[Pages S1165-S1194]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR THE SAFE REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES TROOPS FROM IRAQ--
MOTION TO PROCEED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as we take up the issue of Iraq once
again, the question that should be foremost in our minds is this: Has
the situation improved since the Petraeus plan was put into place? And
if so, if the terrorists who have been murdering coalition and Iraqi
soldiers and civilians there for years are now seriously wounded and on
the run, as we are told they are, then the obvious followup question is
this: How do we ensure that the progress not only continues but
actually lasts?
Our friends on the other side never seem to let the facts get in the
way of their proposals for securing Iraq. When the President announced
a new counterinsurgency strategy last year, many of them said it would
not work. Even the plan's most vocal critics voted to confirm the
general who would carry it out. The junior Senator from Illinois
embodied this approach when he predicted: The President's strategy will
not work, and then cast a vote confirming General Petraeus for the job.
Then, when General Petraeus returned from Iraq to report that the
strategy was bearing fruit, some of our friends on the other side
covered their ears and questioned his integrity.
The junior Senator from New York embodied this view when she said the
general's report required ``a willing suspension of disbelief,'' then
voted against a resolution that condemned an ad accusing him of lies.
And now, after months of positive reports on improved safety and even
important political progress, some of our friends on the other side
once again want to cut funding for the troops.
In the words of the first Feingold bill that we might be voting on,
they want to ``promptly transition the mission.'' They want to tear up
the Petraeus plan and cut off funds for the very troops who are
carrying it out.
The second Feingold bill is just as odd. It would require the Bush
administration, now in its final months, to set out a new global
strategy for fighting terrorism even as our military fights the
terrorists neighborhood by neighborhood in Iraq and even as
congressional Democrats continue to block a bipartisan surveillance
bill that we know would improve our ability to disrupt terrorist plots.
The second Feingold bill would also require reducing the pace of
deployments and an increase in overall military readiness. This would
mean not only full funding for the Defense Department but also
directing an even greater share of the Nation's resources to defense--
something the junior Senator from Wisconsin has not been known to
champion in the past.
In other words, the second Feingold bill claims to advance an
effective antiterrorist program even though the first one attempts to
block a counterinsurgency plan that even early critics of the war are
now calling a success. It calls for a new strategy against al-Qaida
even while Democrats in the House block one of the most effective tools
we have in the fight against al-Qaida.
All of which leads me to wonder, what possible deduction of reason
has prompted our friends on the other side to believe either of these
bills is a good idea? We already know what will happen to the first
bill. Last year, we overwhelmingly rejected it--not just once but four
times. It never achieved more than 29 votes. And that was before the
success of the Petraeus plan.
But given what has happened since then, the proposal to cut funds, to
scrap the Petraeus plan, makes even less sense today. Just consider
what has taken place in Iraq over the last year.
Since the implementation of the Petraeus plan, violence in Iraq has
fallen dramatically. Over the past year, civilian deaths are one-sixth
of what they were in November of 2006. High-profile bombings are down
by two-thirds since June. The discovery and seizure of guns and other
weapons caches has more than doubled nationally and tripled in Anbar.
The worst kind of violence is dramatically down. Ethno-sectarian
conflict--the fighting has fallen from a peak of about 1,100 incidents
in December of 2006 to about 100 such incidents this past November.
That is less than 1 year. Locals are energized about fighting back
against terrorists, with between 70,000 and 100,000 ordinary citizens
stepping forward to help local police root out terrorists. And the
terrorists themselves are becoming demoralized, with even those who
share their religious beliefs driving them into hiding.
This kind of progress is changing minds. One harsh early critic of
the war, Anthony Cordesman, recently visited Iraq, looked at the new
data, and came to a different conclusion.
Here is what Anthony Cordesman says now:

No one can spend 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq
without seeing major progress in every area. If the U.S.
provides sustained support to the Iraqi Government, in
security, governance, and development, there is now a very
real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable
state.

A very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable
state. These are the words of a man whose judgment our friends on the
other side were appealing to just last year in arguing for withdrawal.
Last July, the junior Senator from New Jersey, speaking on the Senate
floor, cited the opinion of Mr. Cordesman before declaring: Mr.
President, it is over; your

[[Page S1166]]

failed strategy, your ill-conceived war must come to an end before more
damage is done.
All of this reminds me of something we saw last summer after the New
York Times ran an op-ed by two early critics of the war who had begun
to change their views on the Petraeus plan once those views became
inconsistent with the facts on the ground. About a week after the piece
appeared in print, the senior Senator from Illinois concurred with its
central point, after early and outspoken opposition to the Petraeus
plan.

More American troops have brought more peace to more parts
of Iraq. I think that is a fact.

Yet, since those comments, violence in Iraq has gone down even more,
and the kind of political progress the authors of that New York Times
piece were hoping for is finally taking place.
A provincial powers law passed, with elections set to take place
sometime before October. The Iraqi Parliament passed a partial amnesty
law for prisoners--a sign of thawing relations between the Sunnis, who
make up most of the prison population, and the majority Shias. The
Iraqi Parliament has also approved a national budget that allocated
Government revenue, most of it from oil, out to the provinces.
To most people, the lesson of the last year is obvious: Coalition
forces are winning this fight, and they deserve our full support and
our thanks. The response from most of us has been a mix of pride and
new confidence, especially now that some concrete political progress is
being made. For others, however, the lesson to be drawn from success is
the same as it was when we faced the strongest adversity: Cut the
funds, withdraw the troops, and leave Iraq to the terrorists.
Fortunately, most of the Senate will reject this view when we defeat
the Feingold bills, hopefully for the last time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will use my leader time and ask unanimous
consent that the vote not occur at 2:45.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the recess we had, I was in Nevada.
People all across the State of Nevada, just like people all across this
country, are committed to ending the war in Iraq.
These are the facts. We need to end the worst foreign policy blunder
in our Nation's history, which started with the invasion of Iraq. What
has 5 years of war brought to America, to the Middle East, to the
world? It has brought thousands of deaths, almost a trillion dollars in
debt, catastrophic failure of diplomacy. What has 5 years of war
brought to America, to the Middle East, and the world? Debt,
depression, and death.
My Republican colleagues, think what this war has done to our
Nation's fiscal soundness. It has destroyed it. In less than a year
borrowed money for Iraq will be $1 trillion--soon $1 trillion of
borrowed money, with the likely Republican nominee for President saying
we may need to be in Iraq for another 100 years. We are nearing the
tragic milestone of 4,000 dead Americans, more than 30,000 wounded
Americans, many gravely wounded, amputations, blindness, hearing loss,
untold thousands with head trauma, making life after the war most
difficult. This week brings news from the Pentagon that there will be
140,000 American troops in Iraq still in July, 8,000 more than when the
surge began in January of 2007.
In Iraq a civil war rages, with the past 2 days bringing us the news
of Sunni attacks on Shias while the Shias observe a religious holiday,
attacks that killed at least threescore, wounded more than 100. And, of
course, the Shias will reciprocate; and just in an off place that you
have to search hard in the newspaper, three more dead American
soldiers. These are the facts.
In Israel we find the Bush administration has been too preoccupied to
be concerned with the volatility of the Palestinian-Israeli situation.
Now we have a raging civil war in the Palestinian territory, Hamas
versus Fatah. A government can't be formed in Lebanon where some say is
also a civil war. Iran is thumbing its nose at us and the world
community. Torture, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, warrantless spying on
American citizens--all as a result of this misplaced war. These are the
facts.
In an op-ed published in today's Washington Post, three noted writers
and foreign policy experts said this:

Republicans will claim that after four years of disastrous
mistakes, the Bush administration finally got it right with
its troop ``surge.'' Yet despite the loss of nearly 1,000
American lives and the expenditure of $150 billion, the surge
has failed in its stated purpose: providing the Iraqi
government with the breathing space to pass the 18
legislative benchmarks the Bush administration called vital
to political reconciliation.
To date it has passed only four.

And some say the four passed are for show; they have no substance.

Moreover, as part of the surge, the administration has
further undermined Iraq's government by providing arms and
money to Sunni insurgent groups even though they have not
pledged loyalty to Baghdad.

My high school pal, my buddy, I named one of my boys after him, he
named one of his boys after me. I am proud of my namesake. He is a
heroic helicopter pilot, having served a very difficult tour in
Afghanistan and now Iraq. We exchanged regular e-mails during his time
overseas. These e-mails were wonderful. Before going to Iraq, we had
the opportunity to meet in Las Vegas for dinner. He was on his way. It
was a nice dinner. He proudly told me of his war stories, stories of
real-life valor. Now the e-mails have stopped. I had the good fortune
of meeting my friend at my home in Searchlight last week, last Monday,
a week ago yesterday.
I said: Why don't I get e-mails anymore. His dad told me that his son
said: They need to get us out of here. He wants to come home with the
rest of our gallant, even heroic troops. These are the facts.
The mission has not been accomplished. We have not been met as
liberators. After 5 years of war, we are still an occupying force.
Iraq, with untold wealth because of its oil supply, must take care of
its own citizens. Americans need to start taking care of Americans. We
cannot spend a half billion dollars every day in Iraq. These are the
facts.
We will soon vote on two amendments that will begin to change course
in the bloody Iraq civil war. Our first vote is on a bill to
responsibly begin to redeploy our troops so we can refocus on other
threats and challenges around the world. Do we have them? General Casey
testified today in a building a short distance from here that the Army
is in a state of distress. We heard on the media this morning about
what is going on in the Pacific. The admiral in charge there doesn't
have the necessary force to do even intelligence. It has been shipped
to Iraq.
We need to begin to redeploy our troops. That is what this amendment
is about. We can refocus on other threats and challenges, and there are
many, and limit the troops to counterterrorism, force training, and
protecting our assets.
The other bill we will vote on later is also extremely important. It
calls for a report from the administration on the status of the fight
against al-Qaida, the fight against terrorism. As the war in Iraq
rages, bin Laden remains free, and his terrorist network is gaining
power worldwide. This legislation will shine the spotlight on this
unmet challenge of fighting terrorism and keeping America safe--today,
tomorrow, and beyond.
I urge my colleagues to seek common ground toward a new American
foreign policy that strengthens our security, supports our troops, and
begins to restore our Nation's ability to once again lead in the way we
have in generations past.

cloture motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order pursuant to rule
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 575, S. 2633, safe redeployment of
U.S. troops.
Russell D. Feingold, Edward M. Kennedy, Patrick J. Leahy,
Robert Menendez, Ron Wyden, Sherrod Brown, Richard
Durbin, Bernard Sanders, Patty Murray, Frank R.
Lautenberg, Christopher J. Dodd, John D. Rockefeller
IV, Amy Klobuchar, Charles E. Schumer, Tom Harkin,
Barbara Boxer.

[[Page S1167]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call
is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 2633, a bill to provide for the safe
redeployment of United States troops in Iraq, shall be brought to a
close.
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), and the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the
Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn)
would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 70, nays 24, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 33 Leg.]

YEAS--70

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Durbin
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--24

Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dorgan
Enzi
Hagel
Johnson
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Salazar
Tester
Webb

NOT VOTING--6

Byrd
Clinton
Cornyn
McCain
Obama
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 70, the nays are
24.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A motion to proceed to the bill (S. 2633) to provide for
the safe redeployment of United States troops from Iraq.

The Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2
hours of postcloture debate prior to the motion to proceed being agreed
to, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees; further, that upon disposition of this
legislation, S. 2633, the Senate then proceed to a cloture vote with
respect to S. 2634.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I
will object, we now have an opportunity to discuss the issue the
majority feels we ought to be talking about. I have a number of
speakers lined up on my side. I assume that is the case on the other
side. So it is time to debate the Feingold proposal; therefore, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am satisfied that we got cloture on the
motion to proceed to this important legislation, and I appreciate the
bipartisan vote in this regard. Usually, however, when we get cloture
on a motion to proceed, it means Senators are prepared to actually
begin consideration of that legislation. However, I have asked consent
that we do just that. My minority colleagues have objected.
The only conclusion a reasonable person could have is that they are
resorting to a new variation of the old theme. Remember, in 1 year--
last year--the Republican minority broke all rules in filibusters. In 1
year, we had to file cloture 68 different times. So it is obvious this
is only an effort to stall, as they have done for the entire time we
have been in the majority.
Now, we are happy to legislate regarding Iraq, but it is obvious to
me what the game plan is. They want us to slow the Senate down from
getting things done. It is interesting to note that when the 30 hours
is up, we will automatically go to cloture on the piece of legislation
that calls for a reporting requirement on the global war on terror.
From the statements made by the distinguished Republican leader, they
don't like that. So it would seem to me it is very clear that they are
going to do everything they can to stop us from getting to the housing
legislation, which the American people badly need. I think it is
important that we do the housing legislation and that we do consumer
product safety. Of course, we are going to do the budget resolution. It
is obvious the Republican minority is in their usual stalling tactic.
Now, we have a few people who can speak, too, during these 30 hours,
but what we should be doing is legislating on this most important
legislation. Remember, the Iraq war is within a matter of days going to
be starting the sixth year--the sixth year of this war. It has been
reported that in less than a year, this war will cost the American
taxpayer $1 trillion. Remember, Lindsey was fired because he said it
would cost $100 billion. He was fired. Well, he was a little off.
We know that in a matter of a few days we are going to have a
milestone, a tragic milestone. There will be 4,000 dead Americans. Our
troops have fought valiantly. We all acknowledge that. But as I
indicated in my statement earlier today, they want to come home.
Wherever you go, that is what they tell you. The parents tell you that.
The troops tell you that. A Capitol policeman came home. He has been
over there for almost a year. I talked to him yesterday: When are you
going back?
He said: In 2 weeks.
How has it been, Jim?
He said: It has been pretty tough.
He is a different person than he was, having been through what he has
been through.
So if the Republicans want to talk about Iraq, we are happy to talk
about Iraq and about how this money we have borrowed and continue to
borrow--$1 trillion--is preventing us--I met with the Governors
yesterday, the Democratic Governors. They know what they are not doing
in their States because they have no money, whether it is
infrastructure, the deterioration of roads, bridges, and dams or
whether it is health care. They can't take care of some of the basic
needs of the people from their States, and they know it is because of
this war.
The President doesn't like to borrow money, except for this war.
There is a carte blanche: Borrow as much as you need. This war is
costing us now about a half a billion dollars a day--a day. So isn't it
good that the American people are hearing us talk about this?
As I indicated in an earlier statement I made a few minutes ago,
let's not start boasting about the surge. During the surge, we have
lost about 1,000 American troops--1,000 American troops. We are glad
the violence is down, but that is all a matter of degree. The Shia
religious holiday they are trying to finish, in 2 days, more than 60
killed, more than 100 wounded, and this is Sunni on Shia, and you can
bet whatever you have to bet, the Shias will be back to inflict equal
damage against the Sunnis, and the Sunnis, to whom we have paid huge
amounts of money, have not even declared loyalty to the Baghdad
Government.
So we are happy to talk about Iraq. It is obvious the Republicans are
doing everything they can to stop us from going forward on legislation,
something dealing with the economy, of course. What would have been the
right thing to do, if they were sincere about moving forward, a motion
to proceed. I want everyone who is within the sound of my voice to
understand that motions to proceed are routine. No one made us go
forward on motions to proceed, until this Republican minority showed
up, and then on virtually everything, they are doing the slow walk on
everything--everything. If they

[[Page S1168]]

were legitimate and genuine about what they want to do, we would be on
this piece of legislation that has been introduced and we would be
talking about the merits of it. But, no, that can't start.
Understand that at the end of 30 hours, automatically we have a vote
on the next cloture that has been filed because everything we do around
here, we have to file cloture on a motion to proceed because of the big
stalls taking place. So we are ready to talk as long as people want to
talk on this issue. We have Democratic Senators who want to talk about
this because they know what this war has done to what is taking place
in our States, as indicated by the Governors whom I met with yesterday.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, my good friend, the majority leader,
seems to regret that we are having a debate on the matter he put in the
queue for us to have a debate on. We would not be dealing with this
issue this week but for his decision to file cloture on two motions to
proceed on two Feingold bills. The first Feingold bill which is before
us, we have actually essentially voted on four times already since the
new majority took over in January of 2007. In fact, this will be the
35th Iraq vote we have had since the new majority has taken over.
We spent a lot of time discussing Iraq over the last year. During
much of that time, the view of what was happening in Iraq was not
nearly as positive or optimistic as it is now. Why we should have a
truncated discussion of Iraq at a time when things are getting
dramatically and measurably better strikes me as somewhat curious.
So obviously the Iraq debate of the moment has commenced. I have a
number of speakers on my side who wish to talk about the success of the
surge, the improvement in Iraq, the improvement on the Government side
as well as the military side. So we are happy to engage in this debate.
It was not our decision to schedule it. This was the decision of the
majority to devote whatever time was necessary this week to a
discussion of these two Feingold bills related to Iraq.
So we look forward to the discussion. I believe we have a number of
people lined up who would be happy to engage in the Iraq discussion,
and we will continue that until such time as there is a mutual
agreement to yield back time, which may or may not occur, depending
upon the situation and how many speakers we have. This is the way the
Senate frequently operates. It is the way it was when our good friends
on the other side were in the minority. There is nothing unusual about
this at all. The one thing we know the majority leader can do is
schedule, and it was his decision to schedule the two Feingold bills,
and the first of which is now being talked about.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend from
Illinois in a minute.
We are happy to debate the Iraq issue. We have always been happy to
do it. Thirty-five times we have, and that is 35 times more than when
the Republicans were in the majority. The war went on for years with no
oversight, none whatsoever. We have at least demanded that, and I think
it is important we have done that.
I would also ask my Republican colleagues, why don't they ever talk
about the costs of this war? The costs in life, bodily injury, and
money--money that is keeping this country from taking care of its own?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2633 offered by
Senator Feingold.
I think it is unfortunate the Republican leadership has once again
put the Senate into a stall. It seems as if the Republicans feel that
it takes them 30 hours to make up their mind to do anything. They want
to burn off 30 hours of Senate time. I don't know why. What Senator
Reid offered them was a chance to move to this resolution, to debate
it, and if amendments are going to be offered, they would be offered.
They turned it down. They want to wait 30 hours before we even possibly
reach that point. As Senator Reid explained it, there may be an
intervening motion that slows us down there. But that is what this is
all about. This is the Republicans' slow boat for America. They want to
slow everything down to a snail's pace, and it is unfortunate that they
do.
They know what we want to do. We want to have a good, open debate on
the policy on the war in Iraq, followed this week by emergency
legislation to deal with the housing crisis in America. So their
strategy is to avoid that debate on Iraq, a debate that leads to the
actual bill, tie us up in procedural issues, and hope we don't get to
the housing crisis by the end of the week. I guess at the end of the
week the Republicans will say: Job well done. The Senate went home and
didn't do anything for another week. Well, I guess that is what they
think the minority is all about, to stop anything from happening. Isn't
it unfortunate.
If you listen to Presidential campaigning on both sides, Republicans
and Democrats talking about change, they point an accusing finger at
us, saying that time and again, Senators and Congressmen dream up ways
to avoid facing the important issues in America. Well, it is time for
us to face those issues in a timely way, to give ample opportunity to
minority and majority, to debate, to amend, to move forward. Yet the
Republicans, as they did last year, are doing everything this year
again to obstruct, to stall, and to stop.
Why is this important? The minority leader, Senator McConnell of
Kentucky, was complaining that we have had 35 votes on the war in Iraq.
He is war weary of voting on Iraq. Well, I want to say to him I am war
weary as well. I am weary of 3,972 U.S. service men and women killed in
Iraq. I am weary of 29,000 injured, many seriously, and with permanent
conditions they will struggle with for a lifetime. I am weary of a war
this President won't pay for, that costs us $10 billion to $15 billion
a month. I am weary of the excuses we have made for the Iraqis who have
failed to lead their own Nation while we risk and give American lives
in this conflict. I am weary of the missed opportunities in America
that $1 trillion spent on this war could have bought us to make our
Nation stronger at home--better schools, making certain our teachers
are compensated for good work, the technology we need so our children
can be successful in this 21st century, medical research funds that
have been cut under this administration, funds for extending health
care and insurance for families across America, putting infrastructure
in place in America so our economy can grow and move forward with good
American jobs building those roads and highways and airports and mass
transit. I am weary of that too.

No apologies for the Senator from Kentucky for 35 votes on Iraq. That
is hardly 1 vote for every 100 Americans who have been killed in that
country. It certainly is worth our time to debate this. Even more
important, it is worth our time to change this policy in Iraq.
I salute Senator Feingold. He has been a lone voice. There were times
I didn't agree with him. I thought he had an approach for this that we
weren't ready for. But over time, I have come to understand his wisdom
and his insight, and his political courage to bring this issue to the
floor. If he didn't fight doggedly to make sure we didn't have this
Iraq war debate, we would skate along perhaps month after month without
ever facing the music. What we face is a reality.
The Republican plan is to stall and wait 11 months until President
George W. Bush, on January 20, 2009, can leave the White House, give a
fond adieu to Washington, DC, and say: Well, I left the war; now it is
up to the others to try to solve this. Well, it is going to take quite
a bit to try to undo the worst foreign policy decision in modern memory
in America.
Many of us remember that night in October of 2002 when here in the
Senate Chamber we voted on authorizing this President to go to war. I
was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee then. I listened
behind closed doors to classified and confidential information, and I
couldn't put it together. I couldn't square with the information we
received in the Intelligence Committee all of the dire predictions
being made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice,
and Donald Rumsfeld. It didn't square away.

