Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell delivered the following remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Thursday in response to the Democrats’ latest plan to hinder the progress of Gen. Petraeus and his commanders in the field:



“Madam President, we’ve watched carefully our good friends on the other side of the aisle - going back to January - in an attempt to reach some kind of consensus on their side of the aisle.

“I asked my staff to go back and total up the number of different proposals that have either been proposed here on the floor or proposed by one of our good friends on the other side. There are 16 of them.

“There was the Biden resolution, then there was the Levin Resolution, then there was the Reid-Pelosi Resolution, the Murtha Plan, the Biden-Levin Resolution, the funding cut, the waiver plan, the Feingold Plan, an Obama Resolution, a Clinton Resolution, a Dodd Resolution, a Kennedy Resolution, a Feinstein Resolution, a Byrd Resolution, a Kerry Resolution, and today would make number 17.

“At this particular juncture, having just gotten this proposal, it would be necessary, I would say to my good friend, the Majority Leader, for me to share it with members of my conference. We also would want to make certain that it would still be the view of my side that the Warner Proposal, the McCain Proposal, and the Gregg Proposal would be the ones we would offer. That was three weeks ago.

“I was one of those privileged to hear a briefing from General Petraeus over at the Pentagon this morning. Conditions are changing. We’d have to go through a fairly significant consultative process on this side of the aisle to conclude exactly what to offer. I’m prepared to begin that process, but I can’t today agree to this particular consent agreement. Therefore, I object.”



***



“Shortly, we’ll have before the Senate the supplemental appropriation, which is about funding for the troops. That debate, I’m certain, will occur, as the Majority Leader has indicated, before the Easter Recess. We’ll take a look at the proposal he’s offered us just a few moments ago to see whether it’s possible to have yet another Iraq debate next week before we have another Iraq debate two weeks from now.

“But I cannot agree to this today, having just been handed the plan that the majority has a few moments ago, and not having had an opportunity yet to consult with my own side about what proposals we might think would be appropriate to offer some three weeks after the last discussion of the possibility of entering into a consent agreement to handle this measure.

“So, Madam President, with regard to the status of war, I am certain that nobody in this chamber objects to the fact that we haven’t been attacked again here at home since 9/11. I doubt if anybody in the chamber thinks that that’s a complete accident, some quirk of fate. It’s a direct result of having been on offense in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

“No one is satisfied with the progress that’s been made in Iraq - that’s why we have a new Secretary of Defense. That’s why we have a new general from whom I and others heard this morning, indicating that there are early signs that this mission may well succeed. I don’t think we ought to say to our troops in the middle of this new mission that we’re not going to support them. And that’s what this is all about.

“We’ll get back to the Iraq debate in due time. And members on my side of the aisle will be happy to engage. We think this is clearly the most important issue in the country, and we’ll look forward to having that debate - at the latest - in the context of the supplemental appropriation. I yield the floor.”



###