[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 17, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11610-S11612]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to share with my colleagues a 
few thoughts on the subject of Iraq, if I may. I begin by thanking the 
President for speaking to the Nation on September 7. President Bush, my 
colleagues will recall, addressed the American people about the subject 
of Iraq. He happens to be one of the very few members of his own 
administration to begin to tell the American people the facts of life 
about our involvement in Iraq: That it is going to be very difficult 
for our troops and civilian personnel to be successful in standing up a 
democratic government out of the ashes of a crushed and totally 
discredited dictatorship, and it is going to be very expensive as well, 
the President pointed out--very expensive. In the President's own 
words, this undertaking is going to be ``difficult and costly.''
  President Bush also explained in simple terms U.S. policy objectives. 
He said in that speech that our objectives are to destroy terrorists, 
enlist the support of other nations for a free Iraq, and help Iraqis 
assume responsibility.
  He was far less clear on how he intends to achieve those objectives 
or to mitigate the cost to the American public--the cost in dollar 
terms and also in terms of human lives.
  Our military has, I think all of us would agree, done an exemplary 
job in

[[Page S11611]]

winning the military conflict in Iraq. All of us extend our highest 
commendations to the men and women in uniform for the job they have 
achieved. But they also need help winning the peace, and I think all of 
us understand that as well.
  Our forces are stretched thin. Our troops are very tired. There are 
questions as to whether they have been adequately equipped for the 
circumstances that they now confront. I believe they are involved in a 
guerrilla war. There is no other way to describe it. Their lives, as we 
all know, painfully, are in great danger from hostile irregular forces, 
if you want to call them that, and from a very hostile environment 
growing worse every day by growing civil dissent in the country.
  Tragically, more than 280 American soldiers have now died in Iraq, 
and more than 1,200 are wounded; 159 of those deaths have occurred 
since the President declared the end of major military action on May 1 
of this year. Every single day since then almost 10 Americans have been 
officially declared wounded in action.
  Our troops are not the only ones at risk. Hanging in limbo is, of 
course, the future of the Iraqi people. Millions of innocent civilians 
suffered for decades under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein. When our 
forces entered Iraq, we took on the mission of providing peace and 
security for all Iraqis. But during the past several weeks we have 
witnessed a surge of attacks with many Iraqis themselves victims, 
subject to the attacks of these hostile forces within Iraq.
  Car bombings have claimed the lives of more than 120 people over the 
last number of weeks. The U.N.'s Iraqi headquarters were bombed and 
their top envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, was killed, as we all know. An 
attack at the mosque at Najaf killed more than 80 people, including a 
prominent moderate Shiite leader. Only a week ago, a track bomb killed 
an Iraqi police officer and wounded 27 others, including Baghdad's 
chief of police. On Monday, the chief of police of another community 
was gunned down in his automobile.
  This goes on every single day. What does the situation tell us? I 
believe it tells us that the Iraqi people are far from secure. If they 
are not secure, it is a safe bet our forces will continue to remain in 
danger and our own security and the security we are trying to achieve 
as a result of a rise in terrorism is also at risk.
  I listened last week as well to Vice President Cheney and Secretary 
Rumsfeld, our Secretary of Defense, go over the old ground of defending 
the administration's justification for going to war in Iraq. And with 
all due respect to Secretary Powell, I do not believe his most recent 
remarks to the effect that the use of chemical weapons by Saddam 
Hussein in 1988 explains why this administration decided in the year 
2003, some 15 years later, that Saddam Hussein had to go. Frankly, I 
believe the administration should spend far less time trying to justify 
past decisions or explain away errors of judgment and far more time 
should be spent figuring out what to do next about this difficult and 
costly challenge our troops are facing every day, day in and day out, 
in Iraq.
  I hope the recent rhetoric is simply a diversion, because the 
administration doesn't have a plan, in my view, for restoring 
security--a comprehensive strategic plan for the eventual drawdown of 
U.S. forces, a comprehensive strategic plan for turning political 
control of the country of Iraq over to the Iraqi people where it 
belongs. We need a strong strategic plan, a concrete plan and a 
