[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 24 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1751-S1753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      DOING THE SENATE'S BUSINESS

  Mr. BUNNING. First of all, I hope the American people are watching 
the debate and paying close attention to it. This debate is not just an 
important lesson in civics and civility, it is a debate that goes back 
to the days of our Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers created the 
Senate to be a body of unlimited debate. This institution was created 
to be a deliberative body. It was not created for speed or for quick 
action.
  I would like to remind my friend, the majority leader, whom I wish 
were on the floor, that the Senate is not the House of Representatives. 
The majority leader and I both served in the House of Representatives. 
Unlike the House, however, we do not have a rules committee in the 
Senate that sets the rules for floor debate. Any Senator can come to 
the floor seeking recognition to speak and offer amendments. In the 
House, the majority can roll the minority through the Rules Committee. 
This cannot be done in the Senate. The minority party cannot be 
ignored. Yet our friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to 
dictate the terms not only of the debate on Iraq and the resolutions 
concerning them, they are telling 49 Republicans in the Senate how 
business will be conducted in the Senate.
  I want to be very clear that I would vote in opposition to the Warner 
resolution. Nonbinding resolutions that question military decisions 
made by our Commander in Chief and top military generals are not in the 
best interests of our Nation. But I do support the right of Senator 
Warner to get an up-or-down vote on his resolution, even though I would 
oppose it.
  Earlier this week, we had a vote to invoke cloture on the motion to 
proceed with the Warner resolution. Forty-seven Republicans voted 
against the motion because we believe we should have more debate, not 
less, and the ability to offer other resolutions. Yet many of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle accuse my Republican colleagues 
of not wanting to debate this issue and not wanting to vote on the 
Warner resolution. And, not surprisingly, the media is regurgitating 
the talking points from the other side of the aisle. But nothing could 
be further from the truth.
  Senator Warner, the author of the resolution favored overwhelmingly 
by the Democrats, voted against invoking cloture on his own resolution 
because he believes in Republicans keeping their rights as Senators. We 
want a fair debate, not a one-sided conversation. We are asking for 
more debate, not less, like many on the other side of the aisle 
suggest.
  Our request is a simple one. If we are going to vote on the Warner 
resolution, those of us who oppose this resolution should at least be 
allowed to offer our own resolution, and the senior Senator from New 
Hampshire offered his resolution concerning funding for the war in 
Iraq. Some have said his resolution is incorporated in the Warner 
resolution, but they are missing two key points. The Gregg resolution 
expresses our full support of our troops and not support that is just 
cloaked behind other language that criticizes their mission.
  My friend, my good friend, General Petraeus, whom the Senate 
unanimously confirmed, said in his confirmation hearing that a 
resolution condemning the President's new Iraq strategy would have a 
detrimental effect on troop morale. It must be our top priority to 
assure American troops that we will not cut off their funding 
midmission. We already are cutting some of their funds, as seen in this 
year's continuing resolution.

  I find it ironic that some of the same Senators who have been on the 
Senate

[[Page S1752]]

floor assuring their full support for the troops are the same 
individuals who are cutting their funding behind closed doors. I am 
talking about the funding for the Base Realignment and Construction 
Program. This is a program that, by law, we have to complete in 6 
years. Yet my friends across the aisle have decided not to fund this 
program because it is not a priority.
  Well, it is a priority for me. By doing this, they will cause a delay 
for up to 1 year for military base construction. Because of this, and I 
ask my good friend, the Senator from Texas, what happens to the 12,000 
troops that will not be able to be redeployed back home from Iraq or 
from Germany or from around the world?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Kentucky 
asking the question, and I will read a letter signed by all four of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, dated last November, where they are asking that 
we pass a short-term CR rather than a complete year's CR because they 
are so concerned about that very issue. They say in their letter:

       As required by law, we are executing thousands of 
     interrelated moves to implement all the base realignment and 
     closure projects by September 2011 and to reposition our 
     forces under the Global Defense Posture review. Disruptions 
     in resources will cause delays and desynchronize these moves. 
     This, in turn, can disrupt our force generation and 
     deployment schedules, which ultimately degrades readiness 
     while increasing the burden on servicemembers and their 
     families.

