Mr. President, the only thing my friend left off regarding General Petraeus, he also has a Ph.D. from Princeton. He is a man we all have great regard for. I think no one disputes that General Petraeus is a good soldier. He follows orders,…
Mr. President, the only thing my friend left off regarding General Petraeus, he also has a Ph.D. from Princeton. He is a man we all have great regard for. I think no one disputes that General Petraeus is a good soldier. He follows orders, and that is what soldiers are supposed to do, even a general. This general follows the orders of the Commander in Chief, and that is the way it should be.
This is not the Petraeus war. It is the Bush war. I would say my friend from Kentucky, my dear friend, my counterpart, is talking about an organization that has more than 3 million members. I do not know what any one of them may have said at any given time. I certainly cannot support everything they say, that is for sure.
But understand, the amendment that was offered by my friend, Senator Boxer, is very clear. It says the September 10, 2007, advertisement in the New York Times ``was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus.'' That is what it says. We just voted on that. I cannot imagine why some of my colleagues on the other side voted against this. That is what it says. One reason, maybe it brought up some things from the past, the recent past, such as yesterday.
For a party that endorsed longer troop time in Iraq for our soldiers; that is, our people who are serving us so valiantly in Iraq cannot stay home for the same amount of time they go over there--that is what this party voted against. They voted in favor of second and third and fourth tours of duty for these young men and women.
We condemn all attacks on our valiant soldiers. That is what the amendment we voted on said. I read what it says about the ad. We don't support that ad. We clearly voted accordingly.
But we also said we should remember--as I hope we remember the vote yesterday endorsing longer tours for our soldiers--I hope we also remember what happened to Max Cleland, a man who lost three limbs. Every day of his life, including today, he wakes up and spends 2 hours getting dressed. He dresses himself. He does his exercise, running on a mattress, with his stumps. He was decorated for heroism. But he wasn't patriotic enough to serve in the Senate, according to people who are in this Chamber. They ran ads against Max Cleland. John Kerry: Two Silver Stars, two Purple Hearts. Did I hear my friends complaining about these vicious ads against John Kerry when he was running for President? Not a single murmur. Some were cheering on the Swift Boat demons.
So as we say in this resolution, we do not support any unwarranted attack on General Petraeus or any other of our military members. But what we want to do here is talk about the war--the war. The policy is bad. We will soon be starting the sixth year of this war, costing this country right now about three-quarters of a trillion dollars, and we are fighting for pennies for children's health, pennies for doing things about the environment, and education. The President is complaining because what we want to do in our appropriations bills is $21 billion over this magic number he came up with, $21 billion in an approximately $1 trillion bill, ultimately how much it will be for taking care of things the Government wants. But we are going to have in a few days another supplemental appropriations bill for Iraq approaching about two hundred billion more dollars.
The American people are fed up with this. No one over here endorses the ad that was in that newspaper. None of us do. But we want to talk about the war. They want to talk about an ad in a newspaper. None of us in any way criticized General Petraeus. He is a soldier. He is following a policy set by the Commander in Chief. But that doesn't take away from the problems the American people feel are as a result of this war: death, injury to men and women. So I hope--we are on the Defense authorization bill--we can proceed on the Defense authorization bill, complete this legislation, have civil debate on Iraq policy, and we hope to do that. I say respectfully to my friends, focus on the policy of this war, not on an ad we had nothing to do with.
If we have time left, I yield it back, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, I, too, appreciate the work of the junior Senator from Michigan on this legislation. She is truly a great Senator and does so much to help her State and our great country.
I don't seek any attention. I get some on occasion, but I don't seek it. But, today, I want everyone to understand. On this amendment, I want this amendment to be known as the Feingold-Reid amendment. I proudly add my name, as I have from the very beginning, to this amendment. This is the future. We must proceed, and we will, at some time with this legislation.
