A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.

Madam President, I want to take some time, as we contemplate what is going to happen with the supplemental bill we just passed because, frankly, I am in a state of shock over the casual dismissal of the opinions of the American people, in huge majorities, who say: We have had enough of this war, and we want to make a change. They want us to start to position ourselves in a manner that would allow us to bring our people home.

Not far from this Senate floor, in the middle of the National Mall, is a place of stone and water, of strength and reflection. It is a place that is important to me and, I think, important to the country as a whole. It is where we honor those who served and those who died in World War II.

I proudly wore the uniform of my country during that war. I do not consider myself a hero, but I did my duty to the best of my ability. I and 16 million others went to war because our mission was clear: defeat the enemy who attacked us. And while the battles were fought across the ocean, the entire country united. They all sacrificed. That was the message: sacrifice, sacrifice at home, use less gas, turn off the lights, reduce energy consumption, black out the beachfront places or coastal areas so the enemy could not see the lights of the cities. Even with rising injuries and casualties in World War II, America kept its resolve because we believed in our leaders.

How times have changed.

There is one simple reason the American people have lost faith in this war effort: It has become clear our leaders are not providing us with the truth. And the chief purveyor of misstatements is Vice President Cheney. He chooses to say whatever he wants to, to advance his agenda. But the agenda has now, we know, resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans, thousands of Iraqis. It is time to say: Enough is enough.

I want to review some of the outlandish statements the Vice President has made about this war. On the eve of the invasion, in March 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney assured the Nation that ``we will be greeted as liberators.''

I ask the question: How dare he make a statement such as that-- without knowledge, without any idea of what the consequences of that action might be. We will be greeted as liberators?

He went on to say the fight would be ``weeks rather than months.''

In June of 2005, Vice President Cheney assured us the insurgency in Iraq is ``in the last throes.'' That was almost 2 years ago. Ask our people in uniform, ask our people in combat, ask those who are facing another deployment after having been there once or even twice--ask them what they think about that statement, about the accuracy of those remarks.

Earlier this year, even after the Pentagon admitted there was no evidence at all of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, the Vice President said there was a connection. If you say it, maybe you can convince people, even if it is not the truth.

And now, this week, we have our Vice President speaking out against this bill we just passed, again making outlandish claims.

You have to ask yourself a question: Who is still listening to those comments and giving them any credibility? Unfortunately, there are people, despite his outrageous and unsubstantiated claims--claims such as the ``insurgency is in its last throes''--who tend to believe him. He is, after all, the Vice President of the United States. It is a prestigious job. There is an automatic assumption that credibility goes to the occupant of that position.

We may never know the real motivation behind this administration's drive to Iraq, but we do know the following: They presented false intelligence to the American people and our allies.

We have seen some of those responsible, credible people, who believed in the case that was being made by the intelligence reports--look at one of the great figures in American contemporary history, Colin Powell--a general, Chief of Staff. I remember his speech at the United Nations providing evidence of materials that confirmed there were weapons of mass destruction there. And now this man, who has a lifetime built on honesty and credibility, has said he regrets those statements. But we do not hear that pause, that reflection, coming from the President or the Vice President of the United States.

The administration knowingly misled the country about Iraq's nuclear ambitions in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address.

In a recent CBS News poll, 66 percent of the American people disapproved of the way President Bush is handling this situation with Iraq. That disapproval has continued to build. If you look at some of the polling data we have seen over the last couple years, less and less of the people in the country believe we are doing a good job with the situation in Iraq, as portrayed by the President.

On Monday, President Bush said:

There's been some progress.

That statement shows the President is living in an alternate reality.

On that same day--Monday--10 American troops were killed, 9 of them in a single attack. Since the beginning of this war, more than 3,300 of our people in uniform have died.

One of those people was a fellow from Toms River, NJ, Marine Cpl Thomas Saba. He served with the Marines' Flying Tigers. He volunteered to extend

his tour of duty after his squadron was deployed to Iraq. He died with his comrades in February when their helicopter was shot down by insurgents. Corporal Saba is one of 77 people from my home State of New Jersey to see their last sunset in Iraq. Ten more have died in Afghanistan.

Beyond these casualties, nearly 25,000 of our troops have left the combat theater with serious wounds. More than 800 of them have lost at least one limb. We have spent mountains of taxpayer money in Iraq. We have spent $400 billion, going now at the rate of $3 billion a week. What have we gotten for our investment? A disaster. That is the reality of Iraq, not the endless and empty picture of optimism the Vice President and others in the administration and the President continue to paint. ``Extend our victories.'' What victories are they talking about? I don't see any victories. We see more threats. Not only to our people--that is the most serious one--not only to our reputation, but to our leadership in the world as it disintegrates in front of us as this conflict continues.

We need a new course, and we need it now. This supplemental provides that new course. We hope the President will reflect a little bit, instead of the braggadocio attitude and false stories about how Democrats want to surrender. That is the most offensive thing. Democrats want to surrender? Senator Inouye, a Medal of Honor winner here, and other people who fought in Vietnam and other places. We want to surrender America? It is an outrage.

Outside my office, we have a memorial and it shows the ``Faces of the Fallen''--photographs. Some of them are blank, but they have a name and a location of the person--the faces of the fallen from Iraq and Afghanistan. Typically it carries each picture, and we have about 3,000 of them. It takes a while to get the pictures together. People walk by, they stop and pause and write notes in a journal we have there. It includes the name and age, the rank and the battalion or company they served in, the cause of death of each of the Nation's fallen servicemembers, inscribed with their photo on the memorial. Families, friends, and visitors search those photos on a daily basis looking for people from their State, from their area, people who many knew and loved and miss. One woman found a picture of her son up there and wrote an inscription in our journal.

As they search these pictures, some write notes in a book of reflections. I want to share two of those reflections. A person named Prudence Hart from New Jersey wrote:

We honor our soldiers for answering the call of their

Nation. We must honor them and this Nation by never allowing

another President to wage war as this one has.

Another person, Jay Miller from Rhode Island, wrote:

We are at a pivotal point in our country's history. Our

leaders must take a stand and use their constitutional powers

to end this madness.

To Prudence Hart, Jay Miller, and every American, I say: We are with you. We do honor those who have bravely taken up their task, able and willing to do it. Some of those troops are the third deployment away from a spouse, children, community, job. They are the ones making the sacrifice, and they are the ones whom we want to honor. We want to honor them by remembering those who paid the ultimate price, but we want to honor them further by bringing them home and giving them appropriate post-service treatment.

I wish we were treating our veterans in the same honorable manner in which they were recruited. We have failed in many instances. We failed, even as people criticize Democrats and those who disagree with them, even as they try to discredit us as wanting to surrender, when they didn't provide the right equipment, whether the humvees were sufficiently armored, or whether they had the proper flak jackets.

I went to Iraq some years ago, and when I asked the people I met from New Jersey: What is it we could do to make their job better and protect them more, one of them said, Senator--and I was with four other colleagues--Senators, the flak jackets you are wearing, the body armor you are wearing is the latest and the best. We don't have it. People who were in the coalition have that, but we don't. What else? They said: Our humvees are not sufficiently armored to protect us. We know what has happened.

So if we want to talk about honoring our troops, where was the administration while Halliburton was stealing from the country with food and shelter and had a fine of millions of dollars imposed by the auditors from the Defense Department? Shame on them. In the war I fought in, there wasn't anybody except a traitor who would do something that might help the enemy like having a sham corporation in the Cayman Islands, a branch in Dubai where they then did business with Iran-- Iran, which supplies weapons and encouragement to insurgents who want to kill our people there. It is shocking that we see that, and when we hear these false tales coming from the Vice President of the United States, when he talks about victory, and I am paraphrasing: victory within our grasp, within our reach. The American people don't believe it, and I tell my colleagues I don't believe it, and a lot of my colleagues don't believe it.

