A resolution notifying the President of the United States of the election of the Secretary of the Senate.

Would the Senator from Rhode Island yield?

I was wondering if we could determine the timing for debate, and I was wondering who is arranging debate on this side of the aisle.

Mr. President, if I could be added following the last Democratic speaker who was mentioned, I would appreciate it.

Madam President, this has been an interesting debate. I have had the opportunity to watch some of it and listen to more of it. I think we are finally debating a very important subject.

From time to time, there is a tendency to treat the serious too lightly and the light too seriously here on the floor of the Senate. This is a serious matter being treated seriously. Our country is at war. Today, we have young men and women in America's military uniforms walking down alleyways and streets in Baghdad and other dangerous places in Iraq, risking their lives. Some, perhaps today, will give their lives. War is a serious subject, the most serious subject for our country.

I wish to talk a little about the history of how we have gotten to this place and what I think we should do.

I recall Memorial Day, shortly after 9/11. I believe it was the first Memorial Day after 9/11--perhaps the second--when a young man whom I had previously appointed to West Point came back. He was missing an arm, from combat.

We had, of course, gone to Afghanistan, waging a war against the Taliban that had housed and harbored al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, and then shortly thereafter we went to the country of Iraq.

This young man, who came from a small town in North Dakota and whom I was privileged to send to the West Point Academy, came back missing an arm but enormously proud of having served his country. I recall speaking at the outdoor event at the veterans cemetery. He was there. He spoke. I was enormously proud of him. He was proud of serving his country.

I guess I described a verse I heard some long while ago--I don't even know the author--that:

When the drums are heard and the lightning is seen and the

knives are out,

The patriots are always there, ready to fight and die for

their country if necessary.

We can name many patriots in this country who serve today and who have served this country--in world wars, conflicts--who serve today because our country asks them to serve. It is always the case that old men send young men and women to war. Wars might be different if the ages were reversed, but they are not.

The question for me today is, What are our goals? My guess is every person serving in this Chamber, every man and woman, every Republican and Democrat, every conservative and liberal, wants the same thing for this country. We want our country to succeed. We are on our side, we are on the side of right, we are on the side supporting the greatest country that exists on this Earth.

We made some serious mistakes. We went to Afghanistan. That was the right thing to do. It was, after all, Afghanistan that housed Osama bin Laden, who boasted about committing the terrorist acts of 9/11, murdering thousands of innocent Americans. They boasted about that. They said, ``We did it.'' Al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, al-Zarqawi--``We did it,'' they said. They were in Afghanistan, so we went to Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban government of Afghanistan, and the leadership of al-Qaida escaped. The leadership of al-Qaida went, apparently, to the hills in northern Pakistan.

Then, with President Bush's direction, went to Iraq.

A great deal of top-secret information was disclosed to those of us in Congress and some to the American people. The Secretary of State made a lengthy presentation with charts and slides to the United Nations, a presentation to the world. It turns out much of the intelligence upon which that was based was fundamentally wrong, some of it embarrassingly inaccurate.

One single source, someone who we now know the Germans thought to have been a drunk and a fabricator, was used by the administration to suggest that Iraq threatened our country because it had mobile chemical weapons labs. This source, called ``Curveball,'' whom we now know to have been a single source and a source who lied, was the basis for substantial allegations to the Congress and the American people about evidence of a weapon of mass destruction program in Iraq. The source for yellow cake from Niger turns out to have been forged papers. Equipment to recreate a nuclear weapons program in the form of aluminum tubes--the Secretary of State and others gave us information about that, information that is now public but was imparted to us in top- secret sessions without disclosing something she was responsible to disclose: There were other parts of the Government that said no, these are not aluminum tubes to reconstitute a nuclear program, they are not that at all. They are thought to be for use in rocketry, and that is exactly what we found out later to be the case. Very substantial mistakes were made but, nonetheless, we cannot turn back the clock. American soldiers were committed.

As a result of that, a number of things have happened in the country of Iraq. While the terrorists fled to Pakistan and Osama bin Laden and al-Zarqawi and the other leadership of the al-Qaida organization hid in northern Pakistan, now some over 2,000 days since they boasted about murdering thousands of Americans--while that was the case, we went to Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was deposed. This man was a butcher. We have unearthed mass graves in Iraq that housed hundreds of thousands of skeletons of people murdered by the Saddam Hussein regime. Is it a worthy thing to have deposed a leader of Iraq with that kind of record? Yes. Saddam Hussein is gone. He was executed. The Iraqi people have now voted for their own Constitution. They wrote it and supported it. The Iraqi people have now elected their own government by their own hand. So there is no dictator, they have a Constitution, and they have a new government.

The problem at the moment is they are not able to provide for their own security. In fact, there is a civil war occurring in the country of Iraq. We have just received the latest National Intelligence Estimate-- the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which is a compilation of whatever is said by the best minds that exist in the intelligence community.

This is unclassified:

Iraq has become a self-sustaining intersectarian struggle.

If you take those words as part of what the National Intelligence Estimate says, this is a civil war. Now we end up with American soldiers right smack dab in the middle of a civil war in Iraq while Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida leadership exists in northern Pakistan directing al-Qaida's terrorist activities.

Now why does this matter? Let me describe why that is important. On January 11, 2007, Mr. Negroponte who was then the Director of National Intelligence testified before Congress. He said:

Al Qaeda is the terrorist organization that possesses the

greatest threat to U.S. interests, including to our Homeland.

Let me say that again. What is the greatest threat to our country's interests? Al-Qaida. That is not me; that is the head of American intelligence, Mr. Negroponte. This was reaffirmed 3 weeks ago by the current head of U.S. intelligence. The greatest threat to our country, the greatest terrorist threat to our country, is al-Qaida. They pose the greatest threat to our interests and to our homeland.

Now an additional statement by Mr. Negroponte says this:

[Al Qaeda] continues to plot attacks against our homeland

and other targets with the objective of inflicting mass

casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections

and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders'

secure hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the

Middle East, northern Africa and Europe.

All of this is a direct quote from the unclassified testimony of the head of intelligence in our country. Al-Qaida is the greatest terrorist threat to our country, No. 1; No. 2, they continue to plot attacks against our homeland from their leaders' secure hideout in Pakistan.

Now let me ask the question: What is the goal here? What is the goal for this country? We were attacked on 9/11. Thousands of Americans were murdered by airplanes full of fuel, used as

guided missiles to fly into office buildings, to the Pentagon. We were attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaida. They boasted about it. They said: We did it. Give us credit. We murdered innocent Americans.

Where are they now, over 2,000 days later? They are, according to our top intelligence experts, in a secure hideout in Pakistan with the objective of inflicting mass casualties by continuing to plot attacks against our homeland.

So what are we doing today? We are in Iraq going house to house, in Baghdad, in the middle of a civil war.

What is the goal? Is our goal to fight terrorism? To take on the terrorists? To eliminate the terrorists? To eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida? Is it our goal to go after those who attacked our country and murdered thousands of innocent Americans?

If that is our goal, let me ask this question: Why are they in a secure hideaway in northern Pakistan and our soldiers are going house to house in a civil war in Iraq, in Baghdad? Why? Maybe it is not our goal to fight the terrorists. Is it not our goal to take them on where they are? Yes, there are some al-Qaida in Anbar Province in Iraq. This resolution, by the way, will allow us to redeploy in Iraq to make an even greater effort against that al-Qaida organization that exists in Anbar Province. But our National Intelligence Estimate is quite clear: What is happening in Iraq, in the main, outside of Anbar Province has very little to do with al-Qaida and with terrorism. It has everything to do with a civil war and sectarian violence.

So the question is: What should be our goal? I very strongly believe we should redeploy our troops and understand that our obligation is to take on those interests that want to attack us in our homeland, those interests that attacked us previously, those interests that represent the greatest threat to our country as described by the head of U.S. intelligence.

Why on Earth on this day, Wednesday--2,010 days, nearly, following 9/ 11, after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida boasted about launching attacks in our homeland and murdering the American people, murdering thousands of Americans--why on Earth would we not be in a full-court press to prosecute the war against terrorists? No, this situation in Iraq is not a proxy against the war on terrorism. It is not. It cannot be described that way.

The National Intelligence Estimate tells us it is sectarian violence, by and large. The head of national intelligence tells us where the head of the greatest threat to our country is in northern Pakistan, the leadership of al-Qaida. We are going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war, and they are in northern Pakistan promoting continued attacks against our homeland.

Is that a disconnect? It seems to me it is. Anybody in this Chamber who stands up and has a strong passion and opinion about these issues, I respect. The last thing I would ever do is suggest they are not patriotic, they don't love their country, they do not support soldiers. All nonsense. Every man and woman who aspires to come and serve, who is here in this Chamber, I know loves this country, supports our soldiers, and wants our country to succeed. That is a fact. This is not about anybody having bad motives. It is about our country trying to make a decision: Are we on the right path or the wrong path? Do we think the experience we have had in Iraq--now that this has become a civil war, in which we have made very little progress but seen many Americans killed and far more wounded--do we think that kind of situation can and should continue, or should we say to the Iraqi people the following: We want what is best for you as well. We have, with the blood and treasury of American soldiers and the American people, given you the following opportunities: You were able to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He does not exist anymore. He has been executed. You were able to write yourself a new constitution and you were able to cast your votes for a new government.

The question now is this: This is your country, not ours. Do you have the will and the capability to provide for your own security? Iraq belongs to you, not us. If you cannot provide for your own security, the American taxpayer and the American soldiers cannot do that for a long period of time and should not be asked to do that year after year after year.

We ought to redeploy, and that redeployment ought to be so our country can wage war against terrorists. We know where they are. Our National Intelligence Estimate and the head of the national intelligence organizations have told us. They are the greatest threat. We know where they are. Yet my guess is they do not feel terribly threatened today.

What is the goal? What is our goal here? I would hope our goal as a country is to decide to go after and eliminate those terrorists who plot attacks against our country.

Now there are many ways for us to manifest our love of country and our passion about these issues. But I think there is one other issue most of us would agree upon. One of the concerns I have had about what is happening these days with respect to the Iraq war is we have sent soldiers to war, but we have not asked our country to make a similar commitment. Just this morning I asked the Chief of Staff of the Army at a hearing, an Appropriations hearing, about a new personnel carrier we have developed. They say it will reduce deaths from improvised explosive devices by two-thirds in a country such as Iraq--new design, stronger, more capable. I asked: Were we ordering a lot of them? No, not really. At today's pace it will take about 6 years to replace the existing vehicles.

I chaired a democratic policy committee hearing last year, and retired Marine Colonel Hammes came to the hearing. He said: You know, in the Second World War, at the end we were producing 50,000 warplanes a year.

Do you know why? Because our country, by God, decided the whole country was going to make an effort to go to war, to commit and to produce and do everything there was to give our soldiers the opportunity to fight and win. We have not done that.

