Senate Record - February 7, 2007
From dKosopedia
| Congressional Record | |
|---|---|
| Senate - February 7, 2007 - week 6 | |
| 110th - United States Congress | |
| |
| Senate Majority Leader | Harry Reid |
| Minority Leader | Mitch McConnell |
| Previous | Tuesday - February 6, 2007 |
| Next | legislative session |
These are consolidate excerpts from the Congressional Record, covering the major actions of the United States Senate in the 110th United States Congress on February 7, 2007. For the daily summary of the actions in the Senate click here. For a summary of the actions in the House click here, and for Congress as a whole on this date, click here.
Only major action or debates are usually included in these excerpts. For the complete Congressional Record for this date, click on the THOMAS link (i.e. the date within the title of the opening header) in the article below.
On the Floor
Morning Session - Wednesday, February 7, 2007
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable Ben Cardin, a Senator from the State of Maryland.
The Acting President pro tempore - The majority leader is recognized.
Schedule
Harry Reid-D (NV), Majority Leader
Mr. Harry Reid-D, (NV) Majority Leader - Mr. President, the Senate will begin morning business in just a few minutes, with the time until 2 p.m. equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. The first 30 minutes this morning will be controlled by the minority, and then the majority will control, of course, the next 30 minutes. We are going to do the best we can to alternate back and forth.
Yesterday, we had a nice debate. When a Democrat wasn't here, a Republican moved in and vice versa. It worked out well with the time.
I announced last night that I intended to have the Senate proceed this afternoon to executive session to consider a number of Executive Calendar nominations. I had spoken to the Republican leader prior to making that announcement and told him I wanted to consider General George Casey and Admiral William Fallon to be voted on today or tomorrow. I expect there will be debate with respect to the Casey nomination. We have had word that on the minority side there are a number of statements they wish to have made, and I am confident there will be some over here, also. We will make a decision at a later time whether we should have time agreements or just move forward with these.
Let me just say a few words about what is going on in the Senate and has been going on over the last few days. As we all know, the President, in giving a speech, said he wanted to move a significant number more of American troops to Iraq. As a result of that, there have been efforts made to have the Senate vote on whether that is appropriate. We have been unable to arrive at that point, which is somewhat surprising because the people who helped write the amendment voted against proceeding to debate on that amendment. People whose names are associated with that amendment decided not to proceed to vote on that amendment.
I think it speaks volumes that there has been almost nothing said by the minority about supporting the surge. There have been no speeches over here supporting the surge. In fact, late yesterday there was a proposal to not even have a vote on supporting the surge.
That is where we are. The House is going to take up this matter next week. They will send this over to us, and in due time we will try to get to this matter. But it is pretty clear that one reason for the slowdown here is to allow the President to move troops over there. The more troops moved over there prior to this vote, the more difficult it is to say don't send the troops—when he has already sent them. But there are other ways to approach this issue in Iraq.
Just a matter of hours ago, a Sea Knight helicopter was shot down over Baghdad, the fifth helicopter shot down in the last 2 weeks. We don't know how many Americans are dead in this latest incident. We do not know because the military has not announced it. We do know these Sea Knight helicopters—they are called CH-46s—are used by the Marines primarily as a cargo and troop transport, and they carry as many as 25 combat-loaded troops.
We also know that the administration submitted its budget, requesting another $245 billion in the war in Iraq and other matters relating to the military, bringing the total to well over $500 billion. In fact, we learned yesterday that the United States had shipped money to Mr. Bremer, Ambassador Bremer, to disburse money to Iraqi ministries. How much money? It was 363 tons of money in hundred-dollar bills—363 tons. There is some dispute as to how many hundred-dollar bills it takes to make 363 tons, and they really don't know exactly how much money that is, but it is around $12 billion, most of which is not accounted for. I guess $12 billion, when you compare it to $500 billion, is not very much, but I think the American people understand that 363 tons of cash, hundred-dollar bills, is a lot of money.
We also know from reading the morning paper that the Associated Press reports:
- More Americans have been killed in combat in Iraq over the last 4 months than in any comparable stretch since the war began.
To say the war isn't going well is an understatement. To say there is a civil war going on in Iraq is an understatement. I really think it is unfortunate that we have been unable to vote on whether the surge should take place. Senators have not been allowed to cast their vote on this issue, and because of that, we are going to move on to the continuing resolution this afternoon—late this evening, I should say, after we finish these two important Executive Calendar matters.
The Acting President pro tempore - The majority leader is recognized.
Mitch McConnell-R (KY), Minority Leader
Insist on Fair Process
Mr. Mitch McConnell-R, (KY) Minority Leader - Listening to my good friend, the majority leader, should remind us all that the debate we had anticipated having this week—and I might say Members on our side were certainly prepared to have the debate—would not have had any impact on the surge. These were nonbinding resolutions. I would not argue that they were not significant, because Senators would have been put on record. But we were certainly prepared for the debate. What we were not prepared to do is to have a process that denied our side other options in addition to the Levin proposal.
As we were frequently reminded last year by Democratic Senators, the Senate is different from the House. In the Senate, a minority of at least 41 can insist on a process that is fair.
Senate Republicans were united, including members of our conference who support the Levin proposal, in insisting on a fair process. We started out with five different options, gradually pared them down to two—the McCain-Lieberman-Graham proposal and the Gregg proposal relating to supporting the troops. My good friend, the majority leader, objected to allowing us to have two proposals. He only wanted us to have one proposal. So we narrowed it down to one and picked the Gregg "support the troops" proposal as our one, and the majority leader objected to that unanimous consent request as well, leading us to believe that not only did he want us to limit ourselves to one, he wanted to pick which one. Of course, in the Senate, that is just not possible. This is a deliberative body. It insists on having votes on a wide variety of proposals. Certainly, when we were in the majority last year, we had to vote on a lot of things we might not have liked to have voted on in order to advance a particular proposal. That is the way the Senate works.
At whatever point the majority would like to begin the debate again on Iraq, we will certainly be happy to have it. I particularly wish to thank Senator Gregg for his very important contribution to this debate. That is a vote we will have at some point, on some measure, when we return to the subject of Iraq.
With regard to the continuing resolution, let me just say to the majority leader, he has suggested that I survey our members and see what amendments we might like to offer, since he has indicated amendments may or may not be allowed on that proposal. I would say to him we are paring that down and hope to be able to get him--we have about seven; we are going to try to pare that down to three, submit those amendments to the majority leader, and hope they might be allowed when we do move to the continuing resolution.
Mr. Harry Reid-D, (NV) Majority Leader - Mr. President, I say to my friend, we would also see what amendments, if any, we want to offer on this side—maybe three and three or whatever we can come up with that appears to move the ball along.
Mr. McConnell - I yield the floor.
The Acting President pro tempore - The Republican whip is recognized.
Resolutions Procedure
Trent Lott-R (MS)
Mr. Lott-R, Mississippi - Mr. President, I was pleased to hear just a moment ago the suggestion that maybe we go to the Omnibus appropriations bill in such a way that would allow some amendments to be offered on both sides. That is good. That is the way it ought to be. That is why I have been surprised and, frankly, disappointed that we have not been able to come to some sort of agreement about how to proceed to these resolutions dealing with the President's plan to take action in Iraq and have a full debate on the substance.
Of the plan and the resolutions, I don't think there is any excuse for the fact that we have come to the point where we are throwing up our hands and saying: I can't have it my way, you can't have it your way, therefore, we will have it no way.
If this were the Super Bowl, whether you were Grossman or Manning, you would call a time out and say, wait a minute here, there has got to be a way we can get a plan to go forward. I know how difficult it is to do this because our leaders on both sides of the aisle get pressured from all sides. They are pulled. Don't agree to that, you have to agree to that.
In the end, the leaders have to decide how we go forward in a fair and an open way, and the rest of us have to support that decision. The majority has strong power in the House of Representatives, and a good bit in the Senate. But I think the most difficult job in the city is the job of being majority leader, the job that Senator Reid has right now because he doesn't have a Rules Committee. He is not the President. He can't give an order and have the bureaucracy move, not that the bureaucracy ever moves. He has to work with the minority. He has to find a way to move things forward.
Some people say: Oh, that is the process. Look, the process is substance because if you can't figure out how to get it done, you never get to the substance. This is not an autocracy. No one person possesses unlimited power. You have got to give to get a little. You can't have a deal where you say: No, no, you can't offer but one amendment; and, by the way, it has to be this.
If we were going to do anything, we should have gone with more, not less. So I don't get it. If this is the big, important, serious issue we all say it is, surely we could have worked out a way to proceed. Well, I guess the one thing we could say is, we will get back to this. We are going to get back to it in many different ways. But at least in the future, when we get to the debate, it is going to be a serious debate about something that is real.
We were talking about taking up resolutions that had no binding effect. It was a feel-good deal. Yeah, we are going to take a pop at the President. Yeah, we support the troops, but no, we don't support the troops.
Oh, yes, thank you very much, General Petraeus, 81 to nothing, you are confirmed. Go over to Iraq. Oh, and by the way, we don't agree with what you are going to try to do. We don't support the plan. How did we get into that?
At least at some point, men and women of strong principle and beliefs are going to offer up amendments that are going to say: Support the troops, stick with the plan or pull out. High tail it out. Get out of there now. And then we will have a real debate and we will have real votes. That is what, under our Constitution, we should be doing, actually.
I think the proposal that Senator Gregg had, made eminent good sense. Let's show we support the troops. Gee whiz, why is that a bad idea? The American people don't want to send our troops into harm's way around the world or even in Baghdad without knowing we are behind them.
So what is the problem? The problem is that it was able to get 80, I don't know, or 90 votes. We can't have that vote because later on we may want to actually cut off the funds to the troops. There are some little, bitty twists of language, too, such as we support funding for the troops in the field. What does that mean, "in the field"? What if you are on the way? What if you are in a brigade that is pulling out of Texas now or pulling out of Kentucky or that has landed in Kuwait? We don't support them. There are too many nuances.
Let me get away from process and talk about substance. We have a problem in Iraq. A lot of people now have shifted their position and are saying: Well, I voted for it earlier, but I am against it now. Yeah, it has gotten tough, so I don't like it.
Everybody says change the status quo. I had a chance to talk to some world leaders recently in Switzerland and they were saying: My goodness, you can't do that, can't do this, can't do something else.
I said: Here is the choice: Stay, leave or do what?
They said: No, you can't leave. You have to stay. Well, what do you propose? Deafening silence. The President understood we had to change the status quo. Action had to be taken. A plan had to be developed. He proposed a plan. He met with us. He came to the Congress. He spoke at the State of the Union: Here is what I propose to do. Give this plan a chance. Give the plan a chance.
And General Petraeus, maybe the General Grant of this war, or the General Washington of a previous war—this is the man of the hour, and I hope and pray the good Lord will guide him in the right way because he has a serious challenge before him.
But this is not just about a surge, although that is a part of the plan. This is a plan with at least three other key components. But ask yourself, we say to the Iraqis: You have to get a political solution. Everybody is saying: No, we will never get a military solution without a political and economic solution.
Well, yeah. But how do you get a political solution in chaos? How can you get a political solution when your capital is being blown up every day by insurgents of all stripes? You have got to get a grip on security. It is similar to here in our Nation's Capital. We couldn't have orderly Government if we didn't have order. So we are going to try to send in the best we have, under the best general we have, and get some control of the violence and the chaos in Baghdad and then give the Iraqis a chance to deal with the politics.
Am I convinced all of this is going to work? I don't know. I am not the best expert in the world. I have been on the Armed Services Committee, I have been on Intelligence. I have been around awhile. But I am not going to impose my military judgment on a man such as General Petraeus. But let's see if the politics will not work. There is a lot of pressure. They know, they know.
I met with the Vice President of Iraq recently and he was talking about: Well, what is your strategic plan? I said: No, sir. Excuse me. With all due respect, it is not about what is our plan. What is your plan? It is your country, your Government. When are you going to ante up and kick in, in a way that brings leadership and order out of all of this?
So the second part of the President's plan is for different rules of engagement. It is for a requirement that some political achievements be reached. That is why I like the McCain-Lieberman-Graham proposal. I like benchmarks. So the question is: It is one thing to lay down benchmarks, but what if they don't meet them? Then, you decide. If we conclude it would not work, that they can't govern themselves, then we have to go with the next plan. Somebody said: Well, this is the last plan. It is never the last plan. There is always another plan.
But the politics, I think, we can be successful. We certainly have to try. I do think that regional solutions—getting particular provinces under control or particular sectors under control, getting generals in for different sectors—makes good sense. But also the economy. Look at America where you have people who are not working. Their life is insecure. They get into trouble. I understand that 40 percent of the young men in Baghdad don't have a job. There has to be a better job done of getting the money—the oil money—fairly distributed and done in an economic way that will create jobs so that these young men and women will not be bored and looking for ways to kill themselves.
Mr. President, we should have found a way to go forward with this debate. I don't quite understand what is going on. Maybe we are all having to learn a little different roles of who is in the majority and who is in the minority and how it works. I know for sure that in some respects it is easier to be in the minority than to in the majority.
The majority leader has to be—he has to be tough. He has to eat a little crow every now and then. He has to be prepared to say to the Republicans: We will find a way to work this out. You have to keep poking at it. Somehow or another, we didn't want to do it this time. I don't know. Maybe everybody is going to leave the field and say we won. This is not about winning or losing. This shouldn't be about the political winner or who won the PR battle.
We are playing with lives. America's finest. I think we should support them, as Senator Gregg proposes. We need to give the plan the President has developed a chance because nobody else has come up with a better plan, other than pull back at the borders. What good is that? Which way are we going to shoot? To me, that is the worst of all worlds.
We can make this work, but the President, General Petraeus, our troops, the American people need our support and our confidence in what we are attempting.
We can go on and have the debate today about these nominees—two good men. We can turn to the omnibus appropriations and find a way to get it done with order.
Nobody wants to play games. Nobody should be trying to say: Oh, if you don't do it this way, or my way, you are trying to shut down the Government. Nobody should be saying we are going to filibuster if we don't get everything we want.
This is the Senate. You have got to give everybody their chances. You have to have some order out of the chaos. This is sort of similar to Baghdad. Sometimes we get divided up into provinces. I appreciate the efforts that have been made, but the important thing is not the process in the Senate. The important thing is what our men and women are going to be trying to do in Iraq. Let's give this plan a chance.
