[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3025-3027]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       IRAQ RESOLUTION FILIBUSTER

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, all across America this past weekend, and 
even this morning in schools, cafes, pool halls, I am sure, churches, 
synagogues, military bases, and all offices, people are talking about 
this war in Iraq. They are talking about President Bush's plan to 
escalate the war in Iraq--or ``augment,'' as the amendment of the 
Senator from Virginia talks about. But if you look in the dictionary, 
``augment'' and ``escalate'' have the same definition. So every place 
in America people are talking about Iraq--every place, that is, except 
in the Senate. I say that because in press conferences held, in 
statements made by the Republican leader, they have stated there will 
be no ability to proceed to the debate on this most important issue.
  According to my counterpart, the Republican leader, the Republican 
Senators are going to say no and, he says, without exception. What does 
this mean? That we are not going to be able to move to proceed to this 
debate? What is more important than what we are trying to do here 
today; that is, move forward on a debate on Iraq? As I said, they are 
doing it every other place in America. Why shouldn't we be able to do 
it here in the Senate? We learned on Friday--it was continued over the 
weekend--that the minority is going to do everything in its power to 
block an Iraq vote. Are they so worried that a bipartisan majority of 
Senators might voice their opposition to this escalation; so worried 
that these Senators are going to prevent any Iraq debate?
  Remember, this is a very delicate time in the history of our country. 
Not only do we have the Iraq debate to worry about, but we also, 
because of the mess, frankly, that was left by the prior majorities in 
the House and Senate, have no ability to fund this Government after 
February 15. We have to do that. This has to be completed by a week 
from this Friday.
  I received letters from Republican Senators. They are going to 
filibuster the continuing resolution, which means I have to move 
forward on this to keep the Government from shutting down. Our 
inability to go forward on the Iraq debate means we may not have the 
Iraq debate. Remember, we have lost, already, several days. We should 
be debating this right here today rather than having to vote at 4:30 on 
whether we can proceed on it.
  What is the excuse--and I say excuse--that they are not going to let 
the American people hear the Senate debate the escalation of the war in 
Iraq? This claim--and I might say, it is a feeble claim--that they 
haven't been

[[Page 3026]]

guaranteed a vote on amendments is not credible. It is simply not true. 
They have rejected, through their leader--they, the Republicans--three 
compromises that would have permitted the Senate to vote on the 
President's plan. I have done this privately. I have done it publicly.
  I offered to schedule an up-or-down vote on McCain--that is a 
resolution supporting the President's plan--and on the Warner-Levin 
resolution in opposition. That is votes up or down on these two 
amendments. This offer was rejected.
  We then offered the Republican leadership up-or-down votes on those 
two resolutions I just talked about and they had another one. The 
Republican leader had another one. I read it. It is the Gregg 
amendment. So we said let's go ahead and vote on that. I was turned 
down there also.
  I don't know what more we can do. I even went one step further and 
said we will hold supermajority votes, 60 votes, on Warner and on 
McCain, two separate votes, 60 each. What more could we do? These were 
rejected. I have said this publicly, but I said it privately--and there 
were all kinds of witnesses to my conversation with the Republican 
leader--the Republican leader obviously can't take ``yes'' for an 
answer. They have been given all they asked. It is clear their actions 
are not driven by getting votes on Republican proposals, they are not 
being driven by getting votes on Republican proposals; they are driven 
by a desire to provide political cover.
  The majority can't rubberstamp the President's policies on Iraq 
anymore so they decided to stamp out debate and let the actions in Iraq 
proceed unchecked. America deserves more than a filibuster on the 
President's flawed plan to add 48,000 troops to Iraq. It is not 21,000. 
The war in Iraq has taken a great toll on our country. Well more than 
3,000 American soldiers have been killed, 24,000 or 25,000 of them 
wounded, a third of them missing eyes--head injuries. We have 2,000 who 
are missing limbs.
  The war has strained our military. I have been told by leaders at the 
Pentagon that we do not have a single Army unit that is nondeployed 
that is battle ready.
  Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator say that again, please?
  Mr. REID. We do not have a single, nondeployed Army unit that is 
ready to go to war. We have depleted our Treasury over $400 billion--
some say $500 billion.
  Look at this. The Congressional Budget Office is a nonpartisan entity 
set up by this Congress. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 
a surge of 21,500 combat troops really means up to 48,000 more troops 
when support personnel are counted. And, remember, the 3,180 American 
soldiers who were killed were not all combat troops. They were 
truckdrivers, they were working in commissaries, they were doing all 
kinds of things to support the combat troops.
  So we are saying it is not 21,500, it is 48,000, and it is going to 
cost, this little surge, an additional $27 billion. If the President 
wants to escalate the conflict and send, according to CBO, 48,000 more 
troops, given these costs alone--that is $27 billion in addition--it is 
important the Senators have an opportunity to vote up or down on 
escalation.
  But it is even more important because there is widespread opposition 
in Congress and the country to the President's plan. Those we trust the 
most do not believe escalation is the right way forward. America's 
generals don't support this. What does General Casey say? When he was 
in Iraq he said, I don't think this is going to work. General Abizaid 
said the same thing. Many others have told us the same thing.
  More troops will not bring stability to Iraq. The Iraq Study Group 
sent this project in another direction. They made very different 
recommendations. America's generals--of course, they do not support 
this. The American people do not support the escalation. Look at any 
public opinion poll--Democrats, Republicans, Independents. The 
President has heard from the Prime Minister of Iraq, al-Maliki, that he 
doesn't want more troops in Baghdad; he wants American troops to leave 
Baghdad. He told the President that to his face. This is the message 
President Bush has heard from the generals, the people, the Iraq Study 
Group, even the Iraq Prime Minister. Now the President should hear from 
Congress. But is he going to? Perhaps not. The President must hear from 
Congress that he stands alone. A loud bipartisan message from this body 
will give him another opportunity to listen and to change course to a 
plan that gives our troops the best chance for success and gives the 
country of Iraq the best chance for stability.
  Is there anyone who does not think this is an important debate? Is 
there anyone who believes the Senate should remain silent on the most 
pressing issue facing the country today? Unfortunately, the answer is 
yes. According to the Republican leader, all Republican Senators will 
vote not to proceed.
  We are running out of time to find a new way forward in Iraq. That is 
certainly clear. Americans and our troops have waited 4 years for the 
Senate to get off the sidelines on this issue. They shouldn't have to 
wait longer for a new direction in Iraq because the minority wants to 
protect their politics at home.
  We have seen politics in this war before. Politics gave us ``Mission 
Accomplished.'' Remember that? On the aircraft carrier, the President 
dressed in a flight suit said: The mission is accomplished; we have won 
in Iraq. Politics gave us the Vice President who said the insurgency 
was in its last throes, and the President saying: There are insurgents? 
Bring them on. Politics gave us a Vice President who promised America 
we would be greeted as liberators. So we have had enough of this 
politics for 4 years into this war--4 years.
  What we need is a strategy that will succeed in Iraq, a strategy that 
is not an escalation. Last week, America's intelligence communities 
provided their latest estimates of conditions on the ground in Iraq. 
The picture they painted was bleak and was backed by events this past 
week in Iraq. Every day, with rare exception, this is what we see out 
of Iraq: More than 200 people killed--more than 200 people. Hundreds 
and hundreds injured. It was a 2,000-pound bomb in a marketplace. The 
Iraqi Interior Ministry, which has been very conservative, said last 
week that at least 1,000 were killed in Iraq. Two million, it was 
reported over the weekend, have left Iraq--2 million Iraqis have left 
Iraq.
  We don't need the unclassified assessment of our intelligence 
community to know things aren't going well in Iraq--and that is an 
understatement--that the present strategy has failed and there are only 
nonmilitary solutions to address Iraq's problems. That is why the 
military surge makes no sense.
  Again, the National Intelligence Estimate came out last week. It was 
months overdue, but it did come out. Here are some of the things it 
talked about. This is from our own intelligence agencies:

       Even if violence is diminished, Iraqi leaders will be hard-
     pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in the 
     time frame of this estimate.

  Listen to this next one:

       Iraq has become a self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle.

  This is not Harry Reid. These are the finest, the people who are 
doing their very best to make America safe. The National Intelligence 
Estimate:

       The term ``civil war'' accurately describes key elements of 
     the Iraqi conflict, but does not adequately capture the 
     complexity of the conflict.

  I have been saying, and the American people have been saying, for 
months this is a civil war. It is a civil war, but it is more than a 
civil war.
  The National Intelligence Estimate:

       The involvement of these outside actors, Iran and Syria and 
     Iraq's neighbors, is not likely to be a major driver of 
     violence or the prospects for stability.

  In effect, they are saying the President is now sending battle 
carrier groups off the waters of Iran because he is trying to blame 
them for everything that is going on in Iraq. That is not credible.
  Am I saying Iran is the good guy on the block? Of course not. But 
let's not

[[Page 3027]]

say they are the cause of all the trouble in Iraq because they are not.
  The National Intelligence Estimate:

       A number of identifiable developments could help to reverse 
     the negative trends driving Iraq's current trajectory. They 
     include, again, military solutions. Broader Sunni acceptance 
     of the current political structure and federalism, 
     significant concessions by the Shia and the Kurds, a bottom-
     up approach, mend frayed relationships between tribal and 
     religious groups.

  Mr. President, we need to work to come to a political solution for 
the problems in Iraq.
  Surging U.S. military forces is not a development that is going to 
help in Iraq. That is because there is no military solution. Military 
escalation would not end this conflict that is more complex than a 
civil war. Military escalation would not make it easy for Iraqi leaders 
to achieve political reconciliation. Military escalation would not 
bring an end to Iraq's internal sectarian struggle.
  Mr. President, as I said when I started, all over America today 
people are talking about what is going on in Iraq--every place you want 
to talk about, whether it is the water cooler at the office or truck 
drivers on their CBs talking back and forth to each other. It is in 
schools all over America, from elementary to college, talking about 
what is going on in Iraq. But in the Senate, are we going to have a 
debate on it? We have been told ``no.''
  The problems in Iraq are long term. Yet military escalation is a 
strategy that is shortsighted. This is the message President Bush has 
heard from the generals, the people, the Iraqi Prime Minister, the Iraq 
Study Group, and now he must hear from Congress. I hope this afternoon 
my Republican colleagues will do what is right and allow this important 
debate to go forward.
  I don't know if the Republican leader wishes to be recognized, but I 
ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be 
recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield to the minority leader, if he 
wishes to speak first.

                          ____________________