[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 133 (Monday, September 10, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11297-S11302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             PRODUCT SAFETY

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, last week, Mattel, the maker of Barbie and 
Elmo and Barney toys, issued its third recall of tainted products from 
China just in the last month. Toothpaste, tires, toys--when ``made in 
China'' becomes a warning label, something is very wrong. Our trade 
policy should prevent these problems, not invite them. Clearly, our 
trade policy has failed. Yet anyone who disagrees with America's trade 
experts is labeled a protectionist, as if that is a bad word. It is not 
only our moral obligation to protect our communities, protect our 
families, protect our children from contaminated, possibly deadly 
products, as Members of Congress it is our duty to protect them.
  Last year, the United States imported from China $288 billion worth 
of goods, much of it food and toys and vitamins and dog food. Not only 
is China weak in unenforced health and safety regulations, as the 
Washington Post revealed again today, it aggressively foists on 
vulnerable nations contaminated food and products.
  China sends formaldehyde-laced children's candy, mercury-laced 
makeup, and fungus-infested dried fruits to unsuspecting consumers in 
Indonesia, Malaysia, and Hong Kong--a part of China--nations largely 
reliant upon Communist China for trade and for aid. Our country has 
worked hard to build safe working places, to build a reliable, healthy 
food supply, and to ensure that our drinking water is pure and safe. 
For 100 years, workers, community leaders, elected officials, 
advocates, labor union activists, people of faith in their synagogues 
and in their churches, took on some of the world's most powerful 
corporations to make sure our food and our products were safe. 
Unrestricted, unregulated free trade with China threatens these gains 
and jeopardizes our public health. Why would we expect otherwise? China 
doesn't enforce food safety, doesn't enforce consumer product safety, 
doesn't enforce worker safety in its own country for its own people. 
Why would we expect--with this wide-open trade arrangement with the 
People's Republic of China, why would we expect that Communist 
government, which cares little about its own citizens--why would we 
expect them to ship us uncontaminated vitamins? Why would we expect 
them to ship us products that are safe? Why would we be surprised when 
toys are coated with lead-based paint or vitamins are contaminated?
  As of now, there is little interest among the Chinese in changing the 
way we and they do business. Our trade deficit with China exceeded $250 
billion last year.
  So what is to be done? Since the Chinese Communist party forbids 
third party inspectors on Chinese soil, we either buy less--much less--
from China, or we hold importers responsible for the safety of the 
products they bring into our country. First of all, we must increase 
the number of food and consumer product safety inspectors. Less than 1 
percent of all imported vegetables and fruits and seafoods and grains 
are inspected at the border--less than 1 percent.
  Mattel is to be commended for taking the proactive step of an 
internal investigation into the recall of products. But such action 
should be the rarity, not the norm, which is why we cannot in our 
Nation's best interests focus solely on consumer threats from China.
  The real threat is our failed trade policy that allows--and in fact 
encourages in some ways--recall after recall after recall. The real 
threat is our failure to change course and craft a new trade policy. 
The real threat is this administration's insistence not just on 
continuing these trade relationships, but on building more of the same: 
More trade pacts that send U.S. jobs overseas, more trade pacts that 
allow companies and countries to ignore the rules of fair trade, and 
more trade pacts that will lead to more recalls.
  The administration and its free trade supporters in Congress are 
gearing up for another trade fight. They want to force on our Nation--a 
nation that in November demanded change in every State in the Union--
they want to force on our Nation more trade agreements with Peru and 
Panama, Colombia and South Korea, all based on the same failed trade 
model.
  FDA inspectors have rejected seafood imports from Peru and Panama. 
Yet the President is suggesting trade agreements with Peru and Panama. 
Yet the current trade agreements--as written--limit food safety 
standards and continue to ignore real border inspections. Adding insult 
to injury, the agreements would force the United States to rely on 
foreign inspectors who aren't doing their jobs to ensure our safety. We 
have seen how well that worked in China.
  More of the same in our trade policy will mean exactly what we have 
seen now with China: more contaminated imports; more unsafe, dangerous 
toys; more recalls. It is time for a new direction in our Nation's 
trade policy.
  As my friend from North Dakota says, we want plenty of trade. We want 
trade--plenty of it--but we want it under different rules. It is time 
for a trade policy that ensures the safety of food on our kitchen 
tables and toys in our children's bedrooms.

