[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3651-3657]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            IRAQ RESOLUTION

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I shall be joined by a number of 
colleagues and the purpose of our taking this time is as follows: We 
have decided to put in an amendment to H.J. Res. 20, amendment number 
259 which will be printed in today's record. This amendment mirrors S. 
Con. Res. 7, a resolution prepared by myself and others sometime last 
week, which expresses certain concerns we have with regard to the 
President's plan as announced on January 10 of this year.
  This amendment, to H.J. Res. 20 is cosponsored by Mr. Levin, Ms. 
Collins, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
Biden, and as other Senators return to town, we may have further 
cosponsors.
  We are concerned that the fighting rages on throughout Iraq, and 
particularly in Baghdad. It is very important that the Senate should, 
as the greatest deliberative body--certainly in matters of war and 
peace--in a prompt way address the issues regarding Iraq.
  Our men and women in the Armed Forces are fighting bravely in that 
conflict, as they are in conflicts elsewhere worldwide. Our concerns 
are heartfelt, not driven by political motivation. As we gathered as a 
group in the past 2 weeks to work on this, we took note of the fact 
that the President, on January 10, in his message to the Nation 
explicitly said that others could come forward with their ideas. I will 
paraphrase it--the exact quote is in the amendment we are putting in 
today--that he

[[Page 3652]]

would take into consideration the views of others. So in a very 
constructive and a respectful way, our group said we disagreed with the 
President and we gave a series of points urging him to consider those 
points as he begins to implement such plan as finally devised 
throughout Iraq but most specifically in Baghdad.
  We are very respectful of the fact that the plan put in by the 
President was in three parts: a diplomatic part, an economic part, and 
a military part. We explicitly stated in the resolution our support for 
the diplomatic and economic parts, and we are hopeful it can be put 
together in a timely fashion. There is some concern as to whether the 
three main parts can progress together, unified, in this operation, 
given the short timetable to implement it. So two parts of the program 
we wholeheartedly support and so state in this amendment.
  The concern is about the military section. We state the explicit 
nature of our concerns. Some Senators have suggested the resolution 
expresses matters which I can find no source whatsoever in the 
resolution for those complaints. Nevertheless, I will address in the 
course of this time each and every one of those concerns.
  Indeed, on the weekend talk shows, one Senator said: My problem with 
the Warner proposal and others that criticize the surge is, what is 
your plan? All right. That is a legitimate question. I say that our 
amendment states a clear strategy. It says as follows:

       The Senate believes the United States should continue 
     vigorous operations in Anbar Province specifically for the 
     purpose of combating an insurgency including elements 
     associated with the al-Qaida movement and denying terrorists 
     a safe haven.

  Secondly, the primary objective of the overall strategy in Iraq 
should be to encourage Iraqi leaders to make political compromises that 
will foster reconciliation and strengthen the unity government, 
ultimately leading to improvements in the security situation.
  Next, the military part of the strategy should focus on maintaining 
the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorists a 
safe haven, conducting counterterrorism operations, promoting regional 
stability, supporting the Iraqi efforts to bring greater security to 
Baghdad, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full 
responsibility for their own security.
  Likewise, another part of our amendment states:

       The United States military operations should, as much as 
     possible, be confined to these goals and should charge the 
     Iraqi military with the primary mission of combating 
     sectarian violence.
       The United States Government should engage selected nations 
     in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally 
     sponsored peace and reconciliation process. Overall, 
     military, diplomatic, and economic strategies should not be 
     regarded as an open-ended or unconditional commitment, but 
     rather, as a new strategy, hereafter should be conditioned 
     upon the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks that must be 
     delivered in writing and agreed to by the Prime Minister.

