[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 106 (Thursday, June 28, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8662-S8666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL DOUGLAS E. LUTE TO BE ASSISTANT TO THE
PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 165, the
nomination of LTG Douglas Lute; that the time until 3 o'clock be for
debate on the nomination, equally divided between myself and Senator
Warner or his designee; that at the conclusion or yielding back of
time, the nomination be laid aside and the Senate return to legislative
session in morning business; and that at 4 p.m., the Senate return to
executive session and the vote on confirmation of the nomination of
Lieutenant General Lute.
I also am hopeful that there will be some votes on judicial nominees
as well today, but that has not yet been cleared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Douglas E.
Lute, Department of Defense, Army, to be Lieutenant General.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes.
I support the nomination of LTG Doug Lute to be Assistant to the
President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Lieutenant General Lute is an accomplished senior officer with a
distinguished record and great experience in both military tactics and
national security strategy and policy. Lieutenant General Lute has been
serving as the Director of Operations, J-3, on the Joint Staff since
September of 2006. Immediately prior to this assignment, he served for
more than 2 years as the Director of Operations, J-3, at U.S. Central
Command, overseeing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other
operations in the CENTCOM area of responsibility.
While I know of no concerns as to General Lute's qualifications for
the position to which he has been nominated by the President, there
have been some other concerns expressed about this nomination. The
first concern questions the need for the position itself as well as the
potential for confusion as to who is responsible for Iraq and
Afghanistan policy. On the one hand, the position implies a direct and
independent relationship with the President as Assistant to the
President, and on the other hand, as Deputy National Security Adviser
for Iraq and Afghanistan, the position implies subordination to the
National Security Adviser.
One can argue that the responsibility for Iraq and Afghanistan policy
clearly belongs to the National Security Adviser, as well as the
responsibility for directly advising the President on those issues.
Creating a position with ambiguous subordination to the National
Security Adviser could needlessly complicate and confuse an already
confused policy process. I, too, have some concerns in this regard but
not to the extent that I will oppose the President's decision to create
such a position.
The other concern which has been expressed is that appointing an
Active-Duty military officer to such a political position is a practice
which should be avoided in that for the officer in question, it
needlessly blurs the distinction between recommendations he might make
based on unbiased professional military judgment and those based upon
or colored by political considerations. In a larger sense, it is
counter to the traditional American approach to civil-military
relations. For the individual officer, it may also create difficulties
in subsequently returning from a political position to a uniformed,
apolitical, military position. I emphasize that General Lute will
remain on active duty during this period.
However, this would not be the first time that uniformed military
officers, remaining on active duty, have served
[[Page S8663]]
in such positions, one of the most notable examples being Colin
Powell's own service as, first, the deputy National Security Adviser,
and then as the National Security Adviser, and subsequent outstanding
service as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While I don't believe
it should be the norm for a military officer to serve in these kinds of
positions, I do not believe this should be a disqualifying concern in
rare circumstances such as this, and therefore should not disqualify
General Lute from his nominated position.
I do believe, however, that General Lute has been nominated for an
unenviable position. He will be responsible for bringing coherence to
an incoherent policy--a policy that is still floundering after more
than 4 years of war in Iraq.
General Lute told the Armed Services Committee that ``the position is
an advisor and coordinator, without directive authority beyond a small
staff.'' He further said that the ability to move policy forward had to
do more with such factors as ``Presidential direction and support,
acceptance by other policy principals, broad commitment to a common
cause, cultivated interpersonal relationships, personal integrity, and
meaningful results.''
Secretary Rice, described as a close personal friend of the
President--indeed almost a family member--was either not able to get
that Presidential direction and support or not able to employ it to
bring coherence to the President's policy. One must wonder how General
Lute can be expected to be more successful.
It is no secret that several retired four-star general officers were
offered the position and turned it down. According to media reports,
one reason given by one of the generals was that the administration
remains fundamentally divided on how to carry out the conflicts in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Retired Marine GEN Jack Sheehan, who declined to be
considered for the position, said:
The very fundamental issue is, they [the administration]
don't know where the hell they're going.
General Sheehan reportedly expressed concern that the hawks within
the administration, including Vice President Cheney, remain more
powerful than the pragmatists looking for an exit strategy in Iraq.
This does not bode well for General Lute.
It is no secret that General Lute himself questioned the so-called
surge strategy for Iraq before its announcement by President Bush last
January. Indeed, General Lute confirmed that doubt at his hearing.