[[Page S1169]]

Where in the world were the threats they were talking about--the
weapons of mass destruction, the nuclear weapons, the connections with
9/11? It turned out none of them existed--not one. We found no weapons
of mass destruction. We found no nuclear weapons. We found no
connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrible tragedy of 9/11. All
of the pretenses and reasons given by this President to engage us in
this war, to risk American lives, and to drag us on for more than 5
years in this conflict turned out to be false; all of it.
There is no greater deception in a democracy than for the leader to
mislead the people of a nation into a war, to ask families to offer
their children and their children's lives in service to this country
for reasons that turn out not to be true. No weapons of mass
destruction, no nuclear weapons, no connection with 9/11, and here we
are, still bogged down, mired in this conflict.
It is cold comfort to know that as we sent 20,000 or 30,000 more
soldiers into Iraq last year that things got better. I am glad they
did. I have been there since then. I am glad the surge brought some
peace to some sections of Iraq. But that wasn't the reason for the
surge. The surge was put in place so the Iraqis could finally take
responsibility for their own country, so they could make hard political
decisions and govern and lead and defend themselves. Here we are,
almost a year later, and what do we have to show for it? An Iraqi
Parliament that when we can get them to meet won't even face the
serious issues. Time and again they fail to make the decisions they
need to make so their Government can govern. Time and again we find
excuses from them: They need a little more time. Every day they need is
at the expense of American soldiers. Every month they take to finally
reach a decision means that more body bags will come home to America
and more wounded soldiers will return. So as they take their sweet time
making their decisions, we are paying a heavy price as a Nation. And
the complaint from the other side is we have had 35 votes on this;
haven't we had enough? No, we haven't had enough until we change this
policy, until we start bringing the troops home.
You are going to hear a lot of things said about this Feingold
resolution. I certainly hope that colleagues and Members will take the
time to read it. Here is what it says: It says our future role in Iraq
is going to be limited. We are not going to say to the military: Do
whatever you like. We are going to say to our military in Iraq: Here is
your role. This is what you can do. This is what we will provide funds
for.
First: Conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope,
against members of al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist organizations.
That is certainly something we all agree on. Al-Qaida was behind 9/
11, not Saddam Hussein, and we should continue to target them. They
have used Iraq as a land of opportunity now to go in and sow their
seeds of division and hatred, to try to kill innocent people and to
kill American soldiers. Senator Feingold says we will continue to fight
to eliminate al-Qaida in Iraq.
Second: Provide security for personnel and infrastructure of the U.S.
Government.
That should never be in question. We should make certain our Armed
Forces are always there to protect our people and to protect important
installations.
Third: Provide training to members of the Iraqi security forces who
have not been involved in sectarian violence or in attacks upon the
U.S. Armed Forces.
If the Iraqis are ever going to take over defense of their own
country so that we are not in Iraq for 50 years or 100 years or even
1,000 years, as one of the Presidential candidates has said--if we are
ever going to avoid that terrible outcome, the Iraqis have to stand and
fight and defend their own country. Senator Feingold says that is one
of the legitimate reasons we can stay in Iraq. I agree with him.
Fourth: To provide training, equipment, and other materials to
members of the U.S. Armed Forces to ensure, maintain, or improve their
safety and security.
No argument there.
And finally: The resources to redeploy members of the U.S. Armed
Forces from Iraq.
What is missing from this? What is missing is any unilateral combat
operation that opens a new part of this war. For 5 years we have given
the Iraqi people all they could ever ask for. We deposed their
dictator, we brought the best military in the world to their country,
we gave them a chance to elect their own Government, write their own
Constitution, and govern and defend themselves. What more could they
ask for? We have paid for it mightily, with almost 4,000 lives, the
hundreds of thousands who have served, and the thousands who have come
home wounded, injured.
I will tell you, for those who think we ought to look the other way
for 11 months so President Bush can get out of town, they ought to go
to these National Guard deployments and redeployments and look into the
eyes of our guardsmen and their families, their tear-filled eyes as
they send their soldiers off for yet another deployment.
We have a young man here on the Capitol Police force who works with
my office. He is about to face his second deployment with the Navy
Reserve. He is taking it very well, with a smile, but he is going to be
gone for 8 months--8 months away from his family, making less money
serving with the Navy than he makes serving as a Capitol policeman--
taking a pay cut because the Federal Government is too cheap to provide
what private corporations do for their activated employees--and he will
be away from his family for another 8 months.
Easy for us to say: Well, it is only 11 months. There will be a new
President. Maybe there will be a change. But what about those soldiers
and sailors and marines, airmen, all of our military who are called to
serve? That 11 months will be a lifetime away from their families, and
during that 11 months some of them will give their lives. That is why
this debate is important and why it is timely and why I am glad Senator
Feingold has brought it before us.
It is unfortunate the Republican side wants to stall this debate,
stall it for 30 hours in hopes we can drag everything out so we will
never quite get to the issue here on Iraq and maybe never get to the
issue of the housing crisis in America. That is the Grand Old Party's
brandnew strategy: Stall, try to delay, find ways to make sure we don't
get to the important issues. It is little wonder that the opinion of
the American people of this Congress is low.
What we should do is look to the positive side. If we change this
policy in Iraq, if we tell the President on a bipartisan basis that we
have had enough of this, that we want to see a change in mission, we
have a chance to change this country. We can take the resources that
would have been spent in Iraq and spend them in America. We can make
sure we are providing health care, job training, and building schools,
roads and bridges. We can create an economic stimulus in the United
States instead of an economic stimulus in Iraq. I think a strong
America begins at home. Wouldn't it be great if we invested our
precious tax revenues in that belief?
Let me tell you what the National Intelligence Estimate said about
the state of this war in Iraq. Last year, they gravely noted that:

The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for
jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in
the Muslim world, and cultivating supporters for the global
jihadist movement.

That is a quote from the National Intelligence Estimate. What it says
is that as we battle on in Iraq and lose American lives and spend
American dollars, we are creating a magnet for the extremists around
the world to come and kill our troops and to be inspired in their own
sad and devilish ways to kill other innocent people around the world.
Did anyone bargain for that when we invaded Iraq? Did anyone think it
would make the war on terror more difficult to win? That is what the
National Intelligence Estimate tells us.
This administration has recklessly diverted critical military
intelligence and civilian assets from Afghanistan in the process. That
was a war I voted for, without reservation--a unanimous vote in the
Senate, just days after the attack on 9/11. We knew where that attack
came from. It didn't come from Saddam Hussein and Iraq, it came from
Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, and the al-Qaida forces that were
running

[[Page S1170]]

rampant through Afghanistan. Well, the situation in Afghanistan has
deteriorated because we have spent so much on human life and American
dollars on Iraq. That is the reality of this administration's
priorities.
The Taliban and al-Qaida, sadly, are regrouping in Afghanistan, and
we know for sure Pakistan, the neighboring country, is increasingly
unstable. In fact, the strongest military on Earth is apparently so
overstretched at this moment, the administration can't even find a
handful of transport helicopters to help the desperately needed people
of Darfur with the U.N. peacekeeping force.
How long will we stand by this failed foreign policy, this disaster
in Iraq, at such a high cost in human lives, dollars, reputation, and
national security? We are hearing once again that we are seeing
progress in Iraq. How many times have we heard this story? At least for
5 years--from the beginning, from Vice President Cheney's rosy scenario
of the troops being greeted with parades and arms laden with flowers to
welcome them to Iraq, something that unfortunately did not occur--until
the present time, when the so-called surge has turned everything
around. And yet 150,000 American lives are still at risk this morning,
this afternoon, and this evening in Iraq.
The entire point of the surge was to carve out political space for
the Iraqi political leadership. They haven't used the time; they
haven't used the surge for that to happen. Does anyone honestly believe
we are closer to the day that the Iraqis will take responsibility for
their own future? They will if this passes, because they will know our
days are numbered in Iraq. We are not going to be there for 25, 50, or
1,000 years. That is not fair to our soldiers; it is not fair to
America.
This administration has no strategy beyond ``stay the course'' until
January 20, 2009. We in Congress have a responsibility to change
direction. Our responsibility is for those soldiers and their families,
it is for those guardsmen and their families, it is for everyone
risking their life today in Iraq. They need to come home. And when they
come home, we know that we have our hands full.
They come home with serious problems. The suicide rate among soldiers
is at a record high. It is even higher among Guardsmen who are
activated to serve. Post-traumatic stress disorders of years gone by
intensify in the returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan.
We know those who suffered serious injuries--amputations, traumatic
brain injury--are going to need our help for a long time to come. This
administration has shortchanged the Veterans' Administration. When we
begged them to put in the billions of dollars necessary to keep our
promise to these veterans and those from other wars, they said they did
not need it. Then, of course, they were proven wrong.
We continued to put billions of dollars into the Veterans'
Administration, and we should and we will for the future, trying to pay
the long-term costs of this war, a heavy cost that future generations
will carry. And those on the other side say: Well, let's just let this
go for another 11 months. Let's see how this all works out, another 11
months of returning veterans, returning wounded, another 11 months of
more responsibility to future generations.
Staying with the failed strategy is no strategy at all. Changing
course in Iraq is long overdue. Quite simply, we cannot give this
administration another blank check because we know what they are going
to do with it. They are going to continue this policy as we see more
and more American soldiers in harm's way. The bill before us is
reasonable, it is measured, it is a thoughtful effort to put before
this administration a new approach, a new policy, and a new direction
in Iraq.
Starting to redeploy the majority of U.S. troops from Iraq within 120
days is a reasonable thing to do. Certainly, many of them will stay
there for those specified responsibilities, but as they start to leave,
the Iraqis may wake up to the reality that it is their country and
their responsibility. The question is no longer whether the surge, or
more accurately a significant escalation of troops, has worked. The
question is how we can return our focus to the original al-Qaida
threat.
Sad to say, 6 years, more than 6 years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is
still on the loose. He is still guiding in his way the al-Qaida forces
that threaten us in the rest of the world. We need to help countries
such as Jordan that have been overrun with Iraqi refugees. We certainly
have to understand that a country that has been that friendly to the
United States deserves a helping hand, and we have to start to rebuild
our international image and reputation.
It is unfortunate to hear people around the world, once our friends,
once our allies, once our supporters, so critical of the United States
because of the colossal mistake made by the Bush administration with
this invasion of Iraq. We have to turn that page, and we cannot wait
until January 20, 2009, to do it.
Last year, a New York Times-CBS News poll showed that only 5 percent
of Americans trust this President to successfully resolve the Iraq war;
1 out of 20 Americans trust President Bush to resolve this war. Well, I
do not believe he will either. I would be with the 95 percent. But
Congress has an equally important responsibility to oversee this war as
it is fought, to do everything we can to protect our troops and to
resolve this war so our troops can come home to the heroes, welcome
they richly deserve. We need to step into the leadership void that this
White House has left and change directions for our policy in Iraq.
I am going to support this bill to bring an end to this war. I was 1
of 23 who voted against it. Of all of the votes that I have ever cast
in this Congress in the House and Senate, I look back with the greatest
assurance that was the right vote, the right vote for America. I do not
think anything that has transpired since that late October night in
2002 has ever made me waiver in my belief that it was a serious mistake
for the United States to give to this President and this administration
the authority to begin this war, which has cost us so much over the
years.
I believe we have to be careful in our foreign policy. Of course,
defend America, that is our first responsibility. But never engage in a
war when we cannot understand the consequences that might follow, like
this war. It is so much easier to get in a war than it is to get out of
one.
Senator Feingold is engaging this Senate in a debate that is long
overdue for a change in policy that is long overdue. The Republicans
are going to stall, try to avoid the vote, try to speechify us to
death, not going to face this vote or a vote on the housing crisis. But
that is nothing new. As the majority leader, Senator Reid has said,
last year 68 times they initiated a filibuster. That is a brandnew
record in the Senate. Before that it was 61 filibusters in 2 years.
That was the record. Well, they managed 68 in 1 year.
It shows you what they are up to. They just want to grind us down,
slow us down, and make us avoid the issues that count in America. One
of those issues is ending this war the right way, and another which
will follow is the housing crisis which plagues our economy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am a little confused. About an hour and a
half ago the majority leader brought up a bill. He and the Senator from
Wisconsin had filed this bill to leave Iraq in 120 days. And he filed
cloture on that to see whether enough Senators would agree to debate
the bill. So that we can start to debate it, it took 60 Senators to
vote yes. The majority leader must have been surprised when we voted
yes because he does not seem to want to take yes for an answer.
He filed the bill, wanted to debate it, and presumably have a vote on
it. But when we agreed to debate it, he called foul and said: You are
trying to stall because you did not vote no so that we can move on to
the next bill and then the next bill which will be the economic
stimulus package.
So I am confused. Maybe I should not be because almost half of the
members of the majority voting voted against cloture; that is to say,
they voted against proceeding to the bill that the majority leader had
filed. Now, ordinarily members of the majority do not vote against
these cloture motions that the majority leader files to take

[[Page S1171]]

up a bill. Ordinarily, all of the members of the party vote with their
leader on these votes.
I gather that the majority leader must have thought that the bill
would not get cloture; that is to say, that we would not start the
debate. Then I suppose Republicans would be accused of trying to stall,
of not being willing to vote on the bill that he and the Senator from
Wisconsin had filed, maybe putting Republicans into a no-win situation,
damned if we do and damned if we do not.
If we agree with the majority leader and take up his bill to debate
it, we are stalling. And if we do not agree, then I suspect we would
have been accused of not being willing to debate Iraq and not being
willing to vote on the amendments or the bill that he and the Senator
from Wisconsin filed.
So as I say, I am confused. All Republicans did was to say: OK, you
wanted to debate the bill that you filed. We will agree to proceed with
that. Now the distinguished minority whip just said Republicans are
speechifying this to death. Well, Republicans have spoken about 5
minutes out of the last hour. All of the rest of the time has been
taken by members of the majority party. The majority whip himself
spoke, I think, a little over half an hour. I do not intend to take
that long.
But I think it is hard to accuse Republicans of speechifying the bill
to death when all we did was, an hour and a half ago, agree to debate,
and the minority leader has spoken a total of about 5 minutes. Do you
want a debate on Iraq or not? Now that the surge is working, it appears
maybe that members of the majority party are not so anxious to have
that debate.
But as Minority Leader McConnell pointed out, Republicans are willing
to have that debate. A group of Republicans were just in Iraq over the
course of the last week. Several of us have been there since the first
of the year and have a very positive story to report about the work
that our troops are doing there and the effect of their efforts.
There is a positive report that the American people deserve to hear.
So I think you will see Republicans agreeing to debate the resolution.
For my purpose, I am perfectly happy to vote on it. But under the rule
that the majority leader has taken advantage of, as soon as we have had
30 hours to debate this, then automatically we go to the next Feingold-
Reid bill.
That is a bill that does not have us get out of Iraq, but rather says
we should try to develop a strategy to deal with al-Qaida. Well, of
course, the administration's first strategy, as we have discussed on
this floor many times, the first, best way to deal with terrorists is
to get good intelligence on them to know what they are up to. Maybe we
could have prevented 9/11 had we had better intelligence. And so the
FISA--this is the law that allows us to listen in on the communications
of these terrorists--that bill, that law expired.
The President said: We are losing good intelligence. You need to act
to reauthorize that law.
The Senate did. I think we had 68 votes, a bipartisan vote. We acted
in a bipartisan way to support that. Many of our colleagues, I think it
was 28 or 29, voted to oppose that. Now the leadership of the House of
Representatives has said: Well, let it expire. And they went on the
break 12 days ago without having acted to reauthorize the so-called
FISA law.
That law needs to be reauthorized. Each day that passes that it is
not reauthorized, we are losing intelligence. Now, what happens if
there is another 9/11 and we later find out that one of the reasons is
because for a period of several weeks we could not listen in to what
those terrorists were saying? We are missing intelligence.
Frankly, we ought not to do anything else around here until we get
that law reauthorized and the President can sign it into law. But the
majority leader said: First, we are going to have a debate on the
Feingold-Reid bill to get out of Iraq in 120 days. Then we need to have
a debate on developing a new strategy for dealing with al-Qaida.
Okay. Republicans are happy to engage in that debate, as I said. But
to be accused by the majority of trying to stall by simply agreeing to
the debate that the majority requested, is not correct.
Moreover, nobody is trying to stall consideration of a housing bill
or an economic stimulus package. We understand that the majority is
going to be bringing such a package to the floor. We have not seen it.
We do not know what is in it. We are certainly not stalling it. It is
not here yet. The majority leader could have brought that to the floor.
He could have told us what is in it. He could have filed cloture on it
so that we had the vote on whether we are going to take it up, but
instead he brought up the first Iraq resolution. Then that is going to
be automatically followed by a second resolution dealing with al-Qaida.
Then, only after that, apparently, do we get to the economic stimulus
or housing package.
So it is not Republicans who are holding it up. We have not done
anything to hold it up. We have not even seen it yet.
So I think this criticism of Republicans for stalling simply because
we agreed with the majority leader to take up his bill and debate it is
not accurate, and it is not fair to Republicans.
Now what about the surge and this Iraq resolution? I think it is
interesting that the first criticism was that we had a failed policy in
Iraq. So when General Petraeus developed a new policy, the surge
policy, which began to work, the debate suddenly began to shift. Now
that it is very clear the surge has worked it is shifting even more. It
is shifting now to, well, OK, maybe the surge is working, but the Iraqi
Government needs to do more.

Well, the Iraqi Government is now doing a lot more, too, as we will
hear. But I suspect nothing is going to be good enough for those who
want to get out of Iraq now because, as the majority whip has pointed
out, we really need to improve America's image abroad. And there a lot
of people who disagree with us, so that is one of the reasons we need
to get out of Iraq.
But he also said--how many times--that we are doing better in Iraq.
Well, I do not know how many times, but certainly since General
Petraeus reported to the Congress, and every week thereafter, there has
been improvement. And all we have to do is listen to our colleagues who
have been there recently to see this reported progress in Iraq.
I do not know why people are so afraid of good news when you are
winning in a war. Why is that not a good thing? Why are you not proud
of that? Why do you not say: That is great; let's finish the job.
I suspect if you ask the majority of our troops: Now that you have
got your boot right on the neck of these enemy terrorists, do you think
we ought to let it up and walk away or do you think we ought to finish
the job? My guess is they would all say: Let's finish the job or you
all back in Washington let us finish the job. Do not pull the plug on
us so that we have to leave Iraq before we finish the job.
It is interesting there is now a new argument: OK, maybe the surge is
working. Maybe the Iraqi Government is going to be taking the action we
asked them to do. And, in fact, they have. They are now taking action
on the so-called reconciliation there on local elections and the like.
But now the argument is, well, we could actually spend this money on
other things. Of course, you can always spend money on other things.
When you are in a war, however, it is a little different. You cannot
just pull the plug and say we would rather spend the money on housing
or transportation or education than we would on the war. You do not
have that option. You cannot just pick up stakes and leave because you
have to consider the cost of what you leave behind.
Most of the experts who have talked about this have made it crystal
clear if we decide we want to leave because we would rather spend the
money on something else, the ultimate cost would be far greater than if
we finished the job. Because by most estimates, the situation would
deteriorate. Al-Qaida would reinfiltrate, and the other enemies of the
Iraqi people would create more problems. The next thing you know, we
would have to come back in and try to clean up the mess that was
created because we left prematurely. The bottom line is, the cost of
leaving prematurely would be far greater than the cost of finishing the
job once and

[[Page S1172]]

for all. It is also difficult to put a price on our national security,
especially because of those young men and women who have given the
ultimate sacrifice. We owe it to them to ensure that what they have
done, the sacrifice they have made, is not going to be wasted, is not
going to be lost because we were too anxious to get out of there to
spend money on something else. That is not good policy. It is not the
way to win a war. It is certainly not the way to beat the terrorists.

The final point the majority whip made was we should return to the
original al-Qaida threat. I get back to the point I made before. If you
want to return to the original al-Qaida threat, there is no better way
than, A, to finish the job in Iraq where we have al-Qaida on the run--
they are essentially defeated; let's don't let them rise back up
again--and B, pass the FISA legislation, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, which allows us to collect intelligence on these
terrorists abroad. Again, we did that in the Senate, though many on the
other side--28--voted against it.
The House of Representatives leadership has an obligation to try to
get this done. Therefore, I call upon the Democratic House leadership
to bring up the bill the Senate passed and see if it will pass the
House of Representatives. I suspect the reason it has not been brought
up is because they know it would pass. That is a bill the President
would sign. Why wouldn't that be a good thing? That is the appropriate
way to move forward.
Let me try to summarize. Republicans have put us into a stall, our
Democratic friends say, because we agreed to debate the bill they
wanted us to debate. They expected us to say no, that we wouldn't
debate it. Then we would have been accused of trying to avoid debate.
But we agreed. We will have the debate. It is only 30 hours. That is
hardly enough time for all of my colleagues to be able to say the
things they want to say, if we have half of that time, but nonetheless
we will try to give the report of the truth of what is happening in
Iraq. The American people will be better off for that. So I am glad we
agreed with the majority leader to proceed to the debate on this bill.
I suspect we will want to do the same thing on the next bill.
If and when the Democratic majority puts together an economic
stimulus package, then we can take a look at that and see whether we
want to debate that as well. But, again, our first priority ought to be
to get the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed because every
day that goes by that that law is not in effect, we jeopardize our
national security. We jeopardize our ability to collect intelligence on
al-Qaida and other terrorists, and we put the lives of Americans at
risk. That is unacceptable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each Senator may speak up to 1 hour.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I came to the floor to speak in
support of the Feingold amendment. I came purposely to talk about that
issue, but I am compelled, having heard some of the remarks made by
some of our colleagues, to first preface my remarks as it relates to
this debate.
Yes, we are happy to have a debate, but it doesn't take 30 hours to
come to the same conclusion the American people have clearly come to in
this country: that continual engagement in the war in Iraq and the
course we are on is not in the national interests of the United States.
They have come through the common sense Americans always show. This is
overwhelmingly the conclusion of a great majority of Americans. They
understand. It doesn't take us 30 hours to do that. We can have an
open, honest, and intelligent debate with a few Members on each side
making the case for their respective points of view, but we don't have
to take 30 hours in order to get to that goal so that we can move to
the other important business of the Senate.
This is important business. It deserves a thorough debate. But, by
the same token, it is clear that the whole process of objecting to the
majority leader's effort to limit the scope of time so that we can have
a robust debate but then go on to the other business before the Senate
is to extend the time, is to delay us.
We have seen through a record number of filibusters the Republican
minority has used in this Chamber in a way that defies all historic
proportions. It is clear that what was intended to be used as a rare
occasion to protect the rights of the minority, particularly on
exceptional critical issues of the time, has now been abused in such a
way in which it is intended to stall the work of the Senate but, more
importantly, the work of the American people. That is the framework in
which we start this debate. We can have a robust debate, but we don't
need 30 hours to accomplish it.
Secondly, I cannot understand how some Members can come to the floor
of the Senate and rail against the fact that the foreign intelligence
surveillance bill has not been passed by the House of Representatives
when they refused to agree to a 21-day extension of the existing law
that gives the administration everything they want to do. So if this is
such a critical issue, as has been described by Members of the
Republican side of the aisle, why would they not have agreed to
continue while the Congress debated the opportunity to extend the law
that allows you to do all those things you say are critical to the
protection of the American people?
I can only come to the conclusion that either it is not as critical
as they define, because fear is what we sell, it seems, on the
Republican side--we have been hearing fear for quite some time; the
American people have caught up to that--or, in fact, they simply want
to have the proposition for a political purpose. If not, we would have
had the 21-day extension. Everything the administration claims they
needed, they would have had, and therefore we would have been able to
move forward. Those two items need to be put in context.
Let me get to the main purpose of what I came to the floor to speak
about, and that is in support of the Feingold amendment.
The Senate has an opportunity, once again, to vote to transition our
troops out of Iraq with honor and refocus our efforts on defeating al-
Qaida. It is long past time for us to make that decision. The
administration has never told us the truth about the war in Iraq. Some
people want to gloss over that. But if what is past is prologue, then
we need to be worried about what we constantly hear.

