[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 70 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5362-S5367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor today to express 
my deep disappointment and the disappointment of so many people in my 
State with the President's expected decision to veto the supplemental 
funding bill delivered to him by the bipartisan majority in Congress. 
This bill provided our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with all the 
equipment and the resources they need to continue the duties they have 
been so bravely performing for more than 4 years. The amount 
appropriated by Congress rose well above the amount the President 
requested to give our soldiers on the battlefield. Let it be clear: 
Congress has given our soldiers on the battlefield all the funding they 
need. It is the President who will now be blocking it.
  A few weeks ago, I was driving in Minnesota. It was a beautiful 
spring day outside of Ortonville, MN, and as has happened too many 
times in my short time as a Senator, I called one of the mothers of the 
Minnesota soldiers who died in this war. Of the 22,000 troops the 
President has included in this surge, 3,000 of them are Minnesota Guard 
and Reserves who were expected to come home in January and February and 
now have been extended. Now the moms I am calling are the moms of these 
soldiers who would have been home in January or February.
  I asked this mother: How are you doing?
  She said: You know, people keep asking me that, and I don't really 
know what to say. Do you have any ideas about what I should say?
  I thought, and I told her: Well, I can tell you what all the other 
mothers have been saying. They have been saying that they wake up every 
morning and they try hard to hang together for their family, and then 
something happens. They see a picture or they remember something, and 
they are never the same for the rest of the day. They have their good 
moments, but their lives will never be the same.
  I told her that her son stood tall, and that now is the time for 
people in Washington to stand tall.
  After 4 years of extensive American military involvement in Iraq, the 
President refuses to accept the prudent change of course recommended by 
the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and supported by a clear majority of 
the American people. By passing this bill, we in Congress fulfilled our 
constitutional duties to, first, continue funding for America's Armed 
Forces in harm's way and, second, to ensure that our Government pursues 
policies in the best interests of our soldiers and of our Nation.
  As we work with the President in the days and weeks and months to 
come, we must continue to advocate for the necessary changes in our 
strategy in Iraq. It is with this spirit that we in Congress continue 
to reach out to the President for a responsible change of course in 
Iraq.
  Last month, I visited Baghdad and Fallujah. I saw firsthand the 
bravery and commitment of our troops. The very best thing we can do for 
these young men and women is not only give them the equipment they 
deserve but to get this policy right. This means sending a clear 
message to the Iraqi Government that we are not staying there 
indefinitely. This means, as recommended by the bipartisan Iraq Study 
Group, that we begin the process of redeploying our troops, with the 
goal of withdrawing combat forces by next year, while acknowledging 
that some troops may remain to train the Iraqi police and special 
forces to provide security for those who remain and to conduct special 
operations. This means not a surge in troops but a surge in diplomacy 
and economy and Iraqi responsibility.
  When I was over in Baghdad and Fallujah, I saw many things, including 
the bravery of our troops. I was struck a few weeks later when another 
delegation of people from Congress went there, and one of the 
Congressmen returned and said he had been visiting a market there. He 
said it reminded him of a farmers market in Indiana.
  Those are not the enduring memories of my trip to Iraq. My most 
enduring memory is standing on the tarmac in the Baghdad Airport with 
nine firefighters from the Duluth National Guard, who called me over to 
stand with them while they saluted as six caskets draped in the 
American flag were loaded onto a plane. As every casket was loaded on, 
they saluted. They were standing tall for their fallen soldiers that 
day. Now is our time for Congress to stand tall. Our troops have done 
everything they have been asked to do. They have deposed an evil 
dictator, and they gave the Iraqi people the opportunity to vote and 
establish a new government. It is now the Iraqi Government's 
responsibility to govern.
  But stability and progress in Iraq depend on the political reforms 
Iraqi leaders have promised many times yet failed to deliver. After 4 
years, despite many promises, Iraq has yet to approve a provincial 
election law. After 4 years, despite many promises, Iraq has yet to 
approve a law to share oil revenues. After 4 years, despite many 
promises, Iraq has yet to approve a debaathification law to promote 
reconciliation. After 4 years, despite many promises, Iraq has yet to 
approve a law reining in the militia. Our men and women in uniform 
cannot deliver these kinds of reforms to Iraq. This is up to the Iraqis 
themselves.
  As the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended, Iraqi leaders must 
pay a price if they continue to fail to make good on key reforms they 
have promised the Iraqi people. After 4 years, what have we gotten? 
Benchmarks