We had a vote one day that was significant. It was 56 to 44, and it included seven of our colleagues from the Republican side, people who had the courage to stand up and say: Look, we are not ashamed to be Republicans, and we are not ashamed to be Democrats, but we think this policy is wrong. We had enough votes--not to get cloture, but to establish a significant majority. I know some of our colleagues over there who are loyal to the party and to the President who don't like a bit what he is asking of the American people now, and asking of us, labeling this bill as a porkbarrel thing.

I can't get the word ``surrender'' out of my mind.

I sit on the Appropriations Committee, and I was at a conference committee of the House and the Senate the other night, and the ranking Republican on the House side said the Democrats want to surrender just when General Petraeus is coming in--surrender. This bill is our stand, the American stand. It begins to set a timetable for us to come home-- not to run away from our responsibilities. Our responsibility has been more than met. But we are even willing to leave enough of a cadre there to say: OK, we will help the Iraqis learn to defend themselves. We will help the Iraqis to reconstruct their society. We will help even to do some counterterrorism and counterinsurgencies.

It is time to come home. It is time to come home, and I hope the President of the United States will follow the demands of the American people and a major number of people who oppose where we are, a huge majority.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, thank you for the recognition. I have sought recognition to discuss the procedural situation which confronts the Senate at the present time and to discuss a proposed rule change which would deal with this kind of a problem.

We have pending a motion to proceed on S. 470, which proposes a disagreement with the President's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq. Under the Senate rules, a motion to proceed is debatable, and when we deal with an issue of the magnitude of what is happening in Iraq today and the President's proposal to send additional troops, it is obviously a matter of great moment. The eyes and ears of the country are focused on the Senate. The eyes and ears of the world are focused on the Senate.

So far, what is happening is largely misunderstood, but the starting point is that a motion to proceed is debatable. But before debate even began, the majority leader filed a motion for cloture, which means to cut off debate. Now, a cloture motion would be in order, but why before the debate has even started? The cloture motion is designed to cut off debate after debate has gone on too long. But what lies behind the current procedural status is an effort by the majority leader to do what is called filling the tree, which is a largely misunderstood concept, not understood at all by the public generally and even not understood fully by many Members of this body. But the Senate is unique from the House, and the Senate has been billed as the world's greatest deliberative body, because Senators have the right to offer amendments.

In the House of Representatives they established what is called a rule, and they preclude Members from offering amendments unless it satisfies the Rules Committee. In the Senate, generally a Senator doesn't have to satisfy anybody except his or her own conscience in offering an amendment. But if the majority leader, who has the right of recognition--and that, of course, is not understood either--but if the majority leader is on the floor and seeks recognition, he gets it ahead of everybody else. And if the majority leader offers what is called a first-degree amendment to the bill, which is substantively identical to the bill but only a technical change, and then again seeks recognition and gets it and offers a second-degree amendment to the bill, which is substantively the same but only a technical change, then no other Senator may offer any additional amendment. That is a practice which has been engaged in consistently by both parties for decades, undercutting the basic approach of the Senate, which enables Senators to offer amendments and get votes.

The Congressional Research Service has tabulated the statistics going back to the 99th Congress in 1985 and 1986 when Senator Dole used this procedure on five occasions. In the 100th Congress, Senator Byrd, then the majority leader, used this procedure on three occasions. In the 103d Congress, the next majority leader, Senator Mitchell, used this procedure on nine occasions. When Senator Dole became leader again in the 104th Congress, he used this procedure on five occasions. In the 106th Congress, Senator Lott, then the majority leader, used it nine times. In the 107th Congress, Senator Daschle, then the majority leader, used it once. He was only majority leader for about 18 months. In the 108th Congress, Senator Frist used it three times, and in the 109th Congress five times.

Now, my suggestion is that the parties ought to declare a truce on this procedural war of filling the tree which undercuts the basic thrust of Senate procedure to allow Senators to offer amendments. But the majority leaders continue to use it, which they have a right to under the current rules, which is why I am suggesting a change in the rules. But it will take a little time to change the rules. We can't do it immediately for the Iraq debate. But it would be my hope that there would be a public understanding of what we are doing, because the most effective process in our governmental operations is public understanding and public pressure. We call it a political question. We call it public understanding to have transparency or an understanding of what we do, and then the public can say yea or nay with what is happening, and that is a tremendous force to lead Senators and Members of the House of Representatives to take action, to call it the right thing, or to take action consistent with sound public policy.

Now, what is happening today is that charges are being leveled on all sides. There has been a lot of finger-pointing with most of the Democrats saying the Republicans are obstructing a vote--a debate and a vote on the Iraqi resolutions. And Republicans are saying: Well, we are insisting on our right to debate the motion to proceed. We don't think you should file cloture before the

debate even starts, to cut off debate before you have debate, but the reason we are doing it is so this procedural device may not be used on what is called in common parlance to ``fill the tree.'' But if you ask virtually anybody what is filling the tree, they are going to think about an orchard; they are not going to think about Senate procedure. But it is called filling the tree. I have described it succinctly and briefly to outline exactly what the procedure is to stop Senators from offering amendments.

There is a clue here that Senator Warner--who is the principal proponent of the Warner resolution, the Warner-Levin resolution, which picks up the substance of the bill which is currently pending, S. 470-- Senator Warner votes against cloture, and he is the principal proponent of disagreeing with the President's plan. Well, that ought to tell us something: that Senator Warner is not trying to stifle debate on a vote on his own initiative, on his own resolution. Senator Hagel also--who has been characterized as the most outspoken critic of President Bush's plan to have a surge--voted against cloture. That ought to tell us something: that Senator Hagel is not trying to defeat debate on a vote on what he seeks to accomplish.

So it would be my hope there would be a truce. Let me say candidly that I think there is very little chance there is going to be a truce in the Senate on using this procedural rule. It has been used on both sides. It has been used by Democrats and Republicans when it suits the partisan advantage of one party or another, and suiting the partisan party advantage of one party or another is not consistent with sound public policy and the public interest.

Right now this debate is being waged in the newspapers, it is being waged on the talk shows, it is being waged on the Sunday shows, even some of it is being waged on the floor of the Senate, but by and large not understood.

I spoke on the subject on Monday, outlining the rules morass, and largely misunderstood, even by senior members of my own staff not understood. You have the Democrats--and I think we ought to rise above the partisanship, Democrats and Republicans--saying they have the high ground and they intend to keep it. Well, I think they are winning the public relations battle. Let's be candid about it. Democrats are winning the public relations battle. Most people think what is going on, because we are opposing ending debate, Republicans are opposing ending debate, is that we do not want to have the debate and we do not want to have the vote.

That is not factually correct. Senator Warner, who is proposing it, and Senator Hagel, who is one of the sharpest critics of the President's plan, and other Senators who are critics of the President's plan, have voted against cutting off debate because it is a big issue which ought to be debated, and because what is going on behind the scenes, under the surface, is an effort to have agreement on how many votes there will be to have a fair airing of the subject matter, and to have an opportunity for Senators to vote on a variety of resolutions or amendments. Ordinarily, we come to agreement on those matters. Right now we are up against the continuing resolution, which is about to expire.

I would suggest we have plenty of time to do it all if we start to work a little earlier. We are on morning business until 2 o'clock, which means we can express ourselves and it is not wasted time, but it is not the most productive time. We don't come to work until late on Monday. We don't work on Friday. Most Americans work a 5-day week. Some Americans work 6 and 7 days. So we have time. And we could work in the evenings, too, when we are facing a time limit, or we could have a continuing resolution which was extended, so that debate could be put off. But now it is in doubt what is going to happen. It is controlled by the majority, and by the majority leader, and that is the right of the majority and the right of the majority leader.

There have been pronouncements that we are not going to come back to this debate and that it is politically advantageous for the Democrats to blame the Republicans for blocking debate on the vote, and that will be the public posture. But it is my hope there will yet be a recognition of what is going on. I would be glad to debate anybody who cares to discuss the issue as to whether my representations are accurate or inaccurate; that the majority leader has the right exercised by majority leaders of both parties for at least the last two decades to preclude amendments being offered and to preclude any consideration by what Republicans have to say on this issue.

We have a Member of the opposite party on the Senate floor. I would be glad to debate that subject with him now.

Before the week is up, I will offer a resolution to change the Senate rules to preclude this procedure in the future, but in the public interest, there ought to be a truce declared on it that won't be used by either side to the disadvantage of the other. The real party being disadvantaged is the party of the American people. That is where the impact is.

In conclusion--the two most popular words of any presentation--I hope we can explain, as a starting point, discussions we have in the Senate and follow up with explanations in the media, which really carries the message to the American people. Some people are watching on C-SPAN. I have a family very interested in the speeches I make from time to time--two sisters and a brother-in-law. I talked to them Monday night, and they had no idea what I was saying. My staff does not understand what I am saying.

The essence is, the rules being exercised by the majority, by the Democrats today, will preclude Republican amendments if they fill the tree by the procedure I have described. I do not want to stop debate. Senator Warner, who is the principal proponent of the amendment to debate and vote, Senator Hagel, an outspoken critic of the President-- doesn't that say something?

I hope we can bring sufficient public clarity to the issue that the majority leader and the Democrats will rethink their position. As long as the Republicans are being blamed for not having debate and a vote, we are not going to have debate and a vote. If the public understands both parties are at fault, equal blame on both sides, then there may be some movement and some accommodation.

It does not take long for the American people to see the morass and procedural shenanigans going on and say: We don't care whether you are a Democrat or Republican, the American people are sick and tired of the bickering that goes on in this Chamber and in the House of Representatives. They expressed themselves in the last election. If we cannot do a better job in explaining ourselves and finding a way to work through and address the substantive problems, the enormous problems facing this country--and the No. 1 today is Iraq--we may all find ourselves seeking new employment.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, America has reached a critical crossroad in the war in Iraq. More than 4 years ago, this Senate voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who slaughtered his own people, attacked his neighbors, and threatened our security.

Thanks to the courageous service of the men and women of the American military, that evil regime was overthrown and in its place came hopes for a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, hopes for a victory in the war for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.

As of today, sadly, as we all know, those hopes have not been realized. Because of the ruthless conduct of our enemies in Iraq, as well as our own failures, we instead today find ourselves on a knife's edge in Iraq.

Now a new course has been chosen. A new commander is in place in Iraq, confirmed unanimously by this Senate. A new Secretary of Defense is in place at the Pentagon, also confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate. And a new strategy has begun to be put into action on the ground in Iraq by American troops.

It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war.

But that, sadly, is not the debate that the Warner-Levin resolution invites us to have. I am going to speak strongly against this resolution because I feel strongly about it. I do so with the greatest respect for my colleagues who have offered it. But I believe its passage would compromise America's security, and I will say so within the clearest terms I can muster.

The resolution before us, its sponsors concede, will not stop the new strategy from going forward on the ground in Iraq. In fact, as we speak in the Senate, thousands of American troops are already there in Baghdad, with thousands more moving into position to carry out their Commander's orders. This resolution does nothing to alter those facts.

Instead, its sponsors say it will send a message of rebuke from this Senate to the President of the United States, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But the President has made clear he will not be deterred in carrying out what he sees as his duties and responsibilities as Commander in Chief.

And there is a world well beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is also watching and listening to what we do. What we say is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi political leaders, by moderates trying to decide whether we Americans will stand with them over the long term.

What we say is being heard by our men and women in uniform who naturally will be interested in knowing whether we support the plan they have been asked to carry out at risk to their own lives.

What we say in the Senate will be heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria and by al-Qaida terrorists eager for evidence that America's will is breaking.

And what we say in the Senate will be heard across America by our constituents who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not hollow posturing.

This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility. It is the opposite. This is a resolution of irresolution.

For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented. But it is not inconsequential. It is an act which I fear will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against the motion for cloture.

My colleagues, if you believe that General Petraeus and his new strategy have a reasonable chance of success in Iraq, then you should resolve to support him and his troops through the difficult days ahead and oppose this resolution.

On the other hand, if you believe this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless in Iraq, then you should put aside this resolution--nonbinding--and you should vote to stop what is happening in Iraq, vote to cut off the funds, vote for a binding time line for American withdrawal.

If that is where your convictions lie, then have the courage of your convictions to accept the consequences of your convictions. That would be a resolution.

This nonbinding resolution before us, by contrast, is an accumulation of ambiguities and inconsistencies. It is at once for the war but also against the war. It pledges its support to the troops in the field but then washes its hands of what they have been commanded to do. It urges more troops be sent for Anbar Province but not for Baghdad.

My colleagues, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus but no confidence in the strategy he says he needs for success.

We cannot say our troops have our full support but disavow their mission on the eve of battle. This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. And that is why the Constitution gave the authority of Commander in Chief to one person, the President.

Cynics may say this kind of irresolution happens all the time in Congress. In this case, however, they would be wrong. If it passed, this resolution would be unique in American legislative history.

I asked the Library of Congress this question last week and was told that never before, when American soldiers have been in harm's way, fighting and dying in a conflict Congress had voted to authorize, has Congress turned around and passed a nonbinding resolution such as this one, disapproving of a particular battlefield strategy.

I ask each of my colleagues to stop for a moment and consider the precedent that passage of this resolution would establish. Even during Vietnam, even after the Tet Offensive, even after the invasion of Cambodia, Congress did not take up a nonbinding resolution such as this one.

Past Congresses certainly debated wars. They argued heatedly about them. And they sometimes clashed directly with the executive branch, with the President, over their execution. But in so doing, they accepted the consequences of their convictions

This resolution does no such thing. It is simply an expression of opinion. It does not pretend to have any substantive effect on policy on the ground in Iraq. But again, I ask my colleagues, what will this resolution say to our soldiers? What will it say to our allies? What will it say to our enemies?

We heard from General Petraeus during his confirmation hearing that war is a battle of wills. Our enemies believe they are winning in Iraq today. They believe they can outlast us, that sooner or later we will tire of this grinding conflict and go home and leave the field in that country open for them. That is the lesson Osama bin Laden has told us, in his writings and statements, he took from our retreats from Lebanon and Somalia in the 1980s and 1990s. It is a belief at the core of the insurgency in Iraq and at the core of the fanatical goals of radical Islam worldwide.

I fear this resolution before the Senate, by codifying our disunity, by disavowing the mission our troops are about to undertake, will confirm our enemies' beliefs that America has grown impatient and unable to fight the long fight to victory. This resolution also sends a terrible message to our allies. Of course, I agree that we must hold the Iraqi Government to account. That is exactly what the resolution Senator McCain and I and others have offered would do. But I ask you, imagine for a moment that you are a Sunni or Shia politician in Baghdad who wants the violence to end, and ask yourself how the Warner-Levin resolution would affect your thinking, your calculations of risk, your willingness to stand against the forces of extremism. Will the resolution empower you or will it undermine you? Will it make you feel safer or will it make you feel you should hedge your bets, or go over to the extremists, or leave Iraq?

Finally, what is the message this resolution sends to our soldiers? I know that every Member of the Senate supports our troops but actions have consequences, often unintended.

I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional moment to finish my statement. That would come from Senator McConnell's time.

When we send a message of irresolution, it does not support our troops. When we renounce their mission, it does not support our troops. We heard recently in the Senate Armed Services Committee from GEN Jack Keane, a former chief of staff of the U.S. Army, who said of a resolution like this one:

It's just not helpful . . . What the enemy sees is an

erosion of the political and moral will of the American

people . . .

Our soldiers are Americans first. They clearly understand

there's a political process in this country that they clearly

support . . . But at the end of the day, they are going to go

out and do a tough mission, and I certainly would like to see

them supported in that mission as opposed to declaring

nonsupport. . . .

I agree. Everyone here knows the American people are frustrated about the lack of progress in Iraq. Everyone here shares that frustration. And as elected representatives of the people, everyone here feels pressure to give expression to that frustration. This is not a new challenge. It is one that every democracy in every long war has had to confront. Nearly a century and a half ago, an American President wrestled with just this problem. It was in the midst of a terrible war, a civil war in which hundreds of thousands of Americans were fighting and dying to secure the freedom of millions long and cruelly denied it.

``We here highly resolve,'' that was Lincoln's message at Gettysburg. It was a message of resolution.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional moment from the time of Senator McConnell to finish the statement.

Lincoln said at Gettysburg: ``We here highly resolve.'' It was a message of resolution, of steadfastness in the face of adversity, of hope over despair, and of confidence in the cause of freedom which is America's eternal cause. Today, in the depths of a terrible war, on the brink of a decisive battle for Baghdad, let us have a serious debate about where we stand and where we must go in Iraq. But that is not the debate this resolution of irresolution would bring.

The 60-vote requirement to close debate was put in place by our predecessors as a way to make it harder for the passions of a particular moment to sweep through the American people and across this Congress in a way that would do serious damage to our Nation in the long term. Because I believe this resolution, if passed, would have such an effect, I will respectfully oppose the motion for cloture.

I yield the floor.

I would be happy to, briefly. The resolution Senator McCain and I and others have has been prepared and I gather has been the subject of negotiation between Senator Reid and Senator McConnell.

That is right. The debate going on now----

My dear friend, it is more than a possibility; it is a promise.

There are copies of it around now, and we will get you one. They were publicly distributed Thursday of last week.

I thank my friend. The difference, of course, is that ours is as nonbinding as yours, but ours is a statement of support to our troops and benchmarks to the Iraqis.

One is not less patriotic than the other, but actions have consequences. As I said during my remarks, for the Senate to take this unprecedented action on a nonbinding resolution, to disavow, disapprove a mission that our troops are being asked to carry out right now cannot help their morale.

Madam President, we just heard a debate about debates. It strikes me that this word war we are conducting here doesn't get to the fact that we are losing people every day in Iraq--27 Americans died in a weekend--and our friends on the other side want to discuss the rules and the process instead of being able to agree that there was a nonbinding resolution being proposed about whether you want to see this surge--a la escalation--of the war in Iraq. Our friends were so conscience-stricken that they wanted to resort to more words and amendments. Why couldn't we have just passed or discussed that nonbinding resolution, let it go, and let the debate then continue? Bring on the debates. But, no, this is the press relations battle which was just discussed by our colleague.

That is not what we are looking for. We are looking to save lives, American lives, but we can't get to the subject because there is a question about what the rules ought to be. The rules ought to be the decency of our consciences--let us make decisions that will save lives and ease the pain on American families.

This was an unfortunate dynamic we saw this week: Republican colleagues determined to block the opportunity for the Senate to vote on the President's war escalation policy for Iraq. Just when the American people want this Congress to stop the President's misguided plan, our colleagues on the other side are hard at work to shut

down that opportunity. What they are afraid of is that we will confirm our support for the troops who are there now, and any insinuation that isn't the truth is a foul lie. We are just as anxious to support the troops. We are more anxious, in many ways, because we called for equipment to be available to protect our troops. We called for vehicles to be properly armored. We called for the body armor to be developed. But we didn't hear any complaints about the misdeeds of the contractors who weren't doing what they were supposed to be doing. They were not even monitored. We are going to talk about that.

Our friends in the minority can delay this debate, and I hope the American public understands what is going on--delay the debates, don't let us come to the conclusion, don't let the President see that a majority of this Senate does not want this escalation to take place. They will delay this debate and vote for now, but it is going to happen eventually. It will happen because the American people are understandably frustrated with the President's conduct and mishandling of this war.

Our children are taught a lesson in school: If you do things wrong and you don't pass your courses, don't change your ways, don't listen to advice, you get an F on your report card. In the view of many of the American people--most of the American people--President Bush has gotten an F on his report card on the handling of the situation in Iraq. But he and the Vice President refuse to be held accountable, and his allies in the Senate are blocking us from holding him accountable. It is not a good lesson for our Nation's young people. They see that if they don't do their work, they fail the course, and the President has not done his work, and he ought not to get a positive grade for his job thus far.

The American people don't want Congress to grant unlimited power to the President and his incompetent crew. Our troops have done a magnificent job, but it is the President and failed leadership at the Pentagon that have let them down.

Who can forget Secretary Rumsfeld's quote:

You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you

might want or wish to have at a later time.

Frankly, it is a slur, in my view, against the troops we have, those courageous people over there fighting right now or at that time. It is a terrible message to send to our soldiers.

Who can forget when the insurgency first started and our troops were getting attacked with roadside bombs, when President Bush said ``bring 'em on''? I wore our Nation's uniform in World War II, in Europe, and I can say none of us wanted our Commander in Chief taunting the enemy, inviting them to come on out and fight and maybe kill us. No. To be in harm's way and have your commander make such a statement from the safety and security of the White House is appalling.

Now the President wants a so-called surge. Does he want to surge our way to more problems? Does he want to surge our national debt by spending billions more every week in Iraq? Anybody who understands English knows that the real definition of ``surge'' as used here means ``enlarge'' or ``escalate.''

From this war, we have more than 700 Americans who have lost limbs, more than 29,000 suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and over 3,000 have perished in Iraq, 74 of whom have ties to my home State of New Jersey. Yet President Bush dismisses the incredible cost of this war in lives, injuries, and resources essential for the health and well-being of our people at home, domestic programs.

After all the previous failures and incompetence by this administration, why should the American people allow the President to do whatever he chooses in this war, this war which has destroyed thousands of families' lives? Look at the President's record on Iraq: false intelligence on weapons of mass destruction; no posted invasion plan because the administration was convinced that we would be greeted with sweets and flowers in a Utopian celebration. The President's team decided to fire the entire Iraqi Army, dismissing 500,000 trained troops who might have been helpful to us in fighting this insurgency. Then the Bush administration helped create further sectarian division by simply banning members from serving in the new Iraqi Government. The administration has allied itself with an Iraqi Prime Minister who supports a militia leader named Sadr who controlled a terrorist militia which disagrees with the formation of a stable government.

We all saw the waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds by contractors such as Halliburton. The Iraqi reconstruction inspector general said that nearly $3 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars for Iraqi reconstruction has been lost--lost, vanished, $3 billion. That is not sloppy, that is incompetence. So it is understandable that a giant majority of the American people are against this escalation. The other side of the aisle obviously does not want to vote consistent with the American people's wishes or their prayers. Taxpayers are footing a massive bill for these mistakes.

The administration gave Halliburton a no-bid contract thought to be worth $50 million--well, it surged to $2.5 billion--to operate Iraqi's oil infrastructure. And what has that contract yielded in oil? Less oil 4 years after the invasion than Iraq was producing before the war. Halliburton was forced to pay back $50 million after a fine was leveled against them by the Department of Defense. That is why the American people say no surge for Halliburton.

I was a member of the Department of Homeland Security committee in the previous Congress. I wrote five letters to the chairman asking we have hearings, oversight hearings, on the Halliburton behavior in the war. I was told that it would be duplicable, and we couldn't get a review of Halliburton's behavior.

When the Republicans were in the majority, they said a vote against the President's policy was cut-and-run, but now the American people are asking the question, What is the alternative? Stay and die?

In November, the American people spoke with the most effective means they have; that is, the ballot box. They said no. They said they want a change. They voted for a voice against the President. Now the Republican minority is blocking Congress from speaking.

The President and the minority in the Senate cannot continue to ignore the will of the American people. We already saw the President ignore his own chosen Iraqi Study Group. First he appoints them; then he challenges them or ignores them. He ignored the advice of GEN John Abizaid, who thinks this escalation is a bad idea. He ignored former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who said more troops are not the answer.

When do we say enough is enough? Well, I think that time is past due.

Outside my office, to remind us all--I am very sensitive to veterans matters, to our military, not just because I served but because they are there to protect us. And they do a splendid job, even when they are asked to do more than the numbers they should have are not in place, and the equipment has not been quite what it ought to be, delays in producing that. We display a memorial outside my office showing the ``Faces of the Fallen,'' which says: ``Let Us Never Forget.'' There are almost 3,000 faces outside the door to my office. We have them on easels. It was our construction. The name, age, rank, battalion affiliation, and the cause of death of each of these Nation's fallen servicemembers is inscribed with their photo on the memorial. If you look, you see the ages and how young they were and what they must have meant to the families they left behind.

Friends and visitors search these photos daily for knowledge of people they might know and miss. As they search, as they review these pictures, some write notes in a book of reflections that we have out there. A woman from Englewood, NJ, wrote:

How do we measure their sacrifice? We are so fortunate to

have these brave men and women.

A woman from Minnesota says:

This display brings tears to my eyes, to see how many lives

have been lost. Please stop more boards from being added and

bring those who would find themselves memorialized here home

safely.

A Californian simply wrote:

Bring them home!

These are what the American people want, and we ignore them at our own peril. We prevent a vote on this momentous issue at our own peril as well.

I close, saying to my colleagues on the other side, please stop the insinuations that we on this side of the aisle do not want to support our troops. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us, myself included, have been there to meet with our troops and see what they need and see what they want and listen to their tales of the days they spend in harm's way. We want to support them. We salute them. They honor their obligation to their country, even though we, in many cases, disagree with the mission.

And when we fool ourselves into believing that all we have to do is to put more people in harm's way and we will get a stabilized government there, we find, in many instances, the recruits they have in the army there are just not capably trained, don't have the will, in many instances, to take up the fight. And we want to put more of our people in there?

I think what ought to be done--as many others here do--is to start to whittle down our presence, leave enough of a resource there to help train those people, maybe instill some courage in their view of what their responsibilities are, get enough people in the flow--the Iraqi people--and plan to get them home as soon as we practically can.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the thousands of Montanans who have lost faith in the way this administration is conducting the war in Iraq.

Our troops have given more than most of us can imagine. This administration has asked much of them. They should be commended for their performance in a war that has been mismanaged from the get-go.

In 1972, deep into the Vietnam war, the great Senator, the great statesman, Senator Mike Mansfield, whose seat I am now honored to hold, spoke of a great nation. When times demand it, it is wise for us to take a step back and look at those who served before us.

Standing not far from where I stand today, Senator Mansfield said:

Mr. President, it does no great nation any harm to admit

that a mistake has been made. And sometimes when nations and

men will do so, they will be the bigger and the better for

it.

Many years later, Mansfield would say that when he was gone, he wanted to be forgotten. We have not forgotten Mike Mansfield, and we must not forget his measured approach to diplomacy, his steady hand, and the lesson that admitting a mistake is the first step in correcting it.

It is time we debate the facts of this situation so this country's leaders can make the right decisions.

I have said for more than a year that this war is being conducted without a plan for success and there is no end in sight. For too long, this body has refused to ask the tough questions, to debate the merits of this war, and has not held the President accountable for the deteriorating situation in Iraq.

Disturbingly, recent reports confirm that our invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists than it has eliminated. Yet the terrorist who plotted the most deadly attack on U.S. soil--Osama bin Laden--remains at large and ignored by the administration.

In addition to the more than 3,000 killed since the war began, 17 of whom are from Montana, there have been more than 23,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many will come home missing one or more limbs. Others will return home to battle posttraumatic stress disorder.

Last week, I joined several of my colleagues, along with two Iraqi war veterans, and called on the administration to get serious about funding for veterans health care. I renew that call today for permanent mandatory full funding of VA health care. There is no reason veterans should be forced to come to us every year hat in hand and beg for funding. It should be permanent, and it should be fully funded. Right now, it is neither.

Our country's veterans do not seek, nor do they expect, recognition from their Commander in Chief, nor the American people. But we owe them not only the recognition but also the promise that we will care for them and their families when they return.

Following the gulf war, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Colin Powell, outlined his plan for efficient and decisive military action, now referred to as the Powell doctrine.

The Powell doctrine clearly outlines what U.S. military action should look like:

Military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to the national security by the intended target.

Force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy.

There must be strong support for the campaign by the general public.

And last, there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged.

One by one, this administration has violated every principle of the Powell doctrine and, as a result, we are lost in Iraq and alone in the world.

Clear risk to national security? Prior to the invasion, the administration claimed that Iraq's nuclear capabilities made it a grave threat to America's national security, allegations that proved to be false.

Overwhelming force? The administration was unprepared for the dangers of urban combat, for improvised explosive devices, and continues to send troops into harm's way without proper armor. It is unconscionable that these soldiers are being sent into battle without all of the tools they need to be safe and successful. It is unacceptable to send them there with no plan for, or definition of, success.

Public support? Perhaps the most significant difference between the first gulf war and the war in Iraq is the lack of support from our allies. Like World War II, the gulf war was successful because America built a strong coalition and did not force our troops to carry the burden alone.

As support for this war continues to erode, so, too, does our standing in the world. Just a few years ago, nearly the entire world stood at America's side following the attacks on September 11. That good will has long since been squandered.

And finally, an exit strategy? The President has proposed sending 21,500 more troops into Iraq as a strategy for victory. Staying the course by escalating this war only spells disaster.

This country should no longer tolerate, nor can it afford, an open- ended conflict that has claimed more than 3,000 lives, injured more than 23,000, and cost the United States taxpayers $2 billion every week.

Recently, the President proposed sending 21,500 more troops into downtown Baghdad. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, that actually means almost 50,000 additional troops when you include the 28,000 troops needed to provide critical support to those combat troops. This could cost up to $27 billion to sustain over the next year. That would be more than three times the largest estimate of troop escalation costs provided by the Bush administration.

The addition of almost 50,000 American troops means more American young men and women without adequate body armor riding in ill-armored humvees into one of the most dangerous combat zones in history. Historical data from this war tells us that sending 21,500 troops into Iraq will mean that between 300 and 500 additional soldiers will die in Iraq than if this escalation were not to occur.

