Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to honor Tad Dunbar, a Northern Nevada institution. Tad has been a part of the newscast for KOLO-TV for over 35 years, and has been involved in broadcasting for over 48 years.

At the age of 15, Tad began his media career as a disc jockey for a radio station in Palestine, TX. He has been a broadcaster ever since, honing his journalistic skills even as a high school and college student. His work attracted attention from broadcasters in Abilene, TX, where he landed his first job. Before he came to Nevada, he worked as a newscaster in Midland, Laredo, and Corpus Christi.

In September of 1969, Tad moved to Reno and became an anchorman for News Channel 8. For almost four decades, he has been a fixture on televisions throughout northern Nevada. Tad is a man of numerous talents, and has tackled the roles of assignment editor, photographer, film editor, writer, and producer. During his time at Channel 8, Tad has covered stories that captured the hearts and minds of all Nevadans, including the Kennedy assassination and the Priscilla Ford trial.

He recounts one of the most memorable moments of his tenure as when the News Channel 8 studio ignited in flame a few years ago in the middle of his newscast. When asked about it later, KOLO station manager Matt James joked that ``that was probably one of the few newscasts [Tad] didn't get to finish.''

In addition to his daily duties as an anchorman, Tad has deeply involved himself in philanthropy throughout the years. He serves on advisory boards for several nonprofit organizations, and has played an integral role in ``Sheep-dip,'' an organization that raises money for scholarships at the University of Nevada. In addition, Tad is a devoted family man. He is married to his wonderful wife Minda, with whom he loves to cook and enjoy fine wine.

Tad is leaving KOLO-TV at the end of July. His unique journalistic style and his affable personality will be greatly missed. I know I join with the entire northern Nevada community in wishing Tad the best on well-earned retirement.

Mr. President, this resolution concerns a pro se civil action filed against Senator Evan Bayh, in which plaintiff alleges, as best as can be pieced together from the complaint, which offers no factual support, that the Senator intervened in the processing of plaintiffs FOIA request to the Department of the Treasury to block access to documents in order to protect the identities of constituents whose names would have been revealed in the documents and who, according to plaintiff, had violated plaintiffs civil and constitutional rights.

This resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Senator Bayh in this suit and to move for its dismissal on both threshold jurisdictional grounds and failure to state a claim on the merits.

I urge the Senate to approve this important legislation.

Mr. President, the Senate will be in a period of morning business. I ask unanimous consent that it be a full hour of morning business because I am going to have to go into a quorum call in a minute to wait for one of my colleagues to come. We have some business to transact in the Senate, and I want to make sure there is somebody here to do that. So I ask unanimous consent that there be a full hour of morning business.

Today, when we finish morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. As we announced, there will be no rollcall votes tonight. This is the only Monday or Friday during this work period there will be no rollcall votes, unless we are able to get work done that we do not expect to get done that soon.

The amount of work we have to do this work period is significant. As I have indicated, we want to do what we can to finish this Defense authorization bill. We want to do the Homeland Security appropriations bill. We want to be able to complete reconciliation, which is for higher education. We have SCHIP, for which there is a bipartisan agreement that will be reported out of the committee, I understand, tomorrow, which has been worked on for weeks and weeks by Senators Baucus, Grassley, Rockefeller, and Hatch. They have agreed on a bipartisan arrangement. In fact, it may have been--I do not know if it was reported out last week, but I do know there is good bipartisan support on that legislation. Some people believe it is not enough money, the $35 billion, some think it is too much, but it is bipartisan, and Senator Hatch has contacted the President, that the President would reconsider his threat to veto that bill.

We also have to do the 9/11 Commission recommendations conference report. It is my understanding the House is going to appoint conferees on that today. There has been a lot of work done preconference on that with Democrats and Republicans working together. I think that will work out very well.

