---

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT NO ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO UNDERMINE THE SAFETY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OR IMPACT THEIR ABILITY TO COMPLETE THEIR ASSIGNED OR FUTURE MISSIONS.--S. RES. 107

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT NO FUNDS SHOULD BE CUT OFF OR REDUCED FOR AMERICAN TROOPS IN THE FIELD WHICH WOULD RESULT IN UNDERMINING THEIR SAFETY OR THEIR ABILITY TO COMPLETE THEIR ASSIGNED MISSIONS.--S. CON. RES. 20

The Presiding Officer: There will now be 4 hours of debate equally divided between the parties.

Mr. Inhofe: Mr. President, it is my understanding the debate will start with our side. I encourage all Members who wish to be heard on our side on any of these resolutions to come to the floor and be heard.

Let me share some thoughts. This is a rather awkward situation we find ourselves in because we are debating three resolutions concurrently. Frankly, one of the three I have not even seen yet, so it is very difficult to debate something you have never seen. But I do know from the past discussions the type of concerns people have, the differences between, quite frankly, the Republican side and the Democratic side. I know it is not right down party lines, but let me share some concerns I have and some thoughts I have.

We heard from several Senators who expressed their concern over our micromanaging the war from this body and from the body of the other side. Five hundred and thirty-five people cannot be Commanders in Chief. It seems as if that is what is happening. Also, I observe, and I am only speaking for myself, that this thing has become highly politicized. When the war first started, the whole idea of weapons of mass destruction was the media trying to make us believe that is what it was all about, but that isn't what it was all about.

I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee during that time, both before and after 9/11, and I observed what was going on. I observed what was going on in Iraq for a long period of time. I had the honor back in 1991 of going to Kuwait on what they called at that time the "First Freedom Flight." There were Democrats and Republicans on that flight. We were the first ones to land in Kuwait. The Iraqis didn't even know the war was over at that time, and the oilfields were burning in Kuwait. I remember Tony Coelho was one of the Democrats who was on the trip, and Alexandria Hague was one of the Republicans on the trip.

He also had the Ambassador from Kuwait to the United States and his daughter on the trip, going back for the first time to Kuwait to see what damage was done by Saddam Hussein in Kuwait City. I remember so well--I don't recall the age of the daughter; maybe she was about 8 years old. I remember so well that when we landed, the oil fields were burning, Iraqis were still fighting, not knowing there had been an agreement and fires should have ceased by that time. They were still shooting at each other. When it calmed down, we went to their home.

Keep in mind the Ambassador to the United States from Kuwait was of nobility and he had a daughter with women. They had a mansion on the Persian Gulf, a beautiful place. We got there in time to see that their house had been used as one of the headquarters of Saddam Hussein. His young daughter wanted to see her bedroom, her stuffed animals and things girls want to see. We found out her room had been used for a torture chamber. There were body parts stuck to the walls, human hair and hands, where the torturing had been taking place.

I think sometimes people forget about how bad this guy was. We hear a lot about Adolf Hitler, and this guy was certainly the worst since the brutality of Auschwitz and Hitler and, of course, the Holocaust. If you had been there and looked down and seen the bodies in the open graves, if you heard the testimony from others whose daughters could not get married because they could not have weddings on the streets of Baghdad because, if they did, people would come in, the Iraqis, and Saddam Hussein's sons would come in and mob everybody and they would kill people and take the pretty girls and rape them and bury them alive. These atrocities that took place were inconceivable to people.

You don't hear about this in the media. They say they didn't find weapons of mass destruction. Well, you know, that is a moot point. There were weapons of mass destruction because they used weapons of mass destruction. They used them in the northern parts of Iraq. Saddam Hussein brutally, painfully murdered his own people, and the types of gases used in these weapons of mass destruction were the most painful kind that would torture people to death, burn them from the inside out. All the time this was happening, we heard testimonials about how Saddam Hussein was treating his people he thought perhaps were his enemies and didn't follow him after the war in 1991, and how they would put people to death, torture them, and drop them into vats of oil. The victims would be praying that they would put them in head first because their life would be over sooner. It was the same with the massive machines-- like what we call shredders in this country--where they would shred the live bodies of these individuals. They used the most brutal types of torture imaginable.

I thought once they get Saddam Hussein and once he is disposed of and is dead, people will realize this monster is not coming back. Unfortunately, there are other monsters who would take up the mantle. These things have gone undiscussed, unnoticed. Even if there had not been weapons of mass destruction--which there were, because they used them, either chemical or biological, which is just as cruel as nuclear, and effective, and it kills many people. Even if that had not been the case, America could not stand by and watch that type of thing happening.

I have had the honor of going back more times than any other Member of the Senate. I will be going next week. It will be my 13th trip to the area of responsibility in Iraq. Each time I come back, after seeing the progress that is being made, I read the newspapers, the press accounts, and there is no relationship between reality and the press accounts we get.

