[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 26, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1159-S1162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON AL-QAIDA

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate will vote later today in 
relation to two bills I recently introduced with Majority Leader Reid 
addressing the war in Iraq and the disastrous toll it continues to take 
on our top national security priority, the global fight against al-
Qaida.
  Many of my colleagues have expressed concern that the exhausting rate 
of deployments in Iraq and the resources we are committing to that 
country are undermining our ability to protect ourselves at home and 
respond to dangers abroad, including the deteriorating situation in 
Afghanistan and the global threat posed by al-Qaida. While we all hope 
that the recent decline in violence in Iraq will hold, lasting 
stability remains elusive and there is a serious danger that our troops 
will remain mired in Iraq while our ability to combat al-Qaida 
elsewhere and protect ourselves at home continues to deteriorate.
  Senator Reid and I have introduced two bills to address these 
problems head-on. One of these bills, S. 2633, is similar to 
legislation we have offered before. I am pleased that this bill is also 
cosponsored by Senators Boxer, Brown, Byrd, Cardin, Clinton, Dodd, 
Durbin, Harkin, Leahy, Menendez, Obama, Sanders, Schumer, Whitehouse, 
and Wyden. It requires the President to safely redeploy U.S. combat 
troops from Iraq with very narrow exceptions. Effective 120 days from 
enactment of this bill, U.S. troops could only remain in Iraq for the 
following purposes: conducting targeted military operations against al-
Qaida and its affiliates, providing security for U.S. personnel and 
infrastructure, providing limited training of Iraqi Security Forces, 
providing equipment and training to our own troops, and continuing to 
redeploy from Iraq.
  Unlike previous legislation I have offered, this bill does not have 
an end date for redeployment. Some of my colleagues who oppose the war 
have expressed concern about Congress setting such a date, and in 
drafting this legislation we have tried to address their concerns. By 
not including an end date, we are trying to provide additional 
flexibility in how the troops are redeployed. And we are also making 
doubly clear that at no point will funding be denied to the troops--
they will continue to be fully funded throughout their redeployment.
  If there is no end date for redeployment, then (what is to stop the 
administration keeping troops there indefinitely? The answer is that, 
after 120 days, troops can only remain in Iraq for the narrowly defined 
purposes in the bill. Because these exceptions are so narrow, the bill 
removes any incentive for the President to delay or ``slow walk'' 
redeployment.
  Now, some on the other side are arguing that this new bill is tougher 
than previous versions, because the funding restriction kicks in 
sooner, in 120 days. Of course, these are the same people who oppose 
any limitations on the war, so I don't take their arguments too 
seriously. I suspect they haven't actually read the new bill, or they 
would realize that the bill is quite a bit more flexible, for the 
reasons I just mentioned.
  Right now, the administration is considering various ``drawdown'' 
plans, all of which would leave well over 100,000 troops in Iraq 
through the end of the year. That would continue to require an 
exhausting rate of deployments that we simply cannot afford--for our 
military readiness, our fiscal bottom line, and our national security.
  This administration has put Iraq first for too long. In an effort to 
refocus our national priorities, the second bill Senator Reid and I 
have introduced with Senators Boxer, Brown, Byrd, Cardin, Casey, 
Clinton, Dodd, Harkin, Lautenberg, Leahy, Menendez, Obama, Schumer, and 
White-house, would require the administration to come up with a 
strategy to wage a comprehensive, global campaign against al-Qaida, 
without undermining our military readiness. The legislation, S. 2634, 
does this by requiring a comprehensive report from the Secretaries of 
Defense, State and Homeland Security, working in coordination with the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National 
Intelligence. The report will examine the threat posed by al-Qaida and 
affiliates around the world and recommend ways to ensure that our 
national security assets are properly deployed to address this threat. 
To be clear, I am not just talking about military assets, we also have 
intelligence, diplomatic and other assets that we need to use to defeat 
al-Qaida. We can't just rely on boots on the ground--we need to use all 
of the other facets of U.S. power, including aggressive public and 
private diplomacy, to counter al-Qaida.
  Some of the information called for in this bill will probably need to 
be contained in a classified annex. But there is no reason the 
administration cannot also provide a public report identifying in broad 
terms the threat we face and how to respond to it. The American public 
should be kept as informed as

