---

Mr. Whitehouse: Madam President, the Senate will vote on whether America is on the right course in Iraq, or the wrong one.

I have spent the past two years traveling all over Rhode Island, listening to people from my state who were angry and frustrated at this President's refusal to see that his policies in Iraq were wrong from the start, and remain wrong today. Last November, they and millions of Americans cast their votes for a new direction.

They sent us here to hold this President accountable: for distorting intelligence to serve his policy goals; for failing to give our troops the equipment they needed to do their jobs overseas, and failing to take adequate care of them when they return home; for telling our country the mission was accomplished when, as we've seen, the war has now stretched on for five long years; for now proposing to send tens of thousands more American soldiers into harm's way, against the wishes of the American people, and without a plan to bring the conflict to an end.

Americans know the truth: escalating the war in Iraq will not make that nation more secure, or bring Iraq and its people any closer to a lasting peace. It will not make our nation more secure. And it is not the new direction Americans demanded.

There is a way to change course in Iraq. If we announce clearly that the redeployment of American troops will begin, and begin soon, that opens up diplomatic opportunities in Iraq, in the Middle East, and around the world.

When it is evident to the insurgents that America is not an army of occupation, the factions within the Iraqi government will be obliged-- and better able--to assume responsibility for the security and governance of their own nation. Iraq's neighbors will be newly motivated to take steps that will encourage a peaceful and secure Gulf region.

This binding resolution makes it clear that the situation in Iraq has changed since Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq in 2002. It states the President must begin the phased redeployment of American combat troops in no later than four months, with that redeployment completed by March 31, 2008.

The President failed to show America a new direction, and so the Senate will step forward to lead where he will not. I will vote yes to a change of course in Iraq, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. Hatch: Madam President, I wish to take this opportunity to explain why I will vote against S. Res. 107.

First, I must applaud Senator Murray for what I believe was the overall premise of her amendment, to show the entire Congress's resolve in supporting our troops.

I fully agree with the portion of the amendment that reaffirms the Senate's commitment to providing the "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 duties."

This is a policy to which I have dedicated my entire Senate career.

However, as a lawyer, I believe that it is also my duty to evaluate and work toward ensuring that all legislation which the Senate passes is strictly within the limits of our constitutional powers. As the preamble states, "Under the Constitution, the President and Congress have shared responsibilities for decisions on the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, including their mission, and for supporting the Armed Forces, especially during wartime."

Unfortunately, S. Res. 107 does not meet that test. While at first glance the passage I just cited may seem innocuous, the phrase "shared responsibilities" raises important separation of powers questions.

As we all know, the Constitution does not speak of shared powers, it speaks of the different branches of government having separate and distinct powers--a point which is at the core of the debate on our nation's policies toward Iraq.

Under article II, section 2 of the Constitution, the President is the "Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." However, Congress's role is limited in article I, section 8 which, in part, reads "… The Congress shall have power to … provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States… To declare war … to raise and support armies … to provide and maintain a navy … to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; … to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions … to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States …"

These are very different powers; they are not shared. The Constitution provides for only one Commander in Chief. Our troops are facing enough challenges in the weeks and months ahead--they do not need to worry if there will be 435 commanders in chief.

It is important that we remember this point now more then ever. And so, it is my analysis that the "shared powers" reference in S. Res. 107 clearly raises constitutional concerns, and that is why I voted against S. Res. 107.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. Inhofe: Madam President, before the Senator leaves, as it is right now, we have 10 minutes left on this side. There is 1 hour left on the Senator's side. We want very much to get some speakers down here, if we could. I understand we are trying to reserve 20 minutes for leadership time and 10 minutes on each side. If the Senator has speakers, this would be a good time to have them down here.

Mr. Levin: Madam President, I believe one Senator is on his way right now, and the Senator's notice should produce some other Senators as well.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. Inhofe: Madam President, rather than to speak myself, since there is going to be equal time coming off for both sides until a speaker gets down here, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. Inhofe: 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. Inhofe: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the last quorum call time be taken from the Democrats' time, and that future quorums come from the Democrat side.

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

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

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska): The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

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

Mr. Biden: Mr. President, what I wish to do at this moment is address one of the arguments I have heard many of my colleagues make over the past 2 days of this debate. The argument I have heard when I was on the floor yesterday, and again I have heard it today, is that the joint resolution we are debating is an effort to micromanage the war by focusing the mission of U.S. Armed Forces on training Iraqis, denying terrorists a safe haven in Iraq, and force protection.

If you listen to my colleagues who oppose this, you hear them recount that as if somehow that is exceeding the power of the people to speak, through their Congress, as to what role American military forces are permitted to play. Many of my colleagues on the other side go on to argue we are somehow overstepping our constitutional boundaries in defining the purpose for which U.S. forces can be used in Iraq.

Well, that argument, I respectfully suggest, is dead wrong. Defining the overall mission of U.S. troops is entirely within the power of the Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, not doing so would be an abdication of our fundamental duty under the Constitution, which clearly manifests war power in the hands of the Congress.

Now let me give you a few illustrations, if I may. In 2002, when we voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, we defined the purpose. We defined the purpose for which the President was permitted to use American forces against Iraq. It was to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and, further, to enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

During the course of the negotiations on that resolution, in which I was deeply involved, Congress made it clear, at least on this side--as one of the several people speaking for the Democrats at the time in the Senate--we specifically and clearly rejected the Bush administration's initial proposal for using force in Iraq. President Bush sought what I believe to be, and the majority of the Senate eventually did, an overly broad authority to use force: to restore international peace and security in the region.

I read that at the time as a grant of authority to the President that far exceeded what arguably was necessary at all in Iraq. The function of our military force was not to restore international peace and security in the region. We struck that and said: The use of force is to defend the national security of the United States against a continuing threat from Iraq, not the region; not the region.

After the President's attempted overreach here, we narrowed the geographic scope of the authority the Congress, under the Constitution, was willing to grant the President, and we narrowed the purpose for which he was allowed to use force. We did two things. We not only said, Mr. President, this is not about the region. You can only use force, if necessary, dealing with Iraq being a threat to the United States.

I remind everybody what we were being told at the time. We were being told by the Vice President that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program. Simply not true. It was not true when he stated it. Our intelligence community not only said he did not reconstitute the nuclear program, it said he had no nuclear program. That is not what we were told.

