[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 7, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1658-S1668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to, once again, state the situation. 
It has been very well stated by the Republican leader. The simple fact 
is, we, as members of the minority, requested the right to offer an 
alternative to the proposal of the majority. That is not an unusual 
event in the Senate. In fact, it is the purpose of the Senate to debate 
different approaches.
  What we asked as an alternative was very simple, straight forward 
language. Let me read it again. It simply stated:

       It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not 
     take any action that will endanger the United States 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 the safety or harm their 
     effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.

  All this language says is that whether you agree with the President 
or whether you disagree with the President, whether you support a 
commitment of more troops or you don't support a commitment of more 
troops, once the troops are on the ground in the fight, we are going to 
give them the financial support, the logistical support, the equipment 
that they need in order to protect themselves and pursue their mission 
effectively.
  Members do not have to support the President to support this 
language. It is not designed to state the President is right or the 
President is wrong. It is simply language designed to say that an 
American soldier deserves the support of the Congress of the United 
States. That is an elementary responsibility of this Senate.
  The fact that the Democratic leadership will not allow Members to 
vote on this simple statement of support for American troops is a 
transgression on the purposes of the Senate, which is to express itself 
relative to the actions of our soldiers in the field and how we will 
support them.
  It is literally impossible to address the debate on Iraq without 
addressing the most fundamental issue, which is whether our troops are 
going to be supported when they are asked to defend us in the field. 
The idea that we can decouple the support for the troops from the issue 
of policy is absurd on its face, and the position of the Democratic 
leadership that we should not address the issue of supporting the 
troops when we address the issue of whether the tactics being pursued 
by the military commanders in the field are correct--which doesn't 
happen to be the responsibility of Congress; that is the responsibility 
of the commanders--is by nature inconceivable, inconsistent, and simply 
not defensive.
  In fact, it is so absurd on its face that I would simply quote the 
national commander of the American Legion, Mr. Paul Morin, who says:

       We will not separate the war from the warrior.

  That is what this is about: whether the Democratic leadership takes 
the truly indefensible position that in a debate on the issue of Iraq, 
we do not discuss the support for the person we are asking to go out 
and defend this Nation.
  What this really comes down to is very simple. This resolution would 
have received broad bipartisan support in this Senate. That is because 
there are very few Members in this Senate--I would guess virtually 
none--who don't believe that our obligation as a Senate, as a 
legislative body which funds the military, that our obligation is to 
give the soldiers in the field what they need in order to defend 
themselves and carry out their mission.

  So rather than have a vote on our amendment which would have received 
a large majority in this Senate--much

[[Page S1659]]

larger than the proposal put forward as their proposal--they decided 
not to have a vote at all. Then they claimed that we were responsible 
for slowing the process.
  How inconsistent and indefensible is that statement: I don't have the 
votes; therefore, I will not allow a vote to happen. But it is your 
fault that I am not allowing the vote to happen. Really? That only 
makes sense if you happen to be a true partisan and believe this debate 
should be a partisan debate.
  Somehow my language has been described as ``partisan,'' and the other 
language has been described as ``bipartisan,'' but the other language 
has fewer votes than my language. No, this is not true. It is simply a 
fact that the other side of the aisle does not wish to put their 
membership in a position of voting for a simple resolution that calls 
for the support of our troops.
  That is an unfortunate statement on where the Democratic Party is 
today relative to support for the efforts of soldiers in the field. It 
is hard for me to conceive that there are folks within the community of 
interest in Washington who feel so strongly about their dislike for the 
President or his policies that they are unwilling to go on record in 
support of the soldier who is fighting for us on the streets of 
Baghdad. But that is the essence of the problem. That is why we are not 
going to have a vote in the Senate. It is not that the Republican 
membership has in some way stalled this process. The Republican leader 
has gone out of his way, he has gone well beyond what many in our party 
believe maybe we should have done in trying to be accommodating to the 
insistence of the Democratic leadership that there be no opposition to 
the one item that they want to bring to the Senate floor.
  In my experience in the Senate, when something is brought to the 
floor of the Senate as controversial as the discussion of how we pursue 
a war and a war policy, there are going to be a lot of amendments. But 
the Senate leadership, under the Democratic leader, has said, no, not 
only will there not be a lot of amendments, there will only be one 
amendment from our side, and we on the Democratic side will pick the 
amendment on the Republican side that they can offer, and we will let 
them offer that but nothing else.
  The Republican leader, in an attempt to be responsive, said, OK, if 
there are only going to be two amendments, we will pick the amendment. 
And the amendment will simply say that whether you support the 
President, whether you support his policies, at least you can say you 
support the troops, the soldiers who are asked to go out and protect 
America and walk the streets of Baghdad.
  But that was a bridge too far for the Democratic leader, a bridge too 
far for the Democratic membership because they did not want to take 
that vote even though that would have been a bipartisan vote and would 
have received significantly more votes than the Democratic proposal.
  I don't think there should be any confusion about why we aren't 
having a vote. We are not having a vote because more people would vote 
for my amendment than would vote for their amendment, and they don't 
want to embarrass their membership by having to have them vote for my 
amendment even though there is nothing controversial about it, unless 
you consider supporting troops in the field, giving them what they need 
to fight and defend themselves, to be controversial.
  It is an ironic situation. I thank the Republican leader for having 
offered me the opportunity to bring this amendment forward and for 
making it fairly clear that we as a membership are willing to be 
reasonable; that we only ask for a vote on something that we think is 
important while they ask for a vote on something they think is 
important.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. How much time does the minority have remaining in morning 
business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty and one-half minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, would you advise me when I have used 6 
minutes, and I will defer to my other colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will advise the Senator.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the majority leader this morning said 
within my hearing that there is no support for the surge. I don't know 
why he would say that because, in fact, not only have Members of this 
Senate unanimously supported, through the confirmation hearing of GEN 
David Petreaus, one of the people who certainly will be instrumental in 
executing that surge, but that is what we have been debating for these 
last weeks, indeed, months: what the new plan should be in Iraq, to 
deal with what is, obviously, an unacceptable status quo.
  I am tempted to wonder out loud if, rather than talking about issues 
that really matter--such as the issue that the Senator from New 
Hampshire has asked for a vote on but been denied, whether we will 
support our troops and refuse to cut off funding while we send them in 
harm's way--we are seeing a bunch of spin doctoring going on.
  But when the majority leader says there is no support for the surge, 
I would simply disagree because, in fact, at least one of the 
amendments that has been offered that we have been denied an 
opportunity to vote on, as the majority leader has done what he is 
entitled to do, which is to move on to other subjects and to set the 
Senate agenda, one of those amendments would, in fact, support General 
Petreaus and the plan he has taken upon himself to execute in Iraq that 
we are sending, over a period of time, additional reinforcements to 
secure Baghdad.
  So there is substantial support for this plan. The problem is, I am 
tempted to believe there are some who have simply given up, who don't 
believe there is any chance of success in Iraq. The problem is, those 
who have expressed such defeatism, who in this contest of wills say we 
simply lost ours, have not talked one bit about the consequences of 
giving up, the huge humanitarian crisis that would occur, the ethnic 
cleansing that would occur, the fact that another failed state in the 
Middle East, as in Afghanistan before it, could serve as a launching 
pad for recruiting and training and exporting of terrorist attacks.
  Standing here and suggesting that defeat is something we will accept 
is, to my view, not a responsible position to take.
  So I disagree with those who simply say we have no chance to turn 
things around. There are those who say ad nauseam that there is ``no 
military solution in Iraq.'' I would commend to them an article that 
was written by Victor Davis Hanson that is entitled ``Give Petraeus a 
Chance.'' Mr. Hanson says:

     . . . in fact, only a military blow to the insurgency will 
     allow the necessary window for the government to gain time, 
     trust, and confidence to press ahead with reform and 
     services.

