[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 25, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9861-S9862]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first, I want to compliment the distinguished 
minority leader for not just recalling the sacrifices of the family and 
members of the U.S. military today, but for his efforts to do that for 
a long time now on the Senate floor. He focuses on Kentuckians who have 
a long history of service to their country, and rightly so. I know he 
would add to that the service of those members of our military and 
their families from all over this country and add them to our prayers 
and thoughts as well. We spend time in Washington debating policies 
that affect them, and they are living it every day, every minute of 
every day. I appreciate the words he brought to the Senate floor not 
just on this occasion but on previous occasions as well.
  Mr. President, I will talk about the action taken earlier by the 
majority and minority leaders. We have now, by unanimous consent, 
approved two key provisions of the Defense authorization bill by 
unanimous consent in a period of 3 or 4 minutes. Yet it took the last 2 
weeks to debate the Defense authorization bill, only to have it pulled 
from the floor so that we could not vote on it. It was used by the 
majority leader as a surrogate for the debate on Iraq policy. We have 
had something like seven or eight different resolutions--perhaps more, 
I have forgotten the count this year--on policy relating to Iraq. There 
is no more important national security issue facing our country than 
the war against terrorists, and certainly the central battle field in 
that war is the Iraq war.
  Republicans do not shy away from the debate about what to do. It is 
an extraordinarily important debate. On the other hand, I would have 
two arguments with the way this has been done. First, the time of the 
debate right now is misplaced because after the Senate unanimously 
confirmed General Petraeus, after the President had changed his course 
and consulted with General Petraeus and others about a new strategy, 
and that strategy was developed, we sent General Petraeus to Iraq to 
begin executing that strategy. We put together five brigades to 
represent a surge in troop strength to accomplish the mission, the last 
of which went into the theater about a month ago.
  When we did that, we made a commitment to the soldiers, marines, 
airmen, and all the Navy personnel to back them in what we sent them to 
do, not to immediately begin questioning whether they could succeed in 
their mission. We heard a lot of calls from the other side of the aisle 
that were very defeatist in nature, saying it was already lost and 
there was no way they could win. That is, obviously, not a good sendoff 
for the young men and women you are putting in harm's way to accomplish 
a mission that is important to the American people.
  So the timing of the debate was off. General Petraeus and Ambassador 
Crocker will report back here in September. It is an interim report on 
this new strategy. But we have an idea that it will tell us a lot about 
the future course of action we should pursue. I think most Americans 
believe, even though all of us would like to have the troops come home 
and have our engagement there ended as much as it can, the reality is 
that Americans don't want to lose, don't want to be defeated. They 
certainly don't want to see the consequences of that defeat, with al-
Qaida having a base of operations in Iraq, perhaps millions of Iraqis 
slaughtered in the ensuing chaos, and U.S. policy in the war against 
terror undercut dramatically in that very important region of the 
world. So the timing was off.
  Secondly, using the Defense authorization bill as the surrogate for 
that debate was wrong. This is a little bit of an inside-the-beltway 
discussion, but the American people need to know why this is wrong. 
Each year, for 45 years, the Senate has passed a Defense authorization 
bill setting the policy for our national security for the following 
year and establishing the authorization for troop strength, military 
weapons acquisitions, policy related to missile defense, and you name 
it. The President has signed the Defense authorization bill. That then 
enables the Congress to appropriate the money to pay for the things 
that we believe are necessary for the military.
  But this year, instead of having the debate and amending that bill 
and passing it, it was simply used as a vehicle to debate Iraq. Then 
when the last Iraq resolution was defeated, the bill was not passed. It 
was pulled from the floor. That left extraordinarily important policy 
hanging--policy on which our military troops rely.
  This is not the first time the Democratic majority has had second 
thoughts about action it has taken on the Senate floor. I am glad it is 
having second thoughts about this bill. But by the action that has been 
taken, we are still not going to be adopting good policy in the right 
way. There are consequences to this piecemeal approach.
  Let me illustrate my point. What we have just done this morning is to 
do two very important parts of that bill: to adopt a 3.5-percent, 
across-the-board pay raise for uniform military service personnel, and 
to adopt the language from the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors 
Act, both of which were critical components.

