[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 86 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6578-S6581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, let me say that I am very honored today to 
join my friends, Senator Salazar of Colorado and Senator Alexander of 
Tennessee, in their efforts to try to restore some nonpartisanship to 
our discussion on Iraq. I feel very strongly that we should never have 
a party-line vote on Iraq. We have 160,000 troops on the ground. It is 
just too important an issue for one party to take one side, the other 
party to take another side, and for the White House to do one thing and 
Congress to do another. In fact, we talk often in this Chamber about 
how there needs to be a political solution inside Baghdad. The truth 
is, there needs to be a political resolution inside of Washington, DC, 
when it comes to Iraq.
  I am honored to lend my name today to this effort by Senator Salazar 
and Senator Alexander.
  One thing I have noticed in the last several weeks and months--maybe 
in the last year--when it comes to Iraq is that there is a lot of 
rhetoric. To be honest, that is not helpful. It is not bringing our 
troops home earlier. It is not providing more stability inside Iraq. It 
is not allowing Iraq to function as a sovereign nation. We need to tone 
down the rhetoric and roll up our sleeves and work through this 
together.
  I also understand that Senator Bennett, Senator Gregg, and Senator 
Casey have all joined in this effort as well. It is an honor for me to 
be part of this bipartisan solution.
  One of the things we are going to emphasize here is Iraqi 
accountability. We know that is something which needs to happen inside 
Iraq. The Iraqis need to take responsibility for their own country. The 
Iraq Study Group talked about this a lot in the pages of their report, 
where on page after page they talk about what they believe needs to 
happen inside Iraq.
  So this bill which Senators Salazar and Alexander will be filing in 
the coming weeks talks about diplomatic efforts, about securing Iraq's 
borders, promotes economic commerce and trade inside Iraq, political 
support, and it talks about a multilateral diplomatic effort. It talks 
about milestones and also about redeploying troops. After talking to so 
many people in my State and around the country, I think that is where 
America wants us to be. They want a stable Iraq.
  It is a little bit like what Colin Powell said: It is the Pottery 
Barn principle; that is, if you break it, you own it. Well, we went 
into Iraq, and we have a lot of responsibility there. I think most 
Americans understand that. They don't like what they see on the front 
pages of the papers every day or on the evening news, but they do know 
we have a responsibility inside Iraq, and they want us, in the Senate, 
in the House, and also at the White House, to show leadership. This is 
a time for leadership, a time for us to come together on these 
principles which the Iraq Study Group laid out--not that every one of 
them is exactly right, but they laid out a lot of principles that I 
believe many people in this Chamber can rally around and hold on to. If 
we implement these and make that our national policy, then I think we 
can get better results on Iraq than we have had in the past.
  I know General Petraeus has mentioned that we cannot rely on a purely 
military solution inside Iraq. I think he is exactly right; I think he 
is 100 percent right on that. It needs to be a multifronted effort--
security, political, economic, and diplomatic. We need to do a lot to 
help Iraq get back on its feet and become a functioning nation again.
  Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues in this effort. I 
invite other colleagues to look at the Salazar legislation and consider 
joining it as well in the coming weeks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am honored to join with my friends in 
this particular effort. I congratulate the occupant of the chair, 
Senator Salazar, and Senator Alexander for putting this forward. We are 
seeing people come on board in equal numbers on both sides of the aisle 
to demonstrate that this is a bipartisan effort.
  Some might say this is an attack on the President's plan. I do not 
see it in that fashion at all. I think this is a demonstration of 
bipartisan support for an American plan, to see what we can do to get a 
more stable Iraq.
  When I go to Iraq and talk to the experts, they tell me the war is 
being fought on two fronts: It is being fought in Iraq and in 
Washington, DC. Al-Qaida has declared Iraq as the front line of their 
war on the ``great satan,'' which to them is the United States of 
America. The battle being fought in Washington, DC, has to do with 
America's resolve in standing up to al-Qaida. The word that is going 
out from Osama bin Laden in his audiotapes, and the letters that are 
being circulated, is that if we can just hold on long enough, the 
battle will be resolved in Washington, DC, as the Americans decide they 
no longer want to continue the fight.
  By demonstrating in a bipartisan fashion that the Senators of the 
United States are willing to talk about long-term commitments and long-
term solutions, we are making our contribution to winning the war in 
Washington. General Petraeus has been charged with the security portion 
of the war in Iraq. The Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi Government 
themselves must deal with the political problems in Iraq. We must not 
let them down by partisan bickering in Washington that encourages al-
Qaida to believe America will walk away from its responsibilities.