[[Page S5363]]

without progress, promises without results, claims of accountability 
without any consequences. Why should we expect the Iraqi leaders to do 
any better when they know the President continues to accept their 
excuses for inaction and fails to impose any penalties for their lack 
of progress.
  That is why the bipartisan Iraq Study Group made clear that ``if the 
Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the 
achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and 
governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or 
economic support for the Iraqi government.'' That report was issued 5 
months ago. Meanwhile, the President has simply stayed the course he 
has continued to pursue for the past 4 years and, not surprisingly, 
little progress has been achieved in Iraq. The Iraqi Government will 
understand and finally take responsibility only when it is crystal 
clear to them that our combat presence is not indefinite and that 
American combat troops are going to leave. That is the responsible 
change of course we in Congress are seeking. The American people are 
looking to their leaders in Washington at both ends of Pennsylvania 
Avenue to work together to get this policy right.
  Two weeks ago, I went to the White House and met with the President, 
along with three other Senators, including two Republicans. I 
appreciated the time he took to honestly discuss our points of 
agreement and disagreement on the war. I told him that now is the time 
to forge cooperation with our Democrats in Congress. But the President 
has chosen instead to veto this bill.
  As we move forward on the funding of this war, we in Congress will do 
nothing that threatens the safety of American soldiers in the field. 
But we must continue to fulfill our constitutional duty to exercise 
oversight of American policies in Iraq. A critical part of this 
oversight must be demanding accountability for the way in which funds 
are spent on the reconstruction projects in Iraq.
  For the past 4 years, the administration has demanded--and received--
a blank check to spend in Iraq. Now we are seeing the consequences of 
this lack of planning, management, and responsibility.
  On Monday, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction 
released a report that details widespread failures in the most basic 
reconstruction projects. The report finds that, in many cases, Iraq's 
infrastructure and utility systems are worse off than they were before 
the war.
  On closer inspection, it turns out that even projects which were 
declared ``success stories'' were considerably less than that. In fact, 
seven out of eight of these projects which were called success stories 
were not operating properly due to plumbing and electrical failures, 
improper maintenance, possible looting, and the fact that expensive 
equipment was available but never used.
  Prior to the 2003 invasion, Iraq's power system produced 4,500 
megawatts a day. Today, the same system produces 3,832 megawatts a day. 
In Baghdad, the city enjoys an average of 6.5 hours of electricity a 
day. A year ago, Baghdad received 8 hours of electricity a day. Before 
the war, the city received an average of 16 to 24 hours a day.
  Congress has provided $4.2 billion for reconstruction of Iraq's power 
system, and the result has been a more than 50 percent decrease in the 
length of time the citizens of Baghdad have access to electricity on 
any given day.
  Congress has provided nearly $2 billion to provide clean drinking 
water and repair sewer systems. But according to the World Health 
Organization, 70 percent of Iraqis lack access to clean drinking water.
  The Defense Department has estimated that the unemployment rate in 
Iraq is anywhere between 13.6 percent to 60 percent. In a recent 
survey, only 16 percent of Iraqis said their current incomes met their 
basic needs.
  So after 4 years, we are facing a security situation that continues 
to deteriorate, an economic situation that continues to stagnate, and a 
reconstruction effort that cannot provide even the most basic services.
  My colleagues and I have been asking the difficult questions and 
demanding answers from this administration. The supplemental bill 
demonstrates that Congress is reclaiming its rightful role in setting 
Iraq policy and, more broadly, in our system of government. The 
President's veto only strengthens our resolve.
  Madam President, I also wish to speak briefly in support of a few 
other provisions in this bill that I believe respond to critical 
challenges our Nation faces and that the administration has deemed 
unnecessary.
  The White House and many of my friends on the other side of the aisle 
have argued that this bill should not contain funding for anything 
other than the current war. If we were sacrificing funding for our 
troops in order to meet domestic priorities, I would agree. But having 
given our troops all they need and continuing to ignore crises at home 
would be irresponsible.
  Veterans funding is one of the key parts of this bill. This bill adds 
an increase in veterans funding that was long overdue. In the last 2 
years in my State, veterans would come up to me--particularly from the 
Iraq and Afghanistan wars--and they would tell me about how they had 
difficulty getting treatment. They clearly had mental health issues. I 
didn't know if there was truth to this. I wasn't sure, because of the 
state of their minds, whether this was true. Then I got here, and I 
started looking at the numbers.
  In 2005, the Department of Defense estimated that about 24,000 
soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan would need health care. 
The actual number is four times that amount. Last year, they were 
87,000 soldiers short in their estimate of how many soldiers would need 
help coming back from this war. Now I know why those people were 
wandering around asking for help. It is because they weren't getting 
the help they deserve.
  Another critical problem that has been ignored by this 
administration--and one that is particularly important to the people of 
my State--has been the tremendous damage recent national disasters have 
been inflicting on our farmers and ranchers. The supplemental spending 
bill was a combination of a 2-year effort to secure disaster assistance 
for America's farmers. Minnesota farmers have been hit with heavy 
losses for 2 consecutive years--storms and flooding in 2005 and, again, 
drought in 2006. All told, they lost more than $700 million in crop and 
livestock losses.
  The supplemental funding would have provided $3.5 billion to 
compensate farmers for a portion of their crop and livestock losses 
over the past 2 years. Our farmers have waited too long for this 
disaster relief. I am deeply disappointed that the President has turned 
his back on the urgent need for their assistance.
  The bill we sent to the President of the United States provided the 
resources and support our soldiers need on the battlefield and after 
they return home. A few months ago, I attended a funeral of one of the 
brave men who was killed in the line of duty. The priest stood up, and 
he said to the thousand people in the cathedral: You know, this was a 
good kid. He was 6 feet 2 inches tall, but he was still our child.
  When we send our kids to war and they are 6 feet tall, they are still 
our kids and they are standing tall. We need to stand tall.
  The traumatic brain injury victims I have seen at the veterans 
hospital in Minnesota, even in their wheelchairs, are standing tall.
  Those moms whom I talked to on the phone, as they struggle every day 
just to get out of bed to deal with the loss of their kids who were 
killed in this war, are standing tall.
  Now it is time for the President of the United States to stand tall.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, 4 years ago today, as we know, the 
President stood on an aircraft carrier underneath a banner that read 
``Mission Accomplished.'' He declared that the major combat operations 
in Iraq were over. When he spoke those words, 140

