The Acting President pro tempore: Under the previous order, there will now be 1 hour 10 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees prior to the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed on S.J. Res. 9, with the final 20 minutes for the leaders and the majority leader controlling the final 10 minutes.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. Kennedy: Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 4 minutes.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator is correct.
Mr. Kennedy: Would the Chair let me know when I have 30 seconds remaining?
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator will be notified.
Mr. Kennedy: Mr. President, this is a defining moment. The American people are watching. The world is watching. The issue is clear: Will we stand with our soldiers by changing their mission to begin to bring them home or will we stand to keep our soldiers in Iraq's civil war? History will judge us. We can either continue down the President's perilous path or embrace a new direction. If we don't change course, we know what lies ahead: more American casualties, more American death, and more destruction. A new strategy that makes the Iraqis less reliant on our military is the best way forward. More of the same misguided policy will result in more of the same tragedy for our military. Let's try a new course and try it now.
We must proceed because Iraq is the overarching issue of our time. We are being told we need to be patient. We are being told we have to give the latest escalation a chance to succeed. But we have heard it all before. We have heard for years that this administration has a plan for success. We have heard for years that progress is just a few months away. We have heard for years that we have turned a corner. But the plans for success keep getting tossed aside for new plans, the timelines for progress keep getting extended, and we have turned so many corners that we have ended up back where we started: trying to control Baghdad.
It is time to change direction. There are too many parents who have buried their children, too many children left without their father or mother, and too many soldiers missing arms and legs and eyes and ears. It is time to change course, let the Iraqis step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own future, and begin to redeploy our troops out of Iraq.
Those of us who oppose the war are used to the administration's attacks. They have questioned our patriotism and called us defeatist. When we challenged the President's misguided policy, they accused us of having political motives and being partisan. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Our motives have always been clear: to protect the lives of our soldiers.
The American people are far ahead of the administration. We have an obligation to stand up for our troops and stand up to our President when he stubbornly refuses to change course in Iraq. We are meeting our responsibility by changing the mission of our military, not micromanaging the war.
The recent hearings on Walter Reed should instruct us here today. They tell us how little faith we can put in this administration. The very people who hide behind the troops when their policies are questioned have failed to keep faith with our wounded soldiers. But just as importantly, the hearings on Walter Reed remind us all of the human costs of the war. This administration has done all it can to hide them from us. They have forbidden photographs of the coffins flown back from Iraq. The President has avoided attending the funerals of the fallen, and the tours at Walter Reed never included Building 18. But the hearings on Walter Reed swept away all the spin and camouflage and put our wounded soldiers back where they belong: at the heart of our debate about the war.
At the end of those hearings, everyone agreed that the Army had failed these brave soldiers. But we failed them long before they arrived at an Army hospital. This administration failed them when it trumped up the intelligence in order to make the case for war.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. Kennedy: I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.
It failed them when it sent too few troops with too little armor. It failed them when it turned the reconstruction of Iraq into a political science project.
We in the Senate will fail them today if we do not vote to change course and to bring our soldiers home.
At the end of this debate, the American people will know where each of us stands. On our side of the aisle, we stand with the American people. The voters told us in November to change course and begin to bring our troops home, and that is what we are going to do. We stand for our constitutional system in which the Congress speaks for the people in matters of war and peace and can require that the President listen to them. Finally, we stand with our troops. We alone are insisting on a policy worthy of their courage and worthy of their sacrifice.
Peace and progress in Iraq must be earned by the Iraqis and their neighbors. We must no longer send our brave soldiers into an uncertain fate on the streets of Baghdad. Bring them home to the heroes welcome they have earned.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for the first 15 minutes, followed, in the order in which people are recognized, by Senator Martinez for 5 minutes and Senator Alexander for 10 minutes.
Mr. Levin: Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is this dividing the hour of debate on the motion to proceed?
Mr. McCain: Yes.
The Acting President pro tempore: Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I amend my request. Delete Senator Martinez; just Senator Alexander for 10 minutes. I believe that would leave me or other speakers an additional 5 minutes, according to the division of time.
The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, no matter we will debate this year is as important as the future of America's involvement in Iraq. The decisions we make will shape the future of the Middle East, the conduct of American foreign relations, the security of our Nation, and the lives of our countrymen.
Just as each of us will use our best judgment to find answers to the problems we face in this war, so too must we heed the moral implications of our judgments regardless of the political ramifications. Matters of war and peace impose responsibilities on us that mock our other less solemn obligations in which partisan or personal considerations may be expected to have a less injurious effect.
I must admit to some bewilderment at the way in which the proponents of the resolution authored by the majority leader have chosen to proceed. They do not support the President's plan to send additional troops to Iraq as one element of a broader effort to stabilize that violence-torn country. They believe the Senate should be on record as opposing the plan to augment our forces. Fair enough. Let's have this debate, and if any Senator believes our Nation is embarking on a misguided approach, he or she has not just the right but the obligation to oppose it vigorously. Such is our responsibility as elected officials in a Congress that possesses the constitutional power of the purse.
Yet we debate today not legislation that would defund the war but, rather, a new resolution authorizing again the use of military force in Iraq. Having authorized the President to use military force in Iraq in 2002, the sponsors of this new resolution would attempt to legislate our troops' mission in midstream. They would not declare war, nor end it, as the Constitution provides, but micromanage it. I ask my colleagues: Is such micromanagement of warfare the responsibility of this body? The Supreme Court has said in the past that the conduct of campaigns is the province of our Nation's executive branch, not a task for lawmakers. Yet S.J. Res. 9, by choosing particular missions for U.S. forces in Iraq and forbidding others, would attempt to exercise the power properly reserved for the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.
When Congress authorized this war, we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission. When we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure they could prevail. When we voted to send them into battle, we asked them to use every ounce of their courage and fortitude on behalf of us.
Now it is only right that we, the elected officials entrusted with overseeing the future of our soldiers' involvement, exercise a lesser magnitude of courage, our political courage, on behalf of them and the country they serve. If any Senator believes that our troops' sacrifice is truly in vain, the dictates of conscience demand that she or he act to prevent it. Those who would cut off all funding for this war, though I disagree deeply with their position and dread its consequences, have the courage of their convictions, and I respect them for it. If, on the other hand, you believe, as I do, that an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq, carrying out a counterinsurgency mission and coupled with critical political and economic benchmarks to be met by the Iraqi Government, provides a better--and perhaps the last--chance for success in Iraq, then you should give your support to this new strategy.
It may not be popular nor politically expedient, but we are always at our best when we put aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our nation and the values upon which they rest.
Mr. President, allow me to turn to the substance of this resolution. After stating, twice, that the conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution, it would legislate the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq. Let me ask the sponsors of this resolution precisely what assumption is behind this construction. Is it that all hope is lost in Iraq, that we have lost the war and thus must bring our troops home? Or is it the proponents' contention that by withdrawing troops we will actually maximize the chances of success?
