[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Pages 31872-31874]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we are facing a number of challenges in 
the Senate and in the Congress, but none is more important than our 
willingness and our responsibility to properly support the men and 
women in our Armed Forces who are serving us today in Iraq and 
Afghanistan; serving us because we voted to send them there, doing the 
policy of the United States that has the support of the President, the 
Chief Executive, the Commander in Chief, and that has been supported by 
the Congress.
  Yes, we have had a lot of debate, a lot of dissension, and a lot of 
complaints, but when the chips have been down, time and time again we 
have authorized and funded the activities that are going on now in the 
name of the United States of America in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
  We had an election last fall. We have heard people talk about that. 
But the American people did not say: We want to pull out of Iraq 
regardless of the consequences. They said they were not happy, and none 
of us were happy with the way things were going.
  It seemed to be drifting in a bad way, and there seemed to be no 
positive results coming. So we had, after this election, last spring, 
April and May, a big debate about it. And President Bush said: We need 
to change policy. I am going to send a new general over there, General 
Petraeus, and we are going to change tactics, and I am going to ask you 
to approve additional troops. I am asking for a surge in troops.
  So we talked about it. We debated it right here in the Senate. This 
great Nation's legislative branch responded to the President's call and 
had a debate on it. We had no obligation to fund that. None whatsoever. 
But earlier in the summer, we voted 80 to 14 to fund the surge in Iraq 
and to send General Petraeus and to give him a chance to utilize a new 
tactic and a new strategy for confronting the terrorist forces we were 
facing there, in particular al-Qaida, which was a strong entity at that 
time.
  I have got to tell you, I was worried things had not gone as well as 
we had expected. We had had a bad year, and casualties were up and 
attacks were up and it was a tough time. But as part of that debate, we 
asked General Petraeus to come back in September and give us a report. 
My Democratic colleagues and others, all of us were concerned. We 
wanted a report to see how things were going because we were not going 
to have a blank check and unended obligation to Iraq if things were not 
going to work.
  That is a fundamental synopsis of the situation. I believe that is a 
fair analysis. So General Petraeus came back and gave us his report. 
General Jimmy Jones had been sent and a group of other independent 
evaluators with experience in military matters.
  That commission was sent over there at the direction of Congress. 
When we passed the supplemental to fund General Petraeus and the surge, 
we required another report, not just General Petraeus, but the Jones 
Commission to come back and make a report. We asked the General 
Accounting Office to do an evaluation also, the independent GAO.
  So they all came back in September. We had hearings and debate and 
suggestions and we continued to go forward. We voted, in essence, to 
continue to allow General Petraeus to pursue the plans he was carrying 
out. Some progress had been made. It was notable, but it was not 
sufficient for us to say with certainty that a major change positively 
had occurred. We could not be certain of that. But it looked as if some 
progress was being made with more troops and new tactics.
  So we said then: Let's go forward. And we did. Now we have seen some 
very dramatic positive developments in Iraq. The Iraqi people, by all 
accounts, I think few can dispute this, have believed the American 
troops are reliable allies. We have changed our tactics in how we deal 
with the local Iraqi officials and tribal leaders and mayors and chiefs 
of police.
  We are doing a much better job--General Petraeus is--of partnering 
with them. They have turned against al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden's troops, 
that terrorist group they thought was going to take over Iraq. And Al 
Anbar, the worst area in Iraq for al-Qaida, has made a transformation. 
Al-Qaida is on the run throughout Iraq. Violence is down substantially.
  Can I guarantee you it will continue to go down? I cannot. I can tell 
you that deaths of American soldiers are down by two-thirds this last 
month; and attacks on Iraqi civilians, which always cost more lives 
than attacks on our American soldiers, are down by a similar margin. 
Attacks on Iraqi soldiers are also down.
  Al-Qaida has virtually been removed. Sadr's group has quieted down 
and seems to be working with the Government. The Government has not 
performed like we would like it to. The Parliament, they have not 
performed like I would like to see them perform. I think they deserve 
criticism for that. But it is not an easy thing for them to do, just to 
walk in and reach agreements that affect the future of Iraq and the oil 
revenue and military power within Iraq for generations to come.
  It is understandable they would be somewhat reluctant. But they need 
to do better. But, fundamentally, as of this date, things are so much 
better than they were in April and May, and so much better even than 
they were in September. That is quite remarkable. No one, I think, can 
deny that.
  We are a great nation. We have a great Congress. And we went through 
a national post-election discussion about what to do. Were we just 
going to pull out regardless of the consequences? Were we going to give 
General Petraeus a chance to employ new tactics? We voted to give him a 
chance. It is beginning to work better than I think any of us would 
have predicted so far. It is rather dramatic.
  So I would say to my colleagues, at this point in time, for goodness' 
sake, let's not now start cutting back on the ability of our soldiers 
to have the resources they need to continue what they are doing. Let's 
not try to pass legislation that directs General Petraeus how to 
conduct operations in Iraq.

