---

The Acting President pro tempore: Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 574, which the clerk will report.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 574, a bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.

Mr. Bunning: Madam President, I rise today to speak again on the mishandling of the debate over the Iraq war resolutions. This debate has ramifications which will damage the institution of the Senate and lower the morale of our troops.

Here is the truth the American people need to know: Republicans in the Senate have not prevented any debate over the war in Iraq. We are debating the war again today. We have debated the war in the past. And we will continue to debate the war in the future. What we have prevented is the majority leader dictating to the minority exactly which resolutions we will vote on. My friends on the other side of the aisle have misled the American people about this debate.

Our Republican leader, my colleague and close friend from Kentucky, has tried to negotiate for more--I repeat--more debate on additional resolutions expressing a broad range of viewpoints. This is the U.S. Senate. The majority cannot tell the minority we are going to have one vote--take it or leave it.

And let me be clear: I am not running from a vote on any of these resolutions. I don't know one of my Republican colleagues who is afraid to cast a vote on any of the proposed resolutions relating to Iraq. I have said repeatedly and I will say it here again today: Nonbinding resolutions that question military strategy are not in the best interests of our Nation. They are not in the best interests of the Senate. They don't have the effect of law. They only affect our soldiers by sending them mixed signals. But if we must go down that path, let's vote. However, the majority leader cannot dictate the terms of the vote. If he could, this would be the House of Representatives. But it is not. This is the U.S. Senate. This is a body with rules that encourage opposing viewpoints, not stifling debate by the majority leader hand-selecting one resolution and forcing the other 99 of us to vote on it.

But here we are. Americans are watching this discussion right now. And it is not just a debate about Senate floor procedures; this is about how we as Senators should conduct debate when we have troops in harm's way. Many Americans oppose our efforts in Iraq. That is their right. I respect their convictions. Yet they are misguided, because I believe the cost of failure in Iraq is too high to leave now. I do not want to have to send American soldiers back to Iraq in a few years to deal with an even tougher situation. I do not want to leave a breeding ground of terror. But I understand there are many Americans who want this war to end, regardless of the consequences of leaving soon. And no doubt there are some in this body and in the House of Representatives who share that same view.

We as a Congress can end this war, but we cannot end it by nonbinding resolutions such as the one that passed the House of Representatives this week that the majority leader now wants us to be forced to vote on in the Senate. We can end this war through the appropriations process by cutting off funds for this war. This is why I am so frustrated by this debate. This is why I am frustrated by many of my friends and colleagues in this great body.

Many want to vote on a nonbinding resolution that opposes our strategy in Iraq to show their constituents they oppose the war, yet not make the tougher decision through the appropriations process. I know many of my colleagues who want to vote on this misguided House resolution will not--I repeat--not vote to cut off the funding for this war. They just want to have it both ways: they want to support a nonbinding measure opposing the war but not actually to stop the war by exercising their constitutional right to cut off its funding.

We should not vote to cut off the funding of this war. And that is the basic theme of the Gregg resolution on which the majority leader will not allow us to vote. The majority leader will not allow this vote because he knows it will pass the Senate overwhelmingly. This does not make sense to me or many of my colleagues, and I do not think it makes sense to many Americans who have actually followed this debate closely.

That is why I will vote again today against moving to the misguided House-passed resolution without the commitment that we Republicans be allowed to offer our own resolution of our own choosing. Our resolution, the Gregg resolution, gives support to our troops. Unlike the resolution before us today, it does not send contradictory signals to the troops by telling them that on one hand we oppose their mission but on the other hand we support them as soldiers. That is not the message we need to be sending to our troops at this critical time.

Mr. Obama: Madam President, I will vote today to bring up a resolution for debate that would disapprove of the President's policy of escalation in Iraq.

Last November, the American people sent a clear message to their representatives in Washington. With their votes, the American people said they wanted a change in direction with regard to the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, the White House--and its defenders in the Senate--has ignored that will and fought to keep this day from happening for as long as they could.

We may fail to get the required number of votes to debate this very simple resolution. And even if we do get enough votes, I realize that this resolution may not force a single change to this country's policy in Iraq. I realize that it may not bring the Shiites and Sunnis closer to peace, nor will it bring a single soldier home from this war.

But for the first time in the 4 years of this long, hard war, Democrats and Republicans can join together to express the will of the people who sent us here.

That is why today's vote must be only the beginning, and not the end, of a long-overdue debate on how we plan to exit Iraq and refocus our efforts on the wider war against terror. If more stalemate and inaction follow this resolution, it truly will be a meaningless gesture. It is now the responsibility of every Member of this body to put forth a plan that offers the best path to peace among the Iraqis so that our brave soldiers can finally come home.

Recently, I introduced the Iraq De-Escalation Act of 2007. This plan would not only place a cap on the number of troops in Iraq and stop the escalation, it would more importantly begin a phased redeployment of U.S. forces with the goal of removing of all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by March 31, 2008--consistent with the expectations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that the President has so assiduously ignored.

The redeployment of troops to the United States, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the region would begin no later than May 1 of this year, toward the end of the timeframe I first proposed in a speech more than 2 months ago. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi Government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability.

My plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counterterrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces.

And if the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush administration itself, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have actually been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.

The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.

It is my firm belief that the responsible course of action for the United States, for Iraq, and for our troops is to oppose this reckless escalation and to pursue a new policy. This policy that I have laid out is consistent with what I have advocated for well over a year, with many of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and with what the American people demanded in the November election.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, the time for promises and assurances, for waiting and patience, is over. Too many lives have been lost and too many billions have been spent for us to trust the President on another tried and failed policy opposed by generals and experts, Democrats and Republicans, Americans and many of the Iraqis themselves.

It is time for us to fundamentally change our policy.

It is time to give Iraqis their country back.

And it is time to refocus America's efforts on the challenges we face at home and the wider struggle against terror yet to be won.

Mr. Specter: Madam President, this vote on cloture to cut off debate involves a conflict between two important principles: (1) obtain fairness for the Senate Republican minority on having our resolutions and amendments debated and voted upon, and (2) debating and voting on the approval or rejection of the President's plan to add 21,500 troops to the U.S. force in Iraq.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that there is unanimity that no preceptive action be taken by Congress to exercise our "power of the purse" to cut off funds that would in any way endanger our troops.

In response to the majority leader's use of the Senate rule to "fill the tree," which precludes any Republican alternative resolutions, I voted against cloture to cut off debate on the Levin amendment on February 5. The procedure to "fill the tree" is contrary to the basic Senate practice of allowing Senators to offer amendments or alternative resolutions, unlike the House of Representatives, which customarily precludes such latitude.

On February 14, I introduced an amendment to rule XXII to stop the "filling of the tree," citing vociferous objections by Senators Reid, Durbin and Dodd to similar Republican action in the 109th Congress when Republicans held a majority.

Although it is very important for the minority to exercise its rights to stop abusive majority practices, it is my judgment that this must yield to the dominant principle of debating and voting on the future of U.S. policy in Iraq. Let's move on. We Republicans can exercise our rights of retaliation in the immediate future on other majority action to reign in such majority abuse.

In my view, it is most important that the Senate speak out on Iraq. If we continue to debate whether there should be a debate while the House of Representatives acts, the Senate will become irrelevant. To paraphrase the Roman adage: "The Senate should not fiddle while Iraq Burns."

The American people have a right to know the Senate's judgment on this most important issue of the day, and our constituents have a right to know and evaluate the judgment of each Senator.

Accordingly, I am voting for cloture to end the debate so we can move ahead.

Mr. Dodd: Madam President, this past week the President of the United States warned of the "disastrous consequences" and "chaos" which could occur in Iraq if we fail in that country. Once again the President's statements demonstrate how out of touch he is on this issue.

Iraq already is in a state of chaos. The American people know it and the Iraqi people know it, most painfully. Unfortunately, we already are dealing with the "disastrous consequences" of 4 years of this administration's failed policy in Iraq.

This chaos became inevitable the day the President invaded Iraq without a viable plan for winning the peace. And this chaos has been further compounded by 4 years of consistent failure by this administration.

The President's plan to surge forces into Iraq is no different from previous surges, including Operation Together Forward, which only resulted in more violence. Despite all of our military strength, the United States cannot through force alone instill Iraqis with democratic values or end the sectarian civil war in that country.

We have before us this afternoon a very direct, succinct nonbinding resolution. The language is unequivocal in expressing opposition to the President's surge. I am strongly opposed to the "surge" and will therefore vote in a favor of this straightforward, simple resolution expressing that opposition.

Surely our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can vote on a simple resolution stating whether they support the President's surge.

This is a vote on whether you support the President's Iraq war policy, without caveat or qualifier. And if this Chamber is ever allowed to get to a vote on this measure, a majority of this body will vote aye and therefore be publicly on record against the President's proposed policy to put even more of our soldiers in harm's way in Iraq's civil war.

If Congress had wanted to express its opinion on this important issue, this vote should have been among the first steps taken back in January, immediately after the President announced his intention to escalate our military involvement in Iraq.

Nearly 5 weeks have passed since that announcement. In those 5 weeks we have heard from experts across the political spectrum explain why the surge won't work and explain that there is no military solution to the conflict in Iraq.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives sent a message to the President and to the American people with their vote on this resolution opposing the surge. And yet the President has unwaveringly declared that he will stay the course. It's full speed ahead in the words of Vice-President Cheney.

We all know that and up-or-down vote on this resolution is not enough. Yes, I oppose the President's proposed surge. But I oppose much more than that--I oppose the President's overall strategy in Iraq.

So let's be realistic and understand that our pronouncing ourselves on the measure before us today will do nothing to force the President to change course in Iraq.

It will do nothing to get our troops out of harms way.

It will do nothing to improve the lives of Iraqi civilians.

American combat brigades are being asked to carry out a mission that is unachievable; namely, to bring an end to Iraq's civil war through military force.

Only a political solution can salvage Iraq.