The budget they submitted to Congress is the latest proof of that.
The budget is terrible in a lot of ways. It leaves millions of children
without full access to health care. It fails to wean us off our
addiction to foreign oil. It fails to adequately address climate
change. It fails to repair our education system or shrink the
ballooning deficit. Basically, it fails to make a serious effort to
tackle the most pressing problems average Americans face in their lives
each and every day.
Beyond that, the budget is dishonest about the cost of one of the
most expensive wars in our history, a war that has lasted more than
America's engagement in World War II. It lists the cost of the war in
Iraq for next year at $70 billion. All the other calculations in the
budget, including the debt and the deficit, in some way assume that $70
billion is all the war is going to cost in the next fiscal year. We
have to wonder if whoever wrote the section of the budget on Iraq found
their job after leaving their old post at the accounting department of
Enron because it is clearly the same type of accounting.
Recently, the Secretary of Defense took a baby step toward honesty
and estimated the true cost for next year at another $170 billion of
America's money. He said that was just a rough estimate, because when
you have already spent more than a half trillion dollars, I guess you
just round up to the nearest hundred billion. This is from an
administration that over 5 years of a historical engagement in Iraq
knows how many troops we have, knows the projection moving forward, and
therefore knows what the consequences in terms of cost are. To send a
budget to the Congress that everyone knows in the context of the cost
in Iraq is a farce, this type of carelessness--if one can call it
carelessness--in accounting is offensive to the American people who are
funding the war.
This administration is so dead set on staying in Iraq. I know some
Presidential candidates have suggested that

[[Page S1173]]

we will do so for 100 years, if necessary. They just don't seem to care
how much tax money they spend. They don't seem to care how much money
they have to borrow from the Chinese to pay the bills, because we don't
pay for this in terms of how we are going to afford the war. We don't
domestically decide, well, this is going to be offset by some either
revenue stream or cuts in programs. No, under this administration, we
just keep adding it to the next generation--more debt, more debt. They
don't seem to care how much wind gets knocked out of our economy
because the money could have gone to creating jobs, stimulating the
production of green energy, or helping families make ends meet.
As a matter of fact, we could use that money to do something that is
critically important as well--protect America here on domestic soil.
Because as we look at the President's budget, what does it do? It
eliminates COPS funding that put 100,000 police officers on the streets
of the cities. It cuts homeland security grants to States by 70
percent. It cuts port security by half. It cuts infrastructure security
by half. This at a time in which every report, including those of the
administration, has al-Qaida reconstituted on the Pakistan-Afghanistan
border, and reports are coming out that they have been reconstituted
with the strength and the ability to perform another attack on the
United States.
The terrorists have to only get lucky once. We have to be right 100
percent of the time. How can you achieve those goals when you eliminate
the very essence of the funding for those who, as we learned on
September 11, came to respond on that fateful day? It wasn't the
Federal Government, it was local police and firefighters and emergency
management and hospital personnel. That is who came. What does this
budget do? It slashes the living daylights out of those very first
responders who are critical to our domestic security.
What does it do about one of the gaping wounds we have in the country
in terms of security? It slashes port security. Everybody who comes to
the Capitol has to go through a security device, 100 percent. Everybody
who goes to the White House has to go through a security device, 100
percent. But when we talk about cargo coming from all over the world,
only 5 percent has to go through the scanning process. Yet we are going
to cut port security by 50 percent.

Mass transit: The Congress spoke in the last session and put mass
transit up there, understanding we saw what happened in Madrid and
Mumbai and other places in the world. Yet the President cuts mass
transit security by 56 percent.
So to those who argue we cannot talk about the consequences of our
engagement in Iraq in a financial context here at home, well, in the
context of security here at home, at a time of a regrouping and
restrengthening of al-Qaida on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, with
the ability to ultimately commit terrorism domestically in the United
States, yes, there is a real causal connection and a real consequence
and we have to include that as part of the debate and part of the
consequences in our continuing engagement in Iraq in an open-ended way.
Now, with what we heard the Secretary of Defense talk about with the
amount of money the Secretary of Defense thinks we might spend in Iraq
next year, in a different context we could have more than doubled our
package to stimulate the economy this year. When Americans get rebate
checks in a month or so, they should imagine them more than twice as
big because that is what this year in Iraq would cost.
If we want to imagine the total financial cost of the war in Iraq
over almost 5 years, if we want to imagine what $608 billion means, we
could divide that up and send every American a check for $2,000.
If we want to know what the war will cost over the next decade if we
continue the course we are on, that is about $2.8 trillion. Every
American should picture a check for more than $9,000. That is what the
war costs: more than $9,000 for every man, woman, and child living in
the United States of America. If there are four people in your family,
that is $36,000 that potentially could have been put in your family's
economy.
When so many hard-working families are struggling to keep their
homes, and so many are struggling to help keep up with the rising cost
of health care and college tuition and heating oil, when so many have
to care for aging parents, put food on the table, and struggle to make
ends meet each month, $36,000 would go a long way. So it is a different
way of looking at it.
There are many different ways of looking at the costs of the war. So
here is how it all adds up. We cannot think about economic stimulus
without thinking about how we can stimulate peace. We cannot heal our
economy without closing the financial hemorrhage that is the war in
Iraq. It seems to me that in addition to those financial contexts,
there is the whole question of security--the security I talked about in
a domestic capacity; the security challenges we have by overextending
our troops in such a way in which all of our military leadership speaks
about the challenges we would have if we had to meet another security
challenge in the world; and basically an understanding that, God
forbid, we had another security challenge, while we are still engaged
in Iraq in the way in which we are engaged, while we have a resurgence
in Afghanistan of the Taliban, with some of the latest reports talking
about some very fierce fighting and the lack of response by NATO and a
pumping up of our troops there; and looking at that scenario and now
looking at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where al-Qaida has
reconstituted. And that is, God forbid, if anything else happens in the
world.
That is our challenge, in a security context, if we continue the
course: a challenge that those who have the military prowess tell us we
cannot meet if we continue in this way.
For 5 years, the administration has parroted the line that: ``We're
fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.'' But now
more than ever we realize that one of the biggest impacts of the war
has been we are spending our money over there and, therefore, we cannot
spend it here--money that includes billions of dollars that have been
misspent, including hundreds of millions of dollars in reconstruction
projects that are unaccounted for.
I came back from Iraq about a month ago. I must say, when I see
schools going wanting here in America, when I see hospitals closing in
my home State, when I see roads that have deteriorated, bridges that
have fallen, and see reconstruction in Iraq but no construction here at
home, those are real consequences of the war.
When I see us talk about the genocide in Darfur, and we are
universally committed to the proposition ``never again,'' ``never
again,'' what does ``never again'' mean? That we will not repeat the
legacies of the past, the failures of the past: in the Holocaust, in
Rwanda, in the Armenian Genocide. No, no, we will act. Yet because of
our present security challenges, and the consequences of being engaged
in Iraq in the way we are, we stand by and watch people in Darfur be
slaughtered. So much for ``never again.''
Not long ago, about a month ago, I had the chance to make a trip to
Iraq myself. First and foremost, the trip proved something I believed
for a long time: We should be incredibly proud of the men and women who
wear the uniform of the United States and who are serving there. They
do not ask whether this is the right or wrong mission. They just serve
with honor and integrity, and they risk their lives every day.

I came away extremely impressed with their commitment, and I felt
honored to be able to share some time with them, including many from my
home State of New Jersey who are serving there. So we need to give them
a mission worthy of their sacrifice. I believe that is what Senator
Feingold's amendment does.
Beyond that, one other thing became very clear to me. The solutions
to Iraq's problems lie in the hands of the Iraqis. We cannot achieve
peace, we cannot achieve reconciliation, we cannot achieve power
sharing, we cannot get Sunni, Shia, and Kurd to sit side by side at the
point of a military gun.
As long as we continue to, in essence, be enablers of an Iraqi
leadership that has become so dependent on the United

[[Page S1174]]

States and refuses to meet the challenges of the hard choices,
compromises, and negotiations necessary for their Government to
ultimately achieve, they will never, ever feel the urgency of now.
When the President sent 30,000 additional troops into harm's way in
Iraq last year, the purpose--his purpose, his stated purpose; not my
view of it, his stated purpose--his stated purpose was to allow Iraqis
to have the opportunity and the space, the environment, to strengthen
the Federal Government and achieve national reconciliation.
That, no matter how we try to paint it, has not been accomplished.
Even our own benchmarks, that even the administration agreed to and the
Iraqis agreed to, have largely not been accomplished. So to use a
sports analogy, we keep changing the goalposts every time, further and
further away from the obligations the Iraqi leadership has.
Not too long ago, Iraq's Parliament finally passed three laws, after
months of bitter squabbling. We certainly should applaud them for that.
But the Bush administration is touting this event as an end-all, be-all
political breakthrough. But, as usual, they are taking a small bit of
good news and trying to whitewash the bigger picture.
The agreement the Iraqi Parliament reached is basically temporary.
The provincial powers arrangement is set to expire--guess what--in 1
year--what they passed has an expiration in 1 year--to hold the
politicians over so they can have the same arguments all over again
next year.
Iraqi politicians are still a long way from permanent agreements over
fundamental issues because they do not have the pressures of the
necessity to do so. The reason is, as long as we continue to insist in
an open-ended presence in the lives of Americans and the national
treasure of the United States, they will not make the hard choices and
compromises necessary to achieve lasting stability.
When I went to Iraq and met with a lot of the Iraqi elected
leadership and some of the tribal chiefs and whatnot, I was stunned
that they kept telling me about what America needed to do. My response
to them was: Iraq's future is in your hands, not in America's hands.
You must make these decisions for your country.
I know we have heard a lot about the surge, and certainly it depends
on what your measurement is. If you are talking about greater security
in Baghdad, the answer is, yes, yes; no question--although Baghdad has
become far more segregated as a city, so that one of the ways in which
security has been achieved is that we segregate Sunnis and Shias into
different parts of Baghdad's neighborhood. Maybe that is the cost.
But when I landed, I was supposed to go to Mosul. I was not able to
go to Mosul because they could not guarantee my protection. We have
millions of displaced Iraqis who are beginning to come back. And now
they come back to neighborhoods and to homes where the person living
there is--not only has their home been taken over, but they are not
even from their same sect. So they feel they cannot go live there.
I asked: How are you ready to take on the displacement of several
million of your country people coming back to the country? They have no
real plan. We have 80,000 or so concerned local citizens, individuals
who at one time fought us and have decided to join us but who are on
the payroll--we pay them every week to be there--and their expectation
is they are going to be integrated either into the security forces or
get some type of employment. We do not have from the Iraqis a clear
sense of how they are going to meet that challenge. These are 80,000
individuals who have weapons on them.
So when we hear about the surge, let's not forget what President Bush
said was the purpose. It was to create the space and environment
necessary for the opportunity for Iraqi leadership to make the hard
choices, compromises, and negotiations, to pass the benchmarks we had
passed and the Iraqis agreed to. That has failed. That has failed.
About security: Yes, we have created greater security in Baghdad. We
also have created greater segregation in Baghdad. And we have pushed
the challenges elsewhere in the country.
At Combat Post X-Ray outside of Baghdad, I met with troops from New
Jersey serving in the Air Force. An IED had just killed one of their
colleagues and wounded several others.
The hardest thing I have had to do in 33 years of public life is to
call a family and give them my condolences because a loved one has been
killed. It is the hardest thing I have had to do in public life. It is
hard enough for a parent or a wife or a husband or a mother or a father
to hear that when they believe their family member was fighting for
freedom and for our security. It is incomprehensible when that death
was about Iraqi politicians fighting for resources and power.
When General Petraeus was here last year and came before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, he said in his testimony that what we have
in Iraq going on is a fight over power and resources.
I do not think Americans believe that sending their sons and
daughters into harm's way so Iraqis can fight over power and resources
is a mission worthy of their sacrifice. There is no military solution
in Iraq. Everyone, including General Petraeus, has admitted that.
The only way to pressure Iraqi politicians into making the choices
necessary to move their country forward is to stop signing blank checks
and to set a timetable to transition our troops back home. That is, in
essence, what my colleague, Senator Feingold, does. He creates a
transition, effective 120 days after this law is passed and signed by
the President. But that still permits us to meet critical missions, to
conduct targeted operations against members of al-Qaida, the real
threat to the United States, and affiliated international terrorist
organizations; to provide the security for our own personnel and the
infrastructure of the U.S. Government; to provide training to members
of the Iraqi security forces who have not been involved in sectarian
violence or in attacks upon the U.S. Armed Forces so that we can ensure
that they can ultimately be able to stand up for their own country as
our major focus; and to provide training, equipment, or other materiel
to members of the U.S. Armed Forces to ensure, maintain, or improve
their safety and security while redeploying members of the U.S. Armed
Forces.

That, in my mind, is ultimately an opportunity to transition with
honor; focus our mission on whom we need to--al-Qaida; strengthen the
Iraqi security forces to meet their own challenge; and send a message
to the Iraqi leadership that you must do what you have failed to do.
The opportunity has been given to you. We cannot continue an open check
in terms of national treasure or a continuing loss of American lives.
Finally, I felt truly blessed to step onto American soil after flying
back from Iraq. Too many American men and women over there do not have
the option right now of taking that return flight, and too many
Americans have not returned, and others may not as well. I have seen
firsthand how bravely our troops have served, but let's be clear about
that service: American troops cannot be waiting for Iraqis forever to
make the choices necessary to achieve success in their country. They
cannot be asked to serve up a functional society on a platter. They
cannot be expected to be the only ones serving up a functional electric
grid, sewer systems, or revenue-sharing agreements about oil. As the
former Chief of Staff said, we need the Iraqis to love their children
more than they hate their neighbors. That is a powerful truism, but
that does not come at the point of a gun.
If Iraqi politicians think they can sit back and keep looking at the
menu of options and squabble over the choices no matter what, Americans
will keep delivering everything they order; they will keep picking up
the tab, they will never feel the pressing urgency to build a
functional country for themselves. It is time for that type of service
to end. It is time for every American soldier to have the most
wonderful privilege we as Senators have had who have visited Iraq: the
privilege of booking a return home ticket.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I rise for just a few minutes. I know
the distinguished Senator from Michigan

[[Page S1175]]

wants to speak, and I will not be long, but I feel compelled to come to
the floor today to speak about S. 2634, to require a report back to the
people of the United States and to the Congress on our country's plan
to address al-Qaida and its affiliates on a worldwide basis. It is very
disappointing to me that we would put something on the floor like that
when, in fact, it is those who have objected to the plan we have who
are causing all of the problems we are experiencing today. I wish to go
through it for a moment because there is a plan.
Nine days after 9/11, when the United States of America was attacked
and New York City was attacked and the world saw the evil of al-Qaida
and the evil of terrorism, the President of the United States went to
the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, and he made a speech in
which he declared a change in U.S. policy--a change from one of
reaction to one of preemption.
So, first of all, we don't need a 60-day report back to the people of
the United States on what our policy is. Our policy is one of
preemption. Now, if you want to argue whether that is right or wrong,
it is fine with me, but don't pretend as though we don't have a plan.
Secondly, in terms of preemption, it is a proposition where you don't
want to see what happened on 9/11 happen again, so you are proactive
rather than reactive. We were attacked as a country in the late 1990s
and early 2000 seven different times in which we reacted after the
fact. In most cases, those reactions were benign. In one case, we sent
one missile into an aspirin factory, but it was too late for the
diplomats who had died, for the soldiers and sailors on the Cole who
had died, and for others who had died tragically under terrorist
attack.
So, first and foremost, I would submit that we have a policy called
preemption.
Thirdly, I would submit it has been a pretty good policy because
since the President of the United States established it in that speech
on the floor of the House in September of 2001, there has not been a
single executed attack on the United States of America on our homeland.
I think that is pretty good evidence that we have a plan, and a plan
that is working in the interest of the safety of the American people.
Fourth, recommendations regarding the distribution and deployment of
U.S. military, intelligence, diplomatic, and other assets to meet the
relative regional and country-specific threats described in paragraph
1. The people who want to pass this bill are the very people who 2
weeks ago would not allow us, in the House of Representatives, to
extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Here we are asking
what our plan is going to be. Yet people are voting against the United
States having the intelligence to conduct the worldwide program against
al-Qaida and its affiliates. You just can't have it both ways.
I respect anybody being opposed to our deployment in Iraq. I respect
anybody's opinion in this body--or any other body, for that matter--on
the policy of the United States. But do not on the one hand assume we
have no policy and then on the other hand vote against every meaningful
contribution to the policy we do have, and the absolute prima facie
evidence of that is FISA. Go look at the votes in the Senate on who
voted against the extension of FISA, and you will find the same people
who are supporting and furthering S. 2634. It is on its face patently
unacceptable.

Lastly, it requires recommendations to ensure that the global
deployment of the U.S. military of personnel and equipment best meets
threats identified and described in paragraph 1; and, A, doesn't
undermine the military readiness; B, requires the deployment of Reserve
units more than twice, once every 4 years; and C, requires further
extension of deployments of members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Let me interpret what that means. In 60 days, they want us to report
to our enemies exactly what our military deployments are going to be in
the future. One thing you don't do when your sons and daughters are
engaged in harm's way around the world is tell your enemy what your
game plan is. Sure, you should have one, and it should be one we all
listen to on the fourth floor in our secured briefing rooms, but don't
require it to be advertised to the world.
We live in the greatest, freest, most liberty-loving country in the
world. We fight in this body every day to protect the Bill of Rights.
But we have to recognize something: The terrorists don't want what we
have. They don't want us to have what we have. They don't want us to
have a first amendment to protect speech or for me to be able to stand
up here and express myself. They don't want a law-abiding citizen to be
able to carry a firearm or own a firearm. They don't want you to be
able to worship on Sunday or worship on Friday or worship on Saturday
or worship five times a day if you are a Muslim. They want to be able
to dictate how you worship and whom you worship. We have to remember
that, as we talk about the individual liberties and freedom we protect,
those are the very liberties al-Qaida and its affiliates, as this bill
portends, want to take away from us. The last thing we want to do is
pass legislation requiring us to give them our game plan.
I welcome debate on these issues anytime we want to come to the
floor. I take pride in the accomplishments of the young men and women
who stand today in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in other places around the
world furthering the interests of the United States of America and
protecting us against al-Qaida and its operatives. We have a policy,
and it is called preemption. We have a plan, and it is our plan, and it
doesn't need to be advertised to them. Most importantly of all, we have
the finest men and women in the world executing that plan today around
the world on behalf of the people of the United States of America. But
let's not require disclosure of our plan, and let's not pretend we
don't have a way to attack al-Qaida and its affiliates. We do. It is
called preemption. As of yet, they haven't hit us on our territory, in
our country since the day we established that as the policy of the
United States of America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, will the Senator from Georgia yield
for a question?
Mr. ISAKSON. Absolutely.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I wish to ask the Senator through the Chair--he
indicated that our strategy vis-a-vis al-Qaida after 9/11 has to do
with the doctrine of preemption. I am intrigued by that. I know that
was a justification for going into Iraq, but I wonder if the Senator
could explain how the doctrine of preemption is going to help us
against an organization that is existing in some 80 countries in the
world. Are we going to invade and preempt 80 different nations?
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, after seeing what al-Qaida wants to do
to us and has done to us, I don't think we should minimize what the
effort might be that we have to take.
I say to the Senator from Wisconsin, it is one of preemption, and the
No. 1 way to preempt is to know in advance what the enemy is going to
do, and the No. 1 way to do that is to be able to surveil known
enemies. That is why we have the FISA bill. You can preempt when you
have the knowledge. If you don't have the knowledge and you strip your
intelligence agency of the business, yes, they are going to grow in 80
countries, and yes, they are going to hit us. So we have a policy of
preemption. The best way to preempt is to have good intelligence, and
the best way to get their attention is to let them realize we will go
after them wherever they are as long as they declare war on the United
States of America.
Mr. FEINGOLD. So you are not referring here to the doctrine of
preemption to use as a justification for invading Iraq; you are talking
about the need for intelligence, is that correct?
Mr. ISAKSON. The President of the United States--I believe it was 9
days after 9/11--announced the change of U.S. policy to be one of
preemption. That is what I addressed in my remarks. The FISA reference
I made was to say that I found it a little unusual for the people who
were supporting the bill of the Senator from Wisconsin--whom I
completely respect--to be most of the same people who voted against us
having the intelligence to be able to preempt them. And then to have a
bill that portends we don't have a policy? I just didn't think it made
good sense.

[[Page S1176]]

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, if the Senator will further yield for
a question, I understand what he is saying in terms of the need for
intelligence, but the doctrine of preemption that was announced by the
President 9 days after 9/11 and through that period was not about
intelligence. It had to do with the notion of where we could intervene
in various nations. So I am just a little bit confused about that and
trying to understand the connection.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, responding through the Chair, I
appreciate the clarification. My point is you can't intervene if you
don't know where it is going to happen.
Let me just make a point, if I can. I live in the great State of
Georgia, and I live in a suburb of Atlanta. There will be a trial in
April of two students at Georgia Institute of Technology--Georgia Tech.
Because of the PATRIOT Act and the FISA law, our intelligence agencies
tracked communications from Islamabad, Pakistan, into Atlanta, GA, to
the library at Georgia Tech to two students, Islamic students who were
then communicating to Toronto, Canada, to establish a cell in Atlanta.
Days before they were to activate the plan of that cell, our
authorities moved in and put them under arrest, and they are going to
trial. The cell was never activated. No lives were lost. That is how
you preempt. You preempt through intelligence, you preempt from knowing
what the enemy is going to do before they do it, and you preempt by
having the strong intelligence and military forces to make it work.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator responding to
me. I will simply say that I virtually agree with that general
proposition that we need to be able to have the information and we need
to stop terrorist attacks, and I am glad we were able to do it in
Georgia.
But the fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 80 countries around the
world, and because of putting so much focus on Iraq, including so much
focus of our intelligence system in Iraq, we don't have the adequate
resources to preempt terrorist attacks throughout the world. That is
the very problem. There are terrorist attacks going on in places such
as Algeria and Morocco and Afghanistan and Southeast Asia, and because
we are so consumed with Iraq, we can't pursue the very notion of
preempting the terrorist attacks to which the Senator from Georgia
properly refers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first let me indicate that as my
colleagues were speaking a moment ago, I think it is incredibly
important to understand that, in fact, we are talking about a threat in
80 countries, and we do have a FISA law that, in fact, has worked, and
no one is suggesting we do not have the need for strong intelligence
and support for our intelligence operations. In fact, that is what all
of us are willing to see happen. But what we are talking about in this
resolution is whether we are going to continue to keep our focus on a
country that is now in the middle of a civil war or whether we are
going to redirect our efforts to address our real threats not only
abroad but threats at home.
When we talk about the threats to our families, I would suggest that
if we are now spending somewhere around $15 billion a month, some say,
that when we look at what could be done here at home to address the
very real threats of job loss, people losing their homes, children
walking into schools that are crumbling, the lack of health care, those
are also very important threats.
So we certainly want to make sure we are safe and address those
threats abroad, but, more broadly, we have many threats affecting our
families right now, and they expect us to use the very best judgment to
keep them safe both from threats outside our country as well as from
threats at home, including a huge economic cloud over many families.
Madam President, I rise today to lend my strong voice of support for
the Feingold legislation to provide the safe redeployment of U.S.
troops from Iraq, and to refocus us on, in fact, those things that are
threats to our country and to the families of this country. Tonight,
591 members of the Michigan National Guard will bed down after a long
day of working and fighting and facing danger at every turn in the
harshest physical conditions imaginable. For every single one of these
men and women, a family will go to sleep in Michigan tonight worried
that their son or daughter, father or mother, sister or brother won't
make it home.
The true cost of this war cannot be measured in dollars and cents.
The real cost is measured in the sacrifices of our brave men and women
and their families every day. This cost is more than just the
possibility and the reality of physical danger. This cost includes the
sacrifices that every single American family makes by being apart from
each other time and time again. It isn't right what is happening; it
isn't fair; it isn't safe. It isn't making us safer as a country, and
we need to change this policy.
That is why I am so grateful that, once again, Senator Reid has made
it a priority for us to focus on the war in Iraq and what is happening
to troops and families and people here at home, and the cost of the
lost opportunity by spending upwards of $15 billion a month now in
Iraq.
Tonight 591 Guard members in Iraq, with 591 families at home, 591
will have missed birthdays, missed Father's Days and Mother's Days,
missed high school graduations and children's first steps or
anniversaries or family funerals or holidays; 591 will have missed
paychecks, sidetracked careers, with small businesses and farms put in
economic danger; 591 lives that will never be the same; 591 sets of
missed opportunities that will never be replaced. And these members of
the Michigan National Guard make up only a fraction of the 160,000 men
and women in uniform currently serving bravely and honorably in Iraq,
or the countless others who have served.
In too many cases, these men and women are back in Iraq for their
second, third, or fourth redeployment. In addition to the 591 who are
already deployed, there are about 1,000 members of the Michigan
National Guard who have been mobilized and who will deploy this year.
Many of them will be doing their second, third, or fourth deployment to
a combat zone. This year alone, there will be a thousand more missed
paychecks, a thousand more missed birthdays and holidays and special
occasions, and a thousand more lives that will never be the same.
Our fighting men and women are the greatest single resource our
military has, and this Government is abusing that resource. America
puts our trust in our military to defend us. When our sons and
daughters join the military, they are putting their trust in us to give
them the tools, the resources they need, and to treat them with the
respect they have earned. The current administration policies on
redeployment have violated that trust. Those policies have let our
troops down. Once again, I am proud to join with my colleague from
Wisconsin in saying: Enough is enough when it comes to placing our
armed services in harm's way by stretching them to the breaking point
with redeployment after redeployment. Enough is enough when it comes to
being in the middle of a civil war. And enough is enough when it comes
to this administration taking its eye off the ball on the war on
terror.
We are all aware of the worsening situation in Afghanistan. However,
this administration continues to focus on a civil war in Iraq. Our
Armed Forces have traveled a tough road since we invaded Iraq. They
have shouldered a heavy burden with pride, with confidence, and with
honor. We have asked extraordinary things from them at every turn, and
at every turn they have delivered. They have done us all proud. They
have faced tough situations and have done their duty. Now we need to do
what is right for them. It is time to face the tough situations. It is
time to make the hard choices, to make them proud of us, and it is time
to remove them from the civil war in Iraq, to change course, and to
refocus, as this bill does, and redistribute our resources to those
areas that truly address the threats facing our families and our
country.
America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are always there
when we call on them. The question is: Will we be there for them? What
this legislation proposes is as simple as it is right. It requires our
forces in Iraq to target

[[Page S1177]]

operations against al-Qaida and other international terrorist groups.
Why is this important? Because al-Qaida has declared war against us.
We know that. The people in Iraq are in the middle of a civil war that
is something they now have to address and come to terms with and bring
their own resources to address. So while our troops are in Iraq, they
should be targeting those who have said they wished to do harm to us.
Also, our troops in Iraq would be required to focus on providing
security for U.S. personnel, of course, and that is extremely necessary
in order to bring them home safely. I understand the Iraqi security
forces are still developing, still learning, as I have met with them in
traveling to Iraq. We have heard certainly of the continual need to
train, the need for them to continue to develop, and we know we have a
role in supporting that, and this bill recognizes that fact. It would
allow our troops to continue to train Iraqi security forces, but only
if our troops are training the Iraqis who have not been involved in the
sectarian violence or attacks against our troops.

