[Pages S12812-S12824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration
of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2862, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2862) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of
State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other
purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from
its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate to the text,
and agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree
to the same, that the Senate recede from its amendment to the
title of the bill, signed by a majority of conferees on the
part of both Houses.
(The conference report was printed in the House proceedings of
November 7, 2005.)
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking Senator
Mikulski, the distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee. The
Senator from Maryland and I have worked in a bipartisan manner to
produce the bill that is now before the Senate.
I thank Chairman Wolf and Congressman Mollohan. They have worked with
us to resolve some considerable differences in our two bills, and I
commend them for their efforts.
Finally, I thank Chairman Cochran, the chairman of the full
Appropriations Committee.
The bill before us today is the conference report for H.R. 2862, the
Science, State, Justice and Commerce appropriations bill. Overall, this
is a very good bill. Make no mistake, this was a lean year, a very lean
year. The subcommittee's 302(b) allocation did not account for several
sizeable programs which were proposed for termination in the
administration's budget, which this subcommittee restored.
In the Senate, the subcommittee that I chair is called the Commerce,
Justice, Science and Related Agencies, CJS, Appropriations
Subcommittee. The Senate CJS Subcommittee no longer has jurisdiction
over the operations budget of the State Department, which has been
merged with the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Under a previous
arrangement, however, the State Department is being considered under
the House framework, therefore the bill before the Senate is the
Science, State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations conference report.
The bill that we are considering today provides a total of $61.8
billion in budget authority to agencies under the bill's jurisdiction,
including the State Department. For those agencies under the Senate
subcommittee's jurisdiction--the Departments of Commerce and Justice,
NASA, NSF, and others--approximately $52.2 billion in budget authority
is provided.
The bill includes an increase of just over $1 billion above the
budget request for the Department of Justice. The bulk of this increase
is due to the restoration of many of the proposed cuts to State and
local law enforcement grant programs.
The bill provides $6.5 million for the Department of Commerce.
Several programs within the Department of Commerce were proposed for
termination in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget. This bill
restores funding for these programs, among them the Economic
Development Administration and the Public Telecommunications
Facilities, Planning and Construction grants.
The bill provides increases for NASA to move forward with the vision
the President has proposed, while fulfilling our commitments to
important existing programs.
At a time when there are so many demands being made on scarce Federal
dollars, difficult decisions had to be made. We have tried to address
the priorities that so many of our colleagues brought to our attention.
Though we were able to accommodate many of our colleagues' requests, we
were obviously not able to do everything everyone has requested.
I believe that we endeavored to produce a bill that is bipartisan and
that, we feel, serves the need of this country and we were successful.
I yield to Senator Mikulski, my esteemed ranking member, for her
statement.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, Senator Shelby and I have worked on a
bipartisan basis to bring this bill back to the floor as a conference
report. We are in agreement with the principles of the bill so we are
able to bring the bill forward. On our side, we estimate that we have
three other speakers. We note the Senator from Minnesota is in the
Chamber and he wishes to speak. There are two others whom we expect to
speak.
This is a new subcommittee. The VA-HUD Subcommittee on Appropriations
[[Page S12813]]
was dismantled and farmed out to different subcommittees, so some parts
came to the Commerce Committee and the Justice Committee, and now we
call it the Science Committee. It has a fantastic jurisdiction. Its
jurisdiction is focused on saving lives and saving livelihoods. It is
about investing in innovation through science and technology for our
country's future, and it is about looking out for our communities and
justice system.
Despite a tough allocation, I believe this bill, as completed, is
fair and we have done the best we could. The Commerce Department
oversees many agencies, some of which are very important Federal labs
such as NOAA and the National Institute of Standards. The Department of
Justice is on the front line. It funds the FBI, DEA, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the U.S.
Attorneys.
These are not just agencies; these are men and women who every single
day are trying to find those people who are often criminals in our
country, those who have committed terrible acts of arson. In my own
home State, they detected the sniper who held the capital region at bay
a few years ago. It is our U.S. attorneys, America's DAs, who are
prosecuting drug dealers, organized crime, and white-collar crime, and
also chairing the task forces on homeland security.
The Justice Department tries to protect us from terrorists and
protect our neighborhoods and our communities. It also provides grants
to State and local law enforcement and helps fight gang violence. This
year, this bill provides $21 billion to the Justice Department. That is
$800 million more than last year. The Justice Department accounts for
almost 50 percent of the entire cost of our bill. The FBI, with
tremendous responsibility to fight both crime and to find terrorists,
will receive $5.7 billion. This is a $500 million increase over last
year. It will focus on things such as counterterrorism, in which we
then try to use this as a domestic agency to fight terrorists.
We also remember we have other obligations, particularly for missing
and exploited children. We are working very closely with the President
of the United States and our Attorney General to make sure we have a
hotline and a way to identify those sexual predators who have been
released from prison who come back to our communities, and also to
recover missing children and to prevent abduction and sexual
exploitation, whether it is on the Internet or in our communities. They
are doing a great job.
Also, they have been used to identify those children who were missing
after Katrina. So we not only look for the kids on AMBER alert--as
terrible and as chilling as that could be--but after the hurricanes hit
we could not find a lot of our children. Moms and dads put their
children on some of the last buses leaving Louisiana and now, thanks to
the way we work, we have helped bring about family unification.
At the same time, we have a new menace sweeping our country and that
is gangs. We have certainly seen an increase in my own home State. We
are providing Federal funds for initiatives, particularly focused in
Montgomery County and Prince George's County.
Our way of fighting gangs is going to follow a three-point strategy
of suppression, intervention, and prevention. We believe this bill will
work with law enforcement in our communities and community support
groups to do that.
At the same time, we have substantial funding to deal with the
methamphetamine scourge that is sweeping our country. Many of my
colleagues have spoken about that.
While we are busy fighting criminals, though, we also have to protect
the judges as we bring those criminals to justice. We are all aware of
the great threat that often happens to our judges as they try to do
their duty. So we have increased the funding for the Marshals Service
to capture fugitives and protect judges in our Federal court system.
Just this past week, the marshals captured a convicted murderer who
escaped from a prison in Texas.
Where we had a tough fight was in State and local law enforcement.
The President's budget cut that by $1.4 billion. Working on a
bipartisan basis, we did increase that budget by $1.1 billion, but that
left us $300 million down. I am sorry that had to happen. We did the
best we could, and I know others will talk about it.
We put a great deal of effort into making sure we have a national
effort that will be funded locally for the growing problem of
methamphetamine--and, gosh, how it is affecting not only urban but
rural communities is shocking--and also to fund counterterrorism and
counterintelligence. These growing problems are facing us. We did the
best we could.
I know some of our colleagues will ask: Senator Mikulski, how did it
all work out with the methamphetamine in conference? When the bill left
the Senate, it was pretty good.
I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we have provided a
record amount of money, over $60 million, to fight meth abuse. Meth
abuse is one of our biggest problems and we hope this is a significant
downpayment in dealing with this problem.
While we are busy fighting crime, we also want to fight for America's
future. We believe we need to focus more on innovation. A country that
does not innovate stagnates. We are worried that we are losing ground
in terms of our ability to innovate. We believe one of the ways to
strengthen innovation is through our Federal laboratories. That is why
this year we have funded an increase of $62 million at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, raising their appropriations to
$761 million. The NIST partners, working with industry, develop new
technologies and new breakthroughs that create jobs. At the same time
it creates standards for new products coming to the marketplace so they
can file patents, they can be exported, and they can meet the demands
of the EU and the WTO.
In terms of our Federal labs, we want not only new ideas but also
those ideas that protect America. So this year we have increased
funding for NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Everybody knows NOAA; they are known for their weather reports. We know
them for their hurricane reports. We know them for their tsunami
alerts. NOAA generally saves lives and saves livelihoods.
The weather service has given us important forecasts and warnings so
we can secure our property and get people out of harm's way. Also, we
made a particular note that the conference prohibits the consolidation
or reducing of hours of those weather forecast offices. For us coastal
Senators, it supports our fisheries which are critical to our economy.
While we are busy working on some of the new ideas, such as at NASA
and the National Science Foundation, which I will talk about in a
minute, I want to talk about the issue of intellectual property, as I
have talked about NIST. In America, we often invent great ideas. We win
the Nobel Prizes, but we have to win not only the Nobel Prizes, we have
to win the markets. When we go out there to win those markets, we have
to protect our intellectual property. It is as important as defending
the homeland because it is our jobs, our future, and our source of
revenue. All around the world, particularly in southeast Asia, they are
trying to steal our ideas. Well, we are not going to allow it. We have
to make sure we fight it in our trade agreements, we have to fight it
in our trade enforcement, but we have to begin at home to make sure we
have a patent office that protects this intellectual property. We have
increased their funding 30 percent to reduce the backlog of over
500,000 patents.
Who knows what those patents are. It could be the next generation of
pacemaker. It could be the next generation of hybrid for an automobile
or for a truck. Most of all, it is going to be the next generation that
hopefully keeps jobs, and jobs in manufacturing, in the United States
of America.
So while we talk about labs, this is not some wonky legislation. We
believe it is our ideas that are saving lives, saving property, and
saving jobs.