Regrettably, we are in the fourth year of this conflict, and for some reason, this administration is still failing our troops. The President's proposed surge tactic will send thousands of American G.I.s into a battle with inadequate protection and training and on a mission which they will be unable to achieve.

Last month, Senator Kennedy and I sent a letter to Defense Secretary Gates demanding that he address reported shortfalls among two combat brigades being deployed as part of the President's proposed surge without the most up-to-date armored vehicles, vehicles that have been designed to withstand explosions and provide significantly better protection for our troops.

Just this week, media accounts of a classified Defense Department inspector general's report cited significant problems in outfitting our forces with a variety of vehicle armor to protect troops from IEDS.

How much more of this can we allow to stand? How many more of these reports should we tolerate until we say enough is enough?

The only way to reverse course in Iraq is to demonstrate to the President that it's no longer business as usual--that this Congress will not continue to support funding for the President's failed strategy, which is needlessly harming our troops and weakening our national security.

It is essential that we find a better use for the funds being allocated for the President's surge. We need to redirect U.S. funds to immediately begin to redeploy combat forces within and out of Iraq, to focus on counterterrorism and training of Iraqis, to put pressure on all of Iraq's leaders--not just the Maliki government--to seek and reach necessary and painful political compromises, and to ensure the security and political rights of all Iraqis.

We must also acknowledge how broken our own military is as a result of the Iraq war and redirect a portion of the funds proposed for Iraq to restore our own military's readiness.

It is time that this Congress moves beyond debating non-binding resolutions about the surge. It is time for the Congress to debate how much longer and under what circumstances we are prepared to support funding for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq.

That is the debate the American people want to hear, that is the debate our courageous and dedicated troops deserve.

Mr. Harkin: Madam President, yesterday, an overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the other body--reflecting the clear will of the American people--voted to oppose President Bush's decision to escalate the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. That vote was preceded by 4 full days of debate on the resolution. But here in the Senate, the Republican minority refuses to allow us even to bring a resolution to the floor for debate.

My office has been flooded with phone calls and e-mails from Iowans. The overwhelming majority of them are upset with the President's escalation plan. But they are also upset that the Senate is being obstructed. They simply cannot believe that Republican Senators are blocking debate on the No. 1 issue before our Nation, the No. 1 concern on the minds of the American people.

In a nutshell, callers are saying that Republican Senators have a right to support President Bush's war in Iraq. Republican Senators have a right to embrace his escalation of that war. But they do not have a right to block legitimate debate in the Senate on whether that escalation is wise or appropriate. They do not have a right to silence the voices of tens of millions of Americans--an overwhelming majority-- who have had enough of the quagmire in Iraq.

People in Iowa--and, I suspect, across the country--are saying that the election last November was a referendum on President Bush's war. Voters spoke loudly and clearly: They want our troops out of the civil war in Iraq.

The American people thought that their elected leaders in Washington heard this message. But they realize, now, that the Republicans simply don't care about the results of the election. They are determined to escalate the war. They are determined to prevent consideration of any resolution expressing disapproval of that escalation.

As a coequal branch of Government, Congress has a duty to debate this escalation. Out of respect for all our soldiers and Marines in Iraq--to keep faith with them--we as Senators have a duty to ask: Does their Commander-in-Chief have a credible plan in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice? Is the President's plan to escalate in Iraq in the best interest of the United States? Will the additional troops be sent into combat with proper equipment?

Unfortunately, the answer to those questions--after nearly 4 years of incompetence, bungling, and disastrously bad judgment by this administration--is a resounding "no."

Frankly, the President's plan to escalate is not just deeply disappointing, it is deeply disturbing. I am disturbed because Mr. Bush refuses to learn, and he refuses to listen. The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously opposed this escalation, as did our generals on the ground in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group warned that there cannot be a military solution to the sectarian chaos in Iraq, and said we should begin to bring our troops home. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is on record as opposing an increase in American troops. Most importantly, the American people said loudly and clearly on November 7 that they want our soldiers out of the civil war in Iraq.

But Mr. Bush refuses to listen to reason. Instead, he seems to listen only to his gut--the same gut that got us into this misguided, misbegotten war in the first place.

The President asserts that this latest escalation in Iraq is "a new way forward." But what he has proposed is not new, and it is not a way forward. It is the same old "stay the course" policy--and it will drag us deeper into the Iraqi quagmire.

The President has previously ordered three troop surges in Iraq, in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Just last June, he unveiled "Operation Forward Together" to surge troops in Baghdad and secure the capital city. This operation was supposed to be led primarily by Iraqis, with U.S. troops in support. But the Iraqi forces never showed up.

Again and again, we have set goals for the Iraqi leaders. But there have been no deadlines, no accountability, no consequences. And, predictably, we have seen no positive results. The Iraqi leaders have reneged on their promises to rein in the militias. They have refused to compromise. And they have pursued their sectarian agendas with a vengeance.

So let's not kid ourselves. The President's latest Iraq plan is just a repackaging of his old, failed Iraq plans.

I am especially concerned about the impact of this escalation on our troops and their families, and on the U.S. military overall. Army brigades are supposed to be in combat for 1 year, and then have 2 years back home to retrain and reequip. But they have only been allowed an average of 1 year to regroup. And some brigades are now on their third deployment in Iraq.

