Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act, 2004-Continued

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN SECURITY AND RECONSTRUCTION, 2004—CONTINUED

AMENDMENT NO. 1805

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Madam President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I think it is very important, as we deal with the Iraqi situation, for us to address as many issues as we can about the nature of how this is going to unfold. The President has asked for $87 billion. I am glad to support the funding. Most of it, two-thirds of it, I guess, goes to the men and women in uniform to make sure they have the assets necessary to protect themselves and do their job.

This resolution speaks to the idea of when the mission is complete, and this resolution addresses the French position. The French have proposed as recently as September 16 that within a month—a matter of 1 month and no later than 2—all authority be turned over to the Iraqi people and that the umbrella we have today cease to exist.

Not only is this irresponsible but the Coalition Provisional Authority ruling the country is a necessary entity until we can get a constitution written, voted on, and a government elected. But if we did what the French are suggesting, we would take a country that has been brutalized and raped—literally and figuratively—with Saddam Hussein still on the loose, and basically say, Here.

I think that would not only be a disservice to the Iraqi people but it would undermine the reason we went to war to begin with; that is, to take tyranny and turn it into stability.

This sense-of-the-Senate resolution says in no uncertain terms that it would be irresponsible to follow the French proposition—to turn back over to the Iraqi people the country while it is still in transition. In going from tyranny to stability, there will be a certain amount of chaos.

We are training the Iraqi police. We are training the army. They are having elections at the local level. There are a lot of good things going on. Schools are now open. Schools used to house weapons. Now they are housing kids. No young girl has to worry about being taken out of school and taken to one of Saddam's sons because she strikes his eye.

Iraq is a better place. But the French position of just leaving and turning it over within 30 days would undo the recent accomplishments. It is irresponsible.

I think it would be in order for the Senate to speak on this matter. The United Nations rejected an amendment that set a hard and fast deadline in terms of when control will be given to the Iraqi people. This makes good sense. Let us give them a chance to write a constitution, give them a chance to ratify a constitution, give them a chance to have a national election, get some infrastructure in place, and allow the rule of law to be in place. Then, at the appropriate time, we will be glad when it comes time to leave Iraq. Most Americans who have family members in the military can't wait for that day to come. We can't wait to be able to bring our troops back home.

Having said that, most Americans understand that if you leave before the job is done, the problems will come back to haunt you. After September 11, the easy way out is no longer the right way—to shoot a missile or two and say, Boy, did we deal with that group which led to 9/11.

There are people who are infiltrating Iraq who are trying to destabilize the efforts of the Iraqi people to become a free democracy. There are people in the region who hate the idea that Iraq may be a free country with a democratic system. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Iraqi people and fight those forces, not only for the good of the Iraqi people but for our own security.

This resolution I think is very appropriately timed. The United Nations has rejected the hard and fast deadline. This resolution basically says we are going to stay until the country is stable, we are going to stay until the job is done.
Having said that—by making that statement—it means more Americans are going to die. The forces in Iraq are small in terms of the population as a whole, but they are committed to creating chaos.

It breaks my heart—and every Member of this body and all Americans—to have a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine lost in this conflict. But just as surely as I speak, losses will come and more money will be spent. The day has not yet arrived when we can, in good faith and good conscience, turn all matters over to the Iraqi people. They need help. They need money. They need assistance. They need our support. But we need to do it for ourselves. If we cut and run, and if we take the French position to get out of there before the infrastructure is in place, we will take one form of tyranny and replace it with another. It is an irresponsible position.

I hope this body in a unanimous fashion will agree with the proposition that we should not leave Iraq until the job is done—until a constitution is written and ratified, until a government has been elected and the people have a chance to have a secure environment for their new nation that is emerging out of the ashes of Saddam Hussein's regime.

I ask my colleagues to support this resolution saying we will not leave until the job is done. Leaving in the next month is irresponsible. Reject the French position because the French position is irresponsible and undermines our national security.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 1806, AS MODIFIED

Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I hope this sense-of-the-Senate resolution will pass unanimously.

The purpose of this resolution is to try to put in perspective what has been achieved by Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have suffered greatly in this country. The Iraqi people have suffered. We have lost soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. We have spent a lot of money, but I argue that we are much more secure as a nation; that there is one less dictator in the world to help terrorists; and that dispensing with Saddam Hussein's regime has been of particular benefit to our Nation, the region, and the world.

But there is one nation where this has made a dramatic difference. That is the State of Israel. This resolution says in very simple and strong terms that disposing of the Saddam Hussein government has made the State of Israel a more secure place.
Why do we say that? During Saddam Hussein's period of ruling, he paid suicide bombers, homicide bombers, in Palestine money, and families of suicide and homicide bombers, to go in and kill innocent Israeli citizens. So when he left, there is one less person to fund people who are trying to destroy peace.

Israel and the Palestinian people deserve to live side by side in peace with two independent states. Saddam Hussein was providing money to people, the Arab Liberation Front, whose goal was to put Israel in the sea.

There is an element of people in that region who don't want to make peace with Israel. They want to destroy the State of Israel. Saddam Hussein made that possibility more likely by providing aid and comfort and money. So when we took Saddam Hussein out, we made Israel more secure. That is a good thing. I hope the Senate will join in unanimous support of that concept.

The government under Saddam Hussein gave money to the master mind of the hijacking of the Achille Lauro. The government of Saddam Hussein launched 39 Scud missile attacks against the State of Israel. People debate, should we have done it? Was it worth it? I argue strongly that it was worth it, not only for us but for the State of Israel. The men and women who have died to replace Saddam Hussein have died to make the world more secure. It is heartbreaking to lose soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, but one of the reasons we have a military is to protect ourselves and our allies.

Every now and then in history people such as Saddam Hussein crop up. If they are left alone, innocent people die unnecessarily. If they are left alone, the forces of evil become stronger.

I admire our President who chose to stand up to Saddam Hussein. For over 12 years he has violated every effort to rein him in. Force was necessary. Force was costly. But the benefits of that force have made the region safer, made the Iraqi people free for the first time in decades, and made the State of Israel a more secure place to live. Israel has been a good ally. I would ask all of my colleagues, if at all possible, to legitimize Operation Iraqi Freedom in terms of making Israel more secure because to say otherwise would be an untruth. Let it be said that the men and women who sacrificed to make the Iraqi people free have sacrificed in a way to make people in Israel and our own country safer, more secure, and their hopes and dreams maybe will be realized.

I ask for the yeas and nays. Senator McConnell would like to speak on the measure, and I ask unanimous consent to make him a cosponsor of the amendment.