---

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Michigan.

Mr. Levin: Mr. President, after Senator Dodd is recognized, we had previously indicated that Senator Brown and then Senator Dorgan would be recognized. We are trying to see whether it might be possible to substitute Senator Kerry for Senator Brown, leaving Senator Dorgan in the same position. We are trying to determine that right now. For the time being, it will be Senator Dodd, then Senator Brown or Senator Kerry, and then Senator Dorgan.

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

The Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. Dodd: Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Michigan. I commend him, along with Senator Biden, my chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and our majority leader, Senator Reid, and others for the tremendous effort they have put into these matters over the last number of weeks. I haven't always agreed with my leaders in the majority on the course of action, but I have respect for their efforts to try and build consensus. I admire that. I always doubted whether consensus is something we ought to try and get on an issue such as this. Clarity, accountability, real proposals that require up-or- down votes that result in action I think in the long term may be necessary here. I respect immensely the efforts they have made to bring as many people as is possible under the same umbrella in dealing with this issue.

Once again, we find ourselves debating the same basic issue with respect to United States policy in Iraq, namely, when is the President going to admit his policy is a failure? From how many different places do you have to hear that--from the Baker-Hamilton report, to the analysis by military leaders. Over and over, the conclusion has been the same. This is not a conclusion I have arrived at myself, it is one that has been arrived at by almost every group of people or individuals who know anything about this matter. This policy must be fundamentally changed. The course must be changed to empower the Iraqis to take responsibility for their collective future. If they do that, there is a chance that stability and a better future for them can emerge. If they don't, there is not a treasury deep enough or an army big enough to do that for them.

How many debates, how many reports, how many more of our young men and women are going to be killed or wounded until the President and his advisers acknowledge the President's policy has been a failure, unfortunately, from almost the outset?

How long will it be before the administration begins a true diplomatic offensive to help the Iraqis and their neighbors secure a political solution that everyone has concluded is the only possible way this matter can have an outcome that offers some hope to the people of that country?

How many times can the administration and some of our colleagues here claim that any debate, any dissent, any action that departs one iota from the President's policy is somehow unpatriotic, words we have heard too often in this Chamber and elsewhere to describe those who have a different point of view--I emphasize "a point of view"--that has been embraced by people without any adherence to a political party or ideology who have reached the same conclusion that this policy is not working at all.

Jingoism and facile claims about "support the troops," about "good versus evil," about "victory versus defeat" can no longer, I think, be tolerated--in fact, they should never have been tolerated in the first place.

Let's stop invoking the inverted logic, as our colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, so aptly described it, of claiming that because there are troops are in harm's way, we, therefore, have to stay the course.

We all know we have troops in the field. We all honor the sacrifices they have made. They are a remarkable group of people. Like many of my colleagues, I have been there on several occasions over the past couple of years. Regardless of one's view on policy, the admiration for the job these individuals are doing ought to be very high. In my case, it is. It is rather remarkable the service they are providing. It is the policy that needs changing.

No one is suggesting our troops don't deserve all the support they can get, but supporting our troops and opposing a policy ought not to require the kind of gymnastics that some of our colleagues who oppose any changes suggest.

Having troops deployed overseas should not prevent us from debating critically important issues relating to the wisdom of staying the failed course the President has charted. In fact, we do a grave disservice to our troops by not having a public debate to shed light on the many questions and concerns that arise from our current involvement in Iraq.

I have publicly stated many times over recent months that this body should urgently take strong, binding action to force the President to change his Iraq policy. While this resolution before us does not represent as forceful an approach to accomplishing that goal as I would propose, it does take the United States one step closer to ending U.S. combat involvement in Iraq, and for that reason I am going to support it as a first step in what I think is the right direction.

This resolution goes beyond simply expressing disagreement with the President, which is the problem I had with earlier resolutions. It puts this Congress on record as authorizing a "prompt commencement of phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." It spells out the transition of the mission for the limited forces that would remain after the phased redeployment of combat forces have been completed.

This resolution unequivocally states that the United States should begin a phased redeployment of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. It states that the American forces remaining in Iraq should have a very different and more restricted mission: training, equipping Iraqi security forces, force protection, and targeted counterterrorism operations.

Crucially, this resolution also states that the redeployment of U.S. forces shall be part of a comprehensive, diplomatic, political, and economic strategy, and it requires the President to develop such a strategy, a strategy that has been seemingly nonexistent and that is critical to the stabilization of Iraq.

I am concerned, however, that the resolution allows for as many as 120 days from the date of enactment to pass before the President must commence the redeployment of U.S. combat forces. I firmly believe this redeployment can and must begin far sooner, and that we should set a hard target date for the completion of this phased redeployment rather than a soft goal of the end of March 2008, as stated in the resolution.

We face a region-wide crisis of credibility, a crisis that was caused by very bad policy choices rather than fate, as some would suggest. While the United States may still remain an enormous military power, and we are, our power to influence has been greatly diminished, unfortunately. It is this power to influence that is critical, I think, to America's interest in the region and to the future of Iraq and its neighbors.

It is my strong hope that the passage of this resolution will bring the United States one step closer to ending our intervention in Iraq's civil war and one step closer to developing and employing critical, comprehensive, diplomatic, political, and economic strategies in Iraq and in the wider region.

Based on past experience, however, I have no confidence whatsoever that this President will pay any attention to this resolution or this congressional debate. That has been the history of the administration over the past many months. So I say to my colleagues, if you are truly sincere in your support, as I believe you are, for the policies expressed in this legislation, then I think we must be prepared to do far more in the coming days, I hope in the short days, to bring an end to this destructive and futile policy, including the exercise of the congressional powers of the purse. We need to stop financing the administration's reckless strategy and put critical resources into rebuilding our military. Our troops deserve no less from this Congress.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. Martinez: Mr. President, we have been discussing this topic now for some time, and it seems that there are a succession of ways in which to fail.

The Democratic leadership in the Senate is looking to persuade the American people that our national security would improve if we immediately withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq and provided our enemies with a timetable and roadmap for our withdrawal. This is exactly what S. Res. 9 would do. It would require the beginning of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days.

The distinguished Senator from Connecticut said he didn't even think that was acceptable; that it should be even less than 120 days. So the underlying goal is to remove all U.S. combat forces by March 31, 2008. There will be exceptions for those who will stay to protect personnel and to do the training of Iraqi forces, but the overall premise is to diminish the U.S. presence in Iraq. To that end, I ask: What is the goal, just withdrawal or success? If all we are about is withdrawing, there are many ways to do that. This timetable might be appropriate, if that were the only goal. But if the goal is success, if the goal is the opportunity for Iraq to succeed in its effort at democracy, a different plan must be followed.

Setting artificial, arbitrary timelines for withdrawal has been opposed by Republicans, Democrats, our military leaders, and the Iraq Study Group. In the words of the Democratic leader on January 31, 2005:

As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that is not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that.

In the words of the current chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, in June of 2005:

A deadline for pulling out will only encourage our enemies to wait us out.

Let me repeat that: It will only encourage our enemies to wait us out if we give a deadline.

Democrats are trying to bring before us the 17th version of how we would manage the war in Iraq. Seventeen plans in less than 2 months and none lead to victory. Can you imagine if the commanders on the ground actually had to take orders from the Senate? Thankfully, in our scheme of Government and the way our Government was set up, we only have one Commander in Chief, one person giving the orders to our armed services so that they might succeed at our endeavors.

