Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007

Floor Speech

SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - August 01, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let us have order in the Senate. May we have order in the Senate, Mr. President.

Why all this consternation about this vote? Were Senators promised they would have a chance to vote? They were. And we did not hold the vote for them. Now, we ought to do what we promised Senators we will do. Shame.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a question?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield for a question.

Mr. GREGG. As one of the most leading Parliamentarians in the history of the Senate, would it be appropriate by unanimous consent to reopen that vote so that the----

Mr. BYRD. May I ask the Senator, what did he say?

Mr. GREGG. I ask the Senator if he feels it is appropriate to reopen the vote so that vote could be reconsidered and Senators could----

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BYRD. What was the Senator's request?

Mr. HATCH. I was requesting that we should consider unanimous consent that their votes be counted.

Mr. BYRD. No, Mr. President, we cannot do that.

Mr. HATCH. I understand.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. We cannot do that. I hope Senators will pay a little more attention.

Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I had the floor, and I yielded to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for yielding.

I was caught in this situation a while back, and I have cast more votes than any Senator in the history of this Republic, and it was called on me. I regretted that.

Sometimes I think we get a little bit too hung up. The Senate is a body in which we talk to one another, we talk with one another, we think about one another, and we think of one another's problems. We can get a little bit too hung up on the time on a vote. A vote is important. The people send me here, the people of West Virginia--who has the floor, Mr. President?

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, you do.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana yielded time to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator from Montana.

Now, the people send me here to vote. That is my right. Of course, I ought to get here, be here on time. But the people expect Robert Byrd--the people of West Virginia expect Robert Byrd--to vote. So let's do not get hung up on 60 seconds or 30 seconds or whatever it is. Let's have a little bit of accommodations to one another.

I hope I am not speaking out of turn. I hope I am not saying too much or making too much of nothing. But I am sent here to vote, and I hope we will accommodate one another. We Democrats ought to accommodate one another, and we ought to accommodate the Republicans, too.

I thank the Senator.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

IRAQ

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it was 122 degrees in Baghdad today. The Iraqi Parliament thinks it is too hot to work and has gone on vacation. Our soldiers don't have that luxury. Our brave men and women continue to patrol the hot streets of Baghdad in full battle gear. They will get no vacation. They continue to risk their lives in the sand and in the heat, supposedly to give the Iraqi politicians ``breathing room'' to build a political consensus. Those politicians are now on vacation.

A majority of Iraqis now say that we are doing more harm than good by staying in their country. Perhaps I should say that again. A majority of Iraqis now say that we are doing more harm than good by staying in their country.

Every day brings more terrible news of American casualties. What has the response from this administration been? ``Wait. Wait. Give us more time.'' Our President has been saying that for the last 4 years, and it is clear that he will keep on saying it for as long as we keep on accepting it. So I am angry. This is my 49th year in the Senate. I believe it is the first time I have said that. I am angry. Every Member of this body should be angry, angry that the Iraqi Government is on vacation while our troops, American troops, U.S. troops--your troops, my troops, our troops--fight and die in their civil war.

Everyone, including General Petraeus, agrees that there is no military solution in Iraq. None. Iraqis will have to make the hard political compromises necessary to force a national consensus. Nothing the U.S. military does can force them to make those compromises. But, rather than work to craft a political solution, the Iraqi Government decided to take the entire month of August off.

And where has our Congress been? I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has once again failed to have a real debate on the issue of the war in Iraq. There is no issue currently facing our Nation that more deserves the attention of this body, and yet we continue to have empty procedural votes instead of passing legislation that would mandate a change of course, as a large majority of Americans want. We are, in fact, charged by the Constitution to have that debate, and yet we wait. ``Wait until September,'' the critics say. ``Wait until the new report.'' How many reports must this Congress read before we see the handwriting on the wall? I, for one, am tired of waiting. The American people are tired of waiting. Our brave soldiers and their families are tired of waiting.

The President and his supporters in Congress are fond of painting a picture of what would happen following a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and they paint with a pallet of fear. But their picture is not reality. It is easy to win an argument against a straw man, but we are not calling for a precipitous withdrawal. The proposal that 53 Senators voted in favor of recently called for a phased redeployment of troops to focus on the threats that truly face us, not a hasty and radical complete pullout.

