Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan for his suggestions. I believe that federalism and the creation of federal regions would be in the best interest of the Iraqi people and holds great promise for a political settlement among the Iraqi political leadership. I know that my friend is particularly concerned about the opposition of the Sunni community to the constitution. I agree with him that, at, the time of adoption of the constitution, the Sunnis were opposed to many aspects of it including those provisions relating to federalism among others. But in my last visit to Iraq, my conversations with key Sunni leaders reveals a sea change in thinking. There is a growing recognition by the Sunni leadership that Sunnis will not get a fair shake if they are at the mercy of a strong central government controlled by their rivals in the Islamist Shiacamp. One key leader told me that he now understands that federalism is the best option for the Sunnis. Nonetheless, it is not my intention to forego the possibility that the Iraqi Constitutional Review Commission may recommend changes to their constitution nor that the United States should seek to impose a settlement on the Iraqis. I would note, however, at in the last draft proposed by the commission on May 23, 2007, none of the proposed changes would revoke any of the provisions of the constitution which permit the creation of federal regions. However, in deference to the Senator's concerns, I have amended the language to account for the possibility of the issue of regions being reopened by the Iraqis. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, before I do that, I would like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts----

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I see the chairman has risen. Does he wish to speak?

Mr. BIDEN. That is correct.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand. The Senator is correct; I was under a misimpression. As I understand it, for our colleagues here--and I say to my colleague from Michigan, the chairman, I understand it would accommodate other Senators if we were to set a time certain to vote tomorrow morning on this amendment and, I guess, I don't know, the Lieberman amendment--Lieberman/Kyl. I don't know that. But if it is at all possible, I know it should not be a consideration of the Senate and obviously whatever the Senate's will I would abide by it, but it would be very helpful to me as a practical matter--there are these pesky little Presidential debates that intervene and there is one tomorrow in New Hampshire. If it accommodates the body I would be delighted to do it this evening, but if we could consider doing it at 10 o'clock in the morning, it would be very much appreciated by the Senator from Delaware--if that is possible.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am happy to do that. I see the former distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee is on the floor. Let me say at the outset how much I appreciate both him and the chairman of the committee for making some very constructive suggestions as to how to amend my amendment. At the appropriate time, I will call up the amendment and move for its modification. But I want to, at the outset, tell the Senator from Virginia how much I appreciate his leadership. The truth is, he and I had a fairly extensive colloquy on the floor last week on this amendment. True to his word, the Senator said he was going to take a look at this amendment, he was seriously interested in it, and he wanted to look at it. As is always the case with the Senator from Virginia, he kept his word. He not only kept his word, but he improved what Senator Brownback and I and Senator Boxer and others had come forward with. Again, at the appropriate time, I will move to amend Biden-Brownback along those lines. But, as I understood it, there was the possibility that if we had gotten the unanimous consent agreement, there would be 15 minutes on a side. I know a number of people want to speak. I had an opportunity to speak on this amendment at length last week. My distinguished colleague from California, who I must say--and I am sure my colleagues will fully appreciate this--we would not have gotten to this point were it not for the Senator from California. Her embrace of this approach well over a year ago, quite frankly, legitimized this in a way on my side of the aisle that no one else, quite frankly, could have done. The fact that it has such, at this point--and, God willing, as my grandfather would say, and the ``crick'' not rising--hopefully, when we vote, it will bear out what I am about to say. This has genuine bipartisan support but not merely bipartisan support. This has genuine support that crosses ideological divides as narrow or as wide as they are in this body. I think that is a very hopeful sign for the emergence of a policy in Iraq that would give us some real opportunity. With the Chair's permission and my colleagues' permission, I would like to yield the floor to my colleague from California, if she would like to speak to this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will not bring up the amendment or amend it now, but because time is of the essence for a lot of our colleagues, I wish to speak to what the changes are that were recommended by Senator Warner and others. But before the Senator from Massachusetts leaves the floor, I wish to say to him--and I hope it will not in any way cause him any difficulty--he and I have been close friends for over 30 years, and I want him to know, and I want my colleagues to know, that much of what this amendment we are hopefully going to vote on is about is what the Senator and I have talked about for the last 4 years and that he has led on, including the international piece. As a matter of fact, he led on it from a different perspective, as a candidate, as well. So I wish to tell him how grateful I am for his joining in this amendment. Quite frankly, it is a big deal that he is, and it adds not only credibility to the amendment in terms of our colleagues, but it adds, quite frankly, an international credibility to it because an awful lot of people around the world look to my colleague for his insights into what we do about the most critical issue facing American foreign policy today. The truth is, in order for us to regain the kind of leadership in the world that I would argue we are lacking, we have to settle Iraq, and we cannot do it on our own. There is a need for the international community. Even if this answer is the perfect answer, it cannot be made in America any longer. So I wish to thank my colleague and acknowledge that I have learned from him, and I wish to thank him for--and I know we use the phrase very blithely around here--his leadership. But I mean that. I wish to thank him for his leadership. He has been absolutely totally consistent on this point from before the time we actually used force in Iraq until today. So I want the record to reflect that. Mr. President, while we are waiting to determine whether we are going to be able to proceed on the amendment, I think the concerns raised by several of my friends have been incorporated in the changes that have been made. I am not moving to amend it now, but I am going to tell my colleagues what the Biden-Brownback amendment will be. In the findings clauses, finding No. (3) has been added, and it is to reflect the concern raised by the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl--and I suspect others, but Senator Kyl is the one who raised this with us, in that he wanted to make it clear--