So we gave him authority, I remind everyone, to negotiate at the United Nations, to keep the pressure of the world on Iraq, to bring back the U.N. people, to determine what nuclear program or weapons of mass destruction he had, to get the inspectors back in, and to negotiate to do that, because at the time the argument taking place in the world was, was the U.S. embargo, was the world embargo, were the U.N. inspectors causing pain for innocent Iraqis?

Do you remember how many times we heard the argument that the reason why there was not enough medicine, the reason why children were dying, the reason why they did not have enough food, was because of this awful thing the United States was leading, the embargo on Iraq, the Food for Oil Program?

So to put this in context so everybody remembers, there were a lot of us on the floor willing to give deference to the President, who we thought was responsible in the exercise of power at the time, because he appeared responsible immediately after 9/11; he proceeded correctly relative to al-Qaida and the Taliban. He did not go off willy-nilly and start bombing people. He built the case. He sent his envoys all over the world. He made a compelling case for the right for us to invade Afghanistan. He even went so far as to worry about whether the Arab street would rise up if we attacked Muslims in Afghanistan. He engaged in public diplomacy. He did a fine job.

That was the context in which we gave him this power. But even then, as much as he had done well relative to Afghanistan at the time, we quite frankly did not trust him or any President to have this broad reach of authority which he asked for, which was to maintain peace, international peace and security in the region.

So we cut back the authority we gave him to negotiate at the U.N. Remember what he tried to do. He came and made the argument: There has to be a demonstration that all of the Nation support him in that we must keep pressure on Saddam. All Democrats and Republicans support him. That was the argument made to us. He did not come up here and make the argument to the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee: We need to be able to attack. He argued we needed to be able to give him the moral authority to go to the United Nations and keep the pressure on, because the French were wavering, the Europeans were wavering, some Arab countries were wavering. And then as time went on, he built this argument about they reconstituted their nuclear weapons and the like. But even then we did not give him the authority he asked for.

Why am I dwelling on this? Well, we made a clear judgment as a Senate and as a House, as a Congress, that he did not have the geographic scope for the extended purpose he wanted. We said: Here is your writ, Mr. President. Here is the region you are allowed to, if need be, use force--in this constrained area called Iraq. Because you are telling us, Mr. President, it is a threat to the United States of America, not a threat to the region, it is a threat to the United States of America. So you have the authority to deal with that, if necessary.

Secondly, even within Iraq, you can only use the force to enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. If memory serves me, there were 16, including resolutions relating to weapons of mass destruction.

So that was the rationale. We severely limited the authority he wanted because we thought it was an overreach. Now we know there were no weapons of mass destruction. Now we know--I will speak and say what I believe--hopefully the Intelligence Committee will show--not only did we have bad intelligence, but the good intelligence we had was misused by the administration, in my opinion. We will find out whether that turns out to be true.

In 2002, when we offered the authorization to use force, we defined the purpose. So I ask those who argue that we are now overstepping our bounds with this resolution, did we overstep our bounds in 2002 when we authorized the use of force against Iraq, when we limited what the President wanted to do? If, in fact, we do not have the constitutional authority today to limit what the President wants to do, how did we have the authority to do it in 2002? As I said, what is the rationale for the continued authority under the 2002 resolution? There are no weapons of mass destruction. All the U.N. resolutions are in compliance. And nobody argues the Iraqi Government is a threat to the United States of America. Are they going to invade us?

To those who have a problem with the mission we defined in this joint resolution before the Senate, I also say, listen to Prime Minister Tony Blair in announcing last month the redeployment of British forces from Iraq. Last month the mission the British Government assigned to those Brits who will remain in Iraq is precisely what we prescribed in our resolution. The new mission of the British forces in Iraq is the following: to transfer responsibility to the Iraqis; to train and support Iraqi forces; to help secure the border and supply routes; and to conduct operations against extremist groups, i.e., Al-Qaida. It is not to fight in the Iraqi civil war. It is not to be in the lead role in security operations in Basra, where they had authority, or in Baghdad, where they did not. In short, with the exception of denying terrorists sanctuary and training of Iraqis, the British forces are moving from the driver's seat to the backseat. This resolution proposes that very transition for our forces in Iraq.

So I ask again, rhetorically, does the Vice President think Prime Minister Blair's announcement of a "redeployment," as the Vice President said, "validates the al-Qaida strategy"? That is what he is accusing the Congress of. That is what he accuses me and Carl Levin of when we came up with this idea, that is now a leadership amendment; we are validating al-Qaida's strategy.

Are the British validating al-Qaida's strategy? Is he saying Tony Blair is validating Osama bin Laden? It is ridiculous. It is a ridiculous argument. It flies in the face of the facts. It comes down to this: Do we want American troops fighting an Iraqi civil war? Is that what we want these troops for? Is that why we sent them? Do you think, when we voted back in 2002, if we knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, if Saddam were gone, if they were in compliance with other U.N. resolutions, but if there were a raging civil war, do you think we would have voted on the floor of this body to send 150,000, 160,000, 170,000, 180,000 American troops to Iraq to help them settle their civil war? What do you think? I don't think so. We might have sent troops to Jordan. We might have done what we are trying now in Amman and the emirates. We might have beefed up Turkey. We might have accepted to go after al-Qaida sites. But I doubt very much we would vote now to get in the midst of a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence, which is what it is. If you want American troops fighting a civil war in Iraq, if you want that, then vote against this resolution, do not vote for it. Do not vote for it.

You say that is not fair; we are not engaged in fighting in a civil war. Has anybody asked themselves the rhetorical question: Why is it that Sadr, who has been responsible for killing a lot of Americans, and his Mahdi army, which has been responsible for killing a lot of Americans, why is it that the Shia-led Mahdi army, particularly in Sadr City, has taken off their uniforms, hidden their weapons, and as of yesterday--I have not checked today--there were rumors that Sadr is no longer in Iraq? Maybe he is back now. We do not know for sure where he is. Why is it that they took down the blockade? Is it because all of a sudden they turned peace loving?

I respectfully suggest, because inadvertently the 17,500 troops we are surging into the middle of Baghdad, we are surging them into 20- some neighborhoods that are Sunni.

They are bad guys, these former Saddamists, these former Baathists-- this insurgency--who were referred to until recently by the Secretary of Defense as "a bunch of dead enders." I respectfully suggest the reason all of a sudden the Shia in Sadr City are lying low is because they are very happy the United States is doing their job for them, killing their enemy, killing the bad guys who are Sunnis. Does anybody think if we succeed in that mission that all of a sudden we are not going to see all those weapons come out of hiding in Sadr City? Does anybody think that all of a sudden it is going to be safe for Americans in that region? Does anybody think the uniforms aren't going to come back on and the roadblocks aren't going to go back up? These folks aren't dumb. It is not our purpose, but the effect is, we are engaged in this civil war.

