Congressional actions regarding President Bush’s 2007 proposed troop “surge” in Iraq

Democrats respond to troop surge
President Bush’s new Iraq plan immediately faced criticism from most Democrats and some Republicans. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stated that she, along with the Majority leader, Harry Reid (D-Nev.), “informed the president that they were opposed to increasing troop levels.” Both Pelosi and Reid expressed their disapproval in a letter to Bush on January 5, 2007, several days before the speech but after its content was leaked to the public. (Read the full text of the letter)

On Face the Nation, Pelosi said, "If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it...And this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions."

On January 25, 2007, House Intelligence Committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) reversed a position he took in December 2006 by publicly opposing the "surge." He responded to Bush's plan by stating, "We don’t have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level." The month prior, he had said, "We have to consider the need for additional troops (20,000-30,000) to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq.”

Senate fights over several non-binding resolutions; none pass
In January and February of 2007, several non-binding resolutions were considered in the Senate regarding President Bush's planned "surge" of troops in Iraq. None were voted on as Senate Republicans twice blocked debate from proceeding. None of the resolutions would actually have mandated changes or prevented the surge from occurring.

Sen. Biden's anti-"surge" non-binding resolution moves forward
On January 17, 2007, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joe Biden (D-Del.) introduced a non-binding resolution in opposition to a troop "surge." Specifically, it stated:


 * "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq.
 * "The primary objective of United States strategy in Iraq should be to have the Iraqi political leaders make the political compromises necessary to end the violence in Iraq.
 * "Greater concerted regional, and international support would assist the Iraqis in achieving a political solution and national reconciliation.
 * "Main elements of the mission of United States forces in Iraq should transition to helping ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq, conduct counterterrorism activities, reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq, and accelerate training of Iraqi troops.
 * "The United States should transfer, under an appropriately expedited timeline, responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq to the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces.
 * "The United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally-sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq."

Biden said the legislation was "not an attempt to embarrass the president...It's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq."



Cosponsors:

The resolution collected 18 cosponsors, including two Republicans:

On January 24, 2007, Biden's resolution passed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a 12-9 vote. All eleven committee Democrats supported the measure, along with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.). During the committee hearings, Hagel gave a passionate speech against the "surge." The following is an excerpt: "'There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be. And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don't hide anymore; none of us. That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we're not willing to do it, we're not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country. If we don't debate this, if we don't debate this, we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country.' (Watch Hagel's remarks at You Tube courtesy of TPM Muckraker)"

Sen. Warner introduces softer-toned resolution
After Biden's resolution passed on Jan. 24, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) introduced a softer resolution (also non-binding), which stated, "the Senate disagrees with the 'plan' to augment our forces by 21,500, and urges the President instead to consider all options and alternatives for achieving the strategic goals set forth below with reduced force levels than proposed." Warner stated, "I personally, speaking for myself, have great concern about the American G.I. being thrust into that situation, the origins of which sometimes go back over a thousand years."



The resolution gained nine cosponsors:

In late January 2007, Biden and Warner reportedly planned to meet and discuss their resolutions with the hopes of forging a compromise. Warner, however, backed out of these talks. In a letter to Biden, he wrote that the "will of the Senate" should be determined in "open" session, not closeted negotiations." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that Republicans would not attempt to filibuster a non-binding resolution opposing the "surge."

Levin introduces compromise resolution with Warner, then a tougher one
On January 31, 2007, Sens. Carl Levin and Warner compromised on the language for a non-binding resolution that would condemn Bush's plan for a troop "surge." The resolution also contains a statement that vows to "protect funding for the troops." The resolution was scheduled to be discussed the following week.



In early February 2007, Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) threatened to oppose the newly drafted nonbinding resolution, claiming that the language of the resolution was "weak." Both senators supported the original resolution sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.).

On January 31, 2007, Levin introduced a bill which was was similar to the resolution he agreed to with Warner. The primary difference was that the bill would call on President Bush to submit a progress report on Iraq to Congress every thirty days until all combat brigades had returned to the U.S.



The bill collected the following cosponsors:


 * Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) - 2/1/2007
 * Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) - 2/1/2007
 * Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) - 2/1/2007
 * Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) - 2/1/2007

McCain-Graham-Lieberman resolution
On February 5, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced a resolution which would set eleven conditions that the Iraqi government would need to meet in order to retain American support. In addition, it would express that the president and all personnel serving under him should “receive from Congress the full support necessary to carry out the United States mission in Iraq.”



