[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1584-S1585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to my colleagues, my constituents, and
the American people, I rise today to absolutely say without any
equivocation that I do support the Warner-Biden-Levin resolution on
Iraq opposing the escalation of our troops. I also stand in the Senate
to say: We were robbed! We were robbed of our ability to be able to
vote on this resolution!
The American people, on November 7, sent a message to Congress and to
the President of the United States: Change the tone in Washington,
change the direction in Iraq, and change the priorities of this Nation.
We, on this side of the aisle, got the message. The other side does not
seem to have. This parliamentary maneuver to block a vote on the
Warner-Biden-Levin resolution, to allow us to vote up or down on
approving the escalation, shows that it is the same old tone. Please,
let's give the process a chance.
Second, it also robs us of the ability to begin to express our vocal
support for changing the direction.
This bipartisan resolution is a first step. It is not going to be the
last word in bringing our troops home safely and swiftly. The Warner-
Biden-Levin resolution affirms clearly and unequivocally a commitment
to our men and women in uniform: Congress will not abandon you while
you are in Iraq and when you come home. We stand by our troops.
However, this resolution says ``no'' to the President's reckless plan
to escalate troop presence in Iraq. The bipartisan resolution insists
that the Iraqi Government stand up for its own people to provide
security, services, and an agreement on oil revenue sharing.
I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the
first place. I was 1 of the 23 who voted against this war on October
11, 2002--4 years ago. I will never forget it. I didn't believe the
administration's arguments then, and I
[[Page S1585]]
don't believe them now. I opposed giving the President unilateral
authority to launch a preemptive attack. I said the United States had
to exhaust its diplomatic options. I encouraged the administration to
stick with the U.N., to let the U.N. meet its responsibility to deal
with the Saddam threat. I said we should not go on our own.
The day of the vote, I was so filled with apprehension about the
course of the war, about the course we were embarking on, I said in
this Senate that we don't know whether our troops will be greeted with
flowers or landmines. Well, now we know. That mission did not get
accomplished. I called the 72 families in Maryland who gave their lives
and made the ultimate sacrifice. I know what is going on out there with
the families. I also know when we got to Iraq there were no weapons of
mass destruction, but the destruction happened, and it happened fast.
No one can ask more of our troops. They are brave. They are
courageous. They have fought valiantly. But after 4 years of fighting,
where are we in Iraq? Well, the United States, went to war with Iraq,
but right now we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we are
still there. And we are mired in a civil war between different ethnic
and sectarian groups.
I have stated what I am against, but let me state what I am for. I am
for the Warner-Levin-Biden resolution. I salute the leadership who
produced it: John Warner, a decorated war hero, former Secretary of the
Navy, chairman of the Committee on Armed Services when the Republicans
were in control, a distinguished person, and a man of great comity and
civility--no one more compassionate about America's security than John
Warner; Joe Biden, chair of our Foreign Relations Committee; Carl
Levin, an expert on the Committee on Armed Services and now the
chairman. They put their heads together and they came up with this
resolution, and to a man--and this woman supports them--the Senate
opposes the President's plan because we think it is reckless.
The bipartisan resolution says the objective of overall U.S. strategy
in Iraq should be to encourage Iraqi leaders to make political
compromises, to foster reconciliation, and strengthen the unity
government. This is what I consider essential.
The resolution says the primary objective of our military strategy
should be to maintain Iraq's territorial integrity--fancy words for
protecting the border; deny the terrorists a safe haven--yes, but they
weren't there in the first place; promote regional stability; promote
counterterrorism; train and equip the Iraqi forces. We have been doing
it for 3 years. Guess what? They have not been showing up! And the
other day when they were supposed to show up for a battle, 55 percent
of them showed up in Baghdad. Gates, our new Secretary of Defense,
said: Isn't this improvement? Last year, they didn't show up at all. It
is their war and they are not showing up. Why should we show up for
their war when they have a 50-percent attendance rate? What is wrong
with this thinking?
As much as possible, the current U.S. military operations should be
confined to these goals. We show up, they don't. Something is really
wrong with this picture.
The bipartisan resolution calls for the United States to engage the
nations in the Middle East to develop a regionally and internationally
sponsored peace and reconciliation process. That is what we should be
doing. The resolution says it should not be an open-ended commitment or
unconditional. Sure, there should be benchmarks, but benchmarks with
enforcement capability.
I do support this resolution because it makes clear to our men and
women in uniform that Congress will not abandon them. It explicitly
says that Congress should not take any action that will endanger U.S.
military forces in the field. Whether on the battlefield or on the
homefront, our troops deserve the best.
Also, the latest intelligence shows that Iraqi leadership has to make
difficult changes. The solution in Iraq requires a political solution
from the Iraqis--not military muscle--from the Americans.
There are parts of this resolution with which I don't agree. They
call it an augmentation; I call it escalation. I oppose the calls for
the vigorous operations at Anbar until there is greater clarification.
There is no doubt that al-Qaida is operating in Iraq. But when I voted
4 years ago, al-Qaida was not there; they were in Afghanistan. Why
didn't we stick with Afghanistan and really clean their clock? Now the
President wants to send more Marines to Anbar to fight al-Qaida when we
should have been in Afghanistan, catching Osama bin Laden.
We do need a way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gave us 79
recommendations as a way to go forward. Surely the President of the
United States could have found 50 for us to sit down at a table, talk,
and work together for the good of our country, the good of our troops,
and the good of peace in the Middle East. Seventy-nine recommendations
and they have all been cast aside. The Iraq Study Group calls for
diplomatic and political efforts, a change in their primary mission to
move our troops out of Iraq responsibly. They gave us a way forward
that they believe could have gotten our troops out by the first quarter
of 2008. Let's give those 79 recommendations at least a forum to be
debated and discussed and acted on.
Where do we go from here? I will tell you where I think we ought to
go. First of all, we ought to have a vote on the Warner-Biden-Levin
resolution. If they do not want to give us that, give us a vote on the
McCain resolution to vote to approve this escalation. One way or the
other, that is our constitutional duty.
The President says he does not need congressional consent to be able
to do this reckless escalation. But he sure does need congressional
advice. And my advice is, let's send in the diplomats before we send in
more troops. We need a robust diplomatic strategy to match our robust
military strategy. We need to make it clear that the Congress will not
abandon our troops in the field, and we will not abandon them when they
come home. Look at this President's budget; we are abandoning our
troops. This whole escalation--sure, they talk about money for the
21,000, but it takes another 20,000 to support them. They don't walk
their talk. They don't put the money in the budget.
Then we have our troops coming home. You look at the President's
budget on Veterans Affairs--not only have they lost the records, they
have lost their way at VA. We are not equipped to deal with Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans coming home. They have horrific, permanent wounds
of war, and we have a weak, unreliable funding system. You can't just
support the troops with yellow ribbons. You have to put the money
behind it. How about putting the money behind it when they come home?
They need us. And they need us not only with words; they need us with
deeds in the budget process. And I don't see it.
Now, we also need to make it clear to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki
that he has to start to act. Speaking of showing up, I saw they could
not get a quorum in the Iraqi Parliament. Only 50 percent of the troops
show up, their own Parliament doesn't show up, but we show up with
21,000 more troops? The Prime Minister must meet benchmarks.
Let me conclude by saying that a great American military should not
be a substitute for a weak Iraqi Government. Neither Congress nor the
American people will abandon our troops, but the best way to support
our troops is not to send more in harm's way.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time for
Senator Kennedy be reserved.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
____________________