I yield the floor.
The Acting President pro tempore - The majority leader is recognized.
Harry Reid-D (NV), Majority Leader
Mr. Harry Reid-D, (NV) Majority Leader - Mr. President, I appreciate the advice and counsel of my friend from Mississippi. He certainly has the experience to offer suggestions, having served in various capacities in leadership. I have been with him. He is a pleasant man to work with, and I like him very much. But I would suggest, this morning, that we not use Super Bowl terminology and Manning and Grossman because I think, if we do that, we would find we would have a lot of objection if suddenly we looked around and Grossman was using a baseball or basketball rather than a football. I think what they have tried to do is change the rules in the middle of the game, and they are playing around with this procedural argument.
I have to acknowledge to my friend from Mississippi that the people over there who are trying to make the President not look bad had a little victory because they have been able to stall and stall. As a result of that, soldiers are being shipped, as we speak, without the Senate having to take a vote on whether that surge should take place. So in that respect, their stalling has probably benefited the President.
As far as process, we have worked through the ethics bill, the minimum wage bill, and even though there were cloture motions filed and cloture not invoked, finally, we were able to get those things passed. But I think debate on the surge would have been very important. We have been denied that. I understand the rules of the Senate.
My friend from Mississippi also says we should be doing something that is real. I tried to talk about something real this morning. More American troops were killed in combat in Iraq over the past 4 months than in any comparable stretch since the war began—334 dead American soldiers, men and women, with mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and husbands and wives.
I think over the last few days, though, there has been a deafening silence, and people standing here and saying what the President is doing is the right thing to do, because it hasn't been the right thing to do, what the President has been doing, and he wants to continue more of the same.
I understand we are now at a point where we are going to talk about a couple of important nominations. We are going to try to get our fiscal house in order, which is not in order, because unless we do something by February 15, basically the Government closes. This is very unusual. I have spoken with the distinguished Republican leader, and one thing we are going to work on together this year, once we get out of this situation with the continuing resolution, is to work together to try to pass appropriations bills. That is good for the institution and good for the country. We are going to try to do that. It may require some late nights and long weeks, but we are going to do that. We have 13 appropriations bills, and we are going to work very hard to get them passed.
So I am terribly disappointed we haven't had the opportunity to vote on Senator Warner's and Senator Levin's resolution, and on the McCain resolution, but we have heard enough about that. We are not going to be able to do that, and we will move on to other things.
The Acting President pro tempore - The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. Mitch McConnell-R, (KY) Minority Leader - Briefly, it is hard for me to remember how many times we were told by the other side last year that you come to the Senate to cast tough votes, but I don't think Senator Gregg's vote was a tough vote. Why would it be a tough vote to vote on supporting the troops? To me, that is an easy vote. We all will be forced, because of the process in the Senate, to cast votes we don't like. If you are in the majority, you get more of those than when you are in the minority.
I can't imagine being, in effect, afraid of voting on the Gregg amendment to support the troops. That would be one of the easiest votes we ever cast around here.
Let me conclude by saying I am disappointed, as other members of my party in the Senate are disappointed, we are not having the Iraq debate this week. The distinguished minority whip, in his remarks, summed it up quite well. We will continue to talk about this important subject. There is no more important subject in the country right now. I know we will be debating other proposals in the coming months.
Mr. Gregg-R, New Hampshire - Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McConnell - I yield.
Mr. Gregg - I was just wondering if the Republican leader, and I ask this question through the Chair, believes that the Democratic leader is correct in his characterization that we have stopped this in a procedural manner. Is it not true that the Democratic leader controls the procedure as to whether there would be a vote? And is it not true, also, that we agreed to the Democratic leader's request that we offer only one amendment but that we just ask we be able to choose our amendment, and they be able to choose their amendment?
Mr. McConnell - The Senator is entirely correct. We kept paring down the options that we wanted to offer in the course of this debate on the most important issue in the country. And at the end, as the Senator from New Hampshire just suggested, we were down to two: one that the majority leader and most of his party favor—and some of ours—and the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire in support of the troops.
Apparently, the majority wanted to tell us which amendment we would offer.
Mr. Gregg - I thank the Republican leader.
Mr. McConnell - I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
I yield the floor.
Morning Business
The Acting President pro tempore - Under the previous order, there will be a period for the transaction of morning business until 2 p.m. with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, alternating sides when appropriate, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the minority, the second 30 minutes under the control of the majority, during which the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, be recognized for 15 minutes each.
Iraq
Judd Gregg-R (NH)
Mr. Gregg-R, New Hampshire - Mr. President, I want to, once again, state the situation. It has been very well stated by the Republican leader. The simple fact is, we, as members of the minority, requested the right to offer an alternative to the proposal of the majority. That is not an unusual event in the Senate. In fact, it is the purpose of the Senate to debate different approaches.
What we asked as an alternative was very simple, straight forward language. Let me read it again. It simply stated:
- It is the sense of the Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger the United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine the safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.
All this language says is that whether you agree with the President or whether you disagree with the President, whether you support a commitment of more troops or you don't support a commitment of more troops, once the troops are on the ground in the fight, we are going to give them the financial support, the logistical support, the equipment that they need in order to protect themselves and pursue their mission effectively.
Members do not have to support the President to support this language. It is not designed to state the President is right or the President is wrong. It is simply language designed to say that an American soldier deserves the support of the Congress of the United States. That is an elementary responsibility of this Senate.
The fact that the Democratic leadership will not allow Members to vote on this simple statement of support for American troops is a transgression on the purposes of the Senate, which is to express itself relative to the actions of our soldiers in the field and how we will support them.
It is literally impossible to address the debate on Iraq without addressing the most fundamental issue, which is whether our troops are going to be supported when they are asked to defend us in the field. The idea that we can decouple the support for the troops from the issue of policy is absurd on its face, and the position of the Democratic leadership that we should not address the issue of supporting the troops when we address the issue of whether the tactics being pursued by the military commanders in the field are correct—which doesn't happen to be the responsibility of Congress; that is the responsibility of the commanders--is by nature inconceivable, inconsistent, and simply not defensive.
In fact, it is so absurd on its face that I would simply quote the national commander of the American Legion, Mr. Paul Morin, who says:
- We will not separate the war from the warrior.
That is what this is about: whether the Democratic leadership takes the truly indefensible position that in a debate on the issue of Iraq, we do not discuss the support for the person we are asking to go out and defend this Nation.
What this really comes down to is very simple. This resolution would have received broad bipartisan support in this Senate. That is because there are very few Members in this Senate—I would guess virtually none—who don't believe that our obligation as a Senate, as a legislative body which funds the military, that our obligation is to give the soldiers in the field what they need in order to defend themselves and carry out their mission.
So rather than have a vote on our amendment which would have received a large majority in this Senate—much larger than the proposal put forward as their proposal—they decided not to have a vote at all. Then they claimed that we were responsible for slowing the process.
How inconsistent and indefensible is that statement: I don't have the votes; therefore, I will not allow a vote to happen. But it is your fault that I am not allowing the vote to happen. Really? That only makes sense if you happen to be a true partisan and believe this debate should be a partisan debate.
Somehow my language has been described as "partisan," and the other language has been described as "bipartisan," but the other language has fewer votes than my language. No, this is not true. It is simply a fact that the other side of the aisle does not wish to put their membership in a position of voting for a simple resolution that calls for the support of our troops.
That is an unfortunate statement on where the Democratic Party is today relative to support for the efforts of soldiers in the field. It is hard for me to conceive that there are folks within the community of interest in Washington who feel so strongly about their dislike for the President or his policies that they are unwilling to go on record in support of the soldier who is fighting for us on the streets of Baghdad. But that is the essence of the problem. That is why we are not going to have a vote in the Senate. It is not that the Republican membership has in some way stalled this process. The Republican leader has gone out of his way, he has gone well beyond what many in our party believe maybe we should have done in trying to be accommodating to the insistence of the Democratic leadership that there be no opposition to the one item that they want to bring to the Senate floor.
In my experience in the Senate, when something is brought to the floor of the Senate as controversial as the discussion of how we pursue a war and a war policy, there are going to be a lot of amendments. But the Senate leadership, under the Democratic leader, has said, no, not only will there not be a lot of amendments, there will only be one amendment from our side, and we on the Democratic side will pick the amendment on the Republican side that they can offer, and we will let them offer that but nothing else.
The Republican leader, in an attempt to be responsive, said, OK, if there are only going to be two amendments, we will pick the amendment. And the amendment will simply say that whether you support the President, whether you support his policies, at least you can say you support the troops, the soldiers who are asked to go out and protect America and walk the streets of Baghdad.
But that was a bridge too far for the Democratic leader, a bridge too far for the Democratic membership because they did not want to take that vote even though that would have been a bipartisan vote and would have received significantly more votes than the Democratic proposal.
I don't think there should be any confusion about why we aren't having a vote. We are not having a vote because more people would vote for my amendment than would vote for their amendment, and they don't want to embarrass their membership by having to have them vote for my amendment even though there is nothing controversial about it, unless you consider supporting troops in the field, giving them what they need to fight and defend themselves, to be controversial.
It is an ironic situation. I thank the Republican leader for having offered me the opportunity to bring this amendment forward and for making it fairly clear that we as a membership are willing to be reasonable; that we only ask for a vote on something that we think is important while they ask for a vote on something they think is important.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Texas.
Mr. Cornyn-R, Texas - How much time does the minority have remaining in morning business?
The Presiding Officer - Twenty and one-half minutes.
Mr. Cornyn - Madam President, would you advise me when I have used 6 minutes, and I will defer to my other colleagues.
The Presiding Officer - The Chair will advise the Senator.
John Cornyn-R (TX)
Mr. Cornyn-R, Texas - Madam President, the majority leader this morning said within my hearing that there is no support for the surge. I don't know why he would say that because, in fact, not only have Members of this Senate unanimously supported, through the confirmation hearing of General David Petraeus, one of the people who certainly will be instrumental in executing that surge, but that is what we have been debating for these last weeks, indeed, months: what the new plan should be in Iraq, to deal with what is, obviously, an unacceptable status quo.
I am tempted to wonder out loud if, rather than talking about issues that really matter—such as the issue that the Senator from New Hampshire has asked for a vote on but been denied, whether we will support our troops and refuse to cut off funding while we send them in harm's way—we are seeing a bunch of spin doctoring going on.
But when the majority leader says there is no support for the surge, I would simply disagree because, in fact, at least one of the amendments that has been offered that we have been denied an opportunity to vote on, as the majority leader has done what he is entitled to do, which is to move on to other subjects and to set the Senate agenda, one of those amendments would, in fact, support General Petreaus and the plan he has taken upon himself to execute in Iraq that we are sending, over a period of time, additional reinforcements to secure Baghdad.
So there is substantial support for this plan. The problem is, I am tempted to believe there are some who have simply given up, who don't believe there is any chance of success in Iraq. The problem is, those who have expressed such defeatism, who in this contest of wills say we simply lost ours, have not talked one bit about the consequences of giving up, the huge humanitarian crisis that would occur, the ethnic cleansing that would occur, the fact that another failed state in the Middle East, as in Afghanistan before it, could serve as a launching pad for recruiting and training and exporting of terrorist attacks.
Standing here and suggesting that defeat is something we will accept is, to my view, not a responsible position to take.
So I disagree with those who simply say we have no chance to turn things around. There are those who say ad nauseam that there is "no military solution in Iraq." I would commend to them an article that was written by Victor Davis Hanson that is entitled "Give Petraeus a Chance." (National Review) Mr. Hanson says:
- ... in fact, only a military blow to the insurgency will allow the necessary window for the government to gain time, trust, and confidence to press ahead with reform and services.
So, as General Petraeus said, we are engaged in a test of wills. How could it possibly be that we have lost our own will to protect America's national security, to prevent a regional conflict that will inevitably, if it occurs, cost us more in treasure and blood? How is it that America could possibly have lost its will?
I think the Senator from New Hampshire made a good point a moment ago when he said the reason why the majority leader has now taken us off of this issue—which, again, is his sole prerogative as majority leader; that is the power a majority leader has—that the reason we have not been given a chance to vote on the Gregg amendment that says we will not cut off funds, we will not fail to support our troops on the mission they have volunteered to undertake, and which we have sent them on—the real reason, as the Washington Post reported, Senator Gregg's amendment was not allowed to be voted on is because his amendment is likely the "only measure that could attract 60 votes."
The USA Today said the majority leader opposed allowing a vote on the amendment because it could have resulted in a situation where the Senate would have been on record opposing cuts in funding for the troops but not the President's policy.[1]
I think it is absolutely imperative—whether it is today or tomorrow or next week or next month, or all of the above—we make it very clear we will not ever cut off our support for the men and women who have undertaken this dangerous mission.
When I went out to Walter Reed on Monday to visit some of the injured veterans of the Iraq conflict, I could not help but be struck by the sort of surreality of that. Here are young men and women who have lost limbs, and many, unfortunately, have lost their lives volunteering to protect us and to bring stability to the Middle East and to allow the Iraqis a better life. They have risked it all, and some have paid that ultimate sacrifice. Yet here in the Senate...
The Presiding Officer - The Senator has used 6 minutes.
Mr. Cornyn - Madam President, I would ask for 1 remaining minute by unanimous consent.
The Presiding Officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Cornyn - ...and here we are in the Senate this week debating about nonbinding resolutions and avoiding the tough votes on whether we will cut off funds to support this mission. Instead, we engage in the continued surreal environment of this Senate by saying: OK, now we have confirmed General Petraeus, one of the people who is going to execute this plan in Iraq. But now, today, we are going to also vote on Admiral Fallon, the head of Central Command, General Petraeus's commander, who will also be in charge of this mission, and General George Casey, who has been in charge of coalition forces. Do you know what I predict? We will confirm, as we did General Petraeus, Admiral Fallon and General Casey, and yet there are some who stand up here in the Senate and elsewhere and have the temerity to say: We support you, but we do not support the mission we have asked you to execute.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Louisiana.
David Vitter-R (LA)
Mr. Vitter-R, Louisiana - Madam President, I ask that the Chair inform me when I have used 6 minutes.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator will be notified.