The surge is now complete, and the results are not very promising.
American casualties are at some of the highest levels of the war,
sectarian violence is rising again after a short reduction, and the
insurgency is as active as ever, especially in the use of mass
casualty-producing car bombs against Iraqi citizens and improvised
explosive devices against United States and Iraqi forces.
The stated principal purpose of the surge was to give space and time
for the Iraqi politicians to make progress on the critically important
political reconciliation benchmarks, such as implementing legislation
for the equitable distribution of revenues from oil sales, de-
Baathification, and constitutional amendments, that would lead to
reconciliation among the three main Iraqi groups. Progress is not
apparent in those critically important political reconciliation areas--
again, the stated purpose of the surge.
I believe the only chance to get Iraqi politicians to stand up is
when they know we are going to begin to stand down. Our soldiers risk
their lives while Iraqi politicians refuse to take political risks and
make the necessary compromises to promote reconciliation. Those are the
compromises which everybody agrees must be made if there is going to be
any hope to end the violence in Iraq. We cannot continue to have the
lives of American servicemembers held hostage to Iraqi political
intrigue and intransigence.
I hope once General Lute is confirmed, he will be willing and able to
redirect Iraq policy to exert maximum pressure on Iraqi leaders to
achieve political reconciliation. The beginning of that is a phased
redeployment of United States troops from Iraq. That is the only
leverage on those leaders with any hope of success, with them finally
understanding that their future is in their hands and we cannot save
them from themselves.
But as for today's nomination, I support the confirmation of LTG
Douglas Lute to be the special assistant to the President and the
Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I note with great respect and approval the
Senator's comments to support his nomination. The Senator and I have
discussed this nomination, and I strongly endorse the President's
nomination of General Lute and welcome the support of our distinguished
chairman of the committee.
The Senator made reference to General Sheehan and others who
apparently had some contact with the White House personnel, and others,
regarding possibly taking on this assignment. In no way can I believe
their comments should be held against the distinguished nomination of
General Lute. They are part of the public records, but I think
sometimes when the President speaks with individuals about the
possibility of serving him, those matters are best left confidential--
for any President. I certainly treat them that way. I was somewhat
taken aback by the judgments of General Sheehan and others. No
disrespect to the chairman, but they are of no significance here.
This is a highly distinguished officer. He fought in the second
armored cavalry regiment in Operation Desert Storm. He later commanded
the second armored cavalry regiment in 1998 to 2000, and the
multinational brigade east in Kosovo in 2002. In 2003, he was assigned
as deputy director of operations in headquarters European command and,
in that capacity, played an important role in responding to the
impending humanitarian crisis in Liberia. It was in that context that I
first met this distinguished officer.
General Jones was, at that time, NATO commander. I talked with him
about the problems we were experiencing over the African coast at that
time. As you may recall, elements of the Marine Corps and other Naval
units were sent down there to try to--and indeed they did--succeed in
contributing to a cessation of a lot of the tensions which could have
erupted into a civil war.
At that time, General Lute was director of operations for the U.S.
Central Command, where he served over 2 years. I was privileged to join
him off the coast aboard those naval vessels, and he accompanied me
when I went in and worked with the Ambassador in the incipient days of
that potential conflict.
As a key member of the joint staff, I visited him many times in the
Department of Defense and received excellent briefings from him about
the worldwide situation. I have witnessed firsthand the extraordinary,
professional capabilities of this fine officer.
In the estimation of GEN David Petraeus:
Doug Lute knows Iraq. Doug Lute knows Iraq, the region, and
in Washington will be a great addition to the team that is
striving to achieve success in Iraq. He is also a doer.
Ambassador Crocker added:
General Lute's knowledge and experience will make him a
valuable partner to our efforts in Iraq. I look forward to
working closely with General Lute in the coming months.
There has also been some indication that people are concerned about
the precedents connected with this assignment. I will put into the
Record a list of individuals who have served Presidents in this
capacity over the past years. Notably among them were General Haig,
military assistant to the President for national security affairs;
Lieutenant General Scowcroft; Admiral Poindexter; GEN Colin Powell;
General Kerrick; GEN Michael Hayden, Director of Central Intelligence
at the present time and on active duty.
I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S8664]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rank/Name Position From To
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEN Alexander Haig......................... Military Assistant to the 1969 1970.
Presidential Assistant for
National Security Affairs.
