understand about the 60-vote requirement. Nobody is surprised by 
this. We have already had 60-vote votes taken on amendments on this 
bill.
  First, before the majority whip leaves, let me ask unanimous consent 
that the cloture vote scheduled for the morning occur at 5:30 this 
afternoon.
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I have not yielded the floor, so I wish to 
go ahead and complete my remarks on the broader issues that have been 
raised here.
  We debated in March and April and May whether we should confirm 
General Petraeus, whether we should go forward with the funds that our 
troops needed to do the job, and whether the surge could go forward. 
The vote was 80 to 14 in May to go forward with trying to bring down 
the violence, get control and, of course, encourage the Iraqi 
government to do more. We confirmed General Petraeus unanimously. They 
are already saying the surge has failed when, as a matter of fact, the 
troops that were supposed to be involved in that effort have only been 
there for some 3 weeks. So I think it is premature and unfair to the 
men and women who are there on the ground doing the job. We need to 
have the debate, allow both sides to have their say, but it is going to 
require 60 votes, and then we can go on to the underlying bill.

  This is the Defense authorization bill. Every year we pass the 
Defense authorization bill. Yet I think we have had maybe one amendment 
even considered that has to do with the underlying bill, which provides 
funds and authorization for our troops for the

[[Page S9327]]

equipment they need, the supplies, the ships, the planes, the pay 
raise, and quality of life. That is something we have to come to terms 
with. We have to have a debate on amendments that affect this bill. We 
could work out how to do that.
  Somebody said amendments are being blocked. As a matter of fact, 
Senator Levin and Senator McCain are clearing amendments right now. The 
process is underway. So I would say I am very disappointed in the way 
this issue is being handled. I must say I am even surprised we have 
allowed it to deteriorate to this level, but I think we will get 
through it. The Congress is not going to precipitously mandate that our 
troops begin to be withdrawn. We are going to go forward and allow them 
the time to do the job. In September and October we will debate this 
issue again, as we should. But to come back again after having just 
voted in May to allow us to go forward and say here we are in July and 
the surge has failed, I think that is a terrible mistake.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, since the minority whip is ready to 
vote, I ask unanimous consent to vote on the Levin-Reed amendment No. 
2087 at 6 p.m. with the time between now and then equally divided in 
the usual form.
  Mr. LOTT. I object, Madam President.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the objection is heard, and I think it 
is very clear. You cannot object to the vote, say you are ready to 
vote, and then object to the vote. You cannot have it both ways.
  The fact is, when you look at these past votes on the Defense 
authorization bill, they don't make the case that the Senator from 
Arizona and the Senator from Mississippi say. I will go through each 
one of them:
  For the year 2000, considering the fiscal year 2001 Defense 
authorization bill, of 14 amendments on which there were rollcall 
votes, only 1 required 60 votes because it involved a budget waiver. In 
2001, when we considered the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization 
bill, of the 2 amendments on which there were rollcall votes, all were 
simple majorities; no 60-vote requirements. In 2002, for the 2003 
Defense authorization bill, of the 5 amendments on which there were 
rollcall votes, only 1 60-vote requirement; again, a specific budget 
waiver, which is not the case with the pending amendment. In 2003, when 
we considered the 2004 Defense authorization, of the 10 amendments on 
which there were rollcall votes, all were simple majorities; no 60-vote 
requirements. In 2004, with the 2005 Defense authorization, of the 30 
amendments on which there were rollcall votes, all were simple 
majorities; no 60-vote requirements. In 2004, with the 2005 Defense 
authorization, of the 30 amendments on which there were rollcall votes, 
only 2 required an extraordinary majority of 60 votes, both requiring 
budget waivers. In 2005 when we considered the Defense authorization 
bill for 2006, for 25 amendments they were simple majority votes. None 
required 60 votes. In 2006, when considering the fiscal year 2007 
Defense authorization bill, 15 amendments, only 2 required 60 votes. 
They related to the minimum wage. They required budget waivers. Those 
are the only 2.
  Let me also correct the record. When the Senator from Arizona says we 
don't take up the war in Iraq on the Defense authorization bill, I 
would remind him that in the last Defense authorization bill, there 
were two specific amendments offered relative to the conduct of the war 
in Iraq--on this very bill last year: one by Senator Levin and Senator 
Reed, another by Senator John Kerry, both of which only required a 
majority vote.
  I would say from the Senator from Arizona's point of view, there is 
scant evidence to support his position that No. 1, we never considered 
Iraq on Defense authorization bills--we just did last year; No. 2, we 
always require 60 votes when it comes to amendments on the bills. Six 
times in 7 years we did, each one because of a budget issue that is not 
involved in the Levin amendment.
  Let me say a word about the other things said by the Senator from 
Arizona before yielding the floor. I respect the men and women in 
uniform. I have been to Iraq twice. I have visited with them. I have 
been to send-offs in my State of Illinois as National Guard units have 
been activated. I have been there to welcome them home. I carry on many 
conversations with the Illinois soldiers overseas. I keep in touch with 
their families. I respect them very much. But to say this is the first 
time we have heard from generals in Iraq that they just need another 6 
months or another year, I think the Senator from Arizona knows better. 
We have been told this over and over again: When they stand up, we will 
stand down. Do you remember that one? How many years have we been 
hearing that? How many hundreds of millions of dollars have we put into 
Iraq for training Iraqi Army soldiers? Yet we are still there with a 
larger force today than there we were just a year ago.
  So when my colleague argues that just a little more time is all they 
need, I hope he will understand the skepticism of the American people 
and many Members of the Senate. We have heard this before over and over 
again.
  I also want to take issue with one point the Senator from Arizona 
said--and I am sure he didn't mean to mislead anyone. We are not 
talking about withdrawing the troops in 120 days, which is what has 
been said over and over again. The Levin-Reed amendment begins the 
withdrawal of troops in 120 days, completing it on April 1 of next 
year--transitioning by April 1 to a different force; not the combat 
force we know now caught in the midst of a civil war but a force with 
the specified mission of fighting al-Qaida and other terrorism, of 
helping transition the Iraqi Army to self-defense, and protecting our 
own men and women and our assets and security during this transition. 
Those things are all included in this bill. So this notion that somehow 
in a matter of 120 days all the troops will be gone, that isn't even 
envisioned in the Levin-Reed amendment.

  So I would say to my friend from Arizona: Yes, I guess my patience 
has worn thin. I guess I have heard from too many generals such as 
those quoted by the Senator from Arizona that they just need a little 
more time. I have seen what time has cost us. It has cost us American 
lives. It has cost us serious, debilitating injuries. It has cost us a 
great deal in terms of our national treasure and resources. I think it 
is time for a change of policy, and so do the American people. They 
said that in the last election. They don't want us to dream up 
procedural obstacles to keep us from this decision. They want us to 
vote up or down to change the policy or keep the policy. That is what 
we were sent here to do.
  I hope the Republican side of the aisle, as they initiate this 
filibuster, as they try to stop us from coming to a majority vote on 
the Levin-Reed amendment, understand that America sees that clearly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Illinois--and this is growing a little 
wearisome, it really is. The fact is, 60 votes have been invoked by the 
minority time after time after time, whether it be a district judge or 
an appellate court judge, or most any other issue that is 
controversial. The Senator from Illinois knows that, and that is why it 
is very disappointing to see him using this kind of rhetoric when he is 
willing to have 60 votes be required for some judge but somehow feels--
which they did invoke when they were in the minority--and yet feels 
that it is not appropriate to have 60 votes on an issue of this 
importance.
  The Senator from Illinois talks about beginning the withdrawal in 120 
days, beginning the withdrawal in 120 days. The day that is signed into 
law would be the day--would be the day, in the view of every military 
expert, that al-Qaida would sit back and wait until we left.
  The Senator from Illinois continues to call it a civil war. There is 
sectarian violence. There is very little doubt in the minds--of course, 
perhaps the Senator from Illinois and others know more than literally 
every expert I know. It has become, in the words of General Petraeus, a 
center for al-Qaida and a central front in the war on terror, according 
to our leading generals.

[[Page S9328]]

  Now, I resent a little bit this comment by the Senator from Illinois 
about he has heard the generals before. I heard the generals before, 
and I disagreed with the generals, and that is our right to do. But to 
denigrate their opinion I don't think is appropriate to people who 
spend their lives in the service of the military, defending this 
Nation. General Petraeus, it is my understanding, has been wounded 
three times in different wars fighting for this Nation. I think he 
deserves respect rather than being dismissed by saying: Well, I have 
heard the generals say that before. We should pay attention to the 
generals. We should have paid attention to the generals at other times 
in our history, including those who disagreed with the former Secretary 
of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld.
  Again, I repeat, since we seem to be going in a certain circularity, 
conditions in Iraq today are terrible, but they become way worse as the 
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, a career foreign service 
officer, recently told the New York Times. I am quoting from the 
Washington Post editorial of just a few days ago:

       The generals who have devised--

  The generals whom the Senator from Illinois derides--

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

  Why do you think the Washington Post and literally most every 
national security expert feels that this ought to be given an 
opportunity, remembering that the last part of it has just been put in 
place a short time ago? Because the consequences of failure, as I have 
just quoted from many military experts, are a catastrophe.
  General Lynch says:

       What the Iraqis are worried about is our leaving. And our 
     answer is: We are staying, because my order from the Corps 
     Commander is that we don't leave the battle space until we 
     can hand over to the Iraqi security forces. Everybody wants 
     things to happen overnight, and that is not going to happen.

  So when the amendment of the Senator from Illinois and the Senator 
from Rhode Island and the Senator from Michigan is passed, then the 
word is spread and General Lynch can no longer say to the Iraqis we are 
staying, because we will be leaving.
  General Odierno says:

       My assessment right now is, I need more time to understand 
     how the current offensive targeting al-Qaida and Iraq 
     terrorists is working and how it could lead to political 
     progress in the months ahead.

  Odierno said:

       I am seeing some progress now here in Iraq. We have really 
     just started what the Iraqis term ``liberating'' them from 
     al-Qaida. What I've got to determine is what do I need in 
     order to continue that progress so that the political peace 
     can take hold and Iraqi sources can hold this for the long 
     term.

  I want to point out to my colleagues that I am not guaranteeing 
success. I wish it had gone better. I think there are areas, 
particularly as far as the government is concerned, where dramatic 
improvement has to take place. But I do know the consequences of 
failure, and that view of setting a date for withdrawal is a clear 
recipe for a much larger conflict with much greater involvement in the 
region over time.
  So when the Senator from Illinois and my friends on the other side of 
the aisle talk about how this won't be withdrawal if this is passed, I 
say: My friends, this is withdrawal. This is the message to those 
people who have to remain in the neighborhood: We are leaving and you 
are going to have to make adjustments to the neighborhood and the new 
big guys on the block.
  Again, I wish we could take up this issue in September. I wish we 
could pass the necessary legislation to care for the men and women who 
are wounded. I wish we could pass the necessary legislation in order to 
take care of the needs of the men and women in the military. If we pass 
this bill this week--I tell my colleagues we are going to be going into 
the August recess. We will be coming back in September with probably a 
very contentious conference with the House. The chances right now of us 
getting final passage and the President's signature on this bill by the 
first of October is not good. So the sooner we get this bill off the 
floor and to the President, the better off we are going to be.
  I certainly hope we will take into consideration the great needs that 
are existing in the military today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, tomorrow's vote in the Senate is not a 
vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. It is a vote on whether the Senate 
will allow us to vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. It is a vote on 
whether the Senate will break a filibuster so that the Senate can 
express its will, which I think is totally clear and reflects the will 
of the American people as expressed last November.
  A change in course in Iraq is critical for our national security. If 
you think the present course is working, if you think we are making 
progress, as the President has said month after month, year after year, 
then presumably you are going to vote against the Levin-Reed 
amendment--if we can ever get to a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. 
But if you believe that changing course is the only hope of success in 
Iraq, that forcing the political leaders of Iraq to accept 
responsibility for their nation and to work out the political 
settlements that could prevent this violence from continuing and lead 
to the ultimate success in Iraq, and if we can get to the Levin-Reed 
amendment and break the filibuster, then you will be voting yes.
  Madam President, it has been more than 4 years since the United 
States invaded Iraq. Despite a military victory that toppled Saddam 
Hussein and routed his army, Iraq soon became victim to a Sunni 
insurgency, to Shiite militias bent on revenge, and became victim to an 
incursion of al-Qaida terrorists whose actions were aimed and are aimed 
at promoting an Iraqi civil war.
  As the situation on the ground has shifted, so has President Bush's 
rationale for our involvement. He took us into Iraq to get rid of 
Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. When no weapons of 
mass destruction were found, the President said we needed to create a 
democracy in Iraq. Now the President says we must stay on to fight al-
Qaida.
  The President had a pre-surge strategy, a surge strategy, and now he 
has offered a post-surge strategy. What has remained constant in all of 
these strategies is one thing: They all have an open-ended commitment 
of U.S. forces in the middle of Iraq's civil war.
  That open-ended commitment of a Muslim country by the West has played 
right into the hands of al-Qaida. Indeed, the intelligence community is 
recently reported to have concluded that the years of our occupation of 
Iraq have seen a surge of al-Qaida in Iraq.
  It has come at a staggering cost--the loss of more than 3,600 of 
America's best and bravest, seven times that many wounded, and a price 
of $10 billion each month. In spite of the heroic efforts of the U.S. 
service men and women, chaos and destruction have deepened in Iraq.
  Yet, month after month, year after year, the President has touted 
progress in Iraq and called for patience. It has been a litany of 
delusion. Just listen to President Bush's repeated claims of progress.
  In October of 2003, President Bush said:

       We are making progress about improving the lives of the 
     people there in Iraq.

  On September 25, 2004, the President said:

       We're making steady progress in implementing our five-step 
     plan toward the goal we all want: completing the mission so 
     that Iraq is stable and self-governing, and American troops 
     can come home. . . .

  On April 28, 2005, the President said:

       I believe we're really making progress in Iraq. . . .

  On October 28, 2005, the President said:

       Iraq has made incredible political progress. . . .

  On November 14, 2005, the President said:

       Iraqis are making inspiring progress toward building a 
     democracy.

  On May 25, 2006, the President said:

       We are making progress on all fronts.

  On March 19, 2007, the President said:

       There has been good progress.

  The exaggeration and the hype continues to this day. On June 28, a 
few weeks ago, the White House press release stated:


[[Page S9329]]


       The Iraqi security forces are growing in number, becoming 
     more capable, and coming closer to the day when they can 
     assume responsibility for defending their own country.

  But in the benchmark assessment report released last week we read:

       There has been a slight reduction in units assessed as 
     capable of independent operations since January 2007.

  That is referring to Iraqi units. Even that turned out to be an 
exaggeration. Just 2 days later, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, General Peter Pace, told the press that the number of Iraqi Army 
brigades that were capable of independent operations had fallen from 10 
to 6--quite a difference from a ``slight reduction.''
  Madam President, one merely has to take note of recent incidents in 
Iraq as reported in our newspapers to know that things are not going 
well in Iraq and that the administration's assessments of progress have 
been consistently overblown through the years and continue to be 
overblown.
  Consider the headline in USA Today on July 12: ``Iraqi police assist 
gunmen.'' The story described our Army investigation into a January 
attack in Karbala that killed five U.S. soldiers. Our investigation 
concluded that the Iraqi police who were supposed to be partners with 
American troops colluded with insurgents.
  Then there was this story in the New York Times on July 14: ``U.S. 
Troops Battle Iraqi Police in East Baghdad.'' Those are the police who 
are supposed to be on our side trying to quell the violence in Baghdad, 
not attacking American troops.
  On the all-important area of political benchmarks, consider this 
headline from the Financial Times of June 18: ``U.S. Military 
Frustrated at Lack of Iraqi Reconciliation.'' The story reports that 
General Petraeus said there has not been any ``real substantial 
achievements in terms of political reform in progress.''
  Reuters reported on June 18 that Iraq was ranked the second most 
unstable country in the world behind Sudan in the 2007 Failed States 
Index, produced by Foreign Policy magazine. Failed state? Obviously, we 
don't want Iraq to be left as a failed state. It is failing. It is on a 
failing course. If we don't change that course, it is going to continue 
to descend into that failed status.
  The administration's recent self-assessment of benchmarks that there 
is progress on 8 of the 18 benchmarks would have us believe that the 
cup in Iraq is half full rather than being half empty. Eight of 
eighteen--that sounds pretty good, like progress. But as a matter of 
fact, Iraq is a cup with a hole in its bottom. We keep pouring in our 
men and women and resources, and there is a hole in the bottom of that 
cup through which they go.
  It is that Iraqi hole that Secretary Gates addressed on June 14 in 
Baghdad when he said the message he was delivering to the Iraqi people 
was that ``our troops are buying them time to pursue reconciliation and 
that, frankly, we are disappointed in the progress thus far.'' 
Secretary Gates was accurate in saying that ``our troops are buying 
[the Iraqis] time to pursue reconciliation.'' But what he left unsaid 
is that our troops and our Nation have paid, and continue to pay, far 
too high a price to give the Iraqis that opportunity, and the time is 
long past due for the Iraqi political leaders to accept responsibility 
for their own future.
  Secretary Gates' statement that we are ``disappointed in the 
progress'' was surely an immense understatement. The American people 
are downright incensed at the failure of the Iraqi leaders.
  Everybody agrees there is no military solution in Iraq and that the 
only way to end the violence is for the Iraqi political leaders to 
settle their differences. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki 
acknowledged that last November when he said--and these words should be 
seared, I believe, into the consciousness of each of us as we vote, if 
we are ever allowed to vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. Here is what 
he said:

       The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the 
     cycle of . . . bloodletting of innocents are the [Iraqi] 
     politicians.

  Our service men and women are dying and being wounded while Iraqi 
leaders dawdle. The Iraqis themselves made commitments to share 
resources and power, amend their constitution, hold provincial 
elections, and take over responsibility for their own security in many 
more places than they have. They made the commitments last year in 
writing, but they have not kept them.
  Secretary of State Rice recently confirmed in a letter to me that 
Iraqi leaders themselves, including their Presidency Council, had 
approved those benchmarks and the associated timeline. Secretary Rice 
wrote me:

       We have confirmed with Iraqi President Talabani's chief of 
     staff that the benchmarks were formally approved last fall by 
     the Iraqi political committee on national security. This 
     committee includes the presidency council, the President, and 
     the two vice presidents, as well as the leaders of all the 
     major political blocs in Iraq.

  Well, the Iraqi leaders' record on meeting the political timelines, 
which they approved themselves with a timeline, is abysmal.
  For example, they said they would approve provincial elections and 
set a date for those elections by October of 2006. That has not been 
accomplished. They didn't do what they promised they would do.
  The Iraqi political leaders said they would approve the hydrocarbon 
law by October 2006. That was not done. That has not been accomplished. 
They didn't do what they said they would do. The Iraqi leaders said 
they would approve a debaathification law by November 2006. They didn't 
do what they promised to do. The Iraqi political leaders said the 
Constitutional Review Committee would complete its work by January 2007 
and hold a constitutional amendment referendum by March of this year. 
They did not do what they promised they would do.
  This is not us imposing our benchmarks on them, this is the Iraqi 
political leaders who adopted their benchmarks, and have not met them.
  I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Secretary Rice and her 
response be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, while our troops have done everything, 
and more, of what has been asked of them, while they have risked their 
all and given their all, the Iraqi political leaders remain frozen by 
their own history, unwilling to take the political risks that only they 
can take.
  If there is any hope of forcing the Iraqi political leaders to take 
responsibility for their own country and to keep the commitments they 
made to meet the political benchmarks that they set and to make the 
compromises that only they can make, it is to have a timetable to begin 
reducing American forces and to redeploy those forces to a more limited 
support mission instead of being everybody's target in the middle of a 
civil war.
  We need to send a clear message to the Iraqi leaders that we will not 
be in Iraq indefinitely, that we will not be their security blanket 
forever. That is what the Levin-Reed amendment would do if we are 
allowed to vote on it. Our amendment would require the President to 
begin reducing the number of American troops in Iraq within 4 months of 
enactment.
  It would require transitioning the mission of our remaining military 
forces to force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and 
targeted counterterrorism missions. Our amendment would require that 
the transition to those limited missions be completed by April 30 of 
next year. Finally, and importantly, it would call for a comprehensive 
diplomatic, political, and economic strategy, including sustained 
engagement with Iraq's neighbors and seeking an appointment of an 
international mediator under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council 
in order to try to bring stability to Iraq.
  Some have criticized our amendment because it contains a timeline for 
the completion of the transition to new missions. We received similar 
criticism in the past about the timeline for the commencement of the 
transition. Timelines need to be established as the only way to force a 
change of course in Iraq and to force the Iraqis to accept 
responsibility for their own future. It is human nature to put off 
difficult decisions. Passage of our amendment would serve as a forcing 
mechanism and serve to stimulate action by the Iraqi Government to 
reach a political settlement.

[[Page S9330]]

  Delaying action until the receipt of the administration's plan in 
September would only delay the time when Congress applies the needed 
pressure. There is no indication that Iraqi political leaders will 
compromise without our pressure. Indeed, there is every indication they 
will not. As Secretary Gates stated in April:

       Debate in Congress . . . has been helpful in demonstrating 
     to the Iraqis that American patience is limited . . . The 
     debate itself and . . . the strong feelings expressed in the 
     Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive 
     effect in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is 
     not an open-ended commitment.

  There is no indication the administration is willing to change 
course. For years, they have deluded themselves and the Nation with 
claims of progress while Iraqis descended into sectarian violence and 
chaos. On July 4, President Bush repeated his call for patience which 
he has made so many times over the years.
  After more than 4 years, over 3,600 U.S. deaths, seven times that 
many wounded, and expenditures of $10 billion a month that we are 
borrowing from the future to finance this war in Iraq, the President's 
pleas for patience not only have a hollow ring, it is exactly the wrong 
message to the Iraqi leaders. Our message should be we are out of 
patience, and the refusal of the Iraqi leaders to work out their 
political differences is something which is no longer acceptable.
  Congress attempted to respond to last November's election with a vote 
that we made on April 26. We adopted a bill that did provide a 
timetable to begin the reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq, the beginning 
of a phased troop reduction, redeployment in no more than 120 days, and 
a transition to a more limited mission focusing on counterterrorism, 
force protection, and training and logistical support for the Iraqi 
Army. President Bush vetoed our bill shortly thereafter.
  Senator McConnell made a statement which was, I believe, very direct 
and very accurate, when he assessed not too long ago that ``the 
handwriting is on the wall that we are going in a different direction 
in the fall.'' That Presidential veto does not wash away the 
handwriting on the wall. It only makes the handwriting clearer and 
firmer that there is going to be a change of direction in Iraq.
  So the question is: Why wait? Why not decide on a change of course 
now to save months of lost and wounded lives and huge additional 
expenditure of funds?
  The clearer the handwriting on the wall is to the Iraqi political 
leaders and the quicker they read it and accept it, the greater the 
prospect for political settlement.
  The clearer the handwriting on the wall is that the open-ended 
commitment of President Bush is over, not just rhetorically but in 
reality, the greater chance that an even wider civil war can be 
avoided.
  There are some who acknowledge that a change of course is needed in 
Iraq, including U.S. troop reductions but who then say not now. But 
surely time is not working for us in Iraq. The sooner we shift strategy 
to force Iraqis to take responsibility, the better.
  If we wish to improve the chance of a positive report on political 
progress in September, we need to put great pressure on Iraqi political 
leaders in July. We cannot and must not continue to have the lives of 
American servicemembers held hostage to Iraqi political intrigue and 
intransigence.
  If we can get to the Levin-Reed amendment, if we can overcome the 
filibuster, and if we can adopt the Levin-Reed amendment which provides 
for the beginning of the reduction of our forces in Iraq in 120 days 
and transitioning to more limited missions, no more than 120 days after 
enactment, if we can adopt an amendment which says we will complete 
that transition by April 30, 2008, if we can adopt our amendment which 
provides for the appointment of an international mediator under U.N. 
auspices, we believe we will have passed the best chance of success in 
Iraq, and we will have adopted the only course of action which has a 
chance of pressuring the Iraqi leaders to do what only they can do.
  The clock is ticking. We are losing more American lives and more 
American resources every day we delay. The time has come to set 
deadlines, to reduce our forces in Iraq, to transition to the new 
limited missions, and to embark on a comprehensive, diplomatic, 
political, and economic strategy to bring stability to Iraq.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2007.
     Hon. Condoleezza Rice,
     Secretary of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Secretary: I am writing in connection with your 
     letter of January 20, 2007 in which you advised me regarding 
     a set of benchmarks that the Government of Iraq has set for 
     itself.
       You wrote that ``Iraq's Policy Committee on National 
     Security agreed upon a set of political, security, and 
     economic benchmarks and an associated timeline in September 
     2006. These were reaffirmed by the Presidency Council on 
     October 16, 2006, and referenced by the Iraq Study Group; the 
     relevant document (enclosed) was posted at that time on the 
     President of Iraq's website.''
       Yesterday, I met with Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Prime Minister 
     Maliki's national security adviser. During the course of our 
     meeting, Dr. Rubaie stated that the Presidency Council never 
     reaffirmed the benchmarks. He was adamant on this point even 
     after I showed him the statement in your letter.
       This is an important point as the Presidency Council, whose 
     three members, President Jalal Talabani (Kurd), Deputy 
     President `Adil `Abd al-Mahdi (Shia Muslim) and Deputy 
     President Tariq al-Hashimi (Sunni Muslim), are elected by the 
     Council of Representatives and represent the three major 
     ethnic groups of the country.
       Earlier today, State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack 
     stated ``These are the benchmarks that they've laid out for 
     themselves. We didn't come up with them. They came up with 
     them. And they need to be seen in the eyes of the Iraqi 
     people as delivering for the Iraqi people.''
       It seems to me that it would make a difference if the 
     benchmarks and associated timeline were only approved by an 
     advisory group as compared to the Presidency Council.
       Accordingly, please confirm that the benchmarks and 
     associated timeline, which you attached to your January 30, 
     2007 letter, were reaffirmed by the Presidency Council after 
     being agreed upon by the Policy Committee on National 
     Security, as stated in your letter.
       Thank you for your assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Levin,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                       The Secretary of State,

                                    Washington, DC, June 13, 2007.
     Hon. Carl Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter inquiring 
     about the benchmarks that the Government of Iraq set for 
     itself last fall.
       As you mentioned, I sent to you a letter in January in 
     which I noted that Iraq's Political Committee on National 
     Security agreed upon a set of benchmarks and an associated 
     timeline, which were reaffirmed by the Iraqi Presidency 
     Council in October 2006.
       We have confirmed with Iraqi President Talabani's Chief of 
     Staff that the benchmarks were formally approved last fall by 
     the Iraqi Political Committee on National Security. This 
     committee includes the Presidency Council--the President and 
     the two Vice Presidents--as well as the leaders of all the 
     major political blocs in Iraq. The Iraqi Presidency Council 
     then posted the benchmarks on its website for several months.
       Thank you for your interest in this issue. Please feel free 
     to contact us on this or any matter of concern to you.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Condoleezza Rice.


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, yesterday a man whom I had the 
opportunity of meeting and knowing a little bit, British Army 
Lieutenant General Jim Lamb--General Lamb is the Deputy Commander of 
Multinational Forces Iraq and senior British military representative in 
Iraq--was asked by Jamie McIntyre of CNN about how ``the growing 
sentiment in our Congress to bring U.S. troops home sooner'' affected 
the mood of his troops deployed in Iraq, meaning the British troops. 
Lieutenant General Lamb responded that those troops find it ``a touch 
difficult.'' I think that is a very interesting phrase, ``a touch 
difficult,'' because while it is so clear to them that we are making 
progress, it is not reflected by those who are not in the fight but are 
sitting back and making judgment upon what they, the troops, can see 
with absolute clarity.
  Lieutenant General Lamb noted that those making such judgments and 
not taking note of the progress ``are not going out every day in a 
humvee.'' Moreover, he further noted that the progress the troops see 
is seldom reported. They see provincial counselors,

[[Page S9331]]

they see water going to people who didn't have it before, they see 
electricity coming online, they see stability to the networks. They see 
all this stuff that no one portrays.
  I say to my friend from Michigan and the Senator from Illinois and 
others, I hope they pay a little attention to General Lamb's statement 
or reject it out of hand, of course, as apparently is being done.
  I have to repeat, General Lamb responded that his troops find it ``a 
touch difficult.'' While it is so clear to them we are making progress, 
it is not reflected by those who are not in the fight but are sitting 
back and making judgment upon what they, the troops, can see with 
absolute clarity.
  I don't think I have to editorialize anymore on General Lamb's, I 
think, totally accurate statements.
  The New York Post reported on July 10 an interview with General 
Petraeus. He is asked by Ralph Peters, a person for whom I have 
enormous respect:

       The current military operations in Iraq appear 
     comprehensive and tenacious, part of a long-term, integrated 
     plan. What can we realistically expect to achieve?
       Petraeus: Our primary goal is to work with our Iraqi 
     counterparts to improve security for the Iraqi people. This 
     is intended to give the Iraqi leaders the time to resolve the 
     tough political issues they face and to pursue internal 
     reconciliation.

  He goes on to say:

       As to reasonable expectations, we can expect a reduction in 
     sectarian deaths and the gradual spread of Iraqi government 
     authority. The level of sectarian deaths in Baghdad in June 
     was the lowest in about a year. Nevertheless, the extremists 
     still have been able to carry out car bomb and other attacks.
       Wherever we operate, we try to reconnect Iraqi ministries 
     and local governments to meet the needs of the people. 
     Finally, we provide opportunities for Iraqis to use their 
     local knowledge to help root out al Qaeda. Successful 
     operations of this nature have played out in recent months in 
     Ramadi, Hit and Baquba. In each case, Iraqis turned against 
     al Qaeda and sided with the Coalition.

  Question:

       Now that the surge is fully in place, what's your sense of 
     the positives and negatives thus far? If you could have more 
     of any one item, what would it be? Troops? Time? Iraqi unity?

  General Petraeus's answer:

       I can think of few commanders in history who wouldn't have 
     wanted more troops, more time or more unity among their 
     partners; however, if I could only have one at this point in 
     Iraq, it would be more time.

  I repeat, General Petraeus said:

       . . . if I could only have one at this point in Iraq, it 
     would be more time. This is an exceedingly tough endeavor 
     that faces countless challenges.

  So what does the Levin-Reed amendment do? Deny General Petraeus 
exactly that. As Senator Levin points out in his statement, the 
announced withdrawal would force the Iraqi Government to act and, 
therefore, then we would see progress. What if, I say to my colleagues 
who support this amendment, what if instead the situation deteriorates 
into a chaotic situation, then what do we do? Then what do we do if the 
situation gets worse? Do we come back in? Do we sit on the sidelines 
and watch another genocide? What if, I say to my colleague who often 
asks me what is plan B, the surge doesn't work? What is plan B if the 
withdrawal doesn't work?
  I don't think that most people would believe that an international 
mediator is exactly a solution that is viable.
  I wish to talk a minute about the region. Finally, after our stunning 
military victory and shock and awe and the invasion side of the 
conflict was over, America was in pretty good shape in the region. The 
Syrians were trying to be cooperative. There were efforts on the part 
of the Iranians to join with us in efforts to bring about an end to 
terrorism in the region. Then we began to fail, and that failure has, 
obviously, been chronicled in many books. I recommend to my colleagues 
the book ``Fiasco'' or ``Cobra II'' or a number of other books that 
have been written that describe the failed Rumsfeld strategy. We paid a 
very heavy price for it. All of us know that. It has been the sacrifice 
of our most precious asset.
  What has happened since? We find the Syrians continuing to intervene 
in northern Lebanon. We find the Syrians, according to many experts, 
transporting suicide bombers through the airport in Damascus into Iraq. 
We find the Iranians not only orchestrating attacks and providing 
intelligence and even money and funding, in some cases, but there is 
clear and compelling evidence that the IEDs, the most lethal IEDs are 
exported from Iran into Iraq, those that have the lethality even of 
going through the armor of a tank. We find the Iranians more aggressive 
in the region with Iranian support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The Syrians 
continue to try to unsettle the Government of Lebanon, and the 
Government of Lebanon is having great difficulties.
  There is a U.N. Security Council resolution that calls for the 
disarmament of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. There has been no effort 
whatsoever to achieve the goals set forth in that U.N. Security Council 
resolution. In fact, there is strong evidence that Hezbollah in 
southern Lebanon is being resupplied with the rockets they expended in 
their latest attack on Israel which provoked an attack on Israel. We 
find the Saudis becoming more and more uneasy. We once had a report--
that fortunately turned out to be false--that the Turks had crossed 
over into the Kurdish areas because of Kurdish insurgents who are 
operating out of the Turkish areas, at least according to the Turks. So 
we have seen, because of our failure in Iraq, more strife, more 
conflict, and more threats to the State of Israel.

