Emergency Supplemental

Floor Speech

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL -- (Senate - April 12, 2007)

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last month I came to the Senate floor to express my doubts about the emergency supplemental spending bill put forth by the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate.

The supplemental was, and still is, a flawed bill that will do little to advance the cause of either liberty or victory in Iraq. It is a poorly crafted bill that includes language directing the President to begin a phased withdrawal of American troops, essentially tying the hands of the Commander in Chief, and signaling to our enemies that this is the day on which we will wave the white flag and surrender.

Mr. President, the Democrats believe the war in Iraq is a civil war between Sunni and Shia, and that America has no place in their war. I see the war in Iraq as a war between Islamic fascists and everyone else.

Contrary to the belief of many of my Democratic colleagues, we are in the middle of that war, be it in Baghdad, New York, Pennsylvania, Bali, London, or Madrid. What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fail to realize is that diplomacy and the exertion of military force are not mutually exclusive of one another. You can and must have both, and they must be effective.

But it is naive to think that you can have diplomacy in a vacuum, especially when you are dealing with a country such as Iran, a country bent on developing nuclear weapons, increasing its ballistic missile capability, and providing weapons and training to our enemies in Iraq.

However, this is all moot because the Democratic leadership on the war supplemental spending bill has been absent these last couple of weeks. Here we are, almost 3 weeks after the bill was passed in the Senate. There has been no conference of the bill. And the other body, the House of Representatives, has yet to appoint conferees. What are we waiting for? Why are we asking our men and women in uniform to wait?

Well, unfortunately, waiting is what our military is going to do. The Democratic leadership has thus far decided to purposefully send a bill to the White House that they know will be vetoed in order to set up a confrontation with the President to score political points.

I find it ironic that many of the Democrats who are so insistent on micromanaging the war and usurping the power of the President cannot even show up and show the requisite leadership to pass an emergency bill that funds our troops. Our troops deserve more from this Congress.

I hope my colleagues across the aisle will do what is right and get a bill passed that the President can sign into law. If you look at what the consequences of us not acting are, it has been very clear. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said: This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families.

The supplemental is necessary to pay for training and equipping our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the supplemental is not passed by April 15, the military will be forced to consider the following steps: Curtailing and suspending home station training for Reserve and Guard units; slowing the training of units slated to deploy next to Iraq and Afghanistan; cutting the funding for the upgrade or renovation of barracks and other facilities that support quality of life for troops and their families; stopping the repair of equipment necessary to support predeployment training;

reducing the repair work being done at Army depots; delaying or curtailing the deployment of brigade combat teams to their training rotation; this, in turn, will cause additional units in theater to have their tours extended because other units are not ready to take their place; delaying formation of new brigade combat teams; implementation of a civilian hiring freeze; prohibiting the execution of new contracts and service orders, including service orders for training events and facilities; holding or canceling the order of repair parts to nondeployed units in the Army.

These are all things that can result simply because this Congress has not acted in a way that is consistent with what is in the best interest of our men and women in uniform who are serving their country in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is about the politics of whether we ought to be withdrawing. Of course, as I said, the legislation that has passed both the House and Senate, including time lines for withdrawal, which ties the hands of our Commander in Chief, ties the hands of our generals in the field, sends a very clear message to our troops that we don't believe in their mission, that we don't believe it is possible for them to attain victory. It sends a very clear message to our enemies that on this date certain, we are going to pull out. What does that say to them, other than all they to have do is to wait us out?

Irrespective of where you are on this particular war--I know it is divisive in the United States--when it comes to the fundamental question of making sure our troops have the resources they need to do the job we have asked them to do, to make sure we are supporting the important work they are doing and giving them the impression we believe they can win and that we want them to win, there is nothing more important in the Senate for us to be dealing with. I know there are a lot of important issues the Senate has to deal with. We have an Intelligence authorization bill we are deliberating. We had stem cell research in the last couple of days. We ought to be dealing with issues such as immigration and health care and energy, all issues that are important to the people.

I submit nothing is more important than making sure the men and women in uniform, serving our country in theaters of conflict, have the resources they need to do the job we have asked of them.

Meanwhile, while the House is out of session and has yet to appoint conferees so even our staffs in the House and Senate could get together and begin discussing the differences between the House and Senate bills to get a bill to send to the President, which the President can subsequently veto and send back here so we can have an override vote, which will fail--then we will be right back where we started--the troops don't have any funding. Hopefully, at that point, perhaps, the Democrats in the House and Senate will come to the realization that all these theatrics and shenanigans being played on the floor of the House and Senate are not doing anything but sending a message to our enemies that we are weakening in our resolve and not doing what we need to be doing, and that is funding our troops to make
sure they have the necessary training and equipment and ability to conduct and win this mission we have asked them to complete.