One reason why the Joint Chiefs opposed this latest escalation is because of the deep strain on our combat forces. In December, the Army chief of staff bluntly warned Congress that the current pace of combat deployment threatens to quote-unquote "break" the Army. Meanwhile, we lack resources to meet any other contingency, such as a challenge from Iran or a flare-up on the Korean Peninsula.

Some supporters of the President's escalation claim that by debating the President's conduct of the war in Iraq and the merits of his escalation plan, we are somehow not supporting the troops.

I strongly disagree. I have complete confidence in our men and women in uniform in Iraq. They have brilliantly completed the tasks they were sent to Iraq to accomplish, and they did so despite a series of disastrous decisions by their civilian leaders in Washington.

But as a veteran myself, I am angry at the way these brave men and women have been misused and mistreated.

The President rushed them into combat without proper equipment, and in insufficient numbers. He has insisted on "staying the course" with a failed policy for nearly 4 miserable years. He has sent many troops back to Iraq for a third and even fourth rotation, with insufficient time to retrain and regroup. Now he insists on sending another 21,500 troops into the middle of a sectarian civil war in Baghdad and elsewhere without properly armored Humvees and other essential equipment.

Yet despite all of these acts of mismanagement and misfeasance-- directly jeopardizing the lives and welfare of our soldiers and Marines--the President's supporters have the gall to say that anyone who opposes this latest escalation somehow "doesn't support the troops."

This would be laughable if it weren't so tragic and deadly. The Senate has a duty to debate the proposed troop escalation. We have a duty to speak up when we believe the President's policy is wrong, and is likely to waste lives. We also have a duty to speak up for the overwhelming majority of Americans, who oppose this latest escalation, and who consider the entire war to be a tragic mistake.

At this point, the single best way to support the troops is to tell President Bush: Four years of bungling, bad judgment, and bullheadedness are enough. We have complete and total confidence in our troops. But we have no confidence in your leadership.

During debate in the other body this week, Republicans repeatedly charged that criticism of the President's escalation serves to "embolden the enemy." And what exactly are these people saying? That Senators are supposed to stand silent like potted plants as this administration sinks us even deeper into the Iraqi quagmire?

Our enemies have indeed been emboldened. They were emboldened when this administration allowed Bin Laden to escape capture at Tora Bora. They were emboldened when this administration took its eye off the terrorists in Afghanistan, and diverted our military and intelligence assets to a reckless invasion of Iraq. They were emboldened when President Bush taunted the insurgents in Iraq to "bring it on," and they successfully did just that. They were emboldened when the President pledged to get Bin Laden "dead or alive," and failed to do so. They were emboldened when the greatest army in the world was allowed to get bogged down in a civil war in Iraq and on January 10, when another 21,500 troops were ordered to deploy to Ground Zero in that civil war.

Let's be clear: Our enemies have been emboldened by Mr. Bush's repeated, catastrophic mistakes, not by anyone's criticism of those mistakes.

The only true way forward in Iraq is to set a timetable for redeployment of U.S. forces. Only this will give the Iraqi leaders the incentive to resolve their differences and take responsibility for their own future.

As GEN George Casey, our commander in Iraq, told the Senate Armed Services Committee: "Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security forces on the coalition, [and] extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant."

Mr. Bush has it exactly backward. He has said that as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. The truth is that the Iraqis will only stand up when it is clear that the U.S. troops are leaving.

By redeploying our troops to strategic locations elsewhere in the Middle East, we will be able to refocus our efforts to destroy the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001, and who continue to threaten us. Redeployment would free up U.S. forces to combat the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Other troops would be available to help respond to terrorist threats not just in Iraq, but also in Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and elsewhere.

The proposed troop escalation in Iraq is not a way forward; it is a way deeper into a tragic quagmire. This is not in our national interest. It is not in the interest of the long-suffering Iraqi people. And it is certainly not in the interest of our troops, who will be in the crossfire of a vicious civil war.

The conflict in Iraq cannot be solved militarily. It can only be solved through political compromise and reconciliation in Baghdad, and through aggressive diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors and across the Middle East.

It's time for a truly new course in Iraq. And, to that end, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture, and to allow the Senate to debate this important resolution.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

The Acting President pro tempore: The Republican leader.

Mr. McConnell: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in opposition be allocated as follows: Senator Hutchison, 5 minutes; Senator Lindsey Graham, 10 minutes; Senator Stevens, 10 minutes; Senator Craig, 3 minutes; and Senator Gregg, 5 minutes.

The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Michigan is recognized.

Mr. Levin: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next three speakers in support of cloture be Senator Ben Nelson, then Senator Warner, and then myself.

The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Nelson (NE): Madam President, this has been called a very unusual occasion for us to come to the floor on a Saturday to vote on a resolution or to vote on any matter, but this is a very special occasion today because we need to vote up or down on this resolution.