The Army has ordered 2,500 of those new armored personnel carriers some estimate will save two-thirds of the lives that are now being lost to IEDs. Our country is told we are at war, you go ahead and go to the mall, go shopping. The soldiers will go to war. In fact, we won't ask you to pay for anything either. We have now spent $450 billion, plus or minus. We are on the way to spending over $650 billion in Afghanistan and Iraq and the war on terrorism without asking the taxpayer to pay one cent; add it to the debt. The country has not been asked to go with the soldiers. There is no sacrifice. It is just the soldiers.

We have a resolution on the floor of the Senate. The resolution is S.J. Res. 9. I heard some of the debate a bit earlier. Some have suggested this resolution is about cutting and running. People will think we have left. I think most of the people in this world would take a look at us and say this is the strongest country in the world. It has got the biggest military in the world. We spend more money than any other country, any other series of countries, on defense. We spend more money than the top 30 countries combined on defense. Unbelievable.

We were attacked by the leadership of al-Qaida and their operatives on 9/11/2001. It is now 2007. They are still alive. Our national intelligence chief tells us where they are. They are still the greatest threat to this country. They are still plotting attacks against our country. And we are this behemoth military Nation that has such capability. Why are we not using that capability for the goal I think is preeminent, and that is the goal of protecting our country and eliminating those who are plotting attacks against our country, the leadership of al-Qaida? The way to do that will not be to wait for President Bush to decide he wants to change course. He does not want to change course. He wants to keep doing what we have been doing. But the way to change course is to pass the piece of legislation that says: Let us redeploy our troops.

Speaking only for me, I believe the redeployment ought to be to go after the greatest threat that exists to this country's future, the greatest threat described by our National Intelligence Estimate and the national intelligence chief. It is not a surprise, not a secret. We all understand where that threat is. And yet we reduced our forces in Afghanistan early so we could invade

Iraq. Now we have got problems in Afghanistan. We have got bogged down in Iraq. We are now in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

The greatest threat to our country's interests is in a secure hideaway in Pakistan; a secure hideaway. That ought never happen. The head of intelligence in this country ought never be telling us there is a secure hideaway for the organization that wants to destroy our country, to launch attacks against innocent Americans. There ought not be a place that is secure on this planet for people who are doing that.

What is the goal? Is not the goal to fight terrorism, to take on the terrorists? If that is the case, then let's heed the words of the head of intelligence, to know where they are, what they are doing, who they are, and find a way to bring them to justice. The sooner the better. After nearly 5\1/2\ years, it is past time, long past time for us to set our sights on those who represent the greatest threat to our country. That is the reason I will support this resolution. This is about redeployment. This is about establishing the goals we ought to have as a country.

Finally, let me say this: I have enormous respect for the men and women serving in the military. They are an unbelievable bunch of young men and women. I recall speaking to a helicopter crew in Afghanistan. They were young men and women, average age 19, 20, 21, 22 years of age who were keeping those helicopters in the air.

The officer said these are kids, but they are highly trained kids, highly motivated kids, these young people. You go in the field and watch what they do, and it is unbelievable. They love their country. When their country asks them to serve, they serve. But their country, it seems to me, owes them something too. Their country owes them the responsibility of clear, thoughtful policies, the ability to address what is important to our country.

When we use military force, we ought to use military force not in the middle of a civil war some place, but instead use military force to confront the terrorists who threaten America. That is what military force ought to be used for at this point. We understand terrorism is awful. Most of us have never before understood there are plenty of people out there who are willing to die themselves if they can kill a few innocent people in order to make their point. That is something we have never before understood very well. That is modern terrorism. We have to confront that. We owe it to our soldiers to have a set of goals that represent the best interests of this country.

So my hope, in short, is for us to be able to tell the Iraqis: This is your country, not ours. You need to provide for your own security. We are going to give you a sufficient time to do that, but we cannot keep American soldiers in the middle of a civil war for a great length of time. We intend to turn our attention to where it should have been all along; and that is, to confront the greatest threat that exists to our country, which is al-Qaida, its network around the world, and its plans to try to create terrorist acts in our homeland.

That ought to be our goal. The way to achieve that goal is through the redeployment that would come with this legislation.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Madam President, I understand Senator Feinstein is on her way. As soon as she arrives, I will yield the floor.

Fuel Efficiency Energy Act

Mr. President, I wish to comment very briefly on legislation that Senator Larry Craig of Idaho and I are introducing today. It is a bipartisan piece of energy legislation. I wish to describe it briefly.

We are in the process, this year, of trying to put together another Energy bill. I am on the authorizing committee. So with the leadership of Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici and others of us on the authorizing committee, we will try to write a new Energy bill. That bill has a lot to do with security--oil security, energy security but the security of our country as well.

If we woke up some morning and terrorists had interrupted the supply of oil to our country, we would be in a desperate condition. On this Earth of ours, this planet, we stick straws in the planet and suck out oil--about 84 million barrels of oil a day. Of the 84 million barrels a day that is taken out of this planet, 21 million barrels is used in the United States. One-fourth of all the oil is used in this little patch of ground called the United States.

Nearly 65 percent comes from outside our country, much of it from very troubled parts of the world--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela. We are desperately dependent on oil from other countries-- again, in many areas, troubled countries in the world.

We have to find a way to move toward energy independence. Senator Craig, a Republican, and I, a Democrat, have worked on a bipartisan basis to introduce legislation that has been put together for nearly 2 years now by an organization of retired business executives, retired military officers, to talk about reducing the oil intensity in this country, especially dealing with transportation.

Nearly 70 percent of all the oil we use is used in transportation. We run it right through our vehicles, by and large, and 70 percent of it is used in the transportation sector; and that line is going up, up-- way up. We need to find ways to address this issue of our unbelievable dependence on foreign oil and the substantial increase in oil intensity in the transportation sector.

So we are introducing a piece of legislation that does a lot of things. A, it demands that vehicles be more efficient. And we are not leaving out any vehicles. This includes big trucks. Get a car these days and compare it to a car you would have purchased 10 years ago-- identical models--and what you will find, I bet, is there has not been one bit of progress in fuel efficiency in 10 years.

Oh, the car company will say: That is not true. This is much more efficient. It is heavier, but you get the same gas mileage, even though you are actually pulling more weight. That is all baloney. The fact is, in terms of how much oil we use, we are not making any progress on efficiency. As a result of that, I believe, finally, it is long past the time when we ought to demand increases in the efficiency in our vehicle fleet.

Second, we believe we are going to have to find additional oil. I understand that digging and drilling, which I call ``yesterday forever'' as an energy strategy, is not the only strategy, but we do have to find some additional oil. We believe we should open up additional lands in the Gulf of Mexico, where the substantial quantity exists. We would do it by protecting beaches and protecting the viewshed, but there is substantial energy there we ought to be able to get.

Third: a dramatic increase in renewable energy. Yes, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and a whole series of areas of achieving substantial additional renewable energy--all of that is achievable if we decide as a country to establish that as a goal.

We believe doing a number of things, some of which are very controversial, to both increase production and decrease use--that is through conservation and efficiency--can move us to a much less oil- intensive economy.

Now, there is more to do. The larger, comprehensive bill will have to include the issues of electrogeneration and transmission, and all these other issues. We are dealing, in the legislation Senator Craig and I are introducing today, with the question of oil intensity in the transportation sector, which is a very substantial part of our oil usage.

Now, we do not believe necessarily that somebody is going to say: Well, do you know what? Let's take this entire bill as it has been written and have a vote tomorrow. We understand that is not the way it works. But we do believe it is important for us to take a hard look at these energy issues from a security standpoint.

We talk about energy in many ways too casually. Our country runs on energy. Especially the issue of oil is a very important issue because so much of it comes from off our shores. So much of it comes in circumstances that we have very little control over.

From an energy standpoint, I was thinking the other day about a visit I had with our former colleague, John Glenn, who described to me, late one night on an airplane as we were flying over the Pacific on our way to Asia--I was pumping him with questions because I was a young boy as I listened on the radio about his space flight. I was asking John about all of this, and I had read about the time when the city of Perth, Australia, I think it was, decided to light every light bulb in the city as a signal to this astronaut flying up there alone circling the Earth.

John Glenn told me, when I asked him the question: As you reached the dark side and looked, did you ever see Perth, Australia, because they lit all the lights of the town to signal you?--and he said he did. He looked down.

The only evidence of life on Earth on the dark side was to see a shining light that was then Perth, Australia. But that light was, of course, a product of energy--energy produced by human beings to make life better on this Earth. So now we come to the year 2007, living in the greatest country on Earth--but an unbelievable, prodigious consumer of energy--in a situation where we do not have a secure energy supply, with 60 to 65 percent of our oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela, and other parts of the world where there is great turbulence.

So the question for this Congress is what to do about that. The answer is, as is the case in all areas of security, we need to be concerned and we need to take action to become less dependent and more independent, to the extent we can, on foreign oil.

So working with a wide group of interests, with an organization that has been working now for several years to put this plan together, Senator Craig and I are introducing this legislation today in the Senate. I wish to take a brief moment to comment about what that plan is.

We take--pretty much all of us take--energy for granted. We live a great life. For light, we simply turn on a switch. To move someplace, we turn a key and gasoline flows from the tank, through the carburetor, the fuel injector, and we do not think much about that. But it has given us a pretty unbelievable life. Through it all, we have never had to be very conscious about saving, economizing, efficiency, conservation, and we have not had to be as conscious as we should be now about where oil comes from.

For that reason, we have introduced a piece of legislation that I think has substantial merit. We will work with Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici and others on the authorizing committee to incorporate the provisions and the ideas that are represented in this plan as a new approach to energy in our country's future.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I withhold the suggestion of an absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is this dividing the hour of debate on the motion to proceed?

Mr. President, next Tuesday will mark the start of the fifth year of the war in Iraq. Our Nation has spent almost $400 billion now in Iraq and is spending an average of almost $9 billion in U.S. taxpayers' funds per month. More importantly, we have lost almost 3,200 American service men and women and have suffered almost 24,000 wounded.

The resolution before us is aimed at turning the responsibility for the future of Iraq over to the Iraqis themselves. Last year, we adopted a resolution which said that calendar year 2006 was going to be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. That was over a year ago.

We were supposed to be through a year of significant transition by now. It has not happened. The only way it is going to happen is if this Congress makes it happen.

Many of us have long maintained it was necessary that pressure be placed on the Iraqis to come together politically because only a political settlement could bring about the end of sectarian violence in Iraq and the defeat of the insurgents.

I have recounted how Ambassador Khalilzad and even President Bush have told me a number of statements that many of us have made--that we should begin to reduce our presence in Iraq--were, indeed, useful statements, useful in an effort to prod the Iraqis to reach a political settlement.

Those words--the words of President Bush, Ambassador Khalilzad, and recently Secretary Rice--words prodding the Iraqis to take responsibility, telling the Iraqis the open-ended commitment is over, telling the Iraqis we must begin to reduce our presence in 4 to 6 months are useful words for the Iraqis to hear.