  Senator John McCain, my colleague from Arizona, spoke eloquently 
regarding both matters on this floor on numerous occasions. I know were 
he here now, he would be pleased at the action the Senate has taken.
  Let me cite a few of the things that have been left on the cutting 
room floor as a result of not passing the Defense authorization bill, 
but rather simply taking a couple of provisions that are obviously 
popular with our constituents and leaving the remainder behind. Here 
are a few of the things we are not adopting as a result of this 
piecemeal approach: Senator Joe Biden noted that the MRAP, or Mine 
Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, ``are the best available vehicle 
for force protection'' for our troops. He is right. There was $4.1 
billion in the act to authorize payment for this equipment. Not 
adopted.
  It authorizes the new hiring and bonus authorities to assist the 
Defense Department in recruiting and retaining needed, quality health 
and mental care professionals in the military. Not adopted.
  It authorized $50 million in supplemental educational aid to local 
school districts affected by the assignment and location of military 
families. That is something all military families know about. Not 
adopted.
  It authorized payment of combat-related special compensation to 
servicemembers who are medically retired due to combat-related 
disability. Not adopted.
  It included provisions to examine and strengthen security forces at 
defense sites storing weapons-grade nuclear materials. That is a very 
important provision relating to nuclear deterrent. Not adopted.
  It would have satisfied the Army Chief of Staff's unfunded 
requirements list by authorizing an additional $2.7 billion for items 
such as reactive armor, aviation survivability equipment, combat 
training centers, and machine guns--a variety of things the Pentagon 
said were necessary to support the missions of our men and women in the 
military. Not adopted.
  My point here is that when you use the Defense authorization bill for 
the purpose simply of having a debate on Iraq, there are a lot of bad 
consequences to not passing that bill. You cannot cure them by simply 
picking a couple of the more politically popular items, such as we have 
done today, and getting those adopted by unanimous consent. I am 
delighted that we have done it, but that is not the end of the story if 
we are really going to support the mission of our troops.
  Mr. President, let me conclude on this thought. To some extent, this 
debate we had in the last 2 weeks just on the Iraq war is a 
manifestation of what has gone on in the Congress for the last 200 
days. It is hard to believe that 200 days is gone. What does this 
Congress have to show for its actions and being in session for these 
200 days? I cannot say nothing because the reality is, we have approved 
and named 20 post offices. That is a post office every 10 days. It is 
not exactly heavy lifting, but it is something. As a matter of fact, it 
is the main thing this Senate can point to in terms of accomplishment. 
The only other thing of substance was the minimum wage increase, which, 
unfortunately, did not include the benefits to small businesses that 
have to pay the minimum wage in terms of tax relief, which Republicans

[[Page S9862]]

tried to have included. Of course, we had to pass the supplemental 
appropriations bill to fund the war effort. That is it.
  I apologized yesterday for calling this a ``do-nothing Congress.'' 
After all, we have named 20 post offices. Let's call it the ``post 
office Congress.'' Perhaps in the remaining time this year we will pick 
up the action. Perhaps we will find ways to accomplish things that the 
American people really want us to do.
  One of the big problems we can see is because we have not done the 
appropriations bills to fund everything from the military to the 
Departments of Justice and Commerce, all of the other departments of 
Government that serve the American people are going to be facing a 
trillion-dollar-plus Omnibus appropriations bill this winter. That is 
the worst of legislating. It is kind of the opposite of what we are 
doing with the Defense authorization bill where we don't pass the bill, 
but we pick two or three items that are politically popular and do them 
by unanimous consent.
  In this case, you don't do anything to fund the Government until the 
last few days, and then you ball it up into one giant bill, thinking 
nobody can vote against it because, after all, it is either all or 
nothing.
  That is very bad legislating and something I think we are going to 
resist because it represents not just an increase in spending but will 
undoubtedly represent bad policy as well.
  Mr. President, my hope is that this ``post office Congress'' can get 
on to some other business. I am delighted we have been able to select 
two items from the Defense authorization bill to adopt by unanimous 
consent today. But that will not correct the deficiencies. I hope my 
colleagues, in the remaining time before the August work period, and in 
the months of September and October, will roll up their sleeves and 
work on the problems the American people sent us here to resolve.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side in 
morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There remains 17\1/2\ minutes.

                          ____________________