  Then we spell out a series of benchmarks. Such benchmarks should 
include, but not be limited to, the deployment of that number of 
additional Iraqi security forces as specified in the plan in Baghdad, 
ensuring equitable distribution of resources of the Government of Iraq 
without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, enacting and 
implementing legislation to ensure that the oil resources of Iraq 
benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds and other Iraqi citizens in an 
equitable manner, and the authority of the Iraqi commanders to make 
tactical and operational decisions without political intervention.
  Further, some Senators have indicated, again incorrectly, that our 
resolution either fails to recognize, or disagrees with all aspects of 
the President's plan, namely the political and economic aspects, in 
addition to the military part of his plan.
  In fact, our resolution acknowledges directly that the President's 
plan is multi-faceted. Our resolution states, whereas, on January 10, 
2007, following consultations with the Iraqi Prime Minister, the 
President announced a new strategy, which consists of three basic 
elements: diplomatic, economic, and military.
  As such, our resolution disagrees only with the military aspect of 
the President's plan, and actually supports the diplomatic and economic 
aspects of his plan.
  Finally, some Senators have suggested that our resolution either 
fails to support the troops, or threatens a cut-off in funding. 
Actually, our resolution does neither. It states forcefully our support 
for the troops: whereas, over 137,000 American military personnel are 
currently serving in Iraq, like thousands of others since March 2003, 
with the bravery and professionalism consistent with the finest 
traditions of the United States Armed Forces, and are deserving of our 
support of all Americans, which they have strongly; whereas, many 
American service personnel have lost their lives, and many more have 
been wounded, in Iraq, and the American people will always honor their 
sacrifices and honor their families.
  And our resolution, specifically protects funding for our troops in 
the field and states: 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.
  In sum, our resolution aims not to contravene the Constitutional 
authorities as Commander-in-Chief, but, rather, to accept the offer to 
Congress made by the President on January 10, 2007 that, ``if members 
have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances 
change, we will adjust.''
  It is clear that the United States' strategy and operations in Iraq 
can only be sustained and achieved with support from the American 
people and with a level of bipartisanship in Congress.
  The purpose of this resolution is not to cut our forces or to set a 
timetable for withdrawal, but, rather, to express the genuine concerns 
of a number of Senators from both parties about the President's plan.
  It is not meant to be confrontational, but instead to provide a sense 
of bipartisanship resolve on our new strategy in Iraq. It follows many 
of the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton report by focusing on what is 
truly in our national interest in Iraq, and spells those goals out in 
detail.
  I want to divide our time between colleagues. I will ask at this time 
that the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, be recognized 
and that, following his comments, I shall be recognized again to give 
the remainder of my remarks. I say on a personal note to the Senator 
how much I valued our conversation over the weekend, together with our 
distinguished colleague from Maine, after which we decided today to put 
the language of S. Con. Res. 7 in as an amendment to the pending matter 
before the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators 
Warner, Collins, and others, in offering this amendment to the 
continuing resolution.
  Last week, Senators Collins, Snowe, Smith, Voinovich, Coleman, and 
myself sent a letter to the Senate leadership urging our distinguished 
majority and minority leaders to reach an agreement so the Senate could 
debate the war in Iraq.
  We said, and I quote from that letter:

       The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the 
     people of this country.

  In the letter, we pledged to--again quoting the letter--``explore all 
of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a 
full and open debate on the Senate floor.'' That, of course, is why we 
are here today.
  I, similar to my colleagues, am deeply disappointed that a full and 
open debate on Iraq remains stymied in the Senate. All Members--Members 
of both parties--have the right and responsibility to present their 
views and, if they choose, submit other resolutions regarding the war 
in Iraq.

[[Page 3653]]

  I am also deeply disappointed that both sides have used procedural 
tactics in this process. My colleagues and I were assured that the 
leaders were committed to reaching an agreement on this debate. That 
has not yet happened, and I, similar to my colleagues, intend to do 
everything in my power as a Senator to ensure a full and open debate of 
the Iraq war on the Senate floor in front of the American people. We 
owe it to our soldiers and their families, and we owe it to the 
American people.
  I wish to focus on one particular aspect of this debate and that has 
to do with the resolution itself--the relevancy and importance of 
Senate resolutions. In the last 15 years, there is ample, strong, and 
significant precedent in the Senate debating a President's military 
policies while troops are deployed overseas--Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, 
Kosovo. In each of those situations, I and many of my colleagues here 
today in the Senate debated and most of us voted binding and nonbinding 
resolutions regarding U.S. military operations abroad. Many of these 
measures expressed opposition to the military operations, criticizing, 
for example, one, the open-ended nature of the deployment; two, the 
danger of mission creep or escalation of military involvement; three, 
the danger of deploying U.S. forces into sectarian conflict; and four, 
the failure of the President to consult with Congress.
  It might be instructive to review some of the Senate's history on 
these recent debates regarding these recent resolutions. Let me begin 
with Bosnia.
  In June of 1992, U.S. forces began to deploy to Bosnia. In December 
1995, the United States was preparing to deploy substantial ground 
forces into Bosnia, roughly 20,000 American ground force combat troops, 
very similar to the number we are now looking at in the President's 
escalation of more American troops into Iraq today.
  As a result of President Clinton's decision in 1995, the Senate 
considered Senate Concurrent Resolution 35, a resolution submitted by 
our colleague from Texas, the senior Senator, Mrs. Hutchison. This 
resolution was a nonbinding resolution. Again, this was a nonbinding 
resolution. This resolution said:

       The Congress opposes President Clinton's decision to deploy 
     United States military ground forces into the Republic of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement the General Framework 
     Agreement for peace 
     in Bosnia. . . .