The question is, What is the plan to responsibly end our participation in this war without leaving behind chaos, without having traded a dictator for chaos, without having left behind a cycle of self-sustaining sectarian violence that metastasizes in the fragmentation of Iraq and metastasizes in the region--Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia? What is the answer?

So far, I don't hear a plan. Notice, by the way, now the surge is really getting bumped up, as some of us predicted on this floor when he announced the surge and predicted in our committee, 17,000 people to 22,500, whatever the actual number was initially. Now they are saying they are going to need 30,000 people for the surge. Why? Because it is like squeezing a water balloon. The bad guys have left this area in part, and they have now gone to the province directly outside of Baghdad.

General Keane is a very bright fellow, an honest guy, a former four- star general, who testified before our committee. He came up with the original plan about surging. He said: In order for this to work, you are going to have to surge well beyond Baghdad. You are going to have to go into Anbar Province and beyond. He predicted what would happen.

They said: No, we are only talking about 22,500 troops.

What is the purpose of the surge? The purpose of the surge, we are told--in a humanitarian sense, it makes a lot of sense, except for the humanitarian interest of our troops--is to bring order to Baghdad, stop the killing and the chaos. Why? Because when that happens and they have--I think the phrase used is "breathing room"--when they have that breathing room, what is going to happen? Then they can negotiate. Then they will sit down and negotiate an agreement among themselves. Has anybody asked the question, What will be the basis of that negotiation? What is the idea? What is the element? What is the political solution?

The President continues to insist on a well-intended but fundamentally flawed strategy. The flawed strategy is, it is possible to have a strong central democratic government. Before we went to war, I believed, and so stated, that there is not going to be a democracy there in any of our lifetimes, including the Presiding Officer, who is considerably younger than most of us. It is not going to happen. It is possible that we could leave behind a country secure within its borders, loosely federated, not a threat to its neighbor and not a haven for terror, but that is as good as it is going to get.

At least one and probably both of my colleagues in the Chamber were here during the Balkan crisis in Bosnia. What does history teach us and what does recent experience teach us? Wherever there is a cycle of self-sustaining genocide, self-sustaining sectarian violence, when in modern history has it ended other than any one of four ways:

One, a victor. They wipe out the other two sides or three sides or one side, and one of the ethnic groups prevails militarily on the battlefield.

Two, occupation by an outside force--the Ottoman Empire, the Persian Empire, the British Empire.

We can't afford the first to happen because that would have a devastating impact on the region because everybody knows the Sunni states will get more involved. If it goes the other way, the Shia states will be involved in Iran beyond what they are now. That is not a real option. We are not an occupying force. It is not in our DNA. We are not an empire.

The third option historically is a dictator, a strongman. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony--us going to Iraq to take down Saddam and restoring a strong man, which, I respectfully suggest, we should consider might happen because eventually we are going to leave and the dysfunctional circumstances in Iraq are as likely to produce a strong military leader to take over as anything else, although there is no individual in sight right now. That is not an option available to us.

What is the fourth historical option? Federation, a federal system, a weak central government within the defined borders of a country that, in fact, gives the warring sectarian parties some control over the fabric of their daily lives, their local police force for their public safety, rules relating to marriage, education. That is the only other option which has ever worked. It doesn't work perfectly.

What does recent history tell us? Like many here, I was deeply involved in our Balkan policy. As my friend from Kansas may remember, I, to use the vernacular, beat President Clinton up and about the head to use force in the Balkans. I argued, after encountering Milosevic 2 years before he acted in his office--when he asked me what I thought of him, I said: I think you are a damn war criminal, and I am going to spend my career seeing you tried as one. I came back and wrote report after report, after close to a dozen visits. I saw what was happening in Brcko, in Tuzla, in Sarajevo, in Srebenica, more sectarian violence in the Balkans from Vlad the Impaler to Milosevic than ever occurred in what is now called Iraq.

So how did we end it? We ended it after they killed several hundred thousand people, mostly women and children. We ended it after we gathered all the neighbors, including Russia, a pro-Serbian force, France, all the nations in the region. We gathered in a room. We brought in the parties who were warring, including Milosevic, Tudjman, Croats, and other leaders representing the Bosniaks. What did we do? We then called the Dayton Peace Accords. What did we do there? We gave much more autonomy to each of those groups than ever was envisioned by what I am proposing.

We set up a thing called the Republic of Serbia in Bosnia with its own President. We had a Bosnian President and we had a Croatian President. For over 10 years, as my friend from Oklahoma can attest, who knows more about force structure than most of us know, there have been over 20,000 on average NATO forces there. To the best of my knowledge, none has been killed in anger with a shot fired.

What is going on in Bosnia today? Was everyone who was ethnically cleansed able to come back to their neighborhoods? No. A lot have. Is there still injustice? Yes. Is genocide continuing? No. What are they doing now? They are debating amending their Constitution to become part of Europe so they can join the EU down the road. We don't have to go very far for an example.

Let me ask the rhetorical question again: Can anybody name me a time, without empire, dictator or expiring, that self-sustaining sectarian violence within the borders of a country has resulted in a central federal control that is democratic? With all due respect to the President, arguably his dream at the outset made sense. That is why I called 3 years ago for 60,000 to 100,000 additional American forces. That is why I called for the need for at least 5,000 to 6,000 paramilitary police to be sent, because I believed--and I wrote at the time--if the genie ever gets out of the bottle, if we don't establish order quickly, there is no possibility of stopping a vicious civil war.

Senator Hagel and I got smuggled across the Turkish border before the war began, and went up to Arbil and met with the Brazani and Talabani clans to discuss with them whether they would actually be with us if force was used. They had us each speak before the Kurdish Parliament, and they had already written a constitution that was the minimum they would, in fact, insist upon which allowed for significant Kurdish autonomy. They wanted a federal system.

A year ago January, my distinguished colleague from South Carolina and I went to Iraq for what was my sixth time. I have been there since. I don't know how many times it was. We went around and proudly put our fingers in the ink well, demonstrating that this was a free election. We came back and spoke to the President. We were debriefed by the President and his war cabinet. The President said it was a great democratic effort. I presumed to suggest it wasn't a democratic effort, it was a free election. It was a sectarian election. It turns out 92 percent of the vote cast was a sectarian vote. Kurds voted for Kurds. Shia voted for Shia. Sunni voted for Sunni. That is not democracy. Elections do not a democracy make. They are a necessary and ultimate condition to democracy. Democracy is about giving up things, about compromise.