I had the honor of being in Fallujah during a couple of the elections. The Iraqi security forces--people are not aware of this, but they allowed them to vote a day in advance of the normal voting that took place. I was purposely at a couple of these elections in Fallujah because that was where the problems were supposed to exist. That is where our marines were. They conducted door to door and they did incredible and great work at that time. The Iraqi security forces were the first to go down and vote. I remember one night having them come back and talk about the threats that had been made on their lives. Some were shot during the process. They were willing to risk their lives to vote and then to help the people vote the next day. The next day, the other Iraqis came to vote. We all heard about the fingerprinting and holding up with pride their stained finger, which would be a death sentence on individuals. In this country, when such a small percentage of the people vote, and we look at those who are willing to risk their lives, I think how dear that privilege is and how we do not appreciate it as we should.

Anyway, they voted and, of course, they knew when they were going to vote, they would be in harm's way, and many were shot. There are heroic stories of Iraqis going to vote where they would lay down their lives and get in the line of fire to save somebody else. So these were experiences that we had, the real reasons for being there.

As we approach these resolutions--I see my friend from Missouri is here and I will soon yield to him whatever time he asks. As we discuss the resolutions, I want people to keep in mind the one thing those of us who believe the generals are more capable of running this war than are the individuals in this body, the 535 Members of the House and Senate--and of the 535, many of them want to be Commander in Chief; many are running. The generals make these decisions.

At this time, I ask my friend from Missouri how much time he wishes.

Mr. Bond: I would like 15 minutes.

Mr. Inhofe: I yield 15 minutes to Senator Bond.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Missouri is recognized.

Mr. Bond: Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this very important subject. Some have said we don't want to debate the war in Iraq, but we have been doing that and I am happy to debate it.

We are at war. One of the jobs of this body is to support our troops when we are at war. As such, we should be taking up the supplemental war funding bill that will directly support and aid our service men and women and support the efforts underway in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I regret the Democratic leadership has chosen to delay acting on funds our troops in the field need and must have by the 1st of May. Here we go, talking about resolutions. We are taking up nonbinding resolutions. The key one is nonsensical; it would serve only to undermine the morale of our service men and women and boost the morale of our enemies. S.J. Res. 9 has a clear message, if not to Americans reading the news, certainly to our enemy: America has been defeated. America does not have the will to win. Or we cannot defeat American troops on the streets of Iraq, but we can defeat America in the halls of Congress. That is what they will be saying.

Out of the 17 different resolutions the majority has worked with and introduced, they have decided to debate S.J. Res. 9--one in a litany of defeatist, micromanaging resolutions that have been offered by the other side.

Like so many of the others, it calls for a retreat and it ensures defeat. Such a retreat, in its wake, would create a bastion of instability, violence, regional conflict, and a launching point for future attacks on our allies and this Nation such as that witnessed after 9/11. The intelligence community, in public testimony before our committee in January, publicly stated that the very real three-pronged threat of turning Iraq over to the chaos is a serious challenge we all should consider.

Fortunately, those of us who believe the generals ought to run the war have the Constitution on our side, which specifies that the President--not those of us in the 535 Members of Congress--is Commander in Chief. The proponents of S.J. Res. 9 to set deadlines must now believe they are more equipped, better informed, and have better judgment than the leaders and military commanders they recently and unanimously confirmed.

Is the American public to believe that the legislators in these beautiful halls, 8,000 miles away from the front, are better equipped to develop strategies than General Petraeus, whom this body confirmed unanimously to lead U.S. forces?

I think the Founding Fathers were right at the time and they are right now. We do not fight wars in the Halls of Congress. We cannot win this war by resolutions we pass, but we can lose the war in the Halls of Congress. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to cite public opinion polls about Iraq as well as a reason why we should pull out. What may be perceived to be popular in the short run, regrettably, will in the long run compound into an even bigger problem that will end up costing us and our allies far more blood and treasure.

Further, when it comes to national security, we ought to be governing on principles, not on public opinion polls.

The American people want victory, not defeat. They are demanding progress, which the new security plan was designed to produce. Incidentally, this new plan fits almost exactly with the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton committee, which so many people on both sides of the aisle said would be the ultimate solution. Well, General Petraeus and the administration are carrying out the details of the Baker-Hamilton plan, and now we are changing our mind. Why? Well, some, I fear, may be inspired by a loathing of President Bush. But even to those of you who do, I appeal to you to recognize the President is not the enemy. The enemy is ruthlessly chopping the heads off innocent civilians in front of cameras, blowing up schoolchildren, blowing up places of worship. One Army officer recently e-mailed me and said:

I proudly served in Iraq. I know who the enemies of America are. I have met them in person. Our President is not the enemy.

This would not be George Bush's defeat or victory. It will be an American defeat or victory, and the sooner we understand that, the sooner perhaps we can be united.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, recently wrote a piece in the Washington Post describing the sad state of current political affairs. It was entitled "Grand Illusion." In the piece he asserted:

Democratic and Republican members of Congress are looking for a different kind of political solution: the solution to their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost 2 years off.

This is coming, as he indicates in his article, just as "American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad."

He goes on to say that "they've launched attacks on Sunni insurgent strongholds and begun reining in Moqtada al-Sadr's militia."

