[Pages S6191-S6274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume the consideration of S. 2766, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2766) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2007 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.

Pending:

McCain amendment No. 4241, to name the act after John
Warner, a Senator from Virginia.
Kennedy amendment No. 4322, to amend the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the
Federal minimum wage.
Enzi amendment No. 4376, to promote job creation and small
business preservation in the adjustment of the Federal
minimum wage.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will be
1\1/2\ hours equally divided for debate between the Senator from
Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy or
their designees.
Who yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in a short while, we will have an
opportunity in the Senate to vote on whether we are going to provide an
increase in the minimum wage that will affect approximately 15 million
Americans. We have not, as has been pointed out in our discussions
yesterday and the day before, increased the minimum wage in the last 9
years. Even the $5.15 an hour, the current minimum wage, has lost,
since 9 years ago, about 20 percent of its purchasing power.
The men and women who earn the minimum wage are men and women of
dignity. They take pride in doing the jobs they do, although they do
very menial work at the bottom rung of the economic ladder. They work
as teachers assistants in our schools. They work in the nursing homes
looking after the men and women who have made this country the great
country it is. They provide the essential services in many of the
buildings of our Nation, where American commerce is taking place. They
work and they play by the rules and still they fall further and further
behind.
I think there is a broad agreement in this body--there should be--
that if you are going to work in the United States and you are going to
work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, you should not have to live in
poverty. But these individuals do. We have seen what has happened to
the minimum wage over recent years. The minimum wage jobs are not jobs
that get you out of poverty. Minimum wage jobs are jobs that keep you
in poverty. That is a rather dramatic difference from what we have had
historically when we had Democratic and Republican administrations all
voting for an increase in the minimum wage and an expansion of minimum
wage coverage.
So that is the issue that is going to be before us, whether we are
going to go over a 2-year period and raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an
hour. There are those who are strongly opposed to it. We heard some of
those voices yesterday. They say let's let the market decide on these
issues. Let's let the market make the judgment and decide whether $5.15
is fair or whether we should see even a reduction. We have a number of
States that have no minimum wage whatsoever, none. It is amazing. Six
States have no minimum wage. One State has minimum wage of $2.65 an
hour.
I think Americans have made the judgment that a minimum wage ought to
be a minimum wage and people who work ought to be able to at least get
the essentials in life. Of course, that is impossible today with the
explosion in costs. We have seen the explosion of costs taking place,
whether it is gasoline, education funds, health care or whether it is
food, but we have not seen an increase in the minimum wage. We have
seen an increase in salaries of the Members of the Senate. That has
gone through. We have seen that over the last 9 years.
We have increased our salaries with the cost of living by some
$30,000, but we refuse to provide an increase in the minimum wage for
primarily women because 59 percent of these individuals who would
benefit are women. They work hard. Many of those women have children.
So it is a women's issue and a children's issue. It is also a family
issue. We hear a great deal in the public discourse about family
values, about our value system in the United States. Is X, Y, and Z
public policy issue consistent with our values? Certainly, if you are
talking about having someone who is going to work 40 hours a week, a
women who works hard and is trying to raise a child, whether they are
going to be able to have any family time together effectively or
whether that woman is going to have to work two or three jobs and have
little or no time with that child is a family issue and is a values
issue.

Americans understand that. So this is a values issue. The leaders of
our great religions understand it.
That is why the members of the churches in our country have been in
strong support--and I will come back to that in a minute--of an
increase in the minimum wage. It is also a civil rights issue because
so many of those men and women entering the job market at this level
are men and women of color. It is a children's issue, a women's issue
and, mostly I as I have said many times and continue to say, it is a
fairness issue. Americans understand fairness. Work hard and play by
the rules in the richest country in the world and you should not have
to live in poverty. Yet we find that at the end of the year, these
families are $6,000 below the poverty line and they are falling further
behind.
This is it. We'are not going to get another chance. Arguments will be
made that, well, you should not offer it on this particular
legislation. This is the Defense authorization bill. We say: Look, Mr.
Republican leader, give us a chance to have a direct up-or-down vote on
the increase in the minimum wage. You have your alternative on it. Give
us a freestanding bill and I have indicated that we would withdraw this
amendment, but we have been unable to get that.
All of us understand legislatively that we are moving more and more
rapidly into the appropriations, and there is going to be a point of
order made against legislating on appropriations. This legislation is
appropriate for a very basic and fundamental reason. That is why our
men and women who wear the American uniform are fighting in Iraq and
fighting in Afghanistan--to defend American values and ideals. One of
the American values is fairness here at home. It is treating people
fairly for a day's work. That is an American value. That is one of the
values these Americans are fighting for. That is why it is appropriate
here. I don't know offhand, though, if we had more time--and I will
find out next time we debate this issue because even if we get $7.25 an
hour, we are still failing to meet the needs of working poor. I don't
know how many servicemen are in the military serving overseas whose
parents are earning the minimum wage, but there are scores of them.
So this is about the values we hold in this country and the values
worth protecting by the military of this country. That is what it is
talking about. We understand there are important debates going on
through noontime, and as far as I am concerned, they can go on through
the evening. The idea that we are taking a few moments this morning to
talk about an issue that affects some 15 million of our fellow
citizens--this Senate could find plenty of time to debate the estate
taxes, plenty

[[Page S6192]]

of time to debate flag burning. I don't know when the last flag was
burned in my State of Massachusetts, but we have plenty of time to deal
with that. We have had plenty of time on the Federal marriage
amendment. But we don't want to deal with an increase in the minimum
wage that affects 15 million people.

There you are. There are the priorities. It could not be clearer. So
we know where we stand. We are always asked how we stand on different
issues: What do you believe in?
We will have a very good opportunity this morning to indicate what we
believe in. That is basically the framework of this issue.
Mr. President, how much time have I used?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Thirty-four minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 4 more minutes.
Mr. President, this letter is from the heads of 33 major religious
groups calling on Congress to do its moral duty to raise the minimum
wage. This is the Let Justice Roll, which is an organization of faith
and community leaders:

As leaders of our respective faith communities, we call on
Congress to raise the Federal minimum wage in the 109th
session. For too long, the ranks of the working poor have
grown in this country. For too long, low-wage workers have
been unable to support themselves and their families, even
though they work several jobs, trying to make ends meet.
Poverty has become a disease, striking at the very heart of
the United States, attacking the most vulnerable, even as the
wealthy few continue to accumulate far more than their
reasonable share. It is unacceptable that such a state of
affairs be allowed to continue, as year after year, Congress
fails to pass an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
Prophetic voices through the ages have called upon their
nations to show justice to the poorest and most vulnerable in
society. The Prophet Amos exhorts the people of Israel,
``Hate evil and love good, and establish justice. Let justice
roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing
stream.'' Then, and now, the assembled people of God are
called upon to establish justice for low-wage workers, whose
cries are so often heard across our land.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter and the
signers be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Living Wage Campaign,

November 7, 2005.
Dear Members of Congress: As leaders of our respective
faith communities, we call on Congress to raise the Federal
minimum wage in the 109th session. For too long, the ranks of
the working poor have grown in this country. For too long,
low-wage workers have been unable to support themselves and
their families, even though they work several jobs, trying to
make ends meet. Poverty has become a disease, striking at the
very heart of the United States, attacking the most
vulnerable, even as the wealthy few continue to accumulate
far more than their reasonable share. It is unacceptable that
such a state of affairs be allowed to continue, as year after
year, Congress fails to pass an increase in the Federal
minimum wage.
Prophetic voices throughout the ages have called upon their
nations to show justice to the poorest and most vulnerable in
society. The Prophet Amos exhorts the people of Israel,
``Hate evil and love good, and establish justice. Let justice
roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing
stream.'' Then, and now, the assembled people of God are
called upon to establish justice for low-wage workers, whose
cries are so often heard across our land.
The situation among America's minimum wage workers is
particularly dire. A minimum wage employee--making $5.15 an
hour, working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earns $10,700
a year--$5,000 below the Federal poverty line for a family of
three. The real value of the minimum wage today is nearly
$4.00 less than it was in 1968. Indeed, in order for the
minimum wage to have the same purchasing power as it did in
1968, the Federal minimum would have to be raised to more
than $9.00. This situation is unconscionable, as the wealth
of our Nation continues to be built on the backs of the
working poor.
In his Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, our
modern-day prophet, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
says, ``There is nothing new about poverty. What is new,
however, is that we now have the resources to get rid of
it.'' It is time to heed the call of the prophets, both
ancient and modern. It is time to recognize that a minimum
wage should be a fair, just, and living wage.
Signed,
Kim Bobo, Executive Director of Interfaith Worker
Justice; The Reverend Dr. Robert W. Edgar, General
Secretary of the National Council of Churches of
Christ; The Reverend C. Welton Gaddy, President of The
Interfaith Alliance and the Interfaith Alliance
Foundation; The Most Reverend Frank T. Griswold,
Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church;
The Reverend Dr. Stan Hastey, Executive Director of the
Alliance of Baptists; James E. Hug, S.J., President of
Center of Concern; The Reverend Dr. Clifton
Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of
the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); The Reverend Timothy
McDonald III and the Reverend Dr. Robert P. Shine, Sr.,
Chair and Vice-Chair of African American Ministers in
Action.
Mary Ellen McNish, General Secretary of the American
Friends Service Committee; Bishop William B. Oden, Head
of Communion and Ecumenical Officer of the United
Methodist Church; Bishop Roy Riley, Chair of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church Conference of Bishops;
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director and Counsel of the
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Alexander
Sharp, Executive Director of Protestants for the Common
Good; The Reverend William G. Sinkford, President of
the Unitarian Universalist Association; The Reverend
John H. Thomas, General Minister and President of the
United Church of Christ; The Reverend Romal J. Tune,
CEO of Clergy Strategic Alliances, LLC.
The Reverend Dr. Sharon Watkins, General Minister and
President of the Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ); Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for
Reform Judaism; Scott D. Anderson, Executive Director
of the Wisconsin Council of Churches; The Reverend John
Boonstra, Executive Minister of the Washington State
Association of Churches; The Reverend Albert G. Cohen,
Executive Director of the Southern California
Ecumenical Council; The Reverend Stephen Copley,
President of the Arkansas Interfaith Conference; The
Reverend Dr. Barbara Dua, Executive Director of the New
Mexico Conference of Churches' The Reverend Nancy Jo
Kemper, Executive Director of the Kentucky Council of
Churches.
David Lamarre-Vincent, Executive Director of the New
Hampshire Council of Churches; David A. Leslie,
Executive Director of Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon;
Marilyn P. Mecham, Exeutive of Interchurch Ministries
of Nebraska; The Reverend J. George Reed, Executive
Director of the North Carolina Council of Churches; The
Reverend Dr. Stephen J. Sidorak, Jr., Executive
Director of the Christian Conference of Connecticut;
The Reverend C. Douglas Smith, Executive Director of
the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy; The
Reverend Dennis Sparks, Executive Director of the West
Virginia Council of Churches; The Reverend Sandra L.
Strauss Director of Public Advocacy of the Pennsylvania
Council of Churches; The Reverend Rebecca Tollefson,
Executive Director of the Ohio Council of Churches.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, when we asked people to sign on as
citizen cosponsors of the Fair Minimum Wage Act, 1,000 religious
leaders answered the call. They took a stand to say that minimum wage
is a moral issue that must be addressed. They have come together from
all denominations, all walks of life to send this important message.
I will take a couple more moments.
First, I remind my colleagues in the Senate that support for an
increase in the minimum wage is going like a wildfire across the
country. This chart indicates in red those States which have increased
the minimum wage above the Federal Government minimum wage. Look at
this: Arkansas and Illinois.
The States in yellow are those States where the minimum wage will
likely be on the ballot this fall.
Illinois, Florida, North Carolina--red States--passed an increase in
the minimum wage in both houses, but they have not been reconciled.
North Carolina, Arkansas, the home of Wal-Mart, increased the minimum
wage.
This is happening in the countryside. I remind the Senate again, with
the failure to increase the minimum wage, what the impact has been on
families and on the poor.
From 2000 to 2004, we failed to increase the minimum wage and 1.4
million more children have fallen into poverty. If we look at what has
been happening to families, 5.4 million more Americans are in poverty
over the last 4 years. This does not bring it up to 2006. This would
continue to grow. It is 5.4 million now. The best estimate is we have
1.4 million more children who are now in poverty.
In terms of the industrialized nations of the world, this is what has
happened: We have the highest child poverty rate in the industrialized
world, and we haven't increased our minimum wage.
I remind my colleagues what has been happening in other countries.

[[Page S6193]]

Tony Blair said 7 years ago that he was going to end poverty in Britain
by 2020. There were 4 million children living in poverty, and he said,
as a matter of national direction and vision, that he was going to
eliminate poverty for children by 2020. This is what they have done.
They will have a minimum wage of $9.80--$9.80--an hour this October.
They have moved 1.8 million children out of poverty over the last 4
years. The United States has refused to increase the minimum wage, and
we have put 1.4 million children into poverty. That is completely
unacceptable.
This is the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. How
much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 28 minutes 48 seconds
remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from
Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have
consumed 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I didn't expect to hear the Democratic
leader talk about the immigration bill this morning and his and Senator
Kennedy's desire to rush it through the House of Representatives,
calling for action now. It is a very bad bill, and it impacts directly
the issues we are talking about today--wages for working Americans. I
am going to talk about that issue and ask our colleagues to give
serious thought to the matters I will raise.
With regard to our colleagues who claim they are concerned about
poverty among American workers, I ask those Members--Senator Reid and
Senator Kennedy--who proposed the immigration bill and tried to rush it
through this Senate without any amendments to consider some of the
concerns of their own allies, economists and professors, who believe
that if passed, it would damage the wages of American workers.
I agree that we have a troubling condition in our country. People
have referred to it often as the wage gap, that higher income people
seem to be doing well, but there has been a lag in performance among
lower income workers. That has caused quite a bit of concern. I am not
sure exactly what the economic numbers show on that, but repeatedly, we
have been told often from our Democratic colleagues--but not so much
lately--that there is a growing gap in income. Why is this occurring? I
wish to share some thoughts about it because I believe it is important.
Let me mention this: I don't want the American worker to have a
$7.25-an-hour job; I want them to have a $15-an-hour job, a $30-an-hour
job. That is what we want in an economy that is growing and prosperous.
We want a full-employment economy where people can choose jobs that
fulfill their highest aspirations and pay them a good wage, with good
retirement and good health care, and we are creating a growing economy
that nurtures that. But for some reason, the wages in some job markets
have not kept up as well as they should.

I will read from a number of experts on this matter and ask my
colleagues to think about it, not what I say but what the experts say.
I am looking at a Washington Post article from Jonathan Weisman, March
31, dealing with this precise issue of minimum wage and immigration. It
is titled ``Immigration Divides Allies, Guest Worker Plan Sets
Democratic Supports Against Organized Labor.'' It starts off saying
this:

A growing body of economic research contends that the
recent surge of foreign workers has depressed wages for low-
skilled workers, especially for high school dropouts, and has
even begun displacing native-born workers.

Then the article quotes Professor George Borjas, an economist at
Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He has
written a definitive book on immigration, ``Heaven's Door.'' He says:

What immigration really does is redistribute wealth away
from workers toward employers.

I did mention my good friend Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy has
been a champion for civil rights, and a champion for helping us fight
poverty, and he cares about this issue very deeply. He sincerely does.
But I suggest he is not always perfectly correct on how to fix it. We
can have a legitimate debate about how to improve the wages of working
Americans, and that is what we need to be talking about.
The article says:

Kennedy, the Senate's liberal lion and an unflagging ally
of organized labor, says the [immigration] legislation he co-
wrote would help all low-wage workers by applying minimum-
wage laws and other . . . protections.

The AFL-CIO disagrees. According to John Sweeney, the AFL-CIO
President:

Guest-worker programs cast [American] workers into a
perennial second-class status and unfairly put their fates
into their employers' hands, creating a situation ripe for
exploitation. . . .

He goes on:

``They encourage employers to turn good jobs into temporary
jobs at reduced wages and diminished working conditions and
contribute to the growing class of workers laboring in
poverty.''

That was Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Weisman, the staff writer for the
Washington Post, then quotes Professor Borjas:

But some of those macroeconomic gains have come at the
expense of low-wage workers, especially the 10 percent of the
labor force that dropped out of high school. In recent years,
competition from low-skilled immigrant workers has reduced
the wages of high school dropouts by as much as 8 percent,
Borjas said.

How about another professor, Andrew Sum, director of Northeastern
University's Center for Labor Market Studies. The article says quotes
him:

Looking at annual earnings, the percentage losses are in
the double digits, said Andrew Sum, director of Northeastern
University's Center for Labor Market Studies, because jobs
that once provided year-round employment are increasingly
becoming temporary.
A Northeastern University study found that nearly 86
percent----

Listen to this, I say to my colleagues, this is important for us.

A Northeastern study found that nearly 86 percent of all
newly employed workers hired from 2000 to 2005 were
immigrants. For men, the statistics were more stark. In that
time, the labor market for men rose by 2.66 million while
2.77 million foreign-born men found work.

Listen to that: The Northeastern study found that foreign-born
workers filled all of the new jobs created for men between 2000 and
2005, plus some other jobs.

In other words, Sum said, immigrants have begun replacing
native-born male workers.

In the immigration bill floor debate, if we not forced the Democratic
side to allow us to have some amendments and reduce some of the
incredible increases in immigration under the bill as presented, it
would have been shocking what the immigration bill would have done to
the jobs and wages of American workers. Even after successful
amendments that cut the numbers of low-skilled workers allowed to come
in the future, the Senate bill will still, over 20 years, virtually
triple the number of people coming into our country legally, not
counting those who will continue to come illegally. That will
undoubtedly impact our economy. That is why the House of
Representatives needs to examine this bill very carefully before we go
to conference.
How about this one? Professor Sum is quoted again in the Post
article: ``Young guys are being displaced by immigrants,'' he said.
``Some of my good liberal friends take issue, but if you're a young
worker under 25, poorly educated, probably African American, the higher
the share of new immigrants in your community, the worse your
employment prospects are becoming.''
How about Carol Swain, a law professor and political scientist at
Vanderbilt University? She is also quoted in the Post article:

``What they're doing is increasing the pool of people
eligible to compete for the very limited resources that are
available for the people at the bottom. . . .The obligation
of the nation should be for the people who have been here for
decades.''

How about the famous economics professor Robert Samuelson? He wrote
an article in May in the Washington Post titled ``Still Dodging
Immigration's Truths.'' He quotes approvingly

[[Page S6194]]

from the testimony before our Judiciary Committee of Barry Chiswick,
University of Illinois, an immigration scholar, most respected, who
said the presence of immigrants in the labor market:

Increases competition for low-skilled jobs, reducing the
earnings of low-skilled native-born workers. Because of their
low earnings, low-skilled immigrants also tend to pay less in
taxes than they receive in public benefits. . . . Hardly
anyone is discussing these issues candidly. We can be a
lawful society and a welcoming society simultaneously [as
President Bush has said] but we cannot be a welcoming society
for limitless numbers . . . without seriously compromising
our own future.

Part of the future he is talking about, is the future of the American
worker. Samuelson goes on to say, and I quote the line from Professor
Samuelson's article: ``Competition among them [low-skilled workers]
depresses wages.'' He is talking about the additional flow of illegal
immigrants into our country, or legal immigrants, for that matter.
Increasing competition for the American worker by increasing the number
of immigrant workers available in the labor market will depress the
wages for the American worker.
In another article, Professor Samuelson, says this. He notes that
illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the
labor force, and in no major occupation are immigrants a majority. They
are 36 percent of insulation workers, 28 percent of drywall installers,
and 20 percent of cooks who are drawn here by wage differences, not
labor shortages. He writes about how most new illegal immigrants get
work by accepting wages below the prevailing rates. What would happen,
he asks, if new, illegal immigration stopped and wasn't replaced by
guest workers? Well, some employers would raise wages to attract U.S.
workers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. He goes on to say: Facing greater
labor costs, some would find ways to minimize costs. But he goes on to
ask this question, and let me quote Professor Samuelson:

What is wrong with higher wages for the poorest workers?
From 1994 to 2004, the wages of high school dropouts rose
only 2.3 percent after inflation, compared with 11.9 percent
for college graduates. The number of native high school
dropouts with jobs declined by 1.3 million from 2000 to 2005.
Some lost jobs to immigrants. Unemployment remains high for
some groups; 9.3 percent for African Americans.

I know that is true in my State. Although we have a great
unemployment rate in Alabama--under 4 percent--we still have a far too
high rate among the African-American community. And 12.7 percent for
white teenagers, he notes. He says this: Poor immigrant workers hurt
the wages of unskilled Americans; the only question is how much. One
estimate, he said, was 10 percent.
We discussed these issues in the Judiciary Committee. We had one
hearing on it. We had a number of professors, including Professor
Freeman, the Ascherman Professor of Economics at Harvard. He said these
things about the jobs and wages of American workers:

One of the concerns when immigrants come in is they may
take jobs from some Americans and drive down the wages of
some Americans and obviously, if there are a large number of
immigrants coming in, if they are coming in at a bad economic
time, that is very likely to happen.

Professor Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago said the
following:

The large increase in low-skilled immigration has had the
effect of decreasing the wages and employment opportunities
of low-skilled workers who are currently resident in the
United States.

He said this:

Over the past two decades, the real earnings of high-
skilled workers has risen substantially. The real earnings of
low-skilled workers have either stagnated or decreased.

These economists are telling us what other people will not. We are
being told by the business community that there is this incredible
shortage out there--they can't find workers so they have to have
foreign workers--but now we know the earnings of low-skilled workers
have stagnated and decreased. Why? If a business wants to find more
workers, they will usually increase wages, not decrease them.
He goes on to say--my time is about up, but I have quite a number of
others.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent that the
Senator's additional comments be printed in the Record.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes to respond to my
friend from Alabama, and then I see the Senator from Connecticut on the
floor.
The Senator from Alabama has made the best case for comprehensive
immigration reform because if you are not going to have the
comprehensive reform, you are going to have the continuation of the
pressure of driving wages down, as we find our employers hiring the
undocumented workers. It has been his administration--according to the
General Accounting Office, the Republican administration--that has
refused to enforce employer sanctions against the employers who are
currently doing it. There have been three cases in the last 4 years,
$220,000 in fines. If he is so worried about this, I would say, Why
aren't we after the Labor Department to try to do something about it?
Second point: For those who are going to come into the United
States--and they ought to be able to come into the United States as
workers, if there is a job an American does not take--there is going to
be the labor protections, which do not exist today. There is going to
be prevailing wage protections, there are Davis-Bacon protections, if
they work in contract, if they work in construction, and service
contract employees. None of that has been mentioned by the Senator from
Alabama. That is an entirely different current situation. And we are
going to have 7,000 inspectors to make sure that it is enforced, which
does not exist now and is a principal reason why we have the kinds of
results the Senator from Alabama refers to.
Mr. President, he has made the best case possible for passing a
comprehensive program so that those conditions would not exist.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 26 minutes
45 seconds.
Mr. DODD. If I could have 10 or 12 minutes, if that is appropriate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Why don't we start with 10.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, does the Senator from Alabama want 30
seconds? I will be glad to take this at another time when we have the
time. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I would note we
wrestled before Y2K as to how many high-skilled foreign workers the
U.S. needed to let in for that period--you and I both discussed that in
the Judiciary Committee and whether it would adversely impact the wages
of high-skilled American workers. I would say that the current rate of
immigration, legal and illegal--and I believe there is a growing
consensus that supports this view--has depressed the wages of low-
skilled American workers. I would ask the Senator if he would dispute
the fact that the immigration bill he introduced would have greatly
increased the number of immigrants into the country and wouldn't that
have further adversely impacted the wages of low-skilled American
workers?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 15 seconds in response. The legislation
we have introduced would require that there be a job that an American
worker has not been interested in and refused to accept. Those are the
jobs individuals would be eligible for under the guest worker program.
I look forward to continuing this debate with my friend from Alabama.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking, again, my
colleague from Massachusetts and others who have fought so long and
hard over the last decade to have an increase in the minimum wage in
our country, from the $5.15 that was adopted about a decade ago, to the
suggestion today that

[[Page S6195]]

we raise it by $2.10. To many, $2.10 is nothing more than a cup of
coffee at a high-priced coffee shop today or a few sodas or a sandwich
along the way, but it makes a difference, Mr. President.
An increase in the minimum wage of $2.10, after nearly a decade, will
add some $4,400 to the incomes of people who are depending upon the
minimum wage to provide for themselves and their families. Remember
whom we are talking about. The overwhelming majority of minimum wage
workers are not teenagers, but are adults--working people trying to
raise families, 60 percent of whom are women, many of whom are raising
children on their own. So this $2.10 increase after nearly a decade, an
additional $4,400 per year, means a great deal.
We are told by those who do the math on all of this that the increase
could buy as much as 15 months of groceries for that families, 8 months
of rent, 20 months of childcare--an issue that I worked with our
colleague on many years ago--the importance of having a decent
childcare program. As you are saying to these people, you have to stay
at work and you have young children, where do the children go? The
average cost of childcare rises all the time for people in this
country. How do you expect someone making a minimum wage of $5.15 per
hour who has two or three young children to keep them in a safe place
with that kind of an income level? That $4,400 would be a tremendous
help at that income level. That is the kind of difference we are
talking about.
A group called America's Second Harvest has recently reported that
they provide emergency hunger relief services to more than 25.3 million
low-income people in the United States each year. That is an 18-percent
increase since 1997. No other organization in our country does as much
on a national level as Second Harvest does.
The numbers are quite clear. Over the last 4 or 5 years, we have
watched an increase in children living in poverty in the United States
climb by 1.4 million. What we are talking about is some 13 million
children today who are living in poverty. Of the 37 million in our
country, 13 million children who, through no fault of their own,
through the accident of birth, are born into difficult circumstances.
Those poverty numbers are going up. They are not going down.
What do we do about these children? How do we guarantee this child
will get a good education? How do you learn anything in a school today
if you are going to that school hungry? Talk to any grade school
teacher in America in any community you wish and ask them the simple
question: What is the difference between a child who has a decent meal
in the morning and one who doesn't, in terms of their ability to learn,
and they will tell you categorically that a child who is hungry doesn't
learn.
We talk all the time about making sure America is going to be strong
and vital and economically competitive in the global marketplace of the
21st century. If we continue increasing child poverty at the rate it is
increasing now, this country will have a very difficult time, in my
view, of meeting the competitive challenges it will face in this
century.
So this proposal does make a difference--a huge difference--in the
lives of people who struggle every day, good Americans out there who
are trying to keep their families together. How does anyone expect a
family today, particularly a family with two or three children, to live
on a full-time salary of $10,700 a year? That is what you get with
$5.15--$10,700 per year. I don't know of anyone who believes that you
can meet your obligations of housing and food, of medical care you may
need. You have to make terrible choices at that level.
I am not suggesting that $7.25 is going to solve all of those
problems. But the cost of living has gone up. Everyone knows that. What
has happened to gasoline prices and energy prices over the last number
of months?
We have increased our salaries as Members of Congress by over $31,000
since 1997. Again, I have supported a number of those increases. How do
we look in the mirror and say: A $31,000 increase for a Senator, a
Congressman. Yet we can't provide a $2.10 per hour increase for someone
making the minimum wage? How do we answer that question? We know the
cost of living has gone up. We see it every single day. Minimum wage
workers see it in a more painful way.
So I hope my colleagues, in the next 45 minutes when we have a chance
to vote on this issue, vote for the Kennedy amendment. Raise the
minimum wage that $2.10 and give these people a chance. Let's bring
these poverty numbers down. All of us, regardless of party, ideology or
anything else, ought to be committed to see to it in the United States
of America that child poverty doesn't go up, it goes down. These are
innocents. They didn't do anything except be born into a circumstance
not of their choosing. We owe them and we owe the future of this
country a lot better than they are getting. After one long decade of
increasing prices, $2.10 is very little to ask. Democrats and
Republicans ought to be able to come together around that request.

I hope that we can make that kind of difference. My colleague from
Massachusetts and others want to be heard on this issue. I have great
respect for my colleague from Wyoming who chairs our committee and does
a terrific job, and we work together on many issues. But my hope is we
accept the Kennedy amendment.
I didn't go into the problems of the alternative proposal, but it
would mean that millions of children will get a lot less than they will
if you adopt the Kennedy proposal of $2.10. This is a time when we
ought to be doing what we can to strengthen those in our country who
need some help now. That is all we are asking.
I have some 350,000 people in my State who show up at food shelters
to get some assistance. That is in the most affluent State of the
country on a per-capita basis, and even the State of Connecticut faces
difficulties on this issue.
I know my colleagues from less affluent States see the problem in a
far more dramatic way. It is not lost on me that States that have the
lowest minimum wage at the State level have the highest levels of child
poverty. With all the money we spend here, this is little to ask.
Small business is interested. A poll conducted among small businesses
found that 86 percent of small businesses responded that an increase
like this in the minimum wage is acceptable to them. In fact, studies
in other countries have pointed out that their economies have not been
adversely affected by this.
If small businesses said an increase is warranted, we as Members of
the Congress ought not be holding back. If people who pay this wage
believe it is the right thing to do, Members of Congress ought to join
with them.
I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy amendment--$2.10 to make
life a little easier for people out there struggling every day to make
ends meet. This is the United States of America. These children deserve
better. Their families deserve at least an opportunity to get out from
under the tremendous burdens they are facing every day. I urge adoption
of the amendment when the vote occurs.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New
Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator for his proposal which I think is a
very thoughtful and effective way of addressing many issues, which
especially single women in the workplace, especially single moms in the
workplace have today. These are issues which are not addressed by the
Kennedy amendment.
Whether it is $1.10 or $2.05, that is an important debate because it
will have an important effect on how many jobs are created, and the
impact on job creation and jobs is what we are talking about here. If
you start losing jobs because you raise the minimum wage too quickly,
so fast that small employers can't afford it, that is going to have an
effect on people's opportunity to work.
I think the Senator from Wyoming has put forth a much more balanced
approach as to what number the minimum wage should be raised by, but
that is not what is going to make the workplace a more tolerable event
and a

[[Page S6196]]

more acceptable event for the single mother who has kids at home. What
would help a lot in this area is additional language in the Enzi
proposal which is called ``family time.'' It is resisted aggressively
by the other side of the aisle, and I don't understand it.
We just heard an impassioned plea from the Senator from Connecticut
about working moms, single mothers--especially single mothers in low-
paying jobs who have a very difficult time maintaining the quality of
their household and taking care of their kids. Yet they resist a
proposal which all Federal employees have had the right to since 1978,
which is called ``family time.'' They stiff-arm the working mother in
this country.
This may have been acceptable because the unions demanded that they
do this back in the 1950s and 1960s, when there were not that many
single mothers working in the workplace. But today there is a huge
participation in the workplace from single mothers. Back in 1940, only
28 percent of the workplace were women. Today, 60 percent of the
workplace are women. You have almost 7.3 million single mothers in the
workplace, raising a family and trying to take care of their kids'
needs at home. The Enzi proposal says to those mothers, if you want to,
you can work out an agreement with an employer--the employer can't
demand that you do it, it is entirely up to you to sign on to that
agreement; it is at your discretion; you can't be compelled to
participate in this--where 1 week you can work up to 10 extra hours and
the next week you work 10 less hours.
Why is that important, especially to a single mother? Because they
may have a child who is going to have to have some sort of operation,
they may have a child who has some sporting event that goes on for a
period of days, or has a rehearsal, or just a period in their life
where that child needs their mother at home for a greater period of
time. This doesn't just apply to single mothers, it applies to working
families, husbands and wives, but it is a really important right a
single mother should have in the workplace. It is so important, in
fact, that we gave it to Federal employees back in 1978. Yet year in
and year out the concept of family time has been resisted by the other
side of the aisle.
They come forward with these statements of compassion, which are very
compelling and which are well delivered--especially by the Senator from
Connecticut for whom I have great regard--but if they truly believed in
that they would have incorporated in their bill the flextime proposal
which Senator Enzi has put in his proposal. That is where real
compassion is. That is going to affect a lot of people. Literally
millions of working parents will be positively impacted if the Enzi
bill passes.
Sure, the minimum wage is important. But there are a lot more people
who are going to be affected by the family time language in this bill
and improve their quality of life and their ability to raise their
children well than by the increase in the minimum wage. The family time
will apply to everybody who works in the workplace, especially--well,
everybody who works on a fixed, 40-hour week.
If you want to look at the essence of what will really help an
American family, and especially an American family with a single
breadwinner in it--not a single breadwinner but a single person
working, single mother specifically--if you want to look at what will
really help that family, you have to look at the Enzi bill and the
family time language.
Let me again explain what it does. It says, over a 2-week period, at
the discretion of the working mother or the working father--or if they
are both working, if they are together and they are both working--they
can reach an agreement with their employer which says, 1 week I can
work an extra 10 hours and, in exchange, the next week--or up to an
extra 10 hours--I can work less 10 hours.
The impact of that is just huge on a family. It is not necessary they
do it. They can continue their 40-hour week if they wish. But there are
a lot of events that occur in the raising of children where you do need
those extra hours to be at home, where you do need those extra hours to
take your child on something that is really important to them--a trip
or an event that maybe involves a number of days, a 3-day basketball
tournament or a 3-day recital event, or maybe just a situation where
you need that extra day to be at home and make sure your children have
you there.
This opportunity, this benefit which we make available to all Federal
employees, should clearly be available to people who are not in the
Federal Government. Senator Enzi has, in a very reasonable way, put
this language in his bill. I actually think this is much more important
than the issue of this fight between the $1.10 and the $2 or $2.05 or
whatever, because it is going to impact so many more people. Just on
this issue alone you should vote for the Enzi bill because if you
really want to improve the quality of the workplace, especially for the
single mother, this bill will do it through the family time language he
has put in here.
I congratulate the Senator from Wyoming for bringing this package
forward. I think this package, just because this language is in there,
is dramatically better, dramatically more compassionate. We hear a lot
of language about compassion. It is dramatically more attentive to the
needs of children in this country and proper parenting of children in
this country than the package that has been brought forward from the
other side. Why don't we include this on the other side? We know why
they don't: Because labor unions are against it. It is a knee-jerk
reaction on the part of organized big labor to this language. But we
should not allow that sort of knee-jerk reaction to control our ability
to give working mothers and families the opportunity to have this sort
of benefit, which will clearly improve the ability of those people to
take care of their children and to raise their children and to be good
parents and do what they want to do, in order to make sure they are
available when their kids need them.
I congratulate the Senator from Wyoming. I think he has put together
an excellent package. I hope everyone will support it.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator has 16 minutes and 14
seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 4 minutes.
I listened very carefully to the Senator from New Hampshire talk
about flextime. Flextime is something that those of us on this side of
the aisle support. But that is not what is in the bill. That is not
what is in the bill. The Federal Government has what they call core
time--core agency hours. That means that they have to work from 11 to 2
or 11 to 3, and then the other hours they can make the judgment whether
they want to use that, in terms of flextime. That is the kind of
proposal that makes some sense. That is what we would support. But that
is not in this legislation.
The person who decides whether Mrs. Smith is going to get the time
off to go to see her child's play or to see the ballgame is going to be
the employer--period. Make no mistake about it. That is the way it is
written here on page 4 of their legislation. If we are talking about
providing a degree of flextime--we have been through this; we
understand what it is--flextime is not the time that is allocated just
by the employer when the employer makes the sole judgment and decision,
as they do under the Enzi proposal--No. 1.
No. 2, the Senator from New Hampshire says, let's let that person
work 50 hours a week this week and maybe 30 hours a week the next week.
Here it is on page 4, which says:

in which more than 40 hours of the work requirement may occur
in a week of the period, except that no more than 10 hours
may be shifted between the 2 weeks involved.

That means you can work 50 hours 1 week and 30 hours at the present
time. What is the current law? The current law is, if you work 50 hours
1 week and then 30 hours the second week, you get the overtime for the
10 hours here. Do you think that is in the Enzi proposal? No. It is not
there. They have eliminated it. You work the extra hours and you don't
get the extra pay. Some deal--some deal for someone. That is called
flextime. If you can sell that, you can sell the Brooklyn Bridge.
This is what you are doing. Instead of giving the person the
overtime, as has

[[Page S6197]]

gone on under the Federal Labor Standards Act, that has been
eliminated.
There is something else that the women of the country who are
concerned about equal pay for equal work ought to understand. In the
legislation under the Enzi amendment, because of the fact that you
raise the exemption for companies that will be covered from $500,000 to
$1 million, and because you eliminate the Federal Labor Standards Act
protection for those who are involved in interstate commerce--that is
all spelled out on page 13--that means 10 million workers will not have
the protections of the minimum wage or the Federal Labor Standards Act,
which means that the equal pay for equal work protections that are
there for 4 to 5 million women will not be there.

Does America understand the difficulty we have had in this Chamber
trying to get equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for
comparable work? We have been able to get it under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and that is being eliminated for 4 to 5 million women.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield on that point?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. DODD. The Senator has spent a lot of time on this issue over the
years. We have modified the Fair Labor Standards Act several times over
the last 40 years. In each of those cases, as I recall, we modified the
law to expand the number of people who would be covered by the minimum
wage and the overtime pay and equal pay for equal work. This would be
the first time, as I understand it, that we would be taking the
opposite direction; the very first time that we are going to shrink the
number of people who would have the right to overtime pay, thus,
excluding some 10 million people who would otherwise be covered by the
minimum wage.
Am I correct?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct.
For those who are even thinking about voting for the Enzi proposal,
you are eliminating the protections, and you are getting the serious
cutbacks. That is why the $1.10 increase would impact 1.8 million. Ours
would be 6.6 million directly and 8 million on top of that.
The Senator makes a very good point.
This is not a base increase for the minimum wage.
This would be gutting the minimum wage protections for millions of
Americans.
That is a fine ``how do you do.''
Mr. DODD. Every time we have modified the Fair Labor Standards Act,
we were expanding the opportunity for workers. I believe this would be
the first time in the history of our country that we actually go in the
opposite direction. Those in poverty would be excluded from getting the
overtime pay and protections for equal pay for equal work.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator stated it correctly. We are having a
discussion and debate about the fact that we haven't increased the
minimum wage in 9 years.
As the Senator pointed out and as I have pointed out, we have had
this explosion of poverty with children, an explosion of poverty with
minimum wage workers, and an explosion of hunger. What we do have as an
alternative is an increase in reduction of protection, unlike the
historical debate for an increase in the minimum wage.
Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 9 minutes 15 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts and my colleague, the able Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, this is an extremely important issue before us. The
last time the minimum wage was raised was in September of 1997. If we
fail to increase the minimum wage before the end of the year, we will
have gone the longest time without adjusting it since it was first
enacted in 1938. That is a dismal performance on the part of the
Congress.
Since 1997, inflation has drastically reduced the purchasing power of
the minimum wage. It is now the lowest it has been in more than 40
years. To match the last increase, in terms of purchasing power, the
minimum wage would have to be increased 25 percent above what it is
now. And as we fail to act, the purchasing power of the current minimum
wage continues to be eroded by the steady march of inflation--
contributing to two serious problems in our society, rising poverty and
increased inequality.
Thirty years ago, a worker paid the minimum wage who worked 40 hours
a week for 52 weeks made enough to keep a family of three out of
poverty. Now that worker is 35 percent below the poverty level.
People at the bottom of the wage scale have been falling further and
further behind the rest of the workforce. In the 1950s and 1960s, the
minimum wage averaged about 50 percent of the average wage. Today, at
$5.15 an hour, the current minimum wage is only 31 percent of the
average hourly wage. If we fail to act, minimum wage earners will
continue to fall further behind.
Nearly 15 million Americans would benefit from raising the minimum
wage to $7.25 an hour. 6.6 million would benefit directly because they
make less than $7.25 an hour. Based on past experience with minimum
wage hikes, another 8 million who make a little more than $7.25 an hour
should enjoy a wage increase as well.
There are those who say only teenagers benefit from an increase in
the minimum wage. However, eighty percent of the workers who would
benefit from raising the minimum wage--12 million of those 15 million
workers--are adults.
As Congress fails to act, States are raising the minimum wage
themselves. My own State did that last January. And various studies
indicate that job growth has been faster in the States that have raised
the minimum wage than in those that have not raised the minimum wage.
Economic studies by leading economists found that increases such as the
proposed minimum wage hike would not reduce employment, which is an
argument that is made against this amendment.
A hike in the minimum wage, in fact, has been found to reduce
turnover of employees which has several advantages. You get a more
experienced and productive workforce, lower costs for recruiting new
workers, and lower costs for training new workers.
In fact, a letter in support of raising the minimum wage was signed
by over 500 economists, including four Nobel laureate winners.
Last week, the House Appropriations Committee accepted an amendment
offered in the committee by my able colleague, Congressman Hoyer, to
raise the minimum wage to $7.25. It was accepted by the committee on a
bipartisan basis. The bill had been scheduled to come to the House
floor this week, but it has been pulled from consideration. News
reports suggest--I hope wrongly--that the House leadership wants to
avoid a debate on the minimum wage until after the November elections.
Mr. President, we should pass the Kennedy amendment to raise the
minimum wage. It will lower poverty, reduce inequality, and provide
vital income gains to 15 million workers and their families.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Georgia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I
appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate one more time.
I want to make a couple of points as clearly as I can.
First of all, the debate we have heard this morning is a classic
debate about two very different philosophies--one that believes in the
marketplace, the competitive system we have in the United States of
America of competition and entrepreneurship, and the second is the
argument that says Government knows better in the top-down mandates
work.
In 1970, Republicans tried wage and price controls to control
inflation. They worked miserably. Democrats have tried, time and again,
for wage controls, and they failed to have the intended consequences.
They have because you are interjecting yourself into

[[Page S6198]]

the marketplace but only in one segment.
Second, the Senator from Massachusetts yesterday held up Europe as an
example of how higher minimum wages work.
I have just returned from two of those European countries--Germany
and France.
I would like to make the clear point as to why the Senator from
Wyoming is right and, with all due respect, the Senator from
Massachusetts is wrong.
High minimum wage laws in the countries of France and Germany have
caused the following:
France's unemployment is 10 percent more, or two times that of the
United States of America. Unemployment for youth in France is over 20
percent.
We have seen on the nightly news--and I saw firsthand when I was
there--the tremendous economic problems the Government of France is
having in driving its own economy. And it has declared itself its own
worst enemy but could not get concessions to pull back some of these
mandates. Therefore, the French economy is growing at 1.6 percent a
year this year, a rate less than half that of the United States, with a
minimum wage rate that is compounded over that of the United States.
Our great trading partner and great friend, Germany, has an
unemployment rate of 11 percent.
Those are the two countries that were cited yesterday as the example
as to why the higher minimum wage works.
In fact, they are an example of it not working.
Second, with regard to State minimum wages going up, that is
precisely where our Constitution, our country, and our Founding Fathers
believed these decisions should be made; that is, at the State level.
In fact, the Senator from Connecticut talked about raising the
Federal minimum wage to a level less than the minimum wage in the State
of Connecticut today and much less than what it goes to next year. It
is right for the States to control those minimum wages.
Lastly, I have heard three times about the survey of small businesses
where 86 percent say this is not an issue that is being quoted as a
reason why we shouldn't even be debating this.
I ran a small business. I understand small business. The reason it
wasn't an issue for 86 percent of them is mostly because people pay
more than the Federal minimum wage anyway.
That is the name of the game in this country--for the marketplace to
dictate.
But go find out who those 14 percent are. I will tell you. They are
the people affected by the unintended consequence of a raise in the
minimum wage. The 68 percent are either independent contractors or
higher skilled workers, where the Federal minimum wage rate is not in
effect in the first place. But those 14 percent are in the tourism
industry, in the construction industry, in the maintenance industry, in
the short-order cook industry or in the fast food industry. They are
the ones who are getting their foot on the ladder.
Go interview those 14 percent, and you will find that the economic
study I quoted yesterday is, in fact, correct. Every increase in the
minimum wage will cost some of them their jobs.
In our free enterprise system, there are three components to the
price of a product. One is the cost of goods, the second one is the
cost to sell the goods, and third is the profit. If you raise the cost
of goods sold, which you do by raising the wage rate, you either have
to lower the marketing, lower your profits or increase your
productivity.
What will every business do? First, they will increase their
productivity. They will try to ask more of their workers so the
mandated increase in their wages is neutralized by employing less
people.
I commend the Senator from Wyoming on his legislation. It is a 21st
century approach to the American workforce and the free enterprise
system. And I respectfully oppose the proposal of the Senator from
Massachusetts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
I have listened patiently through 4 hours yesterday and quite a bit
of time this morning. There are some things that need to be said.
I appreciate the comments from our side of the aisle and from
everybody who has gone before me. I particularly appreciate the
comments of the Senator from Georgia because some of those things have
been grating on us a little bit as we have listened to what has been
said. We have seen the charts which show that small businesses in this
country are in favor of that kind of a tax increase.
I spoke to the Federation of Independent Businesses yesterday
morning. They do the most complete job of surveying their members than
any association that I know of. They do not back anything unless there
is a strong consensus by their members.
They are opposed, by their vote, to the minimum wage increase that
Senator Kennedy is suggesting.
I do not know where they find that 86 percent. But I have seen
surveys before that are able to manufacture the kinds of numbers that
people want to have.
From the manufacturing members, I suggest that it sounds reasonable
to people.
I saw a chart over here last night that showed the average CEO in
America is making $11.8 million compared to what a minimum wage person
is making.
That is an average CEO. What do you suppose the good ones are making?
Eleven million eight hundred thousand dollars a year for the average
CEO in this country? I think that must be the average CEO in the top
100 companies in the world. But that is apples and oranges when you are
talking about the minimum wage.
We have heard some pretty big numbers about how many people are in
poverty and under the minimum wage.
The purpose is to take the 1.9 million people who are at the minimum
wage and get them higher wages. We all agree on that. What we don't
agree on is how to do that.
The Senator from Massachusetts earlier today said minimum wage jobs
don't get you out of poverty; that they keep you in poverty.
That was his quote this morning. I absolutely agree with that. What
we need to do is get higher skills in this country. We need to reduce
the number of dropouts in this country. It is dropouts who are working
at the minimum wage. It is people who have made some choices that put
them in a position where they have to take the lower paying jobs. We
need to change that.

When I first came to Washington, welfare reform was going into
effect. The newspapers were full of stories that on the day that went
into effect, people were going to drop through the cracks. It was going
to be this tragedy for American people. After it happened, there were
not many stories on that. That is because the tragedies did not happen.
People improved their lot in life with jobs.
I happened to be in an ice cream shop where they shared the tables
fairly closely. This was fine, but it made it impossible for me not to
hear the conversation at the table abutted up to my table. It was a
woman and her husband talking to a sister who had a child with her. She
was talking about the change that welfare reform had made in her life
because she had gotten some additional training, she had gotten a good
job, and she was so pleased with her job she was going to shift some
hours so she could be at work when her sister was in training. She
would take care of that child who was sitting there so her sister could
have the same kind of benefit she had.
That is the way we change America. We get people better jobs. We take
care of things so people can get better training.
Better training reminds me of the Workforce Investment Act. I have
been trying to get the Workforce Investment Act through this process
for 3 years now. That is a bill that would train 900,000 people a year
to higher paying jobs. That is what we want, higher paying jobs. Do you
think we have been able to get it through the process? No. For 2 years
we were not able to get a conference committee. Now we are being
blocked from having it brought to the Senate for debate. That would
solve a lot of the problems.
We talk about the difference in wages between men and women. We had a
great hearing in our Committee on

[[Page S6199]]

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. I liked one of the people whom
Senator Kennedy selected to give testimony, a lady from New York City.
She was talking about the value of taking nontraditional jobs. She
happened to be a stone mason, a person who works with bricks, rock, and
marble. She makes things beautiful. She started with basic
construction, and she worked her way up to where she was hanging marble
on skyscrapers. She shared with us the progression in pay she had
gotten. She is making more than I am. She made that progression rather
rapidly, but she had to take a job that was nontraditional for women.
She wears a hard hat and safety toes and goes up skyscrapers. You do
not necessarily have to do that to make more money.
I always point out in Wyoming we have a shortage of people to work.
That shortage is providing power for this country. Over a third of the
coal that is mined in this country is mined in Campbell County, WY,
which is where Gillette is. That is where I am from. Their problem now
is getting people to drive haul trucks. They are big trucks. Two of
them would not fit in this Chamber. They would be as high as the
ceiling. They are big equipment. They have power steering, power
brakes, enclosed cabs with air conditioning. They drive almost like a
car. If a person can drive and pass a drug test, they can start at
$60,000 a year and get the training to work on that truck. That is way
above minimum wage, folks. That is $60,000 a year. If they want to put
in some overtime--they would not be allowed flextime at the present
time--they can make more than that.
We need to have people look at some of the nontraditional jobs and
look at some of the other areas of the country. If they are in an area
with a lot of people and not many jobs, they will have lower paying
jobs. We need to get more job training. We need to have the people be
where the good-paying jobs are. They would find pretty good quality of
life, too.
I need to correct a couple of other things. First of all, we make
some of these charts sound as if everyone working at minimum wage is a
single mom with lots of kids. That does not fit with the statistics.
There are 1.9 million people at the minimum wage. Fully 85 percent of
the minimum wage earners live with their parents--I would think most of
the parents hope that means they are teenagers--or they have a working
spouse or are living alone without children. So 41 percent live with a
parent or relative, 23 percent are single or are the sole breadwinner
in a household with no children, and 21 percent live with another wage
earner. A lot of those are teenagers. Yes, they are in poverty if that
is all they are making.
I have had some minimum wage jobs. I don't know how many in this
Chamber have had minimum wage jobs. I worked in the summers and while I
was going to college, even when I was considerably younger than that.
One of the things I discovered was if I was interested in what I was
doing and I learned as much as I could about it, I was not at the
minimum wage very long. I got a promotion. I got more pay. But of
course the reason I got more pay is because I was able to do more
things. I was more skilled. Minimum wage equals minimum skills.
McDonald's takes a real rap for starting people at minimum wage, and
I have a friend named Jack Preiss who owns several McDonald's. He
pointed out to me he has three of his employees who started at minimum
wage who now own 20 McDonald's.
That is the way we want America to work. We do not want minimum wage
jobs that don't get you out of poverty. They keep you in poverty. Yes,
we want higher skills, better jobs, and the opportunity for people to
have higher wages. If people are locked into the fact they are going to
have a minimum wage job their whole life, they are going to have a
minimum wage job their whole life. But there are options. There are
opportunities out there. And there could be more if we could do the
Workforce Investment Act.
Flextime is one of six provisions in this bill that make a difference
to small business.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senator
Kennedy's amendment to increase the minimum wage. Not only is it the
right thing to do for working families, but my State has shown that a
living wage is compatible with a growing economy.
The facts speak for themselves, and they speak loudly. Let's just
take three numbers: 9, 37, and 50.
Nine is the number of years since the minimum wage was last
increased. This is the longest time the Nation has gone without raising
the minimum wage since it was implemented in 1938. The real value of
the current minimum wage is already $4 below what it was in 1968.
Thirty-seven is the millions of Americans--37 million--who are
currently living in poverty, including 13 million children.
Fifty is the percent by which poverty has increased in the past
generation--freezing out an ever larger portion of our working citizens
from the advantages of a higher standard of living that most of us
enjoy.
I believe these numbers are a very strong signal that we are long
past the time for the Nation, as a whole, to raise the level of the
Federal minimum wage. I am proud that my home State of Washington has
the highest minimum wage in the country, and it is indexed yearly to
ensure that our workers are properly compensated for their hard work.
We in Washington State offer direct proof that a living minimum wage
is compatible with a growing economy. May marked our 34th consecutive
month of job growth. Our unemployment rate, even with the highest
minimum wage in the country, is essentially at the national average.
Our poverty rate stands at 11 percent, which is significantly below the
national average of 12.5 percent. Our median household income stands at
$48,000, much higher than the national average of $43,000. Good labor
policies make for good labor productivity and a healthy state economy.
Ever since the Fair Minimum Wage Act was passed in 1938, opponents
have kept raising the same baseless arguments. Even 68 years ago,
opponents tried to paint a bleak picture of disastrous effects, like
``factories closed,'' ``industries forced into bankruptcy,'' and
``people who will be thrown out of employment.'' It wasn't true then.
It is not true today. The fact is that this wage provides more economic
opportunities for people to support their families and contribute to
their communities.
Opponents often cite a negative impact on jobs as their prime
argument to oppose an increase in the minimum wage. This tired argument
is simply not true. In fact, the 4 years following our last minimum
wage increase marked the strongest economic growth in three decades,
creating almost 12 million new jobs. In contrast, during the past 4
years we have only seen the creation of about 4.7 million new jobs.
As elected representatives, it is our job not only to represent the
people in our States, but also to stand up for the millions of
Americans whose voices cannot be heard. Just since 2000, the number of
Americans living in poverty has increased by a stunning 5.4 million
people. A minimum wage employee, working 52 weeks a year for 40 hours a
week, makes almost $6,000 below the Federal poverty guidelines for a
family of three. At this rate, it will be a long time before we see
significant progress against the scourge of poverty for America's
families.
By raising the minimum wage to $7.25, we can put an extra $4,400 a
year into the pockets of these workers, enabling them to better support
their families. This meager amount can make a world of difference to
the poor among us. It could mean 19 months of utilities, 15 months of
groceries, 8 months of rent or tuition for a community college degree.
These are the basics, not the luxuries, of life today.
It is important to continually remind ourselves who is going to
benefit from an increase. Here are some numbers to help set the record
straight. This amendment will benefit nearly 15 million Americans, 80
percent of whom are adults, not teenagers trying to earn some extra
spending money. In fact, more than one-third of these adults are the
sole source of income for their families. And let's not forget the 7
million children of those minimum wage workers who will benefit from
this increase.
This Congress has substantially cut the tax rates for the wealthiest
people

[[Page S6200]]

in this country, saving them millions of dollars over the last 5 years.
But so far, this Congress has been unwilling to spend a few cents more
to help the poorest of our working citizens.
I have carefully considered all aspects of this amendment and have
come to the conclusion that we have no acceptable alternative. I see
the growth of the job market and the strong economy in my State. I see
how we have worked in Washington State to ensure that low-wage workers
share in this success. I know that this is what our Nation needs. We
should follow the lead of my State and the other 20 that have already
increased their minimum wages and allow all Americans to share in these
benefits.
Overall, this slight increase in the minimum wage would allow a
significant portion of our Nation, people who are working hard and
playing by the rules, to have an increased opportunity to share in the
American dream. They will be able to better support their families and
will not have to make unacceptable decisions like whether to buy
groceries or pay the rent.
If any of my colleagues oppose this amendment, I would like them to
consider living on $10,700 a year--and not just living on it, but
rather, trying to raise a family of 4 on that low income. That would
mean having about $7 a day per person, not adding in all the bills. Now
just think about how much you spent on your last meal. If we think of
the debate that we are having in these terms, it is clear that raising
the minimum wage is the right thing to do.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment to
increase the minimum wage. Let's show them that we have got our
priorities straight, and let's finally give low-income workers the
raise that they are long overdue. It is the right thing to do for
workers and the right thing to do for our economy.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is a very important week in the
Senate. For much of the week our focus has been on the war in Iraq--a
necessary debate that is long overdue. But, today our focus is on a
different kind of war: the war on poverty.
Since President Bush took office, the number of Americans living in
poverty has increased by 5.4 million, and today 37 million Americans
live in poverty, 13 million of whom are children. What is even more
disturbing is that over 70 percent of children in poverty live in a
home where at least one parent works. So we have a situation in which
today in America, millions of children are living in poverty despite
the fact that they are in homes with a working adult. In fact the
reality is that among full-time, year-round workers, poverty has
increased by 50 percent since the late 1970s.
This may be surprising, but if you take a minute to look at what is
going on, it is not hard to understand. Consider a single mother of two
working a minimum wage job 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year. Without
taking any time off for illness or vacation--she earns just $10,700 a
year--nearly $6,000 below the Federal poverty line for a family of
three.
This is an outrage. And it is not how things should be in America. No
American working a full time job should live below the poverty line. If
you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to make a good
life for yourself and be able to get ahead. That is the American dream.
Unfortunately, instead of helping people achieve the American dream,
our leadership in Washington has repeatedly turned its back on them.
Congress has failed to give minimum wage earners a raise in almost a
decade. In fact, the real value of the minimum wage--taking into
account the impact of inflation--has dropped. Since 1997 when we last
raised the minimum wage, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen
by 20 percent--effectively reversing all the gains made by the last
increase. Never before in the history of the minimum wage have we let
so much time lapse before adjusting the minimum wage.
Members of Congress understand the concept of real value. After all,
even though Congress has failed to increase the minimum wage since
1997, it has given itself eight annual pay raises. This is
indefensible. No Member of the House or Senate should have the gumption
to argue in support of a pay raise for themselves and against a pay
raise for hardworking Americans.
The Congress should follow the lead of the 12 States that have raised
their minimum wages since January 2004. In fact, 17 States and the
District of Columbia--representing 45 percent of the U.S. population--
have set minimums above the Federal rate of $5.15. The State of
Washington has the highest minimum wage in the country at $7.63 as of
January 1, 2006. Oregon's is $7.50. My own State of Massachusetts is
considering a minimum wage of $8.25. And the city of Santa Fe, NM has a
minimum wage of $9.50.
Of course, not all States have taken the minimum wage so seriously.
Thirty-three States have a minimum wage at or even below the Federal
level. That is why we need a Federal minimum wage. The value of an hour
of the same work should not vary State to State. We have a national
poverty crisis, and we need a national solution.
It is time for Congress to get its priorities straight.
America's minimum wage isn't rising, but other basic costs for
families are. Since President Bush took office, the cost of family
health insurance has risen more than 70 percent, or an average of
$4,500 per family. Six million more Americans are uninsured because
they cannot afford coverage.
Since President Bush took office, gas prices have more than doubled.
In many places the price of gas exceeds $3.00 per gallon--something
many working Americans have to buy just to get to work. In my home
State of Massachusetts working families have faced gas price increases
of $1.41 a gallon--a 94 percent increase. Yet rather than rewarding
work, the Republican leadership would rather reward oil and gas
companies with sweetheart deals.
Since President Bush took office, the cost of a 4-year college
education has increased by nearly $8,000, or 57 percent, at public
universities and nearly $21,000, 32 percent, at private universities.
Yet instead of working to ensure that American families can afford to
send their kids to college, our Republican leadership is more
interested in working to cut $12 billion from college student aid,
increasing the costs of loans; and freezing Pell grants for higher
education.
These are the wrong priorities. Raising the minimum wage is not just
an economic issue; it is a moral issue. It is a question of values. And
this is a values debate I think we need to have. The question is
whether we value those who work hard and play by the rules and whether
we will fight to ensure they receive a livable wage.
Don't be fooled by the side-by-side amendment that my colleague from
Wyoming has introduced. It does not value those who work hard and play
by the rules. Yes, it increases the minimum wage by $1.10, but it is
loaded with poison pills that actually decrease the number of people
who are eligible for the minimum wage. It cuts overtime pay, and would
deny more than 10 million workers the minimum wage, overtime pay, and
equal pay rights they currently receive. Rather than giving hard-
working Americans a step up, it would force many more further into
poverty. That is hardly the American way.
Before I end, I would like to take a moment to dispel a common myth
about the minimum wage. Some argue that increasing the minimum wage
will hurt small businesses. That is simply not the case. A new study
from the Center for American Progress and Policy Matters in Ohio found
that the ``11 States with a minimum wage above the Federal minimum wage
. . . had higher rates of small business growth between 1997 and
2003.'' That is right--more growth. Small business employment in those
States grew by 9.4 percent while small business employment in States
with the Federal minimum wage grew by only 6.6 percent. What this
report reveals is that having a higher minimum wage does not impair the
growth of small businesses.
This is not new news. In 1999, a Levy Institute survey of small
businesses revealed that more than three-quarters of the firms surveyed
said their employment practices would not be affected by an increase in
the minimum wage. In fact, jobless rates fell after the last minimum-
wage increase.
Mr. President, it is time for us to give the working people of
America the respect they deserve. It is time for Congress to give
working Americans a pay

[[Page S6201]]

raise. It is time for us to get our priorities straight. I am proud to
cosponsor my colleague, Senator Kennedy's, amendment to increase the
minimum wage. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in its favor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today in support of giving 56,000
Nevandans a raise by increasing the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 an
hour.
My colleagues have done an excellent job of making the case for this
raise. My side has pointed out it has been nearly 10 years since the
minimum wage was last increased. We have communicated that the current
wage is woefully inadequate, that someone who works full-time and makes
the minimum wage lives below the poverty line. We have also talked
about how minimum wage workers don't make enough to provide their
families adequate housing, food, and essentials like clothing. We have
talked about all the facts. So what I wish to do now is appeal to the
Senate's sense of fairness.
All of us in the Senate, don't we believe that someone working full
time should be able to live a life out of poverty? I believe the answer
is yes, and I believe that is reason enough for us all to vote yes to
increasing this wage. Three times in the last Congress the Republican
leadership brought down a minimum wage bill rather than have an up-or-
down vote. We can't wait any longer. There are only a few weeks left in
this Congress, and those 56,000 Nevadans deserve a raise.
I know the majority has a proposal to raise the minimum wage by about
a dollar an hour but it is not enough. It doesn't impact nearly enough
Americans and won't make a big enough difference. Whereas an increase
to $7.25 will help over 5 million Americans, the majority amendment
will help only 2. Moreover, our amendment will mean an additional
$4,370 a year to help minimum wage earners support their families. An
increase of this size can help offset the cost of high gas prices, not
to mention the costs of health care, food, and other needs.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to pass a graduated increase of
the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I speak today in support of efforts to
increase the Federal minimum wage and urge my colleagues to vote in
support of Senator Kennedy's amendment to increase the Federal minimum
wage to $7.25 an hour over the next 2 years. This much-needed increase
would benefit over 7 million Americans directly and approximately 8
million Americans indirectly. The Federal minimum wage has not been
increased in almost 9 years and action by Congress is long overdue. The
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that after adjusting for
inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since
1955. As the costs of housing, health care, energy, and education
continue to skyrocket, we must raise the minimum wage to provide
millions of hard-working Americans the respect and dignity their work
demands.
I think it is unconscionable that in the almost 9 years that we have
not raised the minimum wage, Congress has voted to increase its own pay
by $31,600. Most recently, last November we allowed the $3,100 pay
raise to go through for Members of Congress. People will find it hard
to understand why Members of Congress received substantial pay raises
at a time when the real value of the minimum wage has eroded by 20
percent since 1997. As my colleagues know, I have long fought against
automatic congressional pay increases and will continue to do so. I
have introduced legislation that would put an end to automatic cost-of-
living adjustments for congressional pay. We have Americans who are
working full time, 52 weeks a year and they cannot afford health care,
housing, and child care. They don't have the power to automatically
raise their pay--they are dependent on Congress to raise the Federal
minimum wage. But instead of working to raise the minimum wage, we in
Congress have worked to protect our automatic pay raises.
Over 20 States and the District of Columbia have responded to
congressional inaction and have passed or are in the process of passing
State minimum wage increases above the Federal level. I am proud to
report that my State of Wisconsin is one of these States that have
passed a minimum wage increase. Last June, Wisconsin raised its minimum
wage to $5.70 an hour and earlier this month, raised its minimum wage
again to $6.50 an hour. The State Department of Workforce Development
estimates that this modest two-step increase will benefit an estimated
200,000 low wage workers in Wisconsin.
While this increase is a step in the right direction, it is still not
enough to even ensure that minimum wage employees can pay for
affordable housing in Wisconsin. The National Low Income Housing
Coalition estimates that the fair market rent for a two-bedroom
apartment in Wisconsin is $647 a month and calculates that a full-time
minimum wage employee needs to work 77 hours a week, 52 weeks a year to
afford a two-bedroom apartment. Mr. President, 77 hours a week is
almost the equivalent of two full-time minimum wage workers and the
number of hours of work required to cover the costs of an apartment are
even higher in States with higher housing costs. It is a disgrace that
in many cases, minimum wage workers cannot afford adequate housing or
are forced to pay a huge share of their income to cover housing costs.
Housing costs are not the only necessity of life that minimum wage
workers have to provide for themselves and their families. They also
have to purchase groceries, provide health care, pay for higher
education, pay for increasingly expensive gas and electric costs, and
provide child care for their children. Some Americans may think that
the majority of minimum wage workers are teenagers in the first job;
that perception is incorrect. The Economic Policy Institute notes that
over 70 percent of minimum wage workers are adults and in Wisconsin,
over 80 percent of minimum wage workers are adults. Moreover, of these
adult minimum wage workers, over 30 percent are the sole breadwinners
of their families.
More and more of these working Americans find themselves mired in
poverty or living on the cusp of poverty. Currently, there are 37
million Americans living in poverty, including 13 million children.
Among full-time, year-round workers, poverty has increased by 50
percent in the late 1970s. Minimum wage workers who work full time earn
$10,700 a year, which is almost $6,000 below the Federal poverty
guidelines for a family of three. No American should work full-time,
year-round and still live in poverty. This modest increase in the
Federal minimum wage will not eliminate poverty, but it will provide
hard-working Americans with a much-needed increase in their wages. This
increase would provide more money for workers to purchase prescription
drugs, to pay utilities and rent, to provide child care for their
children, and to invest in higher education opportunities. This
increase is needed because the majority of the poor people in our
country are working and are holding down low-paying jobs with stagnant
wages that do not allow them to finally break free from poverty.
Opponents of this amendment argue that it hurts the economy and job
growth. In the 4 years after the last minimum wage increase, nearly 12
million new jobs were created. In the last 4 years, only 4.7 million
jobs have been created and the real value minimum wage continues to
erode. A 1998 Economic Policy Institute study did not find significant
job loss associated with the 1997 minimum wage increase. Additionally,
the Center on Wisconsin Strategy examined job growth after the June
2005 increase in Wisconsin's minimum wage and found that Wisconsin had
an average growth of 30,000 more jobs, not a job loss. History shows
that minimum wage increases have not had a negative impact on
unemployment.
I was proud to vote for the 1996-1997 increase bringing the minimum
wage to its current level of $5.15 an hour and I am pleased to be a
cosponsor of this amendment by Senator Kennedy to increase the minimum
wage to $7.25 an hour. When the minimum wage was established in 1938,
its purpose was to ensure that American workers were fairly compensated
for a day's work. But today, the minimum wage isn't living up to that
promise. Far more work needs to be done to support hard-working
American families, and Congress can start by increasing the minimum
wage.

