[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3202-3203]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to my colleagues, my constituents, and 
the American people, I rise today to absolutely say without any 
equivocation that I do support the Warner-Biden-Levin resolution on 
Iraq opposing the escalation of our troops. I also stand in the Senate 
to say: We were robbed! We were robbed of our ability to be able to 
vote on this resolution!
  The American people, on November 7, sent a message to Congress and to 
the President of the United States: Change the tone in Washington, 
change the direction in Iraq, and change the priorities of this Nation. 
We, on this side of the aisle, got the message. The other side does not 
seem to have. This parliamentary maneuver to block a vote on the 
Warner-Biden-Levin resolution, to allow us to vote up or down on 
approving the escalation, shows that it is the same old tone. Please, 
let's give the process a chance.
  Second, it also robs us of the ability to begin to express our vocal 
support for changing the direction.
  This bipartisan resolution is a first step. It is not going to be the 
last word in bringing our troops home safely and swiftly. The Warner-
Biden-Levin resolution affirms clearly and unequivocally a commitment 
to our men and women in uniform: Congress will not abandon you while 
you are in Iraq and when you come home. We stand by our troops. 
However, this resolution says ``no'' to the President's reckless plan 
to escalate troop presence in Iraq. The bipartisan resolution insists 
that the Iraqi Government stand up for its own people to provide 
security, services, and an agreement on oil revenue sharing.
  I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the 
first place. I was 1 of the 23 who voted against this war on October 
11, 2002--4 years ago. I will never forget it. I didn't believe the 
administration's arguments then, and I don't believe them now. I 
opposed giving the President unilateral authority to launch a 
preemptive attack. I said the United States had to exhaust its 
diplomatic options. I encouraged the administration to stick with the 
U.N., to let the U.N. meet its responsibility to deal with the Saddam 
threat. I said we should not go on our own.
  The day of the vote, I was so filled with apprehension about the 
course of the war, about the course we were embarking on, I said in 
this Senate that we don't know whether our troops will be greeted with 
flowers or landmines. Well, now we know. That mission did not get 
accomplished. I called the 72 families in Maryland who gave their lives 
and made the ultimate sacrifice. I know what is going on out there with 
the families. I also know when we got to Iraq there were no weapons of 
mass destruction, but the destruction happened, and it happened fast.
  No one can ask more of our troops. They are brave. They are 
courageous. They have fought valiantly. But after 4 years of fighting, 
where are we in Iraq? Well, the United States, went to war with Iraq, 
but right now we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we are 
still there. And we are mired in a civil war between different ethnic 
and sectarian groups.
  I have stated what I am against, but let me state what I am for. I am 
for the Warner-Levin-Biden resolution. I salute the leadership who 
produced it: John Warner, a decorated war hero,

[[Page 3203]]

former Secretary of the Navy, chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services when the Republicans were in control, a distinguished person, 
and a man of great comity and civility--no one more compassionate about 
America's security than John Warner; Joe Biden, chair of our Foreign 
Relations Committee; Carl Levin, an expert on the Committee on Armed 
Services and now the chairman. They put their heads together and they 
came up with this resolution, and to a man--and this woman supports 
them--the Senate opposes the President's plan because we think it is 
reckless.
  The bipartisan resolution says the objective of overall U.S. strategy 
in Iraq should be to encourage Iraqi leaders to make political 
compromises, to foster reconciliation, and strengthen the unity 
government. This is what I consider essential.
  The resolution says the primary objective of our military strategy 
should be to maintain Iraq's territorial integrity--fancy words for 
protecting the border; deny the terrorists a safe haven--yes, but they 
weren't there in the first place; promote regional stability; promote 
counterterrorism; train and equip the Iraqi forces. We have been doing 
it for 3 years. Guess what? They have not been showing up! And the 
other day when they were supposed to show up for a battle, 55 percent 
of them showed up in Baghdad. Gates, our new Secretary of Defense, 
said: Isn't this improvement? Last year, they didn't show up at all. It 
is their war and they are not showing up. Why should we show up for 
their war when they have a 50-percent attendance rate? What is wrong 
with this thinking?
