[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 70 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5317-S5318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today is an important yet a sad day for 
our Nation because it represents the 85th day that our fighting men and 
women in uniform have been waiting for emergency aid from the Congress. 
Yet they have been left waiting because of political gamesmanship and 
political theater in Washington, DC. The latest is reported in the 
Congressional Quarterly today, an article I have here in my hand--
actually the date is April 30, 2007, 10:45 p.m., entitled: 
``President's Veto Dependent on House Speaker's Signature.'' The report 
is that Congresswoman Pelosi wanted time to personally read the 
emergency supplemental bill and to sign it before sending it to 
Pennsylvania Avenue. I would have thought that Congresswoman Pelosi and 
Members of Congress would have read legislation before they voted on 
it, not afterwards.
  Also, in today's edition of The Hill, there is a story that says:

       Congressional leaders today will put an exclamation point 
     on their political showdown with President Bush on Iraq 
     spending, staging a signing event to send their Iraq 
     supplemental bill to the White House.

  I don't think this is Congress's finest hour, and I think it is an 
embarrassment that when our troops are waiting on an emergency spending 
bill to provide them essential equipment, we are staging signing 
ceremonies and going through political kabuki theater just to 
demonstrate on the part of some their disagreement on the present 
strategy in Baghdad and in Iraq. I think it is inappropriate and 
irresponsible.
  I know one of our colleagues here has talked about, for example, the 
MRAP vehicles, the so-called Mine Resistant Ambush Prevented V-shaped 
hull vehicles that are awaiting $3.1 billion in spending in this 
appropriations bill to get those to the Marines and Army in Iraq, 
something that has proven, in the hands of the Marines, to be very 
resistant to the improvised explosive devices. They save lives. That is 
one example, one concrete example of funding for equipment that is 
being held up because Congress continues to dither and play political 
games now 85 days after the President has requested this funding for 
our troops. The bill that will--after this so-called signing ceremony 
and after this reading of the bill after it has passed rather than 
before it was passed exercise--be sent to the President and he will 
veto it is simply unacceptable. Why? For two reasons.

  First of all, because it imposes arbitrary timelines on our generals 
in Iraq, including GEN David Petraeus, who was confirmed unanimously by 
the Senate, who was here last week to explain the progress that is 
being made in places such as Al Anbar Province, west of Iraq, which has 
been controlled by al-Qaida for some time now, and we are finally 
starting to see some real, concrete improvements being made there. We 
are seeing the local sheiks offering troops to supplement Iraqi police 
officers and the Iraqi Army to fight al-Qaida--the same organization 
that killed 3,000 Americans on September 11--right in Iraq. That is 
good news.
  We are beginning to see some real security measures going forward. So 
why we would have Congress tie the hands of General Petraeus and these 
successful efforts in Al Anbar Province, west of Baghdad, controlled by 
al-Qaida, and why Congress would want to tie the hands of our military 
leaders at a time when we are seeing some real improvement there is, 
frankly, beyond me. Why would we simply give up when we are beginning 
to see some light at the end of the tunnel?
  Then, of course, there is the second matter of providing porkbarrel 
spending in order to secure the votes of some Members of the House for 
this bill that they would not support on the merits. It is completely 
demeaning to our troops and the nobility of their sacrifice, not to 
mention the sacrifice of the military families who wait anxiously 
hoping their loved one will return from the fight only to be told that 
Congress is causing unnecessary delays in this spending--85 days now--
putting arbitrary timelines on the troops, making it harder for them to 
succeed, denying them the equipment necessary for their very safety, 
while Congress engages in more porkbarrel spending in order to secure a 
political consensus for this ill-considered piece of legislation.
  The bill, on its way to the President after this kabuki theater, 
substitutes congressional mandates for the considered judgments of our 
military leaders. This bill assumes and forces the failure of a new 
strategy, which is only halfway implemented. The new Baghdad security 
plan to back up Iraqi forces in Baghdad to implement the clear hold-
and-build strategy that GEN David Petraeus is the architect of as part 
of our counterinsurgency measures is only halfway deployed. Only half 
of the troops that are a part of this so-called surge are on the 
ground. While we are seeing some progress, we are also seeing some 
increased violence and, unfortunately, deaths as a result of meeting 
the enemy in places where previously they were safe and secure because 
we could not even go into places such as Sadar City, which was 
controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric who has since 
left to go to Tehran. He has left the country because he is afraid of 
the American and Iraqi military forces joining together. He has 
instructed the Shiite militias, one of the major causes of death squads 
and violence and ethnic cleansing in Iraq, to lay down their arms. What 
is there not to like about that kind of progress? Yet Congress, 
thousands of miles away in the safety and comfort of the Senate Chamber 
and our offices, is undermining the good efforts that are going forward 
in Iraq.
  While no one believes success is assured, we know, in the words of 
General Petraeus:

       The mission is hard, but it is not hopeless.

  The only thing that would make it hopeless is if Congress continues 
to undermine General Petraeus and our troops who are in harm's way. It 
boggles my mind that we have that sort of mindset in Washington, DC 
because of some rabid, antiwar, left-leaning groups that insist we 
ought to simply tuck our tail and run. They haven't come up with an 
adequate explanation as to what they think would happen if we were to 
leave precipitously, as some of them suggest.
  I happen to believe that notwithstanding the fact that Darfur, where 
400,000 people at last count have died as a result of terrible violence 
there, would pale compared to the ethnic cleansing and the violence 
that would follow if America were to betray our Iraqi allies and would 
leave precipitously. It would also create a regional conflict where 
Sunni majority nations would come in and try to stave off the Shiites 
from Iran for helping them and trying to prevent them from killing the 
Sunni minority there.
  The Democratic leadership has not helped the situation in Iraq with 
their recent pronouncements either. Democratic leadership in recent 
floor statements has suggested that if the President vetoes this bill, 
then he will be the one endangering the troops. They further stated 
they hope the President would realize that with his pen in hand he can 
honor soldiers, honor his country, and bring an end to this war.
  To that I say baloney. That is sheer fantasy that by cutting and 
running, by neglecting our allies in Iraq, by neglecting the 
improvements we have been able to make, by recruiting tribal sheiks to 
help us in fighting al-Qaida,

[[Page S5318]]

that somehow, by giving up on that, we are going to bring an end to the 
violence and the death in Iraq. To the contrary, we would create a 
failed state where al-Qaida, the very same people who hit this country 
on September 11, 2001, could reorganize, train, and recruit, and export 
future terrorist attacks to the United States.
  I am chilled by comments made a few months ago when I attended a 
ceremony where the Deputy Secretary of Defense spoke.
  He asked rhetorically:

       Do you know why al-Qaida killed 3,000 people on September 
     11, 2001, in New York and Washington, DC?

  Then he answered his own question. He said:

       Because they could not kill 30,000, because they could not 
     kill 3 million.

  His point is if they had the kind of biological, chemical, or nuclear 
weapons they are seeking, they would have killed thousands--perhaps 
hundreds of thousands more innocent Americans. And they will do that at 
will if they are provided that sort of weaponry.
  So it is sheer naivete on the part of those who say all we need to do 
is leave and somehow these people will go away. They will not go away 
and they will visit us here again with deadly results.
  With General Petraeus back from Iraq for the first time last week 
since he assumed command of U.S. forces, and the emergency 
supplemental, I hope, reaching the President later today, it is 
appropriate to reflect on the majority leader's statement, where he 
said we have ``lost the war.''
  Two weeks ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony 
from GEN Barry McCaffrey, a proven combat commander from the first gulf 
war, and a recognized expert on the tactical, operational, and 
strategic situation in Iraq. I will quote for a moment from his 
statement. He said:

       The consequences of failure in Iraq will be a disaster to 
     the American people and our allies if we cannot achieve our 
     objective to create a stable, law-based state at peace with 
     its neighbors. . . . We have 150,000 U.S. troops battling in 
     Iraq and 22,000 fighting bravely in Afghanistan.
       These are the finest, most courageous military men and 
     women we have ever fielded in battle. Their commanders--who 
     have almost without exception at company, battalion, and 
     brigade level served multiple combat tours--are the most 
     capable leaders that I have encountered in my many years of 
     watching our Armed Forces with admiration.

  He goes on to say:

       Our new leadership team in Iraq--our brilliant new 
     commander, General David Petraeus, and the equally 
     experienced Ambassador Ryan Crocker--are launched on a new 
     approach to use political reconciliation, new methods and 
     equipment to strengthen the Iraqi security forces and 
     enhanced U.S. combat protective power to stabilize the 
     situation. We must give them time and space.

  That is exactly what we are trying to do, to provide the basic 
security General Petraeus said is necessary, but not sufficient, to 
solve the problem.
  I submit our colleagues who have said General Petraeus said there is 
no military solution in Iraq are not listening to what he is saying, 
because what he has said is that improving our security situation is 
necessary but not sufficient. It is not a question of whether we are 
going to do the security part or the political reconciliation part. One 
must precede the other. It makes common sense that it is hard to sit 
down and work out your differences around a conference table in a 
political debate, or an attempt at reconciliation, if people are 
driving automobile-borne improvised explosive devices or people are 
walking into the Parliament in a suicide vest. So security must precede 
the political reconciliation that we all recognize is so absolutely 
important. That is what General Petraeus is saying. That is what we 
have to accomplish.
  We have some hopeful signs in Iraq now, for the first time in a long 
time, as a result of this new strategy that is only about half way 
implemented. But if we are going to succeed, it won't be because our 
commanders have had their hands tied by arbitrary deadlines in 
Washington, DC. It won't be because of the political theater going on 
here 85 days after the President had requested the emergency spending 
included in this bill for necessary equipment for our troops.
  The leadership should sign this legislation and get it to the 
President so he can veto it and we can get down to the serious business 
of providing for our troops.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.

                          ____________________