  Meanwhile, the Iranians continue on the path to develop nuclear 
weapons. A great fear of many of us is not a nuclear weapon aimed at 
Israel from Iran. One of our great fears is a nuclear weapon passed to 
a terrorist organization by the Iranian Government, which has stated 
through its President and its policies their dedication to the 
extinction of the State of Israel. I could argue that the State of 
Israel is probably in more jeopardy from a national security standpoint 
than at any time in its history, since that very young nation achieved 
its independence.
  So what happens in the region when we adopt the Levin-Reed 
resolution, and the signal is sent throughout the region ``don't worry, 
the Americans are leaving.'' I think the consequences are fairly 
obvious. So we are not just talking about Iraq, as serious and 
consequential as that situation is. We are talking about the region. It 
is hard for me to believe the Sunnis would not intervene to protect 
Sunnis if there is a bloodletting in Baghdad, where 2 million Sunni 
reside and 4 million Shia. But according to the premise of the Levin-
Reed amendment, this will force the Iraqi Government to act and to 
control their own destiny.
  My question is: What do we do if they can't? What do we do if they 
can't?
  Some of my colleagues have talked about this ``gradual withdrawal.'' 
A gradual withdrawal. I think most military experts would tell you that 
the most difficult operation in military tactics and strategy is a 
``gradual withdrawal.'' It is fraught with difficulty. When an army is 
defeated, and an army tries to come home, it is the most difficult of 
all military operations.
  So I think that as we discuss this specific amendment and the issue 
of whether we stay or go in Iraq, whether we allow the new strategy of 
General Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs of Staff a chance to succeed, 
which calls for a surge in Iraq, while we debate this, I don't think we 
should ignore the larger implications for the region. I believe, and I 
cannot absolutely predict the future, but a failure in Iraq, according 
to most experts, would lead to a chaotic and unsettled situation in the 
region.
  So I would at least ask for my colleagues' consideration of an 
article by Stephen Biddle in the Washington Post on July 11, entitled 
``Iraq: Go Deep or Get Out.'' I think perhaps we ought to start looking 
at this situation from that respect. Mr. Biddle, in his piece, says:

       The result has been a search for some kind of politically 
     moderate ``Plan B'' that would split the difference between 
     surge and withdrawal.

  I think that adequately describes the Reed-Levin amendment.

       The problem is that these politics do not fit the military 
     reality of Iraq. Many would like to reduce the U.S. 
     commitment to something like half of today's troop presence 
     there. But it is much harder to find a mission for the 
     remaining 60,000 to 80,000 soldiers that makes any sense 
     militarily.
       Perhaps the most popular centrist option today is drawn 
     from the Baker-Hamilton commission recommendations of last 
     December. This would withdraw U.S. combat brigades, shift the 
     American mission from one of training and supporting the 
     Iraqi security forces, and cut total U.S. troop levels in the

[[Page S9332]]

     country by about half. This idea is at the heart of the 
     proposed legislative effort that Domenici threw his support 
     behind last week, and support is growing on both sides of the 
     aisle on Capitol Hill.

  The politics make sense, but the compromise leaves us with an 
untenable military mission. Without a major U.S. combat effort to keep 
the violence down, the American training effort would face challenges 
even bigger than those our troops are confronting today. An ineffective 
training effort would leave tens of thousands of American trainers, 
advisers, and supporting troops exposed to that violence in the 
meantime. The net result is likely to be continued U.S. casualties with 
little positive effect on Iraq's ongoing civil war.

       It is unrealistic to expect that we can pull back to some 
     safe yet productive mission of training but not fighting--
     this would be neither safe nor productive.

  So, Madam President, I think we ought to look at what we are 
discussing here not only from the standpoint of Iraq but the 
implications for our presence in the region. And I will say something 
that is very seldom stated on the floor of the Senate: as long as we 
are dependent on oil in the region, our greater national security 
interests are at stake in what happens with the outcome of Iraq. The 
possibility of success in Iraq, of seeing the world's third largest oil 
reserves being modernized and used, and those revenues used for the 
betterment of the American people, also presents a goal that I think is 
worth striving for.
  I would like to again return to the fact that I am deeply 
disappointed in the Maliki government. Their failure to act unhinges 
the very important aspect of the military, political, social, and 
economic aspects of any successful counterinsurgency operation. But I 
also believe that nothing would embolden the Iranians more, nothing 
would embolden the Syrians more, nothing would frighten the Jordanians 
and the Saudis more, not to mention the Egyptians, than the passage of 
legislation which would require the withdrawal of the United States.
  So I urge my colleagues not only to look at how this legislation and 
this debate affects America vis-a-vis Iraq but affects our western and 
national interests and values in the entire Middle East.
  Madam President, I note the patience of my friend from Rhode Island, 
who is a thoughtful and valued member of the Armed Services Committee 
whose friendship I appreciate a great deal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the kind words. And 
one of my first reactions was a bit of confusion. He referenced General 
Lamb, the British officer in Baghdad, expressing chagrin at the 
proposals to reduce the troop strength of the American forces. He must 
have been beside himself last February when Prime Minister Blair 
announced the reduction of British forces. In fact, Prime Minister 
Blair stated at that time that 7,100 troops would be drawn down to 
approximately 5,500. That is down from a level of 40,000.
  So at the time that the British are withdrawing troops, we are trying 
to surge troops. I think the general's peak or discomfort is somewhat 
misplaced with the United States. I think it should more properly be 
directed to Prime Minister Blair.
  But let me get on with issues that I want to address, and that is to 
try to clarify from my perspective some of the concepts and terms that 
have been talked about. One is a repeated reference to General 
Petraeus's plan. The President makes it, and my colleagues make it. 
This is the President's plan. General Petraeus was asked specifically 
in his confirmation hearing what role he played, and here was his 
answer.

       I met with the Secretary of Defense a couple days after he 
     took office and before he left for his first trip to Iraq, 
     and we discussed the situation there during that meeting. We 
     subsequently talked after his trip. I also talked to the 
     chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff several times in this 
     period, noting that a population and security emphasis in 
     Baghdad in particular was necessary to help the Iraqis gain 
     the time and space for tough decisions.
       As the strategy was refined, I talked on several occasions 
     to General Odierno. I relayed my support for those levels 
     that General Odierno recommended to the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs. I also supported the additional emphasis in the 
     advisory effort.

  This is not a precise quote, but paraphrases his remarks. General 
Petraeus is not the author of this plan. He, like many officers, 
participated, was asked questions; he had great experience. He was the 
head and led the 101st Air Mobile Division in Iraq and was head of our 
training effort. But this is not his plan.
  Now, he has accepted this plan. He did that publicly. But this is the 
President's plan. And at the heart of the President's plan is the 
statement he made on January 10 when he announced it.

       I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other 
     leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the 
     Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it 
     will lose the support of the American people and lose the 
     support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The 
     prime minister understands this.

  Well, apparently, the prime minister did not understand, because in 
the intervening months, exactly what the President feared has happened. 
There has been no adequate political progress in Iraq. That is key 
rationale for the increased forces in Iraq. And without this political 
decisiveness on the part of the Iraqis, our military efforts will not 
be decisive. And what has happened because of this failure to act is 
precisely as the President suggested? The American people have 
increasingly become critical of the policy in Iraq. Their support is 
eroding, and similarly the Iraqi people.
  So you have a situation now where the logic and the premise for the 
surge, for the troop levels we are maintaining in Iraq, was the fact 
there would be political progress. Since January, to date there has not 
been political progress. I daresay there is very few, if any, of my 
colleagues that will argue that between now and September 15 we will 
see remarkable progress by the Iraqi Government. Indeed, it is 
suspected, confirmed practically, that the Iraqi Assembly will adjourn 
in August for the month. So the reality is that on these critical 
issues of political will and decisiveness and political progress, we 
will know nothing in September that we do not know now.
  Given the incredibly complicated political system, the incredibly 
complicated institutional challenges facing the Iraqi Government, the 
notion that we will know more even at the end of this year or the 
beginning of next year is doubtful. Without this political progress, 
all our military efforts will not produce success. That is one reason I 
think we have to begin to change course. We have to begin to adjust our 
effort to protect our self-interests and our interests in the region, 
but no longer be the broker, if you will, for political progress in 
Iraq that does not materialize.
  My colleagues have been on the Senate floor and said time and time 
again that there have been deadlines imposed, in many cases by the 
Iraqis themselves, that have not been met. The latest report, just a 
few days ago, suggested these political benchmarks have not been 
issued. Without that, our efforts and the brave sacrifice of our 
soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors, and every man and woman who is 
out there, are not producing the results we want and need. So we have 
to look again at this strategy.
  But there is another factor, too, that I think is important to note. 
I was just in Iraq--as so many of my colleagues have traveled there, I 
have also--and I spoke with General Petraeus directly. He gave me every 
indication that he was not waiting for September; that he had been able 
to make an assessment over the several months he has been in command, 
and he is prepared to make a recommendation--unless I misunderstood 
him--before the end of August.
  Now, he might be overruled by the White House in Washington, but he 
has a pretty good sense of what is happening on the ground, and we 
should have that same sense in the Congress.
  The other factor that seems so critical when it is put next to the 
issue of no apparent progress by Iraqi political leaders is the fact 
that by April of next year, April 2008, our military forces will not be 
able to generate 160,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. The surge will 
come to an end regardless of what happens on the ground. Unless, of 
course, the President is prepared to

[[Page S9333]]

make Draconian personnel changes, extend deployments to 18 months or 
even longer, calling up Reserve and National Guard units that are not 
scheduled to be called up, continuing to rely upon the stop-loss 
practice, where individuals who are eligible to leave the service after 
honorable service are denied the opportunity to leave and in many cases 
are forced to deploy; picking reservists and people who are in the 
individual Ready Reserve, those are individuals who served their full 
active commitment, they have left, many of them have gone on with their 
lives and suddenly they are called up and told get back in uniform, you 
are going overseas.

  Without such draconian decisions, then by next April we will not be 
able to field 160,000 troops in Iraq as we are doing today. So the 
reality is this policy will change. The question is, will it change now 
or then and will it change in a way that strengthens the national 
security of the United States? Also, will it change in a way it will 
gain the support of the American people?
  One of the factors in a counterinsurgency is the fact that you need 
popular support. That is not something that is a special thing to have 
or a nice thing to have, it is essential to the strategy. We are 
losing--the President is losing--popular support with respect to these 
operations. Without that support, we will not be able to maintain our 
presence in Iraq.
  We are seeing already Americans across the political divide, across 
the geographical divide, demanding that this Congress act. They have, 
frankly, little confidence in the President's ability, after all these 
years, to get it right. That is one of the major reasons we are here 
today debating, and we will be tonight debating, because the American 
people are looking for a new direction in Iraq.
  The other factor that I think should be mentioned is that, while we 
have pursued a strategy of increasing our forces, our adversaries--and 
they are multiple in a complicated theater of operations--have reacted. 
First of all, they have taken the battle, if you will, the battle we 
tried to orchestrate in Baghdad, and they have spread it around the 
country. They have moved where there are fewer troops. This has caused 
us to spread our operations around. The surge, if you will, the 
additional approximately 30,000 troops, were initially intended to go 
into Baghdad.
  If you, as I did, listened closely to General Petraeus at his 
confirmation hearing, if you listened to the President in his January 
10 speech, the concept was Baghdad was going to be locked down. It was 
going to be saturated with American and Iraqi forces. That has not 
happened because our tactical leaders have determined they must get out 
of Baghdad, they must go ahead and pursue some of these elements 
outside of Baghdad, and our adversaries have decided they would rather 
move on than take us in a head-to-head fight.
  Time, regretfully, is always on the side of the insurgent. If they 
can survive a day, then that is a day that is in their favor. As a 
result, even with these additional 30,000 troops, there is a question 
of whether they are an adequate number to take over this population 
protection mission the President has announced. The population of Iraq 
is significant. That is another factor I think we have to consider when 
we look at the adequacy of even the President's proposal today.
  The Levin-Reed proposal talks about doing what is not only necessary 
but frankly inevitable. We have to begin to redeploy our forces. We 
have to begin to reduce our forces. We cannot sustain this effort 
because of the structure of our military forces.
  The President had an opportunity several years ago, in the wake of 
our success in Afghanistan and in the wake of the operations in Iraq, 
to dramatically increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps. 
Senator Hagel and I came to the floor and we proposed an amendment, in 
2003, to do that. This was opposed by the administration because, if 
you recall, back then this Iraq operation was basically all but over 
and they were getting out.
  Now it is very difficult to increase the size of the military forces. 
The Army has missed, for the last 2 months, its recruiting objectives. 
But even if we stayed on track recruiting, we are still in a situation 
where we cannot grow the Army fast enough, the Marine Corps fast 
enough, to maintain indefinitely these forces in Iraq. So the strategy 
must change. If the strategy is not only not supported by our end 
strength, it certainly must change in the light of the American people.
  I think the President made a significant mistake last January. After 
an election that sent a very strong signal all across this country that 
the American people wanted change, after the report of the Iraq Study 
Group, wise men and women on both sides of the aisle, with no 
particular special interest they were trying to protect or advance--
they were true patriots coming forward to give their best advice--
suggested that our strategy should be remarkably similar to what we are 
talking about today: the redeployment of the American forces; switching 
missions to training, force protection, counterterrorism; engaging in 
robust diplomatic activity in the region.
  Those recommendations were cast aside by the President. At that 
point, if not earlier, the American public began to seriously question 
the direction of his policy in Iraq. Without public support, you cannot 
conduct military operations effectively or for any length of time.
  So we face two realities in the United States. Ultimately, the 
inability to generate this force structure indefinitely and the fact 
that the American people are growing increasingly intolerant of our 
operations in Iraq--not our forces there, not those magnificent men and 
women who are fighting and sadly dying each day but our presence there 
and the lack each day, in their minds, of any real progress and the 
documented lack of political progress. It was documented a few days ago 
on the part of the Iraqi Government.
  So we have to change. The question then is what is the best way to do 
it? We can debate about this. But certainly this amendment, offered by 
myself and Senator Levin, represents a change. Not a hortatory request 
for further assessment, not a discussion of possibilities or reference 
to another study group but a plan of change.
  It begins by initiating a reduction of our forces 120 days after 
passage. That probably will be sometime toward the end of this year, 
given the nature of the legislative process. It doesn't specify any 
specific level of reductions. That is the President as Commander's 
prerogative. It doesn't specify a particular timetable when they can 
leave, who should go first. Again, that is his prerogative. But what it 
does suggest and, in fact, requires is that by April of next year, that 
we have transitioned to three missions--again, missions that were 
supported significantly by the Iraq Study Group: Force protection--we 
always have to protect our forces and facilities in the field; 
counterterrorism, because we never want to give up not only the option 
but the obligation to strike at terrorist cells wherever they may be, 
particularly in Iraq; and third, the continued training of the Iraqi 
security forces.
  These I think are missions that are not only critical but they 
advance our national security interests. Again, this fight against 
terror cannot be given up. We have to continue it. To the extent that 
we can create effective Iraqi security forces, mitigates against the 
real concerns that have been expressed on this floor of the aftermath 
of what I think is almost an inevitable reduction in our presence. We 
have to be concerned about that.
  One of the vexing things, though, about training the Iraqi security 
forces, is it is relatively easy to teach map reading and squad drills. 
It is relatively easy to teach calling for artillery fire. What is hard 
to teach, because you really can't teach it, is the political 
reliability, with a small ``p,'' the dedication to the country, the 
situation in which professional officers are truly professional. That 
is one of the nagging doubts that everyone has about the Iraqi security 
forces, particularly the Iraqi police, and to a less degree the Iraqi 
Army. There are many factors there, too, but we still have to, I think, 
press forward and try to train these forces.
  Our amendment represents the only real possibility of change today, 
of all those that might be discussed on the floor. It represents not a 
precipitous withdrawal. It is a phased reduction to missions that are 
important and are

[[Page S9334]]

well within the capacity, I believe, of our military forces to sustain 
over time. They serve, I think, the much broader interests of the 
United States.
  All of this, of course, has to be complemented by robust political 
activity, diplomatic activity in Iraq and around the region, something 
the President has been woefully lacking in his pursuit of, over the 
many months we have been engaged. We have to make the case--it is 
difficult to make, but we have to make the case to the neighbors, 
particularly, that an Iraq that becomes this caldron of instability and 
chaos that some of my colleagues fear--and, frankly, that we have to at 
least anticipate, in terms of our diplomacy and some of our military 
preparation--that this situation would be detrimental to them as much, 
if not more, than to us.
  A chaotic, turbulent, anarchy on the border of any country spells 
serious problems for that country. That case should begin to be made 
immediately, not only by our diplomats but by the international 
community.
  We suggest, also, we have to try again to involve others in this 
effort; not just the United States and Great Britain but others, the 
international actors. They, too, I think have an interest in a stable 
region, a stable Iraq.
  It has been discussed on this floor that al-Qaida is sitting back and 
hoping we leave. It is an interesting concept because there is some 
contradictory evidence. Ayman Zawahiri, who is the second in command of 
al-Qaida, was quoted recently as suggesting that our departure would 
actually be something that would cause them some concern. Not because 
they don't wish us ill, they certainly do. Not because today they don't 
continue to try to attack us. But because they believe our presence in 
Iraq, in his words as translated, is a ``historic trap,'' that we are 
trapped there and that they can use their forces there--not the al-
Qaida elements but all the sectarian groups, some of them operating 
against us because we are there--they can use these forces to attack 
our troops, diminish our presence, and effectively continue to apply 
pressure on us.
  I think there is a suggestion there that our departure might, in 
fact, help us in our overall strategy. It certainly will help us to 
counteract the image which the propagandists, the Zawahiris of the 
world present, that the United States is committed to destroying the 
Muslim community by imperialistically invading holy territory. We are 
in a battle of ideas ultimately, and we are not doing a very good job 
because what they are able to show throughout the entire Islamic world 
is our forces in Iraq and our forces in Afghanistan but particularly in 
Iraq and try to validate their claim, their propaganda, that is why 
they exist, to resist us.
  In the course of our strategy going forward, one should think at 
least about the efficacy of our presence there, not in terms of a 
bulwark of security in Iraq but as a way that we, in fact, are playing 
into the hands of many of these Iraqi terrorists, these international 
terrorists.
  One of the other aspects we face as a reality on the ground is the 
complex situation in Iraq. Too often I think the President and others 
try to simplify this as this battle for Iraq is the central front in 
our battle against al-Qaida. I would argue the central front in our 
battle against al-Qaida is somewhere in Pakistan. That is where bin 
Laden is, where Zarqawi is, that is where it is reported that hundreds 
of Iraqis and others, Europeans, Chechens, are training to be jihadist 
terrorists across the globe. But regardless of where the central front 
is, the issue I think we have to recognize and grasp is that our 
presence in Iraq is something we cannot sustain indefinitely.
  We have to focus, I think, on the other threats, focus more 
diligently on these other threats. Now, we have a situation in Iraq, a 
complicated situation of Kurds, Shia, and Sunni, together with 
criminals, together with terrorist elements, al-Qaida. Too often, as I 
said, we try to make the point it is just about al-Qaida.
  We have made progress in Anbar Province because in that Sunni region, 
the Sunni tribal leaders have united against al-Qaida. But that does 
not define the most decisive factor in Iraq, and that is the conflict 
between the Sunni community and the Shia community; a community on one 
hand, the Sunnis, who feel profound entitlement, and on the other hand, 
the Shia, who feel a profound sense of paranoia.
  I think we have to ask ourselves seriously, will that profound 
conflict between the two communities be resolved in 30 days, on 
September 15; will it be resolved in a week; more than that; October 1; 
will it be resolved 6 months from now?
  It has lasted for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is the fuel that 
is generating the conflict we see in Iraq today. Without the political 
steps of the Iraqi Government leaders at least to attempt to deal with 
this issue, our presence will not deal with--I think in the short 
term--the solution.
  Senator Levin and I have proposed what I believe is the most 
practical, feasible, realistic policy we can pursue today in Iraq; 
indeed, as I suggest, a policy which perhaps not in the same terms but 
in the same substance will inevitably be the policy of this country. I 
hope today, though, we can take decisive action to move to our bill, 
avoid a filibuster, to vote up or down and move forward with a new 
direction for Iraq, a new direction for our country.
  I note the presence of the senior Senator from West Virginia.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the Senate turns its attention to the 
fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, every Member of 
this body is focused on the security of our Nation and the safety of 
our troops in Iraq. Senators Levin and McCain, along with the other 
members of the Armed Services Committee, have worked hard, very hard, 
to put together a bipartisan bill that provides our troops with the 
resources they need and sets priorities for defense spending for the 
year ahead.
  This is a strong bill. I was proud to support it in committee. But it 
is incomplete--incomplete because we cannot possibly claim to have 
truly provided for our Nation's security until we have addressed the 
situation in Iraq.
  It is now more than 4 years since President Bush declared the mission 
in Iraq has been accomplished. Since ``mission accomplished,'' more 
than 3,400 U.S. soldiers have died, died in Iraq. A sectarian civil war 
is now deeply entrenched, deeply entrenched and raging.
  The political compromises that for years we have been promised by the 
Iraqis seem to be more distant than ever. Civilians are dying in ever 
greater numbers, and every day more American troops are hurled into the 
crossfire.
  It is time, yes, far past time, for the Congress--that is us--to have 
a real debate about this war and about where our national security 
interests ultimately lie. We must start by sunsetting the outdated and 
open-ended 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq and requiring the 
President to request a new authorization that outlines the new mission 
which our troops are being asked to perform.
  The amendment Senator Clinton and I are offering does exactly that. 
It will end the 2002 authorization on its 5-year anniversary, October 
11, 2007. That authorization which was passed to confront the threat 
that we were told faced us from the government of Saddam Hussein is no 
longer relevant. Our troops have toppled the dictator. The Iraqis have 
voted in a new government. No weapons of mass destruction have been 
found.
  Meanwhile, American soldiers continue to die, die in the crossfire of 
another country's civil war, while the President fails to clearly 
articulate our mission, our strategy or our goals for continuing our 
occupation of Iraq. He must clearly explain his vision, his vision to 
an increasingly skeptical public, the American people, those people out 
yonder, the American people.
  We were told this year would mark a turning point, a new direction in 
this war with a new strategy intended to give Iraq's political leaders 
breathing room in order to forge a political consensus. Unfortunately, 
that is not the way events have unfolded. Despite the addition of more 
than 20,000 American troops into Baghdad, civilian deaths have actually 
increased as the insurgents have engaged in a surge of their own--a 
surge of their own--far from creating breathing room for peace.

[[Page S9335]]

  The President's current course appears to be pumping oxygen into the 
fire of sectarian violence. The decision to go to war--the decision to 
go to war--to send our sons and daughters into the line of fire, to ask 
them to kill and be killed on our behalf, is the weightiest decision 
that a Member of Congress can ever, ever, ever make.
  It is wrong, wrong I say, it is wrong for Congress to continue to 
fail to reassess that outdated authority without a real debate about 
where the occupation of Iraq is headed. The authorization that Congress 
passed in 2002 to give the President authority to go to war in Iraq was 
rushed through here 3 weeks before Congressional elections--yes, rushed 
through.
  It was passed in the shadow of warnings of mushroom clouds and the 
not-so-subtle implication that anyone who voted against the war could 
not be trusted with matters of national security.
  It was a hasty and unconstitutional abdication of Congress's 
authority in matters of war. It is time to bring that authorization to 
a close--yes--and have an honest debate about the way forward. We do 
our troops a disservice if we do not take a fresh look, and the 
President should welcome the opportunity to solicit our renewed support 
for his policy. We must think of our national interest and think 
again--yes--of our brave troops. We must put politics aside.
  At a recent Senate hearing, I asked Defense Secretary Gates if the 
2002 authorization still applies to Iraq. His response, may I say, was 
surprisingly candid:

       I don't know.

  I believe the answer to that question is clear and that it is time 
for the President to make the case to the Congress of the United States 
and to the American people of the United States for the U.S. military's 
changed mission in Iraq. Our country will benefit from the debate.
  This amendment puts the ball right back in the President's court, 
requiring him, the President, to request a new authorization for the 
new mission that challenges our military. The White House has 
repeatedly asserted that General Petraeus needs until September to 
assess the progress of the security escalation in Iraq. This amendment 
gives him that time. But this amendment also ensures that Congress and 
the people will have the opportunity to examine that progress to 
determine our course in Iraq. It is a simple, commonsense approach that 
reestablishes the congressional authority decreed by the Constitution 
of the United States. It also respects the President's role as the 
Commander in Chief.
  It is important to emphasize to all of my colleagues that supporting 
my amendment does not preclude voting for any other legislative 
options. This amendment addresses the legal foundation for this 
horrible war. We are a nation of laws, not of men. My amendment simply 
states the obvious truth, that the facts on the ground do not match the 
open-ended authorization that is still in force. Any Senator wishing to 
vote for legislation mandating a withdrawal date or to restrict the war 
funding or to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group 
should also support the Byrd-Clinton amendment.
  As the President himself said earlier this year:

       The fight we are in is not the fight that we entered.

  I couldn't agree more. This is not the fight Congress authorized. I 
urge this body to schedule a vote on the Byrd-Clinton amendment, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand our staffs have reached a 
point where we were able to clear something like 26 amendments on this 
bill but that there is one last hurdle on the Republican side. I am 
wondering whether my good friend from Arizona feels there may be a 
possibility that we can jump over that hurdle in the next couple hours.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
short colloquy with my colleague from Michigan, the distinguished 
chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my colleague that we have one individual, and we 
do have some 26 amendments that I think are cleared that we could get 
out of the way. I am working on that right now. I thank my colleague 
and most of all the staffs for their close cooperation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.
  I understand the Senator from Nebraska wants the floor, and I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to support the Levin-
Reed amendment. As we know, Iraq is the most important issue facing our 
country today. The core challenge in Iraq is the cycle of violence, 
despair, and retribution that is tearing Iraq apart and threatening 
wider regional instability. There is no significant progress in Iraq. 
By any measurement, the situation in Iraq is getting worse as each week 
passes. Prime Minister al-Maliki's Government is essentially paralyzed 
and dysfunctional, in part by boycotts and sectarian rivalries and an 
intense sectarian war.
  The Interior Ministry in Iraq, which controls Iraq's police forces, 
is still a disaster and does not function as a national ministry. 
Horrific violence in Iraq is spreading beyond Baghdad. Yesterday, car 
bombs and attacks in Kirkuk and Diyala Province killed more than 100 
and injured almost 200 Iraqis. Kirkuk is an area of Iraq in the 
northern part, Kurdistan, that has been considered by this 
administration as one of the most secure areas of Iraq. Recent events 
in Kurdistan over the last few months have shown otherwise. 
Increasingly, regions that were previously seen as relatively stable 
and secure, such as the Kurdish area, are now being engulfed by 
violence. The southern four provinces in Iraq near Basra, which 
contains most of Iraq's oil and Iraq's only port and outlet to the sea, 
are out of control. Shiite militias control the southern four provinces 
of Iraq, including the most significant oil reserves in Iraq's one 
outlet to the sea. Shiite militias and criminal gangs control these 
provinces and today even demand tribute, and we pay it. The Iraqi 
Government pays tribute to Shia militias to use Iraq's primary port. 
The last remaining pipeline into Baghdad has been blown up, crippling 
Baghdad's access to oil, and there are no operating refineries in 
Baghdad. Hence, the product that comes to Baghdad today is trucked in 
from Kuwait. This is the nation that has the third largest oil reserves 
in the world. The green zone is being attacked daily.

  Last week, 9 people were killed, including Americans, and over 30 
wounded inside the green zone. These daily attacks on the green zone by 
mortar fire, rocket fire increase.
  I have listened today to some of my colleagues argue that the surge 
strategy--the surge strategy--has only just begun; why don't we give it 
a chance to work; we are at a very early stage; we must give the 
President more time.
  Let me remind our colleagues it has been more than 6 months since the 
President of the United States announced to the Nation on January 10 
the decision to send tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops into 
Iraq. That was the beginning of the surge, not now. It has been more 
than 5 months since these additional U.S. troops began arriving in Iraq 
in early February. We have had months to judge the situation in Iraq. 
Only last week, the President reported to Congress that there has been 
no progress--no progress--on any of the political benchmarks in Iraq. 
The violence that is tearing Iraq apart has intensified and spread over 
the last 6 months. The current strategy is failing, and the so-called 
surge that some of my colleagues refuse to recognize that began almost 
6 months ago has cost 532 American men and women their lives since that 
began. We have lost more than 3,600 Americans who have died and over 
26,000 wounded over the last 4\1/2\ years.
  We must change our policy in Iraq. Central to our new strategy must 
be diplomacy, regional engagement, and the

[[Page S9336]]

involvement of the international community, all of these coming 
together within the framework of a new policy, using all of the 
instruments of power to help achieve Iraqi political accommodation--
political accommodation. We are captive to a cycle of violence. We 
cannot break out of the cycle of violence. More troops will not do 
that. We have put burdens on our troops and asked them to make 
sacrifices and do things they cannot achieve in the course of finding 
an answer to break the cycle of violence. It is bigger than the 
military. General Petraeus has said so. As a matter of fact, General 
Petraeus has said there will be no military solution in Iraq. Every 
general I have met in my five trips to Iraq, every general I have met 
here in and out of uniform, has said there will not be--cannot be--a 
military solution.
  I have cosponsored the Levin-Reed amendment because it requires that 
the United States move toward a comprehensive policy on Iraq--a 
comprehensive policy on Iraq--not just continuing to feed American 
troops into the middle of a civil war, which is clearly not working, 
but something in addition to our military security. That new policy 
must be centered on diplomacy and helping achieve Iraqi political 
accommodation to get to political reconciliation.
  This amendment is responsible. It is comprehensive, forward-looking, 
compelling, and not all that different, incidentally, from what my 
other colleagues are offering on the floor of the Senate as options. 
Yes, it requires a phased, responsible reduction of U.S. forces from 
Iraq. I say again, a reduction--not a withdrawal--of our forces. No one 
I know is calling for any sort of precipitous withdrawal or precipitous 
action to take America out of Iraq now. We couldn't do that anyway. 
Even if we wanted to withdraw precipitously or quickly, the reality of 
the logistics would prevent it. The fact is, we are where we are. We 
have national interests in the Middle East. We have national interests 
in Iraq. We should not confuse the issue that we debate today. We are 
not advocating a cut-and-run strategy. I am not sure what cut and run 
means. It is catchy. It is good sloganeering. But I have yet to hear 
anyone come to the Senate floor and say: I am for cutting and running. 
Those who use that term or accuse others of employing that term should 
define what that means.
  Of all the resolutions I am aware of that have been introduced in the 
Senate on this issue, none that I am aware of is a so-called cut-and-
run amendment.
  We are talking about a transition in the mission being carried out by 
U.S. forces in Iraq. A policy, a strategy. Let's make something else 
clear. The military does not make policy. The military implements 
policy. The Congress is part of making that policy. Constitutionally we 
have a role with the President in helping frame and make policy. The 
military has input into that policy, as they must and as they should, 
but once the policy is given to the military, they can't alter the 
policy. They are captive to policy. That is constitutionally the way it 
is and the way it should be. We are talking about a new policy, a new 
strategy. We have a legitimate mission to carry out in Iraq, and those 
various missions are critical to our security, and hopefully, at some 
point, the stability of Iraq. The Levin-Reed amendment focuses solely 
on those missions and the transitions of those missions: 
Counterterrorism, targeting terrorists and other global organizations; 
training Iraqi forces, protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and 
facilities, helping maintain territorial integrity of Iraq.
  As I have said, nearly all of the other significant amendments I am 
aware of that have been introduced on the floor of the Senate on Iraq, 
including the Warner-Lugar amendment, the Salazar-Alexander amendment 
focused largely on the same limited mission, as the Levin-Reed 
amendment, as does the Nelson-Collins amendment, on a limited mission. 
There is an emerging consensus on how our military mission should 
transition in Iraq as well. Our amendment includes a timeline and would 
require that this shift in our military mission be completed by April 
30 of next year.
  Our amendment is not alone in establishing a timeline. Again, the 
other significant amendments on Iraq also have timelines. The Warner-
Lugar amendment recommends beginning the military transition no later 
than December 31, 2007. That is a timeline. The Salazar-Alexander 
amendment sets as the sense of the Congress that the transition be 
completed by the first quarter of 2008. Now, that is a timeline. There 
is yet another emerging consensus on establishing a timeline to 
transition our military mission in Iraq. Our amendment also respects 
that only military professionals--the generals, those who have the 
responsibility of carrying out the policy; not making the policy, but 
carrying it out--those professionals determine how many troops will be 
needed to carry out our limited military mission in Iraq.