  So we know now from their own reports, I would say to the Senator 
from Kentucky, that 12,000 of those who are scheduled to be coming home 
just this year are going to be delayed, which is going to cause a 
domino effect all the way down the line. It is incomprehensible that we 
have this opportunity, but we are not able to go forward.
  I thank the Senator from Kentucky for asking the question.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, to say that I find this disappointing is 
quite an understatement.
  I ask the majority leader to allow us to have a full and fair debate 
on the CR and allow us to offer amendments. We should be able to debate 
and vote on the Gregg resolution. This is a resolution that does not 
play into our enemies' hands. General Petraeus commented that a 
commander needs to show the enemy that there is no hope of victory. The 
Gregg resolution does this. It expresses our absolute support for our 
Commander in Chief and our men and women in Iraq, instead of showing 
that the will of the American people has been stripped by opportunistic 
terrorists.
  Mr. President, for Republicans, this is not about a Senate procedural 
process but about the priorities of the American people. Our Republican 
leader, my colleague from Kentucky, has tried all week to negotiate to 
get a vote on the Gregg resolution, in conjunction with the other 
resolution, the Warner resolution. I appreciate Senator McConnell's 
efforts, but the majority leader, and many on both sides of the aisle, 
do not want the vote on the Gregg resolution. Instead, they claim that 
Republicans do not want to debate the war in Iraq. This is completely 
false. The American people need to know that, and the media needs to 
report the truth.
  No one Republican, not one to whom I have spoken, is running from 
this debate. We want to debate the war in Iraq. Many of us oppose the 
Warner resolution. It is nonbinding. It sends the wrong message to our 
enemies and our allies. It will not end the war in Iraq, and it will 
not bring peace to the Middle East. But we should vote on it, and we 
should vote on the Gregg resolution because even though the Gregg 
resolution is nonbinding, it actually relates to the proper role of the 
Congress with respect to war.
  Essentially, the Gregg resolution says that Congress will not vote to 
defund the war when we have troops in harm's way. This is the proper 
role of Congress. It does not deter from the Commander in Chief. We 
don't dictate military strategy, but we do have the power of the purse. 
We can either fund the war or not fund the war. I am not a lawyer, 
thank God, but I have spent over two decades in Congress, in both the 
House and the Senate. And I know the proper role of the legislative 
branch. I know the rules of the House, and I know the rules of the 
Senate. I also know the importance of not sending the wrong message to 
our troops in the field.
  Mr. President, I have voted to send my own son into war. That was the 
gulf war. I know the stakes are very high. I know this is an issue that 
is on every American's mind. But I resent my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle saying that Republicans are running from this debate. 
We are not. I hope today that we can remind my colleagues that this is 
the U.S. Senate, and the minority has its say. We should vote both on 
the Warner resolution and the Gregg resolution and we should also vote 
to have amendments to the CR and be able to address the BRAC problem 
that we face and what will happen if they reduce this by $3.2 billion.
  I have an editorial of the New York Times I will submit for the 
Record at this time. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the 
Record, and I yield to my good friend from Texas.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 7, 2007]

