---

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Michigan.

Mr. Levin: Madam President, we have been bogged down in Iraq for nearly 4 years, which is longer than the Korean conflict or our involvement in World War II. The war has cost more than 3,100 American lives, seven times that many wounded, and about $400 billion. We desperately need to change course. Shifting responsibility to the Iraqi political leaders to reach a political settlement is the only hope of ending the violence. That is why the Iraq Study Group urged less U.S. military involvement as they concluded:

An open-ended commitment of American forces would not provide the Iraqi government the incentive that it needs to take the political actions that give Iraq the best chance of quelling sectarian violence. In the absence of such an incentive, the Iraqi government might continue to delay taking those difficult actions.

But instead of putting pressure on Iraqi leaders to settle their political differences as the only hope of a successful outcome in Iraq, the President would get us in deeper militarily. The Iraqis didn't ask for more U.S. troops to occupy their neighborhoods in Baghdad. Indeed, they suggested we move out of Baghdad. The idea for this so-called surge of American troops in Baghdad was ours. It may be called a surge, but I believe it is a plunge, a plunge into a sectarian caldron, a plunge into the unknown and perhaps the unknowable.

Supporters of the surge argue that a Senate resolution disagreeing with the President's plan "emboldens the enemy," but that is an extraordinarily naive view of the enemy. What emboldens the sectarian fighters is the inability of the Iraqi leaders to make political compromises so essential to finally reining in the Sunni insurgents and the Shia militias. The enemy cares little what Congress says. It is emboldened by what the Iraqi leaders don't do. The enemy isn't emboldened by congressional debate. It is emboldened by the open-ended occupation of a Muslim country by western troops. The enemy is emboldened by the current course which has seen a million Iraqis leave the country and become refugees, with thousands more leaving daily. The enemy is emboldened by years of blunders and bravado, false assumptions, wishful thinking, and ignorance of the history of the land being occupied. The enemy is emboldened by an administration which says it is changing course, which acknowledges that a political settlement by Iraqi leaders is essential to ending the violence but then plunges us more deeply militarily into a sectarian witch's brew.

The only hope of ending the violence and succeeding against the enemies of an Iraqi nation is if the leaders of that nation work out their political differences and unite against forces that would destroy any chance of nationhood. That takes political will. That takes pressure from us. Sending more U.S. troops takes the pressure off. It sends the false message that we can save the Iraqis from themselves. Sending more troops does what our CENTCOM commander, John Abizaid, warned about when he said:

It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do the work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.

Does speaking out against the surge undermine our troops? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Peter Pace, firmly answered that argument just last week when he said the following:

ere's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy--period … From the standpoint of our troops, I believe that they understand how our legislature works and that they understand that there's going to be this kind of debate.

Just last week, Secretary Gates answered the charge that our debate hurts troop morale when he said these words:

I think that our troops do understand that everybody involved in this debate is looking to do the right thing for our country and for our troops, and that everybody is looking for the best way to avoid an outcome that leaves Iraq in chaos. And I think they're sophisticated enough to understand that that's what the debate's really about. I think they understand that that debate's being carried on by patriotic people who care about them and who care about their mission.

We owe our troops everything: equipment, training, adequate rest, support of them and their family. We also owe them our honest assessment.

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

Mr. Levin: I wonder if I could be yielded 30 additional seconds.

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

Mr. Levin: The majority of the American people believe that a deeper military involvement in Iraq won't make success more likely. I believe a majority of Senators feel the same way. I hope the majority will be allowed to so vote. If we believe plunging into Baghdad neighborhoods with more American troops will not increase chances of success, we are dutybound to say so, and a minority of Senators should not thwart that expression. We owe that to the troops. We owe that to their families, and we owe that to the American people.

I yield the floor.

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Idaho.

Mr. Craig: Madam President, under a unanimous consent request, I have asked for 5 minutes. I will use one of those and yield the remaining 4 to the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a statement by the American Legion, the largest veterans organization in this country. I will only quote its last paragraph:

The American Legion and the American people find this to be a totally unacceptable approach and we will do everything within our power to ensure that our troops are not used as political pawns by a Congress that lacks the will to win.

I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. Craig: I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. Hutchison: Madam President, the first reason to vote no on this motion to proceed is that we have no ability to amend or an alternative that would be allowed by the majority to reflect a different point of view. When I hear people on the other side say don't let the minority thwart the efforts of the majority, what the majority is saying is we only want one resolution, our resolution. Whatever happened to amendments? Whatever happened to the ability to have alternative resolutions?