The problem is it is not the President who is speaking those words. The problem is the administration has not adopted those words as a matter of policy. Now it is time for Congress to explain to the Iraqis: It is your country. We cannot save you from yourselves. It is time for us, the Congress, to tell the Iraqis as a reminder that it is their own Prime Minister, Mr. Maliki, who acknowledged the following when he said a few months ago:

The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the

cycle of aggravation and bloodletting are the [Iraqi]

politicians.

A few weeks ago, Ambassador Khalilzad said in an interview on television that the congressional debate is ``useful in one way. It does send a message to the Iraqis that the patience of the American people is running out, and that is helpful to my diplomacy.''

I wish to repeat this because there are a number of Members of this body and there are a number of members of the administration who have attacked this debate as somehow or another undermining our troops. It is quite the opposite. We support our troops when we give them our best thinking as to how to succeed in Iraq. It is good for our troops to have a debate in this democracy about whether a course is failing or succeeding and, if it is not succeeding, to offer our best thoughts as to how to make it succeed.

Our troops deserve everything we can give them. They haven't gotten it. They deserve the best equipment. They didn't get it. They deserve treatment when they come to our hospitals. They didn't get it. They deserve our best thinking, our honest thoughts as to how we can succeed in Iraq, how can we change course from a failing course to one which succeeds.

We know there is no military solution in Iraq, there is only a political solution, and that must be achieved by the Iraqis themselves. We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. It is their country. After 4 years of shedding American blood and American treasure, it is long overdue that the Iraqi leaders be told, not just by this Congress, although we alone apparently will do it, but by the administration that they and they alone have the responsibility, the capability, and the power to make Iraq a country instead of a place of civil strife.

This resolution we are about to embark upon will end the open-ended commitment of American military forces that is not working. We must change this course. Only the Iraqis can save their country, and we will be helping to force them to do that. It shouldn't be necessary, but it is. We will be helping to force the Iraqi leaders to save their country if we step up finally and say: We have been there longer than we were in World War II. We have been in Iraq longer than we fought the Korean war. Iraqis leaders, only you, and you alone, can decide: Do you want a civil war or do you want a nation? We hope you choose a nation.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, after 4 years of fighting and the loss of almost 3,200 American lives, 24,000 wounded, $350 billion spent on this war, it is long past time for a new approach in Iraq. Everybody who participates in this debate wants to maximize our chances of success in Iraq. Even those of us who voted against going to war and those of us who have disagreed with how this war has been conducted want to see a stable Iraq which enhances our own national security.

But continuing the current course and surging along the current course does not do that. The President's current course of action, of putting more U.S. military personnel in the middle of a growing civil war in Iraq, does not enhance our security and it does not maximize the chances of success.

The President's plan has a fundamental flaw because what is needed in Iraq is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders, not a military solution. Our troops perform bravely and brilliantly, but American military firepower will not end the civil war in Iraq. It has been apparent for a long time that there is no military solution in Iraq, that an Iraqi political solution is necessary to end the violence. GEN Peter Chiarelli, commanding general of

the multinational force in Iraq, said the following in December:

We need a commitment by all Iraqis, of all of the ethno-

sectarian groups to commit first to nonviolence and to

resolving their differences through the political process . .

.

And he continued:

I happen to believe that we have done everything militarily

that we possibly can.

At his confirmation hearing in December, I asked our new Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates:

Do you believe that the end to violence in Iraq requires a

political settlement, and that we need to communicate a sense

of urgency to the Iraqis to pressure them to reach a

settlement that only their politicians can reach?

Dr. Gates replied:

Yes, I do.

The Iraq Study Group stated that:

The violence in Iraq cannot be stopped or even contained if

there is no underlying political agreement among Iraqis about

the future of their country.

Perhaps most telling was Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's acknowledgment recently on this essential point. This is what Iraq's own Prime Minister said:

The crisis is political. And the ones who can stop the

cycle of aggravation and blood-letting of innocents are the

Iraqi politicians.

The real battle for Baghdad is not a military battle, it is a political one, and that battle can be resolved only by Iraqi politicians and not by our military.

So how do we pressure the Iraqi leaders to reach the political settlement that is essential? We can start by ending our open-ended commitment to Iraq. The President has changed his rhetoric about ending our open-ended commitment, but he has not changed his policy. In fact, he sent the opposite message when he sent more troops to Baghdad.

Our objective in Iraq, and the objective of this resolution, must be to shift responsibility to the Iraqis, both politically and militarily, for their future. For that to happen, we must end the open-ended commitment that has been made by this administration to Iraq of the presence--without decision by us, leaving it up to the Iraqis for how long and how many--of American troops.

We must make clear to the Iraqis that their future is in their hands, not ours. We must make it clear to the Iraqis they must reach a political settlement among themselves and, if they do not, we cannot save them from themselves.

As General Abizaid said in November:

It's 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.

General Casey made the same point in early January when he said:

The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main

burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the

government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about

reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other

thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq's

problems, which are at base their problems.

The Iraq Study Group specifically drew the connection between the importance of ending the open-ended commitment of American troops and persuading the Iraqis to make political compromises. There is a connection between the two, the Iraq Study Group said, between ending the open-ended commitment and getting the Iraqis to resolve their political differences. Here is the way they put it in the Iraq Study Group's report:

An open-ended commitment of American forces would not

provide the Iraqi government the incentive it needs to take

the political actions that give Iraq the best chance of

quelling sectarian violence. In the absence of such an

incentive, the Iraqi government might continue to delay

taking those difficult actions.

That is the Iraq Study Group.

Columnist Tom Friedman put it succinctly recently in the New York Times:

Right now everyone in Iraq is having their cake and eating

it--at our expense. We have to change that.

But instead of putting pressure on the Iraqis, the President is putting his faith in the Iraqis to meet certain benchmarks they have set for themselves. But look at the track record of the Iraqi Government in meeting some of the benchmarks and promises it has set for itself and it has made.

Iraqi President Talibani said in August of 2006 that Iraqi forces would ``take over security in all Iraqi provinces by the end of 2006.'' That pledge surely has not been kept.

Prime Minister Maliki said last June he would disband the militias and illegal armed groups as part of his national reconciliation plan, and in October he set the timetable for disbanding the militias as the end of 2006. That commitment has not been kept.

The Iraqi Constitutional Review Commission was to present its recommendations for changes in the constitution to the Council of Representatives within 4 months of the formation of the Iraqi Government last May. Well, the commission has yet to formulate any recommendations.

Prime Minister Maliki put forward a series of reconciliation milestones to be completed by the end of 2006 or early 2007, including approval of the provincial election law, approval of a new de- baathification law, and approval of a new militia law. Not one of those laws has been enacted.

On January 30, Secretary Rice wrote to me about these benchmarks. She said the Iraqi Government had adopted a lot of benchmarks, and she attached those benchmarks to her letter called ``Notional Political Timeline.''

Here is what she said about the benchmarks attached to her letter:

. . . Iraq's Policy Committee on National Security agreed

upon a set of political, security, and economic benchmarks

and an associated timeline in September 2006.

Then she said:

These were reaffirmed by the Presidency Council on October

16, 2006, and referenced by the Iraq Study Group; the

relevant document (enclosed) was posted at that time on the

President of Iraq's website.

The posted document shows one benchmark after another, starting in September 2006, going through March of 2007, and I am going to read them off.

By September 2006:

Form a Constitutional Review Committee;

Approve the law and procedures to form regions;

Agree on political timetable;

Approve the law for Independent High Electoral Commission

(IHEC);

Approve the Investment Law.

By October 2006:

Approve provincial elections law and set date for

provincial elections;

Approve a hydrocarbon law.

By November 2006:

Approve a de-Ba'athification law;

Approve provincial council authorities law;

Approve a flag, emblem and national anthem law.

By December 2006:

Approve Coalition Provisional Authority . . . concerning

armed forces and militias;

Council of Representatives to address amnesty, militias and

other armed formations;

Approve amnesty, militias and other armed formations law.

By January 2007--this was the timeline--

Constitutional Review Committee completes its work.

By February 2007:

Form independent commissions in accordance with the

Constitution.

By March:

Constitutional amendments referendum (if required).

Now, there may have been one or two of those guidelines met. If so, I am not sure what they are, but I want to at least allow the possibility that a flag, emblem, and national anthem law was adopted. But of those perhaps 15 milestones--and a timeline for them--to be adopted by the Iraqi Presidency, not more than one--but maybe two--of the 15 have been adopted. And none of the important ones have been adopted.

We are told by Secretary Rice, that was on the Web site of the President of Iraq. Then suddenly and mysteriously it disappeared from that Web site a few months ago.

When I asked Secretary Rice--I wrote her a letter asking: You said, Madam Secretary, this was on the Web site, but it disappeared from the Web site. Can you find out why? We have not heard back from the Secretary of State about that problem.

So much for the promises and commitments and milestones of the Iraqi leadership. They post them on a Web site month by month what these promises and commitments and milestones and benchmarks are, and then-- poof--they disappear from the Web site, just as though they were not made. That is the problem with milestones, benchmarks which have no consequences when they are not met.

The President talks about benchmarks, and yet he has not outlined any consequences for the Iraqis if they fail to meet these new benchmarks. I have little hope they will meet benchmarks they lay out unless they see no alternative. It is time to go beyond the toothless benchmarks and to make clear to the Iraqi leaders their dawdling must end and that their nation is in their hands, and we cannot decide for them how to build a nation, whether to build a nation, or whether they prefer to have a civil war.

The administration says our debate on this bill would embolden the enemy. But what that shows is a serious lack of understanding of the situation we face. Congressional debate over Iraq policy does not embolden the enemy. The enemy is already emboldened. The enemy is emboldened by an open-ended presence of western troops in a Muslim country's capital, which serves as a magnet for extremists and gives a propaganda club to our enemies.

The enemy is emboldened by an invasion of Iraq without the support of the international community, and with no plan for a violent aftermath. The enemy is emboldened by a million and a half Iraqi refugees, with thousands more being added each day. The enemy is emboldened by a surge of American troops into a civil war that postpones the day when Iraqi leaders will take responsibility for their own future.

And now our responsibility as a Congress. What is our responsibility? What this resolution does is implement our responsibility by working to make the day when Iraqi leaders take responsibility for their own nation come sooner rather than later. The most recent intelligence estimate says ``the current security and political trends in Iraq are moving in a negative direction.''

Our resolution is the best way to stop the Iraqi leaders from continuing to fiddle while Baghdad burns. It would seek to pressure the Iraqi leaders to achieve a political solution by requiring our President to promptly transition the mission of American forces in Iraq to protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure, to training and equipping Iraqi forces, and to conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

Our resolution would require the President to begin the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after enactment, with the goal--I emphasize ``goal''--of redeploying all United States combat forces by March 31, 2008, except for--except for--those that are needed to carry out the three missions which are described in the resolution, and which I have just outlined. That goal and the three limited missions are the same as the goal and the limited missions recommended by the Iraq Study Group.

