National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

Floor Speech

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 -- (Senate - July 16, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his hard work with the Senator from Michigan in preparing this bill on Defense authorization.

With all due respect to the minority leader, the statement he made on the floor earlier is not accurate. The Republican minority leader said, on issues relating to Iraq, we have required 60 votes. I remind the Republican minority leader that the vote on the timetable on the supplemental appropriations bill was a simple majority vote. It was not a 60-vote threshold. The most important Iraq vote of the year did not require 60 votes on the floor of the Senate. It passed the Senate with a bipartisan rollcall, with 51 or 52 Members supporting it, and it was sent to President Bush for one of his only three vetoes since he was elected President. I am sure the minority leader from Kentucky remembers that it was not a 60-vote requirement.

Now, let's look at the Defense authorization bill here--at the history of the Defense authorization bill. Once again, I ask the minority leader from Kentucky to please look at the record. What he said earlier on the floor is not accurate.

In the last debate on the Defense authorization bill, there were two Iraq amendments offered. One was by Senators LEVIN and REED and another by Senator Kerry. Both related to the war in Iraq, and both required only a majority vote.

The Senator from Kentucky has not accurately portrayed what occurred on the floor of the Senate either with our supplemental appropriations bill or the previous Defense authorization bill. Now, for those who are following this debate and wondering: Why are you worried about how many votes are required, this is what the Senate is all about. The question is, Will this Senate speak on the issue of the policy on the war in Iraq?

The Senator from Kentucky understands--because he has been a veteran of this body--that he does not have a majority of the Senators supporting his position or the position of President Bush. So he started this debate by saying we won't allow a majority vote. It will take 60 votes--60 percent of the Senate--to change the policy on the war in Iraq. The Senator from Kentucky is betting that he can hold enough Republican Senators back from voting for a change in policy on the war in Iraq to defeat our efforts to start bringing our soldiers home. That is his procedural approach. He has stood by it. But he should confess it for what it is. It is a departure from where we have been on the debate on Iraq, on the supplemental appropriations bill, and on the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, it is unfortunate, and it is wrong. It is wrong to require 60 percent of this body to vote this way if, traditionally, on the war in Iraq we have required only a simple majority. I suppose it is encouraging to us that more than 60 percent of the American people get it. They understand how failed this policy has been of the Bush administration--the policy being supported by the minority leader of the Senate. They understand that. They want us to do something about it. But the Senator from Kentucky has thrown this obstacle in our path. He created this procedural roadblock. He has filibustered--starting a filibuster to stop the debate on the war in Iraq.

I have been here for a few years, and I have not seen a full-throated, fully implemented filibuster that you might have recalled from ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' when Jimmy Stewart stood at his desk, until he crumpled in exhaustion, filibustering a bill to stop it. Over the years, our gentility has led us to a different kind of filibuster. It is a filibuster in name only, where one side says we are going to keep this debate going on indefinitely, and the other side says we are going to bring it to a close with a motion for cloture, and we will see you in 30 hours; have a nice time we will see you tomorrow morning.

We are going to change that procedure this week. Since the Republican side has decided they want to filibuster our effort to debate the war policy on Iraq, we have decided on the Democratic side that we are going to have a real filibuster. One of the critics of this recently called it a stunt that we would stay in session--a stunt that we would have a sleepless night for Senators, a stunt that we would inconvenience Senators and staff, the press, and those who follow the proceedings. I don't think it is a stunt. I think it reflects the reality of this war.

How many sleepless nights have our soldiers and their families spent waiting to find out whether they will come home alive? How many sleepless nights have they spent praying that after the second and third redeployment their soldier will still have the courage and strength to beat back the enemy and come home to their family? It is about time for the Senate to spend at least one sleepless night. Maybe it is only a symbol, but it is an important symbol for the soldiers and their families. It really goes to the nature of sacrifice.

I guess I was raised as a little boy reading about World War II and remembering the Korean war when my two brothers served. There was a sense of national commitment in those wars. People back home, as well as those on the front, believed they were in it together. Sacrifices had to be made, your daily living habits, the kinds of things you could buy, and ration cards and buying U.S. savings bonds. America was one united Nation in those wars. We accepted that shared sacrifice, and we were better for it. But during this war, sad to say, this President has not summoned that same spirit of sacrifice. He basically told us that this war can be waged without inconveniencing the lives of most Americans.