This attempt to micromanage the war at every level by Senate resolutions is not what our Government should do at a time of war. The President put together a new plan and a new team. General Petraeus is on the ground as the Iraq allied commander, and Admiral Fallon with the Central Command. Both of these distinguished military leaders testified they supported the current plan, and this Senate confirmed General Petraeus by a vote of 81 to 0.

So now what is our message? We send you to war but we don't want you to execute your plan?

We are so fond of this whole atmosphere of anti-Bush and the President that we forget that this is a plan that General Petraeus, our military leader on the ground in Iraq, has said he believed was a plan that had a reasonable chance for success. So I say give General Petraeus and his plan a chance for success on the field.

Our forces have not suffered a single military defeat in this entire episode. Obviously, we have had some losses, and a high cost in lives and injuries and treasure, but we have not had a single military defeat. The sacrifice of our troops, their sacrifice, must be for a purpose: a state of Iraq that is not a failed state.

In hearing after hearing in the Armed Services Committee, I have listened to our military leaders, as well as intelligence experts, give us the same message, and their message is clear: A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would almost surely result in a failed state, and a failed Iraqi state would be a disaster for the Middle East and our own national security.

I would suggest a rapid exit from Iraq is not in America's best national interest. I urge my Democratic colleagues to articulate how exiting Iraq, allowing chaos to reign, allowing thugs to rule the streets, and fear to rule the hearts of the Iraqi people will make America safer.

For years, my Democratic colleagues have been calling for a change of course. Well, President Bush provided one, a way forward politically, economically, and militarily. The new team, a new commander, and our commanders in the field, have said we need more troops, and the President provided them.

By the way, early indications are that things are a little encouraging. American and Iraqi forces, side by side, are walking in the streets of Sadr City as we speak. It is too soon to tell, but so far, I, for one, am encouraged. This may just work. Why not give it a chance?

The Democrats have provided 17 plans. None will give Iraq a chance to succeed. I have a plan. Let's support our troops by providing them the funding they need and allowing those responsible for executing the war to do their job. Let the generals on the field run the war.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle try every day to equate this global war on terror to Vietnam. I do not believe there are many similarities, but I believe there is one. That war, Vietnam, was lost in Washington, and this one can be, too. Let's not do that.

The distinguished junior Senator from New York said it best on September of 2005:

I don't believe it is smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you.

That statement was true then, and I believe it to be true today.

During this debate, I want to hear how nonbinding resolutions, dragged out over several weeks, Saturdays included, resolutions with the sole purpose to undermine our Commander in Chief, will do anything but confuse our troops, embolden our enemy, and complicate our efforts to combat terrorism and support this young democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

I oppose S. Res. 9. It is wrong for Iraq, it is wrong for the Iraqi people, it is wrong for the stability of the Middle East, and it is wrong for the national security of the United States.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer (Mrs. McCaskill): The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

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

Mr. Brown: Madam President, 4 years ago the President of the United States told the Nation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The President told us that Saddam Hussein was aiding and abetting al-Qaida. Now he is telling us that sending more troops into Iraq will lead to some kind of victory in a country torn by civil war and rife with insurgents. The President did not make a credible case in 2002. He has failed to do so again.

Before the President sent our troops into battle in 2003, I asked him a series of questions in a letter to the President and in a House resolution, questions about strategy, about reconstruction, and about troop safety. He did not answer those questions then. He still has not answered them. We do not know his definition of victory. We do not know his plan for an exit strategy. We still do not have an answer as to when our troops will have all the body armor they need. We are supposed to take it on trust that sending more of our troops into this chaos will somehow produce stability. Trust needs to be earned.

In November, voters in my State of Ohio and voters in Missouri and across the country spoke loudly and clearly that they do not support more of the same when the same simply has not worked. Clearly, the President has not listened to them. It is up to Congress to work together and up to Congress to work on a new direction for Iraq. We are well served to remember that we stand in this room today at the will of the American people. We have a duty to stand up to the President now as we failed to do in sufficient numbers 4 years ago.

The same people who chose to start this war, who recklessly started this war without the necessary resources, without the necessary planning, without the necessary body armor--those people who ignored the sage advice of military experts are the same people, with their same tired advice, who want to escalate this war today. If we choose to ignore history, we will be repeating a grave mistake.

This resolution does four important things.

First, this resolution reaffirms our continuous support of our men and women in uniform. Any official in our Government who says anything other than that is playing to the crowd, is disingenuous at best. Our troops have done everything we have asked of them in Iraq. They have acted heroically. They have done their job. Some have said that if we do not support the President's plans, we are unpatriotic. They say we don't support the troops. Every Member of this body supports the brave men and women fighting in Iraq. Every Member of the Senate who stands up and speaks out in this war is demonstrating patriotism. Patriotism isn't a yes-man; it is love for our country. Fighting against more of the same in Iraq when more of the same is not working is what patriotism looks like.

Second, this resolution answers the demand of the American people to redeploy our troops out of Iraq. The President's original plan for Iraq has not worked, and his most current plan for escalation is neither new nor different. We must have a timetable for redeployment of U.S. forces or, at the very least, a plan for it--something the administration has simply failed to do.

Third, this resolution calls for a comprehensive strategy using diplomacy--something else the administration has failed to do.

Fourth, and perhaps most important, this resolution calls for oversight. The abdication of oversight and accountability in past Congresses is nothing short of shameful. The administration says the current plan for escalation will require 20,000 troops and will cost $5.6 billion. The Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. In the past, the President could put those numbers out there and nobody would call him on that--nobody in this body who had any ability to do oversight. Instead of the 20,000 troops and the $5.6 billion this President claims it costs, the Congressional Budget Office said the requirement will be 48,000 troops and the price tag will be $27 billion. Again, more of the same is not the answer.

We have the duty to heed the call of those who sent us to Congress, and with this resolution we have the opportunity to heed that call. If the President will not listen to the voters, if the President will not listen to his generals, if the President will not listen to the Iraq Study Group, if the President will not listen to his own National Intelligence estimate, then we must make him listen to us as the people's representatives.

Let us work today toward sending a clear message to the President and to the world that the era of congressional willful ignorance is over. We will hold the President accountable, and we will start today.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. Dorgan: Madam President, this has been an interesting debate. I have had the opportunity to watch some of it and listen to more of it. I think we are finally debating a very important subject.

From time to time, there is a tendency to treat the serious too lightly and the light too seriously here on the floor of the Senate. This is a serious matter being treated seriously. Our country is at war. Today, we have young men and women in America's military uniforms walking down alleyways and streets in Baghdad and other dangerous places in Iraq, risking their lives. Some, perhaps today, will give their lives. War is a serious subject, the most serious subject for our country.

I wish to talk a little about the history of how we have gotten to this place and what I think we should do.

I recall Memorial Day, shortly after 9/11. I believe it was the first Memorial Day after 9/11--perhaps the second--when a young man whom I had previously appointed to West Point came back. He was missing an arm, from combat.

We had, of course, gone to Afghanistan, waging a war against the Taliban that had housed and harbored al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, and then shortly thereafter we went to the country of Iraq.

This young man, who came from a small town in North Dakota and whom I was privileged to send to the West Point Academy, came back missing an arm but enormously proud of having served his country. I recall speaking at the outdoor event at the veterans cemetery. He was there. He spoke. I was enormously proud of him. He was proud of serving his country.