Can we, by withdrawing our troops from Iraq, actually increase the stability in Iraq rather than risk catastrophe, and induce a political solution rather than make it less possible? Is success in Iraq as simple as issuing redeployment orders, a move blocked only by stubborn commanders and civilian authorities?
General David Petraeus, for one, believes that it is not. Of course the dire situation in Iraq demands a political solution. That is undeniably true. But a political solution among the Iraqis cannot be simply conjured. It is impossible for meaningful political and economic activity to take place in an environment as riddled with violence as Baghdad is today. Security is the precondition for political and economic progress, and without security, we will not see the political settlement all of us agree is necessary.
Until the government and its coalition allies can protect the population, the Iraqi people will increasingly turn to extra- governmental forces, especially Sunni and Shiite militias, for protection. Only when the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force will its authority have meaning, and only when its authority has meaning can political activity have the results we seek.
The presence of additional forces could allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own--impose its rule throughout the country. Toward that end we have begun executing a traditional counterinsurgency strategy aimed at protecting the population and controlling the violence. In bringing greater security to Iraq, and chiefly to Baghdad, our forces can give the government a fighting chance to pursue reconciliation.
This does not imply that reconciliation is the inevitable outcome of a troop surge. On the contrary, there is no guarantee of success. What the situation demands is not a guarantee, but rather a strategy designed to give us the best possible chance for success. This, I believe, is what the new plan represents. It gives America and the Iraqis a better chance to avoid the catastrophic consequences of failure.
Catastrophic failure is, on the other hand, what many of us fear is on offer should the proponents of this resolution prevail. They would shift the focus of our commanders and troops from establishing security in Iraq to three limited objectives: protecting coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.
Let us think about the implications of ordering American soldiers to target "terrorists," but not those who foment sectarian violence. Was the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra a terrorist operation or the expression of sectarian violence? When the Madhi Army attacks government police stations, are they acting as terrorists or as a militia? What about when an American soldier comes across some unknown assailant burying an IED in the road? The obvious answer is that such acts very often constitute terrorism in Iraq and sectarian violence in Iraq. The two are deeply intertwined, and that is one reason why progress has been so difficult. To say that targeting terrorist violence is allowable while stopping sectarian violence is illegal flies in the face of this reality.
The three limited missions contained in this resolution would prohibit intervention to stop genocide, should that terrible consequence unfold as a result of our withdrawal. Can we really expect American soldiers and Marines to turn their backs while ethnic cleansing on a Rwanda-like level of violence occurs in Baghdad? I don't think it is realistic or right to expect Americans to observe another Srebrenica on a truly epic scale occur, and do nothing to stop it. And I don't think it is realistic to think that we can somehow ameliorate its catastrophic consequences for the rest of Iraq and the region by continuing to chase insurgents and al-Qaida terrorists on search and destroy missions or stretching our forces along its borders to prevent other nations from intervening more forcefully to support whichever side they find their interests aligned with.
I've heard some argue that Iraq is already a catastrophe, and we need to get our soldiers out of the way of its consequences. To my colleagues who believe this, I say, you have no idea how much worse things could get, indeed, are likely to get, if we simply accede to the sectarian violence in Baghdad. It is a city of six million people, two million of whom are Sunni. Without U.S. forces there to attempt to prevent it from descending further into the sectarian warfare, and all of its citizens turning to the militias and insurgents to protect them, the bloodshed and destruction we have witnessed to date will be but a suggestion of the humanitarian calamity to come.
The President, under this legislation, would have to begin redeployments within 120 days, and nearly all troops would have to leave Iraq by March 31, 2008. Why were these dates chosen? Why these and not others? Why dates for withdrawal, rather than conditions? Such mandates are a retreat, not a strategy, and we should be honest about the character of such a proposal.
Iraq is not Vietnam. We were able to walk away from Vietnam. If we walk away from Iraq now, we risk a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, a haven for international terrorists, an invitation to regional war in this economically vital area, and a humanitarian disaster that could involve millions of people. If we walk away from Iraq, we will be back--possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region.
All of us want to bring out troops home, and to do so as soon as possible. None of us, no matter how we voted on the resolution authorizing this war, believes the situation that existed until recently is sustainable. None of us can say we have proposed a course of action that will achieve certain success. The hour is late. The situation is, indeed, dire.
But all of us have a responsibility to withstand despair to make sound, informed judgments about how to proceed from here, and to defer our own interests and political considerations to considerations of what is in the best interests of our country. Presidents don't lose wars. Political parties don't lose wars. Nations lose wars and nations suffer the consequences. Those consequences are far graver than a lost election.
When a nation goes to war, a million tragedies ensue. None are more painful than the loss and injury of a country's finest patriots. It is a terrible thing, war, but not the worst thing. The men and women we have sent into harm's way understand that. They, not us, have endured the heartache and deprivations of war so that the worst thing would not befall us, so that America might be secure in her freedom, The war in which they fight has divided Congress and the American people. But it has divided no American in their admiration for them. We all honor them. We are all--those who supported the decision that placed them in harm's way and those who opposed it--we are all humbled by their example, and chastened in our prideful conviction that we, too, in our own way, have offered our country some good service. It may be true or it may not, but no matter how measurable our own contributions to this blessed and beautiful country, they are a poor imitation of theirs. I know we all know how little is asked of us compared to their service, and the solemn and terrible sacrifice made by those who will never return to the country they loved so well.
In the last few weeks some of those brave men and women have learned their tour in Iraq will last longer than they were initially told. Others have learned that they will soon return to combat sooner than they had been led to expect. It is a sad and hard thing to ask so much more of Americans who have already given more than their fair share to the defense of our country. Few of them and their families will have greeted the news without feeling greatly disappointed and worried, and without offering a few well deserved complaints in the direction of those of us who have imposed on them this additional hardship. Then they will shoulder a rifle and risk everything--evetything--to accomplish their mission, to protect another people's freedom and our own country from harm.
May God bless and protect them. And may we, their elected representatives, have the political courage to stand by our convictions, and offer something more than doubts, criticism, or no confidence votes to this debate. They deserve more than that.
I know that every Member of this body is united in our regard and concern for them. I know every Member of this body is struggling to understand the best way forward to avoid complete failure in Iraq. But whether this resolution carries or not, these soldiers and marines are going to deploy to Baghdad. If we are certain that despite their courage and devotion they cannot succeed, then take the action the Constitution affords us to prevent their needless sacrifice. If we are not prepared to take that action, then let us do everything in our power to help them succeed. Those are the only responsible, the only honorable choices before us. There are no others. I wish there were. But here we are, confronting a political, military and moral dilemma of immense importance, with the country's most vital security interests and the lives of the best Americans among us at stake. May God grant us the wisdom and humility to make this difficult judgment in our country's best interests only, and the courage to accept our responsibility for the consequences which will ensue.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 5 minutes.
The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, our troops don't lose wars; bad policy and bad leadership lose wars. We should have the courage to stand up and tell the administration they have had a God-awful policy. They put our troops in a position that, in fact, has made it virtually impossible for them to succeed at the outset. They deserve a policy, a plan, but there is no plan.