This is the tenth time in this very short period that this Congress has been in session that cloture has been used to stifle minority rights. It is unprecedented in this body. I hope we will go to a time when the Senate will be able to work together in a bipartisan way, agree and disagree civilly, have the ability to exercise minority rights, and then have a majority vote. We don't have to have only one procedure that allows for one view but does not allow for alternatives and amendments. That is not the way the Senate is supposed to operate.

The second reason to vote no on this motion is the resolution itself. The resolution says we support the troops who are there now and the troops who were there in the past but not those who will come in the future. Presumably the majority is saying that we will not support future troops because they don't support the President's plan. But troops who are rotating in to replace troops leaving would also not be supported. Since when do we select which members of the armed services we will support and which ones we will not in the middle of a mission? It is untenable on its face. We should never allow this flawed resolution to go forward without any alternative and without any amendments.

The third reason we should use every procedural avenue to derail this resolution is, we are undercutting the Commander in Chief and the troops who are on the mission right now. This is a rare departure for the Senate to undercut a mission of our military while troops are in harm's way performing the mission with a nonbinding resolution. The purpose of doing this can only be to undercut the Commander in Chief to the rest of the world because it will not stop the mission itself.

As was said earlier today, there is not a Member of the Senate who doesn't believe this is a risky proposition. It is. We are all worried about it. I have talked to General Petraeus about it, as have many of my colleagues. How, General Petraeus, do you see this working? He is the commander and he is the one who is putting this proposal together to fight a type of war we have never had to fight before, with an enemy that is willing to kill themselves in order to kill Americans and innocent Iraqis.

We have had to adjust; there is no doubt about it. I don't think anybody is saying that we believe we are in a good situation in Iraq. But the idea that we would pass a nonbinding resolution which undercuts our troops who are valiantly performing the mission is something I cannot remember that we have ever done.

I will quote from the Senate Armed Services hearing when Senator Lieberman asked General Petraeus if such a resolution, a nonbinding resolution condemning the strategy, would give the enemy encouragement, some clear expression that the American people were divided. General Petraeus answered: "That is correct, sir."

Yes, the American people are divided. It is a very different matter for the Senate to pass a resolution with no alternative that says we support the troops who are there now and the ones who served in the past but not those who will be coming after the resolution is passed. It is unthinkable.

I hope we will come to our senses. I hope we will be able to talk freely, to debate but not to pass a resolution that says to the world, to our enemies, as well as our allies, we do not have faith in those who would go to perform a mission going forward, faith in the military who created this plan.

I hope the Senate doesn't pass this. I hope we will have an agreement that will allow alternatives, as we have always done since I have been in the Senate, and many years before me. I hope our leaders will be able to sit down and craft a resolution that opens the process so that everyone will have a voice, not just a few in the majority. Maybe it is 51. Maybe it is 52. Maybe it is 53. But we should have 41 Senators standing up for an alternative resolution that would allow other people to have the ability to vote for the support of our troops, whether they are there now, whether they were there in the past, or whether they will be there in the future. That is the difference between this resolution the majority is trying to get passed without any alternative or any amendment, and what we would put forward, which is to say: We will support all the troops today or tomorrow, and we will win this war, for there is no substitute for victory, if our children are going to live in freedom.

I yield the floor.

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries)

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

(The remarks of Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 3 are located in today's Record under "Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.")

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from New York is recognized.

Mr. Schumer: Madam President, we have seen 4 years of obfuscation on Iraq from the White House and from previous leadership in this Senate. Those days are over this afternoon. Every Senator is going to have to step to the plate and say where he or she stands. The other side has tried to design resolutions where they can duck, they can avoid, and they don't tell their constituencies how they feel. Those days are over.

That is why this cloture vote is a crucial vote, not just for the moment or the week but for the history of America because today's vote is not on other aspects of what is going on in Iraq or Iran but simply this: Are you for or against the escalation? Plain and simple.

There should be a simple vote, not as an end to this debate but as a beginning of this debate. The minority is tying itself into pretzels so there will not be a vote. They are torn between their President's policy and the wishes of their constituents. But vote they must. If they avoid the vote this afternoon, their constituents will know exactly what they are doing.

On the policy, the President's escalation is misguided, to put it kindly. There is no change in strategy. We are policing a civil war in Iraq--something no one talked about 2 years ago, something no one bargained for. Our brave young men and women, whom we so support, are standing in the crossfire between Shiites and Sunnis. This is not a fight against terrorism; this is a civil war, and there have been, unfortunately, thousands of them throughout history. American troops should not be in the middle of that war.

