A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.

Mr. President, I appreciate the words of my colleague from Illinois. This debate we are trying to have is actually a debate about a debate. This must be the only place, the only real estate in the United States of America in which, rather than having a debate about the war and strategy, we are having a debate about whether we should debate it. It is pretty unbelievable.

This is called the greatest deliberative body in the world. It is an unbelievable privilege for me to be here. I came from a very small town of about 300 people, a high school class of 9. I am here in the greatest deliberative body in the world. I am enormously proud to be here. But I came here not to avoid debate but to engage in debate, to talk about this country and its future.

There is an old saying: When everyone is thinking the same thing, no one is thinking very much. There is a desire in this Chamber by some who have spoken that we all be thinking the same thing about these issues, that we all support President Bush and whatever his strategies might be and wherever he might take us. This Congress has a constitutional role to play, and the constitutional role is not to decide to come to the floor from Monday through Friday to support the President of the United States, it is to come to the floor of the Senate to support this country and its interests as best we see those interests.

Some long while ago, I went to a veterans hospital on a Sunday morning and I presented medals to a veteran. His name was Edmund Young Eagle. He was an American Indian. He had fought in the Second World War, had gone all around the world, had fought in northern Africa, fought at Normandy, fought across Europe, and came back to live on the Indian reservation. He never married, never had very much. He loved to play baseball. But he had kind of a tough life. At the end of Edmund Young Eagle's life, this man who served his country, at the end of his life he was dying of lung cancer. He was in the veterans hospital in Fargo, ND, and his sister called and said her brother Edmund Young Eagle had proudly served his country and had never received the medals for his service in the Second World War.

Would you get him his medals, she asked?

I said, Of course I will.

So I achieved getting the medals he earned but never received from the Pentagon, and I went to the VA hospital on a Sunday morning to present medals to Edmund Young Eagle, a Native American, one of those first Americans who served this country and then went home and lived quietly.

When I went to his room that morning, Edmund Young Eagle was very sick. I didn't know it at the time, but he would die within a week or so. We cranked up the hospital bed for Edmund Young Eagle so he was in a sitting position, and I pinned his World War II medals on his pajama tops and told him that his country was grateful for his serving our country in the Second World War.

This man, very sick, looked up at me and said: This is one of the proudest days of my life.

This man who lived in a spartan way, never having very much but served this country with honor, felt great gratitude at the end of his life for a country recognizing what he had done for us. That is the life of a soldier, someone who commits himself or herself to answer their country's call without question. So many have done it.

I will attend a funeral this week of a young man killed in Iraq. I received a call this morning from a mother, the mother of a soldier who spent a year in Iraq and returned with very difficult circumstances-- post-traumatic stress, all kinds of difficult emotional problems--who just this week received the alert notice that his reserve unit will likely be called up again.

This is about war. It is about commitment. It is about our soldiers. It is about our country and our future. Some say we should not talk about that, we should not debate it. If that is the case, this is the only real estate, this is the only room in America where it is not being discussed and debated. It is being debated in the homes, in the restaurants, in the gymnasiums, in the schools, in the office. It ought to be debated here as well. This has a profound impact on our country and its future.

Make no mistake about it, our military has won every battle it has fought. Our military will win the battles they fight. But winning military battles does not win the war in Iraq. We disapprove of President Bush's plan to deepen our escalation in Iraq because it is a military response to a problem that must be resolved through diplomacy and through negotiation. The civil war and the violence in Iraq is only going to stop when there is genuine reconciliation between groups in Iraq.

Let's think through what we have done in Iraq. Through our soldiers' blood and our Treasury, we sent troops to Iraq. The Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, is dead. Good riddance, I say. We have unearthed mass graves in Iraq showing that hundreds of thousands of

Iraqis were murdered by a dictator. But Saddam Hussein was executed. The country of Iraq was able to vote for its own new Constitution. The country of Iraq voted for its own Government. That is very substantial progress.

But the next step has not shown much progress. The next step is this: Do the Iraqi people have the will to provide for their own security? This is their country, not ours. Iraq belongs to them, not us. The question is, Do the Iraqi people have the will to provide for their security? If they do not, this country cannot and will not be able to do that for any length of time. That is the question. Do they have the will to take back their country?

Iraqi leaders are going to have to make very difficult decisions, political decisions in some cases which may undermine their own power and their own base of support. But it is the only way this is going to be resolved. The sectarian violence that exists in Iraq today can trace its roots in some cases back to the year 700 A.D. This violence is not going to dissipate soon unless there is reconciliation between the factions. This requires Iraqi troops to fight their ethnic and religious allies who are part of the insurgency as well as fight their opponents. It requires Iraqi security, Iraqi police, and Iraqi troops to provide for the security of the whole country of Iraq.

The resolution we want to debate is a resolution which does not say we don't support our troops. Clearly we support our troops. We support our troops with everything we believe is necessary for their safety and security and for them to do their jobs the way we expect them to do their jobs. This Congress, every man and every woman, supports America's troops and prays for their safe return.

This resolution says we support our troops but we do not agree with President Bush in his desire to deepen our involvement in Iraq. Some come to the floor of the Senate and say: Your position on this emboldens the enemy. It is a message to embolden the enemy. It sends the wrong message to our troops.

It is neither of those. It is a message from the Congress of the United States to the President, and that message is we do not support his proposal to deepen our involvement in the war in Iraq.

A blue ribbon commission was put together, of some of the best thinkers, foreign policy and military thinkers in our country, headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, very distinguished Americans. That group included former Secretaries of State and military leaders and some outstanding thinkers. They worked for months, many months, to develop a plan. We all understand the alternatives are not good in Iraq. We understand that. If there were an easy way to deal with this, believe me, it would have been dealt with. In many ways, we found a box canyon in Iraq, and it is hard to get out of a box canyon.

The Baker-Hamilton report represented a consensus of some of the best thinkers in our country, having worked months on this problem. The President chose to ignore that report. The President says he is the decider.

You know, the Constitution says something about that as well. I agree with my colleagues that we can't have 100 or 535 commanders in chief. I understand that. But I also understand that the Constitution has a role for the Congress. Only the Congress can declare war--only the Congress. Yes, the President is Commander in Chief, but only the Congress can declare war. Only the Congress has the power of the purse.

The question is, What do we do about what is now happening in Iraq? No other country that I am aware of, in what the President has called the coalition of the willing, has decided they are going to deepen their involvement or expand their troops to Iraq. No other country. Even Great Britain, the strongest supporter of President Bush's Iraq policy, has refused to increase their troop strength in Iraq. In fact, the British news reports say that Britain intends to have all or most of its troops withdrawn by the end of 2007. None of our allies, old or new, of which I am aware, have decided the proper approach at this point, given the sectarian involvement in Iraq, is to deepen their involvement and increase their troop strength in Iraq.

The President is saying we should surge some additional troops to Iraq. We have done that before. In early 2004, we surged 20,000 additional troops. A similar one happened in the fall of 2005. Most recently, last summer the President announced that thousands of additional troops would be surged into Baghdad. What happened as a result of that was the violence increased, and deaths and injuries to American troops went up. So we have seen some examples of a surge, and the examples have not been very helpful. In fact, it has been counterproductive.

This map is a map of the city of Baghdad--about 4 million to 6 million people, about 250 square miles. We have people in this city who have grievances that go back 1,300 and 1,400 years. The Shia and the Sunni religious split occurred in the seventh century, and they have clashed frequently since then.

This country is not put together by natural borders. This country was put together by a pen and paper, by a decision 90 years ago of how to draw the borders of this country. This was a diplomatic decision, that this should be the country of Iraq.

Let me describe what is happening now in this city. We have areas that are Shia areas and Sunni areas, and now we have areas that are turning Shia and turning Sunni. In many ways, you will see from this map the dramatic evidence of violence in this capital city of Iraq. It is getting worse, not better.

I mentioned that some of the hatred goes back 1,400 years. But a more recent example, in a story I was reading about Iraq, a Shiite was recently driven from his home and farm by the Sunnis who killed his brother and nephew, and he was so bitter and angry, he said, ``A volcano of revenge has built up inside. I want to rip them up with my teeth.'' It is this hatred which fuels a civil war and the atrocities that occur nearly every day.

Saturday, February 3, saw the deadliest single suicide bombing since the war began nearly 4 years ago, with 130 people killed and more than 300 wounded. It was the fourth major attack against a densely populated Shia area in less than 3 weeks. On the Thursday before, twin suicide bombers struck a market jammed with people--60 killed, 150 wounded. Again, 60 killed, 150 wounded; spraying body parts so far that police were scouring rooftops late in the night for body parts. A few days before that, 75 people killed in Baghdad's Shia neighborhoods in multiple bombings; 160 wounded. The day before that, 3 car bombs detonated within minutes of each other at the vegetable market. More than 1,000 Iraqis were killed in the last week of January. We are told there were 3,000 killed in the last 3 weeks. Unbelievably, it seems to me, they pick up bodies in the middle of the morning in Baghdad from the night's carnage with holes drilled in their kneecaps, holes drilled in their skulls. These are unbelievable signs of torture. These are acts of unimaginable violence committed against others. No one is safe, nowhere is safe, and this violence pervades nearly every aspect of daily life.

The question I think the President proposes with his suggestion of a surge of an additional 20,000 or 21,000 troops in Baghdad poses is: Will additional troops in Baghdad on street corners, going door to door, embedded with the troops, with the security of the Iraqi Government, stem the violence? The answer is likely no. We have seen this attempted previously and it did not stem the violence; the violence increased.

Let me make another point I think is important. No one has made, I think, the point that this troop escalation, whatever it is, is temporary. The United States troops are leaving Iraq. The question is when, not if. At some point, United States troops will leave Iraq. The question is: Will we leave in a time that gives us the opportunity to turn the country of Iraq back to the Iraqi people and say, this is your job to provide for your security.

Let me talk about the National Intelligence Estimate. The National Intelligence Estimate was done with 16 intelligence agencies. They spent the last 5 months analyzing the situation in Iraq, reviewed by the head of the CIA, the head of the intelligence units at the Pentagon, State Department, Justice Department, and the Director of National Intelligence, our most senior intelligence official. Some of it is top secret, but some was released publicly. Let me read something:

Even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-

take-all attitude and sectarian animosities affecting the

political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard-pressed to

achieve sustained political reconciliation in this time

frame.

Continuing to quote:

Iraq's neighbors are influenced by the events within Iraq,

but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to

be a major driver of violence or the prospect for stability

because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal

sectarian dynamics.

That is a fancy way to describe the civil war.

