[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3296-3307]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           PROCEDURAL TACTICS

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, thank you for the recognition. I have 
sought recognition to discuss the procedural situation which confronts 
the Senate at the present time and to discuss a proposed rule change 
which would deal with this kind of a problem.
  We have pending a motion to proceed on S. 470, which proposes a 
disagreement with the President's plan to send 21,500 additional troops 
to Iraq. Under the Senate rules, a motion to proceed is debatable, and 
when we deal with an issue of the magnitude of what is happening in 
Iraq today and the President's proposal to send additional troops, it 
is obviously a matter of great moment. The eyes and ears of the country 
are focused on the Senate. The eyes and ears of the world are focused 
on the Senate.
  So far, what is happening is largely misunderstood, but the starting 
point is that a motion to proceed is debatable. But before debate even 
began, the majority leader filed a motion for cloture, which means to 
cut off debate. Now, a cloture motion would be in order, but why before 
the debate has even started? The cloture motion is designed to cut off 
debate after debate has gone on too long. But what lies behind the 
current procedural status is an effort by the majority leader to do 
what is called filling the tree, which is a largely misunderstood 
concept, not understood at all by the public generally and even not 
understood fully by many Members of this body. But the Senate is unique 
from the House, and the Senate has been billed as the world's greatest 
deliberative body, because Senators have the right to offer amendments.
  In the House of Representatives they established what is called a 
rule, and they preclude Members from offering amendments unless it 
satisfies the Rules Committee. In the Senate, generally a Senator 
doesn't have to satisfy anybody except his or her own conscience in 
offering an amendment. But if the majority leader, who has the right of 
recognition--and that, of course, is not understood either--but if the 
majority leader is on the floor and seeks recognition, he gets it ahead 
of everybody else. And if the majority leader offers what is called a 
first-degree amendment to the bill, which is substantively identical to 
the bill but only a technical change, and then again seeks recognition 
and gets it and offers a second-degree amendment to the bill, which is 
substantively the same but only a technical change, then no other 
Senator may offer any additional amendment. That is a practice which 
has been engaged in consistently

[[Page 3297]]

by both parties for decades, undercutting the basic approach of the 
Senate, which enables Senators to offer amendments and get votes.
  The Congressional Research Service has tabulated the statistics going 
back to the 99th Congress in 1985 and 1986 when Senator Dole used this 
procedure on five occasions. In the 100th Congress, Senator Byrd, then 
the majority leader, used this procedure on three occasions. In the 
103d Congress, the next majority leader, Senator Mitchell, used this 
procedure on nine occasions. When Senator Dole became leader again in 
the 104th Congress, he used this procedure on five occasions. In the 
106th Congress, Senator Lott, then the majority leader, used it nine 
times. In the 107th Congress, Senator Daschle, then the majority 
leader, used it once. He was only majority leader for about 18 months. 
In the 108th Congress, Senator Frist used it three times, and in the 
109th Congress five times.
  Now, my suggestion is that the parties ought to declare a truce on 
this procedural war of filling the tree which undercuts the basic 
thrust of Senate procedure to allow Senators to offer amendments. But 
the majority leaders continue to use it, which they have a right to 
under the current rules, which is why I am suggesting a change in the 
rules. But it will take a little time to change the rules. We can't do 
it immediately for the Iraq debate. But it would be my hope that there 
would be a public understanding of what we are doing, because the most 
effective process in our governmental operations is public 
understanding and public pressure. We call it a political question. We 
call it public understanding to have transparency or an understanding 
of what we do, and then the public can say yea or nay with what is 
happening, and that is a tremendous force to lead Senators and Members 
of the House of Representatives to take action, to call it the right 
thing, or to take action consistent with sound public policy.
  Now, what is happening today is that charges are being leveled on all 
sides. There has been a lot of finger-pointing with most of the 
Democrats saying the Republicans are obstructing a vote--a debate and a 
vote on the Iraqi resolutions. And Republicans are saying: Well, we are 
insisting on our right to debate the motion to proceed. We don't think 
you should file cloture before the debate even starts, to cut off 
debate before you have debate, but the reason we are doing it is so 
this procedural device may not be used on what is called in common 
parlance to ``fill the tree.'' But if you ask virtually anybody what is 
filling the tree, they are going to think about an orchard; they are 
not going to think about Senate procedure. But it is called filling the 
tree. I have described it succinctly and briefly to outline exactly 
what the procedure is to stop Senators from offering amendments.
  There is a clue here that Senator Warner--who is the principal 
proponent of the Warner resolution, the Warner-Levin resolution, which 
picks up the substance of the bill which is currently pending, S. 470--
Senator Warner votes against cloture, and he is the principal proponent 
of disagreeing with the President's plan. Well, that ought to tell us 
something: that Senator Warner is not trying to stifle debate on a vote 
on his own initiative, on his own resolution. Senator Hagel also--who 
has been characterized as the most outspoken critic of President Bush's 
plan to have a surge--voted against cloture. That ought to tell us 
something: that Senator Hagel is not trying to defeat debate on a vote 
on what he seeks to accomplish.
  So it would be my hope there would be a truce. Let me say candidly 
that I think there is very little chance there is going to be a truce 
in the Senate on using this procedural rule. It has been used on both 
sides. It has been used by Democrats and Republicans when it suits the 
partisan advantage of one party or another, and suiting the partisan 
party advantage of one party or another is not consistent with sound 
public policy and the public interest.
  Right now this debate is being waged in the newspapers, it is being 
waged on the talk shows, it is being waged on the Sunday shows, even 
some of it is being waged on the floor of the Senate, but by and large 
not understood.
  I spoke on the subject on Monday, outlining the rules morass, and 
largely misunderstood, even by senior members of my own staff not 
understood. You have the Democrats--and I think we ought to rise above 
the partisanship, Democrats and Republicans--saying they have the high 
ground and they intend to keep it. Well, I think they are winning the 
public relations battle. Let's be candid about it. Democrats are 
winning the public relations battle. Most people think what is going 
on, because we are opposing ending debate, Republicans are opposing 
ending debate, is that we do not want to have the debate and we do not 
want to have the vote.
  That is not factually correct. Senator Warner, who is proposing it, 
and Senator Hagel, who is one of the sharpest critics of the 
President's plan, and other Senators who are critics of the President's 
plan, have voted against cutting off debate because it is a big issue 
which ought to be debated, and because what is going on behind the 
scenes, under the surface, is an effort to have agreement on how many 
votes there will be to have a fair airing of the subject matter, and to 
have an opportunity for Senators to vote on a variety of resolutions or 
amendments. Ordinarily, we come to agreement on those matters. Right 
now we are up against the continuing resolution, which is about to 
expire.
  I would suggest we have plenty of time to do it all if we start to 
work a little earlier. We are on morning business until 2 o'clock, 
which means we can express ourselves and it is not wasted time, but it 
is not the most productive time. We don't come to work until late on 
Monday. We don't work on Friday. Most Americans work a 5-day week. Some 
Americans work 6 and 7 days. So we have time. And we could work in the 
evenings, too, when we are facing a time limit, or we could have a 
continuing resolution which was extended, so that debate could be put 
off. But now it is in doubt what is going to happen. It is controlled 
by the majority, and by the majority leader, and that is the right of 
the majority and the right of the majority leader.
  There have been pronouncements that we are not going to come back to 
this debate and that it is politically advantageous for the Democrats 
to blame the Republicans for blocking debate on the vote, and that will 
be the public posture. But it is my hope there will yet be a 
recognition of what is going on. I would be glad to debate anybody who 
cares to discuss the issue as to whether my representations are 
accurate or inaccurate; that the majority leader has the right 
exercised by majority leaders of both parties for at least the last two 
decades to preclude amendments being offered and to preclude any 
consideration by what Republicans have to say on this issue.
  We have a Member of the opposite party on the Senate floor. I would 
be glad to debate that subject with him now.
  Before the week is up, I will offer a resolution to change the Senate 
rules to preclude this procedure in the future, but in the public 
interest, there ought to be a truce declared on it that won't be used 
by either side to the disadvantage of the other. The real party being 
disadvantaged is the party of the American people. That is where the 
impact is.
  In conclusion--the two most popular words of any presentation--I hope 
we can explain, as a starting point, discussions we have in the Senate 
and follow up with explanations in the media, which really carries the 
message to the American people. Some people are watching on C-SPAN. I 
have a family very interested in the speeches I make from time to 
time--two sisters and a brother-in-law. I talked to them Monday night, 
and they had no idea what I was saying. My staff does not understand 
what I am saying.
  The essence is, the rules being exercised by the majority, by the 
Democrats today, will preclude Republican amendments if they fill the 
tree by the procedure I have described. I do not want to stop debate. 
Senator Warner, who is the principal proponent of the amendment to 
debate and vote, Senator Hagel, an outspoken critic of the President--
doesn't that say something?

