[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 29, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S423-S425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. CASEY. I rise today to speak about the war in Iraq. There is a 
lot of talk in this Chamber and across this town and across the country 
about our economy, and that is justifiable. But we have to remember 
that in the midst of a difficult economy in America, there is a lot to 
talk about and to work on to respond to that. We still have a war in 
Iraq to worry about, to debate, and to take action on. I don't think we 
can lose sight of a war that grinds on without end in Iraq.
  This war does burden our troops, obviously, with repeated and 
prolonged deployments and, in fact, drains our national resources. The 
war hampers our efforts in places such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, the 
real frontlines in the global struggle against Islamic terrorism and 
extremism.
  So we must ask ourselves at least a couple of questions when it comes 
to the war in Iraq. There are many, but there are at least a few I can 
think of.
  What are we in the Congress doing about this war today, this week, 
this month, and in the months ahead, even as we struggle to deal with a 
difficult economy?
  The second question might be: When will the Iraqi Government start 
serious discussions on national reconciliation?
  Third, how will we know when we have achieved our objectives in Iraq? 
How will we know that?
  Finally, and I think the most compelling question is: When will our 
troops come home?
  Last night, the President spoke about a number of topics, and one was 
the economy. One of the first words the President said with regard to 
the economy, he talked about a time of uncertainty. Mr. President--
President Bush I mean--I disagree. With regard to the economy, this is 
not about something that is uncertain. It is very certain. The lives of 
Americans, the perilous and traumatic economy they are living through 
is not uncertain or vague or foggy. It is very certain. The cost of 
everything in the life of a family is going through the roof, and we 
have to make sure we respond to that situation.
  I argue that word ``uncertainty'' does apply when it comes to the war 
in Iraq in terms of our policy. I would argue to the President what is 
uncertain, if there is uncertainty out there in our land, it is about 
the war in Iraq. Uncertainty, frankly, about what our plan is in Iraq 
and what is this administration and this Congress doing to deal with 
this war in Iraq. That is where the uncertainty is. I think the reality 
of the economy is very certain for American families.
  While the headlines about Iraq have all but vanished from the front 
pages and television screens and the administration continues to divert 
attention elsewhere, we have a fundamental obligation as elected 
representatives of the American people to continue to focus on the war 
until we change the policy and bring our troops home.
  We marked the first year anniversary of the President's decision to 
initiate a troop escalation in Iraq, and we are coming upon the fifth 
anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
  Last night, in his State of the Union Address, the President 
described the surge in very positive terms. Make no mistake about it--
we all know this--our soldiers have succeeded in their mission with 
bravery and heroism and violence in many parts of Iraq is, in fact, 
down. Yet despite all that, despite all that effort, despite all that 
work, Iraq today is still not a secure nation, and it will not be 
secure until its leaders can leave the Green Zone without fear of 
assassination. It will not be secure until they can leave the Green 
Zone without fear of suicide bombings. It will not be secure until its 
own national Army and police forces can stand up and protect all of 
Iraq's people without regard to ethnicity or creed.
  In assessing whether the surge has worked, we should pay attention to 
the President's words from a year ago. President Bush declared in 
January 2007, when he first announced the surge:

       Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders and the 
     government will have the breathing space it needs to make 
     progress in other critical areas.

  Those are the President's words. So let's judge this issue by his 
words. Judged by those standards enunciated by the President, we can 
only conclude the surge has not worked, if that is what the objective 
was. I add to that, when I was in Iraq in August and I talked with 
Ambassador Crocker about the terminology used by this administration 
with regard to the war, because I said sometimes the terminology is way 
off and misleading, he said: The way I judge what is happening here is

