[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2678-2686]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR THE SAFE REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES TROOPS FROM IRAQ--
                           MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2633, which the 
clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to consider S. 2633, a bill to provide 
     for the safe redeployment of United States troops from Iraq.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today we are here to address the issue of 
the Iraq war, and many are saying: Well, why should we address the Iraq 
war again? Because, obviously, it is still going on; there is still no 
direction in terms of political progress; the Shiites, the Sunnis, and 
the Kurds still have their age-old enmities; the goals of the Iraqi 
Government set by this Government for them have not been met; but most 
of all, I think we are here to debate this issue, at least in my 
judgment, because we are at a turning point in terms of the debate in 
Iraq. That turning point--the case against this war--has been building 
for a long time. As we debate this bill on Iraq, we are at a turning 
point in the argument against the war. We have always been aware of the 
cost in life, both American and Iraqi, and we have known how severe 
that cost is. Despite the good works of our troops, we are continually 
troubled by the tragic loss of life. The American people are baffled by 
the lack of political progress and, most of all, the American people 
are beginning to comprehend the eye-popping figures of what this war is 
costing our budget and our economy. It is becoming clear to all 
Americans--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--that by continuing 
to spend huge amounts on Iraq, we are prevented from spending on 
desired goals and needs here at home.
  So the turning point is this: The lack of progress, particularly on 
the political front, continues; the tragic loss of life continues; but 
the cost of the war and the inability to use those funds to help us 
here at home, the cost of the war and the inability to use those funds 
to properly go after the most dangerous nexus of terror, which is a 
thousand miles to the east--Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran--is now 
becoming a clinching argument that we must quickly and soon change the 
course, the direction, of this war in Iraq.
  I went to Iraq over New Year's. I spent time with our soldiers. They 
are wonderful. They are awe-inspiring. The troops are awe-inspiring, 
from the private I met from Queens, just out of high school, who had 
enlisted 8 months previously and was in Iraq 3 weeks, to the majors and 
captains who had served 10 years in the Army or the Marines and had 
made the military their life's work--they see a greater good than just 
themselves, and it is wonderful--all the way to the generals. I spent 
time with General Petraeus at a New Year's Eve dinner. I spent time 
with General Odierno. They are fine, intelligent, good people.
  When I went to Iraq, I assured our soldiers, from the private to the 
generals, that one good thing that would come out of this war is the 
esteem that we hold for both the military and our soldiers would be 
greater when the war finished than when it started--a far different cry 
than the Vietnam War, which is one of the most disgraceful times in 
America, when our soldiers were too often vilified for simply serving 
our country.
  But after I left Iraq, I came to this conclusion, Mr. President, and 
that is that even if we were to follow General Petraeus's game plan--
which, of course, involves not just military success in security but 
winning over the hearts and minds of the people--it would take a 
minimum of 5 years and have about a 50 percent chance of success of 
bringing stability--not democracy but at least stability--to large 
portions of Iraq. That is not the military's fault, and that is not 
America's fault. That is because of the age-old enmities within Iraq--
the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, and then within the groups 
themselves. It would be very hard to create permanent stability without 
a permanent and large structure of troops.
  Now, I ask you, stability in Iraq--a worthy goal, but is it on your 
top-five list for America? Is it on any American's top-five list? A 
few, maybe, not the vast majority. We have many other higher goals that 
cost the same dollars and need the same attention and energy that is 
now diverted to Iraq. Our education system is declining, our health 
care system doesn't cover people, and we are paying $3.30 for gas 
because we don't have an energy policy. And even if your goals are just 
foreign policy, shouldn't we be taking the time and effort that is all 
now focused on Iraq, as well as the dollars, and spending more focus on 
the dangerous triangle composed of Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan? Of 
course. We must ask ourselves: Is it worth spending trillions of 
dollars needed elsewhere on such an uncertain and unpredictable 
outcome?
  So the debate is changing. The costs of Iraq, the simple costs alone, 
are weighing too heavily on the American people, the American 
Government, and on our national purpose. While admirable as a goal, it 
is hardly the most important goal we have in this changing and 
dangerous and exciting world in which we live. The cost of the war has 
become the $800 billion gorilla in the room. The backbreaking cost of 
this war to the American families, the Federal budget, and the entire 
economy is becoming one of the first

[[Page 2679]]

