[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10447-10449]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          AMERICA COMPETES ACT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am glad we are ready to begin again, 
after we finished up on our bill yesterday.
  Finally, we will be prepared to deal with the funding for our troops 
today. It has taken a very long time but, nevertheless, I am glad the 
time has arrived.
  I just wanted to say that as often is the case, I have had the 
opportunity to visit with several students from my wife's class at 
Washington Lee High School. Each year I look forward to her bringing 
her class here because it is important for young people to understand 
this is their Government as much as yours and mine. So I am delighted 
at the number of young people who come here from Wyoming and, in this 
case, from Virginia.
  To learn more about this Government is so important, and these young 
people are, of course, tomorrow's responsible leaders. I am just 
delighted to have them here. We talked about the American COMPETES Act. 
These students and opportunities for them is what it is all about. That 
is what we have been talking about and thinking about.
  The American COMPETES Act has a good purpose and a good role. America 
must maintain its competitiveness to be able to continue to compete. We 
need to challenge our young people and encourage them to challenge 
themselves to be prepared to move into the future and be prepared to 
take advantage of the opportunities this country provides for all of 
us.
  However, I do not believe the solution to keeping America in the 
forefront of technology simply lies in throwing money there, without 
any particular reason to expect results from it.
  We have gotten in the position here in the Congress that when we hear 
of a problem--and there are problems--if we can pass a bill and send 
some money, then we have accomplished our job. I am sorry, I do not 
believe that is necessarily the case. I think we have to take a look at 
where we are on these issues. For instance, how many Federal 
educational programs are there now? What kind of a job have we done in 
trying to see how effectively those dollars have been spent and are 
being spent? So just having more programs and more money is not 
necessarily the answer.
  Certainly, these students and these schools need more money, and they 
need to have programs, but they really need support from dedicated 
teachers, from parents, from family members, and friends.
  Having discussed this topic on the floor before, we have to be 
careful about the number of Federal programs we continue. We talk about 
the budget over here, about deficit spending, and yet at the same time: 
Well, let's have another bill, let's have another $60 billion and go 
forward with programs of that kind.
  It is important that we try to concern ourselves about adding more 
programs and not knowing necessarily where and how effectively that 
money is going to be spent. Unfortunately, most of the programs we put 
out there are institutionalized. They suddenly become part of the 
permanent process and are there forever and become permanent fixtures, 
irrespective of whether there are objectives to be met and whether they 
are meeting them. I hope, as we go forward, as we are now in the 
process of doing, with appropriations and funding for the year 2008 and 
being concerned about the deficit, about the amount of spending the 
Federal Government finds itself in and, frankly, the role of the 
Federal Government in terms of what the States should be doing, what 
local schools should be

[[Page 10448]]

doing, these kinds of things, we will reevaluate what is the role of 
the Federal Government and how we can be most effective. We have a 
role, there is no question, but there is a limit to that role.
  It is a little easy for us, if we see a problem, to say: Let's just 
pass another bill. Let's put some more money out there and then just 
walk away from it and say: We have done our job. That is not 
necessarily the case.
  I believe the America COMPETES Act has good intentions. Perhaps it 
will do some good. But I have to say again that in retrospect, it is 
important that we look at what is the role of the Federal Government. 
What programs are we doing and how do we measure their effectiveness 
and how do we measure how long they will be there and how can we 
measure their impact. We will find out soon how that works.


                           iraq supplemental

  A word or two about the supplemental bill that will come before us 
today. We have talked about this a number of times. I must say that I 
am not pleased with how we have gotten to where we are. It has 
absolutely taken too long. There is no question, as my friend from the 
other side of the aisle says, that we need to talk about this issue. We 
have talked about it. We need to take positions. We have taken 
positions. That is a good thing. But the idea of simply stalling the 
money that is necessary to support our troops who are already there is 
not a good idea. Funding is not the way to deal with our feelings about 
it.
  In particular, the process has taken too long. Billions in 
nonemergency spending has been added to the bill, things that may have 
merit, some of them, and some of them do not. Fortunately, some of them 
have been taken out. But the idea of adding spending that is totally 
irrelevant to funding the troops just doesn't seem to be appropriate. 
It sort of indicates the way we keep spending money around here and 
finding ways to hook it onto something else. I am disappointed in that.
  The majority has attached an increase in the minimum wage to this 
bill. How does that fit the funding for the troops in Afghanistan and 
Iraq? During the conference, additional measures not in either the 
House nor Senate bill were quietly tucked in. We are using this as a 
transportation system for a lot of things, when the challenge before us 
is that we have troops there who have to be funded. There is talk 
about: Well, they don't need to be funded until July because they can 
take their money from somewhere else. Then you are taking money away 
from the various kinds of health care that is available for veterans 
and other things that are equally important.
  What is most frustrating is the majority has used the parliamentary 
maneuver to deny a vote that I had intended as an amendment on the most 
egregious spending. We didn't get a chance to put that on the floor. 
Certainly, if there is anything that is appropriate, that would have 
been the way.
  At any rate, we seem to have lost our focus somewhat. We had a good 
report yesterday from the commanding general in Iraq. He indicated that 
while we are not experiencing runaway success, we are beginning to see 
success in a new approach with new leadership, and they need our 
support. I am optimistic the Senate will have another opportunity to 
get through this, get it right, and get the funding to the troops. I 
will do my part to ensure that we do.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Wyoming in 
rising to express my concerns about the budgetary problems the Army and 
Marine Corps are going to face because the Democratic majority has 
committed to staging a showdown with the White House instead of 
fulfilling our obligation to fund the military.
  Over 2 months ago, the former Army Chief of Staff, General 
Schoomaker, testified before the Armed Services Committee that if the 
Army and Marine Corps do not get the supplemental funding by mid-April, 
the services will experience a serious cashflow problem and have to 
take extraordinary measures that will slow down the whole system. On 
April 11, the Secretary of Defense wrote Congress and stated:

       It is a simple fact of life that if the Fiscal Year 2007 
     supplemental legislation is not enacted soon, the Army faces 
     a real and serious funding problem that will require 
     increasingly disruptive and costly measures to be initiated--
     measures that will inevitably negatively impact readiness and 
     Army personnel and their families.

  Moreover, on April 19, the Associated Press reported that the $70 
billion provided to fight the war has mostly run out. I want to say 
that again: The $70 billion that the Army needs to fight this war has 
mostly run out.
  In order to stretch their remaining funds through June, the Army is 
slowing down the purchase of nonessential repair parts. I am not sure 
what repair parts during a war are nonessential. I guess we will have 
to leave it to our generals to inform their soldiers that their 
vehicles are not getting repaired because they are nonessential.
  There is important funding in this supplemental. For example, Senator 
Biden offered an amendment to purchase more mine-resistant, ambush-
protected vehicles for our soldiers in the field. I commend Senator 
Biden for offering this amendment. I commend his commitment to it. 
Senator Biden said two things with which I wholeheartedly agree. First, 
he said that providing funding for these vehicles is a moral 
imperative. Second, he said it was a matter of life and death. I agree. 
His amendment and the supplemental as a whole represent a moral 
imperative for every Senator. It is a matter of life and death for our 
soldiers serving in combat. Yet the Democratic leadership is not 
handling this issue as a matter of life and death because they are 
determined to send a bill to the President that he has said he will 
veto.
  As we all know, the President's objection to this bill is the troop 
withdrawal language that ties our commanders' hands and telegraphs to 
our enemies the time and place of our surrender. Congress should not 
and Congress must not get into the habit of interjecting itself into 
the military chain of command. To do so invites disaster and moves the 
country from the premise of conducting our military operations with one 
Commander in Chief and not running it by committee.
  I direct some of my comments to some of our colleagues on the other 
side, primarily the leadership. I have been very concerned and shocked 
recently to read statements of members of the majority stating that 
their strategy is to send the President bills he will veto because it 
is politically advantageous. Some of our colleagues on the other side 
were quoted as saying recently:

       We are going to pick up Senate seats because of this war.

  Quoting again:

       We will break them, because they [the Republicans] are 
     looking extinction in the eye.

  I would say to my Democratic colleagues, we are not the enemy. If you 
want to break something, let's break the enemy. Let's break al-Qaida. I 
am concerned about where this debate is headed.
  I have to tell my colleagues, as I have listened to our colleagues 
talk about this war particularly of late, we have had Democratic 
leadership saying that the war was lost. If that is true, then who won? 
Terrorism? Al-Qaida? Religious extremists who murder the innocent? Or 
all of the above? If this is a true and accurate representation of the 
majority's position, it is not surprising that Congress has not sent an 
emergency supplemental to the President.
  I serve on the Armed Services Committee. I have traveled several 
times to Iraq. I have visited, numerous times, Walter Reed Hospital and 
the military hospital in Germany. I have to say that I have not talked 
to one GI who says the war is lost. I have not talked to one injured 
soldier who says the war is lost. I have not talked to one officer who 
has said the war is lost. I have not talked to one commander who has 
said the war is lost. The only place I hear the statement that the war 
is lost is right here from the Halls of our Nation's Capitol or from 
news reports from Al-Jazeera or Iranian television quoting the majority 
leader of the Senate.