[[Page S5364]]

American troops had been killed in Iraq. Since then, over 3,200 more 
American troops have given their lives. Just today, we learned that 
April was the deadliest month this year, with 104 Americans dead.
  With every passing day, it becomes more obvious that the President 
really should have said: My fellow Americans, major combat operations 
in Iraq are just beginning. On that day, he should have had a plan to 
match the rhetoric with reality. But we are where we are, as the saying 
goes, and it is even more tragically clear to all but a few that if we 
want to accomplish our mission in Iraq--and we all do--if we want an 
Iraq that has any chance of stability and some sense of democracy, any 
sense of it, we have to change course.
  In the past 4 years, we have lost at least 3,342 of our best young 
men and women, and nearly 25,000 others have been wounded and many 
wounded severely. We have spent nearly $400 billion, and the cost is 
rising at a rate of over $2 billion per week. There is no end in sight.

  ADM William Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, 
recently said:

       We are losing ground every day.

  And even General Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, now says that 
we can expect the situation to get worse before it gets better.
  We were treated to a spectacle a week and a half ago with news 
reports, a front-page story, I think, in the Washington Post, that 
Stephen Hadley, the President's security adviser, was casting about to 
find a general to be the sort of supreme organizer, if you will, of the 
war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.
  What struck me about that story is here is our Nation at war, here is 
a series of four-star generals whose lives are committed to Nation, to 
service, to duty, and to military, who under normal circumstances would 
be honored to be asked to become the point person to organize our 
Nation's efforts in two wars in a front that is of serious consequence 
to this Nation. Yet all four retired four-star generals said no. One 
was even quoted publicly as saying they don't know what the hell they 
are doing, or they don't know what direction they are going in.
  That is a pretty remarkable statement for a career military person to 
make about the current effort. But we also know the history of what has 
brought us here with retired generals--a whole host of them--who 
publicly rebelled postservice against the leadership of Secretary 
Rumsfeld, who is now gone.
  It is a rather remarkable statement about the lack of planning, about 
the lack of candor, about the scapegoating that has gone on, about the 
unwillingness of people's careers to be judged not by their ability to 
tell the truth but, rather, their willingness to tell the civilian 
leaders what they want to hear.
  As we know from our own intelligence agencies, the war in Iraq has 
increased the threat of terrorism by creating a breeding ground for 
terrorists that didn't exist before the invasion and by serving as a 
rallying point for extremists around the world. In fact, the State 
Department's annual terrorism report released yesterday shows that 
terrorist attacks worldwide were up 25 percent last year after 
increasing nearly fourfold the year before that.
  How does the leadership come to the country and suggest that this war 
is accomplishing our larger goals? How does it help the war on terror 
to be creating more terrorists? How can you tell the American people we 
have made you safer, when the number of terrorist incidents have gone 
up and the number of terrorists who want to kill Americans is larger 
today than it was on 9/11?
  Any businessperson, any tourist, anybody of any curiosity who has 
traveled abroad and who has asked a few simple questions or read the 
newspapers and listened to the news knows that our Nation, which we 
love passionately, is now less followed, less listened to, and less 
feared--less listened to by our friends and less feared by our enemies. 
The fact is, we are less safe as a result. We are less unified at home, 
less respected abroad, and we are less strong as a result.
