[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3218-3225]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, my good friend, the majority leader, 
and I have been in a discussion over the last few days, going back to 
last week, over how to go forward on the Iraq debate. As I have 
indicated to him both privately and publicly, we on this side of the 
aisle were certainly looking forward to having an Iraq debate this week 
and are prepared to do so and are ready to go forward.
  I think we all agree at this moment that there is no more important 
issue facing the Nation than the mission and the fate of the American 
service men and women in Iraq. This means, of course, that the men and 
women of this body have no higher duty than to express ourselves openly 
and honestly on this issue, to take a stand on where we stand. The only 
truly meaningful tool the Framers gave us to do this was our ability to 
fund or not fund a war. That is it. This is what Republicans are 
insisting upon--that the Members of this body express themselves on the 
question of whether to fund or not to fund the war in Iraq.
  I had indicated to my good friend, the majority leader, that I would 
be propounding another unanimous-consent request at this point, and I 
will do that now.
  I ask unanimous consent that, at a time determined by the majority 
leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate 
proceed en bloc to the following concurrent resolutions under the 
following agreement: S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner resolution, which is to 
be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee; McCain-Lieberman-
Graham, regarding benchmarks; Gregg, relating to funding.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 10 hours of 
debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; 
provided further that no amendments be in order to any of these 
measures; further, that at the use or yielding back of time, the Senate 
proceed to three consecutive votes on the adoption of the concurrent 
resolutions in the following order, with no further action or 
intervening action or debate: McCain-Lieberman-Graham, on benchmarks; 
Gregg, on funding and supporting our troops; S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner 
resolution.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any resolution that does not 
receive 60 votes in the affirmative, the vote on adoption be vitiated 
and the concurrent resolution be returned to its previous status.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this is 
basically the same thing that has been asked before. The issue before 
the American people is whether the President of the United States, on 
his own, should be able to send 48,000 American soldiers to Iraq, 
costing approximately $30 billion extra.
  The Republicans can run, as I said yesterday, but they cannot hide. 
That is the issue before the American people. We all support the 
troops, and we have fought very hard, in spite of our misgivings about 
this war, to make sure they have everything they have needed.
  It is interesting that there is a lot of talk about the Gregg 
amendment. But if you look at the Gregg amendment and at page 2--the 
last paragraph on page 2 of his amendment--and you look in the Warner 
amendment on page 3, paragraph 4, it is identical language. Warner has 
encapsulated within his amendment what Gregg wanted, which is the so-
called ``resolve clause.''
  This is all a game to divert attention from the fact that we have 
before us now an issue that the American people want us to address: 
whether there should be a surge, an escalation, an augmentation of the 
already disastrous war taking place in Iraq, causing 3,100 American 
deaths, approximately; 24,000 wounded American soldiers, a third of 
whom are hurt very badly; 2,000 are missing multiple limbs--brain 
injuries, blindness, paralysis. That is what 8,000 American soldiers 
now are going through--men and women.
  So I ask my friend to amend his request in the following manner:
  I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 7, by Senator 
Warner, and S. Res. 70, by Senator McCain, and the Senate proceed to 
their consideration en bloc; that there be 6 hours for debate equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees on both resolutions, 
to be debated concurrently; that no amendments or motions be in order 
to either resolution; that at the conclusion or yielding back of the 
time, the Senate vote on Senator McCain's resolution, followed by a 
vote on Senator Warner's resolution; that if either resolution fails to 
garner 60 votes, the vote be vitiated and the resolution be returned to 
its prior status; that immediately following the votes

[[Page 3219]]

on the resolutions I have just mentioned, the Senate turn to the 
consideration of H.J. Res. 20, the infamous continuing resolution, 
funding the Government after February 15 for the rest of the fiscal 
year; that there be 4 hours for debate on the joint resolution; that no 
amendments or motions be in order in relation to it; that at the 
conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote on final 
passage of the joint resolution; that if the joint resolution fails to 
get 60 votes, the vote be vitiated and the joint resolution be returned 
to the calendar.
  I announce that if we are able to do that--dispose of these three 
items I have mentioned--this week, or whenever we finish them, then we 
would begin the Presidents Day recess at the conclusion of this week. 
One of the things we found is that because of the accelerated work 
schedule, people are having a lot of work to do at home. So that is why 
we would do this.
  Madam President, there would be no amendments to the CR from either 
side. I mention that because, in getting to the point where we are, 
there has been total consultation by the majority and minority, each 
subcommittee, and the majority and ranking members. The chair and 
ranking members work very closely. One of the people heavily involved 
in this, for example, is Senator Domenici, my long-term partner on the 
Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations. He fought for more, 
and he got more. That happened with many Republicans who spoke out, and 
most of them did.
  I further say that if there were ever a bipartisan measure, it is the 
continuing resolution. But we have to finish before February 15.
  So I ask my friend, the Republican leader, to accept my alteration to 
his unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I 
will object, let me remind our colleagues that 4 years ago last month, 
we were at exactly the same situation. My party came back to the 
majority. The Democratic majority of the previous Congress had not 
passed 11 out of the 13 appropriations bills. And what did the new 
Republican majority do? We took up an omnibus collection of 
appropriations bills. We had over 100 amendments offered. We gave 
everybody in the Senate an opportunity to offer amendments, and we 
disposed of all of those appropriations bills over a couple-week 
period.
  What my good friend, the majority leader, is suggesting is that we 
take up a continuing resolution of 11 appropriations bills, with no 
amendments whatsoever, and he offers as an enticement an extra week 
off. This is completely unacceptable to the minority. First, he is 
saying that we cannot get adequate consideration to our Iraq proposals. 
Second, he is saying we cannot have any amendments to an over $400 
billion continuing appropriation. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I will continue reserving the right to 
object to my friend's unanimous consent request. Prior to making a 
decision on that, I want to read to everybody here from page 3, 
paragraph 4, of the Warner resolution:

       The Congress should not take any action that will endanger 
     United States military forces in the field, including the 
     elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as 
     such an action with respect to funding would undermine their 
     safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned 
     missions.