I want to make it clear that while it is unusual, I believe it is, in fact, necessary. But I want to make it clear also that I support and prefer the Warner-Nelson-Collins resolution, which sets forth benchmarks and conditions for staying and requirements for the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi Prime Minister to meet in connection with that. But this resolution, while it may be more simplistic, still expresses support for the troops, a very strong statement of support for the troops and what they do, funding for the troops, and continuing to support their needs. It also states an opposition to the surge plan.

The Warner-Nelson-Collins resolution, which I prefer, makes it very clear that the opposition to the surge plan is sending our troops into Baghdad to put them in harm's way between the Sunnis and the Shias and the sectarian violence that has been described as being far worse than a civil war. We do not believe that is the appropriate plan. We have asked in that resolution that the President reconsider, consider all alternatives and other plans that might not put our troops into harm's way in the middle of a civil disobedience and a civil conflagration, as we have seen it. I thank Senators Warner and Collins for their support and the cosponsors of this other resolution that I have referred to.

Today, it is pretty clear there has been much debate about the debate. My friend from Kentucky indicated he is frustrated. We are all frustrated. We are frustrated because it is time to end the charade and move forward to the consideration of the resolution so the Senate can be on record with Senators voting for or against the surge plan.

The American people can see what is happening. They know some want to prevent a vote at all costs. There have been Members complaining about the vote cast a little over a week ago, cast against moving forward. Then they said in the Senate, it is time to have a vote after having voted against having a vote.

It is time to move beyond the debate about the debate and move toward the consideration of this resolution. It is time for the Senators to be on record with the question: Are you for deploying thousands of troops to the crossroads of civil war in Iraq or do you oppose that plan?

This is the second opportunity the Senate has had to allow an up-or- down vote on a resolution on the Iraq surge. Let the Senate debate and vote on this resolution. We owe it to the American people. We owe it to the American people because of the importance of this resolution making clear that we do not support, or that we do support, putting our troops in harm's way in the middle of a civil war or a war that is simply between Shias and Sunnis, Shias and Shias, and other civil groups within the community. We do not have to understand the 1,400 years of this battle to know it is inappropriate to put our troops into the middle where it is impossible to identify the enemy. We put our troops into a situation where they are going to go door to door, hopefully with some support from the Iraqi troops, hopefully with some support from Prime Minister Maliki, hopefully with some support from the Iraqi Government.

In any event, the surge which the President said is going forward will put our troops in that condition and that situation. I, for one, do not believe that is an appropriate use of our troops. I believe today is the opportunity for the Senate to be able to say no, by saying yes to moving forward on this resolution.

I yield the floor.

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Illinois.

Mr. Durbin: Madam President, I make a unanimous-consent request that on the Democratic side, after Senator Levin speaks, the next Senator to speak will be Senator Feinstein.

The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Gregg: Madam President, I reserve the right to object. I ask unanimous consent after Senator Graham speaks on our side that I be recognized in the proper order.

The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. Graham: Madam President, I believe I am recognized for 10 minutes, is that correct?

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator is correct.

Mr. Graham: Madam President, this is billed as an unusual Saturday session where the Senate is working on Saturday. I argue we are not working, we are having a political, theatrical debate that does more harm than good. There are a lot of people working on Saturday; not us. We are trying to jockey for political positioning among ourselves and for 2008. Yet there are people working in Baghdad and Iraq, trying to secure our future against the most violent extremists on the face of the Earth.

To my good friend Senator Nelson, if you think we are in the middle of a civil war, cut off funding. If you believe half of what you are saying in these resolutions, then have the courage of your convictions to stop this war by cutting off funding. But, no, no one wants to do that because they do not know how that will play out at home. Everybody is trying to hedge their bets a little bit, bashing this new effort to secure victory, wanting to be seen in history, I guess, or for the next election, that this was not my idea, this was Bush's fault. Bush is not going to Iraq; 21,500 brave young men and women are going to Iraq behind a general who believes he can win.

This is a low point in my time in the Senate.

Senator Reid said a few weeks ago, Republicans can't run and hide from this debate. Well, I am here. I am not running and hiding from any idea any Senator has. I am not running and hiding from Senator Warner's resolution. I look forward to voting against it and talking about how ill-conceived it is. All I am asking for is a chance for the Senate to play its role in our democracy and not become the House. All I am asking of my fellow colleagues who are certain they are right and want to send a message to our President is they give the courtesy to the others, such as myself, who believe they are dead wrong. And let's have a vote that reflects where the Senate is and not become the House.

What is the Senate? In the Senate you have to get 60 votes to move an idea forward. Do you want to abandon that because of the political moment? I don't. Do you want to abandon your colleagues who have a different view of what we should do? I don't. I have been there on an emotional issue called immigration. There was an effort to shut down debate. I, along with Senator John McCain and several other Senators who were very much for a comprehensive immigration reform, told critics within our caucus, we will not leave you behind.

I am extremely disappointed in our colleagues who want to shut off debate, not understanding whether people such as myself and Senator Gregg will be left behind. I am not afraid of your ideas. I respect the differences we have. I am extremely disappointed you will throw us over. That is not what the Senate is about. The Senate is about a debate on a full range of ideas that shows a difference from the House.

