Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 22 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1600-S1607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST

Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, my good friend, the majority leader,
and I have been in a discussion over the last few days, going back to
last week, over how to go forward on the Iraq debate. As I have
indicated to him both privately and publicly, we on this side of the
aisle were certainly looking forward to having an Iraq debate this week
and are prepared to do so and are ready to go forward.
I think we all agree at this moment that there is no more important
issue facing the Nation than the mission and the fate of the American
service men and women in Iraq. This means, of course, that the men and
women of this body have no higher duty than to express ourselves openly
and honestly on this issue, to take a stand on where we stand. The only
truly meaningful tool the Framers gave us to do this was our ability to
fund or not fund a war. That is it. This is what Republicans are
insisting upon--that the Members of this body express themselves on the
question of whether to fund or not to fund the war in Iraq.
I had indicated to my good friend, the majority leader, that I would
be propounding another unanimous-consent request at this point, and I
will do that now.
I ask unanimous consent that, at a time determined by the majority
leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate
proceed en bloc to the following concurrent resolutions under the
following agreement: S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner resolution, which is to
be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee; McCain-Lieberman-
Graham, regarding benchmarks; Gregg, relating to funding.
I further ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 10 hours of
debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees;
provided further that no amendments be in order to any of these
measures; further, that at the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
proceed to three consecutive votes on the adoption of the concurrent
resolutions in the following order, with no further action or
intervening action or debate: McCain-Lieberman-Graham, on benchmarks;
Gregg, on funding and supporting our troops; S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner
resolution.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any resolution that does not
receive 60 votes in the affirmative, the vote on adoption be vitiated
and the concurrent resolution be returned to its previous status.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this is
basically the same thing that has been asked before. The issue before
the American people is whether the President of the United States, on
his own, should be able to send 48,000 American soldiers to Iraq,
costing approximately $30 billion extra.
The Republicans can run, as I said yesterday, but they cannot hide.
That is the issue before the American people. We all support the
troops, and we have fought very hard, in spite of our misgivings about
this war, to make sure they have everything they have needed.
It is interesting that there is a lot of talk about the Gregg
amendment. But if you look at the Gregg amendment and at page 2--the
last paragraph on page 2 of his amendment--and you look in the Warner
amendment on page 3, paragraph 4, it is identical language. Warner has
encapsulated within his amendment what Gregg wanted, which is the so-
called ``resolve clause.''
This is all a game to divert attention from the fact that we have
before us now an issue that the American people want us to address:
whether there should be a surge, an escalation, an augmentation of the
already disastrous war taking place in Iraq, causing 3,100 American
deaths, approximately; 24,000 wounded American soldiers, a third of
whom are hurt very badly; 2,000 are missing multiple limbs--brain
injuries, blindness, paralysis. That is what 8,000 American soldiers
now are going through--men and women.
So I ask my friend to amend his request in the following manner:
I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be
discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 7, by Senator
Warner, and S. Res. 70, by Senator McCain, and the Senate proceed to
their consideration en bloc; that there be 6 hours for debate equally
divided between the two leaders or their designees on both resolutions,
to be debated concurrently; that no amendments or motions be in order
to either resolution; that at the conclusion or yielding back of the
time, the Senate vote on Senator McCain's resolution, followed by a
vote on Senator Warner's resolution; that if either resolution fails to
garner 60 votes, the vote be vitiated and the resolution be returned to
its prior status; that immediately following the votes on the
resolutions I have just mentioned, the Senate turn to the consideration
of H.J. Res. 20, the infamous continuing resolution, funding the
Government after February 15 for the rest of the fiscal year; that
there be 4 hours for debate on the joint resolution; that no amendments
or motions be in order in relation to it; that at the conclusion or
yielding back of the time, the Senate vote on final passage of the
joint resolution; that if the joint resolution fails to get 60 votes,
the vote be vitiated and the joint resolution be returned to the
calendar.

I announce that if we are able to do that--dispose of these three
items I have mentioned--this week, or whenever we finish them, then we
would begin the Presidents Day recess at the conclusion of this week.
One of the things we found is that because of the accelerated work
schedule, people are having a lot of work to do at home. So that is why
we would do this.
Madam President, there would be no amendments to the CR from either
side. I mention that because, in getting to the point where we are,
there has been total consultation by the majority and minority, each
subcommittee, and the majority and ranking members. The chair and
ranking members work very closely. One of the people heavily involved
in this, for example, is Senator Domenici, my long-term partner on the
Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations. He fought for more,
and he got more. That happened with many Republicans who spoke out, and
most of them did.
I further say that if there were ever a bipartisan measure, it is the
continuing resolution. But we have to finish before February 15.
So I ask my friend, the Republican leader, to accept my alteration to
his unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I
will object, let me remind our colleagues that 4 years ago last month,
we were at exactly the same situation. My party came back to the
majority. The Democratic majority of the previous Congress had not
passed 11 out of the 13 appropriations bills. And what did the new
Republican majority do? We took up an omnibus collection of
appropriations bills. We had over 100 amendments offered. We gave
everybody in the Senate an opportunity to offer amendments, and we
disposed of all of those appropriations bills over a couple-week
period.
What my good friend, the majority leader, is suggesting is that we
take up a continuing resolution of 11 appropriations bills, with no
amendments whatsoever, and he offers as an enticement an extra week
off. This is completely unacceptable to the minority. First, he is
saying that we cannot get adequate consideration to our Iraq proposals.
Second, he is saying we cannot have any amendments to an over $400
billion continuing appropriation. Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I will continue reserving the right to
object to my friend's unanimous consent request. Prior to making a
decision on that, I want to read to everybody here from page 3,
paragraph 4, of the Warner resolution:

The Congress should not take any action that will endanger
United States military forces in the field, including the
elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as
such an action with respect to funding would undermine their
safety or harm their

[[Page S1601]]

effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.

Madam President, I object.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it is clear now to the minority that
five proposals on our side were too many, three proposals were too
many, and two proposals were too many, but the majority leader offered
us one last week. He said: I will take one and you take one. So I am
going to modify my request of a few moments ago which, as the leader
indicated, was exactly the same as my request of late last week. I am
going to modify my request.
As I have said repeatedly, the Members on this side of the aisle are
ready and willing to proceed with this debate. At the outset, I
indicated we were prepared to enter into, as I said a moment ago, an
agreement for debate and votes on various resolutions. We had hoped for
a number--and it was pretty challenging, frankly, to pare down the
number on our side. As I indicated, we started with five. That was
rejected from the other side. We pared our proposals down to two. That
meant three proposals in total--the Warner proposal and two additional
ones--to be debated for a reasonable amount of time and then three
votes--the unanimous consent request I just propounded.
I think what we just offered was a reasonable approach and would
allow the Senate to have those votes this week. Evidently, as I
indicated, three proposals are too many. So, therefore, in order to
allow us to move forward with this important debate, I am prepared to
have votes on just two resolutions.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the
majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the
Senate proceed en bloc to two concurrent resolutions under the
following agreement: S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner resolution, which is to
be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee; and Senator Gregg's
amendment related to the funding and supporting our troops.
I further ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 10 hours of
debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees;
provided further that no amendments be in order to any of the measures;
further, that at the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed
to two consecutive votes on the adoption of the concurrent resolutions
in the following order, with no further action or intervening debate:
the Gregg resolution supporting the troops and S. Con. Res. 7,
sponsored by Senator Warner.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any resolution that does not
receive 60 votes in the affirmative, the vote on adoption be vitiated
and the concurrent resolution be returned to its previous status.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we have gone from this
morning and trying to copy one of the trick plays from the Super Bowl
to now going to the science bill, and I guess it is modern math. We
don't accept that, Madam President. What we demand for the American
people is an up-or-down vote on the escalation of the war in Iraq.
McCain has been filed. Let's vote on it. Let's vote on Warner. That is
our proposal. We haven't wavered from that. We will not waiver from
that. That is what the American people demand and ultimately they will
get. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Objection is heard.
The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, as my good friend on the other side
of the aisle frequently reminded us last year, the Senate is not the
House. It is not possible in this body for the majority to dictate to
the minority the contents of this debate. What we are asking for, by
any standard, is reasonable: One alternative--just one--to the proposal
on which my good friend, the majority leader, is seeking to get a vote.
We don't object to having this debate. We are ready and willing to have
this debate, anxious to have this debate, but we insist on fundamental
fairness.
The Gregg amendment is about the troops. How can we have a debate on
Iraq and have no debate about the troops? Do we support them or don't
we? That is what the Gregg amendment is about, and Senate Republicans
insist that we consider those who are being sent to Iraq, over and
above the current troops deployed there, in our debate, which is
entirely about the additional troops going to Iraq.
I assume the whole genesis of this debate this week is the question
of additional troops going to Baghdad under the direction of General
Petraeus to try to quiet the capital city and allow this fledgling
democracy to begin to take hold. And the Gregg amendment--Senator Gregg
is right here on the floor of the Senate and is fully capable of
explaining what the Gregg amendment is about. I ask the Senator from
New Hampshire, what is the essence of the Gregg amendment which we seek
to have voted on in the context of this Iraq war?
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I will attempt to read it. I first have
to find my glasses. My wife told me I had to use my glasses.
The resolution which I proposed and which I understand the Republican
leader has suggested be the Republican alternative or the alternative
presented--in fact, it will have Democratic support, I suspect, enough
so that maybe the majority leader doesn't want it voted on because it
might have so much Democratic support.
In any event, it is a proposal that simply states that it is the
sense of the Congress that Congress should not take any action that
will endanger U.S. military forces in the field, including the
elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such
action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm
their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.
I don't think it requires a great deal of explanation. It is simply a
statement of commitment to our troops which seems reasonable. It is
hard for me to understand how we can send troops on a mission, walking
the streets of Baghdad--American troops, American men and women--and
not say to those men and women: Listen, we are going to support you
with the financing, with the logistics, with the equipment you need to
be as safe as you possibly can be in this very dangerous mission you
are undertaking for our Nation.
That is all it says. I can't understand why the other side isn't
willing to allow a vote on that resolution. If they want to vote on the
Warner amendment, it doesn't make any sense.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reclaiming my time, the other side
just proposed an agreement that mandates 60 votes on two resolutions.
Those are their words on paper. We agree to those terms, but at least
we are suggesting that we be allowed to pick the proposal on our side,
as Senator Gregg has just outlined what the proposal on our side would
be.
The majority leader apparently seeks to dictate to us what the
proposal on our side would be. That is simply unheard of in the Senate,
that he is telling us that on the continuing resolution, we will get no
amendments at all, and on the Iraq resolution, he will pick for us what
our proposal is to be. I think that doesn't pass the fairness test.
I see the Senator from New Hampshire on the Senate floor. I wonder if
he has any further observations he would like to make.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I would simply like to inquire of the
Republican leader, have you ever in your experience seen a time when--
either the Republican leadership or the Democratic leadership--the
majority party says to the minority party: We will set forth the
amendments on which we are going to vote, and we will also set forth
and write the amendment on which you are going to vote?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to my friend from New
Hampshire, I have been here now--it is hard to believe--a couple of
decades, and I cannot recall a time in which one side has dictated to
the other side what their proposal will be in a legislative debate.
Mr. GREGG. I understand, I ask the Republican leader further,
especially since it seems ironic in the context of putting forward a
commitment to say to the men and women who are fighting for us: We
shall give you the support you need when you are sent on a mission;
they are not choosing to go on this mission; they are members of the
military who, under their responsibility as members of the military,
are being sent on a mission; is it not reasonable that we should say to
them: We

[[Page S1602]]

will give you the logistical support, financial support, the equipment
you need in order to fulfill that mission correctly?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to my friend from New
Hampshire, I can't think of anything more relevant to an Iraq debate
about the appropriateness of this new mission, which General Petraeus
will lead, than the amendment which Senator Gregg has authored and
which we request be our proposal as this debate goes forward.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if the Senator will yield just for one
further point, would it not be truly unusual in a democratic forum,
which is supposed to be the most deliberative body in the world, to not
allow the minority to bring forward a resolution--which is probably
going to get more than a majority vote should it ever be voted on--
which is not contestable as to its purpose--its purpose being well
meaning; it is certainly not a purpose that is anything other than to
express a sense of support for those who are defending us--would it not
be a new form of democracy, maybe closer to the Cuban model, to not
allow an amendment presented by the minority as their option but,
rather, have the majority write the minority's amendment which would
then be voted on? That way the majority gets to write both amendments,
I guess is my bottom line.

You have one-party rule, sort of a Cuban model of democracy.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire
for his observations about not only the process but the merits of his
proposal.
Let me conclude by reiterating once again that I think the Senator
from New Hampshire and I and others, including those who have been
speaking on the Senate floor on this side this morning, welcome the
debate about Iraq policy. We had anticipated having the debate this
week. It is not too late to have the debate this week.
We are now down to two proposals, just two proposals. It took a lot
of time on our side to get down to one for us and, of course, the
majority has a preference of its own. This debate could be wrapped up
in relatively short order, and then we could move on with the
continuing resolution, where I hope it might be possible for the
minority to have at least some amendments.
Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the Presiding Officer is a new Member of
this body, but she should have seen when the Republicans were in the
majority. We didn't have amendments. They filled every tree. I will
also say, it speaks volumes here today--volumes. There is not a single
person on the other side of the aisle who has come to the floor and
supported the troop surge of President Bush--not a single person. I
wonder if President Bush is aware that not a single Republican Senator
has come to the floor and said: I support President Bush sending 48,000
more troops to Iraq. That speaks volumes.
I will also say this, Madam President: Senator Boxer, a couple rows
back, just a few minutes ago, talked about one short snapshot of one
day from the Los Angeles Times: Scores of people being murdered and
killed and mutilated; a little girl leaving school with blood-drenched
steps over which she was walking. One could see the red in the
photograph, and Senator Boxer was one, two, three rows back. We could
all see that.
Not a single person has come to the floor to support the surge, but
that is what is dictating what we vote on today. It is not the majority
leader. We, for the American people, need to have this debate.
Also, I certainly care a lot about the Senator from New Hampshire--
and he knows that is true--but I have to smile. What has he done the
first few weeks of this legislative session? He has brought to the
Senate floor during the debate on ethics, lobbying reform, and earmark
reform the line-item veto, and then he brought it forth again on
minimum wage. And now to stop a debate on the escalation of the war in
Iraq, he now comes up with this other diversionary tactic. He is a
wonderful man, a gentleman, but, Madam President, do you know what he
kind of reminds me of this first few weeks of this legislative session?
Somebody who comes into a basketball game, not to score points, just to
kind of rough people up, just to kind of get the game going in a
different direction.
The game we have going today has nothing to do with supporting the
troops. We support the troops. Every speech that a Democrat has given
in the last 4 years has talked about how much we support the troops. In
fact, we were the first to raise the issue. We were the first to raise
the issue about a lack of body armor. We raised that first. We support
the troops. We have done that not only with our mouths but with the way
we voted.
The debate in the Senate should be on the resolution submitted by the
Senator from Arizona, which they have obviously dropped--the resolution
from the Senator from Arizona and Senator Lieberman from Connecticut.
They threw that out in an effort to go for this diversion.
So why don't we see how the minority feels about voting on the
President's surge of $30 billion and 48,000 troops? That is what this
debate is about.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Sure.
Mr. GREGG. First, I appreciate the Senator's generous comments. I
take them as a compliment. I have been active legislatively. That is,
obviously, our job.
I ask the Senator: He heard me read the language of my resolution
earlier, and I will read it again, if he wishes.
Mr. REID. If I can interrupt, and I do that apologetically, I read it
before the Senator from New Hampshire arrived in the Chamber because it
is in the Warner resolution.
Mr. GREGG. Good. If the Senator is of such a mind, I ask if this were
a freestanding resolution brought to the floor, would the Senator vote
for my resolution?
Mr. REID. I don't think I have to make that judgment now because the
judgment, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, is not some
diversionary matter. The issue before this body and the issue before
the American people--that is why we are getting hundreds of phone calls
in my office and other Senate offices around the country. The issue is
does the Senate support the President's surge? That is the question.

I have to say the Senator from Arizona at least was willing to put
his name on it and move forward. We haven't heard a lot of speeches in
favor of his resolution. Where are they?
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if the Senator will yield further, I
guess I find it difficult to argue that it is a diversion when the
resolution that I am proposing simply says that we will support the
troops who are being asked to carry out the mission they have been
assigned. This is not a diversion. This is a responsibility, I would
think, of every Member of the Senate to take a position on whether they
support giving the troops who have been assigned the task, the
equipment, the financial support, and the logistical support they need
to protect themselves and carry out that mission.
I think to call that a diversion does not do justice to our troops in
the field, so I am concerned about that. It does seem to me for the
Senator from Nevada to take that position is inconsistent with the
basic philosophy of Congress, which is that the first responsibility in
a matter of warfighting is to support the troops.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have been asked to yield to my friend
from Washington, and I am glad to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I asked the majority leader to yield
for a question. I have been on the Senate floor and listened to the
exchange between the majority leader and the Republican leader and,
quite frankly, I was astonished and I want to understand if the
majority leader heard the same thing I did.
The Republican leader came back to you and offered to remove from
consideration the McCain amendment, which is the pro-escalation
amendment, essentially offering a vote on just the Warner and Gregg
amendment. Leaving aside what this says about the lack of support of
the proposal on their side, are we hearing from the other side that

[[Page S1603]]

they do not even want a vote on whether they support the President's
escalation?
It seems to me we are hearing a phony debate request on who supports
the troops. That is not a debate that we need to have. Everyone in this
body supports the troops. I ask the leader if he heard the request from
the Republicans the same way I did, that they no longer even want to
have a vote on whether they support the President's escalation.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend from Washington that we
have a record of supporting the troops. We did it in Kosovo, we did it
through the entire Balkans, and we did it in Afghanistan. We did it in
Afghanistan with very few questions asked, and rightfully so. We have
supported every effort made by this President to defeat the war on
terror, with rare exception. But the troops in the field? Never, never
have we wavered from that.
In fact, I don't know of a speech, although there could be some
given, where a Democrat has talked about the war in Iraq and hasn't
talked about how much we appreciate the work done by these valiant
troops and the sacrifices of their families. That is why we were
stunned during the State of the Union Address when the President even
mentioned the veterans.
I am happy to have answered the question from the Senator from
Washington.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a
question.
Mr. REID. I yield.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senate majority leader for yielding for a
question, and I appreciate his willingness to engage in a dialogue on
this issue.
In reference to the question of the Senator from Washington to the
majority leader, I do want our resolution debated. We are trying to
move forward. As I think the Senator from Nevada is aware, there was a
proposal to have a 60-vote, which is the way the Senate does business,
on three resolutions--on the Warner, McCain, and Gregg resolutions--and
that was turned down. I only agreed to the latest proposal because I
think we need to move the process forward.
I guess what I am asking the Senator from Nevada is, isn't it really
true that the way we do business here does require 60 votes? It is just
a reality of the way the Senate functions. When there was an attempt a
year ago, 2 years ago, actually, with the so-called nuclear option, I
was one who fought hard to preserve the right of the majority to have
60 votes in the case of the appointment of judges, and I think we
reached a bipartisan agreement on that.
So I still am a bit puzzled why we could not have a vote on my
resolution that would require 60 votes in order for it to be adopted,
just as it would be for the Warner resolution and as it would be for
the Gregg resolution. I don't quite understand why we couldn't do that,
as we have done hundreds of times in the past, as the Senator knows,
because we have been in the Senate for many years.
That is my question. Again, I thank the majority leader for allowing
me to engage in this discussion with him.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend who came to the House
at the same time as myself, and then we came to the Senate together--in
fact, there is only one person ahead of me in seniority, and that is
the Senator from Arizona because the State of Arizona has more people
in it than the State of Nevada--no one has ever doubted the courage of
the Senator from Arizona. I have read the books. I know about Senator
McCain. He has not only been heroic on the field of battle but also
legislatively, and I respect that.
But I say to my friend, yes, there are 60 votes required on some
things in this body. Not everything. The vast majority of legislation
that passes here is with a simple majority. I would say to my friend,
recognizing that it does take 60 votes, that is why I offered to do the
deal: McCain, 60 votes; Warner, 60 votes. That is the proposal I made.
That is pending before the body right now, and that has been turned
down five or six times. So I would be willing to do it on a simple
majority, if you want to do McCain on a simple majority or the Warner
resolution on a simple majority. I would try to get that done. Right
now, Madam President, we have the proposal I have made.
I do say that the debate is not whether we support the troops. That
is a diversion. We support the troops. The issue before this body is
whether the American people deserve to see how their Senator is going
to vote; whether their Senator approves the surge, the escalation, the
augmentation of 48,000 troops, costing approximately $30 billion extra.
That is what the American people care about, not whether we support the
troops. We all support the troops.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator from Nevada yield for a
question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to understand what has happened
over on the other side, the Republican side. Is it my understanding
they have asked now to drop the McCain-Lieberman amendment?
Mr. REID. I have to be honest with my friend from Illinois, who also
came with us at the same time from the House to the Senate, that the
answer is, yes. The Lieberman amendment has been given up.
Mr. DURBIN. If I might continue through the Chair to ask the Senator
from Nevada a question, on the issue that I think is before America
today--whether we should escalate the number of troops into this war in
Iraq--we had offered to the Republican side a choice between two
Republican amendments: Senator Warner's amendment, which said the
President's policy is wrong, and Senator McCain's amendment, which says
the policy is advisable and should be followed. Even given the option
of two Republican amendments, the Republican minority, yesterday, voted
to deny any opportunity for the Senate to debate two Republican
amendments?
Mr. REID. I would say to my friend, yes, that is true. We were
willing because the Senator from Arizona had the ability, the courage,
and the dignity to put this issue before the American people, even
though--and he knows this--the vast majority of American people do not
support the escalation in Iraq. But he did it. We were willing to take
two Republican resolutions--one supporting the surge, one opposing the
surge--and let Senators from every State in the Union raise their hand
and tell the American people how they feel about it.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I might ask the Senator from Nevada
whether this resolution being offered by Senator Gregg really is
focused not on the major issue of escalating the war but somehow is
focused on supporting the troops. Even the Warner resolution, a
Republican resolution, has the identical language of the Gregg
resolution when it comes to that support of the troops; is that not
true?
Mr. REID. I say to my friend that the rumor around here is that
Senator Warner put that in there thinking he could get the support of
the Senator from New Hampshire, but, obviously, he was wrong.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I might also ask the Senator whether it
appears to him now that the Republicans, at this point, don't want to
debate either of the Republican amendments and want to change the
subject; that they want to move to a Gregg resolution, which deals
with, as the Senator has just said repeatedly, support for the troops,
which is not an issue?
We all support the troops. It appears to me that we have made no
progress in the last 24 hours, and I would ask the Senator from Nevada
if he has a different conclusion.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend that the only thing I sense this
afternoon--and I have to say it with a smile on my face, and I hope
everyone recognizes this--is that every piece of legislation we have
brought up, the Senator from New Hampshire has tried to throw a monkey
wrench into it. It happened on ethics, it happened on the minimum wage,
and now on this Iraq issue.
I guess my dear friend, who has a stellar political record as
Governor, Member of the House of Representatives, United States
Senator, chairman of the Budget Committee--and I have commented for the
record many times about my admiration for him, but I guess he is the
designated ``see if we can mess up the legislation'' guy this year. I
would hope in the future to get somebody I don't care so much about
because it is hard for me to try to oppose my dear friend from New
Hampshire. Maybe when they do this every couple of months they will
change.

