[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 59 (Thursday, April 12, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4403-S4406]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last month I came to the Senate floor to
express my doubts about the emergency supplemental spending bill put
forth by the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate.
The supplemental was, and still is, a flawed bill that will do little
to advance the cause of either liberty or victory in Iraq. It is a
poorly crafted bill that includes language directing the President to
begin a phased withdrawal of American troops, essentially tying the
hands of the Commander in Chief, and signaling to our enemies that this
is the day on which we will wave the white flag and surrender.
Mr. President, the Democrats believe the war in Iraq is a civil war
between Sunni and Shia, and that America has no place in their war. I
see the war in Iraq as a war between Islamic fascists and everyone
else.
Contrary to the belief of many of my Democratic colleagues, we are in
the middle of that war, be it in Baghdad, New York, Pennsylvania, Bali,
London, or Madrid. What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
fail to realize is that diplomacy and the exertion of military force
are not mutually exclusive of one another. You can and must have both,
and they must be effective.
But it is naive to think that you can have diplomacy in a vacuum,
especially when you are dealing with a country such as Iran, a country
bent on developing nuclear weapons, increasing its ballistic missile
capability, and providing weapons and training to our enemies in Iraq.
However, this is all moot because the Democratic leadership on the
war supplemental spending bill has been absent these last couple of
weeks. Here we are, almost 3 weeks after the bill was passed in the
Senate. There has been no conference of the bill. And the other body,
the House of Representatives, has yet to appoint conferees. What are we
waiting for? Why are we asking our men and women in uniform to wait?
Well, unfortunately, waiting is what our military is going to do. The
Democratic leadership has thus far decided to purposefully send a bill
to the White House that they know will be vetoed in order to set up a
confrontation with the President to score political points.
I find it ironic that many of the Democrats who are so insistent on
micromanaging the war and usurping the power of the President cannot
even show up and show the requisite leadership to pass an emergency
bill that funds our troops. Our troops deserve more from this Congress.
I hope my colleagues across the aisle will do what is right and get a
bill passed that the President can sign into law. If you look at what
the consequences of us not acting are, it has been very clear.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said: This kind of disruption to key
programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the
Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families.
The supplemental is necessary to pay for training and equipping our
soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the supplemental is not passed by
April 15, the military will be forced to consider the following steps:
Curtailing and suspending home station training for Reserve and Guard
units; slowing the training of units slated to deploy next to Iraq and
Afghanistan; cutting the funding for the upgrade or renovation of
barracks and other facilities that support quality of life for troops
and their families; stopping the repair of equipment necessary to
support predeployment training; reducing the repair work being done at
Army depots; delaying or curtailing the deployment of brigade combat
teams to their training rotation; this, in turn, will cause additional
units in theater to have their tours extended because other units are
not ready to take their place; delaying formation of new brigade combat
teams; implementation of a civilian hiring freeze; prohibiting the
execution of new contracts and service orders, including service orders
for training events and facilities; holding or canceling the order of
repair parts to nondeployed units in the Army.
These are all things that can result simply because this Congress has
not acted in a way that is consistent with what is in the best interest
of our men and women in uniform who are serving their country in Iraq
and Afghanistan. It is about the politics of whether we ought to be
withdrawing. Of course, as I said, the legislation that has passed both
the House and Senate, including time lines for withdrawal, which ties
the hands of our Commander in Chief, ties the hands of our generals in
the field, sends a very clear message to our troops that we don't
believe in their mission, that we don't believe it is possible for them
to attain victory. It sends a very clear message to our enemies that on
this date certain, we are going to pull out. What does that say to
them, other than all they to have do is to wait us out?
Irrespective of where you are on this particular war--I know it is
divisive in the United States--when it comes to the fundamental
question of making sure our troops have the resources they need to do
the job we have asked them to do, to make sure we are supporting the
important work they are doing and giving them the impression we believe
they can win and that we want them to win, there is nothing more
important in the Senate for us to be dealing with. I know there are a
lot of important issues the Senate has to deal with. We have an
Intelligence authorization bill we are deliberating. We had stem cell
research in the last couple of days. We ought to be dealing with issues
such as immigration and health care and energy, all issues that are
important to the people.
I submit nothing is more important than making sure the men and women
in uniform, serving our country in theaters of conflict, have the
resources they need to do the job we have asked of them.
Meanwhile, while the House is out of session and has yet to appoint
conferees so even our staffs in the House and Senate could get together
and begin discussing the differences between the House and Senate bills
to get a bill to send to the President, which the President can
subsequently veto and send back here so we can have an override vote,
which will fail--then we will be right back where we started--the
troops don't have any funding. Hopefully, at that point, perhaps, the
Democrats in the House and Senate will come to the realization that all
these theatrics and shenanigans being played on the floor of the House
and Senate are not doing anything but sending a message to our enemies
that we are weakening in our resolve and not doing what we need to be
doing, and that is funding our troops to make
[[Page S4404]]
sure they have the necessary training and equipment and ability to
conduct and win this mission we have asked them to complete.