GEN Alexander Haig......................... Deputy National Security Advisor... 1970 1973.
GEN Alexander Haig......................... White House Chief of Staff (Nixon). 1973 1974.
LTG Brent Scowcroft........................ Deputy National Security Advisor... 1973 1975.
ADM John Poindexter........................ Deputy National Security Advisor... 1983 1985.
ADM John Poindexter........................ National Security Advisor.......... 1985 1986.
LTG Colin Powell, USA...................... Deputy National Security Advisor... 1987 1987.
LTG Colin Powell, USA...................... National Security Advisor.......... 1987 1989.
LtGen Donald Kerrick, USAF................. Deputy Assistant to the President 1997 1999.
for National Security Affairs.
LtGen Donald Kerrick, USAF................. Deputy National Security Advisor... 2000 2000.
Gen Michael Hayden, USAF................... Director of Central Intelligence... 2006 Present.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WARNER. I would also put this into the Record at this point. I
solicited the White House's views regarding any legalities of this
nomination. I have the letter of Mr. Fielding, counsel to the
President. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, DC, June 26, 2007.
Hon. John Warner,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Warner: This is in response to your inquiry as
to the constitutionality of the President of the United
States appointing an active duty military officer to serve in
the White House Office as Deputy National Security Advisor to
the President and Assistant to the President.
There is no constitutional issue arising by virtue of such
service. All military officers are part of the Executive
Branch of our government, and there is no break in their
chain of command, as the President's constitutional duties
include his role as Commander-in-Chief of the United States
Armed Forces. Likewise, such an appointment is consistent
with U.S. law. See 10 U.S.C. Sec. 601.
As you are aware, in the past our Nation has been served by
active duty military officers holding the same position; to
wit: General Brent Scrowcroft, Admiral John Poindexter,
General Colin Powell, General Donald Kerrick.
Thank you for your inquiry. I am pleased to be able to
respond.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding,
Counsel to the President.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I feel that this gentleman, General Lute,
is eminently qualified, as the President has indicated. It is the
personal prerogative of the President to select those who wish to
advise him in a confidential vein. General Lute will undertake that
with great distinction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators from Virginia and Michigan
control the time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will somebody yield me some time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from
Alabama wishes to take.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield briefly?
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 7\1/2\ minutes.
The Senator from Virginia has 10 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask to be notified after 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I think Senator Levin and Senator Warner
have pointed out the fact that this is not an unprecedented appointment
and that it is consistent with what has been done before. People have
their own ideas about how the chain of command should work, but that is
fundamentally the question to be answered.
Let me join with Senator Warner in saying how much I admire the
record of General Lute. He is a three-star general. He was a director
of operations at the operational section of Central Command for 2
years. He is intimately familiar with the Middle East. He has
demonstrated in his positions with the Department of Defense in recent
years with the joint staff his willingness to question ideas that many
consider popular. In fact, it is reported that he asked a lot of tough
questions about the surge, and how that would go, and how it should be
handled if done. I think, if anything, we know for sure that he will do
what he believes is in America's interests.
Let me tell you why I truly believe we need a position such as this
and a man like General Lute. We have about 170,000-plus soldiers in
Iraq and Afghanistan. They are serving us in a dangerous area of the
world. We know and have had so many colleagues say--and Senator Levin
is most articulate in saying this--it is more than just the military;
there is a political settlement, there is reconstruction, there are
economic issues involved, oil and gas, water, electricity, which are
all key components of having a government effective in Iraq that serves
the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is important. The problem is we have all our agencies involved
in Iraq, not just the military. We have the State Department involved
in Iraq. The State Department is the one responsible for trying to move
the Government along in an effective way. They also have responsibility
over the economy, trying to help Iraq have a good economy. They are
responsible for trying to negotiate safety agreements with its
neighbors. They are responsible for infrastructure, actually. They are
not responsible for law and order, the court system, and the prison
system, which has not gone well at all. I have been a major critic of
that situation. That is under the responsibility, not of the Department
of Defense but the Department of Justice. If your court system is not
working, if you don't have an adequate jail system, if you can't get
the water turned on or the electricity turned on, our soldiers are at
an increased risk to their safety.
So it is absolutely critical that all our agencies of Government work
together, agree, work out differences, and create the greatest possible
opportunity for those fabulous soldiers we have sent to be successful
in helping to create a stable and decent government in Iraq. It is not
at the level of cooperation we need. We have not gotten to that level.
