[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 177 (Thursday, November 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14426-S14430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when I have
1 minute left on my time, and I thank the Chair; and I, of course, join
the Republican leader in paying tribute to all the members of our Armed
Forces, those who continue to serve, those who have completed their
service, and particularly those whom we have lost and their families.
But the Senate still needs to address Iraq. The American people voted
a year ago to end the war and we haven't followed through. We need to
address this issue and to end this misguided war now, before more
Americans are injured and killed.
The bridge fund passed yesterday by the House isn't good enough. The
goal for redeployment doesn't cut it. We need a binding deadline, which
means we need to pass the Feingold-Reid bill.
Despite recent reports of a downturn in violence in Iraq, violence
remains at unacceptable levels. 2007 has already been declared the
bloodiest year since the war in Iraq started, and that is with almost 2
months still to go. Those counts don't bring in the number of Iraqis
killed. On a relatively quiet day earlier this week, with no reported
coalition tragedies, at least 33 Iraqis were killed and an equal number
wounded in violence around the country. We can't say violence is down
when violence around the country remains so high, when so many
Americans are being killed and when so many Iraqis are afraid to walk
the streets.
The underlying reality is we are working with both sides of the Iraqi
civil war and deepening our dependence on former insurgents and
militia-infiltrated security forces.
Meanwhile, the situation in the North and South is precarious at
best. Unrest in these areas threatens the security of our supply lines.
The most recent National Intelligence Estimate largely attributed the
decline in violence--particularly in Baghdad--to population
displacements. Baghdad is now predominantly Shi'ite. While the purpose
of the surge was to foster reconciliation, the reality is that the
number of Iraqis displaced by the conflict doubled since the start of
the surge, adding to millions already pushed out of their homes from
2003 to 2006.
Meanwhile, we have put our troops outside the forward operating bases
in more dangerous territory for the purpose of policing the Iraqi civil
war. When they are out in those joint security stations, they have to
spend half
[[Page S14427]]
their time watching their backs because our ``allies'' are former Sunni
insurgents and Iraqi Security Forces, neither of whom can be trusted.
We continue to supposedly ``train'' Iraqi Security Forces despite the
fact that we finished training over 300,000 of them over a year ago. Of
course, we may well be simply contributing to the Iraqi civil war by
``training'' and arming forces that are infiltrated by militias. We
can't even account for the guns we have given them.
The ``al Anbar'' strategy--signing cease fires I with insurgents who
were attacking our guys not too long ago--does not have the support of
the Iraqi government. It is a poor substitute for meaningful
reconciliation, which supposedly the surge is going to foster. Now the
administration is shifting the goal posts and talking about ``bottom-
up'' reconciliation.
We have seen the levels of violence in Iraq shift before--this is
nothing new. If my colleagues think the surge is working and violence
is down--let's get out while the getting is good. Without meaningful
reconciliation, the violence will spike up again, that's for sure. So
let's not wait around for that to happen.
Many U.S. troops currently in Iraq are now in their second or third
tours of duty. Approximately 95 percent of the Army National Guard's
combat battalions and special operations units have been mobilized
since 9/11.
Mr. President, 1.4 million Americans have served in Iraq, and over
400,000 have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly
4,000 have been killed in Iraq and over 27,000 have been wounded.
The Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq
without seriously damaging the military. Young officers are leaving the
service at an alarming rate.
Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam.
Every active Army brigade currently not deployed is unprepared to
perform its wartime mission.
More than two-thirds of active duty Army brigades are unready for
missions because of manpower and equipment shortages--most of which can
be attributed to Iraq.
There are insufficient Reserves to respond to additional conflicts or
crises around the world, of which there are, of course, potentially
many.
This failure to prioritize correctly has left vital missions
unattended. Natural disaster response, U.S. border security, and
international efforts to combat al Qaida are all suffering due to the
strain on military forces caused by poor strategy and failed leadership
in Iraq.
