WASHINGTON — A divided Colorado delegation helped the U.S. House of Representatives send President Bush a stern message of opposition today about his planned troop "surge" in Iraq.

By a 246-182 vote, the House approved a non-binding resolution that praises U.S. military personnel but expresses disapproval for plans to send more than 20,000 additional troops to the battlefield.

Colorado's delegation split along party lines. The four Democrats — Reps. Diana DeGette of Denver, Mark Udall of Eldorado Springs, John Salazar of Manassa and Ed Perlmutter of Golden — voted for the resolution. The three Republicans — Reps. Marilyn Musgrave of Fort Morgan, Tom Tancredo of Littleton and Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs --- were opposed.

Overall, only 17 Republicans voted for the resolution and only two Democrats voted against it.

In the U.S. Senate, where partisan wrangling shut down debate over a more complicated set of proposed resolutions earlier this month, Democratic leaders hoped to bring the simpler House version up for a vote on Saturday.

However, Senate rules require at least 60 votes to pass cloture so that a measure can be brought up for a final vote, and it was unclear whether senators will be able to muster enough support to move forward on Saturday. Many Senate Republicans still oppose moving forward because they also want a vote on an alternative version in which Congress would pledge not to block future funding for the troops.

Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Denver, told Senate colleagues today they should move forward and consider the House-passed version.

"It's a simple resolution," Salazar said. "We should be able to bring that resolution to this floor. We should be able to have it debated and we should be able to have an up or down vote on that resolution."

Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Loveland, opposes moving ahead on Saturday.

"I will vote against the motion to proceed for two reasons: Senate Republicans want a fair and open debate on Iraq and the opportunity to bring other resolutions up for a vote, but more importantly, the last thing we should do in Congress is hurt the morale or the mission of our men and women fighting in Iraq," Allard said. "This resolution calls for the status quo in Iraq, but we all know that what is currently happening on the ground is unacceptable. I want to give the president’s plan an opportunity to succeed in Iraq."

The House of Representatives waged a marathon debate all week, giving every member a chance to weigh in.

Combined, the seven Coloradans added 4,153 words to the discussion.

The state's two newest congressmen were on opposite sides on Thursday.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D—Golden, told colleagues: "Our troops are entitled to sound public policy with a realistic mission that strengthens America's national security interests. I'm opposed to this president's proposed surge of sending 21,000 additional troops to Iraq. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, and I believe that we have taken our eyes off the necessary war in Afghanistan and against terrorism by the costly distraction of nation-building in Iraq."

But Rep. Doug Lamborn, R—Colorado Springs, warned: "If America does abandon Iraq, which many of my colleagues across the aisle want to be the ultimate outcome, destruction will spread across the entire Middle East, and will be more likely to come to our own shores. I know that the struggle against terrorism is difficult, but we cannot give up."

During the debate, the Coloradans used the word "war" 28 times and the word "peace" only once — in a written statement inserted into the Congressional record by Rep. John Salazar, D—Manassa.

They mentioned "surge" 11 times, "freedom" twice, "failure" four times, "president" 30 times and "sacrifice" four times.

The following are the transcripts of the Colorado lawmakers' speeches or prepared remarks.