Mr. Vitter - Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, clearly, without doubt, without question, the war in Iraq is the leading concern of the American people, as well it should be. It is a very difficult situation, and a situation that will define our future and our security for years to come. Because it is the dominant, the leading concern of the American people, without any close second, I think it is imperative we have a debate and votes on this crucial question.
I would urge the majority leader to come back to the floor and engage in this debate and move forward with this discussion and accept the very reasonable compromise of the minority leader in narrowing down all of the universe of ideas and resolutions to simply two.
I will freely admit that is not my first preference in terms of this debate. I had always heard before coming here 2 years ago that the Senate was about open debate, unlimited debate, the ability to get your ideas and your amendments and your resolutions to the floor with very few limits. So I thought, particularly in the context of this very serious situation in Iraq, we needed an open debate, we needed more ideas, not fewer, we needed every significant vote that should be taken.
So that was my preference: unlimited debate. But the majority leader rejected that, only would allow very limited votes, very limited debate. At the end of the day—again, it was not my first choice, but at the end of the day, the minority leader said: OK, you want two votes—only two votes—OK. Let's focus on two proposals. Let's have just two votes. But our choice for our one proposal will be the Gregg amendment because we feel so strongly about supporting our troops in the field. And then the majority leader said no, I can't accept that. I need to choose your proposal. I need to choose what you want to put up for a vote.
That is not the tradition of the Senate. And, more importantly, that is not treating this very serious issue, the dominant concern among all Americans, bar none, properly. We need to debate this issue now. We need to vote on this issue now. Again, I urge the majority leader to come back to the floor and engage in this debate this week—now—because the country is concerned now about Iraq. The country has questions, understandably, now about the President's plan. And our troops in the field have questions and uncertainty now about whether we will be standing shoulder to shoulder with them no matter what policy is adopted.
Again, I think the minority leader's proposal yesterday bent over backwards—compromise and compromise and compromise—to reach an ability to have this debate we must have on the floor of the Senate. We wanted far more than two proposals debated. We wanted far more than two votes. But we accepted the majority leader's number. We accepted the majority leader's parameters of just two proposals, just two votes. But surely the minority gets to choose one of those two proposals to discuss, particularly given that this Gregg proposal has broad bipartisan support.
So let's have this Iraq debate that we must have. Let's have key votes that we must have. And let's do it now. I urge the majority leader, again, not to give up, not to reject this very reasonable compromise, bending over backwards by the minority leader to agree to his number of two. Let's take that up. Let's have this debate. Let's have crucial votes. The American people deserve that, given the very tough situation in Iraq. And our men and women in uniform sure as heck deserve that. They sure as heck deserve to hear from us: OK, we know some of you are for the President's surge plan; we know some of you are against it. But what about supporting whatever troops are put in the field? They sure as heck deserve an answer to that question. And they certainly deserve that reassurance.
Let's have that fair debate, and let's have it now.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Florida.
Mel Martinez-R (FL)
Mr. Martinez-R, Florida - Madam President, it is interesting that we would be preparing today to have a debate that will not be taking place, and it will not be taking place because it is the prerogative of the leadership to set the agenda of what we do discuss and debate.
I agree with my colleagues who have requested an opportunity to have a full airing of the views, to have a full debate, to have an opportunity to express our support for the men and women in the field, in addition to whatever else we might want to debate on this topic of the most important issue facing our country today.
But getting beyond the procedural and the tit for tat that so often signifies what Washington is about, what fundamentally is this debate about? It is about the global war on terror. It is about the events that unfolded in our country on the morning of September 11, 2001, and the aftermath of all of that, the things that have occurred as our Nation has responded to the attacks that were brought upon our shores, as we have sought to carry out this difficult mission, but one in which we must not waiver, which is this war on terror.
As a result of this war on terror, our troops are in Iraq today, where they have removed a dictator from power and where they have confronted the enemy, which regardless of how someone might have felt about the original decision to go into Iraq, today we are there and we are engaging an enemy that is the very enemy that attacked us here on 9/11.
It is known that in Al Anbar Province it is fundamentally an al-Qaida operation. So to send additional reinforcements to Al Anbar Province to defeat al-Qaida in Iraq is in the best interests of this Nation. It is in our national interest to pacify, to bring some peace to Baghdad, which is the capital city of Iraq, which is essential to the peace and security of that nation, of that budding democracy that is attempting to put itself on its feet, and to bring some stability to that capital city by additional reinforcements of American troops in a new plan I think is reasonable.
We cannot get so focused on whether some in this body cannot work with this President, do not want to support any of his policies. But let's look at the people who are going to carry out this policy, the generals who are going to be in the field.
In the past few days, as has been stated, we have approved by a near—well, I guess it was unanimous; it was 81 to 0, I believe—the sending of General Petraeus as our new commander of allied forces in Iraq. I recall his testimony in the Armed Services Committee where he clearly said he believed in this plan and thought it had a reasonable chance of success. Why would we not give a reasonable chance of success a chance to succeed? Why would we not stand behind our men and women who are willing to go into harm's way to carry out this plan and see if they have an opportunity to succeed?
The goal of this new plan is threefold. First, we have to have some stability in Baghdad. We have to continue to defeat al-Qaida in Al Anbar Province. But then beyond that there are other elements to the plan. There obviously needs to be a political reconciliation. There needs to be a political settlement. But that will never take place if there is not some modicum of stability, if we do not bring down the sectarian violence and other violence in Iraq to a manageable level.
We then have an opportunity for the political settlement to take place between the Shias and Sunnis, and the Kurds in the north, so they can all come together and begin to bind as a new nation, as a new country, as a new government—a government, by the way, that has only been in place about 9 months.
In addition to that, we then have a third angle to this, which I think is so vitally important, which is the economic reconstruction, the economic development, the opportunity for there to be jobs, for there to be opportunities for folks to find a way to make a better life for themselves and their children, so they can reach their aspirations, and do it in an atmosphere of freedom, do it in an atmosphere of democracy and respect for one another. That is the goal.
What would happen if we do not give this plan a chance, if we do not see if it has an opportunity to carry out and have an opportunity for success? What is the alternative? Well, we would then have failed in this test of wills. Our enemies have clearly stated they believe if they kill enough Americans, if they cause enough grief to our mothers, if they cause enough harm to our troops, we will not stand up, we will move on, we will find an easier way, and we will not resist those who would bring the destruction of our country upon us.
Their stated aims are very clear. They want us out of the Middle East. They want to be able to get America out of the Middle East. They do not want us there because they know we are what stands between them and the opportunity of creating a radical Islamic new caliphate in that region of the world, and the danger that would all bring about.
The new intelligence estimate on Iraq we have seen gives a window into what would happen if we had a precipitous withdrawal over the next 12 to 18 months. It would not be a pretty picture. Sectarian violence would ensue. Unquestionably, we would have a Shia-dominated Middle East. Already they are, through their proxies, in Lebanon, in Syria. They have a strong alliance with them. They are trying to take over the Palestinian movement.
Over the next 12 to 18 months, the assessments would be very dire of what would take place if we were to be out of the region: an escalation of violence, a diminished chance for stability, no chance for positive change.
The estimates suggest that a key aim in Iraq is to stabilize the situation from the standpoint of violence, enough to let the political changes that have to happen take place. I am going to quote from the estimate. It says from the public version:
If strengthened, Iraqi security forces more loyal to the government, supported by coalition forces, are able to reduce levels of violence and establish more effective security for Iraq's population, and Iraqi leaders can have an opportunity to begin the process of political compromise necessary for longer-term stability, political progress, and economic recovery.
Isn't that a better way? Isn't that what we all want, what the Senate should be on record as supporting--this opportunity for our troops to be successful, and not only to be in harm's way fighting for our country, but also to know that the Senate stands behind them, will not cut off their funds, will stand with them as they go into battle, and will stand with them as they do the hard work of freedom—work done by many other generations of America any time they have been called upon to stand for freedom, stand for the rule of law, and to give this budding new democracy an opportunity to take hold and take root.
Madam President, I am disappointed that today we will not have an opportunity to have a fuller debate, that I won't have the opportunity to be on record with a vote reflecting where I stand, which all of us should be willing to do—take a stand, take a position supporting our troops.
I personally would also be in support of this plan which I believe gives us the best opportunity for success, which is the only plan out there. Those who would not give this plan a chance owe the American people an alterative but one that would have a reasonable chance for success. Success is what we are after. A victory in this part of the world would send a strong message to our enemies. So I am disappointed we will not vote today.
I hope the majority leader will reconsider and come back to have an earnest debate and take the votes that are necessary to be taken.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer - The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Schumer-D, New York - Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Chuck Schumer-D (NY)
Mr. Schumer-D, New York - Madam President, we have heard a debate over the last hour about where we stand on the resolutions and debating the escalation of the war in Iraq. Here is where we are at the end of the day. We can dot all the i's, cross all the t's, and do all of the legalistic parsing that we want. The minority is blocking a vote on the issue that the American people wish to hear us on: Do you support or oppose the escalation? It is that simple.
The minority's action ratifies the President's escalation. And any Senator who voted to prevent the Warner resolution from coming to the floor is saying to his or her constituents: I support that escalation.
We know what is going on. The minority is torn between loyalty to their President and following the will of their voters. I have not seen a single State where, at least from the polling data, the public supports the escalation. There should be a simple vote, and not as an end to this debate but as a beginning to this debate. The minority is tying itself in a pretzel so that there will not be a vote.
Now, the Gregg resolution is missing two words. Look at it. Read it. It doesn't have the word "surge," and it doesn't have the word "escalation." It is ambiguously worded so that it tries to tie support for the troops with the escalation, but without saying so. It is a resolution that is intended to befuddle, perplex, obfuscate, and to hide.
The good news is that the American people don't follow the details of all of this debate. They don't have the time. They are busy with their lives, their families, their jobs, the joys and sorrows of life. But they follow the big picture. The big picture is simple: Senator Reid has labored mightily to have a clear, unobstructed, unobliterated vote on whether you support or oppose the escalation.
The minority leader, backed by all but two of his membership, has said we do not want to vote; we want to let the President go forward with the escalation, without taking responsibility for it. The public is seeing that. The public understands.
My good friend from Mississippi was talking in the hallway. He said the job of the Senate is to take the tough votes. You bet it is. It is not whether we are saying we support the troops—which everybody agrees that we do—in an ambiguously designed amendment to support escalation and get their way, and those against it get their way. The bottom line is simple: the tough vote is "yes" or "no" on the escalation.
Again, I salute our majority leader. He has done everything to try to bring that vote to the floor. The minority leader has done everything to obstruct that vote. The good news is that we will have plenty of further opportunity to get that vote and, make no mistake about it, this majority, in the belief that the escalation is wrong, in the belief that there is no strategy in Iraq other than to police a civil war, which no one bargained for, will be resolute and we will find ample opportunities to not only get a sense-of-the-Senate vote on whether you support or oppose the escalation, but to move further and ratchet up the pressure on the President so that he changes his strategy.
The number of people in America who believe that our strategy in Iraq is succeeding gets smaller every day. I think it is below 1 in 4 right now, which means that close to a majority of Republicans don't agree with the strategy. Obviously, if the President came here 3 years ago and said we are going to have our troops on Haifa Street patrolling a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites—how many people would have voted for that? How many Americans would have supported it? But that is exactly what we are doing. The vast majority of the troops that the President is asking for will continue to do just that and only that.
So this debate is coming only to a temporary close. One thing stands out clearly: the Republican minority is allowing the President to go forward with the escalation. It is supporting the escalation but doesn't want to vote to say so. My colleagues, that will not wash. The American people are too smart. They are too concerned. They are too worried about the brave men and women over there risking their lives as Sunnis shoot at Shiites and Shiites shoot at Sunnis. To hold the minority's feet to the fire, we will be resolute in making sure that happens.
The Gregg resolution is obfuscatory. It is designed to give people cover who don't want to say yes or no. But make no mistake about it, the people want a yes or a no. They want us to act on that yes or no as we come forward with the supplementary budget request next month. And this majority, limited as it may be, will endeavor to do just that.
Mr. Kennedy-D, Massachusetts - Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. Schumer - I am happy to yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.
Mr. Kennedy - First of all, I commend the Senator from New York for an excellent presentation. As I understand it from his comments, the principal question before the country now is the whole issue of a surge and the certain timeliness of it. We know that the President was able to extend, for example, marines in place over there and get a certain number of troops over there, but we know this is something that is going to happen in the future. A chunk of the troops are going over in February, another group in March, and another group in April.
In the Armed Services Committee yesterday, we learned it is not just the 20,000 the President talked about, but that number is going to be exceeded. We heard from General Pace.
As I understand what the good Senator has said, we have had four surges previously over there. This concept, this idea, has been utilized previously and none were successful. Secondly, as I understand what the Senator has said, the leading generals, General Abizaid and General Casey, previously suggested that this concept did not make sense; it only inflamed the insurgency. Is that the Senator's understanding?
Mr. Schumer - Yes, indeed.
Mr. Kennedy - The third part of the Senator's speech, which I hope our colleagues will listen to, is the reference to the independent study by Baker and Hamilton, where a bipartisan recommendation said that such an activity would not make sense.
So does it make sense when we have that kind of lineup, so to speak, where we have the military, the background of surges, the independent study made by Republicans and Democrats alike—we are faced now with a surge, so we have to take action and express ourselves. Doesn't it make sense for this body to express itself on that particular policy issue? Isn't that the responsible thing to do?
Mr. Schumer - Indeed. I thank my colleague for asking the question. Again, the minority says it is our job to take some tough votes. Here, here. We want to take what is a tough vote for some: Are you for the surge? Are you for the escalation or are you against it? They are doing everything they can to avoid it. But as my good friend from Massachusetts has so aptly pointed out, the bottom line is that now is the time to go on record—now, before most of the troops are there; now, when we can ratchet up pressure on the President to change his policy, as the independent study group said, and so many generals have said. I might add, from the press reports, the Prime Minister of Iraq doesn't want them. We are almost in Alice in Wonderland here.
I will say one other thing. The good news is simple: the American people get it. They know that the war in Iraq doesn't have a strategy. They know it is headed toward a dead end. They know that policing a civil war makes no sense, and they know what we are trying to do, which is forcing a "yes" or "no" vote—get a "yes" or "no"' vote and move forward to change that strategy. No amount of wordsmithing on the other side is going to change that fact.
