Madam President, reserving the right to object, this is basically the same thing that has been asked before. The issue before the American people is whether the President of the United States, on his own, should be able to send 48,000…
Madam President, reserving the right to object, this is basically the same thing that has been asked before. The issue before the American people is whether the President of the United States, on his own, should be able to send 48,000 American soldiers to Iraq, costing approximately $30 billion extra.
The Republicans can run, as I said yesterday, but they cannot hide. That is the issue before the American people. We all support the troops, and we have fought very hard, in spite of our misgivings about this war, to make sure they have everything they have needed.
It is interesting that there is a lot of talk about the Gregg amendment. But if you look at the Gregg amendment and at page 2--the last paragraph on page 2 of his amendment--and you look in the Warner amendment on page 3, paragraph 4, it is identical language. Warner has encapsulated within his amendment what Gregg wanted, which is the so- called ``resolve clause.''
This is all a game to divert attention from the fact that we have before us now an issue that the American people want us to address: whether there should be a surge, an escalation, an augmentation of the already disastrous war taking place in Iraq, causing 3,100 American deaths, approximately; 24,000 wounded American soldiers, a third of whom are hurt very badly; 2,000 are missing multiple limbs--brain injuries, blindness, paralysis. That is what 8,000 American soldiers now are going through--men and women.
So I ask my friend to amend his request in the following manner:
I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 7, by Senator Warner, and S. Res. 70, by Senator McCain, and the Senate proceed to their consideration en bloc; that there be 6 hours for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees on both resolutions, to be debated concurrently; that no amendments or motions be in order to either resolution; that at the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote on Senator McCain's resolution, followed by a vote on Senator Warner's resolution; that if either resolution fails to garner 60 votes, the vote be vitiated and the resolution be returned to its prior status; that immediately following the votes on the resolutions I have just mentioned, the Senate turn to the consideration of H.J. Res. 20, the infamous continuing resolution, funding the Government after February 15 for the rest of the fiscal year; that there be 4 hours for debate on the joint resolution; that no amendments or motions be in order in relation to it; that at the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote on final passage of the joint resolution; that if the joint resolution fails to get 60 votes, the vote be vitiated and the joint resolution be returned to the calendar.
I announce that if we are able to do that--dispose of these three items I have mentioned--this week, or whenever we finish them, then we would begin the Presidents Day recess at the conclusion of this week. One of the things we found is that because of the accelerated work schedule, people are having a lot of work to do at home. So that is why we would do this.
Madam President, there would be no amendments to the CR from either side. I mention that because, in getting to the point where we are, there has been total consultation by the majority and minority, each subcommittee, and the majority and ranking members. The chair and ranking members work very closely. One of the people heavily involved in this, for example, is Senator Domenici, my long-term partner on the Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations. He fought for more, and he got more. That happened with many Republicans who spoke out, and most of them did.
I further say that if there were ever a bipartisan measure, it is the continuing resolution. But we have to finish before February 15.
So I ask my friend, the Republican leader, to accept my alteration to his unanimous consent request.
Madam President, I will continue reserving the right to object to my friend's unanimous consent request. Prior to making a decision on that, I want to read to everybody here from page 3, paragraph 4, of the Warner resolution:
The Congress should not take any action that will endanger
United States military forces in the field, including the
elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as
such an action with respect to funding would undermine their
safety or harm their
effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.
Madam President, I object.
Reserving the right to object, we have gone from this morning and trying to copy one of the trick plays from the Super Bowl to now going to the science bill, and I guess it is modern math. We don't accept that, Madam President. What we demand for the American people is an up-or-down vote on the escalation of the war in Iraq. McCain has been filed. Let's vote on it. Let's vote on Warner. That is our proposal. We haven't wavered from that. We will not waiver from that. That is what the American people demand and ultimately they will get. I object.