  So, as General Petraeus said, we are engaged in a test of wills. How 
could it possibly be that we have lost our own will to protect 
America's national security, to prevent a regional conflict that will 
inevitably, if it occurs, cost us more in treasure and blood? How is it 
that America could possibly have lost its will?
  I think the Senator from New Hampshire made a good point a moment ago 
when he said the reason why the majority leader has now taken us off of 
this issue--which, again, is his sole prerogative as majority leader; 
that is the power a majority leader has--that the reason we have not 
been given a chance to vote on the Gregg amendment that says we will 
not cut off funds, we will not fail to support our troops on the 
mission they have volunteered to undertake, and which we have sent them 
on--the real reason, as the Washington Post reported, Senator Gregg's 
amendment was not allowed to be voted on is because his amendment is 
likely the ``only measure that could attract 60 votes.''
  The USA Today said the majority leader opposed allowing a vote on the 
amendment because it could have resulted in a situation where the 
Senate would have been on record opposing cuts in funding for the 
troops but not the President's policy.
  I think it is absolutely imperative--whether it is today or tomorrow 
or next week or next month, or all of the above--we make it very clear 
we will not ever cut off our support for the men and women who have 
undertaken this dangerous mission.

[[Page S1660]]

  When I went out to Walter Reed on Monday to visit some of the injured 
veterans of the Iraq conflict, I could not help but be struck by the 
sort of surreality of that. Here are young men and women who have lost 
limbs, and many, unfortunately, have lost their lives volunteering to 
protect us and to bring stability to the Middle East and to allow the 
Iraqis a better life. They have risked it all, and some have paid that 
ultimate sacrifice. Yet here in the Senate----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 6 minutes.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I would ask for 1 remaining minute by 
unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. And here we are in the Senate this week debating about 
nonbinding resolutions and avoiding the tough votes on whether we will 
cut off funds to support this mission. Instead, we engage in the 
continued surreal environment of this Senate by saying: OK, now we have 
confirmed General Petraeus, one of the people who is going to execute 
this plan in Iraq. But now, today, we are going to also vote on Admiral 
Fallon, the head of Central Command, General Petraeus's commander, who 
will also be in charge of this mission, and GEN George Casey, who has 
been in charge of coalition forces. Do you know what I predict? We will 
confirm, as we did General Petraeus, Admiral Fallon and General Casey, 
and yet there are some who stand up here in the Senate and elsewhere 
and have the temerity to say: We support you, but we do not support the 
mission we have asked you to execute.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask that the Chair inform me when I 
have used 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, clearly, without doubt, without question, the war in 
Iraq is the leading concern of the American people, as well it should 
be. It is a very difficult situation, and a situation that will define 
our future and our security for years to come. Because it is the 
dominant, the leading concern of the American people, without any close 
second, I think it is imperative we have a debate and votes on this 
crucial question.
  I would urge the majority leader to come back to the floor and engage 
in this debate and move forward with this discussion and accept the 
very reasonable compromise of the minority leader in narrowing down all 
of the universe of ideas and resolutions to simply two.
  I will freely admit that is not my first preference in terms of this 
debate. I had always heard before coming here 2 years ago that the 
Senate was about open debate, unlimited debate, the ability to get your 
ideas and your amendments and your resolutions to the floor with very 
few limits. So I thought, particularly in the context of this very 
serious situation in Iraq, we needed an open debate, we needed more 
ideas, not fewer, we needed every significant vote that should be 
taken.
  So that was my preference: unlimited debate. But the majority leader 
rejected that, only would allow very limited votes, very limited 
debate. At the end of the day--again, it was not my first choice, but 
at the end of the day, the minority leader said: OK, you want two 
votes--only two votes--OK. Let's focus on two proposals. Let's have 
just two votes. But our choice for our one proposal will be the Gregg 
amendment because we feel so strongly about supporting our troops in 
the field. And then the majority leader said no, I can't accept that. I 
need to choose your proposal. I need to choose what you want to put up 
for a vote.

  That is not the tradition of the Senate. And, more importantly, that 
is not treating this very serious issue, the dominant concern among all 
Americans, bar none, properly. We need to debate this issue now. We 
need to vote on this issue now. Again, I urge the majority leader to 
come back to the floor and engage in this debate this week--now--
because the country is concerned now about Iraq. The country has 
questions, understandably, now about the President's plan. And our 
troops in the field have questions and uncertainty now about whether we 
will be standing shoulder to shoulder with them no matter what policy 
is adopted.
  Again, I think the minority leader's proposal yesterday bent over 
backwards--compromise and compromise and compromise--to reach an 
ability to have this debate we must have on the floor of the Senate. We 
wanted far more than two proposals debated. We wanted far more than two 
votes. But we accepted the majority leader's number. We accepted the 
majority leader's parameters of just two proposals, just two votes. But 
surely the minority gets to choose one of those two proposals to 
discuss, particularly given that this Gregg proposal has broad 
bipartisan support.
  So let's have this Iraq debate that we must have. Let's have key 
votes that we must have. And let's do it now. I urge the majority 
leader, again, not to give up, not to reject this very reasonable 
compromise, bending over backwards by the minority leader to agree to 
his number of two. Let's take that up. Let's have this debate. Let's 
have crucial votes. The American people deserve that, given the very 
tough situation in Iraq. And our men and women in uniform sure as heck 
deserve that. They sure as heck deserve to hear from us: OK, we know 
some of you are for the President's surge plan; we know some of you are 
against it. But what about supporting whatever troops are put in the 
field? They sure as heck deserve an answer to that question. And they 
certainly deserve that reassurance.
  Let's have that fair debate, and let's have it now.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Madam President, it is interesting that we would be 
preparing today to have a debate that will not be taking place, and it 
will not be taking place because it is the prerogative of the 
leadership to set the agenda of what we do discuss and debate.
  I agree with my colleagues who have requested an opportunity to have 
a full airing of the views, to have a full debate, to have an 
opportunity to express our support for the men and women in the field, 
in addition to whatever else we might want to debate on this topic of 
the most important issue facing our country today.
  But getting beyond the procedural and the tit for tat that so often 
signifies what Washington is about, what fundamentally is this debate 
about? It is about the global war on terror. It is about the events 
that unfolded in our country on the morning of September 11, 2001, and 
the aftermath of all of that, the things that have occurred as our 
Nation has responded to the attacks that were brought upon our shores, 
as we have sought to carry out this difficult mission, but one in which 
we must not waiver, which is this war on terror.
  As a result of this war on terror, our troops are in Iraq today, 
where they have removed a dictator from power and where they have 
confronted the enemy, which regardless of how someone might have felt 
about the original decision to go into Iraq, today we are there and we 
are engaging an enemy that is the very enemy that attacked us here on 
9/11.
  It is known that in Al Anbar Province it is fundamentally an al-Qaida 
operation. So to send additional reinforcements to Al Anbar Province to 
defeat al-Qaida in Iraq is in the best interests of this Nation. It is 
in our national interest to pacify, to bring some peace to Baghdad, 
which is the capital city of Iraq, which is essential to the peace and 
security of that nation, of that budding democracy that is attempting 
to put itself on its feet, and to bring some stability to that capital 
city by additional reinforcements of American troops in a new plan I 
think is reasonable.
  We cannot get so focused on whether some in this body cannot work 
with this President, do not want to support any of his policies. But 
let's look at the people who are going to carry out this policy, the 
generals who are going to be in the field.
  In the past few days, as has been stated, we have approved by a 
near--well, I guess it was unanimous; it was 81 to 0, I believe--the 
sending of General Petraeus as our new commander of