  Madam President, I object.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it is clear now to the minority that 
five proposals on our side were too many, three proposals were too 
many, and two proposals were too many, but the majority leader offered 
us one last week. He said: I will take one and you take one. So I am 
going to modify my request of a few moments ago which, as the leader 
indicated, was exactly the same as my request of late last week. I am 
going to modify my request.
  As I have said repeatedly, the Members on this side of the aisle are 
ready and willing to proceed with this debate. At the outset, I 
indicated we were prepared to enter into, as I said a moment ago, an 
agreement for debate and votes on various resolutions. We had hoped for 
a number--and it was pretty challenging, frankly, to pare down the 
number on our side. As I indicated, we started with five. That was 
rejected from the other side. We pared our proposals down to two. That 
meant three proposals in total--the Warner proposal and two additional 
ones--to be debated for a reasonable amount of time and then three 
votes--the unanimous consent request I just propounded.
  I think what we just offered was a reasonable approach and would 
allow the Senate to have those votes this week. Evidently, as I 
indicated, three proposals are too many. So, therefore, in order to 
allow us to move forward with this important debate, I am prepared to 
have votes on just two resolutions.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the 
majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, the 
Senate proceed en bloc to two concurrent resolutions under the 
following agreement: S. Con. Res. 7, the Warner resolution, which is to 
be discharged from the Foreign Relations Committee; and Senator Gregg's 
amendment related to the funding and supporting our troops.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 10 hours of 
debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; 
provided further that no amendments be in order to any of the measures; 
further, that at the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed 
to two consecutive votes on the adoption of the concurrent resolutions 
in the following order, with no further action or intervening debate: 
the Gregg resolution supporting the troops and S. Con. Res. 7, 
sponsored by Senator Warner.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any resolution that does not 
receive 60 votes in the affirmative, the vote on adoption be vitiated 
and the concurrent resolution be returned to its previous status.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, we have gone from this 
morning and trying to copy one of the trick plays from the Super Bowl 
to now going to the science bill, and I guess it is modern math. We 
don't accept that, Madam President. What we demand for the American 
people is an up-or-down vote on the escalation of the war in Iraq. 
McCain has been filed. Let's vote on it. Let's vote on Warner. That is 
our proposal. We haven't wavered from that. We will not waiver from 
that. That is what the American people demand and ultimately they will 
get. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Objection is heard.
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, as my good friend on the other side 
of the aisle frequently reminded us last year, the Senate is not the 
House. It is not possible in this body for the majority to dictate to 
the minority the contents of this debate. What we are asking for, by 
any standard, is reasonable: One alternative--just one--to the proposal 
on which my good friend, the majority leader, is seeking to get a vote. 
We don't object to having this debate. We are ready and willing to have 
this debate, anxious to have this debate, but we insist on fundamental 
fairness.
  The Gregg amendment is about the troops. How can we have a debate on 
Iraq and have no debate about the troops? Do we support them or don't 
we? That is what the Gregg amendment is about, and Senate Republicans 
insist that we consider those who are being sent to Iraq, over and 
above the current troops deployed there, in our debate, which is 
entirely about the additional troops going to Iraq.
  I assume the whole genesis of this debate this week is the question 
of additional troops going to Baghdad under the direction of General 
Petraeus to try to quiet the capital city and allow this fledgling 
democracy to begin to take hold. And the Gregg amendment--Senator Gregg 
is right here on the floor of the Senate and is fully capable of 
explaining what the Gregg amendment is about. I ask the Senator from 
New Hampshire, what is the essence of

[[Page 3220]]

the Gregg amendment which we seek to have voted on in the context of 
this Iraq war?
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I will attempt to read it. I first have 
to find my glasses. My wife told me I had to use my glasses.
  The resolution which I proposed and which I understand the Republican 
leader has suggested be the Republican alternative or the alternative 
presented--in fact, it will have Democratic support, I suspect, enough 
so that maybe the majority leader doesn't want it voted on because it 
might have so much Democratic support.
  In any event, it is a proposal that simply states that it is the 
sense of the Congress that Congress should not take any action that 
will endanger U.S. military forces in the field, including the 
elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such 
action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm 
their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.
  I don't think it requires a great deal of explanation. It is simply a 
statement of commitment to our troops which seems reasonable. It is 
hard for me to understand how we can send troops on a mission, walking 
the streets of Baghdad--American troops, American men and women--and 
not say to those men and women: Listen, we are going to support you 
with the financing, with the logistics, with the equipment you need to 
be as safe as you possibly can be in this very dangerous mission you 
are undertaking for our Nation.
  That is all it says. I can't understand why the other side isn't 
willing to allow a vote on that resolution. If they want to vote on the 
Warner amendment, it doesn't make any sense.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reclaiming my time, the other side 
just proposed an agreement that mandates 60 votes on two resolutions. 
Those are their words on paper. We agree to those terms, but at least 
we are suggesting that we be allowed to pick the proposal on our side, 
as Senator Gregg has just outlined what the proposal on our side would 
be.
  The majority leader apparently seeks to dictate to us what the 
proposal on our side would be. That is simply unheard of in the Senate, 
that he is telling us that on the continuing resolution, we will get no 
amendments at all, and on the Iraq resolution, he will pick for us what 
our proposal is to be. I think that doesn't pass the fairness test.
  I see the Senator from New Hampshire on the Senate floor. I wonder if 
he has any further observations he would like to make.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I would simply like to inquire of the 
Republican leader, have you ever in your experience seen a time when--
either the Republican leadership or the Democratic leadership--the 
majority party says to the minority party: We will set forth the 
amendments on which we are going to vote, and we will also set forth 
and write the amendment on which you are going to vote?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to my friend from New 
Hampshire, I have been here now--it is hard to believe--a couple of 
decades, and I cannot recall a time in which one side has dictated to 
the other side what their proposal will be in a legislative debate.
  Mr. GREGG. I understand, I ask the Republican leader further, 
especially since it seems ironic in the context of putting forward a 
commitment to say to the men and women who are fighting for us: We 
shall give you the support you need when you are sent on a mission; 
they are not choosing to go on this mission; they are members of the 
military who, under their responsibility as members of the military, 
are being sent on a mission; is it not reasonable that we should say to 
them: We will give you the logistical support, financial support, the 
equipment you need in order to fulfill that mission correctly?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to my friend from New 
Hampshire, I can't think of anything more relevant to an Iraq debate 
about the appropriateness of this new mission, which General Petraeus 
will lead, than the amendment which Senator Gregg has authored and 
which we request be our proposal as this debate goes forward.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if the Senator will yield just for one 
further point, would it not be truly unusual in a democratic forum, 
which is supposed to be the most deliberative body in the world, to not 
allow the minority to bring forward a resolution--which is probably 
going to get more than a majority vote should it ever be voted on--
which is not contestable as to its purpose--its purpose being well 
meaning; it is certainly not a purpose that is anything other than to 
express a sense of support for those who are defending us--would it not 
be a new form of democracy, maybe closer to the Cuban model, to not 
allow an amendment presented by the minority as their option but, 
rather, have the majority write the minority's amendment which would 
then be voted on? That way the majority gets to write both amendments, 
I guess is my bottom line.
  You have one-party rule, sort of a Cuban model of democracy.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire 
for his observations about not only the process but the merits of his 
proposal.
  Let me conclude by reiterating once again that I think the Senator 
from New Hampshire and I and others, including those who have been 
speaking on the Senate floor on this side this morning, welcome the 
debate about Iraq policy. We had anticipated having the debate this 
week. It is not too late to have the debate this week.
  We are now down to two proposals, just two proposals. It took a lot 
of time on our side to get down to one for us and, of course, the 
majority has a preference of its own. This debate could be wrapped up 
in relatively short order, and then we could move on with the 
continuing resolution, where I hope it might be possible for the 
minority to have at least some amendments.
  Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Presiding Officer is a new Member of 
this body, but she should have seen when the Republicans were in the 
majority. We didn't have amendments. They filled every tree. I will 
also say, it speaks volumes here today--volumes. There is not a single 
person on the other side of the aisle who has come to the floor and 
supported the troop surge of President Bush--not a single person. I 
wonder if President Bush is aware that not a single Republican Senator 
has come to the floor and said: I support President Bush sending 48,000 
more troops to Iraq. That speaks volumes.
  I will also say this, Madam President: Senator Boxer, a couple rows 
back, just a few minutes ago, talked about one short snapshot of one 
day from the Los Angeles Times: Scores of people being murdered and 
killed and mutilated; a little girl leaving school with blood-drenched 
steps over which she was walking. One could see the red in the 
photograph, and Senator Boxer was one, two, three rows back. We could 
all see that.
  Not a single person has come to the floor to support the surge, but 
that is what is dictating what we vote on today. It is not the majority 
leader. We, for the American people, need to have this debate.
  Also, I certainly care a lot about the Senator from New Hampshire--
and he knows that is true--but I have to smile. What has he done the 
first few weeks of this legislative session? He has brought to the 
Senate floor during the debate on ethics, lobbying reform, and earmark 
reform the line-item veto, and then he brought it forth again on 
minimum wage. And now to stop a debate on the escalation of the war in 
Iraq, he now comes up with this other diversionary tactic. He is a 
wonderful man, a gentleman, but, Madam President, do you know what he 
kind of reminds me of this first few weeks of this legislative session? 
Somebody who comes into a basketball game, not to score points, just to 
kind of rough people up, just to kind of get the game going in a 
different direction.

[[Page 3221]]

