[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19302-19420]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 19303]]

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 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

[[Page 19304]]

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 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

[[Page 19305]]

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 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

[[Page 19306]]


     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 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-

[[Page 19307]]

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?
  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

[[Page 19308]]

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 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

[[Page 19309]]

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)
       (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)

[[Page 19310]]

       (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 19311]]

 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.

[[Page 19312]]

  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 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,

[[Page 19313]]

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.
  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:


[[Page 19314]]

       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:

       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.

[[Page 19315]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 19316]]

     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, 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.

[[Page 19317]]

  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 
     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

[[Page 19318]]

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 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?

[[Page 19319]]

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 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 2 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

[[Page 19320]]

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.
  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

[[Page 19321]]

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 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.

[[Page 19322]]

  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 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.

[[Page 19323]]

  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 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

[[Page 19324]]

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 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

[[Page 19325]]

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 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.

[[Page 19326]]

  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 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

[[Page 19327]]

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 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.

[[Page 19328]]

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 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:


[[Page 19329]]

       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 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

[[Page 19330]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 19331]]

  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?
  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

[[Page 19332]]

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 
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,

[[Page 19333]]

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 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

[[Page 19334]]

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 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

[[Page 19335]]

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 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

[[Page 19336]]

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
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole

[[Page 19337]]


     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

[[Page 19338]]

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 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

[[Page 19339]]

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.
  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

[[Page 19340]]

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 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--5 Democrats, 5 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.

[[Page 19341]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 19342]]

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 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 . . .


[[Page 19343]]


  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 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,

[[Page 19344]]

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 
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.

[[Page 19345]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 19346]]

     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 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

[[Page 19347]]

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 
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.

[[Page 19348]]

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 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.

[[Page 19349]]

  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 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, 8 
Democrats and 6 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

[[Page 19350]]

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 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

[[Page 19351]]

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.
  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--

[[Page 19352]]

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 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

[[Page 19353]]

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. 
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll, and the following 
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

                          [Quorum No. 5 Leg.]

     Akaka
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coburn
     Craig
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Gregg
     Isakson
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reid
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Webb
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to 
request the presence of absent Senators and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  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. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mr. Byrd), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 
Inouye, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson), the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Allard), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from 
Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), 
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Dole) would have voted ``nay.''
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 250 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

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

                                NAYS--37

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Isakson
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Alexander
     Allard
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Burr
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     Nelson (FL)
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb.) A quorum is now present.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote on the Levin amendment occur at 11 a.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object for a moment.
  Mr. REID. I will yield in 1 second.
  Mr. President, I would further say that we are going to have another 
vote sometime later this morning. I have talked to both majority and 
minority, and there is no time that is appropriate. So I arbitrarily am 
going to state at this time that we are going to have another vote. It 
will not occur before 5 a.m. It could be a little before, a little 
after that, depending on what is happening on the floor. We will have 
another vote, but it won't be before 5 this morning.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as I understand the majority leader, 
the unanimous-consent request is that we have a cloture vote on the 
Levin amendment at 11, and there will be not another procedural 
rollcall vote prior to 5 a.m.
  Mr. REID. I would further state, and I should have cleared this with 
the minority leader, and I did not, I would ask that the last 20 
minutes prior to the 11 o'clock vote be left for Senator McConnell, 20 
to the hour would be the minority leader, 10 to the hour would be me. 
We each would get 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Do I further understand the majority leader that there 
would not then be additional votes between the procedural vote at 5 
a.m. or later and the 11 o'clock vote?
  Mr. REID. I think that is true. We have the Senate Prayer Breakfast, 
we

[[Page 19354]]

have a steering committee meeting at 9. I think people have other 
things scheduled. I think we have done the votes tonight, so that 
should work out fine.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is my understanding that there will be two more 
votes on this matter--a procedural vote not to occur earlier than 5 
a.m., and then one additional vote at 11 o'clock on the cloture on the 
Levin amendment.
  Mr. REID. That is true. I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur 
at 11, that Senator McConnell and I be recognized as I have indicated, 
and that we will proceed with the debate on this issue during the 
morning hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators on our side be recognized in the following order: 
Senator Isakson from Georgia, Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, Senator 
Thune of South Dakota, and Senator Snowe of Maine, alternating with the 
designees of the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Under the 
previous order, the Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue before the 
Senate. I have stayed all night and listened to remarks from my 
colleagues on both sides. I have tremendous respect for each and every 
one of them.
  I do have some issues, however, with some rhetorical questions that 
have been asked and not responded to and I think are some voices that 
have been referred to that have not been really answered that I would 
like to address in my few minutes.
  First of all, the Levin-Reed amendment specifically calls for a 
withdrawal beginning 120 days from now and completed by the spring of 
next year. Unconditional, notwithstanding whatever action may be taking 
place on the ground, what progress may or may not have been made, a 
precipitous and a final withdrawal.
  What I would like to talk about is something that no one has 
mentioned; that is, the consequences if that actually takes place. I 
would like to do it in the context of the rhetorical question that was 
asked by the Senator from New Jersey, who asked the question: How many 
more lives?
  His reference, I know, was to the soldiers in the American and the 
allied forces in Iraq. But the question is meritorious as a response to 
the consequences of a Levin-Reed amendment passing.
  I joined the Foreign Relations Committee this year, as the Presiding 
Officer has as well. I noted that he did what I did. He sat through 
almost all of the hearings we had in January and February on the 
question of the surge and the question of withdrawal and redeployment. 
We all heard the same thing. Expert after expert argued over whether 
the surge would or would not work, or the degree to which it would 
work.
  But no one, no one--from former Secretary Madeline Albright or former 
Secretary Colin Powell to John Murtha, the representative in the 
Congress, to Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker, all of whom testified, 
and 20 others, everyone said the result of a withdrawal or redeployment 
at that period in January would mean countless untold loss of life in 
Iraq. And most of them said it would cause a great loss of life in the 
entire Middle East.
  I have had visits from representatives of other Middle Eastern 
countries who have said: Please do not have a precipitous withdrawal 
because we will not be able to contain the sectarian violence that will 
certainly follow.
  Now, does that mean we should remain as an occupying peacekeeper? No. 
But it means if we have objectives and benchmarks for victory, we 
should give ourselves the chance for that to take place.
  In May of this year, we had the debate we are having again today. In 
May of this year, on the Iraqi supplemental--which was to fund the war 
in Iraq for our soldiers--we had this debate on whether we should 
withdraw. We decided not to do it. And that was the right decision. We 
further decided to put some benchmarks, that we should judge the merits 
of our progress in part by July 15, and then later on September 15. The 
President reported 3 days early on July 15 the progress that has been 
made.
  Some has been made, some has not been made. But we all determined 
that it would be September, and the report of General Petraeus, the man 
we unanimously put in charge of the battle, as to whether we went 
forward, proceeded the way we were or changed our strategy.
  I do not know what the results of the September 15 report are going 
to be, but I know I agree with the lady by the name of Lucy Harris. 
Lucy is the kind of person to whom we ought to all listen. Her son, 
Noah, 1LT Noah Harris, died in Iraq 2 years ago. He was an e-mail buddy 
with me during his tour, so I knew a little bit about why he was there 
and what he believed.
  Noah Harris was a young man who, on September 11, 2001, was at the 
University of Georgia and a cheerleader. The day the incident, terrible 
incident took place in New York City, Noah Harris went straight to Army 
ROTC as a junior ROTC, applied for ROTC, studied to become a 
commissioned officer, solely because of the inspiration he had gotten 
from seeing that tragedy and knowing that he wanted to represent his 
country and do something to pursue terrorism.
  He went in the Army in 2004, was on the ground in Iraq, became known 
as the Beanie Baby Soldier because in the one pocket he carried 
bullets, in the other he carried Beanie Babies. He befriended the Iraqi 
children.
  Noah died tragically. I went to his funeral. I paid respect to his 
parents. I have listened to Lucy, and I have followed her comments in 
the 2 years that have passed since his tragic loss.
  This week, on July 15, in the Columbus newspaper in Georgia and other 
newspapers in a syndicated article, Ms. Harris was interviewed 
regarding the current debate that we are having on the floor of the 
Senate. I would like to quote two quotes from that article. First quote 
from Lucy Harris:

       ``They should just defer to Petraeus,'' Lucy Harris said of 
     GEN David Petraeus, the commander of forces in Iraq. ``It's a 
     political game.''

  Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record this entire article.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ISAKSON. Then, secondly, at the end of the article, I think a 
paragraph that all of us should hear: Lucy said the following:

       We're talking about boots on the ground, real people. When 
     I think about my son who could have done anything with his 
     life, but he fought because he believed in his country and 
     what we are doing in Iraq. . . . I just don't want it to have 
     been in vain.

  Well, I want to say to Lucy Harris and the parents of every soldier 
and the loved ones of every soldier who has been deployed, and 
especially those whose lives have been lost, we don't want them to be 
in vain, nor do we want them to be deployed in an endless occupation. 
We have a benchmark going to September 15, a general who had the 
unanimous support of this body, and operating under a funding mechanism 
that received an 80-vote margin in May.
  Let's end the quibbling at this moment on what we do and give the 
plan a chance to have its final merits judged and weighed by the man 
who is on the ground.
  As I said at the outset of my remarks, I can completely respect the 
statements everybody made and the opinions of everybody here. But this 
is a very serious question. And we should vote, and will vote, tomorrow 
at 11. When we do, I will not vote for cloture because I want to 
continue the commitment that was made by this body in the middle of May 
on the funding of the Iraq supplemental, the timetable for reports to 
come back, and the conditions upon which we would change, a new way 
forward, if and only if, those benchmarks were not met and progress was 
not being weighed.
  I think we owe it to Lucy Harris. We owe it to the legacy of the 
sacrifice her

[[Page 19355]]

son made and the sacrifice made by the countless men and women who are 
in Iraq and those who have served before them.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

           [From the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, July 15, 2007]

                   Senators Grapple With Iraq Policy

                         (By Halimah Abdullah)

       For Rick and Lucy Harris and the small town of Ellijay, 
     Ga., the Iraq war isn't just some policy debate raging on the 
     floor of the U.S. Senate. It's about the frailty of life and 
     the power of one young man's sacrifice to spur others into 
     action.
       First Lt. Noah Harris's death two years ago while serving 
     in Iraq brought the conflict home to that community. Now, the 
     Iraq war dominates conversations.
       ``It's the discussion in classes. It's the discussion in 
     town. Everyone is very interested in what is going on,'' said 
     Noah's mother, Lucy Harris.
       So it's with no small degree of annoyance that the Harris 
     family has watched the back and forth in the Senate over 
     changing Iraq war policy.
       ``They should just defer to Petraeus,'' Lucy Harris said of 
     Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of forces in Iraq. ``It's 
     a political game.''
       Republicans leaders such as Georgia Sens. Saxby Chambliss 
     and Johnny Isakson are in a tough position as they try to 
     assuage the concerns of people at home, like the Harris 
     family, while helping the GOP navigate the debate on funding 
     an increasingly unpopular war backed by a president whose 
     support is also on the wane.
       A recent Gallup poll showed President Bush's approval 
     rating at 29 percent, and 71 percent of Americans favoring a 
     proposal to remove almost all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 
     2008. The president's job approval rating in a recent AP-
     Ipsos was 33 percent.
       As Chambliss and Isakson consider changes to the Iraq war 
     policy they do so amid a climate of several high ranking 
     Senate Republican defections, Including that of Sen. Richard 
     lugar, R-Ind., the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign 
     Relations Committee. The departures have included Sen. John 
     Warner, R-Va., and the moderate-leaning Sen. Olympia Snowe, 
     R-Maine.
       For Republicans, the signs of strain are starting to show.
       ``It is Important for us to continue to pursue the goals of 
     the surge, and have a debate not in advance of the facts but 
     after we know the facts as they stand,'' Isakson said on the 
     Senate floor Wednesday.
       The White House has urged Republican lawmakers to wait 
     until Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, 
     gives a report on the war's progress in September before 
     voting on any major policy changes.
       While most Republican leaders have agreed to do this, 
     they've also acknowledged that congressional and public 
     patience for the war effort is growing thin.
       ``I think what's happening is that we've come to a critical 
     point,'' Isakson said,
       Jennifer Duffy, a political analyst and managing editor 
     with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, put it bluntly.
       ``There's just so many bullets for a lame duck president--
     especially an unpopular one, that (Republican leaders) can be 
     expected to take,'' she said.
       ``Georgia, like most of the South is still more supportive 
     of the war in Iraq than the rest of the nation,'' said 
     Charles Bullock, a political science professor at the 
     University of Georgia and author of the book ``The New 
     Politics of the Old South.''
       The Harris family and the folks in Ellijay could not care 
     less about the politics behind the war, or how Senate votes 
     and defections will impact politicians. As a community that 
     has watched their young people go off to war, they are 
     intensely interested in seeing just how military leaders will 
     define victory In Iraq.
       ``We're talking about boots on the ground, real people,'' 
     Harris said. ``When I think about my son who could have done 
     anything with his life, but he fought because he believed in 
     his country. In what we were doing in Iraq . . . I just don't 
     want it to be in vain.''
       That range of emotions surrounding military sacrifice isn't 
     lost on Chambliss and Isakson.
       Recently, Chambliss made sure a measure to provide wounded 
     soldiers better medical care was included in the defense 
     authorization bill currently being debated by Senate.
       Such efforts are welcome news to Harris, who often speaks 
     at public events about her son.
       ``My son's mantra was `I do what I can,''' she said, her 
     voice trailing off.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
Democratic speaker be Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to express my very deep concern 
about the administration's ongoing policy in Iraq. As a member of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Readiness, I have had the privilege to hear the testimony of our troop 
commanders, to hear our soldiers, to hear their families, and now--now 
more than ever--I insist we bring an end to this conflict.
  Already too many lives have been lost, too many men and women have 
been wounded and permanently injured, and too many spouses, parents, 
and children have suffered the pain of separation and too often 
permanent loss of a loved one.
  Yet according to the new National Intelligence Estimate, al-Qaida is 
growing stronger, and we are no closer to achieving a sustainable 
security in Iraq. We must make it clear to the Iraqi political leaders 
that the future of Iraq is in their hands, and they must learn to reach 
the political compromises necessary for a functioning democracy.
  Once again, we are at a crossroads. We can either continue to pursue 
a policy that is no longer working or we can move forward and implement 
a strategy that will set us on a new course. The time is now to 
reevaluate the costs of this war.
  We must understand that the long-term responsibility for caring for 
those injured during their service and for the families of those who 
died is a true cost of war. Over 3,600 members of the Armed Forces have 
given their lives in the service of this Nation. Thousands more will 
come home with injuries, both physical and psychological, that will 
require treatment and rehabilitation, processes that can take, as we 
know now, many years. Invisible wounds that are difficult to detect, 
such as PTSD and mild to moderate traumatic brain injury, will affect a 
great many servicemembers. In addition, it will make it difficult for 
them to adjust to civilian life as they deal with long-lasting visions 
and experiences they encountered in combat.
  While we can help the brave troops by passing critical legislation 
that will provide much needed counseling, these invisible wounds will 
take a long time to heal. Clearly, the total cost of the current 
conflicts includes both the loss of lives and resources needed to help 
a new generation of young combat veterans heal.
  The American people also believe that now is the time to begin the 
process of bringing our troops home. According to a recent poll, 63 
percent of Americans believe that we should no longer continue on the 
present course of action set by the administration. They believe, as I 
believe, that the present surge has not been a success, and waiting 
until September to reconsider our approach is simply prolonging a war 
that is no longer our fight.
  I urge my Senate colleagues to support the Levin-Reed amendment to 
the Defense authorization bill, which will send a clear message to the 
citizens of this country that we hear their concerns and we agree it is 
time to bring our loved ones home.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I do not speak very often on the floor 
on issues such as that we are talking about today. We have a wonderful 
heritage in this country, and somehow we find ourselves in the midst of 
a mess. We find ourselves in a position where we have made decisions, 
some of them poor, some of them good, but we find ourselves--and I 
agree--at a crossroads.
  The question in front of us is threefold: One is we have a plan which 
we instituted less than a month ago and that we set up early this year, 
which we are now wanting to change with the Reed-Levin amendment before 
we have data to tell us one way or another, and that is debatable. We 
have a large number of Americans who have given the ultimate sacrifice 
in the war in Iraq. But the question before us is what is the world 
like today? What is it that is going to change if we leave Iraq? What 
are the consequences?
  Senator Lieberman spoke very eloquently about what the plans of al-
Qaida are and what they have told us,

[[Page 19356]]

but what happens to the Middle East when we leave?
  I am reminded of the history of this country that we do not walk away 
if we have a mess and allow millions of people to die and millions of 
other people to be displaced without having a strategy that will solve 
that situation. And I do not see that in the Reed-Levin amendment.
  I know the contention is that because we are there, we incite more 
violence; because we are there, al-Qaida has focused there. But the 
very thing we attempted to do in Afghanistan, we will recreate the 
situation prior to our going into Afghanistan if we leave Iraq. But the 
more important question for me is: Do we as a nation have a moral 
obligation, regardless of the past?
  The fact is we are in Iraq today and some situations are improving 
and some are not improving nearly as fast as any and all of us want. 
But is there a moral obligation for this country not to allow this to 
lead to 2 to 3 million deaths, not to allow for sure the 450,000 people 
who have been successful helping us who will come under the threat of 
death, not to allow the displacement of another 2 to 5 million Iraqis 
out of Iraq? Do we have a moral obligation not to allow Iran to be in 
control and use Iraq as a basis for their dominance of the Persian 
Empire again in the Middle East? Is there any obligation for us in that 
regard? I think there is.
  I look at the situation in Iraq as a cancer, as a physician and also 
as a cancer survivor. There is lots wrong in Iraq right now. We are at 
the point where we have to make very hard choices about whether the 
patient can be saved. My concern is that because the treatment is 
tough, because the risk of the treatment is high, we are to the point 
where we are going to let the patient die. The fact is the patient does 
not have to die.
  I do not dispute my colleagues who have a different opinion on where 
we should go in Iraq. What I do dispute is whether we recognize fully 
the obligations we have for the future.
  What is going to happen as we withdraw? Can anybody in this body 
guarantee to me 2 or 3 or 4 years later down the road that we are not 
going to put a whole lot of American lives at risk because of the 
decision we made to turn off the chemotherapy, to turn off the 
radiation for the patient? What we are saying is, we are going to 
ration this; we started down the road, but we are not going to finish 
it.
  There has not ever been a time in my life, being alive during the 
Korean war, the Vietnam war, and this war, that I have not seen 
controversy about any war we have been in. Anybody who has been around 
those three wars knows that is the truth. The question for me is what 
is the best long-term--long-term, not short-term--policy for our 
country in terms of stabilizing the Middle East? What is the moral 
obligation for us as a nation? Having invaded Iraq and set in motion 
many of these situations, how do we measure it and how do we live up to 
the heritage we have as a country that stands to fulfill moral 
obligations?
  I have to answer a couple of statements that were made earlier. Any 
innuendo that members of the Republican conference are having their 
arms twisted to support the President in this war is a bold face 
misrepresentation of the facts. On issues such as this, all my 
colleagues know nobody is twisting their arm to be against it and no 
one is twisting my arm to support the policy. As a matter of fact, the 
statement by the Senator from Ohio that Vice President Cheney comes in 
every week and gives us a pep talk on the issue--I have been attending 
the conference for 2\1/2\ years, and I heard him speak once in 2\1/2\ 
years on Iraq. So the politics of negative comments taken out of 
context should be labeled what they are.
  The other fact I know, the Senator from New Jersey talked about maybe 
more of the Members of the Senate should have our children in Iraq. I 
know the Presiding Officer had a son recently return, but I know there 
are people in this body who have children in Iraq--one of Senator 
McCain's sons is due to ship out this month--who have an opinion, a 
different opinion than what the Reed-Levin amendment would consider.
  So I think it is highly unfair to speculate as to what I think is 
divided with those who have had children with this experience.
  There are some facts I do know about our country. I do know the war 
is tearing at the fabric of our Nation. I do know that we as a nation 
are war weary. I think we ought to talk about what is great about our 
country, what is good about the military.
  My impression from being in Iraq and here is I do not know of finer 
individuals in our country than those who are serving in the military. 
I can also tell you I do not know of more informed citizens of all the 
issues that face our country than the military.
  We have made a lot of mistakes in the policy in the Middle East, 
there is no question. I think we can agree with that point, and I think 
we can all admit to it. But it does not change where we are and what 
the consequences are if we leave.
  I served as a medical missionary in Iraq after the first gulf war. I 
developed friendships with Kurds and Shia and Sunni. We talk in the 
abstract over here about the Iraqi people and their leadership. But I 
wish to tell my colleagues, I didn't see a whole lot of difference in 
what those people wanted and what we want for our families. For us to 
speak in a sterile way that there will be no impact whatsoever on all 
those Iraqis, no matter what their faith or their heritage, belies the 
fact that millions will die. That is not my estimate, that is the 
estimate of many very learned scholars on the Middle East.
  We heard this week a mention from the Secretary General of the United 
Nations advising against a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq in terms of 
how that would play out in the Middle East.
  I think of the children that I did skin grafts on in Iraq who are now 
in their middle twenties, and the hope that they have for a safe and 
secure freedom, to actually have a Government that is a function of the 
beliefs of the multitudes who live in Iraq. Despite all our mistakes, 
should their hopes be dashed?
  We look at the sacrifices, we look at the moneys we have spent, but 
we never look at it in terms of the lives of the Iraqis. The contention 
is we cause more violence because we are there than what will happen 
when we withdraw. If I could know for sure that what the experts tell 
us is wrong and millions of Iraqis will not die, I could probably be in 
agreement with some of the positions of those who want to change our 
course right now. But I don't know that and, as a matter of fact, the 
experts say the exact opposite will happen and millions will die. So we 
do have a moral obligation.
  The other question we ought to bring forward is the contention we 
want to change the rules of the Senate on a vote tonight when everybody 
knows that a cloture vote and a requirement of 60 votes on major issues 
has been the rule of the Senate for years. It is a precedent 
longstanding that we have found on both sides of the aisle, no matter 
who is in charge, works well on contentious issues.
  The vast majority of Republicans are ready to vote on cloture 
tonight. We didn't have that opportunity. We are going to vote on 
cloture tomorrow morning at 11. But we also know that if cloture fails, 
we probably will not be on the Defense bill.
  The question I have for my colleagues is, they control the Armed 
Services Committee. They wrote the Defense authorization bill. Why in 
the world, when our troops need guidance, when we need new 
reauthorizations, when we need items for the military that are highly 
important to the success now, not just in Iraq but throughout the 
world, would we pull a bill and not continue to work on it?
  As a matter of fact, this debate, which we had 2 months ago and now 
are having again, is keeping us from doing some of the business we need 
to be doing in terms of observing and doing oversight of the Federal 
Government.
  This Defense authorization bill has $13 billion worth of earmarks, 
earmarks that the Pentagon does not

[[Page 19357]]

want, but we want, we want for constituencies, we want for campaign 
supporters, we want because we know better--the very type of thing that 
is going to hurt in the long run the confidence of the people in this 
Chamber. So instead of continuing to work on the Defense authorization 
bill, it is going to get pulled in the morning and we are going to go 
to higher education reconciliation.
  The question we ought to be asking and what the American people ought 
to ask is, because one vote fails on cloture, do we not have an 
obligation to go on and authorize defense expenditures? I believe we 
do. One vote should not make or break that bill. It was not part of the 
original Defense authorization bill that came out of committee. Why 
would we not continue to work on it and give our military the 
authorization to do what they need to do in the future?
  Someone asked me earlier today if this was a political stunt? No, I 
don't think so. I think we need to have this debate. I think the more 
the American people learn about what the consequences are when we leave 
Iraq, the more likely they are to have a second thought about the 
pressure and tension they feel on this terrible situation. And as they 
learn what the consequences will be and also see a perspective about at 
least giving General Petraeus until September 15, as they hear that 
debate, I think minds will be changed or at least attention will be 
turned to it.
  A couple of things that I think also ought to be asked on the Reed-
Levin amendment are, How does the Reed-Levin amendment address Iranian 
influence in Iraq in the future? How does the Reed-Levin amendment 
address increasing Iranian influence in the region, including Iran's 
adverse influence on the Arab-Israeli peace process? How does the Reed-
Levin amendment guard against a regional conflict? If the policy of the 
Reed-Levin amendment became law, would the United States stay out of 
the humanitarian catastrophe and ethnic cleansing that will surely 
follow with a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces? If the policy of 
the Reed-Levin amendment became law, would the United States offer 
financial assistance to neighboring countries forced to absorb the 
massive number of refugees fleeing such a conflict? If the policy of 
the Reed-Levin amendment became law, what would the cost be to the U.S. 
Treasury in lives if the United States eventually had to return to the 
Middle East, in terms of forces?
  I don't think those questions can go unanswered in this debate, and 
yet they have not been addressed. What we do know is we have a 
tinderbox. What we don't know, but some are suggesting, is the 
tinderbox will quiet down if we leave. If we leave, I hope they are 
right. I don't think they are right.
  I think this is a time that will really test the mettle of this 
country. I think the conflict we see over the debate in this body is 
not bad for our country; I think it is good for our country. It is one 
of the attributes that make us strong.
  Leaving Iraq, losing in Iraq will be terrible for our country in the 
long run--not in the short run but in the long run. It will limit our 
influence in the Middle East. It will limit the trust and viability of 
our Nation with every other nation under which we have any type of 
security arrangement. But most importantly, it will put us back 10 to 
15 years in terms of doing what we need to do in the world.
  Senator Durbin and I are working hard on the Darfur situation. Darfur 
is going to seem like a blip on a screen compared to what is going to 
happen in Iraq when we leave.
  What we do know is what is happening in Iraq today, the concentration 
of the violence, especially the suicide bombers. Two things are 
happening. One is they are moving away from the areas in which the 
surge is employed. That is why you see Kirkuk the first time hit. But 
we also know that 85 percent of the suicide bombers aren't Iraqis; they 
are al-Qaida, from outside of Iraq. I suspect they are going to 
overplay their hand like they did in Anbar Province, which is why those 
Sunnis now are allied with coalition forces.
  So I would ask the Members of this body, No. 1, to not assume that 
any of us who support the present course until September in Iraq have 
had our arms twisted. We have not. We actually believe it is the best 
policy. I don't believe we need to have our moral compass checked, as 
suggested by the Senator from New Jersey. We just happen to have a 
difference of opinion. And the difference really doesn't stem on any 
factual basis, but it stems on long-range versus short-range thinking.
  When I took the oath for this office, my oath was to uphold the 
Constitution and to do what was best for the country--not for my 
political career, not what will win the next election, not what will 
get me more seats in the Senate, but what I truly thought in my heart 
and mind would be great and best for this country.
  The Iraq war is a perplexing situation for all of us. I believe it is 
wrong for us to stop in the middle of a surge that is having some 
progress. Not what we would like, maybe, not to the degree we would 
like, but for the first time, in approximately 2 years, it is making 
positive things out of things that were very negative.
  It is my hope that as we continue this debate, we will recognize that 
the most important question is, Then what? What happens if the Reed-
Levin amendment becomes law? What happens to our military? What happens 
in the Middle East? What happens in Iran, which is now known to be 
training a vast number of people to influence the outcome? What happens 
to the morale of our military? What happens to our relationship with 
allies around the world when we can no longer be counted on as a 
reliable partner? What next?
  That is the question we should be debating--what next? What are the 
consequences of not fulfilling a moral obligation to clean up a mess we 
helped create? You can say we don't have that obligation, but we do. 
History will judge this Nation on how it handles this situation. We 
may, in fact, walk away, but if we did, and if we do, I believe we 
belie the heritage of the sacrifice that has been made by so many 
people for so many years in our history that predates us.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I have listened to most of the comments 
made by my friend from Oklahoma, and I think he asked some good 
questions, things we all have to consider about what will happen when 
we leave.
  The Senator talked about the moral obligations, what moral 
obligations we have. I wonder what moral obligation we had back in the 
1980s when Donald Rumsfeld went to visit with Saddam Hussein? What 
moral responsibility did we have in the Reagan administration when we 
supported Saddam Hussein, gave him weapons, and gave him information in 
his war against Iran? What was our moral obligation at that time?
  We hear about what will happen when we leave, all this talk about a 
bloodbath and everything. Well, Madam President, I can remember 
Vietnam. I can remember the same things: Oh, if we leave Vietnam--we 
either fight them there or we fight them here. We have to stop the 
Communists in Vietnam or it will be the Philippines next and then 
Japan. We have to stop them there. And if we leave, there will be a 
bloodbath in Vietnam. All of the people who supported us will be 
slaughtered in the streets.
  Well, it didn't happen. Here today, with Vietnam, we have diplomatic 
relations. I think we just had the new Ambassador or President come 
over and meet with President Bush in the White House. Cruise ships, 
these big cruise ships now dock over in Saigon and people get off and 
go into Saigon. Americans take cruise ships over there in Vietnam and 
go to the beaches. You look back and you think about those 50,000-plus 
Americans who died over there, and you wonder, what was that all about? 
What was that moral obligation all about?
  So, again, we haven't learned from the past. The specter is always 
raised that calamities will happen if we don't follow what the 
President wants. Well, the President is not always right. This

[[Page 19358]]

President and his colleagues here couldn't be more wrong about our 
course in Iraq.
  So I have come to the floor this evening on behalf of many Iowans who 
have been calling and e-mailing my office. The overwhelming majority of 
people in my State have turned against the war in Iraq, as have the 
overwhelming majority of Americans elsewhere. According to a USA Today/
Gallup poll released last week, 71 percent of Americans favor removing 
all U.S. troops from Iraq by April 1 of next year.
  The American people are sick of seeing our brave men and women killed 
and maimed in what has become a vicious civil war in Iraq. They want to 
chart a new course in Iraq, a course out of that civil war. They simply 
can't believe President Bush and his allies in this body have responded 
to their wishes with a strategy of obstruction, filibuster, and veto 
threats. They can't believe Republican Senators here are blocking votes 
on the No. 1 issue before our Nation, the No. 1 issue on the minds of 
the American people.
  All we are asking of our Republican colleagues is let us vote. Let us 
vote up or down on whether we want to extricate ourselves from Iraq and 
bring the troops home. In a nutshell, people have been calling my 
office saying that Republican Senators certainly have a right to 
support President Bush's war in Iraq, they have a right to advocate 
that we stay the course, but our Republican colleagues should not claim 
a right to block simple up-or-down votes on amendments calling for a 
new course in Iraq.
  The President and his allies are demanding we wait until September 
before we act, but this is the same game of obstruction and delay they 
have been playing for years now. Time and again, the President has 
announced a new plan, a new strategy for victory in Iraq. Time and 
again, the President has asked for patience. Time and again, he has 
cited progress and suggested that success is just around the corner. 
Sounds just like Vietnam. Meanwhile, with each new plan, with every new 
strategy, the United States gets dragged deeper and deeper into the 
quagmire in Iraq. More Americans get killed and maimed, more innocent 
Iraqi men, women, and children are killed and wounded, and Iraq spirals 
deeper into chaos and sectarian division. Sounds just like Vietnam.
  The President's spokesmen insult our intelligence, saying that the 
surge is only a couple weeks old, that we should give it a chance. As 
we all know, it was announced in January, more than 6 months ago. I 
remember very well because 1 day after the President announced his 
surge, 640 soldiers from the 133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard 
were told they would not be coming home from Anbar Province as planned. 
Instead, their combat tour would be extended to 16 months--nearly a 
year and a half in the middle of the most deadly combat in Iraq.
  Since the surge began back in January, 615 more U.S. troops have died 
in Iraq. Many thousands more have been injured. Since the surge was 
announced, eight more soldiers from Iowa have been killed in Iraq, 
including a second soldier from the small town of Tipton, IA. Think 
about that, a small community of 3,100 people in rural Iowa has lost 
two of its sons in Iraq.
  On Sunday, the Washington Post published a story about Tipton, IA, 
and its growing disillusionment with the war in Iraq. The story noted 
that in the first 6 months of this year--since the surge began--125 
troops from 10 Midwestern States have died in Iraq, the bloodiest 
stretch of the war so far.
  Mr. President, as more and more Iowans and other Americans turn 
against this war, as more and more of our young men and women are 
killed and wounded, the administration asks us to be patient. But 
patience is not a virtue in the face of a manifestly failed policy, and 
there is no virtue in staying the course when the course you are on is 
dragging you deeper and deeper into a geopolitical disaster.
  Just last week, the administration issued the required progress 
report on benchmarks for Iraq. As expected, the report shows that the 
Government in Baghdad has failed to meet any of the benchmarks for 
political and economic reform. The Iraqis have failed to make progress 
in passing a law governing the sharing of oil revenues. They have 
failed to make progress in allowing former Baath party members to 
return to their jobs. They have failed to make progress in disarming 
militias. They have failed to make progress in organizing new 
provincial elections. Failure after failure after failure. Indeed, the 
only thing the Sunni, Shiites and the Kurds in Parliament have agreed 
on is that they will go on vacation in the month of August.
  The American people refuse to be patient in the face of this 
monumental failure. And I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Lugar's 
remarks on this floor to the effect that we cannot and should not wait 
until September to begin to chart a new course. The war has been 
spiraling downward for 52 months. What possible difference could 2 
months make?
  Indeed, I can predict right now what will happen when we get General 
Petraeus's report in mid-September. Against all evidence to the 
contrary, the President will cherry-pick the report to claim positive 
military results from the surge, and he will say those results justify 
staying the course until the end of the year or into next spring or for 
another year. Indeed, yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff said the surge could well be followed by a request for even more 
troops. I was told today that about 50 percent of our troops in Iraq 
are now National Guard and reservists.
  Well, it is abundantly clear to me that this President has no 
intention whatsoever of changing course or reducing the number of 
troops in Iraq through the end of his term on January 20, 2009. He will 
only change course when and if he is compelled to do so by the 
Congress, and that is exactly what a clear majority of the Senate is 
attempting to do with amendments to this Defense authorization bill.
  The Levin-Reed amendment was basically passed by the House. But now, 
Republican Senators here will not allow us to vote on it. All we are 
asking is to let us vote up or down on the Levin-Reed amendment. The 
President and his allies are responding with a furious campaign of 
obstruction, filibuster, and veto threats. They refuse to listen. They 
refuse to learn. They refuse to consider a new direction. All we are 
asking is, let us vote. Let us vote.
  I personally know many Iowans serving in our Armed Forces. Whether 
Active Duty or the Guard or Reserve, they are disciplined professionals 
who love their country. Even those who profoundly disagree with the war 
and the surge will continue to do their duty. They deserve our profound 
respect and admiration. But we need to listen to them. We need to 
listen to their families.
  So I have come to the floor tonight to read just a few of the e-mails 
and letters I have received in recent days. One of them is from Peggy--
I won't use her last name--from Council Bluffs, IA, whose son is 
serving in Iraq, and here is what she writes:

       My 19-year-old son is in Iraq with the United States Army. 
     Please, please get us out of this horrific nightmare and 
     bring them all home. I can't go a day without crying, as I 
     worry about him. Every single member of our brave military 
     that dies in this quagmire is a waste, a tragic waste of 
     life. If my son were to be killed over there, I could never 
     reconcile to it due to the fact that we should not be over 
     there in the first place. We invaded a country based on lies 
     and have caused the death and suffering of untold thousands 
     of Iraqi people. Please vote to withdraw the troops.

  Peggy, all I can tell you is that is what we are trying to do. We are 
trying to get a vote up or down to get your son and the troops out of 
Iraq and bring them home. But our Republican colleagues will not allow 
us to have that vote.
  I received the following letter from Regina--again, I will not use 
her last name--from Bloomfield, IA. She writes:

       While reading some articles yesterday, I ran across several 
     stating the possibility of extending even more the tours of 
     duty of our soldiers in Iraq. Is there anybody thinking about 
     these soldiers other than how many live in a day and how many 
     die? Do they understand how hard this is on these soldiers,

[[Page 19359]]

     and costly to our Government? And more important, the 
     tremendous pain and agony on the families of these troops? 
     Have you ever been in a war zone for an extended time, or 
     members of your family--in Vietnam, Kuwait or Iraq? . . . If 
     you sense frustration here, it is. [I feel it] every time we 
     lose a soldier over there for something we can never win. . . 
     . I have never taken as much to heart, and fear for my 
     grandchildren. . . . Where is the common sense of our 
     country?

  Regina, we are here, pleading with our Republican colleagues for 
common sense. Let us vote up or down on the Levin-Reed amendment, that 
is all we ask. That is what all these letters are asking, basically.
  Let me read portions of a letter from Barbara of Waverly.

       I sit here to write this letter, not knowing why, since I'm 
     feeling like no one cares anymore or will be able to do 
     anything about it. I am a 41-year-old woman, a military wife 
     of 23 years and a mother of 3. My husband's unit is currently 
     serving in Iraq and has been gone for 16 months so far on 
     this mission. The soldiers and the families were finally 
     feeling like we were seeing the light at the end of the 
     tunnel. As the new year began, we started our countdown for 
     our reunions expected in April. Our worlds came crashing down 
     once again as we learned that our loved ones would not be 
     coming home in April but were being extended until August, 
     thus being deployed for almost 2 years by the time they 
     return. I am angry, I am devastated. How could this happen? I 
     have lost all hope and faith in our Government. I don't 
     understand politics, so my biggest question is, if so many 
     people are against this war and the increase in troops being 
     sent over, then why is the President not listening? Doesn't 
     he care? I voted for him and believed in him and he has let 
     me down. . . .Please think about the effects this is having 
     on our soldiers and their families. We have all given so much 
     and though we are proud to have been part of serving our 
     country, it is time for our soldiers to come home. Please, 
     bring them home.

  Barbara, all I can say is that is what we are trying to do. All we 
are asking is that we be allowed to vote up or down on the Levin-Reed 
amendment.
  Let me read excerpts from one more letter. That is why I am reading 
these. There are probably a lot of things I can say about this issue, 
but I think it is more poignant to read the letters from Iowans, people 
who have been tragically touched by this war. This one is from a mother 
in Dows, IA.

       I have a 19-year-old son, my only child, who is fighting in 
     Iraq. He is a smart, strong and brave infantry soldier. He 
     has always wanted to be a soldier and is proud to serve in 
     the United States Army. He is our pride and joy. Heaven 
     forbid if anything happens to him in Iraq, my husband and I 
     will be crushed beyond measure. . . . My point in telling you 
     all this is that we are talking about young lives that have a 
     bright future. This is not some political game. Why should 
     our Government put our soldiers' lives at risk for a civil 
     war in Iraq? Like it or not, that's what it is, a civil war, 
     and our precious soldiers are smack dab in the middle of it. 
     . . . Why should our soldiers be losing limbs and even dying 
     for a group of people who can't get along and will probably 
     never get along? Iraq did not attack us. . . . Things are 
     going from bad to worse in Iraq. . . . Unless you have a 
     loved one fighting in Iraq, you can't begin to understand how 
     difficult it is. It is time to get the troops back home and 
     back to their families. Every one of these soldiers who have 
     died meant ``everything'' to someone. They were a husband, 
     wife, son, daughter, grandchild or close friend to someone. . 
     . . I am neither a Republican nor Democrat, I am just an 
     American mother who wants this violent war stopped and to get 
     our soldiers home safe.

  I can say to this mother, that is what we are trying to do. We are 
trying to get a vote. Let us vote. Let us vote up or down on a deadline 
for getting our troops out of Iraq. What are the Republicans so afraid 
of? Why are they so afraid to let the Senate express its will?
  I want all of our colleagues to listen especially closely to the 
final words from this soldier's mother. This is from Dows, IA. She 
writes:

       With the overwhelming majority of the American people 
     wanting to bring our soldiers home and stop the war, don't 
     you think, since you actually work for the American people 
     and are elected by the American people, that you should 
     seriously consider our views and hear our voices? Someone 
     told me I was wasting my time writing this letter, but I 
     believe otherwise. I want my voice heard and isn't this what 
     democracy and freedom are all about? I plead with you with 
     all my heart that you will consider this and do what is best 
     for our troops, their families, and the United States.

  That is the end of that letter. Yes, you are right, we actually work 
for the American people. Your voices should be heard. That is what 
democracy and freedom is all about. Yet we are not being allowed to 
have your voices heard here on the Senate floor in terms of a vote. 
Because of the Republican filibuster, we can't. Once again, all we are 
asking is a very simple request from our Republican colleagues: Let us 
vote up or down. Why are you so afraid of that?
  The letters and e-mails coming to my office are heartbreaking. They 
tell the story of lives disrupted, lives put at risk, lives in a war 
that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe was a tragic 
mistake. Now 6 months into a surge that has failed to significantly 
reduce the violence in Iraq, 6 months into a surge that has utterly 
failed to bring about any progress or reconciliation within the Iraqi 
Government, Republicans in the Senate are pulling out the stops to 
block a simple up-or-down vote on charting a new course in Iraq.
  Once again, I plead, I ask, let us vote. Let us vote. All we are 
asking is just that opportunity, a simple up-or-down vote. Let us have 
the vote.
  Frankly, I was shocked last week when Republicans on the other side 
of the aisle filibustered Senator Webb's amendment which was even 
supported by the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Warner. The amendment would only have required that 
active-duty troops receive as much time at home recuperating and 
training as they spend deployed in combat. The amendment even allowed 
for a Presidential waiver if the troops were needed for an emergency. 
This ought to have been an amendment to have drawn strong bipartisan 
support. After all, many troops in Iraq are now in their third or even 
fourth deployment. The Army Chief of Staff has warned Congress that the 
current pace of combat deployment threatens to ``break'' the Army.
  The Webb amendment would have passed if we had been allowed a simple 
up-or-down vote, a majority vote. Isn't that what we believe in? We 
believe in a majority vote. Majority votes elect the President. 
Majority votes here pass bills. There was a majority here to pass the 
Webb amendment, but because the Republicans filibustered it, we needed 
60 votes. We couldn't get an up-or-down vote on that amendment.
  The wives and mothers and family members who have written to me and 
whose words I placed here in the Record tonight have their own idea of 
what it means to support the troops. They believe it means allowing the 
Senate to have a straight up-or-down vote on these amendments to ensure 
decent treatment of our troops. They believe it means allowing a 
straight up-or-down vote on whether we need to have a new direction in 
Iraq. But they are being denied this by a willful, obstructionist 
minority here in the Senate, a minority that believes, frankly, they 
know better than the American people; a minority that insists on 
endlessly prolonging a war that the American people want to bring to a 
close.
  The American people are not only angry about this war, they are angry 
the way our brave men and women in uniform have been misused and 
mistreated. The President rushed our troops into combat without proper 
equipment and in insufficient numbers. He has insisted on staying the 
course of that failed policy for more than 4 miserable years. He has 
sent troops back to Iraq for a third and even fourth rotation, with 
insufficient time to retrain and regroup.
  In January he decided to roll the dice one more time by throwing 
another 30,000 troops into the middle of this sectarian civil war in 
Baghdad. Now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is suggesting 
that come September the President may decide to send even more troops 
to Iraq. At this point, the single best way to support the troops is to 
tell President Bush more than 4 years of bungling, bad judgment, and 
bullheadedness is enough. We have complete and total confidence in our 
troops, but we have no confidence in your leadership or in pursuing 
this war any further.
  This evening we have reached an extraordinary juncture. We have a 
surge

[[Page 19360]]

in Iraq now 6 months old which was designed to give the Iraqi 
Government breathing space for reconciliation.
  As I said, the only thing the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds in 
Parliament have agreed on is that they will go on vacation in August. 
Meanwhile, here in Washington we have a President refusing to listen to 
the American people, supported by a Republican minority in Congress 
that is determined to obstruct any legislation charting a new course. 
If they prevail, if the President and his Republican obstructionists in 
the Senate prevail, our military units will be deployed again and again 
and again until they finally break and the United States will stay 
bogged down and bleeding in Iraq, creating terrorists around the world 
faster than we could ever hope to kill them.
  It has reached the point, frankly, where you are either on the side 
of the President and his failed policies or you side with the American 
people and our military commanders who have concluded there is no 
military solution to the mess in Iraq. You either support this endless, 
pointless war or you support a smarter, more focused campaign against 
the terrorists who truly threaten us. It is unconscionable that the 
Republican leader, at the behest of President Bush, is refusing to 
allow the Senate to vote on changing our course in Iraq. At long last 
it is time for them to listen to the American people, to the families 
of our troops in the field. The Senate should be allowed to vote on the 
No. 1 issue facing this country.
  It is time the Republicans stop their obstruction to allow the Senate 
to work its will. It is time for Republicans to let us vote, up or 
down, simply up or down on the Levin-Reed amendment to chart a new 
course in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
this very important issue. We are here in this wee hour of the morning. 
There have been a lot of accusations flying back and forth today, this 
evening, about why we are here and what this is about. But I do want to 
remind my colleagues of what this is about. The underlying legislation, 
the Defense authorization bill, H.R. 1585, says it very clearly here. 
It is:

       To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for 
     military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
     military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

  That is what we are here for. We are here to do something we do every 
year, or that we have done every year for the past 45 years, and that 
is pass the Defense authorization bill. What that Defense authorization 
bill does is it authorizes a 3.5-percent across-the-board pay raise for 
all military personnel. It increases Army and Marine end strength to 
525,400 and 189,000, respectively. It also approves $2.7 billion for 
items on the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded requirement list, including 
$775 million for reactive armor and other Stryker requirements, $207 
million for aviation survivability equipment, $102 million for combat 
training centers and funding for explosive ordnance disposal equipment, 
night vision devices, and machineguns.
  The bill also authorizes $4.1 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush 
Protected Vehicles, known as MRAP vehicles, for all of the services' 
known requirements.
  That is what the underlying bill would do. That is what this debate 
should be about. It ought to be about taking care of the needs of our 
men and women in uniform who we have asked, day in and day out, to do a 
very difficult task, and that is to protect America's freedoms around 
the world. We have lots of them deployed in different places around the 
world.
  What is interesting to me, as I have listened to the debate about 
this particular amendment, the Levin-Reed amendment, throughout the 
course of the day, is I keep hearing this distinction between 
Afghanistan and Iraq, and how somehow Afghanistan is a good war and 
Iraq is a bad war. The reason is in Afghanistan we aren't having as 
many casualties as we are in Iraq. We are taking on a lot of casualties 
in Iraq. That is where they are killing our soldiers, and the reason we 
are taking on casualties in Iraq is because that is where our soldiers 
are. If we move troops to Afghanistan, they will starting killing our 
troops there because that is what they are and that is what they do; 
they are killers whose goal is to kill Americans and they are going to 
keep coming at us.
  I do not think sometimes our colleagues on the other side see this 
for what it is, a titanic struggle between good and evil, between 
radical Islam and nations that cherish freedom.
  I have to say I believe the men and women in uniform understand that 
when they are fighting al-Qaida, it doesn't matter where they are 
fighting them. They are our enemy, they are our adversary, they are the 
people who are out to kill and destroy us, whether that is in 
Afghanistan or in Iraq. They are a global terrorist network intent on 
destroying us and our allies.
  Our young men and women in uniform deserve to have this Defense 
authorization bill passed so they have the funding and the equipment 
and the weapons and the training and everything that is necessary for 
them to succeed and to achieve their mission, which is to protect us 
from terrorist organizations and terrorist threats, such as al-Qaida.
  I have also heard it said that al-Qaida is--there were a lot of 
quotes today from the National Intelligence Estimate about where the 
real threats are around the world, but I have to read for you what some 
of the judgements and findings were of the National Intelligence 
Estimate. It says:

       We assess the greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism 
     efforts over the past 5 years have constrained the ability of 
     al-Qaida to attack the U.S. homeland again and have led 
     terrorist groups to perceive the homeland as a harder target 
     to strike than before 9/11. These measures have helped 
     disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.

  That is the good news.
  But it goes on to say:

       We assess that al-Qaida will continue to advance its 
     capabilities to attack the homeland through greater 
     cooperation with regional terrorist groups. Of note: We 
     assess that al-Qaida will probably seek to 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 the homeland.
       In addition, we assess that its association with al-Qaida 
     in Iraq helps al-Qaida to energize the broader Sunni 
     extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and 
     indoctrinate operatives, including for homeland attacks.
       We assess that al-Qaida will continue to try to acquire and 
     employ chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear 
     material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it 
     develops what it deems to be sufficient capability.

  That is what the National Intelligence Estimate has to say about our 
enemy and what their capabilities are. And again, I have to reiterate 
that I think, as I have listened to this debate throughout the course 
of the day, that people continue to make a discrepancy between 
Afghanistan, the good war, and Iraq, the bad war. The problem is, it is 
the same enemy, it is the same al-Qaida, intent on the same objective 
to kill and destroy Americans. We have to fight al-Qaida every place we 
can to make sure they do not take that war right here and those attacks 
of the United States to our homeland.
  Debating a change in policy in Iraq, particularly given what we just 
did last May, is premature, and that is why I am going to oppose the 
Levin-Reed amendment.
  This past May, the Senate passed the 2007 Iraq supplemental which 
required two reports by the President. The first was released just days 
ago, and the second will be released in September. These reports will 
assess whether the Iraqi Government is making sufficient progress with 
respect to the 18 benchmarks. The interim July report stated that we 
are making satisfactory progress toward meeting 8 of the 18 benchmarks. 
While there is much work that remains to be done, the new strategy is 
still in its early stages.
  We need to make sure our forces can set the conditions for that 
progress to continue and to succeed. There have been some encouraging 
signs, but we will not see the full effect of this new

[[Page 19361]]

strategy until General Petraeus's September report. This assessment 
will provide a clearer picture of how the new strategy is unfolding and 
what, if any, adjustments should be made.
  But I reiterate, that was in May. This Senate acted on an Iraq 
supplemental in May requiring those two reports. We just received the 
first report. The final report we will get in September, and yet here 
we are today once again debating withdrawal resolutions before we have 
even given our commanders and our troops an opportunity to succeed in 
this new strategy.
  The surge operation is intended to clear insurgent opposition so that 
we can protect the Iraqi population and provide the Iraqi Government a 
stable environment in which to conduct their business. I have said on 
several occasions that my support for this war is not open-ended. But 
we have to give General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker a chance.
  We have a viable plan in place to gauge the surge operation, success 
of the Iraqi Government, and I cannot support a plan such as this, the 
Levin-Reed amendment, to abandon the legislative provisions we have 
already enacted. Congress cannot legislate the war strategy, nor do we 
have the expertise, the staff, or the constitutional authority to 
micromanage the war. American generals in Iraq, not politicians in 
Washington, should decide how to fight wars. What we are doing as 
legislators right now is trying to get into the middle of that very 
important chain of command.
  As legislators, our actions on this war have not been consistent. On 
the one hand, we unanimously confirmed General Petraeus with the hopes 
that he could bring stability to Iraq; then, on the other hand, we at 
every turn consider Iraq withdrawal language here on the floor of the 
Senate. So we keep sending conflicting signals.
  I would remind my colleagues that back in March, the vote to confirm 
General Petraeus was 81 to 0. Eighty-one Senators--no Senators 
objecting--voted to give him this new responsibility, to entrust him 
with this very difficult task. Then, in May, we said we would give him 
at least until September, when he would report back to us about the 
progress he has made. No one said the progress was going to take place 
quickly. We have to be realistic about the pace and scope of change in 
Iraq. But mandating timelines for withdrawal or other amendments like 
reauthorizations of the war are not the answer. We are too eager to 
declare the surge a failure before it has even been fully implemented.
  This debate should not be about how quickly we can withdraw but how 
quickly we can succeed in Iraq so that our troops can come home. Now, 
sadly, many of the provisions we have been discussing here on the floor 
of the Senate are politically motivated by legislators thousands of 
miles away from the battlefield.
  During the course of the endless Iraq policy debate, there have been 
statements from the Democratic leadership such as:

       We are going to pick up Senate seats because of this war.

  And:

       We will break them, the Republicans, because they are 
     looking extinction in the eye.

  Those are direct quotes. These are not legitimate policy statements 
but the sad politicization of the war on terror.
  I would add to those some other statements that have been made more 
recently. Someone said today, earlier this evening, that this has been 
characterized as a publicity stunt, keeping the Senate in all night. 
Members on the other side have gotten up and reacted to this and said 
this is not a publicity stunt. Well, you have a senior Democratic aide 
on FOX News who said: Is this a publicity stunt? Yes. You have the 
majority leader saying: I do not know if we will get 60 votes, but I 
will tell you, there are 21 Republicans up for reelection this time. 
You have other statements by the majority leader saying: 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.
  I do not condemn my colleagues for their legitimate Iraq policy 
positions. As Senators, we have a right to offer amendments. But I 
would again stress that I believe this is not the time to debate this 
question. We have made it very clear in previous legislation that the 
time for that debate will be in September of this year. I fear that the 
current Iraq policy debate taking place on the Defense authorization 
bill will endanger its passage. This is a bill which, as I said 
earlier, specifically is designed to increase the size of the Army and 
the Marine Corps, provide increased authorization to purchase more MRAP 
vehicles, provide a 3.5-percent pay increase across the board for our 
troops, and further empower the Army and Air Force National Guard. We 
should not endanger this bill when we can have a full and comprehensive 
debate on Iraq in September, which is what this body, this Congress 
specifically directed as recently as May.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am committed to seeing 
this bill pass on the floor of the Senate. I believe it would be a 
complete failure of leadership on our part if we failed to pass this 
very vital measure, while our men and women are engaged in a difficult 
conflict.
  I will not support amendments to mandate a strategic military shift 
by force of law. As I have said multiple times, Congress should not, 
Congress must not get into the habit of interjecting itself into the 
military chain of command. To do so invites disaster and moves our 
country through the premise of conducting wars and military operations 
with one commander in chief to fighting wars by committee. And history 
has proven and shown that fighting wars by committee does not work.
  Last week, I attended the funeral of SSG Robb Rolfing. Sergeant 
Rolfing was an Army green beret killed in action by insurgents in 
Baghdad. And I have to say that, again, he was a young man who was 
incredibly skilled and gifted, someone who had tremendous success in 
academics, in athletics, was an inventor, was a very gifted young man, 
someone who had demonstrated great leadership abilities, someone with a 
big heart, someone who always gave all to everything he had no matter 
what he did.
  After September 11, he was compelled to the service of his country. 
As he did with everything, he wanted to do the best, and he became the 
best, he was the best of the best. He was a green beret. Before his 
tragic death, Sergeant Rolfing expressed to his family that he believed 
in what he was doing and there were good things happening in Iraq, that 
the whole story was not being told.
  Well, Sergeant Rolfing's voice may be silent, but his message is not. 
I will honor Sergeant Rolfing's sacrifice in my own way--by allowing 
our troops, led by General Petraeus, to continue the work they believe 
in and work that I believe in.
  Our obligation to the troops and our efforts in Iraq extend far 
beyond these benchmarks. We all want our troops to begin coming home, 
but we must first set the conditions for that to happen, without 
risking a humanitarian disaster in Iraq, sanctuaries for terrorists, or 
a broader regional conflict. If you do not believe what I say, there 
are a lot of people who know a lot more about this subject than I do 
who have come to the very same conclusion.
  You can look at the comments of GEN Anthony Zinni, who has said:

       We cannot simply pull out of Iraq, as much as we may want 
     to. The consequences of a destabilized and chaotic Iraq, 
     sitting in the center of a critical region of the world, 
     could have catastrophic implications. There is no short-term 
     solution. It will take years to stabilize Iraq. How many? I 
     believe at least 5 to 7.

