Senate Record - February 8, 2007
From dKosopedia
| Congressional Record | |
|---|---|
| Senate - February 8, 2007 - week 6 | |
| 110th - United States Congress | |
| |
| Senate Majority Leader | Harry Reid |
| Minority Leader | Mitch McConnell |
| Previous | Wednesday - February 7, 2007 |
| Next | legislative session |
These are consolidate excerpts from the Congressional Record, covering the major actions of the United States Senate in the 110th United States Congress on February 8, 2007. For the daily summary of the actions in the Senate click here. For a summary of the actions in the House click here, and for Congress as a whole on this date, click here.
Only major action or debates are usually included in these excerpts. For the complete Congressional Record for this date, click on the THOMAS link (i.e. the date within the title of the opening header) in the article below.
On the Floor
Morning Session - Thursday, February 8, 2007
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable Robert Casey, a Senator from the State of Pennsylvania.
Schedule
Mr. Harry Reid-D, (NV) Majority Leader - Mr. President, today following whatever time the leaders might utilize, the Senate will be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, the first 30 minutes will be for the majority, the second 30 minutes will be for the Republicans. Once morning business closes, under a previous order, the Senate will return to executive session and conclude the debate on the Casey nomination. Up to 30 minutes of debate is in order, and that time will be equally divided and controlled between Senators Levin-D and McCain-R. At the end of that time, the Senate will conduct a rollcall vote on confirming the nomination.
Through the Chair, I direct a question to my distinguished counterpart, the Senator from Kentucky. I would like to take about 10 minutes prior to the vote on Casey. We can put that in the order now, if you would like to also do that, and reserve that time, at least, whether you decide to do that or not. Shall we reserve the time?
Mr. Mitch McConnell-R, (KY) Minority Leader - I say to my friend, the majority leader, that will be fine. I may or may not use that time.
Mr. Harry Reid - I ask the request be amended to allow the last 20 minutes of the debate be equally divided between the Republican leader and me, and I will take the final 10 minutes prior to the vote.
The Acting President pro tempore - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Harry Reid - After the confirmation vote, the Senate will proceed to the continuing funding resolution.
The Acting President pro tempore - Under the previous order, there will be a period for the transaction of morning business for up to 60 minutes with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the majority. The Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, is in control for up to 20 minutes and the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, is in control of 10 minutes and the final 30 minutes under the control of the minority.
The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Morning Business
Ron Wyden-D (OR)
Saudi Aradia and Counterterrorism
Mr. Wyden-D, Oregon - Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I wish to talk a bit this morning about the all-important war against terrorism and particularly the sources of funding that allow the terrorists to obtain the resources with which they conduct this war.
It is impossible to talk about funding terrorism without mentioning Saudi Arabia. With its extraordinary oil wealth, the Saudis have a tremendous economy which is home to many strains of extremist Islamist thought. Over the years, the combination of wealth and extremism has proved to be a volatile combination.
A few years ago, a telethon in Saudi Arabia raised more than $100 million for the families of "Palestinian martyrs," a group which reportedly included suicide bombers. According to public news reports, Saudi Arabia's ruler, King Fahd, ordered the fundraising drive as a way to channel public anger in the kingdom against the United States and Israel.
Just because the Saudis are no longer holding telethons for terrorists does not mean that they aren't providing substantial funding for terrorism in other ways.
A number of Government agencies have noted that Saudi Arabia is a source of funding for hate-filled extremist ideologies, but Saudi-based support for terrorism does not stop there. In fact, it may be a part, a small part of what we face in this war against terrorism. According to the State Department, Saudi donors and unregulated charities have been a major source of funding and support, not just for groups that preach radical ideologies but for actual terrorist organizations.
I wish to cite now some specific examples. An examination of the public record reveals clear connections with some of the world's most infamous organizations, such as al-Qaida. The staff of the 9/11 Commission, for example, noted that the intelligence community identified Saudi Arabia as the "primary source of money for al-Qaida both before and after the September 11th attacks." They went on to say "fundraisers and facilitators throughout Saudi Arabia and the Gulf raised money for al-Qaida from witting and unwitting donors and divert[ed] funds from Islamic charities and mosques."
The Iraq Study Group, to look at another effort to examine these issues, stated that "Funding for the Sunni insurgency in Iraq comes from private donors in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states," and Iraqi officials have reportedly asked the Saudi Government to do more to limit the support that these donors provide to Iraqi insurgents.
The State Department has reported that private Saudi donors are a primary source of funding for Hamas.
Early last year, Ambassador Crumpton, the State Department's coordinator for coun�ter�ter�ror�ism, told a House subcommittee that the Saudi Government, "had made a bit of progress in reducing the flow of funds from Saudi Arabia to Hamas and other Palestinian rejection groups, but conceded that the money funding these terrorists is still going on."
Other governments have gone even further in their statements with respect to the funding of terrorism. In the fall of 2005, Israeli officials announced they arrested an individual, who they claimed was acting as a courier between Hamas members in the Palestinian territories and Hamas members in Saudi Arabia. No other governments have confirmed this, but if it is correct, it certainly raises a host of troubling questions. Clearly, one can see that the threat posed by these donors goes beyond the spread of religious intolerance and extremely dogmatic forms of Islam. Rather, money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to support insurgent groups in Iraq; money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas; money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to al-Qaida.
Under Secretary of the Treasury Stewart Levey summed up this situation pretty clearly. He said:
Is money leaving Saudi Arabia to fund terrorism abroad? Yes. Undoubtedly some of that money is going to Iraq, it's going to Southeast Asia, and it's going to other places where there are terrorists. There is money leaving Saudi Arabia.
I think it is also appropriate to put this in the context of what it means to folks this Pennsylvania and Oregon and everywhere else, and in effect what happens when you pull up at a gas station in Pennsylvania and Oregon is you are paying a terror tax. A portion of what you pay for gasoline in Pennsylvania or Oregon or elsewhere, in effect, finds its way eventually to the Government of Saudi Arabia, and then we see that the Saudis end up back-dooring it to various kinds of terrorist organizations.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) describes this problem very succinctly, stating it this way:
Saudi Arabia's multibillion-dollar petroleum industry, although largely owned by the government, has fostered the creation of large private fortunes, enabling many wealthy Saudis to sponsor charities and educational foundations whose operations extend to many countries. Government and other expert reports have linked some Saudi donations to the global propagation of religious intolerance, hatred of Western values, and support to terrorist activities. So that is what we are talking about when we talk about this terror tax which literally is paid every time an American pulls up in Pennsylvania, Oregon, or anywhere else and fills their tank with gasoline.
The former Director of Central Intelligence, James Woolsey, summed it up pretty well just recently. He said:
We live in a world where Saudi Arabia earns about $160 billion from exporting oil and a big share of that, several billion dollars, goes to the Wahabbi sect for their worldwide work, which is to set up madrassas in Pakistan and other places. And the ideology that is taught in those madrassas is for all practical purposes the same as al-Qaida's.
As the GAO report notes, this problem appears to go beyond the funding of an "al-Qaida ideology"—it appears to be funding terrorist activities.
So let me now turn for a few minutes to the question of the Saudi Government's role in all of this. When you look at all the evidence, it is pretty clear there is a serious problem, and the question is, What has the Saudi Arabian Government been doing about all of this? Are they part of the problem? Are they doing anything to address it?
Let me review the history. First, there appears to be no question that in the first couple of years after the 9/11 attacks, Saudi Arabia was directly involved in supporting terrorism. The telethon that raised money for families of suicide bombers was sponsored by the Saudi King. In many ways, the Saudis' position changed when terrorism hit home in the aftermath of the horrible terrorist bombings that hit Riyadh in mid-2003. Since then, there seems to be broad agreement throughout the U.S. Government that the Saudi Government's coun�ter�ter�ror�ism efforts have improved.
It is not at all clear that the Saudi Government is going far enough to help in this fight against terrorism. Following the Riyadh bombings, the Saudi Government instituted a number of new anti�ter�ror�ism laws and policies, but all the evidence indicates they have fallen short with respect to implementation of those laws. Here is an example: The Saudi Government announced that all charitable donations distributed internationally must flow through a new national commission that purportedly would ensure the money did not end up in the hands of terrorists. It has now been nearly 3 years since this announcement was made, and the commission is still not yet up and running. Even worse, our Treasury officials reported last year that the Saudi Government's brandnew, highly touted finance intelligence unit was not "fully functioning." Similarly, while the Saudi Government has worked with the United States to designate particular charities as terrorist financiers, it is not always possible for our Treasury officials to independently verify that particular problem charities--the ones we are most concerned about—have actually been shut down.
Certainly, there have been some individuals in the Saudi Government who have attempted to address the terrorism question. At least since 2003, Saudi leaders have made a number of public statements indicating they wish to address the problem. But these examples make clear that the reality of what is needed to win this war against terrorism still is not in line with some of the rhetoric.
