---

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Salazar): The Senator from Alabama is recognized.

Mr. Sessions: Mr. President, I was a Member of the Senate when we voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq. It was not just a rapid, quickly done deal, we talked about it for months. We talked about primarily the 16 or 17 resolutions that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with that he agreed to with the United States and the United Nations; that he was setting about systematically to break out of the box of the embargo placed on him because he failed to comply with those resolutions.

We were flying, if you remember, aircraft over Iraq on a regular basis, and they were shooting missiles at us, trying to bring down our aircraft. We were dropping bombs on them on a weekly basis. This was the context of the debate that we entered into.

At the end, a great deal of emphasis was placed on the question of weapons of mass destruction by the President and others. But for most of us, I think it was a strategic American decision based on the fundamental questions: Were we going to give up? Were we going to let the embargo elapse? And would Saddam Hussein be able to continue to say--actually say with conviction and some honesty--that he had won the 1991 gulf war? He said he won the war. He never complied with the agreements that he entered into and, as a result, we entered this conflict.

The initial invasion went far better than most of us believed possible, than many predicted--those who supported the war and those who did not. The aftermath has been much more troubling and difficult. I have been one of those who shared General Abizaid's view of let's keep the number of our troops as low as we can, let's push as hard as we can to train and bring on the Iraqi forces, and let's let their government be responsible for its own activities as soon as possible. But I have to be honest, it has been more difficult than most of us would have thought. We now have many soldiers there in dangerous circumstances. So I am concerned about that. I respect anybody who is concerned about that.

I am not here to say I know you are wrong, that I know this is the only way and the only right policy, and I guarantee you it will be successful. I want to say that in the beginning. We have some difficult choices to make, and I respect people who don't agree.

I am not able, however, to justify a resolution that appears to be designed to embarrass the President, appears to be contradictory to our Nation's policy, that would indicate to our adversaries and enemies that we are divided. I cannot see that as a positive step for us. I am inclined to agree with the view of General Petraeus. He finished at the top of his class at West Point. He was No. 1 in his class at the Command and General Staff College. He got his Ph.D. at Princeton. He was in Mosul, right after the initial invasion, commanding the 101st Airborne Division. He was a Ranger, a soldier, a fabulous leader. I saw him in operation when some of the Alabama National Guard members had felt they were not being fully utilized right after they got to Mosul. I told General Petraeus, and he said:

Let's go over and meet them.

He told them:

You are part of our effort. I will be bringing you right away the Screaming Eagle patch and you are going to put it on and be one of ours. There won't be any difference in the Guard and Reserve.

That was such an example of leadership, I thought. Later, he showed how they captured Uday and Qusay under his command. He showed how they formed the government. He had a Sunni, Shia, Christian, and a Kurd on the city council. He formed a court system. He was a fabulous leader and everybody recognized that. He finished his tour and came back.

We realized that we needed to spend more effort and be more effective in training the Iraqi Army. So we sent him over there. We asked him to go back. He went back to specifically be in charge of training the Iraqi security forces. During that time, he got to know virtually every major Iraqi military leader. He knows them personally and he worked with them and with most of the Iraqi leadership. He said he didn't know Prime Minister Maliki, but he knows most of them.

After some 15 months at that, well over 2 years in Iraq, he came back home and he was placed in charge of writing the doctrine for the U.S. Department of Defense on how to confront and defeat an insurgency operation, the so-called Counterinsurgency Manual. It is a real serious document. A lot of people don't know this, but there are ways--proven ways--to confront and defeat insurgency operations. In fact, one military historian recently pointed out that very few insurgency operations ultimately become successful. They can cause great distress for substantial periods of time, but they usually fail. There is a fairly significant number--70, 80, 90 percent--that fail, according to this report. So this manual that he painstakingly put together had incredible subtleties in it about how to handle various situations because every situation is different. What might be true in the Kurdish north may not be true in Bosra, the Shia south, or in the Sunni west. Every part of the Sunni and Shia and Kurdish areas are different themselves. Their tribes and their heritage and their religious sects are different. You have to handle them all differently.

President Bush asked General Petraeus to help formulate a plan to be successful in Iraq. He committed to him five additional brigades, over 20,000 soldiers. That is a bitter pill to me. I was very pleased--and I spoke out when some were critical--and in favor of General Casey over a year ago saying he hoped to be able to bring troops home. He brought some home. He asked for more at different times. What happened? Well, violence began to pick up substantially in Baghdad. The Sunni and al- Qaida terrorists saw the country beginning to come together, and they decided to make a devilish decision, and that decision was to deliberately provoke a sectarian conflict. They began to attack the Shia in the marketplaces and they attacked their holy mosque at Samarra. They blew up that mosque and killed people. It began to work. Shia militias began to grow and strengthen and develop, feeling they were not being protected by the government. They began to kill Sunnis, and people would find bodies that had been killed execution style. It was a very grim thing to happen. It still is going on to a substantial degree.

But I believe that this can be reversed. I cannot guarantee that, but I believe it can be reversed with the leadership of the United States, with increased effort on behalf of the Iraqi military and the country of Iraq, that they can begin to reverse this trend. I will just cite that recently General Conway testified at a hearing. He commanded the Marines in the western part of Fallujah and during some of the toughest fighting. Now commandant of the Marine Corps, he testified a few days ago. I told him about the visit Senators Levin, Warner, Pryor, and I made to Iraq last fall. The briefing that we had gotten by the Marines in the Ramadi area really concerned me. Some of the information they gave--and the Presiding Officer and I traveled over there, and I know he cares about these issues. That briefing was one of the more troubling things I had heard in visiting there five times, as I have. He pointed out how, in just a matter of weeks, that made a dramatic change; that 12 out of 16 tribal leaders in that area have gotten fed up with al-Qaida and their murdering ways, their parasitic ways, and their domination. And they have made agreements with the U.S. military. We are helping them create their own law enforcement entities, hiring their young people, and they are resisting al-Qaida. There has been a dramatic change in the toughest area, the Sunni area, the area where most of al-Qaida has been. So that is good.

I say to my colleagues that can happen in Baghdad. Don't think that because things have been very difficult in the last year they cannot begin to get better. General Petraeus has stepped up. We are going to increase our forces. The Iraqis are going to increase their forces. I think the Iraqis know this may be their last chance to save this country as a decent and progressive country that treats people fairly and equally. I think they are beginning to wake up to that fact--I hope so. They are moving substantial numbers of troops in there. They are not as good as the American troops in many ways. They have a lot of difficulties. We know that. But they have taken more casualties than we have, and they continue to sign up. We have an opportunity, I believe, to make a difference.

If this effort does not succeed and we do not begin to notice that more progress has been made, that the Iraqis do not meet certain benchmarks we have called on them to make, then we do need to review our policy. I have to say it. What we will do then, I am not sure. But we need to be smart about it. We don't need to be aberrational or spasmodic in how we face those challenges.