We do know we need to be on the cutting edge of science. We believe
that cutting edge comes from the National Science Foundation, which we
have funded at $5.6 billion, $180 million more than last year. The
National Science Foundation funds a lot. It funds our basic research in
chemistry, biology, and in physics. We all know about the National
Institutes of Health and salute them, but at the same time we
[[Page S12814]]
need to know it is the NSF that is doing the basic science and also
breakthrough science such as in nanotechnology and in global warming.
It also funds the post-doctorates and the graduate school stipends so
our young people can go on to graduate school. That is that next
generation.
Then, of course, near and dear to my heart is NASA. This year, we
have provided $16.4 billion, $260 million over last year. I know many
people are wondering what is going to happen to the Hubble. Is the
Hubble going to run out of steam? Will the Hubble stop discovering all
that wonderful new science?
Hang on. Hope and help is on the way. We have increased the funding
for the Hubble budget to accommodate a servicing mission into space to
rescue the Hubble. It will take new batteries. It will take new
operating and optical equipment. What we do need, though, is to make
sure the shuttle makes two more flights so it is safe for the
astronauts to go up. We are helping our astronauts. We are providing
full funding for the Space Shuttle, the space station, and the
development of crew exploration vehicles. All science programs are
funded at the President's request.
We also have funded the Census Bureau at $812 million, which allows
the census to move forward with the 2010 census. The census is
America's database, and we need to keep it contemporary.
What I have just given sounds like an accountant. I will submit a
statement later on that will talk about what this means in terms of
innovation. But today Senator Shelby wanted to brief our colleagues on
the numbers and on the money.
We think we have done a good job. What we have done is take our
appropriations allocation, put 50 percent of our money into protecting
America from terrorists, from crooks, from thugs, and from the
exploiters of children. At the same time, we have used the other 50
percent to promote innovation in science and technology and also to
protect our intellectual property. We think we have done a very good
job.
I thank at this time my very good friend, Senator Shelby. Senator
Shelby and I came to the House of Representatives together and served
with the Energy and Commerce Committee. We came to the Senate at the
same time. He is an excellent colleague to work with. We share the same
priorities for this country. I want America to know that we do work
together, and when we work together we always do better.
I thank staffs who really function with collegiality and with great
civility. I thank the Shelby staff: Katherine Hennessey, Art Cameron,
Joe Long, Christa Crawford, and Allan Cutler.
My own staff who worked so hard, I thank Paul Carliner, Gabrielle
Batkin, Alexa Sewell, and Kate Fitzpatrick for all of the hard work
they have done.
This is kind of a thumbnail sketch for our bill in the interest of
time. There will be Senators who will be coming to speak on the bill.
I will yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton.
Later on in the afternoon I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan; to Senator Obama, from Illinois, for 5
minutes; and 5 minutes to Senator Sarbanes, my esteemed and cherished
colleague from Maryland.
I now yield the floor to our excellent colleague from Minnesota,
Senator Dayton, who, himself, has been an enormous advocate for local
law enforcement and has been a real strong voice for increasing funding
for fighting the meth scourge. We are so sorry it is going to be his
last year with us, the great guy that he is. We know he will do well.
We certainly wish him well, and I look forward to hearing him this
afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. I thank the distinguished ranking member, the Senator
from Maryland, for her kind words. I commend her and the chairman of
the committee, Senator Shelby, for their outstanding work on this
conference report. I know it was under very difficult circumstances.
There are many good features to the report, as the Senator has just
described. Again, I thank her for her leadership and her tenacious
fighting on behalf of these efforts, whether they were successful or
whether they were not.
Tragically, however, the House and the administration largely
prevailed in this conference report in cutting funding for the law
enforcement programs to only 38 percent of the Senate's position.
Senator Chambliss from Georgia and I cosponsored a bipartisan amendment
to the Senate bill that passed the Senate unanimously, which increased
the Byrne grant funding from $900 million for fiscal 2006. Yet the
House and administration, in the conference, slashed that
appropriations to $416.4 million, which is a one-third reduction from
fiscal year 2005.
Byrne grants fund local law enforcement to combat the most urgent
public safety problems in their own communities. In my own State of
Minnesota, Byrne grant programs have provided the critically important
funds to fight the scourge of methamphetamine, which is an illegal drug
crisis in many States, as the distinguished ranking member has
outlined. She has been in the forefront in efforts to increase the
Federal funding to fight this catastrophe that is afflicting our
citizens, afflicting people of all ages--I am told by chiefs of police,
those as young as 10, and senior citizens in their eighties, from all
parts of Minnesota and from all walks of life and backgrounds. While
the burdens on local police and sheriffs and other local law
enforcement officials have been increasing, Byrne grants to Minnesota
have decreased from over $8 million in 2000 to $7.5 million last year.
This year's cut in this conference report will mean that Minnesota's
share of Byrne grant funding will drop to less than $5 million next
year, which is a 40-percent reduction from the year 2000.
In addition, the COPS grants in this report are cut from $606 million
to $416 million, another one-third reduction, with zero dollars
provided for the hiring of new law enforcement officers, which was the
program's original goal. Byrne grants and COPS are the two most
important sources of Federal funds to boost police and sheriff forces
throughout our country, to increase the drug prevention programs or
drug court interdictions. They are programs that keep our neighborhoods
safer, our communities safer, and our rural counties safer.
Why do the administration and the House want to drastically cut
Federal support from local law enforcement; to cut funds from the brave
men and women who are on the frontlines against the forces of evil in
our society, who are risking their lives day and night to defeat the
evil predators who are destroying the lives of our citizens? Why? It is
unconscionable, it is incomprehensible that the House and the
administration are defunding local law enforcement.
Here we have an administration that preaches national security but
will not fund it at home. It is an administration that preaches the war
against terrorism but will not fund the war against drug-dealing and
drug-pushing terrorists on our streets and in our schools. How
mistaken, how shortsighted, how wrong-directed could anyone be?
Again, I thank the Senate's chairman and ranking member for doing
their best against the administration, which would like to eliminate
these programs because they were the good ideas of the previous
administration and their allies in the House. Congress should be
providing more money, not less, but more money to strengthen local law
enforcement in their fight against organized crime, drug dealers, and
other predators. For that reason, I regretfully cannot support this
report.
The citizens of America deserve better law enforcement and more
Federal support to make it possible--not the lower, the cut position of
the House and administration.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for up
to 5 minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, first, I commend both Senator Shelby,
the chairman of the subcommittee, and my colleague from Maryland,
Senator Mikulski, the ranking member, for their hard work in bringing
this conference report to the Senate this afternoon. I do want to
express my regret that this report does not contain an important
provision, to provide emergency housing vouchers to victims of the
recent hurricanes.
[[Page S12815]]
On September 14 of this year, the Senate unanimously approved an
amendment to this bill to provide $3.5 billion in emergency spending to
be used to ensure that any person displaced as a result of the
hurricanes could receive a housing voucher. These emergency housing
vouchers would have enabled displaced families to find and afford safe,
decent, and stable housing.
While FEMA and HUD are providing some housing assistance to evacuees,
it is clear from news reports, as well as from people in the affected
areas, that the promises of housing assistance from the Federal
Government are falling far short of what is necessary. Just in the past
week, there have been articles about the lack of stable housing for
evacuees. The titles alone indicate the stress evacuees are under. For
example:
Hurricane Evacuees Face Eviction Threats At Both Their Old
Homes and New;
Displaced in Crisis of Affordable Housing;
FEMA Housing Slow In Arriving.
The administration's housing policy for the victims of the recent
hurricanes is unclear and inadequate. HUD is only assisting people who
were assisted by HUD previously in the disaster areas, while FEMA has
the responsibility for the vast majority of the evacuees. FEMA, an
emergency management agency which is overwhelmed in the face of this
unprecedented disaster, is now being tasked with the job of housing
hundreds of thousands of people. This is not a job for FEMA. FEMA has
provided people with 3-months' worth of rental assistance. However, it
is clear that not all evacuees have received this assistance. Second,
it is also not clear how evacuees and the landlords renting to them can
be guaranteed that rental assistance will continue. Indeed, some
Katrina victims are being threatened with eviction. FEMA seems to be
handling the continuation of rental assistance on a case-by-case basis,
with no clear rules or principles guiding these critical decisions.
In the words of an editorial in yesterday's New York Times:
The woefully inadequate program for housing put forward by
the administration is tantamount to stonewalling the Katrina
victims.
The emergency housing voucher proposal, which was adopted by the
Senate, was, regrettably, not included in the conference report now
under consideration. The Senate conferees met implacable resistance,
apparently, from the House conferees and from the administration, as I
understand it. But the emergency housing voucher proposal which this
body adopted would have ensured that every evacuee in need would
receive at least 6 months of rental assistance with an additional 6
months of assistance available if necessary. The assistance would have
been distributed by HUD and the existing housing network, which houses
millions of people around the Nation. There is extensive experience at
HUD.
I am disappointed, very disappointed that this critical assistance is
not included, and I hope that we can find some other way to provide the
needed housing assistance to hurricane victims.
