[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 31 (Saturday, February 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2185-S2199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS ON IRAQ--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 574, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S2186]]


       Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 574, a bill to 
     express the sense of Congress on Iraq.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I rise today to speak again on the 
mishandling of the debate over the Iraq war resolutions. This debate 
has ramifications which will damage the institution of the Senate and 
lower the morale of our troops.
  Here is the truth the American people need to know: Republicans in 
the Senate have not prevented any debate over the war in Iraq. We are 
debating the war again today. We have debated the war in the past. And 
we will continue to debate the war in the future. What we have 
prevented is the majority leader dictating to the minority exactly 
which resolutions we will vote on. My friends on the other side of the 
aisle have misled the American people about this debate.
  Our Republican leader, my colleague and close friend from Kentucky, 
has tried to negotiate for more--I repeat--more debate on additional 
resolutions expressing a broad range of viewpoints. This is the U.S. 
Senate. The majority cannot tell the minority we are going to have one 
vote--take it or leave it.
  And let me be clear: I am not running from a vote on any of these 
resolutions. I don't know one of my Republican colleagues who is afraid 
to cast a vote on any of the proposed resolutions relating to Iraq. I 
have said repeatedly and I will say it here again today: Nonbinding 
resolutions that question military strategy are not in the best 
interests of our Nation. They are not in the best interests of the 
Senate. They don't have the effect of law. They only affect our 
soldiers by sending them mixed signals. But if we must go down that 
path, let's vote. However, the majority leader cannot dictate the terms 
of the vote. If he could, this would be the House of Representatives. 
But it is not. This is the U.S. Senate. This is a body with rules that 
encourage opposing viewpoints, not stifling debate by the majority 
leader hand-selecting one resolution and forcing the other 99 of us to 
vote on it.

  But here we are. Americans are watching this discussion right now. 
And it is not just a debate about Senate floor procedures; this is 
about how we as Senators should conduct debate when we have troops in 
harm's way. Many Americans oppose our efforts in Iraq. That is their 
right. I respect their convictions. Yet they are misguided, because I 
believe the cost of failure in Iraq is too high to leave now. I do not 
want to have to send American soldiers back to Iraq in a few years to 
deal with an even tougher situation. I do not want to leave a breeding 
ground of terror. But I understand there are many Americans who want 
this war to end, regardless of the consequences of leaving soon. And no 
doubt there are some in this body and in the House of Representatives 
who share that same view.
  We as a Congress can end this war, but we cannot end it by nonbinding 
resolutions such as the one that passed the House of Representatives 
this week that the majority leader now wants us to be forced to vote on 
in the Senate. We can end this war through the appropriations process 
by cutting off funds for this war. This is why I am so frustrated by 
this debate. This is why I am frustrated by many of my friends and 
colleagues in this great body.
  Many want to vote on a nonbinding resolution that opposes our 
strategy in Iraq to show their constituents they oppose the war, yet 
not make the tougher decision through the appropriations process. I 
know many of my colleagues who want to vote on this misguided House 
resolution will not--I repeat--not vote to cut off the funding for this 
war. They just want to have it both ways: they want to support a 
nonbinding measure opposing the war but not actually to stop the war by 
exercising their constitutional right to cut off its funding.
  We should not vote to cut off the funding of this war. And that is 
the basic theme of the Gregg resolution on which the majority leader 
will not allow us to vote. The majority leader will not allow this vote 
because he knows it will pass the Senate overwhelmingly. This does not 
make sense to me or many of my colleagues, and I do not think it makes 
sense to many Americans who have actually followed this debate closely.
  That is why I will vote again today against moving to the misguided 
House-passed resolution without the commitment that we Republicans be 
allowed to offer our own resolution of our own choosing. Our 
resolution, the Gregg resolution, gives support to our troops. Unlike 
the resolution before us today, it does not send contradictory signals 
to the troops by telling them that on one hand we oppose their mission 
but on the other hand we support them as soldiers. That is not the 
message we need to be sending to our troops at this critical time.
  Mr. OBAMA. Madam President, I will vote today to bring up a 
resolution for debate that would disapprove of the President's policy 
of escalation in Iraq.
  Last November, the American people sent a clear message to their 
representatives in Washington. With their votes, the American people 
said they wanted a change in direction with regard to the war in Iraq. 
Unfortunately, the White House--and its defenders in the Senate--has 
ignored that will and fought to keep this day from happening for as 
long as they could.
  We may fail to get the required number of votes to debate this very 
simple resolution. And even if we do get enough votes, I realize that 
this resolution may not force a single change to this country's policy 
in Iraq. I realize that it may not bring the Shiites and Sunnis closer 
to peace, nor will it bring a single soldier home from this war.
  But for the first time in the 4 years of this long, hard war, 
Democrats and Republicans can join together to express the will of the 
people who sent us here.
  That is why today's vote must be only the beginning, and not the end, 
of a long-overdue debate on how we plan to exit Iraq and refocus our 
efforts on the wider war against terror. If more stalemate and inaction 
follow this resolution, it truly will be a meaningless gesture. It is 
now the responsibility of every Member of this body to put forth a plan 
that offers the best path to peace among the Iraqis so that our brave 
soldiers can finally come home.
  Recently, I introduced the Iraq De-Escalation Act of 2007. This plan 
would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the 
escalation, it would more importantly begin a phased redeployment of 
U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from 
Iraq by March 31, 2008--consistent with the expectations of the 
bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the President has so assiduously 
ignored.
  The redeployment of troops to the United States, Afghanistan, and 
elsewhere in the region would begin no later than May 1 of this year, 
toward the end of the timeframe I first proposed in a speech more than 
2 months ago. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this 
redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi Government 
to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that 
can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.
  My plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic 
force protection, to engage in counterterrorism, and to continue the 
training of Iraqi security forces.
  And if the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for 
progress laid out by the Bush administration itself, this plan also 
allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided 
Congress agrees that the benchmarks have actually been met and that the 
suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.
  The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. 
Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But no 
amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the 
heart of somebody else's civil war, nor settle the grievances in the 
hearts of the combatants.
  It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action for the 
United States, for Iraq, and for our troops is to oppose this reckless 
escalation and to pursue a new policy. This policy that I have laid out 
is consistent with what I have advocated for well over a year, with 
many of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and 
with what the American people demanded in the November election.
  When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and 
assurances, for waiting and patience, is over. Too

[[Page S2187]]

many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us 
to trust the President on another tried and failed policy opposed by 
generals and experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and many of 
the Iraqis themselves.
  It is time for us to fundamentally change our policy.
  It is time to give Iraqis their country back.
  And it is time to refocus America's efforts on the challenges we face 
at home and the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, this vote on cloture to cut off debate 
involves a conflict between two important principles: (1) obtain 
fairness for the Senate Republican minority on having our resolutions 
and amendments debated and voted upon, and (2) debating and voting on 
the approval or rejection of the President's plan to add 21,500 troops 
to the U.S. force in Iraq.
  At the outset, it must be emphasized that there is unanimity that no 
preceptive action be taken by Congress to exercise our ``power of the 
purse'' to cut off funds that would in any way endanger our troops.
  In response to the majority leader's use of the Senate rule to ``fill 
the tree,'' which precludes any Republican alternative resolutions, I 
voted against cloture to cut off debate on the Levin amendment on 
February 5. The procedure to ``fill the tree'' is contrary to the basic 
Senate practice of allowing Senators to offer amendments or alternative 
resolutions, unlike the House of Representatives, which customarily 
precludes such latitude.
  On February 14, I introduced an amendment to rule XXII to stop the 
``filling of the tree,'' citing vociferous objections by Senators Reid, 
Durbin and Dodd to similar Republican action in the 109th Congress when 
Republicans held a majority.
  Although it is very important for the minority to exercise its rights 
to stop abusive majority practices, it is my judgment that this must 
yield to the dominant principle of debating and voting on the future of 
U.S. policy in Iraq. Let's move on. We Republicans can exercise our 
rights of retaliation in the immediate future on other majority action 
to reign in such majority abuse.
  In my view, it is most important that the Senate speak out on Iraq. 
If we continue to debate whether there should be a debate while the 
House of Representatives acts, the Senate will become irrelevant. To 
paraphrase the Roman adage: ``The Senate should not fiddle while Iraq 
Burns.''
  The American people have a right to know the Senate's judgment on 
this most important issue of the day, and our constituents have a right 
to know and evaluate the judgment of each Senator.
  Accordingly, I am voting for cloture to end the debate so we can move 
ahead.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, this past week the President of the United 
States warned of the ``disastrous consequences'' and ``chaos'' which 
could occur in Iraq if we fail in that country. Once again the 
President's statements demonstrate how out of touch he is on this 
issue.
  Iraq already is in a state of chaos. The American people know it and 
the Iraqi people know it, most painfully. Unfortunately, we already are 
dealing with the ``disastrous consequences'' of 4 years of this 
administration's failed policy in Iraq.
  This chaos became inevitable the day the President invaded Iraq 
without a viable plan for winning the peace. And this chaos has been 
further compounded by 4 years of consistent failure by this 
administration.
  The President's plan to surge forces into Iraq is no different from 
previous surges, including Operation Together Forward, which only 
resulted in more violence. Despite all of our military strength, the 
United States cannot through force alone instill Iraqis with democratic 
values or end the sectarian civil war in that country.
  We have before us this afternoon a very direct, succinct nonbinding 
resolution. The language is unequivocal in expressing opposition to the 
President's surge. I am strongly opposed to the ``surge'' and will 
therefore vote in a favor of this straightforward, simple resolution 
expressing that opposition.
  Surely our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can vote on a 
simple resolution stating whether they support the President's surge.
  This is a vote on whether you support the President's Iraq war 
policy, without caveat or qualifier. And if this Chamber is ever 
allowed to get to a vote on this measure, a majority of this body will 
vote aye and therefore be publicly on record against the President's 
proposed policy to put even more of our soldiers in harm's way in 
Iraq's civil war.
  If Congress had wanted to express its opinion on this important 
issue, this vote should have been among the first steps taken back in 
January, immediately after the President announced his intention to 
escalate our military involvement in Iraq.
  Nearly 5 weeks have passed since that announcement. In those 5 weeks 
we have heard from experts across the political spectrum explain why 
the surge won't work and explain that there is no military solution to 
the conflict in Iraq.
  Yesterday, the House of Representatives sent a message to the 
President and to the American people with their vote on this resolution 
opposing the surge. And yet the President has unwaveringly declared 
that he will stay the course. It's full speed ahead in the words of 
Vice-President Cheney.
  We all know that and up-or-down vote on this resolution is not 
enough. Yes, I oppose the President's proposed surge. But I oppose much 
more than that--I oppose the President's overall strategy in Iraq.
  So let's be realistic and understand that our pronouncing ourselves 
on the measure before us today will do nothing to force the President 
to change course in Iraq.
  It will do nothing to get our troops out of harms way.
  It will do nothing to improve the lives of Iraqi civilians.
  American combat brigades are being asked to carry out a mission that 
is unachievable; namely, to bring an end to Iraq's civil war through 
military force.
  Only a political solution can salvage Iraq.
  Regrettably, we are in the fourth year of this conflict, and for some 
reason, this administration is still failing our troops. The 
President's proposed surge tactic will send thousands of American G.I.s 
into a battle with inadequate protection and training and on a mission 
which they will be unable to achieve.
  Last month, Senator Kennedy and I sent a letter to Defense Secretary 
Gates demanding that he address reported shortfalls among two combat 
brigades being deployed as part of the President's proposed surge 
without the most up-to-date armored vehicles, vehicles that have been 
designed to withstand explosions and provide significantly better 
protection for our troops.
  Just this week, media accounts of a classified Defense Department 
inspector general's report cited significant problems in outfitting our 
forces with a variety of vehicle armor to protect troops from IEDS.
  How much more of this can we allow to stand? How many more of these 
reports should we tolerate until we say enough is enough?
  The only way to reverse course in Iraq is to demonstrate to the 
President that it's no longer business as usual--that this Congress 
will not continue to support funding for the President's failed 
strategy, which is needlessly harming our troops and weakening our 
national security.
  It is essential that we find a better use for the funds being 
allocated for the President's surge. We need to redirect U.S. funds to 
immediately begin to redeploy combat forces within and out of Iraq, to 
focus on counterterrorism and training of Iraqis, to put pressure on 
all of Iraq's leaders--not just the Maliki government--to seek and 
reach necessary and painful political compromises, and to ensure the 
security and political rights of all Iraqis.
  We must also acknowledge how broken our own military is as a result 
of the Iraq war and redirect a portion of the funds proposed for Iraq 
to restore our own military's readiness.
  It is time that this Congress moves beyond debating non-binding 
resolutions about the surge. It is time for the Congress to debate how 
much longer and under what circumstances we are prepared to support 
funding for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq.

