---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I heard some of our colleagues talk about that element of al-Qaida in Anbar Province. Well, that is 5,000 or so. We have roughly 140,000 troops, and 140,000 U.S. troops could certainly take care of 5,000 elements of al-Qaida in Iraq and protecting U.S. personnel in Iraq. Or we should take all these steps as part of a comprehensive diplomatic plan, working with Iraq's neighbors and our allies to bring stability to Iraq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In speaking of the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America. Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves. Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home. But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.

The President added:

I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved. I share your concern for peace. I want peace as much as you do. I have chosen a plan for peace. I believe it will succeed.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

The Acting President pro tempore: Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Florida is recognized.

Mr. Nelson (FL): Mr. President, I say to my colleagues in the Senate that I support this motion to proceed and want us to get on to the resolution so we can have a full and thorough debate on this issue of what to do in Iraq. Without a doubt, this issue is the No. 1 issue, foremost in the minds of the American people. My State of Florida, being a microcosm of the entire country, is certainly reflective of that. People are unsettled over the course of the war. They are unsettled over the fact that none of our leadership will indicate we are winning this war and, indeed, at the same time they recognize the stakes are so very high in that part of the world if we are unsuccessful. Therefore, because this issue naturally is at the forefront of Americans' minds now, and what to do about it, we need to get it out here and get it thoroughly discussed and debated.

It seems to me one of the fundamental mistakes at first of going into Iraq was not to understand the world of Islam and the schism that has been there for 1,327 years, ever since the battle of Karbala, in 680 A.D., when the grandson of the Prophet Mohammed was killed in the battle. That led to a division of those new worshipers who had followed the Prophet Mohammed into the primary sect, Sunnis, and those who were rebelling, the Shiites.

That schism has lasted ever since. We see attempts at bringing those two groups together, but we always see--just in the demonstrations in the religious holidays recently reenacting that battle, establishing the Shiite sect as one that is separated from the Sunnis--they have been at it ever since. So, when you have a country that has those two sects, they have been at each other's throats and you find that order has been maintained, in the case of Iraq, by a brutal dictator who favored one sect over the other. Now that that dictator has been overthrown and is no more, in an attempt to bring about democracy, you see the majority in that country of Iraq, the Shiites, suddenly feeling they have control and maybe it is not quite so bad that they let out-- in their mind, they say it is not so bad--to let out their frustrations on the ones who had kept them down for years and years, their rivals, the Sunnis. In the process, you get this sectarian warfare which is, by anybody's definition, very close to civil war.

How do we stabilize Iraq? For us just going in and thinking it is going to be a democracy and that the Shiites are going to play the democratic game and the Sunnis are--and not even to speak of the branch of the Sunnis, the Baathists, who had been the ruling party--to think they are all going to play the game of democracy and majority rules, you have seen, now, after going on 4 years, what has happened.

So what do we do? We have a suggestion by a unanimous decision by a bipartisan group of extremely well thought of people called the Iraq Study Commission, led by former Secretary of State, former Chief of Staff of the White House, Jim Baker, and led by Congressman Lee Hamilton, former Member of the House, former head of the International Relations Committee in the House of Representatives. Unanimously, 10 people--5 Democrats and 5 Republicans--came up with a plan. How do you stabilize Iraq, given the conditions we find ourselves in there today? They said, clearly, what you have to do is stop having the mentality of an American occupying force. Let the Iraqis start to work it out for themselves. Realize there is probably going to have to be a separation of the sects until they can get them stabilized, and in the meantime do a very aggressive, diplomatic effort throughout the region to get all of the countries in the region to buy into what is ultimately the political solution.

This Senator thinks, given all of this chaos and tumult and sectarian warfare, that political solution is going to have to be some kind of division. Clearly Kurds in the north basically have their own autonomous government. Shiites are concentrated in the south. Sunnis are concentrated in the center. They made an important first step recently in the establishment of a new law distributing the oil production--which is not distributed geographically throughout the country but is concentrated in the north and in the south.

So if all the elements are there to make this possible for local control, of Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the middle, Shiites in the south, distributing the oil wealth proportionally according to the population, having a national government for the common defense, let's see if that political situation will work.