Our soldiers go through more than inconvenience. They go through hardship and deprivation. Many face injury and death in serving our country. But for most of us, life goes on as normal. This President hasn't asked great sacrifice from the American people.

When I visited Iraq, it was not uncommon to have a marine or soldier say to me over lunch: Does anybody know what is going on over here? Does anybody know what we are up against? It is a legitimate question. We focus on these superficial stories in the press that don't mean a thing and forget the obvious.

The obvious is this: Every month we are losing American lives; about 100 American soldiers die each month in this war in Iraq, and 1,000 are seriously injured. We spend $12 billion each month. That is the reality.

I know there is frustration by the soldiers and their families that we are not paying close enough attention. But the American people understand that this failed policy from the Bush administration has to come to an end. Wasn't it interesting over the weekend when the Prime Minister of Iraq invited us to leave, and said: You can take off anytime you would like, America. We will take care of our own problems. Prime Minister al-Maliki, the man we helped to bring to office, whom we hoped would show the leadership in Iraq for its future, asked America to pick up and go whenever we would like to.

What do the Iraqi people think about our presence? Well, 69 percent of them say our presence in Iraq today, with our troops, makes it more dangerous to live there. More than 2 million of those soldiers, of those Iraqis, have left that country as refugees. Millions have been displaced from their homes. Thousands--we don't even know the number--have been injured and killed. They want us to leave--this occupation Army of Americans.

What do the American people think about this occupation in Iraq? They want it to end as well. They don't see any end in sight. They don't hear from this President the kinds of strategy or direction that leads them to believe that this will end well or end soon. They want our troops to start coming home. I agree with them. I don't believe the Iraqis will accept responsibility for their own country until we start leaving. If the Iraqis know that every time there is a problem, they can dial 9-1-1 and bring on 20,000 of our best and bravest soldiers to quell the violence on their streets, what kind of incentive is that for them to protect their own country and make the critical political decisions which may lead one day to stability?

I look at this Cornyn amendment just filed. I respect my colleague from Texas, but I tell you, he is asking for too much. He is asking the United States to stay in Iraq to make certain that it succeeds. How long is that going to be? How long will that go on?

There are three battles going on in Iraq today: First, who is in charge? The Sunnis, Shia, Sadr militia, al-Qaida, or some other force? The Kurds also have to be part of the equation. That battle goes on every day on the floor of the Parliament in Iraq as they try to decide who is going to try to govern their country.

There is a second battle going on as well. It is a battle as to whether Iraq is going to be a nation. The Cornyn amendment assumes, and many people assume, that Iraq has been a nation forever. It has not. Certainly, in the depths of history, you can find Mesopotamia. We all read about it in the earliest civilizations, and about the Tigris and Euphrates. But Iraq, as we know it today, was the creation of British diplomats after World War I who sat down with a map and said the French can take Lebanon, bring in the Shia and Sunni--on and on, creating countries out of whole cloth at the end of a war, dividing up the soils of the Middle East. That was the creation of Iraq as we know it. It has not been in existence that long--not one century.

Iraq has to decide whether there is more that binds them than divides them. They have to decide whether the Kurds, Sunni, and Shia of this location want to come together as a nation to share in governance, in revenue, and to share in their future. That is an ongoing debate in Iraq today.

There is a third debate in Iraq today that is even deeper in history. It is a debate between warring Islamic factions that has been going on for 14 centuries. Ever since the death of the great prophet Mohammed, Islamic people have argued over his rightful heirs--one branch of the Sunni religion of Muslims or one in the Shia--and they came to different conclusions. They have not resolved that. Often, that difference of opinion has erupted into violence, which we see today on the streets of Iraq.

So Senator Cornyn files an amendment that says the United States should stay there with its forces until they resolve these three problems: Who is going to govern, whether there will be a nation, and this Islamic division. Is that what we bargained for when the President asked us to invade Iraq? It
certainly is not. Not one of those things was included in the President's request for the authorization of force in Iraq.

Do you remember why President Bush told us we had to invade Iraq? Saddam Hussein--a tyrant killing his own people--was a threat to the region and to his own country. Saddam Hussein is gone, dug out of a hole in the ground, put on trial by his own people, and executed.

The second reason the President said we had to invade Iraq was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Well, we have been looking for 4 1/2 years, Mr. President, for weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot find one. So that reason for the invasion of American forces is long gone. And the final, of course, was to protect any threat of Iraq to America's security. I can tell you that after Saddam Hussein was deposed and dispatched quickly by our fine military, and when weapons of mass destruction were not found, Iraq was no threat to the United States.

