Appropriations
Floor Speech
APPROPRIATIONS -- (Senate - December 11, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue that should be the first priority of this Congress, and that is to fund our troops during a time of war, to make sure they have the funds they need, to have the equipment, to have logistical support and other support they need in order to fight this global war on terrorism.
There have been a lot of rumors circulating around Congress about what the way forward is going to be on the appropriations--I can only call it a mess--that confronts us when only 1 appropriations out of 12 bills has been signed by the President.
Yesterday I heard the reports for the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey, which said he was pulling the proposed omnibus appropriations bill because he was upset with negotiations on that.
He said this--and this is the one part I do agree with--
I want no linkage whatsoever between domestic [spending] and the war. I want the war to be dealt with totally on its own. We shouldn't be trading off domestic priorities for the war.
I would rephrase that that we should not be doing anything to tie the fate of our troops to wasteful pork projects or excessive Washington spending.
I am glad to see the distinguished majority whip on the floor because I do have a unanimous consent request that I know he will be interested in.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. I differ with the distinguished Senator from Illinois. Obviously, the bill that was voted on earlier contained numerous restrictions and deadlines on deployment of our troops in Iraq. For that reason, cloture was denied. It is not that there wasn't support. Indeed, I would hope there would be unanimous support to make sure our troops get the emergency funding they need in order to continue military operations until such time as Congress can appropriate the remainder of the President's request of $196 billion.
It is important to note that this is emergency bridge funding for the troops. While I don't disagree with the distinguished Senator from Illinois that the military can borrow from Peter to pay Paul and move funds around within their budget to avoid disaster up until about mid-February, the fact is, the White House has now warned that 100,000 civilian jobs depend on this emergency funding.
Here is a story from the Army Times dated December 10, 2007, that says the Department of Defense is sending notices of layoffs this week--2 weeks before Christmas--to 100,000 civilian employees warning them, unless Congress acts, they are going to be out of a job. This is not the way to show our support for the troops. In fact, this is nonsupport for the troops.
It is important to note what is included in this emergency funding that should be voted on today and decoupled from the debate over the Omnibus appropriations bill or any other continuing resolution. Here are the most notable provisions: One, operation and maintenance funding--this finances a broad range of activities, including combat operations, transportation of personnel and equipment, fuel, equipment maintenance, and general base support for our troops.
It also funds the Iraqi security forces and Afghanistan security forces. If we have any hope of bringing our troops home sooner rather than later, it is because we have succeeded in training the Iraqis to take our place, to provide that security so we can bring our troops home as soon as possible. By not providing the funding, we are delaying that prospect, not advancing it.
The third general category is funding for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization--the Joint IED Defeat Organization--which is dedicated to finding new ways to neutralize the primary threat to our troops in Iraq, which is improvised explosive devices. We ought to be providing the funding for this Joint IED Defeat Organization so they can save the lives and limbs literally of American troops.
This emergency funding being blocked by Senate Democrats would go to repair, replace, and upgrade military equipment. It also provides for military personnel funding, special pay and benefits, including hazardous duty pay for our troops, as well as the Defense Health Program. Those are the categories of items being blocked by today's objection by the Democratic leadership.
I am disappointed by the decision to block this emergency funding for our troops in Iraq. This is the material support we can provide to show our troops we are behind them, regardless of our differences on the war or how the war is being conducted. We see time and time again how this Congress, egged on by special interest groups such as Moveon.org, has been willing to use our troops as part of their political debate. This is particularly appalling when we are the ones who first asked and voted--by a vote of 77 to 21, I believe, 77 affirmatively--for the use of force in Iraq. We are the ones who voted and have the responsibility for authorizing that use of force. For us now to deny the funding they need to foster a situation where money has to be moved around from accounts just to get by and 100,000 civilian employees are being put on notice that they are going to be out of a job unless Congress quits playing a game is simply unsustainable.
Last January, of course, we unanimously confirmed GEN David Petraeus to lead our forces in Iraq. As we all know,
there was serious concern about the way the military operations in Iraq were being conducted, and many, if not all, of us called for a new way forward. We unanimously agreed that General Petraeus was the right man for that job. In fact, I am proud to say that vote to support General Petraeus's nomination and that vote of confidence in the new strategy, the so-called surge of forces in operations in Iraq, proved to be a correct one.
General Petraeus, with his counterinsurgency strategy and with the hard work and dedication of our men and women in the military, has brought us closer to a stable Iraq that many had simply given up and thought not possible. Reports are appearing daily in the newspaper and on the electronic media showing that violent attacks continue to decline in Iraq and communities across that country. Reports show people not only feel safer, they are safer. Refugees who have left Iraq to go to Syria and other places to protect their lives and their families are now returning to Iraq because Iraq is safer. Taxi drivers have resumed their old routes in neighborhoods without regard for whether predominantly Shiite or Sunni, and neighbors and families previously separated by the war are reuniting as refugees are returning by the busload.