This is appropriate advice. He says:

Politicians in both parties should realize that success in this mission is in their interest, as well as the nation's. Here's a wild idea: Forget the political posturing, be responsible, and provide the moral and material support our forces need and expect.

Despite many people's dissatisfaction with the war, I don't think a majority of Americans want us to withdraw, to retreat and admit defeat.

Throughout the debate, we have also heard references and comparisons made to Vietnam, that this is a quagmire, that the war is unjust, poorly managed, it threatens our individual liberties, it is unwinnable, and the only option is to pull out. All of the very same things were said during the campaign against President Lincoln in 1864, with well over one-quarter of a million dead Americans; after the Union suffered 7,000 casualties in 30 short minutes at Cold Harbor; and until Sherman won in Atlanta.

If you look at our history, anybody getting 24-hour television news during the battles Americans fought against the British in 1776, you would have had to say we were in worse shape than we are now.

When you look at the conditions our troops were in before D-Day and all the things that went wrong, 24-hour news coverage would have convinced an overwhelming majority of the American people to forget it, pull the plug, let the Nazis have it. But if somebody used Vietnam as a model--and it should be used completely--I think it reminds people of the image associated with Vietnam that too many ignore.

I suspect this is a historical photo that many of our murderous enemies dream would be superimposed over the rooftops of Baghdad. These are the people left behind. We left behind people. Some 2.5 million were murdered after we pulled out of Vietnam.

This is, of course, the final, classic departure, people trying to get away. Those who didn't were slaughtered.

Our enemies throughout the radical Islamist world are all too familiar with immediate withdrawal and retreat. We withdrew from Vietnam, we withdrew from Beirut, and we withdrew from Mogadishu.

These repeated withdrawals signaled to our enemies all over the world that if they inflict enough damage on our most heroic citizens, the Marines will never surrender but Washington will.

And make no mistake about it, they are watching. They are watching to see what we will do in Iraq.

These repeated withdrawals invited the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the bombings of our embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, and eventually 9/11. None of these actions occurred because of our action to liberate Iraq. Five or six of these attacks occurred before President Bush took office, and George Bush did not invent the danger from radical Islam.

Further, the notion of separating al-Qaida from the sectarian killers can only be contemplated from as far away as Washington because al- Qaida is targeting the mixed neighborhoods and has overtly promised sectarian violence to undermine the Iraqi Government and to weaken U.S. Government resolve.

The Democratic resolution before us now is precisely what our enemies want to hear and, sadly, are expecting to hear.

Here are some quotes from one of the people we ought to be reading more frequently, Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden said:

We found that out from our brothers who fought the Americans in Somalia. They did not see it as a power worthy of any mention… . God gave them and the mujahideen success in Somalia and the United States pulled out, trailing disappointment, defeat and failure behind it. It achieved nothing. It left quicker than people had imagined.

That is what Osama bin Laden said on October 21, 2001.

In addition to that statement, he said on February 14, 2003:

It has been made clear during our defending and fighting against the American enemy that this enemy's combat strategy is heavily dependent on the psychological aspect of war … which hides the cowardice and lack of fighting spirit of the American soldier… . Likewise, let me remind you of the defeat of the American forces in Beirut in 1982, soon after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when the Lebanese resistance was personified by a truck laden with explosives that struck the main military base of the U.S. Marines in Beirut, killing 242 soldiers--towards hell was their destination and what an evil destination that is.

This is what Osama bin Laden thinks of us. He stated many times that Americans don't have the stomach for conflict and this Democratic resolution embodies that very notion.

What Osama bin Laden and the enemies we are fighting against expect to see is Vietnam. Let's give General Petraeus more confidence. General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously. He stated that the effort in Iraq will have to be sustained to achieve its desired effect and that more troops are vital to advancing security. We confirmed him unanimously. Give him a chance.

He reported last week that nine Iraqi reinforcement battalions have entered Baghdad. He pointed to a decrease in sectarian killings, the discovery of numerous weapons caches, and the capture of al-Qaida members. Al-Sadr has fled Sadr City, and al-Baghdadi was recently reported caught.

Associated Press reporter Robert Reid recently reported General Petraeus walking through the streets of Hit, a Sunni city with a bloody past. Last month in the article, he reported:

Iraqi police backed by U.S. troops swept through the city of about 120,000 people, arresting suspected insurgents and establishing three new police stations in the downtown area. Since then, the number of violent incidents has dropped from an average of 5 per day to 1.3 per day.

Now that a relative level of security has been established, the important political and economic development work must begin.

In the past, the United States had claimed similar victories in Hit, but those gains were lost because of lack of enough troops to sustain the province.

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. Bond: Mr. President, while it is far too premature to declare that the new strategy has succeeded, it does indicate there is a possibility. As General Abizaid once testified, despair is not a policy. It must be given a chance to succeed, and this resolution would do nothing to achieve victory. The alternative of retreat and defeat would be disastrous.