Madam President, the Presiding Officer is a new Member of this body, but she should have seen when the Republicans were in the majority. We didn't have amendments. They filled every tree. I will also say, it speaks volumes here today--volumes. There is not a single person on the other side of the aisle who has come to the floor and supported the troop surge of President Bush--not a single person. I wonder if President Bush is aware that not a single Republican Senator has come to the floor and said: I support President Bush sending 48,000 more troops to Iraq. That speaks volumes.
I will also say this, Madam President: Senator Boxer, a couple rows back, just a few minutes ago, talked about one short snapshot of one day from the Los Angeles Times: Scores of people being murdered and killed and mutilated; a little girl leaving school with blood-drenched steps over which she was walking. One could see the red in the photograph, and Senator Boxer was one, two, three rows back. We could all see that.
Not a single person has come to the floor to support the surge, but that is what is dictating what we vote on today. It is not the majority leader. We, for the American people, need to have this debate.
Also, I certainly care a lot about the Senator from New Hampshire-- and he knows that is true--but I have to smile. What has he done the first few weeks of this legislative session? He has brought to the Senate floor during the debate on ethics, lobbying reform, and earmark reform the line-item veto, and then he brought it forth again on minimum wage. And now to stop a debate on the escalation of the war in Iraq, he now comes up with this other diversionary tactic. He is a wonderful man, a gentleman, but, Madam President, do you know what he kind of reminds me of this first few weeks of this legislative session? Somebody who comes into a basketball game, not to score points, just to kind of rough people up, just to kind of get the game going in a different direction.
The game we have going today has nothing to do with supporting the troops. We support the troops. Every speech that a Democrat has given in the last 4 years has talked about how much we support the troops. In fact, we were the first to raise the issue. We were the first to raise the issue about a lack of body armor. We raised that first. We support the troops. We have done that not only with our mouths but with the way we voted.
The debate in the Senate should be on the resolution submitted by the Senator from Arizona, which they have obviously dropped--the resolution from the Senator from Arizona and Senator Lieberman from Connecticut. They threw that out in an effort to go for this diversion.
So why don't we see how the minority feels about voting on the President's surge of $30 billion and 48,000 troops? That is what this debate is about.
Sure.
If I can interrupt, and I do that apologetically, I read it before the Senator from New Hampshire arrived in the Chamber because it is in the Warner resolution.
I don't think I have to make that judgment now because the judgment, I say to my friend from New Hampshire, is not some diversionary matter. The issue before this body and the issue before the American people--that is why we are getting hundreds of phone calls in my office and other Senate offices around the country. The issue is does the Senate support the President's surge? That is the question.
I have to say the Senator from Arizona at least was willing to put his name on it and move forward. We haven't heard a lot of speeches in favor of his resolution. Where are they?
Madam President, I have been asked to yield to my friend from Washington, and I am glad to do that.
Madam President, I say to my friend from Washington that we have a record of supporting the troops. We did it in Kosovo, we did it through the entire Balkans, and we did it in Afghanistan. We did it in Afghanistan with very few questions asked, and rightfully so. We have supported every effort made by this President to defeat the war on terror, with rare exception. But the troops in the field? Never, never have we wavered from that.
In fact, I don't know of a speech, although there could be some given, where a Democrat has talked about the war in Iraq and hasn't talked about how much we appreciate the work done by these valiant troops and the sacrifices of their families. That is why we were stunned during the State of the Union Address when the President even mentioned the veterans.
I am happy to have answered the question from the Senator from Washington.
I yield.
Madam President, I say to my friend who came to the House at the same time as myself, and then we came to the Senate together--in fact, there is only one person ahead of me in seniority, and that is the Senator from Arizona because the State of Arizona has more people in it than the State of Nevada--no one has ever doubted the courage of the Senator from Arizona. I have read the books. I know about Senator McCain. He has not only been heroic on the field of battle but also legislatively, and I respect that.
But I say to my friend, yes, there are 60 votes required on some things in this body. Not everything. The vast majority of legislation that passes here is with a simple majority. I would say to my friend, recognizing that it does take 60 votes, that is why I offered to do the deal: McCain, 60 votes; Warner, 60 votes. That is the proposal I made.
