---

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. Inhofe: First of all, let me thank the Senator from South Carolina, who has been steadfast all the way through this, and who has made such great contributions. In addition to what he said, I think it is worth observing that this is working.

In this morning's Washington Post, there is an article about the successes that are taking place. The top U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said the number of sectarian killings has dropped since the operation began in mid-February.

Then on the other side, GEN Qassim al-Mousawi, who is the Iraqi military spokesman, also offered an upbeat assessment of the Baghdad security plan and how well it is working now. So I think, frankly, this is sooner than I thought we would be getting some positive results.

Let me also make one observation before going on to the next speakers. That is, after receiving rather late the resolution by Senator Murray, 107, in reading it, unless I misread it, it appears to me she is outlining some things that are pretty consistent with what is in the Gregg resolution. So I do not know--with the three resolutions we have--the order. That is going to be determined, but right now we are not sure of it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, be recognized for 20 minutes, followed by Senator Ensign for 7 minutes, followed by Senator Tester for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Kyl for 7 minutes, then any intervening Democrat, to be followed by Republican Senators Brownback, Warner, and Vitter for 7 minutes each.

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

Mr. Inhofe: I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, along with my Democratic colleagues, I intend to vote for the Reid resolution, S.J. Res. 9. I have some concerns with the approach in this resolution--I firmly believe that the Congress must address the open-ended 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq, which is not dealt with in this resolution--but I certainly agree with the Reid resolution's intent. There is a diversity of views in both parties about our policy in Iraq, but a majority of the American people are united in the firm belief that a change of course is long overdue. Fifty-nine percent of Americans believe that the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq. Sixty percent favor withdrawing all U.S. troops by the end of next year. The American people are speaking, and finally their Representatives in the Congress are listening.

Some of us may disagree about the best way to effect a change of course in Iraq, but this debate shows one thing--it is time for a new plan, time for a real discussion, not more empty rhetoric about "stay the course" versus "cut and run." This administration is fond of referring to the powers of the Commander in Chief, but surely the most important responsibility of any Commander in Chief is to provide solid leadership. As President Harry Truman said: "The buck stops here." But we are entering the fifth year of this misbegotten war, and this President has failed time and time again to articulate a plan, a plan to give a clear reason for why we are in Iraq or to outline a strategy for bringing our troops home. Stubbornly denying that Iraq is engaged in a civil war is not leadership. The White House has abdicated its leadership on this issue, so it is left to the Congress--that is us--to speak for the American people.

The hue and cry raised from my colleagues across the aisle and from the White House is that those who do not support this disastrous war do not support the troops. Three thousand one hundred and eighty-nine soldiers have now died in Iraq. Thousands more have been wounded and maimed and have come home to find outrageous and dehumanizing treatment. Truly supporting our troops means not putting them into harm's way without a clear plan for success and unless it is absolutely necessary. It means not asking our sons and daughters, our best and our brightest, to make the ultimate sacrifice without being able to articulate exactly why they are being asked to do so and exactly what we will accomplish as a result. Supporting our troops means treating our wounded men and women with dignity. It means not sending them to recuperate in mold-filled rooms without supervision and without assistance in a morass of paperwork. It means not sending back to the front lines those too wounded to fight, as this administration is doing.

I continue to receive letters and phone calls from service men and women, troops currently serving in Iraq, thanking me for my stand--yes, my stand--against this war. The troops are not the ones criticizing our attempts to bring them home. The troops are the first to say there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq, only a political solution. The Iraqis will have to assume leadership of their own country and start making political compromises to overcome the ethnic and sectarian divisions that are splitting the country apart. There is no military solution, none, no military solution for Iraq. A national reconciliation is the only solution for that war-torn country, and we do not need another 3,000 young lives lost to learn that.

We were wrong--and I said so at the time--to invade. We were wrong to think that victory would be quick and easy. We are wrong to stay on in an occupation which earns us only hatred with no end, no end, no end in sight. Our young men and our young women now find themselves in the crossfire of a civil war. Nearly every one--nearly every one--except our Commander in Chief realizes that there is no military solution. To continue this ill-advised and demoralizing war only damages our wonderful country in the eyes of the world and chews up lives, both American and Iraqi. I have said it before--yes, I will say it again, yes--democracy cannot be force-fed from the point of a gun.

Let this debate mark the beginning of a way out, out, out of Iraq. Let this Congress begin to understand why the Framers of this Constitution gave the power to declare war to the Congress, the representatives of the people we send to fight and to die for our country. Let us begin to put some sanity--sanity--in our foreign policy again.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Whitehouse): Under the previous order, the Senator from Nevada is recognized.

Mr. Ensign: Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak about S.J. Res. 9 and the consequences of failure in Iraq.

I want to begin by reviewing just how Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida see themselves achieving ultimate victory in Iraq.

You don't have to be a serious student of history to realize that as of late, America has not exactly demonstrated the kind of collective will necessary to successfully complete military missions abroad.

As a nation, it seems easy, maybe too easy, to commit ourselves, through our military, into foreign lands in an attempt to accomplish what we believe is right, either to protect our vital national interests or to free a people from bondage, or in the case of Iraq to try to accomplish both.

Whatever the reason for committing ourselves to a noble cause overseas, America ventures into another country with only the best of intentions, and for a while the American people and her politicians overwhelmingly support our military and its mission.

Then, when we see that victory is not as easy or as immediate as we had initially hoped, we start down a road of self doubt. We convince ourselves that our military mission was probably not all that important in the first place. We somehow twist our values to accommodate an opinion that our military expedition is not worth the effort we need to expend in order to be successful. We recoil once the realization hits us that lives and treasure are the "coin of the realm" when it comes to using our military to ensure our continued national security. And for too long our adversaries have witnessed this reluctance, this lack of will, to finish the task at hand. In 1982, America deployed her military to separate warring factions in Lebanon. We went in with only the best of intentions. People were being killed and it was up to us to "do something" about it.

Then, on October 23, 1983, two truckbombs detonated in buildings housing American forces in downtown Beirut. Two hundered forty-one U.S. marines, sailors, and soldiers lost their lives that day. Six months later, America had had enough and we were out of Beirut.

The Lebanese civil war would rage on for another decade, and during that time countless Lebanese, Palestinians, and Israelis would suffer as a result of our abdication of responsibility.

As had always been the case before, our adversaries did not pursue us back to our shores to do us harm. But they did observe and they did note that the American public, led by her elected officials took the easy way out and departed before completing our intended mission.

In 1993, the United States once again sought to "do something" to end a humanitarian crisis that was taking place on the African continent. In a country with no functioning central government, warlords ruled their individual pieces of territory within Somalia as personal fiefdoms.

The Somali people were fodder as the warlords battled each other for control of land and resources. People were being killed. If they were not being killed by bullets, they were being starved to death.

Although the situation in Somalia did not directly affect our national security, American leaders at that time answered the call to "do something" to alleviate the human suffering Americans were witnessing nightly as part of their television news shows and reading in the daily editorial columns of most big city newspapers.

Our leaders once again answered the call by sending our young men and women in uniform to a foreign land to "fix things." Soon, our military had its mission expanded beyond providing humanitarian assistance.

Part of this new mission involved capturing and/or killing the Somali warlords responsible for the pain inflicted on their fellow citizens. As part of this new mission, Army Rangers conducted an assault on Somali forces in what has come to be known as the "Black Hawk Down" incident.

