[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4388-4390]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we gather in the Senate for this 
session today, there will be no recorded votes, but an important vote 
is scheduled to take place across the Rotunda. We know what that vote 
is about. It is about a war that is now in its fourth year, a war that 
has lasted longer than World War II.
  We were told recently that advisers to the President told him that at 
this stage of the war, there would be as few as 5,000 American troops 
in Iraq maintaining the limited interests that will remain for the 
United States. The reality is so much different. Over 130,000 Americans 
troops are still there for the fourth year of this war. We are 
activating Guard units, Reserve units, and redeploying those in active 
military with a frequency we have not seen since the great wars we 
faced in our past. We are asking sacrifices from these men and women in 
uniform and their families far beyond what was anticipated when the 
President 4 years ago convinced a majority of the House and Senate to 
vote to go to war.
  The cost of this war, in human terms, is devastating: 3,132 of 
America's best and bravest soldiers have died. Over 23,000 have 
returned seriously injured. Many will come back and need help in 
reconstructing their lives, their families, their homes, their 
businesses. They have paid a sacrifice, all of them, and we owe them 
all a great debt of gratitude for their service to our country.
  The President has decided the next stage of the war is to increase 
the number of American troops who will be cast into the midst of this 
civil war. It has been characterized as a civil war now by our national 
intelligence agencies. In fact, they say it is far worse than civil 
war. The report they have given to Congress, the National Intelligence 
Estimate called the situation:

       Worse than a civil war because it is compounded by a 
     domestic insurgency, foreign terrorism, and rampant crime.

  Through hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have 
learned that the fundamentals of a civil society do not exist in Iraq 
today. The basics--police protection, enforcement of the law, 
prosecution of criminals, incarceration of those who have been found 
guilty--all of these things are at issue in this country. Yet the 
President believes we should invest more and more American lives in 
that war. I believe that is a tragic error. That is my opinion. It is 
being debated in the House of

[[Page 4389]]

Representatives, and they will reach a conclusion this afternoon, 
likely the same conclusion I have, that this is a wrong strategy.
  It has been an interesting and historic debate in the House. Members 
have been allowed the time to stand and speak their minds and speak 
from the heart about this grave challenge we face in America. What we 
are asking for on the floor of the Senate is the same opportunity as 
the House of Representatives. We believe that this, characterized as 
America's greatest deliberative body, should not avoid the 
responsibility of debate. We believe this policy of the President, 
which is being discussed and debated across America in towns large and 
small, should be discussed and debated on the floor of the Senate.
  The press made note this morning that the Senate is going to meet in 
a rare Saturday session. Well, we may be coming together on Saturday to 
do our job, but people across America are coming together on Saturdays 
to do their jobs, and our soldiers are going to war on Saturday to do 
their job. We will have a chance tomorrow, early in the afternoon, to 
decide whether the Senate will take up this same debate; whether the 
American people will have a chance, through their elected Senators, to 
speak on this issue, this life and death issue.
  I am hoping we will have a better result than we did 2 weeks ago. We 
brought this matter up before the Senate. We asked to have a debate. In 
fact, we said: We will take--on the Democratic majority side, we will 
allow two Republican amendments to be offered, one from Senator Warner 
of Virginia, which questions the President's policies; the other from 
Senator McCain of Arizona, who believes that the escalation is a good 
policy--a sharp contrast, a real choice, an honest, straightforward 
debate leading to a yes or no--and that was rejected because, you see, 
the other side does not want us to come down to that basic, fundamental 
question. They want us to go into a debate about so many other issues, 
albeit important issues but not directly related to this policy.
  Yesterday, the majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid of the State 
of Nevada, offered again to the Republican side the basic choice, a 
straightforward choice. We will bring to the floor the resolution that 
is presently being debated in the House of Representatives which 
objects to the escalation of forces, and we will allow Senator McCain, 
who has an opposite view, who wants to send more troops into Iraq, we 
will allow those two to be considered and Members to make a choice. I 
don't think you could ask for anything fairer. But unfortunately, the 
minority, the Republican minority insisted they wanted to add two or 
three more amendments into the mix.
  Well, clearly, that takes the focus off the most important issue; 
that is, should we send more American soldiers into this wretched civil 
war in Iraq today. I think we need to face that responsibility and face 
that vote. Now, some will step back and say: Wait. If the Democrats are 
in the majority, why don't they debate this issue?
  Well, the rules of the Senate are interesting. They are designed to 
protect a minority. They give the minority in America and the minority 
in the Senate a voice which it may not have in other places. So under 
the rules of the Senate, it takes 60 Members to vote to move forward to 
debate an issue--60. We have 50, with Senator Johnson recuperating; 
they have 49. So in order to move to a debate, we need 10 Senators to 
cross this aisle and join us, cooperate with us, on a bipartisan basis, 
so we can move forward on this debate. Tomorrow will be the test.
  Now, I have heard some Senators on the other side say: We are not 
even going to show up tomorrow. We are not going to be here. I hope 
that is idle chatter and doesn't reflect their intentions.
  I believe the vote tomorrow is critically important. We are summoning 
Democratic Senators from all across the United States, literally. Some 
are making personal sacrifices, having flown home, believing we had 
ended the session, and flying back, many of them all-night flights, to 
be here. They understand the importance and gravity of this vote. I 
certainly hope the Members on the other side feel the same way. This is 
an important vote. It is not just another procedural vote. America will 
notice who is here tomorrow and who votes, and America will notice, 
after this historic debate in the House of Representatives, whether we 
meet our important constitutional responsibility.
  A lot of people argue they have given up on Government. Government 
doesn't mean much to them anymore, and they don't have a great high 
regard for the people who are in Government. Some of these folks have 
stopped voting. They don't get involved. They go about their normal 
lives and say: Those politicians, you know, they talk a lot and they 
don't do much.
  Well, this is a time when I think we can dispel some of this feeling 
across America that we are irrelevant and not part of things. If we 
can't take the time to spend on the floor of the Senate, as people are 
across America, debating this war, then we have lost our way. We have 
to bring this matter before the American people in the right way. We 
are fighting for a democracy in the Middle East. We are fighting for a 
democracy in Iraq. Democracy is the open debate of public issues. Will 
we have that same debate on the Senate floor? That question is in the 
hands of the Republican minority. They will decide tomorrow whether we 
move forward on this debate.
  Now, there is one group in this town who does not want this debate to 
move forward; let's be very honest about it: the President and the 
White House. It is an embarrassment to have your policy rejected and 
repudiated by bipartisan votes in the House and Senate, and it is rare. 
It hardly ever happens. So to spare the embarrassment to the White 
House--the political embarrassment--some are trying to stop this debate 
in the Senate. But I have to say I think this issue goes far beyond 
which politician ends up with bragging rights. That has nothing to do 
with it. This has to do with the lives and fortunes of our servicemen 
and their families and this great Nation and our foreign policy.
  At a time when we need to gather allies around the world to fight 
this war on terrorism, when we need to bring nations together to join 
us as they did after September 11 to stop the spread of terrorism, we 
need to understand this debate on Iraq is right on point. It is a 
debate which affects hundreds of thousands of soldiers and their 
families, and it affects all of us as Americans.
  I sincerely hope the Republican minority will have a change of heart, 
will join us in supporting this debate tomorrow. I believe we will find 
tomorrow, with this vote, that a bipartisan majority of the Senate 
wants to move forward with a debate. If it doesn't reach the number of 
60, then technically this debate cannot move forward. I use the word 
``technically'' because in honesty, that will not be the end if we do 
not muster 60 votes. This matter is going to come before the Senate 
again and again and again.
  For 4 years in this war, Congress, controlled by the other party, has 
been virtually silent on the issue of this war and the wisdom of our 
policy. Those days are over. In the last few weeks we have been in 
session, we have had over 30 hearings by committees that have asked the 
hard questions about this policy, about protecting our troops, and 
about where we are going to go forward in the future. Those questions 
will continue to be asked by committees. They will continue to be 
addressed in the Senate. When we move to the next item of legislation, 
we will undoubtedly have amendments relative to this war in Iraq. This 
debate will not end.
  I sincerely hope those on the other side of the aisle will join us. I 
hope they understand what is at stake. It is not just 21,000 more 
soldiers putting their lives on the line for America; it is a question 
of our foreign policy and protecting this Nation and making sure we 
keep our commitment to our country to keep it safe.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 4390]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________