[[Page S1160]]

possible about how we are protecting them from the number one threat we 
face.
  I know some of my colleagues do not want to be talking about Iraq 
again. I know some of them complain that we spent too much time 
debating Iraq last year and I know some of them have concerns about 
whether now is the right time to bring these bills up for a vote. But 
we cannot allow the focus on Iraq to fade because violence has declined 
in parts of Iraq. It is true violence levels are down to where they 
were in 2005, but Iraq is still extremely and unacceptably violent, as 
it was in 2005. Violence has risen in Mosul and in the south, and U.S. 
casualty rates in January were higher than in December. All is not calm 
in Iraq, as the administration would have you believe.
  Moreover, the surge has not brought Iraq any closer to legitimate 
political reconciliation at the national level--and it may, in fact, 
have undermined the prospects for such reconciliation in the long term. 
The President's policies have empowered former insurgents and militia-
infiltrated security forces with questionable loyalties. By supporting 
sheiks in al Anbar--and elsewhere--we may have reduced violence in the 
near term, but only by making it more difficult to achieve national 
reconciliation in the long run. The Director of National Intelligence, 
or DNI, testified this month that many Sunnis who participate in local 
security initiatives remain hostile to the Shi'ite leaders in Baghdad, 
and that some of those leaders see the Sunnis we are supporting as 
``thinly disguised insurgents'' who are plotting against them. Mr. 
President, we cannot, and should not, ask our brave men and women in 
uniform to resolve these sectarian disputes. Military operations are 
not a substitute for a viable political settlement, and the American 
people are simply not willing to leave our troops on the front lines 
indefinitely in hopes that some day such a settlement will arrive.

  Recent gains in Iraq are tactical successes at best, devoid of an 
overarching strategy to integrate local powerbrokers into a broader 
national framework. Our presence has only added to the complexities in 
Iraq as we meddle in local dynamics and contribute to internal 
divisions and sectarian tensions. Keeping a significant military 
presence in Iraq will not bring lasting stability to that country. 
Indeed, the Iraqi people and the Iraqi parliament continue to oppose an 
open-ended U.S. military presence in their country, which is something 
they have in common with the American people.
  Keeping our troops in Iraq will not solve Iraq's problems, and it 
won't help us address the growing threat posed by al-Qaida around the 
world. It makes no sense to devote so many of our critical resources 
and so much of our attention to one country, rather than to the global 
fight against al-Qaida.
  Every year, I hold town hall meetings in each of the 72 counties of 
Wisconsin, and over the January and February recess I held some 30 
meetings in some of the most conservative parts of the state. I didn't 
bring up Iraq at those January meetings because I wanted to see whether 
it was still a major concern, particularly with these audiences. And 
guess what, in every single meeting, they brought it up with me. And 
they didn't just bring it up, they asked what we are doing to bring 
home the troops. But I had to tell them that, instead of getting out of 
Iraq, we will likely be sending one-third of the members of the 
Wisconsin National Guard back to Iraq next year, many of whom have 
served within the last 2 or 3 years.
  They will be torn from their family, their jobs, their communities, 
to be put in harm's way, all in order to create space for a political 
reconciliation in Iraq that is always just over the horizon. They will 
not be there to protect the people of Wisconsin in the event of an 
emergency, nor will they be reinforcing our troops in Afghanistan, who 
face what one recent report described as a ``stalemate'' in fighting 
al-Qaida's ally, the Taliban. Like Americans all across the country, 
the people of Wisconsin don't think this makes sense. They want an end 
to our involvement in this war in Iraq, and they want to know what's 
stopping us from making it happen.
  This administration has been so distracted by Iraq that it has 