This bill will allow our troops to continue to train the Iraqi
security forces, but only if that training does not result in our
troops being in combat. Training, yes; but they need to step up at this
point, after 5 years, and be the ones at the front line.
This bill also brings our troops home safely. It specifically allows
our military to train and equip itself to ensure its safety. Most
importantly, it requires that we begin to bring our troops home.
This administration said a surge was necessary; that the surge would
give the Government of Iraq the time to reach the political solutions
necessary to end their civil war and to end the violence. They said
time was needed. Well, the Government has had time, and during this
time our troops have continued to pay the price. Our troops have been
caught in the middle of a civil war. They have been victims of IEDs.
They have come home with post-traumatic stress disorder and other
mental and physical ailments. The bottom line is, it is time for our
troops to be placed first and to begin to bring them home.
That is all this bill does, and it does that while allowing our
troops to continue to focus on who we all agree is the real enemy: Al-
Qaida.
On October 11, 2002, I was proud to be 1 of 23 Members of this body
who stood in this Chamber and said the war was the wrong choice. This
administration, I believe, since that time has in fact failed our
troops and the American people by committing our troops to a war
without a clear reason or goal, and by squandering resources that are
desperately needed here at home to rebuild America and to invest in
American communities. This administration has failed our troops by not
having a clear mission for our Armed Forces in Iraq, by not providing
the proper equipment and body armor and logistical support for the
troops, by poor planning on the invasion in Iraq and the lack of
planning for how to secure the country and what would happen after the
initial attack. I believe they have failed by sending our brave men and
women back into harm's way over and over again without the proper rest
between redeployments.
History will be a harsh judge of this administration, because I
believe they have failed the American people. This administration
failed because they took their eye off the ball. This legislation is
about putting our eye back on the target of what we ought to be doing
together.
In closing, let me reemphasize the fact that while the most important
thing is to be supporting our troops, to be addressing the threats to
them while they are in harm's way, to address the lives lost and the
people who are coming home who will need help the rest of their lives,
it is also important to look at this from the standpoint of the
precious resources that have been lost at a time when so many American
families are struggling. We always make decisions based on values and
priorities, and it is shocking to me, as we have seen this war go
forward, to see upwards of, some say $12 billion, some say now upwards
of $15 billion a month--not part of the normal budget--going directly
on the national deficit, the national debt, to be paid by our children
and grandchildren. But let's say it is $15 billion a month. To see that
continue month after month after month, and to see us work together on
a bipartisan basis to pass a critically important piece of legislation
to increase health care for 10 million children across this country,
which costs only $7 billion a year, and yet that is vetoed--there is
not a willingness to invest in American children to the tune of less
than half of what it is costing per month in Iraq--these are the wrong
values and wrong priorities.
We see schools being rebuilt in Iraq, and yet I can go in too many
schools in Michigan where there is a bucket in the corner to catch the
water dripping from the roof, or we don't have the kind of computer
technology in the classroom every single child will need to know how to
use in any job they get, from working at a gas station to working at a
technology company. We know we have crumbling roads and bridges here in
America. We know every time we invest in and rebuild in America, those
are jobs that aren't going to be outsourced to another country. Those
are American jobs--rebuilding American roads and American bridges and
water and sewer systems in America. We are told we can't do that, that
there are not the resources to invest in America, but we are spending
$15 billion a month in Iraq.
We now have a whole new group of industries producing what are called
green collar jobs, and I am very proud to have joined in working with
many of my colleagues to focus on the new alternative energy
technologies and other things we need to do--small investments with
huge results for energy independence and creating more jobs and
addressing global warming.
And yet we consistently hear there are not the resources for any new
investments in America. There are so many areas where we are told there
is no money: for doing the bold research we need to solve Alzheimer's
and Parkinson's disease and to aggressively move forward on other
health research; the desire not to help those who lost their jobs
because of trade, to be able to go back and get the training they need
to be able to move on to new kinds of jobs so that we have a middle
class in this country; and that families can pay their mortgage and
electric bill and heating bill and know that they have the opportunity
to keep their standard of living in our country.
There is a lot at stake. And this bill, while it focuses on what we
need to do to change the mission, to refocus on ways to truly keep us
safe, to begin to bring our troops home from Iraq, from a civil war
where we need to leave and redirect our troops to those areas where, in
fact, we will be focusing on the real threat to our country, that is,
on the surface, what this legislation does.
I would suggest it does more than that because this is about who we
are as Americans, what our priorities are: No. 1, how to make sure we
are truly smart enough to be focused on what keeps us safe; and, No. 2,
understanding that we have much to do in our country.
Our families are feeling squeezed on all sides. Communities need
help, and we have an opportunity to not only redirect our troops and
our focus but to redirect critical dollars to be able to make sure, in
fact, we are finally putting the interests of America's families first.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from South Carolina
is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Oklahoma will
return in a moment. If it would be appropriate, I would suggest that he
go. I think he will go next, followed by myself, a Democrat, then
Senator Sessions.
I will get started. Senator Coburn, I think, has been to Iraq just a
week or so ago. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about the
condition on the ground as he found it.
And to my friend, Senator Feingold, one thing I think all of us
should agree upon is that you pushed this idea of withdrawing from Iraq
for a very long time. There is no question in my mind that you are very
sincere, that you believe it makes America stronger not weaker, and
that if the polls were 90-10

[[Page S1178]]

to stay, you would be doing this, simply because that is what motivated
you as a Senator.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for what makes you tick as a
Senator. I know you take on some very difficult challenges, sometimes
not popular, and this particular piece of legislation, I think, is ill-
advised. I will speak for a while as to why it should be defeated.
But the author of the amendment is consistent, is as patriotic as
anybody else who will speak, and we need more of this, not less. So
what is the Senate all about? We are talking about important things.
There are a million things going on in this country that need to be
addressed. But I think taking some time to talk about Iraq, where we
are, where we are going to go, and how we are going to get there is
probably time well spent. I think most Americans are very interested in
the outcome in Iraq.
Having just returned from Iraq, I think Senator Coburn can give us
his view of what he found.
I yield the floor and will speak after he is through.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first of all, I, too, want to express my
respect for the Senator from Wisconsin. We have a lot of things on
which we agree. This happens to be something on which we adamantly
disagree. But I appreciate, as someone who pushes the limits in this
body, his desire to have this debate because I think it is important.
We just heard the Senator from Michigan talk, and the statement would
have been a fairly accurate reflection 2 years ago. But it has nothing
to do, and it is not even anywhere close, to what is ongoing in Iraq
today.
I think the case could have been made 2 years ago that Iraq was in a
civil war. Nobody who has visited Iraq in the last 2 months can make
that claim. It is not there. Outside of the Green Zone, I met with
people whose daughters had been murdered by al-Qaida. I met with people
whose father had been murdered. I met with both Sunni and Shia in the
same village, in multiple villages, who had reconciled because they
reject the terrorism of al-Qaida.
There is no question lots of mistakes have been made with the Iraq
policy. But the claims under which we try to describe Iraq today in
light of how it was 12 months ago are fictitious at best and damaging
probably in terms of what the truth is.
Do we find ourselves in a very difficult situation? Absolutely. Is
this an expensive war? Absolutely. Would we all like to not be where we
are? I think almost everybody would agree to that. But probably the
more important question for me is, where are we today compared to where
we were 12 months ago, and have, in fact, the mistakes of the past been
reflected in policies that have changed and bode for a greater future
absent additional mistakes?
The desire of the Senator from Wisconsin to have us out in a way that
limits our exposure is something that I would love to be able to see.
But the practical nature of what he wants to accomplish could not be
accomplished in less than 18 to 24 months. I mean, it could not happen.
You go and talk to the military; it could not happen without us leaving
tons of equipment.
But the point is, we should not dwell on that. The point is, did we
make the necessary changes that can create an outcome that gives us an
honorable exit from the situation, and does it leave a genocide behind?
I firmly believe, having traveled--my trip prior to this one was 6
months before the surge. I want to tell you the difference is like
night and day, everywhere I went. I duplicated places I went before.
So with the earnestness that the Senator from Wisconsin drives his
position, we ought to reflect on what has been accomplished. I also
find it very disingenuous to talk about the cost of this war by the
person who sponsored more legislation and greater Government spending
than anybody in this body in the 109th Congress, in the first session
of this Congress.
The fact is, $349 billion worth of new spending was coauthored by the
Senator from Michigan last year, $349 billion, the same Senator who
voted to fund the bridge to nowhere.
I happen to agree we ought to be paying for the war. We ought to be
paying for the war, and we could easily pay for the war by eliminating
wasteful spending.

I would direct you to the Reader's Digest last month where they
estimated $1 trillion we are missing in wasteful spending. That is an
underestimate. So for us to make a claim of a fiscal nature, by the
person who has cosponsored more spending than anybody in this body, and
has voted against amendments to decrease wasteful spending, is somewhat
less than genuine, I believe.
I think the other thing that needs to be said is we had a debate, and
we actually funded the surge. It actually happened. We ought to be
talking about what happened with that. To me, it is phenomenal, the
difference. I will tell you, I am very--we lost a soldier from Ardmore,
OK, a 19-year-old soldier killed by an IED.
How can it be that we can continue to do this unless we are doing it
for the right reasons and the right cause? I believe if we walk away,
no matter how we got there, rightly or wrongly, if we walk away, what I
see happening, from my experience in Iraq in 1993 after the first gulf
war and before this one, as a medical missionary, here is what I see
happening: If we do what the Senator from Wisconsin wants us to do, and
we effectively carry this out, I see an unstable northern Iraq. I see a
war between Iran, Turkey, and Kurdistan. I see a marked civil war
between Shia and Sunni, with involvement of the Sunni Triangle, Sunni
crescent. I see a total destabilization of the Mideast. But beyond all
of that, what I see is tremendous additional tragedy that we will have
impacted onto the people of Iraq, and in the deaths of 500,000 to 1
million more people.
And the question ought to be: Do we have a moral obligation to fix
what we started? The assessment of the Senator from Wisconsin is that
we cannot fix it so therefore we ought to come home, we ought to get
out, that it was a mistake to begin with; it does not matter what has
happened in the past other than we learned from it.
The question is, what can we do about the future? I want to tell you,
I do not buy everything the Pentagon says. I am pretty critical across
their spending, across everything else. I accused them of lying to me
on the training of Iraqi troops in 2006.
But when you see what has been transformed in the training of troops
in Iraq, which is comparable to our training of our own troops over the
same period of time, and what they have accomplished both in terms of
synergism with both their equipment, their military leaders, and their
troops, and they walk out of training as a Sunni and Shia together and
you see that and you say we are going to walk away from that, we are
not going to finish it, we are going to allow this thing to collapse--
and it will.
So then the question is, have we made another mistake in not
fulfilling an obligation in something that we started? I do not believe
we can do that. If we do that, I think the blood of every Iraqi that is
displaced or dies after that is on us--not on the Taliban, not on al-
Qaida, not on Shia extremists, not on Sunni extremists but on us.
We can win. We will win. We can. There is political progress all
across the board, locally and at the regional and at the national
government level. I would remind the Members of this body how long it
took us to get a functioning government, a functioning government after
our independence, one that was based on a constitution, one that was
based on the rule of law. It was not smooth sailing. We did not do it
in a short period of time. And we did not even get it right when it
came to equal rights of individuals. We did not get it right. Yet we
are frustrated with that.
I see a new day in Iraq. It is not over. It is dangerous, it is still
very dangerous. But the progress, the improvement, the reconciliation
between Shia and Sunni is unbelievable.
In province across province, the Shia, the Sunni awaking, the sons of
Iraq phenomenon, the coordination of local governments across ethnic
lines is in stark contrast with what was there a year and a half ago.
Do we just abandon that? Think about the message it sends if we are not
going to create a stable Iraq. What immediately do they do? They
immediately start going to their own intrinsic ethnic corner. We
divide. We send the Kurds one way, the

[[Page S1179]]

Shia one way, and the Sunni one way. We create a holocaust.

I want to say publicly I have had a lot of misgivings about what our
country has done in the Middle East. But I have no misgivings at all at
this time about the course we are on. The leadership of General
Petraeus, the leadership of Ambassador Crocker, the leadership of the
people within Iraq, sheikhs within small communities risking their
lives every day to stand up and say: I will join hands with a Sunni,
with the Shia. I am going to reject al-Qaida and we are going to get
our lives back together--that is happening. That is a dynamic that is
forcefully happening because people want peace.
This will eliminate that movement. This will create insecurity. This
will drive people to their corners. This will drive people to extreme
positions. In fact, what we have accomplished in the last 12 months
will be denuded and neutered out to the point where we will have
created a worse situation rather than a better one.
To the soldiers and families who have sacrificed so much in this war,
I say thank you from my family. The real problem of the administration,
the mistake they made, is we should all be sacrificing for this war,
not just our military families. We have refused to do that as Members
of the Senate by making sure that we pay for this war, by getting rid
of things that are lower priorities, getting rid of things that are
duplicative. We didn't do that. We said, we will charge it to our kids.
We can't ruffle any feathers and make the hard choices.
The Senator from Michigan said: We do things based on value and
priorities. That is baloney. We do things based on how we get
reelected, with the exception of the Senator from Wisconsin, who is one
of the most honorable men in this body. He never thinks about that
issue. He thinks about what he thinks is right. But the way we do
things around here is what is politically expedient, not what is right.
For her to claim that that is how we do things, when we can't even get
rid of billions of dollars in duplicative programs, $8 billion worth of
buildings that the Pentagon wants to get rid of because it might ruffle
some politician's feathers somewhere--we don't do things based on
priority or on value. We do it on political expediency.
Again, I thank the troops and the families who are sacrificing. I am
amazed at the progress that has been made, literally amazed. I believe
we ought to honestly look at that before we walk a different direction.
We ought to truly reassess where we are. It is a big price. I know it
is. We have paid a big price in this endeavor. It is fair to question
whether we should continue it. But it is not fair to not look at what
has happened over the last 12 months in a realistic and open assessment
that says, is there light at the end of the tunnel? I will tell you,
there is. Individually, in talking to Shia and Sunni families while
over there, outside of the Green Zone, walking among them without
protection, seeing the hope in their eyes that finally things are going
to get back to where they can take care of their families, move ahead
with their goals and their personal lives, the leadership exhibited by
our military, not just in leadership roles but all the way down to the
private and what they are doing and how they are doing it and how they
are carrying it out in Iraq, is something we can all be proud of. I
don't think we should jeopardize what they are doing by voting for this
bill. It is great for us to question. Sometimes we haven't done that
well enough. But to ignore the reality of what is happening today in
Iraq and the trend lines and the movement lines and the economic growth
lines and the power lines and the oil production lines and the
agreement among Shia and Sunni at all of these regional and provincial
levels, to ignore that is a grave mistake on our part.
It is my hope that we don't carry forward with this idea. It is also
my hope that we will truly recognize, not be blinded, not be sold a
bill of goods. I am not suggesting that. We should ask the tough
questions. But to deny the marked change, the tremendous progress, the
tremendous freedom, the tremendous lifting of the burden on the Iraqi
people that has happened in the last 12 months and not say that means
something and not say that that means we are going absolutely in the
right direction--we haven't won this war, but we certainly have them on
the run. We certainly have the Iraqi people enamored with us to the
point where we are not despised. We are welcome now in the vast
majority of Iraq. In 95 percent of Iraq we are welcome because we are a
liberator of them from al-Qaida, not from Saddam but from al-Qaida, the
one who cut their 8-year-old daughter's head off because she looked at
them wrong, the ruthlessness of radical Islam. That is what is at stake
right now. We can differ in our approach on how we might battle that,
but this is the heat sink right now. Iraq is the heat sink for al-
Qaida. It is where they are, where they are coming.
We are winning. The Iraqi people are winning, and the Iraqi troops
are winning. Let's not destroy that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I returned Thursday of last week from Iraq
after my tenth visit. A year ago this time I quite honestly thought we
were going to lose this thing--incredibly depressed, because you could
see over about a 2\1/2\ to 3-year period it getting worse with each
visit. Things have changed dramatically. But it is important for every
Senator to put Iraq in context so their constituents and the Nation can
judge what our proposals are and what makes us tick on Iraq.
I believe Iraq is the central battlefront, not the only one, in the
overall struggle against radical Islamic terrorism. At the time Saddam
Hussein was invaded and replaced, it wasn't to drive al-Qaida out of
Iraq, absolutely not. It was a dictator who had created war and chaos
in the region as long as he had been a dictator, who had defied 17 U.N.
resolutions to let us inspect his weapons program. It was the Russians,
the French, and every other intelligence organization in the world
believing that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire weapons of mass
destruction. It was basically neutering the effectiveness of the U.N.
The Oil for Food Program designed to help the Iraqi people and control
the dictator was a joke. So the reason we invaded Iraq is because the
dictator was defying the world. He made us want to believe he was
trying to procure weapons. Because if he wasn't, he should have opened
his country to inspection. He was living off the Oil for Food Program.
We had 70 something Senators vote to authorize force. The reason most
of us voted that way is because all the evidence possessed by everybody
in the world suggested that Saddam Hussein was not becoming the
solution to the Mideast; he was still the problem.
What happened? We displaced the dictator and we got it very badly
wrong after the fall of Baghdad. We had a model that was short on
troops. There was a period of time when we allowed the country to
become lawless. Instead of stopping looting and pillaging, we let it
grow. We disbanded the Iraqi Army, and they could have been helpful, at
least some of them. We made a lot of mistakes after the fall of
Baghdad. For about 3 years plus, we were pursuing a strategy that was
not producing results. Why? Because we didn't have enough troops. The
enemy was getting stronger, not weaker.
We had a great debate last year as to whether we should change
course. Everybody in the body suggested we change course, because it
was clear the old strategy was not working and it was depressing to go
to Iraq and hear the people in charge on the ground say things are
fine, when you knew they weren't.
I am not a military commander. I am a military lawyer. But common
sense would have told you a couple years ago that this thing was
slipping away. So it was time to act and change course. There were two
ways to do it. You could pull the plug and start pulling people out or
you could add more troops to secure the Nation in a way that we should
have done after the fall of Baghdad.
I will take responsibility for my point of view of not pushing harder
early on to have more troops. But I can promise you this: For a couple
years, along with Senator McCain, we pretty much were the lone voices
to add more into Iraq. As the polling numbers on Iraq changed, the
desire to add more troops dramatically got more difficult for a
politician. But that is what we

