[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 45 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3162-S3188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     UNITES STATES POLICY IN IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2007--S. J. RES. 9

                                 ______
                                 

 EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO 
UNDERMINE THE SAFETY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OR IMPACT 
 THEIR ABILITY TO COMPLETE THEIR ASSIGNED OR FUTURE MISSIONS.--S. RES. 
                                  107

                                 ______
                                 

  EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT NO FUNDS SHOULD BE CUT OFF OR 
    REDUCED FOR AMERICAN TROOPS IN THE FIELD WHICH WOULD RESULT IN 
 UNDERMINING THEIR SAFETY OR THEIR ABILITY TO COMPLETE THEIR ASSIGNED 
                       MISSIONS.--S. CON. RES. 20

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 4 hours of debate equally 
divided between the parties.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding the debate will 
start with our side. I encourage all Members who wish to be heard on 
our side on any of these resolutions to come to the floor and be heard.
  Let me share some thoughts. This is a rather awkward situation we 
find ourselves in because we are debating three resolutions 
concurrently. Frankly, one of the three I have not even seen yet, so it 
is very difficult to debate something you have never seen. But I do 
know from the past discussions the type of concerns people have, the 
differences between, quite frankly, the Republican side and the 
Democratic side. I know it is not right down party lines, but let me 
share some concerns I have and some thoughts I have.
  We heard from several Senators who expressed their concern over our 
micromanaging the war from this body and from the body of the other 
side. Five hundred and thirty-five people cannot be Commanders in 
Chief. It seems as if that is what is happening. Also, I observe, and I 
am only speaking for myself, that this thing has become highly 
politicized. When the war first started,

[[Page S3163]]

the whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was the media trying to 
make us believe that is what it was all about, but that isn't what it 
was all about.
  I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee during that time, both 
before and after 9/11, and I observed what was going on. I observed 
what was going on in Iraq for a long period of time. I had the honor 
back in 1991 of going to Kuwait on what they called at that time the 
``First Freedom Flight.'' There were Democrats and Republicans on that 
flight. We were the first ones to land in Kuwait. The Iraqis didn't 
even know the war was over at that time, and the oilfields were burning 
in Kuwait. I remember Tony Coelho was one of the Democrats who was on 
the trip, and Alexandria Hague was one of the Republicans on the trip.
  He also had the Ambassador from Kuwait to the United States and his 
daughter on the trip, going back for the first time to Kuwait to see 
what damage was done by Saddam Hussein in Kuwait City. I remember so 
well--I don't recall the age of the daughter; maybe she was about 8 
years old. I remember so well that when we landed, the oil fields were 
burning, Iraqis were still fighting, not knowing there had been an 
agreement and fires should have ceased by that time. They were still 
shooting at each other. When it calmed down, we went to their home.
  Keep in mind the Ambassador to the United States from Kuwait was of 
nobility and he had a daughter with women. They had a mansion on the 
Persian Gulf, a beautiful place. We got there in time to see that their 
house had been used as one of the headquarters of Saddam Hussein. His 
young daughter wanted to see her bedroom, her stuffed animals and 
things girls want to see. We found out her room had been used for a 
torture chamber. There were body parts stuck to the walls, human hair 
and hands, where the torturing had been taking place.
  I think sometimes people forget about how bad this guy was. We hear a 
lot about Adolf Hitler, and this guy was certainly the worst since the 
brutality of Auschwitz and Hitler and, of course, the Holocaust. If you 
had been there and looked down and seen the bodies in the open graves, 
if you heard the testimony from others whose daughters could not get 
married because they could not have weddings on the streets of Baghdad 
because, if they did, people would come in, the Iraqis, and Saddam 
Hussein's sons would come in and mob everybody and they would kill 
people and take the pretty girls and rape them and bury them alive. 
These atrocities that took place were inconceivable to people.
  You don't hear about this in the media. They say they didn't find 
weapons of mass destruction. Well, you know, that is a moot point. 
There were weapons of mass destruction because they used weapons of 
mass destruction. They used them in the northern parts of Iraq. Saddam 
Hussein brutally, painfully murdered his own people, and the types of 
gases used in these weapons of mass destruction were the most painful 
kind that would torture people to death, burn them from the inside out. 
All the time this was happening, we heard testimonials about how Saddam 
Hussein was treating his people he thought perhaps were his enemies and 
didn't follow him after the war in 1991, and how they would put people 
to death, torture them, and drop them into vats of oil. The victims 
would be praying that they would put them in head first because their 
life would be over sooner. It was the same with the massive machines--
like what we call shredders in this country--where they would shred the 
live bodies of these individuals. They used the most brutal types of 
torture imaginable.
  I thought once they get Saddam Hussein and once he is disposed of and 
is dead, people will realize this monster is not coming back. 
Unfortunately, there are other monsters who would take up the mantle. 
These things have gone undiscussed, unnoticed. Even if there had not 
been weapons of mass destruction--which there were, because they used 
them, either chemical or biological, which is just as cruel as nuclear, 
and effective, and it kills many people. Even if that had not been the 
case, America could not stand by and watch that type of thing 
happening.
  I have had the honor of going back more times than any other Member 
of the Senate. I will be going next week. It will be my 13th trip to 
the area of responsibility in Iraq. Each time I come back, after seeing 
the progress that is being made, I read the newspapers, the press 
accounts, and there is no relationship between reality and the press 
accounts we get.
  I had the honor of being in Fallujah during a couple of the 
elections. The Iraqi security forces--people are not aware of this, but 
they allowed them to vote a day in advance of the normal voting that 
took place. I was purposely at a couple of these elections in Fallujah 
because that was where the problems were supposed to exist. That is 
where our marines were. They conducted door to door and they did 
incredible and great work at that time. The Iraqi security forces were 
the first to go down and vote. I remember one night having them come 
back and talk about the threats that had been made on their lives. Some 
were shot during the process. They were willing to risk their lives to 
vote and then to help the people vote the next day. The next day, the 
other Iraqis came to vote. We all heard about the fingerprinting and 
holding up with pride their stained finger, which would be a death 
sentence on individuals. In this country, when such a small percentage 
of the people vote, and we look at those who are willing to risk their 
lives, I think how dear that privilege is and how we do not appreciate 
it as we should.
  Anyway, they voted and, of course, they knew when they were going to 
vote, they would be in harm's way, and many were shot. There are heroic 
stories of Iraqis going to vote where they would lay down their lives 
and get in the line of fire to save somebody else. So these were 
experiences that we had, the real reasons for being there.
  As we approach these resolutions--I see my friend from Missouri is 
here and I will soon yield to him whatever time he asks. As we discuss 
the resolutions, I want people to keep in mind the one thing those of 
us who believe the generals are more capable of running this war than 
are the individuals in this body, the 535 Members of the House and 
Senate--and of the 535, many of them want to be Commander in Chief; 
many are running. The generals make these decisions.
  At this time, I ask my friend from Missouri how much time he wishes.
  Mr. BOND. I would like 15 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield 15 minutes to Senator Bond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I 
appreciate the opportunity to talk about this very important subject. 
Some have said we don't want to debate the war in Iraq, but we have 
been doing that and I am happy to debate it.
  We are at war. One of the jobs of this body is to support our troops 
when we are at war. As such, we should be taking up the supplemental 
war funding bill that will directly support and aid our service men and 
women and support the efforts underway in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I regret the Democratic leadership has chosen to delay acting on 
funds our troops in the field need and must have by the 1st of May. 
Here we go, talking about resolutions. We are taking up nonbinding 
resolutions. The key one is nonsensical; it would serve only to 
undermine the morale of our service men and women and boost the morale 
of our enemies. S.J. Res. 9 has a clear message, if not to Americans 
reading the news, certainly to our enemy: America has been defeated. 
America does not have the will to win. Or we cannot defeat American 
troops on the streets of Iraq, but we can defeat America in the halls 
of Congress. That is what they will be saying.
  Out of the 17 different resolutions the majority has worked with and 
introduced, they have decided to debate S.J. Res. 9--one in a litany of 
defeatist, micromanaging resolutions that have been offered by the 
other side.
  Like so many of the others, it calls for a retreat and it ensures 
defeat. Such a retreat, in its wake, would create a bastion of 
instability, violence, regional conflict, and a launching point for 
future attacks on our allies and this Nation such as that witnessed 
after 9/11. The intelligence community, in public testimony before our 
committee in January, publicly stated that the very real three-pronged 
threat of turning Iraq over to the chaos is a serious challenge we all 
should consider.

[[Page S3164]]

  Fortunately, those of us who believe the generals ought to run the 
war have the Constitution on our side, which specifies that the 
President--not those of us in the 535 Members of Congress--is Commander 
in Chief. The proponents of S.J. Res. 9 to set deadlines must now 
believe they are more equipped, better informed, and have better 
judgment than the leaders and military commanders they recently and 
unanimously confirmed.
  Is the American public to believe that the legislators in these 
beautiful halls, 8,000 miles away from the front, are better equipped 
to develop strategies than General Petraeus, whom this body confirmed 
unanimously to lead U.S. forces?
  I think the Founding Fathers were right at the time and they are 
right now. We do not fight wars in the Halls of Congress. We cannot win 
this war by resolutions we pass, but we can lose the war in the Halls 
of Congress. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to 
cite public opinion polls about Iraq as well as a reason why we should 
pull out. What may be perceived to be popular in the short run, 
regrettably, will in the long run compound into an even bigger problem 
that will end up costing us and our allies far more blood and treasure.
  Further, when it comes to national security, we ought to be governing 
on principles, not on public opinion polls.
  The American people want victory, not defeat. They are demanding 
progress, which the new security plan was designed to produce. 
Incidentally, this new plan fits almost exactly with the 
recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton committee, which so many people 
on both sides of the aisle said would be the ultimate solution. Well, 
General Petraeus and the administration are carrying out the details of 
the Baker-Hamilton plan, and now we are changing our mind. Why? Well, 
some, I fear, may be inspired by a loathing of President Bush. But even 
to those of you who do, I appeal to you to recognize the President is 
not the enemy. The enemy is ruthlessly chopping the heads off innocent 
civilians in front of cameras, blowing up schoolchildren, blowing up 
places of worship. One Army officer recently e-mailed me and said:

       I proudly served in Iraq. I know who the enemies of America 
     are. I have met them in person. Our President is not the 
     enemy.

  This would not be George Bush's defeat or victory. It will be an 
American defeat or victory, and the sooner we understand that, the 
sooner perhaps we can be united.
  Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for 
International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall 
Fund, recently wrote a piece in the Washington Post describing the sad 
state of current political affairs. It was entitled ``Grand Illusion.'' 
In the piece he asserted:

       Democratic and Republican members of Congress are looking 
     for a different kind of political solution: the solution to 
     their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost 
     2 years off.

  This is coming, as he indicates in his article, just as ``American 
soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure 
of peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad.''
  He goes on to say that ``they've launched attacks on Sunni insurgent 
strongholds and begun reining in Moqtada al-Sadr's militia.''
  This is appropriate advice. He says:

       Politicians in both parties should realize that success in 
     this mission is in their interest, as well as the nation's. 
     Here's a wild idea: Forget the political posturing, be 
     responsible, and provide the moral and material support our 
     forces need and expect.

  Despite many people's dissatisfaction with the war, I don't think a 
majority of Americans want us to withdraw, to retreat and admit defeat.
  Throughout the debate, we have also heard references and comparisons 
made to Vietnam, that this is a quagmire, that the war is unjust, 
poorly managed, it threatens our individual liberties, it is 
unwinnable, and the only option is to pull out. All of the very same 
things were said during the campaign against President Lincoln in 1864, 
with well over one-quarter of a million dead Americans; after the Union 
suffered 7,000 casualties in 30 short minutes at Cold Harbor; and until 
Sherman won in Atlanta.
  If you look at our history, anybody getting 24-hour television news 
during the battles Americans fought against the British in 1776, you 
would have had to say we were in worse shape than we are now.
  When you look at the conditions our troops were in before D-Day and 
all the things that went wrong, 24-hour news coverage would have 
convinced an overwhelming majority of the American people to forget it, 
pull the plug, let the Nazis have it. But if somebody used Vietnam as a 
model--and it should be used completely--I think it reminds people of 
the image associated with Vietnam that too many ignore.
  I suspect this is a historical photo that many of our murderous 
enemies dream would be superimposed over the rooftops of Baghdad. These 
are the people left behind. We left behind people. Some 2.5 million 
were murdered after we pulled out of Vietnam.
  This is, of course, the final, classic departure, people trying to 
get away. Those who didn't were slaughtered.
  Our enemies throughout the radical Islamist world are all too 
familiar with immediate withdrawal and retreat. We withdrew from 
Vietnam, we withdrew from Beirut, and we withdrew from Mogadishu.
  These repeated withdrawals signaled to our enemies all over the world 
that if they inflict enough damage on our most heroic citizens, the 
Marines will never surrender but Washington will.
  And make no mistake about it, they are watching. They are watching to 
see what we will do in Iraq.
  These repeated withdrawals invited the 1993 World Trade Center 
attack, the bombings of our embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, the 
Khobar Towers, and eventually 9/11. None of these actions occurred 
because of our action to liberate Iraq. Five or six of these attacks 
occurred before President Bush took office, and George Bush did not 
invent the danger from radical Islam.
  Further, the notion of separating al-Qaida from the sectarian killers 
can only be contemplated from as far away as Washington because al-
Qaida is targeting the mixed neighborhoods and has overtly promised 
sectarian violence to undermine the Iraqi Government and to weaken U.S. 
Government resolve.
  The Democratic resolution before us now is precisely what our enemies 
want to hear and, sadly, are expecting to hear.
  Here are some quotes from one of the people we ought to be reading 
more frequently, Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden said:

       We found that out from our brothers who fought the 
     Americans in Somalia. They did not see it as a power worthy 
     of any mention. . . . God gave them and the mujahideen 
     success in Somalia and the United States pulled out, trailing 
     disappointment, defeat and failure behind it. It achieved 
     nothing. It left quicker than people had imagined.

  That is what Osama bin Laden said on October 21, 2001.
  In addition to that statement, he said on February 14, 2003:

       It has been made clear during our defending and fighting 
     against the American enemy that this enemy's combat strategy 
     is heavily dependent on the psychological aspect of war . . . 
     which hides the cowardice and lack of fighting spirit of the 
     American soldier. . . . Likewise, let me remind you of the 
     defeat of the American forces in Beirut in 1982, soon after 
     the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when the Lebanese resistance 
     was personified by a truck laden with explosives that struck 
     the main military base of the U.S. Marines in Beirut, killing 
     242 soldiers--towards hell was their destination and what an 
     evil destination that is.

  This is what Osama bin Laden thinks of us. He stated many times that 
Americans don't have the stomach for conflict and this Democratic 
resolution embodies that very notion.
  What Osama bin Laden and the enemies we are fighting against expect 
to see is Vietnam. Let's give General Petraeus more confidence. General 
Petraeus was confirmed unanimously. He stated that the effort in Iraq 
will have to be sustained to achieve its desired effect and that more 
troops are vital to advancing security. We confirmed him unanimously. 
Give him a chance.
  He reported last week that nine Iraqi reinforcement battalions have 
entered Baghdad. He pointed to a decrease in sectarian killings, the 
discovery of numerous weapons caches, and the capture of al-Qaida 
members. Al-Sadr has fled Sadr City, and al-Baghdadi was recently 
reported caught.
  Associated Press reporter Robert Reid recently reported General

[[Page S3165]]

Petraeus walking through the streets of Hit, a Sunni city with a bloody 
past. Last month in the article, he reported:

       Iraqi police backed by U.S. troops swept through the city 
     of about 120,000 people, arresting suspected insurgents and 
     establishing three new police stations in the downtown area. 
     Since then, the number of violent incidents has dropped from 
     an average of 5 per day to 1.3 per day.

  Now that a relative level of security has been established, the 
important political and economic development work must begin.
  In the past, the United States had claimed similar victories in Hit, 
but those gains were lost because of lack of enough troops to sustain 
the province.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      [From the Associated Press]

                      Walk Delivers a U.S. Message

                          (By Robert H. Reid)

       HIT, Iraq.--The top U.S. commander in Iraq strolled 
     Saturday through the streets of a dusty Euphrates River city.
       Gen. David Petraeus was snacking on ice cream and promoting 
     cooperation between Americans and Iraqis in a Sunni Arab 
     community where insurgents have been driven out before, only 
     to return.
       Petraeus visited Hit, scene of bloody fights with 
     insurgents for the last three years, to affirm U.S. support 
     for a nascent city administration and to deliver a message 
     that U.S. troops will remain here until Iraqi forces are 
     genuinely ready to provide their own security.
       To demonstrate his confidence, Petraeus, accompanied by 
     dozens of armed U.S. troops and Iraqi policemen, strolled 
     down the main street, stopping to buy ice cream from a vendor 
     and wandering through the city market, where snipers were 
     taking potshots at U.S. patrols just months ago.
       ``Iraq presents its own complex set of challenges, and you 
     have to do one city at a time,'' Petraeus said as he beamed 
     at hesitant crowds and delivered Arabic greetings to small 
     groups of young boys who stared at the entourage from the 
     curb.
       Few of the Iraqis returned the greeting and most kept back, 
     perhaps intimidated by the stern-faced, gun-toting Iraqi 
     policemen who appeared keen to make sure nothing went awry 
     during the visit.
       Nevertheless, the fact that a senior American general could 
     walk through the public market in a Sunni city with such a 
     bloody past indicated a degree of progress that U.S. 
     commanders are eager to exploit. It is key to the new U.S. 
     strategy of clearing areas of insurgents and then remaining 
     to promote economic and quality-of-life projects. In the 
     past, Iraqi forces have failed to maintain control once the 
     Americans were gone.
       Last month, Iraqi police backed by U.S. troops swept 
     through the city of about 120,000 people about 100 miles 
     northwest of Baghdad, arresting suspected insurgents and 
     establishing three new police stations in the downtown area.
       Since then, the number of violent incidents--mostly 
     bombings and shootings--has dropped from an average of five 
     per day to about 1.3 a day, the lowest level since March 
     2006, said Lt. Col. Douglas Crissman, commander of the 
     battalion that took part in the sweep.
       The plan is for U.S. and Iraqi checkpoints around the city 
     to turn Hit into a ``gated community'' free of insurgents.
       To convince the locals that better days are ahead, the U.S. 
     plans to fly in $15 million to float the local bank, which 
     will enable retired government employees and soldiers to 
     start receiving pensions and provide cash to bolster the 
     economy.
       The Americans are also encouraging the Shiite-run 
     government in Baghdad to pay more attention to mostly Sunni 
     Anbar province, including authorizing funds to pay for the 
     extra police. But U.S. forces have claimed similar successes 
     in the past in Hit, only to see gains lost because of a lack 
     of enough troops in the province.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, while it is far too premature to declare 
that the new strategy has succeeded, it does indicate there is a 
possibility. As General Abizaid once testified, despair is not a 
policy. It must be given a chance to succeed, and this resolution would 
do nothing to achieve victory. The alternative of retreat and defeat 
would be disastrous.
  What are my colleagues who wish to see us leave Iraq thinking will 
happen once we do? The arguments for retreating before relative 
security is established because we grow tired of the war, because 
mistakes were made or because Americans allegedly want us to leave all 
ignore what the consequences will be if we do leave precipitously on a 
political withdrawal timetable.
  Those who are advocating for retreat and departure from Iraq 
absolutely must address this very difficult question. In other words, 
what is ``Plan Bravo,'' plan B, for those mandating retreat? Are we to 
redeploy forces back home only to have to redeploy them in much larger 
numbers 3, 4, 5 years from now, once Baghdad has turned into a base of 
operations and safe haven for al-Qaida? Will we endure the transfer of 
Islamofascist terrorism and violence occurring in the Middle East back 
to the homeland?
  Mr. President, I ask for an additional 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, are we going to bear witness to a conflict 
between Sunnis and Shiites that would spread into a regional war 
throughout the Middle East? Will we sit idly by while a regional 
conflict ensues that would result in the death of thousands of 
civilians? What will happen when the price of oil goes up? Will we see 
radical Islam taking over more parts of the world? Will we hand them 
Iraq on a silver platter? Will we have to again deploy troops to the 
Middle East?
  To ignore these considerations and questions simply because they are 
not politically palatable is shortsighted at best and dangerous at the 
worst. Those who are attempting to end the war don't want to talk about 
the fact that the war in Iraq will do anything but end. In fact, it 
will only grow more dangerous.
  Mr. President, I suggest that Mr. Kagan had it right. In his article, 
he also said there ought to be a plan B for the Washington Post and 
others who have projected and counted on defeat. What is your plan B if 
General Petraeus's works and you predicted so successfully it won't 
work?
  We need to put the money behind our troops, give General Petraeus the 
support for the new plan with money and support that effort underway. 
Our 130,000 to 150,000 American troops and their families at home are 
depending on us. They have a direct stake in this historic event, and I 
believe that fighting is necessary to prevail over evil.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri. A lot 
of people don't know it, but his family has made a personal sacrifice 
in their efforts in this war. We appreciate that very much. The Senator 
from Missouri outlined the consequences of surrender in a very 
articulate way.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any quorum calls during 
the debate on the Iraq resolutions be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I see no speakers on the other side, so I 
will elaborate on my remarks. I appreciate the fact that the Senator 
from Missouri talked about specifically what would be the consequences 
of timelines or withdrawal. I can speak from personal experience, 
having spent time in Iraq. As I mentioned before, I plan to take my 
13th trip to AOR in a couple of weeks. I believe what is not understood 
by people who are debating these resolutions is some of the good things 
about the Iraqi security forces.
  I had the honor of being in Iraq when some of the new leadership took 
office. I remember Dr. Rubaie, who is the National Security Adviser, 
and Dr. Jassim--I believe he was the Minister of Defense at that time--
they articulated in a very effective way that most of the differences 
between the two major factors over there were Western concepts, were 
Western ideas. It appeared to me that was the case.
  As we debate these resolutions, we need to remember how we got in 
there in the first place. Remember what happened prior to 1991, 
remember the monstrous commissions that were made by Saddam Hussein and 
the number of people, the volumes of people who died tragic, painful 
deaths.
  As far as the Iraqi security forces are concerned, it is pretty 
obvious to me that these individuals want to be in charge. I get the 
idea, when I listen to some of the people on the other side, that the 
Iraqi security forces somehow are inferior, somehow they don't have the 
knowledge and the capability, the potential to become great fighters. 
Yet when I talk with them, they are the ones who are anxious to get 
themselves in a position where they are going to be carrying the load 
for us.
  The whole idea of the embedded training is that we put our people in