  This piece of legislation is not about name calling or blaming for 
past mistakes. There is no question there have been past mistakes. We 
will let the historians sort that out. Our responsibility is to do 
today what is needed to bring about an eventual proper resolution.
  In every war America has been in, there have been times of darkness,

[[Page S6579]]

times of despair. Think about Abraham Lincoln and what he faced with 
the continuing bad news from the front in his effort to keep the Union 
together. Think about World War II and the bad news that came out of 
the first encounters in North Africa and some of the other American 
efforts where we were repulsed. If we had all said we are going to turn 
our backs on this and walk away, we would not have the kind of world of 
peace we have received as a result of our efforts in those wars.
  Now is the time for the Congress to say: Regardless of what may or 
may not have been a mistake in the past, we still have to stand 
together and move forward on the basis of intelligent analysis, and we 
are using as our starting point as that analysis the Iraqi Study Group. 
The President is not hostile to this. I think he is open to it, and I 
think it is incumbent upon the Congress to say to him: Look for new 
solutions, but base them on sound analysis, and if you will, we will be 
with you, we will move forward in a bipartisan manner to see to it 
America does not fail in Iraq.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am honored today to join in a bipartisan 
initiative to introduce legislation based upon the recommendations of 
the Iraq Study Group. I proudly stand with my distinguished 
colleagues--you, Mr. President, as well as Senators Alexander, Bennett, 
Pryor, and Gregg--in affirming that this bill will offer a new way 
forward for the United States in Iraq.
  The detailed recommendations contained in this bill offer a 
comprehensive blueprint for renewed diplomacy, restructured economic 
assistance, and a redeployment of U.S. military forces in Iraq to 
emphasize training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, conducting 
limited counterterrorism missions, and protecting our own forces.
  These recommendations were issued in December 2006, over 5 months 
ago, but, if anything, their utility is even more apparent today.
  Our troops should not be refereeing a civil war. And so this Congress 
and the President must come together--must come together--to form and 
to forge a new path. The Iraq Study Group's final report is the only 
comprehensive plan on the table to do that.
  I approach this bill from a slightly different perspective than some 
of my cosponsors. In fact, I cosponsored the Reid resolution to change 
our direction in Iraq, with a goal of completing that redeployment no 
later than March of 2008. That position has been reflected in the votes 
I have cast, the questions I have asked as a member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee at hearings, and the statements I have delivered on 
the Senate floor. I strongly opposed the President's decision to 
escalate the number of combat troops in Iraq. For that reason, I voted 
for the first supplemental bill sent to the President's desk which 
called for a more restricted U.S. military mission and a phased 
redeployment of our combat forces from Iraq.
  A majority of Congress has made clear their desire to change course. 
Yet unless we achieve a more bipartisan consensus in the Congress that 
change is necessary, an impasse will continue and our troops will 
continue to pay the price. It is for that reason I believe the Iraq 
Study Group's prescribed course of action represents our best hope for 
a bipartisan consensus in an approach to wind down this combat role in 
Iraq and successfully transition our mission there.
  The members of this Iraq Study Group included foreign policy and 
military experts, as well as other distinguished Americans with 
impressive experience in public service.
  There is no challenge greater than determining how the United States 
can salvage our effort in Iraq in a manner that protects our core 
national interests, that does right by the Iraqi people, and enables 
our troops, who have accomplished every mission they have been given 
over the past 4 years, to come home finally.
  After months of study and focused deliberations with almost 200 
experts, including leading U.S. and Iraqi Government officials and 
regional scholars, the Iraq Study Group released last December a 
detailed report with 79 recommendations. This report prescribed a 
comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that 
includes sustained engagement with regional neighbors and the 
international community in a collective effort to bring stability to 
Iraq.
  There are a few recommendations in the Iraq Study Group report that 
I, in fact, disagree with personally. But the comprehensive plan put 
forth by the group, and particularly the elements emphasized in our 
bill, represents the best thinking we have on how to resolve the Iraq 
dilemma in the long run.
  Time is running out to change course in Iraq. In Pennsylvania, 166 
men and women have died. Yesterday we learned 9 Americans were killed 
in a series of attacks across Iraq. Meanwhile, we continue to search 
for two American soldiers taken hostage, and at the same time we hear 
the grim news that the body of a third missing U.S. soldier was 
identified yesterday.
  It is time for a change, and I know of no more detailed proposal, no 
more exhaustively researched set of recommendations and findings and no 
more comprehensive solution than that offered by the Iraq Study Group. 
This bill, brought forward by a bipartisan group of Senators, with a 
diverse set of perspectives and opinions, transforms the 
recommendations of this group into the declared policy of the U.S. 
Government.
  This bill offers our best chance to forge a change of direction at 
long last in Iraq and to do so in a fashion that, indeed, brings our 
Nation together.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join my colleagues this morning 
especially in thanking and congratulating the Senator from Colorado and 
the Senator from Tennessee for bringing forward this approach. There is 
no question but that we are going to begin disengaging from Iraq. The 
question is: Is that disengagement going to be done in a manner which 
strengthens our security as a nation or is it going to be done in a 
manner which undermines our security as a nation? Are we going to leave 
an Iraq which is stable enough to govern itself and maintain its own 
security and have a government that functions or are we going to leave 
an Iraq which becomes divided into warring factions which may lead to 
literally a genocidal event with an element of the country which is a 
client state for Iraq, an element of the country which is a safe haven 
for al-Qaida, and an element of the country which is perceived as a 
threat to Turkey?
  Clearly, we cannot precipitously abandon the people of Iraq or our 
own national interests in having a stable Iraq. So we need to look for 
a process which is going to allow us to proceed in an orderly way and 
in a way which, hopefully, can start to bring our own Nation together 
as we try to address this most difficult issue.
  Looking to the proposal of the Iraq Study Group is, in my opinion, 
the appropriate way to proceed. It is interesting that today we are 
going to see, I believe, the passage of a supplemental bill which will 
fund our soldiers in the field, which we absolutely have an obligation 
to do, which, after a lot of pulling and tugging and different ideas 
being put on the table, has reached a position which, hopefully, will 
have a consensus vote and will represent a majority which will be able 
to pass that bill and, thus, fund the soldiers in the field in a manner 
which has both sides working together, the Democratic leader having 
endorsed the language and the President having endorsed the language.
  But this agreement today which has in it the Warner language, which I 
supported, is a precursor to the next step, and the next step should be 
a broader coalition within our political process of developing a plan 
for disengagement from Iraq that assures the security of the United 
States and the stability of that country. Thus, I think the step which 
is being proposed today by the Senator from Colorado and the Senator 
from Tennessee and is supported by the Senator from Pennsylvania, the 
Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Utah, and myself is an effort 
to set out a blueprint or a path which we can, hopefully, follow in a 
bipartisan way as we proceed down this road.
  The Iraq Study Group did this country an enormous service--former 
Congressman Hamilton and former Secretary of State Baker--in 
extensively