We went to war with too few troops, we went to war unnecessarily, and we went to war with men and women who were ill-equipped, and they are coming home ill-served. It is about time we have the courage to stand up and say to the President: Mr. President, you have not only put us in harm's way, you have harmed us. You have no policy, Mr. President.
I am so tired of hearing on this floor about courage. Let's have the courage to tell the administration to stop this ridiculous policy they have.
We are taking sides in a civil war. I was there in Srebrenica. I was in Tuzla. I was in Sarajevo. I was in Brcko in the Balkans. How did we solve that? We solved that with a policy of separating the parties.
This is a cycle of self-sustaining sectarian violence that 20,000, 30,000, 50,000, 100,000 Americans will not be able to stop. This is ridiculous. There is no plan. I ask the President and everyone else who comes forward with a plan, whether it is capping or surging or whatever they have: Will it answer the two-word test: Then what? Then what? Then what? What happens after we surge these women and men?
And by the way, he said General Petraeus is one who believes. He may be the only one who believes this is a good idea. Virtually no one else thinks it is a good idea. Look, in this story about the Constitution, we gave the President specific authority, which is our responsibility. It was to take down Saddam, if need be, it was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, and it was to get compliance with the U.N. resolution. Every one of those have been met. Saddam is dead, there were no weapons, and Iraq is in compliance with the U.N.
So if one wants to be literal about it, his mission no longer has the force of law. Everyone I have spoken with, including from the Biden- Gelb plan straight through to the Iraq Study Group, says: Look, use our troops wisely; use them wisely. What are their missions? We have the right and obligation constitutionally, and we should have the courage constitutionally, to exercise our responsibility to say: Why are our troops there?
Did anybody on this floor, did anybody count on the utter incompetence of this administration when they were getting the authority they were getting? Absolute incompetence. I stood on this floor 3 years ago saying we need another 100,000 troops before the sectarian violence became self-sustaining and warned, as others did, that once it did, all the king's horses and all the king's men could not hold that country together.
So what is our objective here? Our objective is to leave Iraq relatively stable within its own borders, not a threat to its neighbors and not a haven for terror.
What is the President and my friend from Arizona and others insisting on? What can never be: a central government that is a democracy that is going to be fair to the rest of its citizens. It is not possible, mark my words.
So as long as the President keeps us on this ridiculous path, taking us off a cliff, I ask my colleagues: Does anybody think they are going to be able to sustain keeping American forces in Iraq at 160,000 for another year and a half? What do you think? What do you think is going to happen in Tennessee, in Delaware, in Illinois? Are we going to break this man's and woman's Army? What are we going to do here? How many times do we have to ask those 175,000 marines to rotate, three, four, five, six, seven times?
And what is the President's political solution? I love this. Everyone says there is no military solution, only a political solution. Name me one person who has come up with a political solution--one--other than me and Les Gelb.
There is a political solution. It is what history teaches us. When there is self-sustaining sectarian violence, there is only one of four possibilities:
They either, one, expire, kill one another off; two, you impose a dictator; three, you have an empire; or, four, you have a Federal system.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I am tired of hearing about courage. The only courage being evidenced in this country is by those folks out on the battlefields getting shot at, getting killed. Why are they there? Let's get on with this. This is the only rational way to move.
All this malarkey about cutting off funds--this is about the mission.
Mr. President, you are leading us off a cliff. Stop.
I yield the floor.
The Acting President pro tempore: The assistant majority leader.
Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, it is my understanding that when we allowed the unanimous consent request for the Senator from Arizona, it gave 5 additional minutes to the minority. I ask unanimous consent that the majority have 5 additional minutes so we have equal time in this debate.
The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Who seeks time? The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. Levin: Mr. President, next Tuesday will mark the start of the fifth year of the war in Iraq. Our Nation has spent almost $400 billion now in Iraq and is spending an average of almost $9 billion in U.S. taxpayers' funds per month. More importantly, we have lost almost 3,200 American service men and women and have suffered almost 24,000 wounded.
The resolution before us is aimed at turning the responsibility for the future of Iraq over to the Iraqis themselves. Last year, we adopted a resolution which said that calendar year 2006 was going to be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. That was over a year ago.
We were supposed to be through a year of significant transition by now. It has not happened. The only way it is going to happen is if this Congress makes it happen.
Many of us have long maintained it was necessary that pressure be placed on the Iraqis to come together politically because only a political settlement could bring about the end of sectarian violence in Iraq and the defeat of the insurgents.
I have recounted how Ambassador Khalilzad and even President Bush have told me a number of statements that many of us have made--that we should begin to reduce our presence in Iraq--were, indeed, useful statements, useful in an effort to prod the Iraqis to reach a political settlement.
Those words--the words of President Bush, Ambassador Khalilzad, and recently Secretary Rice--words prodding the Iraqis to take responsibility, telling the Iraqis the open-ended commitment is over, telling the Iraqis we must begin to reduce our presence in 4 to 6 months are useful words for the Iraqis to hear.
The problem is it is not the President who is speaking those words. The problem is the administration has not adopted those words as a matter of policy. Now it is time for Congress to explain to the Iraqis: It is your country. We cannot save you from yourselves. It is time for us, the Congress, to tell the Iraqis as a reminder that it is their own Prime Minister, Mr. Maliki, who acknowledged the following when he said a few months ago:
The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting are the [Iraqi] politicians.
A few weeks ago, Ambassador Khalilzad said in an interview on television that the congressional debate is "useful in one way. It does send a message to the Iraqis that the patience of the American people is running out, and that is helpful to my diplomacy."
I wish to repeat this because there are a number of Members of this body and there are a number of members of the administration who have attacked this debate as somehow or another undermining our troops. It is quite the opposite. We support our troops when we give them our best thinking as to how to succeed in Iraq. It is good for our troops to have a debate in this democracy about whether a course is failing or succeeding and, if it is not succeeding, to offer our best thoughts as to how to make it succeed.
Our troops deserve everything we can give them. They haven't gotten it. They deserve the best equipment. They didn't get it. They deserve treatment when they come to our hospitals. They didn't get it. They deserve our best thinking, our honest thoughts as to how we can succeed in Iraq, how can we change course from a failing course to one which succeeds.
We know there is no military solution in Iraq, there is only a political solution, and that must be achieved by the Iraqis themselves. We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. It is their country. After 4 years of shedding American blood and American treasure, it is long overdue that the Iraqi leaders be told, not just by this Congress, although we alone apparently will do it, but by the administration that they and they alone have the responsibility, the capability, and the power to make Iraq a country instead of a place of civil strife.