Passing this resolution would deliver a cold dose of reality to the Iraqi leaders and would tell them we are not going to be their security blanket without end. When they finally understand our military presence in Iraq is neither permanent nor unconditional, then--and only then-- are they likely to take the political steps necessary to deal with sectarian violence and to defeat the insurgency.

By shifting responsibility to the Iraqis for their own future and their own country, this resolution does what is needed the most--it puts pressure on the Iraqis to reach a political settlement.

As we consider the future of our involvement in Iraq, we must always be mindful of the price our military and their families are paying as a result of multiple deployments of units and people to Iraq. We must be mindful that the lack of attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan has allowed al-Qaida and the Taliban to regroup and strengthen. We must also be mindful that our nondeployed forces lack the equipment and other resources needed to maintain an acceptable level of readiness, and, as a result, the risk our Nation faces has substantially increased.

We must be tragically mindful, always, that the pledge to take care of those courageous soldiers and marines, who have sustained serious physical and mental injuries in combat, has been broken by this administration.

In recent days, there have been statements suggesting a debate in Congress on the war in Iraq is undermining the troops. Just last Monday, Vice President Cheney said, among other things, that:

When Members of Congress pursue an antiwar strategy . . .

they are not supporting the troops, they are undermining

them.

Contrast the Vice President's statement with statements Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Pace made recently on February 7 before the House Armed Services Committee.

Here is what Secretary Gates said:

I would tell you that I think that our troops do understand

that everybody involved in this debate is looking to do the

right thing for our country and for our troops, and that

everybody is looking for the best way to avoid an outcome

that leaves Iraq in chaos. And I think our troops are

sophisticated enough to understand that that's what the

debate's really about. It's about the path forward in Iraq.

Here is what General Pace said, and contrast this to what Vice President Cheney said--how worthy Secretary Gates' statement is--and listen to how worthy General Pace's statement is compared to the stale and unworthy comments of the Vice President of the United States about what this debate signifies.

General Pace:

There is no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in

Washington strengthens our democracy. Period.

And then he added:

From the standpoint of the troops, I believe that they

understand how our legislature works and they understand that

there is going to be this kind of debate.

When I listened to the Vice President and his unworthy remarks, it reminded me of not only how worthy our troops are and how they are professional enough to understand what their duty is, but also that they are loyal Americans to know and understand that it is our duty to debate this war. For those of us who think it is leading in the wrong direction and going nowhere, it is on a road to failure, it is our duty to try to change that course.

Contrast our troops and their honor and their loyalty to the principles upon which this Nation was founded, reflected, interestingly enough, in a poll taken of our military by the Military Times. This poll was printed in the Army Times a few months ago. The question that was asked of our troops was whether they approve of the President's handling of the war in Iraq. Forty-two percent of our troops disapproved of the President's handling of the war in Iraq. Thirty-five percent of our troops approved of the handling of the war by their Commander in Chief. They are divided as Americans are divided. We should not only respect their bravery, we should respect their intelligence and their commitment to this debate in the Congress. That is what they are fighting for: that we can debate a mission and we can debate how to best secure this country so that we can debate how to best succeed in Iraq.

That is what our troops believe in. That is what they are fighting for. It is insulting to them. It is insulting to them to say, as the Vice President of the United States said, that a debate in the United States Congress as to how best to succeed in Iraq, how best to change the course in Iraq, somehow or other undermines the troops.

So we have before us an opportunity, an opportunity which can only be achieved if this debate can advance beyond the motion to proceed. We will be voting on that motion later on today or tomorrow. I hope that Senators, regardless of our views on this war, will allow this Senate to once again debate the direction in Iraq. The last real vote we had was one that denied us this opportunity to proceed. I hope there will be enough of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will recognize the importance of this debate to this future--the future of this country, to the future of this world, perhaps; to the lives of so many of our gallant, brave troops and their families, and perhaps, indeed, to the future well-being of this institution because this institution surely should be about debating issues as transcendently important as our future in Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that some correspondence between myself and Secretary Rice, and Senator McCain and myself with Secretary Rice be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Rhode Island would yield.

There is no order that has been established, No. 1. I would like very much to establish an order for the convenience of all Senators, but I would have to know more about the other side in terms of what their wishes are. I know Senator Schumer wanted to begin at about 1:45, and then I know Senator Dorgan was in the queue--it is an informal queue. I believe, if my memory is correct, although I don't have the sheet of paper in front of me, Senator Dorgan wanted to come out between 3:00 and 4:00.

We will do everything we can to accommodate Senators, and if Senators could let me know, for those who want to speak in favor of the motion to proceed, when they would like to be here and about how long they need, I would be most appreciative, and I will try to put together an order.

Can we put in an order now that Senator Reed has the floor, and we would be happy to alternate if a Republican shows up. Let me ask Senator Dorgan. I did tell Senator Schumer that we would try to fit him in at 1:45. Can we put Senator Specter in immediately after Senator Schumer? Could we put the Senator from Pennsylvania in immediately after Senator Schumer because I have not specified with him the amount of time he needs. But I would prevail upon him to see if he could end close to 1:55. Let me raise that with Senator Schumer.

Could I ask the Senator from Rhode Island about how much time he needs?

As always, he is most accommodating. The Presiding Officer apparently also wishes to have time. Could we put the Senator from New Jersey in after the Senator from Pennsylvania? Why don't we set up the next three Senators on this side to be Senator Reed, Senator Schumer, and then Senator Specter, and then Senator Menendez.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bill Nelson be recognized next and Senator Graham be recognized after Senator Nelson, and then we return to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that Senator Cardin be recognized for 5 minutes and then Senator Kennedy be recognized immediately after the remarks by the Senator from Maryland.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Utah is finished with his remarks, on this side, the order then be Senator Dodd, Senator Brown, and Senator Dorgan.

Mr. President, after Senator Dodd is recognized, we had previously indicated that Senator Brown and then Senator Dorgan would be recognized. We are trying to see whether it might be possible to substitute Senator Kerry for Senator Brown, leaving Senator Dorgan in the same position. We are trying to determine that right now. For the time being, it will be Senator Dodd, then Senator Brown or Senator Kerry, and then Senator Dorgan.

Madam President, there are many statements in the resolution by the Senator from New Hampshire that are true. It is a true statement that the President has the power to ``deploy troops and direct military campaigns during wartime.'' But that presupposes that a war has been properly authorized by Congress because that power exists only in wartime, or in certain emergency circumstances. The President does not, however, have the power under the Constitution to initiate a war.

It is literally true that Congress has the power of the purse, and in that capacity has the moral responsibility to adequately support the troops in the field, once we are at war. This administration has failed in that responsibility in not equipping our soldiers in Iraq with adequate armor, in not having an adequate plan to stabilize Iraq after the initial invasion, and in not caring for our soldiers properly when they return home.

But this resolution is not balanced. It does not set forth a statement about Congress's powers under the Constitution to authorize the use of force under article I. Nor does it say anything about the authority of Congress to change the mission of U.S. forces, once a war has commenced. This silence about Congress's power might be interpreted to suggest that the President's powers as Commander in Chief to initiate war are unlimited, and that Congress's sole responsibility is to fund a war that the President initiates. That is not what the Constitution says, and I cannot vote for anything that might be so read.

Because the Gregg resolution lacks balance, I cannot vote for it. I will vote instead for the resolution by Senator Murray, which presents a more complete statement about the allocation of powers under the Constitution.

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

Mr. President, what I wish to do at this moment is address one of the arguments I have heard many of my colleagues make over the past 2 days of this debate. The argument I have heard when I was on the floor yesterday, and again I have heard it today, is that the joint resolution we are debating is an effort to micromanage the war by focusing the mission of U.S. Armed Forces on training Iraqis, denying terrorists a safe haven in Iraq, and force protection.

If you listen to my colleagues who oppose this, you hear them recount that as if somehow that is exceeding the power of the people to speak, through their Congress, as to what role American military forces are permitted to play. Many of my colleagues on the other side go on to argue we are somehow overstepping our constitutional boundaries in defining the purpose for which U.S. forces can be used in Iraq.

Well, that argument, I respectfully suggest, is dead wrong. Defining the overall mission of U.S. troops is entirely within the power of the Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, not doing so would be an abdication of our fundamental duty under the Constitution, which clearly manifests war power in the hands of the Congress.

Now let me give you a few illustrations, if I may. In 2002, when we voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, we defined the purpose. We defined the purpose for which the President was permitted to use American forces against Iraq. It was to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and, further, to enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

During the course of the negotiations on that resolution, in which I was deeply involved, Congress made it clear, at least on this side--as one of the several people speaking for the Democrats at the time in the Senate--we specifically and clearly rejected the Bush administration's initial proposal for using force in Iraq. President Bush sought what I believe to be, and the majority of the Senate eventually did, an overly broad authority to use force: to restore international peace and security in the region.

I read that at the time as a grant of authority to the President that far exceeded what arguably was necessary at all in Iraq. The function of our military force was not to restore international peace and security in the region. We struck that and said: The use

of force is to defend the national security of the United States against a continuing threat from Iraq, not the region; not the region.

After the President's attempted overreach here, we narrowed the geographic scope of the authority the Congress, under the Constitution, was willing to grant the President, and we narrowed the purpose for which he was allowed to use force. We did two things. We not only said, Mr. President, this is not about the region. You can only use force, if necessary, dealing with Iraq being a threat to the United States.

I remind everybody what we were being told at the time. We were being told by the Vice President that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program. Simply not true. It was not true when he stated it. Our intelligence community not only said he did not reconstitute the nuclear program, it said he had no nuclear program. That is not what we were told.

So we gave him authority, I remind everyone, to negotiate at the United Nations, to keep the pressure of the world on Iraq, to bring back the U.N. people, to determine what nuclear program or weapons of mass destruction he had, to get the inspectors back in, and to negotiate to do that, because at the time the argument taking place in the world was, was the U.S. embargo, was the world embargo, were the U.N. inspectors causing pain for innocent Iraqis?

Do you remember how many times we heard the argument that the reason why there was not enough medicine, the reason why children were dying, the reason why they did not have enough food, was because of this awful thing the United States was leading, the embargo on Iraq, the Food for Oil Program?

So to put this in context so everybody remembers, there were a lot of us on the floor willing to give deference to the President, who we thought was responsible in the exercise of power at the time, because he appeared responsible immediately after 9/11; he proceeded correctly relative to al-Qaida and the Taliban. He did not go off willy-nilly and start bombing people. He built the case. He sent his envoys all over the world. He made a compelling case for the right for us to invade Afghanistan. He even went so far as to worry about whether the Arab street would rise up if we attacked Muslims in Afghanistan. He engaged in public diplomacy. He did a fine job.

That was the context in which we gave him this power. But even then, as much as he had done well relative to Afghanistan at the time, we quite frankly did not trust him or any President to have this broad reach of authority which he asked for, which was to maintain peace, international peace and security in the region.