  Everyone agrees on one thing: We want more trade with countries 
around the world, but our first responsibility in the Senate is to 
protect the safety and the health of our families first.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, would the Senator from Ohio yield for a 
question?
  Mr. BROWN. I would love to.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio has spoken often 
about trade issues, and I have as well. We have talked a lot about the 
issue of workers, the impact of free-trade agreements on workers in 
this country, and the downward pressure on their income and the 
outsourcing of American jobs. We have talked a lot about its impact on 
the environment; being able to produce, for example, in China and pump 
effluents into the air and chemicals into the water and encouraging 
corporations to move to produce where they can hire people for 20 cents 
an hour, 30 cents an hour, and pump their pollutants into the air and 
the water unimpeded.
  We have not talked previously much about this issue of protecting 
consumers. I would just say to my colleague that I spoke last week 
about a young boy, a 4-year-old boy, who swallowed a little heart-
shaped charm--a little heart-shaped charm--and died. Why? Because that 
heart-shaped charm was made of 99 percent lead coming from China. Well, 
we know the impact of lead on human health. Ben Franklin described 
that. It is not something that is new. Yet we have these products now 
coming into this country with lead because it is cheap. It is bright. 
So we have all of this lead coming in.
  My colleague describes the circumstance now as a ``race to the 
bottom'' with respect to consumer standards. We have always known that 
is what is going on with these free-trade agreements with respect to 
labor standards and environmental standards. But is it also the case--I 
would ask the Senator from Ohio is it also the case that this is a race 
to the bottom with respect to consumer standards, by passing these 
free-trade agreements and doing nothing to insist that the conditions 
abroad are the conditions that we require at home with respect to what 
is used in the production is safe for consumers, and so on?
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, Senator Dorgan is exactly right. The 
tragedy of the young boy who swallowed the little toy made of lead is 
that it is less expensive to use lead. It is easier to paint. The paint 
dries quicker. All of that when you use lead. So when we have this race 
to the bottom, when our companies go to China and are looking for the 
cheapest way to make products, and then to import those products, 
export them from China, import them back into the United States, you 
are going to see that race to the bottom.
  We have seen it with contaminated toothpaste, we have seen it with 
vitamins, we have seen it with inulin in apple juice, and we see it in 
toy after toy after toy made by Fisher Price, made by Mattel, some of 
the most respected companies in our country.
  Until we change the trade policy when we are dealing with a country 
that doesn't protect its own consumers, doesn't do much for its own 
clean water, its clean air and safe

[[Page S11298]]