With respect to implementing and enforcing anti�ter�ror�ism policies, the actions of the Saudi Arabian Government are questionable at best. There are two problems. The first is, as I have indicated, not all of the proposed new laws and policies have been implemented, and the second is that we have to get the Saudis to make a more aggressive commitment to enforcement. So you have to get them implemented, and then you have to get them enforced.
John Negroponte, of course, the Director of National Intelligence, has been following this. At one of our open meetings of the Intelligence Committee, I asked him his assessment of the situation. Director Negroponte indicated that, in his view, the situation had improved a bit since 2003, but he made it clear, stating specifically that more work needs to be done, especially in the area of private Saudi donors, and that more is needed to crack down on their activities.
This sentiment was echoed by the Congressional Research Service, which reported that no high-profile donors—none—had been subject to criminal punishment by the Saudi Government. The State Department has said publicly:
Saudi Arabia should demonstrate its willingness to hold elites accountable.
But, unfortunately, in Saudi Arabia, the elites hold all the cards, and the Saudi Arabian Government, as indicated by the Congressional Research Service, is not willing to go after those who are most influential—the elites—in their country.
Now, some have gone even further and suggested that the Saudi Government might actually be involved in the propagation and financing of terrorism. The evidence on this point is inconclusive, but this does not rule out the possibility that lower level officials in the Saudi Government may, in fact, be involved in funding or facilitating terrorism. Given the high levels of corruption reported in Saudi Arabia, this is certainly a possibility.
Moreover, as the General Accounting Office points out, the distinction between the Government's support and funding versus that provided by entities and individuals, especially in the case of Saudi charities' alleged activities, is not always clear. The Saudi Royal Family is an excellent example. The Royal Family contains several thousand family members who collect Government allowances of varying amounts. If one of these royalties took a portion of their allowance money and funneled it to al-Qaida or Hamas, Saudi officials might claim that this did not even constitute Government support for terrorism. Certainly, I and others would say that the Government still bears significant responsibility.
I would also argue that just because Saudi leaders are not personally involved in financing terrorism, this should not absolve them from accountability. Most of my constituents would contend that if terrorist activities are being planned or financed inside Saudi Arabia, then the Saudi Arabian Government has a responsibility to get off the dime and stop it. As we say in our State, you are either part of the problem or you are part of the solution.
The Congress has a responsibility now to investigate this issue, and there are a number of key questions that ought to be answered.
First, how much money is flowing from Saudi Arabia to terrorist groups? Which groups are the major beneficiaries and to what extent is official corruption a major factor?
Second, there needs to be an examination of how far the Saudi Arabian Government has gone in implementing its new antiterrorist laws. Implementation and enforcement have clearly fallen short, but where can we see concrete examples of actual followup? What major gaps still remain?
Finally, there needs to be an examination of the internal situation in Saudi Arabia. Currently, the Saudi Government is run by a small group of men in their seventies and eighties. What is likely to happen when they are gone? How secure is the regime now? What sort of government would be likely to emerge if the Royal Family lost their power?
It would be premature to try to offer answers to these and the other key questions. What is clear is that our Government will need to put more pressure on Saudi leaders than the current administration has applied thus far.
It also seems very likely the answers will have a dramatic effect for U.S. energy policy which currently perpetuates our dependence on foreign oil. My guess is that people in Pennsylvania, like Oregonians, think that just about the most red, white, and blue thing we can do for our country is to get a new energy policy. Certainly, as we go forward to look into the activities of the Saudis, a bipartisan effort to get a new energy policy is a key factor in ensuring our ability to protect our citizens at a dangerous time.
In the coming weeks and months, I plan to examine this issue as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have asked our chairman, our very able chairman, Senator Rockefeller, to hold a closed hearing specifically dedicated to this topic, and one has been scheduled for this afternoon. It is time to bring to light the way in which Saudi oil money is fueling the fires of terrorism so people can actually see who is getting burned and what is necessary to protect the security and the well-being of Americans in a perilous world.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
The Acting President pro tempore - The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Nelson-D, Florida - Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Acting President pro tempore - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Bill Nelson-D (FL)
Iraq & Troop Escalation
Mr. Nelson-D, Florida - Mr. President, I will speak on the President's decision to escalate by 21,000 troops into Iraq and whether it will be effective. If we determine the likelihood of success is not going to be effective, and we put 21,000 more troops in harm's way in the middle of sectarian violence, then it doesn't seem to me to be a wise policy if it is not going to be effective. It is naturally legitimate to debate whether it is effective.
The President's plan specifically is among the 21,500 to take about 17,500 to put into Baghdad and another 4,000 into the western part of Iraq, Anbar Province. I happen to agree with the latter part because I was convinced by the Marine generals that an increase of our forces would help them augment the success they have had, since all of that area is almost entirely Sunni and the problem there has been al-Qaida and the al-Qaida insurgents. I agree with that part of the President's strategy.
However, most of the troops—some 17,500—are scheduled to go into Baghdad, in the midst of the sectarian violence, and that is where I disagree. I point out to the Senate, the President's strategy is predicated on the fact of the Iraqi Army being reliable. Now, will it be reliable? If the President's strategy is predicated on that fact of the Iraqi Army being reliable, one would think the administration has come to the conclusion the Iraqi Army will be reliable. The fact is, they haven't.
In testimony after testimony by administration witnesses, not one witness in any of the hearings that have been held in the committees upon which I have the privilege of serving—the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Intelligence Committee—not one witness has been able to state that the Iraqi Army will be reliable. To the contrary.
The Secretary of Defense, the new commander of American forces in Iraq, the new combatant commander for the United States Central Command—every one of them has been unable to answer in the affirmative that the Iraqi forces are going to be reliable. As a matter of fact, a few days ago the Secretary of Defense said to the Senate Committee on Armed Services that we will have to wait and see if they are reliable. The very underpinning of the President's strategy for success is an unknown.
I bring to the Senate's attention what has been released 2 days ago. This is the unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate. This is the best estimate by our intelligence community. Listen to what they have to say on exactly this subject. I am reading from the unclassified version:
Despite real improvements, the Iraqi security forces, particularly the Iraqi police, will be hard pressed in the next 12 to 18 months to execute significantly increased security responsibilities, and particularly to operate independently against the Shia militias with success. Sectarian divisions erode the dependability of many units. Many are hampered by personnel and equipment shortfalls and a number of Iraqi units have refused to serve outside of areas where they have been recruited.
That is word for word the National Intelligence Estimate, unclassified version, that says the same thing as Secretary Gates, General Petraeus, Admiral Fallon, and the soon-to-be new Army Chief of Staff, General Casey, who served for the last 2 1/2 years in Iraq.
I come back to the question I continue to ask. If the President's plan for success by an escalation of troops in Baghdad is predicated on the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi security forces being reliable—since they are to take the burden of the clearing and then the holding of an area—and if no one can state they are reliable, why are we pursuing this plan of an escalation of forces into Baghdad?
We hope they are going to be reliable. We hope for the success of our forces. The stakes are high, unquestionably, of stabilizing Iraq. But is this the wisest course, putting 17,500 more American forces in Baghdad at high risk? In this Senator's opinion, the very underpinning, the foundation of the President's plan, is undermined by virtue of the fact that none of the administration principals can answer the question that they are reliable. They can't answer that question. Therefore, I do not think it is in the best interests of our country or of our troops to escalate these forces into Baghdad.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding officer - The Senator from Oklahoma.
Budget Continuing Resolution
Tom Coburn-R (OK)
Mr. Coburn-R, Oklahoma - Mr. President, I spend a few minutes talking about the supposed continuing resolution we are going to have that is really an omnibus. Every time we have an omnibus, the American people get hurt. The reason is we play games.
We came off an election in November of 2006 where we had the claim made that the party in power had used earmarks irresponsibly, had played the budget gimmicks, had done all these things. We had a claim we would work toward bipartisanship, be honest and open in what we do. I come to challenge that in terms of what I would call an "terrible" bill.
First, under the rules of the Senate, although we are going to be shut out on amendments, it is harmful for the American public that there are no amendments to this. It is harmful because, first, it destroys comity in this Senate. It creates hard feelings. I would be the first to admit that the procedure that is being used on this was first used by a Republican. It is wrong.
The second thing that is important is there are all sorts of budget gimmicks with it. The quote is we stay within the budget. That is a lie because what they do is they steal money from our grandchildren which they will get back on the next supplemental, but that won't have to be within the budget limitations. So we are playing games. Nothing has changed about the Senate and the wink and the nod to the American public about what is happening to our future financial conditions. Mr. President, $3.1 billion out of this will be transferred to the next supplemental to pay for things that absolutely have to happen with our troops in terms of transferring them from Germany and the BRAC relocation process. That has all been stolen so we can do other things. They may be a priority, but maybe something else should be eliminated rather than to break the budget and charge more to our grandkids. So that is not true.
The third thing that is extremely wrong with this is the claim that this has no earmarks. In 2006 appropriations bills, 96 percent of all earmarks were in report language. That means there is a bill that is a law and then there is language that accompanies the bill that is not law. That is where we find most of the shenanigans going on in Congress. And it is equal among Democrats and Republicans as far as the earmarks.