  This resolution also said:

       Congress strongly supports the United States military 
     personnel who may be ordered by the President to implement 
     the general framework for the peace in Bosnia.

  So, therefore, it is saying we support our troops, but we disapprove 
of the President's policy to send more troops. This resolution also 
said it was a continuation of the previous debate on support of the 
troops already deployed.
  As Senator Hutchison said on the Senate floor on December 13:

       There are many of us who do not think that this is the 
     right mission, but who are going to go full force to support 
     our troops. In fact, we believe we are supporting our troops 
     in the most effective way by opposing this mission because we 
     think it is the wrong one. . . .

  A month earlier in November 1995, Senator Hutchison framed the 
complexities of our military intervention in Bosnia in terms that are 
eerily relevant to today. She said:

       I am very concerned that we are also setting a precedent 
     for our troops to be deployed on the ground in border 
     conflicts, in ethnic conflicts, in civil wars. . . .

  Opposition to the President's policy but strong support for the U.S. 
military--this is similar to the debate we are having today on Iraq.
  Senator Hutchison's resolution had 28 cosponsors, including our 
friends and colleagues, Senators Inhofe, Craig, Kyl, Lott, Bennett, 
Hatch, Shelby, and Stevens.
  On December 13, 1995, 47 Senators voted in favor of Senator 
Hutchison's nonbinding resolution. That day, 47 Senators believed you 
could oppose the President's policy but still support our troops.
  The next day, December 14, 1995, the Senate considered Senate Joint 
Resolution 44, a binding resolution introduced by Senator Dole. This 
resolution supported U.S. troops in Bosnia. This resolution had six 
cosponsors, including our colleagues, Senators McCain and Lieberman.
  On December 14, 1995, the Senate adopted this resolution by a vote of 
69 to 30. That was Bosnia in 1995.
  Somalia: In December 1992, U.S. troops began to deploy to Somalia. 
Nearly a year later, in September 1993, the Senate debated the 
objectives, the mission, and strategy of our military deployment in 
Somalia. Speaking on the Senate floor on September 23, 1993, Senator 
McCain framed the debate when he said:

       Somalia is a prime example of lofty ambitions gone awry. 
     Our service men and women have become . . . part of a mission 
     to build Somalia into a stable democracy--something, 
     incidentally, it has never been, and shows no sign of ever 
     becoming this decade.
       The manner in which military force is to be used to further 
     this grandiose objective has been left unclear. Without a 
     clear military objective, our forces in Somalia have found 
     themselves involved in a situation where they cannot 
     distinguish between friend and foe. They have often been 
     presented with situations where they cannot even distinguish 
     between civilians and combatants.

  On September 9, the Senate voted 90 to 7 to adopt a nonbinding--a 
nonbinding--sense-of-Congress resolution submitted by Senator Byrd. 
This resolution called on the President to outline the goals, 
objectives, and duration of the U.S. deployment in Somalia and said 
Congress believes the President ``should seek and receive congressional 
authorization in order for the deployment of U.S. forces to Somalia to 
continue.''
  There are 11 cosponsors of the Byrd measure, including our 
colleagues, Senators McCain, Cochran, Bond, and Warner.
  One month later, after the horrible death of 18 U.S. troops in early 
October, the Senate considered two binding measures to cut off funds, 
one introduced by Senator McCain and one by Senator Byrd.
  On October 15, 1993, the McCain measure, which would have terminated 
further U.S. military operations in Somalia, was tabled 61 to 38. That 
same day, the Senate voted 76 to 23 to adopt the Byrd measure to cut 
off all funding in March 1994 for U.S. forces in Somalia.
  There are two more very clear examples, such as the examples I have 
given on Somalia and Bosnia, that I could discuss--Haiti and Kosovo--in 
some detail, and I may do that later. But the point is, the facts are 
clear. There is clear precedent--clear precedent--for both binding and 
nonbinding resolutions, as well as legislation to redirect, condition 
or cut off funds for military operations, and this is at the same time 
we have and we had military forces in those countries.
  So to argue, to state, to imply this is somehow not only irrelevant 
but unprecedented is not the case. The Congress has always had a 
responsibility, not just constitutionally but morally, to inject itself 
in the great debate of war.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that very point?
  Mr. HAGEL. Yes, I yield to Senator Warner.
  Mr. WARNER. We had in our discussions, and Senator Collins joined in 
this discussion--that we could not conceive--and that I, this Senator 
from Virginia, could ever participate in a cutoff-of-funding in regards 
to this situation in Iraq.
  But back to historical precedents. I have this volume, the 
``Encyclopedia of the United States Congress,'' compiled by 20 eminent 
historians in 1995. And on this subject that the Senator addressed, 
they said the following:

       Another informal power of the Congress in the foreign 
     policy field is the passage of resolutions by the House or 
     the Senate, often called a sense-of-the-House or sense-of-
     the-Senate resolution. Although not legally enforceable, such 
     resolutions are often taken seriously by the President and 
     his foreign policy advisers because they are useful 
     indicators of underlying public concern about important 
     foreign policy questions. Moreover, as a general rule, the 
     White House wants to maintain cooperative relations with the 
     Congress and to give legislators the impression that their 
     views have been heard and have been taken into account in 
     policy formulation.