So we cut back the authority we gave him to negotiate at the U.N. Remember what he tried to do. He came and made the argument: There has to be a demonstration that all of the Nation support him in that we must keep pressure on Saddam. All Democrats and Republicans support him. That was the argument made to us. He did not come up here and make the argument to the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee: We need to be able to attack. He argued we needed to be able to give him the moral authority to go to the United Nations and keep the pressure on, because the French were wavering, the Europeans were wavering, some Arab countries were wavering. And then as time went on, he built this argument about they reconstituted their nuclear weapons and the like. But even then we did not give him the authority he asked for.

Why am I dwelling on this? Well, we made a clear judgment as a Senate and as a House, as a Congress, that he did not have the geographic scope for the extended purpose he wanted. We said: Here is your writ, Mr. President. Here is the region you are allowed to, if need be, use force--in this constrained area called Iraq. Because you are telling us, Mr. President, it is a threat to the United States of America, not a threat to the region, it is a threat to the United States of America. So you have the authority to deal with that, if necessary.

Secondly, even within Iraq, you can only use the force to enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. If memory serves me, there were 16, including resolutions relating to weapons of mass destruction.

So that was the rationale. We severely limited the authority he wanted because we thought it was an overreach. Now we know there were no weapons of mass destruction. Now we know--I will speak and say what I believe--hopefully the Intelligence Committee will show--not only did we have bad intelligence, but the good intelligence we had was misused by the administration, in my opinion. We will find out whether that turns out to be true.

In 2002, when we offered the authorization to use force, we defined the purpose. So I ask those who argue that we are now overstepping our bounds with this resolution, did we overstep our bounds in 2002 when we authorized the use of force against Iraq, when we limited what the President wanted to do? If, in fact, we do not have the constitutional authority today to limit what the President wants to do, how did we have the authority to do it in 2002? As I said, what is the rationale for the continued authority under the 2002 resolution? There are no weapons of mass destruction. All the U.N. resolutions are in compliance. And nobody argues the Iraqi Government is a threat to the United States of America. Are they going to invade us?

To those who have a problem with the mission we defined in this joint resolution before the Senate, I also say, listen to Prime Minister Tony Blair in announcing last month the redeployment of British forces from Iraq. Last month the mission the British Government assigned to those Brits who will remain in Iraq is precisely what we prescribed in our resolution. The new mission of the British forces in Iraq is the following: to transfer responsibility to the Iraqis; to train and support Iraqi forces; to help secure the border and supply routes; and to conduct operations against extremist groups, i.e., Al-Qaida. It is not to fight in the Iraqi civil war. It is not to be in the lead role in security operations in Basra, where they had authority, or in Baghdad, where they did not. In short, with the exception of denying terrorists sanctuary and training of Iraqis, the British forces are moving from the driver's seat to the backseat. This resolution proposes that very transition for our forces in Iraq.

So I ask again, rhetorically, does the Vice President think Prime Minister Blair's announcement of a ``redeployment,'' as the Vice President said, ``validates the al-Qaida strategy''? That is what he is accusing the Congress of. That is what he accuses me and Carl Levin of when we came up with this idea, that is now a leadership amendment; we are validating al-Qaida's strategy.

Are the British validating al-Qaida's strategy? Is he saying Tony Blair is validating Osama bin Laden? It is ridiculous. It is a ridiculous argument. It flies in the face of the facts. It comes down to this: Do we want American troops fighting an Iraqi civil war? Is that what we want these troops for? Is that why we sent them? Do you think, when we voted back in 2002, if we knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, if Saddam were gone, if they were in compliance with other U.N. resolutions, but if there were a raging civil war, do you think we would have voted on the floor of this body to send 150,000, 160,000, 170,000, 180,000 American troops to Iraq to help them settle their civil war? What do you think? I don't think so. We might have sent troops to Jordan. We might have done what we are trying now in Amman and the emirates. We might have beefed up Turkey. We might have accepted to go after al-Qaida sites. But I doubt very much we would vote now to get in the midst of a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence, which is what it is. If you want American troops fighting a civil war in Iraq, if you want that, then vote against this resolution, do not vote for it. Do not vote for it.

You say that is not fair; we are not engaged in fighting in a civil war. Has anybody asked themselves the rhetorical question: Why is it that Sadr, who has been responsible for killing a lot of Americans, and his Mahdi army, which has been responsible for killing a lot of Americans, why is it that the Shia-led Mahdi army, particularly in Sadr City, has taken off their uniforms, hidden their weapons, and as of yesterday--I have not checked today--there were rumors that Sadr is no longer in Iraq?

Maybe he is back now. We do not know for sure where he is. Why is it that they took down the blockade? Is it because all of a sudden they turned peace loving?

I respectfully suggest, because inadvertently the 17,500 troops we are surging into the middle of Baghdad, we are surging them into 20- some neighborhoods that are Sunni.

They are bad guys, these former Saddamists, these former Baathists-- this insurgency--who were referred to until recently by the Secretary of Defense as ``a bunch of dead enders.'' I respectfully suggest the reason all of a sudden the Shia in Sadr City are lying low is because they are very happy the United States is doing their job for them, killing their enemy, killing the bad guys who are Sunnis. Does anybody think if we succeed in that mission that all of a sudden we are not going to see all those weapons come out of hiding in Sadr City? Does anybody think that all of a sudden it is going to be safe for Americans in that region? Does anybody think the uniforms aren't going to come back on and the roadblocks aren't going to go back up? These folks aren't dumb. It is not our purpose, but the effect is, we are engaged in this civil war.

The question is, What is the plan to responsibly end our participation in this war without leaving behind chaos, without having traded a dictator for chaos, without having left behind a cycle of self-sustaining sectarian violence that metastasizes in the fragmentation of Iraq and metastasizes in the region--Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia? What is the answer?

So far, I don't hear a plan. Notice, by the way, now the surge is really getting bumped up, as some of us predicted on this floor when he announced the surge and predicted in our committee, 17,000 people to 22,500, whatever the actual number was initially. Now they are saying they are going to need 30,000 people for the surge. Why? Because it is like squeezing a water balloon. The bad guys have left this area in part, and they have now gone to the province directly outside of Baghdad.

General Keane is a very bright fellow, an honest guy, a former four- star general, who testified before our committee. He came up with the original plan about surging. He said: In order for this to work, you are going to have to surge well beyond Baghdad. You are going to have to go into Anbar Province and beyond. He predicted what would happen.

They said: No, we are only talking about 22,500 troops.

What is the purpose of the surge? The purpose of the surge, we are told--in a humanitarian sense, it makes a lot of sense, except for the humanitarian interest of our troops--is to bring order to Baghdad, stop the killing and the chaos. Why? Because when that happens and they have--I think the phrase used is ``breathing room''--when they have that breathing room, what is going to happen? Then they can negotiate. Then they will sit down and negotiate an agreement among themselves. Has anybody asked the question, What will be the basis of that negotiation? What is the idea? What is the element? What is the political solution?

The President continues to insist on a well-intended but fundamentally flawed strategy. The flawed strategy is, it is possible to have a strong central democratic government. Before we went to war, I believed, and so stated, that there is not going to be a democracy there in any of our lifetimes, including the Presiding Officer, who is considerably younger than most of us. It is not going to happen. It is possible that we could leave behind a country secure within its borders, loosely federated, not a threat to its neighbor and not a haven for terror, but that is as good as it is going to get.

At least one and probably both of my colleagues in the Chamber were here during the Balkan crisis in Bosnia. What does history teach us and what does recent experience teach us? Wherever there is a cycle of self-sustaining genocide, self-sustaining sectarian violence, when in modern history has it ended other than any one of four ways:

One, a victor. They wipe out the other two sides or three sides or one side, and one of the ethnic groups prevails militarily on the battlefield.

Two, occupation by an outside force--the Ottoman Empire, the Persian Empire, the British Empire.

We can't afford the first to happen because that would have a devastating impact on the region because everybody knows the Sunni states will get more involved. If it goes the other way, the Shia states will be involved in Iran beyond what they are now. That is not a real option. We are not an occupying force. It is not in our DNA. We are not an empire.

The third option historically is a dictator, a strongman. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony--us going to Iraq to take down Saddam and restoring a strong man, which, I respectfully suggest, we should consider might happen because eventually we are going to leave and the dysfunctional circumstances in Iraq are as likely to produce a strong military leader to take over as anything else, although there is no individual in sight right now. That is not an option available to us.

What is the fourth historical option? Federation, a federal system, a weak central government within the defined borders of a country that, in fact, gives the warring sectarian parties some control over the fabric of their daily lives, their local police force for their public safety, rules relating to marriage, education. That is the only other option which has ever worked. It doesn't work perfectly.

What does recent history tell us? Like many here, I was deeply involved in our Balkan policy. As my friend from Kansas may remember, I, to use the vernacular, beat President Clinton up and about the head to use force in the Balkans. I argued, after encountering Milosevic 2 years before he acted in his office--when he asked me what I thought of him, I said: I think you are a damn war criminal, and I am going to spend my career seeing you tried as one. I came back and wrote report after report, after close to a dozen visits. I saw what was happening in Brcko, in Tuzla, in Sarajevo, in Srebenica, more sectarian violence in the Balkans from Vlad the Impaler to Milosevic than ever occurred in what is now called Iraq.

So how did we end it? We ended it after they killed several hundred thousand people, mostly women and children. We ended it after we gathered all the neighbors, including Russia, a pro-Serbian force, France, all the nations in the region. We gathered in a room. We brought in the parties who were warring, including Milosevic, Tudjman, Croats, and other leaders representing the Bosniaks. What did we do? We then called the Dayton Peace Accords. What did we do there? We gave much more autonomy to each of those groups than ever was envisioned by what I am proposing.

We set up a thing called the Republic of Serbia in Bosnia with its own President. We had a Bosnian President and we had a Croatian President. For over 10 years, as my friend from Oklahoma can attest, who knows more about force structure than most of us know, there have been over 20,000 on average NATO forces there. To the best of my knowledge, none has been killed in anger with a shot fired.

What is going on in Bosnia today? Was everyone who was ethnically cleansed able to come back to their neighborhoods? No. A lot have. Is there still injustice? Yes. Is genocide continuing? No. What are they doing now? They are debating amending their Constitution to become part of Europe so they can join the EU down the road. We don't have to go very far for an example.

Let me ask the rhetorical question again: Can anybody name me a time, without empire, dictator or expiring, that self-sustaining sectarian violence within the borders of a country has resulted in a central federal control that is democratic? With all due respect to the President, arguably his dream at the outset made sense. That is why I called 3 years ago for 60,000 to 100,000 additional American forces. That is why I called for the need for at least 5,000 to 6,000 paramilitary police to be sent, because I believed--and I wrote at the time--if the genie ever gets out of the bottle, if we don't establish order quickly, there is no possibility of stopping a vicious civil war.

