[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 70 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3222-S3226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STOP THE STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATE HIKE ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO
PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
(The remarks of Senators Grassley and Landrieu pertaining to the
submission of S. Res. 462 are printed in today's Record under
``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Ms. LANDRIEU.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Fiscal Responsibility
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today we considered five separate budget
proposals for the Federal Government. At first glance, that would
appear to be the fiscally responsible thing to do. The families and
small business owners I talk to back home in Kansas do that every year.
They operate with a budget, and we know the Federal Government needs to
do so as well. However, this Chamber has not passed a budget in 1,113
days. That is more than 3 years.
In my first speech on the Senate floor as a new Member of the Senate
a little more than a year ago, I indicated to my Senate colleagues that
my greatest concern for our country is our Nation's out-of-control
spending. I am here today because I still have that concern. We spend
too much money, and we no longer can delay the difficult decisions
necessary to correct that problem.
Our national debt stands at more than $15 trillion. This enormous
[[Page S3223]]
amount of debt is slowing our economic recovery and threatening the
prosperity of our future generations, who will have to pay for our
fiscal irresponsibility.
Writing and passing a budget is one of the most basic
responsibilities of Congress. It is required by law. The budget sets
forth priorities and guidelines for the fiscal year and begins the
process of determining how much money should be spent and which
programs should be cut back, eliminated, or even further supported.
Without a budget, the annual appropriations process--and I am a member
of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and I want the appropriations
process to work, but in many ways that appropriations process continues
to be on hold. This is not the way to run our country. To put our
country back on its path to fiscal responsibility, we must set the
budget. We set budget limits, and then we have to stick to them.
Any serious conversation about the budget and Federal spending must
include a candid assessment of our Nation's entitlement programs. Those
programs include Social Security and Medicare. Mandatory spending makes
up 56 percent of the Federal budget--if we had one. This percentage
will only increase in years ahead as more Americans retire and fewer
workers are there to replace them. Without addressing our long-term
commitments, our attempts to significantly change our country's fiscal
outlook will be limited.
As I said, I am a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee,
where our appropriations process deals with about 30 percent of
spending on an annual basis. We have done a reasonable job--I hate to
be overly complimentary to Congress--at holding the line on
discretionary spending, that 30 percent we deal with every year. It has
been pretty flatlined over the last several years, but you cannot solve
our country's fiscal problems by only dealing with the 30 percent that
we include in the appropriations process. We have to deal with the
remaining portions of our budget.
The challenge of not only the appropriations process to determine how
much money we spend every year but the broader issues of so-called
entitlement spending cannot be ignored any longer. Of the five budgets
we considered earlier today, four of them--all but President Obama's
budget--contained serious proposals to these entitlements. I can
critique every one of the four budgets that move in the right direction
of balancing the budget. There are things I would do differently, but I
commend my colleagues for offering serious solutions to serious
problems.
It has bothered me greatly that when Members of the House or Members
of the Senate offer a serious budget, they are immediately attacked
from a political point of view as if we can continue to ignore the
problems we face and simply make sound bites out of proposals that
Members of the Senate and the House care very seriously about.
We have to work together to put forward commonsense solutions that
will preserve these programs for future generations. This is not about
ending those entitlement programs. In fact, the reports that recently
came from nonpartisan sources tell us that both Medicare and Social
Security will face significant shortfalls in the near future.
Therefore, this is about taking care of those programs to see that they
are available for those who need them in the future. I want to be able
to tell every young person--when they ask, will I be able to get Social
Security when I retire, I want that answer to be yes. If we don't deal
with the issues, the answer cannot honestly be yes.
In Congress, we have a solemn obligation to be good stewards of
taxpayer dollars. Our spending debate is oftentimes seen as something
that is philosophical or academic or more likely just a partisan
argument, but the truth is that out-of-control borrowing and spending
has a very real consequence on the daily lives of every American and
certainly on the economy in which we live and operate. It is about
whether Americans can find a job, make payments on their homes and
automobiles, and whether their children will have a bright future and
the opportunity to pursue what we all call the American dream.
When we continue to fail to balance the budget, when we don't put
ourselves on the path toward a balanced budget, it means increasing
inflation, with higher interest rates and an uncertain economy, which
results in fewer business investments and fewer jobs.