[[Page S2188]]

  That is the debate the American people want to hear, that is the 
debate our courageous and dedicated troops deserve.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, yesterday, an overwhelming, bipartisan 
majority in the other body--reflecting the clear will of the American 
people--voted to oppose President Bush's decision to escalate the U.S. 
troop presence in Iraq. That vote was preceded by 4 full days of debate 
on the resolution. But here in the Senate, the Republican minority 
refuses to allow us even to bring a resolution to the floor for debate.
  My office has been flooded with phone calls and e-mails from Iowans. 
The overwhelming majority of them are upset with the President's 
escalation plan. But they are also upset that the Senate is being 
obstructed. They simply cannot believe that Republican Senators are 
blocking debate on the No. 1 issue before our Nation, the No. 1 concern 
on the minds of the American people.
  In a nutshell, callers are saying that Republican Senators have a 
right to support President Bush's war in Iraq. Republican Senators have 
a right to embrace his escalation of that war. But they do not have a 
right to block legitimate debate in the Senate on whether that 
escalation is wise or appropriate. They do not have a right to silence 
the voices of tens of millions of Americans--an overwhelming majority--
who have had enough of the quagmire in Iraq.
  People in Iowa--and, I suspect, across the country--are saying that 
the election last November was a referendum on President Bush's war. 
Voters spoke loudly and clearly: They want our troops out of the civil 
war in Iraq.
  The American people thought that their elected leaders in Washington 
heard this message. But they realize, now, that the Republicans simply 
don't care about the results of the election. They are determined to 
escalate the war. They are determined to prevent consideration of any 
resolution expressing disapproval of that escalation.
  As a coequal branch of Government, Congress has a duty to debate this 
escalation. Out of respect for all our soldiers and Marines in Iraq--to 
keep faith with them--we as Senators have a duty to ask: Does their 
Commander-in-Chief have a credible plan in Iraq that is worthy of their 
sacrifice? Is the President's plan to escalate in Iraq in the best 
interest of the United States? Will the additional troops be sent into 
combat with proper equipment?

  Unfortunately, the answer to those questions--after nearly 4 years of 
incompetence, bungling, and disastrously bad judgment by this 
administration--is a resounding ``no.''
  Frankly, the President's plan to escalate is not just deeply 
disappointing, it is deeply disturbing. I am disturbed because Mr. Bush 
refuses to learn, and he refuses to listen. The Joint Chiefs of Staff 
unanimously opposed this escalation, as did our generals on the ground 
in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group warned that there cannot be a military 
solution to the sectarian chaos in Iraq, and said we should begin to 
bring our troops home. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is on record 
as opposing an increase in American troops. Most importantly, the 
American people said loudly and clearly on November 7 that they want 
our soldiers out of the civil war in Iraq.
  But Mr. Bush refuses to listen to reason. Instead, he seems to listen 
only to his gut--the same gut that got us into this misguided, 
misbegotten war in the first place.
  The President asserts that this latest escalation in Iraq is ``a new 
way forward.'' But what he has proposed is not new, and it is not a way 
forward. It is the same old ``stay the course'' policy--and it will 
drag us deeper into the Iraqi quagmire.
  The President has previously ordered three troop surges in Iraq, in 
2004, 2005, and 2006. Just last June, he unveiled ``Operation Forward 
Together'' to surge troops in Baghdad and secure the capital city. This 
operation was supposed to be led primarily by Iraqis, with U.S. troops 
in support. But the Iraqi forces never showed up.
  Again and again, we have set goals for the Iraqi leaders. But there 
have been no deadlines, no accountability, no consequences. And, 
predictably, we have seen no positive results. The Iraqi leaders have 
reneged on their promises to rein in the militias. They have refused to 
compromise. And they have pursued their sectarian agendas with a 
vengeance.
  So let's not kid ourselves. The President's latest Iraq plan is just 
a repackaging of his old, failed Iraq plans.
  I am especially concerned about the impact of this escalation on our 
troops and their families, and on the U.S. military overall. Army 
brigades are supposed to be in combat for 1 year, and then have 2 years 
back home to retrain and reequip. But they have only been allowed an 
average of 1 year to regroup. And some brigades are now on their third 
deployment in Iraq.
  One reason why the Joint Chiefs opposed this latest escalation is 
because of the deep strain on our combat forces. In December, the Army 
chief of staff bluntly warned Congress that the current pace of combat 
deployment threatens to quote-unquote ``break'' the Army. Meanwhile, we 
lack resources to meet any other contingency, such as a challenge from 
Iran or a flare-up on the Korean Peninsula.
  Some supporters of the President's escalation claim that by debating 
the President's conduct of the war in Iraq and the merits of his 
escalation plan, we are somehow not supporting the troops.
  I strongly disagree. I have complete confidence in our men and women 
in uniform in Iraq. They have brilliantly completed the tasks they were 
sent to Iraq to accomplish, and they did so despite a series of 
disastrous decisions by their civilian leaders in Washington.
  But as a veteran myself, I am angry at the way these brave men and 
women have been misused and mistreated.
  The President rushed them into combat without proper equipment, and 
in insufficient numbers. He has insisted on ``staying the course'' with 
a failed policy for nearly 4 miserable years. He has sent many troops 
back to Iraq for a third and even fourth rotation, with insufficient 
time to retrain and regroup. Now he insists on sending another 21,500 
troops into the middle of a sectarian civil war in Baghdad and 
elsewhere without properly armored Humvees and other essential 
equipment.
  Yet despite all of these acts of mismanagement and misfeasance--
directly jeopardizing the lives and welfare of our soldiers and 
Marines--the President's supporters have the gall to say that anyone 
who opposes this latest escalation somehow ``doesn't support the 
troops.''
  This would be laughable if it weren't so tragic and deadly. The 
Senate has a duty to debate the proposed troop escalation. We have a 
duty to speak up when we believe the President's policy is wrong, and 
is likely to waste lives. We also have a duty to speak up for the 
overwhelming majority of Americans, who oppose this latest escalation, 
and who consider the entire war to be a tragic mistake.
  At this point, the single best way to support the troops is to tell 
President Bush: Four years of bungling, bad judgment, and 
bullheadedness are enough. We have complete and total confidence in our 
troops. But we have no confidence in your leadership.
  During debate in the other body this week, Republicans repeatedly 
charged that criticism of the President's escalation serves to 
``embolden the enemy.'' And what exactly are these people saying? That 
Senators are supposed to stand silent like potted plants as this 
administration sinks us even deeper into the Iraqi quagmire?
  Our enemies have indeed been emboldened. They were emboldened when 
this administration allowed Bin Laden to escape capture at Tora Bora. 
They were emboldened when this administration took its eye off the 
terrorists in Afghanistan, and diverted our military and intelligence 
assets to a reckless invasion of Iraq. They were emboldened when 
President Bush taunted the insurgents in Iraq to ``bring it on,'' and 
they successfully did just that. They were emboldened when the 
President pledged to get Bin Laden ``dead or alive,'' and failed to do 
so. They were emboldened when the greatest army in the world was 
allowed to get bogged down in a civil war in Iraq and on January 10, 
when another 21,500 troops were ordered to deploy to Ground Zero in 
that civil war.

  Let's be clear: Our enemies have been emboldened by Mr. Bush's 
repeated, catastrophic mistakes, not by anyone's criticism of those 
mistakes.