Mr. BIDEN. We incorporated the exact language I was originally given, with the advice of my colleague from Virginia, and it says: A central focus of al-Qaida in Iraq has been to turn sectarian division in Iraq into sectarian violence through a concentrated series of attacks, the most significant being the destruction of the Golden Dome. So that is one change, one addition we made. A second change we made was at the request, I believe, and I would stand corrected, of both the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, which was deleting a word. It says: Iraq must reach a comprehensive and sustainable political settlement in order-- No, that is not true. I am getting the wrong section. I will ask my staff what the second change is, and I will go to the third change. The reason I can't find the change is because we took out the word, and I am trying to recall where we took the word out. The third thing we changed is the provision in the original resolution to incorporate the strongly held view of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee that we not be forcing upon Iraq anything that is inconsistent with their wishes. The paragraph originally read: The United States should actively support a political settlement in Iraq based upon the final provisions of the Constitution of Iraq that create a federal system of government and allow for certain federal regions consistent with the wishes of the Iraqi people and their elected leaders. And then, I believe at the request or suggestion of the distinguished ranking member from Virginia, the actual last paragraph of the resolution, paragraph 5, says: Nothing in this act should be construed in any way to infringe on the sovereign rights of the Nation of Iraq. Again, both my colleagues can explain their motivation better than I, but the central point that is attempted to be achieved is to make it clear that neither Senator Brownback nor I, nor any of the cosponsors, believe we should be imposing a political solution on the Iraqi people. It is sort of self-evident to me that you cannot impose a political solution. A political solution has to be arrived at by the competing parties. I would argue, as I think my colleagues in the Armed Services Committee would agree now, that what we are doing is consistent with Iraq's Constitution and consistent with the ability of the Iraqis to further amend their Constitution to come to a different conclusion.

Mr. BIDEN. I will be delighted to yield to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BIDEN. I am sorry. I am so used to the Senator being chairman.

Mr. BIDEN. As I understand, the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, suggested that instead of `` . . . Iraqis to reach such a settlement is a primary cause of increasing violence in Iraq,'' he wished the word ``increasing'' be struck from the language. It now reads: `` . . . settlement is the primary cause of violence in Iraq.'' So we have struck that. To the best of my knowledge, I say to my friend from Virginia, I think we have accommodated all the changes that were suggested.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in the coming days there will be more funerals in Lebanon for fresh victims of despicable terror attacks. On Wednesday, September 19, 2007, Lebanese member of Parliament Antoine Ghanem and at least six others were killed in a massive car bomb attack in the suburbs of Beirut. Tragically, this is an all-too-frequent occurrence for the people of Lebanon. The wave began with the February 14, 2005, assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 21 others. On the 1-month anniversary of Prime Minister Hariri's assassination, something remarkable happened--hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Martyr's Square in downtown Beirut--spontaneously giving birth to the March 14 movement and the Cedar Revolution. Just 6 weeks after the March 14 movement began, the thousands of Syrian military forces that had occupied Lebanon for nearly three decades were out of the country. But although the military occupation of Lebanon ended in 2005, Lebanon has remained under siege, as Wednesday's events remind us. Six Lebanese parliamentarians have now been killed in 2\1/2\ years. These six, and other prominent Lebanese figures who were also killed during the same period, shared one important attribute--they were outspoken critics of the Syrian domination of Lebanon. Senator Lugar, Senator Sununu and I are introducing a sense of the Senate resolution condemning the despicable assassination of Antoine Ghanem and urging that the international community continue its support for the government and people of Lebanon. To the families of victims of Wednesday's attack and to the people of Lebanon, the Senate offers its deepest condolences for your losses. Wednesday's attack seeks to undermine the international tribunal set up earlier this year to try the killers of Prime Minister Hariri and other Lebanese victims of political violence. So we call on the Bush administration to redouble its support for the tribunal and to work to ensure that Wednesday's crime is included in its jurisdiction. These attacks on Lebanon must stop. This resolution expresses bipartisan support for holding accountable any state sponsor or official implicated in the string of political assassinations beginning in February 2005. To many an observer it is no accident that this assassination occurred as we approach the critical period during which Lebanon will choose its next president. Many informed voices, both in and out of Lebanon, are pointing to Damascus. So to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, know that we in Washington are watching events in Lebanon very carefully. Lebanon must be free to choose its next president without intimidation or violence. Lebanon's enemies must understand that they face a united international front. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, France, and the broader European Union all have lead roles to play. So does the United States. So we call upon the international community to intensify the efforts to support the people and fragile democratic institutions of Lebanon. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I know this is unusual. Mr. President, if we could start that at 10 and we didn't drag it, it would be better.