Yesterday, the Senate voted, once again, on legislation with real teeth that would protect our troops and prevent the President from irresponsibly overburdening these troops. It was a good amendment. It simply said: If you are in country for 15 months in a war in Iraq or Afghanistan, then come home and spend at least 15 months. The old rule used to be you would be home twice that long, three times that long, but now, no, we have our troops going back on fourth tours of duty within a couple of years. This has led to all kinds of problems in our States.
Look at the people who have been killed and injured during their second tour of duty or their third tour of duty. I can't get out of my mind, and I never will, Anthony Schober from Las Vegas--no, he was from northern Nevada--I am sorry. He knew he wasn't going to come back from his fourth tour of duty. He told everybody. He told his family. He said: I have been too lucky. I have had explosions next to me. I have survived them all. I have seen my buddies killed. I am not going to come back. And he didn't. He was killed. That is what the Webb amendment was all about.
The vote yesterday wasn't a vote of symbolism; it was a binding national policy. Yet, again, the Republican minority filibustered the Webb amendment. The reason I say ``filibustered the Webb amendment'' is because a majority in the House and the Senate support a change in direction of the war in Iraq. A majority in the House and a majority in the Senate have voted time and time again to change direction, to bring our troops home.
The rules in the Senate are such as they are, and I live by them, and I love this institution. The fact is, the Republicans have stopped us from enacting policies supported by a majority in the Senate and in the House and, by far, the American people by filibustering the Webb amendment, the amendment about which I just spoke.
We don't have to take my word for this. Headlines from newspapers from around the country--from the Wall Street Journal: ``Republicans Block Troop Measure.'' From the Associated Press: ``GOP Opposes Bill Regulating Combat Tours.'' From Reuters: ``Senate Republicans Block Iraq Bill.'' Headline after headline all across this country--``Senate Republicans Block Iraq Bill.''
I understand the Senate is a deliberative body that was created to prevent haste and promote consensus. But what we are seeing here on this issue, the issue of the war in Iraq, is a far cry from deliberation. It is obstructionism, strictly outright obstructionism. That is what we saw yesterday, and except for a courageous few, that is what we continue to see from the Republican Senate. They represent a small minority of the American people.
Countless Republicans have said the right thing. Countless Senators who are Republicans say the right things when they go home. They say: We must support our troops, we must protect our national security, and we must change course in Iraq. But here, these same Republican Senators, when they come back to Washington, have consistently voted the wrong way. They have voted to put their arms around the Bush war and to make it also their war. Back home, they assert their independence, but in Washington, they walk in lockstep with the President and continue to support his failed war.
General Petraeus, whom we have talked about all morning, has said the war cannot be won militarily. That is what he said. Can we work together? Of course we can. We have proven that. Not on this, not on the Iraq war, but we have worked together this year on bipartisan issues. We have made progress. We hope to have next week the SCHIP health care for children. We have done stem cell research on a bipartisan basis. We passed an energy bill with 62 votes; student financial aid--the largest probably since the GI bill of rights; minimum wage; mental health parity. We have done a lot of good things working together. The issue dealing with Iraq has been one side against the other.
I very much appreciate the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer has worked his heart out trying to come up with something that would change the course of the war in Iraq, and I admire and appreciate his having done this. He is continuing to do it. As we speak, he has people working to try to come up with something, a bipartisan consensus that would change the course of the war in Iraq.
I have reached out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle time and time again. With the exception of about five or six courageous Senate Republicans, these efforts have been rebuffed. That is their right. I understand that. There is nothing the Democratic majority can do to force the Republican colleagues to vote the responsible way. When I talk about the Democratic majority, remember, it is a slim majority-- 51 to 49. With Senator Johnson ill until a week or so ago, it was 50 to 49. But so long as young Americans continue to fight and die and be wounded in another nation's civil war with no end in sight, we are going to keep fighting to responsibly bring them home, rebuild our military, and return our focus to fighting the real war on terror against Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network.
By the way, we hear today he has another video coming. I don't know if he will be gray-bearded this time or black-bearded, but he has another video coming, and it is on its way within a matter of a few days.
The President and his Republican supporters here in the Senate say we should just continue the current policy; things are going OK, so couldn't we just let things keep going on as they are, and hopefully--I guess they think things will turn out OK. But tell that to the 20,000 Iraqis who flee their country every month, left homeless and hopeless. Tell that to the families of innocent civilians, 1.2 million of them who have been killed in this war. Tell that to the 2 million Iraqi refugees who are in Jordan and Syria and anyplace they can find. Tell that to the families of 3,800 dead American troops, that things are going OK. Tell the families of the countless thousands who have been grievously wounded in this war that it is OK, we just need a little more patience and a little more time. Tell our troops who have served us so bravely, so bravely without proper equipment on occasion or rest, that now is not the time to change course of the war.
Today, we have another chance to forge a responsible and binding path out of Iraq. The amendment before us is the best path for the United States and for the people of Iraq. Should we care about the people of Iraq? Of course we should. The worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country was the invasion of Iraq. Am I glad we are rid of Saddam Hussein? Of course I am. What we have done to that country I have outlined in some detail here this afternoon. This amendment changes our fundamental mission away from policing the civil war, reduces our large combat footprint, and focuses on those missions which are in the national security interests of our country. It uses Congress's powers, its constitutional powers to limit funding after June 1 of next year--that is well into the sixth year of the war--to counterterrorism, force protection, and targeted training of Iraqi forces.
This amendment recognizes we have interests in Iraq, but it does not facilitate the open-ended role of U.S. forces in a civil war. I urge my colleagues to support this responsible legislation. It is one more chance for the Senate to chart a new way forward in Iraq.
President John Kennedy:
A man does what he must--in spite of personal consequences,
in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures--and that is
the basis of all morality.
If we send this amendment to the President, those who voted for it can return home, look their constituents in the eyes, and tell them they had the courage to finally do what is right for our troops and for our country.
Let me close by saying this: As my good friend knows, the comanager of this bill, we came to the Congress on the same day of the same year 25 years ago. I respect the senior Senator from Arizona because he doesn't hide what he stands for. I admire him. He stands for what he thinks is the right thing to do. I disagree with him, but what I am criticizing is not my friend from Arizona. I am reaching out to my friends across the aisle who say one thing at home, issue press releases one way, and then come here and vote another way.
So it is time we do the right thing. I believe it is the right thing. Look what has happened to our country since this invasion took place. We are mired in civil war in Israel with Palestinians fighting each other, we have a near civil war in Lebanon, and we have this terrible situation in Iraq. We have Iran thumbing their nose at us, and our standing in the world community has gone down, down, down.
Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Madam President, for the information of all Members, the two managers are trying to work out a consent agreement that we would move next to the Levin-Reed amendment, and we would debate that this afternoon and vote on that in the morning. We are having a difficult time trying to figure out what time to do it in the morning. Some want early, some want late, but it won't be earlier than 10:30. We will work that out in just a bit, as soon as the two managers have this under control.
After that, with the permission of the minority, after we finish the Levin-Reed amendment, we will move to the Biden amendment. The managers of the bill know what that amendment is about, and we will have further information later, but that at least outlines today and tomorrow.
The Republican leader and I are talking about how to work through Monday. There are different scenarios we are working on. One thing is for sure, we are going to do WRDA. We are going to move to that tomorrow, and we will complete that sometime Monday or Tuesday.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Madam President, there will be no more votes today.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Madam President, we were of the understanding that we had worked something out on WRDA, and hopefully that is the case, that we would not have to do the cloture vote
at noon on Monday, that we would have a vote on final passage of the bill at 5:30. But everyone should be aware that it appears someone on the minority side has objected to that. If that is the case, we are going to go ahead and have our noon vote. I thought we had worked that out and I hope we can. But in fairness, whoever is holding this up, let us know one way or the other, because Members need to know about what their schedule is going to be on Monday. We have people coming in from all over the country. Some people have to take all-night flights to get back for that 12 o'clock vote. Whoever is trying to make a decision on this, I wish they would do it as quickly as possible--today is Thursday--in fairness, so people can make their weekend plans. We should know if, in fact, we are going to have a vote at noon on Monday.