drinking water, doesn't do much for its workers, we know this race to 
the bottom will continue. That is why the Senator's efforts on trade 
issues and our efforts jointly on trade issues are so important. We 
want more trade, and we want plenty of it, but we want it under 
different rules that protect American families.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield further for a 
question, it was, I believe, about a century ago when Upton Sinclair 
wrote the famous book that launched an effort in this country that 
decided to protect consumers. He was describing conditions in the 
slaughterhouses. Once people read what he described, they insisted--
they demanded--protection for consumers. He talked about the rats in 
the slaughterhouses and how they would take pieces of bread, loaves of 
bread, slices of bread, and lace them with poison and lay them around 
so that the rats would eat the poison and die, the bread would poison 
the rats. It was all shoved down the same hole, and out the other hole 
came meat to be sold to the American consumer. There was a demand on 
behalf of the consumer to stand up for the protection of the American 
consumer.
  So over a century, we lifted standards in this country to protect 
Americans, to protect consumers. Oh, I know some consider it regulation 
which is, in their minds, something we should never do, but we regulate 
to protect people. It is the case with the global economy.
  I would ask my colleague from Ohio, it is the case, is it not, with 
the global economy that if you don't have rules that keep pace with the 
galloping global economy, you see downward pressure on American wages? 
Because it is unfair to workers--to ask a worker from Ohio or North 
Dakota to compete with someone who will work in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, 
Indonesia, or China to work for 20 cents an hour; it is unfair to those 
of us who care about the environment--and there is only one fishbowl. 
We all live in the same fishbowl, and we breathe the China haze in the 
United States--and it is also unfair to consumers who believe that for 
over a century we raised standards to protect them and now we discover 
we have been engaged in a race to the bottom to obliterate those 
standards by those who are able to produce abroad.
  Is this not the case?
  Mr. BROWN. Exactly. As we weaken those standards, as we have this 
wide-open trade arrangement with a country that doesn't respect those 
standards and has a history of undermining any standards like that, it 
is intensified by the fact that we have seen in our own country a 
weakening of consumer products, safety laws, and we have seen a scaling 
back of the number of food inspectors at the U.S.-Mexican border and in 
other places. So the first job--and I know the Senator thinks in North 
Dakota, and I think in Ohio that U.S. Senators protect our families. 
And the best way to do that is stronger consumer product laws, stronger 
health and safety laws, and not to allow them to be undercut and not to 
allow them to be unenforced.
  So I thank my friend from North Dakota for his interest, and I also 
want to lend support for his amendment that he is about to introduce 
that deals with the same kinds of issues; in this case truck safety, 
and how important that is to all of us.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment to the 
underlying bill. My understanding is there is an amendment pending. I 
can withhold the amendment. I have not yet filed it. Let me at least 
describe for this moment the amendment, and then I will file it and 
offer it with the consent of the chairman and the ranking member.
  In this morning's newspaper there is a story of a great tragedy in 
Mexico. It says: 37 die in Mexico truck blast accident. Monterrey, 
Mexico. Thirty-seven people killed when a truck loaded with explosives 
crashed into another truck in northern Mexico, Mexican media reported 
on Monday. About 150 people were injured by the blast, which left a 
crater of up to 65 feet in diameter in the road. Most of the dead were 
bystanders, including three newspaper journalists who had rushed to the 
scene of the crash and the truck exploded, the paper said. That area is 
a mining State where explosives are used in the coal industry.
  Why is that something I raise today? Well, we also had something that 
happened last week that was pretty unbelievable. The inspector general 
issued a report, and the report is titled: ``Issues Pertaining to the 
Proposed NAFTA Cross-Border Trucking Demonstration Project.'' What this 
means is they have issued a report on whether we ought to allow long-
haul Mexican trucks to come into this country and begin trucking in our 
country.
  Well, we then have an accident in Mexico of two trucks. Tragically, 
37 people are killed, 150 are injured, with a crater in the highway of 
65 feet.
  And then we have the Bush administration that last week rushed--yes, 
I say rushed--to approve the pilot project of some 100 trucking firms 
to do long-haul trucking in our country.
  The inspector general's report, which I have, is 40-some pages long. 
I had previously cosponsored an amendment with some of my colleagues 
saying that they had to wait to allow long-haul truckers from Mexico to 
do long-haul trucking in our country until they could have an inspector 
general's report which analyzed the advisability of this pilot program.
  So they could not proceed with the pilot program despite the fact 
that they were itching to do it. But they were impeded from proceeding 
until they got the inspector general's report. The inspector general's 
report came in at 7:30 last Thursday evening.
  At 8:30 the same evening--presumably having read 40-some pages--the 
attorneys and the administrator at the Department of Transportation 
announced that the pilot program would begin. So in 1 hour, the 
Department of Transportation evaluated this inspector general's 
report--or maybe not.
  Let me describe some of what this report is about. First, the 
inspector general's finding--the inspector general's finding, 
Department of Transportation only looking at records that the Mexican 
trucking companies make ``available.'' Here is what it says:

       While the Department of Transportation officials inspecting 
     Mexican trucking companies took steps to certify onsite data, 
     we noted that certain information was not available to them. 
     Specifically, information pertaining to vehicle inspections, 
     accident reports, and driver violations maintained by Mexican 
     authorities was not available to the Department of 
     Transportation.

  I will say that again. This is very stunning, almost unbelievable. 
The Department of Transportation says it has now evaluated all of 
this--the pertinent information--and has decided now to trigger the 
pilot project by which Mexican long-haul trucks will be moved into this 
country, but they weren't able to verify the onsite data. What weren't 
they able to verify? Well, vehicle inspections, accident reports, and 
driver violations.
  Why am I concerned about this whole issue? Because I know--and I 
think most people know--that you don't have the same circumstance in 
Mexico with respect to truck safety, with respect to requirements, 
regulations, and inspections; you don't have the same enforcement with 
respect to driver standards, hours of service, and all of those related 
issues. The practices are not equivalent. So if we move a trucking 
fleet into this country from Mexico that doesn't have equivalent safety 
requirements and standards, and drivers who have not been required to 
meet the same standards and have enforcement to the same standards, 
then there is no question but that we put at risk drivers on America's 
streets, roads, and highways. That is a fact.
  Yet this administration is so anxious to move that they took only 1 
hour to evaluate the IG report. They tell us: We have all this under 
control. Don't worry, be happy; it doesn't matter what truck you are 
driving next to ours or what truck you are going to meet at a four-way 
stop sign; it is all under control--except they weren't able to get 
information about vehicle inspections. That means they weren't able to 
get that information on Mexican trucks. They weren't able to get 
information about accident reports. They weren't able to get 
information about driver violations. What were they able to get?
  Is this one of those ``trust us'' things? I think we have had enough 
of these ``trust us'' claims. How about verifying just a bit some of 
the basic

[[Page S11299]]

information we need to know and understand before we decide to allow 
Mexican long-haul trucks beyond that 25-mile perimeter they have been 
allowed to drive since NAFTA. Well, as I indicated, it took this 
administration all of 1 hour to approve this pilot project.
  Let me provide the next chart that shows the key issue. The inspector 
general's report doesn't resolve these issues. You would think the 
Department of Transportation, having some sort of epiphany at 8:30 in 
the evening, must have felt everything was resolved. If they read the 
IG report, here is what it says:

       Inconsistent data used to monitor Mexican commercial 
     driving convictions in the U.S. Lack of coordination with the 
     Department of Transportation offices to ensure that drug and 
     alcohol testing issues are addressed. Lack of Federal motor 
     vehicle policy to check and record vehicle identification 
     numbers during an inspection. Inadequate Mexican bus 
     inspection coverage during busy periods.