                         It's the War, Senators

       It is not an inspiring sight to watch the United States 
     Senate turn the most important issue facing America into a 
     political football, and then fumble it. Yet that is what now 
     seems to have come from a once-promising bipartisan effort to 
     finally have the debate about the Iraq war that Americans 
     have been denied for four years.
       The Democrats' ultimate goal was to express the Senate's 
     opposition to President Bush's latest escalation. But the 
     Democrats' leaders have made that more difficult--allowing 
     the Republicans to maneuver them into the embarrassing 
     position of blocking a vote on a counterproposal that they 
     feared too many Democrats might vote for.
       We oppose that resolution, which is essentially a promise 
     never to cut off funds for this or any future military 
     operation Mr. Bush might undertake in Iraq. But the right way 
     for the Senate to debate Iraq is to debate Iraq, not to bar 
     proposals from the floor because they might be passed. The 
     majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, needs to call a 
     timeout and regroup. By changing the issue from Iraq to 
     partisan parliamentary tactics, his leadership team threatens 
     to muddy the message of any anti-escalation resolution the 
     Senate may eventually pass.
       As it happens, the blocked Republican alternative, propose 
     by Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, itself represents an end run 
     around the Senate's constitutional responsibilities. The 
     rational way to oppose cuts in funds is to vote against them, 
     if and when any ever come before the Senate. Mr. Reid should 
     not be shy about urging fellow Democrats to vote against this 
     hollow gimmick, which tries to make it look as if the 
     senators support Mr. Bush's failed Iraq policies by playing 
     on their fears of being accused of not supporting the troops.
       America went to war without nearly enough public 
     discussion, and it needs more Senate debate about Iraq this 
     time around, not less. The voters who overturned Republican 
     majorities in both houses last November expect, among other 
     things, to see energized Congressional scrutiny of the entire 
     war--not just of the plan for an additional 21,500 troops but 
     also of the future of the 130,000 plus who are already there.
       Another Republican resolution, proposed by Sen. John 
     McCain, gives the appearance of moving in that more promising 
     direction by ticking off a series of policy benchmarks and 
     then urging the Iraqi government to meet them. But listing 
     benchmarks is one thing. It is another to spell out real 
     consequences for not meeting them, like the withdrawal of 
     American military support. Instead of doing that, the McCain 
     resolution hands an unwarranted blank check to Mr. Bush's new 
     Iraq commander, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus. It breathtakingly 
     declares that he ``should receive from Congress the full 
     support necessary'' to carry out America's mission.
       Frustrated by the Senate's fumbles, the House plans to move 
     ahead next week with its own resolution on Mr. Bush's troop 
     plan. When the Senate is ready to turn its attention back to 
     substance again, it should go further.
       Senators need to acknowledge the reality of four years of 
     failed presidential leadership on Iraq and enact a set of 
     binding benchmarks. These should require the hard steps 
     toward national reconciliation that the Iraqi prime minister, 
     Nuri Kamal al-Maliki continues to evade and that the White 
     House refuses to insist on.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will yield up to 15 minutes to 
Senator Roberts, after which I will yield up to 10 minutes to the 
Senator from Georgia, Senator Chambliss.
  I am going to send my remarks to the desk and ask unanimous consent 
they be printed in the Record after Senator Chambliss has spoken. I 
will need to follow him in that order. I ask unanimous consent my 
remarks be printed in the Record after Senator Chambliss.

[[Page S1753]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the sequence of 
speakers?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Reserving the right to object. I ask to amend the 
request of the Senator to limit each Senator to 15 minutes apiece, 
under her order. But I also request Senator Kennedy be inserted after 
your first two speakers, so the order I believe--your first two 
speakers were?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Senator Roberts and Senator Chambliss.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent Senator Kennedy be allowed 15 
minutes after Senator Chambliss.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Senator Inhofe has been here for 
several hours as well. He has been waiting patiently, as has Senator 
Shelby. I ask if it would be possible to allow the people who are on 
the floor to be put in an order. If Senator Kennedy would be able to 
then come after Senator Roberts, Senator Chambliss, Senator Shelby, and 
Senator Inhofe?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, what 
we do on the floor is allow Senators to go back and forth. Senator 
Kennedy has also been waiting. He is not on the floor, but he has been 
waiting his turn.
  I again ask if the Senator will allow us to go ahead and let your two 
Republican Senators speak, then allow Senator Kennedy to speak, and 
then go back to your side of the aisle?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, at this point I think I will keep the 
floor and yield to Senator Roberts for 15 minutes and let me talk to 
Senator Murray. I wish to try to accommodate Senator Murray, but I will 
not do that at this time.
  I yield up to 15 minutes to Senator Roberts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Parliamentary inquiry: I assume the Senator from Texas 
can only yield for a question at this time; is that not correct?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Texas withhold for a 
second. It takes unanimous consent to yield for more than a question.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Washington 
asked for me to yield to her for a question, and I will yield to her 
for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, at this time I will object. I will 
suggest the absence of a quorum--
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from 
Kansas for a question at this time. For a question only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________