[[Page 3654]]


  Clear documentation of the Senator's points in this very erudite 
resource of the history of the Congress. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia.
  In conclusion, I add that the American people have had enough of the 
misrepresentations, the politics, and the procedural intrigue in the 
Senate. I say again to our distinguished leaders of both our parties: 
It is your responsibility, as leaders of this body, to resolve this 
procedural dispute so that the Senate can have a full, fair, open 
debate on the war in Iraq. And I will continue to join my colleagues--
Senators Warner, Collins, Snowe, and others--in making every effort to 
bring up our resolution at every available opportunity until that 
debate occurs.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I 
have another point of history. I find this fascinating. I hope, 
hereafter, colleagues, pundits, and writers will at least recognize 
that, and I repeat it. Senate Historian documents confirm the Senate 
has been posing sense-of-the-Senate resolutions since 1789. Thus, our 
Framers of the Constitution and those who served in the early 
Congresses recognized the value of this type of resolution.
  I yield the floor. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maine, 
again, for her steadfast support and advice throughout this entire 
process today, tomorrow, and well into the future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with the 
distinguished senior Senator from Virginia--a former chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, an individual who has devoted his life 
to the support of our military--in offering, along with a number of our 
colleagues, this very important resolution as an amendment to the 
continuing resolution. There are many differing views in this body on 
the road ahead in Iraq, and those views are legitimate but they deserve 
to be debated. There is no more pressing issue facing this country than 
Iraq. The public is disappointed to see the Senate avoid the debate on 
the most important issue of our day. The current stalemate is 
unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the American people. Regardless of 
our views on the appropriate strategy for Iraq, we have an obligation, 
we have a duty as Senators to fully debate this issue and to go on 
record on what we believe to be the appropriate strategy, the road 
ahead in Iraq.
  I am very disappointed that the procedural wrangling on both sides of 
the aisle prevented that kind of full and fair debate last week. I 
believed strongly that we should go ahead with that debate, and I am 
sorry that did not occur. I hope our leaders on both sides of the aisle 
will work together to come up with a fair approach to debate this most 
important issue.
  Just this last weekend, the State of Maine lost another soldier in 
combat in Iraq. The American people deserve to know where each and 
every one of us stands on the President's strategy, on whether to cut 
off funding, on the important issues related to this very pressing 
issue. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. There are those 
who agree with my position that a surge of 21,500 troops would be a 
mistake. There are those who believe that the surge is the right course 
to follow. I respect the views of Senators on both sides of the aisle 
and, indeed, this is not a partisan issue. But surely--surely this is 
an issue that deserves our full debate in the best traditions of this 
historic body. Surely--surely our constituents deserve to know where we 
stand.
  I think this is so important that nothing should prevent us from 
going to this debate prior to our recessing. I think we should make 
this so important that if it is not done, perhaps we should reconsider 
our plans for next week. I think we should proceed with this most 
important debate without further delay. There are a number of 
worthwhile resolutions that have been brought forward. Let the debate 
begin.
  Finally, I want to add just a couple of comments to those made by the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia and the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska, and that is about the importance of these resolutions. They 
are by no means unprecedented, as both of my colleagues have so 
articulately pointed out. They offer guidance to the administration. It 
remains my hope that if the Senate passes the resolution that I have 
helped to coauthor that the President will accept our invitation to 
take a second look at his plan. We urge him to explore all alternatives 
and to work with us on a bipartisan strategy to chart a new road ahead 
in Iraq.
  As a result of my trip to Iraq in December, I concluded that we face 
a number of different challenges in Iraq and the strategy depends on 
where you are in Iraq. In Baghdad, the capital is engulfed in sectarian 
violence. Yes, Baghdad is in the midst of a civil war between the 
Shiites and the Sunnis. To insert more American soldiers in the midst 
of this sectarian struggle would, in my judgment, be a major mistake. 
Only the Iraqis can devise a solution to the sectarian strife that is 
gripping Baghdad, and I think if the Iraqis had taken the long overdue 
political steps, if they more fully integrated the Sunni minority into 
the power structures, if they had passed an oil revenue bill that more 
equitably distributed oil revenues, if they had held the long overdue 
provincial elections, we would not be in the crisis in which we are 
today.
  Indeed, that is not just my opinion, that was the opinion of General 
Petraeus when I asked him that question during his nomination hearing 
before the Armed Services Committee.
  By contrast to the sectarian strife that is plaguing Baghdad, the 
battle is very different in Anbar Province to the west. There the fight 
is with al-Qaida and with foreign jihadists, and there and only there 
did I hear an American commander ask for more troops--only in Anbar 
Province--and he did so in order to capitalize on a recent positive 
development in which some of the local Sunni tribal leaders are now 
backing the coalition forces against al-Qaida.
  My conclusion is that we do need more troops in Anbar, but we should 
reallocate from troops already in the country. I personally would 
choose to take troops out of Baghdad and send them west, to Anbar 
Province, and put the Iraqis in charge, fully in charge of security in 
Baghdad. I fear that by inserting thousands of additional troops into 
the midst of the sectarian strife in Baghdad, ironically we will ease 
the pressure on the Iraqi leaders to take the long-overdue steps to 
quell the sectarian violence, for I am convinced that the sectarian 
violence in Baghdad requires a political, not a military, solution.
  In Basra, the third stop on our trip, I heard a British commander, a 
British colonel, give an excellent presentation to us. He said that 
initially the British and American troops were welcomed in Iraq, but as 
time has gone on, what he called the consent line has declined and 
their presence has been less and less tolerated and more and more 
resented.
  I think perhaps the only issue on which all Members of this body can 
agree is that our troops have served nobly and well in Iraq, and that 
we need a new strategy. We disagree on the road ahead, but that is what 
democracy and the traditions of the Senate are all about. We should not 
be afraid of this debate. We should debate this issue fully and openly 
and let our constituents and the administration know exactly where the 
Senate stands.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague. I wonder if I could 
ask our colleague a question before she departs? She made reference to 
her trip and the discussions that she had with the senior commanders. I 
would like to bring to her attention testimony that came before our 
committee, of which the distinguished Senator from Maine is a member, 
at which time we heard from the Commander of the United States Central 
Command, General Abizaid.
  In the course of his testimony to Congress on November 15, 2006--
right in the timeframe the Senator made her trip--I will quote him, 
General Abizaid. The general said:


[[Page 3655]]

       I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, Corps 
     Commander, and General Dempsey--we all talked together. And I 
     said, ``In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in 
     more American troops now, does it add considerably to our 
     ability to achieve success in Iraq?'' And they all said no. 
     And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's 
     easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I 
     believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from 
     doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own 
     future.

  I say to my colleague, that quote captured my own visit, which was 
just barely a month before that, when I came back and I described in my 
public comments that the situation in Iraq was drifting sideways.
  That was a very serious summary. But I said it because I felt 
obligated to our troops who were fighting bravely and courageously and 
with a level of professionalism that equals the finest hour in the 200-
plus-year history of our military--and the support their families give 
them. I felt ever so strongly that we were obligated as a country to 
reexamine our strategy and I called for that reexamination of strategy 
and it has been done.
  But I say to my colleague, General Abizaid's summary about the need 
for more forces, does that not summarize what you learned on your trip?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I may respond to the Senator from 
Virginia, I remember very well General Abizaid's testimony before the 
Armed Services Committee in mid-November. And as the Senator has 
pointed out--and he presided over that hearing--it could not have been 
clearer General Abizaid said that he consulted with all the American 
commanders and that the effect of bringing in more American troops 
would be to relieve the pressure on the Iraqis to step up and take 
control of the security themselves.
  Indeed, and ironically, General Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, 
had written an article for the Military Review in January of 2006 in 
which he said that one of the lessons from his tours of duty in Iraq 
was that you should not do too much, that you should call upon the 
Iraqis to take responsibility for themselves. Indeed, my experience was 
just as the Senator's was. About a month after General Abizaid's 
testimony, I was in Iraq. I talked with the commanders on the ground, 
and I would like to share with the senior Senator what one American 
commander told me.
  He said that a jobs program for Iraqis would do more good to quell 
the sectarian violence than the addition of more American troops. He 
told me that some Iraqi men are so desperate for money because they 
have been unemployed for so long that they are joining the Shiite 
militias. They are planting roadside bombs simply for the money because 
they are desperate.
  I thought that was such a telling comment, I say to my distinguished 
colleague, because this was from a very experienced commander who had 
been in Iraq for a long time. At that moment he was not calling for 
more troops. None of the American commanders with whom I talked in 
Baghdad called for more troops. The only place where we heard a request 
for more troops was in Anbar Province, and as I have explained, the 
situation in Anbar is totally different. It is not sectarian violence. 
The violence is with al-Qaida, the foreign jihadists, mainly Sunni 
versus Sunni, and it requires a different strategy.
  So my experience, when added to the distinguished Senator's, shows a 
consistent pattern. Whether it was the distinguished Senator's trip in 
October or the testimony of General Abizaid in November or my journey 
in December, we heard exactly the same themes, exactly the same answers 
to the questions of whether we needed more troops.
  Finally, let me say I went to Iraq with a completely open mind on 
this issue, and I came back convinced that sending more troops to 
Baghdad would be a colossal error.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague. I wonder if at this 
point in the colloquy--and then I will yield the floor because I know 
other Senators are anxious to speak--but we, the United States, the 
military, and the taxpayers have trained and equipped over 300,000 
Iraqi security forces composed of the professional Army, police, border 
security, and a group of others. The thrust of our resolution 
originally, and this one that is here, the amendment which is 
identical, was to give the Iraqis this opportunity, which the Prime 
Minister himself called for. He said: Give us the opportunity to show 
that we can do this operation.
  That is the basis on which we drew up the resolution. And in our 
resolution we said two things: The responsibility for Iraq's internal 
security and halting sectarian violence must rest primarily with the 
Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces. Then, specifically we 
said in the conclusion: The United States military operations should, 
as much as possible, be confined to the goals that are enumerated in 
the previous paragraph and should charge--I repeat--charge the Iraqi 
military with the primary mission of combating sectarian violence, and 
that is in the Baghdad operation.
  So I think those facts, our resolution, now referred to as an 
amendment, absolutely parallels what we learned firsthand on our trips 
into that region.
  Mr. President, I see other Senators are waiting. I see the 
distinguished senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, first, I want to commend the senior Senator 
from Virginia, Senator Warner, for his unparalleled leadership, because 
it is borne of a tremendous credibility based on his military and 
professional experience on these vital issues, and that precise 
credibility lends the kind of expertise to the Senate, to the Congress, 
and to our Nation that is so vital at this point in time. But I think 
in the final analysis, it is something we have to honor as we consider 
the most consequential issue of our time.
  I am very pleased the Senator has offered an amendment that reflects 
his resolution that was modified and that was supported by both sides 
of the political aisle. I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, 
because this is a critical issue. It is one of the issues that is the 
most significant of our time.
  As we begin this week, it is regrettable we don't have the Iraq 
debate before the floor of the Senate in the form of considering a 
resolution. Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is going to proceed. 
They are going to proceed to debate a resolution in opposition to the 
troop surge proposed by the President of the United States. They will 
have that debate this week. The question is when and if the Senate is 
going to have that debate on a specific resolution, on specific issues, 
with specific votes.
  Unfortunately, what we are witnessing today is the shrinking role of 
the Senate when it comes to the war in Iraq, a war that has been 
ongoing for 4 years. I am dismayed because I don't see any evidence. I 
don't see any evidence of working on a bipartisan basis to coalesce 
around an issue and on a position where it has been demonstrated there 
is a majority of support in the Senate to have negotiations, to have 
consultation, to work it out. I don't see any evidence of that. Have we 
come to the point in the Senate where we haven't been able to determine 
procedurally how to move forward on a nonbinding resolution? It is hard 
to believe the Senate would be marginalized on that point.
  Now I am speaking from experience. This is my 13th year in the 
Senate--my 13th year. I served in the House of Representatives for 16 
years. I served for more than 20 years--I think about 24 years--on 
Foreign Affairs, Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and currently the 
Intelligence Committee. So I speak from experience. You have to work 
across the political aisle. And there wasn't a time when we didn't 
discuss these issues: Lebanon, Persian Gulf, Panama before the Persian 
Gulf. We had Bosnia and Kosovo. We were able to work it out. The fact 
is I well recall a statement I had drafted back in 2000 illustrating 
examples of bipartisanship here on the floor of the Senate, one of 
which I said about the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, in 
working

[[Page 3656]]