neglected to address the top threats to our national security. It has 
allowed security conditions in Afghanistan to deteriorate tremendously, 
to the point where former NATO Commander General Jones recently 
concluded that we are in a ``strategic stalemate.'' I need hardly 
remind my colleagues that this is the country from which al-Qaida 
launched the 9/11 attacks, and where it continues to operate.
  While agreeing to provide 3,200 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, Secretary 
Gates has also requested additional ground troops from our allies. If 
our allies are unwilling to provide those troops or worsening 
conditions require additional troops, it is far from clear that we will 
have the forces we need in Afghanistan without further undermining 
military readiness and homeland security.
  Across the Afghan border, in Pakistan, things are also looking bad. 
The Director of National Intelligence testified recently that ``al-
Qaida's central leadership based in the border area of Pakistan is al-
Qaida's most dangerous component.'' The DNI also said that since the 
middle of 2006, there has been an influx of ``new Western recruits'' 
into this part of the world, an indication that al-Qaida is ``improving 
the last key aspect of its ability to attack the United States: the 
identification, training, and positioning of operatives for an attack 
in the homeland.'' His testimony closely echoed his warnings from 
almost a year ago when he noted that future attacks against our nation 
were likely to come from that part of the world. It is worth mentioning 
that this is the same exact warning we received from the July 2007 NIE, 
which assessed that al-Qaida has regenerated and reconstituted itself 
in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.
  The administration has made matters worse by associating itself with 
an undemocratic, authoritarian regime in Pakistan, one that the 
Pakistani people, finally given the chance to make their voices heard, 
roundly rejected. In return for questionable anti-terrorism assistance, 
we have given the Musharraf regime billions of dollars, not to mention 
the cost to our credibility, and to our ability to build strong, 
sustainable partnerships in Pakistan.
  Our endless presence in Iraq is distracting us from these core 
threats to our national security. Instead of dancing around these vital 
concerns, we need to address them head on and that is why we need a 
strategy for defeating al-Qaida and its affiliates around the globe. We 
need a strategy which identifies the gravest threats to our national 
security and makes recommendations for addressing them with both 
military and nonmilitary initiatives.
  I know there is no silver bullet to defeat al-Qaida. But it has been 
made very clear to Congress, and to the American public that if we are 
to protect ourselves at home, there must be a dramatic shift in how we 
order our national priorities. We cannot continue with the current 
agenda. We must refocus not just so we have the capacity to respond to 
other contingencies abroad but also because our heavy footprint in Iraq 
makes us more vulnerable at home.
  We need to rebuild our domestic response capability, which has been 
severely compromised by repeated deployments of our National Guard. As 
long as we keep over 100,000 troops in Iraq we will have to continue to 
deploy Guard units in a manner that compromises their ability to 
prepare for domestic incidents. Deployments to Iraq have left those 
responsible for protecting us at home with, on average, only 56 percent 
of the essential ``dual-use'' equipment needed to respond to a domestic 
incident.
  Indeed, the National Guard Bureau estimates that it is facing a $47 
billion equipment shortfall, including a $20 million shortfall in 
equipment needed to respond to a chemical, biological, or radiological 
incident at home, notwithstanding the fact that it is the stated 
intention of al-Qaida to pursue such weapons. The Commission on the 
National Guard and Reserves concluded that ``[b]ecause our nation has 
not adequately resourced its forces designated for response to weapons 
of mass destruction, it does not have sufficient trained, ready forces 
available.''
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Sergeant at Arms will restore 
order in the Senate.