The ironic thing about it is, while all this is not going on here, the absence of activity in the Congress where we ought to be conferencing the supplemental bill so we can get the process moving forward and hopefully get a bill back from the President that will have been vetoed so we can send him another bill that has funding in it for our troops, while all this is not going on in Washington, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, while the House is out of session this week in recess, is traveling around the world conducting foreign policy. Where and since when is it the job of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to conduct foreign policy, going to other countries in the world, particularly countries with which we don't have a relationship, countries that harbor and sponsor terrorist activities, meeting with them to deliver messages from other countries around the world?

I know we have a President and Vice President, we have a State Department and a diplomatic corps, all of which are tasked with that important job. But the Speaker of the House of Representatives somehow decided she should be the courier of messages between Israel and Syria.

It should come as no surprise that the Israeli Prime Minister took issue with the Speaker of the House of Representatives conducting Israeli foreign policy as well, not to mention the fact that she didn't have the authority to do it, nor was the message she delivered the correct message. It seems to me what we ought to be focused on as a Congress is not running around the world meeting with leaders who are aiding and abetting the very people our men and women in uniform are fighting against in Iraq but, rather, being in Washington, dealing with the important issue of funding our men and women in uniform who are involved in a very important mission for the future of our country. I know this is an issue on which this country has great debate. I know people in my State, as in many States, are weary of the conflict in Iraq.

We have in place a new strategy that includes additional troops, a change in rules of engagement, new conditions and benchmarks for the Iraqi Government, for the Iraqi military. I want to see it work. I want to see our troops succeed. I believe a majority of the people want to see our mission in Iraq succeed, knowing full well the consequences of failure will be detrimental and disastrous to the United States and to our security in the future. Yet here we are. The Senate is here. We can't conduct a conference because the House of Representatives is not in session, nor did they, before they departed for a 2-week recess, appoint conferees to the supplemental appropriations bill that would enable us to go about this important work.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. THUNE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. SESSIONS. About the conference process, when an emergency supplemental is passed, even though it had language in it that I know the Senator opposes, and so do I, it would normally have to go to a conference committee of Members of the House of Representatives and Members of the Senate. Sometimes it takes a good while, does it not, historically, for differences in the House and Senate bills to be worked out? It sometimes takes a good while; would the Senator agree?

Mr. THUNE. That is correct. The Senator is absolutely right. He well knows, anytime the House and Senate act on separate pieces of legislation, it has to go to a conference

committee. Differences have to be worked out before the conference report can come back to the House and Senate and be passed and ultimately sent to the President.

Mr. SESSIONS. Those conference committee appointments are decided by the leaders of the Senate for the Senate conferees and the leaders of the House, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, would appoint those conferees. If it were something they wanted to have done badly, that was high on her agenda, would not they have appointed conferees before we recessed almost 2 weeks ago so the conferees could have begun work during this interim period, staffs could have been working on these issues and been ready to move rapidly when the House comes back in session? If they had wanted to, couldn't they have done that?

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I serve with my colleague from Alabama on the Armed Services Committee. This is an issue he cares deeply about, making sure our men and women are well cared for and that they are in a position to do the work we ask them to do. It would make sense--I think it is fair to say--that the House, knowing they were going to take a 2-week recess, to appoint the conferees so the important work of the conference committee could get underway, so we wouldn't have to wait another several weeks to get this legislation through the conference committee, ultimately sent to the President, where it is certain to be vetoed, so that it has to come back here and start all over again. It seems that would be a fair expectation of our colleagues in the other body when it comes to appointing conferees for this important legislation.

Having served three terms in the House of Representatives, I had the privilege during those terms to represent my class as a Member of the House leadership. On a weekly basis, I had the opportunity, under both Speakers Gingrich and Hastert, to be a part of the process. I know how many pressures and how much responsibility comes with the job of Speaker of the House. Our Senate leaders on both sides have a caucus of about 50 people, thereabouts, that they have to deal with. The Speaker of the House has a responsibility for making sure that 435 Members of the House of Representatives are moving forward with a legislative agenda. There is a lot of responsibility, a lot of pressure. I have experienced and seen firsthand much of that.

What I don't understand, however, is where in the job description of the Speaker of the House comes this notion that somehow the Speaker of the House ought to be going out and meeting with Syrian leaders, countries and leadership that are aiding and abetting the people we are fighting against, our enemies in Iraq, and trying to conduct foreign policy, representing the interests of one of our allies, the Nation of Israel, and not only misrepresenting their views but, frankly, exercising authority that clearly they didn't give her to exercise. I am at a loss to explain why we would be here waiting to conference an important supplemental appropriations bill that will fund the troops while the leadership of the other body is traveling the world, conducting meetings that clearly ought to be in the purview of our representation at the State Department and the White House and diplomatic corps.

