Expressing the Sense of Congress on Iraq-Motion to Proceed

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IRAQ--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - February 05, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to oppose cloture on the pending motion to proceed on the issue of how to deal with the Iraqi problem.

As I look at this issue, it is one of enormous magnitude, and it ought not to be subject to shortcuts in the debate of the Senate. We pride ourselves on being the world's greatest deliberative body, and now is the time to show it. But what is happening on this motion for cloture and what is happening behind the scenes on negotiations is an effort to short-circuit debate on this matter of great importance, great magnitude. It is the issue which is engulfing the work of this body, the work of the House, and, really, all of Washington, and many of the eyes of the world are focused on this issue. There is no oxygen left in this town except on what to do on Iraq.

I suggest that this is not the kind of an issue where we ought to be short-circuited. There ought to be a full opportunity to debate this issue and all of its ramifications. What is happening behind the scenes is an effort to limit the number of resolutions and/or bills which may be offered as alternatives as to what the course of the United States ought to be on this very important subject.

Although it is arcane and esoteric and not subject to being understood, what is happening, again, behind the scenes, is the threat by the majority to fill up the tree, and that means when a bill is on the floor, if there is a first-degree amendment and a second-degree amendment, both of which are technical in nature and both of which may be offered by the majority leader because of the rule of priority of recognition, nobody else can offer an amendment.

Now, the countersuggestion has been made that there would be two amendments by the Republicans. That is down from five amendments, and it may be that even five are insufficient. As we debate this issue, other ideas may occur as to what ought to happen. But we are dealing with very complex issues.

On this state of the record, I cannot support an additional allocation of 21,500 troops because it is my judgment that would not be material or helpful in what is going on at the present time. This comes against the backdrop of extensive hearings in the Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee, and in the context of the military having given many estimates with many of those in key command positions saying that no more troops are necessary. This comes with the Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki saying a variety of things but at some times saying he doesn't want any more troops.

This debate ought to be taking up alternative proposals, and the one which is the most attractive to this Senator on this state of the record and has been endorsed by a number of the military is to give notice to the Iraqis that at some point in the future, with the exact time to be determined by the military experts, perhaps 6 months or perhaps some other point, that the Iraqis will be called upon to take over Baghdad, the security of Baghdad, to keep U.S. troops out of the line of fire between the Sunnis and the Shias, and that our current force would remain in Iraq to guard the infrastructure, to guard the oil wells, to give advice and to give training but not to undertake the major responsibility.

The obvious answer ultimately has to be a diplomatic solution, and as long as the Iraqis know that we are going to send in additional troops, that we are going to take over the responsibilities which they should be undertaking, they are going to sit back and let us do it. It is a matter of human nature. If Uncle Sam will do it, why should the Iraqis do it? But if we put them on notice that it is going to be their responsibility at a given time, then that puts the obligation on them.

In the President's State of the Union speech, he was explicit that the Iraqis had to do two things: No. 1, end the sectarian violence, and, no. 2, secure Baghdad. And on this state of the record there is no showing that the Iraqis are capable of doing either.

It is my hope, as we listen to the Senators who have been engaged in these hearings, who have studied the matter in some detail, and as we explore the alternatives, explore the alternative resolution of putting benchmarks that the Iraqis have to meet, when we explore the alternative of limiting funding--which I think there is unanimity we cannot limit funding at a time when American troops will be put in harm's way--this is the time for the Senate to assert congressional responsibility, which we have.

When the President says repeatedly he is the ``decider,' I say respectfully to the President that is a shared responsibility. Under the Constitution, the Congress has the authority to decide, to maintain armies. The Constitution specifically limited appropriations to 2 years.

However, if we are to assert that responsibility and that support, it seems to me we have to do it in a way which does not limit our debate. Right now, we are under a tremendous time pressure, with only an hour and a half to debate this important matter, and Senators are looking for more time. That is a very poor way for this Senate to approach this very important subject.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

http://thomas.loc.gov/