[[Page S2189]]

  The only true way forward in Iraq is to set a timetable for 
redeployment of U.S. forces. Only this will give the Iraqi leaders the 
incentive to resolve their differences and take responsibility for 
their own future.
  As GEN George Casey, our commander in Iraq, told the Senate Armed 
Services Committee: ``Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of 
occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security forces on 
the coalition, [and] extends the amount of time that it will take for 
Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.''
  Mr. Bush has it exactly backward. He has said that as the Iraqis 
stand up, we will stand down. The truth is that the Iraqis will only 
stand up when it is clear that the U.S. troops are leaving.
  By redeploying our troops to strategic locations elsewhere in the 
Middle East, we will be able to refocus our efforts to destroy the 
terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001, and who continue to 
threaten us. Redeployment would free up U.S. forces to combat the 
resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Other troops would be 
available to help respond to terrorist threats not just in Iraq, but 
also in Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and elsewhere.
  The proposed troop escalation in Iraq is not a way forward; it is a 
way deeper into a tragic quagmire. This is not in our national 
interest. It is not in the interest of the long-suffering Iraqi people. 
And it is certainly not in the interest of our troops, who will be in 
the crossfire of a vicious civil war.
  The conflict in Iraq cannot be solved militarily. It can only be 
solved through political compromise and reconciliation in Baghdad, and 
through aggressive diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors and 
across the Middle East.
  It's time for a truly new course in Iraq. And, to that end, I urge my 
colleagues to vote for cloture, and to allow the Senate to debate this 
important resolution.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
in opposition be allocated as follows: Senator Hutchison, 5 minutes; 
Senator Lindsey Graham, 10 minutes; Senator Stevens, 10 minutes; 
Senator Craig, 3 minutes; and Senator Gregg, 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
three speakers in support of cloture be Senator Ben Nelson, then 
Senator Warner, and then myself.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, this has been called a very 
unusual occasion for us to come to the floor on a Saturday to vote on a 
resolution or to vote on any matter, but this is a very special 
occasion today because we need to vote up or down on this resolution.
  I want to make it clear that while it is unusual, I believe it is, in 
fact, necessary. But I want to make it clear also that I support and 
prefer the Warner-Nelson-Collins resolution, which sets forth 
benchmarks and conditions for staying and requirements for the Iraqi 
Government and the Iraqi Prime Minister to meet in connection with 
that. But this resolution, while it may be more simplistic, still 
expresses support for the troops, a very strong statement of support 
for the troops and what they do, funding for the troops, and continuing 
to support their needs. It also states an opposition to the surge plan.
  The Warner-Nelson-Collins resolution, which I prefer, makes it very 
clear that the opposition to the surge plan is sending our troops into 
Baghdad to put them in harm's way between the Sunnis and the Shias and 
the sectarian violence that has been described as being far worse than 
a civil war. We do not believe that is the appropriate plan. We have 
asked in that resolution that the President reconsider, consider all 
alternatives and other plans that might not put our troops into harm's 
way in the middle of a civil disobedience and a civil conflagration, as 
we have seen it. I thank Senators Warner and Collins for their support 
and the cosponsors of this other resolution that I have referred to.

  Today, it is pretty clear there has been much debate about the 
debate. My friend from Kentucky indicated he is frustrated. We are all 
frustrated. We are frustrated because it is time to end the charade and 
move forward to the consideration of the resolution so the Senate can 
be on record with Senators voting for or against the surge plan.
  The American people can see what is happening. They know some want to 
prevent a vote at all costs. There have been Members complaining about 
the vote cast a little over a week ago, cast against moving forward. 
Then they said in the Senate, it is time to have a vote after having 
voted against having a vote.
  It is time to move beyond the debate about the debate and move toward 
the consideration of this resolution. It is time for the Senators to be 
on record with the question: Are you for deploying thousands of troops 
to the crossroads of civil war in Iraq or do you oppose that plan?
  This is the second opportunity the Senate has had to allow an up-or-
down vote on a resolution on the Iraq surge. Let the Senate debate and 
vote on this resolution. We owe it to the American people. We owe it to 
the American people because of the importance of this resolution making 
clear that we do not support, or that we do support, putting our troops 
in harm's way in the middle of a civil war or a war that is simply 
between Shias and Sunnis, Shias and Shias, and other civil groups 
within the community. We do not have to understand the 1,400 years of 
this battle to know it is inappropriate to put our troops into the 
middle where it is impossible to identify the enemy. We put our troops 
into a situation where they are going to go door to door, hopefully 
with some support from the Iraqi troops, hopefully with some support 
from Prime Minister Maliki, hopefully with some support from the Iraqi 
Government.
  In any event, the surge which the President said is going forward 
will put our troops in that condition and that situation. I, for one, 
do not believe that is an appropriate use of our troops. I believe 
today is the opportunity for the Senate to be able to say no, by saying 
yes to moving forward on this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I make a unanimous-consent request that 
on the Democratic side, after Senator Levin speaks, the next Senator to 
speak will be Senator Feinstein.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I reserve the right to object. I ask 
unanimous consent after Senator Graham speaks on our side that I be 
recognized in the proper order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I believe I am recognized for 10 
minutes, is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, this is billed as an unusual Saturday 
session where the Senate is working on Saturday. I argue we are not 
working, we are having a political, theatrical debate that does more 
harm than good. There are a lot of people working on Saturday; not us. 
We are trying to jockey for political positioning among ourselves and 
for 2008. Yet there are people working in Baghdad and Iraq, trying to 
secure our future against the most violent extremists on the face of 
the Earth.
  To my good friend Senator Nelson, if you think we are in the middle 
of a civil war, cut off funding. If you believe half of what you are 
saying in these resolutions, then have the courage of your convictions 
to stop this war by cutting off funding. But, no, no one wants to do 
that because they do not know how that will play out at home. Everybody 
is trying to hedge their bets a little bit, bashing this new effort to 
secure victory, wanting to be seen in history, I guess, or for the next 
election, that this was not my idea, this was Bush's fault. Bush is not 
going to

[[Page S2190]]

Iraq; 21,500 brave young men and women are going to Iraq behind a 
general who believes he can win.
  This is a low point in my time in the Senate.
  Senator Reid said a few weeks ago, Republicans can't run and hide 
from this debate. Well, I am here. I am not running and hiding from any 
idea any Senator has. I am not running and hiding from Senator Warner's 
resolution. I look forward to voting against it and talking about how 
ill-conceived it is. All I am asking for is a chance for the Senate to 
play its role in our democracy and not become the House. All I am 
asking of my fellow colleagues who are certain they are right and want 
to send a message to our President is they give the courtesy to the 
others, such as myself, who believe they are dead wrong. And let's have 
a vote that reflects where the Senate is and not become the House.
  What is the Senate? In the Senate you have to get 60 votes to move an 
idea forward. Do you want to abandon that because of the political 
moment? I don't. Do you want to abandon your colleagues who have a 
different view of what we should do? I don't. I have been there on an 
emotional issue called immigration. There was an effort to shut down 
debate. I, along with Senator John McCain and several other Senators 
who were very much for a comprehensive immigration reform, told critics 
within our caucus, we will not leave you behind.

  I am extremely disappointed in our colleagues who want to shut off 
debate, not understanding whether people such as myself and Senator 
Gregg will be left behind. I am not afraid of your ideas. I respect the 
differences we have. I am extremely disappointed you will throw us 
over. That is not what the Senate is about. The Senate is about a 
debate on a full range of ideas that shows a difference from the House.
  Here is the crux of the matter: The reason we are here on a Saturday 
playing stupid political games while people are over in Iraq trying to 
win this war is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are afraid to take a vote on cutting off funding. I believe what 
happened in the House in a nonbinding fashion is the worst possible 
situation for this Congress, but it is a precursor to a movement toward 
bleeding this war dry in terms of funds and cutting off funding. If I 
am wrong, then let's have a vote on cutting off funding.
  The reason we are not going to have a vote on the Judd Gregg 
resolution, which is a legitimate position, is because 70-plus Senators 
will vote for it. The overwhelming majority of this Senate understands 
that cutting off funding at this crucial time in the war on terror in 
Iraq is ill-advised, but they don't want to be on the record. The 
reason they don't want to be on the record is because the radical left 
will eat Democrat 2008 hopefuls' lunch. They will create a fight on 
that side of monumental proportions between the radical left and the 
bloggers of the left who want to get out yesterday. That is why we are 
having a truncated debate.
  If Members do believe we are in the middle of a civil war, take the 
floor and get people out of the middle of the civil war.
  This is the politics of abandonment. This is abandoning the role the 
Senate has played for generations, to make our country stronger, not 
weaker. This is abandoning colleagues with contrary ideas who are going 
to be cut off. Unfortunately, these nonbinding resolutions abandon 
those who are going to the fight voluntarily.
  This is a very sad Saturday for the Senate, on the heels of a 
disaster in the House where a majority, a bare majority of the House, 
wants to send a political message at a time of war that does not keep 
one person from being shot at.
  I don't know where this thing is going to go. I don't know how it is 
going to end, but I can promise this: As long as I am in the Senate, I 
am going to take this Senate and make sure the Senate acts like the 
Senate. I came to the Senate for a reason. I want to be part of great 
debates. The way this process will be structured is Members will get 
cut out. Judd Gregg will get cut out because of the politics of the 
moment. The 60-vote rule will have meaning in this debate as long as I 
am here. I hope my colleagues will understand whatever differences we 
have, no matter how sincere they are, please don't throw us over.
  At this moment in time, I will read another resolution of sorts. This 
is from General Petraeus. He is addressing the coalition forces:

       To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Civilians of 
     Multi-National Force--Iraq:
       We serve in Iraq at a critical time. The war here will soon 
     enter its fifth year. A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder-
     to-shoulder with our Iraqi comrades, we will conduct a 
     pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. 
     The stakes could not be higher.
       Our task is crucial. Security is essential for Iraq to 
     build its future. Only with security can the Iraqi government 
     come to grips with the tough issues it confronts and develop 
     the capacity to serve its citizens. The hopes of the Iraqi 
     people and the coalition countries are with us.
       The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however 
     barbaric. They will do all they can to shake the confidence 
     of the people and to convince the world that this effort is 
     doomed. We must not underestimate them.
       Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who 
     oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold 
     the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our 
     Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our 
     enemies. And together we must prevail.
       The way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult 
     times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we 
     must remain steadfast in our effort to help improve security 
     for the Iraqi people. I am confident that each of you will 
     fight with skill and courage, and that you will remain loyal 
     to your comrades-in-arms and to the values our nations hold 
     so dear.
       In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this 
     struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to 
     save their country. To do that, many of us will live and 
     fight alongside them. Together, we will face down the 
     terrorists, insurgents, and criminals who slaughter the 
     innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude, and 
     initiative--qualities that you have in abundance.

  Do we have those qualities in Congress?

       I appreciate your sacrifices and those of your families. 
     Now, more than ever, your commitment to service and your 
     skill can make the difference between victory and defeat in a 
     very tough mission.
       It is an honor to soldier again with the members of the 
     Multi-National Force--Iraq. I know that wherever you serve in 
     this undertaking you will give your all. In turn, I pledge my 
     commitment to our mission and every effort to achieve success 
     as we help the Iraqis chart a course to a brighter future.
       Godspeed to each of you and to our Iraqi comrades in this 
     crucial endeavor.