I might say the last National Intelligence Estimate was done was in 2004 and it detailed 3 possible outcomes for Iraq over the next 18 months, which at the time would put us in the fall or winter of 2006. The worst-case scenario for the previous NIE was a civil war. Well, that is what the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate says has now happened. That is right; what is going on in Iraq now is the worst-case scenario of the previous National Intelligence Estimate.

Let me make a couple of other points, if I might. General Abizaid just over 2 months ago came to the Congress and here is what he said:

I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the

Corps Commander, General Dempsey, and I said, ``In your

professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American

troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to

achieve success in Iraq? And they said no.''

This is our top military commander testifying to the Senate just over 2 months ago: They said no.

Now, here is why General Abizaid said the commanders did not believe they should have additional troops brought into Iraq:

The reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is

easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I

believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from

doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own

future. The only way Iraq works in the future is for the

Iraqis to take more responsibility for that future. That is

what General Abizaid said. He was right then; he is right

now. This is the testimony heard by the Senate just over 2

months ago. Interestingly enough, as a side note, just 2

weeks ago--3 weeks ago, John Negroponte, the head of the

intelligence in this country at that time said this in open

testimony to the Senate:

The greatest terrorist threat to America is al-Qaida and

its network around the world.

The greatest terrorist threat to our country is al-Qaida and its network around the world, and he said they operate from a ``secure hideaway'' in Pakistan. If that is the case, if the greatest terrorist threat to our country is al-Qaida operating from a ``secure hideaway'' in Pakistan, and that comes from the head of our intelligence service in this country in open testimony to the Senate, if there are 21,000 additional American troops available to surge somewhere, why on Earth would we not choose to move those troops through Afghanistan near to Pakistan to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida, the greatest terrorist threat to our country? I do not understand the priorities coming from the administration. There has to be a change. We all understand that. We know Iraq is a different place. The various sects, tribes, religions, in some cases do not speak to each other, and in many cases don't trust each other. In other cases, they hate each other, and in too many cases, they kill each other.

That is what must change. It is why reconciliation is the key. It is why more U.S. troops are not going to make a difference.

Does anyone believe that if we go back 4 years and the President brought a proposition to the floor of the Senate and said: Look, we have a civil war in Iraq. What we ought to do is send more American troops to the middle of that civil war, or at least begin sending American troops to the middle of that civil war because we don't believe after 3 years of training that the Iraqi people are prepared to provide for their security, does anybody believe we would think it a good strategy to send additional troops to the middle of a civil war? I don't believe so.

I understand there are very different opinions here in this Chamber, and I respect them. I wouldn't diminish anyone in this Chamber for holding any views on this subject. I understand their passions. I share their passions. But I don't understand this: I don't understand how it is that this great body has to spend days debating whether we will have a debate. This is, after all, a debate about the motion to proceed. This isn't a debate about Iraq or Iraq strategy; it is about whether we can proceed to a motion on that subject. It is a debate about whether we can debate. If there is any space left in this country in which this debate should take place, it ought to be this space on this floor, this real estate. This is the great deliberative body. I do not for the life of me understand a vote against cloture that says: No, we believe the United States should not debate this issue. This is an issue the American people care a great deal about, and it is long past the time, in my judgment, for us to have this debate.

We are all united, I think, in loving this country. We want what is best for this country. We want to protect the American troops. We want our country to succeed. All of us want all of those things. I don't believe anybody who says we are undermining this or that or anything of that sort. All that is nonsense. This country deserves from this Senate a thoughtful, serious, real debate about what is happening that affects every part of American life, and that is the struggle we are involved in with respect to Iraq. The American people deserve this debate, and I hope that tomorrow when we have a vote on the motion to proceed, we will have the opportunity to proceed from that motion to a debate on the underlying petition that is on the floor of the Senate with respect to the subject of the war in Iraq.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I understand I have 15 minutes within which to make my remarks; is that correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed and make my remarks in 15 minutes.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, some weeks ago--and I mentioned this in my remarks during the debate we were having on the resolutions with regard to Iraq and the war--I said several weeks ago I had the privilege of attending and speaking at a farewell dinner in honor of LTG David Petraeus and his wife Holly at the Command and General Staff College of the United States Army at Fort Leavenworth, KS. And, of course, now General Petraeus is in Iraq and involved in the new mission as prescribed by the President and the subject of great debate not only here but in the House of Representatives, which is voting as I speak on their resolution in regard to this matter.

It was quite an evening of tribute in behalf of the general who has become admired and beloved serving as commanding general of the Army's Intellectual Center in Leavenworth, KS. Throughout the evening I had the opportunity to again visit with David Petraeus, his feelings about his new mission, his impressive knowledge with regard to this most difficult war in Iraq, the history of the region, his understanding with regard to the nature of past wars, his understanding of insurgency in past wars and the insurgency we now face in Iraq.

While at the Command and General Staff College, he wrote the Army's new manual on counterterrorism. Let me say, as a former marine, as the Presiding Officer is as well, I helped write a similar manual years ago for the U.S. Marine Corps. So I find this man unique in his knowledge and his command ability. But when I was asked to make remarks after the dinner--they would always invite a Senator to make some remarks and, unfortunately, sometimes that turns into a speech--I was glad I said what I said, and virtually everybody in that room told me I had said what they cannot say. Those who wear their officer rank on their shoulders or their enlisted stripes on their sleeves in most cases do not comment on policy decisions or politics, no matter how strongly they feel. They follow orders, and they serve their country. But I believe my remarks to the general and his officer corps and the veterans of many previous wars are pertinent to the issue we face in this debate.

Before I express my views, I want to stress that I regret we are at a stalemate in this body. Obviously, they are not in the other body, in terms of a vote at least, on this issue of vital national security. I think most in the Senate wish we could debate this issue with comity, with cooperation, and, yes, in a bipartisan fashion. And I think the American people who are concerned, obviously frustrated and angry about the war, would certainly appreciate that, but that is not the case. This issue, very unfortunately, is wrapped around a partisan and political axle.

Our good friends across the aisle insist that we debate and vote on one of three nonbinding resolutions--there may have been an agreement on maybe one more vote--in regard to the war in Iraq, and that is all. They wish to debate and vote on the House resolution which is now being debated in the other body and about to come to a conclusion, or the Warner resolution, which I think are very similar, and then call it a day because both resolutions support the troops but not the mission.

This is the rub for many of my colleagues and myself, and it is about as far as the majority wishes to wade in the waters of withdrawal at this time. I realize if we were to consider other votes, it would be more pertinent to the issue, especially the amendment by Senator Feingold, and that would be wading in the water a little deeper than they would want to at this particular time.

Others of us wish to debate and vote on the McCain resolution--I hope we can do that--and the Gregg resolution and, as far as I am concerned, the Feingold resolution. I oppose the Feingold resolution, but I admire his forthrightness and his courage. But we are being denied that opportunity.

Most perplexing to me is that those who are covering this debate within the media--and it is never a good idea to say anything that could be possibly defined as critical of the media. I note there are none or there may be two, but, obviously, everybody is watching the vote on the House side.

Having said that, how on Earth can we describe this situation by writing headlines and 15-second news sound bites saying Republicans, like myself, have voted to stifle debate? I want to debate. Let's have a debate. Let's have a full debate and vote on the House resolution and/or the Warner resolution--vote on both of them--but let us also debate and vote on resolutions offered by Senators McCain, Gregg, and Feingold. I will vote for Senator McCain's resolution. I will vote along with Senator Gregg. I would not vote for Senator Feingold's resolution but, again, I think his resolution is probably the most determining in terms of effect, and he should get a vote.

We are not stifling or shutting down debate; our colleagues in the majority

are. Either we are not capable of explaining what I believe is a very simple proposition or some in the media cannot discern what is obvious. This is like playing baseball, although it isn't like playing baseball--that is a poor allegory, but it is the one I have chosen-- playing baseball with one strike and then you are out. You say: Wait a minute, usually in a baseball game you get three strikes. What happened to the three strikes? Where are my other two strikes? Where are my other resolutions that I want to debate, that I want to support because they are pertinent to this, certainly as much as the others? They are nonbinding as well. And the umpire--in this particular case the distinguished majority leader--says: Back to the dugout, Senator Roberts, I am sorry. We run this ball game. You don't have any further strikes.

I have information that the House has just passed the House resolution 246 to 182. That is a pretty solid vote. So, obviously, we will be getting to vote on that resolution, and I hope we will get to vote on these other resolutions.

In my remarks at the Command and General Staff College, I told General Petraeus we had not been personally acquainted over a long period of years, but in our short span of time, I certainly came to know him well. I have had several stimulating and enjoyable conversations with him over a wide range of issues, most especially the British experience in Iraq from 1921 to 1931, the example of Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence of Arabia wrote ``The Small Warfare Manual,'' and he wrote ``The Pillars of Wisdom.'' As I indicated, the U.S. Marine Corps had similar manuals, one called a ``Manual on Antiguerrilla Operations,'' which I participated in, and now the manual the general has written.

It seems we cannot get it right with regard to insurgencies. The same things we write in these manuals we have to be careful about and pretty well play out the problems, to say the least, that make it very difficult.

Anyway, with regard to General Petraeus, he is exactly the right man for the right job at the right time. He knows this. He has been to Iraq. He was successful in his second tour. He is going back. I hope and pray he will be successful in his third effort. Our brave young men and women in uniform deserve nothing but the very best leadership, and they are getting it.

But I think it is a paradox of enormous irony that the Senate confirmed David Petraeus without a dissenting vote--not one, not one Senator--a vote of confidence that is unique, certainly given today's controversy and turmoil and the times. Yet at the same time, the same Senators who gave their vote of confidence are now in the business of what I call--I don't mean to perjure them--``confetti'' resolutions supporting the general and the troops but not the mission they are undertaking now. That to me is unprecedented for the Senate. I think it is remarkable, and I have said many times that these resolutions--and it has been said many times--are nonbinding. They have no legislative impact. They are so-called sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. For those who do not pay attention to the parliamentary procedure around here, that means they are meaningless except for the message you want to send, and that can be important to the Executive, i.e., to President Bush and the folks back home.

With all due respect, we have long crossed the message Rubicon with regard to sending mixed messages to our allies, our troops, the American people, the media and, yes, our adversaries. Words have consequences and, rest assured, our adversaries will read to try and figure out, analyze every word of the resolution just passed in the House and perhaps the one, maybe two resolutions we can pass in this body, hopefully three or four, and try to figure it out. I suspect they will be absolutely flummoxed in trying to discern the sense in reading a resolution that states support for the troops and our new commander, with new rules of engagement, with a limited timeframe for achieving and reporting benchmarks of progress, but that opposes the mission. That is a mixed message, and it should cause quite a bit of head scratching among the 31 different terrorist organizations that are planning various attacks around the world and even on the United States. My real concern is that the Senate is not considering or even talking about the probable consequences of these actions, let alone our responsibilities should they happen.