Senator Hagel and I got smuggled across the Turkish border before the war began, and went up to Arbil and met with the Brazani and Talabani clans to discuss with them whether

they would actually be with us if force was used. They had us each speak before the Kurdish Parliament, and they had already written a constitution that was the minimum they would, in fact, insist upon which allowed for significant Kurdish autonomy. They wanted a federal system.

A year ago January, my distinguished colleague from South Carolina and I went to Iraq for what was my sixth time. I have been there since. I don't know how many times it was. We went around and proudly put our fingers in the ink well, demonstrating that this was a free election. We came back and spoke to the President. We were debriefed by the President and his war cabinet. The President said it was a great democratic effort. I presumed to suggest it wasn't a democratic effort, it was a free election. It was a sectarian election. It turns out 92 percent of the vote cast was a sectarian vote. Kurds voted for Kurds. Shia voted for Shia. Sunni voted for Sunni. That is not democracy. Elections do not a democracy make. They are a necessary and ultimate condition to democracy. Democracy is about giving up things, about compromise.

I will never forget what Senator Graham, who has a great facility for words, said as I was trying to explain to the President about the militias--not that he did not know there were militias. After we got finished, the President turned to Senator Graham and Senator Graham said, with a bit of humor: Mr. President, it is kind of like when the recount was taking place in Florida, if the Republicans had their own army and the Democrats had their own army. That is the better analogy.

The genie was out of the bottle, and the genie came roaring out of the bottle when that shrine in the Shia area was devastated and ripped off the Earth.

Let me conclude by saying, it comes down to a simple proposition: Why do we want our troops in Iraq? Is it to fight a civil war or is it to provide a circumstance whereby we do the only thing that can help our interest, to prevent al-Qaida from occupying territory, to train the Iraqi forces, and to protect our troops. To do that we need a lot fewer troops.

Do we want to end this war responsibly? If we do, I respectfully suggest we vote for this resolution. If you prefer the President's plan, which offers no end in sight, I respectfully suggest you should vote against it. But, ultimately, there are a lot of proposals put forward, including the President's, and you have to ask yourself the rhetorical question, I believe: After it is implemented, then what? Then what?

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 4 minutes.

Would the Chair let me know when I have 30 seconds remaining?

Mr. President, this is a defining moment. The American people are watching. The world is watching. The issue is clear: Will we stand with our soldiers by changing their mission to begin to bring them home or will we stand to keep our soldiers in Iraq's civil war? History will judge us. We can either continue down the President's perilous path or embrace a new direction. If we don't change course, we know what lies ahead: more American casualties, more American death, and more destruction. A new strategy that makes the Iraqis less reliant on our military is the best way forward. More of the same misguided policy will result in more of the same tragedy for our military. Let's try a new course and try it now.

We must proceed because Iraq is the overarching issue of our time. We are being told we need to be patient. We are being told we have to give the latest escalation a chance to succeed. But we have heard it all before. We have heard for years that this administration has a plan for success. We have heard for years that progress is just a few months away. We have heard for years that we have turned a corner. But the plans for success keep getting tossed aside for new plans, the timelines for progress keep getting extended, and we have turned so many corners that we have ended up back where we started: trying to control Baghdad.

It is time to change direction. There are too many parents who have buried their children, too many children left without their father or mother, and too many soldiers missing arms and legs and eyes and ears. It is time to change course, let the Iraqis step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own future, and begin to redeploy our troops out of Iraq.

Those of us who oppose the war are used to the administration's attacks. They have questioned our patriotism and called us defeatist. When we challenged the President's misguided policy, they accused us of having political motives and being partisan. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Our motives have always been clear: to protect the lives of our soldiers.

The American people are far ahead of the administration. We have an obligation to stand up for our troops and stand up to our President when he stubbornly refuses to change course in Iraq. We are meeting our responsibility by changing the mission of our military, not micromanaging the war.

The recent hearings on Walter Reed should instruct us here today. They tell us how little faith we can put in this administration. The very people who hide behind the troops when their policies are questioned have failed to keep faith with our wounded soldiers. But just as importantly, the hearings on Walter Reed remind us all of the human costs of the war. This administration has done all it can to hide them from us. They have forbidden photographs of the coffins flown back from Iraq. The President has avoided attending the funerals of the fallen, and the tours at Walter Reed never included Building 18. But the hearings on Walter Reed swept away all the spin and camouflage and put our wounded soldiers back where they belong: at the heart of our debate about the war.

At the end of those hearings, everyone agreed that the Army had failed these brave soldiers. But we failed them long before they arrived at an Army hospital. This administration failed them when it trumped up the intelligence in order to make the case for war.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

It failed them when it sent too few troops with too little armor. It failed them when it turned the reconstruction of Iraq into a political science project.

We in the Senate will fail them today if we do not vote to change course and to bring our soldiers home.

At the end of this debate, the American people will know where each of us stands. On our side of the aisle, we stand with the American people. The voters told us in November to change course and begin to bring our troops home, and that is what we are going to do. We stand for our constitutional system in which the Congress speaks for the people in matters of war and peace and can require that the President listen to them. Finally, we stand with our troops. We alone are insisting on a policy worthy of their courage and worthy of their sacrifice.

Peace and progress in Iraq must be earned by the Iraqis and their neighbors. We must no longer send our brave soldiers into an uncertain fate on the streets of Baghdad. Bring them home to the heroes welcome they have earned.

Mr. President, is there a time allocation or are we without a time allocation?

I thank the Chair. I do not intend to be long, and I am glad to yield at any time to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. President, this is a defining moment for our country. The American people are watching. The world is watching. The issue is clear. Will we stand with our soldiers by changing their mission and beginning to bring them home, or will we stand with the President and keep our soldiers trapped in Iraq's civil war?

History will judge us. We can either continue down the President's perilous path or insist on a new direction. If we do not change course, we know what lies ahead--more American casualties, more wounded, more destruction.

A new strategy that makes Iraqis less reliant on our military is the best way forward.

More of the same misguided policy will result in more of the same tragedy for our military. Let's try a new course and let's try it now because Iraq is the overarching issue of our time and because we need to protect our national security.

We are told we need to be patient. We are told we have to give the latest escalation a chance to succeed. But we have heard all of that before.

We have heard for years that this administration has a plan for success. We have heard for years that progress is just a few months away. We have heard for years that we have turned the corner.

But the plans for success keep getting tossed aside for new plans. The administration has benchmarks to measure success, but there are no consequences when the benchmarks are not met.

The timelines for progress keep getting extended. We have turned so many corners that we have ended up back where we started--trying to control Baghdad. It is time for a new direction.

Mr. President, I reference this document. It is: ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq.'' It is a report to Congress by the Department of Defense, embargoed until 3 o'clock this afternoon. It is now after that hour. Here is what this document, which has just been released by the Department of Defense, has to say on stability and security in Iraq:

The last two months of 2006, however, saw little progress

on the reconciliation front. The first two of four planned

reconciliation conferences were described in the last report

(November 2006). These conferences laid solid groundwork for

subsequent conferences, but there has been little progress

since then and the conferences had no effect on quelling

violence. On December 16-17, 2006, the Political Parties

Conference was held in Baghdad. Speeches given by the Prime

Minister and other Iraqi officials focused on political

participation and national unity, and welcomed former

Ba'athists into the political process, so long as they showed

loyalty to the new national government. The Sadrist bloc, top

Ba'athists, and many Sunni factions did not participate. A

fourth conference of religious leaders has not yet been

scheduled due to lack of financial support and attendance

challenges.

Mr. President, too many parents have had to bury their sons and daughters. Too many children have been left without their father or their mother. Too many soldiers are missing arms or legs. Nearly 3,200 of our forces have been killed. More than 24,000 have been wounded. The casualties keep mounting. The violence in Iraq continues to spiral as well. Our troops are in the impossible position of trying to stabilize a country at war with itself.

The recent National Intelligence Estimate confirms the nightmare scenario unfolding for our troops. Iraq is sliding deeper into the abyss of civil war, and our brave men and women are caught in the middle of it. Prospects for halting the sectarian violence are bleak. Greater chaos and anarchy are looming ahead. Needless additional U.S. casualties are inevitable.

The intelligence community has finally determined what everyone but the Bush administration has been willing to admit for some time. As the Intelligence Estimate stated:

[T]he term ``civil war'' accurately describes key elements

of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-

sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the

violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population

displacements.

Those are the words of the intelligence community. Secretary Powell agrees. Former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan agrees. Only President Bush continues to stubbornly deny that our troops are policing a civil war.

The facts speak for themselves. According to the United Nations, nearly 35,000 civilians were violently killed in Iraq last year. In November and December of last year, more than 6,000 civilians were killed. Most were killed in Baghdad, where ``unidentified bodies killed execution-style are found in large numbers daily.'' More than 2 million refugees have fled the violence in Iraq, and another 1.8 million have been displaced internally.

Our military should not be caught in the middle of this quagmire. Only a political solution can solve Iraq's problems.

General Casey, in his June 2005 testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, called out for a political solution. He said:

If you look back historically at how insurgencies have been

defeated, they have been defeated when the insurgents saw

their options as better protected in the political process

and their prospects for economic advancement can be better

protected by the political process than fighting for them.

And that's the essential element here.

Last August, General Abizaid spoke about the need for a political solution. He said:

Our troops are the best equipped, the best trained, the

best led in the world. And I am enormously proud of them, and

I have the utmost confidence in their ability to handle any

mission. Yet, sectarian violence is worse than ever in

Baghdad in particular. And I wonder about the validity of a

strategy that says that less capable troops that are not as

well equipped, trained or led as the best troops in the world

can handle the security of this country if the upswing in

violence has occurred despite the presence of the best troops

in the world. It doesn't give me a lot of confidence in our

underlying strategy. And it suggests to me--

This is General Abizaid--

it suggests to me that what we need is a political rather

than a military solution.

Last week, General Petraeus, the new commander of our forces in Iraq, stated that there is ``no military solution'' in Iraq. But no one in the administration has been able to clearly articulate a political solution or how it can take hold in the midst of this chaos. Instead of giving the Iraqis a necessary incentive to get their political house in order by beginning an orderly redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, the President stubbornly insists on sending more and more troops into Iraq's civil war. Escalation didn't work in Vietnam and it will not work in Iraq either.

The President's latest proposal--to increase the number of our troops in Iraq--makes no sense at all. Sending more troops into the cauldron of Iraq's civil war is not the solution.

In addition to the fact that we know a military solution is not the answer, the administration still has not leveled with us on the number of troops the President plans to send to Iraq for the surge.

On January 10, the President announced he had committed more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. Within a few days, this number had been revised to 21,500.

The CBO estimated that it would be far higher--as much as 35,000 to 48,000 troops when support troops are included.

On February 6, I asked General Pace and Secretary Gates for the best military estimates of the actual size of the escalation, and their answer was an additional 10 to 15 percent. General Pace said:

You're going to need no more than another 2,000, 2,500

troops on the ground.

By February 15, the number had more than doubled. General Schoomaker told the Armed Services Committee his estimate was somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 troops when you included imbedded trainers.

