[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2260-2264]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 4--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS ON 
                                  IRAQ

  Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
Coleman, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Bayh, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Nelson of Florida, 
and Mrs. McCaskill) submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                             S. Con. Res. 4

       Whereas, we respect the Constitutional authorities given a 
     President in Article II, Section 2, which states that ``The 
     President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of 
     the United States;'' it is not the intent of this resolution 
     to question or contravene such authority, but to accept the 
     offer to Congress made by the President on January 10, 2007 
     that, ``if members have improvements that can be made, we 
     will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust;''
       Whereas, the United States' strategy and operations in Iraq 
     can only be sustained and achieved with support from the 
     American people and with a level of bipartisanship;
       Whereas, over 137,000 American military personnel are 
     currently serving in Iraq, like thousands of others since 
     March 2003, with the bravery and professionalism consistent 
     with the finest traditions of the United States armed forces, 
     and are deserving of the support of all Americans, which they 
     have strongly;
       Whereas, many American service personnel have lost their 
     lives, and many more have been wounded, in Iraq, and the 
     American people will always honor their sacrifices and honor 
     their families;
       Whereas, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, including their 
     Reserve and National Guard organizations, together with 
     components of the other branches of the military, are under 
     enormous strain from multiple, extended deployments to Iraq 
     and Afghanistan;
       Whereas, these deployments, and those that will follow, 
     will have lasting impacts on the future recruiting, retention 
     and readiness of our nation's all volunteer force;
       Whereas in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2006, the Congress stated that ``calendar year 
     2006 should be a period of significant transition to full 
     sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for 
     the security of a free and sovereign Iraq;''
       Whereas, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723, 
     approved November 28, 2006, ``determin[ed] that the situation 
     in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international 
     peace and security;''
       Whereas, a failed state in Iraq would present a threat to 
     regional and world peace, and the long-term security 
     interests of the United States are best served by an Iraq 
     that can sustain, govern, and defend itself, and serve as an 
     ally in the war against extremists;
       Whereas, Iraq is experiencing a deteriorating and ever-
     widening problem of sectarian and intra-sectarian violence 
     based upon political distrust and cultural differences 
     between some Sunni and Shia Muslims;
       Whereas, Iraqis must reach political settlements in order 
     to achieve reconciliation, and the failure of the Iraqis to 
     reach such settlements to support a truly unified government 
     greatly contributes to the increasing violence in Iraq;
       Whereas, the responsibility for Iraq's internal security 
     and halting sectarian violence must rest primarily with the 
     Government of Iraq and Iraqi Security Forces;
       Whereas, U.S. Central Command Commander General John 
     Abizaid testified to Congress on November 15, 2006, ``I met 
     with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps 
     Commander, [and] General Dempsey. We all talked together. And 
     I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in 
     more American troops now, does it add considerably to our 
     ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And 
     the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's 
     easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I 
     believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from 
     doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own 
     future;''
       Whereas, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated on 
     November 27, 2006 that ``The crisis is political, and the 
     ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting 
     of innocents are the politicians;''
       Whereas, there is growing evidence that Iraqi public 
     sentiment opposes the continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq, 
     much less increasing the troop level;
       Whereas, in the fall of 2006, leaders in the Administration 
     and Congress, as well as recognized experts in the private 
     sector, began to express concern that the situation in Iraq 
     was deteriorating and required a change in strategy; and, as 
     a consequence, the Administration began an intensive, 
     comprehensive review of the Iraq strategy, by all components 
     of the Executive branch;
       Whereas, in December 2006, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group 
     issued a valuable report, suggesting a comprehensive strategy 
     that includes ``new and enhanced diplomatic and political 
     efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary 
     mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United 
