It is very clear that many Americans are frustrated and angry because we are four years into a war the president assured us would be short and decisive. The administration's misjudgments, lack of planning and poor leadership have made a bad situation worse. Many do not trust President Bush to find a way to end this war, and they believe Congress should simply act to cut off additional funds.
I opposed giving the president the authority to wage war in Iraq, but the fact is that we are still deeply engaged there. So long as our troops are in the field, we must provide them what they need even as we move to change the mistaken policies of the Bush administration in Iraq.
The House-passed supplemental appropriations bill begins that change. It includes important language to hold the president accountable to the benchmarks set by his own administration and the Iraqi government and will provide General Petraeus with the leverage necessary to help the Iraqis forge a political solution. It will take a political solution - not a military one - to end this war.
I support a responsible end to the war in Iraq, based on a strategy of phased withdrawal of troops, accelerated diplomacy and redeployment that is based on Iraqi stability and not arbitrary deadlines. It is true that the House bill includes a date certain for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. My personal view is that it would have been wiser not to include a date certain for troop withdrawal. As a matter of national security policy, we should steer clear of arbitrary public deadlines and focus instead on realistic goals. Our military needs flexibility to be able to link movements of U.S. troops to the realities of the situation on the ground. But the August 2008 deadline in this bill is far enough away that we may be able to revisit it if need be, and on balance, while it is not a perfect bill, I supported it.
Most important, while this bill will fund our troops it also sends a clear message to the president that we cannot continue an open-ended military commitment in Iraq. We need to be scaling back our military mission in Iraq. We need to make the U.S. military footprint lighter - not in order to hasten defeat or failure in Iraq, but to salvage a critical measure of security and stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon. We need to change course and chart a path that enhances our national security and sets the right priorities for the war on terrorism and struggle against extremists. This bill begins to chart this path.
Udall Urges Passage Of Iraq Back-Up Plan Bill During Committee Hearing
On March 20, I testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and urged passage of my bill (H.R.1183 -- Iraq Contingency Planning Act) which would require the Pentagon to report to Congress on steps it has taken to plan for contingencies in case the president's surge policy in Iraq fails.
A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released last month states that as Iraq's security environment worsens, three scenarios could emerge: chaos leading to partition, the emergence of a Shia strongman, or anarchic fragmentation of power. H.R. 1183 would require that by June 30, 2007, the administration inform the House and Senate Armed Services Committees how the Defense Department and other agencies would respond to each of these scenarios with an explanation of the role of U.S. troops under each scenario, including a comprehensive analysis identifying and justifying the number of U.S. troops needed in each case.
This bill is not an attempt to tie the administration's hands. It does not seek to micro-manage the war or military strategy from afar. It is designed to fit the constitutional duties that Congress must have to provide meaningful oversight and accountability at a time of war. Most important, it is designed to prevent a repeat of the mistakes the Bush administration made in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
House Passes Udall Water And Energy Bill
On March 19, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 902, "The More Water and More Energy Act", a bill I authored that calls for research and development of ways that water from oil and gas production could be used for agricultural purposes and to alleviate drought conditions.
Produced water is the water generated during oil and gas production. The U.S. generates over five million gallons of produced water per day. While this water can be and is used for agricultural purposes, most often it is handled as a waste and reinjected into the ground. Given the increasing demand for fresh water supplies in the arid West, it makes sense to consider how this water could supplement our water resources.
Oil and gas industry officials are supporting my legislation because point there is a lack of information on steps required to use this water. My bill establishes a collaborative effort to identify the obstacles in the development of this water resource and to provide research and demonstration plants to show how to overcome them in the future.
H.R. 902 directs the Interior Secretary to carry out a study to identify the obstacles to increasing the extent to which produced water can be used. It authorizes $5 million in federal grants to assist in developing four pilot plants to demonstrate the feasibility, effectiveness and safety of processes in which produced water can be recovered and made suitable for use. According to this legislation, one of the pilot plants could be built in Colorado, while others would be built in California, Texas, and one either in Arizona, Nevada or New Mexico.
I think the bill will change an energy-industry problem into an opportunity, not just for oil and gas producers but for everyone else who would benefit from increased supplies of useable water. Developing beneficial uses for produced water could reduce costs of oil and gas development, while also easing demand for water by alleviating drought conditions in Colorado and the west and providing water for agriculture, industry, and other uses. Energy and water are two of our most important resources, so it makes sense to pursue ways to produce more of both.
H.R. 902 now goes to the Senate for action.
Congressman Mark Udall
Serving Colorado's Front Range and Western Slope