  I end with this thought: If Members believe this is a lost cause and 
victory cannot be achieved, that our people are in the middle of a 
mess, a civil war, and not one person should get injured or killed 
because we have made huge mistakes that cannot be turned around, then 
cut off funding. Have a vote on something that matters. This political 
theater empowers our enemy, disheartens our own troops, is not worthy 
of the Senate time, and it has never been done in history for a reason.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Feinstein 
speaks in support of the motion for cloture, the next person in support 
of that motion be Senator Schumer of New York for 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I have been privileged to be a Member of 
the Senate now in my 29th year. Never have I stood in the Senate and in 
any way impugned the integrity of any Senator to speak as she or he 
believes from their own heart about what is right. I have never tried 
to challenge the patriotism of any Senator as they express their views.
  I say to my colleagues, I entered this debate simply because I feel 
the Senate of the United States of America, an institute revered 
throughout the world, should have the right to go forward and debate 
this critical issue before America today, before the whole world.
  Over a week ago, I voted against cloture to support the rights of all 
colleagues to be heard. That issue has been back and forth between our 
two leaders now for some weeks. We have come to the point in time when 
we must move forward. The only vehicle for those who wish to have this 
institution move forward and fulfill its goal is to move, today, to 
vote for cloture. I shall cast that vote, not with a heavy heart but 
with a heart that I think I am doing right for the integrity of this 
institution.
  I have joined with my good friend Senator Ben Nelson, Senator 
Collins,

[[Page S2191]]

and the other cosponsors, Senator Hagel, Senator Snowe, Senator 
Coleman, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Smith, all of whom, once again, 
signed onto this amendment, referred to as the Warner-Nelson-Collins 
amendment.
  We do so because we only wish to express a measure of disagreement on 
one basic point--an important one--with our President. The United 
States Congress is an independent branch of our Government. We are, as 
we often say, a coequal branch of our Government. We have the right to 
respectfully disagree. And we do so in our language. We support the 
President on the diplomatic aspects of his plan. We support the 
President on the economic aspects of his plan announced on the 10th of 
January.
  We only disagree with one portion of it: Madam President, do you need 
21,500 additional men and women of the Armed Forces in this conflict--
indeed, it is more than that, as was testified before the Armed 
Services Committee the other day--to go into the streets and the alleys 
of Baghdad and to face an enemy which is largely today fighting a 
sectarian war?
  This country gave an enormous sacrifice of life and limb to give Iraq 
its sovereignty. It is the duty of the Iraqi Armed Forces to take on 
the sectarian fighting. The American GI does not know the language, 
does not know the historic background of over 1,400 years of dispute 
between the Sunni and Shia. And we have trained over 300,000 Iraqi 
forces. Why not give those forces the responsibility to take on this 
fight?
  Our resolution in no way has anything to do with the cutoff of funds. 
Senators stand up and castigate our resolution and claim it will cutoff 
funding. It will not cutoff funding to our troops. It supports the 
President. It supports the present level of all the troops throughout 
Iraq. It simply says: Mr. President, are there not alternatives other 
than using the American GI to put down this sectarian violence?
  Madam President, I do hope, as we pursue this, we respect one another 
and our rights in this institution because I feel ever so strongly that 
our resolution supports the President economically, supports the 
President diplomatically, states that the President is correct, and 
clearly states that we cannot let this battle be lost and let the Iraqi 
Government collapse. We do not wish to see the people of Iraq denied 
the sovereignty that our blood, sweat, and toil have given them. We 
stand by the President on that. We simply say: Mr. President, this 
particular battle in Baghdad is best fought by the Iraqis. I regret to 
say that a New York Times article--and I asked this in open testimony 
before the Armed Services Committee a day or so ago to the Chief of 
Staff of the Army and to the Commandant of the Marine Corps--the 
accuracy of this report, that in the most recent battle there were 
2,500 Americans and 200 Iraqi security forces. That is contrary to what 
the President said. He said the Iraqis will take the point in this 
battle. The President also said the Iraqis will bear the burden in this 
battle, and we would be there in support. This is not support. We are 
fighting that battle.
  Again, this morning, I watched a report, presented by a U.S. general 
from Iraq, who stated that progress is being made in the battle in 
Iraq. Time and time again--he referred to the American forces making 
progress. He referred only to the United States forces fighting that 
battle, with no reference to the Iraqi forces. That is my point. That 
is why I steadfastly take this floor and respectfully disagree with the 
President. I will vote for the Gregg amendment. As a matter of fact, 
the Gregg amendment is in the Warner amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I believe I am to be recognized for 5 
minutes, but I have an additional 5 minutes which Senator Stevens has 
yielded to me.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, first, my respect for the Senator from Virginia is 
immense. I have always admired what he does, and I wish we were voting 
on his resolution. I think it should be up for debate and up for a 
vote. He is a significant force in this institution for many things 
which are right. I may have some disagreements with him over time, but 
I certainly have never questioned anything. I hope no one would. No one 
should question anybody on anything around here on what our purposes 
are. Our purposes are the same: to make our country a better and safer 
place and to make sure we assure a good future for our children.
  Let me set the table as to where we are in this debate, however, 
because one of the essences of this institution has always been it has 
been a forum where if you have a different idea or a different thought 
on an issue of substance, you usually get to air it, and you most often 
get to vote on it. That, of course, is what our Founding Fathers 
structured this institution for.
  Ironically, it was George Washington--not ironically but 
appropriately--it was George Washington who immediately ascertained the 
significance of the Senate's role when he said the Senate is the saucer 
into which the hot coffee is poured. It is the spot where ideas of the 
day get an airing to make sure they survive the light of day.

  Over time, we have developed an institutional understanding in the 
Senate that unless 60 percent--a majority of the Senate--agrees on an 
issue of major importance, that issue does not move forward. And 
equally importantly, we have developed an attitude in the Senate that 
if there is more than one legitimate view on an issue of significance--
and this is, obviously, an issue of dramatic significance--there will 
be different views brought to the floor in the form of amendments or 
resolutions, and they will be debated and they will be voted on.
  So what I suggested was an amendment which was not, I felt, all that 
controversial. In fact, I thought it was in the mainstream of American 
thought and certainly, hopefully, in the mainstream of the Senate 
positions. The resolution which I suggested--and I will read it again--
simply states:

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take 
     any action that will endanger United States military forces 
     in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds 
     for troops in the field, as such action with respect to 
     funding would undermine their safety or harm their 
     effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.

  This should not be controversial. This should be a statement which we 
as a Congress are willing to make, that when we send a soldier onto the 
streets of Baghdad or anywhere else where that soldier may incur or be 
in the way of harm, that soldier will have the support of the American 
people and the Congress--with the financing, with the equipment, with 
the logistics they need to do their job well. And it should be a 
definitive, uncontroversial, un-
controverted statement.
  Yet in offering this resolution, the Democratic leadership has said 
they will not entertain it. They will not allow us to vote on it. In 
fact, they have taken this whole process to a whole new level of trying 
to manage the activities of the floor of the Senate in a way that the 
Senate has never been managed in its historical past or should be 
managed in the context of what the purposes of the Senate are.
  The Democratic leader has essentially said we will vote on his 
amendment--his amendment--and his amendment alone. And, by the way, his 
amendment has changed three times now. There have been major, 
substantive changes to his amendment three times. And each time he has 
said or the leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle has said: 
That is the amendment we are going to vote on, that is the one that is 
locked in stone. It shall not be changed. You shall vote on it as a 
Senate. You shall not be allowed to amend it. You shall not be allowed 
to put up resolutions that in any other way address the issue.
  Well, the first proposal they came out with was not good enough to 
get enough votes to get to 40 probably, so they changed it. Then they 
said: This amendment shall be the amendment you will vote on. This 
amendment shall not be changed. This amendment shall not be amended on 
the floor of the Senate. There shall not be an amendment

[[Page S2192]]

that I have proposed or that the Republican membership wants to propose 
to go up and be debated and voted on also. Then that amendment, it 
turned out, was not good enough. That happened to be the Warner 
amendment.
  Then the House passed an amendment, and they decided to take the 
House amendment and say: Now this amendment shall be the amendment 
which is frozen in stone and which cannot be contravened, cannot be 
amended, and it shall not have any other amendment offered by the 
minority, by the Republican side of the aisle that the Republican side 
of the aisle wishes to propose.
  There was one caveat to that, the Senate Democratic leader said: I 
will be willing to choose an amendment for the Republican side of the 
aisle to propose. I, as Democratic leader, shall choose the Republican 
amendment that is brought to the floor to be debated.
  Well, obviously that, on the face of it, does not pass the test of 
fairness or even the test of how the Senate should run, even under a 
confined system as this is. The actual way we should proceed in this 
manner, in this situation, is that there should be at least four 
amendments on the floor because there are four major ideas floating 
around here.
  There is the idea that came over from the House. There is Senator 
Warner's proposal. There is Senator McCain's proposal. Then there is my 
proposal. Every one of these is substantive, thoughtful, I believe. 
Maybe I am assuming too much for mine. But for everybody else's, there 
are substantive, thoughtful ideas that should be debated on the floor 
of the Senate, and they should each be allowed a vote.
  But the Democratic leadership has said no, there shall be no vote on 
anything other than their new proposal--which is now the House 
proposal, their third machination of what they are going to do--and 
another proposal which they will choose from the Republican side of the 
aisle.
  Well, that clearly fails on all levels. Substantively it fails the 
rules of the Senate as they have traditionally been used. And as a 
matter of fairness, it fails the issue of being fair to people who have 
a legitimate viewpoint. More importantly, it fails the American people 
and the troops who are in the field because it does not allow us as a 
Senate to effectively debate and vote on proposals which would address 
the various issues raised by the situation in Iraq.
  So we on our side are saying we shall assert our rights. There are, 
after all, at least 40 Members of the Republican Party--and I suspect 
quite a few more--who believe that we, as Members of the Republican 
party, as Members of the minority, have a right to offer an amendment 
of our choosing, and that it should be voted on, especially since we 
are debating nonbinding amendments.
  Equally important, I think it is probably appropriate to analyze: Why 
would the Democratic leadership not want to vote on the resolution I 
just outlined? Why would they not want to do something such as that? 
Why would they not want a vote on a resolution which states 
unequivocally that when we send our soldiers--our men and women--into 
harm's way, we are going to give them the support they need to do the 
mission they are assigned to do and to remain safe?
  I suspect it is because that amendment which I have propounded, that 
proposal, that resolution would actually get significantly more than a 
supermajority in this body, significantly more than any other of the 
three items that have been discussed--the McCain proposal, the Warner 
proposal, or the House proposal--and that they would perceive that as 
an embarrassment on their side, which I believe shows this is not about 
the substance of the issue of how you address the war in Iraq, this is 
about the politics of how the amendment brought to the floor is 
perceived in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the other 
panoply of national press groups that are basically trying to claim a 
victory over not our efforts in Iraq but over the President.
  The fact that they would not allow us to bring forward an amendment 
which they know will receive a supermajority and more votes than their 
amendment--and which is so forthright in its statement of what it does, 
and which is so appropriate to the issue of what we are doing in Iraq, 
which is that we should be supporting our troops who have been sent 
into harm's way--is a reflection of the politicalness of this process, 
not the substance of the process. It is regrettable.
  We will continue to insist that this amendment, which is reasonable, 
be voted on. We should not allow the frustration--and I recognize there 
is a tremendous amount of frustration about the war in Iraq. I have a 
lot of frustration about the war in Iraq. Everybody does around here. 
You could not but have that about what is happening there. But we 
should not allow that frustration to be taken out on our troops in the 
field. There will be endless claims that the House language that has 
come over to us----

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, would this come out of the opposition's 
time?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. CRAIG. We have several on our side. I yield 1 more minute to the 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may resume.
  Mr. GREGG. The House language is totally inconsistent on the issue of 
whether it supports the troops. It says on the one hand that it does, 
and it says on the other hand that it doesn't support their mission. 
You can't do both of those things together.
  I will submit for the Record an editorial from the Wall Street 
Journal which reflects that fact. I appreciate the courtesy from the 
Senator from Idaho in granting me another minute. It truly is San 
Francisco sophistry, the language in the House resolution. In my 
opinion, it cannot be claimed to be consistent. The only consistent 
statement of support for the troops is the language of my amendment. 
That is why I believe it should be voted on.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the editorial to which I referred in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 15, 2007]

                       Awaiting the Dishonor Roll

       Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral 
     courage. But even grading on a curve, we can only describe 
     this week's House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the 
     mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the 
     institution's history.
       On present course, the Members will vote on Friday to 
     approve a resolution that does nothing to remove American 
     troops from harm's way in Iraq but that will do substantial 
     damage to their morale and that of their Iraqi allies while 
     emboldening the enemy. The only real question is how many 
     Republicans will also participate in this disgrace in the 
     mistaken belief that their votes will put some distance 
     between themselves and the war most of them voted to 
     authorize in 2002.
       The motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that 
     exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways. 
     The resolution purports to ``support'' the troops even as it 
     disapproves of their mission. It praises their ``bravery,'' 
     while opposing the additional forces that both President Bush 
     and General David Petreaus, the new commanding general in 
     Iraq, say are vital to accomplishing that mission. And it 
     claims to want to ``protect'' the troops even as its 
     practical impact will be to encourage Iraqi insurgents to 
     believe that every roadside bomb brings them closer to their 
     goal.
       As for how ``the troops'' themselves feel, we refer readers 
     to Richard Engel's recent story on NBC News quoting 
     Specialist Tyler Johnson in Iraq: ``People are dying here. 
     You know what I'm saying . . . You may [say] `oh we support 
     the troops.' So you're not supporting what they do. What 
     they's (sic) here to sweat for, what we bleed for and we die 
     for.'' Added another soldier: ``If they don't think we're 
     doing a good job, everything we've done here is all in 
     vain.'' In other words, the troops themselves realize that 
     the first part of the resolution is empty posturing, while 
     the second is deeply immoral.
       All the more so because if Congress feels so strongly about 
     the troops, it arguably has the power to start removing them 
     from harm's way by voting to cut off the funds they need to 
     operate in Iraq. But that would make Congress responsible for 
     what followed--whether those consequences are Americans 
     killed in retreat, or ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, or the 
     toppling of the elected Maliki government by radical Shiite 
     or military forces. The one result Congress fears above all 
     is being accountable.
       We aren't prone to quoting the young John Kerry, but this 
     week's vote reminds us of the

[[Page S2193]]

     comment the antiwar veteran told another cut-and-run Congress 
     in the early 1970s: ``How do you ask a man to be the last man 
     to die for a mistake?'' The difference this time is that 
     Speaker Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha expect men and women to 
     keep dying for something they say is a mistake but also don't 
     have the political courage to help end.
       Instead, they'll pass this ``non-binding resolution,'' to 
     be followed soon by attempts at micromanagement that would 
     make the war all but impossible to prosecute--and once again 
     without taking responsibility. Mr. Murtha is already 
     broadcasting his strategy, which the new Politico Web site 
     described yesterday as ``a slow-bleed strategy designed to 
     gradually limit the administration's options.''
       In concert with antiwar groups, the story reported, Mr. 
     Murtha's ``goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest 
     political vulnerability of the antiwar movement--the 
     accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the 
     field.'' So instead of cutting off funds, Mr. Murtha will 
     ``slow-bleed'' the troops with ``readiness'' restrictions or 
     limits on National Guard forces that will make them all but 
     impossible to deploy. These will be attached to 
     appropriations bills that will also purport to ``support the 
     troops.''
       ``There's a D-Day coming in here, and it's going to start 
     with the supplemental and finish with the '08 [defense] 
     budget,'' Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D., Hawaii) told the 
     Web site. He must mean D-Day as in Dunkirk.
       All of this is something that House Republicans should keep 
     in mind as they consider whether to follow this retreat. The 
     GOP leadership has been stalwart, even eloquent, this week in 
     opposing the resolution. But some Republicans figure they can 
     use this vote to distance themselves from Mr. Bush and the 
     war while not doing any real harm. They should understand 
     that the Democratic willingness to follow the Murtha ``slow-
     bleed'' strategy will depend in part on how many Republicans 
     follow them in this vote. The Democrats are themselves 
     divided on how to proceed, and they want a big GOP vote to 
     give them political cover. However ``non-binding,'' this is a 
     vote that Republican partisans will long remember.
       History is likely to remember the roll as well. A newly 
     confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers 
     on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, 
     risking their lives for their country. And the message their 
     elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is 
     a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we have been bogged down in Iraq for 
nearly 4 years, which is longer than the Korean conflict or our 
involvement in World War II. The war has cost more than 3,100 American 
lives, seven times that many wounded, and about $400 billion. We 
desperately need to change course. Shifting responsibility to the Iraqi 
political leaders to reach a political settlement is the only hope of 
ending the violence. That is why the Iraq Study Group urged less U.S. 
military involvement as they concluded:

       An open-ended commitment of American forces would not 
     provide the Iraqi government the incentive that it needs to 
     take the political actions that give Iraq the best chance of 
     quelling sectarian violence. In the absence of such an 
     incentive, the Iraqi government might continue to delay 
     taking those difficult actions.

  But instead of putting pressure on Iraqi leaders to settle their 
political differences as the only hope of a successful outcome in Iraq, 
the President would get us in deeper militarily. The Iraqis didn't ask 
for more U.S. troops to occupy their neighborhoods in Baghdad. Indeed, 
they suggested we move out of Baghdad. The idea for this so-called 
surge of American troops in Baghdad was ours. It may be called a surge, 
but I believe it is a plunge, a plunge into a sectarian caldron, a 
plunge into the unknown and perhaps the unknowable.
  Supporters of the surge argue that a Senate resolution disagreeing 
with the President's plan ``emboldens the enemy,'' but that is an 
extraordinarily naive view of the enemy. What emboldens the sectarian 
fighters is the inability of the Iraqi leaders to make political 
compromises so essential to finally reining in the Sunni insurgents and 
the Shia militias. The enemy cares little what Congress says. It is 
emboldened by what the Iraqi leaders don't do. The enemy isn't 
emboldened by congressional debate. It is emboldened by the open-ended 
occupation of a Muslim country by western troops. The enemy is 
emboldened by the current course which has seen a million Iraqis leave 
the country and become refugees, with thousands more leaving daily. The 
enemy is emboldened by years of blunders and bravado, false 
assumptions, wishful thinking, and ignorance of the history of the land 
being occupied. The enemy is emboldened by an administration which says 
it is changing course, which acknowledges that a political settlement 
by Iraqi leaders is essential to ending the violence but then plunges 
us more deeply militarily into a sectarian witch's brew.
  The only hope of ending the violence and succeeding against the 
enemies of an Iraqi nation is if the leaders of that nation work out 
their political differences and unite against forces that would destroy 
any chance of nationhood. That takes political will. That takes 
pressure from us. Sending more U.S. troops takes the pressure off. It 
sends the false message that we can save the Iraqis from themselves. 
Sending more troops does what our CENTCOM commander, John Abizaid, 
warned about when he said:

       It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do the work. I 
     believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from 
     doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own 
     future.

  Does speaking out against the surge undermine our troops? The 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Peter Pace, firmly answered 
that argument just last week when he said the following:

       There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in 
     Washington strengthens our democracy--period . . . From the 
     standpoint of our troops, I believe that they understand how 
     our legislature works and that they understand that there's 
     going to be this kind of debate.

  Just last week, Secretary Gates answered the charge that our debate 
hurts troop morale when he said these words:

       I think that our troops do understand that everybody 
     involved in this debate is looking to do the right thing for 
     our country and for our troops, and that everybody is looking 
     for the best way to avoid an outcome that leaves Iraq in 
     chaos. And I think they're sophisticated enough to understand 
     that that's what the debate's really about. I think they 
     understand that that debate's being carried on by patriotic 
     people who care about them and who care about their mission.

  We owe our troops everything: equipment, training, adequate rest, 
support of them and their family. We also owe them our honest 
assessment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if I could be yielded 30 additional seconds.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. The majority of the American people believe that a deeper 
military involvement in Iraq won't make success more likely. I believe 
a majority of Senators feel the same way. I hope the majority will be 
allowed to so vote. If we believe plunging into Baghdad neighborhoods 
with more American troops will not increase chances of success, we are 
dutybound to say so, and a minority of Senators should not thwart that 
expression. We owe that to the troops. We owe that to their families, 
and we owe that to the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, under a unanimous consent request, I have 
asked for 5 minutes. I will use one of those and yield the remaining 4 
to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a statement by the 
American Legion, the largest veterans organization in this country. I 
will only quote its last paragraph:

       The American Legion and the American people find this to be 
     a totally unacceptable approach and we will do everything 
     within our power to ensure that our troops are not used as 
     political pawns by a Congress that lacks the will to win.

  I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Legion: Congress Sent Wrong Message Today

       Washington, Feb. 16/PRNewswire-USNewswire/--The leader of 
     the nation's largest wartime veterans' organization provided 
     the following statement in response to the House vote 
     disapproving the President's decision to deploy more than 
     20,000 additional combat troops to the Iraqi theater.
       ``Congress may consider its vote today on H. Con. Res. 63 
     to be nonbinding, but veterans of previous wars and those in 
     the field of combat right now consider Congress's action to 
     be a betrayal of trust and the first step toward surrender to 
     the terrorists who caused this war in the first place.

[[Page S2194]]

       ``We must never forget the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when 
     two U.S. commercial aircraft were used to kill nearly 3,000 
     innocent people in an unprovoked attack against our nation's 
     sovereignty. We must never forget those brave Americans who 
     downed their plane in Pennsylvania, saving the lives of many 
     in the Capitol. We must never forget the attack on the 
     Pentagon, or on the USS Cole, or our embassies, or our Marine 
     barracks in Beirut. The list goes on and on.
       ``Even the Clinton administration tried to kill Osama bin 
     Laden by lobbing missiles at him. This war didn't just start 
     with the invasion of Iraq. It's been going on for decades. 
     It's been going on in Republican and Democrat administrations 
     and Congresses.
       ``It isn't about partisan politics. It's about America. 
     It's about all of us, and especially those who are at this 
     moment risking their lives on the field of battle.
       ``Americans are not the enemy here. The terrorists and all 
     of those governments that support them are the enemy. We must 
     never forget that. And, equally important, we must never 
     forget the primary lesson learned in Vietnam: you cannot 
     separate the war from the warrior.
       ``Congress can talk all it wants to about how it supports 
     the troops. But its actions set the table. The message they 
     sent today to the frontline is that America is preparing to 
     cut and run. We essentially told our fighting men and women 
     that `we have taken step one in the plan to cut 
     reinforcements, to cut armaments, and to withdraw any support 
     you need to complete your mission.'
       ``The Speaker characterized it succinctly when she said, 
     ``(t)his legislation will signal a change in direction that 
     will end the fighting and bring our troops home.'
       ``What she failed to add was `. . . in defeat, and without 
     completing the mission they were trained to complete and 
     ready to win if only America had not given up before they 
     did.'
       ``The American Legion and the American people find this to 
     be totally unacceptable and we will do everything within our 
     power to ensure that our troops are not used as political 
     pawns by a Congress that lacks the will to win.''

  Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, the first reason to vote no on this 
motion to proceed is that we have no ability to amend or an alternative 
that would be allowed by the majority to reflect a different point of 
view. When I hear people on the other side say don't let the minority 
thwart the efforts of the majority, what the majority is saying is we 
only want one resolution, our resolution. Whatever happened to 
amendments? Whatever happened to the ability to have alternative 
resolutions?
  This is the tenth time in this very short period that this Congress 
has been in session that cloture has been used to stifle minority 
rights. It is unprecedented in this body. I hope we will go to a time 
when the Senate will be able to work together in a bipartisan way, 
agree and disagree civilly, have the ability to exercise minority 
rights, and then have a majority vote. We don't have to have only one 
procedure that allows for one view but does not allow for alternatives 
and amendments. That is not the way the Senate is supposed to operate.
  The second reason to vote no on this motion is the resolution itself. 
The resolution says we support the troops who are there now and the 
troops who were there in the past but not those who will come in the 
future. Presumably the majority is saying that we will not support 
future troops because they don't support the President's plan. But 
troops who are rotating in to replace troops leaving would also not be 
supported. Since when do we select which members of the armed services 
we will support and which ones we will not in the middle of a mission? 
It is untenable on its face. We should never allow this flawed 
resolution to go forward without any alternative and without any 
amendments.
  The third reason we should use every procedural avenue to derail this 
resolution is, we are undercutting the Commander in Chief and the 
troops who are on the mission right now. This is a rare departure for 
the Senate to undercut a mission of our military while troops are in 
harm's way performing the mission with a nonbinding resolution. The 
purpose of doing this can only be to undercut the Commander in Chief to 
the rest of the world because it will not stop the mission itself.
  As was said earlier today, there is not a Member of the Senate who 
doesn't believe this is a risky proposition. It is. We are all worried 
about it. I have talked to General Petraeus about it, as have many of 
my colleagues. How, General Petraeus, do you see this working? He is 
the commander and he is the one who is putting this proposal together 
to fight a type of war we have never had to fight before, with an enemy 
that is willing to kill themselves in order to kill Americans and 
innocent Iraqis.
  We have had to adjust; there is no doubt about it. I don't think 
anybody is saying that we believe we are in a good situation in Iraq. 
But the idea that we would pass a nonbinding resolution which undercuts 
our troops who are valiantly performing the mission is something I 
cannot remember that we have ever done.
  I will quote from the Senate Armed Services hearing when Senator 
Lieberman asked General Petraeus if such a resolution, a nonbinding 
resolution condemning the strategy, would give the enemy encouragement, 
some clear expression that the American people were divided. General 
Petraeus answered: ``That is correct, sir.''
  Yes, the American people are divided. It is a very different matter 
for the Senate to pass a resolution with no alternative that says we 
support the troops who are there now and the ones who served in the 
past but not those who will be coming after the resolution is passed. 
It is unthinkable.
  I hope we will come to our senses. I hope we will be able to talk 
freely, to debate but not to pass a resolution that says to the world, 
to our enemies, as well as our allies, we do not have faith in those 
who would go to perform a mission going forward, faith in the military 
who created this plan.
  I hope the Senate doesn't pass this. I hope we will have an agreement 
that will allow alternatives, as we have always done since I have been 
in the Senate, and many years before me. I hope our leaders will be 
able to sit down and craft a resolution that opens the process so that 
everyone will have a voice, not just a few in the majority. Maybe it is 
51. Maybe it is 52. Maybe it is 53. But we should have 41 Senators 
standing up for an alternative resolution that would allow other people 
to have the ability to vote for the support of our troops, whether they 
are there now, whether they were there in the past, or whether they 
will be there in the future. That is the difference between this 
resolution the majority is trying to get passed without any alternative 
or any amendment, and what we would put forward, which is to say: We 
will support all the troops today or tomorrow, and we will win this 
war, for there is no substitute for victory, if our children are going 
to live in freedom.
  I yield the floor.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries)
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S.J. 
Res. 3 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent 
and Senate Resolutions.'')
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, we have seen 4 years of obfuscation on 
Iraq from the White House and from previous leadership in this Senate. 
Those days are over this afternoon. Every Senator is going to have to 
step to the plate and say where he or she stands. The other side has 
tried to design resolutions where they can duck, they can avoid, and 
they don't tell their constituencies how they feel. Those days are 
over.
  That is why this cloture vote is a crucial vote, not just for the 
moment or the week but for the history of America because today's vote 
is not on other aspects of what is going on in Iraq or Iran but simply 
this: Are you for or against the escalation? Plain and simple.
  There should be a simple vote, not as an end to this debate but as a 
beginning of this debate. The minority is tying itself into pretzels so 
there will not be a vote. They are torn between their President's 
policy and the wishes of their constituents. But vote they must. If 
they avoid the vote this afternoon, their constituents will know 
exactly what they are doing.
  On the policy, the President's escalation is misguided, to put it 
kindly. There is no change in strategy. We are policing a civil war in 
Iraq--something no one talked about 2 years ago, something no one 
bargained for. Our brave

[[Page S2195]]

young men and women, whom we so support, are standing in the crossfire 
between Shiites and Sunnis. This is not a fight against terrorism; this 
is a civil war, and there have been, unfortunately, thousands of them 
throughout history. American troops should not be in the middle of that 
war.
  The President doesn't change the policy; he simply adds more troops 
to continue this misguided policy. That is why the majority of this 
Senate, and the overwhelming majority of the American people, are so 
opposed to this escalation, and we will vote on it this afternoon. But 
make no mistake about it, this is just the first step. It is just the 
first step. This is a process. Some of my friends and colleagues wish--
and maybe we do, too--that there could be a silver bullet, one 
resolution that could either end the escalation or even end the war. 
But there is not. The way our Constitution is structured, this 
Government, you need two-thirds to overcome a certain Presidential 
veto, when we do our next resolution with teeth.
  So our job here, which this resolution begins, is to ratchet up the 
pressure on the President, on those who are still on his side in terms 
of this policy until they change. We will be relentless. There will be 
resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment, all forcing 
this body to do what it has not done in the previous 3 years--debate 
and discuss Iraq. And we believe that as that debate continues and as 
this process unfolds, just like in the days of Vietnam, the pressure 
will mount and the President will find he has no strategy. He will have 
to change his strategy, and the vast majority of our troops will be 
taken out of harm's way and come home.
  So, Madam President, today is the beginning of a historic period, 
where for the first time in a while Congress debates foreign policy in 
Iraq and Congress tries to do something about foreign policy in Iraq.
  To the brave men and women who are defending us today, whom we so 
support, thank you for your service, thank you for protecting us. We 
will continue to live by what the Constitution has asked us to do, 
which is to debate the issues and come up with what is best for our 
soldiers, for America, and for the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is 
recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, do I have 5 minutes?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, the Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, today, the Senate has an opportunity--and 
a responsibility--to begin to end the escalation of the war in Iraq and 
to start us toward a new strategy for leaving Iraq without leaving 
chaos behind.
  Our responsibility is to debate and vote on the resolution passed by 
the House of Representatives that says that Congress disapproves of the 
President's plan to deploy more than 20,000 additional American combat 
troops to Iraq.
  The question before us today is whether a miniority of Senators will 
even allow the debate to start. That is what we are about to vote on.
  To my colleagues who are thinking about trying to block debate, let 
me say this: Iraq dominates our national life. It is on the minds of 
tens of millions of Americans. It shapes the lives of hundreds of 
thousands of our men and woman in uniform and their families.
  That the Senate would not even debate, much less vote on, the single 
most urgent issue of our time, would be a total failure of our 
responsibility.
  We have a duty to debate and vote on the President's plan. We have a 
duty to debate and vote on our overall strategy in Iraq. We have to 
demonstrate the courage of our convictions.
  Last month, Secretary of State Rice presented the President's plan 
for Iraq to the Foreign Relations Committee. Its main feature is to 
send more American troops into Baghdad, in the middle of a sectarian 
civil war.
  The reaction on the committee, from Republicans and Democrats alike, 
ranged from skepticism to profound skepticism to outright opposition. 
And that pretty much reflects the reaction across the country.
  Every Senator should be given a chance to vote whether he or she 
approves or disagrees with the President's plan to send more troops 
into the middle of a civil war.
  The debate I hope that we will have is as important as the vote.
  I predict the American people will hear very few of our colleagues 
stand up and support the President's plan to send more troops into the 
middle of a civil war. Listen to those voices.
  Some minimize the significance of a nonbinding resolution. If it is 
so meaningless, why did the White House and the President's political 
supporters mobilize so much energy against it? Why is a minority of 
Senators trying to prevent the Senate from talking about it?
  Opposing the surge is only a first step. We need a radical change in 
course in Iraq.
  If the President won't act, Congress must.
  But Congress must act responsibly. We must resist the temptation to 
push for changes that sound good but produce bad results.
  The best next step is to revisit the authorization Congress granted 
the President in 2002 to use force in Iraq.
  We gave the President that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein.
  The WMD were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 
authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.
  Legislation I'm working on would repeal that authorization and 
replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in 
Iraq.
  Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to 
responsibly draw down, while continuing to combat terrorists, train 
Iraqis and respond to emergencies.
  We should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in 
Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war.
  Coupled with the Biden-Gelb plan that offers the possibility of a 
political settlement in Iraq, I believe this is the most effective way 
to start bringing our troops home without leaving a mess behind.
  But for today, my message is simple: the American people want us to 
debate Iraq, the most important issue of our day. They expect it. They 
demand it.
  If we try to hide behind procedure and delaying tactics, the American 
people will hold us accountable.
  They get it. The question is: do we?
  Madam President, again, today we have the opportunity to do something 
we have not done on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the last 4 years; 
that is, to actually debate Iraq. This is the first opportunity we are 
going to have to do that. I know a number of people say: This is not 
binding, so why are we doing it? If it doesn't matter, why is there 
such an effort to keep us from talking about it, an effort to continue 
to fight us in being able to do this?
  Madam President, I say to my colleagues that if we fail to invoke 
cloture here, we are not permitted to debate this issue, and I don't 
know what it says to the American people about what we are all about. I 
don't know whether anybody has noticed, but the American public is 
seized with this issue. It is the issue. It is the issue everybody is 
discussing at the kitchen table. It is the issue every man, woman, 
husband, wife, mother, and father with someone in the National Guard or 
in the U.S. military is talking about. It is the issue. The Senate is 
being silenced on it, even being prevented from debating whether we can 
talk about making a simple statement that: Mr. President, you are 
wrong; don't escalate this war.
  The truth is, our voices, quite frankly, are as important as our 
votes. The President will find, if we have a full-blown debate on the 
floor of the Senate, there are precious few people on this floor who 
think he is handling this war correctly. Instead of escalating the war, 
we should be drawing down our forces. I predict the American people 
hear, as I said, very few of our colleagues talking about what a good 
idea this is, what the President has in mind. So to echo the comments 
made by my colleague from New York, if, in fact, we are precluded from 
even debating the issue of whether we oppose the President's escalation 
of the war, surely you are going to see more coming to the floor.
  I have been working with the Senator from Massachusetts and others on 
a

