Water Resources Development Act Of 2007

Floor Speech

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - May 16, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in these dangerous times, we face terrorist threats around the world. The decisions we make here in the Senate must put us in a stronger position to fight and defeat terrorists wherever they hide. Just last week, the United States and German Governments unraveled the reported plot to attack American interests in Germany. This development reminds us that we face dangers all around the globe, and we need to be able to dispatch our resources wherever and whenever they are needed to keep us safe.

Unfortunately, having nearly 150,000 American troops stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq does not strengthen our ability to fight terrorists from around the globe. In fact, by forcing our troops to police a civil war and by not giving our troops the equipment and training they need, the President's current policy is impairing our military readiness and our ability to fight and win the broader war on terror.

It is time to refocus our efforts back on to the broader war on terror. Yes, we will still fight and defeat the al-Qaida terrorists who are in Iraq. But we recognize that terror networks exist in many other countries, and we have to fight and defeat terrorists in those places as well.

That is why I supported the Feingold-Reid amendment this morning. That amendment recognizes that leaving our troops in the middle of a civil war in Iraq is not the best use of our military. It doesn't make us safer at home, it diminishes our ability to fight the broader war on terror, and it impairs our military readiness.

It is clear the Iraqi civil war cannot be solved militarily. It must be solved politically. Today we are 5 years into this war. Thousands of American lives have been lost, and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been spent. Yet the Iraqis have not moved forward with meeting key benchmarks and beginning reconciliation. We have to show the Iraqis that we will not police their civil war indefinitely and that they must take responsibility for their own future. The redeployment language of the Feingold-Reid amendment from this morning makes it very clear to the Iraqis that our commitment is not open-ended and that they must make the necessary compromises to bring peace to their country.

In Iraq, our troops have done everything we have asked them to do. Now it is time to begin redeploying our troops, rebuilding our military, and getting back to fighting the war on terror.

As I look at these issues, I see four imperatives: First, we have to fight and defeat terrorists; second, we have to recognize the war in Iraq is impacting our ability to do that; third, we have to rebuild our military readiness, which has been seriously compromised by this war in Iraq. Finally, we have to be there to support our servicemembers, our veterans and their families, every step of the way.

First of all, we all recognize that we are in a war with terrorists around the world and we need to fight and win that war. This is not a war against countries. We are in a war against terrorists wherever they reside. President Bush wants us to believe the war in Iraq is the war on terror. It is not. The war on terror that our country faces is not the same thing as the civil war that is raging in Iraq. What is happening in Iraq is primarily a civil war between factions that have been in conflict for generations. The Feingold-Reid amendment empowers our military to target and destroy any terrorist elements in Iraq, but it would not force the majority of American troops to be stuck indefinitely in the crossfire of a civil war.

As we look at the terrorists our Nation confronts, al-Qaida is the most dangerous, according to the declassified National Intelligence Estimate from last year.

That NIE report said:

Al-Qaida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the homeland and U.S. interests abroad by a single terrorist organization.

The NIE also said the jihadists ``are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion. If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.''

Al-Qaida is the threat. We have to get back to fighting al-Qaida, and that is what the Reid-Feingold amendment would allow.

Under that amendment, while most troops would be redeployed, some would remain to conduct targeted operations against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. They would provide security for American infrastructure and personnel, and they would be allowed to train and equip the Iraqi security forces.

This administration's focus on Iraq has distracted us from the larger war on terror, and it has left us vulnerable. Our country faces possible threats from terrorists around the world, and we need a security strategy that ensures that we can fight those threats wherever they are. But, instead, the Bush administration has become increasingly focused on Iraq, which weakens our ability to fight that broader war on terror just when we must be strong.

Next, let's look at the relationship between the civil war in Iraq and our own security. Does having so much of our military tied up in Iraq's civil war make us safer? Does it help us fight terrorists around the world? The truth is, leaving our troops in Iraq is not making us more secure.

A State Department report from 2 weeks ago found:

International intervention in Iraq has been used by terrorists as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity that has contributed to the instability in neighboring countries.

According to our own State Department, our involvement in Iraq is making the region less stable, not more stable. The war in Iraq has the potential to make it harder for us to respond to other threats around the world. That is because the conflict in Iraq is tying up large parts of our military and is degrading our military readiness, which brings me to my third point.

We must rebuild America's military. We can all be proud that our country is home to the finest fighting forces in the world. But we must also face the truth. The war in Iraq has impaired our military readiness, and that is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of military leaders and experts who say it may take us, now, 5 years to rebuild our military.

The Iraq war has impaired our readiness by forcing a hard-to-maintain tempo on our troops, by destroying our equipment, by reducing the capabilities of our Guard and Reserve, and by limiting the training that our troops receive. Today we are forcing a very tough tempo on our servicemembers. They all want to work, and they all want to work hard. But we have to make sure the demands placed on them are reasonable. The Pentagon has extended tours of duty for our troops. It has deployed troops sooner than planned. It has sent troops without all the training and equipment they should receive. It has deployed troops without the downtime at home that our servicemembers and their families deserve.

Two Army brigades are on their fourth deployment now to Iraq and Afghanistan. That tremendous pace with little downtime in between is a strain on our troops. Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address those strains on our servicemembers so we can remain the best in the world.

