[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6718-S6719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Afghanistan

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer some brief 
remarks today in the wake of the Armed Services Committee hearing today 
on the evacuation of Afghanistan and the end to U.S. troop presence 
there. I watched it with some interest. I watched it knowing that three 
out of four Americans support President Biden's decision to bring U.S. 
troops home from Afghanistan.
  We learned some new things today in the hearing. Others were 
confirmed. First, we learned, once again, of the extraordinary bravery 
and capability of our diplomats and our soldiers, who worked under 
incredibly difficult conditions for a period of weeks to airlift almost 
130,000 individuals out of Afghanistan. That is absolutely remarkable, 
especially given, as we heard today in testimony, that the goal at the 
outset, in the best case scenario, was to get 60 to 70 to 80,000 people 
out. In the end, the United States of America, our military and our 
diplomats, got 130,000 people out.
  We heard, also, about the impossible position that President Biden 
inherited; that there was a commitment made to withdraw American troops 
by President Trump but no plan with which to do it safely. We heard 
about how the Doha agreement decreased the readiness of the Afghan 
forces, how it weakened their position internally.
  We heard about the choice that faced President Biden when he came 
into office. We heard about the fact that, had we chosen to stay, we 
would have had to surge troops; that the Taliban, having gotten to the 
precipice of provincial capitals, would have engaged in a level of 
urban warfare that would have required the United States to increase 
our troop presence there in order to be able to stand up an effective 
resistance to the Taliban.
  To the extent that Republicans view this as a political game and they 
were looking for points to be scored today, I guess the one point they 
feel they scored was an admission by the generals who testified that 
some of them had recommended staying in Afghanistan.
  Now, I have tremendous respect for our generals. I think they get it 
right more than they get it wrong. They provide very able advice to the 
Commander in Chief. But for 20 years, in Afghanistan, our generals 
recommended staying, in the face of mounting evidence, year after year, 
that it was going to be impossible to be able to stand up an Afghan 
military that could protect the country and an Afghan Government that 
could govern the country. Our generals recommended staying--year after 
year after year, month after month after month--despite the fact that 
many analysts told us that as soon as we left and the Taliban took 
over, the Afghan Government and the military would fall.
  Now, they did it because our military is bred to believe that 
anything is possible. It speaks, in some part, to the best of American 
military ethos, the idea that there is no obstacle that cannot be 
surmounted, that cannot be climbed by U.S. forces. But the task they 
were given by President after President was one that could not be 
carried out.
  And to simply believe that because the general said ``stay another 
year'' or ``stay another 5 years,'' this Commander in Chief should have 
listened, despite the fact that it had been proven that the mission 
that we were given in that country was impossible, is to compound a 
mistake--an unnecessary mistake--that the United States engaged in for 
far, far too long.
  And so my hope is that moving forward, this Congress and this Senate 
are going to engage in real oversight. There is no doubt the evacuation 
could have been done better. There is no doubt that, in a mission this 
complicated, the Biden team would have done things differently. But the 
real question is, Why did we stay in Afghanistan for 10 years too long? 
Why did we keep believing that we could train-up a military that would 
be capable of defending the country?
  It is time that we have a deep inquiry in this Senate about the 
limits of American military power overseas and how badly misresourced 
we are when we spend 10 to 20 times as much money on military power as 
we do on other means of projecting American power.
  It is also important for us to understand the cost of getting bogged 
down in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not a coincidence that 
shortly after withdrawing from Afghanistan, we were able to announce 
this new partnership with Australia and Britain to better protect our 
mutual interests in the Pacific theater.
  It is because, when the entirety of the U.S. defense and foreign 
policy infrastructure is so trained on unwinnable contests in far off 
places like Afghanistan, it doesn't allow us the capacity and the 
creativity to be able to design new systems and new structures with 
which to protect the country.
  China celebrated every single year that we remain bogged down in 
Afghanistan. Russia celebrated every single year that we doubled down 
on that mistake. Now we have the ability to turn our attention to 
fights that truly matter.
  We learned some things in the Armed Services Committee today. I think 
what we learned confirms that the decision that President Biden made to 
pull our troops out was the right one. It is a decision supported by 
the American people because it allows this country, finally, to focus 
on fights that are winnable in reality, not just on paper.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally to both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2868

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last night, Senate Republicans voted 
unanimously to make a default and a shutdown far more likely and in 
doing so, solidified themselves as the party of default, the party that 
says America does not pay its debts.
  Now, despite yesterday's stunning display of obstruction, the fact 
remains

