[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4630-4631]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as I listened this last week to media 
reports about a reported plan by Senate Democrats to deauthorize the 
Iraq war resolution, my first reaction was that they cannot be serious; 
they cannot want to have Senators managing the war on terror from the 
floor of the Senate. We would be telling our commanders and our troops 
how to do their jobs.
  Under the latest Democratic proposal--which, incidentally, is now the 
fifth resolution that they have brought forward--that was unveiled last 
week, there would be no combat role for our troops in Iraq. Yet we 
would still allegedly have some number of troops there for training, 
support, and logistics.
  I think the question you have to ask with a policy such as that is, 
What if those troops are fired upon? Can they not return fire because 
the Senate says they are not to have a combat role?
  Just when I thought this debate had reached the low point on the 
depth chart, the Senate Democrats have drained a little more out of the 
pool. For weeks now, they have been attacking Republicans for blocking 
a debate on Iraq when nothing could be further from the truth. 
Republicans welcome a debate about Iraq. The only difference is we 
believe it should be a full, fair, and open debate. The Democratic 
leaders tried to prevent that by blocking any Republican amendments. 
The Democrats want a rigged, one-sided debate that has nothing to do 
with substance and everything to do with political theater. That is 
wrong, and it is wrong for a couple of reasons.
  Firstly, it is wrong because it undermines the unique role our 
Founders designed for the Senate, a place where debate is welcome, a 
place that is deliberative, and a place where the power to amend is 
recognized. Under the Democrats' rigged approach, only their proposal 
gets heard. Republicans asked for just one alternative, one amendment, 
and it was rejected by the Democratic leadership. Now, I would ask, 
where is the fairness in that? Where is the openness in that?
  Secondly, and more importantly, it is wrong because it sends entirely 
the wrong message to our troops and to our enemies. Our troops need to 
know that they are supported and that their mission is supported. Our 
enemies need to know we are serious about winning. The action taken by 
Senate Democrats on this issue has trivialized this very serious 
debate, and I believe we owe it to those who have sacrificed so much, 
and to their families, to give this new strategy a chance to succeed.
  I visited a number of soldiers last week at Walter Reed Hospital. I 
think that is my fourth trip up there. I have also had the opportunity 
to visit with soldiers injured on the battlefield at the hospital in 
Landstuhl, Germany, at Ramstein Air Force Base. These are men who have 
lost limbs due to IEDs and EFPs. They are an amazing group of people, 
an amazing inspiration, and they want to know their sacrifice has not 
been in vain.
  This strategy which has been proposed is a change. It originated with 
our commanders, and it is supported by our commanders. It calls for 
several things. It calls for some additional troop strength in the 
region, primarily in Baghdad and also some out in Anbar Province. It 
calls for different rules of engagement in that fight, and it calls for 
more Iraqi involvement in several different ways:
  Militarily. It gets the Iraqis more into the fight. They take the 
lead, and the United States takes more of a support role.
  Economically. There are requirements that the Iraqi Government invest 
in infrastructure in their country and that they come up with a way of 
dividing the oil revenues so that all the different locations in the 
country can benefit from this great resource they have available to 
them.
  It puts in place political benchmarks as well. They need to hold 
provincial elections.
  All these things--military, economic, and political benchmarks--are 
things the Iraqis have to meet. I believe we will know in a matter of 
months whether this new strategy is working. I want it to work. I want 
to see our troops succeed, and so do most Americans.
  A nonbinding resolution signaling a lack of support was bad enough, 
but now the Democrats in Congress have taken what in my view is a far 
more dangerous turn. They have embarked on a course which is binding, 
which has the force of law, and which would have Congress managing a 
war. That is a very frightening prospect, but that is exactly what this 
latest Democratic proposal would do.
  In fact, listen to what was said yesterday by the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee. He was asked on ``Meet the Press'' by Tim 
Russert about how many troops would be left behind under their 
proposal, and he said a limited number. Mr. Russert said: 10,000, 
20,000? The distinguished Senator, chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, said:

       I don't want to put a specific number on it because that 
     really should be left to the commanders, who decide how many 
     would be needed to carry out those limited functions.