     States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq 
     responsibly;''
       Whereas, on January 10, 2007, following consultations with 
     the Iraqi Prime Minister, the President announced a new 
     strategy (hereinafter referred to as the ``plan,'') the 
     central element of which is an augmentation of the present 
     U.S. military force structure through additional deployments 
     of approximately 21,500 U.S. military troops to Iraq;
       Whereas, this proposed level of troop augmentation far 
     exceeds the expectations of many of us as to the 
     reinforcements that would be necessary to implement the 
     various options for a new strategy, and led many members to 
     express outright opposition to augmenting our troops by 
     21,500;
       Whereas, the Government of Iraq has promised repeatedly to 
     assume a greater share of security responsibilities, disband 
     militias, consider Constitutional amendments and enact laws 
     to reconcile sectarian differences, and improve the quality 
     of essential services for the Iraqi people; yet, despite 
     those promises, little has been achieved;
       Whereas, the President said on January 10, 2007 that ``I've 
     made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders 
     that America's commitment is not open-ended'' so as to dispel 
     the contrary impression that exists;
       Whereas, the recommendations in this resolution should not 
     be interpreted as precipitating any immediate reduction in, 
     or withdrawal of, the present level of forces: Now therefore 
     be it--
       Resolved, by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Senate disagrees with the ``plan'' to augment our 
     forces by 21,500, and urges the President instead to consider 
     all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic 
     goals set forth below with reduced force levels than 
     proposed;
       (2) The primary objective of the overall U.S. strategy in 
     Iraq should be to encourage Iraqi leaders to make political 
     compromises that will foster reconciliation and strengthen 
     the unity government, ultimately leading to improvements in 
     the security situation;
       (3) The military part of this strategy should focus on 
     maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying 
     international terrorists a safe haven, conducting 
     counterterrorism operations, promoting regional stability, 
     and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full 
     responsibility for their own security;
       (4) United States military operations should, as much as 
     possible, be confined to these goals, and should charge the 
     Iraqi military with the primary mission of combating 
     sectarian violence;

[[Page 2261]]

       (5) The military Rules of Engagement for this plan should 
     reflect this delineation of responsibilities;
       (6) The United States Government should transfer to the 
     Iraqi military, in an expeditious manner, such equipment as 
     is necessary;
       (7) The Senate believes the United States should continue 
     vigorous operations in Anbar province, specifically for the 
     purpose of combating an insurgency, including elements 
     associated with the Al Qaeda movement, and denying terrorists 
     a safe haven;
       (8) The United States Government should engage selected 
     nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, 
     internationally sponsored peace-and-reconciliation process 
     for Iraq;
       (9) The Administration should provide regular updates to 
     the Congress, produced by the Commander of United States 
     Central Command and his subordinate commanders, about the 
     progress or lack of progress the Iraqis are making toward 
     this end.
       (10) our overall military, diplomatic and economic strategy 
     should not be regarded as an ``open-ended'' or unconditional 
     commitment, but rather as a new strategy that hereafter 
     should be conditioned upon the Iraqi government's meeting 
     benchmarks that must be specified by the Administration.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Nelson of Nebraska and Senator 
Collins and I have worked for some time to put forward a resolution 
embracing the very serious, heartfelt sentiments of Senators with 
regard to the President's plan that he enunciated on January 10.
  That plan--and I credit the President for the in-depth study and 
preparation that went into it, the consultations; I was privileged to 
be a part of three consultations with the President in that period--it 
is that plan about which a number of us here in the Senate have some 
thoughts.
  The President, in his statement on January 10, laid down the 
invitation for Members of Congress to come forward and provide their 
thoughts. And that is the vein in which the three of us, together with 
a series of cosponsors, have adopted this first draft, which is 
identical to the draft we put into the Record some nights ago. We 
purposely have not changed a comma or a period or any other word in it 
because a number of colleagues, in a very thoughtful and proper way, 
have come to us with suggestions and ideas. But at this time, we 
believe we should lay this down, such that other Senators who might 
wish to be cosponsors may do so. The Senate works its will each day, 
and we are always here to consider ideas from other colleagues, but at 
the present time this is the format. We purposely waited until after 
the Foreign Relations Committee worked on its resolution, which I 
understand will soon be working its way to the calendar.