What happened on the floor of the Senate is not something that I think has brought credit to this body. After approving General Petraeus to go to Iraq 94 to 0, after making clear we intend to fund the policy the President, as Commander in Chief, is executing, our soldiers are executing, and soldiers have been sent over there as part of this surge--some have already gotten there as part of this surge--it became a goal of the majority leader, Senator Reid, and the Democratic leadership, apparently, to vote on a resolution that disapproved it, that criticized the President, I guess to make happy some of the people out there who oppose this war so deeply, some with great passion and legitimate concerns and some with fevered brow who believe we are over there trying to steal Iraqi oil. But that crowd is out there. They want a resolution that is critical of the President and this policy.

Our leader, the Republican leader, said: You can have that vote, that will be all right, let's have that vote, but Senator McCain has a different view. Senator McCain's view is we need to set some benchmarks for the Iraqis and we need to support the President. Senator Gregg said it is most important when troops are in harm's way, when they are placing their lives at risk for us, that we tell them we are going to support them financially. Oh, no, we can't vote on those amendments. We are only going to vote on the one we want.

This resolution, by the way, should have come, by historical tradition and rules of the Senate, out of the Armed Services Committee, but it didn't come out of the Armed Services Committee. Why didn't it come out of the Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member? Because it doesn't have the votes. It wouldn't have passed out of the Armed Services Committee. So what Senator Reid did is, he filed it as a bill instead of a resolution. He filed it and, under rule XIV, brought it to the floor and determined that no other amendments could be accepted or even voted on, only his view should be voted on. And they carefully calculated, I am sure, to make sure they had over 50 votes, so they would be able to pass one resolution that was deemed an attack on the President and a rejection of the policy we are now funding and is being executed by our soldiers who are far more worthy, in my view, of maturity and respect than a Congress that gets itself tied up in this kind of mess.

I think most of us on this side--even some Republicans and some Democrats who supported the resolution--have refused to vote for cloture to bring it up for a vote because they think Senator McCain's and Senator Gregg's resolutions deserve a vote too. Senator McCain said: I would just be satisfied if you vote on Gregg if you don't vote on mine.

I would like to vote on both of them, and I am not afraid to vote on the Democratic resolution. I would vote on all three of them. I am not afraid to talk about this war or to talk about the resolutions. But somehow the media has adopted the Democrat's talking points and suggests Republicans don't want to debate and vote on the issue. That is not true. How many times do we have to say that? I don't think what I said is inaccurate. If it is, I would like to be corrected on the fundamental debate in which we find ourselves.

But what I wish to say to my colleagues is we are, at this very moment, in reality, financially supporting the policy with which they disagree. Advice and suggestions from business, athletics, church, and families needs to be welcome, but naysaying after a decision is reached is nearly always destructive, in my opinion. People have to pull together once a decision is reached. We only have one Commander in Chief. We have the absolute power to shut off every dime going to Iraq and bring our troops home immediately. That is the constitutional power this Congress has. But while we are executing this effort in Iraq, we only have one Commander in Chief. And for the life of me, I can see no advantage to our Nation, to our foreign policy or to our soldiers in a resolution that disagrees with the President's plan, a plan to which we have our soldiers committing their lives this very moment.

Congress should either support it or stop it. But, of course, we all know the awesome responsibility that voting for a precipitous withdrawal out of Iraq would entail because stopping the funding for Iraq is real, just like funding Iraq is real, just like voting for General Petraeus is real. It is not positioning, it is not an expression of concern or an effort to distance oneself from a war that over three-fourths of us in this Senate voted for but has now become very difficult.

The President studied the Baker-Hamilton report, he met with his commanders in Iraq and in the United States, and he met with retired officers, elder statesmen. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, started a bottom-up review of our Iraq policy in August. I called him about that time to raise some questions and urge that he do that. He said: Senator, I have started that already. After all of this evaluation and receipt of ideas for improvement, both public and private, our President, the one given the power to decide such issues in our system, made his call. He changed his policy. Perhaps he should have done it earlier. I think this kind of review would have been more appropriate earlier.

The President has gone through a deliberative process, though, and made his decision, and I have decided the right response for me, as a Member of this Senate trying to serve the national interest, is to support that policy, at least for the immediate future, and to support those who will execute it--our military personnel.

Others may disagree. An official expression of disagreement, though, about a policy we authorized and we are now funding and our soldiers are executing does not meet, I believe, high standards of responsibility to which a great Senate should adhere. Please remember also that what we do is not contained just in these Halls. I am not persuaded there can be any effect, other than a pernicious one, on those allies and other nations that are assisting us in our efforts. Nor do I see how the threat of an imminent withdrawal could cause the Iraqi Government and the leaders of the various sects and groups to be more willing to reach an accord than would be achieved if we continue assistance in restoring order, particularly in the nation's capital. I don't know. I don't think so myself. If it was so, I would be persuaded. If that would be the result of a rapid withdrawal, that they would all get together and reach an accord, then I would support it because I don't think we need to be an occupying force in Iraq. But this is not what our generals tell us. It is not what we have heard from the intelligence community.

Some people said: I talked to a retired general; that is what he said. Maybe that is what he said. Maybe that retired general is right. The people we are hearing about are not saying this is any kind of panacea, to pull out, and there is going to be harmony and compromise reached all at once.

In fact, many are saying the violence in Baghdad is so significant that if we allow it to continue to grow, it makes it harder for the warring factions to get together and reach an accord.

Still, despite the difficulties, our experts in public and private conversations believe there is hope for stability with this new policy in Iraq, this new surge. They give that evaluation with full and realistic evaluations of all the challenges we face. The new Iraqi permanent Government has only been formed for 8 months, maybe 9 months now. That Government has only been up for 8 or 9 months. The forces of violence, oppression, and extremism have attacked it full force. They are determined to bring it down. But it still stands, and it has made new commitments to taking the necessary steps toward security and progress.

This is a test for them, no doubt. Maybe they will fail. Maybe they would not meet the commitments they have made. But perhaps not. Perhaps this fragile Government and the Iraqi Army working in new and better ways with General Petraeus and our forces together can be successful, as our experts tell us is possible and realistic.

I, thus, have concluded this Congress should fund this new strategy, not adopt a resolution that has any tendency whatsoever to lessen the chance of that strategy being successful.

Finally, I do not see how a congressional resolution that disagrees with, or one that rejects the President's new policy will have any other effect than to reduce the morale of our soldiers.

Right out here a couple of days ago, I talked with a group from Hartsville, AL. The man pulled me aside and said his son was an infantry officer at Fort Benning. He said: Senator, I want you to know one thing. When you make your decisions, don't think they don't know what is going on. He said: "They are watching you like a hawk."

We have a responsibility to them. Yes, we have a responsibility to say pull out if we have to pull out, if that is the thing to do--and I don't think it is yet; I think we have a chance for success. If that is our decision, so be it. But when we send them over there, they should be supported. They should have no doubt that we are going to be with them.

