---

Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, an historic vote was announced in the House Chamber moments ago. By a vote of 246 to 182, the House of Representatives, in a bipartisan rollcall vote, has approved the resolution relative to the President's call for escalation of the number of troops serving in Iraq. That resolution is fewer than 60 words in length, and I believe it should be read into the Record. This is a resolution which we are hoping to bring to the Senate floor tomorrow so that the debate can begin in this Chamber. It reads:

Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

It is unembellished, it is straightforward, and it states a position. Those who agree with this resolution, as I do, should be heard. Those who disagree and believe we should escalate the number of troops in this war have a right to be heard as well. That is the nature of this institution. It is the nature of our democracy.

For the Republicans to continue to threaten a filibuster to stop the debate in the Senate so that Members of the Senate cannot come forward and express themselves and vote on this issue is wrong. It is unfair. It is inconsistent with the reason we ran for office. We were asked by the people kind enough to entrust us with this responsibility to face the issues of our times, to address those issues in a responsible manner, to have a civilized debate on the floor of the Senate, and to take a vote and take a stand. We are expected to do that.

We are not expected to waffle and weave and avoid the obvious. This is the issue of the moment. It is the issue of our time. With over 130,000 American soldiers' lives on the line, it is unacceptable that the minority would stop us from debating this issue. It is unacceptable to our troops and to their families who wait anxiously to know what their fate will be. It is unacceptable to the rest of the Nation, which expects the Senate to be a full partner in congressional debate.

It takes 60 votes to bring a measure to the floor in the Senate. On the Democratic side, with one absence by illness, we have 50. We need the cooperation of the Republicans to even debate the issue. They have made it clear in pronouncements on the floor and in press conferences they are going to stop this debate at any cost. They are prepared to filibuster this measure so we cannot have a debate and a vote on this critical issue. That is wrong. It is inconsistent with the reason we ran for office and the reason this institution exists.

We have to face the obvious. Since the decision was made by the United States of America to give President Bush this authorization of force, we have seen horrible results.

Mr. President, 3,132 of our best and bravest soldiers have given their lives, thousands have been seriously injured, hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money have been spent in pursuit of this war, with no end in sight. Our soldiers did their job and did it well--deposed a dictator and gave the Iraqis an opportunity for the first time in their history to stand and govern themselves and guide their nation into the future.

Instead, we have seen this situation disintegrate into a civil war, and we have watched our soldiers caught in the crossfire of a battle that started 1,400 years ago among followers of the Islamic faith. That is not what America bargained for. That is why the majority of the American people believe we need to change course, we need a new direction, and we need to bring our troops home. We need to tell the President that the escalation of this war and the escalation of the troops is the wrong policy at this moment in history.

For this Senate to speak, we need to engage in a debate, a debate which leads to a vote. There are choices before us. This choice, which I support, tells the President we disagree with his policy. It joins with the House of Representatives, which made the same decision on a bipartisan basis. We have offered to Senator McCain, a Republican from Arizona, an opportunity to bring his position forward in support of adding more troops in Iraq. That is the fair parameter of a good debate. But sadly the Republican minority has said they will deny us that opportunity.

I hope those who believe it is important for the Senate to engage in this debate will contact their Members of the Senate as quickly as possible and let them know the vote tomorrow at 1:45 in the afternoon here on the Senate floor is a historic vote, a vote of great importance. Every Member should be here. Every Member should vote. Every Member should understand the nature of this institution. The reason we serve is to give voice to the people we represent on the issues of our time. There is no more compelling and timely issue than this war in Iraq.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota.

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

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

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

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

Would you get him his medals, she asked?

I said, Of course I will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's think through what we have done in Iraq. Through our soldiers' blood and our Treasury, we sent troops to Iraq. The Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, is dead. Good riddance, I say. We have unearthed mass graves in Iraq showing that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were murdered by a dictator. But Saddam Hussein was executed. The country of Iraq was able to vote for its own new Constitution. The country of Iraq voted for its own Government. That is very substantial progress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even if violence is diminished, given the current winner- take-all attitude and sectarian animosities affecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard-pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation in this time frame.

Continuing to quote:

Iraq's neighbors are influenced by the events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospect for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics.

That is a fancy way to describe the civil war.

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

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

I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps Commander, General Dempsey, and I said, "In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they said no."

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

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

The reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future. The only way Iraq works in the future is for the Iraqis to take more responsibility for that future. That is what General Abizaid said. He was right then; he is right now. This is the testimony heard by the Senate just over 2 months ago. Interestingly enough, as a side note, just 2 weeks ago--3 weeks ago, John Negroponte, the head of the intelligence in this country at that time said this in open testimony to the Senate:

The greatest terrorist threat to America is al-Qaida and its network around the world.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, how much time was I allocated?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator has until 4:30.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or reduced for American troops in the field which would result in undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned missions.