To make the claim that there are no earmarks in this bill is an outright falsehood that the American people should not accept. The reason it is false is there is a little statement in this bill that these earmarks don't carry the force of law. It doesn't say they eliminated them. But you know what. They don't carry the force of law now. They haven't for the last 10 or 12 years. They haven't ever carried the force of law, but they carry the force of coercion because the agencies know if this is written into the report language and they don't do it, there is retribution they will face when it comes to the Congress and the appropriations process.
Ninety-four percent of all the earmarks that were in 2006 in these bills are in this bill. To claim otherwise is inaccurate and it should make the people of America reject with disdain how this Senate operates.
I remind this Senate that it wasn't but 2 or 3 weeks ago that Senator DeMint put in transparency of earmarks, much like Congresswoman Pelosi had asked. That was voted against by the majority of the Democrats until they found out they were going to lose. Then we modified it so they could vote "yes" after they had voted "no." That is okay if you don't want them, but be honest about it. The fact is, there is no transparency with these earmarks. Most Americans will never know how they got there. The lobbyists will know; the Members will know; the campaign checks that come from them will know. But the regular "American Joe" won't know.
So the claim that we are operating under a new standard, the claim that we are going to have bipartisanship, the claim that we are not going to use budget gimmicks is all a farce. It is a farce. Let's change that. Let's give the American people something to be proud of. Let's have the hard debates on the questionable areas on this bill.
I will spend a minute and talk about one area of this bill. The one area where we have been very successful in eliminating HIV infections has been women who are pregnant and are having babies who are HIV infected. In 1996, New York passed a law saying all babies whose mothers' status with HIV wasn't known would be tested, and if they carried the antibodies for the mother, they would be treated. New York, since that time, has gone from at least 500 babies a year getting infected with HIV to less than 7.
Connecticut passed a law in 1998. They have gone from whatever their level was to zero since 2001. It is an area of hope where we have made tremendous progress in terms of preventing transmission to young babies, identifying pregnant women so they can be under treatment earlier so they don't go to full-blown AIDS, and preventing infection of other people by identifying people who are infected.
It is all based on an option of being able to opt out. If you do not want to be tested, you do not have to. This bill precludes any moneys to be spent on that. How dare we. How dare we stop the area where we are most effective in the country at preventing HIV infection.
Let me detail that a minute. For a newborn baby--we don't know the mother's status--it only costs us $10 to identify whether that baby is carrying the antibodies from a woman who is infected with HIV. The treatment, which is 99 percent curative, costs $75.
Now, to abandon all this, the treatment to treat a baby infected with HIV--which will result in this--costs a quarter of a million dollars for the first 10 years--$25,000 a year. So it is not only that we are not preventing an infection, we are not preventing an infection after that through breast-feeding, we are wasting money that could go to buy drugs for those people who cannot afford drugs today who have HIV.
The HIV epidemic is totally controllable. To block the funding, especially for African-American women who carry the burden of this disease in pregnancy, is unconscionable. There is not a good answer for why this prohibition was put into this. And whoever did it--whoever did it--does not care a whit about the innocent children who are going to get the HIV infection, does not care about the African-American woman who is carrying it but does not know she has it, who could be treated and never progress to AIDS. What they care about is politics and political correctness.
Former President Clinton recently announced he thinks we need to reassess, we need to be testing. That is a 180-degree turn from where he was. Why? Because he looks at this country and says: Why aren't we controlling this epidemic? It is because we are not testing, we are making it too hard to be tested. We have had great advances in drugs. We have great ways to prevent transmission. But if we do not know who is carrying it--and one out of every three people in this country who have HIV does not know they are infected. So what we should be about is making testing easier--easier to do, more available, more accessible--and in a way that will make a major impact on people's lives.
I am sorry the majority leader has decided to run this bill this way because I think it portends lots of things for the future of this body that are not going to be good. Nobody can accuse me of being partisan on earmarks. I went after my own party harder than I went after anybody else. I did not see anybody last year from the other side come down here and challenge an earmark. I saw nobody in the last 2 years from the other side come down here and challenge an earmark. And then to claim there are no earmarks in this bill, and to try to do a wink and a nod to the American public that oh, yeah, we are fixing it, when in fact 95 percent of them are there, it gives us cause to pause: Has anything changed? It has not. It is still the game, American public. The only way you are going to have this place cleaned up is transparency in everything we do.
I hope the majority leader will reconsider his position on not allowing amendments to this bill. If he does not, one, he hurts the next year and a half in this body in terms of relationship and fairness; but, No. 2, he hurts the American public worse than that.
With that, I yield the floor.
The Presiding officer - The Senator from Texas.
Kay Baily Hutchison-R (TX)
Mrs. Hutchison-R, Texas - Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for beginning to talk about this Omnibus appropriations bill that is coming to the floor in the form of a continuing resolution.
At this point, we are told the amendment tree will be immediately filled and there will be no amendments allowed to this over $400 billion Omnibus appropriations bill. It is not too late for the distinguished leader of the Democrats, the majority leader, to allow some amendments. He said on the floor yesterday he was open to discussions and thought that probably maybe some amendments on the Democratic side and the Republican side would be in order.
When you take something that is this big--$400 billion--this number of appropriations bills, and you see the incredible changes that have been made in these bills, without any hearings, without sufficient time to even digest everything that is in these bills, I think a few amendments are warranted.
I think Senator Coburn pointed out something that surely no one intended--surely no one intended--to stop babies from being able to have the HIV/AIDS test that would give them a chance at a quality of life which they will not be able to get if they do not have this test and catch potential AIDS in their bodies right at birth.
I am going to talk about one I know a lot about, and that is the military construction and BRAC. Military construction is completely dropped in this bill, completely dropped from last year's military construction bill. We passed this bill in the Senate. We tried to go to conference. The Senate sent it to conference. But we were not able to get the House to agree; therefore, the bill died last year.
I will say that it is not the Democrats' fault that bill died last year. But, nevertheless, the Democrats now are in charge, and I would ask the distinguished leader to acknowledge we have bills that have not been fully passed, conferenced, and sent to the President, but a continuing resolution that is unamendable is not the right approach, particularly if we take to heart what the distinguished leader said was going to be different about the Senate under his leadership.
In fact, there is precedent. In 2003, the Republicans took over the Senate after the Democrats had been in control. There were 11 appropriations bills undone. Those 11 bills were put together in an Omnibus appropriations by the Republicans. There were 6 days of debate. There were 100 amendments offered. The majority of the amendments that were added to the bill were Democratic amendments.
So I think that is the precedent we should follow in the Senate. This is a body that is supposed to allow for discussion, debate, transparency, and minority rights. We are in the minority. We know that. But we have never been denied on such a continuing basis the ability to even affect legislation or amend legislation. That seems to be a pattern in the first 5 weeks of this session. I do not think it is what was intended by the majority when they took control of the Senate, and I think there is a chance to come together and maybe go a different way; that is, to allow amendments on major bills.
We now have a bill that is called a continuing resolution, and it strips BRAC, it strips the base closing construction that will keep the Base Closing Commission results that were adopted by Congress that are the law of this country from going forward with the 6-year timetable that was set out by Congress.
We have 6 years to do the construction that will prepare bases that are going to receive troops and to close bases in an expeditious manner so the cities that have these large amounts of land will be able to take over those bases and do something productive for their respective cities with those bases.
What we have now is a delay that will last 1 year. It is going to cause a backup in the system of adhering to the congressional responsibility for BRAC. It is going to begin to handicap the ability to move troops from overseas that are scheduled as early as this year to move.
Mr. President, 12,000 troops will begin to move that are part of the rebasing operation from foreign bases to American bases. Twelve thousand will not be able to move with all of the amenities we require.
Let me read excerpts from a few of the military leaders of our country, letters that were sent on behalf of the military of our country, asking that Congress act on both the military construction bills that were passed by both Houses of Congress but not conferenced last year and the $3 billion that was taken out of the budget and spread throughout the other bills that are in this omnibus continuing resolution.
The Democrats have taken $3 billion out of military construction to effect our mandate of a 6-year period in which the military has to make the transfers we adopted in BRAC. It takes $3 billion out of this year's budget and transfers it to other priorities that have never had 1 day of hearing and never had even a discussion in the committees.
This is a letter from Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense:
As you prepare to complete the Joint Continuing Resolution, we urge you to include provisions to permit the execution of the Fiscal Year 2007 President's Budget request [as it relates to the Department of Defense].
Funding programs at FY 2006 levels under a year-long Continuing Resolution--
Which is what is in this bill--
would negatively impact critical priorities and missions within the Department. If the [continuing resolution] levels are set at [these] enacted levels, the Department will face shortfalls of over $1 billion in the Defense Health Program--
Part of that is accommodated in this bill--
$0.5 billion in Basic Allowance for Housing, and $4 billion in the Base Realignment and Closure programs.
