Senator Jim Jeffords (I) Statement on $87 Billion Iraq Spending Bill
Statements of Senator Jim Jeffords on $87 Billion Iraq Supplemental Bill
October 17, 2003
"This bill gives the President yet another blank check to pay for an unnecessary and unwarranted war. We have yet to see a detailed plan for how this Administration plans to win the peace in Iraq and bring our troops home. A year ago, Congress gave the president unchecked power to go to war. I voted against doing so then, and today I voted against this bill because there is little evidence that it will bring peace and stability to Iraq."
"As a former U.S. Navy officer, I know firsthand the importance of supporting our troops and I have great respect and admiration for their efforts. However, supporting this legislation would be a disservice to the men and women in our military, and to the broader American public."
----------
Floor Statement by Senator James M. Jeffords
Mr. President:
It is with great frustration that I come here today to address the President's request for an additional $87 billion to pay for the war in Iraq and to confront the aftermath of this conflict.
One year ago, I addressed this body, arguing against the notion that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. I feared that the administration's single-minded obsession with Iraq would cost American lives, poison our relations around the world, divert resources from the real war on terror, and deal a crippling blow to critical domestic needs. I pleaded with the administration to work with the international community to address the Iraqi problem in a cooperative manner. I urged my colleagues not to grant the President a blank check to launch a reckless, unilateral, preemptive attack against Iraq.
Those words fell on deaf ears. The President got his blank check and we now have to deal with the consequences. While the military campaign in Iraq was predictably swift and effective, the aftermath is a mess. It is now obvious that there was a shameful lack of planning for anything beyond the initial war, leaving us in a much worse position than predicted. Our military is suffering daily losses. The Iraqi population is increasingly restive and hostile. Terrorists are flowing into the region, eager to take a shot at American forces and undermine our reconstruction efforts. Longtime allies are so put off by the administration's arrogant approach to this war that they are reluctant to lend a hand when we, and the people of Iraq, so clearly need the assistance.
Through it all, the administration has refused to give straight answers to the Congress or the American people. It has misrepresented intelligence on the threat posed by Iraq. It has dodged the issue of how much the war and Iraq's reconstruction will cost. And it has refused to provide Congress with a detailed plan for post-war political and economic reconstruction.
Now the President is back before the Congress, asking for what I believe amounts to another blank check. Our economy is in dire straits. Our schools are woefully underfunded. Millions of Americans are seeking work, and many have given up trying. The number of people without health insurance is soaring. This nation's budget deficit is spiraling out of control, in no small part because of huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans pushed through by this administration. Nevertheless, while the President seeks to reduce funding for pressing needs at home, he urges the Congress to quickly pass his $87 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just like a year ago, we are presented with incomplete plans for how the money will be spent. We have not been provided with detailed information on steps the administration is taking to involve the international community in the reconstruction effort. Moreover, we are treated to blank stares when we seek concrete answers on how much more this occupation and reconstruction will cost and how long our men and women will be stationed on the ground in Iraq.
Ambassador Bremer testified recently concerning the administration's plan for rebuilding Iraq. This plan is striking in its failure to address the most critical issues. It is silent on the size of the U.S. troop commitment, a timetable for the return of U.S. troops, the financial or troop contributions we might expect from other nations, and the short-term and long-term costs associated with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Beyond that, the plan makes assumptions that are so unduly optimistic that they call into question the credibility of other key elements of the plan. For example, the plan assumes that U.S. forces will defeat internal armed threats and deter external aggression and subversion by the end of October. That's two weeks from now! Anyone who reads a newspaper or watches TV would have difficulty believing this will happen. This plan seems based upon the notion that merely opening the spigot of taxpayer dollars will ultimately overcome whatever shortcomings may exist in our policies toward Iraq.
We have it in our power to do something about this situation. This Senate must demand answers to these critical questions. It has learned the hard way the consequences of granting this administration a blank check in Iraq. Enough is enough. Additional funding for Iraq should be withheld until the administration develops and presents a comprehensive, credible plan that details how the money will be spent, how the administration plans to broaden the international involvement in reconstructing Iraq, how much more this operation will cost, and when our military men and women will come home to their families. We owe at least that much to the American people. And we owe it to our brave forces on the ground in Iraq.
As a former officer in the U.S. Navy, I know firsthand the importance of supporting our troops and have great respect and admiration for their efforts. On the whole, American military personnel have done an outstanding job of providing leadership and direction in countless Iraqi communities in the wake of the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. Our officer corps has received widespread praise for their wise and humane conduct in a role for which they received little preparation. I am proud of many Vermonters' unsung acts of bravery, leadership and humanity. Rear Admiral Barry Costello of Rutland, Vermont, served with distinction and played a pivotal role in Operation Iraqi Freedom as the Commander of the U.S.S. Constellation battle group. But Vermont has also suffered great loses. We grieve for Mark Evnin of South Burlington, Eric Halverson of Bennington, Kyle Gilbert of Brattleboro, and Justin Garvey of Proctor, Vermont. My heart goes out to their families. They are but four of over 350 American troops killed since the war began.
We cannot continue to accept such losses. We need to make decisions that will help our troops in the long run. It is our job to ensure that scarce resources are being spent wisely, and it is our responsibility to demand something better than the floundering post-war effort we have seen to date. Writing a blank check for Iraq does a disservice to our military if there is no coherent plan for securing the peace and bringing them home.
Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has distracted the United States from the real fight against terrorism, an issue of critical importance to American security. We have reduced our forces in Afghanistan and lost focus in our hunt for Osama bin Laden. As a result, the stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistan have suffered serious setbacks in recent months. One could even argue that the U.S. invasion of Iraq actually created an opening for terrorists. Osama bin Laden had long targeted Saddam Hussein, whose secularism he loathed. There is no evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had any significant connection with Al Qaeda, even though the Bush administration has tried hard to link the two. Ironically, in the chaos that has followed the collapse of Baath Party rule, Iraq has now become a haven for terrorists who see an opportunity to strike against United States forces.
For over fifty years, America's presidents have led the world in constructing a web of relationships and institutions that have succeeded in promoting peace, stability, and respect for the rights of each and every human being on the face of this earth. They worked closely with allies to meet common threats and they supported the United Nations and other world bodies as mechanisms that fit naturally with our goals of promoting freedom, trade and democracy around the world.
This administration has turned its back on the work of the last fifty years. This administration has demonstrated time after time that it has neither the patience nor the will to engage in real consultations with allies and world bodies such as the U.N. President Bush and his administration frequently assert that the attacks of September 11 made the world a different place. Their response has been to abandon long-held American policies and justify radical new approaches like the doctrine of preemptive war. I disagree wholeheartedly with this response. While the attacks of September 11 were a horrific, senseless act of evil, they have not diminished the value of the international structure that America and its allies have worked to build since the close of World War II. The new challenges are different, but now more than ever, they demand a strong and unified international community. They demand more international cooperation, not less.
The United States needs its traditional allies and it needs the U.N.. It needs them to ensure that the situation in Iraq does not continue to slide toward an American occupation and to help defray the costs and challenges associated with rebuilding a deeply troubled nation. It needs them to undercut assertions that the primary interest of the United States is in controlling Iraqi oil. Moreover, America needs its allies and the U.N. because we have too many pressing needs at home to continue hemorrhaging money in Iraq.
Having spurned the international community on the way to war in Iraq, the Administration must be prepared to go the extra mile to enlist international support at this hour. We must be prepared to cede meaningful control over the political and economic rebuilding of Iraq. And we must do more than adopt the "join us if you want" approach the President set forth in his recent speech to the U.N.. President Bush is correct when he says that it is in the world's interest to join with us in working toward the reconstruction of Iraq. Our longtime allies and other countries around the world are equally correct, however, when they ask for a measure of control over their efforts. While I am encouraged that the U.N. Security Council stands ready to approve a resolution backing American plans for reconstruction of Iraq, this may be too little too late. Our closest allies still have deep reservations about how we have conducted ourselves thus far in Iraq, and it remains to be seen if any of them will contribute any significant funds or any troops at all. Meanwhile, because of the worsening security situation, the U.N. has been forced to withdraw nearly all of the 600 employees it had in Iraq just a couple months ago. There must be a turn-around in current conditions on the ground before most international relief organizations can do any effective work in most of the country.
We are caught in a real bind. Iraq clearly needs our help. Yet, the American economy is hurting and basic domestic needs are crying out for funding. While asking for $87 billion more for the war in Iraq, the President's proposed budget shortchanges his "No Child Left Behind" initiative by $6.2 billion. Special education will receive less than half of what it is authorized by law to receive. The President has proposed cutting $400 million in after-school programs, and has undermined efforts to make up for the shortfall in early education funding. Pell grants now cover only 40 percent of the cost of attending a four-year public college, whereas in 1975 they covered approximately 84 percent of the cost. Our entire Department of Education receives only $53 billion.
The list goes on and on, and it speaks to an administration with misplaced priorities. While the administration seeks $87 billion for Iraq, water quality grants have been reduced by 32 percent, environmental enforcement staff has been cut by 6 percent, and funding for land acquisition and conservation has been reduced by 50 percent. The entire Department of Homeland Security is receiving less than half of what the President seeks in this bill. Meanwhile, our borders are porous, and first-responders in our state and local governments are starved of resources. The administration seeks $87 billion for Iraq when there are over 1.1 million Americans who have exhausted their unemployment benefits without finding a job and the President's supporters in Congress have refused to extend their benefits.
Meanwhile, tax cuts weighed heavily in favor of our most wealthy citizens are driving up the deficit and politically well-connected firms such as Halliburton and Bechtel are reaping millions from no-bid contracts handed out by the administration.
Just as the President must live up to his responsibilities, so must the Congress. It has a corresponding responsibility to the American people, and to our military forces, to demand from the administration a credible plan for bringing U.S. involvement in Iraq to an end and for bringing U.S. troops home. The Congress must demand that the administration develop a plan for involving other countries in the process. We must have a credible, detailed plan for turning over political and military control to the Iraqis. And the Congress must demand a credible, detailed projection of the costs associated with our continuing presence in Iraq. Previous administration statements and testimony on these subjects have been markedly lacking in candor.
Mr. President, this is the largest supplemental funding request in my memory. Clearly, our military must have the funding needed to carry out its tasks. I also realize that our own security will be damaged if reconstruction efforts in Iraq are not successful. Yet this is the moment for Congress to demand answers to these critical questions, rather than simply hand the administration another blank check to pursue its policies in Iraq. We must get our efforts on the right track before it is too late.
Mr. President, I am left with no choice but to oppose this bill. Anything less does a disservice to the men and women of our military and to the American public.
7:14:03 PM 
|