I will never forget what Senator Graham, who has a great facility for words, said as I was trying to explain to the President about the militias--not that he did not know there were militias. After we got finished, the President turned to Senator Graham and Senator Graham said, with a bit of humor: Mr. President, it is kind of like when the recount was taking place in Florida, if the Republicans had their own army and the Democrats had their own army. That is the better analogy.

The genie was out of the bottle, and the genie came roaring out of the bottle when that shrine in the Shia area was devastated and ripped off the Earth.

Let me conclude by saying, it comes down to a simple proposition: Why do we want our troops in Iraq? Is it to fight a civil war or is it to provide a circumstance whereby we do the only thing that can help our interest, to prevent al-Qaida from occupying territory, to train the Iraqi forces, and to protect our troops. To do that we need a lot fewer troops.

Do we want to end this war responsibly? If we do, I respectfully suggest we vote for this resolution. If you prefer the President's plan, which offers no end in sight, I respectfully suggest you should vote against it. But, ultimately, there are a lot of proposals put forward, including the President's, and you have to ask yourself the rhetorical question, I believe: After it is implemented, then what? Then what?

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer (Ms. Klobuchar): The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Mr. Inhofe: Madam President, it is my understanding on this side we have 18 minutes. I am going to reserve 10 minutes for leadership time. That leaves 8 minutes I yield to the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Kansas is recognized.

Mr. Brownback: Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for the time for debate.

I thank my colleague from Delaware, whom I enjoyed listening to and with whom I enjoyed serving on the Foreign Relations Committee.

I say at the outset, I have been endorsing and speaking often around the country about this notion of a federated system in Iraq, of the need for a three-state, one-country solution, with Baghdad as a federal city, where we have a Sunni area, a Shia area, and a Kurdish region.

I have been in Irbil as well. In the middle of January, I was there. I agree with his analysis of history. When you look at these situations, and you take a big military apparatus off the top of a place such as the former Yugoslavia, or now in Iraq, and then you have these old, ancient hatreds that sit there, how do you deal with them? That is why I think this is a political solution that is right. I agree with my colleague from Delaware about that.

I wish he had not left the floor yet so we could have some discussion on that point because I think, though, that issue would then bode to voting against this resolution because what we are going to need to have is a period of time to get that political machination in place. We are going to need some time and space for Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias to be able to talk together, to be able to talk in an environment where there are not these mass car bombs and assaults and attacks taking place on a sectarian basis--such as took place in Bosnia--so that you can be able to allow the political system to work.

These are not mutually exclusive objectives of having a military apparatus in operation and in place in Iraq while you are pushing forward a very sensible and probably the only political solution that can take place, having an area for Sunnis, Shias, and a Kurdish region--which already exists. I might add this is in the Iraqi Constitution now. This sort of sectarian division of areas is allowed in the Iraqi Constitution. They have even taken the first steps of implementation. The Kurdish area is being operated by the Kurds. The oil revenues, which are being equally--by the last agreement--divided up around the country, are the glue to hold this system together.

This can and should take place. I urge the administration to push this, and even to bring these leaders together in-country or outside of the country to push this form of political solution. But I would add on top of that, that form of political solution would then say: Do not vote for this resolution that sets a timetable under which this must happen because these are things that are going to take some period of time. As my colleague from Delaware noted, we have been in Bosnia for the last 15 years putting this in place and holding this in place.

That is the requirement of this, then, so the passions can calm down, the sectarian passions can cool. You are going to need a force in place to see this political solution on through. That is the long-term objective I think we need to look at, this form he is on track to, but that would be in opposition to this resolution that sets a timetable.

I respect his discourse and I respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who may look at it differently, but I think we have to look at recent history to tell us this is a logical way that would take place.

Iraq is more three groups held together by exterior forces at the present time--with pressure from Turkey, with pressure from the Gulf States, with pressure--that is not constructive--from a couple of other neighbors, particularly Iran and Syria.

I think we need to recognize that political solution that is there, the exterior forces, and push this political solution in the environment of a more stable military apparatus and military operation.

This resolution, it seems to me, is clearly not a call for victory. Therefore, it must be seen as a call for retreat. Even its supporters do not contend it is a plan for victory. We need to win. They talk about the problems we face, not the solutions we need. But yet there is a middle road here, even, of engaging the Senator from Delaware, his political solution with this military rationale, the military needs that are going to be there that is still in place in Bosnia and is going to be in place for some time in Iraq. We will need a military presence in Iraq for some time to come even to get to that political solution.

We cannot predict how long that presence will be necessary or exactly what type of presence will be required. At the Dayton Accords, did we predict at that point in time it would be for a period of 5 years and no more? No. We said: We are going to help provide the stability so the political solution can take place. We did not put a set date: OK, in 1 year, we will have this few troops; and in 2 years, we will not have any of these types of troops; and in 3 years we will be out. We did not say that. We said: OK, here is a political solution, and we are going to help stabilize this militarily for whatever time necessary to be able to do that.

These solutions need to be brought together, not to be argued separately. I am not calling for an open-ended commitment to Iraq. I am suggesting that our commitment be driven by the mission. We must complete it. We must get this done. We can express opposition to the surge, which I have certainly done. But after doing so, I think we should oversee the implementation of it, not to try to undercut it, nor should we attempt to interrupt a mission just getting underway. We are looking at this right now. I cannot vote for a plan that would begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops before the surge forces are even fully deployed at this point in time. The 4th Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, based at Fort Riley, KS, recently arrived in Baghdad. I do not think it would be wise for us to tell those soldiers they should prepare to leave Iraq even before they get their gear unpacked.

Not only do I believe it is inappropriate for us to legislate a timetable for withdrawal, I also believe it is bad policy for us to do this in Iraq.

First, supporters claim the resolution continues the fight against the terrorists by leaving a minimal force in place for counterterrorism operations. But apparently the terrorists are not getting that message. Two days ago, one of the al-Qaida leaders in Iraq used a jihadist Web site to discuss the very resolution we are now debating in the Senate. He said:

The democratic majority in the American Congress announced that the security plan must produce its fruits in the middle of this summer or else they would expedite the departure of the forces at the end of this year.