The greatest opportunity we have to improve the lives of Americans is
to erect an environment where employers feel comfortable in investing
in the future and create jobs so people can go back to work. When they
go back to work, they can put food on their family's table, they can
save for their children's education, they can save for their own
retirement, and most importantly, every person in America will once
again be able to pursue the American dream.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Surface Transportation Act
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I would like to address a slightly
different topic, which is the continuing conference on the highway
bill. We passed a very good highway bill in the Senate. We passed it on
time for the March 31 deadline when the highway trust fund was going to
expire. We passed it in bipartisan fashion, with 75 Senators supporting
it. We passed it after it came unanimously out of the Environment and
Public Works Committee with the support of the chairman, Senator Boxer,
and the ranking member, Senator Inhofe. We passed it after a very open
and transparent floor process in which around 40 amendments were agreed
to either by vote or agreement, and it has the support of everybody
from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to labor, from the pavers to the
environmentalists. So it is a good piece of legislation. It was done
right.
The problem is that it is running up against a time deadline. As my
director of transportation tells me, if we delay this too long, he has
to start dropping projects off of this summer's highway work period
because the time is slipping away as we dawdle here in Congress on this
bill.
It is not just the Rhode Island Department of Transportation saying
this. Standard & Poor's Global Credit Portal has a report,
``Increasingly Unpredictable Federal Funding Could Stall U.S.
Transportation Infrastructure Projects.''
It says within the report:
As the construction season begins in the northern half of
the country, this continuing uncertainty in funding could
force states to delay projects rather than risk funding
changes or political gridlock come July.
So we need to get this done, and I have heard at this point that the
House Republican conferees intend to hold the conference on this bill
through late June, and if we do that, that will cost jobs in America,
that will cost jobs in Rhode Island, that will cost jobs around the
country because our transportation directors are going to have to take
work scheduled for the summer and postpone it, and that is a very
unfortunate turn of events. It has nothing to do with the merits.
Unfortunately, the House was not able to pass a highway bill of any
kind, which is unfortunate because it is not the most complicated task.
It is something we have been doing for decades around here. They
couldn't get that done, and so what they have done now is gone to
conference on the Senate bill without a bill of their own, and this
appears to be causing delay. So I am here to urge that we all encourage
the House Members of the highway conference committee to expedite their
work as much as they can. Apparently there is a 2-week period that the
House is taking off, and if it is delayed by 2 weeks so that Members
can go home, I don't think that is a profitable use of our time.
There is a great deal of loose talk around here about jobs. We have
even had bills that didn't relate to jobs called jobs bills because of
gimmickry in the title. But this is a real jobs bill. This is 3.9
million jobs for the country, and it is 9,000 jobs for Rhode Island, as
calculated in years of work--job years. We are just wasting that if we
don't get this done on time.
So if people really want to do something about jobs, they can get the
highway bill moved along rapidly so that the work can be done in this
summer work session.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S3224]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Afghanistan
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise tonight to speak about the war in
Afghanistan. I have spoken on the Senate floor many times over the last
number of years about the war. I have done so because I believe the
American people and our servicemembers in the field deserve a policy
worthy of their efforts and their sacrifice and a thorough examination
of the issues at hand. I have done so also because when it comes to
matters of war, the Senate has an important responsibility to ask tough
questions of any administration.
I believe we are entering a critical phase in our engagement in
Afghanistan which will have implications for our eventual drawdown of
troops in the year 2014.
Earlier this month the President spoke to us from Kabul on the new
Strategic Partnership Agreement known by the acronym SPA. Of course,
this is an agreement with Afghanistan. He described a transition plan
which focuses on protecting and promoting shared Democratic values,
advancing long-term security, reinforcing regional security and
cooperation, social and economic development, and strengthening Afghan
institutions and governance.
I agree with the general approach laid out in the Strategic
Partnership Agreement, but I have several outstanding questions and
concerns regarding U.S. engagement in Afghanistan. I wish to describe
some of these concerns and lay out specific steps the administration
should take with respect to the war to ensure that U.S. security
interests and the tangible security, political, and economic gains in
Afghanistan are, in fact, protected.