Again, I commend my colleagues, Senators Shelby and Mikulski, for
their successful completion of this report. I again underscore that
this emergency housing voucher provision was included in the bill which
passed the Senate under the leadership of Chairman Shelby and Ranking
Member Mikulski. I regret that they met this resistance in conference
and were not able to include it in the final version. It is the
evacuees of the hurricanes who, unfortunately, will pay the price.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Before the senior Senator returns to the Banking
Committee, I want him to know that I, too, regret that we could not do
the housing vouchers, the small business administration loans, as well
as the economic development assistance Katrina amendments. These would
have really helped rebuild communities and rebuild lives. But the House
was so resistant we could not. We were defeated on a voice vote.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the ranking member for that observation. I
simply point out, as further stories are heard about the inability to
get people back up on their feet and address their needs, it should be
remembered that there were provisions in the Senate-passed bill which,
if included in this conference report and therefore enacted into law,
would have provided very important measures of assistance in a very
timely fashion. I, too, regret very much that has not taken place.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have addressed this Chamber several
times on the subject of global warming. Many times, over and over in
the past few years in those speeches I have presented well-documented
facts regarding the science and economics of the global warming issue
that, sadly, many of my colleagues in the public heard for the first
time.
Today, I will discuss something else--scientific integrity and how to
improve it. Specifically, I will discuss the systematic and documented
abuse of the scientific process by an international body that claims it
provides the most complete and objective scientific assessment in the
world on the subject of climate change--the United Nations-sponsored
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. I will conclude
with a series of recommendations as to the minimum changes the IPCC
must make if it is to restore its credibility.
When I became chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, one of my top three priorities was to improve the quality
of environmental science used in public policymaking by taking the
politics out of science. I have convened hearings on this subject and
the specific issue of global warming science.
I am a U.S. Senator and a former mayor and businessman. I am not a
scientist. But I do understand politics. And the more I have delved
into the issue, the more convinced I have become that science is being
co-opted by those who care more about peddling fear of gloom and doom
to further their own, broader agendas than they do about scientific
integrity.
I am committed to shining a light on their activities. Global warming
alarmists will undoubtedly continue to accuse me of attacking the
science of global warming--that is part of their game. But nothing
could be further from the truth. I support and defend credible,
objective science by exposing the corrupting influences that would
subvert it for political purposes. Good policy must be based on good
science, and that requires science be free of bias, whatever its
conclusions might be.
As nations meet again next month in Montreal to discuss global
warming, the pronouncements of the IPCC leaders will gain renewed
attention as they continue their efforts to craft a fourth assessment
of the state of global warming science. If the fourth assessment is to
have any credibility, fundamental changes will need to be made.
The flaws in the IPCC process began to manifest themselves in the
first assessment, but did so in earnest when the IPCC issued its second
assessment report in 1996. The most obvious was the altering of the
document on the central question of whether man is causing global
warming.
Here is what Chapter 8--the key chapter in the report--stated on this
central question in the final version accepted by reviewing scientists:
No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of
the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic causes.
But when the final version was published, this and similar phrases in
15 sections of the chapter were deleted or modified. Nearly all the
changes removed hints of scientific doubts regarding the claim that
human activities are having a major impact on global warming.
It removes these doubts that were specific in the study.
In the Summary for Policymakers--which is the only part of the report
that reporters and policymakers read--a single phrase was inserted. It
reads:
The balance of evidence suggests that there is a
discernible human influence on global climate.
The lead author for chapter 8, Dr. Ben Santer, should not be held
solely accountable. According to the journal Nature, the changes to the
report were made in the midst of high-level pressure from the Clinton/
Gore State Department to do so. I understand that
[[Page S12816]]
after the State Department sent a letter to Sir John Houghton, co-
chairman of the IPCC, Houghton prevailed upon Santer to make the
changes. The impact was explosive, with media across the world,
including heavyweights such as Peter Jennings, declaring this as proof
that man is responsible for global warming.
Notably, polls taken shortly afterwards showed scant support for the
statement. The word ``discernible'' implies measurable or detectable,
and depending on how the question was asked, only 3-19 percent of
American scientists concurred. That is the very best scenario--less
than 20 percent.
In 2001, the third assessment report was published. Compared with the
flaws in the third assessment, those in the second assessment appear
modest. The most famous is the graph produced by Dr. Michael Mann and
others. Their study concluded that the 20th century was the warmest on
record in the last 1,000 years, showing flat temperatures until 1900
and then spiking upward--in short, it looked like a hockey stick. It
achieved instant fame as proof of man's causation of global warming
because it was featured prominently in the summary report read by the
media.
Let us take a look at this chart. This is the blade of the hockey
stick, and this is what Michael Mann tried to show. Since then, the
hockey stick has been shown to be a relic of bad math and impermissible
practices.
This chart starts the year 1000, 1200, and so forth. If they had
included the three centuries prior to that, that was the time called
the medieval warming period. In the medieval warming period, you would
find another blade such as this where temperatures were actually higher
than they are in this exhibit.
Since then, the hockey stick has been shown to be a relic of bad math
and impermissible practices. Dr. Hans von Storch, a prominent German
researcher with the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research--who, I am
told, believes in global warming--put it this way:
Methodologically it is wrong: Rubbish.
In fact, a pair of Canadian researchers showed that when random data
is fed into Michael Mann's mathematical construct, it produces a hockey
stick more than 99 percent of the time, regardless of what you put into
it. Yet the IPCC immortalized the hockey stick as the proof positive of
catastrophic global warming.
How can such a thing occur? Sadly, it is due to the institutional
structure of the IPCC itself--it breeds manipulation.
First, the IPCC is a political institution. Its charter is to support
the efforts of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which
has the basic mission of eliminating the threat of global warming. This
clearly creates a conflict of interest with the standard scientific
goal of assessing scientific data in an objective manner.
The IPCC process itself illustrates the problem. The Summary Report
for Policymakers is not approved by the scientists and economists who
contribute to the report.
In other words, the Summary Report for Policymakers is the one for
policymakers and for the press. That is how people pick up their
impressions as to what was in the report. However, the scientists and
the economists who contributed to the report never did approve the
Summary Report for Policymakers. It is approved by intergovernmental
delegates--in short, politicians. It doesn't take a leap of imagination
to realize that politicians will insist the report support their
agenda.
A typical complaint of scientists and economists is that the summary
does not adequately reflect the uncertainties associated with tentative
conclusions in the basic report. The uncertainties I identified by
contributing authors and reviewers seem to disappear or are downplayed
in the summary.
A corollary of this is that lead authors and the chair of the IPCC
control too much of the process. The old adage ``power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely'' applies here. Only a handful of
individuals were involved in changing the entire tone of the second
assessment. Likewise, Michael Mann was a chapter lead author in the
third assessment.
One stark example of how the process has been corrupted involves a
U.S. Government scientist who is among the world's most respected
experts on hurricanes--Dr. Christopher Landsea. Earlier this year, Dr.
Landsea resigned as a contributing author in the upcoming fourth
assessment. His reason was simple--the lead author for the chapter on
extreme weather, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, had demonstrated he would pursue
a political agenda linking global warming to more severe hurricanes.
Trenberth had spoken at a forum where he was introduced as a lead
author and proceeded to forcefully make the link. He has spoken here in
the Senate as well, and it is clear that Trenberth's mind is completely
closed on the issue. The only problem is that Trenberth's views are not
widely accepted among the scientific community. As Landsea put it last
winter:
All previous and current research in the area of hurricane
variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the
frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the
Atlantic or any other basin.
When Landsea brought it to the attention of the IPCC, he was told
that Trenberth--who as lead author is supposed to bring a neutral,
unbiased perspective to his position--would keep his position. Landsea
concluded that:
Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process
on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our
climate system has been subverted and compromised, its
neutrality lost.
Landsea's experience is not unique. Richard Lindzen, a prominent MIT
researcher who was a contributing author to a chapter in the third
assessment, among others has said that the Summary did not reflect the
chapter he contributed to. But when you examine how the IPCC is
structured, is it really so surprising?
Second, the IPCC has demonstrated an unreasoning resistance to
accepting constructive critiques of its scientific and economic
methods, even in the report itself. Of course, combined with my first
point, this is a recipe for delegitimizing the entire endeavor in terms
of providing credible information that is useful to policymakers.
Let me offer a few examples of what I am talking about.
Malaria is considered one of the four greatest risks associated with
global warming. But the relationship between climate and mosquito
populations is highly complex. There are over 3,500 species of
mosquito, and all breed, feed, and behave differently. Yet the nine
lead authors of the health section in the second assessment had
published only six research papers on vector-borne diseases among them.
Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, a respected entomologist
who has spent decades studying mosquito-borne malaria, believes that
global warming would have little impact on the spread of malaria. But
the IPCC refused to consider his views in its third assessment, and has
completely excluded him from contributing to the fourth assessment.
Here is another example: To predict future global warming, the IPCC
estimated how much world economies would grow over the next century.
They had to somehow tie this into the economic activity. Future
increases in carbon dioxide emission estimates are directly tied to
growth rates, which in turn drive the global warming predictions.
Unfortunately, the method the IPCC uses to calculate growth rates is
wrong. It also contains assumptions that developing nations will
experience explosive growth--in some cases, becoming wealthier than the
United States. These combine to greatly inflate even its lower-end
estimates of future global warming.
The IPCC, however, has bowed to political pressure from the
developing countries that refuse to acknowledge the likelihood they
will not catch up to the developed world. The result: Future global
warming predictions by the IPCC are based on a political choice, not on
credible economic methodologies.
Likewise, the IPCC ignored the advice of economists who conclude
that, if global warming is real, future generations would have a higher
quality of life if societies maximize economic growth and adapt to
future warming rather than trying to drastically curb emissions. The
IPCC turns a deaf ear.