Here is the crux of the matter: The reason we are here on a Saturday playing stupid political games while people are over in Iraq trying to win this war is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are afraid to take a vote on cutting off funding. I believe what happened in the House in a nonbinding fashion is the worst possible situation for this Congress, but it is a precursor to a movement toward bleeding this war dry in terms of funds and cutting off funding. If I am wrong, then let's have a vote on cutting off funding.

The reason we are not going to have a vote on the Judd Gregg resolution, which is a legitimate position, is because 70-plus Senators will vote for it. The overwhelming majority of this Senate understands that cutting off funding at this crucial time in the war on terror in Iraq is ill-advised, but they don't want to be on the record. The reason they don't want to be on the record is because the radical left will eat Democrat 2008 hopefuls' lunch. They will create a fight on that side of monumental proportions between the radical left and the bloggers of the left who want to get out yesterday. That is why we are having a truncated debate.

If Members do believe we are in the middle of a civil war, take the floor and get people out of the middle of the civil war.

This is the politics of abandonment. This is abandoning the role the Senate has played for generations, to make our country stronger, not weaker. This is abandoning colleagues with contrary ideas who are going to be cut off. Unfortunately, these nonbinding resolutions abandon those who are going to the fight voluntarily.

This is a very sad Saturday for the Senate, on the heels of a disaster in the House where a majority, a bare majority of the House, wants to send a political message at a time of war that does not keep one person from being shot at.

I don't know where this thing is going to go. I don't know how it is going to end, but I can promise this: As long as I am in the Senate, I am going to take this Senate and make sure the Senate acts like the Senate. I came to the Senate for a reason. I want to be part of great debates. The way this process will be structured is Members will get cut out. Judd Gregg will get cut out because of the politics of the moment. The 60-vote rule will have meaning in this debate as long as I am here. I hope my colleagues will understand whatever differences we have, no matter how sincere they are, please don't throw us over.

At this moment in time, I will read another resolution of sorts. This is from General Petraeus. He is addressing the coalition forces:

To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Civilians of Multi-National Force--Iraq:

We serve in Iraq at a critical time. The war here will soon enter its fifth year. A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder- to-shoulder with our Iraqi comrades, we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher.

Our task is crucial. Security is essential for Iraq to build its future. Only with security can the Iraqi government come to grips with the tough issues it confronts and develop the capacity to serve its citizens. The hopes of the Iraqi people and the coalition countries are with us.

The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however barbaric. They will do all they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them.

Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our enemies. And together we must prevail.

The way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we must remain steadfast in our effort to help improve security for the Iraqi people. I am confident that each of you will fight with skill and courage, and that you will remain loyal to your comrades-in-arms and to the values our nations hold so dear.

In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to save their country. To do that, many of us will live and fight alongside them. Together, we will face down the terrorists, insurgents, and criminals who slaughter the innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude, and initiative--qualities that you have in abundance.

Do we have those qualities in Congress?

I appreciate your sacrifices and those of your families. Now, more than ever, your commitment to service and your skill can make the difference between victory and defeat in a very tough mission.

It is an honor to soldier again with the members of the Multi-National Force--Iraq. I know that wherever you serve in this undertaking you will give your all. In turn, I pledge my commitment to our mission and every effort to achieve success as we help the Iraqis chart a course to a brighter future.

Godspeed to each of you and to our Iraqi comrades in this crucial endeavor.

I end with this thought: If Members believe this is a lost cause and victory cannot be achieved, that our people are in the middle of a mess, a civil war, and not one person should get injured or killed because we have made huge mistakes that cannot be turned around, then cut off funding. Have a vote on something that matters. This political theater empowers our enemy, disheartens our own troops, is not worthy of the Senate time, and it has never been done in history for a reason.

I yield the floor.

The Acting President pro tempore: The majority whip.

Mr. Durbin: I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Feinstein speaks in support of the motion for cloture, the next person in support of that motion be Senator Schumer of New York for 5 minutes.

The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Virginia.

Mr. Warner: Madam President, I have been privileged to be a Member of the Senate now in my 29th year. Never have I stood in the Senate and in any way impugned the integrity of any Senator to speak as she or he believes from their own heart about what is right. I have never tried to challenge the patriotism of any Senator as they express their views.

I say to my colleagues, I entered this debate simply because I feel the Senate of the United States of America, an institute revered throughout the world, should have the right to go forward and debate this critical issue before America today, before the whole world.

Over a week ago, I voted against cloture to support the rights of all colleagues to be heard. That issue has been back and forth between our two leaders now for some weeks. We have come to the point in time when we must move forward. The only vehicle for those who wish to have this institution move forward and fulfill its goal is to move, today, to vote for cloture. I shall cast that vote, not with a heavy heart but with a heart that I think I am doing right for the integrity of this institution.

I have joined with my good friend Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Collins, and the other cosponsors, Senator Hagel, Senator Snowe, Senator Coleman, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Smith, all of whom, once again, signed onto this amendment, referred to as the Warner-Nelson-Collins amendment.