[[Page S3166]]

the rear to advise the Iraqis on what to do and to train them while 
they are actually embedded and fighting with them. This has worked very 
effectively. It has been effective.
  I happened to be there at a time when in one of the training areas 
for Iraqi security forces, there was an explosion. Some 40 were killed.
  What the people over here don't understand is the commitment the 
Iraqis have to their own security. It happens that 40 families of those 
who were killed in this blast all supplied another member of their 
family to go in and carry the load for the deceased trainee.
  These individuals are committed. They are as anxious as we are to get 
to the point where they have the capability of offering the security 
against the terrorists. From time to time, they have gotten that way. 
There was a time when the entire western one-third of Baghdad was under 
security control by the Iraqis themselves. They were just not in a 
position to sustain that control.
  We saw the commitment the Iraqis had in Fallujah, when a general who 
had been the brigade commander for Saddam Hussein--this guy hated 
Americans; he was a brigade commander for Saddam Hussein, until we went 
into Fallujah with our Marines and they started the embedded training, 
the embedded training referred to by my friend from Missouri. It was so 
successful and they enjoyed each other so much that this man, this 
general, his name is Mahdi, he looked me in the eyes and said: I hated 
Americans before all this happened. I certainly hated the Marines. When 
they came in and started embedded training, I learned to love them so 
much that when they rotated out, we all got together and we cried.
  This is the commitment the Iraqis have. When you get into one of the 
helicopters and go from place to place, maybe 50 feet off the ground, 
and you see the commitment of these individuals in the small towns and 
the kids who are down there--a lot of times the people who are 
supporting our troops send over candy, cookies, and this type of thing 
don't realize that when our troops get them, they normally repackage 
them, and then as they are in these helicopters going across the 
triangle and other places, you can see the little Iraqi kids out there 
waving American flags and our troops are throwing them candy and 
cookies. This is the type of relationship we don't see in this country.
  Mr. President, while we are calling to make sure that some of them 
get down to the floor from both sides, let me suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senate is now engaged in a historic 
debate about what the United States of America should do with respect 
to the conflict in Iraq. We are scheduled to vote on three resolutions 
at 3:45 this afternoon. I was advised early this morning, about 8 a.m., 
that we would have four resolutions to vote on and that there would be 
a time agreement of some 6 hours, with votes to occur late this 
afternoon. Two of the resolutions among the four were not in existence, 
one of the resolutions has since been dropped, and the fourth 
resolution was made available less than an hour ago. This kind of a 
timetable, it seems to me, is not conducive to the kind of deliberation 
and thought necessary to make intelligent decisions on the momentous 
questions which we are facing.
  We are asking the U.S. military to adopt a timetable to clear out of 
Iraq no later than a year from now, and we have a tough time 
establishing even a timetable as to what the Senate will do in the 
course of a single day.
  As I review the proceedings, it seems to me that the Congress is not 
prepared to act on this subject on this state of the record. It may be 
that the Congress is not competent to act on this kind of an issue. 
There is a maxim that you can't manage effectively by committee, and 
what this concurrent resolution seeks to do is to have management by 
two committees--that is perhaps twice as bad as trying to manage by one 
committee--a committee of 435 in the House of Representatives and a 
committee of 100 here.
  Yesterday, I spoke briefly about S. Res. 9, which has been 
cosponsored by 41 Democrats, no Republicans. I think it is regrettable 
that there appears to be a partisan divide on this subject. This matter 
is too important to be determined by party loyalty. Perhaps a more 
important aspect of noting that the resolution is supported by 41 
Democrats is that it is not supported by 9 Democrats, with 50 Democrats 
in this body. So perhaps it is significant that it is not supported by 
9 Democrats.
  I would be prepared to cross party lines, as I have done in the past 
when I thought it warranted, if I agreed with the thrust of the 
resolution. Seven of us joined with the Democrats in voting for cloture 
several weeks ago to move ahead with the debate and try to come to a 
resolution on the Iraqi issue, and I was one of the seven. I would not 
hesitate to do so again if I agreed, but I cannot agree with the 
proposal which would require that not later than 120 days after 
enactment to have phased redeployment of U.S. forces, with the goal of 
redeploying by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces in Iraq except 
for three conditions: to protect U.S. and coalition personnel, training 
and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism 
operations.
  The thrust, however, is to leave Iraq in about 1 year, and that is to 
ensure defeat. Setting a timetable simply enables our opponents to wait 
us out.
  I think beyond that, the idea of having the Congress of the United 
States micromanage the war is simply not realistic, and perhaps it may 
even be unlawful. As I noted yesterday, in the case of Fleming v. Page, 
in 1850, the Supreme Court said:

       As Commander in Chief, he is authorized to direct the 
     movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at 
     his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem 
     most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy.

  That is a fairly forceful statement that it is not up to the Congress 
to micromanage a war but that it is up to the Commander in Chief, the 
President of the United States.
  That is not to say that the Congress does not have authority in the 
premises. Yesterday, I put into the Record a lengthy letter which I had 
written calling for additional hearings by the Judiciary Committee on 
the relative powers, authority of the Congress under the Constitution, 
with our power of the purse and our power to maintain and direct 
armies, contrasted with the President's power as Commander in Chief.
  I believe, however, it is of questionable legal authority to 
micromanage, and it is definitely impractical for us to seek to 
micromanage if the consequences of giving an order to the President 
would just enable the enemy to wait us out. That is not to say that at 
some time in the future it may be necessary, and there may be a 
considered joint judgment by the Congress, to use the extraordinary 
power of the purse to implement our constitutional authority to 
maintain armies to effectuate a withdrawal.
  Yesterday, I commented on the Senate floor that it would be most 
helpful to have an update from the Department of Defense and the 
Department of State as to whether, since General Petraeus went to Iraq, 
implementing a new strategy as he articulated it to many of us in the 
Congress in meeting with him, whether there have been improvements, so 
that there was some realistic prospect of victory, which is what we 
want. The consequences of defeat are disastrous, but that does not mean 
that we can be in Iraq forever.
  The President, in his State of the Union speech, set two objectives 
for the Iraqis. One was to end the sectarian violence and, secondly, to 
secure Baghdad as indispensable prerequisites for maintaining U.S. 
forces in Iraq. The Iraqis have shown neither the capacity nor the will 
to carry out those objectives. In evaluating the strategy of General 
Petraeus, it would be helpful to know if there have been any positive 
signs or negative signs, giving us some clue as to the prospects of 
victory.
  Through staff, I made an inquiry of the Department of Defense for 
some updated material, and none was available. Similarly, through 
staff, I made an inquiry of the Department of State, asking if there 
had been any results from the change in policy to negotiate

[[Page S3167]]

with Iran and Syria, at least on a multilateral basis. One part of the 
resolution that is supported by 41 Democrats, calling for a 
comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy, has been 
implemented by the Department of State, at least in the incipient 
stages. Even in the absence of any indication of any progress, it seems 
to me unwise, on this state of the record, to set a timetable which 
would just embolden and empower the enemy to win by waiting us out.
  The power of the purse is the ultimate constitutional authority of 
the Congress. Even there, as I noted yesterday in the case of United 
States v. Lovett, in 1946, the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot 
use its appropriations power indirectly to accomplish an 
unconstitutional objective. That still leaves substantial parameters to 
decide what to do.
  The second resolution is the one submitted by Senator Gregg, and 
Senator Gregg articulates a resolution that all of us agree with:

       That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not 
     take any action that will endanger United States military 
     forces in the field. . . .

  That would be unthinkable. No one disagrees with that. Then the Gregg 
resolution goes on to say:

       . . . including the elimination or reduction of funds for 
     troops in the field.

  That phrase could be interpreted to mean that Congress does not have 
the authority to stipulate an elimination or reduction of funds for 
troops in the field so that we couldn't say to the President to reduce 
the troops by a certain date. Or perhaps it should be read in 
conjunction with taking no action to endanger to say you have to be 
down to a certain number by a certain date, as Congress did in 
legislation in 1974, saying that when the war in Vietnam was winding 
down, there could be no more than 4,000 troops in the field in 6 months 
and no more than 3,000 troops in the field in a year. That 
congressional legislation was signed by President Ford, although he 
expressed some reservations. So perhaps the Gregg resolution does not 
purport to totally eliminate the authority of Congress to act by 
cutting off funding if it can be done in a way which does not endanger 
the troops in the field. Certainly the thrust, the gravamen of the 
Gregg resolution is one where there would be no disagreement, we simply 
could not endanger the troops in the field or take any action which 
would endanger them.

  Then the third resolution--which was filed less than an hour ago by 
Senator Murray--sounds very much like the Gregg resolution. It is 
intended, I think, to provide an alternative to the Gregg resolution, 
but it is very close. The Murray resolution provides:

       The President and Congress should not take any action that 
     will endanger the Armed Forces of the United States and will 
     provide necessary funds for training, equipment and other 
     support for troops in the field as such actions will ensure 
     their safety and effectiveness in preparing for and carrying 
     out their assigned missions.

  We all agree with that. Then it goes on to say:

       The President, Congress and the Nation have an obligation 
     to ensure that those who have bravely served this country in 
     time of war receive the medical care and other support they 
     deserve.

  No one could disagree with that. It is a reference to what has 
happened at Walter Reed. Then the third clause in the resolution.

       Resolved: The President and Congress should continue to 
     exercise their constitutional responsibilities to ensure that 
     the Armed Forces have everything they need to perform their 
     assigned or future missions.

  We can't disagree with that. And then:

        . . . review, assess and adjust United States policy and 
     funding as needed to ensure our troops have the best chance 
     for success in Iraq and elsewhere.

  That also is apple pie, motherhood, and milk. There is a little 
implication, on ``review, assess and adjust,'' perhaps a change in 
policy, but it does not say anything definitive.
  There was supposed to have been a fourth resolution offered by 
Senator Warner, who had an earlier resolution which was not taken up by 
the Senate. Senator Warner is to be commended for his service to the 
country, heading the Armed Services Committee, 28 years in this body, 
Secretary of the Navy, served in World War II. He was searching for 
some alternative. But in the absence of any resolution having been 
filed, the inference arises that the search continues. That is where I 
think we are on this issue.
  The electorate spoke last November in disagreeing with United States 
policy in Iraq. The House of Representatives has spoken, disagreeing 
with United States policy in Iraq. The Senate is about to speak, but it 
is highly doubtful--virtually impossible that a forced withdrawal 
within a year will be approved by 60 Members of this body. The 
resolutions by Senator Gregg and Senator Murray are not twins, but they 
are first cousins. But we are still groping for what to do.
  My own sense of the situation is we need to pursue some preliminary 
reports that things are improving and find out if in fact that is true. 
As I look at Iraq--and I used the metaphor yesterday--it is a tunnel 
and we can't see the end of the tunnel. Certainly there is no 
indication that there is a light in the end of the tunnel. I don't like 
being in the tunnel, but I don't know where else to go at the moment.
  I am not going to go with a resolution to leave Iraq, micromanage the 
war, tell the President what to do when we frankly don't know what to 
do. But we are groping. Just as we are unprepared to deal with these 
resolutions in a limited time, by 3:45, we are unprepared to tell the 
military what to do in a year. So I think we need to go back to the 
drawing boards and I think we need to find out more facts. It may be 
General Shinseki was right in 2003, that job required a lot more 
personnel, into the hundreds of thousands, under the Colin Powell 
doctrine of overwhelming force. Maybe that was the course which should 
have been followed. Certainly we don't want to deploy more troops now, 
in those quantities. For General Shinseki's brilliance, he got himself 
fired, ridiculed and fired. We are trying to find out what to do.
  I had an opportunity to visit the Mideast and talk to President Assad 
of Syria last December. President Assad advanced the idea of having an 
international conference before the idea was advanced by Secretary of 
State Condoleezza Rice. I carried that message back and conveyed 
Assad's suggestion to Condoleezza Rice. Whether that had any impact on 
her idea, I don't know. But I do believe--and I said this in a lengthy 
speech on the Senate floor last June, and in an article which appears 
in the current issue of the Washington Quarterly--that dialog should be 
undertaken with Iran and Syria. We have seen the multilateral dialog 
with North Korea, supplemented by direct contracts, bilateral 
negotiations, produce what appears to be an answer to diffusing North 
Korea's possession of nuclear weapons. We don't know for sure because 
that is a very tentative basis, but we made a lot of progress and we 
appear to have an answer.
  I think there is cause for hope that the multilateral talks with Iran 
and Syria, and perhaps bilateral talks, will produce something there. 
So I am going to oppose S. Res. 9 and I am going to support the first 
cousins, the Gregg resolution and the Murray resolution. They say 
something which is obvious. We are not going to take any action to 
endanger the American troops. But that does not mean we are without 
power in the future to use the appropriations power, the power of the 
purse, to put Congress's imprimatur and decision on what is going on.
  The President said for a long time he was the decider. I think he has 
wisely receded a little from that assertion. It is a joint, shared 
responsibility between Congress and the President. There has been a lot 
of talk. I think the American people ought to know there has been a lot 
of--it is more than talk; there has been a lot of very serious thought 
which has been undertaken by the Members of the Congress, both the 
Senate and the House, trying to find a way to have a victory in Iraq. 
Our statements of disagreement with the President do not mean we ought 
to tell him what to do when in fact we do not know what to do.
  For myself, I think we need to find out more about what is happening 
now, both militarily and diplomatically; going back to the drawing 
board and seeing if we can come up with a better answer than the one we 
are facing at the present time.

[[Page S3168]]

  I thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, who is managing the 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I wish to inquire how much time we have remaining on our 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 64 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. INHOFE. Fine. We are next going to hear from the Senator from 
South Carolina. I wish to say, after the conclusion of the remarks, I 
am going to be trying to line up, by unanimous consent, several 
speakers. It is my understanding Senator Byrd wants to come down and 
speak. But between the next speaker and Senator Byrd, we are going to 
try to get some lined up for a period of time. That will be our 
intention.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think Senator Specter, has given a good 
overview of where the Congress finds itself, where it wants to go, and 
how to get there. What I wish to do is give my view for people back 
home and my colleagues about how what we do now, for the moment, could 
affect the overall war on terror, and throw out this proposition: Do we 
believe the outcome in Iraq affects the overall war on terror? Is Iraq 
a central battlefront in the global struggle? I believe the answer is 
clearly yes. You could debate whether going into Iraq was the right 
thing. Clearly that is a debate that will be resolved by historians. We 
are there now. What are the consequences of a failed state in Iraq and 
how likely is that to occur, based on what we do for the moment?
  I would argue very strongly a failed state in Iraq is a tremendous 
defeat in the overall war on terror on several fronts. No. 1, it means 
moderate forces in Iraq were overwhelmed by the extremists. There are 
basically three groups in Iraq trying to kill this infant democracy. 
There is a Shia extremist group that has as its goal a theocracy for 
Iraq where the Shias will dominate the Iraqi landscape and they will 
have an Iranian style theocracy. It may be different in many ways, but 
it will be a religious state.
  The Sunni extremists are trying to seize power and kill this infant 
democracy and rule by the gun, not by the rule of law. They were in 
power during the Saddam era and they want to get back in power. These 
two groups have different views of what to do with a future Iraq, but 
they both come together believing a democracy hurts their agenda.
  Then there is the rest of Iraq, the Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds, 
which I think are the overwhelming majority--and they are struggling to 
create a new democracy out of the ashes of a dictatorship. I want to 
associate myself with some understanding of the struggle they are going 
through because our country went through this very same struggle. It is 
hard to create a democracy, but the benefits are enormous if we can 
pull this off.
  The third group is the most dangerous of all. They are in Iraq to 
kill this infant democracy, not for political power within the border 
of Iraq as their goal but to create a movement that will sweep the 
Mideast. This is the al-Qaida organization within Iraq and associated 
Islamic extremist organizations that have a more regional view of what 
to do. All three groups, the Shia extremists, the Sunni extremists, and 
the foreign fighters, namely al-Qaida, are threatened by democracy in 
different ways.
  Shaikh Mohammed has just admitted in open session in a military 
tribunal that he was in fact the mastermind of 9/11. He went on ad 
nauseam about all the activity he had been involved in for over a 
decade. The point of his testimony was he believes he is at war with 
us. We need to understand we are at war with him. I think for years 
they were fighting us and we did not quite understand they had declared 
war upon us. But we all agree now that al-Qaida is a force that needs 
to be dealt with militarily and that there is a global struggle in 
which they are involved, and that Shaikh Mohammed is a warrior, an 
illegal warrior but nonetheless a warrior. He doesn't have a criminal 
agenda, he has a political agenda and religious agenda, and he 
considers himself a warrior.
  What I hope we can do in Iraq is defeat extremism on all fronts; that 
we could, in fact, defeat al-Qaida in Iraq, which would be a blow to 
their overall regional world agenda.
  What to do? Senator Specter made a good point. Where do we go? 
Congress is trying to find its footing. Congress doesn't want to cut 
off funding. There are different reasons people don't want to cut off 
funding. The polls clearly show that cutting off funding is not 
popular, by the American people. There are Members in the body who do 
want to cut off funding. I respect their point of view because they 
have concluded Iraq is not part of the war on terror in a traditional 
sense; that our involvement in Iraq is doing more damage in the war 
than it is helping.
  I just disagree. I think a loss in Iraq is a huge event in the war on 
terror. And they will come and cast a vote. They will vote against 
Senator Gregg's resolution saying the Congress should cut off funding. 
I respect them, but I think they are wrong.
  Now as to Senator Reid. His motion is that we are going to try to 
send a message to the Maliki Government and other political leaders in 
Iraq by telling them: At a date certain, we are going to start leaving 
if certain things are not done. I understand the point, that they are 
trying to get the moderate forces, the Democratic forces in Iraq, to do 
better and come together quicker.
  My concern is pretty simple. I think Senator Specter expressed it 
very well: The audience of this resolution is not a single audience, 
that the world will be listening and watching what the Senate does.
  If the Senate did pass a resolution setting a specific date--March of 
next year--where we will begin to redeploy if certain things are not 
done in Iraq, then I am convinced that in the Mideast it will be taken 
as a sign of weakness, not strength.
  It will be not a message sent to the moderates alone, it will be a 
message sent to the enemies of democracy. We would be, no matter how 
well intentioned, laying out a roadmap as to how to drive the United 
States out of Iraq. The resolution would have two purposes, one well 
intended: to get the Iraqi Government to do more to expedite the 
political decisionmaking that is required to lead to a successful 
outcome.
  The other consequence would be, we would be telling our enemies in 
great detail: Here is what you have to do to make sure we leave at a 
date certain and that every benchmark we set as to a date becomes a 
benchmark for the enemy. If you can achieve this benchmark, the United 
States will leave. To me, if we ever do that, then we have made a huge 
mistake.
  Senator Specter mentioned some of the mistakes. I think General 
Shinseki was right, we never had enough troops to provide security. We 
planned for the best, never assumed for the worst. On the economic 
projections, in terms of the cost of the war, the military 
understanding of what would happen after the fall of Baghdad, we missed 
it by a mile. We are paying a heavy price for making those mistakes.
  But the biggest mistake is yet to come. If we pass the Reid 
resolution, it would trump every mistake President Bush's team has made 
by a factor of many because it would be, in fact, destroying the last 
best chance we have to salvage democracy in Iraq.
  General Petraeus is our best hope. Reinforcements are needed in Iraq: 
politically, economically, and militarily. Any resolution passed by the 
Senate declaring this operation lost before it is implemented cuts 
General Petraeus's legs out from under him. It would be the biggest 
mistake Congress could make--I would say maybe in American history--to 
a commander in the field. Eighty-one to zero, we sent the general off 
to fight in a war anew, and now we are about to send a message to the 
people he is fighting that on a date certain you win if you do the 
following things.
  This resolution empowers our enemies. It gives them a roadmap of how 
to drive us out of the Mideast. It weakens the ability of General 
Petraeus to form coalitions to give the Iraqi politicians what they 
need to do the things they need to do.
  If you want to empower a moderate, which is key to victory in the 
Mideast in the war on terrorism, the last thing you need to do, in my 
opinion, is make a public statement that our commitment ends at a 
certain date if you do