Mr. BIDEN. OK. That is not a very senatorial response, but OK.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, before I send an amendment to the desk, I do not want to in any way disagree with anything that was said but expand on it slightly. There is a Biden-Brownback amendment. Senator Brownback is a major sponsor of this amendment, and I will yield to him in a moment because he has a difficult scheduling dilemma. I will let him go first. I also want to make it clear that Senators Boxer, Kerry, Specter, probably Hutchison, and others are going to want to speak to this amendment. I am assuming that on Monday this will still be the pending business and that we will be able to continue to discuss and debate this issue, so Senators have time. This is an important weekend in the Jewish faith, so a lot of people are not here. But I assume, notwithstanding the fact that we are going to vote shortly after we convene on Tuesday morning, that we will have an opportunity to speak to this on Monday as well. Now, today I will offer an amendment to the Defense authorization bill concerning U.S. policy in Iraq. As I said, I am joined by a bipartisan group of colleagues, including Senators Brownback, Boxer, Specter, Kerry, and, I believe, Senator Hutchison. Our amendment says it should be the policy of the United States to support a political settlement in Iraq based on the principles of federalism. I have much more to say about this. Again, I thank my friend from Kansas who has been a major proponent of this approach for some time. We joined forces together months ago. He has a very tight schedule, so he will speak first. I see Senator Hutchison standing also.

Mr. BIDEN. Possibly, Senator Brownback would let the Senator from Texas proceed for 2 minutes now.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank my friend and I appreciate his kind remarks. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that the article in Thursday's Washington Post, dated September 20, by David Ignatius, entitled ``Shaky Allies in Anbar'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2997.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Kansas, Senator Brownback.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I yield the floor and thank my colleagues.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as my friend from Kansas leaves, let me just thank him for his leadership here and his insight. I think he and I would agree that this is forming critical mass. Every once in a while in American politics, on a major issue, there is an idea that transcends both sides of this aisle and transcends from the experts to the average people because there is a commonsense ingredient to it as well as a deeper insightful notion of how that part of the world works. This is one of those issues. I just wanted to say I am honored to be joined by Senator Brownback in this effort because he and I both have other agendas in terms of our political careers, but I think we both agree getting this right is more important than who is President of the United States of America. This is about life and death and about whether we are going to have a generation of difficulty for America in that part of the world or whether we are going to be able to ultimately leave and not leave chaos behind. So I thank my friend for doing what I am sure was not an easy thing to do as a Presidential candidate on the Republican side--to join with a Democrat to move what at the time we moved it was still a very controversial idea.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Lugar be recognized for up to 30 minutes and that Senator Kennedy then be recognized to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, to alert my colleagues, I will take somewhere between 20 and 30 minutes to speak on this issue this morning, and I will speak on it again prior to our finally voting on it on Tuesday. Look, as I said, I have been a Senator since I was 29 years old. I have been here for seven Presidents, and I have observed that sometimes, on issues relating to national crises, whether it be domestic or foreign, events conspire to generate the kind of support for an idea that when it was first offered had few adherents. I think we are approaching that now. The amendment Senators Brownback, Boxer, Specter, Kerry, and I, as well as Senator Hutchison and others have says that U.S. policy should support a political settlement in Iraq based on the principles of federalism. Look, for all the division in Washington and across the country over the policy in Iraq, one thing just about everyone accepts, literally--left, right, center, the President, the Congress, the American people, and the so-called experts--is that there is no military solution in Iraq. Let me say that again. There is no military solution in Iraq. I, along with Senator McCain--in fact, shortly after the war began-- said that I thought it was foolish to start this war. But once we started it, I thought: My Lord, we should have more American forces there. I argued for up to 100,000 more American forces in the first year so things would not get out of hand. I argued we needed 5,900 Gendarme paramilitary police from the international community. The Europeans were prepared to participate to literally restore order--make sure people didn't run the traffic lights or break into museums or engage in thuggery and robbery and crimes of ordinary violence, having nothing to do with sectarian divides. But we have passed that point. To paraphrase General Petraeus, although he doesn't seem to be as adherent to his original comment, and he was paraphrasing someone else--I believe it was 3 or 4 years ago