[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13266-13267]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the statement made 
by the Republican Senate leader. He is a member of the loyal opposition 
and it is no surprise that he is critical of the policies of President 
Barack Obama. That is the nature of the debate, the American debate, 
which takes place on the floor of this Chamber on a regular basis. But 
in fairness to this President, there are some things that were not 
mentioned.
  This President, under his leadership, has brought the war in Iraq to 
a close. This President is bringing the war in Afghanistan to a close. 
This President, with the best military minds and the best military 
talent in the world, has made Osama bin Laden a piece of history. He 
was captured and killed. The man who, sadly, led an attack on the 
United States that cost almost 3,000 innocent lives has been dispatched 
because of the leadership of this President and the wonderful abilities 
and talents and resources of the United States military.
  So to stand here and criticize this President as some reluctant 
warrior is unfair. Yes, I would say in some instances I want a 
President to be a reluctant warrior, to think twice before America is 
engaged in a war, to think twice before this country commits its troops 
to a foreign theater. Certainly, as of this moment, having lost more 
than 5,000 brave Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, we know the 
terrible price that is paid by the men and women who so bravely 
represent this country. And I would like every President to think twice 
before committing those troops to battle. Reluctant? Yes. But wise? 
Yes, I want a wise warrior too.
  I listened to the Senator from Kentucky criticize the President 
because he is, quote, telegraphing his punches when it comes to what is 
going to happen in Syria. Well, you cannot have it both ways. This 
President could make a unilateral decision and attack without even 
consulting Congress and thereby maintain the element of surprise or he 
could do as this President has done and follow what he considers to be 
our constitutional requirement of a national debate before we engage in 
military action.
  So I would say to the Senator from Kentucky, do not criticize the 
President for letting us know what he might do when he turns this over 
to Congress to debate. It is something most of us in Congress should 
welcome.

[[Page 13267]]

  I also take exception to this notion that we have somehow abandoned 
our commitment to the world--this notion that what we hope to do in the 
Pacific is unreachable, or the closing of embassies because of danger 
is problematic or that there is austerity in the Department of Defense.
  It is hard to reconcile those statements from the Republican side of 
the aisle with the fact that repeatedly we have asked for a conference 
committee on the budget to work out our budget differences when it 
comes to funding the Department of Defense and our Nation's national 
defense and time and again the Republicans have objected--objected to 
even sitting down and trying to work out differences so we can restore 
some of the funds cut through sequestration.
  You cannot have it both ways. Do not criticize the President for not 
spending enough money when it comes to our Nation's defense and then 
stand by the sequestration which continues to cut even more from that 
same Department and many others.
  As for the war on terror, what the President has said is there comes 
a moment, and we have reached it, where we cannot always be on a war 
footing. It causes a nation to make decisions which in the long haul 
may not stand the test of time and history. The President has said, 
yes, there is a war on terrorism, but we have to resume our leadership 
in this world with the view of a stable nation, not always thinking 
about the wartime status we face.
  I listened to the Senator from Kentucky, who talks about saving money 
and cutting budgets, trying to hang on to that relic of times gone by 
at Guantanamo, where we are spending so much money--hundreds of 
thousands of dollars for each prisoner to be kept at Guantanamo--when 
we know full well that at least half of them should be released--
carefully released--and should not be maintained at Guantanamo.
  Today, we have hundreds of convicted terrorists safely incarcerated 
in the Federal penitentiaries of America, including one in Illinois in 
Marion, and the people in the nearby community would not even know it 
because they are safely incarcerated.
  Let me say a word too about this issue of Syria. You cannot, on the 
one hand, criticize this President for stepping up and saying we need 
to take action, if necessary, to stop the use of chemical weapons and 
then, on the other hand, say he is a reluctant warrior and that he does 
not support it. How in the world do you reconcile those two points of 
view?
  The President has shown leadership. What he has asked is for the 
Congress to follow. What I heard from the Republican Senator from 
Kentucky is he is not interested in following that leadership.
  Let me also add, this Putin overture, that we find some peaceful way 
to resolve this--I hope it turns out to be true and something that 
works. And if it does, give credit where it is due. This President 
stepped up and said we have to challenge the use of chemical weapons in 
Syria. Even if it does not affect the United States directly or its 
allies directly, we have to stand up to them. And if this Putin 
overture leads to some containment or destruction of those chemical 
weapons, give the President credit for it. Do not criticize him for not 
leading. He has shown more leadership on this issue than, frankly, many 
politicians of either party wanted to face.
  I think when it comes to a credible strategy, this President has one.
  It is a strategy which is ending two wars, which has put an end to 
the leader of that terrible terrorist attack on the United States on 9/
11. It is a strategy which has improved the image of the United States 
since this President has come to power over the last several years. It 
is a strategy we can build on in the future. But we need to make 
certain that what we do is done with an eye toward the reality of this 
world in which we live. It is a dangerous world. It is one where the 
United States may be called on to lead at times when we do not want to 
lead. We cannot be isolationist. The United States has a responsibility 
in this world. That responsibility has to be used very carefully. This 
President understands that.
  I hope that at the end of the day we can, in fact, see a peaceful 
resolution of the chemical weapons issue in Syria. I hope we can find a 
way to harken back to Ronald Reagan where we can trust that will happen 
but verify it as well. That would be the right ending. I think the 
President has taken the right position.
  I would like to add something. When it comes to the nation of Israel, 
our closest and best ally in the Middle East, they understand what we 
are trying to do with chemical weapons in Syria. They have made it 
clear through their friends in the United States and other ways that 
they support it without fear of retaliation by Syria. They are ready, 
according to Prime Minister Netanyahu, for whatever Syria chooses to 
do. We should not be any less forceful or less committed when it comes 
to ending the threat of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass 
destruction in the Middle East.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes and that following my remarks 
Senator Portman be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________