The ironic thing about it is, while all this is not going on here,
the absence of activity in the Congress where we ought to be
conferencing the supplemental bill so we can get the process moving
forward and hopefully get a bill back from the President that will have
been vetoed so we can send him another bill that has funding in it for
our troops, while all this is not going on in Washington, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, while the House is out of session this
week in recess, is traveling around the world conducting foreign
policy. Where and since when is it the job of the Speaker of the House
of Representatives to conduct foreign policy, going to other countries
in the world, particularly countries with which we don't have a
relationship, countries that harbor and sponsor terrorist activities,
meeting with them to deliver messages from other countries around the
world?
I know we have a President and Vice President, we have a State
Department and a diplomatic corps, all of which are tasked with that
important job. But the Speaker of the House of Representatives somehow
decided she should be the courier of messages between Israel and Syria.
It should come as no surprise that the Israeli Prime Minister took
issue with the Speaker of the House of Representatives conducting
Israeli foreign policy as well, not to mention the fact that she didn't
have the authority to do it, nor was the message she delivered the
correct message. It seems to me what we ought to be focused on as a
Congress is not running around the world meeting with leaders who are
aiding and abetting the very people our men and women in uniform are
fighting against in Iraq but, rather, being in Washington, dealing with
the important issue of funding our men and women in uniform who are
involved in a very important mission for the future of our country. I
know this is an issue on which this country has great debate. I know
people in my State, as in many States, are weary of the conflict in
Iraq.
We have in place a new strategy that includes additional troops, a
change in rules of engagement, new conditions and benchmarks for the
Iraqi Government, for the Iraqi military. I want to see it work. I want
to see our troops succeed. I believe a majority of the people want to
see our mission in Iraq succeed, knowing full well the consequences of
failure will be detrimental and disastrous to the United States and to
our security in the future. Yet here we are. The Senate is here. We
can't conduct a conference because the House of Representatives is not
in session, nor did they, before they departed for a 2-week recess,
appoint conferees to the supplemental appropriations bill that would
enable us to go about this important work.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. THUNE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. About the conference process, when an emergency
supplemental is passed, even though it had language in it that I know
the Senator opposes, and so do I, it would normally have to go to a
conference committee of Members of the House of Representatives and
Members of the Senate. Sometimes it takes a good while, does it not,
historically, for differences in the House and Senate bills to be
worked out? It sometimes takes a good while; would the Senator agree?
Mr. THUNE. That is correct. The Senator is absolutely right. He well
knows, anytime the House and Senate act on separate pieces of
legislation, it has to go to a conference committee. Differences have
to be worked out before the conference report can come back to the
House and Senate and be passed and ultimately sent to the President.
Mr. SESSIONS. Those conference committee appointments are decided by
the leaders of the Senate for the Senate conferees and the leaders of
the House, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, would appoint those
conferees. If it were something they wanted to have done badly, that
was high on her agenda, would not they have appointed conferees before
we recessed almost 2 weeks ago so the conferees could have begun work
during this interim period, staffs could have been working on these
issues and been ready to move rapidly when the House comes back in
session? If they had wanted to, couldn't they have done that?
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I serve with my colleague from Alabama on
the Armed Services Committee. This is an issue he cares deeply about,
making sure our men and women are well cared for and that they are in a
position to do the work we ask them to do. It would make sense--I think
it is fair to say--that the House, knowing they were going to take a 2-
week recess, to appoint the conferees so the important work of the
conference committee could get underway, so we wouldn't have to wait
another several weeks to get this legislation through the conference
committee, ultimately sent to the President, where it is certain to be
vetoed, so that it has to come back here and start all over again. It
seems that would be a fair expectation of our colleagues in the other
body when it comes to appointing conferees for this important
legislation.
Having served three terms in the House of Representatives, I had the
privilege during those terms to represent my class as a Member of the
House leadership. On a weekly basis, I had the opportunity, under both
Speakers Gingrich and Hastert, to be a part of the process. I know how
many pressures and how much responsibility comes with the job of
Speaker of the House. Our Senate leaders on both sides have a caucus of
about 50 people, thereabouts, that they have to deal with. The Speaker
of the House has a responsibility for making sure that 435 Members of
the House of Representatives are moving forward with a legislative
agenda. There is a lot of responsibility, a lot of pressure. I have
experienced and seen firsthand much of that.