We do so because we only wish to express a measure of disagreement on one basic point--an important one--with our President. The United States Congress is an independent branch of our Government. We are, as we often say, a coequal branch of our Government. We have the right to respectfully disagree. And we do so in our language. We support the President on the diplomatic aspects of his plan. We support the President on the economic aspects of his plan announced on the 10th of January.

We only disagree with one portion of it: Madam President, do you need 21,500 additional men and women of the Armed Forces in this conflict-- indeed, it is more than that, as was testified before the Armed Services Committee the other day--to go into the streets and the alleys of Baghdad and to face an enemy which is largely today fighting a sectarian war?

This country gave an enormous sacrifice of life and limb to give Iraq its sovereignty. It is the duty of the Iraqi Armed Forces to take on the sectarian fighting. The American GI does not know the language, does not know the historic background of over 1,400 years of dispute between the Sunni and Shia. And we have trained over 300,000 Iraqi forces. Why not give those forces the responsibility to take on this fight?

Our resolution in no way has anything to do with the cutoff of funds. Senators stand up and castigate our resolution and claim it will cutoff funding. It will not cutoff funding to our troops. It supports the President. It supports the present level of all the troops throughout Iraq. It simply says: Mr. President, are there not alternatives other than using the American GI to put down this sectarian violence?

Madam President, I do hope, as we pursue this, we respect one another and our rights in this institution because I feel ever so strongly that our resolution supports the President economically, supports the President diplomatically, states that the President is correct, and clearly states that we cannot let this battle be lost and let the Iraqi Government collapse. We do not wish to see the people of Iraq denied the sovereignty that our blood, sweat, and toil have given them. We stand by the President on that. We simply say: Mr. President, this particular battle in Baghdad is best fought by the Iraqis. I regret to say that a New York Times article--and I asked this in open testimony before the Armed Services Committee a day or so ago to the Chief of Staff of the Army and to the Commandant of the Marine Corps--the accuracy of this report, that in the most recent battle there were 2,500 Americans and 200 Iraqi security forces. That is contrary to what the President said. He said the Iraqis will take the point in this battle. The President also said the Iraqis will bear the burden in this battle, and we would be there in support. This is not support. We are fighting that battle.

Again, this morning, I watched a report, presented by a U.S. general from Iraq, who stated that progress is being made in the battle in Iraq. Time and time again--he referred to the American forces making progress. He referred only to the United States forces fighting that battle, with no reference to the Iraqi forces. That is my point. That is why I steadfastly take this floor and respectfully disagree with the President. I will vote for the Gregg amendment. As a matter of fact, the Gregg amendment is in the Warner amendment.

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator has used 5 minutes.

Mr. Warner: Madam President, I yield the floor.

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. Gregg: Madam President, I believe I am to be recognized for 5 minutes, but I have an additional 5 minutes which Senator Stevens has yielded to me.

The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Gregg: Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, first, my respect for the Senator from Virginia is immense. I have always admired what he does, and I wish we were voting on his resolution. I think it should be up for debate and up for a vote. He is a significant force in this institution for many things which are right. I may have some disagreements with him over time, but I certainly have never questioned anything. I hope no one would. No one should question anybody on anything around here on what our purposes are. Our purposes are the same: to make our country a better and safer place and to make sure we assure a good future for our children.

Let me set the table as to where we are in this debate, however, because one of the essences of this institution has always been it has been a forum where if you have a different idea or a different thought on an issue of substance, you usually get to air it, and you most often get to vote on it. That, of course, is what our Founding Fathers structured this institution for.

Ironically, it was George Washington--not ironically but appropriately--it was George Washington who immediately ascertained the significance of the Senate's role when he said the Senate is the saucer into which the hot coffee is poured. It is the spot where ideas of the day get an airing to make sure they survive the light of day.

Over time, we have developed an institutional understanding in the Senate that unless 60 percent--a majority of the Senate--agrees on an issue of major importance, that issue does not move forward. And equally importantly, we have developed an attitude in the Senate that if there is more than one legitimate view on an issue of significance-- and this is, obviously, an issue of dramatic significance--there will be different views brought to the floor in the form of amendments or resolutions, and they will be debated and they will be voted on.

So what I suggested was an amendment which was not, I felt, all that controversial. In fact, I thought it was in the mainstream of American thought and certainly, hopefully, in the mainstream of the Senate positions. The resolution which I suggested--and I will read it again-- simply states:

It is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the 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.

This should not be controversial. This should be a statement which we as a Congress are willing to make, that when we send a soldier onto the streets of Baghdad or anywhere else where that soldier may incur or be in the way of harm, that soldier will have the support of the American people and the Congress--with the financing, with the equipment, with the logistics they need to do their job well. And it should be a definitive, uncontroversial, un- controverted statement.

Yet in offering this resolution, the Democratic leadership has said they will not entertain it. They will not allow us to vote on it. In fact, they have taken this whole process to a whole new level of trying to manage the activities of the floor of the Senate in a way that the Senate has never been managed in its historical past or should be managed in the context of what the purposes of the Senate are.

