[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2807-2810]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be a period for the transaction of

[[Page 2808]]

morning business for up to 60 minutes with each Senator permitted to 
speak for up to 10 minutes with the first half of the time under the 
control of the minority and the second half of the time under the 
control of the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss the Iraqi 
situation. Not the shootings and explosions we see in the streets of 
Baghdad and in al Anbar Province, but the struggle were currently 
engaged in right here in the Senate.
  This latter battle is arguably more important to our long-term 
national security than any other issue we face today.
  While everyone remembers the tragedy of 9/11, the pain and anguish 
experienced by Americans that day appears to have faded over time for 
an ever increasing number of our citizens.
  For me, it remains as vivid and as gut wrenching today as it was that 
September morning more than 5 years ago.
  It seems too easy these days to point fingers of blame at one another 
for our current situation in Iraq.
  I could stand here today and recite quote after quote from Members on 
both sides of the aisle who were certain that Saddam Hussein possessed 
weapons of mass destruction.
  Hussein and his Baathist regime had ruled Iraq as a personal fiefdom 
for more than 30 years.
  There is no arguing that Hussein was personally responsible for the 
brutal deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, invaded two 
of his neighbors, supported worldwide terrorism, and violated 17 
separate United Nations resolutions aimed at curtailing his WMD 
programs.
  Seventy-seven Senators voted to give President Bush the authority to 
act.
  With the clear authority from Congress to undertake military 
operations against Saddam Hussein, President Bush tried long and hard 
to seek a peaceful resolution. Saddam Hussein could not be reasoned 
with.
  Following 9/11 and in an age of nuclear bombs and other weapons of 
mass destruction, we could no longer afford to sit by and wait on those 
wanting to do us harm to land the first punch.
  We could not wait until we were attacked before acting. Calls for the 
President to act in order to protect America were loud and clear. And 
the President did act.
  In doing so, Saddam Hussein's regime was eliminated and some 28 
million Iraqis were freed from a living hell on Earth.
  Watching the Iraqis struggle since then to establish their own 
democracy has not been a pretty sight.
  With the luxury of hindsight, it's no secret that serious mistakes 
were made; too few troops; de-baathification of the Iraqi government 
and; failure of Federal Departments other than Defense to be fully 
engaged in this effort, to name a few.
  We need to face the fact that we are in Iraq. We need to ask 
ourselves what do we do now.
  Do we pack up and leave, even though every voice of reason tells us 
that Iraq would implode into a terrorist state used by al-Qaida as a 
launching pad against the ``infidels''; reminiscent of Afghanistan 
under the Taliban?
  As Senator McCain has reminded us time and again, Iraq is not 
Vietnam. When we left South Vietnam, the Viet Cong did not pursue us 
back to our shores. . .
  Al-Qaida is not the Viet Cong. Al-Qaida has sworn to destroy us and 
is committed to bringing their brand of terror to America.
  This fact was evidenced recently during testimony by Lieutenant 
General Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
  He testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a 
raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al-Qaida 6 
months ago revealed al-Qaida was planning terrorist operations in the 
U.S. Anyone willing to go to Iraq to fight Americans is probably 
willing to travel to America.
  Do we pass meaningless resolutions that mandate unconstitutional caps 
on the number of troops deployed to Iraq?
  I am not a military strategist, so I rely on the opinion of experts 
to educate me.
  General Petraeus, the new commander of the Iraqi Multi-National 
Coalition and author of the Army's new Counter Insurgency Manual, told 
me that he could not succeed in providing security for the citizens of 
Baghdad and al Anbar Province without the additional troops called for 
in the President's plan.
  Do we allow the President the ability to adjust those troop numbers 
in an effort to bring security to Baghdad and al Anbar Province?
  From what I see, the President has the only plan on the table that 
doesn't ensure defeat. It may not be a perfect plan, and it may need to 
be adjusted in the near term, but it is certainly a change from what 
we've been doing so far.
  One particular area that I believe needs improvement is our 
reconstruction effort.
  According to the Congressional Research Service the United States has 
spent over $35.6 billion on reconstruction efforts.
  We have to stop squandering our resources on reconstruction projects 
in Iraq that fail to deliver basic security and critical 
infrastructure.
  A recent article in the Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 
talked of the need to abandon a scattergun approach to reconstruction 
which focuses on winning hearts and minds and results in many 
nonessential projects being started but not completed.
  I believe that we need to have what the author called a triage 
approach to reconstruction. The military calls it SWEAT: sewage, water, 
electricity and trash.
  Let's focus on getting these essential services operating at the 
level they were before we invaded Iraq. This approach will undoubtedly 
make our military effort easier.
  Our efforts to improve fundamental services up to this point have not 
received the focus and attention they deserve.
  We have fallen short in the area of electricity production. Before we 
invaded Iraq, electric power was 95,600 megawatt hours; now, it is 
close to 90,000 megawatt hours. The goal was originally 120,000 
megawatt hours.
  In Baghdad, Iraqis receive about three fewer hours of electricity 
than before the war. Outside of Baghdad they do receive more, but we 
know most of the problems are in Baghdad. CRS notes that of 425 
projects planned in the electricity sector, only 300 will be completed.
  We have done somewhat better in assistance with water and sanitation.
  We have provided clean water to 4.6 million more people and 
sanitation to 5.1 million more than before the war. But besides water, 
sanitation, and electricity we know that Iraq needs a functioning oil 
sector.
  Revenues from oil are necessary to fund government services, 
including security and maintain infrastructure. According to CRS, oil 
and gas production has remained stagnant and below pre-war levels for 
some time.
  The pre-war level of oil production was 2.5 million barrels per day; 
it currently stands at 2.0 million barrels per day.
  That is far below the 3.0 million barrels per day we were told Iraq 
was expected to reach by end of 2004. According to the Special 
Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, besides the destruction 
caused by the insurgents, poor infrastructure, corruption, and 
difficulty maintaining and operating U.S.-funded projects are 
challenges faced by the industry.
  We are at a pivotal point in this Nation's history.
  We face an enemy unlike anything ever witnessed before. We cannot 
wash our hands of the responsibility incumbent upon us as the leader of 
the free world.
  It is time to join together, forgetting whether we are Republicans, 
whether we are Democrats, remembering we are Americans. It is time to 
come together behind our men and women in uniform, figure out what the 
best strategies are, and move forward together. It used to