[[Page S3169]]

not do certain things, because you are telling the enemy exactly what 
they have to do to win out over the moderates and the United States. It 
would be a huge mistake of monumental proportions. I hope this body 
will not allow that to happen.
  What happens if we have a failed state in Iraq? Who is the biggest 
winner if Iraq breaks apart and democracy fails? Iran wins. In the 
south, the Shia south, a very oil-rich area, that most likely will 
become a puppet state of Iran. I cannot say for sure it will, but it is 
the most likely outcome. Let's start, for a change, planning for the 
worst.
  I wish people who were introducing these resolutions would understand 
the consequences of a failed state and ask themselves: Does this 
resolution help create a democracy? Does it empower the enemy? Does it 
help create a failed State? What are the consequences?
  Former Senator Edwards is saying we should draw 50,000 troops down 
today. They asked him the question: What would that mean for regional 
stability? I don't know. I am not sure.
  Well, I can tell you what it means. It would tell the extremists we 
are leaving, you are winning. Every moderate in the Mideast would start 
hedging their bets because what kind of political solution are you 
going to come up with if you believe the American political and 
economic aid to your young democracy will vanish? You start hedging 
your bets.
  The stronger we are, the bolder they become. The weaker we are, the 
bolder the enemy becomes. The stronger America, in a rational way, 
stands by moderate forces, the more likely they are to make the hard 
decisions to bring the country together. The weaker we seem, the weaker 
we portray ourselves, the stronger the enemy of democracy.
  That is what I believe this is all about. You cannot kill the 
terrorists in numbers enough to win the war from an American 
perspective. This war will never be won by the American military 
killing terrorists. They are doing a wonderful job, our military. This 
war will be won when extremism is suppressed within the Mideast by the 
people who live in the Mideast.
  So we have to take sides. This war is a war of religion and origin. 
The origin of this war is not Palestine-Israel, it is bin Laden, Shaikh 
Mohammed, and others who have a view of religion that has no place on 
the planet for the State of Israel or moderate Muslims, Christians, 
Jews. They have said publicly their goal is to drive us out of the 
Mideast, topple all moderate governments that do business with the West 
and essentially destroy Israel. I believe them.
  Iraq is a test of us and our will versus their will. I do hope we 
understand the vote we are about to take will shape the fortunes in 
Iraq in the coming months one way or the other. The decision we take in 
Iraq will shape our national security interests for decades, will 
change the Mideast for the better or for the worse, and will have 
monumental consequences on the war on terrorism.
  This is not about the political moment. This is about the decades to 
follow. Leaving Iraq, from a national security perspective, is not the 
question for the country. We all want to leave sooner rather than later 
for the good of our own troops, and eventually the stability of the 
world, to allow the Iraqis to take over their own destiny.
  The question for this country is what do we leave behind? I am 
convinced if we leave behind a failed State, where moderates are 
overwhelmed by extremists, the problems in Iraq spill out to the 
Mideast, and the war does not end when you leave Iraq, it just begins.
  You need to look at Shaikh Mohammed and what he said a few days ago, 
and what they are saying now, al-Qaida. Understand that they believe 
the outcome in Iraq is part of the war on terror. I believe it. These 
resolutions, in my opinion, do not understand that.
  As to General Petraeus, I have a lot of confidence in this new plan. 
It is not more of the same. It is trying to go at the problems in Iraq 
new and differently. There are early signs of success. There is a long 
way to go, But please understand the General and those who are under 
his command are affected by our actions in Washington. The world is 
watching. Please do not send a message to the wrong people, no matter 
how well intended.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, let me thank the Senator from South 
Carolina, who has been steadfast all the way through this, and who has 
made such great contributions. In addition to what he said, I think it 
is worth observing that this is working.
  In this morning's Washington Post, there is an article about the 
successes that are taking place. The top U.S. military spokesman in 
Baghdad said the number of sectarian killings has dropped since the 
operation began in mid-February.
  Then on the other side, GEN Qassim al-Mousawi, who is the Iraqi 
military spokesman, also offered an upbeat assessment of the Baghdad 
security plan and how well it is working now. So I think, frankly, this 
is sooner than I thought we would be getting some positive results.
  Let me also make one observation before going on to the next 
speakers. That is, after receiving rather late the resolution by 
Senator Murray, 107, in reading it, unless I misread it, it appears to 
me she is outlining some things that are pretty consistent with what is 
in the Gregg resolution. So I do not know--with the three resolutions 
we have--the order. That is going to be determined, but right now we 
are not sure of it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West 
Virginia, Mr. Byrd, be recognized for 20 minutes, followed by Senator 
Ensign for 7 minutes, followed by Senator Tester for 10 minutes, 
followed by Senator Kyl for 7 minutes, then any intervening Democrat, 
to be followed by Republican Senators Brownback, Warner, and Vitter for 
7 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, along with my Democratic colleagues, I 
intend to vote for the Reid resolution, S.J. Res. 9. I have some 
concerns with the approach in this resolution--I firmly believe that 
the Congress must address the open-ended 2002 authorization to use 
force in Iraq, which is not dealt with in this resolution--but I 
certainly agree with the Reid resolution's intent. There is a diversity 
of views in both parties about our policy in Iraq, but a majority of 
the American people are united in the firm belief that a change of 
course is long overdue. Fifty-nine percent of Americans believe that 
the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq. Sixty 
percent favor withdrawing all U.S. troops by the end of next year. The 
American people are speaking, and finally their Representatives in the 
Congress are listening.
  Some of us may disagree about the best way to effect a change of 
course in Iraq, but this debate shows one thing--it is time for a new 
plan, time for a real discussion, not more empty rhetoric about ``stay 
the course'' versus ``cut and run.'' This administration is fond of 
referring to the powers of the Commander in Chief, but surely the most 
important responsibility of any Commander in Chief is to provide solid 
leadership. As President Harry Truman said: ``The buck stops here.'' 
But we are entering the fifth year of this misbegotten war, and this 
President has failed time and time again to articulate a plan, a plan 
to give a clear reason for why we are in Iraq or to outline a strategy 
for bringing our troops home. Stubbornly denying that Iraq is engaged 
in a civil war is not leadership. The White House has abdicated its 
leadership on this issue, so it is left to the Congress--that is us--to 
speak for the American people.

  The hue and cry raised from my colleagues across the aisle and from 
the White House is that those who do not support this disastrous war do 
not support the troops. Three thousand one hundred and eighty-nine 
soldiers have now died in Iraq. Thousands more have been wounded and 
maimed and have come home to find outrageous and dehumanizing 
treatment. Truly supporting our troops means not putting them into 
harm's way without a clear plan for success and unless it is absolutely 
necessary. It means not asking our sons and daughters, our best and our 
brightest, to make the ultimate sacrifice without being able to 
articulate exactly why they are being asked

[[Page S3170]]

to do so and exactly what we will accomplish as a result. Supporting 
our troops means treating our wounded men and women with dignity. It 
means not sending them to recuperate in mold-filled rooms without 
supervision and without assistance in a morass of paperwork. It means 
not sending back to the front lines those too wounded to fight, as this 
administration is doing.
  I continue to receive letters and phone calls from service men and 
women, troops currently serving in Iraq, thanking me for my stand--yes, 
my stand--against this war. The troops are not the ones criticizing our 
attempts to bring them home. The troops are the first to say there is 
no military solution to the situation in Iraq, only a political 
solution. The Iraqis will have to assume leadership of their own 
country and start making political compromises to overcome the ethnic 
and sectarian divisions that are splitting the country apart. There is 
no military solution, none, no military solution for Iraq. A national 
reconciliation is the only solution for that war-torn country, and we 
do not need another 3,000 young lives lost to learn that.
  We were wrong--and I said so at the time--to invade. We were wrong to 
think that victory would be quick and easy. We are wrong to stay on in 
an occupation which earns us only hatred with no end, no end, no end in 
sight. Our young men and our young women now find themselves in the 
crossfire of a civil war. Nearly every one--nearly every one--except 
our Commander in Chief realizes that there is no military solution. To 
continue this ill-advised and demoralizing war only damages our 
wonderful country in the eyes of the world and chews up lives, both 
American and Iraqi. I have said it before--yes, I will say it again, 
yes--democracy cannot be force-fed from the point of a gun.
  Let this debate mark the beginning of a way out, out, out of Iraq. 
Let this Congress begin to understand why the Framers of this 
Constitution gave the power to declare war to the Congress, the 
representatives of the people we send to fight and to die for our 
country. Let us begin to put some sanity--sanity--in our foreign policy 
again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about S.J. 
Res. 9 and the consequences of failure in Iraq.
  I want to begin by reviewing just how Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida 
see themselves achieving ultimate victory in Iraq.
  You don't have to be a serious student of history to realize that as 
of late, America has not exactly demonstrated the kind of collective 
will necessary to successfully complete military missions abroad.
  As a nation, it seems easy, maybe too easy, to commit ourselves, 
through our military, into foreign lands in an attempt to accomplish 
what we believe is right, either to protect our vital national 
interests or to free a people from bondage, or in the case of Iraq to 
try to accomplish both.
  Whatever the reason for committing ourselves to a noble cause 
overseas, America ventures into another country with only the best of 
intentions, and for a while the American people and her politicians 
overwhelmingly support our military and its mission.
  Then, when we see that victory is not as easy or as immediate as we 
had initially hoped, we start down a road of self doubt. We convince 
ourselves that our military mission was probably not all that important 
in the first place. We somehow twist our values to accommodate an 
opinion that our military expedition is not worth the effort we need to 
expend in order to be successful. We recoil once the realization hits 
us that lives and treasure are the ``coin of the realm'' when it comes 
to using our military to ensure our continued national security. And 
for too long our adversaries have witnessed this reluctance, this lack 
of will, to finish the task at hand. In 1982, America deployed her 
military to separate warring factions in Lebanon. We went in with only 
the best of intentions. People were being killed and it was up to us to 
``do something'' about it.
  Then, on October 23, 1983, two truckbombs detonated in buildings 
housing American forces in downtown Beirut. Two hundered forty-one U.S. 
marines, sailors, and soldiers lost their lives that day. Six months 
later, America had had enough and we were out of Beirut.
  The Lebanese civil war would rage on for another decade, and during 
that time countless Lebanese, Palestinians, and Israelis would suffer 
as a result of our abdication of responsibility.
  As had always been the case before, our adversaries did not pursue us 
back to our shores to do us harm. But they did observe and they did 
note that the American public, led by her elected officials took the 
easy way out and departed before completing our intended mission.
  In 1993, the United States once again sought to ``do something'' to 
end a humanitarian crisis that was taking place on the African 
continent. In a country with no functioning central government, 
warlords ruled their individual pieces of territory within Somalia as 
personal fiefdoms.
  The Somali people were fodder as the warlords battled each other for 
control of land and resources. People were being killed. If they were 
not being killed by bullets, they were being starved to death.
  Although the situation in Somalia did not directly affect our 
national security, American leaders at that time answered the call to 
``do something'' to alleviate the human suffering Americans were 
witnessing nightly as part of their television news shows and reading 
in the daily editorial columns of most big city newspapers.
  Our leaders once again answered the call by sending our young men and 
women in uniform to a foreign land to ``fix things.'' Soon, our 
military had its mission expanded beyond providing humanitarian 
assistance.
  Part of this new mission involved capturing and/or killing the Somali 
warlords responsible for the pain inflicted on their fellow citizens. 
As part of this new mission, Army Rangers conducted an assault on 
Somali forces in what has come to be known as the ``Black Hawk Down'' 
incident.
  Here, two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down and 19 of our Rangers 
killed. In the days following, film footage was broadcast over and over 
again on television that showed the lifeless bodies of our soldiers 
being desecrated as they were dragged through the streets.
  This footage both shocked and humbled us. The support for our mission 
to do good things in Somalia quickly evaporated. The costs had become 
too great to bear. It was no longer that important to do the right 
thing and we subsequently withdrew our forces from the region.
  Once again, our adversaries watched as the world's superpower 
retreated from the fight. Today, Somalia continues to flounder as a 
failed state and a haven for Islamic radicalism on the eastern coast of 
Africa.
  In a 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller, Osama bin Laden said that 
the Clinton administration's decision to withdraw from Somalia had 
emboldened his burgeoning al-Qaida force and encouraged him to plan new 
attacks.
  ``Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is 
a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows,'' the terror 
chief recalled. ``America forgot all about the hoopla and media 
propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.''
  And those attacks promised by bin Laden did come.
  On August 7, 1998, al-Qaida decided to test our mettle by 
simultaneously bombing our Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and in the 
process killed 257 people and wounded over 4,000.
  Our tepid response once again gave Osama bin Laden comfort.
  Since the Clinton administration had chosen to treat terrorist 
attacks as law enforcement matters, America sought to prosecute in our 
courts those responsible. Osama bin Laden was soon placed atop the 
FBI's Ten Most Wanted List.
  Along with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 Khobar 
Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in 
Yemen, the Embassy bombing were two of the major anti-American 
terrorist attacks that preceded 9/11.
  The United States responded to the Embassy attacks by freezing 
financial

[[Page S3171]]

assets of related parties and by firing some missiles into al-Qaida 
training camps in Afghanistan.
  The attack in Afghanistan destroyed some physical targets. However, 
the operation did not accomplish the destruction of bin Laden and his 
operatives and did not lead to any significant changes in the al-Qaida 
network and leadership.
  Al-Qaida grew bolder, stronger, and more capable as we sat on our 
hands.
  And so, here we are today, facing an embolden enemy bent on our 
destruction who has convinced himself that he possesses the will to 
break our spirit. He has done it before and he is convinced he can do 
it again this time.
  The sad part about all this is that Osama bin Laden may very well be 
right this time.
  Today we stand here debating a resolution of appeasement that 
directly affects our military strategy in Iraq and, by default, our 
overall national security for years to come.
  This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw 
our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the 
consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is 
unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations.
  I agree with the President's assessment that this legislation before 
us would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially 
endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic 
Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the 
war against Islamic fascism.
  The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality 
Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in 
Iraq the U.S. Congress loses its will to fight. We precipitously 
withdraw our forces and leave the fledgling Iraqi government to fend 
for itself; Sunni and Shia factions rip the nation apart at a scale 
previously unimaginable. There is a mass exodus of refugees out of 
Iraq, and no mechanism in place to deal with them. Iran, Syria, Saudi 
Arabia and other states in the region feel the need to get involved.
  This is a terrible scenario, but it is not the worst of scenarios. 
Bin Laden's nightmare vision also involves a chaotic Iraq with Sunni 
dominated areas like al-Anbar Province becoming a safe haven from which 
al-Qaida can launch attacks against the United States.
  And we could see the Shiite dominated areas, with the help of Iran, 
and its own oil wealth, be used as a terrorist breeding ground, as 
well.
  Make no mistake. The Iraqi situation is vastly different from Beirut, 
different from Somalia, and, different from the bombing of our African 
Embassies.
  Iraq has consequences that will surely be felt here at home and 
around the world. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as 
night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home.
  I believe this.
  We will be sorry and we will regret having once again left unfinished 
our national security obligations. But by then it will be too late for 
regrets.
  We will find that as strong and powerful and compassionate as we 
think we are, we cannot ``unring'' the bell. The damage will have been 
done.
  Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida followers are convinced that America 
is weak and decadent and they can succeed in grinding down our resolve 
and forcing us to retreat.
  Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to 
stay in the fight.
  He is a murderer. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is 
determined to destroy us and our way of life.
  Let us resolve today not to also make him a prognosticator of things 
to come.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided legislation. We cannot 
afford to leave this fight at this time. For the sake of America's 
future, we cannot afford to fail.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Montana is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I doubt I will use it all, but I thank the 
Presiding Officer very much.
  Mr. President, I am here to address S.J. Res. 9. I am glad we have 
gotten to a point where we can debate this war in Iraq and vote. That 
is what we are all sent here to do. This war did not start yesterday. 
We are 4 years into this bloody war, at a cost of $2 billion a week, 
monetarily, and nearly $500 billion since we started 4 years ago. More 
importantly, we have lost nearly 3,200 of our Nation's best people. 
Soldiers, sailors, and marines have made the ultimate sacrifice; 17 
from my home State of Montana. Twenty-four thousand more have been 
seriously wounded. An entire generation in this country has been marked 
by the injuries in this battlefield.
  Yesterday, the Pentagon admitted something we have known for a long 
time: that our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The 
administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. 
This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have 
all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a 
drawdown of our troops.
  As unclear as the President's plan for Iraq has been, our mission for 
our troops is more blurred. The original mission was to find weapons of 
mass destruction, to topple Saddam Hussein, to train the Iraqi troops, 
and to turn Iraq into a model to transform the Middle East.
  Our troops have done an incredible job. They and their families have 
given far more than most of us can imagine. It truly is time now to 
take a different direction. Our troops need a plan for success and a 
clear mission. The current plan of ``stay the course'' has failed. We 
now have an open commitment with no end in sight. We need a new 
direction, and we owe it not only to our troops but we owe it to the 
people of this country.
  I strongly support the legislation put forth by Majority Leader Reid. 
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this measure. It is a good first step--
finally--to put an end to this war. Also, it is a good first step to 
the political and diplomatic solution this war needs to have happen to 
end this war.
  This measure directly addresses my biggest concerns in Iraq. I 
support the legislation because it is a first step. We can begin 
redeployment of troops with the goal of removing most of those U.S. 
troops by March 31, 2008. It requires Iraqis to take an active role in 
their future, which is critically important. Also, as was pointed out 
last week, we cannot win every conflict with bullets. This forces Iraq 
to move forward toward a political and diplomatic solution.
  This legislation focuses our mission and responsibly ends the war 
within 1 year, and after March 31, 2008, remaining American troops will 
still be there to protect American and coalition interests, to still 
continue to train these Iraqi forces, and, most importantly, to seek 
out and bring the terrorists to justice.
  The fact is, this war has taken our eye off the war on terror. Osama 
bin Laden still runs free. We do not know where he is. I wholeheartedly 
support this legislation and will vote for it. The combined effort of 
this legislation will allow Iraq to stand on its own two feet. I urge 
my colleagues to look beyond partisan politics and vote for a long 
overdue change of course for this 4-year-old war. We cannot afford this 
war monetarily or from a people standpoint. It is time to pass S.J. 
Res. 9.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized for 7 minutes.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I, too, rise to talk about this very 
important matter we are debating and voting on today, the situation in 
Iraq.
  First, I want to say hallelujah, we are finally having a full, open 
debate and a range of votes. That is exactly what I have been pushing 
for, pleading for, asking for, along with so many of my colleagues on 
the Republican side. I am very glad finally we do have a full and fair 
and open debate, with the ability to cast votes on measures we deem 
very important, and specifically the Gregg resolution about supporting 
our troops in the field.
  Secondly, I want to express real reservations about the Reid 
resolution, which we will also be voting on today.
  The situation in Iraq is very tough. We need to make a final push, 
and certainly the biggest part of that push does need to be strong 
action by the Iraqi Government. We need benchmarks and pressure on the 
Iraqis to do the right thing. I specifically talked

