[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.
____________________