[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Pages 32151-32152]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          COST OF THE IRAQ WAR

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, for more than 4 years now, President 
Bush has been declaring victory or progress in Iraq. The thousands of 
soldiers who have lost their legs, gone blind or suffered horrible 
nightmares might be finding it hard to celebrate. The families of those 
men and women might not be cheering very loud about the President's 
view of success. Thousands more whose children, whose mothers and 
fathers are lost forever might be finding it hard to share in the 
latest cries of victory.
  Yes, the number killed last month dropped to 37, and we certainly 
rejoice in the fact that fewer soldiers are dying. That is still 
another 37 families who have no reason to rejoice. More American troops 
have died this year than any other year.
  No matter how much military progress has been made in Iraq, that kind 
of security can only go so far. No amount of troops will force Iraqi 
politicians to agree on a fair distribution of oil revenues. No Abrams 
tank can build trust between Shiites and Sunnis.
  The whole point of this surge was to create the conditions necessary 
for Iraqis to make political progress. But 2 weeks ago, the Washington 
Post ran a headline that said: ``Iraqis Wasting an Opportunity, U.S. 
Officers Say.''
  Iraqi security forces are still unable to operate on their own. Any 
cease-fire between factions could evaporate in minutes. We started 
drawing down troops to pre-surge levels, but we have to wonder whether 
we are going to be told again we have to re-surge, do it all over again 
because the Iraqi Government and security forces are largely still at 
square one.
  Our generals in Iraq have been the first to admit that a solution to 
the country's conflict has to be more than a military solution; it has 
to be a political solution. A political solution is up to Iraqi 
leaders. Right now there has been practically zero progress on the core 
critical issues necessary to bring a lasting peace.
  The administration set 18 benchmarks for the Iraqi Government to 
meet. They have barely met three. So is it time to turn up the pressure 
or let them keep squabbling while Americans pay and Americans die?
  There is more corruption in Iraq than almost anywhere else on the 
face of the Earth. We simply don't know where our money is going. It is 
a pit of quicksand when it comes to money. Some estimates say that as 
much as a third of the money we spend on Iraqi contracts and grants 
winds up unaccounted for or stolen--a third of billions of dollars, 
with a lot of it going straight to Shiite or Sunni militias. Let me 
repeat that: $1 out of every $3 we pay gets either lost or stolen--lost 
or stolen. Even after billions and billions and billions of dollars in 
funding, Iraqi society is still dysfunctional.
  American money went toward improving, for example, municipal water 
systems in Iraq. The Iraqis now break open the pipes and steal the 
water. American money went toward books for schools. Iraqis steal them 
from the Ministry of Education and sell them on the street at three 
times the price. Government officials have sold the furniture right out 
of their offices. That is what the American taxpayers are funding.
  So is it time to change our strategy, or do we ignore the corruption 
while Americans pay and Americans die? Here is the message we send to 
Iraqi politicians by sending them a blank check with no expiration 
date: Continue your squabbles. We will continue to see the loss of 
American life and continue to empty our treasury for you for as long as 
you like. That message is: You can sit back while Americans pay and 
Americans die. I think it is time for a different message, Mr. 
President.
  After seeing a surge in the military that has lasted for months do 
nothing about a splurge of corruption that has lasted for years, the 
conclusion we have to draw from that is clear: The only way Iraqis will 
take charge of their own country and make the tough compromises 
necessary to form a functional society is when they believe we won't be 
there forever. That is the only way. It is long past time for the Iraqi 
Government to take charge, and the only way they are going to step up 
is if we begin to transition out. A reduction in fighting is not an 
excuse for a reduction in planning for our involvement to end.
  The fact is, the violence has not stopped and the costs of this war 
have only gone up. The war is costing us $10 billion or so per month. 
The debt our Government is taking on, and that taxpayers are going to 
be responsible for, is exploding at the rate of $1 million a minute. I 
heard our colleagues earlier today, when I was Presiding Officer, talk 
about fiscal responsibility and what we bequeath to the next 
generation. Well, we are bequeathing them $1 million a minute of debt, 
because none of the money the President asked for is paid for--none of 
it. Yet when we try to invest in America, we are told there is no money 
for it. But it is okay to continue to saddle the next generation of 
Americans with a huge debt, $1 million a minute.
  When the numbers are that high, every American taxpayer has to ask 
him or herself a basic question: How does the President plan to pay for 
the war?
  Well, last week, we got a small part of that answer. He wants to cut 
funding for counterterrorism at home. According to a leaked 
administration document, President Bush wants to cut counterterrorism 
funding for cities by more than half. When I saw that article, I had to 
do a double-take. When I read that, I thought the report had to be 
wrong. It had to be wrong. Coming from the State of New Jersey, which 
lost 700 people--700 of my fellow citizens on that fateful day, and 
coming from a nation that lost 3,000 fellow Americans--to hear that we 
are going to continue to pump money into this war, a blank check, 
unpaid for, but that we will not take care of our security here at 
home, that had to be wrong.
  His reported budget would slash funding for police, firefighters, and 
rescue workers. It could mean fewer security guards at ports, less 
reliable detection of explosives, and less training for security 
personnel. Basically, it would