[[Page S6580]]

studying the issue and coming back with very concrete and specific 
proposals as to how we can, hopefully, effectively deal with settling 
the Iraq situation.
  I congratulate both of these Senators for this initiative. I am happy 
to join in it. I look forward to it being the template upon which we 
build a broader coalition which I hope will be bipartisan and which I 
hope can settle a little of the differences which are so dividing our 
Nation and which will give not only the Iraqi people the opportunity to 
have a surviving, stable government, but will give ourselves the 
direction we need to assure our safety as we move forward in this very 
perilous time confronting terrorists who wish to do us harm.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. 
I can think of no two Senators on our side of the aisle whose words are 
listened to more carefully and more respectfully than the Senator from 
New Hampshire and the Senator from Utah. I salute the Senator from 
Pennsylvania for his statement and leadership, and the Senator from 
Arkansas, who spoke so constructively, and especially the Senator from 
Colorado, who is the principal sponsor of this legislation and whom I 
am proud to join.
  Senator Pryor is exactly right when he said this morning that it is 
time for us to stop having partisan votes on Iraq. If I were an 
American fighting in Iraq, I would be looking back at us and wondering: 
What are they doing in Washington, DC, arguing and sniping at each 
other while we are fighting and dying? I would be thinking: If they are 
going to send us to Iraq to do a job, at least they could agree on what 
the job is.
  We owe it to our troops and to our country to find a bipartisan 
consensus to support where we go from here in Iraq. We need a political 
solution in Washington, DC, as much as we need a political solution in 
Baghdad.
  The announcements today by four more Senators, each well respected--
Senators Pryor, Bennett, Casey, Gregg--suggests the recommendations of 
the Iraq Study Group is the way to do that. Three Republicans, three 
Democrats from the North, South, East, and West, some relatively new 
Senators, some who have been here a long time, fresh voices, a fresh 
approach for a fresh attitude for this debate. Before the end of the 
week, I believe there will be two more Senators--one Democrat, one 
Republican. Then in June when we return to Washington, the six or the 
eight of us intend to offer the legislation Senator Salazar and I have 
drafted to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study 
Group.
  Today we are only six, perhaps eight--a modest beginning. But even we 
six or eight are a more promising bipartisan framework of support for a 
new direction in Iraq than we have seen for some time in the Senate. 
Those who know the Senate know we usually do our best and most 
constructive work when a handful of Senators cross party lines to take 
a fresh look at a problem, embrace a new strategy, and try to do what 
is right for our country.
  We are not going to put hundreds of thousands of American troops into 
Iraq. We are not going to get out of Iraq tomorrow, and the current 
surge of troops in Baghdad, which we all hope is successful, is not by 
itself a strategy for tomorrow. The Iraq Study Group report is a 
strategy for tomorrow. It will get the United States out of the combat 
business in Iraq and into the support, equipment, and the training 
business in a prompt and honorable way. It will reduce the number of 
troops in Iraq. Those who stay will be less in harm's way--in more 
secure bases, embedded with Iraqi forces. Special forces will stay to 
counter al-Qaida. The report says this could--not must but could--
happen in early 2008, depending on circumstances.