  So for that purpose, we put in ours. We find some differences--very 
significant, in my judgment--between ours and the resolution offered by 
the distinguished Senator, Mr. Biden, and others--Senator Levin, 
indeed, Senator Hagel.
  We believe we have put a greater emphasis on urging the President to 
consider other options, given that we have a general disagreement with 
the very significant level of troops that are specifically set forth in 
the President's plan.
  We also feel very strongly about the issue of sectarian violence and 
how that must be the primary mission of the Iraqi forces. The American 
GI simply should not be, in my judgment--whenever possible, the rules 
of engagement should provide that the Iraqi forces should deal with the 
sectarian violence issue. They understand the language. They understand 
the cultural differences, which precipitate the animosity between the 
Sunni and the Shia and, indeed, the most distressing aspects of it: the 
Shia upon Shia and Sunni upon Sunni. We recognize that sectarian 
violence is undermining, in many ways--the level of it--the efforts of 
this Government under Prime Minister Maliki to go forward and exercise 
the full reins of sovereignty and that it is in those interests that 
sectarian violence has to be dealt with. It is an important mission, 
but I believe strongly it is a mission that should be given primarily 
to the Iraqi forces.
  We concur with the President, who said many times, including in his 
statement on January 10, that to allow this Government to fail and to 
allow the accomplishments toward sovereignty through free elections by 
the Iraqi people to be lost and this country to simply be plunged into 
chaotic situations is not in the interests of peace in that region and, 
indeed, peace in the world.
  Our resolution does not provide for a reduction in any way or suggest 
the level of U.S. forces there now. It does not provide a timetable. It 
simply urges the President to consider all options and sets forth in 
there the primary missions as we interpret them to be in the interests 
of our country. Those primary missions track in large measure the 
Baker-Hamilton report.
  We also stress the need for benchmarks to be spelled out with 
clarity. And should the operations in Baghdad go forward under the 
Commander in Chief--and we recognize fully and in no way try to 
contravene the authority of the President to act under the Constitution 
as Commander in Chief--should that go forward, it will be done in an 
incremental fashion, as we have been told by the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs and others.
  So when the first operation takes place, we should carefully set 
forth the benchmarks and see if the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi 
armed forces fulfill those benchmarks; namely, do they all come in the 
numbers that they were supposed to under that plan? They failed to do 
that when a similar augmentation for the Baghdad operation was 
initiated this summer. Will the political structure in Iraq resist, 
refrain, and in every other way allow the military commanders, both 
U.S. and Iraqi, to carry out the missions as they see fit and employ 
such tactics as they deem necessary to achieve those missions without 
being called by the Government and told: Stop this, withdraw here, or 
do not take that prisoner, but if you have him, then release him. We 
cannot go in under that guise.
  Thirdly and most importantly, we have to see how the Iraqis perform. 
Will they take the point? Will they take the lead? And in such tactics, 
will they then be the primary--the primary--if not the essential force 
that deals with sectarian violence, such that the rules of engagement 
spell out: Whenever necessary, the coalition forces and namely the 
United States shall not be utilized.
  At this time, I would invite my colleagues to express their views, 
and I will ask each to name those cosponsors whom we have gotten from 
each side of the aisle.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the 
senior Senator from Virginia for his considerable work in drafting this 
resolution and working over the weekend with us and our staffs, who 
worked very closely together to prepare this Iraq resolution.
  I think it is important to say as well that I respect the work done 
by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today in considering the 
resolution submitted by, supported by their chairman, the distinguished 
Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden. I have a great deal of respect for 
Senator Biden's work.
  This is an area where there can be more than one idea about how to 
approach something, but at the end of the day, it is going to be 
important to have a resolution that has broad bipartisan support.
