[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3203-3206]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I noted with some interest the headline in 
today's Washington Post. It says ``GOP Stalls Debate on Troop 
Increase.'' I must say, in light of the remarks of the Senator from 
Maryland, obviously nobody has stalled the debate on troop increase or 
anything else to do with the conflict in Iraq. In fact, I think that is 
a positive thing because there isn't anything more important, in my 
view, than debating this important issue and, as the Senator from 
Maryland said, supporting our troops.
  I do have profound disagreement, though, that these nonbinding 
resolutions which have been offered do anything other than encourage 
our enemy and undermine our troop morale.
  I wonder why it is that so many are insistent that we proceed forward 
on nonbinding resolutions when, in fact, we know what power the 
Congress has when it comes to war. It is not to supplant the Commander 
in Chief, it is not to have 535 micromanagers, but it is the power of 
the purse. Yet it is the very amendment that Senator Gregg, the Senator 
from New Hampshire, has offered that the majority leader has denied an 
opportunity to debate and on which to have have an up-or-down vote. 
That is what the vote yesterday was about. It is not to cut off debate; 
it is to make sure the debate continues and that the varied positions 
espoused by Members of the Senate are not only fully debated but that 
there is an opportunity to vote on those positions.
  At least two Members of the majority--Senator Dodd and Senator 
Feingold--have made it clear that they believe the power of the purse 
should be

[[Page 3204]]

exercised to cut off funding to support this new plan forward. While I 
disagree with them, I do respect the fact that they actually intend to 
vote for something that would make a difference in the outcome as 
opposed to the nonbinding resolutions which have been offered by 
Senator Levin and others.
  I do not understand why it is the critics--the President's critics 
and the critics of what is happening in Iraq--why they will not take 
yes for an answer. Yes, as the Senator from Maryland said, on November 
7, obviously, Iraq was on the minds of the American people. It is one 
of the reasons why, frankly, the then majority is no longer the 
majority.
  There were critics on the other side of the aisle who said the 
Secretary of Defense needed to be replaced. Now we have confirmed a new 
Secretary of Defense, Secretary Robert Gates.
  There are those who said: What we are doing in Iraq is not working, 
so we need a new commander. And, indeed, we have confirmed, 
unanimously, a new commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq.
  There are those who said: We need a new plan in Iraq. And lo and 
behold, the President announced a new plan after lengthy consultation.
  I think there is a fair amount of revisionist history or selective 
memory going on. For example, there are some who said the President did 
not consider, in coming up with this new plan, the provisions of the 
Iraq Study Group. Of course, this is a bipartisan group that made 79 
different recommendations. But I would challenge the critics who say 
the President ignored the Iraq Study Group report to look at page 73 of 
that report, where they say, unanimously--a bipartisan group--they 
could support a temporary surge of troops to secure Baghdad if it was 
necessary.
  Indeed, if you look at this new way forward, that is precisely what 
it is, a temporary surge, supporting Iraqi troops to provide an 
opportunity not only to clear but to hold Baghdad and then to build and 
begin the political reconciliation process that is necessary for 
stabilization.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying we do not 
want to debate, when the truth is they are denying us a right to vote 
on some of the key resolutions that define the nature of the debate in 
this Congress.
  We want a debate. We want a debate, but we want it to be a fair 
debate. And we want it to be representative. We want to expand and 
extend the debate so we can fully examine and discuss what is at stake 
in this central front in the global war on terror. We want a full and 
comprehensive debate and an opportunity to vote. Do they?
  If our friends on the other side of the aisle are serious when they 
say they do not want to block funding for our troops, then why are they 
dodging an amendment offered by Senator Gregg that would allow them a 
vote on that important issue?
  Now, I disagree that we should ever cut off funds to support our 
troops while they are in a time of war. But I think if you feel what is 
happening in Iraq cannot be justified, if you feel we have already lost 
and we are merely sending more troops into harm's way, with no chance 
of accomplishing the mission, then I would say the only real vote that 
matters would be one that would cut off the funds to allow that to 
happen. That would be the moral decision to make. I simply disagree 
with the judgment. I do not believe all is lost. I do believe this new 
plan, this new commander, this new Secretary of Defense have a 
reasonable chance of success.
  Now, we all agree the consequences of failure in Iraq are not simply 
something we can walk away from. The Iraq Study Group said that failure 
in Iraq could result in a regional conflict, most likely ethnic 
cleansing, where the sectarian violence would spiral out of control, 
perhaps bringing in other countries to defend the various sectarian 
parties to that conflict.
  We know from sad experience what happened in Afghanistan after the 
Soviet Union was defeated by the Afghan rebels, where the Taliban and 
al-Qaida set up business in Afghanistan and used that as a place to 
train and recruit and then to launch terrorist attacks against the 
United States, such as what occurred on September 11, 2001.
  Where is the plan of the critics of this new way forward in Iraq? 
What is their plan to avoid a failed state in Iraq? Where is their plan 
to avoid the kind of regional conflict and the humanitarian crisis that 
will most likely occur if, in fact, we do not try to support this new 
plan forward and bring stability to Iraq long enough to where the 
Iraqis--which is their responsibility--can engage in the reconciliation 
process and the political process necessary to stabilize that country, 
which is in their best interest, which is in our best interest? Because 
we know if things spiral out of control in Iraq, if we decide to 
precipitously leave Iraq and it becomes a failed state or becomes a 
killing field for ethnic cleansing, we will most likely have to return 
at even greater loss of blood and treasure.
  So I would ask the new majority, since the Senator from Maryland 
mentioned the election of November 7, what is your plan? To criticize 
may be OK if you are in the minority. But if you are the majority, 
surely you have a responsibility to offer a constructive alternative. 
It is not constructive to merely criticize the new plan that is going 
to be executed by the new commander, unanimously confirmed by this 
Congress, and a new Secretary of Defense.
  I must say, with all due respect, it is not supporting our troops to 
send them into harm's way if, in fact, our colleagues believe all is 
lost and they cannot succeed. I do not believe that. But if, in fact, 
they truly do believe that, then they should stand up and be willing to 
vote on the only resolution that would have an outcome on that 
determination. That is the Gregg amendment.
  It is because we have been denied an opportunity to vote on that only 
amendment that counts that this debate continues. It was not cut off 
yesterday; merely a fair process was secured for those of us who think 
that all views ought to be represented and we ought to have more than 
one vote rather than be railroaded in this process.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday, by a vote of 49 to 47, a cloture 
motion failed that would have essentially cut off a broader debate on 
the big issue of the day; that is, how are we going to deal with the 
situation in Iraq? I think the vote failed not because, as was reported 
in some newspapers, Republicans did not want to debate the issue but, 
rather, because we want a full debate on the issue.
  The importance of this issue and the stakes associated with its 
outcome warrant a full debate, not one restricted by one party in the 
Senate. The full range of views on this issue deserves to be heard. 
They deserve a voice in the Senate. The American people deserve that 
debate. And surely, the Americans in uniform who are fighting and dying 
deserve that debate in the Senate.
  Saturday, I attended two welcome home ceremonies for National Guard 
units. Both performed superbly in fighting the global war on terror. 
The 114th Air Wing, a National Guard unit in Sioux Falls, SD, has been 
deployed all over the planet. They have been in Afghanistan. They have 
been in Iraq--16 different places since 2001, after the terrorist 
attacks, in each case performing with distinction. They support an F-16 
mission and have been utilized extensively. In fact, 72 percent, I 
believe, of all the members of that unit have been deployed someplace 
in the last 5 years, as we have been fighting this war on terror.
  They and their families deserve a debate in the Senate about the 
future of that mission they have been undertaking. There has been a lot 
of debate around the country, a lot of debate in Washington about what 
to do next. We have now before us a plan which is a change of strategy. 
It incorporates more involvement by the Iraqi security forces in terms 
of their military. Also, their political structures, their Government 
has certain benchmarks it has to meet and economic requirements

[[Page 3205]]

they have to comply with regarding the division, distribution of oil 
revenues--a whole range of things that have given us a new opportunity, 
a new opening to get this right with the situation in Iraq.
  I believe the families of those who have served and sacrificed 
certainly deserve to have a full debate, not a restricted debate, in 
the Senate, a full debate where the full range of views, the full range 
of options that are held by the American people can be adequately 
voiced.
  I also attended a welcoming home ceremony for the 147th Field 
Artillery, 1st Battalion, Charlie Battery, in Yankton, SD. This is a 
unit which has contributed mightily to the war on terror and suffered 
greatly. They have had four members of their unit who never came back, 
killed by IEDs: SGT Richard Schild, SGT Daniel Cuka, SGT Allen Kokesh, 
and SGT Greg Wagner--young Americans who will never be with their 
families again.
  Also, they had a young sergeant in their unit who has suffered 
debilitating injuries, brain injuries that he continues to receive 
intensive medical treatment for and perhaps will never be the same. 
They had a young specialist, Brian Knigge from Plankinton, SD, who 
suffered injuries from which he is still recovering.
  They are a unit that has suffered greatly in this war on terror. Yet 
there is a tremendous resilience and commitment and dedication to the 
mission. The area in which they were involved was the training of Iraqi 
security forces, specifically the Iraqi police, in the area of Baghdad, 
which is why it was so very dangerous for them. And the IEDs that have 
killed and seriously injured so many of our young American soldiers who 
are serving in that region did four of their comrades in. And as I 
said, a couple are very seriously injured.
  They and their families who have sacrificed so greatly--and when I go 
to these events, I, obviously, have opportunities to interact with the 
families, with those whom these soldiers left behind. It is 
heartbreaking to see the separation, the consequence, and the cost of 
war. Yet at the same time, we have to realize when we get into a 
conflict like this, it is not just about what we are doing today, it is 
about securing a better, safer, more secure future for the next 
generation of Americans.
  That is why this debate is so important. Many have argued what is 
happening today in the Middle East, in Iraq, is simply a regional 
conflict or a conflict between different sects within Iraq. But, 
frankly, we all know this--you do not have to be a rocket scientist to 
see what happens when these terrorist organizations are left free to 
prey in areas such as that, where there is not a lot of control and 
security. They begin to use these places as sanctuaries and safe havens 
to launch attacks against other places across the world, including the 
United States.
  It is important, in this global war on terror, that we understand 
what the consequences and stakes of our failure are. I believe that is 
why, when we have a debate, we need to have a debate that reflects the 
full range of options and the full range of views that are available to 
the Senate when it comes to the future of Iraq--again, the discussion 
about consequences of failure, the discussion about plans going 
forward.
  Right now we have a plan in front of us. We have a strategy that has 
been put forward by the President and his commanders in the region. We 
have a new commander on the ground, General Petraeus. We have some new 
troops heading into the area. There are changes in the rules of 
engagement. This may be our last best shot, our last best hope of being 
able to get this right.
  We have engaged in this debate in the Senate which, again, in my 
view, sends entirely the wrong signal, the wrong message to our troops 
and to our enemies who interpret these messages that we send as a lack 
of resolve, a lack of will to finish what we started. More importantly, 
ultimately, the reason this has such great weight and gravity is that 
the people who are the primary receivers of the messages we send are 
the troops in the field. It is very difficult to say to those troops 
who are day in and day out putting on the uniform of the United States, 
performing a mission that we have asked them to do, which we have 
pointed out has grave consequences not only for that immediate region 
but for the entire free world--if you look at the arc of extremism that 
branches from areas such as Afghanistan and al-Qaida to areas such as 
some of the terrorist organizations in Lebanon, in the Palestinian 
territories, all these terrorist organizations and attacks are 
orchestrated by organizations that want to kill and destroy Americans.
  We have a responsibility in the debate to make sure that when we are 
putting young Americans in harm's way, we are allowing a debate to go 
forward that examines the full range of views, the full range of 
options that are available to the Senate. Frankly, the one that matters 
the most, in terms of the options we have as a nation and as the 
Senate, comes down to the issue of funding. Frankly, we don't have an 
opportunity in this debate to talk about the real tool the Senate has 
when it comes to this issue; that is, the issue of funding. We have 
nonbinding resolutions. Everybody wants to debate nonbinding 
resolutions. They are nonbinding, but they are not meaningless. They 
send a message that we are not supportive of the mission our troops are 
undertaking.
  But if the Senate is serious about doing its work, and if there are 
well-meaning and thoughtful people on the other side of the aisle who 
want to have this debate, then we ought to get down to what real 
options, what the real tools are at the disposal of the Senate when it 
comes to having any kind of a role in what happens in the future of 
Iraq. That is the issue of funding.
  The leadership on the other side has said: We are not going to allow 
you to have a debate that includes that option, that includes the other 
options proposed, some from the other side that have talked about troop 
caps, withdrawal timelines.
  Ultimately, fundamentally, if the other side is serious, let's have a 
debate about funding because that is the tool the Congress has at its 
disposal. If that is not a part of the debate, we are not serious about 
this debate or the range of options that ought to be heard and voiced 
in the Senate.
  I see I have other colleagues who want to speak on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have 10 minutes; is that 
correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Chair remind me when there is a minute 
remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, last evening the Republicans said no to an honest 
debate about what is best for our troops in Iraq, our national 
security, and for the American people. Our men and women in uniform 
have done everything that we have asked them to do. They have served 
with dignity, honor, and valor. They have served in Iraq longer than 
American forces fought in World War II. It has been said by Republicans 
and Democrats: This doesn't cry for a military solution, it cries for a 
political solution and resolution. Still we have a President who is 
relying on sending an additional 20,000 to 38,000 troops more to what 
is effectively a civil war.
  The cost in blood and treasure has been staggering. More than 3,000 
Americans have been killed so far, including 64 from Massachusetts; 
more than 23,000 have been wounded. In my home community, SGT Alexander 
Fuller of Centerville, MA, was buried last week; Keith Callahan of 
Woburn, MA--Woburn, MA, that had a higher percentage of soldiers killed 
in Vietnam than any other community in our State. High school class 
after high school class after high school class joined the U.S. 
Marines. They were in the thick of the fighting with devastating 
losses. Keith Callahan, in his fourth trip to Iraq, was killed just 10 
days ago. The services in that community took place last week.

[[Page 3206]]

  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, and millions have 
fled their homes. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the 
war already. Today the President is asking for hundreds of billions of 
dollars more. President Bush insists on his policy of escalation, while 
most of us in Congress are increasingly convinced that deescalation is 
the only realistic strategy. The American people do not support further 
escalation of this war. The legislation on which we seek an honest 
debate is intended to make a record of who is on the side of the 
American people and opposes sending tens of thousands more American 
troops into this civil war.
  Despite the clear result of the November election, our Republican 
colleagues are not prepared to face the truth on Iraq. They are 
determined to avoid a debate on the most important national security 
issue of our time. They are willing to allow tens of thousands of more 
young men and women to be dropped in the cauldron of a civil war.
  The cost in precious American lives is reason enough to end this 
mistaken and misguided war, but the cost at home came into full view 
yesterday as we received the President's budget. This President's 
budget devotes more than $200 billion to the war in Iraq. Where does 
the money come from? It comes from the Children's Health Insurance 
Program, as the President's budget underfunds the CHIP program by $8 
billion. That program provides health care to low-income children. It 
has had bipartisan support in the Senate and the House of 
Representatives. It has made an extraordinary difference to the quality 
of health of millions of children. There are millions of children who 
are qualified for this program. But because the Federal Government 
doesn't provide the help to the States, those children are not going to 
get covered.
  Make no mistake about it. We are taking those resources that ought to 
be devoted to the CHIP program and sending them to Iraq. It comes from 
our children's education, the No Child Left Behind Act, because this 
budget underfunds the No Child Left Behind reforms by almost $15 
billion. What are we saying? We are not going to get the well-trained 
teachers that this legislation requires. We are not going to have the 
adequacy of supplementary services to help those children in high 
school. We are not going to move toward smaller class sizes. We are not 
going to have an effective program to bring in parents. We are not 
going to have the examination of these children to find out what they 
need in terms of help in their classes. No, because we are shipping 
billions of dollars to Iraq.
  Twenty-three thousand children are in the streets of Philadelphia 
today, having dropped out of school; 22,000 children have dropped out 
of school in Cleveland, OH. It is happening all over the country. And 
what are we doing? Sending away billions and billions of dollars that 
ought to be there for prevention programs to stop those children from 
dropping out of school, to help those children get back into school so 
they will have useful and productive lives. They are the ones who are 
paying for these wars.
  As to seniors, our disabled citizens, the President cut $66 billion 
from the Medicaid Program which is a lifeline to millions of retirees 
and disabled children. I was there when President Johnson said: You 
work hard, you pay into the Medicare Program, pay into those programs, 
and we guarantee you that you are going to have the health care you 
need for the rest of your life. That is a commitment that we made. Now 
we are skimping on it. We didn't provide at that time a prescription 
drug program. We provided one eventually that served more for the drug 
industry and the HMOs than it did for the senior citizens. We are 
cutting back on health care for our seniors and the disabled.
  It comes from our workers who are looking for good jobs to support 
their families because the President's budget slashes $1 billion from 
programs that train Americans for jobs for the future. How many 
speeches will we hear about competitiveness and the problems we are 
facing in terms of the world economy, how we are going to have to 
redouble our efforts in order to be competitive, to have the new 
industries that will provide new jobs and new benefits and new 
opportunities for our citizens. Every Member of this body will be 
making that speech someplace in their State next week. We know that. 
What are we doing?
  In my State of Massachusetts, we have 275,000 people who are 
unemployed, and we have 78,000 job vacancies. The only thing that is 
lacking is training. We have 24 applications for every opening for 
training. People want the training to get the skills to participate and 
take care of their families. What does this President do? He cuts that 
program. That is part of the cost.
  People are asking back home--down in New Bedford and Fall River and 
Lowell and Lawrence and Holyoke and Springfield--who is going to stand 
up for us? It is not only the loss of their sons and daughters from 
those communities, but they see that it is gutting the lifelines to 
their communities, the children and the elderly, those who are the most 
vulnerable in our society. They are paying the price. Read the 
President's budget. Make no mistake about it. Who is paying the price? 
They are paying the price, the neediest people in our society.
  Then it comes from the poor who are struggling against the bitter 
cold. It cuts 17 percent of the funding for the Low Income Energy 
Assistance Program that helps low-income families heat their homes. 
Maybe it is warm in certain parts of this country, but it is cold as 
can be in many others. There are a lot of needy people in those cold 
areas where there is a completely inadequate fuel assistance program 
now. This administration has cut back on that program year after year 
after year, and this year is no different, a 17-percent reduction.
  Most of the elderly people, the needy people in my State, need to 
have their oil tanks, if they are using home heating oil, filled three 
times a year. This won't even let them get one tank of fuel assistance 
in their homes over the year. The poor are paying a fearsome price. 
They are seeing their funding diverted to these conflicts and the surge 
in Iraq.
  This is a war that never should have happened. It is a war that 
should be brought to an end. Yet the administration is allowing it to 
go on and on, mistake after mistake after mistake. This terrible war is 
having an effect not only on our troops, who are paying the highest 
price, but on our children, our elderly, our schools, our workers, and 
the poorest of the poor here at home. Make no mistake about it. While 
the President forges ahead with a surge in Iraq, the American people 
need a surge at home. Americans see the cost of their health care and 
the cost of college going up. What about a surge in our health and 
education policy to help meet their needs? What about a surge in those 
areas?
  I have introduced legislation which would require the President to 
get the authority he needs from Congress before moving forward with 
further escalation in Iraq. I intend to seek a vote on it, unless the 
President changes course. The debate is about what is best for our 
troops and our national security. Our forces have served with great 
valor. They have done everything they have been asked to do. Sending 
more of them into a civil war will not make success any more likely. We 
have a responsibility to vote on this issue before it is too late. The 
American people deserve to know where the Republicans stand and where 
the representatives in the Congress stand.
  I look forward to that debate and a vote at the earliest possible 
time.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________