across the aisle with the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, on the 
issue of Kosovo.
  That has been the hallmark of the Senate. Does it mean that we 
disagree on a major issue of our time? No. There are differences of 
opinion, but what is the Senate afraid of? What are we afraid of? To 
debate and to vote on various positions, whether it is on our position 
on the troop surge, whether it is on the position of cutting out 
funding, the troop gaps, a new authorization? Some of those issues and 
positions I would disagree with. But does that mean to say the Senate 
cannot withstand the conflicting views of various Members of the 
Senate? It is not unheard of, that both sides of the political aisle 
will have differing views.
  I came to this debate a few weeks ago when we were getting prepared 
ostensibly to work on this issue, to debate, which is consistent with 
the traditions and principles of this institution, which has been its 
hallmark. That is why it has been considered the greatest deliberative 
body in the world. Unfortunately, it is not living up to that 
expectation or characterization, regrettably. But I joined with the 
Senator from Nebraska in his effort across the aisle with the chairman 
of the Foreign Relations Committee and the chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee because I wanted to send a message that here and 
now, there will be those of us on this side of the aisle who disagree 
with the President on the troop surge. So I wanted to send that 
message. I read the resolution. I know there are some on this side of 
the aisle who didn't accept that language. But I thought it was 
important to do that. I cosponsored that resolution.
  We had many meetings, as the Senator from Nebraska would note, with 
Chairman Biden and Chairman Levin, to work through this issue: how we 
could work with the Senator from Virginia, because we knew we had a 
majority on both sides of the aisle that could work it out, who were 
opposed to the troop surge. So how is it we couldn't get from here to 
there? And we met in good faith to negotiate, working out even the 
procedures. We agreed: Let's have an open, unfettered, unrestricted 
debate, which is consistent with this institution that is predicated on 
our Founding Fathers' vision of an institution based on accommodation 
and consensus. You have to get 60 votes. So we said: Let's work it out, 
and the good Senator from Virginia worked it out. He incorporated our 
concerns in his modified resolution so we could enjoin our efforts.
  Now, it is not surprising on this side of the aisle that there are 
strong views that support the President, that don't believe we should 
have a vote. But does that mean to say we can't move forward and the 
House of Representatives can? So the House of Representatives is going 
to be debating this issue this week, and the Senate is going to be 
dithering. While our troops are on the front lines, the Senate is 
sitting on the sidelines.
  I am amazed we have reached this point in the Senate. We should be 
embracing this moment. We are the voice of the American people. 
Constitutional democracy is predicated on majority rule, but a respect 
for minority rights. I don't see any ongoing negotiations and 
discussions. Maybe I missed something. I don't see that happening 
across the political aisle. If historically we took the position: You 
missed your chance, that you missed your chance with a vote--2 weeks 
ago--you mean that is it in the Senate? How did we pass major pieces of 
legislation, major initiatives without saying: That is it; there is no 
room for discussion, there is no room for negotiation, there is no room 
for compromise.
  Oftentimes I am challenged on this side because I work so much across 
the political aisle. Senator Hagel did the same thing, as did Senator 
Warner. We worked across the political aisle to make it work. But I do 
not see that mutual trust to say: Let's see how we can move forward on 
the most profound issue of our time. It is unimaginable that we cannot 
develop a strategy for deliberating on this most consequential issue.
  We are expecting to adjourn next week for a recess. I thought to 