when we were in Iraq with him, and I am looking over my shoulder at my staff generally; at the time I think it was 3 years ago--he said, and I am paraphrasing, there comes a point in every liberation where it becomes an occupation. There comes a point in every liberation effort where it becomes an occupation. And we have reached that point. We reached that point 3 years ago. I argued we reached that point when we went in. We had one brief, brief moment where, having mistakenly moved when we did, in my view, had we acted more responsibly instead of out of the arrogance and hubris that existed, we might, we might have been able to change the dynamic drastically. But that has long passed. That has long passed. I guess the point I want to make, again, and the end result of all I am saying here is you will not find a single person who thinks that a military solution will work alone. So what we are all about here today is what everybody says: OK, there has to be a political solution, but literally, I say to you, Mr. President, up to this moment no one on the floor of the Senate has offered a political solution. I mean, it is really fundamental. There is nobody who has said: We all acknowledge there is no military solution. And by the way, I am not claiming I am the only one. I have many cosponsors. We have a lot of people now saying: OK, we acknowledge there is a need for a political solution, embedded in the notion I have been pushing for a couple of years now and in detail for the last year and a half or so with Les Gelb. I have to recognize Les Gelb, a former administration official in a Democratic administration, in the Carter administration, the president emeritus of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, an incredibly respected voice in American foreign policy, and thought of as a genuine scholar. Les and I started off not in full agreement of what that political solution was, but we were all on the same page. The end result of all this is that the underlying premise of Les Gelb and Joe Biden in generating this was that the political solution we are proposing, which is what the Iraqi Constitution essentially calls for-- and it is not partition--is federalism. Well, guess what. It is not going to happen spontaneously. The Iraqis aren't going to spontaneously decide in the midst of what is now a civil war and sectarian strife that they know how to do it on their own. So getting back to the political question, everyone says there is a need for a political solution. But that begs the question, So what is your political solution? The critics, and there is legitimate criticism of the Biden-Gelb plan, but the critics have come along and said: I don't like your plan, Biden. My response has been from the outset: If you don't like mine, what is yours? Think about it. Think about, as you consider whether the Biden-Brownback plan, which is essentially taking Biden-Gelb and putting it into an amendment to the Defense authorization bill--think about what it says. We say this is our political solution. This is what we think is the way out. So as I began this debate, my invitation to my colleagues was: I get it. You may not like all parts of it. You may not like it. You may think it is mostly correct. You may be able to legitimately point out there are weaknesses in it; things may or may not happen. I can't guarantee an outcome to this. But I would like you to think about it. If you don't like Biden's proposal, what is your idea? Up to now, a lot of us have had what we voted on just a moment ago. It started off as the Biden-Hagel-Levin amendment back in January and February. I agree with it totally. It is now Levin-Reed. I think it is a good amendment. It is essentially the same one we voted on twice before. I was the author of it, along with my friend from Michigan, the leader of the Armed Services Committee. But the truth is, it is not a political solution. It is an important tactic to reach the point we all want to reach. And what is that? When you cut through all of this, what is it the American people, what is it all my colleagues, all 100 of us, want? No one wants to keep American forces there, with almost 3,800 dead, close to 28,000 wounded, roughly 14,000 severely wounded and who are going to require medical attention and care the rest of their lives. No one in here wants that. If we could wave a wand, there is not a single Member, from the most conservative to the most liberal in this body, who wouldn't take every troop out if they could, tomorrow. We don't want our kids going. I don't want my son going, my daughter going. I don't want my grandkids going, either. What is recognized underneath all of this is there is a clear understanding that even though most of us on this side of the aisle opposed what the President did and how he did it, there is a recognition that it matters what we leave behind. It matters a whole bunch. It matters for our grandchildren. It matters for our children. Look, folks, there is an overwhelming desire. I live with a woman I adore. We have been married for 30 years. She is unalterably opposed to this war. She, like every mother, lives in fear that her son, who is a captain in the Army, is going to be sent over, which is probable. So her fervent wish every time I go home is: Joe, get them out of there. Get them out of there. You are chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; get them out of there. Well, the truth is, the vast majority of the people know that getting out of this is almost as difficult as the problems the President caused by getting us into it. I know I am speaking colloquially here. I am not speaking in senatorial tones. But this is