Mr. Levin: Mr. President, relative to the conference report that is before the Senate, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill includes $95 billion for the Department of Defense, primarily to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is approximately $4 billion more than the President requested for the Department of Defense, including $2.2 billion above the President's request for health care for our service men and women and their families.
When the military forces are in harm's way, it is our solemn duty to provide the equipment they need and the health care they deserve, and we are meeting that duty with this bill. We also owe it to our troops to give them the best chance to succeed. In the case of Iraq, a majority of the Members of the Congress and a majority of Americans believe a change in course in Iraq will provide the best chance of success. That is at the heart of the debate here in Washington.
There is at least a broad, if not universal, consensus that the war in Iraq will not be won militarily and that a political settlement by the Iraqi leaders is required to end the sectarian violence and defeat the insurgency. General Petraeus made that point in a press conference in Baghdad on March 8 when he said:
Any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like Iraq.
Iraq's own Prime Minister Maliki noted 5 months ago that:
The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the [Iraqi] politicians.
The debate, then, is how best to bring about the political settlement that must take place. There are some who say security, particularly in Baghdad, is the key, and if Baghdad can be made secure, the Iraqi politicians will have breathing room to reach the agreements and pass the legislation that will lead to reconciliation.
Others, including this Senator, believe the Iraqis must be pressured to take responsibility for their own future, and the best way to do that is to convince them our military presence is not open-ended.
The emergency supplemental before us is designed to do just that. It forces the Iraqi leaders to take responsibility for their own country by ending the open-ended commitment to provide a U.S. security blanket. Instead, it would require the beginning of a partial reduction of U.S. troops, leaving time for the Iraqis to make the political compromises they promised to make months ago.
The bill calls for a change in mission for our forces in Iraq, from policing a civil war to a limited support mission, so that the Iraqis can finally realize our military presence in Iraq is not open-ended; that the future of their country is in their hands, not ours.
The present course in Iraq is failing. The Iraqis are no closer to political reconciliation today than they were when the surge began. Instead of Prime Minister Maliki's government becoming stronger, it appears it is weaker. Disagreements in the Government have prevented proposals for debaathification and oil revenue sharing legislation from even being forwarded to the Council of Representatives for consideration.
The committee considering amendments to the Iraqi constitution appears to be as far from completing its work as it has always been. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Assembly is apparently planning to go on a 2-month recess at the end of June. Now, let me repeat that since it is so unbelievable. The Iraqi Council of Representatives is apparently planning to go on a 2-month recess at the end of June.
Incredibly enough, a man named Hasan Suneid, who is a lawmaker and the adviser to Prime Minister Maliki, was quoted in the paper the other day as saying, "Time is irrelevant."
Well, time is plenty relevant to us, to our troops, and to their families. Baghdad is burning while the politicians in Iraq avoid responsibility for their own country's future. Even the detonation of a suicide bomb within the Green Zone killing Iraqi parliamentarians has failed to change the political situation. It appears the Iraqi factions are content to seek vengeance rather than reconciliation.
Senior administration officials, including Secretary Gates, Secretary Rice, and Ambassador Khalilzad have, in fact, wisely used this debate in Congress in an attempt to pressure the Iraqis to achieve political reconciliation.
Secretary Gates said the week before last in Jordan:
The debate in Congress has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited. The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact … in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that it is not an open-ended commitment.
Secretary Gates told a press conference just last Thursday:
I think one of the ancillary benefits of the debate on the Hill is that the Iraqis have to know that this isn't an open- ended commitment. The President has said that our patience is not unlimited. I don't think we've been very stubborn in communicating these messages to the Iraqis.
That is what Secretary Gates said: "I don't think we've been very stubborn in communicating these messages to the Iraqis" that our patience is not unlimited. Well, we need to change course in Iraq. We need to stubbornly communicate our message to the Iraqis. Voting for this bill will help to send that message.
I yield the floor.