Can there be any clearer evidence that al-Qaida is ready to wait us out?

In fact, al-Qaida not only approves of a timetable for withdrawal, it is working feverishly to expedite our departure. In the last few weeks, al-Qaida bombings have stood out as obstacles to stemming the cycle of sectarian violence in and around Baghdad. Sunni leaders have become so tired of al-Qaida violence against their own communities that they are turning to U.S. forces for protection. A timetable for withdrawal serves al-Qaida's interests.

For many years now, several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have rejected the idea that Iraq is a part--a central part--of the war on terrorism. I believe the statement I just read and others by al-Qaida leaders, the recent al-Qaida-inspired violence, and the Sunnis rejection of that violence should end this discussion. Iraq is unquestionably a key front in the war on terror, and it is essential we prevail against the terrorists in Iraq. If my colleagues are serious about fighting the war on terror, they should frustrate al-Qaida by voting against--against--this resolution.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. Brownback: Madam President, I urge for political purposes of stabilizing Iraq, as Senator Biden talked about, this resolution be rejected.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

Mr. Inhofe: Madam President, I understand we have 10 minutes. I wish to retain the remainder of our time.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Washington is recognized.

Mrs. Murray: Madam President, I yield myself 6 minutes from the leader's time on our side.

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

Mrs. Murray: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous agreement be modified to provide that if any of the resolutions receive 60 votes, the preamble be considered agreed to.

The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. Murray: Madam President, America's troops deserve our Nation's full support every step of the way--from when they enlist, to when they train, to when they deploy, to when they return home.

Tragically, this administration has failed our troops every step of the way. Today, Democrats are saying enough is enough. We are going to give our troops everything they need, and we are not going to be a rubberstamp for the President's war without end.

I am very proud today to offer the Murray resolution in support of our troops, and I am pleased our majority leader, Senator Reid, strongly supports this resolution.

We have been fighting to finally have a debate in the Senate for months. Now we are having that debate, and today we have to do three things: We need to adopt the Murray resolution that says we support our troops every step of the way. We need to reject the Gregg resolution that blindly follows the President. And I hope we pass the Reid resolution that sets a new direction in Iraq.

The Murray resolution I have offered affirms we will provide our troops with everything they need to be safe and to complete their missions. We will provide everything they need in terms of training, equipment, logistics, and funding, and we will provide everything they need when they return home.

Now, some here have a different idea. The Gregg resolution will tie the hands of Congress and would, importantly, leave all decisions to President Bush.

Well, we know how that has turned out. If Congress--we who are elected by our constituents at home--surrenders its voice, we could see our troops being stuck with more of the same--more Americans being stuck in the middle of a civil war and more veterans coming home without the care they need.

We do not need more of the same, in my opinion. We need a new direction. The Murray resolution shows we can have a new direction in Iraq, and we can give our troops all the support they need.

So shortly we will all have a choice: Either you can blindly follow the President or you can say: We--here--are going to stand up to our own responsibility to support our troops, and we can also push for a new direction in Iraq.

Now, the Gregg resolution says we have to support the President. The resolution I have offered says: We--here--have to support our troops.

The Gregg resolution would simply make Congress a rubberstamp for a failed policy. The resolution I have offered says that Congress--us, those of us elected here in the Senate--have a voice, and we have to use that voice to help our troops.

I suggest to my colleagues if you are happy with the war in Iraq, go ahead and vote for the Gregg resolution. It will keep us locked on the same path.

If you are OK with returning troops waiting months in a crumbling military hold unit--or waiting years for their benefits--then vote for the Gregg resolution and keep us locked on the same path. But if you think our troops do deserve our support and do deserve better, vote for the Murray resolution. If you agree our troops deserve equipment to keep them safe, vote for the Murray resolution. If you agree our troops deserve the training that will help them succeed in their missions, vote for the Murray resolution. If you believe our troops deserve better when they come home, importantly, vote for the Murray resolution. If you believe Congress needs to use its voice and its power to give our country a direction in Iraq, vote for the Murray resolution.

Our troops deserve better than what they have been provided so far. This President sent our troops into battle without the lifesaving armor and equipment they need. This President left our troops on the battlefield without a plan, without a clear mission, and without being honest about the costs--all costs--of the war. This President shortchanged health care and benefits for our returning servicemembers, leaving brave Americans, as we now know, to languish in squalor at Walter Reed and facilities across our country.

Haven't we had enough of that? Didn't Americans send us a clear message last fall that enough is enough? It is time, I believe, for a new direction.

The resolution I have offered recognizes that Congress has a role to play in supporting our troops. We have a voice also to push for a new direction, and we are going to use our power we were elected to use to help the brave men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the U.S. military.

I would say to all of my colleagues today, if you vote against the Murray resolution, you don't really support our troops. Don't vote against our military and don't vote to tie our own hands. Use this opportunity today to tell our troops: We are all here for them and their families; from the time they head off to battle through the rest of their lives, we are there for them. Most of all, I hope the Senate votes to support the Reid resolution so we can change the direction in Iraq.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Republican leader is recognized.

Mr. McConnell: Madam President, I rise to express my strong opposition to the Reid resolution, S.J. Res. 9.

This is a dangerous piece of legislation. It is constitutionally dubious, and it would authorize a scattered band of Senators to literally tie the hands of the Commander in Chief at a moment of decisive importance in the fight against terrorism in Iraq. I would never doubt the patriotism of my colleagues across the aisle, but I have become increasingly troubled over the last few weeks as this debate has taken shape.

When the President prepared a solution to the growing violence in Baghdad, he had good reason to expect the support of at least some of our friends on the other side of the aisle. The democratic whip, Senator Durbin, said in late December:

If we need initially some troops in Baghdad to quiet the situation, to make it more peaceful so that our soldiers start coming home, then I would accept it.

That is the assistant Democratic leader not years ago but 3 months ago. Yet as details of the President's proposal to do so became clear, our friends on the other side circled the wagons, and Senator Durbin got in line. Just 2 weeks--2 weeks--after saying he would support reinforcements as a way of stabilizing Iraq, the Senator from Illinois said:

The proposed surge in troops is a sad, ominous echo of something we have lived through in this country.

Then later on that day he added:

I don't believe that a surge is the answer to our challenge in Iraq.

That is 2 weeks after announcing that it might be a good idea. Would our friend from Illinois have felt the same way if one of his Democratic colleagues had proposed the surge? Increasingly, the troubling answer to this question appears to be yes. Indeed, it is increasingly clear that the only principle guiding our colleagues on the other side is this: If the President proposed it, we oppose it. This is a bad principle in good times. It is an outrageous principle in times of war.