  I am glad there is going to be some role for General Petraeus. I am 
glad he will be deciding some things in the theater over there.
  When the question was asked later on by Mr. Russert: Aren't you tying 
the hands of the Commander in Chief, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Levin, said:

       Well, we hope to put a cap on the number of troops. If I 
     had my way, I would cap them. Of course, if I had my way, we 
     would never have gone there to begin with. But of course we 
     are trying to tie the hands of the President and his policy.

  I want my colleagues to listen to the proposal that has been offered 
in the House of Representatives and just recently, this last week, was 
discussed and debated over there. Essentially, what that plan would 
entail is that the Congress would decide the particulars when it comes 
to which troops can go on combat tours and which ones can be extended 
beyond the year. To be sent into battle, troops would have to have a 
year's rest between combat tours, and soldiers in Iraq could not have 
their tours extended beyond a year. The Pentagon's stop-loss policy, 
which prevents some officers from leaving the military when their 
service obligations are up, would end.
  These are very troubling developments and proposals, particularly 
when they are considered in light of what the constitutional role of 
the Congress is when it comes to these types of matters. Congress does 
not have the expertise or the constitutional authority to micromanage 
tactics in a war.
  I want to read something for my colleagues from an op-ed in the Wall 
Street Journal from a few weeks back. It was written by David Rivkin 
and Lee Casey, and it says this:

       The Constitution vests Congress with formidable authority 
     to affect how the President fights wars. Congress has the 
     power to declare war, formally rupturing international legal 
     relations between the U.S. and a belligerent enemy nation, 
     and to prescribe rules governing military discipline and 
     regulating the capture of military property. If it determines 
     to withhold funding for an ongoing conflict, it can compel 
     the President to withdraw U.S. forces. What Congress cannot 
     do, however, is direct how a President prosecutes a 
     particular war, including decisions about how many of the 
     available forces to introduce into a theatre of conflict.

  Would someone on the other side of the aisle please step forward and 
remind me that there is logic and common sense and that liberal 
interest groups have not taken over our colleagues on the Democratic 
side. These actions are stunningly transparent, designed to embarrass 
the President and to woo liberal interest groups. Let us not go down 
that road. Our troops and their families and the American people 
deserve better.
  There are a number of Members of the Senate who have served their 
country and who are veterans. I have the highest respect for the 
distinguished

[[Page 4631]]

Presiding Officer, who is among those who have seen combat and 
understands what it entails and the chain of command. I can't imagine 
any Member of the Senate who has been involved in combat who would 
condone having politicians here in Washington, DC, Members of the 
Senate, no matter how well intended, directing and managing military 
conflict and getting in the way of our commanders and our troops and 
their ability to conduct and perform their mission and to do their job.
  I think it terribly unfortunate what has happened here in the Senate. 
I do believe it has trivialized what should be a very serious debate. I 
have maintained all along that this is a debate we ought to have 
because this is the dominant issue of our time about which people 
across this country have incredibly strong feelings. Irrespective of 
how we got there and what one thinks about that, it is important now 
that we evaluate seriously, that we examine, and that we analyze how 
best to proceed and move forward.
  There is a plan. It is being implemented. I want to see it succeed. I 
hope and pray, for the sake of our troops in the theater, that it does 
succeed. What we cannot afford to have happen in this Congress is to go 
down this path where one side is trying to one-up the other side and 
frame the debate, to define the terms of the debate in a way that is 
politically advantageous to them. That is wrong.
  That is why I am here today, to say we ought to have a debate. It 
ought to be a full, fair, and open debate, in keeping with the 
tradition and the history of the Senate and in keeping with the 
commitment we have made to the men and women we have put in harm's way 
and who wear the uniform of the United States of America. They deserve 
to have our support not only of them but of the mission they are 
undertaking. They need to know that we believe they can succeed, that 
we believe they can win, that we believe they can achieve victory. If 
we fail in that important mission, future generations are going to pay 
a dear price. The global war on terror is not going away. It is 
important that here in the Senate we dignify the great service of those 
great Americans by having a dignified debate that is full, that is 
fair, that is open, and that is not intent on micromanaging and 
directing the affairs of our military leadership and telling our 
commanders what they can and cannot do when it comes to winning this 
very important war.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________