[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 64 (Monday, May 22, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4848-S4849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FORMATION OF IRAQI GOVERNMENT

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, like most Americans, I welcomed the news 
over the weekend that the Iraqi political leaders had created parts of 
a new government. It is certainly a useful step toward the kind of Iraq 
we all want to see.
  Like most Americans, I hope this new government will be able to bring 
security and order to a country wracked by insurgency, extremist 
attacks, and sectarian strife. We know more work needs to be done, both 
with forming this government and with fashioning a secure and stable 
Iraq. Three of the most important security ministers are still unnamed. 
That is hard to comprehend. We have been waiting and waiting for a 
cabinet to be formed, but is it really a cabinet? As unbelievable as it 
may seem to many, there is even talk of disgraced Ahmed Chalabi filling 
one of those security posts. That is hard to comprehend, but that is 
what the news accounts indicate.
  I wonder how much longer this administration will insist that the 
burden of securing Iraq continue to fall squarely on the backs of our 
heroic U.S. troops, troops such as John Lukac and William Salazar. 
Secretary Rumsfeld was asked the question in Senate hearings last week. 
It turned out to be a question he could not answer. This past weekend, 
when he was asked about the possible redeployment of U.S. forces in 
Iraq coming home, going someplace else, Secretary Rice said that it 
depends on the outcome of discussions with the Iraqi Government. 
Apparently, Secretary Rice believes Iraqi leaders should decide the 
fate of our troops.
  We are almost at the midpoint of 2006, the year a bipartisan majority 
in Congress said must be a year of significant transition. That is the 
law of the land. It passed on a bipartisan vote during the Defense 
authorization bill. An amendment was offered and passed on a bipartisan 
basis saying that the year 2006 must be a year of significant 
transition in Iraq, with Iraqis assuming responsibility for governing 
and securing their own country.
  Unfortunately, there appears to be little evidence of this 
transition. In fact, we learned on Friday that there will be an 
increase in U.S. troops to deal with the recent surge in violence. But 
none of us should be surprised that this administration in this 
instance is not following the law. It hasn't on many other occasions.
  April was the deadliest month of the year for coalition troops. If 
the current rate of violence is sustained, May will surpass April. The 
situation is similar for Iraq's security personnel. More Iraq military 
and police were killed in April than any time in the previous 6 months.
  Economically, the trends are no better. Oil production is still about 
400,000 barrels per day, less than it was prior to the war. Available 
electricity in Baghdad dropped from 16 hours per day prior to the war 
to its current average of 4 hours per day. Clean water is below prewar 
levels, and because of mismanagement and violence, only 49 of the 136 
U.S. funded projects in the water sector will be completed. The rest 
have been abandoned. All of these factors reduce Iraq's support for our 
activities there and fuel anti-American sentiment and insurgent 
activity.
  While we all should welcome this partially formed new government, we 
recall other political milestones that were achieved and quickly 
swallowed by more violence. For example, since the December election, 
325 coalition troops have been killed.
  In order to ensure the milestone produces a different, more lasting 
result, Iraqis, working with the Bush administration, must address 
outstanding issues surrounding their Constitution. They must form a 
police force and diffuse the sectarian conflicts which have left their 
country on the brink of civil war, if not in a civil war.
  Let's not forget that while the President and his team have chosen to 
focus this Nation's attention on Iraq, we see resurgent Taliban 
activity in Afghanistan. Iran and North Korea are thumbing their noses 
at the international community, and there has been a surge in terror 
attacks across the globe. Also, the mastermind of the deadly attacks on 
this Nation, Osama bin Laden, remains at large, while his al-Qaida 
network has morphed into a global franchise operation.
  This is a time of great challenge for our Nation and for the Iraqis. 
Great challenges require strong leadership. Today's speech by the 
President was yet another missed opportunity to provide that 
leadership. We heard little about his plan to engage Iraq's neighbors 
in finding a regional solution to

[[Page S4849]]

Iraq's problems. We heard little about his diplomatic efforts to end 
the sectarian strife. We heard little about his thoughts on how to put 
Iraq's reconstruction back on track. We heard little of what he is 
doing to counter extreme ideology making such dangerous inroads in Iraq 
and around the world.
  Instead of kicking the can down the road and letting future 
Presidents find our way out of Iraq, as we have been told by Secretary 
Rice and the President himself will happen, it is time for the 
President to lay out the comprehensive strategy that our troops, our 
families, and the American people have been waiting for. They have been 
waiting a long time.

  The Nation should no longer have to guess what is on the President's 
mind and grapple for some insight on what ``condition based'' 
withdrawal actually means, a phrase the Defense Secretary does not even 
understand. We should all understand, a full-page ad in major 
newspapers around the country, paid for by current CEOs, says Secretary 
Rumsfeld should go. These are CEOs of some of the major companies in 
America. ``Condition based withdrawal'' is a phrase the Defense 
Secretary does not understand. It is time for a clear plan that is as 
good as the men and women who serve our Nation each day. It is time for 
the Iraqi people to take control of their own country, their own 
affairs, and long past time for this administration to come up with a 
plan that places the burden of securing Iraq forces on Iraq itself. The 
burden of securing Iraq should be on Iraqis, not the United States. We 
have done a lot. Even though the news over the weekend creating part of 
the new government is a step forward, we still have a long way to go.
  I apologize to my friend from Iowa for taking as much time as I did. 
I appreciate very much his courtesy, as usual.

                          ____________________