[[Page 3298]]

  I hope we can bring sufficient public clarity to the issue that the 
majority leader and the Democrats will rethink their position. As long 
as the Republicans are being blamed for not having debate and a vote, 
we are not going to have debate and a vote. If the public understands 
both parties are at fault, equal blame on both sides, then there may be 
some movement and some accommodation.
  It does not take long for the American people to see the morass and 
procedural shenanigans going on and say: We don't care whether you are 
a Democrat or Republican, the American people are sick and tired of the 
bickering that goes on in this Chamber and in the House of 
Representatives. They expressed themselves in the last election. If we 
cannot do a better job in explaining ourselves and finding a way to 
work through and address the substantive problems, the enormous 
problems facing this country--and the No. 1 today is Iraq--we may all 
find ourselves seeking new employment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, we just heard a debate about 
debates. It strikes me that this word war we are conducting here 
doesn't get to the fact that we are losing people every day in Iraq--27 
Americans died in a weekend--and our friends on the other side want to 
discuss the rules and the process instead of being able to agree that 
there was a nonbinding resolution being proposed about whether you want 
to see this surge--a la escalation--of the war in Iraq. Our friends 
were so conscience-stricken that they wanted to resort to more words 
and amendments. Why couldn't we have just passed or discussed that 
nonbinding resolution, let it go, and let the debate then continue? 
Bring on the debates. But, no, this is the press relations battle which 
was just discussed by our colleague.
  That is not what we are looking for. We are looking to save lives, 
American lives, but we can't get to the subject because there is a 
question about what the rules ought to be. The rules ought to be the 
decency of our consciences--let us make decisions that will save lives 
and ease the pain on American families.
  This was an unfortunate dynamic we saw this week: Republican 
colleagues determined to block the opportunity for the Senate to vote 
on the President's war escalation policy for Iraq. Just when the 
American people want this Congress to stop the President's misguided 
plan, our colleagues on the other side are hard at work to shut down 
that opportunity. What they are afraid of is that we will confirm our 
support for the troops who are there now, and any insinuation that 
isn't the truth is a foul lie. We are just as anxious to support the 
troops. We are more anxious, in many ways, because we called for 
equipment to be available to protect our troops. We called for vehicles 
to be properly armored. We called for the body armor to be developed. 
But we didn't hear any complaints about the misdeeds of the contractors 
who weren't doing what they were supposed to be doing. They were not 
even monitored. We are going to talk about that.
  Our friends in the minority can delay this debate, and I hope the 
American public understands what is going on--delay the debates, don't 
let us come to the conclusion, don't let the President see that a 
majority of this Senate does not want this escalation to take place. 
They will delay this debate and vote for now, but it is going to happen 
eventually. It will happen because the American people are 
understandably frustrated with the President's conduct and mishandling 
of this war.
  Our children are taught a lesson in school: If you do things wrong 
and you don't pass your courses, don't change your ways, don't listen 
to advice, you get an F on your report card. In the view of many of the 
American people--most of the American people--President Bush has gotten 
an F on his report card on the handling of the situation in Iraq. But 
he and the Vice President refuse to be held accountable, and his allies 
in the Senate are blocking us from holding him accountable. It is not a 
good lesson for our Nation's young people. They see that if they don't 
do their work, they fail the course, and the President has not done his 
work, and he ought not to get a positive grade for his job thus far.
  The American people don't want Congress to grant unlimited power to 
the President and his incompetent crew. Our troops have done a 
magnificent job, but it is the President and failed leadership at the 
Pentagon that have let them down.
  Who can forget Secretary Rumsfeld's quote:

       You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you 
     might want or wish to have at a later time.

  Frankly, it is a slur, in my view, against the troops we have, those 
courageous people over there fighting right now or at that time. It is 
a terrible message to send to our soldiers.
  Who can forget when the insurgency first started and our troops were 
getting attacked with roadside bombs, when President Bush said ``bring 
'em on''? I wore our Nation's uniform in World War II, in Europe, and I 
can say none of us wanted our Commander in Chief taunting the enemy, 
inviting them to come on out and fight and maybe kill us. No. To be in 
harm's way and have your commander make such a statement from the 
safety and security of the White House is appalling.
  Now the President wants a so-called surge. Does he want to surge our 
way to more problems? Does he want to surge our national debt by 
spending billions more every week in Iraq? Anybody who understands 
English knows that the real definition of ``surge'' as used here means 
``enlarge'' or ``escalate.''
  From this war, we have more than 700 Americans who have lost limbs, 
more than 29,000 suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and over 
3,000 have perished in Iraq, 74 of whom have ties to my home State of 
New Jersey. Yet President Bush dismisses the incredible cost of this 
war in lives, injuries, and resources essential for the health and 
well-being of our people at home, domestic programs.
  After all the previous failures and incompetence by this 
administration, why should the American people allow the President to 
do whatever he chooses in this war, this war which has destroyed 
thousands of families' lives? Look at the President's record on Iraq: 
false intelligence on weapons of mass destruction; no posted invasion 
plan because the administration was convinced that we would be greeted 
with sweets and flowers in a Utopian celebration. The President's team 
decided to fire the entire Iraqi Army, dismissing 500,000 trained 
troops who might have been helpful to us in fighting this insurgency. 
Then the Bush administration helped create further sectarian division 
by simply banning members from serving in the new Iraqi Government. The 
administration has allied itself with an Iraqi Prime Minister who 
supports a militia leader named Sadr who controlled a terrorist militia 
which disagrees with the formation of a stable government.
  We all saw the waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds by 
contractors such as Halliburton. The Iraqi reconstruction inspector 
general said that nearly $3 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars for Iraqi 
reconstruction has been lost--lost, vanished, $3 billion. That is not 
sloppy, that is incompetence. So it is understandable that a giant 
majority of the American people are against this escalation. The other 
side of the aisle obviously does not want to vote consistent with the 
American people's wishes or their prayers. Taxpayers are footing a 
massive bill for these mistakes.
  The administration gave Halliburton a no-bid contract thought to be 
worth $50 million--well, it surged to $2.5 billion--to operate Iraqi's 
oil infrastructure. And what has that contract yielded in oil? Less oil 
4 years after the invasion than Iraq was producing before the war. 
Halliburton was forced to pay back $50 million after a fine was leveled 
against them by the Department of Defense. That is why the American 
people say no surge for Halliburton.
  I was a member of the Department of Homeland Security committee in 
the previous Congress. I wrote five letters

[[Page 3299]]

to the chairman asking we have hearings, oversight hearings, on the 
Halliburton behavior in the war. I was told that it would be 
duplicable, and we couldn't get a review of Halliburton's behavior.
  When the Republicans were in the majority, they said a vote against 
the President's policy was cut-and-run, but now the American people are 
asking the question, What is the alternative? Stay and die?
  In November, the American people spoke with the most effective means 
they have; that is, the ballot box. They said no. They said they want a 
change. They voted for a voice against the President. Now the 
Republican minority is blocking Congress from speaking.
  The President and the minority in the Senate cannot continue to 
ignore the will of the American people. We already saw the President 
ignore his own chosen Iraqi Study Group. First he appoints them; then 
he challenges them or ignores them. He ignored the advice of GEN John 
Abizaid, who thinks this escalation is a bad idea. He ignored former 
Secretary of State Colin Powell, who said more troops are not the 
answer.
  When do we say enough is enough? Well, I think that time is past due.
  Outside my office, to remind us all--I am very sensitive to veterans 
matters, to our military, not just because I served but because they 
are there to protect us. And they do a splendid job, even when they are 
asked to do more than the numbers they should have are not in place, 
and the equipment has not been quite what it ought to be, delays in 
producing that. We display a memorial outside my office showing the 
``Faces of the Fallen,'' which says: ``Let Us Never Forget.'' There are 
almost 3,000 faces outside the door to my office. We have them on 
easels. It was our construction. The name, age, rank, battalion 
affiliation, and the cause of death of each of these Nation's fallen 
servicemembers is inscribed with their photo on the memorial. If you 
look, you see the ages and how young they were and what they must have 
meant to the families they left behind.
  Friends and visitors search these photos daily for knowledge of 
people they might know and miss. As they search, as they review these 
pictures, some write notes in a book of reflections that we have out 
there. A woman from Englewood, NJ, wrote:

       How do we measure their sacrifice? We are so fortunate to 
     have these brave men and women.

  A woman from Minnesota says:

       This display brings tears to my eyes, to see how many lives 
     have been lost. Please stop more boards from being added and 
     bring those who would find themselves memorialized here home 
     safely.