[[Page 31873]]

  What do a group of politicians in a dysfunctional Congress have to 
offer to one of the most brilliant generals this Nation has ever 
produced, General Petraeus? In a few short months he has achieved 
dramatic progress there.
  We are committed there. Our soldiers are committed. They are serving 
us now. I had an e-mail the other day sent to me from a relative of a 
soldier in Iraq. He was saying things are better. The only concern he 
had was what the Congress would do, whether we would pull the rug out 
from under them, if we are going to deny them the resources they need 
to continue the progress. After all this effort, to walk away from what 
we have done is, to me, unthinkable.
  We are at a point now where instead of giving a supplemental that 
will allow the military to plan the year's activities, plan to go 
forward with, as you know, General Petraeus's commitment to reduce 
troops by next summer, we are talking about a $50 billion supplemental 
with all kinds of strings attached to it. The President is not going to 
accept it. He cannot accept it. He is not going to accept it. So for us 
to continue to pursue a supplemental with excessive strings attached 
that is too small, leaves the military uncertain of the support of the 
American people and the Congress is a bad thing for us to do. It really 
is. It is not good.
  Well, they say, let's keep the military out there. Let's let them 
know we are watching them. We are going to keep control of them instead 
of giving them the funding they need for a year or more. Let's do it a 
few months at a time. Then we can bring them in here, and we can beat 
them up. We can appeal to our antiwar people out in the country and let 
them know we are fighting for them, and we will do all these things. 
And it won't hurt anything.
  But it does hurt. If you were walking the streets in Baghdad right 
now attempting to execute the policy of the United States, placing your 
life at risk, does it not make any difference to you whether Congress 
is behind you? I think it does make a difference. While questioning 
General Casey yesterday, the chief of staff of the Army, former 
commander in Iraq, I said, I am concerned that what we are doing is 
going to undermine the confidence American soldiers have in the support 
they have at home. It will embolden the enemy and make our allies less 
certain of our commitment. I said, I know you don't want to be drawn 
into a political debate, but that seems to be the situation. He summed 
it up this way. He said: Senator, as I said in my opening statement, it 
sends the wrong message.
  Doesn't it send the wrong message that we can't, after a full debate 
this summer, now continue for a few months to support our troops? They 
are in the field now. Why stand we here idle? Why are we not doing our 
part to show them the support they need? We will watch this situation 
in Iraq. If it gets worse and things are not moving effectively, then 
we ought to, as a Congress, continue to consider whether to remove our 
troops, to cut off funding. But that is not what we are going to do. We 
are not going to cut off funding for our troops while they are making 
the kind of progress they are making. It is not going to happen. So if 
we are going to actually follow through eventually and give this money 
to them, why don't we do it in a way that helps them to be even more 
successful instead of doing it in a way that makes it more difficult 
for them and places our soldiers and troops at greater risk?
  This is what the Deputy Secretary of Defense wrote a few days ago, 
November 8, about the budget situation we are now in. Yes, we did pass 
a Defense appropriations bill. But we funded the military effort in 
Iraq and Afghanistan by separate supplemental appropriations. It allows 
us to have more control over what is actually being spent on the war 
effort to do it separately. He wrote this letter. This is Secretary 
Gordon England:

       I am deeply concerned that the . . . Defense Appropriations 
     Conference report under consideration does not provide 
     necessary funding for military operations and will result in 
     having to shut down significant portions of the Defense 
     Department by early next year.

  He goes on to say:

       Without this critical funding, the Department will have no 
     choice but to deplete key appropriations accounts by early 
     next year. In particular, the Army's Operation and 
     Maintenance account will be completely exhausted in mid-to-
     late January, and the limited general transfer authority 
     available can only provide three additional weeks of relief. 
     This situation will result in a profoundly negative impact on 
     the defense civilian workforce, depot maintenance, base 
     operations, and training activities. Specifically, the 
     Department would have to begin notifications as early as next 
     month to properly carry out the resultant closure of military 
     facilities, furloughing of civilian workers, and deferral of 
     contract activity.

  If you were Secretary of Defense, what would you do if you have 
soldiers in the field authorized by the Congress, authorized by the 
Commander in Chief, and you run out of money? You have to lay off your 
civilian personnel, and you have to get the money to the soldiers whose 
lives are at risk.
  Secretary England goes on to say:

       In addition, the lack of any funding for the Iraqi Security 
     Forces and the Afghanistan National Security Forces directly 
     undermines the United States' ability to continue training 
     and equipping Iraqi and Afghani security forces, thereby 
     lengthening the time until they can assume full security 
     responsibilities.