[[Page S6719]]

that we need to raise the debt ceiling, and in a few moments, I will 
offer a way forward for us to avoid causing unnecessary and 
catastrophic default on the debt.
  Over the last 2 days, the Republican leader has repeatedly cited an 
instance in the mid-2000s during which Republicans held full control of 
the government and voted by themselves to increase the debt limit. Here 
is what he said: That is ``exactly the same situation we're in now.'' 
That is ``exactly the same situation we're in now.''
  The Senate was able to raise the debt ceiling at that time because 
the then-Republican majority leader made a consent request to this body 
that cleared the way for the Senate to increase the debt limit by a 
majority threshold instead of requiring 60 votes to break a filibuster. 
The minority party, under this agreement, was able to vote no, which is 
what they claim they want to do, and the majority party was able to 
approve a debt limit extension and prevent a catastrophe.
  So we are proposing the same thing today, the same thing the leader 
cited and said the situation is exactly the same. Simply allow for a 
simple majority threshold to raise the debt ceiling and avoid this 
needless catastrophe that Republicans have steered us toward. We are 
simply asking Senator McConnell to live by his own example.
  We have given the Republicans what they want, and now the ball is in 
their court. Let's see if Republicans truly want what they say they 
want. We are not asking them to vote yes. If Republicans want to vote 
to not pay the debts they helped incur, they can all vote no. We are 
just asking Republicans to get out of the way. Get out of the way when 
you are risking the full faith and credit of the United States to play 
a nasty political game.
  We can bring this to a resolution today. Using the drawn-out and 
convoluted reconciliation process is far too risky--far too risky. Too 
many American families are at stake. Far better for us to solve this 
problem right here and right now.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader following 
consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of S. 2868, a bill to suspend the debt limit, which was 
introduced earlier today; that there be 2 hours for debate equally 
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees; that 
upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be considered read a 
third time and the Senate vote on the passage of the bill with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my colleague wants to discuss 
precedence from a decade ago, but he and his colleagues have spent all 
year boasting that what Democrats are doing to the country and the 
economy is completely without precedent. I agree. What they are trying 
to do is completely without precedent. There is nothing normal--nothing 
normal--about Democrats using reconciliation multiple times to blow a 
$5.5 trillion hole in the deficit without a single vote from our side. 
Debt limit increases like the one we saw in 2006 were not--I repeat, 
not--precursors to a massive blowout reconciliation package that 
Republicans were just waiting to shove down Democrats' throats.
  My colleague is trying hard to make this complicated. It is actually 
simple. I have said for more than 2 months that we will not help this 
unified Democratic government raise the debt ceiling. Democrats will 
not get bipartisan help borrowing money so they can immediately blow 
historic sums on a partisan taxing-and-spending spree.
  The Democratic leader knew this request would fail. There is no 
chance--no chance--the Republican conference will go out of our way to 
help Democrats conserve their time and energy so they can resume 
ramming through partisan socialism as fast as possible. This Democratic 
government has spent months boasting about the radical transformation 
they are ramming through. They are proud of it. They have no standing 
whatsoever to ask 50 Republican Senators to make the process more 
convenient.
  When the Democratic leader was recently in the minority, he made us 
file cloture on matters that weren't one-tenth this controversial. We 
had to invoke cloture on nominees who went on to be confirmed with 
literally zero votes in opposition. But now the Democratic leader wants 
us to skip that step on something this controversial? Of course, that 
is not going to happen.
  All year long, Democrats have wanted to control government spending 
all on their own. They wanted to be in the position they are in right 
now. They requested from the Parliamentarian and won extra flexibility 
to redo reconciliation. So, if Democrats want to use fast-tracked, 
party-line processes to spend trillions of dollars and transform the 
country, they will have to use the same tool to raise the debt ceiling.

  Now, here is what Republicans will do: For the sake of the full faith 
and credit of our country, I am about to propose a different consent, 
one that will allow Democrats to start the budget process they will 
need to use to raise the debt ceiling. Our Democratic colleagues will 
need to do this alone, but I will propose an agreement to ensure the 
process can begin as soon as Democrats accept that this is the path 
they need to take.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I ask the Senate to modify the request that 
has been made by the majority leader so that, in lieu of this proposal, 
if the Budget Committee reports out a 304 budget resolution with 
instructions to raise the debt limit or is discharged from 
consideration of such resolution, the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader so modify his 
request?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the 
Republican leader has offered virtually nothing. He keeps the same 
risky process in place. He is totally doing a 180-degree turn from what 
he has offered time and again. The Democrats vote yes without any 
Republican help, but he refuses to do that. He refuses to do that. Our 
proposal is fair. Our proposal is not risky, the way the Republican 
leader's is, and his doesn't change a darned thing.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.