Two months after many Democrats said they would support a surge in troops if it meant stabilizing Baghdad, and incredibly 1 month after sending General Petraeus on his mission to do so, Democrats are now calling for the very thing they have consistently opposed: setting a timetable for withdrawal. This is beyond silly. It is a chaotic embarrassment that threatens to shake the confidence of our commanders and of our troops, and to embolden an enemy that predicted and longed for nothing less. Of course, at some point it is not enough to simply say: If the President proposed it, we oppose it. The principle begs for a counterproposal: What would the Democrats propose instead? We all saw the answer: Seventeen different proposals, many of which contradicting the last, and then finally this, a proposal everyone could get behind, a proposal that sets a date certain for America's withdrawal from Iraq.

This resolution is a clear statement of retreat from the support that the Senate recently gave to General Petraeus; as I have said, its passage would be absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq.

Senator Clinton put it well. She said:

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

That was Senator Clinton. Well, "ever" is here, and our friends on the other side of the aisle apparently now think it is a good idea to telegraph our intentions to the enemy. Osama bin Laden and his followers have repeatedly said that the United States does not have the stomach for a long fight. Passage of this resolution will prove Osama bin Laden, regretfully, was right. This is the vote he has been waiting for.

Setting a date certain for withdrawal will please a vocal group of Democratic Presidential primary voters, but it would discourage many others, including many Democrats, who agree that timetables are foolish and dangerous. More importantly, it would discourage our own troops-- and this is the most important part about this--who wonder whether we truly support their mission, and it will discourage our allies and the millions of brave Iraqi men and women who have dared to stand with America in this fight.

I will proudly vote against a resolution that sets a timetable that actually announces the date for our withdrawal from Iraq. I will do so for the same reason that many prominent Democrats opposed it up until the day President Bush announced his plan for securing Baghdad 2 months ago.

Republicans have a message for our allies and for our troops, and it is this: We will continue to fight a timetable for withdrawal that has no connection to events or circumstances on the ground. We will give General Petraeus's mission a chance to succeed. We are proud of the work the general has done, and we stand with him until the job is done. We will send this message today when we vote in favor of the Gregg resolution. This resolution pledges us to support the troops and their mission. The Republicans proposed a month ago that we be allowed a vote on this resolution, but we were denied. We are being allowed that vote today, and just as proudly as we will vote against S.J. Res. 9, we will vote in favor of the Gregg resolution.

In one sense, this debate has been academic. Senators will have a chance to show their support for the mission in Iraq when we vote on the supplemental appropriations bill later this month. That is the bill that matters. That is the one that funds the operation in Iraq. But in another sense, this debate was worthwhile because it exposed the principle that appears to guide the opposition: If the President proposed it, we will oppose it. This is no principle at all; it is pure politics. It is unworthy in good times. It is shameful at a time of war.

Meanwhile, the fighting in Iraq continues, and General Petraeus's mission is showing early signs of success. We are told that bomb deaths are down one-third in Baghdad since the new plan took effect last month. Execution-style slayings are down by nearly half. Traffic has returned to the once empty Baghdad streets.

No one is foolish enough to say this will last. This is not a prediction, but it is a sign of hope, the kind of sign that everyone in this country--Democrat and Republican--has been waiting for. We in this Chamber have a choice: We can fan this flame or we can smother it. By voting on a timetable for withdrawal, we are very decidedly doing the latter. Republicans take the hopeful path today.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator has 2 minutes 15 seconds remaining.

Mr. McConnell: I yield back the remainder of our time.

The Presiding Officer: The majority leader is recognized.

Mr. Reid: Madam President, whatever time I have left I will add to that leader time.

Madam President, on the eve of the fifth anniversary of this protracted war in Iraq, the Senate finally considers important legislation to direct President Bush to change the course of this civil war. S.J. Res. 9, which is a joint resolution to revise U.S. policy in Iraq, is one I offered. The second vote will be on the Murray resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that no action be taken to undermine the safety of the Armed Forces. Finally, S. Con. Res. 20 is the Gregg resolution on funding for American troops in the field. I will discuss at some length at a later time this afternoon the difference between Murray and Gregg. Suffice it to say the Murray resolution takes care of the troops after battle in addition to while they are in Iraq. It takes care of the situation so we don't have another Walter Reed situation. The Gregg resolution does not cover the troops after battle.

As it relates to S.J. Res. 9, Members will have to consider a choice: Will we continue to support President Bush's failed policy that has our troops bogged down in the middle of a civil war while the enemy who attacked us on September 11 grows stronger or will we stand with the American people in demanding a new direction for this war? This new direction maximizes our chances for success in Iraq and in that part of the world, a new direction that recognizes the current policy has pushed our troops and their families to the breaking point, a new direction which sends a signal to the President that this Congress will hold him accountable and no longer will we rubberstamp his failed policies; a new direction that restores U.S. standing in the world and refocuses our resources on our most imminent threats. My hope is we will stand with the American people, because they are standing with this resolution, S.J. Res. 9. We must have a new direction in Iraq.

Monday will be the beginning of the fifth year of this war, the fifth year of this war our troops are now mired in, a war in this faraway country. Five years of war, of the President's approach to Iraq, and it is clear it is not working. The country is in a state of chaos. Iraq is in a state of chaos. There literally is no stability. U.S. troops are policing a civil war, a protracted civil war, not hunting and killing the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Five years. Five years of war.

The mission has changed. Saddam is gone. There are no weapons of mass destruction. The original mission no longer exists. Five years of war with 3,200 dead Americans, 25,000 wounded Americans, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, $4 billion a week, a couple of hundred million dollars a day and still no end in sight, according to this President. The American military, the finest in the world, cannot and should not police an Iraqi civil war. General Petraeus's name has been thrown around here as if it is his war. It is not his war. It is President Bush's war. General Petraeus, the commander in Iraq today, recently observed there is no military solution in Iraq. The war must be ultimately won through diplomacy, politically, by forcing Iraq's political factions to resolve their differences.

The key to success in Iraq is not to escalate the conflict by adding tens of thousands of additional troops to march down the same road. Some of these troops have been down the same road as many as four and five times. It is time to find a new way forward and a new way home that gives our troops a strategy to complete the mission and, I repeat, come home.

