Foreign Policy

Last July, Israel's sovereign border was violated by terrorists linked to Hamas who killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit.

Days later, terrorists linked to Hezbollah crossed into Israel and killed three, wounded two, and kidnapped soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.

All three have been held captive since without medical attention from humanitarian groups like the Red Cross.  No information is known on the fate of the soldiers. Read more...

Chavez, a self-proclaimed Communist, is determined to emulate his mentor, Fidel Castro, through fear and manipulation of the Venezuelan people.  We recently saw him move to nationalize key sectors of Venezuela's economy and suppress free speech by shutting down one of the country's biggest networks.  And last week, Chavez threatened to kick U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield out of Venezuela after Brownfield said the nationalization of Venezuela's largest telephone company must be transparent.  Clearly, these are the actions of a man who is intent upon forcing his people to live in a socialist state like that of Cuba.

If Chavez boots Ambassador Brownfield from the country, the world will once and for all know Chavez's true intentions: an end to diplomatic relations with the United States and the start of a new era of conflict and isolation that will change the Western Hemisphere.

Chavez is a threat to the freedom, security and prosperity of the Venezuelan people and all of the Western Hemisphere.  The U.S. cannot let his words and actions go unnoticed.  The Bush Administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress must take real action against this growing threat.

In her questioning of General David Petraeus at the Senate Armed Services Committee this week, Democratic Presidential Candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) expressed skepticism of the President's new plan for Iraq.

Clinton said the Iraqi government must step up their efforts to improve the situation on the ground.

"So I, very sincerely, but whole-heartedly disagree with those who are trying to once again up the rhetoric about our position in Iraq instead of taking a hard look about what will actually, on the ground, change the behavior and actions of this Iraqi government," she said.

Additionally, she asked the General to "do everything you can to get additional security" for American troops.

For those of you who didn't see it, Clinton laid out her Iraq legislation in the following January 17th press conference. She calls our priorities in the region “upside down,

I thought that it was a challenging speech and very thoughtful. I was pleased that domestic issues that require our attention such as healthcare and energy independence and fiscal responsibility were highlighted. I think the President challenged us to a level of bipartisanship about which I'm very hopeful but have yet to see any action in that direction by the new overly partisan Democratic majority.

I think that the perspective on the War on Terror—and highlighting the importance of how, regardless of how anyone felt about or voted on the beginning of the War in Iraq, nobody voted for failure—that sentiment is necessary if we are to unify in a way that will allow us to succeed and prevail as the leader of the free world.

During the congressional elections last November, the American people spoke loud and clear. They demanded a dramatic change at home and abroad, especially with the war in Iraq.

I disagree with the President's plan to surge the number of American forces in Iraq, and it is clear that his open-ended policies and his nation-building efforts have failed. The chaos and instability in Iraq requires a political solution, not a military solution. Staying in Iraq is not an option politically, militarily or fiscally. The American people understand this.

Here at home we need to see the specific details of what the President is suggesting. It's not enough to make broad proposals; we need details of how we can get to where the President wants to take us. Although during last year's speech, he claimed that America is "addicted to oil," he still has no viable solution to the energy crisis or how he plans to attain energy independence. Read more...

The President’s speech was designed to build a backstop against the American people’s shaken confidence in this Administration stemming from the fallout over the military operation in Iraq. It remains to be seen if his strategy was effective.

I was encouraged by his emphasis on the health care crisis in America, the emphasis on energy independence and boosting the production of renewable fuels and the emphasis on closing the backdoor to illegal immigration and opening the front door to legal immigration. These goals can be achieved only through sincere bipartisan efforts.

The foremost concern for many Americans is our involvement in Iraq. The Senate is about to consider resolutions concerning the President’s surge proposal and I hope we can send a clear, respectful and bipartisan message about the way forward in Iraq that will be heard in the White House and in Baghdad.

A lot is being made of this being President Bush’s first address to a Democratic-led Congress. I appreciate that President Bush has proven he’ll take a stand and fight for his programs and initiatives. It’s the kind of leadership that makes things happen.

On the specifics, the President’s focus on making America energy independent and less reliant on fossil fuel is good for the nation and good for Iowa. He’s describing a very ambitious agenda. Based on the performance thus far in reaching the renewable fuels standard, his goal of increasing the standard is very realistic. That will benefit agriculture and rural America. Most importantly, though, this goal is necessary. Major goal-setting is the only way we’re going to wean ourselves off of foreign sources of energy.  Tonight’s goal is admirable, but only if it doesn’t come at the expense of existing supportive policies for renewable fuels, such as the ethanol excise tax credit and import tariff. Read more...

The lead article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal painted a compelling picture of the plight of Iraqi interpreters, conservatively estimated at 5,000, who have worked for US armed forces or contractors in Iraq. Regrettably this number vastly understates the magnitude of the refugee crisis in the region. In hearings convened by Senator Kennedy and his Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, reputable sources estimated the number of refugees who have fled Iraq as being close to 2,000,000 people and growing.

Iraq and its neighbors face a refugee crisis of historic proportions. The plight of translators, while tragic, reflects only one part of the story. While there is no formal registration of refugees by the UN or other international bodies, we know from testimony given to the Judiciary Committee this week that the refugee population includes many others associated with the US effort as well as relatives of Iraqi Americans, Christian and other religious minorities, intellectuals, professionals and others employed by US forces, such as drivers, logisticians, cleaners and cooks. Much of the cultural and intellectual capital of Iraq has fled, and its rich artistic and intellectual history is at risk of being lost. Read more...

I am honored that Speaker Pelosi has nominated me to serve as chairman of the US delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the civilian arm of the NATO alliance, beginning with the Parliamentary Assembly's meeting next month at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

The NATO alliance, in my view, is more important now than it was during the Cold War. It was started after World War II and was viewed as a land-based, fairly static, defensive military force to allow the U.S. to help protect western Europe.

Article 5 of the NATO constitution provides that when one country comes under attack, all member nations consider themselves so attacked, and each pledges one to the other all their military assets and air space. The first time Article 5 was invoked, interestingly enough, was after 9/11, here in the United States, when we had flyovers of our major cities by Italian, British, French and German pilots assisting us after the attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Since then, NATO has taken control of operations in Afghanistan, with more than 30,000 NATO troops there, which is helping greatly to relieve an enormous burden on the operations tempo of American forces. Read more...

As we witnessed last week, the results of November's elections have culminated on Capitol Hill.  For several of my colleagues, this is their first time in the minority.  As we adapt to our new circumstances - at least temporarily - I am reminded of my 17 years in the South Carolina State Senate - 16 of which were spent in the minority.  I remember the frustrations and the setbacks.  I also remember successes borne of cooperation.  We passed welfare reform.  We restructured the state government.  We produced results.

While Republicans and Democrats have fundamental philosophical differences, we are united in a desire to protect America and create opportunities for our fellow citizens.  Focusing on these similarities, I believe we can work together for the good of our country.

While pledging to work with Democrats on matters benefiting the American people, Republicans will make our case on the issues.  We will promote fiscal responsibility and oppose tax increases.  We will work to secure our borders and deny amnesty to illegal immigrants.  We will advocate for a strong national defense and perseverance in the Global War on Terrorism.  Read more...