I want to make it very clear I do not question the intent or purpose or patriotism of any Senator, regardless of whatever resolution they are proposing voting for. I do question the judgment and the law of unintended effects. Bluntly put, with all this debate with regard to nonbinding resolutions, we appear like lemmings splashing in a sea of public concern, frustration, and expressing anger over the war in Iraq.

In this regard, I don't know of anybody in this body or anybody in America who does not want our troops home at the earliest possible date, and stability in Iraq, if possible. If possible--and that is a real question here. That is not the issue.

When all of this confetti settles, the end result of all this frenzy will be: ``General, you and the troops have our solid support--but we don't support your mission. However, press on and good luck.''

I think that message is remarkable. This is not a profile in courage. This is not the Senate's finest hour. If we are going to debate and vote on nonbinding resolutions, let us at least consider resolutions that will send a clear message or which can be of useful purpose. In that regard, we should consider the McCain resolution. It lists benchmarks of progress that General Petraeus has told Senator McCain and me would be useful in his discussions with Prime Minister Maliki, and certainly the Gregg resolution that supports spending for our troops in harm's way. I think that is the precedent we have to set. That is the killer in this debate, along with the Feingold resolution, because my colleagues across the aisle do not want to vote on the Gregg resolution, let alone the Feingold resolution.

Senator Feingold has a resolution which certainly does something. I don't agree with his resolution, but he is at least very forthright and sends a clear message, and he is a good Senator.

As the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, let me again stress what is not happening in the Congress or the media, and has received very little public attention regarding this challenge we face in Iraq. No one is talking about the consequences of what will happen if we simply withdraw or redeploy. And we may just do that, because I do not believe this war can or should be sustained if we do not see progress in the next 6 months. If General Petraeus doesn't come back and tell us there has been measurable progress, where we can see it, feel it, and touch it, we have some serious policy decisions to make. We need to be thinking about a policy of containment as opposed to intervention if this latest mission does not work.

I would also point out that most of the time deadlines for withdrawal are either in the nonbinding resolutions or they mirror exactly the time period General Petraeus has told the Armed Services Committee he would follow in reporting whether this new effort is making any progress, pretty much along the lines of the benchmarks that are in the McCain resolution. So the obvious question is: Who can better make that judgment, General Petraeus in theater or Senators here on the floor?

We have not discussed the difficult policy decisions that may confront us if it becomes necessary to redeploy, what that mission might be if we redeploy, where are we going, what is the mission going to be, or even how to withdraw.

Mr. President, I have about 4 minutes left. If I could ask unanimous consent that Senator Dorgan allow me that privilege, I would greatly appreciate it.

I will try to finish as fast as I can. I apologize. I arrived late. I asked for 15 minutes, and I thought I could get it done in 15 minutes. Obviously, ``Roberts-ese'' is expanding that time period. I will try to finish as fast as I can.

As I indicated, Mr. President, we have not discussed the difficult policy decisions that will confront us if it becomes necessary to withdraw or redeploy, what that mission would be, or even how to withdraw. The reality is what we will do when certain consequences would take place. These are the possible, if not probable, consequences we should be confronting and debating and explaining to the American people and ourselves and in the media, even if some may have a deaf ear.

First. A dramatic increase in sectarian violence quickly escalating to a civil war--and I mean a real civil war--and a humanitarian disaster far more devastating than what is happening now. Shia versus Shia, Shia versus Sunni. What do we do? Thousands of Iraqis have already become refugees and left the country.

Second. Given a civil war and struggle for control, we can expect an incursion of Sunni troops from other Mideast countries--I want to make it very clear about that: other Mideast countries--to prevent an Iranian takeover of Iraq and the very real possibility of an Iraq led by Muqtada al-Sadr, whose street appeal could endanger their own Governments. I am talking about other Mideast countries. When that happens, the war becomes regional. What do we do?

Third. We can expect an Iraq certainly dominated by Iran, thus completing a Shia crescent with Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Today, countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt are talking about building their own nuclear programs, given Iran's nuclear ambitions and progress. Iran has just refused inspectors from the IAEA. With the possibility of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims each working to achieve nuclear capability and weapons, what does Israel do? What do we do?

Fourth. Iraq will become a safe haven for terrorists. This time it is for real. What do we do?

Fifth. In their eyes, with the defeat of the ``Great Satan'' only months away, as expected--a clear signal by this body and perhaps inevitable--terrorists around the world are already emboldened, waiting us out and planning more attacks; that is, if you believe what they say.

Read Afghanistan and the Taliban and the spring offensive. Will we soon be in the business of passing nonbinding resolutions about Afghanistan?

Sixth. We can expect a perceived, if not real, lack of American resolve in the eyes of adversaries and potential adversaries around the world resulting in additional national security threats.

Read Putin and Belarus and Iran, and his recent remarkable speech at Munich in Germany at the NATO security conference. Kim Jong Il. We are making some progress with North Korea right now, but he does have a penchant for missile launches on the 4th of July.

Read Hugo Chavez--31 countries in the southern command. He is the new Castro, nationalizing his oil production and directly involved in five different countries. What do we do?

The point is that globally and over the long term this is not a Bush issue or a Democratic or a Republican issue, or even how you feel about Iraq or the war. Even as we argue about whether we debate and vote on one resolution or three or four, I hope, there are terrorist organizations and their second-generation affiliates--guided and inspired--are plotting attacks against the United States and throughout the world. It is obvious we can't sustain the status quo in Iraq, but while we debate on how to proceed, these folks are not giving up.

The irony is that should the President wake up in the morning and say, well, the House has voted for this resolution, they are not for this new mission, and the Senate is about to, and they may or may not do that, so I am going to terminate it, I am going to end it, then we are back to square one, back to a stalemate, back to the status quo. That, to me, doesn't make sense.

Given the fact there were at least five successful attacks that killed Americans--and others that, thank goodness, were not successful--before President Bush came to office and before military action in Iraq--given the fact this threat will face the next President and future world leaders, surely we can figure out it makes no sense to fight each other when the terrorists then and now and in the future do not kill according to party affiliation, nationality, race, age, or gender.

We do not need a Republican approach to national security and the war. We do not need a Democratic approach to national security and the war. We need, however, an American approach to our national security and the war and to our individual freedoms. This is a time to engage in honest dialog, to work together and think through and agree on the strategy that will defeat our enemies and make the American people safe. And yes, bring our troops home but in a way that we don't have to send them back.

So I say to the leadership, with all due respect, let us end this nonbinding business and get these confetti resolutions behind us. We have all had a chance now to discuss the war and we need to vote on I think at least four resolutions, and then come together with a bipartisan commitment--a difficult and perhaps impossible task but, I believe, a task that must be undertaken for the sake of our national security.

Mr. President, I yield back the balance of my time and I thank my colleagues across the aisle for permitting me to finish my remarks.

Mr. President, I come before the body today to let my colleagues know I intend to vote for cloture on the single and simple resolution that will be before this body tomorrow afternoon.

When one looks at the content of what is included in this resolution, it is very simple. In its simplest terms, it says, firsts and foremost, we support our troops. We support our troops. Who in this body would disagree with that statement?

Secondly, it makes another statement, another important but very simple statement, and that is that we disagree with the President's plan to add an additional 21,500 troops into Iraq. We disagree with the President's plan.

That is a simple resolution. We should be able to bring that resolution to this floor. We should be able to have it debated. And we should be able to have an up-or-down vote on that resolution.

I wish it were otherwise. I wish that, in fact, we were debating the various resolutions that have been suggested that we debate on this floor by the majority leader in the last week, where he has offered the minority leader on the Republican side the opportunity to come in and debate the Warner resolution, the McCain-Lieberman resolution, as well as this resolution, and a number of different configurations which have been offered to the minority party.

But the reality today is this Chamber, through the minority party, wants to stop a vote on any resolution relating to Iraq. They simply want to stop a vote. What we need to do as a Chamber, in my view, is to move forward with the deliberation of the great Senators who are a part of this Senate and have a robust debate on Iraq that sets forth the different alternatives that have been presented and come to some kind of conclusion that gives direction to America and to this country on how we ought to move forward in Iraq.

I wish we were here in part debating the Warner-Levin resolution because when you think about the content of the Warner-Levin resolution, in that resolution you also find what I believe is the best of what we have to offer. You have a thoughtful proposal that says, yes, we disagree with the President, but we also have a new direction in which we believe we ought to march forward in Iraq. That bipartisan resolution, that was largely drafted by Senator Warner and Senator Nelson and Senator Collins, of which I am a cosponsor, is a way forward. It is a way to describe a new direction for us as we move forward in Iraq.

I also wish we were here today and tomorrow, and even into next week, debating the resolution which has been brought forward by my dear friends, Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain. They have a different point of view than other Members of this body. They have a different point of view than Senator Warner and I do with respect to how we ought to move forward in Iraq. But, nonetheless, they are people of good faith who have a point of view that ought to be debated in this body, and we ought to have a vote on it.

Unfortunately, the procedural mechanisms which have been put forward by the minority party will keep us from actually debating that particular resolution and having a debate and a vote on that resolution.

I believe the ultimate goal we all have in this Chamber is we want to have peace in Iraq, and we want to have a peaceful Middle East. But I also believe that unless we are able to find some way of working together in a bipartisan manner, that key ingredient of how we find a peaceful avenue in Iraq and in the Middle East is going to elude us.

For sure, today is simply one of the opening chapters of the great debate we will have in this Chamber in the weeks and months, perhaps even in the years, ahead with respect to how we move forward in Iraq and how we move forward in the Middle East. Without a sense of bipartisanship, we will not be able to find that unity which is an essential ingredient for us to be able to move forward.

It dismays me we have not been able to find the bipartisanship to get us to the 60-vote threshold so we can move forward and have a robust debate on this issue that will be before the body tomorrow, as well as other issues and resolutions that would be brought forward by my colleagues.

As I speak at this time, the House of Representatives--just right down the hallway from where I stand right now--is about ready to begin a vote--a vote--on this very simple resolution. And again, its simplicity defies any logic as to why we would not want to vote on it in the Senate. It is very simple: We support our troops, and we disagree with the President's proposed escalation of troops by 21,500.

It is right that we are here this afternoon and into Saturday debating the vote on that simple resolution. That resolution addresses the most critical and important issue before our Nation today. I deeply regret the Senate has been prevented from voting on a similar resolution, and that is why I will vote for cloture on this resolution tomorrow. I believe the Senate has an obligation--it has an obligation--to debate and to vote on the issue that is most important to America today.