The resolution collected the following cosponsors:


 * Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) - 2/5/2007
 * Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) - 2/6/2007
 * Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) - 2/5/2007
 * Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) - 2/5/2007
 * Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) - 2/5/2007
 * Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) - 2/5/2007
 * Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) - 2/5/2007
 * Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) - 2/5/2007
 * Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) - 2/5/2007

Gregg resolution
In early February, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) introduced a resolution which would recognize the power of the president to deploy troops and the “responsibility” of Congress to provide funds for them. Finally, it would add that, “Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds.”



Republicans block votes on resolutions
On February 5, 2007, the Senate planned to address several of the measures (discussed above) concerning the troop "surge." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) were unable, however, to agree on which resolutions would be debated, and the manner in which they would be considered. Before the debate began, Reid offered Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) a choice. Either all four resolutions (the Warner-Levin resolution, the Gregg resolution, the McCain-Graham-Lieberman resolution and a fourth written by Democrats that simply opposed Bush's plan and supported supplying body armor for the troops - see above) would come to a vote, with a simple majority needed for passing any of them, or a debate and vote would be held only on the Warner-Levin and McCain-Graham-Lieberman resolutions (see above), with each requiring sixty votes to pass. McConnell, however, wanted all three resolutions to face a sixty-vote requirement, likely because it was believed only the Gregg measure could reach this threshold. In the end, the two sides could not reach an agreement. The Republicans then blocked a vote to open debate on the resolutions (a Cloture vote), which needed 60 votes to pass but only garnered 49.



Two Republicans, Sens. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), crossed party lines and voted to open debate on the bill, while Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) joined most Republicans in blocking it. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also voted against debate once it became clear the measure would fail, a procedural move that will provide him the option of reopening the issue in the future.

Following the vote, Reid objected to Republican allegations that "Democrats were seeking to minimize consideration of alternative resolutions of support for the Bush surge." He continued by telling Republicans, "You can run but you cannot hide... We are going to debate Iraq." McConnell downplayed the vote as a mere procedural hurdle, calling it a “bump in the road” and added, “We are ready and anxious to have this debate this week.”

On February 8, 2007, Reid stated that he would postpone any further action on the issue until after the congressional break.

Republicans again block votes on resolution
On February 15, 2007, Reid announced that the Senate would hold a cloture vote on a non-binding resolution regarding the troop "surge" which was being considered in the House at the time. It stated: "' (1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.'" 

The vote was scheduled for Saturday, February 17, which was part of a long weekend in celebration of Presidents' Day. Some saw Reid's decision as an attempt to make it more difficult, or at least inconvenient, for Republicans to again block the resolution from coming to the floor. Reid stated: "“For nearly four years, the Republican-controlled Senate stood silent on the President's flawed Iraq policies and watched as the situation deteriorated into a civil war. The American people have chosen to change course. Democrats have chosen to change course. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans have chosen obstruction. Almost every Republican who expressed concern about the escalation chose to block the Senate from debating the issue...Today, Democrats offered Republicans another chance for compromise, suggesting the Senate debate one resolution in favor of escalation and one resolution opposed to escalation. Once again, Senate Republicans refused...Democrats are determined to give our troops and the American people the debate they deserve, so the Senate will have another Iraq vote this Saturday. We will move for a clear up or down vote on the House resolution which simply calls on Congress to support the troops and opposes the escalation...Those Republicans who have expressed their concern over the Senate’s failure to debate the war in Iraq will have another opportunity to let their actions speak louder than their words.”"

On Saturday, February 17, 2007, Senate Republicans again filibustered a Democratic attempt to vote on President Bush's decision to send over 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq.



Cloture was supported by all voting Senate Democrats, though Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, voted to block the measure from coming to the floor. Seven Republicans crossed party lines and voted for cloture. This group included Sens. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and John Warner (R-Va.). In a speech on the floor, Warner stated “We have the right to respectfully disagree...it is the duty of the Iraqi armed forces to take on the sectarian fight.”(watch the video)

Again, the filibuster was caused by a disagreement between Senate leaders. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) refused to support a vote on the resolution unless Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also allowed a vote on a resolution promising that the Senate would continue to fund the war. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who called the Saturday anti-surge vote a “stupid political game,” said Democrats were “afraid” to vote on funding.

Reid refused to hold a vote on any other resolutions, however, arguing that they were Republican attempts to “divert attention from the issue at hand.” Following the vote, Reid said it was unlikely that the resolution would be brought to the floor again, and implied that Democrats would instead focus on measures aimed at redeploying some U.S. troops from Iraq. These efforts, according to Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.), would likely include an attempt to revise the original 2002 resolution which authorized President Bush to use military force in Iraq. The revision, according to Levin, would seek to "limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of a combat mission."

