Iraq War and FISA Modernization
| Print This: |
|
September 19, 2007
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I last came to the floor to speak on the subject of the way ahead in Iraq. Since that time, significant events, both good and bad, have occurred. First and foremost, General Petraeus has presented to the Congress a candid and encouraging assessment that the new strategy in Iraq has shifted the momentum in our favor. The testimony by the general and by Ambassador Crocker reinforced what I and my congressional delegation in May saw in Iraq and what I have heard directly from troops on the ground. The Petraeus counter-insurgency strategy, which is clear an area, move in with local forces, hold it, and then help them build their community, enlisting the locals in fighting the terrorist and showing them security is working--this is the strategy which, last year, I and many of our colleagues were asking for. The old strategy without enough people, without a permanent presence in the community, was not working. Well, it is starting to work now. But General Petraeus has proposed minor immediate withdrawals, withdrawals that are based on the commander's recommendations and security conditions, not Washington politics or micromanaging from this wonderful air-conditioned building.
The President used the term ``return on success.'' That is the term I hope we will embrace. These brave men and women went over there as volunteers to accomplish a mission. We need to allow them to work with the commanders to accomplish that mission. Even General Petraeus testified that the new strategy had reversed the trajectory of the war. He said: ``Al Qaeda is on the run. Security incidents'' since the surge began have fallen in 8 of the last 12 weeks. Civilian deaths have decreased by 45 percent. Ethno-sectarian deaths are down 55 percent, and attacks in Al Anbar are down 85 percent.
For all the attempts by the antiwar movement to discredit General Petraeus--and I will address that--he demonstrated enough military progress from his new counter-insurgency strategy to conclude that ``we have a realistic chance of achieving our objectives in Iraq.''
Secretary Gates on Monday gave a speech in which he said:
For America to leave Iraq and the Middle East in chaos would betray and demoralize our allies there and in the region, while emboldening our most dangerous adversaries. To abandon an Iraq where just two years ago 12 million people quite literally risked their lives to vote for a constitutional democracy would be an offense to our interests as well as our values, a setback for the cause of freedom as well as the goal of stability.
We must realize and recognize that the institutions that underpin an enduring free society can only take root over time.
Secretary Gates was absolutely right. One only needs to look at our own history to understand this. After a long, bloody revolution, a civil war, a struggle for women's suffrage, and a civil rights movement, some 150 years later, democracy is still a work in progress.
Just as Ambassador Crocker testified:
Iraq is experiencing a revolution, not a regime change.
Difficult challenges remain. Political progress in Iraq has been too slow. They have done some things. Actually, they have passed a few bills. In this body, we haven't passed an appropriations bill or a Defense authorization bill yet. We took August off ourselves. It is kind of tough for us to claim that the Iraqi Parliament is not doing its job when we can't seem to get our job done.
On the political front in Iraq, the Government is already sharing oil revenues among provinces. They are reaching out to former Baathists, allowing them to participate in the army and the Government. As I said, millions turned out to vote. It will take time for them, just as America's revolution did, but the benefits of a stable Iraq as an ally to the United States in the most volatile region of the world would be a major blow to terrorism, al-Qaida, and Iran's religious extremists.
Let me be clear: Our national security interest for the near and intermediate term is preventing chaos, genocide, and a region-wide war. That is our interest there, that is why our troops are there, because if they left, we could be facing far greater challenges, likely attacks on the United States and potentially a region-wide war. Our Intelligence Committee has long warned that precipitous withdrawal would create chaos and those impacts. If we were to be driven out of Iraq on the terms of terrorists and political timelines, terrorists from the Middle East to Southeast Asia to Europe to Africa would be emboldened to spread their fear, oppression of women, death and destruction, just as they were emboldened when we failed to respond appropriately to bombings of the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, embassies in Iraq, and the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center--all instances in which civilians and service-members were murdered.