This resolution we are about to embark upon will end the open-ended commitment of American military forces that is not working. We must change this course. Only the Iraqis can save their country, and we will be helping to force them to do that. It shouldn't be necessary, but it is. We will be helping to force the Iraqi leaders to save their country if we step up finally and say: We have been there longer than we were in World War II. We have been in Iraq longer than we fought the Korean war. Iraqis leaders, only you, and you alone, can decide: Do you want a civil war or do you want a nation? We hope you choose a nation.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Whitehouse): The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. Alexander: Will the Chair let me know when 2 minutes remain, please.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator will be notified.
Mr. Alexander: Mr. President, my purpose today is to say I believe it is time for President Bush to take the Iraq Study Group report down off the shelf and use it for something other than a bookend. But first let me say something about the resolution that we are about to consider.
There is a reason why we don't have 535 commanders in chief or 100 commanding generals each saying: Charge down this street or over that hill. The Founders of our country made the President the Commander in Chief and gave to Congress the power to declare war and pay for it. That is why I will vote against this resolution and any of the resolutions that seek to micromanage the war. Once a war is authorized, as this one was by a bipartisan vote of 77 to 23 in 2002, it is the President's job to manage the war.
As an example of why we don't need 535 Members of Congress micromanaging the war, consider this: Since last January, the new Democratic majority has offered 17 different bills and resolutions outlining what we ought to do in Iraq, and there will be more coming in the next few weeks, I am sure.
I am not about to cut off funds for General Petraeus's troops in the middle of the current military exercise, which clearly Congress has the power to do but should not do.
I have--and each of us has--the responsibility as a Senator to say what I believe is the right way forward for our country in Iraq, and my belief is this: The President would be wise to take down off the shelf the recommendations of the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group to develop a strategy based on those recommendations and to ask Americans to accept that strategy as the right way forward in Iraq.
I believe the President would have been wise to do that in January during his State of the Union Address. The country was then looking for a new way forward in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group, after 9 months of careful bipartisan work, offered such a plan. Instead, the day after the report was announced in December, some who wanted another 100,000 or 200,000 troops to win the war said the report was a recipe for defeat. On the other side, those who wanted the United States out of Iraq immediately dismissed the report as more of the same. So the report was put on the shelf. That is, until lately.
Lately, the President's National Security Adviser has cited the Baker-Hamilton report as authority for the surge of troops in Baghdad, which, in fact, on page 73, the report did say might be necessary. Over the weekend, the United States participated in meetings with Syria and Iran, perhaps the most controversial recommendation in the report. The timetable and strategy for reducing our combat strength in Iraq contained in the new Democratic Senate resolution sounds very much like the Iraq Study Group, calling for combat troops to be largely withdrawn from Iraq by next March. But the Iraq Study Group specifically opposed setting timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, noting that its recommendation should be "subject to unexpected developments on the ground."
At the same time, like one of the Republican-sponsored resolutions, the Iraq Study Group recommended the United States work closely with Iraq's leaders to support the achievement of certain "milestones." In short, if there is any bipartisan consensus emerging about how the United States should go forward in Iraq, the best blueprint of that consensus can be found in the report of the Iraq Study Group.
The membership and process of the Iraq Study Group is as important as the substance of what it said. It included some of America's most distinguished citizens from the Reagan and Carter and the first Bush administrations, from the Congress, and the Supreme Court. One of its former members is today's Secretary of Defense. It was ideologically and politically diverse. The group spent 9 months, met 9 times, including a trip to Baghdad, interviewed 171 individuals, and made 79 specific recommendations.
Its assessment of the "dire" current conditions in Iraq was honest and sober. It didn't shy away from bad news--that 79 percent of Iraqis have a mostly negative view of United States influence in their country; that 2,900 Americans at that time had been killed, with another 21,000 wounded; that we had spent roughly $400 billion, and that estimates run as high as $2 trillion on this war. The group acknowledged its recommendations weren't perfect, but were the best options.
As much as America needs a new strategy in Iraq, we also need a consensus in support of that strategy. To put it bluntly, a majority of the American people do not now have confidence in the President's course in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group offered the President an opportunity to say, okay, here is a different approach suggested by a bipartisan group of distinguished Americans. It is not my strategy, it is theirs. The President could say, I accept it, and for the good of our country and the Armed Forces fighting for it, I ask you to accept it.
Such a statement would not exhibit Presidential weakness. That would be Presidential leadership, recognizing that the President's job is not only to choose the right strategy but to successfully persuade at least half the people he is right. The President still has this option before him. I respectfully suggest he would be wise to exercise it today, this week. Come back to Congress, report on the progress of the last few weeks in Iraq, invite the Iraq Study Group members to sit in the gallery, compliment their work, accept their recommendations, and ask the Congress and the country to also accept their recommendations.
Now, this course won't satisfy those who want another 100,000 or 200,000 more troops to win the war in Iraq. Neither will it satisfy those who want all troops out on a specific timetable. But it will get United States troops quickly out of the combat business in Iraq and into the support business. It will reduce the number of American forces in Iraq over the next year. It will leave American special forces in Iraq to go after al-Qaida and the troops to help guard the borders, because there would still be a limited United States military presence. It will send a signal to the rest of the Middle East to stay out of Iraq. It will give support to General Petraeus and his troops, who are in the midst of a surge to make Baghdad safer. It will expand diplomatic efforts to build support for Iraqi national reconciliation and sovereignty, including with Iraq's neighbors. And it will recognize, or at least begin to recognize, that America has done most of what it can do to help Iraq. As Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, it is time for the next chapters in Iraq's history to largely be written by the Iraqis themselves.
Finally, this course will recognize that while the United States can and should be a shining example of democracy, and while the United States does have the mightiest military force in the world, a conservative view of human nature and our own national interest places limits on what we can do to make it possible for others to adopt our democracy and to adopt our way of life.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. Reed: Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the United States policy in Iraq Resolution of 2007. I think it represents a sound policy and strategy that will help us achieve our objectives not only in Iraq but in the region, and not only in the region but across the globe.
Let me first begin by saying I have heard many of the opponents suggest this Senate has but one choice: either to cut off funding or to allow the President to continue to pursue any policy he feels is appropriate. That is a false choice, similar to the false choice the President presented to this Senate in 2002 and 2003. That choice was that we could either invade Iraq or step back and watch them morph into a much more serious threat. In fact, there were diplomatic options. There was the possibility of effectively using U.N. inspectors. So I don't think we should engage in discussions of false choices. We have the authority constitutionally to adopt policies, to shape what the President does, and that is the essence of this resolution.
Just today, the New York Times' Walter Dellinger and Christopher Schroeder wrote an op-ed piece which bears on this point. They say the Supreme Court has long recognized Congress's authority to set limits on the President's military power, as in 1799, when it accepted Congress's power to authorize the seizure of ships going to but not coming from French ports. Talk about micromanagement; that is micromanagement.
That is not what our Iraq resolution does. We are laying out policy objectives, a changed mission, which I think will enhance the ability of military forces in the United States to do their job and to protect our country.
The Dellinger piece goes on to say, "More important, the legal advisers of presidents have themselves repeatedly recognized this congressional power. When former Chief Justice William Rehnquist was President Reagan's chief legal adviser in 1970, he flatly rejected the all-or-nothing claim." In Rehnquist's words, "It is both utterly illogical and unsupported by precedent to think Congress may not delegate a lesser amount of authority to conduct military operations."
