[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 29 (Thursday, February 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2011-S2013]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
continued obstructionism in the Senate, led by our Republican 
colleagues, concerning the vote on supporting or opposing the 
President's escalation of the war in Iraq.
  For 2 weeks our distinguished majority leader has been trying to get 
an agreement to just proceed to a fair debate, to just have the 
opportunity on the floor of the Senate to have a debate on whether we 
support the President's escalation of the war in Iraq. He has offered 
an up-or-down vote on two different proposals--one opposing the 
escalation, the second supporting it. At every turn he has been 
stymied.
  Our Republican minority claims they want to debate the war in Iraq, 
but they have done everything they can to obstruct the debate. I would 
like to go through some of the history of this obstructionism. Since 
the first of the year, Republicans have rejected at least three 
different compromises that would have allowed the Senate to move 
forward with a vote on the escalation of the war in Iraq. In an effort 
to obtain an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan resolution disapproving 
the President's plan, Senate Democrats offered to schedule an up-or-
down vote on the McCain-Graham resolution supporting the President's 
plan. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership rejected this offer on 
what they claimed to support.
  Then we, as Senate Democrats, offered the Republican leadership up-
or-down votes on two other resolutions--the Gregg resolution and a 
resolution stating simply that the Senate does not support the surge 
and demands that the troops deploying to Iraq receive the body armor 
and other equipment they need. The Republican leadership again rejected 
the offer.
  Finally, Senate Democrats offered to allow votes on the bipartisan 
resolution and the McCain-Gramm resolution that would each have 
required a supermajority of 60 votes. The Republican leadership again 
said no.
  The pattern of obstruction has, unfortunately, continued. On February 
5, all but two Republican Senators opted to block a debate, including 
the distinguished author of the resolution--chose to block debate on 
whether we support the President's escalation plan. The reaction across 
the country was echoed in numerous newspaper headlines.
  The Washington Post:

       GOP Stalls Debate On Troops Increase.

  The Washington Times:

       Senate GOP Blocked Iraq Resolution.

  The New York Times:

       GOP Senators Block Debate On Iraq Policy.

  USA Today:

       Vote On Iraq Is Blocked By The GOP.

  Denver Post:

       GOP Blocks Iraq Debate.

  A.P.:

       Republicans Block Senate Debate On Iraq.

  Reuters:

       Republicans Block Senate Debate On Iraq.

  CNN:

       GOP Blocks Senate Debate On Iraq Resolution.

  Los Angeles Times:

       GOP Bats Down Resolution Debate.

  After almost 2 weeks of more stalling by the Republican leadership, 
Senate majority leader Harry Reid today, again, offered a compromise 
that would have allowed all of us the opportunity to stand up and take 
a position and vote our conscience. Simply put, every Member of the 
Senate would be given the opportunity to vote on a bill equal to the 
House resolution opposing the President's escalation of the war in Iraq 
and also a resolution supporting the President's plan to send even more 
troops into combat operations in Iraq.
  What could be simpler? What could be more fair? The reaction by the 
Republican leadership, sadly, was not surprising. They again said no. 
They don't want to vote. I find it interesting that earlier today 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voted to stop us from 
going ahead to a vote are now saying we should not adjourn until we 
vote. Well, in fact, our distinguished majority leader and the majority 
agree. Therefore, we will have that vote after the House votes 
tomorrow. We will have that vote on Saturday.
  Supporters of the war in Iraq have claimed that one of their goals is 
to spread democracy throughout the Middle East, throughout the region. 
That is an ironic statement, considering that they are stifling the 
democratic process on the floor of the Senate. Recent public opinion 
surveys have shown that a clear majority of Americans--in some cases as 
many as 70 percent of American citizens--when asked, say they oppose 
the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. From our biggest 
cities to our smallest towns, the American people are demanding 
accountability on the war in Iraq. They have questions and they are 
looking to their leaders for answers. They are looking to their 
leaders--to us--for focus and debate and a willingness to take a 
position and speak out and make change happen.