Now comes the new Republican rationale, the Cornyn-McConnell rationale: We need to stay in Iraq until they resolve century-old battles over the Islamic religion. We need to stay in Iraq until they decide whether they want to come together as a nation. We need to stay in Iraq until the Parliament decides to roll up its sleeves and make important political decisions about their future. Just how long will that be? How many American soldiers will be called into action for those goals? How many times will Congress be called on to vote for authorization of force to reach these objectives?

They have told us what it is all about. From the point of view of the Bush administration and their supporters on the Republican side of the aisle, there is no end in sight in our occupation of Iraq. They would have us stay there for a long time. The American people know better. They understand the sacrifices we have made.

The President likes to define this in terms of victory and defeat, saying if we start bringing American troops home, somehow, in his mind, that is a defeat. I say to the President, there are several things he should consider. We were not defeated when we deposed Saddam Hussein. We were successful. We were not defeated when we scoured that country and found no weapons of mass destruction. We were successful. We were not defeated when we gave the Iraqi people a chance for the first free election in their history. We were successful. We were not defeated when they were allowed to form their own Government to plan for their own future. We were successful. We certainly have not been defeated day to day with the courage of our men and women in uniform.

I hear an argument from time to time as well: If our troops start coming home now and things go badly in Iraq, those who have served and sacrificed and even those who have died will have done so in vain. I couldn't disagree more. History has taught us a very basic lesson. The test of courage of a soldier is not to be measured by the wisdom of Presidents and generals to send them into battle. Presidents and generals make serious mistakes. They send troops into battle where they have no chance to win. But those soldiers do their duty. They show heroism, courage, and valor, and no one--no one--can take that away from them.

This political debate about the wisdom of the President's foreign policy has reached a point where we have a number of amendments on the floor. The Republican leadership has established hurdles and blockades--everything they can find--to stop us from a vote that reflects the feelings of the American people. Mr. President, you know why? They are afraid of what the American people want. They are afraid the American people may prevail. So they have dreamed up this procedural requirement of 60 votes, a requirement that did not take place on the Iraq amendments on previous Defense authorization bills, a requirement that did not take place when it came to our supplemental.

We have offered them: Let's have a majority vote. Let's speak as a Senate to this issue seriously, an up-or-down vote on our amendment, an up-or-down vote on their amendment. They rejected it. Sixty votes--they have it wired. They have it figured out. There is one thing they don't have figured out and that is how they are going to go home and explain this situation, how will these Senators go back to their States after they have told their people they are giving up on the President's policy in Iraq and explain why they didn't support the only amendment that will seriously change our policy in Iraq?

I don't think they can. They can talk about supporting other amendments. There is only one amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, and the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, that puts a timetable to bring this war to a close that doesn't ask the President to consider our point of view but says we will use our congressional powers to require of the President a change in policy. Only one vote. Every other vote these Senators may cast, they are going to say: Oh, I told you I disagreed with the President and that is why I voted this way.

Let me tell you, they don't stand the test of scrutiny. Look carefully at those amendments. See if they require of the President a change in policy. See if they bring one American soldier safely home. If they don't, then they don't achieve the goals the American people expect of us.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. First, I wish to express my thinking and feelings about the Senator from Virginia, whom I respect very much, who served our country so well in so many capacities. He is the longest serving Senator from the State of Virginia in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. WARNER. One other, Mr. President, was a bit longer. I am No. 2, kind of like the Senator from Illinois, No. 2.

Mr. DURBIN. Second longest in the history of the State of Virginia and who has been a constructive partner in our efforts to deal with this issue of Iraq. Even before other Senators on his side of the aisle questioned, spoke out, he was there, and I respect him very much for that effort.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia that the Levin-Reed amendment is conscious of the very first point he made, saying that even redeploying troops, we would reserve the right to use our soldiers, use our troops to stop the expansion of al-Qaida. So we are not walking away from that threat.

Al-Qaida, as the Senator from Virginia knows, were the real culprits on 9/11. They are the ones who are sworn enemies of the United States and in what we believe. I don't believe any Senator on my side, in the Levin-Reed amendment or otherwise, has suggested we would not continue to work to stop the advance of al-Qaida and its evil scheme.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think the Senator is accurate. I have studied the Levin amendment. I am opposed to it because of the fixed timetables. But let's proceed to the second one. I think we have covered the first, and I find it very helpful.