What are my colleagues who wish to see us leave Iraq thinking will happen once we do? The arguments for retreating before relative security is established because we grow tired of the war, because mistakes were made or because Americans allegedly want us to leave all ignore what the consequences will be if we do leave precipitously on a political withdrawal timetable.

Those who are advocating for retreat and departure from Iraq absolutely must address this very difficult question. In other words, what is "Plan Bravo," plan B, for those mandating retreat? Are we to redeploy forces back home only to have to redeploy them in much larger numbers 3, 4, 5 years from now, once Baghdad has turned into a base of operations and safe haven for al-Qaida? Will we endure the transfer of Islamofascist terrorism and violence occurring in the Middle East back to the homeland?

Mr. President, I ask for an additional 60 seconds.

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

Mr. Bond: Mr. President, are we going to bear witness to a conflict between Sunnis and Shiites that would spread into a regional war throughout the Middle East? Will we sit idly by while a regional conflict ensues that would result in the death of thousands of civilians? What will happen when the price of oil goes up? Will we see radical Islam taking over more parts of the world? Will we hand them Iraq on a silver platter? Will we have to again deploy troops to the Middle East?

To ignore these considerations and questions simply because they are not politically palatable is shortsighted at best and dangerous at the worst. Those who are attempting to end the war don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq will do anything but end. In fact, it will only grow more dangerous.

Mr. President, I suggest that Mr. Kagan had it right. In his article, he also said there ought to be a plan B for the Washington Post and others who have projected and counted on defeat. What is your plan B if General Petraeus's works and you predicted so successfully it won't work?

We need to put the money behind our troops, give General Petraeus the support for the new plan with money and support that effort underway. Our 130,000 to 150,000 American troops and their families at home are depending on us. They have a direct stake in this historic event, and I believe that fighting is necessary to prevail over evil.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Tester): The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. Inhofe: Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri. A lot of people don't know it, but his family has made a personal sacrifice in their efforts in this war. We appreciate that very much. The Senator from Missouri outlined the consequences of surrender in a very articulate way.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any quorum calls during the debate on the Iraq resolutions be equally divided.

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

Mr. Inhofe: Mr. President, I see no speakers on the other side, so I will elaborate on my remarks. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Missouri talked about specifically what would be the consequences of timelines or withdrawal. I can speak from personal experience, having spent time in Iraq. As I mentioned before, I plan to take my 13th trip to AOR in a couple of weeks. I believe what is not understood by people who are debating these resolutions is some of the good things about the Iraqi security forces.

I had the honor of being in Iraq when some of the new leadership took office. I remember Dr. Rubaie, who is the National Security Adviser, and Dr. Jassim--I believe he was the Minister of Defense at that time-- they articulated in a very effective way that most of the differences between the two major factors over there were Western concepts, were Western ideas. It appeared to me that was the case.

As we debate these resolutions, we need to remember how we got in there in the first place. Remember what happened prior to 1991, remember the monstrous commissions that were made by Saddam Hussein and the number of people, the volumes of people who died tragic, painful deaths.

As far as the Iraqi security forces are concerned, it is pretty obvious to me that these individuals want to be in charge. I get the idea, when I listen to some of the people on the other side, that the Iraqi security forces somehow are inferior, somehow they don't have the knowledge and the capability, the potential to become great fighters. Yet when I talk with them, they are the ones who are anxious to get themselves in a position where they are going to be carrying the load for us.

The whole idea of the embedded training is that we put our people in the rear to advise the Iraqis on what to do and to train them while they are actually embedded and fighting with them. This has worked very effectively. It has been effective.

I happened to be there at a time when in one of the training areas for Iraqi security forces, there was an explosion. Some 40 were killed.

What the people over here don't understand is the commitment the Iraqis have to their own security. It happens that 40 families of those who were killed in this blast all supplied another member of their family to go in and carry the load for the deceased trainee.

These individuals are committed. They are as anxious as we are to get to the point where they have the capability of offering the security against the terrorists. From time to time, they have gotten that way. There was a time when the entire western one-third of Baghdad was under security control by the Iraqis themselves. They were just not in a position to sustain that control.

We saw the commitment the Iraqis had in Fallujah, when a general who had been the brigade commander for Saddam Hussein--this guy hated Americans; he was a brigade commander for Saddam Hussein, until we went into Fallujah with our Marines and they started the embedded training, the embedded training referred to by my friend from Missouri. It was so successful and they enjoyed each other so much that this man, this general, his name is Mahdi, he looked me in the eyes and said: I hated Americans before all this happened. I certainly hated the Marines. When they came in and started embedded training, I learned to love them so much that when they rotated out, we all got together and we cried.

This is the commitment the Iraqis have. When you get into one of the helicopters and go from place to place, maybe 50 feet off the ground, and you see the commitment of these individuals in the small towns and the kids who are down there--a lot of times the people who are supporting our troops send over candy, cookies, and this type of thing don't realize that when our troops get them, they normally repackage them, and then as they are in these helicopters going across the triangle and other places, you can see the little Iraqi kids out there waving American flags and our troops are throwing them candy and cookies. This is the type of relationship we don't see in this country.

Mr. President, while we are calling to make sure that some of them get down to the floor from both sides, let me 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. Specter: 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. Specter: Mr. President, the Senate is now engaged in a historic debate about what the United States of America should do with respect to the conflict in Iraq. We are scheduled to vote on three resolutions at 3:45 this afternoon. I was advised early this morning, about 8 a.m., that we would have four resolutions to vote on and that there would be a time agreement of some 6 hours, with votes to occur late this afternoon. Two of the resolutions among the four were not in existence, one of the resolutions has since been dropped, and the fourth resolution was made available less than an hour ago. This kind of a timetable, it seems to me, is not conducive to the kind of deliberation and thought necessary to make intelligent decisions on the momentous questions which we are facing.

We are asking the U.S. military to adopt a timetable to clear out of Iraq no later than a year from now, and we have a tough time establishing even a timetable as to what the Senate will do in the course of a single day.

As I review the proceedings, it seems to me that the Congress is not prepared to act on this subject on this state of the record. It may be that the Congress is not competent to act on this kind of an issue. There is a maxim that you can't manage effectively by committee, and what this concurrent resolution seeks to do is to have management by two committees--that is perhaps twice as bad as trying to manage by one committee--a committee of 435 in the House of Representatives and a committee of 100 here.

Yesterday, I spoke briefly about S. Res. 9, which has been cosponsored by 41 Democrats, no Republicans. I think it is regrettable that there appears to be a partisan divide on this subject. This matter is too important to be determined by party loyalty. Perhaps a more important aspect of noting that the resolution is supported by 41 Democrats is that it is not supported by 9 Democrats, with 50 Democrats in this body. So perhaps it is significant that it is not supported by 9 Democrats.

I would be prepared to cross party lines, as I have done in the past when I thought it warranted, if I agreed with the thrust of the resolution. Seven of us joined with the Democrats in voting for cloture several weeks ago to move ahead with the debate and try to come to a resolution on the Iraqi issue, and I was one of the seven. I would not hesitate to do so again if I agreed, but I cannot agree with the proposal which would require that not later than 120 days after enactment to have phased redeployment of U.S. forces, with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces in Iraq except for three conditions: to protect U.S. and coalition personnel, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

The thrust, however, is to leave Iraq in about 1 year, and that is to ensure defeat. Setting a timetable simply enables our opponents to wait us out.

I think beyond that, the idea of having the Congress of the United States micromanage the war is simply not realistic, and perhaps it may even be unlawful. As I noted yesterday, in the case of Fleming v. Page, in 1850, the Supreme Court said:

As Commander in Chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy.

That is a fairly forceful statement that it is not up to the Congress to micromanage a war but that it is up to the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States.

That is not to say that the Congress does not have authority in the premises. Yesterday, I put into the Record a lengthy letter which I had written calling for additional hearings by the Judiciary Committee on the relative powers, authority of the Congress under the Constitution, with our power of the purse and our power to maintain and direct armies, contrasted with the President's power as Commander in Chief.

I believe, however, it is of questionable legal authority to micromanage, and it is definitely impractical for us to seek to micromanage if the consequences of giving an order to the President would just enable the enemy to wait us out. That is not to say that at some time in the future it may be necessary, and there may be a considered joint judgment by the Congress, to use the extraordinary power of the purse to implement our constitutional authority to maintain armies to effectuate a withdrawal.

Yesterday, I commented on the Senate floor that it would be most helpful to have an update from the Department of Defense and the Department of State as to whether, since General Petraeus went to Iraq, implementing a new strategy as he articulated it to many of us in the Congress in meeting with him, whether there have been improvements, so that there was some realistic prospect of victory, which is what we want. The consequences of defeat are disastrous, but that does not mean that we can be in Iraq forever.

The President, in his State of the Union speech, set two objectives for the Iraqis. One was to end the sectarian violence and, secondly, to secure Baghdad as indispensable prerequisites for maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq. The Iraqis have shown neither the capacity nor the will to carry out those objectives. In evaluating the strategy of General Petraeus, it would be helpful to know if there have been any positive signs or negative signs, giving us some clue as to the prospects of victory.

Through staff, I made an inquiry of the Department of Defense for some updated material, and none was available. Similarly, through staff, I made an inquiry of the Department of State, asking if there had been any results from the change in policy to negotiate with Iran and Syria, at least on a multilateral basis. One part of the resolution that is supported by 41 Democrats, calling for a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy, has been implemented by the Department of State, at least in the incipient stages. Even in the absence of any indication of any progress, it seems to me unwise, on this state of the record, to set a timetable which would just embolden and empower the enemy to win by waiting us out.

The power of the purse is the ultimate constitutional authority of the Congress. Even there, as I noted yesterday in the case of United States v. Lovett, in 1946, the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot use its appropriations power indirectly to accomplish an unconstitutional objective. That still leaves substantial parameters to decide what to do.

The second resolution is the one submitted by Senator Gregg, and Senator Gregg articulates a resolution that all of us agree with:

That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field….