  I also appreciate the work of Senator Collins, who, as our colleague, 
has worked very closely on this resolution together with her staff to 
be able to submit it today in this fashion by putting it not only into 
the Record but on the floor so it can become part of the business of 
the Senate.
  There will be some who would say: Why is there a need for a second 
resolution? Well, this resolution offers a new set of ideas, more 
broadly worded, and in some cases, clearly, more likely to be 
bipartisan for Senators to consider. Given the fact that the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee resolution came out on largely a partisan 
vote, we think this resolution, because it is

[[Page 2262]]

picking up bipartisan support, will be, in terms of content and 
support, consistent with an effort to bring about a bipartisan 
resolution with broad support.
  The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group have not been followed to 
any significant extent to date. In some respects, they have been almost 
on a skyhook for future consideration. It was our feeling that many of 
these recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton study group should be 
included in a resolution, and we included many of those recommendations 
in the body of our resolution.
  We also worked very carefully to avoid political rhetoric or any kind 
of rhetoric that threatens the real objective. The real objective of 
this resolution is to stress to the White House that we disagree with 
the approach this plan takes by putting more men and women in our 
uniform in harm's way to fight, to do battle, to overcome the sectarian 
violence and the possible civil war of the Sunnis and the Shias and 
various subgroups within those religious and political elements. We 
also believed it was important to stress benchmarks and to empower the 
Prime Minister and the Iraqi Government to be able to meet certain 
objectives, certain goals, and to be able to deliver.
  At the end of the day, we think it is important to send a strong but 
unified message to the White House and Iraq. The more support the 
resolution receives in the Senate, the stronger our message will be. So 
tonight I am very pleased and am certainly proud to be here with my 
colleagues to say that at the end of the day, we think the strength of 
this resolution to uphold our responsibility will be in the best 
interests of our country and our military and that our colleagues 
should join together with us in opposition to the surge of U.S. troops 
to be placed in Baghdad. It is the responsibility of the Iraqi 
Government and the Iraqi military to overcome the battles between 
sectarian groups within their own country and to seek less of a 
military resolution and certainly more of a political resolution to the 
problems that exist at the present time.
  With that, let me say that I would like to see our unanimous consent 
be modified to include up to 10 minutes for Senator Salazar from 
Colorado to speak on the resolution afterward, if there is no 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly will not object. I wonder if I 
might have 2 minutes following Senator Collins to summarize before we 
receive the distinguished Senator from Colorado for his remarks. I ask 
unanimous consent that the unanimous consent agreement be modified so I 
can have about 2 minutes.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Sure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  If not, without objection, the unanimous consent agreement is so 
modified.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to now turn 
to Senator Collins, who has worked very closely with us. Before I do, I 
should indicate the cosponsors from the Democratic side are Senator 
Salazar, Senator Bill Nelson, Senator Landrieu, Senator Bayh, and 
Senator McCaskill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my two colleagues on 
the Senate floor this evening in submitting a very important resolution 
on what is perhaps the greatest challenge facing our country.
  Let me first say it has been an honor and a privilege to work with 
the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the former chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as my friend and colleague 
from Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson. We have worked very hard on this 
resolution, spending many hours wordsmithing the language of it, trying 
to get exactly the kind of serious policy statement we could bring 
before our colleagues in the Senate.
  I am very pleased that on the Republican side, we are joined by two 
leaders on this issue, Senator Coleman and Senator Smith. They, too, 
have had input to the resolution. That brings the number of us who are 
joining tonight as original sponsors of our resolution to 10 Members of 
the Senate. I would also note that based on conversations I have had 
with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, there are several more 
Senators who are very interested in our resolution and may well join in 
cosponsoring it at a later date or certainly in voting for it.
  Yesterday the Senate Armed Services Committee held a very useful 
hearing on the nomination of an outstanding military officer, General 
Petraeus, whom the President has tapped to lead our forces in Iraq. 