things, after loss of life, people think about.
  A report issued by the Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, 
estimated that the total costs of the war will double what the 
administration has spent directly on the war alone--$1.3 trillion 
through 2008. And that is a conservative estimate. According to budget 
figures on Iraq spending for 2000, the Bush administration wants to 
spend $430 million a day on Iraq. For 1 day of the war in Iraq, we 
could enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start per year, we 
could put an additional 88,900 police officers on our streets per year, 
we could hire another 10,000 Border Patrol agents per year, we could 
make college more affordable for 163,000 students per year, and we 
could help nearly 260,000 American families keep their homes per year. 
In the fiscal year of 2008, we put $159 billion into Iraq. That doubles 
our entire domestic transportation spending to fix roads and bridges, 
and it dwarfs all the funds we provide to the National Institutes of 
Health to discover cures for diseases such as cancer and diabetes. Iraq 
spending is seven times our spending to help young Americans get a 
college education. The costs are mountainous, and in this changing 
world, where we have to fight to keep America No. 1, we cannot afford 
such costs, as I said, despite the great efforts our soldiers are 
putting into Iraq.
  Now, tomorrow morning, Mr. President, we in the Joint Economic 
Committee--and I see my colleague from Virginia here, and he is on that 
committee with me--we are going to hold our first congressional hearing 
of the year, and it will be appropriately devoted to the skyrocketing 
cost of the Iraq war. That will be the Joint Economic Committee. We are 
going to have Nobel Prize-winning economist Dr. Joseph Stiglitz talk 
for a time about his new book, about to be published, and the title 
speaks for itself: ``The $3 Trillion War.'' Dr. Stiglitz got 
information out of the Government and out of the Pentagon, after much 
long work, and has new estimates that make our estimates on the Joint 
Economic Committee seem small--$3 trillion. That is the title of his 
book. He is going to talk about the cost of that war. We are going to 
have national security experts, such as Bob Hormats and Ron Bier, 
discuss their views on how the out-of-control costs of the war have 
impacted our economy, our reputation abroad, our military strength and 
readiness, and the future of our children. Our JEC report estimated 
$1.3 trillion, but Dr. Stiglitz--and he has talked to the experts from 
the Pentagon--has even more massive numbers.
  So we desperately need a change of course in Iraq. That is what this 
amendment calls for. It calls for limiting what our troops will do to 
force protection, of course, to training the Iraqi army, to fighting 
al-Qaida and fighting terrorism, but not to be in the middle of a civil 
war where we continually police the age-old enmities of the various 
factions in Iraq.
  History will look upon this Iraq war in two ways: It will admire the 
bravery of our soldiers, from the privates to the generals, and it will 
be amazed at the mistakes made by this administration in starting and 
continuing this war, far too expensive in loss of life and in dollars.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Webb's 
speech, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly oppose any 
Senate amendment that would require the immediate and arbitrary 
withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. This amendment is the latest 
attempt in a year-long effort to constrain the ability of our generals 
and our brave men and women in uniform to fight this war effectively.
  During the past year, the Senate has voted over 40 times on bills to 
limit the generals' war strategy. Not one has become law or even come 
close. Since this assembly line of votes started in February 2007, the 
situation in Iraq has changed considerably and it has changed for the 
better.
  While some Senators were insisting that the war was lost, General 
Petraeus was in the process of implementing a strategic readjustment 
that has produced remarkable progress on the battlefield. It has been 
said on this floor: We need to change the direction. We are changing 
the direction. We are changing the strategy. We are going in the right 
direction.
  I got back from Iraq 2 days ago. I saw for myself the enormous 
military gains we have achieved in that country. While in Baghdad, I 
put on a suit of body armor. I traveled in an MRAP vehicle with our 
troops through the streets of Baghdad. I was able to go to a police 
station where we have embedded troops there.
  I met with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and troops from 
Reese Air Force Base, Ft. Hood, the Red River Army Depot, and others 
from the Texas National Guard. Because of the leadership of our 
commanders and the courage of our service men and women, there is new 
reason for optimism in Iraq.
  The numbers speak for themselves. The murder rate in Baghdad has 
plunged by 80 percent. Al-Qaida has been routed in every neighborhood. 
Iraqi forces have formally taken control of security across much of the 
country. Violence is at the lowest level since 2003. Roadside bomb 
attacks have receded to a 3-year low. Discovery of weapons caches has 
more than doubled in the last year. The Iraqi security forces have 
grown to 440,000 trained and equipped.
  At the police station where our Armed Forces are embedded with the 
Iraqi police, I can see that the Iraqis are taking more responsibility 
for their security. The Sons of Iraq are an example of that growth and 
responsibility. The Sons of Iraq, which is now over 90,000 strong, 
essentially serve as neighborhood watches and manned checkpoints. By 
providing forces for protecting key infrastructure and information 
about al-Qaida, the Sons of Iraq has enabled coalition forces to target 
al-Qaida precisely. This ensures the right people are targeted, and it 
helps avoid collateral damage, both of which are helping to strengthen 
confidence in the Iraqi Government.
  The transition in responsibility from the U.S. military to Iraqi 
authority is a major step toward decreasing the presence of the United 
States in Iraq.
  There are other reasons to be hopeful about the future. Our military 
gains are beginning to contribute to the political gains. Recently the 
Iraqi Parliament passed three laws that should begin to bring the 
Sunnis more fully into the governing process and achieve national 
reconciliation.
  First, Parliament passed a law that bolsters the power of the 
provinces to provide roads and utilities to the residents. Second, it 
has passed a partial amnesty for political prisoners, 80 percent of 
whom are Sunnis, in an effort to reduce the conflict and promote peace 
among different sects. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national 
budget that allocates Government revenue, 85 percent of which is from 
oil, to the provinces, allowing more local control and less dependence 
on the central government. Altogether the recent military and political 
news out of Iraq provides further evidence that our strategies must be 
determined by events in theater, not timetables set by politicians 
6,000 miles away.
  In the past year so much has changed in Iraq. Yet here on the Senate 
floor, it seems nothing has changed at all. We are still voting on 
imprudent bills for premature withdrawal when, in fact, we should be 
providing a vote of confidence in our troops. The mission of our troops 
is vital to our security. If we abandon Iraq prematurely, it will 
become a sanctuary for terrorists to launch attacks against the 
American people.
  There is also a real danger that Iraq could become a satellite of 
Iran. The Iranian Government has a long record of sponsoring terrorism 
and arming the insurgents who are killing our brave soldiers in Iraq.
  And what about the practical realities of such an irresponsible act 
of Congress? I am told it would take over a

[[Page 2680]]

year to retrieve our arms, equipment, and technology. I ask those who 
are voting for this resolution: Would they leave our arms there for the 
terrorists to be able to use? What about our advanced technological 
equipment? What about our surveillance equipment? What is the security 
threat to the troops left behind if the reduction in strength leaves 
them without enough protection?
  Those who are voting for this resolution, are they concerned about 
this enemy, this enemy that has no rules of engagement, an enemy that 
is not in the armed forces of any country, an enemy that executes 
hostages in front of television screens? Are they concerned that this 
enemy would be emboldened by an adversary that would abandon its 
commitment?
  Are they concerned that they might attack harder, especially if they 
could seize our weapons to use against us or make us leave faster so we 
would leave the weapons and technology?
  I ask the supporters of this resolution: What about the oil revenue? 
What if al-Qaida is able to get access to the millions that it is 
producing for Iraq? If Iraq collapses and the terrorists take hold with 
the oil revenue, how far could their heinous crimes go? How far could 
they spread?
  I have heard the arguments about the cost of the war. And the cost is 
huge. What about the cost of another terrorist attack on the United 
States of America? What about the cost in life and treasure of another 
terrorist attack on this country? Have we forgotten already the cost of 
9/11, around 3,000 lives in America, billions to our economy, and the 
damages to clean up New York City? Are we not thinking of the 
consequences of this kind of action? This resolution may be an attempt 
to make a point. This is the United States Senate. I truly believe we 
should be more responsible. We are the leaders of our country. We 
should think of the consequences, the worst that could happen, not just 
the best. If we are able to pick up and leave, even though it would not 
be the honorable thing for the greatest Nation on the Earth to do, 
maybe it would be flawless. But we need to think through these 
consequences and we need to know what is the worst case if we are the 
leaders of this country.
  This resolution is not the act of a thoughtful, informed group of 
leaders. I urge my colleagues to stop voting on this kind of 
resolution. I urge the majority leader to stop scheduling the votes 
that at best serve no legitimate purpose, and at worst demoralize our 
troops and embolden our enemy.
  We have so much that is going for the better in Iraq. Is it as fast 
as we would like? Of course not. I would love to have our troops 
walking out right now. I met with hundreds of them this weekend. I know 
they are committed. But I also have met with the parents and the 
spouses of those who have lost their lives, who have given the ultimate 
sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have said to me: Do not leave 
with the job undone, because then I will feel that my son or my 
daughter or my husband has lost his life or her life in vain.
  We cannot do that to those who have served so honorably and we cannot 
walk away from our commitment. We are the Senate. We should be able to 
take actions that are responsible, that are thoughtful, that will not 
put our troops in harm's way, that will not leave our equipment to be 
taken over by the terrorists, that will not leave a country that could 
turn into a terrorist haven and take revenue and spread their terrorism 
and their heinous crimes to other places in the world and to our 
country.
  We are here to protect our people. It is our job to act responsibly, 
and I hope we will do so by rejecting this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey.) The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
remarks of the Senator from New Hampshire, the senior Senator from 
Montana be recognized on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this bill but in 
support of the concepts that have motivated it. I think the Senator 
from Wisconsin fully understands this. We have discussed this.
  I wanted to add my comments with that perspective in mind, because I 
do not agree with a lot of the comments coming from the other side of 
the aisle with respect to why this amendment should be defeated.
  I cannot support personally an amendment that involves an 
entrenchment on an appropriations measure. I do not believe the best 
way for us to address this situation is to cut off funds or to 
stipulate a series of conditions that might be overinclusive or 
underinclusive, depending on the situation on the ground in Iraq.
  But at the same time, I strongly disagree with the notion that a 
withdrawal from Iraq at this time is premature. I believe that with the 
right national leadership, first, we never should have gone into Iraq, 
but, secondly, that we could have begun a withdrawal with the right 
national strategy more than 4 years ago.
  What we have been engaged in since shortly after the invasion is an 
occupation, not a war. It has been a military holding action. In the 
context of history, a military holding action takes place in order to 
enable the political process and, unfortunately, we have not seen that 
sort of political leadership from this administration. That is a 
totally different concept than the one that seems to make it into our 
debates here.
  I have written a lot of books in my life. I made my living before I 
came to the Senate writing histories and novels. There were many times 
when I watched this debate that I would think about how this is going 
to look through the prism of history. How are people going to look back 
at this period of years in terms of how our national leaders were 
conducting themselves?
  One thought that sticks in my mind is that we tend, when we debate 
Iraq, to look at this issue almost as if Iraq was an island in the 
middle of an ocean, disconnected from the rest of the region or even 
the rest of the world. That is ironically how we ended up in Iraq in 
the first place, because once we started debating whether we would go 
into Iraq, we changed from a debate about the dangers of international 
terrorism and started focusing more and more specifically simply on 
Saddam Hussein, on the conditions inside Iraq, which obviously was a 
country that was not even directly threatening us. Most of us sitting 
on the outside who had years of experience in national security could 
see that, even as the debate narrowed into Iraq rather than 
international terrorism.
  We are doing it again. We are doing it again when we talk about the 
success or failure of the surge or where we should go from here with 
respect to this block or that block or this city or that city or this 
specific unit of the military. We have fallen into what could be called 
a double strategic mousetrap. On the one hand, we have the greatest 
maneuver forces in the world bogged down, occupying cities in one 
country that was not even threatening us, while the people we are 
supposed to be going after, the forces of international terrorism, know 
no international boundaries, work the seams of international law, and 
are able to maneuver at will. We are seeing that clearly.
  Before I went to Iraq in November, I was getting briefings. The 
comments and the briefings from the Pentagon were that terrorism 
activity had been reduced inside Iraq. I mentioned I have been doing 
this for 40 years, from the time I was a young marine. If I were the 
forces of international terrorism, I don't think I would be in Anbar 
Province right now either. I think I would be heading to Afghanistan 
and Pakistan. That suggestion was basically dismissed in the briefings. 
Within a few weeks, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by al-Qaida, and we 
are seeing heightened activity in Afghanistan such as, less than a week 
ago a suicide bombing at a dog fight near Kandahar, where more than 100 
people were killed by al-Qaida. That is what a strategic mousetrap is.