That would be unthinkable. No one disagrees with that. Then the Gregg resolution goes on to say:

… including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field.

That phrase could be interpreted to mean that Congress does not have the authority to stipulate an elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field so that we couldn't say to the President to reduce the troops by a certain date. Or perhaps it should be read in conjunction with taking no action to endanger to say you have to be down to a certain number by a certain date, as Congress did in legislation in 1974, saying that when the war in Vietnam was winding down, there could be no more than 4,000 troops in the field in 6 months and no more than 3,000 troops in the field in a year. That congressional legislation was signed by President Ford, although he expressed some reservations. So perhaps the Gregg resolution does not purport to totally eliminate the authority of Congress to act by cutting off funding if it can be done in a way which does not endanger the troops in the field. Certainly the thrust, the gravamen of the Gregg resolution is one where there would be no disagreement, we simply could not endanger the troops in the field or take any action which would endanger them.

Then the third resolution--which was filed less than an hour ago by Senator Murray--sounds very much like the Gregg resolution. It is intended, I think, to provide an alternative to the Gregg resolution, but it is very close. The Murray resolution provides:

The President and Congress should not take any action that will endanger the Armed Forces of the United States and will provide necessary funds for training, equipment and other support for troops in the field as such actions will ensure their safety and effectiveness in preparing for and carrying out their assigned missions.

We all agree with that. Then it goes on to say:

The President, Congress and the Nation have an obligation to ensure that those who have bravely served this country in time of war receive the medical care and other support they deserve.

No one could disagree with that. It is a reference to what has happened at Walter Reed. Then the third clause in the resolution.

Resolved: The President and Congress should continue to exercise their constitutional responsibilities to ensure that the Armed Forces have everything they need to perform their assigned or future missions.

We can't disagree with that. And then:

… review, assess and adjust United States policy and funding as needed to ensure our troops have the best chance for success in Iraq and elsewhere.

That also is apple pie, motherhood, and milk. There is a little implication, on "review, assess and adjust," perhaps a change in policy, but it does not say anything definitive.

There was supposed to have been a fourth resolution offered by Senator Warner, who had an earlier resolution which was not taken up by the Senate. Senator Warner is to be commended for his service to the country, heading the Armed Services Committee, 28 years in this body, Secretary of the Navy, served in World War II. He was searching for some alternative. But in the absence of any resolution having been filed, the inference arises that the search continues. That is where I think we are on this issue.

The electorate spoke last November in disagreeing with United States policy in Iraq. The House of Representatives has spoken, disagreeing with United States policy in Iraq. The Senate is about to speak, but it is highly doubtful--virtually impossible that a forced withdrawal within a year will be approved by 60 Members of this body. The resolutions by Senator Gregg and Senator Murray are not twins, but they are first cousins. But we are still groping for what to do.

My own sense of the situation is we need to pursue some preliminary reports that things are improving and find out if in fact that is true. As I look at Iraq--and I used the metaphor yesterday--it is a tunnel and we can't see the end of the tunnel. Certainly there is no indication that there is a light in the end of the tunnel. I don't like being in the tunnel, but I don't know where else to go at the moment.

I am not going to go with a resolution to leave Iraq, micromanage the war, tell the President what to do when we frankly don't know what to do. But we are groping. Just as we are unprepared to deal with these resolutions in a limited time, by 3:45, we are unprepared to tell the military what to do in a year. So I think we need to go back to the drawing boards and I think we need to find out more facts. It may be General Shinseki was right in 2003, that job required a lot more personnel, into the hundreds of thousands, under the Colin Powell doctrine of overwhelming force. Maybe that was the course which should have been followed. Certainly we don't want to deploy more troops now, in those quantities. For General Shinseki's brilliance, he got himself fired, ridiculed and fired. We are trying to find out what to do.

I had an opportunity to visit the Mideast and talk to President Assad of Syria last December. President Assad advanced the idea of having an international conference before the idea was advanced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I carried that message back and conveyed Assad's suggestion to Condoleezza Rice. Whether that had any impact on her idea, I don't know. But I do believe--and I said this in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor last June, and in an article which appears in the current issue of the Washington Quarterly--that dialog should be undertaken with Iran and Syria. We have seen the multilateral dialog with North Korea, supplemented by direct contracts, bilateral negotiations, produce what appears to be an answer to diffusing North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons. We don't know for sure because that is a very tentative basis, but we made a lot of progress and we appear to have an answer.

I think there is cause for hope that the multilateral talks with Iran and Syria, and perhaps bilateral talks, will produce something there. So I am going to oppose S. Res. 9 and I am going to support the first cousins, the Gregg resolution and the Murray resolution. They say something which is obvious. We are not going to take any action to endanger the American troops. But that does not mean we are without power in the future to use the appropriations power, the power of the purse, to put Congress's imprimatur and decision on what is going on.