The President doesn't change the policy; he simply adds more troops to continue this misguided policy. That is why the majority of this Senate, and the overwhelming majority of the American people, are so opposed to this escalation, and we will vote on it this afternoon. But make no mistake about it, this is just the first step. It is just the first step. This is a process. Some of my friends and colleagues wish-- and maybe we do, too--that there could be a silver bullet, one resolution that could either end the escalation or even end the war. But there is not. The way our Constitution is structured, this Government, you need two-thirds to overcome a certain Presidential veto, when we do our next resolution with teeth.

So our job here, which this resolution begins, is to ratchet up the pressure on the President, on those who are still on his side in terms of this policy until they change. We will be relentless. There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment, all forcing this body to do what it has not done in the previous 3 years--debate and discuss Iraq. And we believe that as that debate continues and as this process unfolds, just like in the days of Vietnam, the pressure will mount and the President will find he has no strategy. He will have to change his strategy, and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm's way and come home.

So, Madam President, today is the beginning of a historic period, where for the first time in a while Congress debates foreign policy in Iraq and Congress tries to do something about foreign policy in Iraq.

To the brave men and women who are defending us today, whom we so support, thank you for your service, thank you for protecting us. We will continue to live by what the Constitution has asked us to do, which is to debate the issues and come up with what is best for our soldiers, for America, and for the world.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. Biden: Madam President, do I have 5 minutes?

The Acting President pro tempore: Yes, the Senator has 5 minutes.

Mr. Biden: Madam President, today, the Senate has an opportunity--and a responsibility--to begin to end the escalation of the war in Iraq and to start us toward a new strategy for leaving Iraq without leaving chaos behind.

Our responsibility is to debate and vote on the resolution passed by the House of Representatives that says that Congress disapproves of the President's plan to deploy more than 20,000 additional American combat troops to Iraq.

The question before us today is whether a miniority of Senators will even allow the debate to start. That is what we are about to vote on.

To my colleagues who are thinking about trying to block debate, let me say this: Iraq dominates our national life. It is on the minds of tens of millions of Americans. It shapes the lives of hundreds of thousands of our men and woman in uniform and their families.

That the Senate would not even debate, much less vote on, the single most urgent issue of our time, would be a total failure of our responsibility.

We have a duty to debate and vote on the President's plan. We have a duty to debate and vote on our overall strategy in Iraq. We have to demonstrate the courage of our convictions.

Last month, Secretary of State Rice presented the President's plan for Iraq to the Foreign Relations Committee. Its main feature is to send more American troops into Baghdad, in the middle of a sectarian civil war.

The reaction on the committee, from Republicans and Democrats alike, ranged from skepticism to profound skepticism to outright opposition. And that pretty much reflects the reaction across the country.

Every Senator should be given a chance to vote whether he or she approves or disagrees with the President's plan to send more troops into the middle of a civil war.

The debate I hope that we will have is as important as the vote.

I predict the American people will hear very few of our colleagues stand up and support the President's plan to send more troops into the middle of a civil war. Listen to those voices.

Some minimize the significance of a nonbinding resolution. If it is so meaningless, why did the White House and the President's political supporters mobilize so much energy against it? Why is a minority of Senators trying to prevent the Senate from talking about it?

Opposing the surge is only a first step. We need a radical change in course in Iraq.

If the President won't act, Congress must.

But Congress must act responsibly. We must resist the temptation to push for changes that sound good but produce bad results.

The best next step is to revisit the authorization Congress granted the President in 2002 to use force in Iraq.

We gave the President that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein.

The WMD were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq.

Legislation I'm working on would repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq.

Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to responsibly draw down, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies.

We should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war.

Coupled with the Biden-Gelb plan that offers the possibility of a political settlement in Iraq, I believe this is the most effective way to start bringing our troops home without leaving a mess behind.

But for today, my message is simple: the American people want us to debate Iraq, the most important issue of our day. They expect it. They demand it.

If we try to hide behind procedure and delaying tactics, the American people will hold us accountable.

They get it. The question is: do we?

Madam President, again, today we have the opportunity to do something we have not done on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the last 4 years; that is, to actually debate Iraq. This is the first opportunity we are going to have to do that. I know a number of people say: This is not binding, so why are we doing it? If it doesn't matter, why is there such an effort to keep us from talking about it, an effort to continue to fight us in being able to do this?

