Iraq Supplemental

Floor Speech

IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL -- (Senate - March 27, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source