[[Page 2809]]

be said that partisanship stopped at our shore's edge. We need to go 
back to that spirit of being Americans. We cannot afford to fail in 
this effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I, too, rise today on the Senate floor to 
discuss the very serious issue of Iraq and how we move forward there to 
eventually get our troops home. I have been in the Senate 2 years. 
Before that, I was in the House for 5 years. That is a relatively short 
amount of time, but I daresay I believe, as do many of my colleagues 
who have been here 20 or 30 years, this truly is one of the most 
important issues we will ever debate and have an impact on. In fact, 
even for a career that long, it may be the single most important issue 
we will debate and have an impact on.
  I hope all of us take that to heart. Don't say it as a truism but 
understand what that means and what it demands of us. What it demands 
of us is that we act responsibly and whatever our feelings and point of 
view, we put them forward in a responsible way for the good of America.
  What do I mean by that? I primarily mean two things. First of all, 
each of us as Senators has the right to oppose a plan, including the 
President's plan. I will be the first to say that. I will be the first 
to defend my colleagues' right to oppose any plan, including the 
President's plan. But along with that right comes responsibility, and 
each of us also has a responsibility to be for a plan to move forward 
in Iraq. It does not need to be the President's plan, but we sure as 
heck have a responsibility to be for some coherent plan, in some level 
of detail. How do we move forward in Iraq for the good of the country, 
for our security, and for stability in the Middle East?
  Second, what being responsible means is taking to the Senate floor to 
impact policy, to take action but not simply to offer words that have 
no impact in the real world but only serve to undercut the morale and 
focus of our troops and to embolden the enemy. Some resolutions, which 
are mere words--they don't constrain any activity of the President or 
of our troops--I think have that unintended result. They do not limit 
troops, they do not limit troop numbers, but they sure as heck destroy 
morale. They certainly embolden the enemy. Don't believe me about that 
judgment. Turn to very respected military leaders, including GEN David 
Petraeus, who said that directly, frankly, in his testimony before 
Senate committees.
  I have been guided by that responsibility, to face the issues 
squarely, to be responsible, to be for some plan--not necessarily the 
President's but some real, detailed plan; to take action on the Senate 
floor and not float words which can have negative consequences for our 
troops and also embolden the enemy.
  After a lot of thought and in that context and after a lot of careful 
study, including many hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee on which I sit, I have decided to support the President's 
plan as a reasonable attempt to move forward--indeed, as a final 
attempt to stabilize the situation. But I have also decided to do it in 
the context of three very strong recommendations which I have made many 
times directly to the President and to other key advisers, such as 
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, such as the President's National 
Security Adviser, Steve Hadley, and others. Those three strong, clear 
recommendations are as follows:
  No. 1, I do believe, with the Iraq Study Group and others, we need to 
put even more emphasis on a diplomatic effort and, in my opinion, that 
should be to encourage and embrace and participate in a regional 
diplomatic conference that involves all of Iraq's neighbors, including 
Iran and Syria. This would be very different from direct bilateral 
talks with either Iran or Syria. With regard to that push, I disagree 
with that, including, to some extent, the Iraq Study Group. But I do 
think a regional conference focussed specifically and exclusively on 
stabilizing Iraq, promoting democracy in Iraq, would be very positive.
