[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Pages 31527-31531]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 31528]]

  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 2 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 2 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. 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

[[Page 31529]]

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.
  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

[[Page 31530]]

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.
       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.

[[Page 31531]]

       ``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.

                          ____________________