Today, the Republican minority said: We are for the surge, and we will let the President go forward and do it.
I yield to my colleague for another question.
Mr. Kennedy - Just a final point. Madam President, the Senator has stated it well. Basically, the recommendations of those generals I mentioned—and General Abizaid said he had inquired of all the combat commanders—all of the combat commanders—whether there should be an enhanced presence in Baghdad, and he testified before the Armed Services Committee that we should not.
But isn't the point the Senator is making is to underline what all of the generals have said and Maliki has said; that is, it is a political resolution, it is a political decision? What we are seeing now is resorting to a military solution when the independent study commission, the generals on the ground, and the political leaders in that country have said what is necessary now is a political resolution, a political decision, and we find an administration that has effectively discarded that as an option and is going to the military option.
As I understand, the Senator believes we ought to have a political resolution, political courage by the parties in power there; that we here and the U.S. troops can't care more about the freedom of the Iraqis than the Iraqi people and they have to stand up, step up, and be willing to make their judgments.
Mr. Schumer - Madam President, the Senator is exactly right. And I will add one other point to his very prescient comments. Let us say we have this surge and then troops leave after a certain amount of time—some say the end of the summer, some say it will go on 3, 4, 5 years. What is going to happen then if we don't have a political solution the good Senator asks about? The Sunni and Shia will resume fighting, and we will have accomplished nothing. We will have seen the lives of some of our brave men and women be taken from them, American soldiers. We will have created more havoc in Iraq. And we will have, again, delayed the very political solution my friend from Massachusetts talks about, which is essential.
If there had been a change in Government, if there had been a change in strategy, perhaps—I can't say because I don't know what it would be, given this administration hasn't changed anything—maybe the American people, maybe some on this side of the aisle would say: Give it a chance. But to send more of our brave troops over there when there is no change in strategy, when it is just increasing policing of a civil war, and when, at the end of this so-called surge, this escalation, nothing will have changed, the American people have every right to ask: To what end?
That is what we are asking. That is why we want a simple vote. And that is why today is going to go down in history as a day when this Republican minority in this House said to the President: We are supporting your surge. We don't want to vote on it, but we are allowing it to happen. We are encouraging it to happen. And the very rubberstamp nature, when the minority was in the majority, that brought them to such trouble in November of 2006 is simply continuing.
Mr. Kennedy - Madam President, will the Senator yield for a final point?
Mr. Schumer - I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts.
Mr. Kennedy - Madam President, I had the opportunity to read the national intelligence report on Monday. There has been both an intelligence report and a declassified report. Even in the declassified report, would the Senator say, in his evaluation of the best of the intelligence community that has been reviewing this situation that every aspect of that intelligence report is basically in support of the conclusions the Senator has outlined here? This is not something just the Senators from New York or Massachusetts are making up. This is a conclusion which has been made by the intelligence agencies about what the nature of the battle is in Baghdad today.
Mr. Schumer - I thank the Senator. Once again, he is right on the money. He is right on the money.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator has consumed his 15 minutes under the order.
Mr. Schumer - Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 more minute to finish my point, and then I will yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. The Senator is right on the money, and it is, again, a pattern. The experts—intelligence, military, diplomatic—tell the administration what they are doing is wrong, tell the administration that all the signs on the ground point to a policy that is failing, and they keep their head in the sand and just go forward. It is a tragedy. It is a tragedy when truth is not exalted and when there is a desire to stifle debate, as has happened in the administration and is happening on the floor of the Senate today.
We all love this country, everyone in this Chamber, regardless of politics, but at least for me—and I dearly love America—every day we delay hurts us a little more and a little more and a little more. We dig ourselves deeper in a hole from which it will be harder and harder to extricate ourselves.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. Kennedy - Madam President, how much time do I have?
The Presiding Officer - The Senator has 14 minutes.
Ted Kennedy-D (MA)
Iraq
Mr. Kennedy-D, Massachusetts - I thank the Chair.
Madam President, to pick up where the good Senator from New York stopped, we had yesterday at Saint Francis Xavier in Hyannis, MA—I was unable to attend because I was here in the Senate—the funeral of a young serviceman who was lost. At the end of last week, a young serviceman named Callahan from Woburn, MA—his fourth time in Iraq, a father of four—was lost.
Woburn, MA, is a very interesting blue-collar community. They had the highest percentage of casualties in the Vietnam war of any community in my State. They had high school class after high school class that joined the Marines and suffered devastating casualties in Vietnam. It is also a storybook community on civic action—water contamination in that community resulted in the deaths of a number of children there. But the community is made up of extraordinary men and women and families. They are weathering through this extreme, extraordinary tragedy.
Sixty-four brave soldiers from Massachusetts have been lost, killed, and this is the overriding, overarching issue in question: What can we do after 4 years where our service men and women have done everything we have asked them to do? They have served in Iraq longer than it took to end World War II, to sweep through Africa, to cross Western Europe, cross through the Pacific, and they are still out there. Many of us believe, as we mentioned a few moments ago, that the solution lies not in the increasing surge but in a political resolution and determination and decisions made by the Iraqis for their own future. It is, after all, their country.
The President's Budget
Let me talk for a few minutes about the other costs of this war, the $200 billion which is in the President's budget for the war in Iraq and what the implications of that will be, so that Americans can understand more completely the costs.
It comes from children's health, as the President's budget underfunds the CHIP program by $8 billion. That program has been extremely successful in providing health care to low-income children.
Will the Chair let me know when I have 2 minutes remaining?
The Presiding Officer - The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. Kennedy - Yet there are still more than 8 million children in America with no health coverage, and there is a health care crisis for our Nation's children. But what does the President propose to do about it? His budget will make the crisis even worse by cutting 400,000 children from the Children's Health Insurance Program.
It comes from our seniors and our disabled citizens. The President's budget cuts $66 billion from Medicare, which is a lifeline to millions of retirees and disabled Americans. If the President has his way, more than 700,000 people in Massachusetts who rely on Medicare could see the quality of their care go down.
It comes from those battling mental illnesses. Each year, 25 percent of Americans suffer from some sort of mental illness. We owe it to them and their families to do all we can to ensure they are able to lead full and productive lives. Yet the President's budget cuts mental health assistance by $159 million.
It comes from Hurricane Katrina victims. Despite massive ongoing needs on the gulf coast, the President's budget offers no additional assistance to help people rebuild their lives.
It comes from the Nation's defense against epidemics, such as the flu, as the President proposes to slash funding for the Centers for Disease Control by $165 million.
It comes from Medicaid, our health care lifeline for the poor, which the President intends to cut by $50 billion over the next 10 years. In Massachusetts, 880,000 citizens depend on Medicaid, and this budget places them at risk.
It comes from our children's education. The President's budget underfunds the No Child Left Behind reforms by almost $15 billion. In my State of Massachusetts, these cuts would leave behind more than 51,000 children. Nationwide, we have 3.5 million children who are not participating in the program whatsoever. Yet they will have a requirement to meet sufficiency in the year 2012.
It comes from our youngest children. By cutting $107 million from the Head Start Program, the President fails to give the youngest children a strong start in life. This is a program which is tried, tested, and true.
It comes from our students with special needs. When we passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we made a promise to disabled children and their families that they were to receive the education they deserve. President Bush's budget breaks that promise by cutting funding to IDEA by $290 million. We made the commitment we were going to provide 40 percent of all the funding. We are now at about 18 percent of funding, and we are reducing that. It is shifting the burden onto the families and the local communities.
It comes from school safety. Our children ought to be able to go to school without fearing violence, but this budget cuts funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. With all the challenges of schools and violence in schools, it cuts back the funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
It comes at the expense of our teachers. Over the next decade, this Nation will need to hire 2 million more teachers, but this budget cuts funding for teacher quality grants.
It comes at the expense of students. At a time when college costs are skyrocketing, the President's budget completely eliminates the Perkins Loan Program, which over 500,000 students depend on to help them afford a college education. We know that a college degree is a ticket to a bright and better future, but this budget closes the college door instead of opening it wider. There are already 400,000 young people who are qualified to get into our fine community colleges, public colleges, and private colleges and don't do so because of a lack of funding.
It comes from our workers who are looking for good jobs to support their families because the President's budget slashes $1 billion from programs that train Americans for jobs. Madam President, listen to this: In Massachusetts alone, there are 25,000 people waiting to be enrolled in job training programs.
In Boston, there are 25 applicants for each job training slot. There are 78,000 jobs that are out there today that are looking for trained people, 25 people for every training slot, 275,000 people who are unemployed. What is wrong with this picture? We are cutting back on the training opportunities for those individuals to be able to pay more in taxes and provide more hopeful futures for their children.
This budget can find $200 billion more for the war in Iraq but not a dime for people at home trying to better their lives. They come from families who need help putting food on the table. The President wants to cut the Food Stamp Program by $600 million, leaving nearly 300,000 families wondering where they are going to find the next meal for themselves and their children.
I have had the chance to visit our absolutely spectacular food bank in Boston, and they talk about the increased numbers that they already have. This is going to even put more pressure on those food banks and more pressure on those families. It comes from the poor struggling against the bitter cold, as the budget cuts 17 percent of the funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps low-income families afford to heat their homes.
In my State, if you use home heating oil you need to fill your tank generally three times a winter—three times a winter. Families are down now where they are only able to fill—the needy who qualify for this—less than half a tank for the whole winter. We know what is happening. People make the choices between the prescription drugs they need, the food they need, and the heat they need for their homes. We are cutting that program by 17 percent.
Perhaps most tragically of all, the money for the war in Iraq comes from our veterans themselves. Nearly half the troops returning from Iraq will require health care services to cope with the physical or mental toll of the war. Yet the President's budget underfunds veterans' health. It provides only half the increase in funding required for the VA to keep pace with the needs of our veterans.
In Massachusetts alone, there are 453,000 veterans who have served our country when they were called to duty, and we have a moral obligation to do all we can for them.
This is the cost of this war. This is all for a war that never should have happened, for a war that should be brought to an end. Yet this administration is allowing it to go on and on, with mistake after mistake after mistake. This terrible war is having an effect not only on our troops, who are paying the highest price, but on our children, our elderly, our schools, our workers, and the poor here at home.
While the President forges ahead with a surge in Iraq, the American people need a surge here at home. Americans see the cost of health care and the cost of college going up. What about a surge in our health and education policies to meet those needs? Americans here at home worry about their economic security, about their jobs and stagnant wages, how they can support themselves on their wages. How about a surge here at home to help meet their needs?
Last week, we met with our Nation's mayors. They described the problem of school dropouts, how these young people are turning to crime in our communities, the proliferation of murders and youth homicides and suicides. Where is the surge to address that problem?
Escalation in Iraq
No wonder the American people are growing angrier and angrier as the war wages on. They expect Congress to be an effective restraint on the President and his abuse of the War Powers Act.
Opposition to the escalation is clear already. How much clearer does it have to be before Republicans in Congress and the President finally respond to the voice of the American people? When will this war be brought to an end? An escalation now would be an immense mistake, compounding the original misguided decision to invade Iraq. Public support for the war does not exist. There is no support for this escalation. We have surged our forces four times in the past, and each time the situation hasn't changed.
The President cannot continue to unilaterally impose his failing policy on Americans who have already rejected it. Congress has the responsibility to stop the President from sending more of our sons and daughters to die in this civil war. The legislation on which the Democrats seek a vote is our first effort to meet that responsibility. It is our chance to go on record in opposition to the surge. It is a clarion call for change.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Massachusetts has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. Kennedy - I thank the Chair.
Last week, the new National Intelligence Estimate confirmed the nightmare scenario unfolding for our troops in Iraq. The country is sliding deeper into an abyss of civil war, with our brave men and women caught in the middle of it. The prospects for halting the escalating sectarian violence is bleak, with greater chaos and anarchy looming and many additional U.S. casualties inevitable.
It is abundantly clear that what we need is not a troop surge but a diplomatic surge, working with other countries in the region. Sending more troops into the Iraq civil war is not the solution to Iraq's political problems. Not only does President Bush fail to see that reality, but he is also going out of his way to deny and defy it.
Congress needs to express its opposition to this strategy. If the President refuses to change course, we must act to change it ourselves to protect our troops and end this misguided war. The war today is not the war Congress authorized 4 years ago. It is now a civil war. The war today is not about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction or alleged relationship with al-Qaeda, it is Iraqi against Iraqi. Iraq is at war with itself, and American soldiers are caught in the middle.
Madam President, it is time for the Members of this body to stand up and take a position on the issue of the surge.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Johnny Isakson-R (GA)
Mr. Isakson-R, Georgia - Madam President, I rise for a few moments to address the subjects that have been discussed for the last 30 minutes. First of all, I rise in particular to lend my support to Senator McConnell who has seen to it that the Senate is able to fully express itself on the issues before us in Iraq. No one should be confused about this debate. There are many opinions here, and every one of them deserves the right to be expressed.
Secondly, I rise in support of the President's plan, and I am going to explain why in just a second. First, however, the Senator from New York made a statement a minute ago that I want to open my remarks with.
The Senator from New York said not many people are paying attention to what we debate on the floor of the Senate, that they are too busy working in their daily lives. That may very well be right, but I want to tell you who is listening to every word. First, it is the men and women in our Armed Forces, their families, and their loved ones. All you have to do is go to Iraq, where I have been many times, go to any mess hall or almost any command post, and CNN and Fox are streaming constantly. Our men and women watch what we say, so what we say on this floor is important. The resolutions we send, binding or not, should not send mixed signals.
There is another audience that listens to what we say, and they are our enemies. They listen as well. Those networks are their intelligence agencies. The messages we send should not be a message which relays a lack of confidence to our troops or to our Commander in Chief.
I am on the Foreign Relations Committee. I have spent 20 of the last 28 hours of committee meetings listening to experts from a variety of resources, and two things became quite clear. There were varying opinions on whether a surge would work. Some thought it would conclusively; many thought it would not. Most gave it varying degrees of potential success. Without exception, however, everyone I heard testify, when asked the question: What would be the ramifications of withdrawal or redeployment, everyone, in one degree or another, said there would be tens of thousands of lives lost, and possibly millions, and the sectarian violence that we are trying to quell now could spread through the region.