I have participated in more than 20 hearings on Afghanistan and
Pakistan with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. I have
personally chaired four hearings on aspects of our engagements in the
region. I have visited Afghanistan and Pakistan three times, most
recently in August 2011, with the Presiding Officer, Senator Bennet,
along with Senator Blumenthal and Senator Whitehouse. When we were
there, we met with, as I have done on other visits, U.S. military and
civilian leaders, as well as senior government officials in both
countries.
Through this engagement, I have sought to examine U.S. goals and
progress in this war within three broad areas: first, the formation of
representative political institutions; second, the overall security
environment; and third, the development of key sectors in Afghan
society, including education, health, the economy, and the well-being
of women and girls. In examining these factors, it is clear to me that
a responsible drawdown of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan
must be concurrent with not only progress on security and an increase
in well-trained Afghan national security forces but with a strong
commitment to a transparent political process in Afghanistan.
We should work to ensure that there will not be a crumbling of
institutions similar to that seen prior to Afghanistan's civil war in
the 1990s. In fact, without representative political institutions, I am
concerned that the training of the Afghan national security forces
could, in fact, be counterproductive and that we would end up
developing a force that answers to a dysfunctional political system.
Politics and governing institutions matter a great deal, and there
are tangible steps the United States can take to support Afghanistan's
political development in the short term. Let me be clear. We should be
under no illusions that Afghanistan's political system will, nor
necessarily should, reflect our Western model developed over centuries.
But there are universal principles that should apply in Afghanistan,
including the inclusion of all key political groups and transparency in
elections and governance. In fact, the adoption of these universal
principles is perhaps the only antidote to continued decades of
conflict.
First, the 2014 transition to Afghan leadership will require the
active participation of the constellation of ethnic groups in
Afghanistan. They will need to have some confidence in the political
process or Afghanistan could very easily again descend into civil
conflict, similar to that seen in the aftermath of the Soviet
withdrawal in the 1990s. The opposition represented in what was
formerly known as the Northern Alliance will likely be among the most
skeptical. The United States can play an important role in bringing the
interested parties together for dialog to identify areas of concern and
a path forward looking toward 2014 and beyond.
Second, Presidential elections are scheduled to take place in 2014.
According to the Constitution, President Hamid Karzai is limited to two
terms and should step down. President Karzai has seen his country
through a very difficult and historic time. Afghanistan's elections--
the foundational act in a democratic system--have historically not met
international standards and have established the basis for an
unresponsive government, unresponsive government officials, and,
unfortunately, widespread corruption. A peaceful transition of power in
Afghanistan is not only good for the country and good for its
democratic institution, it is vital to our own transition out of
Afghanistan.
Third, Afghanistan's Independent Electoral Commission needs to become
a truly independent body. Currently, the President selects the
commissioners, creating the suspicion that the body is biased. In
accordance with international standards, the commissioners should be
selected by a body that reflects the broad consensus of the Afghan
people, not just the President. A statutory check on executive
authority is needed to ensure the impartiality of the body in the years
to come and enhance public confidence in the electoral system overall.
Fourth, President Karzai has issued a Presidential decree which
allows him to nominate the 5 national and 133 provincial commissioners
of the Electoral Complaints Commission. This body also needs to be
independent from the executive branch to remove any perception of bias.
During the last election, there was a lack of transparency in the
handling of these electoral complaints. Afghan authorities need to take
steps now to ensure that the national and provincial commissioners are
fair and transparent in their work. As it stands now, the political
opposition does not trust the Electoral Complaints Commission to
equitably deal with inevitable disputes that emerge from the process.
Throughout this process, the United States should emphasize the
importance of international standards in the conduct of elections and
stand ready to support a process that is based on those universally
accepted principles. We know at the Bonn conference in 2011 Afghanistan
pledged--pledged--to strengthen and improve its electoral process. We
must hold them to that commitment. The United States should condition
its aid in support of the administration of the 2014 election based on
these reforms. Let's send a very clear message: We will not be a party
to funding the administration of an election similar to those conducted
in the years 2009 and 2010. The administration must begin to act now.
Electoral reforms take time to adopt and implement. The clock is
ticking.