Earlier today the Senate Armed Services Committee, I believe by 
unanimous vote, voted to report this vital nomination to the full 
Senate. General Petraeus is the ideal person to be taking over as 
commander of our troops in Iraq. If anyone can make what I believe to 
be a flawed strategy a success, it is he. But I had a very interesting 
exchange with General Petraeus. I talked to him about my concern that 
inserting more American troops into Iraq may well lessen the pressure 
on Iraqi leaders to take the long overdue steps that are needed to 
quell the sectarian violence.
  I know the President believes the answer is more American troops, 
that that will provide the Prime Minister and other leaders with the 
space they need to take the reforms forward. I fear it is just the 
opposite. I believe it lessens the pressure on the Iraqi leaders.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator yield?
  Ms. COLLINS. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. Did not the CENTCOM commander, who is still the CENTCOM 
commander, General Abizaid, testify before our committee and, in the 
precise words, said he felt that at this time added troops were not 
necessary, more troops would lessen the incentive of the Iraqis to pick 
up the burdens which we are trying to have them assume under 
sovereignty?
  Ms. COLLINS. The distinguished Senator from Virginia is exactly 
correct. That is indeed the testimony that was brought before our 
committee a month ago. This was not ancient history. It was very 
reasoned testimony and it could not have been clearer testimony. 
Indeed, similar testimony was given by General Casey.
  I asked General Petraeus if he felt we would be facing the widespread 
and deteriorating sectarian violence that threatens the entire country, 
but particularly the Baghdad region, if Iraqi leaders had amended their 
Constitution, had passed an oil revenue law that more equitably 
distributed oil proceeds among the groups in Iraq, if they had held 
provincial elections, if they had more fully integrated the Sunni 
minority into the Government power structures; would we be in the same 
place today? And he told me he did not believe we would be. I think 
that is significant, because I believe if Iraqi leaders had taken those 
steps, we would not be facing the widespread sectarian violence that 
has engulfed the Baghdad region.
  I also talked to General Petraeus about a fascinating article he 
wrote a year ago in which he outlined 14 observations that he had, 
based on his previous tours in Iraq. The first and most important 
observation in this article in ``Military Review'' that General 
Petraeus had was to quote Lawrence of Arabia back in 1917, to say that 
it was a mistake for us to do too much, whoever the foreign force is, 
and that you had to let the Iraqis take the lead on these issues. Well, 
those words, true in 1917, are just as true today, as General Petraeus 
himself observed in this article.
  The second observation in the same article, General Petraeus said an 
army like ours in a land like Iraq has a half life as liberators, that 
they are quickly seen as an army of occupiers. I believe that is what 
has happened in Iraq and that confirms what my own observations were 
during a trip a month ago to that land. Our delegation met with a 
British commander in Basra who described to us a declining consent 
line. He said at first when the British arrived in Basra, they were 
greeted as

[[Page 2263]]

liberators. But as time has gone by, their presence is more and more 
resented and less and less tolerated.
  The observations General Petraeus had in this article offer us good 
guidance and, indeed, reflect in many ways the concepts we have worked 
hard to include in this resolution.
  There is one final point I want to make this evening. Some have said 
if we pass this resolution, we show that America is somehow divided and 
not supportive of our troops. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
The fact is every Member of this body is united in support of our 
troops. Every Member of this body wishes General Petraeus all the best 
and hopes he will succeed in this very difficult mission. But the fact 
is, Americans are deeply divided over the strategy we should pursue in 
Iraq. It is part of the health of our American democracy that we debate 
these issues, and we do so because we care about the brave men and 
women in uniform who are representing us in Iraq, who are on the front 
lines, who are sacrificing so much. That is exactly the motivation for 
the resolution that the 10 of us are introducing tonight.