The Democratic leader has essentially said we will vote on his amendment--his amendment--and his amendment alone. And, by the way, his amendment has changed three times now. There have been major, substantive changes to his amendment three times. And each time he has said or the leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle has said: That is the amendment we are going to vote on, that is the one that is locked in stone. It shall not be changed. You shall vote on it as a Senate. You shall not be allowed to amend it. You shall not be allowed to put up resolutions that in any other way address the issue.

Well, the first proposal they came out with was not good enough to get enough votes to get to 40 probably, so they changed it. Then they said: This amendment shall be the amendment you will vote on. This amendment shall not be changed. This amendment shall not be amended on the floor of the Senate. There shall not be an amendment that I have proposed or that the Republican membership wants to propose to go up and be debated and voted on also. Then that amendment, it turned out, was not good enough. That happened to be the Warner amendment.

Then the House passed an amendment, and they decided to take the House amendment and say: Now this amendment shall be the amendment which is frozen in stone and which cannot be contravened, cannot be amended, and it shall not have any other amendment offered by the minority, by the Republican side of the aisle that the Republican side of the aisle wishes to propose.

There was one caveat to that, the Senate Democratic leader said: I will be willing to choose an amendment for the Republican side of the aisle to propose. I, as Democratic leader, shall choose the Republican amendment that is brought to the floor to be debated.

Well, obviously that, on the face of it, does not pass the test of fairness or even the test of how the Senate should run, even under a confined system as this is. The actual way we should proceed in this manner, in this situation, is that there should be at least four amendments on the floor because there are four major ideas floating around here.

There is the idea that came over from the House. There is Senator Warner's proposal. There is Senator McCain's proposal. Then there is my proposal. Every one of these is substantive, thoughtful, I believe. Maybe I am assuming too much for mine. But for everybody else's, there are substantive, thoughtful ideas that should be debated on the floor of the Senate, and they should each be allowed a vote.

But the Democratic leadership has said no, there shall be no vote on anything other than their new proposal--which is now the House proposal, their third machination of what they are going to do--and another proposal which they will choose from the Republican side of the aisle.

Well, that clearly fails on all levels. Substantively it fails the rules of the Senate as they have traditionally been used. And as a matter of fairness, it fails the issue of being fair to people who have a legitimate viewpoint. More importantly, it fails the American people and the troops who are in the field because it does not allow us as a Senate to effectively debate and vote on proposals which would address the various issues raised by the situation in Iraq.

So we on our side are saying we shall assert our rights. There are, after all, at least 40 Members of the Republican Party--and I suspect quite a few more--who believe that we, as Members of the Republican party, as Members of the minority, have a right to offer an amendment of our choosing, and that it should be voted on, especially since we are debating nonbinding amendments.

Equally important, I think it is probably appropriate to analyze: Why would the Democratic leadership not want to vote on the resolution I just outlined? Why would they not want to do something such as that? Why would they not want a vote on a resolution which states unequivocally that when we send our soldiers--our men and women--into harm's way, we are going to give them the support they need to do the mission they are assigned to do and to remain safe?

I suspect it is because that amendment which I have propounded, that proposal, that resolution would actually get significantly more than a supermajority in this body, significantly more than any other of the three items that have been discussed--the McCain proposal, the Warner proposal, or the House proposal--and that they would perceive that as an embarrassment on their side, which I believe shows this is not about the substance of the issue of how you address the war in Iraq, this is about the politics of how the amendment brought to the floor is perceived in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the other panoply of national press groups that are basically trying to claim a victory over not our efforts in Iraq but over the President.

The fact that they would not allow us to bring forward an amendment which they know will receive a supermajority and more votes than their amendment--and which is so forthright in its statement of what it does, and which is so appropriate to the issue of what we are doing in Iraq, which is that we should be supporting our troops who have been sent into harm's way--is a reflection of the politicalness of this process, not the substance of the process. It is regrettable.

We will continue to insist that this amendment, which is reasonable, be voted on. We should not allow the frustration--and I recognize there is a tremendous amount of frustration about the war in Iraq. I have a lot of frustration about the war in Iraq. Everybody does around here. You could not but have that about what is happening there. But we should not allow that frustration to be taken out on our troops in the field. There will be endless claims that the House language that has come over to us----

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator has used 10 minutes.

Mr. Gregg: I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

The Acting President pro tempore: Is there objection?

Mr. Levin: Madam President, would this come out of the opposition's time?

Mr. Gregg: Yes.

Mr. Craig: We have several on our side. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from New Hampshire.

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator may resume.

Mr. Gregg: The House language is totally inconsistent on the issue of whether it supports the troops. It says on the one hand that it does, and it says on the other hand that it doesn't support their mission. You can't do both of those things together.

I will submit for the Record an editorial from the Wall Street Journal which reflects that fact. I appreciate the courtesy from the Senator from Idaho in granting me another minute. It truly is San Francisco sophistry, the language in the House resolution. In my opinion, it cannot be claimed to be consistent. The only consistent statement of support for the troops is the language of my amendment. That is why I believe it should be voted on.

I ask unanimous consent to print the editorial to which I referred in the Record.

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