The way I see it, we have two choices right now at this stage of the game. Choice one is an opportunity for success. Choice two is a recipe for disaster. I choose the opportunity for success. I think the message we ought to send to our troops is that we support them, we wish them Godspeed, and we pray for their success.
A second message we need to send, which this debate has very helpfully done, is a message to al-Malaki and the assembly in Iraq and the people of Iraq that we came to their country with three objectives, two of which we have secured. One objective was to seek out the weapons of mass destruction the entire world believed were there. Second was to allow a constitution to be written and a free election to be held. Both of those things have been accomplished.
The last most elusive goal that we had was to secure the nation and train the Iraqi military so it could carry on that security and let that fledgling democracy go forward. That third goal, which has been elusive, has gotten closer. The President's strategy to send additional troops to Anbar and to Baghdad requires the absolute cooperation of the Iraqis and the commitment of their military to assist side by side. If they blink and look the other way, they will have failed themselves. If we blink and we look the other way, we will have failed not only them but we will have failed the people of our country.
Make no mistake about it, the war in Iraq that we are now in is not the war we entered, but it is the war we are in, and those are the words of our President. Regardless of where mistakes may have been made, those of us, and I am one of those, who voted to support this when we went into Iraq did not vote for failure. I hope and I pray that our soldiers will be successful, that al-Malaki and the Iraqi military will come through and perform, and I am going to do everything I can to give them that support because I choose an opportunity for success over a recipe for failure.
With regard to the mistakes that have been made, I want to be crystal clear because there are some awfully selective memories on the floor of the Senate. I remember what I believed when I voted to go into Iraq. I remember what the National Intelligence Estimate said. And I remember the horror of 9/11 and the fear of weapons of mass destruction. We voted to do what every other member of the United Nations voted on in Resolution 1441, and that was to seek out what the world thought was there. While we didn't find the smoking gun, we found a lot of the components and a lot of the evidence. We found the 400,000 bodies in mass graves and the tyranny of a horrible dictator in Saddam Hussein. We accomplished our goal of deposing him and allowing the Iraqis to determine a free democratic society.
In the critical days of this battle, it is time for us to stand forward and stand strong and give this opportunity for success that the President has proposed a chance to succeed, rather than subscribe to a recipe of failure. These are trying times, and I respect the opinions of every Member of this body expressed on this floor, but remember who our audiences are and how important it is that the message that we send not be mixed, not be one of a political message but be a message of commitment and resolve.
I will support the President not out of partisanship, not out of blind loyalty, but I will support the President because the evidence submitted in all of the hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee told me we have two choices: We can choose an opportunity to succeed or we can subscribe to a recipe for failure. I choose success, and I pray God's blessings on our men and women in the Armed Forces of the United States.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ben Cardin-D (MD)
Mr. Cardin-D, Maryland - Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, as a new Member of this body, I must tell you that I am frustrated and disappointed. I am disappointed that the Republicans are blocking a vote on whether we support or oppose the President's plan to add additional troops to Iraq. I can tell you that is the issue of the day. That is what my constituents are asking of us, and I think they have a right to expect that the Members of this body are willing to go on record either for or against the President's plan to add additional troops to Iraq.
I have listened to my colleagues. I have listened to my colleagues in committee, and I have listened to my colleagues on this floor, and I think the majority of us want to go on record opposing the surge. Both Democrats and Republicans oppose it. I think there is a bipartisan group that can provide the consensus in this body to go on record against the surge.
Several months ago, the President said we were going to have a new plan in Iraq. Shortly after that, the Iraq Study Group came out with its report. To me, this has been the best analysis of the situation that we have before us. The study group is composed of distinguished members, and it was a creation of the Congress. Secretary Baker, who cochaired the group, served in three administrations and has broad experience in government. Mr. Hamilton, who served in the other body on the Foreign Relations Committee, the Committee on International Relations it is called over there, has served with great distinction both as chairman and ranking member.
The other members of the committee--they said we cannot win in Iraq through our military efforts. That is not going to bring success in Iraq. The Iraqis must step forward and defend their own country and we must move forward with new diplomatic efforts. We need "a new diplomatic offensive" is what they called it, and they said: We need to start that before December 31, 2006. The ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing. We still have not seen that new offensive diplomatic effort.
GEN George Casey said, "It has always been my view that heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term."
We got the President's plan and the President's plan was more of the same, stay the course but with more U.S. military presence. We had 3 weeks of hearings before the Foreign Relations Committee. Military expert after military expert, foreign policy expert after foreign policy expert, told us that there is a deterioration in Iraq and our policies are not working and we need to move in a new direction. We need to come to grips with the fact that the Iraqis must stand up and defend their own country and we must engage the international community much more aggressively.
I congratulate Senator Warner and Senator Levin for coming forward with a compromise resolution that allows us to go on record opposed to the increased American military presence in Iraq. I do not agree with everything that is in that resolution, but I do think it clearly puts the Senate on record against the increased surge of American troops in Iraq, and that is our responsibility. That is what we should be doing. We should not hide behind procedural roadblocks to avoid voting on that issue. That is the most important issue facing this Nation today, and we should be willing to vote on that issue. It is not about the President of the United States. It is about this body carrying out its responsibility. That is what each of us has a responsibility to do.
Why am I so much against the increase in the U.S. military presence in Iraq? Let me first start with the numbers. The President said the surge would involve 21,500 additional American troops in Iraq. That is not the case. Michael Gilmore, the Assistant Director for National Security at the Congressional Budget Office, testified yesterday before our Budget Committee, and he said it is not going to be 21,500, it is going to be closer to 48,000 additional American troops because the 21,500 are the frontline combat troops. You need the support staff in order to support the 21,500.
The budget the President submitted to us said that is going to cost about $5.6 billion, but CBO now says it is going to be closer to $20 to $27 billion of additional cost, just with the surge, in addition to what we are already spending. The President claims his budget is to balance in 5 years, but he has no cost for the Iraq war beyond 2008.
The numbers speak for themselves. The President is asking us to go along with stay the course but at a higher cost, both in American military presence and the costs to American taxpayers in this country.
The situation in Iraq is deteriorating. Every person who has come before us who is an expert in this area has acknowledged that. There is a civil war in Iraq, and Americans have paid a very heavy price for our commitment in Iraq--over 3,000 dead and many more with life-changing injuries. There have been hundreds of billions of dollars spent. That represents missed opportunities in America--money we need to strengthen our military and national defense. We have used our National Guard and reservists. We should be supporting them, improving the quality of life for our soldiers and for our veterans. Our soldiers have served with great distinction and valor. We owe it to them to get it right. We owe it to them to do everything we can for a successful outcome in Iraq. That is why it is our responsibility, on behalf of our soldiers, to take up this issue.
We have lost our focus in the war against terror, we have weakened U.S. influence internationally, and, yes, we have lost other opportunities beyond defense because those hundreds of billions of dollars we spent could have been spent to balance our budget, could have been spent to increase our commitment to national priorities such as education and health care and the environment. But we have lost those issues.
The first order of business for us should be to go on record against increasing the American military presence in Iraq. That should be our first order of business. But then we need to do more. I opposed the war from the beginning. I voted against it in the other body. I have been a critic of the President in the management of the war, in his failure to properly engage the international community both before and after going into Iraq, and the decision made by someone in the White House to take out the Iraqi security forces when we went in, that was a mistake. I have been pretty consistent against the President, but we need to do more than pass this resolution. I think we should take up this resolution first. This is the first order of business. But then we need to do more.
The Iraqis have a responsibility to take care of their own security needs in the midst of a civil war. We need to engage the international community with a diplomatic and political initiative so the Government of Iraq has the confidence of the ethnic communities. This is sectarian violence. We need to change the way the Iraqis are doing business and help them through diplomatic efforts. We need to engage the international community. We need more assistance in training Iraqi security forces. You can't do it all by Americans; we need the international community. We need the international community to help us with the humanitarian crisis that is in Iraq. The number of refugees, displaced individuals, is in the millions. We need the help of the international community to deal with the humanitarian crisis. You are not going to have peace in Iraq until you deal with that.
We need the help of the international community on the infrastructure improvements, the economy of Iraq. The American taxpayers cannot do it alone, and we have wasted a lot of our taxpayer dollars in Iraq. We need the international community to help us. In short, we need a new direction, a plan that includes bringing some of our combat troops home, to make it clear to the Iraqis we are not going to be there indefinitely, to make it clear to the international community we expect the Iraqis to take care of their own security needs. That is what we need.
But first things first. Let's take a vote on the President's plan. Let's get that done. Let's stop using procedural roadblocks to prevent a vote in this body but to vote for or against the President's plan to bring more troops to Iraq.
Then we should consider additional options to make it clear it is our responsibility to help bring about a new direction for American involvement in Iraq.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Larry Craig-R (ID)
Mr. Craig-R, Idaho - Madam President, I have been on the floor of the Senate for the last half hour, listening to my colleague in what is, in fact, a very important debate for this country. I say that, even though the wringing of hands would suggest that somehow the debate is being blocked and the will of the Senate has been thwarted. I suggest quite the opposite. It has become a finger-pointing in a procedural way.
I believe the Republican leader came to the floor yesterday and said let's have a couple of votes, several votes; you can vote up or down on the Levin-Warner resolution; you can vote up or down on the Gregg resolution. It was then the leadership on the majority side, the Democratic side, blocked it. I think the American people are wise to the tactics at hand. They are not unaware, and they are frustrated by what is going on in Iraq today. Clearly, we are focused. Whether it is the Congress of the United States or a vast majority of the American people, we are becoming increasingly critical of a war that has frustrated many of us.
The Senator from Maryland voted against it. He said so a few moments ago. I voted for it. At the same time, I grow increasingly critical, as do many of the citizens of my State, as to what will be the future, what will be our success and/or failure and at a cost of how many more American lives.
I am critically concerned that this Government in Iraq now stand up. We have allowed them to form and to shape and to vote. They now have a Constitution. They now must lead. In leading, I hope it could be to stability to the region and that it will not offset and throw out of balance what the free world looks at and says is very important and that is, of course, the war on terror and the general stability of the Middle East.
Indeed, I think much has been lost in the debate around this country as to the significance of the Middle East itself. I was extremely pleased last week when that kind of an elder statesman of our country, Henry Kissinger, came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in a very real and important way, and in a bipartisan way, said: Let's not forget our perspective. While for the short term and for the moment we are focused on Iraq, as we should be, let's not fail to recognize that since World War II, we have been in the Middle East to bring stability to the region for a safer, more stable Western World.
I don't think there is any question about that. He was frank about it when he stressed diplomacy as an important tool. I have long advocated frank, open talks amongst our friends and neighbors around the world, not only about the region but about the role of Iraq within the region and what we must do. However, Dr. Kissinger also stressed that, under the present conditions in Iraq, withdrawal or the signs of withdrawal is simply not an option for America's forces. So anyone who comes to the floor today and says: Oh, but it is an option and we ought to start now, or we ought to send all the signals to our friends and neighbors around the world that we are beginning to pull back, is going against a trend that I think is critically important. They could set in motion the kind of activity in Iraq that could bring about a phenomenal genocide and the possibility of neighbors tumbling in on top of neighbors to create conflict in the Middle East that could bring down the whole of the region. If that were to happen, then I am quite confident that those who want to withdraw would find themselves in a very precarious situation. What do we do? Do we go back in with greater force to stabilize the region, when friendly, moderate Arab nations are now tumbling into war because we would no longer stand or we would no longer force, through a diplomatic process, those countries of the world to come together to work with us, to cooperate?
While most agree that the current situation in Iraq must be dealt with politically--and we have heard that time and again--and economically, our military involvement is critical to provide the Iraqis the stability they need in this new democratic process. I don't mind pegging timelines a little bit and I don't mind thresholds and measurements and I think it is important we not only send that message but that we get it done, we get it done for the sake of our position in Iraq and certainly forcing the Iraqi Government to move--those are all phenomenally important issues.
Let me stress two last facts. It is quite simple. The 116th from Idaho, the largest deployment of Idaho's troops in this war, was there and served and served honorably and proudly and the work they did was phenomenally important and we are proud of them. Let me also suggest that while many will say the general we now send to Iraq is the best military mind we have available at the moment, the author of the Army's war handbook on terror, we are saying to General Petraeus: You are the best there is, go forth and be successful, but, oh, by the way, we don't agree with the mission--what kind of a mixed message is that we now send to our military?
The Senator from Georgia was right. The world is listening to this debate. Our men and women in uniform are listening to this debate. The enemies of the cause are listening and saying: Oh, the Senate of the United States is getting cold feet. Our opportunities are at hand. All we have to do is wait them out. All we have to do is accelerate the violence, and they will turn out the lights in the green zone and go home.
Then the world, at least the Iraqi world, will erupt in a civil conflict, a civil war of phenomenal proportion.
Those are the realities we deal with today. I hope this Senate stays on point. This is an issue that is critical to the future of our country, to the future of the free world, to the region of the Middle East, to any kind of stability we hope could be brought there. I hope we have the votes--and they ought to be up or down--and I don't mind being on the record at all. They need to be substantive, they need to have the force and effect of law, just not the ring of the politics of the Chamber, because that is what we are getting today--a heavy dose of politics and very little substance.
We hide behind procedure? I don't think so. Let us bring these issues forward. The Craig resolution? Up or down. Levin-Warner? Up or down. What is wrong with those votes? That is what we were sent here to do. I would hope our leadership could bring us to that.
So, to reiterate:
- Many people around the country, including myself, have taken a much more critical look at the way the war in Iraq has been handled. However, through all the hardships our soldiers face day-to-day on the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, it still remains evident to me that our success in Iraq and the success of the current Iraq government, is critical to the security of our Nation, the stability of the Middle East, and the fight against terrorism worldwide.
Indeed, much has been lost in the debates around this country as to the significance of the greater Middle East stability when looking at the situation in Iraq. Our country has maintained a presence in that region of the world since World War II, and it should not be a surprise to anyone that many countries there depend and rely on our presence there, both economically and for their own national security. After reviewing the recent transcript of Dr. Henry Kissinger before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I agreed with many of Dr. Kissinger's views on the current situation in Iraq as it relates to the Middle East as a whole, and the severe consequences the international community will face should we fail in Iraq.