Despite General Petraeus's testimony, despite our intelligence community warnings, and despite Secretary Gates's recent remarks, some war opponents continue to want to cede defeat. They refuse to listen to the advice of commanders. They ignore the consequences of a political withdrawal and the problems about which the Intelligence Committee warned.
I am very concerned about the amendment before us. I urge my colleagues to think about it and then vote against it. This is an amendment which would micromanage the war. Even a few of its supporters have been forthright enough to admit that it is a backdoor way of achieving what they want, which is defeat in Iraq by a premature withdrawal, because they know the chaos this would spread. They know what would happen if we tried to implement this into law. As Secretary Gates said on FOX News, such congressional meddling would mean force management, make problems that would be extremely difficult, and affect combat effectiveness and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops. He said when lawmakers intrude into this process, they could produce gaps during which one unit pulling out would not be immediately replaced by another, and as a result, they would have an area of combat operations with no U.S. forces, and the troops coming in would be at greater risk.
Contrary to the notion of its supporters that the measure would give the Armed Forces relief, it actually might force greater use of the National Guard and reservists. I am concerned about the National Guard and Reserve; they have been overstressed. I am concerned about our military; they have been overstressed. You know what happened? After the first gulf war in the 1990s, we slashed the size of our military. We slashed it far too much. The President recommended; the Congress went along with it. We slashed it too far. We are starting to rebuild. We have a very dangerous world. We need to have a military ready to respond.
Let me talk about the troops. I hear from a lot of them. I hear from my son, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He is a sniper platoon commander. He says he can only speak for 30 or 40 marines, but the one thing they understand is they want to complete their mission. They want to come home. Sure, they would like to be home. But they signed up for a mission. They don't want to withdraw, see all their contributions and sacrifices go for naught. They know that meddling in the war strategy, cut and withdrawal, cut and jog, or tying up the management of the war would be a disaster. They know that al-Qaida and the enemy is hoping that will happen.
This amendment is not as straightforward as cutting funding or withdrawing the troops, but it is perhaps more dangerous. That is why I urge my colleagues to stand up for the men and women who might be put at greater risk, and our national security interests, by refusing the amendment.
I want to talk about another part of this debate that is very shameful. MoveOn.org's attack depicting General Petraeus as ``Betray Us'' should be condemned, period.
It was an attack on the integrity of an intellectual, distinguished, and patriotic officer serving his Nation during a time of war, with the confidence of his troops behind him.
Make no mistake about it, discussing and condemning MoveOn.org's ad is not a sideshow or a distraction. In fact, it is paramount in a time of war we condemn the trashing of decorated military officers highly respected by their troops, and this one unanimously approved by this body, in order to achieve a political objective.
Marty Conaster, commander of the American Legion said:
As Americans, we all have a duty to speak up when our uniformed heroes are slandered.
He went on to say:
The libelous attack on a general is not the American Legion's primary concern about the anti-war movement. Our concern is for the private, the sergeant, the lieutenant and the major. If a distinguished general could be attacked in such a manner, what can the rank-and-file soldier expect when he or she returns home?
Sadly, the MoveOn.org ad is emblematic of a broader struggle by opponents of the war to muzzle other experts and discredit their views.
It is this tactic of desperation and, ironically, one that attempts to distract the American people from the realities of the threat our Nation and our allies face from terrorism.
Sadly, Mr. President, this effort is being used to attack another distinguished military man approved by this body. It has to do with the field of intelligence, and this is another area we learned is critically important on our Intelligence Committee delegation to Iraq in May.
When we were in Iraq, one of our key generals expressed his great frustration that old provisions of the FISA law were blocking him from keeping our troops in the field safe. Well, I have some good news on that front, and I thank the Members of this body on both sides of the aisle who, on a bipartisan basis, approved the Protect America Act on August 3 and August 4. That has opened up the lines of communications, the lines of intelligence for our troops in the field, for our safety here at home and homeland security. It has been very important and it eliminated a blockage that was critical.
