[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10481-10484]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I want to take some time, as we 
contemplate what is going to happen with the supplemental bill we just 
passed because, frankly, I am in a state of shock over the casual 
dismissal of the opinions of the American people, in huge majorities, 
who say: We have had enough of this war, and we want to make a change. 
They want us to start to position ourselves in a manner that would 
allow us to bring our people home.
  Not far from this Senate floor, in the middle of the National Mall, 
is a place of stone and water, of strength and reflection. It is a 
place that is important to me and, I think, important to the country as 
a whole. It is where we honor those who served and those who died in 
World War II.
  I proudly wore the uniform of my country during that war. I do not 
consider myself a hero, but I did my duty to the best of my ability. I 
and 16 million others went to war because our mission was clear: defeat 
the enemy who attacked us. And while the battles were fought across the 
ocean, the entire country united. They all sacrificed. That was the 
message: sacrifice, sacrifice at home, use less gas, turn off the 
lights, reduce energy consumption, black out the beachfront places or 
coastal areas so the enemy could not see the lights of the cities. Even 
with rising injuries and casualties in World War II, America kept its 
resolve because we believed in our leaders.
  How times have changed.
  There is one simple reason the American people have lost faith in 
this war effort: It has become clear our leaders are not providing us 
with the truth. And the chief purveyor of misstatements is Vice 
President Cheney. He chooses to say whatever he wants to, to advance 
his agenda. But the agenda has now, we know, resulted in the deaths of 
thousands of Americans, thousands of Iraqis. It is time to say: Enough 
is enough.
  I want to review some of the outlandish statements the Vice President 
has made about this war. On the eve of the invasion, in March 2003, 
Vice President Dick Cheney assured the Nation that ``we will be greeted 
as liberators.''
  I ask the question: How dare he make a statement such as that--
without knowledge, without any idea of what the consequences of that 
action might be. We will be greeted as liberators?
  He went on to say the fight would be ``weeks rather than months.''
  In June of 2005, Vice President Cheney assured us the insurgency in 
Iraq is ``in the last throes.'' That was almost 2 years ago. Ask our 
people in uniform, ask our people in combat, ask those who are facing 
another deployment after having been there once or even twice--ask them 
what they think about that statement, about the accuracy of those 
remarks.
  Earlier this year, even after the Pentagon admitted there was no 
evidence at all of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, 
the Vice President said there was a connection. If you say it, maybe 
you can convince people, even if it is not the truth.
  And now, this week, we have our Vice President speaking out against 
this bill we just passed, again making outlandish claims.
  You have to ask yourself a question: Who is still listening to those 
comments and giving them any credibility? Unfortunately, there are 
people, despite his outrageous and unsubstantiated claims--claims such 
as the ``insurgency is in its last throes''--who tend to believe him. 
He is, after all, the Vice President of the United States. It is a 
prestigious job. There is an automatic assumption that credibility goes 
to the occupant of that position.
  We may never know the real motivation behind this administration's 
drive to Iraq, but we do know the following: They presented false 
intelligence to the American people and our allies.
  We have seen some of those responsible, credible people, who believed 
in the case that was being made by the intelligence reports--look at 
one of the great figures in American contemporary history, Colin 
Powell--a general, Chief of Staff. I remember his speech at the United 
Nations providing evidence of materials that confirmed there were 
weapons of mass destruction there. And now this man, who has

[[Page 10482]]

a lifetime built on honesty and credibility, has said he regrets those 
statements. But we do not hear that pause, that reflection, coming from 
the President or the Vice President of the United States.
  The administration knowingly misled the country about Iraq's nuclear 
ambitions in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union Address.
  In a recent CBS News poll, 66 percent of the American people 
disapproved of the way President Bush is handling this situation with 
Iraq. That disapproval has continued to build. If you look at some of 
the polling data we have seen over the last couple years, less and less 
of the people in the country believe we are doing a good job with the 
situation in Iraq, as portrayed by the President.
  On Monday, President Bush said:

       There's been some progress.