This problem with the economics led to a full-scale inquiry by the
UK's House of Lords' Select Committee on Economic Affairs. The ensuing
report
[[Page S12817]]
should be required reading. The committee identified numerous problems
with the IPCC.
In fact, the problems identified were so substantial, it led Lord
Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer and a member of the
committee, to recently state--in fact, he was here and testified before
the committee I chair here in the Senate--Lord Lawson said:
I believe the IPCC process is so flawed, and the
institution, it has to be said, so closed to reason, that it
would be far better to thank it for the work it has done,
close it down, and transfer all future international
collaboration on the issue of climate change. . . .
To regain its credibility, the IPCC must correct its deficiencies in
all of the following areas before it releases its fourth assessment
report. Structurally, there are four ways we suggest changes be made.
The first is to adopt procedures by which scientific reviewers
formally approve both the chapters and the Summary Report for
Policymakers. Government delegates should not be part of the approval
process.
The second thing is to limit the authority of lead authors and the
Chair to introduce changes after approval by the reviewers.
The third is to create an ombudsman for each chapter. These ombudsmen
should consult with reviewers who believe valid issues are not being
addressed and disseminate a report for reviewers prior to final
approval which is made part of the final document.
Fourth is to institute procedures to ensure that an adequate cross-
section of qualified scientists wishing to participate in the process
is selected based on unbiased criteria. The ombudsmen should review
complaints of bias in the selection process.
That is structurally what the IPCC should do.
Now, there are many specific issues that the IPCC must address as
well. For instance, the IPCC must ensure that uncertainties in the
state of knowledge are clearly expressed in the Summary for
Policymakers. When you read the Summary for Policymakers, which is not
approved by the scientists and the economists, it does not say anything
about the fact that there are doubts in these areas. That should be a
part of it.
The IPCC must provide highly defensible ranges of the costs of
controlling greenhouse gas emissions. They have to talk about how this
is going to be done.
They must defensibly assess the effects of land-use changes in
causing observed temperature increases. In other words, there are a lot
of things we hear about, we are aware of; that is, the heat island
effect that takes place in a lot of the major cities, the various
agricultural changes where trees are cut down and crops are planted.
These need to be considered.
Fourth is to provide highly defensible ranges of the benefits of
global warming. If we know the cost that is going to be incurred, as we
learned in the Wharton econometric survey--that for each family of four
in America, it would cost them about $1,715 a year in the cost of
electricity, the cost of fuel; everything just about doubling--then
people need to know what kinds of benefits the global warming will
produce.
The fifth thing is to examine the costs and benefits of an adaptive
strategy versus a mitigation strategy.
Sixth is to adequately examine studies finding a cooling trend of the
Continental Antarctic for the last 40 years, as well as increases in
the Antarctic ice mass.
Seventh is to adequately explain why the models predict greater
warming than has been observed, avoiding the use of selective data
sets.
Eighth is to ensure an unbiased assessment of the literature on
hurricanes.
Ninth is to ensure adequate review of malaria predictions by a range
of specialists in the field, ensuring all views are expressed.
Going back to No. 8, I am reminded every time something happens--it
can be a hurricane or a tornado--there is always somebody standing up
and saying: Aha, it is due to global warming. It is a level of
desperation that I cannot believe people are becoming subjected to.
There are dozens more issues, most of which are as important as the
ones I have just raised. Instead of trying to list them all here, I
intend to post on my committee's Web site this winter a more exhaustive
and detailed list of issues that must be addressed in the fourth
assessment.
In conclusion, I quote from an article in Der Speigel by Dr. von
Storch and Dr. Nico Stehr, who is with Zeppelin University. They wrote:
Other scientists are succumbing to a form of fanaticism
almost reminiscent of the McCarthy era. . . . Silencing
dissent and uncertainty for the benefit of a politically
worthy cause reduces credibility, because the public is more
well-informed than generally assumed. In the long term, the
supposedly useful dramatizations achieve exactly the opposite
of what they are intended to achieve. If this happens, both
science and society will have missed an opportunity.
It is my solemn hope that the IPCC will listen to the words of Dr.
von Storch and Dr. Stehr and not miss the opportunity to reestablish
its credibility, which I believe is totally lost at this time. Only
then will its work product be useful to policymakers. If the IPCC
remains committed to its current path, however, then Lord Lawson's
solution is the only viable one--the IPCC should be disbanded.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks not be charged
against the time on the CJS appropriations conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, we continue to
discuss the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations conference report.
We note that our colleague from Illinois wishes to speak, and I yield
to Senator Obama 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski.
Mr. President, I know I speak for all Members of the Senate when I
say we wholeheartedly support our Nation's law enforcement officers and
we want to do every single thing possible to assist their efforts to
keep our communities safe. Unfortunately, the Commerce-Justice-Science
conference report before this body today does not send this message. In
fact, it sends the exact opposite message.
The conference report provides important funding for programs such as
the Office on Violence Against Women, the National Science Foundation,
and important juvenile justice programs. But I am very troubled by the
drastic cuts it makes to an important law enforcement program, the
Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program.
This bill further eviscerates a program that has suffered significant
cuts in the last few years, despite providing real results and benefits
around the country. The conference report cuts the Byrne Program from
the $900 million we passed in the Senate to $416 million, which is a
34-percent cut from the fiscal year 2005 funding level.
Now, in Illinois, these cuts will have an immediate and direct effect
because law enforcement has been using Byrne grant funds to fight one
of the gravest drug threats facing the Nation today--methamphetamines.
In downstate Illinois, as in other rural communities all across the
country, there has been a tremendous surge in the manufacture,
trafficking, and use of meth. Illinois State Police encountered 971
meth labs in Illinois in 2003, more than double the number uncovered in
2000.
According to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, the
quantity of meth seized by the Illinois State Police increased nearly
tenfold between 1997 and 2003. This surge is placing enormous burdens
on smalltown police forces, which are suddenly being confronted with a
large drug trade and the ancillary crimes that accompany that trade.
These police departments rely on Byrne grant funding to participate
in meth task forces, such as the Metropolitan Enforcement Group or the
Southern Illinois Enforcement Group. These task forces allow police in
different communities to combine forces
[[Page S12818]]
to battle a regional problem. There are a total of seven meth task
force zones in Illinois, and these task forces have seen real results
with Byrne grant funding.
In 2004, the Southern Illinois Enforcement Group accounted for more
than 27 percent of the State's reported meth lab seizures. This group
pays 5 of its 12 agents through Byrne grants.
In towns such as Granite City and Alton, cuts in Byrne grant funding
will force them to make difficult choices about how to allocate already
scarce police resources. Indeed, the chief of police in Granite City
told my staff yesterday that cuts in Byrne grant funding will threaten
the viability of his meth task force. At a time when meth use is
growing, it is inconceivable to me that we would be cutting the
resources needed by law enforcement to fight crime and clean up the
streets.
This is yet another example of the misplaced priorities of our
country. We all know that we are facing a real budget crisis. The
deficit is growing, and we need to enforce some fiscal discipline. But
I don't believe we should be balancing the budget on the backs of our
Nation's law enforcement officers who keep our families and communities
safe each and every day.
I am disappointed by this bill. I hope next year we will be able to
find the necessary funding that local law enforcement needs. I would
ask those who are on the conference and who are looking at this to
recognize that it is going to have an impact not just in Illinois but
in rural communities all across the country, particularly farming
communities in the Midwest that have been devastated by the plague of
meth. This has been primarily a program to help prevent it. It is being
cut drastically in this bill. It is a bad decision and reflective of
misplaced priorities by this Senate.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Iraq
Mr. DURBIN. Since the war in Iraq began, 2,067 Americans have died;
15,568 have been wounded. Today, I joined my colleagues, Senators
Levin, Biden, Harry Reid, and others, in offering an amendment to honor
their sacrifice and service and to seek a new course in Iraq in the
coming year. I was proud to cosponsor the Levin amendment. I thought it
made three critical policy statements about Iraq.
First, the amendment demanded that the administration provide
Congress and the American people with a plan for success and a
timetable with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of American
forces. Second, the amendment makes it clear that 2006 will not be just
another year on the calendar when it comes to the war in Iraq. The next
year represents a critical transition period for Iraq, when a newly
elected government, as of this December, will take office and must
assume the authority and responsibility that comes with sovereignty.
This is the year when Iraqi forces must help create the conditions that
will finally lead to the phased redeployment of U.S. troops.
The Levin amendment also stated that the administration had to make
it crystal clear to the Iraqi people that we were not in Iraq
indefinitely. We are neither permanent occupiers nor are we a permanent
police force for the Iraqi people. That is a job for Iraq, not for the
United States. Building a broad-based and sustainable political
settlement is also essential for defeating the insurgency and it, too,
is an Iraqi responsibility, not an American responsibility.
President Bush has said over and over again, as the Iraqis stand up,
we will stand down. The amendment we offered asked the basic question,
When are they going to have capable forces so that American troops can
stand down? How many are standing now? How well is the Iraqi Government
doing in defending and caring for its people and training its own
military and security forces?
This isn't the first time we have asked these questions. Over 40 of
us have asked the President over and over again for a report on this
war. Sadly, we are still waiting for an answer, unless you count the
reply we received from someone at a lower level in the White House
stating that he had received the letter and would send it to the
appropriate person to take a look at. That was over a month ago. That
is not the answer that Senators were looking for. It is certainly not
the answer the American people were looking for. The amendment required
answers in an unclassified report because we want the American people
to know what is going on in Iraq--the challenges, the progress, and,
frankly, if there are contingencies we had not anticipated, let us know
that.