  So the talk I hear more than occasionally on the Senate floor that 
somehow the Congress is micromanaging the war is not correct; that we 
are micromanaging the army is not correct.
  Once again, our amendment, the Levin-Reed amendment, sets policy of 
the military mission in Iraq. That is policy. What is the mission? What 
is the strategic, diplomatic mission of employing America's power and 
prestige in Iraq? That is the policy. But the scope of the reduction--
the reduction, not the withdrawal but the reduction--of U.S. forces in 
Iraq will be determined by, and needs to be determined by, our military 
professionals based on a troop-to-task analysis; not the Congress, not 
the committees telling the generals how to do anything.
  Troop to task is a very simple concept. You connect the requirements 
of your mission with the force structure needed. We are way out of 
balance. We have been out of balance since we invaded Iraq in March of 
2003. We never had enough force structure. Some of the same people on 
the floor of the Senate who are now saying: Well, let's listen to the 
generals, where were they when the generals warned this administration 
that we didn't have enough men and women and force before we went into 
Iraq, I didn't hear many of them talking about how much faith we should 
put in our generals then.
  The former Chief of Staff of the United States Army, General 
Shinseki, said it. He said it openly in the Presiding Officer's Armed 
Services Committee. When asked the question: What would it take in 
manpower to remove Saddam Hussein from power and help stabilize and 
secure Iraq, General Shinseki said: It would take hundreds of thousands 
of American troops.
  This administration completely dismissed that as wildly--I believe as 
the Deputy Secretary of Defense at the time said--wildly off the mark. 
Well, he wasn't off the mark, I say to my colleagues. He was exactly 
right. He was exactly right.
  So we have never had the forces to match the mission. That is not 
new. Some of us may be coming to that conclusion for the first time, 
but it is not new. We have never had the force structure to match the 
mission. That is not the fault of the generals. That is not the fault 
of the military. That is the fault of policymakers.
  Our amendment also respects that only military professionals can 
determine those numbers. The scope of the reduction would stay firmly 
in the hands of the military professionals. This approach is 
responsible. Not one U.S. general today will tell you that there can 
be, there will be, there is a military solution in Iraq.
  Then the next question is--and a statement being made often on the 
floor of the Senate is: Well, we need to buy the Iraqis time. We need 
to give the Maliki government time. That is true. That is why we have 
benchmarks. That is why we have some sense of where this is going? Are 
we making progress or not making progress? Is it getting better or is 
it getting worse? Now, 4\1/2\ years into this, we should have some 
measurements of giving the government time, but time for what? What is 
the end game as more Americans sacrifice their lives and a half 
trillion dollars of America's taxpayers' money has sunk into the sands 
of Iraq? We are buying time for what? For a political reconciliation 
brought about by the Iraqis themselves to be able to functionally 
govern their country with some sense of stability and security. That is 
going the other way. That hasn't gotten better; it has gotten worse by 
every measure. So we continue to buy time with American blood and 
American treasure, for what? For

[[Page S9337]]

what? No one wants to answer that question, by the way. We end it with 
we have to buy time, but the additional part of that equation is: Buy 
time for what? Do we buy time for another 2, 3, or 4 years?
  It is also clear that the generals have said when April comes, and 
there is a timeline already that is built in--whether we ever deal with 
it or not in the Congress--there is a timeline built in, and it is 
called manpower. It is called deployment rotations.
  We are pushing our young men and women now to 18-month rotation, and 
some, by the way, are longer than that because of what is known as a 
stopgap measure where the Secretary of Defense can stop anyone from 
leaving a war zone based on the speciality of his or her MOS or job. So 
we are actually having people stay there longer than 18 months. But now 
it is 18 months, even though the Secretary of Defense testified in 
January before the Senate Armed Services Committee that we need to get 
back to 12 months.
  Senator Webb and I and others, a bipartisan group of Senators / last 
week had two amendments on that issue. We couldn't get the required 60 
votes to go back to a 12-month deployment. So now it is 15 months, and 
we are pushing even 18 months.
  The generals have told us that when this spring comes, there is no 
more give in those deployment rotations. There is nothing left. So 
there is a timeline built in already. Whether any of us want to 
acknowledge that or introduce that, that is a reality.
  Any change to policy in Iraq cannot be done in isolation, separate or 
disconnected, from the broader sense of dynamics in Iraq and the Middle 
East. That is why this amendment requires a phased reduction be 
conducted as part of a comprehensive, diplomatic, political, and 
economic strategy that includes sustained engagement to Iraq's 
neighbors and the international community.
  I am very pleased to note that today the announcement came from the 
State Department that the United States is now prepared to hold new 
direct talks with Iran. That is progress, not because Iran wants to be 
our friend. Of course not. But Iran is a significant power in the 
Middle East. It is working against our interests in the Middle East. We 
must engage Iran. I have been calling for dialog with all Middle East 
nations, including Iran and Syria, or over 3 years. A constructive 
regional framework for Iraq can only be achieved through sustained 
diplomacy, not hit or miss, not ``if we have time.''
  A vital element of this comprehensive diplomatic strategy must be to 
internationalize Iraq through an international mediator under the 
auspices of the U.N. to engage all of Iraq's political, religious, 
ethnic, and tribal leaders.
  I first called for an international mediator in a letter to President 
Bush in May. Since then, I pressed this issue with Secretary Rice last 
week, our National Security Adviser, Steve Hadley, 2 weeks ago, and 
again today with the United Nations Secretary General. It is time to 
take the American face off Iraq's political process.
  The United States is seen as the occupier in Iraq. We must have a new 
strategy that will further invest the region and the rest of the world 
to helping stabilize Iraq, reversing Iraq's slide into chaos. And it is 
chaos, Mr. President. I hear on the floor of the Senate, gee, if we 
changed our mission, if we moved in any different direction, if we 
reduced our forces, if we did anything different, Iraq would end in 
chaos. Some of my colleagues must not understand what is going on in 
Iraq. We have chaos. We have real chaos in Iraq today. That means there 
are no good options today. The optics here should be clear, and we 
should base our new policies and our new strategies on those clear 
optics that Iraq is in chaos today.
  Creating an international mediator would help build some new common 
interests in the region and in the world. This amendment represents the 
core elements of a different U.S. strategy for Iraq, a strategy that 
more accurately understands the grim realities we face today, that we 
will face at the end of this year, that we will face next spring, and 
we will face next year. The question is whether the President and 
Congress will come together to present a new policy for Iraq that can 
be supported by the American people and protect and advance America's 
interests in Iraq and the Middle East.
  We are coming dangerously close to the moment when the American 
people will demand that we leave Iraq and pullout of the Middle East. 
Almost 70 percent of the American people today, by every measurement, 
say enough is enough. This is not in the U.S. interest nor the world's 
to leave Iraq that way. That is why the United States needs a new 
strategy for Iraq now.
  Well into our fifth year in Iraq, we are beyond nonbinding language 
of resolutions. We are beyond calling for new plans or new reports. We 
are beyond sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. We have to understand where 
we are today. We are in a very dangerous position in Iraq. Our policy 
in Iraq has been a disaster. Why are we kidding ourselves otherwise? By 
any measurement, it is a disaster. It must change now. The time for 
suggestions is over. If we do not believe our current policy is worthy 
of the sacrifices being made by our troops, then it is wrong to simply 
say we will wait until this fall to change course or let's hang on for 
2 or 3 more months to see what happens.
  We know what is happening. We know what is happening today, we know 
what has been happening, and we know what is going to happen tomorrow.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to express myself on this 
amendment. I also appreciate the opportunity to cosponsor this 
responsible amendment with my colleagues. I note again it is a 
bipartisan amendment, and I hope all my colleagues in the Senate will 
take a look at all the different options and amendments and spend some 
time on each because they are each worthy of time, but in the end, the 
consistency of the amendments that have been presented so far are about 
one thing, and you can paint it any way you want, but that is a change 
of mission in Iraq and a new policy in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to propound a unanimous consent 
request, but I would be remiss if I did not recognize Senator Hagel's 
leadership on this issue and his articulate vision and years ago his 
brave service as a soldier in our Army.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be 
permitted to meet today at 7 p.m. in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
to consider an original bill entitled the Children's Health Insurance 
Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, which will provide health care for 
needy children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair did not hear the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I objected in a timely manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I know you did not hear me. I do not 
wish to keep the Finance Committee from meeting, except that we are 
being held for a very important debate, and if we are going to be held 
all night, it is the view of this side of the aisle that we should keep 
our focus on this very important issue.
  I rise today because this is such an important issue. I don't think 
that any Member on this side of the aisle or the other side of the 
aisle is insincere in their views about this issue. However, I do think 
the disagreements are real, and it is so important the Senate do the 
right thing.
  We have before us, of course, the Levin-Reed amendment that would set 
a deadline and cut and run from Iraq without regard to anything that is 
happening on the ground, including the Commander in Chief saying: For 
God's sake, don't do this.
  So here we are debating this issue, but I think we have to also talk 
about the other amendments that are on the floor because we are now 
seeing a different variety. I think there is an attempt by many of our 
Members to send a message. None of these amendments would ever become 
law. I think everyone acknowledges that fact. So every

[[Page S9338]]

amendment is meant to send a message.
  What is the message? It appears that the basic message is to tell the 
President to change strategy or to tell the generals what to do or to 
micromanage the war. All different kinds of messages are being 
proposed. But the bottom line is we cannot tell the Commander in Chief, 
the President, nor the commander on the ground, General Petraeus, how 
to do the jobs we have asked them to do.
  We heard from General Petraeus what the new strategy will be. I keep 
hearing people say we need a new strategy, we need a new plan, a new 
plan. We are in a new plan. Yet the Senate is saying, when the new plan 
is in its infancy, when the surge of 30,000 troops has been completed 
within the last 2 weeks, and yet we are pulling the rug out from under 
the new plan. It doesn't make sense.
  I think all these amendments, all these message amendments are the 
wrong thing at the wrong time.
  We cannot be the greatest country on Earth and say: Don't trust us if 
you are our ally and don't fear us if you are our enemy, and that is 
exactly what we would be doing if we leave Iraq because Congress sets a 
deadline regardless of what is happening on the ground in Iraq.
  This is about a war on terror and protecting our freedom. This is not 
about Iraq in a bubble. It is about making sure we kill terrorism in 
the world before it ruins everyone's way of life and takes freedom from 
everyone.
  If I believed we were just talking about Iraq and we could isolate 
Iraq, that would be a very different issue. This is about making sure 
Iraq does not become a stronghold for terrorists. This is to make sure 
al-Qaida cannot take over Iraq, terrorize the people as they have done 
in Afghanistan for years, have the oil revenue that would feed their 
terrorism and spread it throughout the world. We are fighting al-Qaida 
in Iraq.
  General Petraeus came to the Senate and put forth a different 
strategy. I asked him about it because I was very concerned about this 
strategy. I asked him why he thought this would work, why putting our 
troops outside the green zone and outside the protected areas embedded 
with Iraqis would make a difference. He talked about the need for the 
counterinsurgency measures to go to them and also to win over the 
neighborhoods.
  It is said by those who are on the ground and have the expertise that 
it is working, that in the al-Qaida strongholds, the people have turned 
against al-Qaida and they are helping America, and the tribal 
chieftains in that area are helping Americans.
  I met with a group of veterans today who have come back from Iraq. 
They were so strong and so firm. It was uplifting to talk with them, 
just as it is uplifting to talk with any of our Active-Duty military. 
But to talk to those who have had the boots on the ground in Iraq and 
Afghanistan who know what is happening, one cannot fail to believe we 
have to give this a chance, even if the armchair generals back here in 
Washington have misgivings.
  It is so important that despite the sincerity of so many of my 
colleagues in trying to put forward a different kind of a message, a 
message to the President--do a plan; we are not going to make you 
implement the plan, but we are going to make you do one--all the way up 
to the amendment that we are debating and on which we are going to have 
a vote tomorrow which is to cut and run.
  That is the variety of message amendments that we have pending on 
this bill, and none of those is the right message. Look at the 
consequences. Look at the consequences if we leave without making sure 
Iraq is stable.
  Today, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense announced 
there is going to be a rejuvenation of the talks that include all the 
people in the region. That is so important. This is something I have 
talked about for a long time. No longer can the neighbors to Iraq sit 
back and watch what is happening there and criticize America or anybody 
else and not take a hand in helping to solve the problems in this area. 
No longer can they sit back and grade America when it is they who have 
the very most at stake with an Iraq that might become a haven for 
terrorists. That is in no one's interest in that region, not even 
people who want the destruction of America, such as the President of 
Iran. It is not in his interest or Iran's interest to have a terror 
stronghold in the Middle East. It is certainly not in the interest of 
the moderate Arab nations that are trying to have stabilization in that 
region.
  Here we are with a new strategy that is in the process of being 
implemented, and we have the Senate debating whether to set a deadline 
and leave, regardless of what has happened on the ground.
  This does three bad things. No. 1, it dishonors those who have 
already died or been maimed. I met people today. I have met people at 
Brook Army Medical Center in San Antonio who have been maimed. I have 
met with the loved ones of people who have been lost in this war 
already. If we cut and run, it is akin to saying there wasn't an 
underlying cause for which they died. That is not true. There is an 
underlying cause. It is a fight for freedom every bit as much as any 
war which we have ever fought because if we let a caliphate take over 
the Middle East, we are not going to live in freedom. That is the 
purpose the terrorists have, and we cannot let them succeed. We cannot 
dishonor those who have died for this cause.
  No. 2, it puts every one of our troops who have boots on the ground 
today in Iraq and Afghanistan in harm's way that is a much greater harm 
than they face in the war itself. It puts a bull's-eye on them because 
the enemy knows they are leaving, so why not do worse things to our 
troops, why not get rid of them? That has happened before in retreats 
in wars.
  That would be the worst thing we could do, is to say to the enemy: 
This is when we are leaving, this is when we are going to draw down, 
this is when the troops go away. I cannot imagine we would do such a 
thing.
  And No. 3--and this is the policy that the Senate must stand for, and 
that is to stand for the integrity of America, the integrity of the 
greatest country on Earth--that we will be a formidable enemy and a 
reliable ally, that we will not flinch when times get tough. It is a 
legitimate argument about why we got here or when we should have had 
more troops or how the war has been run up to now. That is legitimate. 
We can talk about that, and it is a legitimate area to debate. But what 
is not legitimate is--because it is a very tough time--that we would 
say times are too tough; America must leave. What kind of honor would 
that bring on our country and this United States Senate? None. It would 
not bring honor on this country to cut and run because times are tough.

  This is a fight for freedom. This is a fight to live in peace and 
harmony with people of different backgrounds and different faiths. This 
is taking a stand for freedom because America is the country that has 
the commitment and the capacity to fight for freedom in the world.
  If we cut and run because times are tough, who would stand for 
freedom? Who would have the capability to stand for freedom?
  It would be unthinkable to go against the general who is in charge in 
Iraq, the head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, who has said also that ``if 
we withdraw from Iraq prematurely it would become a safe haven, perhaps 
more dangerous than the one al-Qaida had in Afghanistan.'' We would be 
going against one of the wisest Secretaries of State we have ever had 
in our history, Henry Kissinger, who said:

       Whatever our domestic timetables, the collapse of the 
     American effort in Iraq would be a geopolitical calamity.

  It would go against the wisdom of wars all the way back to the 
beginning.
  During the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant, who did lead the 
Union forces to victory, said:

       Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which 
     his Nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, 
     occupies no enviable place in life or history.

  Mr. President, this is not a new concept. This is a concept that has 
been tested time and time and time again, and retreating without honor 
is not an option for the greatest country on earth.
  I hope the Senate will not look at the election next year or the 
political whims, even though I know they are strong, and I know 
sometimes it is

[[Page S9339]]

tough to stand up and do what is right for the long term when the short 
term is very tough. But this is the Senate. We are the elected leaders 
of the States of our country. And they look to us for leadership. We 
cannot do less. Any of these amendments that are message amendments 
that will never become law, and we know it, are an undercutting of our 
troops when they have boots on the ground.
  No matter how sincere the effort of all the authors of these 
amendments are, and I know they are sincere, I know they are looking 
for a way to send that right message, there is no message in these 
amendments that can be right for our country. It is very simple and 
very clear. We are the United States of America, and the world expects 
our country to lead, to be strong, to be unwavering, and to be as good 
as our military, which everyone acknowledges is the best in the world. 
I just hope the Senate can meet that test.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are the greatest country in the world, 
and that is why I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2088 be 
withdrawn and that at 7 p.m. today the Senate vote on the Levin-Reed 
amendment, No. 2087, with the time between now and then equally divided 
in the usual form and no second-degree amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is once again clear, in the greatest 
country in the world, where debate is supposed to be free and open, 
where majority rules, we have been blocked now by our Republican 
friends for the third time from having a vote on the Levin-Reed 
amendment, which simply says it is time to change course in Iraq.
  It is not cut and run. You can stand here and say anything. I could 
say anything: Black, white, pink, brown. It means nothing. This is not 
cut and run. Read the amendment. The amendment is very clear. It is 
very well thought out.
  What it says is that we will start a redeployment of our troops out 
of Iraq in 120 days; that we will seek diplomatic solutions; that we 
will change the mission, get our brave,--unbelievably brave--and 
courageous troops out of the middle of a civil war and give them a 
mission that can be accomplished. And that mission, actually, is 
threefold--one is to go after al-Qaida in a counterterrorism effort, 
one is to continue to train the Iraqi forces, and one is to protect our 
troops, force protection.
  You can say cut and run. It isn't cut and run. It sounds good. Create 
a straw man. But that is not what Levin-Reed does.
  It is clear our Republican friends will not allow us to vote on this 
amendment, and I think I know why. I think we can win this amendment, 
for the first time. I think we can get more than 50 votes, including a 
few brave Republicans for the first time on a real amendment. And so 
instead of allowing us to vote, as we allowed them to vote on their 
amendment, the Cornyn amendment, they will not allow a vote. They are 
setting an artificial number--60. We have to meet a 60-vote threshold 
in order to get to the Levin-Reed amendment.
  All we are saying is let us vote. People are dying--our people--every 
day. They are getting blown up. They are wounded. My State has lost 21 
percent of the dead, many of whom never saw their 21st birthday. We can 
do better. We can do better. We have given this President 1 year, 2 
years, 3 years, 4 years, almost 5 years, and we are in a worse 
position.
  Oh, my colleague from Texas says, things are working. If you listen 
to her you would think it is just wonderful over there. Then I would 
ask, in a rhetorical fashion: Why do 60 percent of the Iraqis think it 
is OK to shoot and kill an American soldier? This is where we are going 
to keep our troops? And that is because we are the greatest country in 
the world?
  The greatest country in the world doesn't keep the status quo going 
if it isn't working. The greatest country in the world steps up to the 
plate and says: It is time for a change. And it is time, Mr. President, 
for a change.
  The head of Iraq said: America, you want to go? Go. We can take care 
of ourselves.
  You know what is interesting is, I met with General Petraeus when I 
was in Iraq. He was at that time the head of training the Iraqis, and 
he was high on the Iraqi soldiers. He told me, and he told Senator 
Murray--he told all of us on that trip--we had Republicans and 
Democrats--don't you worry. At that time he said: We have trained 
200,000 Iraqis, and they are top notch--they are top notch--and they 
will be able to take over.
  Unfortunately, the head of Iraq didn't think that was true. But 
General Petraeus, oh, he was Mr. Rosy Scenario. He said everything was 
great. And when I came back I gave a report to my constituents, and I 
said: You know, I never voted for this war--I thought it was a 
mistake--but I bear good news. The Iraqis are being trained. As they 
step up, we will step down.
  I believed the President when he said that one. Not to be. Not to be. 
The money we are pouring into that country a minute, folks--$250,000 a 
minute--while we turn to our poor kids and say: Sorry, we can't renew 
the children's health insurance; and, gee, we are really sorry 2 
million kids are waiting in line for afterschool. We are really sorry. 
So we are sending good dollars after bad dollars, endlessly, open 
checkbook.
  The Iraqis don't want us there. They do not want us there. The head 
of Iraq said: Go, leave, we are fine. What are we doing? Are we that 
stubborn as a nation? Well, I think the majority of this United States 
Senate might very well be ready to vote to begin the redeployment of 
the troops. I don't know that. My colleagues will not let us get there. 
Well, maybe I have convinced them, so I am going to try this again.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2088 be 
withdrawn and that at 7:30 p.m. today the Senate vote on the Levin-Reed 
amendment No. 2087, with the time between now and then equally divided 
in the usual form and no second-degree amendment be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BOND. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California retains the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, that is now the fourth time--the fourth 
time--that our colleagues have objected. This Senate must not be a 
rubberstamp for any administration, especially when our constituents 
are getting killed. We are here to speak for the people.
  Now, my colleague from Texas says we need to take a stand for 
freedom--we need to take a stand for freedom--and I agree with her. 
However, once we allow the Iraqis, with our Armed Forces protecting 
them every step of the way, to have three elections--three elections--
to be able to draw up a constitution, to have the ability to self-
govern, we can't force them to do that.
  It is true that there is al-Qaida there. Al-Qaida, according to our 
own military, is responsible for 15 percent of the violence--15 
percent--and it is ugly violence, it is horrific violence, and we 
should go after it. After all, al-Qaida cells didn't exist in Iraq--I 
have the document to prove it--until we went in. We have been a 
recruiting tool. Unfortunately, this policy has been the recruiting 
tool. I have the documentation from the State Department that showed 
right before 9/11 how many cells there were in each country. Iraq 
wasn't even mentioned. But they are there now, and we need to get them, 
and that is part of the Levin-Reed amendment: to change the mission to 
go after them.
  A fight for freedom? If people don't want freedom, can we force them 
to want freedom? If people decide to kill their neighbor, what are we 
going to do? Shia on Shia violence, Sunni on Shia, Shia on Sunni--just 
read the history books and you will see how long this has been going 
on, and we put our brave men and women right in the middle.
  This is the greatest country on Earth, by far and away, and the 
greatest country on Earth doesn't have a Senate that is a rubberstamp. 
It doesn't have a Senate that fights for the status quo when the status 
quo isn't working. The greatest country on Earth shouldn't send our men 
and

[[Page S9340]]

women back two, three, four, and five times to fight without adequate 
rest, and yet our Republican friends set up a 60-vote hurdle for 
Senator Webb and Senator Hagel so we couldn't even pass something that 
said give them rest before they go back; give them the equipment before 
they go back. It is not what the greatest country on Earth does to its 
fighting men and women. That is wrong.
  A New York Times story, here is a woman, April Ponce De Leon, who 
describes herself and her husband as ``gung-ho marines,'' and in 2 
weeks she deploys to Iraq where her husband has been fighting since 
March. But she says she stopped believing in the war last month after a 
telephone conversation with him.

       He started telling me he doesn't want me to go and do the 
     things he has been doing.

  That is what CPL Ponce De Leon, 22, speaking by telephone, said as 
she boxed up her belongings in their apartment near Camp Lejeune, NC.

       He said that we have all decided it's time for us to go 
     home.

  And the wife said:

       You mean go home and rest? And he said, I mean go home and 
     not go back.

  And she said:

       This is from someone who has been training for the past 
     nine years to go to combat and who has spent his whole life 
     wanting to be a marine. That's when I realized I couldn't 
     support the war anymore, even though I will follow my orders.

  So when we listen to some of our colleagues make it sound as if those 
of us who want to change the mission and start redeploying the troops 
in 120 days don't stand behind our troops, I say, Mr. President, it is 
the opposite. They can't speak out. They do not have a box to stand on 
and a microphone. We owe them the truth as we see it.
  It is perfectly legitimate for our colleagues to disagree with us. 
Absolutely. And I would die for their right to disagree with us. But 
what I think is wrong is when it comes to a vote of conscience like a 
war, to set up a 60-vote hurdle. Let's have a vote. Let the majority 
rule. Let's see what happens.
  What are you afraid of? The President has already said he is going to 
veto this thing, but it is our job to keep the pressure on, Mr. 
President. So I am very proud to stand here tonight. I am very sorry I 
have asked twice to go straight to a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment, 
but we are not able to do that.
  Others will come, and I will be back after several hours myself. When 
you lose 21 percent in your home State, you have a lot on your heart; a 
lot you want to say. So I look forward to coming back to the floor. And 
to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I know this is a tough 
night. I know it is emotional, but I am glad we are doing it. And I 
hope at the end of the day, when someone asks unanimous consent to go 
to a vote, there will be no objection and we can do so.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would comment that in the process of 
working out votes, the minority leader has offered to the majority 
leader to schedule votes on this and other amendments at an appropriate 
time. There is no need to do the all-night gig. It may make grand 
Hollywood theater, but it doesn't necessarily move forward what is an 
extremely important bill.
  This is a bill that not only authorizes our war fighters, it provides 
additional resources. It provides them a badly needed 3-plus percent 
pay increase. We traditionally move these bills forward because, when 
we are fighting a war, we need to support the troops. But these 
amendments are designed to substitute the judgment of 535 generals in 
this wonderful air-conditioned Capitol for the judgment of the generals 
and the commanders in the field who every day go out and fight that 
battle to maintain peace, restore peace and security in the area, and 
to protect our home front.
  The Iraqis have said they don't want us there permanently. I think we 
all agree we don't want to be there permanently. But they also said we 
need to continue to train their troops. We need to make sure they 
maintain security in the area. They are not ready to do that now.
  Sunni sheiks in Al Anbar Province, which I was pleased to visit 2 
months ago, are working with our forces and they are making great 
progress. They have been sending in their young Sunni men to be trained 
as Iraqi police and Iraqi Army. They need training. They are not ready 
yet. They are being very successful because our American marines are 
embedded with them. With them, they have taken Ramadi, the capital of 
Al Anbar, which was totally under the control of al-Qaida a few months 
ago, and made it a safe place not only for Americans but for everyday 
Iraqis to walk the streets, to do their business, to get back to a 
normal life.
  I am here today as the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee 
on Intelligence to talk about an important report issued today. Today, 
the Director of National Intelligence released key findings that could 
be made public on the National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, on the 
terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland. That report outlined a number of 
key findings of which I think our colleagues and all Americans should 
be aware.
  First, today's intelligence report found that carrying the battle to 
al-Qaida, gaining worldwide cooperation in the war on terror, has set 
them back. They have made our country and other free countries safer 
because al-Qaida and its related radical Islamist groups are no longer 
able to have the free rein they had prior to our attacks to clean them 
out of Afghanistan and to keep them out of Iraq.
  In fact, our efforts have prevented al-Qaida from attacking the 
United States since the September 11, 2001, attacks, and they have 
disrupted a number of terrorist plots outlined in the classified 
portion of the report, designed to take effect in the United States of 
America.
  One of the good parts about it is that the terrorist groups are now 
telling each other the United States is a harder target. That makes 
them less likely to attack here. That is great news. It means the hard 
work of our men and women in the military, our intelligence services 
and our law enforcement in the United States, are doing their job--and 
they are succeeding.
  While America is safer, there are still threats around the world, and 
we have to remain vigilant in fighting terrorists at home and abroad. 
The intelligence report notes that al-Qaida leadership continues to 
plan attacks. They have a relative safe haven in the northwest area of 
Pakistan known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA. 
They are increasing their capabilities from that area to launch attacks 
on the United States.
  It is important to point out that these findings do not mean, as some 
erroneously reported last week, that al-Qaida is as strong as it was 
before the September 11 attacks, or even nearly as strong. It does mean 
that America must always be prepared for attacks on our homeland and 
continue to take appropriate offensive and defensive counterterrorism 
activities.
  Unfortunately, the intelligence report, the NIE, also finds that 
international cooperation against terrorism may wane as September 11 
becomes a distant memory. That ought to be a real concern to all of us. 
I hope my colleagues take note because this should serve as a warning 
to all of us, a warning for Congress, and the American people to remain 
vigilant and committed to the war on terror. Our responsibility in 
Congress is to continue to give law enforcement and the intelligence 
community the tools they need to track, interrogate, capture or kill 
and prosecute terrorists, such as the PATRIOT Act and the modernization 
of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--very important; 
Also, the 9/11 Commission recommendations on changing congressional 
oversight to make it effective in dealing with the new challenges put 
on the intelligence community today.
  Knowing full well that the retreat-and-defeat crowd does not have the 
votes, I see the majority has opted for political gains and political 
theater. With apologies to our dedicated floor staff and the many 
wonderful men and women who keep this place operating, you are going to 
be operating all night long, around the clock, for a political show, 
not to achieve anything significant in terms of helping win the war.
  Foremost, the biggest losers from all this grandstanding are our 
fighting men and women who are risking their lives on the line in Iraq, 
carrying out

[[Page S9341]]

their mission and the mission they believe they are carrying out 
successfully.
  The majority has a political game plan. But, sadly, it is not about 
how to achieve victory, it is a plan blindly fixated on trying to 
embarrass the President, trying to figure out a way they can win votes 
for November 2008. It offers no help for the creation of stability and 
freedom in Iraq and thus continued safety for ourselves.
  Our commanders and fighting men and women, while this debate is 
underway, are actually trying to achieve victory. But they have been 
listening to us and they have questions. They send questions to us 
saying: Why are you not going to give General Petraeus's plan, which he 
said he would report on in September, an opportunity to demonstrate it 
can work? Why have you no patience? We, who are sitting in the air-
conditioned Halls of Congress while they are out in 130-plus degree 
heat risking their lives. They are willing to wait. But they are 
watching and listening to the cut-and-run arguments. So are our allies, 
Sunnis, such as the Sunni sheiks in Al Anbar Province who are risking 
everything if we run and leave because they have taken on al-Qaida. 
They don't want to live under al-Qaida. The neighbors of Iraq who are 
gradually realizing they have a role in helping Iraq be stable are 
seeing us falter and hesitate.

  Do you know who else is listening? Al-Qaida and the violent 
terrorists with whom we are at war, and I suspect they are absolutely 
revelling in what they are hearing. I imagine they loved hearing our 
majority leader saying the war has been lost. That is not a great 
message for our troops but one that certainly brings cheer to the 
hearts of al-Qaida.
  They call for troop withdrawal deadlines. They say the cost of war is 
too high. The constant barrage of negative news without the balanced 
report on the progress our troops are making--we need only listen to 
the words of the terrorists themselves who have identified Iraq as the 
central front on the war on terrorism. Osama bin Laden, in his audio 
message to what he hoped were his fellow Muslims in December of 2004, 
said:

       The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital 
     of the caliphate.

  Our own servicemembers such as 1LT Pete Hegseth, an Iraqi war veteran 
and director of the Vets for Freedom recently, knows the importance of 
achieving victory. He said, as one who has been on the frontlines:

       Iraq today is the front line of a global Jihad being waged 
     against America and its allies. Both Osama bin Laden and 
     Ayman al-Zawahiri have said so.