We still have the holdup with the ethics and lobbying reform. I do hope we can get that done. We will get it done. It may take a number of cloture votes, but we are going to finish that before the August recess. It would be to the advantage of everyone here to get that done. The staff of Senator McConnell and my staff have worked very hard to see what they can do to help the various committees that are involved in this issue. It is now being held up. I hope this can be worked out. I have reached out to Senator DeMint, who is the person at this stage holding it up on behalf of the Republicans. He, at this stage, has not been willing to change his position, which is very unfortunate because it is important we work out the earmarking provisions in this bill in conference. We cannot jam something into the process here, where you have the House with one rule, the Senate with another rule, and you go to conference and you wind up in no-man's land. We have to work out something.

Everyone acknowledges we need earmark reform, and the Appropriations Committee has been following that this year. Senators Byrd and Cochran have made that direction, even though the legislation has not been completed. But in the meantime, we do not have lobbying and ethics reform, which is long past due. So I hope we can work together to complete our work in a timely fashion; otherwise, it will be finished in an untimely fashion because we are going to finish all this work before we have our August recess.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I withhold that suggestion.

Mr. President, I have been reminded by staff that of our 30 minutes the Democrats are allotted of the 60 minutes, 30 minutes of our time--in fact, all of it--be given to Senator Feinstein.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, after 52 months--about 210 weeks--and about 1,500 days, America finds itself mired in one of the most tragic foreign policy blunders in our Nation's history. The sad part about it is, there is no end in sight. In my view, and that of academics and others, it will take years, and even decades, to finally close the book on the damage this war has caused our troops, our economy, and our moral standing in the world.

On May 24, 2007, President Bush said:

We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government.

This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the

polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's

choice. If they were to say leave, we would leave.

That is the quote of President Bush.

This weekend, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki--for whom President Bush has expressed consistent support and confidence--said that Iraqi forces could take control of their security at ``any time'' American troops want to leave or were to leave.

A recent poll of the Iraqi people showed that 21 percent think the American presence makes their country safer, while 69 percent say it puts them, the Iraqi people, at greater risk. That is what the Iraqis say.

The Iraqi people and their leaders say they are ready for us to end our combat operation. I think it is time we listen to them.

In the war's soon to be 5 years, our troops have accomplished everything they have been asked to do. They took down the Iraqi dictator. They secured the country for not one, not two, but three elections. They provided the security needed for Iraqi factions to come together to negotiate peaceful settlement of their differences.

But the Iraqi leaders have not done their part. After these 52 months: more than 3,600 Americans killed, tens of thousands wounded, and after nearly $600 billion of American taxpayer dollars spent. And after this sacrifice--52 months of sacrifice--it is long past time for the Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people to put their words into action by taking responsibility for their own future. After 52 months, more than 3,600 Americans killed, tens of thousands wounded, and nearly 600 billion in taxpayer dollars spent, President Bush continues to tell our troops and all Americans that we should wait it out, just stay the course. After 52 months, our troops and our security cannot afford the President's ``run-out-the-clock'' strategy.

We have an opportunity and an obligation to change course in Iraq right now. We can remove our brave troops from the front lines of another country's civil war, a conflict we have no business policing and little chance to diffuse. We can conduct the kind of tough and strong diplomacy required to stabilize Iraq and the region, which even the President's own military experts plead with him to revise. Remember, General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily. We can refocus our resources and fight a real war on terror that drives the terrorists back to the darkest caves and corners of the Earth.

We can choose that path now. We don't have to mark time waiting for the President to wake up one morning with a change of heart or his term to run out. We don't have to wait 2 more months for an arbitrary September deadline when it is so clear a course change is required and required now. With our courage and our votes, we can rise above the tragic failure to deliver a new course that our brave troops and all Americans demand and deserve. We can do that today by voting for the Levin-Reed amendment to the Defense authorization bill.

What does Levin-Reed do? It sets a firm date and an end date to transition the mission and begin the reduction of U.S. forces beginning 120 days after enactment and completed by April 30 of 2008. Levin-Reed limits the U.S. military mission after April 30 to counterterrorism; the training of Iraqi security forces and protection of U.S. personnel and assets; requires that the reduction in forces be part of a comprehensive, diplomatic, regional, political, and economic effort; and appoints an international mediator to bring together the warring factions. That provision dealing with appointing an international mediator to bring together warring factions was newly placed in the bill. The idea and the language came from Senator Hagel of Nebraska and is a great addition to this amendment.