For me, my constituents in Colorado know where I stand. I am a cosponsor of the bipartisan resolution which Senator Warner and Senator Nelson and Senator Collins and others have worked on for some time. That resolution states in clear terms that the Senate disagrees with the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq. And, at the same time, that resolution truly offers a new way for us to move forward with this seemingly intractable problem we face in that part of the world.

I have referred to the Warner resolution as a new way forward, a new plan, a plan C, if you will, because it finds a middle ground between the President's plan A, which is to escalate the military effort in Iraq, and plan B, which is pushed by some American citizens in

each one of our offices every day who say we should immediately leave Iraq--we should immediately leave Iraq. From my point of view, the bipartisan resolution we came up with offers a new direction forward.

Our bipartisan group believes what we need to do is to have a new strategy in Iraq, one based on demanding long-overdue compromises from the Iraqi Government, vigorous counterterrorism activity, continued support of our troops in the field, protecting the territorial integrity of Iraq, and a very robust and enhanced diplomatic effort in that region and in Iraq itself.

The new way forward reflected in the Warner resolution is based on a number of key principles, as follows:

First, the central goal of the American mission in Iraq should be to encourage the Iraqi Government to make the political compromises that are necessary to foster reconciliation and to improve the deteriorating security situation in Iraq.

Second, the American military strategy should be focused on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying terrorists a safe haven, promoting regional stability, bringing security to Baghdad, and training--and training--and equipping the Iraqi forces.

These are important principles, and they continue.

Third, we say what we would like to see happen in Iraq is that the United States should engage the nations in that region to develop a regional peace and reconciliation process.

Fourth, we believe the United States should continue to engage in a strong counterterrorism activity, chasing down al-Qaida wherever al- Qaida might be.

Fifth, the American mission in Iraq should be conditioned upon the Iraqi Government meeting certain benchmarks, including ensuring an equitable distribution of oil revenues in that country.

And sixth, Congress should not eliminate or reduce funds for troops in the field because the brave men and women fighting this war need our support while they are in harm's way.

I believe plan C offers us the right way forward. It is my hope that resolution ultimately would be adopted by a large bipartisan group of Senators in this body.

I would like to discuss in further detail a couple of the key elements, at least in terms of how I see it, on how we move forward, on how we improve the security situation along Iraq's borders, and the need for an enhanced and much more robust diplomatic effort.

I believe the territorial integrity of Iraq, security along Iraq's borders, and, for that matter, security in the region is linked with the need for a renewed and vigorous diplomatic push.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group stated in very simple terms:

The United States must build a new international consensus

for stability in Iraq and the region. In order to foster such

a consensus, the United States should embark on a robust

diplomatic effort to establish an international support

structure intended to stabilize Iraq and ease tensions in

other countries in the region.

In addition, the public portion of the National Intelligence Estimate--which was a consensus document produced by the 16 agencies comprising the national intelligence community--mentioned three things which could ``help to reverse the negative trends driving Iraq's current trajectory.'' It is important to note that each of these three strategies proposed by the NIE are fundamentally diplomatic and political, as opposed to military.

They are, first of all, a recommendation that the broader Sunni acceptance of the current political structure and federalism be brought about; secondly, that significant concessions by Shia and Kurds are required to create space for Sunni acceptance of federalism; and, third, a bottom-up approach is needed to help mend the frayed relationships between the tribal and religious groups.

The two most important documents produced on the Iraq war over the past 6 months, the Iraq Study Group report and the public portions of the NIE, recommend a renewed diplomatic and political effort as a keystone for security inside Iraq and in the region.

This is no surprise when you consider the situation along the borders of Iraq. To the east, we know of the damage Iran can potentially cause by crossing the relatively porous border in order to promote the Shia cause. Not only that, but Iran has steadfastly ignored the U.N.'s demand to halt their nuclear activities. To the south and west, Saudi Arabia might eventually decide to intervene on the side of the Sunnis, should the situation further deteriorate. To the north and west, of course, is Syria, which has a largely uncontrolled border with Iraq, across which foreign fighters and arms and terrorists cross even today as I speak. To the north is Turkey, which is watching the situation in Iraq and might decide to intervene in order to prevent an independent Kurdistan. Finally, Jordan, to the west, is feeling the strain of the massive influx of Iraqi refugees into their country, which could have a destabilizing effect on a country which is such an important ally of the United States.

Given the potential crisis on Iraq's east, west, north, and south borders, given the complex and conflicting interests the parties in the region face, and given the difficulty of imposing a military solution on this expanding, deteriorating puzzle, it is imperative to embark on a renewed and robust diplomatic and political effort in the manner outlined in the Warner resolution. That effort, in my view, must include the following:

First, it must include talks with each of the key players in the region. I agree with the Iraq Study Group report which stated that:

The United States should engage directly with Iran and

Syria in order to try to obtain the commitment to

constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues.

In engaging Syria and Iran, the United States should consider

incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive

results.

This does not mean direct talks will necessarily succeed quickly or even succeed at all. But it does mean the United States should use every available carrot and stick, every diplomatic tool we have to try to stabilize the region.

Second, the United States and those who share a vision of a peaceful Middle East should organize an international conference to help the Iraqis promote national reconciliation and stronger relations with their neighbors.

Third, we should heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group and promote the creation of an Iraq international support group which would include each country that borders Iraq and other key countries in the region. That support group would work to strengthen Iraq's territorial and sovereign integrity and would provide a diplomatic forum for Iraq's neighbors, many of whom have competing and conflicting interests to negotiate.

We may very well engage Iraq's neighbors and find we cannot achieve common ground. But I believe that refusing to talk to our adversaries on principle simply because they are our adversaries has done us no good. Indeed, in our history, Presidents from both parties and of different ideological stripes, from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, have actively engaged countries and leaders with whom they strongly disagreed, and they did so because it was in the American national interest. In fact, even this administration diplomatically engaged a member of the so-called ``axis of evil,'' North Korea. And while this process was long and laborious, it appears to have borne fruit. I believe we are at a similar moment in Iraq, when a strong and tough diplomatic effort may offer our last best chance to achieve a measure of peace and stability for Iraq and for the region.

For that reason, I believe we should follow the advice of the Iraq Study Group, the authors of the National Intelligence Estimate, and the advice of Senators from both sides of the aisle in pursuing a new direction in Iraq. There are no guarantees of success, but we must make every effort to succeed before it is too late.

I want to make a statement relative to why I think it is such an important time for us to be involved in this debate. It was not that long ago when I went with two of the most distinguished Senators in this body to Iraq and Afghanistan and spent time in both countries with both Senator Warner and Senator Levin. For all of us who are Members of this body, there are no two Senators whom we hold in higher esteem. They truly are Senators whom I would call ``a Senator's Senator'' because they have the respect of

their colleagues. They have the wisdom they have accumulated through their service to our country over decades, and they are always attempting to do what is best for the American interest. I remember in Baghdad having conversations with both Senator Warner and Senator Levin and how they described how things had changed from the initial invasion to the time we were there in the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad and as we traveled around the country.

Since that time, Senator Warner and others have been back there. As we have heard in this Chamber, the distinguished Senator from Virginia talked about how 3 or 4 months ago, he described the situation in Iraq as drifting sideways. Today that situation is not only drifting sideways but it continues to deteriorate. So no matter how much our troops have done, the sacrifice they have made, the sacrifices their families have made, things have not only drifted sideways, they continue to deteriorate. The President's proposal, which is at the heart of this debate, has to do with whether we should send 21,500 more troops into harm's way. We should all ask the question whether that is something we shouldn't support, and we should have an opportunity to vote on that concept in this Chamber. We should have an opportunity to vote on that concept in this Chamber before the President moves forward with the escalation effort.

In my view, and part of the reason I joined Senator Warner and Senator Nelson and others in their resolution, I don't believe it will work. I believe when we look at Operation Going Forward Together in June and Operation Going Forward Together 2 in August, they demonstrate that a surge of this kind will, in fact, not work. Indeed, the Iraq Study Group found that between the months of June and the time they issued their report, violence had escalated in Baghdad by 43 percent. So we have tried a surge twice, and it has failed. Now the President is saying we ought to go ahead and do yet another surge. I believe a simple resolution we can vote on that makes a simple statement that we support our troops and we oppose the escalation of the military effort in Iraq in the way the President has proposed is the right thing for us to vote on. It is the most important question of our time. It is appropriate for us to be spending this Friday and Saturday, and, if it so takes, all of next week, instead of going back to our respective States and working during the Presidents holiday to debate this issue, which is such a defining issue of our time. This is a defining issue for the 21st century, not only for Iraq but for the Middle East, for the war on terror which we wage around the globe; this is the defining issue, and it is appropriate for us to be having this discussion on the floor today. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity to move forward into the debate on this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for weeks, I have been coming to the floor to discuss the signs of progress we are beginning to see as the military implements our new strategy in Iraq. Recent developments are encouraging. They include the following:

First of all, the Iraqi Cabinet approved a national oil compact, which is the beginning of a resolution of what to do with the revenues that are produced from the oil that is produced in Iraq. It is a vital step in ensuring a united Iraq, and Prime Minister Maliki called it a ``gift to all of the Iraqi people.'' This is expected to be approved by the Iraqi legislature this spring.

Next is the capture recently of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, the successor to al-Zarqawi, in the western outskirts of Baghdad. This represents a continuing increase in the number of terrorist chiefs who have been killed or captured.

Just last week, the Iraqi neighbors meeting was held. It generated a lot of press because both U.S. and Iranian representatives were present. It involved all 16 nations involved in the conflict. It was the neighbors of Iraq, as well as countries such as Great Britain and the United States. It was the largest meeting of foreign countries in Iraq since the summit meeting of the Arab League members in March of 1990. There were working groups established to work on various problems all the countries had--for example, refugees from Iraq who have gone into Syria or Jordan. A special working group was created to try to deal with that issue.

This represents a step forward, all of which illustrates the fact that not only is the new strategy being implemented a military one but it involves diplomatic and economic and political factors as well.

It was interesting that the Prime Minister toured Baghdad to illustrate the security part of the new strategy that is beginning to work. He had been largely confined to the relatively safe Green Zone, as it is called, but on Sunday, he was able to go outside the wire to tour a power station, visit with police, and shake hands with ordinary Baghdad citizens. He attributed his newfound freedom of movement to the success of the Baghdad security plan, and he committed to redouble his efforts, saying: This operation will be accelerated at all levels in numbers and weaponry; we will not back down.

You have also seen successes in places such as Sadr City, where it is pretty clear that the Shiite militias have decided to stand down and not contest the Iraqi and American forces.