[[Page S6202]]

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 38 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Enzi says this debate is grating
on the Republican side of the aisle. Sorry, that is how it is when you
are on the wrong side of the truth. It is grating to have to hear the
truth as Senator Kennedy and others have spoken of.
It has been 9 long years since there has been an increase in the
minimum wage. It is a disgrace. While we see our friends on the other
side fight for the CEOs of oil companies, in the Committee on Commerce,
they would not even swear them in. They are all on that side. When it
comes to working families, forget about it.
Then Senator Enzi implies this does not have anything to do with
women. Women make up 59 percent of the workers who would be affected as
a result of raising the minimum wage; 1.4 million working mothers would
benefit directly, 760,000 single moms would get an immediate raise, and
over 3 million kids have parents who would get an immediate raise.
What has happened to family values on the other side of the aisle? It
seems to me it is just so many empty words.
Then they scare you and say the economy will suffer. All you have to
do, again, is look at the facts and look at the truth. In the 4 years
after the last minimum wage increase passed, the economy experienced
its strongest growth in over three decades. All the talk about how bad
a minimum wage increase is for the economy is not true.
I say to my Republican friends, support the Kennedy increase in the
minimum wage. The truth shall set you free.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 additional minutes.
The Senator from Massachusetts has said: Let's have an up-or-down
vote. There are a lot of things around here that we talk about having
an up-or-down vote on. We have not been able to have up-or-down votes,
and it is always because there are some other amendments that might
make the bill better. Sometimes they are even germane to the bill we
are talking about.
The one we are talking about, the amendment we are putting this on
now is Department of Defense. Yes, you can make some arguments about
how this is defense related, I guess, but what we would normally do, if
we were serious on an issue such as this, is bring it up as a separate
issue and allow amendments to it. But that is not going to happen
because there are a few things in my bill that the other side of the
aisle would not like to have.
One of those is flextime. They show that chart where the person could
make 50 hours this one week and get overtime and then make 30 hours in
the next week. That is not how the real world works either. They would
earn 40 hours in one week, which would not be overtime, and 40 hours in
the next week, which would not be overtime. That is still the same 80
hours. With the agreement of the person asking for the flextime, they
could put the 50 hours in one week, the 30 hours in the other week,
have the extra day to do whatever they want with their kids.
If flextime is a bad idea, why did we let the Federal employees do
it? The problem in my State is with the person who works for a private
industry in Wyoming who is married to someone who works for the Federal
Government because the Federal Government lets them do the flextime
that the Senator from Massachusetts says steals overtime. If it stole
overtime, does anyone think our Federal employees would be interested
in it? No; they have other values.
When we did flextime for the Federal Government, Senator Kennedy
voted to ensure that the Federal employees would have access to
flextime, to have the scheduling options necessary to balance work and
family life. Senator Kennedy, along with 11 other Democrats,
cosponsored the Nickles bill that extended flextime and comp time to
State and local employees. If it is a bad idea, why would they do it
for Federal employees and State and local employees? And why don't we
do it for the private employees? The argument is, nasty employers would
never let them have the time.
That is a terrible rap for business. Small business understands the
needs of their people better than big business because they work with
them every day, they go to church with them every weekend, they are in
civic organizations with them, their kids go to the same schools, and
they are the ones who have to deliver the bad news that they are not
going to be allowed to do that flextime, and they cannot afford to do
it a different way.
Sometimes the employees in small business make more than the
employers in small business. Those are some of the CEOs whom I am
worried about, the ones who have to wake up in the middle of the night
and say, How am I going to make payroll this week? I would like to be
paying my people more, but I don't know how I am going to pay them at
all.

That is a reality in small business. I know small businessmen across
the country who are hearing me say that are saying: He's got it. He
understands our problem. What can you do to help us?
So we put together some provisions that in a normal situation we
would be able to debate one of those at a time and decide on some of
them and reject some of them. That is how it ought to work. But it is
not just as simple as saying we can get everybody and all the kids out
of poverty if we were just to raise the minimum wage.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, I have 2 minutes 50
seconds left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there are going to be two votes, and the
first vote will be on my increase in the minimum wage; am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in just about 5 minutes from now the
Senate will have an opportunity to make a judgment as to whether we are
going to offer a helping hand to some 15 million Americans who are at
the lower end of the economic ladder who are earning the minimum wage
and just above.
These workers are men and women of dignity. They take pride in their
work. They are overwhelmingly women. If you care, this is a women's
issue, having an increase in the minimum wage. It is a children's issue
because a great majority of the women have children.
So many of these mothers look in the eyes of their child, and they
wonder if they are going to be able to feed that child. They are
worried whether that child is $80 sick, when they hear that child cry
in the night because they know they have to pay $80 to go to an
emergency room.
They know they cannot afford a birthday present for their child, to
be able to go to a neighbor's house, to be able to enjoy the things
every child who is a son or a daughter of a Member of Congress can
enjoy.
That is what is happening out across America. It is a women's issue,
a children's issue; it is a civil rights issue because so many of those
workers are men and women of color. It is a family issue. It is a
values issue. Don't talk to us on the other side of the aisle about
family values. This is it.
This is an issue of decency and fairness. Americans understand
decency. Americans understand fairness. Americans understand that if
you work hard, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, you should not
live in poverty. And that is what is happening. Nine years they have
waited. Nine years they have waited--but not the Members of the U.S.
Senate.
Mr. President, $30,000 we have increased our salary, and in 9 years
we have refused to provide an increase for the men and women who are
working on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. That is obscene.
We have a right to alter that and change that now when the roll is
called. Let's say that we stand for those workers who are working hard,
trying to make a difference for their families, playing by the rules. I
hear from my friend from Wyoming they should not be on the Defense
authorization bill. How many soldiers who are over there fighting in
Iraq, mothers or fathers, might have been earning the minimum wage?
What are they fighting for? They are fighting for American values.

[[Page S6203]]

American values are to treat people fairly and with respect. Increase
the minimum wage, and we will have taken a very important step down
that road.
Mr. President, I understand my time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would quote the Senator from Massachusetts
again who said: Minimum wage jobs don't get you out of poverty, they
keep you in poverty. Until we get a Workforce Investment Act passed
around here that increases job training for 900,000 people a year so
they can get higher-skilled jobs so they can get the jobs of the
future, not the jobs of the past, we are going to have problems with
the minimum wage and poverty.
We need to be able to give people more choices, not less choices.
There is a definite difference in philosophy. We think that free
enterprise can work and that it is working and that it does work, and
also that States rights work. States are changing the minimum wage to
match the economy of their State. Although, if they have really good
jobs, they will attract people, I hope. We are having a little problem
attracting people to Wyoming, and those are not for the minimum wage
jobs, those are for outstanding jobs.
So people need to think a little bit about more training or moving a
little bit to get better jobs and get out of the minimum wage rut that
will cause a spiral. As we increase the minimum wage, we also cause an
upward spiral that eliminates the value of that minimum wage.
I ask you to vote against the Kennedy amendment and to vote for my
amendment.
Something that has been overlooked is my amendment includes a $1.10
increase in the minimum wage over 18 months.
Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record a letter dated
June 13, 2006, to Senator Kennedy.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

United States Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, Office of the Resident Representative to the
United States,
Washington, DC, June 13, 2006.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: I understand that you have offered an
amendment to the Department of Defense bill that would raise
the minimum wage in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands (CNMI). While I am a proponent for an increase in our
minimum wage as a step in creating opportunities for our
young indigenous people to find jobs in the CNMI, I want this
done in a rational and democratic manner. I object to the
manner in which your amendment was offered, and find it
rather arbitrary and capricious.
The Northern Marianas joined this great country because of
the principles of democracy that are at the heart of almost
everything that is done. I will assume that your effort was
prompted out of the same frustration that has fueled your
colleague Congressman George Miller's desire for a quick fix
to a complex problem. I had hoped those days were behind us.
It is my desire that we enter into a new era of CNMI/Federal
relations, an era which includes open discussion, dialogue,
and a shared commitment to reform and to promote sustainable
development in the CNMI.
You may not be aware that the CNMI's economy is on the
verge of collapse. Unemployment is at 14%, the economy is
down 23%, and this downward trend is showing no sign of
reversing in the near future. An increase in our minimum wage
implemented without economic considerations will surely
destroy what is left of our fragile economy. I strongly
believe that an appropriate increase must be a component in
our economic recovery, but done in isolation will insure that
recovery is impossible. Please don't take out your
frustration with former CNMI and Congressional leaders on the
CNMI as a whole. Your amendment may help a few, but will
surely further increase unemployment and the number of
business failures. Where is the American commitment to
compassion and fairness?
I invite you to come to the CNMI and hold discussions with
employers, employees, and the CNMI Enterprise Group, an NGO
formed to promote sane and sustainable economic relief. I ask
that you support my request for a sound and responsible study
of the CNMI economy, and help us, not punish us.
The CNMI is without a Delegate in the House of
Representatives. This fact alone prevents us from
experiencing the democracy that our people have chosen. The
rights of the people of the CNMI are unrepresented in the
halls of Congress, and we must rely on members like yourself
to see that they are treated with the same respect and
integrity that the citizens of your state enjoy. I hope that
we have the opportunity to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Pedro A. Tenorio,
Resident Representative.

Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the Kennedy amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--46

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--2

Rockefeller
Shelby
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is
automatically withdrawn.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DODD. I move to lay the motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4376

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the Enzi amendment.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, 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 amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Alexander
Allen
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
Warner

[[Page S6204]]

NAYS--53

Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Conrad
Cornyn
Dayton
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Vitter
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Rockefeller
Shelby
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is
automatically withdrawn.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Schumer be granted 5 minutes to speak as in morning business, and the 5
minutes would come off our time on this side from the Iraq amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I
will not object, I simply wish to acquaint Senators with the fact that
we are beginning a 5-hour debate on the Levin amendment; is that
correct?
Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. And within that period of time, speaking for my time, I
will manage the time, but I would be anxious to have those colleagues
who wish to participate to indicate to me the periods which would be
most convenient for them, and I will do my very best to accommodate all
of the speakers.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I would make the same statement on behalf
of our side, that Senators who do wish to speak in support of my
amendment let us know, and we will try to work in as many as possible.
There is a great demand for time, but it would help us a great deal to
know who it is who seeks to speak, and we will try to sequence people
to the best of our ability for the convenience of everyone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from New York is recognized.

Homeland Security Funding Shortages for New York

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues from
Michigan and Virginia for their graciousness. I am about to speak at a
hearing that is occurring across the hall in the House on homeland
security funds.
As you know, Madam President, homeland security funds were struck a
cruel blow against the city and State of New York. Despite the fact
that we are the epicenter of terrorism, despite the fact that every day
the New York Police and Fire Departments have to go all out to protect
us, our funding was cut by 40 percent in the city funding and 36
percent in New York State funding. It came as a total shock and
surprise to all of us, particularly since Secretary Chertoff had
promised that he was going to rectify the funding inadequacies and
restore New York to full funding. He did that for 1 year, but then we
went right back to receiving an inadequate amount.
Just recently we learned from Mr. Suskind's book that New York
subways were targeted with cyanide by al-Qaida. The bottom line is very
simple. There are threats against New York regularly, and every week
and every day the brave police officers and firefighters and others in
New York are on vigilance to make sure we are not struck by terror. All
of a sudden the funding is cut--a slap in the face to this Nation's
promise for New York.
At today's hearing, there is a gentleman who is missing: Secretary
Chertoff. He should be testifying and answering questions, not sending
a subaltern to answer those questions, but he should be there himself
because he made commitments to New York, commitments that have not been
lived up to by the Department of Homeland Security.
There are so many questions about why funding was cut. Just take the
rationale that they want to fund systems more than they want to fund
personnel. First, against cyanide, there are no systems to be funded.
Cyanide can be made easily. We don't have any kind of detector. The
only way to guard against the threat that occurred in 2003 is better
training and more personnel on the subways. That is what New York City
did.
Second, New York did apply for funding in terms of equipment. The so-
called ring of steel, which would have protected downtown, was part of
New York's grant. Yet the funding was cut. Secretary Chertoff bounces
from rationale to rationale to rationale as to why our funding was cut,
but none of them are satisfactory.
Unfortunately, there is terrorism in the world. Unfortunately, New
York City has always been, is today, and will continue to be the No. 1
target of terrorists. And for this Department of Homeland Security and
this Government to abdicate its responsibility and not provide New York
with the funding that it needs is an absolute disgrace. The funding
cut, the percentage that we went down is just unpardonable.
I am urging Secretary Chertoff to come clean and to testify before
the House and the Senate and to answer the questions that New Yorkers
and all Americans of goodwill have. He is not there today. He should
be. But make no mistake about it. As a united delegation, Democrats and
Republicans together, we will press the issue to both try and get the
kind of funding we deserve this year out of other pots of money and
change the formula for next year so that this kind of poor treatment of
the No. 1 target of terrorists in America--New York--will not continue.
Again, I thank my colleagues for their graciousness, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Amendment No. 4320

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4320 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr.
Reed, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Salazar, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr.
Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 4320.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

amendment no. 4320

(Purpose: To state the sense of Congress on United States policy on
Iraq)

At the end of subtitle A of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1209. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``United
States Policy on Iraq Act of 2006''.
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Global terrorist networks, including those that
attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, continue to
threaten the national security of the United States and are
recruiting, planning, and developing capabilities to attack
the United States and its allies throughout the world.
(2) Winning the fight against terrorist networks requires
an integrated, comprehensive effort that uses all facets of
power of the United States and the members of the
international community who value democracy, freedom, and the
rule of law.
(3) The United States Armed Forces, particularly the Army
and Marine Corps, are stretched thin, and many soldiers and
Marines have experienced three or more deployments to combat
zones.
(4) Sectarian violence has surpassed the insurgency and
terrorism as the main security threat in Iraq, increasing the
prospects of a broader civil war which could draw in Iraq's
neighbors.
(5) United States and coalition forces have trained and
equipped more than 116,000 Iraqi soldiers, sailors, and
airmen, and more than 148,000 Iraqi police, highway patrol,
and other Ministry of Interior forces.
(6) Of the 102 operational Iraqi Army combat battalions, 69
are either in the lead or operating independently, according
to the May 2006 report of the Administration to Congress
entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'';
(7) Congress expressed its sense in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (119 Stat. 3466) that
``calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant
transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security
forces taking the lead for the security of a free and
sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the
phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq''.

[[Page S6205]]

(8) Iraq's security forces are heavily infiltrated by
sectarian militia, which has greatly increased sectarian
tensions and impeded the development of effective security
services loyal to the Iraq Government.
(9) With the approval by the Iraqi Council of
Representatives of the ministers of defense, national
security, and the interior on June 7, 2006, the entire
cabinet of Prime Minister Maliki is now in place.
(10) Pursuant to the Iraq Constitution, the Council of
Representatives is to appoint a Panel which will have 4
months to recommend changes to the Iraq Constitution.
(11) Despite pledges of more than $8,000,000,000 in
assistance for Iraq by foreign governments other than the
United States at the Madrid International Donors' Conference
in October 2003, only $3,500,000,000 of such assistance has
been forthcoming.
(12) The current open-ended commitment of United States
forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis
making the political compromises and personnel and resource
commitments that are needed for the stability and security of
Iraq.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that in
order to change course from an open-ended commitment and to
promote the assumption of security responsibilities by the
Iraqis, thus advancing the chances for success in Iraq--
(1) the following actions need to be taken to help achieve
the broad-based and sustainable political settlement so
essential for defeating the insurgency and preventing all-out
civil war--
(A) there must be a fair sharing of political power and
economic resources among all the Iraqi groups so as to invest
them in the formation of an Iraqi nation by either amendments
to the Iraq Constitution or by legislation or other means,
within the timeframe provided for in the Iraq Constitution;
(B) the President should convene an international
conference so as to more actively involve the international
community and Iraq's neighbors, promote a durable political
settlement among Iraqis, reduce regional interference in
Iraq's internal affairs, encourage more countries to
contribute to Iraq's extensive needs, and ensure that pledged
funds are forthcoming;
(C) the Iraq Government should promptly and decisively
disarm the militias and remove those members of the Iraqi
security forces whose loyalty to the Iraq Government is in
doubt; and
(D) the President should--
(i) expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq
to a limited presence and mission of training Iraqi security
forces, providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces,
protecting United States infrastructure and personnel, and
participating in targeted counterterrorism activities;
(ii) after consultation with the Government of Iraq, begin
the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq
this year; and
(iii) submit to Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with
estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of
United States forces from Iraq, with the understanding that
unexpected contingencies may arise;
(2) during and after the phased redeployment of United
States forces from Iraq, the United States will need to
sustain a nonmilitary effort to actively support
reconstruction, governance, and a durable political solution
in Iraq; and
(3) the President should carefully assess the impact that
ongoing United States military operations in Iraq are having
on the capability of the United States Government to conduct
an effective counterterrorism campaign to defeat the broader
global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the current open-ended commitment of U.S.
forces in Iraq is unsustainable and counterproductive, contributing as
much to Iraqi instability as it does to Iraqi security.
Our troops have performed magnificently in Iraq. We are all deeply
grateful for their professionalism and their sacrifices. But,
ultimately, as our military commanders have repeatedly said, stability
in Iraq can only come through a political settlement by the Iraqis, and
the best way to bring about that political settlement is to make it
clear, in words not yet spoken by the administration, that our
commitment is not open-ended, and that a phased redeployment of our
forces from Iraq will begin by the end of this year.
The administration's refrain that we are in Iraq as long as the
Iraqis need us is creating a dependency of unlimited duration and gives
the Iraqis the impression that their security is more in our hands than
in theirs.
The hallmarks of the administration's open-ended policy are the
President's extraordinarily broad and vague description of our
mission--nothing less than ``complete victory,'' as he put it, along
with the President's explicit commitment to stay until the Iraqis can
``govern themselves, sustain themselves, and defend themselves.'' The
President's statement that American force levels in Iraq ``will be
decided by future Presidents'' reinforced that unlimited commitment, as
did Secretary Rice's statement that we will stay in Iraq ``as long as
we are needed.''
The President of Iraq, Mr. Talabani, reflected the Iraqi perception
of the administration's policy when he said that U.S. forces are
``ready to stay as long as we ask them no matter what the period is.''
That is what the President of Iraq says he understands our policy to
be, that U.S. forces are ``ready to stay as long as we,'' the Iraqis,
``ask them, no matter what the period is.'' We must change that Iraqi
perception and the open-ended commitment which led to it, and that is
what our amendment would do.
Our amendment urges the President to begin the phased redeployment of
U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2006--to begin the phased
redeployment of U.S. troops by the end of 2006. Our amendment also
calls for a number of actions to help achieve the broad-based and
sustainable political settlement so essential for defeating the
insurgency and preventing all-out civil war.
It calls for adoption by the Iraqis of a fair sharing of political
power and economic resources among all the Iraqi groups so as to invest
them in the formation of an Iraqi Nation. That can be done by amendment
to the Iraq Constitution or by legislation or other means, but it needs
to be done within the timeframe provided for in the Iraqi Constitution;
namely, 4 months from the beginning of the functioning of their
parliament.
An international conference needs to be convened so as to more
actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors in
promoting a durable political settlement among Iraqis and by reducing
regional interference in Iraq's internal affairs. It is also important
to encourage more countries to contribute to Iraq's extensive needs and
to ensure that pledged funds are forthcoming.
Our amendment also points out that it is critically important for the
Government of Iraq to promptly and decisively disarm the militias and
remove those members of the Iraqi security forces whose loyalty to the
Iraqi Government is in doubt.
Now, what does our amendment urge the President to do relative to our
troops in Iraq?
First, after consultation with the Government of Iraq, begin a phased
redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of this year.
Second, submit to Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with estimated
dates for the continued phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq,
with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.
Third, expedite the transition of U.S. forces in Iraq to a limited
presence and mission of training, providing logistical support,
protecting U.S. infrastructure and personnel, and participating in
targeted counterterrorism activities.
Our amendment does not establish a fixed ending date for
redeployment. It doesn't set out fixed milestones once the phased
redeployment has begun. So while it does not establish a timetable, it
does establish a fixed, but not precipitous, time for the beginning of
a phased redeployment--by the end of this year.
Beginning the phased redeployment of American troops in 2006 would
send a very clear message to the Iraqis: We have been in Iraq over 3
years. We have lost 2,500 brave Americans and suffered more than seven
times that number of casualties to make it possible for Iraq to become
a free Nation. You, the Iraqis, must now decide whether you want a
civil war or a nation.
Madam President, sending that message to the Iraqis and ending the
open-ended U.S. policy towards Iraq will prod the Iraqis to take the
necessary steps to end the dominance of the militias; will reduce the
Iraqi dependence on the U.S. security blanket which deters tough
choices by the Iraqis; will change the perception that we are
permanently occupying Iraq, a perception which plays into the hands of
terrorists; will reduce the number of U.S. targets for terrorists and
insurgents; and will reduce the strain on U.S. forces.
Supporters of our amendment are just as determined to maximize
prospects for success in Iraq as are the opponents of our amendment. We
do not accuse opponents of our amendment of wanting failure or of
advocating surrender to chaos and terror. We do believe that
maintaining the status quo

[[Page S6206]]

and the open-ended commitment, which is the hallmark of that status quo
and that open-ended commitment, and adhering to a bumper sticker slogan
of ``stay the course'' is a recipe for continuing instability and
failure.
Success isn't assured in any event, but letting the Iraqis know that
we are not there for as long as they want us is key to avoiding a
culture of dependency. The bottom line is that our open-ended policy
and presence has become a deterrent to the very success that we want to
bring about. Although the administration policy is aimed at providing
security, it is a major contributor to instability.
The Iraqi leaders themselves have set a 6-month goal for making major
progress in assuming their security responsibility. Iraqi Prime
Minister al-Maliki said on May 22 that his government could take over
security for 16 of Iraq's 18 provinces by the end of this year.
On June 11, the Iraqi National Security Adviser, Mr. Rubaie said:

I believe by the end of this year the number of the
multinational forces will be probably less than 100,000 in
this country.

That amounts to a reduction of at least 30,000 U.S. forces by the end
of this year. Mr. Rubaie repeated that position in an op-ed in
yesterday's Washington Post. He, again, is the National Security
Adviser to the Prime Minister. Our amendment's call for the beginning
of a phased redeployment by the end of this year fits the very goals
Iraq's leaders have set for themselves.
Listen to what Mr. Rubaie wrote about the many benefits of Iraq
reducing the number of coalition forces. This is benefits to Iraq of
our reducing the number of coalition forces in Iraq:

It will remove psychological barriers and the reason that
many Iraqis joined the so-called resistance in the first
place. The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi
government to engage with some of our neighbors that have to
date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance
because of what they call the coalition occupation.

``Moreover,'' Mr. Rubaie said:

the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's
government in the eyes of its people . . . the drawdown of
foreign troops will strengthen our fledgling government to
last the full four years it is supposed to.

Mr. Rubaie's words are similar to those of General George Casey, the
commander of the U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, who told Congress
last fall:

Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of
occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi forces on
the coalition, extends the time it will take Iraqi security
forces to become self-reliant, and exposes more coalition
forces to attack at a time when Iraqi security forces are
increasingly available and capable.

That is our commander talking about the disadvantages of having a
large number of troops remain in Iraq.
Regardless of one's views on whether it was wise to attack Iraq--and
I for one thought it was unwise, and so voted--and regardless of one's
views on whether the war has been well managed--and I have been
critical of the administration's management--all of us want to maximize
the chances for success in Iraq. To maximize the chances for success in
Iraq, the Iraqis must take control of their country. Our approach, our
amendment, maximizes the chance for success.
Last year, by a bipartisan vote of 79 to 16, the Senate adopted an
amendment stating that:

[C]alendar year 2006 should be a period of significant
transition to full Iraqi sovereignty.

The Senate language remained in the bill and was signed into law. Our
amendment implements that policy direction. The Iraqis are standing up.
U.S. and coalition forces have trained and equipped more than 250,000
Iraq security forces. More than two-thirds of Iraq's Army combat
battalions are either in the lead or operating independently, according
to the administration's May 2006 report to Congress. It is now time for
the United States to set a date for the beginning--the beginning of a
standdown.
Last fall, General Casey said that our presence in Iraq ``fuels the
insurgency'' and that ``beginning to reduce our presence in Iraq'' as
conditions warrant would result in ``taking away one of the elements
that fuels the insurgency.'' That is our commander speaking. Conditions
not only warrant the beginning of a reduction of our presence,
conditions are such that only a phased, orderly redeployment beginning
by the end of this year will maximize the chances of succeeding in
Iraq.
By making clear that a phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq
needs to begin this year, we will send a clear message to the Iraqis
that our presence is not an open-ended security blanket and that they
need to assume responsibility for their own future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Who yields time?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I see the principal cosponsor, the Senator from Rhode
Island, a member of our committee, is waiting to speak. I would just
like to inquire the following of my colleague.
I have found in our many years in this body that the most effective
means to convey a message, the most effective way for the persons
beyond this Chamber to follow proceedings on the floor, is often
through a colloquy where we not just read speeches but we begin to
exchange interpretations of what is before this body by virtue of your
amendment and get the responses.
Might I inquire of my colleague of his willingness to permit the
Senator from Virginia, at such time as the Senator from Rhode Island
has completed, to get up and propound questions chargeable to my side
and responses that you wish to make, to the extent you wish to make
them, chargeable to your side? Is that a procedure about which I can be
persuasive to my colleague, which I find to be a very effective way to
deal with this?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, am I responding on the time of the Senator
from Virginia?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you are.
Mr. LEVIN. I am perfectly happy to engage in a colloquy at the
instigation of the Senator from Virginia. Indeed, I will probably have
some questions which I would want to propound to the Senator from
Virginia.
On the other hand, I cannot agree that a colloquy which he instigates
would be divided in terms of the time consumption. The usual policy
around here is the persons who begin a colloquy have that colloquy
charged to their time. I have more speakers than I have the time to
allocate. It would be unfair to them for me to say that the time
consumed in my answering the questions of the Senator from Virginia
would come off the time for their remarks.
I am not only happy to engage in a colloquy, I look forward to it,
but I would want to follow the usual procedure, which is that those
persons who wish to ask questions of somebody have that colloquy taken
from their time rather than from the time of the person of whom they
are asking the questions.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would have to respectfully disagree with
what is usual. Time and time again, Senators get up and allocate
between themselves the question and answer. I have to take it we are
confined primarily, I imagine, to the reading of speeches by
individuals and limiting the ability to have a colloquy.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will allow a comment on that, we are not
confined to that at all. I expect, when I ask questions of the Senator
from Virginia or others who oppose this amendment, that their answers
would come from my time and not from their time. I would apply the same
rule to me as I suggest would be applied to the questions of the
Senator.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator has made clear his statement. I yield the
floor as a courtesy to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from
Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, Senator Levin, and
Senators Feinstein and Salazar, to offer this amendment. Too often, the
Bush administration deals simply in slogans. We have heard them so
often, so many times: mission accomplished; stay the course; don't cut
and run; we will stand down when they stand up; complete victory. But a
military operation such as this requires much more than slogans. It
requires sufficient personnel and adequate equipment. It requires
coherent strategic policy, and it requires detailed plans.

[[Page S6207]]

At critical junctures in this effort in Iraq, this administration has
been extraordinarily insufficient in all of this. We had insufficient
personnel on the ground with the collapse of the government of Saddam
Hussein. We opened up regions of Iraq so that insurgents could begin to
form and begin to conduct this attack against their own people and
against our people. Too often we went out to Iraq, visited the country,
and were confronted by our own soldiers who complained that they didn't
have armored humvees and body armor.
I believe there has never been a really coherent strategic policy
here. We heard the initial defenses of the approach to Iraq as we were
going after weapons of mass destruction. They were not there. We are
going to go after the heart of terrorism, when in fact the terrorists'
connection to Saddam Hussein was tangential at most. Then, we are going
to build an oasis of freedom and transform the Middle East. It is not
an oasis today in Iraq.
Certainly there were not detailed plans. We entered into this
occupation without sufficient planning, without sufficient resources in
so many different ways. The faults continue to plague us today.
Insufficient resources to run detention facilities contributed in a
significant way to Abu Ghraib, and that, as even the President admits,
has been an extraordinary blot on our record and inhibits us today in
our ability to achieve a stable Iraq.
There is something else that you need to conduct military operations,
and that is public support. Today, a majority of Americans would like
to see a deadline to withdraw our forces from Iraq. They are not
unpatriotic. They are not without grit and determination. They are
terribly concerned, and they are looking for leadership.
But I believe this leadership comes in not adopting some type of
arbitrary timetable or deadline; it comes from adopting what is the
most coherent and realistic policy we can today to stabilize the
country of Iraq, to assist them in this stability, and to begin the
phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin this year. To
begin, not with an arbitrary timetable or deadline, but to begin with
the notion that these decisions will be based upon the advice of
military commanders and based upon the conditions on the ground. But we
must begin. We must begin because we have to send a strong signal to
the Government of Iraq that they must take their future in their own
hands, that they must make difficult choices about their constitution,
about sharing political power, about eliminating sectarian elements
from their security forces, and a host of other difficult problems.
This rests upon the fundamental reality of the situation. Ultimately,
it will be the Iraqis who stabilize their country and reform their
country. We can help. We have helped. But it is up to them, and it must
begin now.
Also, this approach which we are proposing recognizes another
reality. Our military forces, our Army and our Marine Corps, have been
under tremendous pressure. They have done a magnificent job. The young
men and women who wear the uniform of the United States have performed
in an extraordinary fashion. But for some of them, it will be their
third deployment to Iraq. Others have gone to both Iraq and
Afghanistan. The wear and tear on these young Americans and their
families is significant. The wear and tear on our equipment is
significant. There is a $50 billion pricetag just to repair the
equipment that has accumulated over the last several years in Iraq. So
we have to recognize also that our forces need a signal that their
mission will be coming to a conclusion, not in the next Presidency but,
based upon a careful deliberation by the commanders, we hope in the
near future.
We also have to recognize that our threats are not confined to Iraq
alone. Today we are all waiting anxiously to see what the North Koreans
might do with respect to a scheduled--or at least a tentative launch of
an intercontinental missile. We are today engaged in serious
negotiations with our European colleagues with respect to the situation
in Iran. We have seen in the last few weeks an Islamic government
takeover on the streets of Mogadishu and Somalia. We have seen other
areas of concern and conflict. Our commitment in Iraq, frankly,
constrains our flexibility to deal with all these issues.
Senator Levin and I have come forward today with a proposal that we
believe will be an approach that begins a policy that we can achieve,
that it is necessary for us to achieve, so we can move forward to begin
to transition the burden from American military shoulders to those of
the Iraqis. It begins with a phased redeployment which we believe
should commence this year. Let me hasten to add again: There is no
specific timetable. There is no deadline. This is based upon the advice
of our military officers in the field. This is not cut and run or cut
and jog or cut and anything else. It is an attempt to articulate a
policy based upon the reality of Iraq, the reality of our present
military forces, and the reality of a world which is engaged in
conflicts in many different places.
In the past weeks, we have seen some progress in Iraq--the
installation of a government, the naming of a Prime Minister of
Interior, and the naming of a Prime Minister of Defense. We have seen
the death of Zarqawi. But still we recognize how turbulent and
uncertain and how hostile the environment remains for our soldiers and
the Iraqi security forces.
We have about 127,000 forces there in the last 3 years, or more. We
have seen more than 2,500 of these young Americans killed and more than
18,000 wounded. Their sacrifices have to be respected and honored--not
simply with force but with wisdom and with a policy that will work, a
policy that is attuned with what is happening in Iraq and around the
globe and not a policy based upon bumper stickers that have been
trotted out at a moment's notice.
We recognize that we have an interest certainly in Iraq in terms of
succeeding. And this plan we hope and we believe will be a success. We
are putting together a plan--more of a policy than a plan--because the
planning is the province of the President, as it should be, as
Commander in Chief. But a policy of redeployment beginning now is the
right direction. It will require the President to begin to outline
those steps. It will also require the Government of Iraq to begin to
take responsibility for their own situation. It will require them to
begin deliberations for constitutional changes. These changes are
necessary to ensure that this is an inclusive Government in Iraq, that
the Sunni community feels that they can have a future in the new Iraq.
It also recognizes that we have to have a sharing of political power
in Iraq so that Iraq will succeed.
In addition, the Iraqis must address the issue of sectarian militias,
and the infiltration of security forces by sectarian elements have to
be dealt with and dealt with decisively.
We also have to recognize that ultimately these decisions will be
made and must be made by the Iraqis.
In this proposal there is a clear signal to the Iraqis that they must
make these decisions beginning now for their future and, we hope, for a
stable region and a much more stable world.
We also understand that we have to bring together the international
community.
Since October of 2002, I have argued that this unilateral approach to
Iraq is not destined for success; that we have to have a multinational
approach to be successful. We have carried the burden both militarily
and in many other ways. It is time that the administration engage and
energize the regional neighbors and the broader international community
to help address the issues that are presented to us all throughout the
world by Iraq.
We understand, on a financial basis, that this is an expensive
undertaking.
Originally, the administration suggested that this would be $50
billion or $60 billion. We understand now that we have already spent
$320 billion, and the end is not in sight.
In a recent study by Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel prize economist, if
you added all the costs, all the costs of rehabilitating our equipment
when comes home, all of the cost of veterans' benefits and caring for
those who have served so well, the price will reach perhaps $1
trillion, if our commitment extends until 2010.
Also, the international community has to do much more. The
international community has pledged $8 billion, and only $3.5 billion
of that money has been forthcoming. They need to do more, and we need
to make them do more.

[[Page S6208]]

This approach of going it alone has to end. And part of our amendment
is to request that we engage in a much more multilateral approach to
Iraq.
We have trained 116,000 Iraqi soldiers, sailors, 148,000 Iraqi police
and highway patrol and other Ministry of Interior forces. There are 102
operational Iraqi combat battalions in their Army, and 69 are either in
the lead or operating independently.
We have made progress. We hope that they are ready, but we think that
we have made enough progress to begin our redeployment. Again, the pace
of that redeployment will be set by our military commanders.
As General Casey pointed out:

As we are able to draw down our forces, we will receive
additional benefits. A reduction in American forces will
essentially push more Iraqi troops to the front lines. This
is about the dependency.

Those are General Casey's words.
As long as we are there to do the heavy lifting, we will do the heavy
lifting. That is an important point to be made and emphasized again and
again.
The Government of Iraq was formed. Their National Security Adviser,
Mr. Rubaie, stated this week in an editorial that Iraq's position is
that it have full control of the country by the end of 2008, and this
will mean a significant foreign troop reduction. We envision U.S. troop
presence by the year's end to be under 100,000 with the most of
remaining troops to return home by 2007. The eventual removal of
coalition troops will help the Iraqis who now see foreign troops
occupying rather than as liberators. Moreover, the removal of foreign
troops will legitimize the Iraqi Government in the eyes of its people.
I do not know if my colleagues will come and accuse the Iraqi
National Security Adviser of cutting and running on its own country.
Perhaps they will, but they will be wrong.
That is what a leading figure in the Government of Iraq is
suggesting. A phased redeployment beginning this year, hopefully
concluding by the end of 2007--but again we will leave that up to our
military commanders. The benefits will be that the Iraqis will step
forward, and also this notion of occupiers will be diminished
substantially.
From many different perspectives, this is the right policy at the
right time. I hope that our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, will
embrace this policy.
I retain the remainder of any time I have and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
Mr. President, I remember so well last year when we debated an
amendment of great importance, and our colleague from Michigan laid
down an amendment. Then I took that amendment and rewrote certain
portions of it. A great majority of the Senate--I can't remember
exactly how many but a vast majority of the Senate--supported that.
I have waited patiently for this amendment. It was given to me
yesterday. I have studied it ever so carefully. I didn't denounce the
amendment. I said it was a serious amendment. It is a serious
amendment. It deserves serious thought.
But, regrettably, there is no way in which I can truthfully say to my
side of the aisle and others that this amendment can be revised or
modified such that we could hope to get what we achieved last year--a
large majority of the Senate supporting the amendment.
That is unfortunate because we start out on a basis of where we could
well end up today along strong partisan lines. That comes at a time
when our Nation--indeed, the world and, most importantly, the men and
women of the Armed Forces--would like to see the Senate and, indeed,
hopefully, the Congress standing behind them with strong
bipartisanship. But I fear that it is going to be lost with this
amendment.
First, I carefully point out to those who are following this debate
that this amendment in effect is nonbinding. It is the sense of the
Senate, or Congress, as the case may be. But nevertheless it sends
signals. It sort of states what this body feels should be done by the
President of the United States as he continues to exercise his
constitutional powers--I underline ``constitutional powers.'' He is the
Commander in Chief, not Members of the Senate--constitutional powers in
carrying forward the actions of our Armed Forces, and the actions of
our Government as we try to support the newly elected unified
Government of Iraq.
As the nature of this free advice may be, my burden--and those of us
on this side--is to point out how this can be misconstrued as the
message crosses the ocean and as the Congress is trying to order the
President to do certain things. That is not going to be the case.
I have had recently the opportunity to have some private
conversations with the President of the United States. My gray hair
indicates that I have been privileged to serve in this institution now
in my 28th year and before that for a number of years in the Department
of Defense. I have worked with, I say with a sense of humility, many
Presidents through many chapters of American history. But I must say I
have yet to find any President with a stronger resolve, a stronger
conviction to do what he believes is in the best interests of the
American people, employing the forces of our men and women of the Armed
Forces, employing every means this Government has to bring about
solutions which he has outlined time and time again in Iraq and,
indeed, Afghanistan. It is remarkable, unwavering, listening to advice,
taking into consideration the views of others but clearly looking into
the future, a future that generations long after we are gone will look
back on this chapter of American history and I believe will decide that
we pursued the correct course. Hopefully, those generations will be
enjoying the measure of freedom that we have today. But that will only
come to pass if the Congress of the United States provides this
President the support that he needs.
Therefore, it may be in the nature of free advice, but I want to
clearly indicate to all following that there is much to be done to try
and explain where I see there is fault in this amendment.
Last week, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to establish
an arbitrary deadline of a timetable for withdrawal of United States
forces from Iraq. An arbitrary deadline of a timetable would have been
a serious strategic error, and a historic mistake of withdrawing our
forces prior to the Iraqis being able to defend themselves. It would
encourage terrorism, embolden al-Qaida, and threaten American security.
Regrettably, the various courses of action that spring forth from the
Democratic side of this aisle concern me greatly. They may not say it
is a timetable.
It is interesting that in the course of the presentation of this
amendment in the media, I have watched my colleagues from that side of
the aisle explain what it is they are going to put before the Senate
today. Time and time again, they keep saying it is not a timetable; it
is not a timetable.
Why must they keep saying that the language is clear, that it is not
a timetable?
But let us start with the key paragraph in the amendment of my good
friend and long-time colleague.
I repeat it. It is on page 6.

Submit to the Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with
estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of
United States forces from Iraq.

Folks, I don't mean to demean this, but that is the English language.
It reads very clearly. It is a timetable, no matter how many times
people protest it is not a timetable. It is the English language
written with clarity.
We cannot accept that.
Our colleagues today on this side of the aisle will vigorously give
their views as to why we cannot accept that.
Foremost in my mind is the loss of our men and women of the Armed
Forces, now 2,500 in number, that have given the ultimate that any
human being, any soldier, any sailor, any marine, any airman can give
and that of their families.
I wonder how these individuals would look at this clause and find any
other conclusion to draw but that this is a timetable--a timetable that
could well cripple the ability of this new government created by the
courageous actions of the Iraqi people time and time again in
elections, after a hard fought political situation, in which emerges,
hopefully, a strong Prime Minister.

They are just beginning to take full seizure of the reins of
sovereignty, something this Nation has not had for

[[Page S6209]]

a very long time. As they are seizing those reins, we are asked to
stand in the Senate and to lay out in writing for all those who want to
destabilize this new government the timetable on which we will remove
our Armed Forces.
Of course, there is a collateral question that is not addressed in
this amendment. Maybe my colleague will address it. The United States,
albeit, is the principal force of military. Great Britain, commensurate
with the size of their armed forces and their nation and their
population, has made a very significant contribution, as has Poland,
and I could enumerate the other nations; modest though they may be,
they are there. How are they to respond to this amendment? Are they to
go on and pursue the missions they have laid out or are they to devise
a timetable? That is one of the many unanswered questions I find in
this amendment. Perhaps my colleagues will be forthcoming.
The major events certainly of the last 10 days--the elimination of
al-Zarqawi, a terrorist without parallel in the contemporary times of
all mankind, his elimination, the formation of this new government--has
given a momentum forward. It has spawned a measure of hope among the
Iraqi people. It has spawned a measure of hope within our Armed Forces
that there is clear proof our many sacrifices to date are beginning to
produce concrete, visible results that cannot be challenged.
We are moving toward establishing a secure and prosperous nation that
will be an inspiration for the entire region of that world, and it is
hard to think at this time we would take any action in this Senate to
set back that momentum. The only way we are going to see our troops
come home is if they seize that sovereignty, exercise that sovereignty,
produce their own security and begin to reestablish their
infrastructure.
I do not see this amendment in any way helping. I see this amendment
as impeding the progress.
Give this new government a timetable. I ask my colleague, give them a
timetable if you have to give a timetable to establish their goals,
seize the reins of sovereignty. Do not broadcast through this amendment
a timetable with regard to our forces.
We all know there have been some very difficult days, tragic hours,
the most recent of which is the loss of our two brave soldiers seized,
and although not fully confirmed, certainly the probability is they
were badly abused, not treated as prisoners of war but badly abused by
someone in Iraq. Who knows who they may have been? Obviously, the
insurgents, presumably al-Qaida.
Our President, Secretaries of State and Defense, and our military
commanders have all stood and said forthrightly, these are painful
losses. Each one of these individuals I know and have worked with
personally. They feel the loss of life. They feel for the injured. They
feel for their families. But to attain the freedom, not just for the
Iraqis but for this country, from terrorism, that pain has to be
endured, those losses are likely to continue. I commend all for being
forthright that the days ahead pose challenges and further losses.
Any amendment requiring phased redeployment as our policy on a
timetable to begin in 2006 sends that signal that begins to set back
the progress we have achieved to date. That phrase about the timetable
of redeployment will be examined with utmost care by those who are
trying to destabilize this government--be they al-Qaida, insurgents,
or, unfortunately, the sectarian violence. They are likely to say, we
will wait out the timetable and then we will resume the violence and
with every means we can to destabilize this government. That will be
the result of this amendment.
This is an inopportune time because in the last 10 days we witnessed
the death of the most prominent terrorist in Iraq, the complete
formation of the Iraqi Government, a historic meeting in Baghdad
between President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki, more raids against
al-Qaida cells in Iraq, and a plan for the way ahead for this new
democratically elected government in Iraq. We have the momentum. We
must take advantage of this moment and this opportunity and move
forward.
I know other colleagues are anxious to speak. I want to share this
time.
I pose a question to my distinguished colleague from Michigan about
another paragraph in his amendment. This one I find particularly
puzzling. It is written, again, in very clear language, so I feel the
meaning of it is written explicitly on page 5.
It says that the President of the United States should do the
following:

(i) expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq
to a limited presence . . .

What do you mean by ``limited presence''?

. . . limited presence and mission of training Iraqi security
forces . . .

That we are doing with every bit of vigor we can possibly muster.

. . . providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces . .
.

We are doing that as best we can.

. . . protecting United States infrastructure and personnel,
and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities;

Does that mean we limit our force structure to the special ops
forces? What is it that the balance of our forces do? Do they begin to
rotate back under this timetable?
I hope at some point in this debate those questions can be fully
answered because the President is the Commander in Chief. He makes the
decisions with regard to how our Armed Forces are employed utilizing
the advice of the professional military commanders to direct
specifically the actions to carry out the missions to achieve our
goals.
I say to my good friend, this paragraph D, the President should
expedite the transition, what is the nature of the transition of United
States forces in Iraq to a limited presence?
I see no contingency phrase in this as there is elsewhere in this
amendment. If they were to have a tremendous insurrection, what do we
do if we have transitioned our forces? Does that mean they are moved
somewhere? Does that mean they stay in their bases?
This paragraph, in effect, is usurping the rights under the
Constitution of the Commander in Chief to direct the day-by-day
operations and deployment and disposition of our Armed Forces. I hope
in the course of this debate they will find time to explain with
greater clarity what is meant by that paragraph.
After consultation, No. 2, ``with the Government of Iraq, begin the
phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq this year,'' to
me, again, lays down a marker that something is in the hip pocket
regarding a timetable.
Yes, we start with the government, and the Senator from Michigan
cited some of the current government officials and some of the
statements they have made. I freely say some of those statements do
raise questions in my mind, but this government has only been in
business a bare month. We have to give them time. We have to give the
new Congress of the Iraqi Government an opportunity to voice its views
in conjunction with those of the government officials.
This word ``after consultation . . . begin the phased redeployment,''
how about if the government said we did not want a phased redeployment
at this time? What would be the purpose of the consultation if they
said, We do not want it at this time?
That statement, in effect, has been stated time and time again while
there have been remarks that, yes, we hope you will lure your forces
away, the bottom line is, they know they cannot survive with this new
government if we begin any major withdrawal of forces in the coming 2
or 3 months while this government is taking root.
That is clear. No one disputes that.
But you say ``consultation,'' then ``begin the phased redeployment .
. . from Iraq.'' That is not my idea of consultation. My idea of
consultation is to take into consideration the viewpoints of both
sides.
So we come back to submit to Congress a plan by the end of the year
2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of
United States forces from Iraq with the understanding that unexpected
contingencies may arise.
That is fortunate to have that in there, but that is sort of lost
because of the prominence of the first sentence. That is what is going
to be read and interpreted by the insurgents, all those who want to
bring down this new government. That signal must not be sent by the
Congress.

[[Page S6210]]

Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time and reserve the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let me inquire of colleagues on this side
who wish to speak. We started this morning by according the Senator
from Michigan and the Senator from Rhode Island their opportunities. I
have spoken on this side. I know Senator McCain has just arrived, and
Senator Cornyn.
So I say to Senator McCain, I think you were the first on the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. I think Senator Cornyn was.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield to Senator McCain and ask to be
recognized following him.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask that Senator McCain follow me, and
then we will rotate to this side and back to Senator Cornyn.
So at this time, I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that
recognition be given to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am wondering if we could sequence
speakers.
Mr. WARNER. Why don't you designate someone?
Mr. LEVIN. After Senator McCain is done, we would then seek to
sequence the Senator from New York immediately after the Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. WARNER. Following that, Senator Cornyn will speak.
Mr. LEVIN. And then Senator Salazar is here.
Mr. WARNER. He would follow Senator McCain and the distinguished
Senator from New York and the Senator from Texas.
Mr. LEVIN. Let's leave it at that----
Mr. WARNER. Then the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. LEVIN. Because Senator Feinstein is now on the floor.
Mr. WARNER. You designate that Senator.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank you. And I express my appreciation
for the courtesy of the Senator from Texas who was on the floor before
I was, and I appreciate his courtesy very much. I intend to take about
12 minutes, if that is agreeable to the Senator.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we grant 12 minutes to the Senator from
Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the amendment offered by
the Senators from Michigan and Rhode Island and the amendment offered
by the Senator from Massachusetts. These amendments share the same
problem: calling for a withdrawal of American troops tied to arbitrary
timetables rather than conditions in-country.
The amendment we are debating now states the sense of Congress that
the President should begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from
Iraq this year and that he should submit to Congress a plan with dates
for this redeployment. I believe such a move would be a significant
step on the road to disaster.
There is an understandable desire, 3 years after our invasion, to
seek a quick and easy end to our intervention in Iraq. We face real
difficulties there, we have made serious mistakes, and the costs have
been very high. But these would pale in comparison to what is likely to
unfold should we follow the course advocated by this resolution.
The violence we see on Iraqi streets today illustrates one
fundamental fact: Iraqi forces are not yet capable of securing the
country on their own. On the contrary, even with current troop levels,
a level of violence in Iraq remains unacceptably high. To withdraw our
forces would have one, all-too-predictable outcome--the violence
currently constrained by our security operations around the country
would rise commensurately. If the main enforcer of Government
authority--coalition troops--draws down prematurely, the only questions
will be the degree to which the increased violence engulfs the country
and whether full-scale civil war erupts.
Much has been said about the effect of an American withdrawal on the
Iraqi Government, and the sponsors of this amendment argue that a
withdrawal would somehow force the Government to take on
responsibilities it currently evades. But consider for a moment the
effect of a withdrawal timetable on individual Iraqis outside the
Government. An Iraqi Shi'a living in Baghdad or perhaps a Sunni living
in Kirkuk learns that the Congress has called on our President to begin
withdrawing troops this year and to present a timetable by which they
will all return home. This knowledge changes the calculation made by
individuals like these, decisions critical to the eventual security of
Iraq. It makes joining the police forces or the Iraqi Government look
like an increasingly bad bet. Participation in a militia appears better
by comparison. And by changing these calculations across the country,
we have made the goal of stability in Iraq more difficult to achieve.
By signaling that an end to the American intervention is near, we will
alienate our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempt
undecideds to join the antigovernment ranks.
Not every Member of this body agreed with the decision to topple
Saddam Hussein, but when our country went to war, we incurred a moral
duty to not abandon the people of Iraq to terrorists and killers. If we
withdraw prematurely, risking all-out civil war, we will have done
precisely that. I can hardly imagine that any U.S. Senator would want
our Nation to suffer that moral stain.
But the implications of premature withdrawal from Iraq are not moral
alone; they directly involve our national security. Greater instability
in Iraq would invite further Syrian and Iranian interference,
bolstering the influence of two terror-sponsoring states firmly opposed
to America's policy. Iraq's neighbors--from Saudi Arabia to Israel to
Turkey--would feel their own security eroding and might be induced to
act. This uncertain swirl of events would have a damaging impact on our
ability to promote positive change in the Middle East, to say the
least.
Withdrawing before Iraqis can bring stability to the country on their
own would turn that land into a failed state in the heart of the Middle
East. We have seen once before a failed state emerge after U.S.
disengagement, and it cost us terribly. In pre-9/11 Afghanistan,
terrorists found sanctuary to train and plan attacks with impunity. We
know that there are today in Iraq terrorists who are planning attacks
against Americans. We cannot make this fatal mistake twice.
Whether or not Members of this body believe that Iraq was part of the
war on terror in 2003, it is simply incontrovertible that the war on
terror is being fought there today. Al-Qaida is present in Iraq.
Jihadists continue to cross the borders. Suicide bombers target
American troops, Government personnel, and civilians. If we leave Iraq
prematurely, the jihadists will interpret the withdrawal as a triumph
of their brutal tactics against our power. And I do not believe they
will stop with Iraq.

The letter released last year from Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's
lieutenant, to Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi draws out the implications. The
Zawahiri letter is predicated on the assumption that the United States
will leave Iraq and that al-Qaida's real game begins as soon as we
abandon the country. In his missive, Zawahiri lays out a four-stage
plan--establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the ``jihad wave'' to the
secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel--none of which
shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans
from Iraq. Zawahiri observes that the collapse of American power in
Vietnam, ``and how they ran and left their agents,'' suggests that ``we
must be ready starting now.'' We cannot let them start, now or ever. We
must stay in Iraq until the Government there has fully functioning
security forces that can keep the insurgents at bay and ultimately
defeat them.
Some argue that it is our very presence in Iraq that has created the
insurgency and that if we end the occupation, we end the insurgency.
But, in fact, by ending military operations, we are likely to empower
the insurgency. The fighting is not simply against coalition forces;
rather, the insurgents target the Iraqi Government, opposing militias,
and various sects and ethnicities. There is no reason to think that an
American drawdown would discourage these fights.

[[Page S6211]]

Those who support a withdrawal might wish to examine the assumptions
that lie behind their suggestion. What if we withdraw and the violence
actually worsens, full-scale civil war ensues, or terrorists enjoy
safe-haven to plan attacks against America and our friends? Do we then
face the options only of tolerating this situation in perpetuity or
reinvading the country?
A few observers have argued that the United States has an option of
somehow pulling our troops from Iraq but still managing things from
afar. This is nonsense. The United States will have no leverage to
manage things once we have left the country. The battle in Iraq, which
is likely to remain counterinsurgency in character, is ill-suited to
the extensive use of air power, which would be the foremost instrument
available to us from outside. We could no more prevail in Iraq from
outside than we could win the war in Vietnam by continuing to bomb the
North. As tempting as it is to seek a solution that would let us both
draw down our troops and preserve our military options in Iraq, that
solution does not exist. The options on the table have been there from
the beginning: withdraw and fail or commit and succeed.
Don't take my word for it. Ask those whose security is at stake every
day. The Iraqi Government does not want us to set an arbitrary timeline
for withdrawal. As the Iraqi Minister for National Security wrote in
yesterday's Washington Post, more important than some series of dates
is the achievement of set objectives for restoring security. Similarly,
our friends in the neighborhood fear a precipitous American withdrawal.
Allies in Europe and Asia encourage us to see this war through to its
end.
Because we cannot pull out and hope for the best, because we cannot
withdraw and manage things from afar, because morality and our security
compel it, we have to see this mission through to completion. Drawdowns
must be based on conditions in-country, not an arbitrary deadline
rooted in our domestic politics.
Our domestic politics do have an effect on the war in Iraq, and again
I fear that this amendment would have a deleterious effect. Anyone
reading it gets the sense that the Senate's foremost objective is the
drawdown of American troops. The sense they should get is that
America's first goal in Iraq is to win the war--that is what they
should get--and that all other policy decisions support and are
subordinate to the successful completion of our mission. Like the
sponsors of this legislation, I hope we bring home American troops as
soon as possible. But suggesting to the American people that withdrawal
is at hand, we risk once again raising unrealistic expectations that
can only cost domestic support for America's role in this conflict, a
war we must win.
None of this is to say that success in Iraq will be quick or easy. On
the contrary, this war is long and it is hard and it is tough. We will
see significant achievements, like the killing of Zarqawi and the
completion of the Iraqi Cabinet, but we will see steps backward as
well, like the continuing violence in Baghdad and the insurgency in
Ramadi. No one should have any illusions about the costs of this
conflict as it has been waged thus far or as it will be waged as we
move ahead, but neither should anyone have illusions about the role of
Iraq in the war on terror today. It has become a central battleground
in our fight against those who wish us grave harm, and we cannot wish
away this fundamental truth. We cannot fall prey to wishful thinking
that we can put the costs and the difficulties and the frustrations
aside by ignoring our challenges and responsibilities.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New
York is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a unanimous
consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Rockefeller be added as a cosponsor of our amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators--if I could
get Senator Warner's attention--the order on our side will be Senators
Clinton, Feinstein, and Salazar.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the same order with the addition of
Salazar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from New York is
recognized.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Levin amendment
of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor. At a moment when
130,000 soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, active duty, Guard and
Reserve are serving bravely in Iraq and when the debate in Congress
over our Nation's Iraq policy has grown particularly divisive and
heated, I believe it is time for the Members of this body to put
politics aside and choose between success and the status quo.
By playing politics and blindly following the President, too many are
deaf to the hue and cry about the failures of this administration in
the execution of its policies. And too often, our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle in both Chambers are asking politically
motivated questions, not engaging in the kinds of fruitful discussion
that asks the tough national security questions we need to address and
answer.
I think it is time to choose whether we believe we have the right
roadmap for success in Iraq. While our troops are serving bravely and
with our national security in the balance, it is time to choose what is
more important--a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy for Republicans
to win elections here at home.
There are no easy answers as to how we solve the problems created by
this administration. There are no easy answers as to how we work to
enable the Iraqis to hold their country together and to keep it from
becoming a terrorist refuge and launching pad.
I simply do not believe it is a strategy or a solution for the
President to continue declaring an open-ended and unconditional
commitment, nor do I believe it is a solution or a strategy to set a
date certain for withdrawal without regard to the consequences.
Instead, I support this responsible way forward, a roadmap for success
that will more quickly and effectively take advantage of Iraqi oil
revenues, build up Iraqi infrastructure, foster Iraqi civil society,
challenge Iraq's neighbors to do more to ensure stability in Iraq, and
allow our troops to begin coming home.
We all know that our troops are in harm's way right now in a volatile
region of the world for which America has significant interests at
stake. We are at a profound turning point for our Nation. We are
entrusted by our constituents, both those who serve and those who do
not, to do what we think is right for them, for our States, and our
country.
Let's be clear about what this debate is about. My friends on the
other side of the aisle believe that the status quo is working in Iraq.
They do not believe we need a fundamental change in policy. They choose
to continue blindly following the President.
We Democrats disagree. We believe we need a new direction in Iraq
that will increase the chances for success on the ground. I may
disagree with those who call for a date certain for withdrawal, but I
do not doubt their patriotism. I may disagree with those who believe in
an unconditional commitment without end, but I do not doubt their
patriotism either.
Sadly, however, there are those who do doubt the patriotism of many
who raise serious questions about this war. They choose to tar all who
disagree with an open-ended, unconditional commitment as unpatriotic,
as waving the white flag of surrender.
They may not have a war strategy, but they do have an election
strategy. This is the road they took America down in 2002. It was a
dead end for our country then; it is a dead end now.
The politically motivated resolutions put forth by leading
Republicans to gain tactical partisan advantage are a disgrace. In so
doing, they have broken faith with those who serve and those of us who
support our troops and who work for the success of this mission.
It is wrong, plain and simple, to turn this serious debate about our
policies and national security into a partisan squabble designed to
mislead voters.

[[Page S6212]]

This is politics at its worst, played over war. And that is no way to
honor the service and sacrifices of our troops and their families or to
find a better way forward in Iraq.
Like many in this Chamber, I have traveled to Iraq and to
Afghanistan. I have met there and here with tough, smart, patriotic men
and women who fill me with tremendous pride. They have been performing
magnificently under difficult conditions. They have paid a heavy price
since the war began in 2003.
Last week we had a moment of silence to mark the day that the number
of American servicemembers killed in Iraq reached 2,500. And more than
18,000 others have been wounded. As of June 17, New York has lost 116
soldiers. The combined number of New York soldiers killed and wounded
is 1,038.
I have spent time with wounded soldiers and Marines. I spent time on
Saturday with grieving families, mourning lost loved ones. I have tried
to answer the questions they ask. I have shared the grief they feel.
Those who have not lost a loved one or seen him or her return injured
still are anxious every day while a parent or a child or a spouse
serves far from home. Not a day goes by that I do not pray for the safe
return of every man and woman now stationed in dangerous places around
the world--not a single day.

This is not a time for partisanship. It is past time for this
administration to level with the American people, for this Congress to
find its voice and fulfill its constitutional duties to check and
balance the executive branch, and for the Iraqis to chart a clear and
responsible path to stability and peace.
I call on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to fairly and
honestly consider the Levin amendment as an alternative to the status
quo, when we know that the status quo has not, is not, and will not
create the conditions needed for the Iraqis to achieve the stability
and security they seek and for us to bring home our troops.
The conflict in Iraq has now gone on longer than U.S. fighting in the
Korean war before the armistice. We ought not to attack one another for
asking the tough questions and presenting alternatives about how to
achieve success, limit the loss and sacrifice of our young men and
women.
As we debate our next steps in Iraq, it is critical that we recognize
and fix, as best we can, the mistakes that have already been made and
not repeat them. The Bush administration misused the authority granted
to it, choosing to act without allowing the inspectors to finish the
job in order to rush to war, without a plan for securing the country,
without an understanding of the insurgency or the true human,
financial, and strategic cost of this war, all the while viewing the
dangerous and unstable conditions in Iraq through rose-colored glasses
and the prism of electoral politics here at home.
It is time to put policy ahead of politics and success ahead of the
status quo. It is time for a new strategy to produce what we need, a
stable Iraq Government that takes over for its own people so our troops
can finish their job.
That is what the Levin amendment does. It calls for a comprehensive
roadmap to achieve peace and stability. It also sets into motion the
steps that should be taken for Iraq to move itself forward and become
more capable of defending its territory, ending the sectarian violence,
and purging the insurgency.
The Levin amendment does put us on a responsible path by calling for
stronger nonmilitary actions, such as a conference of neighboring
nations, greater rebuilding efforts, and better internal political
reconciliation, by requiring the Iraqis to disarm road militias and
take over more of their own security.
The only way the new Iraqi Government can gain credibility is by
proving they can handle an increasing share of the security of the
country with fewer, not more, U.S. troops.
It is clear in the Levin amendment that we recognize the President's
role as Commander in Chief. It is the President who will make these
decisions. What the amendment attempts to do is to provide a different
roadmap, to set some conditions in contrast to the unconditional, open-
ended commitment that we have had for the last 3 years and 3 months.
In yesterday's Washington Post, one expert laid out such a roadmap
which described the importance of reducing our military presence in
Iraq so as to enhance the legitimacy of the Iraqi Government in the
eyes of both Iraqis and Iraq's neighbors. That expert was Iraq's own
national security adviser.
I commend the entire article to be read because as the national
security adviser sets forth a roadmap for the way out of Iraq, he makes
very clear that the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's
government in the eyes of its people. That is not an American. That is
not a Democrat. That is an Iraqi in this new government who recognizes
what some, apparently, in this Chamber refuse to, which is, yes, we
need conditions. The current policy has no conditions. It is
unconditional.
The Levin amendment sets forth conditions, sets forth the kind of
steps and benchmarks that we as Americans in positions of
responsibility have every right to expect that the Iraqis will step up
and meet. Clearly, that is also the position of the new Iraqi
Government. In fact, one can read this statement and find much in the
Levin amendment that supports the position put forth by the Iraqi
national security adviser.
No war since Vietnam has stirred the emotion to the extent of our
people as this one. I hear it all the time as I travel from one end of
New York to the other. People stop and ask if there will be an end to
the loss of American lives. They wonder what the goal is; how do we
define success? The rhetoric on the other side is all about symbols and
slogans, but how do we define success?
They believe that we in Congress should not be wasting this country's
time with partisan political slogans while we have troops in the field.
They grieve over the mistakes that have been committed by an
administration that failed at every turn to see the difficulties ahead
of it or the benefits of using all the nonmilitary means available to
it.
Of course, there are always unexpected events in war that can change
the best plan or put some detours into the roadmap. The Levin amendment
takes that into account. But I believe we must end the current open-
ended, unconditional policy and focus on clear goals on all fronts and
to make that absolutely clear to the Iraqi Government.
If we do that, we can begin to bring our troops home this year. That
is why I fervently believe members of both parties should support this
resolution.
How much time do I have left, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 15\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. CLINTON. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to start my remarks this afternoon
by recognizing the ultimate sacrifice paid by one of our soldiers, one
of my fellow Texans, who gave his life this week in Iraq.
PFC Kristian Menchaca, age 23, of Houston, joined the military last
year and was soon deployed to Iraq as part of the 1st Battalion, 502nd
Infantry, 2nd Brigade, of the 101st Airborne based in Fort Campbell,
KY.
According to military reports, Menchaca and his fellow soldier, PFC
Thomas Tucker of Oregon, were part of a unit checking vehicles near the
Euphrates River south of Baghdad. They were taken when their checkpoint
was attacked and, as we now know, they died in service to their Nation,
and their bodies have since been recovered.
Private First Class Menchaca is described by his family in various
reports as a man who loved basketball and Mexican food. His cousin,
Sylvia Grice, is quoted as saying:

He talked about how happy he was that he was serving his
country. Everyone he met liked him. He had that kind of
personality. He liked to help people. He was just the kind of
person that you enjoyed being with.

Private First Class Menchaca was married in September of last year,
and he often talked of joining the Border Patrol when he finished his
military service.
Mr. President, I know I speak for a grateful Nation when I say I am
thankful for the service of good men and women like Private First Class
Menchaca who serve our country day in and day out and who place
themselves in harm's way in the service of

[[Page S6213]]

freedom. I am glad there are people like Private First Class Menchaca,
who was happy to serve his country, not knowing perhaps that that
service to his country would end in the ultimate sacrifice for the
cause of freedom.
Mr. President, I have been listening to the debate so far on the
amendments on the floor. I cannot help but be struck by those who would
cast the only options available to America, when it comes to what is
now the central front in the global war on terror in Iraq, as open-
ended, unconditional commitment versus arbitrary deadlines. We have
more choices than that, and it is indeed the policy of our Government
at the present time not to offer open-ended, unconditional commitments,
or to set arbitrary deadlines that serve as an encouragement to the
enemy, knowing that if they hunker down long enough and wait us out
long enough, the American people will lose their resolve and simply
give up.
Mr. President, our policy is one based on conditions on the ground,
and based on the sound advice of our professional military experts,
people such as GEN John Abizaid, head of Central Command, and General
Casey, head of the coalition forces in Iraq. These are the professional
generals--those with knowledge of the facts on the ground--who are
making the judgments and recommendations to the President and the
Secretary of Defense and to this Congress about what our policy should
be, and that policy is based on conditions on the ground.
Those who suggest that our only choice is between open-ended,
unconditional commitments and arbitrary deadlines are presenting us
with a false choice, one that, in the end, simply looks a lot like
giving up. I speak in opposition to any proposal to impose an arbitrary
deadline for the removal of our troops from Iraq and to speak about
what I believe and know others of my colleagues believe is our need to
win the war on terror and, while doing so, to stand beside the Iraqi
people as they work to build their fledgling democracy and work to
expand their growing ability to secure themselves.
The fundamental question we have before us today is: Are we going to
base our military strategy in Iraq on an arbitrary timetable for
withdrawal based upon defeatism, a policy of retreat, a policy of
appeasement, a policy of surrender, or are we going to rely upon the
military judgment of those who are currently leading us to victory in
Iraq?
It is clear, as in all wars, that our Nation is being tested. This is
not so much a test for our professional military, which is the
preeminent fighting force in the world today and no doubt the premier
fighting force that the world has ever known--there is no military
force that can defeat the United States of America--the only thing that
can defeat the United States of America, when it comes to the global
war on terror, is America itself, if we lose the courage of our
convictions, if we simply give up.
On October 11, 2002, 77 Members of this body voted to authorize the
use of force to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I will be interested to
see, when we vote on these various amendments, how many of our
colleagues have simply lost the courage or conviction they displayed
then, in saying it was important to remove a terrible, bloodthirsty
tyrant from Iraq. I have stood on the mass burial grave sites in Iraq
where at least 400,000 Iraqis lie who were victims of that bloodthirsty
dictator.
We know that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq more than a year before
American forces went in. We all know that Saddam Hussein, with his
fantasies of developing weapons of mass destruction, teamed up with
terrorists and presented a clear and imminent threat to the safety and
security of the United States.
We have much unfinished work to do. But we must not forget to honor
the sacrifices of those 2,500 people, like Private First Class Menchaca
of Texas, who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Are
we going to tell those brave patriots and their families that they have
sacrificed in vain, that we were not really serious about our
commitments both to the American people, to preserve their safety and
security, as well as to our allies, the Iraqi people? I hope not.
There is no victory in arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq, and victory
must remain our sole resolve. Any suggestion that a withdrawal from
Iraq would somehow accelerate or pressure the Iraqi Government, and
Iraqis themselves, into supporting democracy more fervently is simply
inconsistent with the facts. The people who are probably most anxious
for the American and coalition forces to leave Iraq--second only to the
American people's desire to have their sons and daughters come home--
the people most eager to see them come home, beyond their family
members, are probably the Iraqi people themselves. But they understand
that they are not yet prepared to defend themselves against the
terrorists, against the insurgents, against the sectarian strife that
is currently racking that country. Yet we find that the armchair
generals in Washington, DC, are hardly in a position to determine the
best military strategy. How could it be any other way? Who is in a
better position to determine what that strategy should be, based on
conditions on the ground, than those professional military men and
women who study this issue daily, who live with it daily, and who have
tremendous experience? Surely, they have a better idea about how we can
win the war in Iraq than the armchair generals in Washington who are
resigned to defeat and simply giving up.

The Senator from New York quoted from a Washington Post article of
yesterday and suggested that the National Security Adviser in Iraq had
somehow endorsed the provisions of the Levin amendment. But I want to
quote one sentence that clearly refutes that suggestion. The National
Security Adviser said:

This roadmap on foreign troop withdrawals is based not just
on a series of dates but, most important, on achievement of
set objectives for restoring security in Iraq.

In other words, Iraq's National Security Adviser understands the
foolishness of setting arbitrary deadlines that have no relationship to
achievement of set objectives for restoring security in Iraq. Do we all
wish that our troops could come home sooner rather than later? Of
course we do. But it is simply foolishness and folly to impose an
arbitrary timetable on our forces, requiring them to withdraw from Iraq
before the job is done and while the going gets tough.
I have in my hands a report from the U.S. Department of State that is
19 pages long. Anybody with access to the Internet could copy this or
view it online. It is called ``Significant Terrorist Incidents, 1961 to
2003; A Brief Chronology.'' It is 19 pages long. I ask our colleagues
who counsel retreat, who counsel self-defeatism, what do they think is
going to happen if we leave Iraq prematurely, before the Iraqi security
forces can defend themselves in that new democracy? What do they expect
will happen? I think what we know will happen is that power void would
be filled by those who are currently fighting and killing innocent
people in Iraq and who, given the opportunity, would use that failed
state, if we were to retreat prematurely, as a platform to plot, plan,
finance, and export terrorist acts to the United States and elsewhere
around the world.
It is pure folly to think that the terrorists somehow would simply
give up if we decided to come home prematurely, or that Iraq could
stand on its own to fight and defend itself and have any chance of
nursing this fledgling democracy into full maturity.
Just yesterday I heard some of the Members on the other side of the
aisle say that they, too, thought that troop withdrawal should be based
upon the judgment of military commanders. But they added: As long as
the generals agree with them, that withdrawal will take place within 6
months.
Another one of our colleagues who has a resolution that has been much
discussed announced he would extend his initial proposal of a 6-month
deadline to a 1-year deadline. I wonder what sort of wisdom he acquired
over the course of a weekend that told him, no, the arbitrary deadline
should not be 6 months but should now be a year. What sort of new
information did he acquire that led him to the conclusion that a
withdrawal in 1 year was better than a withdrawal 6 months from now?
It is clear that such arbitrary decisions have no basis in military
strategy. According to one news story last week, there were colleagues
of ours on the other side of the aisle who were up all hours searching
for a troop withdrawal position on the war on terror that would unite
their political party.

[[Page S6214]]

My question is: Can they really be serious? Can they really be
serious that they are still searching for some unifying position? It
appears that they have no unifying position, and they have no plan to
lead the victory in Iraq, or to lead the American people during one of
the toughest fights that our Nation has ever endured.
It is indeed a time of testing for our Nation, and we must pass the
test, not just for the safety and security of the Iraqi people, but for
our own safety and security, and for the safety and security of our
children and our children's children.
So far, it appears that the only thing the critics can agree on is
their willingness to criticize the efforts in the global war on terror,
to harp on those things in a way that is not productive and certainly
not helpful. And it has the consequence, unintended or not, of
undermining public support and confidence for our efforts in Iraq and
in the global war on terror.

So it makes me wonder--and I am sure the American people must be
wondering--are they more interested in the upcoming elections not in
Iraq, but in America in November, or are they more interested in
winning the global war on terror without regard to politics or
elections?
It is important that we put the situation in Iraq in perspective. We
are moving forward. Every single day we are making progress. The Iraqi
people and their military forces are reaching out and taking
responsibility in their own country and the hope we are extending to
them for democracy and freedom.
Just over 3 years ago, Saddam Hussein ruled that country. We all know
he killed hundreds of thousands of his own people whose only crime was
to oppose his tyranny. Our military performed flawlessly in their march
to Baghdad and overthrew Saddam Hussein. Then, in January 2005, the
Iraqis held elections for a transitional national assembly to begin the
drafting of the Iraqi Constitution. They overwhelmingly approved that
Constitution in October of 2005. And then in December of 2005, they
held elections for a permanent national assembly.
The Iraqi Parliament then approved the Cabinet, including the most
controversial post of Defense and Interior Ministers. I remind my
colleagues that the Iraqi voter turnout during last year's elections
for their national assembly and referendum on their Constitution was
respectively 58 percent, 77 percent, and 63 percent. It is clear that
the Iraqi people are participating in their political process and
building their own institutions that will eventually allow them to
govern themselves and determine their own future.
On the security side, we have trained more than 260,000 Iraqi
security forces and these forces are daily becoming more and more
competent. They are now leading daily operations against insurgents and
al-Qaida and the sectarian strife in Iraq.
We know there is a price to be paid, and I guess in the end, the
difference between those who would retreat prematurely and simply give
up and those of us who believe the fight is worth fighting for and the
sacrifices that this Nation has made in the cause of freedom are
unfortunate but worth it, the differences between those who believe war
is bad and must never be fought and those who believe that war is bad
but sometimes must be fought for the right reasons.
It is dispiriting that some politicians reading the polls in Iraq
want us to set an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal, and this despite
they have no plan for success for winning the war or what to do in the
vacuum that will be created once we give up.
We know that terrorists remain on the attack and, given our
willingness to retreat, will simply take advantage of that
vulnerability and attack America and other innocent people again.
In conclusion, I think the policy of retreat and defeatism and simply
giving up is not one that serves our Nation well. It does not serve the
interests of the Iraqi people, and it would simply be the wrong
decision for this Senate to make at this time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank our colleague from Texas
for his powerful message and also for his work on the Senate Armed
Services Committee where he has labored long and hard and well into the
future, I hope. I thank the Senator.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as has been said, more than 2,500
brave men and women of America's fighting forces have now been killed
in Iraq. Another 18,500 have been wounded. The victims of this violence
include two American soldiers captured in an ambush at a checkpoint
south of Baghdad who were brutally tortured, killed, and left
surrounded by roadside bombs. I join with all of my colleagues in
offering our deepest sympathies.
Yet with American troops now caught in the middle of raging sectarian
violence, it is all too likely that such heinous acts will go on and
on. This war, originally projected to last but a few months, has gone
on for 39 months with no end in sight.
Our Nation is spending $2.5 billion a week on the conflict, and the
violence has worsened.
Iraqis have suffered greatly. More than 30,000 civilians have been
killed, including 4,000 in the past 3 months alone. And another 90,000
Iraqis have had to flee their homes and their country to avoid the
bloodshed.
In the past 5 days alone, according to news reports, nearly 100
civilians have been murdered in car bombings, shootings and other
attacks, despite a new security crackdown by Iraqi and American forces.
For example, on Friday, 16 people were killed and 28 wounded when a
shoe bomber blew himself up inside the Buratha mosque during religious
services.
Saturday, one of the bloodiest days yet in recent months, over 40
civilians died in a series of car bombs and mortar attacks around
Baghdad.
Day after day and month after month, we see that an open-ended
commitment of United States forces neither controls nor abates the
insurgency but, rather, it appears to inflame it.
What is becoming very apparent is that the murderous conflicts that
bloody Baghdad and other cities daily can only be reduced by Iraqis--
Iraqis who are willing and able to come together and stop this brutal
and ruthless violence.
So I rise today to say that the time has come for the United States
to recognize that United States troops cannot abate this kind of
sectarian violence; only Iraqis can.
Late last year, Congress approved and President Bush signed into law
an amendment that was in this very Defense authorization bill. That
amendment pointed out that:

Calendar year 2006--

That this year--

should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi
sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for
the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating
the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States
forces from Iraq.

Mr. President, 79 Senators from both sides of the aisle voted for
this amendment, and I believe the amendment presented today that we are
debating right now is the right way to follow up on this earlier Senate
initiative. It is not cut-and-run by any stretch of the imagination.
When President Bush staged his brief visit to Baghdad last week, he
told Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that he came to look him ``in
the eye.'' Now it is time for the President of the United States to
look the American people in the eye.
As a nation, we have had enough repetition of slogans and
reassurances that have become increasingly hollow in the continuing
blast of roadside bombs and the rattle of automatic gunfire. No longer
will ``we stand down when they stand up'' suffice for policy. No, Mr.
President, we want you to recognize this.
Three years ago, the United States may have been misguided into war
in Iraq, but now most certainly the country must not be misguided about
the realities in Iraq today and the need to change our mission.
What is victory in a land torn by its own warring factions? Is it
quite possibly allowing Iraqis to solve Iraqi problems and to remove
the shibboleth of an ongoing occupying army making decisions that
should be left to Iraqis?
Despite what may have been said these past few days, our amendment is
not about cutting and running. Rather,

[[Page S6215]]

our amendment acknowledges that staying the course is a strategy that
shows no promise of success, and it is time to change that strategy.
There remains a thunderstorm of conflicting forces over much of Iraq.
Questing for dominance are al-Qaida, nationalistic Baathists left over
from the days of Saddam's tyranny, and an array of rival religious
armies.
The battle lines are as uncertain and diverse as are the competing
objectives of the various combatants. True, there have been some other
positive developments. Iraq finally put a constitutional government in
place last month, 5 months after the December 15 election.
After extensive deliberation and debate, the Iraqi Government is
finally functioning, but much work remains to be done by the Iraqi
people and their elected leaders, for only they can ultimately defeat
the forces that have left the Iraqi nation on the brink of civil war.
There are now over 260,000 Iraqi military and police personnel who have
been trained and equipped, well over three-quarters of the way to
reaching the Pentagon's stated goal of establishing an Iraqi force of
325,000 troops. Of the 102 operational Iraqi Army combat battalions, 69
are either in the lead or operating independently. That is over 60,000
soldiers.
Now that Iraqis have assumed the reins of control, it is critical
that the United States not be caught in the middle of the ongoing
carnage, sectarian violence, and civil strife.
I believe strongly that our mission in Iraq needs to change--train
police and military, provide necessary infrastructure assistance,
advise when asked--but now that the entire Iraqi leadership is in
place, it is time for the phased redeployment promised last year in
this bill to begin.
Our amendment calls on the administration to prepare and present to
Congress and the American people by the end of this year a plan
outlining the steps needed to proceed with the redeployment of our
troops, either back to the United States or to other critical areas of
potential terrorist conflict around the globe.
This amendment would place the Senate on record asking that the
President expedite the transition of U.S. forces in Iraq to a limited
presence and confine the mission to training and providing logistical
support to Iraqi security forces.
We request the President to begin the phased redeployment of forces
this year. It would ask that the President submit a plan to the
Congress by the end of 2006 with estimated--estimated--days for the
continued phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Is this too
much to ask 3 years and 3 months into the most costly conflict the
United States has yet entered into?

It would also ask the President to convene an international
conference to bring together the international community to discuss and
implement a strategy to assisting Iraq's development and
infrastructure.
This amendment also calls on the Iraqi Government to, one, achieve a
broad-based and sustainable political settlement within its own groups
of people; two, share political power and economic resources among all
Iraqi groups; three, develop a unifying constitution; and, four, disarm
the militias and remove members of the Iraqi security forces whose
loyalty to the new government is in doubt.
Moreover, and most importantly, it is increasingly clear that the
Iraqis themselves wish to see a structured downsizing of American
troops in their country. Why don't we listen?
Senator Clinton eloquently pointed this out, and it bears repeating.
The new Iraqi National Security Adviser first said a week ago, and then
more recently in a Washington Post op-ed just yesterday, that the Iraqi
Government hopes that by year's end, United States troop levels will be
under 100,000, and that most of the remaining troops will return home
by the end of 2007.
We don't make accusations of the Iraqi National Security Adviser. I
have a hard time understanding why the opposite side makes accusations
of us when we simply say we agree with the Iraqis, whose business it is
to know this, chart this, advise this, and carry this out.
He states unequivocally that Iraq's ambition is to have full control
of his country by the end of 2008. He says: The removal of coalition
troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see our troops
as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be.
Members, this is the Iraqi National Security Adviser saying that the
Iraqi people now see our troops as occupiers rather than the liberators
they were once meant to be. This is a point worthy of serious
consideration by this body.
Al-Rubaie goes on to suggest that such a drawdown: ``Will legitimize
Iraq's government in the eyes of its people'' and ``strengthen it to
last the full 4 years it is supposed to.'' A drawdown, he says, will
legitimize Iraq's Government in the eyes of its people and strengthen
it to last the 4 years it is supposed to. Why don't we listen?
And he concludes yesterday's op-ed by stating--and I find this
eloquent:

Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States and
the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions,
learn from its own mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to
Iraqi problems, with the knowledge that our friends and
allies are standing by with support and help should we need
it.

This is exactly what this legislation would do. If the Iraqi National
Security Adviser is willing to put forward goals and timetables for the
downsizing of the American troop presence in Iraq, why shouldn't the
President of the United States?
I hope this body will join together in a bipartisan fashion, as we
did last year, and call for the redeployment and transition of the
United States mission in Iraq beginning this year. Three years and 3
months. This hasn't been 30 days, it hasn't been 60 days or 90 days. It
has been 3 years and 3 months with ``stay the course,'' and things get
worse and worse. Now we have the National Security Adviser in Iraq
saying essentially exactly what the amendment before us today says. Are
we going to listen to him or do we think we know better?
I believe this is the right thing to do for our troops who have
sacrificed so much. It is the right thing to do for their families who
wait anxiously for them to return home. It is the right thing to do for
the overwhelming majority of the American people who have stated
clearly their desire for a change of course in Iraq.
I believe it is the right thing to do for the Iraqi people. They are
prepared to stand up. They are prepared to handle their own destiny. I
believe Iraq should be for Iraqis.
Thank you, and I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield myself just a minute or two. I
listened carefully, as I do to all the comments made by my colleagues,
and I believe I heard my distinguished colleague from California say
that the most costly war ever is the one we are engaged in.
I would like to remind my colleague and all those listening and all
in America--we deeply grieve the 2,500 lives we have lost thus far and
the 18,000 wounded--but I remember so well when I was but 17 or just
turned 18. I was in the Navy during the last battle of World War II;
just one of those battles in World War II. I was in the training
command at that time awaiting my orders to go to the Pacific. It began
on Easter Sunday morning, and it ended 81 days later. One battle, 81
days, in 1945. Let me tell my colleague what America suffered. Twelve
thousand men, and I expect some women, were killed or missing and never
accounted for; 38,000 were wounded, 763 aircraft were lost, 368 U.S.
naval ships either sunk or were severely damaged.
We have to be cautious and put this conflict in context with the
sacrifices that Americans have made. That was just one battle in World
War II. The casualties eventually went over a half a million. That was
only one battle.
As we look at this conflict, yes, we grieve the losses, but we have
to maintain this steadfast commitment, as we did in World War II, to
put an end to this tyranny of terrorism. If not, we will not see
casualties like Okinawa in any military conflict in the years to come
between soldiers, sailors, airmen, and their counterparts, but we could
see those casualties here at home if these terrorists acquire weapons
of mass destruction or are given places in the world to have their
training camps, and if they perceive that this Nation is in any way
wavering its commitment to fight terrorism in every aspect we can.
So I would say to my dear colleague, I don't think this is the most
costly

[[Page S6216]]

war ever, as I believe the record will reflect.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, may I respond to that?
Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would respond just for a brief moment. I believe
the total cost of World War II was $210 billion in real dollars. The
cost thus far of just Iraq has been $320 billion; and if we include
Afghanistan, my understanding is it is about $370 billion. So I did not
mean it in terms of lives lost; I meant it in terms of dollars spent.
Mr. WARNER. Well, that was not clear in the statement that you made.
You used the word ``cost.'' I did not put down the cost of all the
military equipment of the wars. But I think when we look at cost, we
should think of lives expended. And we are here today exercising that
freedom from that generation of World War II, the generation that
fought in Korea, the generation that fought in Vietnam, and the
generation that is fighting today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to start my remarks in
opposition to this resolution by sharing the story of Marine First
Lieutenant David Lewis from Spring, TX. Following participation in the
Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M University, he was commissioned on August
10, 2001. He wanted to serve his country, and he found very quickly
after he graduated that he would have that opportunity.
Lieutenant Lewis has served two terms in Iraq, two tours in Operation
Iraqi Freedom I and II. During his second tour, on August 5, 2004,
Lieutenant Lewis was badly wounded in Najaf, while leading his platoon
of 35 Marines into conflict against a group of insurgents. A rocket-
propelled grenade grazed off his helmet and exploded, leaving him
blinded and severely wounded. He survived the blast, and following
numerous surgeries after returning home, he has regained partial vision
in one eye. He was awarded the Purple Heart, and the Navy and Marine
Corps Commendation Medal with V for his service.
But he still wanted to serve his country. He was frustrated by the
negative image of the war portrayed by the media. So Lieutenant Lewis
came to Washington and applied for a job on my staff. And I am very
pleased to report that he is sitting with me on the floor today, a
valuable member of my staff.
Lieutenant Lewis, like so many of his brothers and sisters in the
Armed Forces, has sacrificed for our country, none more than the three
who were ambushed just last week and have given the ultimate sacrifice
for our country. Private First Class Menchaca from Houston, TX, Private
First Class Tucker from Madras, OR, and Specialist David Babineau from
Springfield, MA. We are horrified by what we have heard of the deaths
of Private First Class Menchaca and Private First Class Tucker. My
thoughts and prayers go out to them and their families. But I cannot
imagine anything worse than what has already happened to those two
people and their families, along with Specialist Babineau and
Lieutenant Lewis, I cannot imagine anything worse than for us to pass a
resolution that says we are going to stop our commitment because we
just can't take it anymore. It is like saying, the cause for which they
have paid such a price really wasn't worth sticking with it.
This war on terror must be won at all costs. If we step back and say
we are willing to walk away because times are too tough, we have
jeopardized the 2,502 who have given the ultimate sacrifice in this war
on terror. Furthermore, we are giving away the security of future
generations. We are saying that we are not going to protect freedom
because it might be too tough.
If we did this, the terrorists would surely be emboldened. They
attacked us, according to Osama bin Laden, on 9/11 because of our
reaction to previous attacks: The USS Cole, the bombings of our
embassies in East Africa, Somalia, the bombing of Khobar Towers, and
the first attacks on the World Trade Center. We treated it like this
was going to be a criminal case, and we had to have justice in court.
The terrorists got the message that America's attention span wouldn't
last very long, not long enough certainly to see through an entire war
on these people who would take away the freedom of our children.
I cannot imagine telling the terrorists that if times get too tough,
if you are too horrible, if you do things that we cannot even imagine
because we are a civilized society, we are going to turn around and run
away. I cannot imagine saying that America will not have the stamina to
stand up and fight and win a war at all costs for the freedom of future
generations.
That is the message we would send to our enemies. What about the
message we would send to our allies? You know, this resolution and
previous resolutions have called on President Bush to get more
international involvement in the war on terror. I know President Bush
has tried to get international involvement, and we have international
involvement. But what country would ever step up to the plate and be by
the side of the United States of America in the future if we say: We
are going to set a timetable, and if it gets too tough we are going to
leave, but we sure appreciate your coming and being with us, until it
gets too hard? That cannot be the role of the greatest country on
Earth. If we show that kind of weakness, we will no longer have allies,
and we will certainly have plenty of enemies.
If we establish a timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq by
the end of the year or by July of next year, we are handing the enemy
our playbook. We would be saying that in 194 days our commitment is
going to end. Why they picked 194 days to say that our attention span
would last, I don't know. But it would be 194 days for the Government
of Iraq to get up and going, for the security forces to be trained, 194
days to root out the insurgency, and 194 days to stand beside our
allies and by the Government that is forming in Iraq. That is not the
role of the United States of America.
It has been mentioned on the floor that there is an opinion piece in
the Washington Post yesterday from an Iraqi adviser saying Iraq needs
to learn from its mistakes and Iraq needs to stand on its own. No one
wants Iraq to be able to stand on its own more than the United States
of America. We have shown that. But does anyone in this body believe
that Iraq is totally in control of Iraqis today? Does anyone believe
there are not insurgents and agitators from other parts of the world?
Al-Qaida? Iran? Other terrorist organizations that have come into Iraq
for the specific purpose of destabilizing that country?
If you do believe it is just Iraqis who are there and if everyone
else leaves they will be able to settle their differences, then this
resolution would be just fine. But that is just a fantasy. Of course
there are insurgents from other parts of the world. Of course there is
al-Qaida right in the middle of Iraq. The last thing the terrorists
want is a stabilized Iraq. That is why they are fighting so hard. So we
would say to this fledgling Government that has just been able to get
on its feet but is still struggling, that has trained soldiers but not
nearly enough because the insurgents continue to bomb their police
headquarters and recruiting headquarters, we would say to them: We are
going to leave you on your own and hope for the best.
Can you imagine what would happen in Iraq if America says we are
leaving at the end of this year, we are going to start to pull out
troops, and then we are going to finish by July of next year or
whatever date would be determined by the authors of this amendment? Who
would be in control of Iraq? Anybody who believes that it would be
Iraqis, with the condition they are in, is just not looking at the
reality. So I cannot think of anything worse that I could say to the
family of Private Menchaca, from Houston, TX, or his 18-year-old wife
who is with her family, than--the very week that this young man paid a
terrible price for a cause he believed in--that we are not really
committed to the cause. I cannot imagine anything more disheartening to
Lieutenant Lewis, who has already served twice in Iraq and wanted to
come and do more for his country, than to say: I am glad you are
committed, but the Senate just isn't there with you.
No. No. The United States of America and the Senate representing the
50 States of this Nation must not pass a resolution that would walk
away from our commitment to the cause of freedom for the citizens of
the United

[[Page S6217]]

States, because that is what is at stake here. It is not the Iraqi
people alone in this fight. We are fighting terrorists on their turf.
We have not had an attack in the United States of America because we
have been vigilant in keeping them on their turf, containing them on
their turf, and building up our homeland security at the same time. We
must keep the word and the commitment of the greatest Nation on Earth,
and we must keep the trust of the people that we are going to keep the
will to fight for freedom for their children and their children's
children. That is what is at stake in this resolution.
I urge my colleagues to think of the consequences of cutting and
running from a fight that is much bigger than the stabilization of
Iraq. It is for the freedom and the way of life of Americans and our
allies throughout the world.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would you advise the managers as to the
allocation of time still remaining under the control of each?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 1 hour 14 minutes; the
minority has 1 hour 26 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Salazar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of
the Levin-Reed amendment on our Iraq policy.
The United States of America has already invested mightily in helping
the Iraqi people. It is now time for the United States to make a clear
and specific statement that the Iraqi people must assume the
responsibility for finding Iraqi solutions to the challenges they face.
Indeed, that is exactly what the Iraqi government has said it wants.
Just a few days ago, the new Iraqi National Security Advisor, Mowaffak
al-Rubaie, stated that the Iraqi government anticipates some drawdown
in U.S. troop numbers by the end of this year and continuing in 2007.
He also said:

The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi government
to engage with some of our neighbors that have to date been
at the very least sympathetic to the resistance because of
what they call the ``coalition occupation.''

Finally, he made the statement:

The removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's
government in the eyes of its people.
The security adviser continued and essentially said that there would
be a gradual transition from the American troop presence there in Iraq.
So our amendment builds on what the Iraqi Government is telling us that
they want.
America has invested life, blood, and treasure in Iraq over the past
3\1/2\ years. Mr. President, 2,506 U.S. servicemen and women have been
killed; Over 18,500 servicemen and women have been wounded: and some
$320 billion taxpayer dollars have been appropriated.
We all recognize that U.S. forces cannot and should not remain in
Iraq indefinitely. Yesterday the House of Representatives voted
overwhelmingly to retain language indicating that the U.S. will not
construct permanent bases in Iraq precisely because they wanted to send
a signal to Americans and to Iraqis--we don't plan on staying forever.
Last year the Senate joined together in calling for 2006 to be the
year of transition in Iraq. That was a positive step, one that helped
bring unity and cohesion to a debate too often marked by partisan
rancor. Now we can take another constructive step together by
supporting this well-thought-out amendment.
The Levin-Reed amendment affirms the statement that the Senate made
last year: 2006 should be a year of transition in Iraq. It asks the
President to present a flexible plan for that ongoing transition--one
that can give some shape and direction to the oft-repeated mantra that
``as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.''
Let me just outline what this amendment does.
It states that an open-ended commitment in Iraq is unsustainable, and
urges the following actions be undertaken to help the American people
and the Iraqi people achieve success.
The Iraqis should take steps to promote more power sharing in Iraq,
including through Constitutional changes, to avert civil conflict.
The President of the United States should convene an international
summit on Iraq to increase burden-sharing in efforts to stabilize the
country.
The government of Iraq should disarm militias and insist on integrity
in the Iraqi armed forces and police.
The U.S. President should begin the transition of U.S. forces to a
limited, three-fold mission. That mission would involve continued
training of Iraqi forces, protecting U.S. assets and personnel, and
targeted counter-terrorism activities, and by the end of 2006, the
President should submit a plan to Congress for continuing the phased
redeployment.
The U.S. should continue heavy diplomatic engagement in Iraq for the
foreseeable future.
The President should assess the impact that our operations in Iraq
are having on the overall US campaign against terrorism worldwide.
One thing that has become apparent in recent months is that many
Americans are losing confidence in our Iraq policy--not in our
servicemen and women, but in our policy. I know that history tells us
that the U.S. is most successful in undertakings of this magnitude and
difficulty when the American people are wholeheartedly behind the
effort. It is my sincere hope that this amendment, and the plan for
phased redeployment appropriate to conditions on the ground that it
calls for, will help contribute to success in Iraq by giving the
American people new confidence that we are moving toward a clear
destination, along a distinct path.
It is precisely because I recognize that stability in Iraq is
important, and because I want this mission to succeed, that I am
pleased to cosponsor this amendment. The only path to sustainable
stability in Iraq requires Iraqis assuming responsibility for their own
security and making the political accommodations necessary to avert
civil war. The U.S. cannot do this for them. An open-ended policy in
Iraq is not helping matters--it is letting extremist and divisive
elements hide behind the cloak of nationalism, and it is providing a
rationale for postponing tough choices which must be made by the Iraqi
people.
And so those who would rather engage in mudslinging, those who would
rather politicize this vital national security issue than deal with the
reality that the only choices before us are tough choices, need to
think again. We all in this Chamber, I believe, want success in Iraq.
We need to work with the democratically-elected Iraqi government to get
there. This amendment is in step with their vision.
I want to succeed in Iraq, and I also want our broader foreign policy
goal to succeed--the goal of defeating the terrorist networks that wish
to do us harm. It is precisely because I am concerned about the
consequences for our national security of an open-ended commitment to
keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq that I support
the Levin-Reed amendment. The fight against terrorism is a global
endeavor, and for years Iraq has been sucking up most the resources,
the troops, and the political will and capital in this room. This
amendment calls on the administration to responsibly assess and adjust
our policies so that we don't strain our military to the breaking point
even as a global struggle rages on for years and perhaps decades to
come.
The very fact that this amendment is likely to be criticized from
both sides in the Iraq debate is, in my view, an endorsement of its
language. This amendment rejects any call for an immediate withdrawal,
because that would be irresponsible and would not serve our national
interests. A failed Iraqi state would further destabilize an already
volatile region, creating a lasting haven for terrorists. Our national
security imperatives mandate our commitment to Iraq's success. There is
no cutting, there is no running in this language. There is no deadline.
There is no arbitrary timeframe.
But it also rejects the fingers-crossed, stay the meandering-course
approach favored by those whose strategy seems to involve little more
than hoping for the best. Optimism is a terrific attitude, but it's not
a policy.

[[Page S6218]]

Success in Iraq is dependent on several factors: controlling
violence, creating a stable government of national unity, delivering
basic services and the promise of economic development to the Iraqi
people, and establishing strong and supportive relations between Iraq
and its neighbors in the region. If any of these pillars are missing,
Iraq's future becomes uncertain and unstable. America can help, but
ultimately the Iraqis must achieve these goals on their own.
This amendment calls for us to begin shifting that responsibility,
even as we work to shore up international cooperation and support and
reaffirm our commitment to intense ongoing engagement.
Since I became a United States Senator, I have twice traveled to Iraq
to get a better sense of the status of our mission. Each time, I have
been overwhelmed with admiration for our servicemen and women who are
serving so honorably, and who, along with their families, are
sacrificing so much.
I am so proud of our troops and we must do right by them. Sitting on
our hands while policy drifts from one goal and mission to another with
no end in sight just isn't good enough. By the end of this year, we
will have been in Iraq nearly as long as we were engaged in World War
II, but as sectarian violence is on the rise, the picture is getting
murkier and murkier. Congress needs to get into the mix--but to get in
responsibly. I hope that my colleagues, both those who support this
amendment and those who find fault with it, will engage in this debate
in that spirit. Our men and women in uniform, and the American people,
deserve nothing less.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oregon up to
10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, since the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq,
2,808 American men and women have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Of that
number, 63 are Oregonians, or those who have Oregon ties. There are 63
patriots among that total.
I rise today to honor them, but I also feel compelled to come here
this afternoon to pay particular honor to Tom Tucker who recently lost
his life and to do what I can through my words to assuage in some
possible way, if possible, the grief of his parents, Wes and Meg Tucker
of Madras, OR. Army PVT Thomas Tucker was born in Pineville, OR, in
central Oregon, in the beautiful rimrock country of that part of our
State. He grew up in Madras and graduated from Madras High School in
1999. He worked in a variety of jobs before feeling the call to serve
his country and enlisted in the U.S. Army in July of 2005. He was
attached to the First Battalion of the 502nd Infantry Regiment of the
Second Brigade, 101st Airborne Division. He has been in Iraq since
February of 2006.
When word came through that he had been taken hostage by al-Qaida
fighters in Iraq, I called his father Wes. I wasn't very far into the
conversation when it was clear to me that I was talking to a dad who
was also a patriot, was proud of his son and fearful for the
consequences that may befall him.
The worst-of-all news came out when the whole country, and
particularly my State, learned not only that Thomas had given his life
but that he had been tortured, that his body had been defiled and had
been booby-trapped to take the lives of other American soldiers.
I have no words sufficient to tell the Tucker family how truly sorry
I am for the extent of their loss. Yet I stand in awe and amazement
that this morning on the NBC ``Today'' program there came Wes Tucker's
face. And he said: ``Our son, as far as we are concerned, has died for
the freedom of everyone in the United States.''
I could not agree with him more.
Wes and Meg Tucker are made of sterner stuff. They did not blame the
President. They did not blame the military. They simply acknowledged
that their son was in the service of his country knowing the risk and
willing to sacrifice it all.
I salute them, and I will never forget them or their son.
I am told by news accounts that Madras, OR, a town of 6,000 people,
has now become a family of 6,000 people, gathering around the Tucker
family, to offer whatever consolation they can and the support that is
required, to let the Tucker family know that their son is an American
hero now and forever.
Many wonder, what did Tom die for? I believe, as his father said,
that he died for his country, that he died for freedom's sake, and the
cause of freedom is one that comes with a very high price. It has hit
home hard in Oregon today.
Al-Qaida is a serpent with many heads. It found Tom, and in finding
him revealed the ugliness, the barbarity, the brutality of the enemy
that we face.
Understand, al-Qaida's words in this war, their purposes, their
intentions, their objectives are to create--these are not George Bush's
words, these are their words--a new califate in the Middle East such as
existed for several centuries, ranging from Spain as far as Pakistan,
to establish sharia law.
If you want to know what sharia law is, look at the governments of
the Taliban and the brutality that attended their government. It is for
the extermination of the state of Israel, and it is for the holding
hostage of western civilization. I believe Tom Tucker died in
opposition to these hideous aims of our enemies on Earth today.
Anyone who believes that America does not have a stake in this is
deeply mistaking themselves.
During my first term in the U.S. Senate I served on the Foreign
Relations Committee. I wasn't on that committee long until I was simply
amazed and overwhelmed in terms of my schedule by the number of foreign
leaders who sought out an audience in my office seeking trade, aid, and
military alliance with the United States.
I used to wonder, why do they come to us? Why must we solve their
problems? It was evident because they knew America had values for which
it was willing to pay a high price.
So I have to ask, why us? And history's answer is, why not us?
In the 20th century, the United States of America and a number of our
stalwart friends--the British come quickly to mind--have filled the
void to stop tyranny when our defense, first, our interests, our values
and our allies required our help. It is no different now in 21st
century.
We all want our kids to come home. I pray for that daily. And I am
thankful that their numbers are declining and that they are coming
home.
What this debate is about and the difference we share with our
friends on the other side of the aisle is simply the wisdom of
announcing a date for withdrawal.
As I have studied history, I have never found an instance whereby
victory is won by announcing retreat. Wisdom counsels, I believe, that
we hold our cards closer to our vest.
Al-Qaida is counting on us to go home just as they cite in their Web
sites our retreat from Beirut, our inaction in the face of innumerable,
outrageous terrorist attacks during the 1990s--and they took it all for
weakness.
I want our kids to come home. But I want us to see the ugly face of
al-Qaida and understand the deadliness and earnestness of their
purposes and how antithetical they are to the future of this Nation and
to the future of our children and to the civilization that we enjoy in
such abundance in this blessed land.
Al-Qaida is counting on us to set a date. It is for that reason that
I will vote against any amendment that sets a date.
I want to express to my colleagues on the other side that the
rhetoric is too heated. When I hear things like ``Bush lied, kids
died,'' or even on our side, ``retreat''--and whatever the mantra is--
my soul cries out for something more dignified.
I don't believe their dissent is unpatriotic. I simply believe it to
be unwise. It is a tactical mistake of monumental proportions.
I do not know how long the war on terror will go. But I do know that
we have an interest in it. We learned that interest on 9/11. We learn
that interest with the death of every soldier.
I yield the floor with a plea that we keep our tactics to ourselves
and that we understand that America will not be defeated but that we
can defeat ourselves.

[[Page S6219]]

I urge opposition to the Levin amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say to my colleague, what a truly heartfelt, remarkable set of
comments. I thank the Senator for contributing to this important
debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from
Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I begin my remarks, by coincidence, I am
following my good friend from Oregon, Gordon Smith. It is purely by
coincidence that we are lined up to address our thoughts on this
important and most critical issue facing our country. I say to my
colleague from Oregon, my opening comments are exactly the Senator's
closing comments.
I plead with my colleagues during the remaining hours of this debate
to try to stay away from the personal attacks and the mindless use of
labels that we are tempted to gravitate to in order to impassion our
constituencies. Such approaches do little to contribute to an
understanding of the important subject before the Senate.
The Senator from Oregon eloquently described the loss of Thomas
Tucker and of Kristian Menchaca from Houston, TX, the insane and
hideous loss of life, and how it occurred. These young men and the
2,500 others who have lost their lives, along with the 18,000 who have
been permanently injured, deserve better than some of the rhetoric and
some of the discussion I have heard over the last number of days in
talking about this issue.
I believe all 100 Senators in this Chamber care deeply about what
happens to our men and women in uniform. I don't question for a single
minute the patriotism of a single colleague. While we may disagree
about how to successfully conduct our policies with respect to Iraq, we
all deserve to give to our constituencies an intelligent discussion of
these matters rather than resort to language of ``cut and run'' or
``lie and die'' or other such talk. It is that kind of rhetoric which
causes most of our constituents to become disgusted with Congress.
I may disagree with my colleague from Oregon over the Levin
amendment. In fact, I am a cosponsor of this amendment, and I believe
Carl Levin and Jack Reed have put us on the right track, which I am
going to explain. I can fully respect those with a different point of
view in all of this, while disagreeing with them. I do not question for
a minute any Senator's goals or patriotism. I hope the rest of my
colleagues over the remaining hours will conduct themselves
accordingly. Before giving your speech, read the speech of Gordon Smith
and then decide whether you are going to engage in the kind of talk you
may have prepared in your remarks in this Senate.
I thank Carl Levin, Jack Reed, and others who put this amendment
together, which I have asked to be a supporter of. It is a major step
in getting our Iraq policy headed in the right direction. I also thank
our colleagues who met on numerous occasions over the last several
weeks, to have discussions about how best to frame this amendment. They
were thoughtful discussions which I was pleased to participate in with
Senators Carl Levin, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Jack Reed, Dianne
Feinstein, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, and Russ Feingold. The Levin
amendment is a consensus product of those conversations. Any one of us
developing an amendment on this subject might have done it somewhat
differently, emphasized some ideas more than others, included more
specificity in the information we are seeking from the President with
respect to benchmarks and a timeframe for the significant redeployment
of U.S. forces from Iraq. But I believe that the amendment that emerged
from that process is useful for a serious and important debate on the
need to begin the process of redeploying our forces this year from Iraq
and turning over full responsibility for governing that country to
Iraq's democratically elected leaders.
I believe very strongly that it is very appropriate we begin any
discussion about Iraq by first commending our men and women in uniform
who have served so nobly there. Whatever else your views may be, it is
critically important that they know this great Senate respects and
honors their service. Our men and women in uniform have performed with
honor, bravery, and skill in attempting to bring order and stability
into the post-Saddam Iraq. They have put themselves in harm's way, as I
said a moment ago. More than 2,500 of our sons and daughters have given
their lives serving our Nation. Thousands more have suffered life-
altering injuries. The American people and the Iraqi people owe them,
more than any other group, in my view, a great debt of gratitude for
their service.
We in Congress must continue to provide them with every resource to
ensure they return home safely and as expeditiously as possible.
Whatever disagreements may arise during the course of our debate about
the administration's Iraq policy, those disagreements should in no way
be interpreted as criticisms of our troops. Every one of my colleagues,
as I said a moment ago, cares deeply and respects deeply the service of
these men and women in uniform.
Our disagreement with the President and his administration is that we
believed we were misled in 2002 about the rationale for going to war in
Iraq. There was hyped intelligence, cherrypicking of intelligence data
to paint a picture of a threat, in my view, that did not exist at the
time. That is and was unconscionable.
After the war began, the President continued to mislead America about
the course of the war, the adequacy of planning, the postwar
reconstruction, and the bill the American people would be asked to pay
for the cost of U.S. involvement. Key members of the administration
played critical roles in disseminating information that was inaccurate.
I have said on a number of occasions that if I had known then what I
know now--namely, that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass
destruction--I would not have given the President my vote for a
resolution to use force in Iraq. I doubt there would have been a vote
had all Members been aware of the information we now know exists.
Having said all of that, it is not possible to turn back the clock.
We are where we are with respect to our involvement in Iraq. Sectarian
violence has now outpaced that of foreign jihadists and ex-Baathists
and insurgents as the greatest threat confronting American and Iraqi
forces and Iraqi civilians. Ethnic mistrust, according to a recent
cable from our Ambassador in Iraq to Secretary of State Rice, is
increasingly ripping that country apart at the seams. That is from our
Ambassador in Baghdad.
According to that same cable from our Ambassador--and I am not
quoting, but this is the substance--the Iraqi people largely blame,
unfortunately, the United States for the current situation, seeing
their own Government as a puppet of the United States and believing
that much of the violence in Iraq is being allowed by the United States
as a type of retribution for the problems we faced in our mission to
Iraq. Those are not my views but the views expressed by the American
Ambassador in Baghdad writing to the Secretary of State saying this is
how we are perceived. I strongly object to that kind of conclusion, but
that is the conclusion of our Ambassador.
Iraq's economy is also in a shambles. Three years after major combat
operations ended, the Iraqi infrastructure remains inadequate by every
measure. Oil production, electricity generation, and the availability
of clean water are all below prewar levels. Schools and hospitals lack
adequate supplies and personnel. No matter how the administration tries
to paint the picture, the reality which we all accept and know is that
the chaos in Iraq is transparent and it is growing.
Most importantly, Iraq's elected Government is now poised to
function, but only after 5 months of political haggling over key
Cabinet and sub-Cabinet posts. That is the reality, colleagues, that
the U.S. policy must now address in Iraq.

To be fair, there has been some good news. Over the last 10 days,
particularly with the announcement that U.S. forces were able to detect
and eliminate the Jordanian terrorist Abu

[[Page S6220]]

Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's henchman in Iraq and the architect of the
brutal attacks against U.S. military personnel and Iraqi civilians
alike. We can be justifiably proud, and should be, of how the United
States and Iraqi forces, together, carried out this extremely dangerous
and important mission. It is also a positive development that the Iraqi
Government is now as its full capacity, with all Cabinet positions
filled, particularly the critical national security posts. That is the
good news. It is important to cite that as well.
Now that this Government of Iraq is a reality, it is also an
important and appropriate moment for U.S. policymakers to take stock of
our policy in Iraq and consider the next steps to turning over full
responsibility to Iraq's democratically elected government.
Let me remind our colleagues, last year, President Bush signed into
law as part of the fiscal year 2006 Defense Authorization Act a
provision that states:

Calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant
transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security
forces taking the lead for the security of a free and
sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the
phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.

I commend, as I should have at the outset, the chairman of the
committee, my good friend from Virginia, John Warner. He has done a
wonderful job allowing debate in the committee, bringing witnesses
forward, allowing dissent to occur where appropriate, and authoring
this language last year in that Defense authorization bill which the
President signed into law calling for this year to be a year of
transition. Those words were important. They were not crafted in a
cavalier fashion; they were put together carefully in a bipartisan
fashion as a message to the American people and to the Iraqi people and
their Government. This year--2006--would be a year of transition for
Iraq's leaders to assume greater responsibility over security matters
and other challenges facing their country.
There have now been national elections in Iraq. A permanent broad-
based government has been formed. It is important that the Iraqis now
take on a significant role in establishing domestic security.
Ultimately, a solution in Iraq will not be achieved through U.S.
military action alone but, rather, through the political will and
substantive action on the part of the new Iraqi Government to bring
various factions in their country together.
In short, the future of Iraq ultimately rests with the Iraqi people,
not with U.S. military might, not with the size of our treasury, but on
the resolve of the Iraqi people and their leaders. That is where their
future rests. Let's be clear however about our role in that process.
We should continue to assist this nascent Government in Iraq during
these difficult times. But at the same time, we must also refocus the
nature of that assistance if we are going to succeed and if Iraq is
going to succeed. Iraq's problems are essentially political problems
that call out for political solutions. It is becoming increasingly
evident, I think to all of us, that a continuing substantial U.S. troop
presence in and around Iraqi cities is not the answer at all. In fact,
the road to any success in Iraq will be contingent on a lessening of
U.S. military presence, if, in fact, the U.S. Ambassador is right in
his message to our Secretary of State. And having visited Iraq on two
occasions I believe he is right.
We have won the larger war against Iraq's dictator but at no small
cost. It has been a successful effort in that regard. Saddam has been
toppled and is on trial. A new democratically elected Iraqi Government
is now in place. Al-Zarqawi has been killed. Those are successes.
The remaining mission, however, of stabilizing Iraq and bringing
factions together is something that can only be done by Iraq's new
Government and its citizens. An indefinite and prolonged U.S. troop
presence in that country is quickly reaching a point of diminishing
returns.
I am a realist and an optimist. I recognize American involvement in
Iraq and the gulf region will be required for years to come. It is a
very important neighborhood in which we have very important interests.
It is a dangerous neighborhood, as well. And we have vital national
interests at stake there. But we have other important global interests,
as well; among these combating the threat of global terrorism and
terrorist organizations. Global terrorism is and remains our greatest
threat.
In that context, I don't think it is unpatriotic or otherwise
inappropriate for the supporters of the pending amendment to ask
President Bush to tell the American people, tell the U.S. Congress,
when and how he plans to successfully conclude the U.S. military
presence in Iraq so that U.S. forces can be redeployed to more
effectively combat global terrorism and protect our vital national
interests.
Why was it reasonable and appropriate for the administration to set
deadlines for Iraqis and unreasonable to set deadlines for itself? The
Bush administration set a deadline for the establishment of an interim
government, a deadline for writing a Constitution and for holding a
referendum to approve it, and a deadline for holding elections for a
permanent Iraqi government. Guess what. It worked. The Iraqi political
leadership met the challenges. It wasn't always easy and the process
wasn't perfect, but it produced results because we insisted upon those
deadlines. In fact, I would argue had we not set deadlines, I believe
we would be facing a very different picture in Iraq today.
I believe U.S. interests in Iraq can be advanced by developing
benchmarks and a timeframe for getting done what needs to be done to
produce the success we all need and want in Iraq. I don't mean to
suggest that U.S. forces should in any way be precipitously redeployed
from Iraq next week or next month--that would be a mistake, in my
view--but I do believe it is imperative for planning purposes to think
about benchmarks and a realistic timeframe within which U.S. force
levels can be significantly reduced below the current level of 130,000.

The benchmarks are fairly obvious: a unity government that equitably
represents the interests of and distributes resources to all sectors of
Iraq; professionalism of Iraq's security and police forces; disbanding
of sectarian militias; the creation of a gulf regional security
umbrella to enhance stability and deter unwanted interference by
Iraqi's neighbors; and greater international participation and
resources in Iraq's reconstruction agenda.
These are all obvious and necessary benchmarks. The more quickly the
benchmarks are realized, the more hopeful we can be for Iraq's future.
It is both realistic and, in my view, possible to achieve these
benchmarks within the next 12 to 18 months. Whether we achieve them
depends on the determination of the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi
people to assume responsibility for their shared future--not on the
military might of the United States.
And in conjunction with such progress, I think it is also realistic
and possible to undertake the phased strategic redeployment of our
forces from Iraq to other nations in the gulf and to other regions
posing significant terrorist threats to our country. The details of any
redeployment should appropriately be left to our military commanders on
the ground to work out, in consultation with Iraqi leaders. This is a
very critical and central point. Let me repeat it. The details of any
redeployment should be appropriately left to our military commanders on
the ground to work out, in consultation with Iraqi leaders. But we must
no longer remain in an open-ended commitment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 1 additional minute to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. The Iraqis are going to have to take responsibility for
their future. This, in my view, is a strategy for success in Iraq. This
is a reasoned and responsible approach. It is realistic. This is not
cut-and-run. The alternative is for more of the same, in my view--
endless occupation, violence, instability, and the erosion of America's
global leadership and national security.
I do not underestimate the challenges facing the Iraqi people. They

[[Page S6221]]

will need to make an extraordinary effort in the coming months and
years to secure their future. But we have been giving them the
necessary tools to do so. Let's not forget when the President signed
the Defense authorization bill into law last year, again, those words:
This should be the year of transition.
We have given the Iraqis the necessary tools. Now it is up to them.
The sage words of Benjamin Franklin, following the success of the 1787
Constitutional Convention come to mind in thinking about Iraq at this
moment in history. When Franklin was approached by a Mrs. Powell of
Philadelphia on the streets of Philadelphia and said to him: What have
you given us?--Ben Franklin said to that woman: Mrs. Powell, we have
given you ``a republic, if you can keep it.'' The Iraqi people are
asking a similar question of us: What have we given them? We have given
them a republic, if they can keep it. But it is up to them to keep it.
I urge the adoption of the Levin amendment. It puts us on the right
road for success.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the terrorists have had a very
difficult almost 5 years since 9/11. That was clearly the high-water
mark, their attack on America, the killing of over 3,000 people.
Ever since that day, they have been on defense because the President,
with widespread support in the Congress, decided to go on offense. And
for the last 4\1/2\ years, we have been killing terrorists, capturing
terrorists. Many are hiding in their caves. We have liberated 50
million people in Afghanistan and Iraq. The number of rogue regimes,
which numbered four when President Bush took office--at that time there
was Libya, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--is now down to two. Libya and
Iraq no longer threaten their neighbors. The terrorists have had a very
difficult 5 years.
Now, the President made it clear at the beginning of this war--and we
all agreed--that there was not going to be a sort of clear end date. I
have heard this conflict compared, by many of our colleagues, to the
length of time in Korea or the length of time in World War II. It seems
to me those comparisons are not apt. They do not apply to the current
war in which we are engaged.
No one predicts a kind of ticker-tape parade at the end of this
conflict. We are dealing with international gangsters who move across
borders, who are adept at using the Internet and other modern means of
communication.
The best way, then, to measure success in the war on terrorism is
this: Have we been attacked again here at home since 9/11? While none
of us would confidently predict that will never happen again, it is
truly remarkable that we have not been attacked again since 9/11. I
wonder why that is. Just good luck? A quirk of fate? Or good policy? It
is no accident we have not been attacked again since 9/11. We have been
on offense going after the terrorists where they are so they have to
confine their mischief to their territory and not here.
So it is a statement of the obvious that they want us out of Iraq.
They saw what happened in Beirut in the 1980s. They saw what happened
in Somalia in the 1990s. In fact, they are anticipating it, and we have
their own words. We have their own words. Ayman al-Zawahiri, No. 2 to
Osama bin Laden, in a message to the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi killed 2
weeks ago in Iraq--last year intercepted by us--this is what al-
Zawahiri had said to say: The Jihad in Iraq requires several
incremental goals . . . The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.
. . . The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority . . . in order
to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans,
immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to
fill this void. . . . The third stage: Extend the Jihad wave to the
secular countries neighboring Iraq . . . the mujahedin must not have
their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq . . .
their ongoing mission is to establish an Islamic state, and defend it,
and for every generation to hand over the banner to the one after it
until the Hour of Resurrection. . . . The Americans will exit soon, God
willing.
We do not have to guess about what their goals are. They have been
quite clear about it--quite clear about it.
So here we are debating which kind of exit date, which kind of
announcement of imminent departure we are going to send in a message to
them.
Our good friend from Massachusetts, the junior Senator from
Massachusetts, has had no less than four different plans over the last
12 months or so. The first plan of the Senator from Massachusetts was
to withdraw 20,000 troops by the end of 2005 and the bulk of troops out
by the end of 2006. That was Senator Kerry's first plan.
Senator Kerry's second plan: to withdraw if the Iraq Government was
not finalized by May 15 of this year. The third plan of the Senator
from Massachusetts, which we had an opportunity to vote on last week,
was to have all the troops out by the end of this year. Fortunately,
only six Senators--six--voted to have all the troops out by the end of
this year.

And tomorrow we will have Senator Kerry's fourth plan, which is to
have the withdrawal consummated by July 1 of next year--about a year
from now.
So four different plans--a kind of floating withdrawal date. But the
one thing all the plans have in common is they send a message to the
other side that if you can hang on until a date certain, we are on the
way out.
We heard the distinguished Senator from Oregon mention earlier he had
not been able to find a single time in history in which setting a
specific time for withdrawal produced a positive result.
One thing we know for sure, if they drive us out of Iraq, they will
soon be back here. If they drive us out of Iraq, they will soon be back
here. And they have already demonstrated they had the capacity, the
intelligence, to carry out catastrophic attacks on us here at home.
We all regret and have great anguish over the death of every single
American soldier. And it is a fact that we have lost 2,500 of our
finest in this war. We revere human life, unlike the gangsters in
Baghdad who mutilated two of our soldiers in the last couple of days.
But it is noteworthy that in liberating 50 million people in
Afghanistan and Iraq, we have lost fewer soldiers than we had Americans
killed in one day on 9/11, 2001, and fewer soldiers than we lost in
Normandy on one day in World War II.
We hurt with every loss, but the losses have been quite minimal given
the enormity of the task. And the job, of course, has not been
completed. We have to keep on offense, keep after the terrorists, or
they will be back here.
So I think this is an extremely important debate. I am glad the
Senate is having it. We have sort of different versions of what kind of
notice we are going to give to the enemy--that we are either on the way
out by a certain day or beginning to pack up to go next door or pack up
to go somewhere else by a certain time.
All of those are not good messages for our own troops, who are
involved in trying to win the conflict, not a good message to the new
Iraqi Government, which is trying to establish itself and get control
of Baghdad, and the worst possible news to every terrorist anywhere in
the world, just aching for an American defeat, after almost 5 years of
a tough situation for them, because they know a lot of their colleagues
are dead, they know some of their colleagues are at Guantanamo, they
know a bunch of their colleagues are hiding in caves, and they know all
the rest of their colleagues are occupied on their turf and not on
ours.
They would love to get back on offense. They would love to come back
over here and kill Americans right here at home. But as long as we are
forward deployed, as long as we are taking out the terrorists where
they are, we are winning the war on terror. But we need to keep
reminding ourselves what the war was about. It was about protecting us
here at home. And so far, I would have to say the policy has been
extraordinarily successful.
This is a great debate. We are going to hear from a number of our
colleagues over the next day or so. When we finally have votes on both
the Levin amendment and the Kerry amendment, I hope they will be
defeated, and it will be made clear to the terrorists, once again, that
we do not intend to send

[[Page S6222]]

them a notice, do not intend to send them a notice that we are on the
way out by a certain date.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend to support the Levin-Reed
amendment, and I also intend to support the Kerry amendment.
Both amendments make clear that Democrats are united in our belief
that it is time to shift to the Iraqis the responsibility for their own
future and to begin to withdraw our troops from Iraq. It is wrong for
the Republican-controlled Congress to be a rubberstamp for the
President's failed policy. We cannot ignore our responsibility to our
men and women in uniform.
America was wrong to go to war in Iraq in the way we did, when we
did, and for the false reasons we were given. There was no immediate
threat. There was no persuasive link to al-Qaida. Saddam Hussein was
not close to acquiring a nuclear weapon.
But as my brother Robert Kennedy said in 1968:

Past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation.

Mindless determination and foolish consistency don't make a better
outcome likely. With each passing day, the American people are growing
more and more impatient with the war in Iraq.
They want a policy worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in
uniform, not sloganeering and accusations of ``cut and run.'' The
American people don't want our troops deployed in Iraq indefinitely,
defending the same flawed strategy. Staying the course is not an
acceptable strategy when the course is a failed course.
Our military forces have now been deployed in Iraq for 39 months,
more than 3 years. That's longer than the 37 months of combat in the
Korean war. By the end of this year, it will be longer than it took to
fight and win World War II.
The American people want a realistic strategy for our troops to be
redeployed out of Iraq, and this amendment provides it. It sends clear
message: now that a democratic government has been elected by the Iraqi
people, it is time for American troops to begin to come home.
We need to view disengagement as part of the solution in Iraq. Our
overwhelming military presence and our open-ended military commitment
have only fueled the insurgency, made America a crutch for the Iraqi
Government, made our country more hated in the world, and made the war
on terrorism harder to win.
The best hope for the success of the new Iraqi Government to succeed
is for us to begin disengaging from Iraq, and they from us. The Iraqi
Government must begin to make its own decisions, make necessary
compromises to avoid full-scale civil war, and take responsibility for
its own future.
As Iraq's National Security Adviser wrote in the Washington Post
yesterday: ``Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States
and the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions, learn
from its own mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems.''
Iraq has had elections, a permanent government has been established,
more than 200,000 members of Iraqi security forces have been trained,
and it is time to begin bringing Americans home. The Levin amendment
and the Kerry amendment can help us achieve that goal and prevent our
troops from being caught in an endless quagmire.
The cost of this war in blood and treasure has been far too great.
More than $320 billion has already been spent, with no end in sight. A
recent estimate by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz
suggests the total cost will exceed $1 trillion.
Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Many soldiers have
been deployed more than three times to Iraq.
More than 2,500 American lives have been lost, including more than 50
sons of Massachusetts. More than 18,000 of our troops have been
wounded. Clearly, despite the death of Zarqawi, al-Qaida terrorists and
insurgents remain determined to kill American soldiers.
Despite what Vice President Cheney says about the insurgency being in
its last throes, the insurgency rages on. Last month, 68 American
soldiers were killed in Iraq. Insurgents attacked American soldiers 90
times a day.
We always knew that deposing Saddam Hussein would be easy, but the
administration should have foreseen that winning the peace would be
difficult. Unfortunately, for our men and women in uniform, the
arrogance of the administration blinded it to the cold, hard realities
that our troops would face every day in Iraq.
Alarm bells had been ringing, but the Bush administration ignored
them.
As General Hoar, former head of the Central Command, warned before
the war, in September 2002, winning the peace would be bloody. He said:
``In urban warfare . . . It looks like the last 15 minutes of Saving
Private Ryan.''
General John M. Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, warned, before the war, in September of 2002: ``I think if it
gets to urban warfare, and the likelihood is certainly great that it
could . . . it could get very messy. The collateral damage could be
very great, and our own casualties could increase significantly.''
In fact, in their 1997 book, A World Transformed the first President
Bush and his National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft explained why
they didn't go on to Baghdad in the first gulf war. They wrote that it:
``would have incurred incalculable human and political costs . . . We
would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The
coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in
anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances,
there was no viable exit strategy we could see. . . . Had we gone the
invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an
occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.''
Those words eerily describe what happened when the current President
Bush ignored that wise advice and invaded Iraq.
We must not forget that ultimately this is a debate about real people
who are risking their lives every day. With this amendment and the
Kerry amendment, we provide a realistic way out of the quagmire in
Iraq, and I urge my colleagues to support both.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is a very important debate. There is
a lot of interest in this debate throughout the world. I am sure
everybody at home is probably not sitting on the edge of their seats
listening to what I am saying, but in many ways this debate will define
the U.S. relationship with the Middle East and the world at large for a
long time.
The authors of this amendment are as patriotic as anyone I have ever
met. They are fine Senators. They are smart. They are trying to do what
they believe is in the best interest of the country and the world at
large. The problem I have with the amendment and the reason I rise in
opposition to it is that there is an underlying premise about this
amendment that we need to set timetables to send a signal to the Iraqi
people to do their part and to get on with the transition and to stand
up faster and to get political solutions to hard problems faster so
that we can come home, and without this amendment, the Iraqi people may
just draw this thing out and rely on us too much.
I understand your concern, but I take a different view of the Iraqi
people. I am here today publicly to say that I could not be more proud
of standing with the Iraqi people and their Government than I am now.
What we have asked of them, they have delivered. Senator Dodd was
right. Every time we tried to set deadlines, they delivered. They
delivered on some of the most difficult circumstances imaginable. If
you want to run for office in Iraq--it is tough in America; they say
awful, bad things about us in this body when we run--they try to kill
you, and they come after your family. So to those

[[Page S6223]]

Iraqis who have joined the police force for the right reasons, to those
who are serving in the military for the right reasons, to those
politicians trying to bring that country together with a unity
coalition government, my hat is off to you. I admire you. I am proud to
stand by your side. I have no desire to leave you in a lurch. I have
every confidence that you want us gone as much as we want to leave, but
you understand your capacity is limited right now.
The National Security Adviser said there is a roadmap for us to
leave, and the Iraqi people want to have the ability to chart their own
destiny sooner rather than later.
To my friends in the Senate, if the U.S. Congress sets a timetable,
it is a rebuke of the Government in Iraq. It is a vote of no confidence
in the Iraqi people, and it will be seen as such on al-Jazeera and
throughout the Middle East.
There will be a timetable for us to leave. It will be performance
driven, and it will be authored by the Iraqi people themselves. The day
they set the timetable and they set the benchmarks, it will empower
their Government and their people and it will diminish the terrorists.
If we set those timetables and the benchmarks, it will diminish the
Iraqi Government, all of the efforts of the Iraqi people, and empower
the terrorists.
I hate to say that I disagree with my good friends, but I do. We are
going to come home one day. That day is not so far away. History will
judge us by not when we left but by what we left behind. I want to
leave behind a regime capable of pulling off something no one else has
been able to do in the Middle East, a functioning democracy so the
Shias and Sunnis and Kurds can live together under the rule of law and
they can take out their differences at the ballot box and the
courtroom. It has been 3\1/2\ years almost. They have come a long way.
We have been at this over 200 years. We still have our problems. Under
the best of circumstances it is very difficult to bring people together
of different backgrounds, religions, and ethnic groups. We had our own
Civil War. It started in my State. When we wrote our Constitution,
after 11 years, women couldn't vote. African Americans were not even
recognized as people. We have come a long way, and it has taken us a
long time to get there.
Our Iraqi friends, the moderates are fighting and dying for their own
freedom. They have come a long way in 3\1/2\ years. I am begging this
body, let us not, as a body, set a timetable that would diminish their
sacrifice and not recognize it for what it is. The truth is, the Iraqi
Government and the Iraqi people are doing historic things in the
Mideast that no one else has been able to accomplish. They are not
lazy. They are not indifferent. They are not letting us fight their
war. They are fighting it alongside us and dying. They are dying in
larger numbers than we are. If they pull this off with our help, the
world will be eminently safer. If they fail, moderate forces in the
Mideast will be less likely to rear their head and stand up against
terrorists, and the terrorists will seize the moment in the decades to
come.
Never has so much been at stake for mankind and with so few people
sacrificing. Stand with the Iraqi people. They want us out, but don't
diminish their sacrifice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the situation in Iraq
and to ask several questions about the withdrawal proposals being
offered by the other side.
Why would we risk our success by a premature withdrawal? Why would we
risk handing over Iraq to the terrorists when they are on the run? Why
would we send a message to the families who had loved ones die fighting
for freedom that it was all in vain? Why would we pass legislation that
calls for the withdrawal of our troops and that undermines everything
we have achieved? These same questions are being asked by many of my
constituents in Colorado.
According to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, a key newspaper in
Colorado's western slope:

President Bush and Congress are right not to set a date
certain for moving all the troops out of Iraq. That would
signal terrorists they only need to hide out until the
Americans leave, then reignite their attacks. . . . And it
would tell others that our commitment to freedom in the
Middle East is limited.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the Grand Junction
Daily Sentinel be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Daily Sentinel, June 18, 2006]

It Would Be Folly for Congress To Cut and Run

Days after President George W. Bush told the new prime
minister of Iraq that the United States would not abandon the
fledgling democratic nation to terrorists, both houses of
Congress gave the president much-needed overwhelming support
for his position.
Late Thursday the Senate voted 93-6 to reject a deadline by
the end of this year to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq.
On Friday, the House voted 256-153 to kill a deadline for
withdrawal from Iraq.
No one wants to keep American military personnel in that
dangerous country indefinitely and risk more than the 2,500
U.S. military personnel who have already sacrificed their
lives there. Fortunately, there are encouraging signs that
the United States may be able to start reducing its military
presence before long.
The raid on the safehouse of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi proved to
be successful far beyond the death of one important leader.
It provided a treasure trove of computer documents and other
intelligence that led to more than 400 additional raids and
the arrests of more than 700 suspected terrorists.
What's more, 140 of the additional raids and many of the
arrests were handled entirely by Iraqi forces, without back-
up from U.S. troops, a sign that the Iraqi forces are
becoming more capable of protecting their country.
Additionally, with an Iraqi Cabinet finally in place, the
government has initiated much-needed security efforts in and
around Baghdad. Those measures haven't eliminated terrorist
attacks, but they may be slowing them.
Even so, Bush and Congress are right not to set a date-
certain for moving all of the troops out of Iraq. That would
signal terrorists they only need to hide out until the
Americans leave, then reignite their attacks. And it would
tell others that our commitment to freedom in the Middle East
is limited.
There was, to be sure, a good deal of politics involved in
the Republicans' push for a vote on Iraq. But it was not
entirely the GOP's doing.
It was Democrats such as Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts
and Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania who have been loudly
calling for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. With
congressional elections in November, it makes sense to let
voters see how their senators and representatives feel about
withdrawing now.
Nobody should read these votes as unqualified support for
Bush administration and the mistakes it has made, especially
in underestimating the strength of the terrorists. But the
votes do recognize it would be wrong to abandon the Iraqis
even as they are beginning to take control of their country.
And that's good news, not so much for either party's election
prospects, but for the ongoing efforts to overcome the savage
forces of Islamofascism.

Mr. ALLARD. Relationships between the 3rd Armored Cavalry and the
local community were so strong that the Iraqi mayor of the city of Tall
Afar actually traveled to Colorado Springs to present these soldiers
with a proclamation from the city.
I ask unanimous consent that the full copy of the proclamation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Office of the Mayor, City of Tall`Afar

In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful

To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3d Armored Cavalry
Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall`Afar from a ghost
town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a
secure city flourishing with life.
To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of
terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the
streets for many months.
To those who spread smiles on the faces of our children,
and gave us restored hope, through their personal sacrifice
and brave fighting, and gave new life to the city after
hopelessness darkened our days, and stole our confidence in
our ability to reestablish our city.
Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al
Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of
his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses
and offices were closed. Our

[[Page S6224]]

streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our
people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death
awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and
controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery
reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of
children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in
order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the
bodies of their young. This was the situation of our city
until God prepared and delivered unto them the courageous
soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated
this city, ridding it of Zarqawi's followers after harsh
fighting, killing many terrorists, and forcing the remaining
butchers to flee the city like rats to the surrounding areas,
where the bravery of other 3d ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah,
Zumar and Avgani finally destroyed them.
I have met many soldiers of the 3d Armored Cavalry
Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but
avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of
terrorism.
The leaders of this Regiment; COL McMaster, COL Armstrong,
LTC Hickey, LTC Gibson, and LTC Reilly embody courage,
strength, vision and wisdom. Officers and soldiers alike
bristle with the confidence and character of knights in a
bygone era. The mission they have accomplished, by means of a
unique military operation, stands among the finest military
feats to date in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and truly deserves
to be studied in military science. This military operation
was clean, with little collateral damage, despite the
ferocity of the enemy. With the skill and precision of
surgeons they dealt with the terrorist cancers in the city
without causing unnecessary damage.
God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who
dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our
hearts we thank the families. They have given us something we
will never forget. To the families of those who have given
their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence
and to the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not
in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls
hovering around us every second of every minute. They will
never be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have
sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the
smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this
land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of
their sacrifice for humanity and life.
Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this
brave Regiment, I haven't the words to describe the courage
of its officers and soldiers. I pray to God to grant
happiness and health to these legendary heroes and their
brave families.
Najim Abdullah Abid Al-Jibouri,
Mayor of Tall`Afar, Ninewa, Iraq.

Mr. ALLARD. Let me read a portion of the proclamation as written by
the Najim Abdullah Al-Jibouri, Iraqi mayor of Tall Afar:

To the Courageous Men and Women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry
Regiment, who have changed the city of Tall' Afar from a
ghost town, in which terrorists spread death and destruction,
to a secure city flourishing with life. . . . Our city was
the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Zarqawi. The city
was completely held hostage in the hands of his henchmen. . .
. Their savagery reached such a level that they stuffed the
corpses of children with explosives and tossed them into the
streets in order to kill grieving parents . . . this was the
situation of our city until God prepared and delivered unto
them the courageous soldiers of the 3rd Armored Cavalry
Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it of Zarqawi's
followers after harsh fighting.

The commander of Iraq's 3rd Army Infantry Division, MG Khorsheed Al-
Dosekey, wrote the following in a letter to our soldiers:

Your ability to plan, the excellent coordination, the
overall supervising and the right decisive decisions along
with your great leadership have helped us build up the
individual soldier and increase his abilities. Your
leadership and devotion to duty have helped form an army from
the gathered people. Your behavior and your actions have
built strong friendships that will last a lifetime.

I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

3rd Iraqi Army Infantry Division,

Headquarters in AKMTB.
3rd Armored Calvary,
Regiment Headquarters.
Bravery, strength, determination, correct thought,
flexibility, knowledge, and impartiality. These are the
features of your regiment's leadership that are displayed
through participation with our division headquarters, our
troops, and their units in all the daily occasions. Your wise
daily, operational, and successful leadership was the
decisive factor in achieving victory. We noticed clearly the
main features for victory in your leadership. They are the
same for each people or army who are looking for victory, and
it is the common purpose of your troopers and faith in their
goal along with their principles, high morals and focus on
their mission, coupled with perfect logistics support and
impartiality and sincere leadership that makes you the right
people for this mission.
Your abilities to plan, the excellent coordination, the
overall supervising and the right decisive decisions along
with your great leadership have helped us to build up the
individual soldier and increase his abilities as well as
those for the platoons, companies, battalions, brigades and
division. It is said that heaps of construction materials
cannot build a house and the gathered people cannot be
considered an army. Your leadership and devotion to duty have
helped us form an army from the gathered people.
Your behavior and your actions have built strong
friendships that will last a lifetime. Your behavior is a
feature of the wise leadership, which is the tree and the
reputation you leave behind is the shadow of the tree.
So we present our heartfelt thanks, appreciation and
respect to you as we touched during this past period of
cooperation and coordination and fighting side by side. We
also offer the thanks of the division's staff, NCOS, and
enlisted. You will disappear from our eyes, but you will stay
in our hearts.
We send our greetings to the 3rd ACR fighters and to their
families and we wish all of you to get back home safely under
victory's flag.
With God's Care,
Major General Khorsheed Saleem al-Dosekey,
3rd IA Infantry Division Commander.

Mr. ALLARD. That is the message from the Iraqi people for the heroic
efforts fighting for freedom. I know most if not all the Members of
this body share in their appreciation for the valiant service of our
men and women in uniform. I was pleased last night when we passed my
sense-of-the-Senate amendment which commends the members of our Armed
Forces for their outstanding service to our Nation in Iraq and for
their commitment to the highest ideals and values of our Nation. It
also honors the families of our servicemembers who have given so much
in the fight against terror. Our soldiers deserve our support and our
trust.
In conclusion, I ask, why would we risk all this by a premature
withdrawal and set a specific date for withdrawal?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Carper is on his
way over. He is next on our side. I wonder if I may inquire how much
time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 50 minutes 40
seconds. The Senator from Virginia has 41 minutes 29 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is the other side ready?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest that the Senator from Virginia
is next, to be followed then by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel.
Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I may list the sequence on our side so it
would be understood that after Senator Carper, we would expect Senator
Lautenberg and then Senator Murray, Senator Obama, Senator Biden, and
Senator Durbin.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will go from one side to the other. I
have waiting the Senator from Virginia, Senator Hagel, Senator Roberts,
Senator Bond, and Senator Thune. I will try to get them all in order of
appearance. The Senator from Virginia is next on our side. I will sort
out the sequence of the others.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, is
recognized.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, before I speak on these amendments, I will
share with my colleagues three amendments I have introduced.
The first amendment will double the current referral bonus from
$1,000 to $2,000, which will encourage more men and women to enter the
U.S. Armed Forces.
The second amendment will provide statutory authority to the Army to
pay $8,000 dollar enlistment bonuses to individuals who enlist in
Officer Candidate School. The Army has made this promise--and this
amendment provides statutory authority to fulfill that promise.
And finally, I have offered--with Senators Craig, Hutchison, Burns
and Snowe as cosponsors--an amendment that will provide financial
protection to the 25.6 million military personnel and veterans whose
personal data and Social Security information were stolen from the home
of a Veterans Affairs employee in May of this year.
Under the terms of my amendment, the VA would be required to provide
credit monitoring and data theft protection to these veterans at no
cost to

[[Page S6225]]

our veterans. My amendment is supported by the VFW.
I spoke to Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson earlier today,
and he informed me that he had announced that the VA will provide
credit monitoring and data theft protection, and at no cost to the
servicemembers and veterans. I thank Secretary Nicholson for making
this sound and responsible decision.
I also rise in strong opposition to the amendments brought forth by
Senators Kerry and Levin which, in my view, is a vacillating strategic
plan of retreat. We don't need a plan of retreat. We need to have a
steady, strategic plan for success in the war on terror and, in
particular, in the theater of Iraq. We need to honor our troops and
honor their families, whether they are serving now, or those who have
fallen in the midst of this battlefront in Iraq.
We need to move forward in Iraq, and we need to unite all Americans
behind our mission, unite Americans behind a strategic plan for
success, bringing Americans together, and also our NATO partners and
other allies, and get the neighbors of Iraq together, whether they be
Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia--they are all important--rather
than Senator Kerry's plan, which is a plan for retreat, a tuck-tail-
and-run approach. That is not what is need.
We want to see this new unity, diverse Government elected by the
people of Iraq, have a chance to stand on its own feet and defend its
own interests. We want to see measured, tangible success as quickly as
possible, and we want to bring home our troops as soon as possible. But
I believe some on the other side of the aisle are too anxious, and that
would be retreating. This is not the sort of steady leadership that I
believe would unite the American people.
Moreover, I think this approach can embolden our enemies. It would
show a weakened resolve in the midst of this war on terror. The
terrorists always talk about the United States and Mogadishu or the
Beirut bombing and how Americans will retreat. We don't need to be
emboldening our enemies. Moreover, it can cause discouragement and
dismay to the Iraqi leaders who are bravely trying to stand up for a
free and just society. It also can be a discredit to the United States
in the eyes of some of our allies. Our European allies came out
strongly in support of us today, for example, in our negotiations with
Iran and telling the Iranian leaders: You ought to take the carrot,
take the right approach. It is important as we deal with the Iranians
that the United States shows there is a resolve and a commitment to
sticking to a path of security and peace.
Just a few weeks ago, I was on a bipartisan delegation to Iraq.
Everyone we spoke with, whether they were Kurds, Sunnis, or Shiites,
was grateful to the United States for liberating them from that
repressive regime. We asked what would happen if we left in 6 months.
They all said it would be a ``disaster.'' That was the word we heard
more than anything else. Even the Sunni speaker of the new assembly,
who was once imprisoned by the United States, said that if the U.S.
military left--as a Sunni who was once imprisoned and was against the
United States being there in the first place--he said to us, as he said
subsequently to the President, that: We are grateful, and the U.S.
military presence in Iraq is helpful to them. If we left, then those
who would come in would be the Iranians, the Syrians, or potentially,
of course, in the north, the Turks.
We are making progress. We are fighting vile terrorists. We need to
understand who we are fighting. These terrorists are beheading men and
women in Iraq. Meanwhile, the United States and our coalition partners
are trying to give the Iraqis the chance to vote, to have a say on
their public servants in that country.
We are also making progress on the security fronts. General Casey
relayed to us that, right now, maybe a quarter of military operations
are led by Iraqis. He said that by the end of the year, as much as
three-quarters of the military operations will be led by the Iraqis,
with the United States being in a supportive role for medical,
intelligence, and military efforts.
Mr. President, I know Iraq has been tough. It is a tough battlefront
for Americans. But it is a war and a theater in this war on terror that
we can win and must win. The next few months will be vitally important.
This is not the time to get weak in the knees. The future of Iraq is
ultimately the responsibility of the Iraqi people. It is going to be
the Iraqis' hands, backs, and minds that will be needed to build a
secure and free Iraq. We don't want to stay a day longer than
absolutely necessary. We are supporting Iraq in this because we are a
generous people, but it is also good for our national security.
So I think we need to make sure that Senator Kerry's strategic plan
for retreat--a tuck-tail-and-fail approach--must be rejected. We must
unite as Americans for a renewed commitment for a strategic plan for
success. It is important for Iraq, important for the Middle East, and
it is vitally important for the security of the United States of
America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank the sponsors of this amendment,
Senators Levin and Reed, for offering a thoughtful amendment. They are
making a responsible contribution to this debate. All Americans want a
successful outcome in Iraq. Congress has an obligation to help craft a
responsible policy to help achieve a successful outcome in Iraq.
Congress fails in its duty when we do not probe, when we do not ask
tough questions, and we fail when we don't debate the great issues of
our day.
There is no issue more important than war. The war in Iraq is the
defining issue on which this Congress and the administration will be
judged. The American people want to see serious debate about serious
issues from serious leaders. They deserve more than a political debate.
This debate should transcend cynical attempts to turn public
frustration with the war in Iraq into an electoral advantage. It should
be taken more seriously than to simply use the focus group-tested
buzzwords like ``cut and run'' and political slogans and debase the
seriousness of war. War is not a partisan issue. It should not be held
hostage to political agendas. War should not be dragged into the
political muck. America deserves better. Our men and women fighting and
dying deserve better.
As mentioned earlier by Senator Feinstein and others, there was a
very important piece in yesterday's Washington Post, written by Iraq's
National Security Adviser. It was titled ``The Way Out of Iraq; A
Roadmap.'' The National Security Adviser's op-ed mentions three very
important things we need to clearly understand. The first thing this
op-ed provides is measurable goals for the progress of the Iraqi
Government with regard to U.S. troop presence. The Iraqi National
Security Adviser says this:

Iraq's ambition is to have full control of their country by
the end of 2008. In practice, this will mean a significant
foreign troop reduction. We envision the U.S. troop presence
by year's ends to be under 100,000, with most of the
remaining troops to return home by the year 2007.

The second point the op-ed makes clear is the unavoidable reality
that an endless U.S. troop presence is not in the interest of the new
Iraqi Government. The Iraqi National Security Adviser says this:

The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets
will help Iraqis who now see foreign troops as occupiers
rather than the liberators they were meant to be. The removal
of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to engage with
some of our neighbors that have, to date, been at the very
least sympathetic to the resistance because of what they call
the ``coalition occupation.'' The removal of foreign troops
will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of the people.

He makes clear that it will be the Iraqis who determine the success
of the Iraqi Government. He says:

The government in Iraq is trying to gain its independence
from the United States and the coalition, in terms of taking
greater responsibility for its actions, particularly in terms
of security. There are still some influential foreign figures
trying to spoon feed our government and take a very proactive
role in many key decisions. Though this may provide benefits
in the short-term, in the long term it will only serve to
make the Iraqi government weaker and will lead to a culture
of dependency.

I believe the Iraqi national security adviser has it exactly right.
After all, he is the Iraqi national security adviser. Americans
listening to this debate on Iraq are too often being given

[[Page S6226]]

false choices between, one, supporting the Iraqis with no end of troop
deployments in sight or staying the course, or, two, laying down
arbitrary deadlines for troop withdrawals. The reality is more
complicated than this.
We should not limit the Commander in Chief's options in Iraq. That is
why I will vote against the Levin amendment. However, anyone who
believes we will be in Iraq indefinitely ignores the forces of reality,
as the Iraqi Security Adviser's op-ed makes very clear. It is not in
Iraq's interest for the United States to remain in Iraq. Our influence
is limited and becoming more limited every day.
I note another story in yesterday's Washington Post that detailed the
reaction of Vietnam veterans to the war in Iraq. I know a little
something about this. My generation worries about Iraq becoming not the
failure of our sons and daughters fighting in Iraq, but our failure as
policymakers--policymakers--because I believe our policymakers failed
us in Vietnam.
Our troops today are doing what we did a generation ago in Vietnam.
They are fighting bravely. They are doing their very best. They believe
in their country, they have faith in their leaders, and we cannot let
them down.
I would say that there may be two Members of Congress today--
Congressman Murtha in the House and myself--who served in Vietnam and
were both here working in the Congress in the spring of 1975. Many
might recall that time because that was the time the House of
Representatives essentially voted to cut off funding for American
presence in Vietnam. That was a disastrous decision for disastrous
reasons, but it was the result of having a Congress absent and not
involved in the policy formation, not involved in asking the tough
questions, not involved in doing its job.
This debate today is critical. It is important for our country, agree
or disagree with it. Amendments such as the Levin amendment are
relevant, and they are an important contribution. When we debate these
issues, Congress is doing its job. We do not want our legacy as a
Congress to be no congressional oversight. We do not want it to be said
we were irrelevant when it becomes too late. We do not want to repeat
the history of Vietnam. We must not allow what happened in the Congress
in April of 1975 to happen with Iraq, and it happened because we didn't
debate the issues. It happened because the Congress was absent; it
forfeited its responsibilities. It debased the very responsibility of
elected officials. And that is why to debate these issues in a
legitimate, honest, open manner is so important to our country, and to
keep it out of politics, the ``gotcha'' kind of amendments, the
``gotcha'' kind of phraseology of which America is sick.
This is a serious issue. We have lost over 2,500 men and women in
Iraq. We have been in Iraq longer than the Korean war. We have over
18,000 wounded. We are spending around $10 billion a month. The
Congress must be present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is advised he has
now consumed 8 minutes.
Mr. HAGEL. I ask for 15 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, take a minute or so.
Mr. HAGEL. I thank the chairman.
I conclude, Mr. President, with this: What would be the real disaster
for America, the real disaster for Iraq, the disaster for the Middle
East, the disaster for the world is if this Congress is not present and
accounted for and is not part of a policy formation for not just Iraq
but the Middle East and the future of our country and the world. That
would be the disaster. That is why it is so important today that we
debate this issue; it is so important that we have amendments, such as
the Levin-Reed amendment, that are offered in an important way that
make a contribution to the understanding of America's presence and
commitment and our responsibilities as a free nation and the beacon of
freedom in the world.
Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague for his remarks. He
speaks from a body of personal experience and considerable courage as a
member of the Armed Forces of the United States, which he has exhibited
in these years.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, may I have 10 seconds? I wish to add my
thanks to the Senator from Nebraska for his very constructive, positive
remarks.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have on our side Senators Thune and
Roberts who are waiting. I know Senator Bond has indicated he wishes to
speak, and Senator Inhofe. I wish to advise those Senators I have to
recognize those on the floor; otherwise, we lose time to a quorum call
or otherwise. So we are going to alternate at this time. We are going
to shift to the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, 6 months ago, I was in Iraq with Senator
Hagel. We met with a number of people. Among the people with whom we
met in one of the beautiful palaces of Saddam Hussein not far from
Baghdad Airport, were the leaders of our American military forces in
that country.
During the course of that conversation, we heard these words from our
top military leader: It is time for America to move toward the door. He
didn't say it is time for us to walk out of the door, leave, close the
door. He said: It is time for us to move toward the door.
Subsequent to that, we met with Iraqi military and political leaders
and our own diplomatic leaders, and the message I heard in almost all
of those meetings was: it is time for America to begin moving toward
the door.
We have had a policy in Iraq, at least in the last couple of years,
of stay the course. ``Stay the course'' is a good slogan, and there
have been times in our history as a nation when staying the course was
actually a pretty good strategy. This is not one of those times.
What is needed is a different--not a different slogan, but a
different strategy, and the strategy we need would be not stay the
course but change the course.
The American people would like for us to begin to bring our men and
women home and, as it turns out, so would the Iraqi people. In talking
with the President upon our return, I said: You know, Mr. President,
sometimes less is more. In this instance, having a smaller presence, a
less visible presence would actually be more supportive of our efforts
in Iraq than not.
The Iraqi people don't want us to cut and run. They don't want us to
leave. They want us to be close by. They want us to be not far away and
to be helpful if we can be, if needed. But they don't want us to leave
this year. They don't want us to leave entirely next year.
Senator Hagel just quoted the words of the Iraqi National Security
Council. That is what we heard in Iraq last December. Their message has
been pretty consistent, and it has been pretty much the same.
Last year in the Senate we voted by an overwhelming majority that
2006 needs to be a year of significant transition in Iraq. In other
words, the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, called on the Bush
administration to take action this year in 2006 to change course in
Iraq to make clear to the Iraqis and the rest of the world that the
United States does not intend to stay in Iraq forever.
The amendment before us today, the Levin-Reed amendment, builds on
that resolution we passed barely a year ago. It rejects the extremes on
both sides of the Iraqi debate--the one side of the extreme that would
say either we should stay in Iraq on an open-ended basis, and the other
extreme to say we ought to withdraw all of our troops by an arbitrary
deadline. This amendment rejects both of those, and it says instead:
Why don't we find a way to change the course going forward?
The policy of ``stay the course'' isn't working for our troops. They
have served bravely, they have served honorably despite very difficult
circumstances in extended tours of duty. More than 2,500 of our finest
have been killed in action. Almost 18,000 have been injured, including
a former member of my staff, Marine Corps LCpl Sean Barney, who was
shot in the neck last month in Fallujah. Fortunately, he is alive. He
is going to live.

[[Page S6227]]

The President's ``stay the course'' plan also is not working for the
Iraqis. Insurgent violence is on the upswing, and our efforts to help
rebuild Iraq are at a standstill. Electricity output has been pretty
much flat-lined in the last couple of years, and we haven't been able
to finish building the schools and hospitals they want and need and
that we would like to help them build.
``Stay the course,'' I say to my friends, is not working. This
amendment is about a new direction in Iraq. It is about accountability.
It is about being tough. It is about being smart. It is about changing
the course, not staying the course. It is about laying out a plan for
victory in Iraq.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the advice I heard
not 6 months ago that it is time for America to move toward the door--
not to leave, not to leave precipitously but to move toward the door
and to allow the Iraqi people themselves to carry more of the burden in
an effort to relieve from us some of that burden, an effort to make
sure they have, in the end, a democracy and a country of their own to
govern.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
South Dakota.
Mr. President, I advise colleagues on my side, there is one
Republican waiting, and others who have indicated a desire to speak. I
urge them to come to the floor because I have under my control roughly
20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from South Dakota is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we face a difficult choice in Iraq and the
war on terror at large. Iraqis are desperately trying to form a fragile
government in the face of overwhelming odds. They are, as John
Dickinson once said of American independence, ``braving the storm in a
skiff made of paper.''
Despite that, the odds they face, look at the progress that has been
made just of late. Prime Minister Maliki just completed the formation
of a new Iraqi Government, including filling three national security
positions. In the past few weeks, U.S. forces have taken out terrorist
leader al-Zarqawi, the head of the snake, and many of his henchmen.
This was a huge blow to al-Qaida and a major victory in the war on
terror.
Iraqi security forces are growing in number every day. Only a year
and a half ago, Iraqi security forces had just begun to form. Today
there are 264,400 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, more than
double the number of U.S. troops in the region.
At the beginning of this year, the Iraqi forces had 10 brigades and
43 battalions. They controlled areas of responsibility. Only a few
months later and those numbers have nearly doubled to 18 brigades and
71 battalions.
Large- and small-scale water treatment facilities have been
rehabilitated or constructed for an estimated 3 million people at a
standard level of service, with plans underway to deliver clean, safe
drinking water to 5 million more.
May oil production was over 2.1 million barrels of oil per day, and
the Treasury Department, from the United States, is sending additional
professionals to Iraq to provide technical support for the creation of
a public finance system that is accountable and transparent. And our
State Department is coordinating a broad effort to support an economic
policy framework that enhances investment, job creation, and growth.
As Americans, we know, as Thomas Jefferson once said, ``the price of
freedom is eternal vigilance.'' In America, we like things to happen in
a 24-hour news cycle, but it doesn't always happen that way. If we look
throughout the pages of history, we have countless examples of those
who have come before who have understood the stakes and the risks that
were at work in the conflicts they faced. A great figure from history
of the last century, Winston Churchill, said wars are not won by
evacuations. Churchill and those of his generation knew they were in a
pitched battle for future generations, a titanic struggle between good
and evil.
A more recent example is, as I was growing up in the State of South
Dakota and going through what at that time we knew was the Cold War, I
remember a great leader at the end of the last century, Ronald Reagan,
when asked his strategy for winning the Cold War, who said: It is very
simple, Mr. President, we win; they lose.
I believe that is the same strategy and same objective we need to
apply to the war on terror because the evil we face today--it has a
different name--is equally deadly. Failure to confront and prevail in
this war on terror and we will be creating huge problems for the next
generations of Americans.
When we hear this debate on the floor of the Senate and, I believe
people have sincere motivations--I don't doubt the motivations of
anyone who comes to the floor to debate this issue, and I think it is
appropriate to have this debate, but this is not and should not ever be
about partisanship. It is not about politics. It is about the future
and the security of future generations of Americans.

We have heard lots of people come here and say, Well, staying the
course is not a strategy, it is not a solution. Yet at the same time,
we know full well that as we look at the threat that we face from the
war on terror, failure is not an option either. We cannot afford a
strategy that includes running away from our responsibility not only to
the people of Iraq but to the people of this country who are counting
on us to protect them and to provide security and safety for
generations of Americans to come.
I think some simple questions we have to ask are these: Is Iraq a
frontline in the war on terror? I believe it is. We have demonstrated
that in the last few weeks as we have eliminated many of the leading
terrorist figures. We have to ask the question: Are the people we are
fighting in Iraq terrorists who want the kill Americans? The answer
clearly is yes. We also have to ask the question: If we don't have them
pinned down there, will they not be planning and launching attacks
against the United States? I believe the answer to that question also
is yes.
The good men and women of the United States military are doing good
work in Iraq. They are doing the job that we asked them to do. We need
to make sure they understand we are there to win.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would ask simply that as we vote on this
amendment and the one that will follow, that we vote them down and give
our generals and our troops the ability to complete the work that we
have asked them to do, and that is to win, to prevail, and to make this
country safer for future generations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from New
Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for
8 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, and then following the Senator from New
Jersey, the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, will be recognized, and
then following Senator Roberts, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, may I claim my full 8 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senatorcan claim his full 8 minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
resolution put forward by the senior Senator from Michigan. I
appreciate the fact that he has framed the debate on the war in Iraq
both for the Senate and for the American people.
Last week the American death toll in Iraq passed 2,500. It is a
tragic milestone and the American people are not happy about it,
because our President has yet to articulate exactly what we are trying
to accomplish in Iraq.
I maintain a gallery of pictures of U.S. servicepeople who have died
in Iraq and Afghanistan outside the front door of my office. It reminds
me and all who visit my office about the loss of young lives and the
terrible cost of this war.
As a war veteran, I know what these troops and their families are
going through. I heard the Bush administration say that some Iraqis are
worried about us leaving. But I say this: The American people are
worried about us staying.
What more can we do for the Iraqi people? We have spent over $300
billion of U.S. taxpayer funds there. We have

[[Page S6228]]

helped them hold three elections. We have trained and armed their
police and their military.
I say it is time for them to take control of their country.
I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that we
would bring dishonor to those who lost their lives if we begin to leave
Iraq. But ask the families with loved ones over there how they feel. I
met with a group in my Newark office with loved ones in Iraq, including
a mother who lost her son there. As far as they were concerned, it
would bring dishonor to other families if we just stay there with no
plans for the future.
So why are we having so much trouble securing Iraq? The answer is
clear: The administration has no plan in place to do it. When they
tried, we saw misstep after misstep by the civilian leaders in the
Pentagon. And the leadership problems at the Pentagon start at the top.
This administration went to war on the cheap: Not enough troops, not
enough body armor, not enough help from our allies. I think we are down
to a coalition that has very little coalescence attached to it. No
help. And our troops have paid the price for these mistakes.
There were so many mistakes and miscalculations by the Bush
administration that it is hard to believe it at all.
Secretary Rumsfeld said the Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and that
the Iraqi resistance would be limited. He was obviously wrong.
He also failed to build coalitions with our allies. One of the few
major allies that did join the coalition was Poland, which sent about
1,600 troops. But they began withdrawing early this year. Half are
already gone, and by the end of the year, Poland will have all of its
troops out of Iraq. Just this week, the Japanese announced they will
withdraw their troops.
We ask, when are we going to start withdrawing our troops?
So far, 16 nations who have provided some assistance in Iraq have
withdrawn their troops. The administration's failure to build a real
coalition has caused our troops to bear the vast majority of the risk
and suffer the casualties.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, I will not yield. I don't have enough time, I am
sorry to say. Perhaps afterwards, the Senator from Oklahoma can use his
own time to have an exchange.
Secretary Rumsfeld said the war would be short. He said, ``I doubt 6
months.'' More than 3 years later, we know how tragically wrong that
assessment was.
Additionally, Secretary Rumsfeld was also way off on the cost of the
war. He said it would cost no more than $100 billion. But the
staggering reality is that it has cost $320 billion thus far, and we
expect it will get close to half a trillion dollars before this year is
over.
Now we are experiencing a crisis in military recruiting. But about
that, Secretary Rumsfeld is in denial. Whether in public or in private,
he claims that recruiting is fine. Well, it is not. Here is the
reality: The Army National Guard and Reserve are falling well short of
their goals, and the only reason other branches are meeting goals is
because the Pentagon has reduced the target numbers.
Eight retired generals have come forward to say what many in the
military have been thinking for years, and that is: It is time for a
change at the top as well as the recovery of our people back home. One
of the generals, General Eaton, who served in Iraq, said the following
about Secretary Rumsfeld:

In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically,
operationally, and tactically, and is far more than anyone
else responsible for what has happened to our important
mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.

But instead of taking a stand like the generals, we have heard our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply repeating talking
points that were handed to them by the Bush administration: ``Cut and
run''--disgusting words when you look at the reflection of what is
intended there.

We know this because the Secretary of Defense sent a Republican
briefing booklet to Democrats by mistake last week. This briefing book
is a three-ring binder of spin. It contains the same spin that we hear
today from the other side of the Chamber.
Instead of developing talking points and spin for Republican
Senators, we should concentrate on putting together a plan for our
troops in Iraq: For our troops to come home.
I think my Republican colleagues should have stamped that briefing
book ``Return to Sender'' and told the administration that they will
think for themselves. That is what I would hope my colleagues across
the aisle would do.
I know that they want to protect our troops and I know that they care
as much about loss of life. But we have a different approach on it. We
need a fresh start, honest leadership, and we are not going to get
either one as long as those in charge maintain their positions.
In sum, I think it is time for Secretary Rumsfeld to go, and it is
time for our troops to start to go home.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, how much time remains for the Senator from
Virginia?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nineteen minutes and 22 seconds.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize on the floor Senator Roberts,
Senator Bond, and Senator Inhofe, and Senator Kyl intends to come. So
with the balance of that time, I will try to allocate it as equally as
we can. I think Senator Roberts is next in line, so I yield to Senator
Roberts 4 to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 4 to 5 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the President and I thank the chairman. I rise
in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Levin. I would just
tell the Senator from New Jersey that nobody gave me my billet points;
I wrote this myself out of conviction, and I know he speaks from
conviction as well.
There is nobody in the U.S. Congress, nobody in America that does not
want stability in Iraq and to get our troops home as soon as possible.
But there is a right way and a wrong way. Last week the Senate voted
overwhelmingly against adopting a strategy focused on an arbitrary date
for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. We are back again. Despite that
lopsided vote of last week, we are again debating yet another
withdrawal amendment. By the time we are done, no less than three
withdrawal amendments, three messages to our troops, three messages to
our adversaries, and three very damaging blows for I think the resolve
of this country.
Senator Hagel brought this up. As a careful reading of the amendment
clearly shows, I think we are setting a disturbing and
counterproductive precedent. We, the U.S. Senate, are now getting into
micromanaging the military and the military's plans and the military's
strategy--not the President, not the commanders in the field, but the
Senate. This is the same body, by the way, that has a little difficulty
trying to decide when to adjourn.
While we may wish otherwise, the blunt truth of it is there is no
exit from either Iraq or the global war on terrorism but through
success. So in that regard, we did not ask for this war, but in
fighting worldwide terrorism, a war that must be successful, we must be
willing to use force if necessary and to protect our security and that
of our allies or we invite more insurgency, more terrorist acts for the
next President, the President after that, and on down the line. So
regardless of future policy, current or future Presidents, our ultimate
success against terrorism will only be won through resolve.
Let's talk about one thing that has been missing in this debate, and
that is consequences. Calling for withdrawal is one thing; facing the
consequences of that action and the responsibility for it is another. I
fully understand the need and the value of full debate on this issue,
but we should do so with the understanding that words do have
consequences, and their effect not only influences the intended
audience, the partisan base or otherwise, but they also affect the
morale of our troops in the midst of war and the terrorists who
question our resolve.
Make no mistake: if America leaves--all at once or in stages--our
adversaries will rejoice--all at once or in stages.
Last year we received an intercepted letter that Osama bin Laden's
deputy sent to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi which urged Zarqawi to prepare for
what the terrorists clearly believe will be a U.S.

[[Page S6229]]

retreat from Iraq. Ironically, while the terrorists are preparing for
what they hope will be a premature U.S. retreat, we are making real,
tough, step-by-step progress, highlighted with the recent killing of
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
But of all things, in a paradox of enormous consequence and irony, we
stand here today debating this withdrawal commensurate with the
predicted retreat by al-Zarqawi and his terrorist associates.
Now is not the time to abandon our momentum and retreat. Such a
retreat would do more than encourage the bin Ladens of the world.
Jihadist terrorist cells throughout the world, and in our own country,
would be rethinking their attack plans with ominous repercussions.
Let us not ignore the very nature of our adversaries. Senator Allen
spoke to that. They think of us as dust. We have no human value. And
they are not giving up. They are planning attacks as we speak--
everybody knows that--within the U.S. Capitol. Imagine how such a
withdrawal would be viewed in places like Iran, in the midst of
aggressively building up its nuclear capacity; North Korea, with its
existing capacity; China, with its continued military expansion, the
greatest since World War II; and Russia, where we are now witnessing a
return to totalitarianism round II, especially with Ukrainian
democracy; and Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez has become the next Castro.
Imagine what doubts the lack of resolve would really create in the
minds of our allies now working with us with unprecedented intelligence
cooperation, and the impact on the progress we have made in Pakistan
and Afghanistan, leading to a radical Islamic takeover of the Mushariff
and Karzi governments and further leading to increased threats within
the next terrorist nerve centers in Indonesia and Africa.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 4 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, what is the time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes and 40 seconds.
Mr. WARNER. I will yield the 2 minutes, and then the two other
colleagues can divide equally the time that is remaining.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this amendment has consequences to our
allies, including Libya, Tunisia, Jordan, Egypt, even Saudi Arabia, and
Israel. Basically, this amendment has consequences, introducing it on
the floor of the Senate has consequences, debating it has consequences,
and voting for it has consequences.
I am going to close by calling to mind a lesson of historical
precedent. Upon learning of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Sir Winston
Churchill said this:

Silly people; that was the description many gave in
discounting the force of the United States. Some said they
were soft, others that they would never be united, that they
would never come to grips. They would never stand for
bloodletting, that their system of government and democracy
would paralyze their effort.
Now we will see the weakness of this numerous but remote,
wealthy and talkative people. But, American blood flows in my
veins. I thought of a remark made to me years before--the
United States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire of
freedom is lighted under it, there is no limit to the power
it can generate. It is a matter of resolve.

I say to my colleagues that, if approved, this amendment could, in a
matter of minutes, undo that resolve now, and for the next generation
who will face new threats to our way of life. Setting an artificial
timetable will send the wrong message to the Iraqi's, who need to know
that America will not leave before the job is done, and our troops, who
must know that we are serious about the mission that they are risking
their lives to achieve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for
3 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I want the same thing all Americans do,
for our troops to complete their mission in Iraq and return home safely
and quickly. To accomplish that, the President must define what our
current mission is and how that mission serves our Nation's security
interests.
The men and women of our military have done everything we have asked
them to do. They looked for weapons of mass destruction and found none.
We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We helped the Iraqis hold elections and
set up their government and security forces. So what is our mission
today?
Right now, our Nation's policy on Iraq is adrift. Instead of
addressing this head on, the administration and this Congress continue
to build on the miscalculation and incompetence of the past and are
dismissing any serious discussion of the challenge the American people
now face.
Instead of working to unite this Nation behind a common purpose in
defense of our security and freedom, the President and his aides are
using the war as political fodder for the next election cycle. Instead
of being honest with the American people about the costs of our effort
and the sacrifice necessary to support them, the Congress continues to
hand a blank check to the administration to continue the status quo.
That approach has left us with heated rhetoric and a long series of bad
choices.
True security for the American people depends on an honest assessment
of the threats we face, a very clear mission, and an honest discussion
about the costs of confronting those threats.
On Iraq we do not have any of those components. Continuing the status
quo is unacceptable. We need the President to tell us what the mission
in Iraq is so we, as Congress and as a country, can decide if it is
worth the continued price we are paying.
Like all of us, I want the troops home as soon as possible. In fact,
I think they should start coming home this year. It is absolutely time
for a new strategy in Iraq. An arbitrary, specific date for full
withdrawal, however, could force us to ignore facts on the ground,
facts that have a direct impact on the security of our troops or the
interests of our Nation. I appreciate those who ask for a date certain.
I, too, am frustrated with where we find ourselves today. But what we
do need is change. What we do need is leadership. What we do need is a
defined mission. And what we do need is a plan for success.
The troops on the ground, as well as the American people, deserve an
honest discussion and a plan for victory and a goal to achieve that.
That is why I support the Levin amendment.
This administration, this Congress, and this Nation should be focused
like a laser on how we can be successful and bring our troops home
safely. Our troops and the American people deserve a plan that brings
us all together to accomplish that goal.
I yield my remaining time.
Mr. WARNER. What is the time remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 13 minutes 2 seconds.
Mr. WARNER. I am going to relinquish the time I hoped to use to do
wrapup remarks and divide it equally between the Senator from Missouri
and the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 6
minutes 30 seconds.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the floor manager of the bill. As we
have heard, the end of al-Zarqawi is a significant blow to al-Qaida
operations in Iraq. It is another clear indication of the progress we
are making. In addition, the documents we captured at that time
indicate that the al-Qaida terrorists themselves know that we are
making progress. They are worried that time is now on our side. They
know they cannot withstand our military forces.
But even before our troops eliminated one of America's fiercest
enemies, some at home had described the current situation in Iraq as
bleak. Now they are introducing measures for a timetable for withdrawal
from the region.
The insurgents will no doubt consider the debating of this measure
one of the best pieces of news they have had this year. That is because
the terrorists know that time is on our side unless we give them a
timetable for withdrawal. We know that a timetable for withdrawal will
undercut the momentum that the insurgents themselves say we have gained
in Iraq.
As I have talked to our troops who have been in the field, they say,
doesn't

[[Page S6230]]

anybody understand that the terrorists watch our media? They have
calendars. If they know we are going to get out on a certain date they
will declare victory, lay back and wait to take over the country after
we have departed.
I would imagine that the terrorists are dumbfounded, yet ecstatic
with this self-destructive proposal. I am dumbfounded and aghast. If
insurgents had any representation in the Senate, I am sure they would
support it. I am not saying my Democratic colleagues are in any way
intentionally aiding the insurgents or undermining our troops, but
regrettably that is what it would do. I implore my colleagues on both
sides to consider the facts and the words of the insurgents themselves,
who view this as a time when they are losing.

Last Monday night, when our President was addressing a group
outlining in detail the program of progress and how we are going to
build up the security forces in Iraq so they can take over, and
committing to finishing the job we in Congress overwhelmingly endorsed,
Mr. Howard Dean was on national television claiming that Republicans
were sitting in air-conditioned offices asking others to do the work in
Iraq. He stated:

Republicans are great about sending other people's children
to war.

I take issue with the words of Mr. Dean, the voice of the Democratic
National Party. First, our brave young men and women volunteered to
serve, to go to war to keep America safe from the terrorists who struck
on 9/11 and who would strike again if they had the chance.
Second, 77 of us on this floor, Democrats and Republicans, voted to
support the President to carry out the mission that President Clinton
first outlined about regime change in Iraq.
Finally, I say to Mr. Dean personally, my only son returned from Iraq
over a year ago and is preparing to go back. When I told him we were
going to have this debate, I asked him: What is your view on it? I got
this e-mail back. He said:

In case anyone is paying attention, there is progress being
made. AMZ himself indicated as much in the confiscated
letters around the time of his death. If al-Qaida, No. 1,
confesses the U.S. is having good success, who here in conus
has the standing to contradict us?
I don't get it. I am not wild about going back to Iraq but
I'd sure as heck would rather do that than essentially
invalidate everything we have done to date by leaving too
early and inviting chaos.
Happy Father's Day.

That was a message from one of the people who are serving us in Iraq,
and he speaks for all the other young people he knows.
I implore my colleagues, let our troops finish what we started, what
most of us voted for. Let's leave Iraq self-sufficient, free, and
stable, an Iraq no longer a safe haven for terrorists, threatening to
bring WMD and terrorist attacks to our shore. Let's leave when the job
is done, not before. Let's not defeat our mission with political
attacks on the President and the Secretary of Defense as we have heard
today, and on those of us in Congress, giving the terrorists a victory
politically by laying out for them a ``get out of jail free'' card,
giving them a timetable for withdrawal whether or not Iraqi security
forces are fully capable of controlling their country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Biden.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I will just
yield a minute to myself. I compliment the Senator from Missouri. That
was a heartfelt message. I hope Mr. Dean gets it verbatim because your
son, whom I have watched grow up through these many years, is proud to
be a United States Marine and to take on his duty.
Mr. President, I wish to advise colleagues at the hour of 5 o'clock
this debate on the Levin amendment is concluded. My understanding is we
proceed to an amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry,
and Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Leahy. In examining that
amendment, I say to my colleagues who are anxious to continue
addressing the issues of the amendment of Senator Levin, I think the
basic format in this amendment lays a clear predicate for all those who
are desiring to speak to have their word tonight sometime because we
are to conclude this debate tonight. I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 34 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. How much?
Mr. LEVIN. We started at 12:15. I would then yield for 10 minutes to
Senator Biden. I then yield 8 minutes to Senator Obama, and then
Senator Durbin will be next. Depending on how much time is left we can
determine the time allocation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. INHOFE. Was this a unanimous consent request made by the Senator
from Michigan? We are still going back and forth?
Mr. LEVIN. No. We understand that.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan. I, too,
compliment the Senator from Missouri for the service of his son. My son
is not--he is in the military, in the National Guard. He is not in
Iraq, although he did spend some time in Kosovo. I admire the
patriotism of his son and respect the point of view his son expressed.
But I think it confuses things.
Mr. President, last Thursday, we passed by a 99--1 vote an emergency
spending bill to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and provide
relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Unfortunately, behind closed conference doors, a key provision of
both the House and Senate versions was stripped out--an amendment,
introduced by Representative Barbara Lee and myself that would bar any
funds from being used to establish permanent U.S. military bases in
Iraq or to control Iraq's oil.
I voted to support our troops, though I was surprised that my
amendment was stripped after not a single Senator publicly spoke
against it during the floor debate.
But what bothers me is that by removing the ``no permanent bases''
amendment, we make life more difficult for our men and women in uniform
and undercut our Nation's broader effort against terrorism.
So I will reintroduce my amendment as part of the Defense
authorization bill.
It is straightforward, clear, and simple. It affirms that the United
States will not seek to establish permanent military bases in Iraq and
has no intention of controlling Iraqi oil.
I will repeat what I said 6 weeks ago:
While it may be obvious to Americans that we don't intend to stay in
Iraq indefinitely, such conspiracy theories are accepted as fact by
most Iraqis.
In an opinion poll conducted by the University of Maryland in
January, 80 percent of Iraqis--and 92 percent of the Sunni Arabs--
believe we have plans to establish permanent military bases.
The same poll found that an astounding 88 percent of Sunni Arabs
approve of attacks on American forces in part.
Why do Iraqis believe we want permanent bases? Why do they think we
would subject ourselves to the enormous ongoing costs in Iraq in blood
and treasure? Do they think we want their sand? No, they think we want
their oil.
To my mind, the connection between these two public opinion findings
is incontrovertible.
Before you dismiss these as simple conspiracy theories, remember what
Iraqis have been through in the past 3 decades:
Three wars and a tyrannical regime that turned brother against
brother and made paranoia a way of life.
And there is a longer history, too: 400 years of British and Ottoman
occupation have led to a deeply ingrained suspicion of a foreign
military presence.
These views extend well beyond Iraq. In a 2004 Pew Charitable Trust
survey, majorities in all four Muslim states surveyed--Turkey,
Pakistan, Jordan, and Morocco--believed that control of Mideast oil was
an important factor in our invasion of Iraq.
Our enemies understand the boon these misconceptions provide to their
recruiting efforts and use them as a rallying cry in their calls-to-
arms.
Last year in a letter intercepted by the United States military,
Ayman al-Zawahiri, the deputy leader of al-Qaeda, wrote to the recently
killed

[[Page S6231]]

Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi:

The Muslim masses . . . do not rally except against an
outside occupying enemy.

Our military and diplomatic leaders understand that countering this
vicious propaganda requires clear signals about our intentions in Iraq.
And they have done just this.
General George Casey, the ground force commander in Iraq, told the
Committee on Armed Services last September:

Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of
occupation.

At the same hearing, General John Abizaid, the commander of all U.S.
troops in the Middle East, told Congress:

We must make clear to the people of the region we have no
designs on their territory or resources.

In March, the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, told an
Iraqi television station that the United States has ``no goal in
establishing permanent bases in Iraq.''
Unfortunately, this clarity has been clouded by mixed messages from
the senior-most decision-makers in the Bush administration.
To my knowledge, President Bush has never explicitly stated that we
will not establish permanent bases in Iraq, and both the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of State have left the door open to do just
that.
On February 17, 2005, Secretary Rumsfeld told the Committee on Armed
Services:

We have no intention, at the present time, of putting
permanent bases in Iraq.

``At the present time'' is not exactly an unequivocal statement.
On February 15, 2006, at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
hearing, my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, asked Secretary
Rice:

Is it, in fact, the policy of the administration not to
have permanent bases in Iraq?

Rather than answering the simple one word, ``Yes,'' Secretary Rice
said during a 400 word exchange on the question:

I don't want to in this forum try to prejudice everything
that might happen way into the future.

Just last Thursday, columnist Helen Thomas asked the White House
press secretary to unambiguously declare that the United States will
not seek permanent bases in Iraq. Again, the press secretary could not
unequivocally declare this to be the case.
These mixed messages are confusing to the American people and the
Iraqi people alike. They feed conspiracy theories and cede rhetorical
space to our enemies. They make it that much more difficult to win the
battle for the hearts and minds of 1.2 billion Muslims in the world.
Our success in that battle will determine our success in the struggle
between freedom and radical fundamentalism.
Against this backdrop, I believe that it is incumbent upon us to
speak where the administration has not.
My amendment will have no detrimental effect on the military
operations of our Armed Forces in Iraq or their ability to provide
security for Iraqi oil infrastructure.
United Nations Council Resolution 1546 recognizes that the American
and coalition forces are present in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi
Government and that their operations are essential to Iraq's political,
economic, and social well-being.
In his first speech to the Iraqi parliament last month, Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki endorsed that resolution. We are anxious for
the day when Iraqis can take control of their own destiny, but the
Iraqis are suspicious of our intentions and growing increasingly
impatient.
This amendment may not in itself change a lot of minds on the ground
or in the region.
But it can mark the beginning of a sustained effort to demonstrate
through words and deeds that we have no intention of controlling Iraq's
oil or staying there forever.
I believe it is our duty to do so.
I want to point out a couple of things. I have listened to some of
this debate. Sometimes I wonder whether we are debating the Levin
amendment or not. The Levin-Reed amendment says two things. It lays out
a plan. The front part of it is the part that is being ignored by most
people. The amendment lays out a specific plan to avoid trading a
dictatorship for chaos in Iraq. Right now, I respectfully suggest the
President has a plan how not to lose but no plan how to win. In my
view, a plan to arbitrarily set a date to leave is not a plan. It is an
expression of overwhelming frustration and maybe on the part of some a
conclusion reached that it is not winnable because it has been so badly
handled the last 2 years. I respect that position. I don't agree with
it, but I respect it.
The fact is, what is before us in the Levin amendment is it first
calls for a political settlement and the sharing of economic resources.
That is another way of saying the Iraqis need a deal on oil that gives
the Sunnis a fair share of the revenues; and, secondly, it calls for
the President to convene what not just Joe Biden and this amendment but
Biden before, and before that Henry Kissinger, and Secretary Shultz and
others called for, and that is convening of an international conference
to promote a durable political settlement and reduce the interference
by Iraq's neighbors in Iraq. And it calls for the things that everyone
agrees have to be done, purging the sectarian militia which has
infiltrated the security forces.
My friend from Missouri stood up and talked about the Iraqi security
forces. The Iraqi security forces are riddled with sectarian
infiltration. There is overwhelming evidence that Sadr suggests his
Mahdi militia join the military. There is overwhelming evidence that
the SCIRI and Dawa Parties have moved their people into the military as
have the Sadr militia. There is evidence of the fact that the Peshmerja
are in the north. So let me ask a question: How is it remotely possible
that this government, assuming it is really good government, has a lot
of personal courage and wisdom?
How can it run a country when it does not have a military that--at
least at any one time--one-third of the country doesn't trust?
Did you all notice what happened today? Saddam's defense lawyer, for
whom I have no particular empathy or sympathy--guess what. Five cops or
four cops--Iraqi police--show up with identification, take him away,
and shoot him.
What has been going on? Pick up the paper. Every day--almost every
day for the past months--a bus gets stopped, a group of Iraqi policemen
take people off the bus identified as Sunnis and blow their brains out;
or the next morning--every morning--you read the paper. What do you
find? You find 9, 12, or 30 Sunnis handcuffed with bullets in their
heads.
So I ask you the question, imagine the United States of America
trying to unite the North and the South, and if you had hit squads in
the South after the Civil War going after anybody who fought in the
Confederacy--this is a big deal.
There is no possibility of avoiding a civil war, in my humble
opinion, if you don't purge the police and then purge the military of
the sectarian thugs.
Second, we have a very first-rate Ambassador there. The best thing
that has happened to our effort is our present Ambassador. What did he
do? Remember when he said the first unity government wasn't legitimate
because the Sunnis didn't participate? It was a legitimate point. How
do we get the Sunnis to participate in the election? You had the acting
Parliament pass a law defining what could kill the Constitution--
changing the law. That is a disaster.
So what did our Ambassador do? He said: Change it--quietly; a
brilliant diplomatic move. They changed the law going back to what it
had been under the law that was written in the first instance. Second,
what did he do? He said: This isn't the final document. They amended
the Constitution at the last minute it was being voted on to say you
can amend it later. Why? For a specific purpose. Everybody knows that
unless you get the Sunnis to buy in, there is no possibility of
success. So everyone has anticipated from the beginning, beginning with
our Ambassador, that you have to amend the Constitution to give the
Sunnis a piece of the action.

Up to now, our administration has been saying quietly that would be
divisive absent the Parliament doing what is called for under the law,
convening, as they should be now, and now with about 3 months left,
reporting to the entire Parliament amendments to the

[[Page S6232]]

Constitution that will then be sent out to the people to vote on.
Absent that, I do not know how this works.
The Sunnis need a piece of the action, to stay in the action.
My friend, the chairman, understands that there are three things
going on. One, they are so-called insurgents. They are basically the
old Saddamists. They are the Baathist Party, they are former military,
and they are the Republican Guard.
As I said to the President, who asked the question after my first
trip from Iraq--he said: We have taken care of--I don't want to put
words in his mouth--he said it was a great victory. And it was a great
victory. I said: But Mr. President, 400,000 people went home with their
guns. I said: Count the bodybags. We had such a blitzkrieg success;
what happened? They didn't resist. They took off their uniforms, kept
their guns, and raided the 800,000 tons of ammunition dumps we didn't
guard. That is the insurgency--not bunch of dead-enders, as the
Secretary of Defense said some time ago, and they are getting
increasingly organized.
There is a second group. The second group is the Zarqawi guys. They
are the guys who are the jihadists--mostly from out of the country. As
my friends, the chairman and ranking member, know, the military has
never estimated them to make up more than 5 percent to 8 percent of the
entire insurgency. They do bad things, but they are a separate group,
coordinating with but separate, with separate agendas, from the
insurgents.
There is a third group. The real problem is civil war. Insurgency is
not the big problem. It is a problem. The problem is sectarian violence
with Sunnis killing Kurds, Kurds executing Shiites, and Shiites mostly
eliminating Sunnis. Unless you stop that, what is the deal? I hope I am
wrong, but as I say, take a look at my record on this for the last 3
years and tell me. Am I wrong a lot of times? I haven't guessed this
one very wrong very many times.
Ask the following question: By December of 2007, we are going to have
a drastic withdrawal of American forces for one of two reasons: either
because we actually have things going in Iraq, the Iraqis have not only
stood but stood together, dealt with the Sunnis, dealt with the militia
and kept the neighbors out, which means we will be able to draw forces
home, or we are going to be in a full-blown civil war.
I will make a prediction. This is a dangerous thing to do on the
floor, and I pray to God I am wrong about it. I think there is at least
an even chance that you will hear the following debate among the
foreign policy intellectuals on the left and on the right a year from
now. You have to let them fight it out in a civil war. It has to be
decided in a civil war; nothing we can do about it. Let the chips fall
where they may, and we come back in and try to pick up the pieces. That
may be the ultimate strategy we have to deal with.
But to my friends who say get out at a time certain, I say I
understand your frustration, but what do you do afterward? What do you
do if things go to hell in a hand basket quickly and there is civil war
that turns into a regional war? What is your plan?
The Levin amendment lays out a plan. It says take care of the
insurgency by giving the Sunnis a piece of the action so they turn on
the insurgents. They have a reason to want to be a part of the deal.
I thank the Chair.
I have a more detailed plan as to how we should proceed. But don't
confuse the Levin plan by ruling it out. The Levin plan lays out what
must be done, how to do it, and it is done on the path by which we can
leave and leave our interests intact.
I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues for allowing me a few
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I did want
to get in there when the Senator from New Jersey was speaking.
They keep talking about 8 generals out there--8 generals out of 4,000
generals who are retired right now. Three of the eight generals who had
their own political plans were using that. I have listened to that over
and over again.
I have just returned from my 11th trip, I say that to my friend from
Delaware, to the Iraqi AOR. The reason I have done this is so I can
watch the progress that is being made--and I see the progress.
When the Senator from New Jersey stood up saying nothing has
happened, consider the fact that we now have three successful elections
behind us. Before each election, the Democrats on this floor said it is
not going to work, they will not have a free election, it isn't going
to be successful. We now have had three. I was over there. I went over
the day the Ministers were ratified, and they are in there.
There are 164,000 trained and equipped troops. I think it is really
bad, particularly when it is in error, for us to stand here on the
floor of this Senate and say that those troops are really not trained
and equipped, that they are really not serviceable for war. I have
heard all kinds of things which are a great disservice to these people.
I was up there in Fallujah during the last election when these Iraqi
security forces were risking their lives going into town to vote.
Anyway, I went over there the other day, the day Zarqawi was killed,
and I thank God that happened. It happened to be the same day that the
4 Ministers out of some 30 Ministers were confirmed. I can remember
talking to them on a one-to-one basis.
Dr. al-Rubaie, the National Security Adviser for the Iraqis, is
really a quality guy. I spent several hours talking to him. He projects
that the number of troops in Iraq will drop below 100,000 by the end of
this year. This is kind of interesting. Here we are trying to dictate
terms as to when we are going to pull out when they already know when
they are going to request and make a recommendation to us to pull out.
The other side has it completely backward. He is saying that right now;
he projects, the way we are going, that they are going to make a
request by the end of this year to drop the U.S. forces and the
coalition down to 100,000. That would be a reduction of 30,000. Then he
says that by the end of the following year, they should be all the way
out.
Dr. al-Rubaie has made it clear that a timetable has to be on Iraq's
terms and that there is already a roadmap. For people who say we don't
know, there is no roadmap, there is no criteria out there, there is.
Let me tell you. This is a quote from Dr. al-Rubaie. This isn't me
talking, this is a quote from him. He said that Iraqi governorates must
meet ``stringent minimum requirements as a condition of being granted
control. Threat assessment of terrorist activities must be low or on a
downward trend. Local police and the Iraqi army must be deemed capable
of dealing with criminal gangs, armed groups and militia, and border
control. There must be a clear and functioning command-and-control
center overseen by the governor.'' He said, and this is his quote, that
``13 of the 18 provinces''--18 in Iraq, and 13--``have met'' or are
close to meeting this criteria already.
One thing which has bothered me most recently is the inconsistency I
have observed over time in the Democrats' position. They claim to
disagree with the war in Iraq for the very same reasons that they used
for supporting going into Bosnia and Kosovo. I remember them standing
on this Senate floor saying that we have no reason to be going to
Bosnia and Kosovo because we don't have any security interests at
stake.
In 1995, President Clinton urged Congress to support involvement in
Bosnia, and they agreed with his philosophy to ``stand up for peace and
freedom because it's in our interest to do so.'' That sounded real good
at the time. Now, when President Bush is doing exactly the same thing,
they are saying: No. We have changed our position. We don't want to do
that anymore.
Opponents of the war in Iraq contradict themselves.
Senator Kerry stated, on April 6 of this year, that ``the [Iraq]
insurgency grew day by day to be an insurgency that is now a low-grade
civil war . . . and our troops can't resolve a civil war.''
The Senator from Delaware characterized this as a civil war. This
isn't a civil war. This is a war where others are going after the
Iraqis. The insurgents aren't Iraqis. I don't know why people can't
understand that.
Zarqawi was Jordanian, and Osama bin Laden is Saudi. There are
outsiders

[[Page S6233]]

who caused them to coalesce into getting along better with each other.
There were factions in Iraqi that you do not see today.
But Kerry endorsed involvement of U.S. troops in Bosnia and Kosovo,
both of which were civil wars. Those were civil wars. This is not a
civil war.
In 1995, President Clinton said that ``we must not turn our backs on
Bosnia,'' which was echoed by Senator Kerry when he stated that,
``History has taught us that we can't sit idly by while people commit
these incredible evil acts against humanity.'' He was talking about
Bosnia and Kosovo. I would like to ask him: What evil acts are you
talking about when compared to Saddam Hussein, who murdered and
tortured to death hundreds of thousands of his own people; where they
dropped people into vats of acid; where people were begging, before
they were put into the shredders, to put their heads in first so they
could die quickly; women being raped and buried alive? We have not seen
atrocities such as this since Hitler in World War II. And here he was
talking about things that were taking place in Kosovo and Bosnia. It
wasn't happening.
Let me tell you what Dr. al-Rubaie said. He said:

There is . . . an unofficial ``roadmap'' to foreign troop
reductions that will eventually lead to total withdrawal of
U.S. troops.

The roadmap is there. It is there, and it is one which they have put
down in writing.
I am going to deliver to you what Minister of Defense Jasim asked me
to deliver to you--to us--in this Chamber today. He said:

Tell them their sacrifice is for a very noble cause, they
have given freedom to 26 million people. I believe they are
waging a just war for humanity. The terrorism must be stopped
or it will spread all over the world, like a carbon copy of
fascism and communism. . . . The American victims have borne
the price of a freer world. . . . We are very grateful. . . .
The war in Iraq is a just war and we have no option but
victory. It is not a war that affects Iraq alone, but is
truly a world war.
The terrorists are a sickness that must be eliminated . . .
There is great transformation taking place in Iraq but, the
international media does not focus on positive things
happening.

Here he talks about the only focus being on the negative things.
I will talk against the next amendment later.
I can tell you, after 11 trips to Iraq and the AOR, that every time I
come back to this Chamber and talk about the quality of the Iraqi
security forces and the successes they have had, I am very proud of
them, and they are very proud of us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for
wrapping up close to 20 Senators on this side who have spoken to this
issue. I remind my colleague there will be further debate tonight. I am
anxious to have as many as possible come over and join me. I commend
the Senator on his statement and thank the Senator for his long, hard
work on our bill throughout this year.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Illinois 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for
managing this fine amendment.
In October of 2002, I delivered a speech opposing the war in Iraq.
I said that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless man, but that he posed no
imminent and direct threat to the United States.
I said that a war in Iraq would take our focus away from our efforts
to defeat al-Qaida.
And, with a volatile mix of ethnic groups and a complicated history,
I said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would require a U.S.
occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with
undetermined consequences.
In short, I felt the decision unfolding then to invade Iraq was being
made without a clear rationale, based more on ideology and politics
than fact and reason.
It is with no great pleasure that I recall this now. Too many young
men and women have died. Too many have been maimed. Too many hearts
have been broken. I fervently wish I had been wrong about this war;
that my concerns had been unfounded.
America and the American people have paid a high price for the
decision to invade Iraq and myriad mistakes that followed. I believe
that history will not judge the authors of this war kindly.
For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the
Kerry amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and
spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.
But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous
withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the
realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this
administration. It could compound them.
It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and,
perhaps, irreparable crisis.
We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security
vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that
could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We
have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a
responsible way.
I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry amendment. We should
send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won't be there forever, and
that by next year our primary role should be to conduct
counterinsurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide
needed logistical support.
Moreover, I share the frustration with an administration whose
policies with respect to Iraq seem to simply repeat the simple-minded
refrains of ``we know best'' and ``stay the course.'' It's not
acceptable to conduct a war where our goals and strategies drift
aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where
we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the
administration--the worst of all possible outcomes.
As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met
with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of
the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like
nothing more than for our military involvement to end.
But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total
withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a
methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive
our Iraq policy: that is, (1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions
within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; (2)
containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and (3)
bringing our troops safely home.
What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit
from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers
our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region,
insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.
For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in 50,000
troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and
the Iraqi Government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an
additional 3 or 6 months would enhance stability and security in the
region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the
optimal policy.
It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry amendment.
Instead, I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment, which gives us the
best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a
phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis
that we won't be there forever so that they need to move forward on
uniting and securing their country. I agree with Senator Warner that
the message should be ``we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with
it.'' At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time
and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal.
Essential to a successful policy is the administration listening to
its generals and diplomats and members of Congress especially those who
disagree with their policies and believe it is time to start bringing
our troops home.
The overwhelming majority of the Senate is already on record voting
for an amendment stating that calendar year 2006 should be a period of
significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security
forces

[[Page S6234]]

taking the lead for the security, creating the conditions for the
phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. The Levin
amendment builds on this approach.
The White House should follow this principle as well. Visiting Iraq
for a few hours cannot resuscitate or justify a failed policy. No
amount of spin or photo opportunities can change the bottom line: this
war has been poorly conceived and poorly managed by the White House,
and that is why it has been so poorly received by the American people..
And it is troubling to already see Karl Rove in New Hampshire,
treating this as a political attack opportunity instead of a major
national challenge around which to rally the country.
There are no easy answers to this war. I understand that many
Americans want to see our troops come home. The chaos, violence, and
horrors in Iraq are gut-wrenching reminders of what our men and women
in uniform, some just months out of high school, must confront on a
daily basis. They are doing this heroically, they are doing this
selflessly, and more than 2,500 of them have now made the ultimate
sacrifice for our country.
Not one of us wants to see our servicemen and women in harm's way a
day longer than they have to be. And that's why we must find the most
responsible way to bring them home as quickly as possible, while still
leaving the foundation of a secure Iraq that will not endanger the free
world.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized. The
Senator has 14 minutes 47 seconds remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is time for American troops to come
home. That was the judgment of the Senate last year. Last year, by a
vote of 79 to 19, we adopted on a bipartisan basis an amendment written
largely by the Senator from Michigan but amended and then cosponsored
by the Senator from Virginia. It was a bipartisan amendment.
By 79 to 19, we said last year that this year would be different.
This just would not be another year, it would be a year of significant
transition, and we were specific about what that transition meant. It
meant that the Iraqis would be moving toward control of their own
nation. It meant that their forces would take the lead. Those were our
words--``take the lead''--in defending their country. It meant that we
would create the condition for phased redeployment--that is, withdrawal
of U.S. forces. That is how we voted last year, 79 to 19.
Today, we are now debating again whether American forces can start to
come home. I thought we already decided that last year, that this would
be the year when they start to come home.
Senator Levin brings an amendment to the Senate and says again, as we
did last year, we will start redeploying or withdrawing American forces
this year. What do we hear from the other side of the aisle? The same
Republicans, many of whom voted to start bringing troops home this
year, now resist the idea.
Is that because Iraq is stronger today? Unfortunately, the statistics
do not suggest it. The news reports from the New York Times tells us in
May 2003, there were five recorded incidents of sectarian violence. In
May of 2004, 10; in May of 2005, 20; in May of 2006, 250.
To suggest that Iraq is stronger this year, a year later, is at least
subject to debate. But this much we do know: We know we are paying a
price every single day. The heartbreaking newscasts we listen to are of
our men and women, our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters who
continue to die in Iraq, as they simply drive their vehicles down the
road or stand and guard a security installation, 2,508 of our best and
bravest who have died.
The obvious question is, When will this end? The Bush administration,
what plan do they have? No end in sight for the way they view it. I
listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say the Iraqis
will take control in the future. This is the fourth year we have been
told that the Iraqis will stand up and defend their own country. We are
told they have 260,000 soldiers and police prepared to defend their own
country, ready to fight.
You know when I will believe that? When the first American soldier
comes home, replaced by an Iraqi soldier. That has not happened yet. We
are about to send 21,000 more American soldiers over to fight in
rotation to keep 130,000 on the ground. If these Iraqi forces are so
well trained and so well prepared, why are we sending another 21,000? I
don't think we can explain that.
I think we know what this is about. We are facing a situation in Iraq
today where the Iraqis have the wrong message from America. The Iraqis
believe that they can wait, patiently wait, until the day comes when
they defend their own country.
And why not? They have the best military in the world, the American
military, in place defending their country. They have the American
taxpayers paying for that defense. They understand we are prepared to
invest those resources, and they think it will be indefinite. Nothing
we are going to do on the floor of this U.S. Senate will change that
point of view, unless we adopt the Levin amendment which says we will
begin to withdraw the forces, redeploy the forces, this year.
There has been a lot of criticism on the floor that the party on the
other side of the aisle, the Republicans, is all unified and the
Democrats cannot seem to all agree on anything. I do not know what the
vote will be on the Levin amendment. I think it will be a substantial
vote within the Democratic caucus. But our critics are wrong.
Mr. President, 100 percent of the Democratic caucus believes it is
time for change. And 100 percent of the Republican caucus believes it
is time to stay the course, not change. They stand unified for the
premise that we will not demand accountability. They stand unified for
the premise that we will not have any change.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. I think the American people understand, as we do, that it
is time for us to say to the Iraqis: Stand and defend your own nation.
Let American soldiers start coming home.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask, how many minutes remain?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes 14 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, my
cosponsor, Mr. Reed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
There are two key elements in the Levin-Reed amendment. The first is
to begin redeployment, this year, of American combat forces in Iraq. So
many of my colleagues have mentioned Mr. Rubaie, who is the National
Security Adviser for the Iraqi Government. On two occasions he has said
it is not only feasible but desirable. He said it first on television,
and then he said it just this week in a carefully crafted editorial. So
this is something that I think can be done, and, according to a key
leader in the Iraq Government, should be done.
The second element is that the President should submit to Congress a
plan by the end of 2006, with estimated dates for the continued phased
redeployments of U.S. forces from Iraq, with the understanding that
unexpected contingencies may arise. The President should do this with
the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.
This has been referred to as an arbitrary timetable. It is not
arbitrary, and it is not a timetable. It is not a timetable of our
creation, but it would be of the President. So do, I assume, those who
object to this feel that the President could not produce such a
timetable? Or if he did produce such a timetable, it would be
arbitrary, that it would be made without consultation with our military
leaders, that it would be made without reference to conditions on the
ground? I do not think so. In fact, I think such a timetable would be
appropriate and necessary.
Also, I should point out that our amendment recognizes the residual

[[Page S6235]]

presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, those that will be training Iraqi
forces, those that will provide logistical support, and those that
would conduct counterterrorism operations, our special operations
troops.
But, essentially, what we would also like to do, which is so
critical, is to begin this transition from a predominantly military
response to a nonmilitary one. During and after the phased redeployment
of U.S. forces from Iraq, the United States will need a sustained
nonmilitary effort to actively support reconstruction, governments, and
a durable political solution.
One significant reason why our military is stuck in Iraq today is
because we have not made an appropriate nonmilitary effort. The
administration has bungled reconstruction. They have yet to deploy more
than 4 provisional reconstruction teams in the almost 18 provinces in
Iraq. They continue to lag behind in terms of political mentoring, in
terms of reconstruction, in terms of economic activity. They have done
nothing.
As a result, the only real viable tool we have is military forces.
And the commanders will tell you on the ground that they are just
buying time, that without this nonmilitary effort, all of our plans for
Iraq will not succeed.
Any effort like this requires popular support. Popular support rests
upon candor with the people. This administration has not been candid
with the people. They have not been candid with respect to the costs of
this war. And those costs will go up.
Indeed, to stay the course, we can predict billions and billions and
billions of more dollars. They have not been candid with respect to the
length of our operations. They have not been candid with respect to the
impact of these operations on our troops. They have substituted slogans
for candor.
This amendment gives the President an opportunity to present a plan
not only to the Congress but to the American people, a plan that will
be candid, a plan that will strive for victory, a plan of his making.
Without such a plan, we will continue to drift, and the chances of
success will continue to diminish.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 11 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, there is much we all agree upon in this body. We have
an interest in the stability of Iraq. And we want to improve the
chances of success in Iraq. The disagreement is over whether the
present course, with its open-ended commitment to maintain our military
presence in Iraq, as we now have it, contributes to that stability or
whether or not we must prod the Iraqis to do what only they can do--
come together to end the insurgency and to avoid an all-out civil war.
The President of Iraq, Mr. Talabani, a few months ago, said the
following about what Iraqis believe. He said that Iraqis believe that
U.S. forces are ready ``to stay as long as we ask them, no matter what
the period is.''
That perception on the part of the President of Iraq, reflecting the
view, presumably, of many Iraqis, that the United States is ``ready to
stay'' as long as the Iraqis ask us, no matter what the period is, is a
perception which must end. It is a perception that was based on our
administration's commitment, which was open-ended, unlimited,
unconditional.
Iraqis must make a choice. It is a choice that our blood and our
treasure has given them. The Iraqis, and the Iraqis alone, can unite to
avoid all-out civil war, by making the political power sharing that
needs to be done. Only the Iraqis can decide that they are going to
divide the resources equitably so that they can bring in all the groups
and the insurgency and avoid an all-out civil war. Only the Iraqis can
unite to remove the militia control of the police.
Their unity can do that. We cannot do that for them. We have given
them an opportunity. Mr. President, 2,500 American lives, 7 times as
many American wounded, have given them an opportunity. They must make a
choice: Do they want a nation or do they want civil war?
To maintain this open-ended commitment, which we now have, is
contributing to a dependency of the Iraqis on us rather than forcing
them, prodding them, to do what only they can do to build a nation.
The Levin-Reed sense-of-the-Congress amendment proposes that a phased
redeployment of U.S. troops be begun by the end of this year. Our
amendment does not establish a fixed ending date for redeployment. It
does not propose a fixed timetable once the phased redeployment has
begun. But while it does not establish a timetable, it does establish a
fixed time for the beginning of a phased redeployment by the end of
this year. It is not precipitous. It is by the end of this year begin a
phased redeployment of American troops.
Mr. President, the National Security Adviser of Iraq has been quoted
a number of times on the floor.
Do I have a minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 5 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
The National Security Adviser of Iraq said the following in
yesterday's Washington Post: We envisage the United States troop
presence by year's end to be under 100,000. That is a reduction of
30,000. That is totally in keeping with what the Levin-Reed amendment
proposes. That is the Iraqi envisioned timetable. We want to hold them
to that vision for their sake and for ours.
Then Mr. Rubaie, the Iraqi National Security Adviser, said the
following--and these are words which every one of us should soak in--
that the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's Government in
the eyes of its people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. Let us do that in a way which is thoughtful, orderly, and
planned. And that is what the Levin-Reed amendment proposes.
I thank the Chair. And I thank my good friend from Virginia, our
chairman, for the way in which this debate has been handled on both
sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with regard to the pending amendment, I
would only say, in response to the extra 10 seconds you had, I would
hope that security adviser was in consultation with our Government at
the time he made those remarks to determine the authenticity of those
remarks.
Now, my understanding is we now turn to an amendment by the Senator
from Massachusetts and the Senator from Wisconsin, I believe. Is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement----
Mr. WARNER. Cosponsors of that amendment: the Senator from
California, Mrs. Boxer, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
I inquire of the manager, in consultation with the proponents of this
amendment, first, if we could get some estimate of the time for the
introduction of the amendment. And then I would hope we would continue
the practice that we have had today by which Senators go back and forth
on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would propose that the Senator from
Massachusetts and the Senator from Wisconsin control the time which has
been allocated to them. And as to when they bring up their amendment,
it would be up to them because, as I envision this, they and you or
your designee would manage that time.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I intend to remain. I do not know that
there is a time agreement on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is unaware of a time agreement at
this time.
Mr. WARNER. In other words, we are in an unusual situation. Now,
maybe the distinguished colleague from Massachusetts can help advise
his leadership and me as to the time. It would be helpful because, like
colleagues on this side, there are commitments on our side with regard
to what Members wish to do this evening.
So I am just trying to strike a note of comity so that we can
accommodate those Senators on both sides of the aisle who are anxious
to participate in this debate.

[[Page S6236]]

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would yield, I totally concur that this
next amendment should be brought up and debated in an orderly way, but
that being agreed upon, I would hope, between the sponsors of that
amendment and the chairman, the Republican manager.
So I do not think there is any need for me, frankly, to intervene in
that process. Perhaps you could hear from the Senator from
Massachusetts as to what his plans are and how he plans to proceed. I
think that would be helpful.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill. I see no
reason why we cannot proceed as we normally do in the Senate. I am
happy to live by the tradition, with the distinguished manager, of
going back and forth. We do have a little bit of an issue with a couple
of Senators who need to attend other events. They are not going to
speak very long.
So what I would like to do is be able to have both of them speak.
Then if I could open up, and then Senator Feingold speak. And then we
would go back and forth. We have a number of speakers. I can't tell you
exactly how long it is going to take now. But we are not trying to
prolong it. We, obviously, have waited a significant amount of time. We
were going to bring this up last week, and then we ran into this little
parliamentary game that was played, wanting to go through the caucus.
And now we are finally here.
So I want to make sure we have an opportunity to adequately lay out
and counter what has been about 6 days of both misinterpretation and
misstatement about what this is and what it is not. So I am happy to
manage it. I respect the willingness of the Senator from Michigan to
let me do that. We will try to be as expeditious as we can.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I don't wish to
misinterpret his comments, but there was an amendment brought up by his
senior colleague from Massachusetts that took an inordinate amount of
time, which we had not anticipated. If there was some disjuncture of
the process over here, I believe it was initiated on that side.

Let's return to the matter at hand. Would 30 minutes allow you to
begin this debate and then we could have, say, 15 or so on this side
and then--
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we would need a little bit longer than that
to sort of open it up if we can. Simply because I am trying to
accommodate these two Senators, if we could let them speak, I think the
Senator from Illinois would like 10 minutes and the Senator from
Vermont would like about 10 minutes. Then I could open up. Senator
Feingold, I know, wants to speak. I think he wanted to speak for about
45 minutes or more.
Mr. WARNER. Do you think we could have some response from this side
before Senator Feingold begins?
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for an observation?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, like the
Senator from Vermont, has been here a long time. He knows that
sometimes on these things, we can spend more time working out the
agreement before time than it would actually take. Since I am one of
the ones who has to leave, I would ask at least on the original consent
that right after Senator Durbin, I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes.
I suspect this is going to work itself out.
Mr. WARNER. I am not objecting to that. I recognize you Senators have
commitments. There are colleagues on this side who have commitments. We
are trying to balance that and recognize that the proponents of the
amendment should have an opportunity to lay it down. It so happens that
there are four cosponsors.
Mr. KERRY. So that we don't chew up all the time trying to figure out
how to chew up the time, let me suggest that we agree that we have 20
minutes quickly divided between the Senator from Illinois and the
Senator from Vermont. Then if Senator Feingold and I could open for the
time that we need, and then it would be up to the Senator from
Virginia. He obviously would want to have an appropriate amount of time
to respond.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, but can he give us
some definition of the time desired by yourself and Senator Feingold?
Let's assume it is a half hour now between the Senator from Illinois
and the Senator from Vermont; that is, 30 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Twenty minutes, 10 and 10.
Mr. KERRY. Just to make certain that we are covering the time--and I
am not sure we will use it--I certainly would want to reserve an hour
for each.
Mr. WARNER. That would be an hour and 20 minutes before anyone on
this side--
Mr. KERRY. Two hours and 20 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Two hours and 20 minutes before anyone on this side gets
an opportunity to seek recognition other than the manager for purposes
of a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator asked me how much time we
needed. Whether it is before someone answers or not is something that
can be worked out. That is the time we need.
Mr. WARNER. That is a substantial departure from the manner in which
we have managed this bill thus far. I really think that this is most
unusual. We have no time agreement. We have an open-ended amendment. We
have four sponsors. We have colleagues that have commitments tonight. I
really believe at some point----
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how about if we let the two Senators I
mentioned proceed. Senator Feingold and I could each take 30 minutes at
this point. Then they have a response. Then we can come back and
respond afterwards.
Mr. WARNER. Fine. That is quite agreeable to me, take 30 minutes to
present the amendment. Then we will on this side have an equal amount
of time.
Mr. KERRY. Instead of taking an hour each--I need to protect Senator
Feingold's request. He is not here, and I am already compromising
myself on his behalf--we would both give up a half hour to begin with,
so we would take an hour and 20 minutes, and then the Senator from
Virginia would have an hour or whatever he wants to respond.
Mr. WARNER. So an hour and 20 minutes on this side to initiate the
amendment. I will concede that we will do that. But it seems to me
somewhat a departure from the way we normally manage things. Then it
comes to this side for, let's say, an hour's debate.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. I thank the Chair. Senator Lieberman has been here off and
on during the day wanting to speak.
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. REID. If there is going to be any time agreement, Senator
Lieberman ought to be worked into this. We have Senator Byrd here who
has been calling all day.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would be happy to say, when the time
comes to this side, he can initiate on our time his remarks.

Mr. REID. Senators Byrd and Lieberman or both.
Mr. WARNER. Senator Lieberman. I didn't hear Senator Byrd mentioned.
Let's hear from our senior colleague as to what his desires are.
Mr. REID. We will take you up on that, if you will give Senator
Lieberman 10 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. I would be happy to do that at the conclusion of 1 hour
and 20 minutes, that our side be recognized for a period of, let's say,
30 minutes, of which the first 10 will be given to Senator Lieberman.
Mr. REID. As usual, the Senator from Virginia is very kind.
Mr. WARNER. I do believe we ought to hear from our senior colleague
as to what his desires might be.
Mr. LEAHY. Before the Senator speaks, does that mean that the
original request that Senator Durbin and I would each be heard first--
--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has not heard a unanimous consent
request from the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we agreed that since these two Senators are
under a timeline difficulty, we would try to accommodate them. Could we
have the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Illinois each speak
for 10 minutes?
Mr. WARNER. I have no objection, if you wish to initiate with those
two

[[Page S6237]]

Senators beginning with 10 minutes each. Then what is to follow
thereafter?
Mr. KERRY. At that point I would hope that Senator Feingold and I
would have an opportunity to introduce the amendment itself.
Mr. WARNER. Therefore using what amount of time?
Mr. KERRY. As I said, we would like 30 minutes each, and then we will
come back afterwards.
Mr. WARNER. So we are back to the hour and 20 minutes on that side
before we receive any time on this side?
Mr. KERRY. We won't even introduce the amendment, if we don't do
that.
Mr. WARNER. The amendment has been here for some time. I have had an
opportunity to examine it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. BYRD. Before the Senator does that, may I inject--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold his request?
Mr. WARNER. Yes, out of respect for our distinguished colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair, and I thank my distinguished friend from
Virginia, Senator Warner.
I have an amendment. I would at least like to debate it or have some
time to speak on it. I was hoping that I might be able to speak for not
to exceed 30 minutes on my amendment. I would like to throw that in the
mix.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: To inform both the
senior Senator from West Virginia, myself, and others, what is the
order before the Senate at this time? My understanding is the Kerry-
Feingold amendment with an unlimited amount of time on it and there is
no provision for other amendments at this time; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from
Massachusetts, under the previous agreement, was to be recognized for
his amendment at this time.
Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend, the order has been in for some
24 hours by which this is the amendment. The time allocation is under
the control of the two managers. We will work that out momentarily,
hopefully on an equitable basis. I do not at this point in time see the
opportunity for the introduction of your amendment, I say with due
respect, until such time as the debate on the Kerry-Feingold amendment
is concluded.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have not heard all of the debate, but from
what I have heard, I don't think that another Senator, this Senator,
would be precluded from asking for time to explain his amendment. Now
if the agreement may preclude other amendments--I don't know whether it
does or not. If it does, then that is one thing. But I have an
amendment, and I would like to speak on it. I wonder if Senators
wouldn't allow me to speak. I have four to six pages. I can do those in
40 minutes or less.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would be more than happy to accommodate
my distinguished friend and leader. I simply say that unless we amend
the order at this point, I do not see that opportunity. I will be glad
to put in a quorum in hopes that we can resolve not only the time
allocation on this side but how we could accommodate our distinguished
colleague from West Virginia.
Mr. LEVIN. I suggest that the two Senators who need 10 minutes each
be recognized now and that we try to negotiate these various time needs
during their presentation.
Mr. WARNER. That is a very reasonable request. I now ask unanimous
consent that the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Illinois
be----
Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, could I
please have the unanimous consent request stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request is the
following----
Mr. WARNER. That the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from
Illinois be recognized at this time seriatim for 10 minutes each,
during which time we are going to try to negotiate the time allowance.
Then at the end of that 20 minutes, we resume under the standing order
of the Senate and the Kerry amendment goes back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the Levin-Reed
amendment on Iraq, and I will also vote for the Kerry amendment, of
which I am a cosponsor.
Both amendments are a step in the right direction, as they finally
begin the process of winding down what has been the most poorly
conceived, costly, and tragic misuse of United States military power
since Vietnam.
We got into this war for reasons that bear little if any resemblance
to the reasons the White House gives for keeping our troops there today
at a cost of more than a billion dollars every week.
First it was weapons of mass destruction. There were none. Anyone who
urged continued monitoring by United Nations inspectors was ridiculed
by the White House as being naive.
Then it was Saddam Hussein's supposed ties to al-Qaida, which was a
blatant, calculated distortion.
There was none, yet the Vice President continues to say there was.
Today, thanks to the policy of the President and the rubber stamping by
the Congress, Iraq and Guantanamo are the rallying cry for terrorists
around the world.
Then it was because Saddam Hussein--who posed no threat to the United
States--was a brutal dictator, which he was. He was also supported by
the Reagan administration.
That, however, is not a justification for a war that has cost the
lives and limbs of thousands of young Americans and tens of thousands
of Iraqi civilians.
Winning against terrorism, like stopping the proliferation of
dangerous weapons, promoting peace between Arabs and Israelis, or
solving any other regional or global problem, requires the trust, the
respect, the cooperation and the support of our allies.
Unfortunately, these, too, are casualties of this war. Squandered
away.
The damage that this reckless adventure has caused to our reputation,
particularly among the world's Muslims in countries like Turkey,
Jordan, Indonesia, Egypt and other traditional allies, is incalculable.
We have heard a lot of partisan rhetoric about cutting and running.
How easy it is to ask others to fight and die from the safety and
comfort of an office in Washington.
How easy it is to vote for tax cuts and to self-righteously wave the
flag, while our troops are scavenging for scraps of metal to protect
themselves from IEDs. They were sent to fight and die without armor, by
top Pentagon officials back home who proudly, dismissively and
resolutely insisted they were ready, when they were not.
How easy it is to mislead the country, with patriotic pronouncements
by the President like ``mission accomplished,'' or that we are seeing
the ``last throes'' of the insurgency.
Contrary to the blatantly partisan and false attacks of the
President's political advisors, no one questions the threat that al-
Qaida and other terrorist networks pose to the security of Americans
and to the people of other nations.
No one questions that we need an effective strategy to combat it. The
issue is how best to combat it.
This administration has shown the world how not to do it, creating a
lengthening catalogue of squander.
You don't do it by starting a war with selective, faulty
intelligence, by dismissing thoughtful criticism as unpatriotic,
without enough troops, with no plan to win the peace, by cavalierly
discounting the risks.
You don't do it by repeatedly misleading the American people.
You don't do it by creating and fueling a terrorism problem where
there was none.
And you don't do it by shamelessly denigrating the Geneva Conventions
and the rights and values that distinguish us from the terrorists.
Unlike the war to defeat the Taliban, which continues to this day and
shows no signs of abating, the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with
Osama bin Laden or the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon.
It has degraded our military in ways that will cost us trillions--not
billions--trillions of dollars to rebuild.
It has left a legacy of thousands of maimed and crippled young
veterans with medical and other needs that they, their families, and
their communities will cope with for the rest of their lives.

[[Page S6238]]

Our troops have fought bravely in the harshest of conditions. They
are our constituents. They are the sons and daughters of our friends
and neighbors. They have carried out extraordinarily difficult
missions, including tracking down and capturing Saddam Hussein and
killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
They have sacrificed so much. We support them unequivocally,
Democrats and Republicans. The question is how we can best support
them.
This was to be the year of transition. That was what the Congress
voted last year, and what the President signed into law. Yet, the
Administration continues to simply stay the course. This course is not
in America's best interest.
Iraq has a new constitution. It has had elections. It has a
democratically elected government.
We have trained and equipped more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers.
It has been more than three years since the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein. More than 2,500 Americans have died. We have been there as
long as we were in World War II.
The Iraqi people need to take responsibility for their own country.
It will not happen immediately, but both the Levin amendment and the
Kerry amendment move us toward that goal.
I have cast over 12,000 votes in this Senate. I am as proud of my
vote against the open ended resolution that gave the President the
authority to invade Iraq as any I have cast in 32 years. It is time for
the Congress to change the course of a policy that has cost us hundreds
of billions of dollars that would have been far better spent here at
home, that has weakened our leadership, that is dividing our country,
and that has not made us safer.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Illinois is to be recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. 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.
Mr. DURBIN. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the course of a congressional career,
you are asked to make many votes. Most of them are fairly routine and
not long remembered. In the course of my career on Capitol Hill, those
votes that have kept me up at night, those I remember years after they
are cast relate to one issue--the issue of war. When you have cast that
vote, if the decision to go forward has been made, people will die--not
just the enemy but brave Americans and usually innocent civilians.
So I remember very well that night in October 2002, when we were
called to this floor of the Senate to vote on the issue of authorizing
the President to go to war in Iraq. I say to the Senator from West
Virginia, I will never forget that moment. There were 23 of us--22 on
this side of the aisle and 1 on the other side--who stood up and voted
no. If the Senator recalls, that vote ended late at night, near
midnight. I stayed on the floor because I knew I would not be able to
sleep when I got home. There were two Senators who were here waiting
with the same feelings of emotion. One of them was our late colleague,
Senator Paul Wellstone. Senator Wellstone was going back home to
Minnesota to face reelection. I remember saying to him, ``Paul, I hope
this doesn't cost you the election.'' Do you know what he said to me?
He said, ``It doesn't matter, this is what I believe. This is who I
am.'' That was the last conversation I ever had with Paul Wellstone. He
died in a plane crash a few days later. I have thought about him a lot
ever since and I miss him. I miss his voice. I wish he were here today.
If he were here, I know what he would be doing. He would be joining me
in supporting the Kerry amendment. I believe that in the meantime he
probably would have voted, as I have, to support the troops. I voted to
give the President every penny he has asked for in this war. Once that
decision to go forward was made, my yardstick was very basic. If it
were your son or daughter in uniform in Iraq, would you not give them
everything they needed to wage this war and to come home safely? It was
an easy question to ask and answer, particularly if you lived through
the debacle of Vietnam, when our poor soldiers became the victims of
public contempt because of our displeasure with the decisions of
politicians. That must never happen again.
So now in the fourth year of the struggle, I have given the President
every resource he has asked for. I have stood behind him and this
administration even when I disagreed with their policy because I felt
it was best that we stay uniform.
Today, I join in a decision being made by several of my colleagues to
say that we must make it clear to the Iraqi people that our commitment
is not forever. What have we given the Iraqis? We have given them 2,508
American lives. We have given them 18,000 soldiers who have returned
home with injuries of body and spirit--2,000 with head injuries that
may be life-changing. We have given them $300 billion of our treasury.
We have given them the focus of our attention and the focus of our
resources at the expense of our own country. What have they received in
return? Their dictator has been deposed. We dug him out of a hole in
the ground, put him on trial in front of his own people. We have given
the Iraqi people three elections and two governments. We said control
your future and your fate; this is your country. We helped them train
about 264,000 soldiers and policemen. We invested billions in their
infrastructure for oil and water.

We have given that nation virtually more than any other nation has
ever given. But now we must tell the Iraqis something very straight and
simple: It is time for them to stand and defend their own country. If
they truly believe in the future of Iraq, it is time for them to stand
and risk their own lives and their own blood for their own nation. This
amendment by Senators Kerry, Feingold, and others, says to them that at
the end of the year we will consider the withdrawal of all of our
troops.
Now, I say that with some equivocation because if you read the
amendment, Senators Kerry and Feingold have been careful. They
understand that we are not going to pull every troop out as of the last
day regardless of the circumstances. They have carefully crafted the
language, which says that if we face a threat of terrorism, if we are
still needed to continue training troops, or if there is danger to
Americans at our facilities, we can stay and defend, as we should. It
is not an immediate withdrawal on the last day. But it says to the
Iraqis: You must stand and fight on your own.
I have been told over and over again how well trained these Iraqi
soldiers are. The proof of their fitness for battle is when the first
Iraqi soldier replaces an American soldier, so that soldier can come
home with his mission truly accomplished.
If we leave this open-ended, as those on the other side would
suggest, I am afraid the Iraqis will understand that they have the best
military in the world that will stay there indefinitely. How can we do
that to our soldiers who have performed so well, who have been the
model of bravery, the model of patriotism?
We have been misled into this war. We were given information by the
administration that was not true. This war has not been well managed by
this administration in terms of the number of troops sent into the
field or the equipment being given to them. We know that. For years, we
have been promised that these Iraqis would stand and fight and we could
come home. That has not happened. Now I have reached that point that
other colleagues have reached as well, where I believe the Iraqis must
be told that now it is your nation, now it is your turn.
For those who say that one year is not enough time--one year is not
enough time? What happened in the last 12 months in Iraq, in the last
12-month period of time? We have lost 762 American soldiers in the last
12 months. We have spent $90 billion in the last 12 months. We have
seen thousands of soldiers return home with injuries. It is not just
the passage of time, it is the passage of life and life's journey for
so many of our soldiers. Twelve months is a reasonable time--12 months,
and all that it means for us and all that we would give, is a
reasonable time.

[[Page S6239]]

I say to the Senators from Massachusetts and Wisconsin, I thank you
for bringing this measure before us. I think it is now time for the
American people to stand up and say to this administration: You misled
us into this war. You have no plan for it to end. Our brave soldiers
deserve the leadership that brings us to the right conclusion. I think
we can do that. I think this amendment is a step in the right
direction. I will support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. 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.
Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank all for their cooperation. I think
we have reached a reconciliation of the needs and requirements of all
for a period of time. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Kerry be recognized now to offer his amendment and, provided further,
that he then be allocated 30 minutes to speak; further, that there be
debate only as follows; provided further, that that be followed by up
to 30 minutes under the control of the chairman, Senator Warner, to be
followed by up to 30 minutes under the control of Senator Boxer, to be
followed by 20 minutes under the control of Senator Byrd; provided
further, that there now be a period of 10 minutes under the control of
Senator Lieberman; thereafter, provided further, that there be 30
minutes under the control of Chairman Warner, to be followed by Senator
Feingold, to be followed by Senator Warner.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am one of the main cosponsors of the
amendment. I request to be the next Democratic speaker for 30 minutes
after Senator Kerry.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, we have now spent
30 minutes working out this time arrangement.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will cede my time to Senator Feingold
now, Senator Boxer can go, and I will go afterwards. I will just flip
with Senator Feingold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. As amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. As amended.
Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Has the Chair announced the acceptance of the unanimous
consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there is no objection to the request.

Amendment No. 4442

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4442, and I yield
30 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself,
Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an
amendment numbered 4442.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces
from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage
the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve
victory in the war on terror)

On page 437, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1084. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Redeployment of Troops From Iraq.--
(1) Schedule for redeployment.--For purposes of
strengthening the national security of the United States, the
President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, United States
forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a
schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving
only the minimal number of forces that are critical to
completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces,
conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism
operations, and protecting United States facilities and
personnel.
(2) Consultation with congress required.--The President
shall consult with Congress regarding the schedule for
redeployment and shall submit such schedule to Congress as
part of the report required under subsection (c).
(3) Maintenance of over-the-horizon troop presence.--The
President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence
to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security
interests.
(b) Iraq Summit.--The President should work with the
leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon
as possible that includes those leaders, leaders of the
governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives
of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European
Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent
member of the United Nations Security Council, for the
purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for
Iraq that engenders the support of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds
by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues,
disbanding the militias, strengthening internal security,
reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related
international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq's
borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure
in Iraq.
(c) Report on Redeployment.--
(1) Report required.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall,
in consultation with the Secretary of State, submit to
Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the
redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by July 1,
2007.
(2) Strategy elements.--The strategy required in the report
under paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) The schedule for redeploying United States forces from
Iraq by July 1, 2007, developed pursuant to subsection
(a)(1).
(B) A schedule for returning the majority of such
redeployed forces home to the United States.
(C) The number, size, and character of United States
military units needed in Iraq after July 1, 2007, for
purposes of counterterrorism activities, training Iraqi
security forces, and protecting United States infrastructure
and personnel.
(D) A strategy for addressing the regional implications for
diplomacy, politics, and development of redeploying United
States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.
(E) A strategy for ensuring the safety and security of
United States forces in Iraq during and after the July 1,
2007, redeployment, and a contingency plan for addressing
dramatic changes in security conditions that may require a
limited number of United States forces to remain in Iraq
after that date.
(F) A strategy for redeploying United States forces to
effectively engage and defeat global terrorist networks that
threaten the United States.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from
Massachusetts. I am going to abbreviate my remarks so he and I can
hopefully split this time and yield it back. It is regrettable that we
are not able to present this amendment in the manner we normally would
expect, which is the two lead sponsors would each offer their thoughts
without that type of limitation.
Nonetheless, this amendment is something that I think represents not
only the views of the Senator from Massachusetts and myself but the
views of the majority of the American people which they have come to in
a very painful way after this war has proceeded in the way it has.
In fact, I find it jarring that we spend so much time on the floor of
the Senate and throughout the Congress talking almost incessantly about
the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq, as if
the attack had come from Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked
by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11. And yet here we are
discussing day after day, week after week every tiny aspect of the
situation in Iraq.
Of course, it is a terribly important situation, but I submit--and I
think the Senator from Massachusetts agrees with me--that the
overriding issue is what is in the best interest of the national
security of the United States of America, what is in the best interest
of protecting the American people when they are at home and when they
are abroad.
All of us in this Chamber, every single one of us, supported the
appropriate action to invade Afghanistan. It was a necessary war, a war
that had to be fought in order to go after the Taliban and al-Qaida.
None of us stood back and said, as the Senator from Texas wants to say,
that somehow some of us who don't believe in war will never support a
war and the rest support wars.

[[Page S6240]]

That is absurd. We understand when it is absolutely essential, and it
was essential in the case of Afghanistan.
I voted against the Iraq war because it appeared obvious to me that
was not the wise next strategic move in the fight against al-Qaida,
those who attacked us. It was pretty clear to me, but it was even clear
apparently to this administration when, on their own State Department
Web site, where President Bush had his name, they listed the 45
countries where they believed al-Qaida was operating. This came out in
November of 2001. It included, obviously, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Ireland, the United States. Guess what country wasn't even
on their list. Iraq. And this has been confirmed publicly by the
recognition now, despite the gross misrepresentations that al-Zarqawi
was not even in the part of Iraq controlled by Saddam Hussein when we
invaded Iraq.
It is pretty obvious on the face of this that this was not the place
to go if we wanted to deal with al-Qaida. They were not there then, but
because of the errors we have made, we created a beachhead for them to
do far more in Iraq than they ever could in the past.
I understand former Secretary of State James Baker, Secretary of
State under the first George Bush, said he used to go around the
country and people would ask him every day: Why didn't you go on into
Iraq at the time of the first gulf war? He says with a smile: I don't
get asked that question anymore because it didn't make sense. It didn't
make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.

One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is
necessary because what we are going to do is have all the terrorists
come into Iraq, and we are going to get them all, and then they
wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach-
motel theory, the idea that all these terrorists all over the world are
simply focused on Iraq and by staying we are going to get them. This is
what I would like to call an Iraq centrist policy, a policy that
somehow believes Iraq is the be all and end all of our foreign policy
when, of course, it is nothing of the kind.
The fact is, those against al-Qaida is a much broader fight. I have
seen estimates of somewhere between 60 to 80 countries where al-Qaida
is operating. Yet our focus, our troops, and our resources are only
heavily focused on this Iraq situation. This is just plain tragic 5
years after 9/11.
One might say we are fighting the terrorists in other countries, too;
we are doing whatever we can. But we are not. We have taken our eye off
the ball. We are not dealing with the al-Qaida threat in other
countries because we are so focused on Iraq.
One good example is Somalia. Remember Somalia? This is a place where
we know there were al-Qaida operatives and affiliated groups. It is one
of those failed states where it is almost an invitation to terrorist
organizations to come in and organize and be away from any kind of
control. Because we haven't been paying attention to Somalia, because
we don't have a policy in Somalia, guess what just happened. A radical
Islamist group has taken over Mogadishu and now threatens to take over
the rest of the country.
I can't say for sure what they will do, but there are indications
they may be very much like the type of Taliban government or
organization that fostered al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
So we have taken our eye off the ball. In fact, I asked Ambassador
Crumpton last week in a public hearing: How many people do we have in
the Government devoted to Somalia full time? Mr. President, do you know
what his answer was? One person. One person in a country that is
clearly a threat in terms of al-Qaida.
It is not just there. What about Indonesia? Indonesia is the largest
Islamic country in the entire world. It is the fourth largest country
in the world. I heard Senators debating who had been to Iraq the most.
One said he had been there 12 times. One said he had been there 11
times. Guess how many Senators have even been to Indonesia once in the
last 2\1/2\ years. Just two of us, Senator Bond and myself, to a
country that is being terrorized by a group called JI, Jemaah Islamiah,
that is clearly affiliated with al-Qaida.
We are not paying attention to Indonesia. We are not putting our
political and other resources there. We are only focused on Iraq where
al-Qaida wasn't even operating as of the time of the invasion.
If that isn't enough, what about Afghanistan? I think we can all
agree that Afghanistan is a place where we ought to win, where we
shouldn't deplete our resources--well, we shouldn't, in the words of my
colleagues on the other side, cut and run. But we are now feeling the
consequences of what some have called the Iraq tax in Afghanistan, and
that is the resurgence of Taliban fighters.
The recent death of more U.S. and Afghan soldiers there and the
continued presence of terrorist networks in the region show how
shortsighted this administration was by taking its eye off the ball.
We have not finished the job in Afghanistan, and we are now at risk
of backsliding into instability. This is where the attack on the Twin
Towers and the Pentagon was planned. This is where it was done. And
because of this overemphasis and obsession with only staying in Iraq,
we are allowing the Taliban and perhaps al-Qaida to get back in.
Let me give an example of what some said about this. A recent expert
indicated with regard to the Afghanistan situation:

It is now 5 years since George W. Bush declared victory in
Afghanistan and said that the terrorists were smashed.
Since the Bonn meeting in late 2001, a smorgasbord of international
military and development forces has been increasing in size. How is it
then that Afghanistan is near collapse once again? To put it briefly,
what has gone wrong has been the invasion of Iraq. What has gone wrong
is the invasion of Iraq, Washington's refusal to take State-building in
Afghanistan seriously, and instead waging a fruitless war in Iraq. That
view is shared by many others. I assure you I could give you many other
examples.
But the point is, despite the fact that we all know who attacked us
on 9/11, we are not focused on them. It is the most absurd situation I
have ever seen in my 25 years as a legislator. Everybody knows we went
into Iraq on a mistaken basis. Everybody knows that al-Qaida is the one
who attacked us. Yet somehow our colleagues on the other side are
trying to pretend they are one and the same thing, when everybody knows
it is nothing of the kind.
So we have to change course. We have to refocus our energies on those
who attacked us. I have heard a number of statements on the floor
today, and I have been out here on and off since noon listening to the
debate. I heard the Senator from Kentucky make the assertion that if we
don't, they will soon be back here--meaning in the United States--if we
don't stop them in Iraq. Well, the fact is, they are being effective in
attacking us and our colleagues and our allies in many other places: In
Indonesia, in London, in Madrid, in Turkey, in Morocco. It is not as if
there haven't been any attacks. It is not as if this al-Qaida
organization isn't functioning. I mean, under their argument,
apparently we should invade all those other countries on false
pretenses as a way to somehow root out the terrorists. But we know that
approach doesn't work.
If we continue to be stuck in Iraq, we are facilitating al-Qaida's
future. We are facilitating their recruitment. We are facilitating the
growth of their operations in places such as the Philippines, Malaysia,
and Indonesia. We are facilitating al-Qaida if we continue to make this
mistake in Iraq over and over again. That is what I care the most
about.
One of my colleagues, the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison said:
If we were to withdraw the troops or redeploy the troops in the coming
year, we would be giving the enemy the playbook. Well, my point is, we
need a new playbook. The playbook has nothing to do with 9/11. The
playbook has nothing to do with al-Qaida. We need a new playbook that
has something to do with what really threatens the American people.
That is what the Kerry-Feingold amendment is all about. It is not about
just taking off. What it is about is refocusing.
Of course, we have been faced all day with all of the horrible things
that might happen if we bring the troops

[[Page S6241]]

out of Iraq, and that is a fair debate. What happens if the other side
is wrong? What happens if a reasonable redeployment over the next year
would work, and the Iraqi Government would be able to handle it? Think
about the ``what if'' there.
We had a moment of silence on the floor, I believe on October 31, for
the two thousandth American troop killed in the Iraq war. I believe
last week we had a moment of silence for No. 2,500. What if they are
wrong? What if we can get out of there now in a reasonable way and
refocus on the fight against terrorism so we don't have to stand
here and have that moment for No. 3,000, for No. 3,500, for No. 10,000.
That is the direction we are heading, and the American people know it.
Do we think it makes sense for our national security to have some
135,000 American troops on the ground in harm's way without any clear
idea of how that is going to change the situation in Iraq?

Mr. President, it was bad strategy to go into Iraq in the first
place, and it is a bad strategy to stay there because we are there and
we don't want to admit that it was a bad idea in the first place. Some
will say: Well, what you are saying then is those who have died have
died in vain in Iraq. I disagree. I think anytime an American gives his
or her life pursuant to a decision of our democracy, it is impossible
for that person to die in vain. That is how our system works. I voted
against this war. I didn't think it was a good idea. But we voted on
it. That is how it works. As long as those troops fight in that spirit
in support of a democratic decision, they do not die in vain, and we
honor them for their sacrifice.
If the policy is wrong, if we made a mistake, we owe it to their
families, we owe it to those who are injured, we owe it to those who
are still there and who will still go and who will die in the future to
correct that mistake, to change course. We owe it to them to do what
makes the most sense.
What makes the most sense? We have, in my view, two choices--not this
absurd notion that somebody wants all the troops to leave tomorrow.
Choice No. 1 is a completely open-ended commitment, with no guarantee
that this will end anytime in the near future or a commitment to finish
the mission by a reasonable date and redeploy the troops where they can
be better used to help us in the fight against those who attacked us on
9/11.
Mr. President, I heard the junior Senator from Virginia say: We don't
need to embolden our enemy. It is his view that the idea of having a
reasonable timetable to bring the troops out emboldens the enemy. Well,
I will tell you what emboldens the enemy: Thinking they have us in a
trap and we don't know how to get out. That emboldens and exhilarates
them. They wanted us in Iraq. They are glad we are in Iraq. And they
are using it as a way to fuel the hatred that generated 9/11. That is
the bottom line.
To me, this is about national security. To me, this is about those
who attacked us on 9/11. This administration and this Congress made a
mistake by thinking that Iraq was the logical next step in this fight.
It is time to reverse course. It is time to redeploy. It is time to
focus on the real security of the American people.
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield back the time to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am going to speak, obviously, a little
bit in an abbreviated fashion at this point, and then I will reserve
time and speak again later because of the way things have worked out.
I want to thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I want to thank him for
his foresight and his leadership with respect to this issue, and I also
want to thank him for his cooperation and efforts in the last days to
put together what I think is a reasonable and sensible approach to how
we deal with an obviously complicated situation.
Let me say that I have heard this debate over the course of the last
days and I have listened carefully and I am saddened, in a sense--but I
guess I have grown to expect it in the course of our politics--that
there is an awful lot of characterization going around, an awful lot of
stereotype sloganeering which tries to characterize something as other
than what it is. It is what we have come to.
The fact is that this amendment is not what it is being characterized
as. I have heard a number of people say it is a precipitous withdrawal.
I have heard obviously the words ``cut and run'' and other words used
many times.
Let me first point out the differences between this and the other
amendment that has already been debated. First of all, this is binding.
The other amendment is a sense of the Senate, and our troops and our
country deserve more than a sense of the Senate. They deserve a policy.
Secondly, we have a date; the other is open-ended. It is almost like
what President Bush is doing. We are going to stay the course and be
open-ended.
Thirdly, this has an over-the-horizon force specifically to protect
the security interests of the United States of America in the region
and with respect to Iraq. But in addition to that, this amendment
specifically strengthens the national security of the United States. It
is not an abandonment of Iraq; it is, in fact, a way of empowering Iraq
to stand up on its two feet and for the Iraqis to be able to do what
they have expressed their desire to do, which is have their
sovereignty.
It is interesting. In the last day we had a huge debate about the
sovereignty of Iraq, and colleague after colleague came down and said
how important it is to respect the sovereignty of Iraq. Well, this
amendment respects the sovereignty of Iraq. In fact, it increases the
sovereignty of Iraq. It provides specifically for three provisos under
which the President has the ability to be able to lead troops. There is
no abandonment of Iraq. It sets a date by which, over the course of the
next year, the Iraqis themselves have said they have the ability to be
able to take over their own security. Prime Minister Maliki said a few
days ago that by the end of this year--December--in 16 out of 18
provinces, they will be able to take care of their own security. This
amendment holds them accountable.
In addition to that, it provides for the ability of the President to
maintain a minimal number of forces who are critical to the job of
standing up Iraqi security forces, of conducting targeted and
specialized counterterrorism operations like the kind that got Zarqawi
and also protecting United States facilities and personnel.
So even when you reach the date of next year--ample enough time for
the Iraqis to complete the task of standing up--it will be 4 years, Mr.
President, next year, and I think the American people have a right to
expect that after 4 years, soldiers who have been trained over the
course of those years are prepared to stand up for their country. In
the United States of America, when we send a marine recruit to
Pendleton or to Quantico, we can tell you in a matter of months when
that recruit is ready for deployment. When we send a pilot to Corpus
Christi or Pensacola, we can tell you exactly when they are ready to
deploy. Is this administration telling us that after 4 years, we don't
have Iraqis who are trained enough to drive trucks and perhaps be blown
up by an IED, rather than an American soldier? Are they telling us they
are not going to be prepared enough to be able to stand up for the
security of Iraq?
This amendment demands the same kind of accountability that the
President was prepared to demand each step of the way of the Iraqis up
until this point. We set a date for the transfer of the provisional
Government. They said: Oh, we can't do it that fast. We said: You have
to do it that fast, and we did it. We then set a date for the
Constitution and the referendum. Some Senators, some of whom have
spoken against this amendment, came out and said: Oh, I think it is too
early. I don't think we ought to have that date. Many of us stood up
and said: No, we have to hold the date and hold them to the date. Guess
what. We did it. We held them to the date and we got the Constitution.
The same thing happened for both elections. A lot of people came up
and said: Oh, we can't get this all together on time; we have to delay
the election. We said: No, we are going to stick with the election
date, and we did. General Casey himself has said that the large
presence of American troops is lending to the occupation, the sense of
occupation, and it is delaying the willingness

[[Page S6242]]

of Iraqis to stand up. It is human nature. Anybody who has to go out
and take the risk of loss of life, if somebody else is there to do it
for you, you stand back. The fact is, countless numbers of conservative
voices, including people like Bill Buckley, have suggested that the
time has come for American forces to leave. He happens to believe, as
others do, that it is lost. I think there is nothing in this amendment
at all that, as some colleagues have said, that some people have
decided it is all lost. I do not believe that.

I believe this is the way you empower the Iraqi Government, with its
own people. This is the way you have accountability for what they need
to achieve in the next year. This is the way you require their forces
to take on responsibilities they may be reluctant to do today. And it
allows for the President to make a determination that the job is not
quite done and we can address the troops that may be necessary to
complete that task.
That is anything but abandonment. I have heard some people say there
is no plan. There is more plan here than there is in any other approach
to what is happening in Iraq. Why do I say that?
Again, listen to our own generals. General Casey and others have all
said that the reality is that this war cannot be won militarily. Our
own commanding general is saying to us: You can't win it militarily.
Secretary Condoleezza Rice has said it can't be won militarily, it must
be won politically.
Our soldiers have done their job. Our soldiers have won the part of
the war they need to win. They have given the Iraqi people a
government. They have given the Iraqi people several elections. They
have given them a constitution. Now it is time for Iraqis to stand up
and want democracy for themselves as much as we want it for them. The
best way to guarantee that is going to happen is to set a date with a
proviso that the three things that we still need to do can still be
done: make sure they are trained, continue to fight al-Qaida, and
protect American forces and American facilities. All of that is
provided for in this amendment.
This has been quoted a couple of times out here today, but let me
remind my colleagues what the National Security Adviser to the Prime
Minister has said, himself, in ``The Way Out of Iraq, A Roadmap.''

The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets
will help the Iraqis who now see foreign troops as occupiers
rather than the liberators they were meant to be. It will
remove psychological barriers and the reason that many Iraqis
joined the so-called resistance in the first place. The
removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to
engage with some of our neighbors who have, to date, been at
the very least sympathetic to the resistance to what they
call the coalition occupation.

That is the National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister of Iraq,
telling us that withdrawing American troops will, in fact, help them
provide order in the streets of Iraq.
The Senator from Virginia and I were in Iraq together. Nobody works
harder in the Senate at protecting our security than he does. I respect
him, and he knows he is my friend. He knows as well as others know here
that what General Casey said is true. There is no military solution to
what is happening in Iraq. You either resolve the differences between
Shia and Sunni and provide for an adequacy of the differences that are
fueling the insurgency or the insurgency will continue.
There are five different components of that insurgency. There are
outright criminals, and there is organized crime. There is al-Qaida.
You have the Baathists, who have one attitude about regaining power.
And, of course, you have the insurgents who are different from the
Baathists, who are hardcore.
Those are different elements that are going to have to be resolved in
different ways. I ask any of my colleagues, where is the diplomacy
necessary to deal with this? What we do in this is require the kind of
diplomatic effort that, in fact, is a plan to resolve all of the
problems that are outstanding in Iraq: the problems with respect to
governments bordering the country, the problems with respect to Shia
and Sunni, the problems with the divisions of royalties of oil, how do
you protect the rights of Sunnis in the minority, what is the degree of
federalism that will exist in the government. These are the reasons for
the insurgency.
At this moment, I don't see the kind of effort I have seen
historically, whether it was from Henry Kissinger in the Middle East
with shuttle diplomacy, in Vietnam, or Jim Baker in his efforts to put
together a major coalition with respect to Desert Storm--that doesn't
exist today. So a policy to say ``stay the course'' is a policy to say
you are not going to resolve those issues. It is a policy to hope that
somehow the Iraqis will pull their act together. It is a policy that is
based on more wishful thinking than on real policy changes that address
the question of shifting responsibility.
When the Prime Minister of Iraq can tell us that they can manage 16
out of 18 provinces within a year, when 87 percent of the Iraqis are
polled and say they think we ought to set a date for withdrawal of
American troops, when 94 percent of the Sunnis say we ought to
withdraw, when 90 percent of the Shias say we ought to withdraw, we
ought to listen to the Iraqis. After all the talk in the last days
about sovereignty, where is that respect for sovereignty?
I have more to say about why it is important for us to take this
effort here. The long list of mistakes that have been made do not
inspire confidence in the judgments made by this administration.
Congress helped to get us into this war. Congress needs to take on
responsibility for helping to get us out of it.
I had a lot more to say, and I have a lot more to say, but because of
the way this is working, this will be truncated. I know I only have
about a minute left so I reserve the remainder of the time, and we will
go through the process and come back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. We all try to
work within the framework of the unanimous consent.
At this point in time, the Senator from Virginia, myself, has the
time between 6:35 and 7:05, a period of 30 minutes. I would like to now
offer the first 15 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut and retrieve
a period of time he had from 7:55 to 8:05 to be added to my time which
commences at 8:05.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Then, following the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator
from Pennsylvania would be recognized for the remainder of my time in
this time slot, Mr. Santorum.
That would be followed, I inform other Senators, by Senator Boxer,
from roughly 7:05 to 7:35, and then the distinguished senior Senator
from West Virginia, 7:35 to 7:55.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, first let me thank the Senator from
Virginia for previously responding graciously to the request from the
Democratic leader, Senator Reid, that I be granted time to speak on
both of these amendments, and an extra thank-you for his allowing me to
do so a bit earlier than the initial order.
Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendments introduced by the
Senator from Michigan and others, and the other amendment introduced by
the Senators from Massachusetts and Wisconsin and others because they
both would direct, in different ways, the withdrawal of American forces
from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
Let me begin with a harsh and familiar lesson history has taught us
and that we are experiencing again in Iraq: War is hell. Precious lives
are lost, blood is spilled, treasure is spent. Countries, communities,
and families are deeply pained and disrupted. But history also teaches
us that there are times when wars must be waged and won to prevent even
more awful hell: to overthrow an evil leader or protect the noble
causes of human freedom, opportunity, and peace.
At the outset of the war in Iraq, coalition forces, led by our own
American men and women in uniform, brave and brilliant, succeeded with
remarkable speed to achieve a most worthy goal, the overthrow of an
evil leader, Saddam Hussein, and the opening of the opportunity for
freedom, the opportunity for the people of Iraq and broader peace in
the region.

[[Page S6243]]

After that, I would say, and I think all who support that war must
admit, that mistakes were made on our side--some of them big--and the
difficulties in Iraq increased. As others have said before me, the war
in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein may have been a war of choice. It
is now a war of necessity. We must win it.
Why? Because the consequences of an American retreat and defeat there
would be terrible for the safety and security of the American people at
home whom we have a constitutional responsibility to protect.
I must say I also approach these two amendments with a sense of
legislative history. They evoke debates that have occurred many times
in the Senate. We had one just a decade ago on this floor, about how
long our Armed Forces should stay in Bosnia. Some wanted to set a
deadline for withdrawal, a date. Others, including myself, argued
successfully that setting a day for automatic withdrawal was dangerous
and wrong because it would discourage our allies and encourage our
enemies. Our withdrawal should be consistent with the achievement of
the goals we have set for the mission.
I remember in that debate quoting Biblical wisdom and warning, ``If
the sound of the trumpet is uncertain, who will follow into battle?''
I suppose in our time we might amend that to say, ``If the sound of
the trumpet is uncertain, who will stay in battle?''
I also remember arguing in that debate that a nation, I thought,
should only set an unconditional date, a deadline for withdrawing
troops from battle, if all hope of victory was lost, which it was not
then in Bosnia and is not now in Iraq, unless the consequences of a too
early American withdrawal by calendar instead of condition were
acceptable to our country, which it was not. They were not then in
Bosnia and are not now in Iraq.
The Kerry-Feingold amendment directs that all American troops be
withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year, regardless of the
intervening events. The Levin amendment is more complicated. I have
spent some time studying it since it was made public on Monday. The
Levin amendment directs that a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq
begin by the end of this year, 2006, without regard to the conditions
on the ground.
So, for that reason, consistent with what I have just said about
legislative history and my own previously stated strong position, I
cannot support either of these amendments.
I personally hope, as I am sure all Members of the Senate do, and I
believe, that we will be able to withdraw a significant number of
Americans in uniform from Iraq by the end of this year and even more by
next year. I express that optimism based on the election and
formulation of the new Iraqi unity Government, the increasing capacity
of the Iraqi security forces to protect their own people, and the
commitment of the new Government to disarm the sectarian militias.
General Abizaid and General Casey have said that it is their hope to
begin withdrawing more troops by the end of 2006 and even more next
year. But I want them to decide based on the realities on the ground in
Iraq, not on their hopes or my hopes or the shared hopes of the
American people that we will soon be able to bring our Armed Forces
home from Iraq. I do not want those distinguished American generals and
the brave and steadfast American men and women serving under them to be
directed by this Congress to exit before they conclude and recommend to
us and the President that withdrawal is justified.
My own opinion is that the sooner the Iraqis take control of their
own defense and destiny, the better it will be for them and for us. But
if we leave too soon, it will be disastrous for them and for us.
Sponsors of the Kerry-Feingold amendment have stated a very clear and
direct purpose. I disagree with it. The sponsors of the Levin amendment
have argued on behalf of their amendment that they believe we must
direct the beginning of a withdrawal of American troops without
condition by December 31 of this year to make clear to the Iraqis that
our commitment to them is not open-ended. I believe the Iraqis know
very well that our commitment is not open-ended and is not a blank
check. I will tell you that I personally have said that to their
leaders directly, every time I have met them here or there. I know many
of my Senate colleagues of both parties and leaders of the
administration have said the same, openly and directly to the Iraqi
leaders and the Iraqi people. And the Iraqis themselves have said over
and over again that they know our commitment is not unconditional.
Just yesterday, in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post by the
National Security Adviser of Iraq, he made clear that his Government
wants the American military out of Iraq as much as we want our men and
women to come home to America.
He and the rest of the Iraqi leadership doesn't need a congressional
directive to convince them of the desirability of American forces
leaving Iraq.
What will be lost by it? I will answer that in a moment.
I will say that in the interest of Iraq's security and ours, it
should only happen--that is, our withdrawal--as the Iraqis step by step
are more and more ready to stand on their own.
The amendment introduced by Senator Levin itself states that the
Iraqis are making good progress in exactly that direction. The
amendment itself reports more than two-thirds of the operational Iraqi
Army combat battalions ``are now either in the lead or operating
independently.''
That is significant progress.
A national unity government has been formed. It took too long, but
that also is an enormous achievement. But, of course, there is much
more work yet to be done--as the Levin amendment itself states, to
amend the Iraqi constitution to get more help from international donors
and to ``promptly and decisively disarm the militias and remove those
members of the Iraqi security forces whose loyalty to the Iraq
government is in doubt.''
But then the amendment goes on to direct the beginning of withdrawal
of American forces by the end of this year regardless of whether that
work is done or those militias are disarmed.
That is where I respectfully believe it errs.
In doing so, I feel that this amendment would just underline the
message the Iraqi leadership has clearly already received, accepted,
and shares; that America's military commitment to Iraq is not open-
ended and unconditional. I fear that it would also send another message
to our terrorist enemies and to the sectarian militias in Iraq that
America is not prepared to see this fight through until the Iraqis
themselves can take over. That will actually encourage the terrorists
to accelerate their cruel and inhumane attacks, and it will unsettle
the sectarian groups to hunker down and rearm their militias to
strengthen themselves for the civil war that they feel will follow a
premature American retreat. And that might well create conditions that
none of us want, which is to say chaos and civil war in Iraq, regional
war in the Middle East, and the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11
being able to claim victory in Iraq and going on, emboldened, to attack
us again here at home and to bring their terrorism to more Arab
countries in the Middle East.
That is why I said the war in Iraq, however one thinks we got there,
is now a war of necessity, a war we must help the people of Iraq to win
or the security of we, the people of America, our children and
grandchildren will be gravely endangered.
Section 2 on page 4 of the amendment which the Senator from Michigan
introduced says:

The current open-ended commitment of United States forces
in Iraq is unsustainable.

As I have said, our commitment is not and should not be open-ended.
It is conditional on the Iraqis working hard to move themselves forward
together on the path to self-government and self-defense and, in fact,
as the amendment states, they are doing. And this conditional
commitment of ours to them is surely militarily sustainable and must be
honored.
The failure to do so I believe would have terrible consequences for
our credibility in the world and our success in the long conflict ahead
against the radical Islamist terrorists who declared war against us and
much of the rest of the world during the 1990s and carried out a brutal
act of war against our people on September 11, 2001.

[[Page S6244]]

We cannot and must not concede any battlefield to our enemies in this
most unconventional but deadly serious war.
I do not think it is an overstatement to say that our freedom and
security and that of most of the rest of the world, Muslim and non-
Muslim, depends now, as it has at critical moments in the past, on
American persistence and fortitude in this painful, awful, essential
worldwide war.
For these reasons, I will respectfully oppose the Levin amendment and
the amendment introduced by Senators Kerry and Feingold.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will say to my good friend and
colleague--and my remarks are not predicated on the fact in all
likelihood that he will cast a vote which will be supportive of the
views that this Senator and others on this side of the aisle have
stated, but I say out of the long time that we have worked together to
those Senators who may not remember it that I was tasked to draw up the
first resolution in the Gulf War when George Bush, Sr., was President.
The Senator from Connecticut stepped up and joined me. It was known as
the Warner-Lieberman amendment at that time.
Subsequently, when the second resolution was to be drawn up, I again
was joined by Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and Senator Bayh. The
four of us drew that one up.
He has been on the Senate Armed Services Committee these many years
that he has served in the Senate, and he has shown tremendous
leadership. And each day he grows in stature as a statesman and his
stature as a knowledgeable person regarding the security interests of
this country.
As they exist today and in the future--when I say ``in the future,''
for our children and grandchildren--they acknowledge their appreciation
to the Senator from Connecticut for his wisdom.
The remainder of time under my control I yield to the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, first, I would like to associate myself
with the remarks made by the Senator from Virginia. If I could, I would
like to also associate myself with the remarks made by the Senator from
Connecticut. I agree with him wholeheartedly. They were incredibly
articulately made and hits on all of the relevant points as to why
these two amendments should be defeated.
I actually want to talk about a different debate which has been
brewing on the floor of the Senate for over 3 years. That is the debate
as to the reasons why we entered into a war in Iraq in the first place.
There was some information released today that I think sheds some light
as to the facts relating to what the conditions were in Iraq prior to
our commencing the Iraq war.
The essential nature of the decision that we made at the time when we
had to decide whether to go to war with Iraq was based on many factors.
Colin Powell laid them out at the United Nations. One was that Saddam
had possessed and had used biological and chemical weapons on his
people and that he had biological. That is indisputable.
The second was that he had an active WMD program. And we have the
Iraqi Survey Group which published the Delta Report. It was very clear
in the Delta Report that, in fact, there was ongoing research at the
time of the Iraq war, and if that research of those sanctions were
lifted it could have quickly turned into a full-fledged biological and
chemical warfare capability.
In fact, the Delta Report mentioned that they could, postsanctions,
reconstitute anthrax and an anthrax program in 4 weeks.
So he already used chemical weapons and had chemical weapons research
that could quickly be transitioned into programs.
The one aspect that has been in question or which most Americans
find--and certainly many have spoken on the floor of the Senate--was
whether at the time of the Iraq war back in 2003 Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction. That was always the claim--that he had not
gotten rid of his weapons of mass destruction and potentially produced
additional weapons of mass destruction.
Up until today, the general perception of the American public--and
certainly Members in this Chamber--was that there were no such weapons
of mass destruction.
In fact, today on the floor of the Senate, the Senator from Rhode
Island said, ``We have heard the initial defense of the approach to
Iraq as we are going after weapons of mass destruction. They were not
there.''
The senior Senator from Connecticut said, ``If I had known then what
I now know, namely that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass
destruction, I would not have given the President my vote.''
The senior Senator from Washington said, ``We have looked for weapons
of mass destruction and found none.''
Let me follow up these quotes with quotes from an unclassified
version of a document released 3 hours ago coming from the National
Ground Intelligence Center, a part of the Department of Defense. It is
a summary of a classified document which I have had the opportunity to
take a look at.
The document's key points in the unclassified version are as follows:

Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately
500 weapons, munitions which contain degraded mustard or
sarin nerve agents. Despite many efforts to locate and
destroy Iraq's pregulf war chemical munitions, filled and
unfilled pregulf war chemical munitions are assessed and
still exist.

That means that in addition to the 500 that we have recovered, there
are additional munitions.
The report goes into great detail as to what those munitions are.
There are additional munitions that we have not categorized and
identified specifically in number or in character.
Back to the document:

Pre-gulf war Iraq chemical weapons could be sold on the
black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent
groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq.
The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out.
The most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-
filled projectiles. The purity of the agents inside the
munitions depend on many factors, including the manufacturing
process, potential additives, and environmental storage
conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare
agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal. It has been
reported in the open press that insurgents in Iraqi groups
desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.

This is an incredibly significant document.
We now have a lot from our intelligence agencies that said we have
recovered 500 chemical weapons and that there are a number of others.
It is hopeful that we can, in fact, get that number and that
information out.
But the bottom line is, irrespective of whether there were any
others, the fact that we recovered 500 and the fact that there are a
likelihood of others to recover, maybe from Iraq, maybe from other
places around the Middle East, suggests that Saddam Hussein did have
weapons of mass destruction.
One of the principal concerns that we had in going into this war
against terror, or terrorists as it has been defined, was that Saddam
would not necessarily use chemical weapons or biological weapons
against his neighbors again or against us, but, more importantly, that
he would have these stockpiles of weapons to give to terrorists to use
against us or to use against others. Now we have information that
confirms that some 500, and likely more, weapons were, in fact, in Iraq
at the time of the Iraq war.

The quotes that there were no chemical weapons, that the President
lied, that all of this was a fabrication of neocons who wanted to go to
war, is now--if it was not, in my mind, discredited from the other
information we have gotten--is now, in my mind, completely discredited.
He had chemical weapons before the gulf war. He used them after the
gulf war. He used them during the Iran-Iraq war. They had weapons
programmed in place at the time of the second gulf war, the Iraq
conflict. And we now have found stockpiles.
The Duelfer report said there were no stockpiles. We have now found
500. You want to call that a stockpile? Five hundred is a lot of
chemical weapons. We handed out a video upstairs, Congressman Hoekstra
and I--who has been tremendously helpful in gathering this information
and having this report, first finding the report and declassifying
portions of it--he handed out information that showed an attack of the
Iraqis using 15 sarin chemical

[[Page S6245]]

weapon shells like the ones recovered here that killed 5,000 people.
This is a serious and important document. This is a serious and
important step in understanding what Iraq was all about when we, in
fact, commenced military activities against them. It is an important
finding to determine what our actions need to be going forward in
making sure we rid this country of the chemical weapons that still may
be available, as was mentioned, potentially on the black market.
I thank Congressman Hoekstra. I asked for this document from the
National Ground Intelligence Center 2\1/2\ months ago. It took 2 months
of going nowhere before I contacted Congressman Hoekstra. He, by the
way, was not aware of this document, either. He was able to get this
document and we were able to look at it. Several Members in the Senate
and the House have reviewed the document. It is up in the Intelligence
rooms. I encourage Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle to
go up and view the document. It is a classification that all Members
can review the entire document. Please go up, take a look at it. If you
do not believe the statements or you do not think the statements are
compelling enough, I encourage you to go up and read the entire
classified report. It is very compelling. It is a very serious
situation.
The bottom line is, the statements that Saddam Hussein at the time of
the second gulf war, the Iraq war, had no weapons of mass destruction
is now categorically untrue. This report puts that to rest.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator from California.
The Senator from Virginia has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. WARNER. I yield back the remaining 2 minutes I have under my
control. The order provides for 30 minutes for the distinguished
Senator from California, to be followed by 20 minutes from the Senator
from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia.
I come to the Senate tonight with a tremendous sense of loss for the
victims of the tragic war in Iraq. Yesterday, the military informed two
California families that their sons were murdered in cold blood by the
very same Iraqi troops they had been training.
Let me repeat that: The military informed two California families
whose sons were in the National Guard that their sons were murdered in
cold blood by the very same Iraqi troops they were training.
Sgt. Patrick McCaffrey and 1LT Andre Tyson were killed near Balad 2
years ago. After 2 long years, the Army is now telling the families
that Iraqi troops who their sons had been training turned on them and
intentionally killed them.
This morning, the mother of Sergeant McCaffrey appeared on CNN and
said:

Patrick was never at ease and he constantly said, ``Mom,
we're risking our life every day, all the time,
permanently.''

She told the press that Patrick told his commanding officer twice
that he was fired upon by Iraqi troops. He told his dad the same thing
and his dad told the press that his commanding officer said, and I
quote his dad: ``That he should keep his mouth shut.''
Mrs. McCaffrey said she wants the story to come out because she
believes there are other instances of Iraqi troops turning on our
soldiers. This is a story that is all over the news. It is emblematic
of what this war is turning into.

This week, we all were devastated to hear of the cruel and savage
killing of two United States soldiers who were reportedly tortured in a
barbaric fashion. These soldiers were manning a traffic check point
when they were captured by insurgents. A third soldier also died in the
attack.
Every day we hear of a new tragedy from Iraq. Why? Because more than
3 years ago, our President launched a war that was based on false
premises. The administration told the American people that Saddam posed
an imminent threat to the United States because of his close ties to
al-Qaida and because he had an active nuclear weapons program. The
administration's case has unraveled in light of the facts. We have a
chance tomorrow to stand up and say no to the status quo. We can do it
with two Democratic amendments. We know there was no working
relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam, and Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program was dormant.
Just look at the State Department's own document which Senator
Feingold talked about. It says clearly when we were attacked by al-
Qaida on that fateful day of September 11, there was not one al-Qaida
cell in Iraq. Yet those who asked questions about these false premises
were dismissed, ridiculed, called unpatriotic, and, in one case, the
case of Ambassador Joe Wilson, he actually faced retaliation. The wife
of Ambassador Wilson had her identity as a CIA agent exposed. Why?
Because Joe Wilson blew the whistle on President Bush's claim that Iraq
had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Why do I recount Valerie Plame's story? Because it shows just how far
the Bush administration and their Republican friends in Congress will
go to tarnish and hurt those who see the war differently from them.
That is frightening no matter what side of the fence you are on.
Imagine going after someone's family because you felt you did not like
what the man said. In fact, he told the truth, that there was no truth
to the claim that Saddam was seeking yellow cake uranium.
In this debate right now, those same voices are saying that anyone
who disagrees with the status quo in Iraq and speaks about an exit
strategy for the war is advocating a policy of cut-and-run. Let me be
clear, calling for redeployment of our troops out of Iraq is not cut-
and-run. It is smart and strategic.
Why is it smart? Because it will give the signal to the Iraqis that
they have to stand up and protect their own country.
Why is it strategic? Because it will allow us to use our resources to
go after al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden.
Let's take a look at the status quo. The status quo in Iraq is an
endless venture with ever-changing missions that has resulted in more
than 2,500 United States deaths and 18,000 wounded. It is a blank check
and a blind eye.
I have a chart that shows the costs. This is showing what this
President calls ``progress'' and his Republican friends in Congress
call progress. Let's look at the facts. The monthly cost of the Iraq
war in 2003 was $4.4 billion a month. It is now $8 billion a month. It
is causing our debt to soar. It is not being paid for in the usual way:
It is put right on Uncle Sam's credit card and our grandchildren will
pay the bill, maybe even their children.
The estimated number of insurgents in 2003, 3,000; estimated in 2006,
20,000. Is that progress in Iraq? I don't think so.
Insurgent attacks in 2003, 5 a day; now, 90 a day. Is that progress?
I don't think so.
Incidents of sectarian violence, 5 per month; now it is 250 per
month.
If that is progress, then we are in serious, serious trouble--more
trouble than I think we are in.
How about Iraqis. Are they optimistic about the future? In 2003, 75
percent were optimistic. Do you know what the number is today? Thirty
percent. These figures come from the Brookings Institution.
There are claims that the status quo is ``progress,'' when actually
the status quo is a disaster. The war is taking a heavy toll on our
fighting men and women, many of whom are serving their third tour of
duty. Suicides are up.
In 2005, 83 United States Army soldiers committed suicide, an
increase of 16 suicides over the 67 reported the year before, and the
highest number since 90 were recorded in 1993. Of those 83 soldiers, 25
had been deployed to either Afghanistan or Iraq.
Divorces are up. Where are the family values around this place?
Between 2001 and 2004, divorces among Active-Duty Army personnel have
doubled. Divorces have doubled. That is the weight of this war. And
post-traumatic stress disorder is rampant. A study published in the
July 2004 New England Journal of Medicine revealed that 15 percent of
marines and 17 percent of soldiers surveyed after deployment in Iraq
``met the screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety,
or post traumatic stress disorder.''

[[Page S6246]]

Our military men and women have done every single thing we have asked
of them--even without a plan to anticipate the insurgency. Even without
adequate body armor, even without enough up-armored humvees, here is
what this administration has asked our fighting men and women to do:
find the weapons of mass destruction, find Saddam Hussein and bring him
to justice, find Saddam's family and bring them to justice, secure Iraq
for elections--there have been three elections, successful, there--
train Iraqi troops--there are now 260,000 of those Iraqi troops
trained.
In light of all that our military has done--and they have paid the
price in blood, in lost limbs, in pain and suffering and death--what
are the Iraqi leaders saying? They have proposed amnesty for those who
have killed American soldiers. The amnesty plan would include
insurgents who have staged attacks against Americans--even as those
attacks continue.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a front-page story from the L.A. Times that ran this past weekend.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Los Angeles Times, June 18, 2006]

Amnesty for Iraq Rebels Is Planned

(By Borzou Daragahi)

The Iraqi government has crafted a far-reaching amnesty
plan for insurgents, officials close to Prime Minister Nouri
Maliki said Saturday, even as guerrillas killed at least 34
Iraqis in a barrage of bombs and rockets in the capital and
the U.S. military hunted for two missing soldiers.
The Americans may have been captured after an attack Friday
evening on a checkpoint south of Baghdad that left at least
one soldier dead, the military said.
U.S. forces dispatched helicopters and surveillance planes
over the area as well as teams of divers to scour the river
and nearby canals for the missing soldiers.
The amnesty plan, which apparently would include insurgents
alleged to have staged attacks against Americans and Iraqis,
calls for the creation of a national committee and local
subcommittees to woo rebels and begin a ``truthful national
dialogue in dealing with contradicting visions and stances,''
according to a version of the plan published Saturday in an
Iraqi newspaper.
The reconciliation plan, which is expected to be formally
announced soon, would be among the Iraqi government's most
comprehensive attempts to engage with insurgent groups.
``The main thing,'' said Haidar Abadi, a leader of Maliki's
Islamic Dawa Party, is that the plan doesn't rule out
participation of ``the bloody-handed people in the political
process.''
The plan, mysteriously released and rescinded by the prime
minister's office last week, calls for the pardon and release
of prisoners ``not proven guilty in crimes and clear
terrorist activities'' and a review of the process by which
former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party are excluded
from public life.
U.S. and some Iraqi officials have long urged Sunni
insurgent groups that don't have strong ties to the former
regime's security apparatus or to foreign militants--and
without the blood of innocent Iraqis on their hands--to lay
down their weapons and join the political process.
The new proposal, said an official close to Maliki, merely
recognizes the difficulty of verifying insurgents' past
actions.
``Theoretically, we can say we cannot give any amnesty to
those in the [former] security agencies and those in Saddam's
regime and those who have killed and bombed Iraqis after the
invasion,'' said Salah Abdul Razzaq, a spokesman for several
prominent Shiite religious organizations.
``In practice, anyone who comes to negotiations and says,
`I have no problem with Iraqis or Iraqi government, just with
U.S. forces,' how can we check that?''
Some Kurdish and Shiite members of parliament, which is
scheduled to convene today, voiced doubts about Maliki's
reconciliation proposal.
``We think that any reconciliation talks should take place
within parliament,'' said Baha Araji, a Shiite lawmaker close
to radical cleric Muqtada Sadr's movement. ``We don't need
groups from outside--I mean the Saddamists, Baathists and
killers.''
But officials close to Maliki said the plan was days away
from being formally announced.
A version of the amnesty plan--titled the ``Reconciliation
and National Dialogue Project''--was published in Saturday's
edition of Al Mada newspaper. Copies were distributed to
journalists and then quickly taken back at an abruptly
canceled news conference Thursday at Maliki's office.
Abadi said the incident was a minor mix-up caused by
inexperienced members of the prime minister's media office.
``It doesn't mean that the project of reconciliation was
withdrawn, but that it was given more time for a consensus to
be reached,'' said Abbas Bayati, a leading Shiite lawmaker.
``We are ready to sit around a table with all the Iraqis,
even those who participated in the resistance and now repent
that.''
It was unclear whether any amnesty plan would require
legislative approval or be adopted by executive decision.
Sunni Arabs lead the Iraqi insurgency, which is fueled by
the minority sect's perception that it was unjustly robbed of
political power and prestige by the 2003 U.S.-led invasion
and the Shiite-dominated governments that followed. Incessant
insurgent attacks have sparked reprisals by Shiites and
brought the country to the precipice of civil war.
Sunni Arabs said they were far more encouraged by the
Maliki government's olive branches than those of his
predecessor, fellow Islamic Dawa Party member Ibrahim Jafari,
viewed by many as too sectarian in his outlook.
The death this month of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi
opened a new opportunity to draw in Iraqi insurgent groups,
Sunni officials said.
``The general direction and general understanding among
politicians is that now is the time to differentiate between
the extremists and foreign fighters on one side and the
native Iraqi people in the resistance,'' said Alaa Makki, a
leading member of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the main Sunni
Arab political group.
``We think now there might be a reevaluation from A to Z
among the Iraqi population,'' he said. ``I think Maliki is
going along with these ideas.''
But the violence showed no signs of abating Saturday.
Dozens of Iraqis were killed in a series of insurgent attacks
targeting Iraqi security forces in Baghdad despite a highly
publicized crackdown meant to bolster public confidence in
the government.
At least seven large explosions rocked the capital. In the
day's most deadly incident, a car bomb explosion at 8 p.m. in
a busy market in southwest Baghdad killed 12 people and
injured 381 police said.
An earlier car bomb targeting a police patrol killed seven
people and injured 11, hospital officials said.
A roadside bombing in downtown Baghdad killed six people
and wounded 15.
In central Baghdad a car bomb targeting an Iraqi army
patrol killed three civilians and a soldier and injured eight
soldiers and four police officers.
A bomb placed inside a passenger bus killed at least two
civilians and injured 151 police said.
In the northern suburb of Kadhimiya mortar rounds landed on
a busy market, killing at least two people and injuring 14.
An explosion killed a man in west Baghdad hospital
officials said.
The search for the missing U.S. soldiers was underway near
the Euphrates River town of Yousifiya south of Baghdad. U.S.
forces launched raids on four sites, questioned local leaders
and set up roadblocks around the area, presumably to prevent
assailants from taking the soldiers elsewhere.
``We are using all available assets, coalition and Iraqi,
ground, air and water, to locate and determine the duty
status of our soldiers, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV said
in a news release.
The attack Friday evening took place in a religiously mixed
area south of the capital known as a stronghold of militants
loyal to extremist religious groups, including Zarqawi's AI
Qaeda in Iraq.
U.S.-led forces at a nearby checkpoint began radioing their
colleagues after they heard an explosion and small-arms fire
but could not make contact.
Backup forces sent to the checkpoint discovered the dead
U.S. soldier and learned that two were missing, the military
said.

Mrs. BOXER. It says: The premier is crafting a reconciliation program
that ``doesn't rule out participation of `the bloody-handed people in
the political process.'''
What happened when we brought up a resolution on this side of the
aisle to say, no, no, we will not allow that to happen? What happened?
The Republicans stalled us for 2, 3 days, figuring out a way they could
get us to back down. But we did not back down.
I cannot believe it. They are still killing our soldiers, and the
Republicans in the Senate are saying: Oh, give the Iraqi Government a
chance. In their wisdom, they will do the right thing. Well, they are
not doing the right thing when they are considering giving amnesty to
those who are hurting, killing, brutalizing our troops. I cannot
believe it.
And in light of all that I have laid out, what does our President
say? He says: I will not allow us to leave until everything is
absolutely perfect in Iraq. He does not know when that is. He is not
even willing to talk about conditions that would be enough to bring our
troops home. It is kind of like: Well, we will know it when we see it.
Well, that is not enough for the American people. When the President
said, ``mission accomplished,'' it was not true. And when he says now,
we can make this work, we can have a country at peace, we can do all
this, and we just have to stay there as long as it takes--blank check.
Open checkbook, America. Open checkbook for

[[Page S6247]]

you. Debts on your children, debts on your grandchildren, and a blind
eye to what is happening and what the Iraqi people want.
What kind of leadership is that? You think I like standing up here
and getting into this kind of debate? No, I do not. But I have never
seen anything like this since the Vietnam war, folks. I lived through
those years. That was the reason I got into politics, so we would not
make this mistake again.
Senate Democrats are providing real leadership. Do we all agree every
inch of the way? No. But I predict to you, at the end of this vote,
tomorrow, Republicans will be firm for the status quo, and Democrats
will be for changing the mission, changing the dynamic. And that is
going to be important for the American people to know.
As I said, redeploying our troops is smart and strategic, and here is
why. Again, it is smart and strategic because the Iraqis must stand up
to the job of providing security for their own people. My goodness,
that is what countries do, folks. That is what countries do. We did it.
Yes, we had people help us in the Revolution. By the way, France was
one of those countries. But when the fighting was over, we had the
boots on the ground. The Iraqi people have to stand up. They have to
want democracy as much as we want it for them.
And I will tell you, we should start concentrating on the war against
terror. My friends on the other side blend it all together. They blend
it all together. But I have already proven to you there was not one al-
Qaida cell in Iraq on 9/11. The State Department's own documents show
it. There were more al-Qaida cells in America than there were in Iraq.
But our presence there is fueling the insurgency completely.
Let me tell you what Peter Bergen has stated. He is an expert. He is
an expert on terrorism. He has written books about it. He says this:

What we have done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have
hoped for in his wildest dreams: We invaded an oil rich
Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type
of imperial adventure that bin Laden has long predicted was
the United States' long term goal in the region. We deposed
the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden has long
despised, ignited Sunni and Shia fundamentalist fervor in
Iraq, and have now provoked a defensive jihad that has
galvanized jihad minded Muslims around the world. It's hard
to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on
terrorism.

Now, I have spoken with many generals and military experts who agree
that our long-term presence in Iraq is counterproductive. They tell us
that our continued presence will continue to breed terrorists not only
in Iraq but throughout the world.
Now, I want to show you, as I wind down this speech, how the Iraqi
people now feel about our presence. The Brookings Institution revealed
this poll. It was just printed in the press a few days ago. If this
does not tell the story, nothing does.
Eighty-seven percent of the Iraqis support a timeline for U.S.
redeployment. Eighty-seven percent of the Iraqi people want us out of
there and want a timeline specifically. By the way, this is one thing
that unites all the groups there. Sixty-four percent of the Kurds want
a timeline for U.S. redeployment. Ninety percent of the Shias want a
timeline for U.S. redeployment. Ninety-four percent of the Sunnis want
a timeline for U.S. redeployment.
So you tell me how it makes sense, at a time when we are learning
that the Iraqis, whom we are training, have, in at least two cases we
know about, turned against our soldiers, who are risking their lives--
shot them in cold blood. For what? They are there to help the Iraqi
people, and they are being killed.
I have to say that the status quo is leading us deeper and deeper
into a place we don't want to be as a country. The American people want
an exit strategy. An exit strategy is not cut-and-run; it is smart and
strategic. The status quo is more of the same. How many more times will
we come down here and talk about beheadings? How many more times will
we come down? How many more deaths will it take until finally we say
enough is enough?
That time, I hope, is coming. I think we are going to see votes on
these two Democratic amendments that, when taken together, will
indicate a real difference here between the parties.
Listen to what the Iraqi people are saying. Listen to what the
American people are saying. Listen to what the world is saying. The
views of the United States by people all over the world are going down.
In the last year alone, favorable views of the United States dropped in
Spain, from 41 percent to 23 percent approval; in Indonesia, from 38
percent down to 30 percent; in Turkey, from 23 percent to 12 percent;
and in India--India is considered one of our best friends--it has gone
from 71 percent down to 56 percent. This does not make us stronger in
the world; it makes us weaker. This does not make us safer in the
world; it makes us more vulnerable.
I believe in democracy. So let us look at what the Iraqi people are
telling us they want. They want a timeline and want us out. Let's
listen to the generals who have told us that our long-term presence is
fueling the insurgency and we need to get out. Let's listen to the
American people who are wise and love our troops and say it is time for
an exit strategy.
Folks, we are paralyzed. We are paralyzed here. It is like we are in
a hole and we can't get out. Well, I say today is the day to start
climbing out of that hole. Senate Democrats have proposed two ways to
change the dynamics here in this war.
I plan to vote aye for the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer amendment. It speaks
to me as something that will work for us. It is strategic. It is wise.
It is smart. I will also vote for the Levin amendment because it moves
us in the right direction. It shakes up the mission into something that
makes sense. It changes the mission. It starts bringing our troops home
and starts to redeploy them.
So my feeling is, the status quo is a disaster. It is a disaster. Let
us open our eyes to the truth. Can you imagine how I felt when I got a
call in my office by a woman who couldn't find out the truth about who
killed her son? And the military had completed its investigation, and
they knew her son was killed by the very same Iraqi soldiers whom he
was training. And they kept it a secret? They kept it a secret until
today from that woman. I have to say, why? Is it because they are
fearful that when the American people learn of this, the support for
this war will plummet even further? I don't know the answer to that
question. But so far, I have no good answers. It worried me with Mr.
Tillman, Patrick Tillman, in Afghanistan, when they said he was killed
by the enemy, and the parents pressed on and pressed on, and it turned
out to be friendly fire.
I am telling you, my colleagues, this is a turning point for us as
individual Senators. I hope we have the courage to say no to the status
quo, support the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer alternative, and also support the
Levin alternative because they both shake it up and say, once and for
all, we need to talk about an exit strategy. In the end, that is going
to be the road for success.
Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, today the Senate is debating two amendments on Iraq.
The first amendment has been offered by Senator Levin. It is a
nonbinding sense of the Congress that clearly illustrates that there
must be a change in our policy toward Iraq. It states that it is
neither in the American nor the Iraqi interest to maintain an open-
ended commitment of large numbers of our troops.
Some may challenge this idea and stubbornly maintain that we must
stay the course, no matter the cost or the consequences. I would point
these critics to the op-ed which appeared in the Washington Post on
Tuesday, June 20, 2006, written by Iraq's National Security Adviser.
Here is what he said: ``The eventual removal of coalition troops from
Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as
occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be'' and that
``the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in
the eyes of its people.''
The distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, has crafted a
good amendment which I will support. We need a change in our Iraq
policy.

[[Page S6248]]

Senator Levin has put his finger directly on the key issues facing our
continued military occupation of Iraq.
The second amendment which is being debated is an amendment by the
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry. His amendment
proposes that American troops be redeployed from Iraq no later than
July 1, 2007. Senator Kerry should be commended for offering his
amendment. It is an important amendment, and it deserves a full debate.
It directly addresses the most pressing issue facing the American
people today.
Last week the very distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr.
McConnell, offered an amendment similar to that of Senator Kerry's. It
was offered up as a sacrificial lamb, and a procedural motion was made
to either kill the amendment or to continue debating it. I was one of
six Senators who voted to continue debate on that amendment.
Some may seek to ascribe my vote as a vote for the substance of
Senator McConnell's amendment. But I shall speak for myself. As I have
told Senator Kerry, my vote was not for the substance of Senator
McConnell's amendment. My vote was to continue debate on the most
important issue in our country today. My vote was in favor of the
institution of the U.S. Senate, a temple of debate and free speech.
Some may seek to hide from the controversial issue of Iraq, but I
will not seek to hide from it. We Senators are sent by the people of
our States to debate the critical issues facing our country, not to
hide from them. My vote was in the minority on that procedural motion,
but I stand by my vote which was in favor of debate on the momentous
subject of Iraq.
The amendment the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr.
Kerry, offers will likely be voted on tomorrow, and I have spoken to
Senator Kerry about the substance of his amendment. I know he is
seeking a change in the administration's policy toward Iraq, which is
acknowledged by most Americans to be a disaster. And he should be
saluted for his courage in insisting on offering his amendment, even
though he will be criticized--and perhaps even called unpatriotic by
some--for speaking his mind. However, I cannot support the substance of
his amendment.
I do not support setting a drop-dead withdrawal date for our troops
from Iraq. I do not believe that this is a wise policy. I have called
time and time again for the President to begin bringing our troops
home. Our troops cannot be brought home overnight.
I also have concerns that this amendment is not strongly tied to the
constitutional powers of Congress relating to the conduct of war.
So for these reasons, for as much as I support his efforts to make a
change in an ill-defined, open-ended, stay-the-course policy in Iraq, I
will not support the amendment by the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry.
But there are other ways to effect a change in direction. So I rise
today to ask that I may be given time to offer another amendment on
Iraq.
There is an urgent need for the U.S. Senate to consider as many
options as we can to find an exit strategy with honor for our troops.
Our country is polarized. The Senate is polarized. And I fear that we
have let the usual partisan warfare put blinders, such as we put on
horses, on ourselves and on our purpose.
Every Member in this body, I am sure, would like to see a successful
end to the war in Iraq. Every Member of this body on both sides of the
aisle would like to do something that would speed the return of our
troops home to the loving arms of their families.
All of us, regardless of party affiliation, want to do the best thing
for our country. And we would all do well to remember that both the
President, the Chief Executive, and the Congress have important roles
to play when it comes to the most critical decisions that can be made
by any government; namely, the decision to go to war and the decision
to come home from war.
The American people are dismayed, as they should be, by this conflict
in Iraq. I voted against our entry into that war. I voted against the
invasion of that country without any provocation toward our country.
Most assuredly, dozens of mistakes have been made and billions of
dollars have been spent. Without a doubt, our international reputation
has been damaged, and we are losing the support of our own people for a
drawn-out commitment in Iraq and more and more loss of precious blood,
precious life.
Can we not try one more approach? Can we not? Can we not spend just a
little more time on the consideration of a way out of Iraq? Can we not?
Can we not? Can we not attempt to speak with one voice on the matter?
Is that asking too much?
I have a third way. This is a fresh approach, I believe. It returns
Congress's rightful voice to the warmaking power, yet it avoids the
pitfalls of usurping the executive branch's role in an ongoing war. It
is respectful of the separation of powers, but it does outline a viable
exit strategy for Iraq.
The amendment I would like to offer, the amendment I would like to
see debated on the Senate floor, is an effort to move the debate over
the war in Iraq away from the realm of political mudslinging to the
realm of constitutional responsibility.
My amendment is a simple, straightforward approach to laying out a
roadmap to bring our troops home from Iraq with honor and dignity, the
honor and the dignity which they deserve.
My amendment establishes the policy that the democratically elected
Government of Iraq should assume responsibility for its own security.
My amendment sets forth the conditions under which the congressional
authority to maintain U.S. troops in Iraq would expire.
This amendment is a genuinely fresh approach to unraveling the
conundrum of how to disengage the U.S. military from Iraq. My approach
does not attempt to micromanage the war. It is not an attempt to set
artificial deadlines. It is not based on politically motivated
rhetoric. It does not preempt the authority of either the President or
the Congress. What it does do is it returns the focus of the debate to
the role of Congress in the authorization of war. What my amendment
does do is to reassert--yes, reassert--the role of Congress to
authorize--or to terminate the authorization of--the use of force.
The conditions under which the Iraq use of force authorization would
expire are based on circumstances, not on timetables, and they include
the following: When the Government of Iraq assumes responsibility for
its own security; or if a multinational peacekeeping force were to
assume responsibility for security in Iraq; or if the President
certifies that the United States has achieved its objectives in Iraq;
or if Congress were to enact a joint resolution to terminate the use of
force authority.
Mr. President, the situation in Iraq has undergone seismic changes
since the original use-of-force authorization was granted by Congress
in October of 2002. Since that time, our troops have completed the
mission of removing Saddam Hussein from power and paving the way for
the establishment of a democratically elected government in Iraq. The
authorization under which the United States sent its military forces
into Iraq--which I voted against--is now painfully outdated. So it is
time to update that authorization to provide a statutory framework for
returning our troops home, and to acknowledge that the war in Iraq does
have an end point and is not an open-ended commitment.
Mr. President, it is most important to understand that the amendment
I am proposing speaks only to the intent and authority of Congress. So
it does not--hear me now--it does not infringe upon, or in any way
usurp, the authority of the President. No Senator has to set aside his
or her support or opposition to the war in order to support my
approach.
But this amendment would send a powerful message to the people of the
United States and to the people of Iraq, and especially to the
democratically elected Government of Iraq. It would send the powerful
message that the United States supports the security of Iraq but does
not intend to become a permanent occupying force in Iraq. This is a
message that the people of Iraq need to hear. It is a message that the
people of the United States need to hear. It is a message that the
people of the United States are clamoring to hear. My amendment is a
realistic roadmap for the United States to remove its forces from Iraq
in an orderly

[[Page S6249]]

manner--a manner consistent with our national security interests. It is
a legally enforceable formulation that should be embraced by all who
are truly concerned with finding a solution to the problems in Iraq,
not just using the debate over the war in Iraq as a political football.
Surely, we owe the over 2,500 patriotic souls who have died fighting
for our country in Iraq a little more time on this debate. Surely, we
can consider the matter of the conflict in Iraq for a few more hours
for the sake of the over 18,000 U.S. troops who have been wounded in
that country, and the unknown numbers of Iraqi innocents who have been
killed or maimed. Surely, we can discuss this matter on a level that is
deeper than sloganeering like ``cut and run'' or ``stay the course.''
Mr. President, I hope our two leaders will work together to find a
way for the Senate to debate my amendment and allow a vote on its
merits.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, what is the time agreement this evening?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is allocated 40
minutes.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Virginia, I
yield myself as much time as I might consume. We have speakers coming
down here and, as they arrive, we will recognize them.
I do want to express my appreciation to Members on both sides who
have participated in this debate. We have already had a very spirited
debate. There will be others speaking throughout the course of the
evening and again tomorrow before we ultimately vote on both of these
amendments.
As you know, we have in front of us two amendments. One is a sense of
the Senate, a nonbinding resolution, the Levin amendment, and we also
have the Kerry amendment, which has a force of law and which would
require a withdrawal from Iraq by next summer.
As we consider and contemplate both of those amendments, I know there
are strong emotions that Members on both sides feel with respect to
this issue, and clearly for good reason. I know in my own particular
circumstance, as I travel South Dakota, I hear from people all across
my State. I have participated, as many Senators have, in way too many
funerals and have heard the playing of taps way too many times in the
last year. It is that sentiment I think that makes people in this
country very weary regarding the conflict in Iraq and the cost it has
brought this country in terms of both blood and treasure. So as we see
Members get up and express their thoughts on the Senate floor during
the course of this debate, I think they are in many cases reflecting
the sentiments of their constituents in their States, as well.
Generally speaking, I think a sense that people have across the
country is one of weariness with this conflict in Iraq. At the same
time, I think we have to recognize what the stakes are in this debate
and what the risks are as well. Clearly, as we have, I think,
articulated--Members on our side--throughout the course of this debate,
the stakes are high and the consequences of failure are disastrous for
our country if we fail in this campaign in Iraq.
I have to say that, like many Members here, I have traveled to Iraq
on a couple of different occasions. I was there as recently as a couple
of months ago with Senator McCain, as well as with the Senator from
Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, and a number of our Governors and House
Members, representing different regions of the country. I had been
there a year earlier and, of course, in the course of that year much
had changed. In fact, I would have to say there had been, at that time,
some mixed results. We had seen the outbreak of sectarian violence
after the bombing of the shrine at Samara. But at the same time, we had
seen vast improvements in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to
provide for their own security. That, in my mind, was very encouraging
because at that time about 75 percent of the battle areas were being
policed either by Iraqi armed services or the police force, which was a
marked improvement from the time I had been there a year before.
Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that, by any measure, if you
look at any significant metric in the past year or so, we have seen
some improvements and progress made in Iraq and I think, in a
substantial way, in the broader war on terror. If you look particularly
at Iraq, Prime Minister al-Mailiki, just in the last couple of weeks,
completed the formation of a new Iraqi Government, filling many Cabinet
positions. If you look at the success our troops have had in taking out
the terrorist leader, Musab al-Zarqawi and many of his allies in just
the last few weeks, that is a huge blow to al-Qaida and a huge victory
for our side in the war on terror.
As I said earlier, the Iraqi security forces are growing in number
every single day. Only a year and a half ago, Iraqi security forces had
just begun to form. Today, there are 264,400 trained and equipped Iraqi
security forces, which is more than double the number of U.S. troops
who are serving in the region.
The beginning of this year, 2006, the Iraqi security forces had 10
brigades and 43 battalions that controlled areas of responsibility.
Here, only a few months later, those numbers are nearly doubled to 18
brigades and 71 battalions. Large- and small-scale water treatment
facilities have been rehabilitated or constructed for an estimated 3
million people at a standard level of service, with plans underway to
deliver clean, safe drinking water to 5 million more. May oil
production was over 2.1 million barrels per day.
The U.S. Treasury Department is sending professionals to Iraq to
provide technical support for the creation of a public finance system
that is accountable and transparent. The State Department is
coordinating a broad effort to support an economic policy framework
that enhances investments, job creation, and growth.
I have to say that that progress has occurred--and many of my
colleagues have spoken in favor of these amendments in spite of the
presence of Americans and our troops' efforts--due to and because of
the efforts of our troops and their presence there. Contrary to what I
have heard some of my colleagues on the other side say throughout the
course of this debate, when I was in Iraq, which was as recently as a
couple months ago, as I said, the Iraqi political leaders I talked to
made it very clear that they thought it was important that we have a
presence in Iraq.
I have heard Members get up on the floor and say they have talked to
people there and they say they want us out, and they don't want the
door to hit us on the way out. But that is certainly not the message
that was delivered to me and the delegation I was with when we were
there. I also have to say that part of our mission in going there was
to impress upon the Iraqi leadership, the political leaders in that
country, the importance of forming a national unity government, and to
end the sectarianism and the sectarian violence that ravaged that area
during the time that we were there. They have made that progress in the
last couple of months since our departure from Iraq. They have formed
this national unity government, and they continue to make progress
toward what I believe is a democracy inclusive of the Shiites, the
Sunnis, the Kurds, and the various groups over there that are all
struggling to come together behind a government and to be able to
assume responsibility for their own governance and also for their own
security.

It seems to me at least that right now it would not be a good signal
to send either to them or to our men and women who are fighting the
good fight in Iraq that we intend to pull out at any particular time
certain. It seems, just as a matter of policy, what we are simply doing
when we do that is telegraphing to the terrorists our intentions, and
they will just wait us out, that we are going to leave at some point
and they will be able to assume control in that region. If there is a
vacuum at some point, they will be able to step in and fill it.
I think we are at a strategic turning point, and I think we are at
that point due to the good work of the men and women wearing the
uniform. We have to listen to what they are saying and what our
commanders on the ground are saying. I don't think it is in the best
interest of our troops or the overall campaign in Iraq for us to be
here in Washington, DC, in a political body such as the Senate--
although clearly we have responsibilities with respect to

[[Page S6250]]

funding the troops and supporting them, giving them direction, but I
don't think we ought to be passing judgment about when is the best time
to pull our troops back.
We are moving in a direction that will enable us to do that, and I
believe that our commanders have made it clear that as they see the
Iraqi military stand up, as the government stands up, it is only a
matter of time before our troops will be able to stand down, and we
will begin to draw down some of our troop strengths in the region.
I make that point because, as I mentioned earlier, popular support is
waning for the conflict and people are weary and they are frustrated as
they see lives lost and they see the cost of the war, but at the same
time I think they realize we have a mission to complete there. We
listen to the people across the country, but it is also important to
listen to what the troops are saying.
Whenever I travel, when I go to Iraq, when I listen to troops who
have returned from Iraq, when I talk with National Guard units in South
Dakota that have been deployed there, and, frankly, even when I discuss
with families who have lost loved ones in Iraq their thoughts about the
work we are doing there and whether we are making a difference, I
consistently ask the questions: Do you believe we are making a
difference? Do you believe progress is being made? Do you believe we
are doing the right thing?
I try to ask those questions separate from--and especially when I am
traveling into Iraq--the structured settings in which I would get a
response--I wouldn't say a canned response but a response that might be
less than completely forthright. I ask troops in different situations.
I remember when I was in Iraq in Baghdad the last time, I got up
early in the morning and went to the fitness center and worked out in
the weight room with a lot of our troops and visited, interacted with
them, and asked their opinions on issues. Clearly, there is a belief, I
think, that the work there is hard, that the work there has been
costly, that people would like to be back home with their families but
at the same time who understand the stakes of what they are doing and
believe profoundly in the mission and the work we are doing at winning
the war on terror.
As I said before, I think we have to, as we listen to this debate,
keep in mind that the stakes are very high because it is not just about
freedom and democracy in Iraq, as good as that objective may be, it is
also about, in a broader sense, the national security of future
generations of Americans.
I happen to believe that the war on terror is sort of our, as they
used to say, rendezvous with destiny, that many generations that have
come before have had to battle evil. We had World War II and Nazism and
all the characters of that time who wanted to kill and destroy and maim
people. And since that time we have fought the Cold War. It has taken a
certain amount of resolve in every one of those circumstances to
prevail. But in either of those circumstances had we not had that
resolve, had there not been freedom-loving people and leadership
committed to finishing that mission, we could be living in a very
different world.
They met, in their generation's time, the challenge that was put
before them to make the world a safer and more secure place for future
generations. That was true in World War II, that was true in the Cold
War, and that is true today in the war on terror. I believe it is our
time and our generation's, if you want to call it struggle between good
and evil, and we have a responsibility to the people of this country
and to freedom-loving people everywhere to make sure we do not fail in
succeeding, in winning the war against terror, to ensure that future
generations do not have to live in constant fear, in constant threat,
and perhaps dealing with thugs such as al-Zarqawi and others who want
to do evil and want to kill, want to destroy, and have nothing but the
worst of intentions for the people of this country and people elsewhere
around the world.
Mr. President, this amendment will be voted on tomorrow. I know the
Senator from Massachusetts has time to talk about his amendment later.
And the Levin amendment will also be voted on. I appreciate and believe
it is appropriate for us to have this debate, especially in the context
of the Defense authorization bill, where we are debating national
security. This is a debate we have every year. I think it is very
appropriate to have this discussion.
I don't question the motivations or intentions of people who bring
these amendments; I think just in terms of their judgment, it is wrong.
I don't think we can telegraph to our enemies what our strategies are.
I believe it is important we complete the mission, that we listen to
those commanders, those generals, those troops on the ground day in and
day out, fighting the good fight, trying to protect our citizens in
this country and around the world and future generations from what I
believe is a very real, very serious threat to our security as we go
forward.
Mr. President, I see that the Senator from Kansas is on the floor. I
will be happy, if he is prepared at this time to make his remarks, to
yield such time to him as he may consume. We have others who will be
joining us in the Chamber. I, at this time, yield to the Senator from
Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from South Dakota
for yielding time to me on this very important topic that we are
dealing with today, and I also thank my colleagues from Massachusetts
and from Michigan for raising these issues.
As Senator Thune was stating, this is an important debate. It is time
we had this debate. It is the right vehicle for us to have this debate,
and I think it is helpful for us to have this debate for the United
States as we move forward.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, can I inquire how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, it is time we had this debate and time
we had this debate in front of the people of the United States and in
front of the world. Rest assured that the terrorists are watching this
debate. Those who seek harm for us in Iraq and in many regions of the
world are watching this debate, and they are testing and sensing our
sense of resolve or lack of resolve in this war on terrorism.
They are very much playing off us and saying the weakness of the
United States is its willingness to stay the course or its lack of
resolve or the shifting of public opinion, and that is what they drive
at more than anything else, seeing that the weakest part of the U.S.
military is public opinion, U.S. public opinion, so that our forces are
not defeated on the battlefield. We have lost valiant soldiers, but we
win the battles. What they are targeting is weakening U.S. public
opinion and U.S. resolve. That is what they are targeting with the
attacks, with the IEDs, with the roadside bombs. It is not going force
on force and saying: OK, we are going to drive Americans out of this
portion of Iraq; we are going to keep them out of this particular area.
Much of it is saying: Look, we know the United States. We know they are
a democracy. They respond to public opinion. What we have to do is have
this be costly enough to the United States in American blood that
public opinion shifts and they pull away. And once they leave, we take
over. So their actual target is U.S. public opinion.
We need to disappoint the terrorists on that particular issue, that
U.S. public opinion and U.S. resolve remains in place to see this
through.
We are in a decades-long struggle with terrorism. It had been going
on since before we had the attack on 9/11. It had been going on for a
decade prior to that. We had the attack on Khobar Towers. We had the
USS Cole attack. We had two embassies in Africa attacked. Hit, hit,
hit, and ineffective, feckless responses on our part I think further
emboldened the terrorists to take this even further. Hit, no response;
hit, ineffective response; hit, ineffective response; and then 9/11,
and after that, there was no way you were going to stop the United
States from responding. We said: Look, that is it, we are going and we
are going to deal with this. We went into Afghanistan, the
headquarters. And after that we said: Where else are terrorists working
out of? And the war effort moved to Iraq.

[[Page S6251]]

Let's look at it from the point of view of the terrorists. I think
they misjudged us in thinking we wouldn't respond. We did respond, and
we responded aggressively and we responded effectively. We sent a very
strong message. But now if we pull out or if we set a timeframe for
pulling out that says just wait a definite period of time, 1 year, wait
that period of time and the United States starts pulling back, how do
the terrorist groups read that?
My colleague from Massachusetts would have a certain point of view on
that; maybe others would, my colleague from Michigan. I respect the
motivation. I am delighted we are having this debate. It is important
we have this debate with our Nation and with the world now.
The conclusions I draw from this are different. If we set timeframes,
it says to them that they have us where they want, and they can start
declaring victory in their own words saying: Look, we have them down;
in a year's period of time, they are gone; all we have to do is wait
that period of time.
We have to see this through to a successful conclusion. That does not
mean, in any respect whatsoever, that I oppose us repositioning troops,
pulling down the number of troops in Iraq or taking our troops away
from the Sunni Triangle and handing more of that over to the Iraqis. It
seems to me that our timeframes, as set by our military leaders--as set
by the military leaders--that they would be the ones to recommend
saying it is time we can pull troop levels down.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Not now. I have limited time, and I want to make this
statement, if I may. That we can, at the appointment of our military
leaders, start pulling our troops away from the Sunni Triangle so we
can have the Iraqis taking over more and more of the security in more
dangerous areas. I think that is an important thing for us to say here
in this debate as well, that in opposing setting a timeframe for
pulling out, we are not opposing changing tactics, or if our military
leaders say it is time, we can start pulling troops down, let's do it.
I want that to take place. But it should be the military leaders doing
this, without the dictates of us saying here that we are just going to
set an arbitrary timeframe for us to pull on out of this region. I
think it sends the exact wrong signal, particularly at this point in
time when we have momentum that we have gained and we have an Iraqi
government in place.

Frankly, through the help of this debate, we are sending a message to
the Iraqi people and their government that the United States is not in
this for an unlimited period of time. We do expect the Iraqis to step
up. You have to step up in taking more of this on and moving more of
this forward. I think this should be done on our working with and
listening to the military leaders of what they would say would be the
right route for us to go on this and not us setting an arbitrary date.
This has been, in my estimation, a very good debate to have. But I
think it is important at the end of the debate that we have a very
strong and clear vote on this that we are staying, and we are going to
see this through to the end. We are not dictating to the military
leadership an arbitrary time period, and we are going to win this war
on terrorism, period, and that we have the resolve to win this war on
terrorism. I think that is important for us to do.
I want to thank my colleague from South Dakota for chairing this
debate at this point in time. I do hope that my colleagues join me
again tomorrow in voting against this resolution with this timeframe.
Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BROWNBACK. If we have time on our side, but I don't know if we
have other colleagues wishing to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. The Senator from Kansas, if he wants to yield for a
question, I guess that is your prerogative. We have other speakers
coming. I am hesitant to allow too much time to burn off the clock.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I would rather reserve the balance of our time for
other speakers.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments of my
colleague from Kansas, because I think he too has laid out very clearly
what the stakes are in this debate.
As I said earlier, we will have an opportunity to vote tomorrow on
both of these amendments, the Levin amendment, the sense of Congress
amendment, and then the Kerry amendment, both of which are directed at
some sort of a timeline with respect to the conflict in Iraq. As I
mentioned earlier, I think as we have undertaken to allow a very open
debate on this, which, as I said before, I think is a good thing to do,
particularly in the context of debating the Defense authorization bill,
we are hearing from both sides some of the emotion that is felt on this
and also some very strong opinions and views but, oftentimes, a
different interpretation of the facts.
I think what we need to do in this debate is try and focus on the
facts as they exist on the ground and not sometimes as we understand
them here from what we read in the press, but we need to rely, in my
judgment, on those people who are day in and day out fighting the good
fight in the theater. Our commanders, our generals, our troops who are
conducting this operation over there are doing the Lord's work, in my
opinion, in protecting us from terrorist threats that exist. I dare
say, as we look at the type of threat we will face in the future, it
seems to me, at least, that the success or failure of the operation in
Iraq is going to bear heavily on whether we are ultimately going to
succeed in the war on terror.
People have argued about whether we ought to be in Iraq in the first
place, and that is a debate where Members on the other side have said
we shouldn't have been there, we shouldn't have gone in the first
place. Most who are making that argument are people who supported the
resolution to go there, and I think many of those people also realize
as well--and I think the vote will reflect this tomorrow--that they
have strong misgivings about us pulling out prematurely and putting in
jeopardy the good work that has been done by the troops in that region
already.
So I expect tomorrow when we have this vote we will see a very strong
vote against the Kerry amendment. I think it will reflect, hopefully,
the will of this body at this point in time as we are making good
progress, I think, at a very important turning point in the war in
Iraq, the progress that has been made on the ground both with respect
to the Iraqi security forces as well as with the Government of Iraq as
it stands up. We want to make sure we are not telegraphing to our
enemies that at this very point where we literally have them on their
backs, that we are going to let them up and begin to assume many of the
things that they were doing in the past: the killings, the planning,
the launching of attacks against people not only in that region but
elsewhere around the world and, in many cases, people from freedom-
loving countries and American citizens. We want to make sure that never
happens again.
My colleague from Alabama is here on the floor. Would the Senator
from Alabama like to speak on this subject? We are waiting for the
Senator from Georgia to arrive. He is not here yet, so if the Senator
from Alabama would like to claim some time, I am certainly willing to
yield to him. I think we have about 10 minutes left on our side if the
Senator from Alabama would like to make some remarks.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I do have some remarks, and I would
deliver those after the others have finished their time tonight if it
is not too late, and I would just share a few thoughts at this time.

We have been given a great heritage in our country. We have been
given a Nation that is the greatest Nation in the world at this time.
We have the finest military the world has ever known. We have a great
democracy where we have full and vigorous debate.
I was here when we debated the question of whether or not to issue
that ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, and we knew then if he didn't accept
it, if he didn't allow the inspectors in and if he didn't renounce
weapons of mass destruction, we would be going to war, and that was the
vote and we knew it and everybody discussed it. It went on for months.
People say it was quick. It went on for months.

[[Page S6252]]

I will tell you what I said about why we went. I looked back at my
remarks. It was not based on primarily weapons of mass destruction. We
were dealing with Iraq for years. We had a war with them in 1991, and
we defeated them and sent their Army going back to Baghdad. In effect,
Saddam Hussein sued for peace and he made a series of promises to keep
us from following and destroying his Army completely and invading his
country and removing him from power, and he made those commitments, and
he did not follow them.
There were a number of U.N. resolutions that he was in violation of.
He rejected the international community, and an embargo had been placed
on Iraq. The United States was attempting to enforce that embargo.
Saddam Hussein was consistently working to get around that embargo. We
were flying in no-fly zones and enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq. He
was shooting at our airplanes on a daily basis, almost. We were
dropping bombs on Saddam Hussein on a regular basis, dropping bombs
from our aircraft.
So the question was, as The Economist magazine said, are we going to
quit our efforts, are we going to issue an ultimatum and be prepared to
go to war if they do not? Their editorial said, the London-based
Economist magazine said, our vote is for war. That was that London
journal's opinion.
That is the way I felt about it. Iraq was a rogue nation that had
tremendous amounts of oil, it had a dictator prepared to use weapons of
mass destruction, use weapons of mass destruction against his own
people, and he was determined to break the embargo, determined to be
able to sell his oil on the world market, not for his own people's good
but to build up his military power, just like he did when he invaded
Kuwait, and be the preeminent Nebakanezer of the Middle East. That was
his goal. It remained his goal. It probably still is as long as he
takes a breath.
So we gave him that ultimatum, and with the support of large numbers
of nations in the world--I believe some 60 supported us, including
nations like the United Kingdom and Australia and others--he refused to
comply and we commenced our military action. This Nation made a
decision to remove him from power and we voted on it as a Senate, and
we sent our soldiers in harm's way. We did not do that lightly. No
great Nation which expects to be respected will send its soldiers into
harm's way with a half-hearted commitment to them.
When I talk to those soldiers, as I did recently at the 231st
birthday of the United States Army over at the Jefferson Memorial, and
I talked to those soldiers and we were discussing these kinds of
deadlines and policies and directives to set forth plans as to how the
war should be conducted, one of them said to me, Senator, let me tell
you what we want. We want to win. And I have talked to families who
lost loved ones in Iraq, and they tell me every time--it is amazing--my
son was doing what he believed in, what he wanted to do.
I submit we owe them the responsibility to be faithful to them and
not to dishonor their sacrifice by cutting and running when it is not
time to do so. I believe that very, very sincerely.
So I would just say to my colleagues, I can see how we have
differences of opinion, and I understand that. I remember the debate
and I remember the vote I cast and I knew it was very serious. No
Nation that desires its own self-respect or the respect of other
nations can be flippant about those kinds of matters. When you make a
commitment, you stay the course.
Iraq has formed a new government completely now. They have a
parliament. They have elected all their ministers. They have their
interior and defense ministers in place. They are determined to
continue to grow and strengthen their Army and their security forces.
I believe they still need American help to get over that hump and be
successful. We should not disregard the advice of our military leaders
and set an artificial date, not connected to military and political
reality in Iraq, for leaving Iraq. I think that would be the very wrong
thing to do. And nothing could be more corrosive to our self-confidence
as a Nation or to our own military than to prematurely give up on the
opportunity we have to create a good and stable government in Iraq.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, could I inquire how much time is
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise tonight in opposition to this
amendment. As I have thought about this over the last several days, I
believe it is critically important that we bring this issue up for
debate. The Senator from Massachusetts, frankly, is to be commended for
doing so. We could have eased through this bill without having this
debate and the American people would not have had the opportunity to
hear where we are, what is going on, and in particular why those of us
who think it is important that we move ahead continue to do so.
First of all, when the President spoke to a joint session of Congress
following September 11, he said we were going to be engaging in an
entirely different form of military conflict than we had ever been
engaged in before, and it was going to be a war on terror which was
going to be a long and enduring war. He has been exactly right. We
ultimately moved into Afghanistan, and liberated the people of
Afghanistan. We took out hundreds if not thousands of terrorists in
that country, and ultimately the decision was made to liberate the
people of Iraq, and we have done that. It is about this conflict that,
in the minds of a lot of Americans, the question is still being asked,
How much longer is this going to go on?
I remind the folks of America that the President did say it is going
to be a long and enduring war. That is the case. The reason it is going
to be a long and enduring war is because this is an unconventional war
in every sense of the word. It would be nice if we had tanks on the
battlefield or artillery being fired at an enemy over the hill. But we
are never going to see that in this war on terrorism. It is being
fought in the back alleys of Baghdad and Mosul and Tikrit, in towns
that were foreign to anybody in America before we moved into Iraq and
made the march to Baghdad. That is the kind of war which is going to
continue to be fought.
The people of Iraq know that well. They have suffered as much if not
more than any country in that region that has had a conflict like this.
I say that because we all remember Desert Storm and what happened in
Kuwait. We all remember what has been happening daily in that part of
the world, whether it is Jordan or whether it is Israel or Egypt or
some other part of that region of the world. The people of Iraq have
truly suffered. They understand that America has made a sacrifice, and
they understand that, were it not for the American soldier coming in to
liberate them, they would not be in the condition they are today, which
frankly is a pretty positive condition--both economically as well as
otherwise.
Are there bad things happening? Sure. There are going to continue to
be bad things happening. The one thing about war is there is nothing
pleasant about it. There is nothing good about war. But at the end of
the day, America has always stood tall in military conflicts. America
has carried the day. America has always achieved victory, and victory
means a democratic form of government in Iraq being formed. It means a
unified government, which we have seen taking place in Iraq recently.
It means taking out the bad guys, from a leadership standpoint all the
way down. That is happening in Iraq every single day.
Recently, we saw the takeout of their leader, Zarqawi. That happened
in a short period of time. But were it not for the first American
soldier to set foot in Iraq and start the motion in process, that would
not have happened the way it did 2 weeks ago. It will happen again.
Whoever is next in line will ultimately be brought to justice or have
justice physically brought to them at the hands of the American
soldier.
We are in a situation today where we are discussing whether we ought
to pull our troops out of there--whether we talk about next week, next
month, or next year. In my opinion, that sends the wrong message to the
Iraqi people. It sends the wrong message to the terrorists. And it
sends the wrong message to the world. It is a different message from
what the American military

[[Page S6253]]

and America itself has ever sent to any enemy with which we have been
engaged in combat.
We are having successes today, successes that are brought about
because of sacrifices--in a lot of cases the ultimate sacrifice. That
has always been the American way. While we grieve for those families
who have made that ultimate sacrifice, they are going to be satisfied
only when their ultimate sacrifice is rewarded with full and complete
victory in the war on terror.
I believe it is important that we have this debate. It is important
that the American people understand we truly are winning this war and
that the wins are not measured by victories on the battlefield every
day, but the victory is being measured by winning the hearts and minds
of the Iraqi people. The victory is being measured by the folks who are
achieving success inside Iraq, from a military standpoint, from a
governmental standpoint, and from an economic standpoint.
I urge my colleagues to look at these motions very carefully, both of
them, and that we defeat both motions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the majority has expired. The
Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the Senator
from Georgia. He is a very valued member of the Armed Services
Committee, as is Senator Thune, who spoke earlier, as was Senator
Sessions.
I think we have had a good debate. We are prepared to continue that
debate as long as it is desired. We are here to stay. We feel very
strongly about these issues, you know. I do not want to invade the time
of my good friend.
I yield the floor at this time, and I will follow him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wonder if it will be possible to let the
Senator from New Jersey speak for about 15 minutes and then I resume
the floor?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if that is with no objection, the next 30
minutes is under the Senator's control.
Mr. KERRY. I understand I have unlimited time at this time, Mr.
President? There is no time limit on me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
Mr. KERRY. I just yield him 15 minutes. I don't intend to talk all
night, but I hope to have the chance to speak.
Mr. WARNER. I hope we have a rotation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, to decide our future in Iraq, we must
first understand our past in Iraq.
Frankly, I never believed this administration's false arguments about
why we should go to war in Iraq. And I believe this administration has
never had a strategy for success in Iraq.
That's why I voted against the war in Iraq.
The Bush administration led us into this war based on false premises
and false promises.
The Bush administration invaded Iraq without the troop numbers needed
to complete the job.
The Bush administration failed to provide the troops with the
equipment they needed letting them go into Iraq without proper body
armor or properly armored vehicles
The Bush administration failed to create a real international
coalition so that the United States wouldn't have to bear the highest
cost in blood and national treasure.
And President Bush went into the war without a plan to win the peace.
This was a war of choice, not a war of necessity.
The Bush administration's record in Iraq represents a massive failure
of leadership--a massive failure of Presidential leadership.
Let me be clear. While I did not support the war, I have always
supported the troops on the battlefield. Our troops have succeeded in
the tasks they were given. They have fought for freedom and security in
the most difficult of situations. They have risked their lives to
protect ours. And the Nation is indebted to them for their service.
In New Jersey, over 3,169 New Jerseyans are serving in Iraq or
Afghanistan and 71 service members with ties to New Jersey have made
the ultimate sacrifice for our country in Iraq or Afghanistan and our
thoughts and prayers are with them and their families. Obviously, our
troops are committed to this call to duty. They have not questioned the
why, or the wherefore, they have simply, honorably, and valiantly
answered the call of their country.
But we are all living with the consequences of this failure in
Presidential leadership today:
Iraq continues to explode with sectarian violence.
Reconstruction efforts have not restored Iraq to prewar levels of oil
production, security concerns continue to impede progress, while
accusations of contractor corruption continue.
We have not been able to internationalize the effort of training and
security in Iraq because of the administration's closed-minded decision
to keep countries from helping with reconstruction unless they
supported the administration's decision to go to war.
On top of the other failures, the administration refused to engage in
real diplomacy to create regional security with Iraq's neighbors.
The United States has spent nearly $319 billion in Iraq. Our monthly
burn rate is over $8 billion. Over 2,500 American lives have been lost,
over 18,500 soldiers have been wounded--many of them severely.
And we were all horrified to hear the news just yesterday that two
U.S. soldiers, PFC Kristian Menchaca from Houston, TX and PFC Thomas
Lowell Tucker, from Madras, OR, were kidnapped and slaughtered by the
insurgents.
My heart goes out to the families of these soldiers and to all who
have lost loved ones in Iraq.
I believe we have paid a heavy price for the war in Iraq--in blood
and in national treasure.
But we must account for not only the literal cost of the war but also
what we have not done because of the war--the opportunity cost of the
war in Iraq.
We also cannot forget that our fight against terrorism started where
it should have in Afghanistan. But because of the President's war in
Iraq, this administration then took our eye off the ball in
Afghanistan.
The administration never finished the job 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 9/11 were planned.
This 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, best equipped, most technologically advanced military in the
world go after him, we outsourced the job to Afghanistan warlords. The
result? Osama bin Laden got away.
Many of us have been horrified as we have watched the resurgence of
the Taliban and strong anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan.
During just the past few weeks, over 250 people have been killed in
the upsurge in violence and we see techniques borrowed from Iraq, like
the use of improvised explosive devices, now being used in Afghanistan.
According to the New York Times, Pentagon officials say that 32
suicide bombs have been exploded in 2006, which is already 6 more than
exploded in all of 2005. Roadside bombings are up 30 percent over last
year and the Taliban are fighting in groups triple the size of last
year. Just this Monday, we heard reports that the Taliban used women
and children as human shields during a fierce firefight with British
troops. And after a deadly traffic accident involving the U.S.
military, an anti-American riot exploded in Kabul last month.
Meanwhile, Bin Laden makes his tapes and remains free.
President Bush's war has also hurt us here at home. The fact is that
because of the cost of President Bush's war at almost $319 billion, we
cannot afford to take care of some of the basic needs of our citizens
here at home. This administration is cutting funds for firefighters,
for education, for our seniors, for healthcare, and for homeland
security funding in New Jersey and New York to protect our ports and
our transit systems. They are underfunding the very veterans who are
securing our

[[Page S6254]]

country and who come back from war wounded or traumatized. The Bush
administration is cutting funding to all of these people--our nurses,
teachers, and seniors--while spending billions in Iraq every month.
As we start a new hurricane season, I look back on Hurricane Katrina
and I see the terrible price the people of the Gulf Coast paid when
their National Guard troops were away in Iraq and unable to protect
them here at home. Our homeland is simply less secure when our National
Guard and Reserves are being kept in permanent rotation away in Iraq.
Clearly, it is time to change the course; we need a new direction in
Iraq.
That's why I am supporting the Levin and Kerry amendments today.
The Senate has already spoken saying that 2006 must be a year of
transition. That is why the Levin amendment says that we must begin
transitioning out troops now while still protecting our people and
helping with security. With the Levin amendment, we make it clear that
the time has come to change the course, rather than stay the course.
I am also supporting Senator Kerry's amendment which takes the first
and most important step by setting a date of July 1, 2007 to have all
U.S. troops transition except those critical to training Iraqi security
forces, working on specialized counterterrorism operations, and
protecting our U.S. personnel and facilities, like our embassy.
Let us be clear. This amendment does not say we should remove all of
our troops from Iraq right now.
With this amendment, we are saying that it is time for Iraqis to take
responsibility for their own destiny.
With this amendment, we are sending a message that over the course of
the next year, the Iraqis must take full control of their own country,
their own security, and their own future.
With this amendment, we are saying that we respect the message of the
Iraqis' own elected, sovereign government. At a time when the Iraqis
have put in place the entire cabinet of the elected government of Prime
Minister Maliki; at a time when the United States and coalition forces
have trained and equipped more than 116,000 Iraqi soldiers and more
than 148,000 Iraqi police and other security forces; at a time when
sectarian violence has taken over terrorism as the most serious
security threat in Iraq; at a time when 69 out of the 102 army combat
battalions, are either soon able to take the lead or able to operate
independently, isn't it time for the Iraqis to start taking
responsibility for their own destiny?
In fact, the Iraqis have made this point themselves. The Iraqi
National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie said in a Washington Post
article this week:

He also said that the eventual removal of coalition troops ``will
help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than
the liberators they were meant to be'' and that ``the removal of
foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its
people.'' Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki supports a transfer of
responsibility for 16 out of 18 provinces by the end of 2006 and his
security adviser believes that we can reduce coalition forces to less
than 100,000 by the end of this year with most of the multinational
force gone. The Iraqis are clearly saying that they are ready for this
transition to happen.
A few days ago, Republican Senators made a great deal of Iraqi
sovereignty when I, and Senator Nelson, proposed a Sense of the Senate
amendment that urged the government of Iraq not to grant amnesty for
those who had killed U.S. soldiers.
We heard a lot about sovereignty.
If the Iraqis are to be respected as a sovereign government, as many
argued on the floor of the Senate a few days ago, shouldn't we respect
their knowledge and wishes as it relates to the very issue of troop
redeployment and their ability to sustain their own security?
It is only when the Iraqis and the rest of the world know there is a
certain timeframe for a real transition that they will make the hard
choices, negotiations, and compromises to maintain a stable government
of national unity. It is time for the U.S. to cap the open-ended
commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq and to ``remove the training wheels''
on the Iraqi security forces. The sooner the Iraqi security forces
believe they are fighting for their country, the sooner they help stop
the sectarian violence. Until that happens, the fledgling Iraqi
Government will continue to rely on U.S. forces to keep them from
making the difficult decisions and taking tough actions. It is time for
the Iraqis to step up to the plate.

Clearly, it is essential to set a date certain for transition so that
Iraqis will take responsibility for their country.
It is also essential to set this date certain for transition so that
the international community will start to take responsibility for
reconstruction and security in Iraq, as well.
The United States cannot go it alone; we must internationalize
reconstruction, security, and create an international process to end
sectarian violence. It is in everyone's interest to create a stable and
secure Iraq. That is why I support the proposed Summit in Senator
Kerry's amendment which brings together all of the players--the EU,
NATO, the UN, and Iraq's neighbors--to come up with a plan to solve the
political problems, to deal with the militias, and to revive
reconstruction efforts.
And this Summit will also deal with a key issue to Iraq's stability--
oil. Ultimately, all parties need to be brought in to the process and
share the oil profits whether through a national fund or some form of
revenue sharing. We cannot forget that Iraq has the fourth largest oil
reserves in the world. The goal is to reduce insurgent attacks, improve
security along the pipeline and create strong oversight over current
pipeline reconstruction. The Iraqis need a stable income stream to
restore economic stability and help pay for reconstruction and security
so we must get oil production back above prewar levels.
I also believe that our worldwide troop deployment must reflect our
priorities in the fight against terrorism. Senator Kerry's amendment
creates an over-the-horizon troop presence in case we need to deal with
other terrorist issues or regional security issues. With the reduction
of troops in Iraq we will be able to redeploy certain troops to other
key areas, such as Afghanistan. And we will also be able to bring our
National Guard and Reserves home to prevent another terrorist attack on
our soil and to help during natural disasters.
Let me conclude by saying that there are those who want to politicize
the war to present the American people with a false choice--either stay
the course by keeping our troops in Iraq or empower the terrorists by
cutting and running. I would ask all of you not to fall into the trap
of this false choice or simplistic solutions.
Let me be clear, this amendment is not a simplistic choice to leave
Iraq today and to let it fall into the hands of the terrorists.
With this amendment, we will begin to fulfill the transition the
Senate voted for and the Iraqis have said they intend to pursue.
With this amendment, we are voting to leave sufficient troops in Iraq
at the end of that year to fight counterterrorism, to finish training
Iraqi forces, and to protect our people and our embassy.
With this amendment, we are voting to put troops over-the horizon in
case of other terrorist activity or regional conflict.
With this amendment, we are voting to create regional stability and
get the international community to the table.

[[Page S6255]]

With this amendment, we are voting to get our National Guard home to
keep us safe and secure in our cities and towns.
With this amendment, we are voting to finish the job in Afghanistan.
With this amendment, we are changing the course of events in Iraq--a
change of course that will still meet our objectives, save American
lives, and ensure our ability to both protect our people at home and
meet the other challenges we have as a nation.
Let us remember that this was a war of choice, not a war of
necessity.
Let us remember what this administration has told us about this war.
Let us remember the unfound weapons of mass destruction; remember the
missing mobile weapons labs; remember the yellow-cake uranium in
Africa; remember Saddam's nonexistent vast stockpiles of chemical
weapons; remember when Secretary Rumsfeld told us that, ``We know where
the WMDs are;'' remember the non-existent link between al-Qaida and
Saddam; remember the claims that Iraqi oil and other countries, not the
U.S. taxpayer, would pay for the cost of reconstruction; remember when
the administration told us that the war would cost somewhere between
$50 and $60 billion; remember when Paul Wolfowitz said that ``it seems
outlandish'' to think that we would need several hundred thousand
troops in Iraq; and let us remember when President Bush told us on May
1, 2003 that ``Major combat operations in Iraq have ended'' while he
stood in front of a sign that said ``mission accomplished.''
Let us remember the lies.
So I ask: Are we willing to continue to sacrifice the lives of young
Americans so that this same administration can stay the course, a
course without direction, for a cause that President Bush has already
said that he will abandon to the next president? I hope not.
I will say again, do not fall into the political trap and rhetoric
from those who will try to mischaracterize this amendment.
I voted against the Iraq war when many on the other side tried to
falsely characterize those of us who didn't believe the evidence that
the administration presented, who thought we should work through the
international process, who didn't believe the administration had done
any postwar planning. For standing up for what we believed in, they
tried to mischaracterize us as anti-American and unpatriotic. I was
willing to take a difficult stand, and stand up for what I believed was
right for the country and for the people of New Jersey. That is why I
voted against the war.
Today, with over 2,500 lives lost, almost $320 billion spent in
national treasure, with $8 billion used each month, I know I made the
right decision.
The Senate has an opportunity to act now, to enact a policy worthy of
the sacrifice of our soldiers.
And that is why I am voting for the Kerry and Levin amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for a
really excellent summary and a terrific statement about what this is
about and what is at stake. I thank him also for in the short time he
has been here he has really proven to be indispensable for a number of
different debates we have had and for his work in the last few days on
no amnesty for those who have killed Americans. It had a major impact
on our policy. We thank him so much for that contribution.
Mr. President, I think one of the important things that the Senator
from New Jersey just said is let us remember what this amendment is
really about.
I have sat here and listened to this nondebate for a little while.
When Senators used to be able to question each other, we used to be
able to have a dialog on the floor. It seems to me that is the best way
to test each other's thinking.
What is interesting to me is that a number of Senators came to the
floor to make these grand pronouncements about our country, about war
on terror, about our troops. And none of us in the U.S. Senate would
disagree that our troops are the best troops in the world and that they
have made an extraordinary sacrifice. None of us would disagree. We are
a great country and a great democracy. None of us disagree that we
don't need to fight against terrorists to win the war on terror. That
is not the issue.
A lot of other people are getting tired of that sort of game, of
trying to characterize things as they aren't.
The Senator from South Dakota said that we shouldn't telegraph to the
enemy and to the terrorists. Of course, we shouldn't telegraph to the
enemy and terrorists. What are we telegraphing? We are there. They know
it. They are killing our soldiers to some degree but lesser than the
insurgency today.
The point that people need to really focus on is the fact that what
has happened in Iraq is not what was originally billed. This is the
third war. It is a different war from the war we went into.
The war that the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, described was
the war against Saddam Hussein as an enforcement mechanism of weapons
of mass destruction. And they weren't there. There is a whole history
of that being about a war of choice as opposed to a war of necessity.
That then transitioned because Zarqawi and company and a bunch of
foreigners were attracted by the fact that we were there. We made a
great target. So they started to use that target. And, indeed, it
became a haven for some terrorists.
But every single analyst who I have talked to--and I know the
chairman knows this--says that there are about 1,000 or less of the
foreign terrorists in Iraq. Ninety-eight percent of what is happening
in Iraq today is Iraqi on Iraqi.
When they come to the floor and say to us we are going to telegraph
something to the terrorists, who are we telegraphing something to? The
Shias who hate Sunnis, the Sunnis who hate Shias who are killing each
other?
What are our troops supposed to be about? Drive down the street and
find an IED and get blown up? Wait for a suicide bomber to come into an
outpost and kill them?
The bottom line is that either the Iraqis are going to resolve the
differences between Iraqis or we are going to see people dying for a
long, long time.
When we talk about the war on terror, let's talk about the real war
on terror which never was in Iraq. Yes, it is now part of the war on
terror. It has been made part of the war on terror because foreign
terrorists have been attracted there because the American target is
there and because they know they can feed into the sectarian violence
and use it against us.
What is smart if you are going to try to deal with that? How do you
win? Do you think I want to win any less than the Senator from Alabama
or the Senator from Georgia? I believe in winning. I believe in winning
for America and I believe in winning for our troops, and I don't think
this is a winning strategy. It is not a winning strategy in Iraq, and
it is not a winning strategy in the war on terror.
All you have to do is look at al-Qaida and what they are doing in 60
to 80 countries around the world. Look at what happened in Somalia the
other day? Are we dealing with that? Are we dealing with Darfur? Are we
dealing with North Korea? It took us until this year to sit down with
our own allies, Great Britain, Germany and France, and actually try to
do the diplomatic work of dealing with Iran.
For 3\1/5\ years we sat on the sidelines and allowed Iran to become
more of a problem.
Is that winning the war on terror?
What about the 60 percent of the kids in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and
Jordan and other countries that are under the age of 25, 50 percent
under the age of 18, 40 percent under the age of 14, and the unemployed
and uneducated and unemployable? They are going to go down to madrasas
and learn how to hate people while the United States remains a big, fat
target in the Middle East.
Ask our foreign policy experts. I don't know whether it was Foreign
Affairs or another magazine, but one of them did that just the other
day.
Eighty-seven percent of the people, when asked, said we are less safe
today in the war on terror than we were; 87 percent of the experts of
the United States, including people like General Brent Scowcroft and
others who I know the chairman has great respect for.

[[Page S6256]]

This is not a question of whether we want to beat terrorists. This is
a question of whether we are doing it the right way and whether we know
how to do this right.
Show me in this resolution, in this amendment, where it says all
troops out in 1 year. It doesn't. A lot of people are upset at that.
They think it ought to, but it doesn't. Show me where it says we are
finished altogether, and we are walking away from Iraq. It does not say
it.
It says we are going to leave sufficient people there to finish the
training, to go after al-Qaida, over the horizon to have the capacity
to be able to protect our interests in the region, and it says we will
protect American facilities.
This is not cut and run. This is a smart way to win the war on
terror. Our own generals--and I know the chairman has heard it; I know
others have heard it--know that they believe our presence is
contributing to the problems. It contributes to the sense of
occupation. It contributes to the--whether it is Abu Ghraib or
Guantanamo Bay or Haditha, those all contribute to the recruitment of
terrorists against the United States.
Our intelligence people will tell every Member of the Senate that
currently there are al-Qaida-trained operatives leaving Iraq, trained
in munitions, trained in IEDs, going to Europe and elsewhere in order
to wreak the havoc of the future.
We are not doing the job. We are not doing the job correctly. Let's
have a real debate, not a false debate, about something this resolution
is not.
Moreover, in listening to my colleagues, one of them talked about
what his vote meant and the vote he casts to hold Saddam Hussein
accountable. I remember what my vote was. I remember what I said in the
Senate when I voted. I voted reluctantly based on what Colin Powell,
Secretary of State, and others said they were going to do: Exhaust the
remedies of inspections at the United Nations, not cut them short; go
to war as a last resort, not as a rush; do the adequate planning, not
ignore the State Department plan for what you do to win the peace.
I hear colleagues come to the Senate and say: We shouldn't tell this
administration what to do. Their record demands that we tell them what
to do. Congress helped get us into this mess, and Congress ought to
help get us out of it. We are partly responsible.
I have heard my colleagues talk about troops they talk to. We all
talk to troops. We have all talked to families. I will be honest about
it, I hear both things. I hear troops whose families have said to me:
Make sure my son or daughter did not die in vain. I agree with what the
Senator from Wisconsin said earlier about that. I think anyone who
serves their country at the call of the Nation never dies in vain.
I have heard troops who have come back and said to me: We are making
progress. We ought to be doing more of this, more of that, more of the
PRTs, more of a number of different other projects. But I have also met
a lot of troops who are coming back who believe they do not know what
the mission is; they think the war is wrong and they think a lot of the
troops just want to come home. That is where they are. It is a mixture.
Our question, our judgment, is to try to see through that, try to be
intelligent and genuine in trying to work out what is the best policy.
I have come to the conclusion that the reason for setting a date--I was
not there 2 years ago. Why wasn't I there 2 years ago? Because 2 years
ago we didn't have all the elections, we did not have a referendum, we
did not have the Constitution, we did not have an elected government,
we had not made some of the progress, and we had not transitioned to a
civil sectarian struggle. We then still saw things as fundamentally
foreign jihadists. Because of all the mistakes that have been made,
that transition is now a matter of history.
I believe deeply, based on what I am hearing from military personnel,
based on what I see personally, and based on my own experience where I
fought with foreigners in another country, where we were trying to
stand them up and get them to go out and do the job, that as long as we
are there and prepared to do the job for them, they won't do it
adequately. You have to push people out into that kind of situation.
The bottom line, can we do it the way we are muddling along?
Possibly. I heard a couple of colleagues come to the Senate and say
there were some who have decided that this is lost and we just have to
go. I haven't. I believe there are ways, hopefully, to pull something
together that has a sufficiently stable government that we can go
forward to the other issues of the Middle East.
I will tell you this, and this I know for certain: If we make this
successful muddling along, as we are doing now, it is going to cost us
more lives, more limbs, and more dollars than if we did what is in this
plan. That I know to a certainty. I also know to a certainty that
unless we are prepared to do the diplomacy necessary, we cannot resolve
the fundamental underpinnings of this insurgency.
I talked to General Zinni the other day to ask his advice. He doesn't
agree with me setting a date, so I will be upfront about that, but he
certainly cited unbelievable dismay at the lack of adequacy of
consultation in the region, at the lack of effort to put together a
regional security arrangement, at the lack of diplomacy that is trying
to resolve the fundamental differences and work bilaterally in an
intensive way to pull people to the table to try to deal with this.
One thing I know, when you have a 20-percent minority Sunni
population who for 200 years has run the country and now suddenly they
are not, but some of them are still committed to doing it, if you do
not give them a sufficient stake, you are not going to resolve this
problem. And, at the same time, you have the Shias who are 60 percent
of the population who for 200 years have been oppressed by this 20
percent minority, and they won at the ballot box because we gave them
at the ballot box the opportunity to have power, and they want to hold
on to it. That is natural.
But if they want to go the full distance of what they want to do, we
have a serious long-term problem. That is what we are supposed to
resolve in the next few months.
The Senator from Delaware is absolutely correct in his description of
the tensions that have to be resolved. I disagree with the Senator with
respect to the question of whether there is a plan. This amendment is a
plan. It is a plan for standing up the Iraqis. It is a plan for
creating accountability. It is a plan for shifting responsibility to
the Iraqi Government to bolster their sovereignty and empower the
Government in the eyes of the Iraqi people. It is a plan for how to
begin to redeploy troops to protect our interests in the region at the
same time as you stand up their military. And, most importantly, it is
a plan for what you do with the Arab League, with the Secretary General
of the United Nations, with the neighbors and with the factions in Iraq
in order to resolve the fundamental differences. It specifically
requires reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that
engenders the support of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds and ensures equitable
distribution of oil, strengthens the internal security, disbans
militias, revives reconstruction efforts, fulfills related
international economic aid commitments, secures Iraq's borders, and
provides for a sustainable Federalist structure in Iraq.

That is a plan. And the only way to arrive at any plan, whether it is
the Senator from Delaware or anyone else, is to pull the parties
together and do the diplomacy necessary. Never in the 21 years I have
been here have I seen as significant an issue of war and peace, life
and death, as significant an absence of fundamental diplomacy as there
is here. Never. It does not come close to the efforts of other
generations.
There is 200 years of American history being turned topsy-turvy. It
is hurting us on the war on terror. When September 11 happened, the
whole world was with us--the whole world. Newspaper headlines said: We
are all Americans now. That was the atmosphere after September 11. And
the whole world understood why we had to go to Afghanistan. And every
single one of us voted for that, understood it, and supported it.
But Iraq is different. Iraq had nothing to do with Afghanistan at the
time, nothing to do with September 11, and everyone knows it.

[[Page S6257]]

So why are we here talking about requiring this administration to do
something? Why don't you think about the history. When they could have
demanded and relied on accurate information instead of manipulated
intelligence, they made a willful choice not to do that. They were
wrong. Instead, they sacrificed American credibility at home and
abroad. The result of that is the ``We are all Americans now'' was
squandered. It disappeared.
Ask any American citizen who travels abroad now how comfortable they
feel as they travel. Ask any American businessman what happens to them
when they travel in other parts of the world.
When this administration could have given the inspectors additional
time to discover whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass
destruction, when they could have taken time to exhaust the patience of
our own allies and hold them accountable to the U.N. resolutions,
instead they just broke off and said, OK, you go your way, we will go
ours, and they exposed America to greater cost and greater sacrifice.
When they could have paid attention to Ambassador Wilson's report,
they chose not to. And they were wrong. Instead, they attacked him and
they attacked his wife to justify attacking Iraq.
But the mistakes were not limited to that decision to invade. They
mounted, one upon the other. When they could have listened to General
Shinseki and put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to.
When they could have listened to Larry Lindsey and others who said it
is going to cost $200 billion, they not only chose not to listen, they
fired him. They were wrong.
When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush, Jim
Baker and General Scowcroft and built a genuine world coalition, they
chose not to. And they were wrong.
When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for
reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to. And they were
wrong.
When they could have protected American forces by guarding Saddam
Hussein's ammo dumps where there were weapons of individual
destruction, they exposed our young men and women to the ammo that now
maims and kills them because they chose not to act. And they were
wrong.
When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad
after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Secretary Rumsfeld shrugged his
shoulders and said, ``Baghdad was safer than Washington, DC,'' and he
chose not to act, he was wrong.
When the administration could have kept an Iraqi Army selectively
intact, they chose not to. And they were wrong.
When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning to
deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, guess what. They chose not
to. And they were wrong, and we are paying the price today.
They could have accepted the offers of the United Nations and
individual countries to provide on-the-ground peacekeepers and
reconstruction. Guess what. In their arrogance about doing it alone,
they chose not to, and so we are alone. They were wrong.

When they should have leveled with the American people that the
insurgency had grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even
absurdly claimed that the insurgency was in its last throes, and he
repeated that again just a few days ago. He was wrong.
Now, after all these mistakes, the administration likes to accuse
anyone who proposes a better course of wanting to cut and run. Well,
Mr. President, we are in trouble today because of the policy of cut-
and-run--cutting and running from common sense, cutting and running
from history, cutting and running from cultural realities, cutting and
running from the truth, cutting and running from the best advice of our
military. And we are paying a huge price for that today.
Mr. President, every single one of us is determined to win the war on
terror. But we have to ask ourselves some tough questions about where
we find ourselves today. I wonder, as we are told by a lot of people
that--I think the President, just yesterday or the day before, said it
was important to have Members of the U.S. Congress who will not wave
the white flag of surrender in the war on terror.
I think the President of the United States ought to stop acting as
``Campaigner in Chief'' and start being Commander in Chief and start
bringing the Congress together and the Nation together around a real
policy.
I don't know anybody waving a white flag. We are debating whether or
not there is a better way to win the war on terror.
I respectfully say to my colleagues, if we don't begin to pay
attention, instead of over $2 billion every couple of days--every 2
days, I think; it is about $8 billion a week; 8 billion bucks a week--
instead of $8 billion a week going to Iraq, we could be investing and
working on a greater Middle Eastern initiative, working on economic
development, working on schools, working on children's issues, working
on a future with respect to future terrorists.
The fact is, we are not going to succeed at this if all we do is go
out there and alienate people. I have heard from soldiers over the last
weekend. I was with three medics who have came back, and they are all
against the war, those three medics. They are out there in America
right now talking to people about why they are against the war. They
said: When you go into a house at night, and you are holding guns, and
you are scaring people in that house, and you leave that house, they
don't like you. You are not winning their hearts and minds.
I cannot tell you how familiar that is to the same experience we saw
and went through years ago in hamlets throughout Southeast Asia. It
just does not work the way they are doing it.
We could ask the question, legitimately: How many lives have been
lost because of the ineptitude of this strategy? How many lives have
been lost? And how many people have been maimed and wounded because we
did not provide the body armor to our troops? You want to talk about
patriotism? How many troops were killed or wounded by the shells and
the weapons that came from the ammo dumps that we were not smart enough
to protect? How many lives have been lost and how many limbs have been
amputated because there were not enough troops in the beginning in
order to provide people with the support and safety and the control of
the country? How much bigger and more dangerous is al-Qaida today
because we outsourced the job of capturing him at Tora Bora to Afghans
instead of using the First Marines or the 10th Mountain Division or
even the SEALs who were there?
We are where we are today in this war on terror because of
misjudgments. And I believe those misjudgments continue.
How many times have we heard that we are turning the corner or that
this is a moment of turning the corner, and yet momentum was lost?
Momentum was lost after the elections. Momentum was lost after the
passage of the Constitution. Momentum was lost in the last months while
we waited and waited and waited for Iraqi politicians to stop playing
around and form a government.
I do not think our soldiers deserve that interim period, personally.
And the question now is, how do you best protect our troops? How do you
best secure our objectives? How do you best deal with the problem of an
Iraq where Iraqis need to defend their own rights and interests?
Americans cannot do it for them. Yes, we can provide backup. Yes, we
can provide insurance against a total implosion. Yes, we can provide
security with respect to the efforts to go after al-Qaida. And our
amendment contemplates all of that. But it also contemplates a
transition based on experience.
The Iraqis needed a deadline for the transfer of authority to the
Provisional Government. The Iraqis needed a deadline for the
Constitution. They needed a deadline for their elections. They needed a
deadline for their own formation of a government. They even have a
self-imposed deadline for the transition of the Constitution in
these next months.

Why then, when the Iraqis themselves are saying they can take over
their security, when the Iraqi Government itself says withdrawing
American troops would be helpful, would we not coordinate with the
Iraqi Government a drawdown that makes it clear that we are standing
them up?

[[Page S6258]]

Now, speaking of the stand-up, I thought the policy of our
Government--how many times have we heard it from the President: ``As
they stand up, we will stand down.'' He announced that in a speech to
the American people. He has announced it in press conferences.
Well, here we are. In the trips I made to Iraq, General Petraeus, and
his now successor, showed us charts that indicated 272,000 was the goal
to train and equip. We are now at 264,600. That is as of June 14, 2006.
The goal was 272,000.
Now, I think they moved the goal out to 325,000. But notwithstanding,
how many have stood down? If the goal is to stand down as they stand
up, and we have stood up 264,000--incidentally, in addition to the
264,000, there are 144,000 facilities protection service personnel
working in 27 ministries. So you have a total of almost 400,000 Iraqis
trained and equipped. And where is the stand-down?
I believe it is essential to accelerate this transition. That is the
only way to reduce the targeting of our troops. It is the only way to
invest other countries in the reality that the United States will not
always be there, and they need to take a stake in their own region.
Right now, because of the way they feel about this administration,
and because we are simply there ``staying the course,'' they have no
compulsion whatsoever to come to the table. The only way you are going
to bring them to the table, in my judgment, is to change that equation.
So we have a very significant, broad-based plan for an international
diplomatic effort, beginning with bilateral, and working up,
ultimately, through the bilateral to a summit that we know can be
successful. That is the way in which we will invest in a new security
arrangement for the region and protect the United States of America's
long-term interests more effectively.
Mr. President, I see that another colleague has come and would like
to speak now. I just close by saying that----
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator closes, I would like to
say a word or two with him.
Mr. KERRY. I would be delighted to do that.
Mr. WARNER. You finish your closing and I will wait.
Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to do so. I thank the distinguished
chairman.
Mr. President, I heard the Senator from South Dakota say that there
are occasions when a generation faces a struggle between good and evil.
I agree with that. There is good and there is evil in this world. And
what radical fascist extremists are doing in the name of religion is
evil. I know as well as anybody here in the Senate that we have to
stand up to that. But we have to stand up to it in the best traditions
and values of our country. We have to stand up to it in a way that
brings people to our side and does not alienate them.
It is incomprehensible to me that after these several years, where we
started with ``we are all Americans'' post-9/11, and the world was at
our side, that we have now seen radical, extreme terrorists isolate the
United States of America in that particular part of the world. That is
a failure of policy. And it is a failure that makes the United States
of America less secure, not more.
Some people have said: Well, if you tell the terrorists that we are
leaving in a few days--whatever period of time--I remind them, we are
not leaving altogether. We are going to leave our special forces
personnel who are capable of taking out the terrorists.
But the bottom line is that they are not waiting for anything today.
We just lost two troops in the most brutal, horrible manner. They are
not waiting now. And the fact is that unless we get Iraqis to resolve
those issues I talked about, this will continue or even get worse.
So ignoring all the warnings of history itself, in a moment of total
ideological excess, this administration has managed to make the ancient
cradle of civilization look a lot like Vietnam.
I think there is a path forward. I think there is a better way to
secure our interests. There is a better way to fight the war on terror.
There is a better way to stand up to Iraq. There is a better way to
respect their sovereignty. There is a better way to protect our troops.
I hope the U.S. Senate will look carefully at that.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I would say this has been a good
debate. Say what you want. I listened very carefully to what you said,
and there are certain elements with which I agree with you. You and I
have known each other a long time. I have great respect for your
military career, the accomplishments you have had. I think you often
shared that with regard to my modest career.
But I must say, I kind of bit my tongue here a few minutes ago when
you said in our old days we used to have a colloquy and talked. I
arrived on the floor of this Senate at around 9:30, when I first got
here. It is exactly 12 hours now that I have been on this floor. And
the first thing I said--and I don't want to personalize this--to the
other side of the aisle was: Now, let's try to engage in a colloquy and
exchange some views. I did say that since we were under a time
constraint my questions would be charged to me, the replies from the
other side charged to your side. It seemed to me fair enough. We had 5
hours before us at that time. But I have to tell you, I was flatly
turned down.

So now, after 12 hours and your invitation to enter into a colloquy,
I say to my good friend, you can ask me any question you wish. And I
might start off with a question or two for you.
Mr. KERRY. I would be delighted.
Mr. President, let me just say to the distinguished chairman, I don't
have a question for him because he has not said anything outrageous.
Mr. WARNER. Beg your pardon?
Mr. KERRY. I said, the Senator from Virginia has not said anything
outrageous that begs a question at this point.
But I will say this: I do understand the difficulties that the
manager was under.
Mr. WARNER. Well, that is history. We are here now. Why don't we make
the best of it?
Mr. KERRY. I know. But he had wanted more than 5 hours, as you know.
We are where we are.
Mr. WARNER. We are here now.
Mr. KERRY. And I think he had more speakers than he was able to fit
in.
Mr. WARNER. Well, I must say, I shared that on this side, but I was
willing to take the heat.
Mr. KERRY. But I would be delighted to answer any questions.
Mr. WARNER. All right. We have the opportunity, Senator. Is there
anything you wish to ask of me? And I will ask a few of you.
Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator not agree with me that the fundamental
crisis of Iraq today is not particularly with Zarqawi having been
killed and the treasure-trove of information we found--which,
incidentally, happened because Iraqis gave Iraqis information and F-16s
from outside came in and took him out. So there was an Iraqi component
of that, which can still function with the setup that we are setting
forward. But wouldn't the Senator agree, Mr. President, that the
fundamental problem today is that 98 percent of the insurgency is Shia-
Sunni, Sunni-Shia sectarian violence, militias within the military?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I don't know what that fraction is. But in
discussions with senior military, clearly, they have said the
insurgents, the foreign invaders, the others who have come in have
dropped in terms of--somewhat--numbers of incidents. And, indeed, the
sectarian violence--Sunni versus Shia, Kurds to some extent--has grown
enormously. So I cannot qualify it. But the Senator is correct.
And that leads me to my first question, because----
Mr. KERRY. Can I just finish the question?
Would the Senator then not agree that there are serious limits on
what our troops can do to resolve sectarian violence?
Mr. WARNER. Well, that remains to be seen. They are, right now, for
example, in Baghdad, fighting side by side. A very significant number
of Iraqi troops, together with the components of our troops, are trying
to bring about a greater measure of stability and security in the very
capital of this country.
I think we should make known to those following the debate and those
who listened to the debate with Senator Levin, Senator Levin's
amendment was a sense of the Congress. The amendment of our colleague
from Massachusetts very explicitly becomes law,

[[Page S6259]]

if it were adopted and eventually went into the bill and the bill
survived the conference.
The point I wish to make is, you are directing the President. For
example, it says: The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006,
this year, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007. So this is
law. As we used to say in the old days, we are shooting real bullets
with this one, not just a sense of the Congress.
Throughout the debate, not only this one in the past day or two on
this bill, but we have always, certainly, on this side, resisted
timetables. You talk about putting together a summit. That is on page
2, section (b), Iraq Summit: The President should work with the leaders
of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that
includes those leaders, leaders of the governments of each of the
countries bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the
Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--I think
that is important to have NATO in there--representatives of the
European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member
of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a
comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support
of the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds by ensuring the equitable
distribution of oil revenues--that is a very important point you make,
disbanding the militias--another very important point, strengthening
internal security, reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling
related international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq's
borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq.
Those are all important subjects, commendable goals. But first let's
go back. It has taken the Iraqis 18 months since the first election in
early 2005, through three elections, through the formation of the first
permanent government. And the first permanent government is just, as
you and I as old sailors would say, getting its sea legs. You start a
conference like this--and I think it is a good idea--but the first
question that is going to be asked is, can we proceed to achieve any of
these goals if we have overhanging this the redeployment of our forces
by July 1, 2007?
Senator, that is a timetable. That is a concept which I and I think
the majority in this Chamber have continuously rejected. How could you
ask the other nations of the world to come in and begin to put their
credit on the line, their dollars on the line, if you have this
timetable to pull out the very foundation that is supporting such
progress as has been achieved in the 18 months of getting the first
government up and testing their sea legs?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is a wonderful question and a very
appropriate one. I really appreciate it. It gives me a chance to talk
about the viability of this. First of all, may I remind the
distinguished chairman what I just said a moment ago. We are at
264,000. We have 144,000 more. That is 400,000 people prepared to go.
They are in the streets now. We have 1 year to continue to work with
them. Prime Minister Maliki has said himself that by the end of this
year, in 16 out of 18 provinces they will be able to take over
security. This is contemplated within the framework that the Prime
Minister himself has adopted. This respects their sovereignty. It
respects their capacity.
Secondly, in my conversations with leaders in the region, as recently
as this year, ranging from the President of Egypt to the King of Jordan
and others, what I gleaned from those conversations is, they are
waiting for a series of kind of diplomatic and business conference
efforts that do get them invested and invest the whole region in an
understanding that the United States is going to be leaving, and they
need to begin to accept that reality.
The longer we stay, the longer we delay their readiness and their
need--let alone willingness--to come to the table. I respectfully
suggest that it is within the framework of a year.
We did the Dayton Accords in less time. Milosevic did not want to
come to the table. President Clinton persuaded Yeltsin to create a
pressure point that brought people there. In effect, we made things
happen against people's will by creating the pressure. This is the same
kind of situation.
I say respectfully to the Senator, we have a far better chance of
spending less money, losing less lives and being more effective in the
war on terror if we pursue this than if we simply do what we are doing
today.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it might be the case, but I would be
willing to make a modest wager with you that if you got this conference
under way, the first thing that they would ask would be to suspend this
timetable of July 1, 2007.
Mr. KERRY. And if that were the case, and they were prepared to come
to the table to resolve these issues and be part of this process, then
the President could come back to us and we would respond accordingly.
We are not stupid. We want to act in the best interest of our country.
The question is, how do you begin to push people to a place where they
realize they have to confront these realities?
Secondly, the Senator's question makes a presumption that I just
fundamentally disagree with and don't see in this amendment. That is if
we pull out the foundation, I think the Senator said, we specifically
say we arrive at a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq,
leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to
completing the mission of standing up Iraqi forces.
I have asked the Senator from Virginia, what are we there for? What
are we there to do? We are there to fight al-Qaida. We allow for that.
We are there to stand up Iraqis for themselves. We allow that. And we
are certainly there to protect American facilities. So what is it that
is absent from here that would somehow pull out the foundation from
anything?
Mr. WARNER. I say to the Senator, I cannot see, for example, the
governments of each country bordering Iraq suddenly beginning to rush
in if they feel that a civil war could start. The pulling out of the
troops, the setting of a timetable will be a signal to all of the
various factions. I will concede it is the Shia against the Sunnis that
is the major faction. Wait them out. Let's let the troops flow out and
then we will topple this government with a civil war.
It seems to me, I say to my colleague, you cannot expect these
nations that border Iraq, the Arab League, I can't see that they would
step up and say, we are willing to do everything. But wait a minute,
coalition forces----
Mr. KERRY. Let me say to the Senator, I know he doesn't want American
troops in the middle of a civil war. I know he doesn't think that that
is why we sent our troops there.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I share that concern, but----
Mr. KERRY. That is where they are.
Mr. WARNER. It is the presence of our troops today that is probably
holding it back from becoming a civil war.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may I say respectfully, we will continue to
be able to do that. Over the course of the next year, with over-the-
horizon capacity and with our ability to move in an emergency, we are
not going away. We have plenty of troops in Kuwait. We could have
plenty of troops over the horizon. That is not going to fall apart. The
problem is that the tasks that the Senator is referring to, each of
them are civilian tasks. They are political tasks. You don't need
138,000 American troops as targets to complete those tasks when you
have 400,000 Iraqis allegedly trained and equipped and prepared to
defend their country.
Let me ask the Senator: Did Iraq or did it not fight Iran for 10
years within the last 25 years?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I remember well that conflict because I
was then on the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. KERRY. And they lost a million people fighting for almost 10
years for their country. These are the same people. Four years later we
are still driving trucks down the street and our guys are taking IEDs.
Are you telling me that they don't have people who can drive a truck?
They don't have people to go out on patrol? Why aren't our people
garrisoned and being held in reserve in case there is an implosion?
What are we doing with our troops being the ones that have to go out? I
don't get it. I believe there is a better way to wage this effort. That
is what this amendment contemplates.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we just disagree. I feel this government
hasn't

[[Page S6260]]

been given a chance. It has only been 6 weeks. It took 18 months to get
to where they are today. If we were to enact this into law, presumably
the authorization bill would be signed by the President--there is a
question whether if this is in there, he would sign it--this would go
into law in a matter of a few months. And then suddenly to try and call
on the rest of the world--and by the way, I certainly did not see the
European Union trying to help form the coalition forces. Of each
permanent member of the Security Council, the only one, Great Britain,
stepped forward. I don't see those countries suddenly coming in and
making the types of commitments that this paragraph requires, if we are
going to pull out the very stability that is holding together this
fragile government and preventing a civil war today.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is a legitimate question and it
deserves, obviously, an answer.
Those countries, many of them, are reluctant to become engaged with
the United States as long as they see us on the status quo path,
because they see the same series of mistakes that I have just cited. If
you talk to them, they will tell you, they don't have confidence that
this administration is going to get it right or move in the right
direction. That is why I believe you have to come in and lay out a
path.
In my judgment, historically, most Presidents would not want the
Congress telling them to do this. If I were President, I wouldn't want
them telling me to do this. But at the same time, I would hope that I
had consulted with Congress and not been as stubborn and not made the
series of mistakes they have so that you wind up having alienated the
very people you need to solve the problem. If you don't have some kind
of regional security arrangement, the situation with Iran will grow
more serious.
Iran loves the fact that we are bogged down in Iraq. This just plays
perfect for Iran. And Iran has a much stronger lever over us with
respect to its current nuclear path because they know they could wreak
havoc with what is happening on the ground in Iraq, and that restricts
our choices and options.
We will be stronger in counterproliferation efforts, we will be
stronger in our efforts against terrorism in the region, and we will be
able to create the credibility to bring these other countries to the
table, which they are not willing to do today, if we make this kind of
transition. If they understand that we are acknowledging that our
presence is a problem, they have to step up because they don't want
regional chaos. I believe that is exactly what helps us get it done.
That is what changes the dynamics.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think we have covered this point. We
will just have to agree to disagree.
I would draw your attention to the clause where you say consultation
with the Congress is required. Here we are, basically on the eve of the
August recess which starts the first week in August. We come back here
as a Congress for maybe 30 days or 5 weeks in September. Then leave
again for elections. You say:

The President shall consult with the Congress regarding the
schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to
Congress as part of the report required . . .

You know, we know how this institution works. We have been here for
two decades apiece. I say, if the President were to devise a
redeployment schedule to meet 2007, when do you think the Congress
might swing into action and take such responsibility, as implied here,
through the consultation process? I presume Congress could take an
action to stop it. You are talking about July 1, and I don't see the
Congress acting on such a proposal in a timely manner.
Mr. KERRY. Well, if that is all that gets in the way of this, Mr.
President, I am confident we can find expediting language or other
language that would resolve it.
But I will tell you, Congress is going to be dealing with this issue
next year at this time if we don't change this policy. Like it or not,
we are going to be here debating it one way or the other.
Mr. WARNER. That may be true, but I will ask another question. Drop
down to paragraph 3, ``maintenance of over-the-horizon troop
presence.'' ``The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop
presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security
interests.''
Where would those troops, in all likelihood, be put?
Mr. KERRY. Most likely in Kuwait, Qatar, the Gulf States, if you work
out a security arrangement.
Mr. WARNER. That would require a substantial amount of installations
to be constructed.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we already have--as the Senator knows, we
have been there and there are a number of pretty substantial facilities
already in Kuwait, and there are others regionally, in my judgment; and
that is the purpose of this arrangement, to prepare to work on an
accommodation, providing it was in the context of a larger security
arrangement. What I have learned--and again, we all talk to people and
try to learn as much as we can.
General Zinni was saying to me the other day that he believes the
Gulf States are particularly interested in some kind of a regional
security arrangement because they are threatened by the instability and
by the questions about Iran and the challenge to the oilfields and so
forth. That is precisely the kind of issue that has to be arrived at,
initially bilaterally and ultimately through this international
conference.
I know the Senator was willing to bet something a little while ago. I
am not sure we should do that in the Senate, but I would certainly bet
my reputation that, one way or the other, we are going to be ultimately
having to engage in this kind of multilateral diplomacy to resolve
these issues. The sooner we get about it, the better we will be in
fighting this war on terror.
Mr. WARNER. I caution my colleague because that is saying to this new
Iraqi Government that you are going to fail.
Mr. KERRY. No, sir. About the regional security, I said we will need
ultimately to deal with the question of Iran, the oilfields, the
instability in the region. I think the greater Middle East is going to
require this kind of focus and attention one way or the other.
As I said during the debate a moment ago, I am not somebody who
suggests that we cannot make this still work out somehow. I am not in
that school. But I do know that on the current path, it is going to
cost more lives, more money, and it is going to cost us prolonged loss
of relationship and reputation within the region and is going to set us
back in terms of other interests we have. This can be done more
effectively, and that is what I am here to argue for. How do we protect
our security interests more effectively? How do we advance our safety
and security in the world? How do we win the war on terror more
effectively and stand Iraq up more effectively? I believe setting the
date accomplishes all of those things.
Mr. WARNER. You have to admit that July 1, 2007, is a timetable; am I
not correct?
Mr. KERRY. Yes, for the beginning of the transition. But as it makes
very clear, if you get to 2 months before the end, or 3 months, and you
can see the progress being made, and there is another month or so that
a certain number of troops need to be stood up, or whatever, we allow
that--the ability of the President to make that determination. If it is
done in the best traditions of the Congress, it will be done with the
consultation of the various committees and the Congress itself. And
then you would have the kind of unity in the pursuit of this policy
that is absent today or we would not have had this debate for the last
several days. I know the chairman believes this----
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is operating on a premise that
if this became law and the President issued a timetable, suddenly the
level of violence would begin to be lowered considerably.
Mr. KERRY. No, sir, I am not making that presumption, Mr. President.
I am saying that unless you resolve the fundamental political tension--
the Shia don't have oil revenues. They want a strong Iraq with a
central government. The Shia are well taken care of. The Kurds are
happy in the north; they want to be left alone. They have oil revenues.
So you have Kirkut as a major issue you have to resolve ultimately. But
you have this fundamental tension between whether you are going

[[Page S6261]]

to have this federal loose-knit structure which the Shia want, with
certain individuals with strong designs on future political power in
that region, or whether you are going to have a manageable entity. That
is why the former counsel for Foreign Relations and Senator Biden and
others have joined in this idea of partition. The only way you are
going to get there--and I don't think it is a particularly viable
option--is through this kind of international conference. If you don't
ultimately have a resolution by the parties politically, you are going
to have a civil war. They have a few months under their own
Constitution to try to resolve these things. That is going to be
unavoidable.

I am not suggesting that the violence is going to suddenly vanish.
The question is, How are you ultimately going to take away the
rationale for the folks who are engaging in it? As I said, there are
five different groups, and we are not dealing very effectively with it.
You have criminal activity, you have Baathists, you have insurgents,
Iraqi insurgents, and you have al-Qaida, and you have each of them that
requires a different approach. Our military is not the answer to any of
them, except al-Qaida. Al-Qaida, we can continue to prosecute with unit
145 operations and other things, and we can make that happen.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if you say the violence is not going to
stop if this became law, if this becomes law, we have to make a
movement in reduction in 2006. That is in there. There has to be a
commencement. You would not wait and send out a platoon on Christmas
Eve. You mean a significant drawdown, leaving only 6 months in the
following year to get the bulk of the forces out. And if we start
moving those troops, I tell you that will engender a higher level of
violence and lead possibly to a civil war.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I respectfully disagree. We have a civil
war today, to begin with. We have a civil war today. People are being
killed in the dead of night, shackled in handcuffs, beheaded, found in
basements; kids are being hauled out of buses every day. The number of
sectarian incidents is many times what it was just months ago, a year
ago, 2 years ago. Now, how are you going to resolve it?
I don't think there is any Member of the Senate who voted to send our
troops to be in the middle of a civil war. Our troops are there to
bolster the Government. We are there to support that Government's
ability to make it on its own. How are they going to do that? By
standing up these 400,000 security people. The faster they understand
they have to go out and do it, the faster the violence is going to
subside. Either they make it or it ``ain't'' makeable because we cannot
make it for them. That is the bottom line that people have to
understand.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague that I agree
fundamentally with the premise that the Iraqi people, in the final
analysis, are the ones who are going to be able to bring about their
own measure of democracy and enable this Government to exercise
sovereignty.
Other Senators want to participate, so I will soon yield. I know both
of us have had the opportunity to serve in the military. There is
nothing more painful than the loss of a brother member of the service.
I don't know about you, but it has been difficult for me today to
contain my absolute outrage about what happened, Mr. President, to
these two young soldiers who raised their right arms and volunteered
for this service in Iraq, to have been captured and brutally mauled and
executed.

You know, I would say a rough calculation is that we probably have
had about a million and a quarter Americans--that is, our brave men and
women in uniform and many civilians from the departments and agencies
of our Government, including a number of American contractors--who have
contributed to where we are today in this new Government standing up
and beginning to exercise the powers of sovereignty.
I say to my good friend, given that heavy investment, the risks taken
by over a million and a quarter of our citizens, to send out a signal
now--and it is a timetable, Senator--that July 1, 2007, barely 12
months from now that we would probably have under your formula--I ran a
calculation--you are going to leave some behind for training and some
for logistics, but basically I would say the fighting forces are out.
Some may be pre-positioned in other countries nearby. There is a clause
in here requiring a report as to how soon they can come back to the
continental limits of the United States. That is going to send a
signal, and that worries me, that all these people who made these risks
and contributions are going to sit back and say, right at the threshold
of really the first rays of hope to get this problem solved, we send
this type of signal.
What did you feel when we lost these two individuals? I know you felt
it probably as badly as I did. I cannot understand why they could be
saying over there that, see what we did, we beheaded two, and what did
the Congress do? It passed this law that said our troops would be
redeployed by July 1, 12 months from today.
Senator, timing in life is everything. The timing for this concept
you have has not arrived, I say to my good friend.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there are few people in the Senate for whom
I have more respect and affection than the Senator from Virginia. We
have known each other a long time, and we have traveled together. I am
grateful to him for the respect and consideration he has shown for this
debate this evening.
When I heard those two guys were captured, my heart sank because I
immediately envisioned the worst. The worst happened. I thought about
them throughout that time period, until they were found. I was not
surprised that they were brutalized in the most horrific, disgraceful
way, and may I add--and I know the Senator knows this--in ways that
contravene every law of warfare. But I believe we have a better chance
of honoring what they went there for and what all of our soldiers have
died for, given something for, if we adopt a policy of reality.
Mr. President, let me say to the Senator that I went to serve in
Vietnam in 1968. There was turmoil in this country. Remember the
Chicago convention, remember McCarthy, and Bobby Kennedy had been
killed in June. In fact, I arrived back in Long Beach, CA, at the dock
after the first deployment in the Gulf of Tonkin the night he was
killed. It was the first radio words we heard. I remember that turmoil
over the war. I remember Richard Nixon running for President with a
secret plan for peace. I remember how people invested in the concept of
peace. Years later, we read in Robert McNamara's book how he knew, as
Secretary of Defense, while he was sending troops over there, that we
weren't going to be successful. Now, from 1968 until 1975, when we left
in that dramatic helicopter moment off the embassy, almost half of the
people who died were lost in that period of time--for a policy that our
leaders knew wasn't working.
I am not going to be a Member of the Senate in good standing and in
good conscience and support a policy in Iraq that I believe is going to
add people to whatever Iraqi memorial will be created, at a time where
I am convinced this isn't going to work for them and it is not going to
work for the Iraqis. I believe we have a moral responsibility to those
soldiers who died to do our best to get it right, and I just don't
believe staying the course, more of the same, is getting it right.
If you don't resolve the differences between Shia and Sunni where 98
percent of this fight is taking place, we are stuck. And I believe it
is only by pushing the process, by demanding something of everybody in
the region, by demanding something of the Iraqis who are in uniform
that we are going to properly defend the honor of those who served. We
defend it by getting it right.
And may I add, we also defend it by honoring those who come back.
There is a $6 billion shortfall in current services in our VA budget.
That is just unacceptable.
We have a big job to do. I look forward to working with the Senator
to do it.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will conclude. The Senator from
Massachusetts and I have had this conversation about that period of
history before. We will have it again and again. I recall, I went to
the Pentagon in February 1969 and was there for 5 years in the Navy
Secretariat. As the Secretary of the

[[Page S6262]]

Navy, the Senator always said I was his boss. He has been very
respectful about that.
I remember when his Silver Star came through our Secretariat at that
time. I went back and checked for accuracy, and it was accurate, I say
to the Senator. He knows that, and I know that.
I thought many times about that period, and I recall that the then-
Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, came to the conclusion that we had
to begin a program of Vietnamization and begin to look toward bringing
our troops home. I remember that, and the rest is history.
I share those concerns. I, like the Senator from Massachusetts, every
day, particularly in my responsibility as chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, worry about these men and women in uniform. Like
the Senator, I visit the hospitals, go to the funerals when it is
appropriate for me to do so. I share that burden. I think most of our
colleagues do. I happen to know that our President shares those
burdens.
Mr. President, I say to the Senator, my friend, there is a time for
everything, and I feel ever so strongly that we have to give this new
government more time to try and exercise that sovereignty before we
take the very dramatic steps that the Senator from Massachusetts has
set forth in this amendment, which I say not as a buzzword, but there
is that timetable.
I do not think the other nations will come in. I do not think we
could bring to bear the resources elsewhere in the world in the
timetable that is laid down here.
There is one other point that we should consider, and that is we are
there with a coalition of forces. I see no mention--maybe I didn't read
it carefully--but no mention of what would Great Britain think if we
were to take this somewhat unilateral action as the Senator proposes?
What would Poland, what would the other nations think? They don't have
the measure of the troops of quantity and so forth, but they are there
in spirit.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, they are drawn down. There is a huge debate
in Great Britain. They are prepared to draw down. They are ready.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I admire the courage of the Prime Minister
of Great Britain. The Senator from Massachusetts has seen it, and I
have seen it. We are political figures, he and I. We understand when we
see another leader. He has stood with our President and our President
has stood with him, unlike any two leaders of the United States and
Great Britain since really Roosevelt and Churchill. It is remarkable
what those two men have done.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I can just say, again, I repeat, this
plan is a plan to be successful. It is a plan to strengthen all of our
efforts in the war on terror. I have been to Great Britain. I have met
with the leaders there. I know there are people there who believe we
can do a better job in the war on terror, and I know they know the
price they are paying for standing by us at this moment.
I believe this is a better way to actually fight the war on terror
than we are doing today. If you accept that premise, you approach this
differently. I think a lot of other countries believe it, too. All you
have to do is look at the record of what is happening with respect to
countries in the region, the number of incidents, the number of
terrorists, the increase of al-Qaida. You can run down the list. Al-
Qaida is in 60 to 80 countries. Osama bin Laden is still running around
the mountains of northwest Pakistan or Afghanistan.
The fact is, one of the reasons we saw happen what happened probably
is that it is a quick statement by the folks out there that: You may
have got Zarqawi, but we are still around.
The fundamental problem remains the same. The Iraqis will not
tolerate foreign jihadists--jihadists, actually I have been told, is
not a great way to refer to them because it actually confers more of a
God-given effort to them, and they don't deserve it. They are
terrorists, they are just foreign terrorists, and we ought to quit
giving them jihadists. But the fact is, they are not going to
survive in Iraq if these security forces take hold and the Government
stands up.

I believe, as the Senator does, that we want that Government to stand
up. I think the best way to stand it up is shift the responsibility to
it. And from all indications, they believe that, too. National Security
Adviser al-Rubaie wrote in the Washington Post that we ought to
withdraw the American troops; it will help us in the streets of Iraq.
Prime Minister Maliki says they are prepared to take over.
He said: You could probably have well under 100,000 troops by the end
of this year, and we are talking about a year from now.
This is reasonable beyond compare, and besides, it allows the
President to make the decision of what we need to finish standing them
up. A lot of people object to that, but I think it is smart. And it
allows us to continue to use special forces against al-Qaida. That is
exactly how we got Zarqawi.
I think this is, as I said many times--incidentally, Secretary Melvin
Laird broke a 30-year silence and wrote in ``Foreign Affairs'' that we
have to get our forces out of there and reduce the numbers because they
are contributing to the occupation and to the insurgency. All you have
to do is talk to any leader in the region and they will tell you we are
working as our own worst partner by this large presence of American
troops which is acting as a poster recruitment for terrorism.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will conclude. I just say if we had
more time, I would want to enter into another chapter of debate with
the Senator on what would be the consequences if we saw failure; if
this program of his, no matter how well conceived and how
conscientious, were to trigger that failure, what would be the
consequence.
The fact that this country could revert to a haven for further
training of al-Qaida and terrorists from all over the world----
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is why we maintain over-the-horizon
capacity. That is why we allow the finishing of the training of the
Iraqis to stand up.
Look, whether it is the plan of the President or this plan, both of
them are operating on some element of faith that hopefully the
Government is going to stand up. If it doesn't, we all got a problem.
What we have here is one resolution--I keep hearing people come to the
floor and saying they are definitely against an indefinite presence in
Iraq, but they are indefinitely against being definite about it. You
can't have it both ways. Either you are going to push this process or
we are locked in the current paradigm.
Does my colleague think the current paradigm is going to do it? It
may, but I am saying this for the last time: If it does, it will be at
a greater cost in American life; it will be at a greater cost in
dollars; it will be at a greater cost to the war on terror; it will be
at a greater cost to our reputation in the region; and I believe there
is a better way to get this done.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I think this has
been a very worthwhile colloquy between us. I must say on this side,
there are 55 who are going to stand tall and unify with no dissension
on tomorrow at the time of the vote.
At this time, can I inquire as manager of the bill if there are other
Senators desiring to speak?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there are. Senator Harkin wants to speak
for a few minutes. I know Senator Feingold wants to speak.
Mr. WARNER. I am prepared to remain here as long as is necessary.
Mr. KERRY. Senator Feingold, I understand, will not, but Senator
Harkin wishes to speak.
Mr. WARNER. On this side, I see my colleague from Alabama, although
he has had some opportunity, but very limited opportunity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.
Mr. WARNER. I am trying to accommodate Senators. I ask my friend, if
he desires to speak, can he advise the manager of the bill how much
time he would like?
Mr. HARKIN. I am not certain how much time I want. Who is next in
line? Are we going back and forth?
Mr. WARNER. We are going back and forth, and I am about to relinquish
the management of the bill to my good friend from Alabama.

[[Page S6263]]

The parliamentary situation is we remain on the bill, and debate can
continue on the bill. We are not going to try and have time
constraints. We are trying for the benefit of this infrastructure that
has to remain in place and such Senators who may be listening to
determine who would like to speak and for what period of time. That is
all I am trying to ascertain.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think the only speaker remaining on our
side now is the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. WARNER. Can the Senator from Iowa advise the chairman as to how
much time?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I looked over my remarks, and I say to the
chairman, probably 20 minutes, I suppose. It depends if I go off.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, does the Senator from Alabama desire some
time also?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say to the chairman, 20 to 30 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Good. I relinquish the management of this bill to the
Senator from Alabama and such time that Senator Sessions and Senator
Harkin may require. I thank all for their participation.
Mr. KERRY. Can we enter into a unanimous consent agreement so we know
what is happening?
Mr. WARNER. I think that will be advisable.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final,
concluding comments this evening be made by the Senator from Alabama,
followed by the Senator from Iowa, at which time I believe the Senate
will adjourn; is that accurate?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think that is a reasonable request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, before the chairman leaves, I want to
tell him how much I appreciated his analysis and summary of where we
are. He noted that we may have had as many as a million or more people
at one time or another investing their very lives in a successful
operation of this country, and we have just gotten a government up and
they have just elected a Defense Minister a few weeks ago and an
Interior Minister.
Based on the long chairmanship and leadership of the Senator from
Virginia in the Senate and as former Secretary of the Navy, let me ask
the Senator again: Does he think that we would be creating grave risks
that are not necessary by a precipitous withdrawal at this time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think this chairman has resonated with
debates for months on this issue of timetables. I say to my good friend
from Massachusetts, as I stated in our colloquy here, clearly by
setting forth a terminal date there is a timetable, and that, in my
judgment, is a very destabilizing thing. It sends a signal that perhaps
the United States has less than the will and the commitment, as clearly
expressed by our President many times, most recently upon his return
from his trip to Iraq just days ago, that we are there to help the
Iraqi people achieve their goals.
Now we expect from them a level of cooperation to move, hopefully,
most swiftly to establish a full range of sovereignty and the
responsibility that goes along with that. All I have asked repeatedly
is give them a chance to do that. We have 18 months in the making of
this permanent unified Government. Give them a chance. I think that is
the President's desire--I know it is.

Mr. SESSIONS. I remember when we were there just a few months ago.
Mr. WARNER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. SESSIONS. Before this permanent government was in place, and I
remember you and Senator Levin, along with Senator Salazar and others--
--
Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Wyoming, and Senator Bingaman was with
us.
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes. And I remember you telling the leader of Iraq at
that time that they were being challenged and they had to step up and
assume responsibility.
Mr. WARNER. That is right.
Mr. SESSIONS. It is not as if they haven't been told that. And they
assured us at that time that they understood that, and they felt that
responsibility deeply. Is that the impression you got?
Mr. WARNER. That is absolutely correct. I will even go a step
further. I said: The American people have a strong voice in this, and
the elected representatives in Congress listen to those voices. You
need only look at the expressions being put forth today.
But leadership requires reassuring our people, reassuring the Iraqis,
reassuring the consortium of nations of the coalition, reassuring all
others that this fight in Iraq portends the next half century of the
history of that region. If it fails, who knows where the end of the
strife will come in that region--the possible destabilization of one of
the largest concentrations of energy in the world, which suddenly
begins to impact in many ways on the quality of life here at home and
throughout the world. That whole infrastructure could be challenged if
this Nation devolves into a vicious civil war and anarchy follows and a
haven for terrorism follows. We cannot let that happen.
I just said to my good friend, timing is everything. The time for
this amendment has certainly, in my judgment, not come, and a timetable
is not a good signal to send out. I yield the floor, and I thank my
colleague.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have one more question I want to ask
my colleague. I remember--I personally have a vivid recollection of
being in a meeting, our delegation was, just a few months ago in
Baghdad, with the Sunni leader. Do you remember the insecurity he felt
about whether our Nation would remain in Iraq? He made a commitment to
join with this Government, and some of his Sunni people didn't agree
with that. He realized that a precipitous withdrawal which he had heard
something about in the media could jeopardize the ability of that
country to hold together, and maybe even jeopardize his own life
because he had stepped up and invested himself in trying to create a
good and decent democratic government. Do you remember that discussion?
Mr. WARNER. I remember it very vividly. Senator Levin was there. He
questioned these individuals quite thoroughly, as did I, and as did
you. And it is clear there is an unfortunate dichotomy that the Sunni
people are, in large measure, responsible for those areas--al Anbar and
Baghdad--where this great instability and insurrection takes place
today. At the same time, I think the Sunnis should recognize that it is
the participation of the United States and the other coalition partners
that gives them the security against the majority of the Shiites who
could revolt in such a way and challenge them and their future.
So let us hope that this government, which is a unity government with
Sunni representation, can take hold. But it must be given the
opportunity to send its roots down, to gain its stability and give it a
chance. This amendment, in my judgment, would send the wrong signal and
strip them of that chance.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator for his
comments and his leadership. It has been a privilege to be a part of
this debate. I listened to this debate that has gone on tonight, this
discussion between he and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts,
who is most eloquent. But I would just say to Senator Warner that your
remarks tonight are worthy of the valor and the courage and the
fidelity of the troops we have sent forth into harm's way, and I am
honored to serve with you on the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. President, looking at the resolution that Senator Kerry has
proposed, I would just make a couple of summary comments. No. 1, he has
a date in which the vast majority of our troops, virtually all combat
forces, under this amendment would be out by next summer, whether or
not that is the right thing militarily. At the same time, he proposes
that we have some sort of regional conference, and that this regional
conference would meet somewhere while we are pulling out troops. And it
is going to meet and decide what is going to happen in Iraq. I would
just say that is not the way the world works.
Does anybody here think if we get a group of nations in that region
to gather somewhere and meet and talk about Iraq, while we pull out
troops, and violence escalates, that they are just going to pass a
resolution, and somehow these terrorists, these Baathists are going to
stop their fighting? Does anybody think that? I wish it were so.

[[Page S6264]]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could just get the nations in that
region to go off somewhere and have a conference in Rome or London or
Paris and have a vote about Iraq and the war would all end and there
would be peace and we could just take our soldiers out and these other
nations who are concerned about it, and if things get bad in that
country of Iraq, they are just going to send their troops in and fix
it? We really have to be more clear in our thinking about these issues.
That is not going to happen. That is fantasy land, let me say, with
all seriousness. I wish we could do that. Wouldn't it be wonderful if
we could. Would it were so, they would just step up, the other nations
in the region, and take over and fix this problem for us. And wouldn't
it be nice if we could just have some sort of conference in Iraq and
bring in the hostile parties and sit them down at a table and just
reach an agreement? Wouldn't it be nice if we could do that? I wish it
were so. I wish the enemy we faced was not the kind of enemy that when
their new top leader captures two American soldiers, he personally
brags about brutalizing them as he kills them. Wouldn't it be nice if
the enemy we faced were more principled than that? Wouldn't it be
better?
But I am afraid the reality is different. I am afraid the reality is
that we are facing a radical terrorist enemy that knows it can't win a
war conventionally, knows it can't win a vote of the people so
therefore they have settled upon an asymmetric method of warfare to
utilize whatever destructive capacity they can generate, even the
suicide of women and children to carry out their diabolical ends, and
they are going to continue that. Mr. President, it is the kind of
threat that we are just going to have to face, and we are going to have
to strengthen this Iraqi Government.

I heard it said that we can never be involved in a civil war. Well,
we were there and we talked about whether there was a civil war, and I
think those of us who understand in terms of the United States of
America what a civil war is, that is not a civil war in Iraq. But there
is a high level of violence, a higher level of violence than we cannot
accept and the Iraqi people cannot accept. We know that. It is not
quite the same thing as a civil war. But that conflict can be brought
under control. I believe we are on the verge of bringing it under
control, but it will not be easy.
Some say we haven't done anything like this before. Well, how about
Bosnia? Wasn't that a brutal sectarian war that we had to send forces
into? What about Kosovo? Wasn't that basically a civil war that we sent
our troops into? It hasn't been settled perfectly today, but both of
those countries are having some stability. They don't have strong
governments, frankly. I have been somewhat disappointed in how Kosovo's
Government has come together, but at least it is a peaceful country and
operating in a fairly decent way. So to say that we can't help make a
difference when there is sectarian violence by the utilization of
American forces, I think, is wrong. We have done it before, and we can
do it again.
I would say to my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts, he has
just had a litany of criticisms of the conduct of this war. I wonder
what he would have said were he in the Senate during the Civil War.
With all the problems and the years that went by, and General Lee with
smaller forces defeated repeatedly the larger forces, what would the
Senator from Massachusetts be saying about that? Would he be saying: We
need to pull back our troops? And what about World War II and all of
the problems we had, and World War I for example? Senator Warner just
gave me on the trip I referred to recently a book about World War I,
and I just completed it. We lost 18,000 people killed in 1 day at the
Battle of Meuse, Argonne, in World War I--18,000 in 1 day.
I have talked to Alabama families who lost children in Iraq. We have
lost 2,500 in Iraq in the time that we have been there, and that is a
grim number. Every one of those losses represents the best kind of
people this country can produce, and my heart breaks for those
families. But the cost of freedom has always been high, and our
interests in fighting a war on terrorism is high, and we have to be
smart about it. We have to be careful about it. We have to have a
debate in this country, and that is all right. But I would say again
that I was very proud of this Senate when we voted a few days ago on
the original Kerry amendment to have the troops out by the end of this
year, and it was voted down 93 to 6. Presumably, he may have
accumulated some more votes now for moving the date to 6 months later,
but I suspect he will not have a whole lot of votes for that because it
is just not good policy.
We have a country that has only really formed on a permanent basis in
the last few weeks. The Prime Minister was elected just a couple of
months ago. His last Cabinet members were just recently selected. They
were voted on by the Parliament, elected by the people. Millions of
Iraqis have gone out and voted three times now.
So this Government, the real Government, not a transitional or
interim government, but the real Government, fully elected by the
people, has only been in office a few weeks. And the enemy knows that
if this Government is successful, their message of violence and hatred,
extremism, oppression of women, they know those visions, those ideas
they have that they want to impose on the people will be lost, and they
don't want that to happen. And they are doing everything they possibly
can to win the war in Iraq.
The Iraqi Army and the Iraqi police are taking far more casualties
now than the Americans are. They are out front in many provinces in
Iraq. They are conducting military operations on a regular basis by
themselves. Sometimes we go together; sometimes we have embedded
Americans with the Iraqi forces. They are stepping up. But they are not
ready yet. Their military is not there yet. It is not as fully equipped
and it is not as fully trained. They don't have the confidence and the
chain of command, their logistics are not where we would like them to
be compared to a modern American Army. And they can be vulnerable to
these kinds of terrorist attacks by which small groups of the military
can be overrun or attacked and it can destabilize that country right
now.
So I think the best course is to listen to our military leaders as we
decide how and whether to conduct our military operations there.
I remember being with GEN John Abizaid, commander for CENTCOM, the
combatant commander for this region of the world. He has been involved
in this closely. He speaks Arabic. He grew up for a number of years in
the Middle East. He understands this area. He has been a student of it.
He is a brilliant general. He told me on an airplane back when people
were saying: We need to send in more troops--he said: No, we don't
need--in his opinion--he said: We don't need to send in more troops. We
need to train up the Iraqi forces so we can reduce our presence.
I say that to you, Mr. President, because I want the American people
to know that the combatant commander, the one who is giving the advice
to President Bush, does not believe in excessively maintaining forces
in Iraq. He understands that it would be better if we could reduce
them.
But he also understands the challenges that exist in Iraq today.
That is why his recommendation is that we not have a resolution like
this. And General Casey likewise, it is his recommendation that we not
have a resolution like this.
I thought about the idea that somehow we can have, as one Senator
said, an accelerated redeployment, or really a date for withdrawal,
under Senator Kerry's amendment. Will this pullout, cut-and-run
mentality, help us and help the Iraqis defeat al-Qaida? Really? If we
pull out right now, will that help the Iraqis defeat the al-Qaida
forces? Will it help reduce sectarian violence?
I wish it were so. I wish we could pull right out and they would all
be nice and we wouldn't have any more fighting.
Would it help reduce the criminality in the country? Would it help
strengthen and provide confidence to those members of the new Iraqi
Government? Or would it increase their nervousness, would it increase
their insecurity, at a time when we need to get that government off to
a good start and, as Senator Warner said, send their roots into the
soil for stability?
Would it help establish the police force if we just pulled out? A lot
of

[[Page S6265]]

Iraqis are signing up every day to be policemen. They have become
targets of the terrorists on a regular basis. But I think they are
provided confidence and comfort to know the American military is there
to support them. Right now I do not believe there is enough strength in
the Iraqi military, in the context of the Iraqi people, to survive a
precipitous withdrawal. I think it could destabilize them. Maybe not,
but I think there is a real likelihood of it.
I just would say we ought to think carefully about what our generals
have told us.
The amendment submitted by Senator Kerry, I think, goes too far. I do
not believe a conference, a meeting in any capital city anywhere in the
world is going to settle the conflict in Iraq. I do not believe pulling
our troops out is going to reduce the threats in Iraq. I believe what
we have to do is do what General Abizaid and General Casey have told
us; let's maintain our presence, let's draw it down as rapidly as we
can, but let's do it consistent with the raising up of a legitimate
military and police force in that country. And let's do what we can to
strengthen and create credibility in the Iraqi Government.
You should never tell your enemy what your plan is. You should never
give him a guaranteed plan of withdrawal or any other plan that you are
going to execute, particularly when you are dealing with an asymmetric
enemy like these terrorists.
Clausewitz warned of this type of war planning and making your
intentions known. He said this ``the essence of the defense''--think
what these terrorists are about. They are defending their dream of a
terrorist-dominated state.
Clausewitz says:

The essence of the defense is waiting: waiting until the
attacker clarifies his own intentions; waiting until the
balance of forces shifts; waiting for any improvement in the
defender's situation, whether from the culminating process
described above, from outside intervention, from mobilization
of his own resources, or from some chance development. Time
is almost always on the side of the defender.

Our Nation is on the offensive in the war against terror and we have
been blessed that, since 9/11, we have not had another attack on our
homeland. Who would have thought that possible? Certainly people were
afraid to get on an airplane for weeks afterwards. They wouldn't go to
shopping malls. We have been blessed to have gone this far without
another attack.
The terrorists are using every desperate act they can to break the
will of the Iraqis and our U.S. forces and our U.S. political system.
This would undercut the foundation of our military efforts. So victory
must be tied to results and victory is what we must have--not an
amendment calling for redeployment measured in days or hours.
President Bush has established a strategy for a victory in Iraq that
is condition-based, not based on arbitrarily selected dates.
Why not December 31? Why not April 1? Why not July 4? It is not a way
to make a strategy in a military situation. The President's strategy
focuses, rather, on the accomplishment of specific objectives.
President Bush has said:

Victory will come when the terrorists and the Saddamists
can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraq
security forces can provide for the safety of their own
citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to
plot new attacks on our Nation.

The President knows Iraq must stand up and do its part. In his most
recent visit to Iraq the President urged the Iraqis to ``seize the
moment and we, the United States, will help them succeed. When America
gives a commitment, America keeps its word.''
He said:

If the United States of America leaves before this Iraqi
government can defend itself and sustain itself and govern
itself, it will be a major blow to the war on terror.

I certainly would agree with that, as Senator Warner has so
eloquently stated.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld explained why a time-phased plan
for redeployment is wrong. He said:

Once you start doing that, then you are stuck with a number
and a date and it just doesn't do any good. The decision to
withdraw is based [must be based] on conditions on the
ground.

Some supporting this amendment and others who are calling for this
exit strategy of time-phased withdrawals stake their claim on past
experiences in other conflicts. This global war on terror is different.
The enemy here has not surrendered. He does not wear a uniform. He is
not sequestered in a country bounded by borders. He has not signed a
peace accord and he has not given up his arms.

He, unlike Vietnam, is sworn to attack this country if he is
successful and emboldened and gets his hands on the wealth of the Iraqi
oil. Will our country be safe? Will they stay in Iraq and not continue
to attack us, as they have, if the terrorists take over their country?
He fights in an asymmetric fashion unlike any we fought before, and we
cannot put our people and our allies at risk by shirking our
responsibilities in any way that will undermine the opportunity that we
have to have a victory and a stable government in Iraq.
Our generals on the ground understand this and have offered their
perspectives on what impact this type of time-phased redeployment would
have on the Iraqi situation. I know we have had people here who have
served. Senator Warner has served in World War II and Korea. Senator
Kerry served in Vietnam. But what about General Abizaid, Commander of
the U.S. Central Command? He has given his life to the service of the
military and in that region of the world. He has overall responsibility
for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and he recently spoke to Prime Minister
Maliki and said:

The Iraqi people don't want to go back to the 6th century.
The Afghanis don't want to live under the rule they
experienced under the Taliban. They don't want bin Laden to
win. There is clear preference expressed by the people in
both Iraq and Afghanistan to vote. The fact that they voted
is their way of reaching out to the future.

General Abizaid warns of leaving the region without proper conditions
on the ground with respect to the terrorists in that all they, the
terrorists. He says:

All they do is destroy and kill and try to grab headlines.
They believe by doing that they can gain time and eventually
the coalition will leave. And when we leave there will be
states vulnerable to their ideology.

General George Casey--he is the commander of all our forces in Iraq--
recently said this:

I think as long as the Iraqi security forces continue to
progress and as long as this national unity government
continues to operate that way and move the country forward, I
think we are going to be able to see continued gradual
reductions of coalition forces over the coming months and
into the next year.

That is his prediction. Somehow I have the vision of, out in the
country, the dogs we used to have. You would get in the car and drive
down the road and the dog would chase after the car, thinking somehow,
I guess, that it made the car run off, that the car was afraid of it. I
think sometimes some in this body are afraid we are actually going to
be able to draw down troops in the next year or so. They think if they
can just pass a resolution mandating it, then they can claim credit for
it.
General Casey's comments do mention the force reduction, but he ties
the reduction to the status of the development of the Iraqi security
forces and the national unity government's success.
This amendment, the Kerry amendment, calls on the President to begin
a deployment, beginning in 2006, in stark contrast to the best judgment
of the most senior United States commanders in Iraq. Who should we
listen to? General Abizaid and General Casey, I submit.
U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, whom we met in Iraq a few weeks
ago, said the formation of the government, with crucial involvement
from Saddam's once dominant fellow Sunnis is a great sign of progress.
He states:

I believe that with the political changes taking place--the
emphasis on unity and reconciliation, with effective
ministers . . . that conditions are likely to move in the
right direction that would allow adjustment in terms of the
size, composition and mission of our forces.

In closing, I would like to highlight the recent comments by the man
entrusted with advising Prime Minister Maliki on the national security
of the new Iraqi democracy and what his items are concerning a time-
phased reduction in U.S. forces.
Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the recently approved Iraq minister for national
security, expressed his concerns in the Washington Post. I believe it
was today or yesterday. He stated:

[[Page S6266]]

There has been much talk about a withdrawal of U.S. and
coalition troops from Iraq, but no defined timeline has yet
been set. There is, however, an unofficial roadmap to foreign
troop reductions that will eventually lead to total
withdrawal of U.S. troops. This roadmap is based, not just on
a series of dates but, more important, on the achievement of
a set of objectives for restoring security in Iraq.

I want to conclude by saying how proud I am of our military. I was
pleased that the original Kerry amendment was voted down 93 to 6. I
think by moving that date forward 6 months, the vote is not going to
change very much.
I know Senator Levin has offered an amendment. I will just say this
about it. I serve with Senator Levin on the Armed Services Committee. I
am sure he is trying to reach some sort of compromise, some sort of
unifying amendment for the Democratic side. I am really sort of
disappointed at it, because I don't think, if adopted, it will serve
any purpose and could cause much mischief and be misinterpreted.
I urge my colleagues to vote against both amendments, and I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the President. I apologize to the President for
having to sit there at this late hour. It wasn't my doing. But I did
want to speak on this issue. It is one of major importance, and one
about which I have not spoken on the Senate floor previously. So I beg
the indulgence of the Chair at this late hour.
Mr. President, on May 3, I introduced a resolution in the Senate that
offered a clear break from our current counterproductive course in Iraq
allowing our Armed Forces to return to their focus to defeating the
terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001.
The resolution would do three things.
First, it states that the United States should not maintain a
permanent military presence or military bases in Iraq.
Second, it states that the United States should not attempt to
control Iraq's oil.
And, third, it states that the United States Armed Forces should be
redeployed from Iraq as soon as practicable after the completion of
Iraq's constitution-making process, or December 31 of 2006, whichever
comes first.
My resolution is identical to the resolution introduced in the House
of Representatives by Representative Mike Thompson of California with
at least six Republican cosponsors. As far as I know, it is the only
Iraqi resolution introduced that has bipartisan support. So I
introduced the same measure here in the Senate.
I continue to believe that only this resolution offers a clear,
unambiguous, principled stand--a stand that can produce the results
that we all want.
Only when the Iraqi Government faces a firm timetable for U.S.
redeployment will it have the incentive to resolve its internal
differences and stand on its own two feet.
And only when our government faces a firm timetable will it make
urgent policy changes necessary to right our course in Iraq.
President Bush has it exactly backwards. He said that our Army will
stand down only as the Iraqi Army stands up. The truth is that the
Iraqi Army and government will stand up only when it is clear that the
American military is committed to standing down by a date certain.
My resolution is a clear, unambiguous statement of our intention to
move beyond the strategic blunder of Iraq which has distracted us from
the fight against those who attacked us on September 11. Only such a
clear break will allow us to recommit our military and intelligence
resources to the unfinished task of crushing al-Qaida and capturing or
killing Osama bin Laden.
We need this new decisive direction because President Bush is
unwilling to change his current policies in Iraq which are manifestly a
failure.
Let us be clear. Staying the course effectively means stay forever.
It means to stay and pay and stay and pay and stay and pay.
Already we have paid with more than 2,500 dead and more than 18,000
wounded. We will continue to pay a terrible price in terms of lives and
treasure, not only to the end of President Bush's term but well into
the term of his successor and beyond. And for what? For a failed
approach in Iraq that in the judgment of a large majority of national
security experts is damaging America's national security and making us
less safe.
Because I believe we need a new direction, I will vote for both the
Levin-Reed amendment and the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer amendment.
I commend my friend and my colleague, Senator Kerry, for his
leadership on this issue. I was here this evening listening to him. I
listened to his colloquy with the Senator from Virginia. I think it is
clear that Senator Kerry is on the right course. Also, Senator Levin, I
believe is also on the right course. So I will support both, and I do
so because I believe that both are better than what we have now.
But I also want to be clear that neither one is going to pass. We
know that. So we shouldn't agonize over which one we can support. It
doesn't matter what we do; it won't become law.
So why are we doing this? We are doing it because we must put
pressure on the President. We do it because we need to speak for the
American people who are way ahead of us, way ahead of the President,
way ahead of the White House, and way ahead of the Congress on this
issue. They know what we are doing in Iraq--costing $7 billion a month,
$9 million an hour, 2,500 dead, 18,000 maimed and injured--they know it
is wrong. They know we have been misled into this war.
My position is simply that anything we can do to give voice to the
American people that will hopefully pull the President back to a more
rational, reasonable and sane policy, anything that will do that I will
support.
I realize that some, including the President's top political adviser,
are eager to politicize this issue in an election year. They can't wait
to frame this as a debate between those who support our troops and
those who want to retreat, between those who want to fight and those
who want to surrender.

This is outrageous, and it is false. It is the same inflammatory
demagoguery that tore our country apart during the Vietnam war. Just as
we were misled into the Vietnam war, so we were in Iraq. All you have
to think is weapons of mass destruction equals the Tonkin Gulf. Weapons
of mass destruction is to Iraq what the Tonkin Gulf was to Vietnam.
Both misled us into a drastic, terrible war.
Just as the Nixon administration was bent and misused intelligence to
fit a preconceived belief on Vietnam, so would President Bush in Iraq.
Just as we heard the arguments in the early 1970s about Vietnam, that
we have to fight the Communists there or we will be fighting them here,
now we hear that we have to fight the terrorists in Iraq before we
fight them here.
Just as we said in Vietnam we will have to support the government
because it is a free government elected by 80 percent of the people, so
now we hear the same thing about Iraq and terrorists.
The echoes are resounding about what we hear from this administration
and their policies for Iraq and what we heard for Vietnam.
Let us be clear about what I think this debate is really about. It is
about charting a smarter, more focused offensive against the terrorists
who attacked us on September 11. It is about acknowledging that Iraq
did not attack us on September 11, but that our invasion and occupation
of Iraq has been a costly distraction from our fight against those who
did attack us.
It is about giving the government in Iraq incentives to get its act
together; to overcome sectarian divisions and stand up a viable, self-
sustaining army.
This debate is about acknowledging that staying the course is no
virtue if the course we are on is demonstrably wrong. Indeed, it is
about acknowledging that staying the course means stay and pay. Stay
and pay. It means that our Armed Forces will continue to stay and pay
dearly with more than 20,000 already killed, maimed, and wounded. For
our beleaguered taxpayers, it means stay and pay more of their hard-
earned tax dollars and the debt that is being piled on for our children
and grandchildren to pay--$350 billion already on Iraq and counting.
The men and women of our Armed Forces deserve better than this.
Instead of putting bumper-stickers on our cars saying ``support our

[[Page S6267]]

troops,'' let us actually support our troops. Let us give them some
hope for a way forward from the current stalemate and quagmire.
They have brilliantly completed the task they were sent to Iraq to
accomplish. Saddam Hussein's dictatorship has been deposed. We are
certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction--and
never did. And the Iraqi people have a constitution and a
democratically elected government.
To our troops goes great credit. They have achieved these things
despite a series of disastrous decisions by their civilian leaders here
in Washington.
President Bush himself has acclaimed the installation of a permanent
Iraqi Government as a historic ``turning point.''
So the question is, why aren't our troops returning? Why are we still
in Iraq with no commitment whatsoever even to a graduated redeployment?
Why has President Bush stated that we will be in Iraq at least
through the end of his administration and into his successor's
administration?
Why are we building what appears to be permanent military bases?
Why are we in the process of building a gigantic new United States
embassy in Baghdad that will span 104 acres, the size of nearly 80
football fields?
What message does it send when the House Republican leadership 2
weeks ago insisted on stripping from the emergency supplemental
appropriations bill Senate-passed language asserting that we will not
build permanent bases or attempt to control Iraq's oil? We passed that
in the Senate. The House Republicans took it out.
What message does that send to the insurgents and al-Qaida and the
terrorists who would do us harm? None of these things give the
impression that the United States plans on winding down our military
and civilian presence or relinquishing our grip on Iraq.
To the contrary, it is easy to see how ordinary Iraqis as well as
people across the world view this as the behavior of a conquering power
that has no intention of leaving. Unfortunately, this perception
creates continuing resentment. It feeds anti-Americanism. It continues
to give powerful fuel to the insurgency, both in terms of motivation
and recruitment, and it puts our American Armed Forces at greater risk.
It has now been more than 3 years since President Bush's speech on
the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. On that occasion, with a
giant banner behind him a claiming ``Mission Accomplished,'' President
Bush said triumphantly, ``Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.''
But today, 133,000 troops remain on the ground. President Bush again
and again has signaled that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is open-
ended and of indefinite duration.
This has given rise to suspicions that the United States has long-
term designs on Iraq and its oil and deprives the Iraq Government of
the incentives to resolve its internal divisions and stand on its own
feet.
With the war in Iraq now in its fourth year, it is clear that the
present course is not a strategy for success. It is a strategy for
continued stalemate and stagnation.
As I said, stay the course means stay and pay. Stay and pay. One-
third of a trillion dollars we have spent so far and counting.
Indeed, I fear that stay the course also means stay forever--and this
sends exactly the wrong signal. It stokes the insurgents who believe
that the U.S wants a permanent military presence in Iraq.
Don't think for a second that they do not know and they aren't
putting out the word that the Republican leadership in the House 2
weeks ago stripped the language out of the Senate bill which stated
that we were not going to have permanent bases and we will not control
their oil. Don't think for a minute that they haven't broadcast that,
that they aren't using that as a recruiting tool. Of course they are.
When President Bush says it will be through his administration and
into his successor's administration before we decide what to do in
Iraq, that is a powerful recruiting tool for the insurgents and the
terrorists.
Our open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq as long as it takes has had
the effect of taking away any incentive for the Iraqi Government to
resolve its internal division and get its act together.
Parliamentary elections were held way back in early December. Has
Baghdad descended into vicious sectarian violence? It took the Iraqis
nearly 7 months to chose a prime minister and to fill all the
ministries.
Now, as the Iraqis face a deadline for U.S redeployment, there is no
way they would have squandered 6 months before forming a government,
nor would the Iraqis be dragging their feet in standing up a viable,
self-sustaining army and police force.
I just heard the Senator from Alabama quoting a general. A lot of
generals have been quoted around here. I guess I can quote a general
too. How about General Casey, our commander in Iraq, who told the
Senate last September. He said:

Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of
occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security
forces on the coalition [and] extends the amount of time that
it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-
reliant.

Last September, General George Casey said that.
BG Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, put it
this way:

I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is
to concede that . . . this insurgency is not going to be
settled . . . through military options or military
operations. It is going to be settled in the political
process.

Nor, I must add, is there a military solution to most of the critical
problems confronting Iraq--sectarian strife, out-of-control crime,
rampant corruption, widespread unemployment, chronic shortages of
electricity and water and gasoline, and on and on. There is not a
military solution to that; it is a political solution.
The Iraqi people also believe that a redeployment of U.S. forces
would give a boost to the political process. According to a recent poll
conducted by the University of Maryland, more than 80 percent of Iraqis
want U.S. forces to leave Iraq. When asked what the impact of a
withdrawal of U.S. troops would be, large majorities of Iraqis believe
that insurgent attacks will decrease, sectarian violence will decline,
and the sectarian factions in Parliament will be more willing to
cooperate. That is what a majority of Iraqis believe. Yet somehow this
administration believes differently.
We all hope the Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish leaders are sincere in their
stated desire to avoid an all-out civil war. Prime Minister Maliki has
formed a national unity Cabinet. As I said, President Bush has hailed
this new Government as a turning point. We hope that is the case. But
whether or not Mr. Maliki is willing or able to make good on his
pledges, it is certainly time for a turning point in U.S. policy in
Iraq.
The coming months must be a period of transition to full Iraqi
sovereignty. It is time to hand off security responsibilities to the
Iraqi Army and police, to redeploy most of our U.S. Armed Forces from
Iraq by the end of this year. This strategic redeployment must involve
converting our vast military presence on the ground in Iraq to a quick
reaction force, staged in countries bordering Iraq, countries that
share our interest in a stable Iraq and that view our military presence
in the region as a stabilizing force.
This substantial over-the-horizon force would be used to strike at
al-Qaida and its affiliates whether in Iraq or elsewhere. These forces
would be able to respond in a timely manner, as they did 2 weeks ago in
targeting and killing Al-Zarqawi.
I would expect, as our troops withdraw from Iraq, this would free up
U.S. forces to combat the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Other troops would be available to send to the emerging terrorist
threats in countries such as Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, which threaten
to become major breeding grounds for terrorists.
The harsh fact is that the Iraq war has led to a decline in the
overall readiness of U.S. ground forces. It has decimated our capacity
to put large numbers of boots on the ground were we to face an
emergency elsewhere, such as on the Korean peninsula.
At a Senate hearing last year, GEN Richard A. Cody, Army vice chief
of staff, said:

What keeps me awake at night is what will this all-
volunteer force look like in 2007?

He stated this in the context of a discussion about whether we could
sustain

[[Page S6268]]

the operational tempo of deployments at the rate we have had since the
beginning of the Iraq war. For all the military superiority we
displayed in the invasion of March 2003, 3 years later, a guerilla
conflict is grinding away at our military manpower and equipment.
We need to redeploy from Iraq in order to reset and reequip the
force--ground forces in particular--so they are prepared for a more
focused campaign against the terrorists who attacked us and continue to
threaten us.
At the same time we are redeploying our Armed Forces, we need to
foster sustained diplomatic engagement, working with Middle Eastern
nations to facilitate rival Iraqi factions in reaching a political
settlement. Iraq's neighbors have a profound stake in this stability,
but they currently have no incentive to get involved. Once it is clear
that the United States is leaving, those nations will be highly
motivated to facilitate a coming together of the factions within Iraq.
Some say that U.S. forces in Iraq are the only thing that stands
between the Sunnis, Shiites, the Kurds, and all-out civil war. I
disagree. It is the ongoing presence of U.S. forces and the prospect
that we will be in Iraq as a babysitter for years to come that has
delayed progress on the political front. It is the ongoing presence of
U.S forces and statements by this President that we will be there for
as long as it takes, it is actions such as were taken by the House
Republicans in stripping that language out we put in that said we are
not going to have permanent bases, we are not going to control the
world, it is those actions which have delayed progress on the political
front and have given the insurgents the narrative, the story, the
recruiting tool they need.

Our presence in Iraq is a propaganda victory and recruiting tool for
the insurgency in Iraq and for Islamic extremists around the world. The
insurgents and jihadists are threatened by the overwhelming perception
in the Arab world that the U.S. military is an occupying force, that we
are building what appears to be permanent bases, that our continuing
presence in Iraq is all about controlling oil.
Meanwhile, let's be clear on what continuing our current policy of
stay and pay will entail. The Congressional Research Service reports
that we are now spending $6.4 billion a month in Iraq, up sharply from
last year. That is $9 million an hour every hour of every day. And we
are doing so at a time when our budget, the budget put through by the
Republicans who control the Congress, is slashing funds for education,
cancer research, health care, other essential needs at home. The budget
this year will mean we have 1,100 fewer research grants from the
National Institutes of Health than we had 3 years ago. That is the path
we are on. We have spent a grand total of about $350 billion in Iraq.
As I have said, more than 2,500 troops have been killed, 18,000
wounded. More than 8,500 of the troops are wounded so seriously they
were listed as wounded in action, not to return to duty. Are we going
to stay and pay for another 3 years, spending another $300 billion,
sacrificing more American troops, with more killed, more maimed and
injured for life? Is that what we mean by supporting the troops? Is
that what we mean, to stay more, with more killed, more maimed? Why in
the world would we want to stay on a course that is so clearly
counterproductive, so clearly a failure?
Last week, the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy
Magazine released the results of their survey of more than 100 of
America's top terrorism and national security experts from across the
ideological spectrum. The results show fewer than 2 in 10 believe the
United States is winning the war on terror; 87 percent believe the war
in Iraq has had a negative impact on our national security. So 87
percent of the top 100 national security experts around America say
Iraq has had a negative impact on our national security.
Last Thursday, the Department of Defense issued a highly partisan
``debate prep book,'' designed to help Republicans defend the war in
Iraq. Likewise, the President and Vice President are staying the course
with their endless happy-talk about progress in Iraq, about how
democracy is on the march. But the facts on the ground tell a different
story. I believe we should base our policy choices not on happy talk
but on facts on the ground.
Clearly, by preemptively attacking Iraq, we have committed a major
strategic error in the larger war against the terrorists who attacked
us. Simply put, we took our eyes off the ball. We deferred our military
and intelligence resources away from Afghanistan, away from the hunt
for bin Laden. The consequences were plain to see. It is no coincidence
today the Taliban has powerfully resurfaced in southern Afghanistan
despite President Bush's claim on September 27, 2004, that ``the
Taliban no longer is in existence.'' Say again? As fighting in
Afghanistan has intensified over the past 3 months, the United States
has conducted 340 airstrikes in Afghanistan, more than twice as many as
the 160 airstrikes carried out in the war in Iraq during the same
period.
Meanwhile, while we have been distracted in Iraq, al-Qaida-like
Islamic fighters have retained control of the Somalia capital of
Mogadishu and have dealt a major blow to our counterterrorism efforts
in the horn of Africa. Nor is it a coincidence that Osama bin Laden is
still at large, still directing al-Qaida operations, still encouraging
jihadists around the world.
Nearly 5 years ago, before a joint session of Congress, President
Bush pledged he would ``bring Bin Laden to justice or bring justice to
bin Laden.'' That was 5 years ago. President Bush has done neither.
Instead, he allowed bin Laden to escape and has gotten the U.S.
military bogged down in a civil war in Iraq--a huge strategic gift not
only to bin Laden but also to Iran. Not only has our open-ended Iraqi
entanglement taken the heat off the terrorists who attacked us on
September 11, it has given them a propaganda victory and, as I said, a
major recruiting tool. The sooner we acknowledge the strategic blunder
and take steps to reverse it and the sooner we redeploy our military
and strategic assets to confront our real enemies, the better off we
will be.
The resolution I introduced setting a firm timetable for redeployment
of U.S. troops from Iraq is about accelerating the emergence of Iraq as
an independent nation willing to stand on its own feet. But it is also
about the unity and security of the American people. This misbegotten,
misguided, mismanaged war is dividing our Nation. I already mentioned
how the President's top political strategist is planning to inflame
passions in the war on Iraq in the months between now and the election.
Again, I state, it is eerie, eerie how defenders of the Iraq policy, of
our policy in Iraq are sounding exactly like defenders of Nixon's
policies in Vietnam.
It is eerie how the defenders of Bush's policies in Iraq are sounding
like the defenders of Nixon's policies in Vietnam in the early 1970s.
Back in 1972, Nixon and his defenders were saying that we were winning
the war, that we must stay the course. And guess what. They were saying
we must not cut and run, that we must prop up the ``democratic
government'' in Saigon, which was, of course, elected, as you know, by
80 percent of the people, and on and on and on.
I can remember a time when I sat in a room with a group of
Congressmen in Saigon, listening to then-President Thieu tell us that
we must stay in Vietnam and fight the communists there or we would be
fighting them in the Philippines and in Japan and on our doorstep.
What do we hear now? We have to fight them over in Iraq or we will be
fighting them here. Eerie, as I said. Eerie.
Quite frankly, I say today President Bush is saying almost the exact
same things that Richard Nixon said, and he has no more credibility
than Richard Nixon did.
Likewise, back in 1972, President Nixon and his supporters were
arguing that withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world.
But as LTG William Odom, Director of the National Security Agency under
President Reagan, states in a current issue of Foreign Policy
magazine--I want to quote him--

A rapid reversal of our current course in Iraq would
improve U.S. credibility around the world.

I am going to repeat that. LTG William Odom, Director of the National
Security Agency under President Reagan, in the current issue of Foreign
Policy magazine, said:

[[Page S6269]]

A rapid reversal of our current course in Iraq would
improve U.S. credibility around the world.

General Odom went on to say:

[I]nvading Iraq was not in the interests of the United
States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For
Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam [and left Iran as
the strongest power in the Persian Gulf]. For al Qaeda, it
made it easier to kill Americans.

That is not me. That is LTG William Odom, Director of the National
Security Agency under President Reagan.
Beyond dividing our country, our endless, open-ended presence in Iraq
has distracted our Government from urgent priorities, as I have said,
in health care, education, law enforcement, and even a smarter approach
to the very real terrorist threats of today and tomorrow.
The men and women of our Armed Forces have sacrificed greatly. I
don't know why it is that because they have sacrificed so greatly--and
the fact is, the Commander in Chief told them what to do, and they did
it. So what. So to honor them, to honor what they have done in Iraq, we
stay longer? We sacrifice more of our young people? We have more who
are maimed for life? To honor them, we drain the Treasury of more of
our dollars from taxpayers? Is that what it means to support our
troops? I don't think so. I do not believe so.
I believe to support our troops is to do exactly what LTG William
Odom said: A rapid reversal of our current course in Iraq.
It is time to allow the political process to go forward in Iraq. It
is time to give Iraqi politicians greater incentive to bridge their
differences and take responsibility for their country's future.
It is time to bring home as many troops as possible, consistent with
force protection requirements.
It is time to redeploy as many as necessary to successfully pursue
and crush bin Laden and al-Qaida and to protect our vital interests
around the world.
President Bush tells us to be patient. He says Iraq will become a
flourishing democracy that will spread the flame of freedom across the
entire Middle East. But, with due respect to President Bush and to Vice
President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, they have been
consistently wrong--disastrously wrong--in all their predictions with
regard to Iraq.
Before the invasion, Vice President Cheney said that Iraq had
``reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Secretary Rumsfeld said he knew
exactly where Saddam was storing his weapons of mass destruction. And,
as I noted 3 long years ago, President Bush said that major combat
operations were over, mission accomplished.
Many of President Bush's people assured us that the war would be
self-financed thanks to Iraq's oil--Paul Wolfowitz.
Vice President Cheney said, more than a year ago, that the insurgency
was ``in its last throes.''
Just yesterday, at the National Press Club, Vice President Cheney
defended and repeated his claim that the insurgency is in its last
throes.
I guess if you repeat something often enough--will people believe it?
Listen to what Abraham Lincoln once said: You can fool some of the
people all the time. You can fool all the people some of the time. But
you can't fool all the people all the time.
Mr. Cheney, you may have fooled some people. The American people are
not buying it any longer.
I could go on and on with this litany of false assertions--prediction
after prediction that turned out to be 100 percent wrong.
There are those who say: But if we leave, there may be civil war in
Iraq. As I have stated, I think the longer we stay, there will be more
sectarian strife, more insurgency. But to be honest, I can't tell for
sure what the likely outcome will be. How can anyone tell what the
likely outcome will be, when we can't trust what the administration is
telling us, when we can't trust, any longer, the intelligence as it is
being given to us by the administration? We can't tell for sure.
So at this point, President Bush has not only spent his political
capital, I think he has squandered the last shred of credibility when
it comes to Iraq. Specifically, as I said, with regard to America's
departure from Iraq, I think the President has it backwards. He says
our Army will stand down only as the Iraqi Army stands up. The truth is
that the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Government will stand up--make the hard
political decisions--only when it is clear that the American military
is committed to standing down by the end of this year.
So I repeat, I will vote in favor of both the Levin-Reed amendment
and the Kerry-Feingold amendment. As I said, anything is better than
what we have now, even though I think both could go further in setting
a clear, decisive new direction. I stand by my conviction--and the
wording in my resolution, the same as was introduced in the House by
Representative Mike Thompson, with at least five if not six Republican
cosponsors--that it is time to set a firm timetable for redeploying our
troops from Iraq and redoubling our fight against those who attacked us
on September 11. Only this new course will produce the results we all
want, both on the ground in Iraq and in the campaign against al-Qaida
and rebuilding, reconstituting our forces and rebuilding and reuniting
the people of our country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I thank the Senate for allowing me to
explain briefly, this evening, why I will be voting to stay the course
in Iraq until the progress we are making there now ripens into complete
victory. And I want to put that conflict in context.
The United States is in a war against a transnational army of
fanatical extremists who routinely use terror against civilians its a
weapon. The terrorists began attacking us before September 11. They
attacked us in the 1980s and in the 1990s, when they bombed Khobar
Towers, attacked the USS Cole and our embassies abroad, and first tried
to bomb the World Trade Center. Our government did not recognize the
threat and did not respond vigorously until after they escalated the
war by the attacks on September 11.
We know who the terrorists are--an interlocking network of highly
trained, deadly, and adaptive terrorist organizations funded largely by
the Saudi Wahabbists and Iran. We know what their goals are from the
al-Zawahiri letter which was intercepted in July of 2005. They want,
first, to radicalize Islam by converting, suppressing, or killing those
Muslims who resist their twisted and extreme interpretation of that
religion. They want to exclude the principles of enlightenment thought
from Islamic countries and set up a series of Taliban-like caliphates
throughout the Muslim world. Those regimes would be run by religious
thought police who would ruthlessly suppress free expression, religious
dissent, social pluralism, political activity, and women's rights. We
know that such regimes are possible; one existed in Afghanistan before
America intervened, and another exists in Iran today.
We know the tactics they will use. The terrorists are patient, in the
sense that they think generationally. They infiltrate mosques and they
feed off the discontent and hopelessness many young Muslims feel. They
see Western democracies as weak and feckless; they hope that with time
and intimidation they can control the policies of these countries. They
hope to gain control of sources of energy on which the West depends.
And, the terrorists want to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Since
they have no national base and no concern whatsoever for innocent human
life, traditional means of deterrence--the threat of a counterattack--
would be unlikely to prevent the terrorists from using such weapons
should they get them.
The point is that the terrorists are trying to achieve these goals,
and they are not going to stop voluntarily. There is no conceivable
acceptable accommodation we could reach that would cause them to leave
us alone. We must therefore counter their efforts, and to be effective
we must fight on three ``fronts,'' as it were, at once: we must rebuild
our intelligence and covert operations capability, we must deprive the
terrorists of national bases of support, and we must work with
mainstream Islam around the world to show Mideast Muslims in particular
that there is a future for them in the principles of liberal democracy.
The operation in Iraq is a central part of all three of these
``fronts.'' Our

[[Page S6270]]

goal there was, first, to remove Saddam Hussein. His regime was an
organic threat to world peace; he had twice invaded his neighbors and
was systematically violating the commitments he made after Desert
Storm. He had harbored and trained terrorists; more fundamentally, he
was a tyrant who wanted weapons of mass destruction and was obstructing
the war against the terrorists.
Second, the United States, in cooperation with mainstream Iraqi
leaders from all parts and ethnic groups in the country, is building a
multi-ethnic democracy in Iraq that will be a strong ally in the war on
terror and will confront and confound the vision of the terrorists for
the Muslim world.
The terrorists know how important the struggle in Iraq is to the
overall war. That is why they are trying so hard to disrupt the new
government. Yet they are not succeeding. The sacrifice and hardships
endured by all the soldiers and families whose loved ones are serving
in Iraq have resulted in major achievements for the Iraqi people.
In the 3 years since Iraq was liberated, the Iraqi people have
assumed sovereignty over their country, held free elections, drafted a
democratic constitution, approved that constitution in a nationwide
referendum, elected a permanent representative under the new
constitutional framework, and formed a government with representatives
from all sections and religious groups within the country.
The Iraqi Government has become more capable of providing essential
services to its people. The 2005 per capita GDP was more than double
the 2003 amount, and exceeds the prewar 2002 amount by more than 30
percent. There are over 100 independent newspapers and magazines, 44
commercial television stations, and 72 commercial radio stations now
operating in Iraq.

America continues to actively fight the terrorists, while building
and training capable and effective Iraqi security forces, which
eventually will take the lead in the fight and take responsibility for
the safety and security of their citizens. Over 250,000 Iraqi security
forces have been trained and equipped, which is an increase of 123,500
troops from January 2005. In addition, there are now more than 100
ground combat battalions of Iraqi military and special police forces
conducting operations against the insurgency.
I do not begrudge anyone their discontent with how some of our
operations have been conducted in Iraq. There have been mistakes.
The administration underestimated how long it would take to stabilize
the Sunni triangle; our active duty army is too small and this has
strained Reserve components; we have relied too much on technology and
not enough on intelligence in counteracting the improvised explosive
devices. Wars are messy and failures are inevitable; yet the Bush
administration has had the authority for the last 5 years, and I do not
blame anyone for holding the administration accountable for the
operational mistakes that have been made.
Yet I do ask everyone to recognize that this war is serious and
necessary and must be won. I believe the decision to invade Iraq was,
whatever mistakes have been made operationally, the only possible
strategic choice. President Clinton was, quite properly, building the
case for action against Saddam during his last years in office, even
before the attacks on 9/11. I was in the House at the time and I
remember clearly that Secretary Albright, Vice President Gore and the
President himself repeatedly warned that Saddam was a major threat. In
short, the war in Iraq, like the global war on terror of which it is a
part, is America's war, which we must fight and win to protect our
safety and freedom and to preserve from violence and oppression
hundreds of millions of innocent people around the world. And we will
win it, despite the mistakes, provided that we do not let strategic
incoherence, partisan politics, or personal disaffection with the
administration divide or discourage us.
For many of us, the hardest thing about war is not the physical or
monetary sacrifice. It is the burden of having to confront unpleasant
realities, choose consistently from unpalatable options, and sacrifice
objectives that apart from the war would justifiably claim a priority.
But if we really do value freedom, safety, pluralism, and justice, we
must all resolve that we will shoulder this burden for as long as it
takes. Our service men and women are doing their duty magnificently,
and will continue doing it until they have won. They have shown by
their sacrifice how much they value the safety of their families and
the freedom of their country. We need to back them up.
That means, among other things, resolving to stay and fight in Iraq
until the battle is won. To pull out now or to set an artificial
timeline on withdrawal--especially after the victories of the last few
weeks--would imperil everything the sacrifice that our service men and
women has gained. It would encourage the enemy to struggle even more
tenaciously and ruthlessly in the hope that America could be made to
quit. It would demoralize our friends and it would convince those who
have yet to take sides that the United States cannot be trusted to keep
its commitments.
I want to encourage everyone about the progress we have made. We are
winning, not just in Iraq, but in the larger global war on terror. We
have allies now we didn't have 5 years ago--in Pakistan, Afghanistan,
and Iraq--and we have cooperation and support throughout the Muslim
world that a few years ago would not have been possible. The operation
against Zarqawi shows the value of our alliance with the new Iraqi
Government and the increasing sophistication of our intelligence. In
short, there is no question that the United States, with its coalition
partners, has the power to win in Iraq. The question is whether we have
the resolution to win.
Most wars are combat operations with psychological components. Wars
against terrorists might better be described as psychological
operations with combat components. They are struggles between leaders,
peoples, and ``narratives'' of the world. By that, I mean ways of
looking at or judging the worth of human beings and the fundamental
principles of human society. I know the American people have the
strength and resolution to prevail, as they have prevailed in similar
struggles for freedom throughout our history. I know our ``narrative''
of the world--our belief in the inherent dignity and equality of all
human beings--is right and strong. I trust our leaders will be resolute
in the struggle as well, and that by its votes tomorrow, the Senate
will signal that we too have confidence in the success of our efforts,
the worth of our sacrifice, and the justice of our cause.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today, as we resumed consideration of the
Defense authorization bill, we have debated two very important
amendments on U.S. policy in Iraq.
After the votes on the minimum wage amendments offered by Senators
Kennedy and Enzi, there were 5 hours of debate on the amendment on Iraq
offered by Senators Levin and Reed. Following this debate, Senator
Kerry offered his amendment.
These amendments would call upon the United States to cut and run
from Iraq, just when the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people need us
the most. It is important for all of us to fully understand the
dangerous implications of a premature withdrawal from Iraq.
If we withdraw from Iraq before the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi
people are capable of defending their new democracy, the terrorists
would see this as a vindication of their strategy of intimidation and
violence. This would only embolden them to challenge us, as well as our
friend and allies, elsewhere in the Middle East, around the world, and
even right here at home.
While the new Governmment in Iraq is making substantial progress
every day, it is not fully ready to defend itself and provide security
for the Iraqi people. If we were to cut and run before Iraq can defend
itself, the violence in Iraq would certainly increase. The terrorists
could be expected to mount even deadlier attacks against the new Iraqi
Governmment and innocent Iraqi civilians. Chaos would result. Bloody
civil war would almost certainly follow, as terrorists and rival
militias tore the country apart. In the process, they would kill
thousands of innocent Iraqis.
In addition, the very unity of Iraq--a unity that we along with our
coalition partners and the Iraqi people have worked so hard and
sacrificed so much to secure--would be destroyed.

[[Page S6271]]

Sectarian violence would tear the country apart. It would split Iraq
into segments controlled by terrorists or ethnic and tribal militias.
This would allow the terrorists to achieve one of their highest
priorities: to turn Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists and a base
from which to launch attacks against our friends and allies in the
region and even the American homeland.
The terrorists affiliated with bin Laden and Zarqawi have clearly
stated their aim of overthrowing moderate governments throughout the
Middle East. We therefore would have to worry about close friends that
have cooperated with us in the global war on terror, such as Jordan,
being transformed into terrorist regimes. The violence and instability
that the terrorists seek to sow in Iraq would spread throughout the
Middle East.
The terrorists have also demonstrated a strong interest in acquiring
weapons of mass destruction for use as the ultimate terrorist tool.
They seek to obtain these weapons and use them against innocent
civilians. Given the presence in Iraq of many of Saddam Hussein's
former weapons scientists, an Iraq under the control of terrorists
likely would become a safe haven for the covert production of chemical
and biological weapons.
President Bush has repeatedly stated that the potential combination
of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction poses the greatest threat
to the United States. The destruction of 9/11 would pale in comparison
to the devastation terrorists could inflict with weapons of mass
destruction produced in Iraq and covertly slipped across Iraq's porous
borders.
Cutting and running from Iraq would allow the threat posed by the
combination of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to
materialize. This is an unacceptable risk to the American people, and
we simply cannot allow that to happen.
It is clear that those calling for an early withdrawal of American
troops from Iraq fail to understand the potentially catastrophic
implications of their proposal. Cutting and running before Iraq can
defend itself would pose unacceptable risks to all Americans.
We, our coalition partners, and the Iraqi people have come too far.
We cannot turn back now. We must stay until the job is done.
I look forward to today's debate on these amendments, and I urge my
colleagues to speak out against the strategy of cutting and running
from Iraq. It is a strategy that guarantees failure. And failure in
Iraq is not an option.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator
Bond in discussing S. 2658, the National Defense Enhancement and
National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006. A version of this
groundbreaking legislation has been adopted by the Senate as an
amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Defense authorization bill.
Our amendment would tangibly strengthen our national security by
giving the National Guard more of a voice in decisionmaking and in
ensuring that our Nation is able to optimally tap the enormous
experience and capabilities that exist within the National Guard.
Today's Guard is a 2lst century military organization that is
carrying its weight and more in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as here
at home, whenever disaster strikes. But today's Guard is needlessly
frozen in a 20th century Pentagon organization chart. The implications
of that show up in everything from the Guard's depleted equipment
stockpiles, to training and staffing and mission decisions. Our
amendment clears away some institutional cobwebs to let the National
Guard be the best it can be.
The Bond-Leahy amendment specifically increases the rank of the chief
of the National Guard from lieutenant general to full general. It will
ensure that the deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command come from the
ranks of the National Guard. Additionally, the bill makes the National
Guard a joint activity of the Department of Defense, giving the
National Guard greater latitude to talk around the Pentagon. Finally,
the Guard would be given greater ability to identify gaps in
capabilities in our States' ability to respond to emergencies at home.
This amendment differs somewhat from the baseline legislation that
Senator Bond and I introduced earlier this year. The amendment does not
include a requirement that the chief of the National Guard sit on the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and we also removed the provision that would
give the National Guard separate budget authority. We heard some strong
objections from other members about these two provisions, and, as
chairs of the wide-reaching Senate National Guard Caucus, we wanted to
do the best we could to accommodate every Guard supporter.
However, we still strongly believe in the importance of opening to
the chief of the National Guard Bureau a position on the Joint Staff
and of giving to the Guard more general flexibility in procuring
equipment to match the needs of its missions. We will fight for these
provisions another day.
Given that we have dropped the core objections that some have raised
against Guard empowerment, there was absolutely no reason that any
member of the Senate could oppose this legislation. This amendment is
about fairness and effectiveness. It is about fairness in that it makes
sure that the National Guard is not treated like a stepchild in key
budget and policy deliberations. Giving greater institutional standing
to the Guard makes it a lot harder for the Guard to get short-thrift in
these discussions.
Our amendment is about effectiveness in that it will improve the use
of the Guard in homeland security matters, which is becoming quite a
regular phenomenon. The National Guard is being used regularly in a so-
called title 32 status to increase security and provide military
disaster response. Under this status, the Guard serves under command
and control of the Nation's Governors, with Federal financing. In
addition to the recent Southern Border mission, the National Guard
served spectacularly during Katrina in this way, providing one of the
most effective responses to that disaster. By allowing the National
Guard to talk regularly across the Department of Defense and to work
closely with the States to identify gaps, our amendment takes advantage
of the knowledge of the members of the National Guard to help plug
holes in our homeland defense. And we make this whole process for
activating the Guard in title 32 far smoother.
The National Guard is critical to the Nation's defense on a number of
levels. We must have the trust and confidence in this force to give
them more responsibility. At the same time, we simply cannot have a
repeat of the ill-advised recommendations from the Army and the Air
Force that sought to slash the National Guard personnel levels. The
Army wanted to cut the Army Guard by more than 17,000 troops and the
Air Guard by almost 14,000. These proposed cuts made absolutely no
sense.
We need to turn this dynamic around. We cannot keep asking the Guard
to do more for the country, and then force it to justify its existence.
The National Guard needs institutional standing and leadership
commensurate with its missions and capabilities.
Our National Guard stands willing to do even more to protect the
country, and this amendment will give them a key tool to help them
contribute to the Nation's defense.
I thank my colleagues and friends, the chair and ranking members of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, for their support of this
amendment. We cannot afford to let our Guard down.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Levin-Reed
amendment on U.S. policy in Iraq. Before I continue, I would like to
say a word about our troops and their families. We owe our brave
servicemembers and their families a debt of gratitude for their
selfless service and great sacrifice in Iraq, over the last 3 years.
Members of our Armed Forces are at this moment deployed in harm's way,
many on their second or third deployment. They and their families
should know they have our wholehearted support and gratitude, with
deeds, not just with words. Our troops need to know, what is our exit
strategy?
In October 2002, as the Senate debated giving the President authority
to invade Iraq, I asked whether our troops would be greeted with land
mines or parades. Three years later, we know the answer. Our forces
have faced a violent insurgency and terrorist attacks that have claimed
the lives of 2,500 brave American servicemembers. We went to war with
Iraq, but today we find ourselves at war in Iraq. After 3 years, it is
time for a new approach.

[[Page S6272]]

Mr. President, 2006 must be a year of transition in Iraq. We want
Iraqis to lead, so we can leave. It is important for Iraqis to take
ownership of Iraq. They must provide for their own security, take
charge of economic development, and restore civic order. Iraq is
beginning to move in the right direction, but our open-ended presence
is keeping them from making faster progress.
That is why I am proud to support this amendment, which calls on the
President to begin reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq by the end of
2006. This amendment gives us a plan for a phased, structured
withdrawal of our troops so Iraqi forces can take control of their
country in an orderly way.
This is not about cut and run. This is about getting out of the way
so Iraqis can run their own country. Iraqi security and police forces
are getting stronger by the day, and the U.S. commander in Iraq,
General George Casey, thinks it will be possible to reduce the U.S.
presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 troops by the end of 2006.
Iraqi National Security Adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, has said that
the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's Government in the
eyes of its people. In an excellent article in the June 20, 2006
Washington Post, he details the ``road map'' for restoring security in
Iraq and reducing the presence of foreign troops. The road map's
objectives are similar to the benchmarks for withdrawal of U.S. forces
outlined last year in legislation offered by Senator Warner and Senator
Levin, which I supported.
Here is what Mr. Rubaie said can be done: ``With the governors of
each province meeting these strict objectives, Iraq's ambition is to
have full control of the country by the end of 2008. We envisage the
U.S. troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000, with most of the
remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007.'' He went on to say
that ``. . . the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's
government in the eyes of its people. . . . [T]he draw-down of foreign
troops will strengthen our fledgling government to last the full four
years it is supposed to.'' Mr. Rubaie concluded, ``Iraq has to grow out
of the shadow of the United States and the coalition, take
responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its own mistakes, and
find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems, with the knowledge that our
friends and allies are standing by with support and help should we need
it.'' We salute and support the position the Iraqis themselves are
taking. This is what the Levin-Reed amendment does. Iraqis want full
control of their country by the end of 2008, and we should help them
toward that goal.
We need to ensure that an adequate number of Iraqi Army battalions
can operate independently to defeat the insurgency and protect Iraq's
borders, and we must ensure an adequate number of Iraqi police and
security units are trained and equipped to maintain law and order. The
Iraqi Government is committed to meeting these benchmarks as quickly as
possible.
Mr. President, our brave men and women are serving with great honor
in Iraq. Their service has paved the way for democratic elections and
for the formation of a new unity government. We are all tremendously
proud of their accomplishments and grateful for their sacrifice. It is
time for the Iraqi Government to stand up, so our troops can begin to
stand down
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment
that I intended to offer to the Defense Authorization bill to address
the situation in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The amendment would have required that the United States charge,
repatriate, or release individuals held at Guantanamo within 180 days
of the enactment of the Defense Authorization bill. If for some reason
the Government failed to comply within the timeframe provided under the
amendment, the Department of Defense would have to provide a report
regarding why they have not complied. The amendment would not have
closed Guantanamo, and nothing in the amendment would have required the
Government to release individuals who are a threat to our national
security.
I think this is a reasonable approach. These are all options that the
President has said that he is moving forward on. I have decided,
however, not to offer my amendment at this time for a number of
reasons. First, given the looming cloture vote, it is clear we will not
have time to have a full and open debate on this issue. I believed that
this is an important issue that deserved more time. I have also been
advised by other Senators that they need additional time to study the
proposal.
I strongly believe that the indefinite imprisonment of persons
without charges is inconsistent with the traditions and values of the
United States, and that it will continue to cause difficulty in our
relations with other nations, including the allies that we rely on in
confronting the threat of terrorism.
As President Bush said on June 14, 2006:

No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our
friends--provides an excuse, for example, to say the United
States is not upholding the values that they're trying to
encourage other countries to adhere to.

I think the President is right.
According to an article in today's Miami Herald, Retired Army GEN
Barry McCaffery, who recently visited Guantanamo, said: ``We are in a
political and legal mess that is beyond belief'' and political leaders
need to fix the ``legal schizophrenia'' that exists by continuing to
hold individuals at Guantanamo.
I completely agree, and it is my hope that the Senate will afford
time to debate this issue in the near future.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, America has long been a beacon of human
rights and democracy in the world. But Guantanamo demonstrates the
administration's disrespect for the rule of law.
The administration is trying to have it both ways. They claim the
detainees at Guantanamo are prisoners of war and thus should be held
until the end of hostilities. At the same time they refuse to treat
them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.
In the first gulf war, the International Committee of the Red Cross
said that our Nation's compliance with the Geneva Conventions was the
best of any country in any conflict in the history of the conventions.
Sadly, this administration has presided over the steepest and deepest
fall from grace in our Nation's history.
The administration did not give the detainees the field hearings
required under article 5 of the conventions, when the information
relating to their capture was most readily available. Over 2 years
later, the administration created combatant status review tribunals to
substitute for the field hearings they should have held.
It is no surprise that it is often very difficult to find the
necessary evidence. Yet the administration doesn't even try. The Boston
Globe recently reported that 34 detainees convinced officials that
overseas witnesses would provide relevant testimony. But in every
case--every case--the administration said the witnesses could not be
found. Yet in three days, Boston Globe reporters found three out of
four witnesses--one of whom is teaching right here at the Pentagon's
own National Defense University.
The shocking ease with which the Boston Globe located these witnesses
suggests that the Government didn't make an effort to find them and
raises serious questions about the administration's good faith in
dealing with the detainees at Guantanamo. We have an even greater
obligation to make sure we have a strong case now, since we have
already kept these people for so long.
The administration not only ignored the law when it came to ensuring
that these people were properly classified, but it also failed to give
them the proper treatment.
The Geneva Conventions clearly state the standard for humane
treatment of prisoners of war:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of
coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from
them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who
refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed
to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

This administration threw out the golden rule that had served us so
well for so long. Instead, they adopted new rules that allowed cruel
tactics such as waterboarding, use of military dogs, and stress
positions. The administration consistently overruled the objections of
experienced military personnel and those who represent American
interests abroad, including Alberto Mora, the former general counsel of
the Navy.

[[Page S6273]]

As Secretary of State Colin Powell warned the White House, ``It will
reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the
Geneva Conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for
our troops.'' Senior Defense officials were warned that changing the
rules could lead to so-called ``force drift,'' in which, without
clearer guidance, the level of force applied to an uncooperative
detainee might well result in torture.
But these wise words fell on deaf ears. Officials at the highest
levels of the administration viewed the rule of law as inconvenient and
quaint. As Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary
Powell, said, ``I don't think, in our history, we've ever had a
presidential involvement, a secretarial involvement, a vice-
presidential involvement, an attorney general involvement in telling
our troops essentially carte blanche is the way you should feel.''
There is little doubt that some of those detainees are cold-blooded
killers intent on harming Americans. They should be charged for their
crimes and locked away. But far too many were swept up in raids by the
Afghans and turned over to the Americans for reward money. Some were
seized from the streets of Africa, Thailand, or Europe. As Jay Hood,
the former commander of Guantanamo, said, ``Sometimes we just didn't
get the right folks.''
The terrorists don't obey the Geneva Conventions. But we can't win
the war on terror by stooping to their level. We do not win by
repudiating the very ideals our soldiers are fighting for. We win by
setting an example--by doing unto others as we would have them do unto
us.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have argued that we need
to hold these people until the end of the war on terror.
We have created legal and literal black holes where detainees are
being held without hope of receiving due process or fair and humane
treatment, and that is nothing short of a travesty. We criticize such
tactics in repressive regimes for doing exactly that. It is the height
of hypocrisy. It violates the basic principles on which our Nation was
founded. Indefinite detention is not the American way. We need to
restore our standing in the eyes of the world as a beacon of human
rights, and the best way to start is by closing Guantanamo.
I understand the Senator from New Mexico was unable to get sufficient
time to debate his amendment and will not insist on a vote. I hope that
he will continue to fight for its adoption, and I urge my colleagues to
support the Bingaman amendment when it is offered again.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter that has
tremendous potential to decrease cancer deaths among the millions of
military dependents and retirees served by the TRICARE health program.
I am talking about colonoscopy, a medical procedure used very commonly
to screen for colon cancer. Medical specialists tell me that
colonoscopy is the most accurate test for detecting colon cancer at the
very earliest stages, when it is highly treatable.
As my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee are aware, I
have been very concerned that DOD's TRICARE medical plan hasn't covered
colonoscopy to screen for colon cancer in average-risk beneficiaries
over age 50, even though both Medicare and the Federal Employees Health
Benefit Program did so. Instead, DOD's policy has been to pay for
screening colonoscopy to detect colon cancer only for a very narrow
group of high-risk individuals. This limitation meant that many of our
military retirees and dependents have not been able to get access to
this sensitive cancer screening test, and as a result, they may well
have been subject to adverse health consequences from delayed cancer
detection.
I called this omission to the attention of the committee and
introduced legislation to rectify the situation. I was pleased to be
joined in these efforts to fix this problem by Senators Mikulski and
Bingaman.
Mr. President, I am pleased to say today that DOD has done the right
thing by modifying the TRICARE criteria for screening colonoscopy so
that all average-risk TRICARE beneficiaries over age 50 have access to
this important cancer screening test. This new policy, which is
retroactive to procedures performed since March 15, 2006, is good news
in the ongoing battle against colon cancer, and I would hope that DOD
would disseminate widely the news of the availability of this important
preventive service.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues
Senators Boxer and Bingaman in introducing an amendment to the Fiscal
Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act concerning the Park
Service's management of Santa Rosa Island within the Channel Islands
National Park.
I remain deeply concerned about a provision in the House version of
the Defense authorization bill regarding the future use of Santa Rosa
Island.
Under a binding court settlement, non-native deer and elk must be
removed from the island by 2011. The House language would prohibit the
Park Service from eliminating this non-native herd by providing for a
4-year period of intensive hunting beginning in 2008.
The Park Service is firmly opposed to the House provision. Nor, to my
understanding, did the Department of Defense ask for the language.
I am particularly concerned that the House provision would waste
taxpayer dollars and deny public access.
The taxpayers paid approximately $30 million to acquire Santa Rosa
Island in 1986 to restore its native ecology and provide public access.
In addition to the $30 million, the previous owners agreed to what
would seem to be a fair deal: they were permitted to keep hunting and
grazing on the land through 2011. A court settlement in the late 1990s
removed the cattle immediately but reaffirmed that the non-native deer
and elk would have to be removed by 2011.
Now, under the House provision, the prior owners will be able to
continue charging $16,000 or more for their privately operated hunting
trips. Even though the Government purchased the island from them for
$30 million in taxpayer money, they would get to keep essentially
everything they had before and that is simply not in the public
interest.
As I said earlier, I strongly oppose the loss of public access to the
island. This is the public's land. It is a national park, and the
public should be able to visit it.
But these privately operated hunting trips require the closure of 90
percent of the island to the public for 4 to 5 months of the year, even
sometimes during peak season.
Now while the House language doesn't specifically say this, I
understand one of its purposes was to provide hunting opportunities for
disabled veterans. Yet it should be pointed out that in California
today, there are already nine military installations that permit
hunting five that can accommodate disabled service members.
Two of these military installations, Camp Pendleton and Vandenberg
Air Force Base, are adjacent to the Channel Islands National Park, and
allow disabled veterans to hunt a variety of animals including deer,
waterfowl, quail, feral pigs, small game, and coyote.
All together there are over 100 U.S. military installations where
hunting is permitted, over 70 of which are currently accessible to
disabled servicemembers and veterans.
Consequently, I strongly believe that the Park Service should
continue managing this National Park for the benefit of the general
public.
It is simply unfair to the taxpayers to allow a provision in the
House version of the Defense authorization bill to impede on the
public's right to access the island.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator
from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, in offering the Military Family Support Act
as an amendment to S. 2766, the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization
bill. This amendment would bring a small measure of relief to the
families of our men and women in uniform as they seek to maintain a
sense of normalcy here at home while their loved ones are deployed in
service to our country. Our ongoing large-scale deployments in Iraq
continue to demand so much from our men and women in uniform and their
families. Passing this amendment is the least we can do.
As part of the predeployment process, military personnel with
dependent

[[Page S6274]]

children or other dependent family members, such as elderly parents who
require care, designate a caregiver for their dependents. This person
will act in the deployed personnel's place to provide care for these
family members during the period of deployment. The caregiver could be
a spouse, parent, sibling, or other responsible adult who is capable of
caring for, and willing to care for, the dependents in question.
The Jeffords-Feingold amendment would create two programs to provide
additional leave options for persons who have been designated as
caregivers. The first program would require the Office of Personnel
Management, OPM, to create a program under which Federal employees who
are designated as caregivers could use accrued annual or sick leave,
leave bank benefits, and other leave available to them under title 5
for purposes directly relating to or resulting from their designation
as a caregiver.
This amendment would also encourage the Secretary of Labor to
establish a voluntary program under which private sector companies
would create similar programs for their employees and to solicit
participation from private sector companies. I commend the many
employers around the country for their understanding and support when
an employee or a family member of an employee is called to active duty,
and I hope that companies in Wisconsin and around the country will
participate in this voluntary program.
In addition, our amendment would require the Government
Accountability Office to report to Congress with an evaluation of both
the OPM program and the voluntary Department of Labor program. It is my
hope that this evaluation will demonstrate the utility of such a leave
program for designated caregivers and that these pilot programs could
then be expanded to the designated caregivers of additional deployed
military personnel.
This amendment builds on a measure that I introduced last year, S.
798, the Military Families Leave Act. That bill would provide a similar
benefit to military families by allowing eligible employees whose
spouses, parents, sons, or daughters are military personnel who are
serving on or called to active duty in support of a contingency
operation to use their Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA, benefits
for issues directly relating to or resulting from that deployment.
These instances could include preparation for deployment or additional
responsibilities that family members take on as a result of a loved
one's deployment, such as child care. I also introduced this bill
during the 108th Congress.
Let me be clear, that the Jeffords-Feingold amendment does not amend
the FMLA in any way. In fact, FMLA benefits are specifically exempted
from the types of leave that can be used by designated caregivers for
purposes directly related to or resulting from their caregiver
responsibilities. While I believe that the FMLA could serve as the
basis for providing additional leave opportunities for designated
caregivers, opposition in some quarters to the original FMLA makes this
a difficult proposition. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of this
landmark law, and I believe that the FMLA continues to provide much
needed assistance to millions of workers around the country as they
seek to care for their own serious health condition or that of a family
member or as they welcome the birth or adoption of a child. I will
continue to support this law and efforts to ensure that the vital
benefits that it provides are not eroded.
The Military Family Support Act is endorsed by the National Guard
Association of the United States, NGAUS, the National Military Family
Association, NMFA, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of
the United States, EANGUS, the Military Officers Association of
America, MOAA, and the National Partnership for Women and Families.
I thank the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, for his work on this
important measure, and I thank the chairman and ranking member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee for agreeing to accept this amendment
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment to the
2007 Defense authorization bill which I cosponsored with my esteemed
colleague from California, Senator Barbara Boxer. I also thank my other
colleagues who have joined us in cosponsoring this amendment.
It is my strong belief that all prisoners of war who die in captivity
should be eligible for the Purple Heart, regardless of the cause of
death, for they all will have paid the ultimate price. Approximately
17,000 prisoners of war--including fine servicemembers from my own
great State of Maine--have died while in captivity since December 7,
1941--the start of World War II. More than 8,100 Korean war
servicemen--46 from Maine--and more than 1,800 Americans--14 from
Maine--remain unaccounted for from Vietnam.
In rightful honor of all our prisoners of war, I am proud to be co-
offering this amendment to the DOD authorization bill that would bestow
the Purple Heart upon those Americans who perished while held captive
as a result of starvation, disease, or maltreatment. Currently, only
prisoners of war who die during their imprisonment of wounds inflicted
by an instrument of war--such as a gunshot wound or intentional
poisoning--are eligible for posthumous Purple Heart recognition. Those
who die of starvation, disease, or other causes during captivity are
not.
How can we say that anyone who dies at the hands of our enemy doesn't
deserve this mark of respect and honor from a grateful nation--whether
they make the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield or behind barbed
wire? They fought for America and died at the hands of our enemy--what
more do we need to know and what more could they have given than their
very lives? They and their families have earned this honor.
The intent of this amendment is to correct this injustice by
requiring the President, our Commander in Chief, to review the current
circumstances establishing eligibility for the Purple Heart and advise
Congress on modifications to the criteria for the Purple Heart award,
which I strongly believe should take into account such inhuman war
tactics as the deliberate withholding of medical treatment for injury
or disease by enemy forces.
Last month, the House Armed Services Committee adopted their version
of the Honor Our Fallen Prisoners of War Act--which had 216
cosponsors--during committee markup of the Defense authorization bill.
The Honor Our Fallen Prisoners of War Act has been endorsed by a number
of prominent military and veterans organizations, including the
American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Military Order of the Purple
Heart, Korean War Veterans Association, National League of POW/MIA
Families, and the Tiger Survivors.
The posthumous awarding of the Purple Heart Award to members of the
armed services who died while in captivity or died due to injury or
illness incurred while in captivity would be of only some comfort to
the next of kin of these fine service men and women. I sincerely hope
that the Senate Armed Service Committee will follow suit by taking
similar action as the House and adopt this legislation

____________________