The Reid resolution will give our troops the best chance to succeed in Iraq and to succeed in the larger war on terror. It will direct the President to change course in Iraq by changing the mission in Iraq. This resolution immediately transitions the mission to training, force protection, targeting counterterrorist operations, and beginning the redeployment of our troops in the next 120 days.

Similar to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, the goal in my resolution is to remove all combat forces not associated with these missions by the spring of 2008. My resolution also recognizes a comprehensive strategy in Iraq. Phased redeployment shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes Iraq's neighbors and the international community.

S. Res. 107, the Murray alternative to the Gregg resolution, strongly supports our troops but also properly interprets the Constitution by stating that the President and the Congress have shared responsibilities for decisions involving our Armed Forces.

Quoting from the resolution:

The President and the Congress should not take any action that will endanger the Armed Forces of the United States, and will provide necessary funds for the 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.

In addition, the Murray resolution makes it clear that the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility, in addition to the President, to take actions to help our troops and veterans. The Murray resolution says that our responsibility to our troops doesn't begin and end when they are deployed. Supporting the troops means giving them the proper training before they are deployed and ensuring they receive the proper medical and other support when they return home.

Madam President, I suggest that voting no on the Murray resolution is voting to condone what has taken place at Walter Reed. The Murray resolution recognizes that the troops must be taken care of not only when they are in battle but when they get out of battle. If there were ever a picture of what is wrong, look at what happened at Walter Reed. The Murray amendment underscores that.

The people voting against the Murray amendment will be voting against changing what took place at Walter Reed.

The Department of Defense said yesterday in a report they issued--the Pentagon issued--that there is a civil war going on in Iraq now, as we speak. The Pentagon, in their report yesterday, said violence is up, not down. Three soldiers a day are being killed. February was the month of more attacks than at any time during this 5-year war.

Al Maliki, when he met with the President face to face, said get the American troops out of Baghdad. He is the leader of Iraq. General Casey, who was a commander at the time the President suggested the surge, said the surge won't work. This is not General Petraeus's war, it is President Bush's war, and we must change course.

In our resolution, there is a 120-day redeployment, and there will be work on counterterrorism, force protection, and training. Yes, they will also do political and economic strategy, and certainly diplomacy. Our goal is the spring of 2008.

It is easy to talk about sending the troops into battle and supporting the troops. I support the troops. I support the troops, but I don't think that we should spill another drop of American blood in Iraq--not another drop of blood.

I spoke to the mother of LCpl Raul Bravo a week ago today. She is the mother of that 21-year-old boy who was killed in Iraq. It was his second tour of duty. She said that "he is the only man in our family"--her and his three sisters. She said that he was an angel. Her son did his best to learn to speak the language of the Iraqis. She said he said prayers with the Iraqis. His blood should not have been left in that faraway place.

The war has gone on too long. We must change direction in Iraq. We have given the President chance after chance. We hear that things are getting better. His own Pentagon says it is a civil war. His own Pentagon says it is getting worse. That is what these resolutions are about today.

The Reid resolution says let's change direction in Iraq. The Murray resolution says support the troops at all times. The Gregg resolution takes Congress out of the equation and doesn't do a thing for the troops when they come home.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following these votes, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en bloc the following nominations:

Calendar No. 36, John Preston Baily of West Virginia, to be a district judge.

Calendar No. 37, Otis D. Wright, II, of California, to be a district judge.

Calendar No. 42, Thomas M. Hardiman, of Pennsylvania, to be a circuit court judge for the Third Circuit.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that there be 20 minutes for debate, equally divided, under the control of Senators Leahy and Specter or their designees on the three nominations; that when the time is used or yielded back, the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of each of the nominations in the above order; that the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?

Mr. McConnell: Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I am certainly not going to object, is the majority leader expecting rollcall votes on all three of the judges?

Mr. Reid: At the moment, yes, but that can change.

The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Reid: I thank the Chair.

The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of S.J. Res. 9.

The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.

Mr. Reid: Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The Presiding Officer: Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The question is on passage of the joint resolution.

The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

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

Mr. Lott: The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The Presiding Officer: Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:

Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg. - S.J. Res. 9
YEAS--48
Akaka	Baucus	Bayh	Biden	Bingaman
Boxer	Brown	Byrd	Cantwell	Cardin
Carper	Casey	Clinton	Conrad	Dodd
Dorgan	Durbin	Feingold	Feinstein	Harkin
Inouye	Kennedy	Kerry	Klobuchar	Kohl
Landrieu	Lautenberg	Leahy	Levin	Lincoln
McCaskill	Menendez	Mikulski	Murray	Nelson (FL)
Obama	Reed	Reid	Rockefeller	Salazar
Sanders	Schumer	Smith	Stabenow	Tester
Webb	Whitehouse	Wyden
Nays--50
Alexander	Allard	Bennett	Bond	Brownback
Bunning	Burr	Chambliss	Coburn	Cochran
Coleman	Collins	Corker	Cornyn	Craig
Crapo	DeMint	Dole	Domenici	Ensign
Enzi	Graham	Grassley	Gregg	Hagel
Hatch	Hutchison	Inhofe	Isakson	Kyl
Lieberman	Lott	Lugar	Martinez	McConnell
Murkowski	Nelson (NE)	Pryor	Roberts	Sessions
Shelby	Snowe	Specter	Stevens	Sununu
Thomas	Thune	Vitter	Voinovich	Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Johnson	McCain

The Presiding Officer: On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 50. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this measure, this vote is vitiated, and the measure is returned to its previous status.

Mr. Reid: Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. Murray: Madam President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. Reid: Madam President, with the permission of the Republican leader, I ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be 10 minutes in duration.

The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

S. Res. 107

The Presiding Officer: There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on Senate Resolution 107, and the Senator from Washington is recognized.

Mrs. Murray: Madam President, the Senate is about to vote on the Murray resolution. There should be no question that the Members of the Senate support our troops. We all do. In this resolution, we want to make sure we go on record saying we support our troops from the time they go to battle and are sent on their missions to the time they come home.

We make very clear in the Murray resolution that this Senate will go on record saying the support of our troops extends far beyond their mission in the field. It means when they come home and are sent to Walter Reed or one of our other medical facilities, we will support them with what they need. It says we will support their families throughout their lifetime, if that is what it takes, for their service to this country.

I hope this is passed on a strong, loud, bipartisan vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Inhofe: Madam President, ironically, I agree with the Senator from Washington, although I disagree with the characterization of this resolution.