In fact, at the conclusion of my remarks, I will have printed in the Record two newspaper articles. One was written for the Washington Post on March 11, called ``The `Surge' is Succeeding,'' by Robert Kagan. While the leaders in Iraq are not yet willing to publicly say the surge is succeeding, clearly evidence of that is on the ground, and at least the media--journalists--are entitled to conclude from what is happening that it is succeeding.

I was in Iraq a couple of weeks ago and was briefed by General Odierno and General Petraeus, as well as others. They all were cautiously optimistic that things were looking better on the ground. They just wanted to caution that there would be good days and bad; that the enemy has a say in this and they will strike back, certainly, all they can. And if the administration were to claim too much in the way of success too early and there was some kind of event that resulted in a lot of violence, there might be a suggestion that the administration was trying to put too nice a gloss on it. So the administration is trying to downplay the successes. But the reality is that there is news of success.

I think that makes all the more distressing and puzzling the effort by a lot of our colleagues not only to downplay the potential for success there but to develop strategies to undercut that success with resolutions that would micromanage the war from the Senate and, indeed, bind the hands of our commanders and our military as they begin to implement this program.

It is hard for me to fathom the amount of time and energy that has been put into the development of these various resolutions--at last count, some 17 different resolutions--that would, in one way or another, criticize the President's plan or try to find some way to stop it from occurring.

What is further puzzling and distressing is the degree to which this appears to be resulting from political considerations. Another one of the pieces I am going to ask to print in the Record is an article from March 12--that is today's Roll Call magazine--in which leaders on the Democratic side are quoted as referring to the political aspects of this strategy to try to get resolutions adopted.

The article talks about the Democratic leader's ``abandoning efforts at crafting a bipartisan deal'' and ``instead look to directly tie Republicans to the unpopular conflict. . . .''

The articles goes on to talk about ``the decision to ratchet up their partisan rhetoric''--``their'' meaning Democratic partisan rhetoric--by a resolution that sets ``specific dates for a mass redeployment of troops in Iraq and creating new restrictions on the war effort,'' and, indeed, that is what the latest resolution of the majority leader would do.

But the article goes on to talk about this ``more aggressive push to tar vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in 2008.'' That is not what we should be all about in debating the war in Iraq and designing solutions to ensure that war can be resolved successfully. It should not be about trying to tar vulnerable Members of the opposition party to diminish their reelection prospects in the year 2008.

The chairman of the Democratic Campaign Committee, the distinguished senior Senator from New York, has, according to this Roll Call article, ``warned that Democrats would use the issue as a bludgeon on Republicans up for reelection next year,'' and they quote him as saying:

The heat on these Republican Senators that are up in '08 is

tremendous.

Adding:

. . . this is a campaign . . . we are going to keep at [it].

To me, that is an illustration of something very wrong with the Democratic Party's approach to this war. Reasonable people can differ about whether we should be there and how we should conduct the operations once there. But we ought to be able to agree that our responsibility is to provide the funding or to cut it off. The President's responsibility as Commander in Chief is to do his best to see that the mission is achieved. That is what we are sending the troops over there to do. That is what General Petraeus was sent there to do. He was confirmed unanimously by this body a month or so ago.

When I was in Iraq, General Petraeus told us: Please see to it that we have what we need to fulfill our mission. Pass the supplemental appropriations bill to fund our effort and don't tie our hands with micromanagement from the Senate.

This is the message from the person we sent over to do the job. It seems to me this would be the wrong time to pull the rug out from under him and pull the rug out from under the troops just as there are signs of success, as I discussed earlier.

It is interesting, too, that there seem to be so many different approaches to this effort to criticize the President and his plan. I mentioned that at last count there are some 17 different resolutions. Somebody called it the ``Goldilocks'' strategy, with the Democratic leader searching for a solution that is neither too hot nor too cold. The real question is: In the House of Representatives, are they going to lose people on the left or the right or did they get it just right, with sufficient numbers of projects in the supplemental appropriations bill to appeal to those who may not like the end result with respect to the Iraq part of the resolution?

Some have labeled it a ``slow bleed'' because it appears to be a solution that doesn't cut off all the funding for the troops at this moment but, rather, over time makes it impossible for us to succeed.

The resolution, as I understand it, says we have to begin withdrawing our troops by a specific date and complete the withdrawal by another specific date. In the past, there has been a fairly good bipartisan consensus for the proposition that is the worst of all worlds, that you don't want to set a timetable for withdrawal because it gives the enemy precisely what they need to calibrate how long they have to hang in there until you are gone and then they can move in and take over and fill the vacuum. So it is a bad proposition, even apart from the political motivation behind it.

It is worth, taking a look at some of the iterations.

We started with S. 2, a nonbinding resolution, that it wasn't in the national interest of the United States to proceed. That was criticized as being nonbinding.

Then we move on to S. Con. Res. 7 that expressed disagreement with the plan. That didn't have sufficient support, so that was replaced by S. 470, the Levin bill. It expressed disagreement with the strategy but in a form the President would be forced to veto.

Then we moved on to the Reid-Pelosi proposal, S. 574. Not surprisingly, this approach had no more support than the others, and so we then moved on to the Biden-Levin proposal. That bill never even saw the light of day. It wasn't even debated.

Now we are down to S. J. Res. 9, a nonbinding resolution encouraging the President to redeploy all, or almost all, of the troops by the end of 2008. This has been described as a goal, and yet the resolution itself provides that it is much more than that; that the troops would, in fact, have to begin being redeployed and be fully redeployed by the end of March of 2008. I don't think this resolution will pass either because, as I said, most people agree setting a timetable for withdrawal is absolutely the worst thing you want to do, even if you don't agree with the troops being there in the first place.

As I said earlier, the amount of time and effort consumed in trying to craft the perfect Iraq resolution is difficult to square with all the other important business we have to do. The majority

leader, the chairmen of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, and other important Members of this body have devoted hours and hours to making grammatical edits to this legislation, even though none of it is going to pass.

Frankly, it is a good illustration of why wars should not be micromanaged by Congress. We are not good at conducting wars. That is why we have a Commander in Chief, that is why we have a Joint Chiefs of Staff, that is why we have our military commanders, such as General Petraeus, in whom we have placed a great deal of confidence, who have the experience to conduct these kinds of operations.

I daresay, there are not many of us who have the experience of the distinguished Presiding Officer, and it is important for us not to be armchair quarterbacks when lives are on the line.

Iraq is perhaps the most critical issue facing our country at the moment, and my comments are not meant to suggest that Iraq deserves anything less than a full and fair debate on the floor. It is one thing, however, to have a debate and let each side make its position known and then vote on competing proposals. It is quite another to devote this kind of energy to attempts which appear to be purely political attempts to undercut the President and undercut the mission in Iraq.

I believe the President has chosen a course that has the potential for success. That is why I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks some of the events which have been reported in the media that demonstrate early success. I, frankly, urge my colleagues to turn their energies to find ways to amplify these successes rather than to undercut them.

It is interesting that Lee Hamilton, the chairman of the Baker- Hamilton commission, who has been cited many times by Members on both sides of the aisle, in testimony before the Congress has been insistent that now that the President has laid out a plan, that strategy should have a chance to succeed, that we should give it a chance to succeed.

By the way, even though the President at the time did not indicate what he would be doing specifically, since that report has come out, several of the recommendations have, in fact, been a part of what the administration strategy is following. For example, the strategy of meeting with people in the neighborhood is a followup on one of the Baker-Hamilton recommendations.

I agree with cochairman Lee Hamilton that we should give the strategy in Iraq a chance to succeed and not undercut it at the very moment it appears there are early signs of success with a resolution which, as I said, there had been a bipartisan consensus for that we shouldn't be setting a timetable for withdrawal since that simply plays into enemy hands.

The final document I will ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record when I conclude is a piece from the L.A. Times, dated today, March 12. Headline: ``Do we really need a Gen. Pelosi?'' It refers, of course, to the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is supporting the plan that has been put forth in the House of Representatives by the Democratic leadership there. To quote from this L.A. Times.com piece:

After weeks of internal strife, House Democrats have

brought forth their proposal for forcing President Bush to

withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008. The plan is an unruly

mess: Bad public policy, bad precedent and bad politics. If

the legislation passes, Bush says he'll veto it, as well he

should.

This comes from the Los Angeles Times, no particular friend of this administration. The Times goes on to say that this kind of micromanagement ``is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy.''

They go on to say:

By interfering with the discretion of the commander in

chief and military leaders in order to fulfill domestic

political needs, Congress undermines whatever prospects

remain of a successful outcome.

Then they go on to criticize the Speaker and others for trying ``to micromanage the conflict . . . with arbitrary timetables and benchmarks.''

Concluding:

Congress should not hinder Bush's ability to seek the best

possible endgame to this very bad war.

So a paper that does not like the war or support the administration generally, nevertheless, recognizes it should not be micromanaged from the Congress; that if there are any possibilities for it to succeed, we should be following those possibilities.

To sum it up, I simply say this: There is a chance for this strategy to succeed. We should give it a chance to succeed. Early signs are positive. We should not try to micromanage the war from the Congress. Therefore, when these resolutions come before us, we should reject them and allow our military commanders the opportunity that we have asked them to engage in to bring a successful conclusion to this war.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the articles to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, how much time was I allocated?

Mr. President, this morning I got up and I went to get on an airplane and the plane was delayed because of mechanical issues. Then I got the word that the leader said we should come vote on questions being discussed, just as I heard now.

I am here to participate in a charade. This is nothing but a charade. It is a nonbinding resolution. We are coming back to vote on Saturday on a nonbinding resolution that the American public doesn't support. As a matter of fact, as I read in The Hill newspaper and as I see on the front page, there is the majority leader's photograph and a story about how the majority is trying to embarrass the 21 of us who are up for election in 2008. I think the majority--current majority, former minority--ought to look at that paper. Inside it, after giving the majority leader credit for this charade, is a poll. It is an online poll, and this was a question: Does debate on a nonbinding Iraq resolution help or harm Americans? Harm: 57 percent; help, 43 percent.

Nothing at all will be accomplished tomorrow, even if we got cloture. We would vote on a nonbinding resolution that is an embarrassment to the troops that are wearing our uniforms in Iraq. What we should be doing is voting on cloture on a series of votes which would include Senator Gregg's resolution or amendment that declares our support for our troops.

The reason we face this situation today is the new majority, with one vote--a majority of one vote--went over to the House and negotiated a resolution--a nonbinding, nothing resolution--and brought it over here and said: You are going to vote on this resolution and nothing else. If we do this, we become a lower body of the House. The House, in responding to the Rules Committee, had no chance to offer any amendments to that bill. Over here, the majority leader says: You cannot offer any amendments to this because I am the leader.

