National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008--Continued

Floor Speech

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--Continued -- (Senate - July 17, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for explaining his amendment. But when I hear him describe the Levin-Reed amendment, I am afraid I don't recognize it because, unfortunately, the Senator from Texas has failed to include some of the most important elements of this Levin-Reed amendment.

This is the only amendment the Senate will consider during debate on this bill which will change the policy of the war in Iraq. It is the only amendment which establishes a timetable to bring this war to a responsible end. It is the only amendment which in law will require American troops to start to come home, the Levin-Reed amendment.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. A sense-of-the-Senate resolution is done on a regular basis on the floor of the Senate. It does not have the power and impact of law. It is an observation made by the Senate. That is all. It is not binding on the President. It won't change the policy. There is no suggestion that it even could.

What the Senator from Texas brings to us is the possibility that things could get worse in Iraq than they are today, and that is a possibility. But let's be very honest about the state of Iraq today. It is a nation in chaos. It is a nation that is engulfed by its own civil war. It is struggling to decide which faction within its nation will govern. Frankkly, some question whether it will be a nation. I think the Kurds, for example, given their way, would be independent of Iraq as we know it today. This struggle to define Iraq is part of the chaos and consternation we find in that country.

Finally, of course, this civil war is driven by so many elements--criminal elements, al-Qaida elements, Ba'athist elements, Iranian elements, and, yes, a civil war generated by a division within Islam that has gone on for more than 14 centuries. It is into this crucible of hate and killing that we have sent 170,000 American troops who each morning get up, strap on their armor, and go out and pray to God they will live for another day. Is that what we bargained for when President Bush said we had to rid ourselves of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction?

The Senator from Texas makes the argument that if we leave, things could get worse. It is possible. But I will tell you this: Stabilization will occur on Iraqi terms whenever the American military departs, and it is likely to be chaotic. We have to acknowledge that. Whether we leave in 10 months or 10 years, the Iraqis have to decide their own future.

The elements of the Levin-Reed amendment which the Senator from Texas does not acknowledge are absolutely essential. He will find, when he reads the Levin-Reed amendment, on page 3, paragraph 3, we will still have troops engaged in targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida and al-Qaida-affiliated organizations and other international terrorist organizations.

The Senator from Texas suggests that we will leave and walk away from the scene and hope for the best. That is not true. Under Levin-Reed, we will continue to fight al-Qaida, the fight which we should have been dedicated to from 9/11 forward and a fight which by this time should have brought us Osama bin Laden and his major lieutenants.

Secondly, the argument made by the Senator from Texas is that the Levin-Reed amendment is going to lead to a broader regional conflict as American troops start to come home. I recommend for reading by the Senator from Texas page 2 of the amendment, which goes into graphic detail about our hope that as we start to withdraw, as our troops start to withdraw from Iraq, we will initiate a comprehensive, diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for working out collective stability in that country.

I would say to my friend from Texas, what he has suggested as part and parcel of the result of Levin-Reed is already taken care of. We want to start bringing American troops home. Losing 100 American soldiers every month, 1,000 seriously wounded, $12 billion in taxpayers' money, put into a situation which is nothing short of a civil war, is unacceptable.

The future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqis. They have to stand up and defend their own country. They have to decide their own future. Is it likely to be smooth sailing as we leave? No. But it is a process which will take place whether we leave within a few months or a year or wait much longer.

I encourage my colleagues to look honestly at this Cornyn amendment. As I reflect on it, I don't think it offers any serious challenge. None of us want to see a failed Iraq. But let's remember that the bottom line is the only amendment which will change the policy in Iraq is the amendment by Senators Levin and Reed which we will vote on, after an all-night session, first thing tomorrow morning.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. I will yield for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. I will make this very brief. Isn't it a fact that over the weekend, the Prime Minister of Iraq invited us to leave at any time?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, to my knowledge, we are of one mind that we do want to leave Iraq. The question is, Under what conditions? I don't believe Prime Minister Maliki certainly is on record as saying he wants us to leave at a time when his government would be rent asunder and Iraq would descend into sectarian war and perhaps a regional conflict. But the fact is, GEN David Petraeus, the general whom we confirmed unanimously just a short time ago, has recommended to the Commander in Chief a new strategy known as the surge, which was completed just last month, a few short weeks ago. Now he has said to give that surge an opportunity to do its job and he will come back and report to us in September. I think we ought to give that a reasonable chance.

While the distinguished majority whip wants to talk about the Levin amendment, I think we will have plenty of time to talk about that during the course of the evening.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to address two comments made earlier by the Senator from Texas. He referred to the possibility of an all-night session in the Senate as a so-called Senate slumber party. Trust me, that is not what this is about. What we are facing on the Republican side of the aisle is an objection to an up-or-down vote, a majority vote, on the Levin-Reed amendment. That amendment is the only amendment which establishes a time line and a timetable for ending this war responsibly and beginning to bring our troops home within 120 days. It is the only amendment before us that will achieve that. Other amendments are interesting. None of them have the power of law.

The Levin-Reed amendment has the power of law. The President will have to follow it or veto it. Those are his choices. That is why it is so serious. That is why the Republican leadership has opposed our having a majority vote on this in the Senate. They are filibustering it, trying to stop us from getting to a vote on that amendment.

Ordinarily, when you filibuster something, it is so sanitized and civilized, you don't even know it is happening. Members of the Senate file a cloture motion and go out for dinner and say: We'll see you in the morning for the vote. Tonight they will stick around. If they want to filibuster this amendment that will change the policy in Iraq, they will have to stay and debate it. It will be a real filibuster. If they believe this is still right, we will see if they feel that way at 4 a.m. tomorrow morning. That is what this is about. It is not a slumber party.

The Senator from Texas said, ``We are ready to vote.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to vote on the Levin-Reed amendment No. 2087 at 6 p.m., with the time between 3:05 and then equally divided in the usual form.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the majority leader, first, he has focused on the most important part of this debate, the war that is claiming American lives. But, unfortunately, this debate also focuses on the rules of the Senate. I ask the Senate majority leader if he is aware of the fact that in the last 7 years that the Defense authorization bill has been brought to the floor, every amendment which has been offered was subject to a majority vote, simple majority vote, except in five instances which required a budget waiver, a specific provision in our Senate rules when there were budget waivers required as with the minimum wage and so forth, 60 votes. But is the majority leader aware of the fact that in every authorization bill, Defense authorization bill, in the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, that every amendment has been judged by a majority vote and that the decision by the Republicans to obstruct the majority vote on this is the first time in this long period of time that we have ever done this on a Defense authorization bill?

Mr. REID. I say to my friend, during the years you have mentioned, there have been democratically controlled Senates, Republican controlled Senates, but it doesn't matter who is controlling the Senate, we have always done these bills with simple majority votes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have the greatest respect for the Senator from Arizona. We disagree on a number of issues. We have worked together on many others. I would like to respond to several things he said. Senator McCain asked us who is holding up this bill? Well, those who followed the debate know that a few minutes ago the majority leader, Senator Reid of Nevada, asked to move to vote on the amendment by Senators LEVIN and REED. He asked for unanimous consent to move to a vote within a matter of hours.

Where did the objection come from? From the Republican side of the aisle. So in answering Senator McCain's question, who is holding up this bill, it is your side of the aisle, and specifically the Senator sitting next to you who objected to moving to a vote. That is what is holding up this bill.

The second question asked by the Senator from Arizona: Why are we debating the war on this bill? This bill happens to be the authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense. If you do not debate the war in Iraq on the bill authorizing appropriations for the Department of Defense, where would you turn, the agriculture bill? I don't think so. This is the appropriate bill.

The Senator from Arizona has made that point. Included within the amendments to this bill are provision for our warriors who are coming home wounded. I have been part of putting that together. I thank Senator Levin, I thank Senator McCain. It is an important provision. But let's be very honest. The reason they are coming home wounded is because there is a war. It is fit and proper for us to ask whether that war is being waged effectively and whether our policy should be changed in this bill? If not on this bill, what bill would we use? I think, frankly, that many would rather we did not debate this at all; give permission to the President to wage the war as he wants as long as he wants: step out of the way, Congress, the President is in charge.

I don't accept that. Each of us represents our own State, represents people who expect us to articulate their point of view and speak for them. We do not cede all power in this Government to one branch, not to the executive branch. We have our own responsibility.

Let me say a word about waiting until September. Waiting until September, what difference would it make if we wait until September? What could it possibly cost us if we wait until September? Well, it is likely to cost us 200 American lives. We are losing 100 Americans, on average, every single month of this war. It is likely to cost us 2,000 more injured soldiers; that is what 2 months means.

It is likely to cost us $24 billion from America's Treasury. It is not a matter of waiting for a convenient moment chosen by some to make this decision. Many of us believe this decision should be made now and it should be made here, and it should be made with the Levin-Reed amendment which is a reasonable bipartisan amendment.

The Republican side objects. They are filibustering. We have said this will not be the most modern form of filibuster. This goes back to the roots of the Senate. We will stay in business during the period of time when we are supposed to be debating. Whether we go to this amendment, we will invite members from both said of the aisle to express their point of view. I will tell you this, the people I represent in my State, the ones whom I meet, as Senator Leahy said of his voters in Vermont, want us to change this policy in this war. They want us to bring this war to an end. They understand, as we must understand, we never bargained for where we are today. America was misled into this war. We were told there were weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, they threatened the Middle East, they threatened America. Not a single one has been found.

We were told that this dictator, Saddam Hussein, was the reason for this invasion. He is long gone--dug out of a hole in the ground, put on trial, and executed by his own people. Yet we still stay in this war, a war that has changed so drastically to the point that it is now a civil war and our soldiers, as good as they are, are caught in the crossfire of sectarian violence, now victims of al-Qaida terrorism that did not exist when we invaded Iraq, not in that country.

They are the ones who are the victims of bad planning and bad decisions. It is interesting to me how many Republican Senators see how poorly executed this war has been.

We all know our military is the best. But when it comes to the Commander in Chief and the generals, so many bad decisions have been made at the expense of our troops. It is interesting to me, they concede that point and yet want to continue: Let's just wait a few more months, maybe another year, maybe a year and a half, and then see what happens.

I was one of 23 Senators who voted against this authorization to go to war.

Mr. BYRD. So was I.

Mr. DURBIN. Senator Byrd, I remember your leadership on this issue as well. I can tell you it was not the most popular position to be in at the time.

Mr. BYRD. No.

Mr. DURBIN. The overwhelming majority of the American people heard their President say weapons of mass destruction, ruthless and bloodthirsty dictator, and said: Yes, maybe we should invade. But it didn't add up. It didn't add up in terms of the threat or in terms of whether we were prepared to accept the reality that it is far easier to get into a war than it is to get out of one. Here we are in the fifth year of a war that has lasted longer than World War II, a war with no end in sight. This President's response: Send more American soldiers into harm's way in Iraq.

That is unacceptable. It is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation. They will not do that until American soldiers start coming home. That is what the Levin-Reed amendment is about.

I am sorry the Republican side has initiated this filibuster to block a vote on this important amendment. I am sorry they are insisting on a 60-vote margin which was rarely, if ever, used on a Defense authorization bill over the last 7 years. Those are the facts. They have done it because their ranks are starting to change. Three Republican Senators have now stepped out and said they will join us in this effort to change the policy of the war. Many more back home have said they have decided we need a new policy in Iraq. We want to give them a chance for a vote that is significant.

Will the President veto it if we pass it? Probably. But does that mean we shouldn't try? Don't we owe it to these soldiers and their families and to our Nation to change this failed policy before it claims more American lives, sends more American warriors back wounded from battle and costs Americans the treasure we have gathered in the taxes of our citizens?

I say to my friend from Arizona, we see this war differently, but I think it is clear who is holding up this bill: the Republican minority with their filibuster. Why this bill? Because if you didn't debate a war on a Defense authorization bill, where would you debate it? Should we wait until September? The cost is too high.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the objection is heard, and I think it is very clear. You cannot object to the vote, say you are ready to vote, and then object to the vote. You cannot have it both ways.

The fact is, when you look at these past votes on the Defense authorization bill, they don't make the case that the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Mississippi say. I will go through each one of them:

For the year 2000, considering the fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization bill, of 14 amendments on which there were rollcall votes, only 1 required 60 votes because it involved a budget waiver. In 2001, when we considered the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill, of the 2 amendments on which there were rollcall votes, all were simple majorities; no 60-vote requirements. In 2002, for the 2003 Defense authorization bill, of the 5 amendments on which there were rollcall votes, only 1 60-vote requirement; again, a specific budget waiver, which is not the case with the pending amendment. In 2003, when we considered the 2004 Defense authorization, of the 10 amendments on which there were rollcall votes, all were simple majorities; no 60-vote requirements. In 2004, with the 2005 Defense authorization, of the 30 amendments on which there were rollcall votes, all were simple majorities; no 60-vote requirements. In 2004, with the 2005 Defense authorization, of the 30 amendments on which there were rollcall votes, only 2 required an extraordinary majority of 60 votes, both requiring budget waivers. In 2005 when we considered the Defense authorization bill for 2006, for 25 amendments they were simple majority votes. None required 60 votes. In 2006, when considering the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill, 15 amendments, only 2 required 60 votes. They related to the minimum wage. They required budget waivers. Those are the only 2.

Let me also correct the record. When the Senator from Arizona says we don't take up the war in Iraq on the Defense authorization bill, I would remind him that in the last Defense authorization bill, there were two specific amendments offered relative to the conduct of the war in Iraq--on this very bill last year: one by Senator Levin and Senator Reed, another by Senator JOHN KERRY, both of which only required a majority vote.

I would say from the Senator from Arizona's point of view, there is scant evidence to support his position that No. 1, we never considered Iraq on Defense authorization bills--we just did last year; No. 2, we always require 60 votes when it comes to amendments on the bills. Six times in 7 years we did, each one because of a budget issue that is not involved in the Levin amendment.

Let me say a word about the other things said by the Senator from Arizona before yielding the floor. I respect the men and women in uniform. I have been to Iraq twice. I have visited with them. I have been to send-offs in my State of Illinois as National Guard units have been activated. I have been there to welcome them home. I carry on many conversations with the Illinois soldiers overseas. I keep in touch with their families. I respect them very much. But to say this is the first time we have heard from generals in Iraq that they just need another 6 months or another year, I think the Senator from Arizona knows better. We have been told this over and over again: When they stand up, we will stand down. Do you remember that one? How many years have we been hearing that? How many hundreds of millions of dollars have we put into Iraq for training Iraqi Army soldiers? Yet we are still there with a larger force today than there we were just a year ago.

So when my colleague argues that just a little more time is all they need, I hope he will understand the skepticism of the American people and many Members of the Senate. We have heard this before over and over again.

I also want to take issue with one point the Senator from Arizona said--and I am sure he didn't mean to mislead anyone. We are not talking about withdrawing the troops in 120 days, which is what has been said over and over again. The Levin-Reed amendment begins the withdrawal of troops in 120 days, completing it on April 1 of next year--transitioning by April 1 to a different force; not the combat force we know now caught in the midst of a civil war but a force with the specified mission of fighting al-Qaida and other terrorism, of helping transition the Iraqi Army to self-defense, and protecting our own men and women and our assets and security during this transition. Those things are all included in this bill. So this notion that somehow in a matter of 120 days all the troops will be gone, that isn't even envisioned in the Levin-Reed amendment.

So I would say to my friend from Arizona: Yes, I guess my patience has worn thin. I guess I have heard from too many generals such as those quoted by the Senator from Arizona that they just need a little more time. I have seen what time has cost us. It has cost us American lives. It has cost us serious, debilitating injuries. It has cost us a great deal in terms of our national treasure and resources. I think it is time for a change of policy, and so do the American people. They said that in the last election. They don't want us to dream up procedural obstacles to keep us from this decision. They want us to vote up or down to change the policy or keep the policy. That is what we were sent here to do.

I hope the Republican side of the aisle, as they initiate this filibuster, as they try to stop us from coming to a majority vote on the Levin-Reed amendment, understand that America sees that clearly.

I yield the floor.

Source