The Iraq war is also impairing our readiness by destroying our equipment. The Army, for example, is

supposed to have five brigades' worth of equipment prepositioned overseas, but because of the war in Iraq, the Army is depleting those reserves. GEN Peter Schoomaker told the Senate just last month:

It will take us 2 years just to rebuild those stocks.

Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address the strains on equipment so we can remain the best in the world.

The Iraq war has especially impacted the readiness of our National Guard. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau, LTG Stephen Blum, testified that the readiness of National Guard forces is at a historic low. He said:

Eighty-eight percent of the forces that are back here in the United States are very poorly equipped today in the Army National Guard.

A national commission looked at the National Guard and Reserve and sent its report to Congress last March, a few months ago. The commission said:

We believe that the current posture and utilization of the National Guard and Reserve as an ``operational reserve'' is not sustainable over time, and if not corrected with significant changes to law and policy, the reserve component's ability to serve our Nation will diminish.

Our military is the best in the world. I believe we need to address the readiness of our Guard and Reserve so we can remain the best in the world.

We also rely on our Guard members when disaster strikes at home. We need their trained personnel and equipment to respond quickly. After the horrible tornadoes that occurred in Kansas just a few weeks ago, the Governor of Kansas said recovery efforts for those two States were hampered because there were not enough personnel and equipment. Where were those resources? In Iraq, not here at home.

COL Timothy Orr of the U.S. Army National Guard told the Senate that his brigade's homeland security capabilities have been degraded.

He testified to us:

Our ability as a brigade to perform these homeland missions continues to be degraded by continued equipment shortages, substitutions, and the cross-leveling of equipment between the State and the Nation to support our deploying units.

I have shown now how the Iraq war has impacted the readiness of our troops, of our equipment, and of our National Guard. The pace of deployment to Iraq is also hindering another measure of readiness--the training that our servicemembers receive.

To meet the President's surge, the Pentagon has been sending some troops to Iraq earlier than was planned, and they are keeping other units there in Iraq longer than planned. That means our troops are getting less time at home, less time between deployments, and importantly, less time to train. Commanders are forced to shorten the training their troops receive so they are focusing now only on specific training that they need for Iraq, but not for other potential conflicts.

That makes sense if there is limited training time. We want all that time devoted to their most immediate need. However, many military leaders are now warning us that this fast pace diminishes our ability to respond to other potential conflicts. Here is how the colonel who commands the First Marine Regiment put it:

Our greatest challenge is and will remain available training time, and because that time is limited, our training will continue to focus on the specific mission in Iraq. This has, and will continue to, limit our ability to train for other operations.

Army COL Michael Beech told the Senate in April that he believes our training strategy is broad enough to support a variety of other events. But he added:

However, if deployed in support of other emerging contingencies, I would be concerned with the atrophy of some specific tactical skills unique to higher-density conflicts.

We have military commanders telling us that they are concerned that our ability to train for other missions has been limited and certain tactical skills have atrophied. We don't know what the future of our world brings. We don't know what types of conflicts we will need to be prepared to fight. It is our responsibility, as leaders today, to be preparing for whatever the future brings for the next generation. By allowing our troops to only now be trained for today's mission, we are not meeting our responsibility for the long-term dangers our country must be prepared to defeat.

Our military is the best in the world. I believe we have to address these training shortfalls so we can remain the best in the world.

I am also concerned at the billions of dollars that we are spending in Iraq, coming at the expense of our ability to be strong at home. I am very concerned that the Bush administration has chosen to fund this war in ways that have meant that homeland security priorities at home have not been fully funded. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to try to correct that in areas such as port security grants and first responder funding. But it is not easy to overcome years of misplaced priorities from this administration.

Let me share with you some of the examples from this President's latest budget proposal. President Bush, in his budget proposal to us, dramatically cut funding for first responders to pay for the war in Iraq. His budget cut critical State homeland security grants by $348 million, or about 60 percent, to pay for the war in Iraq. He reduced urban area grants by $185 million--that is a 25-percent reduction--to pay for the war in Iraq. He cut our local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants by $119 million. That is a cut of 33 percent at home to pay for the war in Iraq.

Mr. President, we know funds are limited, so we have to be smart. Policing a civil war in Iraq should not come at the expense of our security right here at home.

Finally, as we fight and win the war on terrorism and we rebuild our military, we have to be there every step of the way to support our servicemembers, our veterans, and, importantly, their families. We need to meet their needs every step of the way from the day they are recruited, while they are being trained, when they are deployed, and, importantly, when they transition back here at home.

Today, too many of our servicemembers are falling through the cracks and not getting the support they deserve. That is why I have been working on the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the Appropriations Committee to identify those needs, to fund them, and to have the appropriate policies so we support those men and women who have so strongly supported us.

At the end of the day, our security comes down to people, people doing a job this country has asked them to do. We have to keep our promise to them. We face terrorist threats around the world. We must and we will defeat them. But to do so, we have to be smart and we have to be tough.

Unfortunately, the civil war in Iraq is not making us more secure; it is making us less secure. We need to refocus our efforts back on the war on terrorism and we need to rebuild our military. I supported the Feingold-Reid amendment this morning because it sets a new direction for our involvement in Iraq so we can refocus on the larger security challenges our Nation faces.

This is what I am fighting for in the Senate. I know we can do it. We can take care of our men and women in uniform, we can improve security right here at home, we can track down and eliminate terrorists around the world. It is a matter of getting our priorities straight.

Redeploying our troops from Iraq so we can focus on those other priorities is a critical first step in the Senate we have to take.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source