We are waging a war against violent extremists who bomb markets, who behead people who disagree with them, who murder, who kill, who destroy teachers because they teach young girls how to read and write. So this is a complex effort. It is an important effort that to date has protected our homeland from further attack.

We didn't choose this duty. It has fallen to us. By working together, I believe we can achieve more in Iraq than many people think.

And I will say this, while we are being very serious about the challenges we face. I have had personal meetings with Secretary Gates, the new Secretary of Defense, and an extended meeting with GEN Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and I had a good long conversation with General Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, and Admiral Fallon, who is going to be the Central Command, commander. I have asked them, and each one of them stated to me that they fully understand their responsibility to give us their best military advice, and if at any time this conflict in Iraq becomes untenable, if at any time they conclude that putting more soldiers into harm's way will not be successful and will not achieve the aims which we are seeking there, they will tell us.

I asked Peter Pace that in an open hearing, and he said: "Yes, sir, Senator, I understand that." Secretary Gates cut in and said: "Senator, I fully understand that, and I feel like that is my number one responsibility." I asked General Petraeus that, and he said the same. And I asked him if he believed he could be successful. Remember, this is the man who spent over 2 years in Iraq. He is the best of the best. He has written a manual on how to confront and defeat an insurgency. His answer to whether he can be successful, in sum, was: "Senator, I do, and I wouldn't be going over there if I didn't think I could be."

I know people are worried about this conflict. I am worried about it. I talked to a widow yesterday, whose fabulous husband was killed in Iraq, and I don't take it lightly at all. But we are a nation that has been attacked and we have a responsibility to defend our just national interest, and our just national interest would be greatly served by a prosperous, free, democratic Iraq, where terrorists do not find haven and which is not subverted by hostile forces. We have a national interest in that, as well as a humanitarian interest.

I think we need to give General Petraeus a chance. I think we may find that progress in Baghdad can occur, even when it is dark, as it did in Al Anbar Province a few months ago. I was feeling pretty discouraged about what was happening there, but great progress has been made in the last few weeks there. It is time for us to stick together.

I don't think this resolution is good. If we are going to vote on it, we ought to vote on the Gregg resolution and we ought to vote on the McCain resolution. Because only together will that convey to the world, our allies, and our soldiers the real feelings and insights of this Congress. As I have said from the beginning, I don't favor any resolution. We have done what we have to do. We sent General Petraeus and we sent money to execute the policy. I don't know why we have to have a resolution at all.

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

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

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

Mr. Casey: Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the motion to invoke cloture to proceed to S. 574 so the Senate can undertake a full, vigorous, and honest debate on the future course of American policy for the war in Iraq.

As we speak about and debate the war, let us never forget our troops in battle, those troops in battle on the streets in Baghdad, in Anbar Province, or other areas of Iraq. We also remember, as we debate this issue, their families and their sacrifice. Finally, today, and in all the days we debate this critically important issue to our country, we honor the sacrifice of those soldiers and marines who gave, as President Lincoln said at Gettysburg, "the last full measure of devotion to their country." We pray for them today and always, and we pray for ourselves that we may be worthy of their valor.

At this time in the Senate we are confronted with two simple questions: First, does the Senate agree with President Bush's plan to escalate our military involvement in Iraq by deploying some 21,000 more troops? Second, will the Senate vote tomorrow to allow debate to go forward?

Just those two questions confront us today and tomorrow. There will be further debate about our policy in Iraq in the weeks and months ahead, but for the next few days it is those two questions.

As I have stated before, I oppose this escalation, but I also support debating it. The grave question of war must always be--always be--the subject of vigorous debate, especially in the Senate. As a Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a State that has lost 150 young men and women in combat, I have a solemn obligation to speak out about the escalation.

Many of these brave Americans from Pennsylvania come from small towns such as Rockport and Connellsville and Beaver Falls, and from cities such as Bethlehem and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. I have an obligation to speak out against those policies that only increase the likelihood that even more of Pennsylvania's sons and daughters will die or be grievously wounded on behalf of a flawed strategy.

I had hoped, like many in this Chamber, we could have moved forward with the debate on Iraq 2 weeks ago. The American people don't understand why the Senate isn't debating this war when all of America expects us to do so. Perhaps a rare Saturday vote will help this body realize the importance as this debate moves forward.

We owe it to the troops, their families, and to those who have loved and lost someone dear to them in this war to debate our Iraq policy and to clearly express our opposition to the President's escalation. The American people have clearly voiced their strong support and their desire for their elected representatives to address this issue. The elections last November turned in large part on the failure of the previous Congress to engage in adequate oversight of the administration and ask the tough questions when it came to the execution of the war. Debating is essential to good oversight.

We know that recent polls conducted across America reveal Americans consider the war as one of the two most important problems facing our Nation. An overwhelming 63 percent of respondents in a recent national poll expressed concern that the Senate had been unsuccessful to date in attempts to hold a debate on the war in Iraq. We have an obligation to act, and that begins with a full debate.

S. 574 is short but eloquent. It respects and honors our troops who are serving or who have served with distinction in Iraq, and it communicates our disapproval of the President's escalation of the war. It mandates--mandates--additional reporting requirements so there is transparency with regard to military, political, and diplomatic operations in Iraq. This resolution deserves our support because it sends the right message to the President to change course in Iraq.

In the first 5 weeks of this new Congress, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have listened carefully to more than 25 witnesses over the course of a dozen hearings, some 50 hours of testimony from generals and other military experts, diplomats and foreign policy experts, the cochairmen of the Iraq Study Group, and so many others. I have asked tough questions, and I have listened to statements and questions from my colleagues, some of whom have had decades of experience in foreign affairs and the oversight of military operations. After all these hearings, I am even more certain that this escalation is the wrong strategy.

The National Intelligence Estimate--we know it by the acronym NIE-- released in January on Iraq's prospects for near-term stability paints a dire picture. The unclassified version describes a growing sectarian- based polarization, ineffective security forces with questionable loyalties, and an all-but-certain rise in communal violence in the coming months. The National Intelligence Estimate clarifies that Iraq's violence today is primarily driven by "the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics."

Reading the key judgments of the NIE, I can only conclude that political reconciliation between the respective leaders of Iraq's varied populations is the best way and probably the only way to reduce the violence and to begin to create a stable state that is not a threat to its neighbors. Escalating military conflict by inserting additional U.S. troops in Iraq is not the answer.

As Chairman Biden remarked during the Foreign Relations Committee's deliberations on a related resolution, this effort is not inspired by a desire to embarrass or isolate President Bush. Rather, it is an attempt to demonstrate to the President that his approach is flawed and will not result in the outcome he seeks. The President is still searching for a military solution when, in fact, it is time for a political solution led by the Iraqis themselves. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki himself declared last November, "The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians."

What we need is not just a political strategy; we need sustained and vigorous diplomatic engagement that I would argue has been lacking. The President and his senior officials have failed to make the case that the so-called new way forward in Iraq is, in fact, new or promises significant changes needed to achieve real victory. Instead, the President's escalation strategy risks repeating mistakes already made. It inserts more American troops into the crossfire of growing sectarian conflict, and it ignores the urgent need to reorient the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq toward those objectives which offer our best chance to leave behind a secure and stable Iraq.