The second finding:

The Iraq Study Group report found that ``[a] chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally.''

To me that seems to have some basis in fact. Does the Senator agree with that?

Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Virginia in response, at some point, the Iraqis have to take control of their country, their territory, and their future. It is certainly not in their best interest, if they want to develop, for example, an oil industry that is going to fuel their economy and improve the lives of the people, to allow terrorist groups to run without restraint.

So, yes, I think that is a concern they should have as a nation, and that is why the second part of the Levin-Reed amendment is so important. We reserve the right for American forces to help train and equip the Iraqi soldiers, Army, and police.

Fighting terrorism, we now see most often is a military function, but I think historically it has been a police function. Regardless of which, we reserve in the Levin-Reed amendment the right for America to continue to invest in the Iraqi Army and police force, for that very reason, so there is internal stability in Iraq, even as our combat forces are removed.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I appreciate that answer. I think there is a provision--as a matter of fact, the amendment Senator Lugar and I filed has very much the same language in it. Let's proceed to No. 3.

The Iraq Study Group noted that ``Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world.''

That concerns me. I think there is some truth to that statement.

Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Virginia served on the Intelligence Committee, as I did for 4 years. I think he served longer. He will recall we were told by our intelligence agencies that our invasion of Iraq has led to an emergence of al-Qaida terrorism in that country. Sadly, these terrorists are taking their training by trying to kill American soldiers and those who support us.

So my feeling is that the current strategy we have been using, unfortunately, is fueling this growth in terrorism, growth in al-Qaida, the presence of all these combat troops.

I sincerely believe we have to understand that fighting al-Qaida, fighting terrorism is still a high priority. This administration was diverted from our first priority.

The Senator from Virginia may remember that after 9/11, within days, the President came to the Senate and asked us to declare war on al-Qaida and those responsible for 9/11. The vote was unanimous. Every Senator voted in favor of that request, both political parties. Those were sworn enemies of the United States who had killed 3,000 innocent people. But we lost sight of that goal. Instead of focusing on Afghanistan, the Taliban, and al-Qaida, we were diverted into Iraq.

I say to the Senator from Virginia, as we start bringing combat soldiers out of Iraq, I don't believe we should walk away from our responsibility in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban, working on the border with Pakistan to try to make sure the growth of al-Qaida is stopped.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator most respectfully, I know no one over here who wants to try to do a precipitous withdrawal or lessen our efforts against al-Qaida. As a matter of fact, we want to reinforce our efforts against al-Qaida. We can go back and argue the numerical presence of al-Qaida at the time we went in. I do recall that very vividly and conducted many hearings in the Armed Services Committee. Al-Qaida was not high on the scope. There was mention of it. We have to deal with the facts that exist now, and it is clear, for whatever reason, they are now in that area in significant numbers larger than when we went in. I, personally, feel it is not as a consequence of our military action thus far. They simply see the terrific divisions between the Sunni culture and the culture of the Shia, and they are trying to foment among those two venerable religious cultures as much fighting as they possibly can. I think we both have to agree, to that extent, they have been successful.

Clearly, al-Qaida has as its main goal, at such time as possible, to bring about further harm to the United States of America. There is no doubt in my mind, and I am sure there is no doubt in the mind of the Senator from Illinois. So I think anything that is portrayed as a failure of our commitment in Iraq could be utilized, as I said, for recruitment of their troops, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere in the world.

Mr. DURBIN. May I say to the Senator from Virginia in response that I believe--and I think the Levin-Reed amendment addresses this in section 3--we also should be thinking beyond the parameters of our current discussion about military prisons and about other nations in the region. I am sure the Senator from Virginia is going to bring that up, too, as part of it.

It strikes me at this point in time that other nations in the region interested in stability in their own countries and stability overall have not accepted or shouldered the responsibility they should. Whether it is the Arab League or some other group, they need to step forward and say that the territorial integrity of Iraq, the stability of Iraq is in the best interests of the region. I don't think they are going to do that as long as the U.S. presence is so overwhelming, as long as we are the issue. If the issue is Iraq and its future, I think it is more likely these countries will step forward, and this Levin-Reed amendment makes that point.

What we are talking about is a comprehensive strategy to deal with the future of Iraq.