  No. 2, I agree with many that we can be even stronger, clearer, 
firmer about benchmarks for the Iraqi Government and consequences if 
the Iraqi Government does not meet those benchmarks. President Bush has 
talked a lot about what are clear benchmarks, but I have encouraged him 
to go even further, be even more direct and clear, including in public, 
about those benchmarks. Those would be things such as the Iraqis 
continuing to take clear, strong action against all who promote 
violence, whether they are Sunni or Shia or anyone else; things such as 
an oil revenue law that must be passed in the very near term; things 
such as major reform of the debaathification process, which has stirred 
up enormous sectarian conflict and hatred, particularly from the Shia 
and Sunnis.
  Third, I have been very clear in saying over and over and over that 
we must constantly reexamine these new troop numbers to make sure they 
can have a meaningful impact on the ground in the short term. I am for 
trying this as a final attempt, but I am not for throwing too little 
too late at the effort.
  I respect the judgment of military leaders such as GEN David 
Petraeus. I take them at their word, and I respect their judgment that 
this additional 21,500, coupled with redeployment and reemphasis of 
troops already in theater, is enough, but I think we have to constantly 
examine that to make sure we don't make the mistake we have made in the 
past, which is underestimating troop need.
  There has been a lot of discussion about the Iraq Study Group report, 
for good reason. A lot of leading citizens contributed very thoughtful 
analysis to that report. But I think far too much of that discussion 
has unfairly portrayed the President's plan and different versions of 
it, like what I am talking about, as in stark contrast to the Iraq 
Study Group report. In fact, I don't believe that to be the case at 
all. It is not exactly the Iraq Study Group report. It is different, 
but it has enormous areas of overlap.
  With regard to political solutions that have to happen lead by Iraqis 
on the ground in Iraq, there is enormous agreement between what I am 
supporting, what the President is describing, and the Iraq Study Group 
report. With regard to a diplomatic initiative, there is enormous 
overlap between what I am pushing in terms of a regional diplomatic 
conference involving all of Iraq's neighbors and what the Iraq Study 
Group discusses. Yes, they seem to favor direct bilateral talks with 
countries such as Iran and Syria. I do not and the President does not. 
But there is still enormous overlap and agreement on things we can do 
very proactively and aggressively on the diplomatic front.
  Even on the military component there is great overlap and significant 
agreement. In that regard I would simply point to one very important 
passage on page 73 which states clearly, discussing military troop 
levels and numbers:

       We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or 
     surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to 
     speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. 
     commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be 
     effective.

  Well, of course, the new U.S. commander of Iraq is GEN David 
Petraeus, and he has suggested and asked for exactly that, which is why 
it is significant in the President's plan.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to give this issue serious thought, to 
be responsible, to advocate whatever is in their heart and in their 
mind but to do it responsibly. Support some plan, and do not throw out 
mere words that have no concrete effect except undermining our troops 
and emboldening the enemy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, could you advise me how much time our side 
has remaining in morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Ten minutes forty seconds.
  Mr. CORNYN. If there is 10 minutes remaining, I would like to take 
the next 5 minutes and then yield to Senator DeMint for the remaining 5 
minutes, if the Chair would please advise.

[[Page 2810]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________