Here, two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down and 19 of our Rangers killed. In the days following, film footage was broadcast over and over again on television that showed the lifeless bodies of our soldiers being desecrated as they were dragged through the streets.

This footage both shocked and humbled us. The support for our mission to do good things in Somalia quickly evaporated. The costs had become too great to bear. It was no longer that important to do the right thing and we subsequently withdrew our forces from the region.

Once again, our adversaries watched as the world's superpower retreated from the fight. Today, Somalia continues to flounder as a failed state and a haven for Islamic radicalism on the eastern coast of Africa.

In a 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller, Osama bin Laden said that the Clinton administration's decision to withdraw from Somalia had emboldened his burgeoning al-Qaida force and encouraged him to plan new attacks.

"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

And those attacks promised by bin Laden did come.

On August 7, 1998, al-Qaida decided to test our mettle by simultaneously bombing our Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and in the process killed 257 people and wounded over 4,000.

Our tepid response once again gave Osama bin Laden comfort.

Since the Clinton administration had chosen to treat terrorist attacks as law enforcement matters, America sought to prosecute in our courts those responsible. Osama bin Laden was soon placed atop the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List.

Along with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, the Embassy bombing were two of the major anti-American terrorist attacks that preceded 9/11.

The United States responded to the Embassy attacks by freezing financial assets of related parties and by firing some missiles into al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan.

The attack in Afghanistan destroyed some physical targets. However, the operation did not accomplish the destruction of bin Laden and his operatives and did not lead to any significant changes in the al-Qaida network and leadership.

Al-Qaida grew bolder, stronger, and more capable as we sat on our hands.

And so, here we are today, facing an embolden enemy bent on our destruction who has convinced himself that he possesses the will to break our spirit. He has done it before and he is convinced he can do it again this time.

The sad part about all this is that Osama bin Laden may very well be right this time.

Today we stand here debating a resolution of appeasement that directly affects our military strategy in Iraq and, by default, our overall national security for years to come.

This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations.

I agree with the President's assessment that this legislation before us would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism.

The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the U.S. Congress loses its will to fight. We precipitously withdraw our forces and leave the fledgling Iraqi government to fend for itself; Sunni and Shia factions rip the nation apart at a scale previously unimaginable. There is a mass exodus of refugees out of Iraq, and no mechanism in place to deal with them. Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other states in the region feel the need to get involved.

This is a terrible scenario, but it is not the worst of scenarios. Bin Laden's nightmare vision also involves a chaotic Iraq with Sunni dominated areas like al-Anbar Province becoming a safe haven from which al-Qaida can launch attacks against the United States.

And we could see the Shiite dominated areas, with the help of Iran, and its own oil wealth, be used as a terrorist breeding ground, as well.

Make no mistake. The Iraqi situation is vastly different from Beirut, different from Somalia, and, different from the bombing of our African Embassies.

Iraq has consequences that will surely be felt here at home and around the world. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home.

I believe this.

We will be sorry and we will regret having once again left unfinished our national security obligations. But by then it will be too late for regrets.

We will find that as strong and powerful and compassionate as we think we are, we cannot "unring" the bell. The damage will have been done.

Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida followers are convinced that America is weak and decadent and they can succeed in grinding down our resolve and forcing us to retreat.

Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight.

He is a murderer. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.

Let us resolve today not to also make him a prognosticator of things to come.

I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided legislation. We cannot afford to leave this fight at this time. For the sake of America's future, we cannot afford to fail.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the Senator from Montana is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. Tester: Mr. President, I doubt I will use it all, but I thank the Presiding Officer very much.

Mr. President, I am here to address S.J. Res. 9. I am glad we have gotten to a point where we can debate this war in Iraq and vote. That is what we are all sent here to do. This war did not start yesterday. We are 4 years into this bloody war, at a cost of $2 billion a week, monetarily, and nearly $500 billion since we started 4 years ago. More importantly, we have lost nearly 3,200 of our Nation's best people. Soldiers, sailors, and marines have made the ultimate sacrifice; 17 from my home State of Montana. Twenty-four thousand more have been seriously wounded. An entire generation in this country has been marked by the injuries in this battlefield.

Yesterday, the Pentagon admitted something we have known for a long time: that our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.

As unclear as the President's plan for Iraq has been, our mission for our troops is more blurred. The original mission was to find weapons of mass destruction, to topple Saddam Hussein, to train the Iraqi troops, and to turn Iraq into a model to transform the Middle East.

Our troops have done an incredible job. They and their families have given far more than most of us can imagine. It truly is time now to take a different direction. Our troops need a plan for success and a clear mission. The current plan of "stay the course" has failed. We now have an open commitment with no end in sight. We need a new direction, and we owe it not only to our troops but we owe it to the people of this country.

I strongly support the legislation put forth by Majority Leader Reid. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this measure. It is a good first step-- finally--to put an end to this war. Also, it is a good first step to the political and diplomatic solution this war needs to have happen to end this war.

This measure directly addresses my biggest concerns in Iraq. I support the legislation because it is a first step. We can begin redeployment of troops with the goal of removing most of those U.S. troops by March 31, 2008. It requires Iraqis to take an active role in their future, which is critically important. Also, as was pointed out last week, we cannot win every conflict with bullets. This forces Iraq to move forward toward a political and diplomatic solution.

This legislation focuses our mission and responsibly ends the war within 1 year, and after March 31, 2008, remaining American troops will still be there to protect American and coalition interests, to still continue to train these Iraqi forces, and, most importantly, to seek out and bring the terrorists to justice.

The fact is, this war has taken our eye off the war on terror. Osama bin Laden still runs free. We do not know where he is. I wholeheartedly support this legislation and will vote for it. The combined effort of this legislation will allow Iraq to stand on its own two feet. I urge my colleagues to look beyond partisan politics and vote for a long overdue change of course for this 4-year-old war. We cannot afford this war monetarily or from a people standpoint. It is time to pass S.J. Res. 9.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer (Mrs. McCaskill): The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 7 minutes.

Mr. Vitter: Madam President, I, too, rise to talk about this very important matter we are debating and voting on today, the situation in Iraq.

First, I want to say hallelujah, we are finally having a full, open debate and a range of votes. That is exactly what I have been pushing for, pleading for, asking for, along with so many of my colleagues on the Republican side. I am very glad finally we do have a full and fair and open debate, with the ability to cast votes on measures we deem very important, and specifically the Gregg resolution about supporting our troops in the field.

Secondly, I want to express real reservations about the Reid resolution, which we will also be voting on today.

The situation in Iraq is very tough. We need to make a final push, and certainly the biggest part of that push does need to be strong action by the Iraqi Government. We need benchmarks and pressure on the Iraqis to do the right thing. I specifically talked about that. But the Reid resolution does some things I believe we absolutely must not do. Specifically, it sets very precise and complicated and cumbersome dates certain. I believe that is much more useful as a message to the enemy and a help to the enemy than a roadmap for us.

In addition, I think the Reid resolution clearly micromanages the war. It clearly oversteps our bounds as a legislative body by taking on the responsibilities and the management and the function of the Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, for that reason, I think that aspect of the Reid resolution is, No. 1, a bad idea, but, No. 2, very possibly unconstitutional.

