National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - June 15, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished majority whip, isn't the real difference between those of us who believe war is bad and must never be fought and those of us who believe that war is bad but must sometimes be fought for the right reasons? What is the alternative to fighting the good fight that our troops are fighting in Iraq now? I just ask whether the Senator has heard any alternatives offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Texas, the only alternative I heard suggested, I have read about it in the press--I have not heard it offered on the floor yet--is that we essentially give the terrorists advance notice that we are going to be out of the country by the end of the year.
Look, we all hate, as the Senator from Texas indicated, to read reports of the death of any of our troops. We value human life in this country greatly. We do not, however, honor those who have given their lives in this great cause by giving up when we are making dramatic progress. And it is also important to remember that while we value every single life, we have lost fewer of our soldiers liberating Afghanistan and Iraq--50 million people liberated--than we lost on 9/11 in one morning or in Normandy during the invasion in World War II.
So while we value every life and we regret the loss of each soldier, it is extremely difficult to fight a war and lose absolutely no one.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an additional question, I ask the distinguished majority whip, what does he believe the consequences in Iraq to be--and not just to Iraq, but to America itself in terms of our own security--if we were to precipitously draw down our forces and leave a void there that might then be filled by enemies of our country and, indeed, terrorists akin to those who attacked our country on 9/11?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Texas, I think one thing that is pretty obvious is the terrorists would have a haven from which to operate, once again, such as they had in Afghanistan for a number of years prior to our clearing that out and giving those folks an opportunity to set up a democratic government. They would have a base of operations right in the Middle East from which to attack our neighbors, to attack the Europeans, and probably attack us again. That would be the consequence of cutting and running just on the heels of making dramatic forward progress in Iraq.
Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator will yield for one final question, I just want to be sure I understood his earlier comments from the National Security Adviser for the Government of Iraq.
There had been some suggestion that the Iraqis were planning on granting amnesty to those who had killed American soldiers. But if I understood the distinguished majority whip, the National Security Adviser said:
And we will never give amnesty to those who killed American soldiers or who killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.
If that language is true, that they would never do that, would the Senator care to venture a guess as to what the reason for this supposed sense of the Senate is to condemn some amnesty that will never be given?
Mr. McCONNELL. It sounds to me, I answer my good friend from Texas, as some kind of diversion from the core issue we ought to be debating in the Senate, which is these suggestions that have been made by a number of our colleagues that we ought to have all the troops out by the end of the year. It is time to have that debate in the Senate, not a sense-of-the-Senate resolution about a proposal, as the Senator from Texas points out, that has been shot down today by the National Security Adviser in Iraq who, as the Senator from Texas indicated, said today:
And we will never give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers or who killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.
What part of ``never give amnesty'' do our colleagues not understand?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished majority whip, isn't the real difference between those of us who believe war is bad and must never be fought and those of us who believe that war is bad but must sometimes be fought for the right reasons? What is the alternative to fighting the good fight that our troops are fighting in Iraq now? I just ask whether the Senator has heard any alternatives offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Texas, the only alternative I heard suggested, I have read about it in the press--I have not heard it offered on the floor yet--is that we essentially give the terrorists advance notice that we are going to be out of the country by the end of the year.
Look, we all hate, as the Senator from Texas indicated, to read reports of the death of any of our troops. We value human life in this country greatly. We do not, however, honor those who have given their lives in this great cause by giving up when we are making dramatic progress. And it is also important to remember that while we value every single life, we have lost fewer of our soldiers liberating Afghanistan and Iraq--50 million people liberated--than we lost on 9/11 in one morning or in Normandy during the invasion in World War II.
So while we value every life and we regret the loss of each soldier, it is extremely difficult to fight a war and lose absolutely no one.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an additional question, I ask the distinguished majority whip, what does he believe the consequences in Iraq to be--and not just to Iraq, but to America itself in terms of our own security--if we were to precipitously draw down our forces and leave a void there that might then be filled by enemies of our country and, indeed, terrorists akin to those who attacked our country on 9/11?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Texas, I think one thing that is pretty obvious is the terrorists would have a haven from which to operate, once again, such as they had in Afghanistan for a number of years prior to our clearing that out and giving those folks an opportunity to set up a democratic government. They would have a base of operations right in the Middle East from which to attack our neighbors, to attack the Europeans, and probably attack us again. That would be the consequence of cutting and running just on the heels of making dramatic forward progress in Iraq.