[[Page S1604]]

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for one more
question?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, again, I appreciate the courtesy of the
majority leader.
Is it not true that when the Senator says he supports the troops,
that there is disapproval of what they are doing and that the Senator
does not think their mission is going to succeed? And is it not true
that maybe some of the troops may not view that as an expression of
support?
I talked to many men and women in the military in recent days,
ranking from private to general. Isn't it true that most of them, if
you had the opportunity to talk to them, would say: When they do not
support my mission, they do not support me?
Therefore, isn't it just a little bit of an intellectual problem to
say: Of course, we support the troops; of course, we support the
troops; of course, we support the troops, but we are sending you over--
and they are going because this is a nonbinding resolution--aren't we
saying that we think they are going to fail and this is a vote of no
confidence?
The so-called Warner amendment, by the way, is not a Republican
amendment, no matter whose name is on it.
Is it not true that when I look one of these soldiers or marines in
the eye and say: I really support you, my friend, and I know you are
going into harm's way, but I don't think you are going to succeed, in
fact, I am against your mission, but I support you, that they do not
buy it? They do not buy it, I will say to my friend from Nevada, and
don't think that they do.
So I would ask my friend if it isn't true a vote of no confidence is
a vote of no confidence to the men and women who are serving in the
military. It doesn't sell.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I also have had the opportunity to go to
Iraq as many times as my friend from Arizona, and I also speak to the
troops and the people at the Pentagon. I have to respectfully suggest
to my friend that there are many individuals whom I have spoken to who
really like what we have suggested--we, the Democrats--that there be a
redeployment of troops.
Does that mean they all pull out of Iraq and leave immediately? Of
course, it doesn't. But redeploy the troops. Redeploy the troops.
Redeploy them to do what? Counterterrorism, force protection, and
training the Iraqis. And my contacts in the military say they think our
proposal is pretty good. We were on this proposal before the Iraq Study
Group, but they adopted it, and I hope they got it from us, and that is
that there should be a regional conference, including Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and, yes, Iran. This is a regional problem. This
war will not be handled and dealt with and taken care of militarily. It
can only be done diplomatically.
We are a wonderful fighting force, and we will continue to be, but
where we have lost our edge is diplomatically. We have not done well at
all in that regard, and the people I have talked to in the military
support what we are trying to do: redeployment; they support a regional
conference; they support, of course, recognizing that this must be
handled politically. There has to be some meaningful reconstruction
that goes forward--producing less oil now than before the war, less
potable water, and less electricity. These are the things which have to
be changed, and the people I talk to in the military think we are
headed in the right direction.

They also think we are headed in the right direction when we speak
out on the state of deterioration of our military. This war has taken a
toll on our equipment--not on our troops alone, on our equipment. It is
going to cost $75 billion to bring the military up to the situation
they were in prior to this war. They are grateful we are fighting for
them in that regard.
So, Madam President, I respect--and I don't have the military
background of my friend from Arizona, but I have contacts in the
military, and I think a lot of those people are more willing to talk to
me than someone who is running for President and someone who is more
noteworthy than I am. He is better known in the military, and they know
he can respond to them probably better than I. So they are willing to
tell me a lot of things they wouldn't tell someone as significant as
John McCain.
So, Madam President, I think the Democratic plan we have enunciated
is pretty good, much of which we have enunciated for a long time and
has been picked up by the Iraq Study Group.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Certainly.
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Nevada the following
question: If I follow the inquiry of the Senator from Arizona, it leads
me to this conclusion--and let me add my voice in chorus commending his
service to our country and commending his courage. I share the
admiration, and I mean it sincerely, I say to the Senator from Arizona.
But his argument goes something like this: If you are not loyal to the
policies of the Commander in Chief, then you are not loyal to the
troops. If you are not prepared to say you will stand behind the
policy, the military policy of the President, whether you agree with it
or not, then you do not respect the troops and don't have confidence in
the troops. Nothing is further from the truth.
I ask the Senator from Nevada, does he think it is possible to
disagree with the President's policies and still be loyal to the
troops? Is it possible to say the President was wrong in not bringing
more countries in as allies in this conflict before we invaded and
still be loyal to the troops? Is it possible to say we didn't send
enough soldiers when we should have and still be loyal to the troops?
Is it possible to say disbanding the Army of Iraq was a bad decision
and still be loyal to America's troops? Is it possible to say the
situation that is grave and deteriorating in Iraq is evidence of a need
for a new direction and still be loyal to the troops?
I just don't buy the premise by the Senator from Arizona that if you
question the policy of the President, somehow you are disloyal to the
soldiers. They are the ones following orders from the Commander in
Chief. We have a special obligation to them--I think a loyalty to
them--far and beyond any Chief Executive.
I would ask the Senator from Nevada if he believes you can be loyal
to the troops and still disagree with the President?
Mr. REID. I think that is part of being a patriotic Member of this
Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I was, unfortunately, engaged in a
briefing in S. 407 on the most recent NIE, and I have just come down to
join my colleagues on the Senate floor and I caught some portions of
the debate. But I would like to say to my colleagues that the Senator
from Virginia, together with probably six or eight other Republicans,
has been discussing this issue very carefully and thoughtfully and
respectfully.
Frankly, we have taken to heart what the President said when he
addressed the Nation on January 10. His very words were: ``If there are
those with ideas, we will consider them.'' We accept that invitation by
our President and have tried in a very respectful way to simply state
that we have some serious concern with the level of 21,500 additional
troops. Now we learn it could even be larger than that, in testimony,
open testimony this morning with the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It could be 3,000 or 4,000 more. We tried
in a very respectful way simply to express our concerns about an
increase of that level at a time when polls show most of the Iraqi
people don't want us there, much less increase the force. Now, I am not
following the polls, but we are asking our troops to go into a very
heated, emotional situation in that country. We simply said to the
President: Shouldn't we put more emphasis on the utilization of the
Iraqi forces? Shouldn't we let them bear the brunt of such additional
security as must go into Baghdad?
We learned this morning that the efforts to build up the forces have
fallen short. I am not going to pronounce judgment on what happened on
just 2 or 3 days' reporting, but clearly the number of Iraqis showing
up is far below the estimates or significantly below the estimates we
anticipated their participation would be in this operation which, in
many respects, is to

[[Page S1605]]

be joint. We talked with General Pace this morning about my concern of
this concept of joint command and control. He assured us the American
forces would have a linear straight line from an American senior
officer right down to the sergeants operating the platoons on the front
lines. But nevertheless the Iraqis are going to have their chain of
command, and I think that puts a challenge to us.

But I don't want to digress from my main point. Our group, in a
conscientious and a respectful way, even wrote into the resolution that
we in no way contest the right of the President of the United States
under the Constitution to take the actions he has taken thus far and
will take. But as long as I have been in this Chamber--now in my 29th
year--I have always tried to respect another Senator's way of thinking.
I don't question his integrity or her integrity or their patriotism or
anything else. I do not do that now. I wish to make my points based on
what I have put forth in this resolution with about six other
Republican colleagues and a number of Democrats.
We simply want to suggest--and we use the word ``urge''--we urge you,
Mr. President, not ``direct you'' or ``you shall do this,'' we simply
urge that you take into consideration all the options by which you can
bring down this level and consider greater utilization of the Iraqi
forces.
Then we have the subsidiary question that this program is in three
parts--one part military. So much of our focus has been on that. There
is a diplomatic part. There is an economic part. In our testimony today
with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman, we stressed the need
for all three of those parts to come together at one time to have the
effect that the President desires with his new plan. Somehow, we gained
the impression today that maybe the political part and perhaps the
economic part are not quite as far along as some of the military
thinking and planning. Actually, the troops are moving in as we debate
this on the Senate floor.
So there were several questions we respectfully raised with the
President, urging him to take a look at this, by means of which to
lessen--lessen the total number of 21,500 and, indeed, more now--
troops.
We also point out the importance of the benchmarks. That is all in
there. We carefully lay out that the benchmarks should be clearly and
fully understood by both sides and a method put in place by which we
can assess the compliance or noncompliance for those benchmarks. The
Secretary of Defense today, in his testimony to us, in response to
questions from this Senator and others, said: Yes, we will put in a
mechanism by which to evaluate the degree to which the Iraqi compliance
is taken with respect to benchmarks, the benchmarks that basically have
to support the President's plan. In addition, we put in the resolution
of the Senator from New Hampshire. I think it is important that we have
an expression in here about the non-cutoff of funds.
So our resolution has been presented to try as best we can to put
together right here on the floor of the Senate a bipartisan consensus.
I think the American public is entitled to see whether the Senate, an
institution that is followed throughout the world, can come together
and express in a single document--accompanied by lots of debate but in
a single document--a joinder of a number of Republicans and a number of
Democrats, so it is truly bipartisan, and therefore the American public
will get, I think, the sense of confidence that this body is carrying
out its responsibility under the Constitution to speak to this issue
and to put onto a piece of paper what we think is the nearest a group
of us can gather and express ourselves. And that includes a vote.
I am not going to enter into further debate with the two leaders. I
think they are trying to work out and resolve this problem. I support
my leader with respect to the cloture, and that raises a question: How
can I advocate that I strongly adhere to my resolution and at the same
time support my leader? Well, when I first came to this Chamber many
years ago, the old-time Senators who taught me so many lessons said:
This is what separates the Senate from the House--the ability to have
this almost unlimited debate by a single Senator. And it is, throughout
the history of this institution, one of its revered tenets and its
rules. To take that and deny it, deny Senators the ability to bring up
their own resolutions to express their own views, is a curtailment that
I believe we should consider long and hard. That is why I cast that
vote yesterday.
So I leave it to the two leaders, but I come back again to the need
for this great institution to express itself through the votes of
hopefully a significant number of Senators, that this is what we
believe is the best course of action for our Nation to take as we
revise our strategy in Iraq, as we move ahead. And in our resolution,
we put in there ever so expressly that we agree with the President; it
would be disastrous were we to allow this Government to collapse not
knowing what government might or might not take their place, and to
allow the Iraqi people to lose the ground they gained through
courageous votes several times to put this Government together. It
would be bad for Iraq, it would be bad for the region, and it could
have ramifications on world peace and our efforts to stem this terrible
growth of terrorism worldwide.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
used by the two leaders in the exchange on the floor not be counted
against the 90 minutes on each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, war is the most serious and the most
consequential issue we can debate here in the Senate. American lives,
American security, and America's future are all on the line when our
country decides questions of war and peace. For years, we have been
denied a real opportunity to fully debate this war in Iraq, a war that
has now claimed more than 3,000 American lives with no end in sight.
Last November, the voters sent us a message. They want a new
direction. What do we hear from the President? More of the same. In
fact, his plan is to escalate the war by putting up to 48,000 more
Americans in the middle of a deadly civil war. They are two completely
different approaches. On one side, we have the American people, the
Iraq Study Group, generals who have spoken out, and a bipartisan
majority of Congress. On the other side, we have the President and his
supporters. In a democracy, we resolve these issues through debate. We
in the Senate are ready for that debate. We are ready to move in a new
direction, and it starts by putting this Senate on record as opposing
the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq.
I have been looking forward to finally having this debate in the
Senate, but apparently some of the Republicans have a very different
strategy. They don't want to have a real debate. They don't want to
consider the resolutions that have been offered. In fact, I think the
discussion we just witnessed right now showed that to us.
Last night, by voting against a motion to proceed to this debate,
they said they didn't want to talk about this. Now, I am not here today
to question their motives, but I do want to point out the consequences.
Every day they block a debate, they send a message that Congress
supports escalation. Every day they block a debate, they deny our
citizens a voice in a war that has cost us dearly in dollars and in
lives. And every day they block a debate, they are blocking the will of
the American public.
I am on the Senate floor today because I know this debate is long
overdue, and I am not going to let anyone silence me, the troops for
whom I speak, or the constituents I represent. Ever since the start of
combat operations in March of 2003, I have been very frustrated that we
have been denied a chance to hold hearings, a chance to ask critical
questions, a chance to demand answers, to hold those in charge
accountable, and to give the American people a voice in a war that is
costing us terribly. We are going to have that debate whether some in
this Senate like it or not.

Four years ago, I came to the Senate to discuss the original
resolution to give the President the authority to wage war in Iraq. At
that time, I asked a series of questions, including: What is

[[Page S1606]]

the mission? What will it require? Who is with us in this fight? What
happens after our troops go in? How will it impact the Middle East? How
will it affect the broader war on terror? And are we being honest with
the American people about the costs of that war?
After exploring those questions back almost 4 years ago, I announced
on October 9 of 2002 that I could not support sending our men and women
into harm's way on an ill-defined solo mission with so many critical
questions unanswered.
Now, here we are today, 4 years later, $379 billion and more than
3,000 American lives taken. Now the President wants to send more
Americans into the middle of a civil war against the wishes of the
majority of the public and Congress?
As I look at the President's proposed escalation, I am left with the
exact same conclusion I met with 4 years ago. I cannot support sending
more of our men and women into harm's way on an ill-defined solo
mission with so many critical questions unanswered. Today, President
Bush wants to send Americans into battle without a clear mission,
without equipment, without an endgame and without explaining the cost.
When he tried it 4 years ago, I stood up and spoke out and I voted
no. Again today, President Bush wants to send more Americans into
battle without a clear mission, without equipment, without an endgame
and without explaining the costs. Once again, I say: Not on my watch.
We need a new direction, not more Americans in the middle of a civil
war. I will vote for a bipartisan resolution to send a clear message
that we oppose the surge. It is the first step in demanding a new
direction in Iraq.
No debate on Iraq can begin without first recognizing our men and
women in uniform who risk their lives and all too often give up their
lives to keep all of us safe. Whenever our country calls, they answer,
no matter the cost to them or their families. They are our best. They
are our brightest, they are our bravest, and I hope to give them a
voice in this debate.
While most Americans today are going about as normal, our troops and
their families are quietly making tremendous sacrifices. The burdens of
this war have not been shared equally, and we owe so much to those who
shoulder those heavy burdens.
I had a chance to visit servicemembers from my home State on the
ground in Kuwait and in Baghdad. Every one of them makes us proud. I
have sat down with servicemembers and their families at Camp Murray, at
McChord Air Force Base, at Fairchild Air Force Base. I have talked with
returning servicemembers in every corner of my State. I have worked to
help give them the health care and the benefits and the transition and
support they deserve.
My home State of Washington has made tremendous sacrifices to help us
fight and win the war on terror. To date, more than 59,000
servicemembers with the Washington State connection have served in
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Currently,
there are nearly 10,000 people with the Washington State connection who
are serving in OEF and OIF. According to the Department of Defense, as
of January 20, for OEF and OIF, 702 servicemembers whose home of record
is Washington State have been injured. That is 702 injured from my
State. In addition, 66 servicemembers whose home of record is my home
State of Washington have paid the ultimate sacrifice. The number is
even higher when you include those who have a connection to Washington
State.
Each one of those brave Americans is someone whose mother or father,
sister or brother, daughter or son, their families are never going to
be the same. Their communities will never be the same. I offer my
prayers for those who have sacrificed for our country. We owe them a
debt that can never fully be repaid.
After nearly 4 years of losses and misrepresentations and
miscalculations, the American people have said they want a new
direction in Iraq. Generals have spoken out calling for a new
direction. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group called for a new direction.
Yet President Bush has ignored everyone and is now pushing to send even
more of our American troops into the middle of a civil war. He is
wrong. And a bipartisan resolution is the first step we can take in
helping to forge a new direction.
But now what we have is Republicans who are denying the Senate a
chance to vote for that new direction. In fact, they are preventing the
Senate from even debating the merits of that direction. They may have
stopped us from moving forward last night, but they cannot stop this
debate forever. The American people would not allow it.
If the Republicans stop their obstruction and start allowing the
Senate to debate this misguided surge proposal, there are plenty of
questions we have to ask. What would be the impact of a surge? How
would it affect our men and women in uniform? Will it put more of them
into the crossfire and cause more deaths and injuries? My home State is
home to Fort Lewis and two of the Army Stryker Brigades. How is the
surge going to affect them? Will some members see their current
deployment extended? Will others see their deployment date moved up?
Will all of them have the equipment they need when they are there?
Those are the first questions we have to ask.