  A Californian simply wrote:

       Bring them home!

  These are what the American people want, and we ignore them at our 
own peril. We prevent a vote on this momentous issue at our own peril 
as well.
  I close, saying to my colleagues on the other side, please stop the 
insinuations that we on this side of the aisle do not want to support 
our troops. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us, myself 
included, have been there to meet with our troops and see what they 
need and see what they want and listen to their tales of the days they 
spend in harm's way. We want to support them. We salute them. They 
honor their obligation to their country, even though we, in many cases, 
disagree with the mission.
  And when we fool ourselves into believing that all we have to do is 
to put more people in harm's way and we will get a stabilized 
government there, we find, in many instances, the recruits they have in 
the army there are just not capably trained, don't have the will, in 
many instances, to take up the fight. And we want to put more of our 
people in there?
  I think what ought to be done--as many others here do--is to start to 
whittle down our presence, leave enough of a resource there to help 
train those people, maybe instill some courage in their view of what 
their responsibilities are, get enough people in the flow--the Iraqi 
people--and plan to get them home as soon as we practically can.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share some thoughts about the 
situation we find ourselves in. I do feel some obligation to comment on 
the nature of the debate we are having, although I do not want to 
descend into partisanship.
  I would say that Senator Specter, I believe, is absolutely correct 
when he says the Republican Members of this body are not afraid to 
vote. They are prepared to vote on the Warner resolution. They are 
prepared to vote on the McCain resolution. They will vote on the Judd 
Gregg resolution. But the problem is the Democratic leadership only 
wants one vote, and that is a vote on their resolution. So we have had 
a vote. Less than 50 voted to go forward. So I do not see how we are at 
a point where it can be suggested the members of this side are afraid 
to have a vote.
  Why are they afraid to have two more votes, I would ask? I am not 
afraid to vote. I know how I would vote on those amendments. I am going 
to vote against the amendment that disapproves of the policies we are 
sending our troops to execute. And I am going to vote for the other 
amendments of McCain and Gregg--if I had the chance. That is a minimum. 
There may be others. Senator Specter indicated he would like to vote on 
something else.
  But in truth, as I have said before, I am not happy about this whole 
resolution process. We are not in the business of resolutions here. We 
are in the business of funding or not funding the policies of the 
United States of America. We have committed to funding the policy that 
is now being executed. We have confirmed the general who will execute 
that policy. Therefore, that is what we are about. That is the action 
we have taken.
  But, in general, let me say this one more thing because it touched my 
heart. Less than 30 minutes ago, right out here, I met an Alabamian 
whose son is at Fort Benning, a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army, an 
infantry officer. He thanked me for not going along with this negative 
resolution idea, and said: Senator, these soldiers are ``watching what 
you do like a hawk.''
  Don't think what we do is just a gambit to embarrass the President. 
We face many difficult decisions, pressures. We wrestle with competing 
interests and emotions in this Senate. We have high hopes and dreams 
for America. We do not all agree, and we should not. Ours is, at its 
best, a democracy where robust and intelligent debate informs our 
decisions. It makes us better. And we should respect one another even 
while we disagree. But this is a big deal. Lives are at stake. But this 
is what democracy is about. I want to be sure that when I say I believe 
someone is making a mistake, I am not attacking their character.
  In the end, if a democracy cannot reach a decision on important 
issues, act decisively and execute those decisions, it will be weak and 
it will fall prey to the cruel, the despotic, and the strong. In order 
to avoid indecisiveness and weakness, there are some important common 
principles we must share. They are built, I believe, on love of country 
and a sincere belief in and admiration for this great Republic we 
serve. That is the unifying principle.
  An extended, dangerous, and costly war in Iraq is not what we had 
hoped would occur when over three-fourths of the Members of this body--
and I was here--voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam 
Hussein. Certainly, I had hoped and have always favored bringing troop 
levels down as soon as we can. The difficulties we face have caused, 
understandably, much unease and frustration in our country. Things have 
not been going well. That is a true fact. The circumstances are grave, 
and our efforts in Iraq could fail, as General Casey and his 
replacement, General Petraeus, have made clear, although, in truth, 
these professionals have also made it clear they believe we can and 
will succeed if we carry out the new policy that is now being projected 
in Iraq.

[[Page 3300]]

  A congress of a nation, constructed like ours, that aspires to be a 
great nation and a great congress must consider how it should respond 
to such difficult circumstances in this winter of our discontent. How, 
now, should we think about the tough challenges we face?
  First, I believe the results of a failure and a precipitous 
withdrawal from Iraq are grave and ominous. No one disputes that. Chaos 
and ethnic cleansing, death to those who put their lives on the line 
for freedom and democracy would likely result, and more. Bad things 
would occur. We have had testimony on that.
  So to even those few now here in this Senate who voted against the 
use of force, and to our newer Members of the Senate who are on record 
as being opposed to the policy, I say let's get together. Let's see how 
we can deal with the problems we now face so our Nation and its 
policies can be successful.
  Few decisions are totally right or totally wrong. Sometimes things go 
better than expected. Sometimes they do not go as well. The test of a 
healthy and strong nation is how it handles adversity.
  To those who oppose our efforts in Iraq, I would say that it would be 
a defensible position, I have to say, if you feel that strongly about 
it, to vote to cut off funds that would in effect force an immediate 
withdrawal. But, in truth, even when Senators truly believe our efforts 
in Iraq were a mistake, a mature patriotic assessment of the short and 
long-term consequences of such a withdrawal must be considered.
  Immediate withdrawal is not a good option. It is not a good option. 
That is obviously why so many of our Democratic colleagues who are not 
happy with this war have not proposed such a step.
  The one thing that is not acceptable is to take action--to take any 
action or concrete steps--to further the President's policy and then to 
vote for a resolution that makes it less likely to succeed. This is 
especially true when this Congress has committed our military personnel 
to this task, placing them in harm's way to execute the mission this 
Republic has given them.
  Our military personnel have placed their very lives, their every 
waking moment, on the line to achieve the mission that is assigned to 
them. They are doing that every day. I have been there five times. We 
have a moral responsibility to them that must not be lightly broken.
  That commitment also goes to those many allies who have supported us, 
our friends in the region, and the good and decent Iraqis who voted for 
and stood up for democracy and freedom.
  If this is a true concept--and I believe it is--then I urge, with 
respect and with deep sincerity, that my colleagues do not give their 
support to any resolution that is likely to make our praiseworthy goal 
of a free and stable Iraq more difficult to achieve.
  A resolution that is not binding but adversely impacts our efforts, 
with all due respect, is a vote that cannot be justified. Other than 
perceived personal political benefits, or ``making a statement,'' what 
benefit does such a vote provide our Nation's efforts? It has no 
impact. Negative resolutions, therefore, can only place our soldiers, 
whom we sent to execute this policy, at greater risk. It can only place 
them at greater risk and make their task harder. Those in harm's way 
deserve our total support, and the policies we have asked them to 
execute should also have our total support, until such time as we 
withdraw it.
  I urge my colleagues to think this through. Let's pull back from this 
precipice--not just from this vote but from votes in Congress that may 
come in the future. Let's reassert our time-honored tradition that 
``politics stops at the water's edge,'' that politics must never place 
soldiers at unnecessary risk. Let us not go down the road of passing 
resolutions whose only purpose is to emote, to express doubt about our 
Nation's decided policy during a time of great challenge and risk.
  A Senate of a great nation doesn't use a toothless resolution to 
vent. What good does such a thing do? Surely, we all understand, as did 
our Founders, that there can only be one policy, one Commander in 
Chief, and one Congress. The Congress can cut off funds and stop it, if 
they are so strongly committed to do so. But we are not doing that.
  How have we slid into such a muddle? The answer is that politics 
seems to have taken over everything around here; it infects our very 
being, even during war. It is a dangerous trend. We are used to 
``splitting the difference'' here. Compromise is the nature of the 
game, we are told, and indeed it is. You favor a $100 million program, 
perhaps, and I oppose it; and maybe we end up compromising on $50 
million. The thing may have worked at $50 million, or it might have 
been a failure at $50 million. Who knows? But we compromise. But that 
is about money. This is about war, about the life and death of people, 
as fine as you can find in this country, who volunteered to serve us.
  Some may say it is not certain that negative resolutions will weaken 
the resolve of our friends and hurt the morale of our soldiers and 
embolden our enemies. Logic, however, says it will. Maybe you disagree. 
But how can it be otherwise? Logic says it will. General Petraeus said 
it well a few days ago. Negative resolutions will likely have negative 
consequences on our policy and place at greater risk the lives and 
health of our soldiers. What other purpose is there for this 
resolution, other than to somehow ratchet up the effort to force an 
abandonment of the policy we have funded and we are now executing.
  Indeed, the whole world will think such a resolution that expresses 
only ``feelings'' represents a weakening of American will, even while 
the actual policy we are funding is to increase our strength and 
commitment to the Iraq effort. Think about it. As their foundations, 
these negative resolutions can only be described as totally 
contradictory to our policy that we are at this moment executing. New 
troops are moving there right now. Some have already arrived in Iraq. 
Have you not heard that?
  For those unhappy and worried, I say let's get busy, all of us, and 
do a better job. Let's find out more about this difficult struggle that 
we are engaged in, find out more about Iraq, find out more about what 
our troops need, what their challenges are and what can and cannot be 
done. Let's meet with General Pace and General Casey and Secretary 
Gates; let's read the periodic reports that General Petraeus will be 
sending and spend more time keeping up with the situation on the ground 
in Iraq, rather than on polling numbers in our States. If we then reach 
a point of no return, when our honest and best judgment is that success 
is not possible, then we can join with those few who are prepared to 
cast votes to force an end to our deployment in Iraq. That is what we 
are supposed to do.
  Certainly, at this point, none can honestly say that we know what the 
outcome will be. I wish I could give full assurance of success, but I 
cannot. We do know this is a very difficult time. Al-Qaida is still 
active, despite heavy losses and an inability--we may thank the Lord--
to attack us again on our homeland, so far. The Iraqi Government has 
not been strong and decisive, and violence, especially in Baghdad, has 
steadily increased. The al-Qaida attack on the Samarra Mosque last 
February, designed to create sectarian violence in the country, 
succeeded in sparking a spate of sectarian killing and reprisals that 
continue today.
  Still, General Abizaid and General Casey, our former commander, and 
General Petraeus, our new commander, know the true situation there 
better than we do. General Abizaid has been there four years, I 
believe, and General Casey, 30 months. They have lived it. They have 
studied it. They sincerely believe and have publicly stated, under 
oath, that this surge of American troops, with a surge of Iraqi troops 
and the new tactics to be employed, can lead to the goals that we 
seek--a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Iraq. It can be successful. We 
should not be overly negative. Indeed, I asked this question of General 
Petraeus. A few days ago in his testimony, he said he would not take 
this job if he didn't believe he would succeed. General