Dr. Kissinger stressed diplomacy, something I have long advocated in this conflict and frankly for any conflict. I don't believe there is one Member of Congress who takes the decision lightly to send out troops into combat unless we all firmly believe it is a last option. I know I certainly didn't, and I know that an overwhelming majority of both Senators and Congressmen believed that as well when we authorized the use of force in Iraq back in 2002.
However, Dr. Kissinger also stressed that under the present conditions in Iraq, withdrawal is not an option for American forces. Such a withdrawal would have long reaching consequences on the war on terror worldwide, could lead to widespread genocide in Iraq and possible neighboring countries, as well as severe economic consequences for all Middle Eastern countries. It is clear that such a circumstance would mandate international forces be sent back into Iraq, but the costs at that point would be grave.
While most agree that the current situation in Iraq must be dealt with politically and economically, our military involvement is critical to providing the Iraqis the stability they need to let their new democracy take root. If we pull our troops out of Iraq now, or deny them much needed reinforcements as some would like to do, we risk losing Baghdad and possibly the entire country to full blown civil war. Under those circumstances, the government of Iraq would fall, and Iran and Syria would strengthen their grip on the Middle East, endangering the national security of America and our allies worldwide.
It is my hope that diplomatic efforts will continue in a more aggressive fashion to bring the international community to the realization of a failed State in Iraq, and the real consequences that we all face should our efforts fall short of stabilizing Baghdad and the country as a whole. Because the consequences are so high, I do not believe that our soldiers' withdrawal from Iraq should be placed on any time�table, and we need to reassure our soldiers and commanders in Iraq that we will continue to support their efforts. After all, they are operating in Iraq, but the work they are doing will have a far reaching effect to stabilize the Middle East.
Over the past few weeks, there have been many who have been outspoken about their disapproval of the President's new plan for Iraq. Not being an expert in military tactics, I do not believe it is my role as a U.S. Senator to play general for our soldiers as some are. Instead, I believe it is my duty in Congress to provide our soldiers with the resources and funding they require to do their job with the best equipment possible, while also pledging my unending moral support for the work they do each and every day to keep Americans safe both at home and abroad.
Every 4 years the citizens of America go to the polls to elect a commander in chief, who is responsible to the American people to lead our military in times of peace and times of war. It is no mistake that the founding fathers gave the power to declare war to the Congress, but the power to lead the military to the President. Our soldiers should not have to follow 535 Congressional "generals" who hold up critical funding while they second-guess tactical decisions of the commander in chief and military leaders.
Over the last few weeks a lot has been made of the troop reinforcement President Bush outlined to the American people. Prior to his speech, I and several other Members of Congress met with the President to discuss the current situation in Iraq. I made it very clear that Idahoans and I cannot continue to support the status quo; and he agreed. President Bush has spent the last many months working with his national security advisers, commanding officers in Iraq, Members of Congress and experts in the field of military issues in order to revise our national strategy with regards to Iraq and come up with a new strategy for victory.
Make no mistake, the onus is now on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government to act, and I was extremely pleased to hear President Bush reiterate that fact. The efforts of our soldiers have given the Iraqi people a great opportunity to live in a free and stable country, but they must stand up and accept that responsibility.
My home State of Idaho has shared some of the burden of this war in Iraq. The 116th Brigade Combat Team served courageously for twelve months in Kirkuk and surrounding areas, and they have since returned home to their families. I had the opportunity to visit them in Iraq and was extremely proud of the feedback on these soldiers I received from Iraqi government officials, civilians, and U.S. military leaders. I would also like to spotlight all Idahoans who are serving in the Armed Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. I am eternally grateful for their service and I will continue to provide them with all the support I can give.
It is my hope that Members of Congress will not pursue antiwar politics to the detriment of our soldiers in the field. Our soldiers have been fighting courageously in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world to protect each and every American life, and I believe it is incumbent for the Congress to stand behind them. Numerous bills and resolutions have been proposed in the Senate to disapprove of their mission, cap troop levels, withhold funding for the reinforcements, or even completely de-fund the troops serving in Iraq. I cannot and will not support any legislation that I see as unproductive to our current efforts in Iraq, because I believe it places our forces in greater danger and could embolden our enemies to continue their attacks against innocent Iraqis, Americans and our allies.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January of this year, General Hayden, the Director of the CIA, responded to a question regarding what would happen if we pulled out now from Iraq. Director Hayden responded, Three very quick areas:
No. 1, more Iraqis die from the disorder inside Iraq. No. 2, Iraq becomes a safe haven, perhaps more dangerous than the one Al Qaeda had in Afghanistan. And finally, No. 3, the conflict in Iraq bleeds over into the neighborhood and threatens serious regional instability.
He went on to state that this directly and immediately threatens the United States homeland because it:
- provides Al Qaida that which they are attempting to seek in several locations right now, be it Somalia, the tribal area of Pakistan or Anbar province--a safe haven to rival that which they had in Afghanistan.
During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, GEN David Petraeus supported President Bush's plan to increase troop levels in Baghdad and Anbar province. In response to questioning before that committee, General Petraeus made it clear he believes that the reinforcement of soldiers into Baghdad and Anbar in Iraq will bolster the Iraqis' ability to stabilize their government and defeat the insurgency, instead of allowing them to continue to buck that responsibility, as some have asserted.
Many in Congress have stated publicly that this is the last chance the United States has to get it right in Iraq. If that is the case, I feel there is no general better qualified to be in charge of our ground forces and get things turned around on the ground than General Petraeus. I recognize that the American people have grown weary over the last months since the violence has escalated in Iraq, but I remain optimistic that the Iraqi government, with the aid of our soldiers, can turn things around.
I had the pleasure of meeting General Petraeus during one of my two trips to Iraq and was very impressed by his knowledge of the situation and his expertise in counterinsurgency. I have no doubt that General Petraeus is the right man to lead our forces in Iraq and I believe that he will overcome the new challenges he now faces. Let us not send the right man and then tell him it is the wrong job.
In closing, while I share the concerns of many of my colleagues regarding the situation in Iraq, I will support the President's plan to provide the reinforcements necessary to provide stability in Baghdad and Anbar province. I am hopeful that this plan will give the Iraqi government the best chance to stand on their own two feet and make the positive strides necessary to take control of the security situation and function as a stable government. It is this Senator's personal opinion that resolutions condemning the President's new way forward send the wrong message to our soldiers, the Iraqi people, and especially our enemies.
I certainly appreciate and support the role of Congress to provide oversight with respect to U.S. military engagements. However, I do not believe we should cripple the Commander in Chief's ability to work with our military leadership to defeat our enemies, and passing a resolution condemning the President's new plan for Iraq would do precisely that. Instead, I support resolutions that call for the support of the American people and Congress to give the President's plan a chance to work. Mistakes have been made, unquestionably, and the violence in Baghdad and Anbar province has grown to a level that few predicted, but I am not yet ready to throw in the towel on this President's new plan and our soldiers' ability to assist in stabilizing Iraq before they even get a chance to try.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Arlen-Specter-R (PA)
Procedural Tactics
Mr. Specter-R, Pennsylvania - 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 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?
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.
Frank Lautenberg-D (NJ)
Mr. Lautenberg-D, New Jersey - 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 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 serv�ice�mem�bers 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 - The Senator from Alabama.
Jeff Sessions-R (AL)
Mr. Sessions-R, Alabama - 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.
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 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-R, Nevada - 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-R, Oklahoma - 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.
Jon Tester-D (MT)
Mr. Tester-D, Montana - 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.
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.
John Ensign-R (NV)
Mr. Ensign-R, Nevada - 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.
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-R, Oklahoma - 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.
James Inhofe-R (OK)
Mr. Inhofe-R, Oklahoma - Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada expressed my feelings in a much more articulate way 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.
Jack Reed-D (RI)
Mr. Reed-D, Rhode Island - 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 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 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, 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.
Order of Procedure
Mr. Reed-D, Rhode Island - Mr. President, I see there are other speakers on the floor, so at this time I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m., the period for morning business be extended for 60 minutes, with the time divided and controlled as follows: 30 minutes each for Senators MENENDEZ and ROBERTS or their designees; that the Senate then proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of GEN George W. Casey, Jr.
The Presiding Officer - Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Reed - Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Pat Roberts-R (KS)
Mr. Roberts-R, Kansas - Mr. President, last Friday I had the privilege of attending and speaking before a "Farewell Dinner" in honor of LTG David Petraeus at the Command and Staff College of the U.S. Army at Fort Leavenworth, KS.
To say the least, it was quite an evening of tribute in behalf of the general and his wife, who has become admired and beloved serving as the Commanding General of the Army's Intellectual Center. I estimate there were around 250 officers and their wives and many from the Leavenworth community to pay tribute to General and Mrs. Petraeus, to wish them well, and to express pride and confidence in the general's immediate mission. He left for Iraq this past Monday, 2 days ago.
Throughout the evening I had the opportunity to again visit with David Petraeus, his feelings about his new mission, his impressive knowledge with regard to the war in Iraq, the history of the region, and his understanding with regard to the nature of past wars of insurgency and the insurgency we face in Iraq. While at the Command and Staff school, he wrote the Army's new manual on coun�ter�ter�ror�ism. Let me say as a former marine who helped write a similar manual years ago for the U.S. Marine Corps, I find this man unique in his knowledge and his command ability.
I made a few remarks at the dinner, and being a Senator, why, the remarks turned into a speech with some additional strongly held beliefs that I had penciled out in addition to my prepared remarks in behalf of General and Mrs. Petraeus. I thought twice about saying some very frank and candid views, but as everybody knows, marines don't hold back. So concluding my comments, I was glad I said what I said in that virtually everybody in the room—all 250—told me that I had said what they could not say. Those who wear their officer rank on their shoulders or their enlisted stripes on their sleeves in most cases do not comment on policy decisions or politics no matter how strongly they feel. They follow orders and they serve their country.
I feel somewhat the same trepidation today. However, I believe my remarks to the general, his officer corps, veterans of previous wars, are dead on to the issue we face in this debate that we have been talking about here on the floor of the Senate.
Before I express my views, I would stress I regret that we are at a stalemate in this body allegedly debating the issue of vital national security, and I think most in the Senate wish we could do just that and do it with comity, cooperation and, yes, in bipartisan fashion.
The American people, who are concerned and frustrated and angry about the war, would certainly appreciate that, but that is not the case.
This issue is wrapped around a partisan and political axle procedure. My friends across the aisle insist that we debate and vote on one of the three nonbinding resolutions regarding the war in Iraq, and only that resolution. They wanted to debate and vote on the Warner resolution and call it a day. The Warner resolution supports the troops but not the mission. Let me repeat that: It supports the troops but not the mission. That is a most unique position, to say the least, and that is about as far as my colleagues across the aisle wish to wade in the waters of withdrawal at this particular time.
I also mention it might be helpful if we could consider the Feingold resolution. Senator Feingold's resolution actually does something and should be considered in the Senate, as well. Others wish to debate and vote upon the McCain resolution and the Gregg resolution, but we are being denied that opportunity.
Now, to those in the press—of which I see none—those covering this debate within the media, how on Earth can you describe this situation by writing headlines in 15-second news sound bites, stating Republicans had voted to stifle debate on the war? Yes, let's debate and vote on the Warner resolution. That is entirely proper and right. But let's also debate and vote on resolutions offered by Senators McCain and Gregg and, perhaps, Feingold. By the way, I intend to vote for McCain and Gregg if I get the chance. I do not share the resolution in regard to Senator Feingold, but I defend his honor to introduce it and to debate it.
We are not stifling or shutting down debate. They are. Hello up there. Is there any way you can discern that? I can help you. I majored in journalism. I used to be a newspaper editor. This is like playing baseball with one strike and you are out. What happened to my other two strikes? Well, sorry, back to the dugout. We are going to go to the continuing resolution. We run this ball game.
In any case, in my remarks last Friday at Fort Leavenworth, I said to General Petreaus and the crowd that was assembled in his honor:
Throughout our history as a Nation there have been numerous times when a Commander in Chief badly needed a Commanding General with keen intellect and raw courage. However, I do not think that it is a slight exaggeration to suggest the last time one was this badly needed was 144 years ago, the year 1853, when President Lincoln covered General Grant.
There are other historical allegories of tremendous consequence. General Washington selected Nathaniel Green at a crucial time in our Revolutionary War. Mr. Green was a blacksmith's assistant. There was no understanding of rank at this time. And he reputedly stuttered badly. He must have led by example.
As most military historians know, Grant was discharged from the Army for drinking. He went back home to Illinois. He failed in farming. And he failed in running a mercantile store. Four months into the war, he joined the Illinois Volunteer Regiment, was reinstalled as an officer. Lincoln chose Grant over many, many others.
As an aside, Sherman was a good friend of Grant and was discharged for "insanity." When he came back to the Army, he made a famous remark about his friend: "He was with me when I was insane and I was with him when he was drunk."
Then, of course, there was Ike. Selected by General Marshall and agreed to by Franklin Roosevelt, he was picked due to his particular talent of getting people, some with tremendous egos, to come together in common cause. Eisenhower was picked over 30 to 40 senior officers.
Then, just as now, our Nation stands at a critical crossroads. Now, just as then, the freedom of many thousands of people is at stake. Also at stake is the safety and security of the United States of America.
Now, remember, these remarks came at a dinner for General Petreaus at the U.S. Army Command and Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. So I said to the general: General Petreaus, you and I have not been personally acquainted over a long period of years. Yet in our relatively short span of time I have come to know you well. I have had many stimulating and enjoyable conversations with you over a wide range of issues--Lawrence of Arabia, the British experience in Iraq--so I know full well you are exactly the right man for the job at the right time.
Our brave young men and women in uniform deserve nothing but the very best leadership, and they are getting it with General Petreaus.
I told him: You have captured America's imagination and enter this job with an enormous reservoir of goodwill.
However, it is a paradox of enormous irony that the Senate confirmed General Petreaus without a dissenting vote--not one--a vote of confidence unique given today's controversy, turmoil, and times.
Yet, at the same time, the same Senators who give you their vote of confidence are now in the business of proposing what I call ``confetti resolutions, supporting you and the troops but not the mission you are about to undertake. That, to me, is unprecedented for the Senate and, to me, it is astounding. These resolutions are nonbinding. They have no legislative impact. They are the so-called sense-of-the-Senate resolutions--meaningless except for the message you wish to send to the Executive and the folks back home or for whatever purpose you might have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. With all due respect, we have crossed the Rubicon with regard to sending mixed messages to our allies, our troops, the American people, the media, and, yes, our adversaries. Don't forget our adversaries.