Madam President, I say to my colleagues that if we fail to invoke cloture here, we are not permitted to debate this issue, and I don't know what it says to the American people about what we are all about. I don't know whether anybody has noticed, but the American public is seized with this issue. It is the issue. It is the issue everybody is discussing at the kitchen table. It is the issue every man, woman, husband, wife, mother, and father with someone in the National Guard or in the U.S. military is talking about. It is the issue. The Senate is being silenced on it, even being prevented from debating whether we can talk about making a simple statement that: Mr. President, you are wrong; don't escalate this war.

The truth is, our voices, quite frankly, are as important as our votes. The President will find, if we have a full-blown debate on the floor of the Senate, there are precious few people on this floor who think he is handling this war correctly. Instead of escalating the war, we should be drawing down our forces. I predict the American people hear, as I said, very few of our colleagues talking about what a good idea this is, what the President has in mind. So to echo the comments made by my colleague from New York, if, in fact, we are precluded from even debating the issue of whether we oppose the President's escalation of the war, surely you are going to see more coming to the floor.

I have been working with the Senator from Massachusetts and others on a piece of legislation that would literally rescind the President's authority--the authority we gave him to go to war in the first place-- and redefine the mission very narrowly.

Look, there is going to be a lot of discussion, whether we debate today or not, on Iraq. There is going to be a lot of discussion about what to do next. It will range from cutting off funding, to capping troops, to a number of other proposals. The truth is, we are being presented with a false choice up to now. We are either told we have to stay the course and escalate the war or the other choice is to bring our troops home and hope for the best.

The truth is that none of this will matter. We are going to have to bring everybody home if they don't get a political solution in Iraq. There is only one: a federal system. Listen to what their Constitution says. Even the National Intelligence Estimate, the estimate of all of the intelligence agencies, says--and I am paraphrasing it--that the Sunnis have to accept regionalism and the Kurds and Shias have to give the Sunnis a bigger piece of the action in order for them to do that.

I point out to everybody, when civil wars begin in other countries, there are only a few things that stop them: One side wins and there is carnage; two, an occupying force stays there indefinitely; or, three, you end up in a situation where they have a federal state.

The President should get about the business of pursuing not a military solution here but a political solution. He should be calling an international conference, getting all of the parties in a room, as we did in Dayton, convincing our allies and the region that the only outcome that has any possibility of surviving is the federal state, as their Constitution calls for.

I conclude by saying that the American people expect--quite frankly, I think they demand--that we start to intelligently debate this subject rather than doing it by way of talk shows and Sunday appearances on TV. We should be debating on this floor.

I yield the floor.

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. Byrd: Madam President, over 3,000 Americans are dead--dead, dead--and over 23,000 Americans are wounded as a result of the war in Iraq. Our military leaders say that our Armed Forces are stretched almost to the breaking point. We have spent almost $400 billion, and the number continues to go up, up, up. But the United States Senate is mired incredibly in a debate about the ability even to have a debate about our Nation's future course in Iraq. Surely, no one in this Senate can be so fearful of debate on a nonbinding resolution concerning the President's plan to send some 40,000 additional troops to Iraq that they fail to hear the voices of over 70 percent of the American people out there who now oppose our involvement in this war. But apparently some in the Senate are afraid of such a debate.

Some of my colleagues have indicated that they will vote against the motion to proceed to debate on this straightforward resolution, which expresses disagreement with the President's plan. While our brave fighting men and women put their lives on the line in Iraq, this Senate stands paralyzed--paralyzed, paralyzed, I say. The United States Senate--the greatest deliberative body in the whole world--is probably the only place in this wonderful land of America where this debate is not--is not--taking place.

How can some express unwavering support for the troops if they quake in the face of a debate about their safety? Our troops are stretched thin. They are weary after deployment and redeployment. Post-traumatic stress disorder and mental problems--yes--are rife in the troops. Lost limbs and physical mutilation have scarred many of these young people for life. Scores of families weep--yes, they weep--every night for their lost loved ones. And yet many in this Senate claim to support the troops, while those same many steadfastly refuse to debate an ill- advised escalation--yes, an ill-advised escalation--of this war which almost nobody but nobody supports.

Can one claim support for the troops while acquiescing in a policy that only sinks our forces deeper into a civil war? Can any of us look in the mirror while we stonewall the concerns of the American people and engage in some political fandango to prevent discussion of our engagement in Iraq?