  The game we have going today has nothing to do with supporting the 
troops. We support the troops. Every speech that a Democrat has given 
in the last 4 years has talked about how much we support the troops. In 
fact, we were the first to raise the issue. We were the first to raise 
the issue about a lack of body armor. We raised that first. We support 
the troops. We have done that not only with our mouths but with the way 
we voted.
  The debate in the Senate should be on the resolution submitted by the 
Senator from Arizona, which they have obviously dropped--the resolution 
from the Senator from Arizona and Senator Lieberman from Connecticut. 
They threw that out in an effort to go for this diversion.
  So why don't we see how the minority feels about voting on the 
President's surge of $30 billion and 48,000 troops? That is what this 
debate is about.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Sure.
  Mr. GREGG. First, I appreciate the Senator's generous comments. I 
take them as a compliment. I have been active legislatively. That is, 
obviously, our job.
  I ask the Senator: He heard me read the language of my resolution 
earlier, and I will read it again, if he wishes.
  Mr. REID. If I can interrupt, and I do that apologetically, I read it 
before the Senator from New Hampshire arrived in the Chamber because it 
is in the Warner resolution.
  Mr. GREGG. Good. If the Senator is of such a mind, I ask if this were 
a freestanding resolution brought to the floor, would the Senator vote 
for my resolution?
  Mr. REID. I don't think I have to make that judgment now because the 
judgment, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, is not some 
diversionary matter. The issue before this body and the issue before 
the American people--that is why we are getting hundreds of phone calls 
in my office and other Senate offices around the country. The issue is 
does the Senate support the President's surge? That is the question.
  I have to say the Senator from Arizona at least was willing to put 
his name on it and move forward. We haven't heard a lot of speeches in 
favor of his resolution. Where are they?
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if the Senator will yield further, I 
guess I find it difficult to argue that it is a diversion when the 
resolution that I am proposing simply says that we will support the 
troops who are being asked to carry out the mission they have been 
assigned. This is not a diversion. This is a responsibility, I would 
think, of every Member of the Senate to take a position on whether they 
support giving the troops who have been assigned the task, the 
equipment, the financial support, and the logistical support they need 
to protect themselves and carry out that mission.
  I think to call that a diversion does not do justice to our troops in 
the field, so I am concerned about that. It does seem to me for the 
Senator from Nevada to take that position is inconsistent with the 
basic philosophy of Congress, which is that the first responsibility in 
a matter of warfighting is to support the troops.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have been asked to yield to my friend 
from Washington, and I am glad to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I asked the majority leader to yield 
for a question. I have been on the Senate floor and listened to the 
exchange between the majority leader and the Republican leader and, 
quite frankly, I was astonished and I want to understand if the 
majority leader heard the same thing I did.
  The Republican leader came back to you and offered to remove from 
consideration the McCain amendment, which is the pro-escalation 
amendment, essentially offering a vote on just the Warner and Gregg 
amendment. Leaving aside what this says about the lack of support of 
the proposal on their side, are we hearing from the other side that 
they do not even want a vote on whether they support the President's 
escalation?
  It seems to me we are hearing a phony debate request on who supports 
the troops. That is not a debate that we need to have. Everyone in this 
body supports the troops. I ask the leader if he heard the request from 
the Republicans the same way I did, that they no longer even want to 
have a vote on whether they support the President's escalation.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend from Washington that we 
have a record of supporting the troops. We did it in Kosovo, we did it 
through the entire Balkans, and we did it in Afghanistan. We did it in 
Afghanistan with very few questions asked, and rightfully so. We have 
supported every effort made by this President to defeat the war on 
terror, with rare exception. But the troops in the field? Never, never 
have we wavered from that.
  In fact, I don't know of a speech, although there could be some 
given, where a Democrat has talked about the war in Iraq and hasn't 
talked about how much we appreciate the work done by these valiant 
troops and the sacrifices of their families. That is why we were 
stunned during the State of the Union Address when the President even 
mentioned the veterans.
  I am happy to have answered the question from the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a 
question.
  Mr. REID. I yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senate majority leader for yielding for a 
question, and I appreciate his willingness to engage in a dialogue on 
this issue.
  In reference to the question of the Senator from Washington to the 
majority leader, I do want our resolution debated. We are trying to 
move forward. As I think the Senator from Nevada is aware, there was a 
proposal to have a 60-vote, which is the way the Senate does business, 
on three resolutions--on the Warner, McCain, and Gregg resolutions--and 
that was turned down. I only agreed to the latest proposal because I 
think we need to move the process forward.
  I guess what I am asking the Senator from Nevada is, isn't it really 
true that the way we do business here does require 60 votes? It is just 
a reality of the way the Senate functions. When there was an attempt a 
year ago, 2 years ago, actually, with the so-called nuclear option, I 
was one who fought hard to preserve the right of the majority to have 
60 votes in the case of the appointment of judges, and I think we 
reached a bipartisan agreement on that.
  So I still am a bit puzzled why we could not have a vote on my 
resolution that would require 60 votes in order for it to be adopted, 
just as it would be for the Warner resolution and as it would be for 
the Gregg resolution. I don't quite understand why we couldn't do that, 
as we have done hundreds of times in the past, as the Senator knows, 
because we have been in the Senate for many years.
  That is my question. Again, I thank the majority leader for allowing 
me to engage in this discussion with him.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I say to my friend who came to the House 
at the same time as myself, and then we came to the Senate together--in 
fact, there is only one person ahead of me in seniority, and that is 
the Senator from Arizona because the State of Arizona has more people 
in it than the State of Nevada--no one has ever doubted the courage of 
the Senator from Arizona. I have read the books. I know about Senator 
McCain. He has not only been heroic on the field of battle but also 
legislatively, and I respect that.
  But I say to my friend, yes, there are 60 votes required on some 
things in this body. Not everything. The vast majority of legislation 
that passes here is with a simple majority. I would say to my friend, 
recognizing that it does take 60 votes, that is why I offered to do the 
deal: McCain, 60 votes; Warner, 60 votes. That is the proposal I made.
  That is pending before the body right now, and that has been turned 
down five or six times. So I would be willing to do it on a simple 
majority, if you want to do McCain on a simple majority or the Warner 
resolution on a simple majority. I would try to get that done. Right 
now, Madam President, we have the proposal I have made.

[[Page 3222]]