If the Senator from Alabama would like to make some comments on this particular subject, I am happy to yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Alabama if he will yield for a question.

Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, I agree with everything he said. The thing I guess that has troubled me about this process since the inception of the debate we have had in the Senate, that has been swirling around in Washington for some time, has to do with the way this supplemental bill was constructed and the proscriptive language that was put in it relative to tying the hands of our Commander in Chief, tying the hands of our generals, essentially substituting the judgment of politics in Washington for the judgment of our generals in the field.

I am extremely troubled by that language, as is the President, which is why he has indicated he is going to veto this bill when it comes before him. They knew that. They knew that when it was passed. They knew when it went down there, it was going to be an issue which the President, absolutely, in his constitutional role as Commander in Chief, could not allow--that type of language and that type of restriction--to be imposed on his ability to prosecute and win wars.

But I guess my question to the Senator from Alabama has to do with: If the Senate or the House wanted to stop what is happening in Iraq, wanted to withdraw, get our troops home immediately--in spite of the fact that under this new strategy we now have more troops there, we have different rules of engagement, we have more buy-in from the Iraqis; the Iraqis are coming more into the fight; we have an opportunity, in my view, at least, hopefully, to have success there--what is the step the Congress, if they wanted to basically end our involvement there, could do? Is it not to cut off funding? Would that not be?

If the Senate and the House were serious about this, why is it they are going about all these shenanigans, trying to provoke this confrontation with the President over this particular language that ties his hands relative to time lines, when in fact the real constitutional role the Congress has is funding? Is funding not the way, if the Senate and the House wanted to be heard on this, they would go about doing that?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I could not agree with the Senator more. Having been in the Department of Justice a number of years as U.S. attorney and having had a few occasions to deal with this specific issue, money not appropriated by Congress cannot be spent by the Government. In fact, there is an Antideficiency Act that makes it a criminal offense for a governmental official to spend money that Congress has not appropriated.

So that is our responsibility: to fund or not fund. The Democratic leader said they are going to fund. It is not our responsibility to micromanage the war, however. So I would say we absolutely as a Congress--if we reach that decision--can shut off funding, and tomorrow the troops would have to be brought home, or shortly thereafter.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Alabama because I think it is an important point to make--I have heard the debate here a lot, and, again, as it continues in this city and across the country, that there has to be a political or diplomatic solution that somehow we have to reach; the sides have to come together, which I do not disagree with. However, I would also argue, in order for that to happen, you have to have security. You cannot have a functioning democracy or government absent security; in the last several hours, a couple of lawmakers in Iraq were killed in the Green Zone.

How is a government to function, how is a political process to work, if there is not adequate security, which is the point I believe many of us have made all along. I say to my colleague from Alabama, there has to be not only a political solution, but there has to be security established. That is what this new strategy is designed to accomplish, to allow that process to work. We ought to allow this strategy an opportunity to work, rather than pass bills out of here that tie the hands of the President, tie the hands of our generals, substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our generals in the field. Furthermore, we need to get funding to our troops.

So I think the Senator from Alabama has put it very eloquently, and I join him in urging the rest of our colleagues in the Senate--and, obviously, hopefully, very soon in the House--to get this process wrapped up, to get

a bill to the President that he will ultimately veto, send it back here, start over again, and let's at least get the funding to our troops so we can get this situation in Iraq secure so this political process can function and work and, hopefully, create a stable democracy.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I say to Senator Thune, I agree, and will recall for our colleagues that--I believe it was postelection--General Schoomaker, the Chief of Staff of the Army, pleaded with us not to allow what happened last year to happen this year. He was referring to delaying passing the supplemental because it causes all kinds of problems.

A few weeks ago, he testified again, and he was passionate about this. It is his soldiers, predominantly, Army soldiers in Iraq. He pleaded with us not to delay this supplemental. He said you have to take money from all kinds of accounts, and time and effort the leadership in the Department of Defense needs to be spending helping the soldiers being successful has to be redirected to bringing money together in ways that are not easy to fund the effort. He described it as trying to walk through a marsh waste deep in water--those were his words--in the muck.

We are creating a political muck that makes it very difficult and adds additional burdens to our Defense Department when they have so many important things to do. We should not do that.

I thank the Senator for his eloquent remarks and his leadership on the Armed Services Committee and for his commitment to our soldiers and commitment to the United States of America and the good foreign policy we have had, we seek to accomplish.

Our foreign policy is a foreign policy designed to improve the Middle East. It is designed to improve the lives of the people in Iraq. It is not an imperialistic attempt to gain wealth or power at their expense. We want them to be successful. In the end, it will be successful for us. It will make us more safe. It will make the world more safe and can begin the end of some of the radicalism we are seeing.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source