Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I think there is strong support on both sides of the aisle for this amendment. This is money which goes to testing of the missile defense system mainly; it surely needs testing. That has always been the question. So I support this amendment, and I believe we could have a voice vote, but there has been a request for a rollcall vote. We support the amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the credibility of the United States has been proven with the loss of lives and the number of wounded we have suffered in Iraq. We have proven our credibility over 2,500 times because we have lost more than 2,500 of our troops. We have proven our credibility over 17,000 times in terms of the number of people who have been wounded in Iraq. We have proven our credibility with hundreds of billions of dollars to give the Iraqis an opportunity to have a nation. It is up to them to seize that opportunity. It is up to them to decide to make a choice. Do they want a civil war? Do they want to engage in more sectarian battles? Or do they want to reach the kind of political compromises which are essential if they are going to have a nation and end the insurgency and avoid an all-out civil war? Our credibility has been proven thousands of times and with billions of dollars. We have given a people an opportunity that is extraordinary. We cannot make the decision for them, whether they will seize that opportunity. Only they can make that decision. Last year we adopted, by an overwhelming vote, an amendment which said that 2006 would be a year of significant transition, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. Similar to last year's sense of the Congress, this year's sense of the Congress that we are offering is an attempt to change our policy from one of an open-ended commitment--a policy that, as the Secretary of State put it, we are there as long as they need us; as the President of Iraq, Mr. Talabani, put it, the Americans will stay with all the forces that we want for as long as we want them. That is a recipe, a formula for dependency. It is not the way in which Iraq can learn that it must, on its own, in a reasonable period of time, with reasonable notice and consultation, begin to ween itself, as General Casey put it, from overdependence on the American military. That is the issue. That is what our amendment would urge the President to do. Our amendment does not order the President, as some on that side have actually put it. This is a sense of the Senate. This is something where we, the authors of this amendment, believe that we have a responsibility to use our best efforts to give our best advice as to what our policy should be. It is not a policy of immediately redeploying forces. There is not a precipitous nature to this amendment. It says by the end of this year, in the next 6 months, to begin the phased redeployment of American forces from Iraq. That is what the Iraqis say their policy is. That is what their security adviser says their policy is. Their own security adviser, Mr. Rubaie, in the Washington Post 2 days ago said: We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year's end to be under 100,000. That is a redeployment of 30,000 troops. Our amendment tells the Iraqis: Stay with that. Stick to that policy. It is the right policy. You must take over your own nation and make it work and make it happen. Then Mr. Rubaie, the National Security Adviser of Iraq, in a written document presented to the American people through our newspaper, says that ``the removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than liberators.'' He says, ``The removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people.'' Our amendment urging the President to end an open-ended commitment of our troops to Iraq and to begin the redeployment by year's end is a way of implementing what the Iraqis themselves have said they plan on doing. All Senators want Iraq to end as a success story, every one of us. There is not one Senator who wants anything other than to maximize the chances of success in Iraq. No matter how we voted on the original resolution authorizing force, every one of the 25 or so Senators who voted against that resolution--and I am one of them--wants to maximize the chances of success in Iraq. But to do that, we must prod the Iraqis to take the responsibility for their own nation. I thank the Presiding Officer and my dear friend from Virginia for the way in which this debate has proceeded. I hope we have made a contribution to the Senate and to the Nation.

Mr. LEVIN. Well, it was quoted this morning. It didn't carry the day, but it was very appropriate.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LEVIN. And then immediately move to consideration of a judge.

Mr. LEVIN. How about Senator Warner's time?

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. I asked both Senators Kerry and Feingold as to what their preference is. They do prefer to go first. That is fine with me, if it is OK with the manager of the bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendments have been cleared on this side. It is a packet of 60 amendments, as I understand. I thank our staffs for working so hard on these amendments. There is a lot of interest in them by a lot of Members. We owe thanks to the staff for their great work. I have not only no objection but enthusiastically join in moving their adoption. I gather they have been agreed to by unanimous consent.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. LEVIN. I commend the chairman for the way in which he has been able to manage this bill, as always. It is a testament to his ability and the respect that everybody has for him in the Chamber. I have never seen fewer quorum calls on a bill of this size than we have had this week. I am sure there have been a few. I have not counted them. There may have been a quorum call yesterday during the 8 or 9 hours of debate. If there was, I missed it. I commend the chairman for putting us in a position where we can hopefully get this bill agreed to as soon as possible today. Again, I join him in not urging people to bring amendments to the floor--we never do that--but in notifying people that if they have amendments, they should bring them to the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it is also a very strong voice for testing a missile system as well as supporting the men and women in the Armed Forces. I wonder if we could get the attention of the Senate. It is our understanding now that we are going to proceed to a package which has been cleared and then move to final passage?

Mr. LEVIN. Senator Kerry will go next.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my colleague. Amendments Nos. 4520; 4374; 4521; 4522; 4523; 4458; 4524; 4264, as Modified; 4464; 4489; 4525; 4526; 4327, as Modified; 4527; 4434; 4393, as Modified; 4312; 4424; 4416; 4364, as Modified; 4232; 4528; 4529; 4311; 4228; 4439, as Modified; 4530; 4337; 4531; 4411; 4336; 4361; 4532; 4533; 4534; 4535; 4381, as Modified; 4429; 4398, as Modified; 4451, as Modified; 4536; 4537; 4538; 4303; 4539; 4423; 4316; 4407; 4366; 4321; 4540; 4449; 4204, as Modified; and 4541, En Bloc

Mr. LEVIN. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LEVIN. While he was making reference to the Senator from Minnesota, I think the chairman was off the floor when the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton, made some very glowingly positive and affirmative remarks about our chairman and about how he was really delighted to be able to cosponsor the amendment which had been introduced to name this bill after our beloved chairman. I wanted to make sure that he was aware of that and could look up those remarks later.

Mr. LEVIN. There is recent evidence of that. But we agree on process. We agree on civility. We agree on most matters. We are able to work things out. It is his nature to do that, and we are all very much in his debt. Our wives are on the same path that we have been on.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd be added as a cosponsor to the Levin-Reed Iraq amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Arizona will yield 1 minute?

Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will please withhold for a moment.

Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is a little uncertainty as to the modifications.

Mr. LEVIN. Is the one at the desk the modified version?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to put in the Record a chart from the Institute for Defense Analysis. It compares savings on various programs, showing savings with the F/A-18, multiyear, from 7 to 11 percent; the C-17 airplane, of 10 percent; the C-130J, multiyear, of 10 percent; and the comparison to the F-22, which they estimate at 2.6 percent. I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will be opposing the Chambliss amendment, although I am both a supporter of the F-22 and a supporter, generally, of multiyear contracts. Where they meet the criteria for multiyear contracts, I am very supportive of them because of, mainly, the money that can be saved. I oppose this amendment with some reluctance. Again, I very much support, and have supported, the airplane. And I, in general, like the multiyear approach, where it meets the criteria. But some of the criteria have not been adequately met; for instance, whether the multiyear contract would result in substantial savings compared to using annual contracts. The studies are that the savings would be, I would say, very modest and not substantial. There are some savings, but I could not say they are substantial savings. Another criteria is whether the contract is for a number which is expected to remain substantially unchanged during the contemplated contract period in terms of both numbers, production rate, procurement rate, and, again, total quantities. The F-22 total program quantities are likely to increase before the end of production. There is also a requirement that there be a stable design for the property to be acquired and that the technical risks associated with the purchase are not excessive. There are some unresolved operational test deficiencies, and there are what I think can fairly be called major modifications that are planned for providing more robust air-to- ground capability. There is also a question as to whether the estimates of both the cost of the contract and the anticipated cost avoidance through the use of a multiyear contract are realistic. Cost estimates are still problematic. The 2006 contract itself, we understand, has still not been signed. So it does not meet that criteria either. I would hope that, perhaps next year, a multiyear would indeed meet the criteria so we could utilize a multiyear approach next year. But I do not believe this year it does meet the criteria for a multiyear contract. I, therefore, will be opposing the Chambliss amendment. I yield the floor.