In spite of all the rhetoric from the White House in recent weeks, I believe, and many in this Senate believe, that the President's policy is more or less more of the same: Stay the course. The United States today has approximately 137,000 troops in Iraq, growing by the day and by the week. Sending an additional 21,000 troops will not fundamentally change the current dynamic in Iraq.

The reality is that more American troops is not the answer in Iraq. General Abizaid, the outgoing U.S. Central Command commander, testified in November that the unanimous opinion of his top subordinates was that more American troops would only perpetuate the dependence of Iraqi troops and would not offer a positive solution. No matter how many troops we send, they cannot provide lasting security on the streets of Baghdad or other Iraqi cities. Only fully equipped, trained, and dedicated Iraqi military and police forces--those who do not pick and choose sides among sectarian groups--only they can provide the type of permanent security that will enable the Iraqi political and civilian life to emerge and the nation to embark on a path to reconciliation.

We heard from former Congressman Lee Hamilton during our Foreign Relations Committee hearings. He noted in his testimony before that committee that the money, time, and attention we are devoting to escalating the level of U.S. forces in Iraq must not detract from what should be a primary mission for the United States: training Iraqi security forces to enhance their capability to take the lead and allow U.S. forces to redeploy out of that country.

Congressman Hamilton and so many others have placed the primacy on the question of training. Instead, by adopting the President's strategy, I fear we are sending an additional 21,000 troops without a more focused mission and lacking a solid plan to accomplish it.

I fear we are still investing too much trust in the Maliki government, a regime that has failed to demonstrate it is acting on behalf of all Iraqis and may be focused only on one sectarian group. I fear American forces will continue to serve as a bull's-eye target for those resentful of a prolonged U.S. occupation in Iraq. In short, I fear, and many in this Senate fear, we are sending more American men and women into Iraq without a new blueprint for victory and without the essential political, diplomatic, and international groundwork required to succeed.

The President has based his troop escalation on the hope--the risky hope, I would argue--that this time the Maliki regime will carry through on its commitments and deliver the required Iraqi forces to help U.S. forces secure neighborhoods throughout Baghdad and, more important, then remain to allow reconstruction to proceed and normal life to return. Yet the record is not encouraging. In Operation Together Forward, Prime Minister Maliki had pledged six battalions, but only two were sent. Some of those Iraqi units suffered subsequent serious attrition rates. Many of those forces have been infiltrated by the very sectarian militias they are now being asked to disarm.

We are already seeing troubling signs in the initial stages of this latest escalation. The New York Times, January 22, the Washington Post, USA Today, and so many other news articles which I will not repeat here today have talked about the problems with Iraqi security forces showing up late or not showing up at all, not serious about their mission, not trained, not focused, and frankly not helping enough in terms of helping American forces. Americans are dying because of that incompetence. The fact remains that it is very difficult to rely on Iraqi forces when you have to ask them to deploy outside of their normal areas of operation and their ethnic strongholds.

I also retain real doubts when the President insists that this time, this time it will be different, that Mr. Maliki now means it when he says Iraqi forces will truly crack down on all troublemakers, whether they are Shia or Sunni. The Government of Iraq has promised repeatedly to assume a greater share of security responsibilities, disband militias, consider constitutional amendments, and enact laws to reconcile sectarian differences and improve the quality of essential services for the Iraqi people. Yet, despite those promises, little has been achieved by the Iraqis.

Moreover, I am skeptical of this escalation of U.S. troops because we have seen it before. We have seen it before, tried over and over again. Operation Together Forward in 2006 represented a similar escalation; 12,000 additional U.S. troops were introduced into the city of Baghdad, only to see U.S. and Iraqi casualties spike considerably without a sustained reduction in sectarian violence. We have seen similar efforts to "flood the zone" with additional U.S. troops in places such as Fallujah and Ramadi, only resulting in temporary gains. If more troops have not worked in the recent past, why should we have any reason to believe it will work this time?

I am concerned, as are so many others, about the dual-chain-of- command concept that is being introduced as part of this escalation. Recently, Prime Minister al-Maliki's commander in the region and the capital itself has been trying to carry out part of this strategy. At the same time, there will be a separate or parallel U.S. command headed by MG Joseph Fil, Jr. Both commanders will have ultimate control over their own national troops, but this "partnered" command could create serious complications if there are disputes between U.S. and Iraqi military forces over specific operations. A unified chain of command is one of the hallmark principles that have long governed deployment of U.S. forces abroad.

Finally, I oppose this escalation strategy because I fear it will only exacerbate the longstanding strains on our Nation's military overall. Seven years ago, President Bush declared that his predecessor was leaving office with a military in decline. He alleged that the previous administration had not adequately funded our Armed Forces while simultaneously deploying those forces in excessive engagements around the world. It is one of the most tragic ironies that this President is himself now stretching our military to a genuine breaking point, as he pursues a misguided strategy in Iraq.

The Washington Post recently published an important article documenting the impacts of this proposed troop escalation. According to the Post, the Army and Marine Corps already lack thousands of necessary vehicles, armor kits, and other equipment needed to supply the extra forces. Diverting 21,000 troops from other essential missions around the world will only further deteriorate the readiness of our overall ground forces, making it more difficult to respond quickly and decisively in the event of other military contingencies, and raise the likelihood of greater U.S. casualties.

Our Nation's military is facing a genuine crisis. The war in Iraq has exacted a heavy toll--in casualties, first and foremost, but also in terms of combat equipment that undergirds our fighting men and women. Our National Guard and Reserve troops in particular are paying a heavy price. Army data shows that the Army National Guard units today only have, on average, 40 percent of their required equipment--40 percent. National Guard combat brigades are being involuntarily mobilized, and reservists are being sent back to the command theater on a repeated basis.

Representative John Murtha, a decorated marine from my home State of Pennsylvania, painted a distressing picture of our military's readiness--or I should say lack thereof--during recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As he noted:

At the beginning of the Iraq war, 80 percent of all Army units and almost 100 percent of active combat units were rated at the highest state of readiness. Today, virtually all of our active duty combat units at home and all of our guard units are at the lowest state of readiness, primarily due to equipment shortages resulting from repeated and extended deployments in Iraq.

Chairman Murtha then went on to cite recent House testimony from a senior Pentagon official that our country was threatened because we lacked readiness at home.

I welcome, as so many do, the President's intention to expand our military--permanently elevating the Army and Marine Corps' Active-Duty ranks over the next 5 years. But that is only a long-term solution. Our current forces are badly overextended, and an escalation in strategy in Iraq will only worsen that condition. Our Nation faces growing challenges around the world. We must ensure that our military forces receive adequate training, are fully equipped, and retain the necessary flexibility to quickly respond to contingencies wherever they may arise. Pouring more troops into Iraq does not make those requirements any easier to meet.