  I went to page 2 of the IG report. Page 2 on the report is a response 
to what the administration said. They said, if we can allow these long-
haul Mexican trucks in, we are going to inspect every one of them under 
the pilot project. If we get one coming North, we are inspecting it. We 
are going to put an inspector on the vehicle. We are going to inspect 
the vehicle. Here is what the IG report says: They agreed to develop a 
plan to check every truck every time. But as of July 2007--that is a 
little less than a month ago--no coordinated site-specific plans to 
carry out such checks were in place. Federal Motor Vehicle Carrier said 
it would have plans outlined by August 22, but the IG says we have not 
received any outlines or completed plans.

       In our opinion, not having site-specific plans developed 
     and in place prior to initiating the demonstration project 
     will increase the risk that project participants will be able 
     to avoid the required checks.

  I will not read that all again. It means this: Despite the promises 
that they are going to inspect every truck every time, they don't have 
plans in place to do that. Those are pie-in-the-sky promises. We have 
had a bellyful of them. Time after time, they say here is what we are 
going to do and we commit, trust us. On this subject, the fact is we 
should not trust anybody. We should say show us the plan that is going 
to guarantee the next time you show up at a four-way stop, or you are 
driving down a highway in this country, and you are confronted by a 
truck that came across our border from Mexico, that that truck has met 
an equivalent safety standard as an American truck, and that that 
driver and his or her record of service and the conditions of service 
and the hours of service are equivalent to what you would expect with 
an American driver. If that is not the case, then there ought not to be 
a pilot project at this point.

  I only referred to page 2 of the report. As I indicated, they took a 
little less than 1 hour last Thursday evening to decide to approve the 
pilot project after they were prevented from doing so until this report 
came out. It is clear to me that they either didn't read the report or 
didn't understand the report, because this report doesn't suggest at 
all that what has been put into place represents any kind of safety or 
security for American drivers when confronting a Mexican long-haul 
truck coming across the border.
  Do I allege that every truck that will come across is unsafe, that 
every American should shudder at the risk of pulling up to an 
intersection with them? That is not my point. We have two different 
standards with respect to the enforcement of safety requirements, with 
respect to trucks and drivers in Mexico versus the trucks and drivers 
in the United States. To decide at this moment that we are going to 
merge these systems without providing the assurance to the American 
people they are going to do what they say they are going to do--inspect 
every truck every time--that is a decision by the Department of 
Transportation to provide extraordinary risks they should not provide 
for American drivers.
  Let me again put up a chart that shows three issues on which you 
would have to know, it seems to me, at least the body of information if 
you were serious about saying we are going to implement the NAFTA, 
which itself--by the way, in my conversation a few moments ago with the 
Senator from Ohio, we could have described our trade failures, and the 
hood ornament of that failure is certainly NAFTA, an agreement we 
reached with Mexico and Canada. At the time, we had a very small trade 
surplus with Mexico. We have turned that into a very large trade 
deficit with Mexico now. We had a modest trade deficit with Canada, and 
we have now turned that into a very large one. By all accounts and 
standards, NAFTA has been a huge failure for this country. It ought to 
be, in my judgment, renegotiated, but those who chant ``free trade'' 
and believe that any trade agreement is better than no trade agreement 
continue to say NAFTA was a success, despite all of the evidence. It is 
very hard to describe success as very large and growing trade deficits. 
NAFTA, apparently, indicated that we should integrate our trucking and, 
therefore, Mexican trucks should be allowed into this country for long-
haul capability. But in order to do that, we would harmonize the safety 
standards in Mexico and the United States with respect to equipment and 
drivers.
  So the Department of Transportation, anxious as it is to allow long-
haul Mexican trucking into this country right now and, again, with a 
pilot program right now, they have tried to assure us there is no risk, 
no problem, be happy. The problem is the very IG report they rely on to 
trigger the pilot project, in my judgment, tells them they should not 
do it at all; there is substantial risk. You would need to have a body 
of information about what is happening with respect to Mexican trucking 
in order to make this judgment. What kind of information did they get? 
They didn't get accident reports because there wasn't any central 
repository of information for the reports. They didn't get vehicle 
inspections. They didn't have that information. They didn't get driver 
violations--with one exception; that exception was the Mexican 
companies that decided voluntarily to provide the information. They 
have that--whatever that is. It is not very much, but they have that. 
That doesn't represent any information that is validated by anybody.
  It is unbelievable to me that they would rush off and--I know this 
about transportation, but it seems to me if anybody should be arrested 
for speeding here, it is those who have decided they are going to rush 
and speed to approve this pilot project less than 1 hour after the IG 
report comes out, at a time when the IG says clearly they have not been 
able to get the information you would need.
  Again, on page 2 of the IG report, I will say it again because it is 
central to what I am saying on the floor of the Senate, the Department 
of Transportation says they will inspect every truck every time with 
respect to this pilot project. Let me say, again, here are the facts. 
They agreed to develop a plan to check every truck every time. But as 
of July 2007, a month ago, no coordinated site-specific plan to carry 
out such checks was in place. They stated they would have plans 
outlined by August 22 at that point. That is about 2 weeks ago.
  But the IG says that ``we have not received any outlines or completed 
plans.'' ``In our opinion,'' they say, ``not having site-specific plans 
developed and in place prior to initiating the demonstration project 
will increase the risk that project participants will be able to avoid 
the required checks.'' What the IG is saying is if you don't have a 
plan in place to inspect every truck every time, you increase the risk 
that these participants will be able to avoid the required checks.
  I think this sets us up for failure, but, more importantly, it 
imposes substantial additional risks, I believe, for American drivers.
  First and foremost, with respect to our trade agreements, they ought 
to be able to protect this country's economic interests and our 
interests with respect to safety. I don't believe the actions by the 
Department of Transportation have done that.
  I don't believe the inspector general's report suggests that standard 
has been met. For that reason, I will offer an amendment that is 
identical to the amendment previously passed by the House that will 
prohibit the use of funds to continue this pilot project.
  Thursday, at 8:30 in the evening, 1 hour after the inspector 
general's report was published, the administration

[[Page S11300]]

announced they were embarking on the pilot project. I don't know 
exactly where they are at this moment on it, but wherever that happens 
to be, the House of Representatives has already said no, and I believe 
the Senate, in support of my amendment, will do exactly the same thing.
  There is an amendment pending on the floor of the Senate. I will 
shortly file my amendment, and I will call it up at an appropriate 
time. But I wish to make a comment on another matter very briefly, if I 
may.


                                  Iraq

  General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are now testifying before the 
House of Representatives. Most of us know from this morning's news 
reports and from the expectations last week what the report will be 
today. The report will be as existed now for a good many years, longer 
than the Second World War has lasted. That is how long we have been 
engaged in the war in Iraq. The report will be: Things are getting 
better; there is marginal improvement; things are uneven; we can't 
leave; we have to stay. That is going to be the report. We understand.
  I wish to raise the question again, however, that I think is being 
missed with the Petraeus report and the Crocker report, and missed by 
Congress as well.
  Last week, we were told that we received a message from Osama bin 
Laden. Osama bin Laden, in a ``safe and secure'' hideaway--and I use 
the words ``safe and secure'' in quotes because that is what our 
intelligence officials have indicated to us--in a safe and secure 
hideaway, we are receiving messages from the leadership of al-Qaida. 
The last National Intelligence Estimate, just months ago, indicated 
that the greatest threat to our country and our homeland is the 
leadership of al-Qaida and that they are ensconced in a safe or secure 
hideaway.
  My question is this: Despite all of the reports we will now hear on 
the subject of Iraq, does it meet any kind of test of faith or good 
strategy that we should be going door to door in Baghdad in the middle 
of a civil war at a time when those planning additional attacks against 
our country are in safe and secure havens in northern Pakistan, at a 
time when the National Intelligence Estimate says that the greatest 
threat to our homeland--this is not me making this up--the greatest 
terrorist threat to this country and our homeland is from the 
leadership of al-Qaida, and they are planning new attacks, does it make 
sense there is a spot on Earth that ought to be safe and secure for 
them? Isn't it the case there ought not be 1 square inch on this planet 
6 years after 9/11 that the leadership of al-Qaida can plan and plot 
attacks against our country?
  I guess that is the case because we are in the middle, once again, of 
civil war in Iraq and have been for a long while, and we will, if we 
agree there shall not be a change in course, remain in Iraq for some 
long while.
  My own view is we are going to leave Iraq. The question is not 
whether; the question is how and when. It makes little sense to me not 
to have as a priority, not to have as the priority in our country to 
eliminate the greatest terrorist threat to our country, and that, 
according to the National Intelligence Estimate, is the leadership of 
al-Qaida.
  Some will make the point that there is al-Qaida in Iraq, and that is 
true. That is not the central war on terror, however, and Iraq is not 
the central war on terror. Iraq is more sectarian violence. The 
National Intelligence Estimate tells us that as well.
  All of us hope for the same thing. We want this country to find its 
way; we would wish that the leadership of Iraq will be able to provide 
strong leadership, resolve the questions, and then at some point find a 
way to provide for its own security. Saddam Hussein has been executed; 
he is dead. The people of Iraq have a new constitution; they voted for 
it. The people of Iraq have a new government; they voted for that 
government. The next question for the people of Iraq is whether they 
have the capability and the will to provide for their own security 
because this country cannot do that for many more years, and we do that 
at the expense of not eliminating the most significant threat to our 
country, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, and that 
threat is the leadership of al-Qaida that sits now in a safe haven, a 
safe and secure place.
  I say again, as I conclude, that even as we have testimony today 
before the House and tomorrow before the Senate, our goal ought to be 
to fight the terrorists first, and those terrorists, according to the 
National Intelligence Estimate, plan additional attacks against our 
homeland even now from safe and secure places. There ought not be 1 
square inch on this planet that should be safe and secure for the 
leadership of the terrorist organizations plotting attacks against our 
country. That ought to be our priority.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate all the comments of my 
colleague. He had some very interesting things to say. I don't believe 
I can let it pass, as vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, 
without clarifying some of what has been said about the danger to this 
country.
  First, we have never taken our eyes, our efforts off getting the 
leaders of al-Qaida. There were times in the past, in the nineties, 
when we had an opportunity to get him, and apparently, according to 
published reports, from one of the people who was with Osama bin Laden, 
we came close, but we have not been able to find him. I can assure you, 
without going into the details, that we continue to make a major effort 
to find Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No. 2 man. If any 
Senator wants to come to the Senate Intelligence Committee in Hart 219, 
we will be happy to brief them on the efforts made there.
  As far as the threat to the United States, the greatest threat to the 
United States from abroad is having al-Qaida establish a safe haven 
where they can recruit, have training facilities, issue command-and-
control orders, and develop weapons of mass destruction. We have no 
better authorities than Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri that they 
still seek to establish that headquarters for their effort in Iraq 
because this is where they believe their caliphate should be 