Mr. WARNER. But I say, in response to my distinguished colleague, it is for that very reason the President is dispatching the Secretaries of State and Defense into that region, to bring that point very clearly, this problem which is being experienced in Iraq. And when I say ``experienced,'' I mean devastating loss of life of Iraqi citizens, considerable loss of life of our own forces, and loss of limb. That is something which every Senator on both sides of the aisle is concerned with daily. But thus far, the bordering nations certainly have not stepped up, in my estimation, to take a constructive role. If anything, we have, in Syria and Iran, pretty convincing evidence that they are taking steps antithetical to bringing about a resolution of some sort of peace and stability in Iraq.

Mr. DURBIN. I might say, in response to the Senator from Virginia, that I don't recall the exact vote, but when Senator Lieberman offered an amendment to this bill last week relating to Iran, the vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan. We agree with that. How do you contain Iran? How do you stop Iraq from becoming an Iranian client state?

There is so much we can do, but the region has to respond. The Senator from Virginia knows as well as I do that there is division within the Islamic religion and that the Sunni faction or element is the most dominant in that region and around the world.

Mr. WARNER. By far. I think it has been 90 percent----

Mr. DURBIN. An overwhelming percentage.

Mr. WARNER.--are associated with the Sunni perspective versus about 10 or less percent the Shia.

Mr. DURBIN. So it does not seem to be in the best interest of other Islamic states to see the development of a Shia force that combines Iraq and Iran. So my feeling is, again either through the United Nations, through NATO, through other groups, but trying to make this a much more inclusive effort, that we have a much better chance.

The problem is clear: As long as it is the United States dominating the agenda in Iraq, it is an obstacle for other countries to get involved. I salute the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State for their efforts, but I think we have complicated the situation dramatically with the length of this war and the visibility of the United States as the lead force in this invasion.

Mr. WARNER. We have to decide on the facts as they exist now, and I think our Government has. But even in the recent words of the President, he wants to intensify the participation of other nations in this situation.

My colleague, Senator Lugar, in preparing our amendment--and he is quite expert in this area--has a considerable portion of our amendment--again, a sense of the Senate--directed at steps our country could be taking to augment those steps already taken. He recently met with the Secretary of State. They had a discussion here a few days ago, prior to our entering the amendment on this very matter. So we are moving forward.

I think my colleague and I have no difference on the need to involve the border states and other Muslim countries of responsibility.

Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Virginia, he used some words which I think tell part of the story here when he said his amendment with Senator Lugar is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. He is a veteran lawmaker and knows a sense-of-the-Senate resolution does not have the power of law. It is to suggest policy changes to the administration. The difference with Levin-Reed, if I am not mistaken, is we are dealing with legislative language. We are actually changing the law of the land when it comes to our forces in Iraq. That is significantly different. This is self-enforcing, the Levin-Reed amendment. Sense-of-the-Senate resolutions, either by Senator Lugar or Senator Cornyn notwithstanding, will not change the policy. They do not have the binding impact of law as the Levin-Reed amendment does.

Mr. WARNER. We have to always monitor ourselves with the Constitution of the United States, and it explicitly gives to the President the power as Commander in Chief to direct our forces and to employ such strategy as he deems necessary to defend the security interests of our country. That is my concern with my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, and he and I have worked here in this Chamber now in our 29th year, for those following this debate. My concern is that Congress become involved in military strategy and writing into law precisely what is done. I think that is crossing a constitutional issue.

I would like to continue with my colleague.

Mr. DURBIN. I might just say that I am glad my colleague from West Virginia is not on the floor because I don't have my Constitution in my pocket. But certainly article I, section 8--thank you, Senator, for covering for me here--says--if the Senator from Virginia will bear with me for just one moment.

Mr. WARNER. I know the provision quite well. It is on the regulation.

Mr. DURBIN. To raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, provide for militia, to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed--there may be another section here I am overlooking.

Mr. WARNER. I think you have about got it, if I may say.

Mr. DURBIN. Within the powers of Congress, we are not silent when it comes to the conduct of our military in this country.

Mr. WARNER. No, we are on a coequal basis, as the Senator well knows.

Mr. DURBIN. To make rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

Mr. WARNER. Well, I remember on this floor and my distinguished colleague from Michigan remembers when Senator Byrd argued very persuasively about certain aspects of the famous War Powers Act. Now, if we bring all of that history into this debate, and it may well be that we should do that, the reason that subject was carefully considered by the Senate, passed, and became law many years ago--each President has acknowledged that in spirit they are complying with the directions of the Congress, but they do not want it put into law.