[[Page S2196]]

piece of legislation that would literally rescind the President's 
authority--the authority we gave him to go to war in the first place--
and redefine the mission very narrowly.
  Look, there is going to be a lot of discussion, whether we debate 
today or not, on Iraq. There is going to be a lot of discussion about 
what to do next. It will range from cutting off funding, to capping 
troops, to a number of other proposals. The truth is, we are being 
presented with a false choice up to now. We are either told we have to 
stay the course and escalate the war or the other choice is to bring 
our troops home and hope for the best.
  The truth is that none of this will matter. We are going to have to 
bring everybody home if they don't get a political solution in Iraq. 
There is only one: a federal system. Listen to what their Constitution 
says. Even the National Intelligence Estimate, the estimate of all of 
the intelligence agencies, says--and I am paraphrasing it--that the 
Sunnis have to accept regionalism and the Kurds and Shias have to give 
the Sunnis a bigger piece of the action in order for them to do that.
  I point out to everybody, when civil wars begin in other countries, 
there are only a few things that stop them: One side wins and there is 
carnage; two, an occupying force stays there indefinitely; or, three, 
you end up in a situation where they have a federal state.
  The President should get about the business of pursuing not a 
military solution here but a political solution. He should be calling 
an international conference, getting all of the parties in a room, as 
we did in Dayton, convincing our allies and the region that the only 
outcome that has any possibility of surviving is the federal state, as 
their Constitution calls for.
  I conclude by saying that the American people expect--quite frankly, 
I think they demand--that we start to intelligently debate this subject 
rather than doing it by way of talk shows and Sunday appearances on TV. 
We should be debating on this floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, over 3,000 Americans are dead--dead, 
dead--and over 23,000 Americans are wounded as a result of the war in 
Iraq. Our military leaders say that our Armed Forces are stretched 
almost to the breaking point. We have spent almost $400 billion, and 
the number continues to go up, up, up. But the United States Senate is 
mired incredibly in a debate about the ability even to have a debate 
about our Nation's future course in Iraq. Surely, no one in this Senate 
can be so fearful of debate on a nonbinding resolution concerning the 
President's plan to send some 40,000 additional troops to Iraq that 
they fail to hear the voices of over 70 percent of the American people 
out there who now oppose our involvement in this war. But apparently 
some in the Senate are afraid of such a debate.
  Some of my colleagues have indicated that they will vote against the 
motion to proceed to debate on this straightforward resolution, which 
expresses disagreement with the President's plan. While our brave 
fighting men and women put their lives on the line in Iraq, this Senate 
stands paralyzed--paralyzed, paralyzed, I say. The United States 
Senate--the greatest deliberative body in the whole world--is probably 
the only place in this wonderful land of America where this debate is 
not--is not--taking place.
  How can some express unwavering support for the troops if they quake 
in the face of a debate about their safety? Our troops are stretched 
thin. They are weary after deployment and redeployment. Post-traumatic 
stress disorder and mental problems--yes--are rife in the troops. Lost 
limbs and physical mutilation have scarred many of these young people 
for life. Scores of families weep--yes, they weep--every night for 
their lost loved ones. And yet many in this Senate claim to support the 
troops, while those same many steadfastly refuse to debate an ill-
advised escalation--yes, an ill-advised escalation--of this war which 
almost nobody but nobody supports.
  Can one claim support for the troops while acquiescing in a policy 
that only sinks our forces deeper into a civil war? Can any of us look 
in the mirror while we stonewall the concerns of the American people 
and engage in some political fandango to prevent discussion of our 
engagement in Iraq?
  Madam President, if it will help to bring our soldiers home, I will 
work every Saturday for the rest of this Congress. I will stand here, 
right here on this floor, of this Senate every day, 24 hours every day 
if it would mean one less family without a son or a daughter. Hear me.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, what happens to the time 
I am allocated under those circumstances?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time for the Senator will be 
reserved. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Nothing, I say to my friend. I would not see anything 
happen to the Senator's time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, this is the most important issue facing 
America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I stand 
with my colleagues today to say enough, enough stalling, enough 
obfuscation. It is time for the people of America--yes, you people out 
there in the mountains, the valleys, and across the rivers, across the 
mountain ranges, yes, the great Rockies--you people, it is time for you 
to know where every Senator stands on this war.
  I will cast my vote with pride this afternoon, Madam President, in 
favor of proceeding to this debate, and I hope that every one of my 
colleagues joins me.
  I yield the floor and thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, with great respect for my friend from 
West Virginia, the reason we are here is because the new majority 
refuses to debate. They refuse to allow us to take up the amendments 
that should be considered during this debate.
  We have before us now a proposal drafted by the Rules Committee of 
the House, presented to the House without debate and brought to us 
without debate, and we are told we are to be limited on the number of 
amendments that will be considered to this measure.
  It is an important subject to be debated, but why Saturday? This is 
the start of the President's Day recess that was announced 6 weeks ago. 
In order to try to embarrass the Members of this side--21 of us up for 
reelection--the leadership decided to have this debate today on a 
nonbinding resolution, which wouldn't accomplish anything, wouldn't 
bring any troops home, wouldn't announce our support for the troops, 
just to see whether we come back to vote.
  The real problem is how do we get together in a Senate that has a 
majority of one? Do we do it on the basis that every time something 
comes from the House we are to be told no amendments will be in order? 
We can't debate this question of whether we support the troops? We 
can't support any other amendment to this resolution? We are to take 
the matter that came from the House without debate from the Rules 
Committee? It was not changed all the way through the House.
  How many Senators on that side want to be a rubberstamp for the 
House? That is what you are starting. This is the third bill to come 
before us with the idea of no minority amendments are going to be 
considered unless the leadership on that side decides they should be 
considered.

  Again, I tell you, Madam President, this is a defining moment of the 
Senate. This is a debating society. We should not be limited on the 
number of amendments that are considered, any more than we are limited 
on the CR.
  When I became chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 2001, there 
were 11 bills pending that had not been passed by the former majority. 
We brought them before the Senate in an omnibus bill, and every single 
bill was considered, one by one.
  What did we do this time? We had one resolution which came over from 
the House, and we passed it without any amendments. That is a formula 
for the death of the Senate. There are people in this country who think 
we should have a unicameral legislature.
  Mr. BYRD. I don't.
  Mr. STEVENS. I share the Senator's opinion because I would like to 
debate him on some of these subjects but not

[[Page S2197]]

on a nonbinding resolution. Let's bring up a resolution that supports 
the troops.
  I directly contradict my good friend from West Virginia. The American 
people support our troops in the field----
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. ----and do not want us challenging them and trying to 
find some way to deviate money from their support or deny them the 
support they deserve. I would love to stand here and talk for hours and 
hours with my friend about how to support the troops. You don't do it 
by asking them to disobey the President of the United States. You don't 
do it by urging the Senate and the House not to support the President 
of the United States. You do it by trying to get together and working 
on a bipartisan basis to solve our problems.
  None of us like war. I said the other day I hate war. I have been 
involved in the consideration of too many wars in my life, but clearly 
those people wearing our uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan need to know 
we support them 100 percent, and we don't stand here and talk about how 
we should find ways so they would not get their support, so we force 
the President of the United States to bring them home.
  We will bring them home with the new commander there and the new plan 
we are going to put into effect, a plan that requires a surge for the 
safety of the people there, to move in the country to carry out the 
plan.
  I support the President, and I urge the Senate to do the same.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, how long may I be recognized for? Two 
minutes?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, we all deeply respect 
Senator Byrd, but we are on a tight timeframe. I don't know how many 
minutes are left on that side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two minutes remain for the previous 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I was to be recognized at 1:25 p.m., and it is now 
1:27 p.m.; is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The order was delayed by 
intervening orders.
  Mr. McCONNELL. There is some time at least remaining on the other 
side. I leave it up to my good friend, the majority whip, to sort that 
out.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thought we had 3 minutes remaining; is 
that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. One minute has been consumed. There 
is 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. Since Senator Kennedy has asked for 1 minute, I will 
yield the 1 minute I requested to the Senator from West Virginia so 
each of the remaining two will speak--Senator Kennedy for 1 minute and 
Senator Byrd for 1 minute.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank our distinguished friend from 
Illinois. And I thank my longtime friend from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kennedy.
  I only rise to say that I have a binding resolution to bring our 
troops home. I hope to see the day when we may vote on my resolution to 
bring American troops home--home, home.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. All of us remember the elections. All of us remember 
President Bush saying: I am going to take my time and find a new 
direction.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. All of us remember he said: Do not rush me. I want to 
talk to the generals. I want to talk to political leaders. I want to 
talk to people all over this country and all over the world to find out 
a new policy.
  Then he comes out with this policy. And what is it? It is a military 
policy to escalate in Iraq.
  Mr. BYRD. Right.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is the issue before the U.S. Senate. Many of us do 
not believe that this President is right on it. The Baker-Hamilton 
commission did not agree with that policy. General Abizaid did not 
agree with that policy before the Armed Services Committee. And the 
American people don't.
  We on this side are interested in protecting American servicemen from 
the crossfire of a civil war. Some on the other side are more 
interested in protecting the President from a rebuke for his policy of 
escalation in Iraq.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, 5 weeks ago, President Bush stood 
before the American people and acknowledged--acknowledged--the lack of 
progress in Iraq. He outlined a new military strategy that was devised 
after consultation with military commanders, national security leaders, 
and Members of Congress from both parties. He told us he had committed 
more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq to clear and secure the city 
of Baghdad and to protect its population.
  As we meet today, the first of five waves of soldiers are carrying 
out this plan on the streets and in the alleys of Baghdad; the second 
is preparing to leave. These reinforcements have already given us 
reasons for hope. Soon after the President's announcement, U.S. Iraqi 
forces began to route key elements of the Mahdi army, the militia's 
leader fled his stronghold, and this week U.S. Iraqi forces have 
conducted sweeps through once violent Sunni neighborhoods with little 
resistance.
  It is too early to say whether the surge will achieve its objective, 
but General Petraeus and President Bush ask us to give the plan a 
chance to work, to support our troops in the field and those on their 
way. Until now, we have done that. Today--today--we are being asked to 
do something entirely different.
  The majority party in the Senate wants to vote on a resolution that 
condemns the President's plan and which disagrees with General Petraeus 
who said before he left for Iraq that additional troops are an 
essential part of achieving our goal. They are doing this 3 weeks after 
voting, without dissent, to send General Petraeus on this mission. And 
they are doing it in the form of a nonbinding resolution that will have 
no practical effect on the conduct of the war.
  Americans have a right to demand why the Senate has not yet taken a 
clear stand on what most of us believe to be our last best chance at 
success. So let us be clear at the outset of this debate about what is 
going on today and about what Republicans are fighting for today.
  Republicans are fighting for the right of the American people to know 
where we stand. If you support the war, say so. If you don't, say so. 
But you cannot say you are registering a vote in favor of our troops 
unless you pledge to support them with the funds they need to carry out 
their mission. Yet this is precisely--precisely--what the Democratic 
majority would have us do today.
  They demand Republicans cast a vote in favor of a nonsensical 
proposition that says we disapprove of the President's plan to deploy 
more troops to Iraq, but we support the members of the Armed Forces who 
are serving there. A vote in support of the troops that is silent on 
the question of funds is an attempt to have it both ways. So 
Republicans are asking for an honest and open debate, and we are being 
blocked at every turn.
  The majority party in the House has a stronger hand in determining 
what comes up for a vote. So yesterday they forced a vote on the same 
stay-the-course resolution that Democrats are now trying to put before 
the Senate. Democrats have been clear about the strategy behind this 
resolution. They describe it as a slow bleed, a way of tying the hands 
of the Commander in Chief. The House said yesterday that it supports 
the troops. Yet its leadership is preparing to deny the reinforcements 
that those troops will need in the weeks and months ahead.
  The Senate was created to block that kind of dealing, and today it 
stops at the doors of this Chamber. Even opponents of the war denounce 
the tactics of the Democratic leadership.
  In an editorial today, the New York Times, amazingly enough, called 
yesterday's House vote a ``clever maneuver to dress up a reduction in 
troop