headquartered. They would be far more capable of operating against the 
United States and others if they could go back to establishing their 
safe havens in Iraq, as they had in Afghanistan prior to our 
eliminating the Taliban.
  I believe anybody will tell you that this country is safer because we 
have denied them a safe haven. Yes, some of the leaders are hiding out 
in the rugged mountains in that region. Their communications are very 
difficult. Their training facilities have been interrupted from time to 
time by our and allied efforts. We continue those efforts. They know 
they cannot operate safely there with impunity, but they are denied the 
operational freedom of a safe haven in Iraq. That is their goal--that 
and attacking the United States. Establishing a foothold in Iraq would 
give them not only the training facilities and recruiting and command-
and-control capacities, but it would give them access to tremendous oil 
reserves, so they would have the funding from the oil resources, 
potentially putting tremendous economic pressure on us if they cut off 
Iraq's oil supply to the free world. But they would have the oil 
resources.
  As far as Iraq is concerned, the intelligence we had before we went 
in was not good. We pointed out in the Intelligence Committees where it 
fell short. But we have also had the report of the Iraqi Survey Group, 
David Kay, which said Iraq was a far more dangerous place even than we 
knew. Before we went in and took out Saddam Hussein, we did not know 
the chaotic system in that country. The fact that there were terror 
groups operating in that country who sought weapons of mass 
destruction--and we know Saddam Hussein not only manufactured but used 
weapons of mass destruction--those terrorist groups in Iraq were 
seeking to get weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's 
operations and his just-in-time inventory system.
  There is a lot more to the story than we just heard, but I can assure 
my colleagues, from the intelligence standpoint, we are not giving 
anybody any safe haven where we have any reasonable knowledge of where 
they stand or in what way they are operating.
  I wanted to make those comments. I thank the Chair. I note another 
colleague has asked to speak.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S11301]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me take 2 minutes. My colleague is a 
distinguished member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but I want 
to observe this point because it is important. We will certainly have 
an Iraq discussion late this week or next week. It will be, I hope, a 
discussion that represents the best of what both sides have to offer 
rather than the worst of each. When we get the best of both, the 
country has benefited. I hope and expect that will be the case. But I 
do wish to make this point: The training camps have already been 
reconstituted. Last week, I was on the floor of the Senate describing 
in three different pieces of evidence that Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-
Zawahiri, and others have already reconstituted training camps, which 
represents a problem. Last week in Denmark, they picked up terrorists. 
Guess where they were trained. Partly in Afghanistan but mostly in 
Pakistan. And the expectation is they were trained in those training 
camps which have been reconstituted because the leadership of al-Qaida 
does, in fact, have a safe haven.
  I have great respect for my colleague, and I do not want to pursue a 
lengthy debate, but I want to say that the leadership of al-Qaida has 
largely been given safe haven. We took our eye off the ball. There was 
a period of time when it didn't matter where they were. They have 
reconstituted their training bases, and we are starting to see the 
bitter fruits of that effort, and we will see more. It is why I say I 
believe it is very important, as a matter of national strategy, to 
fight the terrorists first.
  I will speak later about the question of what was in Iraq when we 
went there. At this point, I think all of us as a country believe that 
if that is the greatest terrorist threat to our country, the leadership 
of al-Qaida, the elimination of that leadership and the elimination of 
any safe and secure haven must be the most important goal for this 
country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today we are embarking on another very 
important chapter in our ongoing Iraq debate, and it is very 
appropriate that we do so because we are receiving testimony and 
reports from two great American leaders who have been forging our cause 
there--GEN David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. In that context, 
I wish to begin to offer some preliminary thoughts of my own as we 
reenter this debate. They are forged in particular by a recent 
experience, my recent visit to Iraq with three of our Senate colleagues 
during the August recess. I was able to go there with Senators 
Voinovich, Alexander, and Corker. We had a very good review of many 
issues there, as well as, obviously, a great opportunity to converse 
and study and talk with experts on the way there and on the way back.
  I guess out of that trip in particular--it was my second trip to 
Iraq; the first was just about a year prior to that, and this was my 
fourth trip to the Middle East--three things struck me in particular, 
that while many of them have been stated before, they are very 
important to get out on the table and reaffirm at the beginning of this 
debate.
  One is, it is very clear--in fact, I think it is largely beyond 
dispute--that in recent months, because of not just the personnel and 
the extra manpower given to the effort through the surge but because of 
the excellent strategy, the strategic thinking largely of General 
Petraeus behind that effort, there have been real and meaningful gains 
made on the security side. There have been enormous gains made against 
al-Qaida in Iraq in particular and in tapping down the sectarian 
violence more generally, although perhaps gains there to a lesser 
extent.
  We have heard a lot about the Anbar awakening and the enormous gains 
made against al-Qaida in Iraq. But I think those who try to isolate 
those gains just to that region, just to that situation are missing the 
full picture.