What we were seeking to do with this amendment was finally to
establish that 2006 will not be just another year. I am hoping that no
Senator will stand on the floor a year from now and recount that we
have lost hundreds more of our best and bravest in Iraq, thousands more
injured, wondering if there is any end in sight.
The amendment made it clear as well that we were holding Iraqis
responsible. It is their country. It is their future. They need to take
control of their own fate and future with their own security force and
a political arrangement that works.
Third, we want accountability from this President. It is not good
enough for the President to make speeches about staying the course when
the course has led to so many lives being lost, so many dollars being
spent. Senators Warner and Frist saw our amendment when it was offered.
It is interesting because I think what they did is probably a very
positive thing. They took the amendment, which we had prepared, and
basically made changes on its face. If you take a look at this
amendment, this is what we offered. Senators Warner and Frist scratched
out the names of all the Democratic sponsors and put their own names on
there on the Republican side. Then they went through, without even
retyping, and made handwritten changes on the Democratic amendment.
Some of the changes are innocuous, but some are not.
One of the changes is significant. We made it clear, in language the
Iraqis and the American people could understand, what the future course
will be. Let me read what Democratic language said:
The United States military forces should not stay in Iraq
indefinitely and the people of Iraq should be so advised.
Simple and declarative. The Republican change: They struck the word
``indefinitely.'' Now it reads:
The United States military forces should not stay in Iraq
any longer than required and the people of Iraq should be so
advised.
That is quite a difference. Our sentence was clear and more decisive.
Theirs is ambiguous, leaving open the possibility of American permanent
military bases in Iraq, something I hope does not occur. But the most
important thing that they did was to delete the last paragraph of this
amendment. In the last paragraph, we have asked for President Bush,
every 3 months, to report to the American people on scheduled changes
in Iraq: How many soldiers were to be trained to replace American
soldiers; how many policemen were to be prepared to provide for the
defense of and order in their country; what progress is being made when
it comes to basic human services, whether it is electricity, water,
employment, the guideposts that we use to determine whether we are
establishing a civil society, a stable society.
The Republicans accepted most of those, but they did not accept what
I consider to be one of the key paragraphs of the Democratic amendment.
That said: We expect a report from the President of a campaign plan
with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of the United States
Armed Forces from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding
that unexpected contingencies may occur.
That was critical because it says to the President and to the
administration: Let us start talking now about bringing our soldiers
home. We are not setting a date to cut and run, which the critics said,
but we are saying to the President: We have to take seriously the
161,000 Americans risking
[[Page S12819]]
their lives every single day, and many--sadly, too many--losing their
lives and being injured in the process.
It is interesting to me that this morning's news tells us that the
Iraqis are now saying to the British: You can start thinking about
going home now. That is great. I am glad they can. I am glad that they
will return to the safety of their families and their homes. Shouldn't
that same conversation be taking place about American troops, and
shouldn't the President be telling us that we are going to move forward
in a phased, orderly redeployment of our troops back home, as the
Iraqis take over responsibility of their own country?
That is what the Democrats offered. That is what the Republicans
refused. The vote came down. There were about 40 who voted for the
Democratic amendment. Then there was a following vote. That vote is
significant. It was a vote on the Warner-Frist amendment, an amendment
which was offered to the Defense authorization bill. It is true that it
was an amendment which was a cut-and-paste job on the original
Democratic amendment. I have in my hand the original amendment and the
changes that were made. It didn't go as far as I would like to have
gone. It didn't say American troops will not stay in Iraq indefinitely.
It didn't talk about the phased redeployment of American forces. But it
did say several important things that were included in the original
Democratic amendment.
It did say 2006 is a year of significant transition. It did serve
notice on the Iraqis that they have to accept responsibility for their
own fate and future. And significantly, this Republican amendment
called on their President in the White House to report to the American
people, on a quarterly basis, as to the progress being made in Iraq so
we can monitor whether the President truly has a plan that can lead to
success.
That is significant, maybe historic. The President's own party
overwhelmingly voted today for this amendment, an amendment which
started on the Democratic side but became bipartisan in the end, an
amendment which calls on this administration to be held more
accountable in terms of this war in Iraq.
Now, the President did something on Veterans Day which is unusual.
The President used Veterans Day, of all days, to make a political
speech. He criticized the Democrats who were not agreeing with his war
policy, on Veterans Day. I can tell you that I was back in my home
State of Illinois visiting communities with Veterans Day celebrations
in Carlysle, in Flora, and in Paris, IL. It didn't even cross my mind
to make a partisan speech. You don't do that on Veterans Day, for
goodness' sake. We don't ask our soldiers their political affiliation.
We don't designate on their tombstones what political party they
belonged to. Soldiers and veterans serve their country regardless of
political affiliation.
But the President used Veterans Day to raise a political issue, and
then flew to Alaska yesterday and repeated it, saying that his critics
are somehow undermining the morale of the troops and showing they don't
appreciate the contributions of the troops. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, whether you
voted for the war or against it, as I did--I have given this President
every single penny he has asked for for our troops. I have always
thought in the back of my mind if it were my son or my daughter in
uniform, I would want them to have everything they needed to be safe,
to come home with their mission truly accomplished. So for the
President to suggest that anyone who questions his foreign policy is
not respectful of our troops is just plain wrong.
It is up to us as policymakers to make critical decisions about the
policy of this country. But we have learned through bitter experience
that even if you disagree with the policy of this country, for
goodness' sake don't take it out on the troops and, I might say the
flip side of that, don't use the troops as a shield so that you don't
have to defend your own public policies. This administration has to
stand up to defend those policies for what they are.
So this amendment, with some changes, passed. And what does it say?
Well, the purpose of the amendment as it passed says to clarify and
recommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq. It is
significant. For those who said stay the course, make no changes, they
lost today. For those who wanted change on both sides of the aisle, we
prevailed. I think that is important. I think the national dialog is
going to change because of this vote. I sincerely hope it is a good-
faith effort. I hope it doesn't go into a conference committee and
disappear. I hope it is part of the Defense authorization bill
ultimately signed by the President.
There is another thing that concerns me as we get into this whole
debate, and that is this question about intelligence. You may recall
that when we decided to invade Iraq it was not just the decision to
invade that country but to change America's foreign policy. The Bush
administration, for the first time in our history, said we can no
longer afford a policy of defense. We can no longer say to the world,
If you attack us, we will attack you back tenfold. We have to be
preemptive, have a policy of preemption.
What is the difference? The difference is the President believes we
should be prepared to attack countries even before they attack or
threaten us. Well, that is a new course in American foreign policy and
one which is dangerous. It is dangerous if the information you are
receiving about potential threats and potential enemies is wrong. And
what happened when it came to the invasion of Iraq? Virtually all of
the intelligence was wrong.
It is true we knew Saddam Hussein was a dictator and a butcher and a
tyrant, that he had precipitated a war against Iran that went on for
years, claiming thousands of lives. We knew that he invaded Kuwait. All
of that was part of history. But before the invasion of Iraq we were
told by this administration that based on the intelligence that they
gathered, there were other compelling reasons for us not to wait for
the United Nations, not to wait for other allies, not to wait and
exhaust all possibilities but to move decisively and invade.
What were those reasons? Weapons of mass destruction, which we later
learned didn't exist; the possibility that Iraq was becoming a nuclear
power, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, mushroom clouds in
the Middle East and around the world from Saddam Hussein's nuclear
weapons; the aluminum tube controversy, evidence that they imported
aluminum tubes which the administration said was proof positive that
they were reinstituting, reconstituting their nuclear weapons program;
connections with Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden. It was
argued that
9/11 and Iraq were the same story.
All of these were given to us together with the assertion that
somehow the Iraqis were importing this yellow cake from Niger in Africa
to make nuclear weapons. We were told all these things to reach a high
level of intensity and anxiety to lead to an invasion of Iraq. We found
after the invasion virtually every single statement was false, was not
true.
We analyzed what the intelligence agencies did in the first phase of
our investigation and found utter failure. The agencies we most counted
on to tell us of threats against America and how we could defend
against them completely dropped the ball. I was part of the Senate
Intelligence Committee at the time, and I listened as our staff people
went over and reported to us about what they found at these
intelligence agencies.
In the ordinary course of events, before you invade a country there
is a very careful analysis of intelligence data. You just don't start a
war without looking at every possibility and understanding information
that has been collected.
Well, that National Intelligence Estimate was not even prepared when
the administration started talking about the invasion of Iraq. It was
ordered, prepared in a manner of 2 or 3 weeks, just a fraction of the
time usually required, and when we finally saw it in the Senate
Intelligence Committee, it was embarrassing. It was a report given to
us which really didn't carefully evaluate the intelligence data that
had been collected, and it is one of the reasons we made this colossal
error in judgment when it came to evaluating intelligence.
That was the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation. The
President has been saying repeatedly that
[[Page S12820]]
those who are critical of his decision to invade Iraq today had the
same intelligence he had, and so if he made a mistake, they made a
mistake, too. I disagree. The President of the United States receives
what is known as the daily briefing. Each day he sits down with
intelligence officials, including the head of the CIA and others at the
highest level, for a briefing about intelligence gathered around the
world and what the threat is to America on that given day. He has more
information than anyone, as he should, as President, as Commander in
Chief. By the time you come to Congress, that information has been
filtered and chopped and divided and diced and very little of it makes
it to Congress. Most of it comes to the Intelligence Committees. Then
it goes to the chairman, ranking member, and then down the chain less
information is given to members of the Senate Intelligence Committee
and even less to the regular rank-and-file Senators and Congressmen.