What is wrong with that? Why won't the leader let us vote on that? You know why? Because it would carry. It would carry. Because Senators on that other side of the aisle know they must support the forces in the field.

Senator Gregg's amendment goes on to say:

Whereas under Article II, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, the President is the "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", and in such capacity the President has the command of the Armed Forces, including the authority to deploy troops and direct military campaigns during wartime.

Whereas under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, Congress has the power of the purse specifically as it relates to the Armed Forces, and in such capacity Congress has the responsibility to fully and adequately provide funding for the United States military forces, especially when they are at war and are defending our Nation; and

Whereas the United States military forces are in harm's way and are protecting our country, Congress and the Nation should give them all the support they need in order to maintain their safety and to accomplish their assigned missions, including the equipment, logistics, and funding necessary to ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such support is the responsibility of both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of Government.

Senator Gregg goes on to say this:

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring)--

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

That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first roadside bomb four months ago knocked a front tire off Kyle Earl's Humvee, rang his head like a bell and made his ears bleed.

The second bomb a couple of weeks later blew out the front tires and took out the transmission but, again, spared Earl serious injury.

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

With the headlights out for security and wearing night- vision goggles, the 20-year-old Marine lance corporal from Cedar Springs was driving the lead Humvee returning from a night patrol in Iraq's Al Anbar province near the border with Syria. He and a Marine manning the Humvee's machine gun saw it at the same time: a hump in the road ahead, a sure sign of a buried improvised explosive device (IED).

Earl instantly made the calculation: If he swerved, the trailing Humvee carrying the company commander would hit the IED, so "I drove right into it, knowing it was probably going to kill me," he said.

He ran over the hump, igniting three 155-mm artillery shells and five propane tanks. The flash, amplified by the night-vision goggles, was brighter than anything he'd ever seen. A fireball shot through the cab, and shrapnel pierced his right leg, arm and face. The shock wave felt like someone had placed him inside a plastic bag and sucked out all the air.

Still, he remained conscious, as the Humvee rolled off the road and came to a stop. Blood streamed from his eyes, ears and nose. He reached for his 9 mm handgun, but noticed something about the size of his palm on it. He picked it up and examined it, unaware it was a chunk of his flesh, ripped from his right forearm.

He smelled something burning and realized he and the Humvee were on fire. He rolled out onto the ground as his fellow Marines kicked him to extinguish the flames.

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

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

"A few days ago, from out of a crowd of kids, one of them threw a grenade and it went off under the vehicle, and my executive officer's door was peppered," said Lance Cpl. Michael Rossi, a 28-year-old student majoring in urban planning at Wayne State University who lives in Detroit. "A crowd of kids, and one of them threw a grenade."

"Out here," he said, "nobody is safe."

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

It's touching and laudable that the father of Marine Cpl Christopher Esckelson would want the family of a fellow Marine to understand the full heroics these men displayed in Iraq combat that claimed both their lives.

They are among more than a dozen local military men whom the Iraq war has claimed, with each succeeding loss being no less painful to an area that has supplied an ample measure of these patriots.

Of course, the grief is much greater for the families who knew the men in so many other wonderful ways. Those memories undoubtedly will be recalled during services for Miller and Esckelson Saturday and Sunday, respectively.

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

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

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

I thank the Chair.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.

Mr. Webb: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Webb: Mr. President, I would like to state my support of the vote we will take tomorrow. Last week, I expressed my support for the bipartisan Levin-Warner resolution which was denied a vote by the full Senate due to procedural motions. Ten days later, we find ourselves in a similar situation.

Our colleagues in the House have spent the last 4 days debating the current course of action in Iraq, and they have completed a vote on final passage today. At the same time, the Senate has continued to engage in partisan bickering and political gamesmanship. The House found a way, it found a bill, and it took a vote. We have a bill, and we need to debate it.

At bottom, this debate is not about whether one is a Republican or Democrat; it is about the legislative branch exerting its proper constitutional oversight by deliberating on the most vital and challenging issue of our day. I would urge my colleagues to think about the vote that took place in 2002 authorizing the use of force in Iraq and about what happened afterward. This was not a party-line vote. I was not a Member of this body, and I do personally believe it was an erroneous vote, at least in its outcome, but at the same time, most importantly, we should look at the lack of respect shown by the administration after the vote. This lack of respect was a clear signal that the true issues dividing us in this Government are more related to the relations between the executive and legislative branches than between our respective parties.

The administration has failed the country again and again in the conduct of this war. At the same time, it repeatedly claims that it holds the power, regardless of the input of the Congress, to continue to push our military people to the limits of their endurance, while avoiding the diplomatic options crucial to resolving the situation in Iraq which inevitably evolved from our invasion and occupation.