That is essentially what we are talking about today. We are trying to redefine the mission so that it is consistent with the highest purposes of American national strategy. This mission would, first, recognize we have to protect our forces, giving the Commander in Chief broad discretion in protecting those forces; second, that we have an ongoing obligation to help train Iraqi security forces, which is absolutely critical; and, third, that we have the ongoing obligation to go after the terrorists wherever they may be. We did this in Somalia a few weeks ago when we had information of al-Qaida operatives. We had much cooperation on the ground and we went in there. That is the same option we must pursue in Iraq and every place else. These are the three missions that are most consistent and most important to our national strategy.
Also, this resolution begins a phased redeployment; not a rigid, inflexible timetable, but starting a date where we begin to pull out combat forces, leaving, of course, forces to carry on this mission of training Iraqi security forces, going after the terrorists, and protecting our own forces. Our goal, and it is strictly a goal, is that these combat brigades should be out of the country, we hope, by March of 2008.
This is a policy that I think will work, a policy that will be supported by the American people, and a policy that will encourage, I think, the political solution that is necessary. As everyone has noted, the answer to Iraq is not going to be achieved by military means. It will be achieved by political means. General Petraeus has said that. These are his words: "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq."
We have to have, and this resolution calls for, the application of diplomatic power, support for the creation of functioning institutions in Iraq that can provide both the kind of political progress and economic progress these people demand, tangible signs that their Government will function. That is what we are encouraging and directing in this policy.
This policy makes sense and it is well within not only the obligation of this Congress but the constitutional power of this Congress.
Mr. President, I request an additional 1 minute to be yielded from the time of the leader.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Reed: Mr. President, what the President is suggesting to us, his policy, is more of the same for a much longer period of time. As we all know, recently General Odierno suggested this surge is probably going to last not until the end of this year but into next year, and probably into the following year. That is putting a huge strain on our troops.
I think also we have to recognize our focus in Iraq, our preoccupation with Iraq, is inhibiting our strategic flexibility across the globe. It has enhanced the relative power of Iran, ironically, and it has caused us, belatedly, to begin serious negotiations with North Korea, which might be a profitable and progressive thing to do, but the focus on Iraq is serious.
Let me tell you, one of the most interesting comments that I have heard is when I asked Admiral McConnell, the head of our intelligence establishment, where is the most likely threat coming from, engaging in an attack on the United States, Pakistan or Iraq? He answered quite quickly: Pakistan.
We have to change our policy. This resolution will do that, and I urge its support.
Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The Presiding Officer: There is 5 minutes 15 seconds.
Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, I ask that you notify me when there are 2½minutes remaining.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, the question is: What is our duty? We know what the duty of our soldiers will be when they raise their hand and take an oath to serve our country. They agree to risk their lives for America. They follow orders. They follow the lead of their commanders. They march into battle. Some come home and some do not. But what is the duty of the Congress? What is our responsibility when it comes to war?
First, of course, was the authorization for the use of force. President Bush came to us and said, I want to have the authority to invade Iraq for three reasons: No. 1, to get rid of the dictator Saddam Hussein; No. 2, to destroy weapons of mass destruction; and No. 3, to make sure the country lives up to the requirements of the United Nations resolutions.
Many of us felt at the time that America was being misled about the real danger in Iraq. Some of us, some 23 Senators, voted against the authorization of force back in October of 2002. But as we take a look at that scene in Iraq today, we realize that all three of those things have been accomplished. Saddam Hussein no longer exists, weapons of mass destruction never existed, and there is no question about complying with the United Nations resolutions.
So the obvious question is: By what authority is America still there? By what authority do 150,000 Americans now risk their lives while we stand in the safety of this Chamber?
This resolution seeks to define our mission today in realistic terms. If the President had come to Congress 4 years ago and said, I want the authority to send American troops into the middle of a civil war in Iraq, a war that has been brewing for 14 centuries between warring Islamic factions; I want American soldiers on the street risking their lives every day until the Iraqis resolve this age-old dispute, do you think we would have approved that authorization of the use of American force? Of course not. It would have been pure folly.
Sadly, the situation today has no clear mission, and that is the reason for this resolution. This resolution makes it clear the Iraq Study Group, Democrats and Republicans, men and women who served our country so well in public service, would have a chance to step forward and come up with a plan that makes sense for America to start coming home, and that is what this resolution says.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. Durbin: Who wants America to come home at this point? The American people do. The Iraqi people want us to leave. In fact, the Iraqi leadership has said it is time for us to start withdrawing our troops. The resistance to bringing our troops home comes from the other side of the aisle and from the White House. They believe we need more troops.
How often will America respond when the Iraqis pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1 to send another 20,000 of our best and bravest to go into battle? It is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own country. It is time for the American forces to start to come home. It is time for us to acknowledge that they have done their job and done it well. We have lost almost 3,200 American lives; 24,000 have been injured. We know among those injured many have not been greeted as they should have been. They have been sent to flophouse rooms at Walter Reed's Building 18. They have been pushed through the bureaucracy of the Veterans' Administration. For those who say they support our troops, they will have a chance to prove it soon, as we start trying to put the resources we need into the military and VA, to help our troops as they return.
This resolution is an opportunity for this Congress to speak to the reality of what is going on in Iraq today, and the reality suggests that it is time for American forces to start to come home; not more forces in harm's way but more forces coming home to be greeted by us, as Americans, for the fine job they have done. We cannot blame them if the mission has been lost over the last 4 years. They had nothing to do with that. But we can make it clear that our future mission is going to be one we can define precisely: to stop terrorism, to train the Iraqis so they can defend themselves, and to protect our own troops. Those are clear missions.
For those who resist this resolution, the obvious question is this: What do you think our mission is today? Is it simply to send more and more troops into harm's way, that they would risk their lives? I think not.
For those who argue that we are micromanaging the war, I guess my question for them is, isn't it time that somebody managed this war? Isn't it time, when it came to troops and mission and equipment, that we clearly had a management plan that our troops deserve?
For those who argue that we are cutting off funding, they have not read the resolution. We are not cutting a penny from the troops and the money that they need to come home safely. But we are saying that our mission has to be clear and our troops have to come home.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support what the American people want, the redeployment of our fine troops back to America.
The Presiding Officer: The time of the Senator has expired. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McConnell: Mr. President, today Senate Republicans will agree to move to debate on an important question, and that question is this: Should a majority of Senators direct activities in the war in Iraq? Republicans are eager to engage in this debate on the Reid resolution because it is different in kind from any of the previous Democratic proposals--very, very different.
It is unprecedented in the powers it would arrogate to Congress in a time of war. It is a clear statement of retreat--a clear statement of retreat from the support that the Senate only recently gave to GEN David Petraeus, and its passage would be absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq.