Now, this was sent before this omnibus continuing resolution came over. Part of those are funded but not the Base Realignment and Closure programs. Mr. President, $3 billion of the $4 billion requested was taken out.
Secretary Gates goes on to say:
Delays in completing BRAC could result in postponing scheduled redeployments from overseas stations to the United States. Deferring BRAC implementation would also impede community efforts to quickly transition the affected bases to civilian use, so that the impact of BRAC on local economies can be reduced. Furthermore, congressionally approved BRAC recommendations were developed to provide cost savings benefits; any delays will jeopardize those benefits.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I have just read, addressed to Senator Byrd, with a copy to Senator Cochran, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE,
Washington, DC, January 26, 2007.
Hon. ROBERT C. BYRD,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As you prepare to complete the Joint Continuing Resolution, we urge you to include provisions to permit the execution of the Fiscal Year 2007 President's Budget request.
Funding programs at FY 2006 levels under a year-long Continuing Resolution (CR) would negatively impact critical priorities and missions within the Department. If the CR levels are set at FY 2006 enacted levels, the Department will face shortfalls of over $1 billion in the Defense Health Program (DHP), $0.5 billion in Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), and $4 billion in the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) programs. Funding for the DHP is needed to avoid reductions in health care benefits for members, retirees, and their families; funding for BAH is needed to ensure that members receive timely housing payments.
Delays in completing BRAC could result in postponing scheduled redeployments from overseas stations to the United States. Deferring BRAC implementation would also impede community efforts to quickly transition the affected bases to civilian use, so that the impact of BRAC on local economies can be reduced. Furthermore, congressionally approved BRAC recommendations were developed to provide cost savings benefits; any delays will jeopardize those benefits.
Thank you for your help on this important matter. Our warfighters will be the direct beneficiaries of your assistance.
Sincerely,
ROBERT M. GATES.
Mrs. Hutchison - Mr. President, the $3 billion that has been cut out is going to affect many important bases in our country. One of the bases is in Texas. Fort Bliss is in great need of military construction because it is designated by the Department of Defense to receive 30,000 troops, and there is much that needs to be done to prepare the base for those overseas redeployments.
I happen to know that one the best, of course. But let's talk about Fort Riley, KS, where a good number of the redeployed troops are also going to be stationed. They are very concerned in Kansas. I know Senator Roberts and Senator Brownback plan to speak this afternoon. But I am speaking now because I am hoping the majority leader will decide that maybe we do need some amendments to this bill, that maybe we can work together in a bipartisan way and work these out.
These BRAC budget provisions have been adopted by the Senate. The military construction appropriations bill was a quite bipartisan bill that was adopted last year by the Senate as well.
When you look at Fort Riley in Kansas, which is one of the major-need areas for BRAC funding that we are going to talk about--I know Senators Roberts and Brownback will expand on it--you have a Battle Command Training Center. This is for troops coming from Europe to Fort Riley for training. The major part of the military construction for Fort Riley is a training center. You have runway improvements, a child development center for quality of life for our troops--all of this is at Fort Riley, KS--a soldier-family medical clinic at Fort Riley, a division headquarters. All of that is Fort Riley, KS, which is one of the major areas that would be hit by this delay in taking out the $3 billion from BRAC.
I have been talking to Senators Chambliss and Isakson of Georgia. They will have a huge hit as well in Fort Benning. Fort Benning is another of those that is in need of great enhancement.
The Presiding officer - The Senator from Texas has consumed 10 minutes.
Mrs. Hutchison - I ask unanimous consent to extend my time for 5 minutes.
The Presiding officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Cornyn-R, Texas - Mr. President, I will not object, but may I inquire how much time remains to the minority under morning business?
The Presiding officer - Six minutes 15 seconds.
Mrs. Hutchison - I did not realize that. I ask the Senator from Texas how much time he would like to have.
Mr. Cornyn - Mr. President, I was hoping to have at least 5 minutes, but I see that time is running short.
Mrs. Hutchison - Mr. President, I will give him 5 minutes. Just let me have the rest of that time and notify me when there is 5 minutes remaining then I will yield to the Senator from Texas.
The Presiding officer - The Senator from Texas has 1 minute.
Mrs. Hutchison - In Georgia, Fort Benning is going to be a major loser because of the delay. You have two major training barracks and training brigade complex units that will not be able to be started, a fire and movement range, a modified record fire range, brigade headquarters, training barracks complex No. 2, and the stationary gunnery range.
Again, we are trying to enhance training for our troops. Many of those being brought home, the 70,000 troops being brought home in the Department of Defense plan, are being brought home to increase their training capability.
I encourage and ask Senator Reid to reconsider. Let's have some agreement on equal numbers of Republican and Democratic amendments. Let's have some say in this Omnibus appropriations bill. I cannot imagine we would pass a bill such as this with no amendment whatsoever in either House of Congress. I don't think that is what the American people hoped for when they voted last November.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding officer - The Senator from Texas is recognized for the remainder of the time, 4 minutes 20 seconds.
John Cornyn-R (TX)
Mr. Cornyn-R, Texas - I appreciate the courtesy of the senior Senator from Texas in giving me a few minutes to speak on this continuing resolution.
This is, to say the least, disappointing. We have a bill that addresses more than $400 billion worth of spending but cuts $3.1 billion from our men and women in uniform for the Department of Defense at a time when we hope to be able to build facilities in the United States to accommodate them and their families as we bring them back from places such as Europe and Korea and elsewhere. We know that we have an all-voluntary military. As a member of a military family myself--my father was in the Air Force for 31 years--it is more than just the individual serv�ice�mem�ber who serves; it is a family proposition.
I urge the majority leader and the majority to reconsider this cut of $3.1 billion in the very meat and bone of what it takes to recruit and retain a volunteer military. As the saying goes, you recruit an individual serv�ice�mem�ber but you retain a family. These kinds of cuts, $750 million of which will come out of the money that is allocated for the State of Texas, are just extraordinarily unwise.
I have heard rumors to the effect that the majority is going to try to add this money back in the supplemental appropriations bill we will be taking up, I guess sometime in March. Of course, that would be a budgetary trick which would exacerbate the budget deficit and be in stark conflict with the kind of rhetoric we have heard from our colleagues on the majority side who have said that we need a pay-as-you-go budget. In other words, if there is going to be spending, there has to be commensurate offsets.
Cutting out of this so-called continuing resolution or Omnibus appropriations this $3.1 billion for our military families and then coming back and adding it in as emergency spending in a supplemental avoids the budgetary requirement of an offset and, thus, will add to additional deficits which are irresponsible and certainly in conflict with the statements our colleagues have made on the other side.
Mrs. Hutchison-R, Texas - Would the Senator from Texas yield for a question?
Mr. Cornyn - I certainly will.
Mrs. Hutchison - I was just listening to his statement and agree that there is going to be a budget gimmick if this comes up in a supplemental. But is the Senator from Texas a part of an amendment we would like to proffer which would restore $39.1 billion but cut .73 percent across the board in all of the other accounts in this bill except for defense, veterans, and homeland security, so that we could pay for it, be fiscally responsible, and yet do what we need to do for the Active-Duty military, not to drain their operations to fund military construction projects that should be funded in this bill? Is the Senator aware of that?
Mr. Cornyn - I am proud to be a cosponsor, along with the distinguished senior Senator from Texas, of an amendment which would accomplish that goal. This is the way to handle our budgetary responsibilities appropriately. I implore the majority leader to allow us an opportunity to have amendments and to have a full and fair debate on this continuing resolution. We started this Congress in a spirit of compromise, but certainly if the amendment tree is filled and we are denied an opportunity to have debate and consideration of an amendment such as that, it would be extraordinarily disappointing and in conflict with some of the early rhetoric and hopes we all had for bipartisan cooperation.
Conclusion of Morning Business
The Presiding officer - Morning business is closed.
Executive Session
Nomination of General George W. Casey, jr. to be Cheif of Staff, United States Army
The Presiding officer - Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Calendar No. 15, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read the nomination of General George W. Casey, Jr., to be Chief of Staff, United States Army.
The Presiding officer - Under the previous order, there will be 50 minutes for debate, with the time equally divided and controlled by the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, or their designees, and 10 minutes for each of the leaders.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
John McCain-R (AZ)
Mr. McCain-R, Arizona - Mr. President, may I inquire, how much time do I have again?
The Presiding officer - There is 50 minutes total. The Senator from Arizona gets 15 minutes and 15 minutes for the Senator from Michigan, and the leaders have 10 minutes each.
Mr. McCain - I thank the Chair.
I ask the clerk to tell me when I have consumed 8 minutes.
I come again this morning to the not particularly pleasant task of opposing the nomination of General Casey to be Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. I preface my remarks, again, with my appreciation for honorable service to the country, his family, and the sacrifices they have made for many years. This isn't a question of character because his character is outstanding; it is a question of judgment.