People say you can't do that because you have all these neighborhoods where Sunnis and Shiites are all living together. But the fact is the separation is already occurring because of the sectarian violence and the killing that is going on. You are seeing that separation.

If that is a likely political outcome that has the best chance to stabilize Iraq, then what should be the position of the United States and its forces, and what should be the policy of the United States to bring that about? Go back to the Iraq Study Commission. People say there is not a plan. There is. There is a plan. It is printed. It has about 75 recommendations. What it says is the American force should withdraw from the midst of that sectarian warfare, withdraw more to the perimeter, start lessening the forces and therefore the casualties to our American men and women, and use that force to train the Iraqi Army--to continue to train them--to provide force protection and very likely border control, since the neighbors in the region have not been exactly good on that--that is something we ought to be diplomatically insisting on, with the neighbors in the region--and to continue to prosecute the war against the terrorists by going after the terrorists there, particularly al-Qaida, who are trying to undermine the whole process.

What I have outlined, which came from the basics of the Iraq Study Commission Report and Recommendations, is the essence of the Reid resolution that is before the Senate. That is why I think we ought to get it out here, get it debated and, barring some unforeseen turn, it is this Senator's intention that he will support the Reid resolution. This does not say withdraw. It says redeployment. It doesn't say get out of Iraq, it says get out of the cities in the middle of the crossfire of a civil war. It says utilize the American forces for training, going after al-Qaida, and for the purpose of force protection. That makes common sense in the overlay of a very complicated part of the world.

As I close, I say that the United States, back in the 1980s, thought by the introduction of troops we could suddenly help bring about peace in another very troubled part of the Middle East, the country of Lebanon. Suddenly, it was as if scales fell from our eyes, that we saw it was an either/or. But it was multiple choice of all the factions that were there, each with a stake in the outcome. It became very difficult, particularly when the Americans became perceived to be supporting one particular part of those factions. Watch out for that happening today in Iraq. Let us understand something from the mistakes that were made in the past in places such as Lebanon as to how you ultimately stabilize an area and what is in the interests of the United States.

I think part of that wisdom is what came to bear by those 10 people unanimously agreeing, in the Iraq Study Commission, whose work product boiled down is, in essence, the resolution before us here in the Senate.

I thank the Chair for this opportunity to share these thoughts with the Senate.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Sanders): The Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. Graham: Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts on what is probably the most important decision the Senate will make in the war on terror for decades to come, not just for the next election. I have a framework in my mind about what is going on in Iraq and how it fits into a global struggle. Quite frankly, I think it is unshakeable. I am not pursuadable on this issue. I will put my bias right up front. The outcome of what happens in Iraq is part of an overall global struggle called the war on terror. That is not just my view; it is the view of the al-Qaida members who have gone to Iraq to destabilize this infant democracy.

It is being billed all over the Mideast as the struggle between moderation and extremism. We have Sunni extremists trying to get back in power. They reigned during the Saddam era, and some of them do not want to give up power. They want to destroy this democracy so they can rule again as a minority within Iraq because they had a taste of it before--that power--and they do not want to give that up. The Shia extremists, who are a minority of the Shia community, have a hope to create a theocracy in Iraq, not be the dominant political party in a democracy. They have a religious agenda for Iraq very similar to Iran. Then you have foreign fighters, including al-Qaida, who see a democracy in Iraq as the biggest threat to their overall agenda.

What we are talking about is withdrawing from a central battlefront in the war on terror. What would be the consequences of redeploying-- whatever word you would like to use--in the overall effort called the war on terrorism?

I think it would be the worst signal you could possibly send to the insurgents, to the extremists, and to al-Qaida members who are involved in this fight, who are watching this fight. Redeployment means surrender. If you think we are in the middle of a civil war that is a hopeless endeavor, cut off funding and get the hell out.

This idea of trying to go somewhere where it is safe for Americans is folly. If you are in uniform in Iraq, there is no safe place for you. Wherever we move to, they are coming after us. We have this illusion that there is a place we can go inside of Iraq or some other country in the Mideast that will provide safety. I can assure you our enemy is intent on proving to us there is no safe place for us in the Mideast. When I say "us," I mean those men and women wearing the uniform.