timetable for these events. We need a comprehensive strategic plan and 
timetable for establishment of an Iraqi government and for the 
preparation of a constitution for the holding of free elections. We 
need to stick to that plan so the Iraqi people can have a sense of 
confidence that the end goal remains an independent Iraq governed by 
Iraqis.
  The Congress of the United States, of course, supported President 
Bush last year when he sought authority to use all necessary means to 
secure Iraq's compliance with United Nations resolutions. I was one who 
voted for Senate Resolution 1441 which empowered the President to 
forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power. And I would do so again, 
because I believe Saddam Hussein posed a threat to our security and to 
the security of our allies in the region.
  At the time I voted for that resolution, I expressed concern that the 
administration may not have adequately prepared for winning the peace 
once military options had deposed Saddam Hussein. I think the concern I 
expressed, as well as many others, clearly has been well placed. The 
time has come for our President and his top advisors to listen to the 
Congress and, more importantly, to the American people, when we say our 
current policy is off course. If they don't heed the concerns being 
expressed by Democrats and Republicans in both this body and in the 
other, then they risk an even more costly and far more difficult 
engagement in Iraq, and they risk the administration losing the support 
of the American people for this policy which is absolutely critical for 
the long-term success.
  The $87 billion emergency appropriations request the President will 
soon transmit to the Congress of the United States presents a very 
important opportunity for us to consider a midcourse correction on our 
Iraqi policy. It will require all of us in this Chamber and the 
administration and others to work very hard to effectuate that kind of 
change.
  I will say here and now I am prepared to support all of the funds the 
President has requested to equip and protect our military troops in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. So long as they are in harm's way, they need 
whatever military commanders deem necessary to get the job done as 
safely as possible. The resources ought not be the subject of our 
corrections.
  However, I do not believe we can or should continue to give the 
administration a blank check with respect to the reconstruction money. 
This is a ripe opportunity now for us to work together in common 
purpose and common cause to offer some new ideas and new direction to 
get this policy on track. We simply cannot afford to continue the road 
we are following. Even before the administration's supplemental 
request, the Congressional Budget Office calculated the annual budget 
deficit would reach some $480 billion--the largest in our history. Over 
the past 3 years, 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs--44,000 
alone in the month of July.
  I don't need to remind my colleagues of these statistics. They know 
them in their own States. We are facing a tremendous problem in our own 
country. Layoffs are continuing as Americans lose their jobs. And they 
are losing something equally important--the ability to provide for 
their families. Neither are the schools receiving the funds necessary 
to ensure our children receive the education they deserve. Many are 
cutting back on the school week and on critical services and programs.

  Thus far, U.S. funds have been expended to open and equip Iraq's 
12,000 primary and secondary schools, to return 240,000 
telecommunications lines to operation, and to begin the process of 
vetting and training some 30,000 Iraqi police officers. The job is far 
from done. Baghdad's International Airport remains closed to commercial 
traffic. Many key bridges and roads are in desperate need of major 
repairs. That nation's rail system will need significant capital 
infusions to make it operational again.
  The American people, in my view, are facing their own difficulties 
here at home, and those kind of pressures in the absence of a clear 
policy are going to create the kind of pressure-cooker environment 
which will place the policy in Iraq in jeopardy, our soldiers' lives in 
jeopardy, and the Iraqi people's security in jeopardy. The great effort 
that was undertaken to change a brutal dictatorship and bring peace and 
democracy to those people is clearly in further jeopardy. In the midst 
of all of this, we need to come together and change the course of 
directions.
  I remember the administration's mantra some months ago that ``Iraq is 
a rich country'' and its oil revenues would be available to rebuild 
Iraq's infrastructure. Just weeks ago, Ambassador Bremer amended that 
statement to say that ``tens of billions of dollars'' in additional 
financial assistance will be needed to accomplish that task.
  It now appears that oil revenues once thought to be more than 
sufficient or

