Below are his remarks, as prepared for delivery:

Mr. President, this new Congress comes here with a mandate, as well as a moral obligation, not just to find a new way forward in Iraq but to find the right way forward. The mistakes of the past do not change the fact that Congress bears some responsibility for getting us into this war and must take responsibility for getting us out.

That starts with a real bipartisan dialogue about where we go from here. The American people have spoken clearly: they want a real change of direction in Iraq - not more of the same failed strategy that has gotten us into the mess we are in today. And now we here in the Senate need to speak up as well—to let our voices be heard and our votes be counted.

Our troops have done their duty - now we have a moral and constitutional obligation to do ours. We owe the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day an honest debate. We owe them a vote on the President's senseless decision to escalate the war in Iraq by sending over 20,000 more of them into the middle of a raging civil war. And most importantly, we owe them a policy that is worthy of their sacrifice. Anything less would be a complete abdication of our most basic responsibilities as Senators.

It is incredible to me that some here would seek to obstruct debate over the most fundamental issue facing our country today. I know many on the other side of the aisle oppose this escalation - they say so every day. And the Majority Leader has given every opportunity for those who support the escalation to vote in favor of it. And yet many on the other side of the aisle voted against holding a real debate -- and having a real vote - on Iraq. History will judge that decision, but there is still time for the Senate to get this right. There is still time for this body to serve as the voice of reason and good judgment, of cooperation and common sense, that this country so desperately needs right now.

But since the end of last month when we started debating this escalation, over 60 American troops have died in Iraq. The American people aren't interested in hearing Senators bicker while their sons and daughters are being killed in Iraq. Not while young men and women are suffering permanent disabilities. Not while more families are having their futures taken away.

They have every right to expect the people they elected to stand up and vote on a policy that has so deeply divided our country. No more delays, no more hiding behind procedural votes. The current resolution is very simple, and it's crystal clear: it says that we support the troops, and oppose an escalation of the war that will put more of them into harm's way without a clear strategy to succeed. So it presents a very simple question: do you support the President's escalation or not? The members of the House of Representatives have been able to answer that simple question - to stand up and be counted on the most important issue facing our country today -- and there's absolutely no reason we cannot as well.

That starts by putting aside the hollow rhetoric and straw men that have stymied real debate for far too long. We all agree on the incredible bravery of the men and women of our Armed Forces, and none of us wants to see Iraq fall apart. We all agree on the need to preserve our vital national security interests in the region, and none of us downplay the risk of a region-wide conflict or an al-Qaeda safe haven. We may disagree on the strategy, but we all agree on the stakes.

Pretending that this resolution is a vote of "no confidence" in our troops - as some have argued -- really poisons this essential debate. Let's be clear: it's a vote of "no confidence" in what we consider to be a disastrous decision by this President, a vote of "no confidence" in continuing a policy that has not worked in the past and we believe will not work now. Not a vote of "no confidence" in our military or in our troops. To suggest otherwise is just a transparent effort to distort the debate.

And some of my colleagues have opposed having this crucial vote because they insist on advancing the fallacy that if Congress uses its Constitutional power to cut off funds -- as a means of forcing the Administration to face facts and get our policy right Iraq -- it is somehow undermining the safety of troops in the field. That's absurd.

In fact, the opposite is true. The best way we fight for the safety of our troops is to get them out of the middle of a raging civil war. U.S. soldiers - no matter how brave, no matter how well trained, no matter how effective - cannot end if the policymakers and the diplomats don't start doing the jobs they should have done long ago.

Our troops and our country deserve better. The best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and does a disservice to our people and our principles.

The simple fact is that sending in over 20,000 additional troops isn't the answer - in fact, it's a tragic mistake. It won't end the violence; it won't provide security; it won't deter terrorists, who have a completely different agenda; it won't rein in the militias; and it won't turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is already underway.

It will simply postpone the political solution that is the only solution in Iraq, while further damaging our prestige and credibility in the region. And most importantly, it will expose our troops to unnecessary death and injury.

Our generals understand this. General Abizaid told a Senate Committee that more US troops not only will not solve Iraq's security problem, they could actually slow the process of getting Iraqi security forces to assume more responsibility. The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously opposed this escalation, and even Prime Minister Maliki was at best lukewarm on the idea.

I strongly believe it is not enough for Congress simply to go on record opposing the President's reckless plan. Congress has an obligation to provide a responsible exit strategy that preserves our interests in the region, retains our ability to protect the security of the United States, and honors the sacrifice our troops have made.