The goal of the extremists in Iraq--some are limited to the country of Iraq. Other extremist groups within Iraq have a wider goal. Their goal is to drive American forces out of the Mideast. So there is no place, in my opinion, you can redeploy within Iraq that would not be a signal to the people we are fighting that we are surrendering and retreating.

This war is about not killing terrorists from an American point of view alone, it is about empowering moderates. The Bush administration has made plenty of mistakes. The biggest mistake we made after the fall of Baghdad was not appreciating how much Saddam Hussein had raped his own country, how hard it would be to build a democracy out of ashes of a dictatorship, doing this on the cheap, assuming the best, never planning for the worst, and not having enough troops on the ground to provide security, which is essential to democracy.

It is so easy to beat on the Iraqi political leadership. They deserve to be pushed, and they deserve to be challenged. But one thing I can tell my colleagues, they represent a better Mideast than the groups trying to literally kill them. Our goal is not to just destroy terrorist organizations; it is to empower moderates.

The Democratic Congress is about to trump any mistake Bush has made by a factor of many. If they, as a Democratic Congress, set in motion a resolution that would undercut General Petraeus's ability to reinforce Iraq in a way that makes sense, then they have made a much bigger mistake than President Bush has ever made. If my colleagues are trying to pass a resolution that would make it impossible for moderates to reach political consensus because security is no longer certain, then my colleagues have made a much greater mistake than President Bush.

Now why not cut off funding? I guess the only reason we are not cutting off funds is because the American people, through polling, say that is a bad idea. But I know there are many on the other side who want to cut funding. To be honest, I respect them immensely; I just disagree with this idea of taking a middle position that has as its basis that there is a safe way to redeploy and not affect the outcome of Iraq. That, to me, is just folly. It is unconstitutionally sound. It destroys the ability of the commander on the ground, General Petraeus, to do the job we sent him over there to do. It will be a sign of weakness to those we are fighting. Moderates will start hedging their bets. My belief is that the stronger we are in Iraq, the bolder the moderates will be. The weaker we become, the more uncertain they will be.

It took us from 1776 to 1789 to write our own Constitution. When the product was written, women could not vote, and African Americans had no standing in the law. So I know there are religious problems in Iraq of a longstanding nature. I know this: Before al-Qaida bombed the Samarra mosque, the third most holy Shia holy site in Samarra, there had been generations of Iraqis, Sunnis and Shias, living together, intermarrying. I do not believe Sunnis and Shias are born to kill each other.

I do believe, like other places in history, other times in history, and other places on the planet, people are divided--sometimes by race, sometimes by religion--and our country needs to come to the aid of those who want to live together and reject religious bigotry.

The idea of dividing the country based on race, not many people in this body would say: Yes, that is a good idea, that will bring about peace, because it is giving in to bigotry. The idea of trying to give in to religious differences is insurmountable, is giving in to religious prejudice. I do believe the Iraqis can overcome their differences because it is in their best interest. But I do believe, if we do not reinforce this infant democracy at a critical time in its formation, we are going to lose in Iraq and the war just begins, it does not end. If you think withdrawing or redeploying ends this war, then I think you are going to be proven wrong in history.

I know what awaits those who are involved in the surge: more risk, more blood, and more treasure. On the other end of this surge, my hope is that we will provide enough security--holding areas previously cleared--and the Iraqi Government will step to the plate and start sharing the oil, doing the things politically they need to do to reconcile their country.

No one believes 21,500 troops are going to solve the problems of Iraq. Military power has its limitations, but we need to reinforce Iraq politically, economically, and militarily. The general we have sent to do the job has told us what he needs. He has a plan to accomplish his mission. The Congress is undercutting him at every turn.

This is the 17th resolution. I do not know what the magic number is to find the resolution that fits the political moment, but I can tell you this: The resolution in Iraq is not about the political moment; it is about decades to come in the Mideast if we can empower the moderates who are fighting and dying for their own freedom.

I say firmly and boldly to these Iraqis who have joined the military, who have joined the police, who are wanting to be judges, to those political leaders trying to find common ground between the three factions: You have my admiration and support because I know what it is like to be challenged in politics, when special interest groups try to take your job away from you because you will not do what they tell you. I cannot imagine what it is like to make political decisions knowing they are trying to kill your family.