Just listen to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group on this matter:

America's military capacity is stretched thin; we do not have the troops or equipment to make a substantial sustained increase in our troops presence.

The Iraq Study Group goes on to say:

Increased deployments to Iraq would also necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or respond to crises around the world.

So says the Iraq Study Group.

For all these reasons, I am proud to stand here today in support of a bipartisan effort to send the President a message that the troop escalation in Iraq is the wrong choice for our Nation. Instead, our Iraq strategy should emphasize a new direction, encouraging Iraqi leaders to make political compromises that will foster reconciliation and strengthen the unity of the Government, laying the groundwork for an improved security situation, and redeploying our military forces in Iraq so they can focus on maintaining that nation's territorial integrity. We also must deny al-Qaida and other terrorists a safe haven, conduct counterterrorism operations, promote regional stability, and, most important, train and equip Iraqi forces to take the lead in security and combat operations. The President's escalation strategy of throwing more U.S. troops into Iraq's burgeoning civil war undercuts and detracts from each of these objectives: A campaign of escalation is incompatible with securing a new and better direction in Iraq. For those who argue that supporting this resolution only offers criticism but does not offer specific alternatives, I urge you to listen to what I and others have said in these days and what we will say in the next couple of days especially.

We have heard from the opponents about what this all means. I will not go into their opinions today. But I will say this: Every Member of this Chamber in both parties honors our troops, no matter which way we stand on escalation. We honor their sacrifices--the sacrifices they and their families make on a daily basis. But we must examine--we have an obligation to examine our national policies which we are asked to carry out and to be supportive of or in opposition to. If we disagree with the broad strategic direction in which the President is taking our Nation, it is our duty to speak out. To remain silent or passive in the face of an approach we believe is misguided and not in the national interests is an abdication of the responsibilities of our offices.

Our military forces and their loved ones have paid a heavy price for this mission in Iraq. As I have noted before, at least 150 Pennsylvanians have given their lives, with hundreds more suffering from serious and lifelong injuries. PFC Ross A. McGinnis of Knox, PA, was one of those killed in action. He was 19 years old. He died of injuries on December 4, 2006, after a grenade was thrown into his vehicle in Baghdad. Private McGinnis has been nominated by his commanders for the Medal of Honor. He was manning the gunner's hatch when a grenade was thrown into his humvee. He could have jumped out to save himself, but he threw himself on the grenade to save the lives of his crew members. We must always remember this debate we must have must not have a focus on abstract policy matters. This has real implications for our men and women in the Armed Forces. We cannot forget the lessons and the life of Private McGinnis or any of the more than 3,000 Americans who have died during this conflict. Our troops are deserving of our support and the support of all the American people.

Mr. President, I conclude with this: A troop increase will only endanger more young Americans in Iraq without any clear hope of success. For that reason, I support honest and open debate on the merits of the President's plan and an opportunity for the Senate to declare its views. I will vote to allow this important debate to proceed, and I will vote in favor of S. 574.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Ohio is recognized.

Mr. Voinovich: Mr. President, I must say I am disappointed the Democratic leadership continues to preclude the Senate from debating and amending the insufficient resolution sent over from the House of Representatives. This denies the Senate from robustly debating other alternatives, including the bipartisan Warner resolution.

The strategy is to avoid controversial procedures that split the Democratic caucus regarding cutting off funding for the troops and capping the deployment of troops in Iraq. We have the same kind of split to a degree in the Republican caucus. The Warner resolution represents a negotiated agreement that reflects a bipartisan approach to the war and deserves to be debated and voted upon.

This is the second piece of legislation this week that Democratic leaders have brought to the Senate floor straight from the House with no amendments for debate allowed, and I think this is setting a dangerous precedent and frustrates the role the Constitution envisions for the Senate.

I will continue to back the minority's right to bring up amendments and participate in real debate, even if I don't agree with those ideas. I tried to support that when we were in the majority. The American people want Congress to play a role in the way this war is being handled. The first step is to demand a better plan, and we owe the people more than 10 lines in the House Resolution. You can't even begin to address a real solution to a complex situation in 10 lines.

I wish to emphasize to my colleagues that there are 15 cosponsors of the Warner resolution, 6 of whom are Republicans and 9 are Democrats. The resolution has the support of the Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden, who has been here for many years--a very wise individual. It has the support of the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin. It also has the support of the No. 2 ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Chuck Hagel. I mention this because I wish to stress that the Warner resolution is believed to be a fair and reasonable resolution that is broadly supported by both Republicans and Democrats. I believe, if given the opportunity, that resolution will attract over 60 votes of the Senate.

That is why tonight I wish to share some of my thoughts about our current situation in Iraq. I wish to stress that had we received better, more comprehensive prewar intelligence and done our homework about what would be needed after the military offensive, we could have entered Iraq adequately prepared to win the war and secure the peace. We would have been more adequately prepared. Both the administration and Congress should have recognized that by removing Saddam Hussein from office, we would shift the balance of power within the country from Sunni to Shiite and change the contour of the region. Our intelligence errors, our lack of troop preparation, and the bungling of the initial efforts on the ground, specifically disbanding the Army and isolating former Baathists--in spite of advice from people such as GEN Jake Garner and others--is unacceptable. And today, we are paying the price for that, which means all of us have to pay a lot more attention to every decision and plan we endorse from here on out.

I cannot support the proposed troop surge. In spite of meetings at the White House, two with the President, private-session briefings as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and a meeting with General Petraeus for over 40 minutes, I am not convinced the additional troops who are proposed is the best means toward success in Baghdad. That is why I have decided to support the Warner resolution.

A military solution is not sufficient to win the peace in Iraq. As I will get into it, Iraq faces political problems, a power struggle, and primal hate between the fighting sects. More troops alone cannot solve these problems. That being said, I continue to have the highest praise for the generals and, more importantly, for their troops who have remained steadfast in their efforts to secure Iraq. I am grateful to those who have served and continue to serve our Nation in a time of need. I am especially indebted to those who made the ultimate sacrifice and whose families have suffered and who will grieve and those whose lives have been changed forever, as well as some 25,000 men and women who have been wounded over there, 13,000 of them not able to go back into the service.

Winning this war, securing peace in Iraq and stability in the region requires a comprehensive approach and the use of different tools, the most important of which is the will of the Iraqis. At this point, I am afraid we have focused disproportionately on the military component of this war, and we have not adequately stressed the nonmilitary arm of our strategy.

Moving forward in Iraq, we must focus on strengthening our nonmilitary or political tactics. That is why now, more than ever before, I am concerned about Iraq's willingness to bring an end to the violence. As the Warner resolution states:

The responsibility for Iraq's internal security in halting sectarian violence must rest primarily with the government of Iraq and Iraq security forces.

I recently met with a young man from Ohio out of Bethesda who had completed three tours of duty in Iraq and who was wounded by an IED. I asked him what he did. He said: My main goal, Senator, every day was to keep my men alive and keep peace in the neighborhood.