[[Page S1180]]

needed. I am here to tell you a year after the surge began that those
who said the war in Iraq was lost were wrong. Those who said the surge
had failed last April before it even started were wrong. Senator
Feingold passionately believes that the troop presence in Iraq should
change, and he was suggesting withdrawal long before it was popular.
There are some people who have been playing Iraq for the next election,
not for the next generation or the next decade. They have made bold
statements such as it is all lost, that we have lost in Iraq. They
never told us who won, because wars are about winning and losing.
If you believe, as I do, that this is a battle in a greater war,
could you afford to lose? What is the price to the United States to
lose a battle against al-Qaida anywhere in the world? What would it
cost us as a nation for al-Qaida to be able to stand on every street
corner in the Middle East and tell people: We drove the Americans out
of Iraq? They came to Iraq after the fall of Baghdad for the very
reason we went into Iraq, except with a different result in mind. We
wanted to replace the dictator and allow people in Iraq who had been
oppressed for 30-something years to have a better life and ally
themselves with us and be a peaceful neighbor rather than an agent for
destruction in the region. We wanted to allow a woman to have a say
about her children. We wanted Sunnis and Shias to be able to live
together and prosper. We wanted a peaceful Iraq.
Al-Qaida saw what we were doing, and they came in droves to make sure
we were not successful. The question has to be: Why does bin Laden care
about Iraq? Why is he sending everybody he can get to go into Iraq? Why
is he disappointed with the performance of al-Qaida in Iraq? Because he
said the land of the two rivers is the great battle of our time. The
land of the two rivers is Iraq. Bin Laden, no matter what you think
about him, understands the consequences of us succeeding in Iraq. It is
a nightmare to his way of doing business. The thought of a woman being
able to run for office, hold office, have a say about her children is a
nightmare. The idea that Sunni, Shias, and Kurds can live together and
not be told how to worship God is an absolute affront to his way of
thinking. The idea that the Iraqi people would align themselves with us
for a peaceful Mideast must drive him crazy.
They came, al-Qaida, with a mission in mind. That was to drive us out
and kill this effort at moderation. Thank God the President changed
course with a mission in mind. We put more troops on the ground
beginning last February. A year later I am here to tell my colleagues,
it worked. All of those who said we had lost in Iraq and the surge had
failed were absolutely wrong. Thank God we didn't listen to them.
Because if we had left Iraq, al-Qaida, as sure as I am standing here,
would be claiming all over the world they beat America. Iran would be
the biggest winner, second only to al-Qaida. And Iraq would be a
chaotic place where the Sunni-Shia fight would spill over to the
region. If you think there is a problem now between Turkey and the
Kurdish rebels up in the north, imagine a collapsed Iraq. What is that
worth to prevent? Let me tell you what it is worth. It is worth
everything we have to throw at it.
Let's talk about the troops for a minute. We all appreciate them. I
don't doubt that one bit. But answer this question: Why do they
reenlist after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan at higher levels than
anywhere else in the military? What do they see that we don't see? Why
do they keep going back the second and third and fourth time?
My opinion is: They get it. They understand their commitment and
their sacrifice now will prevent their children from having to go to
such a battle in the future. And they buy this idea that if we can
contain extremism and defeat it in Iraq, we are safer here at home.
They believe it so much they keep going and going and going.
Let me tell you something no one said yet: Well done. We should take
this 30 hours and celebrate what I think is the most successful
military counterinsurgency operation in the history of the world. We
should take the 30 hours and go over in detail what the commanders and
the troops under their command have accomplished. It is a phenomenal
story that will be talked about in military history for decades to
come. It has exceeded every expectation I had. Adding more troops into
Iraq, I thought, was essential and would matter, but I never dreamed it
would matter this much.
Let's talk about what has happened since the surge began.
Monthly attack levels have decreased 60 percent since June of 2007
and are now at the same levels as early as in 2005 and some points of
2004. In other words, we are rolling back the clock on attacks.
Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent since a year ago,
dropping to a level not seen since the beginning of 2006.
Now, what does that mean? The better security, the more likely the
Iraqi people will step up to the plate and reconcile their differences.
I have always believed that was the key to stabilizing Iraq.
Now, when we try to do things such as immigration--and my good friend
in the chair knows how hard that is--they run awful ads against you and
say terrible things about you on the radio and make life pretty
difficult for a politician to take on the hard things. Everybody likes
doing the easy things. Very few of us like doing the hard things. But
when you do the hard things, you get a lot of push-back. But we keep
trying.
Imagine trying to sit down across the table or the aisle with someone
of a different sect, and they kill your family. Now, what kind of world
is that? The violence in Iraq had gotten so out of control that the
idea of political reconciliation, to me, was impossible. To expect
people to go to Baghdad and solve their nation's problems--because the
threat of violence covered the country, I knew we would never get
reconciliation. But here is what I hoped.
I hoped if we could turn this around and reduce civilian casualties
and reduce the level of attacks and reduce sectarian deaths--which have
decreased by 90 percent in the Baghdad security districts; listen to
this: a 90-percent reduction in sectarian killings in Baghdad--I always
believed if we could do that, the Iraqi people would rise to the
occasion because they do want a new Iraq. That was my bet. That was my
hope. And if they do not want it as much as I want it, or more than I
want it, then it is never going to happen.
But here is the evidence, after a year of sacrifice, blood, and
treasure--not just by us but by the Iraqi people. Their army and
security forces have increased by 100,000.
Let me tell you what it is like to go to the recruiting station in
Berkeley. You get pushed back because of the city council ordinance.
Let me tell you what it was like to go to the recruiting station in
parts of Iraq a year ago. They were killing people who were trying to
join the army and security forces. They were attacking recruiting
stations. They were getting the names of those who wanted to join the
army and security forces, and they were coming after their families;
and they still came.
I have been to Iraq 10 times, and I can tell you, I met people the
first couple visits who are now dead because the terrorists killed
them. Because what the people were trying to do is create a moderate
form of living that is an absolute nightmare for al-Qaida.
I have always believed, after having gone there so many times, that
the Iraqi people are willing to die for their own freedom, and if they
can pull this off, it makes me and my family and my country safer. So
that is why we stay, that is why we fight. And we are winning.
What has happened in the last 60 to 90 days? Not only have we reduced
the level of attacks by 60 percent--and civilian deaths are down by 75
percent and sectarian deaths are down by 90 percent--we have doubled
the amount of weapons caches found because we are getting better
information from the population. They are telling us things they did
not tell us before.
Ten of the eighteen provinces have been taken over by Iraqi security
forces. The Iraqi security forces grew by 100,000 in 2007 and stand now
at more than half a million.
All I can tell you is the Iraqi people have taken the opportunity we
provided them with the surge to stand up

[[Page S1181]]

for their own freedom. They are dying at 3 to 1 our rate. They have
paid a heavy price. Our country has paid a heavy price. But the reason
the Iraqis keep coming after somebody falls is because they want a
better way.
If I had to put in a story line the most important aspect of the
surge, it would be as follows: A Muslim country made up of different
Islamic sects turned on al-Qaida. Listen to that. With better security
and a strong commitment from the United States that we will be your
ally, we will not leave you, we will not abandon you to this vicious
enemy, they slowly but surely turned on al-Qaida, beginning in Anbar
and now marching throughout the whole country.
What does that mean for the overall war on terror? That is something
we should be on the floor celebrating because the way you win this war
is not: Kill every terrorist. The way you win this war is: You stand by
forces of moderation and you give them the ability and the tools to
change their own destiny.
Look what has happened. Anbar Province, a year ago, was determined
lost by the Marine Corps. This year, they celebrate a 5-K run through
the streets of Ramadi. Why? Because the sheiks, the tribal leaders, the
average citizen said no to al-Qaida, aligned themselves with us, and
al-Qaida has been diminished in great measure.
To those who want to defeat al-Qaida, stay with the Iraqi people and
help them defeat al-Qaida. What a message to the Mideast: Muslims turn
on al-Qaida with American support. What is that worth? That is
priceless. That is how we win the war.
GEN David Petraeus should have been the man or person of the year.
What he has accomplished in a year absolutely is stunning, militarily.
It has come at a heavy price in blood and treasure. But to all those
who have served under his command, congratulations. You have made
military history. You have made your country safer. You have been al-
Qaida's worst nightmare. And we are not going to let the Congress
undercut you.

Now, the surge was not just about killing al-Qaida. The surge was
about providing better security so the Iraqi people could build
capacity to defeat their own enemy, enemies within their country, and
reconcile themselves.
There have been major benchmarks out there for political
reconciliation for quite a while. I said in October of last year, if I
do not see progress by January or February of 2008, I am going to
reevaluate my position vis-a-vis the Iraqi central government. One
thing I can tell you, after a year, and going into March of 2008, the
Iraqi political reconciliation has astonished me.
They have passed the debaathification law, and they deserve credit
for it. What does it mean? It means Sunnis who held jobs in the
Government during the Saddam era are going to be allowed to get some of
their jobs back. What does that mean in real terms? That means the
Shias and the Kurds have looked at a former oppressive group--people
who ran Saddam's government--and said: Come on back. Let's build a new
Iraq.
My God, what a statement to make. How hard that must have been for
people who have lived under the thumb of Saddam Hussein and the people
who ran his government, to turn to that same group and say: Let's move
forward. Come back and help us build a new Iraq.
A provincial powers law just passed. What does that mean? It means
the central government in Iraq, where the Shias dominate, has allowed
the opportunity for local elections to occur in October of this year,
hopefully.
That means that the Sunnis in Anbar can actually elect their own
local leadership. They can elect people to send to Baghdad to represent
their interests.
That means the Shias in the south are going to have a chance to elect
their equivalent of a mayor, a county councilman, a Governor.
It means the central government, dominated by Shias, has turned to
every province in Iraq--Sunni, Shia, and Kurd--and said: Instead of us
running your life, you elect your local leaders.
That means they bought into this idea of democracy, where people vote
for whom they want to make local decisions.
Here is what I predict: that in 2008 there will be provincial
elections, and there will be a huge turnout. In 2005, the Sunnis
boycotted the elections in Iraq because they were not certain that
democracy was for them, and they were afraid of being left out. It is
the Sunnis who are pushing for local elections, and they were able to
win in Baghdad.
They passed a $48 billion budget--something we cannot do. A $48
billion budget has been passed, with the blessing of all groups, that
will allow money to flow from Baghdad to reconstruct the country in
every corner.
The hardest thing for one politician to do for another is to reach a
deal in allocating resources because you always want more for your
people and less for the others. We still do that here. I love Colorado,
but I like South Carolina to get its fair share; and usually that means
I care more about South Carolina spending than I do Colorado. But
people, such as the Presiding Officer and myself and everybody else in
this body, usually were able to give and take and get a budget that
helps everybody.
Can you imagine how hard that must be for a group of people who have
lived under a dictator who have never had that responsibility before
and who have been suffering from violence inspired by al-Qaida,
sectarian in nature? They were able to overcome that hatred and that
bitterness that has been inspired by al-Qaida and say to each other:
Here is the money of the country. You get your share.
That is progress. That is hope. That is al-Qaida's worst nightmare.
The one that means the most to me is that the general amnesty law was
recently passed. I have been a military lawyer for 25 years and a
student of history to some extent. What happened in Baghdad is
astonishing. The prisons are full of insurgents. People aligned
themselves with the insurgency during this lawless period. Blood has
been taken and shed from each group, one to the other. Most of the
people in jail are Sunnis. There are more and more Shia militia, but
right now it is Sunnis.
The central government in Baghdad passed a general amnesty law where
a committee will be formed of all groups to go through the files of
those in prison to allow them to come back home and be part of the new
Iraq. That is a level of forgiveness and a desire to start over that
had to be incredibly difficult because there is nothing sweeter than
revenge.
The people who were on the bottom in Iraq for a long time, the Shias
and the Kurds, and those in the Sunni world who were trying to
basically prevent Iraq from coming together as one, have now seen it is
better for them to chart a new destiny, a new course together. They
have a long way to go, and they are going to be fought at every turn.

If you understand nothing else from this speech, as Senator McCain
would say, understand this: al-Qaida is diminished, but they are not
defeated. Their goal tonight or tomorrow or the next day is to create a
spectacular attack that will make headlines all over the world, and
people in this body will respond to those headlines and try to change
course in policy. I would argue the worst thing we could do is allow
one of the most vicious movements in the history of mankind to change
American foreign policy because they have the ability and the desire to
commit mass murder. So beware of al-Qaida. They are diminished, but
they are not yet defeated, and they know they can't win in Iraq, but
they are still not sure they can't win in Washington. They are not
going to win in Anbar. They are not going to win in Baghdad, they are
not going to win in Fallujah, they are not going to win in Diyala, and
they are not going to win in Basra. But the question is, Can they still
win in Washington? I hope the answer after this debate is no. If we
would take winning in Washington off the table, reconciliation in Iraq
would go at a faster pace, not a slower pace.
Economic progress in the last year: Oil production in Iraq has risen
by 50 percent over what it was a year ago. Oil production is up 50
percent because of better security. Oil revenues are double what they
were a year ago, and the Iraqi central government has shared the
resources with everybody in the country. Inflation has fallen from 66
percent to less than 5 percent in a year. What does better security buy

[[Page S1182]]

you? It buys you a functioning economy, political reconciliation, and
better military security. Electricity demand is up more than 25 percent
since last year. People are purchasing, they are buying, they are
building hopeful lives. There are 21 new health clinics in Baghdad,
1,885 new schools, and 604 refurbished schools throughout Iraq.
People say: What about South Carolina? What about the schools in
South Carolina? Lord knows we have our fair share of educational
challenges in South Carolina and, like every other place in the
country, we could use more money. But I am here to tell my constituents
that the price to be paid in blood and treasure in the future losing
Iraq is far greater than the price we are paying now, in my opinion. If
I did not believe it, I would not say it. If the men and women in
uniform didn't believe it, they wouldn't go back time and time and time
again. If we can continue this model that has produced dramatic success
beyond my imagination, we will win in Iraq, and everybody in this body,
their families, and our Nation as a whole will be safer for the
experience because it means al-Qaida lost.
Al-Qaida came to Iraq with a purpose: to undermine this effort at
moderation, stability. They came for a purpose: to make sure a woman
never had a say about her children. And they are losing. They have not
yet lost, but they are on the road to losing, and they know it.
What is it worth for our country to align itself with a Muslim nation
to turn on al-Qaida? It is worth everything to me. It is certainly
worth my political future.
A year ago, when this debate was started, the polls were incredibly
against the idea of sending more troops. The need for more troops
existed, in my opinion. A year later, the results of more troops and
better security is astonishing.
The way to get the Iraqi people to reconcile themselves is not to
leave them, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that will encourage
the enemy who is on the mat to get back up into the fight. The way to
get them to reconcile themselves is to stand with them, to stand by
them, invest in the training of their army, help them get on their
feet. That is the way to beat al-Qaida. Winning is going to happen in
Iraq unless we change this model here at home.
People ask me: Senator Graham, what is winning? Winning, to me, is a
stable, functioning government, aligned with democratic principles, at
peace with its neighbors, that rejects Islamic extremism, will deny al-
Qaida a safe haven, and will align itself with us in the greater war on
terror, and finally, will create a system where a mother can have a say
about her children. We are not there yet, but we are well on our way.
We have a model that will lead us to victory: a general who knows
what he is doing and brave young men and women who are sacrificing
because they understand the need to sacrifice. They are excited. They
want to come home, but more than anything else, they want to win. That
is why they keep going, going, going, and going. They are going to win
unless we do something here at home to make it hard for them to do so.
The worst thing we could do now as a nation is to ignore the results
of the last year, worry more about the next election than we do about
winning this global war, and try to get an advantage over each other
based on the next election cycle. I hope the Members of this body will
understand that the turnaround in Iraq is not only dramatic, it makes
us safer as a nation here at home, and that we now have a model that
will allow us to win what I think is a war we can't afford to lose.
Let it be said, finally, that there are Muslims in this world of
different sects who will come together and fight al-Qaida with us. Let
it be said that there is a nation called Iraq that has lived under an
oppressive dictatorship for over three decades, that is beginning to
taste freedom, that they are fighting and dying for their own freedom
in large measure, that they are beginning to reconcile their political
differences, they are beginning to build a larger army that is combat
ready, that they are beginning to create an economy that will allow
them to sustain themselves, and they are beginning to create a society
that will allow us to live in peace with them and be a force of
moderation for the region. That, I say to my colleagues, is an outcome
very beneficial to the United States.
I am glad we are having this debate. I am glad we have a little bit
of time in a chaotic election year to take a breath and at least allow
one Senator to say to the troops: You are winning. You should be proud.
Good job. We are behind you here at home. We are behind the policy you
are trying to implement. I hope they come home sooner rather than
later. I believe they will. But when they come home, they are going to
come home in a way that will allow them to tell their grandchildren: I
did something that mattered for our country. That is why they keep
reenlisting.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss
the state of our economy, the budget cuts proposed by this
administration, and yes, the war in Iraq and the need to set our
priorities straight in this country. Like my colleague from South
Carolina, I wish to thank our troops. Like the Presiding Officer, I
visited Iraq and saw firsthand the bravery of these troops everywhere I
went. Of course, I was very focused on Minnesota troops. They would
come up to me in cafeteria lines and airport tarmacs and never complain
about a thing. They didn't complain about the heat or their equipment
or their long tours of duties. Many of our Minnesota National Guard
extended over and over and over again. They really only asked me to do
one thing, and that was when I got home, that I call their moms and
dads, their husbands and their wives, and tell them they were OK.
When I got home, I talked to their families. I think I called over 50
moms and dads, husbands and wives. I heard a little bit different
story. I heard stories of families waiting and waiting and waiting,
with anxiety over jobs that might be lost or never gotten back. One of
the moms I talked to when I went back in March--I left a message for
her. A few months later, I called her again when her son had been
killed. I met her.
I have to tell my colleagues, these troops, as my friend from South
Carolina said, have done their duty. They deposed an evil dictator.
They guaranteed free elections in Iraq. Now it is time for us to do our
duty for them.
We all know there can be no purely military solution in Iraq. This
has been agreed to by so many military commanders and experts and
Members of this body on both sides that it is not really worth arguing
about anymore. We all recognize that true stability in Iraq will only
come through political and economic compromises between Iraq's main
ethnic groups and that only the Iraqis themselves can reach these
agreements. Given this, I believe our strategy should be focused on
transitioning to Iraqi authority and bringing in other countries and
that we cannot keep doing this alone.
I was listening to my friend from South Carolina speak so eloquently,
and one of the things that struck me that he said was that this was
priceless, and he meant this in the best of all ways. He said it was
priceless. I just can't say this war has been priceless. After 4 years,
5 years, over 3,600 American soldiers have been killed. Over 25,000
have been wounded. We have been in this war now longer than World War
II. Almost $450 billion--$450 billion has been spent. We cannot wait
until next year to change our strategy.
The President is intent on leaving the current situation for the next
administration to resolve. Unfortunately, our soldiers in the field
don't have the luxury of simply running up the clock on this
administration. We owe it to them to begin bringing our combat troops
home. I think we all know we can't do this overnight. We know we are
going to have troops remaining to guard our embassies and to train
police and to act as special forces, but I do believe that if we want
to push this Government to get its act together, the Iraqi Government,
we have to send a clear message that we are not staying there
indefinitely. So we owe it to our troops, but we also owe it to the
people of this country. We can no longer continue to give the President
the blank checks he keeps asking for. We must

[[Page S1183]]

ensure the safety and the well-being of our troops in the field, but
funding must be conditioned on a plan for responsible redeployment of
U.S. combat forces from Iraq.
Now, why is this so important to our own country and to our own
future and to our own children? Well, as I said, the war in Iraq has
already cost over $490 billion directly, and by some estimates it has
cost the American people almost $1.5 trillion when factoring in all of
the costs. For each month that passes, we spend another $12 billion on
the war, and we cannot separate the President's spending in Iraq from
the economic and the budgetary problems we face.
One of the things that has always really bothered me on behalf of the
people whom I represent is that this administration never really
adequately calculated the repercussions of this war. I think the troops
in the field--and I will say one thing. Despite the clear disagreements
on strategy for this war, there has been bipartisan agreement that our
troops need to be treated with the kind of respect they deserve. When
they signed up for war, there wasn't a waiting line. When they come
home and need medical care and they need mental health care, they need
to get their education benefits, they shouldn't be waiting. It is this
Democratic Congress that took on this issue and looked at the facts.
Why are all of these men and women coming up to me out in Minnesota and
saying they couldn't get health care? Look at the facts. The Pentagon
underestimated the number of troops coming home from Iraq and
Afghanistan by four times the amount--four times more returning troops
needed health care than they estimated. We put billions of dollars into
that.
We are willing to rise to the occasion and say we are not going to
make the same mistake we made after Vietnam. We are going to treat our
troops with the respect they deserve when they come home. But again,
when the administration made its plans for this war--a war I did not
support from the beginning--when they made their plans, they did not
anticipate the enormous costs.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a unanimous
consent request?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following
the remarks of the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

ECONOMIC GROWTH

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the administration did not anticipate
the cost for our troops. The war has already cost over $490 billion,
$1.5 trillion when you factor in all costs, $12 billion a month. They
did not anticipate what was going on with this economy. They did not
respond the way they were supposed to to the mortgage crisis. They did
not anticipate. They listened to their friends in the special interest
groups, and look where we are now. Look where we are now.
Two weeks ago we passed a short-term stimulus package that will help
change the economic direction of this country by putting money in the
hands of American families, including our seniors and our veterans.
This action was a start. But today we must begin focusing on the long-
term policies to spur economic growth long after the rebate checks are
spent. We have to get this economy on the right track, and it means
making a reckoning for that money that is spent in Iraq, to start
bringing home some of our combat troops, to start being more
responsible about this budget.
Today we announced our next step, which is to look at this mortgage
crisis, really the crisis that I say fundamentally puts us where we are
right now. Mr. President, 8.8 million families across the United States
are underwater. They owe more to lenders than they have equity in their
home, giving them limited or no options for refinancing.
The Foreclosure Prevention Act, which I am going to talk about later,
and I hope will come to the floor this week, signifies a major step in
the right direction, curbing the disastrous effect the foreclosure
crisis has had on our families and our economy. The time to act is now.
We also need long-term economic policies that will encourage
sustainable economic growth in every corner of this country. From the
impact of the mortgage crisis and the value of homes, to the
skyrocketing cost of oil that fuels cars, trucks, and heats homes, to
rising prices in the grocery stores, the middle class is being squeezed
from every side.
Back in January, I traveled around my State. I visited towns all the
way from Worthington up to Halleck, MN. You haven't been anywhere, Mr.
President, unless you visited Embarrass, MN, in the middle of January.
It is always one of the coldest places in our country. We were all over
our State. People are concerned. They are Minnesotans so they try to be
optimistic, especially when it is January. They try to look to the
future. They look at the potential with this energy revolution. But
they would come out to cafes, come out to college campuses and talk
about how it is getting harder and harder for them to send their kids
to college, to afford health care, and to fill their cars up with gas.
To give a sense of what we are looking at in our State--and our State
has always had a diverse economy; we are eighth in the country for
Fortune 500 companies--the unemployment rate for Minnesota recently
jumped to 4.9 percent, up from 4.4 percent the month before. Our State
has lost 23,000 jobs in the last 6 months alone. Home heating prices
for Minnesota families have also risen by 14.1 percent per household in
the past year alone.
On the foreclosure front, the statistics in Minnesota are equally
devastating. At the end of 2007, over 50,000 families in Minnesota were
delinquent on their home payments. It is estimated that 30,000 will
lose their homes in the next several years if something is not done.
What are these families like? They are like the Gray family in
Minnesota with whom I met. They are both teaching. They were all
excited to buy their new house. They got a mortgage approved, a
standard mortgage. It turned out the home values were much higher, and
they were not able to afford a home. So they went to someone they
thought they could trust and got one of these adjustable rate
mortgages. They were told a lower rate at the beginning, $1,500, and it
might go up a few hundred dollars. By 2008, it was up to $3,300 a month
from $1,500 a month. We know that is not the rate of inflation. We know
it is not the right thing to happen.
I use that as one example of what we are seeing across this country
and why this administration has its priorities messed up and why people
such as the Grays, good people who are just trying to have a home for
their family, have found themselves in the middle of this mess. It is
where Wall Street has hit Main Street. It is where the Bush
administration's priorities to spend $12 billion a month have hit
people like the Grays right in their homes.
The cost of foreclosures is not limited to these families. If
something is not done, Minnesotans will lose an estimated $1.6 billion
in declining home values. That is because the chickens have come home
to roost. When it comes to this mortgage crisis, it is not just one
family, one foreclosure. It affects real estate values on an entire
street, an entire neighborhood, an entire community.
We need an economy that creates stable middle-class jobs. We need
infrastructure investments so we don't have bridges falling, as we did
in our State, right in the middle of America. We need energy
investments that will reduce our dependency on foreign oil and create
good ``green collar'' jobs in the growing clean alternative energy
sector of our economy.

The people we serve are asking for a new direction, a government that
spends their money wisely, that represents their values, that works for
American families. America wants a Washington that is going to offer
new priorities and new solutions.
Last year, our Congress succeeded in a downpayment on change. It was
a beginning. We were hampered by procedural rules and all these
filibusters, but we moved this country. There is so much more to do. We
moved, first of all, to a more responsible budget process. We gave
working Americans an increase in the minimum wage. We provided greater
financial aid to help their kids go to college. And we passed a new
energy bill that raises fuel efficiency

[[Page S1184]]

standards for the first time since I was in junior high.
But there is much more that needs to be done.
Senator Dorgan and I heard about it at an economic hearing we had in
my State just last week where we met with a panel of economists and
experts on energy policy and what was going on in our economy in
Minnesota. One economist described our current condition as ``serious,
unstable, and declining.'' In our State, families sense their stability
is slipping, with 67 percent of middle-class Americans having an
increased sense of anxiety about their futures.
Tom Stinson, Minnesota's chief economist, discussed the frightening
unemployment statistics. We haven't added any new jobs over the past
year, and we are not alone. States that have historically had lower
unemployment rates are now creeping toward the national average.
Unfortunately, when we look at this problem we are facing, and we
know there are solutions, we know there is a way to get this economy
back on track and be fiscally responsible, but President Bush's new
budget proposal falls far short of what America needs to address our
economic downturn and invest in meaningful recovery effort.
This new budget request does not offer new priorities or now
solutions. Instead, this budget continues a familiar pattern of
misplaced priorities. It continues a 7-year pattern of fiscal
irresponsibility: borrowing money and leaving an ever-larger debt to
our children and grandchildren.
Look at this, the wall of debt we have seen and how quickly it has
risen from 2001 to 2013. This administration took a $200 billion
surplus and turned it into a $300 billion budget deficit. Do you know
what it means to middle-class families? When I talk to people in our
States about what all these millions and billions and trillions mean,
it means that 1 out of 12 Federal tax dollars goes to pay interest on
that debt. That money is not going to the United States. Most of that
money is going to companies in foreign countries. That is what is
happening to this country.
I was listening before to my colleague from Oklahoma talking about
how we have to be willing to make these sacrifices and pay for things.
I find this so ironic because it is people on our side of the aisle who
have been willing to talk about rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts
on people making over $200,000. Think how that money can go to pay off
this debt, to go into infrastructure investment we have been talking
about, to move this economy in the right direction. It is people over
on our side of the aisle who have been talking about oil giveaways and
putting them into renewable energies so we can start investing in
farmers and workers in the Midwest instead of oil cartels in the
Mideast.
How about the debate we had on the middle-class tax issue, on AMT tax
relief? We were willing to talk about how we wanted to pay for it. We
wanted to pay for it off those hedge fund operators, but they wouldn't
go for it. It is this Congress that put the pay-as-you-go back.
When I talk to people in my State, they understand we need to have a
short-term stimulus package, why we need it, and why economists
believed it was a good idea. But when we go forward in the long term,
we cannot keep going the way we are going with this wall of debt. We
are not going to end up where we want to go. We are going to be right
back where we were before we put the stimulus in place, and we need to
make bold changes in this country.
In just 7 years, this administration took that budget surplus, $158
billion--think of that money--and made it into a $400 billion deficit.
So when we talk about this war in Iraq and when my esteemed colleague
from South Carolina talks about it being priceless, it is not
priceless. It is $12 billion a month.
Meanwhile, this new budget continues to neglect crucial investments
that are needed to strengthen our economy and our Nation for the long
term. It does not make the investments we need in our Nation's
transportation infrastructure. It does not make the investments we need
in developing renewable energy sources to move us toward greater energy
independence and security. It does not make the investments we need to
support the basic medical and scientific research that has always been
a key driver of our country's innovation and growth.

I come from Minnesota, a State where we believe in science. We
brought the world everything from the Post-It note to the pacemaker,
and we believe this investment pays off not only in the health of our
citizens but also for jobs and looking to the future and not letting
other countries such as India, China, and other countries go ahead of
us because we have failed in this country to have an investment
strategy and put those Government policies in place that drives that
investment.
Here are a few examples from my State of where the President's budget
goes wrong.
Americans are struggling to lower home heating costs in any way they
can. Nationwide, the average household is expected to pay 11 percent
more for heating this winter compared to last year. Families who rely
on home heating oil are facing record prices, 30 to 50 percent above
last winter.
So what does the administration do in its budget? It cuts this
funding. It ends the Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance
Program. The Weatherization Assistance Program increases the energy
efficiency of homes occupied by low-income Americans, directly reducing
their energy costs. It cut it by 100 percent.
The funds appropriated in fiscal year 2008 for this program will
enable upgrades for as many as 85,000 homes. With energy costs rising
significantly and an economy poised on the brink of recession, the
weatherization program and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program are necessities, they are not luxuries.
Another example: Nearly 6\1/2\ years after the terrorist attacks of
September 11, Americans are well aware of the need for State and local
governments to be prepared as possible against future threats. I heard
you talking, Mr. President, earlier this afternoon about the importance
of putting that money into our own homeland security. So what does the
administration do with this budget? It slashes funding for State and
local first responders' efforts, cutting firefighter assistance grants
from $1.2 billion to $300 million, and the State Homeland Security
Grant Program from over $1 billion to $200 million, and, once again, it
proposes to eliminate the cost of the COPS Program.
As a former prosecutor, I take this personally because I saw how that
COPS Program worked, how it added police officers to our neighborhoods,
how it brought down crime. Look at this: What is the comparison when we
are looking at this budget as we are talking about priorities of the
$12 billion a month on the war in Iraq? This is the amount the
President would need to add to his budget to maintain this police
program which puts police out in the neighborhoods at a 2008 level,
plus inflation.
Personally, I would like to do more, especially in our rural areas. I
think we need meth cops out there. Just to restore it to 2008 levels
plus inflation would cost $596 million. What would you do if you just
roll back the tax cuts for those making over $1 million in 2009? I am
not talking about people making over $250,000; I am talking about
people making over $1 million. What would you bring in with that? You
would bring in $51 billion. Look at the comparison. Think about how
many police you could buy on the streets. Think how much you could buy
to help people afford their homes. Think of the benefits. Look at what
you can do for $51 billion to help our veterans.
We have soldiers coming home from Iraq that just this summer in
Minnesota were told: You are the longest serving unit, you Red Bulls
from Minnesota, of the National Guard in Iraq. But guess what. Your
paper only says 729 days. So guess what. You are not going to get your
full education benefits, even though you served longer than 729 days.
Obviously, we took up this matter with General Shellito, head of our
National Guard, took up this matter with the Army, and it is working to
fix it. Oh, well, it saved some money to write that down as 729
days. But think about $51 billion and what we could do with that. We
are talking about priorities here.

Fiscal responsibility is also about making sure down the line that
these

[[Page S1185]]

priorities are right. Do we want a budget that offers tax giveaways to
the wealthiest or a budget that provides relief to middle-class
families squeezed by rising costs for health care, housing, energy,
college tuition, childcare and care for aging parents?
Do we want a budget that gives lucrative special favors to the giant
oil and pharmaceutical companies, or a budget that invests in our
future prosperity, such as research and development on renewable
energy?
Do we want a budget that continues to spend $12 billion a month in
Iraq or a budget that provides our veterans with the help they need;
that makes sure we have the money we need to keep our troops there for
the focused purpose of guarding our embassy and training police and
having them there for special forces; and money for the COPS program--
that $596 million it would cost to restore that? That is about homeland
security.
I want to see an administration that aims for fiscal responsibility
by reversing or rolling back these tax cuts for the wealthiest
Americans--people making over $200,000.
I want to see an administration that aims for fiscal responsibility
by eliminating offshore tax havens for multimillionaires so people
aren't hiding money in the Cayman Islands.
I want an administration that aims for fiscal responsibility by
ending the tax breaks and giveaways that have been handed out year
after year to the big oil companies.
I want to see an administration that aims for fiscal responsibility
by allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prices for prescription
drugs for our seniors.
The President's budget does not provide the new priorities and the
new solutions America needs. Instead, it continues to take us down the
wrong path. This budget is only the most recent example of an
administration that is putting its head in the sand and ignoring the
reality of the looming economic recession.
As the housing market is crumbling, and millions of families are
expected to lose their homes in the next couple of years, the
administration seems to hope this problem will go away. This is why I
have cosponsored the Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Act, and I am
committed to working with my Senate colleagues on a bipartisan basis to
pass this bill to help keep our families in their homes and get the
middle class back on their feet. Across the country, we are seeing
families struggling to keep their homes. If something isn't done, over
2 million families will lose that struggle in the next 2 years.
Through a pilot project conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank in
Minneapolis, we have been able to track by ZIP Code all of the
outstanding subprime mortgages in our State. This data is a startling
reminder that we are seeing only the beginning of this crisis if we
don't do anything about it. By being able to track the reset dates of
all the subprime mortgages in Minnesota, the study shows thousands of
mortgages resetting to higher interest rates monthly, causing more and
more families to fall behind on their payments. Congress must act
quickly if we are going to curb any effects of the housing crisis.
In my home county, where I was chief prosecutor of Hennepin County,
we have seen an 82-percent increase in sheriff sales of foreclosed
homes. The problem extends to greater Minnesota. We have seen the
foreclosures double in some of our urban areas. We have seen 3 out of
100 households--3 out of 100 households--that are in foreclosure.
Something must be done to help these families. I have met them. These
are not just statistics and numbers; these are real families living in
the State of Minnesota. This is why I believe we need to pass the
Foreclosure Prevention Act and why I believe we need to reprioritize
what is happening in this country--$12 billion a month in Iraq, with no
end in sight, and some people saying we are going to stay there for 100
years, while these families are losing their homes, while our veterans
are still not getting a fair shake.
This bill, the Foreclosure Prevention Act, would give $200 million to
families to counsel them in ways to avoid foreclosure. I will put that
chart up again showing an example of these priorities. This is for
people making over $1 million a year--people making over $1 million a
year. Here is our $51 billion. Think of this mortgage counseling. It is
a proven way to work here. It would be only $200 million.
Our State finance agencies are in a perfect position to help families
refinance loans, but their hands have been tied by ceilings on the
amount of State-backed mortgage bonds they can use. This bill makes it
easier for them to help find families and rework their mortgages. That
is what we are trying to do. It will not work for every one of these
people. Some we don't want to help. They are not deserving of this.
They maybe speculated on these mortgages to begin with. But many of
these families I have personally met, including the family from Ohio we
saw today here in the Senate. These are hard-working families who were
maybe not told the truth about their mortgage or misled about their
mortgage or the whole mortgage was set up to get them in trouble down
the line, and the mortgage lender goes away and sells it to someone
else, who sells it to someone else, who sells it to someone else, and
pretty soon it doesn't just hurt that family, it hurts the entire
street, and it hurts the entire neighborhood.
This is about getting our priorities right. Yes, it is about the war
in Iraq and an administration that refused to account for the cost,
refused to have a plan to start bringing our troops home, that refuses
to admit we are in financial straits--financial straits they got us
into. Because we must remember, when they came in, we had $200 billion
surpluses, and now we are where we are with this wall of Federal debt.
The American people are tired of this. They want a fair accounting of
what is going on in this country. They want a fair accounting of this
war and a plan to bring our troops home. That is the best thing we can
do for our troops, and that is the best thing we can do for our
country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been listening to the discussion
this afternoon, which is a repeat of a discussion we have heard often
in this Chamber: Who supports our troops; who waves the white flag of
surrender. You know, in the discussion in this Chamber and out on the
Presidential trail, we hear all of those terms, and who is willing to
stick with it and defeat the terrorists with respect to the war on
terror.
Well, let me, if I might, suggest there is a smart way and a tough
way to deal with terrorists, and we are not doing it very effectively,
in my judgment. I want to review for a moment, because we have people
coming to the floor who forget to review where we are, and where we
have been, especially.
In 2001, on September 11, terrorists attacked our country. Following
the attack that killed thousands of innocent Americans--the World Trade
Center, the Pentagon, and a farm field in Pennsylvania--following that
attack, Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida boasted that
they engineered the attack against the American people. They boasted
they engineered the attack against the American people. So the
President says: We are going to have an effort to bring to justice the
terrorists.
Well, it is now 2008. That was 2001. In 2008, our National
Intelligence Estimate, released about 4 months ago, said the greatest
terrorist threat to our country, to our homeland, is the al-Qaida
organization and its leadership, who are now plotting additional
attacks against our country. Our National Intelligence Estimate says
the greatest terrorist threat to our country, 7 years after 9/11, is
the al-Qaida leadership, because they are planning new attacks. They
have reconstituted in a safe and secure hideaway in northern Pakistan.
Those are the words of our National Intelligence Estimate, not my
words--safe, secure. Iraq leadership, Osama bin Laden, still alive 7
years later and creating new training camps, training new terrorists.
So how effective has the war on terror been when the greatest
terrorist threat to our country 7 years after the 9/11 attack, the
greatest terrorist threat is now building and reconstituting in
northern Pakistan? It is reasonable to ask the question: Who took their
eye off the ball? Why has this country, why has our policy not been a
policy to bring to justice Osama bin

[[Page S1186]]

Laden and his al-Qaida leadership? Instead, 7 years later, we are mired
down in a war in Iraq, we have spent nearly two-thirds of $1 trillion
dollars, thousands of American soldiers have died, and we have people
asking us about who waves the white flag of surrender and who supports
our soldiers. That is unbelievable to me.
Let me review a bit. Following 9/11, we had top secret briefings for
Senators and Congressmen--top secret briefings conducted by the head of
the CIA. The Vice President was involved, the head of the National
Security Agency, Condoleezza Rice, was involved. We went to those top
secret briefings. All of us did. We were told things in top secret,
shown classified materials, about what was happening in Iraq. It turns
out that was a foundation for the invasion of Iraq. In fact, it was
presented at the United Nations by Secretary of State Colin Powell. It
turns out most of it was false; wrong on its face.
Let me review it for a moment--the issue of mobile chemical weapons
laboratories in Iraq that threatens our country. Mobile chemical
weapons laboratories in Iraq. You know where that came from? We now
know it came from a single source, through our intelligence
organizations to the American people, to Congress, in top secret
briefings, to the world at the United Nations, a single source: A
fellow who used to drive a taxicab in Baghdad nicknamed ``Curveball''
and widely considered by German authorities as a drunk and a
fabricator.
A single source named Curveball gave this administration the ability
to, in top secret briefings, tell us that Iraq had mobile chemical
weapons laboratories and gave then-Secretary of State Colin Powell the
opportunity to tell the world that Iraq had mobile chemical weapons
laboratories. Turns out it wasn't true.
Will Rogers once said:

It is not what he says he knows that bothers me, it's what
he says he knows for sure that just ain't so.

Curveball. One single source this administration used to tell us that
mobile chemical weapons laboratories in Iraq threatened this country,
and it turns out to have been false, and they should have known it. And
some may have known it, as it was described to us.
The aluminum tubes. The aluminum tubes for the reconstitution of a
nuclear capability in Iraq. Now, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice,
then National Security Adviser, even used the term the specter or the
threat of a nuclear--or I guess she said mushroom cloud on television.
The mushroom cloud. Well, it turns out her office had the information
that a substantial portion of the Government didn't believe the nuclear
tubes that were ordered by the Iraqis were for the purpose of
reconstituting a nuclear capability. Most of that was discredited. The
information in the National Security Adviser's office existed to say
that there were very qualified people in this Government who didn't
believe that.
It turns out none of that was true. The aluminum tube issue was not
true. Those who were telling the world, and in top secret briefings
telling Members of Congress about the threat of the nuclear tubes for
the reconstitution of nuclear capability, had information in their
possession and knew better.
Yellowcake from Niger is another big deal that made it into the
President's address to the Congress in the State of the Union. It turns
out that was based on falsified documents. It is unbelievable.
Maybe we should review the facts a bit. All of this information turns
out to have been false--the information that represented the foundation
on which the administration made the case about the need to invade
Iraq. Well, this country invaded Iraq and had no plans, once the
invasion was complete and the military takeover was complete, on how to
deal with Iraq at that point, and it turned into a civil war.
Saddam Hussein, following that invasion, was captured and executed.
He was hung by his neck until dead. He doesn't exist anymore. The Iraqi
people then voted for a new constitution, and then the Iraqi people
voted to constitute a new government.
So Saddam Hussein was killed, executed, a brutal dictator was
executed by the Iraqi people. They got a new Constitution, they got a
new Government, and then this country, in the context of spending
almost two-thirds of a trillion dollars, this country spent $16 billion
training 350,000 able-bodied Iraqis to be policemen and firefighters
and safety personnel and soldiers. We trained an array of people in
Iraq for security; $16 billion training 350,000 Iraqis, principally for
security, police, and soldier duty.
Now, if the able-bodied people in Iraq who have been trained by this
country are not willing and cannot and will not provide security in
their country, our soldiers cannot stay there forever and do it. We
cannot.
It is interesting to me, and very disappointing to me, that the
President decided: we are going to invade Iraq, but we are not going to
pay for it. Every single penny we are going to borrow.
So we are going to send soldiers to Iraq and send the bill to the
debt. When the soldiers come back, they can pay the debt.
As I said earlier, it is two-thirds of a trillion dollars now in Iraq
and Afghanistan, all of it emergency, none of it paid for. In my
judgment, that is exactly the wrong thing to have done. We should have
been saying: Yes, we will ask soldiers to sacrifice. If that is what we
ask our soldiers to do, we will ask the American people to reach a
similar sacrifice. But this President would not do that.
So we come now to a position where we have been in Iraq longer than
we were engaged in the Second World War and we have folks who come to
the Senate Chamber and we have folks out on the campaign trail saying:
Who is going to wave the white flag of surrender?
Some say we are going to stay in Iraq forever, 100 years. Others look
at a Taj Mahal that has been built in Iraq, nearly $800 million for an
embassy in Iraq, the largest embassy in the world by far, and they
think they know, as a result of that, how long some intend for us to
stay in Iraq.
But we cannot do that. Let me mention one other addition. On top of
all the things I have described--basically the false foundation of
information on which this country made a decision to go to war--on top
of all that, with this money we have spent, there has been the greatest
amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in the history of this country and
nobody seems to care very much.
Let me tell a couple stories: $85,000 trucks on the side of the road
in Iraq, because they had a flat tire and no wrench to fix it, so they
torched it, burned it. It does not matter, the American taxpayer is
paying for it because big companies got sweetheart, no-bid, cost-plus
contracts. Got a flat tire, torch the truck. Got a plugged fuel pump,
it does not matter, torch the truck.
I mean, the stories are unbelievable. You got two builders to provide
ice. The Haliburton Company is going to select between two bidders to
provide ice. One is seven times more than the other bid. Well, pick the
contract that costs seven times more than the other because the
taxpayer is picking up the tab.
They buy little hand towels for the troops, because Haliburton has to
do that. Well, they do not want to buy ordinary hand towels for the
troops, they want their logo embroidered on the hand towels, KBR, the
subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and Root. Well, that is going to increase the
cost of the hand towels triple, quadruple. It does not matter; the
taxpayer is going to pay the bill.
Do you want to know where there are 50,000 pounds of nails, 25 tons
of nails? They are on the sands in Iraq. They ordered them. They were
too short. What do you do with 50,000 pounds of nails that are too
short? You throw them away because the taxpayer is going to pick it up.
You just order the right size.
This is the most unbelievable story that is yet to be told about the
greatest waste, fraud, and abuse in the history of this country. There
is a lot to talk about.
We are going to have a hearing in the Senate Appropriations
Committee. I have held 12 hearings in the policy committee on these
issues. We are going to hold more. I have to run to a meeting. But I
did want to come and talk a bit. I did not have the opportunity to
describe who is it that is supporting America's soldiers and what is

[[Page S1187]]

it that does support our fighting men and women? We send them off to
war.
There is going to be a Medal of Honor, by the way, awarded next
Monday at 2:30 in the White House to a man who died 26 years ago, a
Sioux Indian named Woody Keeble. I hope perhaps to come over tomorrow
and tell the story of Woody Keeble. There are soldiers who have given
so much for this country.
Woody Keeble had 85 pieces of lead in his body when he finished what
he did. He was still alive.
But these folks then go to war and do what they do and come back
home. And then the question is: Who stands up for our soldiers? Who
stands up for our veterans? Who is willing to stand here and say we
will keep our promise for veterans health care? Who does that?
There is a lot to say. I regret I have a commitment that I have to be
at in the majority leader's office, but I would like tomorrow to come
back and speak at greater length about a remarkable American who on
Monday will be recognized by President Bush, a North Dakotan from
Wahpeton, ND, Standing Rock, the Wahpeton-Sisseton Sioux Tribe. He will
be recognized as the first Sioux Indian in this country's history to
receive the Medal of Honor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief
comments in response to my eloquent colleague from North Dakota. The
rhetoric he utilizes has been used for a long time.
We have heard this rhetoric before each one of our evaluations of the
way ahead in Iraq. And we have each time concluded that our national
interests call on us to remain active and strong in Iraq and active and
strong against terrorism around the world.
I would note, to remind everyone, every intelligence agency in the
world thought weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq when the war
began. In fact, Saddam Hussein did not seriously deny that these
weapons existed. Saddam denied the U.N. inspectors the right to look
for WMD, even though he had agreed to do so after suing for peace in
1991. At that time, after he had invaded Kuwait, we agreed not to take
Baghdad and grab him by the scruff of the neck. He agreed he would
allow his country to be inspected by the United Nations.
He did not do that. He systematically violated 13 U.N. resolutions.
As the well-known magazine, The Economist, said: We either have to give
up and let Saddam break the embargo or we have to fight? They said: We
believe we should fight.
That, I suggest, is the fundamental reason we had to authorize the
President to use force. A lot more can be said about it, but those were
some of the things we were considering at the time. I would note also
that an official commission report concluded that, while U.S. forces
did not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Saddam Hussein
planned to work his way out from under the sanctions and to
reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction.
That has been clearly established. Most of us were surprised we did
not find nuclear or chemical weapons in Iraq. I have to tell you, I was
surprised. In 1991, when we had the first Gulf War to repulse Iraq,
which had invaded Kuwait, we discovered that Iraq's nuclear program was
far more advanced than we had previously thought. That is indisputable.
We know that after 1991, and before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Saddam
had utilized weapons of mass destruction, poison gas, against the Kurds
of Iraq, killing thousands of his own people. How could he not have
weapons of mass destruction? It still remains baffling to me that we
did not find them.
So I wish to rebut this old rhetoric that somehow President Bush lied
to get us into the war. We spent months discussing this and debating
all the issues. We had private briefings. We knew basically everything
the President knew. And what we knew was the CIA Director George Tenet,
who had been appointed by President Clinton, told the President of the
United States: It was a slam dunk; that weapons of mass destruction
existed in Iraq.
That is the kind of information that the President acted on. He was
not lying to the American people. This Senate authorized the President
to use force in Iraq by a more than three-fourths majority vote. A
majority of both parties, a majority of the Democratic Senators, a
majority of the Republican Senators voted to authorize the President to
use force in Iraq. And that is how we got here.
So the question is: What do we do now? This is a great Nation. We are
not some fly-by-night bunch who can change our minds every time the
poll numbers change. We have responsibilities to our Nation, to our
allies. We have committed our men and women to harm's way. We have lost
a large number of American soldiers to execute a policy we sent them to
execute.
I have to tell you, we lost far fewer in the initial invasion than I
imagined, but have lost far more than I imagined in the post-invasion
period. Things are never quite certain in war, however.
People who fight you and desire to kill you usually do not want to be
killed themselves. Military action is a tough thing and always causes
us to remember we should avoid it whenever we possibly can. It should
be a last resort. It is only acceptable when we have no real other
alternative.
I do not believe the Lord is happy when his children fight and kill
one another. It cannot be a good thing. It is a bad thing. Sometimes,
because we are so flawed and we have options that are so grim, military
action becomes the best decision that can be made under the
circumstances. I think that is where we were in 2003 when it came to
the Iraq debate.
In the fall of 2006, in an election that came during one of the worst
periods of time in Iraq, the Republicans lost control of both Houses of
Congress. The President's polling numbers were terrible. The following
summer we had a national debate about whether to allow General Petraeus
to continue the surge. We had a commission that General Jones headed,
with 15 members. I asked him at the hearing: General Jones, do you and
the members of your commission believe we have a chance to be
successful if we execute this surge? He said: I do. He looked around.
Any of the other members want to rebut what I have said or have a
different opinion? Not a single one did.
That commission unanimously reported that they thought we could be
successful. We had General Petraeus testify, and we had the GAO issue a
report in September after the surge had actually begun.
We noticed some progress. But it was premature to see that as a
sustained trend. We knew that. And we continued again at that time to
allow the surge to go forward. We believed things were going to get
better. That was my conclusion after hearing everyone's opinion.
I remember asking General Petraeus: Sir, will you tell us the truth,
the good and bad? And he committed in private and in public to do that.
Will you give us your best judgment? Will you let us know if you
think this is not an acceptable, feasible action in Iraq; that we need
to acknowledge that we can't be successful? He made that commitment.
So what has happened since? We sent five additional brigades into
Iraq as part of the surge. Three have already returned to the United
States. The other two are planned to be returned by summer. We will be
at or possibly below the 15 combat brigades that we had in Iraq before
the surge.
General Casey was asked today in the Armed Services Committee about
that plan and whether it meant we could move from having our soldiers
on 15-month deployments to 12 month deployments. He said: When we get
back to 15 brigades--and at this time we are projected to be there by
July--he believed then that we could go back to a 1-year rotation
instead of the longer 15-month rotation. 15 month rotations have been
so painful to our military personnel and their families. That is a long
time. We need to keep it to 12 months if we possibly can.
We are anticipating three reports in April. General Petraeus will
come, as he promised, to give us a report on the status of Iraq and
what he thinks about our future military commitment and soldier
strength there. We will also receive a report from the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and a report from Admiral Fallon, the CENTCOM commander who has
Iraq the rest of the Middle East