I do believe the outcome in Iraq is part of a global struggle and that we need to reinforce Iraq on all fronts to have a chance, our last best chance to get this country up and running under democratic principles.

Talking to the neighbors is a wonderful thing. Somebody needs to be talking to Iran about their nuclear program and deal with this nut who is the President of Iran, who goes into the United Nations and says openly: I would like to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, and who is challenging the world openly today that he will not give up his nuclear ambitions. It is clear to me, and I think anyone else who has looked at Iran, they are trying to develop a nuclear weapon to change the balance of power in the Mideast, and they are involved deeply in Iraq because their biggest nightmare, from the Iranian point of view, is a stable, functioning democracy. The theocracy in Iran does not have a shared interest with the United States or the Iraqi people when it comes to forming a democracy. If we can get them involved to help us provide security, let's give it a whirl. Let's give it a try. I do not believe they really have that as their goal.

Syria is trying to undercut this infant democracy called Lebanon. They are playing hard in Iraq because they are a police state.

I believe that the neighbors, Syria and Iran, are part of a global challenge to freedom-loving people. They are not the solution; they are the problem.

Where we find moderates in the Mideast, we need to stand boldly with them and give them the ability, the best we can, to change the course of the Mideast. This effort to withdraw and redeploy is the worst possible signal you could send to moderates or extremists. This is a war which has religious components to it.

There is one group who has proven they can live together in Iraq in peace, willing to live with us in peace. There are plenty of moderate forces throughout the Mideast who want to live on the planet with the rest of us and have a desire to do so. There is a minority who have hijacked a great religion, who have no place for us--moderate Muslims, Jews, or anybody else who is different. They want to destroy Israel eventually. They are not kidding.

I wish we could go back in time--not just to Lebanon, but I wish we could go back into the 1930s and take Hitler for what he was. I wish we would understand who our enemy is and take them for what they are. They are barbarians who kill without conscience. They have an agenda in writing. They are hell-bent on achieving that agenda. That agenda goes like this: Destroy anything or anybody that embraces a concept called democracy or is sympathetic to the West, to moderate governments where they exist in the Mideast; turn your attention toward America, drive us out of the Mideast; establish a religious-dominated Mideast with a view of religion that is harsh to everything and everybody; and destroy Israel. I am not making this up. This is not my theory of what they want to do; this is what they said they will do.

Iraq is the chance to turn it around. Iraq is a great opportunity for us, the Iraqi people, and the world at large to stand up to the extremists and beat them politically, militarily, and economically.

This resolution we are about to consider or may consider sends the worst possible signal at the most important time in the war on terrorism. Whatever mistakes President Bush has made in his administration--I think they are well documented--the biggest mistake is yet to come, and that would be passing this resolution.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Michigan.

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

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

The Senator from Maryland.

Mr. Cardin: Mr. President, I urge us to move forward and consider the Iraq resolution so that every Member of this body can speak on this issue, we can debate it, and we can cast our votes on what we believe the policy should be for the United States in Iraq.

I would like to take us back to October of 2002. I was in the other body in October 2002. I voted against the resolution that gave the President the right to use force in Iraq. Let's remember the basis on which that resolution was passed. We were told that Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolutions concerning weapons of mass destruction and we needed to have the option to use military force in order to enforce that resolution and get rid of weapons of mass destruction.

The United States was also concerned about the war against terror, and there were statements made about the war on terror. I might tell you, there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in the attacks on our country on September 11. And, yes, there was a desire by many to get rid of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

What has happened since then? Our American troops have been in Iraq. We found no weapons of mass destruction. There are serious questions as to the intelligence information we had and how that was relayed to all of us. Saddam Hussein is gone. He has been removed. The Iraqi Government is now in place. A constitution was adopted. A government was elected. The Maliki government is now responsible for the affairs of Iraq. Times have changed.

But the most significant change that has occurred in Iraq during the last year has been the increased sectarian violence--a civil war. That is what is taking place in Iraq today. It is clear the presence of the U.S. military will not end the civil war. Iraqis need to end the civil war through diplomacy and negotiations and the confidence of the people in Iraq.