I will try to put this in context, why I am in opposition. For several years, I and a number of others have bemoaned and complained and criticized and been saddened as we have watched this train wreck in Iraq. Not long after the initial invasion, I came back from a visit to Iraq and visited with the then-Secretary of Defense, who bears great responsibility for this debacle, and history will judge him very badly for his performance as Secretary of Defense. I told him how it was that we were not going to win, we were not going to succeed, that we didn't have enough troops over there, that Anbar Province was going to erupt--basically all the things many of us saw were going to transpire. General Casey, for 2 1/2 years up until recently, would come back to the Congress and say that things were going well. I quoted many quotes yesterday, from time to time, including in 2005, saying we could start withdrawing by 2006 and on and on and on, completely divorced from reality on the ground, as was the Secretary of Defense.
I will state at the beginning that Presidents are responsible, but Presidents also rely on the advice and counsel of their military leaders. That is a normal thing and has happened in every conflict.
President Bush said time and time again: I have said to the American people, as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. But I have also said our commanders on the ground will make that decision. We will talk to General Casey. On and on. The Army is getting on its feet. We have turned over a lot of territory to the Army. They are good fighters. I have spent a great deal of time with General Abizaid and General Casey. They are in Washington. They are generals who will be happy to tell me the way it is, not the way they think I would like to it be.
Time after time, it has been clear that the President of the United States, as appropriate, has been relying on the advice and counsel of commanders in the field who did not give him appropriate information or recommendations. We are all responsible. In the military, you are responsible for the decisions you make on the battlefield, particularly when they cost our most valuable and important asset--American blood.
In his opening statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on September 29, General Casey said: ``The capacity of Iraqi security forces has increased quantitatively and qualitatively over the past year and ``we have also developed with the Iraqis a readiness reporting system, not unlike the one we have in place for our own forces. So over the past 18 months we have built enough Iraqi capacity where we can begin talking seriously about transitioning this counterinsurgency mission to them.
Did he realize at the time that statement was wrong? And when did he tell someone?
At the same hearing, General Casey said:
More coalition is not necessarily better. More and more capable Iraqi security forces are better. Increased coalition presence speeds the notion of occupation. It contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security forces on the coalition. It extends the amount of time it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant and exposes more coalition forces to attacks at a time when Iraqi security forces are increasingly available and increasingly capable.
There has been no sign of that. Why did it take 15 months for General Casey to change that assessment and then not even agree with the new strategy of five additional brigades, which most of us pray is enough and most of us believe is a direct contravention to the Powell doctrine, which is, use overwhelming force in order to gain military victory?
President Bush said General Casey will make decisions as to how many troops we have there. Why did it take 2 1/2 years? Why did it have to take 2 1/2 years of steady degradation for General Casey to figure out we didn't have enough troops there, and the situation is worsening in Iraq.
The NIE that came out yesterday should frighten anyone, any American, because of the stark depiction in the NIE--the public document--that states that the situation is grave and deteriorating in Iraq, which is also the conclusion of the Iraq Study Group, whether you happen to agree with their recommendations or not.
Mr. President, responsibility is one of the first things that is taught at our service academies. We are responsible for our decisions. When the Missouri runs aground, we relieve the captain. When four sailors are washed overboard, we relieve the captain. Now we are rewarding failure as we did during the Vietnam war when we named General Westmoreland as Chief of Staff of the Army after a failed search and destroy. There are eerie parallels here. General Westmoreland employed the search and destroy strategy which is counter to any counterinsurgency strategy. That kind of strategy is clear, hold, and build. That is what General Petraeus is trying to do now. That is not what has been done in the past under General Casey.
So what are we doing? We are promoting a general who has pursued a failed policy, advocated it to the President, whom he is responsible to advise, and he is advocating it to the Congress of the United States despite the overwhelming view by many of us that it was not a successful strategy. Still, today, where he will be in place if he is confirmed by the Senate, he will be responsible for the operation, training, and doctrine that will be employed in Iraq, and he still, to this day, as far as I know, from the hearing of a short time ago, believes--and I could give the quote--that we are not failing but we are succeeding. I don't know of anyone who believes that who is in a responsible position in Government.
Mr. President, it is with a bit of regret that I do this. Again, I repeat what I said yesterday. Senator Levin asked him:
I am wondering whether you would agree that what we are doing in Iraq was maybe a slow failure.
General Casey said:
I don't actually see it as a slow failure. I actually see it as slow progress.
How could you depict the situation in Baghdad today, with six helicopters being shot down in the last few weeks, with a spike in casualties that has taken place, and the continued level of sectarian violence, as a slow progress?
So I want to tell my friends that people in the military, particularly our young officers, are watching what we do here. We teach them in our service schools, and we teach our noncommissioned officers and junior officers: You are responsible for success or failure. That is why we appoint you as leaders. In this case, this leader, despite his honorable character and dedication to this country, has not led, and his responsibility has not been carried out.
So I hope my colleagues will turn down this nomination and that we will appoint one of the many highly qualified senior military officers we have to fulfill this position.
May I finally say that I am very nervous about this new strategy. I am very doubtful that we have enough troops. I don't know if the Maliki government will be strong enough. But if General Casey is appointed to this position, my confidence will be lowered because it is not appropriate to put someone who does not support wholeheartedly the new strategy in a position where he will be responsible for a great deal of it. To this day, he doesn't admit that this present strategy has failed.
Do I have any time remaining?
The Presiding officer - The Senator has 5 1/2 minutes.
Mr. McCain - Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The Presiding officer - The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Carl Levin-D (MI)
Mr. Levin-D, Michigan - Mr. President, again, it is extraordinarily ironic that my good friend from Arizona says there is no one in a high position in this Government who thinks we are succeeding, when the President, just 2 or 3 months ago, said we are absolutely winning in Iraq. That is the Commander in Chief--a pretty high position of responsibility. The Vice President, just last year, said that the insurgency is in its last throes, when it was not. So it was clear to everybody, and apparently to my good friend from Arizona because he says he had seen this for years--failure after failure in Iraq--identified by the highest levels and the highest level of this administration as being a success.
Year after year, we were told this is a successful strategy. Now all of a sudden, a general who was assigned to carry out that strategy and did the best he could, acknowledging some mistakes in implementation, is going to be held accountable by some who will vote against his nomination for the massive failures at the highest levels of civilian authority. The strategy was wrong going into Iraq; it was poorly implemented. The Iraqi Army was disbanded. That was not General Casey; that was before he came.
The people who made those decisions were given awards and medals by the administration. George Tenet was given a medal for his work. He said the intelligence was a slam-dunk, that there were weapons of mass destruction.
Medal after medal was given to the civilian leaders. A Medal of Freedom was awarded to George Tenet. Ambassador Bremer was given a medal. He just disbanded the Iraqi Army and had a debaathification program, which was a complete failure because of its excess. He was given a Medal of Freedom.
William Haynes, General Counsel of the Department of Defense--his dubious legal judgment contributed to the interrogation abuses of detainees that led to the horrors of Abu Ghraib. He was given the Department of Defense medal for distinguished public service.
Under Secretary of Defense Doug Feith, who hyped false intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, was given a medal.
Now you have a general who was given a strategy and was told to implement the strategy. Yes, he was optimistic that it could work. He is in charge of the morale of his troops. Now, suddenly, some say he should be, in effect, punished. He should carry the burdens that properly should be carried by the top civilian leaders of this Nation. It is not appropriate.
It is not fair that General Casey be held responsible for massive failures that were caused by the wrong policies, the deceptions, the ignorance, the arrogance, and the cockiness of civilian leaders in this administration. It is just plain wrong that this all be heaped onto his back.
What do we know about General Casey? By the way, we know he is forthright and acknowledges his mistakes. There is not a commander I know of who does not acknowledge his mistakes. Every commander worth his or her salt acknowledges mistakes, and General Casey has done that. In fact, he has given us a list of mistakes. We asked him what went wrong that you contributed to, and he gave us a list very openly. But you cannot lay the chaos and the violence in Iraq on General Casey's doorstep. This belongs on the doorstep of the top civilian leaders of this country who went into Iraq the way they did, who didn't plan for an aftermath, who disbanded the Iraqi army, and who perpetrated some of the other mistakes that have put us in some of the positions that we are in, in Iraq.
General Casey is a long and distinguished servant in the military, including the position of Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. This was preceded by assignments on the joint staff and a career commanding Infantry units at all levels, up to and including Division Command. He knows Iraq, he knows the challenges the Army faces in Iraq, he knows the Pentagon, and he knows the challenges he will be facing in the Pentagon if we confirm him. He has the knowledge and skills to carry out his primary responsibility as Chief of Staff, which is the training and equipping of soldiers, caring for them and their families.
I want to discuss two issues that have been raised. One is the general's decision to support an increase in U.S. forces in Iraq after previously opposing such an increase, and also the proposition that General Casey somehow or other should be denied this position because of mistakes that he may have made in Iraq.