Mr. DURBIN. May I ask the Senator from Virginia, and I know this is not following the exact process of our Senate rules, but I would ask him if he would address a point I made earlier; that the authorization for the use of force which President George W. Bush brought before us in October 2002 was explicit in the reasons for our invasion of Iraq--the threat of Saddam Hussein, the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and any threat of that nation to the security of the United States. Does the Senator from Virginia believe that authorization of the use of force applies to the current circumstance in Iraq today?

Mr. WARNER. Well, I was going to speak on that later tonight when I address my colleagues and point to the Congressional Record today, which contains the amendment by Senator Lugar and myself. But, essentially, we bring to the attention of the Senate and provide the following language for the President, if I may read it, on page S 9224 of Friday's Congressional Record, in our section:

The findings that supported H.J. Res. 114, Public Law 107-243, which was enacted in 2002 and which authorized the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States against Iraq, require review and revision.

So, Senator, I have gone on record, together with my colleague, Senator Lugar, that this is necessary, and we further call on the President--and I read the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield, I would like to ask a very pointed question. And I think I know the answer, but I want to get his opinion. Does the Senator from Virginia believe that today this administration is using military force in Iraq beyond the scope of our authorization for the use of force in October of 2002?

Mr. WARNER. I think the President can still act within that language right there--defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. The Government of Iraq that existed at the time this was written is gone; that was Saddam Hussein. There is a new government there. But they, unfortunately, have not exercised the full control, the full reins of sovereignty that the people of Iraq, voting freely, have given them. We set up the structure, the infrastructure that enabled those votes to take place, and we gave them a measure of security so that they could go to the polls and vote. But, in my judgment, this language still underpins the President's actions.

I would remind the Senator, in a way, each authorization act of the armed services, since enactment of this law, in a sense de facto confirms the President's authority that he is exercising under it. We never challenged him in a single--I think I counted up 4 authorization bills and probably 10 different appropriations bills that have been passed authorizing the President to use these funds.

Again, it is sort of de facto recognition that the language still stands. But my thought is that the American people, the world is entitled to Congress addressing it and, hopefully, we can resolve it and put down in greater detail the authority that the Congress wishes to give the President as he moves forward, having hopefully given the Congress the benefit of such revisions in policy as he deems necessary in early October this year.

Mr. DURBIN. I might say to the Senator from Virginia, I am going to yield because I wish to allow the Senator from Michigan, if he wishes, to continue this colloquy. But I wish to say what the Senator from Virginia has said is troubling to me as an individual Senator in this regard. I was one of 23 Senators who voted against the authorization of the use of force in Iraq. I believed it was wrong. My position did not prevail.

Mr. WARNER. That is this bill we are discussing became law.

Mr. DURBIN. The majority position in the Senate at that time, even the majority position on my side of the aisle, voted for the authorization of force.

I had believed, and this goes back to earlier service in the House, that once Congress has spoken before the Nation, we move forward together. That is why I have supported the appropriations necessary for the forces in the field, even though I disagree with the policy and voted against the authorization of force. I have always believed they deserve to have the training, the equipment, whatever is necessary, to come home safely.

I would say to the Senator from Virginia, his observation a moment ago is troubling. I don't wish to put words in his mouth, but when I asked whether we were asking beyond the scope of the original authorization, the Senator from Virginia said that with each subsequent Defense authorization bill and appropriations bill, we were reauthorizing. I use that word, but I don't want to presume the Senator said that word. That is how I interpret it.

Mr. WARNER. I said those words. I stand by those words. I said ``de facto'' because there was every available means in the course of the debate on our authorizations bill for colleagues to come and challenge this. No one did.

As a matter of fact, the first reference to this occurred when I was chairman of the committee and I remember, it was last fall--I think it was General Abizaid, I asked him about this very provision. It is in the RECORD. I said I was concerned about whether there was an obligation of Congress to go back and review this language and determine whether it comports with the various missions he was performing at the direction of the President.

I can't recall exactly what his responses were. But I did raise this. That is the very reason I asked Senator Lugar to join me in raising it again. I think it is incumbent upon the Congress to debate it. But we certainly have passed by and legislated many times, with full knowledge that this is the basis on which the funds we have appropriated are being utilized for the forces.

Mr. DURBIN. I might say to the Senator from Virginia, I have been asked to file a motion, which I am going to do at this time. I will send this to the desk.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we will go off the colloquy for that purpose?

AMENDMENT NO. 2252 TO AMENDMENT NO. 2241

Mr. DURBIN. Yes. I send an amendment to the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source