Madam President, if it will help to bring our soldiers home, I will work every Saturday for the rest of this Congress. I will stand here, right here on this floor, of this Senate every day, 24 hours every day if it would mean one less family without a son or a daughter. Hear me.

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

Mr. Byrd: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 2 minutes.

Mr. Stevens: Reserving the right to object, what happens to the time I am allocated under those circumstances?

The Acting President pro tempore: The time for the Senator will be reserved. Is there objection?

Mr. Byrd: Nothing, I say to my friend. I would not see anything happen to the Senator's time.

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

Mr. Byrd: Madam President, this is the most important issue facing America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I stand with my colleagues today to say enough, enough stalling, enough obfuscation. It is time for the people of America--yes, you people out there in the mountains, the valleys, and across the rivers, across the mountain ranges, yes, the great Rockies--you people, it is time for you to know where every Senator stands on this war.

I will cast my vote with pride this afternoon, Madam President, in favor of proceeding to this debate, and I hope that every one of my colleagues joins me.

I yield the floor and thank the Chair.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Alaska.

Mr. Stevens: Madam President, with great respect for my friend from West Virginia, the reason we are here is because the new majority refuses to debate. They refuse to allow us to take up the amendments that should be considered during this debate.

We have before us now a proposal drafted by the Rules Committee of the House, presented to the House without debate and brought to us without debate, and we are told we are to be limited on the number of amendments that will be considered to this measure.

It is an important subject to be debated, but why Saturday? This is the start of the President's Day recess that was announced 6 weeks ago. In order to try to embarrass the Members of this side--21 of us up for reelection--the leadership decided to have this debate today on a nonbinding resolution, which wouldn't accomplish anything, wouldn't bring any troops home, wouldn't announce our support for the troops, just to see whether we come back to vote.

The real problem is how do we get together in a Senate that has a majority of one? Do we do it on the basis that every time something comes from the House we are to be told no amendments will be in order? We can't debate this question of whether we support the troops? We can't support any other amendment to this resolution? We are to take the matter that came from the House without debate from the Rules Committee? It was not changed all the way through the House.

How many Senators on that side want to be a rubberstamp for the House? That is what you are starting. This is the third bill to come before us with the idea of no minority amendments are going to be considered unless the leadership on that side decides they should be considered.

Again, I tell you, Madam President, this is a defining moment of the Senate. This is a debating society. We should not be limited on the number of amendments that are considered, any more than we are limited on the CR.

When I became chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 2001, there were 11 bills pending that had not been passed by the former majority. We brought them before the Senate in an omnibus bill, and every single bill was considered, one by one.

What did we do this time? We had one resolution which came over from the House, and we passed it without any amendments. That is a formula for the death of the Senate. There are people in this country who think we should have a unicameral legislature.

Mr. Byrd: I don't.

Mr. Stevens: I share the Senator's opinion because I would like to debate him on some of these subjects but not on a nonbinding resolution. Let's bring up a resolution that supports the troops.

I directly contradict my good friend from West Virginia. The American people support our troops in the field----

Mr. Byrd: Yes.

Mr. Stevens: ----and do not want us challenging them and trying to find some way to deviate money from their support or deny them the support they deserve. I would love to stand here and talk for hours and hours with my friend about how to support the troops. You don't do it by asking them to disobey the President of the United States. You don't do it by urging the Senate and the House not to support the President of the United States. You do it by trying to get together and working on a bipartisan basis to solve our problems.

None of us like war. I said the other day I hate war. I have been involved in the consideration of too many wars in my life, but clearly those people wearing our uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan need to know we support them 100 percent, and we don't stand here and talk about how we should find ways so they would not get their support, so we force the President of the United States to bring them home.

We will bring them home with the new commander there and the new plan we are going to put into effect, a plan that requires a surge for the safety of the people there, to move in the country to carry out the plan.

I support the President, and I urge the Senate to do the same.

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator's time has expired.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. Byrd: Madam President, how long may I be recognized for? Two minutes?

The Acting President pro tempore: Time has expired.

Mr. Byrd: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes.

The Acting President pro tempore: Is there objection?

Mr. McConnell: Reserving the right to object, we all deeply respect Senator Byrd, but we are on a tight timeframe. I don't know how many minutes are left on that side.

The Acting President pro tempore: Two minutes remain for the previous unanimous consent.

Mr. McConnell: I was to be recognized at 1:25 p.m., and it is now 1:27 p.m.; is that correct?

The Acting President pro tempore: The order was delayed by intervening orders.

