National Defense Authorizaton Act for Fiscal Year 2007

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - June 16, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, let me begin by saying I very much share the view of the Senator from Alabama about our troops. Day in and day out, they bring the utmost professionalism and the utmost courage and valor to the cause of standing up for American values. I very much share his views with respect to the tribute we ought to be paying to those who serve us, who wear the uniform of the United States and who do it with such extraordinary patriotism and service to our country.

(Mr. SESSIONS assumed the Chair.)

What I am here to talk about, though, is the political decisions that are made and how they affect those courageous troops and how they affect the security of the country.

In March of this year, at a press conference, a reporter asked President Bush:

Will there come a day, and I'm not asking you when, not asking for a timetable--will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?

The President responded:

That, of course, is an objective and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.

..... decided by future Presidents. .....

..... decided by future Presidents. .....

..... decided by future Presidents. .....

I found that statement troubling for two major reasons. First, staying in Iraq for years and years, in my view, will threaten Americans' preparedness to deal with a host of other threats that ought to concern all of us. Certainly at the top of that list would be Iran and North Korea, but suffice it to say, it is a dangerous world.

I serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I know the distinguished Senator from Alabama has a great interest in military affairs. No Senator who looks at the facts and the world in a realistic way would conclude otherwise. It is a dangerous world. There are real threats to our country. It is my view that to stay and stay and stay in Iraq will threaten the preparedness of our country at a dangerous time.

Second, it seems to me that making this kind of open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq, an open-ended commitment that in effect says we will be there at least until 2009, doesn't send the right message to the Iraqis about getting serious about their most serious challenges. For example, when I was recently in Iraq with my colleague, Senator Snowe, I was especially troubled by the Iraqis' response to my concerns about corruption in the Iraqi oil sector. We all know that 90 percent of the revenue generated in Iraq comes from oil, and there has been one independent analysis after another documenting widespread corruption in Iraq's oil sector. I brought that to the attention of the officials Senator Snowe and I met with on our trip. Essentially, the response was one of denial: Well, Senator, it really isn't that bad; well, Senator, we are getting serious about it; well, Senator, we are thinking about trying X, Y, and Z.

But I say to the Senate today that we continue to read these independent analyses which have documented widespread corruption and malfeasance in the Iraqi oil sector. Yet it is not being dealt with. My view is that to say the future of American forces in Iraq will be decided by future Presidents is yet another signal to the Iraqis that they have plenty of time to deal with serious problems like corruption in the oil sector, which should have been dealt with some time ago.

Again, I share the view of the Senator from Alabama concerning the professionalism of our troops. Our country and the world is better as a result of the death of Mr. Zarqawi. The kind of carnage and the brutal campaign that Mr. Zarqawi conducted is well understood. We are all very hopeful, because we all root for success in Iraq, that this will deal a blow to the insurgency. Our soldiers and all concerned ought to be proud of what they accomplished in taking down Zarqawi. I am proud of them. I know the Senator from Alabama is as well.

But let us think about the implications of overstretching our Armed Forces. That is why I say I am troubled about what is going to happen to American preparedness for a dangerous world if we stay and stay and stay--until at least 2009. Oregon Guard members, for example, of whom we are exceptionally proud, are on their third rotation in the theater. Some Active-Duty Forces are on their fourth rotation. Others are getting ready for their fifth rotation into harm's way. I am sure that is also the case in Alabama. I am sure it is also the case in every part of the United States. I will tell the Senate today that I think the stress our courageous Armed Forces are dealing with now is at the point where, if we can't get the Iraqis to speed up securing their own defense, this is going to undermine America's preparedness to deal with a dangerous world.

Our Armed Forces are maintaining an exceptional level of professionalism under exceptional stress, but at a certain point it is just not possible to continue in that way and be ready for the kinds of crises and the kinds of national security challenges that exist today. So the preparedness of our U.S. military to deal with a host of national security challenges hinges on what happens in Iraq. The more responsibility the Iraqis take for their future, the less the United States must shoulder, and the sooner we can start bringing our troops home.

When our President says that a future American President will decide when to bring U.S. troops home, it seems to me that sends a message to the Iraqis that they have a lot more time. For the sake of preparedness, for the sake of Iraq securing its own future, we have to speed this timetable up. American troops cannot and should not be in Iraq forever.

Shortly, I will introduce a very simple resolution. It is a sense of the Senate on the President's intention to keep U.S. forces in Iraq until at least 2009. The resolution is very simple. I will just read it this afternoon:

That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the members of the Armed Forces deserve the enormous respect and support of the Senate and the American people for the sacrifices that they are making on behalf of our country; and

(2) the President's intention, as stated on March 21, 2006, that ``future Presidents'' will determine whether to keep members of the Armed Forces in Iraq undermines the preparedness of the United States military to respond to other crises and should not be supported.

I will close. Again I pick up on the Chair's statement about the commitment of our troops and their courage and their valor. This is not, today, a debate about whether it was right to go to war. We had that debate. I was on the side that voted against, and other Senators were for it. We are long past that point. What we are dealing with now is how to win the peace. That is something which all Senators should be looking to try to work together on and find some bipartisan common ground.

I commend the Senator from Alabama for his statement about our troops. But I do believe we have to find a way to get beyond some of these artificial choices--like cutting and running or staying the course. Hopefully we can do that. I believe one area for bipartisan cooperation should be to try to speed up Iraq taking over its own future.

I was very troubled by the statement that it was the President's intention that the future of our Armed Forces in Iraq would be dealt with by future Presidents. We have to deal with it now. We have to find a way to win the peace and do it on a bipartisan basis. I intend to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this goal, which is not about whether you are for the war or against the war, it is today about winning the peace, and that is why I will be offering my resolution.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/