  We got a fuller picture of the gains while we were there. Not 
perfectly even gains, not all across the country but significant gains 
made in a number of different places, in a number of different 
contexts, and not just in that one region. The security gains, again 
because of our greater numbers but even more so because of the 
strategic thinking that was placed behind that surge, I think those 
gains are very real and very meaningful. They were evident to us, to 
myself and Senators Voinovich and Alexander and Corker, because of a 
number of factors and a number of parts of our visit.
  What got the message through particularly forcefully was the last 
part of our visit in Iraq, when we went to Combat Outpost X-ray near 
Taji, outside of Baghdad about a half-hour, 45 minutes by helicopter. 
This was a very instructive and, indeed, inspiring visit. Because, 
again, we saw the very real fruit of our new strategy and the surge 
force put behind it. And it wasn't just in that situation of Al Anbar, 
that many folks try to portray as extremely unique and not being able 
to be replicated anywhere else; it was in this combat outpost outside 
of Baghdad. And it wasn't just among a Sunni population or Sunni 
insurgents; it was in an area that was roughly half and half, Sunni-
Shia.
  Two things struck me about that visit more than anything else. One 
was talking to a young African-American soldier from Louisiana, an 
enlisted man, who in casual conversation--he wasn't quoting any talking 
points, he wasn't giving any formal brief--who said how motivated he 
was and what a greater sense of progress he thought they were making 
during his work there at Combat Outpost X-ray as compared to his 
previous deployment about 2 years before. He said the difference was 
night and day, and he felt so much more optimistic because of the surge 
and the strategic thinking behind the surge and the results it was 
having that he could see, face-to-face, on the ground.
  Some of those results we saw on that visit. Because we not only 
visited with U.S. military commanders and their military personnel, 
such as this young soldier from Louisiana, we also sat down with four 
sheiks from the region who had become full and active partners with our 
military and the Iraqi military in getting after the bad guys. It so 
happened, as is representative of that area, that two of the sheiks 
were Sunni and two of the sheiks were Shia, but they had come together 
as true brothers in arms and as true brothers in arms with the U.S. 
military and the Iraqi military to get after the bad guys, particularly 
al-Qaida in Iraq but also insurgents who were causing violence and 
terrorizing their families.
  That is the sort of real progress the Louisiana soldier was talking 
about. That is what was exciting him and had gotten him so motivated, 
particularly compared to his previous tour of duty about 2 years prior.
  The second thing I saw firsthand during that visit to Iraq is on the 
other side of the ledger and is also talked about quite freely and 
quite openly, and that is that while we have this meaningful security 
progress, while we have real results from the surge and the strategic 
thinking behind the surge, unfortunately we don't have a lot of 
political progress produced at the Iraqi central government level. 
Again, this was very evident from our personal experiences on the 
ground, particularly two meetings we had, one with the Sunni Vice 
President of Iraq and one with the Shia Vice President. Those two 
meetings, separate meetings, helped to underscore the enormous need we 
have for further reconciliation and for further political progress on 
the ground at the central government level.
  I remarked during our visit to Combat Outpost X-ray that I would like 
to nominate those four sheiks to help form a new central government 
because their reconciliation was in stark contrast, their friendship 
and partnership was in stark contrast, quite frankly, to the 
discussions we had with the two Iraqi Vice Presidents, one Shia, one 
Sunni. So, again, we saw firsthand the unfortunate lack of political 
progress. Of course, the surge was designed to create breathing room 
and time for the political process at the central government level, but 
that lack of progress has been very frustrating.