Then, on March 6, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England told a House committee: ``About 4,000, maybe as many as 7,000.''

Last week, at the request of General Petraeus, Secretary Gates authorized an additional 2,200 military police troops.

We still don't have an accurate total for the size of this escalation. The administration refuses to speak with clarity and candor. Since the current surge began, Shiite militias in Baghdad may be lying low, but violence has increased elsewhere in Iraq. In Diyala Province, in 3 months, American casualties have exceeded the number for the entire year of 2006. In January this year, 83 American soldiers were killed, compared to 62 in the same month a year ago. Eighty more Americans were killed in February of this year. In the same month last year, we lost 55 soldiers. Already, in 2 weeks this March, we have lost more than 31 soldiers, the same number killed in the entire month of March of 2006.

This is what today's report from the Defense Department points out on page 18, under the section ``Attack Trends and Violence'':

The total number of attacks on and casualties suffered by

coalition forces, the ISF, and Iraqi civilians for the

October-December reporting period were the highest of any 3-

month period since 2003.

It continues:

Coalition forces continued to attract the majority of

attacks, while ISF and Iraqi civilians continued to suffer

the majority of the casualties.

That is today's report.

Continuing our open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq will not bring victory, it will not stop the violence, and it will not protect our national security.

The administration has outlined military, economic, and political benchmarks to measure success, but it has not given any timeline to achieve them, and it has not stated any consequences if the benchmarks are not met. This same administration supported timelines for every Iraqi election and for drafting the Constitution. Yet it remains emphatically opposed for any timeline for the redeployment of our military.

The American people have been patient. But America now has been in Iraq longer than it took us to win World War II. Instead of progress, we continue to see unacceptably high levels of violence, death, and destruction. We are putting too much strain on our Army, especially the Army National Guard. The Army is overextended. Many soldiers are now on their third rotation. To deal with the recruitment shortages, we have eased the standards and increased the bonuses. The Department of Defense is formalizing a policy to redeploy reservists more often and for longer. But in the long run, we can't protect our Army if we don't end the war.

Our troops have done their part. They have served with great courage. We are proud of their service, and we are ready to welcome them home.

It is time to change course. It is time to ask the Iraqis to step to the plate and take the responsibility for their own future, and it is time to begin to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. It is time to put the Iraqis on notice that our military will no longer be a permanent crutch for them to lean on. As General Abizaid told the Armed Services Committee last November:

I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from

doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own

future.

It is time for American combat troops to begin to come home.

Those of us who opposed the war are used to the administration's attacks when we disagree with their wrong-headed policy. We have come to expect that. They have questioned our patriotism and call us defeatists. When we challenged the President's misguided policy, he accused us of having political motives and being partisan.

Before the war, Vice President Cheney said we hadn't seen all the intelligence he had seen. But after the war, when things were going badly, the President said more than 100 times that we had seen the same intelligence.

More than 2 years ago, I called on the administration to focus on the training of the Iraqi security forces and to begin to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. I said the Iraqis need to take responsibility and that we should set a goal of about a year for the redeployment of most of our forces out of Iraq. Rather than debating the merits of the policy, the Republican spin machine went into overdrive. A year ago, on the third anniversary of the war, Vice President Cheney went on national television and said:

I would not look to Ted Kennedy for guidance and leadership

in how we ought to manage national security.

Well, the American people certainly know we cannot look to the Vice President and this administration for national security. The administration has been consistently wrong about the war in Iraq. Year after year, they insist on a dangerously incompetent strategy. They were wrong about the link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. They were wrong about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong about America being greeted as liberators. They were wrong about the insurgency being in its last throes, and they are wrong to deny that Iraq is a civil war.

The American people are far ahead of the administration. For all of us who oppose this misguided war, our goals have always been clear: protect the lives of our soldiers and protect our national security.

We have an obligation to stand up for our troops and stand up to the President when he stubbornly refuses to

change course in Iraq. Our legislation will do that. It will change the mission of our military away from combat and require the President to begin to redeploy American combat troops out of Iraq in 4 months. The target date for the completion of the redeployment is March 2008--1 year from now. A limited number of troops would remain in Iraq after that to train and equip the Iraqi security forces, to conduct counterterrorism, and to guarantee the safety of our soldiers.

Our proposal is consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's finding. It recommended that:

The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to

one of supporting the Iraqi Army, which would take over

primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first

quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the

security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not

necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.

Those are the words of the Iraq Study Group.

Legislation is clearly necessary to give the Iraq Government enough of an incentive to step up to the plate, work out its political differences, and take responsibility for Iraq's future. It is also consistent with the wishes of the American people, who want most of our troops home within a year. How much clearer does it have to be before Republicans in Congress and the President finally respond to the voices of the American people?

We are meeting our responsibilities by changing the mission of our military. We are not micromanaging the war. Many of us oppose the war, but all of us support our troops. We don't want to keep sending more and more of them into the middle of a civil war. Under no circumstances do we want them to go to war without proper armor and equipment. Our troops deserve better. Their families and loved ones deserve better.

For the good of our men and women in uniform and the American people, it is time for us to take a stand. We need to adopt a new strategy. We need to make clear to the Iraqi Government that the mission of our troops must change and that we have a clear timeframe for their departure from Iraq.

The recent hearings on Walter Reed should inform our debate as well. They tell us how little faith we can put in this administration. The very people who hide behind the troops when we question their policies have failed to keep faith with our wounded soldiers. As importantly, the hearings on Walter Reed remind all of us of the human costs of the war. This administration has done all it can to conceal them from us. They have forbidden photographs of the coffins flown back from Iraq. The President has avoided attending the funerals of the fallen. The tours of Walter Reed never included Building 18.

But the hearings on Walter Reed swept away all the spin and camouflage. They put our wounded soldiers back where they belong: at the heart of our debates about the war.

At the end of those hearings, everyone agreed that the administration failed these brave soldiers, but we failed them long before they arrived at Walter Reed. The administration failed them when it trumped up the intelligence in order to make the case for war. It failed them when it sent too few troops with too little armor into battle. We in the Senate will fail them today unless we vote to change course and begin to bring our soldiers home. At the end of this debate, the American people will know where each of us stands. On our side of the aisle, we stand with the American people. The voters told us in November to change course and to begin to bring our troops home, and that is what we are going to do.

We stand for our Constitution, in which the Congress speaks for the people in matters of war and peace and can require the President to listen.

We stand with our troops. We, and we alone, are the ones insisting on a policy worthy of their courage and sacrifice.

We stand for protecting America's national security. The war in Iraq has been a disaster from the start. It has made America more hated in the world. It has made it harder to win the war against terrorism. It has made it harder to work with other nations on every issue.

Peace and progress in Iraq must be earned by Iraqis and their neighbors. We must no longer send our brave soldiers to an uncertain fate on the streets of Baghdad. We must begin to bring them home to the hero's welcome they have surely earned.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the resolution on which I hope we will have an opportunity to vote. As we hear this debate, it is a good debate that should move forward. I hope we will actually get to vote on the resolution.

I am amazed at some of our colleagues who would suggest that this debate shouldn't even take place. The Senate, the greatest marketplace of ideas, the clash of ideas, should be the place in which one of the most momentous issues facing the Nation should have the opportunity for those 100 Senators, elected by their constituencies across the country, to come and not only debate but cast a vote so that the American people know which way the Senate intends to lead on this question of changing the course in Iraq.

What we seek to do is put forward a new direction and a clear plan for Iraq--a clear plan that is very different than the President's current plans to escalate the war in Iraq. We have a plan that, if effectuated, would end the war in Iraq.

Our plan is relatively straightforward and says: One, our troops should leave Iraq by March 31, 2008, with a small number remaining to help with security and counterterrorism.

Those who say we shouldn't have any date because the enemy will outwait us, we see that Sadr's militias have already retracted, that they are already willing to spend the time to wait until it is propitious to strike.

Two, we should start the process of leaving within 120 days.

Three, our troops' mission should immediately change to the priority of training--priority of training--Iraqi security forces, focusing on counterterrorism.

I heard some of our colleagues talk about that element of al-Qaida in Anbar Province. Well, that is 5,000 or so. We have roughly 140,000 troops, and 140,000 U.S. troops could certainly take

care of 5,000 elements of al-Qaida in Iraq and protecting U.S. personnel in Iraq. Or we should take all these steps as part of a comprehensive diplomatic plan, working with Iraq's neighbors and our allies to bring stability to Iraq.

I support this plan. I would like to see it be much more than a goal. I would like to see it move more along the lines of a mandate. I support the plan because it matches the goals of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan group that met unanimously, agreed upon all of its recommendations, and who said that U.S. combat forces should leave Iraq by the end of March 2008.

I know some of my colleagues have mentioned comments made by Democrats in previous statements. Well, I would point out that this was a bipartisan group and it had prominent Republicans on it, such as former Secretary of State James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Ed Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Alan Simpson. They all came to the conclusion, as we have in this resolution, that, in fact, our goal should be to have our troops out by March of 2008.

I support the plan because it transitions the mission for our troops, instead of keeping them fighting in the middle of a civil war. I support the plan because it sets a clear timeframe for our troops to leave Iraq. In my mind, unlike the way in which our opponents in this regard pass a negative light on a timeframe, I think a timeframe is the most powerful element to achieve success in Iraq. It is only by setting a clear timeframe for our troops to leave that Iraqis will have to take the responsibility for security in their country and to work out their political power struggles.

Some of these hearings that I have been part of in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, you hear how so much of the struggle among Iraqis is about political power. Is it the mission of the U.S. troops, the sons and daughters of America, to sit in the crossfire as people are pursuing political power? I think not.

Unless we have the Iraqis understand this is not an open-ended commitment, they will never make the hard choices, compromises, and negotiations necessary for a government of national unity, if that is possible. They will never get there so long as they believe we will shed the blood and our national treasure in an unlimited fashion. It is only by setting a clear timeframe for our troops to leave that Iraq's neighbors will start to take responsibility for ending the chaos inside of Iraq.

Right now, that violence hasn't reached the tipping point for them to get Iraq's neighbors involved. Ultimately, it is not in their national security interest to have the conflict spill across their borders and have Iraq disintegrate, but they do not yet feel the pressure to do this. By setting a date certain to leave, we create a new incentive for Iraq's neighbors to help quell the violence.

It is only by setting a clear timeframe for our troops to leave that the international community will take its responsible and necessary role in Iraq. Right now, the international community sees this as America's war. Once we make it clear we will not be there permanently or indefinitely, they, too, will have an incentive in getting involved to help preserve security in a region that is incredibly important to them, much closer to Europe than the United States. By setting a clear timeframe for our troops to leave, we actually motivate Iraq's neighbors and the international community to take the steps necessary to stabilize Iraq.