I guess I described a verse I heard some long while ago--I don't even know the author--that:

When the drums are heard and the lightning is seen and the knives are out,

The patriots are always there, ready to fight and die for their country if necessary.

We can name many patriots in this country who serve today and who have served this country--in world wars, conflicts--who serve today because our country asks them to serve. It is always the case that old men send young men and women to war. Wars might be different if the ages were reversed, but they are not.

The question for me today is, What are our goals? My guess is every person serving in this Chamber, every man and woman, every Republican and Democrat, every conservative and liberal, wants the same thing for this country. We want our country to succeed. We are on our side, we are on the side of right, we are on the side supporting the greatest country that exists on this Earth.

We made some serious mistakes. We went to Afghanistan. That was the right thing to do. It was, after all, Afghanistan that housed Osama bin Laden, who boasted about committing the terrorist acts of 9/11, murdering thousands of innocent Americans. They boasted about that. They said, "We did it." Al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, al-Zarqawi--"We did it," they said. They were in Afghanistan, so we went to Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban government of Afghanistan, and the leadership of al-Qaida escaped. The leadership of al-Qaida went, apparently, to the hills in northern Pakistan.

Then, with President Bush's direction, went to Iraq.

A great deal of top-secret information was disclosed to those of us in Congress and some to the American people. The Secretary of State made a lengthy presentation with charts and slides to the United Nations, a presentation to the world. It turns out much of the intelligence upon which that was based was fundamentally wrong, some of it embarrassingly inaccurate.

One single source, someone who we now know the Germans thought to have been a drunk and a fabricator, was used by the administration to suggest that Iraq threatened our country because it had mobile chemical weapons labs. This source, called "Curveball," whom we now know to have been a single source and a source who lied, was the basis for substantial allegations to the Congress and the American people about evidence of a weapon of mass destruction program in Iraq. The source for yellow cake from Niger turns out to have been forged papers. Equipment to recreate a nuclear weapons program in the form of aluminum tubes--the Secretary of State and others gave us information about that, information that is now public but was imparted to us in top- secret sessions without disclosing something she was responsible to disclose: There were other parts of the Government that said no, these are not aluminum tubes to reconstitute a nuclear program, they are not that at all. They are thought to be for use in rocketry, and that is exactly what we found out later to be the case. Very substantial mistakes were made but, nonetheless, we cannot turn back the clock. American soldiers were committed.

As a result of that, a number of things have happened in the country of Iraq. While the terrorists fled to Pakistan and Osama bin Laden and al-Zarqawi and the other leadership of the al-Qaida organization hid in northern Pakistan, now some over 2,000 days since they boasted about murdering thousands of Americans--while that was the case, we went to Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was deposed. This man was a butcher. We have unearthed mass graves in Iraq that housed hundreds of thousands of skeletons of people murdered by the Saddam Hussein regime. Is it a worthy thing to have deposed a leader of Iraq with that kind of record? Yes. Saddam Hussein is gone. He was executed. The Iraqi people have now voted for their own Constitution. They wrote it and supported it. The Iraqi people have now elected their own government by their own hand. So there is no dictator, they have a Constitution, and they have a new government.

The problem at the moment is they are not able to provide for their own security. In fact, there is a civil war occurring in the country of Iraq. We have just received the latest National Intelligence Estimate-- the latest National Intelligence Estimate, which is a compilation of whatever is said by the best minds that exist in the intelligence community.

This is unclassified:

Iraq has become a self-sustaining intersectarian struggle.

If you take those words as part of what the National Intelligence Estimate says, this is a civil war. Now we end up with American soldiers right smack dab in the middle of a civil war in Iraq while Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida leadership exists in northern Pakistan directing al-Qaida's terrorist activities.

Now why does this matter? Let me describe why that is important. On January 11, 2007, Mr. Negroponte who was then the Director of National Intelligence testified before Congress. He said:

Al Qaeda is the terrorist organization that possesses the greatest threat to U.S. interests, including to our Homeland.

Let me say that again. What is the greatest threat to our country's interests? Al-Qaida. That is not me; that is the head of American intelligence, Mr. Negroponte. This was reaffirmed 3 weeks ago by the current head of U.S. intelligence. The greatest threat to our country, the greatest terrorist threat to our country, is al-Qaida. They pose the greatest threat to our interests and to our homeland.

Now an additional statement by Mr. Negroponte says this:

[Al Qaeda] continues to plot attacks against our homeland and other targets with the objective of inflicting mass casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' secure hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, northern Africa and Europe.

All of this is a direct quote from the unclassified testimony of the head of intelligence in our country. Al-Qaida is the greatest terrorist threat to our country, No. 1; No. 2, they continue to plot attacks against our homeland from their leaders' secure hideout in Pakistan.

Now let me ask the question: What is the goal here? What is the goal for this country? We were attacked on 9/11. Thousands of Americans were murdered by airplanes full of fuel, used as guided missiles to fly into office buildings, to the Pentagon. We were attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaida. They boasted about it. They said: We did it. Give us credit. We murdered innocent Americans.

Where are they now, over 2,000 days later? They are, according to our top intelligence experts, in a secure hideout in Pakistan with the objective of inflicting mass casualties by continuing to plot attacks against our homeland.

So what are we doing today? We are in Iraq going house to house, in Baghdad, in the middle of a civil war.

What is the goal? Is our goal to fight terrorism? To take on the terrorists? To eliminate the terrorists? To eliminate the leadership of al-Qaida? Is it our goal to go after those who attacked our country and murdered thousands of innocent Americans?

If that is our goal, let me ask this question: Why are they in a secure hideaway in northern Pakistan and our soldiers are going house to house in a civil war in Iraq, in Baghdad? Why? Maybe it is not our goal to fight the terrorists. Is it not our goal to take them on where they are? Yes, there are some al-Qaida in Anbar Province in Iraq. This resolution, by the way, will allow us to redeploy in Iraq to make an even greater effort against that al-Qaida organization that exists in Anbar Province. But our National Intelligence Estimate is quite clear: What is happening in Iraq, in the main, outside of Anbar Province has very little to do with al-Qaida and with terrorism. It has everything to do with a civil war and sectarian violence.

So the question is: What should be our goal? I very strongly believe we should redeploy our troops and understand that our obligation is to take on those interests that want to attack us in our homeland, those interests that attacked us previously, those interests that represent the greatest threat to our country as described by the head of U.S. intelligence.

Why on Earth on this day, Wednesday--2,010 days, nearly, following 9/ 11, after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida boasted about launching attacks in our homeland and murdering the American people, murdering thousands of Americans--why on Earth would we not be in a full-court press to prosecute the war against terrorists? No, this situation in Iraq is not a proxy against the war on terrorism. It is not. It cannot be described that way.

The National Intelligence Estimate tells us it is sectarian violence, by and large. The head of national intelligence tells us where the head of the greatest threat to our country is in northern Pakistan, the leadership of al-Qaida. We are going door to door in Baghdad in the middle of a civil war, and they are in northern Pakistan promoting continued attacks against our homeland.

Is that a disconnect? It seems to me it is. Anybody in this Chamber who stands up and has a strong passion and opinion about these issues, I respect. The last thing I would ever do is suggest they are not patriotic, they don't love their country, they do not support soldiers. All nonsense. Every man and woman who aspires to come and serve, who is here in this Chamber, I know loves this country, supports our soldiers, and wants our country to succeed. That is a fact. This is not about anybody having bad motives. It is about our country trying to make a decision: Are we on the right path or the wrong path? Do we think the experience we have had in Iraq--now that this has become a civil war, in which we have made very little progress but seen many Americans killed and far more wounded--do we think that kind of situation can and should continue, or should we say to the Iraqi people the following: We want what is best for you as well. We have, with the blood and treasury of American soldiers and the American people, given you the following opportunities: You were able to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He does not exist anymore. He has been executed. You were able to write yourself a new constitution and you were able to cast your votes for a new government.