  That statement shows the President is living in an alternate reality.
  On that same day--Monday--10 American troops were killed, 9 of them 
in a single attack. Since the beginning of this war, more than 3,300 of 
our people in uniform have died.
  One of those people was a fellow from Toms River, NJ, Marine Cpl 
Thomas Saba. He served with the Marines' Flying Tigers. He volunteered 
to extend his tour of duty after his squadron was deployed to Iraq. He 
died with his comrades in February when their helicopter was shot down 
by insurgents. Corporal Saba is one of 77 people from my home State of 
New Jersey to see their last sunset in Iraq. Ten more have died in 
Afghanistan.
  Beyond these casualties, nearly 25,000 of our troops have left the 
combat theater with serious wounds. More than 800 of them have lost at 
least one limb. We have spent mountains of taxpayer money in Iraq. We 
have spent $400 billion, going now at the rate of $3 billion a week. 
What have we gotten for our investment? A disaster. That is the reality 
of Iraq, not the endless and empty picture of optimism the Vice 
President and others in the administration and the President continue 
to paint. ``Extend our victories.'' What victories are they talking 
about? I don't see any victories. We see more threats. Not only to our 
people--that is the most serious one--not only to our reputation, but 
to our leadership in the world as it disintegrates in front of us as 
this conflict continues.
  We need a new course, and we need it now. This supplemental provides 
that new course. We hope the President will reflect a little bit, 
instead of the braggadocio attitude and false stories about how 
Democrats want to surrender. That is the most offensive thing. 
Democrats want to surrender? Senator Inouye, a Medal of Honor winner 
here, and other people who fought in Vietnam and other places. We want 
to surrender America? It is an outrage.
  Outside my office, we have a memorial and it shows the ``Faces of the 
Fallen''--photographs. Some of them are blank, but they have a name and 
a location of the person--the faces of the fallen from Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Typically it carries each picture, and we have about 3,000 
of them. It takes a while to get the pictures together. People walk by, 
they stop and pause and write notes in a journal we have there. It 
includes the name and age, the rank and the battalion or company they 
served in, the cause of death of each of the Nation's fallen 
servicemembers, inscribed with their photo on the memorial. Families, 
friends, and visitors search those photos on a daily basis looking for 
people from their State, from their area, people who many knew and 
loved and miss. One woman found a picture of her son up there and wrote 
an inscription in our journal.
  As they search these pictures, some write notes in a book of 
reflections. I want to share two of those reflections. A person named 
Prudence Hart from New Jersey wrote:

       We honor our soldiers for answering the call of their 
     Nation. We must honor them and this Nation by never allowing 
     another President to wage war as this one has.

  Another person, Jay Miller from Rhode Island, wrote:

       We are at a pivotal point in our country's history. Our 
     leaders must take a stand and use their constitutional powers 
     to end this madness.

  To Prudence Hart, Jay Miller, and every American, I say: We are with 
you. We do honor those who have bravely taken up their task, able and 
willing to do it. Some of those troops are the third deployment away 
from a spouse, children, community, job. They are the ones making the 
sacrifice, and they are the ones whom we want to honor. We want to 
honor them by remembering those who paid the ultimate price, but we 
want to honor them further by bringing them home and giving them 
appropriate post-service treatment.
  I wish we were treating our veterans in the same honorable manner in 
which they were recruited. We have failed in many instances. We failed, 
even as people criticize Democrats and those who disagree with them, 
even as they try to discredit us as wanting to surrender, when they 
didn't provide the right equipment, whether the humvees were 
sufficiently armored, or whether they had the proper flak jackets.
  I went to Iraq some years ago, and when I asked the people I met from 
New Jersey: What is it we could do to make their job better and protect 
them more, one of them said, Senator--and I was with four other 
colleagues--Senators, the flak jackets you are wearing, the body armor 
you are wearing is the latest and the best. We don't have it. People 
who were in the coalition have that, but we don't. What else? They 
said: Our humvees are not sufficiently armored to protect us. We know 
what has happened.
  So if we want to talk about honoring our troops, where was the 
administration while Halliburton was stealing from the country with 
food and shelter and had a fine of millions of dollars imposed by the 
auditors from the Defense Department? Shame on them. In the war I 
fought in, there wasn't anybody except a traitor who would do something 
that might help the enemy like having a sham corporation in the Cayman 
Islands, a branch in Dubai where they then did business with Iran--
Iran, which supplies weapons and encouragement to insurgents who want 
to kill our people there. It is shocking that we see that, and when we 
hear these false tales coming from the Vice President of the United 
States, when he talks about victory, and I am paraphrasing: victory 
within our grasp, within our reach. The American people don't believe 
it, and I tell my colleagues I don't believe it, and a lot of my 
colleagues don't believe it.
  We had a vote one day that was significant. It was 56 to 44, and it 
included seven of our colleagues from the Republican side, people who 
had the courage to stand up and say: Look, we are not ashamed to be 
Republicans, and we are not ashamed to be Democrats, but we think this 
policy is wrong. We had enough votes--not to get cloture, but to 
establish a significant majority. I know some of our colleagues over 
there who are loyal to the party and to the President who don't like a 
bit what he is asking of the American people now, and asking of us, 
labeling this bill as a porkbarrel thing.
  I can't get the word ``surrender'' out of my mind.
  I sit on the Appropriations Committee, and I was at a conference 
committee of the House and the Senate the other night, and the ranking 
Republican on the House side said the Democrats want to surrender just 
when General Petraeus is coming in--surrender. This bill is our stand, 
the American stand. It begins to set a timetable for us to come home--
not to run away from our responsibilities. Our responsibility has been 
more than met. But we are even willing to leave enough of a cadre there 
to say: OK, we will help the Iraqis learn to defend themselves. We will 
help the Iraqis to reconstruct their society. We will help even to do 
some counterterrorism and counterinsurgencies.
  It is time to come home. It is time to come home, and I hope the 
President of the United States will follow the demands of the American 
people and a major number of people who oppose where we are, a huge 
majority.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.

[[Page 10483]]


  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I was in Iraq this weekend, and I was 
there in December, right before Christmas, with my friend, Senator 
Nelson of Florida. Our meetings at that time took place in the shadows 
of the 2006 Congressional elections and in the wake of the much 
anticipated Iraq Study Group report. During each of our visits at that 
time, the atmosphere exuded a feeling of transition, a desire to get 
out of the constant struggle of lateral movement to a feeling of 
longing for a new strategy, long overdue in Iraq. On January 10, we 
learned the details of that new strategy. It wasn't exactly what many 
of us expected and it raised some particular concerns for me. Two weeks 
earlier when I was in Iraq, I met with the National Security Adviser 
for the Prime Minister of Iraq, Dr. al-Rubaie, and he told Senator 
Nelson and me he didn't think sectarian violence was the biggest 
problem in Iraq. To express that kind of denial was incredulous. 
Senator Nelson and I kind of looked at each other. His comments 
reflected to me at that time that I didn't think the Iraqi Government 
had the commitment to reconciliation needed to warrant an increase in 
U.S. forces in Baghdad and in an area wracked by sectarian civil war.
  So at the time I stated the idea of sending an additional force of 
20,000 troops into Baghdad, into the lion's den of sectarian violence 
without any additional commitment from the Iraqi Government was 
something I did not feel I could support. Because of the duty we share 
as Members of this deliberative body, I put myself on record expressing 
my views. I wasn't popular with a lot of my constituents. I joined the 
senior Senator from Virginia, a colleague whom I respect so deeply on 
military matters, the former chairman of the Armed Services committee, 
and I cosponsored his resolution expressing the concern over the 
proposed surge in Baghdad.
  A slightly modified version of his resolution came before the full 
Senate on February 5, a little over 2 months ago. Although my 
colleagues in the majority at that time sought to limit our opportunity 
to amend this legislation through procedural maneuvering, I believed I 
had a duty to follow my conscience and I supported the procedural 
motion to move forward on that resolution. I joined many of my 
colleagues, mostly on the other side of the aisle, in voting for 
cloture on this resolution on February 5.
  Here we are, 2 short months later, and how the debate has changed. I 
will talk a little bit about what I have seen in Iraq but how the 
debate has changed. I thought I would take a brief moment to remind 
some of my colleagues across the aisle what they went on record as 
supporting on February 5. On February 5, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle said: We respect what S. 470 said, we respect the 
constitutional authorities given to the President, that the President 
shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. 
Here we are 2 months later making an attempt to limit his 
constitutional authority to exercise his fundamental constitutional 
duties.
  On February 5, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said the 
resolution they supported should not be interpreted as precipitating 
any immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of, the present level of 
forces.
  Here we are, 2 short months later, picking an arbitrary withdrawal 
date without the consent of our commanders on the ground and advocating 
a pullout.
  On February 5, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stated 
their belief that ``the U.S. should continue vigorous operations in 
Anbar province.'' And here we are 2 short months later and we are 
trying to pull our forces out and leave the Sunnis in Anbar alone to 
deal with the terror of al-Qaida.
  On February 5, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stated 
their belief that ``a failed state in Iraq would present a threat to 
regional and world peace.'' I don't know that many who have studied 
this issue would disagree with that notion. And here we are 2 short 
months later essentially working to ensure that this frightening 
prospect materializes.
  On February 5, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle commended 
our troops in the field, agreeing that they have served our country 
``with the bravery and professionalism consistent with the finest 
traditions of the U.S. Armed Forces.'' But here we are today, 
reflecting on comments that they have ``lost'' the war in Iraq.
  Most importantly, on February 5, my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle stated their belief that the U.S. ``should not take any 
action that will endanger U.S. military forces in the field, including 
the elimination or reduction of funds for our troops.'' Here we are 2 
months later, conditioning that funding on withdrawal timelines to 
handcuff our military leaders, delaying the delivery of resources our 
forces need.
  One of the things I heard in Anbar Province from a Marine general was 
that they needed these V-shaped humvee vehicles to protect against 
IEDs. Regular humvees are flat and they take the full force of a blast. 
With the use of these V-shaped humvee bottoms, we have not had many 
casualties. This bill the President will veto has about 8,000 of those 
V-shaped vehicles that we need.
  I supported that resolution in February, but I did not support the 
bill before us today. It is unfortunate that the majority in this body 
has decided to utilize this important piece of legislation to attempt 
to set us on a course for failure in Iraq. When I say that, it is true 
this bill contains a lot of important things for our military, our 
veterans. But it is unconscionable that our veterans would be used as 
pawns in a political game, where the majority seeks to ensure failure 
in Iraq at all costs. That is what happens when you say it is lost, 
when you tell the enemy this is when we are withdrawing. I think our 
soldiers and our families deserve better.
  My recent trip to Iraq underscored the fact that while we face 
formidable challenges, there are also glimmers of hope. General 
Petraeus said that to me in Baghdad on Saturday. He showed me the 
charts of the declines in the death squads and sectarian violence in 
Baghdad. He talks about the sheiks in Anbar Province coming over and 
fighting shoulder to shoulder with us against al-Qaida in Iraq.
  When I visited Iraq this weekend, I traveled to Taqaddum in Anbar 
Province, between Fallujah and Ramadi, and Talil, in south central 
Iraq. I also spent time in Baghdad. We have some Minnesota National 
Guard in Talil and Taqaddum. We have a long way to go. It is certainly 
too early to tell whether our new strategy, including the surge in 
troops, is succeeding at the level set out by the President. Even 
General Petraeus has said that. Certainly our headlines here at home 
still echo the horrific suicide bombs and insurgent attacks we have 
sadly grown to expect when we read the morning paper. This is an enemy 
with resolve. It understands the impact of those actions on the 
American people.
  General Petraeus told me and others in this body that he will come 
back to us in September--his troops are not all deployed at this point 
in time--and he can show the progress and the decline in the killings 
and sectarian violence. He talked about the elimination of some of the 
killing cells and some of their leadership. He will come back in 
September with the Ambassador, whom I also had dinner with that night, 
to discuss the situation. They will tell us whether they have succeeded 
in providing the stability in Baghdad that will allow the process of 
reconciliation to move forward more aggressively. He used the phrase 
many times that ``the clock in Washington ticks much faster than in 
Iraq.'' We know that. He did say military action cannot win this war. 
But my colleagues on the other side, when they quote that, don't quote 
the other half of the sentence. He said it is 20 percent military 
action, but you cannot do the other 80 percent unless you are 
successful in the military action. He is clear about that. I believe 
General Petraeus and the troops he commands deserve to be given the 
time they need before we arbitrarily decide the war is lost.
  I continue to have my doubts about the Iraqi leadership. I met with 
the

[[Page 10484]]