myself: Why? Why, so we will get back to Iraq before we know it? That 
is what we have heard: Just wait. The troop surge isn't going to wait. 
The Iraqi war doesn't take a recess. Our men and women aren't taking a 
recess. Why can't we debate now and vote on these issues? Are we saying 
we are simply not capable of talking?
  That is what the Senate is all about. It is based on consensus. It is 
based on compromise. It is based on conciliation. It is based on the 
fact that you have to develop cooperation in order to get anything 
done. It is not unusual. If historically we took the position: You 
missed your chance because there are disparate views, so that there 
would be no opportunity to further discuss or negotiate--we missed our 
chance? Are we talking about scoring political points? Are we talking 
about what is the best policy for this country with respect to Iraq at 
a time when men and women are on the front lines; at a time when the 
President is proposing a troop surge which I and others joined with 
Senator Warner because we oppose that; at a time in which we are almost 
a year to the anniversary of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in 
Samarra?
  In fact, Senator Warner and I paid a visit just days after that, the 
first congressional delegation, and we saw all the manifestations of 
what exists today in the most pronounced way. And we are saying we 
can't get it done in the Senate. Is this about scoring political 
points? I read every day: Who is winning politically? Because that is 
what it is about. It is about winning politically on a policy with 
respect to Iraq where we have been mired for 4 years with a strategy 
that hasn't been working. And we are saying, who is winning 
politically? Isn't it about Iraq? Isn't it about our men and women? 
Isn't it about what is in the best interests for this country?
  We have given so much. Our men and women have sacrificed 
immeasurably. As Senator Collins indicated, we lost another from Maine 
this weekend, SGT Eric Ross, 26. These men and women have put 
themselves on the frontlines. Yet we sit and hesitate to talk about 
what is in their best interests. Some say it is a nonbinding resolution 
that has no impact. I daresay, if it doesn't have any impact, then why 
is it we are not voting? What has a greater resonance in America? Is it 
silence or is it taking action on the most consequential issue of our 
time? I can only imagine, if we had an overwhelming bipartisan vote on 
Senator Warner's resolution--that is bipartisan, I might add--because 
those Members strove to make it bipartisan in the Senate, many strive 
to do that, so we can send a message that would be profound, that would 
resonate. To have a strong vote in the Senate or silence, which would 
have greater resonance? I think we know the answer to this question.
  I am concerned we are taking a political U-turn away from the message 
in the last election. I was in that last election. I heard loudly and 
clearly. I don't blame the people of Maine or across this country for 
their deep-seated frustration. They are right. There was too much 
partisanship and too much polarization.
  What we need now is leadership. We need leadership for this country. 
They are thirsting for a strong leadership, an honorable leadership 
that leads us to a common goal. No one expected unanimity in the Senate 
but we would give integrity to this process to allow it to work and not 
cynically say who is winning and who is losing today politically, so we 
have 30-second ads that will be run by outside groups or we are seeing 
them now. We are not shedding the political past. We have made a 
political U-turn. We are returning to it.
  This isn't about party labels. This isn't whether it is good for 
Republicans or good for Democrats. It is what is good for America. It 
is not about red States and blue States. It is about the red, white, 
and blue.
  I am dismayed we are the second month into a new Congress, after the 
American people resoundingly repudiated the politics of the past, the 
partisanship and polarization, creating a poisonous environment. They 
repudiated all of that. Here we are, back to