  But despite this enormous effort, the retreat-and-defeat crowd still 
wants to micromanage this war 8,000 miles away from the fight and set 
timetables and troop movements and ultimately to engineer a defeat 
brought on by retreat.
  These actions most egregiously send mixed messages to our enemies all 
across the globe that our Nation is fractured, weak, and does not have 
the will to see it through. This same message can discourage allies and 
the millions of Iraqis who are risking their lives for a chance at 
freedom by supporting us. For not only is the safety and security of 
our Nation and allies at stake but so, too, is our credibility.
  Critics of us have frequently claimed the war has damaged the U.S. 
image and credibility throughout the world. Yet the retreat-and-defeat 
crowd ignores the irreparable harm that would be done here were we to 
leave this mission unfinished.
  If you think our image and reputation has plummeted, wait and watch 
it nosedive if we were to leave Iraq before finishing the job. Think 
about what would happen to the millions of Iraqi citizens and leaders 
who took a stand against terrorism, who committed to take a stand with 
us to rebuild their country and fight against the forces of radical 
Islam and terrorism. What are we to say to the millions of Iraqis who 
trusted America and believed we would stay until the mission was 
complete, only to see them slaughtered by terrorists as a result of our 
abandoning them before they were able to stand on their own.
  I mentioned on this floor before, what did we say to the thousands of 
South Vietnamese or millions of Cambodians who put their trust in 
America and were slaughtered after we abandoned them? History has 
taught us that when America abandons its commitments to spreading 
liberty and freedom, we are not the only ones who suffer. Hundreds of 
thousands may well suffer, but it will come back to harm us and haunt 
us in our homeland--not only our credibility.
  In January of this year, before the Senate Intelligence Committee, 
the leaders--the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA Director, 
the Defense Intelligence Agency Director--testified in public session. 
They said if we pulled out on a political timetable, chaos would ensue. 
What would happen?
  No. 1, there would be a tremendous increase in slaughter among Sunni 
and Shia in Iraq.
  No. 2, al-Qaida would be able to establish a safe haven, a platform 
where they could get the oil revenues they needed to fund their efforts 
and significantly increase the threat to our United States of America 
and possibly even to foment a regionwide civil war, as other nations 
would come in to the rescue of their coreligionists in Iraq.
  To ignore these considerations and questions simply because they are 
perceived to be more politically palatable than continuing the vital 
mission that our troops are fighting is shortsighted at best and 
dangerous at worst. Those who are attempting to end the war 
precipitously because they are vested politically in defeat do not want 
to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq will do anything but end--
in fact would only grow more dangerous--if we leave our enemies in 
Iraq, unlike in Vietnam, the victors. The victors would follow us home. 
The North Vietnamese did not follow us home after we lost in Vietnam. 
Al-Qaida will follow us home if we allow them to achieve victory over 
us in Iraq.
  We have seen in recent weeks, since the implementation of General 
Petraeus's plan, movement has begun in the right direction. When I 
returned from Iraq in May, I observed, even at that point, some initial 
signs that the planning and working was moving in the right direction. 
Sunni sheiks in Anbar are now fighting al-Qaida; more than 50 joint 
U.S.-Iraq stations have been established in Baghdad, conducting regular 
patrols, resulting in increased security and actionable intelligence.
  Muqtada al-Sadr has felt the heat. His followers, while perhaps have 
demonstrated against American troops, are not contesting them. They and 
Jaysh al-Mahdi, the Shia militant group, has stood down. The Iraqi Army 
and police forces are increasingly fighting on their own, with their 
size and capability growing.
  July 16, the Wall Street Journal carried an article by Omar Fadhil. 
He said the surge is working, fully operational for barely a month. He 
defines the two most dangerous enemies in Iraq we face in Iraq, Muqtada 
al-Sadr's militia and al-Qaida, and he says:

       Sadr's militias have moved the main battlefield south to 
     cities like Samwah, Nasiriyah and Diwaniyah where there's no 
     American surge of troops, and from which many Iraqi troops 
     were recalled to serve in Baghdad. But over there, too, the 
     Iraqi security forces and local administrations did not show 
     the weakness that Sadr was hoping to see. As a result, Sadr's 
     representatives have been forced to accept ``truces.''
       This may make things sound as if Sadr has the upper hand, 
     that he can force a truce on the state. But, the fact this is 
     missing from news reports is that, with each new eruption of 
     clashes, Sadr's position becomes weaker as tribes and local 
     administrations join forces to confront his outlaw militias.
       And regarding al-Qaida, he writes that they, al-Qaida, have 
     not been any luckier than Sadr, and the tide began to turn 
     even before the surge was announced. The change came from the 
     most unlikely city and unlikely people, Ramadi and its Sunni 
     tribes.
       He goes on to say: In Baghdad the results have been just as 
     spectacular so far. The district where al-Qaida claimed to 
     have established it Islamic emirate is losing big now, and at 
     the hands of its former allies who have turned on al-Qaida 
     and are slowly reaching out to government.
  MG Rick Lynch, 3rd Infantry Division Commander, provided a telling 
example in yesterday's New York Times.
  In the village of Al Taqa, about 20 miles southwest of Baghdad, Lynch 
said women and children were taping plastic pipes on streetlamps to 
warn Iraqi security forces of roadside bombs. He also stated that 
locals have exposed al-Qaida hideouts, helped troops locate 170 large 
caches of arms, and guaranteed organized armed neighborhood controls 
could keep safety.
  While I would agree that there is no guarantee of victory, and we 
have a

[[Page S9342]]

long way to go, we certainly need to make every effort to achieve it. 
The war in Iraq is far more important on a front that is far larger 
than that battlefield. It is the global battlefield. That is why we are 
fighting in Iraq, to keep our country safe, to make sure al-Qaida does 
not get the upper hand, to make sure our troops, who are carrying out 
their mission to stop al-Qaida, can do so in Iraq rather than hand them 
the victory which will embolden them, which will allow them significant 
resources from the oil-rich Iraqi sands and give them the courage to 
expand recruiting and attack our country.
  We cannot allow cut-and-run amendments to be added to a vital 
authorization bill to support our American troops.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I welcome the debate on the U.S. role in 
Iraq, and I urge my colleagues to allow us to vote on the issue. I 
think each of us was elected to cast our votes and this is the most 
critical issue that is facing this Nation and we should be able to cast 
a vote on this issue, hopefully tonight.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by Senators 
Levin and Reed to the Defense authorization legislation. It is similar 
to the provisions Congress originally passed on the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill that President Bush vetoed.
  We now have more information than we did 3 months ago when we acted 
on the supplemental appropriations bill. We know the President's surge 
policy has not worked. By the President's own assessment, the Iraqis 
have failed to meet the most important interim benchmarks required for 
stability in Iraq. The Levin-Reed amendment would change our mission in 
Iraq to limit U.S. involvement to conducting counterterrorism 
operations, protecting U.S. forces and military infrastructure during 
redeployment, and training Iraqi forces.
  It would set a deadline of April 30, 2008, for all U.S. combat troops 
to be removed from attempting to quell the civil war in Iraq. We should 
not wait a single additional day in changing the U.S. mission in Iraq.
  I have opposed the war from the inception. In October 2002, I voted 
against giving President Bush the authority to use U.S. troops in Iraq. 
I have likewise opposed the President's management of this war. The 
administration misrepresented or ignored intelligence about Iraq. The 
administration's effort to garner international support for the war was 
totally inadequate. Our troops went to Iraq without adequate equipment. 
The President failed to prepare for the insurgency. The leadership in 
the White House wrongfully ordered the dismantling of the internal 
Iraqi police, putting the local communities at the mercy of the 
insurgents.
  Our Nation and the Iraqis have paid a heavy price for the 
administration's mistakes. To date, over 3,600 U.S. soldiers have died 
and over 23,000 have been wounded, many sustaining life-changing 
injuries. Seventy-seven of the brave men and women who have lost their 
lives have been from Maryland. U.S. taxpayers have spent at least $320 
billion so far. According to the Congressional Research Service, the 
war in Iraq currently costs $10 billion per month.
  These expenditures represent lost opportunities in our own country.
  Tragically, we have lost our focus in the war against terrorism. 
Afghanistan is not secure, and Osama bin Laden is still at large. For 
over a year, there has been a significant increase in the level of 
violence in Iraq. The main reason for this escalation has been 
sectarian violence.
  U.S. military commanders have confirmed that the Sunni-Shiite 
conflict is the greatest source of violence in Iraq. Iraq is in the 
midst of a civil war, and the presence of American troops in the middle 
of a civil war is counterproductive. In fact, there is not one civil 
war raging in Iraq, there are many civil wars in Iraq. In Baghdad, 
Sunnis are fighting Shias. In Anbar and Diyala, Sunnis are fighting 
each other. In southern Iraq, Shiites are fighting each other. And 
around Kirkuik and Mosul Kurds are fighting Sunnis.
  Our first priority should be to remove our troops from the middle of 
these civil wars. The Levin-Reed amendment will do just that. In order 
to bolster our military and refocus its attention on the global 
terrorism threat, this Congress has attempted, on more than one 
occasion, to redeploy U.S. forces and change the mission of our 
operations in Iraq.
  President Bush and a minority in Congress have rebuffed this effort. 
Instead, President Bush proposes a strategy he claimed would improve 
the situation in Iraq: increasing the number of troops deployed, and 
stepping up traditional counterinsurgent operations.
  According to President Bush, increased U.S. troops would stabilize 
the country so that its national leaders could operate in a safe 
environment in which to reach political agreement on oil and revenue 
sharing laws and amend their constitution. Furthermore, so the theory 
went, increased U.S. troop levels would enable us to accelerate 
training initiatives so that the Iraqi Army and police force could 
assume control over all security in the country by November 2007.
  President Bush sent over 28,000 more soldiers into Iraq with the hope 
of fulfilling the goals of his plan. President Bush insists on 
continuing this surge policy. But the so-called surge is not working. 
Some of the most brutal acts of sectarian violence have occurred during 
the surge.
  For example, in March of this year, a truck bomb in a Shia 
neighborhood killed 150 people. The Shia-controlled police units 
responded by systematically kidnapping and murdering 70 Sunnis. This is 
not an isolated episode.
  Approximately 600 U.S. soldiers have died during the surge, and more 
than 3,000 have been wounded. Violence in many sectors of Iraq has 
increased. Despite the valiant effort of our troops, terrorist attacks 
in Iraq and around the world continue to rise. Tensions between 
countries in the Middle East region are growing.
  Middle East autocrats have an even firmer grip on power. The Arab-
Israeli conflict has deteriorated. Our military is stretched thin. And 
the most recent intelligence analysis reports that the al-Qaida group 
that attacked our Nation, the al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is 
stronger now than at any time since September 11, 2001.
  The 2007 emergency supplemental appropriations bill required 
President Bush to report to Congress and the American people on the 
progress Iraqis are making in achieving certain benchmarks. These 
benchmarks were established so there could be a new way forward in Iraq 
with regard to securing civilian populations, establishing the Iraqi 
security force's capacity, and supporting an Iraqi Government that 
would have credibility and confidence at the national and provincial 
levels.
  We now have received the first report from the administration. This 
assessment confirms the failures of the President's policies in Iraq by 
his own objectives. The Iraqis have failed to make satisfactory 
progress in key areas. For example, it is critical, critical for the 
Iraqi Parliament to pass legislation ensuring equitable distribution of 
the hydrocarbon oil revenues. Without such legislation, it is difficult 
to believe that the ethnic communities will have confidence in their 
central government. The Bush administration's assessment on this 
benchmark: not satisfactory.
  Another benchmark concerns disarmament of the militias. We have heard 
about the militias and how they run their own affairs and take over 
ethnic communities. It is necessary that the Iraqi security forces be 
the national military. Eliminating militia control of local security is 
an additional benchmark. The Bush administration's assessment on those 
key benchmarks: not satisfactory and unsatisfactory.
  Our goal has always been for the Iraqi commanders being able to make 
tactical and operational decisions without political intervention to 
uncover and pursue all extremists on all sides. The Iraqi security 
forces provide even-handed enforcement of the law. That is critical if 
the Government is going to have the confidence of its people. The Bush 
administration's own assessment on these benchmarks: unsatisfactory.
  It is critical that the Iraqi security forces be able to operate 
independently. This benchmark is particularly important if we are going 
to be able to

[[Page S9343]]

draw down on the U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration's 
assessment on this benchmark: not satisfactory.
  The interim report the administration released last week confirms 
that Iraqi security forces still cannot be trusted to enforce the law 
fairly. Some have taken part in sectarian violence, and some even have 
turned on American troops.
  In order to have national reconciliation and the political elements 
for stability in Iraq, it is necessary to enact and implement 
debaathification reforms; another critical benchmark that was 
established with the United States and the Iraqis. The Bush 
administration's assessment on this benchmark: not satisfactory.
  Most troubling, the Iraqi Government is seriously weakened, and many 
predict its collapse. The major Sunni party is currently boycotting the 
Government. Without Sunni participation, meaningful progress on any key 
political benchmarks is impossible.
  Whatever progress the President's interim report claims, it is clear 
that our military has not curbed sectarian violence, nor has the troop 
escalation provided sectarian influence over and infiltration of the 
Iraqi security forces, or forced Iraqi political leaders to make the 
tough decisions necessary to move forward toward peace.
  I think it is time to acknowledge that President Bush's troop 
escalation has failed. It has failed to make Iraq more secure. The 
Iraqi Government remains incapable of organizing its security forces or 
its legislature to achieve a semblance of stability or political 
reconciliation.

  It is time to change the mission in Iraq. The cost of further delays 
in lives, material, treasure, standing in the world, is just too great. 
President Bush's strategy has put this Nation at greater risk, a risk 
that metastasizes each day that we sit by and wait. Wait for what? For 
new evidence of failure to accumulate, for news that more American 
soldiers have died and Iraqi civilians have been killed?
  It is critical for the United States to change policy in Iraq, and it 
starts by removing our troops from the middle of a civil war. The 
Levin-Reed amendment would do that. Our new mission must recognize that 
the opportunity for sweeping regional change, if it ever existed, has 
passed.
  Instead, we need to focus on realistic objectives which include 
preventing the conflict in Iraq from igniting a broader regional war 
and preventing genocide.
  Unfortunately, we cannot rewrite history. The United States does have 
a responsibility toward assisting the Iraqis and working for peace in 
that region. It is in the interests of our country to do that. There is 
no easy path to achieve the objectives of stability in Iraq and 
protection of all of its ethnic communities.
  As the bipartisan Iraq Study Group noted:

       There is no action the American military can take that by 
     itself can bring about success in Iraq.

  The efforts will most certainly include stepped-up diplomatic 
efforts. Iraq's neighbors have a stake in Iraqi stability. The war in 
Iraq has produced hundreds of thousands of refugees. An escalation of 
the conflict will mean even more refugees, which is a major concern to 
Iraq's neighbors.
  An escalation in the conflict means the spread of fundamentalism and 
sectarian violence, and an increase in basic crime and lawlessness, not 
just to Iraq but to the region.
  We must support and broaden efforts made to create the International 
Compact for Iraq, a 5-year plan launched this past April under the 
auspices of the United Nations with benchmarks for Iraq's national 
reconciliation and economic reconstruction.
  That compact includes formal commitments of support from the 
international community. But we must begin to have a broader diplomatic 
and economic vision in the Middle East that includes engaging both the 
United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 
Europe, OSCE, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The various agencies of the United Nations are best suited to tackle 
the myriad problems plaguing Iraq. Matters of security, training, 
economics, and community development and providing electricity, water, 
and sanitation service are all areas where the United Nations has 
expertise.
  Just as important, the United States should request OSCE to assist 
Iraq as a partner for cooperation. There is precedent for this. 
Afghanistan has already moved in that direction. Afghanistan has begun 
participation in OSCE proceedings under this program. This status could 
allow OSCE to assist Iraq with collective border security, police 
training--which is desperately needed--immigration and religious 
tolerance efforts.
  Engaging the UN and OSCE could help initiate much needed multilateral 
and bilateral engagement with both friendly nations such as Turkey and 
with hostile nations such as Iran and Syria.
  Engagement of the international community to deal with Iran and 
Syria's destabilizing regional policies is a critical factor that is 
needed and a renewed effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
  Iraq should request assistance from the United Nations and other 
international forces to help prevent continued ethnic cleansing. 
According to the United Nations 2005 World Summit, a high-level plenary 
meeting of the 60th session of the General Assembly, states have a 
responsibility to protect their population from genocide, war crimes, 
ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. This is an international 
responsibility, not solely a U.S. responsibility.
  I believe the strategy I have just outlined presents the best chance 
of helping the Iraqis negotiate a government and a governmental 
structure that has the confidence of its people, that protects the 
rights of all of its citizens, and builds the democratic institutions 
such as an independent judiciary and a market-based economy that are so 
vital to a successful country.
  There is a difference between being resolute and being stubborn. We 
can no longer ignore overwhelming evidence or recoil from the cold 
reality the facts on the ground reveal. President Bush's policies have 
failed. The world has an interest in a safe and secure Iraq. I believe 
efforts to rebuild the country must be a shared responsibility among 
nations.
  There is no more time for delay. It is time to change the mission, 
redeploy our troops currently stationed in Iraq, and internationalize 
the effort to bring stability to that country and to the Middle East. 
Such a strategy could give the Iraqis a real hope for peace and give 
Americans the best chance to achieve our objectives in that region of 
the world.
  Our soldiers have honored our country by their incredible service. We 
owe it to our soldiers to change our mission now so we have the best 
chance to achieve these objectives.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, you would never know it from our debate 
the last couple of weeks, but we are here to talk about the Defense 
authorization bill, this rather large bill that is at all of our desks. 
Much broader than just any particular conversation about Iraq, or any 
particular battle, this is to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2008, for military activities and the Department of Defense, for 
military construction, for defense activities and the Department of 
Energy, to proscribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 
and other purposes.
  One of the most important bills that we debate and pass, this 
includes money for aircraft, missiles, weapons systems, vehicles, all 
of the things we need to protect and secure our country--a very 
important bill.
  I appreciate that the minority a number of times this evening has 
said: We need to go ahead and vote, particularly on the amendment in 
front of us, the Levin amendment. And while the normal procedure is to 
get agreements between the sides on when we vote, the minority filed 
cloture on this bill. There is really no need to delay the cloture vote 
any further.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Could I just offer an observation? We are not the 
minority, we are the majority.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you. Bad habits die hard. Thank you for correcting 
me.
  But we do need to move ahead with the cloture vote. There is no need 
for the theatrics through the evening on this. And since the majority 
has filed for a cloture vote, I ask unanimous

[[Page S9344]]

consent that the cloture vote for the pending Levin amendment occur at 
8:30 this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator 
will repeat that.
  Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the 
pending Levin amendment occur at 8:30 this evening.
  Mr. LEVIN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, it is clear that the cloture motion as has 
been filed by the majority is clearly not what they want to happen this 
evening. So it does seem to be that this is all about a political 
circus to keep us here all night for some political theater to try to 
embarrass the President and in the process demoralize our troops and 
embolden our enemies.
  Instead of talking about substantive amendments to the Defense 
authorization bill, what I hear the majority speaking of is message 
amendments, to try to message their political theater.
  The fact is, this is about winning elections. The majority has given 
many quotes to the media. One senior Democratic aide on Fox News, when 
asked about staying up all night, said: Is this a publicity stunt? Yes.
  Senator Reid was quoted as saying at a press conference: I don't know 
if we will get 60 votes, but I tell you one thing, there are 21 
Republicans up for reelection this time.
  Senator Reid was quoted in the Washington Post as: We are going to 
pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown 
me numbers that are compelling and astounding.
  So while the majority is putting us through political theater in 
hopes of picking up Senate seats in 2008, our National Intelligence 
Estimate, which just came out, is very clear in their key judgment. It 
says: We judge that the U.S. homeland will face a persistent and 
evolving terrorist threat over the next 3 years.
  The main threat comes from Islamic terrorist groups themselves, 
especially al-Qaida driven by their undiminished intent to attack the 
homeland and a continued effort by these terrorists groups to adopt and 
improve their capabilities.
  The report is clear that we have a broad threat, a global threat. It 
is not just about Iraq. The whole Defense authorization is very 
important. We should not be sidelining the discussion of important 
issues of national defense and security with political theater this 
evening.
  But it is important, as some of my colleagues have done, to kind of 
review what we have been through the last few months. Certainly, all of 
us are concerned about the progress in Iraq, the safety of our troops. 
We all want to finish our job with honor, with victory, to bring our 
troops home.
  We have had a lot of debate this year. But recently when the 
President submitted his war spending bill, emergency supplemental bill, 
to fund our troops, we had a lot of debate. My Democratic colleagues 
had a lot of different ideas. The President vetoed one version. After 
that, we came to an agreement. The Democrats would force the President 
to agree that after we sent General Petraeus there--and that was a 
unanimous thing, to send General Petraeus to Baghdad to secure the 
area, we sent thousands of new troops. The Democrats agreed on that 
funding, but they requested that we have a report from General Petraeus 
in the middle of September to find out what progress we were making. We 
all agreed to that. But after we all agreed and had the signing at the 
White House, that is now not good enough for my Democratic colleagues.
  As we heard one political strategist say about the Democrats, any day 
they are not talking about Iraq is a bad day. They want to make 
political hay out of this difficult situation that our country faces.
  We have a new plan almost every day of how we are going to withdraw 
and retreat, a strategy du jour in the Senate. We will be talking about 
a lot of those new strategies as we go through the evening.
  But as has already been mentioned by some of my Republican colleagues 
who talk a lot with the troops who come home, almost without exception 
they believe in our mission, and they believe they can win. What we are 
asking tonight of the majority is to let them win. Let Petraeus do what 
we sent him to do. Give him the time that we gave him--until 
September--to demonstrate that we can secure Baghdad, at least 
reasonably, in a way that the Government can function and the economy 
can rebound and the country can begin to establish itself as a free and 
independent democracy.
  What we are seeing again is what we have seen over the past years. My 
Democratic colleagues, while well intended, are very often weak on 
defense and national security on almost every measure fighting for 
security. We would not even give our homeland security the same tools 
to fight terrorists as we give our law enforcement to fight drug 
dealers. Certainly, terrorists are as much a threat to us.
  Some of my Democratic colleagues have even said this is a bumper 
sticker campaign, not a real war. I think we have to begin this whole 
process by recognizing, as our national intelligence estimate tells us 
time and again, this is a real threat, a continuing threat, one that we 
need to be prepared for in many ways, and we need to develop more of a 
consensus in the Senate of how we are going to fight it.
  Our troops do believe in what they are doing. They believe it is a 
right cause, and they believe they can win. We need to let them win. We 
shouldn't continue to talk through the night and talk day after day 
about ``we have lost'' or ``we can't win'' or ``we shouldn't be there'' 
or ``we are not making progress,'' when those who are there doing the 
fighting are telling us quite a different story.
  Mr. President, I wish to address at least one amendment to the 
Defense authorization bill that I think is an example of what we need 
to be doing to make our military more efficient. There are a lot of 
things we do as a Congress that force our military to do things maybe 
for political reasons that don't help us militarily. One is related to 
aircraft retirement.
  I have an amendment that I hope we can get to, amendment No. 2302, 
that is related to aircraft retirement. Some call it flyable storage. I 
was amazed to find out that Congress has required the Air Force to 
maintain in flying condition permanently grounded aircraft at the cost 
of millions of dollars a year. Many of these older aircraft, because of 
structural integrity, safety concerns, will never fly again. Yet we 
require them to be maintained in operational status for that last 
flight to the junkyard.
  Between 2000 and 2007, retirement restrictions cost the Air Force 
$893 million, and almost $143 million has gone to modify aircraft the 
Air Force would like to retire. This year, the Air Force will spend 
$8.1 million to maintain the aircraft in flyable storage, $8.1 million 
to maintain aircraft that will never be used again. This will happen 
year after year.
  There has been some political pressure to keep this because some 
maintenance happens in different States where various Senators and 
Congressmen want that to continue.
  My amendment will just give the Air Force the flexibility to retire 
aircraft that needs to be retired. Most Americans would think that is 
just basic common sense, and I hope we can agree on that in the Senate.
  I hope we can get back to the debate on this Defense authorization 
bill. I am very sorry that the majority will not let us move to the 
cloture vote on the Levin amendment, which is pending. But if we need 
to talk through the night, we will continue to talk through the night.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
Senator from Maryland finishes her remarks, then on the Republican 
side, I understand Senator Warner will be the next speaker, and then 
that Senator Schumer be recognized on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
would just like to add Senator Bunning after Senator Schumer, if I may.

[[Page S9345]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am glad we got one of them. Maybe we can start a 
momentum here.
  Mr. President, I never thought I would see the day in the Senate when 
there would be essentially a gag rule on the subject of war, 
essentially a gag rule preventing us from voting on the deployment of 
our troops and a framework for them to be able to come home. We are 
supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, but the other 
party has chosen to throw sand in the gears to give us a vote where we 
would present a framework.
  The previous speaker talked about that we Democrats present a 
strategy du jour on the war. I challenge that statement and say it is 
the White House that gives us a strategy du jour, a strategy of the 
week, always changing goals. When the war was originally voted for, it 
was to get rid of Saddam Hussein and get rid of weapons of mass 
destruction. Saddam is gone and there were no weapons of mass 
destruction. If that was the goal of the war, come back home. Then it 
was to create democracy in Iraq. Now it is to secure Baghdad. It is a 
goal and a strategy du jour.

  We have to come up with the right kind of framework, but we also need 
to be able to offer our votes. Mr. President, 47 times this year the 
Republican minority has threatened a filibuster on a variety of bills 
that we want to bring up on both domestic and foreign policy; 47 times 
they have threatened a filibuster, and now they have gone too far. Now 
the other party refuses to give us a vote on the most important issue 
we face: the war in Iraq and the deployment of our troops.
  Our President talks about building a democratic Iraq. We should start 
with building democracy right here in the Senate.
  Democracy is built on fundamental principles. One of the fundamental 
principles is freedom of speech, but not in the Senate. We are in a gag 
rule. We face strong-arm tactics to prevent our vote on a troop 
deadline.
  Another fundamental principle of democracy is majority rule, but not 
in the Senate. It now takes 60 votes to win a vote. The reason we 
objected to the cloture is to end the filibuster. But we want to end 
the war, and that is why our unanimous consent request is a direct vote 
on that point. They want to hide behind parliamentary procedure. We 
want to go directly to the point.
  Our Constitution calls for a system of checks and balances, but that 
is not what the White House wants. They want us to write the checks, 
but tonight we are trying to provide the balance. That is why we stand 
here the way we do.
  Some people say Democrats are micromanaging the war. Well, hey, 
someone has to manage it, and it is about time. For the last 5 years, 
Congress has been under the rule of the other party. It has been a 
rubberstamp for the Bush administration. The results have been 
devastating to our military, to America's standing in the world, to the 
Iraqi people. We had troops sent to battle with inadequate protection 
and no plan for victory. We had modest international support, and now 
that is dwindling. Our former Secretary of Defense was imperious and 
turned a blind eye to cronyism and corruption at every level of the 
reconstruction.
  You know what, it is time for someone to manage the war, and we are 
ready to do it. We are ready to lead. We just need to have a vote.
  It is time to stop talking, it is time for action, and it is time for 
the Senate to have its say and its day on an actual vote.
  This isn't about theater, it is not about polls, and it is not about 
politics. It is about the will of the American people. It is about 
honoring democratic principles. It is about doing the job we were 
elected to do.
  I support the bipartisan amendment of Levin, Reed, and Hagel and 
other Republicans because it begins the process of bringing our troops 
home. But it not only brings them home, it brings them home safely and 
swiftly.
  The Iraqis must understand the future of their nation is now in their 
hands, and our troops have to understand that the Congress is with them 
and we want to be with them when they are on the battlefield and when 
they come home. We believe the best way to support our troops is to 
create a framework to bring them home swiftly and safely.
  There are those who want to talk about alternatives. There are those 
who are blocking the vote on this amendment saying it is too soon to 
withdraw. They have suddenly discovered the recommendations of the Iraq 
Study Group, something I supported 7 months ago, 210 days ago.
  Mr. President, 210 days ago, the Iraq Study Group gave us a 
framework. They called it a way forward. They had 79 recommendations. I 
stood on this floor and said out of the 79, certainly there were 60 on 
which we could agree. Let's have a meeting, let's pick our favorite 60, 
and let's start moving forward on a military solution, a political 
solution, a diplomatic solution, but a solution it would be.
  It was dismissed. It was dismissed by the other party, the other side 
of the wall, the other side of the aisle--it seems like a wall 
sometimes--and it was dismissed by the President of the United States.
  So now all of a sudden they found the Iraq Study Group. Seven months 
ago that Iraq Study Group did call for diplomatic and political 
efforts. I think we make those efforts, and I also think that is 
included in the spirit and substance of Levin-Reed-Hagel-Snowe and 
others amendment.
  Now is the day that we should refocus our mission in Iraq and also 
follow the path forward that was recommended and have our troops home 
by April 1, 2008. We know the Levin-Reed-Hagel, et al, amendment 
directs the Secretary of Defense to begin reducing the number of U.S. 
forces in Iraq no later than 120 days to begin those important 
diplomatic and political strategies. And it also leaves U.S. forces 
there for three missions: protecting other U.S. troops, completing the 
training of Iraq troops, and engaging in targeted counterterrorism 
operations. But it also requires them to complete it by April 30, 2008. 
This is what I advocate.
  I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the 
first place. You see, I read all those intelligence reports, and I 
never believed that the President should be granted unilateral 
authority to engage in a war where there was no imminent threat to the 
United States of America. I was one of 23. Four years ago on October 
11, I opposed the President giving this authority and asked that we 
exhaust our diplomatic options, asked us to stick with the U.N., and I 
said: I am just so concerned that I don't know if our troops will be 
met with a parade or a landmine. We know where we are. So off we went. 
We went to war with Iraq, and now we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is 
gone, but we are still there mired in a civil war.
  No one could ask more of our troops. They have been brave, they have 
been courageous, and they have followed the request of their Commander 
in Chief. We need to look out for them. I believe we will. Other 
aspects of this bill, particularly the Wounded Warriors Act, look out 
for the veterans who have been injured, look out by reforming the 
disability benefits system, look out for the health care they need from 
the VA.
  It is time for a new direction. It is time for us to have this vote. 
It is time for the Iraqi elected officials to stand up. Twelve Members 
of the 38-Member Parliament no longer attend Cabinet meetings; 75 
Members of the Iraqi Parliament are boycotting their own Parliament so 
that they cannot get a quorum to do their job, whether it is for oil 
revenue sharing or power sharing.

  I think it is time now, I think it is time for us to have a vote. I 
think it is time to refocus the mission. I think it is time to redeploy 
our troops. I think it is time to bring our troops home by April 30, 
2008. And that is why I think it is time to vote on the Levin-Reed 
amendment.
  So, Mr. President, I therefore, ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 2088 be withdrawn and that at 8:30 p.m. today, the Senate vote on 
the Levin-Reed amendment No. 2087 with the time, in all fairness, 
equally divided on both sides in the usual format, and no second-degree 
amendments be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S9346]]

  Mr. BUNNING. I object.
  Mr. WARNER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am so sorry to hear that objection. 
But I have now concluded my remarks for this part of the evening and 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I am given 
an opportunity now, which I have been looking forward to, to have a 
little colloquy with my long-time friend, Senator Levin, now chairman 
of the committee, and address one or two issues to explain why I feel 
very strongly that I have to oppose this amendment.
  Just 49 days ago, the President signed into law an appropriations 
bill which contained legislative language, which legislative language 
originated on the floor of the Senate. I was privileged to be a part of 
the drafting of that language, and it eventually has become now the law 
of the land. I would like to review some of the points we put in that 
language which is the law.
  It, first, requires the President to come forward on July 15, which 
he did. He submitted an assessment of the benchmarks. It further 
directed that General Petraeus be here in September with Ambassador 
Crocker. It further called upon the new organization which was created 
in this most recent appropriations bill, again originating, this part 
of the legislation, on the floor of the Senate. We put together a 
requirement that there be an independent study group of the Iraq 
security forces.
  We have periodically through the years received reports from the 
Department of Defense describing how many battalions of the Iraqi 
forces are trained, how many are equipped, how many are ready to take 
the point by themselves, how many are dependent on U.S. forces. That is 
quite an accumulation of data. I felt very strongly, and other 
colleagues did, that we wanted to have a report independent of the 
Department of Defense, and that report performed by individuals who had 
many years of experience assessing the capabilities of men and women in 
uniform.
  How fortunate we were that the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, 
General Jones, offered to head that group. He formed a group of fellow 
officers, most of them three and four stars now retired, who likewise 
have had years of experience and training in evaluating our Armed 
Forces. And they added two police chiefs. They just finished this past 
weekend. They returned on Saturday from a 1-week trip to Iraq to study 
the forces.
  Part of the law requires that they come forward with a report. And I 
am pleased to say, having consulted with General Jones, that report 
will be available early in September, such that the President, the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and others can take it into consideration 
as they formulate the sequential requirement of the President to come 
forth and report to America, the Congress, and his people his opinion 
of the situation in Iraq as of September 15 of this year.
  It is for that reason that I believe we should hold in place 
additional legislation at this time until the President has had the 
opportunity, that Congress has had the opportunity, and, most 
importantly, the American people have had the opportunity to study all 
of these facts provided by the professionals.
  I would like to also add that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, General Pace, has also stated he will have a report, his own 
assessment, of the situation over there, and his assessment of the Iraq 
security forces; that is, both military and police, prepared for that 
September timeframe. So that is the focal point.
  I say with deep respect to my colleague, Senator Levin, chairman of 
the committee, which I am proud to have served on now 29 years with 
Senator Levin, side by side, that it seems to me we have passed a law 
where we put in the process by which America would proceed to the 15th 
of September, at which time the President will report to the Nation 
about such changes as he deems--the President, as Commander in Chief, 
exercising his clear authority under the Constitution, to change or 
revise the strategy and how our forces will be implemented in the 
future.
  Later this evening, perhaps when I have further time, I will address 
the Warner-Lugar amendment, which goes into some detail about our 
recommendations to the President--I repeat: recommendations. Not 
directing him as a matter of law--on that report on 15 September; to 
include certain items in it. But the point I wish to make is I feel 
that if the Senate were to adopt, by way of a vote--which now requires 
60 votes--the Levin amendment, it would be in contravention to the very 
spirit, letter, and purpose of the law that this body adopted 49 days 
ago. That would bring about confusion in the minds of the troops, 
confusion in the minds of the world.
  How can America take such a zigzag course in legislation at such a 
critical time in our history, while trying to provide the Iraqi people 
with a stable situation so they can have some measurable quality of 
life and freedom and move ahead and hopefully have a nation that will 
join other nations in the world in our struggle against terrorism? That 
is my main concern.
  I also point out that my good friend, Senator Levin, voted for the 
Cornyn amendment, which we adopted this morning, and among the findings 
are, as follows: The Cornyn amendment, which Senator Levin and I, and 
90-some other Senators supported, stated:

       A failed state in Iraq would become a safe haven for 
     Islamic radicals, including al Qaeda.

  We read today in the National Intelligence Estimate addressing the 
potential of al-Qaida and how so much of that potential is directed, 
clearly, at the United States.
  The Cornyn amendment also said:

       The Iraq Study Group report found that ``(a) chaotic Iraq--

  should we have a precipitous pullout--

       could provide a still stronger base of operations for 
     terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally.''