  These are not idle threats. The money is running out. We ought not to 
be dangling the Defense Department out there, leaving them hanging with 
uncertainty, having them spend hours and hours figuring out how they 
are going to juggle personnel, developing plans to lay off nonessential 
civilian personnel, although I suppose in some sense are all essential, 
but laying off civilian personnel and canceling contracts. It will 
result in substantial expense to the Government for penalties and that 
kind of thing. We ought not to be doing that.
  This is what Secretary of the Army Geren said yesterday at the Armed 
Services Committee hearing:

       Let me just conclude with a brief comment on the 
     supplemental.
       Very quickly we run through the resources that are 
     available to us.
       Dr. Gates has told us to start planning for what we're 
     going to do when we--if we reach the point where we do run 
     out of our O&M funding and start making plans for what we as 
     an army would do with that eventuality.

  He pleaded with us:

       Last year, we had bridge funding that helped us through 
     this period. This year, we don't have that funding. So we 
     just ask that--we know there are many issues you all are 
     working on and working through regarding that supplemental. 
     But it's very important for us to be able to provide the 
     orderly and reliable support to our soldiers, for us to get 
     that funding.

  Isn't that a reasonable request for him to make? I know moveon.org 
doesn't want us to fund the military. But we voted 80-14 to do this as 
a Senate, and the House also supported it. Why are we putting the 
military in a position to go through incredible gymnastics to try to 
manage this effort, because we are leaving them hanging about whether 
we are going to give them the money to support our troops?
  Senator John Thune of South Dakota, a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, asked this of General Casey. General Casey is the chief of 
staff of the Army. He asked:

       And I want to ask General Casey, if I might, a question 
     because earlier this year the Army--it was at an Army posture 
     hearing, I believe, that your predecessor, General 
     Schoomaker, raised concerns about the effect of not 
     delivering adequate and predictable funding, particularly in 
     the form of supplemental funding for the war effort.
       We're 46 days into the first quarter of fiscal year 2008. 
     We don't have an authorization bill. We don't have a bridge 
     funding bill for the [Department of Defense]. And we don't 
     have an [fiscal year 2008] global war on terror supplemental.

  Senator Thune goes on:

       We recently sent a defense appropriations bill to the 
     president which he has signed into law, but that has little 
     effect on the war effort.
       So my question is what will be the effect of no timely 
     bridge funding or supplemental funding. Will you have to 
     cancel service contracts, lay people off, slow down work at 
     depots, those sorts of thing? If you could, address that 
     subject.

  This is what General Casey said, a career military man:

       Secretary [of Defense] Gates has instructed us to begin 
     planning for that possibility. The

[[Page 31874]]

     signing of the appropriations bill did two things. One, it 
     gave us money for our base budget, but it also stopped the 
     continuing resolution funding that was going to support the 
     war.
       So now we're faced with having to fund the war without a 
     bridge out of the base budget. Our Army O&M account is about 
     $27 billion. When you look at our Army base budget . . . 
     you're talking about $6.5 billion, $6.6 billion a month.
       If the Army is asked to fund this without any type of 
     bridge or without any additional resources, we're going to 
     run through that $27 billion . . . around mid February. And 
     we cannot wait until then to start making some of the 
     decisions that will have to be made.
       Our employment contracts, many of them, require 60 days' or 
     45 days' notice before you can furlough somebody. We have 
     many of the services that are provided by civilians, by 
     contractors, and it would have a hugely detrimental effect on 
     the home base.
       We will beggar the home front to make sure our soldiers 
     that are in theater have everything they need, and it will 
     put a terrible burden on our soldiers, on families, on the 
     institutional Army, our ability to train.
       Timely funding is absolutely essential. An organization of 
     our size cannot live effectively with unpredictable funding. 
     And we need that supplemental passed soon, or we're going to 
     have to start planning for the possibility that we're not 
     going to have it.

  Can anybody dispute that General Casey is exaggerating about that? 
Can anybody dispute that uncertainty in funding has a terrible impact 
on the Pentagon?
  Senator Thune asked another question:

       General Schoomaker also testified that the Army was forced 
     to cash flow itself through the first quarter of . . . 2006. 
     Could you explain what that means? And will the Army have to 
     do that again?

  General Casey:

       We're in that position now. The O&M account is our account 
     that offers us the greatest flexibility. Most of the other 
     accounts are constrained by specific--we call the term color 
     of money.
       But we would find ourselves having to spend the O&M money 
     not only to support the Army but to support also the war 
     effort. So we are in that position today and using up the 
     funds at a rate of $6.5 billion a month against a $27 billion 
     total.

  So I hope in the weeks to come our leaders in the Senate will begin 
to work together in a way that can allow us to approve this funding--
that I think with certainty we will ultimately approve--sooner rather 
than later and not go through this painful exercise.
  I have to say, I really think it would be a lot better for our 
country, I think it would be a lot better for our military, I think it 
would be a lot better for our allies, and I think it would put us in a 
much better position against our enemies if the leader of the Senate, 
the majority leader, would quit saying this is a doomed, failed effort. 
It is not helpful.
  We have voted to support this effort, and we do not need to be saying 
publicly it is not going to work when, in fact, we are achieving more 
success today than any of us would have thought possible just a few 
weeks ago.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________