I opposed this terrible war from its beginning, but I recognize we are there now and some actions can't be so simply undone. Our first priority must be that of protecting U.S. interests, and the simple truth is that we do have vital interests in the region. The question is how to best protect those interests.

The President of the United States, President Bush--and I say this most respectfully--the President says that al-Qaida wins if we leave and that if we pull out the terrorists will follow us home. Let me say that again. The President says that al-Qaida wins if we leave and that if we pull out the terrorists will follow us home. Al-Qaida is our enemy, but are we really defeating them by trying to referee a sectarian civil war between Shia and Sunni that has been going on for over 1000 years? The President's own advisers now admit that al-Qaida is as strong today as it was before 9/11.

Al-Qaida is resurgent in Pakistan and Afghanistan. When the President of the United States took his eye off the ball and diverted our national attention from Osama bin Laden and his terrorist training operation in Afghanistan, the President dealt the security of the people, the American people, a major blow.

Iraq did not attack the United States on 9/11. No Iraqi, not one--not one--was involved in those attacks. Al-Qaida may now be in Iraq. But it was not there before we went in and handed them a new training ground for fresh recruits.

More importantly, al-Qaida is not the core of the problem in Iraq. Al-Qaida is not the core of the problem in Iraq, no matter how often the President says that it is. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said recently that al-Qaida was only 10 percent of the problem in Iraq. The real problem in Iraq is not al-Qaida, the real problem is the multiple civil wars that are raging: Shiia versus Sunni, Shiia versus Shiia, Sunni versus Kurds.

The argument that if we lose in Iraq, they will follow us here is pure hogwash. Nonsense. Did you hear me? I say, did you hear me? Let me say it again. The argument that if we lose in Iraq, they will follow us here is pure hogwash. H-o-g-w-a-s-h. Hogwash.

I have heard that time and time again. If we lose in Iraq, they will follow us here. That is absolutely hogwash. Nonsense. What is keeping terrorists from coming here now? Tell me. So we heard the argument: If we lose in Iraq, they will follow us here. Well, what is keeping the terrorists from coming here now? Certainly not the fact that our military is in Iraq. Our military was not in Iraq when hijackers with box cutters flew planes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Have we such short memories? I saw those planes attack the World Trade Center. I have not forgotten it.

Keeping our troops in Iraq is not what is going to keep a terrorist attack from happening again. So I repeat that. Keeping our troops in Iraq is not what is going to keep a terrorist attack from happening again. The real threat, the real threat, the real threat is in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as the President's own advisers admit.

Principled people in this country, let me say that again, principled people--in other words, people of principle in this country and in the Congress are calling for a change in strategy, not because they are weak, not because they are scared, not because they are callously political, they are calling for a change because it has become patently obvious that what we are doing is not making us safer, it is making us less safe.

They are calling for a change because it has become patently--p-a-t-e-n-t-l-y--obvious that what we are doing is not making us safer, it is making us less safe.

Now, as U.S. officials absolutely wake up to the resurgence of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and urge President Musharraf's Government to crack down in Pakistan, we confront great anger in the region. I think that statement is entitled to a rehearing.

Now, as U.S. officials slowly wake up to the resurgence of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and urge President Musharraf's Government to crack down in Pakistan, we confront great anger in the region.

Our continuing occupation of Iraq has damaged our credibility and aroused suspicions about the depth of the U.S. commitment to the sovereignty of other nations. There is a lesson here. It is this: If you are marching in the wrong direction or if you are fighting the wrong fight, unflinching persistence is not a sign of strength, it is a sign of stupidity.

If you are marching in the wrong direction or fighting the wrong fight, unflinching persistence is not a sign of strength, it is a sign of stupidity. Yet amazingly we hear plans of continuing for 2 more years our pointless, senseless occupation in Iraq.

I said it was wrong in the beginning. It was wrong from the start. It amazes me when we hear plans of continuing for 2 more years our pointless, costly, senseless occupation in Iraq.

The seas are rising and our present course is headed for an iceberg. Turn around. Turn around, Mr. President. Turn around.

I yield the floor.

Source