[[Page 2681]]

  When you are going up against people who know what they are doing and 
who are very dedicated to it, you get yourself bogged down in one spot 
where you can't get out, and then they have the maneuverability.
  The second strategic mousetrap we can clearly see involves how we are 
addressing the rest of the world. In terms of our military posture, we 
have burned out our military. We are not focusing properly on the 
strategic issues facing us globally, particularly the situation that we 
face with an ever-evolving China, and the need to regrow our Navy. And 
our national economy is going into a tailspin.
  When I look at this region, I see a region in chaos. We can talk 
about whether you can go to the market in Baghdad. Wherever the U.S. 
military has been sent, it has done its job historically. I had the 
honor of serving in Vietnam. On the 20th anniversary of the fall of 
Vietnam, the Communist government admitted that it lost 1.4 million 
soldiers dead on the battlefield; this illusive guerilla force, 1.4 
million soldiers dead. We did our job. That doesn't address the larger 
issues in which the military performs its job and doesn't address that 
issue in Iraq today either.
  We are very proud of what our military has done. I am proud of my 
son. He served as an enlisted Infantry marine in Ramadi in some of the 
worst fighting. But this region is in turmoil from Lebanon to Pakistan. 
Anyone who has been involved in these issues intimately understands 
that. People are betting against us, not in terms of our military 
operations but as a leading nation.
  When we were preparing to go into Iraq, it cost $24 for a barrel of 
oil. Yesterday the market closed above $101 for a barrel of oil. When 
we were getting ready to go into Iraq, as I recall, gold was less than 
$300 an ounce. It is up almost at $1,000 an ounce today. The dollar is 
in jeopardy. Our budgets are in deficits. Our infrastructure is 
diminishing to the point that we have to worry about whether we can be 
a leading nation in terms of technology, the sorts of things that have 
always made us great--roads, bridges. All of these issues do tie 
together. Even when we start arguing about how this surge has affected 
the conditions inside Iraq, if we are going to be honest, if we are 
going to look at the situation as it really is rather than simply as 
one political side or another wants to make it, we have a lot going on 
in Iraq, a lot of moving pieces that don't exactly add up to the 
possibility of great success in the near term.
  I have heard people from General Petraeus to people on the other side 
talk about how the surge is responsible for the period of decreased 
activity in Al Anbar, around Ramadi. That began before the surge was 
announced. There were two reasons for that. One, al-Qaida overplayed 
its hand there. The Sunnis made a deal with our side. The Sunni 
insurgency made a deal with our side and they hated al-Qaida more than 
they hate us. We don't know how long this is going to last. They don't 
like an occupying force.
  The second is, al-Qaida is pretty smart. They are fluid. They are 
mobile while we are tied down. If you go up to the Kurdish areas, which 
have been sort of the bulwark of our strength in terms of relations, we 
see that the Turkish parliament has approved military activity by their 
military inside Iraq. They have begun an incursion more than a week ago 
where they have been operating inside northern Iraq. Imagine what the 
other side would be saying right now if the Iranians were conducting 
military activities inside Iraq. We have a region that has been filled 
with chaos from refugees, external refugees, internal refugees, by some 
accounts more than 30 percent of pre-Iraq war population refugees, 
either outside the country, heavily burdening Syria--by the way, more 
than a million refugees in Syria--but also inside. Eighty percent of 
those internal refugees in Iraq right now are women and children.
  We need to be able to address this honestly, and we need to be able 
to agree that the way out of this isn't simply through the performance 
of our military. It is that we need national leadership that will put a 
formula together so that we can remove our military. There is no true 
strategy if you cannot articulate an end point. When you look at it, 
one of the things I keep going back to is what General Dwight 
Eisenhower said in the dark days of the Korean war when we were stuck 
in a stalemate, when he was thinking about running for President and 
then running for President. One might compare this with comments we 
hear from the present administration. He said:

       [The Korean War] was never inevitable, it was never 
     inescapable. . . . When the enemy struck, on that June day of 
     1950, what did America do? It did what it always has done in 
     all its times of peril. It appealed to the heroism of its 
     youth. . . . The answer to that appeal has been what any 
     American knew it would be. It has been sheer valor on all the 
     Korean mountainsides that, each day, bear fresh scars of new 
     graves. Now--in this anxious autumn--from these heroic men 
     there comes back an answering appeal. It is no whine, no 
     whimpering plea. It is a question that addresses itself to 
     simple reason. It asks: Where do we go from here? When comes 
     the end? Is there an end? These questions touch all of us. 
     They demand truthful answers. Neither glib promises nor glib 
     excuses will serve. They would be no better than the glib 
     prophecies that brought us to this pass. . . . The first task 
     of a new Administration will be to review and re-examine 
     every course of action open to us with one goal in view: To 
     bring the Korean War to an early and honorable end.