Well, it is time we showed this leader the processes of the Senate are here for the purpose of allowing debate. The House represents the population of a whole series of congressional districts. We represent our States. The national viewpoint is settled in the Senate. This is the place where debate is supposed to take place and it should not be limited.

If we voted for cloture on this resolution tomorrow, we would not be allowed to vote on the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment:

Expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be

cut off or reduced for American troops in the field which

would result in undermining their safety or their ability to

complete their assigned missions.

What is wrong with that? Why won't the leader let us vote on that? You

know why? Because it would carry. It would carry. Because Senators on that other side of the aisle know they must support the forces in the field.

Senator Gregg's amendment goes on to say:

Whereas under Article II, section 2, of the Constitution of

the United States, the President is the ``commander in chief

of the Army and Navy of the United States'', and in such

capacity the President has the command of the Armed Forces,

including the authority to deploy troops and direct military

campaigns during wartime.

Whereas under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of

the United States, Congress has the power of the purse

specifically as it relates to the Armed Forces, and in such

capacity Congress has the responsibility to fully and

adequately provide funding for the United States military

forces, especially when they are at war and are defending our

Nation; and

Whereas the United States military forces are in harm's way

and are protecting our country, Congress and the Nation

should give them all the support they need in order to

maintain their safety and to accomplish their assigned

missions, including the equipment, logistics, and funding

necessary to ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such

support is the responsibility of both the Executive Branch

and the Legislative Branch of Government.

Senator Gregg goes on to say this:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

concurring)--

And they have to concur if we send it back to them--

That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not

take any action that will endanger United States military

forces in the field, including elimination or reduction of

funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to

funding would undermine their safety or harm their

effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.

It is nothing but a charade to say an amendment that does nothing should not have a resolution such as this attached to it. That is our purpose. That is our job. It is our constitutional responsibility to support the forces in the field.

I am ashamed the Senate is taking action to prevent the voting on a resolution, once again, establishing the principle. Our duty is to support our forces in the field.

I have a chart to show, but it is difficult for many to understand why we need surge forces. This whole concept we are talking about is safety. Senator Gregg's resolution deals with safety of our forces. This is a chart that shows the Iraqi Army and national police with lead responsibility for counterinsurgency operations in their areas.

In May of 2006 this was their deployment, fairly small. By February of 2007, this is their deployment. We are now in the process of going forward on the new plan to deal with the fact that we have trained a great many of these forces now, but they have not been moved into the areas of real combat, and those are the white spaces on this chart. The whole idea now is to start moving these forces into those areas.

By the way, the hot spots are also on arterial highways in Iraq. This demonstrates where it is. The white areas are occupied by American forces and coalition forces. We want to give them a chance now to move them into those areas. As such, forces will be moving all over this country. In that period of time, these additional surge forces are necessary in order to provide the safety for the people whom they are going to be moving. They are our forces, they are their forces. Secretary Gates has said he does not think they will be there too long. He made a point to make that statement. They will come out as soon as they are no longer needed. Safety is a problem.

To those people who say: Let's get ready to withdraw, if we try to withdraw right now, there would be mass murder in this country. Think of what happened to the Russians and the Soviets when they tried to get out of Afghanistan--and multiply it by factors of 10 to 20. We are spread out all over this place and so are the Iraqis because that was the problem, we were providing for the defense until they were ready to move in and take care of their defense.

This is a chart that shows the current position of forces in Iraqi Freedom. We can see various operations, Japanese and coalition forces, including the British, around the periphery. We are there, in Baghdad, on the major highways. We are in the white spaces on the chart. To get the Iraqi forces in there, we have a new scheme where we will have Iraqi brigades--not divisions but brigades--with an embedded battalion in each brigade move in. Our people will be along with them to make sure their training is carried out and they do the job of defending themselves.

As a practical matter, in order to do that, we need the increased safety of movement in this country. I fully support the plan. It was an Iraqi plan improved on by Secretary Gates, the President, and his staff. Very clearly, the whole program is so they can provide the basic defense for themselves in areas where there is key opposition.

Assume the other side, the side who wants to withdraw, would get approval of the Congress and had some way to mandate the President to withdraw forces. The first thing that would have to be done would be to move the Iraqi forces in there where they can defend themselves and hold back the insurgents currently combatting our forces.

I am not a general, I am not even an armchair general, but I have been around wars for almost all my life now starting out when I was 19. I have seen a great many wars, and I have seen a great many problems with war. Coming back from overseas, I talked to some of my friends and I decided I was going to become an aeronautical engineer to try to find out what caused wars. I hate wars. But I know my duty is to support the military and to support those people carrying out our constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense of this country.

In my opinion, this is the common defense of our country. We have taken on the task of trying to stop a movement that could very well destroy the world. I do believe we should stop these incessant debates on resolutions that mean nothing. Why would we spend all this time and come back on Saturday in order to vote on a nonbinding resolution that would not do a thing? It would not do a thing at all for anyone in that conflict, not one thing. It is nothing but a charade, a charade. It embarrasses me to have to say that. The whole reason for it, pick up The Hill newspaper, back to where I started, to provide a challenge to the 21 Members, Republicans, up for election in 2008, 3 on that side of the aisle. The whole idea is to try to see if we cannot force them to come back on Saturday in order to say to our State constituents: They were not here to vote. I am here to vote. I happened to get off the airplane because I was pretty irritated when I read that story. I am still irritated.

I remember Steve Syms in 1986, when everyone was trying to embarrass people up for election, he said: I am going home and I am going to talk to my constituents, and he did not get sucked back into the debates such as this. He was reelected.

What these people do not know is, we are going to stand up and speak up. We are going to call a spade a spade. This is a charade. I have not been home since January. And I got off that plane to come back and complain about this. I have a right to go home once in a while. I live 4,500 miles from here. As a matter of fact, I am stopping off on my way home to see a very sick relative before I get to Alaska on Monday. Leadership is leadership, and I have been in leadership in this Senate. I was not elected leader, but that is another story. As a practical matter, I have seen leaders come and I have seen leaders go. My friend from Nevada has been my friend for a long time. I am saying I am not going to be embarrassed to come out and say this is nothing but a charade. We should not come back tomorrow to vote on a nonbinding resolution to see if we would vote on a resolution that doesn't tell the story that America wants us to tell, and that story is we support our forces in the field, we support what they are doing. We want them to do what we said we would do, move the forces in that are now trained in Iraq. Let them show how they can defend themselves and we then pull out our embedded battalions and we will be in a position to figure out what is the long-term plan now for this new democracy we have helped establish.

What does this nonbinding resolution do to people in the field? What does it do to the Iraqis? What is it selling them? People are telling me now we should find some way to take the money the President has asked for, the supplemental, and to use it for something else--not to use it to support the people in the field.

There is what is called the Food and Forage Act of the United States. I hope the Senate understands that act. I have been involved in defense appropriations now for over 25 years. The President of the United States has the authority to take money from wherever it is to support forces in the field. We will never abandon our people in the field. We will support them in every way possible. That is why the current majority does not want to vote on the resolution of Senator Gregg. They do not want to be put in a position of saying no to Senator Gregg because if they vote, if they support that resolution, they are continuing the concepts that have been embodied in my life and in the Senate's life as long as I have known it. That is, we support our forces in the field. We are not going to divert money they need for their support, and we are not going to waste our time on nonbinding resolutions that do not do anything to help anybody.

We have a lot of things we could be working on, immigration, energy, global climate change. What are we doing? We are spending our time coming back on Saturday to debate whether we should vote on a bill that was started in the House of Representatives, with not one amendment, and brought over here, not one amendment, and expresses a point of view that the American public does not approve of.

I hope we can get to a debate one of these days, and people will stay around after they make comments such as I heard before I came in. I guarantee, in my heart and in my mind, I know what it means to be in uniform, what it means to be in a position to feel it is necessary to have support at home.

I spent some time last night talking to Colin Powell, one of the famous generals of this country, and reminded him once when we were talking years ago, he told me about the time when he was sent into Laos as a young captain with about 12 days' rations and how when you get up on the morning of the 12th day and realize a drop mission is coming to give you your rations for the next 12 days, how you realize what it means to rely on people, to understand that people in the United States are behind their military, to know you can eat those rations because the supplies are going to come in when they are supposed to come in. That is support to people in the field.

Another concept I speak of is our people have a doctrine that hardly any armies or military in the world has had--we never abandon our forces in the field. What these people are doing now if you listen to them on this other resolution, they are saying, we are going to take and divert this money and put it somewhere else. Not this Senator. If they need that money over there to carry out the commands of the Commander in Chief, I am going to support it. The Senate should support it. We should stop this business of trying to embarrass people who are up for election and demanding they come back and vote on Saturday.

This recess was announced a month ago. Those who live a long distance from here rely on that. The Senate has to start keeping its commitments to our Members whether they are up for election or not.

This is political posturing at its worse. I will be here to vote tomorrow to represent some of those people who could not get back. I stayed to vote so I could come and say this: Political posturing has no place in the Senate of the United States.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007--a bill to provide for the effective prosecution of terrorists and guarantee due process rights. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Leahy, Feingold, and Menendez as original cosponsors. This bill would make significant important changes to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which became law last October.

I have served in this body for more than a quarter-century, but I remember few days darker than September 28, 2006, the day the Senate passed President Bush's Military Commissions Act. Let me be honest with you, I believe this body gave in to fear that day. I believe we looked for refuge in the rule of men, when we should have trusted in the rule of law.

Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 is more than mere tinkering with provisions of the Military Commissions Act. This legislation, which is similar to the bill that I introduced in the last Congress, makes major and important changes to that law in order to ensure we have the essential legal tools to achieve a lasting American victory without violating American values.

What does this proposed legislation do?

It restores the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody.

It narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States in a zone of active combat, who are not lawful combatants.

It requires that the United States live up to its Geneva Convention obligations by deleting a prohibition in the law that bars detainees from invoking Geneva Conventions as a source of rights at trial.

It permits the accused to retain qualified civilian attorneys to represent them at trial.

It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion.

It charges the military judge with the responsibility for ensuring that the jury is appropriately informed as to the sources, methods and activities associated with developing out of court statements proposed to be introduced at trial, or alternatively that the statement is not introduced.

It empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable.

It authorizes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the military commissions.

It limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight.

It clarifies the definition of war crimes in statute to include certain violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions.

To be clear--I absolutely believe that under very clearly proscribed circumstances military commissions can be a useful instrument for bringing our enemies to justice. But those who ask us to choose between national security and moral authority are offering us a false choice, and a dangerous one. Our Nation has been defeating tyrants and would-be tyrants for more than two centuries. And in all that struggle, we've never sold our principles--because if We did, we would be walking in the footsteps of those we most despise.

