[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18923-18924]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEVIN-REED AMENDMENT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senate has now had a full day to 
debate the Levin amendment. The questions I raised about it yesterday 
remain unanswered. Americans need to know what they are being asked to 
consider. The troops fighting al-Qaida in Iraq also need to know. I 
will ask my questions again.
  The Levin amendment says the Secretary of Defense shall ``commence 
the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later 
than 120 days after the date of enactment of this act.'' What would 
this reduction involve? The Levin amendment calls for U.S. forces in 
Iraq to have a limited presence after the reduction. What is a 
``limited presence''? The Levin amendment says our Armed Forces should 
only be used to protect U.S. personnel, to train Iraqis to fight, and 
to engage in ``targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida.'' 
What does ``targeted'' mean? The Levin amendment says the Secretary of 
Defense shall complete the transition of U.S. forces in Iraq to a 
limited presence and missions by April 30. How does the author define 
``complete''?
  A number of papers across America reported this morning that 
yesterday's House vote means that most U.S. troops will be out of Iraq 
by April. I ask the authors of the Levin amendment, is this true?
  This 1\1/2\-page amendment is the centerpiece of the Democratic 
leadership's strategy for Iraq. They want us to choose this over the 
Petraeus plan. Listen to General Petraeus. Just before we began this 
debate, he made a simple request. He said:

       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 thing at this 
     point in Iraq, it would be more time.

  Our Democratic-led Senate voted 81 to nothing to send General 
Petraeus into Iraq. A bipartisan majority of 80 Senators told him in 
May that he had until September to report back on progress. His 
strategy has led to what even skeptics describe as an encouraging 
turnaround against al-Qaida in Anbar, a province which accounts for 
about one-third of Iraq's territory. Yesterday, just 1 month after this 
strategy became fully manned, Democrats are declaring it a failure and 
asking us to rally behind a 1\1/2\-page alternative that raises more 
questions, frankly, than it answers.
  We have been down this road before. When the President decided to 
change course in Iraq last year, Democrats said his new strategy 
wouldn't work. They called it a failure before it began. Now just 1 
month after that strategy became fully manned, they are calling it a 
failure again, even as it has started to show signs of military 
success.
  The Iraq Foreign Minister told us what would happen if America walks 
away from this fight right now: a sharp increase in violence, thousands 
of civilian deaths, and a regional conflict that could involve several 
other countries in that area. Yet the Democratic leadership has yet to 
address the consequences of withdrawal. Here is their response to 
concerns about a victory by al-Qaida, genocide, and a regional war in 
the Middle East: Blame Bush. That may work on the stump, but it is not 
a very sophisticated foreign policy, and it is not going to solve the 
great problems we face in Iraq and in the broader Middle East.
  Fortunately, many brave people are facing this problem head-on. Our 
top commander in Iraq says he can win this fight. He told us he 
wouldn't risk a single American life if he didn't think he could. All 
he is asking for is time. Can we at least give him what we agreed to in 
May?
  This amendment is not a responsible alternative to the Petraeus plan. 
It is a page and a half of vague proposals.
  Now, look, all of us are frustrated with the war, but we have 
committed to listen to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. We did 
so through legislation. We need to listen to our

[[Page 18924]]

top commander in the field. He deserves 60 days. More than 160,000 
American soldiers and marines are fighting in Iraq right now. They 
believe in this mission. They are executing the plan, and they have a 
leader. He is asking for more time. Let's be fair and honor the 
legislation we passed in May. Let's wait for the report.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Levin-Reed amendment requires the 
President to take steps to responsibly end the war that the country and 
our brave men and women in uniform deserve and demand, but it does not 
set specific troop levels and, certainly, schedules other than what we 
have already indicated, and that is the House-passed version, similar 
to ours, 120 days to start redeploying troops; as of April 1, according 
to the House, and May 1, according to us. There must be a change of 
mission. That change of mission will be directed toward 
counterterrorism, protecting our assets in the area, and also training 
the Iraqis. That is simply what it says.
  Senators Carl Levin and Jack Reed are uniquely qualified to offer 
this amendment. They have been joined in this amendment by others, 
including Senator Hagel. This amendment sets a firm date and an end 
date to transition the mission to begin the reduction of U.S. forces. I 
have talked about that. It limits the U.S. mission.
  This policy of the President--it is not Petraeus' policy; it is the 
President's--has, during the last 6 months, caused the deaths of over 
600 more American soldiers and cost the American taxpayers more than 
$60 billion. The amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, Mr. Webb, was a step in the right direction. It was defeated. 
We were not allowed to vote on that. It was offered to give our troops 
the relief they need--15 months in country, 15 months out of country. 
That is serious and important to our troops.
  Our troops are in a difficult position. We are 3,000 officers short. 
The morning news reports that 13 percent of recruits, even though they 
are 15 percent down in recruitments, 13 percent of those they have, 
even though they have lowered qualifications significantly, 13 percent 
have criminal records and are going into the military.
  Of course, the amendment that is offered by Senators Levin and Reed 
requires that the reduction in force be part of a comprehensive 
diplomatic, regional, political, and economic effort.
  The votes we have taken on Iraq thus far make two things very clear: 
First, the Democratic caucus is united in our commitment to changing 
the course of this Iraq intractable civil war. Our resolve has never 
been stronger. Second, until and unless the President awakens to his 
grievous misjudgments, it will take significant Republican support to 
end the war.
  This week's vote on the Webb amendment was not encouraging. The 
Republican leadership blocked an up-or-down vote on an amendment to 
support our troops by increasing rest time between deployments. 
Republicans have every right to vote against bills and amendments they 
oppose. If they oppose troop readiness, let them go on record voting 
against it. But to block an amendment like that shows clearly that some 
Republicans are protecting the President and not the troops. Plenty of 
Republicans are talking the right way on Iraq now. They are expressing 
their disapproval for the President's policy, and this is a welcome 
step. But speeches won't end the war; only votes will.
  We have a constitutional obligation. Section 1, article 8 says that 
we have an obligation to take care of our troops. We have a 
constitutional obligation. When we return to the Levin-Reed amendment 
next week, a final vote will come. We hope it is not blocked again 
procedurally. I hope all my colleagues, Democratic and Republican 
alike, will embrace this opportunity to finally end a war that has 
caused our country so much harm.

                          ____________________