Adding more troops is not a strategy, it is a tactic, and it is not a new one. There have been four such troop escalations in Iraq so far, and to what end? What benefit has been realized by this country, the Iraqi people, or the region?

The long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate, prepared collectively by 16 intelligence agencies for the President, was released last week. It paints a bleak picture of the deteriorating situation in Iraq, and it describes the urgent need for conditions to be reversed measurably to stop the violence and widespread polarization of the Iraqi society.

So I call on the President to heed the grave warnings of the National Intelligence Estimate, to listen to his own Iraq Study Group, the Congress, and the American people.

Last month, my colleague Senator Baucus called on the administration to map a new course in Iraq. Senator Baucus said we must not escalate the conflict, we must train Iraqi troops to stand up for themselves, we must start bringing our troops home as soon as possible, and we must engage Iraqi's neighbors and the world community. He was right then; he is right today.

The solution for a new course in Iraq will not be solely a military one.

Switching to political and diplomatic solutions involving our allies in the region is not a defeatist strategy, but instead an appropriate course for a war of this complexity and magnitude.

The President needs to set a timeline to give the Iraqi people military control of their country. It should be the Iraqi Army--not Montanans, not Americans--disarming bombs and guarding bridges. The administration needs to reinvest in special forces and human intelligence if we are to win the real war on terror.

Nearly 4 years have passed, more than a half a trillion dollars have been spent, more than 3,000 American soldiers have died since the President announced that major combat operations in Iraq had ended and told us: ``Mission Accomplished.''

Funding for this war and its success or failure should have been debated long ago. It is time for a real debate on the direction and strategy of this war, starting with the President's proposal for escalation.

The President must also tell the American people what success means and how it should be quantified. If success is free elections in Iraq, then we should have been gone 2 years ago. If success is toppling Saddam Hussein, then we should have been gone 3 years ago. If it is something else, then the administration needs to be honest with the American people and identify a clear and achievable outcome.

I support the Warner-Levin resolution opposing the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. But I want to be clear: I view the Warner- Levin resolution as only a first step. We have a duty to debate the escalation on its merits and let both sides be heard.

This week's efforts to delay a vote on Warner-Levin do nothing to make our troops safer. Blocking an up-or-down vote on this resolution does nothing to bring this bloody war any closer to its close.

I have been here not too long--just a month--and I am still learning the ropes, but make no mistake, we should deliberate, we should not rush to judgment or sentence, but that does not mean we should not debate.

For 3 days we have been debating about whether we should debate the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. I have been all over Montana in the last couple of years, and everywhere I went people were and continue to be deeply concerned about the war. They didn't all agree, but there was always a lively and passionate debate. Not a single person told me we should debate about whether to have a debate.

Our troops, the American people, and the Iraqi people deserve an open and honest discussion. We need to ask the tough questions, we need to demand the answers, and we need to bring our troops home as safely and as quickly as possible.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana be recognized next for up to 15 minutes, to be followed by myself for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, this afternoon, I rise to add my voice to the current debate on the President's announced plan to reinforce coalition forces in Iraq by sending additional American soldiers and marines to Baghdad and Al Anbar Province in an effort to bring stability to that volatile part of that country.

For some time now, Senators have been clamoring for President Bush to send additional troops to Iraq. They criticized him for trying to accomplish our goals in Iraq without committing sufficient resources to get the job done.

Look, the President has recognized that a change in strategy is absolutely necessary. Many have previously called for this same strategy. But it appears to this Senator that because it is the President's plan, some Senators are predisposed against it.

A simple review of newspaper and Sunday talk show transcripts reveals some Senators appear to have supported the surge before they were against the surge. Senator Kerry on NBC's ``Today'' program on June 29, 2005:

We don't have enough troops in Iraq. . . . There aren't

enough people on the ground. . . . The way you honor the

troops and the way you provide a policy to America is to do

everything possible to win.

Senator Durbin on December 21, 2006:

If we need initially some troops in Baghdad, for example,

to quiet the situation, make it more peaceful so that our

soldiers start coming home, then I would accept it.

Mr. President, that is exactly what General Petraeus has said, and Secretary Gates before the Armed Services Committee said the same thing. It is an initial surge to try to get Baghdad under control so we can begin bringing our troops home.

Senator Dodd on December 18, 2006, said:

I'd be willing to support some additional people if we

needed it in order to get the job done.

He further said:

Show me some demonstrable evidence that they are coming

together as a people--Shias and Sunnis--sitting down and

recognizing that they have an obligation to come together as

a people. Then I'd be willing to support some additional

people if we needed it in order to get the job done.

Senator Levin in January of 2007 said:

A surge would be worth considering. The American people are

skeptical about getting in deeper . . . But if it is truly

conditional upon the Iraqis actually meeting milestones and

if it's part of an overall program of troop reduction that

would begin in the next four to six months, it's something

that would be worth considering.

Once again, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, that is exactly what Secretary Gates said, that it is a temporary surge in order to try to bring the troops home.

Senator Biden on June 29, 2005, said:

There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real

counterinsurgency.

Senator Jack Reed, in a press conference on November 29, 2006, said:

If the military commanders in Iraq said, we need, for X

number of months, 20-plus, 25,000 troops, to do this mission,

I would have to listen to that proposal. I think I responded

to the question before: That if the military commanders in

Iraq said, we need, for X number of months, 20-plus, 25,000,

troops to do this mission, and with a reasonable certainty of

success, I would have to listen to that proposal, certainly.

Well, Mr. President, within the last 2 weeks, there have been additional developments that would seem to add weight to the argument that this temporary reinforcement of our troops currently in Iraq is not only warranted but necessary to the overall national purpose. Those developments are the unanimous confirmation by this Senate of General Petraeus, who is to become the new commander--he is the new commander of the Iraqi multinational force--also, the testimony of the Iraq Study Group cochairman, relative to the President's plan, before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the public release of the National Intelligence Estimate report on the prospects for Iraq's stability.

During his confirmation hearing, General Petraeus, also the author of the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, stressed the fact that he could not succeed in providing needed security for the citizens of Baghdad and Al Anbar Province without the additional troops called for in the President's plan.

General Petraeus further testified at his hearing that it was his opinion that any resolution which stated the Senate did not support the strategy to be carried out by our men and women in uniform in Iraq would be harmful to their morale. Are we going to support General Petraeus or not? The one resolution before us, I believe, is not supporting General Petraeus and the troops.

Last week, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on America's interests in Iraq, at which the witnesses were the Iraq Study Group cochairman, former Secretary of State James Baker, and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Secretary Baker referenced the Iraq Study Group's report in articulating that group's position on additional troops to Iraq. He stated:

We could support a short-term redeployment or surge of

American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up

the training and equipping mission if the U.S. Commander in

Iraq determines such steps would be effective. The only two

conditions are short-term and commander in Iraq determines it

would be effective. Both of those conditions have been met.

Mr. Hamilton made it clear his belief that the President's plan ought to be given a chance. He said:

We did not, in the Iraq Study Group report, come to the

conclusion that it was hopeless and, therefore, we should

just pull out immediately.

The much anticipated and just released National Intelligence Estimate report entitled ``Prospects for Iraq's

Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead'' was quite candid in its assessment that if coalition forces are withdrawn within the next 12 to 18 months, we will see significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq.

Mr. President, we need to accept the fact that we are engaged in a struggle of biblical proportions. In true American fashion, though, we are doing the right thing. We are attempting to free a people from a life of tyranny and violence. We are also in a struggle against the forces of evil who are bent on our destruction. Do we pack up and leave, even though every voice of reason tells us that Iraq would implode into a terrorist state used by al-Qaida as a launching pad against the infidels, reminiscent of Afghanistan under the Taliban? And those infidels, they think, are us.