[[Page S3172]]

about that. But the Reid resolution does some things I believe we 
absolutely must not do. Specifically, it sets very precise and 
complicated and cumbersome dates certain. I believe that is much more 
useful as a message to the enemy and a help to the enemy than a roadmap 
for us.
  In addition, I think the Reid resolution clearly micromanages the 
war. It clearly oversteps our bounds as a legislative body by taking on 
the responsibilities and the management and the function of the 
Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, for that reason, I think that aspect of 
the Reid resolution is, No. 1, a bad idea, but, No. 2, very possibly 
unconstitutional.
  I will be voting against that Reid resolution. But again, I thank 
everyone who finally, after weeks and weeks of talk--finally--gave us 
the opportunity for these votes and for a vote on the Gregg resolution 
and other important matters.
  The third and final point I want to make goes to the path, 
unfortunately, I think we are headed down with some of this language. I 
think this is very unfortunate, and I think this path and where it is 
headed, in my opinion, is something we must all work to avoid. Let me 
explain what I mean.
  Senator Reid has made it perfectly clear he will put forward his 
resolution today with all of those complicated dates and timetables and 
what-ifs and benchmarks. Again, I have problems with that; I will vote 
no. But Senator Reid has also made clear he will also put forward the 
exact same substance in the context of the emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill to fund our men and women in uniform in the field 
in Iraq.
  Now, why is that a problem? Well, it is a problem for the following 
reasons: that emergency supplemental bill is needed, as I just said, to 
fund the men and women in uniform in the field right now, under fire, 
risking their lives in Iraq.
  We have all said over and over and over that no matter how we feel 
about the war, no matter what we put forward as the proper policy on 
the war effort, we would give our men and women in uniform in the field 
what they need to do their job and defend themselves. The problem is 
this Reid language, particularly the threat to put it on the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill, threatens to cut that funding off 
because that language, if it gets on the bill, will, first of all, 
delay debate and implementation of the bill, and secondly, if it is in 
the final version of that spending bill, it will absolutely--
absolutely--produce a veto by the President of the United States. He 
cannot agree to that language because of his position on the proper 
path forward, and no President can agree to that language because of 
the constitutional power of the President as the Commander in Chief. 
That will further delay this emergency spending bill and further delay 
getting necessary funds and equipment to troops in the field.
  The military has said very clearly we need to act by April 15 so 
those funds and that equipment can get to the field starting in early 
May. Our troops are counting on it. They are waiting for it. These are 
men and women in uniform, in the field, under fire right now. But, 
again, this strategy and this language of Senator Reid will make it 
very likely that won't happen and will make it very likely this whole 
matter and this whole spending to get to our troops in the field will 
be significantly delayed. That is not funding men and women in uniform. 
That is not supporting our troops in the field. What that is doing is 
refraining from supporting them, slowly bleeding away the resources, 
the equipment, and the money they need to do their job.
  It is one thing to say: New troops, you are not going anywhere. You 
stay right here. We are having this debate. But it is quite another to 
slowly bleed and endanger troops in the field. Yet this is the path 
that I am very afraid we are embarking on with the Reid language, 
particularly if it is put on the emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill.
  In closing, let me say, we have all said on this floor, virtually to 
a person in the U.S. Senate, that no matter what we think about the 
war, no matter what we think about the right path forward in the war, 
we will not endanger our troops in the field. We better think long and 
hard about the path some would adopt because they are beginning to do 
just that. We can't have that. We need to give our brave, smart, 
courageous men and women in the field already the money, the equipment, 
the resources they need to do their job. They are literally under fire 
there. We cannot bleed away what they need in the field, quickly, 
slowly, or anything inbetween.
  Again, I am very concerned that is the path Senator Reid and some 
others would put us on.
  So, thankfully, we are having this full and open debate today. We 
will be having votes today. I believe the most important vote is on the 
Gregg resolution. I will proudly vote for that in support of our men 
and women in uniform in the field, and I will do everything I can to 
avoid slowly, quickly, or anything inbetween bleeding resources, money, 
and equipment away from what those brave men and women whom we have 
already put in the field need to defend themselves and to conduct their 
mission.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Wisconsin is 
recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I spoke yesterday in favor of the 
resolution introduced by Senator Reid, S.J. Res. 9. By bringing the 
current open-ended military mission to a close and requiring the 
funding of U.S. troops, the Reid resolution takes a significant, 
binding step toward ending our involvement in the war in Iraq. I am 
pleased that the Senate will have the opportunity to vote on that 
resolution shortly.
  The Senate will also be voting, as the Senator from Louisiana just 
pointed out, on another resolution regarding Iraq sponsored by the 
senior Senator from New Hampshire. Unfortunately, this resolution is 
badly flawed, and I strongly oppose it. My chief objection is simple. 
The resolution rejects the idea of Congress using its power of the 
purse to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. Moreover, it does so in 
a manner that can only be described as inaccurate and almost 
intellectually dishonest. By warning against ``the elimination or 
reduction of funds for troops in the field,'' the resolution fully 
embraces the misleading rhetoric the White House has used to try to 
prevent serious discussion of Congress ending the war. Those who engage 
in such rhetoric pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same 
as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops 
somehow being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment, 
and resources they need.
  Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. Every Member of 
Congress agrees we must continue to support our troops and give them 
the resources and support they need. Not a single Member would ever 
vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. 
Using our power of the purse to end our involvement in the war can and 
would be done without in any way impairing the safety of our brave 
servicemembers. By setting a date after which funding for the war will 
be terminated, as I have proposed, Congress can safely bring our troops 
out of harm's way.

  How can I say this with such confidence? There really is plenty of 
precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop 
U.S. involvement in armed conflict.
  I recently chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing entitled 
``Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power To End a War.'' Without 
exception, every witness--those called by the majority and those called 
by the minority--did not challenge the constitutionality of Congress's 
authority to end a war. Lou Fisher with the Library of Congress, one of 
the foremost experts on separation of powers issues, pointed out that 
Congress does not simply have the power, it has a responsibility, to 
exercise it when it is needed. He said:

       The question to me, always remember, Congress, is the 
     continued use of military force and a military commitment in 
     the Nation's interest? That is the core question. Once you 
     decide that, if you decide it is not in the national 
     interest, you certainly do not want to continue putting U.S. 
     troops in harm's way.

  The argument that cutting off funding for a flawed policy would hurt 
the troops, and that continuing to put U.S.

[[Page S3173]]

troops in harm's way supports the troops, makes no sense. By ending 
funding for the war, we can bring our troops safely out of Iraq.
  Walter Dellinger of the Duke Law School made this point when he 
testified about my proposal:

       There would not be one penny less for the salary of the 
     troops. There would not be one penny less for the benefit of 
     the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or 
     ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or 
     for support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other 
     areas where the armed forces are utilized.

  So instead of allowing the President's failed policy to continue, 
Congress can and should use its power of the purse to end our 
involvement in the Iraq war, safely redeploying the troops while 
ensuring, as I do in my bill and as the Reid resolution permits, that 
important counterterrorism and other limited operations are still 
carried out.
  Now, for those who don't believe this has ever been done or for those 
who say it can't be done, let me cite an example from not that long 
ago. In October of 1993, Congress enacted an amendment sponsored by the 
senior Senator from West Virginia cutting off funding--cutting off 
funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, 
with limited exceptions. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment. 
Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator 
Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator 
Specter, Senator Stevens, and Senator Warner.
  Now, did those eight Senators and many Democratic Senators who joined 
them act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in 
Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they 
indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform? Of 
course not. All of these Members recognized that Congress had the power 
and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a 
close by establishing a date after which the funds would be terminated.
  Now, on that same day with regard to Somalia, several Senators, 
myself included, supported an even stronger effort to end funding for 
operations in Somalia. The amendment offered by Senator McCain on 
October 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for Somalia right away, 
except for funds for withdrawal, or in the case of American POWs, MIAs 
not being accounted for. Thirty-eight Senators opposed a measure to 
table that amendment. I was joined by many Republican Senators in 
supporting the amendment, including none other than the current sponsor 
of S. Con. Res. 20, Senator Gregg. Senator Gregg suggests in that 
resolution that eliminating funds for troops would undermine their 
safety. Was he voting 14 years ago to do that? Obviously, he would not 
do that. In 1993, was he committing the same egregious offense that he 
so strongly opposes in 2007? Could he have been so cavalier about the 
safety of our troops? Not the Senator I know. He would never have been 
indifferent to their need for guns or ammunition or food or clothing, 
nor would I, nor would any other Member of this body. Of course not.
  Senator Gregg knew, as did I, that Senator McCain was proposing an 
appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to 
bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way 
harming our troops.
  Unfortunately, the new Gregg resolution seems to have forgotten this 
point. I hope that my colleagues will think better of efforts such as 
that proposed by Senator Gregg today. All Senators, including the 
distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire, are, of course, 
entitled to their opinions, and all Senators are certainly entitled to 
oppose my efforts to end funding for a disastrous war. But by putting 
forth misleading and baseless arguments, by suggesting that ending 
funding for the war is tantamount to ending funding for the troops, 
they are making it that much harder to have the open, honest, and 
essential debate about the Iraq war that this body and the American 
people so badly need.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, we are debating a serious proposal with 
respect to the future of our involvement in Iraq and the future of Iraq 
and, indeed, that region of the world. I believe the proposal Senator 
Harry Reid of Nevada advanced is a sensible way to begin to change our 
policy, so it can be sustained over time and it can lead to a 
successful termination of our operations in Iraq but, more importantly, 
give the Iraqis the opportunity to establish a stable government in a 
very difficult part of the world.
  The elements of the proposal that Senator Reid has advanced, are 
right on target. First, to define the mission in a way that they can be 
fully supported by the United States and also that they are congruent 
with our best interests in the region and the world. Next, obviously, 
is force protection. We have to be able to assure our forces that they 
can protect themselves at all times. Third, to continue to develop the 
Iraqi security forces--not just to put guns in their hands but to 
develop their capacity to do other things, such as civil affairs, 
intelligence operations, those critical military skills that will allow 
them to be an effective force in their country, to bring not just 
stability but a sense of competence, coherence to the operation of 
their Government.
  The next mission is the constant attention to counterterrorism. This 
is a mission that I believe transcends every border in the world. 
Wherever there are those elements that are actively plotting to attack 
us or our allies, we should be prepared, together with local 
authorities, if they are cooperative, to take these elements out very 
dramatically, preemptively. That is essentially what we did in Somalia, 
without the presence of hundreds of thousands of American troops in 
Somalia. But we had the special operations capacity, intelligence, and 
the cooperation of local parties so we could do that.
  Those are the three critical missions I believe we have in Iraq that 
will be longer term. But I think, also, when recognizing those 
missions, we can begin to recognize and begin to redeploy our combat 
brigades that are there. They are essentially now engaged in a civil 
war, a sectarian battle between the Sunnis and Shia in Baghdad, but not 
just there. These forces we have to begin to redeploy away from Iraq. 
Initially, they could be redeployed within the country, to adjacent 
countries, and at some time back to their home stations. I think this 
is the wisest course.
  I hope, as the legislation suggests, we could at least have as a goal 
March of 2008 for the redeployment of these combat brigades, 
understanding that these residual missions--force protection, training 
Iraqi security forces, and counterterrorism--will endure. That is a 
wise policy that is consistent with our national security objectives 
and also consistent with our ability and the ability of the American 
people to sustain these efforts over many months.
  The continued course of simply adding more troops and hoping for the 
best, which is the President's strategy, is not going to work. More 
importantly, I cannot see it being sustained indefinitely by the 
American people or supported by a terribly overstretched military 
force, particularly our Army and Marine Corps.
  This whole approach to Iraq, I believe, from the very beginning, was 
a flawed strategy. It disregarded fundamental aspects of any coherent 
strategy--identify the most serious threat and apply adequate, very 
robust resources to the threat. Iraq wasn't the most serious threat in 
that region. Iran is much more powerful and much more potentially 
dangerous and, also, at that juncture, the most serious threat, and 
still lingering are the international terror cells.
  But this administration, against my judgment, entered into this 
conflict in Iraq. Not only did they have a flawed strategy, but the 
execution has been horrific, incompetent. Today, we are left with very 
few good choices. One of the most revealing aspects of why the 
strategic decisions made by the administration were so faulty was given 
a few weeks ago when I asked Admiral

[[Page S3174]]

McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence: What is the most 
likely source of an attack on the United States, groups in Iraq or 
groups in Pakistan? His answer, without any delay, immediately, was: 
``Pakistan, of course.'' So we have invested billions and billions of 
dollars, 140,000-plus troops, over 3,000 Americans killed in action, 
many more seriously wounded, and yesterday, the highest intelligence 
official in the country says the most serious potential threat to our 
homeland, an existential attack on the order of 9/11, is from our ally 
Pakistan. That is because, once we focused on Iraq, we took our focus 
off Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have allowed the Taliban to 
rehabilitate itself. The Pakistanis have been unable to deny a safe 
haven to bin Laden, Zawihiri, and other key elements of al-Qaida's 
leadership who are not only surviving but beginning to reorganize and 
reassert themselves as directors or aspirers or at least coconspirators 
with other terror groups around the world. That is a stunning 
indictment of the strategy that this administration has unveiled.
  There are other costs to this strategy. You will recall the ``axis of 
evil.'' The President boldly announced that it was Iraq, North Korea, 
and Iran. Well, frankly, after ignoring the North Koreans for many 
years, now the administration is seeking to cut a deal with them with 
respect to their nuclear weapons. But this is a much worse deal than 
the administration had when it stepped into office. In 2000, their 
plutonium was capped by international inspectors on the ground. But 
through a series of miscues, the administration allowed the North 
Koreans to take away their plutonium, create up to 10 nuclear devices, 
we think, test long-range missiles and, in a shocking act, detonate a 
nuclear device, becoming part of the nuclear club. Now we are offering 
them essentially the same terms that could have been had, without all 
this damage, many years ago.
  With respect to Iran, we know one of the consequences, one of the 
costs of our operations in Iraq is that Iran is in a much more secure 
strategic position today. They have colleagues and cohorts who are 
integral parts of the Government in Baghdad. The people we rely on, the 
Maliki Government, has huge support from people who have spent years, 
who have fought alongside the Iranians against the Iraqis. Yet we are 
supporting, as we must, the Maliki Government. But we should all 
recognize the huge influence Iran has today as a result of this 
strategy.
  Now, these costs are strategic costs, but there are some obvious 
costs in terms of dollars and cents. We are spending in Iraq about $8.4 
billion a month. That level of effort is difficult to sustain. In 
Afghanistan, we are spending less but still significant dollars. All 
these costs are being funded from the supplemental. We are borrowing 
the money from the next generation of Americans to pay for these 
efforts.
  The President already set up another supplemental request that will 
be pending in a few days. It includes $93 billion for operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. It will bring the total for this fiscal year--
what was in the original budget, together with the supplemental--to 
$145 billion. We will likely see totals such as that in succeeding 
years.
  In the 5 years the United States has been engaged in Iraq and 
Afghanistan--Iraq particularly--we have spent about $530 billion. That 
is a huge sum of money. That is very difficult to sustain. We can also 
see the cost in terms of supplying the Army. We have a situation where 
units are without equipment. Our National Guard is in disarray. Now we 
are going to, once again, put a huge demand on our military forces to 
support this escalation. It has been suggested to me that, shortly, 
upward of nine brigades of National Guard and Reserve forces will be 
notified for redeployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again, our 
citizen soldiers will be taken from their homes and sent overseas. When 
they go this time, they will not have quite the same equipment as they 
did the last time because National Guard equipment is in disrepair, 
even worse than the regular forces. Their training will likely not be 
as authentic because of the difficulty in getting out to the national 
training centers. They might do most of the training at their home 
stations. We are beginning to see this accumulation of costs reflected 
in many ways.
  A few days ago, the Boston Globe published a story in which it showed 
that because of the retirement and resignations of captains in the 
Army, senior NCOs in the Army, promotion rates have been going up 
astronomically to fill these vacancies. That is probably the worst 
potential trend for any military force, because without those capable 
company grade leaders, we will not be able to assure the American 
public we have the same level of professional skill that we have today.
  I believe, for all these reasons, the resolution proposed by Senator 
Harry Reid is the right course of action. But there will be an 
alternative approach, and that is a proposal by Senator Gregg with 
respect to funding. A few points can be made about that. The Gregg 
resolution misinterprets the Constitution by saying the Congress's only 
role is simply to rubberstamp what the President does--or worst case, 
they can only take funds away. That is not the case at all.
  As I mentioned on the floor yesterday, way back in 1799, the Supreme 
Court of the United States clearly said that Congress had the right to 
make decisions with respect to national policy involving foreign 
affairs. In fact, their decision essentially said the Congress could 
pass a law that would allow the President to stop ships going into 
certain ports but not leaving certain ports.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side came down and talked about us 
micromanaging. That is micromanaging. It is constitutionally 
permissible, perhaps, but it is not something we will do. It is not 
something we would want to do. We want to give the President the latter 
two that he needs but for missions that are consistent with our 
national security.
  Under the Gregg resolution's interpretation of the Constitution, 
Congress's only responsibility seems to be to fund whatever the 
President asks.
  That I don't think is appropriate constitutionally or with respect to 
our obligations as thoughtful participants in the policy process along 
with the President.
  Senator Murray will offer an alternative, and that alternative 
strongly supports our troops but also properly interprets the 
Constitution by stating the President and the Congress have shared 
responsibilities for the decisions involving our Armed Forces.
  I suspect if you took the Gregg logic to the extreme, if the 
President sent up a funding bill and we thought it was inadequate, then 
I suspect we couldn't do anything because, after all, all we can do is 
either agree with the President or cut off the funds. That is not the 
case at all.
  I can recall the President sending up to the Senate budgets that did 
not have enough resources for armored humvees, body armor, et cetera. 
It was this Congress that put more money in because we have a role when 
it comes to funding the operations of the military.
  When it comes to Presidential policy, it is not simply accepting it 
or taking away the money; it is altering that policy if it is wrong, it 
is redefining missions, and it is fully resourcing those missions which 
are the product of this interaction between the President and the 
Congress.
  A quote from Senator Murray's resolution:

     . . . the President and Congress should not take any action 
     that will endanger the Armed Forces of the United States, and 
     will provide necessary funds for training, equipment, and 
     other support for troops in the field, as such actions will 
     ensure their safety and effectiveness in preparing for and 
     carrying out their assigned missions.

  That I think is a much more accurate, appropriate, and sensible 
approach to the issue of shared responsibility.
  In addition, the Murray resolution makes it clear that the 
Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to take actions that 
help our troops and our veterans. We have had a lot of talk about not 
funding the troops. But wait a second, it was the President who sent in 
forces without a plan. It was the President who sent in forces without 
adequate armored humvees. It was the President who sent in forces 
without body armor. It was the President and his Department of Defense 
who weren't aware of the travesties that were taking place at Walter 
Reed when it comes to veterans. It is the President's Veterans 
Administration that refused a

[[Page S3175]]

few years ago to ask for adequate money for the Veterans Administration 
hospitals because of the new demand from veterans.
  If anyone over the last several years failed to fund the troops 
properly, it is the President. So our concerns should be directed at 
his failures to fund the troops rather than that of Congress.
  This is a collaborative process that both the White House and the 
Congress have to ensure our forces have the resources they need, but we 
also have to make sure they are performing the missions most important 
to the United States. By endorsing the Murray resolution, we are 
sending a clear message of our joint responsibility to fully fund our 
soldiers in the field, and by supporting Majority Leader Reid's 
resolution, we are sending a signal that the right policy, phased 
redeployment, carefully defined missions, providing a stable regional 
approach to Iraq and, in the long term, redeploying troops so we can 
face with more flexibility the challenges of a North Korea, of an Iran, 
of places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and places perhaps at this 
moment we are not aware of but will suddenly burst onto the front page 
because of the presence of terrorists or other destabilizing 
activities.
  I urge strong support of the resolution supported by Majority Leader 
Reid and the resolution supported by Senator Murray.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, there is an old joke about the definition 
of retreat, which is a strategic withdrawal. I note that is the phrase 
used in the resolution, S.J. Res. 9, to describe the process of leaving 
Iraq. The language effectively is: ``The President shall commence the 
phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 
120 days,'' and then says:

     . . . with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all the 
     United States combat forces from Iraq. . . .