Previous resolutions proposed by the Democrats were a mere statement of opinion or of sentiment. This one has a binding quality. It would interfere with the President and General Petraeus's operational authority to conduct the war in Iraq as he and his commanders see fit. It would substitute for their judgment the judgment of 535 Members of Congress.
The judgment they have made in this, that Iraq is simply a distraction on the Global War on terror and that U.S. troops should begin to withdraw in months, with all combat forces leaving within a year--that is the judgment that the Reid proposal makes. This is the memo that our enemies have been waiting for. Osama bin Laden and his followers have repeatedly said that the United States does not have the stomach for a long fight with the terrorists. Passage of the Reid joint resolution will be the first concrete sign since September 11, 2001, that he was right on target.
Timetables are bad, but don't just take my word for it. Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, my good friend, the majority leader himself, said this:
As for setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that.
Six months after the majority leader made that observation, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, said this:
A deadline for pulling out … will only encourage our enemies to wait us out… . [It would be] a Lebanon in 1985, and God knows where it would go from there.
That was our friend, Joe Biden, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
Shortly after Senator Biden's observation, Senator Clinton made the same point, just 3 months after that:
I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal.
Said Senator Clinton:
I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you.
That is the majority leader, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a prominent Democratic candidate for President, all on the wisdom of what this Reid proposal proposes to do, just a short time back.
Surely Senators Reid, Biden, and Clinton have not changed their minds about who would benefit the most--who would benefit the most if we set a date certain for withdrawal. They know just as well as I do that this is just what the terrorists have been waiting for and just what our allies in Iraq and the entire region of the world have feared.
Setting a date certain for withdrawal will send a chill up the spine of every Iraqi who has dared to stand with America. Millions of good men and women have helped us in this fight. Since we arrived in Iraq, nearly 120,000 Iraqis have volunteered to serve in their Army. More than 8,000 Iraqis have died in uniform to defend the fledgling democracy over there. And, recently, in Anbar Province, we are told that roughly 1,000 Sunnis volunteered for a police force over a couple of weeks.
These brave men and women are watching what we do. They know, as we do, that chaos will engulf Iraq and the rest of the region on that day. They know they and their families will likely face a firing squad soon after we leave. The message we send them with this resolution is this: Good luck.
General Petraeus understands the importance of the mission in Iraq and his new mission to secure Baghdad. In a recent letter to the soldiers under his command, he wrote as follows--General Petraeus said:
The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however barbaric. They will do all they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them. Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our enemies. And together, we must prevail.
That is General Petraeus just recently. These are the words of the man this body sent to Iraq unanimously. They are the words of a military commander, confident yet realistic and committed above all to victory. This is the voice of courage and resolve in the face of danger. We do best to listen to voices such as this, which speak of victory rather than defeat and withdrawal. We owe it to him, his soldiers, our allies and the world.
Republicans are ready for this debate.
I have some more time, I gather?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator has a little over 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. McConnell: I yield back that time.
The Presiding Officer: The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, in life you can't stand still. You either go forward or backward. If it were not such a serious matter--and it is a serious matter--to have the Republican leader go back to a statement that I made 5 years ago is what is wrong with the Republicans in this debate. Things have to change. Things change. You can't stand still. You either go forward or backward. To take a statement that I made 5 years ago and think that things haven't changed in 5 years is without any degree of sensibility.
In just a few days our country will mark a solemn anniversary: the beginning of the fifth year of a war that has raged in faraway Iraq. For the fifth year, this war has taken a tremendous toll on our country, our troops, their families, and our standing in the world. Mr. President, 3,200 Americans, soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines have been killed in Iraq. We have seen tens of thousands of our best wounded--men and women who have come home to a health care system unprepared and ill-equipped to take care of them.
Our Army has been stretched dangerously thin. Our Treasury has been spending, week after bloody week, $2 billion, each week; $2 billion each week.
Despite these tremendous costs, despite these great sacrifices, despite the opposition to this war, Iraq continues to spiral out of control. In February, attacks in Iraq increased dramatically. Three American soldiers and 100 Iraqis died every day--every day in February. In March it seems it is going to be just as bad. Our overburdened troops, including hundreds of Nevadans, have done everything asked of them and more. It is their political leaders at home who have failed-- who failed our troops and the American people. President Bush did not go to war with enough military on the ground. We all know that. President Bush didn't have a plan to win the peace, much less the war. President Bush surrounded himself with yes-men, who told him what he wanted to hear, what he needed to hear. To this day, President Bush lacks a plan to complete the mission so our troops can come home. His current strategy of more of the same is not working.
Five years into the war in Iraq the mission has changed but the Bush policy has not changed. Saddam is gone, long gone. There are no weapons of mass destruction; there never were. Iraq is in chaos. There is no stability in Iraq. U.S. troops are policing a protracted civil war, not hunting and killing terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001.
The original mission no longer exists. Yet President Bush wants to stay the same--the same--failed course, to surge toward more of the same, to sustain more failure.
Today, the Senate must finally send a clear message to the Commander in Chief, President Bush. That message is: It is time for a new way forward. Change course, Mr. President. The way to succeed in Iraq is not more of the same; it is to change the mission and change the course. Our country must have a surge, but that surge must not be a military surge. There must be escalation in our diplomacy.
This is the message the American people delivered to Congress on November 7, 2006. This is the message we must send President Bush again today.
In just a few moments, we will have another cloture vote. I urge my colleagues to vote to allow the debate to proceed and then vote to change the course. Vote for the resolution. Voting no today is voting to greenlight the same failed course in Iraq. Voting no today is an endorsement of 5 years of failed policy. Voting no today is an endorsement of America's continuing occupation of Iraq. Voting no today is a vote to support President Bush maintaining an open-ended commitment to keep U.S. troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war.
But a "yes" vote on cloture and on the resolution--and a vote for the resolution--is a vote of hope, hope that after 4 years in this war we can finally begin to have the Iraqis control their own destiny, their own future. We can tell President Bush to change course, redeploy our troops, bring in Iraq's neighbors, and revitalize reconstruction efforts that have failed, that have fallen woefully short.
Five years into the war, is it not the time for a new direction? The answer is yes, and that direction starts by voting yes on this next vote.
I yield back my time.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order and pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 72, S.J. Res. 9, to revise the United States policy on Iraq.
Harry Reid, Carl Levin, Dick Durbin, Byron L. Dorgan, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Barbara C. Boxer, Edward M. Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Jay Rockefeller, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Debbie Stabenow, H.R. Clinton, Jeff Bingaman, B.A. Mikulski, Ben Cardin, Robert Menendez.
The Presiding Officer: By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res 9, a joint resolution to revise United States policy on Iraq, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. Durbin: I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) would vote "yea."
