[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 68 (Thursday, April 26, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5126-S5128]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the subject of the 
emergency war supplemental and the adverse impact this political 
theater is having on our efforts in Iraq.
  For me, this political gamesmanship calls to mind a book written some 
50 years ago about some very brave men in our Nation's history--not 
brave in the sense of today's marines and soldiers, who are doing the 
grunt work in Afghanistan and Iraq to ensure that the free world can 
sleep in peace at night. No, the men in this book were brave for a very 
different reason.
  The book I am referring to is the 1956 classic, ``Profiles in 
Courage,'' written by a young U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, John F. 
Kennedy, who later became our 35th President. The book is an account of 
men of principle, integrity, and bravery in American politics.
  Then-Senator Kennedy profiled eight exceptional U.S. Senators from 
throughout the Senate's history whom he considered to be models of 
virtue

[[Page S5127]]

and courage under pressure. These men defied the public opinion of the 
day in order to do what was right for the country even though they 
suffered severe criticism and losses in popularity because of these 
actions.
  The Senators profiled included: Thomas Benton from Missouri, for 
staying in the Democratic Party despite his opposition to extending 
slavery into the territories; Sam Houston from Texas, for opposing 
Texas' secession from the Union--for refusing to support this 
secession, Houston was later deposed as Governor--and Edmund Ross from 
Kansas, for voting for acquittal in the Andrew Johnson impeachment 
trial. As a result of Ross' vote, Johnson's presidency was saved and 
the stature of the office was preserved.
  In this definitive book on political courage, each of the eight 
Senators profiled is today considered a ``hero'' for having done the 
right thing, not the popular thing.
  They are heroes today for having filtered out the political noise of 
the chattering classes of their day.
  They are heroes for having done what was in the best interest of the 
United States and not in their own political best interest.
  They are heroes for doing what was necessary instead of simply doing 
what was easy.
  Today, each of us faces our own ``Profiles in Courage'' moment. A 
clash of visions regarding America's future has brought us to this 
point.
  One vision has America defeating al-Qaida and the forces of Islamic 
fascism.
  The other vision has America surrendering in Iraq and allowing 
jihadist forces to determine Iraq's future, making America and the rest 
of the world less safe.
  These competing visions must be reconciled by each individual 
Senator.
  But let's understand exactly what the majority party is attempting to 
accomplish by hijacking this legislation. I could speak at length about 
the ample amounts of unrelated pork that have somehow found their way 
into this emergency supplemental. Those embarrassments continue to be 
addressed by my colleagues.
  What I would like to do is spend a few minutes specifically 
discussing the misguided efforts of the other side to revise, or more 
accurately restrict, this Nation's policy in Iraq.
  Democrats are once again attempting to constrain this Nation's 
Commander in Chief in the execution of his constitutional duties; this 
time by inserting language in the emergency supplemental that would 
limit the use of force in Iraq to certain congressionally preapproved 
ends.
  It would also provide a date certain for the surrender of U.S. forces 
in Iraq. This language within the emergency supplemental 
unconstitutionally micromanages the conduct of the war from the floor 
of the U.S. Senate. It does so by providing that Congress, and not the 
Commander in Chief, would determine just how our military is to be 
used. It inserts 535 ``commanders in chief'' into the decisionmaking 
process when it comes to the execution of military operations in Iraq.
  This is not what our Founding Fathers intended.
  This legislation, as it is currently written, directs the President 
to begin the surrender of our forces no later than October 1 of this 
year, and calls for all U.S. combat forces to be back in the United 
States 180 days after that.
  As a matter of policy, even the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission 
specifically considered and rejected setting a timetable for our 
withdrawal from Iraq.
  But this current debate we are engaged in regarding the emergency 
supplemental affects more than politicians on Capitol Hill. It goes far 
beyond the political posturing taking place on Sunday talk shows. It is 
more than a mere power struggle between the Commander in Chief and a 
new majority in Congress asserting itself.
  No, this debate directly affects the health and well being of our men 
and women in uniform; men and women that this Congress authorized the 
President to send to Iraq.
  This is unconscionable.
  Recently, the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on overseas basing 
issues. Witnesses represented the Department of Defense and the 
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
  As the ranking member, I asked these witnesses about the impact that 
delaying enactment of the emergency supplemental would have on 
Department of Defense operations, particularly those associated with 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I learned from them that the Army has already started to feel the 
financial squeeze of our failure to pass the emergency supplemental and 
has begun to limit certain functions.
  They have had to curtail the training of Army Guard and Reserve units 
within the United States, thus reducing their readiness levels.
  They have had to reprioritize predeployment training and eliminate 
anything that is not Iraq specific. No longer will units deploy to Iraq 
capable of handling the full spectrum of possible military scenarios.
  The Army has begun reducing quality of life initiatives, including 
the routine upgrade of barracks and other facilities.
  They have stopped the repair and maintenance of hundreds of tanks, 
Bradleys, and other vehicles necessary for deployment training.
  The impact only gets worse with time.
  If the emergency supplemental funding is not received by May 15--less 
than a month from now--the Army will undertake further actions.
  These include:
  reducing the pace of equipment overhaul work at Army depots, which 
will worsen the equipment availability problems facing stateside units;
  curtailing training rotations for brigade combat teams scheduled for 
deployment to Iraq. This will also slow the arrival of more brigades 
which are needed to expand the Army's rotational pool and reduce stress 
on existing units.
  This smaller rotational pool will result in the further extension of 
those currently deployed until their replacements are judged to be 
ready for deployment.
  The Army would be forced to implement a civilian hiring freeze.
  They would have to prohibit the execution of new contracts and 
service orders.
  They would have to hold or cancel repair parts orders in the 
nondeployed Army, directly impacting the units' ability to deploy with 
mission capable equipment and fully trained soldiers.
  I shudder to think of what additional steps the military will need to 
take if Democrats remain as stubborn and irresponsible regarding the 
emergency supplemental as they have proven to be up to this point.
  Before we consider voting on any emergency supplemental legislation 
which includes the offending surrender language, we need to seriously 
ask ourselves: in 20, or 50, or even 100 years, will those generations 
that follow us look upon us as the heroes of our time for having done 
the courageous thing?
  Will we be admired for having chosen to do what was in the best 
interest of the Nation, in the best interest of the world, regardless 
of the political costs?
  Or will this body be viewed with disdain for having cast our vote to 
set certain a date for our surrender to the forces of al-Qaida?
  Will we be viewed as inhumane for condemning some 25 million Iraqis 
to a living hell on earth?
  It is my opinion that this misguided effort by my Democratic 
colleagues is a surrender strategy for Iraq; a surrender that will take 
us at least a year to complete, but a surrender strategy nonetheless.
  I join today with the President in refusing to surrender to the likes 
of al-Qaida.
  Calling this surrender a ``withdrawal,'' or a ``redeployment,'' is 
like putting lipstick on a pig. No matter what you call it, it is still 
a pig. And no matter what you call this surrender, it is still a 
``surrender''.
  Now, there might have been a time in our history when we could have 
hidden behind our own borders and not had to worry about what was 
happening in the Middle East or any place else across the ocean. Those 
days haven't existed for some time.
  Remember the consequences of our abandonment of Afghanistan in the 
1980s. We supported the Mujahedin against the Soviets until the Soviets 
surrendered, or ``withdrew'' as my Democratic friends would call it, in

[[Page S5128]]

1989. Then we left the Afghans to fend for themselves. In short order, 
they had a civil war. The Taliban rose to power and provided a safe 
haven for al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden established training camps where he 
trained some 20,000 terrorists in the late 1990s; graduates of those 
camps came here and killed 3,000 of our fellow citizens on 9/11.
  Perhaps, at the end of the Cold War, it was difficult to imagine the 
impact of the U.S. leaving Afghanistan. The same cannot be said about 
leaving Iraq. We have to prevail in Iraq, and we can if we don't choose 
to surrender.
  In closing, I have a question for those on the other side.
  If my Democratic colleagues believe our current struggle against 
Islamic jihadists in Iraq is such a mistake; if you honestly believe 
that you were lied to or misled into initially supporting this war and 
that there is no useful purpose for continuing; if you believe that the 
lives of those in uniform who have made the ultimate sacrifice were 
truly wasted; if you believe that al-Qaida and the threat of Islamic 
fascism confronting America is merely something invented by a small 
band of neoconservatives, or; if Islamic fascism is simply an 
ideological movement that can be appeased and reasoned with; then why 
are you seeking to continue funding our fight in Iraq for even another 
day?
  If you believe that Iraq is simply a mistake gone bad, then you 
should at least have the courage of your convictions and act 
accordingly. Vote to end the funding now.
  Don't string along those putting their lives on the line for you to 
make some sort of weak political statement.
  This may well be our ``Profiles in Courage'' moment. I implore you to 
do the right thing, not the currently popular thing. Support our men 
and women in uniform, and do it now.

                          ____________________