  Except for the limited purposes of protecting forces, training Iraqi 
forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.
  That is a very bad idea. We shouldn't be playing politics with this 
war, and we shouldn't be trying to micromanage the war from Congress. 
But setting specific dates by which the commanders are to make certain 
decisions, including how troops are deployed, is clearly micromanaging 
the war effort.
  The fact there have been 17 resolutions--I believe this is the 17th 
resolution--on the Democratic side of the Congress, and the fact that 
none of those other 16 were adopted I think demonstrates the confusion 
on the other side as to what exactly ought to be done and the 
differences of opinion by Members on the other side of the aisle.
  Thank goodness we didn't adopt any of the other 16, and we shouldn't 
adopt this one either. This one is particularly pernicious. It actually 
begins the withdrawal. It sets a date, ``shall commence the 
phased redeployment . . . not later than 120 days.

  Then it uses a goal of completing that withdrawal by March 31, 2008. 
Some have tried to hide behind the word ``goal.'' I think Senator 
Feingold said it right, however, on March 8 of this year when he said:

       For the first time, it--

  ``It'' meaning the resolution--

     has a timetable in place, as I called for in August of 2005. 
     It's not as early as I would like, but is a timetable not 
     only to begin to get the troops out but to get the troops out 
     except for very limited purposes.

  It didn't always used to be this way. A lot of our Democratic 
colleagues understood that setting timetables and deadlines was 
absolutely the wrong thing to do.
  The distinguished majority leader, for example, said:

       But as far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the 
     Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers 
     those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do 
     that.

  Another one of the supporters of the resolution said 2 days ago:

       I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I 
     don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the 
     enemy so they can await you.

  Another cosponsor of the resolution said 3 days ago:

       I, for example, am not in support of circling a date on a 
     calendar and saying, ``No matter what, we're out on that 
     date.''

  One of the most thoughtful people in the Senate on matters of foreign 
policy has spoken a lot on this issue, and I think what he said a 
couple of years ago makes a lot of sense. This is the distinguished 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He was talking about the 
options. He said:

     . . . we call it quits and withdraw, I think that would be a 
     gigantic mistake for the reasons I stated earlier. Or we can 
     set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only 
     encourage our enemies to wait us out, equally a mistake. . . 
     . I mean, the idea of setting a timetable to leave generally 
     means that you have to set and train the process of leaving. 
     It is not an easy process. And I think once that is smelled 
     as the option, then I think you find it will degenerate 
     quickly into sectarian violence, every man for himself. And 
     the conclusion that will be achieved will be, I think, 
     Lebanon in 1985, and God knows where it goes from there.

  Recently, the distinguished chairman said this, unfortunately:

       We should withdraw our combat troops by early 2008, except 
     for a limited number necessary to keep training Iraqis and to 
     deny terrorists a sanctuary.

  As I said, it used to be that most Senators understood that setting a 
timetable in a war, a date for withdrawal was a very bad idea, not just 
because it tried to micromanage the conduct of the war from the 
Congress but because it signaled to the enemy precisely what the enemy 
had to do, to wait us out and then prevail in the conflict.
  That is precisely what this resolution does and is the key reason why 
every Senator should be voting against this resolution and why those 
who spoke against a timetable before should remember what they said and 
the wisdom of those words and follow that same advice today.
  This is especially pernicious because at the very time this 
resolution is being adopted, there continues to be news from Iraq that 
suggests the new strategy, the Petraeus plan, is actually beginning to 
work. Nobody is claiming any victory. There are going to be bad days as 
well as good.
  I ask unanimous consent at the close of my remarks to print in the 
Record an article from the Associated Press in my hometown newspaper: 
``Baghdad's terror death counts are falling.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, the article points out the fact that the 
death squad deaths are falling substantially, the militia activity is 
down substantially. While our commanders there are being cautious about 
declaring the operation a success, nonetheless, there are many 
different descriptions of events happening in Iraq that give us a lot 
of hope.
  I was there a couple of weeks ago, and our commanders and Iraqis both 
were cautiously optimistic this would work.
  The point is, at the very time the new plan is underway and it seems 
to at least show early signs of success, why would we want to declare 
it a failure and start the process of withdrawing at the very time 
these additional troops seem to be making a difference?
  One of the chairmen of the Baker-Hamilton study commission, former 
Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton, was testifying before the Congress 
about a month ago. He said we should give this plan a chance. We should 
give it a chance to succeed. That is exactly what we ought to do. We 
start by rejecting the resolution that is pending because it 
micromanages the war and sends a horrible signal.
  We also try to support the troops by adopting as quickly as possible 
a supplemental appropriations bill that funds this effort without tying 
the strings of our commanders and without imposing so many other 
conditions that the President is constrained to veto it. We have to get 
that funding to our troops as soon as possible. That is the other 
message the commanders on the ground, both in Kuwait and Iraq, gave to 
me when we were there. They said: Please adopt the supplemental 
appropriations bill without strings.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution when it comes up 
for a vote later this afternoon.

[[Page S3176]]

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Arizona Republic, Mar. 15, 2007]

               Baghdad's Terror Death Counts are Falling

                          (By Robert H. Reid)

       Baghdad.--Bomb deaths have gone down 30 percent in Baghdad 
     since the U.S.-led security crackdown began a month ago. 
     Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half.
       The once frequent sound of weapons has been reduced to 
     episodic, and downtown shoppers have returned to outdoor 
     markets, which are favored targets of car bombers.
       There are signs of progress in the campaign to restore 
     order in Iraq, starting with its capital city, according to a 
     Pentagon report released Wednesday.
       But although many Iraqis are encouraged, they remain 
     skeptical how long the relative calm will last. Each bombing 
     renews fears the horror is returning. Shiite militias and 
     Sunni insurgents are still around, perhaps just lying low or 
     hiding outside the city until the operation is over.
       U.S. military officials, burned before by overly optimistic 
     forecasts, have been cautious about declaring the operation a 
     success. Another reason it seems premature: Only two of the 
     five U.S. brigades earmarked for the mission are in the 
     streets, and the full complement of American reinforcements 
     is not due until late May.
       The report even used for the first time the term ``civil 
     war'' to describe some of the violence. But it stressed that 
     the term does not capture Iraq's complex situation, and its 
     assessment was based on the final three months of 2006, which 
     it said was the most violent three-month period since the 
     U.S.-led invasion.
       U.S. officials say the key to the security crackdown's 
     long-term success is the willingness of Iraq's sectarian and 
     ethnic political parties to strike a power- and money-sharing 
     deal. That remains elusive: A proposal for governing oil, the 
     country's main source of income, is bogged down in 
     parliamentary squabbling.
       Nevertheless, there are encouraging signs.
       Gone are the ``illegal checkpoints,'' where Shiite and 
     Sunni gunmen stopped cars and hauled away members of the 
     rival sect, often to a gruesome torture and death.
       The rattle of automatic-weapons fire or the rumble of 
     distant roadside bombs comes less frequently. Traffic is 
     beginning to return to the city's once-vacant streets.
       ``People are very optimistic because they sense a 
     development. The level of sectarian violence in streets and 
     areas has decreased,'' said a 50-year-old Shiite, who gave 
     his name only as Abu Abbas, or ``Father of Abbas.'' ``The 
     activities of the militias have also decreased. The car bombs 
     and the suicide attacks are the only things left while other 
     kinds of violence have decreased.''
       In the months before the security operation began Feb. 14, 
     police were finding dozens of bodies each day in the capital, 
     all victims of Sunni and Shiite death squads. Last December, 
     more than 200 bodies were found each week, with the figure 
     spiking above 300 in some weeks, according to police reports 
     compiled by the Associated Press.
       Since the crackdown began, weekly totals have dropped to 
     about 80, which is hardly an acceptable figure but clearly a 
     sign that death squads are no longer as active as they were 
     in the final months of last year.
       Bombings also have decreased in the city, presumably due to 
     U.S. and Iraqi success in finding weapons caches and to more 
     government checkpoints in the streets that make it tougher to 
     deliver the bombs.
       Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made a show of 
     confidence Tuesday by traveling out of Baghdad for meetings 
     with Sunni tribal leaders and government officials in Ramadi, 
     a stronghold for Sunni insurgents.
       ``I would caution everybody about patience, about 
     diligence,'' Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. spokesman, 
     said Wednesday. ``This is going to take many months, not 
     weeks. But the indicators are all very positive right now.''
       Sunni militants, meanwhile, are believed to have withdrawn 
     to surrounding areas such as Diyala province, where they have 
     safe haven. The U.S. command sent an extra 700 soldiers 
     Tuesday to protect the highways leading into the capital from 
     there.
       If militants from both sects are indeed lying low, that 
     suggests they may have adopted a strategy of waiting until 
     the security operation is over, then re-emerging to fight 
     each other for control of the capital.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, in November, the American people sent a 
clear message to Washington. They said: Change the course in Iraq. A 
few weeks later, the Iraq Study Group issued its bipartisan report 
calling for a change of course in Iraq. Even the President's new 
Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, during his confirmation hearing, 
acknowledged that the current course in Iraq was not working. But 
instead of developing a new strategy, the President has stayed on his 
failed course, plunging American troops deeper and deeper into a civil 
war on the streets of Baghdad and relying on the promises of Iraqi 
politicians who have not delivered on previous promises.
  The question for us today is whether we will accept that failing 
strategy or whether we will change it. The President's deepening 
military involvement will not lead to a stable Iraq because it has a 
fundamental flaw. It tries to impose a military solution on a political 
crisis.
  Listen to the assessment of Iraq Prime Minister Maliki of the 
situation in his country. This is what he said:

       The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the 
     cycle of bloodletting of innocents are the Iraqi politicians.

  Outside the White House is a consensus that a political solution 
among the Iraqis is required, but President Bush persists on a military 
deepening involvement.
  The President claims that Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks 
that they have put forward, but the track record of Iraqi politicians 
indicates otherwise. On issue after issue, the Iraqi politicians have 
failed to keep their word, and Iraq is worse off because of those 
failures.
  The President's course of action--deeper and deeper military 
involvement--sends a signal that the Iraqi leaders can continue to 
bicker without consequence. If the Iraqis fail to meet their own 
benchmarks, the President will presumably continue to bail them out by 
sending American troops to police an Iraqi civil war. Unless failure to 
meet benchmarks has consequences, those benchmarks have little meaning. 
We must change the course if there is going to be any hope of success 
in Iraq.
  The best leverage we have is the presence and mission of American 
forces. As long as our presence is open-ended, the dynamic in Iraq will 
remain the same: Insurgents will target our troops, militias will cause 
mayhem, and the Iraqi politicians will sit in relative safety in the 
Green Zone, unwilling to make the compromises so essential to reaching 
a political settlement that can save their country. But if we send a 
clear message that we are ending the open-ended commitment, that will 
shift responsibility to the Iraqis, both politically and militarily, 
for their own future.
  By requiring the President to change the mission of American forces 
to the three missions specified in the Reid resolution, by beginning a 
phased redeployment of American forces in 4 months, the resolution 
before us would force the Iraqi leaders to face reality and to 
understand that their future as a nation is in their own hands, not 
ours. The Iraqis will finally be forced to decide if they want a civil 
war or they want a nation. They will then understand we cannot save 
them from themselves.

  The President and his supporters ask for patience. But asking for 
patience now, after all these years of asking for patience without 
success, is a little like Lucy asking Charlie Brown to try to kick the 
football one more time. We ought to be wise enough by now to know that 
increased military involvement won't achieve the political settlement 
that is needed.
  General Peter Chiarelli, Commanding General of the Multi-National 
Corps in Iraq, said the following:

       We need a commitment by all Iraqis of all the ethno-
     sectarian groups to commit first to nonviolence and to 
     resolving their differences through the political process. I 
     happen to believe that we have done everything militarily we 
     possibly can.

  General Casey made a similar point in early January when he said:

       The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main 
     burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the 
     government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about 
     reconciliation and dealing with the militias.

  The real battle for Baghdad is a political battle. Maximizing success 
in Iraq requires us to change course and to shift responsibility to the 
Iraqi political leaders for the future of Iraq. To paraphrase British 
Prime Minister Tony Blair, the next chapter of Iraq's history needs to 
be written by the Iraqis.
  Our vote today will decide whether we will begin changing course to 
maximize chances of success in Iraq or whether we will remain mired in 
the status quo of sending more and more American troops into the middle 
of an Iraqi civil war.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, we are brought back to the floor again 
this week to continue the debate on Iraq and whether the United States 
should begin to pull our troops out of Iraq. Yet again the majority 
leader has

[[Page S3177]]

brought legislation to the floor of the Senate that will set arbitrary 
timelines for U.S. withdrawal, sending a signal to the Iraqi people 
that we are poised to abandon them; while at the same time sending a 
strong message to our enemies that to defeat the United States, all 
they need to do is wait us out. That kind of policy will allow our 
current and future enemies to dictate our foreign policy for us, not 
the other way around.
  General Petraeus has now only had weeks to implement his new strategy 
for stabilizing Baghdad. After a unanimous vote of confirmation, the 
majority party now wants to send a signal to General Petraeus that we 
not only have no confidence in his abilities to stabilize key parts of 
Iraq but that we have no faith in our soldiers ability as well. That is 
not a statement I am willing to send to our soldiers in combat. The 
majority would rather see 535 generals leading the way towards 
stability and security in Iraq and the greater Middle East, and I do 
not see that strategy as an effective way to run a war.
  I cannot stress enough that our conflict in Iraq does not stop at the 
borders. Iraq is a central country in a very dangerous region of the 
world. Bordered by Iran and Syria, which are both contributing to the 
violence in Iraq, will clearly see a premature U.S. troop withdraw in 
Iraq as a symbol that our resolve is not strong enough to stop their 
ambitions for regional dominance.
  A premature withdrawal from Iraq will almost certainly lead to a 
massive humanitarian crisis, which would leave hundreds of thousands of 
Iraqi civilians at the hands of murderous militias. I would ask of my 
colleagues who favor immediate withdrawal from Iraq, are they willing 
to stand idly by as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are raped, beaten 
and murdered? I would assume the answer would be no, paving the way for 
an even greater peacekeeping force to be deployed to Iraq, and making 
the work to stabilize that country infinitely more difficult.
  I think it is important for the American people to know that the 
roadblocks put up in the Senate regarding nonbinding votes on Iraq were 
not put up by the Republican minority. I have stood on this floor on 
more than one occasion debating the war this year. We have had, and 
will continue to have, full debates on the floor of the Senate 
regarding Iraq, but it is up to the majority leader whether those 
debates will be fair debates. I was pleased to see that an amendment 
offered by Senator Gregg will be allowed an up-or-down vote. This 
resolution clearly states that the Congress will not cut off any 
funding for soldiers we send into combat. An overwhelming majority of 
both the House and Senate voted to send these troops into war, and we 
all the responsibility to ensure that any American soldier in harm's 
way will have the full support of their government.
  The majority party continuously denies planning or calling for 
defunding this war, and thus the troops, but several Democratic 
Senators and Congressmen have spoken publicly about their desire to 
eliminate funding for our soldiers. That is a very dangerous game to 
play, when Members will allow antiwar politics to convince Members of 
Congress that they should cut off funding for American troops on the 
battlefield.
  Now, it is very clear that there is no single military operation that 
can bring stability to Iraq by itself. We need the Iraqi government to 
stand up on its own two feet and lead their country. We need an Iraqi 
economy to be strong and viable on its own in order to give the Iraqi 
people a choice between turning towards insurgent militias and 
terrorist organization, but instead to start new businesses and make 
constructive contributions to their society. However, without stability 
in the capital city, there can be no stable government and there can be 
no economic stability. The reinforcements called for by General 
Petraeus, which will assist in stabilizing Baghdad, are working to 
lower the levels of violence, and will pave the way for economic and 
government stability.
  I, like all of my colleagues, want nothing else but to have our 
troops home and out of harm's way. That said, we should not be in such 
a rush to leave Iraq that we leave that country in shambles, creating a 
haven for terrorism and a humanitarian crisis that could rival or 
surpass any we have seen before.
  We are at a critical juncture in this war. The American people are 
questioning our policies in Iraq, mistakes have been made over the 
three plus years we have been in Iraq, and I will readily admit that. 
But I do not believe that we are at a point of failure. The majority 
party is frustrated with our progress in Iraq, but I firmly believe 
that Congress micromanaging this war is the most detrimental policy our 
country could pursue. The Congress should not be in the business of 
setting arbitrary withdrawal timetables, setting troop levels, 
threatening funding for our soldiers, or sending messages to our 
soldiers that we have no faith in their mission.
  The Senate is yet again going to be voting on a series of binding and 
nonbinding resolutions that will send a strong message to our soldiers, 
the American people, and to our enemies. I hope that my colleagues will 
speak in a loud voice of support to our soldiers; a resolute voice to 
the American people that we will not be defeated by radical insurgents 
and terrorist groups; and a firm voice to our enemies that we will not 
be defeated. Our national security, and that of our allies, is at 
stake, and I will not cast a vote to pull our troops out of Iraq 
prematurely and allow Iraq to become a base of operations for strikes 
against this country.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, today the Senate confronts the tragic 
situation facing us in Iraq. No Member of the Senate, the 
administration, or our Armed Forces is happy with where we stand in 
Iraq. A mission that began with the great success of our men and women 
in uniform has bogged down through no fault of theirs. With heavy 
hearts the Congress, after hearing the people speak in November, must 
now force a change in our policy in Iraq. We can no longer allow an 
open-ended commitment to Iraq that endangers our forces while allowing 
Iraqi politicians to delay the difficult choices they must make.
  S.J. Res. 9, which I support, calls on the President to begin the 
redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. After 4 long years they have 
been stretched to the breaking point. They now referee a bloody civil 
war that bears no resemblance to the original conflict we authorized 
them to engage in. The time for military solutions is over, and the 
difficult work of political compromise lies before the Iraqis with 
little our soldiers can do to help.
  The resolution does not require a rapid pullout, however, but gives 
time for a measured withdrawal that will protect our troops while 
providing support to the new Iraqi government. It sets March 2008 as a 
goal for our combat troops to be gone from Iraq--5 years after they 
first entered the country--but it provides flexibility if that is not 
possible. The March withdrawal goal is also in line with what the Iraq 
Study Group believed was appropriate.
  This reasonable goal will give Iraq's politicians time to make the 
difficult decisions they need to make about power sharing and dividing 
oil revenues. It will also give our troops time to complete the 
training and equipping of additional Iraqi police and security forces. 
Five years is plenty of time to help a new nation toward democracy--or 
prove that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside. Either way we 
cannot ask our military to continue their mission indefinitely.
  Critics of the resolution believe that withdrawing from Iraq will 
damage our national security, but I disagree. The ongoing conflict in 
Iraq is hurting our image in the world, it is hurting our economy, and 
it is hurting our military. This war is no longer protecting us, but 
according to our own intelligence community it is encouraging 
terrorists to take up arms against us. Our presence has kicked off a 
vicious circle of violence that makes us less secure--not more. We need 
to close the circle and end this cycle of violence.
  We all want a stable and peaceful Iraq, but it is time to recognize 
that the U.S. alone cannot achieve that goal. We need the help of the 
Iraqi people and the assistance of Iraq's neighbors. If we work 
together Iraq can get on its feet and repair the sectarian divide. But 
if we continue on our current path, bearing the burden by ourselves, 
the cycle of violence will erode our good efforts. It is time for a 
change. It is time for us to shift the burden to the Iraqis and help 
them carry it forward.