[[Page S1661]]

allied forces in Iraq. I recall his testimony in the Armed Services 
Committee where he clearly said he believed in this plan and thought it 
had a reasonable chance of success. Why would we not give a reasonable 
chance of success a chance to succeed? Why would we not stand behind 
our men and women who are willing to go into harm's way to carry out 
this plan and see if they have an opportunity to succeed?
  The goal of this new plan is threefold. First, we have to have some 
stability in Baghdad. We have to continue to defeat al-Qaida in Al 
Anbar Province. But then beyond that there are other elements to the 
plan. There obviously needs to be a political reconciliation. There 
needs to be a political settlement. But that will never take place if 
there is not some modicum of stability, if we do not bring down the 
sectarian violence and other violence in Iraq to a manageable level.
  We then have an opportunity for the political settlement to take 
place between the Shias and Sunnis, and the Kurds in the north, so they 
can all come together and begin to bind as a new nation, as a new 
country, as a new government--a government, by the way, that has only 
been in place about 9 months.
  In addition to that, we then have a third angle to this, which I 
think is so vitally important, which is the economic reconstruction, 
the economic development, the opportunity for there to be jobs, for 
there to be opportunities for folks to find a way to make a better life 
for themselves and their children, so they can reach their aspirations, 
and do it in an atmosphere of freedom, do it in an atmosphere of 
democracy and respect for one another. That is the goal.
  What would happen if we do not give this plan a chance, if we do not 
see if it has an opportunity to carry out and have an opportunity for 
success? What is the alternative? Well, we would then have failed in 
this test of wills. Our enemies have clearly stated they believe if 
they kill enough Americans, if they cause enough grief to our mothers, 
if they cause enough harm to our troops, we will not stand up, we will 
move on, we will find an easier way, and we will not resist those who 
would bring the destruction of our country upon us.
  Their stated aims are very clear. They want us out of the Middle 
East. They want to be able to get America out of the Middle East. They 
do not want us there because they know we are what stands between them 
and the opportunity of creating a radical Islamic new caliphate in that 
region of the world, and the danger that would all bring about.
  The new intelligence estimate on Iraq we have seen gives a window 
into what would happen if we had a precipitous withdrawal over the next 
12 to 18 months. It would not be a pretty picture. Sectarian violence 
would ensue. Unquestionably, we would have a Shia-dominated Middle 
East. Already they are, through their proxies, in Lebanon, in Syria. 
They have a strong alliance with them. They are trying to take over the 
Palestinian movement.
  Over the next 12 to 18 months, the assessments would be very dire of 
what would take place if we were to be out of the region: an escalation 
of violence, a diminished chance for stability, no chance for positive 
change.
  The estimates suggest that a key aim in Iraq is to stabilize the 
situation from the standpoint of violence, enough to let the political 
changes that have to happen take place. I am going to quote from the 
estimate. It says from the public version:

       If strengthened, Iraqi security forces more loyal to the 
     government, supported by coalition forces, are able to reduce 
     levels of violence and establish more effective security for 
     Iraq's population, and Iraqi leaders can have an opportunity 
     to begin the process of political compromise necessary for 
     longer-term stability, political progress, and economic 
     recovery.

  Isn't that a better way? Isn't that what we all want, what the Senate 
should be on record as supporting--this opportunity for our troops to 
be successful, and not only to be in harm's way fighting for our 
country, but also to know that the Senate stands behind them, will not 
cut off their funds, will stand with them as they go into battle, and 
will stand with them as they do the hard work of freedom--work done by 
many other generations of America any time they have been called upon 
to stand for freedom, stand for the rule of law, and to give this 
budding new democracy an opportunity to take hold and take root.
  Madam President, I am disappointed that today we will not have an 
opportunity to have a fuller debate, that I won't have the opportunity 
to be on record with a vote reflecting where I stand, which all of us 
should be willing to do--take a stand, take a position supporting our 
troops.
  I personally would also be in support of this plan which I believe 
gives us the best opportunity for success, which is the only plan out 
there. Those who would not give this plan a chance owe the American 
people an alterative but one that would have a reasonable chance for 
success. Success is what we are after. A victory in this part of the 
world would send a strong message to our enemies. So I am disappointed 
we will not vote today.
  I hope the majority leader will reconsider and come back to have an 
earnest debate and take the votes that are necessary to be taken.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, we have heard a debate over the last 
hour about where we stand on the resolutions and debating the 
escalation of the war in Iraq. Here is where we are at the end of the 
day. We can dot all the i's, cross all the t's, and do all of the 
legalistic parsing that we want. The minority is blocking a vote on the 
issue that the American people wish to hear us on: Do you support or 
oppose the escalation? It is that simple.
  The minority's action ratifies the President's escalation. And any 
Senator who voted to prevent the Warner resolution from coming to the 
floor is saying to his or her constituents: I support that escalation.
  We know what is going on. The minority is torn between loyalty to 
their President and following the will of their voters. I have not seen 
a single State where, at least from the polling data, the public 
supports the escalation. There should be a simple vote, and not as an 
end to this debate but as a beginning to this debate. The minority is 
tying itself in a pretzel so that there will not be a vote.
  Now, the Gregg resolution is missing two words. Look at it. Read it. 
It doesn't have the word ``surge,'' and it doesn't have the word 
``escalation.'' It is ambiguously worded so that it tries to tie 
support for the troops with the escalation, but without saying so. It 
is a resolution that is intended to befuddle, perplex, obfuscate, and 
to hide.
  The good news is that the American people don't follow the details of 
all of this debate. They don't have the time. They are busy with their 
lives, their families, their jobs, the joys and sorrows of life. But 
they follow the big picture. The big picture is simple: Senator Reid 
has labored mightily to have a clear, unobstructed, unobliterated vote 
on whether you support or oppose the escalation.
  The minority leader, backed by all but two of his membership, has 
said we do not want to vote; we want to let the President go forward 
with the escalation, without taking responsibility for it. The public 
is seeing that. The public understands.
  My good friend from Mississippi was talking in the hallway. He said 
the job of the Senate is to take the tough votes. You bet it is. It is 
not whether we are saying we support the troops--which everybody agrees 
that we do--in an ambiguously designed amendment to support escalation 
and get their way, and those against it get their way. The bottom line 
is simple: the tough vote is ``yes'' or ``no'' on the escalation.
  Again, I salute our majority leader. He has done everything to try to 
bring that vote to the floor. The minority leader has done everything 
to obstruct that vote. The good news is that we will have plenty of 
further opportunity to get that vote and, make no mistake about it, 
this majority, in the belief that the escalation is wrong, in the 
belief that there is no strategy in Iraq

[[Page S1662]]

other than to police a civil war, which no one bargained for, will be 
resolute and we will find ample opportunities to not only get a sense-
of-the-Senate vote on whether you support or oppose the escalation, but 
to move further and ratchet up the pressure on the President so that he 
changes his strategy.