To those who say this language is binding on the President, I say it is, and that is what it is meant to be. It is binding because the President has resisted every effort we have made to work with him to change the direction of his failed Iraq policy. The record will show that binding language was not our first choice. We passed legislation requiring that 2006 be a year of transition. Instead, the President ignored this language and dug us in even deeper into an intractable civil war. We gave the President a chance to develop his own new course as Commander in Chief. He refused to do that. Instead, he chose to extend deployments and ask even more of our brave men and women in uniform.

Earlier this year we passed legislation that would have begun the phased redeployment while leaving significant discretion to the President about how and when to execute the redeployment. Instead, the President vetoed this bill and asserted that only he had the power to set war policy, even though we have a constitutional obligation to do so.

So the record is clear, the President's decision to stubbornly cling to the current course leaves this body no choice but to enact binding language. He has failed to lead us out of Iraq. We are ready to show him the way.

I am going to propound a unanimous consent. I have the greatest respect for my friend, the distinguished junior Senator from Arizona, but I say that I am going to enforce the rule that when I propound this, the distinguished Senator from Arizona should either agree to it or object. This is not the time for speeches because if he objects to it, I have more to say.

So I ask unanimous consent that if the House further amends H.R. 1 with the text of H.R. 1401 and requests a conference with the Senate-- Mr. President, I misread the first line. I ask unanimous consent that if the House further amends H.R. 1 with the text of H.R. 1401 and requests a conference with the Senate, that the Senate agree to the request and appoint the same conferees which the Senate has already appointed to H.R. 1.

Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, if the Senator could withhold.

I withdraw the unanimous consent request.

I apologize to my friend. It was the wrong unanimous consent request.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President we had a shuffling of unanimous consent requests, and obviously the wrong one was shuffled to me. I apologize for holding up my friends.

I ask unanimous consent that the second-degree amendment to the Levin-Reed amendment be withdrawn and that there be 6 hours of debate on the Levin-Reed amendment; at the conclusion or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the Levin-Reed amendment with no second-degree amendments in order thereto.

Yes. I did propound that request asking, basically, that we have an up-or-down vote on it. I have suggested 6 hours, but we would take any reasonable time.

Mr. President, I have said earlier that we had to file cloture on the initial amendment of Senator Jim Webb, which was an amendment that simply called for the proper rotation of our troops: 15 months in country, 15 months out of country. We wanted the Senate to speak its will on that with a simple majority, and we were unable to get it. We feel the same way about Levin-Reed. It is a very important policy decision this Senate needs to make. Not to change--I don't know what Cornyn is, but I am sure it is something that is much different than Levin-Reed. Therefore, if there is a suggestion that I amend my unanimous consent request to have some side-by-side, 60-vote margins, I would object to that. I believe we should have in that instance an up- or-down vote. I have no problem giving Senator Cornyn a majority vote, which I think would be very appropriate. I think that is where we need to be on this issue; that is, this issue of the Defense authorization bill. It is very unusual to have on the Defense authorization bill, even issues dealing with Iraq--in times passed, we haven't had a 60- vote margin.

So I would not accept my friend's suggestion that there be side by sides. I renew my request that there be a time for an up-or-down vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. I have suggested 6 hours.

Mr. President, I want to express my apology to my friends because I held them up for a few minutes on their being able to speak. I apologize for that, but they do have a full hour.

Mr. President, my worst fears on this bill, the Defense authorization bill, have been realized. We have just seen the Republican leadership again resort to this technical maneuver to block progress on this crucial amendment. It would be one thing for the minority to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that ``stay the course'' is the right strategy, they have the right to vote no. Now Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on the amendment that could bring this war to a responsible end. They are blocking this like they did the Webb amendment. They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops by denying us an up-or-down, yes-or-no vote on the most important issue our country faces.