  Obviously, there is no way we can make up for what has happened in 
the last few years, certainly not in terms of the lives lost and the 
pain and suffering endured by those wounded and by families who have 
suffered those losses, but the fact is, we can find a responsible 
strategy to try to deal with not just Iraq but the whole Middle East 
and, indeed, releverage America's position in the world.
  The President today, tonight, is going to veto crucial funding for 
the troops passed by both Houses of Congress, legislation that gives 
our soldiers all they need to complete the mission and receive the care 
they deserve once they get home. The President is going to veto it, but 
that is not all he is going to do. Then he is going to try to pin the 
blame on those who have pushed for a new direction. He is going to try 
to pin the blame for his failures, for his lack of planning, for his 
lack of leadership on those who are providing the only way to try to 
resolve what is happening in Iraq.
  Instead of pressuring Iraqi politicians, this administration is 
practicing the politics of division at home, a brand of American 
sectarianism that undermines our national unity, a unity required to 
make decisions in time of war.
  Last week, Vice President Cheney accused Senator Harry Reid of 
putting politics ahead of our national security. I suppose we have 
grown used to this Vice President, who has pioneered the politics of 
fear, who oversaw the politicization of the intelligence used to 
mislead the country into war, who claimed that we would be greeted like 
liberators, who told us the insurgency was in its last throws, who 
continues to insist that everything is on track and growing fine, I 
think we have grown used to this Vice President not being candid with 
the American people.
  Clearly, he didn't hesitate to impugn the integrity of the Senate's 
majority leader who is standing for an appropriate new direction with 
respect to our policy in Iraq.
  Certainly, we can disagree about those tactics or strategies without 
impugning the motives and challenging the integrity of those who speak 
those different possibilities.
  If the President insists on continuing down the wrong path, it seems 
to me Congress has no choice but to be as resolute in demanding the 
right path forward for our troops, for our country, and for the Iraqis 
themselves. I believe we have to continue to fight for the legislation 
that gives us the best chance of bringing our troops home with some 
measure of success in the region.
  Four years after ``mission accomplished,'' it is time for us to 
acknowledge the implications of what General Petraeus and every other 
military commander, the Secretary of State and even the President have 
told us. All of them have said there is no military solution to the 
violence in Iraq. I don't know how many times I have heard that on 
Sunday shows, I hear it out here in the corridors with individual 
Senators talking to the press. Everybody mouths the words: ``There is 
no military solution.'' But if there is no military solution and we are 
all agreed on that, then what is the military doing? Why is the 
military and an escalation in the number of troops so critical if there 
is no military solution?
  The administration, even after telling you there is no military 
solution, then gives you a rationale for a military solution, which is: 
We have to put additional troops in to have the security, in order to 
have the compromises. But the fact is, the security which, first of 
all, is proving illusive and probably impossible to secure with the 
troops alone, cannot be secured without the political compromises. This 
is a classic chicken-and-egg situation: Which comes first? You are not 
going to get the security until the stakeholders in this civil struggle 
feel confident enough that what they are struggling about can be 
resolved to their safety and future security. That is sort of a 
fundamental issue. You are not going to change the on-the-ground 
security situation and stop people from bombing and militias from 
killing unless those fundamental stakes are properly addressed and 
defined.

  It is long since time that we started to measure progress on the 
ground in Iraq by the one metric that will ultimately determine our 
success or our failure, and that metric is this: Are the Iraqis making 
the tough political compromises necessary to keep their country 
together?

[[Page S5365]]

  It has been nearly a year since the Maliki Government took power. At 
that time, General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad said that the Maliki 
Government had 6 months to make the political compromises necessary to 
win the public confidence.
  So here we have the commanding general of our forces and our trusted 
Ambassador to Iraq both saying they have 6 months to make the 
compromises. But guess what. The 6 months went by and nothing 
happened--nothing happened in Iraq to make those compromises happened, 
and nothing happened afterwards because the compromises didn't happen. 
That sends a message that there is no consequence to delay, there is no 
consequence to procrastination.
  After that, the Iraqi Government agreed to a set of benchmarks 
because people were growing frustrated and those benchmarks, guess 
what, were pegged to specific dates for making progress toward national 
reconciliation.
  In January, the President announced the troop escalation, and he told 
the American people the following:

       America will hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it 
     has announced. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister 
     understands this.

  But, once again, no real consequences, no real leverage, no real 
diplomacy. The result is, those benchmarks proved meaningless. You can 
take a look at the benchmarks the Iraqis agreed to. What did they agree 
to do at that point in time?
  October 2006, over 6 months ago, that was the deadline for Iraqis to 
approve a new oil law and a provincial election law. As of today, the 
oil law has yet to even be introduced in Parliament, and that is an 
improvement over the provincial election law which hasn't even been 
drafted yet.
  November 2006 was the deadline for new debaathification law to help 
bring Sunnis into the Government. A draft proposal was recently 
denounced by Ayatollah Sistani and a national commission to oversee the 
process, and guess what. It is nowhere near completion. In fact, 5 
months after the deadline, the Shiite leader of the SCIRI Party 
recently described the Baathists as ``the first enemy of the Iraqi 
people.'' So much for debaathification and reconciliation.
  December 2006 was the deadline for the Iraqis to approve legislation 
to address the militias. To date, absolutely no progress has been made 
on this crucial legislation, and the militias continue to wreak havoc.
  January 2007 was the deadline for Iraqis to complete a constitutional 
review process. There was supposed to be a referendum on constitutional 
amendments by March. Guess what. The constitutional committee hasn't 
even drafted the proposed amendments, and the Iraqis remain far apart 
on key issues such as federalism and the fate of the divided city of 
Kirkut.
  We are no closer to a political solution today than we were when the 
Maliki Government took power 1 year ago, but there were more than 940 
additional American troops who gave their lives in that process to wait 
for the Iraqis to procrastinate.
  Did the President actually hold the Iraqi Government to those 
benchmarks as promised? No. I hope the President tonight, when he 
addresses us after the veto, will address the benchmarks and where we 
are with respect to the failure of the Government to make the choices 
they said they had to make while our soldiers continue to die.
  The administration still refuses to get genuinely tough with Iraqi 
politicians. They keep moving the goalposts, deflect the criticism of a 
failed strategy which they refuse to abandon. Instead, we get more 
vague assertions that our presence is not open-ended and outright 
rejection of any proposal that would leverage that threat.
  The administration, it seems to me, has reached a point where it has 
to stop pretending the lack of political will in America is the 
problem. It is not the lack of political will in America that is the 
problem, it is the lack of political will in Iraq that is the problem.
  It is impossible to make any other judgment when you look at that 
entire series of benchmarks. I remember Secretary Rice coming before 
the Foreign Relations Committee, I believe, several months ago now, and 
I asked her the question about the oil law. She said: Oh, yes, the oil 
law is almost done, just about done; wrapped up, we are about to 
proceed forward, we are confident it is going to be done in a few 
days. Here we are, several months later, and there is no oil law. It is 
not even before the Parliament yet.

