[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.

                          ____________________