  Let me close my remarks by again saying it has been a wonderful 
experience to work so closely with the senior Senator from Virginia and 
the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Ben Nelson. Both of them have worked so 
hard. They care so much about this issue. It has been a great pleasure 
to join with them.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleagues, the Senator from Nebraska and 
Senator Collins. It is important that we have taken this initiative 
because a number of colleagues--10 now--wish to be recognized. But 
believe me, there are 10 more and 10 more who will soon come forward, 
hopefully, and support this resolution. I also want to stress, as both 
of my colleagues did, I hope as this debate progresses, it will not be 
a question of who is the most patriotic, who is the strongest supporter 
of the American troops. I pride myself with having had a relationship 
with the Armed Forces of the United States, modest though it may be, 
since late 1944-1945. I had the privilege of working and learning. I 
often feel the Armed Forces did far more for me than I have done for 
them. In my years, now 29 years, here in the Senate on the Armed 
Services Committee, I have done everything I could to repay the Armed 
Forces for what they did for this humble person, to provide for them in 
a way that meets the sincerity of their commitments and that of their 
families.
  So it is not a question of who is the most patriotic or a question of 
who is trying to be confrontational with the President. These are 
heartfelt, closely held views we have about one of the most serious 
episodes in contemporary American history. I think the President has 
shown a measure of courage in this matter. But as has been 
acknowledged, we have made mistakes. And what we have tried to do is 
conscientiously say how we feel about the immediate future.
  I asked for a change in strategy, I guess it was October, when I came 
back and said the situation, as I saw it, in Iraq was going sideways. 
That has been done. This is a change in strategy. I acknowledge that. 
We were invited by the President to make suggestions. We have done that 
in a courteous, respectful manner. I thank my colleagues.
  I stress also the need for bipartisanship. I am not certain anyone 
can predict how this debate will go and what the outcome will be or how 
many resolutions come forward. I think it should be a healthy, strong 
debate and one in which the American public, which is very much attuned 
to this situation and has strong views of its own--and we should 
respect those views--I hope that what debate and actions follow, 
whatever they may be by this Chamber on such final resolutions that may 
be voted on, earn the respect and the trust and the confidence not only 
of the Armed Forces but of the American public. Because we can only be 
successful in this operation to save the Government of Iraq, whether it 
is this one or a successor one, to save the people of Iraq so they can 
exercise sovereignty if there is strong public support and a strong and 
accurate bipartisan level of participation by the Congress of the 
United States. To have a vote all on one side and a vote all on the 
other side will not help this very situation at this time.
  So one of the main goals--and we have achieved it--is bipartisanship, 
truly.
  I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor. And I wish to, in so 
yielding, thank the distinguished Senator from Colorado for joining us 
in this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me first say I am pleased and honored 
to be here with Senator Warner and Senator Collins and Senator Nelson. 
It was about a year or so ago that Senator Levin and Senator Warner led 
a CODEL of Senators into Iraq and Afghanistan. I had the great fortune 
of traveling with both Senator Warner and Senator Levin on that CODEL. 
I learned a tremendous amount from them in terms of what it is they had 
seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the observations they made about where we 
were on the levels of violence in Iraq. I came away from that CODEL 
with them feeling as if they truly had the best interests of America at 
heart. As they have sponsored these resolutions today, what they are 
acting out here is in the best fashion of what a Senator should do, and 
that is trying to do the best for our country.
  Let me say, first of all, with respect to the resolution that was 
heard earlier today in the Foreign Relations Committee, sponsored by 
Senator Levin and Senator Biden and Senator Hagel, I very much 
appreciate their leadership and thinking and the passion they brought 
to the debate and to this issue.
  When I sat down and compared the resolution considered in the Foreign 
Relations Committee to the resolution that is now being introduced by 
Senator Warner and other colleagues, I thought there were a great 
number of similarities between the two resolutions.