I will be voting against that Reid resolution. But again, I thank everyone who finally, after weeks and weeks of talk--finally--gave us the opportunity for these votes and for a vote on the Gregg resolution and other important matters.

The third and final point I want to make goes to the path, unfortunately, I think we are headed down with some of this language. I think this is very unfortunate, and I think this path and where it is headed, in my opinion, is something we must all work to avoid. Let me explain what I mean.

Senator Reid has made it perfectly clear he will put forward his resolution today with all of those complicated dates and timetables and what-ifs and benchmarks. Again, I have problems with that; I will vote no. But Senator Reid has also made clear he will also put forward the exact same substance in the context of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund our men and women in uniform in the field in Iraq.

Now, why is that a problem? Well, it is a problem for the following reasons: that emergency supplemental bill is needed, as I just said, to fund the men and women in uniform in the field right now, under fire, risking their lives in Iraq.

We have all said over and over and over that no matter how we feel about the war, no matter what we put forward as the proper policy on the war effort, we would give our men and women in uniform in the field what they need to do their job and defend themselves. The problem is this Reid language, particularly the threat to put it on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, threatens to cut that funding off because that language, if it gets on the bill, will, first of all, delay debate and implementation of the bill, and secondly, if it is in the final version of that spending bill, it will absolutely-- absolutely--produce a veto by the President of the United States. He cannot agree to that language because of his position on the proper path forward, and no President can agree to that language because of the constitutional power of the President as the Commander in Chief. That will further delay this emergency spending bill and further delay getting necessary funds and equipment to troops in the field.

The military has said very clearly we need to act by April 15 so those funds and that equipment can get to the field starting in early May. Our troops are counting on it. They are waiting for it. These are men and women in uniform, in the field, under fire right now. But, again, this strategy and this language of Senator Reid will make it very likely that won't happen and will make it very likely this whole matter and this whole spending to get to our troops in the field will be significantly delayed. That is not funding men and women in uniform. That is not supporting our troops in the field. What that is doing is refraining from supporting them, slowly bleeding away the resources, the equipment, and the money they need to do their job.

It is one thing to say: New troops, you are not going anywhere. You stay right here. We are having this debate. But it is quite another to slowly bleed and endanger troops in the field. Yet this is the path that I am very afraid we are embarking on with the Reid language, particularly if it is put on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

In closing, let me say, we have all said on this floor, virtually to a person in the U.S. Senate, that no matter what we think about the war, no matter what we think about the right path forward in the war, we will not endanger our troops in the field. We better think long and hard about the path some would adopt because they are beginning to do just that. We can't have that. We need to give our brave, smart, courageous men and women in the field already the money, the equipment, the resources they need to do their job. They are literally under fire there. We cannot bleed away what they need in the field, quickly, slowly, or anything inbetween.

Again, I am very concerned that is the path Senator Reid and some others would put us on.

So, thankfully, we are having this full and open debate today. We will be having votes today. I believe the most important vote is on the Gregg resolution. I will proudly vote for that in support of our men and women in uniform in the field, and I will do everything I can to avoid slowly, quickly, or anything inbetween bleeding resources, money, and equipment away from what those brave men and women whom we have already put in the field need to defend themselves and to conduct their mission.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer (Mrs. McCaskill): The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.

Mr. Feingold: Madam President, I spoke yesterday in favor of the resolution introduced by Senator Reid, S.J. Res. 9. By bringing the current open-ended military mission to a close and requiring the funding of U.S. troops, the Reid resolution takes a significant, binding step toward ending our involvement in the war in Iraq. I am pleased that the Senate will have the opportunity to vote on that resolution shortly.

The Senate will also be voting, as the Senator from Louisiana just pointed out, on another resolution regarding Iraq sponsored by the senior Senator from New Hampshire. Unfortunately, this resolution is badly flawed, and I strongly oppose it. My chief objection is simple. The resolution rejects the idea of Congress using its power of the purse to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. Moreover, it does so in a manner that can only be described as inaccurate and almost intellectually dishonest. By warning against "the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field," the resolution fully embraces the misleading rhetoric the White House has used to try to prevent serious discussion of Congress ending the war. Those who engage in such rhetoric pretend that cutting off funds for the war is the same as cutting off funds for the troops. They raise the specter of troops somehow being left on the battlefield without the training, equipment, and resources they need.

Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. Every Member of Congress agrees we must continue to support our troops and give them the resources and support they need. Not a single Member would ever vote for any proposal that would jeopardize the safety of our troops. Using our power of the purse to end our involvement in the war can and would be done without in any way impairing the safety of our brave servicemembers. By setting a date after which funding for the war will be terminated, as I have proposed, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way.

How can I say this with such confidence? There really is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.

I recently chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power To End a War." Without exception, every witness--those called by the majority and those called by the minority--did not challenge the constitutionality of Congress's authority to end a war. Lou Fisher with the Library of Congress, one of the foremost experts on separation of powers issues, pointed out that Congress does not simply have the power, it has a responsibility, to exercise it when it is needed. He said:

The question to me, always remember, Congress, is the continued use of military force and a military commitment in the Nation's interest? That is the core question. Once you decide that, if you decide it is not in the national interest, you certainly do not want to continue putting U.S. troops in harm's way.

The argument that cutting off funding for a flawed policy would hurt the troops, and that continuing to put U.S. troops in harm's way supports the troops, makes no sense. By ending funding for the war, we can bring our troops safely out of Iraq.

Walter Dellinger of the Duke Law School made this point when he testified about my proposal:

There would not be one penny less for the salary of the troops. There would not be one penny less for the benefit of the troops. There would not be one penny less for weapons or ammunition. There would not be one penny less for supplies or for support. Those troops would simply be redeployed to other areas where the armed forces are utilized.

So instead of allowing the President's failed policy to continue, Congress can and should use its power of the purse to end our involvement in the Iraq war, safely redeploying the troops while ensuring, as I do in my bill and as the Reid resolution permits, that important counterterrorism and other limited operations are still carried out.

Now, for those who don't believe this has ever been done or for those who say it can't be done, let me cite an example from not that long ago. In October of 1993, Congress enacted an amendment sponsored by the senior Senator from West Virginia cutting off funding--cutting off funding for military operations in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions. Seventy-six Senators voted for that amendment. Many of them are still in this body, such as Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici, Senator Hutchison, Senator Lugar, Senator McConnell, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens, and Senator Warner.

Now, did those eight Senators and many Democratic Senators who joined them act to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia? By cutting off funds for a military mission, were they indifferent to the well-being of our brave men and women in uniform? Of course not. All of these Members recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close by establishing a date after which the funds would be terminated.

Now, on that same day with regard to Somalia, several Senators, myself included, supported an even stronger effort to end funding for operations in Somalia. The amendment offered by Senator McCain on October 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for Somalia right away, except for funds for withdrawal, or in the case of American POWs, MIAs not being accounted for. Thirty-eight Senators opposed a measure to table that amendment. I was joined by many Republican Senators in supporting the amendment, including none other than the current sponsor of S. Con. Res. 20, Senator Gregg. Senator Gregg suggests in that resolution that eliminating funds for troops would undermine their safety. Was he voting 14 years ago to do that? Obviously, he would not do that. In 1993, was he committing the same egregious offense that he so strongly opposes in 2007? Could he have been so cavalier about the safety of our troops? Not the Senator I know. He would never have been indifferent to their need for guns or ammunition or food or clothing, nor would I, nor would any other Member of this body. Of course not.