Let me be clear, for my friends who are saying we shouldn't vote for this resolution. They say we shouldn't try to micromanage the war. No one is trying to micromanage a war. There is a constitutional responsibility by Members of the Senate to act as a legislative body. I say the era of blank checks, both in lives and national treasure, is over. They say don't micromanage the war. Well, you have had a blank check under this administration. You have rubberstamped everything they have wanted, with virtually no oversight, until this new Congress started. That is not the responsible exercise of the Senate. They say slow bleed. How about the endless bleeding going on now?

Let me take a moment to talk about the President's plan to escalate the war and stay there without any timeframes that bind. First, let's be frank. I simply don't believe the recent escalation of troops in Iraq is a temporary surge. I believe it is a long-term escalation. Even General Petraeus has said we are in it for the long haul, and that, to me, is undefined.

I wish this administration would be honest with the American people and the Congress about the total cost of the escalation and the total number of troops needed for the escalation. I sit as a member of the Budget Committee, and we had the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defense, Mr. England, testifying in a hearing. I said to him: If the chairman would put you under oath, would you say that the $5.6 billion that you want in addition for the escalation of the war would be the total amount; the total cost? He told me: Yes, even if I was under oath it would be roughly that amount. Of course, depending on the needs of the commanders. And then that weekend--that weekend, after the hearing--the administration said they needed another $2 billion. They needed $2 billion more over a weekend? That is not a small amount of money that he didn't know about. We are also told the administration will need more troops, and there may be additional billions added to the supplemental. Each time we ask, we get a different answer. I, for one, would like a clear and honest answer for the total number of troops and the total cost of the troop escalation.

Staying indefinitely in Iraq isn't in the national interest or the national security interest of the United States. Our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war they can't solve. Adding more troops will only put them more directly in the middle of an Iraqi fight. Keeping our troops there or adding more troops is trying to solve a political problem with a military solution.

I have heard General Pace and others in the past say: You know, we have to get the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors. That is a powerful truism. We have to get the Iraqis to love their children more than they hate their neighbors. That, however, cannot be accomplished by military might. That is accomplished by reconciliation measures. That is accomplished by confidence- building measures. That is accomplished by revenue sharing. That is accomplished by power sharing. It cannot be accomplished at the point of a gun. It cannot be accomplished at the point of a gun.

Staying there would only continue to empower and embolden Iran, a country that has turned out to be, by many experts who have testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, one of the biggest winners in our war with Iraq. Staying in Iraq actually keeps the Iraqis from making the hard choices, compromises, and negotiations necessary to achieve a government of national unity.

Frankly, what we hear from the other side doesn't make sense to me. They talk about victory. What is the definition of victory? Is it when the President landed on the aircraft carrier, fully decked out, and said, ``Mission accomplished''? Is it the many times we have heard the administration say, victory is right around the corner? How many lives, how much national treasure, what victory are we talking about? They talk about benchmarks for the Iraqis, but they set no consequences. Benchmarks without consequences are simply aspirations, nothing more.

Victory. How many lives must we lose? How much more money must we spend? How long will we be in this war under a plan without end of the President? I believe it is long past time to change the course in Iraq. That is why this vote to allow us to move forward, to allow us to have a final vote on changing the course in Iraq and laying out a plan that can create the best possibility for victory in Iraq is essential, and that is what I hope we will do between today and tomorrow.

Finally, in the time it takes me to finish my remarks this afternoon, the United States will have spent over $2 million on the Iraq war today. Our Nation spends over $8 billion a month in Iraq. We spend $2 billion a week in Iraq. We spend $280 million every day. And the loss in money pales, pales in comparison to our Nation's loss of our best and our brightest, with almost 3,200 lives lost in the conflict and over 24,000 who have been wounded.

I visited them again this past weekend in New Jersey at the Veterans Hospital at Fort Dix. I listen to the stories they tell me, especially now as they face challenges in this part of their life. I know that may be another subject matter, but it is something for which we have to be responsible. A grateful Nation does not just say they are grateful, a grateful Nation takes care of those who serve their country, in how we treat them in their health care, how we treat them in their disability, and how we treat their families, for those who commit the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the Nation. The stories I heard from those soldiers do not indicate a grateful Nation.

I didn't vote for the Iraq war when I was in the House of Representatives. I believe that was one of the most important votes I ever cast. I don't support the President's escalation of the war. I was in the minority when I voted against the war in 2002, and there were those who said voting against the war would be political suicide. Even with that knowledge, I put my seat in the Congress on the line because my conscience told me this was simply not the right thing to do.

In a speech about the war, the President said the following:

In speaking of the consequences of a precipitous

withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence

in America. Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in

ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of

relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the

consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and

divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.

The President added:

I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with

the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic

Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace

should be achieved. I share your concern for peace. I want

peace as much as you do. I have chosen a plan for peace. I

believe it will succeed.

That plan did not succeed. The man speaking wasn't President Bush but President Richard Nixon, and the war he spoke of was not the war in Iraq but the war in Vietnam. It is painful to hear the similarities between what was said by the President of the United States in that conflict and the one in which our Nation is currently ensnared. It is even more painful to see an administration and a President similarly disconnected from the American people.

In soaring speeches, President Bush, the Vice President, and Republican allies invoke the ``will and courage'' of the American people. They say, if the American people would have the ``will and the courage'' to persevere in Iraq, then we can succeed militarily. This administration fails to understand this war is not just about will and courage, it is also about wisdom and clarity of judgment, traits that have been sorely lacking in this administration.

No one should doubt the will of the American people. In fact, they expressed their will last November, a point that seems to elude many Members of this Chamber. The American people have the will, they have the nerve. What they no longer have is patience with this administration and the continued failed policy in Iraq, and they are losing patience with Members of this body.

It is time for the Senate to take a stand against the President's failed plan in Iraq and to vote for a new plan, a new plan and a new course to end the war in Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to support the ability to move ahead, to have a final vote, and then I urge them to support the resolution that would lead us out of the war in Iraq, that could give us the greatest opportunity for victory, that would give the greatest opportunity for the Iraqis to make the hard choices, compromises, negotiations for a government of national unity, and in doing so would honor those who have served their country with courage, with valor, and with distinction.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I wish to address one of the largest problems plaguing our home buyers today; that is, predatory lending. Over the past few days, the Wall Street Journal has written a number of articles about abuses in the subprime lending industry prompting a much needed crackdown on dishonest practices and deceitful lending. In addition, on Tuesday, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported that the number of new foreclosures reported during the fourth quarter of 2006 reached the highest level in 40 years. Not surprisingly, foreclosure and delinquency rates were highest among subprime lenders.

Mr. President, enough is enough. The recent scandal at the New Century Financial Corporation, one of the largest subprime lenders, is a final straw. As the Wall Street Journal describes in one instance, an elderly woman was struggling to make her $952 monthly mortgage payments when a mortgage broker called and offered her a ``senior citizen's loan'' from New Century Financial. They told her she wouldn't need to make payments for years. Well, she didn't get years. Instead, her monthly payment skyrocketed to $2,200 per month, more than double her income. With the assistance of a lawyer, she escaped foreclosure, but many others are not as fortunate. This is a prime example of the consumer exploitation occurring in subprime lending, and it is simply unacceptable.

Unfortunately, there are many more examples. Unscrupulous predatory lenders prey upon the innocent and unsuspecting. We know these lenders are more likely to target women, racial minorities, and the elderly. In fact, a recent academic study by the University of Denver found that more than 130 million Americans without prime credit scores--the type you need to get a low-cost loan--are disproportionately African American and Hispanic. How can we sit by while these groups are not only being robbed of their savings but robbed of their dream? For many, home ownership is the key to making the American dream a reality.

I have been a longtime advocate for increasing home ownership in underserved and minority communities. More and more Hispanics, for example, are realizing their dream of home ownership, with more than 50 percent of all Hispanics in the country owning homes. But when an average of 63 percent of Hispanic household wealth comes from ownership equity alone--the highest percentage of any group--it becomes clear the power that home ownership has to bring more families out of poverty, increase safety in our

neighborhoods, and help make the American dream a reality for all.

I have worked to create innovative mortgage products to help more people achieve their dream of home ownership, and I strongly believe we should not act in such a way that we dry up access to capital and mortgage options for those who are legitimately prepared to take on the responsibilities of home ownership. There are legitimate lenders who fill that need, and we should continue to work with them to preserve safe and secure loan options for consumers.

Unfortunately, predatory lending is making a mockery of the home- ownership dream for far too many individuals. Ironically, however, deceitful subprime lenders are living the dream. They are making enormous amounts, often making millions in profits. They do that by undermining the very essence of that dream for so many in our country. Last year, subprime loans totaled about $605 billion, which is one- fifth of the total overall market for U.S. home loans. We simply cannot ignore this segment of the market which serves some of the most vulnerable populations, including women, seniors, and minorities.

Many Americans listening probably think they could never be a victim of these predatory lenders. Judging from their financial success and the significant impact their practices are having on the stock market and the economy as a whole, it is clear that far too many Americans are falling victim, in many instances through no fault of their own. In communities across America, people are losing their homes and their investments because of predatory lenders. Let me take a moment to list their tactics.

Deceptive subprime lenders encourage borrowers to lie about their income, expenses, or cash available for downpayments in order to get a loan. They approve loan applications in which the income fields have been left blank. They knowingly lend more money than a borrower could possibly afford to repay. Furthermore, these lenders tell borrowers they have no other chance of getting a loan or owning a home. For many who dream of home ownership, it is hard to ignore. Home buyers are asked to sign sales contracts or loan documents that are blank or that contain information which isn't true. They sign forms where the cost- of-loan terms at closing are not what they agreed to.

The lenders' tactics are deceptive, and their words are convincing. It is no wonder many Americans have fallen into the trap. That is why I believe those who engage in predatory lending practices must be held accountable. We should no longer sit by while our communities are being targeted by these individuals and companies. We must address predatory lending through vigorous enforcement of safety and soundness standards, consumer protection, financial education programs, and credit counseling. Well-informed consumers are less likely to be the victims of predatory lenders and more likely to make better choices. However, at the same time, there are market forces that absolutely, without a doubt, prey upon the innocent and unsuspecting.

I would have preferred to have the industry fix this situation, but I personally am no longer willing to wait. This has been going on far too long. Time has run out, and I believe we need a legislative solution. As a member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, I look forward to working with the chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd, to address predatory lending and to develop a solution that will protect the Nation's home buyers.

I wish to assure the American people, those who are currently struggling to pay their mortgage and those who are looking to own a home, that I will not rest until they are protected against the claws of predatory lenders. Enough is enough. American consumers deserve safe and secure mortgage options and new protections against predatory lending.

Finally, for those across the country who believe this is an issue which affects just homeowners or minority communities or those who should know better, I say ``think again.'' As today's Wall Street Journal reports, this issue has a chilling rippling effect across our Nation's economy, leading to sharp declines in the stock market and a sense that we are ``kind of back to panic mode,'' according to one economist quoted in the article. So don't be fooled. This is a serious issue which has far-reaching effects across our economy. Without prompt action, we put not only more individuals at risk of deceitful predatory lending practices but we put our financial markets and our economy at risk as well. The time to act is now, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.