That is just the food chain, if you will, on intelligence data.
So for the President to suggest that Members of Congress had the same
information he did is just not factual. He is given much more
information. He was before Iraq; he is every single day given more
information. So if Members of the Senate relied on the President's
representation, the President's statement, the Vice President's
statement, and they were misled into it, it is because they believed
the President and Vice President had more information about it than
they did.
Now, I sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee shaking my head day
in and day out listening as the members of the administration would
debate issues like nuclear weapons. This is all unclassified now, but
there was a serious disagreement between the Department of Defense and
the Department of Energy as to what those aluminum tubes meant. The
Department of Energy said: We don't think they have anything to do with
nuclear weapons. The Department of Defense said: Oh, yes, they do. And
the two of them would have at it in front of us. Then I would walk
outside the Intelligence Committee room and hear Vice President Cheney
and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying aluminum tubes equal
nuclear weapons, and I am thinking to myself: They are not suggesting
there is a difference of opinion even in their own administration.
It was frustrating because serving on that Intelligence Committee I
could not discuss what was being debated in that room, but I knew in my
heart of hearts that many things being told to the American people were
just not backed up with sound, concrete evidence, and that is what is
at issue here.
We believe the American people deserve the truth, and the truth comes
down to this: The Senate Intelligence Committee promised us over 20
months ago that they would do a thorough investigation to see if any
elected official made a statement about the situation in Iraq that
could not be substantiated with background intelligence. In other
words, did any elected official in this administration, or even in this
Congress, deliberately or recklessly mislead the American people?
Is that important? It could not be more important. I cannot think of
a greater abuse of power in a democracy than to mislead the people into
a war, and to ask the people of a country to offer up the people they
love--their sons, their daughters, their husbands, their wives, their
friends and their relatives--in defense of the facts.
That is what this investigation is about. We have been waiting 20
months, 20 months for it to take place. I don't know what it will find.
There is certainly a lot of questions that need to be asked and
answered about statements made by members of the administration. But as
of today, we still don't know. We are not certain as to whether that
investigation will take place.
I would like to know why, on February 7, 2003, Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld told the U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy:
It is unknowable how long that conflict in Iraq will last.
It could last 6 days, 6 weeks. I doubt 6 months.
Secretary Rumsfeld, February 2003. That was over 2\1/2\ years ago.
The Defense Secretary was not just overly optimistic, he was profoundly
wrong. His failure to plan for the conflict that could last years and
not weeks has had tragic consequences.
On my first visit to Walter Reed Hospital to visit a soldier whose
leg had been amputated, who was from an Ohio Guard unit I asked: What
happened?
Well, I was in one of those humvees, Senator. It didn't have any
armor plating on either side, and one of those homemade bombs went off
and blew off my leg.
Were we ready? Did we have a plan to win, to protect that soldier and
others? Clearly not. It was not until recently, and all of our findings
after 3 years they finally had the armor plating they needed.
On May 1, 2003, that banner on the aircraft carrier proclaimed that
the Iraqi mission was accomplished and President Bush landed on the
carrier and celebrated the end of the war.
Tragically, at that time the real war was just beginning. Of those
Americans who paid with their lives in this war, only 140 were killed
during the phase the President called major combat. We have lost almost
2,000 since then. That means 93 percent of our troops who have been
killed in Iraq died after Saddam Hussein was overthrown and his army
defeated and since that banner was displayed on that aircraft carrier.
Last May, Vice President Cheney said the Iraqi insurgency was in its
death throes. Well, I can tell you, as we see the casualty reports
coming from Iraq, it is clear that the insurgency is not in its death
throes. I truly wish it were. Our generals don't agree with that
statement. I do not understand what the Vice President used as his
basis for making it.
There is one other element I would like to raise which is
contemporary, timely, and troubling. For the last week we have had a
visit by a foreign Head of State. His name is Ahmed Chalabi. Mr.
Chalabi is rather well-known in Washington circles. For years and years
he was an Iraqi expatriate who was critical of Saddam Hussein, and he
created an Iraqi national congress organization of defectors and those
who felt as he did that Hussein should be replaced. That is a good
thing. I don't know of anyone who was applauding Hussein in those
years, and certainly Chalabi was on the right track in that area.
He ingratiated himself to some of the leaders in this administration,
people making policy in this administration, and became, sadly, a
source of information. I say ``sadly'' because we have come to learn
that much of the information given by Mr. Chalabi to members of our
administration turned out to be just plain wrong.
Ahmed Chalabi helped weave a web of deceit about what turned out to
be nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He helped provide
the infamous and aptly named source known as ``Curveball,'' who
fabricated information about biological weapons labs. This information
became a cornerstone, sadly, of Secretary of State Colin Powell's
speech and slide show to the United Nations, and it turned out to be
all wrong. I suspect that in his decades of distinguished service to
the United States there are very few moments that Secretary Powell
regrets more than being led into repeating some of these assertions by
Ahmed Chalabi and his followers. Chalabi seems to have no such regrets.
I took a look at Mr. Chalabi, who was confronted recently. It was in
February of last year, as a matter of fact. He was confronted with the
fact that many of the things he told the United States about Iraq
turned out to be false, completely false. And here is what they wrote
in this article on February 19 of 2004 in the London Telegraph:
Mr. Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist
in Washington, shrugged off charges that he deliberately
misled U.S. intelligence. ``We are heroes in error,'' he told
the Telegraph in Baghdad.
He goes on to say, and I quote Mr. Chalabi:
As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful.
That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad.
What was said before is not important. The Bush
administration is looking for a scapegoat. We are ready to
fall on our swords, if he wants.
Unrepentant, giving bad information to the American Government, which
it followed in planning this invasion of Iraq. Ahmed Chalabi, no
regrets. He achieved what he wanted to achieve: Saddam Hussein is gone.
The Americans are in Baghdad. The fact that the
[[Page S12821]]
American people were misled obviously does not trouble him, but it
should trouble others.
What about Mr. Chalabi today? He has a title. He is Deputy Prime
Minister in Iraq, and he received a hero's welcome from this
administration over the last 7 days.
The other part of this story I haven't mentioned is that on May 20 of
last year, the Iraqi security forces raided Mr. Chalabi's home in Iraq,
seizing documents and other evidence, and charging him with having sold
American secrets to Iran, one of the countries in President Bush's axis
of evil, a code that could have endangered American troops and American
security.
That is a high crime, as far as I am concerned, the kind of thing
which no one can excuse or overlook. In fact, the FBI initiated an
investigation of Chalabi for selling or giving those secrets to Iran,
and twice last week the FBI told us it was a continuing active
investigation. It is ironic they told us that while Mr. Chalabi was the
toast of the town in Washington, moving from one Cabinet official to
another, from Treasury Secretary Snow to Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, where he was greeted as warmly as a dignitary from overseas, and
then going to visit with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and
finally, of course, with Vice President Cheney.
This man under active investigation by the FBI was being warmly
received as a Head of State in these agencies. Why, one might ask,
isn't the FBI doing its job? Why aren't they calling him in for
information, whether he sold secrets that could have endangered
American lives? Mr. Chalabi is no hero to me. He seems to be one to
some members of the Bush administration. This is a man who should not
be treated like a hero. He ought to be treated like a suspect. That is
what the FBI said he was last week. The fact he is being vetted by
high-ranking officials rather than being questioned by the FBI speaks
volumes. Mr. Chalabi went on to say when he was asked about this during
his visit to Washington:
As far as we're concerned, we have been entirely
successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and Americans are in
Baghdad.
He said: Let's look to the future. Let's not look to the past.
I think it is clear, as the New York Times editorial stated on
November 10, 2005:
Mr. Chalabi is not just any political opportunist. He more
than any other Iraqi is responsible for encouraging the Bush
administration to make two disastrous mistakes on the Iraqi
intervention. Basing its justification for war on the false
premise that Saddam Hussein had active unconventional weapons
programs and falsely imagining that the Iraqi people would
greet the invasion with undiluted joy.
Even after the invasion when people were beginning to ask where are
these weapons of mass destruction, Chalabi insisted the U.S. forces
were simply in the wrong places and asking the wrong people.
In spite of all these transgressions, Mr. Chalabi is being warmly
received by this administration.
Mr. President, I know Senator Stevens is on the floor to deliver a
eulogy for our former Sergeant at Arms, and in deference to him and his
purpose for coming----
Mr. STEVENS. No, I am not going to deliver a eulogy.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will close and give the floor to Senator
Stevens for whatever purpose brings him here.
We believe what happened on the floor of the Senate is significant.
We said there must be a change of course in Iraq; we cannot continue.
This failed policy brought us to this point. We owe it to our
servicemen and their families and the American people to have a plan
for success that will bring stability to Iraq on a timely basis, give
them responsibility for their own future, and start to bring American
troops home.
Our critics say we want to cut and run. No, we want to stop the loss
of life by Americans in Iraq. We want to make sure the Iraqis know it
is their responsibility for their future.
I certainly believe, as others do, that someone such as Ahmed Chalabi
is one of the reasons we made fatal errors in the beginning of this
invasion of Iraq. He should not be treated as a hero. I didn't vote for
this war. In the fall of 2002 when we were debating use of force, I
offered an amendment to defend the United States from an imminent
attack by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. That amendment got to the
heart of the matter with the intelligence of weapons of mass
destruction so cloudy. It would have raised the threshold for war. It
failed.
Now we have to move forward making certain that we keep in mind first
and foremost our commitment to our troops and our commitment to our
mission. This is a historic vote today with the adoption of the
Democratic amendment as changed by Senators Warner and Frist. I
sincerely hope this vote will mean a change in policy to bring our
troops home safely.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his
courtesy. I do intend to attend the ceremony to eulogize the former
Sergeant at Arms of the Senate.
(The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 2012
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Republican-controlled time on the Commerce-Justice-Science
appropriations conference report be reserved for later in the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
War On Terror
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I was just across the way in my office
working on several things that I think are important to the country. We
were working on a bill to stop the increases in taxes that will occur
unless we act immediately. This is another bill that the Democrats are
trying to obstruct, but it is critically important that we pass this
stop-the-tax-increase bill in order to keep our economy growing and to
keep creating jobs in this country.
I was also working in my office, with some of my staff, on some of
the things we can do to move this country more toward energy
independence. But I kept listening to my distinguished Democrat
colleague from Illinois and heard him talking about our President and
this war. The more I listened, the more frustrated I became. As a
matter of fact, I would have to say I became very angry because what I
was hearing was baseless accusations and shameless criticisms, things
that were said that I think diminish the Senate as an institution,
which I feel must be refuted.
I am afraid that my Democratic colleagues are playing the war on
terror similar to a political game. It is a dangerous game that
endangers our troops, and it is a dangerous game that the Democrats
have played before. Over the last 25 years, terrorist attacks in this
country and around the world have increased. During the Clinton
administration, Americans were killed in our embassies, on our warships
and even in New York City when the World Trade Center was attacked by
terrorists. From the Democrats and the Clinton administration, there
was a lot of talk, but there was no action. It was all left to the next
President to deal with. Instead of dealing with it in a way that would
help secure our future, the Clinton administration instead decimated
our intelligence network with politically correct ideas that greatly
reduced our ability to gather intelligence in difficult places around
the world. John Deutsch, President Clinton's Director of the CIA
created rules that hurt our intelligence community's ability to gather
human intelligence.
Now my Democrat colleagues accuse President Bush of using poor
intelligence to do what they said needed to be done before he was even
elected President.
In 1998, with President Clinton's leadership, we supported regime
change in Iraq. This was something that was determined as a national
policy years before President Bush took office. There are some reasons
we did this. Saddam Hussein had demonstrated that he was a danger to
civilization years before
9/11. He not only attacked Kuwait and tried to assassinate an American
President, he committed mass murder all over his country using weapons
of mass destruction. He was a deadly killer.
[[Page S12822]]
He supported terrorism in other countries. If a terrorist in Israel
blew himself up and killed Israelis, the family of that terrorist would
receive a check from Saddam Hussein.
To suggest that Iraq was not supporting terrorists is not true.
Saddam Hussein, as part of the original gulf war settlement, agreed to
document and prove the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction,
which he acknowledged he had. But he did not disarm. He did not
document the destruction. The inspectors had to play a cat-and-mouse
game with him. The world did not know what Saddam Hussein had. Our
decimated intelligence network had to guess whether he had them.
President Bush made the only decision he could.
Knowing the history of Saddam Hussein, having a national policy that
was written by the Democrats to remove him from power, he made a
decision to take action instead of talking about it. The justification
for removing Saddam Hussein from power happened before President Bush
was elected and had been supported by Democrats. But now they come down
to the Senate floor and suggest that because the President had some bad
information that he rushed us to war. In fact, leaving Saddam Hussein
in power would not have been acceptable to any administration that
looked at the facts.
This country cannot allow murderous dictators who have attacked our
allies, threatened civilians and destabilized the Middle East to stay
in power.
Now we have Democrats, whose attitude basically embolden terrorists
for a decade during the 1990s by talking but not doing, on the Senate
floor attacking our President for doing what we knew had to be done.
But this is the Democrat pattern. They say anything, but they do
nothing.
We are dealing with a serious energy situation in this country today,
but for the last decade they have obstructed any development of our own
domestic energy supplies. Now they are on the floor blaming President
Bush for the high energy prices, while the President and the Republican
Congress have managed, despite the Democratic obstruction, to pass an
Energy bill that will move us toward energy independence.
The Democrats are on the floor often complaining about American job
losses, but when we try to pass legislation that improves the business
climate in this country, they obstruct. They obstructed passing our
elimination of junk lawsuits and the elimination of fraudulent
bankruptcies. They tried to stop that, voting en bloc against it. But
the President and the Republicans have been able to pass that and move
us along.
There are a whole list of things that Republicans, with the
President's leadership, have done from the Energy bill, to class action
and bankruptcy reform. We have passed a budget that reduced the growth
in spending. We have passed a number of things that improve vocational
training. There is a huge list.
On the back side of this list is what America needs to know about:
The Democrat agenda, of which they have none. The reason they are
misleading the American people about our President and the importance
of winning the war on terror is they have no agenda. They are not
willing to step out and take any leadership on any issue. So all they
do is obstruct, attack, distort, and complain with their ``do nothing''
agenda.
It is hard for some of us, as we try to go about our work, to move
America forward and address the difficult problems of today and create
more opportunities for tomorrow, when we have to carry a concrete block
we call the Democrat Party. But when they go across the line and start
misleading America about the importance of this war on terror and
treating it akin to some kind of political game, when we and our
children and future generations are in danger, as is the rest of the
world. As we see almost every day, this war on terror is real--we
cannot treat it as some kind of silly political debate where they are
trying to give the Commander in Chief of this country a time line as to
when our troops need to go home. It is like they have not bothered to
go to Iraq themselves and meet with the troops, as I have had the
chance to do twice this year, and talk with the generals. The President
has met every deadline he set for elections, to approve the
constitution, and we are moving exactly as he said we would move, to
turn more of the defense of that country over to their military. That
is happening. They are opening businesses, schools, and hospitals, and
we are helping them along the way. When we get them to the point where
they can defend themselves, the President will bring our troops home,
but continue to stand firm against terror, wherever it exists around
the world.
This is not a game. Terror is a real enemy, and many Americans have
already died because we did not take the war on terror seriously. It is
time to take it seriously and to stop playing political games with the
most important issue of our generation.
I do not think we as a Nation should ever yield to terror or the type
of rhetoric we have had to listen to today.
Mr. DeMINT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Defense Authorization Bill
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about the events
this morning, the votes we had prior to our adoption of the Defense
Department authorization bill, particularly on the Frist, Warner, and
Levin amendments, and try to put this in some context.
First of all, I think we would all agree that our young men and women
in uniform who are fighting for freedom's cause in Iraq and Afghanistan
and elsewhere are doing a magnificent job, one that they have
volunteered to do since we no longer have had the draft. Only people
who want to be in our military join our military. Certainly we have
nothing but honor and respect for those who put themselves in harm's
way in order to make us safer and, beyond that, to engage in the noble
cause of delivering the blessings of liberty to those who have known
nothing more than the boot heel of a tyrant, as 25 million or so have
in Iraq, and those who lived under the Taliban--a similar number--where
al-Qaida trained, recruited, and exported its terror in Afghanistan
before we were able to turn both of those countries toward the path of
democracy and self-determination as peaceful states.
I regret that this war in which we are engaged, the global war on
terror, with its central front being in Iraq today, has become such a
political football. Unfortunately, we see it is just too tempting a
target to partisans, some partisans, to try to engage in revisionist
history in order to score political points or, as we have seen this
morning, an attempt to impose an arbitrary deadline on the withdrawal
of our troops in a way that would jeopardize everything that we have
invested in terms of our young men and women, the lives lost, the
injuries sustained, and the treasure we have invested in an effort to
try to restore Iraq to a self-governing democracy.
I wish to be clear that I am not questioning the patriotism of those
who supported this arbitrary timetable for withdrawal in voting for the
Levin amendment, but I am questioning their judgment. I think it is
simply too important for us to engage in the partisan push and shove
here on the floor of the Senate when there is so much at stake. To me
it seems clear that a vote on the Levin amendment today was a
bipartisan rejection of an artificial timetable for withdrawal.
I have already seen some of the Web sites and even fundraising
appeals that have taken place ever since these amendments were voted
on. That is the kind of world we live in here in Washington, inside
this big fishbowl where politics sometimes overtakes people's common
sense or sense of duty. This clearly was not a Democrat victory, to
change Iraq policy as some have already suggested, the spin doctors,
those who attempt to spin the message of what happens here on the floor
for some partisan advantage. I regret that some are attempting to use
this message for political gain. This should not
[[Page S12823]]
be about whether Republicans have scored points or whether Democrats
have scored points. Rather, this should be about our military strategy
on the ground in Iraq that is being implemented as we speak to restore
Iraq to a self-governing democracy.
How are we doing that? By a three-pronged plan that, No. 1, says we
need to train the Iraqis to provide the security necessary so democracy
can flourish; No. 2, to build basic infrastructure so the quality of
life in Iraq is such that people feel they have a stake in the outcome,
the success of this new democracy; and No. 3, to build democratic
institutions, beginning with the passage of a constitution on October
15 and now leading up to election of their permanent government on
December 15.