  Well, I hope he is wrong. I hope it does not take 5 to 7 years. It is 
very clear from the experts in this region of the world who have 
repeatedly stated the great risk and danger we put our troops and we 
put the region and we put the United States in if we abandon this 
important mission without finishing it.
  The Iraq Study Group--the Baker-Hamilton report--has been quoted a 
lot on the floor during the course of this debate, sometimes 
selectively. But I also wish to quote for you what that particular 
report said.

[[Page 19362]]

  It said:

       Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for 
     catastrophe in the role and the commitments of the United 
     States in initiating events that have led to the current 
     situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States 
     to abandon the country through a precipitous withdrawal of 
     troops and support.
       A premature American departure from Iraq would almost 
     certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further 
     deterioration of conditions leading to a number of adverse 
     consequences outlined above. The near-term result 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. 
     If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range 
     consequences could eventually require the United States to 
     return.

  That is the Iraq Study Group Baker-Hamilton report, which I think 
also points out the very serious and disastrous risks we face, the 
consequences we face of quitting before this job is done.
  Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said:

       Precipitous withdrawal would produce a disaster, one that 
     would not end the war but shift it to other areas like 
     Lebanon, or Jordan or Saudi Arabia, produce greater violence 
     among Iraqi factions and embolden radical Islamists around 
     the world.

  Those are people who, as I said, are incredibly knowledgeable, people 
who have great experience in this region of the world.
  But I would like to share with you too, if I might, a letter or an e-
mail I received from a soldier who has spent a good amount of time in 
Iraq. Here is what he said:

       I hope that you do not defect from the current policy on 
     Iraq.

  And this came into my office in the last couple of days.

       Having served there for over 7 months, I know first-hand 
     that this is a fight that is worth fighting and winning. To 
     admit defeat and pull out now would be dishonorable to those 
     that have served. Please allow the military to conduct the 
     war in Iraq and not the politicians. The military commanders 
     are professional soldiers. How many of the members of the 
     Senate have ever served in the military or even know the 
     sacrifices that are endured each and every day? Watching the 
     news, listening to briefings, or going and visiting for a 
     couple of days to the war-torn nation is not ``experience.'' 
     When the commanders say it is time to leave, it is time to 
     leave. Please respect the input of one Marine who has seen 
     the sacrifice and lived the sacrifice and knows what is at 
     stake if we abandon our post.

  I think his sentiments capture very effectively the way a lot of our 
soldiers view these events.
  I cannot speak from personal experience as this soldier can. I have 
visited Iraq on three different occasions. I will tell you that having 
been there basically three different times a year apart, there has been 
significant progress in some areas of the country. When I went the last 
time, I went to Ramadi, Fallujah, and Al Anbar Province.
  In the Washington Post, one of the headlines the week before we went 
over there said, ``Armed and Ready in Ramadi.'' Well, if you look at 
what has happened in Al Anbar Province--and John Burns from the New 
York times recently characterized that the capital city of Anbar, 
Ramadi, has ``gone from being one of the most dangerous places in Iraq 
to being one of the least dangerous places.''
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. THUNE. I will yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator and I also went together and saw at that time 
how Ramadi and Fallujah were basically battlegrounds of enormous 
proportions. Isn't it true that recently both Ramadi--particularly 
Ramadi, but also Fallujah is a basically secure area. The last time 
there has been an attack at Ramadi--they have gone many days. Yet 
somehow that escapes the notice of some of our colleagues.
  In fact, I don't know if my friend from South Dakota is, is aware of 
what Lieutenant General Lamb, the British lieutenant general, the 
deputy commander of Multi-National Force, said the other day when the 
growing sentiment in our Congress to bring U.S. troops home sooner 
affected the mood of troops deployed in Iraq.
  He said: I find it a touch difficult because it was 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.
  I guess my question for the Senator from South Dakota is, Is there a 
disconnect between the rhetoric we hear and all of this stuff about how 
we are losing--and the majority leader of the Senate said we had lost--
and the realities on the ground as reflected by the men and who are 
fighting?
  Mr. THUNE. My colleague from Arizona, for whom I have the greatest 
respect--and I have had the opportunity to travel a couple of different 
times to Iraq with you. I know you have been back since then and have 
seen the marked improvement in that region.
  I know from having traveled there on several different occasions and 
having seen the progress that has taken place and talked with the 
troops on the ground, those who are there now and those who have been 
there, as I visit with them, both in my State and different places 
around the country, it is very clear that they view this to be a 
disconnect. They are very frustrated at the fact, as I said--the 
soldier whose funeral I attended, the green beret who was killed 
kicking down a door and was shot by an al-Qaida insurgent, before that 
happened expressed to his family the incredible progress he had noted 
and the fact that does not get adequately covered back here.
  I think that is a fair statement. The letter, the e-mail I read from 
the marine here that I just received in the last couple of days said 
the very same thing. Watching the news, listening to the briefings, or 
going and visiting for a couple of days to the war-torn nation is not 
an experience. He believes that we--as do I--that we ought to let our 
commanders make decisions with regard to our effort there.
  I would also add that I believe General Petraeus, in whom I have 
great confidence, will be very candid when he comes before the Congress 
in September, and I think we ought to give him and our troops an 
opportunity to succeed. The strategy has just been fully implemented as 
the troops have arrived there just recently. In my view it would be 
premature to do something which would undermine their efforts, and I 
think the debate we are having here on this particular amendment would 
do just that, if it is successful.
  So I hope my colleagues will see their way to do the right thing for 
our troops, listen to the judgment of our commanders, listen to what 
our troops are saying, listen to what our enemies are saying, because I 
think that is a very relevant point as well. Look at what Zawahari and 
bin Ladin are saying about Iraq and its importance. They realize full 
well that this is where the battle line is drawn.
  So I will, as we get to the final vote tomorrow at 11 clock on 
cloture, I will be voting against cloture.
  Mr. WEBB. Would the Senator from South Dakota agree that the United 
States military is made up of people with the same diversity of 
political views as the country at large?
  Mr. THUNE. I don't profess to know the answer to what political 
persuasion the members of our military are.
  Reclaiming my time----
  Mr. McCAIN. Regular order.
  Mr. THUNE. Reclaiming my time, if I could answer the question of the 
Senator from Virginia, I talk to military personnel all the time. I 
have heard, as I have heard you express, a poll that the military 
doesn't like what we are doing in Iraq. That has certainly not been my 
experience in any conversation I have had with any member of the 
military. I would question any poll result that would conclude what you 
have stated, as I have heard you state, with regard to the views of our 
military about our work in Iraq.
  Mr. WEBB. If I may clarify the polls for the Senator.
  Mr. THUNE. Go ahead.
  Mr. McCAIN. Regular order, Madam President.
  Mr. WEBB. Excuse me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can only yield for a question.
  Mr. THUNE. I will continue. I appreciate the comments of my friend 
from Virginia. I have to say----

[[Page 19363]]


  Mr. WEBB. If I may say, it is more than one poll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, reclaiming my time----
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we have to observe the regular order 
here in the Senate. The Senator from Virginia is clearly not observing 
the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota has the floor.
  Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Madam President.
  Let me say, as someone who has been to the area--my understanding is 
that the Senator from Virginia has not traveled to Iraq; perhaps his 
experience in visiting with members of the military is different from 
mine--I have talked regularly with members of the military. As I have 
noted from the communication I received from this marine, it was 
reflective of the general response I get whenever I talk about what is 
happening in Iraq with members who are there currently. I think that is 
very reflective of the general overall view of those who wear the 
uniform of the United States. They believe in our mission, what we are 
doing. They want to give the strategy a chance to succeed. I believe we 
need to do that. I hope we will be able to defeat the Levin-Reed 
amendment when it comes up for a vote tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise because I believe we need to 
have an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan Levin-Reed amendment. I 
believe it is time to change course in Iraq. I believe a majority of 
the Senate believes we need to change course in Iraq and change the 
combat role the United States is playing to a role of support. We have 
lost more than 3,600 U.S. soldiers, and my State of Washington has been 
deeply involved from the very beginning, from the deployment of the USS 
Abraham Lincoln to the service of the Stryker brigade from Fort Lewis 
and the continued service of that brigade on the front lines in Iraq 
today. The Stryker brigade has suffered severe casualties, and they 
continue to serve us well.
  The cost of this war has been great, over $450 billion. The United 
States is now spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. What we are asking 
is the ability to find out whether a majority of the Senate supports 
changing the course in Iraq. By filibustering, the other side is 
preventing us from finding that out. I am not saying I don't support 
the rights of the minority to filibuster. I do. But I also respect the 
strong desire by the American people to see where every Senator stands 
on this proposal to change the course in Iraq being proposed today. 
That is what the debate is about, whether we are going to see how each 
Senator votes on this issue. If the filibuster continues, we won't see 
that vote.
  Some people have talked about the surge. I respect those who believe 
and advocate for the surge. I do not support the surge as a strategy. 
This Senator bought into the milestones that this body approved in the 
Warner-Frist amendment. I believed in a bipartisan effort of 79 
Senators, in legislation that was a part of the Defense authorization 
act that was then signed by the President of the United States in 
January 2006.
  The Warner-Frist amendment said, in a bipartisan fashion, what this 
body wanted to see happen in Iraq. It said that 2006 should be the year 
of significant transition. We said that 2006 is when Iraqi Security 
Forces should take the lead. That is when they should create conditions 
for a phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. That was 
the goal at the end 2006. I took those goals seriously.
  The Warner-Frist amendment said we should be telling the leaders of 
all groups and all political parties in Iraq that in 2006 they needed 
to make the political compromises necessary to achieve the broad, 
sustainable political settlements that were essential for bringing Iraq 
together and defeating the insurgents. Even during that time period, 
President Talabani of Iraq said that by the end of 2006 they would be 
able to take over all 18 provinces under their security. So, yes, this 
Senator was greatly disappointed when those goals were not met. Again, 
I did not support the surge because the 2006 milestones were not met. 
It showed that we were not making sufficient progress in Iraq and 
needed a change of course.
  And by any measure today, the Iraqis have not and are not making 
progress on the political and security benchmarks that need to be 
achieved. Debaathification reform, amendments to the Iraqi 
Constitution, the passage of an oil law--all of these things are being 
stymied. Only seven of the 18 provinces have acquired full 
responsibility for their own security, even though there are 349,000 
Iraqi security forces that have been trained and equipped.
  The violence continues in Iraq, everywhere from Kirkuk to Basra. This 
Senator wants to see a change in how we are approaching this situation. 
I want to see more of an aggressive effort on diplomacy and 
international engagement to press for political solutions to stabilize 
Iraq.
  This is what the Iraq Study Group called for. It said:

       The United States should immediately launch a new 
     diplomatic offensive to build international consensus for 
     stability in Iraq and the region.

  That is what the Iraq Study Group recommended. It saw that at the 
heart of the violence in Iraq were political disagreements causing a 
lot of turmoil within the country. Those disputes require a diplomatic 
and political solution.
  I believe this is what is at the core of the Levin-Reed amendment--a 
strategy to press for a political solution. I know my colleagues 
disagree on dates and guidelines in the amendment. However, I believe 
in the Levin-Reed amendment, which calls for a comprehensive 
diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained 
engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for 
the purposes of collectively bringing stability to that region. I 
applaud Senator Hagel for including language in this amendment 
requiring the United States to work with the United Nations to appoint 
an international mediator for Iraq.
  I know people believe the United States should continue to play a 
primary role in Iraqi disputes, but the United Nations and United 
Nations Security Council must have a significant role. The 
international community should engage in these political and ethnic 
issues that are stymying us. I believe it is time for the international 
community and the United States not to be for the long, hard slog of 
deployment but for the long, hard slog of diplomacy. The Levin-Reed 
amendment creates a framework for international engagement that has 
been missing.
  Why do I believe this is so important? I believe this is important 
because I think one of the key benchmarks we are missing that has 
caused great consternation is the issue of equitable distribution of 
Iraqi oil revenue. I wish the Iraqis had successfully passed an oil law 
and it had stabilized the region. It is no surprise that three 
different regions of the country are concerned about the distribution 
of oil revenue. There is a lot of concern about exactly who will have 
control over the oil in those areas, how much oil revenue will be 
distributed by the federal government, and what role the new Iraqi 
national oil company will play. But also at the heart of this dispute 
are Iraqi fears that, in the draft oil law, there is a great deal of 
benefit for foreign oil companies. In fact, the Bush administration has 
pushed the current draft of an oil law that allows for the 
privatization of Iraqi oil.
  I know that there is a dangerous perception that somehow we went to 
Iraq for oil. That was not something this Senator believed. However, 
there have been many statements that concern me. In fact, Ahmed Chalabi 
was quoted as saying:

       American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.

  Another European oil executive said:

       For any oil company being in Iraq is like being a kid in 
     FAO Schwarz.

  This Senator did not pay much attention to that, but I am paying 
attention

[[Page 19364]]

now to the fact that this current draft of an oil law says the Iraqi 
National Oil Company would have exclusive control--that is the federal 
entity--of just 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields.
  All the rest, along with all the undiscovered oil, would be open to 
foreign control. So the majority of oil in Iraq would be open to 
foreign control. Why is this such a big deal? It is important because 
at one time Iraqi oil reserves were seen as the second largest in the 
world. Today they are probably somewhere between the third and fourth 
largest oil reserves.
  In fact, the Heritage Foundation, in 2003, released a paper 
advocating for the privatization of Iraq's oil and arguing that Iraq's 
reconstruction and privatization of its oil and gas sector could become 
a model for oil industry privatization in other OPEC states as well.
  I know that may be attractive to people who think we should stay 
there and somehow glom on to Iraqi oil. This Senator does not believe 
that is what we should be doing.
  I know that many people have mentioned former Secretary of State 
Kissinger's recent policy op-ed piece. He said we cannot allow the 
Iraqi energy supply to be controlled by a country with Iran's 
revolutionary and taunting foreign policy. He suggested that, if we 
leave and Iran takes over, they will have control of the Iraqi oil. But 
I would refer those who agree with Kissinger to the Iraq Study Group's 
conclusion:

       The United States can begin to shape a positive climate for 
     diplomatic efforts internationally with Iraq through public 
     statements that reject the notion that the United States 
     seeks to control Iraq's oil or seeks to have permanent bases 
     within Iraq.

  We are sending the wrong message in Iraq if we continue to support a 
policy that gives the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government the notion 
that we are there to try to control the oil.
  Like the Iraq Study Group, I believe the international community and 
international energy companies should invest in Iraqi oil. Foreign 
expertise in investment is important to upgrading the infrastructure 
and boosting production. But that international involvement must come 
at Iraq's initiative, and the Iraqi people must decide what level of 
foreign participation is best for their country.
  We need to send the Iraqi people, the people of the Middle East, and 
the world a message that is loud and clear--we do not intend to stay in 
Iraq for their oil. To that end, I am happy to cosponsor with my 
colleague Senator Biden a resolution that calls on us to clearly 
articulate that we have no intention of keeping permanent U.S. bases in 
Iraq or any intentions of exercising control over Iraqi oil.
  Before we went into Iraq, there were a lot of people, including the 
Vice President, who said we would get X million barrels a day from 
Iraq. Former Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz estimated at one point 
in time the oil revenues of that country would bring us between $50 and 
$100 billion over the next 2 to 3 years. One State Department 
spokesperson said oil would be the ``engine of Iraq's reconstruction. 
No one is talking about a Marshall plan for Iraq because the oil will 
take care of that.''
  That did not happen. Today we see a bogged-down political process in 
Iraq because they are fighting over oil. We can move ahead, and this 
amendment by my colleagues Senators Levin and Reed gives us the 
framework to do that. Our efforts here in the Senate are moving forward 
on a diversified plan to get off our overdependence on Middle East oil. 
They are also critically important.
  I know some would say: Well, it is important that we make sure that 
terrorists don't get their hands on Iraqi oil money. I would remind my 
colleagues that a U.S. Government report that was obtained by the New 
York Times said many insurgents involved in terrorist attacks in Iraq 
are already raising $25 to $100 million a year from oil smuggling and 
criminal activities.
  It is important to secure Iraqi oil infrastructure and for the Iraqis 
to resolve their disputes over oil rights.
  I believe we should move ahead on a framework that has more 
international involvement. The United States and the international 
community should be trying to bring Iraqis together to reach 
compromises on these important issues. I believe this is something the 
United States can achieve.
  Some people may look at the problems in Iraq, the ongoing ethnic 
violence, the division between the Sunnis and Shiites and the Kurds, 
and think it is impossible to stabilize the country. But the United 
States has stepped up to serious international challenges in the past 
and stabilized new governments that have also been plagued by ethnic 
violence and long histories of dispute.
  How did we do it? All we have to do is look at the former Yugoslavia 
where the international community got together with various parties, 
from the European Union to Russia to NATO to countries in the region, 
and built a framework that ended serious ethnic violence. The civil war 
in Bosnia resulted in 100,000 to 110,000 deaths. While it is not on the 
same scale as the challenges we face in Iraq, the peace the United 
States was able to help achieve was nonetheless remarkable.
  We must do the same thing in Iraq. We need the help of the United 
Nations, the Arab League, and the rest of Iraq's neighbors, and we need 
the framework in the amendment my colleagues Senators Levin and Reed 
have authored. It would put us on a path toward a real comprehensive 
diplomatic and political solution for Iraq.
  We deserve the chance to have an up or down vote on the Levin-Reed 
amendment. It is now an important time for us to realize that the 
benchmarks we set have not, and are not, being met. We need a change of 
course in Iraq. We need to have more involvement by the international 
community in solving the political problems on the ground. The Levin-
Reed amendment would make a strong statement about what the U.S. hopes 
to achieve in stabilizing the Iraqi government. And we need to put to 
rest the notion that the United States will stay in Iraq for oil or for 
permanent U.S. bases. We cannot continue in an endless combat role in 
Iraq.
  We need to change the course, and we can have a policy that allows us 
to do that by holding an up or down vote on this amendment today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first of all, I express my profound 
gratitude to my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, the 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, for his unsurpassed and 
exemplary leadership on so many defense and national security issues 
throughout his distinguished career.
  I rise to speak to the monumental, consequential matter before us 
with regard to the future course of the United States and our 
courageous men and women in Iraq, and specifically to express my 
support and cosponsorship of the amendment that is presently before the 
Senate that has been authored by the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Levin, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. I thank 
them for their hard work and outstanding leadership on this historic 
matter.
  I recognize that none of us arrives at this debate lightly. In my 28-
year tenure in Congress, I have witnessed and participated in debates 
on such vital matters as Lebanon, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, 
Bosnia, and Kosovo. Indisputably, a myriad of deeply held beliefs were 
expressed on those pivotal matters--some in concert, some 
complimentary, some in conflict. Yet, without question, all were rooted 
in mutual concern for and love of our great Nation. Without question, 
that remains so today with the various proposals that are before us.
  I remind my colleagues in the Senate that the framework that has been 
embraced in the amendment authored by Senator Levin and Senator Reed is 
one that is not without precedent throughout our history in the actions 
taken by this institution in previous conflicts. So it is not a 
departure from precedent but very consistent with precedent in the 
past. Where we make decisions to impose our imprint on a longstanding

[[Page 19365]]

conflict is obviously of critical consequence to this Nation.
  In my view, 4\1/2\ years following the commencement of our military 
operations in Iraq, and 6 months after the troop surge was announced 
and was initiated, we now stand at the crossroads between help and 
reality with respect to the Iraqi Government's ability or even 
willingness to achieve national reconciliation for its own country and 
its own people.
  The time has come to address that reality. The time has come to 
determine if our military and our strategy should continue on the basis 
of perpetually hoping the Iraqis will succeed or whether they actually 
possess the desire and the drive to place their national interest above 
their sectarian ambitions.
  In my considered examination and analysis, taking into account my 
visits to Iraq--most recently in May--the facts and information we 
already have had at hand, the record of serial intransigence on the 
part of the Iraqi Government regarding its inability to forge the 
political underpinnings essential for national reconciliation, and the 
fact there is universal agreement that a military solution alone is not 
possible, I believe a dramatic and fundamental change in our strategy 
in Iraq is essential and that Congress must require it based on that 
reality.
  Because while the hands of time have now advanced in what has been 
described as sort of the 11th hour for Iraqi political reconciliation, 
in fact, in many ways, I see progress has moved in a regressive 
fashion. We can no longer afford to place more American service men and 
women in harm's way to instill a peace that the Iraqis seem unwilling 
to seek for themselves.
  I do not come to this conclusion casually or abruptly. Far from it. 
Indeed, following the President's address to the Nation in January, in 
which he unveiled a ``New Way Forward in Iraq'' through primarily 
increasing troop levels, I was among the first to publicly oppose that 
plan. In my view, it addressed neither the root cause of the violence 
in Iraq that was fueled by longstanding and deep-seated sectarian 
conflicts, nor the failure of the Iraqi Government to either 
demonstrate the will or capacity to quell that sectarian violence.
  It is incumbent upon the Iraqi people and their Government to work 
toward their own national unity. At that juncture, when we were about 
to assume even greater risk on behalf of the future of Iraq, there was, 
frankly, no compelling evidence that the Iraqis were willing to assume 
similar risks for a united future that only they can truly secure.
  Therefore, I then joined my colleagues Senators Biden, Levin, and 
Hagel, in introducing a Senate resolution that opposed the surge and 
instead would have urged the President to increase our counterterrorism 
efforts, maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, promote regional 
stability through a renewed diplomatic offensive, and continue the 
training of the Iraqi security forces--all without withdrawing 
precipitously.
  I said at the time that it was essential for the Congress to make our 
voices heard in a policy that has significant implications not only for 
our Nation and the Middle East but, indeed, the world community. I 
believe our bipartisan proposal would have offered a clear expression 
for a new strategy that would have compelled, in the words of the 
resolution itself, ``the Iraqi political leaders to make the political 
compromises necessary to end the violence.'' Unfortunately, the measure 
did not generate sufficient support at the time, and now we find 
ourselves confronting a similar situation only 6 months later.
  In May, I traveled again to Iraq, where the good news was mixed and 
the bad news was deeply disturbing. First and foremost, I want to say 
our troops were performing superbly and courageously and in an 
extremely complex and challenging environment. I am certain every 
Member of this body would agree when I say the men and women fighting 
for this great Nation are integral members of the most professional and 
dedicated military the world has ever witnessed. So there is no 
question--no question--of our troops' heroic commitment.
  Indeed, I witnessed the improved security situation, as has been 
mentioned many times on the floor, in Ramadi. I was part of the first 
congressional group to travel into downtown Ramadi and visit a joint 
security post. In that city, the tribal sheiks and the Iraqi forces 
have begun to work in conjunction with our own forces to fight a common 
enemy, and that common enemy is al-Qaida. We know the success, and 
clearly it was a model of success and cooperation. However, we also 
were told that what worked in Anbar might not necessarily work in the 
other provinces, that the threat varies from province to province, as 
we have already discovered. The threat varies from city to city, and 
the threat is multidimensional. What we have witnessed in Anbar where 
the ``enemy of my enemy is also my enemy'' does not necessarily suggest 
that it can apply across the board and may not be a model that can be 
replicated in other provinces and in other cities. Certainly, we should 
use it where it can work and can be applied, but certainly it may not 
be possible in all of the other areas within Iraq, because the common 
enemy within al-Anbar was, of course, al-Qaida.
  So I happen to believe it is abundantly apparent that we must send a 
strong message to the Iraqi Government that by linking our continued 
strategy in Iraq to the level of progress they made in attaining the 
political benchmarks they themselves had agreed to were so central to 
securing an Iraqi Nation. After all, by the President's own account, 
the Baghdad Security Plan, the surge, was designed to be the final 
window of opportunity for the Iraqis to institute those benchmarks. 
They had to know it was a window we would close if they did not act 
with commensurate urgency.
  That is why, upon my return from Iraq, I, along with my colleague, 
Senator Bayh from Indiana, introduced bipartisan legislation that would 
have required the Iraqi Government to meet the benchmarks outlined by 
the Iraq Study Group and the administration. If the Iraqi Government 
failed to do so, our bill directed that the surge forces would redeploy 
and the remaining forces would transition to a far more limited mission 
that included the training and equipping of the Iraqi forces, assisting 
the deployed Iraqi brigades with intelligence, transportation, air 
support, and logistics, protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and 
infrastructure, and maintaining rapid reaction teams to undertake 
counterterrorism missions against al-Qaida.
  I argued in May that we are at a critical juncture and that we were 
at a point where we must be pivoting toward a policy that responsibly 
brings us to a resolution on the future course of America's involvement 
in Iraq. I believed at the time the bipartisan legislation that I 
introduced with Senator Bayh would place the onus and the burden 
rightfully where it belongs--on the Iraqi Government and its political 
leaders to enact and to implement the benchmarks that, again, they 
themselves had pledged to achieve.
  Our legislation would have required General Petraeus to come before 
the Congress and testify 14 days following his September report and, if 
the political benchmarks had not been met, to submit a plan on phased 
redeployment of the surge troops associated with the Baghdad security 
plan and a change in mission for all of the troops, consistent, again, 
with the recommendations set forth by the Iraq Study Group report.
  Senator Bayh and I crafted the bill with the intent of garnering 
bipartisan support and called for not a mandate but, rather, an 
objective of completing the transition and redeployment 6 months 
later--which would have been approximately the end of March 2008.
  As I said at the time, we cannot further countenance political 
intransigence on the part of the Iraqi Government, while our men and 
women are on the front lines confronting sacrifices and making 
sacrifices each and every day. I am pleased that many elements of the 
Snowe-Bayh bill were included

[[Page 19366]]

in the measure that was drafted by our esteemed colleague Senator 
Warner, which was incorporated into the supplemental legislation which 
the Senate passed on May 24 and that became law, which established the 
18 benchmarks to evaluate the performance of the Iraqi Government.
  Yet here we are now, nearly 2 months from the passage of that 
supplemental, and coming off the bloodiest 3-month period for American 
troops since the war began, with 331 deaths in that period, and more 
than 600 since the surge began. And yet, as last week's White House 
interim report only underscored, there still has been no significant 
progress on any of the political benchmarks whatsoever.
  Among other failures, they have not passed an oil law which fairly 
divides oil revenue among Iraq's ethnicities and religious sects. Last 
month, the largest Sunni political grouping announced its four Cabinet 
ministers were boycotting the Government and were withdrawing its 44 
members from the Parliament, and there was a ``no confidence'' vote 
scheduled to take place even against Prime Minister Maliki. Perhaps 
most incredible, given this stunning lack of progress, is the fact that 
the Iraqi Parliament will not be in session for the entire month of 
August.
  That effectively means that the Iraq Parliament--even assuming--even 
assuming--they can attain the required quorum to conduct their affairs 
given that in the past 2 months, the Parliament has had considerable 
difficulty obtaining a quorum and has rarely had enough members in the 
chamber to vote--has another 3 weeks remaining in session before the 
month of September arrives; all the while, our soldiers continue the 
battle, while the Iraqi Government will take a recess, having failed to 
make significant progress on any of the benchmarks included in the 
supplemental bill we passed 2 months ago.
  These stark facts have led our top military, diplomatic, and 
intelligence officials in Iraq to the conclusion that the political 
reconciliation which the surge was meant to facilitate is not being 
undertaken. Last month, General Petraeus stated that conditions in Iraq 
will not improve sufficiently by September to justify a drawdown of 
U.S. military forces.
  Thomas Fingar, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence and chief 
of the National Intelligence Council, testifying before the House Armed 
Services Committee last week, stated that while the government of Prime 
Minister Nouri al-Maliki has made ``limited progress on key 
legislation,'' that ``scant common ground between Shias, Sunnis and 
Kurds continues to polarize politics.'' Mr. Fingar even stated that the 
majority Shiite bloc that Maliki heads ``does not present a unified 
front.''
  Let us also consider the words of key Iraqi leaders themselves, which 
are even more disturbing and telling. Indeed, Iraq's foreign minister 
said recently that ``These are not your benchmarks, these are our 
goals. Why do you make it yours?'' This, despite the fact that American 
troops are selflessly risking and giving their lives to make it 
possible for such officials to achieve the political, economic, and 
security benchmarks which were agreed to in September of last year by 
Iraq's Political Committee on National Security and reaffirmed by the 
Presidency Council on October 16.
  So, frankly, given statements such as these, it is not a surprise 
that, last week, the administration issued a report--the interim 
report--that found that the Iraqi Government had failed to accomplish 
any of these political objectives the Iraqis themselves set.
  Let's look at those deadlines and those goals and the track record.
  In October 2006, provincial elections law, a date for provincial 
elections, and a new hydrocarbon law--the new oil revenue-sharing law--
were supposed to be approved. But that deadline came and went.
  A debaathification law and a provincial council authorities law were 
to be enacted in November. But that deadline came and went.
  In December they were to approve a law demobilizing and disarming the 
militias. But that deadline came and went.
  The Constitutional Review Committee was to complete its work in 
January, independent commissions were to be formed in February, and a 
constitutional amendments referendum was to be held, if required, in 
March. But those deadlines also came and went.
  What does it suggest when a U.S. official--and actually it is 
incorporated in the interim report--recently observed that political 
reconciliation is largely trailing any advances in security--calling it 
a ``lagging indicator''? But if the Iraqi Government were truly 
serious, shouldn't concrete steps toward reconciliation be the 
predictor--shouldn't it be a leading indicator--of an inner fortitude 
and intention to accomplish those benchmarks that are supposed to be 
happening in tandem with the surge--if the surge was designed to be 
that window of opportunity, to give the breathing space to the Iraqi 
Government to create the conditions on the ground that will allow them 
to make the political compromises so essential to unifying their 
country?
  Security will only come through a belief by the Iraqis that they will 
have a political and economic future. That is why Iraq's fate is in the 
hands of the Iraqi leadership and its Government. The only way they 
will be able to secure their future is to be able to quell the 
sectarian violence, to integrate the minority population, to create 
power-sharing arrangements to diffuse the sectarian conflicts. In that 
way only can Iraq maintain its integrity as a unitary state.
  So I ask, if the intelligence community assessed in February that 
``with the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities 
affecting the political scene the prospects for reconciliation are 
bleak''--that is the intelligence community's assessment--and General 
Petraeus stated in March, ``there is no military solution'' and that 
``a political resolution . . . is crucial,'' and the general is quoted 
in the Air Force Times last month saying ``counterinsurgency is roughly 
. . . 80 percent political,'' as codified in his own counterinsurgency 
manual--and the interesting part about that is in that manual General 
Petraeus states that the host nation has to win it on its own, and that 
is exactly what the surge was all about; it was to allow them to 
accomplish those key political goals that would demonstrate to the 
Iraqi people they had a government that was representative of all the 
people and not just a few--and the Iraqi Government has failed to 
accomplish these political benchmarks that were established by their 
own leadership and the Government of Iraq, then doesn't it make sense 
to begin to choose an alternative course? Because it is difficult to 
see the wisdom of this current strategy without holding the Iraqis 
accountable, the time has come to stand up and to speak out on behalf 
of the American people to say that the current strategy is unacceptable 
and the moment has arrived to change that direction.
  That is why I have joined with Senators Levin and Reed on a 
bipartisan basis because in my view, given the record of demonstrated 
inaction on the part of the Iraqi Government, we are now beyond 
nonbinding measures. That is what we have accomplished in the last 6 
months. We considered nonbinding measures. But now we are a mere 2 
months from General Petraeus's September report, with no demonstrable 
evidence to suggest political progress. What time is more important 
than now, as we consider the pending Defense authorization bill, to 
maximize our voice and opportunity to send an unequivocal message that 
if the Iraqis fail to chart a different course politically, then we 
will chart a different course militarily?
  The fact is, America requires more than Iraq's commitment to 
accomplishing the benchmarks that will lead to a true national 
reconciliation. We must see demonstrable results. That is why we are at 
this critical juncture. That is the answer to why now and why wait 
until September. Because given all we know, I happen to believe we 
cannot lose precious time in delivering an unmistakable message that 
the

[[Page 19367]]

Iraqi Government must take the consensus-building measures necessary 
for reconciliation.
  For those who characterize this bill as tantamount to a precipitous 
withdrawal, let me say it is neither precipitous nor a withdrawal. I 
urge my colleagues to read the legislation, to read the amendment that 
has been drafted, to actually look at the language. I think it would be 
worthwhile, because I have heard mischaracterizations of what this 
legislation would accomplish. This legislation would result in 
redeployment, a change in mission, and reduced forces, but it does not 
suggest--it does not require--a precipitous withdrawal. In fact, it 
does not do that. It would reduce our troops and change our mission, 
beginning 120 days after passage, while specifically allowing the 
troops to remain for critical missions such as counterinsurgency and 
attacking al-Qaida, providing force protection, as well as training the 
Iraqis--again, goals that are very consistent with the Iraq Study 
Group.
  I think it is very important for Members of the Senate to read--to 
actually read--the language which has been incorporated in the 
amendment that is pending before the Senate, because it requires a very 
different mandate than has been described here on the floor of the 
Senate. It is not a precipitous withdrawal. In fact, it allows the 
discretion to maintain troops by the commanders in order to complete 
those missions as described in the amendment that would allow us to 
continue to train the Iraqis and to fight al-Qaida.
  Some of my colleagues have also opined that this proposal will limit 
the President's ability to conduct the war on terror. Last week we 
heard the President state that we are working to defeat al-Qaida and 
other extremists and aid the rise of an Iraqi Government that can 
protect its people. Well, again, this amendment rightly does nothing to 
detract from that objective. In fact, as I said, the amendment defers 
to the commanders on the group to determine the number of troops and 
forces necessary to fight al-Qaida.
  Specifically, the amendment empowers the Secretary of Defense to 
deploy and maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq to engage in 
targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, al-Qaida-
affiliated groups, and other international terrorist organizations, 
which encompasses maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity against 
terrorist groups, including those backed by foreign countries. So that 
is the reality of the language which has been included in this 
amendment that is pending before the Senate--not as some have 
described.
  Furthermore, this measure would not take effect until 120 days after 
the passage of this legislation--after the passage of the Defense 
authorization. Let me note that in the last 4 years, the earliest 
approval of the National Defense Authorization Act occurred on October 
17. That was the earliest date in which it became law in each of the 
last 4 years. So this isn't rash. This is reasoned, and this is 
responsible. Indeed, the language crafted by Senator Hagel in the 
amendment also seeks to internationalize our effort by calling on the 
U.N. to appoint an international mediator in Iraq and that the auspices 
of the United Nations Security Council, which has the authority of the 
international community to engage political, religious, ethnic, and 
tribal leaders in Iraq, and include them in the political process. This 
mediator will seek to bridge the divide between the competing sects to 
bring stability to Iraq and prevent a spillover into a civil war.
  The Levin-Reed amendment specifically states it shall be implemented 
as part of a comprehensive, diplomatic, political, and economic 
strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and 
the international community for the purposes of working collectively to 
bring stability to Iraq. As the Baker-Hamilton report concluded, Iraqi 
political accommodations can be achieved only within a constructive 
regional framework supported by the international community, a 
statement that I believe highlights the necessity now in the United 
States to refocus its policy, its leadership, and its resources on 
directly helping the Iraqis to establish an inclusive political 
framework to begin to diffuse the violence.
  Finally, to those with concerns about the April conclusion date 
included in the Levin-Reed amendment, let me also point out this is not 
an arbitrary date the Congress imposed but, rather, it reflects the 
reality on the ground. The ability to maintain this large force in Iraq 
becomes virtually impossible because of the overall size of the Army. 
We cannot sustain current troop levels in Iraq indefinitely. General 
Peter Shoomaker, the prior Army Chief of Staff, testified before the 
Senate Armed Services Committee in March that sustaining the troop 
increase in Iraq beyond August would be a challenge, he said. In fact, 
Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary 
Assessments, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in April that our 
ground forces, the Army in particular, are ``broken'' or in danger of 
``breaking.'' The reality is that without significantly changing the 
force structure or employing a ``different force mix,'' we must begin 
to redeploy.
  The bottom line is this is a defining moment. It is a defining moment 
for America's policy in Iraq and it is a defining moment for the 
Senate--indeed, the entire Congress--as to whether we are now prepared 
to assert our legislative prerogatives and authorities that are not 
without precedent, as I said earlier, to direct a different course and 
to alter our strategy--a strategy that reality warrants and demands. 
The decision before us is one of grave consequence because it is a 
matter of war. It demands that we look past the rhetoric and the 
partisanship which often enshrouds and clouds many of the most 
significant issues of our time, and that is certainly true with respect 
to this war.
  We expect passion to run high, but I hope it doesn't create the 
inability on the part of our collective wisdom and desire to do what is 
right and what is best for our country and for the men and women in 
uniform who are on the front lines each and every day performing 
magnificent sacrifices, as we all well know, with the loss of lives we 
have experienced in each of our States across this country. Frankly, if 
it weren't for those men and women, you know, we wouldn't be the 
greatest Nation on Earth, because they have woven the fabric for 
greatness for this country throughout the generations.
  So I would hope that at this moment in time, we can rise to the 
occasion and that in spite of the spirited debate, we can come together 
to try to resolve this major question, because that is what the 
American people want. That is what my constituents want in the State of 
Maine. They are hoping and praying we can come together and unite and 
to do what is right for this country at this most challenging and 
vexing and consequential moment in our Nation's history. I hope we can 
live up to the moniker of the Senate as the world's greatest 
deliberative body, because certainly that moment is upon us.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine. I know she 
has thought long and hard about this issue, and I appreciate her 
thoughtful remarks. We are respectfully in disagreement.
  I wish to make a few points, and then I know the Senator from 
Michigan and others are waiting. I intend to, I tell my colleagues, 
exercise my right of recognition as we go from speaker to speaker, as 
we are at 10 minutes of 3 in the morning.
  The Senator from Maine and others have described this amendment in 
ways I don't quite agree with, including, among other things, some 
confidence in the United States permanent representative to use the 
voice vote and influence the United States and the United Nations to 
seek the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq under the 
auspices of the United Nations Security Council. I am not prepared to 
put the future of Iraq under an international mediator of the United 
Nations Security Council. The United

[[Page 19368]]

Nations Security Council's record has not been very good, whether it be 
Iran, North Korea, or other crises, including Bosnia where we had to go 
in basically and bail them out.
  In this resolution, I would call to the attention of my colleagues 
that it says: After the conclusion of reduction in transition, the 
United States forces to a limited presence as required by this section, 
the Secretary of Defense may deploy or maintain members of the Armed 
Forces in Iraq only for the following missions, and the third one is 
engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, al-
Qaida-affiliated groups, and other international terrorist 
organizations.
  How do you do that? How do you do that? There are some people 
planting IEDs who are going to kill our troops, and you say: Excuse me, 
sir. Are you al-Qaida or are you a Shiite militia? Oh, you are a Shiite 
militia? Excuse me.
  What is that all about? That is one of the most unrealistic scenarios 
I have encountered in warfare. There is a degree of naivete associated 
with this resolution which is a disconnect between the reality of how 
warfare is conducted and the utopian United Nations Security Council 
international mediator. Our troops can be there in Iraq in diminished 
numbers, but they can only engage in targeted counterterrorism 
operations against al-Qaida. So I guess al-Qaida would be required to 
wear T-shirts that say ``al-Qaida.'' In that way, we would know, and it 
would be OK--it would be OK: You are al-Qaida? OK. A Shiite militia? Do 
whatever you think.
  It was al-Qaida that blew up the Golden Dome mosque in Samara. 
Following that was horrendous sectarian strife. We are finally getting 
around--finally, belatedly--to asking those who want this withdrawal 
and who support this resolution to tell us what happens if this 
strategy fails, if the pullout fails. I quote from today's Los Angeles 
Times. It says:

       Many lawmakers who have pushed President Bush to bring 
     troops home from Iraq have not developed plans to deal with 
     the violence that could follow a pullout, interviews with 
     more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans show. Many of 
     them acknowledge that Iraq might plunge into vicious 
     sectarian fighting, much like the ethnic cleansing that 
     consumed Bosnia a decade ago.

  They acknowledge that Iraq might plunge into sectarian violence that 
consumed Bosnia, which was so offensive that we went into Bosnia to 
stop it, but if it is in another part of the world, then we won't go 
in. In fact, the article goes on to say:

       ``I wouldn't be surprised if it is horrendous,'' said House 
     Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, Democrat, 
     Wisconsin, who has helped lead the drive against the war. 
     'The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, 
     and there is slim hope for that.''

  More incredibly, the article goes on to say:

       Some proponents of a withdrawal decline to discuss what the 
     United States should do if the violence increases. ``That's a 
     hypothetical. I'm not going to get into it,'' said Senate 
     majority leader Harry Reid.

  Senator Reid is the one who announced on the floor of the Senate that 
the war was lost. If the war is lost and we are going to pull out, what 
is hypothetical? What is hypothetical about assessing the consequences 
of this withdrawal?

       Many Democrats, however, believe that any increase in 
     violence would be short-term and argue that a troop drawdown 
     eventually would lead to a more stable Iraq and Middle East.

  I know of no expert who agrees with that statement. I know of no one. 
In fact, the Secretary General of the United Nations, not exactly known 
as a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, said:

       I would like to tell you that great caution should be taken 
     for the sake of the Iraqi people. The international community 
     cannot and should not abandon them. Any abrupt withdrawal or 
     decision may lead to a further deterioration of the situation 
     in Iraq.

  That is a statement by the Secretary General of the United Nations.
  I know my colleagues are waiting, but I wish to point out again 
another fact. General Petraeus came before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee on January 23, 2007. General Petraeus at that time 
articulated the strategy which would be employed and needed to be 
employed and needed to be given time to succeed. In fact, General 
Petraeus was asked at his confirmation hearings, which was later 
ratified by this body by a vote--without a dissenting vote:

       General Petraeus, in your view, since you have been 
     intimately involved in Iraq from the beginning, suppose we 
     announced tomorrow that we would withdraw within 4 months to 
     6 months. That happens to coincide with the 120 day 
     withdrawal that we are talking about here. What are the 
     results there in Iraq and in the region?
       GEN Petraeus: Well, sir, I think that sectarian groups 
     would obviously begin to stake out their turf, try to expand 
     their turf. They would do that by greatly increased ethnic 
     cleansing. There is a very real possibility of involvement of 
     countries from elsewhere in the region entering Iraq to take 
     sides with one or the other groups. There is a possibility 
     certainly of an international terrorist organization truly 
     getting a grip on some substantial piece of Iraq. There is 
     the possibility of problems in the global economy should in 
     fact this cause a disruption in the flow of oil and a number 
     of other potential outcomes, none of which are positive.

  That is what General Petraeus said at his confirmation hearings. 
Everybody confirmed him. Everybody knew in this body what the mission 
was, what they intended to do, what the strategy was, and here we are a 
few months later pulling the plug, or attempting to pull the plug, on 
what General Petraeus wants to do.
  I am proud of the United States of America that we went to Bosnia and 
stopped the ethnic cleansing. I am proud the United States of America 
went to Kosovo and stopped ethnic cleansing. I am ashamed we haven't 
gone to Darfur in some way and effected the stop of ethnic cleansing 
there. I am ashamed we didn't stop the slaughter of hundreds of 
thousands of people in Rwanda, and so are all of us. That is a majority 
opinion in this country and in this body. But now--but now, in the case 
of Iraq:

       I wouldn't be surprised if it is horrendous.

  ``I wouldn't be surprised if it is horrendous.'' That is what we are 
condemning the people of Iraq to. And on the other side, the majority 
leader of the Senate--and I apologize, because I will ask him about it 
again on this floor:

       That's a hypothetical. I'm not going to get into it.

  Now, I don't know of anybody who believes that is a hypothetical. The 
fact is, when we leave there is going to be a vacuum, there is going to 
be chaos, and there is going to be genocide. I can quote on the floor 
Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, General Lynch, General Petraeus, 
literally--General Zinni, those who oppose our presence in Iraq opposed 
the initial invasion, and yet believe that at least we should face up 
to and begin to address the consequences of withdrawal. It is not 
hypothetical. It is not hypothetical.
  I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President.
  At this 3 o'clock hour in the morning, I think it is important to 
refocus on exactly what the vote will be in the morning as it relates 
to the issue in front of us, the Levin-Reed amendment. First, let me do 
this. Let me thank Senator Snowe, who was here a moment ago, for her 
eloquence and her courage in laying out the facts, and for her 
thoughtfulness. I wish to thank our Senate majority leader, Senator 
Reid, who has been laser focused on what, in fact, we need to be doing 
to change the course in Iraq based on the facts, based on the iron will 
of the American people.
  I appreciate all he has done to keep us focused on this critical 
issue of our time.
  I also thank Senator Carl Levin, my senior Senator from Michigan. We 
are very proud of him in Michigan for all he does, advocating for our 
troops and for a foreign policy and an armed services policy that makes 
sense for our country, for all of us. I thank Senators Levin and Jack 
Reed for introducing an amendment that is currently being filibustered.
  What we have in front of us and what we are doing is demonstrating 
through

[[Page 19369]]

this all-night debate--which is very important, regardless of where 
someone comes from on this issue; it is very important that we have 
this debate and discussion. I appreciate all of my colleagues 
expressing themselves. What we have in front of us is the question of 
whether we are going to end a filibuster tomorrow, and whether we are 
going to have an opportunity to have a simple majority vote--a yes-or-
no vote--on a change in direction in Iraq, which would in fact change 
the mission by next year, by April 30 of next year. I find it amazing 
that our men and women right now who are fighting for democracy, 
fighting for majority rule--to put together a coalition to create a 
working majority and that the majority should rule. Yet here we are not 
allowed to have the majority make the decision--a majority being 51, or 
in this case 50 at the moment, being able to vote and determine what 
the policy is.
  Last week, we had a very significant debate and issue in front of us 
that Senator Webb from Virginia brought forward in terms of supporting 
our troops, supporting them as it relates to the deployment and 
redeployment policies right now for our National Guard and our full-
time military. There were 56 members--a clear majority of this body--
who voted for that policy, that change in policy. So if you are 
deployed for 12 months, you would be home on dwell time for 12 months 
with your family and with an opportunity to be retrained, to regroup, 
in order to be able to go back. Fifty-six members, a clear majority, 
said yes. Yet we were stopped. Why? Because our Republican colleagues 
insist on filibustering and not allowing a vote.
  We are saying to the other side of the aisle, let us vote. Let us do 
what we assume everybody in the American public assumes in a democracy 
with a majority, that the majority would have their say, that whoever 
is in the majority has an opportunity to win a vote. But that is not 
the case anymore in the Senate. We are not talking about 50 or 51 but 
60. So we have in front of us a filibuster that is going on as to 
whether we will even vote on a policy that has a majority of this 
Senate, and it is clearly supported by a majority of the American 
people.
  (Mr. DURBIN assumed the Chair.)
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, there are no good wars or bad wars; 
there are only necessary wars or unnecessary wars. Five years ago, I 
was proud to stand along with the distinguished Presiding Officer on 
the floor of this body and argue that going into war with Iraq was 
unnecessary. It wasn't an easy day for any of us. No burden weighs 
heavier on the shoulders of any one of us than questions of war and 
peace. We deliberate countless and important issues in this Chamber, 
but none are as serious as sending America's sons and daughters into 
harm's way. I stood here that day in October and said this is a vote of 
conscience, also a vote of historic consequence, because what we debate 
and decide here will not only significantly affect this great Nation, 
but will immediately influence global events for years to come. No 
matter how difficult the decision may be, it is one each of us must 
make for the sake of our country. We have an obligation and a duty to 
carefully weigh the consequences of a preemptive attack. I went on to 
say that before we engage in war, we must understand that the results 
of war are irrevocable and a peaceful solution should always be our 
first choice.
  Today, we are living with the consequences of this war. We will 
continue to live with those consequences in our communities, in terms 
of young lives lost and shattered, and families who will never be whole 
again, and the emptiness left by neighbors who gave their last full 
measure in this fight. As a nation, we will live with these 
consequences for years to come as we face a world we shaped by this 
unnecessary war--a world in which we must now deal with a reinvigorated 
al-Qaida and a less stable Middle East today than when the first 
American tanks rolled into Baghdad.
  We cannot go back and change the mistakes and missteps that have 
brought us here, but we can and we must begin to dig ourselves out of 
the hole that we have dug in Iraq. We can and we must embrace a 
strategy that brings our troops home safely and responsibly. We can and 
we must make the tough choices to end this war.
  Twenty-three of us stood up against the war on that October 
afternoon. Today, there are more of us. We have all watched the events 
of the last half decade play out in front of us. We have watched the 
violence and the horror of modern war play out on our television sets. 
We have listened over and over again as the administration's rhetoric 
has become more and more detached from the reality of what is going on 
in Iraq. What were merely predictions and concerns in 2002 have today 
become reality. Militarily, we are paying the price every day for the 
administration's neglect in planning for the aftermath of initial 
combat operations in Iraq.
  Our troops are fighting and working in extreme conditions. They face 
an enemy they often cannot identify, one that has shown a total 
disregard for human life and a willingness to sacrifice themselves, 
their families, and innocent bystanders merely to inflict damage on 
American forces and innocent Iraqi citizens. Every day, they face an 
environment to test their physical limits, in 100-plus degree heat. We 
know it is very hot now. Those of us who have been to Iraq understand 
the kind of conditions with the heat and the sand and the conditions 
that are happening there that are, in many cases, unimaginable. They 
face an Iraqi Government that refuses to take responsibility for the 
future of the people of Iraq, one that leans on American forces instead 
of effectively partnering with them to allow our forces to step back 
and Iraqi security forces to step into the front line.
  Our fighting forces are stretched to their limit. They are getting 
the job done and they are bravely doing that. We are proud of them. But 
by forcing multiple redeployments without proper rest, this 
administration has let them down. We have alienated countless foreign 
allies, squandered the international good will that was at our 
fingertips after the attacks of 9/11. We turned Iraq into a breeding 
ground and training school for terrorists, providing international 
rallying points for extremists. There was not an organized presence of 
al-Qaida in Iraq until this administration chose to invade.
  The administration's own National Intelligence Estimate, released 
today--yesterday at this point--specifically notes that ``al-Qaida will 
probably seek to 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 the homeland.''
  This NIE reveals the sobering truth. Not only has this unnecessary 
war not increased the safety of the American people, but al-Qaida's 
recovery is a direct result of this administration's decision to invade 
Iraq. Meanwhile, conditions in Iraq have spiraled. The daily headlines 
of our newspapers seem to be ripped from the pages of a Greek tragedy: 
Suicide bombers; civil war; American soldiers unable to tell friends 
from foes; units serving second and third and now even fourth 
redeployments; American troops returning home physically mangled, 
emotionally drained, and psychologically injured; lives and families 
changed forever.
  Five years ago, Americans had never heard of an IED or a traumatic 
brain injury. They are now part of our everyday news. We have paid the 
price in American lives--3,613 dead and 26,806 wounded. We have paid 
the price in misdirected resources. The billions we have spent in Iraq 
represent countless missed opportunities here at home, opportunities to 
strengthen our communities, schools, and hospitals, to create jobs and 
support our families. When I think of the fact that the latest numbers 
are now $12 billion a month being spent, and we will debate next week a 
children's health care plan that we want to fund at $10 billion a 
year--$12 billion a month versus $10 billion a year to cover every 
child of a working low-income family who doesn't have insurance in 
America--this is wrong.
  We have also paid the price with our international reputation. 
America, the

[[Page 19370]]

world's moral leader, has lost the faith of too many. The hearts and 
minds we needed to win have too often turned their backs on this 
administration's arrogance. For too long now, I have watched the 
Republican leadership engage in legislative games and political 
posturing to avoid taking an up-or-down vote on this war.
  That is what we are asking for. Let us vote. Stop the filibuster and 
let us vote. They have turned their backs on their responsibilities to 
the people who elected them and to our troops--most important--and 
their families because they don't like that they may lose a vote. I 
have stood on the floor of the Senate time and again to voice my 
opposition to the war.
  Sending more Americans into combat without a strategy for success 
will not improve the situation on the ground, and it will not bring our 
men and women in uniform home any sooner. Only the Iraqis can secure 
Iraq, and American troops cannot be seen as a substitute for Iraqi 
resolve.
  The so-called surge has done nothing but reinforce this reality. We 
are rushing more American troops into combat every day and not seeing 
the increase in security that is needed. Why would we go farther down 
the path that has led us to this point? Why? Why would we repeat 
previous mistakes and call it a new strategy?
  This administration failed our troops by committing them to this war 
without a clear reason or goal. This administration failed our troops 
by not having a clear mission for our armed services in Iraq. This 
administration has failed our troops by not providing the proper 
equipment, body armor, and logistical support for our forces. They 
failed our troops with poor planning for the invasion of Iraq and their 
total lack of planning for how to secure the country. They have failed 
our troops by sending them back into harm's way over and over and over 
again, without the proper rest between redeployments.
  Our armed services have traveled a tough road since we invaded Iraq. 
They have shouldered a heavy burden with pride, patriotism, confidence, 
and honor. We have asked extraordinary things from them at every turn, 
and at every turn they have delivered magnificently. They have made us 
all proud. They have faced tough situations. They have made tough 
choices and done their duty. Now we need to do what is right for them.
  Unlike the President, all of us go home and face our constituents--
our neighbors. We see them at church, at the grocery store, at the 
kids' schools, and at events all over our States. They sent us here to 
be their voice. As we know, this is not Washington, DC's war. We may 
set policy here, we make speeches here, we take votes here, but this is 
America's war. The men and women putting their lives on the line in 
Iraq every day are from every size town and city--from farms and 
factory towns. There is no red or blue America when it comes to the war 
in Iraq. War knows no political party. Americans do not watch their 
nightly news or read about the troops that didn't make it home in their 
local papers and think, well, I am a Republican or a Democrat. They 
think I am an American, I want a change, I have had enough. Enough is 
enough.
  We sit here in this historic Capitol while Republican colleagues 
filibuster and stop the Senate from voting yes or no on a proposal to 
change course and end this war. While we do that, communities across 
the country bury their loved ones, schools hold vigils for alumni laid 
to rest too young, churches comfort parishioners who have lost sons, 
daughters, husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers.
  We are the voices of these communities, of these towns and cities and 
counties. We were elected with their sacred trust to come to Washington 
and speak out for them, to make our mark for them on the issues that 
face them and face our country.
  By continuing to stonewall a vote on this Levin-Reed amendment, the 
Republican minority has stripped all Americans of their voice in this 
debate. They have said to the people who elected us that this issue of 
war is not important enough to have their elected representatives vote 
yes or no on the substance.
  Too often in the white noise of politics, we lose sight of the 
responsibilities we bear. We get bogged down in the politics of 
partisanship and lose sight of why we were elected.
  I believe we owe it to the American people to take this vote--take 
the vote--not to just stop the filibuster but to have the vote on the 
policy. There is nothing more important or more pressing to the people 
of this country right now than this war. It is the responsibility of 
the Congress to engage in shaping the policy concerning the war on 
behalf of all of the American people.
  The Levin-Reed amendment is as simple as it is necessary. It sets a 
firm start and end date to transition the mission and begin the 
reduction of U.S. forces, beginning 120 days after its enactment and 
completed April 30 of next year, 2008.
  The amendment limits the U.S. military mission after April 30 to 
counterterrorism, training of Iraqi security forces, and protection of 
U.S. personnel and assets.
  Finally, it requires that the reduction in forces be part of a 
comprehensive, diplomatic, regional, political and economic effort, and 
it appoints an international mediator to bring together the warring 
factions.
  The President's strategy in Iraq has not worked. This war was started 
on a false rationale. It was executed based on false assumptions. It 
has led to heartbreaking consequences.
  Supporters of the war in Iraq have claimed that one of their goals is 
to spread democracy throughout the region--an ironic statement 
considering they are stifling the democratic process right here on the 
floor of the Senate. This issue is too serious not to take an up-or-
down vote on changing policy. The American people want to bring our 
sons and daughters home. It is our job to vote yes or no and let them 
know where we stand, not to use parliamentary procedural votes to stand 
in the way of the people's will.
  I have said it before and it remains true tonight: History will judge 
this administration on how they have waged this war. History will judge 
us on how we end it. We have all walked different paths to get to this 
point. Many of us were here when the war began. Some have joined this 
body in the intervening years. Many who today stand with us were once 
for the war. None of that matters at this point. What matters is the 
facts and what we are prepared to do about them. Are we prepared to 
stand up to the White House and say enough is enough? Enough is enough.
  It is morning in Baghdad right now, and our troops are waking up or 
are on duty, another day on the front lines. The unpleasant truth is 
that too many American men and women will be wounded today while doing 
their jobs. Odds are that some will lose their lives in service to 
their country. But they are there, focused on their job. They are 
focused on their duty. They assume we are back here focusing on the 
mission and the strategy and making sure we get it right. They are 
counting on us to get it right, as they are focused on their jobs every 
day. They are getting the job done. Everybody who woke up in Iraq this 
morning and put on the uniform is a hero. Every day we let this war 
drag on is another day they are fighting without a strategy that works 
for them. We should all be able to agree that is simply unacceptable.
  I would like to close with the same words I closed with in October of 
2002. We have witnessed a lot in the last 5 years, but these words are 
as true tonight as they were then:

       We are a strong and powerful nation, made that way by our 
     willingness to go that extra mile in the name of liberty and 
     peace. The time is now for us to work together in the name of 
     the American people and get it right.

  I urge my colleagues to vote to end the filibuster and support the 
Levin-Reed amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are indeed dealing with a serious 
subject that gives us all great pause and concern. I know my colleagues 
have had a

[[Page 19371]]

sign that they have put up: Let us vote. I think it is important to 
recall that 53 days ago, we voted. We voted in this Congress to 
authorize and appropriate the funds to execute the surge that General 
Petraeus is right now executing in Iraq. That is what we did. It was a 
vote of 80 to 14. Less than 2 months ago, we voted to do that. Many of 
the speakers tonight saying we must withdraw right now, we must have a 
new strategy, have forgotten that when we cast those votes 53 days ago, 
we were executing a new strategy then. Are we now going to have another 
one?
  Virtually all of the individuals who spoke voted for that funding, 
voted knowing that General Petraeus would lead this surge and voted 
knowing that we would be having a report in September and we could work 
through that report to decide how we would conduct this war in the 
future.
  The Levin amendment is, indeed, a very important amendment. There is 
nothing small about this. It is critical. It requires our full 
attention. We must recognize that. I do believe it is inescapable that 
the Levin amendment calls for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Those 
troops not withdrawn will be directed by this Congress today by this 
vote on how they will conduct operations in Iraq. As our distinguished 
colleague, the Senator from Arizona, said, we will be telling our 
soldiers what they can and cannot do, whom they can and cannot wage war 
against, and how they will be conducting it. A group of politicians in 
an air-conditioned room sitting in Washington developing a political 
compromise is going to tell commanders how to deploy our soldiers in 
the field. So the issues have special urgency because right now 
American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are in harm's way.
  No one is afraid to stand up to the President. Our challenge is to do 
the right thing, the right thing for America, the right thing for our 
soldiers, the right thing for history. I believe my colleague from 
Michigan said we will be judged on how we leave. I was thinking the 
other day about that phrase someone said: Nothing so became them save 
their manner of leaving. I would alter it somewhat and suggest that 
someone might say: Nothing so ill became them save their manner of 
leaving. If we do it wrong, if we do it in a way that leads to mass 
slaughter or disorder, death, instability in the entire region, it is a 
threat to the peace of the region.
  It is this Congress, not just the President, which authorized the use 
of force in Iraq in the beginning. We have confirmed the commander of 
those military personnel that are there now. We have provided the money 
and resources to maintain and to carry out that military operation. 
Those wonderful military personnel of ours have worked and fought and 
bled and died as a result of the policies we have authorized. It is our 
responsibility. We can't just blame it on the President. They have 
performed nobly and served this country well.
  While I have never felt that I have had enough time in Iraq and that 
I have been able to learn everything I would like, I have visited that 
country six times. I talked to our soldiers there, our Guard, Reserve, 
Active Duty, those from Alabama and from other States. I talk to them 
in airports and their families in my State. They have done a great job. 
The biggest complaint I have heard consistently is: Why don't people 
tell the good things that we do and that occur? All we hear is the bad. 
I hear that a great deal.
  But the truth is, for reasons unconnected to the fine work of our 
soldiers, things have not gone as well as we had hoped in Iraq. The 
Iraq mission has been very difficult in terms of lives lost, wounded, 
and the cost. While the initial military action went far better than 
many of us expected, the aftermath has been marked by errors, violence, 
and frustration. Particularly at this point, we are disappointed that 
the Iraqi Government has been unable to produce the kind of political 
leadership that would be beneficial to reducing the violence. It is a 
real frustration for us. There is no easy solution to it. They say we 
don't understand their difficulties. I suspect some people can't 
understand why Congress can't do things as they would like to have them 
do also.
  Perhaps our biggest error as we went into this war was to 
underestimate the difficulty of creating a functioning government in an 
area of the world that has not had one before. This is not an easy 
thing. It is a very difficult thing. We have to be realistic about that 
in the future. For those in Congress, for the American people and our 
generals, there is certainly no one easy solution, and there is no 
certain outcome. But we do know the outcome is very important to the 
Iraqi people, to the people of the region, and to us. We need to get it 
right.
  I earnestly hope we can draw down our troop levels in Iraq soon. 
Nothing would make me happier than to see that happen. But we must do 
it correctly, smartly. We can't do it precipitously. We can't do it 
here, without even listening to our general in Iraq whom we just sent 
there to command those troops, without even getting his opinion. This 
is his third year, third tour in Iraq. He was there when the initial 
invasion occurred. I visited with him when he commanded the 101st 
Airborne in Mosul. He came back and trained the Iraqi military. He came 
back home for the second time and wrote the manual on how to defeat an 
insurgency. Now he is back over there executing that, and we knew all 
that when we sent him. How can we write a policy of withdrawal and to 
direct the limited purposes for which our troops can be used and then 
set forth three purposes for which they can be used and the people that 
they can take military action against and we haven't even heard from 
our commander? What kind of sense is that? What kind of responsibility 
is that?
  They say: If we don't threaten to withdraw, they won't reconcile and 
do all the things we want them to do in the Government. If we have to 
do more than threaten to withdraw if they don't do those things, we are 
going to have to just withdraw because they haven't satisfied our 
ambitions and goals for their successful political development.
  Proponents of the Reed-Levin amendment claim that we must withdraw 
U.S. troops from Iraq because it is the only way to bring a responsible 
end to the war and to force the Iraqi Government to act. Actually, such 
a withdrawal required by the amendment is far more likely to consign 
the Iraqi people to mass slaughter.
  The Iraq Study Group specifically--that is the group which has been 
so often cited, the independent group--concluded:

       A premature American departure from Iraq would almost 
     certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further 
     deterioration of conditions.

  The study further concluded:

       The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, 
     great human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat 
     to the global economy.

  Similarly, the intelligence community concluded in the NIE, the 
National Intelligence Estimate, earlier this year that the consequences 
of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq prior to Iraq being able to 
provide for its own security would be sectarian violence, that 
sectarian violence would significantly increase, accompanied by massive 
civilian casualties and displacement. Get that? Sectarian violence 
would significantly increase, accompanied by massive civilian 
casualties and displacement.
  The intelligence community pointed out how this mass chaos in Iraq 
would directly threaten the security of the U.S. homeland as it 
concluded al- Qaida would attempt to use Anbar Province to further 
attacks outside Iraq. General Hayden, Director of the CIA, succinctly 
testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee, in response to the 
question what would happen if we pulled out now from Iraq--that was the 
question to the Director of the CIA--he said succinctly three quick 
areas: more Iraqis die from the disorder inside Iraq; Iraq becomes a 
safe haven, perhaps more dangerous than the one al-Qaida had in 
Afghanistan; and the conflict in Iraq bleeds over into the neighborhood 
and threatens serious regional instability.

[[Page 19372]]

  The Iraq Study Group concluded al-Qaida would depict our withdrawal 
as a historic victory. They have already claimed historic victory over 
the Soviet Union.
  I ask: Is this a responsible way to leave? Is this a way to see what 
we have done in Iraq end?
  Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, said we need to pull out of Iraq 
so we can ``drive the terrorists back to the darkest caves and corners 
of the Earth.'' Well, that is a good goal, I suggest. But tell me how 
that goal would be furthered if we pulled out and gave a safe haven in 
Iraq to al-Qaida and provided them with a victory of historic 
proportions. Wouldn't that embolden them? Wouldn't that enable them to 
recruit more people? Do you think they are then just going to be 
satisfied there? Wouldn't they then have the initiative? Would not they 
then be looking where they would hit next?
  Our Democratic colleagues argue that it is somehow wrong for those 
who oppose the Levin amendment to utilize the full procedural 
protections available to a minority in the Senate. It wasn't wrong when 
they were using those manners on a regular basis, trust me. I think we 
set a record last year or the year before on these filibusters and the 
number of times it took 60 votes to do something or not succeed in 
getting 60 votes. But they suggest that somehow it is inappropriate to 
use our well-established, commonly used procedure, routinely done, to 
require 60 votes on a matter of great importance such as this. Of 
course, I would suggest that is when, in matters of great importance, 
the 60-vote rule is most needed and most appropriate.
  To press the point further, I strongly believe that whatever the 
inclinations of Senators on the conduct of the war in Iraq, to change 
our strategy now before we even hear from General Petraeus in September 
would be a colossal blunder for a host of reasons. To do so would be 
unthinkable. It must not and I believe will not happen. This Senator 
would be derelict in his duty if he did not make use of every 
traditional proper rule of procedure in this Senate to see that it does 
not happen, and that I will do. We agreed to execute this surge and to 
take a report in September. That is what we should do. We already have 
a new strategy.
  We debated it at length in April and in May. Bipartisan meetings 
occurred. The Democratic leader and the Republican leader went to the 
White House, and they talked and they talked, and we finally agreed and 
passed, 80 to 14, the bill that funds this surge. That is our new 
strategy.
  We knew exactly what we were voting for. There was no dispute about 
it. We were voting for an increase in American soldiers in Iraq and a 
new emphasis on General Petraeus's strategy of counterinsurgency and 
increasing security in Baghdad particularly. That is the strategy 
General Petraeus is now executing. Are we now to change it again? Are 
we now to have a strategy de jure or a new one every week based on 
coffee shop talk or some poll that just came in?
  Senator Reid earlier today quoted polls that said people agree with 
him. He said someone talked to his brother. Let's get real here. The 
established bipartisan policy that we passed 80 to 14, 53 days ago, 
must not be lightly changed on polls and anecdotes--change without even 
listening to the general who is in Iraq, seeking his opinion. It would 
embarrass the United States before our allies and the world. Indeed, 
U.N. Security General Ban Ki-moon yesterday urged us to exercise 
``great caution'' in considering a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. He said:

       It is not my place to inject myself into this discussion 
     taking place between the American people, government and 
     Congress. But I'd like to tell you that a great caution 
     should be taken for the sake of the Iraqi people. Any abrupt 
     withdrawal or decision may lead to a further deterioration.

  Well, is that a product of President Bush's pressure or some 
hardheadedness? No. The Secretary General is very worried that we may 
abruptly alter our commitments and policies without any rational plan 
for what would happen next.
  A rushed withdrawal, I think, could even signal political panic. It 
could signal a lack of seriousness and thoughtfulness. It is 
unthinkable that the Senate would vote to flip-flop our strategy while 
our soldiers at this very moment work to execute the congressional 
policy we assigned them 54 days ago.
  Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi will have in effect taken over, I 
suppose, as Commander in Chief in conducting this military action and 
begun to direct the very deployment of our soldiers on the battlefield, 
telling them what they can and cannot do, without any advice from the 
military and, indeed, contrary to our Commander's wishes and opinions. 
They do not even want to hear his report, the one we asked him to give 
just a few days ago.
  Well, maybe somebody, if they are going to take over that, would have 
to tell him what we voted on if this bill were to pass. Hopefully, it 
will not. A phone call might go like this: General Petraeus, this is 
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I know we confirmed you to lead the 
new surge, and after much debate we voted on May 24, 80 to 14, to 
approve and to fully fund your new surge strategy. I voted ``yes'' for 
it, too. But that was then. That was 54 days ago. Since then we have 
heard from antiwar activists--some of them come in cute pink suits and 
wear crowns--from many concerned citizens, and somebody talked to my 
brother, and maybe a few pollsters and political consultants have been 
consulted. So just forget that old strategy. We now have voted for a 
new one. It will be very popular here. Prepare for rapid withdrawal of 
your forces. Your work is a failure. You will not succeed. We do not 
want to listen to your report. Just make sure you comply with our 
mandates and pull out of there.
  Well, he might go on--the majority leader might--well, yes, we did 
say you would have until your report in September, but that promise was 
a long time ago. It was 54 days ago. Much has changed here at home. 
Just follow our new strategy. Well, General Petraeus, I know you feel 
something is owed to our soldiers out there who are at risk working to 
execute the surge strategy we supported just 54 days ago. Just tell 
them we changed our minds. You say they will be let down if they are 
stopped before they have an opportunity to achieve success? I do not 
think so. They will get over it.
  Well, maybe that is a bit unfair. Maybe that is not a fair way to 
deal with it. But with a little senatorial poetic license, I think it 
makes a sort of point. Many have said that President Bush lied to get 
us into this war. I reject that. But what is the integrity in voting on 
a policy in May that puts 30,000 more soldiers in harm's way and then 
we pull the plug on them before they have half a chance to be 
successful?
  Our military will go where we ask them to go. They will go into 
harm's way. They are willing to put their lives on the line. They do 
not want to be put on the line if we are not going to follow through to 
success in the end. Among the other adverse ramifications of a 
precipitous withdrawal, a failure of will by the Congress that denies 
our military a fair chance to be successful, I think could be damaging 
to the morale of the finest military we have ever had. I think it is an 
important matter.
  There are a lot of things we need to be thinking about. I do not know 
how this war will come out. I am anxious to hear General Petraeus's 
report. He finished at the top of his class at West Point or near the 
top. He was No. 1 in his class at the Command and General Staff 
College. He has his Ph.D from Princeton. He is a Ranger combat 
commander of the 101st Airborne, and he has written the manual on how 
to defeat an insurgency. He has only had his full complement of the 
surge troops about 3 weeks.
  I believe it is premature and immature for us to react in this way 
and vote to bring those soldiers home, to reorder how they will be 
deployed without even seeking his opinion or giving it sufficient 
thought.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has been 
waiting

[[Page 19373]]

patiently for, I believe, an hour or so. I note the Senator from New 
York is on the floor. So I will speak for a few minutes and then yield 
the floor.
  I want to point out that again, yesterday, British Army Lieutenant 
General Graeme Lamb, Deputy Commander of Multinational Force, 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 troops deployed in 
Iraq.''
  Lieutenant General Lamb responded that those troops find it ``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 councils. They see water 
going to people who did not have it before. They see electricity coming 
on line. They see stability to the networks. They see all the stuff 
that no one portrays.
  That is the view of our deputy to General Petraeus over in Iraq. Yet 
I hear on the floor here--I hear again there has been no progress made, 
that the status quo remains, that there has been no progress. And as we 
get into the debate, we find that those who are supportive of this 
particular amendment, which requires after 120 days a departure from 
the conflict, have no plan B themselves. I have been asked continuously 
what plan B is. And plan B, after the surge, I believe details a set of 
difficult options. But I think it is important that we point out what 
has been happening in Iraq as a result of the surge, even though it has 
been a very short period of time.
  In Anbar Province--which we all know is over here, as shown on the 
map. Here is Fallujah. Here is Ramadi. The fact is that last year Anbar 
Province we believed was lost to al-Qaida. The U.S. and Iraqi troops 
cleaned al-Qaida fighters out of Ramadi, which I visited last week, and 
other areas of western Anbar Province. Tribal sheiks broke with the 
terrorists and joined the coalition side. Ramadi, months ago, was 
Iraq's most dangerous city. It is now one of its safest. Attacks are 
down from 30 to 35 a day in February to zero on most days now.
  Fallujah. The Iraqi police center established numerous stations and 
divided the city into gated districts. Violence has declined. Local 
intelligence tips have proliferated.
  Throughout Anbar Province--this area shown right here on the map--
thousands of men are signing up for the police and army, and the locals 
are taking the fight to al-Qaida. All 18 major tribes in that province 
are now on board with the security plan. A year from now, the Iraqi 
Army and police could have total control of security in Ramadi, 
allowing American forces to safely draw down.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I was in that area, also, in the spring and was there 
last fall. Last fall, I thought it was one of the worst briefings, the 
most troubling briefings I had about the condition in the al-Anbar 
region. I say to the Senator, you have been there, I guess, within the 
last week. It was a dramatic turnaround. One of the thoughts that went 
in my mind was: Why would I ever want to bet against the U.S. Marines. 
They were out there having a tough challenge, but this thing has turned 
around, has it not? I ask the Senator, is that his view, from talking 
to the people on the ground, as they explained it to us?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in response to the Senator's question, I 
would say a couple things have happened. One is obviously, as the 
Senator has pointed out, the bravery and courage of our Marines and 
Army personnel who are there. But in addition to that, al-Qaida has 
been so cruel, so disruptive, and causing so many difficulties that the 
sheiks, the Sunni sheiks have come over on our side.
  About a year ago, they were recruiting about 20 to 25 people a month 
to join the local police. The last time they had a recruitment drive, 
some 1,200 young Sunnis showed up.
  Now, I will freely admit to my friend from Alabama, you will never 
see this probably in much of the media reporting today. That is why you 
have to go over there and get feet on the ground, as I know the Senator 
from Alabama has, the Senator from Minnesota and others, as well as the 
Senator from New York. But you have to see it, and you have to talk to 
these people.
  It brings up another point. These soldiers, marines, airmen, others, 
men and women, pay attention to what is going on here on the floor of 
the Senate. They pay attention when the majority leader of the Senate 
says the war is ``lost.'' They pay attention when people, previous 
speakers have said nothing has changed, no improvement. They pay 
attention to that.
  General Petraeus said in response to a question I asked him a long 
time ago--I said:

       Suppose we send you additional troops, and we tell those 
     troops we support you, but we are convinced you cannot 
     accomplish your mission, and we do not support the mission we 
     are sending you on. What effect does that have on the morale 
     of your troops?

  That is a question I asked General Petraeus back in January. General 
Petraeus said:

       Well, it would not be a beneficial effect, sir. Obviously, 
     a commander would like to go forward with as much flexibility 
     as he can achieve. I was assured yesterday by the Secretary 
     of Defense, if we need additional assets, my job is to ask 
     for them.

  Of course, Lieutenant General, British Army General Lamb was much 
more frank in his response, where he said:

       While it is clear to them that we're 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.

  So my answer to the Senator from Alabama is--and I will go through 
some more areas where we made progress--it is very unfortunate that 
more Americans do not know not only about the success but of the 
incredible difficulty of this kind of combat, and yet these young 
people are doing such a magnificent job.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my experience is much like the Senator 
from Alabama. When I was there in the fall, it was described to me as 
the ``Wild West'' and it was not very uplifting. When I was there in 
April, we had Minnesota National Guard soldiers who were serving in 
Anbar Province, and they told me of an incident in a town called 
Habbaniya, where a suicide bomber drove into a crowd coming out of a 
mosque, killing or wounding 70 Iraqis. It was the American soldiers and 
National Guardsmen giving blood, even though not a single American had 
been hurt or injured.
  Then they told me, the next day, or shortly thereafter, the local 
mayor and the local sheik came in with a list of al-Qaida operatives 
and said: These are the enemy. We want to work with you side by side to 
root them out.
  I ask the Senator, in your experience there, have you also seen 
incidents or heard of incidents where the brutality of al-Qaida against 
Sunnis has evoked a response from local sheiks and local elected 
officials to work side by side with the Americans--be they the Marines, 
Army, or National Guard?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Minnesota, he is 
exactly right. The fact is the people there are sick of al-Qaida, as he 
well points out. The sheiks are on our side. Al-Qaida has reacted, 
predictably, very violently. They have assassinated some of these 
sheiks. They have assassinated their families. Their lives are 
threatened every day.
  But the fact is, they are sick and tired of al-Qaida. They are 
turning out in large numbers to join the local police. And they are 
doing, frankly, a job that surprises many of us.
  I wish also to comment in my remarks that this is a long way--a long 
way--from the security situation we

[[Page 19374]]

want. But somehow to stand on the floor of the Senate and say we have 
not had some signs of success I think flies in the face of the 
assessment of the generals and those we placed in charge and the facts 
on the ground.
  South of Baghdad, as I was saying, in this area, as shown on the map, 
Operation Phantom Thunder is intended to stop insurgents present in the 
Baghdad belts from originating attacks in the capital itself.
  A brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, which I visited, is 
operating in Baghdad belts that have been havens for al-Qaida. And the 
slog is tough. It is very tough in that part, south of Baghdad, since 
many of the al-Qaida and other insurgents have migrated out of Baghdad 
into that area. But the soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division are 
moving forward, all of them. Commanders report that the local sheiks 
there are increasingly siding with the coalition against al-Qaida. 
Southeast of Baghdad, the military is targeting al-Qaida in safe havens 
that they maintain along the Tigris River. In Baghdad itself--the key 
to all of this--the military, in cooperation with Iraqi security 
forces, continues to establish joint security stations and deploy 
throughout the city. These efforts have produced positive results, 
according to General Petraeus and others. Sectarian violence has fallen 
since January. The total number of car bombings and suicide attacks 
declined in May and June. The number of locals coming forward with 
intelligence tips has risen.
  Make no mistake, violence in Baghdad remains at unacceptably high 
levels. Suicide bombers and other threats pose formidable challenges, 
and other difficulties abound. Nevertheless, there appears to be 
overall movement in the right direction.
  North of Baghdad, the Diyala area--up here--Iraqi and American troops 
have surged and are fighting to deny al-Qaida sanctuary in the city of 
Bakuba. For the first time since the war began, America showed up in 
force and did not quickly withdraw from the area as had been the case 
in the previous failed strategy. In response, locals have formed a new 
alliance with the coalition to counter al-Qaida. Diyala, which was the 
center of Abu Mus'ab al Zarqawi's proposed Islamic caliphate, finally 
has a chance to turn aside the forces of extremism.
  I offer these observations not in order to present a rosy scenario of 
the challenges we continue to face in Iraq. As last week's horrific 
bombing in Salah ad Din Province illustrates so graphically, the 
threats to Iraq's stability have not gone away, nor are they likely to 
go away in the near future, and our brave men and women in Iraq will 
continue to face great challenges. What I do believe is that while the 
mission to bring a degree of security to Iraq, into Baghdad and its 
environs in particular, in order to establish the necessary 
precondition for political and economic progress, while that mission is 
still in its early stages, the progress our military has made should 
encourage all of us.
  It is also clear that the overall strategy General Petraeus has put 
into place, a traditional counterinsurgency strategy which emphasizes 
protecting the population and which gets our troops off the bases and 
into the areas they are trying to protect, is the correct one.
  Some of my colleagues argue that we should return troops to the 
forward operating bases--that is basically what would happen if we 
passed the Levin-Reed amendment--and confine their activities to 
training and targeted counterterrorism operations. That is basically 
what this resolution says. That is precisely what we did for 3\1/2\ 
years, and the situation in Iraq got worse--precisely. I am surprised 
my colleagues would advocate a return to the failed Rumsfeld-Casey 
strategy. No one can be certain whether this new strategy, which 
remains in the early stages, can bring about greater stability. We can 
be sure that should the United States seek to legislate an end to this 
strategy as it is just beginning, then we will fail for certain.
  Mr. President, I read this earlier, this resolution. This resolution 
incredibly says that we can only--the mission is restricted to only 
fighting al-Qaida. I guess al-Qaida will have to wear T-shirts that say 
they are al-Qaida. I guess our troops are expected, if someone is 
planting an IED, to say: Excuse me, sir. Are you al-Qaida or Shiite? If 
you are Shiite, go ahead and plant it. Please.
  Now that the military effort is showing some signs of progress, the 
space is opening for political progress. Yet, rather than seize the 
opportunity, the Government, under Prime Minister Maliki, is not 
functioning as it must. We see little evidence of reconciliation and 
little progress toward meeting the benchmarks laid out by the 
President. The Iraqi Government can function; the question is whether 
it will.
  I would like to urge my colleagues to take a look at one more chart. 
I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues, but I think we ought to 
look at the region. I think we ought to have a look at this region 
today. With Iraq obviously in the center of an area of the world from 
which comes the world's supply of oil, from which comes the recruits 
for al-Qaida, from which comes the primary source--not the only source, 
as we have found, but the primary source--of suicide bombers and people 
who would rather commit suicide and take others' lives along with their 
own, what happens when Iraq evolves into chaos and genocide?
  Iranians are already exporting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq, IEDs 
that are capable of even penetrating the armor of our tanks. They are 
exporting into Iraq not only terrorists and those who have orchestrated 
attacks, including the kidnapping of American soldiers--there is very 
compelling evidence that they were paid to do that--but they are also 
increasing their influence in all of southern Iraq. Religious leaders 
have gone into southern Iraq, into the small towns as well as Basra. 
Basra has become, unfortunately, a very dangerous city, thanks to 
Iranian influence. In the meantime, the Iranians, emboldened by our 
failure in Iraq, continue to do other things as well, including 
developing nuclear weapons, including providing support for Hezbollah 
and Hamas.
  We see the Saudis now becoming more and more concerned about the fate 
of the Sunnis. In fact, a few weeks ago, the King of Saudi Arabia made 
comments very critical about the United States of America for the first 
time in anyone's recorded memory. Why would he do such a thing? One, 
our failure; two, they live in the neighborhood and they can't leave. 
When we talk about telling them we are leaving, then they have to 
adjust to it. There is very little doubt that the Saudis, with their 
support of madrasas and other extremist training grounds, are 
responsible for many of the problems.
  Jordan now has--see how small Jordan is--Jordan now has 750,000 Iraqi 
refugees. How many more do you think will pour into Jordan if this 
instability and chaos ensues, which the majority leader of the Senate 
has stated, as short a time ago as yesterday, as hypothetical. I think 
there is very little doubt that the destabilization of Jordan would be 
at least increased.
  What about our friends the Syrians who continue to export people who 
are suicide bombers into Iraq? The majority of suicide bombers, 
according to experts, aren't Iraqis; they come from other parts of the 
Middle East, from Saudi Arabia, from Pakistan, from Afghanistan, and 
other places. What about the Syrians? If you might remember, after our 
initial victory in Iraq and the assassination of the former Prime 
Minister of Lebanon, Hariri, Mr. Assad, Bashar Assad, a former 
optometrist in London, when his father died, was on his heels. There 
was supposed to be an investigation going on of the Syrian involvement 
in the assassination of Hariri, and there have been other 
assassinations as well.
  Meanwhile, in southern Lebanon, despite a U.N. Security Council 
resolution calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah, Hezbollah is now 
being rearmed by the Syrians, and their rockets are being resupplied--
Katyusha rockets and other weapons are being supplied to the Hezbollah 
in southern Lebanon. Some believe it is a matter of time before there 
is a reignition of rocket attacks and conflicts in southern Lebanon.

[[Page 19375]]

  What about on the other side? What about the Palestinian area? We now 
see a situation in the Palestinian areas where Gaza is now controlled 
by Hamas, an organization dedicated to the extinction of the State of 
Israel. My friends, here is a stark fact: We pull out of Iraq, Iraq 
devolves into chaos, and the pressures and the danger to the State of 
Israel is greater than at any time in its history. I don't say that is 
my opinion; that is the opinion of the military and political leaders 
of Israel today.
  One other aspect that I wish to point out. We know the Kurdish area 
is probably the most stable part of Iraq for a variety of reasons, 
including their experience in self-governance. But the Turks have made 
it very clear that if the Kurds attempt to establish an independent 
state, they will not stand for it; they will take action militarily. I 
am not saying that; they have said it. So we have a deterioration in 
Baghdad, in Iraq, the Kurds declare their independence, and the Turks 
then feel they are required to take military action because of the 
insurgency of Kurds who have launched attacks out of the Kurdish areas 
into Turkey.
  So I think it is important for us to recognize there is a lot at 
stake here. It isn't just Iraq. Certainly, Iraq is part of it, but it 
is not just Iraq; it is certainly other parts of the region as well.
  I hope when my colleagues say, as the majority leader said, ``It is 
only a hypothetical'' if chaos evolves in the region, that we are 
required to consider the situation in the entire region and what 
happens right here where the world's supply of oil--the majority of the 
world's supply of oil--comes from as well, that we consider the 
consequences of our actions.
  I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, the description of the problems that 
are currently existing in Iraq and in the region by my friend and 
colleague is not only accurate but, unfortunately, an indictment of the 
policies of this administration. What has been described in terms of 
the instability in Iraq and the consequences for further conflict are 
ones I take very seriously.
  The issue before us now is what is the best approach we as a nation 
can take which will fulfill our obligations to our men and women in 
uniform, which will make clear to the Iraqi Government and people that 
their lives and futures are at stake, and which will strengthen the 
hand of the United States diplomatically to deal with the consequences 
of the misguided policies that have brought us to this point.
  There are no good answers. Anyone who stands here and believes that 
he or she has the truth, the facts, understands both what is going on 
and what is likely to flow from whatever decision we take, is most 
probably to be proven wrong by reality as it unfolds. Many of us have 
been searching for the best approach to take with respect to our 
involvement in Iraq for a number of years, but we don't do it with any 
sense that we know everything that will happen, no matter what 
decisions are taken. But what we do have is a history of miscalculation 
and mistakes we are now attempting to deal with.
  The Levin-Reed amendment attempts to put into law a new direction for 
Iraq, one that I and others believe is long overdue. The reason I have 
come to support this amendment is because if one looks at the actions 
of our military in Iraq, based on the authority under which they are 
operating, they have achieved the missions they were given. They were 
asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice, and 
they did so. They were asked to provide the Iraqi people with the 
opportunity for free and fair elections, and they did that as well. 
They were asked to give the Iraqi Government the space and time to make 
the difficult political decisions that are required in order to have 
any hope of stabilizing Iraq over the longer term, and they did that as 
well. Our military has performed not only heroically but successfully, 
with courage and determination, against odds and enemies from all 
sides.
  What we know is that when the people of Iraq turn against violence, 
there is a chance for success. That is the basis of the 
counterinsurgency strategy. It cannot succeed unless the people on the 
ground are part of the winning strategy. What has happened in Al Anbar 
Province is an example of that. The tribal sheiks and the people turned 
against the violence and extremism of the al-Qaida factions, many of 
whom were led by foreign fighters who violated not just the human 
rights but the cultural norms that existed in the area. So there became 
the opportunity for an alliance--an alliance between our military and 
local people against al-Qaida. That is why the Levin-Reed amendment 
includes the continuing efforts against al-Qaida as a remaining mission 
and a vital national security interest of the United States.
  If one looks, though, at the map that was just on the easel, that 
does not describe the situation in the rest of Iraq. In the south, I 
think it is clear that Iran is the political occupier, that Iranian 
agents are largely calling the shots, and that there is an internecine 
struggle for power among a variety of Shiite militias.
  The lawlessness inside Basra and in the surrounding region cannot be 
quelled by any external force. The British have not only drawn down 
their troops, but they have withdrawn to their bases. They know they 
can't go out and calm the waters because the various factions are vying 
for power. They are going to continue to do so until someone emerges, 
and Iran is largely influential in determining who that might be.
  In Baghdad, we have gone from neighborhood to neighborhood, and yes, 
where we are, we secure the area, the violence recedes, only to pop up 
somewhere else, either in Baghdad or maybe in Diyala or Bakuba or 
somewhere else.
  Madam President, the problem is that Iraq is not al-Anbar Province. 
Al-Qaida is not the major source of the instability in Iraq. It 
conducts the most violent and spectacular mission. It provides the 
suicidal killers, who blow themselves up and blow up the cars and 
trucks in which they live at the moment. But they are not the primary 
cause of the violence and instability in Iraq. Therefore, the 
counterinsurgency cannot succeed unless there is a dramatic change in 
the attitude of both the Government and the people of Iraq. I do not 
see that happening.
  The Iraqi Government has not been willing to make the hard decisions. 
The debate as to whether they are incapable or unwilling is beside the 
point. They have not done it. We keep hearing every year, every month, 
every week that things will be different. How many times have we heard 
that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down? How many times 
have we heard that in 6 months, 8 months, or 12 months our troops may 
start coming home? Meanwhile, there are more American troops in Iraq 
today than ever before. The Iraqi Government is more fractured and less 
effective. The right strategy before the surge and the right strategy 
now, postescalation, is the same: Start bringing our troops out of this 
multisided sectarian civil war.
  I believe since our troops have accomplished the mission that was 
originally set forth, withdrawing them from urban combat, from patrol 
duty, from the kind of hand-to-hand engagement they are currently 
confronted with, is the right military and political strategy. It is 
clear that as we look at where we are today in Iraq, we are asking our 
young men and women to police a civil war. There is no argument about 
the very basic premise that there is no military solution. Yet the 
political front has been neglected.
  If there had been a political surge and a diplomatic surge, we might 
be looking at a different situation. We also know that the training and 
performance of the Iraqi Army and police forces has not been sufficient 
to relieve our troops of the primary responsibility for the fight. In 
fact, because of setbacks and other problems, the numbers of Iraqi 
troops that are actually available to fight alongside or to take 
responsibility for the fight has diminished. As our troops serve 
alongside

[[Page 19376]]

Iraqi Army officers and soldiers, they find that, yes, some do have 
loyalty to Iraq. Others, however, are loyal to sectarian militias. 
Others have looked the other way when the insurgents have planted 
bombs. Some have even taken up arms against Americans while wearing the 
uniforms that we help provide.
  The catalog of miscalculations, misjudgments, and mistakes in Iraq 
shocks the conscience, from the unilateral decision to rush to a 
preemptive war without allowing the inspectors to finish their work, or 
waiting for diplomacy to run its course, to the failure to send enough 
troops or provide proper equipment for them, to the denial of a rising 
insurgency, and the failure to adjust the military strategy, to 
continue support for a government unwilling to make the necessary 
political compromises, to the adherence to a broken policy more than 4 
years after the invasion began.
  Many of us believe it is time for us to move our troops out of harm's 
way in the middle of the Iraqi civil war. We believe that is an 
appropriate military decision that will be made sooner or later. The 
recent report, which was an interim report, did not have very much good 
news in it. In September, we will get another report, which I predict 
will be also mixed, which will put the best face on whatever the facts 
are. But the bottom line will remain the same: Our troops and their 
families are paying the price for this administration's policies.
  Since the Bush administration announced this escalation, 14 brave New 
Yorkers have been killed in Iraq, and hundreds more wounded. Two 
soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division, based in Fort Drum, are 
listed as captured or missing. Since the war began, 3,619 young 
Americans have been killed, 26,000 have been wounded, many with very 
visible wounds, such as loss of limbs and loss of eyes, others with 
those wounds that are invisible but no less injurious, such as 
depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic 
brain injury.
  We have spent more than $450 billion so far, $10 billion each month. 
We are straining our budget. The President's two major initiatives 
since he was sworn into office in January 2001 have been tax cuts for 
the rich and the war in Iraq, neither of which is paid for. They have 
been put on the American credit card. They have been funded by 
borrowing money from foreign countries, further undermining our 
standing and our leverage in the world. Our involvement in Iraq 
continues to erode our position. It has damaged our alliances and it 
has limited our ability to respond to real threats. The unclassified 
key judgments of the recent National Intelligence Estimate, called 
``The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland,'' says the threat of al-
Qaida is persistent and evolving. The report states that al-Qaida will 
probably seek to 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 the homeland.
  This reality is a sobering one and I believe one that demands a new 
direction. I continue to press for a basic three-step approach. First, 
start bringing our troops out of harm's way now.
  Second, demand--and back up those demands--that the Iraqis take 
responsibility for their country or lose the aid we are providing them. 
Everyone knows the Iraqi Government is as much a client of Iran as it 
is an ally of the United States. Our presence in this multisided 
sectarian civil war, without a diplomatic or political strategy, makes 
it unlikely that the Iraqi Government will seek the resolution of the 
disputes that lie at the heart of this ongoing civil war.
  Thirdly, we should begin long overdue intensive regional and 
international diplomacy on a sustained basis. Diplomacy in and of 
itself does not promise any great solution, but we have neglected it at 
our peril. Others have rushed to fill the vacuum. In fact, the problems 
that were pointed out on the map of the region have also been impacted 
by the administration's failure to pursue smart diplomacy. As we look 
at the deteriorating situation in the Middle East, the pressures on the 
Israeli Government because of the rise of Hamas and the strength of 
Hezbollah, we can see the consequences of both our failed diplomatic 
strategy and our problems in Iraq today.
  I have called for the strategic redeployment of U.S. forces out of 
Iraq for several years. I have introduced legislation to end the war 
but to remain committed to vital national security interests that can 
be enumerated and more carefully defined. I voted against funding the 
war without any plan for ending it, or without any companion effort to 
engage in realistic political and diplomatic initiatives. That is why I 
have joined a bipartisan majority in supporting the Levin-Reed 
amendment.
  It has been very difficult to get the President's attention. I hear 
that from both sides of the aisle. The Congress has both a duty and an 
opportunity to try to do that. We have one Commander in Chief at a time 
and we have seen repeatedly this administration's failure to deal with 
the realities we confront in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. When 
they do change course, as long as it takes them to make that decision, 
as we have seen in North Korea, the results can be very positive. I can 
only hope that in the remaining 18 months of this administration, 
similar actions are undertaken to deal with the problems we confront in 
the larger region, including Iraq and the Middle East.
  I believe, too, it is imperative that the Secretary of Defense and 
the Joint Chiefs inform the Congress of the plans they have for 
redeployment and withdrawal. Withdrawing troops is dangerous and 
difficult. We must not redeploy out of Iraq with the same failure of 
planning with which our troops were deployed into Iraq. Yet I wrote 
several weeks ago to Secretary Gates and the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, General Pace, asking whether there is planning--very specific 
planning, not the usual response that, yes, we plan for everything, for 
every contingency--and what is the planning that will protect our 
troops when they do withdraw, which will happen, whether it happens in 
120 days, or next year, or whether it happens the year after; what have 
we done to make sure that we do it in as careful and orderly a way as 
possible.
  I believe our troops, as well as the American people, deserve a vote, 
yes or no, on this bill. If you believe in giving the President the 
continued power to pursue a failed strategy, without checks or balances 
by this Congress, make your case and cast your vote. If not, then put 
partisanship aside and stand with the bipartisan majority working to 
end this war.
  Our message to the President is clear: It is time to start thinking 
of our troops and our broader position in Iraq and beyond--not next 
year, not next month, but today. I hope we will be able to vote on the 
Levin-Reed amendment. I fear we will not, in the face of concerns and 
objections on the other side. But we are postponing the inevitable. 
Come September, we will have another inconclusive report. We will have 
more casualties. We will have more who are injured. We will still have 
the same Iraqi Government waiting us out. We will continue to empower 
Iran and to destabilize Jordan and to give a free hand to Syria and 
Hezbollah. We will face an even more dangerous set of choices then. 
There is no reason to wait.
  Madam President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Coleman now be recognized for up to 15 minutes, to be 
followed by Senator Casey for 15 minutes, Senator Barrasso for 5 
minutes, and following the remarks of Senator Barrasso, Senator Reid be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I note that if we adopt the Levin-Reed 
amendment, we would be doing what the Senator from New York said we 
should not do. We must not redeploy out of Iraq with the same failure 
of planning there was going in.
  This amendment before us today is a directive from the Senate to 
redeploy out of Iraq without any planning. Simply sitting here in this 
air-conditioned Chamber, making a statement that

[[Page 19377]]

this is what we are going to do, without talking to the commanders on 
the ground would be a tragic mistake.
  Earlier this year, when the President talked about the surge, I 
raised an objection. In my travels to Iraq, it was clear to me that we 
were facing a battle in Anbar Province against al-Qaida in Iraq, the 
Sunni insurgency; and that battle, by the way, we were winning, and we 
see the results of that today. But in Baghdad we faced sectarian 
violence and faced American soldiers being in the midst of a civil war, 
and that troubled me. I raised concerns.
  But then 54 days ago we had a discussion in this Chamber. We took a 
rollcall vote on a bill, and the bill passed 80 to 14, with over four-
fifths of the Senate agreeing that day, with rare bipartisanship that 
we achieved in this Chamber. That wasn't about naming a post office or 
a courthouse. We got an agreement to address the future of our 
involvement in Iraq. In that bipartisan effort on the floor of the 
Senate, we gave support to General Petraeus, who was confirmed 
unanimously in the Senate, who would provide a report to this body on 
the surge that I had concerns about no later than September 15. General 
Petraeus and Ambassador Corker, our Ambassador to Iraq, who served in 
Pakistan right before being selected as Ambassador to Iraq, would come 
back and deliver a report to this body and the President, with the 
President delivering a report no later than September 15. We required 
this report because we decided as a body that regardless of our 
concerns about the new strategy, we should allow General Petraeus and 
Ambassador Corker to execute the new strategy and to report on their 
progress.
  We recently came to broad bipartisan agreement that we should give 
the strategy a chance to work. How did we end up here tonight picking a 
date for withdrawal before the report and testimony that we mandated? I 
don't have the answer. I am afraid that question itself causes me to 
oppose the Levin-Reed amendment. I have the utmost respect for the 
Senator from Michigan. We have served together on the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations for years, working as a team to defend 
America and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Recently, we dealt with 
the possibility of dirty bombs being developed in this country. So I 
know he is a good man. I believe the amendment is well intentioned and 
I believe the transition is a goal that I share. The bottom line is we 
need a mission in Iraq in the sense that we cannot be fighting the 
Iraqis' war for them. They have to step forward and achieve power and 
reconciliation--things they have not done to date. We cannot, however, 
have a precipitous withdrawal.
  I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee, and we have had hour 
after hour of testimony on the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal 
and the impact it would have on the ethnic cleansing in Iraq. I will 
talk more about the region.
  Ultimately, our safety is my concern. Precipitous withdrawal would 
set in place a series of events, none of which are positive. I didn't 
hear anyone come before the Foreign Relations Committee to talk about 
that. The Iraq Study Group, which so many have looked at and pointed 
to, made it clear--no precipitous withdrawal.
  Right now, we have an amendment that sets a withdrawal, that doesn't 
consult the commanders on the ground, that flies in the face of action 
we took 54 days ago. I can't answer the question, why now? In part, I 
hear from the majority leader and others. Are there polls? Do we lift 
our finger to the wind and say: Well, 54 days ago, we told General 
Petraeus to move forward. We have our troops on the ground who are 
carrying out their mission. Yet we are debating today to say we are 
going to move forward with a plan for withdrawal which has not been 
thought out, which has not been planned, which has not been processed 
in a way that you would think one should do that. We are concerned 
about the consequences, in spite of the fact that 54 days ago we sent a 
message to General Petraeus: Go forth with the surge, and then come 
back and report to us.
  There are consequences to precipitous withdrawal. If you look at 
Iraq--and the Senator from Arizona talked about this a little earlier--
in the northern region, Turkey has troops on the Iraqi border and 
inside Iraq. If we were to withdraw and if there were to be that 
division, you would have a Kurdistan. There are deep concerns that the 
Turks would move forward. There are concerns about terrorism, a group 
called the PKK. You have that issue of instability. You have Anbar 
Province in which there has been much discussion about the successes we 
have achieved in Anbar Province with the local sheiks joining our side. 
But you have foreign fighters coming in, without anyone stepping in 
between, from Syria, the Syrian border there, landing at Damascus 
Airport and coming through and then destabilizing that region and 
perhaps setting back the gains we have made.
  In the south, we have Iran. Iran clearly, as my colleagues on both 
sides have noted, is playing a major part in what is happening, not 
just in the south but in the region. The fact is, in Lebanon, Hezbollah 
is a proxy of Iran. The weapons Hezbollah has have come through Iran 
through Syria. In the Gaza Strip in Israel, Hamas is a tool of Iran. So 
if we were to simply withdraw without planning, if we were to put in 
place a series of events that caused disruption and conflict in the 
region, we would give Iranians a chance to strengthen their hand. If 
they do that, then what do the Saudis do?
  I have had conversations with Saudi leaders. I am ranking member of 
the Near East Subcommittee. I have had conversations with Egyptian 
leaders, the Jordanians. They don't want to see Iran go forward. They 
don't want to see Iran expand its power.
  It is fascinating, because the Senator from New York talked about our 
position in the world and long overdue international diplomacy. The 
moderate Iraqi States in the region see the threat of Islamic extremism 
as fostering the support of Moqtada al-Sadr, the support of Hezbollah, 
the support of Hamas. They understand that is a greater threat to them 
than Israel. So they don't want to see us precipitously withdraw.
  Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, has been quoted 
repeatedly on the floor, saying to us that we need to understand the 
serious consequences if we were to simply withdraw. There are 
consequences not just for the region but, ultimately, for us in terms 
of the threat of terrorism being expanded with an al-Qaida victory, if 
America is out. They drove the Russians out of Afghanistan. America is 
driven out of Iraq. That represents a threat to us. That represents 
greater recruitment. It represents the battle being brought from there 
to here. That is a real concern.
  We have a situation where 54 days ago we said to General Petraeus in 
September: Come forward with a report. Then, from that, we will go 
forth with a plan of action.
  I would hope that right away the administration now is looking at a 
series of choices. Senators Lugar and Warner have put that on the 
table. I hope that is going on now, that we understand that the Iraqi 
Government has not done the things that have to be done to move forward 
with power sharing and reconciliation. They have not met the 
benchmarks. I have grave concerns about their ability to do so. We have 
to be looking at alternatives. We have to be looking at a range of 
options. But why now? Why at this point in time, other than there are, 
I presume, interest groups on the left who are concerned that the 
Democratic majority hasn't done what MoveOn.Org wants them to do, which 
is to get us out of Iraq?
  We had a bipartisan agreement in this body to have a reasoned course 
of action, that we need to be out of the central sectarian violence. 
The Iraqis need to be fighting their battle. We need to maintain the 
gains we have had in places such as Anbar and not step back and allow 
that ground and that blood that has been shed to be shed for naught. 
But why now? Why now? What is the event that has somehow triggered the 
necessity to move forward today, to be here all night? If anything, 
from what we heard from General Petraeus on the military side, we are

[[Page 19378]]

moving forward. On the benchmarks for things the Iraqis haven't done, 
we have until September.
  I presume one of the good things that will come out of this debate 
will be that we put continued pressure on the Iraqis to do what they 
have to do. I don't know whether Maliki has the ability to do that. I 
have my doubts. But I think it is really important.
  The Senator from Michigan said we are going to be measured by how we 
leave. Ultimately, we are not going to be in Iraq fighting their battle 
forever. We may be in Iraq a long time. If you look at this region, we 
may be there a long time. We have been in Germany a long time, Korea a 
long time. We have been in Kosovo a long time. But we need to be there, 
not being in the center of a sectarian battle, not being in the center 
of a civil war, but to make sure the Iranians don't sweep through and 
expand their influence. We have to make sure the Turks don't step down 
and destabilize the one stable region, to make sure foreign fighters 
don't move forward and come into Damascus Airport and come across the 
border near Anbar Province.
  We need to do that in a way in which it doesn't happen because of 
political pressure, it doesn't happen because of a poll, it doesn't 
happen because we picked a date out of thin air that says: We are doing 
a Defense authorization, so now we are going to get a plan for 
withdrawal on the floor of the Senate without listening to General 
Petraeus, after 54 days ago telling him he could go forward and come 
back in September.
  It is our responsibility to act in the best interest of our Nation's 
Armed Forces who have sacrificed so much. It is our responsibility to 
avoid, as Madison and Hamilton described in Federalist 62, the impulse 
and passion of what might seem like the easiest path--simply ending our 
involvement in Iraq and hoping for the best. We cannot do that. We must 
give the strategy the time we said we would give to it work, while at 
the same time preparing for our next step, something Senators Warner 
and Lugar have articulated so well. We need to continue to plan for the 
future and continue to evolve as we address new challenges and a 
changing environment.
  We need to remember that Iraq is not just a war; it is a country that 
is in the center of a very critical region. We have invested blood and 
treasure in a way we never anticipated, something I remember every time 
I visit Walter Reed. While our commitment is not open-ended, it is a 
commitment whose new strategy requires us to live up to the obligations 
we made when we said to our general: Move forward; when we put our 
troops there and said: Be in harm's way; and then to come back in 
September.
  We need to change the mission. We shouldn't have a precipitous date 
for withdrawal. We are going to be there long term, but we have to do 
it thoughtfully, strategically. We cannot have it poll driven. We 
cannot have it special interest driven. We should not be doing it here 
in the Levin-Reed amendment, which I will oppose tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for 15 minutes, and if I could have a 2-minute warning so I don't go 
over time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, we are gathered here at this early 
morning hour, as we have now for hour after hour, to talk about the 
situation in Iraq. We are here in particular to focus on one amendment, 
the Levin-Reed amendment. I rise this morning to support that amendment 
for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons I think it should be 
passed is not just because of the policy contained within it but also 
because it is a bipartisan amendment. It is the product of a lot of 
work over a long period of time. Many months of work have gone into 
this important amendment.
  The question we face is very basic. It is the same question we have 
faced for a long time when it comes to the policy in Iraq. The question 
is, Where do you stand? Do you stand for a new direction in Iraq, a new 
policy, or do you stand for the other side of the coin, more of the 
same, stay the course, supporting the President's policy?
  I argue to a large extent what has happened in the Congress the last 
couple of years, including this year by some Members of the House and 
Senate, is rubberstamping of the Bush policy in Iraq. That is what we 
are here to talk about: Where do you stand? You are either on one side 
or the other. I argue that we should all stand for a new direction for 
a variety of reasons.
  We know the numbers pretty well: 3,600 Americans--more than that 
now--have lost their lives. From my home State of Pennsylvania, 69 
lives have been lost. They gave, as Abraham Lincoln said, the last full 
measure of devotion to their country. The number we don't talk enough 
about is the number of wounded. Nationally, over 25,000 have been 
wounded. Again, in Pennsylvania, the number is very high as well. Over 
1,100 Pennsylvanians have been wounded. Even that doesn't give the full 
sense of what we are talking about. Many of these soldiers have been 
grievously, permanently, irreparably wounded in this conflict. So we 
are thinking about them today. We are thinking about those who perished 
already. We are thinking about their families who have had to endure 
this suffering and trauma and heartache for a long time now.
  The troops have done their job. There was a lot of talk in the last 
couple of hours, last night and this morning, and I am sure it will go 
on into tomorrow, about defeat, that if this amendment is adopted, that 
somehow there will be a defeat. I don't believe that. I don't believe 
that for a moment. Our troops have done their job. They took down a 
dictator. They allowed a government to take shape in a country. They 
have done their job.
  It is about time that, as the troops have done their job, this 
Congress and this President do our jobs. One of the jobs we should 
never ask our troops to do is what we have asked them to do at least in 
the last couple of months, if not for more than a year. Unlike any 
American fighting men and women in the history of the country, this 
Government has asked our troops to referee a civil war. We should never 
ask Americans to referee a civil war, not in this war and not in any 
war.
  All this talk about defeat not only misses the point, it is 
misleading. I am afraid it is deliberately misleading. To adopt this 
amendment is not adopting defeat. Adopting this amendment is about 
talking about a light at the end of the tunnel and to make sure we make 
the right decision on this policy.
  We hear a lot about Levin-Reed. Let me spend 30 seconds on who Levin 
and Reed are. Senator Carl Levin and Senator Jack Reed are both members 
of the Armed Services Committee. They bring to bear decades of 
experience in this body combined when they talk about the war in Iraq 
and when they talk about armed services and defense matters. They both 
bring distinguished references even beyond their service on that 
committee. Some people in this body remember that Senator Jack Reed was 
an Army Ranger and paratrooper, served in the 82nd Airborne Division. 
Senator Carl Levin, long a supporter of a strong national defense, was 
given in 2003 the Distinguished Public Service Award, the highest honor 
given to a civilian. So these are not two rookies talking about our 
policy in Iraq; these are people of broad experience who have already 
proven their credentials in supporting the armed services. They are 
also people who have worked very hard with the other Members of the 
Senate over many years to get this right.
  I mentioned before that several Senators on the Republican side are 
cosponsors. I won't do biographical sketches of each of them, but 
suffice it to say, there is an awful lot of military and U.S. Senate 
experience with the cosponsors of this amendment.
  What is this amendment? What does it say? It says a number of things. 
I won't read all of it, of course, but it does talk about, in the 
opening lines of this amendment, a deadline for commencement of a 
reduction of forces. It says that the Secretary of Defense

[[Page 19379]]

shall commence the reduction of the number of U.S. forces in Iraq not 
later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of the act. It 
talks in subpart (b) about a comprehensive strategy, diplomatic, 
political, and economic strategy. It talks about sustained engagement 
with a focus on stability in Iraq. It also speaks to an international 
mediator in Iraq to help our Government get this policy right. Finally, 
the amendment speaks of a limited presence of our troops in Iraq and to 
focus the mission on protecting the United States and coalition 
personnel, infrastructure, training and equipping, providing support 
for Iraqi security forces and, thirdly, engaging in targeted 
counterterrorism.
  It talks about a limited presence and a limited mission. But it 
doesn't talk about, as some have mischaracterized it, a precipitous 
withdrawal. Just because you say that 100 times, as the other side has 
said it hour after hour, doesn't mean it is true. That is not what we 
are talking about here.
  A couple of months ago, almost more than 6 months ago now, the 
President justified his surge policy by arguing that additional U.S. 
forces would provide security in Baghdad and other areas, providing so-
called breathing space. Remember what the President said at that time, 
way back in January:

       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 it will 
     lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act.

  So said the President back in January. Six months later, any fair and 
objective evaluation of the situation in Iraq would conclude that the 
surge strategy has not succeeded and the Iraqi Government has failed to 
follow through on its promises. It should come as no surprise the 
American people no longer support an open-ended involvement of our 
combat forces in this growing civil war. We know it from the numbers on 
sectarian violence. We know the violence that has moved from one part 
of the country to another. We also know that despite the President's 
pledges, there is no substantive evidence Iraqi security forces are 
successfully holding territory that has been cleared of insurgents and 
militia fighting forces by U.S. troops. When it comes to the clear and 
hold strategy, there is a lot of clearing, but the holding remains 
woefully inadequate.
  We know the problems with the Iraqi Government: Cabinet members 
boycotting meetings, the Iraqi Government talking about taking a break 
for 30 days, on and on. The evidence is clear that they have not made 
the kinds of commitments they should be making to meet the benchmarks 
and to inspire confidence in our country that this is the kind of 
political commitment we are going to need to bring stability.
  I have to say when it comes to what the President says, and who pays 
the price, it is very clear what happens. Every time the President asks 
for more time, every time the President says we need to stay the 
course, every time the President says: Ratify my policy yet again, 
every time the President says: Just give us a little more time, we will 
get this right this time--every time he promises, and it does not come 
true, and every time he asks for more support, who pays the price for 
that?
  It is not a Senator or a Congressman or the President. It is no one 
in his civilian leadership. In fact, it is not a lot of Americans. 
Every time the President asks for more time on his policy in Iraq, 
there is only one group of Americans that pays the price for that: the 
troops and their families. Over and over and over again, they pay with 
their sacrifice. They do all the dying, all the bleeding for this 
policy. Yet the President talks about this policy as if it is a 
Democratic and Republican fight. No, this is about the troops in the 
field. They are paying the price over and over again.
  I will make one more point because I am short on time.
  When it comes to who is doing the fighting in Iraq against us, the 
President said the other day: ``The same folks that are bombing 
innocent people in Iraq are the ones who attacked us in America on 
September the 11th.'' Actually, he is not accurate when he says that. 
There is a group in Iraq consisting primarily of Sunni extremists and 
relying on the assistance of foreign fighters seeking to intensify 
sectarian conflict and create unacceptable levels of violence. They 
were founded in 2003, after the invasion, and this group goes by the 
name of al-Qaida in Iraq.
  While this group draws inspiration from the al-Qaida that attacked 
the United States on September 11, the two groups are distinct enemies. 
Our intelligence community has reported that the group is 
overwhelmingly Iraqi and draws its financing from kidnapping and other 
local crimes, and seeks largely to incite ethnic cleansing and 
massacres against Shiite militias. But there is absolutely no 
evidence--no evidence--that this group is responsible for various 
terrorist plots in Western Europe or the United States.
  We saw in the last couple of hours the report that al-Qaida around 
the world is as strong as they were on September 11, 2001. So how can 
it be--if the President is telling us the truth, and if the President's 
policy is right--how can it be that we made this commitment in Iraq, 
with all the mistakes of our civilian leadership, all the incompetence 
of our civilian leadership--despite the brave and noble service of our 
troops--how can that be with this commitment in Iraq at the same time 
that al-Qaida is as strong as it was on September 11, 2001?
  No, I think it is very clear that this vote and this choice is very 
simple. We can either stay the course or we can chart a new course. 
That is what this is about.
  I say in conclusion, this is also about whether this Congress will do 
what it must to prove ourselves worthy of the valor of our troops. That 
is part of what we have to do. I am not saying one amendment or one 
vote or one debate will do that. We have a long way to go to prove 
ourselves worthy of their valor. But I think this amendment is one way 
to move in that direction, one way to show our troops and their 
families that we will do everything possible to get this policy right.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. President.
  This is the first time I am addressing this body. I am filling the 
seat of former U.S. Senator Craig Thomas, a marine, a warrior, and an 
American hero. He was a gentleman from Wyoming who has left large boots 
to fill.
  Now, some people have suggested that when I give my first speech, I 
do it at a time during the day when many people back home in Wyoming 
would be watching television.
  Mr. President, you are also from the Rocky Mountain Time Zone, and 
you know people get up early. But at home it is now 3 a.m., and I doubt 
we have many viewers at home.
  I was sworn in a little over 3 weeks ago, but it is like I have never 
left home. As a physician, an orthopedic surgeon, trauma surgeon, I am 
used to getting up at this hour and working at all unusual hours. 
People of Wyoming know that, and they call on me day and night. That is 
why I am here at this hour.
  About 21 hours ago, we had a bipartisan breakfast to discuss this 
very issue. At that body, I told the whole group I was the most 
prepared to be up at this hour working. I am delighted to be with you. 
But we are here debating a very serious issue.
  I spent a lot of time with Senator Thomas in the last year, driving 
him around the State of Wyoming, discussing the war, visiting about the 
war, about his trip to Baghdad, talking about the fact that we are 
threatened in a global war on terror, and that this is a threat to our 
way of life.
  As a background, as a trauma surgeon and also as a Wyoming State 
Senator in the State Senate, I chaired the Transportation, Highways, 
and Military Affairs Committee. In that position, I asked to go and 
make sure that the Wyoming troops were getting everything they needed 
in Afghanistan and Baghdad. I was unable to make

[[Page 19380]]

that trip. The arrangements could not be made. But I was able to go to 
Walter Reed. At Walter Reed, I was able to visit the troops, the 
wounded warriors, because I wanted to make sure that both as a State 
senator and as an orthopedic surgeon those folks were getting the kind 
of care they deserved.
  What I saw were hero warriors, people who lost a limb or two limbs, 
and they wanted to return to combat. They wanted to do anything they 
could to get back with their buddies and fight for freedom.
  Wyoming has paid the price, as has every State. I have been to 
services for young people who have lost their lives. I have held and 
tried to comfort family members. A little over a month ago, I got a 
call from my physician assistant. Her son is in Iraq. Her nephew was 
also in Iraq, and she had just gotten the news that her nephew had been 
killed. I went to visit the family.
  These are brave warriors. These are people doing everything they can 
for freedom and for our Nation. They did not die in vain.
  This past weekend, I was home in Wyoming. I had a town meeting in 
Douglas. I was also home over the Fourth of July. I had town meetings 
in Jackson and in Lander. I went to a couple rodeos, as I am sure you 
do as well. I talked to hundreds of folks traveling around the State. 
When I went to the rodeos--whether in Casper, or on the Fourth of July 
in Cody, where I attended it with a former U.S. Senator from Wyoming 
who has served on the Iraq Study Group--when they ride into the arena 
holding the American flag, people stand, take off their hat, and put 
their hand over their heart. The announcer does not have to tell them 
to do that. They just do it.
  At both of those rodeos, in Casper and in Cody, they dedicated the 
``Star Spangled Banner'' with a salute to Craig Thomas, former marine. 
Susan Thomas was there at both events and received the love of the 
crowd. Then, at both events, the announcer asked for prayers for the 
bravest men and women in the world, those who are fighting to keep us 
free.
  What I heard from people all around Wyoming was: Do not quit. Do not 
pull out. Support the troops.
  What are the consequences of withdrawal? Well, we heard it today with 
the Cornyn amendment. It passed today 94 to 3. The purpose: ``To 
express the sense of the Senate that it is in the national security 
interest of the United States that Iraq not become a failed state and a 
safe haven for terrorists.''
  We can go through the findings.

       The Senate makes the following findings:
       A failed state in Iraq would become a safe haven for 
     Islamic radicals, including al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are 
     determined to attack the United States and United States 
     allies.
       The Iraq Study Group report found that ``[a] chaotic Iraq 
     could provide a still stronger base of operations for 
     terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally.''
       The Iraq Study Group noted that ``Al Qaeda 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.''

  We can go on and on, but to me, the Iraq Study Group's final report, 
page 67, says it best:

       The point is not for the United States to set timetables or 
     deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose.

  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and the following 
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:

                          [Quorum No. 6 Leg.]

     Barrasso
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Corker
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Gregg
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     McCaskill
     Pryor
     Reid
     Smith
     Sununu
     Tester
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum is not present.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to 
request the attendance of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Nevada 
to request the attendance of absent Senators.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 Delaware 
(Mr. Carper), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator 
from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator 
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Nelson), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), the Senator 
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) 
are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), 
the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from 
Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator 
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from New 
Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nebraska 
(Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Lott), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Warner).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

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

                                NAYS--23

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burr
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Lugar
     Murkowski
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--40

     Alexander
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (FL)
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Warner
     Webb
  The motion was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. A quorum is present.


                    Congratulating Senator Barrasso

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I just wanted to congratulate the Senator 
from Wyoming on the speech he gave this morning. It is his first speech 
on the floor since he arrived. It is not necessarily his official first 
speech, but it is his first speech. I wish to congratulate him on doing 
a very admirable job.

[[Page 19381]]

He accurately reflected the feelings of Wyoming which he has collected 
from his extensive travels in the 3 weeks since he has been in office. 
He has held a lot of town meetings; he has been to a lot of places; he 
has listened to a lot of people. I also appreciate very much the 
comments he made about Senator Thomas and also the tribute that has 
been paid to Susan Thomas at the events he has attended.
  I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair, and I thank my fellow 
Senator for his excellence comments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join with the senior Senator from Wyoming 
in congratulating the new Senator, the junior Senator, for his 
comments. All of us miss Senator Thomas. I had the occasion to work 
with him on committee. He was a very fair, decent person and really 
looked for the center ground here and tried to make things happen. I 
certainly hope his successor will follow in that good tradition. We 
thank him for his comments.
  Mr. President, I listened, as we all have, to portions of the debate 
up until now, and it struck me--particularly, I listened to the Senator 
from Minnesota who was speaking prior to the vote we just had. He made 
a lot of points that I think most of us would agree with, which is one 
of the problems with this debate--that Senators on the other side are 
setting up a lot of straw men and then knocking them down, talking 
about the strategic interests we have in the region, but then drawing a 
quick, and in my judgment, inappropriate conclusion that the change in 
strategy being proposed in the amendment we are debating is somehow 
going to play into the negative side of those particular strategic 
interests.
  For instance, we have heard again and again how al-Qaida is the 
central focus, and how if we were to start withdrawing our troops, Iraq 
is going to be taken over by al-Qaida and America's interests will be 
hurt. Well, that conclusion is, first, speculative and, secondly, 
erroneous even in speculation. Why do I say that? Because al-Qaida was 
not in Iraq until we invaded it. Al-Qaida was not the threat it is 
today in Iraq until we made a series of errors, which are compounding 
now with the strategy we are pursuing.
  The fact is our presence has been used by al-Qaida as an organizing 
tool, a recruitment tool, and it has been easier for al-Qaida to play 
Sunni and Shia off against each other because of our presence than it 
would be absent it. The experience in al-Anbar Province recently 
underscores the point we are making on our side of the aisle, which is 
that once the sheiks, the chiefs, in al-Anbar made the political 
decision that they were going to take on al-Qaida and actually stand up 
for their independence, they began to drive al-Qaida out of al-Anbar. 
Most of the Iraqis I have talked to in the course of the visits I have 
made there have indicated to me--I haven't met one Iraqi, Sunni, Shia, 
or Kurd, or various factions within Shia or Sunni, who believes that 
al-Qaida is a long-term threat in Iraq. Why? Because they don't want 
al-Qaida in Iraq and because, ultimately, if we are not there acting as 
the magnet and cohesive glue of al-Qaida's organizational efforts, and 
if we don't make al-Qaida in fact important to the ability of the 
militias or insurgents, Sunni and Shia, to use al-Qaida as a convenient 
tool to target American forces, or even to target civilians of the 
other sect, the minute that dynamic changes, then their need for al-
Qaida changes. That is a fundamental sort of reality that has escaped a 
large part of this debate.
  Al-Qaida is not able to survive, in my judgment, in the long run 
because of this nationalism, as well as fundamental commitment by each 
of those people to their own regions and interests that are indigenous 
to Iraq itself. I think foreign jihadists are going to have a hard time 
in the long run under those circumstances. Moreover, to talk about the 
strength of al-Qaida right now as the threat to the United States in 
Iraq is to ignore the National Intelligence Estimate that has recently 
been read--some of the public accounts--in the news media. Those of us 
who have had briefings, and some of us who have spent time pursuing 
this issue, understand that al-Qaida is reconstituting. They are as 
strong today as they were on 9/11. That is the latest estimate.
  That fact totally contradicts the main message of the President and 
his administration--that we have to be over there to fight them over 
there so we don't have to fight them here. The ``here'' is broadening 
all around the world. If that were true, then what is going on with the 
Secretary of Homeland Security when he tells us that his gut is telling 
him that we are likely to have another attack now. It seems to me the 
chatter we are hearing reflected in the reports from the intelligence 
briefings we are getting is the same kind of chatter I heard from 
George Tenet in July of 2001, when he told us in room 407 that he was 
absolutely confident there was going to be an attack, they just could 
not tell us where. I might add that in the face of that confidence 
about the attack and the lack of ability to tell us where, the 
President took the longest vacation in history, and there were no 
briefings and nothing happened until September, when the attack of 9/11 
took place. It is a matter of record, when we measure what the 
administration is saying today, what will happen and the challenge to 
us; you have to measure it against the record. This is not an 
administration that has been correct, conceivably, about anything, but 
certainly about almost everything with respect to Iraq.
  So with each step that has been made, whether it was the early steps 
made by Paul Bremer, or subsequent steps made with respect to the 
disbursement of funds, or the promises of a transition to democracy, 
and so forth, not one expectation has been met. Not one basic political 
transformation that is essential to resolving this has taken place. We 
are in the fifth year, 5 years into it, and the administration says 
wait another 6 weeks until September before you do this because then we 
will know what we don't know after 5 years; we will know what we don't 
know after Senator after Senator has made trips to Iraq and spoken 
privately with generals, colonels, majors, all the way down the ranks 
into the noncommissioned officers and those going out on patrols; we 
have heard from them.
  Let me say one thing quickly about what is not happening there. This 
is also profoundly about those troops. There is no question on either 
side of the aisle about the respect we have for the quality of the 
service that American troops are providing our country--no question at 
all. These are the best trained, most capable and dedicated people I 
have ever seen. One of my interns is serving over there now. He was an 
intern a couple years ago. We get regular e-mails from him. He writes 
us about the losses in his unit. He writes us about the patrols he is 
going out on. He sends us photographs. We sort of feel in our office 
like family with his unit. He is First Cavalry, and we are proud of his 
service and of the service of all of those men and women. They are--
most of them--dedicated to the mission. There is not a lot of griping 
that we hear, and there is a tremendous pride of service. It is 
wonderful to see.
  The bottom line is they deserve missions that make sense. They 
deserve an overall policy that is equal to the sacrifice and the 
commitment they show on a daily basis.
  I am not a Vietnam veteran who believes everything that happened or 
comes out of that particular period is governing for what happens now, 
obviously. But there are certain lessons. If you don't learn lessons of 
history, as we have read and know, you are doomed to repeat the 
mistakes you make. Secretary Colin Powell, who was very influential in 
my own decision to give the President authority to have this big stick 
of the potential use of force, told me at length in a conversation that 
I had prior to voting how he thought it was important to apply the 
lessons of Vietnam to what we may or may not do in Iraq. That was part 
of the Powell doctrine about the use of overwhelming force and the 
commitment to know that you are going to do

[[Page 19382]]

for the troops what the troops have been willing to do for you and 
their country, and that you are going to go through the diplomatic 
process and build up the kind of support we never had in the course of 
the war he served in and I and others served in.
  I particularly remember the difficulties we faced on the ground in 
Vietnam, trying to distinguish between friend and foe, going into a 
village in the night and seeing people with ID cards that looked the 
same as everybody else's, and names that were misspelled, and our lists 
didn't work and they were misspelled. You tried to figure out who was 
who. It was chaotic. So it is in Iraq, where they go out and they have 
an interpreter, and you try to interpret, which is difficult anyway, 
and there is a huge cultural gulf, an enormous difficulty within the 
tribal context and cultural context to try to penetrate and figure 
things out. Our troops are doing an amazing job with the mission 
itself, but we are struggling with that.
  This mission is as flawed as the mission was years ago. You send 
troops out to find IEDs--the hard way. You are driving down a road and 
you go through a community and, kaboom, there is an explosion. You get 
your wounded out and you turn around and you look at each other and say 
what did we accomplish? What did we get out of that? Did we secure any 
territory? Did we in fact make the community more secure? The greater 
likelihood is that the people who were hiding in some house, or the 
people who blew up that IED are sitting there congratulating 
themselves, saying we took out another 6 or 10 soldiers, and the 
headlines are there and that is what they want. Every time we go out 
and do that, we add to the fragility of the community and the chaos, in 
the sense of the entire stake. We all know that military mission is not 
going to reduce the long-term violence, which is being driven by the 
political stakes that both sides--or all sides, as there are a bunch of 
entities vying for power here--but all of them are playing us off 
against those interests. That is what is going on here.
  So how many times do we have to listen to generals, particularly, but 
also to even the President, or the Vice President, or the Secretary of 
State, or our colleagues say to us there is no military solution? If 
there is no military solution, then what are the troops accomplishing 
in these proactive forays out into the community where they ``show the 
flag'' and show a presence? For a moment, the insurgents may melt into 
the background but, believe me, the minute those guys have 
disappeared--and there are not enough of them in Iraq, and there won't 
be, because we understand the dynamics, to secure all of the 
communities--the minute they disappear, the currency of daily life in 
the indigenous community takes over. That is the nature of the beast. 
That is what an insurgent guerilla-type effort is about, which is why 
the initial flaw of never committing enough troops to guarantee you can 
do the job remains so critical to where we are today.
  Now, the fact is that the young men and women who are being sent out 
on those missions have no more hope today than they did yesterday, or 
the week before, or a year ago. They won't have any more hope in 
September than they do right now when we are here on the floor with the 
potential of this vote. They have no more potential of resolving the 
fundamentals of what is causing those IEDs to be exploded. The fact is 
that IEDs are being exploded for one most significant reason, which we 
need to focus on in the context of this debate: because there are 
factions within the Sunni and Shia who are vying for power. As long as 
you have this open-ended presence of Americans, we remain the target 
and they remain committed to use us to foster the insecurity and fear 
that allows them to continue to maneuver among each other. Unless you 
change that dynamic, what happens here by continuing this policy, which 
is what our colleagues on the other side are prepared to do--at least 
through September, which raises a significant issue that in a moment I 
will come back to--but if you continue it, you are guaranteeing that 
those young men and women will continue to go out in the same posture 
they are going out today, without any resolution whatsoever of the 
fundamental political issues.
  Now, I don't think that is very smart. It is plain not smart. Most 
Americans today get that. I heard the Senator from Minnesota and others 
come to the floor and say: What is driving this? Why now? Why are we 
doing this now, having this debate when we know that in September 
someone is going to make a report?
  Well, I think the reverse is the question: Why are you waiting until 
September when you know what is happening today and you know the 
dynamic hasn't changed? Why do you send those troops out day after day 
on a mission you know cannot accomplish the goal and put them at risk 
without a mission that is achievable? Why do you sit here and say that 
somehow in September there is going to be a report that will change the 
dynamic, when we know not one benchmark has yet been met and you are 
talking about 6 weeks from now and we are losing 100 troops a month? 
What do you say to those families of the 100 who may be lost over the 
course of the next month: Gee, we were waiting for a report, even 
though we knew basically what the report would say. I don't think there 
is a colleague on the other side who doesn't hope the White House is 
going to start trying to pull back some troops in September. We have 
talked to generals and we have had Senators over there in the last 
weeks, and they have been told in certain regions they believe some 
troops can come home. So we are going to sit here and wait for a policy 
that will continue to put young soldiers at risk for a mission that is 
not going to change the fundamental dynamics.
  Let me speak to that for a moment, the question of changing the 
fundamental dynamics in this mission. The escalation of troops in Iraq 
was supposed to be the precursor to the willingness of the Iraqi 
politicians to have the ``cover of security'' to be able to make 
certain kinds of decisions. I have to tell you that I think that 
thinking is fundamentally flawed. I think it is the other way around. I 
think if you want the people in your country to believe there is going 
to be some security, the political leadership has to stand up and make 
decisions that indicate there is a willingness to put the fundamental 
stakes in place that help create that security.
  When we know we don't have enough troops there to secure every 
community, and you know there is this power struggle going on between 
these factions, you are not going to change those fundamentals by 
putting in a few troops here and a few there, melting down certain 
pockets of resistance that move, as they have, from Baghdad to Diyala, 
or Kirkuk, or to some other community, and you simply move the violence 
and the terror continues.
  The politics has to change. There has been no indication whatsoever 
of the ability or willingness of Prime Minister Maliki, or the others 
who make up this Government, to make those fundamental decisions. What 
are we talking about? We are talking about an oil law. Is it that hard 
to sit down and decide how the revenues of the oil will be divided--by 
population, by community, by presence, by need? It hasn't happened. We 
have been promised month after month, oh, it is just around the corner, 
just about to happen. And it doesn't happen.
  I have sat with some folks over there who have indicated to me that 
it is, in fact, the open-endedness of the presence of the United States 
that relieves the pressure. I have even heard that from some of our top 
U.S. diplomats who have been charged with the effort to negotiate, and 
they happily and gladly use the pressure of the Congress as a stick to 
try to leverage some of the transition we want.
  But frankly, I have also heard them say that when the President and 
the administration stand up and say: We are there, don't worry about 
us, we are going to keep on doing this, they just back off because they 
don't think they have to listen to the Congress and they know they have 
this open-ended ability to play their game. It is that simple. That is 
what we are trying to change.

[[Page 19383]]

  When I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle run through 
this list of red herrings, of straw men, it disappoints me, frankly, 
because we ought to have the real debate.
  I have heard colleagues over there come with a map and say: You have 
Saudi Arabia here and Lebanon here, Israel here, and you have all of 
these interests and Iran. Iran is growing in its influence. Well, Iran 
has loved our presence in Iraq. Iran has grown in its influence because 
of what we have been doing in Iraq. We have empowered Iran. In fact, 
Iran doesn't want an Iraq that is completely disintegrated for a lot of 
different reasons. There are fundamental and profound differences 
between Iran and Iraq in the end, not the least of which is that Iran 
is Persian and Iraq is Arab. That Arab/Persian line existed long before 
the United States went there. Believe me, when we are not there, it 
will continue to exist and play out in influence with respect to the 
region.
  You hear people say: This precipitous withdrawal. ``Precipitous'' is 
the favorite word of the other side. First, it is not a withdrawal; it 
is a redeployment. Yes, some troops come home, absolutely, as they 
ought to, because there are limits to what American troops are able to 
do in the middle of a civil war. I ask my colleagues, go read the 
authorization we sent those troops to Iraq with. There isn't one 
mention of what is going on there today. There isn't even one mention 
that is active today. The authority we gave the President to use to 
send the troops there was related to Saddam Hussein, to weapons of mass 
destruction, to a whole series of things, none of which are 
applicable--not al-Qaida, incidentally. This is a war which has 
completely morphed into what it is today, without congressional 
authorization. But for the fact that the troops are there, the Congress 
wouldn't send them there for what they are doing today. Just because 
you are there is the last reason to be sending young Americans out to 
continue to put their lives in harm's way.
  We hear this issue of precipitous. I guarantee you, in September, the 
President is going to start redeploying some troops. And well into next 
year, we all know we can't sustain the current level of deployment. 
Everybody knows that. Talk to the military; talk to the Pentagon. We 
can't sustain it. There is a looming, huge reality standing over the 
Senate which is the reality of the deployment schedule itself, that at 
the current levels of our Armed Forces, at the current rate of 
deployment, we are not able to sustain the numbers we have there well 
into next year without busting the Armed Forces completely. That 
doesn't seem to enter the debate, according to the other side.
  This isn't sustainable beyond next year. We don't even move most of 
the troops out until beyond that period of time. So there is a complete 
logic to the date that has been chosen. It is not arbitrary. It was not 
picked out of the air, and no poll has set what is happening here. In 
fact, if you followed the polls, you wouldn't be in Iraq at all. That 
is not what we are suggesting.
  We acknowledge that there are interests. Yes, there are interests in 
the region. Yes, there are interests we have with respect to our ally 
Israel. Yes, there are interests with respect to Lebanon. Yes, if we 
just up and walked away, al-Qaida would use that. But that is not what 
this debate is about or ought to be about. What we are talking about 
is, how do you best take the sacrifice and commitment of our troops and 
honor it with a policy that in fact can achieve what we want to achieve 
in the region?
  It is the judgment of many of us, including some Republicans, that we 
have reached a point where you best achieve what we need to try to 
achieve in Iraq by this fundamental change in what our troops are there 
to do. What we are doing is changing the mission from a mission where 
we are proactively going out into the community, into homes, 
proactively engaged in doing what the Iraqis ought to, after 5 years, 
be doing for themselves.
  The Prime Minister of Iraq himself has said that they are prepared to 
take over the security. The Prime Minister has said they don't need us 
there in the same way we are. The people of Iraq don't want us there in 
the numbers that we are there today. In fact, I think one of the things 
we ought to vote on in this authorization is whether there should be a 
plebiscite in Iraq. Let's ask the Iraqis in an open vote whether they 
want the United States to be there in the way we are there today. Let's 
do that. I am confident of what the outcome would be.
  The fact is, we are talking about how you get from here to there, 
which is where we all want to be, with a sufficient level of stability 
so that Iran cannot have increasing influence the way it does, that 
Iraqis will be able to stop going down this spiraling downward course 
of violence which is consuming their society.
  Most of the middle class of Iraq has now already moved out of Iraq. 
Much of the middle class is in Syria, Jordan, other communities. What 
has happened is, the very core that we relied on to achieve what we 
wanted to, because of the violence and because of the misjudgments, 
isn't there anymore. That even complicates matters more.
  I heard the Senator from Minnesota say the other day that this is not 
an open-ended commitment that we have today. I don't know how it is not 
open-ended unless, of course, he knows that General Petraeus is going 
to recommend that we bring some troops back in September because in the 
absence of that, it is open-ended. There is nothing that says to the 
Iraqis: Something is going to happen if you don't do X, Y, or Z.
  Last year, we heard Ambassador Khalilzad and then General Casey and 
General Abizaid say the Iraqis have about 6 months, and if they don't 
do the following things in the next 6 months, it is going to be really 
difficult. Guess what, Mr. President. We are a year beyond that now. We 
are 6 months beyond the 6 months. What happened? Nothing.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. For what purpose?
  Mr. INHOFE. For a question.
  Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. INHOFE. I understood that the junior Senator from Massachusetts 
referred to the NIE. I would like to ask a question because my 
interpretation was totally different. The NIE that was released 
yesterday states that worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past 
5 years have constrained the ability of al-Qaida to attack the homeland 
and have led terrorist groups to perceive the United States as a harder 
target to strike than on 9/11. It is a significant judgment that shows 
that our counterterrorism efforts have been working. It also notes that 
al-Qaida leadership continues to plot high-impact attacks, and the safe 
haven it enjoys along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border has likely 
increased its capabilities to attack the United States. This doesn't 
mean, as some erroneously reported last week, that al-Qaida is as 
strong as it was pre-9/11. It does mean that al-Qaida may be strong 
enough to carry out an attack on the United States.
  The question I would ask, reading in context from the NIE, is, Do you 
agree with this interpretation?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I agree with all but the last judgment that 
was made by the Senator. Any appropriate apolitical reading--and I am 
going over to read the full NIE, but I have read the public accounts of 
it and I have talked to some people about it. I would agree that, of 
course, we have done some hard work. Of course, it is more difficult to 
penetrate our country. Absolutely, one would hope. My God, after all 
the money we have spent, after the reorganization of Homeland Security, 
after what we have done at airports alone, let alone some of the 
efforts of the FBI and others with respect to foreign cooperation, of 
course, we have hardened. I don't question that.
  Have we done even as much as I and others want to do? The answer is 
no. We have a lot of undone work with respect to chemical plants and 
nuclear facilities and ports and communities. Frankly, I would have had 
every bit of our baggage x-rayed and inspected. We put passengers 
through this incredible

[[Page 19384]]

rigmarole, but you can put a piece of baggage on an airplane that 
hasn't gone through it. That is absurd. Not to mention our ports and 
the question of port security. We had a vote here not so long ago to 
guarantee that we upgrade our port security even more so that the 
containers that come in by the millions are more secure. There is a lot 
we can do still.
  But, yes, we have hardened. I agree with that. Are we a tougher 
target today vis-a-vis al-Qaida than we were on September 11? Yes, we 
are a tougher target than we were on September 11. But that doesn't 
refute at all what has happened with respect to al-Qaida.
  Al-Qaida was on the run. We had 1,000 al-Qaida in the mountains of 
Tora Bora within months after invading Afghanistan, which I voted for 
and supported and completely believed was the right thing to do--go in 
and take them down. But I will tell you, I have heard from four star 
generals that we ran a risk-averse policy with respect to the effort to 
go after al-Qaida in Afghanistan. When we had them surrounded in the 
mountains of Tora Bora, we didn't pull the trigger on the 10th Mountain 
Division or the 1st Marines or on the 101st Airborne, all of which were 
in the locality. We didn't use them. We outsourced the job going after 
the biggest criminal in American history. We outsourced the job to 
Afghan warlords who 1 week earlier had been on the other side fighting 
against us.
  What happened, we all know. Al-Qaida escaped, went into the northwest 
Pakistan territories where they have been reorganizing now for 4 years. 
What that intelligence report does tell us is that they are 
reconstituted, and they are exporting their lessons learned in Iraq to 
Afghanistan now, which has become far more fragile, far more of a 
challenge, and they are exporting it to Europe. If you talk to the 
authorities in Europe--Germany, in particular, but some other 
countries--there is an increase. That is where the center of al-Qaida 
is today, according to many people in the intelligence community. It is 
growing. That threat is a threat not just to the United States but a 
threat globally.
  I continue to say--and I think the NIE is saying this to us--that al-
Qaida as an entity is as strong today as it was on September 11. After 
almost $600 billion and over 4,000 lives and all of the turmoil we have 
created in Iraq because we are supposedly fighting them over there so 
we don't have to fight them here, there is no way to escape the fact, 
the reality that al-Qaida is in a better position to do whatever it 
wants to do, wherever it may be, including trying to attack us, 
notwithstanding our hardening.
  It is a lot tougher to get into the United States today. It depends 
on where you come from. There are a lot fewer people from Middle 
Eastern and other Islamic connected countries who are getting visas to 
come into the United States. It is a lot tougher today. It should be; 
we understand that. The reality is that al-Qaida is a threat.
  But let's come back to Iraq, which is the key. Al-Qaida wasn't in 
Iraq. The focus of this war was in Afghanistan and in other places. We 
shifted it to Iraq. We have put far more resources and far more 
personnel into Iraq, and Afghanistan is getting worse. I have talked to 
people who spend every day of their lives focused on defense and 
security issues who are unbelievably concerned about what is happening 
in Afghanistan as opposed to concern about what is happening to Iraq in 
terms of the threat to the United States.
  I come back to the point I was making a moment ago, and that is that 
this remains open-ended fundamentally with respect to the demands on 
the Iraqis to live up to their obligations, whether they are the 
provincial elections or the constitutional challenges or the 
reconciliation process.
  I met with Prime Minister Maliki earlier in the year. We talked about 
the reconciliation process. He sat there and said: Yes, we are going to 
meet tomorrow and the next day, and we are very confident about what is 
going to happen with the reconciliation. We are working at it.
  I think the meeting was postponed. I think they held it a little 
later. They got together. Nothing happened. There has been no 
reconciliation. Everybody understands that we haven't been going 
forward with that.
  The question before the Senate, the real question is, Are we going to 
be able to vote on something that is as critical as this without the 
parliamentary intercession? Let's let the chips fall where they may. 
That is the way we have approached the Defense authorization bill 
historically.
  The other question behind that is the question of how do we best 
protect American interests in Iraq. There is a difference of opinion 
there. Many of us have come to believe that it is by setting a date for 
legitimate transformation of responsibility, that people's behavior 
will change. I have seen that historically. Essentially, to whatever 
degree one was able to try to give the Vietnamese an opportunity to be 
able to survive, it was because we transferred authority and 
responsibility. I remember that as long as the Americans were carrying 
the full weight out there doing whatever, nobody else felt they had to 
do any lifting.
  These politicians in Iraq are not going to make fully sort of 
preservational choices until they are faced with the reality that they 
have to. As long as the U.S. security blanket is there, it protects 
them from actually having to come to grips with those choices. It 
empowers them to be able to play out whatever power struggle is going 
on with respect to one sect versus another, one region against another. 
So they can sit there and say: Well, within the next months, these guys 
are going to get wiped out, and my interests will be different than 
they are today. We believe that you have to change those perceptions of 
interest and you have to change them now.
  In addition, there is nothing in this amendment that deprives the 
President or the Congress or the country of the ability to protect our 
interests in the region. Those interests, incidentally, we believe very 
deeply are being injured by the current policy. We are creating more 
terrorists. The CIA has told us that. We have even had reports that al-
Qaida--the Osama bin Laden-al Zawahiri al-Qaida based in northwest 
Pakistan and Afghanistan--is using what is happening in Iraq as a 
recruitment tool, as a fundraising tool. It has become a magnet for 
jihadists. The way you deal with that is to be smarter than we are 
being today, which is diffuse the American presence, have surrogates 
legitimately doing what we are in the same interest. We ought to be 
demanding more of the surrounding communities but, frankly, they have 
lost confidence both in Maliki and this administration. The ability to 
do that is now much harder than it was.
  We in this amendment do not withdraw all the troops from Iraq. Some 
people don't like this amendment because of that. There are some in the 
country who think it should just be done tomorrow. That is not what 
happens here. There is nothing precipitous about it at all. It begins a 
process that most people in the Senate know is probably going to begin 
in September, but it begins it with a clarity that begins to change the 
dynamics on the ground so you begin to best leverage the political 
transformation that needs to take place.
  It does so in a way that leaves the President the discretion to be 
able to have troops necessary to complete the training of Iraqis. It 
leaves the President the discretion to have troops necessary to 
continue to prosecute al-Qaida. And it leaves the President the 
discretion to be able to have the troops necessary to protect American 
facilities and forces.
  Five years--going into the sixth year--of this war, that is a recipe 
for transforming America's presence there, for transforming Iraqi 
responsibility, and for achieving the political settlement that is 
absolutely unachievable as long as there is simply the kind of military 
commitment that has been on the table to now. To date, the 
administration has not shown anybody what their route is, what their 
path is, for the kind of political settlement that seems to escape them 
every time they make the promise.

[[Page 19385]]

  The fact is that the way the troops--I feel this as strongly as I 
feel anything. I remember personally, when I thought a policy was not 
working very well, how we wished that people were responding to the 
realities of what was going on on the ground, and that we wanted people 
in Washington to be more thoughtful and knowledgeable about what the 
dynamics were on the ground.
  I think the same is true of our troops over there, who are committed 
to achieving what they can, but who also--and I have talked to many of 
them--feel as though they are trying to put a square peg in a round 
hole, that they do not have the right tools and the right dynamic to be 
able to accomplish what needs to be done.
  So I say to my colleagues if you know what you are doing is not 
working, if you know what you are doing is counterproductive, if you 
know what you are doing is, in fact, working against your ability to 
most effectively prosecute the war on terror, if you know what you are 
doing is creating casualties out of missions that do not accomplish 
your ultimate goal--which is providing the security that allows the 
transformation of the politics; and there is no indication the politics 
are about to follow--if you know, in fact, you have strengthened one of 
the primary entities you are concerned about in the region--Iran--if 
you know you have lost ground with respect to Hamas and Hezbollah--
because you have been focused elsewhere and not leveraging what needs 
to be done there--if you know so many interests of your country are 
being set back, you ought to change your policy.
  You do not just change it on the military front. In the face of the 
advice of our own generals that there is no military solution, you have 
to change it on the political and diplomatic front. This amendment has 
a very significant, leveraged, diplomatic approach, where it requires a 
very significant effort, where it has been lacking. And believe me, I 
have gone over there enough and talked to enough people to understand 
the degree to which it is lacking. It is critical we leverage that kind 
of behavior.
  So I hope we are going to--in the debate, we ought to have a real 
debate. I have heard colleagues on the other side talk about a recipe 
for defeat. If we continue down the road we are going now, we are 
setting ourselves up to empower al-Qaida even more. If we continue down 
the road we are going now--without the political resolution, without 
legitimate leverage in the region that is more reasonable, and without 
the transfer of legitimate responsibility and accountability to the 
Iraqis--then we are going to have more American soldier casualties, we 
are going to stay in the same position we are in today, and a month 
from now, 2 months from now, 6 months from now, the judgments we are 
going to be called on to make will be exactly the same as they are 
today, only worse, because more time will have been spent, because 
opportunities will have been wasted, and because the opposition will 
have been empowered even further.
  That is what the choice is for all of us here. I hope we are going to 
have sort of a real debate. It is legitimate you might differ over 
whether a particular move is going to accomplish what you set out to 
do, but please do not debate something that is not on the floor.
  This is not a precipitous withdrawal. It does not abandon our 
interests. It addresses our interests in a different way. It redeploys 
our troops. It keeps a significant presence, not just there but in the 
region.
  We have troops in Bahrain. We have troops in the gulf. We have troops 
in other parts of that region, in Kuwait. The fact is, America has the 
ability to protect its interests vis-a-vis Iran. None of us wants to 
see chaos in the long term, but there is chaos that is growing on a 
daily basis, worse and worse, as a consequence of our presence. If we 
have not learned that lesson by now, then we have learned precious 
little at all.
  I hope we will have the real debate we deserve as we go forward.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am extremely interested in the comments 
of the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts. I do not agree 
with much of what he said, and maybe I can comment about some of the 
disagreements as I make my remarks this morning. I will begin by saying 
that on Iraq, absquatulation is not a policy.
  Today we face a growing movement for the political abandonment of the 
will to success in the biggest conflict we face in the whole 21st 
century. There are handfuls of people in pink wandering the hallways 
here, and the party in the majority claims a growing groundswell to 
abandon the fight in the midst of the battle.
  These are perilous times, and the political class of this country is 
divided among those who desperately want to raise the white flag, those 
who are fleeing to the tall grasses, and a beleaguered administration, 
beleaguered in part--and let us be honest at a time when generosity 
would be misplaced--by many of its own spectacular mistakes.
  I hear from constituents who are worried--very worried--about the war 
in Iraq. But Utahns are stalwart in character. Not all of them support 
the President's policy, and not all of them support me, to be sure. But 
I think I am being honest to suggest that the vast majority of my 
constituents are as worried by the prospects of a U.S. unilateral 
withdrawal as they are by the challenges we face in the middle of a 
battle whose end many of my colleagues no longer have the patience to 
imagine, pursue, or achieve.
  Such abandonment is not an option for our forces in Iraq.
  I gave a speech on this floor several months ago where I said I was 
not going to concede to the Democrats' strategy of unilateral 
withdrawal. I pointed out the irony that the Democrats' legitimate 
criticism of this administration's policy--that the Bush administration 
went into Iraq unprepared for the consequences, and without imagining 
the requirements of the day after we toppled Saddam--was, in fact, 
being repeated by the Democrats who now advocate a withdrawal without 
preparing for the consequences, and with no consideration of what will 
happen in Iraq, the region, and the world after we decamp. I find this 
bitterly ironic.
  While I agree with many of the criticisms of this administration's 
early failures in the Iraq war, I will not stand quietly against the 
irony--indeed, the hypocrisy--of suggestions that it is OK to abandon a 
war without considering the consequences, but damnable to begin one in 
the same manner.
  In the months since I spoke on this floor, where I gave my qualified 
support for the surge, I have listened carefully to the debate on and 
off the floor. I have talked to my colleagues, to administration 
officials, to constituents and friends, here and abroad. I have read 
the intelligence on the prospects for Iraq and the currents in the 
region. I have traveled to Iraq, and I have traveled in the region.
  I am a member of the Intelligence Committee, perhaps with the longest 
tenure in the history of the Senate on the Intelligence Committee, and 
I do not find things to be as my colleagues on the other side assert.
  Nowhere have I found a silver lining to these clouds of conflict. But 
nowhere have I heard anyone say the clouds are less dark on the 
horizon.
  The three major problems I am most concerned about--the al-Qaida 
problem, the Iran problem, and the moral and practical costs of 
abandoning the moderate Iraqis--have not been addressed in any 
substantive way in any of the policy prescriptions I have studied. If 
the majority wants to decamp, they need to propose a policy context 
that makes the United States safer on the day after, not more in peril.
  There is an al-Qaida problem.
  In May, I went to Ramadi. I was briefed on our base by General 
Gaskin, and then we suited up to go for a walk in the town center. He 
was with us, and walked with us in that town center. That is correct, 
we had to suit up in armor for a walk downtown. This was no Sunday 
stroll for ice cream. But two

[[Page 19386]]

facts were obvious: One, 6 months before we strolled through those 
downtown streets, Ramadi was al-Qaida's capital in Anbar Province and 
Iraq. On that day, 2 months ago, it was the local Sunnis' capital 
again. And, two, the local Iraqis I saw and met in Ramadi were happy to 
see us there. Had we walked down those same streets 2 months ago, we 
would have been killed.
  However you want to criticize the administration for its past errors, 
we now have a workable counterinsurgency plan in operation. It is 
working in Anbar, and al-Qaida is on the defensive.
  Are they moving out to other places? We are. Are we following them, 
using the counterinsurgency tactics we have finally mastered? We are. 
Are we going to abandon the field we have learned to dominate? You tell 
me. And we will abandon that field in this very Chamber if we keep 
following what is being spoken to on the other side.
  Here is what I learned about our successful counterinsurgency 
campaign from General Gaskin. Al-Qaida declared Ramadi the capital city 
of the Islamic State of Iraq. There were no police in Ramadi last year. 
Al-Qaida in Iraq, or AQI, as we refer to it, had destroyed all the 
police in the city. Starting in mid-February, the coalition cleared the 
downtown in about 6 weeks. There were approximately 15,000 to 20,000 
members of al-Qaida in Anbar initially. Now, about half of them are 
dead. Others are still trying to discredit the Government of Iraq and 
discredit the occupation. They represent us as occupiers, infidels, if 
you will. They advance their goals with brutal methods. All of their 
financing comes from criminal enterprises. Al-Qaida is very cellular, 
decentralized, but resilient and regenerative. They are self-
sufficient, funding themselves through criminal activities--murder, 
intimidation, the black market.
  We have finally learned to deal with the Sunni tribes. It took us too 
long to understand the tribes, but al-Qaida did not understand the 
tribal culture either. Al-Qaida's intimidation activities and murder of 
families--including young boys--enraged the local tribes and tribal 
leaders. The tribes' response was their realization that the expanded 
coalition presence was a chance to get al-Qaida out of their lives, and 
they came to a mutual understanding with coalition forces, sending 
1,200 of their boys for enlistment in the security forces in 1 day.
  That was a turnaround. I was there with Senator Smith approximately a 
year before then. There was no chance at all in that province. But 
because of the counterinsurgency, we have made tremendous strides, and 
they are completely ignored by some here in this Chamber.
  But the local population in Ramadi and al-Anbar has helped find two-
thirds of the IEDs in this area. We have promoted the development of a 
neighborhood watch system there. Once you clear, you must leave a 
security presence with coalition support. The locals will not give you 
intel if you do not leave a permanent presence to provide security. In 
the words of General Gaskin: We are asking the Iraqis to gain capacity 
while they are at war. This is very unusual, and it is very difficult.
  In counterinsurgency, the most important thing is how well you 
protect the population, and what the level of violence is. We are 
making progress in al-Anbar. Are we going to abandon this progress? As 
General Gaskin put it: It's like someone tells you the ship that you're 
on is on fire. You jump off, but halfway down you discover that it 
wasn't on fire after all. You still have to deal with your decision to 
jump: Either swim or drown.
  As I have said, I am not in favor of jumping ship, but for those who 
are, the question is: What are we going to do? Swim or drown?
  Last month, two analysts for the Radio Free Iraq service of Radio 
Free Europe/Radio Liberty released a compelling report entitled ``Iraqi 
Insurgency Media: The War of Images and Ideas.''
  In addition to cataloging the impressive degree to which the Iraqi 
Sunni insurgency is using the Internet to purvey a constant stream of 
images, propaganda, songs, and other images that glorify the fight 
against the coalition, this report makes clear that this barrage of 
insurgent media is feeding the global extremist network.
  According to the report:

       The Iraqi insurgent media network is a boon to global 
     jihadist media, which can use materials produced by the 
     insurgency to reinforce their message.

  The images of our precipitous withdrawal will be broadcast endlessly, 
to inspire and incite extremists throughout the world.
  In fact, if you talk to the analysts who monitor insurgent media, you 
learn that there are two prevalent themes today. The insurgents, 
including al-Qaida, are very media savvy, and they are avid consumers 
of Western and American media. They watch our floor debates. It is a 
common theme for them today to declare that we will withdraw. In our 
withdrawal, they see victory.
  If we abandon the counterinsurgency gains we have made, al-Qaida will 
not only declare global victory and vindication, they will attempt to 
reclaim the territory in Iraq. And don't think anything otherwise.
  Nowhere have I seen policy prescriptions from the other side or 
anywhere else, for that matter, other than the counterinsurgency and 
the work that is going on right now to address this problem.
  We cannot fight al-Qaida from across the border. And to suggest we 
can protect all our interests by being in the little country of Kuwait 
is absurd. We cannot fight al-Qaida and ignore Baghdad. And we cannot 
walk away from this fight with al-Qaida.
  For those who want to withdraw without a policy prescription, all I 
can say is, you may no longer be interested in al-Qaida in Iraq, but 
al-Qaida is interested in the United States, and always has been.
  Let's talk about the Iran problem. My colleague from Massachusetts 
mentioned this as though it is not a problem. I am sure he did not mean 
that. If you watch the Sunni insurgency media, you also determine an 
even more prominent theme. They assume, based on watching our media, 
that we will abandon the cause. And they declare an even bigger threat 
is Iran. Nowhere have I read of a compelling policy prescription to 
answer the question of how we will deal with Iran in the aftermath of a 
withdrawal. Iran is competing with the United States in the region. We 
are getting unclassified briefs from Multi-National Force in Iraq 
officers identifying the Iranian agents' role in supporting militias 
and funding explosively-formed penetrators EFPs, if you will--networks, 
which target the coalition.
  Iran is playing a dangerous game, not because they solicit an armed 
reaction from us--which they calculate will not occur--but they are 
carefully stoking sectarian and anticoalition conflict, while taking 
advantage of the relative security our military presence provides.
  What is our policy toward Iran should we decide to follow the 
prescription to abandon the fight in Iraq? All I have read is a hopeful 
repetition of the desire for a diplomatic solution. I always hope for a 
diplomatic solution. That is always a nice weasel way of hoping we can 
get out of these problems. I also hope to balance the budget, and I 
hope to cure AIDS. We are not making much headway in those, either.
  This will not happen based on hope alone, however.
  Those who think we can split from Iraq in the middle of the conflict 
and deal with Iran with a Tehran tea party are not just hopeful, they 
are delusional. Iran is a totalitarian regime in desperate economic 
circumstances and desperate economic condition. There have been riots 
over gas-rationing in a nation awash--or should I say rich--in oil.
  The population has suffered 2 generations of economic decline--in a 
nation rich in oil. The rich Persian culture has suffered the 
spectacular mismanagement of a corrupt and despotic regime.
  Just several days ago, the Open Source Center provided an analysis of 
Iran's treatment of its labor unions. I quote:

       The abduction of the head of Tehran's transport workers' 
     union is the latest sign of

[[Page 19387]]

     the antagonism shown President Ahmadinejad's government 
     toward trade unions and other civil society institutions. On 
     April 11 it shut down the Iranian Labor News Agency, which 
     often reported on labor discontent arising from Iran's 
     economic failures as well as on student unrest and human 
     rights abuses. Mahumd Osanlu, head of the Workers' Syndicate 
     of the Tehran and Suburban Bus Company, has not been heard 
     from since he was beaten and abducted on July 10 by 
     plainclothesmen, presumably from the government.

  Do I need to remind my colleagues that Ahmadinejad ran on a platform 
of helping the lower classes? This is the face of a corrupt and failing 
regime that is causing havoc all over the Middle East. Just ask the 
people in Lebanon, if you want to, but you can also ask the people in 
Iraq.
  We are spending about $100 billion a year providing various degrees 
of stability through most of Iraq, stability on Iran's border. If we 
leave, there will be great instability. How will Iran react? My friend 
from Massachusetts seems to think they are not going to do one little 
thing. Once we leave, everything is going to stabilize and it is all 
going to be just wonderful. I don't think he quite went that far, but 
he basically said Iran is not going to do much. But do we have a policy 
in place that will seek to advance our goals of containing the Iranian 
threat, or is the policy of withdrawal hinging simply on the desperate 
desire for diplomacy with despots?
  There are moral and practical costs of abandoning the moderates in 
Iraq. I disagree with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. 
There are plenty of moderates. There are plenty of the middle class in 
Iraq. Large areas of Iraq are not in turmoil. Large areas of Iraq are, 
but there are plenty of people living there who want this country to 
work. Eighty percent of them voted for freedom and voted for a 
representative form of government.
  What are the consequences for the moderates of Iraq if we withdraw? 
There are, in fact, many moderates, many Iraqis intermarried between 
faiths, many Iraqis who are urban professionals, many Iraqi women are 
educated, in contrast to what the al-Qaida people and the Taliban 
people would do to women. All of these are attributes of the moderate 
masses who are today intimidated by the insurgents, by gangsters and 
terrorists, and who are currently failed by Iraqi politicians.
  Nonetheless, they are there in significant numbers. They will suffer 
immensely in the chaos that will follow our withdrawal.
  If we believe that a principal key to addressing the sources of 
discontent that fuels violent extremism in the Muslim world was the 
empowerment of the moderate classes seeking modern civil society, our 
abandonment of the cause in Iraq will do more than fuel the ferocious 
violence of al-Qaida, the deadly competition fomented by Iran; it will 
seal our ability to appeal to the moderate Muslim elements throughout 
the world, to build civic culture in autocratic societies. Our natural 
allies in these societies--the young and the educated, the 
professional, the women seeking to escape the oppression of the veil--
will not respond to our entreaties because they will have seen that the 
United States does not continue to stand with its allies. They will see 
the images of our withdrawal. They will see the self-satisfied 
propaganda of the insurgents and al-Qaida, and they will be afraid to 
be with us.
  I fear they will see images of the slaughter of innocents.
  They will go back into the shadows, and the shadows of autocracy or, 
even worse, Islamic fascism will grow. We will have squandered not just 
the good will of our natural allies--those who want to modernize into 
peaceful and productive societies--but we will have squandered the 
faith of hundreds of millions throughout the world who will see no 
reason to stand by or with us. Whom will we blame for the slaughter of 
moderates, and whom will we turn to the next time we seek allies in the 
Middle East?
  Should those who advocate withdrawal today succeed in their ill-
conceived attempt to run away from reality, reality will not let us 
escape. Without a policy to fight al-Qaida in Iraq, to compete with an 
unstable and adventurous Iran, and to prevent the slaughter of Iraqi 
innocents on a scale much greater than we see today, a withdrawal will 
be calamitous.
  The consequences on our ability to conduct foreign policy, to win the 
war on terror, and to advance our values of democracy and peace will be 
immense.
  After the capitulation driven by congressional Democrats that led to 
our abandonment of Vietnam in the 1970s, the Soviets became emboldened 
and advanced throughout what was known then as the Third World--in 
Angola, Central America, and Afghanistan. We regained our footing in a 
decade, and we won the Cold War because we found our will. Without a 
strategy to accompany the policy of withdrawal, the consequences--an 
emboldened al-Qaida, aggressive Iran, and intimidated, harassed, and 
slaughtered Iraqi moderates--will haunt us much longer than after our 
Vietnam withdrawal. After all, the Vietnamese did not threaten our 
country. They did not threaten our mainland. These people have, and 
these people continue to threaten our mainland. These people continue 
to say, as was said just a week ago, that they are going to cause havoc 
over here.
  I am 73 years old, and I fear that should we concede to the powerful 
call for withdrawal without a sound policy, the harm to this Nation 
will last longer than I have years to live.
  The senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, whom I hold in high 
esteem, quoted General Petraeus earlier, saying that of all the 
resources General Petraeus could have, the one he wanted most was time. 
The one he wanted most was time. This is a very important point, and I 
commend the distinguished Senator from Arizona for making it.
  Many people today believe that whatever the outcome this month, we 
have set a deadline for September. I say: Any progress achieved by 
September will be incremental, at best. Counterinsurgencies can be won, 
but they will not be won on a congressional election cycle. We should 
not be so arrogant as to presume we can make them fit into such an 
absurd construct. Let us be honest and admit that if we want to sustain 
the fight in Iraq, we should give it much longer than a September 
deadline. Perhaps in a year, perhaps in 2, we can see a success, but 
for this, we need more than time. We need will. That is what I see 
evaporating around all of us here in the Senate.
  The majority is waving the flag of withdrawal. There is no 
accompanying policy to shape the way the geopolitical environment will 
be affected. Our enemies will be emboldened, our competitors 
encouraged, and our friends throughout the region will be like me: 
discouraged.
  Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has said 
we are not talking withdrawal; we are talking a redeployment. Who is he 
kidding? We are going to leave a small contingency there to do exactly 
what Secretary Rumsfeld was doing, with an emboldened al-Qaida? Come 
on. I think they are ignoring the fact that the al-Qaida people have 
said they are going to establish a worldwide caliphate and impose their 
will on everybody--especially us.
  One thing I would just like to say is they have piled into Iraq. They 
were there before, in spite of what the distinguished Senator has said. 
Maybe not in as great numbers; of course not, but they have piled into 
Iraq knowing that if they defeat us there and we turn tail and run for 
the high grasses, they will have accomplished something they didn't 
even dream they could accomplish 5 years ago.
  This is not a simple war. This is not a war against another nation. 
It is not a war where people on the other side wear uniforms. It is a 
war where they commit terror all over the world. It is a war where they 
have threatened us. It a war where they kill innocent human beings. It 
is a war where they don't think anything of sending their young people 
strapped with bombs to blow themselves up, to maim and kill innocent 
civilians.
  If we do what our friends on the other side want to do, our enemies 
will be emboldened, our competitors encouraged, and our friends 
throughout the

[[Page 19388]]

world will lose an awful lot of faith and confidence in the United 
States of America.
  Mr. President, absquatulation is not a policy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Good morning. Not long ago, a woman who lives in 
Pawtucket, RI, wrote me:

       I care about the human spirit, which I think is deeply 
     wounded by our occupation in Iraq. I have three friends 
     serving this country because they believe it is their duty. I 
     believe it is your duty to bring them home. I beg you for an 
     end to this war.

  She is not just a lone voice from one State. All over this country, 
Americans call for an end to this war. At the grocery store, around the 
kitchen table, and in places of worship, Americans are sharing their 
frustration and outrage at a President who refuses to listen, refuses 
to admit mistakes and misjudgments, and stubbornly refuses to change 
course.
  The amendment sponsored by my distinguished senior Senator, Jack Reed 
of Rhode Island, and the honorable chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, would require a redeployment of 
American troops to begin within 120 days of enactment. It sets a 
reasonable, responsible goal: that the redeployment be completed by 
April 30 of next year--2008.
  Let us be clear: The Levin-Reed amendment offers a new direction in 
Iraq.
  A vote for the Levin-Reed amendment is a vote to support our troops 
and their families who are bearing the burden of repeated deployments, 
long separation, and sometimes debilitating injury, and they bear it 
with courage, fortitude, and honor. This measure supports them by 
bringing the troops home safely and with honor.
  A vote for the Levin-Reed amendment is a vote that will help give our 
military the time and the resources to rebuild and recover from the 
strain on our troops and equipment.
  A vote for the Levin-Reed amendment opens strategic doors to renew 
diplomacy in the Middle East and throughout the world and to begin 
restoring America's standing, prestige, and good will in the global 
community.
  More and more of our colleagues in this body recognize the need for 
this new direction. Many of those who supported the war in the past 
have now said they can no longer support President Bush in his failed 
and misguided course in Iraq. But I say to my friends, when the issue 
before us is our single most important matter of foreign policy and 
national security, words alone are not enough.
  When our Nation's course has been as misdirected and mismanaged as it 
has been, words alone are not enough.
  When, in the face of this policy's failure and the resulting chaos in 
Iraq, corrective action is called for, words are not enough.
  And when the opportunity for that correction is within our reach, 
within our grasp, if only we would seize it, mere words are not enough.
  This is a day when we are called upon to act. The question before us 
is simple: Are you in favor of bringing our troops home? That is a 
serious question, and it demands serious, reasoned, and thoughtful 
debate.
  I was recently struck by words spoken in this Chamber by Senator 
Richard Lugar of Indiana. Senator Lugar's words imparted a 
thoughtfulness that too long has been missing from this debate. Too 
often, this administration communicates not with reason but with 
slogans and sound bites: ``Stay the course.'' ``Support the troops.'' 
``Global war on terror.'' ``Cut and run.'' ``Precipitous withdrawal.'' 
I say to anyone watching this debate: When you hear those words coming 
from this Chamber, I hope an alarm bell goes off in your head, a signal 
that thinking and reason have ended and sloganeering has begun. You 
deserve better.
  In May of 2003, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS 
Abraham Lincoln and said this:

       Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle 
     of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

  In the background, of course, was the banner that read: ``Mission 
Accomplished.''
  Then, over a year ago, in June 2006, President Bush announced 
Operation Together Forward, a ``joint effort to restore security and 
rule of law to high-risk areas in the capital city'' of Baghdad.
  Then, this January, the President said he would send tens of 
thousands more troops there, part of a surge to try yet again to secure 
Iraq's capital.
  The months since President Bush's surge have been among the deadliest 
of the war. Nearly 600 U.S. soldiers have died since the announcement 
of the surge, and over 3,500 have been wounded. Last month, more than 
100 American servicemembers died in Iraq. The month before that, more 
than 100 American troops lost their lives. The month before that, April 
of this year, over 100 American deaths. Between February 10 and May 7 
of this year, the Pentagon reports U.S. forces sustained an average of 
25 casualties each day--more than during that time in the previous 
year.
  Alasdair Campbell, the U.K.'s outgoing Defense Attache at its Baghdad 
Embassy, said in May:

       The evidence does not suggest that the surge is actually 
     working, if reduction in casualties is a criterion.

  The Pentagon's survey found that, on average, more than 100 Iraqi 
civilians were killed or wounded each day between February and May--
nearly double the daily total from the same period 1 year ago.
  The number of unidentified murdered bodies found in Baghdad soared 70 
percent during the month of May--726, compared to 411 in April. At 
least 21 unidentified murdered bodies were found in Baghdad just this 
past weekend. The displacement of Iraqi civilians has continued 
throughout the spring--90,000 Iraqis per month in March, April, and May 
of 2007, according to the Brookings monthly Iraq Index. The average 
weekly number of attacks across Iraq surpassed 1,000, compared to about 
600 weekly attacks for the same period 1 year ago. More than 75 percent 
of the attacks were aimed at U.S. forces.
  In an interview with the Washington Post in June, retired general 
Barry McCaffrey said:

       Why would we think that a temporary presence of 30,000 
     additional combat troops in a giant city would change the 
     dynamics of a bitter civil war?

  In a survey taken in February and March of this year, 53 percent of 
Iraqis viewed their security environment as ``bad or very bad,'' and 
even in that environment, 78 percent of Iraqis, in an ABC News study, 
do not support having American or coalition forces in their country. 
Only 18 percent have confidence in U.S. and coalition troops, the BBC 
has reported, and 51 percent approve of attacking our forces.
  David Kilcullen, General Petraeus's top counterinsurgency adviser, 
said last month:

       We haven't turned the tide. We haven't turned the corner. 
     There isn't light at the end of the tunnel.

  We will not turn the tide, we will not turn the corner, and there 
will be no light at the end of the tunnel until this administration 
makes it clear that our intent is to withdraw our forces rapidly and 
responsibly.
  The other side argues that to dispute this President's judgment is to 
fail to support the troops, even though that very judgment has 
catastrophically failed the troops and our country.
  I traveled to Iraq in March, in my capacity as a new member of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, to get a firsthand look. I met brave 
Rhode Islanders in Fallujah and at a medical center where Rhode 
Islanders are helping provide care to our wounded soldiers. They, like 
all our troops in Iraq, are serving our Nation with dedication, 
courage, and honor. Our troops are working so hard and accomplishing so 
much, but this administration has not given them the support they 
need--not in the field of battle, not when they return home, and, most 
importantly, not with wisdom to match their bravery.
  As I traveled around Rhode Island in the last few years I met mothers 
who felt they had to buy body armor for their sons who were being 
shipped to

[[Page 19389]]

Iraq because they could not trust this administration to provide it.
  Just this week, USA Today reported extensively on the Pentagon's 
failure to address the Marines' request for Mine Resistant Ambush 
Protection--or MRAP--vehicles.
  In February, a series of articles in the Washington Post highlighted 
shortfalls in the care and treatment of our wounded warriors at the 
Walter Reed Army hospital. The Nation's shock and dismay reflected the 
American people's support, respect, and gratitude for the men and women 
who put on our Nation's uniform. They deserve the best, not shoddy 
medical equipment, rundown facilities, and bureaucratic snafus.
  This administration says we need to support the troops. I agree. We 
can support the troops by ensuring that they have the equipment, 
resources, and protection they need--and by caring for them when they 
return home. We can also support them with wise strategies arising from 
honest debate.
  The President says Iraq is part of a vast ``global war on terror'' 
and that remaining mired in a conflict there is critical to our 
national security. But the war in Iraq has made us less, not more, 
secure. The way to reverse this trend is to redeploy our troops out of 
Iraq.
  After our country has expended over $450 billion and lost more than 
3,600 American lives, according to the unclassified key judgments of 
the National Intelligence Estimate released yesterday, al-Qaida and 
other Islamist terrorist groups remain undiminished in their intent to 
attack the United States and continue to adapt and improve their 
capabilities.
  While the Bush administration wallows in Iraq, al-Qaida has protected 
sanctuary along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, again 
according to the unclassified key judgments of the NIE.
  National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell told the Senate Armed 
Services Committee that he believes a successful attack by al-Qaida 
would most likely be planned and come out of the group's locations in 
Pakistan, not Iraq. Al-Qaida, the perpetrators of the September 11 
terrorist attacks on the United States, remains a significant threat to 
our country and our national security, and 4 years of war in Iraq has 
not changed that fact.
  President Bush and his diehard allies say that what we and the 
American people support is cut-and-run or a precipitous withdrawal.
  The Levin-Reed amendment requires that we begin redeploying American 
troops from Iraq 4 months after the measure is enacted--not 4 days, not 
4 weeks, but 4 months. Surely, with the greatest military in the world, 
we have the capacity to plan in 4 months to begin a redeployment of our 
troops. In fact, I would be surprised and concerned if our military 
were not already planning for such a contingency.
  Then, the Levin-Reed amendment sets a date for redeployment of April 
30, 2008. If this amendment became law tomorrow, that would give our 
military and this administration more than 9 months to plan and 
implement our troops' redeployment--a redeployment that leaves a 
military presence for force protection, training, and counterterrorism 
in Iraq. Is that truly a precipitous withdrawal? It is not. Those who 
say it is are not being straightforward with the Senate and with the 
American people.
  Let me say this, because it is one of the elements of this issue 
which President Bush has completely and willfully overlooked: The time 
it will take for us to redeploy should not be idle or wasted time; it 
must be a time of great energy and effort, because it is our time of 
opportunity to begin the tough process of diplomacy that can help 
stabilize the Middle East and restore America's standing and prestige 
around the world.
  It is a window of time in which we must aggressively engage the 
region and the world community in the ongoing work to rebuild Iraq and 
restore stability there, in which we can confound the insurgents who 
foment civil war from within Iraq and the global jihadists who import 
violence from without it. It is a window in which Iraq's political 
leaders can be motivated to work for cooperation, unity, and real 
progress.
  In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, former Secretary of State 
Henry Kissinger described the reality that the cauldron of Iraq may 
overflow and engulf the region. He goes on to say that:

       The continuation of Iraq's current crisis presents all of 
     Iraq's neighbors with mounting problems. . . . Saudi Arabia 
     and Jordan dread Shiite domination of Iraq, especially if the 
     Baghdad regime threatens to be a satellite of Iran. The 
     various Gulf sheikdoms, the largest of which is Kuwait, find 
     themselves in an even more threatened position. Their 
     interest is to help calm the Iraq turmoil and avert Iranian 
     domination of the region.

  Then he says that:

       Given a wise and determined American diplomacy, even Iran 
     may be brought to conclude that the risks of continued 
     turmoil outweigh the temptations before it.

  But make no mistake, as long as we occupy Iraq, the broader 
international engagement we need will remain elusive. With the 
announcement of a U.S. redeployment, Iraq's neighbors must face the 
prospect that the Iraq cauldron may overflow, and they will, therefore, 
be obliged to take a more helpful--in the case of Saudi Arabia--or a 
more tempered--in the case of Iran--role in the area's future. They 
will have no other practical choice because their own national 
interests will now be squarely on the line.
  As ADM William J. Fallon has said:

       I see an awful lot of sitting and watching by countries in 
     the neighborhood. It is high time that changed.

  Well, it is high time that changed, but our mediate and buffering 
military presence prevents that from changing.
  A redeployment will also deprive the insurgents of a strong 
recruiting tool--the al-Qaida narrative that the United States has 
imperial designs over Muslim lands, which resonates strongly in the 
Middle East due to their own colonial experiences with the British and 
the Ottomans.
  If we make it clear that our troops are coming home--and, critically 
important, that we are not leaving permanent bases behind--the 
insurgents and terror networks will lose this defining argument.
  The Bush administration and its supporters noted that the Sunni 
sheiks of Anbar Province have recently turned against al-Qaida in Iraq. 
When I met with Marine commanders in Fallujah during my trip to Iraq in 
March, they told me the same thing--and what an important and exciting 
development that was.
  The marine general briefing us made clear that these Sunni sheiks 
turned against al-Qaida in the realization that the United States would 
not be in Iraq forever, thanks to the political debate this Congress 
has insisted on since the November election. It was the prospect of our 
redeployment that moved them to action.
  Once all factions in Iraq must face the naked consequences of their 
actions, we should hope, and expect, to see similar moments of 
strategic clarity emerge.
  How are they doing without that pressure? Last week, we saw a report 
from the White House that was deeply troubling. The report said that it 
has become significantly harder for Iraqi leaders to make the difficult 
compromises necessary to foster reconciliation.
  In particular, the administration has focused on four objectives: 
provincial elections, deBaathification, constitutional reform, and the 
hydrocarbons law. These are the exact same issues U.S. and Iraqi 
military leaders stressed to us during our trip in March. Without 
progress in these areas, I was told by our generals, our military 
tactics would not succeed in accomplishing the ultimate goal.
  It would be putting it mildly to say I was not reassured by the 
signals I received from our meetings with Iraqi officials. There was a 
severe disconnect between the urgency of our generals about this 
legislation and the absence of equivalent urgency, or even energy, on 
the part of Iraqi officials. One American soldier I met put it in 
plain, homespun terms:

       If your parents are willing to pay for the movies so you 
     don't have to use your own

[[Page 19390]]

     money, or if you can get your big sister to do your homework 
     for you, who wants to give that up?

  Well, Mr. President, it is time. To quote the report:

       1, the government of Iraq has not made satisfactory 
     progress toward enacting and implementing legislation on de-
     Baathi-
     fication reform. This is among the most divisive political 
     issues for Iraq and compromise will be extremely difficult.
       2, the current status [of efforts to enact hydrocarbon 
     legislation] is unsatisfactory. The government of Iraq has 
     not met its self-imposed goal of May 31 for submitting the 
     framework hydrocarbon revenue-sharing laws.
       3, the government of Iraq has not made satisfactory 
     progress toward establishing a provincial election law.
       4, the government of Iraq has not made satisfactory 
     progress toward establishing a date for provincial elections. 
     Legislation required for setting the date has not been 
     enacted.
       5, the government of Iraq has not made satisfactory 
     progress toward establishing provincial council authorities.

  So how does the administration respond to the list of unsatisfactory 
progress on their key elements? Let's turn again to the White House 
report:
  De-Baathification:

       This does not, however, necessitate a revision to the 
     current plan and strategy.

  Hydrocarbon legislation:

       This does not, however, necessitate a revision to our 
     current plan and strategy.

  Provincial elections.

       However, at this time, this does not necessitate a revision 
     to our current plan and strategy.

  It is clear that the Iraqis have not yet made that progress. Yet this 
President and this administration refuse to take the one step that 
could truly galvanize real change in Iraq--announcing a redeployment of 
American forces. They must look into the abyss. We must announce that 
we will redeploy our troops. This is a necessary step.
  A redeployment of our troops creates the potential to change the 
overarching dynamic for the better, freeing us to focus more 
effectively on strategies to counter al-Qaida and stabilize the region.
  This is a critical step, and thoughtful, reasoned political and 
diplomatic leadership will be essential to take advantage of the new 
dynamic a redeployment offers.
  This is a positive step, to improve our posture and advance our 
strategic interests.
  I know my Republican colleagues wish to couch this change of course 
in terms of failure and abandonment. Whether this is just for 
rhetorical advantage, or whether they just cannot see redeployment as a 
calibrated part of a new and more promising regional strategy, I do not 
know. Let me say this, though. This is not a test of resolve. We have 
an enormously complex problem, a problem we have tried to solve by 
military force alone. Despite heroic efforts by our military, that 
strategy has failed--catastrophically. It did not fail because anything 
was lacking in our troops, it failed because the strategy was wrong--
wrong at its inception, wrong in its execution, and wrong now.
  We in the Senate must challenge the administration to summon the 
political courage and the moral courage to face the fact that the 
strategy was wrong and needs to change. It is never easy to admit 
mistakes, but when the lives of our troops and the strategic position 
of our country are at stake, they have to do what is right, not what is 
politically comfortable or fits the rhetoric. This should not be too 
much to ask of a President of the United States.
  If, as so many believe, we are on a continuing collision course with 
the facts, with the lessons of history; if our strategy is, in fact, 
ill-advised; if we indeed are creating and maintaining a poisonous 
dynamic in the region for ourselves, can we not at least consider that 
redeployment--specifically, the credible threat of redeployment--can 
open new doors for resolving the civil conflicts over which we are now 
the unwelcome police?
  The measure now before the Senate sets forth a thoughtful, 
responsible path to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. It provides our 
military commanders with the time and resources they need to redeploy 
our troops safely. It will focus Iraq's political leaders on making 
progress, where, to put it mildly, thus far insufficient progress has 
been made on measures critical to their nation's future and our 
success. And it will galvanize the international community and the 
region in the practical and self-interested pursuit--or acceptance--of 
a more stable, more secure Iraq.
  The Levin-Reed amendment is the new direction Americans have called 
for. It is the change of course we desperately need. In a few hours, 
this long debate, this long night, will draw to a close. I urge my 
colleagues to let us vote up or down, yes or no, on the new direction 
the Levin-Reed amendment embodies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Simply put, we need to avoid micromanaging the war from 
the floor of the Senate. We need to let our military leaders perform 
their duties and give them time for our new way forward in Iraq to be 
successful. We now have before us the Levin-Reed amendment, which sets 
a timeline for us to begin withdrawal from Iraq. We cannot afford to 
set a hard deadline to begin to walk away from Iraq. The cost of 
failure is too great to our future long-term national security. It is 
in America's security interest to have an Iraq that can sustain, 
govern, and defend itself. Too much is at stake to simply abandon Iraq 
at this point. The price of failure is simply too great.
  I will continue to vote against any legislation that sets arbitrary 
deadlines and thresholds in Iraq, and I plead with my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Let me remind our colleagues that we have seen terrible results from 
political motives being placed above military necessities: the attempt 
at rescuing the American Embassy hostages from Tehran, and Beirut, in 
the 1980s, and Somalia in the 1990s. Leaving Iraq in the current 
situation would only result in emboldening terrorists around the world. 
Bin Laden himself is on record, after these previous withdrawals, 
criticizing our lack of will and questioning our commitment to fight 
these zealots. We have to learn from our mistakes in the past.
  I refer to a quote in the Iraq Study Group's final report on page 37 
and 38:

       A premature American departure from Iraq would almost 
     certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further 
     deterioration of conditions.

  It goes on to say:

       The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, 
     greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a 
     threat to the global economy. Al-Qaeda would depict our 
     withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq 
     descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could 
     eventually require the United States to return.

  Of course, I remain upset that more progress has not been made on the 
political and domestic security front within Iraq, but that reality 
doesn't diminish the fact that al-Qaida is training, operating, and 
carrying out their mission in Iraq right now. They are clearly still a 
threat and are still determined to accomplish their goals of attacking 
us and our allies around the world. What is most unfortunate about this 
debate is that clearly the majority party in the Senate has already 
prejudged the work our commander in Iraq, GEN David Petraeus, is trying 
to carry out. As we all know, in September a complete review of Iraq 
policy, including a detailed assessment of the surge, will be 
presented. I look forward to that assessment. I look forward to making 
the appropriate decisions based on that report. It would be 
disingenuous to discontinue the plans our military leaders have planned 
and are putting into place simply for political gain.
  I quote General Petraeus, commander of the multinational force in 
Iraq. He said:

       If I could have only one [thing] at this point in Iraq, it 
     would be more time. 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. This is 
     an exceedingly tough endeavor that faces countless 
     challenges. None of us, Iraqi or American, are anything but 
     impatient and frustrated at where we are. But there are no 
     shortcuts. Success in an endeavor like this is the result of 
     steady, unremitting pressure

[[Page 19391]]

     over the long haul. It's a test of wills, demanding patience, 
     determination and stamina from all involved.

  I think we ought to give him his one wish.
  This is a similar situation we were in only months ago. Many in this 
body wanted to reject the strategy General Petraeus proposed in Iraq, 
even before he had been given the full opportunity to perform his 
mission. I still cannot comprehend why my colleagues would agree to a 
new bipartisan strategy in Iraq but only months later not be willing to 
support our self-imposed guidelines.
  On July 12, the President issued a report as required by the fiscal 
year 2007 supplemental appropriations bill, assessing the progress of 
the sovereign Government of Iraq in achieving the benchmarks detailed 
in the bill. The report told us 8 of the 18 benchmarks detailed in that 
bill received satisfactory remarks. While we are certainly disappointed 
that more benchmarks were not achieved, it is important to highlight 
the successes being made and how the Iraqi Government is performing, as 
their success will ultimately allow us to responsibly reduce our troop 
levels.
  The benchmarks that have reached success so far are as follows: The 
Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward forming a 
constitutional review committee and then completing the constitutional 
review. The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward 
enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-
autonomous regions. The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory 
progress toward establishing supporting political, media, economic, and 
services committees in support of the Baghdad security plan. The 
Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress toward providing 
three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations. 
The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress in ensuring the 
Baghdad security plan does not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, 
regardless of their sectarian or political affiliations. The Government 
of Iraq, with substantial coalition assistance, has made satisfactory 
progress, once again, toward establishing the planned joint security 
stations in Iraq. The Government of Iraq has made satisfactory progress 
toward ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the 
Iraqi legislature are protected. And finally, the Iraqi Government is 
making satisfactory progress in allocating funds to ministries and 
provinces for reconstruction projects.
  General Odierno, on the surge progress, says:

       The increased presence is having an effect, and it will 
     continue to be felt in the weeks to come. We still have not 
     reached . . . the end of our surge. Every day we are making 
     progress.

  That is from LTG Ray Odierno, U.S. Army Commander of the 
multinational corps in Iraq. He goes on to list some specific examples. 
I don't need to list all those specific examples, but a full page in 
fine print where he points to successes in Iraq. What is most 
unfortunate during this debate is that the Democratic majority has put 
in jeopardy the passage of the Defense authorization legislation, 
something that simply has not happened in decades. By pushing for a 
failed Iraq policy amendment to the Defense authorization bill, the 
majority are willing to trash legislation that is vital to our men and 
women in the Armed Forces. The managers of the bill, Chairman Carl 
Levin and Ranking Member John McCain, should be commended for their 
good work on this comprehensive and vital legislation. The 
authorization bill provides our men and women in combat zones with the 
resources and equipment they need to complete their missions. It also 
provides for our troops at home by ensuring they receive appropriate 
medical care upon their return and the training needed prior to 
deployment.
  Finally, the bill provides for the health and well-being of our Armed 
Forces and the tools they need to defeat terrorism and defend our 
Nation from future attacks. An important component of this bill is the 
increased commitment to the quality of life for our service men and 
women. The authorization includes $135 billion for military personnel, 
authorizing payment of combat-related compensation to servicemembers 
medically retired for a combat-related disability and lowering the age 
at which members of the Reserves may draw from their retirement. This 
bill further provides our men and women with quality health care by 
adjusting $1.9 billion for TRICARE benefits and directing the 
Department of Defense to study and develop a plan addressing the 
findings of the Mental Health Assessment Commission.
  This bill also gives our troops the necessary protection to combat 
the threats they are facing right now, particularly to counter 
insurgent improvised explosive devices--commonly known as IEDs--threats 
which remain the No. 1 killer of American troops. This bill includes $4 
billion to the individual services and special operations command for 
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. It also fully funds the 
President's request of $4.5 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive 
Devices Defeat Office for blast injury research and the procurement of 
IED jammers.
  Unfortunately, this legislation is threatened by the insistence of 
the majority leader on having this protracted and unnecessary debate. 
There is no doubt that we face extremely difficult challenges in Iraq. 
We have not made enough progress. The citizens of Iraq must be willing 
to fight for their own freedom. But we should not cut General 
Petraeus's time short in implementing his plan that this body 
overwhelmingly approved of only a few months ago.
  I have a quote or two I wish to share and remind the body about what 
the Democrats, the opposite party, have said. The Democrats' dismissal 
of General Petraeus's report is part of a pattern. The Baghdad security 
plan was declared a failure 2 months before U.S. reinforcements arrived 
in Iraq. Senator Reid from Nevada is quoted as saying ``This war is 
lost'' and that ``the surge is not accomplishing anything.'' Senator 
Levin said, ``It's a failure.'' But the surge only began in mid-June, 2 
months after the Democrats first declared it a failure.
  General Petraeus said:

       The surge has really just . . . begun.

  Hours ago I heard the minority whip talk about how many on this side 
have acknowledged mistakes that have been made during the Iraq war, but 
how we won't vote to pull our troops out right away. I have been one of 
those Members of the Republican caucus who has said publicly that 
mistakes have been made. I will point out that the Commander in Chief 
has stated the same thing. That said, regardless of the errors that 
have been made, it does not mean the mission or the policy is any less 
important. In fact, I am trying to think of a conflict in which we have 
been involved that we can't point to some mistakes. I am very aware 
that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more it will cost the United 
States, both in money but, more importantly, in the lives of American 
men and women. However, I won't support the Levin-Reed amendment 
because I believe it is based on the assumption that by leaving Iraq 
prematurely, Americans will be safer.
  The terrorists have made it abundantly clear that Iraq is central to 
the war against the civilized world. They are committed to fighting 
there and will not stop unless we defeat them. If we have to fight, it 
is preferable not to fight on our own soil. So let's hurry and have the 
cloture vote on the Levin-Reed amendment so we can defeat it. I ask my 
colleagues to reject this amendment and let us return to the important 
debate on Defense authorization to ensure our troops have the adequate 
support here at home and abroad.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come here to the floor this morning to 
speak about the strategy that we are moving forward with in Iraq. I 
also come here to say the debate over the last several days, including 
overnight, has been a very important debate and one we do

[[Page 19392]]

need to have. Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve the debate 
that is taking place here in the Senate.
  As the sun rises today across America, it is midafternoon in Baghdad, 
in Iraq. There the temperatures are close to 100 degrees as we speak. 
In Iraq today we know there are almost 160,000 men and women in uniform 
who are serving there, doing the duty they have been called to do on 
behalf of a grateful nation. So it is for them, for the 160,000 troops 
we have in Iraq today, for the 1.4 million veterans of both Operation 
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, that we in the Senate 
should have a debate about our way forward in Iraq.
  I, therefore, say to my colleagues who have come to the floor as the 
night has gone on and have said things such as this is all about cut 
and run, this is about surrender, this is a political stunt, that they 
are wrong. With all due respect, those kinds of labels are not helpful 
as we deal with what is a fundamental American issue, the issue of war 
and peace and the way forward for all of us here in this country and 
the way forward for our Armed Forces. Those kinds of labels, those 
kinds of attacks are not worthy of the reason the American people sent 
us all here to this body to try to define and devise the best policies 
for America, the best of policies that will make America strong, the 
best of policies that will restore America's standing in the world, the 
best of policies that will honor and recognize that contribution of the 
greatest generation of America, the generation of World War II. That 
kind of labeling is not worthy of trying to bring us together in a 
manner and a way that will help us find stability in Iraq, in the 
Middle East, bring our troops home, and achieve the goals I believe at 
the end many of us would agree upon in the Senate.
  I do not believe the long debate over all of last night has been at 
all a lost cause. It is important for those of us, the 100 Members of 
the Senate, who represent the 300 million people of America to come to 
the floor and give voice to the future of the most fundamental national 
security issue of our time. The most fundamental national security 
issue of our time is how we deal with the issue of terrorism, how we 
deal with creating stability in the Middle East and, ultimately, how we 
bring our troops home out of harm's way. This debate on those 
fundamental issues is one that is worth having. Those who would demean, 
who would take away, who would detract from the importance of this 
question by trying to use labels--such as ``surrender'' or 
``precipitous withdrawal,'' ``cut and run''--do not do a service to the 
country in advancing a policy that is worthy of the sacrifice so many 
have made.
  I hope as we move forward, not only in today's debate and in the vote 
that will take place later on this morning, as well as when we deal 
with this issue in July and perhaps into the August recess, perhaps 
into September, perhaps into October, that we will be able to find a 
common way forward.
  I am reminded, as I was listening to some of the labeling that was 
going on here last night, of a campaign that took place in Georgia in 
2002, where a great American by the name of Max Cleland, who had given 
so much of his life, his blood, and his limbs for the freedom of 
America in Vietnam, was used as a political pawn in that election of 
2002 by people here in Washington and other places who dared put the 
label on him as unpatriotic. This man, who gave so much to his country, 
who was willing to give the very last ounce of devotion and courage in 
his life to do the ultimate sacrifice, was labeled as unpatriotic. So 
the labeling we see taking place here in this debate on the Senate 
floor through the night and through the rest of the day smacks of that 
same kind of labeling that is unworthy of our purpose in the Senate.
  I hope as we move forward, we can find a way of working together to 
address the reality and the difficulty of the issues we face. Our 
troops know the importance of this debate. The 1.4 million veterans who 
served in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families know the importance 
of this debate. There is probably not a Member of this Chamber today 
who has not spent many hours, both in Iraq, as well as with our troops 
back home, and in Afghanistan talking to them about the reality on the 
ground, what it is that they see, how it is conditions are unfolding, 
and how it is that they believe we ought to move forward with a policy 
that is worthy of their bravery.
  The solemnity of this debate should not be lost on America, as the 
sun rises over this country. The solemnity of this debate should not be 
lost, particularly when we think about the men and women who have given 
their lives already in this cause in Iraq.
  As of today, just from my State of Colorado, at the top of the Rocky 
Mountains--my State of Colorado--we have had 51 members of Colorado's 
population killed in Iraq. We have had 443 who have been wounded in 
Iraq. U.S. casualties in Iraq today are 3,618--3,618 Americans have 
given their lives in Iraq.
  So the solemnity of this debate should be one that should honor those 
who have given their lives in the effort in Iraq, as they have done the 
duty commanded by the Commander in Chief.
  Beyond those who have given their lives and the sacrifice their 
families have made to this effort, we also must remember the solemnity 
of this time and this moment when we think about the 26,806 Members of 
our armed services who have been wounded in Iraq. Many of us have spent 
time at Walter Reed or spent time with veterans back home where we see 
what has happened to the lives of those who have lost their limbs, who 
have had traumatic brain injuries.
  Eighteen percent of those who have gone from Fort Carson, CO, have 
returned with a traumatic brain injury. It is for those people that we 
must make sure we have a solemn debate devoid of the politics, devoid 
of the politics that we see taking place with the labeling that is 
occurring here today.
  There is no doubt that as we look at what has happened in now what is 
almost a 5-year war in Iraq, there is a legion of mistakes that have 
been made. My friends on the other side of the aisle will concede there 
have been major mistakes made, that in the early years of the war 
effort there were mistakes made on intelligence, mistakes made on the 
information that was provided to the Congress, multiple mistakes in 
terms of looking at the way forward and simply not being able to find 
it.
  I believe when the President landed on the naval carrier and said the 
mission had been accomplished, in his heart and in his mind he did 
believe the mission had been accomplished. He did believe the mission 
had been accomplished because the government of Saddam Hussein had been 
toppled. Our brave men and women--some 300,000 men and women strong--
had gone in and had taken the Iraqi Republican Army down and had 
toppled Saddam Hussein. So when the President said ``mission 
accomplished,'' now 4 years plus ago, I think he believed that was in 
fact the case.
  But it was also an absolute failure to be able to look ahead at the 
reality of the complexity and the political conditions that existed in 
Iraq at the time. I believe those who testified before the Congress in 
those days and said it would cost less than $50 billion to undertake 
this effort--I believe they were telling the American people what they 
thought was the case. But, sadly, they were very mistaken because we 
now knock on the door of having invested not $50 billion, not $100 
billion, not $200 billion, not $300 billion, not $400 billion, but we 
are over the $500 billion mark. How could we as America be 12 times off 
the mark--12 times off the mark--in terms of what this war would cost 
the American taxpayer? How could we be so far off the mark, perhaps 100 
times off the mark in terms of the number of men and women who would be 
killed in Iraq? No one ever anticipated 4\1/2\ years ago that there 
would be over 3,600 Americans who would be killed in Iraq.
  So there has been a legion of mistakes that have been made. History 
will look at those mistakes. History will look at those mistakes and 
reach its own judgment.
  Let me say, we should learn from those mistakes, as we move forward. 
In

[[Page 19393]]

my view, that is what the Iraq Study Group did. That was a commission, 
in fact, that was created by legislative action of this Senate and the 
House of Representatives and signed by the President. It was a kind of 
template for which I believe we should strive to find a way of re-
creating here in terms of their tenure and their approach to this 
fundamental issue of war and peace.
  President John Kennedy said, at one point:

       So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also 
     direct attention to our common interests and to the means by 
     which those differences can be resolved.

  Let me say that again. He said: ``Let us also direct attention to our 
common interests and to the means by which those differences can be 
resolved.''
  We have differences here on the floor of the Senate this morning, as 
the sun rises across America. We have had differences over the last 
4\1/2\ years with respect to this war and the direction of this war. 
But I hope we find it among ourselves, Democrats and Republicans, to 
find a way forward together. I think if we do that, we will reach the 
vision and the aspiration that was articulated by President Kennedy 
when we find ourselves in the position where we have these fundamental 
differences among us.
  I want to spend a few minutes on what I think is a good way forward 
for all of us. The Iraq Study Group--again, made up of 10 of the most 
prestigious Americans, people who have earned every right to be called 
the statesmen of America--came up with a number of recommendations and 
a number of findings. But at the beginning of the report, it is 
important for us to remember that in December of 2006--now some 7 
months ago--the Iraq Study Group said:

       The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.

  ``Grave and deteriorating.''

       There is no path that can guarantee success, but the 
     prospects can be improved.

  It is with that thought in mind that many months ago I began to work, 
especially with Lee Hamilton, and with former Secretary James Baker, to 
craft legislation to implement the Iraq Study Group recommendations. 
Those recommendations that are set forth in the amendment which we have 
filed, which is cosponsored by 14 of our colleagues, is a way forward 
that establishes a new direction in Iraq. It does some things which are 
perhaps from the point of view of some not enough; but in the point of 
view of others, I think they are very important things for us to do, 
because for the first time as part of United States policy what we say 
is: No. 1, we will move forward to transition the mission from combat 
to training and support. We will do a mission change--a mission 
change--from combat to training and support. So our combat mission will 
be something we will transition out of Iraq.
  They also say, and we include in the legislation, that as part of 
national policy we set forth a goal that this transition can, in fact, 
be completed by the early part of 2008. That is some 9 months from 
where we stand today.
  In addition, what this legislation does, as a matter of United States 
law, is for the first time it sends a clear, unequivocal signal to the 
people of Iraq and to the Iraqi Government that these billions of 
dollars we are spending, and the huge amount of military support and 
effort we are putting into Iraq is going to come to an end, that our 
efforts are conditioned upon the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government 
making substantial progress toward making their Government work and 
providing security on the ground.
  Thirdly, what the legislation does, as a matter of our policy in the 
Senate, is set forth the major diplomatic offensive that is ultimately 
necessary to bring about a peace in the very complex and difficult 
situation we face not only in Iraq but also throughout the Middle East. 
I do hope we have at some point an opportunity to vote on that 
amendment.
  Finally, with respect to the Iraq Study Group, I heard a couple of 
criticisms about our legislation. One of those criticisms is that it is 
outdated. I would say it was not a snapshot. Those recommendations--
that were put forth in December by a group that spent about $1 million 
in putting together that report, and spent countless days and weeks and 
months in coming up with the only coherent set of bipartisan 
recommendations on the way forward--those recommendations are as valid 
today as they were back in December.
  Congressman Lee Hamilton wrote a letter on July 9 addressed to me, 
and for others who are working on the bill with me. What his letter 
said, in conclusion, is that our legislation ``outlines the best chance 
of salvaging a measure of stability in Iraq and the region. It provides 
a bipartisan way forward on a problem that cannot be solved unless we 
come together to address this singular national issue.''
  I am hopeful we will be able to find that way forward.
  Let me conclude then by saying this: Some people have said our 
efforts here in the last several days, including the all-night 
session--sleepless here in Washington, DC; watching the night come, 
watching the sunrise here in Washington, DC--has been a political 
stunt. It is not a political stunt when the voices of 100 Senators, or 
at least some of those Senators, are heard on this floor debating how 
we ought to move forward on the most fundamental issue of national 
security of our time.
  It is for that reason that I commend the majority leader and I 
commend those who have called on us to make sure we put the spotlight 
on such an important issue. I commend them for their courage, and I am 
hopeful that as our country and our Senate moves forward in trying to 
deal with what is a seemingly intractable issue perhaps we can think 
back to the Scriptures, we can think back to the Book of Matthew, and 
remember what was said where He said: Blessed are the peacemakers. 
Blessed are the peacemakers.
  It is the peacemakers ultimately who will help us chart a new and 
different direction forward in Iraq that will help us achieve the 
success I believe 100 Members of this Senate want; and I believe that 
is to bring our troops safely home, and to create the best conditions 
to salvage a measure of stability in Iraq and in the Middle East.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say to the previous 
speaker, the junior Senator from Colorado, I reviewed what he and 
Senator Lamar Alexander have put together, and I think of a lot of the 
options out there, that is one that is fairly reasonable. But I 
disagree with the offensive nature that people have taken with some of 
the terms, such as ``resolution of surrender'' and ``cut and run.'' In 
reality, I believe that is what we are talking about.
  A couple things were said. First of all, it happens in the case of 
former Senator Max Cleland, he was one of my closest friends. We 
actually were in a Bible study together. We were together every week, 
spending quality time and intimate time together. Never once did anyone 
question his patriotism.
  Max Cleland--I heard the story from him, what happened to him in 
Vietnam. Then I also saw the campaign that came up. Yes, they talked 
about votes, how perhaps his votes were different than the person who 
was opposing him who was serving in the House at that time. Never once 
was his patriotism questioned.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for 
a question?
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, through the Chair to my good friend from 
Oklahoma, I enjoy our work together on many multiple fronts, but with 
respect to former Senator Cleland, I did see the pain from the attacks 
that were made against him in Georgia. With respect to what you refer 
to, my friend from Oklahoma, concerning, quote, ``the surrender 
resolution,'' in my view, from what I have heard from my colleagues 
here as we have entered this debate, it appears what we are talking 
about is a way for an orderly disengagement from Iraq.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes. I understand.
  Mr. President, reclaiming my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

[[Page 19394]]


  Mr. SALAZAR. My question----
  Mr. INHOFE. I am glad to yield for a question, but we already heard 
this speech in terms of the interpretation of the vote we will have at 
11 o'clock. We have an honest difference of opinion, I say to my good 
friend, the junior Senator from Colorado. He has expressed his opinion, 
and I want to express mine.
  Mr. SALAZAR. May I ask a question? Will the Senator from Oklahoma 
yield for a simple question?
  Mr. INHOFE. For one question. Go ahead.
  Mr. SALAZAR. It is my understanding that even under the Levin-Reed 
amendment there would be a significant troop presence that would remain 
over the long term in Iraq for the limited missions that are defined in 
that legislation. Is that not correct?
  Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.
  Let me reclaim my time and expand on that a little bit.
  There is still a continued troop presence in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and 
other places. There always is a troop presence. And after this is 
over--depending on what the outcome is--I would assume there will 
always be a troop presence there regardless of how we vote on any 
resolution today.
  Now, let me say a couple other things that were stated on the floor. 
I was sitting here at about at 5:15 or 5:30 this morning, when 
statements were made by the junior Senator from Massachusetts as to our 
troops who have been involved with IEDs, who have lost their lives, and 
that nothing changed after that, nothing was accomplished after that. 
That is another way of saying they have died in vain.
  Let me tell you, I have been in the AOR of Iraq, not always in Iraq, 
but this AOR, 14 times. I probably have talked to more troops, gotten a 
better feel as to what people are about over there than any other 
Member. I think to even suggest that someone has died in vain is 
totally outrageous.
  Now, one of the things that has been stated over and over again that 
I do agree with by the opposition over there is we have a problem with 
our equipment. We have a problem with the funding of the military.
  Let me suggest to you, in America, this is the only democracy where 
if people at home want to know how their Member of Congress--from the 
House or the Senate--is voting on issues, they can find out. I suggest 
to you that the worst way to find out how someone is voting on issues 
is to ask them. You do not want to do that.
  But if you are concerned, for an example, as to how we are voting on 
a tax issue--if you are for tax increases, you do not ask the guy, you 
do not say, Senator Salazar, are you for tax increases? No, you do not 
want to do that. But you can look at the ratings. We have ratings on 
every conceivable subject. The National Taxpayers Union will tell how 
each Member votes in terms of tax increases.
  Are you conservative or liberal? Well, I suggest to you the ACLU 
loves the liberals. The ACU loves the conservatives. I am proud of my 
rating. It happens to be No. 1 out of 100 Senators. So people will 
know. They do not have to ask me.
  If you are concerned about how a Senator is voting in terms of 
supporting small business, the National Federation of Independent 
Business rates all Democrats, Republicans, House and Senate, on those 
issues.
  If you are concerned--this is what I am getting around to now--if you 
are concerned about who is supporting the military, there are groups 
that do that. The Center for Security Policy, for example, says the 
average Democrat supports the military 17 percent of the time, the 
average Republican 79 percent of the time.
  Now, if you question that, let me show you the chart I have in the 
Chamber.
  For Democrats to stand on this floor and talk about the problems of 
the strained military, the problems of overdeployment, the problems we 
are having, look at what has happened. I do not think there was a month 
that went by back during the 1990s, during the Clinton administration--
when they were cutting the military, cutting our force strength, 
cutting money out of our military--when there wasn't this euphoric 
statement: Oh, the Cold War is over, so we do not need a military 
anymore. That actually was floating around these Chambers. So what 
happened during the 1990s?
  If you take what the benchmark was in 1993, fiscal year 1993--that 
would be this black line shown on the chart--and do nothing but 
consider inflation, then this goes up here. In other words, if we get 
nothing except maintaining what we had in 1993, this would be the black 
line.
  President Clinton's budget request came in at this red line. You see 
the difference between the red line and the black line: $412 billion 
less than just maintaining the status quo.
  Now, it was during that time that I was making statements on the 
floor: We have very serious problems in terms of our modernization 
program. We are going to have to do something about this. I was so 
proud of GEN John Jumper, and this is before he was the chief. He stood 
up as, I believe, a lieutenant general at that time and he made this 
statement. He said: Our potential adversaries have equipment that is 
better than ours. He was talking about strike fighters. He was talking 
about China having bought, I believe it was 240 of the SU-30, SU-35 
series that the Russians were making and saying that they are actually 
better in many respects than our F-15s and F-16s.
  Back in the 1990s, we were cutting back on the modernization program. 
We were not moving forward with the modernization and going toward the 
F-22s and the F-35s and the future combat system and things we are 
doing today. This is what happened, and our troop strength went down, 
our ships went down from 600 to 300. It is the downsizing that we have 
been paying for. Now what happens? This President came in, and 9/11 
took place in 2001. When this happened, all of a sudden we are faced 
with a situation where we had a downsized military. We had to start 
reembarking on our modernization program. But all of this we had to be 
paying for.
  We have had amendment after amendment that says we are going to have 
to do something about our deployments. Yes. Our deployments are 
unreasonable at this time, but it is because we went through this cycle 
back in the 1990s. I think it is very important that people understand 
where we came from and how we got in this position we are in today.
  Now, a lot of things have been lost in this debate. I think the other 
side--the Democrats, the liberals--would like to have us believe that 
this is just the United States. They have completely forgotten or 
disregarded the global nature of this problem, this war which is out 
there. It is global. Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, the United States, 
France, Morocco, Turkey, Spain, Indonesia, Great Britain, Jordan, 
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Philippines, Algeria, Yemen, and Tunisia are just 
a partial list of the countries which have had terrorist attacks.
  The National Counterterrorism Center reported that approximately 
14,000 terrorist attacks occurred in various countries during 2006. 
Now, they say that half of those were in Afghanistan and Iraq. That 
means 7,000 terrorist attacks happened all over the world outside of 
Iraq and Afghanistan. We remember just in the last 30 days the 
terrorist attacks. A car bomb exploded outside Somalia's Prime 
Minister's residence, killing six people. These are all in the last 30 
days. A bomb exploded in front of a crowded tea shop in Thailand, 
killing a woman and wounding 28; an explosion outside the Ambassador 
Hotel in Nairobi, killing a man and injuring 37 others. A bomb exploded 
outside a clothing shop in Istanbul and more in Peru and other places. 
So it has happened all over. The suicide bombers drove an SUV into the 
Glasgow Airport, injuring six people, just 2 weeks ago. A suicide 
bomber drove into a convoy of Spanish tourists, killing nine people. 
That was just last week. This is the global nature of this war.
  What has this President been doing after 9/11? People don't realize 
what has happened and the results, the very positive results of these 
things that took place. We passed the PATRIOT

[[Page 19395]]

Act, which broke down the walls between Federal law enforcement and 
intelligence communities, created the Department of Homeland Security, 
created a position of Director of National Intelligence, created the 
National Counterterrorism Center, and worked with all of the 
intelligence systems.
  My predecessor--when I came over from the House to the Senate--was 
David Boren, Senator David Boren, who is now the president of Oklahoma 
University. After I was elected, he said he wanted to talk to me about 
a problem which he had been unsuccessful in resolving. You might 
remember that he was the chairman at that time of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee. He said: We have a problem, a serious crisis in 
our intelligence system. He said: We have, the NSCA and the CIA and the 
DIA and all of these people, but they are not talking to each other.
  It is a crisis we started approaching, and it wasn't until this came 
along--the efforts of this President--that we got our intelligence act 
together to a much greater degree. What kind of results are we having? 
Well, the President made a statement, and I think it is worth 
repeating: The terrorists only have to be right once; we have to be 
right 100 percent of the time.
  Have we avoided, because of all of these efforts the President has 
made, a disaster here in this country? I really believe we have. We 
captured an al-Qaida operative named Ali Saleh al-Marri in the United 
States who was targeting water reservoirs, the New York Stock Exchange, 
and the U.S. military academies. We broke up two other post-9/11 
aviation plots, one targeting the Library Towers in Los Angeles and the 
other targeting the east coast. Four men were indicted for an alleged 
plot to attack the John F. Kennedy International Airport by blowing up 
the jet fuel supply. We disrupted a plot by a group of al-Qaida-
inspired extremists to kill American soldiers at Fort Dix. We have 
worked with the Brits and other countries. Together, we successfully 
broke up a plot in the U.K. to blow up passenger airlines going to 
America which could have rivaled the tragedy of 9/11. Of course, we 
know what happened down in Piccadilly Circus in the theater area, the 
plot, the terrorist plot that was planned there that we stopped.
  So I guess what I am saying is we know these things were going on. 
There is no way to say for sure that thousands of Americans are alive 
today because of the efforts of this administration, but I believe it, 
and everything I have mentioned here is all documented in terms of 
plots against this country that perhaps we would not have been able to 
defend ourselves against prior to that time.
  It does bother me when we talk about how this isn't a surrender 
resolution, this isn't a cut-and-run resolution. Sure, it is. We see 
al-Qaida--they see the victory in Iraq as a religious and strategic 
imperative, something they have to do. This is not something which is 
optional for them; they have to do it. In fact, Osama bin Laden called 
the struggle in Iraq a war of destiny. This is Osama bin Laden. That is 
how he characterized it. It reminded me, when I heard that, of one of 
the great speeches of all time. It was given by Ronald Reagan way back 
before he was even Governor of California. It was called ``A Rendezvous 
With Destiny,'' using the same words--the characterization of Osama bin 
Laden when he talked about the ``war of destiny'' that is taking place. 
``A Rendezvous With Destiny.'' I have often said it should be required 
reading for all schoolkids.
  Every time I see the Senator from Florida, the junior Senator from 
Florida, Mr. Martinez, I think about his trip from Cuba over to this 
country, and it reminds me of the speech Ronald Reagan made when he 
said ``a rendezvous with destiny.'' He talked about the Cuban who had 
escaped from Cuba, and as his small craft floated up on the shores of 
Florida, a woman was there, and this Cuban started talking about the 
atrocities of Communist Cuba and of Castro and the problems that were 
over there, and she said: I guess we in this country don't know how 
lucky we are. And he said: How lucky you are? We are the ones who are 
lucky because we had a place to escape to. What he was saying is that 
we have been this beacon of freedom in this country for so many years.
  I can remember--and the occupant of the chair was there at the same 
time I was, in the other body, back during the war in Nicaragua. At 
that time, the Communists were trying to take over. One of the great 
things Ronald Reagan did was to kill communism in Central America at 
that time, and that endured for some 20 years afterward. But at that 
time, in Nicaragua, I was going down there quite often because we were 
watching Daniel Ortega and we were watching the Sandinistas and we knew 
what was happening down there. So we would go down to see these brave 
people who were fighting for their freedoms.
  I can remember going to a hospital tent in Honduras, just across the 
border from Nicaragua. I went down there several times. I would just 
look and marvel at these young kids. Keep in mind, at that time, those 
who were defending their freedom against communism were young people 
because all the older ones had been killed already. They had a hospital 
tent. I remember the hospital tent was about half the size of this 
Chamber. All the way around the peripheral of this hospital tent were 
beds. In the middle was an operating table with no shield or anything 
up, and they were operating on these young kids as they came back and 
getting them ready to go back into battle to fight for their freedom 
against communism in Nicaragua.
  I remember going around the room and talking to these individuals in 
their language and saying: You know, I admire you so much. You are just 
fighting against impossible odds. How can you keep driving yourself to 
go back? I remember getting the answers as I went around the room.
  I came to a little girl. Her name was Maria Elana Gonzalez. She was a 
little bitty girl. She might have been 90 pounds. It was her third trip 
to the hospital tent. She wouldn't be going back into battle because 
that morning they had amputated her right leg and the blood was oozing 
through her bandage. She looked up at me after I had asked that 
question and she said: Es porque han tomado los campos, han tomado las 
casas, han tomado todo de lo que tenemos. Pero, de veras, ustedes en 
los Estados Unidos entienden. Porque tuvieron que luchar por su 
libertad, por lo mismo que estamos luchando ahora.
  What she said was: How can you ask that question? We are fighting 
because they have taken our farms, they have taken our houses, they 
have taken all that we have. But surely you in the United States 
understand this because you had to fight against the same odds for your 
freedom.
  That little girl couldn't read or write. She didn't know her history. 
She didn't know if our Revolutionary War was 10 years ago or 200 years 
ago. But she knew we were the beacon of freedom, the beacon of freedom. 
I wonder what is happening to that beacon of freedom.
  We are looking at this war now, the serious nature of this war.
  Winston Churchill said--and I quoted this several times on this 
floor, but I think it is worth repeating. He said:

       Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and 
     easy. Always remember, however sure you are that you could 
     easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man 
     did not think he also had a chance.

