National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - June 21, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we face a difficult choice in Iraq and the war on terror at large. Iraqis are desperately trying to form a fragile government in the face of overwhelming odds. They are, as John Dickinson once said of American independence, ``braving the storm in a skiff made of paper.''

Despite that, the odds they face, look at the progress that has been made just of late. Prime Minister Maliki just completed the formation of a new Iraqi Government, including filling three national security positions. In the past few weeks, U.S. forces have taken out terrorist leader al-Zarqawi, the head of the snake, and many of his henchmen. This was a huge blow to al-Qaida and a major victory in the war on terror.

Iraqi security forces are growing in number every day. Only a year and a half ago, Iraqi security forces had just begun to form. Today there are 264,400 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, more than double the number of U.S. troops in the region.

At the beginning of this year, the Iraqi forces had 10 brigades and 43 battalions. They controlled areas of responsibility. Only a few months later and those numbers have nearly doubled to 18 brigades and 71 battalions.

Large- and small-scale water treatment facilities have been rehabilitated or constructed for an estimated 3 million people at a standard level of service, with plans underway to deliver clean, safe drinking water to 5 million more.

May oil production was over 2.1 million barrels of oil per day, and the Treasury Department, from the United States, is sending additional professionals to Iraq to provide technical support for the creation of a public finance system that is accountable and transparent. And our State Department is coordinating a broad effort to support an economic policy framework that enhances investment, job creation, and growth.

As Americans, we know, as Thomas Jefferson once said, ``the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.'' In America, we like things to happen in a 24-hour news cycle, but it doesn't always happen that way. If we look throughout the pages of history, we have countless examples of those who have come before who have understood the stakes and the risks that were at work in the conflicts they faced. A great figure from history of the last century, Winston Churchill, said wars are not won by evacuations. Churchill and those of his generation knew they were in a pitched battle for future generations, a titanic struggle between good and evil.

A more recent example is, as I was growing up in the State of South Dakota and going through what at that time we knew was the Cold War, I remember a great leader at the end of the last century, Ronald Reagan, when asked his strategy for winning the Cold War, who said: It is very simple, Mr. President, we win; they lose.

I believe that is the same strategy and same objective we need to apply to the war on terror because the evil we face today--it has a different name--is equally deadly. Failure to confront and prevail in this war on terror and we will be creating huge problems for the next generations of Americans.

When we hear this debate on the floor of the Senate and, I believe people have sincere motivations--I don't doubt the motivations of anyone who comes to the floor to debate this issue, and I think it is appropriate to have this debate, but this is not and should not ever be about partisanship. It is not about politics.

It is about the future and the security of future generations of Americans.

We have heard lots of people come here and say, Well, staying the course is not a strategy, it is not a solution. Yet at the same time, we know full well that as we look at the threat that we face from the war on terror, failure is not an option either. We cannot afford a strategy that includes running away from our responsibility not only to the people of Iraq but to the people of this country who are counting on us to protect them and to provide security and safety for generations of Americans to come.

I think some simple questions we have to ask are these: Is Iraq a frontline in the war on terror? I believe it is. We have demonstrated that in the last few weeks as we have eliminated many of the leading terrorist figures. We have to ask the question: Are the people we are fighting in Iraq terrorists who want the kill Americans? The answer clearly is yes. We also have to ask the question: If we don't have them pinned down there, will they not be planning and launching attacks against the United States? I believe the answer to that question also is yes.

The good men and women of the United States military are doing good work in Iraq. They are doing the job that we asked them to do. We need to make sure they understand we are there to win.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would ask simply that as we vote on this amendment and the one that will follow, that we vote them down and give our generals and our troops the ability to complete the work that we have asked them to do, and that is to win, to prevail, and to make this country safer for future generations.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Virginia, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. We have speakers coming down here and, as they arrive, we will recognize them.

I do want to express my appreciation to Members on both sides who have participated in this debate. We have already had a very spirited debate. There will be others speaking throughout the course of the evening and again tomorrow before we ultimately vote on both of these amendments.

As you know, we have in front of us two amendments. One is a sense of the Senate, a nonbinding resolution, the Levin amendment, and we also have the Kerry amendment, which has a force of law and which would require a withdrawal from Iraq by next summer.

As we consider and contemplate both of those amendments, I know there are strong emotions that Members on both sides feel with respect to this issue, and clearly for good reason. I know in my own particular circumstance, as I travel South Dakota, I hear from people all across my State. I have participated, as many Senators have, in way too many funerals and have heard the playing of taps way too many times in the last year. It is that sentiment I think that makes people in this country very weary regarding the conflict in Iraq and the cost it has brought this country in terms of both blood and treasure. So as we see Members get up and express their thoughts on the Senate floor during the course of this debate, I think they are in many cases reflecting the sentiments of their constituents in their States, as well.

Generally speaking, I think a sense that people have across the country is one of weariness with this conflict in Iraq. At the same time, I think we have to recognize what the stakes are in this debate and what the risks are as well. Clearly, as we have, I think, articulated--Members on our side--throughout the course of this debate, the stakes are high and the consequences of failure are disastrous for our country if we fail in this campaign in Iraq.