I am telling my colleagues, I have seen it. The Department of Defense
is here, the Department of Justice is here, the Department of State is
here. The Department of Defense--probably in frustration, I will say it
this way. I said we probably would have been better off just giving
everything to the Department of Defense. They are pretty doggone
competent in what they do. But the State Department has huge
responsibilities in Iraq. Therefore, the Defense Department steps back
and they interface, but State has responsibilities, Justice has
responsibilities, and Interior has responsibilities in Iraq. Virtually
every department and agency does. They are not at the highest level of
effectiveness, in my view.
It is not as important, I have to say, for Justice to get a court
system up and running as it is for the Defense Department because it is
their soldiers at risk if we don't create a good justice system in
Iraq.
I thought we needed somebody such as General Lute to go into Iraq, go
into Afghanistan, and find out what is going on and be able to tell the
President where the problems are. When there is a dispute between
agencies, one person can fix it, and that is the President of the
United States. He can say: I want it done this way or your resignation
tomorrow, Mr. Secretary. Or you and I have had a long friendship over
the years. I want this done, you don't want it done. I will get
somebody who will get it done.
But how can he know all these different problems that are occurring?
How can he personally be on top of it? Likewise for the Secretary of
State. She is expected to be in China, to go to Brazil, Chile,
Indonesia, Europe, Kosovo, South Korea, or Japan. The National Security
Adviser has the whole world under his responsibility. He has to be
managing all these issues
[[Page S8665]]
and personally advising the President. The Secretary of State has to
manage all the bureaucracy contained in the State Department.
I guess what I would say to my colleagues, it is obvious to me the
National Security Adviser cannot drop all of his or her
responsibilities and spend his or her time negotiating problems in
Iraq. The President is going to have to designate somebody to do that.
He has chosen General Lute who is a man, by all accounts, of
extraordinary ability, proven experience in the region, a person who
knows the difficulties so he can carefully and with good judgment
analyze the different disputes and try to get them settled so we can
get on with producing more oil and gas, having water for the citizens,
having the sewage system working, having the electricity on, and
helping to make sure we have a legal system with sufficient bed spaces
to detain criminals.
I discovered that we have one-ninth as many bed spaces in Iraq as we
do in my State of Alabama. I saw a similar story for New York. There
are not enough places to put the criminals, and we have to increase
those places. The bureaucracy is sitting around and not getting that
done.
If we catch and release terrorists, they are going to go out and kill
again. There have been several articles that have picked up on this
situation. I have to say, it has been a theme of mine for 3 years now,
and we still haven't gotten the justice system up like we would like
it.
I see the Presiding Officer, a former attorney general in his State,
Senator Salazar. We were together in Iraq and talked about these
issues. I know he shares a genuine concern that things are not being
accomplished as fast as possible. So I think that operating in the name
of the President to try and find out what difficulties are occurring in
Iraq, where the bottlenecks are, and being able to get the parties
together in the name of the President--he has no direct authority to
order the Department of Justice or the Department of Defense to do
anything. But he has the authority given by the President. If they
can't agree, he can appeal to the President. He can say: Mr. President,
the Department of State wants to do this, the Department of Justice
wants to do this, the Department of Defense wants to do this. My
recommendation is to do this, but you need to make this decision. Then
the President can help eliminate these problems.
The truth is, when somebody such as General Lute says we have a
disagreement between State and Justice and I am inclined to say this is
the way it ought to be settled, but the President told me, when I call
him tomorrow, to let me know if there are any difficulties, I am going
to tell him that you two children cannot agree, usually they get
together and settle it. They don't want to have the President come in
and settle these disputes and get involved. They know he has a lot of
issues on his plate.
That is the concept that I think can be helpful in making us more
effective in creating the infrastructure, the civil justice system in
Iraq and Afghanistan, thereby enhancing the ability of those
governments in those countries to be successful, therefore enhancing
their ability to be effective against terrorists and violence,
therefore reducing the threat to our soldiers--that is the bottom
line--and increasing their ability to be successful.
I am pleased to support this nomination. I think all the serious
questions that have been raised have been answered.