As Senator McCain has reminded us time and again, Iraq is not Vietnam. When we left South Vietnam, the Viet Cong did not pursue us back to our shores. Al-Qaida is not the Viet Cong. Al-Qaida has sworn to destroy us and is committed to bringing their brand of terror to America.

President Bush never said the struggle for freedom in Iraq would be easy. But since the President is the one who said that, maybe it doesn't ring quite as true to some. Maybe by quoting another who spoke passionately about similar struggles for freedom, the point could be made more clearly. Back in 1857, Frederick Douglass spoke about the struggle he knew for freedom. He said:

The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows

that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been

born of earnest struggle. If there is no struggle, there is

no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet

deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing

up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning.

They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many

waters.

We are introducing freedom to a country and a region that has no history of such freedoms. We cannot expect to spread freedom and democracy to this region simply by wishing it so.

We currently have soldiers and marines in harm's way. We have a plan before us that will aid their mission. That mission is to achieve success and leave behind a stable and democratic Iraq. Yet there are those among us who want to cut and run. There are some among us who simply want to cut and walk. And then there are others who want to have it both ways. They want to express their opposition to the idea of sending additional troops to Iraq without having to do anything that might actually translate their opposition to a reality on the ground.

I belong to another group of thinkers. I belong to a group who believes General Petraeus's plan deserves a chance. I believe the temporary surge in the number of soldiers and marines in Baghdad and Al Anbar is our best chance at getting this right. None of us knows for sure whether it will work. There are always uncertainties in war. Let us all pray, for all our sakes, that this new way works.

Last week, I stood here and spoke about what I thought needed to be done in Iraq. I acknowledged that mistakes have been made in this war and that I did not believe we should be playing politics while our soldiers and marines are deployed and fighting against an enemy bent on destroying our country and our way of life. I called on my fellow Senators then to set party differences aside and focus on winning this war. I am here again this afternoon making that same plea.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, the vast, vast, vast majority of legislation passed out of this Senate is done by a simple majority. That is a fact. All one has to do is look at the Congressional Record. So with this new direction of the minority, it is very clear what is happening. They are trying to avoid debate on this matter. They want a new set of rules.

We have offered them votes, up-or-down votes on McCain, Warner, Gregg, and they turned that down. I said: OK, fine, we will have 60- vote margins on McCain, Warner. They turned that down. So I object, Madam President, and I will continue.

Madam President, it is also very interesting--and I have the greatest respect for my friend from Virginia and my friend from Nebraska--but with all due respect to them, how could they vote against a motion to proceed? How could they vote against a motion to proceed saying let the two leaders work this out? What more could we give them than what they asked for last week? But now they want to throw in the Gregg amendment with a 60-vote margin.

Earlier today, the minority leader said: This vote is ``about getting fair treatment for the minority here in the Senate.'' He was half right. This vote is about fairness but has little to do with being fair to the minority. The vote is about being fair to 132,000 troops already in Iraq by making sure they have the strategy they need to complete their mission so they can come home.

This vote is about being fair to the 48,000 American men and women who would be sent to Iraq should President Bush be permitted to escalate this war.

This vote is about being fair to the bipartisan majority of Senators who seek to voice their opposition to the President's plan to escalate the war.

This vote is about being fair to the American people and the millions of voters who chose a new direction last November.

As Senators, we owe it to our troops and our people to have a real debate about the way forward in Iraq. For 4 years, this body, under the control of the Republicans, sat silent on the most pressing issue facing our country--Iraq. As thousands of our soldiers were killed and tens of thousands wounded, the Senate, directed by the Republicans, sat silent, no debate on Iraq. As hundreds of billions of dollars were spent, the Senate sat silent. Republicans were in charge--no debate. They said no.

As Iraq fell into chaos and civil war, it became increasingly clear that the President's plan was flawed and failing. The Senate sat silent. The Republicans who were in control of the Senate said: No, no debate on Iraq.

As Senators and Americans, we cannot permit the silence to continue. This Democratic majority will not allow it to continue.

The administration's failures have dug us into a deep hole in Iraq-- we all know that--and we have an obligation to find a way out. Our troops, most of all, need our help. They need a policy that is as worthy as their heroic sacrifice. They need a legislative branch that will finally exercise its constitutional responsibilities.

Madam President, I say to my friend from Connecticut, I wasn't able to hear all of his speech, but I did hear this that caused me to take note: He said words to the effect: What are the Shia politicians going to think? What are the Sunni politicians going to think if, in fact, Warner passed? I wonder what the Sunni politicians thought, and I wonder what the Shia politicians thought when the Iraqi Prime Minister, duly elected, told the President of the United States that he wanted American troops out of Baghdad. So let's not direct this to Senator Warner.

A ``no'' vote on the motion to proceed is a green light to George Bush to continue down the same failed course of almost 4 years.

A ``no'' vote is an endorsement of escalation, sending 48,000 more troops to Iraq and spending at least an extra $27 billion--$27 billion extra--when this war has already cost almost a half a trillion dollars.

A ``no'' vote is a vote in support of this President continuing the same policy of failure in Iraq.

We have been told by our intelligence experts that the war is not going to be won by the military; it is only going to be won politically. That is what the

Iraq Study Group said. That is what all people say, with rare exception. Those are the people holding hands with the President.

We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people. We must change course, and this change starts with this next vote.

This side--Democrats--have offered the minority everything they have asked for. Remember: Vote on Warner, vote on McCain; you want a simple majority; you want a supermajority; we will go along with that. We have been fair to them. Now the Senate must be fair to our troops, their families, and the American people. We must proceed with a debate about Iraq and send a clear message to President Bush that escalation is not the answer.

Some say let the leaders work it out. Part of this stall has been a stall for obvious reasons. If not tonight, tomorrow? I must file a motion to invoke cloture on the continuing resolution because the Republicans said they are going to filibuster it. I have gotten letters to that effect. We should have been debating the Warner, McCain resolutions today, but they have not allowed us. They wouldn't allow us to proceed on this matter.

I am telling everyone within the sound of my voice, a decision will have to be made whether to go further than tonight, but the time is very tenuous--very tenuous. If they stop us from going forward on this debate, this does not end the debate on Iraq. It may end the debate for a few days or a few weeks, but, remember, we have the 9/11 Commission recommendations coming and that is open to amendment and I can guarantee everybody there will be Iraq amendments involved in that debate.

The supplemental bill is coming. This is to fund the war in Iraq basically more than $100 billion. I think there will probably very likely be a number of amendments dealing with Iraq.

They can run, but they can't hide. We are going to debate Iraq, and they may have gotten all their folks to vote against the motion to proceed, they may stop us temporarily from debating the escalation, but they are not going to stop us from debating Iraq.

We have lost 3,100 soldiers, sailors, and marines. They are dead, Madam President. We don't know the exact number of how many have been wounded--24,000, 25,000.

We are not going to allow the situation in Iraq to continue. It is wrong. There can be no military solution. The President has been told that. I think it speaks volumes when he meets with the Iraqi Prime Minister who is elected, and the Iraqi Prime Minister says: Mr. President of the United States, get all American soldiers out of Baghdad.

That's what he said. I think it speaks volumes when military commanders say that it is not the way to go. We know what Casey said. His tune has changed a little bit since he was relieved of duty over there.

The families of the 3,100 soldiers who have been killed, the families of the 24,000, 25,000 who have been wounded demand we go forward with this debate.