Something else has changed in the last year. We had national elections in our country, midterm elections. The people asked for change. Now there is a change in the Congress, and during the first few months of this Congress, we have held over 40 oversight hearings on what is happening in Iraq. I do not recall these hearings taking place in the last Congress.

Those hearings have pointed out--with expert after expert; military expert, foreign policy expert--we are not going to end the sectarian violence in Iraq by increasing American troops. We cannot win it on the battlefield. We have to deal with it and negotiate a settlement in Iraq.

We have before us the Reid resolution. We also have before us the President's current policies in Iraq. Do we want more of the same--an escalation of troops, a continuation of U.S. military presence in Iraq in the midst of a civil war--or do we want a change in direction? The Reid resolution represents a change in direction. It is a change in direction as it relates to U.S. troop levels.

We have lost almost 3,200 American troops, 68 from my own State of Maryland. There is a civil war in which American troops are not adding to ending that civil war. We need to look at whether we want to increase our troops, as the President wants, or to start redeploying our troops so the Iraqis can stand up and defend their own country so we can look for a political solution to what is happening in Iraq. We can remove the big target on Americans. Public opinion in Iraq says it is OK to kill Americans. We have to remove the American presence so we can move forward.

The Reid resolution gives us a well-defined mission which we can achieve, which is in the interest of the United States, that the Iraqis would take responsibility for their own country, would have well- trained security forces.

The resolution speaks to what we need to do as far as a surge in diplomacy, to urge more countries to get involved so the Sunnis and Shiites can live together and have confidence in their own government that represents a change, that represents a direction that is in the interest of the United States.

I urge us to be willing to debate this resolution and to vote on this resolution. That is our responsibility. It is our responsibility as Members of this body. It is our responsibility to our men and women who are serving our Nation, our Armed Forces. It is a responsibility we owe to our Nation. I urge my colleagues to move forward so we can go on record and change the direction of America's participation in Iraq so we can achieve the objectives that are in the interests of our Nation.

Mr. President, I yield back the floor.

Mr. Levin: I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

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

The Senator from Massachusetts.

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

The Presiding Officer: The Senator does not have a time limit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The last two months of 2006, however, saw little progress on the reconciliation front. The first two of four planned reconciliation conferences were described in the last report (November 2006). These conferences laid solid groundwork for subsequent conferences, but there has been little progress since then and the conferences had no effect on quelling violence. On December 16-17, 2006, the Political Parties Conference was held in Baghdad. Speeches given by the Prime Minister and other Iraqi officials focused on political participation and national unity, and welcomed former Ba'athists into the political process, so long as they showed loyalty to the new national government. The Sadrist bloc, top Ba'athists, and many Sunni factions did not participate. A fourth conference of religious leaders has not yet been scheduled due to lack of financial support and attendance challenges.

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

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

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

[T]he term "civil war" accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno- sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.

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

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

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

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

If you look back historically at how insurgencies have been defeated, they have been defeated when the insurgents saw their options as better protected in the political process and their prospects for economic advancement can be better protected by the political process than fighting for them. And that's the essential element here.

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

Our troops are the best equipped, the best trained, the best led in the world. And I am enormously proud of them, and I have the utmost confidence in their ability to handle any mission. Yet, sectarian violence is worse than ever in Baghdad in particular. And I wonder about the validity of a strategy that says that less capable troops that are not as well equipped, trained or led as the best troops in the world can handle the security of this country if the upswing in violence has occurred despite the presence of the best troops in the world. It doesn't give me a lot of confidence in our underlying strategy. And it suggests to me--

This is General Abizaid--

it suggests to me that what we need is a political rather than a military solution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're going to need no more than another 2,000, 2,500 troops on the ground.

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

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

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

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

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

The total number of attacks on and casualties suffered by coalition forces, the ISF, and Iraqi civilians for the October-December reporting period were the highest of any 3- month period since 2003.

It continues:

Coalition forces continued to attract the majority of attacks, while ISF and Iraqi civilians continued to suffer the majority of the casualties.

That is today's report.

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.

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

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

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

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

I would not look to Ted Kennedy for guidance and leadership in how we ought to manage national security.

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

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

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

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

The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi Army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.