What I don't understand, however, is where in the job description of
the Speaker of the House comes this notion that somehow the Speaker of
the House ought to be going out and meeting with Syrian leaders,
countries and leadership that are aiding and abetting the people we are
fighting against, our enemies in Iraq, and trying to conduct foreign
policy, representing the interests of one of our allies, the Nation of
Israel, and not only misrepresenting their views but, frankly,
exercising authority that clearly they didn't give her to exercise. I
am at a loss to explain why we would be here waiting to conference an
important supplemental appropriations bill that will fund the troops
while the leadership of the other body is traveling the world,
conducting meetings that clearly ought to be in the purview of our
representation at the State Department and the White House and
diplomatic corps.
If the Senator from Alabama would like to make some comments on this
particular subject, I am happy to yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what time remains on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
I thank my colleague from South Dakota. I believe his National Guard
per capita is one of the largest National Guards in the country. I know
mine is, both on a per-capita and aggregate basis. We have soldiers in
Iraq right now from our home States. I talked to the mother of a
soldier who was recently killed, and this is a painful subject for us
all. At this very moment throughout Baghdad, Al Anbar Province,
American soldiers are walking those streets, working closely with Iraqi
soldiers, Iraqi police officers, in an effort to create stability so
that political agreements can be reached that could lead to a stable
and successful Iraq. This is an extremely, deeply important matter. Now
we are in a situation in which our leader in the Senate, Democratic
leader, Senator Reid, has said they intend to fund our troops. They
intend to provide the money the President needs to conduct this war,
but at the same time they want to tell the generals how to conduct it.
They want to say that on a given date we have to move troops in this
direction or that direction, and we will begin to bring troops home 4
months from today, regardless of the conditions in Iraq, regardless of
what the military experts say, without any real thought, if you want to
know the truth.
I have been to Iraq four times and will be soon going my fifth. Very
few
[[Page S4405]]
people in the Senate have been there so often. I submit we don't know
sufficiently how to direct the deployment of our troops. I don't know.
Who knows the best? General Petraeus? This is his third full tour over
there. He has studied insurgencies and written a Department of Defense
manual on how to defeat an insurgency.
Who is the best qualified to make these decisions? This is not a
little matter. We voted, over three-fourths of this Senate, to
authorize military force in Iraq. Our soldiers are doing what we asked
them to do--not what they want to do, what their duty is.
A father of a military Army officer told me right out here a few
weeks ago--his son was about to go to Iraq--he said: Senator, they are
watching you like a hawk. Our soldiers over there are watching what we
in Congress do. They wonder what is going on.
They are putting their necks on the line for the policies we asked
them to do, and they hear this kind of talk, they hear of this delay.
We can't get even the emergency supplemental passed. It is very
discouraging to me. I don't believe this is an action worthy of a
responsible Senate. We know this Senate has the power, this Congress
has the power to shut off funding for the war in Iraq and bring our
troops home immediately.
But if we are not going to do that--and the Democratic leader said we
are not going to do that, we are going to give them the money they need
under this supplemental--if we are not going to bring them home, and we
are going to give them the money, for Heaven's sakes, let's don't
micromanage what they do, and let's don't demand commitments from the
Commander in Chief he cannot agree to.
He cannot agree to 100 Senators telling him when and how to deploy
the troops. What would General Petraeus think? What would his
responsibility be to his general whom he asked to serve, who is
serving, whom he told would be given responsibility to be successful in
Iraq and bring stability there, with his whole effort focused on that?
I wish to share with my colleagues a deep concern that we not get
into some sort of game of chicken with the President and the Congress.
I must say, I am glad the Democratic leaders apparently said last
night, after earlier saying no, now they will meet with the President
at his request to discuss their differences.
But it is not just a political game of chicken between the Congress
and the President; we have soldiers in the field whose lives are at
risk this very moment. They need better support than that. Our allies
need to know we are not going to be acting in a way this Senate
resolution suggests. The enemy needs to know we are not going to be
acting in that fashion, in my view.
We have a tough challenge over there, there is no doubt about it.
General Petraeus committed, at my request, that if he thought what we
were doing would not be successful, he would not hesitate to tell the
Congress and the American people exactly that. I believe he will. Right
now, he believes he can be successful. If we allow him to do so, I
believe he will be.
Mr. President, I see others on the floor. I conclude by saying I
believe we ought not to be in this posture of brinksmanship over this
issue. I believe it is irresponsible. I believe it places those
soldiers we have sent at greater risk for their lives, and their
mission is placed in a situation where it would be more difficult to
accomplish. That is something we should not do. I hope cooler heads
will prevail.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Alabama if he will
yield for a question.
Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I agree with
everything he said. The thing I guess that has troubled me about this
process since the inception of the debate we have had in the Senate,
that has been swirling around in Washington for some time, has to do
with the way this supplemental bill was constructed and the
proscriptive language that was put in it relative to tying the hands of
our Commander in Chief, tying the hands of our generals, essentially
substituting the judgment of politics in Washington for the judgment of
our generals in the field.
I am extremely troubled by that language, as is the President, which
is why he has indicated he is going to veto this bill when it comes
before him. They knew that. They knew that when it was passed. They
knew when it went down there, it was going to be an issue which the
President, absolutely, in his constitutional role as Commander in
Chief, could not allow--that type of language and that type of
restriction--to be imposed on his ability to prosecute and win wars.
But I guess my question to the Senator from Alabama has to do with:
If the Senate or the House wanted to stop what is happening in Iraq,
wanted to withdraw, get our troops home immediately--in spite of the
fact that under this new strategy we now have more troops there, we
have different rules of engagement, we have more buy-in from the
Iraqis; the Iraqis are coming more into the fight; we have an
opportunity, in my view, at least, hopefully, to have success there--
what is the step the Congress, if they wanted to basically end our
involvement there, could do? Is it not to cut off funding? Would that
not be?
If the Senate and the House were serious about this, why is it they
are going about all these shenanigans, trying to provoke this
confrontation with the President over this particular language that
ties his hands relative to time lines, when in fact the real
constitutional role the Congress has is funding? Is funding not the
way, if the Senate and the House wanted to be heard on this, they would
go about doing that?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I could not agree with the Senator more.
Having been in the Department of Justice a number of years as U.S.
attorney and having had a few occasions to deal with this specific
issue, money not appropriated by Congress cannot be spent by the
Government. In fact, there is an Antideficiency Act that makes it a
criminal offense for a governmental official to spend money that
Congress has not appropriated.
So that is our responsibility: to fund or not fund. The Democratic
leader said they are going to fund. It is not our responsibility to
micromanage the war, however. So I would say we absolutely as a
Congress--if we reach that decision--can shut off funding, and tomorrow
the troops would have to be brought home, or shortly thereafter.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Alabama
because I think it is an important point to make--I have heard the
debate here a lot, and, again, as it continues in this city and across
the country, that there has to be a political or diplomatic solution
that somehow we have to reach; the sides have to come together, which I
do not disagree with. However, I would also argue, in order for that to
happen, you have to have security. You cannot have a functioning
democracy or government absent security; in the last several hours, a
couple of lawmakers in Iraq were killed in the Green Zone.
How is a government to function, how is a political process to work,
if there is not adequate security, which is the point I believe many of
us have made all along. I say to my colleague from Alabama, there has
to be not only a political solution, but there has to be security
established. That is what this new strategy is designed to accomplish,
to allow that process to work. We ought to allow this strategy an
opportunity to work, rather than pass bills out of here that tie the
hands of the President, tie the hands of our generals, substitute the
judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our generals
in the field. Furthermore, we need to get funding to our troops.
So I think the Senator from Alabama has put it very eloquently, and I
join him in urging the rest of our colleagues in the Senate--and,
obviously, hopefully, very soon in the House--to get this process
wrapped up, to get a bill to the President that he will ultimately
veto, send it back here, start over again, and let's at least get the
funding to our troops so we can get this situation in Iraq secure so
this political process can function and work and, hopefully, create a
stable democracy.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say to Senator Thune, I agree, and
will recall for our colleagues that--I believe it was postelection--
General Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff of the Army,
[[Page S4406]]
pleaded with us not to allow what happened last year to happen this
year. He was referring to delaying passing the supplemental because it
causes all kinds of problems.
A few weeks ago, he testified again, and he was passionate about
this. It is his soldiers, predominantly, Army soldiers in Iraq. He
pleaded with us not to delay this supplemental. He said you have to
take money from all kinds of accounts, and time and effort the
leadership in the Department of Defense needs to be spending helping
the soldiers being successful has to be redirected to bringing money
together in ways that are not easy to fund the effort. He described it
as trying to walk through a marsh waste deep in water--those were his
words--in the muck.
We are creating a political muck that makes it very difficult and
adds additional burdens to our Defense Department when they have so
many important things to do. We should not do that.
I thank the Senator for his eloquent remarks and his leadership on
the Armed Services Committee and for his commitment to our soldiers and
commitment to the United States of America and the good foreign policy
we have had, we seek to accomplish.
Our foreign policy is a foreign policy designed to improve the Middle
East. It is designed to improve the lives of the people in Iraq. It is
not an imperialistic attempt to gain wealth or power at their expense.
We want them to be successful. In the end, it will be successful for
us. It will make us more safe. It will make the world more safe and can
begin the end of some of the radicalism we are seeing.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________