How will the surge affect our ability to care for our returning
veterans? We are having trouble meeting their needs today; how will we
do the job in an escalated war?
I have heard several Members on the other side demand ideas from
Democrats, and my first response is simple: To discuss ideas, shouldn't
we discuss, first, the President's ideas? He is, after all, the
Commander in Chief. That is the point of the resolutions, to foster a
debate on the President's plan for the future of Iraq. But the Senate
Republicans would not allow that. The Republicans' obstruction and the
President's decision so far have left us with very few options.
I am looking at every resolution and every proposal. I am looking
forward to having hearings and getting the facts and moving forward in
a bipartisan way.
Personally, I believe the way forward should include three steps.
First of all, we should strategically redeploy our troops. Second, we
should work with Iraq's neighbors and other countries in the area to
build a regional framework. And third, we need the Iraqis to take
ownership of their own country and their own future. We can send troops
for decades and never have a peaceful, stable Iraq until the Iraqi
people are willing to work together for a purpose that is larger than
their own tribe or their own sect or their own self.
We need to refocus our efforts on the war on terror, on fighting al-
Qaida, and on addressing the other challenges that threaten our
security. I am very concerned by the reports we hear about Afghanistan,
that it is sliding backward and becoming more unstable. Those are some
of the steps I would take to improve our security. That is the debate
we ought to be having.
Before I conclude, let me address two concerns. First, some people
have suggested that if you question the President's policies, you are
somehow hurting our troops. As the Vice President would say, hogwash.
Supporting our troops means giving them a clear mission, making sure
they have the equipment and support they need and making sure we have a
clear endgame. If any of those critical ingredients are missing, it is
our duty to question the policy until we provide our troops with what
they need. Sending more Americans into the middle of a civil war
without a clear mission, without equipment, without support, without an
endgame, is endangering our troops, not supporting them.
I don't shrink from war. I voted for the war in Afghanistan. My
father served in World War II and he was injured in combat. I know war
is sometimes necessary. But I also know that if we don't answer the
critical questions, our troops pay the price. For too long, partisans
have claimed to be speaking for our troops but have blocked the
discussions that could truly protect them. I say, no more.
Finally, some people say that a nonbinding resolution is not enough.
And I agree. That is why this is a first step. We can't take the other
steps until this Congress goes on record, in a bipartisan voice,
telling the President the surge is wrong. Once we have done that, the
ball is in the President's court. But today, Senate Republicans

[[Page S1607]]

are preventing us from getting there. If he still will not change
course, we will look at the other tools before us.
Senators have discussed a wide series of steps that we could take. I
will review all of them. We are also holding hearings to find out what
options we can take. This is the first step. If the President doesn't
hear us, we will take the next step. And the next step. And the one
after that.
I understand that many Americans are frustrated that our troops are
in the middle of a civil war. I am frustrated. too. I wish we had been
allowed to start this process, these hearings, these debates and votes
a long time ago. But we are moving aggressively forward now. Democrats
have been in charge now for 5 weeks. And already, finally, we are
having more debates, more hearings, more progress, than we have had in
the past 3 years. But I can promise you, this is only a beginning.
We can't have these debates if the Republicans are blocking us in an
open discussion of the war. The Republicans need to stop denying a real
debate in the Senate, so that together we can move our country in a new
direction. I believe for us to have an impact, Congress has to speak
out in a clear, bipartisan voice. We could vote on hundreds of
resolutions that make us feel better, but that would not help us change
direction. It is a strong, bipartisan message from Congress to the
executive branch and to the country that has the power to make
progress.
I am willing to take the time and do this right and to build the
support we need so that at the end of the day we can have a real
impact. I strongly oppose the surge. I believe escalation is the wrong
direction. I will vote to put the Senate on record opposing the surge
if the Republicans will end their filibuster. I will continue to fight
for new direction in Iraq.
For too long, the voices of our troops and our citizens have been
blocked. Today, Senate Republicans are trying to continue that
obstruction. I say, no longer. The debate must begin because our
country will be better for it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes.

____________________