  Further, the Cornyn amendment recited:

       A National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the 
     consequences of a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be 
     that--(A) Al Qaeda would attempt to use Anbar province to 
     plan further attacks outside of Iraq; (B) neighboring 
     countries would consider actively intervening in Iraq; and 
     (C) sectarian violence would significantly increase in Iraq, 
     accompanied by massive civilian casualties and displacement.

  Now, I read that because my valued friend, Senator Levin, appeared 
last night on a national program, the Jim Lehrer show, and he was asked 
repeatedly in that interview about how he would envision an Iraq having 
to experience a withdrawal timetable, which is fixed in his amendment. 
How would Iraq be, once that timetable went into effect and those 
troops would withdraw? I read through very carefully the transcript, 
which I have here, and I cannot find in there the specific references, 
much like what was in the Cornyn amendment. It seems to me there might 
be some disconnect between what you said publicly last night and the 
document to which you attached your vote in support today.
  So I would like to entertain a colloquy and have my good friend 
explain how he envisions what the consequences to Iraq would be should 
his amendment be law eventually. We would first have to pass it here 
and then it would have to go to a conference with the House and then 
survive and become a part of the conference report.
  Mr. LEVIN. If I can respond to my good friend's question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Michigan 
is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. We know what we hope will happen, and there are some 
things we can predict that will happen.
  What do we know? We know that Iraq is in chaos. We know that the 
Iraqi President, or Prime Minister more accurately, has said the only 
way to end the bloodletting of innocents in Iraq is if the Iraqi 
leaders reach a political settlement. We know that. We know there is no 
military solution in Iraq. We know there is only a political solution 
and that the violence cannot end unless Iraqi leaders reach a political 
settlement.
  I think those are consensus points. Those are things we know. We know 
how many of our troops have been killed and how many are killed every

[[Page S9347]]

month and how many are wounded and come home. We know those things.
  Then the question is: Since there is no military solution, there is 
only a political solution--that is the only hope of succeeding in 
Iraq--how do you promote a political settlement in Iraq? Is the current 
course we are on succeeding or do we need to change the course?
  We all have the same goal. We all want to maximize the chances of 
success in Iraq. If you believe we are succeeding in Iraq now, then you 
vote to stay the course. If you believe after all these years and all 
these deaths and all these wounded and all these expenditures, now over 
$10 billion a month, that we need to change course because we are not 
succeeding in Iraq, you have to ask yourself: How do we change course? 
How do we change what is going on in Iraq?
  So those are the things that we, each of us, I think in our own 
conscience, are trying to figure what is the best way to maximize the 
chances of success in Iraq. I believe the only hope in getting the 
Iraqi leaders to reach the political settlement, which everybody agrees 
is the only hope, is to force them to accept responsibility for their 
own nation, to work out the political differences on revenue-sharing, 
on elections, on debaathification amendments, and on constitutional 
changes.
  They have been dithering for years. They made a promise to their 
people, to the American people, and to the world last year. It is on 
their Web site, 16 of their benchmarks--not ours, their benchmarks. 
They have not carried out the commitments they have made. There was a 
timetable attached to those benchmarks. I put that timetable in the 
Record. It was part of a letter that Secretary Rice sent to me.

  So we have a situation--
  Mr. WARNER. Well, Mr. President, the amendment which I worked on and 
which went into the appropriations bill, those are the same benchmarks 
in that bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. They are different.
  Mr. WARNER. Well, they track, in large measure, the same.
  Mr. LEVIN. Some are the same, some are different, but they are 
political benchmarks which the Iraqi leaders said they would meet. They 
made those benchmarks. We didn't impose them, those are their 
benchmarks. The letter from Secretary Rice makes it explicit that the 
Presidency Council, which represents all the factions in Iraq, formally 
adopted those benchmarks. They were supposed to have been adopted in 
October, November, December, January, and in February. They have not 
been met.
  How are we going to get them to meet them, to keep an open-ended 
commitment, which is what the President wants us to do. Another delay 
and then patience. The President asks us to be patient? We should be 
downright impatient with the Iraqi leaders. The message to the Iraqi 
leaders shouldn't be, for heaven sakes, after all these casualties, 
that we are going to be patient with them when it is in their hands as 
to whether this civil strife is going to end.
  Mr. WARNER. I would say to my colleague, the President, when he 
enunciated his new policy on January 10, the purpose was to lay a 
foundation of security such that the Iraqi Government could perform in 
a manner given that the security is very serious in Iraq.
  Even though I had misgivings about the surge, I put those aside once 
the President had made a decision to go forward. I wish to support the 
troops, and they are carrying out this mission. I think there is a 
strong chance there will be some measure of achievement of the surge 
militarily.
  I agree with my colleague, the performance of the Iraqi Government to 
date has been extraordinarily disappointing. I have stated that on this 
floor a number of times, as have other colleagues. But the point I wish 
to urge is that if we were to take--tomorrow, for example--and begin to 
change the intentions of the Senate, which were expressed in law 49 
days ago, and suddenly announce a withdrawal program, as the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan has in his amendment, it would be 
perceived as an undercut to the very military operation we are trying 
to bring about now.
  Why can't we wait until September, until the President has had the 
benefit of all the convergence of this information, and then, as a 
body, review his remarks and statements and possibly change the 
strategy subsequent to the 15th of September? Because I do believe that 
your amendment is in conflict with what we did 49 days ago.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield for an answer.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think the Senate spoke also prior to adopting your 
amendment. We voted 51 to 48, adopted an amendment which said we will 
begin to reduce our forces and to transition to the new mission, and 
that we would begin that transition within 120 days. That was vetoed by 
the President.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senate spoke even before it adopted the amendment of 
the Senator from Virginia. So we have spoken in many ways over the 
years. But now it is our belief, those of us who support this 
amendment, that the earlier we put pressure on the Iraqi leaders to 
reach a political solution, which everybody agrees is the only hope, 
the earlier we put that pressure on them, the better.
  Mr. WARNER. Well, Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member, 
Mr. McCain, in his remarks of this morning, made it very clear that the 
President made it very clear, if we proceed with the course of adopting 
your amendment, then there will be another veto, and then we are back 
into that sequence and a veto on a bill which you and I have worked on 
for these 29 years.
  How many times have we been on the floor supporting the annual 
authorization bill? We have gotten a bill each of those 29 years that 
we have been on that committee. This will be the first time a President 
was compelled to veto it because he is repeating his actions he took 
earlier, 2 months ago.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think the Senator is well aware this President is not 
compelled to veto anything. As a matter of fact, the report the Senator 
refers to, which is due in September, will be coming in before this 
bill gets to the President. At least there is some hope the President 
will see what the Republican leader in the Senate saw a month ago. It 
was the Senator from Kentucky who a couple of months ago said: The 
handwriting is on the wall. There is going to be a change of course in 
September.
  Now, why wait? We are losing men and women, our best and our 
brightest, our bravest, every day in Iraq. Those who return wounded 
will have a lifetime of recovery in many cases. We have record numbers 
of problems that have come up--post-traumatic stress disorder, we have 
traumatic brain injuries which are plaguing our troops who survive. 
Thank God we have great medical care on the battlefield. Why wait until 
September? The Republican leader said the handwriting is on the wall. 
There is going to be a change of course in September. There should be a 
change of course, not just in September, it should have changed a long 
time ago. But there is no way to change this course unless the leaders 
of Iraq do what only they can do, what their own Prime Minister said 
had to happen before the bloodletting of innocents ends in Iraq. They 
and they alone have it in their hands to work out the political 
settlement, which, according to their own agreement, was supposed to 
have been reached months ago.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is correct, that Government 
has not performed. But we, 49 days ago, structured a careful sequence 
of events between now and September to make certain the information, 
the facts, the opinions, the conclusions which would guide the 
President in that revision of strategy the distinguished Senator 
McConnell made observation about some time ago, that information is 
converging at that very point in time.
  I say to the Senator, we are so close. I would not want to see the 
Congress disrupt what it has already enacted and put it into law as to 
what is to take place in September. It is for that reason I simply 
cannot support my distinguished colleague from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend, and I don't view this at all as 
personal.
  A matter of fact, we had this interim report on July 15. What did it 
come in and say? It came in and said, on the political side, nothing 
has happened in Iraq; and on the political side, we see no advances. 
But the political side is

[[Page S9348]]

where the advances have to take place. As a matter of fact, the 
President said, when he came up with this surge policy, that the 
purpose of the surge was to give the political leaders an opportunity 
to reach a political settlement.

  Well, they have had that opportunity, they haven't done it, and the 
surge has not accomplished anything in the area of a political 
settlement.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will conclude my time and yield the 
floor because other colleagues sequentially are participating. Perhaps 
we will be able to reopen this colloquy at another time during the 
debate. But I certainly share with you the enormity of loss of life, 
the loss of limb, of the hardships of the military families. Even those 
families who fortunately have not suffered loss of life or limb 
nevertheless have repeated tours of duty and separations from their 
loved ones brought on by this war.
  But I am concerned we might lose all of that which has been given if 
we make the wrong decision now and precipitously fix a date for 
pullout. All that sacrifice might be lost. I am certain my colleague 
shares with me that one of the goals we should have in this situation 
is to make certain those losses were not in vain.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, I think we all share that view, 
but the amendment, if it is anything, it is not precipitous. This is 
coming after a great deal of debate. We have had a vote on this. The 
Senate voted to do something very similar to this, and it was vetoed.
  We have a 120-day period to begin to reduce forces. That is not 
precipitous. That gives the Iraqis notice, now 4 months more notice 
after enactment, which can't come for many months, that they have to 
begin to get their political act together.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my time is nearly up. It may not be 
enacted for 4 or 5 months, but the signal will go out of this Chamber, 
if we adopt your amendment, that the Senate, in less than 40 days, has 
changed the law that it passed a short time ago, and it looks like a 
zigzag course that this Nation is taking in one of the most serious 
situations in my lifetime--this situation in the Middle East. It is 
essential to our security that area of the world not implode.
  I yield the floor to the other Senators who are scheduled to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Well, I thank the Chair, and this is a historic night. 
The Senate will stay in session all night to debate the war in Iraq, 
something we should be doing. Frankly, Mr. President, we should have 
done it a while ago.
  The bottom line is we need debate and to focus attention on Iraq. We 
need to change the course in Iraq. We need to bring an end to having 
American soldiers police, patrol, be wounded, maimed, and killed, as 
they are in the midst of this civil war not of our country's making.
  The bottom line is this. We are here to debate the one true 
resolution that will force the President to change course in Iraq. Many 
of us, sadly, and with some degree of frustration, believe the 
President will not change course. Many of us believe the facts on the 
ground are not apparent to him or, if they are, do not enter into his 
decision. The view that military strength, and military strength alone, 
can prevail in Iraq is wrong. The facts do not measure up. The Shia, 
the Sunni, the Kurds have had age-old enmity. If I had to sum up the 
problem with the President's policy in a sentence, I would say this: 
The Shias, the Sunnis, the Kurds dislike each other far more than they 
might like any central government of Iraq.
  In a certain sense, what we are trying to do here is to take two 
``norths'' on a magnet and try to push them together. The minute we 
release our hands they will push apart. Those are the facts on the 
ground that cannot be avoided.
  We can add another 20,000 troops or another 40,000 troops and might 
get some degree of pacification for a period of time. As soon as we 
leave, whether it is in 3 months or 3 years, the Sunnis, the Shiites, 
the Kurds, and the various factions will be fighting with one another 
once again.
  There is indeed--and I will elaborate--there is indeed a need to 
protect ourselves from terrorism that might generate from the chaos in 
Iraq. That does not require 160,000 troops patrolling the streets of 
Baghdad. Most of what our soldiers do--bravely, gallantly, with great 
dedication to their country, but unfortunately--most of what our 
soldiers do has absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Yet 
we continue to send them back and then back again and then back again.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly 
those who have stated that the present policy is misguided, and even 
those who probably think it is misguided but don't want to say it out 
of loyalty to the leader of their party, will take a bold step and join 
us in supporting the Levin-Reed amendment. All of the other amendments 
are flawed, in my judgment, because they are advisory. This President 
will not take advice unless forced to change course. If it doesn't 
happen now, it will happen in September or October. It will happen. We 
all know that at some point there will be a group of Republican 
Senators who will quietly go to the White House and say: Mr. President, 
unless you change direction in Iraq we will change it for you.
  If that is going to happen in 2 or 3 months--and the whispers on the 
other side of the aisle indicate that is what will happen--why wait? 
Why sacrifice more life and see so many more soldiers coming home 
wounded? Why sacrifice the billions of dollars that we are spending at 
the same time our schools need so much help and our health care system 
needs so much help? Our energy policy needs redirection.
  We live in a changing world. Technology has changed everything about 
our world. It has created terrorism. Terrorism is a real force. I 
disagree with those who say we can ignore the fact that terrorism is 
real. Technology has empowered small groups of bad people and given 
them the ability to strike at us in our heartland. That is brand new. 
There have always been small groups of bad people. There have even been 
large groups of bad people. But they didn't have the ability to hurt 
us.
  The Japanese war machine in 1941, while America slept, could only get 
as far as Pearl Harbor, and that was a long reach. Yet the several 
thousand in al-Qaida, far less wealthy and far less strong, were able 
to strike at the World Trade Center in my city. So terrorism is real. 
Terrorism is something that we have to fight against.
  The problem in the equation that the President speaks about and 
believes in, that so many on the other side of the aisle speak about 
and believe in, is that what we are doing in Iraq, it is almost 
impossible to prove has much to do with terror.
  They say al-Qaida might set up camps in Iraq and use those camps as 
they use the camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan to try and hurt us. That 
may be true. But what does having our soldiers patrol the streets of 
Baghdad, or Diyala, or Ramadi or any of the other cities to prevent 
various tribes and ethnic groups from fighting one another, have to do 
with that? What does trying--futilely, in my opinion--to buttress the 
Maliki government have to do with that, when the Maliki government is 
incapable of doing elementary things, let alone containing al-Qaida?
  This war in Iraq has just veered out of control, and a great leader 
would say that and change course. Without casting aspersions on what 
brought us there--although we can debate that all day long; whatever 
happened in the past happened. But the facts on the ground are real. To 
just about anyone who looks at this with an unbiased eye, what we are 
doing in Iraq has very little to do with protecting us and, in fact, a 
good argument can be made it makes things worse every day we stay. 
Certainly the argument can be made it delays the inevitable, which will 
happen, which is that the Iraqis are going to have to work out for 
themselves how they are going to live or not live together, given the 
age-old enmities.
  Yet this President persists. It is not good for the Iraqi people. It 
is not good for the American people. It is not good for the country 
that he does. Our job is to require the President to change because he 
will not do it on his own.
  That is why, while I have great respect for my colleague from 
Colorado and for my colleague from Virginia and

[[Page S9349]]

my colleague from Indiana, I don't think their resolutions are what is 
needed because the President will not change. He knows what our opinion 
is. He knows what the American people's view of this war is. He doesn't 
need a resolution to suggest to him to change course. No. He needs to 
be required to do it. He needs to be forced to do it.
  That is the stark choice we face tonight. That is where we are 
tonight. If you believe that we must change course in Iraq, the only 
resolution that does that is Levin-Reed.
  One other thing: This country needs to do so much. The very 
technology I talked about, which effects terrorism and creates 
terrorism, creates other challenges for America. Our schools--when the 
OEDC ranks the 21 developed countries in terms of their K-12 
education--now come out 12th, the bottom half. In math we come out 
15th. We are doing virtually nothing to improve our schools, which to 
me is the ultimate answer to preserve the American economy and American 
jobs.
  Our health care system is broken. There are 45 million people 
uncovered and many more who are not covered very well. We have a system 
that doesn't do the basic preventive things that would save lives and 
save dollars.

  On energy we send $1 billion a day overseas to many people we don't 
like, and we can't get hold of it and change it. Our foreign policy 
itself needs a new direction where we are able to take on terrorists 
who might hurt us in a way that develops world consensus. The rest of 
the world is learning what terrorism is like and why it is evil. We 
need to change our military to be able to do that. We need to change 
our foreign policy arrangements to do it.
  All of these things and so many more--our infrastructure and our 
culture are lost because everything in this administration is focused 
on the misguided policy in Iraq.
  The damage and danger of what is done hurts Iraq and it hurts 
America's reputation in the world. It also hurts us at home because we 
are spending time and energy and resources on something that just 
cannot work the way it is. What the Levin-Reed resolution recommends is 
that we withdraw the vast majority of our troops. We don't abandon Iraq 
altogether because we know al-Qaida might set up camps, and we know 
there is a need for some troops--mainly out of harm's way--to protect 
us from al-Qaida camps that might help train those who might strike at 
us. But the Levin-Reed resolution would not entail 160,000 troops in 
harm's way, because they are not needed. There might be 10,000 or 
20,000 or 30,000 troops, mostly out of harm's way, that could protect 
us from terrorism.
  The view that we can train the Iraqis to take over--many of us have 
lost faith in that. We have heard promise after promise that we should 
let the Iraqis take over. They don't really want to fight this war 
because when there is very little loyalty to a central government, it 
is very hard to build an army in a divided nation.
  Many of the other amendments that are before us, in my judgment, are 
wishful thinking. They believe they will get the President to see the 
light. I wish that were the case. The President seems adamant. I don't 
think he will change unless he is forced to change. I don't think he 
will change unless this body meets its responsibilities and stands up 
and requires a change.
  The President in February said we should wait until the summer. In 
April he said September. Now we are hearing from some of the 
commanders: Oh, no, we will have to wait until January.
  It is just not working. We pacify one area and violence erupts in 
another. If we go to that area, then the area that was pacified creates 
the violence. Temporarily dealing with that violence doesn't solve the 
fundamental facts on the ground. Therefore, we need change. I do not 
believe this is an issue of hawks or doves. I think whichever you are, 
the simple facts on the ground dictate that we should change, and only 
Levin-Reed has us do that.
  I salute my colleagues, the Senator from Michigan and the Senator 
from Rhode Island, for putting together this resolution. I urge my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle in particular to join with 
us. You will be joining with us later if you don't join with us today. 
That is the simple fact of the matter. I hope the Levin-Reed amendment 
is given its due. I hope it will pass for the sake of Iraq, the sake of 
our soldiers, the sake of America.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Bunning be allowed to speak until 8:35 and that the majority leader be 
recognized immediately thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask my colleague, does that mean we will be voting 
after the recognition of the majority leader?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Probably, yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, could we add that the next 
Democratic speaker will be Senator Feinstein?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Reserving the right to object, could we have the next 
Republican speaker be Senator Alexander?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who seeks recognition? Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise tonight to play my small part in 
this pointless political play put on by the Senate majority leader. It 
is an insult to the brave men and women in our Armed Forces and to the 
American taxpayer that we are here tonight for no other reason than for 
a publicity stunt. Instead of following the script written by MoveOn, 
like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I want to be honest 
and frank with the American people.
  I hear Democrats every day talk about public opinion polls on Iraq 
and on the President's approval rating. To some extent they are right. 
The American people are not satisfied with the war in Iraq and the 
President is at an all-time low in his approval rating.
  But I rarely hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk 
about public opinion polls of Congress. It is obvious why. President 
Bush has a higher approval rating than the current democratically led 
Congress. I have never been accused of being a political strategist, 
but I have been around this town long enough--over 21 years--to know 
that the American people resent their leaders for so often taking the 
politically expedient path instead of doing what they think is right.
  The American people see right through this charade going on tonight. 
It is more political theater: phony images of cots, toothpaste, and 
sleepy politicians, meant to convince people that what goes on here at 
3 in the morning may actually do some good. But it doesn't do any good.
  In fact, it does a lot of bad. Because this debate is more about a 
political show and placating the ``MoveOn'' folks, than it is about 
talking about the real issue at hand. It is appalling that we use a 
bill that provides vital funding of our Nation's military as a 
political smokescreen for Democrats to gain points in the polls.
  The safety and security of the brave men and women in our Armed 
Forces is not a game to me. Our troops should never be used as a basis 
to stage a cheap political stunt. If the Senate truly supported our 
troops, we would be here debating the nuts and bolts of the Department 
of Defense authorization bill. Instead, we find ourselves back debating 
whether to cut and run from Iraq, as we have done countless times 
before tonight.
  Democrats would like for you to believe that Republicans will not 
vote on the Reed-Levin amendment. Give me a break. I am happy to vote 
on the amendment right now. I plan to oppose it, as I have opposed a 
similar version Senator Levin offered 2 months ago.
  It is a bad amendment. It calls for a premature withdrawal of 
American troops from Iraq before we have even had a chance to see the 
results of the surge. I wish to know how some of my colleagues know 
that the surge has already failed when it has only been in place for a 
month?
  I wish to know how they know the situation in Iraq better than our 
commanders on the ground? The ink is not even dry on the President's 
plan and

[[Page S9350]]

Democrats are already declaring it a failure. This type of defeatist 
strategy is irrational and unfair.
  It is important to remember the dangerous effect our debate in 
Washington can have on the message we are sending our enemies. Make no 
mistake about it, our enemies are watching us. They are watching us and 
using our debate on the war in Iraq to strengthen themselves. This 
morning, the new National Intelligence Estimate declared the United 
States is at an elevated threat level. It said our biggest threat is 
al-Qaida, specifically al-Qaida in Iraq.
  This group is working to mobilize other extremist organizations in 
the region to mount a new attack against the United States. The report 
also found that al-Qaida will continue to acquire chemical, biological 
or nuclear materials for attacks; it will not hesitate to use them.
  While al-Qaida is working to plan this attack, U.S. forces are 
working hand in hand with Iraqi security forces to break up this 
organization and root it out and root this terrorist network out.
  This work is vital to our national security. We cannot forget the 
important lessons we learned from the tragedies of 9/11. There are 
still those out there who wish to do us harm. Wake up America. If we 
withdrew from Iraq, the terrorists will likely follow us home.
  Democrats would like for us to believe we can responsibly leave Iraq 
and the conflict will end. This is delusional. Make no mistake, if we 
leave Iraq prematurely, there will be widespread chaos in the Middle 
East. Iran will work with Syria to dominate the region, while Sunni 
States scramble to oppose them. They will use any means possible to 
acquire the resources to bolster their nuclear weapons program in an 
effort to combat and conquer the United States.
  The Kurds in Iran will form their own country, possibly with the 
Kurds in Turkey, Syria, and Iran. This could lead to an armed conflict 
between the Kurds and the Turkish Government. There will be widespread 
attacks to wipe out Israel and to topple the democratic Government of 
Lebanon. These pillars of democracy in the Middle East that once stood 
as an example for freedom within the region will crumble.
  The Government of Iraq will fail, and there will be civil war within 
the country. This will result in massive civilian casualties and 
displacement. Most importantly, our national security will be in 
jeopardy. This afternoon, we passed, by a large majority, Senator 
Cornyn's amendment that said we should not leave a failed state in 
Iraq. It also said we should not pass any legislation that will 
undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq.
  I ask my colleagues: What are we doing right now? We are debating 
Senator Levin's amendment that will, without a doubt, result in a 
failed state in Iraq. Let me be clear to my colleagues that believe 
they can support both amendments. The strategy of cut and run will lead 
to a failed Iraq and will undermine our military's mission.
  But Democrats have already decided the surge has failed before it has 
a chance to work. These are the same people who voted to overwhelmingly 
confirm General Petraeus and are now refusing to wait to hear his 
report in September. This is exactly the type of message our enemy 
wants to hear.
  Well, I, for one, am working hard to send our enemies a different 
message: The United States will not back down from this fight. I stand 
behind our troops and General Petraeus. I promised in person, in my 
office, to General Petraeus, that I would wait to hear his report this 
fall. I intend to keep my promise. I urge my colleagues to do the same. 
The safety and security of all Americans depends on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the surge has now been going for 6 months. 
More than 600 Americans have been killed, thousands have been wounded, 
costing our country $60 billion.
  The National Intelligence Estimate which was issued today--was leaked 
by someone last week--is very clear: There are two al-Qaidas now; there 
used to be one. There is al-Qaida in Iraq, totally separate and apart 
from the other al-Qaida that bin Laden led.
  Where did it come from? It came from the worst foreign policy blunder 
in the history of our country, the invasion of Iraq.
  My friend, the junior Senator from Kentucky, should understand, as a 
result of that invasion we now have a civil war raging in the 
Palestinian areas of Lebanon, the country of Israel has been basically 
ignored during this administration, and we have Iran thumbing their 
nose at us.
  For the information of my friend from Kentucky, there would not be a 
civil war in Iraq, there already is one. It is an intractable civil 
war. We Americans are there in spite of the fact that the Iraqis, by an 
almost 70 percent margin, 69 percent to be exact, say we are doing more 
harm than good; they want us out of there.
  The Prime Minister of Iraq said 3 days ago that he could do fine 
without us. Anytime we want to leave, his security would take over.
  Now, wake up America? America is awake. They understand very clearly 
we have a situation where we have a President that will be in office 
only another 17 months, and they want the war to end before he leaves 
office. They want to change the course in Iraq which has caused the 
deaths of almost 3,700 Americans, the wounding of tens of thousands of 
Americans, cost us over half a trillion dollars.
  That is what Americans want. They are awake.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative proceeded to call the roll, and the 
following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

                          [Quorum No. 4 Leg.]

     Alexander
     Bennett
     Brown
     Bunning
     Cardin
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reid
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed 
to request the attendance of absent Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to direct the Sergeant at Arms to 
request the attendance of absent Senators. On this question, the yeas 
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 249 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback

[[Page S9351]]


     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Byrd
     Cochran
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Lott
     Obama
     Rockefeller
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, our Democratic friends thought they 
were going to teach Republicans a lesson today on how to proceed in 
Iraq. Instead, Americans got an object lesson on why Democrats have 
failed to accomplish any of their goals over the last 7 months.
  As to this fanciful notion that we have never had 60-vote thresholds 
on votes, Democrats agreed just this year to 60-vote thresholds on at 
least five Iraq-related votes: the Reid sense of the Congress on Iraq, 
the Murray sense of the Congress on Iraq, the Gregg sense of the 
Congress on Iraq, the Hagel amendment to H.R. 1585 relating to 
deployment time, and the Graham amendment to H.R. 1585 relating to 
deployment time--at least five Iraq votes that have been subject to 60 
votes.
  Now, Republicans have repeatedly offered Democrats an opportunity to 
have a vote on the Levin amendment according to the traditional 60-vote 
threshold. Democrats themselves have insisted on 60-vote thresholds for 
judges, for example. We could have had the vote this morning and moved 
on to other business, like finishing this very important underlying 
bill and getting the men and women in the military what they need and 
deserve.
  What is at stake, Mr. President? Iraq's Foreign Minister, Hoshyar 
Zebari, recently told reporters:

       The dangers could be a civil war, dividing the country, 
     regional wars, and the collapse of the state.

  The same sentiment has been echoed recently by political figures from 
the Sunni Arab community, which had been the least supportive of the 
U.S. presence after the collapse of Saddam's Sunni-dominated 
government.
  Foreign Minister Zebari has also credited multinational forces for 
keeping Turkey from occupying northern Iraq. This is what he recently 
had to say:

       Tomorrow, another country will set its sights on Iraq--
     Iran, Syria, and others have certain interests, ambitions, 
     and interferences. Ironically, it is this presence that is 
     preserving Iraq's unity; this deterrent is preventing the 
     outbreak of an all-out sectarian civil war, and perhaps 
     regional wars as well.

  Now, the National Intelligence Estimate released today said al-Qaida 
will ``leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq, its 
most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have 
expressed a desire to attack us here in the United States.''
  Yesterday, the U.N. Secretary General, Ban Kimoon, warned that an 
abrupt withdrawal may, ``lead to a further deterioration of the 
situation in Iraq.''
  Now, what do the terrorists themselves say? What do they say, the 
terrorists themselves?
  The Islamic State of Iraq announced during our last debate in April 
that certain members of Congress had declared the War in Iraq hopeless.
  Those are the words of the terrorists themselves. And here is Osama 
bin Laden himself, quoted from an Al Jazeera broadcast last April. This 
is what Osama bin Laden said:

       The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the 
     caliphate rule. They keep reiterating success in Baghdad will 
     be success for the U.S., failure in Iraq the failure of the 
     U.S. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all of their 
     wars and the beginning to the receding of their Zionist-
     Crusader tide against us.