  As much as possible, the current U.S. military operations should be 
confined to these goals. We show up, they don't. Something is really 
wrong with this picture.
  The bipartisan resolution calls for the United States to engage the 
nations in the Middle East to develop a regionally and internationally 
sponsored peace and reconciliation process. That is what we should be 
doing. The resolution says it should not be an open-ended commitment or 
unconditional. Sure, there should be benchmarks, but benchmarks with 
enforcement capability.
  I do support this resolution because it makes clear to our men and 
women in uniform that Congress will not abandon them. It explicitly 
says that Congress should not take any action that will endanger U.S. 
military forces in the field. Whether on the battlefield or on the 
homefront, our troops deserve the best.
  Also, the latest intelligence shows that Iraqi leadership has to make 
difficult changes. The solution in Iraq requires a political solution 
from the Iraqis--not military muscle--from the Americans.
  There are parts of this resolution with which I don't agree. They 
call it an augmentation; I call it escalation. I oppose the calls for 
the vigorous operations at Anbar until there is greater clarification. 
There is no doubt that al-Qaida is operating in Iraq. But when I voted 
4 years ago, al-Qaida was not there; they were in Afghanistan. Why 
didn't we stick with Afghanistan and really clean their clock? Now the 
President wants to send more Marines to Anbar to fight al-Qaida when we 
should have been in Afghanistan, catching Osama bin Laden.
  We do need a way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group gave us 79 
recommendations as a way to go forward. Surely the President of the 
United States could have found 50 for us to sit down at a table, talk, 
and work together for the good of our country, the good of our troops, 
and the good of peace in the Middle East. Seventy-nine recommendations 
and they have all been cast aside. The Iraq Study Group calls for 
diplomatic and political efforts, a change in their primary mission to 
move our troops out of Iraq responsibly. They gave us a way forward 
that they believe could have gotten our troops out by the first quarter 
of 2008. Let's give those 79 recommendations at least a forum to be 
debated and discussed and acted on.
  Where do we go from here? I will tell you where I think we ought to 
go. First of all, we ought to have a vote on the Warner-Biden-Levin 
resolution. If they do not want to give us that, give us a vote on the 
McCain resolution to vote to approve this escalation. One way or the 
other, that is our constitutional duty.
  The President says he does not need congressional consent to be able 
to do this reckless escalation. But he sure does need congressional 
advice. And my advice is, let's send in the diplomats before we send in 
more troops. We need a robust diplomatic strategy to match our robust 
military strategy. We need to make it clear that the Congress will not 
abandon our troops in the field, and we will not abandon them when they 
come home. Look at this President's budget; we are abandoning our 
troops. This whole escalation--sure, they talk about money for the 
21,000, but it takes another 20,000 to support them. They don't walk 
their talk. They don't put the money in the budget.
  Then we have our troops coming home. You look at the President's 
budget on Veterans Affairs--not only have they lost the records, they 
have lost their way at VA. We are not equipped to deal with Iraq and 
Afghanistan veterans coming home. They have horrific, permanent wounds 
of war, and we have a weak, unreliable funding system. You can't just 
support the troops with yellow ribbons. You have to put the money 
behind it. How about putting the money behind it when they come home? 
They need us. And they need us not only with words; they need us with 
deeds in the budget process. And I don't see it.
  Now, we also need to make it clear to Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki 
that he has to start to act. Speaking of showing up, I saw they could 
not get a quorum in the Iraqi Parliament. Only 50 percent of the troops 
show up, their own Parliament doesn't show up, but we show up with 
21,000 more troops? The Prime Minister must meet benchmarks.
  Let me conclude by saying that a great American military should not 
be a substitute for a weak Iraqi Government. Neither Congress nor the 
American people will abandon our troops, but the best way to support 
our troops is not to send more in harm's way.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time for 
Senator Kennedy be reserved.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________