So I say through you to my Democratic and Republican colleagues that we are going to work on this amendment until we get an up-or-down vote on it. If that means staying in session--we have no votes, of course, tonight, but if it means staying in session all day tomorrow and all tomorrow night, that is what we will have to do. I will file cloture so that we can have a Wednesday vote, if this continues. I certainly hope during the next few hours and tomorrow that we will have a change of mind so we can have a vote and then move on to the other amendments. The American people deserve an honest debate on this war and deserve an up-or-down vote on this amendment which we believe will bring a responsible end to this intractable war in Iraq.

Mr. President, I have another unanimous-consent request, and this is the one I tried to offer earlier. I ask unanimous consent that if the House further amends H.R. 1 with the text of H.R. 1401 and requests a conference with the Senate, the Senate agree to the request and appoint the same conferees which the Senate has already appointed to H.R. 1.

Mr. President, before my friend from Virginia leaves, I note that 40 percent of the State of Nevada is restricted military airspace--40 percent of it. It is all controlled by the military.

We have Nellis Air Force Base which, as you know, is such a great facility for training our fighter pilots. That is for the Air Force. In the northern part of the State, as you know, we have the Naval Air Training Center, which is for the Navy. If you want to be a Navy pilot, you have to go to Fallon to get your Ph.D. The same as if you are an Air Force pilot, you have to go to Nellis to get your training. It takes so much of Nevada's land to fly over to become the Ph.Ds in fighter training.

I wanted to brag about Nevada a little bit.

You know, the interesting thing, I say to my friend from Virginia, Nellis Air Force Base--when it was started during the Second World War, it was known as the Las Vegas Gunnery School, and then it became Nellis Air Force Base--named after someone from Searchlight, NV, by the way, Bill Nellis--was on the outskirts of Las Vegas. Now it is in the middle of Las Vegas. But the people of Las Vegas support that base. They protect that base. Nobody criticizes an airplane being a little too loud. We love Nellis Air Force Base.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Durbin amendment No. 2252 be withdrawn; that the McConnell amendment No. 2241 be agreed to; and that the Cornyn amendment No. 2100 be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be laid on the table.

Before there is acceptance or rejection, let me say this, Mr. President. We have read the Cornyn amendment. We believe it should have a 50-vote margin, like all other amendments, but we are even willing to go a step further with this amendment. We will just accept it, and that is what the consent is all about. We accept the Cornyn amendment.

Mr. President, we would be happy to revisit this in the morning. We agreed to a reasonable time agreement on this and to have an up-or-down vote. We are in favor of that, a recorded vote. We will take a recorded vote or we will take a voice vote--

whatever the sponsor of the legislation and the Republican leadership wants.

I say, however, that there is an effort to delay this matter. It appears very clear that the purpose of the Republican minority is to obstruct what we are trying to do, and that is complete work on this Defense authorization bill, including an up-or-down vote on Levin-Reed. But I appreciate the opportunity to revisit this in the morning, and I look forward to that.

Mr. President, may I be heard briefly. I so apologize to my friend from Colorado for interrupting his speech. He was gracious. I didn't hear him yielding the floor to recognize me. I thought he was finished. I apologize. This is very typical of the Senator from Colorado to think of others before he thinks of himself. I apologize for not recognizing his courtesy.

Mr. President, we are going to go immediately to the Defense authorization bill. The debate will be on the Dorgan amendment. Senators Dorgan and Sununu will each get 10 minutes to speak this morning. We will vote, I would announce to everyone, as soon as they finish.

There are a number of people who are concerned about the schedule today. If we start to vote early, we will extend the vote for whatever time is appropriate to make sure people have the opportunity to vote. As I indicated earlier this week, the next weeks' work period will be very busy. We should have some late nights and hopefully no weekends, but that is even possible. There will be no votes on Monday.

Mr. President, the Levin-Reed amendment requires the President to take steps to responsibly end the war that the country and our brave men and women in uniform deserve and demand, but it does not set specific troop levels and, certainly, schedules other than what we have already indicated, and that is the House-passed version, similar to ours, 120 days to start redeploying troops; as of April 1, according to the House, and May 1, according to us. There must be a change of mission. That change of mission will be directed toward counterterrorism, protecting our assets in the area, and also training the Iraqis. That is simply what it says.