  I do say that the debate is not whether we support the troops. That 
is a diversion. We support the troops. The issue before this body is 
whether the American people deserve to see how their Senator is going 
to vote; whether their Senator approves the surge, the escalation, the 
augmentation of 48,000 troops, costing approximately $30 billion extra. 
That is what the American people care about, not whether we support the 
troops. We all support the troops.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, will the Senator from Nevada yield for a 
question?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to understand what has happened 
over on the other side, the Republican side. Is it my understanding 
they have asked now to drop the McCain-Lieberman amendment?
  Mr. REID. I have to be honest with my friend from Illinois, who also 
came with us at the same time from the House to the Senate, that the 
answer is, yes. The Lieberman amendment has been given up.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I might continue through the Chair to ask the Senator 
from Nevada a question, on the issue that I think is before America 
today--whether we should escalate the number of troops into this war in 
Iraq--we had offered to the Republican side a choice between two 
Republican amendments: Senator Warner's amendment, which said the 
President's policy is wrong, and Senator McCain's amendment, which says 
the policy is advisable and should be followed. Even given the option 
of two Republican amendments, the Republican minority, yesterday, voted 
to deny any opportunity for the Senate to debate two Republican 
amendments?
  Mr. REID. I would say to my friend, yes, that is true. We were 
willing because the Senator from Arizona had the ability, the courage, 
and the dignity to put this issue before the American people, even 
though--and he knows this--the vast majority of American people do not 
support the escalation in Iraq. But he did it. We were willing to take 
two Republican resolutions--one supporting the surge, one opposing the 
surge--and let Senators from every State in the Union raise their hand 
and tell the American people how they feel about it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I might ask the Senator from Nevada 
whether this resolution being offered by Senator Gregg really is 
focused not on the major issue of escalating the war but somehow is 
focused on supporting the troops. Even the Warner resolution, a 
Republican resolution, has the identical language of the Gregg 
resolution when it comes to that support of the troops; is that not 
true?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend that the rumor around here is that 
Senator Warner put that in there thinking he could get the support of 
the Senator from New Hampshire, but, obviously, he was wrong.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I might also ask the Senator whether it 
appears to him now that the Republicans, at this point, don't want to 
debate either of the Republican amendments and want to change the 
subject; that they want to move to a Gregg resolution, which deals 
with, as the Senator has just said repeatedly, support for the troops, 
which is not an issue?
  We all support the troops. It appears to me that we have made no 
progress in the last 24 hours, and I would ask the Senator from Nevada 
if he has a different conclusion.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend that the only thing I sense this 
afternoon--and I have to say it with a smile on my face, and I hope 
everyone recognizes this--is that every piece of legislation we have 
brought up, the Senator from New Hampshire has tried to throw a monkey 
wrench into it. It happened on ethics, it happened on the minimum wage, 
and now on this Iraq issue.
  I guess my dear friend, who has a stellar political record as 
Governor, Member of the House of Representatives, United States 
Senator, chairman of the Budget Committee--and I have commented for the 
record many times about my admiration for him, but I guess he is the 
designated ``see if we can mess up the legislation'' guy this year. I 
would hope in the future to get somebody I don't care so much about 
because it is hard for me to try to oppose my dear friend from New 
Hampshire. Maybe when they do this every couple of months they will 
change.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for one more 
question?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, again, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
majority leader.
  Is it not true that when the Senator says he supports the troops, 
that there is disapproval of what they are doing and that the Senator 
does not think their mission is going to succeed? And is it not true 
that maybe some of the troops may not view that as an expression of 
support?
  I talked to many men and women in the military in recent days, 
ranking from private to general. Isn't it true that most of them, if 
you had the opportunity to talk to them, would say: When they do not 
support my mission, they do not support me?
  Therefore, isn't it just a little bit of an intellectual problem to 
say: Of course, we support the troops; of course, we support the 
troops; of course, we support the troops, but we are sending you over--
and they are going because this is a nonbinding resolution--aren't we 
saying that we think they are going to fail and this is a vote of no 
confidence?
  The so-called Warner amendment, by the way, is not a Republican 
amendment, no matter whose name is on it.
  Is it not true that when I look one of these soldiers or marines in 
the eye and say: I really support you, my friend, and I know you are 
going into harm's way, but I don't think you are going to succeed, in 
fact, I am against your mission, but I support you, that they do not 
buy it? They do not buy it, I will say to my friend from Nevada, and 
don't think that they do.
  So I would ask my friend if it isn't true a vote of no confidence is 
a vote of no confidence to the men and women who are serving in the 
military. It doesn't sell.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I also have had the opportunity to go to 
Iraq as many times as my friend from Arizona, and I also speak to the 
troops and the people at the Pentagon. I have to respectfully suggest 
to my friend that there are many individuals whom I have spoken to who 
really like what we have suggested--we, the Democrats--that there be a 
redeployment of troops.
  Does that mean they all pull out of Iraq and leave immediately? Of 
course, it doesn't. But redeploy the troops. Redeploy the troops. 
Redeploy them to do what? Counterterrorism, force protection, and 
training the Iraqis. And my contacts in the military say they think our 
proposal is pretty good. We were on this proposal before the Iraq Study 
Group, but they adopted it, and I hope they got it from us, and that is 
that there should be a regional conference, including Saudi Arabia, 
Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and, yes, Iran. This is a regional problem. This 
war will not be handled and dealt with and taken care of militarily. It 
can only be done diplomatically.
  We are a wonderful fighting force, and we will continue to be, but 
where we have lost our edge is diplomatically. We have not done well at 
all in that regard, and the people I have talked to in the military 
support what we are trying to do: redeployment; they support a regional 
conference; they support, of course, recognizing that this must be 
handled politically. There has to be some meaningful reconstruction 
that goes forward--producing less oil now than before the war, less 
potable water, and less electricity. These are the things which have to 
be changed, and the people I talk to in the military think we are 
headed in the right direction.
  They also think we are headed in the right direction when we speak 
out on the state of deterioration of our military. This war has taken a 
toll on our equipment--not on our troops alone, on our equipment. It is 
going to cost $75 billion to bring the military up to the situation 
they were in prior to this war. They are grateful we are fighting for 
them in that regard.
  So, Madam President, I respect--and I don't have the military 
background

[[Page 3223]]

