[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 30 (Friday, February 16, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2125-S2126]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ORDER OF PROCEDURE

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: At the hour of 
1:30, is there an order for another Senator to be recognized?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. And who is that Senator?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That would the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Can my colleague finish up in 1 minute? I want to try to 
accommodate my colleague.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will be relatively brief. I was instructed to be here at 
1:15, but I think we have had a runover of time; is that not correct?
  Mr. WARNER. I was not here.
  Mr. CRAIG. Can we inquire of the Chair?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority has 30 seconds 
remaining, and then time reverts to the majority. The majority has 
granted the Senator from Virginia the time.
  Mr. CRAIG. His time is?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia has 30 
minutes, until 2 p.m.
  Mr. CRAIG. May I ask the Senator how much time he planned to consume?
  Mr. WARNER. Well, I have to jump a plane, but how much time does my 
colleague wish?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will take no more than 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. If my colleague can make it 3 minutes, then I think my

[[Page S2126]]

colleague from Missouri is anxious to catch his plane also.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if I could impose and ask for 2 minutes, so 
that Senator Craig and myself will consume a total of 5 minutes on this 
side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am so honored to be on the floor with 
Senator Joe Lieberman today and listen to his remarks, and frankly, to 
stand in the shadow of his leadership on this issue. Because he has 
been that, a bipartisan leader recognizing, as he so appropriately has 
spoke, the leadership role that a Congress should take at this time in 
our Nation's history. And he has said it well, it is not one of 
micromanagement, it is not 1 of 535 generals all thinking we can act 
strategically and tactically about the engagement currently underway in 
Baghdad and elsewhere across Iraq.
  It is our job, I would hope, to stand united in behalf of the men and 
women we send there in uniform to accomplish what we so hope and wish 
they will be able to accomplish and that is the stability of Iraq and 
the greater Middle East and allowing the Iraqi people to lead their 
country and remove from it the kind of radical Islamic fascism that is 
well underway and dominating the region.
  Let me make a few comments this afternoon that clearly coincide with 
what Senator Lieberman spoke to. This is not, nor should it ever 
become, a partisan issue and I think Senator Lieberman's presence on 
the floor this afternoon speaks volumes to just that, that this is not 
a partisan issue. This is a phenomenally important national and 
international issue for our country to be engaged in. Frankly, few 
countries can engage in this struggle in that way we have, and with the 
kind of energy and strength that we have brought to it.
  The majority leader has put us in a very precarious situation, one 
that is clearly divisive. Frankly, I can say things as a Republican 
that maybe my colleague cannot say. I believe that the majority leader 
is playing politics on the issue of calling up a nonbinding resolution, 
while blocking the minority from calling up a different resolution. My 
good friend Senator Gregg has introduced a bill, a bill that I have 
cosponsored, that would express our full support for our soldiers in 
harms way and give them a much needed guarantee that they will continue 
to receive the funding they need to continue to function in their 
critical mission. As I said, the majority leader refuses to allow us a 
vote on this bill, and I think that is plain wrong.
  Let me make it very clear, it is not the Republicans stalling or 
shutting down debate on the issue of Iraq. In fact, it is just the 
opposite. I have spoken twice in the last 2 weeks about this issue 
because I believe it is very critical, both to my constituency in 
Idaho, but also to our great Nation and the world. The majority claims 
that they want full and fair debate on this issue, yet they refuse to 
allow us to bring our own voice to this issue, and our own resolutions. 
How can we have a full and fair debate and vote on the floor of the 
Senate if we are being held hostage by the majority leader?
  No State goes untouched by what we do here today and no man or woman 
in uniform goes untouched. Twenty Idahoans have given their lives in 
Iraq, and each of their sacrifices is sacred and honored, not just by 
their families and friend but by all. Most recently, SPC Ross Clevenger 
and PVT Raymond Werner of Boise, and SGT James Holtom of Rexberg were 
killed in Iraq in an IED attack. They, like all those who have fallen 
to enemy hands, served in a heroic and gallant way for a cause they 
believed in and a cause that we believe in. That is the cause of 
freedom.
  Senator Lieberman said it well, for us to send one of our top 
generals and top military minds in GEN David Petraeus to Iraq and say 
by a unanimous vote that we support him and believe in his abilities, 
but at the same time we do not support his mission, what are we saying 
as a Congress? What kind of message are we sending to our men and women 
in uniform when we speak in that manner? I think it is wrong to send 
this message and I will vigorously oppose that message.
  If the majority leader and his Democratic colleagues believe so 
strongly that our mission in Iraq is so flawed, then why do we not see 
them bringing to the floor a bill to cut off funding for our troops on 
the ground in Iraq? As I mentioned earlier, the answer to that is a 
political answer, not a substance issue. Many Democrats have already 
called for cutting off funding and demanding an immediate withdrawal 
from Iraq, yet we have not seen those bills being taken up on the floor 
of either chamber. However, there are rumors that Members will choose 
to use the upcoming Iraq supplemental funding bill to force the 
President to take the advice of these congressional generals, rather 
than using the advice of our military experts and commanders to execute 
our mission and secure Iraq.
  The reason I do not support such an immediate withdrawal of our 
troops, or cutting funding off for our troops in gun fights right now 
in the streets of Baghdad, is simple. I believe in our mission and I 
believe that our soldiers are the most capable in the world. The only 
enemy that can defeat American soldiers on the battlefield is the low 
morale of the American people. A resolution condemning their actions 
and their mission in Iraq is just the kind of defeat that could 
embolden our enemies and harm our soldiers.
  As every one of my colleagues knows, the reinforcements we are 
debating are already in motion. In fact, the President's plan to 
stabilize Baghdad and Anbar Province are already showing signs of 
success. The Iraqi government is closing down their borders with Syria 
and Iran, a critical decision that will limit the number of foreign 
fighters and enemy weapons from entering Iraq, weapons that are being 
used to kill American soldiers.
  Lastly, I would say that our presence in Iraq does not just affect 
Iraq. The greater Middle East and the security of world are at stake. 
Are we going to turn a blind eye to Iraq and allow it to become a safe 
haven for terrorists the way that Afghanistan was under the Taliban 
regime? I certainly will do all that I can as a U.S. Senator to prevent 
that from happening because it is in our national interests to defeat 
our enemies abroad before they can strike us again here at home.

                          ____________________