[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 30 (Friday, February 16, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2131-S2140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the resolution, 
S. 574, the Senate will vote in relation to tomorrow. This resolution 
states simply that:

       No. 1, Congress and the American people will continue to 
     support and protect the members of the United States Armed 
     Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and 
     honorably in Iraq; and No. 2, Congress disapproves of the 
     decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 
     2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat 
     troops to Iraq.

  Mr. President, the first paragraph of that resolution is a 
commendable one and one every Member of this body should support, and 
will. However, the second paragraph is simply inconsistent with a vote 
every Member has already made and should be opposed by every Member of 
this body. Therefore, the resolution as a whole should be opposed.
  Exactly 3 weeks ago, on January 26, the Senate unanimously approved 
GEN David Petraeus for his fourth star and to be commander of 
multinational forces in Iraq. No Senator opposed his nomination. In my 
12 years in the Congress, I do not think I have seen Members of 
Congress express any higher confidence or support for a nominee for any 
position than they have for GEN David Petraeus. I have not heard anyone 
criticize him, and rightly so.
  In his nomination hearing, when asked about his opinion of the 
President's plan for Iraq that he now has the responsibility of 
executing, General Petraeus said:

       I believe this plan can succeed if, in fact, all of those 
     enablers and all the rest of the assistance is in fact 
     provided.

  General Petraeus supports this plan. Now, the same Senate that voted 
unanimously to confirm General Petraeus is going to vote on whether 
they agree with the plan he supports and that they confirmed him 
to execute. That vote has not been taken yet, so obviously we don't 
know the outcome.

  Some people would like to mislead the American people into thinking 
that Republicans are opposed to debating Iraq and the various 
resolutions in Iraq. In fact, Republicans welcome that debate, and that 
is why many of us are here today. However, Republicans rightfully 
oppose the Democrats' dictating what resolutions can be considered.
  If Senators truly disapprove of this decision, they should be willing 
to vote for or against a resolution that clearly expresses their 
convictions, and that is exactly what Senator Gregg's resolution does. 
However, Democrats are not willing to do that. Senator Gregg's 
resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that:

       No funds should be cut off or reduced from American troops 
     in the field which would result in undermining their safety 
     or ability to complete their assigned missions.

  If Senators truly do not support the mission we are sending General 
Petraeus and our men and women in uniform to carry out, then they 
should be willing to have an up-or-down vote on the Gregg resolution.
  For the record, let me restate my position on the proposed troop 
increase. Several weeks ago, President Bush addressed the situation in 
Iraq before the American people, and everyone was anxious to hear his 
plans for a new strategy. It is clear that Americans want a victory in 
Iraq; however, they do not want our presence there to be open-ended. I 
agree, and most importantly, I believe it is time for the Iraqi 
Government to step up and take responsibility. They need to take 
control of their country, both militarily and politically. I believe 
the Iraqis must deliver on their promises.
  I come from a strong and proud military State, home to 13 military 
installations, and our service men and women have answered the call of 
duty and performed courageously. No one questions our troops' 
performance and unwavering commitment, and we will continue to support 
them. Many of our troops, including the 3rd Infantry Division based at 
Fort Stewart, GA, and Fort Benning, GA, are preparing to head overseas, 
some for their third tour of duty in Iraq, as we speak today.
  The President's decision to send additional combat brigades to 
Baghdad and Anbar Province in western Iraq is aimed at defeating the 
insurgency in those areas and increasing stability for the Iraqi 
people. However, we must also see an increased commitment from the 
Iraqis. This is also part of the new strategy, and I am committed to 
holding the administration and the Iraqis accountable in this area. 
Those of us in Congress have a responsibility to ask questions and seek 
answers on behalf of the American people when our strategy and tactics 
are not getting the job done.
  I have expressed my concern and frustration with progress on the part 
of the Iraqis not only to the President and the White House advisers 
but to our military leadership testifying before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee as well. In my conversations with the White House 
and with the Department of Defense leadership, I have made it clear 
that my support of any increase in troops is conditioned upon those 
troops being sent on a specific mission and upon the completion of that 
mission that they should be redeployed.
  I firmly believe that just a large increase in troops without having 
a specific mission will only increase insurgent opposition and that a 
withdrawal of U.S. forces at this time would be detrimental to Iraq's 
security and extremely dangerous for American soldiers. That particular 
issue has been affirmed by every single individual in the U.S. military 
testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Failure in Iraq 
will result in expanded and intensified conflict in the Middle East, 
and that kind of instability is clearly not in the best interests of 
America or the international community.
  Now that the President has taken serious steps to admit his mistakes, 
take responsibility, and revise the strategy, Americans do seek 
positive results. It has been said by many of my colleagues, as well as 
many of my own constituents, that the situation in Iraq requires a 
political and not a military solution. I strongly agree with that 
position. However, it is not possible, in my opinion, to have a 
political solution or to make political progress if citizens are afraid 
to leave their homes for fear of being shot or kidnaped or if they are 
afraid to let their children go to school because it is unsafe to do 
so. Some level of order and stability must be in place before a 
political solution can take hold.
  In America, we take order and stability for granted because we are 
blessed to live in a country that is extremely safe, secure, and 
stable. However, Iraq is not the same as the United States. They do not 
live in a secure and stable society, and order and stability must be in 
place before there can be

[[Page S2132]]

any hope for a long-term political solution. The additional troops we 
are sending are meant to create that order and stability, particularly 
in Baghdad. Unfortunately, the Iraqi military and Government is not yet 
mature enough to do that job themselves, so we are partnering with them 
to help them succeed.
  There is nothing easy or pretty about war, and this war is no 
exception. This war has not gone as well as any of us had hoped. 
Additionally, the President's new plan, which is already being carried 
out in Iraq, is not guaranteed to work. However, it is my firm 
conviction that the President's plan deserves a chance to succeed, and 
we in the Congress should do all we can to help it succeed. The Reid 
resolution does not do that. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote 
against cloture on the motion to proceed to the Reid resolution 
tomorrow. The resolution opposes the President's plan without offering 
any alternative. It opposes the mission which the Senate has 
unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to carry out.

  I urge a vote against the implementation of cloture tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, speaking to this resolution, I wish to be 
clear that it had been my intention to cast a ``no'' vote to proceeding 
to this nonbinding resolution. The majority, of course, has to muster 
60 votes in order to proceed on that particular resolution.
  I believe my time will be more productive fulfilling a commitment I 
have made to lead a trip to Iraq. Without disclosing when or precisely 
where we will be in the Middle East, I will tell my colleagues that I 
will be able to personally deliver a message not only to our troops of 
support of the American people for their mission but also hopefully to 
deliver a message directly to the Prime Minister of Iraq that we expect 
him to continue to fulfill the commitments he has made to carry out 
this new strategy, which has signs of success already, and to learn 
directly, firsthand from our commanders and troops on the ground, their 
assessment of how this new mission is proceeding. What the Congress 
needs to do is to provide assistance and to be able to bring home a 
report unfiltered through the media of precisely where the conditions 
stand right now.