Senators Carl Levin and Jack Reed are uniquely qualified to offer this amendment. They have been joined in this amendment by others, including Senator Hagel. This amendment sets a firm date and an end date to transition the mission to begin the reduction of U.S. forces. I have talked about that. It limits the U.S. mission.

This policy of the President--it is not Petraeus' policy; it is the President's--has, during the last 6 months, caused the deaths of over 600 more American soldiers and cost the American taxpayers more than $60 billion. The amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, was a step in the right direction. It was defeated. We were not allowed to vote on that. It was offered to give our troops the relief they need--15 months in country, 15 months out of country. That is serious and important to our troops.

Our troops are in a difficult position. We are 3,000 officers short. The morning news reports that 13 percent of recruits, even though they are 15 percent down in recruitments, 13 percent of those they have, even though they have lowered qualifications significantly, 13 percent have criminal records and are going into the military.

Of course, the amendment that is offered by Senators Levin and Reed requires that the reduction in force be part of a comprehensive diplomatic, regional, political, and economic effort.

The votes we have taken on Iraq thus far make two things very clear: First, the Democratic caucus is united in our commitment to changing the course of this Iraq intractable civil war. Our resolve has never been stronger. Second, until and unless the President awakens to his grievous misjudgments, it will take significant Republican support to end the war.

This week's vote on the Webb amendment was not encouraging. The Republican leadership blocked an up-or-down vote on an amendment to support our troops by increasing rest time between deployments. Republicans have every right to vote against bills and amendments they oppose. If they oppose troop readiness, let them go on record voting against it. But to block an amendment like that shows clearly that some Republicans are protecting the President and not the troops. Plenty of Republicans are talking the right way on Iraq now. They are expressing their disapproval for the President's policy, and this is a welcome step. But speeches won't end the war; only votes will.

We have a constitutional obligation. Section 1, article 8 says that we have an obligation to take care of our troops. We have a constitutional obligation. When we return to the Levin-Reed amendment next week, a final vote will come. We hope it is not blocked again procedurally. I hope all my colleagues, Democratic and Republican alike, will embrace this opportunity to finally end a war that has caused our country so much harm.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a full 30 minutes of morning business. I have a brief statement I want to make.

Mr. President, there will be a period of morning business. Once that is closed, the Senate will resume the Defense authorization bill at which time an amendment from the Republican side is expected to be offered. Once we have disposed of the Republican amendment, the next first-degree amendment from the majority side will be the wounded warriors amendment to be offered by Chairman Levin.

I have met with my staff this morning, and they have been meeting with Republican staff on the committee. I have spoken to Senator Warner and Senator McCain. We want this bill to have a full airing. We want people to have the opportunity to offer amendments. We are going to try to work our way through the procedural morass we find when we have a complicated bill, but we hope when we complete this legislation next week, people will feel they have had an opportunity to offer amendments.

We know there are a number of issues relating to Iraq. We want to try to get those up and disposed of. There are some other amendments I know people want to offer, nonrelated amendments, but I hope we can hold back from doing that. We should keep this bill one related to defense. I hope we can do that. There will be other opportunities, as we proceed through legislation, to offer some of the important nonrelated matters.

Let me say a few words about the guest Chaplain. Mr. Zed is a resident of Reno, NV. He serves as director of interfaith relations of the Hindu temple in Reno and is a spokesman for the Indian Association of Northern Nevada. He serves as the Hindu chaplain in northern Nevada and northern California hospitals. He teaches at Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno.

In addition to his tireless work in the Hindu faith, he is also active in the community doing many different activities . He serves on the governing

board of the Northern Nevada International Center, is a member of the Reno Police Chief Advisory Board, and is a member of the Diversity Action Plan Committee of the Washoe County School District.

Mr. Zed was born in India. That is where he studied to become a Hindu chaplain. He holds degrees, including a master's degree from San Jose State University, in mass communications. He has a master's degree in business administration from the University of Nevada Reno.

