[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 135 (Monday, September 29, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12107-S12108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          IRAQ APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, one of the most important issues we may face 
all year is an issue we are going to be working on this week, and that 
is the urgent supplemental appropriations to continue and, we hope, 
wind up our efforts in Iraq. I know there are many different views. I 
think a little historical perspective may be in order. Some people are 
even questioning why we are in Iraq. I run into people in my home State 
who think, as some of the German media apparently does--I saw a report 
today--that September 11 was just a conspiracy of the United States, 
and that we really were not under a terrorist attack.
  Well, we have known for some time the dangers that terrorism present 
to the world and to those of us here in America. It was very clear back 
in 1998:

       One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the 
     capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the 
     missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.

  President Clinton, February 4. Then again on February 17:

       If Saddam rejects peace, we have to use force. Our purpose 
     is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by 
     Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

  President Clinton, February 17.
  And even better, here is a quote from a day later:

       Iraq is a long way from here but what happens there means a 
     great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue 
     State will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons 
     against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we 
     face.

  So stated by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 18.
  Well, after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, President Bush very 
forcefully outlined a program to deal with terrorists. He said: We are 
going to bring terrorists to justice or we will bring justice to the 
terrorists. He pointed out that we would no longer permit States to 
harbor terrorist groups, to provide safe havens for terrorists who need 
the opportunity and the time and the money and the financing to build 
their terrorist operations through which they could strike the United 
States.
  Well, during the 1990s we did not respond--Khobar Towers, our embassy 
bombings, USS Cole. We treated them as isolated instances when, in 
fact, they were part of a terrorist scheme. You cannot retaliate 
against a suicide bomber. You have to deal forcefully. That is why 
President Bush said we will go after the terrorists, wiping out 
terrorists where we find them and undoing the governmental structure 
which protects them.
  Well, we have been successful. Magnificent military efforts in 
Afghanistan disbanded the Taliban. A magnificent, unbelievable effort 
in Iraq totally shredded the Saddam Hussein government of tyranny and 
authoritarianism, a government of rape and poisoning of their own 
citizens. But now we face what President Bush said is going to be an 
ongoing battle, a continuing battle, the battle against terrorism 
itself--not just this particular Government or location.
  We have before us a request from the President of the United States 
for $87 billion. Most of it, about $67 billion, is to protect our 
troops and to keep them there and to keep them safe. Another $21 
billion will help the Iraqi people build a country free after 30 years 
of terrorism, torture, and repression and to develop their own 
military, their own police force, their own security, their own justice 
system so they can be safe and start to rebuild the economic structure 
of their country.
  Now, $87 billion is a lot of money. Make no mistake about that. That 
is really a huge sum. But last week we had extensive hearings with 
Secretary Rumsfeld, General Myers, and representatives of the State 
Department and the Department of Defense. I asked them, What was the 
cost of 9/11? How much did it cost?
  We know it cost 3,000 lives or more in the Twin Towers, in the field 
in Pennsylvania, and here at the Pentagon, and that is a huge tragedy. 
But when you take a look at the monetary side, the best estimates are a 
couple hundred billion dollars because we did not deal with terrorists 
before they dealt with us. They struck us on our territory, on their 
terms.
  The President of the United States came to the Senate and, by a vote 
of 77 to 23, the Senate authorized him to wage war in Iraq. We did 
that. We won. But the terrorists are there. The terrorists come back 
into Baghdad like a roach motel. All the low life, the hideous 
assassins, the suicide bombers are coming back. And we are fighting 
with them, we are dealing with them there. We need $66 billion. It 
costs well over $4 billion a month to keep our troops there.
  The people of Iraq, in response to opinion polls, have clearly said, 
by an overwhelming majority, that they want us there because they see 
the difference that has happened in their country. They know with the 
Baath Party still functioning, remnants of the Republican Guard, al-
Qaida, and other terrorist groups coming in there, they are not safe 
unless they have a security shield. Right now, we are that security 
shield. And we are doing some good things as well.
  One of the things Secretary Rumsfeld pointed out was the tremendous 
progress we are making to help Iraq get back on its feet so it is safe. 
In less than 5 months, virtually all major Iraqi hospitals and 
universities have been reopened. They are taking down huge caches of 
weapons that have been stored away by the Saddam government and by 
terrorists.
  Mr. President, 70,000 Iraqis have been armed and trained and will be 
graduating into the military, and 40,000 Iraqi police are conducting 
joint patrols with coalition forces. A new Iraqi council has appointed 
government cabinet members. Iraqi municipal councils are functioning in 
almost all towns and villages, and some 8,000 civil affairs projects 
have been undertaken by our troops.
  Now we need to do something more. We need to win the peace, and this 
$21 billion is the best investment we can make in winning the peace. 
Because only when we have won the peace and put in place an Iraqi 
military and police force and government that is able to protect itself 
can we safely bring our troops home and not worry about having to go 
back 5 or 10 years later, after they have rejuvenated their chemical 
and biological weapons programs and perhaps achieved the goal of 
nuclear explosives. We will not have to go back again and do what we 
just did.
  The terrorists are firing at our troops over there. The war on 
terrorism is going on in Baghdad. But make no mistake about it, they 
are not just shooting at our soldiers and innocent Iraqis and Iraqi 
police; they are shooting at American public opinion because their 
greatest hope is they can sow discord in the United States and force a 
pullback of our forces before the peace is won, to allow all those 
horrible terrorists to regroup and come together and launch another 
attack against their neighbors, against those who have been friendly 
with us, and, yes, against the United States.
  I hope we will have a good, vigorous debate. I hope we can move 
quickly to pass the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. Let's 
vote on it up or down. Let's get it moving and support our troops, but 
let's also get it moving so we can win the peace. Right now, with our 
forces over there, the battle in the war on terrorism is focused on 
Baghdad. It is tragic it has to be anywhere, but we have carried the 
battle to them. Because of the strong leadership of this 
administration, we are fighting the battle of terrorism in Baghdad--not 
in Boston or Boise or Ballwin, MO or Belton, MO.
  I believe that reports from our troops in the field, who say, ``Yes, 
this is dangerous, this is deadly, but we would rather be fighting them 
here than on our homeland,'' are right on. The people who are over 
there know what their mission is. They know how important their 
contributions are to safety and security, not just in Iraq, and in 
their neighborhood in the Middle East, but to our own safety, our own 
well being.
  Mr. President, 62 percent of the Iraqis in Baghdad, according to a 
Zogby poll, believe the hardships they have faced since the war have 
been worth it to rid the country of Saddam Hussein, his evil sons, and 
the brutal regime. That is an incredible vote of confidence for what 
the United States has done.
  In a different poll, when asked how long U.S. troops should remain in 
the country, two-thirds of the Iraqis said the U.S. troops should stay 
at least another year. I am afraid those numbers are higher than we 
would get in the Senate right now, but it tells you what

[[Page S12108]]

we are doing is important for them as well as for us.
  We want them to have a secure and peaceful country, but we want them 
to be able to enforce the law, to confront paramilitary troops with 
their own forces. That is what the $21 billion goes for. It is a lot of 
money, but if it gets our troops out just 5 months sooner, it will save 
us that much in supporting our own military. And we all know it will 
save us much more in exposure of our fighting men and women to the 
terrorist attacks that are now going on in Baghdad.
  I hope we can move effectively and quickly. Let's have some up-and-
down votes. Let's get on with it. We are at war. The President said all 
along that the war on terrorism is going to be a long war. But we have 
a chance to gain a major foothold. I hope we can move this emergency 
supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________