I have to say that, like many Members here, I have traveled to Iraq on a couple of different occasions. I was there as recently as a couple of months ago with Senator McCain, as well as with the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, and a number of our Governors and House Members, representing different regions of the country. I had been there a year earlier and, of course, in the course of that year much had changed. In fact, I would have to say there had been, at that time, some mixed results. We had seen the outbreak of sectarian violence after the bombing of the shrine at Samara. But at the same time, we had seen vast improvements in the ability of the Iraqi security forces to provide for their own security. That, in my mind, was very encouraging because at that time about 75 percent of the battle areas were being policed either by Iraqi armed services or the police force, which was a marked improvement from the time I had been there a year before.

Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that, by any measure, if you look at any significant metric in the past year or so, we have seen some improvements and progress made in Iraq and I think, in a substantial way, in the broader war on terror. If you look particularly at Iraq, Prime Minister al-Mailiki, just in the last couple of weeks, completed the formation of a new Iraqi Government, filling many Cabinet positions. If you look at the success our troops have had in taking out the terrorist leader, Musab al-Zarqawi and many of his allies in just the last few weeks, that is a huge blow to al-Qaida and a huge victory for our side in the war on terror.

As I said earlier, the Iraqi security forces are growing in number every single day. Only a year and a half ago, Iraqi security forces had just begun to form. Today, there are 264,400 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, which is more than double the number of U.S. troops who are serving in the region.

The beginning of this year, 2006, the Iraqi security forces had 10 brigades and 43 battalions that controlled areas of responsibility. Here, only a few months later, those numbers are nearly doubled to 18 brigades and 71 battalions. Large- and small-scale water treatment facilities have been rehabilitated or constructed for an estimated 3 million people at a standard level of service, with plans underway to deliver clean, safe drinking water to 5 million more. May oil production was over 2.1 million barrels per day.

The U.S. Treasury Department is sending professionals to Iraq to provide technical support for the creation of a public finance system that is accountable and transparent. The State Department is coordinating a broad effort to support an economic policy framework that enhances investments, job creation, and growth.

I have to say that that progress has occurred--and many of my colleagues have spoken in favor of these amendments in spite of the presence of Americans and our troops' efforts--due to and because of the efforts of our troops and their presence there. Contrary to what I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side say throughout the course of this debate, when I was in Iraq, which was as recently as a couple months ago, as I said, the Iraqi political leaders I talked to made it very clear that they thought it was important that we have a presence in Iraq.

I have heard Members get up on the floor and say they have talked to people there and they say they want us out, and they don't want the door to hit us on the way out. But that is certainly not the message that was delivered to me and the delegation I was with when we were there. I also have to say that part of our mission in going there was to impress upon the Iraqi leadership, the political leaders in that country, the importance of forming a national unity government, and to end the sectarianism and the sectarian violence that ravaged that area during the time that we were there.

They have made that progress in the last couple of months since our departure from Iraq. They have formed this national unity government, and they continue to make progress toward what I believe is a democracy inclusive of the Shiites, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and the various groups over there that are all struggling to come together behind a government and to be able to assume responsibility for their own governance and also for their own security.

It seems to me at least that right now it would not be a good signal to send either to them or to our men and women who are fighting the good fight in Iraq that we intend to pull out at any particular time certain. It seems, just as a matter of policy, what we are simply doing when we do that is telegraphing to the terrorists our intentions, and they will just wait us out, that we are going to leave at some point and they will be able to assume control in that region. If there is a vacuum at some point, they will be able to step in and fill it.

I think we are at a strategic turning point, and I think we are at that point due to the good work of the men and women wearing the uniform. We have to listen to what they are saying and what our commanders on the ground are saying. I don't think it is in the best interest of our troops or the overall campaign in Iraq for us to be here in Washington, DC, in a political body such as the Senate--although clearly we have responsibilities with respect to funding the troops and supporting them, giving them direction, but I don't think we ought to be passing judgment about when is the best time to pull our troops back.

We are moving in a direction that will enable us to do that, and I believe that our commanders have made it clear that as they see the Iraqi military stand up, as the government stands up, it is only a matter of time before our troops will be able to stand down, and we will begin to draw down some of our troop strengths in the region.

I make that point because, as I mentioned earlier, popular support is waning for the conflict and people are weary and they are frustrated as they see lives lost and they see the cost of the war, but at the same time I think they realize we have a mission to complete there. We listen to the people across the country, but it is also important to listen to what the troops are saying.

Whenever I travel, when I go to Iraq, when I listen to troops who have returned from Iraq, when I talk with National Guard units in South Dakota that have been deployed there, and, frankly, even when I discuss with families who have lost loved ones in Iraq their thoughts about the work we are doing there and whether we are making a difference, I consistently ask the questions: Do you believe we are making a difference? Do you believe progress is being made? Do you believe we are doing the right thing?

I try to ask those questions separate from--and especially when I am traveling into Iraq--the structured settings in which I would get a response--I wouldn't say a canned response but a response that might be less than completely forthright. I ask troops in different situations.