  The report allows support for General Petraeus and his troops by 
specifically authorizing a surge, such as the current surge. Because 
there would still be a significant long-term presence in Iraq, it will 
signal to the rest of the Middle East to stay out of Iraq.
  It aggressively encourages diplomatic efforts. The President of the 
United States has spoken well of this report recently, and embraced 
parts of it, but it is not his plan. The Democratic majority has 
borrowed parts of the Iraq Study Group report, but it is not the 
Democratic majority plan. That is why the report has a chance to work. 
It has the seeds of a bipartisan consensus.
  We six or eight, or hopefully more, will introduce our legislation in 
June, making the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group the policy of 
our country and inviting the President to submit a plan based upon 
those recommendations. I hope President Bush will embrace this 
strategy. I hope more Senators will.
  It is ironic for the oldest democracy, the United States, to be 
lecturing the youngest democracy, Iraq, about coming up with a 
political consensus when we, ourselves, can't come up with one. This is 
the foremost issue facing our country. The Iraq Study Group report is 
the most promising strategy for a solution: getting out of the combat 
business in Iraq and into the support, equipping, and training business 
in a prompt and honorable way.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority has 20 minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise this morning, first of all, to 
congratulate my colleagues. Senator Alexander has worked tirelessly 
with us in putting together the legislation on the implementation of 
the Iraq Study Group recommendations. He has been a key leader in 
trying to pull a group of us together to try to develop a new direction 
going forward in Iraq. I thank him for his leadership.
  I also wish to thank both Senator Pryor and Senator Casey for joining 
us as cosponsors of this legislation. They are people who are trying to 
search for a solution on the Democratic side, and I very much 
appreciate their efforts. As for Senator Gregg and Senator Bennett, I 
appreciate also their statements, their cosponsorship of this 
legislation, and their desire to come forward to a solution that might 
unite us in the Senate on a way forward.
  Let me say at the outset that when we think about what it is we are 
trying to do with respect to Iraq at this point in time, we have a lot 
of people who are looking backward and saying there are lots of 
problems, lots of failures that have happened--from prewar 
intelligence, to decisions going into Iraq, to the prosecution of the 
war, et cetera--but the fact is we are there now. The fact is, we have 
140,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq today. So the real 
question for us ought to be, as the Congress, how it is we are going to 
move forward together.
  I think in the broadest sense there is not a disagreement on what it 
is we want. What is the end stake for us in Iraq? We want to bring our 
troops home. I think we all would like to have our troops back home, 
reunited with their families and out of harm's way. That is the goal we 
want to get to. The second goal we want to get to is a stable Iraq and 
a stable Middle East. The fact is, Iraq does not stand alone. It is in 
a sea of very difficult political turmoil at this point in time. So we 
want us to have success in Iraq.
  There has been a lot of debate about what it is we ought to have been 
doing in Iraq over the last several years. But the only group that has 
taken a significant amount of time and thought through the best way 
forward in Iraq was the Iraq Study Group. It was this bipartisan group 
of leaders, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and 
Congressman Hamilton, as cochairs of a bipartisan commission of elder 
states men and women, that came up with the most thoughtful, 
comprehensive approach on the way forward.
  The essence of what that report said is that the Iraqi Government has 
a responsibility to move forward and to meet the milestones that are 
set forth for success in that report. It says: If you do that, Iraqi 
Government, we, the United States, are going to be there to help you. 
On the other hand, if you don't do that, we, the United States, are 
going to reduce our help to you. It is an effort to put pressure on the 
Iraqi Government and the Iraqi people to

[[Page S6581]]

deal with the sectarian violence they have in place and to move forward 
in a fashion that will create stability in Iraq.
  I am hopeful, as we move forward from this day, and by the time we 
come back from the Memorial Day break, that besides the six Senators 
who have joined as cosponsors of this legislation, we will have 
additional cosponsors. At the end of the day, it seems to me that we, 
as the Congress, have a responsibility to the men and women who are on 
the ground in Iraq to try to find a common way forward.
  On the issue of war and peace, there should not be a Republican and 
Democratic divide. What we ought to be doing is trying to find a common 
way forward where we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to an 
understanding of how we will ultimately achieve success in Iraq and 
bring our troops home.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague from 
Tennessee, Senator Alexander.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________