Providing for the Safe Redeployment of United States Troops From Iraq--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

PROVIDING FOR THE SAFE REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES TROOPS FROM IRAQ--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - February 27, 2008)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2633, which the clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to consider S. 2633, a bill to provide for the safe redeployment of United States troops from Iraq.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today we are here to address the issue of the Iraq war, and many are saying: Well, why should we address the Iraq war again? Because, obviously, it is still going on; there is still no direction in terms of political progress; the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds still have their age-old enmities; the goals of the Iraqi Government set by this Government for them have not been met; but most of all, I think we are here to debate this issue, at least in my judgment, because we are at a turning point in terms of the debate in Iraq. That turning point--the case against this war--has been building for a long time. As we debate this bill on Iraq, we are at a turning point in the argument against the war. We have always been aware of the cost in life, both American and Iraqi, and we have known how severe that cost is. Despite the good works of our troops, we are continually troubled by the tragic loss of life. The American people are baffled by the lack of political progress and, most of all, the American people are beginning to comprehend the eye-popping figures of what this war is costing our budget and our economy. It is becoming clear to all Americans--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--that by continuing to spend huge amounts on Iraq, we are prevented from spending on desired goals and needs here at home.

So the turning point is this: The lack of progress, particularly on the political front, continues; the tragic loss of life continues; but the cost of the war and the inability to use those funds to help us here at home, the cost of the war and the inability to use those funds to properly go after the most dangerous nexus of terror, which is a thousand miles to the east--Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran--is now becoming a clinching argument that we must quickly and soon change the course, the direction, of this war in Iraq.

I went to Iraq over New Year's. I spent time with our soldiers. They are wonderful. They are awe-inspiring. The troops are awe-inspiring, from the private I met from Queens, just out of high school, who had enlisted 8 months previously and was in Iraq 3 weeks, to the majors and captains who had served 10 years in the Army or the Marines and had made the military their life's work--they see a greater good than just themselves, and it is wonderful--all the way to the generals. I spent time with General Petraeus at a New Year's Eve dinner. I spent time with General Odierno. They are fine, intelligent, good people.

When I went to Iraq, I assured our soldiers, from the private to the generals, that one good thing that would come out of this war is the esteem that we hold for both the military and our soldiers would be greater when the war finished than when it started--a far different cry than the Vietnam War, which is one of the most disgraceful times in America, when our soldiers were too often vilified for simply serving our country.

But after I left Iraq, I came to this conclusion, Mr. President, and that is that even if we were to follow General Petraeus's game plan--which, of course, involves not just military success in security but winning over the hearts and minds of the people--it would take a minimum of 5 years and have about a 50 percent chance of success of bringing stability--not democracy but at least stability--to large portions of Iraq. That is not the military's fault, and that is not America's fault. That is because of the age-old enmities within Iraq--the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, and then within the groups themselves. It would be very hard to create permanent stability without a permanent and large structure of troops.

Now, I ask you, stability in Iraq--a worthy goal, but is it on your top-five list for America? Is it on any American's top-five list? A few, maybe, not the vast majority. We have many other higher goals that cost the same dollars and need the same attention and energy that is now diverted to Iraq. Our education system is declining, our health care system doesn't cover people, and we are paying $3.30 for gas because we don't have an energy policy. And even if your goals are just foreign policy, shouldn't we be taking the time and effort that is all now focused on Iraq, as well as the dollars, and spending more focus on the dangerous triangle composed of Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan? Of course. We must ask ourselves: Is it worth spending trillions of dollars needed elsewhere on such an uncertain and unpredictable outcome?

So the debate is changing. The costs of Iraq, the simple costs alone, are weighing too heavily on the American people, the American Government, and on our national purpose. While admirable as a goal, it is hardly the most important goal we have in this changing and dangerous and exciting world in which we live. The cost of the war has become the $800 billion gorilla in the room. The backbreaking cost of this war to the American families, the Federal budget, and the entire economy is becoming one of the first things, after loss of life, people think about.

A report issued by the Joint Economic Committee, which I chair, estimated that the total costs of the war will double what the administration has spent directly on the war alone--$1.3 trillion through 2008. And that is a conservative estimate. According to budget figures on Iraq spending for 2000, the Bush administration wants to spend $430 million a day on Iraq. For 1 day of the war in Iraq, we could enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start per year, we could put an additional 88,900 police officers on our streets per year, we could hire another 10,000 Border Patrol agents per year, we could make college more affordable for 163,000 students per year, and we could help nearly 260,000 American families keep their homes per year. In the fiscal year of 2008, we put $159 billion into Iraq. That doubles our entire domestic transportation spending to fix roads and bridges, and it dwarfs all the funds we provide to the National Institutes of Health to discover cures for diseases such as cancer and diabetes. Iraq spending is seven times our spending to help young Americans get a college education. The costs are mountainous, and in this changing world, where we have to fight to keep America No. 1, we cannot afford such costs, as I said, despite the great efforts our soldiers are putting into Iraq.

Now, tomorrow morning, Mr. President, we in the Joint Economic Committee--and I see my colleague from Virginia here, and he is on that committee with me--we are going to hold our first congressional hearing of the year, and it will be appropriately devoted to the skyrocketing cost of the Iraq war. That will be the Joint Economic Committee. We are going to have Nobel Prize-winning economist Dr. Joseph Stiglitz talk for a time about his new book, about to be published, and the title speaks for itself: ``The $3 Trillion War.'' Dr. Stiglitz got information out of the Government and out of the Pentagon, after much long work, and has new estimates that make our estimates on the Joint Economic Committee seem small--$3 trillion. That is the title of his book. He is going to talk about the cost of that war. We are going to have national security experts, such as Bob Hormats and Ron Bier, discuss their views on how the out-of-control costs of the war have impacted our economy, our reputation abroad, our military strength and readiness, and the future of our children. Our JEC report estimated $1.3 trillion, but Dr. Stiglitz--and he has talked to the experts from the Pentagon--has even more massive numbers.

So we desperately need a change of course in Iraq. That is what this amendment calls for. It calls for limiting what our troops will do to force protection, of course, to training the Iraqi army, to fighting al-Qaida and fighting terrorism, but not to be in the middle of a civil war where we continually police the age-old enmities of the various factions in Iraq.

History will look upon this Iraq war in two ways: It will admire the bravery of our soldiers, from the privates to the generals, and it will be amazed at the mistakes made by this administration in starting and continuing this war, far too expensive in loss of life and in dollars.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Source