[[Page 10449]]

  Our American soldiers believe they can win. Our American soldiers 
always believe they can win. That is why they are American soldiers. 
They are the best. It has to be very disturbing to our American 
soldiers to constantly hear politicians in Washington, DC, telling them 
they can't win. The Democratic leadership in Washington is playing a 
game of roulette with the administration where the only losers will be 
the American soldier.
  We need to focus on providing our troops the equipment and resources 
they need to win this war. It is a global war. We have to quit acting 
as if short-term political gains are going to win this war for us. They 
will not. We need a unified and serious effort on the part of both 
parties in the Congress to win this war and to keep our Nation secure. 
History is going to judge us based on how we respond to the crisis of 
our generation.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, instead of this body appointing 
an accusatory finger across the partisan aisle, what this body ought to 
be doing is invoking the old principle that in the old days, at the 
water's edge, partisanship stops. We have seen on both sides of the 
aisle too much of that partisanship, particularly in matters of war and 
peace. There is a genuine disagreement not only over the conduct of the 
war but the very fact that we are in this war to begin with. We can't 
do anything about that now. We were given false information, massaged 
information, misinformation that caused us to enter this war and, after 
a quick and very decisive and very impressive victory, then set about 
the process of an occupation that was fraught with error and 
misinformation. But that was then, and now is now. What is in the 
interest of the United States? Clearly it is to stabilize Iraq, if that 
is possible.
  A distinguished group of Americans, five Republicans and five 
Democrats in the Iraq study commission, unanimously came together last 
winter and said what they thought would be the plan, the best way we 
could stabilize Iraq, led by an eminent and distinguished Republican, 
former Secretary of State and a former Chief of Staff in the White 
House to President Reagan, Jim Baker, and led by the longtime and 
distinguished and equally as respected former Congressman and former 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in the House, Lee Hamilton.
  Now, this is not a question about losing or winning a war; this is a 
question about, What is the best chance we have for stabilizing Iraq? 
Because clearly a stabilized Iraq in that part of the world is going to 
certainly help the neighbors in the region, and it is certainly going 
to help us, and clearly it is going to help the Iraqis.
  So what did the Iraq study commission say? Well, they said it very 
clearly. I am reading from the Executive Summary:

       The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to 
     one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over 
     primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first 
     quarter of 2008--

  By the way, that is a year from now, that is April, that is the end 
of March--

       By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected 
     developments in the security situation on the ground, all 
     combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be 
     out of Iraq.

  It is true, they did not say ``should be out of Iraq.'' They said 
``could be out of Iraq.'' But they are giving a blueprint.
  I continue with the quote:

       At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed 
     only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction 
     and special operations teams, and in training, equipping, 
     advising, force protection, and search and rescue.

  I conclude this particular paragraph:

       Intelligence and support efforts would continue. A vital 
     mission of those rapid reaction and special operations forces 
     would be to undertake strikes against al Qaeda in Iraq.

  That is the Iraq Study Group report. It said: Go after al-Qaida. It 
said: Continue to train the Iraqi forces. It specifically talked about, 
in that training, embedding with Iraqi forces. It said ``force 
protection,'' meaning force protection for our forces and for U.S. 
personnel. And it said ``search and rescue'' missions. That is exactly 
what we have in front of us today to vote on.
  Now, there is additional language put in here about the President 
would have to certify and waive on this and that progress by the Iraqi 
Government. Clearly, you want to give some indicators to the Iraqi 
Government of what we expect. Again, what we are voting on today is a 
goal of having redeployed--basically, with the waiver by the President, 
we are talking about October 1. This is April--May, June, July, August, 
September--6 months from now is the goal of starting the redeployment. 
It does not say ``withdrawal,'' it says ``redeployment'' because 
``redeployment'' is a term that is then defined by all of those things 
we just talked about. That is in this legislation we are going to vote 
on today.
  Now, there are those in this body I certainly respect who would say 
they do not want any kind of conditions put on the President in order 
to conduct the war. I respect that. That is a difference of opinion 
that we have. But common sense would tell you that you cannot conduct a 
war if you do not have the support of the American people. The American 
people clearly want change. So it is time for us to start the process 
of the change.
  Now, this Senator, along with most every Senator in this Senate, was 
in the meeting yesterday with General Petraeus. There was clearly a 
message that General Petraeus had hope, but seasoned with a great deal 
of reality, realizing the additional complexity. There were no clear-
cut answers yesterday in us meeting with the top general over there in 
Iraq, a general whom we all admire and respect. Yes, there is still 
hope. But there is also the need for change. This document starts the 
process of the change.
  Now, it is my hope that after we go through this exercise, it will 
pass today--narrowly, just like it passed a month ago narrowly--the 
legislation will go down to the President--and he has already said he 
is going to veto it--and then is the opportunity for cooler heads, as 
the Good Book says, to come let us reason together. That is my hope.
  So I will be voting for this supplemental funding request that funds 
the troops, that funds other necessary emergencies.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________