  The number of people in America who believe that our strategy in Iraq 
is succeeding gets smaller every day. I think it is below 1 in 4 right 
now, which means that close to a majority of Republicans don't agree 
with the strategy. Obviously, if the President came here 3 years ago 
and said we are going to have our troops on Haifa Street patrolling a 
civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites--how many people would have 
voted for that? How many Americans would have supported it? But that is 
exactly what we are doing. The vast majority of the troops that the 
President is asking for will continue to do just that and only that.
  So this debate is coming only to a temporary close. One thing stands 
out clearly: the Republican minority is allowing the President to go 
forward with the escalation. It is supporting the escalation but 
doesn't want to vote to say so. My colleagues, that will not wash. The 
American people are too smart. They are too concerned. They are too 
worried about the brave men and women over there risking their lives as 
Sunnis shoot at Shiites and Shiites shoot at Sunnis. To hold the 
minority's feet to the fire, we will be resolute in making sure that 
happens.
  The Gregg resolution is obfuscatory. It is designed to give people 
cover who don't want to say yes or no. But make no mistake about it, 
the people want a yes or a no. They want us to act on that yes or no as 
we come forward with the supplementary budget request next month. And 
this majority, limited as it may be, will endeavor to do just that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. First of all, I commend the Senator from New York for an 
excellent presentation. As I understand it from his comments, the 
principal question before the country now is the whole issue of a surge 
and the certain timeliness of it. We know that the President was able 
to extend, for example, marines in place over there and get a certain 
number of troops over there, but we know this is something that is 
going to happen in the future. A chunk of the troops are going over in 
February, another group in March, and another group in April.
  In the Armed Services Committee yesterday, we learned it is not just 
the 20,000 the President talked about, but that number is going to be 
exceeded. We heard from General Pace.
  As I understand what the good Senator has said, we have had four 
surges previously over there. This concept, this idea, has been 
utilized previously and none were successful. Secondly, as I understand 
what the Senator has said, the leading generals, General Abizaid and 
General Casey, previously suggested that this concept did not make 
sense; it only inflamed the insurgency. Is that the Senator's 
understanding?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Yes, indeed.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The third part of the Senator's speech, which I hope our 
colleagues will listen to, is the reference to the independent study by 
Baker and Hamilton, where a bipartisan recommendation said that such an 
activity would not make sense.
  So does it make sense when we have that kind of lineup, so to speak, 
where we have the military, the background of surges, the independent 
study made by Republicans and Democrats alike--we are faced now with a 
surge, so we have to take action and express ourselves. Doesn't it make 
sense for this body to express itself on that particular policy issue? 
Isn't that the responsible thing to do?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Indeed. I thank my colleague for asking the question. 
Again, the minority says it is our job to take some tough votes. Here, 
here. We want to take what is a tough vote for some: Are you for the 
surge? Are you for the escalation or are you against it? They are doing 
everything they can to avoid it. But as my good friend from 
Massachusetts has so aptly pointed out, the bottom line is that now is 
the time to go on record--now, before most of the troops are there; 
now, when we can ratchet up pressure on the President to change his 
policy, as the independent study group said, and so many generals have 
said. I might add, from the press reports, the Prime Minister of Iraq 
doesn't want them. We are almost in Alice in Wonderland here.
  I will say one other thing. The good news is simple: the American 
people get it. They know that the war in Iraq doesn't have a strategy. 
They know it is headed toward a dead end. They know that policing a 
civil war makes no sense, and they know what we are trying to do, which 
is forcing a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote--get a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote and 
move forward to change that strategy. No amount of wordsmithing on the 
other side is going to change that fact.
  Today, the Republican minority said: We are for the surge, and we 
will let the President go forward and do it.
  I yield to my colleague for another question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Just a final point. Madam President, the Senator has 
stated it well. Basically, the recommendations of those generals I 
mentioned--and General Abizaid said he had inquired of all the combat 
commanders--all of the combat commanders--whether there should be an 
enhanced presence in Baghdad, and he testified before the Armed 
Services Committee that we should not.
  But isn't the point the Senator is making is to underline what all of 
the generals have said and Maliki has said; that is, it is a political 
resolution, it is a political decision? What we are seeing now is 
resorting to a military solution when the independent study commission, 
the generals on the ground, and the political leaders in that country 
have said what is necessary now is a political resolution, a political 
decision, and we find an administration that has effectively discarded 
that as an option and is going to the military option.
  As I understand, the Senator believes we ought to have a political 
resolution, political courage by the parties in power there; that we 
here and the U.S. troops can't care more about the freedom of the 
Iraqis than the Iraqi people and they have to stand up, step up, and be 
willing to make their judgments.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, the Senator is exactly right. And I 
will add one other point to his very prescient comments. Let us say we 
have this surge and then troops leave after a certain amount of time--
some say the end of the summer, some say it will go on 3, 4, 5 years. 
What is going to happen then if we don't have a political solution the 
good Senator asks about? The Sunni and Shia will resume fighting, and 
we will have accomplished nothing. We will have seen the lives of some 
of our brave men and women be taken from them, American soldiers. We 
will have created more havoc in Iraq. And we will have, again, delayed 
the very political solution my friend from Massachusetts talks about, 
which is essential.
  If there had been a change in Government, if there had been a change 
in strategy, perhaps--I can't say because I don't know what it would 
be, given this administration hasn't changed anything--maybe the 
American people, maybe some on this side of the aisle would say: Give 
it a chance. But to send more of our brave troops over there when there 
is no change in strategy, when it is just increasing policing of a 
civil war, and when, at the end of this so-called surge, this 
escalation, nothing will have changed, the American people have every 
right to ask: To what end?
  That is what we are asking. That is why we want a simple vote. And 
that is why today is going to go down in history as a day when this 
Republican minority in this House said to the President: We are 
supporting your surge. We don't want to vote on it, but we are allowing 
it to happen. We are encouraging it to happen. And the very rubberstamp 
nature, when the minority was in the majority, that brought them to 
such trouble in November of 2006 is simply continuing.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a final 
point?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I had the opportunity to read the 
national intelligence report on Monday. There has been both an 
intelligence report and a declassified report. Even in

[[Page S1663]]

the declassified report, would the Senator say, in his evaluation of 
the best of the intelligence community that has been reviewing this 
situation that every aspect of that intelligence report is basically in 
support of the conclusions the Senator has outlined here? This is not 
something just the Senators from New York or Massachusetts are making 
up. This is a conclusion which has been made by the intelligence 
agencies about what the nature of the battle is in Baghdad today.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator. Once again, he is right on the 
money. He is right on the money.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed his 15 minutes under 
the order.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
1 more minute to finish my point, and then I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The Senator is right on the money, and it is, again, a 
pattern. The experts--intelligence, military, diplomatic--tell the 
administration what they are doing is wrong, tell the administration 
that all the signs on the ground point to a policy that is failing, and 
they keep their head in the sand and just go forward. It is a tragedy. 
It is a tragedy when truth is not exalted and when there is a desire to 
stifle debate, as has happened in the administration and is happening 
on the floor of the Senate today.
  We all love this country, everyone in this Chamber, regardless of 
politics, but at least for me--and I dearly love America--every day we 
delay hurts us a little more and a little more and a little more. We 
dig ourselves deeper in a hole from which it will be harder and harder 
to extricate ourselves.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, to pick up where the good Senator from New York 
stopped, we had yesterday at Saint Francis Xavier in Hyannis, MA--I was 
unable to attend because I was here in the Senate--the funeral of a 
young serviceman who was lost. At the end of last week, a young 
serviceman named Callahan from Woburn, MA--his fourth time in Iraq, a 
father of four--was lost.
  Woburn, MA, is a very interesting blue-collar community. They had the 
highest percentage of casualties in the Vietnam war of any community in 
my State. They had high school class after high school class that 
joined the Marines and suffered devastating casualties in Vietnam. It 
is also a storybook community on civic action--water contamination in 
that community resulted in the deaths of a number of children there. 
But the community is made up of extraordinary men and women and 
families. They are weathering through this extreme, extraordinary 
tragedy.
  Sixty-four brave soldiers from Massachusetts have been lost, killed, 
and this is the overriding, overarching issue in question: What can we 
do after 4 years where our service men and women have done everything 
we have asked them to do? They have served in Iraq longer than it took 
to end World War II, to sweep through Africa, to cross Western Europe, 
cross through the Pacific, and they are still out there. Many of us 
believe, as we mentioned a few moments ago, that the solution lies not 
in the increasing surge but in a political resolution and determination 
and decisions made by the Iraqis for their own future. It is, after 
all, their country.
  Let me talk for a few minutes about the other costs of this war, the 
$200 billion which is in the President's budget for the war in Iraq and 
what the implications of that will be, so that Americans can understand 
more completely the costs.
  It comes from children's health, as the President's budget underfunds 
the CHIP program by $8 billion. That program has been extremely 
successful in providing health care to low-income children.
  Will the Chair let me know when I have 2 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yet there are still more than 8 million children in 
America with no health coverage, and there is a health care crisis for 
our Nation's children. But what does the President propose to do about 
it? His budget will make the crisis even worse by cutting 400,000 
children from the Children's Health Insurance Program.
  It comes from our seniors and our disabled citizens. The President's 
budget cuts $66 billion from Medicare, which is a lifeline to millions 
of retirees and disabled Americans. If the President has his way, more 
than 700,000 people in Massachusetts who rely on Medicare could see the 
quality of their care go down.
  It comes from those battling mental illnesses. Each year, 25 percent 
of Americans suffer from some sort of mental illness. We owe it to them 
and their families to do all we can to ensure they are able to lead 
full and productive lives. Yet the President's budget cuts mental 
health assistance by $159 million.
  It comes from Hurricane Katrina victims. Despite massive ongoing 
needs on the gulf coast, the President's budget offers no additional 
assistance to help people rebuild their lives.
  It comes from the Nation's defense against epidemics, such as the 
flu, as the President proposes to slash funding for the Centers for 
Disease Control by $165 million.
  It comes from Medicaid, our health care lifeline for the poor, which 
the President intends to cut by $50 billion over the next 10 years. In 
Massachusetts, 880,000 citizens depend on Medicaid, and this budget 
places them at risk.
  It comes from our children's education. The President's budget 
underfunds the No Child Left Behind reforms by almost $15 billion. In 
my State of Massachusetts, these cuts would leave behind more than 
51,000 children. Nationwide, we have 3.5 million children who are not 
participating in the program whatsoever. Yet they will have a 
requirement to meet sufficiency in the year 2012.
  It comes from our youngest children. By cutting $107 million from the 
Head Start Program, the President fails to give the youngest children a 
strong start in life. This is a program which is tried, tested, and 
true.
  It comes from our students with special needs. When we passed the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we made a promise to 
disabled children and their families that they were to receive the 
education they deserve. President Bush's budget breaks that promise by 
cutting funding to IDEA by $290 million. We made the commitment we were 
going to provide 40 percent of all the funding. We are now at about 18 
percent of funding, and we are reducing that. It is shifting the burden 
onto the families and the local communities.
  It comes from school safety. Our children ought to be able to go to 
school without fearing violence, but this budget cuts funding for Safe 
and Drug-Free Schools. With all the challenges of schools and violence 
in schools, it cuts back the funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
  It comes at the expense of our teachers. Over the next decade, this 
Nation will need to hire 2 million more teachers, but this budget cuts 
funding for teacher quality grants.
  It comes at the expense of students. At a time when college costs are 
skyrocketing, the President's budget completely eliminates the Perkins 
Loan Program, which over 500,000 students depend on to help them afford 
a college education. We know that a college degree is a ticket to a 
bright and better future, but this budget closes the college door 
instead of opening it wider. There are already 400,000 young people who 
are qualified to get into our fine community colleges, public colleges, 
and private colleges and don't do so because of a lack of funding.
  It comes from our workers who are looking for good jobs to support 
their families because the President's budget slashes $1 billion from 
programs that train Americans for jobs. Madam President, listen to 
this: In Massachusetts alone, there are 25,000 people waiting to be 
enrolled in job training programs.
  In Boston, there are 25 applicants for each job training slot. There 
are 78,000 jobs that are out there today that are looking for trained 
people, 25 people for every training slot, 275,000 people who are 
unemployed. What is wrong with