Words have consequences. Rest assured, unlike some of my colleagues, our adversaries will read every word and try to figure out and analyze each sentence of these resolutions. And I suspect they will scratch their heads and try to discern the sense and the reading of a resolution that states support for the troops and our new commander with new rules of engagement with a limited timeframe for achieving and reporting benchmarks of progress but that opposes the mission. That mixed message should cause quite a bit of head scratching among the estimated 31 terrorist organizations we have planning various attacks around the world.
However, my real concern is that the Senate is not considering or even talking about the probable consequences of these actions, let alone our responsibilities should they happen. I make it clear, I don't question the intent, purpose, or patriotism of any Senator, regardless of the resolution, but I do question judgment and the law of unintended effects. Bluntly put, with all of this debate with regard to nonbinding resolutions, we appear like lemmings, splashing in a sea of public concern, frustration, and anger over the war in Iraq. I understand that.
In this regard, I should stress, I do not know of anybody in this Senate or the House of Representatives or anyone in America who does not want our troops home at the earliest possible date, and stability in Iraq, if possible. That is not the issue.
When all of this confetti settles—and it is settling, apparently, because we are going to a continuing resolution and we will not have a vote on any of the resolutions—the end result of all this frenzy will be: General, you and the troops have our solid support, but we don't support your mission. However, press on, and good luck.
What kind of message is that? This is not a profile in courage. This is not the Senate's finest hour. If we are going to debate and vote on nonbinding resolutions, let's at least consider resolutions that will send a clear message or that can be of useful purpose. In that regard, we should consider the McCain resolution that lists benchmarks of progress, that General Petreaus has told me would be useful in his discussions with Prime Minister Maliki, certainly the Gregg resolution that supports funding for our troops in harm's way. But that is the killer in this debate because my colleagues across the aisle do not want to vote on the Gregg resolution. Now we are not going to vote on any resolution. The only thing we voted on was cloture.
As a matter of fact, I think we should vote on a resolution, as I said before, proposed by Senator Feingold, a resolution that certainly does something. I do not agree with his resolution, but he is at least forthright and has the courage and sends a clear message.
As the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, let me stress what has not happened in the Congress or the media and has received very little public discussion regarding this challenge that we face in Iraq. No one is talking about the consequences of what will happen if we simply withdraw. And we may just do that because I do not believe this war can or should be sustained if we do not see progress in the next 6 months.
I would also like to point out that most of the time deadlines for withdrawal that have been proposed or are in the nonbinding resolutions mirror exactly the same time period that General Petreaus told the Committee on Armed Services he would follow in reporting whether this new effort is making measurable progress along the lines of the benchmarks within the McCain resolution. The obvious question is, Who can make a better judgment? Who can better make that judgment, General Petreaus, in theater, or Senators conducting theater?
We have not discussed the difficult policy decisions that will confront us if it becomes necessary to withdraw or even how to withdraw. The reality is, what will we do when certain consequences take place? These are the possible, if not probable, consequences we should be confronting, debating, and explaining to the American people and the media, even if some have a deaf ear. First, a dramatic increase in sectarian violence quickly escalating to a civil war, not the civil war that people say exists today but a real civil war and a humanitarian disaster far more devastating than what is happening now; Shia versus Shia, Sunni versus Sunni, Shia versus Sunni. What do we do?
Second, given a civil war and a struggle for control, we can expect an incursion of Sunni troops from other Middle Eastern countries to prevent an Iranian takeover of Iraq and the very real possibility of an Iraq led by Muqtada al-Sadr whose street appeal will endanger their own governments. When that happens, the war becomes regional. What do we do?
Third, we can expect an Iraq dominated by Iran, thus completing a Shia crescent with Iran and Iraq and Syria and Lebanon--and Lebanon is going through its own problems, to say the least. Today, countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are talking about building their own nuclear programs, given Iran's nuclear ambitions and their progress.
Iran just refused inspectors from the IAEA. With the possibility of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims each working to achieve nuclear capability and weapons, what does Israel do? What do we do?
Fourth, Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. This time, it is for real. No, not the 2002 NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, that we all agree was an egregious error. What do we do?
Fifth, in their eyes, with defeat of the "Great Satan" only months away--a clear signal by this body and perhaps inevitable--terrorists around the world are already emboldened, waiting us out and planning more attacks. That is, of course, if you believe what they say. So what do we do?
Sixth, we can expect a perceived, if not real, lack of American resolve in the eyes of adversaries and potential adversaries around the world, resulting in additional national security threats. Read Putin and Belarus; Kim Jong Il, with his penchant for missile launches on the Fourth of July; read Hugo Chavez--the Southern Hemisphere's new Castro—nationalizing his oil production and directly involved in five different countries. What about American resolve? What do we do?
I realize in today's climate the obvious answer to "What do we do?" is simply to blame President Bush. But the point is that globally and over the long term, this is not a Bush issue or a Democratic or Republican issue or even how you feel about Iraq or the views of the so-called international community.
Even as we argue about whether we debate and vote on one resolution or three—or apparently just have a vote on cloture and say that is the end of it—terrorist organizations and their second-generation affiliates—guided and inspired—are plotting attacks against the United States and throughout the world, even as I speak. It is obvious we cannot really sustain the status quo in Iraq. But while we debate how to proceed, they are not giving up.
Now, given the fact there were at least five successful attacks killing Americans—and others that, thank God, were not successful—before President Bush came to office and before military action in Iraq and given the fact that this threat will face the next President—yes, the next President—and future world leaders, surely, surely we can figure out it makes no sense to fight each other when the terrorists, then and now and in the future, do not kill according to party affiliation, nationality, race, age, or gender. If you were on one of those planes the terrorists were planning to send—nine of them—over the Atlantic to American cities, and they went down and exploded in an American city or simply went down in the ocean, it would not make any difference if you were Democratic, Republican, liberal, conservative, or anything—you would be dead. It would not make any difference.
We do not need a Republican approach to national security and the war. We do not need a Democratic approach to national security and the war. We need an American approach to our national security and the war and our individual freedoms.
This is a time to engage in honest dialog to work together and think through and agree on strategy that will defeat our enemies and make the American people safe—look at those consequences of our actions that we have not even discussed on what may happen—and, yes, bring our troops home but in a way that we do not have to send them back.
My colleagues, I started my remarks by saying the majority of these comments came from a speech I gave at the dinner honoring GEN David Petraeus and his wife Holly at our Leavenworth Command and Staff College in Kansas last Friday prior to David Petraeus leaving for Iraq this Monday. I closed those remarks by saying I was confident that under his leadership, this new mission with new rules of engagement, our chances of success were greater because failure is not in David Petraeus. It never has and it never will be. So America's destiny and God's blessings are riding on the shoulders of GEN David Petraeus. And I closed by saying I was proud to offer him my full support and to call him a friend.
So I say to the leadership, with all due respect, and to all of my colleagues, let us end this business of nonbinding resolutions and get these confetti resolutions behind us. Vote on all four. Vote on all three. But let's not have the headlines that Republicans are trying to shut down debate on Iraq. That is just not the case. We should vote in regard to the Warner resolution, the McCain resolution, the Gregg resolution, and as far as I am concerned the Feingold resolution, if we must. We have all had a chance now to discuss the war. We need to vote on the three resolutions—maybe four—and come together with bipartisan commitment—a difficult and perhaps impossible task but a task that must be undertaken for the sake of our national security.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting President pro tempore - The Senator has 10 minutes 23 seconds.
Mr. Roberts - Mr. President, I yield the 10 minutes 23 seconds to my colleague and my friend, Senator Thune.
The Acting President pro tempore - The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. Thune-R, South Dakota - Thank you, Mr. President.
John Thune-R (SD)
Mr. Thune-R, South Dakota - Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas for yielding and commend him on an incredibly eloquent and insightful explanation of the events of the day, why what we are doing in Iraq is so important. He is someone who has 10 years of experience on the Armed Services Committee. Has served as chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He has a great depth of knowledge when it comes to national security matters, foreign policy, and particularly with respect to the current debate about the Middle East. So I thank him for his great comments.
I just want to point out that with respect to this debate, I had watched, as everyone else did, I think, yesterday what unfolded on the floor. I believe what happened in the last 24 hours has demonstrated what a charade this whole Iraqi resolution process has been.
This is serious business. This is the most serious business we will deal with in the Senate. Young Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. I would say, having been to Iraq on three different occasions—most recently about 6 weeks ago—things in Baghdad are not going well. There are other parts of Iraq where we have made much better progress, even in some parts of western Iraq where we have gotten some buy-in from some of the local sheiks who have decided to participate in the democratic process and support the effort to provide security in that region of Iraq. But the fact is, things in Baghdad are not good.
What that has prompted is a change in strategy. We have undertaken a new strategy. That strategy, of course, is something where the Democrats in the Senate—less Senator Lieberman—and a handful of Republicans have decided to put together a resolution to oppose. That resolution, in my view, is an absolutely wrong way to approach what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq today, but it is obviously their prerogative to be able to do that. I think they ought to get a vote on it. I will not vote with them. I disagree, as I said, intensely with that resolution and its message. I know many of my colleagues on the other side intend that message to be different than it is perceived by our troops and by our enemies, but I think what we have to contend with here when we send a message like that is, how is that perceived by those audiences that are going to be impacted by it and, namely, our troops, the young men and women who wear the uniform, and, of course, obviously, the enemy they are trying to fight? It is the absolute wrong message to send at the very time our troops are embarking on a new mission.
This may be our last shot at success in Iraq. We have a new commander, GEN David Petraeus, whom my colleague from Kansas just mentioned. We have new rules of engagement on the ground in Baghdad, and we have new conditions for the Iraqis to meet. They have to take on the militias. There are military benchmarks they have to meet. There are economic benchmarks. They have to figure out a way to divide the oil revenues. They have agreed to invest $10 billion in infrastructure. There are political benchmarks they have to meet, holding provincial elections.
There have been resolutions offered on the floor that address those benchmarks but at the same time express support for this mission. Everyone agrees on the consequences of failure. As, again, my colleague from Kansas so very eloquently pointed out, it would be a humanitarian disaster in Iraq--possible genocide, possible full-blown civil war at a minimum regional instability, Shiite versus Shiite, Sunni versus Shiite; an increase in Iranian power on the Arabian peninsula. I do not know if this new strategy is going to work, but I do know this: We owe it to those who have sacrificed so much to achieve success in that mission already to make sure we give this strategy an opportunity to work.
I mentioned yesterday that I attended a couple of National Guard welcoming-home ceremonies over the weekend in my home State of South Dakota, one of which was Charlie Battery, a unit which was deployed to Iraq for over a year and a unit which was hit incredibly hard. They were in a very dangerous area in Baghdad going about the mission of trying to train the Iraqi security police in that area. Because of some IEDs, we lost four of those young men. And their families—as I visit with them—cannot help but show the pain they are experiencing and yet the incredible sense of loyalty and duty they feel to their country and to the missions and what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. Two others of those were soldiers, one seriously injured, another also injured, both recovering from those injuries. But the point, very simply, is there is a cost to what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. Many of our troops have already borne that cost. The point, very simply, is their sacrifice should not be in vain.
The troops we are sending now into this region are going whether we like it or not and irrespective of what the Senate does. The Senate will be sending them a vote of no confidence if we adopt a resolution saying: We support you, but we do not believe you can achieve victory, we do not believe you can accomplish your mission there in Iraq, we do not believe you can win.
On the substance, that resolution is a bad idea, but, more importantly, it seems to me it was designed more as a political statement. That came into full view yesterday when the Republican leader gave the Democratic leader exactly what they had wanted, which was a debate here on the floor of the Senate on two resolutions. We insisted on more resolutions. As my colleague from Kansas said, we wanted to have a debate on the Warner resolution, on the McCain resolution, on the Gregg resolution, even on the Feingold resolution. As I said, we could all decide how we are going to vote, but we would enter into that debate. And there ought to be, if there is going to be a debate in the Senate, a full debate. But, frankly, the Democrats objected to even debating two resolutions, the Warner resolution and the alternative Gregg resolution, because that would have forced them to vote on funding, a vote they did not want to have.
The American people deserve a full debate, not a one-sided debate, not a debate in which one side dictates the terms. This ought to be a debate about the full range of options that are available, the full views of the Members of this body who represent their constituencies across this country.
I heard one of my colleagues say—last week, I think it was, on the Democratic side—they wanted a full-throated debate. Well, we saw what a hoax that was yesterday. The agenda was exposed, and the charade about a full-throated debate came to a crashing halt.
The American people and the Members of this body deserve a debate. This is the most important issue of our time. As I said earlier, young Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. But if we are going to debate this issue in the Senate, let's make this debate about substance, not about political statements. Let's make sure all the views in this body are heard.
We tried to do that yesterday by essentially agreeing to what the Democratic leadership had asked for; that is, two resolutions, the Warner resolution, which I happen to disagree with and would vote against, and an alternative resolution that would address the issue of funding. The Democrats objected to that. I hope that if this issue reemerges on the floor of the Senate that it not be a one-sided debate, it be a full debate, so the American people and those families who have sacrificed so much for this cause get the debate they deserve and an opportunity to have their views heard on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. President, I thank you and yield back the remainder of my time.
The Acting President pro tempore - The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Robert Menendez-D (NJ)
Mr. Menedez-D, New Jersey - Mr. President, the question that should be before the Senate is: Do you support the President's escalation of the war? Don't confuse it. Don't obfuscate it. Let's have a clean vote. The only charade that is being played is by those who do not want to have a clean vote on this most fundamental question.
As a Senator, John F. Kennedy wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning book titled "Profiles in Courage." His book told the stories of eight Senators from both sides of the aisle who took a stand based on principle and risked their careers to do so. Today, almost 50 years later, I believe we, too, must take a stand based on principle. Today, I believe all of us who walk on the same floor where Senator John Kennedy once stood should heed his words when he said:
The true democracy, living and growing and inspiring ... will not condemn those whose devotion to principles leads them to unpopular courses, but will reward courage, respect honor, and ultimately recognize right.