  I suggest that is the prospect that faces all of us. On what do we 
need to be focusing? I agree, by the way, that this is not something 
that is going to get us very far in the next couple of days, other than 
to air our concerns. We need to be getting a GI bill for the people who 
have been serving since 9/11. I would invite people from the other side 
of the aisle to support this. We keep calling these people the next 
greatest generation. They deserve a GI bill at the same level of those 
who served during World War II when they got all tuition paid for, 
books bought for them, and a monthly stipend. I introduced that bill my 
first day as a Senator last year. We have more than 30 cosponsors. 
Let's come together. Let's make that happen. Let's give these people 
the first-class future they deserve.
  We need to focus on the agreement that is now being negotiated 
between this administration and the Maliki government, where they are 
saying they will consult with the Congress. This type of long-term 
agreement, going into security issues, is, in fact, a treaty, no matter 
what we call it. It is a treaty that they are negotiating, and we in 
the Senate should advise and consent on that. We need to focus on the 
wartime contracting commission that just became law where we can root 
out fraud, waste, and abuse, the billions of dollars of no-bid and 
instant contracts that were put into Iraq from 2003 forward. In other 
words, let's create the environment where we can get the right kind of 
diplomatic solution and remove our combat troops from Iraq. Let's focus 
on the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                             Budget Issues

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I recognize that much of the debate the 
past 2 days has been about our status in Iraq and what we should be 
doing in Iraq relative to the two proposals offered by Senator 
Feingold. Clearly, the issue of how we fight terrorism and how we 
confront the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and its avowed purpose of 
destroying Western culture and specifically targeting America and 
Americans is probably the overriding issue we must address. But right 
behind that issue is the question of what type of nation are we going 
to pass on to our children relative to the fiscal strength of our 
Nation. We confront an issue there which is as significant for the 
prosperity of our children as the issue of terrorism is relative to the 
security of our country.
  We are faced with a situation where, as a result of the pending 
retirement of the baby boom generation, three specific programs--
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--will grow at such exponential 
rates that they will essentially bankrupt our Nation if we don't do 
something.
  This chart reflects those three programs, the red line here, and 
their rate

[[Page 2682]]

of growth. This black line reflects what has historically been the 
amount of money the Federal Government has spent. The Federal 
Government has historically spent about 20 percent of the gross 
national product of America. These three programs alone, by the year 
2025, 2028--it varies depending on who you talk to--will cost 20 
percent of the gross national product. Trying to put this in 
perspective, by the year 2030, when the baby boom generation is fully 
retired and is receiving its benefits, the cost of supporting that 
generation through Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will be so 
high that if you put it in the context of what we traditionally spend 
in this Government, we will have no money available to do anything else 
as a government. We will have no money for national defense, no money 
for education, no money for laying out roads, no money for 
environmental protection.
  It does not stop there, because the costs incurred continue to go up. 
They continue to go up at such a rate that by about the year 2035, we 
will essentially have a situation where approximately 28 percent or 
more of the gross national product would have to be spent to support 
these three programs.
  Then, of course, you have the additional obligations of Government. 
What does that lead to? Well, if that were allowed to occur, it would 
lead to a situation where our children and our children's children 
would be paying so much in taxes to support the costs of maintaining 
these three programs for my generation--the baby boom generation--that 
our children would essentially have no opportunity to send their 
children to college, to buy their first home, to live the prosperous 
and fulfilling lifestyle we have today in America because all those 
discretionary dollars would be absorbed through taxes to support these 
programs.
  To put it in a different context, with numbers which are almost 
incomprehensible but which need to be pointed out, we are told by the 
Comptroller General's Office that the unfunded liability of Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security is $66 trillion. That means after you 
figure in all the money you pay for Social Security taxes, and all the 
money you pay for health insurance taxes, the HI tax, the Medicare 
taxes--after you figure in all that money, there is still a 
responsibility, an obligation on the books that is not paid for. That 
amounts to $66 trillion--trillion with a ``T.''
  Now, $1 trillion is almost an incomprehensible term, so to try to 
make it a little more comprehensible, if you took all the money paid in 
taxes since our country was formed, since we began, that is $42 
trillion. That is all the money that has been paid in taxes. We have a 
liability on the books that exceeds all the money paid in taxes 
throughout the history of our Nation.
  To put it in another context, if you take all the assets of America--
everyone's home, everybody's car, all your stocks, all your small 
businesses--and you add them up--everybody's net worth--that amounts to 
$59 trillion.
  So we have a debt on the books that exceeds our net worth as a 
nation. That is called bankruptcy, and that is what we are headed 
toward unless we address this issue.
  This week, the administration, under a direction from the Congress, 
sent up a proposal to try to address the biggest part of this problem, 
which is the cost of Medicare.
  When we passed the Part D drug benefit for seniors, there was 
language put in that bill--remember that bill was passed with a strong 
bipartisan vote--that said if Medicare started to have its financial 
resources--its support, the dollars that paid for Medicare--come out of 
the general fund at a rate that exceeded 45 percent of the overall cost 
of Medicare, then the trustees--if that was projected to occur for 2 
years over a 7-year period--the trustees were directed to direct the 
President to make a proposal to bring the cost of Medicare back under 
control. It is called a trigger. That is what it is referred to.
  Why did we put that in or why was that language put in? It was put in 
because Medicare was always conceived to be an insurance program, even 
though it gets a fair amount of support out of the general fund, the 
general fund being general taxes. Everybody pays their taxes: income 
taxes, corporate taxes. Those taxes are used to operate the Government 
generally: to pay the defense budget, to pay the education budget, to 
pay the environmental agency--to pay the different activities the 
Government undertakes. That is the general fund. Those funds were not 
supposed to be the funds that supported health insurance for seniors.
  Medicare was supposed to be an insurance program, as is Social 
Security, where the funds are collected from people, working under the 
HI tax, which you pay, which is withheld. Those funds are what are 
supposed to support Medicare.
  If you start taking money out of the general fund, it is generally 
acknowledged--not through too many ``generals,'' but it is generally 
acknowledged you are basically creating an income transfer event, a 
redistribution of wealth event, where you are taking money from 
basically the general operation of the Government and you are putting 
it into the support of people on Medicare who are retired. That was 
never the goal of Medicare.
  So recognizing that, but also recognizing that a brandnew benefit was 
being put on the books that was fairly significant--the drug benefit--
it was decided to put in place this law that said we want to keep 
Medicare primarily as an insurance event rather than an event which 
basically is unsupported, a cost that is basically supported by the 
general taxpayers of America who need to support the regular operations 
of the Government: defense, education, things such as that. So this 
trigger was put in.
  Well, we have now had the trustees evaluate the Medicare fund, and 
they have concluded that in the 7-year window, under present projected 
spending patterns, Medicare's support--the dollars necessary to support 
Medicare--will require a call on the general fund that will exceed 45 
percent of the general expenditures of Medicare.
  That is a serious issue, and it goes to the larger serious issue of 
this unfunded liability question, because Medicare makes up $34 
trillion of the unfunded liability. Do you remember the prior chart, 
where I pointed out there is $66 trillion of unfunded liability? Well, 
of that $66 trillion, the majority of it is the obligations under 
Medicare. So it is Medicare spending that is driving the problem which 
we confront, which is pointed out in this chart, which is that we are 
headed toward a government that our children cannot afford and which 
will bankrupt our children unless we do something.
  So this proposal that was put into the Part D drug law, in which the 
trustees direct the President essentially to propose changes in 
Medicare spending, which will allow us to make the Medicare Program 
affordable and continue it to be an insurance program, is a step, and a 
fairly significant step, if followed correctly, down the road toward 
reducing this outyear threat of a fiscal meltdown.
  It is critical we heed the law we passed and, specifically, the 
statement and the execution of the statement that has been made by the 
Medicare trustees that the trigger must be exercised. And the 
administration has the obligation to set up a way to accomplish these 
savings.
  Now, under the law, the administration sends up its proposal, which 
it has done, which proposal is required to bring the Medicare system 
back into balance, so it is not taking more than 45 percent of the 
general fund. That bill is then required to be introduced by the 
majority and the minority on the House side and Senate side. The 
chairman of the Finance Committee has introduced a bill, I believe last 
night, with myself as ranking member of the Budget Committee as the 
primary sponsor on our side. That does not mean it is agreed to. It 
means that under the law it has to be introduced.
  I happen to think what the administration has sent up makes sense. 
But what cannot be denied is that this problem is very real. I was 
extremely surprised, for example, to hear Senator Kennedy say: The 
proposal sent up by the administration is dead on arrival, and the 
administration has trumped up a phony crisis in Medicare.

