[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7707-7711]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think this is certainly one of the most 
important bills we have had before us and one, frankly, that is the 
most time-constrained of any we have had before us. Normally, we have a 
good deal of time to talk about bills and we have budget bills that 
won't go into effect until next year, but the fact is, this bill, which 
is for the funding of troops, these dollars need to be available within 
the next couple of weeks, as we understand it, of course. So it is 
important that we recognize that and that we understand the purpose of 
this bill is to fund our troops.
  Whether you agree with the troops being there, the troops are there, 
and the fact is that it is up to us to provide the support they need 
and the dollars which are necessary to provide them the support they 
need in the position they are in. If there were ever a bill that should 
be recognized as having a unique purpose and should not be attached to 
other kinds of nonpertinent issues, I believe this is one. We are going 
to have the opportunity to decide whether we want to attach other 
issues to this bill and extend it, whether we

[[Page 7708]]

want to have a situation where there is a veto and all those time-
consuming things or whether we indeed want to have a clean bill that 
provides for the support of our troops who are now in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  For weeks now, the President has repeatedly said he will veto the 
bill if it ties the hands of the generals on the ground. What he is 
saying is he and the generals have a plan, and the fact is the plan 
seems to be making more advances and accomplishments than we have had 
in the past, so we need to allow that to continue to work. We have all 
said the President needs a different plan. The President now has a 
different plan. There is new leadership in Iraq.
  So I think we need to understand where we are with respect to this 
bill because we certainly have been on notice and are well aware of the 
looming veto. That veto would simply take more time and keep this money 
from getting where it needs to be to support the troops.
  Not passing this legislation, of course, would only delay the 
critical resources and the necessary equipment and training for our 
soldiers who are getting ready to deploy or have, in fact, deployed. 
Secretary of Defense Gates has warned the Congress that if we delay 
emergency spending for our troops already deployed, many will not be 
able to come home. This is a very serious statement, and we need to pay 
attention to it.
  I don't want to portray the President's plan in Iraq as being a 
success so far, but our commanders on the ground are reporting good 
news and that we are making progress, and that is what it is all about, 
of course. We need to be there until we have completed our task. I 
understand that explaining what the completion of the task is may not 
be easy, and people have different views about what that should be, but 
it is pretty clear we need to be able to get the Iraqis in a position 
to govern themselves before we can return. I am for returning as soon 
as possible, but I think setting an artificial definition for when they 
return is not appropriate anywhere and particularly not appropriate on 
this bill.
  I just do not understand how Members on the other side can say one 
thing in their States and then stand and do the opposite thing--stand 
for supporting their troops in their States and then come here and have 
exactly the opposite position in Washington. At this point, we are 
where we are, and we need to have funding for our troops in the field, 
no question. Nobody would argue that, and I think no one would dispute 
that is a time sensitive issue as well.
  We are going to be here this week on this bill. We are going to be 
gone next week. If the bill were to be vetoed, then we would have to go 
through that whole process. One can see that if we are going to get 
this done by the date which we have all heard, which is April 15, it is 
important we take off these kinds of things that are holding it up. We 
should not play political one-upmanship when it comes to funding our 
men and women who are in theater or are ready to deploy--I don't think 
there is any question about that--nor should we attempt to move 
legislation by buying votes for things that would be at the expense of 
our troops.
  Unfortunately, the emergency legislation we have before us has been 
larded up with all manner of nonemergency spending and extraneous 
measures. Not only are we attempting to tie the President's hands by 
micromanaging the war, but we are trying to push through pet projects 
at the expense of our troops. I understand the politics of this place. 
When someone has something they would like very much to have done, the 
greatest thing to do is to put it on the bill that has to pass, and 
even though it is inappropriate, even though it is not a part of the 
purpose of the bill, of course, I understand that helps get it done. 
But the request submitted to the Congress was to have $100 billion for 
troops and hurricane relief. The bill we are considering contains an 
additional $20 billion--$20 billion--for individual Member requests, a 
minimum wage increase, and small tax packages. The last time I checked, 
none of these is an emergency, so they do not qualify for this bill. I 
understand the merits of many of these things, and they should be 
considered. But, again, in terms of how we do things here, this is an 
emergency bill, and things that are in here ought to qualify as 
emergencies or else not be on the bill.
  So we have to say: Do they have merit? Of course they have merit. 
There is no question that many of them do and should be individually 
addressed in the normal legislative process. They should be considered 
because they have merit and, indeed, are worth consideration. However, 
we are also faced with the question that the majority has said we must 
get our fiscal house in order. That is what we have been hearing, but 
that is not what we have been doing. It is easy to say that, but it is 
hard to do it.
  We do need to take a look at spending. This is an emergency bill--
this is outside the budget--and so it is a wonderful place to pen on a 
lot of things that are additional spending that really aren't within 
the limits of spending, which all of us seem to be so proud to be 
putting on in this Congress. So I think we have to take a look at all 
those things. Almost to a person, everyone has come to the floor and 
promised the American public that future spending would be paid for. 
These things that are added are not paid for. So we are not keeping 
that promise that has been made.
  I think this week the majority will have an opportunity to stand by 
their words. We must keep Federal spending under control and 
accountable. To add things that are inappropriate, that do not fit on 
the bill, that are outside the budget--to use this opportunity is not 
being accountable. To add projects to emergency spending, which by 
definition is outside the normal budget process, is not the right way 
to accomplish this goal.
  It is going to be tough. We are going to have projects that everyone 
on both sides of the aisle thinks: Oh, that is good for my State--
whether it is shrimp or spinach or whatever. So there will be support 
for those things. But the fact is, they do not belong on this emergency 
bill.
  I remind my colleagues of the budget resolution for 2007 which 
explicitly defines what constitutes an emergency. It says all of the 
five following criteria must be satisfied in order for something to be 
considered an emergency: No. 1, is necessary, essential, or vital; No. 
2, sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; 
No. 3, a pressing and compelling urgent need requiring immediate 
action; No. 4, an unforeseeable, unpredictable, and unanticipated 
issue; and, finally, not permanent but temporary in nature.
  The Senate has to establish the criteria, and I think we ought to 
follow it in this budget area. I know we cannot fix the problems in 
just 1 week. There should be an effort to remove all the extraneous and 
nondefense spending. I look forward to bringing an important question 
before us, privatizing these things. The American people will soon 
learn whether the Members of the Senate have committed themselves to 
getting their financial house in order, whether they will back their 
words with action.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from 
Wyoming in addressing the pending business of the Senate, which is the 
emergency supplemental to help fund our troops who are serving in 
harm's way. The problem with this particular legislation is it does 
more than that. In fact, contrary to its advertised purpose of 
supporting the troops, it undermines the ability of our commanders on 
the ground to actually succeed in the goal they volunteered to achieve 
and which we have asked them to do because it sets artificial timelines 
and attempts to micromanage the fighting of the war on the ground.
  It ultimately jeopardizes the ability to get funds for the troops, to 
provide the necessary equipment, to provide the replenishment of used-
up resources that are necessary as we rotate troops who are in the 
battlefield today. It would ultimately make it more likely

[[Page 7709]]

that troops who are already there--who sacrificed a lot, along with 
their families--are going to have to sacrifice even more because the 
troops necessary and the equipment necessary to actually rotate in and 
relieve them of their responsibilities will not be available.
  The other thing that is so unseemly, to me, about this whole process 
is, because this is the train leaving the station and colleagues know 
that this bill needs to pass, or at least some version of it--emergency 
spending to support our troops--that the House, in particular, and now 
the Senate has joined in a similar manner in larding this 
appropriations bill with various pork projects.
  My colleague from Wyoming has pointed out that the nature of 
emergency spending means this money goes straight to the deficit. In 
other words, the bill is passed on to the next generation and beyond 
and not paid for.
  We just went through an elaborate process in passing a budget 
resolution. Time and time again, the new majority has said they want to 
engage in some budget and fiscal discipline, but that stated goal, to 
try to deal with taxpayer dollars responsibly, to find offsets for 
spending and have pay-as-you-go rules is completely belied by the 
actions reflected in this particular appropriations bill.
  The fact is, we did debate this issue just 2 weeks ago with regard to 
artificial timelines and micromanaging the war. The Senate voted 48 to 
50 not to approve cloture on S.J. Res. 9, which was an effort by our 
Democratic colleagues to micromanage and set artificial timelines. They 
lost that vote by 48 to 50. Now they are back again, trying it another 
time.
  Giving the enemy a timetable when American troops will withdraw from 
Iraq without regard to conditions on the ground, without regard to the 
early signs of progress that we are making, only helps the enemy plan 
on how to establish and accomplish their goals, not our goals. Our 
focus should be on how to succeed in Iraq, not how to tie the hands of 
our troops, jeopardize the funding that is necessary for their success, 
and to micromanage something that we have no business micromanaging 
from the Halls of Congress, thousands of miles away from the 
battlefield.
  The tragedy of this is it now represents 18 different proposals by 
the Democrats in Congress on how to lose in Iraq and not a single 
proposal on how to succeed. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee on which I serve has pointed out that there are between 5,000 
and 6,000 al-Qaida operatives now in Iraq. To pass legislation which 
sets an arbitrary deadline for withdrawing our combat forces without 
defeating al-Qaida makes no sense, no sense at all. It will create a 
power vacuum, much as Afghanistan was after the fall of the Soviet 
Union, which then gave rise to a failed state and a launching pad for 
terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We need 
to do everything in our power to prevent that from happening again and 
not forget the lessons of 9/11 and allow it to be repeated in Iraq.
  The Iraqis know our commitment there is not open ended, and they 
understand the future of Iraq is in their hands. But to pass 
legislation that micromanages how our troops should fight the enemy and 
essentially allow the creation of safe havens for terrorists is the 
height of irresponsibility.
  We pointed out before, but it is worth pointing out again, we 
unanimously confirmed General Petraeus, the architect of the 
counterinsurgency plan currently being carried out in Baghdad. He does 
not need the armchair generals in the Senate dictating military tactics 
to him. If the Members of this body really support the troops, we will 
provide, unencumbered, the resources necessary for our troops to 
accomplish the goals which they so valiantly and bravely volunteered to 
do, under the leadership of great generals such as GEN David Petraeus.
  We all want our troops home as soon as possible. We all share that 
goal. But any decision to withdraw from Iraq before the Iraqis 
themselves are able to stabilize their country, with our help, to allow 
them to govern and defend themselves, will not heighten America's 
national security but, rather, will jeopardize it.
  We have had 18 proposals to date from our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle. Every attempt they have had to try to pass one of 
these proposals has failed. But as Yogi Berra said, ``It's deja vu all 
over again.'' Here we go again. We just voted last week 48 to 50 
against legislation that would impose a deadline. I hope we will not 
have to continue to debate this over and over again and continue to 
send the message to our enemies: Yes, you are that much closer to 
breaking America's will in this contest of wills in something that is 
so important to our national security. We need to get this legislation 
passed and passed soon, so our troops do not have to guess whether the 
funding necessary to carry out their mission will be forthcoming.
  Using the supplemental appropriations to play political games and to 
pay off domestic priorities, such as peanut subsidies and spinach 
subsidies, is not in the best interests of our men and women in 
uniform. That is why the President has threatened to veto this bill, 
due to the pork and the timelines that are included in it. I encourage 
my colleagues to think long and hard before moving forward in a way 
that would compromise the mission of our troops who are serving to 
protect all of us.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the amendment of 
Senator Cochran, the amendment to strike the language, of which I am a 
cosponsor. I raised this in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense 
last week. Senator Cochran indicated then that he would do as he has 
done; that is, to move to strike the language in the supplemental 
requiring the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 120 days, 4 
months--120 days.
  Mr. President, as you heard--and you have been a party to--4 months 
is clearly not enough time for General Petraeus or the brave members of 
our Armed Forces to have a chance to see if a surge in troop numbers 
could turn the war. I don't know for sure. I had, as a lot of us did, a 
conversation with General Petraeus before he took command about the 
troop surge, about the 20,000 troops. I personally think we need 
100,000 troops, but we don't have them. General Petraeus is a very 
smart man. He is a combat soldier. He is in control. I believe to put 
on an arbitrary timeline of 120 days is the wrong message at the wrong 
time, where they are beginning--just beginning--to secure some 
neighborhoods. Will they continue to do this? We hope so. But we should 
bring every bit of stability we can to the Baghdad area.
  I have no illusion about sooner or later coming home. I would like to 
see our troops come home. I don't think that will be the end of the 
struggle with Islamic fundamentalists by any stretch of the 
imagination, but I think if we are able to stabilize that area of Iraq 
to some degree, perhaps there can be some kind of diplomatic resolution 
because ultimately none of us ever envisioned staying in Iraq. We have 
been there 4 years. I wish we were not there today, but we are and we 
are heavily engaged.
  I think we need to give our Armed Forces every opportunity to 
succeed. We should not send an ambiguous message to them: We are going 
to support you today and tomorrow we want you to withdraw, in 120 days, 
or begin to withdraw. I think that is the wrong message, and I think it 
would undermine the morale of our troops.
  Congress should not be armchair generals. We should not try to 
micromanage what is going on on the ground. That is why I support the 
Cochran amendment. We need to give our commanders and our soldiers 
every chance to succeed in Iraq, to bring stability there, where 
diplomatic maneuvers then perhaps could begin to work. Sending 
ambiguous messages to our Armed Forces is not the right way. They need 
our support both morally and materially. I believe at the end of the 
day they are going to get it.
  The President has already signaled if this language were to stay he 
would

[[Page 7710]]

veto this bill. I believe what he says he is going to do. But we can 
strike this language today. We can move on and get this supplemental 
passed to make sure our troops are well funded and that they have what 
they need to succeed. And they will succeed.
  The members of our Armed Forces are in harm's way every day. We know 
the horror stories about war. But they bravely face a sometimes unknown 
enemy and have done everything asked of them--sometimes two and three 
times, Mr. President, as you well know. Micromanaging the war from the 
Halls of Congress is not the right thing to do.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Cochran amendment and strike this 
language from the supplemental bill.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. I 
know it is not our side's time. If there is no objection, I would 
appreciate using the time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this is going to be a very busy day. I have 
comments that will relate to what will happen when we bring the bill up 
on the floor, but I thought I would take this time to talk about two 
things that are extremely important. First, with respect to the bill, I 
am the lead Republican cosponsor, with the Senators from North Dakota 
and South Dakota, on ag disaster. We have been 3 years without an 
agricultural disaster bill. We have had 3 years of agricultural 
disasters. Those of us from the Midwest know that we have been 
afflicted with droughts, tornadoes, tremendous losses by farmers, 
livestock producers, and others in agricultural production. I visited 
southwest Missouri this January and saw what some people described as 
countywide tornadoes. The ice storms were so severe they broke down 
trees, collapsed sheds, knocked out power, broke down fences, and put 
many livestock and poultry producers on the verge of financial 
disaster.
  Similarly over the years, when drought has struck, the ag producers, 
livestock and poultry and crops, were hit severely. This ag disaster 
package is absolutely essential. I appreciate the lead of the chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee in including our request for ag 
disaster.
  In addition, I am a very strong supporter of the amendment of the 
ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee to strike the 
limitations on the ability of General Petraeus to conduct the war in 
Iraq. Let us remember that General Petraeus came before the committees 
to outline his new ideas, his new plan for moving forward in Iraq. 
People had been saying: We need a new plan. Yes, clearly, we need a new 
plan. The Bremer plan, debaathification, firing the Army, sending them 
home without pay and with their weapons, turns out to have been the 
absolute wrong thing to do. But General Petraeus, who was unanimously 
confirmed by this body, has gone back to Iraq with his new way of going 
forward.
  They have made some significant changes in the rules of engagement. 
Now no longer are Shia death squads or militia off-limits. Moqtada al-
Sadr has seen the light or felt the heat, and he has gone to Tehran. We 
are talking action against Jaysh al-Mahdi and others who are engaged in 
sectarian battles. We have a new plan of going in, holding, and 
clearing, the conventional and now-proven theory of dealing with 
insurgencies. You cannot just go in and wipe out people who are causing 
chaos and killing their political enemies. You have to stay there and 
maintain peace, security. That is what we are supporting the Iraqi 
forces doing. The Iraqi forces are there. They are the ones who are 
going to have to take over. The training of the Iraqi forces is the 
critical element for us to assure stability in the region.
  Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and on mine 
embraced the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. For example, the 
distinguished majority whip on December 8 on CNN said:

       We ought to follow the Iraqi Study Group.

  This new plan the President and General Petraeus have put forward is, 
by and large, the Iraq Study Group's plan. After receiving the report, 
when you look at the recommendations, they track with what we are doing 
now, from sending reinforcements to Baghdad to increasing the number of 
embedded American advisers, to holding the Iraqi Government responsible 
for specific security and political milestones. The differences between 
what we are doing now in Iraq and the Iraq Study Group recommendations 
are insignificant. Sending reinforcements to Baghdad, the principal 
tenet of the new plan General Petraeus has put forth, is referenced in 
general by the Iraq Study Group, which said it could support a short-
term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize 
Baghdad, recognizing the level of violence in and around Baghdad has 
crippled the ability of both the al-Maliki Government and the U.S. 
military to restore basic services and establish a modicum of law and 
order. I quote:

       The ISG recognized, as does the U.S. military, that Baghdad 
     is central to success or failure in Iraq. It is not 
     surprising that more troops were added--the total number of 
     which is still below 2005 levels.

  There is one other very important point that is of concern to 
everybody in this body and all Americans. The Iraq Study Group said:

       The United States should not make an open-ended commitment 
     to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.

  President Bush said of his plan and its implementation:

       I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other 
     leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the 
     Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it 
     will lose the support of the American people.

  It is clear we have a new way forward. The language in the underlying 
legislation before us says we ought to set a timetable, a political 
timetable. We ought to determine in this body exactly the dates when we 
start removing troops from Baghdad, from Iraq, changing our policy.
  I have a novel idea: Wars cannot be run from these hallowed and 
comfortable and sanctified chambers 10,000 miles away from the war 
zone. How about allowing the officers, the men, and the commanders in 
the field--who are engaged daily, risking their lives to bring peace 
and security to Iraq--to determine when and how we can best turn over 
to the Iraqi security forces the critical job--the critical job--of 
assuring security and a relatively peaceful country? Nobody is saying 
it is going to be a Jeffersonian democracy. What we are seeking is 
peace and security.
  We had an open hearing with the leaders of the intelligence community 
in January before the Senate Intelligence Committee. The top leaders of 
that intelligence community said, unanimously, it would be very unwise 
to establish a short-term political timetable for withdrawal prior to 
the time the Iraqi security forces take over.
  If this body, in its ``wisdom''--an oxymoron in this case--says pull 
out on such-and-such date, and the Iraqi security forces are not ready 
to take over, what would happen? Three things--all of them bad.
  No. 1, the killing, sectarian violence between Shia and Sunnis would 
escalate. You would see many more thousands killed, as we would no 
longer be there to serve as a buffer and as adviser to prevent that 
from happening.
  No. 2, the goal of al-Qaida, as expressed by Osama bin Laden and his 
No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, to achieve the headquarters of the 
caliphate in the ``land of the two rivers,'' i.e., Baghdad, would be 
achieved. They would have a safe haven. They would have a safe haven 
from which they could train, recruit, perhaps even get back to turning 
on the dual-use facilities Saddam Hussein set up for turning out 
chemical or biological weapons.

[[Page 7711]]

  Now, the third thing that would happen, which is a true disaster, 
would be the neighboring countries would have to come in to back up 
their co-religionists. If the Sunnis are being oppressed by the Shia, 
then the Sunni states will be ready, and they will come in. If they 
come in, Iran and its Shia partners are all ready to come in.
  What happens then? We have a conflagration in the Middle East 
bringing in many countries in a region-wide war that will draw, 
unfortunately, perhaps hundreds of thousands of American troops to 
prevent the disaster from spreading, to support our friends in Israel.
  General Petraeus has promised, in his confirmation hearings, that he 
will tell us if the new plan, the new rules of engagement--putting the 
Iraqi security forces out front, with American advisers continuing to 
supply American troops to go after the high-value targets, the radical 
Salafist jihadists of al-Qaida and other entities--we will continue to 
hunt them down so they do not overwhelm the Iraqi security forces.
  General Petraeus will tell us. He should know by this summer if it 
fails. If it fails, he said he will tell us, and I would trust he would 
begin making such changes as are necessary, without tipping off the 
enemy what they are planning to do. The important thing is not telling 
the enemy what our timetable is.
  I think it is perhaps illustrative to share with you some comments 
from an e-mail I received from a marine who has been in Iraq and who is 
going back. He was commenting on a timetable. He said: I haven't polled 
all of them. I don't speak for all of them, but I can tell you, a 
lion's share think a timetable is a disastrous idea. I don't know what 
possible benefit you can assess that would come from a timetable. Where 
is the help toward mission accomplishment?
  He said: Iraqis understand that progress is being made. I think the 
Iraqi forces are getting ready to take over and with our help should be 
able to do it sometime in 2007. But if we tell everyone exactly when 
that is going to be, it gets a lot easier for the merry mujahedin to 
claim victory, lay low, and then wreak havoc when the coalition packs 
up shop.
  This particular marine said: I'm not wild about going back to Iraq, 
but I would sure as heck rather do that than essentially invalidate 
everything we've done to date by leaving too early and inviting chaos.
  That is the choice. Does a political timetable give Members cover 
back here? Maybe. But I have even heard that ridiculed. I have heard 
that ridiculed. I ask this body to strike the language, let General 
Petraeus run the war, let him pursue every avenue to assure Iraq is 
stable and secure. He and the President have said, if it does not work, 
we will change policy. But let's give it a chance to work.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues and yield 
the floor.

                          ____________________