Those are the words of the Iraq Study Group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Utah is recognized.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, one thing I can say for the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is that he has been against this war from the beginning. He has taken what he considers to be a principled position, that we should never have gone into Iraq to begin with. However, much of what he said does not resolve the problems that we are confronting in the War on Terrorism. We hear lots of comments about pulling out of Iraq but not very much in the way of how to defeat the terrorists who are dedicated to destroying almost everything we hold dear and sacred.

The fact of the matter is this resolution is an illustration of wishful thinking. No matter what you call it: pulling our troops out, a phased withdrawal, or redeployment, those who support this seem to think everything is going to be hunky-dory and by taking this course we can resolve all our difficulties. Of course, they provide the usual language of diplomacy and some of the other things.

Look at what this resolution says. It says: Whereas, U.S. troops should not be policing a civil war; and the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution.

The fact of the matter is we have three distinct areas in Iraq: The Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in the center, and the Shias everywhere else, including in the center.

There is a long history of animosity between these groups. But look at the progress that has been made: women now have the right to vote; young girls are able to go to school.

Eighty percent of the people voted for the representative form of government that they enjoy today. Remember, it took us 10 years to implement our Constitution.

What I have not heard from those who oppose the war is, how do we solve the problem of terrorism?

Let's be honest. Terrorism is something we have confronted sporadically throughout the years, though not at the same level of intensity as the last couple of years. When the Bader-Meinhof gang paralyzed Europe, a lot of people felt we should back away. But we supported our allies and, today, you don't hear about them. Similar things can be said about the fate of the Red Brigade. However, I fully recognize that these groups were minor compared to the terrorists in the Islamic world.

The fact is we are in a different war than we have ever been in before. We are fighting terrorists who don't wear uniforms, who don't represent a country; they represent an ideology. They are Salafi jihadists who, going back to the seventh century, when the Islamic people controlled much of the Mediterranean world, used force freely to achieve their objectives and, if you disagreed with them, they killed you.

We lost 3,000 people in 1 day in this country. As the author of the 1996-1997 Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act, I recognized that we did not give law enforcement the tools to be able to prevent terrorism in this country. One reason was we naively thought that we would never suffer from the type of terrorism that occurred on 9/11/ 2001. The PATRIOT Act brought the antiterrorism laws that were deficient up to the level of the anti-Mafia laws.

Can you imagine what will happen if we don't take these people on and do what we can to stop them. What happens if one of them--and they are dedicated to doing this--gets a weapon of mass destruction and comes to New York, Washington, DC, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, or any number of other cities, and blows up the city and causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?

They are dedicated to this. They don't value human life as we do. They believe they are going to be blessed for having killed the infidels.

The fact of the matter is that is what we are faced with--radical extremists who would harm our country if they could. The reason they cannot is because we have been taking it to them in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not pleasant, there is no question. There are sacrifices being made--our soldiers are being deployed and redeployed. There is no question there are mistakes that have been made--everything from throwing the Baathists out of the military, many of whom were not Saddam Hussein loyalists, to thinking this operation would initially be treated by the Iraqi as a liberation.

There were lots of mistakes, but there are a lot of things that are good too.

The fact of the matter is, there are hospitals up and running, girls are going to school, women have some rights in Iraq--more than ever before--and upward of 80 percent of the people voted for a representative form of government. We should never lose track of that. None of this would have happened had it not been for our soldiers and others in the coalition who were willing to fight, the fact is that When we get into documents such as this, basically what we are doing is making it very difficult for our young men and women serving in combat. Many of whom are risking their lives for us that they might be able to prevent terrorism from taking over the world and especially the USA.

We know there are terrorist supporters in our country. If we didn't have a PATRIOT Act, we would not be able to monitor them.

This resolution says:

The President shall promptly transition the mission of the United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (b).

(B) Commencement of Phased Redeployment From Iraq--The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes:

I like that word "essential."

(1) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.

My gosh, can you imagine if we pull out? The terrorists will come in and try to capture that oil wealth to use against the rest of the world, especially us.

(2) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.

How are we going to do that if we redeploy our forces out? We know that by training and equipping them, we may be able to help them bolster their representative form of government. Keep in mind, I made the point earlier, it took us 10 years to develop our Constitution and their's is functioning after 2 years. It took us years to solidify the strength of our country so we have this great representative form of government that we have in America today.