First, the issue of additional troops. I pressed General Casey about this issue at his nomination hearing before the Armed Services Committee. He said his general view was that he agreed with General Abizaid's view that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future. That is something, it seems to me, that is key to those of us who oppose this surge. That goes to the heart of our argument--the fact that General Casey believed more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.
So how is it that now General Casey supports the surge? That is the question I asked him:
Senator Levin: We asked General Abizaid back in November when he appeared before this committee whether we needed more troops or he supported more troops going to Iraq. And this is just last November. And this is what he said. He said that he met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. ``We all talked together, and I said, `In your professional opinion, if you were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said no. And the reason is because we want Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.
I asked General Casey:
Now, General Abizaid said that he spoke to you and that his opinion reflected your opinion and all the other commanders. Was that true when he said that? General Casey: I'm not exactly sure when in November it was, but it was. Senator Levin: So you've changed your view since November? General Casey: As I described in my opening testimony, Senator, in mid-November was when the reevaluation of the plan was taking place. So I suspect John and I talked before that. And that does reflect my general view on additional U.S. forces in Iraq. Senator Levin: It reflects a general view, but then there was some kind of reevaluation which took place in mid-November. General Casey: That's right, Senator. We're constantly reevaluating how we're doing and what we need. Senator Levin: But that position that General Abizaid stated was your position when you spoke to him in early November presumably still remains your general view. General Casey: That's correct. Senator Levin: Well, if that's your general view, what is the change? Why are you modifying your general view for this surge? General Casey: What has changed, Senator, are several things. One, the development of a plan, a new plan that was conceived by the Iraqis and worked in concert with us; so there is a plan that laid out requirements for those forces. So just to say do you need more forces is one thing; to say do you need more forces to execute this plan is quite another. And we do need an additional two brigades to implement that plan.
Now, there is a new plan, a plan that I very strongly disagree with, the surge plan of the President. It is a new plan given to the commanders, and they are now told, with this new plan, to insert troops into neighborhoods of Iraq, hold that territory, and have more American troops--many more--embedded with Iraqi forces. That is the plan. That is the Commander in Chief's decision.
Will that require more troops? And now General Casey gives his honest answer that it will require, in his judgment, two additional brigades.
General Abizaid says it will require more brigades, but General Casey said two. I give him credit for giving his honest opinion.
So what has changed? He still believes in general that putting more troops in there takes the Iraqis off the hook, but if you change your plan, you change your mission and you say, as the Commander in Chief has, that is now our mission, that is what we are going to do, it is obviously up to the commanders to say how many additional troops it would take to carry out that mission.
That is an honest response, and that is the response we expect of our leaders. But his general view has been correct, and so has General Abizaid's. More American troops is a mistake. It takes the Iraqis off the hook. It lessens the responsibility on them to do what only they can do with their military and with their political leaders.
People who have visited General Casey in Iraq--colleagues--have always found him to be honest about the situation in Iraq and true to the pledge that he would give Congress his personal views, even if those views differ from the administration in power. And he did this again at his nomination hearing when he disagreed with the Commander in Chief's sudden epiphany that things are not going well in Iraq.
All of a sudden, now the Commander in Chief says we are on the road to slow failure. That is a new revelation. Until a few months ago, the Commander in Chief was telling the American people we are absolutely winning in Iraq. So now I pressed General Casey about that:
Do you agree with the President that now the situation in Iraq is maybe a slow failure?
He said:
I actually don't see it as a slow failure. I actually see it as slow progress.
Do I agree with his assessment? I do not. I have seen chaos in Iraq--consistent chaos, growing chaos. But do I admire an honest answer even when it disagrees with the Commander in Chief? I do. Even though I disagree with that answer, I think it was an honest answer that he gave to the committee.
What about denying him confirmation as Chief of Staff because of the mistakes he may have made? Again, I think this is an ironic argument given the fact that the architects of these policies, the architects of the major failures which led to the mess General Casey was assigned to clean up, are given medals--Medals of Freedom, medals by the Defense Department. They are given the medals, and now some will want to lay on General Casey's doorstep the mess that was not created by his policies but by the policies of others.
I want to read for the Record a statement of Senator Jim Webb on the Casey nomination. He is tied up in a hearing, and so I will read this very brief statement into the Record for Senator Webb:
Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of GEN George Casey, Jr.'s, nomination as the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army. General Casey's service to the Nation during a long career and his experiences in Iraq qualify him well to address the formidable challenges facing the U.S. Army today. Questions have been raised regarding General Casey's tenure as commander of the Multinational Force-Iraq. The national strategy in Iraq was flawed even before the invasion, and attacks on General Casey's performance only divert attention from the true architects of that strategy. The situation faced by General Casey in Iraq represents the classic conundrum of military service at the highest level of command. In this administration, it has not been unheard of for some officers who spoke too loudly, very often, to have lost their jobs. At the same time, to speak too softly often causes the military leader, rather than the civilian boss, to be blamed when things go wrong. While I believe strongly that military leaders should be held accountable, General Casey performed as well as one could expect given the strategy for the war's direction that he inherited when he reported to Baghdad.
I wonder, Mr. President, if there is any time remaining.
The Presiding officer - The Senator from Michigan has 25 seconds remaining.
Mr. Levin - I thank the Presiding Officer.
This is the conclusion of Senator Webb's statement:
The consequences of a failed U.S. national strategy should be raised at a far higher level than General Casey's in Iraq.
Mr. President, I urge my esteemed colleagues to support General Casey's nomination to be the next Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.
The Presiding officer - The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. Levin - I thank the Chair.
The Presiding officer - The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - Mr. President, I ask the two managers, is it possible that the Senator from Virginia could get 2, 3 minutes at most to speak?
Mr. McCain - Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be allowed 3 minutes to speak on this issue, not to be taken from the time remaining.
The Presiding officer - Is there objection?
Mr. Levin - Reserving the right to object, and I obviously will not object, I apologize to the Senator from Virginia. I didn't realize he was here to speak on the nomination. If he is speaking in favor, I would have reserved some time for him.
The Presiding officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. Sessions-R, Alabama - Mr. President, would it be acceptable that I be given 2 minutes to speak after Senator Warner?
Mr. McCain-R, Arizona - Mr. President, I ask further unanimous consent--and I tell my colleagues that I will not seek further unanimous consent after this; I will object to a further unanimous consent request--that an additional 2 minutes be given to the Senator from Alabama to speak on this issue.
The Presiding officer - he unanimous consent request is 3 minutes for the Senator from Virginia and 2 minutes for the Senator from Alabama. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.
John Warner-R (VA)
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank the two managers of this very important nomination.
Mr. President, I have the deepest respect for my colleague, Senator McCain. We have an association that goes back some 30 years. It is not often we are on different sides of an issue. I wish to respect Senator McCain's evaluation of a military officer. I think probably he is as well qualified as anyone in this Chamber to speak to those critical issues.
I bring a different perspective to this nomination. There is going to be, clearly, a division of thought as to General Casey and his role as the senior officer in charge of our combat missions in Iraq. But I wish to clearly say that throughout the history of the United States, the doctrine is civilian control over the military.
True, we hold accountable, as best we can, those who we feel have not carried out their responsibilities in the best interests of the country. I believe the accountability of General Casey has been spoken to by the general himself. He recognizes mistakes were made, and I think he accepted that level of accountability he, as a military officer, had. But, indeed, it is the civilians above him, if there is greater wrong, who should be held accountable.
Second, I think of the institution of the U.S. Army. The Chief of Staff is the very pinnacle of the military service, and those nominations are exceedingly carefully thought out from the President on down through the Department of Defense before a nomination goes forward.
I was privileged for some many years to serve as the Navy Secretary and witness the careful process that went through selecting a chief of service. I was personally involved in two of those processes for the U.S. Navy. So I say to my colleagues, do take into consideration the differing views of Senator McCain and others eminently qualified to assess this nomination, but I believe this nomination was carefully thought through at all levels. It represents the institution of the U.S. Army, and they have to take pride in their senior Chief of Staff.
I believe that General Casey, when one looks at the entirety of the record, is deserving of the support of colleagues in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding officer - The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Jeff Session-R (AL)
Mr. Sessions-R, Alabama - Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for granting me this extra time. He is not required to do so.
I think we have had a problem and a difference of opinion for some time. Senator McCain has been quite open that he is concerned about the troop levels in Iraq not being sufficient. History may well record he is right on that regard, but our policy was different.
General Abizaid, the commander for that region, the Central Command, studied the area throughout his career. He was concerned about too many troops in Iraq from the beginning. General Casey came on after General Abizaid was CENTCOM commander and became the commander in Iraq. He was Vice Chief of Staff of the Army at that time, he was to be gone for 18 months. He ended up being away from his family for 30 months, 2 1/2 years, and he executed the policy as best he could.
He testified that in his view, he didn't want to ask for a single soldier more than he needed to do the job. I don't know what the tension is, but there was a constant tension between the need to have more soldiers and to not take over the entire effort in Iraq.
General Abizaid and General Casey made their recommendations. We followed them. That experience in Iraq, in my view, can only make him better as Chief of Staff.