[[Page S2198]]

strength as a `support the troops' measure.'' Adding, ``It takes no 
courage or creativity,'' said the New York Times, ``for a politician to 
express continuing support for the troops and opposition to a vastly 
unpopular and unpromising military escalation.''
  The Washington Post was rightly appalled in an editorial this morning 
by the slow-bleed strategy, calling it ``a crude hamstringing of the 
military commanders and their ability to deploy troops.'' The Post 
exposed the details of Mr. Murtha's plan to add language to a war-
funding bill that would strangle the President's ability to get 
reinforcements to soldiers in the field all under the guise of having 
them better prepared.
  ``Why,'' the Post asks, ``doesn't Mr. Murtha strip the money out of 
the appropriations bill? Something he is clearly free to do.'' Good 
question. And the astonishing answer comes from Mr. Murtha's own lips. 
``What we are saying,'' Congressman Murtha says, ``will be very hard to 
find fault with.''
  There is no place for this kind of chicanery at a time of war. Even 
some of the President's most strident opponents know that. They know 
the only vote that truly matters is a vote on whether to fund the 
troops. That is the vote House Republicans were denied yesterday. That 
is the vote Senate Republicans and a growing number of clear-eyed 
observers on both sides of this issue are demanding today. Let those of 
us who support the President's plan to win in Iraq say so. Let those 
who oppose it also say so.

  We will not be forced to vote for a resolution that says we support 
the troops but does not ask us to seal that pledge with a promise to 
help them carry out their mission in the only way they can, which is by 
funding their mission.
  Madam President, has my time expired?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, let me additionally say that Senate 
Republicans have been trying to have this debate now for several weeks. 
We expected to have it week before last. We insist, however, on having 
the debate in the Senate in the way debates are always carried out in 
the Senate, in a fair and evenhanded way.
  Our good friends on the other side of the aisle initially supported 
the Biden proposal, which came out of the Foreign Relations Committee. 
When that appeared not to have enough support, they adopted the Warner-
Levin proposal. When that appeared to be inconvenient, they switched 
again and now support, I guess, what best can be called the Pelosi-Reid 
proposal, which they are attempting to get before the Senate today.
  All along the way, for the last few weeks, Senate Republicans have 
been consistent in asking for a fair debate, and a fair debate 
includes, at the very least, one alternative supported by a majority of 
Senate Republicans. The one alternative we settled on was Senator 
Gregg's proposal to guarantee that we support funding for the troops. 
This fundamental unfairness and unwillingness to allow the Senate to 
vote on arguably the most significant issue confronting the troop 
surge, which is whether it is going to be funded, is the reason this 
stalemate has occurred.
  I am optimistic, and I certainly hope that Senate Republicans will 
continue to insist on fair treatment in debating what is clearly, 
unambiguously, the most important issue confronting the country today.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we all know it is rare for the Senate to 
hold a Saturday vote, but the issue before us is too important to wait. 
There are challenges facing America today, but there is no greater 
challenge facing America today than finding a new direction in Iraq.
  Every Senator in this Chamber has a responsibility and an obligation 
to say whether they support or oppose the President's plan to escalate 
the war. Yesterday the House of Representatives acted, 246 to 180, no 
escalation. Now it is the turn of this body, the Senate, to give advice 
to the President that he is wrong in sending tens of thousands more 
American soldiers to a civil war in far away Iraq.
  In a few moments, a vote will occur on a straightforward resolution 
which simply states that we support our troops and oppose escalation of 
the intractable Iraq war. My colleagues on the other side of this 
Senate Chamber, colleagues who blocked an Iraq debate last week, have a 
choice to make. Do they intend to join the American people in opposing 
more of the same in Iraq or do they intend to continue to give the 
President a green light to escalate the war? Let the debate proceed. 
Let the Senate express its views on the issue of our time.
  This month, the Iraq war has cost the lives of three American 
soldiers every day, putting us on pace for the bloodiest February since 
the war began. It is threatening our Nation's strategic interests and 
risking our Nation's security. Today, America has lost 3,133 soldiers 
in the streets and highways of a place called Iraq.
  Mr. BYRD. Shame.
  Mr. REID. We have seen tens of thousands more wounded. The war has 
strained our military and depleted our Treasury of almost $500 billion.
  The Iraqis are dying at a rate of 100 a day in a vicious sectarian 
civil war. Two million Iraqis have left their own country.
  By every measure, the administration's failures have put us into a 
deep hole in Iraq. Yet the President's new old plan--escalation, more 
of the same--won't get us out of the hole. It will only dig the hole 
deeper.
  Our generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the Iraqis themselves have 
told us that escalation will only make Iraq worse, intensify our costs, 
and require even greater sacrifices from the American troops, many of 
whom are being sent to Baghdad today without the proper armor and 
proper equipment and the training they need.
  On this issue--escalation, more of the same--the Senate must speak. 
The Senate, on behalf of the American people, must make it clear to the 
Commander in Chief that he no longer has a rubberstamp. We must show 
the American people that the Senate heard their message last November 
7, and we, as Senators, are fighting for a new direction for the 
134,000 troops already in Iraq and the 48,000 additional troops the 
President would send.
  The Senate owes as much to these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
marines. We must proceed with this debate and change the course of a 
war that has raged going into 5 years now.
  I know some would like to cloud the debate. I know some would like to 
delay the debate. I know some would like to have a different debate. I 
know some would like to have no debate. Most of the Republican minority 
wishes to protect President Bush from an embarrassing vote. They are 
trying to divert attention from the issue at hand. They would like to 
turn the Senate into a procedural quagmire. They want to hide behind 
weak and misleading arguments about the Senate's rules or a Senator's 
right to offer amendments. These arguments are diversions.
  Today's vote is about more than procedure. It is an opportunity to 
send a powerful message: The Senate will no longer sit on the sidelines 
while our troops police an ugly civil war in a nation far away. The 
issue before America today is escalation. The issue before the Senate 
today is escalation. That is why the Senate's responsibility must be to 
vote on escalation and whether the so-called surge is supported or 
opposed.
  This is the choice: More war or less war. I applaud the courage of a 
few hardy Republicans who will vote cloture and allow this vote to 
occur.
  As I said, most of the Republican minority wish to protect President 
Bush from this vote. They intend to vote for what is best for their 
political party. But as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy said, 
``Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.''
  Today in the Senate, Republican party loyalty asks too much. In the 
Senate this Saturday, this February 17, today is the time for Senators 
to vote for openness, for transparency, to show their constituents in 
all 50 States: Do our Senators support or oppose sending 48,000 more 
United States soldiers and marines into the darkness of Iraq?
  During the week we heard speeches about supporting our troops. The 
best

[[Page S2199]]

way to support the troops is to ensure they have a strategy that will 
let them complete their mission so they can come home. We need a new 
direction in Iraq. Escalation is not the answer. More of the same is 
not the answer. The answer is to tell the President: Not more war but 
less war.
  I urge my colleagues to vote cloture and thus vote to change course 
in this bloody war now raging 7,500 miles from this Senate Chamber and 
our beloved United States Capitol.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, pursuant 
to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture 
motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to 
     proceed to S. 574, a bill to express the sense of Congress on 
     Iraq.
         Ben Nelson, Russell D. Feingold, Ben Cardin, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr., Byron L. Dorgan, Amy Klobuchar, Daniel K. 
           Akaka, Maria Cantwell, John Kerry, Ken Salazar, Jack 
           Reed, Chuck Schumer, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Dick 
           Durbin, Tom Harkin, Jay Rockefeller, Harry Reid.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the 
Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to S. 574, a bill to 
express the sense of Congress on Iraq, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from 
Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 51 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--34

     Alexander
     Allard
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bennett
     Bond
     Cochran
     Corker
     Ensign
     Hatch
     Johnson
     Kyl
     McCain
     Murkowski
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 56, the nays 
are 34. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I withdraw the motion to proceed to S. 574.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed is withdrawn.

                          ____________________