[[Page S1188]]

under his command. We will have those three reports in April. That is
the time for us to begin to evaluate again what our next step will be.
General Petraeus has said that we need to be careful to consolidate
the gains we have made, to help the Iraqi people and government move to
a more stable footing for the long term. If we were to pass the
Feingold legislation, it would be a slap in the face to our commander
on the ground who is absolutely one of the finest generals this Nation
has ever produced. It would be unthinkable that we would, in a time of
great success, reject the commander's recommendations and the
military's recommendations after we took their recommendations when
things were not good a year ago. We were worried a year ago. There was
cause for legitimate concern. I do not deny it. But, goodness sakes, we
have had some success in recent months.
The military estimates that attacks against coalition forces and
Iraqi forces and Iraqi civilians have collectively fallen by 60 percent
against Iraq since June of last year. Iraqi Army estimates put the
number as high as an 80-percent reduction. In June there were almost
1,700 IED explosions across Iraq. That number fell to 600 in December.
While one U.S. combat death is so serious that we are not able to
articulate the gravity of it, we are seeing, I am pleased to say, a
major reduction in casualties among our troops and Iraqi troops. It is
quite remarkable. December of 2007 was the second lowest combat death
total of the war for American forces behind May of 2003. January and
February of this year have shown comparably low death rates. That is
something for which we can be thankful. Every single life is important.
But we have to understand that when we commit troops to combat, there
are going to be casualties. Having a good movement in the right
direction is a cause for confidence, not a basis to cut and run.
From January to December of 2007, sectarian attacks and death among
Iraqis in the Baghdad area decreased by 90 percent. I want to just say,
we should be skeptical of these numbers when we hear them just one
time. Are the trends sustained? How accurate are these facts? Those are
legitimate questions for members of Congress to ask.
When I see soldiers in the Atlanta airport--most of them are on their
R&R or coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan--I speak to them about
their experiences. I spend a lot of time in the Atlanta airport, more
than I like. I ask them how things are going. And I am hearing, from
them, information that directly confirms the reports we are getting.
Just this month, a soldier I met was saying he worked at a base in
Iraq. He said they used to take incoming rounds against the base
throughout the day every day. Now they go days without any attacks.
Another soldier told me things were getting boring. Every morning they
used to meet. There would be some emergency, some serious challenge
they had to address. Now when they meet, they can go weeks without
anything serious happening. These observations are from sergeants,
enlisted people, junior officers. It confirms, I will just say to you,
the information we are receiving.
How has this success happened? What has occurred? The ranks of Sunni
volunteers who have chosen in recent months to switch sides and turn
against al-Qaida as members of local citizen councils have grown to
more than 91,000, according to statistics from the U.S. military. The
Sunnis, who are the minority group in Iraq, used to run Iraq under
Saddam Hussein. They have been taken from power. They were strong
Baathists. They were attracted to al-Qaida and their false promises.
Many, though not most, were in cahoots with al-Qaida. They have now
rejected al-Qaida. Whole tribal regions have publicly renounced them.
They said they don't care about their people. They try to run their
neighborhoods. They are corrupt. They don't support them. And 91,000
have joined local citizens councils part of the awakening, they call
it, to turn against al-Qaida.
Sunnis are turning these guys in. Most al-Qaida are foreigners. They
don't live in Iraq. So the Sunnis know who they are. The Sunni folks
know them. Once they turned on al-Qaida, we have seen a dramatic change
in the Sunni areas.
Shia groups, citizens councils are growing around the country as
well. More and more the people are getting tired of murderous killers
and religiously driven extremists. They realize this is no foundation
on which to build their future. Three critical laws have been passed.
Critics say: We have to have laws passed. Surely we do, although the
President and all the masters of the universe in America, I guess,
determined that we would pass an immigration law. They said we had to
do it. We had to have this program, this amnesty. They were going to
ram it right through here. It failed flatter than a fritter. So just
saying a bill needs to be passed in a democratic parliamentary
situation doesn't mean that is so easy to be done.
Three critical laws were passed by the Iraqi Parliament on February
13 of this year. They enacted a $48 billion budget for 2008. They
granted amnesty to thousands of Sunni detainees and passed a provincial
power law defining the relationship between the central government and
provinces. These last two were on the list of benchmarks demanded by
Congress.
Last fall when General Petraeus was here, the critics of the war
said: You are not meeting these benchmarks. We are not interested in
the military side. We are only interested in the political side. Well,
we are making some progress now in the political area. In one sense
things are even better than they appear on the political side because,
throughout the region, reconciliation has been undertaken, and
Baathists have been accepted back into Government positions, even in
the absence of a national law. The oil money was and is being fairly
distributed, even though they haven't agreed on an absolute firm legal
formula for distribution of revenues.
Last Friday, February 22, the Shiite cleric, Moqtada al Sadr, who
controls the Mahdi army, instructed his followers to extend their
cease-fire against the Sunnis and the Americans for another 6 months.
This is a big deal. The Sunnis have come around and now al Sadr, with
the Shia, has also recommended that his followers continue their cease-
fire.
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, with whom I have met in Iraq,
said this last week:

We are indeed seeing the signs of that political surge.
Putting all of that together would have been just unthinkable
6 months ago.

Let me say this Feingold bill would be disastrous if it were passed.
It would cut off funding after 120 days for any missions not approved
by Senator Feingold and politicians in Washington. It would replace the
deployment decisions and recommendations of General Petraeus with
political decisions. Some, I guess, who are in the moveon.org camp
think General Petraeus is a betrayer. That is what they put in an ad in
the paper last year. I say he is one of the best generals we have had.
He has had a remarkable tenure of success in Iraq.
The Feingold bill would forbid us from training any members of
neighborhood councils that have sprung up under the Sunni awakening,
unless we could certify that they had never been involved in sectarian
violence or in attacks upon the U.S. Armed Forces. Well, we want them
on our side. I don't know what motivated them at one point or another
to oppose the United States. But if they have made a decision, as a lot
of Sunnis clearly have, to switch sides, to turn in al-Qaida, to kill
al-Qaida, isn't that good enough? Why shouldn't we welcome them back
into the fold of the Iraqi Government and give them a chance?
We have to be careful. In fact, I think the State Department and the
military are too naive in their belief that the prisoners we now have
in custody can be released in the interests of reconciliation. Many of
these, I am afraid, are just killers and murderers and thugs. Releasing
too many of these people can create violence in the community. I don't
doubt that some have had a change of heart because many have. But we
have to be careful about how many of these prisoners we release.
This bill would prevent us from attacking terrorists or sectarian
militias unless we can be sure that the targets are ``members of al
Qaeda and affiliated international terrorist organizations.''

[[Page S1189]]

How is this supposed to work in practice, let me ask? Will we ask al-
Qaida to wear special hats or badges or uniforms so we can distinguish
them from simple local terrorists?
The likely consequences of this legislation would be renewed
sectarian violence, expanded ``breathing room'' for al-Qaida and other
terrorist groups, and decreased possibilities for political
reconciliation. It would create major political instability in Iraq.
The frequently referenced final report of the Iraq Study Group
described, in grim detail, the results of an American decision to
abandon Iraq:

Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for
catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United
States in initiating events that have led to the current
situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States
to abandon the country through a precipitous withdrawal of
troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq
would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and
further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of
the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term
results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human
suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the
global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a
historic victory.
If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range
consequences could eventually require the United States to
return.

This was a serious evaluation by serious men and women who have
studied this area in depth. I do not think anybody can deny that this
is a realistic description of what would occur if we were to pass the
Feingold bill.
Well, Mr. President, I see others here who want to talk, and it looks
as though we will have more time tomorrow. I say to my fine colleague
from Florida, I enjoy serving with him, as he is chairman of our
Strategic Subcommittee in Armed Services.
I conclude by saying, we are a great nation. We made some tough
decisions. We went through a full debate last summer. We decided to
give General Petraeus a chance. We gave him a chance. We supported the
surge in a bipartisan vote. We sent the money. We sent him the
resources to carry out the surge. It has been successful beyond
anything we could have imagined at the time. And now, to undertake a
precipitous withdrawal, directly contrary to his opinion as to what
should be done to help continue to secure Iraq, would be unthinkable.
No great nation should flip-flop around like that, certainly not the
United States of America.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to make sure I have in
the Record why I had opposed the motion to invoke cloture on the motion
to proceed to the Feingold bill, S. 2633.
This Senator is certainly for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq. But the
Feingold bill has a considerable pitfall because it starts the
withdrawal within a certain period of time and cuts off the funding
with the exception of allowing funding, for example--I am going to
read--for ``Conducting targeted operations, limited in duration and
scope, against members of al Qaeda and affiliated international
terrorist organizations.''
In other words, the Feingold bill would allow funding to continue to
conduct operations against al-Qaida, but only ``limited in duration and
scope.'' I do not think we ought to limit the ability of the U.S.
Government to go after al-Qaida in Iraq.
Furthermore, this clause in the Feingold bill would allow funding to
go not only against al-Qaida, ``limited in duration and scope,'' but
also against ``affiliated international terrorist organizations.'' The
word ``affiliated'' means affiliated to al-Qaida.
There are a bunch of other terrorist organizations in the world we
want to go after, and this limitation of funding would be only for
those affiliated with al-Qaida. I do not want the Government of the
United States limited in its ability to go after al-Qaida and then only
those other terrorist organizations affiliated with al-Qaida.
I have voted against the motion to invoke cloture. There seemed to be
only about a dozen of us who voted against that motion to invoke
cloture. As we proceed, I will certainly, if we get to the bill, try to
amend that portion; otherwise, I will certainly be constrained to have
to vote against this bill.
Mr. President, I have another matter I will bring up at another time.
I will let the debate proceed on this Feingold bill, so I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, it is suggested we should not be
discussing Iraq. Well, the last time I checked, the majority leader
sets the agenda. The majority leader brought up Iraq, and if he wants
to bring up Iraq, we can discuss Iraq.
I too am wondering why it is being brought up because we have other
important issues we could be dealing with. For example, I wish to see
the Congress turn its attention to a pro-growth economic package, a
discussion of how we can help this economy move. I think once we have
that opportunity to debate, we will have a good, principled exchange of
ideas here.
My suspicion is that from the other side of the aisle we will hear a
number of expensive spending proposals, and from our side of the aisle
we will hear a different agenda, an agenda that says we want a bigger,
bolder, broader pro-growth economic agenda so we can move this economy
in a more positive direction.
Part of that would have to do with lower tax rates for individuals,
such as to permanently reduce the dividend, capital gains, and estate
tax rates to 15 percent. Part of it would be to lower corporate tax
rates, reducing the capital gains tax for corporations from 35 percent
to 25 percent so our companies in America can compete in the world.
Part of it would be indexing the capital gains tax for inflation so
that double taxation of capital would at least reflect inflation. Part
of it would be something that many Members of this Chamber have talked
about for a long time: a simpler, flatter tax, giving taxpayers the
option of filing a 1-page return with a 17-percent flat tax rate.
I wish to see--and I plan to introduce within the next few days--
legislation that would make permanent the expensing provisions for
small business that we passed in a bipartisan way before the recess in
the pro-growth package to help stimulate the economy. Those provisions
increased the small business expensing limits and allowed a 50 percent
bonus depreciation.

Now it is not unusual to hear Republicans talking about lower tax
rates. But that is only a part of--a part of--what we would propose if
our debate were here for a pro-growth economic package. I wish to see
us bring up Senator Isakson's proposal, which would create a $5,000-a-
year, 3-year tax credit for buyers of foreclosed or new homes to get
buyers back in the marketplace.
I wish to see us begin to more seriously implement the America
COMPETES Act. That is part of a pro-growth agenda as well. We worked
hard in this Chamber across party lines for 2 years to advance
legislation to increase our nation's competitiveness in the global
economy. The President made a priority of it. He said we ought to have
an 18 percent increase in funding for the physical sciences in this
year's budget. We should talk about that and make a commitment to make
room in the budget for that so we can double funding in the physical
sciences over the next 5 years so we can keep our brainpower advantage
so our jobs will not go overseas.
As one Senator, I want to see that we continue to in-source
brainpower for new jobs by pinning a green card on the lapel of every
foreign student who earns a degree in science, technology, engineering,
or mathematics from a U.S. university, and who is legally here and
passes a background check. We could have a good debate here in the
Chamber about whether it is a good idea to do that. I think it is.
We have 570,000-something foreign students here. Why would we attract
the brightest people in the world to study here and make them promise
to go home and create new jobs in India and in China? Let's create them
here.
We could make the research and development tax credit permanent. We
could have a full-day debate about how to improve our schools. I see
the Senator from New Hampshire is in the Chamber; he was one of the
principal authors of the No Child Left Behind Act. There is a provision
in that legislation which is called the Teacher Incentive Fund. It
tackles one of the most difficult problems in American education. How
do you reward outstanding teaching? Well, you cannot do

[[Page S1190]]

it from Washington. But you can fund it from Washington, so in
Philadelphia and in Phoenix and in Memphis school leaders and teachers
are part of plans where you pay them more for leading well and pay them
more for teaching well.
I did that in Tennessee in 1983 when I was Governor. Mr. President,
10,000 teachers went up a career ladder. As soon as I left, its
opponents killed it. But teacher after teacher comes back to me saying
they wish it were still there. Every time we have a hearing on
education, we hear the need to keep and attract outstanding teachers.
We could talk about and debate--and I am sure we would debate--Pell
Grants for Kids. Why not give vouchers to poor kids so they can go to
some of the schools that people with money go to?
Why not go ahead and implement the provisions in the America COMPETES
Act for adding 10,000 math and science teachers, and give a million and
a half more low-income children the opportunity to take Advanced
Placement tests?
If we want to talk about growing the economy, we can do that. We
could talk about stopping runaway lawsuits and enacting small business
health plans. We can talk about lower energy costs. We can talk about
lowering the cost of Government. Or we can talk about Iraq.
I have been one of those who, over time, has had some difference of
opinion with the President on Iraq. I thought he should have embraced
the Iraq Study Group plan as soon as it came out: Put Secretary Baker,
Congressman Hamilton, and the other members of the Iraq Study Group up
there in the Gallery and honor them and accept their suggestions.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a brief
statement?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would be glad to yield to the
majority leader.

Order Of Business

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I just finished a conversation with the
Republican leader. We have decided it is to the interest of everyone we
have no more votes tonight, so everyone should understand that. We will
be out tomorrow to decide what we are going to do after Senator
McConnell and I have a chance to get together in the morning.
No more votes tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader.
Mr. President, I would say that last year I thought I had succeeded
in doing something that no one else had been able to do. I unified
President Bush and Senator Reid on Iraq in their opposition to our Iraq
Study Group legislation. But my point is that while I have been one on
this side of the aisle who wishes the President had taken a different
tact, I think in all honesty we are talking about how things have
changed in Iraq.

If we look at the Iraq Study Group recommendations, what were they?
First, transition of mission. Let's shift our military forces out of
direct combat and into roles of supporting, training, and equipping
Iraqi forces as security conditions on the ground permit. That is
happening. It is happening province by province. That wasn't foreseen
quite as clearly by the authors of the Iraq Study Group report. I am
not sure any of us saw it. General Petraeus was wise enough to see it.
He is helping Iraq have a transition of mission of U.S. forces from
mainly combat to mainly support, training, and equipping. But the Iraq
Study Group itself, while it set a goal for that shift of mission,
explicitly rejected the idea of a deadline. As the Senator from Alabama
said earlier, it explicitly rejected the idea of a deadline.
The second recommendation of the Iraq Study Group was that we
maintain a long term, but diminishing, presence in Iraq, with an
emphasis on diminishing. That is happening. Troops are coming out
instead of troops going in. Now, they are not coming out as rapidly as
many had hoped, but they are coming out. They are coming out in the
spirit of the Iraq Study Group report--not as rapidly as the report
originally recommended, but as quickly as conditions on the ground will
now permit. The limited mission the Iraq Study Group envisioned, in
addition to supporting Iraqi forces, includes protection of coalition
forces, counterterrorism operations, border security, intelligence-
sharing, supporting provisional reconstruction teams, and search and
rescue.
Finally, the Iraq Study Group urged that we undertake a new
diplomatic offensive, that we step up regional and diplomatic efforts
to press others in the region to help Iraq succeed. Well, that has been
happening. It may not be happening as rapidly as everyone in the
Chamber would like, but these efforts are well underway, with a more
expansive United Nations mission. But higher profile efforts are also
needed, including by the President.
So I would not stand here and say that the Iraq Study Group
legislation that Senator Salazar and I introduced--supported by eight
Democrats and eight Republicans, and which we unsuccessfully urged the
President and this body to adopt a year ago--I would not say we should
do that today. But I would say as one Senator that I believe that is
the direction in which we are moving, and the Iraq Study Group has made
a significant contribution to that effort. I, frankly, believe the
bipartisan approach here by those 16 Senators also helped move us in
that direction.
Now, Senator Feingold's proposal and the Iraq Study Group
recommendations are at odds. In the first place, the Feingold
legislation sets a 120-day deadline for changing the mission of our
forces in Iraq and requiring a massive withdrawal. The bipartisan Iraq
Study Group specifically opposed such a deadline, saying that
transition should be, as I said, subject to unexpected developments in
the security situation on the ground.
The Feingold amendment and the Iraq Study Group differ in another
way: the continuing mission for the troops. My reading of the Feingold
bill says that it would prevent American troops from being embedded
with Iraqi forces, from securing Iraqi borders, from fighting
terrorists who aren't known to be affiliated with al-Qaida, and
performing various intelligence operations. Those missions are all
supported by the Iraq Study Group. It is part of our long term, but
diminishing, role in Iraq.
As has been noted today, this is not a new subject for the Senate. We
have had perhaps three dozen votes on Iraq last year. Perhaps we should
have that many votes. What else is more important than Iraq? But at
some point, we have come to a conclusion, and I think on the issue of
the Feingold bill, this body, by a large majority, has already
expressed itself. There were four previous votes on similar--not
exactly the same but similar--funding cut and withdrawal proposals
offered by Senator Feingold. Those were on December 18, 2007, and 71
Senators voted against that Feingold amendment. Then, on October 3,
2007, 68 Senators voted against that Feingold amendment. Then, on
September 20, 2007, 70 Senators voted against that Feingold amendment.
Then, on May 16, 2007, 67 Senators voted against that Feingold
amendment.
We have 100 Senators, and 49 of us are Republicans. Not all of us
agree on Iraq. So that meant that a substantial number of Democrats
consistently voted against those Feingold amendments.
So I know Senator Feingold is sincere and passionate in his beliefs,
but it would seem to me that four votes are enough on this subject,
and--as important as it is--we could turn our attention to other
issues. But if the majority leader, for whatever reason, feels a need
to bring this issue to the floor of the Senate, then we are ready to
talk about it.
We are not all of one mind here, even on the Republican side. We have
some on this side of the aisle who said when the Iraq Study Group
report came out that it was a recipe for surrender. I disagreed with
that and said so publicly and said so privately to the President. He
was good enough to hear me out one-on-one. I find him to be a very good
listener.
I, for one, am enormously impressed with General Petraeus's
counterinsurgency strategy. I, like most of us, have had a chance to go
to Iraq--in my case, two times to Iraq, and three times to Kuwait. I
have had a chance last year in August to visit with General Petraeus
and General Odierno and to go into the outskirts of Baghdad and to see
an area where our soldiers were in camp and to have dinner with a group

[[Page S1191]]

of sheiks. One of the sheiks' sons had been murdered in his front yard,
and they were fed up with the al-Qaida terrorists and were convinced
that because the American forces were there, that the Iraqis could risk
their lives by teaming with the American forces to run the terrorists
out of town, which in many places they have done.

I still think it would have been better for our troops and it would
send a clear message to the enemy if we had, as an administration and
as a Congress, embraced the Iraq Study Group Report because it said
basically what we are doing today. It said we need to change direction.
We need to, No. 1, shift our mission, which we are doing. It
specifically embraced the idea of a surge, if that was necessary. It
rejected the idea of a specific deadline and said it should be subject
to developments on the ground. It said we should identify a long-term
but diminishing presence in Iraq, which we have been doing as a
country. The Iraq Study Group Report said also that we should step up
our diplomatic efforts. Its goal--not its binding effect but its goal--
was that all of its recommendations could be accomplished more rapidly
than has been done. That is true. But at the same time, it recognized
that it was all subject to security developments on the ground.
So when we have a success--or it may be more accurate to say a series
of small successes in a difficult arena such as Iraq--when we have
military leadership such as General Petraeus and his team who have
stuck to a new counterinsurgency strategy--at least new to Iraq that
took our forces out of the Green Zone and placed them on the
outskirts--when we have done that, then I think we ought to recognize
that for what it is.
I am glad to have this opportunity to talk about Iraq and the
progress we are making there. I hope we can make more there. I would
like for more of our Tennesseans to come home. In the National Guard
alone, we have had more than 10,000 Tennesseans in Iraq, some for a
year, some twice, some three times. They are our uncles, and they are
our aunts. They are our neighbors, our deputy sheriffs, the mayor of
Lexington, the postmaster from Robbinsville. They have mortgages. They
have kids. Ninety have died, 90 Tennesseans in this period of time. So
it is good to have this discussion. If the majority leader wants to
bring it up, we should. But I think at the same time we ought to
recognize it for what it is. We have changed direction. The troops are
coming out instead of going in. The mission is shifting. The role is
diminishing. It will be there for a long time, and the diplomatic
effort is stepped up. If that is succeeding, then our country is
succeeding, and we can spend more time on other issues.

Tornadoes in Tennessee

Now, if I may--I see the Senator from Florida may be wanting to
speak, and if he would indulge me another 3 or 4 minutes, I wish to
discuss what has happened in Tennessee with tornadoes in the last
couple of weeks.
On the night of February 5, tornadoes began to hit Memphis at about 6
o'clock. While many people were watching the Tennessee-Florida
basketball game safely in their homes, a tornado touched down in Macon
County, TN, and stayed on the ground for 21 miles. More than two dozen
people were killed.
Prior to that, it hit in Jackson, TN, nearly wiping out Union
University. Fortunately, at Union University, president David Dockery
had conducted drills, and the students had enough warning to get to the
safest places in their dormitories, and no one was killed there. That
was not by accident; it was because of good leadership. It was also
because of a good early-warning system.
The point of my remarks tonight is that we sometimes hear in
connection with disasters--particularly since Hurricane Katrina--that
our disaster response system and our emergency response system isn't as
good as it should be. I can't speak to every case, but over the last 30
years, as Governor for some years and in the Cabinet for 2 years and
now in the Senate, I have seen a lot of disasters and tragedies. I have
never seen an example where the local officials, the Governor of the
State, and the President of the United States acted more rapidly, more
effectively, or more humanely.
The Governor, Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, was on the
scene immediately. He gathered all of his information--not too rapidly
because he knows it needs to be accurate--and he had it to President
Bush on the night of February 7 at about 7 p.m. By 10 p.m. President
Bush had approved it--had called the Governor and approved individual
and public assistance for five of the hardest hit counties. The
Governor then went on to commit that the State would pay half of the
local share of the disaster aid that needs to be paid.
I went with the President and Congressman Gordon and Senator Corker
to the Macon County area on the Friday after it hit. I visited Jackson
last week. What I found was that FEMA has already received 3,700
applications from 14 approved counties. FEMA has distributed $1.9
million in 14 counties. The first small business loan was approved on
the day I was there.
I visited those whose homes were blown away. It is a terrifying
thought that in just 60 seconds everything is demolished. You don't
know where to hide. But I also visited with the emergency responding
team and a couple whose home was hit in Jackson, TN. They were told via
the television at 6 o'clock that the tornado was coming, and they were
told 10 minutes before it hit their house that if they lived on the
north side of the interstate, the tornado would be there in 10 minutes,
and it was. That was the kind of early warning system they had. And in
Macon County, a tornado that hit at 9:30 at night has been anticipated.
By midnight, FEMA personnel from Atlanta were at the Tennessee border
at Chattanooga. And by 7 a.m. the next morning, disaster recovery
centers were set up in Macon County.

I wish to express my admiration, first, for the local officials for
doing a first-rate job; second, to FEMA and TEMA, the Tennessee
emergency management professionals who were there on the spot; third,
to Governor Bredesen who could not have done a better, more thorough,
more sensitive job; and fourth, to the President and the Washington
officials who were on the ball.
It is important occasionally to find the good and praise it in
Government service, and in this case, I believe--well, I know--every
single person I talked with in the west Tennessee area or the Macon
County area felt as if the Governor, the President, and the local
officials were doing everything they could to be helpful, and they were
deeply grateful for it.
I yield the floor.
<bullet> Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly oppose, as I have
before, the legislation offered by the Senator from Wisconsin.
This bill would mandate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq
and cut off funds for our troops 120 days after enactment. The one
exception would be for a small force authorized only to carry out
narrowly defined missions. If this latest attempt sounds familiar, it
should--the majority has thus far engaged in no less than 40
legislative attempts to achieve this misguided outcome. And, just like
the 40 votes that preceded this one, the result of this effort will
undoubtedly be the same.
The reason is clear. To pass such legislation would be to court
disaster, and to set a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. forces
from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the
implications for our national security, would be tantamount to setting
a date for surrender. Should we ignore the signs of real progress in
Iraq and legislate a premature end to our efforts there, the Congress
would be complicit in all the terrible and predictable consequences
that would ensue.
The Senate, in facing this choice time and again over the past year,
has voted against legislated surrender in Iraq. Instead, we have
decided to build on the clear successes of our new strategy and to give
GEN David Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and
support they have requested to carry out their mission. The interests
of America, the future of the Iraqi people, and the stability of the
Middle East are the better for it.
But the Senate has come to this conclusion only after repeated
attempts to do what the proponents of this bill would have us do
today--bring the war in Iraq to a premature and disastrous

[[Page S1192]]

close through legislative fiat. If ever there was a case for
precipitous withdrawal from Iraq--and I believe there never was--now is
the last time anyone should consider such a step. If abandoning Iraq
was a terrible idea when we were unsuccessful in our efforts there, it
is a catastrophic proposal today, when we are winning.
The supporters of withdrawal said in 2007 that the surge could never
work, that extra American brigades could do nothing to bring greater
security to Iraq, that no new counterinsurgency strategy could succeed
in protecting the population. We were losing in Iraq, they said, and
nothing could change that. Some even declared that the war was already
lost.
But they were wrong. As General Petraeus put it in his end of the
year letter to the troops, ``A year ago, Iraq was racked by horrific
violence and on the brink of civil war. Now, levels of violence and
civilian and military casualties are significantly reduced and hope has
been rekindled in many Iraqi communities.'' In fact, the surge has
succeeded well beyond the projections of even most optimists. Let me
cite a few examples.
In Baghdad, ethno-sectarian violence has fallen over 90 percent in a
year. IED attacks in Baghdad are down by 45 percent since February
2007. The specter of civil war in Iraq's capital, a real threat when
the surge began, has retreated significantly. The capital's population
has begun to retake its streets, its schools, and its markets.
The remarkable progress is not confined only to Baghdad. Attacks have
decreased in 17 of 18 provinces in Iraq since the surge began. In the
country as a whole, attacks are down by some 60 percent and stand at
the level experienced in early 2005 or even 2004. Car bombs across Iraq
are down, the number of civilian deaths has fallen, and IED explosions
are down, all by significant margins. Intelligence tips are up,
discovery of weapons and explosive caches has increased, and al-Qaida
is on the run, having been forced by U.S. and Iraqi troops out of the
urban areas like Baghdad, Ramadi, Fallujah, and Baquba and into
isolated rural areas. U.S. casualties, too, have fallen significantly,
even in the midst of ongoing operations.
As GEN Barry McCaffrey put it in a recent report, Iraq is seeing
``dramatically reduced levels of civilian sectarian violence, political
assassinations, abductions, and small arms/indirect fire and IED
attacks on U.S. and Iraqi Police and Army Forces. This is the
unmistakable new reality . . . The national security debate must move
on to an analysis of why this new political and security situation
exists--not whether it exists.''
In the face of such facts, it is beyond perplexing to see the
proponents of this legislation seek not to consolidate our gains and
ensure that they continue but, rather, to force a troop withdrawal that
would reverse all of the achievements I just cited. Understanding what
we now know--that our military is making remarkable progress on the
ground, and that their commanders request from us the time and support
necessary to succeed in Iraq--it is inconceivable that we in Congress
would end this strategy just as it is succeeding.
This is not to say that all is rosy in Iraq. It is not, and neither I
nor our military commanders make any such argument. The cumulative
results of nearly 4 years of mismanaged war cannot be reversed
overnight. Al-Qaida is on the run but has not disappeared, and we can
expect them to fight back. Fighting among Shia factions in the south
presents a significant challenge, and violence and crime remain at
unacceptably high levels in a number of areas. The road in Iraq
remains, as it always has been, long and hard. But this is an argument
for continuing our successful strategy, not for abandoning it in favor
of sure failure.
At some point last year, a few of the proponents of withdrawal from
Iraq began conceding that the surge was having tangible, positive
effects. They went on to argue, however, that securing the population
was irrelevant, as the point of the surge was to see political progress
and there had been none. Yet even while this new debate began,
political progress at the local level took off across Iraq. Tens of
thousands of Iraqis--most of them Sunnis who were, or would have been,
part of the anticoalition insurgency--joined Concerned Local Citizens
groups and aligned themselves with our efforts. Moqtada al-Sadr
announced that the Mahdi army would observe a 6-month ceasefire, a
pledge he renewed just last week for an additional 6 months. In Anbar
and elsewhere, local populations turned to the coalition and against
al-Qaida, turning that province from Iraq's most dangerous into one of
its safest.
In the face of these new facts, supporters of withdrawal changed
their argument yet again. Maybe the surge had brought about greater
security, they said, and perhaps this had helped generate political
progress at the local level, as counterinsurgency doctrine would
suggest. But this was irrelevant, they said, so long as national level
political reconciliation is lacking--and since we can never expect
that, the troops must leave.
Yet they were wrong again. In January, the Iraqi Parliament passed
the long-awaited debaathification law that restores the eligibility of
thousands of former party members for government jobs lost because of
their Baathist affiliation. Earlier this month, a provincial powers law
passed that devolves a significant amount of power to the provinces and
mandates new provincial elections by October 1 of this year. The
Parliament passed a partial amnesty for detainees that can facilitate
reconciliation among the sects, and it completed a landmark 2008
budget.

Again, these significant achievements come coupled with remaining
challenges. Parliament has yet to pass an oil law, though oil revenues
are being shared in its absence; the Maliki government remains
unwilling to function and provide services as it must, and other
difficulties abound. Yet it is telling that in his latest report,
military analyst Anthony Cordesman said, ``No one can spend some 10
days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in
every area . . . If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi
government--in security, governance, and development--there is now a
very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state.''
No one can guarantee success in Iraq or be certain about its
prospects. We can be sure, however, that should the U.S. Congress
succeed in terminating the strategy by legislating an abrupt withdrawal
and a transition to a new, less effective and more dangerous course--
should we do that, then we will fail for certain.
Let us make no mistake about the costs of such an American failure in
Iraq. Should Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it
would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous effort
to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement. If we leave, we
will be back--in Iraq and elsewhere--in many more desperate fights to
protect our security and at an even greater cost in American lives and
treasure.
In his testimony before the Armed Services Committee in September,
General Petraeus referred to an August Defense Intelligence Agency
report that stated, ``. . . a rapid withdrawal would result in the
further release of strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a
number of dangerous results, including a high risk of disintegration of
the Iraqi Security Forces; a rapid deterioration of local security
initiatives; al Qaeda--Iraq regaining lost ground and freedom of
maneuver; a marked increase in violence and further ethno-sectarian
displacement and refugee flows; and exacerbation of already challenging
regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran.''
Those are the likely consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, and I
hope that the supporters of such a move will tell us how they intend to
address the chaos and catastrophe that would surely follow such a
course of action. Should we leave Iraq before there is a basic level of
stability, we invite chaos, genocide, terrorist safehavens and regional
war. We invite further Iranian influence at a time when Iranian
operatives are already moving weapons, training fighters, providing
resources, and helping plan operations to kill American soldiers and
damage our efforts to bring stability to Iraq. If our notions of
national security have any meaning, they cannot include permitting the
establishment of an Iranian dominated Middle East that is roiled

[[Page S1193]]

by wider regional war and riddled with terrorist safehavens.
The supporters of this amendment claim that they do not by any means
intend to cede the battlefield to al-Qaida; on the contrary, their
legislation would allow U.S. forces, presumably holed up in forward
operating bases, to carry out ``targeted operations, limited in
duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and affiliated
international terrorist organizations.'' But such a provision draws a
false distinction between terrorism and sectarian violence, between
counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. Moving in with search and
destroy missions to kill and capture terrorists, only to immediately
cede the territory to the enemy, is the failed strategy of the war's
first 4 years. We should not, and must not, return to such a disastrous
course.
Americans were divided over this war from the beginning, and we
remain so today. All of us want our troops to come home, and to come
home as soon as possible. But how we leave--that is of the utmost
importance. We must not leave, as the supporters of this amendment
would have it, in a way that erodes all the security gains that our
brave men and women have fought so hard to achieve and in a way that
puts us on the road to surrender. The stakes are too high, we have come
too far and sacrificed too much for that. Instead of surrendering, we
should persevere with the pursuit of our strategic objectives: to
defeat al-Qaida, not be defeated by it; to implant in Iraq the forces
of stability and tolerance, not chaos and civil war; to demonstrate
that America keeps its word with its friends and allies, rather than
abandoning them to horrific consequences. The American soldiers we have
sent to battle deserve to return to us with honor--the honor of victory
that is due all of those who have paid with the ultimate sacrifice.
Before I close, I would note that there will be another vote soon on
the motion to proceed to legislation requiring the administration to
develop a new al-Qaida strategy within 60 days, and to report it to
Congress. I oppose putting such a mandate in law for several reasons.
The National Security Act of 1947 requires the President to transmit to
Congress each year a comprehensive report on the national security
strategy of the United States. Title 10 requires the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to produce a national military strategy and to
conduct a biennial review of that strategy, a review that was recently
completed. The Chairman has indicated that a new national military
strategy is under development and, of course, the next President will
be required to issue a fresh national security strategy. In short there
are, and will remain, a number of legislative requirements for security
strategies that include a counterterrorism approach.
Finally, this bill would attempt to limit the President's use of the
military by imposing dwell times for our forces. While I fully support
the goal of achieving sustainable dwell times for our Armed Forces, I
do not believe that we should try to force such a restriction on the
President irrespective of any contravening interests.
Mr. President, as the debate over Iraq goes on, let us remember to
whom and what we owe our first allegiance--to the security of the
American people and to the ideals upon which our Nation was founded.
That responsibility is our dearest privilege, and to be judged by
history to have discharged it honorably will, in the end, matter so
much more to all of us than any fleeting glory of popular acclaim,
electoral advantage or office. I hope we might all have good reason to
expect a kinder judgment of our flaws and follies because when it
mattered most we chose to put the interests of our great and good
Nation before our own and helped, in our own small way, preserve for
all humanity the magnificent and inspiring example of an assured,
successful and ever advancing America and the ideals that make us still
the greatest Nation on Earth.<bullet>
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns, shared
by so many of my constituents in Pennsylvania and across the country,
about the war in Iraq and how our efforts there have exacted a direct
cost on the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates in Afghanistan.
The bills introduced today by Senator Feingold and Majority Leader
Reid have prompted an important debate about our national security. I
believe it is our duty, as elected officials, to level with the
American people on the war in Iraq, both on the reality of the
situation on the ground and in the context of our Nation's broader
strategic priorities. We must speak truth to the anxiety of the
American people on what we are doing to make this country more secure.
Our Nation recently marked the 1-year anniversary of the President's
decision to initiate a troop escalation into Iraq. We are quickly
coming up on the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. As the
President said in January of 2007, when announcing the goals of his
troop escalation, ``Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders and
the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress
in other critical areas.'' Judged by those standards enunciated by the
President himself, the surge has not worked. While we all welcome the
reduction in violence, that metric was never the be-all and end-all in
determining whether the surge worked.
Monday of this week, the Pentagon said it expected 140,000 U.S.
troops would remain in Iraq this July, 8,000 more troops than when the
President's troop buildup began in January of 2007.
These extended troop deployments have imposed a significant toll on a
U.S. military already stretched dangerously thin by this war. We have
provided Iraqis with some ``breathing space'' and violence in many
parts of Iraq is, indeed, down. That fact is attributable to the fine
men and women of our armed services and to their skills as the finest
fighting force in history. Yet Iraq is still not a secure Nation
because progress on the essential tasks of political reconciliation has
not been achieved by the Iraqis. General Petraeus has been very clear
on this point: The war in Iraq can only be won politically, not
militarily.
Although the Bush administration immediately praised the three reform
measures recently passed by the Iraqi Parliament, the package served
only to postpone critical discussions on the future of the country and
underscore the fractured State of the Iraqi Government. The Parliament
approved a 2008 budget, passed a provincial powers law defining a
division of responsibility between the central government in Baghdad
and regional authorities, and issued an amnesty bill that may free
thousands of prisoners from the disaffected Sunni community. But the
potential details and implementation of these laws, especially on the
amnesty bill, remain a critical question mark. What the Iraqi
leadership failed to achieve and the decisions of Parliament chose to
kick down the road, so to speak, is perhaps more notable than the
short-term successes. The government has yet to tackle the most
divisive issue in Iraq, and that is this: who controls the country's
oil and how to distribute the proceeds. To take the most egregious
example, the Kurdistan regional government in the north passed its own
oil law last August, signing dozens of contracts with international oil
firms, which the central government in Baghdad deems illegal. The
Iraqis have devised a de facto approach for splitting oil proceeds in
the short term, but that arrangement is vulnerable to breakdown at any
time.

Legislative accomplishments by the Iraqi Parliament are welcome but
can be very deceiving. So long as the very parliamentarians who passed
these recent bills cannot leave the Green Zone without fear of
assassination attempts or suicide bombings, Iraq remains an unsecured
nation.
Just as Iraqi progress on internal reconciliation is sorely lacking,
I am also distressed by our short-term strategy of pacifying local
actors in Iraq to improve security while ignoring the underlying
political and sectarian fault line in Iraq. In short, this approach is
not sustainable and is undermining--undermining--our overarching
objective of national reconciliation.
At the same time we speak of bridging the sectarian divides, the U.S.
``awakening strategy'' in western and central Iraq is arming Sunni
tribal leaders and integrating former insurgents into the rough
equivalent of militias--all in a process separate from and parallel to
the national armed forces of Iraq.

[[Page S1194]]

As an article in Time magazine recently noted, a number of these
``concerned local citizens'' militias, organized and supported by the
U.S. military, are now turning on each other in a contest for influence
and territory. The Shia-led central government views these armed
militias as undermining its central authority and has balked at
integrating large numbers of Sunnis into the national Iraqi security
forces. So at this point we must ask ourselves whether the U.S.
Government, in service of a worthy but short-term objective of
suppressing violence in Iraq, is only paving the road for a large-scale
future conflict by arming sectarian groups separate from the national
army and police. That is an important question we must consider.
Let me say, Mr. President, sometimes short and telling anecdotes tell
a story. We have read recently that the Iranian President, Mr.
Ahmadinejad, will make a visit to Baghdad next week for talks with
Prime Minister al-Maliki and other officials. This visit has already
been announced, with details of his itinerary available to the press
and the public. By sharp contrast, when President Bush, Secretary Rice
and/or Secretary Gates visit Iraq, they travel to Baghdad unannounced
and rarely leave the fortified walls of the Green Zone.
Another example. When Senator Durbin and I visited Iraq last August,
we flew from the airport to the Green Zone in low-flying, fast-moving
helicopters practicing evasive maneuvers. Here is a question we should
ask ourselves: Why can the Iranian President drive in an open manner
into Baghdad while U.S. leaders must sneak into the country under the
cloak of darkness? Five years into our occupation of Iraq, what does
this say about our role in Iraq and the security of that nation?
As Iraq continues to dominate the attention and resources of our
Government, it clouds and confuses our long-term U.S. strategic
priorities. I remain troubled, as so many others here remain troubled,
that a ``Declaration of Principles'' signed on November 26, 2007, by
President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki commits our Nation to
``providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq
to deter future aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty
and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.'' That is what
the Declaration of Principles says in part.
Although Secretary Rice assured me during a recent Senate Foreign
Relations hearing that no such commitments will be extended to Iraq, I
remain deeply skeptical. In concert with my colleagues, I will continue
to exercise vigorous oversight to ensure that President Bush does not
lock the United States into a binding and long-term security commitment
to Iraq.
It is time to refocus our energies and our efforts on the ``forgotten
war'' in Afghanistan. Our focus on Iraq has distracted from and
undermined the central front in the war on terrorism.
ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently
testified before Congress, and he said:

In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we
must.

With all due respect to Admiral Mullen, he has it wrong. We should do
what we must in both places.
We know that 6 years ago America was fighting and winning the war in
Afghanistan, and al-Qaida and the Taliban were on the run. But instead
of staying and accomplishing our mission in Afghanistan by hunting down
those who planned the 9/11 attacks, this administration diverted our
attention to Iraq. Today, the Taliban has returned with a vengeance and
controls more territory than at any time since its ouster in 2001.
Afghanistan is on the brink of becoming yet again a failed state and
thus a safe haven for al-Qaida to launch deadly attacks, including
against the American homeland.
Three recent bipartisan reports on Afghanistan concluded that the
situation on the ground is dire. One report, coauthored by retired
general Jim Jones and Ambassador Thomas Pickering, puts it bluntly, and
I quote in part:

The progress achieved after 6 years of international
engagement is under serious threat from resurgent violence,
weakening international resolve, mounting regional
challenges, and a growing lack of confidence on the part of
the Afghan people about the future direction of their
country. The United States and the international community
have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few
military forces and insufficient economic aid, and without a
clear and consistent comprehensive strategy.

That is the Jones and Pickering report from which I am quoting.
When Secretary of Defense Gates is forced to go public with
criticisms of the refusal of our NATO allies to deploy more forces in
Afghanistan and his skepticism of their ability to conduct
counterinsurgency operations, we must admit that the situation on the
ground is getting worse in Afghanistan, not better. Military officials
expect the coming year to be even more deadly, as the Taliban becomes
more deadly and deploys greater numbers of suicide bombers and roadside
explosives. U.S. forces remain largely isolated in Afghanistan, with
key NATO allies refusing to provide ground support and imposing onerous
restrictions on where and how they can fight. The end result is that
the very future of NATO, the most successful alliance in modern
history, is now in grave danger.

In a welcome display of straight-talk, Secretary Gates admitted that
the very reason large segments of the European public do not support
NATO operations in Afghanistan is due to their antipathy toward U.S.
policy in Iraq. Secretary Gates recently asserted in Munich:

Many of them, I think, have a problem with our involvement
in Iraq and project that to Afghanistan, and do not
understand the very different--for them--the very different
kind of threat.

That is what Secretary Gates said recently.
Mr. President, let me conclude with this thought: The war in Iraq has
indeed strained our military, limiting the number of combat divisions
we can provide in Afghanistan. It has undermined our global leadership,
depriving us of the moral authority to demand more of our allies, and
it has diverted the attention of our senior military and civilian
leadership, allowing the Taliban to mount a comeback under our very
eyes. We are losing a war we cannot afford to lose in a futile and
misguided effort to force success in another conflict that can only be
won politically, not militarily. Our priorities are tragically
mistaken, and our Nation is paying a severe cost.
Mr. 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. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________