I see my friend and colleague from Virginia. He raises a good point
about this matter of a uniformed person being in the executive branch,
the political branch, I guess one can call it. We have done it before
and, in this case, in my view, that concern, while a legitimate one, I
believe is outweighed by the fact that we need help right now and
General Lute is the guy who can do it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Virginia?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the 6\1/2\ minutes to the Senator
from Virginia. If he needs additional time, I ask unanimous consent
that he be given additional time, after the 6\1/2\ minutes. We will
wait and see if that is the case.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I will do my best to finish within 6
minutes. I appreciate the chairman asking me to come to the floor.
This issue came up fairly quickly because of the vote this morning. I
was not able to be here when my friend and colleague, the senior
Senator from Virginia, made his comments, but he did give me the letter
that had been provided to him by the counsel to the President which
addresses the issue of the constitutionality of a uniformed officer
serving as a direct policy adviser inside the administration.
Counsel Fielding points out in the letter that there is no
constitutional issue. He mentions Generals Scowcroft, Powell, Kerrick,
and Admiral Poindexter as recent examples of active-duty military
officers holding this type of position.
I would have risen in opposition to all of these other individuals
under the circumstances that exist today, and I am going to try to
clarify that.
I don't expect the opposition I have to General Lute's nomination is
going to preclude him from being confirmed. I don't want the record to
indicate that I have any question with respect to his competence, the
way he has served the country over the past 30 years or so, but I do
believe this is a very important issue, and it goes beyond the opinion
that was in Counsel Fielding's letter.
He addresses the direct constitutionality because the military is a
part of the executive branch. My difficulty is that the military must
in this country remain separate from politics. That doesn't mean the
President cannot bring an active-duty military person on to his staff.
As Senator Warner said in another meeting, the President has the
authority to bring anyone of value to his administration he wants. The
question becomes: Should that individual remain in uniform? And should
that individual be able to return to the active-duty military once his
service is done?
I asked General Lute during his confirmation hearings if he believed
that the advice he would be giving in this position would be political
in nature, and it unavoidably is.
So we have a situation that is recent history. This type of situation
does not go back long in American history where we have brought active-
duty military people inside the political circle of an administration
and then allowed them to return as active-duty members back to the
military. This has not happened with any frequency, other than in the
past 20 years or so.
That individual returning to the military in a uniform unavoidably
causes questions inside the military about political alignments and
tends to politicize the military. That is my problem. There is no way
General Lute can go to the morning meetings and give advice that is not
simply operational, but that is political in nature with respect to how
an administration puts a policy into place, and then can return to the
active-duty military and be viewed as politically neutral. I say that
again with respect to the other individuals who were named in Fred
Fielding's letter.
It is my intention, during the time I am in the Senate, to ask any
military officer who is being put into a position of political
sensitivity whether that individual intends to take the uniform off and
keep it off. Any individual who otherwise is qualified who intends to
return to the active-duty military service, in my opinion, is violating
this very sensitive line with respect to the politicization of the
military, and I intend to oppose those nominations.
I thank the chairman for this time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in keeping with my practice of deferring
to Presidents when it comes to executive branch nominations, I voted to
confirm LTG Douglas Lute to serve as Assistant to the President and
Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a
competent officer with a history of service to this Nation. However, I
am deeply concerned that rather than changing course in Iraq, the
President is merely rearranging the bureaucracy in the White House.
The administration needs to better coordinate the U.S. Government's
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am
[[Page S8666]]
pleased that Lieutenant General Lute has acknowledged that the U.S.
military alone cannot stabilize Iraq and that enhanced efforts by other
agencies of the Federal Government are needed.
However, I am skeptical that this new position will have a
significant impact given that the President still refuses to admit that
there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. Until the
President recognizes the need to redeploy our troops from Iraq and seek
international assistance in promoting a political resolution, I am
afraid that Lieutenant General Lute's efforts will simply contribute to
more of the same failed policy. I will continue working to redeploy our
troops from Iraq so that we can devote greater resources to our top
national security priority--going after the terrorists who attacked us
on 9/11 and their allies.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am voting present on the nomination of
Douglas E. Lute to be Special Assistant to the President and Deputy
National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Although I respect General Lute's distinguished 30-plus year career
in the U.S. Army, I view this position as rearranging the bureaucracy
at the White House. The creation of a ``war czar'' will not hide the
President's failed policies and is another way for him to duck
responsibility for the war in Iraq.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on May 15, 2007, President Bush nominated
LTG Douglas Lute as Assistant to the President and Deputy National
Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan. In that position, Lieutenant
General Lute is to be charged with coordinating the efforts of the
executive branch to support our commanders and senior diplomats on the
ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am voting against the nomination of LTG Douglas Lute, not because
he is unqualified for the position but because the White House refuses
to permit him to testify before those Members of Congress responsible
for the oversight and funding of these conflicts. Article 2, section II
of the Constitution makes it clear that the power to appoint certain
officers involves the advice and consent of the Senate. I can imagine
no circumstance where the President may require policy advice and
guidance from an Active Duty military officer regarding ongoing
conflicts and issues relevant to Congress's oversight responsibilities
to which Congress should not be equally capable of hearing in either
public or closed forums as appropriate. To do otherwise may raise
popular suspicion that all is not on the ``up and up'' with the way the
President is conducting this war.