of my friend from Arizona, but I have contacts in the military, and I 
think a lot of those people are more willing to talk to me than someone 
who is running for President and someone who is more noteworthy than I 
am. He is better known in the military, and they know he can respond to 
them probably better than I. So they are willing to tell me a lot of 
things they wouldn't tell someone as significant as John McCain.
  So, Madam President, I think the Democratic plan we have enunciated 
is pretty good, much of which we have enunciated for a long time and 
has been picked up by the Iraq Study Group.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Certainly.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Nevada the following 
question: If I follow the inquiry of the Senator from Arizona, it leads 
me to this conclusion--and let me add my voice in chorus commending his 
service to our country and commending his courage. I share the 
admiration, and I mean it sincerely, I say to the Senator from Arizona. 
But his argument goes something like this: If you are not loyal to the 
policies of the Commander in Chief, then you are not loyal to the 
troops. If you are not prepared to say you will stand behind the 
policy, the military policy of the President, whether you agree with it 
or not, then you do not respect the troops and don't have confidence in 
the troops. Nothing is further from the truth.
  I ask the Senator from Nevada, does he think it is possible to 
disagree with the President's policies and still be loyal to the 
troops? Is it possible to say the President was wrong in not bringing 
more countries in as allies in this conflict before we invaded and 
still be loyal to the troops? Is it possible to say we didn't send 
enough soldiers when we should have and still be loyal to the troops? 
Is it possible to say disbanding the Army of Iraq was a bad decision 
and still be loyal to America's troops? Is it possible to say the 
situation that is grave and deteriorating in Iraq is evidence of a need 
for a new direction and still be loyal to the troops?
  I just don't buy the premise by the Senator from Arizona that if you 
question the policy of the President, somehow you are disloyal to the 
soldiers. They are the ones following orders from the Commander in 
Chief. We have a special obligation to them--I think a loyalty to 
them--far and beyond any Chief Executive.
  I would ask the Senator from Nevada if he believes you can be loyal 
to the troops and still disagree with the President?
  Mr. REID. I think that is part of being a patriotic Member of this 
Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I was, unfortunately, engaged in a 
briefing in S. 407 on the most recent NIE, and I have just come down to 
join my colleagues on the Senate floor and I caught some portions of 
the debate. But I would like to say to my colleagues that the Senator 
from Virginia, together with probably six or eight other Republicans, 
has been discussing this issue very carefully and thoughtfully and 
respectfully.
  Frankly, we have taken to heart what the President said when he 
addressed the Nation on January 10. His very words were: ``If there are 
those with ideas, we will consider them.'' We accept that invitation by 
our President and have tried in a very respectful way to simply state 
that we have some serious concern with the level of 21,500 additional 
troops. Now we learn it could even be larger than that, in testimony, 
open testimony this morning with the Secretary of Defense and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. It could be 3,000 or 4,000 more. We tried 
in a very respectful way simply to express our concerns about an 
increase of that level at a time when polls show most of the Iraqi 
people don't want us there, much less increase the force. Now, I am not 
following the polls, but we are asking our troops to go into a very 
heated, emotional situation in that country. We simply said to the 
President: Shouldn't we put more emphasis on the utilization of the 
Iraqi forces? Shouldn't we let them bear the brunt of such additional 
security as must go into Baghdad?
  We learned this morning that the efforts to build up the forces have 
fallen short. I am not going to pronounce judgment on what happened on 
just 2 or 3 days' reporting, but clearly the number of Iraqis showing 
up is far below the estimates or significantly below the estimates we 
anticipated their participation would be in this operation which, in 
many respects, is to be joint. We talked with General Pace this morning 
about my concern of this concept of joint command and control. He 
assured us the American forces would have a linear straight line from 
an American senior officer right down to the sergeants operating the 
platoons on the front lines. But nevertheless the Iraqis are going to 
have their chain of command, and I think that puts a challenge to us.
  But I don't want to digress from my main point. Our group, in a 
conscientious and a respectful way, even wrote into the resolution that 
we in no way contest the right of the President of the United States 
under the Constitution to take the actions he has taken thus far and 
will take. But as long as I have been in this Chamber--now in my 29th 
year--I have always tried to respect another Senator's way of thinking. 
I don't question his integrity or her integrity or their patriotism or 
anything else. I do not do that now. I wish to make my points based on 
what I have put forth in this resolution with about six other 
Republican colleagues and a number of Democrats.
  We simply want to suggest--and we use the word ``urge''--we urge you, 
Mr. President, not ``direct you'' or ``you shall do this,'' we simply 
urge that you take into consideration all the options by which you can 
bring down this level and consider greater utilization of the Iraqi 
forces.
  Then we have the subsidiary question that this program is in three 
parts--one part military. So much of our focus has been on that. There 
is a diplomatic part. There is an economic part. In our testimony today 
with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman, we stressed the need 
for all three of those parts to come together at one time to have the 
effect that the President desires with his new plan. Somehow, we gained 
the impression today that maybe the political part and perhaps the 
economic part are not quite as far along as some of the military 
thinking and planning. Actually, the troops are moving in as we debate 
this on the Senate floor.
  So there were several questions we respectfully raised with the 
President, urging him to take a look at this, by means of which to 
lessen--lessen the total number of 21,500 and, indeed, more now--
troops.
  We also point out the importance of the benchmarks. That is all in 
there. We carefully lay out that the benchmarks should be clearly and 
fully understood by both sides and a method put in place by which we 
can assess the compliance or noncompliance for those benchmarks. The 
Secretary of Defense today, in his testimony to us, in response to 
questions from this Senator and others, said: Yes, we will put in a 
mechanism by which to evaluate the degree to which the Iraqi compliance 
is taken with respect to benchmarks, the benchmarks that basically have 
to support the President's plan. In addition, we put in the resolution 
of the Senator from New Hampshire. I think it is important that we have 
an expression in here about the non-cutoff of funds.
  So our resolution has been presented to try as best we can to put 
together right here on the floor of the Senate a bipartisan consensus. 
I think the American public is entitled to see whether the Senate, an 
institution that is followed throughout the world, can come together 
and express in a single document--accompanied by lots of debate but in 
a single document--a joinder of a number of Republicans and a number of 
Democrats, so it is truly bipartisan, and therefore the American public 
will get, I think, the sense of confidence that this body is carrying 
out its responsibility under the Constitution to speak to this issue 
and to put onto a piece of paper what we think is the nearest a group 
of us can