We are going to start voting momentarily, and remember what the vote is. The vote is whether we can proceed to debate the escalation of the war in Iraq. And the Republicans have told everybody they are all going to vote no. If they think this can pop up real easily again, I think they may have another thing coming.

I repeat, the Republicans left town and left the Government without adequate resources to go ahead and complete funding of the Federal Government for this year. We have to take up the work they did not complete. They funded the Government until February 15, and now it is up to us to make sure the Government continues to run.

If they want to pull a Newt Gingrich and close down the Government, that is their responsibility. But I believe we should move forward and make sure the Government is funded, and there is not a lot of time for Iraq. That is a sad commentary on the situation because we lost days as a result of these parliamentary delays.

I ask unanimous consent that if we get to third reading of S. 470 it then be turned into a concurrent resolution and passage occur on the concurrent resolution and not S. 470. Before hearing how anybody feels about this, I said last week that we would be happy to consider this bill as a resolution. Everybody heard me say that. The American people heard me say that. So anybody who tries to hide under a procedural vote because this is a bill and not a resolution is not being fair because simply I have stated--and I know that everyone in this Chamber heard me say this, and I have said it many times--I ask unanimous consent that if we get to third reading of S. 470, that it be turned into a concurrent resolution and that passage occur on the concurrent resolution and not S. 470.

I add another unanimous consent request to this. I am willing to change it to a concurrent resolution right now, as I was willing to do last week.

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider that vote.

Reserving the right to object, I further ask unanimous consent that after the completion of the remarks of the Senator from Nevada, and after one other Democrat, I be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I notice there are no other Members here, so I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada expressed my feelings in a much more articulate way than I ever could, and one of the last things he said is: Mistakes have been made in this war. I would suggest mistakes have been made in every war. Winston Churchill once said:

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and

easy. Always remember, however sure you are that you could

easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man

did not think he also had a chance to win.

This statement was made many years ago, but it is relevant today. Today, we face an enemy who is determined, adaptive, and willing to go to any means of terror and violence to win. He cannot be negotiated with, and he will not be satisfied until the entire world is brought under his dreadful ideology.

We have seen this kind before. We saw it with Stalin, with Pol Pot, and with Hitler, but never before has an enemy metastasized this way. There is no centralized headquarters we can bomb, no one leader we can eliminate. We will continue to strike terrorism where it appears and track down its leaders but know this will not end the conflict. Victory will come the way it always has. We will destroy the enemy's belief he can win.

Any resolution against the President's plan does two things: It tells the enemy, No. 1, that they have been successful; and, No. 2, it gives them patience to wait us out. They are a very patient people. We have already done ourselves damage by bringing the issue to the public eye. Do you believe they do not watch our news; that they are not scouring our media for any hope or any chink in our resolve? Don't be so naive. Their very survival depends on it. This is the only way they can hope to win. If we cannot destroy their will, we will destroy them.

This sounds brutal and not very reconciling, but I intend it that way. There is a clear choice and no other option. If we do not fight them in Iraq, we will be fighting them in Philadelphia, in Pittsburgh, in Kansas City, in Los Angeles, and in Seattle. We will be playing defensive until, once again, just as occurred after 9/11, our resolve hardens and we summon up the courage to destroy the enemy. And we must because the alternative is what happened to Rome: Factions of internal strife kept the great power tied up for so long that it lost its strength, its will, and its resolve. The period following was known as the Dark Ages, and this is indeed what al-Qaida seeks.

Our country represents the light of freedom and democracy. Yet I fear we have begun a terrible introspective and downward cycle. Our resolve lasts for a few months, maybe a year, but all it takes is enough time and then we break. Our enemy knows this. We can look to our mission in Somalia in 1933, at our reaction to the bombings in Lebanon at the Khobar Towers and in Vietnam. I am not saying we necessarily should have stayed in Vietnam, but I am saying we must recognize that while this introspection guarantees our freedom, it is also our greatest weakness.

There have been no major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. There have been attempts, and we know we have thwarted over 10 operations. However, we also know these were relatively underdeveloped and small in scale. I wish to ask a dark question: Why has al-Qaida not struck again? Because they cannot? We have stepped up our security, but they have shown their destructive creativity in the past. Because they are focused on Iraq and Afghanistan? Perhaps. But I would suggest another option. What if they have chosen not to. What if they have realized the strategy of restraint, pricking us just enough to launch ourselves at them, and then they fade back. We expend ourselves attacking new enemies, building countries, and undermining each other. Politics and personal reputations create an impetus of their own.

We should debate. That is exactly what the Senate body is intended to do. But do not undermine. The new commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, has stated that a resolution of disapproval would hurt his efforts. This is the new guy. Let us keep in mind that we voted unanimously to confirm General Petraeus to take over that very difficult job. When asked by Senator Lieberman about the effect a resolution of disapproval would have on our troops and our enemies, General Petraeus stated that:

This is a test of will at the end of the day. A commander

in such an endeavor would obviously like the enemy to feel

there is no hope.

That is what General Petraeus said. He went on to say he does need more troops and he believes the new plan can work.

I recognize there have been mistakes made in Iraq, as we have talked about. The President has also recognized this.

Everyone has recognized this, and the President has taken full responsibility for it. Yet we still find ourselves in a difficult situation, with hard decisions to be made about the best way ahead. These decisions affect many lives, both our soldiers in harm's way and the American people they are pledged to protect. I think we all agree it would be disastrous to leave Iraq precipitously. If we do, we know we can expect increased levels of violence, the spread of extremist ideology, and Iraq itself collapsing into anarchy.

A personal friend of mine, who actually was a commander at Fort Sill in Oklahoma, General Maples, stated that:

Continued Coalition presence is the primary counter to a

breakdown in central authority. Such a breakdown would have

grave consequences for the people of Iraq, stability in the

region, and the U.S. strategic interest.

John Negroponte and the CIA Director, General Hayden agree

with that, as does General Petraeus. So it is not too late to

avoid this. I don't think it is time to start cutting our

losses and just hope it goes away. We have heard the

President ask for our support.

Let me share, on a personal note, that I have had the occasion to be in Iraq more than any other Member of either the House or the Senate, some 12 times now, and the first thing I do is talk to the troops. The troops come up to me, and the first question they ask is: Why is it the media doesn't like us? Why is it they are constantly undermining our efforts here? Why is it the American people don't understand or appreciate what we are doing? I say, yes, the American people do, but a lot of the politicians don't act that way.

I have been very much concerned about this, and I believe any resolution, and we are talking about five or six resolutions now, any resolution that is a resolution of retreat would be a resolution of surrender.

I think it is ludicrous for any Member to say I support the troops but I don't support their mission. You try to explain that to them. I talked to the troops in Fallujah. In all this discussion about, do we need to be training the Iraqis to be fighting their own war--sure we do. That is what we have been doing. We have been doing that since we arrived on the scene in Iraq, and they are very proud and they are taking the frontal positions right now. The Iraqis are doing a good job. Their training has been good. Their equipment is not good, but it is getting better, it is improving.

I stood there at the last election in Fallujah when our marines were there and I talked, through an interpreter, to the Iraqi security forces, and they said they are very proud. We are going to be in a position--please stay with us until we can hold our own here, and that won't be too long. I know that is true. I know they have come up with the numbers, now, that would be equal to about 10 divisions. I believe this can happen.

This is very serious. Politics has crept into this thing. But any support of a resolution of surrender not only is undermining our troops and saying to our troops: We don't support you, but also saying to the loved ones of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice that they have died in vain. We can't let that happen.

I yield the floor.