U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, And Iraq Accountability Act, 2007--Conference Report

Floor Speech

U.S. TROOP READINESS, VETERANS' HEALTH, AND IRAQ ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2007--CONFERENCE REPORT -- (Senate - April 26, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we must change the mission of our military forces in Iraq. We have to concentrate on training Iraqi forces so they can assume the burden of this hostility. We have to continue our efforts in counterterrorism to strike those international terrorists wherever they may be. And we have to protect our forces at all times. But we cannot continue an open-ended commitment and involvement in a civil war. That is essentially what the President is urging us to do.

This appropriations bill provides more resources for our military than was requested. It also funds extremely important domestic concerns, including the Veterans' Administration, so we can keep faith with those veterans who have served and will continue to serve; and also, as my colleague from Louisiana pointed out, we have to begin to reconstruct our gulf coast. It is ironic that we are pouring billions into Baghdad, helping them build all sorts of utilities, and still Americans languish along the gulf coast.

It also includes the Murtha standards of readiness on our forces as they deploy, to ensure that no American unit goes into the war zone without proper equipment, proper training, and appropriate personnel. The President has the ability to waive this under certain circumstances, so we are not unduly constricting his ability as Commander in Chief.

Then, of course, this legislation has benchmarks so that the Iraqi Government can stand up to their task. I think the one common theme that I have heard in this body is, ultimately, this is a political struggle and, ultimately, the Iraqi Government will make the decisions that are so important to the success of their efforts, which will allow us to begin a phased redeployment. But their record is very discouraging when it comes to their government.

Leon Panetta published an editorial a few days ago in the New York Times. He points out the Iraqis promised to achieve by the end of last year and the beginning of this year the approval of a provincial election law but, so far, no progress; approval of a law to regulate the oil industry and share revenues, and a draft is circulating, but it has not been approved by the parliament; approval of a debaathification law to reintegrate officials of the former regime and have a reconciliation, but there has been no progress; approval of a law to rein in sectarian militias, but no progress there either.

By March, the Government promised to hold a referendum on constitutional amendments. No progress.

By May, the Prime Minister committed to putting in place the law controlling militias, with no progress; the approval of the amnesty agreement, with no progress; and the completion of all reconciliation efforts. No progress.

If the Iraqi Government is unwilling to stand up to the demands they must face, then I think we can legitimately--and, indeed, we must--tell them very strongly that we will not support an open-ended commitment to that Government, that we will change our mission and refocus our resources.

It is interesting to me that our Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, those who travel to Baghdad, stand up and say this: Tell them what we are doing here is important, critical, and will happen, unless the Iraqis change. But in Washington, we are criticized for doing this.

I think the reality in Baghdad has to be the same as here. We have to move forward with this legislation to change the course, protect our soldiers in the field, and to allow a chance for success in Iraq.

I think we are all committed, we hope, to a policy that will lead us and the people of Iraq to a much better day. I believe supporting this initiative will do that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source