[[Page 3301]]

Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division when they went into 
northern Iraq, in Mosul. He did a fabulous job. They jokingly called 
him the ``mayor of Mosul.'' We toured the area the projects he had 
worked to establish. He understands the need of walking the streets and 
talking with the Iraqi people and encouraging them to take over their 
country. He came home, and then they asked him to go back and train the 
Iraqi security forces and he agreed to do so. He left his family again 
and went back and spent a year in Iraq. I am sure he knows every top 
general by name in the Iraqi Army, or virtually all of them. He spent 
another year there doing that. Then he came back and he spent a year 
drafting and writing the Department of Defense counterinsurgency 
manual. It is 100 or more pages, a big document; it is a very 
important, complex, carefully worked out document that tells how to 
confront and defeat an insurgency operation. That is the plan we have 
asked him to go back with now. I believe we need to give General 
Petraeus a chance.
  We have lost over 3,000 lives in our Iraq effort. The losses, in my 
view, are less than expected during the initial assault on Baghdad in 
Iraq and far more than I expected in the aftermath. Much of this, I am 
sure, was the result of errors we made. Much arises from the inherent 
difficulties of the tasks that were underestimated. Of that, there can 
be no doubt. But no Government agency even comes close to our military 
in being brutally honest and doing after-action reports and self-
evaluations. That is going on now and will continue for years. They are 
a magnificent force. I can only believe that if we truly support them, 
as a great Senate and a great Congress should when they are executing 
the policies we have directed them to execute, they will be successful. 
I further believe it is premature for us to withdraw. We owe it to 
those State Department officials, other Government agencies, NGOs, 
patriotic Iraqi civilians who voted for a new and better Iraq, to the 
Iraqi security forces who have taken more casualties than we have, to 
those international allies who have stood with us in Iraq and, most of 
all, to our military personnel who have given their heroic best to 
accomplish our Nation's just and decent goals in Iraq, to give this new 
policy and General Petraeus a chance. I think they can and will do it. 
But I do not doubt the difficulties and I do not doubt there is 
uncertainty.
  If, heaven forbid, our efforts do not prevail, it will be appropriate 
to completely rethink our commitment to Iraq. So why do we want to pass 
a resolution? Senator Reid says he wants to provide Senators a chance 
to show their disapproval of the President's policy. With respect, 
Senator Reid has--I know it is unwitting and unintentional--crossed the 
line there. It is clear that this resolution, which has no binding 
effect and is only a political document, is not necessary, does not 
help, and I totally oppose it. It is wrong, in my view.
  While our soldiers are courageously placing their lives on the line 
for us, and while there is no serious suggestion that we should cut off 
the funds for the surge the Commander in Chief has ordered and which 
the Baker-Hamilton group suggested might be necessary, a toothless 
resolution is the wrong thing to do. I am certainly glad it did not 
garner many votes.
  So can we, for a while at least, stand united in our good and worthy 
efforts to help the people of Iraq achieve a decent, peaceful and 
stable Government? Can't we do that? The challenge remains great. The 
costs are high. I say let's follow through, united, on this new 
strategy under our new general. I believe we can be successful. If the 
Iraqis fail to respond and if the new strategy is not effective, we 
will know soon enough. And an honest, professional, and realistic 
evaluation of what to do next will fall into our hands. We should 
complete that task effectively, giving our best effort and judgment to 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Montana be recognized next for up to 15 minutes, to be followed by 
myself for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, I further ask unanimous 
consent that after the completion of the remarks of the Senator from 
Nevada, and after one other Democrat, I be recognized for up to 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the thousands of 
Montanans who have lost faith in the way this administration is 
conducting the war in Iraq.
  Our troops have given more than most of us can imagine. This 
administration has asked much of them. They should be commended for 
their performance in a war that has been mismanaged from the get-go.
  In 1972, deep into the Vietnam war, the great Senator, the great 
statesman, Senator Mike Mansfield, whose seat I am now honored to hold, 
spoke of a great nation. When times demand it, it is wise for us to 
take a step back and look at those who served before us.
  Standing not far from where I stand today, Senator Mansfield said:

       Mr. President, it does no great nation any harm to admit 
     that a mistake has been made. And sometimes when nations and 
     men will do so, they will be the bigger and the better for 
     it.

  Many years later, Mansfield would say that when he was gone, he 
wanted to be forgotten. We have not forgotten Mike Mansfield, and we 
must not forget his measured approach to diplomacy, his steady hand, 
and the lesson that admitting a mistake is the first step in correcting 
it.
  It is time we debate the facts of this situation so this country's 
leaders can make the right decisions.
  I have said for more than a year that this war is being conducted 
without a plan for success and there is no end in sight. For too long, 
this body has refused to ask the tough questions, to debate the merits 
of this war, and has not held the President accountable for the 
deteriorating situation in Iraq.
  Disturbingly, recent reports confirm that our invasion of Iraq has 
created more terrorists than it has eliminated. Yet the terrorist who 
plotted the most deadly attack on U.S. soil--Osama bin Laden--remains 
at large and ignored by the administration.
  In addition to the more than 3,000 killed since the war began, 17 of 
whom are from Montana, there have been more than 23,000 wounded in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Many will come home missing one or more limbs. Others 
will return home to battle posttraumatic stress disorder.
  Last week, I joined several of my colleagues, along with two Iraqi 
war veterans, and called on the administration to get serious about 
funding for veterans health care. I renew that call today for permanent 
mandatory full funding of VA health care. There is no reason veterans 
should be forced to come to us every year hat in hand and beg for 
funding. It should be permanent, and it should be fully funded. Right 
now, it is neither.
  Our country's veterans do not seek, nor do they expect, recognition 
from their Commander in Chief, nor the American people. But we owe them 
not only the recognition but also the promise that we will care for 
them and their families when they return.
  Following the gulf war, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
GEN Colin Powell, outlined his plan for efficient and decisive military 
action, now referred to as the Powell doctrine.
  The Powell doctrine clearly outlines what U.S. military action should 
look like:
  Military action should be used only as a last resort and only if 
there is a clear risk to the national security by the intended target.
  Force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the 
force used by the enemy.
  There must be strong support for the campaign by the general public.

[[Page 3302]]

  And last, there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in 
which the military is engaged.
  One by one, this administration has violated every principle of the 
Powell doctrine and, as a result, we are lost in Iraq and alone in the 
world.
  Clear risk to national security? Prior to the invasion, the 
administration claimed that Iraq's nuclear capabilities made it a grave 
threat to America's national security, allegations that proved to be 
false.
  Overwhelming force? The administration was unprepared for the dangers 
of urban combat, for improvised explosive devices, and continues to 
send troops into harm's way without proper armor. It is unconscionable 
that these soldiers are being sent into battle without all of the tools 
they need to be safe and successful. It is unacceptable to send them 
there with no plan for, or definition of, success.
  Public support? Perhaps the most significant difference between the 
first gulf war and the war in Iraq is the lack of support from our 
allies. Like World War II, the gulf war was successful because America 
built a strong coalition and did not force our troops to carry the 
burden alone.
  As support for this war continues to erode, so, too, does our 
standing in the world. Just a few years ago, nearly the entire world 
stood at America's side following the attacks on September 11. That 
good will has long since been squandered.
  And finally, an exit strategy? The President has proposed sending 
21,500 more troops into Iraq as a strategy for victory. Staying the 
course by escalating this war only spells disaster.
  This country should no longer tolerate, nor can it afford, an open-
ended conflict that has claimed more than 3,000 lives, injured more 
than 23,000, and cost the United States taxpayers $2 billion every 
week.
  Recently, the President proposed sending 21,500 more troops into 
downtown Baghdad. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
that actually means almost 50,000 additional troops when you include 
the 28,000 troops needed to provide critical support to those combat 
troops. This could cost up to $27 billion to sustain over the next 
year. That would be more than three times the largest estimate of troop 
escalation costs provided by the Bush administration.
  The addition of almost 50,000 American troops means more American 
young men and women without adequate body armor riding in ill-armored 
humvees into one of the most dangerous combat zones in history. 
Historical data from this war tells us that sending 21,500 troops into 
Iraq will mean that between 300 and 500 additional soldiers will die in 
Iraq than if this escalation were not to occur.
  Adding more troops is not a strategy, it is a tactic, and it is not a 
new one. There have been four such troop escalations in Iraq so far, 
and to what end? What benefit has been realized by this country, the 
Iraqi people, or the region?
  The long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate, prepared 
collectively by 16 intelligence agencies for the President, was 
released last week. It paints a bleak picture of the deteriorating 
situation in Iraq, and it describes the urgent need for conditions to 
be reversed measurably to stop the violence and widespread polarization 
of the Iraqi society.
  So I call on the President to heed the grave warnings of the National 
Intelligence Estimate, to listen to his own Iraq Study Group, the 
Congress, and the American people.
  Last month, my colleague Senator Baucus called on the administration 
to map a new course in Iraq. Senator Baucus said we must not escalate 
the conflict, we must train Iraqi troops to stand up for themselves, we 
must start bringing our troops home as soon as possible, and we must 
engage Iraqi's neighbors and the world community. He was right then; he 
is right today.
  The solution for a new course in Iraq will not be solely a military 
one. Switching to political and diplomatic solutions involving our 
allies in the region is not a defeatist strategy, but instead an 
appropriate course for a war of this complexity and magnitude.
  The President needs to set a timeline to give the Iraqi people 
military control of their country. It should be the Iraqi Army--not 
Montanans, not Americans--disarming bombs and guarding bridges. The 
administration needs to reinvest in special forces and human 
intelligence if we are to win the real war on terror.
  Nearly 4 years have passed, more than a half a trillion dollars have 
been spent, more than 3,000 American soldiers have died since the 
President announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended and 
told us: ``Mission Accomplished.''
  Funding for this war and its success or failure should have been 
debated long ago. It is time for a real debate on the direction and 
strategy of this war, starting with the President's proposal for 
escalation.
  The President must also tell the American people what success means 
and how it should be quantified. If success is free elections in Iraq, 
then we should have been gone 2 years ago. If success is toppling 
Saddam Hussein, then we should have been gone 3 years ago. If it is 
something else, then the administration needs to be honest with the 
American people and identify a clear and achievable outcome.
  I support the Warner-Levin resolution opposing the President's plan 
to escalate the war in Iraq. But I want to be clear: I view the Warner-
Levin resolution as only a first step. We have a duty to debate the 
escalation on its merits and let both sides be heard.
  This week's efforts to delay a vote on Warner-Levin do nothing to 
make our troops safer. Blocking an up-or-down vote on this resolution 
does nothing to bring this bloody war any closer to its close.
  I have been here not too long--just a month--and I am still learning 
the ropes, but make no mistake, we should deliberate, we should not 
rush to judgment or sentence, but that does not mean we should not 
debate.
  For 3 days we have been debating about whether we should debate the 
President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. I have been all over 
Montana in the last couple of years, and everywhere I went people were 
and continue to be deeply concerned about the war. They didn't all 
agree, but there was always a lively and passionate debate. Not a 
single person told me we should debate about whether to have a debate.
  Our troops, the American people, and the Iraqi people deserve an open 
and honest discussion. We need to ask the tough questions, we need to 
demand the answers, and we need to bring our troops home as safely and 
as quickly as possible.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, this afternoon, I rise to add my voice to 
the current debate on the President's announced plan to reinforce 
coalition forces in Iraq by sending additional American soldiers and 
marines to Baghdad and Al Anbar Province in an effort to bring 
stability to that volatile part of that country.
  For some time now, Senators have been clamoring for President Bush to 
send additional troops to Iraq. They criticized him for trying to 
accomplish our goals in Iraq without committing sufficient resources to 
get the job done.
  Look, the President has recognized that a change in strategy is 
absolutely necessary. Many have previously called for this same 
strategy. But it appears to this Senator that because it is the 
President's plan, some Senators are predisposed against it.
  A simple review of newspaper and Sunday talk show transcripts reveals 
some Senators appear to have supported the surge before they were 
against the surge. Senator Kerry on NBC's ``Today'' program on June 29, 
2005:

       We don't have enough troops in Iraq. . . . There aren't 
     enough people on the ground. . . . The way you honor the 
     troops and the way you provide a policy to America is to do 
     everything possible to win.

  Senator Durbin on December 21, 2006:

       If we need initially some troops in Baghdad, for example, 
     to quiet the situation, make it more peaceful so that our 
     soldiers start coming home, then I would accept it.


[[Page 3303]]


  Mr. President, that is exactly what General Petraeus has said, and 
Secretary Gates before the Armed Services Committee said the same 
thing. It is an initial surge to try to get Baghdad under control so we 
can begin bringing our troops home.
  Senator Dodd on December 18, 2006, said:

       I'd be willing to support some additional people if we 
     needed it in order to get the job done.

  He further said:

       Show me some demonstrable evidence that they are coming 
     together as a people--Shias and Sunnis--sitting down and 
     recognizing that they have an obligation to come together as 
     a people. Then I'd be willing to support some additional 
     people if we needed it in order to get the job done.

  Senator Levin in January of 2007 said:

       A surge would be worth considering. The American people are 
     skeptical about getting in deeper . . . But if it is truly 
     conditional upon the Iraqis actually meeting milestones and 
     if it's part of an overall program of troop reduction that 
     would begin in the next four to six months, it's something 
     that would be worth considering.

  Once again, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee 
yesterday, that is exactly what Secretary Gates said, that it is a 
temporary surge in order to try to bring the troops home.
  Senator Biden on June 29, 2005, said:

       There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real 
     counterinsurgency.

  Senator Jack Reed, in a press conference on November 29, 2006, said:

       If the military commanders in Iraq said, we need, for X 
     number of months, 20-plus, 25,000 troops, to do this mission, 
     I would have to listen to that proposal. I think I responded 
     to the question before: That if the military commanders in 
     Iraq said, we need, for X number of months, 20-plus, 25,000, 
     troops to do this mission, and with a reasonable certainty of 
     success, I would have to listen to that proposal, certainly.

  Well, Mr. President, within the last 2 weeks, there have been 
additional developments that would seem to add weight to the argument 
that this temporary reinforcement of our troops currently in Iraq is 
not only warranted but necessary to the overall national purpose. Those 
developments are the unanimous confirmation by this Senate of General 
Petraeus, who is to become the new commander--he is the new commander 
of the Iraqi multinational force--also, the testimony of the Iraq Study 
Group cochairman, relative to the President's plan, before the Senate 
Committee on Foreign Relations, and the public release of the National 
Intelligence Estimate report on the prospects for Iraq's stability.
  During his confirmation hearing, General Petraeus, also the author of 
the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, stressed the fact that he 
could not succeed in providing needed security for the citizens of 
Baghdad and Al Anbar Province without the additional troops called for 
in the President's plan.
  General Petraeus further testified at his hearing that it was his 
opinion that any resolution which stated the Senate did not support the 
strategy to be carried out by our men and women in uniform in Iraq 
would be harmful to their morale. Are we going to support General 
Petraeus or not? The one resolution before us, I believe, is not 
supporting General Petraeus and the troops.
  Last week, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing 
on America's interests in Iraq, at which the witnesses were the Iraq 
Study Group cochairman, former Secretary of State James Baker, and 
former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Secretary Baker referenced the Iraq 
Study Group's report in articulating that group's position on 
additional troops to Iraq. He stated:

       We could support a short-term redeployment or surge of 
     American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up 
     the training and equipping mission if the U.S. Commander in 
     Iraq determines such steps would be effective. The only two 
     conditions are short-term and commander in Iraq determines it 
     would be effective. Both of those conditions have been met.

  Mr. Hamilton made it clear his belief that the President's plan ought 
to be given a chance. He said:

       We did not, in the Iraq Study Group report, come to the 
     conclusion that it was hopeless and, therefore, we should 
     just pull out immediately.

  The much anticipated and just released National Intelligence Estimate 
report entitled ``Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road 
Ahead'' was quite candid in its assessment that if coalition forces are 
withdrawn within the next 12 to 18 months, we will see significant 
increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq.
  Mr. President, we need to accept the fact that we are engaged in a 
struggle of biblical proportions. In true American fashion, though, we 
are doing the right thing. We are attempting to free a people from a 
life of tyranny and violence. We are also in a struggle against the 
forces of evil who are bent on our destruction. Do we pack up and 
leave, even though every voice of reason tells us that Iraq would 
implode into a terrorist state used by al-Qaida as a launching pad 
against the infidels, reminiscent of Afghanistan under the Taliban? And 
those infidels, they think, are us.
  As Senator McCain has reminded us time and again, Iraq is not 
Vietnam. When we left South Vietnam, the Viet Cong did not pursue us 
back to our shores. Al-Qaida is not the Viet Cong. Al-Qaida has sworn 
to destroy us and is committed to bringing their brand of terror to 
America.
  President Bush never said the struggle for freedom in Iraq would be 
easy. But since the President is the one who said that, maybe it 
doesn't ring quite as true to some. Maybe by quoting another who spoke 
passionately about similar struggles for freedom, the point could be 
made more clearly. Back in 1857, Frederick Douglass spoke about the 
struggle he knew for freedom. He said:

       The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows 
     that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been 
     born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is 
     no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet 
     deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing 
     up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. 
     They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many 
     waters.

  We are introducing freedom to a country and a region that has no 
history of such freedoms. We cannot expect to spread freedom and 
democracy to this region simply by wishing it so.
  We currently have soldiers and marines in harm's way. We have a plan 
before us that will aid their mission. That mission is to achieve 
success and leave behind a stable and democratic Iraq. Yet there are 
those among us who want to cut and run. There are some among us who 
simply want to cut and walk. And then there are others who want to have 
it both ways. They want to express their opposition to the idea of 
sending additional troops to Iraq without having to do anything that 
might actually translate their opposition to a reality on the ground.
  I belong to another group of thinkers. I belong to a group who 
believes General Petraeus's plan deserves a chance. I believe the 
temporary surge in the number of soldiers and marines in Baghdad and Al 
Anbar is our best chance at getting this right. None of us knows for 
sure whether it will work. There are always uncertainties in war. Let 
us all pray, for all our sakes, that this new way works.
  Last week, I stood here and spoke about what I thought needed to be 
done in Iraq. I acknowledged that mistakes have been made in this war 
and that I did not believe we should be playing politics while our 
soldiers and marines are deployed and fighting against an enemy bent on 
destroying our country and our way of life. I called on my fellow 
Senators then to set party differences aside and focus on winning this 
war. I am here again this afternoon making that same plea.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I notice there are no other Members here, 
so I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada expressed my 
feelings in a much more articulate way

[[Page 3304]]

than I ever could, and one of the last things he said is: Mistakes have 
been made in this war. I would suggest mistakes have been made in every 
war. Winston Churchill once said:

       Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and 
     easy. Always remember, however sure you are that you could 
     easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man 
     did not think he also had a chance to win.

  This statement was made many years ago, but it is relevant today. 
Today, we face an enemy who is determined, adaptive, and willing to go 
to any means of terror and violence to win. He cannot be negotiated 
with, and he will not be satisfied until the entire world is brought 
under his dreadful ideology.
  We have seen this kind before. We saw it with Stalin, with Pol Pot, 
and with Hitler, but never before has an enemy metastasized this way. 
There is no centralized headquarters we can bomb, no one leader we can 
eliminate. We will continue to strike terrorism where it appears and 
track down its leaders but know this will not end the conflict. Victory 
will come the way it always has. We will destroy the enemy's belief he 
can win.
  Any resolution against the President's plan does two things: It tells 
the enemy, No. 1, that they have been successful; and, No. 2, it gives 
them patience to wait us out. They are a very patient people. We have 
already done ourselves damage by bringing the issue to the public eye. 
Do you believe they do not watch our news; that they are not scouring 
our media for any hope or any chink in our resolve? Don't be so naive. 
Their very survival depends on it. This is the only way they can hope 
to win. If we cannot destroy their will, we will destroy them.
  This sounds brutal and not very reconciling, but I intend it that 
way. There is a clear choice and no other option. If we do not fight 
them in Iraq, we will be fighting them in Philadelphia, in Pittsburgh, 
in Kansas City, in Los Angeles, and in Seattle. We will be playing 
defensive until, once again, just as occurred after 9/11, our resolve 
hardens and we summon up the courage to destroy the enemy. And we must 
because the alternative is what happened to Rome: Factions of internal 
strife kept the great power tied up for so long that it lost its 
strength, its will, and its resolve. The period following was known as 
the Dark Ages, and this is indeed what al-Qaida seeks.
  Our country represents the light of freedom and democracy. Yet I fear 
we have begun a terrible introspective and downward cycle. Our resolve 
lasts for a few months, maybe a year, but all it takes is enough time 
and then we break. Our enemy knows this. We can look to our mission in 
Somalia in 1933, at our reaction to the bombings in Lebanon at the 
Khobar Towers and in Vietnam. I am not saying we necessarily should 
have stayed in Vietnam, but I am saying we must recognize that while 
this introspection guarantees our freedom, it is also our greatest 
weakness.
  There have been no major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. 
There have been attempts, and we know we have thwarted over 10 
operations. However, we also know these were relatively underdeveloped 
and small in scale. I wish to ask a dark question: Why has al-Qaida not 
struck again? Because they cannot? We have stepped up our security, but 
they have shown their destructive creativity in the past. Because they 
are focused on Iraq and Afghanistan? Perhaps. But I would suggest 
another option. What if they have chosen not to. What if they have 
realized the strategy of restraint, pricking us just enough to launch 
ourselves at them, and then they fade back. We expend ourselves 
attacking new enemies, building countries, and undermining each other. 
Politics and personal reputations create an impetus of their own.
  We should debate. That is exactly what the Senate body is intended to 
do. But do not undermine. The new commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, 
has stated that a resolution of disapproval would hurt his efforts. 
This is the new guy. Let us keep in mind that we voted unanimously to 
confirm General Petraeus to take over that very difficult job. When 
asked by Senator Lieberman about the effect a resolution of disapproval 
would have on our troops and our enemies, General Petraeus stated that:

       This is a test of will at the end of the day. A commander 
     in such an endeavor would obviously like the enemy to feel 
     there is no hope.

  That is what General Petraeus said. He went on to say he does need 
more troops and he believes the new plan can work.
  I recognize there have been mistakes made in Iraq, as we have talked 
about. The President has also recognized this. Everyone has recognized 
this, and the President has taken full responsibility for it. Yet we 
still find ourselves in a difficult situation, with hard decisions to 
be made about the best way ahead. These decisions affect many lives, 
both our soldiers in harm's way and the American people they are 
pledged to protect. I think we all agree it would be disastrous to 
leave Iraq precipitously. If we do, we know we can expect increased 
levels of violence, the spread of extremist ideology, and Iraq itself 
collapsing into anarchy.
  A personal friend of mine, who actually was a commander at Fort Sill 
in Oklahoma, General Maples, stated that:

       Continued Coalition presence is the primary counter to a 
     breakdown in central authority. Such a breakdown would have 
     grave consequences for the people of Iraq, stability in the 
     region, and the U.S. strategic interest.
       John Negroponte and the CIA Director, General Hayden agree 
     with that, as does General Petraeus. So it is not too late to 
     avoid this. I don't think it is time to start cutting our 
     losses and just hope it goes away. We have heard the 
     President ask for our support.

  Let me share, on a personal note, that I have had the occasion to be 
in Iraq more than any other Member of either the House or the Senate, 
some 12 times now, and the first thing I do is talk to the troops. The 
troops come up to me, and the first question they ask is: Why is it the 
media doesn't like us? Why is it they are constantly undermining our 
efforts here? Why is it the American people don't understand or 
appreciate what we are doing? I say, yes, the American people do, but a 
lot of the politicians don't act that way.
  I have been very much concerned about this, and I believe any 
resolution, and we are talking about five or six resolutions now, any 
resolution that is a resolution of retreat would be a resolution of 
surrender.
  I think it is ludicrous for any Member to say I support the troops 
but I don't support their mission. You try to explain that to them. I 
talked to the troops in Fallujah. In all this discussion about, do we 
need to be training the Iraqis to be fighting their own war--sure we 
do. That is what we have been doing. We have been doing that since we 
arrived on the scene in Iraq, and they are very proud and they are 
taking the frontal positions right now. The Iraqis are doing a good 
job. Their training has been good. Their equipment is not good, but it 
is getting better, it is improving.
  I stood there at the last election in Fallujah when our marines were 
there and I talked, through an interpreter, to the Iraqi security 
forces, and they said they are very proud. We are going to be in a 
position--please stay with us until we can hold our own here, and that 
won't be too long. I know that is true. I know they have come up with 
the numbers, now, that would be equal to about 10 divisions. I believe 
this can happen.
  This is very serious. Politics has crept into this thing. But any 
support of a resolution of surrender not only is undermining our troops 
and saying to our troops: We don't support you, but also saying to the 
loved ones of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice that they have died 
in vain. We can't let that happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we have come to a critical crossroads with 
respect to our operations in Iraq. After the Iraq Study Group spent 
months considering the issue of the best policy going forward, 
suggesting a phased redeployment along with other measures, diplomatic 
measures that would enhance the security of the United States

[[Page 3305]]

and protect our soldiers there in Iraq, the President had the 
opportunity to accept those recommendations. It was a bipartisan panel 
of eminent Americans--James Baker and Lee Hamilton and so many others. 
The President specifically rejected them, not just in substance but in 
tone. In his speech a few weeks ago, he declared that he had learned 
very little from the Iraq Study Group, that he was not committed to a 
phased redeployment, he was committed to an escalation of approximately 
20,000 troops and a change in tactics in Baghdad.
  I think he had the opportunity at that moment to do several things. 
First, he could have accepted the wisdom of the Iraq Study Group. But, 
more important, he could have communicated to the American public that 
his policy was based on the reality in Iraq, that he had learned from a 
series of mistakes he and his administration had made, and that he 
could have sustained a way forward in Iraq. He didn't do that, and I 
think the American people reacted as they should have reacted, with 
declining confidence in his leadership and, frankly, posing the 
fundamental question of, How does one sustain any policy when 70 
percent of the U.S. population considers it to be erroneous and not in 
the best interests of this country going forward? I believe the 
President squandered the last opportunity he had to rally people behind 
his policy.
  Now we are in the midst of a debate, we hope, about that policy. We 
are being stymied in terms of bringing this to the floor in a clear and 
clarion vote that tells the American people where we stand as 
individual Senators with respect to the President's plan for 
escalation. We are being frustrated in the sense that there is an 
attempt to present other issues and not the issue of the moment, the 
issue under debate. There is no debate about our support for American 
soldiers around the globe and marines and sailors and airmen and 
airwomen. We support them. We think their mission should be changed to 
protect them and to advance the interests of our country, but there is 
no stinting in our support of these valiant young Americans.
  The issue which divides this Senate and the issue which captures the 
feelings and the passions of the American public is whether we will 
stand in approval or disapproval of the President's proposal to 
escalate forces in Iraq. I believe that vote should come. That vote 
should be clear. The vote should stand by itself, not shrouded by other 
measures that are designed not to address the concerns of American 
people but simply to give the President additional cover.
  What has happened since the last 3-plus years, from the invasion of 
Iraq--indeed, preceding the invasion of Iraq, in this Senate, under the 
control of the Republicans, has not done a good job at all of 
oversight, of investigation, of asking critical questions. Where was 
the Republican leadership, in the fall of 2002 and early 2003, when 
they should have been asking a simple question: What if we win the 
conventional battle? What about the occupation? Where is the plan? 
Where are the resources? How many Americans will it take to secure a 
large country with a population of about 26 million people, with a 
history of intersectarian tensions, with a history of a colonial past 
under the British that has established, some would say artificially, 
the boundaries of this nation? Those questions were not asked seriously 
and consistently and, as a result, this administration made huge 
mistakes when it came to the issue of how to successfully translate a 
conventional victory against the Iraqi military forces into a 
successful transition to a stable country. Now we see Iraq enthralled 
in doubt and violence that seems to be unable to be quenched. Our 
American forces are in the middle of that.
  It is interesting, when we come to this point, to look seriously at 
the National Intelligence Estimate. One of the grave deficiencies we 
recognize today--some of us recognized it in October of 2002--is that 
the intelligence being used to sell this operation was flawed. Now I 
think we have a much more precise and carefully adjusted view of what 
is happening in Iraq today.
  If you look at the NIE, it presents to us some profound 
contradictions.
  First, and I agree with this assessment, is that the violence today 
is principally the result of sectarian conflict. The accelerators that 
raise the tempo of this violence can be found in the insurgent groups, 
al-Qaida in Iraq, some of these Shia militias, but the underlying 
battles today are between sectarian groups. The NIE describes this as a 
winner-take-all approach, as an existential battle between Shias--who 
feel a sense of insecurity given the history, particularly the last 
decade, of total oppression by a Sunni minority--and Sunnis, who feel a 
sense of entitlement that is going to be frustrated by the new, 
emerging order in Iraq. These existential battles, as the NIE 
indicates, are in a sense self-sustaining.
  But here is where the confusion, the conflict, the contradiction 
comes about. Most of the remedies we are all talking about involve 
reconciliation--political sectarian reconciliation. The issue--and one 
which will be decided in the next months and weeks in Iraq--is, can any 
existential conflict ever be reconciled? Has this conflict reached a 
point where it is truly self-sustaining and our forces in the middle of 
it are unable to be a moderating force at all?
  My view and the view of so many others is that when you look at this 
situation on the ground and you consider what can be done, the decisive 
actions must be those of the Iraqi Government. They are political 
actions; that the presence of our military forces is important but not 
decisive. Certainly the size of our military forces is probably not as 
decisive as actions that must be undertaken by the Maliki government 
reining in the militias, truly trying to reach out beyond this huge 
sectarian chasm for reconciliation. These political, economic, and 
social decisions are not going to be made simply because we have 
increased our presence in Baghdad by 20 percent or we have changed the 
tactics.
  Another aspect of this debate is the concentration, almost 
exclusively, on the military aspects of the President's plan. That, 
frankly, has been one of the great shortcomings and faults of the 
administration--and of this and previous Congresses, I should say--in 
terms of our approach in Iraq. Any military commander on the ground 
will tell you that they are buying time and that time has to be used 
for economic progress and political progress. The component in the 
President's plan that I heard stresses an increase of 20,000 soldiers, 
but where is the progress in terms of not only Iraqi decisionmakers 
making tough decisions but American advisers--State Department 
officials, USAID officials, Justice Department officials--going over 
there to help start the other side, the other part of the process, the 
economic progress, the social progress, the political mentoring? That 
has never been the case. As a result, our strategy has failed 
consistently.
  Unless this plan has complementary and reinforcing elements--
military, political, and economic--it, too, will fail. I do not see, 
frankly, the complementary political and economic support necessary to 
carry off this plan.
  What we have is 20,000 troops. If you look at the doctrine--and it is 
interesting because General Petraeus, the designated commander, is one 
of the principal authors of this new doctrine--that doctrine today 
would call for 120,000 troops in Baghdad based upon the size in 
Baghdad. We are sending an additional 20,000, which means our presence, 
American presence, is about 30,000 troops. The Iraqis have committed to 
roughly 55,000 troops, which brings us to a total of 85,000, but that 
still is roughly 35,000 troops short of the doctrine.
  In addition, I don't think anyone considers that the Iraqi forces can 
truly muster 55,000 effective troops. We have already seen the reports 
come in that brigades, Iraqi brigades, are showing up at 50 percent 
strength, and of those, one has to ask seriously how many are effective 
fighters. Where are the shortcomings? If it is half a brigade and they 
are all privates and corporals, that is not an effective fighting 
force, or if it is half a fighting brigade and