The question now is this: This is your country, not ours. Do you have the will and the capability to provide for your own security? Iraq belongs to you, not us. If you cannot provide for your own security, the American taxpayer and the American soldiers cannot do that for a long period of time and should not be asked to do that year after year after year.

We ought to redeploy, and that redeployment ought to be so our country can wage war against terrorists. We know where they are. Our National Intelligence Estimate and the head of the national intelligence organizations have told us. They are the greatest threat. We know where they are. Yet my guess is they do not feel terribly threatened today.

What is the goal? What is our goal here? I would hope our goal as a country is to decide to go after and eliminate those terrorists who plot attacks against our country.

Now there are many ways for us to manifest our love of country and our passion about these issues. But I think there is one other issue most of us would agree upon. One of the concerns I have had about what is happening these days with respect to the Iraq war is we have sent soldiers to war, but we have not asked our country to make a similar commitment. Just this morning I asked the Chief of Staff of the Army at a hearing, an Appropriations hearing, about a new personnel carrier we have developed. They say it will reduce deaths from improvised explosive devices by two-thirds in a country such as Iraq--new design, stronger, more capable. I asked: Were we ordering a lot of them? No, not really. At today's pace it will take about 6 years to replace the existing vehicles.

I chaired a democratic policy committee hearing last year, and retired Marine Colonel Hammes came to the hearing. He said: You know, in the Second World War, at the end we were producing 50,000 warplanes a year.

Do you know why? Because our country, by God, decided the whole country was going to make an effort to go to war, to commit and to produce and do everything there was to give our soldiers the opportunity to fight and win. We have not done that.

The Army has ordered 2,500 of those new armored personnel carriers some estimate will save two-thirds of the lives that are now being lost to IEDs. Our country is told we are at war, you go ahead and go to the mall, go shopping. The soldiers will go to war. In fact, we won't ask you to pay for anything either. We have now spent $450 billion, plus or minus. We are on the way to spending over $650 billion in Afghanistan and Iraq and the war on terrorism without asking the taxpayer to pay one cent; add it to the debt. The country has not been asked to go with the soldiers. There is no sacrifice. It is just the soldiers.

We have a resolution on the floor of the Senate. The resolution is S.J. Res. 9. I heard some of the debate a bit earlier. Some have suggested this resolution is about cutting and running. People will think we have left. I think most of the people in this world would take a look at us and say this is the strongest country in the world. It has got the biggest military in the world. We spend more money than any other country, any other series of countries, on defense. We spend more money than the top 30 countries combined on defense. Unbelievable.

We were attacked by the leadership of al-Qaida and their operatives on 9/11/2001. It is now 2007. They are still alive. Our national intelligence chief tells us where they are. They are still the greatest threat to this country. They are still plotting attacks against our country. And we are this behemoth military Nation that has such capability. Why are we not using that capability for the goal I think is preeminent, and that is the goal of protecting our country and eliminating those who are plotting attacks against our country, the leadership of al-Qaida? The way to do that will not be to wait for President Bush to decide he wants to change course. He does not want to change course. He wants to keep doing what we have been doing. But the way to change course is to pass the piece of legislation that says: Let us redeploy our troops.

Speaking only for me, I believe the redeployment ought to be to go after the greatest threat that exists to this country's future, the greatest threat described by our National Intelligence Estimate and the national intelligence chief. It is not a surprise, not a secret. We all understand where that threat is. And yet we reduced our forces in Afghanistan early so we could invade Iraq. Now we have got problems in Afghanistan. We have got bogged down in Iraq. We are now in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

The greatest threat to our country's interests is in a secure hideaway in Pakistan; a secure hideaway. That ought never happen. The head of intelligence in this country ought never be telling us there is a secure hideaway for the organization that wants to destroy our country, to launch attacks against innocent Americans. There ought not be a place that is secure on this planet for people who are doing that.

What is the goal? Is not the goal to fight terrorism, to take on the terrorists? If that is the case, then let's heed the words of the head of intelligence, to know where they are, what they are doing, who they are, and find a way to bring them to justice. The sooner the better. After nearly 5½years, it is past time, long past time for us to set our sights on those who represent the greatest threat to our country. That is the reason I will support this resolution. This is about redeployment. This is about establishing the goals we ought to have as a country.

Finally, let me say this: I have enormous respect for the men and women serving in the military. They are an unbelievable bunch of young men and women. I recall speaking to a helicopter crew in Afghanistan. They were young men and women, average age 19, 20, 21, 22 years of age who were keeping those helicopters in the air.

The officer said these are kids, but they are highly trained kids, highly motivated kids, these young people. You go in the field and watch what they do, and it is unbelievable. They love their country. When their country asks them to serve, they serve. But their country, it seems to me, owes them something too. Their country owes them the responsibility of clear, thoughtful policies, the ability to address what is important to our country.

When we use military force, we ought to use military force not in the middle of a civil war some place, but instead use military force to confront the terrorists who threaten America. That is what military force ought to be used for at this point. We understand terrorism is awful. Most of us have never before understood there are plenty of people out there who are willing to die themselves if they can kill a few innocent people in order to make their point. That is something we have never before understood very well. That is modern terrorism. We have to confront that. We owe it to our soldiers to have a set of goals that represent the best interests of this country.

So my hope, in short, is for us to be able to tell the Iraqis: This is your country, not ours. You need to provide for your own security. We are going to give you a sufficient time to do that, but we cannot keep American soldiers in the middle of a civil war for a great length of time. We intend to turn our attention to where it should have been all along; and that is, to confront the greatest threat that exists to our country, which is al-Qaida, its network around the world, and its plans to try to create terrorist acts in our homeland.

That ought to be our goal. The way to achieve that goal is through the redeployment that would come with this legislation.

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

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

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

Mr. Dorgan: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. Dorgan: Madam President, I understand Senator Feinstein is on her way. As soon as she arrives, I will yield the floor.

Fuel Efficiency Energy Act

Mr. Dorgan: Mr. President, I wish to comment very briefly on legislation that Senator Larry Craig of Idaho and I are introducing today. It is a bipartisan piece of energy legislation. I wish to describe it briefly.

We are in the process, this year, of trying to put together another Energy bill. I am on the authorizing committee. So with the leadership of Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici and others of us on the authorizing committee, we will try to write a new Energy bill. That bill has a lot to do with security--oil security, energy security but the security of our country as well.

If we woke up some morning and terrorists had interrupted the supply of oil to our country, we would be in a desperate condition. On this Earth of ours, this planet, we stick straws in the planet and suck out oil--about 84 million barrels of oil a day. Of the 84 million barrels a day that is taken out of this planet, 21 million barrels is used in the United States. One-fourth of all the oil is used in this little patch of ground called the United States.

Nearly 65 percent comes from outside our country, much of it from very troubled parts of the world--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela. We are desperately dependent on oil from other countries-- again, in many areas, troubled countries in the world.