While political challenges abound in Afghanistan, the Parliament has
emerged as an important check on the executive and over the past
several years has begun to exercise more of a voice in governance. We
have seen several examples in recent years where the Parliament has
weighed in on important issues. Moreover, 27 percent of the Afghan
Parliamentarians are women--a stunning statistic compared to where we
were 10 years ago. The Parliament's upward trajectory is a promising
pillar of the democratization process, but more can be done. The United
States can play an important role in exposing Afghan Parliamentarians
to legislative experiences from other and different developing
democracies and the opportunity to meet their counterparts in other
Parliaments.
During our trip to Afghanistan last August, I and Senators
Whitehouse, Bennet, and Blumenthal had the fortunate opportunity to
travel to five of
[[Page S3225]]
the ISAF regional commands. We saw firsthand the progress made by our
airmen, soldiers, marines, and sailors on the ground. Due to their
efforts, the enemy has lost territory and influence. According to the
Pentagon, the number of attacks by militants dropped in 2011 for the
first time in 5 years.
There has been undeniable progress in pushing back the Taliban, but
these military gains are delicate and will be short-lived without an
Afghan force that can assume more responsibility for security. I
discussed these issues with LTG William Caldwell, the former commander
of the NATO effort to train the Afghan forces. Lieutenant General
Caldwell has been ably replaced by LTG Daniel Bolger. We have seen
significant progress in the training and deployment of the Afghan
Special Forces Units which, according to the Pentagon, have made
``impressive strides towards becoming an independent and effective
force.'' We have also seen growing independence of the Afghan regular
units. As of the end of March, 13 ANA kandaks have been designated as
able to operate independently with advisers. In September of 2011,
there was only one kandak with that designation. We have gone from 1
unit to 13 in a rather short period of time, so we know there is
progress.
But despite this progress, however, challenges in training the Afghan
National Security Forces, in fact, remain.
First, the Afghan security forces still do not have an elite Pashtun
officer corps and only 6.6 percent of the enlisted recruits are
southern Pashtuns. This is a significant shortfall that must be
addressed if the security forces are going to develop the cohesion
necessary to ably represent the ethnic makeup of the country and
address ongoing security challenges in the south.
Second, NATO currently requires 2,774 trainers to conduct its
training mission but faces a shortfall of 440 positions. While this
capability has improved, the training shortfall remains stubbornly high
and has an adverse impact on NATO's ability to adequately train the
Afghans in a timely manner. Our NATO partners can and should do more to
help address this deficit.
Finally, I have concerns about the long-term pricetag associated with
the Afghan National Security Forces. While investing in these forces
will be a fraction--a small fraction--of the $100 billion to $120
billion a year currently spent in Afghanistan by our government, we
must work to ensure that the force is right-sized to the security
challenges in the country and that there are strict accountability
measures in place to ensure that the Afghan National Security Forces
abide by all U.S. standards in terms of human rights and the Geneva
Conventions.
While we have made progress on the battlefield, the Taliban and
terrorist groups like the Haqqani network remain capable of spectacular
attacks across the country and, as we know, in Kabul, the capital.
Thirty-four percent of the attacks by militants took place in Regional
Command East, an area where the Haqqani network is most active. I
believe that the Afghan National Security Forces will be capable by
2014 of providing security in much of the country, but we need to
maintain a capability to attack and disrupt terrorist groups in the
country that seek to project force outside of Afghanistan's borders and
do harm to U.S. interests.
Central to the political effort is the ongoing effort to reconcile
with the Taliban. I have a high degree of skepticism that this can
work, at least in the short term. The Taliban has shown little interest
in compromise, and recent events show that this group is willing to
target civilians and to conduct devastating terror attacks against the
Afghan people. Ultimately, there does need to be a political end to
this conflict, as there is in all wars. But how we get there is
important, and the administration must set clear guidelines. In the
meantime, I support maintaining pressure on the Taliban until it
accepts the Afghan Constitution and agrees to peacefully participate in
the political process.
During our visit to Afghanistan last August, we also had the honor to
meet with several of Pennsylvania's servicemembers. Since 2001,
Pennsylvania has lost 80--80--servicemembers, and 589 have been
wounded. These courageous individuals gave what President Lincoln
called the ``last full measure of devotion'' to their country. We owe
them a debt of gratitude, and we owe a debt of gratitude, as well, to
their families and to veterans returning from the field. I, like a lot
of our colleagues, have visited with our wounded warriors and their
families at Bethesda, Walter Reed, and other places, and we keep them
in our thoughts and prayers every day. The courage and commitment of
these young Americans is hard to describe in a speech and it is hard to
illustrate, but it does demonstrate the best of who we are as a
country, and we see that every day.
We know in the area of development as well, there are enormous
challenges across a lot of sectors in Afghanistan that will likely
extend for years. Prior to the civil war, Afghanistan was one of the
poorest countries in the world. After decades of war, Afghanistan's
minimal infrastructure was destroyed. The challenges today to
significant progress are indeed substantial. Government corruption
obstructs any serious effort at rule of law and any basic respect for
contracts, which is a fundamental element of business growth. The
precarious security environment also serves to deter any international
investment. Poppy growth, fueled by the heroin trade, remains rampant.
Women continue to be subjected to unspeakable violence and
discrimination across the country.
Amid these daunting challenges, the United States should prioritize a
few key areas for developmental progress, so as to mitigate the
challenges leading to 2014.
The foundational basis for development in any society is the
educational system. We know that in 2002 only 900,000 students were
enrolled in school. Just 9 years later, 2011, more than 8 million
children were enrolled in school, 35 percent of whom were girls. This
will have a long-term, long-lasting effect on Afghan society, and the
United States should be proud of this element of our engagement and
should seek to protect those gains. I and other Senators, when we saw
this, were pleased to see that the partnership agreement prioritized
the access to, and the enhanced quality of, education.
We have also seen significant strides in the field of health care. In
2002, only 9 percent of Afghans had access to basic health services.
Today that number has grown to 64 percent of the population. More
children live to see their fifth birthday than ever before in
Afghanistan. Health care too was emphasized in the agreement that the
President talked about recently, and it focused on basic health
services and specialized care for women and children.
These are real achievements, but they are very fragile.
Also fragile are the overall gains made for women and girls in
Afghanistan. I was privileged, as I know Senator Bennet, Senator
Whitehouse, and Senator Blumenthal were privileged, to meet with a
group of Afghan women leaders during our August 2011 trip. We were all
tremendously inspired by their determination to continue to fight for
women's rights in the face of blatant oppression and violence.
In 2010, I cochaired a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on
the plight of women in Afghanistan. We must preserve the progress that
women and girls have achieved in the past 10 years. Empowered women
have an immensely positive impact on their communities, investing
resources in education, health care, and other basic needs. They also
dissuade young men from turning to militancy. In 2011, Secretary
Clinton told a group of Afghan women--and I am quoting--``We will not
abandon you, we will stand with you always.'' We as a nation have an
obligation to stand by that commitment to the women and girls of
Afghanistan. It is not only the right thing to do, it is in our
national security interest to do this as well.
I agreed, like many did, with the findings of a 2011 report by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which made three main
recommendations with respect to U.S. assistance to Afghanistan. First,
it called for a multiyear civil assistance strategy for the country.
Second, the report called for a ``Reevaluation of the performance of
stabilization programs in conflict zones.'' Third, it called for a
focus on sustainability. The report argued that all U.S. assistance
projects should meet three basic criteria: They should be ``necessary,
achievable, and sustainable.'' This simple concept is critically
[[Page S3226]]
important. A great deal of funding and resources has been expended in
Afghanistan, much of it on important and necessary programs. But with
the withdrawal of international troops and a commensurate decrease of
funds going into the country, there is a distinct possibility that
Afghanistan could experience an economic depression which could have
dramatic security implications. There is time now to address this
problem by conducting a careful review of all U.S. assistance to the
country. Those programs that are not sustainable should be phased out.
While this may have painful short-term consequences, it will be better
for the long-term viability of the Afghan economy.
The United States and the international community should consistently
reemphasize that while there will be a transition in 2014, this does
not mean the wholesale withdrawal and disengagement from Afghanistan.
The Strategic Partnership Agreement has helped send this message. The
United States will still have significant security concerns in the
country and should maintain a strong counterterrorism capability. Work
will still remain in providing support and assistance to the Afghan
National Security Forces. The international community can also continue
to play a key role in helping Afghan society to develop.