Now, after we passed it, I have heard some critics, most recently, notably, in the House who have been trying to rewrite history and say the law did things it did not do. They have tried to discredit ADM Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. I am compelled to set the record straight.
As vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and sponsor of the Protect America Act, I was the lead negotiator during the final hours as Congress acted to pass a critical short-term update to our Nation's law governing terrorist surveillance. As one who was there, I dispute the misinformation being spread by some, and largely those who were not there, and I will outline the events as they occurred. For my colleagues and members of the press who are interested in the other side of the story, here is what happened.
First, the timeline of events:
In January, the President announced his Terrorist Surveillance Program was being put under the FISA Court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Our Director of National Intelligence, the DNI, subsequently stated that after that time the intelligence community lost a significant amount of its collection capability because of the fact that the law, as interpreted, did not square with the technology now in place and it was imposing unwarranted limitations we had not had when we were collecting radio communications, and he asked the Congress to modernize FISA sooner rather than later.
As I said, when we toured Iraq in May, our Joint Special Operations Commander, LTG Stan McChrystal, told us the blockage in electronic surveillance by FISA was substantially hurting his ability to gain the intelligence he needed to protect our troops in the field and gain an offensive advantage.
On April 12, the DNI sent his full FISA modernization proposal to Congress. On May 1, DNI McConnell presented it in open session to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Immediately following the admiral's testimony, I urged that our committee mark up FISA legislation. The reply was until the President turned over certain legal opinions from the surveillance program, Congress would not modernize FISA.
That Congress would hold American security hostage to receiving documents from a program that no longer existed was disheartening. We have received an inordinate amount of documents from the Department of Justice and the DNI. Yet I do not dispute the desire or the right of Members to seek a few important documents from the executive branch. In fact, I have joined in requesting those. But I did disagree with holding up FISA modernization when those documents are not necessary to do that. Now, despite the urging from the DNI and knowing this outdated law was harming our terrorist surveillance capabilities, for more than 3 months Congress chose to do nothing.
In late June, Admiral McConnell briefed Members of the Senate again urging us to modernize FISA. Finally, his pleadings began to gain traction.
In mid-July, Members of Congress agreed to discuss a short-term, scaled-down version of FISA to protect the country for the next few months before we could address comprehensive reform this fall. Admiral McConnell immediately sent Congress his scaled-down proposal.
Over the next week, Admiral McConnell was given nearly a half dozen versions of unvetted proposals from various congressional staffs across Congress and then pressed for instant support of these proposals. The admiral returned a compromise proposal, including some of the provisions requested.
Finally, we in this body on August 3 and in the House on August 4 passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Protect America Act.
I am pleased that the admiral and I could include in the measure we passed several important changes suggested by members of the majority party. We recognized this legislation still needs to be clarified, but it allowed the intelligence community to collect very important foreign intelligence targeted at foreign sources to keep our troops and Americans here at home safe.
After the passage of the act, I spoke with a number of members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I am confident now that we will be able to craft an improved, permanent version of FISA. So there is good news on that front. But now that I have laid out the timeline of sorts, I do need to address some recent attempts, primarily in the other body, to discredit our Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell.
As I said with General Petraeus, unfortunately, the M.O. for some is attacking military leaders. Here, as others attacked Petraeus, they are attacking personally another honorable man. I am disappointed with those who are charging Admiral McConnell with partisanship and duplicity for their own political gains.
Despite accusations to the contrary, Admiral McConnell never agreed to any proposal he had not seen in writing by congressional staff. There were indeed several dialogs where concepts were discussed, but I noted that Admiral McConnell at the end of every discussion said he needed to see and review with these leaders the congressional language in writing before he could support it. It is a good thing he objected because I was present when several elements of FISA were agreed to that the DNI and I wanted but subsequently and notably were absent from congressional proposals later sent to the admiral.
