Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq Security

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR IRAQ SECURITY

Mr. CORNYN. I thank the President, and I thank the Senator from Utah for the courtesy and the opportunity to rise to say a few words about the President's budget request.

I want to be clear about this. The sooner we accomplish our mission of securing Iraq and freeing the economy and stabilizing the government, the sooner our young men and women will be able to come home and we can turn Iraq over to the Iraqis so that they can enjoy the blessings of self-government and liberty.

By the same token, the longer we delay in voting on this supplemental request, the longer we delay in getting money that is needed both to support our troops and to restructure that troubled region and the longer it will be before our troops will be able to come home to their families. Slowing this funding request merely delays the return of our troops from harm's way.
And that should not be the role of the Senate, either unintentionally or otherwise.

We all know that the Congress voted to authorize the President to use necessary force to remove Saddam Hussein's regime last November. But there are some in this body today who appear to be playing the politics of the moment, making claims that seem to exploit for political gain the hardships that our military is enduring in serving the cause of freedom. This is nothing more than crass political games. They certainly have no place in this body.

I have the utmost respect and regard for my fellow Senators. Yet I must confess that I am dumbfounded at how soon some have appeared to forget the truth of Saddam's vile regime. The fundamental question we ought to be asking is, Are the Iraqi people better off today than they were under Saddam's regime? The answer to that is unequivocally yes. Are the American people safer today than they were when Saddam was in power? Again, the answer is unequivocally yes. The only remaining question is, Have we finished the job we started with Saddam's ouster? The answer to that question is no. But we must and we will.

I had the honor of traveling to Iraq with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee last June. I was sickened by the inhumanity evidenced by the mass graves, holding some 300,000 Iraqis and others who were victims of Saddam's regime. I was also shocked to learn from a U.N. representative that there are some 1.5 million people simply missing. We do not know whether they are dead or alive.

The suggestion in the face of these silent witnesses that Iraq, the Middle East, indeed the entire free world, are not better off today than before we took Saddam down is simply false.

Today there is religious freedom and human rights in Iraq unlike anything experienced during Saddam's regime. The Iraqi people now have hope, they have a future, something that must have seemed only like a dream to them a few short months ago.

I am proud to commend President Bush for the resolute leadership that he has demonstrated in pursuing the war on terror both in Iraq and around the world. Everyone who has been engaged in this fight, whether it is the most junior recruit or the Commander in Chief, is doing a remarkable job under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. I strongly believe we must remain committed to finishing the job in Iraq by supporting this supplemental.

I ask those who oppose this supplemental or who want to slow it down or who want to cut it in pieces and engage in lengthy delay, what is the message America sends to our enemies in the war on terror if we are shaken in our commitment?
Do we doubt our mission so easily? Do our international commitments mean so little? We did not undertake the war against terror because it was easy. We undertook it because it was the right thing to do, because it was necessary to make America safer.

As I said, there are some in the Senate who have advocated separating the moneys requested in this $87 billion supplemental between assistance to the troops and reconstruction of Iraq. I am opposed to any such separation and I am glad we voted down an amendment yesterday on that issue. Some argue that we should loan the money to Iraq instead of providing it to Iraq in the form of a grant—that is, that portion that should go to reconstruction. If we are to get our young men and women in uniform back home as soon as possible, which should be our goal, and turn the government over to the Iraqi people as soon as possible, which should also be our goal, we should not allow for any delay in the delivery of these funds.

General Abizaid, the CENTCOM commander, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that these reconstruction funds are inextricably intertwined with the security of our men and women on the ground.

I also believe it would be foolish to extract what would be only an illusory guarantee of loan repayment, and the delay in getting such loan funds to those who need it on the ground will likely jeopardize the security of our troops, according to General Abizaid.

The economic assistance and the reconstruction support requested today are essential to the success and security of our troops and essential to our success in Iraq. We must build up Iraqi security, we must gain the confidence of the Iraqi people by improving the infrastructure, and we must begin the capacity to deal with all of the threats they face on the ground.

I share my colleagues' concerns and their sense of fiscal responsibility when dealing with taxpayer dollars. I strongly believe we should be good stewards of the taxpayers' money at all times. I wish this newfound concern pervaded all aspects of our fiscal responsibilities in Congress, not just this one. We cannot preach fiscal restraint on one hand and practice fiscal irresponsibility on the other. True, responsibility cannot depend on political convenience.

The numbers we are dealing with today are hard for many to grasp but boil down to the American taxpayer, according to a recent USA Today article, this way: Each year American households spend about 1 percent of their income on alcoholic beverages, another 1 percent on tobacco products, and we spent about .7 percent of our income on cosmetics. To put it into context, if this request were approved, our combined operations to combat terror in the Middle East and Afghanistan will have cost .8 percent of our income next year, a bit more than we annually spend on makeup and shampoo and a bit less than we annually spend on alcohol and tobacco. Significant? Yes. Budget busting? No. Worth it? Yes.

The American people are well aware that we are engaged in a Presidential election season and they recognize the difference between those with an honest difference of opinion and those who seek to exploit the President's handling of the war purely in order to gain political advantage. I find something particularly unsavory about the comments of those who seek political advantage in questioning our commitment to our troops and our dedication to winning the war on terror. Those who spend their time playing political games with our mission in Iraq, even as our young men and women labor to secure and stabilize that fledgling nation, do a dishonor not only to themselves but to our soldiers in the field and the memories of those who have sacrificed everything they had opposing Saddam's blood thirsty regime.

There are clearly obstacles to overcome in Iraq and there will certainly be setbacks along the way, as we have seen. I only hope the politics of the moment do not drive criticism that only serves to undermine our commitment to winning the war on terror and American resolve. We must not cut and run. We must not leave the Iraqi people with a promise unfulfilled.
We owe it to our young men and women in uniform to give them our unequivocal support as they labor on in a dangerous place for an honorable cause.

Our troops, I am convinced, have the will to win. I only hope our politicians share that will to win.

As President Kennedy said 42 years ago:

Let every nation know whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

I only wish those who are consciously or not intent on denying our troops what they need to finish the job and to get home as soon as possible will stop to reconsider. We have liberated Iraq of Saddam Hussein and now we must simply finish the job. We seek to make Iraq secure, to make it a place where the rule of law can be established so that civilian leaders, including the Iraqi Governing Council, can establish a new government for a new nation. This is not an easy task and it is not without cost. But it must be done, so Iraq can flourish as a free nation, and so that the victories won, the lives lost, will not be in vain.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.