[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19420-19423]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                 prayer

  The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer:

[[Page 19421]]

  Let us pray.
  Eternal Father, Creator of the season, as the Members of this body 
run a legislative marathon, may they feel Your devine presence. Allow 
contact with You to calm their fears, to silence their anxiety, to hush 
their restlessness and to fill them with Your peace. Strengthen them so 
that they are not weary in pursuing a worthy goal knowing that a 
harvest awaits those who persevere in doing Your will.
  Give them gratitude for the opportunities You have given them to be 
stewards of our national destiny. And as You remind them that to whom 
much is given, much is expected.
  We pray for Your will to be done here in this Chamber as in heaven. 
In Your mighty Name I pray. Amen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Levin-Reed, 
     et al., amendment No. 2087, to H.R. 1585, Department of 
     Defense Authorization, 2008.
         Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Byron L. Dorgan, Russell D. 
           Feingold, B.A. Mikulski, Debbie Stabenow, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Amy Klobuchar, Pat Leahy, Richard J. Durbin, 
           Jeff Bingaman, Jack Reed, Ron Wyden, Barbara Boxer, 
           Patty Murray, Robert Menendez, Daniel K. Akaka, Charles 
           Schumer.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on Senate 
amendment No. 2087 offered by the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, to 
H.R. 1585 shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and names are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 252 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--47

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 
47. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked on the Levin-Reed amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this has been a long week, and it is hard to 
comprehend, but it is only Wednesday, Wednesday morning. We have now 
been in session continuously for 2 days. On Monday, I submitted a 
simple request for consent to proceed to an up-or-down vote on the 
Levin-Reed amendment to the Defense authorization bill. As I have 
stated, this amendment provides a clear, binding responsible path to 
change the U.S. mission and reduce our combat presence in Iraq. It 
honors the sacrifice of our troops, reflects the will of the American 
people, and lets us rebuild and focus our military on the growing 
threats we face throughout the world.
  Regrettably, Republicans chose to block this amendment. They chose to 
block a bipartisan amendment, Mr. President, to deny the American 
people an up-or-down vote. They chose to continue protecting their 
President instead of our troops, no matter the cost to our country.
  In contrast, my Democratic colleagues and a number of brave 
Republicans came to the floor of the Senate throughout the night to 
make our case. I am proud of what they have said and what they have 
done. We spent 2 days showing America that we are not going to back 
down, we are going to continue to fight, and that if President Bush and 
his allies in Congress refuse to budge, we will continue to show them 
the way.
  How could we possibly shrink from this fight? How could we possibly 
try to avoid this fight? As we speak, many of our 160,000 men and women 
serving in Iraq are wrapping up another day of war, real war on foreign 
sands. For them, it was yet another day caught in an intractable civil 
war, Sunni versus Shia, Shia versus Sunni, Shia versus Shia, Sunni 
versus Sunni, and--what other combinations can we come up with--with 
our troops caught in the crossfires, our troops trying to protect the 
Shias, Sunnis, and the Kurds, and all of them after our troops.
  As the Iraqi people have said in poll after poll, about 70 percent of 
them think we are doing more harm in their country than good.
  The high temperature today in Iraq was about 115 degrees, and our 
troops were wearing about 100 pounds of equipment. This was the 1,583rd 
day of the war. They have served us each and every day with courage, 
despite being taken to war falsely, prematurely, and recklessly. They 
have served us each and every day with courage and valor, despite a 
President who still lacks a plan for success. They have served us each 
and every day with courage, despite too many in Congress who remain 
unwilling to change course.
  Those 160,000 troops deserve more. They and all Americans deserve a 
debate and votes on legislation that will finally provide them a 
strategy to honor their great sacrifice.
  As we have just seen, a bipartisan majority of the Senate supports 
Levin-Reed. A bipartisan majority of the Senate supports a binding new 
policy that would responsibly bring the war to an end so we can return 
our focus and resources to the real threats and challenges our great 
country faces. Yet a Republican minority blocked a vote on the 
bipartisan amendment that would deliver that new course, and instead 
they chose to stand behind the President and this tragic failure he has 
led.
  So today I am filled with a mixture of pride and regret--pride for my 
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, who have risen to this crucial 
cause in giving the American people the debate they deserve, yet regret 
for my colleagues who have blocked the will of the people and the 
majority of this Congress. I believe the will of the people must be 
heeded, and I believe this critical vote must proceed.
  In an effort to make progress on this issue and this bill, I will, 
therefore, request unanimous consent to move to a vote on the four Iraq 
amendments to the Defense authorization bill outlined yesterday morning 
in my letter to Senator McConnell. My unanimous consent request is 
eminently fair. It would provide up-or-down, yes-or-no votes on three 
other bipartisan Iraq amendments in exchange for the same on Levin-
Reed.
  Under my proposal, we would vote on these Iraq amendments: Levin-
Reed, Lugar-Warner, Salazar-Alexander, and Nelson-Collins. In addition, 
I also indicated in my letter that I am prepared to agree to up-or-down 
votes on other amendments as well.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate

[[Page 19422]]

considers the following Iraq amendments, they be subject to majority 
votes: the pending Levin-Reed amendment, the Byrd-Clinton 
deauthorization amendment, the Warner-Lugar amendment No. 2208, the 
Salazar-Alexander Iraq Study Group amendment, the Nelson-Collins 
amendment No. 2124, and Senator Landrieu's al-Qaida amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, not many 
Americans of our generation have failed to see the movie 
``Casablanca.'' There are many memorable lines in that movie. My 
favorite was uttered by the actor, Claude Rains, when he walked into 
the casino and said incredulously: ``Gambling in Casablanca?'' Followed 
by the comment: ``Round up the usual suspects.''
  Sixty votes in the Senate? As common as gambling in Casablanca.
  I think we can stipulate, and my good friends on the other side of 
the aisle stipulated from time to time over the years when they were in 
the minority, that in the Senate it takes 60 votes on controversial 
matters. What is more controversial than the war in Iraq? Of course, it 
is going to take 60 votes. No one in the galleries and certainly no one 
in this town and even casual observers of the Senate across the country 
would be surprised that on a controversial matter of this consequence 
it would require 60 votes.
  Now the leader has also made some observations about the status of 
the war. Most Members on this side of the aisle don't believe it is any 
accident that we haven't been attacked again since 9/11. They believe 
it is because we have been on the offense in places such as Afghanistan 
and Iraq, and we have taken it to the enemy. A lot of them are dead, 
many of them are in Guantanamo, and the rest are on the run.
  There is no plan after the Levin amendment. Withdraw, and then what? 
What happens then? We haven't been dodging this debate. We offered to 
have the Levin amendment voted on yesterday. The only reason we stayed 
in all night was to provide a bit of theater on an extraordinarily 
important issue.
  This is a serious debate. Members on this side of the aisle engaged 
in this debate throughout the evening. We were not afraid of the 
debate, but we certainly were not delaying the vote. We would have been 
happy to have the vote at any point over the last few days.
  So, Mr. President, the request was that we have additional Iraq 
votes----
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order?
  Mr. McCONNELL. With a simple majority.
  Mr. BYRD. May we have order?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is not a movie in which we are 
involved. This is a debate on one of the most serious issues this 
country has ever faced. Thousands of Americans have been killed in 
Iraq, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we are depleting the 
National Treasury by more than half a trillion dollars. But my 
distinguished friend's statement clearly indicates what has happened in 
Iraq since we last took up this debate.
  We passed the Defense authorization bill last November. We had Iraq 
amendments then. There were no 60-vote margins. But in the last 7 
months since that debate took place, this war has gone in the wrong 
direction--in the wrong direction. That direction is the way that 
President Bush has managed this war. That is why all of a sudden now 
that 7 months has gone by with thousands more Americans being wounded, 
and hundreds and hundreds more being killed, suddenly this is an issue 
that requires 60 votes.
  If there were ever a picture, look at what happened last November and 
look what happened today. Of course, they need 60 votes because all 
these amendments would pass with simple majority--all of them, every 
one of them telling the President he should change course. The 
difference is how to tell the President to change course. The Levin-
Reed amendment did it by mandating a timeline.
  I am disappointed to see that my friend is leading the Republicans to 
obstruction over progress. I understand the Senate rules. Other than 
this man sitting behind me, I think I know the rules about as well as 
anyone in this Chamber. I understand the Senate rules allow for 
minority filibuster over the will of the majority, but that is not the 
tradition of this bill, and it should not be the path that is chosen 
given the stakes involved.
  But because Republicans continue to block votes on important 
amendments to the Defense authorization bill, we can make no further 
progress on Iraq and this bill at this time.
  Progress is also blocked by two other troubling realities. First of 
all, more than 300 amendments have been filed. We have not been able to 
get a finite list of amendments for consideration. Majority and 
minority staffs of the Armed Services Committee have been unable to 
work in a bipartisan manner to clear large numbers of routine 
amendments due to the objections of one or two Members on the other 
side of the aisle. The chairman and ranking member have been able to 
clear amendments in this fashion for as long as I can remember, but not 
this year, not with this handful of dedicated obstructionists--not all 
but a few.
  Seated in this front row is one of the managers of this bill, Senator 
John McCain. John McCain is not known for putting things in managers' 
amendments that shouldn't be in managers' amendments. If there ever was 
a guardian of something in a managers' amendment, it is the senior 
Senator from Arizona. But in spite of that, in spite of his reputation, 
the reality is that no one puts anything in a managers' amendment 
unless this man looks it over--and he is a comanager of this bill--and 
we still haven't been able to clear these managers' amendments.
  For these and other reasons, I temporarily laid aside the Defense 
authorization bill and entered a motion to reconsider. But let me be 
clear to all my colleagues, and especially my Republican colleagues, I 
emphasize the word ``temporarily.'' We will do everything in our power 
to change course in Iraq. We will do everything in our power to 
complete consideration of the Defense authorization bill. Why? Because 
we must do both.
  I remind my Republican colleagues, even if this bill had passed 
yesterday, even if this bill passed today, its provisions would not 
take effect until next October.
  So we will come back to this bill as soon as it is clear that we can 
make real progress. I have spoken with Senator Levin, the manager on 
this side. I have spoken with the assistant leader, the whip, Senator 
Durbin. I have asked them to sit down with their counterparts, Senator 
McCain and Senator Lott, to work on a process to address these 
outstanding issues, especially the managers' amendment, so that the 
Senate can return to it as soon as possible.
  In the meantime, we will continue to work with our Republican 
colleagues who are saying the right things--a number of them, a 
significant number of them--on Iraq but aren't yet committed to voting 
in the right way. But we will get there. As Gladstone once said:

       You cannot fight against the future. You cannot fight 
     against the future. Time is on our side.

  In this case, time and the American people are also on our side. The 
Levin-Reed amendment would allow us to rebuild our badly overburdened 
military and return our focus to the real security threats posed by al-
Qaida and other terrorist organizations.
  I think it is important, Mr. President, that I mention the other 
procedural roadblock that was thrown up trying to do this bill: The 
Webb amendment. What did the Webb amendment do? If you are in country 
15 months, serving in the military, you should be able to stay home for 
15 months. There was a procedural block.
  The Levin-Reed amendment would allow us, as I have indicated, to take 
a look at our overburdened military and do something about it and 
return our focus to the real security threats posed

[[Page 19423]]

by al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations. As the new National 
Intelligence Estimate makes very clear, these growing threats demand 
our attention.
  In today's newspaper, and there are other places, but here is only 
one headline: ``Problems Spur Efforts in Protection of Federal 
Buildings.'' The Homeland Security Agency needs more help, is what this 
news story is all about.
  President Bush likes to say we must fight the terrorists in Iraq so 
we do not have to fight them at home, but we all know there were no al-
Qaida forces in Iraq prior to the war. And as the President's own 
intelligence experts admit, the war has only stoked the flames of 
terrorists and made us more vulnerable to attack.
  These experts concluded in the National Intelligence Estimate that 
the threat to our homeland is growing as al-Qaida has regenerated its 
capacity to launch attacks. While the Bush administration's 
preoccupation with Iraq has prevented us from addressing that threat, 
there is important action the Senate can take and should take.
  Therefore, I am going to ask unanimous consent to move to 
consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill, chaired by 
two of our most senior Members, Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Thad 
Cochran. This critically important legislation provides $37.6 billion 
for Homeland Security activities. It is more than the President asked, 
$2.3 billion. This bill was reported unanimously by the Senate 
Appropriations Committee--unanimously--and it will give the Senate an 
opportunity to show who is serious about protecting America from 
terrorist attacks.
  I would hope that given the urgency of the national security issue, 
as highlighted by the National Intelligence Estimate and the need to 
make progress on appropriations bills, we can move to consideration of 
this most important bill.
  The President, in his Saturday address 2 weeks ago this coming 
Saturday, said: Why aren't we doing appropriations bills? Well, we have 
an opportunity to do a very important appropriations bill dealing with 
homeland security. Our security--not dealing with Iraq, not dealing 
with Afghanistan--dealing with our security.

                          ____________________