Unfortunately, this bait-and-switch during negotiations was not the only disappointment. There were efforts by some to circumvent the committee process and craft legislation behind closed doors without input from the relevant committee or from the minority side of the aisle. Even as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I was excluded from most of the key meetings. Not only was I excluded, but most members of the Intelligence Committee, Republicans and Democrats, were left out of the process. Despite attempts to leave out key Members of Congress during the last negotiations, I think we are on the right track. I am confident the Senate Intelligence Committee can pass comprehensive FISA reform, and we have engaged in very positive and encouraging talks, not just--obviously, I have talked with the chairman, Chairman Rockefeller. The Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are making great progress. We are working on the issue, and I have confidence that colleagues on both sides of the aisle can come together on this issue.
Unfortunately, again, today, another Member of the House is trying to demonize to the American public the Protect America Act that we passed in August, saying the bill went too far and was a power grab of executive power. They wrongly claim the law allows warrantless searches of Americans' homes, offices, and computers and reduces the FISA Court to a rubberstamp. That is absolutely flat dead wrong.
While I agree, as I said earlier, the law can be improved, clarified, nothing could be further from the truth. Quite the opposite, the law gave the FISA Court a greater role than it was ever meant to have when FISA was passed in 1978. This Protect America Act in no way allows for warrantless physical searches of Americans' homes, offices, and computers. This sort of inaccurate fear-mongering should have no place in this debate.
I am counting on cooler heads to prevail in the Senate Intelligence Committee, and in the committee we are making real progress. I think with the members we have on our committee, we have a great chance to get an even better bill forging bipartisan solutions that will deal with some questions probably not contemplated when the initial proposal came up to us. We have a lot of different opinions, but all our members want to do what is best for national security and best ensures privacy protections. The key is working out just the right balance, and I am optimistic we will do so.
As we saw in the strong bipartisan support for the Protect America Act, we can act in a bipartisan manner to protect terrorist surveillance--a critical early warning system--while protecting the civil liberties of ordinary Americans.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a brief editorial from Investor's Business Daily called ``Mettle Vs. Meddle,'' referring essentially to the amendment before us, printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mettle Vs. Meddle
After last year's elections gave them a slim majority, Senate Democrats enthusiastically endorsed President Bush's choice of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense--with not a single one of them voting against his nomination.
As Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, the Democrat from Michigan, wished Gates well at that time, he said he hoped the new Pentagon chief would ``speak truth to power.'' Gates certainly did that on Fox News Sunday--telling the powers that be in Congress the truth about their impending attempts at micromanaging the war in Iraq. Gates called the Democrats' plan to require that troops spend as much time at home as in the field ``pretty much a back-door effort to get the president to accelerate the drawdown so that it's an automatic kind of thing, rather than based on the conditions in Iraq.'' While on Fox News, Gates also said:
``The president would never approve such a bill,'' and the secretary would personally recommend a veto.
Such congressional meddling would ``force management problems that would be extremely difficult and ..... affect combat effectiveness and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops.''
Intrusions by lawmakers would produce gaps during which ``a unit pulling out would not be immediately replaced by another, so you'd have an area of combat operations where no U.S. forces would be present for a period, and the troops coming in would then face a much more difficult situation.''
Contrary to the Democrats' notion that the measure would give the armed forces relief, it actually might force greater use of the National Guard and reservists.
Gates stressed that ``the consequences of getting this wrong--for Iraq, for the region, for us--are enormous.''
He added: ``The extremist Islamists were so empowered by the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, if they were to be seen or could claim a victory over us in Iraq, it would be far, far more empowering in the region than the defeat of the Soviet Union.''
Compare that sober warning with House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha's appearance at the National Press Club on Monday, in which the Pennsylvania Democrat blustered that Iraq would cost as many as 50 House Republican seats in the 2008 elections.
Gates and his boss are obviously interested in America and the rest of the free world winning the global war on terror. The war Murtha and so many of his fellow top Democrats seem interested in winning is the political one being waged in Washington.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
|
||||||||||||||