[[Page S11302]]

  Now, I do have to say there has been a little progress since then. 
Since we came home, the big five Iraqi leaders, if you will--the 
President, the two Vice Presidents, the Prime Minister, and also the 
Kurdish leader--have signed a joint communique and have laid out a path 
to reconciliation and progress on the key political issues facing them. 
That is encouraging. But certainly it doesn't completely change the 
situation on the ground politically, which wasn't particularly 
encouraging when we were there.
  The third and final thing which I observed very directly, and which 
is perhaps the most important, in my opinion that we focus on this 
week, is the enormous integrity, focus, dedication, and intelligence of 
our two primary leaders on the ground in Iraq--GEN David Petraeus and 
Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Again, our four-Senator delegation had a great 
opportunity to sit down with them for about an hour and a half, and we 
had a very meaningful, indepth discussion, hearing recent progress and 
lack of progress from them. They gave us their own personal 
observations, and they responded to all of our queries and questions. 
There were a lot of details and facts that came through during that 
meeting. But what most came through, to me, was their enormous 
credibility, in terms of what is going on there on the ground, and 
their enormous dedication, focus, background, and real intelligence 
about the challenge they were leading there on the ground.
  I think that is perhaps the most important of my three observations 
as we begin this new chapter of the Iraq debate, for a very simple 
reason. Those gentlemen are testifying, as we speak, before the House. 
They will testify tomorrow before the Senate. This is following the 
lead-up of many months, where we have been looking forward and waiting 
to hear their direct observations and their testimony. This is after it 
is universally acknowledged that they are very smart, qualified people; 
there to lead our military and diplomatic effort. Yet, even having said 
all of that, I think the rush of all of us in Congress, House and 
Senate, is to talk and debate and offer our own opinions without taking 
a little time to be quiet, to take a deep breath and listen to the 
observations and opinions of those two highly qualified leaders.
  So I end with that observation, of their enormous credibility, 
dedication, focus, and intelligence, in terms of the task before them. 
I end on that observation to encourage all of us not to reserve our 
opinions forever, not to shy away from an important debate, not to 
disagree, if we truly disagree in our minds and in our hearts, but to 
take a deep breath for a few days, for a few moments, to listen to the 
observations and the suggestions of these very capable leaders.

  That is the third thing I brought back from my personal trip to Iraq 
during August with Senators Voinovich, Alexander, and Corker. Today, 
tomorrow, as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify before 
Congress, perhaps that is the most important observation. We will have 
plenty of time to debate, argue, disagree, propose resolutions, move 
forward with legislation, and take votes. But surely, given the 
universal credibility of these two men, we should take a deep breath 
and listen carefully to their observations, their suggestions, and 
their plans. That is certainly what I am going to do as we begin this 
new chapter of the debate.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 p.m. 
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Murray amendment No. 
2792, and that regardless of the outcome, amendment No. 2791 be agreed 
to as amended, if amended.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cardin are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45 p.m. 
Senators Bennett and Hatch be given 15 minutes of time to talk about a 
resolution regarding the Utah mining incident.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________