Mr. McConnell: There is some time at least remaining on the other side. I leave it up to my good friend, the majority whip, to sort that out.

The Acting President pro tempore: The majority whip is recognized.

Mr. Durbin: Madam President, I thought we had 3 minutes remaining; is that correct?

The Acting President pro tempore: One minute has been consumed. There is 2 minutes remaining.

Mr. Durbin: Since Senator Kennedy has asked for 1 minute, I will yield the 1 minute I requested to the Senator from West Virginia so each of the remaining two will speak--Senator Kennedy for 1 minute and Senator Byrd for 1 minute.

Mr. Byrd: Madam President, I thank our distinguished friend from Illinois. And I thank my longtime friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.

I only rise to say that I have a binding resolution to bring our troops home. I hope to see the day when we may vote on my resolution to bring American troops home--home, home.

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. Kennedy: All of us remember the elections. All of us remember President Bush saying: I am going to take my time and find a new direction.

Mr. Byrd: Yes.

Mr. Kennedy: All of us remember he said: Do not rush me. I want to talk to the generals. I want to talk to political leaders. I want to talk to people all over this country and all over the world to find out a new policy.

Then he comes out with this policy. And what is it? It is a military policy to escalate in Iraq.

Mr. Byrd: Right.

Mr. Kennedy: That is the issue before the U.S. Senate. Many of us do not believe that this President is right on it. The Baker-Hamilton commission did not agree with that policy. General Abizaid did not agree with that policy before the Armed Services Committee. And the American people don't.

We on this side are interested in protecting American servicemen from the crossfire of a civil war. Some on the other side are more interested in protecting the President from a rebuke for his policy of escalation in Iraq.

The Acting President pro tempore: The Senator's time has expired.

The Republican leader is recognized.

Mr. McConnell: Madam President, 5 weeks ago, President Bush stood before the American people and acknowledged--acknowledged--the lack of progress in Iraq. He outlined a new military strategy that was devised after consultation with military commanders, national security leaders, and Members of Congress from both parties. He told us he had committed more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq to clear and secure the city of Baghdad and to protect its population.

As we meet today, the first of five waves of soldiers are carrying out this plan on the streets and in the alleys of Baghdad; the second is preparing to leave. These reinforcements have already given us reasons for hope. Soon after the President's announcement, U.S. Iraqi forces began to route key elements of the Mahdi army, the militia's leader fled his stronghold, and this week U.S. Iraqi forces have conducted sweeps through once violent Sunni neighborhoods with little resistance.

It is too early to say whether the surge will achieve its objective, but General Petraeus and President Bush ask us to give the plan a chance to work, to support our troops in the field and those on their way. Until now, we have done that. Today--today--we are being asked to do something entirely different.

The majority party in the Senate wants to vote on a resolution that condemns the President's plan and which disagrees with General Petraeus who said before he left for Iraq that additional troops are an essential part of achieving our goal. They are doing this 3 weeks after voting, without dissent, to send General Petraeus on this mission. And they are doing it in the form of a nonbinding resolution that will have no practical effect on the conduct of the war.

Americans have a right to demand why the Senate has not yet taken a clear stand on what most of us believe to be our last best chance at success. So let us be clear at the outset of this debate about what is going on today and about what Republicans are fighting for today.

Republicans are fighting for the right of the American people to know where we stand. If you support the war, say so. If you don't, say so. But you cannot say you are registering a vote in favor of our troops unless you pledge to support them with the funds they need to carry out their mission. Yet this is precisely--precisely--what the Democratic majority would have us do today.

They demand Republicans cast a vote in favor of a nonsensical proposition that says we disapprove of the President's plan to deploy more troops to Iraq, but we support the members of the Armed Forces who are serving there. A vote in support of the troops that is silent on the question of funds is an attempt to have it both ways. So Republicans are asking for an honest and open debate, and we are being blocked at every turn.

The majority party in the House has a stronger hand in determining what comes up for a vote. So yesterday they forced a vote on the same stay-the-course resolution that Democrats are now trying to put before the Senate. Democrats have been clear about the strategy behind this resolution. They describe it as a slow bleed, a way of tying the hands of the Commander in Chief. The House said yesterday that it supports the troops. Yet its leadership is preparing to deny the reinforcements that those troops will need in the weeks and months ahead.

The Senate was created to block that kind of dealing, and today it stops at the doors of this Chamber. Even opponents of the war denounce the tactics of the Democratic leadership.