[[Page S1664]]

this picture? We are cutting back on the training opportunities for 
those individuals to be able to pay more in taxes and provide more 
hopeful futures for their children.
  This budget can find $200 billion more for the war in Iraq but not a 
dime for people at home trying to better their lives. They come from 
families who need help putting food on the table. The President wants 
to cut the Food Stamp Program by $600 million, leaving nearly 300,000 
families wondering where they are going to find the next meal for 
themselves and their children.
  I have had the chance to visit our absolutely spectacular food bank 
in Boston, and they talk about the increased numbers that they already 
have. This is going to even put more pressure on those food banks and 
more pressure on those families. It comes from the poor struggling 
against the bitter cold, as the budget cuts 17 percent of the funding 
for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps low-
income families afford to heat their homes.
  In my State, if you use home heating oil you need to fill your tank 
generally three times a winter--three times a winter. Families are down 
now where they are only able to fill--the needy who qualify for this--
less than half a tank for the whole winter. We know what is happening. 
People make the choices between the prescription drugs they need, the 
food they need, and the heat they need for their homes. We are cutting 
that program by 17 percent.
  Perhaps most tragically of all, the money for the war in Iraq comes 
from our veterans themselves. Nearly half the troops returning from 
Iraq will require health care services to cope with the physical or 
mental toll of the war. Yet the President's budget underfunds veterans' 
health. It provides only half the increase in funding required for the 
VA to keep pace with the needs of our veterans.
  In Massachusetts alone, there are 453,000 veterans who have served 
our country when they were called to duty, and we have a moral 
obligation to do all we can for them.
  This is the cost of this war. This is all for a war that never should 
have happened, for a war that should be brought to an end. Yet this 
administration is allowing it to go on and on, with mistake after 
mistake after mistake. This terrible war is having an effect not only 
on our troops, who are paying the highest price, but on our children, 
our elderly, our schools, our workers, and the poor here at home.
  While the President forges ahead with a surge in Iraq, the American 
people need a surge here at home. Americans see the cost of health care 
and the cost of college going up. What about a surge in our health and 
education policies to meet those needs? Americans here at home worry 
about their economic security, about their jobs and stagnant wages, how 
they can support themselves on their wages. How about a surge here at 
home to help meet their needs?
  Last week, we met with our Nation's mayors. They described the 
problem of school dropouts, how these young people are turning to crime 
in our communities, the proliferation of murders and youth homicides 
and suicides. Where is the surge to address that problem? No wonder the 
American people are growing angrier and angrier as the war wages on. 
They expect Congress to be an effective restraint on the President and 
his abuse of the War Powers Act.
  Opposition to the escalation is clear already. How much clearer does 
it have to be before Republicans in Congress and the President finally 
respond to the voice of the American people? When will this war be 
brought to an end? An escalation now would be an immense mistake, 
compounding the original misguided decision to invade Iraq. Public 
support for the war does not exist. There is no support for this 
escalation. We have surged our forces four times in the past, and each 
time the situation hasn't changed.
  The President cannot continue to unilaterally impose his failing 
policy on Americans who have already rejected it. Congress has the 
responsibility to stop the President from sending more of our sons and 
daughters to die in this civil war. The legislation on which the 
Democrats seek a vote is our first effort to meet that responsibility. 
It is our chance to go on record in opposition to the surge. It is a 
clarion call for change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  Last week, the new National Intelligence Estimate confirmed the 
nightmare scenario unfolding for our troops in Iraq. The country is 
sliding deeper into an abyss of civil war, with our brave men and women 
caught in the middle of it. The prospects for halting the escalating 
sectarian violence is bleak, with greater chaos and anarchy looming and 
many additional U.S. casualties inevitable.
  It is abundantly clear that what we need is not a troop surge but a 
diplomatic surge, working with other countries in the region. Sending 
more troops into the Iraq civil war is not the solution to Iraq's 
political problems. Not only does President Bush fail to see that 
reality, but he is also going out of his way to deny and defy it.
  Congress needs to express its opposition to this strategy. If the 
President refuses to change course, we must act to change it ourselves 
to protect our troops and end this misguided war. The war today is not 
the war Congress authorized 4 years ago. It is now a civil war. The war 
today is not about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction or alleged 
relationship with al-Qaeda, it is Iraqi against Iraqi. Iraq is at war 
with itself, and American soldiers are caught in the middle.
  Madam President, it is time for the Members of this body to stand up 
and take a position on the issue of the surge.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I rise for a few moments to address the 
subjects that have been discussed for the last 30 minutes. First of 
all, I rise in particular to lend my support to Senator McConnell who 
has seen to it that the Senate is able to fully express itself on the 
issues before us in Iraq. No one should be confused about this debate. 
There are many opinions here, and every one of them deserves the right 
to be expressed.
  Secondly, I rise in support of the President's plan, and I am going 
to explain why in just a second. First, however, the Senator from New 
York made a statement a minute ago that I want to open my remarks with.
  The Senator from New York said not many people are paying attention 
to what we debate on the floor of the Senate, that they are too busy 
working in their daily lives. That may very well be right, but I want 
to tell you who is listening to every word. First, it is the men and 
women in our Armed Forces, their families, and their loved ones. All 
you have to do is go to Iraq, where I have been many times, go to any 
mess hall or almost any command post, and CNN and Fox are streaming 
constantly. Our men and women watch what we say, so what we say on this 
floor is important. The resolutions we send, binding or not, should not 
send mixed signals.
  There is another audience that listens to what we say, and they are 
our enemies. They listen as well. Those networks are their intelligence 
agencies. The messages we send should not be a message which relays a 
lack of confidence to our troops or to our Commander in Chief.
  I am on the Foreign Relations Committee. I have spent 20 of the last 
28 hours of committee meetings listening to experts from a variety of 
resources, and two things became quite clear. There were varying 
opinions on whether a surge would work. Some thought it would 
conclusively; many thought it would not. Most gave it varying degrees 
of potential success. Without exception, however, everyone I heard 
testify, when asked the question: What would be the ramifications of 
withdrawal or redeployment, everyone, in one degree or another, said 
there would be tens of thousands of lives lost, and possibly millions, 
and the sectarian violence that we are trying to quell now could spread 
through the region.
  The way I see it, we have two choices right now at this stage of the 
game. Choice one is an opportunity for success. Choice two is a recipe 
for disaster. I choose the opportunity for success. I think the message 
we ought to send to our troops is that we support them, we wish them 
Godspeed, and we pray for their success.