  While I would have voted no, in effect, I will be voting no by my 
presence in Iraq.
  There are three reasons I oppose the resolution to move forward with 
this particular nonbinding resolution. First of all, we have been 
debating almost nonstop this subject of Iraq, now, for several weeks--
both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. So there has 
been no lack of debate.
  Rest assured that Republicans are committed to continuing this debate 
for as long as the American people believe it is productive. We welcome 
debate. We also welcome something else: The opportunity to express 
ourselves in a meaningful way, not simply on a nonbinding resolution. 
We have no objection to voting on this nonbinding resolution as long as 
we can also vote on something that is actually more meaningful than 
that, and that is a resolution that demonstrates we will not withdraw 
support for our troops. We aim to support them in their mission.
  Having been precluded, blocked, for being able to have a vote on that 
resolution, what we are saying is that we should move forward with the 
debate, but until the majority leader is willing to provide Members a 
vote on the resolution for support of the troops, we should not be 
voting on other resolutions.
  I think this is time for Democrats to take a stand. Either you 
support the troops in the battlefield or you don't, none of this sort 
of slow bleed and nonbinding resolution debate. The nonbinding 
resolution obscures your true position. It seems to me, if you merely 
seem to tell the President you don't like what he is doing, you have 
plenty of opportunities to do that, but a resolution can have a very 
deleterious effect on the morale of our troops, on our enemies who see 
it as a sign of weakness, and perhaps on our allies who wonder if we 
see the mission through.
  If you are serious about stopping this effort because you believe it 
has failed or cannot succeed, obviously you need to do what Congress 
has the ability to do and that is vote no on the funding of the troops.
  Instead, what we have been told is that in the House of 
Representatives, after this first step of the nonbinding resolution, 
there will be a second step, this slow-bleed strategy, a concept that 
says Congress will begin to micromanage how troops are deployed in the 
field and around the world and equipment provided to them, and that 
will determine whether any will receive Congress's continued support.
  We cannot condition our support for the troops. They need to know 
that when we send them into harm's way, they will have everything they 
need from reinforcements to equipment. This sort of slow-bleed strategy 
that has been announced over in the House of Representatives is 
extraordinarily dangerous and deleterious to our mission.
  First of all, it seems to me there are some signs of success. This is 
the first reason I would have voted no on the resolution. We do need to 
give the new strategy the President has announced a chance to succeed.
  There are plenty of stories, and I will have them printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks, about some initial successes--
the Shiite militia leaders appearing to leave their strongholds in 
Baghdad in anticipation of our plan to increase our activities there.
  The powerful Shiite cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr has left Iraq, spending 
his time in Iran away from the danger that might await him if he stayed 
in Baghdad.
  In Al Anbar Province in the west, the tribal sheiks have now 
significantly begun to align themselves with the United States, as a 
result of which we have been able to recruit hundreds more police 
officers who were not possible to recruit in the past.
  A real sign is the fact that Sunni and Shiite Arab lawmakers have 
announced plans to form two new political blocs in Iraq. The Iraqi 
military is taking a significantly, more robust role, now ordering tens 
of thousands of residents to leave homes--these are the so-called 
squatters--that they are occupying illegally, and, instead, saying they 
will have the original owners of those homes come back. This is 
important because the people who have been displaced or dispossessed 
primarily are Sunnis. The Shiite militias came in and kicked them out 
and allowed squatters in their home.
  It is highly significant the Iraqi Government has said, through a LTG 
Aboud Qanbar, who is leading this new crackdown, that they are going to 
close the borders with Iran and Syria, they are going to extend the 
curfew in Baghdad, set up new checkpoints and reoccupy the houses that 
have been occupied by the illegal Shiites.
  Another significant change, they actually raided a Shiite mosque 
which was a center of illegally armed militias, kidnapping, torture and 
murder activities and a place where a good deal of weapons had been 
stored. This, in the past, had not been done. But it is now being done, 
all as a part of Maliki's commitment to change the rules of engagement 
and to commit himself to support politically the victories that had 
been occurring on the ground militarily but which were fleeting because 
when you capture people and put them in jail, if the politicians get 
them out of jail the next day, you have gained nothing. We need to give 
it a chance.

  I referred to former Representative Hamilton of the Hamilton-Baker 
Commission, who said in testimony:

       So I guess my bottom line on the surge is, look, the 
     president's plan ought to be given a chance. Give it a 
     chance, because we heard all of this. This that you confirmed 
     . . . the day before yesterday, this is his idea. He's the 
     supporter of it. Give it a chance.

  Second, we need to support this mission and oppose the nonbinding 
resolution opposed to it because it would send a horrible message not 
only to our troops and military leaders but to our allies and to our 
enemies.
  General Petraeus, whom I mentioned a moment ago, at his confirmation 
hearing got this question from Senator Lieberman.

       Senator Lieberman: You also said in response to a question 
     from Senator McCain that adoption of a resolution of 
     disapproval . . . would not . . . have a beneficial effect on 
     our troops in Iraq. But I want to ask you, what effect would 
     Senate passage of a resolution of disapproval of this new way 
     ahead

[[Page S2133]]

     that you embrace--what effect would it have on our enemies in 
     Iraq?
       Lieutenant General Petraeus: Sir, as I said in the opening 
     statement, this is a test of wills, at the end of the day. 
     And in that regard . . . a commander of such an endeavor 
     would obviously like the enemy to feel that there's no hope.
       Senator Lieberman: And a resolution--a Senate passed 
     resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq would 
     give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that--well, 
     some clear expression that the American people are divided.
       Lieutenant General Petraeus: That's correct, sir.

  Soldiers believe the same thing. From ABC News, on February 13, they 
asked Army 1SG Louis Barnum what they thought of the resolution. They 
had strong words. Here is what one said:

       Makes me sick. I'm a born and raised Democrat--it makes me 
     sad.

  On the NBC nightly news, January 26, interview of three of our 
soldiers.
  SPC Tyler Johnson said:

       Those people are dying. You know what I am saying? You may 
     support--'oh, we support the troops' but you're not 
     supporting what they do, what they share and sweat for, what 
     they believe for, what we die for. It just don't make sense 
     to me.

  SSG Manuel Sahagun:

       One thing I don't like is when people back home say they 
     support the troops but they don't support the war. If they're 
     going to support us, support us all the way.

  There was in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, February 15, a poignant 
communication from an Army sergeant whose name is Daniel Dobson. He 
said:

       The question has been posed to me recently what 
     congressional resolution hurts troops morale the most. No 
     doubt we would be happy to come home tomorrow. But the 
     thought is bittersweet. Most servicemembers will tell you the 
     same thing: There is no honor in retreat . . . and there is 
     no honor in what the Democrats have proposed. It stings me to 
     the core to think that Americans would rather sell their 
     honor than fight for a cause. Those of us who fight [for 
     peace] know all too well that peace has a very bloody price 
     tag.

  The American people believe this as well. FOX News, according to an 
opinion dynamics poll in the last couple of days, 47 percent of the 
American people say it is more likely to encourage the enemy and hurt 
troop morale compared with 24 percent who think it would make a 
positive difference to the policy of the United States toward Iraq.
  So we better be careful what kind of message is sent through a so-
called nonbinding resolution. It would not change the course of what we 
are doing on the ground in Iraq, but it can certainly affect our enemy 
and the morale of our troops and our allies.
  I conclude by saying it seems to me it would be a huge mistake to 
proceed to vote only on a resolution which is acknowledged by its 
proponents as being merely a first step toward a second step of 
reducing and ultimately removing support for the troops whom we have 
sent into harm's way. Far better it would be for us to continue this 
debate at the conclusion of which we would vote on another resolution 
which would explicitly express our support for our troops and their 
mission.
  To expound in further detail, I oppose this resolution and would vote 
``no'' on taking it up without considering other resolutions first, 
because it would put a halt to the progress which has begun to occur in 
Iraq since the President announced new strategy. Some examples:


                    shiite militias leave sadr city

       Shiite militia leaders already appear to be leaving their 
     strongholds in Baghdad in anticipation of the U.S. and Iraqi 
     plan to increase the troop presence in the Iraqi capital, 
     according to the top U.S. commander in the country. ``We have 
     seen numerous indications Shia militia leaders will leave, or 
     already have left, Sadr City to avoid capture by Iraqi and 
     coalition security forces,'' Army Gen. George W. Casey, Jr. 
     said in a written statement submitted to the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee as part of his confirmation hearing today 
     to be Army chief of staff.


                     moqtada al-sadr living in iran

       The powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has left Iraq 
     and has been living in Iran for the past several weeks . . . 
     With fresh American forces arriving in Baghdad as part of the 
     White House plan to stabilize the capital, officials in 
     Washington suggested that Mr. Sadr might have fled Iraq to 
     avoid being captured or killed during the crackdown.


                   sunnis battle al qaeda in al anbar

       Before tribal sheiks aligned themselves with U.S. forces in 
     the violent deserts of western Iraq, the number of people 
     willing to become police officers in the city of Ramadi--the 
     epicenter of the fight against the insurgent group known as 
     al-Qaeda in Iraq--might not have filled a single police 
     pickup. ``Last March was zero,'' said Maj. Gen. Richard C. 
     Zilmer, the Marine commander in western Iraq, referring to 
     the number of men recruited that month. With the help of a 
     confederation of about 50 Sunni Muslim tribal sheiks, the 
     U.S. military recruited more than 800 police officers in 
     December and is on track to do the same this month. Officers 
     credit the sheiks' cooperation for the diminishing violence 
     in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province.