In an editorial today, the New York Times, amazingly enough, called yesterday's House vote a "clever maneuver to dress up a reduction in troop strength as a 'support the troops' measure." Adding, "It takes no courage or creativity," said the New York Times, "for a politician to express continuing support for the troops and opposition to a vastly unpopular and unpromising military escalation."

The Washington Post was rightly appalled in an editorial this morning by the slow-bleed strategy, calling it "a crude hamstringing of the military commanders and their ability to deploy troops." The Post exposed the details of Mr. Murtha's plan to add language to a war- funding bill that would strangle the President's ability to get reinforcements to soldiers in the field all under the guise of having them better prepared.

"Why," the Post asks, "doesn't Mr. Murtha strip the money out of the appropriations bill? Something he is clearly free to do." Good question. And the astonishing answer comes from Mr. Murtha's own lips. "What we are saying," Congressman Murtha says, "will be very hard to find fault with."

There is no place for this kind of chicanery at a time of war. Even some of the President's most strident opponents know that. They know the only vote that truly matters is a vote on whether to fund the troops. That is the vote House Republicans were denied yesterday. That is the vote Senate Republicans and a growing number of clear-eyed observers on both sides of this issue are demanding today. Let those of us who support the President's plan to win in Iraq say so. Let those who oppose it also say so.

We will not be forced to vote for a resolution that says we support the troops but does not ask us to seal that pledge with a promise to help them carry out their mission in the only way they can, which is by funding their mission.

Madam President, has my time expired?

The Acting President pro tempore: The minority leader has 4 minutes remaining.

Mr. McConnell: Madam President, let me additionally say that Senate Republicans have been trying to have this debate now for several weeks. We expected to have it week before last. We insist, however, on having the debate in the Senate in the way debates are always carried out in the Senate, in a fair and evenhanded way.

Our good friends on the other side of the aisle initially supported the Biden proposal, which came out of the Foreign Relations Committee. When that appeared not to have enough support, they adopted the Warner- Levin proposal. When that appeared to be inconvenient, they switched again and now support, I guess, what best can be called the Pelosi-Reid proposal, which they are attempting to get before the Senate today.

All along the way, for the last few weeks, Senate Republicans have been consistent in asking for a fair debate, and a fair debate includes, at the very least, one alternative supported by a majority of Senate Republicans. The one alternative we settled on was Senator Gregg's proposal to guarantee that we support funding for the troops. This fundamental unfairness and unwillingness to allow the Senate to vote on arguably the most significant issue confronting the troop surge, which is whether it is going to be funded, is the reason this stalemate has occurred.

I am optimistic, and I certainly hope that Senate Republicans will continue to insist on fair treatment in debating what is clearly, unambiguously, the most important issue confronting the country today.

Madam President, I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.

The Acting President pro tempore: The majority leader is recognized.

Mr. Reid: Madam President, we all know it is rare for the Senate to hold a Saturday vote, but the issue before us is too important to wait. There are challenges facing America today, but there is no greater challenge facing America today than finding a new direction in Iraq.

Every Senator in this Chamber has a responsibility and an obligation to say whether they support or oppose the President's plan to escalate the war. Yesterday the House of Representatives acted, 246 to 180, no escalation. Now it is the turn of this body, the Senate, to give advice to the President that he is wrong in sending tens of thousands more American soldiers to a civil war in far away Iraq.

In a few moments, a vote will occur on a straightforward resolution which simply states that we support our troops and oppose escalation of the intractable Iraq war. My colleagues on the other side of this Senate Chamber, colleagues who blocked an Iraq debate last week, have a choice to make. Do they intend to join the American people in opposing more of the same in Iraq or do they intend to continue to give the President a green light to escalate the war? Let the debate proceed. Let the Senate express its views on the issue of our time.

This month, the Iraq war has cost the lives of three American soldiers every day, putting us on pace for the bloodiest February since the war began. It is threatening our Nation's strategic interests and risking our Nation's security. Today, America has lost 3,133 soldiers in the streets and highways of a place called Iraq.

Mr. Byrd: Shame.

Mr. Reid: We have seen tens of thousands more wounded. The war has strained our military and depleted our Treasury of almost $500 billion.

The Iraqis are dying at a rate of 100 a day in a vicious sectarian civil war. Two million Iraqis have left their own country.

By every measure, the administration's failures have put us into a deep hole in Iraq. Yet the President's new old plan--escalation, more of the same--won't get us out of the hole. It will only dig the hole deeper.