  That is from the lips of Osama bin Laden.
  Now, our Democratic friends have tried to have it both ways on Iraq 
for too long. They voted to send General Petraeus to Iraq by a 
unanimous vote, even as many of them undercut his mission and the 
morale of our troops by declaring it a failure. They voted to fund that 
mission even after working for more than 3 months to undercut it 
through legislation that would render it impossible to carry out. And 
now they have taken the unprecedented step of hijacking a Defense 
authorization bill to undercut the framework they agreed to when they 
funded the mission back in May.
  So let's take a look, my friends and colleagues, at what we agreed to 
back in May. The conference report that 80 Senators voted for in May 
required a benchmarks report in July and a report from General Petraeus 
and Ambassador Crocker in September.
  We chose July for the benchmarks report because the Baghdad Security 
Plan would be fully manned, and we wanted the Iraqi Government to know 
we expected their cooperation and sacrifice in exchange for ours. We 
chose September because that is when General Petraeus and Ambassador 
Crocker planned to give the President an update on the 
counterinsurgency plan currently underway. We thought it reasonable 
that we get the same assessment to form an appropriate legislative 
response.
  The Congress decided in May that 1 month of a fully manned surge was 
insufficient to call the Petraeus plan a failure. We wrote that 
decision into law. Since May, we have learned that progress is mixed. 
Many of the military tasks assigned have been achieved, and we have not 
seen sufficient progress on the political benchmarks. Some of our 
colleagues have refrained from calling for a change in strategy until 
they hear what General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have to say in 
September. Actually, there is really no good argument that Ambassador 
Crocker and General Petraeus deserve an opportunity to be heard when 
these significant reports come out in September.
  So I would ask our colleagues on the other side to think of the 
tangle we are in. Republicans have asked repeatedly to move up the 
cloture vote on the Levin troop withdrawal amendment. They have blocked 
us every time because they prefer the theater of the all-nighter. We 
were elected to legislate, not to strut across a stage. This isn't 
Hollywood. This is real life here in the Senate. Much depends on how we 
conduct ourselves right here and how we conduct ourselves in this 
debate.
  We have heard the warnings from people who know the dangers that lurk 
in Iraq, and now I have a warning of my own to my colleagues on the 
other side. Our commanders, our troops, and the millions of brave men 
and women who have stood with us in Iraq and who live in danger of the 
creeping prospect of precipitous withdrawal, deserve a lot better than 
they are getting in this debate. They deserve our resolve and, at the 
very least, they deserve us to keep the pledge we made as recently as 
last May.
  It is time to put an end to this charade. The stakes are entirely too 
high.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I sat here for the last hour or so and 
listened to the discussion, and what one concludes is that, once again, 
we are locked in a debate about the future of Iraq. I think many people 
watching this debate listen and think: Does this solve anything?
  But in many ways, thanks to the courage of a few Senators on the 
other side of the aisle, the debate has undergone a major shift in the 
past few weeks. We are no longer simply asking whether we should change 
course, it is clear today that a majority in this body believe we must 
change course. Today, a majority of the Senate sees that the surge is 
not working, and a majority believes there has been no progress on 
political reconciliation.
  The question I hear repeated is: Do we change course now or do we 
wait until September? I have heard distinguished Members of this body 
say: Why not wait until September? I believe the answer is clear. When 
you know things are moving in the wrong direction, why wait to act? And 
a growing majority in the Senate agrees.
  While there are over 50-plus votes to support this view, there 
doesn't appear to be the 60 votes needed to bring the debate to a 
close, and there still are not the 67 votes needed to overcome a 
Presidential veto. So those of us who believe we need to change course, 
and

[[Page S9352]]

need to change course now, have no option other than to press for a 
vote until we prevail.
  The good news is that this debate may slowly be moving away from the 
partisan bickering and toward a bipartisan way out of Iraq. A growing 
number of well-respected Republicans have made it clear that they 
believe the President's current strategy is not sustainable. This 
includes Senators Warner and Lugar, two of the most distinguished 
Senators in this body, who have introduced an amendment calling on the 
President to develop a plan to transition the mission, and 
potentially--potentially--draw down our troops.
  This includes Senators Hagel, Smith, and Snowe, who have cosponsored 
the Levin-Reed amendment calling for a binding timetable to redeploy 
our troops.
  This includes Senator Voinovich, who, according to reports, has 
informed the White House that the only way to salvage the President's 
legacy is to begin moving out of Iraq.
  And this includes Senators Domenici, Collins, Alexander, Bennett, 
Gregg, and Sununu, who have embraced legislation to implement the Iraq 
Study Group's recommendations.
  These Senators are to be commended for their courage, and I believe 
the ranks will only continue to grow as time goes by. Why? Because 
despite repeated predictions that security and stability in Iraq are 
just around the corner, this has proved illusory. The security 
situation has not improved. There has been no progress toward political 
reconciliation. None.
  Simply put: Violence in Iraq continues unabated, and we have heard it 
said on the floor over and over again, just in the past few days: 25 
people killed Sunday, attacks across Baghdad, 10 killed in a car bomb 
blast in a busy commercial area, a triple bombing attack in Kirkuk 
killing 85 yesterday, wounding 183. And within hours of that attack, 
several men in Iraqi military uniforms attacked a Shia village in 
Diyala fatally shooting 28 men, women, and children.
  This is why we need a change in course. And these are not isolated 
incidents. They are not the exception. They are the norm, day in, day 
out. Every day there is more--more bombings, more shootings, more IEDs, 
more kidnappings, more death squads.
  Has the surge led to a reduction in violence? No. The news continues. 
We also heard last week of a firefight between U.S. forces and Iraqi 
police.
  This cannot be the right direction. The surge wasn't supposed to be a 
silver bullet, but it was supposed to give the Iraqi Government the 
space and stability needed to come to a political accommodation. But 
has this happened? The answer has to be no. Is this likely to happen in 
the next 55 days? The answer is no.
  In fact, the Iraqi Parliament will be taking a month-long vacation 
during this critical period. That is 30 out of the 55 days.
  But of greatest concern is the fact that there has been little, if 
any, progress in the political arena. Even by the administration's 
account, the Iraqi Government hasn't made progress in meeting the 
benchmarks. You have heard this, and there are two more reports due on 
benchmarks, so we will hear more of the same.
  If you talk about benchmarks, to me the most critical has always been 
debaathification--a terrible mistake made by us and now supported to 
continue by Ahmed Chalabi to prevent former Baathists from working. You 
can never have a united Iraq as long as you have debaathification on a 
level that even today still exists. The absence of holding provincial 
elections, passing an oil revenue sharing law, ensuring that 
authorities are not undermining members of the Iraqi security forces, 
ensuring that the Iraqi security forces provide evenhanded enforcement 
of the law--simple things not done.
  There is a misbegotten belief that we can turn Iraq into a 
democracy--a country with little infrastructure for democracy, a 
government where ministers don't show up, where parliamentarians don't 
arrive, where long vacations are taken in the middle of war and strife. 
At the same time, the Pentagon reported last week that there has been a 
slight reduction in the number of Iraqi security force units capable of 
independent operations. So there is even deterioration on that front.
  Yet we are told to wait. Something good might happen. So what should 
we do? Rather than wait another 8 weeks, I think we should act now. I 
think the Senate should approve the Levin-Reed amendment, which, to 
date, is the only amendment, as the majority leader has stated so 
often, with teeth--in 120 days redeployment begins, and out by April 
30th of next year. It is clear, it is definitive, and it has the 
support of a majority of this body.
  No State has suffered more than California from this war. We have 
nearly 400 dead and 3,000 wounded; 400 dead, 400 young men and women 
dead from the State. I hear some States say they have had five or six. 
We have had 400 people killed in this war. It is clear we must change 
course, but the President and some in this body say, again, we should 
wait.
  Let me tell you why we should not wait. Here is what we will lose in 
8 weeks, if current trends continue. Hundreds more U.S. troops dead. At 
this present rate, that is 200 more dead. More than 1,000 U.S. troops 
injured. Actually, if the present rate continues, 1,200 to 1,500 more. 
Several thousand more Iraqi civilians killed. At the present rate, 
4,000 to 6,000 by waiting. Nearly 100,000 more Iraqi civilians 
displaced and another $20 billion spent.
  I ask you, is this an acceptable cost of waiting? It is not to me. 
Secretary Gates and other administration officials made it clear in 
January we should know in a matter of months if the surge was working. 
Here it is July. It is very clear the surge is not working. Every day 
there are more bombings. If you measure things in real terms, that kill 
people--there are more bombings, more killings, more IEDs, more 
violence. Casualties have jumped since the surge began. As I said, we 
are now losing 100 of our people every month. The 331 troops killed 
during April, May, and June is the highest 3-month total since the war 
began 4\1/2\ years ago.
  How is this a sign of progress? Tell me how is it a sign of progress, 
when more people are killed, more displaced, Iraqis turn up in the 
morgue by the dozens every day? Because if this trend continues, 2007 
will be the deadliest for our troops since this war began. Why wait to 
act?
  Waiting is not going to change the political situation either. Will 
we see the Iraqi Government pass an oil revenue-sharing law by 
September? Does anyone believe that? I don't think so.
  Will we see reform of the debaathification system by September? I 
don't think so.
  Will we see provincial elections or an Iraqi security force that is 
free from sectarian influence? I don't think so. As a matter of fact, 
the answer to all these questions is no. We haven't seen movement on 
the political front in the past 7 months, so why do we believe it will 
happen in the next 2 months? This is especially true, given that the 
Iraqi Parliament is taking a month off in August.
  The surge was not supposed to be this silver bullet. It was supposed 
to give the Iraqi Government the space, the stability needed to come to 
a political solution. But as I say, this has not happened. As 
important, moving out of Iraq would open the door to a reevaluation of 
our national security interests in the region.
  I happened to listen to Senator Lugar on the floor in what I think 
was one of the most eloquent speeches I have heard. Let me quote from 
him.

       Our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national 
     security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our 
     continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is 
     limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in 
     the world.

  We know our Nation faces major challenges and the primary focus on 
Iraq has allowed these problems to fester. It has sapped our ability to 
act elsewhere, both by crippling our military's readiness and by 
draining our soft power around the world. Our challenges today, our 
real national interests, include: preventing terrorists from gaining 
safe haven in Pakistan and Afghanistan; preventing the violence in Iraq 
from spreading throughout the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the cities 
of Europe; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons 
technologies and strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. 
This is the national interest of this country.

[[Page S9353]]

  Containing Iran and compelling it to abandon its uranium enrichment 
program and pursuing a sustained and robust diplomacy aimed at 
achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace--I am delighted the President has 
taken on this as a major initiative with priority and that the 
Secretary of State will be in charge of this effort.
  Finally, improving the image of the United States and repairing the 
damage done to our credibility around the world.
  Does anyone believe, truly, this war has gained us respect in the 
council of world nations? Does anyone believe that? Because if they do, 
they are smoking something. Because it has not. There has never been a 
time when America has less credibility abroad than today.
  Does anybody believe this war is quelling a new generation of 
terrorists? It is doing exactly opposite.
  Peter Bergen, whose books I have read, whose statements I follow, 
said the other day on CNN that he estimates terrorists have increased 
sevenfold, that is 700 percent, since the war in Iraq began. Is this 
our interest? Is our interest to encourage every madrasah all 
throughout the Arab and Islamic world to essentially preach to create a 
new generation of terrorists? That is what is happening right now and 
we are not addressing it. We are not spending the money, the $10 
billion a month to see that there are normal schools in these countries 
that teach youngsters how to become educated, to accept a place of 
economic upward mobility in what is a modern world. No. Instead, the 
sores fester and the terrorists grow. That is the reason that, as far 
as air traffic is concerned, we are in orange alert today.
  The simple truth is that none of these initiatives can be pursued 
adequately so long as we are bogged down in Iraq. Iraq dominates our 
Nation's psyche, it dominates our Nation's pocketbook, and it dominates 
in the loss of our men and women.
  I think each deserves the continuous attention of this 
administration, and the longer we wait to begin a redeployment of our 
troops, the longer we delay the day of reckoning, the longer we refuse 
to take the diplomatic steps that are necessary to engage with Syria, 
to engage with Iran, the harder it is going to be to achieve a 
successful outcome. I believe this.

  I believe the time has come to change course. Waiting is not going to 
change the facts on the ground. Oh, I wished I believed that. I wish I 
could say, in 2 months, we are not going to lose 200 men and women; in 
2 months, 4,000 or 5,000 additional Iraqis will not be killed; 100,000 
additional Iraqis are not going to be displaced, and we are not going 
to spend another $20 billion of our treasure. But I cannot.
  In total, we have lost more than 3,600 of our brave men and women, 
almost 500 since this surge began 5 months ago. Nearly 27,000 have 
suffered injuries, and many of these injuries are more serious than 
anything we have ever seen in the history of veterans' care, people who 
will require care for the rest of their lives.
  We lose 100 of our people every month. So why wait to act? The most 
recent Pentagon quarterly report on Iraq concluded that the ``aggregate 
level of violence'' in Iraq has remained ``unchanged''--unchanged. Five 
months into the surge, the level of violence in Iraq, according to the 
recent Pentagon report, is unchanged, and CIA analyst Tim Fingar 
testified to Congress last week the violence in Iraq has not yet been 
reduced significantly.
  At the same time, even as we have appropriated $450 billion for this 
war, spending has increased to $10 billion a month; Armed Forces are 
stretched thin, equipment is worn, recruiting is down, and nobody knows 
what happens to the military come April when deployments cannot be met. 
So why wait to act?
  We are going to be paying the costs of this war for decades. Yet this 
President has asked for more time. Waiting another 2 months will not 
change anything. It will be more of the same. As has been said on this 
floor tonight a myriad of times, but I must echo it: The President 
shows no inclination to listen to a majority of the Senate, to the 
American people or to the House of Representatives. He has provided no 
exit strategy, no plan to begin redeploying our troops. Come September, 
there is no reason to believe anything will have changed. Why wait to 
act?
  I yield the floor.
  (Disturbance in the visitors' galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gallery will refrain. It is not 
appropriate to express approval or disapproval in the galleries.
  The senior Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, with this political stunt tonight, the 
Senate has reached the approximate level of the Iraqi Parliament in 
dealing with the war on Iraq. There will be no more votes for a fixed 
deadline for withdrawal from Iraq at 3 a.m. than there would be at 3 
p.m. This demeans and trivializes the foremost issue facing our 
country. It does not show the proper respect for the men and women who 
have been fighting there and their families.
  Here we are, issuing milestones, talking about benchmarks to an 
infant democracy on the other side of the world, issuing reports and 
report cards about how well they are doing on what we have told them to 
do, talking to them about why they haven't passed oil sharing and 
debaathification and why they have not had more elections, and we 
cannot come up, ourselves, with a consensus about what we are doing in 
Iraq.
  Here we are, the oldest democracy in the world, alleging ourselves--
the Senate--to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, and we 
are lecturing Iraq, a new democracy, an infant democracy. We are 
lecturing them for not coming up with a consensus when we can't come up 
with one ourselves.
  I think it is important for the American people to know it is not 
necessarily that way in the Senate. I began this day at 8 a.m. at a 
breakfast, as I did last week, as I did the week before, which we call 
our bipartisan breakfast. This morning we had about a dozen Republicans 
and Democrats around the table--only Senators. Last week, we had two 
dozen around a table. Our subject was Iraq and the Defense 
authorization bill.
  I will not say any more about what was discussed because one of the 
benefits of this breakfast is it is the only time during the week, 
except for our prayer breakfast on Wednesday, when we are not in team 
meetings, when there is not a group somewhere plotting what this side 
will do to that side or what that side will do to this side. It is 
amazing what sort of discussion we can have when we sit down around 
that sort of table. We have many of the same principles who have talked 
tonight on the Senate floor, people who have strongly held views and 
they are different views and they were stated clearly and explicitly 
and each of us respected those views. We heard them.
  But at least as strong as the difference of opinion in that 
bipartisan breakfast--as it is each week when we talk--was the feeling 
that our main job was, as soon as we could, to come to some sort of 
consensus about where we go from here. Because the single most 
important thing we can do as a government, other than fund our troops, 
is to send them a clear signal that we agree on why we sent them there 
to fight and perhaps be wounded and perhaps to die and we failed in 
that responsibility. To compound it, we are in the midst of a political 
stunt which does not do anything to encourage us toward a consensus.
  In my remarks tonight, rather than heap oil on the fire, what I would 
like to do is talk for a moment about how we could come to that 
consensus and about both Democrats and Republicans in this body who are 
working that way. Mrs. Feinstein, the Senator from California, 
mentioned a number of Senators who do that. My experience with Members 
of this body began when I came to work here for the first time 40 years 
ago this year as a very junior aide. I have only been a Member of the 
body for 4 years. My experience is that most of us prefer to conduct 
ourselves like grownups, to not engage in petty kindergarten games, to 
not have partisan efforts where we taunt one another and try to put one 
another at a disadvantage but actually recognize we are here to look at 
big, difficult issues and to see if we can come up with a solution for 
one.
  If there is such an issue that demands such a solution, it is 
America's role in Iraq. How would the Senate--if I am right that most 
of us would like

[[Page S9354]]

to have that kind of result--how would we go about working toward 
consensus, when we obviously have strongly held different views? For 
example, Senator Levin and Senator Reed, two of the most senior Members 
of our body--one a distinguished graduate of West Point, one who has 
served as chairman or ranking member of the Armed Services Committee 
for a long time--they strongly believe, as the Senator from California 
believes, that unless the Congress imposes upon the President a fixed 
deadline for withdrawal, that we will not have any motion in that 
direction.

  I respect that. I disagree with that. I believe that interferes with 
the constitutional prerogatives of the President. I do not believe it 
is practical in a time of war to say that a group of legislators, 100 
generals here in this body, can guess a year out, even if that is the 
direction we want to go, exactly how to do it and exactly when to do 
that. That is why we have a Commander in Chief.
  The Founders didn't pick this particular President, but they picked a 
President, a Chief Executive, with that responsibility. I respect that. 
That is of a difference of opinion. So we have profound and real and 
honest differences of opinion and they are reflected all the way across 
our country.
  I hear them in Tennessee. The Presiding Officer hears them in his 
State. We hear them everywhere, and we feel them especially strongly 
because so many of our men and women have been there. In my State, 
10,000 members of the National Guard and the Reserves have been to Iraq 
and Afghanistan; almost all of them more than once.
  We think of General Petraeus as almost a hometown boy because he 
commanded the 101st Airborne Division. When he was there as its 
commander, he was accidentally shot through the heart in a training 
exercise. His life was saved, when he went to Vanderbilt Hospital, by 
none other than Bill Frist, our former majority leader, who was then a 
heart surgeon at Vanderbilt University. So we have unusual respect for 
General Petraeus.
  We are the ``Volunteer State.'' We have sent more men and women to 
fight, we think, than almost any State, and we instinctively have great 
respect for the President of the United States.
  That is where we start in our State. But, still, there are a great 
many Tennesseans who say to me it is time for a new strategy in Iraq. 
It is time for a change. We have helped depose Saddam Hussein. We have 
helped Iraq have an opportunity to have a democratic government. We 
have stayed a long time to help build their security. But now it is 
time for us to agree on a different strategy.
  How would a country and how would a body such as the Senate go about 
that? One way to do it might be to pick 10 people from outside the 
Senate, 10 of the most distinguished Americans, and say to them: We are 
stuck here. We have a problem. The country has a problem. We need a 
shift of direction. We have a Senate that is divided, a President who 
is insisting on his constitutional prerogatives, and we have men and 
women fighting and dying in Iraq--what do we do? Ten Americans, let's 
pick five Democrats and five Republicans, to give it a little bit more 
prestige.
  That happened last year. Frank Wolf, a Representative from Virginia; 
John Warner, Senator from this body, was a part of this as well--they 
created something called the Iraq Study Group. The Iraq Study Group was 
cochaired by Jim Baker, the former Secretary of State for President 
Bush, and by Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic chairman of the House 
Foreign Affairs Committee. There were 10 prestigious Americans who 
served on the Iraq Study Group--if all of us were to put in a hat the 
names of Americans who might be good members of such a commission to 
help us unravel this problem, the 10 who were picked would come out of 
that hat pretty fast, in pretty good order, with a lot of Members on 
both sides of the aisle suggesting them.

  For example, Larry Eagleburger, the former Secretary of State for the 
first President Bush; Vernon Jordan, the former president of the 
National Urban League and a very close associate of former President 
Clinton; Ed Meese, President Reagan's Attorney General; Justice Sandra 
Day O'Connor, who was the first woman to be appointed to the United 
States Supreme Court by President Reagan; Leon Panetta, who was 
President Clinton's Chief of Staff and who now in California has his 
own institute, the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy in 
Monterey, CA; Chuck Robb, our former colleague, married to Lynda Bird 
Johnson. We have been thinking about that family these past 2 weeks 
with Lady Bird's death; Chuck Robb, a former marine, former Senator, a 
member of that panel; Allen Simpson, who had the No. 2 position right 
over here, a whip in the Senate from Wyoming; and, at one point, Robert 
Gates, the current Secretary of Defense, was a member of this panel 
before he had to step aside when he went to the administration.
  So those 10 people--five Democrats, five Republicans. It would be 
hard to improve on that.
  Then, let's say you said to this group of 10: This is an especially 
difficult problem. The Senate is fractured, the President is insisting 
on his prerogative, and the country is divided and tired, and we need a 
solution. So what we need for you to do, commissioners, is not come 
back with a majority vote, not come back with a filibuster, not come 
back with an all-night political stunt, but come back with a unanimous 
set of recommendations of where we go from here in Iraq, you five 
Democrats, you five Republicans with years of experience.
  That is precisely what they did in December of last year, after 9 or 
10 meetings all over America, and meetings in Iraq, with a 
distinguished staff that consisted of an honor roll list of generals 
and experts. They visited with former President Clinton, former Vice 
President Mondale, former Secretary of State Albright, former Secretary 
of State Henry Kissinger, Warren Christopher, they visited with Colin 
Powell and George Shultz, Tony Lake, General Scowcroft, to ask about 
everybody whose judgment one would hope they would ask, and they came 
up with 79 recommendations in December, and they released it to the 
public.
  They unanimously agreed in 9 months about what to do in Iraq. They 
also did not pull any punches. They said in December, even though this 
was chaired by Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton, they said: The situation in 
Iraq is ``grave and deteriorating.'' They said there is no magic 
bullet. But they did unanimously agree, unlike the Levin-Reed 
amendment, that we did not need a fixed deadline. They unanimously 
agreed that troop deployments should be subject to conditions on the 
ground.
  So what did they recommend? Well, in a few minutes I cannot summarize 
79 recommendations, but I can boil it down to three points. First, we 
should move our troops from a combat mission to a support, equipping, 
and training mission as soon as we honorably can. They said, as a goal, 
that should happen in about a year, which then would have been the 
first quarter of 2008. Now, some time has gone past since then. But 
they said in about a year. The practical effect of that would have been 
to remove about half our combat forces--to reduce the number of 
American forces in Iraq by about half.
  And, rather than subject that goal of reducing troops to a fixed 
deadline, as the Levin-Reed amendment says, they said it should be 
subject to developments on the ground, which is practical in a time of 
war, and respects the Commander in Chief's constitutional prerogative.
  They said, No. 2: We should have a long-term interest in Iraq. It 
should be a limited interest, but there should be sufficient troops to 
help make certain that in that new mission we deal with that interest. 
They listed some of the things the troops would be expected to do who 
stayed: guard the Embassy, search and rescue, intelligence, special 
forces to go after al-Qaida--the point being, even though our troops 
have a different mission, out of a combat role into a support, 
equipping, and training mission, there would be enough of them there to 
send a message to the Middle East and the rest of the world: Stay out 
of Iraq. Give Iraq a chance to succeed, while also protecting U.S. 
forces that remained there. That was the second point.
  The third point was step up. Step up the political and diplomatic 
efforts in the region by a significant amount, including talking with 
everybody in the region, to try to bring a result in Iraq.

[[Page S9355]]

  So those are the three points. One, move out of the combat mission to 
the support, equipping, and training mission over about a year, without 
a deadline; two, a long-term but limited interest in Iraq, with some 
specifics; and, three, step up political and diplomatic efforts. Plus, 
the Iraq Study Group emphasized that we would still have a considerable 
presence in the region in Qatar and Kuwait and in Bahrain. So that is 
what the Iraq Study Group said.
  What happened with the Iraq Study Group report? Well, I was very 
disappointed by the reaction to the report, especially when I saw that 
the recommendations were unanimous. When I first saw who were the 
distinguished members of that panel, I was convinced that at the State 
of the Union Address, President Bush would seat them in the gallery, 
and at the appropriate time, as Presidents often do, he would say: 
There they are, from the Reagan administration, from the Clinton 
administration, from my father's administration, and they have 
unanimously agreed on where we go from here in Iraq. And it is not 
exactly my proposal, it is their proposal, but because it is important 
to our troops and to our country and to the world that we move forward 
in a unified way, I accept their recommendations. I will develop a plan 
based upon their report. I ask you and the Congress to accept it.

  I think there is a good chance that the Congress would accept such a 
plan, and an important part of that reason is because even the 
President needed someone else to help him develop support for whatever 
proposal he came up with. So that would be the first thing I think we 
would do if we were trying to solve this problem: go ask 10 of the most 
distinguished Americans of both parties to tell us what to do in 
specific recommendations, and do it unanimously.
  Now, what is the second thing we would do? Well, I think we would 
come to this body and say: Every time we turn around there is a 
political stunt going on. Someone has had an early morning meeting and 
decided we are going to do this to the Republicans, and then some 
Republicans get excited, and they have an early morning meeting and 
say: We are going to do this to the Democrats. And you do not have the 
kind of discussion that these 10 Americans had or the kind we have in 
our bipartisan breakfasts.
  But the second thing that needs to be done to move us in a consensus 
on where we go from here in Iraq would be to find some Senator in this 
body who would say: We are going to accept this Iraq Study Group 
report, and we are going to ask that the President agree to it and 
develop a plan based upon it and report to us on it in 90 days.
  That is precisely what Senator Salazar did with his legislation. 
After saying in January that I was disappointed the President did not 
adopt the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, I made a speech on 
the floor in March. I find that sometimes you have to say things more 
than once in order to have anybody pay attention.
  I said: Why didn't the President, in March, take the Iraq Study Group 
down off the shelf and use it for something other than a book end? And 
then I made another speech to that effect, and Senator Pryor of 
Arkansas came by to see me and said: We need to do something about 
this. We need to find a way to work together rather than to continue to 
have Democratic and Republican votes on Iraq.
  Then Senator Salazar called me and said: I have been working with 
Secretary Baker, and with Lee Hamilton and their staffs. I put together 
legislation that accurately reflects the recommendations of the Iraq 
Study Group. And it simply adopts those recommendations as our law. If 
the President agrees to it, he is asked to develop a comprehensive plan 
based on those recommendations.
  Since that time, there are now 14 of us in the Senate on both sides 
of the aisle who are cosponsors of that idea. Senator Salazar is the 
leader. He has done a terrific job on that. He is a Democrat from 
Colorado. In addition to my cosponsorship, we have been joined by Mark 
Pryor, a Democrat from Arkansas; Bob Bennett, a Republican from Utah; 
Robert Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania; Judd Gregg, a Republican 
from New Hampshire; Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat from Arkansas; John 
Sununu, a Republican from New Hampshire; Susan Collins, a Republican 
from Maine; Pete Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico; Bill Nelson, a 
Democrat from Florida; Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from Louisiana; Claire 
McCaskill, a Democrat from Missouri; and Kent Conrad, a Democrat from 
North Dakota.
  My guess is that if the Democratic Senate leadership would back off a 
little bit, if the President would be more flexible, there are probably 
60 votes coming from both sides of the aisle for the Baker-Hamilton 
report, and if that should be adopted by the Congress, we can move 
forward, which brings me to my final point.
  What would be the third step in having a bipartisan consensus for our 
country that would say to our troops and the world: We agree on why you 
are there, and we support that mission? It would be for the President 
to embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. The President 
of the United States does not want to do that. I respect that. He has 
an absolute constitutional right to say: Our Framers created the 
Executive, I am the Commander in Chief, we cannot have 100 generals, I 
will develop the plan, and I will command the troops. That is my job.
  He is right about that, except he has another part to his job. George 
Reedy, who was the Press Secretary to former President Lyndon Johnson, 
wrote a book called, ``Twilight of the Presidency.'' In it he defined 
the President of the United States. He said, No. 1, his job is to see 
an urgent need; No. 2, to develop a strategy to meet the need; and No. 
3 is to persuade at least half of the people that he is right.
  I do not believe that President Bush, even if he is right in 
September, is likely to be able to persuade enough people to support 
his strategy to be able to sustain the strategy. Let me say that again. 
Even if he is right in September, even if he takes many parts of the 
Baker-Hamilton group and announces it as his strategy, at this stage in 
our history, I do not believe he can persuade enough Americans to 
support his strategy to sustain the strategy.
  I believe this strategy should be sustained. So how does he do that? 
The way he does that is to embrace those who wrote this and those who 
support this so that it is not just his strategy, so that it is our 
strategy, so that he can say to the troops in the Middle East, and to 
the rest of the Middle East, and to the world: The Congress and I have 
come together around a set of principles. I am developing a plan on 
those principles. And not everyone agrees, but a consensus of us agree, 
which is why I would say to the Democratic leader, with respect, I do 
not mind requiring 60 votes on the Iraq issues. We need a consensus. We 
do not want to have an Iraq policy that passes by 51 to 49. We need a 
consensus. I believe we can have it.
  There are some who say adopting the Iraq Study Group principles, the 
Salazar-Alexander legislation, is toothless. I respectfully disagree. 
My grandfather was a railroad engineer, a Santa Fe railroad engineer. 
He lived in Newton, KS, and his job was to drive the big locomotives 
onto the roundtable it was called. And that was how you turned a 
locomotive around. A locomotive might be about as hard to turn around 
as a country in the middle of a war. But that is what my grandfather 
did. He turned that locomotive around. And it was turned around. They 
put it on a different track and off it went in a different direction.

  If we and the President were to agree on the recommendations of the 
Iraq Study Group, it would be just like my grandfather putting that big 
locomotive on the roundtable in Newton, KS. It would be turned around 
and sent down a different track. And, for now, at least, those on the 
other side would pick another engineer. But the engineer cannot do much 
about that track once he is on it. It would be headed down the track, 
the world would know it, and in good faith we could work together.
  When I was an impatient young man working in the White House 40 years 
ago, a wise man named Bruce Harlow said to me: Lamar, just remember 
that here--he meant the White House--just a little tilt makes big waves 
out there.
  If this Congress and this President adopted together the Iraq Study 
Group recommendations this week, that

[[Page S9356]]

would make big waves out there, and that would be a new consensus for 
our country.
  Some said: Well, the Iraq Study Group is a little stale. It is out of 
date. It was done in December.
  Lee Hamilton, the Democratic cochairman said: No. He said: We said in 
December the situation was grave and deteriorating. It still is. We 
said in December we need to move from a combat mission to support, 
equipping, and training. We still do. This week he said: In addition, 
we need to have a long-term limited role in Iraq. And we still do. And 
finally he said: We need to step up our diplomatic and political 
efforts in Iraq, and we still do.
  To the President, I would say with the greatest respect, because he 
is a member of my own party, and I have talked with him about this 
before, I would say: Mr. President, I do respect your prerogative. I 
know you can draw the plan up. I know you want to sit down first with 
General Petraeus, whom we all respect and whom I especially do, as a 
friend, because he spent so much time in Tennessee. But the Salazar-
Alexander legislation has no chance of taking effect until September. 
And all it asks you to do is to draw up a comprehensive plan based upon 
the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. The first person you sit 
down with can be General Petraeus.
  And I would ask the President whether it be better for him to ignore 
the Iraq Study Group and come up with his own plan, or would it be 
better for him to come to the Congress and say: Congress, I will adopt 
these. Why don't you adopt these and let's send our troops a message 
that we are united in what they are fighting for?
  So there are 14 of us, 8 Democrats, 6 Republicans at this point, who 
support and cosponsor the Iraq Study Group. But I believe there are 
many more of us who could be comfortable with it, who could vote for 
it, even if it is not our first choice.
  So I regret this all-night political stunt, but I respect this body. 
I see it every week in those bipartisan breakfasts, talking like the 
people of this country wish we always would when confronted by a major 
issue. I salute Senators Salazar and Pryor and those on that side, and 
Senator Gregg, Senator Bennett, Senator Collins, and those on this side 
who are working together to fix that. I hope more of our colleagues 
will join us soon.
  The President and the Congress could agree on the Baker-Hamilton 
recommendations, and we would say to our troops: We not only will fund 
you, but we can now also say to you and to the Middle East that we 
agree on your mission, on why you are fighting, and why you are being 
wounded, and why you are dying.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I see that many of my colleagues have 
come to the floor, so I will try to be brief in my remarks. But I would 
like to assure my good friend from Tennessee that this is not a stunt. 
This is a very strong and clear and unwavering statement tonight that 
the President and the Republican leadership are leading this country in 
the wrong direction, and now is the time to change it.
  I have not been to Hollywood too many times, but I have been there 
enough to know that there is a lot of glitter, fountains, big lights. I 
do not see any fountains or glitter on the floor of the Senate. I see 
hard-working Senators who are here to debate the most important issue.
  And for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to question our 
intentions is beneath the dignity of this body. Let me repeat again for 
the Senator from Tennessee, to the Senator from Kentucky, and all of my 
friends: This is not a stunt. This is an exercise in reality. And this 
is not Hollywood, this is the Senate, and this is exactly what people 
in the Senate do, debate.
  And what we also like to do is vote. But we are not allowed to vote 
because the minority leader has decided that we are not going to have a 
vote. We have a majority of votes to change direction. I would argue 
with the other side that we are never going to get 80 percent or 90 
percent of the Senate to move in one direction or another in a 
situation such as this. It is an impossible barrier to achieve.
  But we may get a growing number, a majority of Senators who represent 
the majority of the population in America to say to the President that 
we want to go in another direction. So tonight is not a stunt. It is a 
statement saying it is time to allow us to vote.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the President yield for a question?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. No, I will not.
  I also say to the Senator, I am a cosponsor of the Iraq Study Group 
legislation by Senator Salazar, on which he worked so hard and so 
honestly to build bipartisan support. But what happened when the 
President gave his State of the Union Address 2 years ago when things 
looked as though they were not going very well in Iraq? We had more 
deaths, more violence, and a bipartisan group did come together, some 
of the great minds on this issue. What did the President do? He 
dismissed the document.
  I am not sure what the Senator from Tennessee thinks, maybe the 
President will wake up tomorrow morning and decide to read the report. 
But he hasn't read it for 2 years. It is not being implemented. That is 
what this debate is about.
  I don't know how many more commissions we could commission. I don't 
know how many more experts we could gather. I don't know how many more 
Republicans and Democrats could come together to explain to this 
President it is not working. So I am not sure about creating another 
commission. We have already had many. He doesn't even read the 
recommendations. They are right here. Here they are, not implemented 
into law. But can we vote on this? No, because the minority leader says 
they don't want to have a vote on these recommendations.
  I wish to say another thing about the role of the Congress and the 
President. I am so tired of hearing the other side say: Why does 
Congress have anything to say about this matter? Maybe because our 
Constitution says we should, maybe because the intelligence reports 
that are done are not just presented to the President and his military 
generals and leaders and war fighters. The intelligence reports are 
given to us. There was one delivered this morning I would like to read.
  Before I read what it says, I wish to read the way it says it.

       Since its formation in 1973, the National Intelligence 
     Council has served as a bridge between the intelligence and 
     policy communities, a source of deep, substantive expertise 
     on critical national security issues, and as a focal point 
     for Intelligence Community collaboration. . . . [It] provides 
     a focal point for policymakers . . .

  That would be me, I am a policymaker. I ran for the job. I am 
elected. I am here to make policy, and I intend to make it.

       . . . Warfighters, and Congressional leaders to task the 
     Intelligence Community for answers--

  We sure need some important questions, such as how to win the war 
against terrorism.
  They don't send this to the President and say: After you finish 
reading it, let us know what you want us to do. They send it to us, and 
today they sent us another one.
  What it said in this report is:

       Al-qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist 
     threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues 
     to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist 
     Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its 
     capabilities.

  It is clearly saying, yes, there are some threats and activities in 
Sunni areas in Iraq, but there are also Sunni areas around the world. 
And so Osama bin Laden is still loose.
  I brought his picture tonight so I could remind the President what he 
looks like. He is still on the loose, the leader of al-Qaida. This is 
his description. He is 6 foot 4 inches to 6 foot 6 inches, 
approximately 160 pounds. He is thin. Occupation unknown. We know now 
what he does. His hair is brown. His eyes are brown. His complexion is 
olive. And there is a reward--and thank goodness they let us have a 
vote on Byron Dorgan's amendment because now the reward is $50 million 
instead of $25 million. Maybe the President will veto that provision. I 
don't know. But I, frankly, think that was a good idea. Maybe we should 
raise it a little higher. I don't know what Congress is doing 
discussing what the reward should be for Osama bin Laden. Clearly, we 
have nothing to say about this issue. I am glad we voted to increase 
the reward. I would like to see if we can find him and

[[Page S9357]]

kill him. If we would stop spending $500 million a day, $35 million 
before breakfast every day in Iraq, maybe we could find him because he 
is not in Baghdad.
  We, obviously, have disagreements about the way to proceed, but I can 
assure my colleagues this is not a stunt. This is a real debate that is 
taking place in a real place that is the real Senate of the United 
States. It is not Hollywood.
  The President and the Republican leadership have made many mistakes. 
Nobody is perfect, and we all make them. But we have to change course. 
What we are doing is not working. He is still loose. The estimate today 
says that al-Qaida is as strong as it was on 9/11. If we are winning 
the war, I am not sure that 4 years after you engage, if your enemy is 
stronger than it was when you started, that is winning under any 
definition. But that is what the Republican leadership continues to 
tell people: despite the mounting casualties, the increased funerals, 
and the tremendous strains on our soldiers and their families coming 
home, that we are most certainly winning. The American people don't 
believe it.
  Some people are asking to pull out. I am not asking that, but I am 
asking for a change of direction. I brought this picture to the floor 
today to remind everybody how we got here in the first place. Saddam 
Hussein did not attack the United States, Osama bin Laden did, and he 
is still alive, and now terrorism is around the world in places it was 
not before we started down this road. If we are not careful, we are 
going to spend all our money there, all the American people's patience 
there, and all their will there and still not find the guy we are 
looking for and the central intelligence of al-Qaida. I know he is not 
the only part of al-Qaida, but he is the leader, and we need to find 
him.
  So however one feels about the issue, I don't think spending one 
night on the floor of the Senate, which is not a Hollywood set but the 
real deal, is too much to ask, since our soldiers have spent every 
night for 5 years on the battlefield around the world.
  I will make one more point. I hope that nobody comes to my State or 
on the floor and accuses me of not supporting our troops in uniform 
because I will have several words for them. Every time we disagree 
about procedures, the ones who don't agree with the President are 
accused of not supporting our troops. We couldn't support them more.

  So I hope we can get past that reasoning and perhaps we can find a 
better consensus. But the place we are going, the direction we are 
going is not right. We need to change course, and we need to fight 
smart, we need to fight tough, we need to go where the enemy is, and we 
need to protect America.
  According to this intelligence report that was issued this morning, 
it doesn't look like we are doing that. That is what this debate is 
about. I look forward to continuing many nights into the future and 
days ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut begins, can we see about getting a unanimous consent 
agreement relative to some order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will yield to the Senator for the purpose of 
propounding a unanimous consent request but without yielding the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I propose that the Senator from Connecticut go for as 
long as he might take; that the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, follow 
him. Does the Senator know who wants to go next on his side? The 
Senator from New Jersey?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, responding to the Senator from Georgia, 
I understand the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, wishes to speak next in 
order.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Senator Brown would follow Senator Collins and Senator 
Isakson would follow Senator Brown.
  Mr. BROWN. I object. The informal order established was Senator 
Alexander, Senator Landrieu, Senator Lieberman, myself, then a 
Republican, and then Senator Menendez. I ask unanimous consent that be 
the order.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I think that is what I said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut still has the 
floor.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am sorry, I put Senator Collins ahead 
of Senator Brown and I was wrong. Senator Brown would follow Senator 
Lieberman, Senator Collins follows Senator Brown.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Then if my friend from Georgia will allow, I gather 
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, will be next.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Following Senator Collins, that is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. We will figure out where we are at the end of that 
time.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to address the amendment offered 
by Senator Levin and Senator Reed and to explain why I will vote 
against cloture on the amendment tomorrow morning.
  I think it is important to explain that because my friend from 
Louisiana who spoke before me had behind her a sign that said: Let us 
vote. We may see that sign again. I wish to indicate that we are going 
to have a vote. We are going to have a vote tomorrow morning. And the 
question is: Will we sustain what has been a bedrock policy of the 
Senate to require 60 votes for a matter of great importance that comes 
before this body, particularly a matter where there is a lot at stake?
  This amendment offered by my colleagues from Michigan and Rhode 
Island is a very serious amendment. Some of us believe it would have 
disastrous consequences for the security of the United States of 
America, for the safety of our troops in Iraq, for the stability of the 
region, for any hope for democracy in the Middle East, and a better 
future for the people of that part of the world than the suicidal death 
and hatred al-Qaida offers them.
  But you know, I have recollection of times in the Senate hearing the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. He has made, over 
the years, some compelling arguments for why the Senate has this 
unusual procedure of requiring 60 votes on matters of great importance. 
I am not quoting him directly, but this is consistent with the vision 
of one of the Framers--I believe it was Madison, I am not sure--who 
said, if you will, that the Senate is the saucer in which the Congress 
will cool the coffee. As Senator Byrd said much more to the point, we 
in this Chamber have had for a long time this ability to request 60 
votes to pass a matter when there are Members of the Senate--and I am 
one in this case--who believe the passage of this matter would have a 
profoundly negative effect on our country and its security.
  I know some of my colleagues disagree with me, of course. But I am 
exercising my right within the tradition of the Senate to do what 
senior colleagues have advised over the years: to stop the passions, 
the political passions of a moment from sweeping across Congress into 
law and altering our future permanently. I have done it on other 
matters. I have done it on environmental matters, where I think 
something proposed will have so adverse an effect on some of the 
natural wonders that God has given the United States of America that I 
have said: No, I am going to be part of a group to demand 60 votes 
because if I allow this to pass by less, there will be an irreversible 
change that will occur.
  With respect to my colleagues who are saying let us vote, we will 
vote. But the question on that vote is will we ask for 60 votes to 
adopt this very significant amendment? I say it is in the best 
traditions of the Senate to require 60 votes before this amendment is 
adopted.
  Second, before I get to the merits of the amendment or my opinion 
about it, I wish to respond to something my friend from Tennessee, 
Senator Alexander, said about the bipartisan meeting we had this 
morning, people of different opinions on this issue discussing in a 
closed room across a table looking for common ground. I wish to express 
my own sense of disappointment, sadness, though unfortunately in these

[[Page S9358]]

very partisan times not surprise, that this debate we are having which 
reaches a kind of pitch, a moment of confrontation on the Levin-Reed 
amendment which would mandate a withdrawal from Iraq, that this debate 
is so partisan. I have a point of view about the war in Iraq and what I 
think is best for our security and future policy in Iraq.
  I know people have different points of view. I respect that. This is 
a difficult, a very difficult matter on which to reach judgment. So 
people, of course, can have different points of view, but why do we 
divide in those different points of view on party lines? There is no 
inherent reason why that should happen. It is a sign of what ails our 
political system, what afflicts our Federal Government and hamstrings 
it, what frustrates and ultimately angers the American people about 
what they see here because what they see is that too often we seem to 
be playing partisan politics, we seem to be in a kind of partisan tug 
of war. The net result of that is that nothing gets done.
  Wars are always controversial. Wars have been controversial 
throughout our history. But rarely have the divisions between those who 
support a war and oppose it or support particular policies associated 
with it and oppose it been as partisan as they are at this moment. It 
has to stop. If it doesn't stop on Iraq, I believe our Nation will be 
weakened seriously.
  We have to find ways, no matter what the partisan pressures are, to 
come together as Americans to defend our Nation against those who hate 
us all--al-Qaida, Iran, the fanatics running around who exhort the tens 
of thousands to shout ``Death to America.'' They have been doing it 
since the revolution of 1979. They do it weekly throughout Iran: 
``Death to America.'' Surely we understand they don't distinguish 
between Republicans and Democrats when they shout ``Death to America. 
We should have the common sense, let alone a sense of responsibility to 
our country, to come together and defend our Nation against those who 
want to destroy us, as al-Qaida began to do on 9/11.
  I regret the partisanship that characterizes this debate.
  I wish to talk very briefly about how we got here, not going over it 
in any detail. This Congress authorized the President to take action to 
overthrow Saddam Hussein after the administration had attempted, 
through the United Nations Security Council, to get Saddam to take 
certain steps, including proving to us he had destroyed the weapons of 
mass destruction, he had filed an inventory with the United Nations 
Security Council as a condition of the truce and end to the gulf war of 
1991.
  I don't wish to revisit that. I know people look back at him and 
think they were deceived in why we went to war. I think the world is 
better off without Saddam Hussein in power. But this takes me to this 
point. For 3 years afterward, this country followed a strategy in Iraq 
that didn't work. We followed a strategy in Iraq for too long that 
didn't work. I strongly supported the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein 
and deeply desired that we do everything we could not just to overthrow 
him but to try to create within Iraq a new Iraq, a free Iraq, a self-
governing Iraq that would give hope to people throughout the Arab 
world, the Muslim world, of a better future than the one that al-Qaida 
offers them, which is a return to a millennium ago, away from the 
modern world, but we erred for 3 years. Many of us cried out that we 
did not have enough troops there, we were following a strategy that did 
not work, too few troops and not focusing on al-Qaida training, an 
insufficient ability to do that, and letting the terrorists essentially 
take hold of the country.

  Finally, last year, the President of the United States, as Commander 
in Chief, changed the course in Iraq. He changed the leadership of the 
Pentagon, which was critically necessary. He brought in a new Secretary 
of Defense, consulted with experts on all sides about what to do, how 
to improve what was happening in Iraq, and adopted a totally new 
strategy. That is why when I hear people in this debate saying we need 
a change of course in Iraq, well, we got a change of course, finally. 
It was later than I hoped for, but, finally, at the end of last year, 
beginning in February, the counteroffensive, called a surge, and a new 
general, a great general--a general in the tradition of Maxwell Taylor, 
General Abrams, a general who was called on in a very difficult 
situation, probably the single most informed leader on 
counterinsurgency in our military, GEN David Petraeus, to take charge 
of these troops--and he gave him 30,000 additional troops.
  The evidence thus far is incomplete, because as has been said, and 
will be said again, the surge was just fully staffed about a month ago. 
But you have to look at the statistics. I know the benchmark that came 
in, the interim one last week, was mixed. But on the security side, 
which is what the surge was first aimed at, deaths from sectarian 
violence are way down in Baghdad, more than half the city is now under 
the control of American and Iraqi forces, and normalcy is returning to 
many parts of the capital city, and Anbar Province, the story is well 
known now. Basically, the additional troops and the new strategy 
enabled us to convince the Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar, which al-
Qaida was going to make the capital of its Islamist extremist 
caliphate, We convinced the tribal leaders we were there to stay, so 
they came to our side, and al-Qaida is on the run--and for the first 
time. Always before we had the strategy where we would chase the 
terrorists out of a community, a city, in Baghdad, and we would leave 
and then they would come back. This time, in Anbar Province, we left 
some of our marines and some of the Iraqi security forces, working with 
the Sunni indigenous tribal leaders, and what did we do? We followed 
al-Qaida on the run to Diyala Province, to Baquba city, the major city 
there, and we have them on the run there as well. As a result, the 
tribal leaders there are beginning to come over to our side. So this 
surge, interim as the reports are, is, on the ground, working.
  Now comes the Levin-Reed amendment. I wish to say to my colleagues 
this is not the Levin-Reed amendment we voted on earlier this year. 
That amendment did require the beginning of a withdrawal of troops 
within 120 days of passage, as this amendment does. But that amendment 
set a goal--G-O-A-L--a goal for our troops to be substantially 
withdrawn from Iraq by the end of March of next year. It is no longer a 
goal in this Levin-Reed amendment. It is a mandate, a rigid deadline 
that by the end of April of next year most of our troops are out of 
Iraq. A core group is left, presumably with the stated purpose to train 
the Iraqis and to fight al-Qaida, which is exactly what the previous 
policy that failed was aimed at doing.
  Some have said this is the only amendment with teeth. It does have 
teeth. But I think we have to ask: Who does it bite? I think it bites 
our hope for success in Iraq. It bites our troops, as they proceed day 
in and day out, courageously, compassionately, effectively. It bites 
our hope for keeping al-Qaida and Iran out of controlling Iraq. This 
amendment mandates a retreat to begin in 4 months, 120 days, regardless 
of what is happening on the ground.
  This is not a debate about whether to change course in Iraq, it is a 
debate about whether to accept and embrace defeat in Iraq. We have 
changed course, as I said before. This is a debate about whether we are 
going to give our generals and our troops the chance that they say they 
need to succeed, and succeed they know they can, or if we are going to 
order them to retreat--we order them to retreat--as they on the ground 
are risking their lives every day and succeeding.
  We are going to, if this amendment passes, impose a deadline that is 
as inflexible as it is arbitrary. I say this with respect, but I say it 
from the bottom of my heart. This is a deadline for an American defeat, 
one that we will pay for, I fear, for a generation to come.
  Let us be absolutely clear again about what the amendment we are 
debating now would do. If adopted, this amendment would literally put 
this Congress between the Commander in Chief, our generals, and our 
soldiers in the field. So just as our troops are on the offensive 
against al-Qaida in Iraq, just as our troops have the enemy on the run, 
this amendment would reach 5,000 miles across the ocean and put our 
troops on the run in retreat and defeat.

[[Page S9359]]

  I will tell you this, the American military, the best in the world--
courageous, resourceful, fighting a tough fight but adjusting to it, 
resilient, finding ways to succeed--the American military will never 
lose the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq, if it is to be lost, will be 
lost as a result of a loss of political will here at home, and you have 
to judge the consequences of that. Each one of us has to.
  In the midst of an unpredictable war, this amendment would strip our 
military commanders not only of the troops they say they need to 
succeed--this amendment would remove the troops from our commanding 
generals--it would strip them of the authority and the ability to adapt 
to changing conditions, which, after all, is what success in war is all 
about, putting America's military in a legislative straitjacket.
  I am going to do everything I can to stop that from happening, and 
that is why I am going to vote against cloture. This amendment is 
wrong. I truly believe it is dangerous. In fact, this amendment should 
not even be considered now. I welcome the debate, but I believe, when 
we passed the supplemental appropriations bill in which we authorized 
the surge to go forward, in which we appropriated funds for the surge, 
in which we established the requirement for the benchmark, for which we 
got the study last week and then the next one coming in September, to 
me we made an institutional pledge in that to General Petraeus and the 
troops. Because in that bill we required General Petraeus, along with 
our Ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, to come back in September and 
report to us. We wanted to give them, at the request of General 
Petraeus, time from the middle of June, when the surge troops would 
have arrived, to September to see whether he could make it work and 
report back to us.

  I don't think there is a person in this Chamber, no matter what our 
position on Iraq, that doesn't trust General Petraeus to tell us the 
truth, what he believes, when he comes back in September. I think we 
made an institutional pledge to him. But I know this: I made a personal 
pledge to him. I am going to give him and the troops a fair chance, 
which this amendment would deprive him of, and I am going to give him 
until September to come back and tell me how it is going.
  All of us would like to believe, I certainly would, that there is a 
quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq. All of us, I 
certainly would, would like to go back and do over a lot of what 
happened after Saddam Hussein was overthrown. All of us want our brave 
men and women in uniform to come home safely and as soon as possible. 
All of us are keenly aware of the frustration and fatigue the American 
people are feeling about this war. But we, who have been honored by our 
constituents to be elected to serve in the Senate, have a 
responsibility to lead, not to follow. We have a responsibility--it is 
the oath we took when we were sworn in--to do what we believe is right 
for our country, even if it is unpopular.
  I speak for myself, but I firmly believe what is right is that we 
cannot allow our Nation to be defeated in Iraq by the same Islamist 
extremists who attacked us on 9/11, with whom we are engaged now in a 
worldwide war that stretches from Baghdad to London, from Madrid to 
Riyadh, from Bali to Jerusalem, and from Fort Dix to JFK Airport.
  The sponsors of this resolution insist what is happening in Iraq is a 
civil war, and they want us to not be part of it. But this argument 
flies in the face of the statements of al-Qaida's own top leaders who 
have repeatedly told us they consider Iraq to be, today, the central 
battlefield of their world war against us. We didn't start this world 
war, they did, by attacking us.
  I wish to take a moment to read some comments, direct quotes, from 
leaders of al-Qaida that make this clear. I am not making it up. I am 
not quoting somebody in the administration.
  December 2004. Osama bin Laden.

       I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation. 
     Listen and understand. The most important and serious issue 
     today for the whole world is this Third World war. It is 
     raging in the lands of the two rivers--Iraq. The world's 
     millstone and pillar is Baghdad, the capital of the 
     caliphate.

  July 2005, Ayman al-Zawahiri, second to bin Laden, as we know, in al-
Qaida. A letter to Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, the head of Iraq, 
subsequently killed by coalition forces. Quote from Zawahiri to 
Zarqawi:

       I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has 
     blessed you with in terms of fighting a battle in the heart 
     of the Islamic world, what is now the place for the greatest 
     battle of Islam in this era.

  Zawahiri, in that same letter:

       The Mujahadeen must not have their mission end with the 
     expulsion of the Americans from Iraq. No, the first stage is 
     to expel the Americans from Iraq; the second stage is to 
     establish an Islamic authority, or emirate, over as much of 
     the territory as you can, to spread its power in Iraq.

  And then there is a third stage Zawahiri says.

       The third stage is to extend the jihad to the secular 
     countries neighboring Iraq.

  This is not me. This is not some administration spokesperson, this is 
Zawahiri, No. 2 in al-Qaida.
  December of 2006, Zawahiri says:

       The backing of the jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq today is 
     to back the most important battlefields in which the crusade 
     against Islam is in progress, and the defeat of the crusaders 
     will have a far-reaching effect on the future of the Muslim 
     Umah.

  I could go on. I will read one final one. May 2007, 2 months ago, and 
this is Zawahiri again in a tape.

       The critical importance of the jihad in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan becomes clear, because the defeat of the 
     crusaders there soon, Allah permitted, lead to the setting up 
     of two mujahedin emirates, which will be launch pads for the 
     liberation of the Islamic lands and the establishment of the 
     caliphate. That is why I call on the Muslim Umah not to lag 
     behind or tarry in supporting jihad in general and jihad in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan in particular, in view of the pivotal 
     importance of these two arenas.

  I started this because I said that some of my colleagues offering 
this amendment say we are in a civil war in Iraq and we ought not to be 
there. There is sectarian violence. That is why we have the 
counterinsurgency plan, which is to try to stop the sectarian violence, 
and it is working so far. Surely we don't know whether it will work 
finally, but sectarian violence has been significantly reduced in 
Baghdad and now Anbar and Diyala Provinces. But the argument that this 
is simply a civil war is totally rejected, denied by these statements 
of al-Qaida's own leaders.
  We are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq. You can't withdraw from Iraq and 
fight al-Qaida. That is whom we are fighting. Who is going to win if we 
pull out? Al-Qaida will and Iran will. Listen to what Zawahiri and bin 
Laden said they are going to do: They are going to establish the 
capital of the caliphate, the empire, and they are going to go out into 
the neighboring countries.
  Incidentally, the notion that somehow we are not fighting al-Qaida in 
Iraq and that this is just a civil war also flies in the face of the 
National Intelligence Estimate on al-Qaida that was released today, 
which describes al-Qaida in Iraq as the most visible and capable 
affiliate of al-Qaida worldwide. Of note, and I quote in full:

       We assess that al-Qaeda will probably seek to leverage the 
     context and capabilities of al-Qaeda in Iraq, its most 
     visible and capable affiliate, and the only one that is 
     beyond bin Laden and Zawahiri, the only local affiliate known 
     to have expressed a desire to attack the American homeland.

  So I know people laugh or jest when people say if we don't defeat 
them there we will be fighting them here, but this is what the National 
Intelligence Estimate says. We are fighting al-Qaida in Iraq, the only 
local affiliate of al-Qaida that has also talked about, and some have 
reason to believe may be acting upon, their desire to attack America 
here in our homeland. That is the National Intelligence Estimate.
  It seems to me that it is perverse that on the same day we receive 
this National Intelligence Estimate about the threat posed by al-Qaida 
and about its direct linkage to Iraq, Zawahiri to Zarqawi, bin Laden 
talking about the centrality of what is happening in Iraq, that the 
Senate would consider voting for an amendment mandating our retreat in 
the face of al-Qaida from Iraq.
  I ask, why is this amendment before us? One of the most commonly 
heard explanations for the amendment mandating the beginning of a 
withdrawal of American troops in 120 days, and most of them out by next 
April, is that an American military retreat is necessary--and I quote 
here one of the

[[Page S9360]]

sponsors of the amendment--``to prod the Iraqi Government to reach a 
political settlement.''
  So we are going to force a retreat, probably threaten the viability 
of the Iraqi Government, yield the country to al-Qaida and Iranian-
backed terrorists, and we are doing it to send a message to the Iraqi 
political leadership that they better get their act together. But the 
argument that our forcing a retreat of our military, our troops, will 
prod the Iraqi Government to reach a political settlement is pure 
speculation. It is amateur psychology without any evidence that I can 
see to support it. In fact, the expert evidence goes in the other 
direction. From people who follow what is happening in Iraq closely, 
who say that as soon--and maybe some of this is psychology, too, but to 
me it seems more sensible than the other argument--as soon as we begin 
to set a deadline date, the Iraqi political leadership is not going to 
suddenly come together and settle their differences, they are going to 
hunker down in camps and get ready for the battle of all battles, which 
will be a total civil war, huge ethnic slaughter I fear, probably a 
kind of genocide.
  One of our military leaders in Iraq when I was there 5 weeks ago said 
to me: Senator, if your colleagues don't like what they see in Darfur 
today, and they should not like it, they are going to hate what they 
see in Iraq if the American military pulls out before the Iraqis can 
maintain security.
  Here, too, we have a National Intelligence Estimate that directly 
rejects the contention that we need to force a retreat of our troops, 
open the country to a takeover by al-Qaida in Iraq, to convince the 
Iraqi Government to reach a political settlement.
  There was a recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. In it, the 
conclusion was presented that the rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops 
required by this amendment would, ``almost certainly have adverse 
effects on national reconciliation'' in Iraq.
  So rather than promoting political progress, this amendment would 
have the exact opposite effect than its sponsors intend, and actually 
undermine it.
  I know that cots have been brought in tonight to allow Senators to 
sleep during parts of the night when they are not required on the 
floor. I think, really, what I hope this does is wake up the Senators 
and wake up the American people to the threat we face; to wake them up 
to what our intelligence agencies are saying about Iraq, to what the 
stakes for us are in Iraq, for what the consequences are for us of a 
defeat in Iraq, for the strength of the Petraeus counteroffensive surge 
and how much it is achieving.
  It is time for all of us to wake up to what is actually happening in 
Iraq before it is too late. It is time to stop dreaming that a mandated 
withdrawal, or whatever you call it--a redeployment is really nothing 
other than a mandated defeat. I suppose if you don't think that defeat 
in Iraq will have consequences for our future security, then I can 
understand that. But I, of course, profoundly disagree.
  We face vicious enemies in Iraq today. We know who they are. They are 
al-Qaida and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Al-Qaida is fighting in Iraq 
because they want to bring down the Iraqi Government and they want to 
stop any progress toward self-government until a modern Iraq. They want 
the state to fail so they can establish what bin Laden, Zawahiri, and 
Zarqawi said clearly, a caliphate, an empire with the capital of the 
empire there.
  What about Iran? Iran is training, funding, and arming terrorists to 
kill Americans in Iraq. This Senate spoke unanimously against that, 
presenting evidence of it last week, 97 to 0. Why does Iran do that? It 
wants America out of Iraq so it can dominate that country and the 
region.
  These are enemies that cannot be negotiated with or reasoned out of 
existence. I am all for diplomacy with Iran. I am glad our ambassador 
met with their ambassador in Baghdad in May, but ultimately 
negotiations that have gone on with Iran, conducted by the European 
Governments for more than 2 years to try to convince them to stop the 
development of nuclear weapons, produced nothing but giving them 2 more 
years to go ahead with that development. These are not enemies who are 
interested in the political reconciliation of which the sponsors of 
this amendment speak.
  In other words, al-Qaida and Iran are not fighting in Iraq to 
encourage or bring about a political reconciliation. These enemies must 
be confronted and defeated through force of arms. That is precisely 
what our brave men and women in uniform are doing today under this new 
counterinsurgency strategy, and they are succeeding. I ask my 
colleagues in this Chamber finally to listen carefully to the words of 
a great American soldier, Rick Lynch, commander of the Third Infantry 
Division now serving in Iraq. His soldiers are, today, leading the 
fight south of Baghdad. General Lynch reported just this past weekend 
that his forces were making significant gains in reclaiming areas that 
just a few weeks ago in Baghdad were terrorist safe havens. These are 
towns on the outskirts of Baghdad where al-Qaida in Iraq had terrorized 
the local population into submission and then set up shop, assembling 
the car bombs that then were used to kill hundreds of innocent people 
earlier this year. That is the way to try to stop these suicidal 
maniacs from blowing themselves up and killing a lot of Iraqis and 
Americans with them--which is their attempt to respond to our 
counteroffensive surge policy and their attempt to do something else: 
to influence the American public opinion to get out of Iraq.
  General Lynch also stated that in his professional military 
judgment--this is a soldier, not a politician--the current troop surge 
must be maintained through early next year in order to achieve success. 
In his words:

       It's going to take us through the summer and fall to deny 
     the enemy his sanctuaries and then it's going to take us 
     through the first of the year into the spring to consolidate 
     these gains.

  Incidentally, it may be that those gains will be consolidated by next 
spring, and we will be able to begin to draw down some of the American 
forces there. But do we have the confidence to know that today, to 
mandate that to happen? I hope we are in a position--and I am sure 
General Petraeus does, and I am sure the President does--to begin to 
order that kind of beginning of withdrawal because the surge has 
succeeded, not order a withdrawal as an alternative policy to the 
surge.
  I return to General Lynch. He warned that pulling back before the job 
was completed would ``create an environment where the enemy would come 
back in and fill the void.'' General Lynch also reported that he was 
``amazed at the cooperation his troops were encountering in previously 
hostile areas.'' In his words:

       When we go out there the first question the Iraqis ask us 
     is, are you staying? And the second question is, how can we 
     help?

  In other words, what General Lynch said is what they are worried 
about is our leaving. And our answer is: We are staying. And when we 
give that answer they say: How can we help?
  They want a better future than al-Qaida and Iran controlling their 
country. General Lynch has given us a clear and compelling explanation 
in the direct words of a soldier about the nature of this war. In his 
view, the U.S. military needs the additional troops that are now in 
theater to prevail, and they are, as we speak, prevailing. In this 
regard, the choice before this Senate is a direct one. Either General 
Lynch is badly mistaken about the reality of this war or this amendment 
is badly mistaken about the reality of this war. They cannot both be 
right.
  I go with General Lynch. He is on the ground. He has no motives other 
than to do what is right for his country. He has every motive to want 
to protect his troops. But he believes in our cause.
  We have a choice to make. We can ignore the recommendations of our 
general in the field and withdraw in defeat. We can rationalize our 
action with reassuring but falsely hopeful words such as 
``redeployment,'' but no matter what we say our enemy will know that 
America's will has been broken by the barbarity of their blood lust, 
the very barbarity we declare we are fighting, but from which, if this 
amendment ever passed, we would actually be running.
  There is, of course, no guarantee that the path we are on will lead 
to success. There never is in war. But what General Petraeus is 
offering is a strong, smart, and practical strategy, informed by his 
experience and expertise, that carries a reasonable hope of victory

[[Page S9361]]

from whose jaws this amendment would snatch defeat. This amendment is a 
surrender to terrorism. It is a victory to al-Qaida and Iran. It is an 
invitation to a disaster for Iraq, the Middle East, and most directly 
the United States of America.
  Iraq is not lost. It can be won, and if it is won we will have 
secured a better, brighter future for the people of that country, the 
hope of greater stability and opportunity and peace for the people of 
the region, and the hope and promise of greater security for the 
American people. Iraq is not lost. But if we adopt this amendment it 
will be; so, I fear, will so much of our hope for democracy and 
stability in the Middle East and for our own safety from terrorism here 
at home. That is why I will vote against cloture and against the Levin-
Reed amendment tomorrow morning.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the American people's opposition to this 
war is not the political passion of a moment, as some have suggested. 
It is a majority, a growing majority, a thoughtful growing majority 
reflecting the will of the people of this country. We need 60 votes 
because of recalcitrance, because of political game playing, because 
too many of our colleagues are more interested in protecting the 
President than they are in protecting our troops. We know to get 60 
votes we need 11 Republicans.
  Many Republicans, a growing number of Republicans in this body, have 
spoken out against this war. They have decided that we need to change 
course in Iraq. The problem is simply this. It seems like almost every 
Tuesday Vice President Cheney comes and speaks to the Republican lunch. 
The Republicans meeting in conference, having lunch, Vice President 
Cheney pulls up, his limousine drops him off at the door of the Senate, 
he comes in and speaks to them or other administration officials. The 
arm twisting, the lobbying by the administration, is making it that 
much harder to change direction in this war. That is why it is so 
difficult to get to 60. That is why we want a vote, we want an up-or-
down vote, we want a majority vote, because a majority vote reflects 
public sentiment, reflects what the voters said last fall, reflects the 
policy that the Iraq Study Group has suggested, that the military has 
advised the President, but the President simply dug in and did not 
listen.
  Last November voters in my State of Ohio, from Galion to Gallipolis, 
and across this Nation shouted from the ballot boxes that we needed a 
new direction, that the Iraq war must end. They demanded that we 
refocus our efforts on securing our homeland so that the darkest day in 
our Nation's history, 9/11, is never repeated.

  With Democrats in control of Congress this session we immediately, in 
January, began working to end the war. We immediately began to work 
implementing the full recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in order 
to make us safer, recommendations that will go a long way toward making 
this country safer. By working to end the war in Iraq and by passing 
the Commission's recommendation, we are executing a strategy to combat 
terrorism and to make our country safer.
  Make no mistake, ending the war in Iraq itself is a counterterrorism 
strategy. Global terrorist attacks have increased sevenfold since we 
invaded Iraq--seven times, more than 700 percent. Our continued 
engagement in Iraq, frankly, is the best thing that ever happened to 
jihadist recruitment. We know America is a less safe country because of 
the war in Iraq. We know global terrorist attacks have increased 
sevenfold, seven times worldwide since the war in Iraq began.
  Democrats brought to this Chamber not one piece of legislation to 
redeploy our troops out of Iraq in the safest, most orderly way 
possible, but many resolutions, many pieces of legislation. Each and 
every time either Republicans defeated the measure in Congress by 
threatening a filibuster or the President vetoed it in the White 
House--each and every time.
  This week we find ourselves at the same impasse, the same struggle in 
this Chamber between a new direction and more of the same failed 
policies. Again, too many of my colleagues would rather protect the 
President of the United States than protect our soldiers and marines in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. More of the same means supporting the President, 
but it means something very different to Ohio families. It means more 
loved ones wounded, more loved ones killed. Mr. President, 156 people 
in my State have been killed in Iraq, 156 people. More than 1,100 
Ohioans have been wounded. Ohio cannot afford more of the same.
  Again, too many of my colleagues care more about protecting the 
President than they do about protecting our troops. Ohio families have 
had it with hollow promises by the President. From first declaring 
``mission accomplished'' in 2003 to his visit last week in my home 
State of Ohio, in Cleveland, the President used grand pronouncements of 
success in an effort to buy more time, stay the course and buy more 
time; continue our involvement in this civil war and buy more time. 
Time and again those pronouncements were followed by increased violence 
and expanding chaos in Iraq. Time and again those pronouncements mean 
more names being added to the list of dead and wounded Americans. Mr. 
President, 3,617 Americans have died in the war in Iraq. At least 
35,000 Americans have suffered serious injuries that will be with them 
and with us for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years.
  Every year I see Iraq slip further and further into a civil war with 
our Nation's military caught in the middle. The President sent our 
Nation's military into a war of choice on failed intelligence and, as 
we know, without proper body armor. Adding insult to injury, literally 
just today, a USA Today article revealed that nearly 4 years later our 
troops are still without the lifesaving equipment they need.
  I remember before the attack, before we invaded Iraq, I was a Member 
of the House of Representatives. I voted against this war in October of 
2002. We began questioning Paul Bremer during the beginning of 2003, 
before the attack. Mr. Bremer was the administrator in Iraq for the 
U.S. Government, the Provisional Government. We continued to focus on 
providing the kind of body armor for our troops and Mr. Bremer said we 
are doing the best we can, but we have not done very well. We have a 
lot to do. We still attacked that country, we still sent our troops 
into harm's way without that body armor.
  As we discuss this issue, tonight in Baghdad it is early morning. The 
forecast calls for a high of 104 degrees. While our solders have some 
protection from the extreme heat, like water, shade, and the mini air-
conditioning units, they are not protected from a far deadlier force in 
Iraq, the improvised explosive devices or IED bombs. The USA Today 
article highlighted the lack of planning to protect our soldiers riding 
in Humvees from the impact of IED bombs. Humvees have a very low ground 
clearance, a little less than a foot and a half. The bottom of a humvee 
is flat so when it is hit by an IED blast from the bottom, troops 
suffer the brunt of the explosion.
  The Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, or MRAP--the Mine 
Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, on the other hand, has a 3-foot 
clearance, and its body is V-shaped so when the explosion happens, the 
explosion, if you will, is dissipated and more often than not the 
troops are not nearly as badly injured. The soldiers are much better 
protected.
  The few MRAPS in theater have proven their effectiveness and clearly 
saved lives and clearly saved many of our soldiers and marines from 
injury. What infuriates me and should infuriate everyone across this 
Nation is that the Pentagon and the administration, similarly to back 
in 2002 and 2003 when they failed to work hard to provide the body 
armor to prepare for this war, the Pentagon and the administration 
again did not immediately work to fix the problem of the humvee's 
susceptibility to IEDs; the needless loss of life from this willful 
ignorance to correct the glaring problem of the unprotected humvees 
could have been prevented, but arrogance and stubbornness from the 
administration kept the administration from doing the right thing.
  The President, in some sense, is proud of his stubbornness. Instead 
he should be ashamed of it. His stubbornness has led to a failed policy 
in Iraq and to a failed policy on the war on

[[Page S9362]]

terror. The President has yet to define victory. He has yet to tell us 
how many years it will take to achieve whatever his definition of 
victory is. Will we be in Iraq for 5 more years, 10 more years, 15 
years? Will hundreds more Americans die? Will thousands more of our 
service men and women die? Will tens of thousands die?
  The President has yet to hold himself and his administration 
accountable for fomenting a civil war, in breeding more global 
terrorism. Remember, we have seen an increase in attacks of sevenfold 
since the time of the attack and the beginning of this war.
  The path he is wed to has simultaneously increased the threat of 
terrorism, reduced our nation's capability to protect against it, and 
made us less safe. That stubbornness is not leadership. That 
defensiveness is not leadership. That finger-pointing from the White 
House, from some of my colleagues, is not leadership. And supporting 
the President's strategy in Iraq, rather than supporting the troops 
because you support the President, is not leadership.
  Blocking another vote to bring our troops home, and that is exactly 
what they are doing tonight by their partisan antics, by their petty 
political games, blocking an up-or-down vote so the American people's 
will can be expressed, by blocking another vote to bring our troops 
home, is not leadership.
  Lives are at stake. Our homeland security is at stake. Global 
security is at stake. Last week, we learned that al-Qaida is at pre-9/
11 strength. That is frightening news. Of course, it is a cause for 
outrage because it did not have to be that way. We also learned last 
week that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is fostering the 
next generation of al-Qaida at an alarming rate.
  What kind of signal exactly do the President and his supporters think 
we send by failing to secure the region where we know al-Qaida lives 
and trains and plans with--according to military analysts--relative 
freedom, the same region that served as the breeding ground for global 
terrorism through al-Qaida before 9/11, the same region we now know 
that al-Qaida trained in before the deadliest attack on our Nation's 
soil, the same region where Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind 9/
11, not Iraq, Osama bin Laden, the same region where he is believed to 
be hiding, free to plot the next attack on our beloved homeland?
  Over the objection of military advisers, the 9/11 Commission, and the 
voice of a nation, the President, again that word ``stubbornly,'' 
insists on staying the course with the failed policy in Iraq. Staying 
the course with the President's failed policy has not just forced our 
Government to take our eye off the ball of terrorism, it has caused us 
to drop it.
  Again, global terrorist attacks have increased seven times since we 
invaded Iraq, sevenfold since we invaded Iraq. Prior to World War II, 
the French built the Maginot Line. Same thought the line would prevent 
Germany from attacking France. History proved the French wrong. The 
President's strategy in Iraq is the Maginot Line of the 21st century. 
It imperils our Nation by mistakenly focusing our attention in the 
wrong direction. We have dropped the ball on capturing Osama bin Laden. 
We have dropped the ball on securing Afghanistan. We have dropped the 
ball on implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and anyone 
who thinks those are not signals that al-Qaida is paying attention to 
is surely mistaken.

       Supporting the President's policy does not just fail to 
     effectively target terrorism, it puts the bull's-eye squarely 
     on our Nation. Ending the war in Iraq is not just about 
     bringing our troops home. Ending the war in Iraq is not just 
     about ensuring veterans get the health care and the benefits 
     they have been denied, and the Presiding Officer tonight has 
     done perhaps more than anybody in this institution about 
     that.

  Ending the war is not just about a new direction in our foreign 
policy. Ending the war is not about returning our focus to where it 
might be if our Nation and our community, our families are to remain 
safe. Ending the war is about reengaging full force on the war on 
terror to make us safer.
  I applaud my Republican friends who chose to stand up to the 
President. More and more of them have taken steps of bravery with every 
vote we bring to the floor. But it is not enough. With every lost vote, 
we add more lines to the list of men and women lost in Iraq.
  Every lost vote we add more names to the list of wounded. With every 
lost vote, we empower al-Qaida. We keep hearing the same rhetoric: If 
we do not fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will have to fight them 
here. Good line but bad logic. The real truth is: If we do not fight 
the terrorists where they are in cells around the world, in 
Afghanistan, and where they really are, then we will fight them here.
  In the Senate, those of us committed to ending the war of choice and 
securing our Nation will keep fighting. I appreciate the leadership of 
so many of my colleagues who have shown courageous leadership on this 
crisis of our generation. Our fight to end the war and refocus our 
efforts has just begun. We want to vote, we want a majority vote to 
reflect the growing, thoughtful opposition to this war. A huge majority 
of the American people are trying to overcome the furious lobbying 
effort of the President and the Vice President. Our fight to end this 
war has just begun. We are going to change this policy. The safety of 
every American depends upon it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). The Senator from Maine is 
recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the war in Iraq is the greatest 
challenge facing our country. Unfortunately, the political debate in 
Washington has not been conducive to finding a solution, as political 
divisions have hardened during the past year.
  Vitriolic rhetoric and veto threats do not help us pursue a new 
direction. I believe the way forward must be a bipartisan approach that 
puts the interests of our country ahead of political gain. Our Nation 
needs to forge a new bipartisan strategy that will redefine the mission 
and set the stage for a significant but responsible withdrawal of our 
troops over the next year.
  Fortunately, we do not have to search far and wide to find this new 
policy. It is already mapped out for us in the unanimous 
recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. This group was 
chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic 
Congressman Lee Hamilton. It has distinguished Americans from both 
parties who worked hard to forge a unanimous, bipartisan consensus on 
the road ahead in Iraq.
  The Commission's recommendations chart the path forward and remain as 
viable today as when they were first released last December. The Iraq 
Study Group report lays out three core principles. First, the report 
calls for a fundamental change in the mission of our military forces in 
Iraq, away from combat operations, and instead limited to training and 
equipping the Iraq security forces, conducting counterterrorism 
operations against al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations, and 
securing Iraq's borders.
  The Iraq Study Group set a goal of March 2008 for withdrawing those 
combat forces not needed for this newly defined mission and for force 
protection.
  Shifting the mission of our troops would require the Iraqi military 
and police to take responsibility for security for their country. It 
would allow tens of thousands of our troops to start coming home, and 
it would demonstrate our military commitment to Iraq is neither open-
ended nor unconditional.
  Second, the Iraq Study Group report recommends that American support 
for the Iraqi Government should be conditioned on its leaders making 
progress in meeting specific benchmarks, including the political 
reforms necessary to quell sectarian violence.
  I last visited Iraq in December. After I came home, I told my 
constituents I had concluded a new direction in Iraq was needed and it 
would be a mistake to send additional troops to Baghdad, to place them 
in the midst of a sectarian struggle. The solution was political, not 
military.
  I told my constituents I thought we should be moving our troops out 
of Baghdad and instead concentrating their effort in Anbar Province, 
where the local population was starting to support our efforts and 
joining in the fight against al-Qaida. In Anbar, the violence was not, 
in December and is not now, primarily sectarian, as it is in

[[Page S9363]]

Baghdad and the belt surrounding Baghdad; instead, in Anbar Province 
the fight is against al-Qaida.
  The newly defined mission set forth by the Iraq Study Group in 
December would call for us to concentrate our efforts on 
counterterrorism operations, securing Iraq's borders and training the 
Iraqi security forces. We should not be in the midst of what is indeed 
a civil war in Baghdad.
  Last week, the President released a progress report, a report called 
for by legislation that I coauthored with Senators John Warner and Ben 
Nelson. This report verified that the Iraqis have made, unfortunately, 
very little progress in achieving the most important political 
benchmarks. This is at a time when the Iraqis have failed to adopt the 
essential reforms to distribute oil revenues more equitably, to reverse 
debaathification, and to more fully integrate the Sunni minority into 
governmental power structures.
  It has been our troops that have paid such a heavy price. In fact, 
American troops suffered more casualties during the past 3 months than 
at any time since this war has begun. Requiring the Iraqis to make more 
progress on the political reforms that were part of the strategy, as 
the Baker-Hamilton Commission recommended, is absolutely essential, and 
it is in keeping with the Warner-Collins-Nelson benchmark language 
incorporated into the funding bill.
  Third, the Iraq Study Group urges our Government to launch a new 
diplomatic offensive in the region. Both the international community 
and Iraq's neighbors are clearly not doing enough to foster its 
stability, and this must change. Thus, the ISG recommendations 
recognize that the United States has placed too much emphasis on 
military actions at the expense of diplomacy. Fourteen of us, eight 
Democrats and six Republicans, have joined together to offer the Iraq 
Study Group's sound and well thought out unanimous recommendations as 
an amendment to the pending legislation, the Defense authorization 
bill.
  Our amendment lays the groundwork for responsible, realistic 
redeployment of American combat troops and emphasizes the need for more 
democracy. By adopting the Iraq Study Group recommendations, the Senate 
can finally chart a new course and move past politics to address the 
most critical issue facing our country.
  I have to tell you I think the debate tonight in many ways has been 
disheartening. To see signs put up on the Senate floor saying ``Let us 
vote,'' when our side has not blocked a vote on the cloture motion, we 
have offered to do it at any point this evening. We have offered to do 
it earlier today. We have offered to do it tomorrow. It has been 
disappointing to hear rhetoric that is clearly intended to score 
political points, as it is disappointing to hear the President be so 
inflexible in his approach.
  I think the Senator from Tennessee put it well earlier this evening 
when he called for more flexibility on the President's part and more 
flexibility on the part of the Democrats, particularly the leader of 
the Senate.
  Having vote after vote, where we fail to get to the threshold of 60 
votes or even 67 votes, if necessary, to override the President's veto 
is not getting us anywhere. We are not moving forward. We have got to 
put aside such a fractious political approach to such a grave crisis.
  We need to work together in a bipartisan way. By adopting the Iraq 
Study Group recommendations, the Senate can chart a new course and move 
past politics. Despite the heroic efforts of our troops, who make us 
all so proud, the war in Iraq has been characterized by lost 
opportunity after lost opportunity due to the misjudgments of this 
administration. I hope the Senate will not lose this opportunity to 
change direction in a responsible bipartisan way.
  In addition to the Iraq Study Group recommendation amendment, which I 
am proud to cosponsor, and I salute the leadership of Senator Salazar 
and Senator Alexander in bringing together a new Gang of 14, to work on 
this proposal, there is also another bipartisan approach that Senator 
Ben Nelson and I have offered as an amendment to this bill.
  Let me briefly explain our proposal to our colleagues. Now, some of 
our colleagues are looking for a middle ground. Again, in addition to 
the Iraq Study Group amendment, Senator Nelson and I are proposing 
another attempt to find a middle ground. Our proposal would require the 
President to immediately transition to a new strategy. This strategy is 
very similar to the one laid out by the Iraq Study Group. It would move 
us away from combat operations and instead focus our efforts on 
counterterrorism operations, border security, and training of Iraqi 
security forces.
  But it requires, and here is how it differs from the Salazar-
Alexander approach, which I also support, it requires the President to 
immediately begin transitioning to that new strategy. Not in 120 days, 
not next year, not after September, but immediately. Then it sets a 
goal that the transition period should be completed by the first 
quarter of next year, by March 31, 2008.

  So it sets forth a mandatory requirement for the President to 
immediately transition to a new strategy. I think this makes a lot of 
sense. There are so many people in the Senate who support a new 
strategy. We ought to be able to get that done, and I respectfully 
suggest to my colleagues that the Nelson-Collins amendment would move 
us quickly, the most quickly toward that new strategy.
  I sincerely hope tomorrow we will see the dawn of a new approach to 
our strategy in Iraq. I hope very much that we will see a strong vote 
for the proposal offered by 14 of us, led by Senator Salazar and 
Senator Alexander, to adopt the unanimous bipartisan recommendations of 
the Iraq Study Group. Surely, if as diverse a group as James Baker, Lee 
Hamilton, Larry Eagleburger, Vernon Jordan, Ed Meese, Sandra Day 
O'Connor, Leon Panetta, William Perry, Chuck Robb, and Alan Simpson can 
come together in the interest of this country, study our dilemma, study 
the war in Iraq, and produce a report unanimously, surely we in the 
Senate ought to be able to put aside our partisan concerns, our 
political divisions, and act together in the best interests of this 
country.
  I hope we will do so tomorrow. I also hope we might adopt the Nelson-
Collins amendment which would add a little more force to the 
recommendations of the changed mission put forth by the Iraq Study 
Group.
  This is our opportunity. Let us not lose this opportunity to forge a 
new path, a new strategy in Iraq.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Levin-
Reed amendment. That is the amendment that, unlike the Iraq Study 
Group, has a date certain for changing and transitioning our mission 
and bringing our troops home. Maybe if the Senate had listened to the 
Iraq Study Group last year when it presented its report and had adopted 
it and moved in that direction, we would not be where we are today. I 
personally believe it is well past time to now suggest that it is 
appropriate to adopt their recommendations when what we need is a date 
certain.
  We are here tonight to ask for a vote, not just any vote. We are here 
to ask for a fundamental American principle: a majority vote for 
majority rule. Not a supermajority vote of 60 votes. A majority vote 
for majority rule, the same principle that has stood our country over 
the test of time, the same principle that average Americans fully 
understand, the same principle that would reflect the reality of where 
the American public is as it relates to this critical issue. A majority 
vote for a majority rule. Not just any vote.
  We are here tonight because the American people deserve an up-or-down 
vote on this important amendment that will finally bring an end to this 
mismanaged war.
  The war in Iraq, in my mind, is the most pressing issue of our day, 
and the fact that the Republican leadership and those who join them 
will not allow the Senate to have a straight up-or-down vote, a simple 
majority vote, speaks of obstructionism and of hiding behind procedural 
roadblocks in order to avoid facing the American people who have called 
for a change of course in Iraq.
  Those of us who voted against the war, as I did in the first place, 
against popular opinion of the time, have been vindicated by history. I 
say to my colleagues, history will judge the votes we

[[Page S9364]]

cast tomorrow, and I believe those who vote against a simple majority 
rule and changing the course will be judged harshly.
  The President has lost the support of the American public and the 
confidence of the global community. The only support for his misguided 
policy in Iraq is a minority, a minority, in the Senate. That is why 
they are afraid of a simple up-or-down vote on this issue because given 
in this body a simple majority vote proposition, a majority of the 
Senate would vote to transition us out of Iraq and bring our men and 
women home. That is why they are afraid of the vote that we ask for.
  Unfortunately, some--and I say ``some'' because I know some of our 
Republican colleagues have joined us in the past and will again--some 
of my Republican colleagues seem more interested in protecting the 
President than doing right, in my mind, by our troops. To the 
Republican leadership and those who support them, I say it is time to 
stop filibustering and time to start a vote, a simple majority vote for 
majority rule.
  Maybe if more of the sons and daughters, husbands and wives, or 
sisters and brothers of Members of the Senate were in Iraq, some of my 
colleagues would not be so cavalier about filibustering an up-or-down, 
simple majority vote. If our loved ones were in Iraq, who among us 
would be content with the counsels of patience and delay? Who among us 
would be satisfied with another mission accomplished? Who among us 
would be satisfied with ``victory is around the next corner''? Who 
among us would be satisfied with benchmarks of which not one--not one--
has been accomplished, and yet we somehow suggest that is progress 
years later?
  After 4 years of a failed policy, it is time to stop hiding behind 
procedural hurdles and allow the Senate to cast a definitive vote about 
our future course in Iraq. A majority vote for majority rule.
  The American people are waiting impatiently for the Senate to heed 
their calls and face the facts on the ground. It is time for a 
responsible change of course in Iraq. And that is exactly what the 
amendment on which we want a simple majority vote--let's see how people 
vote, a simple majority vote--does.
  The Levin-Reed amendment says our forces should be out of Iraq by 
April 30 of next year, except those needed to protect U.S. personnel, 
to train Iraqi security forces and for counterterrorism activities.
  Last week, the House of Representatives passed very similar 
legislation, sending a clear message that the time for change has come. 
The only obstacle left is for this body to act with a simple majority 
vote.
  Now the Senate, once again, faces a critical vote on Iraq, and I 
point out, as I did a few days ago when we debated an amendment to take 
care of our troops--we hear all the time about ``support the troops.'' 
Yet we had to have a supermajority vote to simply permit the rotation 
of our troops to be able to have a year back at home for every year 
they served abroad, a proposition that even the Defense Department has 
as its goal. No, we couldn't have a simple majority vote on that issue; 
we had to have a 60-vote threshold. Support the troops?

  The only way we could have done that was with bipartisan support, and 
we didn't get it. The only way we can stop this war is with bipartisan 
support. But so long as we keep having these 60-vote thresholds, 
Democrats have 51 votes in this body and that leaves us 9 votes short. 
The American people know that. That is why we want a simple majority 
vote for majority rule.
  Despite overwhelming public support, the public is way ahead of this 
institution, the American people are way ahead of this institution, and 
growing support from some of our Republican colleagues, which I 
respect--Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster 
in the Senate.
  I know that many more of our Republican colleagues have serious 
concerns about the war in Iraq. I have been reading about it. I have 
been reading in the local and national papers of so many of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying: We have grave 
reservations about where the President is continuing to take us. We 
believe we have to have some type of change. I urge them to listen to 
their inner voice. I urge them to find their moral compass. I urge them 
to back their strong words with meaningful votes.
  A vote for Levin-Reed, a simple up-or-down vote, is a vote to 
transition out of Iraq, a vote to change the course, a vote to end the 
war.
  Robert Kennedy said about the war in Vietnam:

       Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Tragedy 
     is a tool for the living to gain wisdom, not a guide by which 
     to live.

  ``Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation.''
  He went on to say:

       All men make mistakes, but a good man--

  And I would paraphrase in today's terms, a good woman--

     yields when [they] know [their] cost is wrong, and repairs 
     the evil. The only sin--

  The only sin--

     is pride.

  This is not an issue where we can afford the sin of pride to deviate 
us, to take us into the appropriate course, to change the course in 
Iraq.
  The lessons of history are poignant and instructive about today's 
quagmire. Rather than hiding behind a shrinking minority and procedural 
posturing, Republicans should listen to the American people and change 
the course of this failed war policy. They should stand with the 
American people and tell the President, even though we have given him 
opportunities, even though previous efforts of the Senate have given 
him flexibility, he has outright rejected it and, so, yes, there must 
be a date certain, and the message to the President by this body is if 
you are not going to bring our troops home, then we will.
  I have heard many of my colleagues claim that what is happening now 
on the Senate floor is nothing more than political theater. The war in 
Iraq is the single greatest issue before the country and before this 
Senate. How many lives, how much money, how much risk to our security 
by being bogged down in Iraq, when we have real challenges in the world 
such as Iran, when we have a reconstituted al-Qaida in Afghanistan, 
that is the real challenge. That is the real challenge, I say to my 
friends. This is not about political theater. If there is political 
theater here, it is the sad, sad plot that the Republican leadership 
has weaved in creating this procedural hurdle to not permit a simple 
majority vote for majority rule.
  I heard my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, for whom I have 
enormous respect, lament the proceedings as partisan. I have the 
deepest respect for him, but I couldn't more passionately disagree with 
him. This isn't about partisanship. These are deeply held views of 
principle--principle that moves us to take these extraordinary measures 
so we can get a simple majority vote for majority rule. That is what we 
are simply seeking tonight.
  So to the Republican leadership and those who support them, I say it 
is time to stop filibustering and time to permit a simple majority vote 
to allow us to change the course in Iraq.
  Today we are living with the consequences of the administration's 
failed policy, and only a minority of the Senate wants to stay that 
failed course. Over 3,600 troops have been killed in Iraq since the 
beginning of the war, including 87 servicemembers with ties to my home 
State of New Jersey. April and May was the deadliest 2-month period of 
the war for U.S. troops, with 230 servicemembers killed.
  We have now spent over $450 billion on the war in Iraq, with a burn 
rate of $10 billion a month. Frankly, I never believed the 
administration's estimates that the so-called surge would only cost 
$5.6 billion. We have been misled time and time again, and these new 
numbers only prove once again we have been misled.
  Each day we read horrific stories about the violence and tragedy on 
the streets of Iraq. This week officials report that dozens of Shiites 
were massacred by Sunni extremists during an overnight raid in Diyala 
Province. Yesterday, suicide car bombs in Kirkuk killed more than 80 
people and injured some 150 others. It was the deadliest attack the 
city had seen since the beginning of the war. In fact, suicide attacks 
have more than doubled across Iraq from 26 in January to 58 in April.

[[Page S9365]]

  In terms of reconstruction, measurements we all previously swore 
ourselves to be listening to, oil production in Iraq is still lower 
than it was before the war, and Baghdad is getting less than 6 hours of 
electricity a day, significantly less than before the war.
  That is why we must proceed with a vote on the Levin-Reed amendment 
and bring an end to our military involvement in Iraq which has cost our 
country so dearly in human lives and national treasure.
  Even all of the military personnel tell us we cannot have a military 
victory in Iraq. When I listen to General Pace say we need the Iraqis 
to love their children more than they hate their neighbors, that is 
probably a powerful truism, but it does not come through the power of 
military might. That is about reconciliation, confidence-building 
measures, revenue sharing, and participation of all Iraqi society in 
the Government. It does not come through the barrel of a gun to have 
the Iraqis love their children more than they hate their enemies.
  So to the Republican leadership and those who support them, it is 
time to stop filibustering and time to permit us a simple majority vote 
for majority rule.
  Let me take a minute to discuss the administration's recent report on 
benchmarks in Iraq which President Bush is using as a justification for 
the United States to stay in Iraq.
  Just as some were misled into the war, I think this report is 
misleading. I wish to make sure everyone understands exactly what it 
says because I have listened to the debate and, boy, has it been 
mischaracterized, as far as I am concerned. I am sure not intentionally 
because people read the document different ways. Let me tell what it 
clearly says to me.
  The report did not say that eight of the benchmarks had been met. 
Instead, the report said that satisfactory progress, a very significant 
distinction, has been made on only 8 of 18 benchmarks in Iraq, while 
the rest have not even seen--not even seen--satisfactory progress. In 
simple terms, none of the benchmarks were met.

  Let's make it clear: None of the benchmarks were met. And when this 
report came out, President Bush said:

       Those who believe that the battle in Iraq is lost will 
     likely point to the unsatisfactory performance on some of the 
     political benchmarks. Those of us who believe that the battle 
     in Iraq can and must be won see the satisfactory performance 
     on several of the security benchmarks as a cause for 
     optimism.

  I want to reiterate to the President the fact that none of the 
benchmarks were actually met. None.
  Now, let me be clear. The absolute best version of the story is that 
the Iraqis made some progress on some of the benchmarks. That is it. 
But the fact is, zero out of 18 benchmarks were met, and this is after 
years, and this is after changing the goalposts so that we can continue 
to suggest that we are making progress. If we kept the goalposts where 
they were supposed to be, we would have an even greater rate of 
failure.
  So I don't see any cause for optimism for this failed strategy of 
escalation. Frankly, I think the President's comments represent yet 
another example of the administration's delusion and denial.
  For years, this administration has refused to face the truth about 
Iraq. Let's take a look at some of the benchmarks the Bush 
administration told us would be met.
  We were told by the end of 2006 that a provincial election law would 
be approved and new election laws would be put in place. But that 
benchmark has not been met.
  We were told the Iraqis would approve a law for debaathification. But 
that benchmark has not been met. In fact, the Iraqi Parliament is 
barely functioning. It is stuck in gridlock. Even worse, one of the 
Bush administration's best Iraqi allies, Ahmed Chalabi, has been 
leading the charge--this is one of the administration's best allies who 
has been leading the charge--to block the debaathification legislation.
  We were told the Iraqis would create a law to help restrain sectarian 
militias. But that benchmark has not been met. In fact, the Iraqi 
Government hasn't disarmed the Shia militias, and the security 
situation on the ground continues to rage out of control. The surge 
hasn't staunched the violence, and civilian casualties were actually 
higher in June than in February when the surge began.
  We were told that the Iraqis would establish a law to regulate the 
oil industry and share revenues in Iraqi society. But that benchmark 
has not been met. In fact, the oil law is stuck in parliamentary 
gridlock, and it is unclear whether it actually addresses even the core 
issues.
  We were told that by March, this past March, that the Iraqi 
Government was supposed to hold a referendum on constitutional 
amendments necessary for a government of national unity to possibly 
exist. But that benchmark has not been met. In fact, 3 years after the 
United States turned over power to the Iraqi Government, the Iraqis 
still don't have the constitution finished.
  The Bush administration seems to think that ``satisfactory progress'' 
has been made on performing a constitutional review committee. But in 
fact this committee has had to keep extending deadlines to get their 
work done, and it is unclear whether they will even meet the next 
deadline at the end of this month.
  As I said before, it is time that the administration and the 
President finally face the real facts. And the fact is, by invading 
Iraq, the President took our focus away from the war in Afghanistan--
the birthplace of the Taliban, the home to al-Qaida, the land of Osama 
bin Laden, and the place where the attacks of September 11 were 
planned.
  Now, nearly 6 years after those terrible attacks on the United 
States, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate tells us that 
al-Qaida is operating where? In a safe zone along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border. Let me repeat that. Al-Qaida is operating, according 
to the National Intelligence Estimate, in a safe zone along the 
Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
  In fact, according to the New York Times:

       U.S. officials have warned publicly that a deal between the 
     Pakistani government and tribal leaders allowed al-Qaida to 
     plot and train more freely in parts of western Pakistan for 
     the last 10 months.

  It is clear that by shifting our efforts to Iraq, we have taken our 
eye off the original threat in Afghanistan. We cannot forget that our 
fight against terrorism started where it should have, in Afghanistan--
an engagement that I supported--where it should have remained. But we 
have not yet been able to end the fight in Afghanistan.
  Now, as I listened to the debate here today, some of our Republican 
colleagues are back to the same parroting of the same old refrains--it 
won't work--criticizing Democrats as being weak on defense. It is we 
who have consistently called for finishing the job we started in 
Afghanistan, and bringing Osama bin Laden and his followers to justice, 
and as far as I am concerned, to have him meet his maker. It was a 
Democratic Senator who offered a higher ransom on Osama bin Laden's 
head. It is Democrats, through the supplemental appropriations bill, 
who funded the resources for those men and women whom we supposedly are 
going to stand by so that they would have the plated jackets that they 
needed, and whom we sent into war without having the resources they 
needed, the vehicles to protect their lives as they seek to pursue 
their mission, the opportunity to make sure that a grateful nation says 
we are grateful not just on Memorial Day, marching in a parade, or on 
Veterans Day, going to an observance, which we should, but in how we 
treat those men and women in their injuries, in their disabilities, and 
for those who commit the ultimate sacrifice, in how we take care of 
their survivors. That is what Democrats did when they achieved the 
majority in this institution.

  So that old refrain, my friends, that Democrats are weak on defense, 
that dog won't hunt.
  I joined a rally earlier tonight outside the Capitol with Iraqi war 
veterans. In my mind, no one--no one--has a greater right to question 
their Government and to say, as they did, that it is time to change the 
course in Iraq and bring their fellow soldiers home, and that is what 
they said tonight. They hold the high ground in any debate.
  Afghanistan was the right place to pursue the national security of 
the

[[Page S9366]]

United States. It was in Afghanistan that the murderers of September 11 
were located. We had Osama bin Laden pinned down in the mountains of 
Tora Bora. But instead of having a large contingent of the best 
trained, most equipped, most technologically advanced military in the 
world go after him, we outsourced the job to the warlords. We gave them 
money, and they put the money in their pockets and they let bin Laden 
get away.
  Many of us have been horrified as we have watched the resurgence of 
the Taliban, the new threats of al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and the 
increasing poppy cultivation. A few years ago, I talked about the 
possibility of the Iraqitization of Afghanistan, and now we see some of 
those fears coming true.
  Just last month, Afghan security forces found a new type of 
sophisticated roadside bomb, one that is very similar to that being 
used in Iraq. Afghans, and our troops in Afghanistan, face the daily 
horror of roadside bombs targeting civilians or coalition forces.
  The Taliban continues its battle to terrorize the Afghan people. As 
the New York Times article said last week:

       Shootings, beheadings, burnings, and bombings: These are 
     the tools of intimidation used by the Taliban and others to 
     shut down hundreds of Afghanistan's public schools. To take 
     aim at education is to make war on the government.

  Afghanistan now produces 92 percent of the world's poppy, and it has 
a record crop again this year. Again, according to the New York Times:

       Not so long ago, we trumpeted Afghanistan as a success, a 
     country freed from tyranny and al-Qaeda. But as the Taliban's 
     grip continues to tighten, threatening Afghanistan's future 
     and the fight against terrorism, Americans and Afghans are 
     frequently asking what went wrong.

  My friends, what went wrong is that instead of finishing the mission 
in Afghanistan, the President took us to Iraq. Of course, we remember 
all the reasons why: weapons of mass destruction, uranium from Niger--
this in a State of the Union speech before the entire Congress, none of 
it true. The battle in Afghanistan, the battle against al-Qaida, the 
Taliban, against terrorism is far from over. Yet the United States is 
still held hostage by the President's war in Iraq--a war that we were 
led into based on a false premise, with false promises, with no plan to 
win the peace and no plan to succeed.
  The President is fond of evoking Franklin Roosevelt and our noble 
mission in World War II when he talks about Iraq. But he must have 
forgotten that when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt didn't run 
off and invade China. That would have made no sense. Just like our 
going to Iraq made no sense because we dropped the ball in Afghanistan. 
The failures in Iraq, coupled with the reinvigoration of al-Qaida in 
Afghanistan, underscore the fiasco of the Bush administration's 
decision to take its focus off Afghanistan, its disastrous war policy, 
and the consequences of its ``stay the course'' mentality. They took 
their eye off the ball and created a quagmire in Iraq.
  We didn't have al-Qaida in Iraq. We now have elements of al-Qaida in 
Iraq, but we did not have al-Qaida in Iraq before we invaded. Now we 
are paying the price in the form of less security and a beefed-up 
terrorist network. Maybe Secretary Chertoff's infamous gut feeling 
about an increased terror threat was caused by knowing that Osama bin 
Laden and his terrorist allies are still out there plotting and 
planning thousands of miles away from Iraq--thousands of miles away 
from Iraq.
  Madam President, let me conclude by saying that the President says 
that the only role for Congress is to provide a blank check for his 
failed war policy. He is so wrong. He is so wrong. Time to reread the 
Constitution. This body's responsibility is not to blindly sign a blank 
check to the President for a failed policy. We have a responsibility to 
the American people as fiduciaries both in terms of national treasure 
and lives. Most importantly, we have a responsibility to the men and 
women in uniform to do the right thing and stand up to the President's 
failed policy so that we may give them a mission worthy--worthy--of 
their sacrifice. We should honor the troops who continue to sacrifice 
and shed blood not by being silent, not by being hoarded like sheep, 
not by signing on to a blank check, and not by being complicit in the 
President's failed war.
  I have heard some of our colleagues on the other side cry that we are 
fighting for freedom in Iraq, but here in America, here tonight, we 
have a tyranny of a minority in the Senate who want to use the 
procedures of the Senate, in my mind in a way that is totally 
unacceptable, to thwart the will of the majority of the Senate, and, 
more importantly, the majority of the American people.
  We want a vote--not just any vote, a simple majority vote for 
majority rule. The amendment before us reflects the reality on the 
ground and the will of the American people. It changes the course in 
Iraq by setting a responsible timetable for our troops to leave. How 
many more lives--how many--I hope we all go home before tomorrow's vote 
and say to ourselves, how many more lives, how many more tens of 
billions of dollars, how much more chaos? We have heard about chaos. 
What will happen, how much more chaos can unfold than that which we see 
unfolding as we have 160,000 troops there?
  Years from now, we will come to the same conclusion. Or we can act 
with courage tomorrow in a vote, a simple majority vote, and by doing 
so we will be in a position to meet our national security challenges 
and our national interests. Our brave troops have answered the call of 
duty. Let's now answer the call to do what is right by them.
  It is clear to me that the President continues to live in a world 
where the reality in Iraq never collides with his fantasy of what is 
happening there. It is time for the President, and a minority in the 
Senate who support him, to give the American people a chance for a 
majority vote, for a majority rule. The American people have awoken way 
before the Senate, and they want the nightmare to end. The American 
people know it is time to responsibly withdraw from Iraq. The House of 
Representatives voted to do so, and it is time for the Senate to 
finally vote for a responsible withdrawal from Iraq.
  And so we close again. It is time for a simple majority vote for 
majority rule.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________