[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.
____________________