I have heard discussion today about the consequences of withdrawal. No one on this side is advocating a precipitous withdrawal, but the consequences that are being described--increased terrorism, the empowerment of Iran, the loss of prestige of the United States around the world, and economic distress in our country--are, quite frankly, the exact conditions many of us were warning about if we invaded in the first place. The question is not how we withdraw or should we withdraw. Some day, we are going to withdraw. Inevitably, we are going to withdraw. The question is the conditions we leave behind when we do so.

I have long advocated that an integral part of our strategy in Iraq must include engagement with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria. As Iraq's neighbors, they are stakeholders in both the future of Iraq and the need for stability in the region. As we seek to decrease our presence in Iraq and increase our ability to fight terrorism and address strategic challenges elsewhere in the world, we must bring those two countries to the table. An overwhelming majority of those who recently testified before hearings at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agree with that assessment.

I have heard today the name of General Petraeus invoked several times as evidence of this body's support for the administration's current policy. I voted for General Petraeus. A vote for General Petraeus is not a vote for this administration's policy or its strategy or its, quite frankly, lack of strategy. That vote was to support the qualifications of an individual to command troops in Iraq. That was a military vote, not a political vote. If the strategy were to change, as I hope it will, I have full confidence that General Petraeus is capable of overseeing that policy as well. We must see evidence of a new diplomatic effort from this administration before we, as a Congress, not as Democrats and Republicans, ratify the expanded use of our military.

On that note, it should be emphasized that despite comments today about the fact that the Baker-Hamilton group supported a temporary military surge in its report, it did so only in consonance with a robust regional diplomatic surge which was supposed to begin more than 2 months ago.

Many Republicans seem to be implying that we must support all of this administration's actions or, by inference, we don't support the troops. The issue is not whether we support the troops; it is whether we agree on the political issues to which they are being put. This effort demands clear direction from the top. It depends on the extent to which this Government is capable of forging a regional consensus regarding Iraq's future. This administration has refused to do so. It is not in the interest of our troops to continue sending them in harm's way without a clear strategy that will bring closure to this endeavor.

I believe very strongly that our political representatives should be careful in claiming to speak politically for our troops. Our military is a mirror of our society, and so are its political views. We have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence today--TV clips, newspaper interviews with individuals. But anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, poll after poll shows that our troops are just as concerned about this policy as is the public at large.

I have one poll from a year ago, a Zogby poll, that says that 72 percent of the people then stationed in Iraq believed the war should have ended by the end of 2006. This includes 7 out of 10 of our Regular Army soldiers and a vast majority--nearly 60 percent--of our marines. These are people who have done their job. They know what their military job is, but they have the same questions about the political policies as do the rest of Americans.

I ask unanimous consent to print the Zogby poll in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. Webb: Another poll, of December 29, 2006, by the Military Times, the most credible military newspaper in America, indicates that barely one-third of our service members approve of the way the President is handling the war. In fact, only 41 percent of our military now believes the United States should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place.

I ask unanimous consent that this poll be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. Webb: I believe very strongly that we should leave our military people out of these political debates. I am not using these figures to advance the Democratic Party's point. I believe it is inappropriate for the other party to use our military people in a way that might insulate them from criticism over the woeful failures of this administration's policy. The American people's confidence in this administration is at rock bottom. Many rightly believe they were misled on the reasons for going to war.

The administration's credibility has suffered--rightly so--also with respect to its intentions for dealing with Iran. I do not believe one can speak of our responsibility on these immediate issues without stating clearly our concerns about the entire region, and especially the administration's position regarding its constitutional authority to use military force outside of Iraq.

The administration's view of its Presidential authority to conduct unilateral military action against other countries, and particularly with Iran, was documented in President Bush's signing statement accompanying the original authorization for the use of force against Iraq in October 2002. I urge my colleagues to examine this language. In part, it states:

My signing this resolution does not constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests.

In other words, if one were to read that carefully, this administration is stating that it has the authority to use force to respond to threats to our interests. What is an "interest"?

I have raised this language with the Secretary of State, as well as with the Deputy Secretary. My question was whether this administration believes that it possesses the authority to conduct unilateral military activity against Iran in the absence of a direct threat and without the approval of the Congress. I have not received a clear answer from either of them on that point. That is troubling.

This administration and its supporters must understand the realities that are causing us, as a Congress, to finally say enough is enough. After 5 years of misguided policy, ineffective leadership, and diminished U.S. stature around the world, the Congress must show the way to reclaiming the moral high ground and exert its proper oversight role more forcefully.

For these reasons, I support the pending Iraq resolution before us, and I will vote for cloture. I urge my fellow Senators to do the same.

I yield the floor.