My colleagues have had a chance to show their support for the troops. Unfortunately, we see that support sorely lacking. The call of groups such as Moveon.org seems to be so loud and has such command on the other side of the aisle that it drowns out these positive reports about the improved security situation in Iraq. It leads some, unfortunately, to block emergency funding that our troops need in order to carry out continued security operations and training for Iraqis to take our place so we can bring our troops home. Unfortunately, they end up being part of the partisan political games that tend to dominate Washington, DC. My colleagues who continue to insist that Iraq is lost and that the surge has failed or that Iraq is not making political progress are not talking about the Iraq of today.
I have said it before and I will say it again: Betting against the men and women of the U.S. military is always a bet you will lose. When our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that all is lost even before the surge started, frankly, they have been proven wrong. They lost that bet by betting against the men and women of the U.S. military.
Michael Totten, a reporter embedded in the once volatile region of Fallujah, wrote last week in the New York Daily News:
There's a gigantic perception lag in America these days. The Iraq of the popular imagination and the Iraq of the real world are not the same country.
Secretary of Defense Gates said on Saturday that:
Civilian deaths across Iraq are down about 60 percent.
Recently, there was the lowest number of single-day attacks across the nation in three and a half years.
The progress is real. But it is also fragile.
Why in the world, given this progress and given the fragility of the conditions in Iraq, would my colleagues on the other side of the aisle deny the emergency funding that our troops need? What possible rationale could there be for making that part of the political games and dysfunction that seems to dominate the Congress?
We have to make our policy decisions based not on the Iraq many have remembered from the past but the situation on the ground today which is improving, rebounding, and growing. Yet we still hear the doomsayers and those admonishing General Petraeus and his strategy. I am reminded of something a professor once told me when he said speaking louder doesn't make you any more right. We need to listen to the facts and not the loudest voices.
We all have an important question to ask ourselves. It is not about should we have gone into Iraq or why we went into Iraq. Those questions are now relegated to the history books. The fact is, we are there. The question we must ask now is, Given the current situation in Iraq and the Middle East, what is the best course of action for the United States? We should ask ourselves, Will withdrawing troops from Iraq before securing it make us any more or less secure at home? I have no doubt--and history will agree--that the more stable we can make Iraq, the better chance they have of becoming a fully functioning partner in the Middle East, a democracy governed by Iraqis.
A precipitous withdrawal, whether caused by deadlines imposed by Congress or by cutting off funding or by leaving funding in doubt, as our Democratic colleagues have done by objecting to this unanimous consent request today, would be detrimental to the security and stability of Iraq and would endanger American lives at home.
How could that be? The intelligence community tells us that a power vacuum in Iraq left by a rapid American withdrawal would create a failed state and an opportunity for al-Qaida to reassemble and reorganize.
It would create an opportunity for a training ground and an organizing location for al-Qaida and Islamic extremists to launch future terrorist attacks against the United States or our other allies or American forces in the Middle East. Such action would also likely necessitate future American military operations in the region that would put us behind where we are today, not advance where we are today.
I think we can all agree that kind of scenario is completely unacceptable and certainly not in the best interest of the United States. The situation in Iraq, as it stands now, needs a continued military presence with a force large enough to handle potential problems until the Iraqis are able to govern and defend themselves. The more capable the Iraq military and police forces become, the fewer of our troops are necessary to assist them in that effort. But it does not help them to cause them to question whether we are going to provide the financial support for our troops and for the training of Iraqi military and police forces. But that is exactly what the Senate is doing today by blocking this unanimous consent request.
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, still now, are left to claim that the lack of Iraqi political reconciliation is the reason they are dissatisfied with the outcome in Iraq, having lost the argument by the improved security arrangements as a result of the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy of General Petraeus.
I have to wonder whether we are holding the Iraqi Government--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, by now moving the goalposts, saying first the surge would not work to now having to declare the obvious, that the surge is working and the military situation is better, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the naysayers are saying: Well, really the problem is a lack of political reconciliation. But I have to ask whether we--a Congress that has proven itself to be dysfunctional over the last 8 months or 11 months now--whether we are holding the Iraqis to a different standard than we would actually hold ourselves to. We have not exactly been a model for how Congresses should function.
I think it is unfair for us to continue to move the goalposts and say that the significant reconciliation efforts that are occurring in tribal areas, in the provinces, and local areas do not count because clearly they do count, with things like the Anbar awakening and the work being done around Iraq now from the bottom up, as opposed to the top down, which is helping to make for a more secure Iraq, and making sure that Iraqis, rather than Americans, are principally responsible for maintaining security and safety in Iraq, in conjunction with American military troops.
I am discouraged and disappointed that our colleagues have blocked this emergency funding for our troops, putting 100,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense in doubt during this Christmas season as to whether they are actually going to have a job come February and causing our troops to question our commitment to support them during a time of war. That is not the message this Senate ought to be sending, and I urge my colleagues to reconsider.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source