I have had a long-standing association with the Indian community. I went to college in Logan, UT, Utah State University, a cold, cold place. Brigham Young, when he sent people to colonize the West, had people come back from Cache County to tell him that it couldn't be settled because it froze there every month of the year. Well, that is not quite true, but it freezes all but a couple months of the year. It is a wonderful community and a great university. It has grown a lot since I was there.

I lived off campus. I went there 2 years. I went to a junior college the first 2 years. I lived off campus. I was married. I would drive up that hill to the campus, and walking every day were students. They were Indians, coming from India to the United States to study. Utah State specialized in engineering and agriculture. These young men came from India to study at Utah State University. I would give them rides. I did that for 2 years, put as many in the car as would fit. When it came time to graduate, one of them came to me and said: Could you and Mrs. Reid stay over a day. We would like to do a traditional Indian feast for you.

Well, I am from Searchlight. I didn't know what they were talking about. But we had that traditional Indian feast. Many of them were dressed similar to Mr. Zed. That was an eye opener for me. They had all this Indian food. I am a guy from Searchlight. We like beans and rice and potatoes and, when we were lucky, some round steak. My mother used to pound it so it would be tender and we could eat it. It was unusual food for somebody from Searchlight, but we enjoyed it. It was a lot of fun. They gave us a number of gifts when the feast was over, and it was really a feast. It was all traditional Indian food.

I don't remember all they gave me, but I do remember one item. It is in my office in the Capitol. That was many years ago. We have had five children since then and lots of grandchildren. But it was a little statue of Gandhi, hand carved. It is ivory. It is done so well, you can pull the staff out of his hand. It is done really well. I have protected and saved that all these years. It is in my office. I have always had it there.

The reason I mention that is that if people have any misunderstanding about Indians and Hindus, all they have to do is think of Gandhi. Here is a man who changed the world, a man who believed in peace. We heard the prayer: Peace, peace, peace. If there was ever a time, with this international war on terror that we are fighting now, where people have to understand how important peace is, think of Ghandi, a man who gave his life for peace, a tiny little man in physical stature but a giant in morality. Gandhi is the man that Martin Luther King, Jr., followed. His nonviolence was all based on the teachings of Gandhi. As a result of Gandhi, we had the civil rights movement, led by another man small in stature. Larger than Ghandi, Martin Luther King was not a giant of a man physically, but he was a giant of a man morally, just as Gandhi.

I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing a faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our Heavenly Father regarding peace. I am grateful he is here. I am thankful he was able to offer this prayer of peace in the Capitol. I say to everyone concerned, think of Gandhi. If you have a problem in the world, think what this great man has done to bring peace and nonviolence to a troubled world.

Mr. President, I say through the Chair to my good friend, the distinguished Republican leader, a 60-vote threshold on everything is something that is new as a result of a minority that is forcing us to have cloture on virtually everything we do. If we go back and look at the Defense bill last year, there were no cloture votes except on final passage of the bill. All amendments were simple majorities, and a significant number of them dealt with Iraq. The 60-vote requirement is something that is new and has been brought about by this new minority. It is something we didn't do last year. We shouldn't do it this year.

The Webb amendment is a simple amendment. It says that if you are in country--let's say a soldier is in Iraq for 15 months. He has to come home

and rest for 15 months, train for 15 months. The way it is happening now, they are being rotated very quickly. This isn't the first time this has happened.

The Senate has constitutional authority to act. Take for example the Korean war. We were rushing people over to Korea with inadequate training. Congress stepped in and passed a law saying they needed 120 days of training before they could go to Korea. The Webb amendment is in keeping with what the American people want; that is, to change course in Iraq. This helps do that by dictating that our Guard and Reserve and our Active military have time to come home and retrain and relax before being sent into battle. Statistics show that the second and third and fourth tours of duty are literally deadly. People are getting killed more regularly on the second and third and fourth tours of duty than they are on the first tour for obvious reasons.

The obvious reason, first, is fighting is becoming more fierce, and it is more dangerous in Iraq, but also the soldiers are tired. I called a family in Las Vegas whose son was killed. He went back for his fourth tour of duty and he told everyone there: I won't come back. He didn't. He was killed. That is what this amendment is all about. A simple majority of the Senate should be able to respond to that.