First of all, the resolution does essentially the same thing the Gregg resolution does. No. 1, the Gregg resolution uses the language that "Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field." That is exactly the same language that is in the Murray resolution: "Congress should not take any action that will endanger the Armed Forces."

The Gregg resolution talks about article II, section 2, of the Constitution, in terms of the President's constitutional powers, and article I, section 8 of the power of Congress; and the Murray resolution does essentially the same thing, except it doesn't cite it. It merely says Congress and the President should continue to exercise their constitutional responsibilities.

So I am going to vote for the Murray resolution and vote for the Gregg resolution. I don't see any difference in them. I think we are supporting the President, and this is the right thing to do.

The Presiding Officer: All time has expired.

The question is on agreeing to the resolution.

Mrs. Murray: Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The Presiding Officer: Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

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

Mr. Lott: The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The Presiding Officer: Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:

Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg. - S. Res. 107
YEAS--96
Akaka	Alexander	Allard	Baucus	Bayh
Bennett	Biden	Bingaman	Bond	Boxer
Brown	Brownback	Bunning	Burr	Byrd
Cantwell	Cardin	Carper	Casey	Chambliss
Clinton	Coburn	Cochran	Coleman	Collins
Conrad	Cornyn	Craig	Crapo	DeMint
Dodd	Dole	Domenici	Dorgan	Durbin
Ensign	Enzi	Feingold	Feinstein	Graham
Grassley	Gregg	Hagel	Harkin	Hutchison
Inhofe	Inouye	Isakson	Kennedy	Kerry
Klobuchar	Kohl	Kyl	Landrieu	Lautenberg
Leahy	Levin	Lieberman	Lincoln	Lott
Lugar	Martinez	McCaskill	McConnell	Menendez
Mikulski	Murkowski	Murray	Nelson (FL)	Nelson (NE)
Obama	Pryor	Reed	Reid	Roberts
Rockefeller	Salazar	Sanders	Schumer	Sessions
Shelby	Smith	Snowe	Specter	Stabenow
Stevens	Sununu	Tester	Thomas	Thune
Vitter	Voinovich	Warner	Webb	Whitehouse
Wyden
Nays--2
Corker	Hatch
NOT VOTING--2
Johnson	McCain

The resolution (S. Res. 107) was agreed to.

The preamble was agreed to.

The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 107

Whereas under the Constitution, the President and Congress have shared responsibilities for decisions on the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, including their mission, and for supporting the Armed Forces, especially during wartime;

Whereas when the Armed Forces are deployed in harm's way, the President, Congress, and the Nation should give them all the support they need in order to maintain their safety and accomplish their assigned or future missions, including the training, equipment, logistics, and funding necessary to ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such support is the responsibility of both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of Government; and

Whereas thousands of members of the Armed Forces who have fought bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan are not receiving the kind of medical care and other support this Nation owes them when they return home: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) 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;

(2) 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; and

(3) the President and Congress should--

(A) continue to exercise their constitutional responsibilities to ensure that the Armed Forces have everything they need to perform their assigned or future missions; and

(B) 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.

The Presiding Officer: The majority leader is recognized.

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

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

S. Con. Res. 20

Mr. Reid: Madam President, it is my understanding there is a minute on each side. Is that correct?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator is correct.

Mr. Reid: Madam President, the Gregg amendment has been changed since it was originally filed. It is still imperfect. I still think, at least from my observation, it is not good, especially in light of the fact that the Murray amendment so clearly defines the necessity of taking care of the troops when they come home. But there is no caucus position on this issue. Senators on this side of the aisle should vote however they feel comfortable. I personally am not going to vote for it because I don't feel comfortable. I believe the resolution leaves a lot to be desired. It can be construed many different ways. It is wrong that we do not take into consideration the injured troops when they come home. My caucus can vote any way they feel appropriate.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.

Mr. Gregg: I am just wondering what the parliamentary situation is. Do I have a minute or was the minute on the other side just used?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator has a minute.

Mr. Gregg: That was a minute on the other side that was used or was that leadership time?

The Presiding Officer: Forty-five seconds was used.

Mr. Gregg: I think it is important Members understand what this amendment says, so I am going to read it:

That it is the sense of Congress that Congress shall not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.

It is very simple. If you support the troops, you have to support this amendment. In fact, if you supported the Murray amendment, you have to support this amendment unless you changed your mind in the last 30 seconds.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Reid: Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The Presiding Officer: Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

The question is on agreeing to the resolution. The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

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

Mr. Lott: The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The Presiding Officer: Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 16, as follows:

Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg. - S. Con. Res. 20
YEAS--82
Alexander	Allard	Baucus	Bayh	Bennett
Bond	Boxer	Brown	Brownback	Bunning
Burr	Cantwell	Cardin	Carper	Casey
Chambliss	Clinton	Coburn	Cochran	Coleman
Collins	Conrad	Cornyn	Craig	Crapo
DeMint	Dole	Domenici	Dorgan	Durbin
Ensign	Enzi	Feinstein	Graham	Grassley
Gregg	Hagel	Harkin	Hatch	Hutchison
Inhofe	Inouye	Isakson	Kerry	Klobuchar
Kohl	Kyl	Landrieu	Lautenberg	Levin
Lieberman	Lincoln	Lott	Lugar	Martinez
McCaskill	McConnell	Mikulski	Murkowski	Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)	Obama	Pryor	Roberts	Salazar
Schumer	Sessions	Shelby	Smith	Snowe
Specter	Stabenow	Stevens	Sununu	Tester
Thomas	Thune	Vitter	Voinovich	Warner
Webb	Wyden
Nays--16
Akaka	Biden	Bingaman	Byrd	Corker
Dodd	Feingold	Kennedy	Leahy	Menendez
Murray	Reed	Reid	Rockefeller	Sanders
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--2
Johnson	McCain

The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 20) was agreed to.

The preamble was agreed to.

The concurrent resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Con Res. 20

Whereas under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, the President is the "commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", and in such capacity the President has the command of the Armed Forces, including the authority to deploy troops and direct military campaigns during wartime;

Whereas under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, Congress has the power of the purse specifically as it relates to the Armed Forces, and in such capacity Congress has the responsibility to fully and adequately provide funding for United States military forces, especially when they are at war and are defending the Nation; and

Whereas when United States military forces are in harm's way and are protecting our country, Congress and the Nation should give them all the support they need in order to maintain their safety and accomplish their assigned missions, including the equipment, logistics, and funding necessary to ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such support is the responsibility of both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of Government: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.