[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3201-3202]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            IRAQ ESCALATION

  Mr. REID. The issue before the American people that relates to Iraq 
is the surge--the escalation of the war in Iraq. That is the debate 
that should be before this body, and last night that was prevented. An 
up-or-down vote on McCain, who is supporting the surge, or a vote in 
opposition to the surge, the escalation sponsored by Warner and Levin--
that is the issue before this body today.
  This is a diversion. This is a diversion. We finished the Super Bowl. 
This is a trick play by the Republicans. The real issue before this 
body is surge or no surge, escalation or no escalation. That is the 
debate the American people deserve.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.

[[Page 3202]]

  I heard what the distinguished majority leader said. I agree with 
him. The Senate, as I have often said, should be the conscience of the 
Nation. There are only 100 of us to represent 300 million people. 
Americans expect us to speak up on the war. Americans expect us to vote 
on the war. Americans expect us to vote on the issue of the surge.
  Now, I understand some Senators will support the surge, some will 
oppose it, but allow us to have those votes. Allow us to express the 
conscience of this Nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a column by E.J. Dionne entitled ``The 
War To Save The Surge'' from today's Washington Post be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Washingtonpost.com, Feb. 6, 2007]

                       The War To Save the Surge

                         (By E. J. Dionne, Jr.)

       When political opponents tell you that to prove your 
     seriousness you need to pursue a strategy they know is doomed 
     to failure, shouldn't you be skeptical of their advice?
       As the Senate considers a resolution to put itself on 
     record opposing President Bush's escalation of the Iraq war 
     through a ``surge'' of troops, Bush's backers are saying one 
     thing and doing another.
       They are saying that the resolution is meaningless and that 
     true opponents of the war should prove their sincerity by 
     cutting off funding altogether. But they are doing all they 
     can to keep the Senate from even voting on a bipartisan anti-
     surge resolution that would send a powerful message to Bush 
     that most Americans have lost faith in his bungled war 
     policy.
       If you doubt that the war's supporters would love its 
     opponents to put all their eggs in the fund-cutoff basket, 
     consider what it means for them to sound as if the 
     administration's only serious foes were the likes of Dennis 
     Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan.
       ``I don't think these resolutions, nonbinding resolutions, 
     are going to accomplish anything,'' Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas 
     Republican and a Bush loyalist, told Gwen Ifill on PBS's 
     ``NewsHour'' last week. ``If we really had the courage of our 
     convictions,'' Cornyn said, the ``we'' referring to the war's 
     opponents, ``if people said, `You know what? This is an 
     immoral task we've asked our troops to do because we don't 
     believe in the mission, we think they're going to fail.' They 
     ought to cut off funds. But to have this sort of--this debate 
     without any real consequence, I just don't think is the best 
     use of our time.''
       So Cornyn wants to block a vote on a supposedly unimportant 
     anti-surge resolution, but he would be happy to entertain a 
     debate on a funding cutoff. Does that not send a message to 
     the war's critics?
       And it's not just Cornyn. It is now a standard talking 
     point for supporters of this war, from the editorial pages of 
     the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard to Vice 
     President Cheney himself, to try to block any statement by 
     Congress of its views, except through a vote to block funds 
     for Iraq.
       ``The Congress has control over the purse strings,'' said 
     Cheney, who on most other occasions insists upon the 
     executive's supremacy over Congress. In an interview with 
     CNN's Wolf Blitzer last month, Cheney added: ``They have the 
     right, obviously, if they want to cut off funding, but in 
     terms of this effort the president has made his decision. . . 
     . We'll continue to consult with the Congress. But the fact 
     of the matter is, we need to get the job done.''
       In other words: Even if a substantial majority of Congress 
     that includes many Republicans demonstrates a lack of 
     confidence in the Bush-Cheney surge, the administration will 
     feel free to ignore the other elected branch of our 
     government--and the more recently elected branch (remember 
     November, anyone?) at that.
       Oh, and if an anti-surge resolution were trivial, why would 
     William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and one of the 
     war's most passionate advocates, devote a long and angry 
     editorial in the latest issue of his magazine to attacking 
     Sen. John Warner (Va.) and other Republicans as 
     ``ignominious'' for their support of an anti-surge measure? 
     Kristol knows that every Republican vote against escalation 
     carries special weight in speeding this war to an end. So 
     does the Senate's Republican leadership, which used a 
     procedural vote yesterday evening to impede the majority's 
     will on the surge.
       Supporters of Bush's war policy would love a vote on a full 
     funding cutoff right now because they know that, at this 
     moment, they could win it. They would love responsibility for 
     the failures in Iraq to fall not on an administration that 
     planned its policy so badly and carried it out so 
     incompetently. Far better for them to heap blame on the war's 
     opponents for ``losing faith.''
       And they know, as the war's opponents should, that in a 
     democracy whose constitution accords so much power to the 
     president, turning around even a failed war policy takes 
     time, persuasion, organizing, legislative strategizing and 
     pressure.
       The impatience of the administration's critics is entirely 
     understandable. But it would be a shame if impatience got in 
     the way of a sensible long-term strategy to bring America's 
     engagement in this war to as decent an end as possible as 
     quickly as possible--even if not as quickly as they'd like. 
     The anti-surge resolution is a necessary first step, which is 
     why those who are against a genuine change in our Iraq policy 
     are fighting so hard to stop it.

  (The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of S. 495 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Resolutions.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________