In times of peril, throwing away due process has been a constant temptation--but that is why we honor so highly those who resisted it. At Nuremberg, America rejected the certainty of execution for the uncertainty of a trial, and gave birth to a half-century of moral authority. Today I am asking my colleagues to reclaim that tradition, to put the principles of the Constitution above the passion of the moment. That reclamation can begin today--if we remedy President Bush's repugnant law. We can do it--and keep America Secure at the same time.

Freedom from torture. The right to counsel. Habeas corpus. To be honest, it still amazes me that we have to come to the floor of the Senate to debate these protections at all. What would James Madison have said if you told him that someday in the future, a Senator from Connecticut would be forced to publicly defend habeas corpus, the defendant's right to a day in court, the foundation of Our legal system dating back to the 13 century? What have we come to that such long- settled, long-honored rights have been called into question?

But here we are. And now it is upon us to renew them. I'd like to talk in detail about several key components of my legislation. The Military Commissions Act eliminated habeas corpus. Habeas corpus allows a person held by the government to question the legality of his detention. In my view, to deny this right not only undermines the rule of law, but damages the very fabric of America. It is not who we are, and it is not who we aspire to be. My bill reopens the doors to the Court house by restoring the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S. custody.

By approving the Military Commissions Act, Congress abdicated its constitutionally-mandated authority and responsibility to safeguard this principle and serve as a co-equal check on the executive branch. This law confers an unprecedented level of power on the president, allowing him the sole right to designate any individual as an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' if he or she engaged in hostilities or supported hostilities against the United States. In my view and in the view of many legal experts, this definition of ``unlawful enemy combatant'' is unmanageably vague. As we have all seen, ``unlawful enemy combatants'' are subject to arrest and indefinite detention, in many cases without ever being changed with a crime, let alone being found guilty. My bill would curtail potential abuse of the unlawful enemy combatant designation by narrowing the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States in ``a zone of active combat'', and who are not lawful combatants. This correction is desperately needed to restore America's standing in the world and to right injustices that have recently been documented by international human rights organizations.

According to the Pentagon, last October, only 70 out of the 435 detainees housed at U.S. prison camps were expected to face a military trial, leaving hundreds of others to be held indefinitely. And while the Pentagon acknowledges that at least 110 of these detainees were labeled ``ready to release,'' for some reason they have been kept under lock and key. Then there are stories such as the one about Asif Iqbal, a British humanitarian aid volunteer who, according to a January 10, 2007 Associated Press story, was mistakenly captured in Afghanistan and subjected to isolation, painful positioning, screeching music, strobe

lights, sleep deprivation, and extreme temperatures. After three months, of enduring such treatment, Iqbal was released in 2004 without any charges brought against him.

Such sordid episodes have gravely undermined our apparent commitment to the Geneva Conventions and damaged our status both at home and in the global community. By failing to reaffirm our obligations under these vital treaties, the Military Commissions Act has only further eroded America's moral authority and perhaps ceded our nation's status as the leading proponent of international law and human rights. For this reason, the legislation I am offering today will reaffirm our obligations under the Geneva Conventions in several key ways. First, it would allow detainees to invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights in their trials, overturning a ban put in place by the Military Commissions Act. Second, this legislation will limit the authority of the President to interpret and redefine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions by subjecting this authority to Congressional and judicial oversight. Lastly, my bill would statutorily define certain violations of the Geneva Conventions as war crimes. These provisions are all vitally important in allowing the United States to effectively wage the war on terror. The war that we are currently waging requires increasing international cooperation, but the President's plan puts us on a path of increasing isolation from even our staunchest allies.

Furthermore, this path is undermining our government's commitments to fundamental tenets of the American legal system. One of these tenets entails the right of the accused not only to confront his/her accuser but also to retain an attorney to represent him/her at trial. This is a basic right afforded to even the most egregious criminals under domestic law. And yet, under the administration's plan, this measure is being abandoned. In response, my bill sets standards for legal representation and allows for civilian legal counsel in military commission proceedings.

Even more importantly, my bill improves on these proceedings by prohibiting the use in court of any evidence that was gained through the unreliable and immoral practices of coercion. Incredibly, the Military Commissions Act lacks this blanket ban on evidence gained through torture. This is critically important for two very different reasons. Torture has been proven to be ineffective in interrogations, yielding highly unreliable information because a detainee, hoping to end the pain, will simply say whatever he believes an interrogator wants to hear. Second, torture allows foreign militaries to mistreat future American prisoners of war and use U.S. actions as an excuse. No one has said it with more authority than our colleague, Senator John McCain.

As he stated last year, ``the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women . . . the cruel actions of a few to darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions,''

To address these concerns, my bill restores to military judges the responsibility of ensuring that information introduced at trial has not been obtained through methods defined as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Sadly, the Military Commissions Act shows disrespect for and mistrust of the highly trained professionals on our military's bench by stripping them of autonomy and authority. The legislation I am proposing today empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. In addition, this bill will grant military judges discretion in the event that classified evidence has a bearing on the innocence of an individual but is excluded due to national security concerns and declassified alternatives are insufficient. America's military judges have been fully trained and prepared to handle classified information. The Bush administration's failure to recognize this fact is an insult to the men and women of our military's bench and an affront to our military's justice system.

Unlike the current administration, I trust our courts to be able to handle the delicate legal and national security issues inherent in the cases involving so-called unlawful enemy combatants. This legislation therefore provides for appeals of the military commissions' decisions to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In my view, the right to an appeal is one of the most fundamental rights granted to anyone in our justice system. We 3 grant appeals to people accused of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. We do this because we know that courts are not infallible. They can err in their decisions, and in order for these mistakes to be rectified and to avoid punishing innocent men and women, appeals must be allowed.

All of these provisions are important. But perhaps none is more urgent than the final measure in my bill, which requires expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its provisions. I believe that the United States Congress made a crucial mistake--that is why we must ensure that each provision of the Administration's Military Commissions Act is quickly reviewed by our Nation's courts. I believe that upon such review, those best qualified to make these judgments--members of our esteemed judiciary--will see to it that the most egregious provisions of this act will be overturned.

All 100 members of this body have been given the gravest of responsibilities. The people of this country have entrusted us with this Nation's security; and they have entrusted us with this Nation's principles. But those who argue that our principles stand in the way of our security are sadly, sorely mistaken: They are the source of our strength.

Five months ago, we departed from that source. But it is not too late to turn back. It is not too late to redeem our error. I implore my colleagues to join me.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on December 23, 1783, George Washington, having successfully led the Continental Army to victory in the Revolutionary War, appeared before the Continental Congress and resigned his commission as commander of the Armed Forces.

It was a quietly pivotal action in the history of our young country, an event so important in shaping the Nation that it is one of only eight moments in our history deemed worthy enough of gracing the walls of the Capitol rotunda.

A painting of Washington's historic act hangs not far from this Chamber alongside more well known moments in American history such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the Battle of Bunker Hill.

The precedent that Washington set on that December day was as revolutionary as it was clear: In the United States of America, the power to make and execute war will be held not by the military but instead by peacefully elected leaders sitting in a legislative body.

Washington understood that the will of the people--the will of the American people--shall be the guiding hand of government, even on questions of war and peace.

I wonder how President Washington would feel, I wonder what he would say to each of us today. First, I think he would be very proud of what has happened this afternoon in the House of Representatives, where they came together, after lengthy debate, to state their opinions about the most pressing issue of war, the war in Iraq. I am very proud that we saw the House of Representatives vote 246 to 182 to say, first, that they support the troops and, secondly, that they do not support the escalation of the war in Iraq.

Regardless of how each person voted today in the House, they took that vote. They were willing to stand up and be counted and give their opinion. I believe the majority of the American people--and their will, their belief--was represented in this vote today of 246 to 182.

What has happened in the Senate? Well, first of all, I commend our majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, for his perseverance, for his continuing effort to reach across the aisle with the minority leader to find a way to do the same thing the House has done. He has put forward numerous proposals, and, as late as yesterday, very simply and in a straightforward way, offerred us the opportunity to vote on a resolution opposing the escalation and one that supports the President's escalation. What could be more fair? What could be simpler? Yet we continue to see the minority block the efforts to bring us to a vote.

For over 2 weeks now, I have watched the Republican leadership engage in legislative games and political posturing to avoid taking a vote on the most pressing issue of our time, the war in Iraq. They say they support it, but they will not vote on a resolution, up or down, whether or not to support the President's escalation. I believe it is because they do not like what they know the outcome will be if we are able to have that vote. They have turned their backs on their responsibility to the people who elected them and to our troops because they may lose a vote.

Four years ago, 23 of us stood on the floor of the Senate and lost a vote. It was a vote to go to war. It was a vote to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq. It was a tough vote. We knew we were not going to win that vote, but we all--those for and against-- made a determination and voted because we are elected officials, charged with overseeing the U.S. Armed Forces, and we had a responsibility to voice our opinions for the record on the question of war.

I have stood on the floor of the Senate time and time again to voice my opposition to this President's proposals of escalation--more of the same, calling it a different strategy, and yet doing the same thing over and over again. Sending more Americans into combat without a strategy for success will not improve the situation on the ground in Iraq. And it will not bring our men and women in uniform home any sooner.

Only the Iraqis can secure Iraq. Only the Iraqis can secure Iraq. We have heard that from generals and military experts and the Iraq Study Group and learned colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The American troops cannot be seen as a substitute for Iraqi resolve. Why would we go further down the path that has led us to this point? Why would we repeat our previous mistakes and call it a new strategy?

Unlike the President, all of us and our counterparts in the House will go home over recess and on weekends and face our constituents, our neighbors. We see them and talk to them at church, in the line at the bank, at our kids' schools, in the grocery store, and at countless events and meetings as we travel throughout our States.

And we are here because they elected us to be their voice.

This is not Washington, DC's, war. We may set policy here, we may make speeches here, and we may take votes here, this is America's war.

The men and women putting their lives on the line in Iraq every day are from our smallest neighborhoods and our biggest cities, from farm communities and factory towns, from places many of us have never heard of and few of us will ever go. Flint, Howell, West Branch, Hemlock, La Salle, Port Huron, Ypsilanti, Muskegon, Ann Arbor, Byron, Flushing, Bay City, Canton, Paw Paw, Lake Orion, Saginaw, Sand Creek--these are only some of the dozens of communities in my home State of Michigan that have given up a son or a daughter to this war.

We sit in this historic Capitol and argue over whether we should dignify this war with a simple vote, while these and other communities across the country bury their loved ones, while high schools hold vigils for alumni laid to rest too young, while churches comfort parishioners who have lost sons and daughters and husbands and wives and fathers and mothers.