We have to ask ourselves: How long can we continue to do this? Even if the surge is successful, how long will we have to stay before the Iraqis can handle the situation themselves? Even when I talked with General Petraeus, he did a good job in Mosul--they secured the neighborhoods--but when the Iraqis came in and they left, they lost it. How many American lives will be lost in what is best described as a civil war between Sunni and Shiite that has 1,400 years of Sunni domination over Shiite at its root? More of our Members of the Senate should read about the history of Iraq and the people who are there.

After many closed-session briefings with the National Security Council, four meetings at the White House, including two with the President, and as I mentioned, 40 minutes with General Petraeus, and after hearing hours of witnesses testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I can feel confident saying it is time for the Iraqi people and their leadership to stand up to the sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite. They need to recognize that all Iraqis and the future of the Nation of Iraq is threatened by this constant bloodshed, and their future is in their hands, not our hands.

U.S. Central Commander GEN John Abizaid, who the President relied upon to lead the ground campaign in Iraq, testified to Congress on November 15:

I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander and General Dempsey. We all talked together. 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?" They all said no. 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.

That is General Abizaid. If we don't follow the advice of our generals and other military people I have talked to, we run the risk of helping one side at the expense of another, and the Sunnis could interpret our offensive as part of a larger effort to do the dirty work of the Shiite. And don't you think the Sunnis would not spin it that way.

The reality we face today is that an overwhelming majority of the Muslim population in Iraq, be they Shiite or Sunni, look upon us as infidels and occupiers. They do. And our presence there is exploited every day by our enemies. In fact, one poll claimed 60 percent of the people in Iraq said it is OK to kill Americans. While we cannot even begin to capture what is happening in the hearts and minds of the Iraqis with one poll, it sends a striking message about what additional troops might face there.

We have to consider the reliable information we have that suggests the surge could ignite an even more aggressive countersurge, in which every martyr--every martyr--in the country is drawn to Baghdad to defeat the infidels, as the Sunnis were drawn to Mecca on Ramadan. We could see a terrible situation there, and I don't want--I wish to make clear I am not analogizing the Sunnis going to Mecca on Ramadan. I am saying it would bring lots of people into Baghdad.

The fact of the matter is we cannot stop the sectarian violence with combat brigades and more forces alone. Implementing martial law in Iraq would be impossible because of the sheer number of Iraqi citizens and our commitments elsewhere around the globe. At this point, we wouldn't begin to have enough forces.

Mr. President, the only way to bring stability to Iraq is by addressing a number of serious political problems that lie at the root of this violence. Before the war, Iraq was united by Saddam's reign of terror, as Slobadan Milosevic kept everybody under his control or, before him, Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia. When he was removed from office, the major power struggle ensued, and it is not surprising. In fact, it should have been expected. In fact, as we later found out, many academics and intelligence officers did predict this. In the aftermath of Saddam's regime, many different sects and local leaders realized a power shift was taking place, and they wanted to come out on top. They knew the greatest source of potential power is in oil. That is why the critical component of the political solution must be to reach a decision on how the oil can be distributed to all sects and communities in Iraq. It is absolutely critical that Prime Minister Maliki moves quickly--tomorrow--to pass the legislation that guarantees that all Iraqis will benefit from oil. If he can do this, it will show the sects how the power in Iraq will be dispersed in the future.

Recently, I met with the Foreign Minister, Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey. The Foreign Minister agreed that the oil situation is the most important issue today and the one that will have profound impact on the long-term stability of Iraq. This must be a component of the overall national reconciliation plan to unite Iraqis and give them confidence in their Government.

A second key political priority must be the reintegration of the Sunni Baathists into society. When we went into Iraq, we cut the Baathists out of the military and security forces. The result of the policy was they had nowhere to go. They were frightened about their futures. They could not feed their families. They were angry. They were resentful. So they went to the streets. Before long, they became part of the problem, joining with militias and other fighters to resist the Shia government. So a major political priority must be to develop a plan to reintegrate the former Baathists and it needs to happen now. It is essential that the Iraqi Government work toward provincial elections so there is more equal representation of the different sects.

The third vital component of our nonmilitary strategy must be greater regional diplomacy. We must work to encourage Iraq's neighbors to get involved in containing the violence. Specifically, these neighboring countries have the ability to put pressure on the different sects and local leaders to help unite the Iraqi Government. They have the ability to pass debt relief, participate in border control, and help avoid a potential refugee problem. I don't think people realize that there have been over 3.5 million refugees who have come out of Iraq.

In December 2006, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group issued their recommendations for a successful United States strategy in Iraq. A core component of their proposal was that the United States act immediately to undertake a "diplomatic offensive" consisting of "new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region." The recommendation called on the administration to engage the international community, the Arab League, traditional United States allies in the Middle East, and all Iraq's bordering neighbors in order to address regional conflicts and jointly bring stability to Iraq. They advised the administration to work quickly to convene a regional conference--it has not happened--which would complement the Iraq Compact undertaken by the United Nations. We need to embrace the study group's recommendations on this issue and act now to increase diplomatic engagement with the international community.

Without a broad political strategy, our military objectives, no matter what the tactic, will be pursued in vain. These political elements must be the focus of our plan in Iraq. And that said, I agree there is a military component here, as well. I want to be very clear that I do not support a military withdrawal from Iraq nor do I support disengagement from the Middle East.

As we debate this issue, we must consider our broader national security interests in the Middle East. We are only focusing on Iraq. We have to start thinking about the whole greater Middle East area. Despite one's views about the current situation in Iraq, it is in our country's vital security interest to pursue a strategy of diplomacy and military action in the region. To put it simply, the stakes are too high for us to sit on the sidelines. We must remain active players in the Middle East to maintain regional stability, to protect vital energy supplies, and to guarantee peace and security at home.

We have had long-standing economic and military interests in the Middle East and we were involved in the region long before we decided to challenge Saddam Hussein for his defiance of the U.N. Security Council. But today, with conflicts brewing in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, between Israel and the Palestinian territories, it is even more critical we remain steadfast in our commitment. Despite what one might believe about the President's strategy in Iraq, we cannot confuse debate over tactics with the nonnegotiable need to remain engaged in the Middle East.

Currently, the greatest threat to the stability in the Middle East is the possibility of failure in Iraq which threatens to destabilize the region and poses a critical national security risk to the United States. A premature withdrawal from Iraq will signify in essence that we are abandoning the region in its entirety. Our departure could greatly damage, if not sever, relationships with key allies, resulting in dire political and social consequences throughout the world.

The long-term security interests of the United States will be best served by a peaceful Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself. That is why we must figure a way forward and why we cannot withdraw from Iraq.

The National Intelligence Estimate which was just released underscores the danger of withdrawal, stating succinctly:

If coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraq government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation.