The President said for a long time he was the decider. I think he has wisely receded a little from that assertion. It is a joint, shared responsibility between Congress and the President. There has been a lot of talk. I think the American people ought to know there has been a lot of--it is more than talk; there has been a lot of very serious thought which has been undertaken by the Members of the Congress, both the Senate and the House, trying to find a way to have a victory in Iraq. Our statements of disagreement with the President do not mean we ought to tell him what to do when in fact we do not know what to do.

For myself, I think we need to find out more about what is happening now, both militarily and diplomatically; going back to the drawing board and seeing if we can come up with a better answer than the one we are facing at the present time.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, who is managing the bill.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. Inhofe: I wish to inquire how much time we have remaining on our side.

The Presiding Officer: There is 64 minutes 30 seconds.

Mr. Inhofe: Fine. We are next going to hear from the Senator from South Carolina. I wish to say, after the conclusion of the remarks, I am going to be trying to line up, by unanimous consent, several speakers. It is my understanding Senator Byrd wants to come down and speak. But between the next speaker and Senator Byrd, we are going to try to get some lined up for a period of time. That will be our intention.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.

Mr. Graham: Mr. President, I think Senator Specter, has given a good overview of where the Congress finds itself, where it wants to go, and how to get there. What I wish to do is give my view for people back home and my colleagues about how what we do now, for the moment, could affect the overall war on terror, and throw out this proposition: Do we believe the outcome in Iraq affects the overall war on terror? Is Iraq a central battlefront in the global struggle? I believe the answer is clearly yes. You could debate whether going into Iraq was the right thing. Clearly that is a debate that will be resolved by historians. We are there now. What are the consequences of a failed state in Iraq and how likely is that to occur, based on what we do for the moment?

I would argue very strongly a failed state in Iraq is a tremendous defeat in the overall war on terror on several fronts. No. 1, it means moderate forces in Iraq were overwhelmed by the extremists. There are basically three groups in Iraq trying to kill this infant democracy. There is a Shia extremist group that has as its goal a theocracy for Iraq where the Shias will dominate the Iraqi landscape and they will have an Iranian style theocracy. It may be different in many ways, but it will be a religious state.

The Sunni extremists are trying to seize power and kill this infant democracy and rule by the gun, not by the rule of law. They were in power during the Saddam era and they want to get back in power. These two groups have different views of what to do with a future Iraq, but they both come together believing a democracy hurts their agenda.

Then there is the rest of Iraq, the Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds, which I think are the overwhelming majority--and they are struggling to create a new democracy out of the ashes of a dictatorship. I want to associate myself with some understanding of the struggle they are going through because our country went through this very same struggle. It is hard to create a democracy, but the benefits are enormous if we can pull this off.

The third group is the most dangerous of all. They are in Iraq to kill this infant democracy, not for political power within the border of Iraq as their goal but to create a movement that will sweep the Mideast. This is the al-Qaida organization within Iraq and associated Islamic extremist organizations that have a more regional view of what to do. All three groups, the Shia extremists, the Sunni extremists, and the foreign fighters, namely al-Qaida, are threatened by democracy in different ways.

Shaikh Mohammed has just admitted in open session in a military tribunal that he was in fact the mastermind of 9/11. He went on ad nauseam about all the activity he had been involved in for over a decade. The point of his testimony was he believes he is at war with us. We need to understand we are at war with him. I think for years they were fighting us and we did not quite understand they had declared war upon us. But we all agree now that al-Qaida is a force that needs to be dealt with militarily and that there is a global struggle in which they are involved, and that Shaikh Mohammed is a warrior, an illegal warrior but nonetheless a warrior. He doesn't have a criminal agenda, he has a political agenda and religious agenda, and he considers himself a warrior.

What I hope we can do in Iraq is defeat extremism on all fronts; that we could, in fact, defeat al-Qaida in Iraq, which would be a blow to their overall regional world agenda.

What to do? Senator Specter made a good point. Where do we go? Congress is trying to find its footing. Congress doesn't want to cut off funding. There are different reasons people don't want to cut off funding. The polls clearly show that cutting off funding is not popular, by the American people. There are Members in the body who do want to cut off funding. I respect their point of view because they have concluded Iraq is not part of the war on terror in a traditional sense; that our involvement in Iraq is doing more damage in the war than it is helping.

I just disagree. I think a loss in Iraq is a huge event in the war on terror. And they will come and cast a vote. They will vote against Senator Gregg's resolution saying the Congress should cut off funding. I respect them, but I think they are wrong.

Now as to Senator Reid. His motion is that we are going to try to send a message to the Maliki Government and other political leaders in Iraq by telling them: At a date certain, we are going to start leaving if certain things are not done. I understand the point, that they are trying to get the moderate forces, the Democratic forces in Iraq, to do better and come together quicker.

My concern is pretty simple. I think Senator Specter expressed it very well: The audience of this resolution is not a single audience, that the world will be listening and watching what the Senate does.

If the Senate did pass a resolution setting a specific date--March of next year--where we will begin to redeploy if certain things are not done in Iraq, then I am convinced that in the Mideast it will be taken as a sign of weakness, not strength.