[[Page 32152]]

undermine the entire effort to prevent terrorism that our Nation 
realized that September day, one of the most urgent challenges we have 
ever faced. Cutting counterterrorism funding is simply outrageous.
  Now I certainly hope the Congress is not going to stand for it, and 
the people who live in those cities definitely will not stand for it. 
But is it necessary to remind the President how important it is to 
protect our homes and families from terrorist attacks? Do we have to 
say that we must do everything within the bounds of possibility and the 
law to prevent a terrorist attack from happening again? And this 
suggestion that we are ultimately spending our efforts and lives and 
national treasure there so we don't have to spend it here is a 
falsehood. That is a falsehood.
  Is anyone here in America going to feel safer at the end of the day 
when counterterrorism funding is cut for their hometown security, which 
as we found out on that fateful day on September 11 is how we 
responded--with local police, local firefighters, local emergency 
management? It was not the Federal Government but the local public 
safety entities. Is that a risk President Bush wants to take, to cut 
what amounts to .06 percent of the Federal budget, especially when the 
war in Iraq has eaten up $455 billion and counting; when the amount he 
wants to take away from police and firefighters, the people who 
respond, should, God forbid we have an attack, is an amount we spend in 
Iraq every 5 days? The money we are talking about for protecting us 
here at home in America is what we spend every 5 days in Iraq. What are 
our values? What are our priorities, Mr. President?
  The President has requested $1 billion for the Iraqi police, but he 
wants to cut funding for the community-oriented policing program that 
fights crime in America's communities. So he will spend anything on the 
streets of Baghdad, but he suddenly thinks we should be stingy when it 
comes to security on the streets of our hometowns. The President wants 
a blank check for Iraq, but nothing for America.
  That ties into what you have been seeing on the floor over the last 
several days. The reason we can't get appropriations bills out is 
because Republicans object to the type of domestic priorities the 
American people elected a new majority to achieve. He wants a blank 
check for Iraq, but nothing for America. From children's health to 
cancer research to crucial water resources, the President has vetoed 
what is most essential: our health, our safety, and in essence, our 
liberty. He has repeatedly said it is all too expensive. Meanwhile, he 
is requesting $200 billion more to fight a war in Iraq that has 
achieved nothing for any of us; that has ultimately seen the deaths of 
thousands of Americans and has left us more disliked around the world 
as a nation than at any other point in recent history. He wants a blank 
check for Iraq, but nothing for America. If he submits a budget that 
cuts funding for counterterrorism, I think he will truly be laying a 
final brick in the Department of Homeland Hypocrisy.
  In high school many of us read George Orwell's book ``1984,'' which 
was about a nightmare world where words mean the exact opposite of what 
they should mean. America is starting to understand what the word 
``security'' means to the President. He apparently thinks funding 
firefighters, police officers, and emergency responders is excessive, 
but he wants to spy on Americans without warrants, he wants to tap 
people's phones without any oversight, he condones procedures even the 
U.S. Army itself considers torture, he wants to throw people in jail 
without trials, and he basically ignores the most basic tenets of the 
justice system of the United States since the Constitution came into 
effect in 1789.
  President Bush wants to cut funding to stop terrorism in order to 
fund a war that has created terrorists. We didn't have al-Qaida in Iraq 
before we invaded Iraq. We have al-Qaida in Iraq after we invaded Iraq.
  America isn't just ready to turn the page on this administration; we 
are ready for a whole new book. I hope, as we move forward, we can get 
some of these domestic priorities that the Nation wants to see. I 
cannot believe we would spend $200 billion for Iraq but not a fraction 
of that to be able to ensure that millions of American children can 
have health care. I cannot believe we would spend $200 billion more for 
Iraq but not enough to handle police, firefighters, and emergency 
management in our communities across the landscape of this country. I 
cannot imagine approving $200 billion for Iraq but not being able to 
deal with the alternative minimum tax relief, a measure Senator Reid 
has tried to bring to the floor.
  On issue after issue, the obstructionism, the roadblocks, the 
coordination between the White House and our colleagues here in the 
Senate to impede the progress the American people want to see is 
incredible, as it is equally incredible to continue this course by 
asking for a blank check for Iraq, but nothing for America.

                          ____________________