Thousands of our troops have returned home with invisible wounds;
such as PTSD and TBI--traumatic brain injury, which will have a long-
term impact on veterans and their families. These invisible wounds are
not counted in the casualty numbers, but we will be struggling with
them for a generation or more.
The cost of the War? America has been in Iraq longer than it was in
World War II.
Secretary Rumsfeld said the war would cost less than $50 billion. The
administration has now requested over $600 billion for the war.
If we don't change course in Iraq, the cost of the war is likely to
balloon to $3.5 trillion.
If we keep a ``Korea-like presence'' in Iraq, as Secretary Gates has
predicted, this means we will have 55,000 troops in Iraq by 2013--a
level that remains constant until 2017. And while this drop would
certainly be cheaper, it would still mean an additional $690 billion.
CBO has estimated that, just paying the interest on the money we have
borrowed to pay for the war to date, will cost another $415 billion.
We are currently spending nearly $9 billion a month in Iraq. In 3
months in Iraq, we spend nearly the same amount that we spend on
foreign relations and aid worldwide in 1 year.
The fiscal year total spending of the war--$150 billion--is greater
than the combination of spending on our national transportation
infrastructure, health research, customs and border protection, higher
education assistance, environmental protection, Head Start, and the
CHIP program. Our national programs are being neglected because of this
disastrous war and future generations will bear the brunt of our
misguided policy.
The costs are only rising. We spent twice as much this year in Iraq
as we did in 2004.
The President continues to mislead the country about al-Qaida and
Iraq. Contrary to the President's assertions, Pakistan and Afghanistan,
not Iraq, are the key theater in this global conflict. While the
administration has focused on Iraq, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself
along the Afghanistan- Pakistan border.
The President also presents a false choice between fighting al-Qaida
in Iraq and doing nothing. Every single redeployment proposal includes
the option of targeted operations against al-Qaida within Iraq. The
difference is that the President seems to think that 160,000 or 180,000
troops, sent to Iraq for an entirely different purpose, need to stay.
We cannot ignore the rest of the world to focus solely on Iraq. Al-
Qaida is and will continue to be a global terrorist organization with
dangerous affiliates around the world. Contrary to what the
administration has implied, al-Qaida is not abandoning its efforts to
fight us globally so that it can fight us in Iraq. That is absurd.
We need a robust military presence and effective reconstruction
program in Afghanistan. We need to build strong partnerships where AQ
and its affiliates are operating--across North Africa, in Southeast
Asia, and along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we
need to address the root causes of the terrorist threat, not just rely
on military power to get the job done.
For example, right now, Iran's strategic position continues to
improve and the situation on the Turkish border is explosive. We are
bogged down in Iraq and exposed to attack from all sides, and our
ability to promote regional stability from a position of strength is
undermined.
Maintaining a huge, open-ended presence is igniting tensions in the
region, and playing into the hands of the Iranian regime. Iran is able
to expand their influence while we take the hits, in terms of
casualties and finances. Our open-ended presence in Iraq is a blessing
for Iran because it provides them with a buffer and mitigates any
potential conflict between those two countries. It also removes any
incentive for Iran to engage in a constructive manner.
Maintaining a significant U.S. troop presence in Iraq is undermining
our ability to deter Iran as it increases its influence in Iraq,
becomes bolder in its nuclear aspirations, and continues to support
Hezbollah.
The American people want us out of Iraq. The administration's policy
is clearly untenable. The American people know that, which is why they
voted the way they did in November. More than 60 percent of Americans
are in favor of a phased withdrawal. They do not want to pass this
problem off to another President, and another Congress. And they sure
don't want another American servicemember to die, or lose a limb, while
elected representatives put their own political comfort over the wishes
of their constituents.
The Feingold-Reid amendment requires the President to safely redeploy
U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008. At that point, funding for
military operations in Iraq is terminated, with narrow exceptions for
targeted operations against al-Qaida and its affiliates; providing
security for U.S. Government personnel and infrastructure; and training
Iraqis.
We have narrowed the training exception to prevent training of Iraqi
Security Forces--ISF--who took part in sectarian violence or attacks
against U.S. troops. The exception also prohibits U.S. troops training
Iraqis from being embedded with or taking part in combat operations
with the ISF. These changes are intended to address concerns about the
performance of the ISF--which has been infiltrated by Shia militias and
accused of attacks upon U.S. troops--and to make sure that ``training''
is not used as a loophole to allow substantial numbers of U.S. troops
to remain in Iraq for combat purposes.
The other two exceptions are appropriately narrow: the
counterterrorism exception applies to operations against al-Qaida and
affiliated international terrorist organizations, while force
protection applies to protecting U.S.
[[Page S14428]]
Government personnel and infrastructure.
The time has come for the Senate to seriously engage on this issue.
The costs and the tragedy of this war are plainly unacceptable and
contrary to the will of the American people.
Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 1077
Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that S. 1077 be discharged
from the Foreign Relations Committee, be placed on the calendar, and at
a time to be determined by the majority leader following consultation
with the Republican leader, the Senate may proceed to consideration of
S. 1077 and it be considered under the following limitations: that the
only amendment in order be a Feingold-Reid amendment which is the text
of the amendment offered on the DOD authorization measure; that there
be a total time limitation of 2 hours of debate on the bill and the
amendment, with the time divided and controlled in the usual form, and
upon the use of that time the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the
amendment; that upon disposition of the amendment, the bill, as
amended, if amended, be read a third time and the Senate then proceed
to vote on passage of the bill, without further intervening action or
debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. BOND. I object.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I am, of course, disappointed Republicans have again
blocked us from debating and voting on legislation to end the war in
Iraq. S. 1077 is the bill I introduced with the majority leader, Harry
Reid, and eight other Senators earlier this year to safely redeploy
troops from Iraq. The substitute amendment is the amendment we offered
to the Defense authorization bill in September. It is, in effect, just
a tweaked version of S. 1077. The majority leader joins me in these
efforts.
There is simply no good reason to block a vote on this important
bill. I assure my colleagues I am not going to go away, and this issue
will not go away either, much as they might prefer it. Until Congress
brings a halt to the President's open-ended, misguided war in Iraq, we
will have debates and votes on this issue again and again and again.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, here we go again. We have had an effort to
take another vote on whether we should pull out of Iraq. Apparently, it
is based on public opinion polls. Some think it would be popular, and
certainly the moveon.org and Code Pink wing of the majority party would
be very happy if we could have crammed down a measure to make a
substantial change in our policy without even allowing an amendment. It
is absolutely unacceptable on its face.
I object not only on behalf of myself and many of my colleagues but
for the brave men and women from America who volunteered to go into
harm's way for our security and to promote security in the world.
Retreat and defeat may be politically popular with some, but this kind
of poison pill does great injustice to what our American volunteers
have done. From the people on the ground, when we first started
considering these retreat-and-defeat measures, I heard a very heartfelt
plea: We have made too many contributions and made too many sacrifices
to see it all go for naught because of political maneuvering on Capitol
Hill. That comes from people who have seen their comrades fall in
battle.
This year alone, the Democrats have attempted at least nine times to
force the President to change the military strategy and tactics in
Iraq, on the misbegotten notion that somehow we, in this comfortable
setting of Congress, can make better military, tactical, and strategic
decisions than our commanders on the ground. I find that deplorable.
It used to be the tradition of this body, of America, that we
supported our troops when they were going in harm's way. Now some are
doing everything possible to undermine their efforts. Nine times they
have tried to change the policy. After 77 of us voted to send troops
into Iraq because we knew it was a dangerous place, we found out--by
the Iraq Survey Group--that it was even more dangerous.
Make no mistake, while some in this body may not think Iraq is
important, two people whose activities I try to follow fairly closely
in intelligence, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, his No. 2 man,
think Iraq should be the headquarters of their caliphate, the
headquarters of their vicious terrorist empire that wants to subjugate
the region and threaten the United States.
Now, however, there is a key difference from earlier because we are
seeing dramatic improvements in the security situation in Iraq, in
particular in Al Anbar Province, which a year ago was a deadly place, a
deadly place into which American troops could only go under heavy fire.
My son and several thousand marines are coming home because they have
succeeded. Yes, there is a strategy for drawing down our troops. The
President has announced it. It is called ``return on success.'' We
bring the troops back when they have succeeded in their mission.
In Iraq, in Al Anbar, I have heard from people who are imbedded with
Iraqi security forces that times have changed. There now are Iraqi
citizen groups, citizen watch groups, who look for IEDs, who will
identify foreign terrorists--al-Qaida types--who come into the area,
and who will point out factories designed to build explosive vehicles.
They turn that over to the Iraqi police in the area, and they clean it
up. I have heard from a guy on the ground who is responsible for
maintaining stability and security from the terrorists that the marines
were no longer needed. So they are coming back. This is being
replicated in places throughout Iraq.
Have we finished? We have not finished the job. There are still other
areas, but it means we are succeeding. Iraqis are going about their
normal business. Unfortunately for our fighting men and women and the
Iraqi people who put their trust in us to see this mission through, too
rarely are their successes being reported. They are ignored, although
the New York Times, on the back page, I think, this past weekend,
pointed out that we had routed al-Qaida in Iraq. Surprise. That wasn't
on the front page, did not make headlines, because it has indicated a
major change. Have you heard much about the success of General Petraeus
and the counterinsurgency strategy after he testified on Capitol Hill?
If you are like most Americans, the answer is you have heard very
little, because it has fundamentally changed. While the media has
always been quick to report bombings and failures in Iraq, it is simply
not providing all of the good news.
They have been remarkably successful in 2007 in reducing violence.
Yes, with the surge, with the new strategy, there was violence. But,
according to General Odierno, the operational commander of U.S. forces
in Iraq, enemy attacks are now at their lowest level since January 2006
and continue to drop. There has been a 60-percent decrease in IED
attacks.
The reduction in violence is partly as a result of the presence of
additional American forces and their adoption of the sound
counterinsurgency strategy--go in and clear an area, work with the
Iraqi security forces, and help them build an economy, a neighborhood,
a safe place. It is also because the leaders on the ground in Iraq, the
Sunni sheiks, have said--they have seen what continued terrorist
attacks do to their country, to their people. The most frequent victims
are Iraqis, good Muslim Iraqis who are being killed by the terrorists.
They want to cooperate with us, and they are building, from the ground
up, a stable, reliable, peaceful control over the area with the Iraqi
security forces. Yes, some of them fought against us in the past, but
they are now on our side because we are on their side and we are
helping them. And when they take over, we will move back.
Now, I am fully aware of and concerned about the lack of political
reconciliation. But, again, from boots on the ground, I hear: How do
you expect them to establish a perfect democracy when this country is
still not secure? Our goal in Iraq must be to work with the Iraqis, the
Iraqi security forces, and responsible leaders to establish relative
peace and security in the area.
[[Page S14429]]
What would happen if we withdrew precipitously for a political goal?
We learned in an open hearing of the Intelligence Committee in January
that if we pull out before we have stabilized this area and left in
place Iraqi security forces, there would be chaos, and three bad things
would happen: No. 1, there would be greatly increased violence among
Sunni and Shia; there would likely be intervention by other states
coming into Iraq to protect their coreligionists, potentially a civil
war spreading into a region-wide war in a vital security and energy
part of the world; but most dangerous for United States, and this is
something my colleagues who want to cut and run seem to refuse to
acknowledge, is that al-Qaida would be able to establish a safe haven.
Yes, they have been driven off to the hills, the mountainous regions
somewhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they cannot mobilize and
exercise their command and control. If they had a place for command and
control, had access to the oil riches of Iraq to fund their deeds, we
would be significantly at greater risk to weapons of mass destruction
attacks by terrorist groups funded and supported by al-Qaida.