The Presiding Officer (Ms. Klobuchar): Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 89, nays 9, as follows:
| Roll No.74 Leg. - Cloture on S.J. Res 9 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--89 | ||||
| Akaka | Alexander | Baucus | Bayh | Bennett |
| Biden | Bingaman | Boxer | Brown | Brownback |
| Burr | Byrd | Cardin | Carper | Casey |
| Chambliss | Clinton | Cochran | Coleman | Collins |
| Conrad | Corker | Cornyn | Craig | Crapo |
| Dodd | Dole | Domenici | Dorgan | Durbin |
| Ensign | Feingold | Feinstein | Graham | Grassley |
| Gregg | Hagel | Harkin | Hutchison | Inouye |
| Isakson | Kennedy | Kerry | Klobuchar | Kohl |
| Kyl | Landrieu | Lautenberg | Leahy | Levin |
| Lieberman | Lincoln | Lott | Lugar | Martinez |
| McCain | McCaskill | McConnell | Menendez | Mikulski |
| Murkowski | Murray | Nelson (FL) | Nelson (NE) | Obama |
| Pryor | Reed | Reid | Roberts | Rockefeller |
| Salazar | Sanders | Schumer | Sessions | Shelby |
| Smith | Snowe | Specter | Stabenow | Stevens |
| Sununu | Tester | Thune | Vitter | Voinovich |
| Warner | Webb | Whitehouse | Wyden | |
| Nays--9 | ||||
| Allard | Bond | Bunning | Coburn | DeMint |
| Enzi | Hatch | Inhofe | Thomas | |
| NOT VOTING--2 | ||||
| Cantwell | Johnson | |||
The Presiding Officer: On this vote, the yeas are 89, the nays are 9. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. Feingold: Madam President, I am pleased the Senate has voted to allow debate on the Iraq war to go forward. It is far past time we had this important debate. It is far past time we brought our involvement in this misguided war to a close.
Under the strong leadership of Senator Reid, the Democratic caucus has produced a joint resolution that takes a significant step toward ending our involvement in the war in Iraq. I support the resolution, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.
The resolution does not go as far as I would like. I continue to believe the only way we are ultimately going to end the President's failed policies in Iraq is by exercising Congress's power of the purse to safely bring our troops out of Iraq. I have introduced legislation that would do that, and I will continue to look for every opportunity to bring up my bill for a vote.
I will support this resolution because it avoids the mistakes of previous proposals to address Iraq. It does not allow the President's misguided policies to continue. It does not tacitly reauthorize the war. It does not focus solely on the so-called surge. This is binding legislation that would bring to an end our involvement in perhaps the greatest foreign policy mistake in our country's history.
Some of my colleagues continue to argue that Congress should defer to the Commander in Chief when it comes to Iraq, that we should give him the opportunity to change course in Iraq or that we should allow his escalation plan a chance to succeed. Those arguments ignore our congressional responsibilities.
Mr. Roberts: Madam President, would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. Feingold: Madam President, at the conclusion of my remarks, I would be happy to yield.
Congress authorized this war, and it is in our power to bring it to a close. More importantly, we have not just the power but the responsibility to end a war that is draining vital national security resources in pursuit of a goal that cannot be achieved militarily.
The political problems that are driving much of the insurgency and sectarian strife in Iraq are tragic and important. They require the attention of U.S. policymakers. They do not require--in fact, they cannot be solved by--a massive and indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Some of my colleagues raise the specter of dire consequences if we redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq. That is precisely why we need a strategic approach to redeployment, one that addresses ongoing instability and other threats, with our intelligence, diplomatic, economic and, in a limited manner, military capabilities. Not only is the continuation of this war not going to end sectarian and insurgent violence, it puts off the day when we develop a comprehensive strategy for Iraq that is sustainable, and that fits squarely within the larger struggle of fighting al-Qaida.
As long as the President's policies continue, our troops will continue to put their lives on the line, our constituents will continue putting billions of their dollars into this war, our military readiness will continue to erode, our Guard and Reserve members will continue to face heavy burdens, and our ability to respond to an array of national security challenges will continue to suffer a great deal. From Somalia to Afghanistan to the ongoing fight against al-Qaida, we face threats and challenges that require serious attention and resources. Right now, far too much of both are being spent on a single country. It is this singleminded and self-defeating policy that needs to end, and it is up to Congress to do so.
Time and again, the President has made it clear that nothing--not the wishes of the American people, not the advice of military and foreign policy experts, not the concerns of Members of both parties--will dissuade him from pursuing policies in Iraq that are not working. Faced with a clear mandate from the voters last November, the President just stalled for time, and then he announced not just a continuation but an escalation of his policy. So Congress cannot wait for the President to change course. We need to change the course ourselves.
This resolution recognizes, and acts on, that reality. It would effectively terminate the misguided resolution authorizing force in Iraq, while allowing a minimal number of troops to remain to perform very limited functions: protecting personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting certain targeted counterterrorism operations. The latter provision is a particular priority of mine, which is why my original legislation includes exactly the same language.
Clearly, the United States has an ongoing role to play in addressing the terrorist threat in Iraq. While Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorism before the President led us to war in that country, al-Qaida and its allies are trying to use the anger and frustrations unleashed by that war to their advantage. Like Afghanistan and Somalia, Iraq will need to be closely monitored to ensure that it does not become a failed state and a breeding ground for terrorism, and we must be prepared to pursue targeted missions to take out terrorists.
But maintaining 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is not the way to defeat al-Qaida. Military operations of any size will only succeed if they are combined with other measures--including diplomatic, economic, and intelligence measures--as part of a comprehensive strategy for defeating the terrorists who threaten our country. Al-Qaida is not a one-country franchise; it is a global threat that requires a global response.
The Reid resolution would require the President to begin redeploying combat forces not essential to the three limited functions I just mentioned within 120 days, with a goal of finishing redeployment by the end of March 2008. While I support a faster redeployment with a firm deadline, these provisions are, in fact, binding and would make clear that the President's commitment to an open-ended, massive military mission in Iraq is over. That is what the American people want, and that is what this Congress should ensure.
Regardless of what happens this week, I believe the introduction of this resolution, with the cosponsorship of some 41 Senators, represents a significant step toward ending the war. The overwhelming majority of Democrats are saying that the war must come to a close and that they are prepared to take binding steps to do just that. The question each of us will face as this debate continues is how to best end our involvement in the war and redeploy our troops.
I look forward to the opportunity to offer an amendment to the upcoming supplemental that would actually use Congress's appropriations power to require the safe redeployment of our troops. While I do not agree with much of what has been said by those in this body who continue to defend a disastrous war, they are right about one point: If we are serious about opposing the war, we must be serious about ending funding for the war.
I am pleased the Senate has voted to allow debate on the Reid resolution to go forward. Unfortunately, however, some in this body continue to make arguments that undermine the ability of Congress to have a serious discussion about the Iraq war. They fail to recognize that this body has an obligation to address the most pressing issue facing the country today and respond to the overwhelming sentiment of our constituents. They purport to defend the President's prerogatives and the morale and well-being of our troops, but their rhetoric has the effect of trying to stifle open and honest debate.