We have to find a way to move toward energy independence. Senator Craig, a Republican, and I, a Democrat, have worked on a bipartisan basis to introduce legislation that has been put together for nearly 2 years now by an organization of retired business executives, retired military officers, to talk about reducing the oil intensity in this country, especially dealing with transportation.

Nearly 70 percent of all the oil we use is used in transportation. We run it right through our vehicles, by and large, and 70 percent of it is used in the transportation sector; and that line is going up, up-- way up. We need to find ways to address this issue of our unbelievable dependence on foreign oil and the substantial increase in oil intensity in the transportation sector.

So we are introducing a piece of legislation that does a lot of things. A, it demands that vehicles be more efficient. And we are not leaving out any vehicles. This includes big trucks. Get a car these days and compare it to a car you would have purchased 10 years ago-- identical models--and what you will find, I bet, is there has not been one bit of progress in fuel efficiency in 10 years.

Oh, the car company will say: That is not true. This is much more efficient. It is heavier, but you get the same gas mileage, even though you are actually pulling more weight. That is all baloney. The fact is, in terms of how much oil we use, we are not making any progress on efficiency. As a result of that, I believe, finally, it is long past the time when we ought to demand increases in the efficiency in our vehicle fleet.

Second, we believe we are going to have to find additional oil. I understand that digging and drilling, which I call "yesterday forever" as an energy strategy, is not the only strategy, but we do have to find some additional oil. We believe we should open up additional lands in the Gulf of Mexico, where the substantial quantity exists. We would do it by protecting beaches and protecting the viewshed, but there is substantial energy there we ought to be able to get.

Third: a dramatic increase in renewable energy. Yes, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, and a whole series of areas of achieving substantial additional renewable energy--all of that is achievable if we decide as a country to establish that as a goal.

We believe doing a number of things, some of which are very controversial, to both increase production and decrease use--that is through conservation and efficiency--can move us to a much less oil- intensive economy.

Now, there is more to do. The larger, comprehensive bill will have to include the issues of electrogeneration and transmission, and all these other issues. We are dealing, in the legislation Senator Craig and I are introducing today, with the question of oil intensity in the transportation sector, which is a very substantial part of our oil usage.

Now, we do not believe necessarily that somebody is going to say: Well, do you know what? Let's take this entire bill as it has been written and have a vote tomorrow. We understand that is not the way it works. But we do believe it is important for us to take a hard look at these energy issues from a security standpoint.

We talk about energy in many ways too casually. Our country runs on energy. Especially the issue of oil is a very important issue because so much of it comes from off our shores. So much of it comes in circumstances that we have very little control over.

From an energy standpoint, I was thinking the other day about a visit I had with our former colleague, John Glenn, who described to me, late one night on an airplane as we were flying over the Pacific on our way to Asia--I was pumping him with questions because I was a young boy as I listened on the radio about his space flight. I was asking John about all of this, and I had read about the time when the city of Perth, Australia, I think it was, decided to light every light bulb in the city as a signal to this astronaut flying up there alone circling the Earth.

John Glenn told me, when I asked him the question: As you reached the dark side and looked, did you ever see Perth, Australia, because they lit all the lights of the town to signal you?--and he said he did. He looked down.

The only evidence of life on Earth on the dark side was to see a shining light that was then Perth, Australia. But that light was, of course, a product of energy--energy produced by human beings to make life better on this Earth. So now we come to the year 2007, living in the greatest country on Earth--but an unbelievable, prodigious consumer of energy--in a situation where we do not have a secure energy supply, with 60 to 65 percent of our oil coming from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Venezuela, and other parts of the world where there is great turbulence.

So the question for this Congress is what to do about that. The answer is, as is the case in all areas of security, we need to be concerned and we need to take action to become less dependent and more independent, to the extent we can, on foreign oil.

So working with a wide group of interests, with an organization that has been working now for several years to put this plan together, Senator Craig and I are introducing this legislation today in the Senate. I wish to take a brief moment to comment about what that plan is.

We take--pretty much all of us take--energy for granted. We live a great life. For light, we simply turn on a switch. To move someplace, we turn a key and gasoline flows from the tank, through the carburetor, the fuel injector, and we do not think much about that. But it has given us a pretty unbelievable life. Through it all, we have never had to be very conscious about saving, economizing, efficiency, conservation, and we have not had to be as conscious as we should be now about where oil comes from.

For that reason, we have introduced a piece of legislation that I think has substantial merit. We will work with Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici and others on the authorizing committee to incorporate the provisions and the ideas that are represented in this plan as a new approach to energy in our country's future.

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

I withhold the suggestion of an absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from California.

Mrs. Feinstein: Madam President, I would like to particularly commend the leader, Senator Reid, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, for the work that has been done in putting together a resolution which, as much as possible, can meet some of the objectives of the Democratic majority of this body at the present time. That is not an easy task.

I think Members who participated in this effort took into consideration that in less than a week our Nation will mark 4 years in Iraq. We have spent nearly $400 billion. We have lost more than 3,000 Americans. More than 140,000 of our own brave men and women find themselves trying to salvage a situation that simply cannot be solved through military force.

If I believed there was any chance the military could solve the problem of hundreds of years of hatred between Sunni and Shia by resolving what is effectively a civil war, I would believe this surge and more troops might solve this situation. But I do not.

The only solution rests with the Iraqi Government and the Shia majority. The Iraq of today is embroiled in four different wars--a terribly complex civil conflict that even General Petraeus, our commander in Iraq, says requires a political solution.

Simply put, there is no end in sight. Yet the President insists on escalating our troop presence there. None of this makes sense to me because I deeply believe we must change our course in Iraq. That is why I support the joint resolution before us today.

Where the administration expands our involvement in Iraq, this resolution sets a time limit. Where the administration sees a military solution, this resolution recognizes that the solution must be political. Where the administration calls for more money and more troops, this resolution says: Enough is enough. Where the administration fails to put demands on the Iraqi Government, this resolution tells them: You must take responsibility for your own future.

The Iraqis must realize our commitment is not open-ended and they must stand on their own. How can we ever expect that Iraqis will be able to stand up and make the political choices if we keep such a large, sustained American troop presence in Iraq? We become the buffer, then, that prevents the solution. Only the Iraqis can choose to end this civil war. Only the Iraqis can unify their country if, in fact, the Shia majority want a unified Iraq. Yet this will never happen until we begin to draw down our troop levels. This resolution does exactly that. It is a vehicle for the Congress to show leadership, to tell the President that he has put us on the wrong course and that a political solution is the key to this conflict.

This resolution sets us on that path. It spells out clear deadlines: The phased redeployment of our combat forces must begin within 120 days of the resolution's passage. A goal of March 31, 2008, would be established for the redeployment of our combat forces out of Iraq. This resolution also redefines the mission. A smaller force could remain in Iraq. The mission would be limited to force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counterterrorism operations.

It is, in a way, similar to the resolution I introduced last month which set an expiration date for the 2002 authorization for the use of military force in Iraq.

This resolution fills a void. It puts a long-term political, diplomatic, and economic strategy for Iraq at the center of our national policy. That is where I believe it should have been a long time ago. It is consistent with the views of the American people, whose opposition to this war and this escalation or surge remains strong and sustained to this very day. But instead of following the will of the American people, this administration is pursuing a surge in forces which appears to be growing. The administration has not set any limits on the number of troops needed or on the duration of the mission or the cost to the American people.

In January, the President said he would send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq at a projected cost of $5.6 billion. Yet just this week the White House asked the Congress for another $2.5 billion to pay for an additional 4,700 support troops for the surge in Iraq. The costs keep rising.