  Let me just comment about my own involvement and give part of my 
rationale for becoming an original sponsor of this resolution. First 
and foremost, I think what this country needs today more than anything 
else is a sense of unity. I think we have had a great deal of 
divisiveness in this country over the last 6 years. I think in the long 
run, when one looks 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the road at these very 
difficult times that are very challenging to our country--very 
challenging to our men and women in uniform and the other men and women 
of America--we will be judged as to whether we in this Congress were 
able to unify a direction in Iraq that ultimately was a successful 
direction in Iraq.
  I have called for a new direction in Iraq because I believe we need 
that to get us to success there. I don't believe we can get to success 
in Iraq if we have a divided country in terms of how we move forward.
  With respect to the resolution that is before us, in my own 
conversations with the President and with members of his administration 
in the past, I have told them that, in my view, with all due respect to 
our Commander in Chief, we need to move forward in a new direction.
  When I returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with the Levin-Warner 
codel, one of the things I told the President we needed to do was to 
enhance our diplomatic efforts in the region; that the countries in the 
area have as much, if not more, at stake than the United States. I saw 
them doing very little.
  Today, I see Saudi Arabia, with all its wealth, doing very little to 
help in the reconstruction of Iraq. The same thing could be said about 
Kuwait and many of the neighboring countries. That effort has to be 
enhanced because they simply, in my judgment, are not doing their part 
to contribute to a successful outcome in that region.
  I have also spoken to the President and members of his administration 
about the importance of the effort of reconstruction and making sure 
that there are other countries besides the

[[Page 2264]]

United States putting their shoulder to the wheel on the reconstruction 
efforts that are underway in Iraq.
  The way I see this debate unfolding is that we essentially have the 
plan of the President, which I call plan A. His plan is that we do a 
lot of what we have been doing but, in addition, that we move forward 
and add an additional 21,500 troops to the war effort in Iraq. That 
would be what I call plan A. There is another plan out there, plan B, 
from some Members of Congress and others that say we ought to bring our 
troops home and bring our troops home right away; that we ought to 
engage in an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and from that region. My 
own view of that plan, plan B, is that is not a good plan either. At 
the end of the day, no matter what criticisms we make about the 
original decision to invade Iraq, about the way the war has been 
mishandled, the fact is we are in Iraq today; there is a mess in Iraq 
and in the Middle East. So the question for me becomes: How do we as 
the United States of America, working in the Senate, working in the 
House of Representatives, working with the President, how do we put 
Humpty-Dumpty together again? It seems to me that Humpty-Dumpty has 
fallen off the wall, and it is up to us to try to figure out, in some 
united way, under difficult circumstances, how to move forward together 
to create the unity that will allow us to succeed in Iraq.
  When I look at the possibility of plan B, which is a precipitous 
withdrawal from Iraq, it seems to me that will create tremendous 
dangers not only to the Middle East but to the long-term interests of 
the United States. I, for one, want us very much to succeed in Iraq 
and, because I want to succeed, I want to see whether we can create a 
kind of unity on how we move forward.
  I think this resolution introduced by the senior Senator from 
Virginia, the Senator from Nebraska, and the Senator from Maine is a 
good direction for us to go in. I want to point out what I consider to 
be four central points of this resolution which, in my view, are also 
reflected in the Biden-Levin-Hagel resolution. The first of those 
points is that there is a disagreement with the President's decision to 
move forward with a surge of 21,500 more troops. I think both 
resolutions say that equally and clearly. Why, in this resolution, is 
that conclusion reached? Why was it reached in the other resolution 
heard in the Foreign Relations Committee?
  In my view, it is because of what our military commanders have said. 
General Abizaid said it a few weeks ago, in November. He said an 
increase in troops was not the way to go because it sends the wrong 
signal about the ultimate responsibility to quell the sectarian 
violence in Iraq. It is not the right way to go because when you look 
at what happened with the surges we have had over the last 6, 7 months 
in Iraq, they themselves did not work. When operations going forward 
started in June, there was a sense that it might quell some of the 
sectarian violence going on. It didn't work. We came back in August and 
did another operation going forward. It did not work.
  The Iraq bipartisan study commission, chaired by former Secretary 
Baker and Lee Hamilton, found, in fact, that those surges created an 
escalation of violence by 43 percent during that time period. In a 
matter of 6 months we saw a 43-percent escalation of violence there. 
Regarding putting more troops in, it seems we have the laboratory of 
experience where it hasn't worked in the past, and there is nothing I 
have seen that indicates that moving forward in that direction will 
work at this time. I agree with the resolution and making a statement 
that we disagree with the President's decision moving forward in that 
regard.
  As to the second part of this resolution, also reflected in the 
alternative resolution in the Foreign Relations Committee, I think 
there is unanimity of opinion. I bet you that we can get 100 Senators 
to vote for the position that the Iraqi Government needs to assume 
responsibility for a functioning government that will provide security 
to the Iraqi nation and to the people of Iraq.
  When Senator Warner and I visited Iraq with Senator Levin, I still 
remember meeting with the Iraqi Ministers and with our own forces 
responsible for helping with the training of the Iraqi police. Mr. 
President, 2006 was supposed to be the year of the police in Iraq. This 
is the year where the Iraqi security was supposed to be taken to the 
point where they could move forward and assume the responsibility for 
their own security. Yet that handoff hasn't occurred and the sectarian 
violence has continued to increase.
  I very much agree with the spirit of both resolutions that says if we 
are going to move forward and be successful on this issue, it is the 
Iraqi Government and people who need to move forward and assume 
responsibility for their security.
  The third thing in this resolution that I think is important is that 
we contemplate that there is going to be some continuing involvement of 
the United States in Iraq, without limitation. Nobody knows for how 
long. But our efforts to engage in counterterrorism in that area will 
be a continuing and important role of the United States of America. Our 
efforts to attempt to restore the territorial integrity of Iraq and to 
stop the weapons flowing into Iraq from Iran and Syria are important 
measures that I believe the U.S. military can address. I agree with 
those aspects of the resolution as well.
  Finally, as I said earlier in my comments, at the end of the day, 
this is not a United States of America problem alone. When one looks at 
the Gulf States and other countries in that area, such as Egypt, there 
is a huge problem that belongs to them as well. We have our hands on 
the tar baby as the United States of America. They, too, as countries 
have a huge stake in the success of Iraq and also have to get their 
hands on the tar baby. I believe the resolution put forward by Senator 
Levin and my other colleagues is a step in the right direction in that 
it creates a framework for how we ought to be moving forward in Iraq.
  In conclusion, again, I say how much I respect the senior Senator 
from Virginia. I remember well the work that we did just a year or so 
ago in the so-called Gang of 14. I see that Senator Nelson and Senator 
Collins and Senator Warner are back again trying to pull the Members of 
this body together on what is a very contentious issue. I wish them 
well, and I am delighted to be part of the effort.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to thank our colleague from 
Colorado and pick up on the theme that he closed and talked on 
earlier--unity.
  Yes, there is great unity among the American people and a depth of 
concern about the loss of our forces and the wounding and suffering of 
the families. We have not lost our resolve. Our President has been 
firm. But this institution, the great Congress of the United States, a 
coequal branch of the Government, now must rise and show our commitment 
to fulfill the wishes and hopes and prayers of the American people, and 
do so in a bipartisan manner. That is the very heart of the effort of 
our 10 colleagues who thus far have come forward and put their names 
into the public domain as supporting the provisions of this resolution.
  They do resemble, in many respects, the provisions in the Biden-
Levin-Hagel resolution. When that first came out, so much of the 
rhetoric surrounding that resolution was disturbing to many people. 
That gave rise to the efforts that we have put forth, culminating in 
placing this document into the Record tonight.
  I hope others will consider joining us because it is important to 
show unity and bipartisanship in the Congress in saying that we, in 
fact, understand the hopes, wishes, and prayers of the American people 
and the Armed Forces of the United States.
  I thank my colleague and yield the floor.

                          ____________________