[[Page S3178]]

  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, there are many statements in the 
resolution by the Senator from New Hampshire that are true. It is a 
true statement that the President has the power to ``deploy troops and 
direct military campaigns during wartime.'' But that presupposes that a 
war has been properly authorized by Congress because that power exists 
only in wartime, or in certain emergency circumstances. The President 
does not, however, have the power under the Constitution to initiate a 
war.
  It is literally true that Congress has the power of the purse, and in 
that capacity has the moral responsibility to adequately support the 
troops in the field, once we are at war. This administration has failed 
in that responsibility in not equipping our soldiers in Iraq with 
adequate armor, in not having an adequate plan to stabilize Iraq after 
the initial invasion, and in not caring for our soldiers properly when 
they return home.
  But this resolution is not balanced. It does not set forth a 
statement about Congress's powers under the Constitution to authorize 
the use of force under article I. Nor does it say anything about the 
authority of Congress to change the mission of U.S. forces, once a war 
has commenced. This silence about Congress's power might be interpreted 
to suggest that the President's powers as Commander in Chief to 
initiate war are unlimited, and that Congress's sole responsibility is 
to fund a war that the President initiates. That is not what the 
Constitution says, and I cannot vote for anything that might be so 
read.
  Because the Gregg resolution lacks balance, I cannot vote for it. I 
will vote instead for the resolution by Senator Murray, which presents 
a more complete statement about the allocation of powers under the 
Constitution.
  Mr. BUNNING. Madan President, I rise today to discuss the S.J. Res. 9 
dealing with troop withdrawals from Iraq.
  While this nonbinding resolution is different from the resolution we 
debated last month, its purpose is still the same. It will micromanage 
the war and send a detrimental message to both our troops and our 
enemies.
  That is why I voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to the 
resolution and why I will vote no on its final passage. I believe that 
we must give the President's new strategy for Iraq a chance to work 
before we begin criticizing it.
  At this time, we ought to be sending a clear message of support for 
our troops and for ensuring that they have the necessary supplies and 
resources to carry out their mission. Unfortunately, we cannot seem to 
see beyond our political differences to do this and instead want to 
attack the President's Iraq plan no matter what the consequences of our 
actions would be.
  Jut a few weeks ago on January 26, the Senate unanimously--
unanimously--confirmed GEN David Petraeus to be commander of the 
multinational forces in Iraq. General Petraeus supports the President's 
new strategy in Iraq and has embarked on a mission that both the 
President and the Senate selected him to do.
  I would like to point out to my colleagues the irony, as well as the 
inconsistency, in the choice this resolution is presenting to this 
body. With the newest Iraq resolution, we are once again being asked to 
disapprove of the very mission we unanimously confirmed General 
Petraeus to execute. This resolution asks Senators and not General 
Petraeus to direct the activites in Iraq. But Congress is not the 
commander in chief, and we should not be dictating military strategy.
  The resolution sets a specific date for the beginning of the 
withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. This withdrawal would occur even if 
there is progress on the ground in Iraq or our allies believe our 
presence is still necessary. This resolution allows politics to be the 
deciding factor of how we manage a war.
  Passage of this resolution would show to the world that our will can 
easily be stripped by terrorists if they just wait it out.
  If General Petraeus, who is a friend of mine, comes back to Congress 
and tells us that the President's new strategy is not working, then I 
am prepared to change our course. But we need to give it a chance to 
work.
  We have already begun to see some successes based on recent events 
and reports from General Petraeus. Sectarian killings have been lower 
in Baghdad over the past several weeks than in the previous months. 
There is less sectarian displacement in Baghdad neighborhoods allowing 
families to return home and Sunni insurgent leaders have renewed talks 
with top U.S. officials about political accommodation.
  I realize these successes are small and it is too early to tell 
whether they will lead to significant changes in the future, but we now 
have proof that this strategy could work if given the chance.
  We have also begun to see a positive response from the Iraqi people. 
Just 2 weeks ago, the Iraqi council approved the foundation of a 
hydrocarbon bill which is a oil revenue-sharing measure with the Iraqi 
people and the provinces of Iraq. The legislation is soon going to the 
assembly. For the first time in the history of their country, the 
people of Iraq are on the doorstep of having equity in oil 
distribution.
  Despite these successes and unanimously confirming our new commander 
in Iraq, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to 
declare failure. They would like to tie General Petraeus's hands in a 
way that would make achieving his mission impossible. I do not believe 
that pulling the rug out from underneath our top commander in Iraq is a 
plan for success. Rather, I believe that we should focus the current 
debate on what we can do to support General Petraeus and the brave 
young men and women in Iraq to accomplish this critical mission. I will 
continue to do whatever I can to ensure that our troops and mission 
succeeds.
  Failure in Iraq is not an option. It would not only jeopardize our 
own national security but that of the region as a whole.
  When this motion to micromanage the war in Iraq comes to vote, I urge 
my colleagues to oppose it. Remember, we have only one commander in 
chief, not 535 generals who make war plans from the floor of the 
Congress.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, as I begin my comments on the resolutions 
we have under consideration, I want to first make very clear my strong 
support for the members of our Armed Forces and the vital work they are 
doing around the world every day. I have the greatest admiration for 
them all for their heartfelt commitment to preserving our freedoms and 
maintaining our national security. They are all true heroes and they 
are the ones who are doing the heavy lifting and making great 
sacrifices in our country's name so that we might continue to be the 
land of the free and the home of the brave.
  Over the years, I have been to Iraq and I have met with the members 
of our Armed Forces there and, later, here in the United States when 
they have returned home. These remarkable men and women exemplify the 
best qualities of our Nation. They volunteered to serve in the best 
trained force in the world and they deserve our complete and unwavering 
support. If it were possible, I would like to have each and every one 
of our troops back home with their families and friends immediately. We 
cannot, however, pull our troops out of Iraq at this point without 
facing extremely dire consequences for a long time to come. I have 
spoken at length to our troops about their mission and they understand 
their mission.
  I was thinking about them, and all of the members of our military who 
are presently serving around the world as I began to prepare my 
remarks. I thought back to the days, years ago, when I was first 
elected to serve as the Mayor of Gillette, WY. I made a habit of 
carrying around a copy of the United States Constitution with me 
everywhere I went. I kept it in my coat pocket, next to my pen, and 
whenever I looked at it, it reminded me of two things--the Government I 
was a part of, and the people I was elected to serve.
  Then, when I came here to the Senate, the Constitution took on an 
even greater, deeper meaning for me. I see it as my job description. 
That is why I make sure to always keep it handy so it can continue to 
serve as a reminder of the detailed portrait it contains of our Federal 
Government and how it was designed to work by our Founding Fathers. 
Today, it provides us with a

[[Page S3179]]

good starting point for our debate and it provides some of the answers 
to the issues before us.
  The relevant parts of the our country's Constitution are quite clear. 
Congress must be consulted before any large scale military operation is 
begun. But once that has been done, the Commander in Chief of our Armed 
Forces, the President, is to direct the effort that we have approved.
  The Founding Fathers had a good reason for establishing the President 
as the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces and the one who is 
responsible for making the decisions affecting the actions of our 
Nation's military.
  That does not mean that Congress does not have a play in these 
decisions. We all have an important role to play when it comes to 
matters like these. Again, in their great wisdom, the drafters of our 
Constitution knew that Congress could--and should--influence policy--
but they knew it would be impossible for us to have all the information 
available to the President to debate and assess before making a 
decision on the viability of every military operation. The process of 
determining military strategy would be a nightmare if we were to be 
expected to debate all of the intricacies of every policy and, by so 
doing, publicly reveal some of the information obtained by our 
intelligence agencies on the House and Senate floor before reaching a 
decision. Our procedure on the Senate floor is a good process for 
debating and considering legislation, but it is a process that does not 
lend itself well to producing a quick and informed military decision at 
a time of crisis.
  Those thoughts were on my mind when the President put forward a new 
strategy for us to pursue in Iraq, recognizing that what we are 
currently doing is not working. General David Petraeus, our U.S. 
Commander in Iraq, testified before us about that policy. He is 
consulting with highly educated and trained members of the military, 
many from universities where criticism of U.S. efforts in Iraq has 
flourished. It is evident that the President and his advisors are 
seeking analysis and recommendations from people who recognize the fact 
that the road ahead will be complicated and difficult.
  Listening to the debate, I have heard many of my colleagues sum up 
the President's new strategy as just increasing the number of American 
troops in Iraq. I do not believe it is a matter of numbers. The real 
question should be what the placement of these troops is designed to 
accomplish. There is no question that there must be a clearly defined 
mission for them on the ground. By having more forces on the ground, we 
may be able to decrease the vulnerability of our troops as they move 
from place to place. That will provide them with the backup and 
protection they need to more safely pursue their mission.
  In the months to come, it is clear that there are several things the 
new policy must do if it is to be successful. First and foremost, the 
new campaign must provide the security the people of Iraq must have to 
feel safe at home. If they do not feel secure under the protection of 
the United States, coalition, and Iraqi forces, they will turn toward 
terrorist organizations that will prey on their fears and provide a 
false sense of security. America's long-term security interests and the 
possibility of world peace will be best served by an Iraq that can 
sustain, govern, and defend itself, while serving as an ally in the war 
against the terrorists.
  Looking long term, I think we would all agree that the future of Iraq 
will directly affect the balance of power in the Middle East. That is 
why countries throughout the region are watching to see what action we 
will take in Iraq. An immediate withdrawal of United States and 
coalition forces will leave our allies in the region forced to prepare 
for additional conflicts.
  Our mission in Iraq has not been easy, and it will not get easier in 
the days to come. After all, we are facing centuries-old difficulties 
as we work with the people of Iraq to help them overcome their 
religious and ethnic differences to form a nation that will work to 
benefit and protect all their people.
  Ultimately, what the future of Iraq will be is up to the Iraqi people 
themselves. Iraq must put together a working coalition of its three 
major groups, the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia, as well as other ethnic and 
religious minorities. They must work for national reconciliation 
through shared responsibilities as well as shared oil revenues that 
will be used to solve the problems that exist in their own backyard. 
Such a reconciliation will not only be good for Iraq, but the Middle 
East as a whole.
  We have set forth benchmark requirements for the Iraqis to make. Our 
first benchmark has been met. Their parliament has approved an 
equitable split of oil revenues between the three factions. This is 
progress.
  Looking back, the record is clear. Like many Members of the United 
States Senate, I supported the original decision in 2002 to take action 
against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The vote I cast that day was not an 
easy decision. The tough ones are like that. You make the best decision 
you can, based on the information you have on hand at the time you have 
to make it. Those are the decisions that make us all lose sleep for 
years afterward. Anytime you vote to put our Nation's young men and 
women in harm's way, it stays with you long after the fighting is over 
and our troops are on their way back home.
  Today, I remain concerned about the safety of the people on the 
ground: Americans, coalition allies, and the Iraqi people. And there is 
good reason for my concern. With today's rapid communication made 
possible by the Internet, cell phones, and other technologies, what we 
say here can almost instantaneously find its way around the world and 
straight to the camps of both friends and foes--and they are both 
watching. In fact, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the 
whole world is watching to see what we will decide to do.
  That leads me to ask, what do we hope to accomplish through this 
debate? We have already approved the nomination of General Petraeus by 
a unanimous vote. Now we are considering a resolution condemning a plan 
he has not had a chance to put into action yet. What sort of message 
will we send our troops with our vote on that?
  As Members of the United States Senate, we have the opportunity to 
voice our opinions to the President and our constituents. But the fact 
that we are even going through this debate at this point in time may 
give those who wish to do us harm hope and embolden them--and once 
emboldened they will pose an even greater threat to our troops.
  As we continue with our consideration of these resolutions, I want to 
be clear that I do not want to cut funding for the troops. Their safety 
and their very lives depend on that funding. When you are in a war, you 
do not do that to the troops.
  Looking ahead, in the months to come, Congress must continue to 
closely monitor the actions of the new Iraqi government, our military 
leaders, and our civilian leaders. We should continue to express our 
opinions, and take whatever actions are necessary to ensure our troops 
are provided the best support possible so that they can come home soon. 
We should not, however, further endanger the lives of Americans and 
Iraqis simply to make a statement and take a stand against the 
President.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, the Senate will vote on whether 
America is on the right course in Iraq, or the wrong one.
  I have spent the past two years traveling all over Rhode Island, 
listening to people from my state who were angry and frustrated at this 
President's refusal to see that his policies in Iraq were wrong from 
the start, and remain wrong today. Last November, they and millions of 
Americans cast their votes for a new direction.
  They sent us here to hold this President accountable: for distorting 
intelligence to serve his policy goals; for failing to give our troops 
the equipment they needed to do their jobs overseas, and failing to 
take adequate care of them when they return home; for telling our 
country the mission was accomplished when, as we've seen, the war has 
now stretched on for five long years; for now proposing to send tens of 
thousands more American soldiers into harm's way, against the wishes of 
the American people, and without a plan to bring the conflict to an 
end.
  Americans know the truth: escalating the war in Iraq will not make 
that nation more secure, or bring Iraq

[[Page S3180]]

and its people any closer to a lasting peace. It will not make our 
nation more secure. And it is not the new direction Americans demanded.
  There is a way to change course in Iraq. If we announce clearly that 
the redeployment of American troops will begin, and begin soon, that 
opens up diplomatic opportunities in Iraq, in the Middle East, and 
around the world.
  When it is evident to the insurgents that America is not an army of 
occupation, the factions within the Iraqi government will be obliged--
and better able--to assume responsibility for the security and 
governance of their own nation. Iraq's neighbors will be newly 
motivated to take steps that will encourage a peaceful and secure Gulf 
region.
  This binding resolution makes it clear that the situation in Iraq has 
changed since Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq in 2002. It 
states the President must begin the phased redeployment of American 
combat troops in no later than four months, with that redeployment 
completed by March 31, 2008.
  The President failed to show America a new direction, and so the 
Senate will step forward to lead where he will not. I will vote yes to 
a change of course in Iraq, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to take this opportunity to 
explain why I will vote against S. Res. 107.
  First, I must applaud Senator Murray for what I believe was the 
overall premise of her amendment, to show the entire Congress's resolve 
in supporting our troops.
  I fully agree with the portion of the amendment that reaffirms the 
Senate's commitment to providing the ``necessary funds for training, 
equipment, and other support for troops in the field, as such actions 
will ensure their safety and effectiveness in preparing for and 
carrying out their assigned duties.''
  This is a policy to which I have dedicated my entire Senate career.
  However, as a lawyer, I believe that it is also my duty to evaluate 
and work toward ensuring that all legislation which the Senate passes 
is strictly within the limits of our constitutional powers. As the 
preamble states, ``Under the Constitution, the President and Congress 
have shared responsibilities for decisions on the use of the Armed 
Forces of the United States, including their mission, and for 
supporting the Armed Forces, especially during wartime.''
  Unfortunately, S. Res. 107 does not meet that test. While at first 
glance the passage I just cited may seem innocuous, the phrase ``shared 
responsibilities'' raises important separation of powers questions.
  As we all know, the Constitution does not speak of shared powers, it 
speaks of the different branches of government having separate and 
distinct powers--a point which is at the core of the debate on our 
nation's policies toward Iraq.
  Under article II, section 2 of the Constitution, the President is the 
``Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.'' 
However, Congress's role is limited in article I, section 8 which, in 
part, reads ``. . . The Congress shall have power to . . . provide for 
the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . . To 
declare war . . . to raise and support armies . . . to provide and 
maintain a navy . . . to make rules for the government and regulation 
of the land and naval forces; . . . to provide for calling forth the 
militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and 
repel invasions . . . to provide for organizing, arming, and 
disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may 
be employed in the service of the United States . . .''
  These are very different powers; they are not shared. The 
Constitution provides for only one Commander in Chief. Our troops are 
facing enough challenges in the weeks and months ahead--they do not 
need to worry if there will be 435 commanders in chief.
  It is important that we remember this point now more then ever. And 
so, it is my analysis that the ``shared powers'' reference in S. Res. 
107 clearly raises constitutional concerns, and that is why I voted 
against S. Res. 107.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, before the Senator leaves, as it is 
right now, we have 10 minutes left on this side. There is 1 hour left 
on the Senator's side. We want very much to get some speakers down 
here, if we could. I understand we are trying to reserve 20 minutes for 
leadership time and 10 minutes on each side. If the Senator has 
speakers, this would be a good time to have them down here.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I believe one Senator is on his way right 
now, and the Senator's notice should produce some other Senators as 
well.
  I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, rather than to speak myself, since there 
is going to be equal time coming off for both sides until a speaker 
gets down here, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the last 
quorum call time be taken from the Democrats' time, and that future 
quorums come from the Democrat side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what I wish to do at this moment is address 
one of the arguments I have heard many of my colleagues make over the 
past 2 days of this debate. The argument I have heard when I was on the 
floor yesterday, and again I have heard it today, is that the joint 
resolution we are debating is an effort to micromanage the war by 
focusing the mission of U.S. Armed Forces on training Iraqis, denying 
terrorists a safe haven in Iraq, and force protection.
  If you listen to my colleagues who oppose this, you hear them recount 
that as if somehow that is exceeding the power of the people to speak, 
through their Congress, as to what role American military forces are 
permitted to play. Many of my colleagues on the other side go on to 
argue we are somehow overstepping our constitutional boundaries in 
defining the purpose for which U.S. forces can be used in Iraq.
  Well, that argument, I respectfully suggest, is dead wrong. Defining 
the overall mission of U.S. troops is entirely within the power of the 
Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, not doing so would be an 
abdication of our fundamental duty under the Constitution, which 
clearly manifests war power in the hands of the Congress.
  Now let me give you a few illustrations, if I may. In 2002, when we 
voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, we defined the 
purpose. We defined the purpose for which the President was permitted 
to use American forces against Iraq. It was to defend the national 
security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by 
Iraq, and, further, to enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council 
resolutions regarding Iraq.
  During the course of the negotiations on that resolution, in which I 
was deeply involved, Congress made it clear, at least on this side--as 
one of the several people speaking for the Democrats at the time in the 
Senate--we specifically and clearly rejected the Bush administration's 
initial proposal for using force in Iraq. President Bush sought what I 
believe to be, and the majority of the Senate eventually did, an overly 
broad authority to use force: to restore international peace and 
security in the region.
  I read that at the time as a grant of authority to the President that 
far exceeded what arguably was necessary at all in Iraq. The function 
of our military force was not to restore international peace and 
security in the region. We struck that and said: The use

[[Page S3181]]

of force is to defend the national security of the United States 
against a continuing threat from Iraq, not the region; not the region.
  After the President's attempted overreach here, we narrowed the 
geographic scope of the authority the Congress, under the Constitution, 
was willing to grant the President, and we narrowed the purpose for 
which he was allowed to use force. We did two things. We not only said, 
Mr. President, this is not about the region. You can only use force, if 
necessary, dealing with Iraq being a threat to the United States.
  I remind everybody what we were being told at the time. We were being 
told by the Vice President that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear 
program. Simply not true. It was not true when he stated it. Our 
intelligence community not only said he did not reconstitute the 
nuclear program, it said he had no nuclear program. That is not what we 
were told.
  So we gave him authority, I remind everyone, to negotiate at the 
United Nations, to keep the pressure of the world on Iraq, to bring 
back the U.N. people, to determine what nuclear program or weapons of 
mass destruction he had, to get the inspectors back in, and to 
negotiate to do that, because at the time the argument taking place in 
the world was, was the U.S. embargo, was the world embargo, were the 
U.N. inspectors causing pain for innocent Iraqis?
  Do you remember how many times we heard the argument that the reason 
why there was not enough medicine, the reason why children were dying, 
the reason why they did not have enough food, was because of this awful 
thing the United States was leading, the embargo on Iraq, the Food for 
Oil Program?
  So to put this in context so everybody remembers, there were a lot of 
us on the floor willing to give deference to the President, who we 
thought was responsible in the exercise of power at the time, because 
he appeared responsible immediately after 9/11; he proceeded correctly 
relative to al-Qaida and the Taliban. He did not go off willy-nilly and 
start bombing people. He built the case. He sent his envoys all over 
the world. He made a compelling case for the right for us to invade 
Afghanistan. He even went so far as to worry about whether the Arab 
street would rise up if we attacked Muslims in Afghanistan. He engaged 
in public diplomacy. He did a fine job.
  That was the context in which we gave him this power. But even then, 
as much as he had done well relative to Afghanistan at the time, we 
quite frankly did not trust him or any President to have this broad 
reach of authority which he asked for, which was to maintain peace, 
international peace and security in the region.
  So we cut back the authority we gave him to negotiate at the U.N. 
Remember what he tried to do. He came and made the argument: There has 
to be a demonstration that all of the Nation support him in that we 
must keep pressure on Saddam. All Democrats and Republicans support 
him. That was the argument made to us. He did not come up here and make 
the argument to the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services 
Committee: We need to be able to attack. He argued we needed to be able 
to give him the moral authority to go to the United Nations and keep 
the pressure on, because the French were wavering, the Europeans were 
wavering, some Arab countries were wavering. And then as time went on, 
he built this argument about they reconstituted their nuclear weapons 
and the like. But even then we did not give him the authority he asked 
for.
  Why am I dwelling on this? Well, we made a clear judgment as a Senate 
and as a House, as a Congress, that he did not have the geographic 
scope for the extended purpose he wanted. We said: Here is your writ, 
Mr. President. Here is the region you are allowed to, if need be, use 
force--in this constrained area called Iraq. Because you are telling 
us, Mr. President, it is a threat to the United States of America, not 
a threat to the region, it is a threat to the United States of America. 
So you have the authority to deal with that, if necessary.
  Secondly, even within Iraq, you can only use the force to enforce all 
relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. If memory 
serves me, there were 16, including resolutions relating to weapons of 
mass destruction.
  So that was the rationale. We severely limited the authority he 
wanted because we thought it was an overreach. Now we know there were 
no weapons of mass destruction. Now we know--I will speak and say what 
I believe--hopefully the Intelligence Committee will show--not only did 
we have bad intelligence, but the good intelligence we had was misused 
by the administration, in my opinion. We will find out whether that 
turns out to be true.
  In 2002, when we offered the authorization to use force, we defined 
the purpose. So I ask those who argue that we are now overstepping our 
bounds with this resolution, did we overstep our bounds in 2002 when we 
authorized the use of force against Iraq, when we limited what the 
President wanted to do? If, in fact, we do not have the constitutional 
authority today to limit what the President wants to do, how did we 
have the authority to do it in 2002? As I said, what is the rationale 
for the continued authority under the 2002 resolution? There are no 
weapons of mass destruction. All the U.N. resolutions are in 
compliance. And nobody argues the Iraqi Government is a threat to the 
United States of America. Are they going to invade us?
  To those who have a problem with the mission we defined in this joint 
resolution before the Senate, I also say, listen to Prime Minister Tony 
Blair in announcing last month the redeployment of British forces from 
Iraq. Last month the mission the British Government assigned to those 
Brits who will remain in Iraq is precisely what we prescribed in our 
resolution. The new mission of the British forces in Iraq is the 
following: to transfer responsibility to the Iraqis; to train and 
support Iraqi forces; to help secure the border and supply routes; and 
to conduct operations against extremist groups, i.e., Al-Qaida. It is 
not to fight in the Iraqi civil war. It is not to be in the lead role 
in security operations in Basra, where they had authority, or in 
Baghdad, where they did not. In short, with the exception of denying 
terrorists sanctuary and training of Iraqis, the British forces are 
moving from the driver's seat to the backseat. This resolution proposes 
that very transition for our forces in Iraq.
  So I ask again, rhetorically, does the Vice President think Prime 
Minister Blair's announcement of a ``redeployment,'' as the Vice 
President said, ``validates the al-Qaida strategy''? That is what he is 
accusing the Congress of. That is what he accuses me and Carl Levin of 
when we came up with this idea, that is now a leadership amendment; we 
are validating al-Qaida's strategy.
  Are the British validating al-Qaida's strategy? Is he saying Tony 
Blair is validating Osama bin Laden? It is ridiculous. It is a 
ridiculous argument. It flies in the face of the facts. It comes down 
to this: Do we want American troops fighting an Iraqi civil war? Is 
that what we want these troops for? Is that why we sent them? Do you 
think, when we voted back in 2002, if we knew there were no weapons of 
mass destruction, if Saddam were gone, if they were in compliance with 
other U.N. resolutions, but if there were a raging civil war, do you 
think we would have voted on the floor of this body to send 150,000, 
160,000, 170,000, 180,000 American troops to Iraq to help them settle 
their civil war? What do you think? I don't think so. We might have 
sent troops to Jordan. We might have done what we are trying now in 
Amman and the emirates. We might have beefed up Turkey. We might have 
accepted to go after al-Qaida sites. But I doubt very much we would 
vote now to get in the midst of a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian 
violence, which is what it is. If you want American troops fighting a 
civil war in Iraq, if you want that, then vote against this resolution, 
do not vote for it. Do not vote for it.
  You say that is not fair; we are not engaged in fighting in a civil 
war. Has anybody asked themselves the rhetorical question: Why is it 
that Sadr, who has been responsible for killing a lot of Americans, and 
his Mahdi army, which has been responsible for killing a lot of 
Americans, why is it that the Shia-led Mahdi army, particularly in Sadr 
City, has taken off their uniforms, hidden their weapons, and as of 
yesterday--I have not checked today--there were rumors that Sadr is no 
longer in Iraq?