[[Page S1665]]

  A second message we need to send, which this debate has very 
helpfully done, is a message to al-Malaki and the assembly in Iraq and 
the people of Iraq that we came to their country with three objectives, 
two of which we have secured. One objective was to seek out the weapons 
of mass destruction the entire world believed were there. Second was to 
allow a constitution to be written and a free election to be held. Both 
of those things have been accomplished.
  The last most elusive goal that we had was to secure the nation and 
train the Iraqi military so it could carry on that security and let 
that fledgling democracy go forward. That third goal, which has been 
elusive, has gotten closer. The President's strategy to send additional 
troops to Anbar and to Baghdad requires the absolute cooperation of the 
Iraqis and the commitment of their military to assist side by side. If 
they blink and look the other way, they will have failed themselves. If 
we blink and we look the other way, we will have failed not only them 
but we will have failed the people of our country.
  Make no mistake about it, the war in Iraq that we are now in is not 
the war we entered, but it is the war we are in, and those are the 
words of our President. Regardless of where mistakes may have been 
made, those of us, and I am one of those, who voted to support this 
when we went into Iraq did not vote for failure. I hope and I pray that 
our soldiers will be successful, that al-Malaki and the Iraqi military 
will come through and perform, and I am going to do everything I can to 
give them that support because I choose an opportunity for success over 
a recipe for failure.
  With regard to the mistakes that have been made, I want to be crystal 
clear because there are some awfully selective memories on the floor of 
the Senate. I remember what I believed when I voted to go into Iraq. I 
remember what the National Intelligence Estimate said. And I remember 
the horror of 9/11 and the fear of weapons of mass destruction. We 
voted to do what every other member of the United Nations voted on in 
Resolution 1441, and that was to seek out what the world thought was 
there. While we didn't find the smoking gun, we found a lot of the 
components and a lot of the evidence. We found the 400,000 bodies in 
mass graves and the tyranny of a horrible dictator in Saddam Hussein. 
We accomplished our goal of deposing him and allowing the Iraqis to 
determine a free democratic society.
  In the critical days of this battle, it is time for us to stand 
forward and stand strong and give this opportunity for success that the 
President has proposed a chance to succeed, rather than subscribe to a 
recipe of failure. These are trying times, and I respect the opinions 
of every Member of this body expressed on this floor, but remember who 
our audiences are and how important it is that the message that we send 
not be mixed, not be one of a political message but be a message of 
commitment and resolve.
  I will support the President not out of partisanship, not out of 
blind loyalty, but I will support the President because the evidence 
submitted in all of the hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee 
told me we have two choices: We can choose an opportunity to succeed or 
we can subscribe to a recipe for failure. I choose success, and I pray 
God's blessings on our men and women in the Armed Forces of the United 
States.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, as a new Member of this body, I must tell you that I 
am frustrated and disappointed. I am disappointed that the Republicans 
are blocking a vote on whether we support or oppose the President's 
plan to add additional troops to Iraq. I can tell you that is the issue 
of the day. That is what my constituents are asking of us, and I think 
they have a right to expect that the Members of this body are willing 
to go on record either for or against the President's plan to add 
additional troops to Iraq.
  I have listened to my colleagues. I have listened to my colleagues in 
committee, and I have listened to my colleagues on this floor, and I 
think the majority of us want to go on record opposing the surge. Both 
Democrats and Republicans oppose it. I think there is a bipartisan 
group that can provide the consensus in this body to go on record 
against the surge.
  Several months ago, the President said we were going to have a new 
plan in Iraq. Shortly after that, the Iraq Study Group came out with 
its report. To me, this has been the best analysis of the situation 
that we have before us. The study group is composed of distinguished 
members, and it was a creation of the Congress. Secretary Baker, who 
cochaired the group, served in three administrations and has broad 
experience in government. Mr. Hamilton, who served in the other body on 
the Foreign Relations Committee, the Committee on International 
Relations it is called over there, has served with great distinction 
both as chairman and ranking member. The other members of the 
committee--they said we cannot win in Iraq through our military 
efforts. That is not going to bring success in Iraq. The Iraqis must 
step forward and defend their own country and we must move forward with 
new diplomatic efforts. We need ``a new diplomatic offensive'' is what 
they called it, and they said: We need to start that before December 
31, 2006. The ability of the United States to influence events within 
Iraq is diminishing. We still have not seen that new offensive 
diplomatic effort.

  GEN George Casey said, ``It has always been my view that heavy and 
sustained American military presence was not going to solve the 
problems in Iraq over the long term.''
  We got the President's plan and the President's plan was more of the 
same, stay the course but with more U.S. military presence. We had 3 
weeks of hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee. Military 
expert after military expert, foreign policy expert after foreign 
policy expert, told us that there is a deterioration in Iraq and our 
policies are not working and we need to move in a new direction. We 
need to come to grips with the fact that the Iraqis must stand up and 
defend their own country and we must engage the international community 
much more aggressively.
  I congratulate Senator Warner and Senator Levin for coming forward 
with a compromise resolution that allows us to go on record opposed to 
the increased American military presence in Iraq. I do not agree with 
everything that is in that resolution, but I do think it clearly puts 
the Senate on record against the increased surge of American troops in 
Iraq, and that is our responsibility. That is what we should be doing. 
We should not hide behind procedural roadblocks to avoid voting on that 
issue. That is the most important issue facing this Nation today, and 
we should be willing to vote on that issue. It is not about the 
President of the United States. It is about this body carrying out its 
responsibility. That is what each of us has a responsibility to do.
  Why am I so much against the increase in the U.S. military presence 
in Iraq? Let me first start with the numbers. The President said the 
surge would involve 21,500 additional American troops in Iraq. That is 
not the case. Michael Gilmore, the Assistant Director for National 
Security at the Congressional Budget Office, testified yesterday before 
our Budget Committee, and he said it is not going to be 21,500, it is 
going to be closer to 48,000 additional American troops because the 
21,500 are the frontline combat troops. You need the support staff in 
order to support the 21,500.
  The budget the President submitted to us said that is going to cost 
about $5.6 billion, but CBO now says it is going to be closer to $20 to 
$27 billion of additional cost, just with the surge, in addition to 
what we are already spending. The President claims his budget is to 
balance in 5 years, but he has no cost for the Iraq war beyond 2008.
  The numbers speak for themselves. The President is asking us to go 
along with stay the course but at a higher cost, both in American 
military presence and the costs to American taxpayers in this country.
  The situation in Iraq is deteriorating. Every person who has come 
before us who is an expert in this area has acknowledged that. There is 
a civil war in Iraq, and Americans have paid a very heavy price for our 
commitment