We are the voice of these communities, of these towns and cities and counties. We were elected with their sacred trust to come here, to Washington, and to speak out for them, to make our mark for them on the issues that face this country. There can be nothing more important than the issue of war.

By continuing to stonewall a vote on this resolution, the Republican minority has stripped all of America of their voice in this debate. They have said to the people who elected us that this issue--the issue of an escalation of war--is not important enough for their elected representatives to consider.

Too often in the white noise of politics we lose sight of the responsibility we bear. We get bogged down in the politics of partisanship and lose sight of why we were elected. We owe it to the American people to take this vote. This is the most serious issue of our time. There is nothing more important or more pressing than our Nation being at war. It is the responsibility of the Congress to engage in shaping policy concerning the war on behalf of the American people.

Let me take a few moments to remind everyone what is really at stake. While some posture and jockey for legislative position, lives are on the line this moment and every moment the war goes forward. It doesn't matter if you support or oppose the war. Anyone involved in slowing a vote on this resolution should be ashamed. Our military has not failed us at any turn in this endeavor. But we are failing them as a body by failing to lead. What is at stake?

On January 21, the Grand Rapids Press published the following account on the war in Iraq:

The first roadside bomb four months ago knocked a front

tire off Kyle Earl's Humvee, rang his head like a bell and

made his ears bleed.

The second bomb a couple of weeks later blew out the front

tires and took out the transmission but, again, spared Earl

serious injury.

The third one, on Oct. 17, was his last.

With the headlights out for security and wearing night-

vision goggles, the 20-year-old Marine lance corporal from

Cedar Springs was driving the lead Humvee returning from a

night patrol in Iraq's Al Anbar province near the border with

Syria. He and a Marine manning the Humvee's machine gun saw

it at the same time: a hump in the road ahead, a sure sign of

a buried improvised explosive device (IED).

Earl instantly made the calculation: If he swerved, the

trailing Humvee carrying the company commander would hit the

IED, so ``I drove right into it, knowing it was probably

going to kill me,'' he said.

He ran over the hump, igniting three 155-mm artillery

shells and five propane tanks. The flash, amplified by the

night-vision goggles, was brighter than anything he'd ever

seen. A fireball shot through the cab, and shrapnel pierced

his right leg, arm and face. The shock wave felt like someone

had placed him inside a plastic bag and sucked out all the

air.

Still, he remained conscious, as the Humvee rolled off the

road and came to a stop. Blood streamed from his eyes, ears

and nose. He reached for his 9 mm handgun, but noticed

something about the size of his palm on it. He picked it up

and examined it, unaware it was a chunk of his flesh, ripped

from his right forearm.

He smelled something burning and realized he and the Humvee

were on fire. He rolled out onto the ground as his fellow

Marines kicked him to extinguish the flames.

We are here because of that lance corporal. He and his comrades, the men and women serving, deserve our best--our best judgment, our best decisions, our best funding, our best strategy for them.

On November 16, 2006, the Detroit Free Press gave us this insight into life on the ground in Iraq:

``A few days ago, from out of a crowd of kids, one of them

threw a grenade and it went off under the vehicle, and my

executive officer's door was peppered,'' said Lance Cpl.

Michael Rossi, a 28-year-old student majoring in urban

planning at Wayne State University who lives in Detroit. ``A

crowd of kids, and one of them threw a grenade.''

``Out here,'' he said, ``nobody is safe.''

On January 5, the editorial page of the Flint Journal paid its respects to one of Flint's fallen sons:

It's touching and laudable that the father of Marine Cpl

Christopher Esckelson would want the family of a fellow

Marine to understand the full heroics these men displayed in

Iraq combat that claimed both their lives.

They are among more than a dozen local military men whom

the Iraq war has claimed, with each succeeding loss being no

less painful to an area that has supplied an ample measure of

these patriots.

Of course, the grief is much greater for the families who

knew the men in so many other wonderful ways. Those memories

undoubtedly will be recalled during services for Miller and

Esckelson Saturday and Sunday, respectively.

All of us have stories of the men and women who have served heroically and lost their lives, men and women who have come home and need our assistance now as veterans while in our hospitals and will forever carry a remembrance of this war through lost limbs and other health conditions. They deserve a vote on whether we believe this strategy for them and their colleagues is the right strategy. They deserve this. They expect us to stand up and speak out and work as hard as we can to get it right.

Too often on the floor of this Chamber and too often in politics, we use words such as ``bravery'' and ``toughness'' and resolve.'' We describe votes as ``tough.'' We describe speeches as ``brave.'' The men and women serving in combat know the real meaning of these words. They go about their dangerous duty with the pride of professionals. They live and work under the shadow of violence, never knowing what might be facing them around the next corner, and they do it with stoic resolve that reflects their character and their training. They do not have the luxury of picking and choosing when and where to fight. They go where their country sends them and stand shoulder to shoulder with their brothers and sisters in arms and face whatever is thrown at them. What we consider heroic, they consider doing their job.

Their sacrifices deserve and demand leadership, our leadership, collectively. We owe to it them and to every person we were elected to represent to vote on this resolution, to take a stand about how this war will proceed. It is our job. It is time to stop stalling and face our responsibility, a responsibility that pales in comparison to that which is taken every day by our troops in Iraq.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine and other States in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, and provides common sense reforms in keeping with the worthy goals of NCLB.

Since NCLB was enacted in 2002, I have had the opportunity to meet with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law. In response to their concerns, in March 2004, Senator Snowe and I commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our task force included members from every county in the State and had superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents, business leaders, former State legislators, special education experts, assessment specialists, officials from the Maine Department of Education, a former Maine Commissioner of Education, and the Dean from the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development.

After a year of study, the Task Force presented us with its final report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory changes to the Act. These recommendations form the basis of the legislation that we are introducing today.

First, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the ``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements.

Second, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to States in the ways that they demonstrate student progress in meeting State education standards. Specifically, it would permit States to use a cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing'' model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose scores improve from, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic'' level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the ``proficient'' line.

Third, our legislation would provide schools with better notice regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to identify and work with a particular group of students before being identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend to occur gradually and over time.

Fourth, our legislation would allow the members of a special education student's IEP team to determine the best assessment for that individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that assessment to count for all NCLB purposes.

One reason this change is so important for Maine is that we have small student populations and Maine has chosen a very small subgroup size--only 20 students. I was very concerned to hear reports that in some schools, special education students fear that they are being blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. While the statute explicitly prohibits the disaggregation of student data if it would jeopardize student privacy, I am concerned to hear that this is not working out in practice.

This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that everyone knows he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students are referred for special education services precisely because they cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to determine the best test for each special student will bring an important improvement to the Act.

Fifth, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014. Our bill would require the Secretary of Education to review progress by the States toward meeting this goal every 3 years, and would allow her to modify the timeline as necessary.

Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater flexibility and commonsense modifications to address the key NCLB challenges facing Maine, and other States. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues during the upcoming NCLB reauthorization process.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the growing concern among States regarding the Real ID Act of 2005, which requires States to meet minimum security standards before citizens can use drivers' licenses for Federal purposes. As the deadline for compliance with Real ID rapidly approaches, States are beginning to send a very clear message that they are deeply concerned that they will not be able to meet these standards. The bill I introduce today recognizes those concerns by giving everyone more time to devise a way to make drivers' licenses more secure without unduly burdening State governments and without threatening privacy and civil liberties.

To begin, some background may be useful. The 9/11 Commission, finding that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers had acquired some form of U.S. identification, recommended that the Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of drivers' licenses. Taking up that recommendation I worked with a bipartisan group of Senators, especially Senator Lieberman, to craft a provision in the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act that would accomplish this goal. This provision called for the creation of a committee composed of experts from the Federal Government, from State governments, and from other interested parties such as privacy and civil liberties advocates and information technology groups. This committee was charged with developing a means of providing secure identification that protected privacy and civil liberties and respected the role of States in issuing these documents.

The committee diligently began meeting, but before it could complete its work, the House of Representatives attached the Real ID Act of 2005 to an emergency war supplemental bill, thus halting this productive effort. Unlike our intelligence reform bill, the Real ID Act of 2005 did not include States and other interested parties in the rulemaking process and instead instructed the Department of Homeland Security to simply write its own regulations. Nearly 2 years later, we still have not seen these regulations in spite of a looming May 2008 deadline for States to be in compliance with the Real ID Act.

As States begin work this year on their 2008 budgets, they still have no idea what the regulations will require of them. They do know, from a study released in 2006 by the National Governors Association, that the cost to States to implement Real ID could total more than $11 billion over the first 5 years. As a result, many States--my home State of Maine included--have passed resolutions that have sent the message to Washington that they cannot and will not implement Real ID by the May 2008 deadline.

My bill has two primary objectives: 1. It gives us the time and flexibility we need to come up with an effective system to provide secure drivers' licenses; and 2. it gets the experts from the States and from the technology industry and from the privacy and civil liberties advocates back at the table and gives them a chance to make these regulations work.

There are three main provisions in this bill: First, the bill provides that States will not have to be Real ID compliant until 2 years after the final regulations are promulgated. This means that no matter how long it takes the Department of Homeland Security to finish these regulations, States will have a full 2 years to implement them. Most likely that will mean an extension from 2008 to 2010.

Second, the bill gives the Secretary of Homeland Security more flexibility to waive certain requirements of Real ID if an aspect of the program proves technically difficult to implement. Under the current law, the Secretary of Homeland Security has the discretion to waive the requirements for Real ID on a State-by-State basis if the State cannot comply for justifiable reasons. Because it is possible that some of the technological advances necessary for Real ID may not be in place when compliance is required, the bill will provide the Secretary specific authority to waive compliance with specific requirements if these technological systems are not up and running-- relieving the States from the burden of seeking exemptions from Real ID for technological reasons not within their control.

Third, it reconstitutes the committee that we created in 2004 and that was making good progress in its discussions. The committee would be required to look at the regulations published by the Department of Homeland Security and to make suggestions for modifications to meet the concerns of States, privacy advocates, and the other interested parties. The committee would report these suggestions to the Department of Homeland Security and to Congress. The Department of Homeland Security would either have to make these modifications or explain why it chose not to do so. In addition, the committee could recommend to Congress statutory changes that would mitigate concerns that could not be addressed by modifications to the regulations.

This bill gives us the time and the information that Congress and the Department of Homeland Security need to better implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in order to make our drivers' licenses secure so that they cannot be used again as a part of a plot to attack our country. This bill does this in a way that does not rewind the clock three years but instead keeps us moving forward to a more secure America.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address Real ID and to put us back on track in protecting our privacy, protecting our liberty, and protecting our country.