[[Page 2683]]

  You tell me how $66 trillion of unfunded liability is a phony crisis 
in Medicare. The Medicare trustees, who have a fiduciary 
responsibility, the highest standard we have under law to protect the 
solvency of the Medicare trust fund, tell us the law is being violated 
and that changes must occur. You tell me that is a phony crisis.
  What is unfortunate is this ``bury the head in the sand'' approach 
that is being taken by the majority party, as reflected by Senator 
Kennedy, in facing this issue. This issue must be faced. We need to 
act.
  Now, what has the administration suggested we do? They have suggested 
three basics in order to bring this in line.
  First--and I cannot understand why anybody opposes this proposal--
they have suggested that under Part D, which is, again, the drug 
benefit, people pay a portion of the premium of the cost of the drug 
benefit. But high-income people pay a very small portion of the cost of 
the drug benefit compared to what they can afford to pay. They pay 
about 25 percent of the cost of the premium of the Part D drug benefit.
  Somebody such as Warren Buffett, who qualifies for the Part D 
benefit--I am not picking on him specifically, but he is a national 
figure of some note, and he obviously has a fair amount of assets--his 
premium under Part D, in order to purchase drugs, is being subsidized 
by John and Mary Jones, who work in a restaurant in Nashua, NH, or by 
Bill and Susan Parker, who work in a gas station in Epping, NH. Their 
taxes are actually subsidizing Warren Buffett's drug insurance, his 
ability to buy drugs, which is totally wrong.
  What the administration has suggested is that people, individuals who 
have incomes over $80,000, and joint taxpayers who have incomes over 
$160,000, or approximately that amount--fairly wealthy people by 
American standards--should pay more than 25 percent of the cost of 
their drug premium. I think they have suggested they pay 50 percent or 
maybe 60 percent but not the entire premium. They are still going to be 
subsidized by John and Mary Jones who are probably making a lot less 
than $160,000 working at a restaurant in Nashua, NH.
  That is their first proposal.
  The second proposal they put forward is that we should have an IT 
proposal, something that basically means using technology to 
communicate more effectively the costs of health care, to create a more 
integrated system where you could get more effective information on 
what health care costs in order to drive better purchasing practices. 
We all know that is going to significantly improve the delivery of 
Medicare and all health care, if we do this. It is something that 
should be done and, therefore, is appropriate.
  The third thing they have suggested is that we limit basically 
frivolous lawsuits that are driving up the cost of health care and 
actually driving some doctors in the area of OB/GYN--baby doctors--out 
of the practice, that we essentially adopt what is known as the 
California Plan for medical liability insurance--again, a very rational 
approach.
  None of the ideas the administration has put forward are radical. 
None of them are even targeted in a way that would significantly affect 
very many beneficiaries. In fact, as to the entire proposal they put on 
the table, 94 percent of Medicare beneficiaries would not be affected 
by any of these proposals--94 percent. Only 6 percent; that is, the 
wealthiest 6 percent, those people with incomes over $80,000 
individually or $160,000 jointly. Those folks having to pay a portion 
of their Part D premium would be impacted, and they should be impacted.
  So that proposal has been put forward.
  Three ideas--all of them reasonable, all of them initiatives which we 
should be able to accomplish, and which would, if undertaken, actually 
reduce this insolvency in Medicare dramatically. I think the estimates 
are that over the 75-year life, you might take as much as $8 billion 
out of this insolvency number if you did these proposals which the 
administration is suggesting. That is a huge number over 75 years. It 
would actually be a major step in the right direction. But, more 
importantly, it would respond to what the law says we should do. So I 
certainly hope we are not going to sit on our hands.
  I see the chairman of the Finance Committee is in the Chamber. He 
says he is going to act. I hope his colleagues will follow him, because 
that is the type of leadership we need.
  Now, the administration's three proposals aren't the beginning and 
the end of the process. Anything can be on the table to try to get this 
resolved. But the fact is, we need to resolve it. The trigger has been 
pulled. We are over the 45 percent or we are projected to be going over 
the 45 percent. We need to act not only because of that but because of, 
more importantly, this outyear problem. We have no right as 
policymakers to pass our generation's problem on to our children, which 
is exactly what we are going to do if we don't act. Our generation is 
the one that is creating the issue because of the demands we are going 
to put on the system because we are such a large generation. We are in 
the position of making Government change, and we should address this. 
We should take that action, and I certainly hope we can over the next 
few weeks.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for 
his comments and for pointing out the budget expenditures and exposure 
down the road. The only point I wish to make about his presentation is 
that the increase in entitlements is not so much because of Social 
Security--that is not the big problem for the next 15 or 20 years. 
Rather, it is the increases in Medicare and Medicaid that are going to 
be very expensive for us to accommodate. The real question is, What is 
the solution? We know what the problem is. The question is, What is the 
solution?
  It is interesting that Peter Orszag of the Congressional Budget 
Office printed a report just about a month ago saying that the rise in 
the number of baby boomers is part of the problem, but that is not the 
big problem. The main reason that Medicare is going up at such a rapid 
rate and that Medicaid is also going up at a significant rate is 
because health care costs in this country are rising at such a rapid 
rate. So I think it is important to address not just the symptoms; that 
is, the wacky Medicare, but it is much more important to look at the 
direct causes or what is causing these increases.
  Our country today spends about $2 trillion on health care--about $2 
trillion. About half of that is in the public sector and half in the 
private sector. The projections of the Congressional Budget Office, a 
nonpartisan organization, are that private health care costs are going 
to increase very significantly over the next 20 years and Medicaid 
costs are going to also increase significantly but, for Medicare, much 
more. The rate of increase in the private sector will be a little less 
because the private sector tends to control costs a little better. For 
Medicaid, the rate of growth will be not quite as high as Medicare 
growth because States pay for part of the Medicaid costs and States are 
going to get a little more control of their State budgets.
  The real problem is the increase in health care costs. We in America 
spend twice as much per capita on health care costs than the next most 
expensive country, and I don't know that we are twice as healthy as the 
next most expensive country. We have great health care in America. Our 
technology is the envy of the world. Our drugs are the envy of the 
world. But we have a system which basically is unnecessarily expensive 
and is going to cause us to be anticompetitive in future years.