[[Page S1161]]

  The Senator may continue.
  The Commission characterized this as an ``appalling gap.'' I 
wholeheartedly agree. This is unacceptable more than 6 years after 9/
11, and is clear evidence that our national security priorities need to 
be reexamined and realigned.
  Rather than giving the National Guard the $47 billion it needs, the 
President has asked for another $100 billion for operations in Iraq in 
2008 alone, in addition to the $86 billion we have already 
appropriated. If we don't significantly draw down our troops in Iraq 
this year, we will end up spending another $170 billion in Iraq next 
year.
  The Army Chief of Staff has stated that our current rate of 
deployment is unsustainable, and a recent survey of military officers 
found that 88 percent believe the demands of the Iraq war have 
``stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.''
  There are other costs to the war in Iraq, Mr. President, and they are 
considerable. The war is simultaneously deepening instability 
throughout the Middle East, undermining the international support and 
cooperation we need to defeat al-Qaida, and providing al-Qaida and its 
allies with a rallying cry and recruiting tool.
  That is why I am offering, with Majority Leader Reid, legislation to 
redeploy our troops and refocus our national priorities. It is our job 
to listen to the American people, to save American lives, and to 
protect our Nation's security by redeploying our troops from Iraq 
because the President will not.
  This war is exhausting our country, straining our military, and 
distracting us from our top national security priorities. Even with the 
recent decline in violence in Iraq, the American people know the war is 
misguided and they continue to call for its end. They know we need to 
do a better job of protecting ourselves at home and fighting al-Qaida 
abroad. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on both of these Feingold-Reid 
bills so we can finally heed their call to action.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of Senator 
Feingold's two bills. The first bill requires that the President begin 
the safe redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq within 120 days. There 
is no end date for redeployment. It only starts the redeployment. It 
includes exceptions for missions against al-Qaida, force protection, 
and training. The second bill requires that the administration provide 
to Congress a full report outlining a comprehensive global strategy to 
defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates.
  As someone who voted to go get bin Laden after 9/11, I am dismayed 
that this President has turned away from that mission and put so much 
into an ill-fated war in Iraq. Senator Feingold is proposing a policy 
for us that is consistent with common sense and our national security 
because the war in Iraq has not made us safer. It has made us 
vulnerable. The war in Iraq has not reduced the influence of al-Qaida. 
Actually, it has made al-Qaida a hero, unfortunately. It has been seen 
as one of the best recruiting tools of al-Qaida. I want to get al-
Qaida, and that is what Senator Feingold's bills will result in because 
we will refocus our attention on capturing bin Laden and getting al-
Qaida.
  We are in a quagmire in Iraq. We are told that quagmire will go on 
indefinitely. I believe it is undermining our national security. It is 
undermining our economic security. When I tell you what it is costing, 
it is a stunning number. It has diverted critical resources from the 
hunt for Osama bin Laden. He has been at large more than 6 years. And 
despite the administration's rhetoric, our own intelligence agencies 
again are telling us that the war in Iraq is proving to be a critical 
recruitment and fundraising tool for the terrorists we want to beat.
  We see a toll on our military. We hear phrases such as a ``death 
spiral.'' The Washington Post reported that Army and Marine officials 
refer to the readiness death spiral that senior officers warn puts our 
Nation at risk. Why? Because we lack the strategic reserve of ground 
forces to be able to respond to crises throughout the world. This 
single-minded focus on Iraq and the ever-changing mission there is not 
making us stronger. It is making us weaker. We now see that suicide 
attempts among U.S. troops have reached a record high, a sixfold 
increase since 2002. And while promising junior officers are leaving 
the military at record rates, we hear that the services are lowering 
their standards to meet recruitment goals. They are recruiting 
convicted felons now, people convicted of sex crimes, people convicted 
of making a false terror threat, assault with a deadly weapon. We are 
taking felons into the military. This is wrong for our Nation.
  Once upon a time we were told that this Iraq war was about weapons of 
mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was hiding, and it was about also 
Saddam's ties to al-Qaida. Our military did its job. They found out 
there weren't weapons of mass destruction, and our intelligence people 
did their job. They said there were no al-Qaida cells in Iraq at the 
time of 9/11.
  Then we were told the war was about getting rid of Saddam and 
liberating Iraq from that brutal tyrant. Our military did that. Then we 
were told the war was about holding elections and promoting democracy. 
You remember President Bush in his flight suit with big words ``mission 
accomplished.'' Well, there were many missions accomplished. There were 
no weapons of mass destruction. There were no ties to al-Qaida. We got 
Saddam Hussein. We got his relatives. Three elections were held. Our 
military did every single thing that was asked of them to the point 
where the President said ``mission accomplished.'' But, no, the troops 
are there. They are suffering. Believe me, there is no end in sight 
because I personally asked our Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice how 
long she, at the time, thought we would be in Iraq. She said she 
couldn't answer. I said: How much do you think we will have to spend? 
She couldn't answer. What kind of administration comes forward with a 
war and has no way out?
  Russ Feingold is saying: All right. We won't set an end date. We will 
change the mission to get our troops out of harm's way. Let them 
continue to train Iraqis. Let them go after al-Qaida. Let them protect 
our forces there and our personnel there. But get them out of the 
business of kicking down doors in Iraq. We have lost so many of these 
brave men and women, and so many are coming home who will never be the 
same.
  We have this war based on shifting missions. The President said: 
Mission accomplished. Dick Cheney said we are in the last throes. But 
it goes on and on under shifting rationales, going on 5 long years. 
Will it be another 5 years? They will not tell us. Will it be another 
10 years? They will not tell us.
  Some of this administration's supporters say it will be 50 years. 
Some say it will be 100 years. How many brave men and women will die in 
addition to those who have already died? How many will be wounded? 
There are no answers.
  Will we spend $1 trillion? Will we spend $2 trillion, $3 trillion? No 
answer. The toll is too high already. Thousands dead, tens of thousands 
injured, $10 billion a month for Iraq.
  The Nation's Governors met with the President yesterday. On a 
bipartisan basis they asked to see increased spending on America's 
crumbling roads and highways and bridges. They said it would help our 
struggling economy, and we can't grow economically if we don't have an 
infrastructure. I am chair of the Public Works Committee of the Senate. 
My friend, Senator Inhofe, and I do not agree on the war in Iraq, but 
we certainly agree that we need to have an infrastructure. The 
President said: No, there is no money. There is only money for Iraq, an 
open checkbook, $10 billion a month. We can't fix our falling bridges. 
The $10 billion a month is equivalent to $2.5 billion a week, $357 
million a day.