[[Page 3224]]

gather and express ourselves. And that includes a vote.
  I am not going to enter into further debate with the two leaders. I 
think they are trying to work out and resolve this problem. I support 
my leader with respect to the cloture, and that raises a question: How 
can I advocate that I strongly adhere to my resolution and at the same 
time support my leader? Well, when I first came to this Chamber many 
years ago, the old-time Senators who taught me so many lessons said: 
This is what separates the Senate from the House--the ability to have 
this almost unlimited debate by a single Senator. And it is, throughout 
the history of this institution, one of its revered tenets and its 
rules. To take that and deny it, deny Senators the ability to bring up 
their own resolutions to express their own views, is a curtailment that 
I believe we should consider long and hard. That is why I cast that 
vote yesterday.
  So I leave it to the two leaders, but I come back again to the need 
for this great institution to express itself through the votes of 
hopefully a significant number of Senators, that this is what we 
believe is the best course of action for our Nation to take as we 
revise our strategy in Iraq, as we move ahead. And in our resolution, 
we put in there ever so expressly that we agree with the President; it 
would be disastrous were we to allow this Government to collapse not 
knowing what government might or might not take their place, and to 
allow the Iraqi people to lose the ground they gained through 
courageous votes several times to put this Government together. It 
would be bad for Iraq, it would be bad for the region, and it could 
have ramifications on world peace and our efforts to stem this terrible 
growth of terrorism worldwide.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
used by the two leaders in the exchange on the floor not be counted 
against the 90 minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, war is the most serious and the most 
consequential issue we can debate here in the Senate. American lives, 
American security, and America's future are all on the line when our 
country decides questions of war and peace. For years, we have been 
denied a real opportunity to fully debate this war in Iraq, a war that 
has now claimed more than 3,000 American lives with no end in sight.
  Last November, the voters sent us a message. They want a new 
direction. What do we hear from the President? More of the same. In 
fact, his plan is to escalate the war by putting up to 48,000 more 
Americans in the middle of a deadly civil war. They are two completely 
different approaches. On one side, we have the American people, the 
Iraq Study Group, generals who have spoken out, and a bipartisan 
majority of Congress. On the other side, we have the President and his 
supporters. In a democracy, we resolve these issues through debate. We 
in the Senate are ready for that debate. We are ready to move in a new 
direction, and it starts by putting this Senate on record as opposing 
the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq.
  I have been looking forward to finally having this debate in the 
Senate, but apparently some of the Republicans have a very different 
strategy. They don't want to have a real debate. They don't want to 
consider the resolutions that have been offered. In fact, I think the 
discussion we just witnessed right now showed that to us.
  Last night, by voting against a motion to proceed to this debate, 
they said they didn't want to talk about this. Now, I am not here today 
to question their motives, but I do want to point out the consequences. 
Every day they block a debate, they send a message that Congress 
supports escalation. Every day they block a debate, they deny our 
citizens a voice in a war that has cost us dearly in dollars and in 
lives. And every day they block a debate, they are blocking the will of 
the American public.
  I am on the Senate floor today because I know this debate is long 
overdue, and I am not going to let anyone silence me, the troops for 
whom I speak, or the constituents I represent. Ever since the start of 
combat operations in March of 2003, I have been very frustrated that we 
have been denied a chance to hold hearings, a chance to ask critical 
questions, a chance to demand answers, to hold those in charge 
accountable, and to give the American people a voice in a war that is 
costing us terribly. We are going to have that debate whether some in 
this Senate like it or not.
  Four years ago, I came to the Senate to discuss the original 
resolution to give the President the authority to wage war in Iraq. At 
that time, I asked a series of questions, including: What is the 
mission? What will it require? Who is with us in this fight? What 
happens after our troops go in? How will it impact the Middle East? How 
will it affect the broader war on terror? And are we being honest with 
the American people about the costs of that war?
  After exploring those questions back almost 4 years ago, I announced 
on October 9 of 2002 that I could not support sending our men and women 
into harm's way on an ill-defined solo mission with so many critical 
questions unanswered.
  Now, here we are today, 4 years later, $379 billion and more than 
3,000 American lives taken. Now the President wants to send more 
Americans into the middle of a civil war against the wishes of the 
majority of the public and Congress?
  As I look at the President's proposed escalation, I am left with the 
exact same conclusion I met with 4 years ago. I cannot support sending 
more of our men and women into harm's way on an ill-defined solo 
mission with so many critical questions unanswered. Today, President 
Bush wants to send Americans into battle without a clear mission, 
without equipment, without an endgame and without explaining the cost.
  When he tried it 4 years ago, I stood up and spoke out and I voted 
no. Again today, President Bush wants to send more Americans into 
battle without a clear mission, without equipment, without an endgame 
and without explaining the costs. Once again, I say: Not on my watch. 
We need a new direction, not more Americans in the middle of a civil 
war. I will vote for a bipartisan resolution to send a clear message 
that we oppose the surge. It is the first step in demanding a new 
direction in Iraq.
  No debate on Iraq can begin without first recognizing our men and 
women in uniform who risk their lives and all too often give up their 
lives to keep all of us safe. Whenever our country calls, they answer, 
no matter the cost to them or their families. They are our best. They 
are our brightest, they are our bravest, and I hope to give them a 
voice in this debate.
  While most Americans today are going about as normal, our troops and 
their families are quietly making tremendous sacrifices. The burdens of 
this war have not been shared equally, and we owe so much to those who 
shoulder those heavy burdens.
  I had a chance to visit servicemembers from my home State on the 
ground in Kuwait and in Baghdad. Every one of them makes us proud. I 
have sat down with servicemembers and their families at Camp Murray, at 
McChord Air Force Base, at Fairchild Air Force Base. I have talked with 
returning servicemembers in every corner of my State. I have worked to 
help give them the health care and the benefits and the transition and 
support they deserve.
  My home State of Washington has made tremendous sacrifices to help us 
fight and win the war on terror. To date, more than 59,000 
servicemembers with the Washington State connection have served in 
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Currently, 
there are nearly 10,000 people with the Washington State connection who 
are serving in OEF and OIF. According to the Department of Defense, as 
of January 20, for OEF and

[[Page 3225]]

OIF, 702 servicemembers whose home of record is Washington State have 
been injured. That is 702 injured from my State. In addition, 66 
servicemembers whose home of record is my home State of Washington have 
paid the ultimate sacrifice. The number is even higher when you include 
those who have a connection to Washington State.
  Each one of those brave Americans is someone whose mother or father, 
sister or brother, daughter or son, their families are never going to 
be the same. Their communities will never be the same. I offer my 
prayers for those who have sacrificed for our country. We owe them a 
debt that can never fully be repaid.
  After nearly 4 years of losses and misrepresentations and 
miscalculations, the American people have said they want a new 
direction in Iraq. Generals have spoken out calling for a new 
direction. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group called for a new direction. 
Yet President Bush has ignored everyone and is now pushing to send even 
more of our American troops into the middle of a civil war. He is 
wrong. And a bipartisan resolution is the first step we can take in 
helping to forge a new direction.
  But now what we have is Republicans who are denying the Senate a 
chance to vote for that new direction. In fact, they are preventing the 
Senate from even debating the merits of that direction. They may have 
stopped us from moving forward last night, but they cannot stop this 
debate forever. The American people would not allow it.
  If the Republicans stop their obstruction and start allowing the 
Senate to debate this misguided surge proposal, there are plenty of 
questions we have to ask. What would be the impact of a surge? How 
would it affect our men and women in uniform? Will it put more of them 
into the crossfire and cause more deaths and injuries? My home State is 
home to Fort Lewis and two of the Army Stryker Brigades. How is the 
surge going to affect them? Will some members see their current 
deployment extended? Will others see their deployment date moved up? 
Will all of them have the equipment they need when they are there? 
Those are the first questions we have to ask.
  How will the surge affect our ability to care for our returning 
veterans? We are having trouble meeting their needs today; how will we 
do the job in an escalated war?
  I have heard several Members on the other side demand ideas from 
Democrats, and my first response is simple: To discuss ideas, shouldn't 
we discuss, first, the President's ideas? He is, after all, the 
Commander in Chief. That is the point of the resolutions, to foster a 
debate on the President's plan for the future of Iraq. But the Senate 
Republicans would not allow that. The Republicans' obstruction and the 
President's decision so far have left us with very few options.
  I am looking at every resolution and every proposal. I am looking 
forward to having hearings and getting the facts and moving forward in 
a bipartisan way.
  Personally, I believe the way forward should include three steps. 
First of all, we should strategically redeploy our troops. Second, we 
should work with Iraq's neighbors and other countries in the area to 
build a regional framework. And third, we need the Iraqis to take 
ownership of their own country and their own future. We can send troops 
for decades and never have a peaceful, stable Iraq until the Iraqi 
people are willing to work together for a purpose that is larger than 
their own tribe or their own sect or their own self.
  We need to refocus our efforts on the war on terror, on fighting al-
Qaida, and on addressing the other challenges that threaten our 
security. I am very concerned by the reports we hear about Afghanistan, 
that it is sliding backward and becoming more unstable. Those are some 
of the steps I would take to improve our security. That is the debate 
we ought to be having.
  Before I conclude, let me address two concerns. First, some people 
have suggested that if you question the President's policies, you are 
somehow hurting our troops. As the Vice President would say, hogwash. 
Supporting our troops means giving them a clear mission, making sure 
they have the equipment and support they need and making sure we have a 
clear endgame. If any of those critical ingredients are missing, it is 
our duty to question the policy until we provide our troops with what 
they need. Sending more Americans into the middle of a civil war 
without a clear mission, without equipment, without support, without an 
endgame, is endangering our troops, not supporting them.
  I don't shrink from war. I voted for the war in Afghanistan. My 
father served in World War II and he was injured in combat. I know war 
is sometimes necessary. But I also know that if we don't answer the 
critical questions, our troops pay the price. For too long, partisans 
have claimed to be speaking for our troops but have blocked the 
discussions that could truly protect them. I say, no more.
  Finally, some people say that a nonbinding resolution is not enough. 
And I agree. That is why this is a first step. We can't take the other 
steps until this Congress goes on record, in a bipartisan voice, 
telling the President the surge is wrong. Once we have done that, the 
ball is in the President's court. But today, Senate Republicans are 
preventing us from getting there. If he still will not change course, 
we will look at the other tools before us.
  Senators have discussed a wide series of steps that we could take. I 
will review all of them. We are also holding hearings to find out what 
options we can take. This is the first step. If the President doesn't 
hear us, we will take the next step. And the next step. And the one 
after that.
  I understand that many Americans are frustrated that our troops are 
in the middle of a civil war. I am frustrated. too. I wish we had been 
allowed to start this process, these hearings, these debates and votes 
a long time ago. But we are moving aggressively forward now. Democrats 
have been in charge now for 5 weeks. And already, finally, we are 
having more debates, more hearings, more progress, than we have had in 
the past 3 years. But I can promise you, this is only a beginning.
  We can't have these debates if the Republicans are blocking us in an 
open discussion of the war. The Republicans need to stop denying a real 
debate in the Senate, so that together we can move our country in a new 
direction. I believe for us to have an impact, Congress has to speak 
out in a clear, bipartisan voice. We could vote on hundreds of 
resolutions that make us feel better, but that would not help us change 
direction. It is a strong, bipartisan message from Congress to the 
executive branch and to the country that has the power to make 
progress.
  I am willing to take the time and do this right and to build the 
support we need so that at the end of the day we can have a real 
impact. I strongly oppose the surge. I believe escalation is the wrong 
direction. I will vote to put the Senate on record opposing the surge 
if the Republicans will end their filibuster. I will continue to fight 
for new direction in Iraq.
  For too long, the voices of our troops and our citizens have been 
blocked. Today, Senate Republicans are trying to continue that 
obstruction. I say, no longer. The debate must begin because our 
country will be better for it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes.

                          ____________________