[[Page S1666]]

in Iraq--over 3,000 dead and many more with life-changing injuries. 
There have been hundreds of billions of dollars spent. That represents 
missed opportunities in America--money we need to strengthen our 
military and national defense. We have used our National Guard and 
reservists. We should be supporting them, improving the quality of life 
for our soldiers and for our veterans. Our soldiers have served with 
great distinction and valor. We owe it to them to get it right. We owe 
it to them to do everything we can for a successful outcome in Iraq. 
That is why it is our responsibility, on behalf of our soldiers, to 
take up this issue.
  We have lost our focus in the war against terror, we have weakened 
U.S. influence internationally, and, yes, we have lost other 
opportunities beyond defense because those hundreds of billions of 
dollars we spent could have been spent to balance our budget, could 
have been spent to increase our commitment to national priorities such 
as education and health care and the environment. But we have lost 
those issues.
  The first order of business for us should be to go on record against 
increasing the American military presence in Iraq. That should be our 
first order of business. But then we need to do more. I opposed the war 
from the beginning. I voted against it in the other body. I have been a 
critic of the President in the management of the war, in his failure to 
properly engage the international community both before and after going 
into Iraq, and the decision made by someone in the White House to take 
out the Iraqi security forces when we went in, that was a mistake. I 
have been pretty consistent against the President, but we need to do 
more than pass this resolution. I think we should take up this 
resolution first. This is the first order of business. But then we need 
to do more.
  The Iraqis have a responsibility to take care of their own security 
needs in the midst of a civil war. We need to engage the international 
community with a diplomatic and political initiative so the Government 
of Iraq has the confidence of the ethnic communities. This is sectarian 
violence. We need to change the way the Iraqis are doing business and 
help them through diplomatic efforts. We need to engage the 
international community. We need more assistance in training Iraqi 
security forces. You can't do it all by Americans; we need the 
international community. We need the international community to help us 
with the humanitarian crisis that is in Iraq. The number of refugees, 
displaced individuals, is in the millions. We need the help of the 
international community to deal with the humanitarian crisis. You are 
not going to have peace in Iraq until you deal with that.
  We need the help of the international community on the infrastructure 
improvements, the economy of Iraq. The American taxpayers cannot do it 
alone, and we have wasted a lot of our taxpayer dollars in Iraq. We 
need the international community to help us. In short, we need a new 
direction, a plan that includes bringing some of our combat troops 
home, to make it clear to the Iraqis we are not going to be there 
indefinitely, to make it clear to the international community we expect 
the Iraqis to take care of their own security needs. That is what we 
need.
  But first things first. Let's take a vote on the President's plan. 
Let's get that done. Let's stop using procedural roadblocks to prevent 
a vote in this body but to vote for or against the President's plan to 
bring more troops to Iraq.

  Then we should consider additional options to make it clear it is our 
responsibility to help bring about a new direction for American 
involvement in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have been on the floor of the Senate 
for the last half hour, listening to my colleague in what is, in fact, 
a very important debate for this country. I say that, even though the 
wringing of hands would suggest that somehow the debate is being 
blocked and the will of the Senate has been thwarted. I suggest quite 
the opposite. It has become a finger-pointing in a procedural way.
  I believe the Republican leader came to the floor yesterday and said 
let's have a couple of votes, several votes; you can vote up or down on 
the Levin-Warner resolution; you can vote up or down on the Gregg 
resolution. It was then the leadership on the majority side, the 
Democratic side, blocked it. I think the American people are wise to 
the tactics at hand. They are not unaware, and they are frustrated by 
what is going on in Iraq today. Clearly, we are focused. Whether it is 
the Congress of the United States or a vast majority of the American 
people, we are becoming increasingly critical of a war that has 
frustrated many of us.
  The Senator from Maryland voted against it. He said so a few moments 
ago. I voted for it. At the same time, I grow increasingly critical, as 
do many of the citizens of my State, as to what will be the future, 
what will be our success and/or failure and at a cost of how many more 
American lives.
  I am critically concerned that this Government in Iraq now stand up. 
We have allowed them to form and to shape and to vote. They now have a 
Constitution. They now must lead. In leading, I hope it could be to 
stability to the region and that it will not offset and throw out of 
balance what the free world looks at and says is very important and 
that is, of course, the war on terror and the general stability of the 
Middle East.
  Indeed, I think much has been lost in the debate around this country 
as to the significance of the Middle East itself. I was extremely 
pleased last week when that kind of an elder statesman of our country, 
Henry Kissinger, came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 
in a very real and important way, and in a bipartisan way, said: Let's 
not forget our perspective. While for the short term and for the moment 
we are focused on Iraq, as we should be, let's not fail to recognize 
that since World War II, we have been in the Middle East to bring 
stability to the region for a safer, more stable Western World.
  I don't think there is any question about that. He was frank about it 
when he stressed diplomacy as an important tool. I have long advocated 
frank, open talks amongst our friends and neighbors around the world, 
not only about the region but about the role of Iraq within the region 
and what we must do. However, Dr. Kissinger also stressed that, under 
the present conditions in Iraq, withdrawal or the signs of withdrawal 
is simply not an option for America's forces. So anyone who comes to 
the floor today and says: Oh, but it is an option and we ought to start 
now, or we ought to send all the signals to our friends and neighbors 
around the world that we are beginning to pull back, is going against a 
trend that I think is critically important. They could set in motion 
the kind of activity in Iraq that could bring about a phenomenal 
genocide and the possibility of neighbors tumbling in on top of 
neighbors to create conflict in the Middle East that could bring down 
the whole of the region. If that were to happen, then I am quite 
confident that those who want to withdraw would find themselves in a 
very precarious situation. What do we do? Do we go back in with greater 
force to stabilize the region, when friendly, moderate Arab nations are 
now tumbling into war because we would no longer stand or we would no 
longer force, through a diplomatic process, those countries of the 
world to come together to work with us, to cooperate?
  While most agree that the current situation in Iraq must be dealt 
with politically--and we have heard that time and again--and 
economically, our military involvement is critical to provide the 
Iraqis the stability they need in this new democratic process. I don't 
mind pegging timelines a little bit and I don't mind thresholds and 
measurements and I think it is important we not only send that message 
but that we get it done, we get it done for the sake of our position in 
Iraq and certainly forcing the Iraqi Government to move--those are all 
phenomenally important issues.
  Let me stress two last facts. It is quite simple. The 116th from 
Idaho, the largest deployment of Idaho's troops in this war, was there 
and served and served honorably and proudly and the work they did was 
phenomenally important and we are proud of them. Let me also suggest 
that while many will say the general we now send to Iraq is the best 
military mind we have available at the moment, the author of the

[[Page S1667]]