[[Page S424]]

whether we can achieve sustainable stability. That is what he said, 
sustainable stability.
  Based upon what Ambassador Crocker said and based upon what the 
President said, if we measure what is happening now against those 
standards, the surge has not worked, based upon those assertions by the 
Ambassador and by the President.
  The troop escalation did not prompt the Iraqi Government to make the 
hard choices or to meet the benchmarks laid out by the administration. 
As General Petraeus told me in that same meeting this past summer in 
Baghdad, the war in Iraq can only be won politically, not militarily, 
and he said that on the public record as well. But on national 
reconciliation, oil sharing, and other key issues where Iraqis must 
forge agreement in order to allow U.S. forces to eventually withdraw, 
we do not see nearly enough progress. In fact, the evidence of 
substantial progress is very bleak.
  We heard recently about things that have been happening in Iraq. 
Although the Iraqi Parliament passed a debaathification measure this 
past month, it is unclear how far the legislation will go toward 
addressing Sunni concerns, since serious disagreements exist on the 
law's implementation. Some contend that former Baathists will still be 
barred from important ministries such as Justice, Interior, and 
Defense.
  As has often occurred in the past, once again the Iraqi political 
leadership has chosen to avoid the hard choices and instead kick the 
can down the road, ensuring further bloodshed and national 
fragmentation in the interim.
  We all know how long this war has endured. It has endured longer than 
the war we know as World War II. It is longer than that war, with over 
3,900 dead, 178 Pennsylvanians, the number of wounded in Pennsylvania 
is about 1,200 or more; across the country, 28,000. Our military forces 
have done everything we have asked of them. They have matched the 
bravery and success in every way possible of those great American 
warriors who preceded them in past conflicts. But our troops, the best 
fighting men and women in the world, cannot force a foreign government 
to be stable, they cannot force the Iraqi national police to put aside 
their deep-seated sectarianism and corruption, and they cannot force 
Iraqi political leaders to want progress as much as our troops do and 
as much as the Iraqi people deserve.
  We have much to do to make progress. But here is what is happening 
lately. This is a very important point, and I conclude with it. The 
President is showing every sign that he intends, in the waning days of 
his administration, to lock the United States and, in particular, to 
lock our fighting men and women into a long-term strategic commitment 
in Iraq without consultation with the elected representatives of the 
American people in Congress. He has signaled to the Iraqi Government 
that the United States can maintain significant U.S. troop levels in 
Iraq for at least 10 years--10 years--if not longer. He seeks to 
negotiate a long-term strategic agreement with the Iraqi Government 
that would commit the United States to providing security assurances to 
the Iraqi Government against external aggression--an unprecedented 
commitment that could embroil the United States in a future regional 
conflict or even a full-scale Iraqi civil war. The President's senior 
aides have proposed that such an agreement would need to be ratified by 
the Iraqi Parliament--the Iraqi Parliament--and bypass the U.S. 
Congress. That is unacceptable to me and I think to anyone in this body 
and to the American people, and it is why five other Members of this 
body joined me in December in sending a letter to the President stating 
that the Congress must be a full and coequal partner in extending such 
long-term commitments.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
my letter of December 6, 2007, to the President.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, December 6, 2007.
     President George W. Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President:  We write you today regarding the 
     ``Declaration of Principles'' agreed upon last week between 
     the United States and Iraq outlining the broad scope of 
     discussions to be held over the next six months to 
     institutionalize long term U.S.-Iraqi cooperation in the 
     political, economic, and security realms. It is our 
     understanding that these discussions seek to produce a 
     strategic framework agreement, no later than July 31, 2008, 
     to help define ``a long-term relationship of cooperation and 
     friendship as two fully sovereign and independent states with 
     common interests''.
       The future of American policy towards Iraq, especially in 
     regard to the issues of U.S. troop levels, permanent U.S. 
     military bases, and future security commitments, has 
     generated strong debate among the American people and their 
     elected representatives. Agreements between our two countries 
     relating to these issues must involve the full participation 
     and consent of the Congress as a co-equal branch of the U.S. 
     government. Furthermore, the future U.S. presence in Iraq is 
     a central issue in the current Presidential campaign. We 
     believe a security commitment that obligates the United 
     States to go to war on behalf of the Government of Iraq at 
     this time is not in America's long-term national security 
     interest and does not reflect the will of the American 
     people. Commitments made during the final year of your 
     Presidency should not unduly or artificially constrain your 
     successor when it comes to Iraq.
       In particular, we want to convey our strong concern 
     regarding any commitments made by the United States with 
     respect to American security assurances to Iraq to help deter 
     and defend against foreign aggression or other violations of 
     Iraq's territorial integrity. Security assurances, once made, 
     cannot be easily rolled back without incurring a great cost 
     to America's strategic credibility and imperiling the 
     stability of our nation's other alliances around the world. 
     Accordingly, security assurances must be extended with great 
     care and only in the context of broad bipartisan agreement 
     that such assurances serve our abiding national interest. 
     Such assurances, if legally binding, are generally made in 
     the context of a formal treaty subject to the advice and 
     consent of the U.S. Senate but in any case cannot be made 
     without Congressional authorization.
       Our unease is heightened by remarks made on November 26th 
     by General Douglas Lute, the Assistant to the President for 
     Iraq and Afghanistan, that Congressional input is not 
     foreseen. General Lute was quoted as asserting at a White 
     House press briefing, ``We don't anticipate now that these 
     negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which 
     would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs 
     from the Congress.'' It is unacceptable for your 
     Administration to unilaterally fashion a long-term 
     relationship with Iraq without the full and comprehensive 
     participation of Congress from the very start of such 
     negotiations.
       We look forward to learning more details as the 
     Administration commences negotiations with the Iraqi 
     government on the contours of long-term political, economic, 
     and security ties between our two nations. We trust you agree 
     that the proposed extension of longterm U.S. security 
     commitments to a nation in a critical region of the world 
     requires the full participation and consent of the Congress 
     as a co-equal branch of our government.
           Sincerely,
     Robert P. Casey, Jr.,
     Robert C. Byrd,
     Edward M. Kennedy,
     Jim Webb,
     Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     Carl Levin,
                                           United States Senators.