[[Page 2684]]

  I was in Bangalore, India, not long ago. I brought about 15 or 20 
Montanans. It was a trade trip partly to China and also to India. We 
went to the John F. Welch Technology Center, which is one of General 
Electric's three technology centers in the world. Kind of ``gee whiz'' 
stuff, kind of interesting. During the tour, I walked up to the 
manager. He was the only non-Indian there. He is a German, Argentine 
his background.
  I walked up to him, and I said: Why are you here in India? Why are 
you here, right here? Why is your research facility here?
  He said: Greatest talent pool.
  I said: Well, what country has the next greatest talent pool?
  China, he said.
  I asked: Where are we as Americans?
  He said: You are kind of down here.
  What does it take, I asked, to get us up there?
  He looked at me without skipping a beat, and he looked me straight in 
the eye, and he said: Education and health care. He says: You have to 
educate your people a lot better than you are. Second, you have a 
health care system that is making you anticompetitive, you Americans.
  It is true, our health care costs are so much higher than the costs 
of companies in other countries. About 18 percent of our total health 
care costs are administrative; in other countries, it is about 4 or 5 
percent. There are a lot of ways to get at this problem. The real 
question is, What is a solution? How do we get health care costs more 
under control?
  I daresay that whoever is elected President is going to be forced to 
and should be and will have an opportunity to make a major health care 
proposal to our country. We on the Finance Committee are starting to 
hold a lot of hearings on health care. There are a lot of provocative 
questions. We need to not be flat-footed, and we need to work in tandem 
with whoever is elected President so we can begin to address two main 
points. One is coverage. We are the only industrialized country in the 
world where people don't have health insurance that is not universal 
coverage. We need to have that. Second is to address costs. We need to 
figure out how we can get a handle on the excessive increase of health 
care costs in our country.
  I commend my friend from New Hampshire for raising the problem, but 
the real question is, What is the solution? The President's letter is 
not even a glancing blow to solutions; it kind of touches on some 
possible solutions. It is critical for us to address the underlying 
questions. What are the underlying causes of increased health care 
costs? I don't have the time here to go into all of what I think we 
need to look at and will be focusing on in the Finance Committee, but 
that is a major challenge we face as a country, and it is a great 
opportunity for all of us to dig deep and help to solve this problem so 
Americans can be proud of the country we have, with universal coverage, 
and also get a handle on excessive costs.
  (The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
462 are printed in today's Record under ``Submited Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to use about 10 minutes or 
so, if I may, to discuss what I think is an important topic for the 
country. The Senate has allowed itself to discuss progress in Iraq--or 
the lack thereof, depending on how you view these things--and to 
discuss a measure proposed by my good friend, Senator Russ Feingold, 
that would require us to withdraw troops, I think within a 120-day 
period, leaving troops behind in a very limited role and basically 
telling the world and our enemies we are leaving Iraq, and the people 
left behind would have a very limited function in terms of what they 
could do--a complete change in strategy. It would be saying to the 
Petraeus strategy: It failed, it didn't work, and we are going to 
replace the Petraeus strategy with the Feingold strategy.
  Now, as much as I admire Senator Feingold--and that is a great deal, 
to be honest with my colleagues, because he takes his job very 
seriously, as do the rest of us, but he is willing to do and say things 
very few people will do or say, and I think that makes the country a 
better place. Sometimes I disagree with him. This is an occasion where 
I find the Feingold strategy replacing the Petraeus strategy would be a 
disaster for the country, the region, and our national security 
interests, and I say that with all due respect.
  Now, one of the central theses of Senator Feingold and others who 
support this measure is that Iraq is a side venture, not part of the 
war on terror, and our presence there is making us less secure, not 
more, and that we have taken our eye off the ball. I would argue that 
the enemy doesn't see it that way. It is my belief and contention, and 
has been for a very long time, that Iraq has become the central 
battlefront in the war on terror. That happened when al-Qaida decided 
to go into Iraq after the fall of Baghdad and undermine this attempt at 
moderation in Iraq, tried to drive us out, and a year ago this time, I 
was worried that they were going to succeed.
  For about 3, 3\1/2\ years, we got it wrong in Iraq. We didn't have 
enough troops. We had a training model that was not delivering quality 
in numbers in terms of the Iraqi Army. The insurgency was thriving. 
There was a lawless period. You had the Abu Ghraib episode that allowed 
al-Qaida to go on a recruiting drive all throughout the Mideast.
  Thank God we changed strategy this time last year. I wish to 
compliment the President, and all of those--particularly Senator 
McCain--who spoke loudly and clearly that we needed to change strategy. 
It wasn't a debate about changing in Iraq. Everybody wanted a change. 
Some wanted to just leave and worry about the consequences later. 
Senator McCain and others said: No, we need not only to stay, we need 
to put more troops on the ground and come up with a way to suppress 
this insurgency because without security there will never be 
reconciliation. I think the results are in, and they are overwhelming, 
and they exceed all expectations I had in terms of success for the 
surge.
  But to the central point: If you believe, as I do, that this is one 
battle, the central battle in regard to a global struggle, not an 
isolated event, it is a battle you can't afford to lose. If Iraq fell 
apart, broke into three parts, became a chaotic state, the national 
security implications for our Nation are enormous.
  They start with the following: Al-Qaida would be on every street 
corner in the Mideast saying that we beat America and ran them out of 
Iraq. What would that do in terms of a chilling effect on moderation in 
the region? Who would be the next group of moderates to stand up and 
say: Come help me fight against extremism, America, after our behavior 
of leaving Iraq, and those who helped us to try to make Iraq a better 
place, a new place? They would surely get killed. If we left Iraq, 
withdrew, gave the battle space in Anbar to al-Qaida totally, they 
would have killed everybody who tried to help us, and it would have 
taken decades to get over the consequences of that mistake. You cannot 
leave people behind to be slaughtered by terrorists and expect to ever 
win this war.
  Here is what bin Laden said in 2002 about Iraq:

       I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic Nation. 
     Listen and understand. The most important and serious issue 
     today for the whole world is the Third World War. It is 
     raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone 
     and pillar is Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.

  Bin Laden did not get the memo that Iraq is not about a global 
struggle. Clearly, from his point of view, it is the defining battle in 
terms of his goals and ambition for the al-Qaida movement. The reason 
al-Qaida came into Iraq was to make sure we would lose, that moderation 
would fail. Their worst nightmare is for a mother to have a say about 
her children, and if we can pull this off in Iraq, where the different 
groups--the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds--can live together under 
the rule of law, have a central government and local governments

[[Page 2685]]

that work together and allow people to raise their children without 
fear and prosper together and a woman has a say about her children, 
that is an absolute nightmare for al-Qaida. They see the outcome in 
Iraq as very important to their agenda. I hope we are smart enough to 
see the outcome in Iraq in terms of our own national security because I 
have said a thousand times, you cannot kill the terrorists and win this 
war. Killing terrorists is a part of this war. The war is an 
ideological struggle. The high ground in this war is the moral high 
ground. That is why Abu Ghraib hurt so badly. That is why we have to, 
at every turn, showcase our values as being different from our enemy's. 
When we capture an al-Qaida operative, it becomes about us. The rules 
we employ in the capture of an al-Qaida member or any other terrorist 
showcases who we are, and we cannot use as an excuse they do terrible 
things and they don't believe the same things we do; therefore, we are 
going to throw the rules out and be like them. That is the one way to 
lose this war.
  I am proud of my Nation standing by moderation in Iraq. I am sorry to 
the American people and all those who have gone to Iraq many times that 
we got it wrong so long. But wars are that way. The model we had after 
the fall of Baghdad allowed the enemy to grow and become stronger, and 
it made it difficult to reconcile the country, which is in our national 
interest.
  A year ago about this time, a new general took over with a new 
strategy: 30,000 troops were interjected into the battle space. But it 
is not about 30,000 troops. This general understood how to win. We took 
the troops out from behind the walls, and they started living with the 
Iraqi Army and police forces in neighborhoods. We took each 
neighborhood block by block, securing people in a way where they felt 
comfortable enough to talk to us about their future, about their hopes, 
and about their dreams, and over time they helped us.
  This infusion of military might into Anbar, where al-Qaida was 
roaming freely, allowed people who tasted the al-Qaida life to say: I 
don't want to live this way. The Sunni awakening was an effort by a 
very brave sheik, who is now dead, to break loose from the al-Qaida 
agenda and come to the American and coalition forces and say: I would 
like to align with you because this is not the way I want to raise my 
kids, these are not the hopes and dreams I have for my people in Anbar.
  They killed him, and if you go to Anbar, there are photos of this guy 
everywhere. They killed him, but they did not kill his idea. As a 
matter of fact, at his funeral and thereafter, the people of Anbar have 
upheld this sheik as a model of the future, as a hero. Al-Qaida 
overplayed their hand. They tried to intimidate everybody around them. 
They are trying to intimidate us: Do it my way or die. Do it my way or 
watch your children die in front of you. Do it my way or we will burn 
your children right in front of you. Live my way religiously or lose 
everything you have, including your life.
  You know what, the good news from the surge, beyond all other news, 
is that a Muslim population had a chance to experience this al-Qaida 
life and said no. That, to me, is the single most important event that 
has happened in the last year, that Muslims would turn on al-Qaida and 
fight them and say: You are wrong; this is not what the Koran teaches, 
this is not the way we are going to live our lives. And they have done 
something about it.
  The sheik has given his life. Many others in Anbar have given their 
lives to make sure al-Qaida does not win. Al-Qaida lost in Anbar 
because we had enough military presence, along with a new attitude of 
the people who live there, to beat these guys. They are not 10 feet 
tall. They are thugs, and history is full of people such as this who 
have had ideas that certain groups are not worthy of living. The Nazis 
had their view of who could live and who would die, and it was based on 
racial stereotyping, prejudice. There have been other episodes in 
history where religious bigotry determined who lived or died.
  The way you beat these people is not for the good people to come home 
and leave the battlefield to the enemy; it is for the good people to 
rally around the values that make this place worth living and fight 
these people. The way you win this war is you align yourself with 
people willing to take on the terrorists and extremists and fight back 
against al-Qaida, and that is what General Petraeus did. When the 
awakening occurred in Anbar, we put tanks around every leader we could 
find and told them: We are not leaving; we are here with you.
  The Sons of Iraq is an organization that sprung up from the 
population, where almost 80,000 people now belong to this organization 
where they patrol the streets at night to make sure al-Qaida does not 
come back. Anbar is a completely different place. Al-Qaida has been 
diminished and defeated in Anbar, and they are moving to other places 
in Iraq. They are not defeated yet, but they are certainly on the run.
  For America not to appreciate what has happened here, for this 
Congress not to celebrate what has happened in the last year I think is 
sad. We should be using this 30 hours to say to General Petraeus, thank 
you; to Ambassador Crocker, thank you; to all those under your command, 
thank you for having the courage and the wisdom to turn this around, 
and we acknowledge that you are turning it around. We know you have a 
long way to go yet, but thank God you have turned the corner, and we 
have turned the corner. And the corner I wanted to see turned was when 
the people of Iraq would stand up to the extremists and fight back with 
our help.
  GEN David Petraeus said in May of 2007:

       Iraq is, in fact, the central front in al Qaeda's global 
     campaign.

  GEN Michael Hayden, Director of the CIA, said in January 2007:

       I strongly believe [that U.S. failure in Iraq] would lead 
     to al Qaeda with what it is they said is their goal there, 
     which is the foundations of the caliphate, and in operational 
     terms for us, a safe haven from which to plan and conduct 
     attacks against the West.

  It is clear to me Iraq is a central battlefront. It is clear to me 
about 3 years we were losing. It is abundantly clear to me now that we 
are winning. The Iraqi people have stepped to the plate and produced 
results that are astonishing, and it has come from a new strategy that 
has produced better security.
  The monthly attack levels have been decreased by 60 percent since 
June of 2007. How did that happen? This new strategy of General 
Petraeus of getting military power out into neighborhoods, staying on 
the insurgency, giving them no rest, emboldening the citizens to fight 
back has paid great dividends. It is still a dangerous place but what a 
dramatic change: a 75-percent drop in civilian deaths since the 
beginning of 2006. From January to December, sectarian attacks and 
deaths have decreased over 90 percent in the Baghdad security district. 
How did that happen? We had a plan to secure the capital city by 
getting out from behind walls, going into neighborhoods, providing 
firepower and assistance, and the Iraqi people have done their part.
  Coalition forces cleared approximately 6,956 weapon caches in 2007, 
over twice what we found in 2006. How? People are telling us where the 
weapons are because they want a new country. They see us as a solution 
to their problems, not the problem, and they are coming forward telling 
us things they did not tell us last year because they have sensed 
momentum, they feel as if they are safer and they don't want to go back 
to the old ways and they are helping us help them.
  Iraqi security forces in the last year are responsible for security 
in 10 of the 18 Iraqi provinces. One of the biggest stories in this 
year has been the improvement of the Iraqi security forces, 
particularly the army. The national police have been a real problem. 
Even they are beginning to turn around. There are 100,000 new members 
of the Iraqi security forces, many of them being able to operate 
independently from us, for a total of a half a million people in 
uniform.
  The Iraqi people have stepped to the plate. They are helping 
themselves in a way I admire. The casualty rate among

[[Page 2686]]

Iraqis is three times that of our American and coalition forces. Every 
American death we mourn, but the reenlistment rates among American 
soldiers, military members who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is 
through the roof. What do they see that we don't? Why do they go back 
so many times? I know what I hear. I hear overwhelmingly: Senator 
Graham, I want to get this right so my kids don't come. I hear from the 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines: If we win here, it makes us 
safer at home. It is hard, it is tough, it is difficult, and they keep 
going back because they know the outcome in Iraq affects us at home. 
And God bless them for doing it.
  One brief statement: Well done. You have exceeded every expectation I 
have had. You have done a marvelous job. You performed your mission 
beyond any measure. You are involved in the most successful 
counterinsurgency in military history. All those who have taken part 
will go down in military history. We should be celebrating as a nation 
what I think is one of the biggest military achievements in the history 
of the world. But we cannot quite do that. I don't know why.
  Al-Qaida is diminished but not defeated, but they are on their way to 
being defeated.
  The big debate has been, what will make the Iraqi politicians get 
their act together. If we threaten to leave them there, they will start 
doing business in a better way. I have always felt that if you threaten 
to leave Iraq, every moderate will be chilled and every extremist will 
be emboldened. If you want to bring back life to a diminished enemy, 
let them read some headline somewhere in the world: ``America begins to 
withdraw,'' as this Feingold resolution would suggest or as Senators 
Obama and Clinton would have suggested. You would literally breathe 
life into a defeated, diminished enemy. It would be music to their 
ears. For every moderate who has sacrificed, lost family members as 
judges, as lawyers, as policemen, as army members, it would be 
heartbreaking.
  I cannot believe people do not understand the consequences to the 
world if the American Congress said: We are going to leave Iraq in a 
set period of time. I cannot believe we do not understand how that 
would resonate throughout the world. It would be music to an enemy that 
is really on the run. It would rip the heart out of those who brought 
this about. And you want political progress in Iraq to go forward? Tell 
al-Qaida we are going to leave and see what kind of progress we get in 
Iraq.
  The politicians in Baghdad have been frustrating to deal with, sort 
of similar to here at home. But you know what. I am here to say 
something I did not think I would say last year: Well done. The 
debaathification law has passed. What does that mean? It means the 
Shias and the Kurds have welcomed people back from the Sunni Baathist 
Party that ran the Government under Saddam to their old jobs, made them 
eligible for their old government jobs, and they are saying to their 
Sunni Baathist neighbors: Let's build a new Iraq; let's not look 
backward.
  Can you imagine how hard, I say to Senator Lieberman, that must have 
been, to have grown up in Iraq, and the people who ran the Government 
under Saddam Hussein made their life miserable and you have a chance to 
be on top; you can fire them all and make them miserable, and then 
suddenly, after a lot of dying, you realize: Wait a minute, we have to 
go forward, not backward. The debaathification law is a huge step 
toward reconciliation.
  A $48 billion budget was passed.
  Politicians in the Congress can relate to one thing: Money. We are 
always fighting to get our fair share for our State and our districts. 
The $48 billion budget that was passed has money allocated to every 
region of Iraq, and reconstruction can now go forward. And the 
ministries delivering the money are better than they have ever been but 
with a long way to go.
  The fact that Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds would share the wealth of the 
country with each other seems to me to suggest that they view Iraq as a 
country. And to give money to someone who may have been involved in 
trying to kill your family just months ago is very difficult to do. But 
they have overcome, I think in great measure, the biggest impediment 
that every country eventually has to overcome--and that is forgiveness. 
There is a long way to go in Iraq, but we are a lot closer to getting 
there than we were last year. And the only way we are going to lose is 
for Washington to screw it up.
  The provincial powers law, it passed the Parliament and went to the 
Council of Presidents. It will allow local elections in every province 
beginning in October. And I predict if that law becomes reality, Sunnis 
will vote in large numbers, and they boycotted in 2005.
  The central government run by the Shias came to the conclusion that 
we are going to decentralize power; we are going to let each province 
elect their local leaders, instead of trying to micromanage everything 
from Baghdad. You know what that means? Democracy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator is advised by the 
Chair that there is a preceding order to recess at 12:30.
  Mr. GRAHAM. To be continued. I yield.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, with the indulgence of the Chair, I ask 
unanimous consent to speak as in morning business on another subject 
for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. May I have 2 minutes to finish my thoughts?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The provincial election law was vetoed by Abdul Mahdi, a 
Shia Vice President, over the issue of whether governors elected to the 
province can be replaced by a majority vote in the Parliament. That is 
going to their Supreme Court. It is a unique and novel issue, and, to 
me, it gives great hope because they are resorting to the law rather 
than the gun. It is constitutional democracy playing out in front of 
us. It is something we should celebrate.
  Amnesty: There are thousands of people in the jails of Iraq now, 
mostly Sunnis, who have been tied to the insurgency. The Parliament 
passed a law that will allow a community of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds to 
go through the files of the people in jail and say to some of those who 
have taken up arms against the Government: Go home, my brother, and let 
us build a new Iraq. That is a stunning development.
  Now, how did all this happen? Iraq is war weary. People are tired of 
living in fear. We have given them better security; we put al-Qaida on 
the run, which has been trying to stir up trouble ever since Baghdad 
failed; and people have a sense of economic and political hope they 
have never had before. Oil revenues are up, have doubled. Oil 
production is up 50 percent. The economy is moving forward at a very 
fast pace. All of this is due, in my opinion, to resolve, to the surge, 
to the bravery of the Iraqi people and the American military and 
coalition forces who brought it about.
  To my friends and colleagues in Congress: We are going to win in 
Iraq. Finally, we have a model that will lead us to a stable and 
functioning government rejecting terrorism and aligning with us in the 
war on terror. And the only way we will lose now is for Washington to 
lose its will and undercut this model. I hope we understand what this 
debate is about. It is about winning and losing a battle that we can't 
afford to lose.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Again, I thank the Presiding Officer for staying in 
the chair for a period of 10 minutes.

                          ____________________