He was Vice Chief of Staff, lead our forces for 30 months in Iraq, and now he will be Chief of Staff. He was born in an Army hospital. His father was killed in Vietnam. He served 37 years in the Army. His son is a member of the Army.
He should not bear the brunt of a difference of opinion about how we should have conducted the effort in Iraq. He gave his absolute best effort to it. He could not help but have learned a lot in the process. He will be a fine Chief of Staff.
Mr. President, my time is up. I yield the floor.
Russ Feingold-D (WI)
Mr. Feingold-D, Wisconsin - Mr. President, I voted for General George W. Casey, Jr., to be U.S. Army Chief of Staff. While questions have been raised about General Casey's performance as U.S. commander in Iraq, I do not believe the general can be held responsible for the failures of a policy devised at the highest levels of this administration.
But my vote to confirm General Casey does not change my opposition to the President's policies in Iraq. The President has made the wrong judgment about Iraq time and again, first by taking us into war on a fraudulent basis, then by keeping our brave troops in Iraq, and now by sending 21,500 more American troops into harm's way.
The indefinite presence of U.S. military personnel in Iraq will not fix that country's political problems. And as we have seen over the last few years, sending more troops will not provide the stability in Iraq that can only come from a political agreement. Congress must develop the courage to confront this President on what has become one of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in our history.
Peter Domenici-R (NM)
Mr. Domenici-R, New Mexico - Mr. President, I would like to recognize the service of General Casey and speak in support of his confirmation as Chief of Staff of the Army.
General Casey has had a long and distinguished career. After his graduation from Georgetown University in 1970, he received his commission and served in the mechanized infantry. During his career, he has commanded the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division and acted as the assistant division commander of the 1st Armored Division. In 1999, General Casey assumed command of the 1st Armored Division. Additionally, General Casey has served as Director of Strategic Plans and Policy at the Pentagon and as Director of the Joint Staff.
As we all know, General Casey has most recently served as the commander of Multi-National Forces—Iraq. As commander of our forces in Iraq, General Casey faced extremely difficult issues everyday.
I believe General Casey to be a good man, and I would like to again congratulate him on his promotion and thank him for his continued service to our country. I look forward to working with him while he serves as Chief of Staff of the Army.
Christopher Dodd-D (CT)
Mr. Dodd-D, Connecticut - Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the confirmation of General George Casey to become the next Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.
Let us be clear. Our soldiers are fighting a grueling and dangerous war. They need to know that their leaders will have no higher priority than their safety and well-being. I believe that General Casey will do just that.
He has been on the frontlines of the war in Iraq. As commander of U.S. forces there, he has overseen operations on the ground; he understands our soldiers' basic needs and will take action to keep them fighting safely and effectively.
I believe that in this new position, like GEN Peter Schoomaker before him, he will work hard to ensure that our soldiers have the equipment and support they need to get the job done.
Regrettably, I am concerned that some in this administration and in this Congress have decided to blame General Casey for the worsening situation on the ground. To them I would say that it is simply wrong, and frankly un-American, to hold one soldier responsible for the administration's policy failures in Iraq.
In his book, "Deriliction of Duty," H.R. McMasters put the blame for Vietnam on our military leaders. To McMasters, it was our generals who were at fault for not speaking out when they disagreed with the civilians at the Pentagon and White House.
As a result of their silence, America became further entrenched in Vietnam. Nine years ago, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Hugh Shelton took this message to heart; requiring all 17 four-star general commanders to read Major McMasters' book. The book had an impact. As the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, we have seen our generals stand up to civilian leaders--putting their country before their careers--and courageously advocating for alternative, more sensible policies.
Unfortunately, the same arrogance and incompetence that has blinded U.S. foreign policy for the past 6 years has also allowed the dire warnings from these generals to fall on deaf ears. The candor from the likes of Generals Shinseki and Riggs, and now Abizaid, Casey, and Schoomaker, has been rewarded with dismissal, transfer or demotion.
In my private meeting with General Casey in Iraq 2 months ago, he explained his concern over proposals to "surge" additional troops into Iraq if Iraqis are unable to meet their own responsibilities to unite politically and contribute more meaningfully to their own security.
He echoed these objections along with then-Central Command's top general, GEN John Abizaid, in a Washington Post report on December 21, 2006.
Obviously, General Casey is uniquely qualified to make these statements. He has been thoroughly immersed in our Iraq operations. And it is for this reason that he is uniquely prepared to assume the Army Chief of Staff post.
But there is another quality of his that I believe will also serve our Nation and our Army well during his tenure as Chief of Staff. It his is loyalty to our soldiers—from the newly enlisted private to the career officer.
I observed this quality firsthand 3 years ago on a visit to Walter Reed Medical Center. I met with soldiers recuperating from injuries they had suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, and expressed my gratitude for their brave service.
General Casey happened to be at Walter Reed that day as well. I knew he was there for the same reason I was: to thank these soldiers for their service and to assure them that their sacrifices will never be forgotten.
The Chief of Staff must constantly exhibit such loyalty to his troops. He must be their strongest advocate and continue to address their needs, even when doing so is in direct conflict with the orders being handed down from civilian leadership. General Schoomaker, the outgoing Chief of Staff, has been faced with this situation time and again as the administration proposed inadequate budgets to carry out their deeply flawed Iraq strategy. And he has performed superbly.
As Chief of Staff for the last few years, General Schoomaker, has long voiced concern that the administration failed to budget for the replacement and repair of thousands of war-battered trucks, aircraft, and vehicles. In fact, it was General Schoomaker's testimony last year that compelled me to offer an amendment to fund these priorities and help begin restoring Army readiness. I regret that the White House decided to reward General Schoomaker's candor by replacing him at the Pentagon.
At his recent confirmation hearing the other day, I was pleased to hear that General Casey will resume General Schoomaker's mission to ensure that our forces are outfitted with the equipment they need to get the job done.
Mr. President, there are no easy answers in Iraq. But, when it comes to discerning tactics on the ground, our civilian leaders must defer to our generals. In this case, it is my sincere hope that the President takes heed of the advice of his newly installed Army Chief of Staff, to make the safety and well-being of our soldiers a top priority and not an afterthought. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this nominee for confirmation.
Barbara Boxer-D (CA)
Mrs. Boxer-D, California - Mr. President, I support the nomination of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army and disavow attempts to blame him for the failures in Iraq.
The blame for the disastrous and reckless war in Iraq lies with the President, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The blame starts at the top. It is they who must be held accountable.
General Casey did not author the misguided doctrine of preemptive war. General Casey did not manipulate and politicize intelligence to sell the Iraq war to the American people. And General Casey did not fail to provide a political solution to end the sectarian violence that is now engulfing Iraq. It is the civilian leadership of the Bush administration that continues to fail us in Iraq.
When I traveled to Iraq and met with General Casey, he told me the truth. He said that the U.S. presence was fueling the insurgency. I appreciated his candor. He fully understood the dangers and challenges in Iraq. Unlike so many in the Bush administration, his view of the situation in Iraq was not distorted by rose-colored classes.
General Casey did not lead us down this dangerous path in Iraq. Therefore I cast a "yes" vote.
The Presiding officer - The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes 20 seconds.
John McCain-R (AZ)
Mr. McCain-R, Arizona - Mr. President, let me make it clear, I don't support medals for failure. I don't support promotion to a higher position for failure. I believe that the awards and accolades Senator Levin alluded to that have been provided to those who have committed egregious failures was not only inappropriate, it was absolutely insulting.
I also, though, point out that history will judge many of these people who have been given medals of various types, and already that judgment has been harsh. All of us are more concerned about our place in history than we are medals. History and the American people are already judging the failures and the misleading statements, such as "stuff happens" and "mission accomplished" and a few "dead-enders" and "last throes" and all of those statements which have been made over the past 3 1/2 years which led the American people to believe we were succeeding in Iraq when many of us knew we weren't because we violated a fundamental principle called the Powell doctrine: If you want to win, you go in with overwhelming force.
The reason I am very concerned today, even though we have a very outstanding general in Petraeus, is that I am not sure we have enough troops still.