  That was just as true in World War II as it is today.
  So we are facing an enemy today that is adaptive. He is willing to do 
anything. You can't negotiate with him. It is not a country. In a way, 
it is more dangerous. We compare this war and certainly some of the 
terrorists who are running the other side with Hitler and with Stalin. 
Those things in some ways were not as dangerous because they were more 
predictable. This is not predictable. You can't defeat a country and 
say the war is over because it is not over. As I mentioned, this is 
global, the attacks that are taking place. Any plan to leave Iraq 
before we have had a chance to understand the outcome of the troop 
surge does two things: It tells the enemy that they have been 
successful and their methods worked, and secondly, it gives them the 
patience to wait us out.

[[Page 19396]]

  One of the things I learned in my many trips over there is the 
culture of the people is different. They don't think of today and 
tomorrow or next week; they think of long periods of time. Oh, we are 
not going to be there 2 years from now? Oh, fine. We will just go into 
hibernation. We will wait for 2 years. Everything is going to be fine. 
We will just wait until that happens. You can't win by--they can only 
win by attacking our resolve.
  When we talk about the resolve, I wonder about that beacon of 
freedom, when that little girl in the hospital tent looked at America. 
What has happened to it since that time? You look at our resolve that 
has been lost in Somalia. It wasn't until they dragged the naked bodies 
of our troops through the streets of Mogadishu that finally we didn't 
have the stomach for it, and so that beacon of freedom went out. We saw 
it in Vietnam, in Lebanon, in the Khobar Towers.
  I recognize, and everyone recognizes, there have been mistakes in 
this thing. The President recognized this in his speech on January 10. 
He said a lot of things that I think were very profound observations at 
that time that I will address in just a minute. But when you look at 
the consequences of a premeditated withdrawal, when the enemy knows 
what we are going to be doing in the future--one of the great generals 
of our time is General Maples. He was actually the commanding general 
down in Fort Sill in Oklahoma at one time. He is now the DIA Director. 
He said:

       Continued Coalition presence is the primary counter to a 
     breakdown in central authority. Such a breakdown would have 
     grave consequences for the people of Iraq, stability in the 
     region, and the United States strategic interests.

  John Negroponte and General Hayden both agree with that.
  It is not too late to avoid this. I don't think it is time to start 
cutting our losses and just hope that all this goes away. If we can 
assist the Iraqis and reach that point of sustainable self-governance, 
then we can bring defeat to our enemies and stability to the region. We 
all want this. All those who have not personally seen the changes, the 
visible changes that are taking place in Iraq, seen the girls who can 
now get an education and seen that they can now have weddings in the 
streets without the fear of having troops come in there and kidnap all 
the girls and rape them and bury them alive--people have forgotten 
already how bad things were at that time in Iraq.
  So I just have to say this: Regretfully, I have been sitting here 
since 5 o'clock trying to get on the floor, and now we are running out 
of time. But I would say this, and I think it is something which is 
very significant; that is, the President, in his speech on January 10, 
talked about the necessity for victory in Iraq, but he used a term that 
nobody heard and nobody remembered and nobody listened to, and it is 
called from the bottom up. A ``bottom-up victory'' is what he wanted. 
This President is talking about it with the people.
  Let me tell you what has happened. On my last trip--keep in mind, I 
have made some 14 trips to the AOR, and the last trip was after the 
surge was announced. We saw a number of things. First of all, it didn't 
go unnoticed by the people over there that there are some resolutions 
like the one we will considering at 11 o'clock today, and consequently 
that got their attention. I think some good came from that. But that, 
along with David Petraeus going over there as commander in chief, along 
with the surge, has really had some results. For the first time over 
there, I saw changes.
  A few minutes ago, one of our Republicans was talking about the 
change in Ramadi. It was the senior Senator from Utah. In Ramadi, if 
you remember a year ago, that was getting ready--or, as we say in 
Oklahoma, that was fixing to be the terrorist capital of the world. It 
is now secure. In Fallujah--this is just less than a month ago, in 
Fallujah--it is secure, and it is secure by our security force--by the 
Iraqi security force and not by ours. In other words, they are taking 
care of their own over there. The joint security stations where our 
troops, instead of coming back to the Green Zone, will stay over there 
and bed down with the Iraqi security forces, develop intimate 
relationships with them, and learn to love each other--this is what is 
happening right now.
  I was mistaken. All these years, we have been talking about Maliki 
and all the political leaders. I am beginning to think really that the 
successes that are taking place and the bottom-up success right now 
after the surge are actually coming from the religious leaders. We 
monitor--and we do this as a matter of course--all of the mosque 
ceremonies. I think they meet once a week like most churches do, and up 
until December, 85 percent of the messages that were by the clerics and 
by the imams in the mosques were anti-American. They started dropping 
off until in April of this year, there wasn't one anti-American 
message. The results are there. As a result of that, we are having many 
of the citizens, just on their own, as the Senator from Utah 
mentioned--because he was there a short time after I was there, and he 
said they are doing things now that they haven't done before.
  Just as we have, in Tulsa, OK, and in all of our cities in Oklahoma 
and here in Washington, DC, a Neighborhood Watch Program where the 
neighbors volunteer to go out and watch, this is happening in Baghdad, 
Fallujah, Ramadi, all throughout Iraq right now.
  These are people who are going out and risking their lives with spray 
cans, spray-painting circles around undetonated IEDs, and it is being 
done successfully. I think there is a level of panic setting in on 
those individuals who have gone over there and seen that the surge 
appears to be working.
  I don't think we should be cutting and running at this stage. We have 
a huge investment there. We have taken out a ruthless leader, one who 
would rival Hitler in the atrocities he has committed. Now that we have 
an opportunity to do that--to have a different form of government in 
the Middle East--and people who say it wasn't Iraq all this time, sure, 
it was Iraq. There were training centers in Iraq training people to do 
different things. In the town of Salman Pak, they were training 
terrorists how to fly airplanes into targets. Did they train the 9/11 
terrorists? There is no way of knowing that. Nonetheless, the training 
camps are not there anymore. We have had successes.
  I know people want to talk about the failures, but I will say to you 
this is a very critical vote. If we vote at 11 o'clock today to leave 
before the job is done, that would be a crisis and a slap in the face 
for our troops over there fighting so bravely for our freedom back 
here. I am a product of the draft of many years ago, and I believed you 
would never be able to have an all-volunteer force and have it with the 
quality we had in the draft. I realize now that I was wrong all those 
years ago, that we have the finest young people in the world in our 
military. They understand what the mission is. They understand the 
threat facing them. The first thing they asked me is: Why is it the 
American people don't understand, or the media? They don't ask that 
question now because they have the benefit of having talk radio. They 
have FOX instead of depending on CNN International, and they realize 
the American people are by their side.
  So this is critical. Is it worth staying up all night for? I think it 
is. I look forward to defeating the effort of the Levin-Reed amendment 
taking place at 11 o'clock today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for 
acknowledging there is something that is worth staying up all night 
for, that this is a debate we must continue to have. But this is also a 
vote we must have. The American people and our troops deserve nothing 
less than an up-or-down vote.
  I disagree with the Senator from Oklahoma when he said we would be 
somehow hurting our troops by not staying the course. I think we need 
to change the course. I think this idea that we somehow dishonor our 
troops

[[Page 19397]]

by having a free and open debate about this is wrong. I think it is 
wrong to say we dishonor our troops when we talk about a change in 
course in Iraq, because I think it is what they deserve. We need a 
smart way to get our soldiers out of harm's way and transition to the 
Iraqi Government. This is about getting this policy right for our 
troops in the field, about giving them what they deserve: a simple 
majority vote. That is what we need today.
  I hope all of my colleagues will recognize our current strategy in 
Iraq is not working, that a new strategy based on drawing down U.S. 
forces is necessary, and this strategy must be implemented now. After 4 
years, over 3,600 American soldiers have been killed, over 25,000 have 
been wounded, and almost $450 billion has been spent. We cannot wait 
until next year, or until next month, or until September to change our 
strategy. After 4 years, we cannot wait for the Iraqi Government to 
demonstrate the progress before we begin bringing our soldiers home, 
and it has shown no indication of a commitment to compromise and 
reconciliation. After 4 years, we cannot ask our men and women in the 
field to continue to risk life and limb indefinitely in the pursuit of 
a policy that so many of our colleagues across the aisle have now 
admitted and have spoken out about and said this policy needs to be 
changed, that it is not working. Talk is talk. But now it is time to 
vote.
  Our troops have done what they have been asked to do. They deposed an 
evil dictator. They guaranteed free elections in Iraq. We all know 
there can be no purely military solution in Iraq. This has been agreed 
to by so many military commanders, experts, and Members in this body 
that it doesn't need to be argued anymore. We recognize true stability 
in Iraq will only come with political compromise between their various 
ethic factions. Only Iraqis can reach that agreement. Given that, 
should our strategy not be transitioning to Iraqi authority now, not 
some undefined time in the future?
  We must push the Iraqi Government to assume the duties it was elected 
to perform, to lead the process in negotiation and deal-making. Our 
openended commitment is impeding this process and inhibiting the will 
of the Iraqi people to stand up and take responsibility for their own 
country.
  Nine months ago, the Iraq Study Group proposed a pragmatic change of 
course that focused on political and economic initiatives, intense 
regional, and international diplomacy that would tie all nations with 
an interest in Iraq together, and beginning the phased redeployment of 
U.S. forces from Iraq. Since the issuance of the Iraq Study Group 
report, some conditions on the ground have remained the same, and a 
number have gotten worse. In the last 3 months, more U.S. troops were 
killed than in any other 3-month period during the entire war.
  I urge my colleagues to set aside differences, to forget about past 
agreements or voting records, and focus on what is best for our troops 
in the field going forward. We owe it to these brave men and women in 
the field to get this policy right. I believe the best thing we can do 
for our troops, our national interest, and for the Iraqis is to adopt 
the new strategy proposed by my colleagues Senators Levin and Reed that 
would begin bringing our troops home, removing the bulk of our combat 
forces by the spring of next year. We know this cannot be done 
overnight, and the troops will be remaining to train the police and 
guard our embassies, and for special forces. We also know it is time to 
send a message to this Iraqi Government that it is time for them to 
govern.
  Keeping over 160,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq is simply not the answer. 
We need to start bringing them home. In March, I visited Baghdad and 
Fallujah and saw firsthand the bravery and commitment of our troops. I 
had a number of meetings set up with Minnesota troops. Of the 22,000 
troops who were sent over as part of this surge, 3,000 were from 
Minnesota. In fact, they are the longest serving Guard unit right now 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of them are now coming home. We 
rejoice in Minnesota for the ones coming home to their families. But we 
know that, sadly, they are being replaced by other soldiers from across 
this country. I remember one of the Congressmen who had gone to Iraq 
shortly after I did. He came back and talked, as a House Member, about 
how it reminded him of--going through the market,--a farmer's market in 
Indiana.
  Well, that is not my memory from Iraq. What I remember, first, is our 
troops and how they didn't complain about the heat, or about their 
extensions, or about their equipment. They only asked me two things: 
What the State high school hockey tournament scores were, and then they 
asked if I would call their moms and dads and husbands and wives when I 
got home. I did that. I talked to about 50 moms. I have to tell you 
they told me different stories. They told me about children who were 
waiting for their dad to come home, that they thought they were going 
to come home in January, and they were waiting month after month. They 
told me about how scared they were every time they turned on the TV. 
They told me about how proud they were of their child but that they 
wanted him to come home.
  My starkest memory of that trip was not some farmer's market in 
Indiana; my memory was standing on the tarmac of the Baghdad airport 
where nine Duluth firefighters called me over to stand with them. 
First, I didn't know what it was. They were there to do their duty. 
They were saluting in front of a firetruck while six caskets draped in 
the American flag were loaded onto a plane. They didn't know what 
fallen soldiers were in those caskets. They didn't know who they were. 
They just knew it was their duty to salute and they knew the lives of 
the families of these fallen soldiers would never be the same.
  There is not a day that goes by that I don't think about the 
Minnesota soldiers I met over there. They never complained. They did 
their jobs. They deposed an evil dictator and guaranteed free 
elections. Now it is time to bring them home. One thing that struck us 
in our State is that this is a different kind of war. Up to 40 percent 
of the troops fighting in Iraq are members of the National Guard and 
Reserves. In many respects, the war has involved a different kind of 
soldier. In Vietnam, the average age of an American soldier was 19 
years old. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the average age of an active-duty 
soldier is 27. The average age of National Guard members is 33. Three-
fourths of all soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have families 
of their own, and fully one-half of those who have been killed have 
left families behind. Almost 22 percent of the Guard and Reserve 
members have had multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. For 4 
years, these citizen soldiers have gone above and beyond the call of 
duty as this war has lasted longer--our involvement has lasted longer 
than our involvement in World War II. These citizen soldiers have made 
extraordinary sacrifices.
  As we see our Guard and Reserve come home in Minnesota, the longest 
serving unit in this war, we know many have come back injured and 
maimed. I think I heard it is a thousand in this war across this 
country who have lost a limb, and 20-some thousand have been injured. 
Having served and sacrificed for 16 months, these men and women earned 
their rest and their right to live their lives in peace. But we keep 
sending them back and we keep sending them back.
  All across my State, I have heard a strong and clear message from 
Minnesotans: Change the course in Iraq. Push for the strategy and 
solution that will bring our troops home and transition to Iraqi 
governance.
  They want to see a surge in diplomacy, not a surge in troops. It is a 
message that was echoed all over this country last fall, from Montana 
to Minnesota, from Pennsylvania to Virginia. The people of Minnesota, 
like their fellow citizens around the country, recognize what is at 
stake in Iraq. As I have traveled around our State, I have spoken with 
many families who have paid a personal price in this war. I think of 
Clairmont Anderson, who

[[Page 19398]]

would drive hundreds of miles to attend public events. Every time 
anybody even brought up the war, he would start to cry. It is because 
his son Stewart, an Army Reserve major, was killed in a helicopter 
crash in Iraq. I think of Kathleen Waseka from St. Paul, MN. In 
January, her son James Waseka, Jr., was killed while patrolling on foot 
in an area near Fallujah. He was assigned with the Minnesota Army 
National Guard First Brigade, the same unit that was extended under the 
President's escalation. Sergeant Waseka was the third member of his 
unit to die within a 6-week period. I also think of Becky Lurie of 
Kerrick, MN, near Duluth. She is the mother of 12 and a former State 
senator. Her son Matt was killed when the Army helicopter he was 
piloting went down north of Baghdad. I watched this Gold Star mother--a 
woman who has adopted 8 children--comfort her grandchildren, hold her 
shaking husband, and stand tall for hours in a high school gym in 
Findley, MN, where hundreds of people came together to gather for her 
son's memorial service. Clairmont Anderson, Kathleen Waseka, and Becky 
Lurie are parents whose children made the ultimate sacrifice in service 
to our country. They are among the many Minnesotans who have told me, 
without apology, that they want to see a change of course in Iraq. They 
pray that others will not experience their pain.
  Although I opposed this war from the beginning, I recognize many did 
support it. But many years later, we are now dealing with a 
dramatically different situation. What we now know about the events and 
facts leading up to the war has changed dramatically. The conditions 
inside Iraq have changed dramatically. Our role there has changed 
dramatically. We need an up-or-down vote today. If we don't have a 
regular up-or-down vote, as the American people have asked for, we are 
not going to get the change of course the bipartisan Iraq Study Group 
recommended, the change of course that Iraq needs to halt its civil 
war, or the change of course our military forces deserve.
  As of Thanksgiving, as I said, this war has lasted longer than World 
War II. Have we not asked our men and women to sacrifice enough?
  Recently, at the funeral for a fallen soldier, I heard a local priest 
say our leaders have an obligation to do right by our children when we 
send them to war. This particular soldier was very tall and very 
strong. As the priest talked about him, he talked about the fact that 
even though this young man was over 6 feet tall, he was still our 
child. He said our children may be over 6 feet tall when we send them 
to war, but they are still our children. If the kids we are sending to 
Iraq are 6 feet tall, he said, then our leaders must be 8 feet tall. I 
add that if these soldiers are willing to stand up and risk their lives 
for our country, those of us in Congress must be brave enough to stand 
up and ask the tough questions and push for the tougher solutions and 
not be afraid to have an up-or-down vote on a change of strategy in 
Iraq. Clairmont Anderson, Kathleen Waseka, and Becky Lurie are standing 
tall. The parents with whom I met, whose kids were supposed to come 
home back in January, have been waiting and waiting for that telephone 
call, and waiting and waiting for those letters. They have been 
standing tall all these months.
  The members of the Minnesota National Guard whose deployment ceremony 
I attended a few months ago in Duluth stood tall. The teenage brother 
and sister I met there who saw their dad and their mom deployed to Iraq 
at the same time stood tall. The injured soldiers in the VA hospital in 
Minnesota, recovering from traumatic brain injuries, and in their 
wheelchairs, with their strength and their spirit are standing tall.
  I say to my friends across the aisle, by having an honest and open 
debate about the war as we have done tonight, we in Congress can stand 
tall, but we can only stand tall when we allow for a fair and honest 
vote about the strategy in Iraq. Our Constitution says Congress should 
be a responsible check and balance on Presidential power. Congressional 
oversight of our Iraq policy is long overdue. On behalf of the public, 
Members of this body have a responsibility to exercise our own 
constitutional power in a fairminded, bipartisan way, to insist on 
accountability and to demand a change of course. Ultimately, the best 
way to help our soldiers and their families is not only to give them 
the respect and the benefits and the help they deserve, but also to get 
this policy right.
  I hope my friends across the aisle will see the merits of this debate 
and allow for an up-or-down vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. Our 
troops and our families deserve nothing less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to our new colleague from Minnesota, I say 
she expressed herself very well. This is a debate where nobody expects 
to change votes or minds in the short term. But it is a chance to 
express why you believe what you do about Iraq and how we go forward in 
that regard. It is always good to showcase our differences.
  All of us in the body need to ask one question: Why is the Congress 
at such a low approval rating with the American people? What is it 
about what we are doing up here that is giving the public a bad taste 
about the way Congress works? That is a question I don't know how to 
answer completely. But I have a feeling that most Americans see 
Congress interacting with each other as if we are talking past each 
other and not many problems are being solved. We are trying to show the 
other side as being worse than we are.
  It seems to me we are trying to construct a whole session of Congress 
around exposing other people's weaknesses and solving very few 
problems. Every now and then, you will step out in the middle, and the 
Senator from New York, the Presiding Officer--we have done some things 
I am very proud of, so there is hope. There are efforts going on here 
in other areas to try to bring the Congress together and do some things 
that are important.
  About Iraq, the reason no one is going to change their mind is that 
we just have a basic philosophical difference about how we go forward. 
Let me tell you what drives me more than anything else about the short 
term and the long term. The one thing we failed to do after the fall of 
Baghdad is plan for the worst-case scenario. One of the problems we 
have had is that we always assumed the best and never planned for the 
worst. We have gone down this road many times. The mistakes early on 
have come back to haunt us. We never had enough troops. The security 
situation got out of hand. We underestimated how hard it would be to 
build a democracy out of the ashes after dictatorship, and those early 
mistakes have cost. But in every war, you make mistakes.
  What I am trying to do is talk about where we are now and where we 
are going to go. Acknowledging the early mistakes, we have paid a 
price. Let's not repeat them in another form. The old strategy after 
the fall of Baghdad was to focus on training, to keep the American 
military footprint as low as possible, empower the Iraqi military and 
army to take over their country and go fight al-Qaida and other 
extremist groups in firefights and come back behind walls. After 3\1/2\ 
years of engaging in that strategy, al-Qaida got stronger. We lost 
control of different provinces in Iraq to al-Qaida. Extremism grew, and 
we had no political reconciliation.
  For 3 years--2 years, anyway; 2\1/2\ at least--I, along with Senator 
McCain and others, have been saying the old strategy wasn't working. I 
do defer to military commanders. We all should to a point. Every 
general and every politician should have their work product judged by 
results. It was clear to me that the old strategy was not producing the 
result to secure the country, bring about political reconciliation, and 
control extremism. As a matter of fact, the old strategy, which lasted 
for 3 years, resulted in losing ground to the enemy, a stronger al-
Qaida, a more fractured Iraq, and we were going nowhere fast. So I, 
along with others, pushed for a new strategy.

[[Page 19399]]

The new strategy wasn't withdrawal. It was quite the opposite--
reinforce.
  Since February of this year, we have been bringing new combat 
capability into Iraq. We have added troops to make up for the mistakes 
initially made right after the fall of Baghdad. What has that 
additional combat capability done in Iraq and what has it failed to do? 
I think it is undeniable that General Petraeus's new strategy has been 
enormously successful in certain areas of Iraq that had been previously 
lost to al-Qaida. To me, that is the most encouraging sign yet of 
progress in Iraq. What has not happened is a securing of the country as 
a whole, the destruction completely of al-Qaida, the chilling out of 
Iranian involvement, and political reconciliation.
  The new strategy is just exactly that--new. Instead of being behind 
walls with a limited military footprint, General Petraeus has deployed 
American forces into communities that were previously held by al-Qaida 
in Anbar Province. We have taken the fight to the enemy, and we have 
been able to dislodge al-Qaida in provinces that they dominated under 
the old strategy.
  But here is the good news: Beating al-Qaida is always going to happen 
when we engage them because we are so much better militarily than they 
are. But the people who lived under their control in Anbar for all 
these months broke from al-Qaida and aligned themselves with us.
  The best evidence I have seen thus far of a new strategy working is 
that not only have we liberated Anbar Province, a place you couldn't go 
6 months ago, if you were a Member of Congress, to be somewhere you can 
walk around now like Ramadi. In the year 2006, there were 1,000 people 
who volunteered to be policemen in Anbar Province for the whole year. 
As of now, in 2007, 12,000 Iraqis have volunteered to be part of the 
police force in Anbar. They are all from that area. Once the sheiks 
broke from al-Qaida and joined with the coalition forces, they made a 
call to the local community for the sons of Anbar to stand and fight, 
join the police. We will soon be able to reduce our combat presence in 
Anbar because the alliances we have formed with the local leadership, 
the addition of police, and the maturing of the Iraqi Army will allow 
Anbar to be held by the people of Iraq who live in Anbar. That was made 
possible only because we added combat capability at a time when it 
mattered.
  The biggest reason Anbar flipped is because al-Qaida was brutal when 
they were in the place. The people in Anbar, the Sunni Arabs, had a 
taste of al-Qaida life, and they did not like it. Al-Qaida engaged in 
some of the most brutal acts imaginable against people under their 
control.
  They killed family members of the leadership. They went after people 
whom they considered to be a threat. They imposed a way of life and 
living on the people of Anbar Province that was unacceptable. 
Literally, al-Qaida overplayed their hand. At the time they were 
overplaying their hand, literally comes over the hill American combat 
power in a new fashion, more of it reconfigured. It was a magic moment 
where we moved out behind the walls, created joint security stations. 
Iraqi police and soldiers would live with American soldiers in joint 
security stations. So in your neighborhood, now you will have a joint 
security station not far away where there will be American soldiers, 
Iraqi police, and army units living together that will be there to 
protect you and your family. These joint security stations have been a 
fundamental change in policy militarily.
  Counterinsurgency is about going into the areas where the insurgents 
dominate, militarily dislodging them but changing the dynamic on the 
ground so it would be hard for them to come back. If we will continue 
to support those who have broken from al-Qaida and joined us, then we 
will have a stable situation in Anbar that we could never have achieved 
under the old strategy. Because people break away from al-Qaida, does 
that mean they embrace democracy--Sunni, Shia, and Kurd coexistence? 
No. But it is a start. It means they have rejected a way of life that 
has no place on the planet for people like us.
  My good friend from New York, we have found many things that we can 
work on in common. But here is something else we have in common. A 
Democrat from New York and a Republican from South Carolina are viewed 
the same by our enemy, al-Qaida. They hate us both. If they could kill 
us both, they would because we have agreed that whatever differences we 
have, they could actually be a strength. When we get into a dispute, we 
go to the courthouse; we don't go out in the street and start killing 
each other. In America, religious differences are not only accepted and 
tolerated, they are viewed as a strength.
  There are three conflicts going on in Iraq. One is among the 
sectarian population in Iraq, the Sunnis and Shias and somewhat the 
Kurds. That conflict can only be resolved by the Iraqi people embracing 
what they have in common, accepting their differences as a strength, 
and rejecting this desire to break away. I think that can happen 
because there are enough Sunni, Kurds and Shias willing to die to make 
that happen that I am still optimistic.
  We had our own Civil War. It is hard to get different people from 
different backgrounds to live together, but we are an example that it 
can happen. But it comes sometimes at a great sacrifice. So the 
sectarian violence in Iraq will only be solved by having enough control 
of the security to keep tensions down and trying to build political 
reconciliation.
  During immigration, I learned a lesson. People get mad when you do 
hard things. They can say pretty awful things about you. I learned a 
lot of cuss words that I never knew before. That is what happens in 
American politics when you try to embrace hard issues. People get mad. 
That is democracy. It is about expressing yourself. You just pay the 
price when you do that politically. But the price we pay is being 
called bad names. It may affect your election; it may not.
  In Iraq, if you want to find the middle ground, they try to kill your 
family. Remember how hard it was on immigration when all those phone 
calls flooded your office trying to tell us: You better not do this; 
you better not do that. Imagine trying to sit down at a table in Iraq 
to find common ground with someone who represents a side that just 
maybe killed your family.
  I would argue that political reconciliation in Iraq is hard because 
it is hard here. It is harder there because of the security environment 
which has broken down. We would be wise to provide better security. 
That is the way to get political reconciliation.
  The key to solving sectarian conflicts in Iraq is better security, 
more diplomatic pressure, economic and political aid, and pressure to 
get the Iraqis to live as one with some amount of autonomy. The Sunnis, 
the Shias, and the Kurds are finally going to figure out that you will 
have a better life living together than if you try to break away 
because if the Shias try to dominate and create an Iranian style 
theocracy, the Sunni Arab nations are not going to sit on the sideline. 
If you are a Sunni trying to take power back by the use of a gun, they 
are not going to allow you to dominate the country by the force of 
arms, and you are not going to be able to split away from the rest of 
Iraq and live in peace because your neighbors are always going to 
consider you a threat.
  If you are Kurd in the north and you think you can live up there 
peacefully and ignore what is happening in the south, you have another 
thing coming because turmoil in Iraq will make your life difficult. If 
you think you can break away from the rest of Iraq and have a Kurdish 
independent state without consequences from Turkey, you are kidding 
yourself.
  Each group really will one day figure out we are better off in terms 
of our long-term interest to find some common ground here on how we can 
live together. That is going to happen, but we have to control the 
violence better and we have to push them harder.
  The second fight involves al-Qaida. I was on this morning with 
Senator Obama on the ``Today'' show. He said something I believe is 
absolutely correct: Reasonable people can disagree.

[[Page 19400]]

The one thing I hope reasonable people can agree is that al-Qaida is 
very unreasonable. If you could find some common ground with this 
crowd, please let me know. I have yet to find a way to reach out to al-
Qaida without getting your arm taken off. They don't have a plan that 
we can buy into. I don't think they have an agenda that any of us, 
Republicans or Democrats, can say: Let's work on some middle ground.
  Their agenda for the world is not totally different from Hitler's 
agenda for the world. It is a religious-based, driven conflict. They 
have taken a religious view of life that excludes moderate Muslims, 
Jews, Christians, and anybody who disagrees with them, and they feel 
compelled by God to topple all forms of moderation. People who do not 
practice Islam, in their view, are just as bad as we are. They have an 
agenda to make sure that those folks in the Middle East who reject 
their religion really pay a heavy price. One, they will be dominated, 
and if they don't change, they will be killed. Hitler had the same 
view: If you are racially different, if you don't live under the thumb 
of the Aryan race, you will be worked to death or killed. Al-Qaida is 
no different. They have a religious agenda they are trying to impose on 
the world.
  Am I worried about al-Qaida sweeping the world and conquering 
Washington? No. Am I worried about al-Qaida taking over all of Iraq? 
No. Here is what I am worried about: If we let the country break apart 
and we have chaos in Iraq, they flourish, al-Qaida flourishes, because 
they go to places where lawlessness reigns, where they can intimidate 
people, and it allows them to move their agenda forward. Their agenda 
is pretty clear: Where moderation raises its dangerous head, lop it 
off.
  The reason they have come to Iraq is because we went there; that is 
partly true. But the real reason they have come is they don't want the 
people in Iraq to change course. It is not about us changing course. We 
have changed course. The old strategy of sitting behind a wall and 
training and doing nothing else has been replaced by an aggressive 
strategy of going out in the neighborhoods, finding the enemy, 
suppressing the enemy, forming new alliances.
  Let me tell you their strategy. They are very much on message. Where 
they find moderation, they are going to go after it. If they can be 
perceived as having won in Iraq, then what happens to the world at 
large? Are we safer? The answer is no. What they will do then, by 
destabilizing this attempt at democracy in Iraq, they will move the 
agenda to the Gulf Arab States, not because I say so but because they 
say so. One of the big threats they see in the Mideast is the Gulf Arab 
States engaging in the world through commerce and basically having a 
tolerant form of religion. The ultimate prize for al-Qaida is not only 
to create a caliphate in Baghdad that would dominate the region 
religiously, it is to destroy Israel. I am not making this up. I am 
just regurgitating what they say.
  The surge--the biggest change I have seen in Iraq has come in Anbar 
where literally 12,000 people have joined the police in 2007 at this 
date versus 1,000 for the whole year 2006. The reason I am encouraged 
is that people again have broken away, and they have associated 
themselves with a different way of living. They didn't like al-Qaida. 
They are trying to start over again. We are giving them a chance to do 
so. The alliances in Anbar and Diyala that are being formed could be 
long lasting to provide security.
  The third conflict is with Iran. We passed a resolution not long 
ago--I think it was last week--that was a damning indictment of Iran. 
That resolution had a long list of activity that we unanimously 
approved to be happening. That activity was the Iranian Government, 
through the Kuds force, was actively involved in the IED business, 
trying to provide materials to insurgents in Iraq to kill young 
Americans in the most effective way possible. We have captured two 
brothers who were responsible for kidnapping five Americans and 
executing them, and we have found from that capture that the resources 
to plan that attack came from Iran. It was a very sophisticated attack. 
They had vehicles they made up to be like American vehicles. They had 
American uniforms on. They went into a secure compound, got through the 
security checks, went in, and captured five Americans working with 
Iraqis that day, took them off. They were going to kidnap them, but it 
all went bad and they killed them. We found the two brothers in charge. 
They have Shia connections. They are tied to the Iranian regime. They 
were getting much of their support from the Kuds force in Iran, the 
Revolutionary Guard. That is another conflict.
  The question for us is, If we said in July we are going to withdraw 
in May of 2008, if that were the statement to be made by the Senate by 
the end of this week, I ask one question: If you were an al-Qaida 
operative fighting in Iraq, your life has been pretty miserable lately 
because Petraeus is all over you. We are killing them, capturing them, 
putting them on the run in a way never known before. That is why 
Zawahiri last week issued a call for reinforcements, because he 
understands his force is under siege in Iraq and things are not going 
well because the local people are beginning to turn on them. So he told 
his al-Qaida brothers: Hang in there. The winds in Washington are 
blowing our way. Hang in there. Help is on the way.
  I would argue as strongly as I know how that if the Senate did pass 
the Levin-Reed amendment, which says within 120 days from now we are 
going to be withdrawing, that every al-Qaida operative who feels under 
siege would have a tremendous boost in morale. It would be welcome news 
to al-Qaida in Iraq. The Senate has declared this war over militarily. 
We are beginning to leave. You would say: Thank God, because right now 
your life is miserable because of this new alliance we have formed and 
new combat power we put on the ground.
  To those who have sided with us in Anbar and other places, if you 
read in the newspaper the end of this week that the U.S. Senate 
declares withdrawal to begin in 120 days, all troops are out by May of 
2008, it would be, in my opinion, a heartbreaking event to read about 
because you would wonder: Now that I have chosen a new course and I 
have openly stood against al-Qaida and Iranian involvement, what is 
going to happen to me and my family?
  My good friend from Iowa has a different view of what happened in 
Vietnam than I do. Just as sure as I am standing here, al-Qaida would 
be emboldened if they heard we are going to withdraw beginning in 120 
days. They would believe they are back into the fight and if they could 
just hang in there, this thing is going to turn around in their favor. 
For all those who broke with al-Qaida and joined us, their biggest 
fears are they are going to get killed. And they will.
  What would Iran say? Iran would look at America anew. They would 
believe, I think rightly so, that their strategy of a proxy war 
produced dramatic results because what they have been able to achieve 
is that this experiment in tolerant democracy, with an Iraqi spin on 
it, failed.
  Why is the Iranian Government trying to drive us out of Iraq? Why are 
they helping extremists of all kinds defeat American forces? Why are 
they trying to undermine the Maliki government? My belief is, they 
understand if a form of democracy emerges on their border in Iraq, it 
is this theocracy's worst nightmare. So they are doing what they are 
doing for a reason. That reason, to me, is pretty obvious. They do not 
want any democracy to emerge in their neighborhood because it is a 
threat to the way they do business.
  The reason al-Qaida goes to Iraq is they do not want moderation to 
take off anywhere.
  So I hope and literally pray we will give General Petraeus until 
September to keep doing what he is doing, and that in September we will 
look at the evidence presented to us about the successes and failures 
of the surge.
  If you keep an open mind, here is what I think you find in July: The 
surge has created a change in dynamic on the ground in Iraq beneficial 
to us and detrimental to al-Qaida, and that is undeniable. Does that 
mean all the

[[Page 19401]]

problems in Iraq are over? No. The surge has not produced political 
reconciliation we hoped for. I do believe if we begin to withdraw, 
political reconciliation that we hoped for is forever lost because 
people begin to make decisions based on when we leave and what is best 
for their family, not what is best for Iraq.
  If we begin to leave now, in July--make a public announcement we are 
beginning to leave--al-Qaida gets bolstered beyond belief. If we stay 
where we are in terms of a new strategy being implemented aggressively, 
I think by September the al-Qaida footprint in Iraq will be greatly 
diminished, and those areas where they dominated will be easier to hold 
because the Iraqis have made a commitment to hold they never had 
before, and they will have the capacity to hold. If we will continue to 
allow this general and these new troops to do their job, al-Qaida is 
the biggest loser. Simultaneously, we are going to have to push the 
Maliki government to do things they need to do.
  If we continue to show strength, Iran will change their policy. If we 
show weakness to Iran and al-Qaida, this war does not end, it gets 
bigger.
  In conclusion, it is not about coming home. We all want them home as 
soon as possible. It is not about heartbreak. We all share it. I have 
had many parents come up to me who have lost children in Iraq or 
spouses and tell me: Please, do not let them die in vain. They believed 
they could win. They believed in what they are doing. Give the rest of 
them a chance to win. I have had people come up and say: I think my son 
or daughter, my husband or wife, died in vain. Don't let anyone else 
die.
  Senators Reed and Levin believe that by setting a date to withdraw 
now, it will put pressure on the Iraqis to do things they have not yet 
done. I understand that. They believe that without additional pressure, 
the Iraqis will use us as a crutch. Fundamentally, I disagree with that 
concept. I think if you say we are going to withdraw now, in 120 days, 
it does not pressure the Iraqi politicians to do things quicker. It 
ensures they will never get done. It takes an enemy that is on the run 
and breathes new life into them. It takes an enemy called Iran and 
makes them bolder.
  The signal you are trying to send has more than one audience. If the 
Senate tries to send a signal in July that we are beginning to withdraw 
in 120 days, and we will be out by May of 2008, the signal will be 
received by this group al-Qaida: We can do this if we hang in there. 
And the signal will be received by those in Tehran: We are going to 
drive America out. We have turned the corner when it comes to 
destroying this new democracy in Iraq.
  Every moderate force that broke from al-Qaida, which is trying to 
stand up to Iran will feel like: My God, what is going to happen to my 
family?
  If we choose to allow the military to continue this successful 
operation, stand behind them without equivocation, listen to them in 
September about what to do, I think we can build a security environment 
never known before in Iraq, and I think our best hopes of securing that 
nation, so reconciliation will one day occur, are achieved.
  It is not about your patriotism; it is not about feeling heartbroken 
for those who have lost their lives. It is about how do you fight this 
war with an enemy that knows no boundaries.
  My last thought: There has been a formula that has existed since the 
beginning of time that works. When people rear their ugly head and 
start talking about their neighbor having no place on the planet, when 
people start using religion as a way to dominate their neighbor, an 
excuse to dominate their neighbor, when people openly talk about 
destroying a particular ethnic group, or a particular race, or a 
particular religion, when they start doing that in terms of words and 
deeds, the rest of us who disagree need to stand up.
  In the 1930s, too many people sat on the sidelines, ignoring the 
dangers of their time. The dangers of their time were Adolph Hitler and 
people like him who had no place on the planet for people who they 
believed were ``racially inferior'' or different in terms of the way 
they wanted to live their lives.
  This enemy is saying things about fellow human beings that not only 
should be rejected in words, should be rejected by action. The action I 
am looking for, when it comes to the al-Qaida agenda, is to destroy it, 
to use every military force we have to destroy it, to align ourselves 
with people who reject it, and see this thing through.
  God bless.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan and I wish to 
take a couple minutes while we make a unanimous consent request: that 
at least the majority leader's time will be from 10:50 to 11 a.m.; from 
10:40 to 10:50 will be for the Republican leader; 10:30 to 10:40 will 
be for the chairman of the committee; and 10:20 to 10:30 will be 
allocated to me. I ask unanimous consent that be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think that is precisely what has been 
typed up, and that is our intent, that those last four 10-minute slots 
be allocated in the way the Senator from Arizona has proposed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, finally, could I point out, during the 
entire night we have been basically going back and forth on both sides 
of the issue. I think all Senators who sought recognition were able to 
speak sometime during the night. I hope we would be able to continue 
going back and forth, unless there is a lack of speakers on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, has that previous unanimous consent request 
been adopted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not yet been adopted.
  Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida addressed the Chair.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand now the Senator from Florida 
is seeking recognition; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on this side, 
following the Senator from Florida, Senator Bingaman be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
Senator Bingaman, Senator Lautenberg be recognized on this side--just 
on this side.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, and reserving the 
right to object, I would hope my colleagues would recognize that gives 
us an hour and 10 minutes until the unanimous consent agreement kicks 
in. I know there are additional speakers on both sides to take up that 
time. So I hope they would be economical with their views.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I advise my colleague from 
Michigan that I believe the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, 
was here planning to speak before I spoke. So on the Democratic side it 
would be Senator Nelson, and then Senator Lautenberg, and then myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bingaman for that. I was 
not aware of that. Let me revise the unanimous consent request. Before 
I do so, in light of what Senator McCain has said, let me inquire of 
the Democrats--I say to Senator Lautenberg, if you could stay here for 
1 minute. I am wondering if the Senator from Florida could give us an 
idea of the amount of time he needs.

[[Page 19402]]


  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Whatever is the pleasure of my chairman.
  Mr. LEVIN. Should we say up to 10 minutes each?
  Mr. McCAIN. Given the number of speakers, if I could say, I think 
maybe 10 minutes maximum, and I would add to that unanimous consent 
request that Senator Craig and Senator Chambliss be added on this side 
in rotation. I think up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Well, I wanted to do like so many, to speak much 
earlier. Six a.m. was the time I had reserved, and it was believed then 
that we would have two or three people to fill an hour. I would like 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me now revise the unanimous consent 
request in this way: that Senator Nelson be recognized for up to 10 
minutes, that Senator Lautenberg be recognized for up to 15 minutes, 
that Senator Bingaman be recognized for up to 10 minutes on this side, 
with alternating to the other side.
  I say to the Senator I think that would leave 35 minutes to be 
allocated on your side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on this side, I ask unanimous consent to 
add to that unanimous consent request that 10 minutes each be allocated 
to Senators Craig, Chambliss, and Cornyn. I think given the spillover, 
that probably will take up the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, as I had listened to some of the debate, I wondered: 
Do we not have the ability with a significant majority in the Senate to 
come together on the differences that have divided us over the course 
of this debate throughout the evening? I think we do, if we would take 
off our partisan hats, if we would take off our ideological hats.
  It is clear where the American people are. It is a truth you cannot 
sustain a war unless you have the support of the American people.
  This impression is not only seared into me as a result of the reading 
of history, but it was clearly the case when I had the privilege of 
wearing the uniform of the country as a lieutenant and as a captain. It 
was during the Vietnam era. That was clearly a time in which the people 
of the country were split. The big difference then and now, in the 
treatment of the troops, is that everybody in the country supports our 
troops, and every Senator does, and we are amazed at their bravery, and 
we stand up and repeat that over and over. That was not the case back 
in Vietnam. That was not the case, where returning troops, 
unbelievably, sometimes, were spit upon. But that is not the case now.
  The question is, how do you keep a bad situation from getting worse? 
And the question is not whether we support the troops; we do. It is the 
question: What is the policy set by the Government of the United States 
that those troops ought to be carrying out? How do we bring some kind 
of success out of a very bad situation?
  Now, the rhetoric has been hot, and it has been intense, and it has 
been polarizing. The Levin-Reed amendment has been characterized as 
though we are going to pick up and walk out of Iraq. That is not what 
the Levin-Reed amendment says. It says we are going to start a process 
of withdrawal, but troops are going to stay in Iraq to go after al-
Qaida--which is clearly there now as a result of us having been there 
for the last 4 years--to go after al-Qaida, to provide force protection 
for the Americans who are there--which would also mean providing border 
protection--and to train the Iraqi Army. That is not a pack up and 
withdraw. The philosophy of the Levin-Reed amendment, which this 
Senator supports--and last Friday I gave the history of how I have come 
through all of these votes since that vote in the fall of 2002 to 
authorize the President to expend moneys for prosecuting a war--the 
question for us has been, how do we bring some success?
  Now, in fact, we look at this as if Iraq is monolithic. It is not. It 
is many different things. It is a concentration of Kurds in the north, 
a concentration of Sunnis, and some mixture with Shiites, in the 
middle, and a concentration of Shiites in the south. We are having 
success with the surge in the western province of al-Anbar, but that is 
because it is primarily Sunni, and that is because the real enemy there 
is al-Qaida. Indeed, the surge of the Marines is having success, slowly 
but having success.
  But remember, Iraq is many things and many faces. That is not the 
case in Baghdad because in Baghdad what you have is a sectarian warfare 
that has been going on for 1,327 years between Sunnis and Shiites that 
has, in effect, become a civil war.
  When Senator Coleman and I were in Baghdad meeting with the foreign 
national security adviser, Dr. al-Rubaie, before Christmas, he said: 
This not a sectarian war. This is Baathists trying to take back over 
their control.
  We could not believe he would make that statement when it was so 
obvious, and it has been so obvious, that it is Sunnis on Shiites and 
Shiites on Sunnis, and some Shiites on Shiites, and some Sunnis on 
Sunnis.
  In the middle of that chaos of a civil war, a surge may have a 
temporary appearance, but at the end of the day, it is not going to 
work. A surge will work in Anbar.
  So let's be clear that when people make extreme statements, what we 
are talking about is a very complicated situation.
  Now, do we think we are going to continue to be full bore in Iraq in 
another 2 years, another 3 years? Do we really think the American 
people are going to put up with that? No. The Levin-Reed amendment, 
which this Senator supports--and it took me a long time to get here, 
Mr. President--is a recognition of the practicality on the ground: 
withdrawing ourselves from the middle of a crossfire of a civil war 
and, instead, consolidating our positions to train the Iraqi Army, to 
continue to go after al-Qaida, and to provide force protection.
  So at the end of the day, we can all get together. You can probably 
have two-thirds of the Senate all coming together. One particular 
approach is we ought to be doing it around the Levin-Reed amendment, 
but it doesn't look as if we are going to. Later on down the road, the 
Presiding Officer, the Senator from Colorado, and I are cosponsors of 
another kind of amendment around which people could consolidate and 
unite. Sooner or later, we all are going to have to come together.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair notify me when I 
have 1 minute left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I begin today by saying that I oppose 
the Levin-Reed amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I 
oppose the amendment for three important reasons: First of all, I 
believe the amendment unconstitutionally usurps the power of the 
Commander in Chief. Secondly, the amendment tells our enemies when they 
can take over in Iraq. Thirdly, the amendment is the wrong approach at 
the wrong time.
  Also, I wish to focus on what we are missing by spending unnecessary 
time last night and today debating this amendment. We have had a 
Defense bill pending before the Senate now for a week and a half and 
have yet to discuss this bill in substance.
  The bill which we have yet to make any real progress on does the 
following things for our men and women in uniform: First of all, it 
authorizes a 3.5-percent pay raise for our men and women in the armed 
forces. It authorizes additional tools for combating post-traumatic 
stress disorder and traumatic brain injury and provides improved health 
care benefits for our injured warriors. It takes new steps to

[[Page 19403]]

recognize the contributions of our Reserve Forces through increased 
retirement benefits and robust reintegration programs. It tightens our 
acquisition processes, our contracting policies, and increases benefits 
to our civilian personnel. It increases the amount of leave our 
military personnel can carry over, a provision which DOD strongly 
advocates as a way to increase the morale of our troops. It authorizes 
$4 billion for mine-resistant vehicles and critical MRAP vehicles that 
we need so desperately to protect our men and women. It authorizes $135 
billion for allowances, bonuses, death benefits, and permanent change 
of station moves. It authorizes payment of over 25 types of bonuses and 
special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and 
continued service by Active-Duty as well as Reserve military personnel. 
It fully funds the President's budget request for the Army's future 
combat systems and adds $90 million for the Armed Robotic Vehicles. It 
authorizes $775.1 million for reactive armor.
  I could go on for a long time cataloging the good things in this bill 
that we are not talking about. We are not focusing on them because of 
the time we have spent yesterday, last night, as well as today, 
focusing on this amendment, which we could have dealt with several days 
ago. This side of the aisle has been prepared to vote and we have been 
asking for that vote, yet that vote has not taken place.
  I think it is important to keep in mind the people who are on the 
receiving end of the decisions we make and the votes we take in this 
body; that is, the American soldier, sailor, airman, and marine who is 
out there doing what we have asked them to do in service to our 
country.
  I appreciate the comments last night of the Senator from Connecticut, 
Mr. Lieberman, regarding my good friend, General Lynch, who commands 
the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, GA, and Task Force Marne in 
Baghdad. General Lynch and his troops are in harm's way as we speak--
right now--executing the duties and the responsibilities the American 
people have asked of them. General Lynch recently commented that the 
addition of thousands more surge troops in the recent weeks has enabled 
him to clear insurgents in 70 percent of his territory south of 
Baghdad. I would like to share a few of General Lynch's comments 
regarding his mission and the work in which his troops are involved.
  Regarding the effects of ceasing the current strategy now in place, 
General Lynch has said the following:

       You'd find the enemy regaining ground, reestablishing 
     sanctuary, building more roadside bombs, and the violence 
     would escalate. It would be a mess.

  Regarding the current mindset of the Iraqi people that he encounters, 
General Lynch has said:

       What they are worried about is our leaving, and our answer 
     is: ``We're staying.''

  Regarding our need to stay and keep doing what we are doing, General 
Lynch has said the following:

       We need these surge forces. They came in for a reason. They 
     are being used for the reason they were sent to be used for.

  These comments by General Lynch and the perspective he shares from 
Iraq is that it would be a mistake to give up on the President's 
strategy now. That is why I oppose the Levin- Reed amendment.
  Months ago, some in the media declared Al Anbar Province lost. Ramadi 
was declared by AQI--al-Qaida in Iraq--as the capital of AQI. Today, it 
is clear that they were wrong and that the President's new strategy has 
effectively turned Al Anbar around.
  I was in Al Anbar 2 months ago, and I have to say I was significantly 
impressed by the job General Gaskins and his folks are doing. We were 
able to take a convoy ride to the middle of downtown Ramadi. We were in 
a safe and secure setting for the first time in years, in that 
community. We saw children returning to schools. We saw markets open. 
We saw people walking on the streets for the first time in years. 
People now felt safe and secure because al-Qaida has now been cleared 
out of Ramadi and out of virtually every inch of Al Anbar Province. The 
surge is working in Al Anbar Province and in the self-declared capital 
of al-Qaida.
  The last elements of the troop increase that the President proposed 
back in January became operational in Iraq on June 15. Let me quote 
retired Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Jack Keane, who has been 
critical in the right ways and positive as well as other ways about 
Iraq--a good man, a good soldier. Here is what he said:

       It is my judgment the security situation is making steady, 
     deliberate progress and it will continue to make progress as 
     we go on through the rest of the summer and into the fall. 
     The thought of pulling out now or pulling out in a couple of 
     months makes no sense militarily in terms of what we are 
     trying to achieve, and that is providing security and 
     stability for Iraq so that we can make some political 
     progress.

  If there is one strategy that does not make sense at this point 
either militarily or politically, it is signaling to the enemy, during 
a time when we are making early progress in establishing security and 
laying the grounds for reconciliation, that we are leaving and that 
they can have the country. This is an extremely ill-advised approach 
for which the United States, the Middle East, and especially the Iraqi 
people will pay dearly for decades to come.
  I have never been more convinced that waiting for General Petraeus's 
report in September was more right than yesterday afternoon when two 
young Georgia veterans, Tripp Bellard and Ruben Maestre, visited my 
office. I wish every Member of this body could have heard the passion 
and the emotion and the strength in their voices. Their resolve was 
clear, yet they were humble and forceful at the same time. I say to my 
colleagues, these men implored me to speak out. They said that America 
needed unwavering leadership now more than ever. They could not have 
been more clear when they said that pulling out of Iraq now would mean 
chaos and would have implications for our troops and for the Nation 
that would be beyond horrific. These were men who had been deployed to 
Iraq more than once and not for a few months. These were men who have 
been on the ground and who fervently echoed what I have heard without 
exception on every single trip I have taken to Iraq, from my first trip 
several years ago to my last one just 2 months ago. I have heard it 
from privates, and I have heard it from generals--that we must not 
leave prematurely and that we must not act prematurely.
  I wish to relate another anecdote about a conversation I had with a 
young female Army soldier. I had lunch with her in Ramadi. She is a 
Georgian with whom I had a very delightful conversation about a number 
of issues. But I asked her: Why in the world did you join the Army 3\1/
2\ years ago in the face of the ongoing conflict in Iraq? She said: 
Senator, my life was not--I was not accomplishing in my life what I 
wanted to accomplish. I needed to head in a different direction. I felt 
like serving my country was something that I could do. She then said: 
Senator, I signed up in the face of Iraq knowing that I would go to 
Iraq. This is not my first trip to Iraq; it is my second tour of duty 
in Iraq. I know I am here for the right reason. I know the mission we 
have to accomplish. I am prepared to accomplish that mission because it 
is necessary and it is the right thing to do. As I visit with the 
people of Iraq here in the streets of Ramadi on a daily basis, I am 
reminded of what freedom is all about.
  Boy, you talk about emotion. You talk about a great young American. 
Those folks are truly great Americans.
  There is no better commentary on the status in Iraq than the men and 
women who are on the ground, and they are all telling us loudly and 
clearly that now is not the time to leave, nor is it the time to judge 
the strategy. The right time to evaluate the strategy is September, and 
the right time to give our forces what they deserve, by passing the 
National Defense Authorization Act, is now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am sure that what is taking place on 
the floor of the Senate must present a terribly confusing picture to 
the American people. It is hard to understand

[[Page 19404]]

even being here, with colleagues shouting their support for the 
American troops while they inject that what they need is an injection 
of truth serum for the vote. Then it will be plain and simple to see 
where they are, those who are opposing a direct vote, an up-or-down, as 
we call it, to take place, and that will answer the question: Do you 
want our soldiers, airmen, seamen, and marines returned home, as the 
American people are demanding? I remind our friends that the obligation 
is to get our people back to their families as soon as possible.
  Outside my office, I pay respect to America's lost soldiers, our 
casualties of war, in a display called the ``Faces of the Fallen.'' It 
gives a picture and some background of the soldiers who gave their 
lives in this ill-conceived and seemingly endless war in Iraq. Every 
day, families, friends, and visitors search through thousands of photos 
looking to see if there are people they know, while they try to 
comprehend the human cost of this war to parents, spouses, children, 
siblings, and friends across our country.
  Four years and 4 months have passed since President Bush sent young 
American men and women to fight in a war based on faulty intelligence 
and incomplete information about an enemy and the scope of this 
ferocious conflict. Now 160,000 American men and women are mired in a 
civil war in Iraq, facing thousands of insurgents willing to die 
themselves while they try to kill any American they can find.
  Mr. President, 3,613 brave American souls will never again sit at a 
family table, play with their children, or return to their jobs and 
their communities. Ninety-one of those men and women came from New 
Jersey. They set their boots on the ground in Iraq never expecting they 
would not put them back on American soil again. Now their faces and 
their stories live on only in our memories.
  But the solemn story those numbers tell does not stop there. Nearly 
27,000 troops have left combat with wounds to their body. More than 800 
of them have lost limbs or sight or other senses. Many more have left 
with their minds totally impaired. More than 30,000 soldiers now live 
with post-traumatic stress disorder or brain injuries, robbing them of 
the ability to think clearly or perform tasks that once came easily. 
They put themselves in the line of fire and fought to give the 
President's policy a chance, but the policy has failed.
  It was more than 3 years ago that the President, in military dress, 
staged on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, proudly 
declared ``mission accomplished.'' Mission accomplished? A declaration 
of victory in millions of American minds? How casual. How cruel. How 
inept. The President did this without hesitation or pause or the idea 
of the cost soldiers would come to endure in the future and the 
hellfire they would face. There were 139 American soldiers who had died 
by that date, by the day that ``mission accomplished'' was declared. 
Compare that with today's count, which stands above 3,600. Mr. 
President, 139 American soldiers then--``mission accomplished''--and 
now the death toll is over 3,600. ``Mission accomplished''--a show of 
grandeur, a curtain of disaster, misleading, and I don't know if the 
President really understood what was taking place in front of his eyes.
  Today, the President continues to use statements that defy reality. 
Vice President Cheney joined in. He said in those times, ``We will be 
greeted as liberators with sweets and treats,'' with not a hint of 
intelligence available before that. Today, the President continues to 
use statements that defy reality. We have to look back a little bit to 
see when Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said this war could last 6 days, 
6 weeks, perhaps, I doubt, 6 months. He said that in February of 2003, 
a month before the invasion. What were they thinking? It is hard to 
understand. They were getting intelligence. They had the best 
information available, and they didn't use it.
  Just last week, the President said:

       The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq 
     were the ones who attacked us in America on September 11th.