Mr. CORNYN. If the Senator will yield for one final question, I just want to be sure I understood his earlier comments from the National Security Adviser for the Government of Iraq.
There had been some suggestion that the Iraqis were planning on granting amnesty to those who had killed American soldiers. But if I understood the distinguished majority whip, the National Security Adviser said:
And we will never give amnesty to those who killed American soldiers or who killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.
If that language is true, that they would never do that, would the Senator care to venture a guess as to what the reason for this supposed sense of the Senate is to condemn some amnesty that will never be given?
Mr. McCONNELL. It sounds to me, I answer my good friend from Texas, as some kind of diversion from the core issue we ought to be debating in the Senate, which is these suggestions that have been made by a number of our colleagues that we ought to have all the troops out by the end of the year. It is time to have that debate in the Senate, not a sense-of-the-Senate resolution about a proposal, as the Senator from Texas points out, that has been shot down today by the National Security Adviser in Iraq who, as the Senator from Texas indicated, said today:
And we will never give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers or who killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.
What part of ``never give amnesty'' do our colleagues not understand?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, since this Senator from Florida is the author of the amendment, I would recall, for the consideration of the distinguished Senator from Texas, that there is nothing in this resolution that says anything about condemnation of the Iraqi Government. It says: It is the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States.
I would further call to the attention of the distinguished Senator that the yeas and nays have been ordered on the amendment, and as soon as the leadership is ready to dispose of the amendment, we can vote.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I don't know what the question was, but let me just respond to the distinguished Senator from Florida. It makes no sense for the Senate to shake its finger at the new Government of Iraq and to criticize them, whether it is a condemnation or a criticism or an admonishment or whatever you want to call it, for something that they have expressed that they have no intention of doing. I don't dispute from a procedural standpoint the Senator's right at some point, perhaps, to have a vote on the sense-of-the-Senate amendment, but I just question the wisdom of proceeding in this way when we are a nation at war.
We have done everything that we could to help the Iraqi people help themselves, from training their security forces to encouraging them and helping them in the development of a new government, something that is really a miracle to behold, if you think about it. Three years ago, they had a blood-thirsty dictator with his boot heel on the back of the neck of the Iraqi people, responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and a threat to the entire world because of the potential partnerships with terrorists who might export their terror to places such as the United States. Why we would gratuitously take an occasion like this, to distract us from the important business that we are about, to criticize in one way, form, or fashion the new Iraqi Government which is just beginning to show that they are able to take the first small steps toward self-determination and self-governance, why we would take this occasion to admonish them for something they have expressly indicated no intention of doing is beyond me.
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CORNYN. I would.
Mr. McCONNELL. I know the Senator from Texas and I covered this a few moments ago, but I would ask the Senator from Texas again if it is not the case that the national security adviser to the Iraqi Government just this very day said the following: And we will never give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers or killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would answer the distinguished majority whip by saying, that is exactly the quotation. The same individuals went on to say that who the Prime Minister is going to give amnesty to are those who have not committed the crimes, whether against Iraqis or coalition forces. He went on to say, they might probably have done some minor mistakes in storing some arms or allowing some terrorist to stay overnight or provided shelter. But he has expressly said: We will never give amnesty to those who have killed American soldiers or killed Iraqi soldiers or civilians.
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator from Texas yield for an additional question?
Mr. CORNYN. I would.
Mr. McCONNELL. Might it not be just as useful an exercise to try to pass a resolution commending the Iraqi Government for the position they have taken today with regard to this discussion of amnesty?
Mr. CORNYN. I would answer the distinguished majority whip and say, I would feel much better about something that was constructive and encouraging in assisting the Iraqi Government in their determination not to give amnesty than I would in offering criticism where it appears to be gratuitous and where it is a distraction from the debate that I think the American people would want us to have; that is, under what conditions do we want to leave Iraq, and are some of the proposals that some of our colleagues on the Senate floor have made about setting timetables, are those in the best interests of the American people or do they endanger America by allowing perhaps those who are America's enemies, the enemies of all civilization, to plot and plan, and then use that failed state as a platform to export their terrorist activities to other parts of the world?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov