[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.
____________________