  This statement smacks of the same careless rhetoric we heard 4 years 
ago. The most frightening part about that statement is either President 
Bush actually believes what he is saying, doesn't bother to check, or 
is he deliberately distracting the American people?
  The fact is that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11 and 
Iraq had nothing to do with the tragedy of 9/11. The Defense 
Department's own inspector general confirmed this past February that 
the Saddam Hussein regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaida 
before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Has the President forgotten about 
Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for inflicting those wounds on the 
victims, their families, and this country? The war with al-Qaida and 
the hunt for Osama bin Laden began and continues outside of Iraq. Yet 
Osama bin Laden is still at large, and al-Qaida has become stronger as 
a result of President Bush's failed policies.
  This administration took its eye off the ball. Instead of capturing 
or killing Osama bin Laden, we are stuck in the middle of a civil war 
in Iraq with ever-escalating American casualties. That is why some of 
us in this Congress believe deep in our minds and in our souls that 
this carnage must end and we have to fight to bring our troops home 
from Iraq. We are fighting with our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who are giving us reasons to continue with the surge and continue 
with the exposure in harm's way of our brave men and women.
  Millions of Americans are begging us for a change of course. They are 
tired of having their sons and daughters coming home in flag-covered 
coffins--coffins that are hidden from the public eye by order of the 
Pentagon. They don't even let pictures be taken of those flag-draped 
coffins showing the honor that is bestowed upon the person in that 
coffin.
  The American people want Congress to step in and start to bring our 
troops home in a responsible way. The amendment by Senators Levin and 
Reed would do just that. It would begin to redeploy our troops out of 
Iraq within 120 days and remove all combat troops by the end of April 
of next year. Some American forces would remain to perform 
counterterrorism operations, protect U.S. personnel, and to train Iraqi 
forces.
  This amendment reflects the will of the American people, and it is a 
responsible way to phase our troops out of the civil war in Iraq. But 
instead of having a vote to decide where a majority of the Congress 
stands, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are standing in 
the way. They are resorting to process to keep us from having a vote so 
that the American people can see very clearly where we each stand on 
this issue. So we stayed here all night. That is not much of a 
sacrifice; that is not much when you consider our people in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Soon, every Senator will go on record, and their constituents will 
know whether they want to continue the President's failed policy or are 
they looking for a new, brighter day, a chance to bring our people back 
to their families?
  Some of our colleagues on the other side have called for change. If 
you look at recent votes, seven of them had the courage to stand with 
the Democrats and say: Yes, we agree that this conflict has gone on 
long enough and we ought to start doing something to bring them home. 
But with the President dug in on staying the course, saying the right 
thing is not enough. Change will only come with a vote.
  So I ask my colleagues to stand up and support the Levin-Reed 
amendment so we can begin to bring our men and women home. Let the 
American people hear our sincerity, and they will when they see 
procedural attempts to hide this vote and obstruct the return. The 
slogan they are using is ``cut and run.'' The result would be ``stay 
and die.''
  I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand in front of a desk in which a 
former Idaho

[[Page 19405]]

senator by the name of William E. Borah stood. He was renowned for a 
variety of things after the turn of the 19th into the 20th century. He 
was an outspoken isolationist and opposed Woodrow Wilson and led the 
battle to destroy the League of Nations. He was successful. We never 
joined the League of Nations. America came home from World War I, 
pulled up its bridges and it remained a relatively isolated island in a 
world until World War II.
  We know times have changed. We also know that great debates about 
foreign policy have occurred on the floor of the Senate down through 
the centuries. We have had a very valuable debate over the last 24 
hours in large part about foreign policy but in a surprising way about 
military tactics.
  There is one role that we play here in the United States Senate and 
that role is a political role, it is not a military role. Not 535 
generals. There are a few of us--I'm not one of those--who've had 
extensive military experience and who might have the kind of strategic 
knowledge necessary to make decisions that are general--that our 
generals could and are making on the field at this moment. But I am 
always suprised when we decide to become tacticians, when we decide to 
use the floor of the United States Senate as a command center, when we 
meet in secret rooms around the Capitol to decide how troop movements 
out to happen and what the rules of engagement ought to be. No, we 
shouldn't be playing that role. That's why when we confirmed General 
Petraeus unanimously in the Senate, we said to him very clearly, you go 
to Iraq in relation to a surge that is being implemented and you come 
back to us and give us your honest and fair assesement in September.
  So why then the last 24 hours have we been deciding or trying to 
prejudge Petraeus, to jump in front of him acting like the general that 
he is and the general who is on the ground in Baghdad as we speak? It 
is raw politics. That's what it is all about. And that's what you have 
seen played out here in the last 24 hours. Now, I would be the first to 
tell you that good politics sometimes doesn't produce good policy, 
especially if you're reacting at the moment--if you are reacting at a 
snapshot of a polling data where the American people are reacting 
because they have been fed information instantly about something that 
may or may not be true in the broader perspective.
  But that's what we're doing here, and that's what we do best. But let 
me suggest that sometimes good policy--so why then the last 24 hours 
have we been deciding or trying to prejudge Petraeus, to jump in front 
of him acting like the general that he is and the general who is on the 
ground in Baghdad as we speak? It is raw politics. That's what it is 
all about. And that's what you have seen played out here in the last 24 
hours. Now, I would be the first to tell you that good politics 
sometimes doesn't produce good policy, especially if you're reacting at 
the moment--if you're reacting at a snapshot of a polling data where 
the American people are reacting because they have been fed information 
instantly about something that may or may not be true in the broader 
perspective.
  But that is what we're doing here, and that is what we do best. But 
let me suggest that sometimes good policy--good politics does not in 
the long term produce good policy. It is with that point in mind that I 
hope that the Levin-Reed Amendment goes down that it doesn't gain the 
necessary votes to proceed to a final vote.
  We ought to be focused on the content of the National Defense 
Authorization Act and all that it means to our country and to our 
veterans because of a variety of key amendments that have been placed 
in this very important document. And I think that America, if they've 
been watching C-SPAN for the last 24 hours have not heard one word or 
very few words about the embodiment of this bill and its value and what 
it will do to the long-term stability of our military and the care of 
our veterans.
  I was once chair. I am now Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee and Senator Akaka and I have put a very large and valuable 
amendment in there that deals with traumatic brain injury and the 
extension of eligibility of the eligibility of care as we work to 
create a seamless environment between men and women coming out of our 
armed services and becoming veterans and becoming eligible for the care 
that our Veterans Administration can provide for them. Mental health 
evaluations, trying to get ahead of traumatic brain injury that may not 
manifest itself for months and years after men and women come out of 
the armed services. Dental care for our returning service members and 
homeless programs and all other kinds of things are embodied in this 
very important legislation.
  So, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you have had 
your 24 hours of politics. Now I hope we can have a vote, move on, and 
get to the final passage of the Defense Authorization Act that is so 
important to our country in the short term and in the long term, and I 
would hope that this Senate shows some consistency in what we do, and 
that consistency would be to wait until September in what I think will 
be a fair and honest and factual evaluation by General Petraeus as to 
the situation, the current environment and the future in Iraq. And at 
that time, as a United States Senator representing the State of Idaho, 
I am prepared to make decisions that are different than those today as 
it relates to our involvement in Iraq, if the facts so demonstrate it.
  General Petraeus has a lot of credibility, not only with this 
Congress but with the American people and the polls are showing that. 
While Americans are very frustrated over the war in Iraq, they don't 
want to cut and run at this moment, and that's what Levin-Reed is all 
about, cutting and running.
  And what happens if we do that? What happens if we don't find a 
strategic way out? It is important that we put ourselves in perspective 
of the world that involves Iraq and its surrounding neighbors. You have 
heard a lot of rhetoric about the instability, about the role of Iran 
and certainly what's going on in the north here with the Kurdish 
population and what Turkey is doing, amassing troops along this border. 
You've heard about what's going on in Lebanon and certainly the 
traumatic reality that is happening there. Premature withdrawal from 
Iraq would risk, I believe, plunging this--that Nation into chaos which 
could spill over its borders into the gulf region that you see here.
  Iran, which is a threat to vital U.S. interests and continues to 
provide lethal support to Shia militants who target and kill U.S. 
troops and innocent Iraqis, would exploit our premature departure to 
dominate and control much of -Iraq. Here they are, a very large nation 
with very powerful forces and resources, just waiting for the 
opportunity to fulfill their historic Persian vision of the region.
  Tehran's terrorist proxy to Hezbollah continues to foment in 
instability in Lebanon. They've already leapfrogged Iraq. They're over 
here, creating tremendous influence in that region. Hamas, another Iran 
proxy, continues to kill and maim innocent Israelis and Palestinians 
and is attempting to establish a jihadist state in the Gaza.
  Here we are--another leapfrog over Iraq. Iraq is simply in the way of 
Iran. It's quite plain. It's quite simple. And it is very visual when 
you look at the map. And without some stability in Iran--in Iraq, the 
ability of it to control itself and its borders, the ability to govern 
itself, the reality of what could happen in the region is in fact 
dramatic consequences, a collapse, a major war within the region, not 
only a civil war within Iraq but the ability of Iran and Syria to 
exploit the situation that would occur there. Tehran would extend its 
destabilizing activities to another very important part of the region--
Kuwait--and the oil-rich regions of eastern Saudi Arabia along this 
border here, one of the larger producing oilfields in the region and 
the kingdom could well fall. And those are the realities we face at 
this moment that I think few want to talk about. Let's talk about 
another consequence.
  I will put the balance of my statement in the record. But the other 
consequence, Mr. President, that we've not talked about is what happens 
when 54

[[Page 19406]]

percent of the world's oil supply goes to risk with a collapse of the 
region. And this is a reality check that we only talk about in hushed 
terms, because we don't like to talk about our dependency on a part of 
the world that is so unstable. With those thoughts, I yield the floor.
  What happens to the world energy supply if Iran does gain more 
control in the Middle East? What are the realities of the consequences 
of an Iran that possibly could gain control over 54% of the world 
energy supply? They could place a choke hold over the Strait of Hormuz 
and possibly in sea lanes in the region, severely limiting the supply 
of oil to the world market. That is not just a reality that the United 
States must face, but a reality for the world. I have worked very hard 
with my colleagues to lessen the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. 
However, we are not yet capable of raising production in the United 
States because we have been blocked by the other side of the aisle from 
doing so. Therefore, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could have dire 
consequences with our economy and energy supply; but would also have 
the same effects on the world economy.
  The facts are, Mr. President, that the war we are fighting in Iraq 
has serious and real national security implications and we cannot 
prejudge our best and brightest military commanders by playing politics 
with their duties and best judgement. We should not preempt General 
Petraeus's progress report coming in September and I hope that the 
Senate will go on record today as saying we are not a body of generals, 
we do not know best how to conduct a war and determine how many troops 
it will take to secure Iraq. I hope that my colleagues will join me in 
voting down Levin-Reed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in October 2002, this Chamber gathered 
to consider one of the most serious decisions I have been involved in 
confronting in the 25 years I have been in the Senate. That was a 
decision on whether to grant President Bush authority to invade Iraq. 
At that time, nearly 5 years ago, I opposed the invasion of Iraq, 
believing that it was necessary to give the United Nations weapons 
inspectors the time they needed to determine whether Iraq did, in fact, 
possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. I believe that we 
needed to gather the facts and we needed to make an informed decision 
as to whether Iraq posed such a terrible and immediate threat to our 
country that regime change was warranted. As we all know now, the 
weapons of mass destruction were nowhere to be found.
  Unfortunately, the weapons of mass destruction were not the only 
thing the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and 
other members of the administration were wrong about when it came to 
beginning this war. They were also wrong in thinking that we could 
succeed in Iraq without substantial help from our allies. They were 
wrong to reject warnings that the invasion would fracture Iraq's 
delicate sectarian balance. They were wrong to dismiss legitimate 
questions about how we would rebuild Iraq's civil society. They were 
wrong to think that Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Saudi Arabia, in 
particular, would ignore their opportunity to fill a regional power 
vacuum after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. They were wrong 
to promise the American people, as Secretary Rumsfeld's assistant, Ken 
Adelman, did, that Iraq would be a ``cakewalk.''
  My statement at that time, nearly 5 years ago, was the following:

       If war must be waged, other countries should be there with 
     us sharing the costs and helping to restore stability in what 
     will almost certainly be the tumultuous aftermath of military 
     action.

  Mr. President, ``tumultuous'' only begins to describe the calamity we 
face in Iraq today. Almost 5 years have passed since that October day. 
Five years is longer than it took Presidents Roosevelt and Truman to 
defeat the Axis Powers in World War II.
  Today, Iraq is diverting the United States from other very important 
foreign policy matters. First, of course, it is diverting us from the 
fight against terrorist networks worldwide. Second, it is diverting us 
from responding to the rise of China as a world power. Third, it is 
diverting us from reducing our dependence upon fossil fuels and 
particularly lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy. 
Fourth, it is diverting us from keeping our country economically 
competitive during this era of globalization.
  Respect for America around the world has eroded dramatically as a 
result of this war. To many around the world, the symbol of our country 
today is no longer the Statue of Liberty; instead, it is Abu Ghraib.
  President Bush and Vice President Cheney often tell us that we are in 
Iraq to fight the terrorists who attacked us on September 11.
  In his 2003 State of the Union speech, the President told us that 
Saddam ``aids and protects'' terrorists, including members of al-Qaida.
  In 2004, the Vice President promised ``ample evidence confirming the 
link . . . between al-Qaida and the Iraqi intelligence services.''
  In 2005, the President said:

       They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they 
     tried to shake our will on September 11.

  In March, Vice President Cheney said:

       Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be 
     more plain. . . . As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe 
     there is a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that 
     came to us that day.

  Just last week, as many speakers have reiterated, President Bush 
said:

       The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq 
     were the ones who attacked us in America on September 11th.

  So the administration has been consistent in its formulation of this 
problem. The truth is, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. He 
did not support al-Qaida before September 11, and al-Qaida had no 
presence in Iraq prior to that date. Saddam Hussein was a brutal 
dictator, but his regime posed little immediate threat to the United 
States or its allies. The Baath party, as a secular Arab nationalist 
movement, had no history of cooperation with al-Qaida or other Islamist 
movements.
  The truth is that al-Qaida's offshoot, al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, is in 
Iraq today because of our decision to invade. As the Washington Post 
pointed out recently, al-Qaida in Mesopotamia is an Iraqi phenomenon. 
Its membership is largely Iraqi. It derives its primary financing 
indigenously from kidnappings and other criminal activities. And those 
terrorists and would-be terrorists who have come to Iraq from other 
countries would not have been there absent this conflict.
  Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia thrives over Sunni grievances over our 
occupation of that country. Our continued occupation of that country is 
its best recruiting tool.
  President Bush has treated terrorism as a monolith. As David 
Kilcullen, a counterterrorism analyst, has written, the President has 
lumped together all terrorism, all rogue states, all strategic 
competitors.
  Lumping every dangerous terrorist movement together profoundly 
misconstrues the nature of terrorism and, in fact, encourages eclectic 
groups to collaborate. It places our Nation in greater jeopardy, not 
less jeopardy.
  So the question today is, where do we go from here?
  The fundamental problem in Iraq today is not a lack of U.S. troops; 
it is an absence of national reconciliation. The U.S. role in Iraq 
should not be to police an endless civil war. Rather, it should be to 
facilitate a settlement among the parties themselves.
  The President has belatedly realized that we did not marshal enough 
troops to stabilize Iraq following our invasion in 2002. But today, 
merely adding troops is not the solution. The administration's ongoing 
troop surge is unlikely to prove effective absent a broader political 
settlement.
  If current trends continue, our policy will be, de facto, one of 
siding with the Shia over the Sunnis. The Shia-led government knows 
this. It has, therefore, played for time by clinging to the status quo, 
by dragging its feet on national reconciliation. The Shia-led 
government has shown little sign that it

[[Page 19407]]

appreciates the need for accommodation of national minorities. It has 
missed the most important milestones that have been identified by the 
Iraq Study Group and by this Congress.
  The administration's own benchmark report released several days ago 
reports unsatisfactory progress on debaathification, on passage of an 
oil law, on holding provincial elections, on disarming militias. The 
Iraqi Constitutional Review Commission has failed to make adequate 
progress.
  There has been progress on other benchmarks. I welcome that progress. 
But these were second-order issues compared to the challenge of 
national reconciliation. And the bloodshed continues.
  Going forward we need to focus on two objectives.
  First, we need to send the Iraqi ruling elite a crisp and credible 
signal that our commitment to maintaining forces in that country is not 
unconditional. Only by making this point loud and clear do we create 
the possibility that the Shia-led government will take the painful 
steps necessary toward national reconciliation.
  The U.S. has a moral responsibility to do what it can to create a 
degree of political stability in Iraq. But I repeat the key phrase in 
that sentence, ``do what we can,'' for we can do no more.
  Our commitment to Iraq is not openended. We cannot impose a political 
settlement without the cooperation of the political elites in the 
country. The Iraqis themselves must want a solution.
  Second, we need to draw down U.S. troop presence in a responsible 
way. Too precipitous a withdrawal will undermine the credibility of 
America's commitment to facilitating a political settlement in the 
country. We need to provide a carrot by allowing for the continued 
presence of U.S. forces in a peacekeeping capacity if the Iraqi 
Government does bring about some measure of national reconciliation.
  It is because of these 2 principles that I supported the first 
supplemental appropriation this spring. That legislation set a firm 
date for beginning withdrawal. That was the stick.
  It set a date for completing withdrawal. This arrangement left open 
the possibility of leaving some U.S. peacekeepers in Iraq if, 
ultimately, the factions forged a political settlement. That was the 
carrot.
  This approach remains sound today. And today, with these objectives, 
in mind, I would urge 5 steps that we must take in Iraq.
  First, we need to announce a firm deadline to begin a drawdown of 
U.S. troops from Iraq.
  The credible threat of a withdrawal, perhaps more than withdrawal 
itself, may convince the Iraqi ruling elite of the need to accommodate 
national minorities. The mere threat of a withdrawal says that our 
commitment to Iraq is not unconditional. It proclaims that we will not 
preserve the failed status quo.
  I applaud my colleagues, such as Senator Levin, Senator Reed and 
Senator Feingold, for fighting for a firm deadline. They may disagree 
on the specifics of withdrawal.
  But they do agree that if they do not continue to push for a firm 
timetable, the Bush administration will cling to that failed status 
quo.
  The fact that the administration is even considering alternatives is 
a direct result of our decision to push for some change in direction by 
a specific date.
  Second, we must form a multinational working group to discuss the way 
forward in Iraq.
  It is crucial for Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to be involved. They 
have historical and religious links to national minorities in Iraq. 
They have the most to lose by continued instability there. We cannot 
achieve any political settlement in Iraq without their active 
participation.
  Third, this group--not the Iraqi Government--should convene a Dayton-
style multinational conference to help Iraq's factions forge a 
political settlement.
  Fourth, such a settlement would provide for a negotiated withdrawal 
of U.S. combat troops, as the Iraq Study Group prescribes. If 
appropriate, other U.S. troops could stay, ideally as part of a 
multinational or U.N. peacekeeping force.
  Finally, we should implement the other recommendations of the Iraq 
Study Group, including using our good offices to mediate other 
conflicts in the Middle East, including the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict. President Bush should begin by appointing a special envoy to 
the region, and I applaud his announcement yesterday of a resumption in 
aid to West Bank Palestinians.
  I conclude my remarks by saluting the servicemen of my home State who 
have given their lives while answering our Nation's call to duty in 
Iraq.
  I have asked the Pentagon for an accounting of all New Mexican 
service personnel who have died in Iraq to this date, and that is the 
accounting I will go through at this time.
  While the people of New Mexico and of our entire Nation mourn their 
loss, we will always celebrate the lives they led and the sacrifices 
they made for our country.
  Marine LCpl Christopher Adlesperger, 20, of Albuquerque, NM, attended 
the University of New Mexico before joining the Marine Corps in 2003. 
He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for his actions in Fallujah 
on November 10, 2004.
  SGT James Akin, 23, of Albuquerque, NM, is quoted by the Albuquerque 
Tribune as saying, ``Live life to serve, because you can. Dissent, 
because you can. Enjoy freedom, because you can. Remember always that 
the measure of our progress is not whether we can provide more for 
those who have plenty, but whether we can provide enough to those who 
have little.'' He is survived by his wife and his father.
  SGT Matthew Apuan, 27, was a 1998 graduate of Mayfield High School in 
Las Cruces. He was on his second tour in Iraq when he died near Baghdad 
on February 18, 2007.
  LCpl Aaron Austin, 21, a Lovington, NM, native, was killed in 
Fallujah, Iraq, on April 26, 2004. Austin proposed to his girlfriend 
over the phone from Iraq while on his second tour of duty.
  PFC Henry Byrd III, 20, of Veguita, NM, graduated from Belen High 
School in 2004. Before enlisting, Byrd was a volunteer firefighter in 
his community.
  CPL Lyle Cambridge, 23, of Shiprock, NM, and a member of the Navajo 
Nation, joined the Army in May of 2002. After his death in Baghdad on 
July 5, 2005, Lyle's sister said she couldn't remember ever seeing her 
brother mad. One of her fondest memories of her brother is that he 
bought his older sister a new Easter dress every year.
  SP Roberto Causor, Jr., 21, was assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 
505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, in Fort 
Bragg, NC. He died on July 7, 2007. His parents reside in Rio Rancho, 
NM.
  Marine LCpl Steven Chavez, 20, was born in Hondo, NM, and graduated 
from Hondo High School before entering the Marines. Chavez loved the 
outdoors and participated in track, basketball and football while at 
Hondo. Chavez was killed about a week before he was set to return home.
  SPC Jeremy Christensen, 27, of Albuquerque, NM, was already a veteran 
of the Armed Forces on September 11, 2001. He decided his country 
needed him again and reenlisted. A coworker said the 27-year-old told 
him that he was ready to go to war and he wasn't scared.
  CPL Joel Dahl, 21, of Los Lunas, NM, had searched for a family during 
his teen years in the foster care system. Dahl was excited to finally 
have a family of his own when he learned of his wife's pregnancy. 
Corporal Dahl was killed in Baghdad, Iraq, 5 days before the birth of 
his son.
  1LT Jeremy Fresques, 26, was a 1997 graduate of Farmington High 
School. His wife Lindsay requested that people remember her husband as 
``a strong Christian man, a good husband, and someone we can all be 
proud of.''
  Marine LCpl Jonathan Grant, 23, was raised by his grandmother in 
Pojoaque, NM. Grant left behind a fiancee, a young daughter, and a 
young son.
  SGT Tommy Gray, 34, of Roswell, NM, is remembered by his mother Joyce 
as having a passion for fishing and comic books. Sergeant Gray was in

[[Page 19408]]

the Army for 15 years and is survived by his wife Rene.
  Army LTC Marshall Gutierrez, 41, a native of Las Vegas, NM, died in 
Kuwait of non-combat related injuries on September 4, 2006. Gutierrez, 
a 1983 graduate of West Las Vegas High School and a 1987 graduate of 
New Mexico Highlands University, was assigned to the Area Support Group 
in Arijan, Kuwait.
  Marine LCpl Shane Harris, 23, was always willing to do anything for 
anyone, according to his coworkers. The Las Vegas, NM, native was 
killed in combat in al-Anbar Province, Iraq, on September 3, 2006.
  Marine LCpl Chad Hildebrandt, 22, of Springer, NM was killed 
conducting combat operations against enemy forces in al-Rutbah, Iraq, 
on October 17, 2005. Classmates described Hildebrandt as a role model 
to younger students.
  SPC Alexander Jordan, 31, died on September 10, 2006, of injuries 
caused by enemy small-arms fire while he was conducting a mounted 
patrol in Baghdad. Jordan, whose father lives in Rio Rancho, attended 
Cibola High School in Albuquerque and the New Mexico Military Institute 
in Roswell.
  SPC Stephen Kowalczyk, 32, lived in Albuquerque, NM, while his father 
served in the Air Force. While there, he graduated from Highland High 
School and in 2004 decided to join the Army. He is survived by his 
mother, a brother and four sisters.
  SGT Joel Lewis, 28, of Sandia Park, NM, was serving his first tour in 
Iraq when he was killed by an improvised explosive device during combat 
operations in Baqubah. Lewis was charismatic and loved the outdoors. He 
enjoyed hockey, skydiving and snowboarding.
  SPC Christopher Merville, 26, of Albuquerque, NM, graduated from the 
University of New Mexico. He had an interest in Civil War history and 
toured civil war battlegrounds with his uncle.
  SPC James Pirtle, 27, of La Mesa, NM, planned to return home in 
January of 2004 to I pick up where he left off with his wife, two 
stepsons, and a baby girl. His mother said of James, ``My son was my 
hero before he went in; now he is the world's hero.''
  LCpl Christopher Ramos, 26, of Albuquerque, NM, was killed in al-
Anbar Province. His wife Diana said that Chritopher was her best 
friend, a wonderful husband, and a great father.
  PFC Mario Reyes, 19, of Las Cruces, NM, assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 
3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Carson, Colorado was killed November 
7, 2005, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his 
dismounted patrol in Baghdad.
  Marine Sgt Moses Rocha, 33, helped make his friends stronger people 
just by being near them. The Roswell native was serving his second tour 
in Iraq when he was killed by militant fire. His is survived by his 
teenaged daughter.
  SSG Joseph Rodriguez, 25, played football and Rugby as a teen in Las 
Cruces, NM. His mother remembers her son doing well in math classes at 
school, and he would always add up numbers for her in his head. He is 
survived by his wife Leslie, and their son Ethan.
  PFC Ricky Salas, 22, called Roswell his home with his wife April, and 
their two young children. He was killed March 7, 2006, when the vehicle 
he was in was hit by an improvised explosive devise and overturned in 
Mosul, Iraq.
  Marine LCpl Emilian Sanchez, 20, of Santa Ana Pueblo, was proud of 
his Native American heritage and carried eagle feathers with him to 
Iraq. He was killed during combat operations in al-Anbar Province, 
Iraq, on January 21, 2007.
  Army SGT Leroy Segura, 23, of Clovis, NM, loved his grandmother's 
home-made tortillas and his mother's menudo. He helped his high school 
win the district cross country title in 2000.
  SPC Clifford Spohn, 21, of Albuquerque, NM, graduated from Cibola 
High School in 2004 and joined the Army the following October. He 
leaves behind a wife and 4-year old daughter.
  SPC Jeremy Stacey, 23, joined the Army in 2003 in Albuquerque, NM. 
Stacey died on July 5, 2007, and was posthumously promoted to the rank 
of corporal and awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. His mother 
resides in Los Lunas, NM.
  Army Medic SGT Lee Todacheene, 29, was a proud member of the Navajo 
Nation. His father said that, ``He respected himself and everybody. He 
was generous and kind, and he loved his family above everything else.'' 
Todacheene is survived by his wife and his 11- and 12-year-old sons.
  Army SGT Eric Vizcaino, 21, of Albuquerque, NM, left behind a young 
wife and 2-year-old daughter. His father asked his son to consider 
leaving the Army after his deployment, but Sergeant Vizcaino wanted to 
remain a soldier.
  Marine LCpl Jeremy West, 20, was born in Albuquerque, NM, and served 
in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He was the grandson of Tim Kline, a 
former Albuquerque city councilor and Albuquerque Police Department 
police lieutenant.
  Army SGT Marshall Westbrook, 43, a Farmington, NM, native and Army 
National Guard military police officer, is survived by his wife Jolene 
and their five children. He was described as a gentle giant by a close 
friend in his military police unit.
  SPC Clifton Yazzie, 23, of Fruitland, NM, was killed January 20, 
2006, during his second tour of duty when a roadside bomb exploded near 
his humvee in Al Huwijah, Iraq. Yazzie, a 2001 graduate of Kirtland 
Central High School, was a member of the 101 st Airborne Division. His 
loss is mourned by his wife, his 2 children, his parents, and the 
Navajo Nation.
  Army CPL Jesse Zamora, 22, a native of Las Cruces, NM, was killed on 
February 3, 2006, during his second tour of duty when he was hit by a 
piece of shrapnel from a roadside bomb near his humvee in Beiji, Iraq. 
A 2002 graduate of Mayfield High School, his brother Tyrel was also 
serving in Iraq when he was killed. Zamora was awarded the Purple Heart 
and Bronze star during his second tour.
  Army CPL Jose Zamora, 24, was looking forward to returning to his 
family and his wedding when he was killed in Iraq on August 6, 2006. He 
was raised in Sunland Park, NM.
  Marine MAJ Douglas Zembiec, 34, of Albuquerque, NM, served in 
Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Iraq and had been awarded the Bronze Star, a 
Purple Heart, a Navy Commendation with Gold Star and a Navy Achievement 
medal. A 1991 graduate of La Cueva High School, Zembiec was killed on 
May 11, 2007, during combat operations in Baghdad, Iraq. He is survived 
by his wife and his daughter.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to express my disappointment in this 
all-night session and the attempt to call this PR stunt progress for 
our troops. It is clear that some in this Chamber are putting rhetoric 
before results. Our troops in Iraq continue to pay the price of 
political rhetoric in Washington, DC.
  I believe my colleagues truly care about our troops and I share their 
desire to have all of our troops home as soon as possible. To endorse a 
strategy of withdrawing troops in 120 days after this bill passes, 
however, undermines those very troops. We make it even more difficult 
for them to achieve their mission. With today's rapid communication 
made possible by the Internet, cell phones, and other technologies, 
what we say here can almost instantaneously find its way around the 
world and straight to the camps of both friends and foes--and they are 
both watching. In fact, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that 
the whole world is watching to see what we will decide to do.
  Ambassador Ryan Crocker, our U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, has made some 
very interesting comments that I find valuable. He, like our military 
commanders in Iraq, is in the best position to give us in Washington a 
true assessment of the situation on the ground. Ambassador Crocker has 
stated that he could see the Iraqi Government achieve none of the 
debaathification benchmarks and yet have a situation of stability and 
progress. At the same time, we could see a situation where all 
benchmarks are achieved and yet have an unstable and unsecure nation.
  In statements on this floor, I have discussed the goals of benchmarks 
for

[[Page 19409]]

the Iraqi Government--and I continue to believe we should be setting 
those goals. We should be helping the Iraqi Government achieve them. 
But we cannot expect the Iraqi Government to exist in a vacuum where 
our American ideals of democracy will simply exist in 1 day, 1 month, 
or 1 year.
  I have also recently read an article by former Secretary of State 
Henry Kissinger in the Washington Post. Dr. Kissinger wrote about the 
centuries-long struggles between the Sunni, Shiia, and Kurdish 
populations in Iraq. He, too, points out that it is unrealistic to 
expect these groups to, in a matter of a few years, forget hundreds of 
years of conflict and work together in our timeframe.
  I will ask that three articles be printed in the Record.
  The people of the United States and certainly the members of the 
Senate should continue to press for progress being made by the Iraqi 
Government. We should provide our troops and our civilian 
representatives on the ground in Iraq with the resources they need to 
assist the Iraqis in achieving a secure and stable state. We must not 
undermine their efforts in attempt to score political points.
  An assessment of military actions will be released in September. When 
that assessment is made by those on the ground in Iraq, I will 
carefully evaluate what their determinations mean for the future of 
America's troops serving in Iraq.
  I want to close by expressing my heartfelt thanks to all of the men 
and women serving in our U.S. Armed Forces. You are all true heroes. 
You have volunteered to defend our Nation, our freedom, and our way of 
life. For those of you deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the 
world, I hope you know the difference you are making in the lives of 
the people around you. Your families, friends, and the people of 
America are safer because of the work you are doing.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the articles to which I 
referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2007]

                            Was Osama Right?

                           (By Bernard Lewis)

       During the Cold War, two things came to be known and 
     generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two 
     rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, 
     punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did 
     anything against the Americans, not only would there be no 
     punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, 
     as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, 
     journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with 
     their usual pleading inquiries: ``What have we done to offend 
     you? What can we do to put it right?''
       A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon 
     in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American 
     installations and individuals--notably the attack on the 
     Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt 
     withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnapping of Americans, 
     both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was 
     only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was 
     killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response 
     through their local agents was swift, and directed against 
     the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped 
     Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no 
     attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the 
     period of the Lebanese troubles.
       These different responses evoked different treatment. While 
     American policies, institutions and individuals were subject 
     to unremitting criticism and sometimes deadly attack, the 
     Soviets were immune. Their retention of the vast, largely 
     Muslim, colonial empire accumulated by the tsars in Asia 
     passed unnoticed, as did their propaganda and sometimes 
     action against Muslim beliefs and institutions.
       Most remarkable of all was the response of the Arab and 
     other Muslim countries to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 
     in December 1979. Washington's handling of the Tehran hostage 
     crisis assured the Soviets that they had nothing to fear from 
     the U.S. They already knew that they need not worry about the 
     Arab and other Muslim governments. The Soviets already 
     ruled--or misruled--half a dozen Muslim countries in Asia, 
     without arousing any opposition or criticism. Initially, 
     their decision and action to invade and conquer Afghanistan 
     and install a puppet regime in Kabul went almost unresisted. 
     After weeks of debate, the U.N. General Assembly finally was 
     persuaded to pass a resolution ``strongly deploring the 
     recent armed intervention in Afghanistan.'' The words 
     ``condemn'' and ``aggression'' were not used, and the source 
     of the ``intervention'' was not named. Even this anodyne 
     resolution was too much for some of the Arab states. South 
     Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained; Libya was 
     absent; the non-voting PLO observer to the Assembly even made 
     a speech defending the Soviets.
       One might have expected that the recently established 
     Organization of the Islamic Conference would take a tougher 
     line. It did not. After a month of negotiation and 
     manipulation, the Organization finally held a meeting in 
     Pakistan to discuss the Afghan question. Two of the Arab 
     states, South Yemen and Syria, boycotted the meeting. The 
     representative of the PLO, a full member of this 
     organization, was present, but abstained from voting on a 
     resolution critical of the Soviet action; the Libyan delegate 
     went further, and used this occasion to denounce the U.S.
       The Muslim willingness to submit to Soviet authority, 
     though widespread, was not unanimous. The Afghan people, who 
     had successfully defied the British Empire in its prime, 
     found a way to resist the Soviet invaders. An organization 
     known as the Taliban (literally, ``the students'') began to 
     organize resistance and even guerilla warfare against the 
     Soviet occupiers and their puppets. For this, they were able 
     to attract some support from the Muslim world--some grants of 
     money, and growing numbers of volunteers to fight in the Holy 
     War against the infidel conqueror. Notable among these was a 
     group led by a Saudi of Yemeni origin called Osama bin Laden.
       To accomplish their purpose, they did not disdain to turn 
     to the U.S. for help, which they got. In the Muslim 
     perception there has been, since the time of the Prophet, an 
     ongoing struggle between the two world religions, Christendom 
     and Islam, for the privilege and opportunity to bring 
     salvation to the rest of humankind, removing whatever 
     obstacles there might be in their path. For a long time, the 
     main enemy was seen, with some plausibility, as being the 
     West, and some Muslims were, naturally enough, willing to 
     accept what help they could get against that enemy. This 
     explains the widespread support in the Arab countries and in 
     some other places first for the Third Reich and, after its 
     collapse, for the Soviet Union. These were the main enemies 
     of the West, and therefore natural allies.
       Now the situation had changed. The more immediate, more 
     dangerous enemy was the Soviet Union, already ruling a number 
     of Muslim countries, and daily increasing its influence and 
     presence in others. It was therefore natural to seek and 
     accept American help. As Osama bin Laden explained, in this 
     final phase of the millennial struggle, the world of the 
     unbelievers was divided between two superpowers. The first 
     task was to deal with the more deadly and more dangerous of 
     the two, the Soviet Union. After that, dealing with the 
     pampered and degenerate Americans would be easy.
       We in the Western world see the defeat and collapse of the 
     Soviet Union as a Western, more specifically an American, 
     victory in the Cold War. For Osama bin Laden and his 
     followers, it was a Muslim victory in a jihad, and, given the 
     circumstances, this perception does not lack plausibility.
       From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and 
     his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second 
     task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and 
     easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it 
     seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series 
     of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. 
     troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in 
     Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and 
     Tanzania in 1998, on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of 
     which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the 
     dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited 
     places.
       Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the 
     lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy 
     camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the 
     opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so 
     completely out of accord with previous American practice, 
     came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no 
     successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. 
     actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had 
     been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of 
     their assessment, and of the policies based on that 
     assessment, was necessary.
       More recent developments, and notably the public discourse 
     inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of 
     Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct 
     after all, and that they need only to press a little harder 
     to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they 
     are right or wrong in this view. If They are right, the 
     consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, 
     wide and lasting.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2007]

                        The ``Benchmark'' Excuse

       Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, is a 36-year 
     career diplomat who has served under seven administrations in 
     Iran,

[[Page 19410]]

     Syria, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Pakistan. He's no 
     partisan gunslinger. So it's worth listening to his views as 
     Congressional Democrats and a growing number of Republicans 
     press for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq on the excuse 
     that the Iraqi government hasn't met a set of political 
     ``benchmarks.''
       ``The longer I'm here, the more I'm persuaded that Iraq 
     cannot be analyzed by these kinds of discrete benchmarks,'' 
     Mr. Crocker told the New York Times's John Burns in an 
     interview on Saturday, referring to pending Iraqi legislation 
     on an oil-sharing agreement and a relaxation of de-
     Baathification laws. ``You could not achieve any of them, and 
     still have a situation where arguably the country is moving 
     in the right direction. And conversely, I think you could 
     achieve them all and still not be heading towards stability, 
     security and overall success in Iraq.''
       Mr. Crocker's comments are a useful reminder of the 
     irrelevance--and disingenuousness--of much Washington 
     commentary on Iraq. For proponents of early withdrawal, the 
     ``benchmarking'' issue has provided a handy excuse to make 
     the Iraqi government rather than al Qaeda the main culprit in 
     the violence engulfing their country. A forthcoming 
     Administration report indicating lagging political progress 
     is certain to be seized on by Congress as it takes up a 
     defense spending bill and debates an amendment ordering troop 
     withdrawals by the fall. A proposal to mandate extended times 
     between deployments (and thus force withdrawal) failed 
     narrowly in the Senate yesterday, though not before winning 
     the support of seven Republicans.
       Nobody claims the Iraqi government is a model of democratic 
     perfection, or that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is the 
     second coming of Lincoln. We advised the White House not to 
     lobby against his predecessor. But Mr. Maliki's government is 
     democratic and more inclusive than most reporting suggests, 
     and it is fighting for its life against an enemy that uses 
     car bombs and suicide bombers as its policy instruments. In 
     an interview this week in the New York Post, General David 
     Petraeus noted that while the performance of the Iraqi Army 
     has been mixed, ``their losses in June were three times 
     ours.'' To suggest that Iraqis aren't willing to fight for 
     their freedom is an insult to their families.
       General Petraeus also noted that ``the level of sectarian 
     deaths in Baghdad in June was the lowest in about a year,'' 
     evidence that in this key battlefield the surge is making 
     progress. As a result, al Qaeda is being forced to pick its 
     targets in more remote areas, as it did last week in the 
     village of Amirli near Kirkuk, where more than 100 civilians 
     were murdered. More U.S. troops and the revolt of Sunni 
     tribal leaders against al Qaeda are the most hopeful 
     indicators in many months that the insurgency can be 
     defeated.
       But that isn't going to happen under the timetable now 
     contemplated by Congress. ``I can think of few commanders in 
     history who wouldn't have wanted more troops, more time or 
     more unity among their partners,'' General Petraeus told the 
     Post. ``However, if I could only have one at this point in 
     Iraq, it would be more time.''
       It's also not going to happen if Congress insists on using 
     troop withdrawals to punish Iraqis for their supposed 
     political delinquency. The central issue is whether the 
     Iraqis can make those decisions without having to fear 
     assassination as the consequence of political compromise. The 
     more insistent Congress becomes about troop withdrawals, the 
     more unlikely political reconciliation in Iraq becomes.
       That said, it's becoming increasingly clear that the issue 
     of reconciliation has become a smokescreen for American 
     politicians who care for their own political fortunes far 
     more than they do about the future of Iraq or the 
     consequences of Iraq's collapse for U.S. interests in the 
     Middle East. Here again, they could stand to listen to Mr. 
     Crocker.
       ``You can't build a whole policy on a fear of a negative, 
     but, boy, you've really got to account for it,'' he said. 
     ``In the States, it's like we're in the last half of the 
     third reel of a three-reel movie, and all we have to do is 
     decide we're done here. . . and we leave the theater and go 
     on to something else. Whereas out here, you're just getting 
     into the first reel of five reels, and ugly as the first reel 
     has been, the other four and a half are going to be way, way 
     worse.''
       Mr. Crocker is referring, of course, to the possibility of 
     far nastier violence if the U.S. departs before Iraqi 
     security forces can maintain order. Some will denounce this 
     as a parade of horribles designed to intimidate Congress, but 
     we also recall some of the same people who predicted that a 
     Communist triumph in Southeast Asia would yield only peace, 
     not the ``boat people'' and genocide. Those Americans 
     demanding a U.S. retreat in Iraq will be directly responsible 
     for whatever happens next.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, July 10, 2007]

                         The Way Back From Iraq

                        (By Henry A. Kissinger)

       The war in Iraq is approaching a kind of self-imposed 
     climax. Public disenchantment is palpable. The expressions of 
     concern by the widely admired Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) are 
     a case in point. On the other hand, a democratic public 
     eventually holds its leaders responsible for bringing about 
     disasters, even if the decisions that caused the disaster 
     reflected the public's preferences of the moment. And 
     precipitate withdrawal would produce such a disaster. It 
     would not end the war but shift it to other areas, such as 
     Lebanon, Jordan or Saudi Arabia. The war between Iraqi 
     factions would intensify. The demonstration of American 
     impotence would embolden radical Islamism and further 
     radicalize its disciples from Indonesia and India to the 
     suburbs of European capitals. Whatever our domestic 
     timetables, the collapse of the American effort in Iraq would 
     be a geopolitical calamity.
       We face a number of paradoxes. Military victory, in the 
     sense of establishing a government capable of enforcing its 
     writ throughout Iraq, is not possible in a time frame 
     tolerated by the American political process. Yet no political 
     solution is conceivable in isolation from the situation on 
     the ground. What America and the world need is not unilateral 
     withdrawal but a vision by the Bush administration of a 
     sustainable political end to the conflict.
       Traditionally, diplomacy strives to discover common goals 
     and distill them into a workable compromise. What 
     distinguishes the diplomacy on Iraq is that, in the end, it 
     needs to distill a common approach from common fears. Each of 
     the parties--the United States, the internal parties, Iraq's 
     neighbors, the permanent members of the U.N. Security 
     Council--face the reality that if they pursue their preferred 
     objectives, the cauldron of Iraq may overflow and engulf the 
     region. The United States and most of Iraq's neighbors have 
     powerful national interests in preventing the emergence of 
     terrorist training areas in Iraq. None of Iraq's neighbors, 
     not even Iran, is in a position to dominate the situation 
     against the opposition of all other interested parties. Is it 
     possible to build a sustainable outcome on such 
     considerations?
       The answer must be sought on three levels: internal, 
     regional and international.
       The internal parties--the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds--have 
     been subjected to insistent American appeals to achieve 
     national reconciliation. But groups that have been conducting 
     blood feuds with each other for centuries are, not 
     surprisingly, struggling in their efforts to resolve their 
     differences by constitutional means. They need the buttress 
     of a diplomatic process that could provide international 
     support for carrying out any internal agreements reached or 
     to contain conflict if the internal parties cannot agree and 
     Iraq breaks up.
       Though much media attention focuses on which countries 
     should be involved in the diplomacy, the real debate should 
     start with the substance of what the diplomacy is meant to 
     achieve.
       The American goal should be an international agreement 
     regarding the status of Iraq. It would test whether Iraq's 
     neighbors as well as some more distant countries are prepared 
     to translate general concepts into converging policies. It 
     would provide a legal and political framework to resist 
     violations. These are the meaningful benchmarks against which 
     to test American withdrawals.
       Such a diplomacy might prove feasible because the 
     continuation of Iraq's current crisis presents all of Iraq's 
     neighbors with mounting problems. The longer the war rages 
     the more likely the breakup of the country into sectarian 
     units. Turkey has repeatedly emphasized that it would resist 
     such a breakup by force because of the radicalizing impact a 
     Kurdish state could have a Turkey's large Kurdish population. 
     But this would bring Turkey into unwanted conflict with the 
     United States and open a Pandora's box of other 
     interventions.
       Saudi Arabia and Jordan dread Shiite domination of Iraq, 
     especially if the Baghdad regime threatens to become a 
     satellite of Iran. The various Gulf sheikdoms the largest of 
     which is Kuwait, find themselves in an even more threatened 
     position. Their interest is to help calm the Iraq turmoil and 
     avert Iranian domination of the region.
       Syria's attitudes are likely to be more ambivalent. Its 
     ties to Iran represent both a claim to status and a looming 
     vulnerability. It goes along with Iranian-dominated Hezbollah 
     in Lebanon to reduce Western influence, but it fears 
     confrontation with the United States and even more with 
     Israel, should the region run out of control.
       Given a wise and determined American diplomacy, even Iran 
     might be brought to conclude that the risks of continued 
     turmoil outweigh the temptations before it. To be sure, 
     Iranian leaders may believe that the moment is uniquely 
     favorable to realize millennial visions of a reincarnated 
     Persian empire or a reversal of the Shiite-Sunni split under 
     Shiite domination. On the other hand, if prudent leaders 
     exist--which remains to be determined--they may conclude that 
     they had better treat these advantages as a bargaining chip 
     in a negotiation rather than risk them in a contest over 
     domination of the region. However divided America may appear 
     and however irresolute Europe, geopolitical realities are 
     bound to assert themselves. The industrial countries cannot 
     permit their access to the principal region of

[[Page 19411]]

     energy supply to be controlled by a country with Iran's 
     revolutionary and taunting foreign policy. No American 
     president will, in the end, acquiesce once the full 
     consequences of Iranian domination of the region become 
     apparent. Russia will have its own reasons, principally fear 
     of the radicalization of its Islamic minority, to begin 
     resisting Iranian and radical Islamist domination of the 
     Gulf.
       Combined with the international controversy over its 
     nuclear weapons program, Iran's challenge could come to be 
     perceived by its leaders as posing excessive risks. This is 
     probably why Iran (and Syria) seem to be edging toward 
     dialogue with the United States and why a genuine mutual 
     interest may arise in such a dialogue.
       Whether or whenever Iran reaches these conclusions, two 
     conditions will have to be met: First, no serious diplomacy 
     can be based on the premise that the United States is the 
     supplicant. America and its allies must demonstrate a 
     determination to vindicate their vital interests that Iran 
     will find credible. Second, the United States will need to 
     put forward a diplomatic position that acknowledges the 
     legitimate security interests of an Iran that accepts the 
     existing order in the Gulf rather than strives to overthrow 
     it.
       Such a negotiation must be initiated within a multilateral 
     forum. A dramatic bilateral Iranian-U.S. negotiation would 
     magnify all of the region's insecurities. If Lebanon, Jordan, 
     Saudi Arabia and Kuwait--which have entrusted their security 
     primarily to the United States--become convinced that an 
     Iranian-U.S. condominium is looming, a race for Tehran's 
     favor may bring about the disintegration of all resolve. 
     America needs to resist the siren song of a U.S.-Iranian 
     condominium. Within a multilateral framework, the United 
     States will be able to conduct individual conversations with 
     the key participants.
       Its purpose should be to define the international status of 
     the emerging Iraqi political structure into a series of 
     reciprocal obligations. In such a scheme, the U.S.-led 
     multinational force would be gradually transformed into an 
     agent of that arrangement, also the lines of the Bosnian 
     settlement in the Balkans or the Afghan structure. 
     International forces would be established along Iraq's 
     frontiers to block infiltration. Until this point is reached, 
     U.S. forces should be deployed to have the greatest impact on 
     the issues of greatest concern to America--the creation of 
     terrorist bases or the emergence of a terrorist regime--and 
     in numbers appropriate to their mission.
       A forum for diplomacy already exists in the foreign 
     minister's conference that met recently at Sharm el-Sheikh, 
     Egypt, and that has agreed to reassemble in Istanbul at a 
     date yet to be determined. It is in the United States' 
     interest to turn the conference into a working enterprise 
     under strong, if discreet, American leadership.
       Such a diplomacy is the context for a reliable exit 
     strategy. It would also provide a framework for the eventual 
     participation of friendly countries with a big stake in the 
     outcome. No nation is more seriously threatened by 
     radicalized Islamism than India. Its large Muslim population 
     might be tempted from the democratic path by the success of 
     radical Islamists in the Middle East. Other countries with 
     interests in a moderate outcome are Indonesia and Malaysia. 
     They could be involved in a peacekeeping role once a regional 
     agreement exists.
       All this suggests a three-tiered international effort; an 
     intensified negotiation among the Iraqi parties; a regional 
     forum like the Sharm el-Sheikh conference to elaborate an 
     international transition status for Iraq; and a broader 
     conference to establish the peacekeeping and verification 
     dimensions.
       Neither the international system not American public 
     opinion will accept as a permanent arrangement an American 
     enclave maintained exclusively by American military power in 
     so volatile a region. The concept outlined here seeks to 
     establish a new international framework for Iraq. It is an 
     outcome emerging from the political and military situation 
     there and not from artificial deadlines.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I voted against the Cornyn amendment 
because it significantly misrepresents the NIE because it makes 
assumptions about what may happen in Iraq that are speculative, and 
because it represents the same failed mindset that has resulted in the 
current disaster in Iraq. While the dangers of Iraq becoming a failed 
state are real, this amendment seeks to justify the current massive and 
indefinite U.S. military presence in that country, which is an 
unacceptable distraction and diversion of resources from the fight 
against al-Qaida and its affiliates worldwide.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate voted on an amendment 
offered by Senator Cornyn, amendment No. 2100, that states, in part, 
that it is the Sense of the Senate that the ``Senate should not pass 
legislation that will undermine our military's ability to prevent a 
failed state in Iraq.'' I opposed that amendment, but my vote should 
not be viewed as a lack of concern for the consequences of a failed 
Iraqi state.
  I agree that it is not in the interest of the United States for Iraq 
and the rest of the Middle East to devolve into total chaos, and no one 
in this body argues differently. However, I opposed the amendment 
because it suggests that the United States Senate will be bound to a 
policy of supporting an endless U.S. military involvement in Iraq. By 
implying that it is our military's responsibility to prevent a failed 
state in Iraq, the Cornyn amendment suggests that it is up to our 
service men and women, now and into the future, to undo the missteps of 
an ill-conceived adventure directed by a reckless President.
  The amendment fails to define what exactly a ``failed state'' is, nor 
how the U.S. military should go about preventing one. Some may not have 
noticed, but Iraq is perilously close to a reasonable definition of 
``failed state'' already. In the third annual ``failed state'' index, 
analysts for Foreign Policy magazine and the not-for-profit Fund for 
Peace said Iraq is now the second most unstable country in the world. 
Its standing deteriorated from last year's fourth place on a list of 
the 10 nations most vulnerable to violent internal conflict and 
worsening conditions.
  Mr. President, I feel that we should be relentless in our efforts to 
bring Osama bin Laden to justice and to vanquish the al-Qaida terror 
network. This amendment, however, does not say anything new, and it 
does not imply a change in U.S. policy. What it does, however, is 
suggest that if the failing situation in Iraq does not improve, if the 
Iraqi government does not step up, if the sectarian violence that has 
persisted for over a millennia does not abate, the U.S. Senate should 
not take action that would allow us to modify the mission or withdraw 
forces--ever. That, Mr. President, is an extremely unwise and imprudent 
statement and an even more unwise policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to propound a unanimous consent 
request. I will take just a moment.
  Mr. CORNYN. I yield for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
Senator from Texas speaks, I be given the time until 10:20 a.m., and 
that it be taken from Senator Reid's time previously agreed to in the 
unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I do not intend to object, but merely 
point out that it is my understanding I have 15 minutes, from now until 
10:20 a.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Texas has been given 10 minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am struck by the fact that during the 
course of this debate on the Levin-Reed amendment some Senators seem to 
take the attitude that our presence in Iraq is merely optional, that we 
can choose to do whatever we want to do without regard to the 
consequences. I think of those consequences, as 94 Senators indicated 
yesterday by their vote on the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that said 
we would do no act that would make it more likely that Iraq would end 
up in a failed state because the danger that poses to our national 
security. I don't believe our presence in Iraq is merely optional.
  I do not agree with our colleagues who seem to say that, well, the 
only thing missing is enough pressure on the Iraqi political leadership 
to get their act together, and if they would do what the American 
Congress wants them to do on the timetable the American Congress thinks 
is appropriate, then we are going to pull the plug, we are going to 
leave Iraq, and leave Iraqis to themselves, as if the consequences of 
that action would be borne only by the Iraqis. In fact, I believe the 
consequences of that action would be disastrous to American national 
security,