  Mr. CASEY. We now learn that the President, in signing the Department 
of Defense authorization bill into law yesterday, has once again taken 
the opportunity to issue another infamous signing statement, imposing 
his own interpretation of a law over the clear intent of the Congress.
  Let's not forget that this important legislation has been needlessly 
delayed for weeks because the President wanted to defer to concerns of 
the Iraqi Government over compensation for U.S. victims of Saddam 
Hussein's acts of terrorism. Let me repeat that. A critical pay raise 
for our troops was delayed because a foreign government raised concerns 
with this White House.
  In signing the Department of Defense authorization bill into law, the 
President declared his right to ignore--ignore--several important 
provisions, including the establishment of an important special 
commission to review wartime contracting. This provision was an 
initiative of the Senate Democratic freshmen class, led by Senators 
Webb and McCaskill. The President also declared his right to ignore a 
provision prohibiting funding for U.S. military bases or installations 
in Iraq that facilitate ``permanent station'' of U.S. troops in Iraq.
  Let me say that again in plain language. This provision sought to 
prevent the United States from establishing permanent bases in Iraq, 
and

[[Page S425]]

the President has indicated he may ignore--ignore--this provision. 
Every time senior administration officials are asked about permanent 
military bases in Iraq, they contend it is not their intention to 
construct such facilities. Yet this signing statement issued by the 
President yesterday is the clearest signal yet that the administration 
wants to hold this option in reserve. This is exactly the wrong signal 
to send both to the Iraqi Government and its neighbors in the region 
and to others as well.
  Permanent U.S. military bases gives a blank check to an Iraqi 
government that has shown no evidence that it is ready to step up and 
take full responsibility for what happens in Iraq. Permanent U.S. 
military bases feeds the propaganda of our enemies, who argue that the 
U.S. invasion in 2003 was carried out to secure access to Iraq's oil 
and establish a strategic beachhead for the U.S. military in the 
region. Permanent U.S. military bases means U.S. troops will be in Iraq 
for years to come, ensuring that the great strain on the American 
military will continue indefinitely.
  Finally, and I will conclude with this, we have a lot on our plate 
this year to deal with. We have the economy to deal with and so many 
other difficult issues, but the war in Iraq continues to be a central 
foreign policy challenge faced by the President, by the Congress, and 
by the Nation. When this President departs office after 8 years, he 
should not--should not--commit our soldiers and our Nation to 10 more 
years--10 more years--if not longer, and hundreds of billions of 
dollars, if not more, spent on the war in Iraq.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding, under a previous 
unanimous consent request, that I would be recognized for up to 35 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

                          ____________________