The people of Iraq have been through a lot in these last years. They
have been through, even since the fall of Saddam, a lot of turmoil
since government after government has been created in this transition
to permanent self-government. It is a shame, it seems to me, that there
are those who would call for an artificial deadline for withdrawal,
unfortunately to try to generate public opinion in a way that breaks
our resolve and increases the likelihood that we will leave before we
get the job done.
I am grateful that a bipartisan majority of the Senate rejected that
artificial timetable for withdrawal and made a commitment, as I see it,
to stay and get the job done until Iraq gets back on its feet and has a
reasonable chance of succeeding as a peaceful and democratic country.
Last week, our country celebrated Veterans Day, last Friday, the day
we set aside each year to honor the bravery and the sacrifice of our
men and women in uniform who serve our country. I had the chance, as
did many of us, to return to my home State. I returned to Texas. I went
to a ceremony at the Brazos Valley Veterans Memorial to honor these
brave men and women. I have must say, I was struck once again at the
great chasm that seems to separate the rest of America from the echo
chamber here inside the beltway in Washington, DC. I was reminded of
the differences in perception of what it is we are about and the
obligation we have to support those men and women in uniform who are
fighting for what we believe in. We know they are fighting for what
they believe in, and they do so even when the going gets tough. They do
not cut and run when it becomes politically expedient to do so.
I had the chance to look across that audience. We had a large
collection of World War II vets, people like my dad who flew in the
Army Air Corps out of Molesworth, England, flying a B-17. Ultimately he
was shot down and captured and spent 4 months in a German prison camp
before General Patton and his colleagues came along and liberated him
and his fellow POWs. But as I looked across that audience, I saw people
like my dad, a generation that is certainly getting older and
unfortunately leaving us at a relatively rapid pace. There were those
present who had previously served, and there were some there who
currently are serving. There were family members of loved ones who are
now overseas and families of those who had paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Although the circumstances differed from person to person there in
that audience, they all had several profound things in common. I don't
know that I could tell you that every single person at that veterans
event was in complete agreement with the decision of this President or
this Congress to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein,
but what I can tell you is that these people were all patriots. They
support our troops 100 percent, and they support the ideals upon which
our country was founded 100 percent. They know the contributions of our
troops represent the Iraqi people's best hope for freedom and for
democracy.
So while there may be some here in Washington--in fact, there are--
who, of course, criticize what we are about and armchair generals who
want to direct our combatant commanders and those who actually have the
responsibility of conducting our national security and national defense
operations, I thought it appropriate to point out that even though
there are those who dramatically undervalue our efforts in Iraq, there
is a huge chasm, it seemed to me, between what I saw there in Bryan-
College Station at the Brazos Valley Veterans Memorial Friday night and
what I hear argued in the halls of the U.S. Congress, including this
morning. I am glad to report the obvious to all of us who live and
represent constituencies around the country, that patriotism is alive
and well, and our fellow citizens realize that we must continue to
support our men and women in uniform in their brave and selfless and
noble efforts.
I have come to this Chamber several times during the past few weeks
to speak about the situation in Iraq and to do my small part in
refuting the false charges by some partisans that the administration
has manipulated intelligence in the lead-up to the war. I wish to
reiterate my view that we must not let the politics of the moment
undermine the path to democracy in Iraq. Such a decision, such yielding
to such a temptation would be incredibly shortsighted considering how
much has been accomplished in a relatively short period of time and how
dear our investment has been, both in terms of the lives lost and the
money the American taxpayer has committed to this noble effort. We must
stay the course in Iraq.
If our troops were to leave prematurely, what would happen? It is
likely that the country would collapse into chaos. Terrorists such as
Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's No. 2 operative and Osama bin Laden's
deputy, and Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida's chief terrorist in Iraq
and the one principally responsible for the terrorist attacks we saw
last week in Jordan at the wedding reception that killed other innocent
civilians--these are individuals who vowed to destroy America and
everyone who stands in their way in their attempt to seize power.
A letter from Zawahiri and Zarqawi makes this threat exceedingly
clear. If there is any doubt about who our enemy is and what their
goals are--on which there should not be after September 11--all one
needs to do is read this letter. It is easily available to anyone who
wants to read it. It is found in full on the Web site of the Director
of National Intelligence. That is www.dni.gov. In that letter, Zawahiri
clearly describes al-Qaida's vision to establish an Islamic caliphate
that would rule the Middle East, destroy Israel, and threaten the very
existence of our way of life.
The consequences of a United States pullout from Iraq should not be
in question, either. In this letter, Zawahiri tells Zarqawi that when
the United States leaves Iraq, al-Qaida must be prepared to claim the
most political territory possible in the inevitable vacuum of power
that would arise.
Yes, that is right; a premature withdrawal of our troops from Iraq
would create a safe haven for al-Qaida. Iraq would be more dangerous--
not less--if we fail to finish the job. An early arbitrary withdrawal
from Iraq would empower and embolden the sworn enemies of America and,
indeed, all civilization and anybody who disagreed with them. Failure
to stay the course and continuing to lay the foundations of a
functioning democracy would result in more--not less--terrorist
attacks.
Let me say that again because there are actually some who make the
specious argument that our very presence in Iraq results in more
terrorist attacks. But the failure to stay the course, the failure to
finish the job that we started in Iraq, and to continue to lay the
foundations of a functioning democracy, would result in more--not
less--terrorist attacks.
This letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi makes that clear. Once they see
America leave Iraq, once they fill the vacuum that exists, that is
where they would continue to train, that is where they would continue
to recruit, and that is where they would continue to export terror.
Anyone who believes there would not be a greater probability of our
sustaining another 9/11 on our own soil is kidding themselves.
Some of the administration's critics are now arguing, as we heard
this morning, for a timetable to withdraw from Iraq. Their actions are
nothing more than an attempt to gain the attention of a concerned
nation for political advantage rather than a serious strategy for
victory. Armchair generals in Washington, DC, are hardly in a position
to know what is the best military strategy in Iraq. We ought to listen
to our combatant commanders,
[[Page S12824]]
such as General Abizaid, the CENTCOM commander, and General Casey, who
is in charge of coalition forces in Iraq. They have told us we have to
finish the job, that we can finish the job, that there is no military
on the face of the Earth that can defeat the United States of America;
that the only one who can defeat the United States of America is the
United States itself--by losing our resolve, by prematurely
withdrawing, by cutting and running, and leaving the Iraqis to fend for
themselves in what would surely descend into chaos.
Our withdrawal from Iraq should be determined by the military
commanders on the ground and our Commander in Chief. All of us who have
been to Iraq to visit our troops on the ground are confident that over
time the 210,000 or so Iraqis who have now been trained to provide
security for their own people sooner or later will be able to take this
job upon themselves and we can begin to gradually, as circumstances
dictate on the ground, bring our troops home.
Do all of us wish our troops could come home sooner rather than
later? You bet we do. We want them to come home as soon as we can get
them home, consistent with our duty to finish the job we started in
Iraq. But we should not under any circumstance impose an arbitrary
timetable on our forces, signaling weakness to our enemy, emboldening
them to stay with their strategy because it must be working, and we
must keep going even though it is tough. Our troops in Iraq are
committed to victory.
I mentioned the chasm that separates Washington, DC, and these
Chambers from the rest of America when it comes to the perception of
what we are about in Iraq and the fight for freedom's cause. There is
also a huge difference when you travel to Iraq and talk to our troops.
They wonder at some of the news reports and some of the
politicalization of what they are about, that they aren't confused
about their job, they aren't confused about the nobility of their cause
and the importance of what they are about. Our troops in Iraq are
committed to victory. I hope our elected officials would show the same
resolve here at home.
As every one of our military personnel in Iraq understands, Americans
do not cut and run, Americans do not abandon their commitments, and
Americans do not abandon their friends.
We must remember that it is in the absence of democracy, in the
absence of the rule of law that extremism appears. When the rule of law
is implemented, when people have a forum by which to redress their
grievances as we do in democratic circumstances, this is when the
radical ideologues are stifled and even extinguished.
We have to remember how far the Iraqi people have come in such a
relatively short time--from a time when they were ruled by a dictator
who cared nothing for human life and who used weapons of mass
destruction on his own people. I have seen, as have others in this
body, the mass graves where at last count at least 400,000 Iraqis lie
dead because of the ruthlessness of this blood-thirsty dictator. It was
only 2 short years ago that the people of Iraq were oppressed by this
brutal dictator. Those who privately yearned for freedom kept silent
out of fear for their lives and the lives of their family and other
loved ones. But that is no longer the case.
We have seen and continue to see that our strategy is working. The
Iraqi people will vote in elections next month. I make a prediction
that their turnout in these elections will be broad-based, across all
the sects in Iraq, and their turnout will exceed the turnout we see in
this country in our national elections. We saw that happen with, I
believe, the 63-percent turnout in the vote to ratify the Constitution.
It now appears that the Sunnis, many of whom boycotted that election,
will finally participate in full force in electing their first leaders
in a permanent government.
I hope the Members of this body who yield to the temptation to
politicize this issue realize their remarks run the real risk of not
only dividing Americans but undermining the resolve for the important
task we have at hand, and devalue the sacrifice of our brave men and
women in uniform and the noble cause they are about.
I yield the floor.
____________________