  The Traverse City Record Eagle, in Michigan, in their editorial page, 
summed it up, I believe, on January 25. They said:

       Someone frozen in time for the past 2 years could have 
     listened to President Bush outline his new Iraq policy in his 
     State of the Union Address Tuesday and wondered what the fuss 
     was about. That is because there is no ``new'' policy.
       Today, the road ahead looks just like the road behind--stay 
     the course. Only this time there will be about 20,000 more 
     American troops in harm's way [not counting support troops]. 
     Before we know it, we'll be at 4,000 Americans dead and 
     30,000 wounded and nothing will have changed.

  They went on to say:

       The awful reality, as many who watched Tuesday surely 
     realized, is that the President has no exit strategy. He has 
     no clue how to get Sunnis and Shiites to stop killing each 
     other, let alone form a stable government. He has no evidence 
     they even have any desire to do so. There is only his war, 
     and it goes on and on.

  Mr. President, our troops and their families, more than anybody else, 
deserve better. They deserve better than this strategy, and they 
deserve better than tactics designed to stop us from a full and open 
debate about the President's strategy. They deserve better than people 
avoiding taking a stand, taking a vote on this President's escalation 
in Iraq.
  This debate is already taking place all across America, all across 
Michigan--in coffee shops, diners, union halls, office parks, at church 
dinners, and at VFW halls. Americans are speaking out and asking tough 
questions about this administration's misguided escalation of the war. 
And in the Senate, in a move that clearly disregards the opinions of 
the majority of Americans, the Republican leadership has refused to 
allow a real debate and a vote on the President's escalation.
  Four years ago, I stood in this Chamber alongside 22 colleagues and 
voted no on giving the President the authority to go to war. It was a 
hard vote. It was a lonely vote. But I was proud to do my duty, along 
with all of my colleagues, and stand publicly and take a position and 
have our votes counted. It strikes me as sad that the Senators who 
support the President's escalation of the war have decided to hide from 
this opportunity to do the same--to

[[Page S2012]]

vote their conscience and to tell the American people where they stand, 
win or lose.
  This should not be a discussion of politics. This is a discussion of 
the most serious policy. Any soldier will tell you that there are no 
politics in a foxhole. The American people--Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents--are asking us to take a look, long and hard, at what we 
are doing in Iraq. We were not elected to stand silently by while our 
fellow citizens demand answers. American men and women are in harm's 
way. Unfortunately, it seems that the Republican leadership doesn't see 
it that way.
  Let me again say, as clearly as possible, that I believe the 
escalation of this war is not the answer. Putting more Americans in 
harm's way will not bring our men and women home any sooner. Why would 
we go further down a path that has led us to this point? Why would we 
repeat our previous mistakes and call it a ``new strategy''?
  A free and stable Iraq can only be secured by the Iraqis. They must 
embrace responsibility for their collective future and decide that 
living and dying at the hands of sectarian violence is not the future 
they want for their children and grandchildren.
  We must support their efforts, but we cannot substitute American 
troops for Iraqi resolve. With the freedom of self-determination comes 
a responsibility of collective security. I believe we must continue to 
train the Iraqis and equip them and provide sensible military support, 
based on the advice of our generals and military experts. And we must 
lead them by example--by embracing, not turning our backs on, our own 
democratic process.
  The Detroit Free Press, in response to the President's announcement 
of the escalation, echoed the concerns of people all across Michigan 
and from around the country, I believe, as well, on January 11, when 
they wrote:

       President George W. Bush at least acknowledged past 
     failings and did not promise roaring success in outlining his 
     new strategy for Iraq in a grim-faced address to the Nation 
     Wednesday night. In fact, he braced the American and Iraqi 
     people for at least another year of bloodshed--maybe the 
     worst yet.
       But that does not make this escalation of the war--the 
     President didn't use the word, but that's what he intends to 
     do--the best course of action. It is based on hope without 
     demonstrable evidence that the Iraqi Government and its 
     military are truly ready to take control of their country 
     instead of taking sides in an internal combat. It is based 
     on the belief that an American force of 157,500 can 
     achieve what a force of 135,000 could not, given a little 
     more leeway to act. And it is based on the President's 
     conviction that a decisive military victory in Iraq can 
     somehow break the back of global terrorism.
       It won't, any more than the escalation of the war in 
     Vietnam stopped the advance of global communism. Economic and 
     political forces played the larger roles in that. Granted, 
     there are elements of each in the President's new strategy, 
     but where is the functioning government to implement them? 
     Demanding accomplishment does not make it so, and the new 
     leaders of Iraq have accomplished precious little to date.

  They continue:

       This is certainly not the strategy the American people had 
     in mind last November when they repudiated the President by 
     stripping his Republican Party of control of Congress. It 
     runs counter to much of what the Iraq Study Group and past 
     military commanders have recommended. It further strains a 
     U.S. military already hard pressed to meet its obligations.

  I believe the American people want a new direction in Iraq. What they 
don't want is more legislative games designed to stop debate or hide 
from the realities of the situation on the ground which our men and 
women are facing. Wishful thinking and best-case scenario planning will 
not make the situation in Iraq any better. Our troops in the field and 
our fellow citizens here at home demand leadership, critical analysis, 
a willingness to change course when the evidence shows that we must, 
and they deserve action.
  The Republican leadership can stonewall a vote on this resolution, 
but they cannot silence the debate. They cannot avoid reality. They 
cannot avoid the truth.
  To every American around the country asking questions, I say thank 
you--thank you for asking questions, thank you for speaking up, thank 
you for being a part of the democratic process we hold so dear, and 
thank you for following your conscience.
  There is nothing simple about the situation in Iraq. We all know 
that. But there is nothing complicated about what America is asking us 
to do. It is time for all of us--those who oppose the escalation of the 
war and those who support it--to stand up and have our votes counted.
  This is not the time for legislative games. This is too serious a 
time and too serious a topic. The President has presented a plan. It is 
time for us to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time, first, to commend the 
majority leader, Senator Reid, for doing everything in his power to 
bring up the most important issue we face as a nation, and that is the 
future of Iraq.
  I must tell you, as I travel through the State of Maryland, the 
citizens of my State ask: What are we doing to change the course in 
Iraq? What are we doing?
  Senator Reid has proposed a way that we can have an up-or-down vote 
on the most pressing issue of our time, and that is whether we are 
going to introduce more American troops, escalate our presence in 
Iraq--an up-or-down vote. The other body will be holding that vote some 
time tomorrow. Every Member of that body will go on record either for 
or against the President's proposal to escalate our presence in Iraq 
with additional American troops.
  We need to have that same vote in this body, and we should not be 
looking at procedural obstacles that prevent us from going on record 
whether we favor or oppose the President's proposals.
  I look at what the President is suggesting, putting additional troops 
in Iraq, as more of the same, not a new plan. If we learned anything at 
all from the elections last November, it was that the people of this 
Nation want to see a change in direction in Iraq. They understand our 
plans have not worked, that we need to look for a new direction. And 
yet the President is giving us more of the same.
  What we need to do is start by saying no to the escalation of 
additional troops, and then we need to look at what are the right 
policies in Iraq. Quite frankly, to me, we need to have the Iraqis 
stand up and defend their own country, with Iraqis assuming principal 
responsibility and American troops starting to come home. We need to 
engage diplomacy. We are in the middle of a civil war.
  We need to engage the international community to look for a political 
solution so that Iraqis have confidence in their own Government and 
Sunnis and Shiites can live together in one country. We need to engage 
the international community to help rebuild Iraq. They need help in the 
rebuilding of their country, and they certainly need the help of the 
international community in training Iraqis to take care of their own 
needs.
  Americans have made a significant investment in this country. We have 
given so much. Four years ago, I opposed the military presence of 
America in Iraq. I voted against it in the other body. I said at that 
time:

       I have grave concerns about the consequences of a 
     unilateral preemptive military attack by the United States. 
     Such a course of action could endanger our global coalition 
     against terrorism, particularly from our moderate Arab 
     allies. It also may increase terrorism activities around the 
     world.

  Unfortunately, I was right. I remember the predictions that were made 
4 years ago that this would be a relatively brief military operation, 
that we would be welcomed by the Iraqis, that the Iraqis would be able 
to take care of the security of their own country, that the standard of 
living for the average Iraqi would increase dramatically.
  Unfortunately, that has not come true. The reality of the situation 
is that over 3,100 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. 
Over 20,000 American soldiers have had life-changing injuries as a 
result of their service in Iraq. Hundreds of billions of dollars of 
U.S. taxpayer money has been spent in Iraq, and terrorism is on the 
increase in that region, not diminished. And we are in the middle of a 
civil war, with sectarian violence increasing.

  The Iraqis, having passed their constitution, have elected their 
Government, and it is time for the Iraqis to take responsibility for 
controlling the sectarian violence in their own country. More troops 
will not solve the

[[Page S2013]]

problem. More American troops will not solve the problem in Iraq.
  I am a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. We completed over 3 
weeks of hearings concerning the current status in Iraq. We heard from 
military experts and foreign policy experts, generals and policy 
people. I must tell you, they raise serious questions as to whether we 
can win the war in Iraq on the battlefield. They are telling us over 
and over again that what we need is a surge in diplomacy, not 
additional American troops. We need to signal the Iraqi Government, the 
international community, and, most importantly, the American people 
that our presence in Iraq is not indefinite. More American troops will 
not bring about victory in Iraq. More diplomacy might. More engagement 
of the international community might. But more American troops will 
not.
  It is time for this body to act. It is time for us to debate the 
current circumstances in Iraq and the President's policy, and it is 
time for us to take action on the President's plan to escalate. That 
should be our first vote, and that is what Majority Leader Reid is 
attempting to do. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
trying to use procedural roadblocks so we cannot have an up-or-down 
vote on the President's plan. We should never play politics with our 
American troops who are in harm's way. We shouldn't be doing that. But 
let us have a vote up or down on the President's policy, and then we 
need to look at other options.
  The majority leader indicates that we will certainly be taking up the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, to implement their 
recommendations, and we will have an open debate and the opportunity to 
offer amendments as to how we can bring our troops home with honor, how 
we can engage the international community, how we can move forward in 
the Middle East. That we need to do. But we first must stop the 
escalation of American troops, and that is the vote the other body will 
be having as early as tomorrow, and I hope, with the support of my 
colleagues, we can have that vote by Saturday. That is what we should 
do.
  I urge my colleagues to allow us to have the debate on this floor and 
an up-or-down vote on the President's plan to add additional American 
troops. Then I hope we will find some way to listen to what the experts 
are telling us, to listen to what the American people are telling us, 
that they want to see from our country a changed policy in Iraq. They 
want America to exercise its international leadership that only we can 
do. They want us to find a way to honorably bring our troops home, to 
energize the international community on diplomacy and on rebuilding 
Iraq. And they want the Iraqis to stand up and defend their own country 
in the midst of a civil war, and we will help end that civil war by 
allowing the Iraqis to take control of their own country and by 
energizing a diplomatic solution so that all the people in Iraq have 
confidence that their Government will protect their rights, and then 
working with the international community, helping build a type of 
country where the people can live in peace and prosperity. That should 
be our mission.
  But let us start by removing the procedural roadblocks. Let us start 
by having an up-or-down vote, as the other body will have, on whether 
we support or oppose the President's plans to escalate American troops.

                          ____________________