Throughout our history, military commanders have been held responsible. Abraham Lincoln held General McClellan responsible and fired him. In World War II, those who were in command who were responsible for December 7, 1941, were held responsible. In the Korean war, General MacArthur was held responsible. The fact is that military leaders are held responsible as well as civilian leaders.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the RECORD the number of times President Bush said that he relied on the judgment of the military commanders. Those military commanders did not exercise good judgment and therefore are responsible for the rosy scenario and the inaccurate depiction of facts on the ground in Iraq as they came before our committee, the Armed Services Committee, and spoke to the President of the United States and the American people.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
President George W. Bush on Support for Commanders/Generals President Bush: "One of the things that's important is for--and one of the reasons why you trust the commanders on the ground is because there needs to be flexibility. And I explained to the Prime Minister that I'll be making my decisions based upon the recommendations of General Casey." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, 7/31/06) President Bush: "I have said to the American people, as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down. But I've also said that our commanders on the ground will make that decision. And I have--we'll talk to General Casey once he is—conferred with the new Government of Iraq." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, 5/29/06) President Bush: "And so the army is getting on its feet. We've turned over a lot of territory to the army. And they're good fighters; they really are. I spent a great deal of time with General Abizaid and General Casey—they were in Washington this past week—these are generals, you'd be happy to hear, who tell me the way it is, not the way they think I would like it to be." (President George W. Bush, Remarks On The War On Terror And A Question-And-Answer Session, Louisville, KY, 1/16/06) President Bush: "The best people to give any politician advice about whether or not we're achieving a military objective is the people you put out there on the ground. I told you I've got good confidence in these generals and the people who report to them. These are honest, honorable, decent, very capable, smart people, and they'll decide the troop levels." (President George W. Bush, Remarks On The War On Terror And A Question-And-Answer Session, Louisville, KY, 1/16/06) "President Bush said he relies on military advisors and other officials on the ground in Iraq to keep him abreast of the situation in the country, and they're telling him civil war is not imminent. 'This notion that we're in civil war is just not true according to them,' he told Wolf Blitzer in an interview taped earlier this week that aired today. ("President Bush: Iraq Not On Brink Of Civil War," Congressional Quarterly, 9/24/06) "Bush also has said he would rely on the opinions of U.S. military commanders in the two countries for determining how soon troops would be withdrawn. 'As we see more of these Iraqi forces in the lead, we'll be able to continue with our desire, our stated strategy that says as Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down,' the president said. "In 2006, we expect Iraqis will take more and more control of the battle space, and as they do so, we will need fewer U.S. troops to conduct combat operations around that country." ("Bush Says U.S. Forces Will Be Reduced In Iraq, Afghanistan," State News Service, 1/4/06)
Mr. McCain - Mr. President, in 2004, General Casey said:
My view of winning is that we are broadly on track to accomplishing our objectives ... with Iraqi security forces that are capable of maintaining domestic order and denying Iraq as a safe haven for terror, and I believe we are on track to get there by December of 2005.
In September of 2005, General Casey said:
We have a strategy and a plan for success in Iraq, and we are broadly on track in achieving our goals.
Time after time, the American people were told that things were going fine, and they were not.
I wish to emphasize again that I believe General Casey has served this Nation honorably. I think he and his family have made great sacrifices for this country. I have nothing but respect. But to reward failure is going to send a message all around the military that I don't think is a healthy one. I don't support promotion and I don't support medals for failure. I support people being held responsible, and I regret that those who are responsible on the civilian side have not been held more responsible, although, as we speak today, the American people, by their opinions as reflected in the polls, are certainly reflecting their judgment about the performance and responsibility of our civilian leaders.
I hope we can move forward and obtain successes in Iraq under this new strategy. I am not sure right now that General Casey completely supports it, and I don't think that it enhances our chance for succeeding in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nomination and select a leader, of which there are many, who is far more capable, in my view, of carrying out the new strategy in Iraq.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, as I see the majority leader here on the floor.
Harry Reid-D (NV), Majority Leader
Mr. Harry Reid-D, (NV) Majority Leader - Mr. President, it is my understanding that I will be the last speaker. The distinguished minority leader is not going to speak at this time. So after I speak, we will vote. Is that the understanding of the Chair?
The Presiding officer - That has not been made clear at this time.
Mr. Harry Reid - That is what I have been told. But if the minority leader comes to the floor to speak, he can, and I will make my statement now.
The Presiding officer - The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. Harry Reid - Mr. President, when Harry Truman was President, he put a sign on his desk. It said: The buck stops here. He chose this message because it conveyed to the American public that, as President, Truman was responsible for everything in his administration. Everything.
The buck stops here. It is a phrase we should keep in mind as we vote on GEN George Casey's nomination to be Army Chief of Staff.
Despite his service to our country, I know many Senators would like to vote no on General Casey's nomination because he has been associated with a broken Iraq policy. I understand others would like to vote no in an attempt to make the general a scapegoat for a war that has gone horribly wrong. I believe there are still others who are using this nomination as a way to express opposition to the President's escalation proposal, a plan General Casey once opposed but now supports. While I understand these reasons for voting no, I am reminded of that sign on President Truman's desk. In Iraq, the buck stops with President Bush. The Commander in Chief, not General Casey, is responsible for the failed policy in Iraq.
Four years and running, the cost of the war has been staggering. We have lost, as of this morning, 3,111 of our soldiers and seen tens of thousands more wounded. The war has stretched our military and their families to the breaking point, depleted our Treasury of hundreds of billions of dollars, detracted our attention from al-Qaida and the real war on terror, and hurt our image in the Arab community and around the world. Yet despite all this sacrifice and all these costs and because of numerous errors by the Commander in Chief, America is less safe. We must change course.
Unfortunately, President Bush's answer to this growing chaos and sectarian violence in Iraq is not a new direction but more of the same. He wants to send 48,000 more troops to Baghdad and give them mission impossible—policing an Iraqi civil war.
This so-called surge policy has many critics, and one of them used to be General Casey. On January 2 of this year, the general is quoted as saying in the New York Times:
It's always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term.
In other words, escalation is not the answer. But just a month later, in his Senate confirmation hearing, he reversed course, saying:
The increase in the U.S. forces is a key piece of our new strategy to secure Baghdad.
One day, escalation was not going to solve the problem; the next day, escalation was a key piece of our strategy. There is a troubling disconnect between General Casey's two statements. I understand he has since attempted to explain his change of heart by noting, in the time between his two comments, that a new strategy, the so-called surge, had been propounded by the White House and more troops were needed to institute the President's new policy. But does General Casey really believe this? Do we believe a general on the battlefield or in his plush Pentagon office? I will take General Casey at his word. After all, the buck stops with the President, not with General Casey.
Even though I have grave concerns about the direction of the war and General Casey, I will vote for his confirmation to be Army Chief of Staff. I do, however, pray that General Casey has the courage to speak his convictions in his new post. The last thing our Nation and our troops need is a "yes" man with access to the Oval Office—someone who tells the President what he wants to hear and not what he needs to hear. "Yes" men, such as Vice President Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, led us into this Iraq quagmire. To end the war, the President is going to have to start listening to and heeding the advice of those who disagree with him in order to get us out.
In the Senate this week, we attempted to give the President another chance to listen. We tried to give the bipartisan majority of Senators who oppose escalation the chance to send a clear message to President Bush. Unfortunately, our majority was silenced by a minority of Republicans who decided protecting the President was more important than sending him a message: Do not surge. Do not escalate.
It is time the White House and its champions in Congress stopped playing politics in the war. We have had enough politics and far too little diplomacy. What we need is a strategy that will succeed in Iraq. I hope General Casey will play such a role in bringing such a strategy about and, thus, I will vote for his confirmation.
Mr. President, I yield back all the time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The Presiding officer - Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. ---
Vote
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of General George W. Casey, Jr., to be Chief of Staff, United States Army?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. Durbin-D, Illinois - I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. Lott-R, Mississippi - The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
The Presiding officer - Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 14, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 45 Ex.]
YEAS -83
- Akaka
- Alexander
- Allard
- Baucus
- Bennett
- Biden
- Bingaman
- Boxer
- Brown
- Brownback
- Burr
- Byrd
- Cantwell
- Cardin
- Carper
- Casey
- Cochran
- Coleman
- Collins
- Conrad
- Corker
- Cornyn
- Craig
- Crapo
- Dodd
- Dole
- Domenici
- Dorgan
- Durbin
- Enzi
- Feingold
- Grassley
- Gregg
- Hagel
- Hatch
- Hutchison
- Inhofe
- Inouye
- Isakson
- Kennedy
- Kerry
- Klobuchar
- Kohl
- Kyl
- Landrieu
- Lautenberg
- Leahy
- Levin
- Lieberman
- Lincoln
- Lott
- Lugar
- McCaskill
- McConnell
- Menendez
- Mikulski
- Murkowski
- Murray
- Nelson (FL)
- Nelson (NE)
- Obama
- Pryor
- Reed
- Reid
- Roberts
- Rockefeller
- Salazar
- Sanders
- Schumer
- Sessions
- Shelby
- Snowe
- Specter
- Stabenow
- Stevens
- Tester
- Thomas
- Thune
- Vitter
- Warner
- Webb
- Whitehouse
- Wyden
NAY -14
- Bayh
- Bond
- Bunning
- Chambliss
- Clinton
- Coburn
- DeMint
- Ensign
- Feinstein
- Graham
- Harkin
- McCain
- Smith
- Sununu
NOT VOTING -3
- Johnson
- Martinez
- Voinovich
The nomination was confirmed.
The Presiding officer - Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table, and the President shall be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
Legislative Session
The legislative session of the Senate for February 8, 2007 can be found here, and the first major legislative action is again taking up consideration of the continuing resolution for the 2007 Fiscal Year Budget.
![[Main Page]](../../../../upload/banner-blue-135.jpg)