[[Page 3306]]

they are all majors and lieutenant colonels, that is not an effective 
fighting force. So we are seeing a situation, even in military terms, 
where this surge is probably lacking significantly in terms of the size 
of the force.
  In addition, we all understand that there is a divided command. One 
of the key issues in any military operation is unity of command. There 
is an Iraqi commander who is selected probably for his political 
reliability more than his tactical or technical skill. There is also a 
situation in that our new tactics require significantly more enablers. 
These enablers are the translators, the civil affairs officers, the 
combat service support officers to supply these outposts now in each 
neighborhood. In fact, the Government Accountability Office has done a 
report indicating that if a 21,000 increment is made, it might turn out 
to be closer to 50,000 if you truly have all the support troops you 
need to get the job done.
  There are so many shortcomings in just the political and military 
aspects of this plan. So I believe, again, this is an opportunity, a 
moment we have to address this plan, this proposal of the President's, 
in a very serious way and take a stand on it one way or the other. I 
hope we can do that. I hope we can do that in the intervening days, 
certainly before the end of this month, or the end of, I hope, this 
week.
  Now, I think there are other aspects that are important to consider 
when we talk about the situation as we go forward. I will go back to 
the point I think hindered us consistently throughout our operations in 
Iraq, and that is despite the extraordinary valor and technical skill 
of our military forces, they have never been truly complemented by non-
Department of Defense personnel, by the State Department officials, by 
the Agriculture officials. I can recall visiting Fallujah twice in the 
middle of Anbar Province. Those marines are doing a magnificent job 
along with many Army units that are there. There is one State 
Department official in Fallujah who is charged with mentoring, with 
advice, with reconstruction, with all of these things. That is not 
adequate, and I don't see any indication in the President's proposal 
that is going to change. This is all about, again, trying to take a 
military solution to what is a complicated military, political, and 
economic problem. It hasn't worked for 3 years, it is not likely to 
work, and I think we have to take a stand on that proposal.
  One of the other consequences I think that is ensuing from this focus 
on a purely military approach is we are losing out in terms of 
diplomatic leverage in the region. Just this week, the Saudis are 
meeting with delegates from Hamas and Fatah and the Palestinian 
Authority because the American leadership has been so lacking. We have 
to, I think, have a diplomatic policy to complement anything we do 
within Iraq. We haven't done that and it does not appear to be part of 
the President's agenda.
  We have a situation which is grievous and which I think requires 
something more than simply more of the same, and that is just about 
what the President is offering. This is not a brand new diplomatic 
initiative; this is not a large-scale economic push to complement 
military action; this is a modest increase of forces, although I think 
this increase is not justified, together with new tactics in Baghdad. 
But again, I don't think that is going to be sufficient action. We have 
to start looking beyond the next several weeks and down the next 
several months and, indeed, the next several years.
  The strategy that I think is inevitable is a phased redeployment of 
our forces and renewed diplomatic activity. It represents a focus on 
missions that are more central to the defense of the United States. The 
first is continue to aggressively go after those international 
terrorists, the al-Qaida units. We have done that. We continue, as the 
military indicates, to obtrude them very successfully. In fact, there 
are similarities of that mission to the recently conducted operations 
in Somalia where we sent in aircraft with some liaison from local 
Ethiopian forces on the ground to go out and take out identified 
terrorists there. That mission should continue in Iraq and frankly in 
Somalia and many other places where we can identify and find 
international terrorists.
  Second, we have a continuing obligation, I think, to strengthen the 
Iraqi security forces. Ultimately it is their battle. We have made some 
progress with the Army, but we have to make more progress. That is a 
mission we should undertake and continue.
  Third, there is the obligation, I think, to maintain the territorial 
integrity of Iraq, to make sure the locals do not take advantage of 
what is a tumultuous situation within Iraq. That, too, I think, is a 
valid mission, and it can be performed much differently than we are 
proposing to conduct this mission in Baghdad, by redeploying forces 
within Iraq. In fact, it was interesting yesterday before the Armed 
Services Committee when Secretary Gates was asked, and I think it was 
by Senator Warner: Is this the last chance? If this fails, then all is 
lost? I think he quite authoritatively and thoughtfully said: No, of 
course, we have to have contingencies. Of course, there are other 
approaches we can take. Of course, there are other missions that can be 
assigned.
  One of the dangers and one of the persistent aspects of the 
President's rhetoric has been always summoning up the false dichotomy. 
Recall, back in October 2002, what was the choice the President 
proposed? Invade Iraq or do nothing and let Saddam and the terrorists 
win. We recall the rhetoric. It seems hollow now when we think back to 
it. What was left out of the equation, of course, was what was already 
being done: international inspectors of the United Nations on the 
ground in Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction, supposedly the 
source of our great conflict with the Iraq regime.
  There are other things that could have been done, too, much short of 
an invasion. There were, in fact, reports of terrorist activities. 
Zarqawi was in the Kurdish region. What would have prevented the United 
States from launching a very discrete military operation against 
Zarqawi in the fall of 2002 in the Kurdish area, an area we were 
helping to protect by our overflights of aircraft? Nothing, except, I 
believe, the administration didn't want to give up a good rhetorical 
device: this supposed terrorist presence in a part of Iraq that Saddam 
did not control.
  Again, here now, it is back to the false choices: Surge 20,000 troops 
or watch the country collapse as we leave precipitously next week. That 
is not the choice. The choice is missions that are more effectively 
aligned with our national security interests: going after terrorists, 
training Iraqi security forces, protecting the territorial integrity of 
Iraq, complemented with active diplomatic actions, complemented with, 
we hope, progress by the Iraqis themselves in political decisionmaking. 
That, I think, is the way to go.
  We have, again, I think a very difficult situation before us. It 
requires not only debate, but I think it requires at this moment a 
decision by the Senate on a very simple proposal: where we stand with 
respect to the President's proposal for escalation. Now, others have 
come to the floor and pointed out past statements that have been made 
with respect to increasing American forces. I have been open to these 
arguments. Frankly, at this juncture I don't feel persuaded. In the 
past, when someone had asked me: Would you increase the size of forces 
in Iraq, certainly in those first few days after the invasion, and 
after July of 2003 when I visited Iraq and found there were thousands 
of weapons dumps that were not being protected, I came back here and I 
think, along with Senator Hagel, was one of the first to call for an 
increased size of our Army so we could deploy more forces to Iraq. But 
that window has closed very dramatically and nothing, frankly, was done 
by the administration to respond to those concerns.
  I have said publicly that if a commander in the field came to me and 
said: We need additional forces, I would look at that proposal very 
carefully. In fact, in a press conference I was asked:

       So in no way would you be on board with the McCain plan to 
     surge in with, you know,

[[Page 3307]]

     50,000 strong additional forces on the ground, you would not 
     be in favor of that?

  My response:

       I think I responded to the question before, that if the 
     military commanders in Iraq said we need for X number of 
     months 20 plus, 25,000 troops to do this mission and within 
     reasonable certainty was assessed, I would have to listen to 
     that proposal, sir.

  Well, I have listened to that proposal and I find it wanting. I find 
it wanting, based on the doctrine of the U.S. Army as it has evolved 
today. I find it wanting because of the lack of complementary and 
civilian support for that proposal. I find it wanting because of the 
lack of any serious indication that the Government of Iraq will make 
those tough political decisions. So I have considered it as I said I 
would, but I don't think it is the right way to proceed. Not at all.
  Now, I am not alone, and I don't think it would be a shock to anyone 
to suggest this issue of escalation has prompted criticism from a wide 
group of individuals. GEN Colin L. Powell, former Secretary of State, 
said in December:

       I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into 
     Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this sectarian 
     violence, this civil war, will work.

  Again, I think General Powell's insights and experience are very 
critical at this moment.
  The Joint Chiefs indicated, at least as reported in the Washington 
Post in December, using anonymous White House sources, that they were 
opposed, that White House officials are aggressively promoting the 
concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
That is in December.
  Time Magazine reported that General Abizaid said he opposes more 
troops because it would discourage Iraqis from taking responsibility 
for their own security. Here is a general, an officer who has served 
for decades, the most knowledgeable individual when it comes to Middle 
East military-political issues within the United States Army, within 
the Department of Defense, and that is his opinion.
  Robert Gates--before he became Secretary of Defense, or before he was 
confirmed, according to two administration officials asking not to be 
named--Robert Gates expressed his skepticism about a troop surge in 
Iraq on his first day on the job--excuse me; he was Secretary of 
Defense--at a Pentagon meeting overseeing the Air Force, Army, Navy, 
and Marines.
  We are not alone. There have been some perhaps eleventh-hour 
conversions for this surge, but I think there are a number of 
individuals with significant experience and insight, unquestioned 
patriots, who question this proposal.

                          ____________________