It will be not a message sent to the moderates alone, it will be a message sent to the enemies of democracy. We would be, no matter how well intentioned, laying out a roadmap as to how to drive the United States out of Iraq. The resolution would have two purposes, one well intended: to get the Iraqi Government to do more to expedite the political decisionmaking that is required to lead to a successful outcome.

The other consequence would be, we would be telling our enemies in great detail: Here is what you have to do to make sure we leave at a date certain and that every benchmark we set as to a date becomes a benchmark for the enemy. If you can achieve this benchmark, the United States will leave. To me, if we ever do that, then we have made a huge mistake.

Senator Specter mentioned some of the mistakes. I think General Shinseki was right, we never had enough troops to provide security. We planned for the best, never assumed for the worst. On the economic projections, in terms of the cost of the war, the military understanding of what would happen after the fall of Baghdad, we missed it by a mile. We are paying a heavy price for making those mistakes.

But the biggest mistake is yet to come. If we pass the Reid resolution, it would trump every mistake President Bush's team has made by a factor of many because it would be, in fact, destroying the last best chance we have to salvage democracy in Iraq.

General Petraeus is our best hope. Reinforcements are needed in Iraq: politically, economically, and militarily. Any resolution passed by the Senate declaring this operation lost before it is implemented cuts General Petraeus's legs out from under him. It would be the biggest mistake Congress could make--I would say maybe in American history--to a commander in the field. Eighty-one to zero, we sent the general off to fight in a war anew, and now we are about to send a message to the people he is fighting that on a date certain you win if you do the following things.

This resolution empowers our enemies. It gives them a roadmap of how to drive us out of the Mideast. It weakens the ability of General Petraeus to form coalitions to give the Iraqi politicians what they need to do the things they need to do.

If you want to empower a moderate, which is key to victory in the Mideast in the war on terrorism, the last thing you need to do, in my opinion, is make a public statement that our commitment ends at a certain date if you do not do certain things, because you are telling the enemy exactly what they have to do to win out over the moderates and the United States. It would be a huge mistake of monumental proportions. I hope this body will not allow that to happen.

What happens if we have a failed state in Iraq? Who is the biggest winner if Iraq breaks apart and democracy fails? Iran wins. In the south, the Shia south, a very oil-rich area, that most likely will become a puppet state of Iran. I cannot say for sure it will, but it is the most likely outcome. Let's start, for a change, planning for the worst.

I wish people who were introducing these resolutions would understand the consequences of a failed state and ask themselves: Does this resolution help create a democracy? Does it empower the enemy? Does it help create a failed State? What are the consequences?

Former Senator Edwards is saying we should draw 50,000 troops down today. They asked him the question: What would that mean for regional stability? I don't know. I am not sure.

Well, I can tell you what it means. It would tell the extremists we are leaving, you are winning. Every moderate in the Mideast would start hedging their bets because what kind of political solution are you going to come up with if you believe the American political and economic aid to your young democracy will vanish? You start hedging your bets.

The stronger we are, the bolder they become. The weaker we are, the bolder the enemy becomes. The stronger America, in a rational way, stands by moderate forces, the more likely they are to make the hard decisions to bring the country together. The weaker we seem, the weaker we portray ourselves, the stronger the enemy of democracy.

That is what I believe this is all about. You cannot kill the terrorists in numbers enough to win the war from an American perspective. This war will never be won by the American military killing terrorists. They are doing a wonderful job, our military. This war will be won when extremism is suppressed within the Mideast by the people who live in the Mideast.

So we have to take sides. This war is a war of religion and origin. The origin of this war is not Palestine-Israel, it is bin Laden, Shaikh Mohammed, and others who have a view of religion that has no place on the planet for the State of Israel or moderate Muslims, Christians, Jews. They have said publicly their goal is to drive us out of the Mideast, topple all moderate governments that do business with the West and essentially destroy Israel. I believe them.

Iraq is a test of us and our will versus their will. I do hope we understand the vote we are about to take will shape the fortunes in Iraq in the coming months one way or the other. The decision we take in Iraq will shape our national security interests for decades, will change the Mideast for the better or for the worse, and will have monumental consequences on the war on terrorism.

This is not about the political moment. This is about the decades to follow. Leaving Iraq, from a national security perspective, is not the question for the country. We all want to leave sooner rather than later for the good of our own troops, and eventually the stability of the world, to allow the Iraqis to take over their own destiny.

The question for this country is what do we leave behind? I am convinced if we leave behind a failed State, where moderates are overwhelmed by extremists, the problems in Iraq spill out to the Mideast, and the war does not end when you leave Iraq, it just begins.

You need to look at Shaikh Mohammed and what he said a few days ago, and what they are saying now, al-Qaida. Understand that they believe the outcome in Iraq is part of the war on terror. I believe it. These resolutions, in my opinion, do not understand that.

As to General Petraeus, I have a lot of confidence in this new plan. It is not more of the same. It is trying to go at the problems in Iraq new and differently. There are early signs of success. There is a long way to go, But please understand the General and those who are under his command are affected by our actions in Washington. The world is watching. Please do not send a message to the wrong people, no matter how well intended.

I yield the floor.