We need to be realistic in defining what reconciliation is. It is a
long process. To this day, for example, not all outstanding political
tensions have been reconciled in Northern Ireland, in Bosnia, or
Kosovo. Yet the civil wars and the terrorist campaigns that once
threatened to engulf those areas have ended, and competing factions are
pursuing their agendas primarily by peaceful political means.
Our men and women in uniform are fighting in Iraq to bring violence
under control, to destroy al-Qaida, to drive out destabilizing Iranian
meddling, and to establish a relatively stable and secure structure in
Iraq, and they are making progress to those goals.
Getting a perfect democracy--we thought we had a perfect Jeffersonian
democracy; then we had to have a Lincolnian republic after the Civil
War. We are continuing to see the democracy. While it is the best of
all the other bad situations, it is not perfect and does not work in a
clear upward path; it takes time. And now we are seeing the questions
being worked out at the local level on revenue sharing, oil revenue
sharing. But to push a retreat-and-defeat, a delay-and-deny battle for
the funds for our troops on the ground is unthinkable. This unanimous
consent agreement to which I objected would be the ultimate cut and
run: declare defeat, and hope to be rewarded in 2008 at the polls--a
very regrettable effort by our colleagues on the other side.
The 2008 Defense appropriations bill recently passed by Congress
includes no funding for our current operations in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and the global war on terror. For 3 years prior to this, we included
emergency funding for the regular Defense appropriations bill to cover
the cost of military operations until a full supplemental could be
adopted. We are now seeing, coming over from the House, a pittance of
what is needed, encapsulated in all kinds of restrictions that tie the
hands of the troops on the ground and put unreasonable restrictions on
them that are likely to cause much greater danger to American
personnel, military and civilian, over there. What we need to provide--
and I hope we will be able to put an alternative emergency funding bill
on the floor--are funds for force protection initiatives, body armor,
helmets, ballistic eye protection, even knee and elbow pads, flares,
and armor. The 2008 Defense spending bill did include funding for
MRAPs, but why did the Democrats insist on omitting other critical
items?
Now that DOD will be forced to continue robbing Peter to pay Paul in
order to fund operations, it has a tremendously negative impact, not
only on the way we conduct the war but how the Department of Defense
operates. Important equipment reset and other procurement programs have
to be slowed down. It will impact the availability of equipment,
including critical equipment for the National Guard needed to respond
to domestic emergencies. Without this funding, the Pentagon is forced
to divert money from their regular accounts to fund overseas
operations, about $13 billion a month.
I have a letter that has just been sent by Gordon England. He has
pointed out what this would mean to the Defense Department. It means,
among other things, the Deputy Secretary of Defense said, they will
have no choice but to deplete appropriations accounts, and it will
result in a profoundly negative impact on the defense civilian working
force, depot maintenance, base operations, and training activities, and
within a few weeks they will be required by law to issue notices of
termination to civilian employees.
In addition, a lack of any funding for the Iraqi security forces and
the Afghanistan national security forces directly undermines the
ability of the United States to continue training and equipping Iraqi
and Afghanistan troops who are needed to take over. This makes
absolutely no sense in a time of war. We deny the needed funding that
will keep our troops--not only keep the troops in the field but support
those who are working to assure that we can turn over the
responsibility to them.
This is absolutely the wrong message to send to our deployed troops.
We must provide emergency funding without political timetables to win
votes at home but undermine our troops.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
Deputy Secretary of Defense England to House Defense Subcommittee
chairman John Murtha and an article in today's Washington Times called
``War Funds Under Attack.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Deputy Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC, November 8, 2007.
Hon. John Murtha,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman. I am deeply concerned that the Fiscal
Year 2008 Appropriations Conference Report currently under
consideration does not provide necessary funding for military
operations and will result in having to shut down significant
portions of the Defense Department by early next year. Last
week, Secretary Gates reiterated the Department's request
that Congress pass the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense budget
request promptly and in its entirety, including for Global
War on Terrorism (GWOT) operations. Lacking complete funding,
the Department requested that sufficient funds be provided to
continue global operations and to allow equipment reset.