[[Page S11612]]

of sufficient magnitude that they could finance the rebuilding of the 
country of Iraq are now expected to barely cover the operating costs of 
Iraq's government ministries and the expenses of the Interim Council.
  What more evidence do any of us need to be convinced that the time 
has come for other governments to be welcomed as participants in 
rebuilding Iraq and to reach out and to ask them to join in that 
effort?
  I strongly believe it is time for the Congress to weigh in and to 
require the administration to address two basic questions: How do 
administration officials plan to minimize American death and 
casualties? How do they intend to minimize the expenditures of American 
tax dollars that will have to be diverted to this cause at the expense 
of other critically important programs in our own Nation, such as to 
assist first responders in keeping us secure at home, programs to 
provide for prescription drugs for our seniors, and programs to improve 
our schools so no child is truly left behind?
  If history is any guide, the only way the administration will feel 
compelled to come up with answers is if we in the Congress--the coequal 
legislative branch of Government--place some conditions on the $20 
billion in reconstruction moneys.
  To me it seems pretty straightforward what needs to be done to lower 
the risks and costs of current participation in Iraq. It is called the 
United Nations. It is called the international community. We need to 
invite them to be a part of this effort. That is why I believe the 
Congress should link the provision of reconstruction moneys to the 
passage of a United Nations resolution that places responsibility for 
rebuilding Iraq where it belongs--on us and the international community 
as a whole. To get such a resolution, obviously the administration must 
approach other member states with a credible proposal, one that gives 
the United Nations some measure of authority over the civilian 
administration of the country while also charging it with mobilizing 
more resources from member states. Clearly, the United States should 
retain command of any ongoing military operations in Iraq. But on 
political, economic, and civic reconstruction, we better involve other 
nations fairly quickly. We cannot do this alone. The American people 
will not support this over the long term. If we don't invite them to 
participate and to help us, we are going to find it very difficult with 
each passing day to find anyone who will join us in this effort.

  I don't understand the reluctance on the part of the administration 
to turn over the civilian administration of the country to an 
international body. There is certainly ample precedent for doing so. 
Not only would it lower the profile of our presence in that country, 
but it would also likely unleash additional resources and cooperation 
both regionally and internationally, bring Iraq around to the kind of 
nation we would like to see, and truly deal with the problems of 
terrorism globally.
  The Congress has to do it unless the administration decides on its 
own to change course. If we don't speak up in these coming days, if we 
just provide a blank check and a vote for $87 billion with nothing 
further to be said, we will not have anyone to blame but ourselves in 
the coming days if this present policy continues to collapse. And I 
believe it will.
  It is time for us to stop sitting on the sidelines. Under the able 
leadership of Senator Lugar, the Foreign Relations Committee has been 
carrying out careful oversight in Iraq. The Foreign Relations Committee 
now has the responsibility to develop some legislative proposals--
perhaps along the lines I have outlined for people to bring to the 
table--in order to influence the contents of the legislative package we 
will be asked to vote on in the coming days. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--because I know very 
deeply the concerns I am expressing publicly are shared by many in this 
Chamber regardless of party, regardless of ideology, and regardless of 
which States we represent.
  There is a growing concern that we have this wrong and that we have 
to get it right soon. Here is an opportunity that may not come again to 
us for many months to try to set this on a different course.
  We are at a very special and historic moment. We cannot and must not 
sit idly by when we know multilateralizing the reconstruction and 
democratization of Iraq is the right thing to do. It is the right thing 
for Iraq. It is the right thing for the United States of America. But 
it is time we in the legislative branch, the coequal branch, step up 
and act in the interests of our people and other like-minded people 
around the globe.
  I yield the floor and 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________