[[Page S3182]]

Maybe he is back now. We do not know for sure where he is. Why is it 
that they took down the blockade? Is it because all of a sudden they 
turned peace loving?
  I respectfully suggest, because inadvertently the 17,500 troops we 
are surging into the middle of Baghdad, we are surging them into 20-
some neighborhoods that are Sunni.
  They are bad guys, these former Saddamists, these former Baathists--
this insurgency--who were referred to until recently by the Secretary 
of Defense as ``a bunch of dead enders.'' I respectfully suggest the 
reason all of a sudden the Shia in Sadr City are lying low is because 
they are very happy the United States is doing their job for them, 
killing their enemy, killing the bad guys who are Sunnis. Does anybody 
think if we succeed in that mission that all of a sudden we are not 
going to see all those weapons come out of hiding in Sadr City? Does 
anybody think that all of a sudden it is going to be safe for Americans 
in that region? Does anybody think the uniforms aren't going to come 
back on and the roadblocks aren't going to go back up? These folks 
aren't dumb. It is not our purpose, but the effect is, we are engaged 
in this civil war.
  The question is, What is the plan to responsibly end our 
participation in this war without leaving behind chaos, without having 
traded a dictator for chaos, without having left behind a cycle of 
self-sustaining sectarian violence that metastasizes in the 
fragmentation of Iraq and metastasizes in the region--Turkey, Iran, 
Syria, Saudi Arabia? What is the answer?
  So far, I don't hear a plan. Notice, by the way, now the surge is 
really getting bumped up, as some of us predicted on this floor when he 
announced the surge and predicted in our committee, 17,000 people to 
22,500, whatever the actual number was initially. Now they are saying 
they are going to need 30,000 people for the surge. Why? Because it is 
like squeezing a water balloon. The bad guys have left this area in 
part, and they have now gone to the province directly outside of 
Baghdad.
  General Keane is a very bright fellow, an honest guy, a former four-
star general, who testified before our committee. He came up with the 
original plan about surging. He said: In order for this to work, you 
are going to have to surge well beyond Baghdad. You are going to have 
to go into Anbar Province and beyond. He predicted what would happen.
  They said: No, we are only talking about 22,500 troops.
  What is the purpose of the surge? The purpose of the surge, we are 
told--in a humanitarian sense, it makes a lot of sense, except for the 
humanitarian interest of our troops--is to bring order to Baghdad, stop 
the killing and the chaos. Why? Because when that happens and they 
have--I think the phrase used is ``breathing room''--when they have 
that breathing room, what is going to happen? Then they can negotiate. 
Then they will sit down and negotiate an agreement among themselves. 
Has anybody asked the question, What will be the basis of that 
negotiation? What is the idea? What is the element? What is the 
political solution?
  The President continues to insist on a well-intended but 
fundamentally flawed strategy. The flawed strategy is, it is possible 
to have a strong central democratic government. Before we went to war, 
I believed, and so stated, that there is not going to be a democracy 
there in any of our lifetimes, including the Presiding Officer, who is 
considerably younger than most of us. It is not going to happen. It is 
possible that we could leave behind a country secure within its 
borders, loosely federated, not a threat to its neighbor and not a 
haven for terror, but that is as good as it is going to get.
  At least one and probably both of my colleagues in the Chamber were 
here during the Balkan crisis in Bosnia. What does history teach us and 
what does recent experience teach us? Wherever there is a cycle of 
self-sustaining genocide, self-sustaining sectarian violence, when in 
modern history has it ended other than any one of four ways:
  One, a victor. They wipe out the other two sides or three sides or 
one side, and one of the ethnic groups prevails militarily on the 
battlefield.
  Two, occupation by an outside force--the Ottoman Empire, the Persian 
Empire, the British Empire.
  We can't afford the first to happen because that would have a 
devastating impact on the region because everybody knows the Sunni 
states will get more involved. If it goes the other way, the Shia 
states will be involved in Iran beyond what they are now. That is not a 
real option. We are not an occupying force. It is not in our DNA. We 
are not an empire.
  The third option historically is a dictator, a strongman. Wouldn't 
that be the ultimate irony--us going to Iraq to take down Saddam and 
restoring a strong man, which, I respectfully suggest, we should 
consider might happen because eventually we are going to leave and the 
dysfunctional circumstances in Iraq are as likely to produce a strong 
military leader to take over as anything else, although there is no 
individual in sight right now. That is not an option available to us.
  What is the fourth historical option? Federation, a federal system, a 
weak central government within the defined borders of a country that, 
in fact, gives the warring sectarian parties some control over the 
fabric of their daily lives, their local police force for their public 
safety, rules relating to marriage, education. That is the only other 
option which has ever worked. It doesn't work perfectly.
  What does recent history tell us? Like many here, I was deeply 
involved in our Balkan policy. As my friend from Kansas may remember, 
I, to use the vernacular, beat President Clinton up and about the head 
to use force in the Balkans. I argued, after encountering Milosevic 2 
years before he acted in his office--when he asked me what I thought of 
him, I said: I think you are a damn war criminal, and I am going to 
spend my career seeing you tried as one. I came back and wrote report 
after report, after close to a dozen visits. I saw what was happening 
in Brcko, in Tuzla, in Sarajevo, in Srebenica, more sectarian violence 
in the Balkans from Vlad the Impaler to Milosevic than ever occurred in 
what is now called Iraq.
  So how did we end it? We ended it after they killed several hundred 
thousand people, mostly women and children. We ended it after we 
gathered all the neighbors, including Russia, a pro-Serbian force, 
France, all the nations in the region. We gathered in a room. We 
brought in the parties who were warring, including Milosevic, Tudjman, 
Croats, and other leaders representing the Bosniaks. What did we do? We 
then called the Dayton Peace Accords. What did we do there? We gave 
much more autonomy to each of those groups than ever was envisioned by 
what I am proposing.
  We set up a thing called the Republic of Serbia in Bosnia with its 
own President. We had a Bosnian President and we had a Croatian 
President. For over 10 years, as my friend from Oklahoma can attest, 
who knows more about force structure than most of us know, there have 
been over 20,000 on average NATO forces there. To the best of my 
knowledge, none has been killed in anger with a shot fired.
  What is going on in Bosnia today? Was everyone who was ethnically 
cleansed able to come back to their neighborhoods? No. A lot have. Is 
there still injustice? Yes. Is genocide continuing? No. What are they 
doing now? They are debating amending their Constitution to become part 
of Europe so they can join the EU down the road. We don't have to go 
very far for an example.
  Let me ask the rhetorical question again: Can anybody name me a time, 
without empire, dictator or expiring, that self-sustaining sectarian 
violence within the borders of a country has resulted in a central 
federal control that is democratic? With all due respect to the 
President, arguably his dream at the outset made sense. That is why I 
called 3 years ago for 60,000 to 100,000 additional American forces. 
That is why I called for the need for at least 5,000 to 6,000 
paramilitary police to be sent, because I believed--and I wrote at the 
time--if the genie ever gets out of the bottle, if we don't establish 
order quickly, there is no possibility of stopping a vicious civil war.
  Senator Hagel and I got smuggled across the Turkish border before the 
war began, and went up to Arbil and met with the Brazani and Talabani 
clans to discuss with them whether

[[Page S3183]]

they would actually be with us if force was used. They had us each 
speak before the Kurdish Parliament, and they had already written a 
constitution that was the minimum they would, in fact, insist upon 
which allowed for significant Kurdish autonomy. They wanted a federal 
system.
  A year ago January, my distinguished colleague from South Carolina 
and I went to Iraq for what was my sixth time. I have been there since. 
I don't know how many times it was. We went around and proudly put our 
fingers in the ink well, demonstrating that this was a free election. 
We came back and spoke to the President. We were debriefed by the 
President and his war cabinet. The President said it was a great 
democratic effort. I presumed to suggest it wasn't a democratic effort, 
it was a free election. It was a sectarian election. It turns out 92 
percent of the vote cast was a sectarian vote. Kurds voted for Kurds. 
Shia voted for Shia. Sunni voted for Sunni. That is not democracy. 
Elections do not a democracy make. They are a necessary and ultimate 
condition to democracy. Democracy is about giving up things, about 
compromise.

  I will never forget what Senator Graham, who has a great facility for 
words, said as I was trying to explain to the President about the 
militias--not that he did not know there were militias. After we got 
finished, the President turned to Senator Graham and Senator Graham 
said, with a bit of humor: Mr. President, it is kind of like when the 
recount was taking place in Florida, if the Republicans had their own 
army and the Democrats had their own army. That is the better analogy.
  The genie was out of the bottle, and the genie came roaring out of 
the bottle when that shrine in the Shia area was devastated and ripped 
off the Earth.
  Let me conclude by saying, it comes down to a simple proposition: Why 
do we want our troops in Iraq? Is it to fight a civil war or is it to 
provide a circumstance whereby we do the only thing that can help our 
interest, to prevent al-Qaida from occupying territory, to train the 
Iraqi forces, and to protect our troops. To do that we need a lot fewer 
troops.
  Do we want to end this war responsibly? If we do, I respectfully 
suggest we vote for this resolution. If you prefer the President's 
plan, which offers no end in sight, I respectfully suggest you should 
vote against it. But, ultimately, there are a lot of proposals put 
forward, including the President's, and you have to ask yourself the 
rhetorical question, I believe: After it is implemented, then what? 
Then what?
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding on this side we 
have 18 minutes. I am going to reserve 10 minutes for leadership time. 
That leaves 8 minutes I yield to the Senator from Kansas, Mr. 
Brownback.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
the time for debate.
  I thank my colleague from Delaware, whom I enjoyed listening to and 
with whom I enjoyed serving on the Foreign Relations Committee.
  I say at the outset, I have been endorsing and speaking often around 
the country about this notion of a federated system in Iraq, of the 
need for a three-state, one-country solution, with Baghdad as a federal 
city, where we have a Sunni area, a Shia area, and a Kurdish region.
  I have been in Irbil as well. In the middle of January, I was there. 
I agree with his analysis of history. When you look at these 
situations, and you take a big military apparatus off the top of a 
place such as the former Yugoslavia, or now in Iraq, and then you have 
these old, ancient hatreds that sit there, how do you deal with them? 
That is why I think this is a political solution that is right. I agree 
with my colleague from Delaware about that.
  I wish he had not left the floor yet so we could have some discussion 
on that point because I think, though, that issue would then bode to 
voting against this resolution because what we are going to need to 
have is a period of time to get that political machination in place. We 
are going to need some time and space for Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias to 
be able to talk together, to be able to talk in an environment where 
there are not these mass car bombs and assaults and attacks taking 
place on a sectarian basis--such as took place in Bosnia--so that you 
can be able to allow the political system to work.
  These are not mutually exclusive objectives of having a military 
apparatus in operation and in place in Iraq while you are pushing 
forward a very sensible and probably the only political solution that 
can take place, having an area for Sunnis, Shias, and a Kurdish 
region--which already exists. I might add this is in the Iraqi 
Constitution now. This sort of sectarian division of areas is allowed 
in the Iraqi Constitution. They have even taken the first steps of 
implementation. The Kurdish area is being operated by the Kurds. The 
oil revenues, which are being equally--by the last agreement--divided 
up around the country, are the glue to hold this system together.
  This can and should take place. I urge the administration to push 
this, and even to bring these leaders together in-country or outside of 
the country to push this form of political solution. But I would add on 
top of that, that form of political solution would then say: Do not 
vote for this resolution that sets a timetable under which this must 
happen because these are things that are going to take some period of 
time. As my colleague from Delaware noted, we have been in Bosnia for 
the last 15 years putting this in place and holding this in place.
  That is the requirement of this, then, so the passions can calm down, 
the sectarian passions can cool. You are going to need a force in place 
to see this political solution on through. That is the long-term 
objective I think we need to look at, this form he is on track to, but 
that would be in opposition to this resolution that sets a timetable.
  I respect his discourse and I respect my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle who may look at it differently, but I think we have to 
look at recent history to tell us this is a logical way that would take 
place.
  Iraq is more three groups held together by exterior forces at the 
present time--with pressure from Turkey, with pressure from the Gulf 
States, with pressure--that is not constructive--from a couple of other 
neighbors, particularly Iran and Syria.
  I think we need to recognize that political solution that is there, 
the exterior forces, and push this political solution in the 
environment of a more stable military apparatus and military operation.
  This resolution, it seems to me, is clearly not a call for victory. 
Therefore, it must be seen as a call for retreat. Even its supporters 
do not contend it is a plan for victory. We need to win. They talk 
about the problems we face, not the solutions we need. But yet there is 
a middle road here, even, of engaging the Senator from Delaware, his 
political solution with this military rationale, the military needs 
that are going to be there that is still in place in Bosnia and is 
going to be in place for some time in Iraq. We will need a military 
presence in Iraq for some time to come even to get to that political 
solution.
  We cannot predict how long that presence will be
   necessary or exactly what type of presence will be required. At the 
Dayton Accords, did we predict at that point in time it would be for a 
period of 5 years and no more? No. We said: We are going to help 
provide the stability so the political solution can take place. We did 
not put a set date: OK, in 1 year, we will have this few troops; and in 
2 years, we will not have any of these types of troops; and in 3 years 
we will be out. We did not say that. We said: OK, here is a political 
solution, and we are going to help stabilize this militarily for 
whatever time necessary to be able to do that.

  These solutions need to be brought together, not to be argued 
separately. I am not calling for an open-ended commitment to Iraq. I am 
suggesting that our commitment be driven by the mission. We must 
complete it. We must get this done. We can express opposition to the 
surge, which I have certainly done. But after doing so, I think we 
should oversee the implementation of it, not to try to undercut it, nor 
should we attempt to interrupt a mission just getting underway.

[[Page S3184]]

  We are looking at this right now. I cannot vote for a plan that would 
begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops before the surge forces are even 
fully deployed at this point in time. The 4th Brigade of the 1st 
Infantry Division, based at Fort Riley, KS, recently arrived in 
Baghdad. I do not think it would be wise for us to tell those soldiers 
they should prepare to leave Iraq even before they get their gear 
unpacked.
  Not only do I believe it is inappropriate for us to legislate a 
timetable for withdrawal, I also believe it is bad policy for us to do 
this in Iraq.
  First, supporters claim the resolution continues the fight against 
the terrorists by leaving a minimal force in place for counterterrorism 
operations. But apparently the terrorists are not getting that message. 
Two days ago, one of the al-Qaida leaders in Iraq used a jihadist Web 
site to discuss the very resolution we are now debating in the Senate. 
He said:

       The democratic majority in the American Congress announced 
     that the security plan must produce its fruits in the middle 
     of this summer or else they would expedite the departure of 
     the forces at the end of this year.

  Can there be any clearer evidence that al-Qaida is ready to wait us 
out?
  In fact, al-Qaida not only approves of a timetable for withdrawal, it 
is working feverishly to expedite our departure. In the last few weeks, 
al-Qaida bombings have stood out as obstacles to stemming the cycle of 
sectarian violence in and around Baghdad. Sunni leaders have become so 
tired of al-Qaida violence against their own communities that they are 
turning to U.S. forces for protection. A timetable for withdrawal 
serves al-Qaida's interests.
  For many years now, several of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle have rejected the idea that Iraq is a part--a central part--of 
the war on terrorism. I believe the statement I just read and others by 
al-Qaida leaders, the recent al-Qaida-inspired violence, and the Sunnis 
rejection of that violence should end this discussion. Iraq is 
unquestionably a key front in the war on terror, and it is essential we 
prevail against the terrorists in Iraq. If my colleagues are serious 
about fighting the war on terror, they should frustrate al-Qaida by 
voting against--against--this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I urge for political purposes of 
stabilizing Iraq, as Senator Biden talked about, this resolution be 
rejected.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I understand we have 10 minutes. I wish 
to retain the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield myself 6 minutes from the 
leader's time on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
previous agreement be modified to provide that if any of the 
resolutions receive 60 votes, the preamble be considered agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, America's troops deserve our Nation's 
full support every step of the way--from when they enlist, to when they 
train, to when they deploy, to when they return home.
  Tragically, this administration has failed our troops every step of 
the way. Today, Democrats are saying enough is enough. We are going to 
give our troops everything they need, and we are not going to be a 
rubberstamp for the President's war without end.
  I am very proud today to offer the Murray resolution in support of 
our troops, and I am pleased our majority leader, Senator Reid, 
strongly supports this resolution.
  We have been fighting to finally have a debate in the Senate for 
months. Now we are having that debate, and today we have to do three 
things: We need to adopt the Murray resolution that says we support our 
troops every step of the way. We need to reject the Gregg resolution 
that blindly follows the President. And I hope we pass the Reid 
resolution that sets a new direction in Iraq.
  The Murray resolution I have offered affirms we will provide our 
troops with everything they need to be safe and to complete their 
missions. We will provide everything they need in terms of training, 
equipment, logistics, and funding, and we will provide everything they 
need when they return home.
  Now, some here have a different idea. The Gregg resolution will tie 
the hands of Congress and would, importantly, leave all decisions to 
President Bush.
  Well, we know how that has turned out. If Congress--we who are 
elected by our constituents at home--surrenders its voice, we could see 
our troops being stuck with more of the same--more Americans being 
stuck in the middle of a civil war and more veterans coming home 
without the care they need.
  We do not need more of the same, in my opinion. We need a new 
direction. The Murray resolution shows we can have a new direction in 
Iraq, and we can give our troops all the support they need.
  So shortly we will all have a choice: Either you can blindly follow 
the President or you can say: We--here--are going to stand up to our 
own responsibility to support our troops, and we can also push for a 
new direction in Iraq.
  Now, the Gregg resolution says we have to support the President. The 
resolution I have offered says: We--here--have to support our troops.
  The Gregg resolution would simply make Congress a rubberstamp for a 
failed policy. The resolution I have offered says that Congress--us, 
those of us elected here in the Senate--have a voice, and we have to 
use that voice to help our troops.
  I suggest to my colleagues if you are happy with the war in Iraq, go 
ahead and vote for the Gregg resolution. It will keep us locked on the 
same path.
  If you are OK with returning troops waiting months in a crumbling 
military hold unit--or waiting years for their benefits--then vote for 
the Gregg resolution and keep us locked on the same path. But if you 
think our troops do deserve our support and do deserve better, vote for 
the Murray resolution. If you agree our troops deserve equipment to 
keep them safe, vote for the Murray resolution. If you agree our troops 
deserve the training that will help them succeed in their missions, 
vote for the Murray resolution. If you believe our troops deserve 
better when they come home, importantly, vote for the Murray 
resolution. If you believe Congress needs to use its voice and its 
power to give our country a direction in Iraq, vote for the Murray 
resolution.