Without this critical funding, the Department will have no
choice but to deplete key appropriations accounts by early
next year. In particular, the Army's Operation and
Maintenance account will be completely exhausted in mid-to-
late-January, and the limited general transfer authority
available can only provide three additional weeks of relief.
This situation will result in a profoundly negative impact on
the defense civilian workforce, depot maintenance, base
operations, and training activities. Specifically, the
Department would have to begin notifications as early as next
month to properly carry out the resultant closure of military
facilities, furloughing of civilian workers and deferral of
contract activity.
In addition, the lack of any funding for the Iraqi Security
Forces and the Afghanistan National Security Forces directly
undermines the United States' ability to continue training
and equipping Iraqi and Afghani security forces, thereby
lengthening the time until they can assume full security
responsibilities. Further, the conference report provides
only $120 million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), which is a small fraction of
what is required to sustain ongoing efforts to protect our
forces against this deadly threat.
I urge you to take whatever steps are necessary to promptly
pass legislation that properly supports and sustains our
troops in the field. The successes they have achieved in
recent months will be short lived without appropriate
resources to continue their good work. I ask that you provide
them complete and unencumbered GWOT funding as soon as
possible.
Gordon England.
____
[From the Washington Times, Nov. 15, 2007]
War Funds Under Attack
(By S.A. Miller and Sara A. Carter)
The Pentagon yesterday warned that money was already
running out for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as
congressional Democrats dismissed recent security gains and
threatened to stall emergency war funds.
``The Army is in a particularly precarious situation,''
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. ``Absent extraordinary
measures, it would run out of money by mid-February--so quick
congressional action is needed as quickly as possible.''
The Defense Department had to start shuffling funds to
cover war costs Tuesday after the president signed the
department's $471 billion spending bill that did not include
war funds but allowed account transfers, he said.
Nevertheless, House Democrats passed a $50 billion war-
spending bill last night with a 218-203 vote that President
Bush promises to veto because it mandates a U.S. pullout from
Iraq start immediately with a goal of a nearly complete
withdrawal by December 2008.
[[Page S14430]]
The bill mimics Democrats' previous challenges to Iraq
policy and likely will stall emergency funds, which would pay
for about three months of warfare while lawmakers debate the
rest of the $196.4 billion war-funds request for 2008.
The top Democrats--House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California
and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada--say they
will withhold troop funds for at least the rest of the year
if Mr. Bush does not accept the pullout timetable.
``There is a growing sense within our caucus that it is
time to play hardball,'' said Rep. Jim McGovern,
Massachusetts Democrat and outspoken war critic. ``This is
George Bush's war. He started it. He's got to finish it.''
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Democrats used
the pullout bill ``for political posturing and to appease
radical groups.''
``Once again, the Democratic leadership is starting this
debate with a flawed strategy, including a withdrawal date
for Iraq despite the gains our military has made over the
past year, despite having dozens of similar votes in the past
that have failed and despite their pledge to support the
troops,'' she said.
``The president put forward this funding request based on
the recommendation of our commanders in the field,'' Mrs.
Perino said. ``The Democrats believe that these votes will
somehow punish the president, but it actually punishes the
troops.''
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat,
said recent progress in Iraq--a sharp decline in U.S.
casualties, fewer Iraqi civilian deaths and fewer mortar
rocket attacks and ``indirect fire'' attacks--were temporary
improvements from the troop surge this summer.
``What has not happened is what the administration
predicted would happen, [that] an environment would be
created where political reconciliation would occur,'' Mr.
Hoyer told reporters on Capitol Hill.
``Violence is down. I am happy that violence is down,'' he
said. ``What is not up is, this year, we've lost more people
than any other year in this war. This year, more refugees
were created than any other year in this war.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Oklahoma.
____________________