I remember when I was in Iraq in Baghdad the last time, I got up early in the morning and went to the fitness center and worked out in the weight room with a lot of our troops and visited, interacted with them, and asked their opinions on issues. Clearly, there is a belief, I think, that the work there is hard, that the work there has been costly, that people would like to be back home with their families but at the same time who understand the stakes of what they are doing and believe profoundly in the mission and the work we are doing at winning the war on terror.

As I said before, I think we have to, as we listen to this debate, keep in mind that the stakes are very high because it is not just about freedom and democracy in Iraq, as good as that objective may be, it is also about, in a broader sense, the national security of future generations of Americans.

I happen to believe that the war on terror is sort of our, as they used to say, rendezvous with destiny, that many generations that have come before have had to battle evil. We had World War II and Nazism and all the characters of that time who wanted to kill and destroy and maim people. And since that time we have fought the Cold War. It has taken a certain amount of resolve in every one of those circumstances to prevail. But in either of those circumstances had we not had that resolve, had there not been freedom-loving people and leadership committed to finishing that mission, we could be living in a very different world.

They met, in their generation's time, the challenge that was put before them to make the world a safer and more secure place for future generations. That was true in World War II, that was true in the Cold War, and that is true today in the war on terror. I believe it is our time and our generation's, if you want to call it struggle between good and evil, and we have a responsibility to the people of this country and to freedom-loving people everywhere to make sure we do not fail in succeeding, in winning the war against terror, to ensure that future generations do not have to live in constant fear, in constant threat, and perhaps dealing with thugs such as al-Zarqawi and others who want to do evil and want to kill, want to destroy, and have nothing but the worst of intentions for the people of this country and people elsewhere around the world.

Mr. President, this amendment will be voted on tomorrow. I know the Senator from Massachusetts has time to talk about his amendment later. And the Levin amendment will also be voted on. I appreciate and believe it is appropriate for us to have this debate, especially in the context of the Defense authorization bill, where we are debating national security. This is a debate we have every year. I think it is very appropriate to have this discussion.

I don't question the motivations or intentions of people who bring these amendments; I think just in terms of their judgment, it is wrong. I don't think we can telegraph to our enemies what our strategies are. I believe it is important we complete the mission, that we listen to those commanders, those generals, those troops on the ground day in and day out, fighting the good fight, trying to protect our citizens in this country and around the world and future generations from what I believe is a very real, very serious threat to our security as we go forward.

Mr. President, I see that the Senator from Kansas is on the floor. I will be happy, if he is prepared at this time to make his remarks, to yield such time to him as he may consume. We have others who will be joining us in the Chamber. I, at this time, yield to the Senator from Kansas.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the comments of my colleague from Kansas, because I think he too has laid out very clearly what the stakes are in this debate.

As I said earlier, we will have an opportunity to vote tomorrow on both of these amendments, the Levin amendment, the sense of Congress amendment, and then the Kerry amendment, both of which are directed at some sort of a timeline with respect to the conflict in Iraq. As I mentioned earlier, I think as we have undertaken to allow a very open debate on this, which, as I said before, I think is a good thing to do, particularly in the context of debating the Defense authorization bill, we are hearing from both sides some of the emotion that is felt on this and also some very strong opinions and views but, oftentimes, a different interpretation of the facts.

I think what we need to do in this debate is try and focus on the facts as they exist on the ground and not sometimes as we understand them here from what we read in the press, but we need to rely, in my judgment, on those people who are day in and day out fighting the good fight in the theater. Our commanders, our generals, our troops who are conducting this operation over there are doing the Lord's work, in my opinion, in protecting us from terrorist threats that exist. I dare say, as we look at the type of threat we will face in the future, it seems to me, at least, that the success or failure of the operation in Iraq is going to bear heavily on whether we are ultimately going to succeed in the war on terror.

People have argued about whether we ought to be in Iraq in the first place, and that is a debate where Members on the other side have said we shouldn't have been there, we shouldn't have gone in the first place. Most who are making that argument are people who supported the resolution to go there, and I think many of those people also realize as well--and I think the vote will reflect this tomorrow--that they have strong misgivings about us pulling out prematurely and putting in jeopardy the good work that has been done by the troops in that region already.

So I expect tomorrow when we have this vote we will see a very strong vote against the Kerry amendment. I think it will reflect, hopefully, the will of this body at this point in time as we are making good progress, I think, at a very important turning point in the war in Iraq, the progress that has been made on the ground both with respect to the Iraqi security forces as well as with the Government of Iraq as it stands up. We want to make sure we are not telegraphing to our enemies that at this very point where we literally have them on their backs, that we are going to let them up and begin to assume many of the things that they were doing in the past: the killings, the planning, the launching of attacks against people not only in that region but elsewhere around the world and, in many cases, people from freedom-loving countries and American citizens. We want to make sure that never happens again.

My colleague from Alabama is here on the floor. Would the Senator from Alabama like to speak on this subject? We are waiting for the Senator from Georgia to arrive. He is not here yet, so if the Senator from Alabama would like to claim some time, I am certainly willing to yield to him. I think we have about 10 minutes left on our side if the Senator from Alabama would like to make some remarks.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov