[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3034-3035]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IRAQ

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the cloture vote was very fully discussed 
by the distinguished Senator from Nevada and the distinguished Senator 
from Kentucky, with leadership and our ranking members, so I am 
confident that somehow this matter can be worked out. I want you to 
know, however, that I stand steadfast behind the content of a 
resolution I put together, along with Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Susan 
Collins, and some eight other cosponsors.
  The question is how does the Senate bring it into focus under the 
complexity of our rules. I won't take the time to deal with that now, 
but I would say to those following this debate that we stand, the 
Senators I mentioned, the two principal cosponsors and myself, firmly 
behind this resolution, the content of which has been amended.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amended copy of the 
resolution be printed in the Record following my remarks, allowing 
ready reference for those persons examining the Congressional Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WARNER. That resolution has been distorted and misunderstood in 
the debate thus far. That is one of the reasons I am so anxious to 
proceed with this debate. I want to make clear, because it was 
mentioned that perhaps these resolutions were brought along for 
political cover, that on that issue each Senator has to speak for 
themselves, but I assure my colleagues that this Senator from Virginia 
has moved forward with my thoughts and my ideas in the best interest of 
the country and the best interest of the men and women of the United 
States military, and not for any political cover.

[[Page 3035]]

Nor will I, in any way, impugn the motives of Senators whose opinions 
differ from mine.
  This being my 29th year in the Senate, I have never, to my knowledge, 
ever intentionally, and I don't think indirectly, impugned the motive 
of any Senator for the position he or she has taken on a matter. We are 
all patriots. We are equal patriots. We all support the men and women 
of the Armed Forces. Let that be understood.
  I firmly believe, as we are approaching this debate, that it is 
imperative that the Senate work its will, and work its will in the 
open, on this issue which is so critical at this point in time in our 
many years of involvement in the Iraq situation.
  I solidly support the President in his view that we cannot accept 
failure in getting a government, whether it is this one or an ensuing 
government, in Iraq up and running and functioning such that it can 
seize the full range of sovereignty in this nation, and not let this 
nation implode, causing absolute disaster throughout the region. 
Indeed, certainly as it relates to energy and other issues, it could 
impact severely on the rest of the world, not only in energy but in a 
signal that the terrorists have won. We cannot let that happen. So 
let's let the Senate work its will, and I think our colleagues here, 
the distinguished leaders, will work out a procedure by which we will 
do that. The comment was made, and understandably, that this is a 
nonbinding resolution. Nonbinding. Well, we have them in the history of 
the Senate. At this time, this Senator is not voting for any cutoff of 
funds. That is our one constitutional lever we can pull. As a matter of 
fact, in our resolution--I refer to our resolution as the one that I, 
together with Senator Ben Nelson and Senator Susan Collins of Maine 
have put together--we specifically have included an iteration of the 
concept advanced by our distinguished colleague Senator Gregg, which 
may come before the Senate. We solidly support that concept of no 
cutoff of funds.
  What do we do short of that? Well, we have a debate. Somehow you have 
to have some focal point, something written down, some document in 
writing as to the ability of this institution, the Senate, to reach a 
consensus, and a bipartisan consensus, on how best we go forward with a 
new strategy in Iraq. That has been my motivation from the very 
beginning, to put this institution on record on a bipartisan basis. I 
am not talking about one or two Senators on that side joining all the 
Senators on this side or vice versa, no, a truly on its face bipartisan 
consensus, albeit a resolution without any legal force and effect.
  It is important that the people of this country give their support to 
the men and women in uniform and to a strategy which they hope will 
succeed in our goal of not letting Iraq implode and fall into greater 
disaster than it is experiencing today. So how do they go about it? The 
President, in his speech on January 10, explicitly said those who have 
other ideas, generally speaking, or concepts, bring them forward. That 
is what we have done. We have exercised what the President has given 
us, the option to come forward.
  To quote the President: ``If Members,'' referring to Congress, ``have 
improvements that can be made, we will make them,'' he said. ``If 
circumstances change, we will adjust, showing flexibility,'' said the 
President.
  Using that as our chart, we then proceeded as a group to figure out 
how best to comment on the President's strategy. We did say, and I 
repeat it, that the Senate disagrees with the plan to augment our 
forces by 21,500 and urge the President, instead, to consider all 
options and alternatives for achieving the strategic goals set forth 
below. Each Senator has to interpret that phrase, that sentence, as he 
or she so desires. I repeat that. Each Senator has the right to look at 
that and decide, one, do you disagree in any way with what the 
President is doing and the force of 21,500.
  I believe we can accomplish the goals this country has set out to 
accomplish in Iraq, goals that were enumerated by the Baker-Hamilton 
commission, in a manner that we do not need a full force of 21,500. 
Indeed, that force, we now learn, could be somewhat higher than that 
number if you are going to have the essential support troops joined. 
Unfortunately, there was no reference to that made in the President's 
speech, and right now it is a matter of debate and contention.
  I don't know what the additional figure is, but in my judgment, I say 
most respectfully that we do not in this resolution in any way 
challenge or contravene the constitutional provision that you are 
Commander in Chief and that you can deploy troops which, in your best 
judgment, are for the security of this Nation and the welfare of the 
troops. We don't challenge that. We simply accept your offer, we have 
expressed it, so we support it.
  I support, for example, additional troops if they are necessary over 
and above the current level for operations in Al Anbar. On my last trip 
to that region, it was clear that the marines had enough troops to do 
certain portions of their mission, but it was also clear that 
additional forces were needed. Perhaps they could come from within the 
current force structure currently in Iraq. But perhaps you need--to use 
the word ``surge''--some modest surge to meet the requirements for Al-
Anbar to be brought under a higher level of security.
  Nothing in this resolution prohibits the President from having some 
portion of that surge force of 21,500 utilized to do those things which 
are essential--further training of the Iraqi forces, further embedding, 
enlarging the number of troops to be embedded with the Iraqi forces. 
Those are the sorts of things this Senator supports. Within the 
framework of this resolution, I can take those stands.
  But I turn now to the principal thing we have in this resolution, and 
that is one of the main things that I believe has to have greater 
emphasis. It is as follows. We state it very clearly in a provision in 
our resolution:

       The United States military operations should, as much as 
     possible, be confined to these goals, which were enumerated 
     by the Baker-Hamilton Commission.

  I go back and I read the goals here, all set forth on page 6 of the 
resolution. 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, supporting Iraqi efforts to bring greater 
security to Baghdad, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take 
full responsibility for their own security.
  Therein is the principal motivation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent that I could 
proceed until such time as Senators desiring to come forth and address 
the standing order, namely----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have an order to lay down the motion to 
proceed. Will the Senator allow that to go forward at this time?
  Mr. WARNER. Fine, if the Presiding Officer desires to do that.

                          ____________________