That is pending before the body right now, and that has been turned down five or six times. So I would be willing to do it on a simple majority, if you want to do McCain on a simple majority or the Warner resolution on a simple majority. I would try to get that done. Right now, Madam President, we have the proposal I have made.
I do say that the debate is not whether we support the troops. That is a diversion. We support the troops. The issue before this body is whether the American people deserve to see how their Senator is going to vote; whether their Senator approves the surge, the escalation, the augmentation of 48,000 troops, costing approximately $30 billion extra. That is what the American people care about, not whether we support the troops. We all support the troops.
I will be happy to yield.
I have to be honest with my friend from Illinois, who also came with us at the same time from the House to the Senate, that the answer is, yes. The Lieberman amendment has been given up.
I would say to my friend, yes, that is true. We were willing because the Senator from Arizona had the ability, the courage, and the dignity to put this issue before the American people, even though--and he knows this--the vast majority of American people do not support the escalation in Iraq. But he did it. We were willing to take two Republican resolutions--one supporting the surge, one opposing the surge--and let Senators from every State in the Union raise their hand and tell the American people how they feel about it.
I say to my friend that the rumor around here is that Senator Warner put that in there thinking he could get the support of the Senator from New Hampshire, but, obviously, he was wrong.
I say to my friend that the only thing I sense this afternoon--and I have to say it with a smile on my face, and I hope everyone recognizes this--is that every piece of legislation we have brought up, the Senator from New Hampshire has tried to throw a monkey wrench into it. It happened on ethics, it happened on the minimum wage, and now on this Iraq issue.
I guess my dear friend, who has a stellar political record as Governor, Member of the House of Representatives, United States Senator, chairman of the Budget Committee--and I have commented for the record many times about my admiration for him, but I guess he is the designated ``see if we can mess up the legislation'' guy this year. I would hope in the future to get somebody I don't care so much about because it is hard for me to try to oppose my dear friend from New Hampshire. Maybe when they do this every couple of months they will change.
I will be happy to yield.
Madam President, I also have had the opportunity to go to Iraq as many times as my friend from Arizona, and I also speak to the troops and the people at the Pentagon. I have to respectfully suggest to my friend that there are many individuals whom I have spoken to who really like what we have suggested--we, the Democrats--that there be a redeployment of troops.
Does that mean they all pull out of Iraq and leave immediately? Of course, it doesn't. But redeploy the troops. Redeploy the troops. Redeploy them to do what? Counterterrorism, force protection, and training the Iraqis. And my contacts in the military say they think our proposal is pretty good. We were on this proposal before the Iraq Study Group, but they adopted it, and I hope they got it from us, and that is that there should be a regional conference, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and, yes, Iran. This is a regional problem. This war will not be handled and dealt with and taken care of militarily. It can only be done diplomatically.
We are a wonderful fighting force, and we will continue to be, but where we have lost our edge is diplomatically. We have not done well at all in that regard, and the people I have talked to in the military support what we are trying to do: redeployment; they support a regional conference; they support, of course, recognizing that this must be handled politically. There has to be some meaningful reconstruction that goes forward--producing less oil now than before the war, less potable water, and less electricity. These are the things which have to be changed, and the people I talk to in the military think we are headed in the right direction.
They also think we are headed in the right direction when we speak out on the state of deterioration of our military. This war has taken a toll on our equipment--not on our troops alone, on our equipment. It is going to cost $75 billion to bring the military up to the situation they were in prior to this war. They are grateful we are fighting for them in that regard.
So, Madam President, I respect--and I don't have the military background of my friend from Arizona, but I have contacts in the military, and I think a lot of those people are more willing to talk to me than someone who is running for President and someone who is more noteworthy than I am. He is better known in the military, and they know he can respond to them probably better than I. So they are willing to tell me a lot of things they wouldn't tell someone as significant as John McCain.
So, Madam President, I think the Democratic plan we have enunciated is pretty good, much of which we have enunciated for a long time and has been picked up by the Iraq Study Group.
Certainly.
I think that is part of being a patriotic Member of this Congress.