All of this falls squarely within our national security interests,
and all parties in Afghanistan and in the region should hear this
message.
Finally, I will end with a few comments about Pakistan. I continue to
believe that Pakistan is too important to U.S. interests for us to
sever ties or significantly diminish the relationship. We know we have
had trouble in our relationship, but we know a couple of other things
as well. Pakistan has lots of nuclear weapons. It is a hotbed of
Islamic extremism. It also provides the best logistics routes for our
supplies headed into and out of Afghanistan, and Pakistan will play an
essential role in ensuring the transition to a peaceful Afghanistan.
Despite the seemingly insurmountable challenges and at times
divergent strategic interests, we must continue to find a way forward
and work together where our interests do overlap. Pakistan has made
significant sacrifices in countering extremism within its borders,
mostly against forces that represent a direct threat to the state
itself. It has yet to go after the Haqqani network in a serious way. It
continues to provide a haven for the Quetta Shura Taliban, which is the
headquarters of those seeking to destabilize the Afghan State.
Pakistan has not taken adequate measures to confront the
proliferation and trade in illicit bombmaking materials which have
killed thousands of its own citizens and hundreds and hundreds of our
U.S. troops across the border in Afghanistan. Taking all of this into
account, there is a significant element of Pakistani society that we
cannot consider allies. This is why I strongly support the
conditionality built into U.S. assistance to Pakistan, which requires
that the Pakistani authorities make significant progress in countering
terrorism and attacking IED networks. If they do not take steps to
address these issues, this assistance will be significantly cut, and it
should be.
For more than 2 years I have worked to address this critical problem
of improvised explosive devices, which are responsible for the majority
of deaths and injuries among our servicemembers in Afghanistan. The
primary explosive ingredient in IEDs used in southern Afghanistan is
calcium ammonium nitrate, CAN. It is also used as a fertilizer and is
produced in factories in Pakistan. I have been adamant that the
Pakistani Government must significantly increase its commitment to
regulating the bomb components and preventing them from being smuggled
across the border into Afghanistan.
In June 2010 I introduced S. Res. 570, which called for an increased
effort by Pakistan to effectively monitor and regulate the manufacture,
sale, transport, and use of ammonium nitrate fertilizer in order to
prevent its entrance into Afghanistan. The resolution passed the Senate
unanimously on June 28, 2010.
During our recent visit to Pakistan, I discussed this issue with
several senior government officials, as did Senator Bennet, Senator
Whitehouse, and Senator Blumenthal. The Pakistani leaders expressed an
interest in countering the proliferation of bomb components and
presented to us an action plan for interdicting these materials.
However, the proof of their commitment has yet to be seen through the
implementation of this plan.
In December of 2011, I introduced an amendment to the National
Defense Authorization Act that would require the Secretary of Defense
to certify that Pakistan is demonstrating a continuing commitment to
and making significant efforts toward the implementation of a strategy
to counter IEDs. This provision, unfortunately, was removed during the
conference committee. The final version of the bill requires the
Secretary of Defense to produce a report on Pakistan's efforts to
counter IEDs.
I continue to believe combating the threat posed by IEDs is one area
where our interests do in fact overlap with Pakistan. At this time of
frayed relations, IEDs continue to kill Pakistanis, Afghans, and, of
course, Americans on the battlefield. By working together against this
common threat, we can begin to rebuild confidence in the relationship
and make progress toward more vexing strategic issues that affect our
countries.
In September of 2010, I gave a speech on Afghanistan and Pakistan at
the Army War College in Carlisle, PA. Former Secretary of War Elihu
Root believed that the Army War College was established in 1903, ``not
to promote war, but to preserve peace by intelligent and adequate
preparation to repel aggression.''
That is what Secretary Root said all those years ago. As we look
forward to 2014 and a long-term relationship with the people of
Afghanistan, all of our support for representative political
institutions, improving the security environment, and Afghan social and
economic development are intelligent and adequate preparation to repel
aggression.
The next year and a half will be very consequential. If the United
States works to strengthen representative institutions, bolsters the
Afghan security forces, and maintains sustainable development
assistance, all will pay dividends for our peace and security for years
to come.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________