            sunnis and shiites move away from sect-arianism

       Sunni and Shiite Arab lawmakers announced plans [January 
     31] to form two new blocs in Iraq's parliament they hope will 
     break away from the ethnic and religious mold of current 
     alliances and ease sectarian strife. But though both blocs 
     said they hoped to eventually draw in members of all ethnic 
     and religious groups, one initially will be made up entirely 
     of Shiite Muslim politicians and the other of Sunni Muslims.


                  iraq military taking a leading role

       The Iraqi government on Tuesday ordered tens of thousands 
     of Baghdad residents to leave homes they are occupying 
     illegally, in a surprising and highly challenging effort to 
     reverse the tide of sectarian cleansing that has left the 
     capital bloodied and balkanized. In a televised speech, Lt. 
     Gen. Aboud Qanbar, who is leading the new crackdown, also 
     announced the closing of Iraq's borders with Iran and Syria, 
     an extension of the curfew in Baghdad by an hour, and the 
     setup of new checkpoints run by the Defense and Interior 
     Ministries, both of which General Qanbar said he now 
     controlled.


                iraqi security forces raid shiite mosque

       A U.S. military spokesman on Thursday hailed a joint 
     American-Iraqi raid on Baghdad's leading Shiite Muslim mosque 
     as proof that the Baghdad security plan is being applied 
     evenly against all sides of the country's sectarian divide. 
     In a statement released Thursday, the U.S. military said the 
     mosque was raided ``during operations targeting illegally 
     armed militia kidnapping, torture and murder activities.'' It 
     said the mosque had been used ``to conduct sectarian violence 
     against Iraqi civilians as well as a safe haven and weapons 
     storage area for illegal militia groups.'' Sunni Muslims have 
     reported being held and beaten in the mosque, but little had 
     been done about it before. The Supreme Council's armed wing, 
     the Badr Organization, has been accused of kidnapping and 
     torturing Sunnis. The statement said U.S. forces guarded the 
     area around the mosque while Iraqi soldiers entered it with 
     the cooperation of its security guards.


baker and hamilton have urged the senate to capitalize on this progress

       Hamilton: So I guess my bottom line on the surge is, look, 
     the president's plan ought to be given a chance. Give it a 
     chance, because we heard all of this. The general that you 
     confirmed 80-to-nothing the day before yesterday, this is his 
     idea. He's the supporter of it. Give it a chance.
       Baker: And let me . . . read from the report with respect 
     to this issue of the surge, because there are only two 
     conditions upon our support for a surge. One is that it be 
     short-term and the other is that it be called for by the 
     commander in Iraq. President Bush said this is not an open-
     ended commitment. Secretary Gates said this is a temporary 
     surge and . . . General Petraeus is the guy that's to carry 
     it out and he was the person that originally recommended it.
  I also oppose this resolution because I believe it would send a 
horrible message to our troops and our military leaders, our allies and 
our enemies.
  The majority leader has said that he doesn't think the resolution 
``matters'' substantively, and that the politics are all that is 
important. He said:

       Well, it doesn't matter what resolution we move forward to. 
     You know, I can count. I don't know if we'll get 60 votes. 
     But I'll tell you one thing: There are 21 Republicans up for 
     reelection this time.

  I believe, contrary to the opinion of the Majority Leader, that the 
non-binding words in this resolution do matter. Here's why.
  General Petraeus Believes the resolution hurts his Mission.
  This is from Petraeus' confirmation hearing:

       Senator Lieberman. You also said in response to a question 
     from Senator McCain that adoption of a resolution of 
     disapproval, . . . would not . . . have a beneficial effect 
     on our troops in Iraq. But I want to ask you, what effect 
     would Senate passage of a resolution of disapproval of this 
     new way ahead that you embrace--what effect would it have on 
     our enemies in Iraq?
       Lieutenant General Petraeus. Sir, as I stated in the 
     opening statement, this is a test of wills, at the end of the 
     day. And in that regard . . . a commander in such an endeavor 
     would obviously like the enemy to feel that there's no hope.
       Senator Lieberman. And a resolution--a Senate-passed 
     resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq would 
     give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that--well, 
     some clear expression that the American people were divided.
       Lieutenant General Petraeus: That's correct, sir. Soldiers 
     believe the resolution undermines them.

[[Page S2134]]

  ABC News, Feb. 13:
       ABC News recently asked Army sergeants in Ramadi what they 
     thought of the resolution, and they had strong words.
       ``Makes me sick,'' said First Sgt. Louis Barnum. [I'm] born 
     and raised a Democrat--it makes me sad.''
       ``I don't want to bad mouth the president at all. To me[,] 
     that is treason,'' said SGT. Brian Orzechowski.

  From NBC Nightly News, January 26:

  Specialist Tyler Johnson:

       Those people are dying. You know what I'm saying? You may 
     support--``Oh, we support the troops,'' but you're not 
     supporting what they do, what they share and sweat for, what 
     they believe for, what we die for. It just don't make sense 
     to me.

  SSG Manuel Sahagun:

       One thing I don't like is when people back home say they 
     support the troops but they don't support the war. If they're 
     going to support us, support us all the way.
  SPC Peter Manna:

       If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that 
     we've done here is all in vain.
  From Fort-Worth Star Telegram, February 15, 2007:
  Army SGT Daniel Dobson:

       The question has been posed to me recently what 
     congressional resolution hurts troop morale the most. No 
     doubt we would be happy to come home tomorrow. But the 
     thought is bittersweet. Most service members would tell you 
     the same thing: There is no honor in retreat . . . and there 
     is no honor in what the Democrats have proposed. It stings me 
     to the core to think that Americans would rather sell their 
     honor than fight for a cause. Those of us who fight for 
     [peace] know all too well that peace has a very bloody price 
     tag.


 The American Public Believes That The Resolution Undermines The Troops

  From FOX NEWS quoting an opinion dynamics poll:

       47 percent say it is more likely to encourage the enemy and 
     hurt troop morale, compared with 24 percent who think it 
     would make a positive difference to U.S. policy toward Iraq.

  Finally, this resolution is but the first step in a ``slow bleed'' 
strategy, and should be rejected for that reason as well.
  Democrats claim that they just want an up or down vote on this 
resolution to send a message to the President, but I fear that the real 
plan is much more expansive. If this resolution passes, votes to cut 
off support for our troops and micromanaging the war won't be far 
behind.
  In the other Chamber, Representative Murtha has made it clear that he 
intends to bleed our troops of support for their mission in Iraq. 
Speaking about his resolution, Murtha said: ``They won't be able to 
continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the 
equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do 
the work. There's no question in my mind.''
  Speaker Pelosi essentially endorsed this slow-bleed strategy, 
according to reports in The Poltico this morning.
  Those who believe that this vote is a simple gesture, and that it 
will be the last word on the ``surge'' from this body, then why did 
Senator Feingold say on the floor just this morning that the Warner 
resolution is a ``first step''? Please listen to these additional 
quotes from some of my Democratic colleagues:
  This is from the Foreign Relations Committee, January 24, 2007:

       Senator Biden: But there's also one other thing, and I 
     commit to everyone today, and I will end with this: that 
     unless the President demonstrates very quickly that he is 
     unlikely to continue down the road he's on, this will be only 
     the first step in this committee. I will be introducing--I 
     know Senator Dodd may today introduce and another may--I know 
     Senator Obama, Senator Kerry, probably all of you have 
     binding, constitutionally legitimate, binding pieces of 
     legislation. We will bring them up.

  On ``Meet The Press,'' January 28, 2007:

       Mr. Russert: Do you believe that it's inevitable Democrats 
     will cut funding for the war off?
       Senator Schumer: Well, we'll certainly ratchet up the 
     pressure against President Bush. The bottom line is that this 
     escalation, for instance, is so poorly received, not just by 
     Democrats, but by all of the American people. Our first step 
     will be this sense of the Senate resolution. But it's only 
     the first step.

  From Speaker Pelosi, February 13, 2007:
       A vote of disapproval will set the stage for additional 
     Iraq legislation which will be coming to the House floor.