I am also concerned that putting a general in this position will
leave the military open to inferences by the administration that it is
the military, rather than George W. Bush, who is responsible for the
failed policies in Iraq. After 5 years of conflict in Afghanistan and
Iraq, the President, his Cabinet, and his existing staff should have
long ago figured out how to coordinate executive branch support to our
commanders and senior diplomats in the field, without needing to put a
military officer in charge of coordinating the civilian arms of
government.
Repeatedly, the President has appointed a new military officer to a
leadership position and Congress has allowed the nomination to proceed
without objection. The White House then turns the cooperation of
Congress into yet another sound bite to prolong the prosecution of the
President's failed policy. How many times have we heard that General
Petraeus was confirmed unanimously and that we ``just need to give him
time''? The President has had 4\1/2\ years to show progress. Instead,
the situation continues to worsen in Iraq.
I, for one, will not vote to give the President another military
officer to blame or another unanimous vote to exploit to delay bringing
home our troops. I will not accept the President's claim that a
military officer advising the President on two ongoing conflicts should
not be required to testify before Congress on the progress of this long
and disastrous war.
I will, therefore, vote against the confirmation of Lieutenant
General Lute to this position.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining to Senator Warner.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, apparently I have a minute and a half
remaining. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama, if he
would like the time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if we are waiting for the vote, I was
going to quote a few items from General Lute's statement, but otherwise
I don't need to do that.
Mr. LEVIN. The vote will begin at 4. Under the order, there is
another speaker scheduled at 3 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 3 o'clock the Senate will return to morning
business.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if Senator Levin is comfortable with
this, I ask for 3 minutes. If someone comes to the Chamber at 3 and
needs to take the floor, I will yield.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Alabama be yielded 3 minutes, and then morning business start at
3:03 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we had a hearing with General Lute.
Senator Levin presided in his able way, as always. He gave us a short
written statement of some of his principles. I thought the American
people might appreciate how he approaches this issue.
He spoke to people. He said this about this position:
To a person, those with whom I have spoken conveyed two
clear messages: first, a message of concern for the well-
being and safety of our men and women in harm's way; and
second, that we would all like to see us pursue a course
of action that makes our country safer while safeguarding
our national interests in the region. Surely, this is our
common ground.
He went on to say:
But the stakes for the United States are also high. This
region--where America has vital national interests--will not
succeed if Iraq and Afghanistan do not succeed, and the U.S.
plays a vital role in this cause.
He went on to say this:
No one is satisfied with the status quo: not the Iraqis,
not key regional partners, not the U.S. Government, and not
the American public. To change this, we are in the midst of
executing a shift in course as announced by the President in
January. Early results are mixed. Conditions on the ground
are deeply complex and are likely to continue to evolve--
meaning that we must constantly adapt. Often, measures that
fix one problem in as complex an environment as this reveal
challenges elsewhere.
That is certainly true. General Lute continued:
But one factor remains constant--the dedication and
sacrifice of our men and women, military and civilian,
serving in these combat zones. They are a continuing source
of inspiration to me and to my family.
The position for which I have been nominated is designed
for one fundamental purpose: to advise the President on how
to provide our troops and civilians in the field with
increased focused, full-time, real time, support here in
Washington.
He goes on to say:
The aim is to bring additional energy, discipline, and
sense of urgency to the process. Our troops deserve this
support.
I think that is a good statement, a sense of urgency for all our
agencies and departments of Government, not just the military. He
concludes this way:
Mr. Chairman, I am a soldier; and our country is at war. It
is my privilege to serve. This position represents a major
personal challenge and I am humbled by the responsibility it
entails. If confirmed, I will give the President my
straightforward, candid, professional advice.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________