[[Page 3657]]

the same old approach. Instead of giving confidence to the American 
people that we will speak, we are their voice, we give voice to their 
fears and to their hopes, to their concerns that they rightfully have 
because we are not making the kind of progress, we are moving in a 
different direction on Iraq that obviously has been exemplified by the 
continuing and ongoing sectarian warfare.
  Fifteen months ago when Senator Warner came to the Senate and offered 
a resolution, 2006 was going to be the year of transition to Iraqi 
sovereignty. It was 2006 when we would turn over all the security to 
the Iraqi security forces. But 2006 has come and gone. We haven't made 
any measurable progress.
  As I said, when I was there a year ago, we saw the manifestations of 
the sectarian warfare, a vacuum had been created politically because no 
new central government had been created. That took months. We allowed 
that vacuum to continue. We got a new government. Yet they have been 
hesitant--indeed, they have been an impediment--to quelling the 
sectarian violence and confronting and demobilizing the militias.
  I heard a year ago about the graft and corruption that was running 
rampant in the ministries, as we saw recently with the Deputy Minister 
of Health funneling money to support the sectarian violence and the 
militias. We have seen and we have known all of that.
  So Senator Warner got that resolution passed. We united around him. 
In June of 2006, we passed a resolution as well that called for a 
regional conference so we would begin the diplomatic offensive the Iraq 
Study Group spoke to. But that has been ignored as well. I know the 
administration has had a number of strategies in Iraq. They had the 
national strategy for victory that was also 15 months old, that 
represented all the issues Senator Warner has embraced in his 
resolution, to which they only paid lip service, regrettably.
  So we are here today. We want to give voice to the concerns of the 
American people who want us to move in a different direction, not to 
commit additional troops at a time in which we have a government in 
Iraq that hasn't demonstrated a measurable commitment to controlling 
the sectarian violence and make the political changes within its 
Government that demonstrate a good-faith effort--whether it is the oil 
revenue-sharing distribution money, the provincial elections and, as I 
said, the demobilization of the militias; in fact, impeding our efforts 
to capture people who were responsible for some of the genocide and the 
warfare. But here we are.
  I hope we can find a way. What could be of higher priority than to be 
able to debate and to vote on our respective positions, to give a vote 
on the Warner resolution that is so important that a majority of 
Senators support? I know we can build the threshold for the 60. It is 
imperative we do it. It is inexcusable, frankly, that on the process 
for debating, we cannot reach an agreement. We are failing the American 
people on a colossal scale. We are held up by arcane procedural 
measures that could be worked out, if only we reached across the 
political aisle.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from 
Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 60 minutes has been expired.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Maine. The Senator mentioned the 
bipartisan spirit. I am very pleased to state that Senator Levin, whom 
I spoke with this afternoon, Senator Ben Nelson, who has been with us 
steadily on this, and Senator Biden allowed with very extensive 
enthusiasm to have their names attached as cosponsors.
  I thank my colleagues who have come over and participated in this 
debate and others who have listened. I thank the distinguished Senator, 
my good friend from Nebraska, for working so hard on this amendment. We 
will fight on.
  We may be idealists, but we will fight on for what we believe in and 
the integrity of this institution because we firmly believe, to the 
extent we can, forging a bipartisan consensus is the extent to which we 
can hopefully regain the full confidence of the American people on what 
we are doing in Iraq.
  I agree with the President, we should not let it slip into a chaotic 
situation, but we do have some different constructive thoughts as to 
our strategy ahead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________