Army's war handbook on terror, we are saying to General Petraeus: You 
are the best there is, go forth and be successful, but, oh, by the way, 
we don't agree with the mission--what kind of a mixed message is that 
we now send to our military?
  The Senator from Georgia was right. The world is listening to this 
debate. Our men and women in uniform are listening to this debate. The 
enemies of the cause are listening and saying: Oh, the Senate of the 
United States is getting cold feet. Our opportunities are at hand. All 
we have to do is wait them out. All we have to do is accelerate the 
violence, and they will turn out the lights in the green zone and go 
home.
  Then the world, at least the Iraqi world, will erupt in a civil 
conflict, a civil war of phenomenal proportion.
  Those are the realities we deal with today. I hope this Senate stays 
on point. This is an issue that is critical to the future of our 
country, to the future of the free world, to the region of the Middle 
East, to any kind of stability we hope could be brought there. I hope 
we have the votes--and they ought to be up or down--and I don't mind 
being on the record at all. They need to be substantive, they need to 
have the force and effect of law, just not the ring of the politics of 
the Chamber, because that is what we are getting today--a heavy dose of 
politics and very little substance.
  We hide behind procedure? I don't think so. Let us bring these issues 
forward. The Craig resolution? Up or down. Levin-Warner? Up or down. 
What is wrong with those votes? That is what we were sent here to do. I 
would hope our leadership could bring us to that.
  So, to reiterate:
  Many people around the country, including myself, have taken a much 
more critical look at the way the war in Iraq has been handled. 
However, through all the hardships our soldiers face day-to-day on the 
streets of Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, it still remains evident to 
me that our success in Iraq and the success of the current Iraq 
government, is critical to the security of our Nation, the stability of 
the Middle East, and the fight against terrorism worldwide.
  Indeed, much has been lost in the debates around this country as to 
the significance of the greater Middle East stability when looking at 
the situation in Iraq. Our country has maintained a presence in that 
region of the world since World War II, and it should not be a surprise 
to anyone that many countries there depend and rely on our presence 
there, both economically and for their own national security. After 
reviewing the recent transcript of Dr. Henry Kissinger before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I agreed with many of Dr. 
Kissinger's views on the current situation in Iraq as it relates to the 
Middle East as a whole, and the severe consequences the international 
community will face should we fail in Iraq.
  Dr. Kissinger stressed diplomacy, something I have long advocated in 
this conflict and frankly for any conflict. I don't believe there is 
one Member of Congress who takes the decision lightly to send out 
troops into combat unless we all firmly believe it is a last option. I 
know I certainly didn't, and I know that an overwhelming majority of 
both Senators and Congressmen believed that as well when we authorized 
the use of force in Iraq back in 2002.
  However, Dr. Kissinger also stressed that under the present 
conditions in Iraq, withdrawal is not an option for American forces. 
Such a withdrawal would have long reaching consequences on the war on 
terror worldwide, could lead to widespread genocide in Iraq and 
possible neighboring countries, as well as severe economic consequences 
for all Middle Eastern countries. It is clear that such a circumstance 
would mandate international forces be sent back into Iraq, but the 
costs at that point would be grave.
  While most agree that the current situation in Iraq must be dealt 
with politically and economically, our military involvement is critical 
to providing the Iraqis the stability they need to let their new 
democracy take root. If we pull our troops out of Iraq now, or deny 
them much needed reinforcements as some would like to do, we risk 
losing Baghdad and possibly the entire country to full blown civil war. 
Under those circumstances, the government of Iraq would fall, and Iran 
and Syria would strengthen their grip on the Middle East, endangering 
the national security of America and our allies worldwide.
  It is my hope that diplomatic efforts will continue in a more 
aggressive fashion to bring the international community to the 
realization of a failed State in Iraq, and the real consequences that 
we all face should our efforts fall short of stabilizing Baghdad and 
the country as a whole. Because the consequences are so high, I do not 
believe that our soldiers' withdrawal from Iraq should be placed on any 
timetable, and we need to reassure our soldiers and commanders in Iraq 
that we will continue to support their efforts. After all, they are 
operating in Iraq, but the work they are doing will have a far reaching 
effect to stabilize the Middle East.
  Over the past few weeks, there have been many who have been outspoken 
about their disapproval of the President's new plan for Iraq. Not being 
an expert in military tactics, I do not believe it is my role as a U.S. 
Senator to play general for our soldiers as some are. Instead, I 
believe it is my duty in Congress to provide our soldiers with the 
resources and funding they require to do their job with the best 
equipment possible, while also pledging my unending moral support for 
the work they do each and every day to keep Americans safe both at home 
and abroad.

  Every 4 years the citizens of America go to the polls to elect a 
commander in chief, who is responsible to the American people to lead 
our military in times of peace and times of war. It is no mistake that 
the founding fathers gave the power to declare war to the Congress, but 
the power to lead the military to the President. Our soldiers should 
not have to follow 535 Congressional ``generals'' who hold up critical 
funding while they second-guess tactical decisions of the commander in 
chief and military leaders.
  Over the last few weeks a lot has been made of the troop 
reinforcement President Bush outlined to the American people. Prior to 
his speech, I and several other Members of Congress met with the 
President to discuss the current situation in Iraq. I made it very 
clear that Idahoans and I cannot continue to support the status quo; 
and he agreed. President Bush has spent the last many months working 
with his national security advisers, commanding officers in Iraq, 
Members of Congress and experts in the field of military issues in 
order to revise our national strategy with regards to Iraq and come up 
with a new strategy for victory.
  Make no mistake, the onus is now on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi 
government to act, and I was extremely pleased to hear President Bush 
reiterate that fact. The efforts of our soldiers have given the Iraqi 
people a great opportunity to live in a free and stable country, but 
they must stand up and accept that responsibility.
  My home State of Idaho has shared some of the burden of this war in 
Iraq. The 116th Brigade Combat Team served courageously for twelve 
months in Kirkuk and surrounding areas, and they have since returned 
home to their families. I had the opportunity to visit them in Iraq and 
was extremely proud of the feedback on these soldiers I received from 
Iraqi government officials, civilians, and U.S. military leaders. I 
would also like to spotlight all Idahoans who are serving in the Armed 
Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I am eternally grateful for 
their service and I will continue to provide them with all the support 
I can give.
  It is my hope that Members of Congress will not pursue antiwar 
politics to the detriment of our soldiers in the field. Our soldiers 
have been fighting courageously in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere 
around the world to protect each and every American life, and I believe 
it is incumbent for the Congress to stand behind them. Numerous bills 
and resolutions have been proposed in the Senate to disapprove of their 
mission, cap troop levels, withhold funding for the reinforcements, or 
even completely de-fund the troops serving in Iraq. I cannot and will 
not support any legislation that I see as unproductive to our current 
efforts in Iraq, because I believe it places our forces in greater 
danger and could embolden our enemies to continue their attacks against 
innocent Iraqis, Americans and our allies.
  In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January of 
this

[[Page S1668]]

year, General Hayden, the Director of the CIA, responded to a question 
regarding what would happen if we pulled out now from Iraq. Director 
Hayden responded, Three very quick areas:

       No. 1, more Iraqis die from the disorder inside Iraq. No. 
     2, Iraq becomes a safe haven, perhaps more dangerous than the 
     one Al Qaeda had in Afghanistan. And finally, No. 3, the 
     conflict in Iraq bleeds over into the neighborhood and 
     threatens serious regional instability.

  He went on to state that this directly and immediately threatens the 
United States homeland because it:

     provides Al Qaida that which they are attempting to seek in 
     several locations right now, be it Somalia, the tribal area 
     of Pakistan or Anbar province--a safe haven to rival that 
     which they had in Afghanistan.

  During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, GEN David Petraeus supported President Bush's plan to 
increase troop levels in Baghdad and Anbar province. In response to 
questioning before that committee, General Petraeus made it clear he 
believes that the reinforcement of soldiers into Baghdad and Anbar in 
Iraq will bolster the Iraqis' ability to stabilize their government and 
defeat the insurgency, instead of allowing them to continue to buck 
that responsibility, as some have asserted.
  Many in Congress have stated publicly that this is the last chance 
the United States has to get it right in Iraq. If that is the case, I 
feel there is no general better qualified to be in charge of our ground 
forces and get things turned around on the ground than General 
Petraeus. I recognize that the American people have grown weary over 
the last months since the violence has escalated in Iraq, but I remain 
optimistic that the Iraqi government, with the aid of our soldiers, can 
turn things around.
  I had the pleasure of meeting General Petraeus during one of my two 
trips to Iraq and was very impressed by his knowledge of the situation 
and his expertise in counterinsurgency. I have no doubt that General 
Petraeus is the right man to lead our forces in Iraq and I believe that 
he will overcome the new challenges he now faces. Let us not send the 
right man and then tell him it is the wrong job.
  In closing, while I share the concerns of many of my colleagues 
regarding the situation in Iraq, I will support the President's plan to 
provide the reinforcements necessary to provide stability in Baghdad 
and Anbar province. I am hopeful that this plan will give the Iraqi 
government the best chance to stand on their own two feet and make the 
positive strides necessary to take control of the security situation 
and function as a stable government. It is this Senator's personal 
opinion that resolutions condemning the President's new way forward 
send the wrong message to our soldiers, the Iraqi people, and 
especially our enemies.
  I certainly appreciate and support the role of Congress to provide 
oversight with respect to U.S. military engagements. However, I do not 
believe we should cripple the Commander in Chief's ability to work with 
our military leadership to defeat our enemies, and passing a resolution 
condemning the President's new plan for Iraq would do precisely that. 
Instead, I support resolutions that call for the support of the 
American people and Congress to give the President's plan a chance to 
work. Mistakes have been made, unquestionably, and the violence in 
Baghdad and Anbar province has grown to a level that few predicted, but 
I am not yet ready to throw in the towel on this President's new plan 
and our soldiers' ability to assist in stabilizing Iraq before they 
even get a chance to try.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

                          ____________________