  If our Democratic colleagues don't intend to make this resolution the 
``first step'' in a campaign to cut off funding for our operations in 
Iraq, then why won't they allow a vote on the Gregg resolution?
  In summary, debate? Yes. But votes that are meaningful--not just on a 
critical non-binding resolution but on a commitment of support for our 
troops and their mission as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 10 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his remarks. I 
certainly agree it would be a mistake to send any message that we are 
not in support of our troops and, indeed, that is what voting on one 
message would do. Certainly, there are different views in the Senate 
and legitimately so. We recognize that. That is the way it is in 
Congress.
  I resist a little bit the idea that has come up on the other side of 
the aisle that we have not talked about this, we have not debated it. I 
say we have talked about it, we have talked about it for several 
months. We have debated it. There is clearly a difference of view. Most 
everyone has the same idea that the situation must be changed and must 
be improved there. No one argues with that.
  The issue is that we can back off and deny the support we have for 
what we have accomplished or we can move forward with the President, 
who has a change in plan. That is something we need to remember. We are 
not talking about simply continuing to do the same thing. We have new 
leadership there, we have some new strategies there, we have some ideas 
as to what might be done.
  Our troops continue to do an incredible job, but it has not gone as 
well as we would like. Therefore, it is appropriate that we make some 
changes. In order to make some changes, it is probably necessary to 
change the arrangement we have, change the numbers so we can do 
something and to begin again to devise a movement that will get us out 
of there in a relatively short time.
  Our military leaders know that. They accept that. Their plans embrace 
that idea that we have to do something different, that we have to start 
coming to some transition and conclusion. The President also has 
acknowledged this.
  It is not simple. None of us like war. None of us like to have our 
troops at risk, there is no question about that. But the fact is there 
exists a terrorism threat to the United States, somewhat centered in 
this area. The fact is, we need to complete the task and to be able to 
turn some stability over to a government in Iraq that can move forward.
  The United States cannot complete this mission alone. And the Iraqis, 
of course, must keep their commitment to do more than they have. 
Fortunately, we are seeing some movement in that direction. We are 
seeing the support building, and we need to continue to press for that 
with the surrounding countries.
  The President has made it very clear to the Iraqi President that our 
support is not open-ended. I hope we continue to do that.
  The administration has installed new leadership. We have had good 
performance there, but we need to be moving in a somewhat different 
direction, a change from what we are doing. That is the plan. That is 
what it is all about.
  I am a little discouraged that we act as if we have not talked about 
it, we act as if we have not made a move upon it, and now we have a 
nonbinding resolution. But as the previous speaker said, we also need 
to offer more than one amendment. There are different options. We have 
to recognize the Senate is close in numbers, and we have some 
differences. We have to have an opportunity to talk about different 
things. Hopefully, that is what this is all about.
  It is peculiar political posturing to sound off with sense-of-the-
Senate resolutions on the heels of having unanimously confirmed the 
general who is going over there to take over. He has a plan. It would 
be discouraging to him, I am sure, to learn we are sending him over 
there, but we are not going to do the things he needs to do. It is 
important for folks to understand this plan does not involve just 
sending troops and put a bandaid on the problem. We have commitments 
from the Iraqi Government to step up security and reconciliation 
efforts. We need to make

[[Page S2135]]

decisions from where we are now at this point in the fight to move in a 
somewhat different direction.
  One thing is for sure. We are not moving the ball by just talking 
from the sidelines. Here we have an opportunity to do that--not a 
never-ending commitment but one to make some changes, complete this 
task. However, of course, it is a little premature to be debating a 
nonbinding resolution but, nevertheless, we have different views and 
that is where we are, and that is fine. But I think, in fairness, 
politically, we do need to have the opportunity to act on more than 
just a single amendment so we can have some chance to talk about other 
items that have an impact on Iraq.
  The resolution will only serve to score political points and 
undermines our efforts to achieve a positive result in what we are 
seeking to do. So I am concerned today with respect to this process, 
but we can make it work. And we need to make it work. Here we are. 
Let's make sure we have an opportunity to make it balanced, we have an 
opportunity to talk about both sides, we have an opportunity to talk 
about some of the other kinds of opportunities.
  The majority will not let the minority offer amendments, and they 
should. This is not a one-sided debate, and there are certain items we 
need to discuss.
  Leader McConnell has made more than one good-faith effort to meet the 
majority in the middle of the aisle, and we, I hope, will continue to 
do that. We must do that. We have proposed to give the majority the 
votes they want if they will simply give us the votes we would like to 
have. That seems to make a great deal of sense.
  So we are in sort of a procedural tie-up on something for which we 
know there are differences on the policy, clearly, and we will simply 
have to work on that. And we have to recognize the responsibility and 
the commitment the President has made and the plan he has to change 
things there so we can go forward. So we need to give the troops and 
the Iraqis the opportunity to work more to change the situation there.
  So the purpose of this whole exercise, of course, is to put a 
government in place in Iraq so they can take care of themselves, for us 
to be able to remove our being there and our commitment there. I think 
we have a chance to do this. So I hope if we are going to move, we have 
a chance to move on more than one opportunity and one resolution. And I 
think that will be the case.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come before the body today to let my 
colleagues know I intend to vote for cloture on the single and simple 
resolution that will be before this body tomorrow afternoon.
  When one looks at the content of what is included in this resolution, 
it is very simple. In its simplest terms, it says, firsts and foremost, 
we support our troops. We support our troops. Who in this body would 
disagree with that statement?
  Secondly, it makes another statement, another important but very 
simple statement, and that is that we disagree with the President's 
plan to add an additional 21,500 troops into Iraq. We disagree with the 
President's plan.
  That is a simple resolution. We should be able to bring that 
resolution to this floor. We should be able to have it debated. And we 
should be able to have an up-or-down vote on that resolution.
  I wish it were otherwise. I wish that, in fact, we were debating the 
various resolutions that have been suggested that we debate on this 
floor by the majority leader in the last week, where he has offered the 
minority leader on the Republican side the opportunity to come in and 
debate the Warner resolution, the McCain-Lieberman resolution, as well 
as this resolution, and a number of different configurations which have 
been offered to the minority party.
  But the reality today is this Chamber, through the minority party, 
wants to stop a vote on any resolution relating to Iraq. They simply 
want to stop a vote. What we need to do as a Chamber, in my view, is to 
move forward with the deliberation of the great Senators who are a part 
of this Senate and have a robust debate on Iraq that sets forth the 
different alternatives that have been presented and come to some kind 
of conclusion that gives direction to America and to this country on 
how we ought to move forward in Iraq.
  I wish we were here in part debating the Warner-Levin resolution 
because when you think about the content of the Warner-Levin 
resolution, in that resolution you also find what I believe is the best 
of what we have to offer. You have a thoughtful proposal that says, 
yes, we disagree with the President, but we also have a new direction 
in which we believe we ought to march forward in Iraq. That bipartisan 
resolution, that was largely drafted by Senator Warner and Senator 
Nelson and Senator Collins, of which I am a cosponsor, is a way 
forward. It is a way to describe a new direction for us as we move 
forward in Iraq.
  I also wish we were here today and tomorrow, and even into next week, 
debating the resolution which has been brought forward by my dear 
friends, Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain. They have a different 
point of view than other Members of this body. They have a different 
point of view than Senator Warner and I do with respect to how we ought 
to move forward in Iraq. But, nonetheless, they are people of good 
faith who have a point of view that ought to be debated in this body, 
and we ought to have a vote on it.
  Unfortunately, the procedural mechanisms which have been put forward 
by the minority party will keep us from actually debating that 
particular resolution and having a debate and a vote on that 
resolution.
  I believe the ultimate goal we all have in this Chamber is we want to 
have peace in Iraq, and we want to have a peaceful Middle East. But I 
also believe that unless we are able to find some way of working 
together in a bipartisan manner, that key ingredient of how we find a 
peaceful avenue in Iraq and in the Middle East is going to elude us.