Sen. Kennedy bill to require congressional approval for troop increase
On January 9, 2007, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced legislation (S.233) prohibiting President Bush from committing more troops to Iraq without specific approval from Congress. Specifically, Sen. Kennedy stated, “Today I am introducing legislation to reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people’s right to a full voice in the President’s plan to send more troops to Iraq. My bill will say that no additional troops can be sent and no additional dollars can be spent on such an escalation, unless and until Congress approves the President’s plan.” (Read the bill)

Kennedy argued that the original mandate authorizing the Iraq War (passed by Congress in October 2002) had expired because "the mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress." He continued to explain that the Iraq War resolution "authorized a war to destroy weapons of mass destruction. But there were no WMDs to destroy. It authorized a war with Saddam Hussein. But today Saddam is no more. It authorized a war because Saddam was allied with al Qaeda. But there was no alliance."



Cosponsors
As of January 26, 2007, Kennedy's bill had attracted the following cosponsors:


 * Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) - 1/9/2007
 * Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) - 1/12/2007
 * Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - 1/9/2007
 * Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) - 1/9/2007
 * Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) - 1/9/2007
 * Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) - 1/10/2007
 * Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) - 1/9/2007

Support
Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said that "Senator Kennedy's resolution underscores the significant opposition on the Hill and with the American people to the president's plan. This is only one of several ideas about how to respond to the president's proposal on Iraq."

On January 11, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq, said, "I’m very interested in it [Kennedy's bill]... It raises potential constitutional questions, the degree to which Congress can determine individual troop strength."

Opposition
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), a Republican who began to denounce the war in late 2006, said he was "uncomfortable with the Kennedy bill" because it was "tied to appropriations," meaning it allowed for the possibility of withholding funding for the effort. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joe Biden (D-Del.), whose panel had jurisdiction over the bill, said that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to cap troop levels or cut funding for specific items regarding a war that it approved. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) disagreed, saying that it is most definitely within the rights of Congress to cut funding for the war. He added, however, that he disagreed with such a move because it would lead to an unacceptable failure for the U.S. in Iraq.

Sen. Dodd introduces bill to cap troop levels in Iraq
On January 16, 2007, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) introduced legislation which would cap U.S. troop levels in Iraq at 130,000 (the number of troops in Iraq at the time), this preventing President Bush from adding an additional 21,500.



Cosponsors
As of January 26, 2007, Dodd's bill had attracted the following cosponsors:


 * Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)
 * Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)

Sen. Obama announces he will introduce bill to cap troop levels and begin redeployment
On January 17, 2007, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) announced plans to introduce a resolution calling for not only a cap in troop levels, but also a phased redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq. He stated, "I cannot in good conscience support this plan (troop surge). As I first said two months ago, we should not be sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, we should begin redeploying them to let the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever and to pressure the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds to finally reach a political settlement...Escalation is a failed policy opposed by generals, Democrats and Republicans, and now even the Iraqis themselves, and the fact that the President is already moving ahead with this idea is a terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002.”

On the night of January 30, 2007, Obama sent his bill, the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 (S.433), to the Senate floor calling for complete withdrawal of troops by March 31, 2008.



Obama released a statement saying, "Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war," Obama said, alluding to Michael Scott Doran's essay "Somebody Else's Civil War" published in the Foreign Affairs journal in 2002. "That's why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence." The legislation proposed by Obama is similar to the plan called for in the Iraq Study Group report issued in December, 2006.

Obama's proposal:


 * Would be binding legislation that would not be able to be bypassed without explicit Congressional approval.
 * Would cap the number of U.S. troops at the January 10, 2007 level.
 * Would not affect the funding of the troops.
 * Would begin a phased redeployment beginning on May 1, 2007 with a goal of total redeployment of combat forces on March 31, 2008, consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's Report.
 * Would enforce benchmarks for Iraq's government including Security, political reconciliation and economic reform. If the benchmarks are met, the redeployment could be temporarily suspended upon congressional approval.
 * Would maintain a military presence in the region for force protection, training of Iraqi forces, and pursuing international terrorists.
 * Would require Congressional oversight with the President reporting a Progress report on Iraq to Congress every 90 days.
 * Would intensify training of Iraqi security forces to enable Iraqi's to take over the security responsibilities for Iraq.
 * Would put conditions on economic assistance to the Government of Iraq based on Progress towards benchmarks.
 * Would create more regional diplomacy with key nations in the region to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict.