Our generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the Iraqis themselves have told us that escalation will only make Iraq worse, intensify our costs, and require even greater sacrifices from the American troops, many of whom are being sent to Baghdad today without the proper armor and proper equipment and the training they need.

On this issue--escalation, more of the same--the Senate must speak. The Senate, on behalf of the American people, must make it clear to the Commander in Chief that he no longer has a rubberstamp. We must show the American people that the Senate heard their message last November 7, and we, as Senators, are fighting for a new direction for the 134,000 troops already in Iraq and the 48,000 additional troops the President would send.

The Senate owes as much to these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. We must proceed with this debate and change the course of a war that has raged going into 5 years now.

I know some would like to cloud the debate. I know some would like to delay the debate. I know some would like to have a different debate. I know some would like to have no debate. Most of the Republican minority wishes to protect President Bush from an embarrassing vote. They are trying to divert attention from the issue at hand. They would like to turn the Senate into a procedural quagmire. They want to hide behind weak and misleading arguments about the Senate's rules or a Senator's right to offer amendments. These arguments are diversions.

Today's vote is about more than procedure. It is an opportunity to send a powerful message: The Senate will no longer sit on the sidelines while our troops police an ugly civil war in a nation far away. The issue before America today is escalation. The issue before the Senate today is escalation. That is why the Senate's responsibility must be to vote on escalation and whether the so-called surge is supported or opposed.

This is the choice: More war or less war. I applaud the courage of a few hardy Republicans who will vote cloture and allow this vote to occur.

As I said, most of the Republican minority wish to protect President Bush from this vote. They intend to vote for what is best for their political party. But as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy said, "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much."

Today in the Senate, Republican party loyalty asks too much. In the Senate this Saturday, this February 17, today is the time for Senators to vote for openness, for transparency, to show their constituents in all 50 States: Do our Senators support or oppose sending 48,000 more United States soldiers and marines into the darkness of Iraq?

During the week we heard speeches about supporting our troops. The best way to support the troops is to ensure they have a strategy that will let them complete their mission so they can come home. We need a new direction in Iraq. Escalation is not the answer. More of the same is not the answer. The answer is to tell the President: Not more war but less war.

I urge my colleagues to vote cloture and thus vote to change course in this bloody war now raging 7,500 miles from this Senate Chamber and our beloved United States Capitol.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

The Acting President pro tempore: Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to S. 574, a bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.

Ben Nelson, Russell D. Feingold, Ben Cardin, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Byron L. Dorgan, Amy Klobuchar, Daniel K. Akaka, Maria Cantwell, John Kerry, Ken Salazar, Jack Reed, Chuck Schumer, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Tom Harkin, Jay Rockefeller, Harry Reid.

The Acting President pro tempore: By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to S. 574, a bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq, shall be brought to a close?

The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. Durbin: I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. Lott: The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted "nay."

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska): Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 34, as follows:

Roll No.
YEAS--56
Akaka	Baucus	Bayh	Biden	Bingaman
Boxer	Brown	Byrd	Cantwell	Cardin
Carper	Casey	Clinton	Coleman	Collins
Conrad	Dodd	Dorgan	Durbin	Feingold
Feinstein	Hagel	Harkin	Inouye	Kennedy
Kerry	Klobuchar	Kohl	Landrieu	Lautenberg
Leahy	Levin	Lincoln	McCaskill	Menendez
Mikulski	Murray	Nelson (FL)	Nelson (NE)	Obama
Pryor	Reed	Reid	Rockefeller	Salazar
Sanders	Schumer	Smith	Snowe	Specter
Stabenow	Tester	Warner	Webb	Whitehouse
Wyden
Nays--34
Alexander	Allard	Brownback	Bunning	Burr
Chambliss	Coburn	Cornyn	Craig	Crapo
DeMint	Dole	Domenici	Enzi	Graham
Grassley	Gregg	Hutchison	Inhofe	Isakson
Lieberman	Lott	Lugar	Martinez	McConnell
Roberts	Sessions	Shelby	Stevens	Sununu
Thomas	Thune	Vitter	Voinovich
NOT VOTING--10
Bennett	Bond	Cochran	Corker	Ensign
Hatch	Johnson	Kyl	McCain	Murkowski

The Presiding Officer: On this question, the yeas are 56, the nays are 34. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

Mr. Durbin: I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. Leahy: I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The Presiding Officer: The majority leader.

Mr. Reid: I withdraw the motion to proceed to S. 574.

The Presiding Officer: The motion to proceed is withdrawn.