  The administration needs to accept the basic reality that the 
Congress has acknowledged: Iraqi politicians, if they are capable, if 
they are capable of making these decisions, have shown they will not do 
it without a reason to do it, without a rationale that feels some heat. 
A deadline is the only thing they have responded to so far. It took a 
deadline to be able to get them to do a constitution. It took a 
deadline to have each of their elections.
  Incidentally, they protested against each of the deadlines. Each time 
they said: Don't do this to us; we can't meet it; we can't make it; it 
is too much. But each time, because we set the deadline and kept 
pushing, they did meet it.
  American security is not a security blanket for Iraqis who want to 
procrastinate while American soldiers die. The longer the President 
continues to give them the sense that he is not going to change, he is 
not going to move on them, the more they are secure in the sense that 
they can just continue to jockey and play their political game at the 
expense of American dollars and American interests and American lives. 
Without real deadlines to force them, there is no way to actually 
determine that we can make the progress we need to make. Since January, 
when the President decided to disregard key elements of the Iraq Study 
Group and announced the escalation, over 340 American troops have died, 
and there is still no fundamental progress.
  The legislation we have sent to the President would change this 
dynamic. It would force the Iraqis to either stand up for Iraq and meet 
the political benchmarks they have agreed to or decide they can't do it 
and have their fight.
  It calls for a flexible timetable for the redeployment in 2008, and I 
underscore ``flexible.'' Every time we try to do something, we get into 
this totally phony, polarized debate where the President and his 
henchmen go out and talk about reckless abandonment and surrender and 
defeatism when, in fact, what we are proposing gives the President all 
the discretion in the world--to leave troops there to finish the 
training of Iraqis, which is the fundamental reason we are there; to 
leave troops there to chase al-Qaida, to prosecute the war on terror, 
which is in our interests, and to leave troops to protect American 
forces and protect American facilities. After 6 years of the war, what 
other fundamental mission should there be for American forces?
  It seems to me the real debate is one that should center around the 
failures of this administration to face that reality and the few 
choices we have now to try to achieve success. The most important 
choice that has to be made to achieve success is to engage in full-
throated diplomacy, not dissimilar to the kind of meeting that will be 
held in Sharm el-Sheikh this week. We hope Secretary Rice will take 
advantage of that and that the countries of the region will come 
together around a new security arrangement and a new understanding of 
what has to happen.
  The timetable for the redeployment in the legislation sent to the 
President is not arbitrary, and it is not precipitous. It is consistent 
with the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and with the timeframe for 
transferring control of Iraq to the Iraqis that was set forth by 
General Casey. It also has the schedule agreed upon by the Iraqi 
Government itself. There is nothing arbitrary in a schedule to which 
your own commanding general and the Iraqi Government have agreed.
  Even the President has said, under his new strategy, responsibility 
for security would be transferred to Iraqis before the end of this 
year. So they are willing to set a date. The administration can set a 
date for the transfer of the security, but it is unwilling to set a 
date for the beginning of the drawdown of some troops so you guarantee 
that date for the transfer of security is actually meaningful. The 
President has said it. Our generals have said it. The Iraq Study Group 
has said it. Now it is

[[Page S5366]]

time for the President to embrace legislation that makes those words 
reality.
  Instead of accepting the change that is necessary, we keep hearing we 
need more of the same; we have to give the surge time to work; the 
Iraqis need just a little more breathing space to start making 
political progress.
  General Petraeus has said, however, that he won't be able to make any 
progress assessment on the ground until September. Guess what. We hear 
that Iraq's Parliament, which has only been able to muster a quorum to 
even consider legislation about once every week or two--the Iraqi 
Parliament plans to take a 2-month vacation this summer, a vacation in 
the middle of a civil war. You sort of wonder what Abraham Lincoln 
would think of that. Iraq is descending further into chaos as thousands 
of Iraqis die each month. If the Iraqis go on vacation without making 
the key political compromises, it will absolutely guarantee that there 
is not going to be any meaningful political progress until next fall. I 
do not believe that America should be sending our troops to die for 
somebody else's vacation.
  How many more American soldiers are going to give their lives without 
any hope of achieving a real political solution? 300? 400? 500? How 
many more doors are going to be knocked on and phone calls made? How 
many more visits to Arlington and other cemeteries across America, 
while the Iraqis procrastinate and refuse to settle their differences?
  How can any of us in the Chamber look in the eyes of the parents of 
any young American killed and tell them: Your son or daughter died so 
the Iraqis can take the summer off?
  With every passing day it becomes clearer this Iraqi Government is 
not going to get the job done. It is not truly a unity government, it 
is a figleaf for politicians who are pursuing sectarian interests 
instead of protecting the nation they are charged with saving. Now it 
is starting to crumble under the weight of its own ineffectiveness and 
corruption.
  Last week some prominent Iraqi legislators came out and said publicly 
that they have lost confidence in the Maliki government. That is not 
surprising since we recently learned that Prime Minister Maliki was 
responsible for a politically motivated purge of Iraqi military leaders 
who had the gumption to actually act against the Mahdi militia.
  Yesterday the largest block of Sunni Arabs in the Parliament 
threatened to withdraw its Ministers from the Shiite-dominated Cabinet 
in frustration over the Government's failure to deal with Sunni 
concerns. As one Sunni legislator said:

       The problem is not just with sectarian practices but with 
     the Government's ineffectiveness.

  This Government we are supporting is spiraling downward into greater 
and greater ineffectiveness. In the process, Iraq is spiraling deeper 
and deeper into its sectarian divide.
  It is not just the Iraqis. Last week we learned that several 
prominent Sunni countries are balking at complete debt relief for Iraq 
because of the lack of progress in political reconciliation. This past 
weekend the Saudis refused to allow Prime Minister Maliki to visit 
their country because he has not delivered on his promise to seek real 
reconciliation with Iraqi Sunnis. How can we expect progress and 
political reconciliation if the Iraqis have lost confidence in the 
Maliki government? How can we expect diplomatic progress when Iraq's 
neighbors have lost confidence in Iraqi leadership? This is a very 
serious issue.
  The administration has finally done what they should have done years 
ago: engaged, this week, in the kind of diplomacy that is desperately 
needed. On the eve of the summit, we learned that some of the major 
players have no confidence in the political process. So if we really 
want to bring about the political and diplomatic solution that is the 
only solution, the time has come now for new leadership in Iraq.
  When I was in Iraq in December, Prime Minister Maliki told me he was 
working on forming a new coalition that would isolate extremists 
unwilling to compromise and empower moderates who were. Since then we 
have heard from time to time that these negotiations continue behind 
the scenes. But nothing has happened. It is time to get out from behind 
the scenes. It is time to have a government that can put the pieces 
back together.
  As one Iraqi Minister said yesterday, Mr. Maliki ``said he was going 
to appoint new Ministers; he needs to do that. . . . What is he waiting 
for?''
  That is a question the U.S. Congress should echo. We simply cannot go 
on like this, day after day, news cycle after news cycle--more bombs, 
more murders, more assassinations, more suicide bombings, more 
killings, more American soldiers dead. We can't go on like this and 
expect the situation to miraculously get better. Time is not on our 
side. Time is not on anyone's side in the end because if this does go 
downward into greater sectarian violence, all of the Iraqis will lose.
  If we are serious about a political solution, we need a fresh start. 
That is why I believe it is time for Prime Minister Maliki to make 
wholesale changes in his Cabinet. He already has to replace the six 
Muqtada al-Sadr Ministers, the Sadrist Ministers who recently resigned. 
He should use that as an opportunity to fire any other Minister who is 
not committed to political reconciliation and replace them with 
Ministers who are.
  We should make it clear this truly is his last chance. If reshuffling 
the Cabinet does not produce meaningful political progress within a 
relatively short period of time, then he should step down and allow a 
new leader to step forward. Putting Mr. Maliki's personal political 
future on the line is perhaps one of the few ways left to try to create 
the leverage necessary to find out if he is capable of moving the 
reconciliation procession forward. If he proves unwilling or unable, 
then clearly someone else should be given a chance--if there is someone 
else.
  This is the moment to put that to the test. I recognize that Iraqis 
must take responsibility for their own future and that any government 
we impose will lack legitimacy with their fellow Iraqis. But we can use 
our own influence behind the scenes to encourage the Iraqis to make the 
leadership changes so clearly needed in order to give their Government 
a chance to succeed. We certainly have a right to make that request, 
given the degree to which that Government is dependent on our troops 
and our money and our presence.
  Congress has finally done what this administration has stubbornly 
refused to do. I am proud of my fellow Members of this body who had the 
courage to vote for this legislation. I know how divisive it can be. I 
know how the other side uses it and how people tend to try to 
personalize and even denigrate people's patriotism and concern for the 
Nation. The fact is, the Congress has done what needed to be done 
because this administration has not done it.
  People say don't micromanage. Someone has to manage. They have 
clearly mismanaged every step of this war, and they have been absent 
from the diplomacy necessary. It is time to have a new strategy, time 
to hold Iraqi politicians responsible for their country's future, time 
to get deadly serious about finding a political solution, and finding 
it now.
  Somehow this President still chooses to take a different tack. If 
President Bush vetoes this bill, which we understand he will, then he 
is the one standing in the way of a bipartisan strategy on Iraq. The 
Iraq Study Group was bipartisan. The Iraq Study Group had former 
Secretary of State Jim Baker, a Republican, a great friend of President 
Bush's father. It had Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger. It had Al 
Simpson, former Senator from Wyoming and Republican leader in the 
Senate. It had Bill Perry, former Secretary of Defense; Chuck Robb; it 
had Ed Meese, former Attorney General and Chief of Staff to a 
Republican President. All of these are moderate, thoughtful, respected, 
trusted voices in foreign policy and in the affairs of our country. 
They all came together in a consensus. That consensus was summarily 
rejected by the President, just pushed aside.
  The President decided to go his own road, which even the generals and 
even Prime Minister Maliki did not want to do. I read one Senator's 
comment that there is no plan B, that there is just plan A, which is 
the surge. I disagree with that. Plan B is what plan B should