  Our troops deserve better than what they have been provided so far. 
This President sent our troops into battle without the lifesaving armor 
and equipment they need. This President left our troops on the 
battlefield without a plan, without a clear mission, and without being 
honest about the costs--all costs--of the war. This President 
shortchanged health care and benefits for our returning servicemembers, 
leaving brave Americans, as we now know, to languish in squalor at 
Walter Reed and facilities across our country.
  Haven't we had enough of that? Didn't Americans send us a clear 
message last fall that enough is enough? It is time, I believe, for a 
new direction.
  The resolution I have offered recognizes that Congress has a role to 
play in supporting our troops. We have a voice also to push for a new 
direction, and we are going to use our power we were elected to use to 
help the brave men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the U.S. 
military.
  I would say to all of my colleagues today, if you vote against the 
Murray resolution, you don't really support our troops. Don't vote 
against our military and don't vote to tie our own hands. Use this 
opportunity today to tell our troops: We are all here for them and 
their families; from the time they head off to battle through the rest 
of their lives, we are there for them. Most of all, I hope the Senate 
votes to support the Reid resolution so we can change the direction in 
Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise to express my strong 
opposition to the Reid resolution, S.J. Res. 9.
  This is a dangerous piece of legislation. It is constitutionally 
dubious, and it would authorize a scattered band of Senators to 
literally tie the hands of the Commander in Chief at a moment of 
decisive importance in the fight

[[Page S3185]]

against terrorism in Iraq. I would never doubt the patriotism of my 
colleagues across the aisle, but I have become increasingly troubled 
over the last few weeks as this debate has taken shape.
  When the President prepared a solution to the growing violence in 
Baghdad, he had good reason to expect the support of at least some of 
our friends on the other side of the aisle. The democratic whip, 
Senator Durbin, said in late December:

       If we need initially some troops in Baghdad to quiet the 
     situation, to make it more peaceful so that our soldiers 
     start coming home, then I would accept it.

  That is the assistant Democratic leader not years ago but 3 months 
ago. Yet as details of the President's proposal to do so became clear, 
our friends on the other side circled the wagons, and Senator Durbin 
got in line. Just 2 weeks--2 weeks--after saying he would support 
reinforcements as a way of stabilizing Iraq, the Senator from Illinois 
said:

       The proposed surge in troops is a sad, ominous echo of 
     something we have lived through in this country.

  Then later on that day he added:

       I don't believe that a surge is the answer to our challenge 
     in Iraq.

  That is 2 weeks after announcing that it might be a good idea. Would 
our friend from Illinois have felt the same way if one of his 
Democratic colleagues had proposed the surge? Increasingly, the 
troubling answer to this question appears to be yes. Indeed, it is 
increasingly clear that the only principle guiding our colleagues on 
the other side is this: If the President proposed it, we oppose it. 
This is a bad principle in good times. It is an outrageous principle in 
times of war.
  Two months after many Democrats said they would support a surge in 
troops if it meant stabilizing Baghdad, and incredibly 1 month after 
sending General Petraeus on his mission to do so, Democrats are now 
calling for the very thing they have consistently opposed: setting a 
timetable for withdrawal. This is beyond silly. It is a chaotic 
embarrassment that threatens to shake the confidence of our commanders 
and of our troops, and to embolden an enemy that predicted and longed 
for nothing less. Of course, at some point it is not enough to simply 
say: If the President proposed it, we oppose it. The principle begs for 
a counterproposal: What would the Democrats propose instead? We all saw 
the answer: Seventeen different proposals, many of which contradicting 
the last, and then finally this, a proposal everyone could get behind, 
a proposal that sets a date certain for America's withdrawal from Iraq.
  This resolution is a clear statement of retreat from the support that 
the Senate recently gave to General Petraeus; as I have said, its 
passage would be absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq.
  Senator Clinton put it well. She said:

       I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I 
     don't think you should ever--ever--telegraph your intentions 
     to the enemy so they can await you.

  That was Senator Clinton. Well, ``ever'' is here, and our friends on 
the other side of the aisle apparently now think it is a good idea to 
telegraph our intentions to the enemy. Osama bin Laden and his 
followers have repeatedly said that the United States does not have the 
stomach for a long fight. Passage of this resolution will prove Osama 
bin Laden, regretfully, was right. This is the vote he has been waiting 
for.
  Setting a date certain for withdrawal will please a vocal group of 
Democratic Presidential primary voters, but it would discourage many 
others, including many Democrats, who agree that timetables are foolish 
and dangerous. More importantly, it would discourage our own troops--
and this is the most important part about this--who wonder whether we 
truly support their mission, and it will discourage our allies and the 
millions of brave Iraqi men and women who have dared to stand with 
America in this fight.
  I will proudly vote against a resolution that sets a timetable that 
actually announces the date for our withdrawal from Iraq. I will do so 
for the same reason that many prominent Democrats opposed it up until 
the day President Bush announced his plan for securing Baghdad 2 months 
ago.
  Republicans have a message for our allies and for our troops, and it 
is this: We will continue to fight a timetable for withdrawal that has 
no connection to events or circumstances on the ground. We will give 
General Petraeus's mission a chance to succeed. We are proud of the 
work the general has done, and we stand with him until the job is done. 
We will send this message today when we vote in favor of the Gregg 
resolution. This resolution pledges us to support the troops and their 
mission. The Republicans proposed a month ago that we be allowed a vote 
on this resolution, but we were denied. We are being allowed that vote 
today, and just as proudly as we will vote against S.J. Res. 9, we will 
vote in favor of the Gregg resolution.
  In one sense, this debate has been academic. Senators will have a 
chance to show their support for the mission in Iraq when we vote on 
the supplemental appropriations bill later this month. That is the bill 
that matters. That is the one that funds the operation in Iraq. But in 
another sense, this debate was worthwhile because it exposed the 
principle that appears to guide the opposition: If the President 
proposed it, we will oppose it. This is no principle at all; it is pure 
politics. It is unworthy in good times. It is shameful at a time of 
war.
  Meanwhile, the fighting in Iraq continues, and General Petraeus's 
mission is showing early signs of success. We are told that bomb deaths 
are down one-third in Baghdad since the new plan took effect last 
month. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half. Traffic has 
returned to the once empty Baghdad streets.
  No one is foolish enough to say this will last. This is not a 
prediction, but it is a sign of hope, the kind of sign that everyone in 
this country--Democrat and Republican--has been waiting for. We in this 
Chamber have a choice: We can fan this flame or we can smother it. By 
voting on a timetable for withdrawal, we are very decidedly doing the 
latter. Republicans take the hopeful path today.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, whatever time I have left I will add to 
that leader time.
  Madam President, on the eve of the fifth anniversary of this 
protracted war in Iraq, the Senate finally considers important 
legislation to direct President Bush to change the course of this civil 
war. S.J. Res. 9, which is a joint resolution to revise U.S. policy in 
Iraq, is one I offered. The second vote will be on the Murray 
resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that no action be taken 
to undermine the safety of the Armed Forces. Finally, S. Con. Res. 20 
is the Gregg resolution on funding for American troops in the field. I 
will discuss at some length at a later time this afternoon the 
difference between Murray and Gregg. Suffice it to say the Murray 
resolution takes care of the troops after battle in addition to while 
they are in Iraq. It takes care of the situation so we don't have 
another Walter Reed situation. The Gregg resolution does not cover the 
troops after battle.
  As it relates to S.J. Res. 9, Members will have to consider a choice: 
Will we continue to support President Bush's failed policy that has our 
troops bogged down in the middle of a civil war while the enemy who 
attacked us on September 11 grows stronger or will we stand with the 
American people in demanding a new direction for this war? This new 
direction maximizes our chances for success in Iraq and in that part of 
the world, a new direction that recognizes the current policy has 
pushed our troops and their families to the breaking point, a new 
direction which sends a signal to the President that this Congress will 
hold him accountable and no longer will we rubberstamp his failed 
policies; a new direction that restores U.S. standing in the world and 
refocuses our resources on our most imminent threats. My hope is we 
will stand with the American people, because they are standing with 
this resolution, S.J. Res. 9. We must have a new direction in Iraq.
  Monday will be the beginning of the fifth year of this war, the fifth 
year of

[[Page S3186]]

this war our troops are now mired in, a war in this faraway country. 
Five years of war, of the President's approach to Iraq, and it is clear 
it is not working. The country is in a state of chaos. Iraq is in a 
state of chaos. There literally is no stability. U.S. troops are 
policing a civil war, a protracted civil war, not hunting and killing 
the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Five years. Five years of war.
  The mission has changed. Saddam is gone. There are no weapons of mass 
destruction. The original mission no longer exists. Five years of war 
with 3,200 dead Americans, 25,000 wounded Americans, hundreds of 
billions of dollars spent, $4 billion a week, a couple of hundred 
million dollars a day and still no end in sight, according to this 
President. The American military, the finest in the world, cannot and 
should not police an Iraqi civil war. General Petraeus's name has been 
thrown around here as if it is his war. It is not his war. It is 
President Bush's war. General Petraeus, the commander in Iraq today, 
recently observed there is no military solution in Iraq. The war must 
be ultimately won through diplomacy, politically, by forcing Iraq's 
political factions to resolve their differences.
  The key to success in Iraq is not to escalate the conflict by adding 
tens of thousands of additional troops to march down the same road. 
Some of these troops have been down the same road as many as four and 
five times. It is time to find a new way forward and a new way home 
that gives our troops a strategy to complete the mission and, I repeat, 
come home.
  The Reid resolution will give our troops the best chance to succeed 
in Iraq and to succeed in the larger war on terror. It will direct the 
President to change course in Iraq by changing the mission in Iraq. 
This resolution immediately transitions the mission to training, force 
protection, targeting counterterrorist operations, and beginning the 
redeployment of our troops in the next 120 days.
  Similar to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, the goal in my resolution 
is to remove all combat forces not associated with these missions by 
the spring of 2008. My resolution also recognizes a comprehensive 
strategy in Iraq. Phased redeployment shall be implemented as part of a 
comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that 
includes Iraq's neighbors and the international community.
  S. Res. 107, the Murray alternative to the Gregg resolution, strongly 
supports our troops but also properly interprets the Constitution by 
stating that the President and the Congress have shared 
responsibilities for decisions involving our Armed Forces.
  Quoting from the resolution:

       The President and the Congress should not take any action 
     that will endanger the Armed Forces of the United States, and 
     will provide necessary funds for the training, equipment, and 
     other support for troops in the field, as such actions will 
     ensure their safety and effectiveness in preparing for and 
     carrying out their assigned missions.

  In addition, the Murray resolution makes it clear that the 
Constitution gives Congress the responsibility, in addition to the 
President, to take actions to help our troops and veterans. The Murray 
resolution says that our responsibility to our troops doesn't begin and 
end when they are deployed. Supporting the troops means giving them the 
proper training before they are deployed and ensuring they receive the 
proper medical and other support when they return home.
  Madam President, I suggest that voting no on the Murray resolution is 
voting to condone what has taken place at Walter Reed. The Murray 
resolution recognizes that the troops must be taken care of not only 
when they are in battle but when they get out of battle. If there were 
ever a picture of what is wrong, look at what happened at Walter Reed. 
The Murray amendment underscores that.
  The people voting against the Murray amendment will be voting against 
changing what took place at Walter Reed.
  The Department of Defense said yesterday in a report they issued--the 
Pentagon issued--that there is a civil war going on in Iraq now, as we 
speak. The Pentagon, in their report yesterday, said violence is up, 
not down. Three soldiers a day are being killed. February was the month 
of more attacks than at any time during this 5-year war.
  Al Maliki, when he met with the President face to face, said get the 
American troops out of Baghdad. He is the leader of Iraq. General 
Casey, who was a commander at the time the President suggested the 
surge, said the surge won't work. This is not General Petraeus's war, 
it is President Bush's war, and we must change course.
  In our resolution, there is a 120-day redeployment, and there will be 
work on counterterrorism, force protection, and training. Yes, they 
will also do political and economic strategy, and certainly diplomacy. 
Our goal is the spring of 2008.
  It is easy to talk about sending the troops into battle and 
supporting the troops. I support the troops. I support the troops, but 
I don't think that we should spill another drop of American blood in 
Iraq--not another drop of blood.
  I spoke to the mother of LCpl Raul Bravo a week ago today. She is the 
mother of that 21-year-old boy who was killed in Iraq. It was his 
second tour of duty. She said that ``he is the only man in our 
family''--her and his three sisters. She said that he was an angel. Her 
son did his best to learn to speak the language of the Iraqis. She said 
he said prayers with the Iraqis. His blood should not have been left in 
that faraway place.
  The war has gone on too long. We must change direction in Iraq. We 
have given the President chance after chance. We hear that things are 
getting better. His own Pentagon says it is a civil war. His own 
Pentagon says it is getting worse. That is what these resolutions are 
about today.
  The Reid resolution says let's change direction in Iraq. The Murray 
resolution says support the troops at all times. The Gregg resolution 
takes Congress out of the equation and doesn't do a thing for the 
troops when they come home.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following these votes, 
the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the 
following nominations:
  Calendar No. 36, John Preston Baily of West Virginia, to be a 
district judge.
  Calendar No. 37, Otis D. Wright, II, of California, to be a district 
judge.
  Calendar No. 42, Thomas M. Hardiman, of Pennsylvania, to be a circuit 
court judge for the Third Circuit.
  Further, I ask unanimous consent that there be 20 minutes for debate, 
equally divided, under the control of Senators Leahy and Specter or 
their designees on the three nominations; that when the time is used or 
yielded back, the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of each of 
the nominations in the above order; that the motions to reconsider be 
laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
am certainly not going to object, is the majority leader expecting 
rollcall votes on all three of the judges?
  Mr. REID. At the moment, yes, but that can change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
the engrossment and third reading of S.J. Res. 9.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on passage of the joint resolution.
  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 Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?

[[Page S3187]]

  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

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

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johnson
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
50. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this measure, this vote is vitiated, and the measure is returned to its 
previous status.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, with the permission of the Republican 
leader, I ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be 10 minutes 
in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.


                              S. Res. 107

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on Senate Resolution 107, and the Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the Senate is about to vote on the 
Murray resolution. There should be no question that the Members of the 
Senate support our troops. We all do. In this resolution, we want to 
make sure we go on record saying we support our troops from the time 
they go to battle and are sent on their missions to the time they come 
home.
  We make very clear in the Murray resolution that this Senate will go 
on record saying the support of our troops extends far beyond their 
mission in the field. It means when they come home and are sent to 
Walter Reed or one of our other medical facilities, we will support 
them with what they need. It says we will support their families 
throughout their lifetime, if that is what it takes, for their service 
to this country.
  I hope this is passed on a strong, loud, bipartisan vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, ironically, I agree with the Senator 
from Washington, although I disagree with the characterization of this 
resolution.
  First of all, the resolution does essentially the same thing the 
Gregg resolution does. No. 1, the Gregg resolution uses the language 
that ``Congress should not take any action that will endanger United 
States military forces in the field.'' That is exactly the same 
language that is in the Murray resolution: ``Congress should not take 
any action that will endanger the Armed Forces.''
  The Gregg resolution talks about article II, section 2, of the 
Constitution, in terms of the President's constitutional powers, and 
article I, section 8 of the power of Congress; and the Murray 
resolution does essentially the same thing, except it doesn't cite it. 
It merely says Congress and the President should continue to exercise 
their constitutional responsibilities.
  So I am going to vote for the Murray resolution and vote for the 
Gregg resolution. I don't see any difference in them. I think we are 
supporting the President, and this is the right thing to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Corker
     Hatch
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johnson
     McCain
  The resolution (S. Res. 107) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 107

       Whereas under the Constitution, the President and Congress 
     have shared responsibilities for decisions on the use of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States, including their mission, 
     and for supporting the Armed Forces, especially during 
     wartime;
       Whereas when the Armed Forces are deployed in harm's way, 
     the President, Congress, and the Nation should give them all 
     the support they need in order to maintain their safety and 
     accomplish their assigned or future missions, including the 
     training, equipment, logistics, and funding necessary to 
     ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such support is 
     the responsibility of both the Executive Branch and the 
     Legislative Branch of Government; and
       Whereas thousands of members of the Armed Forces who have 
     fought bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan are not receiving the 
     kind of medical care and other support this Nation owes them 
     when they return home: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the President and Congress should not take any action 
     that will endanger the Armed Forces of the United States, and 
     will provide necessary funds for training, equipment, and 
     other support for troops in the field, as such actions will 
     ensure their safety and effectiveness in preparing for and 
     carrying out their assigned missions;
       (2) the President, Congress, and the Nation have an 
     obligation to ensure that those who have bravely served this 
     country in time of war receive the medical care and other 
     support they deserve; and
       (3) the President and Congress should--
       (A) continue to exercise their constitutional 
     responsibilities to ensure that the Armed Forces have 
     everything they need to perform their assigned or future 
     missions; and
       (B) review, assess, and adjust United States policy and 
     funding as needed to ensure our troops have the best chance 
     for success in Iraq and elsewhere.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S3188]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            S. Con. Res. 20

  Mr. REID. Madam President, it is my understanding there is a minute 
on each side. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Gregg amendment has been changed since 
it was originally filed. It is still imperfect. I still think, at least 
from my observation, it is not good, especially in light of the fact 
that the Murray amendment so clearly defines the necessity of taking 
care of the troops when they come home. But there is no caucus position 
on this issue. Senators on this side of the aisle should vote however 
they feel comfortable. I personally am not going to vote for it because 
I don't feel comfortable. I believe the resolution leaves a lot to be 
desired. It can be construed many different ways. It is wrong that we 
do not take into consideration the injured troops when they come home. 
My caucus can vote any way they feel appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. I am just wondering what the parliamentary situation is. 
Do I have a minute or was the minute on the other side just used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a minute.
  Mr. GREGG. That was a minute on the other side that was used or was 
that leadership time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-five seconds was used.
  Mr. GREGG. I think it is important Members understand what this 
amendment says, so I am going to read it:

       That it is the sense of Congress that Congress shall 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.

  It is very simple. If you support the troops, you have to support 
this amendment. In fact, if you supported the Murray amendment, you 
have to support this amendment unless you changed your mind in the last 
30 seconds.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the resolution. 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 Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Byrd
     Corker
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Menendez
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johnson
       
     McCain
  The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 20) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The concurrent resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                             S. Con Res. 20

       Whereas under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of 
     the United States, the President is the ``commander in chief 
     of the Army and Navy of the United States'', and in such 
     capacity the President has the command of the Armed Forces, 
     including the authority to deploy troops and direct military 
     campaigns during wartime;
       Whereas under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of 
     the United States, Congress has the power of the purse 
     specifically as it relates to the Armed Forces, and in such 
     capacity Congress has the responsibility to fully and 
     adequately provide funding for United States military forces, 
     especially when they are at war and are defending the Nation; 
     and
       Whereas when United States military forces are in harm's 
     way and are protecting our country, Congress and the Nation 
     should give them all the support they need in order to 
     maintain their safety and accomplish their assigned missions, 
     including the equipment, logistics, and funding necessary to 
     ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such support is 
     the responsibility of both the Executive Branch and the 
     Legislative Branch of Government: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That 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.

                          ____________________