Eight months ago in the Senate, thirteen of us stood up against appeals to politics and pride and demanded a date to bring our troops home, to make Iraqis stand up for Iraq and fight a more effective war on terror. But while we lost that roll call, I still believe it was the right policy to put in place, to demand accountability, and to leverage action.

Now, I am more convinced than ever that a combination of serious, sustained diplomacy and the enforcement of benchmarks for progress by the Iraqi government, leveraged by a one year deadline for redeployment of U.S. troops, is the best way to achieve our goal of stability in Iraq and security in the region.

That is why I will again introduce legislation that offers a comprehensive strategy for achieving a political solution and bringing our troops home within one year. We have to find a way to end this misguided war, and I believe this legislation is the best and most responsible way forward.

Let me emphasize that this strategy does not mean abandoning Iraq in one year: in fact, it gives the President the discretion to leave the minimum number of United States troops necessary to complete the training of Iraqi security forces, go after terrorists, and protect United States facilities and personnel.

Mr. President, this one year deadline is not arbitrary. It's consistent with the Iraq Study Group's goal of withdrawing US combat forces from Iraq by the first quarter of 2008—it's consistent with the timeframe for transferring control to the Iraqis set forth by General Casey, and the schedule agreed upon by the Iraqi government itself. Even the President has said that, under his new strategy, responsibility for security would be transferred to Iraqis before the end of this year. It's the opposite of arbitrary. The President has said it, our generals have said it, the Iraq Study Group has said it.

Some say those of us who oppose the President's failed policy in Iraq do not offer an alternative - nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation offers a comprehensive military and diplomatic strategy that incorporates key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group - including many that some of us here have long been advocating -- to provide us with the best chance to succeed: holding a summit with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria - creating an international contact group -- enforcing a series of benchmarks for meeting key political objectives -- shifting the military mission to training Iraqi security forces and conducting targeted counter terrorism operations -- and maintaining an over-the-horizon presence to protect our interests throughout the region.

Mr. President, it is time for Iraqis to assume responsibility for their country. We need a timetable which forces Iraqi politicians to confront reality and start making the hard compromises they've resisted thus far. Instead, they are using America's presence as a security blanket. Americans should not be dying to buy time for Iraqi politicians hoping to cut a better deal. We should be working to bring about the compromise that is ultimately the only solution to what is happening today in Iraq. And Iraqi politicians have repeatedly shown they only respond to deadlines - a deadline to transfer authority, deadlines to hold two elections and a referendum, and a deadline to form a government.

Without hard deadlines, our best hopes for progress in Iraq have been repeatedly dashed. When Prime Minister Maliki took power in May, General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad said the new government had six months to make the political compromises necessary to win public confidence and unify the country. They were right, but with no real deadline to force the new government's hand, that period passed without meaningful action -- and we are now seeing the disastrous results.

In fact, for four years now, we have been hearing from this Administration that progress is right around the corner. We've been hearing the Iraqis are near a deal on oil revenues, that they are making progress towards reconciliation - but we still haven't seen any results.

That's why we must give teeth to the benchmarks agreed upon by the Iraqi government for national reconciliation, security and governance. Meeting these benchmarks is crucial, but without any enforcement mechanism, they are little more than a wish list. That's why this legislation supports the Iraq Study Group proposal to make US political, military, or economic assistance conditional on Iraqis' meeting these benchmarks.

A deadline is also essential to getting Iraq's neighbors to face up to the realities of the security needs of the region. None of them want to see Iraq fall apart. That should be the basis for cooperation in stabilizing Iraq, and yet a sense of urgency has been lacking. This deadline will make clear the stakes and hopefully focus their minds on helping the Iraqis reach a political solution.

We cannot turn back the clock and reverse the decisions that brought us to this pass in Iraq and the Middle East. We cannot achieve the kind of clear and simple victory the Administration promised the American people again and again even as Iraq went up in flames. But we can avoid an outright defeat. We can avoid creating the chaos we all say we want to avoid. We can avoid a victory for our adversaries by taking a clear-eyed approach to identifying specifically what we can and cannot accomplish in Iraq.

With a new Congress comes a new responsibility: to get this policy right. That starts with preventing the President from going forward with this senseless escalation. And it has to end with an exit strategy that preserves our core interests in Iraq, in the region, and throughout the world. Only then will we have honored the sacrifices of our troops and the wishes of those who sent us here. Only then will we have done our duty.

###