They conclude that the immediate withdrawal of United States troops likely would lead the Iraq security forces to unravel, encourage neighboring countries to engage openly in the conflict, and lead to massive civilian casualties and population displacement. It is also very likely, were the United States to pull out of Iraq prematurely, al-Qaida would use Iraq as a training ground to plan future attacks, and this escalation of violence could ultimately prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion of its own. These are outcomes we cannot afford to risk.

I will refer to a few of the experts whom I have met or who have testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in recent weeks.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified that "withdrawal is not an option" and continued that:

An abrupt American departure would greatly complicate efforts to stem the terrorist tide far beyond Iraq: Fragile governments from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf would be tempted into preemptive concessions. It might drive the sectarian conflict in Iraq to genocidal dimensions, beyond levels that impelled U.S. interventions in the Balkans.

Think of that. It might drive sectarian conflict in Iraq to genocidal dimensions beyond levels that impelled United States intervention in the Balkans.

The new Ambassador from Jordan sat next to me at the prayer breakfast, and we started talking about Iraq and the Middle East. He told me that if you do not handle this right, we could see a schism between the Sunni and Shiite that extends from Malaysia to Indonesia.

Another reason I back the Warner resolution is it does not in any way threaten to reduce or jeopardize critical funding for United States troops serving in Iraq. In fact, the resolution states explicitly:

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

A decision to cut funding would be a serious, irreversible mistake.

Last month, this Senate confirmed General Petraeus as the commanding general of the multinational force in Iraq without a dissenting vote. He is carrying out the orders of the President. It is critical that General Petraeus get the resources and equipment he believes are necessary to complete the mission and keep his forces safe in the field. I spoke to General Petraeus and I told him to make sure to ask for what he needs to be successful. He is concerned about receiving the equipment and other nonmilitary resources he will need to be successful, such as contributions of the State Department and other agencies. We cannot send our forces into the field without the necessary equipment. We did this at the beginning of the war. Our soldiers were underequipped. It was despicable. It cannot happen again. We have the resources in this country to ensure that our men and women have everything they need in combat.

We also must provide the funding to reset the equipment when it comes home and to keep the Armed Forces from breaking under the strain of the war. We must ensure that soldiers have the proper training before they leave and we must fund the mobilization centers and other military facilities at home so we can undergo the necessary training.

In my State of Ohio, I met this week with the head of the Ohio National Guard who is now being told he is going to have to train the troops in Ohio because they do not want to send them someplace else because they want them trained fast so they can get them to Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is, he said:

I don't have the additional funds or equipment to do this.

We have lost 150 Ohioans, 150 in Iraq. In terms of the States, we are probably two or three in the United States in the number of members lost. We lost two because humvees rolled over and they were not trained to drive those humvees. Now they are much heavier than they were before.

The Warner resolution makes it clear that we must guarantee the troops what they need when they need it. And the Gregg amendment underscores the point further. The best exit strategy for United States troops is a multifaceted and comprehensive strategy focused on creating an Iraq for the Iraqis. We must focus on training the Iraqi security forces so the Iraqis can defend and protect themselves. The Iraqi people must understand they will be given the full responsibility of defending and rebuilding their country. We must remove any ambiguity in the minds of Iraqis about our intention and desire to lead and make it clear we do not want to be there. In fact, they need to understand we want to bring our troops home and we want to help them develop the political and military tools necessary to carry on this mission without us.

Bringing stability to Iraq will require our best minds, our resources, and our bipartisan cooperation. We need a massive improvement in interagency coordination, better communication, better reporting to Congress, and the help of our allies and friends throughout the region.

This is my responsibility as a Member of Congress, to exercise oversight and to contribute to our national security. That is why I support the bipartisan Warner resolution. Again, I am confident that given the opportunity, over 60 Members of this Senate will support it.

Last but not least, all of us who represent the people of this country should get down on our knees and ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten the President and us in our decisionmaking because the impact of Iraq will not only affect Iraq, the Middle East, and world peace, but it will impact dramatically the national security of the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Florida.

Mr. Nelson (FL): Mr. President, from the gravity of the terms with which the senior Senator from Ohio has spoken, I know the Senator speaks from his heart. This Senator certainly concurs it is of the utmost importance of the interests of the United States that we are successful in Iraq because of the threat to the security interests to our country in that region of the world.

If someone will look at a map, we have the Persian Gulf, and on the eastern portion of the Persian Gulf is the Strait of Hormuz, which is only 19 miles wide, through which most of the super oil tankers of the world have to flow out of the Persian Gulf, or if you are from an Arab country, the Arabian Gulf into the great oceans of the world to an oil- thirsty world. That is clearly one interest.

Another interest is clearly the fact that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon. What an enormously destabilizing situation that would be to put in a rogue nation's hands that is not unaccustomed to peddling things to itchy fingers that like to exact mischief on the rest of the world. You put a nuclear weapon in those itchy fingers, and we have a whole new kind of threat to the stability of the civilized world.

But there are other reasons--the reasons of countries that have been in enormous strife, countries that have been very favorable to the United States, as the country of Jordan and all of the internal turmoil they have. I could go on and on, but there are so many reasons why it is very necessary that the United States have success in that part of the world.

But what we are coming down to is a momentous decision tomorrow, at 1:45 p.m., on whether we are going to continue a policy of this administration of stay-the-course or whether we are going to change that course. This Senator believes we should change that course and that the President's decision to put additional troops into Baghdad is not changing the course, it is more of the course. It is putting more American lives into a sectarian violence caldron where the temperature is so high that we see the reports every day of more and more killings.

Now, this violence did not just start. This violence started 1,327 years ago, when, after the death of Mohammed, the prophet, there was a power play, and his grandson was eliminated as one of the natural heirs to the Prophet Mohammed, and the power was controlled within the clerics who had succeeded Mohammed. It was in that grandson's clan that they then started a resistance born out of revenge, and that then started the separation of the Shiites from what are today the Sunnis. And that has happened for 1,327 years. In the midst of that full-scale civil warfare, this Senator does not believe it is in the interest of our country to put in an additional 17,500 American lives. This Senator believes we ought to force the Iraqis to stop killing each other and to start working out their differences.

Now, at the same time, as recommended by the Iraq study commission, it is clearly important that we have a vigorous international diplomatic initiative to engage all the countries in the region to help bear upon Iraq and that sectarian warfare to get them to try to come to their senses, to try to start striking peace instead of warfare, because all of the countries in the region clearly understand that is in their interest. You take a country such as Saudi Arabia. One of the worst things in the world would be if Iraq was just completely enveloped in chaos; the same with Jordan--two of our friends in the region.

It is in the interests of the United States to conduct this diplomatic initiative in a way that it has not been done in the last 4 years: engaging people whom we have refused to engage, listening and learning in the process, instead of always imposing or giving the perception of imposing ourselves on everybody else, and at the same time letting the forces that are there stabilize instead of putting more American lives at risk.

So we come to a momentous decision that will come tomorrow afternoon: Do we keep the same course or do we start changing the course with new and fresh ideas, with ideas that have clearly been laid out in the Iraq study commission? It is the conclusion of this Senator that we ought to send a very strong message to the White House that the time for changing the stay-the-course policy is now.

Tribute to Dan Shapiro

Mr. President, I want to make note, in the presence of my longtime, very faithful staff member, Dan Shapiro, who has served me so ably for over 6 years as legislative director, that the needs of providing for his little family have called upon him to leave the public sector, where he has been engaged for years, to enter into the private sector. I want to say on behalf of the people of Florida and the people of the Nelson office that we are grateful for his public service.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Mr. Whitehouse: Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of thousands of Rhode Islanders who have talked with me about the need for a new direction in Iraq and the need to bring our troops home.

I speak on behalf of the veterans' families who traveled here to Washington to speak to me about their memories of war and the need for this one to end.

I speak on behalf of the brave men and women serving in Iraq who have sacrificed so much and whose families anxiously await their return.

I speak on behalf of mothers I met who felt they had to buy body armor for their sons and daughters headed for Iraq because they could not trust this administration to provide what was needed.

The Senate may have been muzzled in recent days, but Rhode Islanders certainly have not been. More than 2,000 of them have reached out to my office in frustration, in anger, and in concern--and in the hope that this new Democratic Senate will listen to them and hear them, as this administration will not.

I want to share some of what they have written me:

I was at Michael Weidemann's funeral.

Mr. President, Michael was a 23-year-old Army sergeant from Newport, killed in an IED blast in Anbar Province last November.

The letter continues:

Please, if nothing else, take care of things, so that we do not have to go through what we went through at that funeral. Michael and my son … were in the JROTC together… . He is on his second tour of Iraq. Please, don't make yesterday a dress rehearsal for me. I want my son to come home, safely.

From Johnston, Rhode Island:

My son … is presently serving in Iraq and on his second tour of duty there… . The President's plan ignores the American people who voted for change in November, and who continue to demand we bring our troops home… . The people made their voice heard, and if the President isn't going to listen, the Democratic Congress will. The President's policies have failed!

From Portsmouth, Rhode Island:

President Bush has ignored the advice of experience, lied to us all, lacked any plan and seems to be expecting his successor to solve the problems. It is our only hope that you, as a member of Congress, can work toward bringing our troops home soon.

From Kingston:

I am appalled at the loss of life--today it was reported 20 more service people were killed. The Kurds are deserting rather than fight in Baghdad… . We are not just losing people, we are losing big money. We have seven grandchildren. What kind of debt are we placing on those future generations?

From Warwick:

We never should have begun this war, let's now have the sense to end it, not prolong it. Please do whatever you can to stop the president's initiative to increase our military presence in Iraq… . , to spend even more money waging a war that your constituents have indicated they no longer support.

From North Kingstown:

We are looking to you to do whatever is in your power to stop the U.S. escalation of troops in Iraq. I and many in our nation feel this will only make a bad situation worse, widen what is essentially a civil war and lead to further casualties and costs without contributing towards a political solution… . We are counting on you and your colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and be counted and forge a bipartisan solution to end this war.

And finally, a woman from Cumberland forwarded me a message she sent to President Bush:

My nephew … is in the 82nd Airborne serving our country in Iraq. He is the bravest person I have ever known, along with all the other men and women serving this country. I am proud to be an American! Please, please, on behalf of my family and the families of all U.S. troops--bring them home now!

Mr. President, these voices will not be unfamiliar to anyone in this body. In every State, we have heard similar voices. You have heard them in Colorado, Mr. President. My friend, Senator Sanders, has heard them in Vermont. People all across America are speaking to all of us, and it is time for us to listen and to show that we have heard and to start to bring our soldiers home.

The President has not heard these voices. He wants to send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq. He calls this a surge. We consider it a grave mistake.

Tomorrow, our vote can stop the parliamentary maneuvers that have stalled us, and this great deliberative body can begin to debate the most pressing question of this day.

Let's talk for a moment about that question. The other side wishes to debate every question, any question--any question but the escalation by this President of our troops in Iraq by over 21,000 men and women. But this question we want to debate is not a question selected by Democrats for political reasons. It is possible here to choose self-serving questions and to force a debate on those questions just to make a political point. But we have not done that.

This question, whether to escalate the war in Iraq, is not an invention of the Democratic Party. It is not an invention of the Senate. It is President Bush, who proposed to send tens of thousands more troops into harm's way and to escalate this conflict, who has presented this question. This question is what was presented to us by President George W. Bush, and by him alone, and it is the pressing question of today.

For weeks, we on this side of the aisle have emphasized and reemphasized our strong commitment to having a real debate--a debate to a vote--to telling the American people where we stand and to casting our votes on the precise question the President of the United States has presented to America. But we have been impeded, obstructed, maneuvered away from this critical question.

The other side argues that to dispute this President's judgment is to fail to support the troops--even though that judgment has failed the troops and has failed our country and has left us with few good options.

But that is a false choice, Mr. President. And this hour demands better of this institution.

There are ways to accomplish the change America demands, and that reason and good conscience dictate. For instance, I believe that rather than send a single additional American soldier into the sands and marshes of Iraq, this President can announce clearly and unequivocally that our troops will be redeployed from Iraq and will soon come home.

The most powerful motivating force at our country's disposal today is the prospect of our redeployment out of Iraq. Let me repeat that. The most powerful motivating force at our country's disposal today is the prospect of redeployment out of Iraq. Using this power wisely, deftly, and thoughtfully would accomplish three critical objectives that, as I have said, would make great strides toward security in Iraq and stability in the region.

First, a clear statement of our intent to redeploy our troops from Iraq would eliminate the sense there that we are an Army of occupation. This in turn would quiet the nationalist sentiment of the Iraqi people, now aroused against us. Many Iraqis are now so opposed to our presence they think killing American soldiers is acceptable.

Second, without America's intervening presence, the world community would have to face directly the consequences of the situation in Iraq. The prospect of our departure would compel the world to take a more active role to work together with America to bring peace and stability to the region. We cannot continue as we are now, in every meaningful way completely alone.

Third, Iraq's neighbors will be obliged to assume greater responsibility for averting the risk of a Sunni-Shiite conflict igniting in Iraq and spreading beyond Iraq's borders. Without us in Iraq as a police force for a civil war, neighboring nations will have an enlivened incentive to avert a wider war.

Finally, the Bush administration's preoccupation with Iraq leaves us weakened in our capability to address other obligations around the world, from the changing situation in North Korea, to the ongoing battle for Afghanistan, to the serious threat posed by Iran's nuclear program.

Mr. President, these are serious matters, and they deserve the serious and sustained attention of the Senate. I hope tomorrow's vote will allow us to bring this question that attention.

Mr. President, I will support that vote tomorrow. I ask other Senators, who hear our fellow Americans' genuine and sincere concern about our national interest, will do the same.

I will support not only the resolution disapproving of the President's escalation plan and supporting our troops, but also other, stronger measures that will follow, and that will continue to put pressure on this administration to finally bring our troops home.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Casey): The Senator from Vermont is recognized.