  For sure, today is simply one of the opening chapters of the great 
debate we will have in this Chamber in the weeks and months, perhaps 
even in the years, ahead with respect to how we move forward in Iraq 
and how we move forward in the Middle East. Without a sense of 
bipartisanship, we will not be able to find that unity which is an 
essential ingredient for us to be able to move forward.
  It dismays me we have not been able to find the bipartisanship to get 
us to the 60-vote threshold so we can move forward and have a robust 
debate on this issue that will be before the body tomorrow, as well as 
other issues and resolutions that would be brought forward by my 
colleagues.
  As I speak at this time, the House of Representatives--just right 
down the hallway from where I stand right now--is about ready to begin 
a vote--a vote--on this very simple resolution. And again, its 
simplicity defies any logic as to why we would not want to vote on it 
in the Senate. It is very simple: We support our troops, and we 
disagree with the President's proposed escalation of troops by 21,500.
  It is right that we are here this afternoon and into Saturday 
debating the vote on that simple resolution. That resolution addresses 
the most critical and important issue before our Nation today. I deeply 
regret the Senate has been prevented from voting on a similar 
resolution, and that is why I will vote for cloture on this resolution 
tomorrow. I believe the Senate has an obligation--it has an 
obligation--to debate and to vote on the issue that is most important 
to America today.
  For me, my constituents in Colorado know where I stand. I am a 
cosponsor of the bipartisan resolution which Senator Warner and Senator 
Nelson and Senator Collins and others have worked on for some time. 
That resolution states in clear terms that the Senate disagrees with 
the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq. And, at the same 
time, that resolution truly offers a new way for us to move forward 
with this seemingly intractable problem we face in that part of the 
world.
  I have referred to the Warner resolution as a new way forward, a new 
plan, a plan C, if you will, because it finds a middle ground between 
the President's plan A, which is to escalate the military effort in 
Iraq, and plan B, which is pushed by some American citizens in

[[Page S2136]]

each one of our offices every day who say we should immediately leave 
Iraq--we should immediately leave Iraq. From my point of view, the 
bipartisan resolution we came up with offers a new direction forward.
  Our bipartisan group believes what we need to do is to have a new 
strategy in Iraq, one based on demanding long-overdue compromises from 
the Iraqi Government, vigorous counterterrorism activity, continued 
support of our troops in the field, protecting the territorial 
integrity of Iraq, and a very robust and enhanced diplomatic effort in 
that region and in Iraq itself.
  The new way forward reflected in the Warner resolution is based on a 
number of key principles, as follows:
  First, the central goal of the American mission in Iraq should be to 
encourage the Iraqi Government to make the political compromises that 
are necessary to foster reconciliation and to improve the deteriorating 
security situation in Iraq.
  Second, the American military strategy should be focused on 
maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying terrorists a 
safe haven, promoting regional stability, bringing security to Baghdad, 
and training--and training--and equipping the Iraqi forces.
  These are important principles, and they continue.
  Third, we say what we would like to see happen in Iraq is that the 
United States should engage the nations in that region to develop a 
regional peace and reconciliation process.
  Fourth, we believe the United States should continue to engage in a 
strong counterterrorism activity, chasing down al-Qaida wherever al-
Qaida might be.
  Fifth, the American mission in Iraq should be conditioned upon the 
Iraqi Government meeting certain benchmarks, including ensuring an 
equitable distribution of oil revenues in that country.
  And sixth, Congress should not eliminate or reduce funds for troops 
in the field because the brave men and women fighting this war need our 
support while they are in harm's way.
  I believe plan C offers us the right way forward. It is my hope that 
resolution ultimately would be adopted by a large bipartisan group of 
Senators in this body.
  I would like to discuss in further detail a couple of the key 
elements, at least in terms of how I see it, on how we move forward, on 
how we improve the security situation along Iraq's borders, and the 
need for an enhanced and much more robust diplomatic effort.
  I believe the territorial integrity of Iraq, security along Iraq's 
borders, and, for that matter, security in the region is linked with 
the need for a renewed and vigorous diplomatic push.
  The bipartisan Iraq Study Group stated in very simple terms:

       The United States must build a new international consensus 
     for stability in Iraq and the region. In order to foster such 
     a consensus, the United States should embark on a robust 
     diplomatic effort to establish an international support 
     structure intended to stabilize Iraq and ease tensions in 
     other countries in the region.

  In addition, the public portion of the National Intelligence 
Estimate--which was a consensus document produced by the 16 agencies 
comprising the national intelligence community--mentioned three things 
which could ``help to reverse the negative trends driving Iraq's 
current trajectory.'' It is important to note that each of these three 
strategies proposed by the NIE are fundamentally diplomatic and 
political, as opposed to military.
  They are, first of all, a recommendation that the broader Sunni 
acceptance of the current political structure and federalism be brought 
about; secondly, that significant concessions by Shia and Kurds are 
required to create space for Sunni acceptance of federalism; and, 
third, a bottom-up approach is needed to help mend the frayed 
relationships between the tribal and religious groups.
  The two most important documents produced on the Iraq war over the 
past 6 months, the Iraq Study Group report and the public portions of 
the NIE, recommend a renewed diplomatic and political effort as a 
keystone for security inside Iraq and in the region.
  This is no surprise when you consider the situation along the borders 
of Iraq. To the east, we know of the damage Iran can potentially cause 
by crossing the relatively porous border in order to promote the Shia 
cause. Not only that, but Iran has steadfastly ignored the U.N.'s 
demand to halt their nuclear activities. To the south and west, Saudi 
Arabia might eventually decide to intervene on the side of the Sunnis, 
should the situation further deteriorate. To the north and west, of 
course, is Syria, which has a largely uncontrolled border with Iraq, 
across which foreign fighters and arms and terrorists cross even today 
as I speak. To the north is Turkey, which is watching the situation in 
Iraq and might decide to intervene in order to prevent an independent 
Kurdistan. Finally, Jordan, to the west, is feeling the strain of the 
massive influx of Iraqi refugees into their country, which could have a 
destabilizing effect on a country which is such an important ally of 
the United States.
  Given the potential crisis on Iraq's east, west, north, and south 
borders, given the complex and conflicting interests the parties in the 
region face, and given the difficulty of imposing a military solution 
on this expanding, deteriorating puzzle, it is imperative to embark on 
a renewed and robust diplomatic and political effort in the manner 
outlined in the Warner resolution. That effort, in my view, must 
include the following:
  First, it must include talks with each of the key players in the 
region. I agree with the Iraq Study Group report which stated that:

       The United States should engage directly with Iran and 
     Syria in order to try to obtain the commitment to 
     constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. 
     In engaging Syria and Iran, the United States should consider 
     incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive 
     results.

  This does not mean direct talks will necessarily succeed quickly or 
even succeed at all. But it does mean the United States should use 
every available carrot and stick, every diplomatic tool we have to try 
to stabilize the region.
  Second, the United States and those who share a vision of a peaceful 
Middle East should organize an international conference to help the 
Iraqis promote national reconciliation and stronger relations with 
their neighbors.
  Third, we should heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group and promote 
the creation of an Iraq international support group which would include 
each country that borders Iraq and other key countries in the region. 
That support group would work to strengthen Iraq's territorial and 
sovereign integrity and would provide a diplomatic forum for Iraq's 
neighbors, many of whom have competing and conflicting interests to 
negotiate.
  We may very well engage Iraq's neighbors and find we cannot achieve 
common ground. But I believe that refusing to talk to our adversaries 
on principle simply because they are our adversaries has done us no 
good. Indeed, in our history, Presidents from both parties and of 
different ideological stripes, from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald 
Reagan, have actively engaged countries and leaders with whom they 
strongly disagreed, and they did so because it was in the American 
national interest. In fact, even this administration diplomatically 
engaged a member of the so-called ``axis of evil,'' North Korea. And 
while this process was long and laborious, it appears to have borne 
fruit. I believe we are at a similar moment in Iraq, when a strong and 
tough diplomatic effort may offer our last best chance to achieve a 
measure of peace and stability for Iraq and for the region.
  For that reason, I believe we should follow the advice of the Iraq 
Study Group, the authors of the National Intelligence Estimate, and the 
advice of Senators from both sides of the aisle in pursuing a new 
direction in Iraq. There are no guarantees of success, but we must make 
every effort to succeed before it is too late.
  I want to make a statement relative to why I think it is such an 
important time for us to be involved in this debate. It was not that 
long ago when I went with two of the most distinguished Senators in 
this body to Iraq and Afghanistan and spent time in both countries with 
both Senator Warner and Senator Levin. For all of us who are Members of 
this body, there are no two Senators whom we hold in higher esteem. 
They truly are Senators whom I would call ``a Senator's Senator'' 
because they have the respect of

[[Page S2137]]

their colleagues. They have the wisdom they have accumulated through 
their service to our country over decades, and they are always 
attempting to do what is best for the American interest. I remember in 
Baghdad having conversations with both Senator Warner and Senator Levin 
and how they described how things had changed from the initial invasion 
to the time we were there in the heavily fortified Green Zone in 
Baghdad and as we traveled around the country.

  Since that time, Senator Warner and others have been back there. As 
we have heard in this Chamber, the distinguished Senator from Virginia 
talked about how 3 or 4 months ago, he described the situation in Iraq 
as drifting sideways. Today that situation is not only drifting 
sideways but it continues to deteriorate. So no matter how much our 
troops have done, the sacrifice they have made, the sacrifices their 
families have made, things have not only drifted sideways, they 
continue to deteriorate. The President's proposal, which is at the 
heart of this debate, has to do with whether we should send 21,500 more 
troops into harm's way. We should all ask the question whether that is 
something we shouldn't support, and we should have an opportunity to 
vote on that concept in this Chamber. We should have an opportunity to 
vote on that concept in this Chamber before the President moves forward 
with the escalation effort.
  In my view, and part of the reason I joined Senator Warner and 
Senator Nelson and others in their resolution, I don't believe it will 
work. I believe when we look at Operation Going Forward Together in 
June and Operation Going Forward Together 2 in August, they demonstrate 
that a surge of this kind will, in fact, not work. Indeed, the Iraq 
Study Group found that between the months of June and the time they 
issued their report, violence had escalated in Baghdad by 43 percent. 
So we have tried a surge twice, and it has failed. Now the President is 
saying we ought to go ahead and do yet another surge. I believe a 
simple resolution we can vote on that makes a simple statement that we 
support our troops and we oppose the escalation of the military effort 
in Iraq in the way the President has proposed is the right thing for us 
to vote on. It is the most important question of our time. It is 
appropriate for us to be spending this Friday and Saturday, and, if it 
so takes, all of next week, instead of going back to our respective 
States and working during the Presidents holiday to debate this issue, 
which is such a defining issue of our time. This is a defining issue 
for the 21st century, not only for Iraq but for the Middle East, for 
the war on terror which we wage around the globe; this is the defining 
issue, and it is appropriate for us to be having this discussion on the 
floor today. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to move forward 
into the debate on this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the cloture vote on 
the motion to proceed to S. 574. I will vote in opposition to moving 
forward on that resolution because I don't believe it offers me the 
opportunity to express what I believe this body should be doing on the 
war on terror and the war in Iraq and for our men and women in harm's 
way. I want to take a minute to explain as well as I can why I believe 
so strongly and so passionately in that regard.
  Ironically, 30 minutes before I came to the Chamber, I got a press 
release from the Department of Defense announcing that deployment of 
over 1,000 members of the 3rd ID stationed at Fort Stewart, GA has been 
accelerated from June to March of 2007. Those soldiers will shortly be 
leaving our great State on their way to be deployed in Baghdad, 
specifically as a part of the President's mission to secure and hold 
and to build.
  I can't be certain of this, but I imagine some of those soldiers are 
probably watching television today in Hinesville, GA. They might even 
be watching C-SPAN. They might even hear these remarks. So I make them 
in the belief and with the hope that they are listening, as well as 
those soldiers in Baghdad and Balad and Tallil who are watching their 
monitors in the mess hall or the command post, as well as those who are 
our enemies, those who would do us harm, those who are the reason we 
are in Iraq and Afghanistan today.
  It is not right to send a mixed message in a nonbinding resolution 
while our men and women are deploying in defense of this country and at 
the order of the President, our Commander in Chief. The result of that 
is to send a message of doubt to our men and women and a message of 
hope to our enemy. We can have our differences--and anybody who watches 
the debate on this floor knows, we certainly have our differences--but 
there should be no difference or equivocation in the support of our men 
and women in harm's way and our men and women now on the ground in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  For a minute I want to talk about how deeply I believe in our 
options, because we only have two. The first is an opportunity for 
success. That is what the President has chosen. This surge, criticized 
by some, is even a part of the Hamilton-Baker report where they 
addressed a potential surge in their report. The President, after 
listening to many of us and to his commanders and, certainly to General 
Petraeus, has decided to deploy these troops to go into Baghdad, to go 
into Anbar, to secure it; and then, with the help of the Iraqi 
soldiers, to hold; and then, with the help of USAID, the State 
Department, and the world community, to build and to have a platform 
and a foundation upon which political reconciliation will take place. 
Every one of us knows that, ultimately, reconciliation will make the 
difference in whether our hopes and dreams for the Iraqi people and the 
hopes and dreams they have for themselves will, in fact, take place.
  I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. I sat through 28 hours of 
testimony from countless experts, one after another. Most of them had 
mixed feelings on the surge. Some were unalterably opposed. Some said 
it may work. Some said it would work. They had differences of opinion, 
as we do. But in 28 hours of testimony, from expert after expert, from 
Madeleine Albright to Henry Kissinger, from think tank after think 
tank, from Jack Murtha and Newt Gingrich--Newt a former Speaker of the 
House; Jack certainly outspoken on this issue in the House--every one 
of them agreed on one fact: A redeployment of our troops or a 
withdrawal would lead, at the very least, to thousands of deaths and 
more likely the slaughter of tens of thousands and maybe even millions 
of people in Iraq and possibly beyond in the Middle East.
  Withdrawing, repositioning, turning our back is a recipe for 
disaster. And the world knows how important our success is. I spent 
last weekend in Munich, Germany, at the World Security Conference, 
where Vladimir Putin and the Iranian Foreign Secretary and Prime 
Minister spoke. We met with Chancellor Merkel of Germany and 
representatives from Bulgaria, Estonia, and Japan. Do you know what is 
so eye opening to me? With rare exception, each one expressed their 
appreciation for what the United States of America and our allies are 
doing, and their hope and prayer is we will succeed. They know what we 
know: We are in the ultimate war between good and evil. Iraq is but a 
battle in the war on terror that will move to other places. If we ever 
give comfort or hope to our enemy that we may turn and come home, leave 
the battlefield, leave them to their own volition, then we know it is 
the beginning of the end for the peaceful societies and the democracies 
of this world.
  Chancellor Merkel of Germany--a country where popular opinion is very 
much against the war--announced her commitment of more Tornadoes to be 
deployed to Afghanistan. We have 46,000 troops there--23,000 Americans 
and 23,000 from countries around the world--pursuing to keep that 
fledgling democracy secure as the Taliban makes one last effort.
  The enthusiasm of the world is in support of the United States and 
our men and women in harm's way. I think that enthusiasm should take 
place on the Senate floor in the United States of America as well. My 
vote tomorrow of ``no'' on the motion to proceed will not be a desire 
to cut off debate. It will, in fact, be a desire to elevate the debate. 
I think every side that is represented on this Senate floor ought to be 
a side that is spoken. I personally prefer the Gregg amendment and do 
not prefer and would not vote for the resolution

[[Page S2138]]

of the Senator from Nevada, which is the same resolution now being 
debated on the floor of the Senate. I think I ought to have an 
opportunity to express to the thousand members of 3rd ID leaving to go 
to Iraq, to the men and women in Iraq who are listening, and to the 
constituents I have in the State, regardless of which side of the issue 
they are on--the Senate deserves a right to debate all of the valid 
points of the questions that confront us in Iraq.
  I know earlier in a speech given on the floor the content was 
primarily a recitation of the names of those who have died in uniform 
in Iraq from the United States of America. I don't take the position I 
take lightly, nor do I not think for a moment about the sacrifice that 
has already been made by men and women from my State--from PFC Diego 
Rincon, the first Georgian to lose his life fighting in Iraq--Diego, by 
the way, was not a United States citizen when he died, and we gave him 
citizenship posthumously because of the commitment he made to this 
country--to LT Noah Harris, from Elijay, GA, who was a cheerleader at 
the University of Georgia on 9/11. He was so moved by what happened 
that he jumped into ROTC in his junior year and pursued a commission in 
the United States Army, received it, and went to Iraq. He died fighting 
for what he believed this country was all about: to stand up to the 
agents of terror and those who would use it to pursue their cause. 
Also, there was SGT Mike Stokely, a brave American who died in pursuit 
of freedom and peace in Iraq, and the hundreds of other Georgians who 
have been wounded or sacrificed their lives. They should not die in 
vain. They went for the reason that they believed volunteers are 
important to them and their country. They volunteered and made that 
commitment knowingly and willingly. They deserve the chance to pursue 
this effort for success in Baghdad and Anbar with enthusiasm from our 
Senate and our Government. From me, they have that.
  When we read a list of those who lost their lives, we have to 
remember how long the list is of those who live today because our men 
and women in the Armed Forces, in wars past and in war today, fight for 
security and peace and fight for us to live.
  We saw on 9/11 the manifest horror tyranny and terror can bring, and 
we will see it again if we lose our resolve to pursue it wherever it 
takes us--Afghanistan, Iraq, or places yet known to us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, with the confidence and pride in 
the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces and my willingness to 
fully support an opportunity for success rather than a recipe for 
disaster.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand I 
have 15 minutes within which to make my remarks; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 8 minutes remaining at this 
time. It would take consent to extend that time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed and make my remarks in 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, some weeks ago--and I mentioned this in my remarks 
during the debate we were having on the resolutions with regard to Iraq 
and the war--I said several weeks ago I had the privilege of attending 
and speaking at a farewell dinner in honor of LTG David Petraeus and 
his wife Holly at the Command and General Staff College of the United 
States Army at Fort Leavenworth, KS. And, of course, now General 
Petraeus is in Iraq and involved in the new mission as prescribed by 
the President and the subject of great debate not only here but in the 
House of Representatives, which is voting as I speak on their 
resolution in regard to this matter.
  It was quite an evening of tribute in behalf of the general who has 
become admired and beloved serving as commanding general of the Army's 
Intellectual Center in Leavenworth, KS. Throughout the evening I had 
the opportunity to again visit with David Petraeus, his feelings about 
his new mission, his impressive knowledge with regard to this most 
difficult war in Iraq, the history of the region, his understanding 
with regard to the nature of past wars, his understanding of insurgency 
in past wars and the insurgency we now face in Iraq.
  While at the Command and General Staff College, he wrote the Army's 
new manual on counterterrorism. Let me say, as a former marine, as the 
Presiding Officer is as well, I helped write a similar manual years ago 
for the U.S. Marine Corps. So I find this man unique in his knowledge 
and his command ability. But when I was asked to make remarks after the 
dinner--they would always invite a Senator to make some remarks and, 
unfortunately, sometimes that turns into a speech--I was glad I said 
what I said, and virtually everybody in that room told me I had said 
what they cannot say. Those who wear their officer rank on their 
shoulders or their enlisted stripes on their sleeves in most cases do 
not comment on policy decisions or politics, no matter how strongly 
they feel. They follow orders, and they serve their country. But I 
believe my remarks to the general and his officer corps and the 
veterans of many previous wars are pertinent to the issue we face in 
this debate.
  Before I express my views, I want to stress that I regret we are at a 
stalemate in this body. Obviously, they are not in the other body, in 
terms of a vote at least, on this issue of vital national security. I 
think most in the Senate wish we could debate this issue with comity, 
with cooperation, and, yes, in a bipartisan fashion. And I think the 
American people who are concerned, obviously frustrated and angry about 
the war, would certainly appreciate that, but that is not the case. 
This issue, very unfortunately, is wrapped around a partisan and 
political axle.
  Our good friends across the aisle insist that we debate and vote on 
one of three nonbinding resolutions--there may have been an agreement 
on maybe one more vote--in regard to the war in Iraq, and that is all. 
They wish to debate and vote on the House resolution which is now being 
debated in the other body and about to come to a conclusion, or the 
Warner resolution, which I think are very similar, and then call it a 
day because both resolutions support the troops but not the mission.
  This is the rub for many of my colleagues and myself, and it is about 
as far as the majority wishes to wade in the waters of withdrawal at 
this time. I realize if we were to consider other votes, it would be 
more pertinent to the issue, especially the amendment by Senator 
Feingold, and that would be wading in the water a little deeper than 
they would want to at this particular time.
  Others of us wish to debate and vote on the McCain resolution--I hope 
we can do that--and the Gregg resolution and, as far as I am concerned, 
the Feingold resolution. I oppose the Feingold resolution, but I admire 
his forthrightness and his courage. But we are being denied that 
opportunity.
  Most perplexing to me is that those who are covering this debate 
within the media--and it is never a good idea to say anything that 
could be possibly defined as critical of the media. I note there are 
none or there may be two, but, obviously, everybody is watching the 
vote on the House side.
  Having said that, how on Earth can we describe this situation by 
writing headlines and 15-second news sound bites saying Republicans, 
like myself, have voted to stifle debate? I want to debate. Let's have 
a debate. Let's have a full debate and vote on the House resolution 
and/or the Warner resolution--vote on both of them--but let us also 
debate and vote on resolutions offered by Senators McCain, Gregg, and 
Feingold. I will vote for Senator McCain's resolution. I will vote 
along with Senator Gregg. I would not vote for Senator Feingold's 
resolution but, again, I think his resolution is probably the most 
determining in terms of effect, and he should get a vote.
  We are not stifling or shutting down debate; our colleagues in the 
majority

[[Page S2139]]

are. Either we are not capable of explaining what I believe is a very 
simple proposition or some in the media cannot discern what is obvious. 
This is like playing baseball, although it isn't like playing 
baseball--that is a poor allegory, but it is the one I have chosen--
playing baseball with one strike and then you are out. You say: Wait a 
minute, usually in a baseball game you get three strikes. What happened 
to the three strikes? Where are my other two strikes? Where are my 
other resolutions that I want to debate, that I want to support because 
they are pertinent to this, certainly as much as the others? They are 
nonbinding as well. And the umpire--in this particular case the 
distinguished majority leader--says: Back to the dugout, Senator 
Roberts, I am sorry. We run this ball game. You don't have any further 
strikes.

  I have information that the House has just passed the House 
resolution 246 to 182. That is a pretty solid vote. So, obviously, we 
will be getting to vote on that resolution, and I hope we will get to 
vote on these other resolutions.
  In my remarks at the Command and General Staff College, I told 
General Petraeus we had not been personally acquainted over a long 
period of years, but in our short span of time, I certainly came to 
know him well. I have had several stimulating and enjoyable 
conversations with him over a wide range of issues, most especially the 
British experience in Iraq from 1921 to 1931, the example of Lawrence 
of Arabia. Lawrence of Arabia wrote ``The Small Warfare Manual,'' and 
he wrote ``The Pillars of Wisdom.'' As I indicated, the U.S. Marine 
Corps had similar manuals, one called a ``Manual on Antiguerrilla 
Operations,'' which I participated in, and now the manual the general 
has written.
  It seems we cannot get it right with regard to insurgencies. The same 
things we write in these manuals we have to be careful about and pretty 
well play out the problems, to say the least, that make it very 
difficult.
  Anyway, with regard to General Petraeus, he is exactly the right man 
for the right job at the right time. He knows this. He has been to 
Iraq. He was successful in his second tour. He is going back. I hope 
and pray he will be successful in his third effort. Our brave young men 
and women in uniform deserve nothing but the very best leadership, and 
they are getting it.
  But I think it is a paradox of enormous irony that the Senate 
confirmed David Petraeus without a dissenting vote--not one, not one 
Senator--a vote of confidence that is unique, certainly given today's 
controversy and turmoil and the times. Yet at the same time, the same 
Senators who gave their vote of confidence are now in the business of 
what I call--I don't mean to perjure them--``confetti'' resolutions 
supporting the general and the troops but not the mission they are 
undertaking now. That to me is unprecedented for the Senate. I think it 
is remarkable, and I have said many times that these resolutions--and 
it has been said many times--are nonbinding. They have no legislative 
impact. They are so-called sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. For those 
who do not pay attention to the parliamentary procedure around here, 
that means they are meaningless except for the message you want to 
send, and that can be important to the Executive, i.e., to President 
Bush and the folks back home.
  With all due respect, we have long crossed the message Rubicon with 
regard to sending mixed messages to our allies, our troops, the 
American people, the media and, yes, our adversaries. Words have 
consequences and, rest assured, our adversaries will read to try and 
figure out, analyze every word of the resolution just passed in the 
House and perhaps the one, maybe two resolutions we can pass in this 
body, hopefully three or four, and try to figure it out. I suspect they 
will be absolutely flummoxed in trying to discern the sense in reading 
a resolution that states support for the troops and our new commander, 
with new rules of engagement, with a limited timeframe for achieving 
and reporting benchmarks of progress, but that opposes the 
mission. That is a mixed message, and it should cause quite a bit of 
head scratching among the 31 different terrorist organizations that are 
planning various attacks around the world and even on the United 
States. My real concern is that the Senate is not considering or even 
talking about the probable consequences of these actions, let alone our 
responsibilities should they happen.

  I want to make it very clear I do not question the intent or purpose 
or patriotism of any Senator, regardless of whatever resolution they 
are proposing voting for. I do question the judgment and the law of 
unintended effects. Bluntly put, with all this debate with regard to 
nonbinding resolutions, we appear like lemmings splashing in a sea of 
public concern, frustration, and expressing anger over the war in Iraq.
  In this regard, I don't know of anybody in this body or anybody in 
America who does not want our troops home at the earliest possible 
date, and stability in Iraq, if possible. If possible--and that is a 
real question here. That is not the issue.
  When all of this confetti settles, the end result of all this frenzy 
will be: ``General, you and the troops have our solid support--but we 
don't support your mission. However, press on and good luck.''
  I think that message is remarkable. This is not a profile in courage. 
This is not the Senate's finest hour. If we are going to debate and 
vote on nonbinding resolutions, let us at least consider resolutions 
that will send a clear message or which can be of useful purpose. In 
that regard, we should consider the McCain resolution. It lists 
benchmarks of progress that General Petraeus has told Senator McCain 
and me would be useful in his discussions with Prime Minister Maliki, 
and certainly the Gregg resolution that supports spending for our 
troops in harm's way. I think that is the precedent we have to set. 
That is the killer in this debate, along with the Feingold resolution, 
because my colleagues across the aisle do not want to vote on the Gregg 
resolution, let alone the Feingold resolution.
  Senator Feingold has a resolution which certainly does something. I 
don't agree with his resolution, but he is at least very forthright and 
sends a clear message, and he is a good Senator.
  As the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, 
let me again stress what is not happening in the Congress or the media, 
and has received very little public attention regarding this challenge 
we face in Iraq. No one is talking about the consequences of what will 
happen if we simply withdraw or redeploy. And we may just do that, 
because I do not believe this war can or should be sustained if we do 
not see progress in the next 6 months. If General Petraeus doesn't come 
back and tell us there has been measurable progress, where we can see 
it, feel it, and touch it, we have some serious policy decisions to 
make. We need to be thinking about a policy of containment as opposed 
to intervention if this latest mission does not work.
  I would also point out that most of the time deadlines for withdrawal 
are either in the nonbinding resolutions or they mirror exactly the 
time period General Petraeus has told the Armed Services Committee he 
would follow in reporting whether this new effort is making any 
progress, pretty much along the lines of the benchmarks that are in the 
McCain resolution. So the obvious question is: Who can better make that 
judgment, General Petraeus in theater or Senators here on the floor?
  We have not discussed the difficult policy decisions that may 
confront us if it becomes necessary to redeploy, what that mission 
might be if we redeploy, where are we going, what is the mission going 
to be, or even how to withdraw.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have about 4 minutes left. If I could 
ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan allow me that privilege, I 
would greatly appreciate it.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to that, provided that 
the 30 minutes which was to have started for our side at 3:30 will be 
extended for the full 30 minutes following the completion of the 
presentation.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I will try to finish as fast as I can. I apologize. I 
arrived late. I asked for 15 minutes, and I thought I could get it done 
in 15 minutes. Obviously, ``Roberts-ese'' is expanding that time 
period. I will try to finish as fast as I can.

[[Page S2140]]

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 
minutes begin following the presentation of Senator Roberts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. As I indicated, Mr. President, we have not discussed the 
difficult policy decisions that will confront us if it becomes 
necessary to withdraw or redeploy, what that mission would be, or even 
how to withdraw. The reality is what we will do when certain 
consequences would take place. These are the possible, if not probable, 
consequences we should be confronting and debating and explaining to 
the American people and ourselves and in the media, even if some may 
have a deaf ear.
  First. A dramatic increase in sectarian violence quickly escalating 
to a civil war--and I mean a real civil war--and a humanitarian 
disaster far more devastating than what is happening now. Shia versus 
Shia, Shia versus Sunni. What do we do? Thousands of Iraqis have 
already become refugees and left the country.
  Second. Given a civil war and struggle for control, we can expect an 
incursion of Sunni troops from other Mideast countries--I want to make 
it very clear about that: other Mideast countries--to prevent an 
Iranian takeover of Iraq and the very real possibility of an Iraq led 
by Muqtada al-Sadr, whose street appeal could endanger their own 
Governments. I am talking about other Mideast countries. When that 
happens, the war becomes regional. What do we do?
  Third. We can expect an Iraq certainly dominated by Iran, thus 
completing a Shia crescent with Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Today, 
countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are talking about 
building their own nuclear programs, given Iran's nuclear ambitions and 
progress. Iran has just refused inspectors from the IAEA. With the 
possibility of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims each working to achieve 
nuclear capability and weapons, what does Israel do? What do we do?
  Fourth. Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. This time it is 
for real. What do we do?
  Fifth. In their eyes, with the defeat of the ``Great Satan'' only 
months away, as expected--a clear signal by this body and perhaps 
inevitable--terrorists around the world are already emboldened, waiting 
us out and planning more attacks; that is, if you believe what they 
say.

  Read Afghanistan and the Taliban and the spring offensive. Will we 
soon be in the business of passing nonbinding resolutions about 
Afghanistan?
  Sixth. We can expect a perceived, if not real, lack of American 
resolve in the eyes of adversaries and potential adversaries around the 
world resulting in additional national security threats.
  Read Putin and Belarus and Iran, and his recent remarkable speech at 
Munich in Germany at the NATO security conference. Kim Jong Il. We are 
making some progress with North Korea right now, but he does have a 
penchant for missile launches on the 4th of July.
  Read Hugo Chavez--31 countries in the southern command. He is the new 
Castro, nationalizing his oil production and directly involved in five 
different countries. What do we do?
  The point is that globally and over the long term this is not a Bush 
issue or a Democratic or a Republican issue, or even how you feel about 
Iraq or the war. Even as we argue about whether we debate and vote on 
one resolution or three or four, I hope, there are terrorist 
organizations and their second-generation affiliates--guided and 
inspired--are plotting attacks against the United States and throughout 
the world. It is obvious we can't sustain the status quo in Iraq, but 
while we debate on how to proceed, these folks are not giving up.
  The irony is that should the President wake up in the morning and 
say, well, the House has voted for this resolution, they are not for 
this new mission, and the Senate is about to, and they may or may not 
do that, so I am going to terminate it, I am going to end it, then we 
are back to square one, back to a stalemate, back to the status quo. 
That, to me, doesn't make sense.
  Given the fact there were at least five successful attacks that 
killed Americans--and others that, thank goodness, were not 
successful--before President Bush came to office and before military 
action in Iraq--given the fact this threat will face the next President 
and future world leaders, surely we can figure out it makes no sense to 
fight each other when the terrorists then and now and in the future do 
not kill according to party affiliation, nationality, race, age, or 
gender.
  We do not need a Republican approach to national security and the 
war. We do not need a Democratic approach to national security and the 
war. We need, however, an American approach to our national security 
and the war and to our individual freedoms. This is a time to engage in 
honest dialog, to work together and think through and agree on the 
strategy that will defeat our enemies and make the American people 
safe. And yes, bring our troops home but in a way that we don't have to 
send them back.
  So I say to the leadership, with all due respect, let us end this 
nonbinding business and get these confetti resolutions behind us. We 
have all had a chance now to discuss the war and we need to vote on I 
think at least four resolutions, and then come together with a 
bipartisan commitment--a difficult and perhaps impossible task but, I 
believe, a task that must be undertaken for the sake of our national 
security.
  Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time and I thank my 
colleagues across the aisle for permitting me to finish my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.

                          ____________________