While I cannot speak for the President, I am confident our troops, and our constituents, are ready for this debate. They know that in a democracy such as ours, discussion of major foreign policy issues can and should be conducted openly. So I am glad the Senate is beginning such a discussion today, and I will continue pushing this body to finally bring to a close our involvement in a war that has been a disaster on so many fronts.
Madam President, I am now happy to yield for a question to the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. Roberts: Madam President, I was just going to ask the distinguished Senator if he would yield. While I can't associate myself with all of his remarks and, as I note, the press gallery and the world will little note nor long remember our colloquy, perhaps, I wish to congratulate him for his forthrightness and his candor and his conviction.
The Senator and I have talked about the situation and about the need for full debate in regard to our national security and the war in Iraq, and I had hoped his resolution would be agreed to during the last--or the previous attempt when we only had one resolution and that was it. I had asked at that particular time, in a very similar situation--I was making a speech, and the Chamber was empty, and so I can empathize with that. But my comments were that we should consider the McCain amendment with the benchmarks, the Gregg amendment, and Senator Feingold's, because his is very forthright. It is very clear and very understandable. Now, I would not vote for it, but I respect the Senator's opinion, and I respect his candor.
The Senator has been a member, a valuable member of the Intelligence Committee. I had the privilege of being the chairman of that committee. I think I am the longest serving Senator on the Intelligence Committee up to this point--10 years. It is tough work. There are a lot of times I disagreed with the Senator, but the Senator is an extremely valuable member of the Intelligence Committee. Upon learning all of the intelligence from the 19 different agencies that comprise the community, he has developed a very strong opinion. I respect that. That is what we should be doing. We should be having a full debate. I hope in voting to proceed that we at least get that full debate.
I would say to the Senator, one of my best friends is General Petraeus, who used to be the commanding general at Fort Leavenworth, at the Intellectual Center of the Army, and he wrote the counterterrorism manual for the Army. He just finished it. We talked a lot about the British experience in regards to what happened at that particular time in Iraq. It is unique, it seems to me, because what the Senator wants to do follows the same time period General Petraeus wants to inform us as to whether we are making any progress and if we can achieve stability in Iraq, and that is a mighty big "if."
I think by the summer at least, if we are not making progress, at that particular time we are going to have to go to a policy of containment as opposed to intervention, as the Senator has suggested. How we do that, I am not quite sure. We haven't had that debate on the Senate floor.
Now, this Senator, Mr. Feingold, has called for that debate, and that is what we should be debating. It calls for a lot of different opinions.
So I congratulate the Senator. I thank him for his candor. I thank him for being forthright. I wish we could vote on the Senator's resolution this time around. Does the Senator think that is even possible?
Mr. Feingold: Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Kansas, first of all, for his kind words and for listening to my speech and for being present to do so. He has endangered himself politically by saying kind words about me and my resolution in front of some groups who may find that a little strange. But I do enjoy working with him, and I especially enjoyed working with him when he was the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
I, of course, want to do exactly what the Senator from Kansas has said. I want to have a debate and a vote on the approach I have suggested. As I just indicated in my remarks, I believe that is the next thing which needs to happen after we have this debate.
Just so the record is clear, though, the Democrats have agreed to vote on S.J. Res. 9 and the McCain amendment and the Gregg amendment and the Warner resolution, as well as the Reid resolution. So the Republicans objected to that.
Mr. Roberts: Why not the Feingold resolution?
Mr. Feingold: I would like to do that, but I think probably the appropriate place to do that is the supplemental.
Mr. Roberts: Madam President, if the Senator would continue to yield, what if I ask unanimous consent that the Senator's amendment be made in order?
Mr. Feingold: I would object on behalf of the leadership because I agreed that this should be the next step and we should take up this resolution.
I say to the Senator from Kansas, this resolution before us, the Reid resolution, makes perfect sense. What it does is it says: Look, we no longer believe the authorization that was given in 2002 makes sense, and it severely limits that resolution and moves us in the right direction. So I think that is the proper step. The supplemental bill is about to come up. I think that is the right place, given that it has to do with funding, for the type of amendment I have suggested. So I would object on behalf of the leadership.
But I do look forward very much to the day not only when we debate this but when I persuade you that it is a good idea that we cut off the funding in order to bring the troops safely home--which, by the way, is what we did--and I assume Senator Roberts was involved in this as well--with Somalia. The Senator remembers "Black Hawk Down." He knows it well. We lost 18 people. We decided: This isn't working out. This isn't a good idea. What did the Senate do? It passed legislation that said by a certain date we will no longer fund this military mission, but it gave plenty of time to get the troops out, and they got out successfully. That is the nature of what I propose to do with an amendment on the supplemental.
Mr. Roberts: If the Senator will continue to yield for a question, you are talking about step 2. Step 1 is being considered, and your specific resolution would be step 2 on the supplemental.
Mr. Feingold: Step 1 was our vote here in this body and in the House to say that the surge was unwise, and a majority did vote for that here, as well as in the House. This is step 2. This says that the fundamental underpinnings of this mistake should be reversed, that the resolution authorizing force in Iraq should be reversed. Yes, step 3, in my view, would be saying--to enforce it. Since the President won't listen to us, we need to turn to the ultimate power, the one the Senator from Kansas and I both agree is the appropriate power in this situation; that is, whether to use the power of the purse to remove funding.
Mr. Roberts: So if the Senator will continue to yield, we are on step 3 until we get to your resolution?
Mr. Feingold: We are on step 2.
Mr. Roberts: It would be step 3 before you would think it would be appropriate to consider your resolution?
Mr. Feingold: I think we would be best to do it on the supplemental. That seems to be the appropriate vehicle.
Mr. Roberts: I have got it. I just want to make clear, understandably, I would probably vote no--well, not probably--I would vote no on the resolution. But again, the thing that disturbs me is when we get to the what-ifs. What if we pass your resolution? What if we pass somebody else's resolution? What happens if we get the troops out? Hopefully they would not be in a situation where we have to send them back. The what-ifs on what happens to us, which you have discussed in a rare discussion on the floor, we haven't talked about that.
Mr. Feingold: We need to get to that.
Mr. Roberts: We have an honest difference of opinion, but we have not talked about that. That is the whole point I am trying to make, that at least the Senator is trying to force the issue in making his point, and let nobody say that they challenge your patriotism or your intent or whatever. I know there is a lot of rhetoric flying around. I don't agree with that at all. I think this debate ought to take place, and this debate is not taking place. So thank you to the Senator. And I don't think I have endangered--well, maybe I have--my reputation just a little.
Mr. Feingold: I think the Senator from Kansas is on shaky ground with some people now. But I think the Senator from Kansas should know that we are essentially in the heat of agreement here; the only question is the order in which it should happen. The exact questions the Senator has discussed should be debated in the Senate. I hope they are debated soon. Guess what. We just had a debate, so we are having a debate, and this is the beginning, and we will continue it.
Mr. Roberts: I thank the Senator.
Mr. Feingold: I thank the Senator from Kansas, and I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. Hutchison: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. Hutchison: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