The Pentagon initially said it would be only a matter of months before we could assess whether the surge was a success. I believe the new Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, said we should know within 4 months whether this surge is successful. But the commanders on the ground now suggest we may have to sustain the escalation until well into next year. Yet it is clear our military is under such strain that the only way to maintain those 20 brigades is by extending the deployment of many of our soldiers in Iraq, and by making many more deploy overseas much earlier than planned.

We are breaking our own military in Iraq, even as it becomes increasingly evident that success cannot be achieved militarily.

Just consider these facts. More than 420,000 troops have been deployed at least twice; 420,000 men and women have been deployed twice. More than 50,000 troops have had their tours extended through "stop-loss" orders. Troops are being rushed into the field without proper training and without enough armor. We are leaning more and more heavily on the National Guard. Yet 90 percent of the Guard units in the United States are rated "not ready."

I understand why the President may wish to talk about "encouraging signs" in Iraq. But the facts show otherwise. Even while the violence in Baghdad has decreased, violence outside the capital has increased. Two hundred Shia pilgrims have been killed in just the past week alone. As insurgents have left Baghdad to avoid the ongoing military crackdown, they have simply melted away into outlying regions, waiting for the pressure to ease.

What makes anybody think this will be any different by the end of this year, the middle of next year, or the end of next year, or any other time? While more American soldiers deploy to Baghdad, the Iraqis have yet to provide all the troops they promised.

There is no end in sight. This joint resolution changes that. It changes course. It redefines the mission. I urge the Senate to vote for it.

I thank you, and I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Obama): The majority leader is recognized.

Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I apologize to everyone, especially those who were planning on going to visit with the President of Mexico with me on Friday. I have had a longstanding appointment with the President to talk about issues important to our country, but we are now in the midst of this debate dealing with Iraq and, following that, the U.S. attorneys. I have told everyone that we weren't going to have votes on Friday, and that was really my intention because I was going to be out of the country with five of my colleagues. I haven't had a chance to speak to any of the five Senators who are traveling with me. But I think it is only fair at this time that I cancel my trip, and that is the reason I am addressing the Senate now. My trip is canceled as of now.

I don't hold any ill will toward anyone. Senator McConnell has worked with me every half hour today trying to work something out, so this is not any finger pointing in any way. I just want the Record to reflect that I think we will work something out so we will not have to be in session on Friday, but I don't want anyone thinking that any of my work toward completing everything we need to do here by tomorrow is based upon my trip because that is not it. I want to make sure that everyone is free. I will be talking to my colleagues independently and telling them that we will try to do this some other time. But I think I would be judged very poorly if during the midst of this debate on the most important issue facing the American people--Iraq and then the issue we are also trying to resolve, and that is the U.S. attorneys problem-- that my trip got in the way of that at all.

Again, I want the Record to reflect that the Republican leader has been a gentleman throughout. It is not his fault in any way. I hold no one to blame. I just want to make sure that as negotiations go forward from this minute, they are based on what is best for the Senate and has nothing to do with my trip. I will continue to work, I tell all my colleagues, both on the majority and the minority side, with the distinguished Republican leader to do everything we can so that we don't have votes on Friday, but we may not be able to do that. I think we can, but we may not be able to. If we can't work something out on a consent to finish this Iraq debate in some positive manner, then we would have to have--I would have to move to cloture tomorrow night some time, at 6 or 7 o'clock. But I will continue to work on this, and I apologize. Even though I had one of my staff a few minutes ago call the Mexican Ambassador to say that we would likely not be able to do that trip, and now we are not going to be able to do the trip, I will call the President of Mexico and tell him there will be other times to do this trip.

Mr. McConnell: Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?

Mr. Reid: I yield to the minority leader.

Mr. McConnell: Mr. President, let me just echo the remarks of the majority leader. I see that Senator Warner is now on the Senate floor. He and I had a conversation at noon about a proposal he hoped to offer. It is my understanding, I would say to my friend, the majority leader, that his proposal has just been handed to us. That was the reason for the delay this afternoon, with all due respect to the Senator from Virginia. I know he was working on drafting it, but that is the reason we have not been able to hopefully get to the point of having an agreement, which the majority leader and I both would like to have.

We are ready for this debate, and now that Senator Warner is on the Senate floor and has his proposal, we will give a copy to the majority, and I will be able to see it myself, and hopefully, shortly, we will be able to enter into an agreement that will be satisfactory to both sides. Certainly, that is my hope and my expectation.

Mr. Reid: I thank the Chair.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

Mr. Warner: Mr. President, may I say the distinguished Senator from Kentucky is exactly right. I am doing my very best, in consultation with Senator Nelson and other Members, to try to prepare this document. It is now in draft form. I would hope it could be concluded very shortly. So I plead guilty to the facts, and I apologize to the distinguished leader.

Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

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

Mr. Menendez: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Predatory Lending

Mr. Menendez: Mr. President, I wish to address one of the largest problems plaguing our home buyers today; that is, predatory lending. Over the past few days, the Wall Street Journal has written a number of articles about abuses in the subprime lending industry prompting a much needed crackdown on dishonest practices and deceitful lending. In addition, on Tuesday, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported that the number of new foreclosures reported during the fourth quarter of 2006 reached the highest level in 40 years. Not surprisingly, foreclosure and delinquency rates were highest among subprime lenders.

Mr. President, enough is enough. The recent scandal at the New Century Financial Corporation, one of the largest subprime lenders, is a final straw. As the Wall Street Journal describes in one instance, an elderly woman was struggling to make her $952 monthly mortgage payments when a mortgage broker called and offered her a "senior citizen's loan" from New Century Financial. They told her she wouldn't need to make payments for years. Well, she didn't get years. Instead, her monthly payment skyrocketed to $2,200 per month, more than double her income. With the assistance of a lawyer, she escaped foreclosure, but many others are not as fortunate. This is a prime example of the consumer exploitation occurring in subprime lending, and it is simply unacceptable.

Unfortunately, there are many more examples. Unscrupulous predatory lenders prey upon the innocent and unsuspecting. We know these lenders are more likely to target women, racial minorities, and the elderly. In fact, a recent academic study by the University of Denver found that more than 130 million Americans without prime credit scores--the type you need to get a low-cost loan--are disproportionately African American and Hispanic. How can we sit by while these groups are not only being robbed of their savings but robbed of their dream? For many, home ownership is the key to making the American dream a reality.

I have been a longtime advocate for increasing home ownership in underserved and minority communities. More and more Hispanics, for example, are realizing their dream of home ownership, with more than 50 percent of all Hispanics in the country owning homes. But when an average of 63 percent of Hispanic household wealth comes from ownership equity alone--the highest percentage of any group--it becomes clear the power that home ownership has to bring more families out of poverty, increase safety in our neighborhoods, and help make the American dream a reality for all.

I have worked to create innovative mortgage products to help more people achieve their dream of home ownership, and I strongly believe we should not act in such a way that we dry up access to capital and mortgage options for those who are legitimately prepared to take on the responsibilities of home ownership. There are legitimate lenders who fill that need, and we should continue to work with them to preserve safe and secure loan options for consumers.

Unfortunately, predatory lending is making a mockery of the home- ownership dream for far too many individuals. Ironically, however, deceitful subprime lenders are living the dream. They are making enormous amounts, often making millions in profits. They do that by undermining the very essence of that dream for so many in our country. Last year, subprime loans totaled about $605 billion, which is one- fifth of the total overall market for U.S. home loans. We simply cannot ignore this segment of the market which serves some of the most vulnerable populations, including women, seniors, and minorities.

Many Americans listening probably think they could never be a victim of these predatory lenders. Judging from their financial success and the significant impact their practices are having on the stock market and the economy as a whole, it is clear that far too many Americans are falling victim, in many instances through no fault of their own. In communities across America, people are losing their homes and their investments because of predatory lenders. Let me take a moment to list their tactics.

Deceptive subprime lenders encourage borrowers to lie about their income, expenses, or cash available for downpayments in order to get a loan. They approve loan applications in which the income fields have been left blank. They knowingly lend more money than a borrower could possibly afford to repay. Furthermore, these lenders tell borrowers they have no other chance of getting a loan or owning a home. For many who dream of home ownership, it is hard to ignore. Home buyers are asked to sign sales contracts or loan documents that are blank or that contain information which isn't true. They sign forms where the cost- of-loan terms at closing are not what they agreed to.

The lenders' tactics are deceptive, and their words are convincing. It is no wonder many Americans have fallen into the trap. That is why I believe those who engage in predatory lending practices must be held accountable. We should no longer sit by while our communities are being targeted by these individuals and companies. We must address predatory lending through vigorous enforcement of safety and soundness standards, consumer protection, financial education programs, and credit counseling. Well-informed consumers are less likely to be the victims of predatory lenders and more likely to make better choices. However, at the same time, there are market forces that absolutely, without a doubt, prey upon the innocent and unsuspecting.

I would have preferred to have the industry fix this situation, but I personally am no longer willing to wait. This has been going on far too long. Time has run out, and I believe we need a legislative solution. As a member of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, I look forward to working with the chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd, to address predatory lending and to develop a solution that will protect the Nation's home buyers.

I wish to assure the American people, those who are currently struggling to pay their mortgage and those who are looking to own a home, that I will not rest until they are protected against the claws of predatory lenders. Enough is enough. American consumers deserve safe and secure mortgage options and new protections against predatory lending.

Finally, for those across the country who believe this is an issue which affects just homeowners or minority communities or those who should know better, I say "think again." As today's Wall Street Journal reports, this issue has a chilling rippling effect across our Nation's economy, leading to sharp declines in the stock market and a sense that we are "kind of back to panic mode," according to one economist quoted in the article. So don't be fooled. This is a serious issue which has far-reaching effects across our economy. Without prompt action, we put not only more individuals at risk of deceitful predatory lending practices but we put our financial markets and our economy at risk as well. The time to act is now, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, I rise to speak against S.J. Res. 9.

Today, the Senate gathers once again to debate the war in Iraq. This is a debate which has been at the center of our national politics-- indeed, of our national consciousness--for 4 years now. As everyone here knows, we are now in the thick of the battle for Baghdad, a critical battle where the outcome hangs in the balance.

A new commander, GEN David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate 81 to 0 just a few weeks ago. A new strategy is being put into action, with new troops being deployed into Baghdad. The question we in the Senate now confront is simple: Will Congress give General Petraeus and his troops a chance to succeed?

This joint resolution before us would deny them that chance, forcing our troops to break off the battle of Baghdad in 120 days without regard to how they are doing. Instead of providing General Petraeus with the necessary reinforcements he has requested, the reinforcements he is, indeed, counting on, this resolution would strip troops away from him in the middle of the battle. That makes no sense. It is why Eisenhower famously once said: "Anyone who sets a deadline in war doesn't understand war."

We need to be clear with ourselves and with the Nation. The joint resolution we are debating would impose a fixed date for the beginning of a withdrawal from Iraq. In just 120 days after this legislation would be passed, American forces would be required by law to begin redeploying out of Iraq. This would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, regardless of the opinions of our allies in Iraq and throughout the region, and regardless of whether security is then improving or deteriorating. It would bind the hands of General Petraeus, substituting the judgment of Congress today for the judgment of our military commanders, our diplomats, and our friends in the region 120 days from now.

Congress has been given many great responsibilities by our Constitution, but the daily micromanagement of war is not one of them. In fact, the proponents of this resolution, as I listen to them, make no attempt to justify why 120 days from now is exactly the right time to commence a withdrawal. Perhaps that is because there is no military or strategic logic at work. This is a deadline which is as arbitrary as it is inflexible. It specifically denies a great American general, David Petraeus, the room for decisive leadership, which history tells us any successful commander must have. Surely we know better than this. Surely we cannot think this is a path to success or security.

I have heard opponents of the current strategy insist that our troops should not be there "policing a civil war." Well, that position, that statement would come as a surprise to the soldiers who have been serving in Bosnia and Kosovo over the past decade, first stopping and now policing a civil war--in fact, two of them. They were correctly, wisely dispatched there by a Democratic President, with the support of Democrats in Congress, the support of many of the same colleagues of mine who are today calling for this withdrawal.

I ask you, my friends, what has changed? Has security worsened in Iraq since the new strategy began? Has the political situation deteriorated? Have you lost confidence in General Petraeus, whom we confirmed just a few weeks ago? I think the answer to all those questions is no.

So I would ask: If we were to stop our legislative debating and maneuvering for a moment and actually look at what is happening in Baghdad right now, what would we see? We would see that sectarian fighting between Sunnis and Shiites is down in districts in Baghdad where American and Iraqi forces have entered. That is according to General Petraeus' senior counterinsurgency adviser. We would see that Muqtada al-Sadr has disappeared, that many of his top lieutenants have been arrested, and that his mighty army, which terrorized much of Baghdad for the last year, has gone to ground. We would also see signs of political progress, including the passage of the new oil law by the Iraqi Cabinet, renewed talks by Sunni insurgent leaders about reconciliation, and even word of an impending Government shakeup involving the removal of some Ministers in the current Government. Finally, if we stopped and stepped back from the debate here in Washington and looked at what is happening on the ground in Baghdad and in Iraq, in Anbar, right now, we would see that the military surge has made possible a critically important diplomatic surge, as representatives from neighboring countries gathered in Baghdad last weekend in the first of a series of such regional conferences.

I don't know if this progress will lead to ultimate success in Iraq, to victory over extremism and terrorism there, to a victory for democracy and hope for an alternative path in the Arab world to the death and suicide and hatred al-Qaida offers, but I can tell you that what is happening in Iraq today certainly does not look like failure to me. In fact, it looks like some progress is being made as a result of this new strategy in Baghdad and in Anbar--preliminary but encouraging progress.

So why, in the face of these developments, would the Senate possibly adopt a resolution such as this? Why, in the face of these encouraging developments that suggest this new plan might well be working, would this Chamber demand that it end? Why, just weeks after confirming General Petraeus, would this Chamber block him from carrying out the strategy he shaped and is now successfully implementing?

There is only one understandable reason for Congress to impose this kind of deadline to begin a withdrawal, and that is if we were absolutely convinced the Petraeus strategy is doomed to failure. The only way a timetable for withdrawal makes sense is if there is no glimmer of hope that General Petraeus and the troops serving under him can succeed. I submit that is simply not a conclusion justified by the facts on the ground in Iraq today.

We are in a long and difficult war. We know that. The price paid by our heroic soldiers and their families has been heavy. I recognize that it is a war in which we have made mistakes, some of them serious, and in which we have experienced exacerbating, heartbreaking, infuriating setbacks. It is a war that has stirred the anger and frustration of the American people, feelings that are justified. What is not justified, however, is for Congress to let the passions and politics of the moment blind us to what is happening on the ground in Iraq today and what is on the line for our security tomorrow.