[[Page 19412]]

as well as to the region in the Middle East.
  So I do not believe it is merely a matter of putting more pressure on 
the Iraqis. As a matter of fact, I marvel at the irony of Members of 
the Senate saying after decades of living under a brutal dictator and 
the literal genocide that had resulted from the murders he carried out 
and the suppression of the Shiite majority by the Sunni minority under 
the Baath party, that somehow this new democracy can spring to life as 
our democracy has after 231 years and solve these problems. Such as, 
why can't they pass a law that says we will share the oil revenue, 
while we have been unsuccessful in solving the insolvency of our Social 
Security system. They suggest there needs to be reconciliation 
overnight between the Shiites and Sunnis when it took us well over 100 
years and a civil war in which 600,000 Americans died for the civil 
rights movement to take root and to overcome the scourge of slavery.
  I think some of my colleagues are taking an unrealistic approach when 
it comes to how fast we expect this new democracy to take the political 
steps to solve some of these problems. And, of course, they cannot do 
it unless basic security is provided--security for them and security 
for us.
  That is why it is important that we not listen to the armchair 
generals here in Washington, DC, with very little military experience 
in fighting and winning wars. It is one reason why we need to listen to 
the generals on the ground, people such as GEN David Petraeus and 
others who have stated very clearly what the consequences of failure 
will be to the United States.
  I also marvel at the short memories of some of my colleagues who said 
we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place after 77 Senators 
in this body voted to authorize the President to do that. Do they 
forget the fact that Saddam Hussein defied, I think it was 16 or 17 
United Nations resolutions to open up his country to weapons inspectors 
from the United Nations, and the concern, of course, post-9/11 that 
Saddam was developing chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons and that 
he would share that technology with terrorists such as al-Qaida?
  And the idea that al-Qaida has sprung up in Iraq overnight, not 
because of the conditions created under Saddam or postwar Iraq, but 
because of something we did, to me is an amazing allegation. So it is 
America that is to blame for al-Qaida being in Iraq. That, I suppose, 
is the allegation.
  I am glad to see at least our colleagues do acknowledge that al-Qaida 
is in Iraq, and, of course, we are met today with the news that the top 
al-Qaida figure in Iraq was captured. Adding information from him 
indicates the group's foreign-based leadership wields considerable 
influence over the country of Iraq.
  I don't see how colleagues can vote in favor of the Levin-Reed 
amendment, which calls for a rapid withdrawal of forces before the 
Iraqis are able to stabilize their own country and are able to defend 
themselves and at the same time vote for the amendment we voted on 
yesterday, which was adopted 94 to 3, saying we are not going to take 
any action which makes it more likely that Iraq will become a failed 
state because as the National Intelligence Estimate and the Iraq Study 
Group indicated, a failed state in Iraq means a free hand for al-Qaida. 
A free hand for al-Qaida in Iraq makes Iraq less safe, but it also 
makes America less safe because, as we all know, war is an interactive 
affair. We can quit fighting, but it doesn't mean our enemy will. Of 
course, were we to bring our troops home, as all of us want to do, the 
only question is whether we are going to do it based on an arbitrary 
timetable with the risk of a failed state or whether we are going to do 
it based on conditions on the ground and with the objective of leaving 
Iraq with the capability to govern and defend itself.
  The question is, are we going to bring our troops home at a time and 
in such a manner as it increases the likelihood that Iraq will descend 
into a failed state with, of course, the opportunity for al-Qaida to 
regroup, to recruit, to train, and then export further terrorist 
attacks to the United States? This is the reality. Were we to leave 
Iraq before it has the capability to defend and govern itself, our 
enemies would simply follow us here.
  It is almost as if some of our colleagues want to pull the covers 
over their head and pretend if they do so, if we ignore the threat, it 
will go away. Unfortunately, life is not that simple. Nor is the threat 
illusory, as some of our colleagues indicate.
  So it is important that the Levin-Reed amendment be defeated, that we 
not set an arbitrary timetable to tie the hands of GEN David Petraeus 
with this new strategy that has recently been completed--that is, the 
surge of troops and the operational surge underway--and with the kind 
of success we have seen turning Anbar Province around, a place that 
previously no one could go because al-Qaida basically ruled the roost. 
Now we are starting to see some signs of success there and hopefully 
begin to let the counterinsurgency strategy that General Petraeus was 
sent over to execute, one that will allow our troops and the Iraqis to 
clear the threat, to then hold the area, and then to allow the 
political operatives in Iraq the space in which to do the important 
reconciliation that we all know is essential to the long-term success 
and stabilization of that country.
  This is a historic vote we will be having in a few minutes, and I 
hope our colleagues will vote in the interest of American national 
security, will vote in the interest of doing nothing that would 
increase the likelihood of a failed state and providing al-Qaida an 
additional foothold and operating space within Iraq.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday in Chicago, Eric Lill was laid 
to rest. Eric Lill grew up in the Bridgeport neighborhood on the south 
side of Chicago. He watched the White Sox. He ate Connie's pizza. On 
September 11, he was moved to enlist in the Army. He left in February 
of 2002 to serve, and in his second deployment in Iraq, he was killed 
by a roadside bomb.
  On Sunday, SPC Eric Lill came home from Iraq in a flag-draped coffin. 
He was 28 years old. He leaves behind a 6-year-old son and a 4-year-old 
daughter.
  Eric Lill's story is a story repeated thousands of times across 
America during the course of this war, 150 times in my home State of 
Illinois--stories of bravery and heroism. There are also 30,000 stories 
of injured Americans who have come home with amputations and traumatic 
brain injuries, some whose lives will never be the same. They are our 
patriots, our heroes, and we salute them.
  Across the street from Eric Lill's house on the south side of Chicago 
is the home of his grandmother, Marlene Alvarado. Specialist Lill used 
to call his grandmother every Saturday from Iraq to tell her he was 
safe. This morning, Mrs. Alvarado looks out her front window over at 
her grandson's house still decorated with yellow ribbons.
  During the course of this 4\1/2\-year war, a war that has lasted 
longer than World War II, there have been many yellow ribbons, there 
have been many flag-draped caskets, and there have been many broken 
Iraqi promises.
  I listened to the speeches from the other side of the aisle pleading 
with us to be patient with the Iraqis; the time will come when they 
will lead their nation forward. I could give the Iraqis patience if it 
weren't patience paid for in the lives and blood of American 
servicemen. We have been patient for 4\1/2\ years. It is time for the 
Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation.
  It is time for honesty, not bravado. It is time for realism, not 
fantasy. This war was born in deception. At the highest levels of our 
Government, it has been waged with incompetence and arrogance. Sadly, 
it is the most serious foreign policy mistake of our time. This war 
will not end if we depend on the insight or the humility of our 
President.
  We, those of us who are Members of the Senate, must speak for the 
American people. We must speak for our war-weary soldiers, and we must 
bring this war to an end. At the end of this debate, there will be a 
vote on an amendment, the only amendment

[[Page 19413]]

which will bring our soldiers home and end this war responsibly.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in 
this bipartisan effort.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For what purpose does the Senator from 
Illinois rise?
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, we have had an extensive debate, obviously, 
on the floor of the Senate. I was scheduled originally to speak at 6 
a.m. Because there was an enormous backlog, I have not had an 
opportunity to speak on this issue.
  I rise this morning in strong support of the amendment offered by 
Senators Levin and Reed. I am proud to join them as a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  We have heard from the administration and from many of our colleagues 
in this Chamber that we need to give the President's surge more time, 
that we need to wait to hear the report in September before we make a 
binding decision to redeploy our troops. Yet, we learned just last week 
that the Iraqi political leaders have not met a single benchmark that 
they had agreed to in January. Not one.
  We do not need to wait for another report. We have seen the results 
of a failed policy in the form of multiple deployments, more sacrifice 
from our military families, and a deepening civil war in Iraq that has 
caught our troops in the middle.
  It is long past time to turn the page in Iraq, where each day we see 
the consequences of fighting a war that should never have been 
authorized and should never have been waged. The single most important 
decision a President or Member of Congress can make is the decision to 
send our troops into harm's way.
  It is that decision that determines the fate of our men and women in 
uniform, the course of nations, and the security of the American 
people. It is that decision that sets in motion consequences that 
cannot be undone.
  Since this war began, 3,618 Americans have been killed--532 since the 
President ignored the will of the American people and launched his 
surge. Tens of thousands more have been wounded, suffering terrible 
injuries seen and unseen.
  Here is what else we know: We know that the surge is not working, 
that our mission in Iraq must be changed, and that this war must be 
brought to a responsible conclusion.
  We know Iraq's leaders are not resolving their grievances. They are 
not stepping up to their security responsibilities. They are not 
improving the daily lives of Iraqis.
  We know that the war in Iraq costs us $370 million a day and $10 
billion each month. These are resources that could be spent to secure 
our ports and our borders, and to focus on a resurgent Taliban in 
Afghanistan and the wider war on terrorism that is yet to be won.
  We know that because of the war in Iraq, America is no safer than it 
was on 9/11. Al-Qaida has gained the best recruiting tool it could ask 
for. Tens of thousands of terrorists have been trained and radicalized 
in Iraq. And terrorism is up worldwide.
  If America is attacked again, it will be in no small measure a 
consequence of our failure to destroy al-Qaida at its roots in 
Afghanistan and our failure to adequately secure the homeland. The 
decision to authorize and fight a misguided war in Iraq has created a 
new cadre of experienced terrorists bent on the destruction of the 
United States and our allies.
  If there is still any question about whether Iraq has been a 
distraction from this critical war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that 
should have been resolved yesterday with the release of the most recent 
national intelligence estimate. That report said that al-Qaida ``has 
protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack 
capability, including: A safe haven in the Pakistan Federally 
Administered Tribal Areas, operational lieutenants, and its top 
leadership.''
  And last week, a new threat assessment concluded that al-Qaida is as 
strong today as it was before 9/11.
  Seeing yet another report like this, I can only repeat what I said 
nearly 5 years ago, during the runup to this war. We are fighting on 
the wrong battlefield. The terrorists who attacked us and who continue 
to plot against us are resurgent in the hills between Afghanistan and 
Pakistan. They should have been our focus then. They must be our focus 
now.
  I opposed this war from the beginning, before the Congress voted to 
authorize the war in 2002. I said then that I could not support a war 
based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. I 
worried that it would lead to a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, 
at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
  I believed then--and I still believe now--that being a leader means 
that you'd better do what's right and leave the politics aside. Because 
there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war. You cannot undo 
the consequences of that decision.
  In January, I introduced a plan that would have already started 
bringing our troops home and ending this war, with a goal of removing 
all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. Seventy-eight days ago, 
President Bush vetoed a bipartisan plan that passed both Houses of 
Congress that shared my goal of changing course and ending this war.
  During those 78 days, 266 Americans have died, and the situation in 
Iraq has continued to deteriorate.
  It is time to set a hard date to signal a new mission in Iraq and to 
begin to bring our troops home. It is time to ensure that we complete 
the change in mission and the drawdown of our forces, by the end of 
April 2008--a date that is consistent with the date in my plan back in 
January.
  As we redeploy from Iraq--as I believe we must do--we have to 
redouble our efforts on all fronts in Afghanistan to ensure we do not 
lose ground there.
  Certainly, we have had some success there over the last 5\1/2\ years, 
whether it is the five-fold increase in the number of Afghan boys and 
girls now attending schools or the free elections of a president and 
parliament.
  Yet the remaining challenges in Afghanistan are enormous:
  Opium production is expected to reach a record high this year, with 
revenues helping to fuel the Taliban and al-Qaida; the Taliban has 
increased its campaign of suicide attacks and roadside bombings in 
recent months; most troubling is this simple fact: The leaders of al-
Qaida--Osama bin Laden and his lieutenant Ayman Al-Zawahiri, and the 
leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, remain at large. They are now free 
to operate in a safe haven in northwest Pakistan.
  That has to change.
  First, the United States must increase reconstruction efforts, on 
both the civilian and military side. If we are serious about winning 
the war on terror, we must shift to greater investments in winning the 
hearts and minds of Afghans. The U.S. should allocate money in a way 
that allows more flexibility in our spending, permitting funding of 
local projects that benefit communities and promising local 
governments.
  Second, the United States and NATO must turn around the security 
situation so that average Afghans regain their faith in the ability of 
their government and the international forces to ensure their security. 
Despite more than 5 years of an international military presence in 
their country, the sad reality is that most Afghans do not believe 
their government can guarantee their safety.
  Taliban violence is on the rise, and is reaching into areas of the 
country, like the north, that had been relatively stable until a few 
months ago. Secretary Gates' commitment of an additional 3,200 American 
combat troops and the U.K. commitment of at least 1,000 new troops were 
positive steps. But we must also encourage other NATO allies to supply 
more troops and withdraw the caveats that prevent some NATO forces from 
assisting allies in the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan.

[[Page 19414]]

  Third, the Afghan Government, with our help, must do more to respond 
to the needs of its people, starting by combating its culture of 
impunity and rampant corruption. The Afghan people will never trust 
their government unless it begins effectively to combat the lawlessness 
that has long plagued the Afghan countryside.
  Fourth, in order to make headway against corruption, the United 
States and our allies must revamp our counternarcotics efforts. For too 
long, the United States and NATO have combated this issue with, at 
best, half measures, and we now face a situation where the drug trade 
is exacerbating instability with drug revenues funding the insurgency.
  Finally, any possibility of long-term stability in Afghanistan 
depends on addressing cross-border issues with Pakistan and other 
neighbors.
  Simply put, Pakistan is not doing enough to deal with al-Qaida and 
Taliban safe havens within its borders. In the past months, Pakistan 
has arrested or killed several high value targets, but its overall 
record remains poor. Any solution must take the fiercely independent 
tribal culture of the border region into account. And we should ensure 
that when we provide money to reimburse the Pakistani military for 
fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban along the Afghanistan border, the 
Pakistani military is meeting that commitment.
  The central front in the war on terrorism is not in Iraq; it is in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan. As we change course in Iraq, we must correct 
course in South Asia. And it is long past time that we did so.
  But to make that change, the American people need real leadership 
from this Chamber--not empty rhetoric.
  We are engaged in important work in the Senate. If only the 
willingness to work toward solutions were commensurate with the 
importance of the topic we are undertaking, we might make some 
progress. I hope that our colleagues do not choose further obstruction 
over progress, delay over decision.
  The only point I wish to add is all of us are patriots. The Senator 
who is managing for the minority at this point is a certified American 
hero. All of us want to see our troops come home safely. All of us want 
the best possible result in Iraq. The only thing I would say is, given 
that we have no good options at this point, that we have bad options 
and worse options, I think it is very important for us to take this 
debate seriously and to recognize that none of us are interested in 
dictating military strategy to the President but, rather, in setting a 
mission for the military, and that is what this debate is about.
  Given the National Intelligence Estimate that has come out, I think 
it is important for us to be prudent and consider what the best steps 
forward are now, and that is something I hope emerges from this debate. 
It is my belief the best thing to do now is to vote for Reed-Levin.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 60 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, may 
the Senator from Florida also have 1 minute and the vote be delayed by 
the appropriate time taken by the three speakers?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will make a very detailed speech after 
this vote laying out why I think this vote is important.
  We started down this road, and we have been banging away since the 
Biden-Hagel-Levin-Snowe resolution back in January, to the Biden-Levin 
position, and now the Reed-Levin amendment, all of which are 
essentially the same thing. I want to make it clear that this is simply 
a first step. We have to keep from careening off this highway and get 
out of the civil war, and then we have to be in a position where we 
come up with a political solution so that when we leave Iraq and we 
bring our children home, we don't just send our grandchildren back.
  I thank my colleagues for giving me this time, and as I said, when 
the vote is over and there is more time, I will, as passionately as I 
can, try to clarify what I think the situation is that we find 
ourselves in in Iraq and what our overall policy--not just the Levin-
Reed amendment but what else we must be doing.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague for his generosity, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the leader for the time 
allotted, and I wish to take this time to say that I do oppose the 
Levin-Reed amendment. I believe it is very important for the Nation at 
this point in time to not change course until September when we have 
had an opportunity to not hear from people in this Chamber but when we 
have an opportunity to hear from the general on the ground, General 
Petraeus, when he comes back and reports to us on the conditions in 
Iraq and what his recommendations might be.
  I think this is too important. The danger to our Nation as a result 
of Iran's very aggressive tendencies, as well as al-Qaida's continued 
presence in Iraq, makes it essential that this mission not be 
terminated prematurely and certainly not until the time we have had the 
generals on the ground give us their assessment of this latest 
strategy, which we approved and put in place in order for us to see 
some progress forward.
  There are signs of progress on the ground. I am encouraged by some of 
those things I hear in spite of the noise that doesn't allow it to 
break through. The fact is, it does appear things are improving 
somewhat on the ground. At the end of the day, the proper time for us 
to make a judgment is September and not now.
  The amendment before us, the Levin/Reed amendment, would mandate the 
Bush administration begin reducing the number of troops in Iraq within 
120 days and maintain only a ``limited presence'' by April.
  In 120 days, can we physically reduce our troops that quickly in a 
safe manner? What about our equipment? Can that be done in 120 days?
  The issue clearly is not our shared desire to see our troops come 
home safely and at the earliest time within the needs of our Nation's 
security. All of us want our troops home. The question is, what is the 
correct policy for our country in Iraq? Last week we received an 
interim report on the status of the situation in Iraq. To be sure, it 
was a mixed report--showing just half of the benchmarks being met. But 
let's look at that report in its proper context.
  There are those who would inflate this report's significance beyond 
its intended purpose and use it to prod a hasty end to the war. I think 
those efforts are misguided. This was not a report on the impact or 
effectiveness of the surge. It was a status report of where Iraq stands 
currently on its path to peace, stability, sovereignty, and democracy. 
And here are the areas where there has been satisfactory progress in 
Iraq:
  The Iraqi Government has formed a Constitutional Review Committee and 
they have implemented procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.
  They have established support committees for the Baghdad Security 
Plan and they have provided three trained Iraqi brigades to support 
Baghdad operations.
  They are insuring Baghdad is not a safe haven for outlaws, regardless 
of their sectarian or political affiliation.
  They have established all planned joint security stations in 
neighborhoods across Baghdad.
  They are ensuring the protection of minority political parties and 
they are spending $10 billion Iraqi revenues on reconstruction 
projects.
  These are the areas where there has been satisfactory progress. But 
more progress remains to be seen.
  They have yet to solve the issues related to debaathification reform. 
They have yet to implement an equitable distribution system for oil 
revenues.

[[Page 19415]]

  The Iraqis have only just begun to enact new election laws. They have 
yet to ensure that Iraqi Security Forces, ISF, are providing even-
handed enforcement of the law--and on that point, we are holding the 
ISF to an appropriately high standard. The problem is that there has 
been a tendency for some police to gravitate back to the old habits of 
sectarianism. Our presence is having a positive impact on ensuring that 
doesn't occur. And the interim report also notes there are areas where 
it is too early to assess progress.
  So there is the status report. Take it for what it is. It is a 
snapshot in time about the condition of the Iraqi government and where 
they are on this path to stability and democratic rule. If we are going 
to measure progress, it is good to know how much is being made. This is 
that report.
  To those who want to inflate it as an indicator of the effectiveness 
of the surge, I would say to my colleagues that the surge has only 
fully been in place for the last 3 weeks.
  The question is what should happen between now and September when 
General Petraeus will report to the President. At that time the surge, 
now in its third week, will have had 12 weeks. That will provide a 
better gauge of where we are. But even then it will be a very short 
time. We know more time is necessary.
  I am confident that by September, we will have a good assessment from 
GEN David Petraeus. He will know what progress the surge is making--
what progress is attainable--and whether it is having the desired 
impact toward our common goals.
  And yet despite the fact that the surge for stability is less than a 
month in place, despite the fact that Iraq has become a battleground 
where al-Qaida is doing everything they can to fight the West, here we 
are today, again, debating precipitous withdrawal.
  The senior senator from Michigan says of his amendment, ``Beginning a 
phased redeployment this year will add incentives for the Iraqis to 
make the hard compromises necessary to bring their country together and 
secure it.'' I disagree.
  Beginning a phased redeployment will add to the security problems. It 
will add to the instability. It will add to the sectarian violence and 
the killing. It will destroy any chance of pushing that country toward 
the place where we all hope it will be. It may even put our forces at 
risk in a defeated dangerous and humiliating defeat.
  I ask those supporting this withdrawal to consider the consequences. 
Consider what would occur if we left Iraq right now in a 120-day 
timeframe dictated by politics and polls and politicians in Washington, 
not generals on the ground. Is this a sound strategy for our military? 
Can this be accomplished?
  Leaving now would leave a security void in Iraq. The vacuum created 
would be filled by al-Qaida and Iran. The Kurds would be threatened by 
Turkey.
  Al-Qaida would have a training ground free from the threat of 
military encroachment. Sectarian fighting would create even greater 
loss of Iraqi lives.
  We have to be cognizant of the consequences of a precipitous troop 
reduction and withdrawal. If we leave Iraq now--will we have to return 
at a later date?
  We will be back fighting a larger enemy, a strengthened enemy, a more 
brutal enemy, an even more determined enemy emboldened by our defeat.
  Our leaving Iraq right now will strengthen our enemies; namely, al-
Qaida. Don't take my word for it; take the words of our military 
leaders on the ground.
  MG Rick Lynch is quoted in recent news reports saying that American 
withdrawal would ``clear the way for the enemy to come back.'' He says 
troop pullout would ``create an environment where the enemy would come 
back and fill the void.''
  General Lynch added that in the field, Iraqi citizens often ask two 
questions. The first is whether the U.S. is staying. The second is how 
can we help. Iraqis, tired of having their villages attacked, their 
homes destroyed by the so-called insurgents--are looking to America. 
But they want to know that we will be there if they make a commitment.
  I appreciate those clear words from one of our military commanders on 
the ground. Would it be a good idea to consult them first? No one cares 
more about our troops than the officers who lead them. I rather take 
his view than that of a politician.
  Come September we are set to receive an update from General Petraeus 
on the status of operations after the surge has been in place long 
enough for us to tell whether or not we are making the progress that 
needs to be made. At that point let us reassess. Are our goals 
attainable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Arizona is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little 
exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly 
amused press corps and in deference to political activists who oppose 
the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty 
though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard 
their demands for action to end the war in Iraq.
  The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never 
been in doubt to a single Member of this body and, to state the 
obvious, nothing we have done for the last 24 hours will have changed 
any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more 
or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this 
war remain as high today as they were yesterday. The consequences of an 
American defeat are just as great, the cost of success just as dear. No 
battle will have been won or lost, no enemy captured or killed, no 
ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have 
survived or been wounded, died, or come home because we spent an entire 
night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our sound 
bites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics 
for statesmanship. All we have achieved is remarkably similar newspaper 
accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own 
temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow, the press will move on to other 
things and we will be better rested. But nothing else has changed.
  In Iraq, the American soldiers--marines, sailors, and airmen--are 
still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as 
dangerous, difficult, and consequential as the great battles of our 
Armed Forces' storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on 
defeating us and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the 
jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to 
us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East 
will still be a tinderbox which our defeat could ignite in a regional 
war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us 
into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in 
Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a 
consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.
  During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard 
Senators repeat certain arguments over and over. My friends on the 
other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this 
amendment with advocating ``staying the course,'' which is intended to 
suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the 
outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of 
General Petraeus, we have changed course. We are now fighting with a 
counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have 
been following from the beginning and which makes the most effective 
use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. 
The new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have 
failed, although the outcome remains far from certain.
  The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators 
Levin and Reed--a smaller force confined to bases distant from the 
battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search-and-destroy 
missions and train the Iraqi military--are precisely the tactics 
employed for most of

[[Page 19416]]

the war, which have, by anyone's account, failed miserably. Now, that, 
Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that 
inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for 
Iraq, the region, and the security of the United States that our defeat 
would entail.
  Yes, we have heard quite a bit about the folly of staying the course, 
though the real outcome, should this amendment prevail and be signed 
into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the 
honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the 
calamity these tried and failed tactics produced and salvage from the 
wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and 
the Middle East and a more secure future for the American people.
  I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly 
remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. 
They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq and it is our responsibility 
to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. Is that our 
primary responsibility? Really? Is that how we construe our role, to 
follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in 
error and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn 
to defend? Surely we must be responsive to the people who have elected 
us to office and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they 
become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand 
that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become 
sick and tired of this war, given the many mistakes made by civilian 
and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at 
heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. 
But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action 
that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal 
historical proportions, which will--and I am as sure of this as I am of 
anything--seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I 
have served all my adult life.
  I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona and to all 
Americans. I take them all seriously, or I try to. But I have one 
responsibility that outweighs all the others, and that is to do 
everything in my power to use whatever meager talents I possess and 
every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great 
and good Nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I 
intend to do, even if I must stand to thwart popular public opinion. I 
will explain my reasons to the American people, I will attempt to 
convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even 
greater patience--though our patience is nearly exhausted--and that as 
long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not 
choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my 
constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday, that 
is how I construe it today, and that is how I will construe it 
tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.
  I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I 
cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give 
General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail 
that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat 
there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq but for us, and that I 
cannot be complicit in it. I must do whatever I can, whether I am 
effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is 
all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much 
compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to 
shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that. And I am 
humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous 
nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues, and to 
all Americans who disagree with me, that as long as we have a chance to 
succeed, we must try to succeed.
  I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the 
American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the 
same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before 
history's. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this 
hour. The public's judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will 
accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I 
will stand where I stand and take comfort from my confidence that I 
took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the 
mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an 
advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love 
remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New 
York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues from 
Michigan and Rhode Island for their great leadership on this issue, and 
I want to say that I have a great deal of respect for my friend from 
Arizona. He said we shouldn't make this debate one of sound bites, and 
that is one of the reasons I rise.
  Repeatedly, we have heard from the other side the slogan ``cut and 
run.'' When they use ``cut and run,'' that is the same kind of 
dangerous, nasty sloganeering that got us into this mess to begin with. 
The other side--some, anyway--seem to have a penchant for avoiding 
serious debate and instead use slogans as a sort of 2 by 4 to beat the 
other side into submission. Well, first, I want to assure my colleagues 
that is not going to happen. We believe strongly in our position, and 
it is right.
  But I want to ask my colleagues who use the slogan ``cut and run,'' 
do they believe that 70 percent of the American people are for cut and 
run? Because 70 percent are for withdrawal within a year. Do they 
believe the brave soldiers who are risking their lives for us are cut 
and run when they say to us--and many have--that this policy makes no 
sense? Do they accuse the parents of the loved ones who have died and 
who then say they do not believe we should be there to be for cut and 
run?
  Let us have a serious debate, as we have had tonight, last night, and 
this morning. Let us have a serious debate, as we have had, but let us 
not resort to these slogans, and let us not let fear overtake policy. 
That is why we got in the mess in the first place.
  Let me just review for my colleagues what Levin-Reed does. Levin-Reed 
says that we begin to withdraw in 120 days, complete the withdrawal by 
April, and then leave what force is necessary for counterterrorism, 
training, and force protection. It will be a much smaller force, most 
of them will be out of harm's way, but it is decidedly not cut and run.
  I want to ask my colleagues one more question. When the President, in 
September, decides to withdraw troops, which he will have to do, given 
both the facts on the ground and the pressures from his side of the 
aisle, are those colleagues going to accuse the President of cut and 
run?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we had a tremendous debate last night, 
and we are close to a vote today. I am proud of the debate that has 
occurred, and I hope all Senators will shortly vote on the Levin-Reed 
amendment to redeploy our troops from Iraq, to refocus our fight on al-
Qaida, and to support our men and women who serve us overseas.
  It is time for President Bush to finally accept what the American 
people already know: the war in Iraq is not making us safer, and our 
troops should not remain in the crossfire of that country's civil war.
  Unfortunately, President Bush refuses to listen to the generals, to 
the commissions, and to the experts. He stubbornly insists that leaving 
American troops in the middle of a civil war will somehow cause 
factions that have been fighting for centuries to agree to work 
together.
  We have tried that approach, and we have paid dearly. We have given 
the Iraqi Government the time to reach the agreements needed to form a 
stable government. We have done our part.

[[Page 19417]]

The Iraqi Government has not done its part.
  We should not ask more Americans to sacrifice their lives for an 
Iraqi government that is unwilling to make even the smallest sacrifices 
for their people and their future.
  Because the President refuses to follow a responsible path forward, 
we in Congress must force a change in our country's policy on Iraq. For 
months, Democrats have been trying to force that change.
  We have been blocked by Republicans who've continued to support the 
President's ``war without end.'' Now--we are starting to see 
responsible Senators break ranks with the President and work with us to 
improve our security.
  The upcoming vote on the Reed-Levin amendment is a test for all 
Senators. Do they stand alone with the President, or do they support 
redeploying our troops and making. America more secure? That is the 
choice every Senator will have to make on this vote.
  As we look at the challenges in Iraq--and the threats around the 
world--Democrats want to do four things; redeploy our troops from Iraq; 
refocuses our fight on al-Qaida; rebuild our military; and respect our 
veterans.
  That is the responsible way to protect our citizens, keep our country 
safe, and keep our military strong.
  We have tried the President's direction, and where had it led us? 
More than 3,600 American service members have been killed and another 
20,000 wounded. We have spent nearly 500 billion taxpayer dollars, and 
under the President's approach there is not end in sight.
  It's time for a new direction, and it begins with redeploying our 
troops.
  Iraq's civil war cannot be solved by our military. It can only be 
solved when the Iraqis decide for themselves that working together will 
bring them a better future.
  As a foreign military power, we cannot force the Iraqis to set aside 
their differences and work together. They have to reach that conclusion 
themselves it Iraq is to ever become a peaceful, stable country.
  When I was in Iraq in 2005, I met with the leaders of the various 
factions. Each of them saw themselves as representing their ``one 
group--not as people who needed to come together for the greater 
good.'' Unfortunately, since my visit, those sectarian differences have 
only gotten stronger.
  The Iraqis have not made the progress that only they can make, and I 
don't think we should keep asking Americans to risk their lives for an 
Iraqi Government that's not doing its job.
  So our first step must be to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. The 
Reed-Levin amendment sets a firm deadline to begin the redeployment 
beginning 120 days after enactment, and it sets April 30, 2008, as the 
date to complete the redeployment.
  Now this does not mean that every servicemember will be coming home. 
As Senator Lugar said, we will need to keep some servicemembers in Iraq 
for counterterrorism, for training, and to protect American interests. 
Other troops will be needed in other places around the globe as we stay 
on the offensive against al-Qaida and other terrorists. But under this 
amendment, the bulk of U.S. troops will be redeployment from Iraq.
  Second, after we redeploy out troops, we need to refocus our energy 
on defeating al-Qaida.
  Today, the Director of National Intelligence released the latest 
National Intelligence Estimate. The report says al-Qaida has 
``Protected and regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack 
capability.''
  The report also says that al-Qaida has established a safe haven in 
northwest Pakistan, has operational lieutenants, and still has its top 
leadership in place. And it is determined to strike us here at home.
  So while the President has kept our military tied up in Iraq, al-
Qaida has been gaining strength, and we must defeat it.
  Third, we need to rebuild our military. According to generals who 
have testified before Congress, the war in Iraq has weakened our 
military's readiness, left our equipment destroyed, hurt our ability to 
respond to disasters at home, and left our troops without fully rounded 
training.
  Today, we are forcing a very tough tempo on our servicemembers. The 
Pentagon has extended tours of duties for our troops. The 
administration has deployed troops sooner than planned.
  The administration has sent troops without all the training and 
equipment they could have received.
  The administration has deployed troops without the down-time at home 
that our servicemembers and their families deserve. In fact, 56 members 
of the U.S. Senate tried to fix that last week with the Webb amendment, 
but a majority of Republican Senators blocked us.
  Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address 
the strains on our servicemembers, so we can remain the best in the 
world.
  The Iraq war is also impairing our readiness by destroying our 
equipment. For example, the Army is supposed to have five brigades' 
worth of equipment pre-positioned overseas. But because of the war in 
Iraq, the Army is depleting those reserves.
  General Peter Schoomaker told the Senate in March, ``It will take us 
two years to rebuild those stocks.''
  Mr. President, our military is the best in the world. I believe we 
need to address the strains on equipment and personnel, so we can 
remain the best in the world.
  To meet the President's surge, the Pentagon has been sending some 
troops to Iraq earlier than planned and keeping other units there 
longer than planned. That means that troops get less time at home, less 
time between deployments, and less time to train.
  Commanders are forced to shorten the training their troops receive, 
so they are focusing on the specific training they need for Iraq--but 
not for other potential conflicts.
  Now, that makes sense. If there's limited training time, we want all 
that time devoted to their most immediate need. However, many military 
leaders are warning that this fast pace diminishes our ability to 
respond to other potential conflicts.
  Here's how the colonel who commands the 1st Marine Regiment put it:

       Our greatest challenge is and will remain available 
     training time, and because that time is limited, our training 
     will continue to focus on the specific mission in Iraq. This 
     has, and will continue to, limit our ability to train for 
     other operations.

  Army COL Michael Beech told the Senate in April that he believes our 
training strategy is broad enough to support a variety of other events. 
But he added: ``However, if deployed in support of other emerging 
contingencies, I would be concerned with the atrophy of some specific 
tactical skills unique to the higher-intensity conflicts.''
  So military commanders are telling us they are concerned that our 
ability to train for other missions has been limited and certain 
tactical skills have had to take a backseat to Iraq.
  We need to make sure our troops are trained for whatever conflict 
they might face, and changing direction in Iraq will allow us to do 
that.
  Mr. President, the Iraq war has especially impacted the readiness of 
our National Guard. The chief of the National Guard Bureau, LTG Stephen 
Blum, testified that the readiness of National Guard forces is at an 
historic low. General Blum said that ``Eighty-eight percent of the 
forces that are back here in the United States are very poorly equipped 
today in the Army National Guard.''
  Not only do we rely on our Guard and Reserve members around the 
world, but we rely on them here at home to respond to natural disasters 
and emergencies. With fire season upon us on the west coast, I'm very 
concerned that we don't have all the capabilities at home we should 
have.
  After the horrible tornadoes in Kansas, the Governor of Kansas said 
that recovery efforts were hampered because there weren't enough 
personnel or equipment. Those resources were in Iraq, not here at home.
  COL Timothy Orr of the U.S. Army National Guard told the Senate that 
his brigade's homeland security capabilities have been degraded. He 
testified:


[[Page 19418]]

       Our ability as a brigade to perform these [homeland] 
     missions continues to be degraded by continued equipment 
     shortages, substitutions, and the cross-leveling of equipment 
     between the state and nation to support our deploying units.

  Finally, we need to respect our veterans. That means keeping our 
promise to meet their needs as a they come home--whether it's for 
healthcare, benefits, education or support.
  Since Democrats have controlled Congress, we have made dramatic 
progress for our veterans. First we passed a budget that treated our 
veterans as a priority.
  I serve on the Budget Committee and I was pleased to work with 
Chairman Conrad to pass a budget resolution that provides over $43.1 
billion for veterans' care.
  Our budget increases funding for veterans by $3.5 billion over the 
President's proposal; funds 98 percent of the independent budget, which 
is devised by veterans service organizations; and it rejects the higher 
fees and copayments that the President had proposed, which would have 
forced more than 100,000 veterans to leave the VA health system.
  We also passed a supplemental that for the first time since the start 
of the war provided funding to help met the needs of our veterans.
  We provided $1.78 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs to 
help those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, to reduce the backlog 
in benefits, and to ensure medical facilities are maintained at the 
highest level.
  And just last week, we added the wounded warriors bill to the Defense 
authorization bill. This proposal will address any of the problems that 
came to light from the Walter Reed investigations. It will ensure 
service members don't fall through the cracks as the move from the 
Pentagon to the VA. It will help us diagnose, prevent and treat PTSD 
and traumatic brain injury. And it addresses the problems with unfair 
disability ratings among other improvements.
  Mr. President, it is time to change course in Iraq. So far the 
President has been unwilling to recognize the reality on the ground.
  Here in the Senate, we have an opportunity to force the President to 
change course in a responsible way.
  The Reed-Levin amendment gives every Senator a choice; either you 
want to stay the course in Iraq and leave Americans in the middle of a 
violent civil war or you believe it's time for a change.
  I urge my colleagues to do the responsible thing for our troops, 
their families, our military's readiness and the fight against terror 
by voting for this amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The senior Senator from Rhode 
Island is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, President Bush is fond of slogans over 
strategy. We have heard them--``bring them on,'' ``cut and run,'' ``as 
they stand up, we will stand down.'' As my colleague, Senator Snowe, 
and our cosponsors have pointed out, he is fond of placing hopes over 
reality. Well, the reality today is threefold.
  First, the precise steps must be taken by Iraq's political leaders, 
and they have not done that. Second, we cannot sustain this level of 
force past next spring because of the limits of our military structure. 
Third, the President has lost the confidence of the American people and 
the public support, and you cannot conduct a strategy without that.
  That is not a political comment, that is a strategic tactical 
comment. According to the Field Manual, and I quote:

       At the strategic level gaining and maintaining U.S. public 
     support for a tactical deployment is critical.

  We must change our strategy in Iraq. No strategy can be sustained, 
regardless of the slogan, without the necessary troops and strong 
public support, and in this case decisive action by the Iraqi political 
leadership. The longer we delay--the longer we delay--the more public 
support erodes and options to avoid a more chaotic redeployment 
disappear.
  To those who urge delay, to wait until September, to wait until next 
spring, I would ask them to ask several questions: First, after 4 years 
of observing the political process in Baghdad, political maneuvering 
without effect, do they believe 6 weeks, until September, 6 months, or 
even 6 years will fundamentally change the sectarian political dynamic 
in Baghdad, the violent struggle between Shia, who feel paranoid, and 
Sunnis, who feel entitled to rule? Even on a tactical level, will 6 
weeks or 6 months or 6 years provide irreversible progress on the 
ground without the political progress necessary?
  The Levin-Reed amendment tries to recognize the reality on the ground 
both there and here and to shape our strategy to sustain an effort to 
serve the interest of this country, and we hope the region and the 
world, and I urge passage.
  Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will yield myself the remainder of my 
time.
  Just about everybody now 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. Their own Prime Minister Maliki 
acknowledged that in November when he said, in words that all of us 
should remember:

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

  Our brave service men and women are dying and being wounded while 
Iraqi leaders dawdle. The Iraqi leaders themselves made specific 
commitments to pass legislation relative to sharing power, sharing 
resources, amending their Constitution, holding provincial elections. 
They made those commitments to be achieved by specific dates. They were 
their commitments. We didn't impose them on them. These are their 
commitments that they have not kept. Because they have not kept their 
commitments, our troops are paying the price, caught in a crossfire of 
a civil war.
  If there is any hope of forcing the Iraqi political leaders to take 
responsibility for their own country, it is to have a timetable to 
begin reducing American forces and to redeploy our forces to a more 
limited support mission instead of being everybody's target in the 
middle of a civil war. That transition is the only way we can force the 
Iraqi leaders to act.
  If the Republican leader's procedural roadblock proceeds this 
morning, we will be denied the opportunity to vote on an issue which 
just about every American has strong feelings on: whether to change 
course in Iraq by setting a timetable to reduce the number of our 
troops in Iraq. Because of that procedural roadblock, we will not be 
voting at 11 o'clock on Levin-Reed but on whether to proceed to vote on 
Levin-Reed.
  Our amendment deserves the chance to be voted on by this body. The 
American people deserve that vote. They deserve to know if we support a 
timetable to reduce our troop presence in Iraq. They deserve to know 
whether each of us favors a change of course in Iraq. If you do not 
agree with our amendment, vote against it. But do not prevent the 
Senate from voting on it, expressing our will on this critical issue. 
The American people deserve for us to vote up or down, do we want to 
change course in Iraq in order to improve the chance of success in 
Iraq, which can only happen if the Iraqi leaders understand we cannot 
save them from themselves.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday I characterized that the 
Democratic leadership's decision to hold us here through the night as a 
theatrical display more worthy of Hollywood than Washington. Indeed, 
anyone who watched it all unfold might have thought they were tuning in 
to an episode of the ``Twilight Zone.''
  How else can we explain a majority party that was asked repeatedly 
the day before to schedule a vote on the pending Levin troop withdrawal

[[Page 19419]]

amendment standing straight-faced on the Senate floor in front of giant 
billboards that read: ``Let us Vote.'' How else to explain Member after 
Member standing up to rail against a 60-vote threshold that they 
frequently insist upon themselves.
  The junior Senator from Connecticut has embodied the best traditions 
of this country and this body throughout this entire debate. He has 
taken a lonely stand. In acting out the freedom and the power that he 
and every other proud voice of dissent has under the Rules of this 
body, he showed the world the greatness and the genius of our 
Government. Here's what Senator Lieberman had to say:

       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 . . . so with respect to my 
     colleagues who are saying, let us vote, we will vote. But the 
     question is, on that vote, will we ask for 60 votes for pass 
     this very, very significant amendment? And I say it is in the 
     best traditions of the United States Senate to require 60 
     votes before this amendment is adopted.

  So before discussing the amendment itself, I want to thank my 
colleague, the junior Senator from Connecticut for his courage, for 
reminding us again and again, at no little personal cost to himself, 
what we are about in this war and what we are about in this body.
  Last night's theatrics accomplished nothing. Nearly every major paper 
in America noted this morning that we could have had the vote on the 
Levin troop withdrawal amendment without any of this fanfare. And that 
is really all it amounted to: sound and fury, because after 24 hours of 
debate, after all the gags and giggles and gimmicks, the cold pizza and 
the empty cots, the essential thing remained unsaid. We still don't 
know what the amendment we are about to vote on would mean for our 
troops, our allies, our mission, or our interests.
  With the Senate now in its second week of debate on the Levin 
amendment, after last night's 24-hour talk-athon, I rise yet again to 
ask a simple question: What would the Levin amendment do?
  Its sponsor tried to explain on Sunday the practical effect it would 
have. He said, ``Most of our troops would be out of there by April 
30.''
  Can he show me where in the text it says this? He can't. It doesn't. 
This 1\1/2\ page amendment contains nothing but vague assertions.
  We need to know what the authors of this amendment intend to do with 
this mission, what their plan is. General Petraeus deserves to know. 
Our troops deserve to know. Our allies deserve to know. The people of 
Iraq deserve to know.
  So I ask again the questions I asked last week: 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 the enactment of this Act.'' What would this reduction 
involve?
  The Levin amendment says members of our Armed Forces will only be 
free to protect United States and Coalition personnel and 
infrastructure, to train Iraqi Security Forces, and to engage in 
``targeted counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda.'' What does 
``targeted'' mean?
  The senior Senator from Michigan was asked these questions by the 
press. He said he didn't want to get into a debate as to how many 
troops will be needed. He said answering that question would be 
changing the subject. But that is the subject, isn't it?--whether and 
how many troops we are going to keep in Iraq.
  Isn't that what this whole debate is about? Don't we have a right to 
know how many troops the senior Senator from Michigan thinks are 
necessary to achieve our goals? To prevent the mayhem our top 
commanders have warned would be the result of a precipitous withdrawal?
  The most important questions are left unanswered. All we have are 
vague assertions that no one, not even the sponsor of this amendment, 
has attempted to explain with any measure of clarity.
  Let me remind my colleagues what we do have clarity on. Let me remind 
the Senate of what we agreed to in legislation in May as a framework 
for considering our current strategy in Iraq.
  A bipartisan majority voted 80 to 14 in May to fund General 
Petraeus's Baghdad Security Plan. We agreed that we would receive a 
report on benchmarks in July. We voted, and put into law, that General 
Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker would report in September on progress.
  We are now in the second week of debate on the Levin amendment, and 
we expect several others will be filed outlining a number of different 
ways of revisiting the Petraeus plan.
  But in my judgment, the plan we put forward in May, and put into law, 
is still valid--to give General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about 
60 more days to prepare their assessment. At that point we will have 
allowed the Baghdad Security Plan 3 months to work since it became 
fully manned last month. The benchmarks report and the timeline we set 
in May was clear. It gave us, the troops, and our allies, clarity on 
what was expected.
  A Democratic-led Senate voted to 81-0 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 
some military successes. Yet just 1 month after this strategy became 
fully-manned, Democrats are declaring it a failure. Some of them were 
calling it a failure as early as January.
  The Levin amendment is not a credible alternative to the current 
strategy. By aiming to short-circuit the Petraeus plan just 1 month 
after it became fully manned and 2 months before we would expect a 
report, we short-change ourselves and our forces on the field.
  We need to give General Petraeus until September to do his work. That 
is a commitment we made and signed into law. We need to stand by that 
commitment.
  For this and the other reasons I have outlined, I will vote against 
cloture on the Levin amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. First, Mr. President, I extend my appreciation--I speak for 
all Senators, Democrats and Republicans--for the help we received this 
past 2 days from the employees who are working in the Capitol complex. 
Hundreds and hundreds of employees are here every day. They were here 
all night last night, most of them with little or no rest. This great 
facility would not operate every day but for them.
  I am especially fond of and protective of the Capitol Police because 
I was one. But they are only the vessel about which I speak today, 
because it is not only the Capitol Police--and they worked long and 
hard--but it is the custodians, it is everyone including the valiant 
staff we have seated before the Presiding Officer. If we were asked--
any one of 100 Senators--how to get something done here without them, 
we couldn't do it. I have been here for a quarter of a century. I could 
be here for a quarter of a century more and still couldn't understand 
how their important work is done. Again, speaking for all Senators, I 
say to all who work here in the Capitol, we appreciate very much your 
time and effort.
  I hope these past 2 days have shined a bright light on how important 
our work is here in the Senate. The American people have spoken so many 
different ways. We are, of course, faced every day with the never-
ending polls that this organization takes, that organization takes, and 
a lot of times there is some variance in those poll numbers--but not 
the last couple of months. The American public opposes the surge; they 
are opposed to the war; they want our valiant troops to come home.
  As I wrote to the distinguished Republican leader yesterday:

       There are no more solemn decisions facing Members of 
     Congress than the conduct of war and the placing of troops in 
     harm's way.

  Mr. President, that is true. This I sincerely believe.
  Last night we had an event at 9 o'clock in the park. A Congressman by

[[Page 19420]]

the name of Patrick Murphy spoke. He is from Pennsylvania. He was in 
Iraq, fighting as a soldier, a few years ago. He is now a Member of 
Congress. He talked about the need for us to bring home his comrades, 
the people who served with him. When he came home, 18 others, those 
other paratroopers in his unit, were dead.
  What we are dealing with here is most important, most serious, and 
that is why we have been at it for 2 days nonstop. This is one of the 
most important decisions Members of Congress will ever be required to 
make, especially given the stakes involved, the stakes in the Middle 
East, in Iraq, for our military and for our national security.
  We must proceed carefully and deliberately but proceed we must. The 
actions we take here can force a change, a change in President Bush's 
badly failed Iraq policy. That is what the American people expect the 
Senate to do, not simply to walk in lockstep as the President continues 
to walk down this disastrous path, but to finally change direction. 
That is our goal. That is what we must do and that is what the Levin-
Reed amendment does.
  The amendment recognizes what General Petraeus and all the experts 
have said from the very beginning: There is no military solution to the 
chaos in Iraq. The amendment recognizes that the more U.S. military 
forces caught policing the civil war in this country we call Iraq, it 
is not to the interests of the United States and it is not in the 
interests of bringing stability to Iraq. The amendment recognizes we 
have an enduring interest in Iraq, and certainly in the Middle East, 
and we will not abandon those interests.
  Levin-Reed gives the President no choice but to change course. Levin-
Reed requires the President take the steps to responsibly end the war 
that the country and our brave men and women in uniform demand and 
deserve. Bring them home. Let them come home. Levin-Reed sets a firm 
start date and a firm end date to transition the mission to begin the 
reduction of U.S. forces beginning 120 days after enactment, and to be 
completed by April 30, 2008.
  Levin-Reed limits the United States mission to limit it to 
counterterror, training, and force protection operations after April 
30, and requires that the reduction in forces be part of a 
comprehensive diplomatic, regional, political, and economic effort, 
including the appointment of an international mediator.
  I am compelled to defend the authors of this amendment. My friend, my 
counterpart, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, ridiculed, 
belittled this amendment. Those of us who have served in the Senate 
know that any time Carl Levin deals with legislation, there is 
nothing--nothing--left for guesswork. Literally every ``i'' that should 
be dotted, every ``t'' that should be crossed, every comma that should 
be in a sentence, every semicolon that is placed there once in a while, 
will be in that legislation. I say this with all my friends here in the 
Senate, no one is a better legislator than Carl Levin. All who have 
served in the Senate have dealt with him. There is no way you can give 
him something and say, Is this OK with you, but he will say, No, I have 
to read it. After he reads it, he has to study it.
  We all know what the Levin-Reed amendment talks about. What a 
combination. This good man from Michigan, who has devoted his life to 
public service and has spent his Senate career in the Armed Services 
Committee, teamed up with a graduate of West Point, Jack Reed, to whom 
we all look for advice militarily. How many times has he been to Iraq, 
8, 10 times?
  Why is it important that Jack Reed went to Iraq? Because he served at 
West Point with many of the people over there now who are officers. He 
can get information there that none of the rest of us can get. What a 
combination. What does this combination say to the American people? 
That there must be an end date to what is going on in Iraq.
  Their amendment, I repeat, says there must be redeployment starting 
in 120 days. That is pretty straightforward.
  Mr. President, I will use leader time if my time runs out.
  It also says that redeployment will start in 120 days; that on April 
30, 2008, the forces left in Iraq according to our military will be 
used for counterterrorism activities, training the Iraqis, and 
protecting our assets in Iraq. There is not much to speculate on what 
that means. Of course, the military will set what parameters will be 
used in those different duties they have, but the military--that is 
what they do. So this amendment of Senators Levin and Reed is very 
understandable, it is direct and to the point. It is a simple, 
straightforward, responsible amendment. It strikes the right balance 
between military and diplomatic solutions. It allows our Nation to 
reduce its large combat footprint in Iraq and refocus on the enemy that 
attacked the Nation nearly 6 years ago.
  For the American people, the surge has had far too long to determine 
whether it will work. Six months, 600 dead Americans, untold numbers 
wounded, $60 billion. This amendment allows our Nation to reduce its 
large combat footprint in Iraq. It gives our troops the strategy they 
need to succeed in a very difficult environment. It is supported by an 
overwhelming majority of the American people, it is supported by a 
bipartisan majority in the Senate and, most important, it is binding.
  President Bush has proven beyond any doubt that if we simply express 
opinion and pass ``Sense of the Senate'' legislation, if we do not put 
teeth behind our legislation, he will ignore us.
  It could not be clearer that if we give this President a choice, he 
will stay hunkered down in Iraq until the end of his failed Presidency.
  The National Intelligence Estimate report released yesterday 
amplifies the fact that the war in Iraq has taken our attention and 
resources away from the growing threats we face around the world. We 
cannot keep marking time while President Bush's failed war plan 
continues to crumble.
  We can vote to end the war right now. Democrats are united in our 
commitment to do so and our resolve has never been stronger. More and 
more Republicans have come out to publicly break from the President's 
endless war strategy. They deserve credit for doing so. I commend and 
applaud them. But their words will not end the war; their votes will.
  After 52 months of war; after more than 3,600 American dead; after 
tens of thousands more wounded; after $500 billion of our tax dollars 
spent; after chaos in Iraq has become entrenched; after no meaningful 
signs of progress by the Iraqi Government; after the President's own 
intelligence reports indicate that the war has made us less safe and 
al-Qaida is gaining strength; after a troop escalation has only led to 
more violence; after all of this, after all of this, isn't it time to 
choose a new path? The answer is yes.
  Let's choose that new path now. Let's finally answer the call of the 
American people. I urge my Republican colleagues to end this 
filibuster. I urge them to stop blocking a vote on this crucial war-
ending amendment. By voting yes on cloture, we can make this the first 
day of the end of the war.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Members would vote from 
their desks. I further ask unanimous consent that the Chaplain give our 
daily player immediately following my remarks, which I have completed. 
The reason is, otherwise, he would do it at 1 o'clock. If ever there 
were a time for prayer, it would be before this very important vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that we vote from our desks. I have cleared 
this with the Republican leader, and ask that the Chaplain be now 
called upon to render the prayer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Pursuant to the order of February 29, 1960, as modified this day, the 
Senate, having been in continuous session, will suspend for a prayer by 
the Chief of Staff to the Senate Chaplain, Alan N. Keiran.
                                 ______