[[Page S5367]]

have been all the time, which is to engage in the legitimate kind of 
intervention on a diplomatic level and to put on the table all of the 
issues of the region in a way that proves the kind of sincerity and 
seriousness of purpose that raises the level of credibility of the 
discussion so people can trust that we, in fact, are going to be moving 
in a common direction, which is in their interests.
  The reason Saudi Arabia is sending such public messages of discontent 
for the policies of this administration today is because, given what 
has happened, that is the way they have to play it in order to deal 
with their own politics of the region and their own politics of the 
street and their nation. It is our absence from a creative, diplomatic 
effort, it is our absence from a credible and legitimate diplomatic 
lift that has left no choice even to our friends than to begin to 
distance themselves from our country.
  With this veto, the President will deny our troops the vehicles they 
need, for the time being; he will deny them the basic care they 
deserve, for the time being, because all of us know the Congress will 
come back and we will fund those things. But the most significant thing 
he will deny us is the kind of leadership and the kind of consensus the 
country deserves in order to move forward in our policy in Iraq.
  We honor the lives lost in Iraq, not with words but with lives saved. 
We honor the lives lost in Iraq not with words and with the political 
partisanship here but with a policy that is right for them and for the 
region. We honor their sacrifice by creating a situation in the region 
where we protect America's and the region's interests at the same time 
and begin to recognize the degree to which our presence in Iraq is 
playing into the hands of the terrorists, is advancing the very cause 
we seek to fight, which is diminishing the ability of the United States 
to be able to leverage, not just the Middle East issues, but a host of 
other issues in the world.
  I believe we need to change course, and it is only by changing course 
that we will honor their sacrifice, respect our interests, and bring 
our troops home with honor.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I want to let our Members know about the substitute that 
has been included, that is before us now. It essentially clarifies the 
FDA's authority to place restrictions on drugs with safety problems; 
applies only to drugs like Thalidomide that could not otherwise be 
approved. We can understand why it is important that the FDA probably 
would not have approved Thalidomide, for all of the dangers it has, but 
it has now approved it to deal with some of the problems of leprosy. We 
want to make sure it is not going to be out there and be utilized in 
terms of expectant mothers. So we have worked this out. I thank Senator 
Coburn for his help on this issue.
  We also make sure the FDA takes into account concerns of rural 
communities in setting safety policies. We have given enhanced 
authority to the FDA in terms of safety policies. We want to make sure 
in the implementation of those, particularly in rural areas, they are 
not going to be so restrictive as to limit the opportunities to get the 
necessary prescription drugs. I thank Senator Harkin and Senator 
Murkowski, who were enormously helpful in working through that issue.
  This also adds a Web portal for FDA so consumers will have a single 
point of access, via the Internet, to drug safety information. I thank 
Senator Gregg for that. That will be very important for consumers who 
are concerned about the safety issues. All of those changes and 
alterations are very helpful and valuable in terms of the legislation 
itself.
  I wish to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business and not under 
the time on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________