Sen. Clinton announces she will introduce resolution to cap troop levels and hold the Iraqi government accountable
On January 17, 2007, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced plans to introduce a bill capping the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at around 130,000. In addition, the bill would cut off funds for Iraqi bodyguards and security services unless they did more to support U.S. troops.

Warner Nelson compromise on the "surge"
In March 2007, it was revealed that Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and John Warner (R-Va.) had been discussing the possibility of breaking ranks and coming up with a compromise piece of legislation regarding the President's plan for a troop surge in Iraq and the over $120 billion Iraq War spending bill.

Rep. Meehan introduces resolution opposing the "surge"
On January 9, 2007, Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.) introduced a resolution (H.Res.41) expressing, "the sense of the House of Representatives that an increase in number of members of the United States Forces deployed in Iraq is the wrong course of action and that a drastic shift in the political and diplomatic strategy of the United States is needed to help secure and stabilize Iraq."



Cosponsors
As of January 26, 2007, Meehan's resolution had attracted the following cosponsors:

Rep. Kucinich introduces resolution opposing the "surge"
On January 10, 2007, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced a resolution (H.Con.Res.23) expressing, “That it is the sense of Congress that the President should not order an escalation in the total number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq.”



Cosponsors
As of January 26, 2007, the resolution had attracted the following cosponsors:

House Democrats plan to pursue non-binding resolution on Iraq
In early February, Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and Armed Services Chair Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) were charged with crafting a non-binding resolution for passage in the House. House Majority leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the measure would contain language expressing “disagreement” or “reservation” with President Bush's plan for a troop surge.

On February 8, the Democrats planned to discuss the resolution in a closed caucus, in the hopes of achieving "near unanimity." Democrats said that introduction of the bill to the House floor would take place on February 12, and may be introduced in with a "closed rule" to prohibit amendments and shorten the debate.

Republican opposition to the closed rule

Republican House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.) both objected to introducing the bill with the "closed rule." Putnam, stated that, "When Republicans brought an Iraq War resolution to the House floor in November 2005 regarding troop withdrawal under a similarly restrictive rule, they were wrong and did so for political gain." He continued, "You know what? [Democrats] were right...It was a game, and we got beat. I mean, did we learn anything from that? It was a resolution that didn’t go through committee and it should have, and it would have been a better resolution if it had."



Text of the resolution released

On February 12, 2007, a copy of the resolution, officially sponsored by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), became public. It stated: "' (1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.'" Passionate debate

From February 12-16, each member of the House was afforded five minutes to speak on the floor about the Skelton resolution. By the end of the week, over 350 members did so. Many of the speeches were passionate and filled with historical quotes and analogies. These included:


 * Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.): Discussed Davy Crockett during the Battle of the Alamo in 1836. He brought up a hypothetical scenario by which Crockett was struggling in battle and received a message on his Blackberry from Congress saying "we support you", but would not be sending any reinforcements. He continued, "I'm sure that would be really impressive to Davy Crockett."


 * Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.): Argued that the U.S. must do everything possible to defeat Muslim extremism, or else it risks having the text on its money change from "In God We Trust" to "In Muhammad We Trust." (Watch Goode deliver his speech)


 * Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas): Referencing the loss of U.S. confidence in the military action in Vietnam during the early 1970s, he stated "words can't fully describe the unspeakable damage of the anti-American efforts against the war back home to the guys on the ground."


 * House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): Quoted former Ohio Sen. Robert Taft (R), who said, "Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of a democratic government" just weeks after the U.S. was bombed by Japanese forces at Pearl Harbor.


 * Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska): Falsely quoted Abraham Lincoln, stating, "Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." (Watch Young deliver these remarks)

House passes non-binding resolution opposing troop "surge"
On February 16, the House passed the Skelton resolution opposing the surge by a vote of 246-182. All but two Democrats, Reps. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), voted in favor of the measure. Seventeen Republicans also supported it. Following the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stated that the resolution would "signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home."



Rep. Markey bill to require congressional approval for troop increase
On January 9, 2007, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a House version (H.R. 353) of Kennedy's bill to restrict Bush from committing more troops to Iraq unless Congress approved the move.

<usbillinfo bill="H.R.353" congress="110" />

Cosponsors
As of January 26, 2007, Markey's bill had collected the following cosponsors:

Rep. Jackson introduces bill to restrict funding for any troops which exceed January 1st levels
On January 12, 2007, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) introduced a bill (H.R.438) which would restrict the any funds “appropriated or otherwise made available” to the Defense Department from being spent to increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq (from their numbers as of January 1, 2007.

<usbillinfo bill="H.R.538" congress="110" />

Cosponsors
As of January 26, 2007, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) was the only member to cosponsor the bill.