  For less than the cost of 3 months in Iraq, we could enroll every 
eligible child in America in the Head Start program for 1 long year. 
For the cost of 1 month in Iraq, we could provide afterschool care for 
our kids for 4 years. For the cost of 2 weeks in Iraq, we could provide 
health insurance for a year to 6 million uninsured kids. Last year we 
asked the President to help us with children's health. He said no. He 
vetoed that critical investment. He just said no to the Governors on 
rebuilding the roads and highways. Open checkbook for Iraq; closed 
checkbook for America.

[[Page S1162]]

  Do you remember when the President's then-Budget Director, Mitch 
Daniels, told us the war in Iraq would cost no more than $60 billion? 
He was wrong. Paul Wolfowitz assured us Iraqi revenue would pay for the 
war. No, we remember there were a couple in the administration who said 
the war might cost as much as $200 billion. They were ridiculed. The 
President's most recent supplemental request for Iraq was $200 billion 
in itself, bigger than the stimulus package we just passed. The 
President has spent more than a half trillion dollars on his failed 
policy, and there is literally no end in sight. I think we need to 
remember this is all borrowed money. The cost of interest on Iraq-
related debt is $23 billion a year for fiscal year 2008 alone. The 
President's policy is being paid for on a credit card, and we are 
sticking my grandchildren and yours with the tab.
  The cost of a barrel of oil has tripled since the war began, much to 
the benefit of countries such as Russia, Sudan, and Iran. According to 
the Joint Economic Committee, if you factor in the cost of the oil, the 
President's policy in Iraq has already cost the average family 
$416,500, and no end in sight.
  It needs to stop. We are hemorrhaging money. The waste in this war is 
beyond disgraceful. We spent $32 million for a base in Iraq that was 
never built. We paid a contractor $72 million to build a barracks for 
the police academy in Baghdad and instead got a building with giant 
cracks snaking through newly built walls and human waste dripping from 
the ceiling. That is from a report. The administration loaded $9 
billion in cash on to pallets and shipped it into Iraq where it 
promptly disappeared.
  I ask you: Imagine what would happen if $9 billion disappeared from 
one of our cities. The people responsible would be in prison. But in 
Iraq, the President shrugs it off.
  When the President vetoed the Water Resources Development Act, he 
said it lacked fiscal discipline. He said it wasn't fiscally 
responsible. I would ask rhetorically: Not fiscally responsible to 
maintain our waterways and keep our commerce moving in this, the 
greatest Nation in the world? This, coming from a President who 
inherited a budget surplus and turned it into a huge debt, with the 
largest budget deficits in history as well, and money for Iraq every 
day, every hour, every minute, no end in sight, billions missing, 
billions on bases that were never built. It is breathtaking. The 
President and his supporters shrug it off. They don't even address it. 
It is unbelievable. The sky is the limit. But when it comes to 
investing in America or extending the stimulus for seniors and disabled 
vets, we are told: Sorry, we need to show fiscal discipline. Thank 
goodness we were able to get that through above the President's 
objections.
  Our own military leaders tell us time and time again there is no 
military solution. God bless our soldiers. They have given us a 
breathing space. Yet the Iraqi Government is just making changes around 
the edges.
  We have trained 440,000 Iraqis militarily. Imagine, 440,000 Iraqis. 
Why can't they defend themselves? Countries defend themselves. We have 
given so much in blood, in tears, in sweat, in dollars, in commitment, 
in trust. After the elections last year, I thought the President would 
come to the table when the Democrats took over and said we wanted to 
end the war. We thought he would come to the table. We were wrong. He 
did not come to the table. He is continuing this war, no end in sight, 
no plan to get out.
  When I asked that question to Condoleezza Rice, I was stunned. She 
said: I can't answer the question of how long we will be there. I can't 
answer the question of what it will cost--as if I didn't have a right 
to ask the question. That is why I am sent here.
  I represent, along with Senator Feinstein, 37 million people. We have 
taken a hit on soldiers killed. We have taken a hit on soldiers burned. 
We have taken a hit on soldiers permanently disabled. So you better 
know I am going to ask these questions.
  Today, Senator Feingold is saying: Let's get started. Let's start 
telling the Iraqis, by our actions not just our words, that they have 
to step up to the plate.
  We have to make a choice as a nation.
  Is it time for America? It is time for our families, for our 
soldiers, for our children, for our grandchildren?
  Or is it time to continue this open-ended commitment to a war without 
an end, a war that has no plan of ever ending, a war that is tying our 
hands in this recession?
  I say it is time for a change in America. It is time to vote for the 
Feingold bill and start bringing our troops home.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________