Our decisionmaking should be driven by the real-world conditions in Baghdad, not by the political mindset here in Washington. This joint resolution before this Chamber fails that test, and that is why it should fail to pass the Senate. General Petraeus has said he will be able to advise us, the President, the Nation, whether his plan is succeeding by the end of this summer. Until then, let me suggest an alternative course for Congress. Let me suggest we declare a truce in the Washington wars over the war in Iraq. For the next 6 months, let's let our troops and the Iraqi forces fight with our support and without us sending them mixed messages. Let us, instead, across party lines, in this Senate and in the House, come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security in the world, including in Iraq, authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines; funding the equipment and protection for our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and worldwide; monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures being followed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans receive the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home.

I ask my colleagues to think hard about what we are doing and what this resolution asks us to do. I ask you to look carefully, not at the public opinion polls in Washington or throughout America, but at the realities on the ground in Iraq and to think about the consequences of a forced withdrawal and failure there. I ask you to step back from this path and to vote against this resolution.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Brown): The Senator from Vermont.

Mr. Sanders: Mr. President, recently in my home State of Vermont, the Vermont State Senate, with a very strong vote, passed a resolution in opposition to the war in Iraq and demanding that our troops come home as soon as possible. It is appropriate our legislature has done that because in Vermont we have paid a very high price for this war. In fact, in terms of per capita loss, the State of Vermont is higher, tragically, than any other State in this country.

In my home State of Vermont, and I believe all across this country, the American people are deeply concerned about the war. They want real debate here in Washington on the issue and, most importantly, they want reaction. That is why I will vote for cloture on S.J. Res. 9 and why I will then proceed, if I am allowed to, if the Republicans allow us to cast that vote, to vote for this resolution.

Let me say a word about the resolution itself, which is very clear and to my mind directly addresses the central concerns of the majority of Americans who, in the elections last November, made it as clear as they could that they want a new course in Iraq. They do not want more of the same, they want a new direction.

The joint resolution we are debating backs our troops, it fully supports our troops, but recognizes that circumstances in Iraq have changed dramatically and most importantly establishes a goal of removing U.S. combat troops by March 2008.

It requires the troop redeployment out of Iraq begin no later than 4 months after the legislation is enacted. The goal it sets of redeploying most of our troops out of Iraq, March 31, 2008, happens to be the very same date proposed by the bipartisan and well-respected Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. So this follows very closely the line of thought of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.

It allows troops to remain in Iraq for three purposes: to protect Americans still working on Iraqi reconstruction, to train the Iraqi police and their military, and to engage in counterterrorism operations.

In my view, President Bush's war in Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster. It is a war many of us understood we should never have gotten into in the first place. It is a war this administration was totally unprepared to fight, where some people in the administration were talking about how the Iraqis would be throwing flowers at our troops-- not roadside bombs but flowers--and that our troops would be coming home after a "cakewalk," in a couple of months.

That was what they were talking about. It is a war that unfortunately and tragically has cost us terribly in terms of American blood. As of today, we have lost almost 3,200 brave American soldiers, almost 24,000 more have been wounded. Let me tell you very clearly that the evidence is overwhelming that tens of thousands more of these brave soldiers fighting in Iraq are going to be coming home with post-traumatic stress disorder or coming back home with traumatic brain injury. That is the reality of what this war has cost us up to now.

This at a time when we do not have the funding to adequately take care of our veterans, as we have seen at Walter Reed, at a time when middle-class families cannot afford to send their kids to college, at a time when this Nation has the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, at a time when hunger in America is substantially increasing. This war, with the President's proposed increase, will cost us some $500 billion and that price tag is going up by $8 billion every month.

This cost is not only going to take money away from the pressing needs of the middle-class and working families of this country, but it is going to add to the $8.5 trillion national debt which this country currently has.

This is a war that has caused unspeakable horror for the people of Iraq--not just for our families who have suffered losses but for the people of Iraq. People who had suffered so long under the horrendous brutality of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship are suffering even more today. We are looking at a nation in the process of disintegration. That is Iraq today. There are estimates that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed--some estimates go as high as 500,000--and almost 2 million Iraqis have fled their own country. In fact, anyone in Iraq who has any money at all, anyone who is part of the middle class, is trying to get out of that country as quickly as possible, and about 8 percent of Iraqis have had to flee their own country.

As I speak, President Bush is returning from a trip to Latin America. Wherever he spoke, he encountered massive protests. In country after country he discovered that people in Latin America hold our Nation in extremely low esteem, largely because of his ill-advised decision to invade Iraq and the disastrous way in which the Iraq occupation has been managed. That is certainly true not just in Latin America, it is true all over the world. How are we, as the most powerful military force in the world, going to be able to lead the world in the very important fight against international terrorism and Islamic extremism when in country after country leaders do not want to identify with us because of the policies of the President of the United States.

In the days immediately following 9/11, the world rallied around the United States when we were grievously attacked; not just leaders but the huge majority of people in nations all over the world expressed their support and expressed their concern for the United States. They were on our side, not just for reasons of compassion but understanding that we had to work together as a planet, as a civilized world in addressing the attacks of extremists and fundamentalists and terrorists. We had to work together and the United States was prepared to play a leadership role.

Tragically, that reality is no longer the case. We are now held in lower esteem internationally than ever before in the modern history of America. That is not just a bad thing in the sense of our young people going to Europe and finding out they are not respected or that our country is not respected, it is a bad thing if we are serious about trying to develop an international consensus to fight the very serious problem of international terrorism.

Tragically, the Bush administration has refused to listen to the American people who, in the national election this past November, made it very clear they want a new direction in Iraq and they want this war wound down. They did not vote for an escalation in this war, they voted to wind down the war. This administration has not only not listened to the American people, they have refused to listen to the thoughtful suggestions of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. This administration has refused to listen to the advice of our military leaders in Iraq who have told us that increasing troops from the United States would make it easier for the Iraqi Government and military to avoid their political and military responsibilities: Why make the hard political decisions? Why make the hard financial decisions? You don't have to do that. Uncle Sam is there to provide you with the troops. The American taxpayer is there to provide you with the money. You don't have to make those choices.

This administration has not only refused to listen to the American people, to our military, to the Iraq Study Group, perhaps most importantly they have refused to listen to the Iraqi people themselves who, according to a number of polls, tell us very strongly they believe that in the midst of all of the chaos, all of the horror that is taking place in their country, they would be more safe, they would be more secure if our troops left their country.

If President Bush will not listen to anybody, including the American people, including former generals, including the Iraq Study Group, including international public opinion, then it is up to Congress to tell him it is time to move in a new direction in Iraq. In the 2006 elections, in my view, the people of Vermont and of this Nation told us they wanted Congress to begin asserting its constitutional authority over this war and that they wanted us to rein in this administration. Most important, they told us they wanted us to begin the process of bringing our troops home as soon as possible. As a Vermont Senator, that is exactly the effort I intend to make. We must bring our troops home instead of leaving them to be embattled referees of a civil war that only the Iraqis--not our brave soldiers--can stop.

Iraq's Government and its military must step up and accept their political and military responsibilities. As the Baker-Hamilton commission said, that will only happen when we insist that the Iraqis and not American troops are responsible for the future of Iraq.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. Sanders: I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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