If we leave who is going to train and equip those Iraqi forces? Are we going to leave a small contingent of our people there to be murdered or are we going to be able to protect them and train and equip the Iraqi forces? Will anyone have any confidence in us if we leave?

It is interesting to me that as we have started this so-called surge, al-Sadr and others have left their bases. True, they are probably going away and hoping to come back; but if we can establish--and General Petraeus says we can--ourselves and the Iraqi Government in Baghdad so that they know they can take care of it themselves, it is going to be much more difficult for al-Sadr and the other brigades to come back and cause the havoc they have been causing.

Who is going to train and equip these forces? Oddly enough, it is interesting to me that this body voted 100 to 0 to back General Petraeus, and ever since we have done that, some here have done nothing but undermine the very thing he said we have to do. It should also be noted that this new strategy appears to be working.

We ought to give General Petraeus the opportunity to do it. He has said he will shoot straight with us. If he finds that the strategy is not working, he said he will let us know. He has been a straight shooter from the beginning. He was been a breath of fresh air. He understands counterinsurgency warfare. He has written the Army's Manual on this subject. We ought to give him a chance to do what he says he can do.

(2) Conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

How does this small, "limited number," to use the terms of this particular S.J. Res. 9, target counterterrorism operations? I guess we will have to do it through intelligence gathering. I happen to be on the Intelligence Committee, and I know all too well it is very difficult to establish human intelligence networks.

Think about that. Bring them all out, redeploy them by March 31, 2008--all U.S. combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number that are, again, essential for the following purposes:

(1) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure.

How does that small contingency do that?

(2) Training and equipping Iraqi forces.

(2) Conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

My gosh, every one of them would be murdered on the spot if we didn't have enough people there to provide security.

This is ridiculous.

(C) Comprehensive Strategy.

This is to make it look good, like they are trying to do something good. Here is what it says:

Subsection (b) shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy …

In other words, pulling out all our people except for this "limited number," to use their language--

Subsection (b) shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy.

Diplomatic? I know one thing. If you want to make sure diplomacy works, make sure it is backed up by force. We are not backing it up by pulling all of our troops out, except for that "limited number."

OK. How is that diplomacy going to work if they don't realize we are there to accomplish our mission? OK. Again, it says:

Subsection (b) shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political …

What do you think we are trying to do? Maliki, is pulling out the stops to help us.

… as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy …

What happens if we pull our troops out of there and, all of a sudden, we have a renewed effort by terrorists to assault us on our mainland because we are not keeping them at bay over there? Can you imagine the cost to our society? Can you imagine if we pull out of there and there is widespread civil war and genocide that will occur, just like in Southeast Asia when we pulled out there? Millions of people died. I am not so sure we should have been in Southeast Asia, but I feel confident we should be here. It says:

… that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.

Those are nice, high-flying words. If our diplomacy is not backed up by our willingness to take these people on, I suspect we are going to have more than a 9/11, 3,000-person loss in this country. When we have many more people killed as a result of terrorism in our country because they will be emboldened by this type of resolution, then it seems to me that we are going to pay a price that will be much higher than what we are paying now. We have to take these people on. We cannot walk away. There are too many people who have relied on us.

Admittedly, we at least need to give General Petraeus and the current forces there a chance to make this work. He says he believes he can do it. But he also is a straight shooter and has said: If we cannot do it, I will tell you we cannot. That may be the time when we will have to say there is not much more we can do there. I know one thing. The moderate Arabs are very concerned about what is going on over there. They know that if the United States doesn't have its full influence in the Middle East, there is going to be chaos. They know that these Wahhabi, Salafi jihadists will make mincemeat of the Middle East, and they will be emboldened if we walk out of there and act like we can work diplomatically on some of these problems. I think diplomacy is very important. But it needs to be backed up by a strong military plan, so they know we are not going to put up with a lot of foolery.

Look, I think there are sincere people on both sides of this debate. But I challenge the other side, who believes in this type of a resolution, to show us how you prevent the terrorists from coming here. Show us how you are going to win this war against terrorism. Show us how you are going to make a difference in the lives of all those who have lost loved ones thus far, not only on 9/11 but those who have given their lives for us over in Iraq.

Show us how pulling the troops out is going to defeat the terrorists. Tell us what happens after this resolution becomes law. Their plan offers only one option: making the United States look like it lost to the terrorists in the Middle East. That would be one of the worst things that could happen to our Nation and one of the worst messages we could send to the world.

I don't find fault with anybody who sincerely believes in a resolution such as this, but I question whether they have thought it through. Have they looked at the intelligence? Have they listened to our Armed Forces, who know they are fighting for something worthwhile, who know they are fighting for freedom, and who know they are fighting for the Iraqi people. Our military fully realizes they are not only fighting, as they had to, to overturn a vicious, cruel dictator, but to create stability in a place that needs stability almost more than anything else. Our servicemembers also know that we have moderate Arab friends who are pulling for us. Allies, in the region, who hope we will succeed because they know they will be next. And if we fail, we will pay a price like nothing we have paid before.

As I said, everyone in this body is a friend of mine. However, I strongly disagree with those who think this is a good resolution. I do not question their integrity or their desire to try and find some solution. But this certainly is no solution. This is a walk away that will cause us greater problems in the future. If that happens, we are all going to reap the whirlwind.

I have no doubt, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, that there are terrorists who would love to destroy our country. There are some, who if set free, would do everything in their power to destroy our nation.

Frankly, we cannot walk away until we give General Petraeus and our servicemembers an opportunity to win this war.

We have never fought a war such as this. I do not blame anybody who is concerned that we are paying too high a price. But I ask people to think about the higher price we will pay if we don't win this war. I ask my fellow citizens to understand that we are fighting people who are dedicated to destroying those who disagree with them and there will be a heavy price to be paid if we walk away from our responsibilities.

There is a good reason why we have not had a major terrorist incident since 9/11/2001. We have shown the will to take these people on, and to disrupt their plans. We have captured or killed a large number of these terrorists, including members of al-Qaida leadership. We have bottled up Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri.

If we walk away because of this resolution, it seems to me we will pay a much heavier price later, and I am very concerned about that.

My family lost my only living brother in World War II. He flew on one of the air raids that helped destroy Hitler's oilfields. It was a price our family paid. I am very proud of my brother Jesse. He was fighting for freedom, and he did not walk away from the threat Hitler posed. Today, we once again live in dangerous times, possibly even more dangerous. We cannot leave Iraq until we give General Petraeus and our troops the opportunity to accomplish their mission. We should not undermine their efforts with this resolution.

Though I respect my colleagues differing opinions I believe this resolution undermines their efforts--the efforts of those young men and women who are sacrificing for us overseas.

We should not decide these matters based on polls. Unfortunately, I think we have far too many people who are paying attention to the polls. I look at some of the candidates for President today, how they have changed their positions gradually because they think the polls require it. We are not here to respond to polls. We are here to do what we believe is in the best interest of our country. Some sincerely disagree with me and I understand that. But I believe it is their solemn duty to explain what we are going to do if we pull out of Iraq. Will we not create a myriad of other problems? Will not the entire Middle East become a war zone? Under such conditions, Israel itself will be threatened as well as moderate Arab countries. We cannot walk away, and we cannot allow the whole Middle East to descend into the Salafis jihadist arms.

I hope our colleagues will think these matters through. I certainly hope they will vote against this joint resolution.

Many of my colleagues voted to bring forth this debate. I understand their reasoning. However, I could not vote for this debate because the resolution is faulty on its face.

I don't know anybody who worries more about our young men and women who are sacrificing over there than I do because our family has lived through it. Not only did we lose a brother in the Second World War, but we lost a brother-in-law in Vietnam. Just a few years ago, my family buried another brother-in-law who served with the Marines in Vietnam and rose to the rank of First Sergeant. I feel deeply about these matters, but if we don't stand up and do what is right, we will reap the whirlwind. It will cost us more than it is costing us right now, and today's cost is significant.

Mr. President, I wanted to say these few words. I hope we will defeat this resolution. I think it will be in the best interest of the country and in the best interest of the world.

I yield the floor.