Today is an opportunity for every Member of the Senate to be a profile in courage. Frankly, I am disappointed in my Senate colleagues who voted against debating Senator Warner's resolution on Iraq. With their vote, all they have done is delay honest debate on a failed foreign policy that has been misguided since the beginning. I don't believe this Senate should turn its back on the American people and cast their lot with the President in his escalation of the war in Iraq. I believe those who support the President's ill-advised plan should be willing to stand behind that principle and go on record, rather than hide behind parliamentary maneuvers to avoid a vote.
Our colleagues should not be running interference for the President on the floor of the Senate. In fact, I never supported the administration's war—a war of choice, not of necessity; a war based on fiction, not on fact; a war fought without enough troops from the very beginning and designed with no plan to win the peace. I didn't vote for the war, and I certainly would not vote for an escalation of the war.
I was in the minority when I voted against the war in 2002. I was in the minority, again, when I voted last year to transition and bring our troops home over a period of time. But the majority of the American people sent a clear message this last November. They said the President's plan for the Iraq war has failed. The American people elected the Senate and this Congress to change the course in Iraq. It is about time we started listening because it is clear the President has not. He didn't listen to his generals. He didn't listen to the Iraq Study Group. He didn't listen to anyone who disagreed with him. And he certainly has not listened to the American people. That is the only explanation for an Iraq plan that is simply more of the same.
As one of the witnesses before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said:
- When you're in a hole, stop digging.
The President's escalation plan will not work. Look at the news over the past few days as the first wave of the new escalation troops has arrived. At least 130 people were killed and over 300 wounded on Sunday, in the deadliest single bomb blast since the U.S. invasion almost 4 years ago. The U.S. military tells us that the four U.S. helicopters that have crashed in the past 2 weeks were actually shot down, with a fifth one down today. And Iraqi insurgents are using new tactics to shoot down our helicopters. The Brookings Institute says the number of daily attacks by insurgents and militias has gone from approximately 32 in November of 2003 to 185 in November of 2006, with Iraqi civilian deaths going from 1,250 to 4,000 in that same period.
Michael O'Hanlon, an expert from Brookings, said that Iraq has become "one of the 3 or 4 most violent places on earth." And this escalation and violence has happened while U.S. troops were there and in spite of previous U.S. troop surges. You only have to look to the past to see that the President's escalation plan will not work. In fact, this escalation plan is based on false assumptions and failed ideas.
To quote one of the witnesses who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently:
- This plan is just stay-the-course plus 20,000 troops.
The escalation plan will not work because it depends on Prime Minister Maliki to do the right thing. The Associated Press reported today that the "long-awaited security drive" is underway. "The implementation of the prime minister's plan has already begun," said a military spokesman. Yet even the architect of the escalation plan for the administration, General Keane, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he doesn't know if we can count on the Prime Minister, and he admits that Prime Minister Maliki is an unknown quantity.
I don't know and certainly don't believe that we should put the lives of the sons and daughters of America on the line based on the hope--the hope--that Maliki will do the right thing. The escalation plan will not work because it depends upon Iraqis, we are told by the administration, to take the lead. The administration keeps saying that is an Iraqi plan, with the Iraqis taking the lead. But the truth is, everyone doubts that the Iraqi troops will actually show up.
Many of the troops Prime Minister Maliki promised will be Kurds. Yet an NPR story quotes General Dennis Chapman, who is commander of a team of American military advisers in Iraqi Kurdistan, saying that there have already been desertions from Kurdish troops and that out of the battalion of 1,600 Kurdish soldiers going to Baghdad, he only expects a few hundred to report for duty.
Over and over again, we heard from experts testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that there simply aren't enough Iraqi troops who are loyal to Iraq as a nation and to Maliki as Prime Minister.
A recent New York Times article painted a frightening picture of what a joint American-Iraqi patrol looks like. The article highlights the lack of troop strength and training of Iraqi forces and the confusion that comes with having underprepared Iraqi troops take the lead. To quote from the article:
- ... As the sun rose, many of the Iraqi Army units who were supposed to do the actual searches of the buildings did not arrive on time, forcing the Americans to start the job on their own. When the Iraqi units finally did show up, it was with the air of a class outing, cheering and laughing as the Americans blew locks off doors with shotguns .....
Many of the Iraqi units who showed up late never seemed to take the task seriously, searching haphazardly, rifling through personal CD collections in the apartments.
In the article, a lieutenant colonel of the Third Stryker Brigade Combat Team talked about the difficulty of conducting such operations. He said:
This was an Iraqi-led effort and with that come challenges and risks. It can be organized chaos.
The escalation plan will not work because similar escalation plans have already failed in Iraq, when the enemy simply waited us out. We tried a troop escalation and it didn't work, when we sent 12,000 troops to Baghdad last summer and death and violence on the streets of Baghdad actually increased. The escalation plan will not work because it has benchmarks but no consequences. And benchmarks without consequences are just aspirations. The plan doesn't hold the Iraqis accountable. We have seen countless plans from this administration with benchmarks after benchmarks that are never met.
The Iraq Study Group said, in recommendation 21, that if the Iraqi Government doesn't make progress toward milestones, "the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government."
Yet when I asked Secretary Rice what would happen if the Iraqis failed to meet the much-heralded benchmarks, she didn't list any consequences. Instead she told me:
- I don't think you go to Plan B. You work with Plan A.
Plan A hasn't been working. I will say it again: Benchmarks without consequences are just aspirations. And they are aspirations that have failed time and time again. The escalation plan, as a consequence, will break the back of our National Guard and Reserves.
Let me be clear: The President's escalation plan cannot be implemented without using the National Guard and Reserves far beyond what they already have been used. There simply aren't enough troops. We have already seen the tours of National Guard troops extended. A week ago, I was informed that the New Jersey Army National Guard troops currently stationed in Iraq will see their tours extended by 125 days as result of President Bush's policy. I fully expect to see more extended deployments in the future.
The escalation is going to hurt our security at home by keeping those National Guard and Reserve troops away in Iraq. Those who return home leave their equipment in Iraq, resulting in severe equipment shortages for our National Guard at home. In fact, Larry Korb, an expert from the Center for American Progress, says the units returned home so depleted that the Marines have been referring to this phase as "the postdeployment death spiral." That is why it is time to transition our mission and set a timeframe to get our troops out of Iraq.
Staying in Iraq isn't in the national interest or national security interest of the United States. Our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war they can't solve. Increasing troops will only put more of them directly into a sectarian Iraqi fight. Keeping our troops there or adding more troops is trying to solve a political problem with a military solution.
In one briefing, General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: We need to get the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors.
That is a powerful truism. The problem is, you don't get Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors through military might. That is about reconciliation. It is about confidence building. It is about power sharing. It is about revenue sharing. It is about a host of other things, things that cannot be accomplished through military might.
Staying would only continue to empower and embolden Iran, a country that has turned out to be the biggest winner in our war with Iraq. Dr. Paul Pillar pointed out recently:
Among the neighbors, the largest winner has been Iran. The war has not only toppled the dictator who initiated an earlier war that killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians; it has also crippled what had been the larger regional counterweight to Iranian influence. Meanwhile, the all-consuming preoccupation that the Iraq war has become for the United States, along with the growing unpopularity of the war among Americans, probably has made Iranian leaders less fearful than they otherwise might have been about forceful U.S. action, including military action, against Iran.
Our presence in Iraq only continues to serve as a battle cry for terrorists around the world. According to last year's National Intelligence Estimate on international terrorism, the war in Iraq has become "a cause celebre" for jihadists and is "shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."
Let me be clear, because of how this war was entered into—weapons of mass destruction that never existed—because of how it was executed, there are now no good options left for us in Iraq. But I do believe the first steps toward stabilizing Iraq is to set a date certain for troops to leave. It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave that Iraqis will have to take responsibility for security in their own country and work out their political power struggles. Right now as much as they dislike us being there, we still bear the true burden for trying to stop the violence. The Iraqis have little incentive to work out their turf wars over political power as long as we are in the country. Iraq's political leadership will never make the hard choices, compromises, and negotiations necessary to achieve a government of national unity, as long as they believe we will stay in an endless occupation, in which the lives of Americans will be shed and national treasure will be expended.
It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave that Iraq's neighbors will start to take responsibility for ending the chaos inside Iraq. Right now the violence has not reached the tipping point to get Iraq's neighbors involved. Ultimately, it is not in their national security interest to have the conflict spill across their borders and to have Iraq disintegrate. But by setting a date certain to leave, we create a new incentive for Iraq's neighbors to help quell the violence. It is only by setting a date certain for our troops to leave that the international community will take a responsible role in Iraq. Right now the international community sees this as America's war. Once we make clear we will not be there permanently, they, too, will have an incentive to get involved and help preserve stability in a region much closer to Europe than the United States.
So by setting a date certain for our troops to leave, we actually motivate the Iraqis, Iraq's neighbors, and the international community to take the necessary steps to stabilize Iraq.
But setting a date certain and getting our troops out of Iraq in a safe and orderly way is not enough. I believe we must do more.
What we need now is a surge in diplomacy. That will involve much more than a few trips to the region. We must actively engage with Iraq's neighbors in the international community.
But I cannot close without discussing the cost of this war in Iraq. Some say they want to have a talk about, or votes, not about the escalation but about whether there are resources for the troops. I think we should have a real, honest debate that will come in the budget process about what this war is costing. Let's have a real, honest debate about the administration's lack of honesty in telling the American people what this war costs.
Our expenditures in Iraq will saddle our Nation's finances and our children's future. We spend over $8 billion a month in Iraq; we spend $2 billion a week in Iraq; we spend $280 million every day in Iraq; we spend $11.5 million an hour in Iraq.
The Congress has already appropriated $379 billion for Iraq, and President Bush is now asking for an additional $179 billion. Yet the Secretary of Defense announced to the Budget Committee, on which I serve, that he is not going to come before the committee to justify this spending. To me, that is simply outrageous.
The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction released a new report saying the Bush administration cannot account for critical defense materiel, including over $36 million in weapons. Hearings in the other body revealed that the administration cannot account for over $8 billion that was sent in cash bundles of $400,000 into a war region, without any controls. They cannot account for over $8 billion. Now the administration wants the Congress to hand over another blank check.
Let me put our Iraq spending into perspective.
For what we spend in less than 2 months for operations in Iraq, we could fully fund No Child Left Behind next year, ensuring that every school district in the United States has the funds promised to them to meet the goals of the law.
For what we spend in less than 2 months in Iraq, we could make up the shortfall in the SCHIP program to help cover children who would otherwise be uninsured.
For what we spend in 4 days in Iraq, we could substantially improve security at our Nation's ports with an additional billion dollars, including increased scanning of cargo containers.
For what we spend in 2 1/2 months in Iraq, we could pay the $21 billion cost of implementing all of the remaining 9/11 Commission recommendations to secure our homeland.
Yet we need to look beyond the economic costs of this war at its true cost: 3,099 American lives, to date. That is invaluable. It is priceless. More will die in the days ahead if we do not change the course in Iraq. We now have more than 23,000 sons and daughters of America who are wounded in ways that will affect their lives forever. We have a real obligation to all of those who are wounded and their families, and to the survivors of those who suffered the ultimate sacrifice. Yet we look at a budget that does not meet that responsibility.
Today, we should be debating the President's escalation plan, particularly since we recently learned from the CBO that the escalation proposed by President Bush would easily cost more than triple what the administration has told us.
Let me be clear for those who may have not heard about the Congressional Budget Office report. That report says the President's escalation plan of 21,000 troops actually only includes combat troops and not all of the other troops necessary for force operations. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this could mean an additional 28,000 support personnel, and that the cost could go as high as $29 billion. Now, to deviate from that would be to deviate from every standard operating procedure the Defense Department has had to support the men and women in the theater; it would be to deviate from every historical perspective. Yet that is not what they included in the budget sent to the Congress.
I am also deeply concerned that the administration has left open the possibility of yet another emergency supplemental to fund this war in fiscal year 2008. All that means is we are putting it upon the next generation of Americans, which is how most of the costs of this war have taken place—we are putting it on the backs of the next generation of Americans and not even being responsible for paying for it. We do all of this while we have the greatest tax cuts for some of the wealthiest people in the Nation, and at a time when the Nation is at war. That has never been seen before in the Nation's history.
The administration has never been honest with the American people about the cost of the war. It is time for that to end. This Senate must demand an honest accounting before we hand this administration any more money or, even more importantly, any more troops.
In the end, it is in honor of those men and women who have given the greatest sacrifice in the line of duty that we must change the course in Iraq. It is in honor of their courage we must ensure their comrades are not sent off to carry out a failing plan designed by their civilian leadership.
I ask each of my colleagues: Are you willing to look a young soldier in the eye and tell them you are sending them off to Iraq based upon a failed policy and a recycled plan and based upon the hope that Prime Minister Maliki will get it right? How many more American lives will we lose before we realize this plan will not work? And if it were your son or daughter, how long would you be willing to wait? How long would you be willing to listen to the counsel of patience, of delay, of only one more chance, of stay the course?
I know I certainly am not willing to wait any longer.
I believe there is a difference between deference to the Commander in Chief and blind loyalty. I cannot support blind loyalty that sends more of America's sons and daughters to die for a war of choice, to die for a continuing failed policy. In my mind, that is irresponsible and I believe the very essence of the constitutional framework this country was founded on requires us to act. That is what the majority leader wants to do. It is time for some real profiles in courage. I urge my colleagues to allow us to have an up-or-down vote on the President's escalation, and to support the Warner-Levin resolution. I hope, beyond that, at a later time, to support future binding actions to stop the failed policy in Iraq.
I started today by reminding all of us of the words of John F. Kennedy and the profiles in courage he detailed in this Senate. He said:
- In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience—the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow man—each man [and I add each woman] must decide for himself the course he will follow. The stories of past courage can define that ingredient—they can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this, each man must look into his own soul.
I ask each Member of the Senate to look into your own soul and your own conscience, allow us to move to the Warner-Levin resolution, allow us to have a vote against the escalation of troops in Iraq. The Nation is waiting and they are watching, and there is accountability to be had.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Acting President pro tempore - The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Levin-D, Michigan - Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The Presiding Officer - Morning business is closed
Legislative Session
The legislative session of the Senate for February 7, 2007 can be found here, and begins with...
![[Main Page]](../../../../upload/banner-blue-135.jpg)