Senator Gregg knew, as did I, that Senator McCain was proposing an appropriate, safe, responsible way to use our power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.

Unfortunately, the new Gregg resolution seems to have forgotten this point. I hope that my colleagues will think better of efforts such as that proposed by Senator Gregg today. All Senators, including the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire, are, of course, entitled to their opinions, and all Senators are certainly entitled to oppose my efforts to end funding for a disastrous war. But by putting forth misleading and baseless arguments, by suggesting that ending funding for the war is tantamount to ending funding for the troops, they are making it that much harder to have the open, honest, and essential debate about the Iraq war that this body and the American people so badly need.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and 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. Reed: 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. Reed: Madam President, we are debating a serious proposal with respect to the future of our involvement in Iraq and the future of Iraq and, indeed, that region of the world. I believe the proposal Senator Harry Reid of Nevada advanced is a sensible way to begin to change our policy, so it can be sustained over time and it can lead to a successful termination of our operations in Iraq but, more importantly, give the Iraqis the opportunity to establish a stable government in a very difficult part of the world.

The elements of the proposal that Senator Reid has advanced, are right on target. First, to define the mission in a way that they can be fully supported by the United States and also that they are congruent with our best interests in the region and the world. Next, obviously, is force protection. We have to be able to assure our forces that they can protect themselves at all times. Third, to continue to develop the Iraqi security forces--not just to put guns in their hands but to develop their capacity to do other things, such as civil affairs, intelligence operations, those critical military skills that will allow them to be an effective force in their country, to bring not just stability but a sense of competence, coherence to the operation of their Government.

The next mission is the constant attention to counterterrorism. This is a mission that I believe transcends every border in the world. Wherever there are those elements that are actively plotting to attack us or our allies, we should be prepared, together with local authorities, if they are cooperative, to take these elements out very dramatically, preemptively. That is essentially what we did in Somalia, without the presence of hundreds of thousands of American troops in Somalia. But we had the special operations capacity, intelligence, and the cooperation of local parties so we could do that.

Those are the three critical missions I believe we have in Iraq that will be longer term. But I think, also, when recognizing those missions, we can begin to recognize and begin to redeploy our combat brigades that are there. They are essentially now engaged in a civil war, a sectarian battle between the Sunnis and Shia in Baghdad, but not just there. These forces we have to begin to redeploy away from Iraq. Initially, they could be redeployed within the country, to adjacent countries, and at some time back to their home stations. I think this is the wisest course.

I hope, as the legislation suggests, we could at least have as a goal March of 2008 for the redeployment of these combat brigades, understanding that these residual missions--force protection, training Iraqi security forces, and counterterrorism--will endure. That is a wise policy that is consistent with our national security objectives and also consistent with our ability and the ability of the American people to sustain these efforts over many months.

The continued course of simply adding more troops and hoping for the best, which is the President's strategy, is not going to work. More importantly, I cannot see it being sustained indefinitely by the American people or supported by a terribly overstretched military force, particularly our Army and Marine Corps.

This whole approach to Iraq, I believe, from the very beginning, was a flawed strategy. It disregarded fundamental aspects of any coherent strategy--identify the most serious threat and apply adequate, very robust resources to the threat. Iraq wasn't the most serious threat in that region. Iran is much more powerful and much more potentially dangerous and, also, at that juncture, the most serious threat, and still lingering are the international terror cells.

But this administration, against my judgment, entered into this conflict in Iraq. Not only did they have a flawed strategy, but the execution has been horrific, incompetent. Today, we are left with very few good choices. One of the most revealing aspects of why the strategic decisions made by the administration were so faulty was given a few weeks ago when I asked Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence: What is the most likely source of an attack on the United States, groups in Iraq or groups in Pakistan? His answer, without any delay, immediately, was: "Pakistan, of course." So we have invested billions and billions of dollars, 140,000-plus troops, over 3,000 Americans killed in action, many more seriously wounded, and yesterday, the highest intelligence official in the country says the most serious potential threat to our homeland, an existential attack on the order of 9/11, is from our ally Pakistan. That is because, once we focused on Iraq, we took our focus off Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have allowed the Taliban to rehabilitate itself. The Pakistanis have been unable to deny a safe haven to bin Laden, Zawihiri, and other key elements of al-Qaida's leadership who are not only surviving but beginning to reorganize and reassert themselves as directors or aspirers or at least coconspirators with other terror groups around the world. That is a stunning indictment of the strategy that this administration has unveiled.

There are other costs to this strategy. You will recall the "axis of evil." The President boldly announced that it was Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. Well, frankly, after ignoring the North Koreans for many years, now the administration is seeking to cut a deal with them with respect to their nuclear weapons. But this is a much worse deal than the administration had when it stepped into office. In 2000, their plutonium was capped by international inspectors on the ground. But through a series of miscues, the administration allowed the North Koreans to take away their plutonium, create up to 10 nuclear devices, we think, test long-range missiles and, in a shocking act, detonate a nuclear device, becoming part of the nuclear club. Now we are offering them essentially the same terms that could have been had, without all this damage, many years ago.

With respect to Iran, we know one of the consequences, one of the costs of our operations in Iraq is that Iran is in a much more secure strategic position today. They have colleagues and cohorts who are integral parts of the Government in Baghdad. The people we rely on, the Maliki Government, has huge support from people who have spent years, who have fought alongside the Iranians against the Iraqis. Yet we are supporting, as we must, the Maliki Government. But we should all recognize the huge influence Iran has today as a result of this strategy.

Now, these costs are strategic costs, but there are some obvious costs in terms of dollars and cents. We are spending in Iraq about $8.4 billion a month. That level of effort is difficult to sustain. In Afghanistan, we are spending less but still significant dollars. All these costs are being funded from the supplemental. We are borrowing the money from the next generation of Americans to pay for these efforts.

The President already set up another supplemental request that will be pending in a few days. It includes $93 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will bring the total for this fiscal year-- what was in the original budget, together with the supplemental--to $145 billion. We will likely see totals such as that in succeeding years.

In the 5 years the United States has been engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan--Iraq particularly--we have spent about $530 billion. That is a huge sum of money. That is very difficult to sustain. We can also see the cost in terms of supplying the Army. We have a situation where units are without equipment. Our National Guard is in disarray. Now we are going to, once again, put a huge demand on our military forces to support this escalation. It has been suggested to me that, shortly, upward of nine brigades of National Guard and Reserve forces will be notified for redeployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again, our citizen soldiers will be taken from their homes and sent overseas. When they go this time, they will not have quite the same equipment as they did the last time because National Guard equipment is in disrepair, even worse than the regular forces. Their training will likely not be as authentic because of the difficulty in getting out to the national training centers. They might do most of the training at their home stations. We are beginning to see this accumulation of costs reflected in many ways.

A few days ago, the Boston Globe published a story in which it showed that because of the retirement and resignations of captains in the Army, senior NCOs in the Army, promotion rates have been going up astronomically to fill these vacancies. That is probably the worst potential trend for any military force, because without those capable company grade leaders, we will not be able to assure the American public we have the same level of professional skill that we have today.

I believe, for all these reasons, the resolution proposed by Senator Harry Reid is the right course of action. But there will be an alternative approach, and that is a proposal by Senator Gregg with respect to funding. A few points can be made about that. The Gregg resolution misinterprets the Constitution by saying the Congress's only role is simply to rubberstamp what the President does--or worst case, they can only take funds away. That is not the case at all.

As I mentioned on the floor yesterday, way back in 1799, the Supreme Court of the United States clearly said that Congress had the right to make decisions with respect to national policy involving foreign affairs. In fact, their decision essentially said the Congress could pass a law that would allow the President to stop ships going into certain ports but not leaving certain ports.

Many of my colleagues on the other side came down and talked about us micromanaging. That is micromanaging. It is constitutionally permissible, perhaps, but it is not something we will do. It is not something we would want to do. We want to give the President the latter two that he needs but for missions that are consistent with our national security.

Under the Gregg resolution's interpretation of the Constitution, Congress's only responsibility seems to be to fund whatever the President asks.

That I don't think is appropriate constitutionally or with respect to our obligations as thoughtful participants in the policy process along with the President.

Senator Murray will offer an alternative, and that alternative strongly supports our troops but also properly interprets the Constitution by stating the President and the Congress have shared responsibilities for the decisions involving our Armed Forces.

I suspect if you took the Gregg logic to the extreme, if the President sent up a funding bill and we thought it was inadequate, then I suspect we couldn't do anything because, after all, all we can do is either agree with the President or cut off the funds. That is not the case at all.

I can recall the President sending up to the Senate budgets that did not have enough resources for armored humvees, body armor, et cetera. It was this Congress that put more money in because we have a role when it comes to funding the operations of the military.

When it comes to Presidential policy, it is not simply accepting it or taking away the money; it is altering that policy if it is wrong, it is redefining missions, and it is fully resourcing those missions which are the product of this interaction between the President and the Congress.

A quote from Senator Murray's resolution:

… 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.

That I think is a much more accurate, appropriate, and sensible approach to the issue of shared responsibility.

In addition, the Murray resolution makes it clear that the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to take actions that help our troops and our veterans. We have had a lot of talk about not funding the troops. But wait a second, it was the President who sent in forces without a plan. It was the President who sent in forces without adequate armored humvees. It was the President who sent in forces without body armor. It was the President and his Department of Defense who weren't aware of the travesties that were taking place at Walter Reed when it comes to veterans. It is the President's Veterans Administration that refused a few years ago to ask for adequate money for the Veterans Administration hospitals because of the new demand from veterans.

If anyone over the last several years failed to fund the troops properly, it is the President. So our concerns should be directed at his failures to fund the troops rather than that of Congress.

This is a collaborative process that both the White House and the Congress have to ensure our forces have the resources they need, but we also have to make sure they are performing the missions most important to the United States. By endorsing the Murray resolution, we are sending a clear message of our joint responsibility to fully fund our soldiers in the field, and by supporting Majority Leader Reid's resolution, we are sending a signal that the right policy, phased redeployment, carefully defined missions, providing a stable regional approach to Iraq and, in the long term, redeploying troops so we can face with more flexibility the challenges of a North Korea, of an Iran, of places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and places perhaps at this moment we are not aware of but will suddenly burst onto the front page because of the presence of terrorists or other destabilizing activities.

I urge strong support of the resolution supported by Majority Leader Reid and the resolution supported by Senator Murray.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 7 minutes.

Mr. Kyl: Madam President, there is an old joke about the definition of retreat, which is a strategic withdrawal. I note that is the phrase used in the resolution, S.J. Res. 9, to describe the process of leaving Iraq. The language effectively is: "The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days," and then says:

… with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all the United States combat forces from Iraq… .

Except for the limited purposes of protecting forces, training Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations.

That is a very bad idea. We shouldn't be playing politics with this war, and we shouldn't be trying to micromanage the war from Congress. But setting specific dates by which the commanders are to make certain decisions, including how troops are deployed, is clearly micromanaging the war effort.

The fact there have been 17 resolutions--I believe this is the 17th resolution--on the Democratic side of the Congress, and the fact that none of those other 16 were adopted I think demonstrates the confusion on the other side as to what exactly ought to be done and the differences of opinion by Members on the other side of the aisle.

Thank goodness we didn't adopt any of the other 16, and we shouldn't adopt this one either. This one is particularly pernicious. It actually begins the withdrawal. It sets a date, "shall commence the phased redeployment … not later than 120 days.

Then it uses a goal of completing that withdrawal by March 31, 2008. Some have tried to hide behind the word "goal." I think Senator Feingold said it right, however, on March 8 of this year when he said:

For the first time, it--

"It" meaning the resolution--

has a timetable in place, as I called for in August of 2005. It's not as early as I would like, but is a timetable not only to begin to get the troops out but to get the troops out except for very limited purposes.

It didn't always used to be this way. A lot of our Democratic colleagues understood that setting timetables and deadlines was absolutely the wrong thing to do.

The distinguished majority leader, for example, said:

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

Another one of the supporters of the resolution said 2 days ago:

I don't believe it's 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.

Another cosponsor of the resolution said 3 days ago:

I, for example, am not in support of circling a date on a calendar and saying, "No matter what, we're out on that date."

One of the most thoughtful people in the Senate on matters of foreign policy has spoken a lot on this issue, and I think what he said a couple of years ago makes a lot of sense. This is the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He was talking about the options. He said:

… we call it quits and withdraw, I think that would be a gigantic mistake for the reasons I stated earlier. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out, equally a mistake… . I mean, the idea of setting a timetable to leave generally means that you have to set and train the process of leaving. It is not an easy process. And I think once that is smelled as the option, then I think you find it will degenerate quickly into sectarian violence, every man for himself. And the conclusion that will be achieved will be, I think, Lebanon in 1985, and God knows where it goes from there.

Recently, the distinguished chairman said this, unfortunately:

We should withdraw our combat troops by early 2008, except for a limited number necessary to keep training Iraqis and to deny terrorists a sanctuary.

As I said, it used to be that most Senators understood that setting a timetable in a war, a date for withdrawal was a very bad idea, not just because it tried to micromanage the conduct of the war from the Congress but because it signaled to the enemy precisely what the enemy had to do, to wait us out and then prevail in the conflict.

That is precisely what this resolution does and is the key reason why every Senator should be voting against this resolution and why those who spoke against a timetable before should remember what they said and the wisdom of those words and follow that same advice today.

This is especially pernicious because at the very time this resolution is being adopted, there continues to be news from Iraq that suggests the new strategy, the Petraeus plan, is actually beginning to work. Nobody is claiming any victory. There are going to be bad days as well as good.

I ask unanimous consent at the close of my remarks to print in the Record an article from the Associated Press in my hometown newspaper: "Baghdad's terror death counts are falling."

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

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. Kyl: Madam President, the article points out the fact that the death squad deaths are falling substantially, the militia activity is down substantially. While our commanders there are being cautious about declaring the operation a success, nonetheless, there are many different descriptions of events happening in Iraq that give us a lot of hope.

I was there a couple of weeks ago, and our commanders and Iraqis both were cautiously optimistic this would work.

The point is, at the very time the new plan is underway and it seems to at least show early signs of success, why would we want to declare it a failure and start the process of withdrawing at the very time these additional troops seem to be making a difference?

One of the chairmen of the Baker-Hamilton study commission, former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton, was testifying before the Congress about a month ago. He said we should give this plan a chance. We should give it a chance to succeed. That is exactly what we ought to do. We start by rejecting the resolution that is pending because it micromanages the war and sends a horrible signal.

We also try to support the troops by adopting as quickly as possible a supplemental appropriations bill that funds this effort without tying the strings of our commanders and without imposing so many other conditions that the President is constrained to veto it. We have to get that funding to our troops as soon as possible. That is the other message the commanders on the ground, both in Kuwait and Iraq, gave to me when we were there. They said: Please adopt the supplemental appropriations bill without strings.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution when it comes up for a vote later this afternoon.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Michigan.

Mr. Levin: Madam President, in November, the American people sent a clear message to Washington. They said: Change the course in Iraq. A few weeks later, the Iraq Study Group issued its bipartisan report calling for a change of course in Iraq. Even the President's new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, during his confirmation hearing, acknowledged that the current course in Iraq was not working. But instead of developing a new strategy, the President has stayed on his failed course, plunging American troops deeper and deeper into a civil war on the streets of Baghdad and relying on the promises of Iraqi politicians who have not delivered on previous promises.

The question for us today is whether we will accept that failing strategy or whether we will change it. The President's deepening military involvement will not lead to a stable Iraq because it has a fundamental flaw. It tries to impose a military solution on a political crisis.

Listen to the assessment of Iraq Prime Minister Maliki of the situation in his country. This is what he said:

The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of bloodletting of innocents are the Iraqi politicians.

Outside the White House is a consensus that a political solution among the Iraqis is required, but President Bush persists on a military deepening involvement.

The President claims that Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks that they have put forward, but the track record of Iraqi politicians indicates otherwise. On issue after issue, the Iraqi politicians have failed to keep their word, and Iraq is worse off because of those failures.

The President's course of action--deeper and deeper military involvement--sends a signal that the Iraqi leaders can continue to bicker without consequence. If the Iraqis fail to meet their own benchmarks, the President will presumably continue to bail them out by sending American troops to police an Iraqi civil war. Unless failure to meet benchmarks has consequences, those benchmarks have little meaning. We must change the course if there is going to be any hope of success in Iraq.

The best leverage we have is the presence and mission of American forces. As long as our presence is open-ended, the dynamic in Iraq will remain the same: Insurgents will target our troops, militias will cause mayhem, and the Iraqi politicians will sit in relative safety in the Green Zone, unwilling to make the compromises so essential to reaching a political settlement that can save their country. But if we send a clear message that we are ending the open-ended commitment, that will shift responsibility to the Iraqis, both politically and militarily, for their own future.

By requiring the President to change the mission of American forces to the three missions specified in the Reid resolution, by beginning a phased redeployment of American forces in 4 months, the resolution before us would force the Iraqi leaders to face reality and to understand that their future as a nation is in their own hands, not ours. The Iraqis will finally be forced to decide if they want a civil war or they want a nation. They will then understand we cannot save them from themselves.

The President and his supporters ask for patience. But asking for patience now, after all these years of asking for patience without success, is a little like Lucy asking Charlie Brown to try to kick the football one more time. We ought to be wise enough by now to know that increased military involvement won't achieve the political settlement that is needed.

General Peter Chiarelli, Commanding General of the Multi-National Corps in Iraq, said the following:

We need a commitment by all Iraqis of all the ethno- sectarian groups to commit first to nonviolence and to resolving their differences through the political process. I happen to believe that we have done everything militarily we possibly can.

General Casey made a similar point in early January when he said:

The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias.

The real battle for Baghdad is a political battle. Maximizing success in Iraq requires us to change course and to shift responsibility to the Iraqi political leaders for the future of Iraq. To paraphrase British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the next chapter of Iraq's history needs to be written by the Iraqis.

Our vote today will decide whether we will begin changing course to maximize chances of success in Iraq or whether we will remain mired in the status quo of sending more and more American troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war.

Mr. Craig: Madam President, we are brought back to the floor again this week to continue the debate on Iraq and whether the United States should begin to pull our troops out of Iraq. Yet again the majority leader has brought legislation to the floor of the Senate that will set arbitrary timelines for U.S. withdrawal, sending a signal to the Iraqi people that we are poised to abandon them; while at the same time sending a strong message to our enemies that to defeat the United States, all they need to do is wait us out. That kind of policy will allow our current and future enemies to dictate our foreign policy for us, not the other way around.

General Petraeus has now only had weeks to implement his new strategy for stabilizing Baghdad. After a unanimous vote of confirmation, the majority party now wants to send a signal to General Petraeus that we not only have no confidence in his abilities to stabilize key parts of Iraq but that we have no faith in our soldiers ability as well. That is not a statement I am willing to send to our soldiers in combat. The majority would rather see 535 generals leading the way towards stability and security in Iraq and the greater Middle East, and I do not see that strategy as an effective way to run a war.

I cannot stress enough that our conflict in Iraq does not stop at the borders. Iraq is a central country in a very dangerous region of the world. Bordered by Iran and Syria, which are both contributing to the violence in Iraq, will clearly see a premature U.S. troop withdraw in Iraq as a symbol that our resolve is not strong enough to stop their ambitions for regional dominance.

A premature withdrawal from Iraq will almost certainly lead to a massive humanitarian crisis, which would leave hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians at the hands of murderous militias. I would ask of my colleagues who favor immediate withdrawal from Iraq, are they willing to stand idly by as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are raped, beaten and murdered? I would assume the answer would be no, paving the way for an even greater peacekeeping force to be deployed to Iraq, and making the work to stabilize that country infinitely more difficult.

I think it is important for the American people to know that the roadblocks put up in the Senate regarding nonbinding votes on Iraq were not put up by the Republican minority. I have stood on this floor on more than one occasion debating the war this year. We have had, and will continue to have, full debates on the floor of the Senate regarding Iraq, but it is up to the majority leader whether those debates will be fair debates. I was pleased to see that an amendment offered by Senator Gregg will be allowed an up-or-down vote. This resolution clearly states that the Congress will not cut off any funding for soldiers we send into combat. An overwhelming majority of both the House and Senate voted to send these troops into war, and we all the responsibility to ensure that any American soldier in harm's way will have the full support of their government.

The majority party continuously denies planning or calling for defunding this war, and thus the troops, but several Democratic Senators and Congressmen have spoken publicly about their desire to eliminate funding for our soldiers. That is a very dangerous game to play, when Members will allow antiwar politics to convince Members of Congress that they should cut off funding for American troops on the battlefield.

Now, it is very clear that there is no single military operation that can bring stability to Iraq by itself. We need the Iraqi government to stand up on its own two feet and lead their country. We need an Iraqi economy to be strong and viable on its own in order to give the Iraqi people a choice between turning towards insurgent militias and terrorist organization, but instead to start new businesses and make constructive contributions to their society. However, without stability in the capital city, there can be no stable government and there can be no economic stability. The reinforcements called for by General Petraeus, which will assist in stabilizing Baghdad, are working to lower the levels of violence, and will pave the way for economic and government stability.

I, like all of my colleagues, want nothing else but to have our troops home and out of harm's way. That said, we should not be in such a rush to leave Iraq that we leave that country in shambles, creating a haven for terrorism and a humanitarian crisis that could rival or surpass any we have seen before.

We are at a critical juncture in this war. The American people are questioning our policies in Iraq, mistakes have been made over the three plus years we have been in Iraq, and I will readily admit that. But I do not believe that we are at a point of failure. The majority party is frustrated with our progress in Iraq, but I firmly believe that Congress micromanaging this war is the most detrimental policy our country could pursue. The Congress should not be in the business of setting arbitrary withdrawal timetables, setting troop levels, threatening funding for our soldiers, or sending messages to our soldiers that we have no faith in their mission.

The Senate is yet again going to be voting on a series of binding and nonbinding resolutions that will send a strong message to our soldiers, the American people, and to our enemies. I hope that my colleagues will speak in a loud voice of support to our soldiers; a resolute voice to the American people that we will not be defeated by radical insurgents and terrorist groups; and a firm voice to our enemies that we will not be defeated. Our national security, and that of our allies, is at stake, and I will not cast a vote to pull our troops out of Iraq prematurely and allow Iraq to become a base of operations for strikes against this country.

Mr. Kohl: Madam President, today the Senate confronts the tragic situation facing us in Iraq. No Member of the Senate, the administration, or our Armed Forces is happy with where we stand in Iraq. A mission that began with the great success of our men and women in uniform has bogged down through no fault of theirs. With heavy hearts the Congress, after hearing the people speak in November, must now force a change in our policy in Iraq. We can no longer allow an open-ended commitment to Iraq that endangers our forces while allowing Iraqi politicians to delay the difficult choices they must make.

S.J. Res. 9, which I support, calls on the President to begin the redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. After 4 long years they have been stretched to the breaking point. They now referee a bloody civil war that bears no resemblance to the original conflict we authorized them to engage in. The time for military solutions is over, and the difficult work of political compromise lies before the Iraqis with little our soldiers can do to help.

The resolution does not require a rapid pullout, however, but gives time for a measured withdrawal that will protect our troops while providing support to the new Iraqi government. It sets March 2008 as a goal for our combat troops to be gone from Iraq--5 years after they first entered the country--but it provides flexibility if that is not possible. The March withdrawal goal is also in line with what the Iraq Study Group believed was appropriate.

This reasonable goal will give Iraq's politicians time to make the difficult decisions they need to make about power sharing and dividing oil revenues. It will also give our troops time to complete the training and equipping of additional Iraqi police and security forces. Five years is plenty of time to help a new nation toward democracy--or prove that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside. Either way we cannot ask our military to continue their mission indefinitely.

Critics of the resolution believe that withdrawing from Iraq will damage our national security, but I disagree. The ongoing conflict in Iraq is hurting our image in the world, it is hurting our economy, and it is hurting our military. This war is no longer protecting us, but according to our own intelligence community it is encouraging terrorists to take up arms against us. Our presence has kicked off a vicious circle of violence that makes us less secure--not more. We need to close the circle and end this cycle of violence.

We all want a stable and peaceful Iraq, but it is time to recognize that the U.S. alone cannot achieve that goal. We need the help of the Iraqi people and the assistance of Iraq's neighbors. If we work together Iraq can get on its feet and repair the sectarian divide. But if we continue on our current path, bearing the burden by ourselves, the cycle of violence will erode our good efforts. It is time for a change. It is time for us to shift the burden to the Iraqis and help them carry it forward.

Mr. Biden: Madam President, there are many statements in the resolution by the Senator from New Hampshire that are true. It is a true statement that the President has the power to "deploy troops and direct military campaigns during wartime." But that presupposes that a war has been properly authorized by Congress because that power exists only in wartime, or in certain emergency circumstances. The President does not, however, have the power under the Constitution to initiate a war.

It is literally true that Congress has the power of the purse, and in that capacity has the moral responsibility to adequately support the troops in the field, once we are at war. This administration has failed in that responsibility in not equipping our soldiers in Iraq with adequate armor, in not having an adequate plan to stabilize Iraq after the initial invasion, and in not caring for our soldiers properly when they return home.

But this resolution is not balanced. It does not set forth a statement about Congress's powers under the Constitution to authorize the use of force under article I. Nor does it say anything about the authority of Congress to change the mission of U.S. forces, once a war has commenced. This silence about Congress's power might be interpreted to suggest that the President's powers as Commander in Chief to initiate war are unlimited, and that Congress's sole responsibility is to fund a war that the President initiates. That is not what the Constitution says, and I cannot vote for anything that might be so read.

Because the Gregg resolution lacks balance, I cannot vote for it. I will vote instead for the resolution by Senator Murray, which presents a more complete statement about the allocation of powers under the Constitution.

Mr. Bunning: Madan President, I rise today to discuss the S.J. Res. 9 dealing with troop withdrawals from Iraq.

While this nonbinding resolution is different from the resolution we debated last month, its purpose is still the same. It will micromanage the war and send a detrimental message to both our troops and our enemies.

That is why I voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to the resolution and why I will vote no on its final passage. I believe that we must give the President's new strategy for Iraq a chance to work before we begin criticizing it.

At this time, we ought to be sending a clear message of support for our troops and for ensuring that they have the necessary supplies and resources to carry out their mission. Unfortunately, we cannot seem to see beyond our political differences to do this and instead want to attack the President's Iraq plan no matter what the consequences of our actions would be.

Jut a few weeks ago on January 26, the Senate unanimously-- unanimously--confirmed GEN David Petraeus to be commander of the multinational forces in Iraq. General Petraeus supports the President's new strategy in Iraq and has embarked on a mission that both the President and the Senate selected him to do.

I would like to point out to my colleagues the irony, as well as the inconsistency, in the choice this resolution is presenting to this body. With the newest Iraq resolution, we are once again being asked to disapprove of the very mission we unanimously confirmed General Petraeus to execute. This resolution asks Senators and not General Petraeus to direct the activites in Iraq. But Congress is not the commander in chief, and we should not be dictating military strategy.

The resolution sets a specific date for the beginning of the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. This withdrawal would occur even if there is progress on the ground in Iraq or our allies believe our presence is still necessary. This resolution allows politics to be the deciding factor of how we manage a war.

Passage of this resolution would show to the world that our will can easily be stripped by terrorists if they just wait it out.

If General Petraeus, who is a friend of mine, comes back to Congress and tells us that the President's new strategy is not working, then I am prepared to change our course. But we need to give it a chance to work.

We have already begun to see some successes based on recent events and reports from General Petraeus. Sectarian killings have been lower in Baghdad over the past several weeks than in the previous months. There is less sectarian displacement in Baghdad neighborhoods allowing families to return home and Sunni insurgent leaders have renewed talks with top U.S. officials about political accommodation.

I realize these successes are small and it is too early to tell whether they will lead to significant changes in the future, but we now have proof that this strategy could work if given the chance.

We have also begun to see a positive response from the Iraqi people. Just 2 weeks ago, the Iraqi council approved the foundation of a hydrocarbon bill which is a oil revenue-sharing measure with the Iraqi people and the provinces of Iraq. The legislation is soon going to the assembly. For the first time in the history of their country, the people of Iraq are on the doorstep of having equity in oil distribution.

Despite these successes and unanimously confirming our new commander in Iraq, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to declare failure. They would like to tie General Petraeus's hands in a way that would make achieving his mission impossible. I do not believe that pulling the rug out from underneath our top commander in Iraq is a plan for success. Rather, I believe that we should focus the current debate on what we can do to support General Petraeus and the brave young men and women in Iraq to accomplish this critical mission. I will continue to do whatever I can to ensure that our troops and mission succeeds.

Failure in Iraq is not an option. It would not only jeopardize our own national security but that of the region as a whole.

When this motion to micromanage the war in Iraq comes to vote, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Remember, we have only one commander in chief, not 535 generals who make war plans from the floor of the Congress.

Mr. Enzi: Madam President, as I begin my comments on the resolutions we have under consideration, I want to first make very clear my strong support for the members of our Armed Forces and the vital work they are doing around the world every day. I have the greatest admiration for them all for their heartfelt commitment to preserving our freedoms and maintaining our national security. They are all true heroes and they are the ones who are doing the heavy lifting and making great sacrifices in our country's name so that we might continue to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Over the years, I have been to Iraq and I have met with the members of our Armed Forces there and, later, here in the United States when they have returned home. These remarkable men and women exemplify the best qualities of our Nation. They volunteered to serve in the best trained force in the world and they deserve our complete and unwavering support. If it were possible, I would like to have each and every one of our troops back home with their families and friends immediately. We cannot, however, pull our troops out of Iraq at this point without facing extremely dire consequences for a long time to come. I have spoken at length to our troops about their mission and they understand their mission.

I was thinking about them, and all of the members of our military who are presently serving around the world as I began to prepare my remarks. I thought back to the days, years ago, when I was first elected to serve as the Mayor of Gillette, WY. I made a habit of carrying around a copy of the United States Constitution with me everywhere I went. I kept it in my coat pocket, next to my pen, and whenever I looked at it, it reminded me of two things--the Government I was a part of, and the people I was elected to serve.

Then, when I came here to the Senate, the Constitution took on an even greater, deeper meaning for me. I see it as my job description. That is why I make sure to always keep it handy so it can continue to serve as a reminder of the detailed portrait it contains of our Federal Government and how it was designed to work by our Founding Fathers. Today, it provides us with a good starting point for our debate and it provides some of the answers to the issues before us.

The relevant parts of the our country's Constitution are quite clear. Congress must be consulted before any large scale military operation is begun. But once that has been done, the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, the President, is to direct the effort that we have approved.

The Founding Fathers had a good reason for establishing the President as the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces and the one who is responsible for making the decisions affecting the actions of our Nation's military.

That does not mean that Congress does not have a play in these decisions. We all have an important role to play when it comes to matters like these. Again, in their great wisdom, the drafters of our Constitution knew that Congress could--and should--influence policy-- but they knew it would be impossible for us to have all the information available to the President to debate and assess before making a decision on the viability of every military operation. The process of determining military strategy would be a nightmare if we were to be expected to debate all of the intricacies of every policy and, by so doing, publicly reveal some of the information obtained by our intelligence agencies on the House and Senate floor before reaching a decision. Our procedure on the Senate floor is a good process for debating and considering legislation, but it is a process that does not lend itself well to producing a quick and informed military decision at a time of crisis.

Those thoughts were on my mind when the President put forward a new strategy for us to pursue in Iraq, recognizing that what we are currently doing is not working. General David Petraeus, our U.S. Commander in Iraq, testified before us about that policy. He is consulting with highly educated and trained members of the military, many from universities where criticism of U.S. efforts in Iraq has flourished. It is evident that the President and his advisors are seeking analysis and recommendations from people who recognize the fact that the road ahead will be complicated and difficult.

Listening to the debate, I have heard many of my colleagues sum up the President's new strategy as just increasing the number of American troops in Iraq. I do not believe it is a matter of numbers. The real question should be what the placement of these troops is designed to accomplish. There is no question that there must be a clearly defined mission for them on the ground. By having more forces on the ground, we may be able to decrease the vulnerability of our troops as they move from place to place. That will provide them with the backup and protection they need to more safely pursue their mission.

In the months to come, it is clear that there are several things the new policy must do if it is to be successful. First and foremost, the new campaign must provide the security the people of Iraq must have to feel safe at home. If they do not feel secure under the protection of the United States, coalition, and Iraqi forces, they will turn toward terrorist organizations that will prey on their fears and provide a false sense of security. America's long-term security interests and the possibility of world peace will be best served by an Iraq that can sustain, govern, and defend itself, while serving as an ally in the war against the terrorists.

Looking long term, I think we would all agree that the future of Iraq will directly affect the balance of power in the Middle East. That is why countries throughout the region are watching to see what action we will take in Iraq. An immediate withdrawal of United States and coalition forces will leave our allies in the region forced to prepare for additional conflicts.

Our mission in Iraq has not been easy, and it will not get easier in the days to come. After all, we are facing centuries-old difficulties as we work with the people of Iraq to help them overcome their religious and ethnic differences to form a nation that will work to benefit and protect all their people.

Ultimately, what the future of Iraq will be is up to the Iraqi people themselves. Iraq must put together a working coalition of its three major groups, the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia, as well as other ethnic and religious minorities. They must work for national reconciliation through shared responsibilities as well as shared oil revenues that will be used to solve the problems that exist in their own backyard. Such a reconciliation will not only be good for Iraq, but the Middle East as a whole.

We have set forth benchmark requirements for the Iraqis to make. Our first benchmark has been met. Their parliament has approved an equitable split of oil revenues between the three factions. This is progress.

Looking back, the record is clear. Like many Members of the United States Senate, I supported the original decision in 2002 to take action against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The vote I cast that day was not an easy decision. The tough ones are like that. You make the best decision you can, based on the information you have on hand at the time you have to make it. Those are the decisions that make us all lose sleep for years afterward. Anytime you vote to put our Nation's young men and women in harm's way, it stays with you long after the fighting is over and our troops are on their way back home.

Today, I remain concerned about the safety of the people on the ground: Americans, coalition allies, and the Iraqi people. And there is good reason for my concern. With today's rapid communication made possible by the Internet, cell phones, and other technologies, what we say here can almost instantaneously find its way around the world and straight to the camps of both friends and foes--and they are both watching. In fact, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the whole world is watching to see what we will decide to do.

That leads me to ask, what do we hope to accomplish through this debate? We have already approved the nomination of General Petraeus by a unanimous vote. Now we are considering a resolution condemning a plan he has not had a chance to put into action yet. What sort of message will we send our troops with our vote on that?

As Members of the United States Senate, we have the opportunity to voice our opinions to the President and our constituents. But the fact that we are even going through this debate at this point in time may give those who wish to do us harm hope and embolden them--and once emboldened they will pose an even greater threat to our troops.

As we continue with our consideration of these resolutions, I want to be clear that I do not want to cut funding for the troops. Their safety and their very lives depend on that funding. When you are in a war, you do not do that to the troops.

Looking ahead, in the months to come, Congress must continue to closely monitor the actions of the new Iraqi government, our military leaders, and our civilian leaders. We should continue to express our opinions, and take whatever actions are necessary to ensure our troops are provided the best support possible so that they can come home soon. We should not, however, further endanger the lives of Americans and Iraqis simply to make a statement and take a stand against the President.