basic stuff. My two staff members sitting to my left--and I admire the devil out of them--have accompanied me on eight trips to Iraq. The last time coming home, we were all supposed to get on an aircraft, but only one of them did, a C-130 that was supposed to take us home. Ambassador Crocker asked whether I would fly to Germany with him on his way home. He was coming to testify. He thought it would give us a chance to talk. And so I did. Actually, I flew out of Iraq into Kuwait with him to catch a commercial flight. The C-130 cargo plane I was supposed to get on--we got word there were six fallen angels on that plane. Six fallen angels. That is what these tough, courageous, brave, hard Marines, Army, Navy, some of whom are there, et cetera, Air Force, call a dead American soldier whose body is coming home. They call them fallen angels. You see these guys also who you know have been shot at and shot back, injured and injured others--it is such an emotional phase, to hear them talk in hushed tones, to treat every one of those coffins that gets put on board the C-130--every one of which comes through my State in Dover, Delaware--to hear these people, these fighting men and women, treat every single solitary death with the reverence it deserves. The American people would be stunned. They would be proud. They would be sad and they would be concerned. So they put six fallen angels on a plane. The President of the United States a couple of days later--and I was there 2 weeks ago--a week ago--went on television and told the American people what great military progress we are making. But what he said was: I have no plan to end this war. I have no plan to win this war. I have a plan, as one of the press people said--it is not my line--he said: The American people are using the American forces as a cork in the bottle to keep the venom from spreading out beyond the borders in a regional war. I am not prepared to use my son and his generation as a cork in a bottle. The American people are not prepared to do that either. So what do we do? What do we do? Do we cut off funding? Talk about a hollow reed. How do you do that? How do you cut off funding for the 166,000 troops? Even if we ordered everyone home tomorrow, they have to get out of that country. Do you not provide them with the mine- resistant vehicles that can increase their life expectancy, when hit with a roadside bomb, by 80 percent? Do you not provide them with that? Do we cut that off? I don't know how you do that. Some things are worth losing elections over. I am not going to do that. So what do you do? Do you draw down troops on an orderly basis while you are protecting them? Yes. But where does that get you at the end of the day? The good news is they are out. There are fewer fallen angels. But the bad news is how many angels will fall in the next 10 years or 15 years, if this war metastasizes into the region. Because, ironically, the President's policy, which is dead wrong, has one truism about it: Chaos in Iraq will have regional consequences. The irony is, it is his policy that is causing the chaos. Getting back to the point of the amendment, so everybody understands the context in which this is being offered, it is being offered to say: Look, there is a way to do all of this. There is a way to reduce the number of fallen angels. There is a way to reduce the injuries and casualties. There is a way to reduce the number of deaths among the Iraqis. There is a way to keep this war from metastasizing. There is a way that we have, a last chance we have, to leave and not run the risk of having to send my grandson back. My grandson is a toddler. We have been faced in this body with two false arguments. One is more of the same and it will get better, and the other is leave and hope for the best. Again, I get back to the central premise to what I have been proposing. There is a need for a political rationale. What is the political rationale supposed to accomplish? It is a way--nothing is going to get better. We must leave, by the way. Come hell or high water, we must leave. But are we going to leave giving the Iraqis a chance that they can end up with a political agreement among themselves? For what purpose is the political agreement? To stop the civil war. That is it in a nutshell. Anybody who denies this is a sectarian war I think is denying reality. The President--as my mother would say, God love him--keeps talking about al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is a problem. I would argue it is a Bush- fulfilling prophecy, al-Qaida in Iraq. But there is even in the military--as my good friend--and I admire the devil out of him, my friend from Virginia--as he points out, he knows when you go to Iraq, the military refers to al-Qaida of Mesopotamia; al-Qaida in Iraq. They are making a distinction by that, between al-Qaida in Iraq and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, al-Qaida in Pakistan. As I said to the President in one of my trips back, in a debriefing--which my friend knows we do. The President has us down and has his war cabinet and asks us--you know, we give our view. He was telling me about freedom being on the march. I said: With all due respect, Mr. President, if every single solitary jihadi in the world were killed tomorrow--I said if the Lord Almighty came down and sat at the middle of this table--we were in the Roosevelt Room--and looked at you and said, Mr. President, I guarantee there is not one single al-Qaida person living in the world, Mr. President, you still have a massive war on your hands. You have a massive war on your hands. I see my friend from Virginia is standing. I will be happy to yield to him.