Prime Minister of Iraq, and he told me he was annoyed by a statement by 
the Secretary of Defense regarding the need to bring Sunnis more into 
their Government. His comment was that the Shia is a majority and it 
would undermine the democracy, tell the majority what they have to do. 
I said: Respectfully, I serve in the Senate. In the Senate, we protect 
in this country against one of the enemies of democracy, which is the 
tyranny of the majority. That is what has to go into the reconciliation 
in Iraq. I don't believe, as I listened to him, that he has the kind of 
commitment yet we need to make reconciliation successful. So that is of 
concern.
  For us in this body, it is hard to think that giving a voice to the 
minority would constitute undermining democracy. We know the perils of 
a tyranny of the majority, which Alexis de Tocqueville defined in 1835, 
and that Madison and Hamilton alluded to in the Federalist Papers. The 
fact we are still trying to persuade the Prime Minister that he has to 
do a better job of reaching out to his own countrymen makes it hard for 
me to be optimistic.
  Despite these challenges, the atmosphere in my meetings last weekend 
was so different than what I saw in December. The brave American 
civilians who are executing the diplomatic components of our strategy 
have a new sense of mission. I met with State Department folks--two of 
them--at breakfast Saturday morning. They are part of the new PRT. They 
are about to go Anbar Province, and they are reading in the paper that 
the war is ``lost'' and they are going out into Anbar Province to work 
on the reconstruction of Anbar and Fallujah. They are just about to 
begin their mission with a sense of hope, and shame on us if we dash it 
here. Some of the Iraqi leaders I was with reacted strongly in an 
opposite direction from the Prime Minister and clearly understood our 
commitment is not open-ended. Certainly, the courageous men and women 
in the field told me to relay to my colleagues this war is not lost. 
Let me be very clear. I sat in meetings with members of the Minnesota 
National Guard--by the way, I am unhappy about their tours of duty 
being extended. They and their families heard in the press that they 
were being extended. I complained about that to the Army and received 
an apology. In spite of that, they stood up and said to me: Use our 
names. Tell the Senate the war is not lost.
  MAJ Brian Melton, from Moorhead, MN, said: Tell the Senate the war is 
not lost. Lieutenant Martin of the 
1/34th Support Battalion in Talil, Iraq, wants the Senate to know the 
war is not lost. These soldiers talked about at one point it being kind 
of the Wild West in Anbar Province and it is being transformed.
  I wish my colleagues would have heard the story from LTC Gregg Parks 
of Walker, MN. He told me about a suicide bomber who came into a town 
called Habbaniyah, and he veered into a crowd coming out of a mosque, 
blew himself up, and wounded or killed many Iraqis. Not a single 
American shed blood in that attack; yet our soldiers lined up to give 
blood. The next day, the mayor and local sheiks came in and gave the 
names of al-Qaida operatives and pledged to work side by side with our 
troops to drive al-Qaida out of Iraq. I wish my colleagues could have 
heard COL David Elicerio, commander of the 1/34 Brigade Combat Team of 
the Minnesota National Guard. He told me about the ``adopt a highway'' 
program his men and women have implemented with the local Iraqis. He 
said the local sheiks came in and identified where there were two IEDs.
  There are many challenges that lie ahead, probably too many to name 
here. I don't see the situation in Iraq through rose-colored glasses 
and I am not trying to paint an unrealistic picture. The violence we 
have see over the past weeks in places like Baqubah reminds us all too 
well of the struggles we face.
  I know the American public has run out of patience on this war. I 
don't know what the next round of letters to the editor will look like, 
or the attack ads on moveon.org for the vote I cast; but I am committed 
to stemming the flow of terrorism, not handing al-Qaida a victory they 
will be able to use to strengthen their forces and hurt and kill more 
Americans.
  This bill we passed, with the timeline for surrender, doesn't make 
America safer. I am not for an open-ended commitment or a blank check, 
but as General Petraeus has said, you have to have a plan B. If the 
Iraqis don't do what they need to do for reconciliation, we are going 
to figure out a way to get Americans out of the crosshairs of that 
civil war. Some say we will be in Kuwait or some other area. General 
Petraeus told me he has to refuel his helicopters three times to get 
back into Baghdad, and if there is a ``Rwanda'' in Baghdad, we are not 
going to be able to do anything about it. We will redeploy our troops 
if this surge doesn't work, put them outside the center area.
  In the end, they may have to look at a plan B. But that decision will 
come soon. General Petraeus said: Let me come back in September. 
Perhaps that is not soon enough for the American public, but the 
decision we made today, the statement that the war is ``lost,'' the 
decision to set into place a timetable for surrender, doesn't help us 
provide an opportunity for reconciliation to occur in Iraq, or for 
there to be greater stability in the region, and it will let al-Qaida 
have a victory. A timetable for surrender hurts our warriors on the 
front line. It is a path I could not follow, one America shall not 
follow. Let us come back with a different supplemental and let us give 
our warriors the money they need to fight the war that has to be 
fought. Let us do that quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.

                          ____________________