Senate Record - January 31, 2007
From dKosopedia
| Congressional Record | |
|---|---|
| Senate - January 31, 2007 - week 5 | |
| 110th - United States Congress | |
| |
| Senate Majority Leader | Harry Reid |
| Minority Leader | Mitch McConnell |
| Previous | Tuesday - January 30, 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 January 31, 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.
Contents
|
On the Floor
Morning Session - Senate - Wednesday, January 31, 2007
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable Jon Tester, a Senator from the State of Montana.
Schedule (Harry Reid-Majority Leader)
Mr. Harry Reid, Majority Leader - Mr. President, we will be in a period for the transaction of morning business for 60 minutes. The first half is under the control of the Republicans, the second half under the control of Senator Wyden. Following morning business, we will resume H.R. 2, the minimum wage bill.
As I indicated in closing yesterday, we expect Senator Kyl to be here this morning when we resume the bill. I understand a number of conversations have taken place among Senators {Max Baucus|Baucus]], Grassley, Kyl, and Kennedy regarding these amendments. It is anticipated once we are back on the bill there will be debate with respect to one or more of the Kyl amendments and that a vote in relation to an amendment could occur sometime around noon today.
Once we have completed action on all the amendments, then it is my hope that we can yield back all the time postcloture and then dispose of the substitute amendment. If we have to run the full 30 hours on the substitute, I think I am correct in stating that the 30 hours would expire at about 6:40 this evening, cloture having been invoked yesterday at about 12:40 p.m. Of course, once all that time has expired or been yielded back and the substitute has been disposed of, cloture on the bill would occur immediately and automatically.
Mr. President, just a couple of comments. When we complete the debate on minimum wage and the bill is completed, we move to Iraq, and that is, as we know, a very contentious issue. But as the distinguished Republican leader last night stated, we are trying to arrive at a point where we can have a good, strong debate. It will take cooperation, it will take compromise so we can be in a position to have this debate so all Senators can voice their opinion and, hopefully, we can settle on a finite number of pieces of legislation to vote on. That is my goal, and I hope we can do that. Certainly the American people deserve this debate.
- (The remarks of Mr. Reid pertaining to the introduction of S. 439 are printed in today's Record under "Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.")
Mr. Harry Reid, Majority Leader - Mr. President, I apologize to my friend for taking so much time, but sometimes one takes what time is needed.
(Mitch McConnell-Minority Leader)
Mr. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader - Mr. President, with regard to today's schedule, we will be working, as the majority leader indicated, on the timing of the Kyl amendments. These are important amendments which we are going to want to have considered in a timely fashion. Senator Kyl will need to be able to debate those amendments. We probably will be able to get to final passage tomorrow.
And then, as the majority leader indicated, he and I have had extensive discussions about crafting the various proposals, how many we are going to have on each side to address the most important issue in the country right now, which is the Iraq war, and that debate, of course, will occur next week. So we will continue our discussions toward narrowing down and understanding fully exactly which resolutions, alternate resolutions will need a vote in the context of that debate.
The Acting President pro tempore - The majority leader.
Mr. Harry Reid, Majority Leader - One final point, Mr. President. We should understand, all of us, that we may have to have a vote or some votes on Monday. Everyone should understand that. And if we have to have votes on Monday, they could occur earlier rather than later. So everyone should understand there may be Monday votes. We hope not. As I told the distinguished Republican leader and as we have announced on a number of occasions, we had our retreat, and the Republicans certainly cooperated with us, and we are going to cooperate with them. These retreats are extremely important to this body. They allow us to enhance the political parties within this great Senate and focus on what is good for the country. We have done that, and the Republicans are going to do that the day after tomorrow, and I think that is important. We will certainly have no votes on Friday.
Morning Business
Iraq
John Ensign-R (NV)
Mr. Ensign-R, Nevada - Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss the Iraqi situation. Not the shootings and explosions we see in the streets of Baghdad and in al Anbar Province, but the struggle were currently engaged in right here in the Senate.
This latter battle is arguably more important to our long-term national security than any other issue we face today.
While everyone remembers the tragedy of 9/11, the pain and anguish experienced by Americans that day appears to have faded over time for an ever increasing number of our citizens.
For me, it remains as vivid and as gut wrenching today as it was that September morning more than 5 years ago.
It seems too easy these days to point fingers of blame at one another for our current situation in Iraq.
I could stand here today and recite quote after quote from Members on both sides of the aisle who were certain that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Hussein and his Baathist regime had ruled Iraq as a personal fiefdom for more than 30 years.
There is no arguing that Hussein was personally responsible for the brutal deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, invaded two of his neighbors, supported worldwide terrorism, and violated 17 separate United Nations resolutions aimed at curtailing his WMD programs.
Seventy-seven Senators voted to give President Bush the authority to act.
With the clear authority from Congress to undertake military operations against Saddam Hussein, President Bush tried long and hard to seek a peaceful resolution. Saddam Hussein could not be reasoned with.
Following 9/11 and in an age of nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, we could no longer afford to sit by and wait on those wanting to do us harm to land the first punch.
We could not wait until we were attacked before acting. Calls for the President to act in order to protect America were loud and clear. And the President did act.
In doing so, Saddam Hussein's regime was eliminated and some 28 million Iraqis were freed from a living hell on Earth.
Watching the Iraqis struggle since then to establish their own democracy has not been a pretty sight.
With the luxury of hindsight, it's no secret that serious mistakes were made; too few troops; de-baathification of the Iraqi government and; failure of Federal Departments other than Defense to be fully engaged in this effort, to name a few.
We need to face the fact that we are in Iraq. We need to ask ourselves what do we do now.
Do we pack up and leave, even though every voice of reason tells us that Iraq would implode into a terrorist state used by al-Qaida as a launching pad against the "infidels"; reminiscent of Afghanistan under the Taliban?
As Senator McCain has reminded us time and again, Iraq is not Vietnam. When we left South Vietnam, the Viet Cong did not pursue us back to our shores...
Al-Qaida is not the Viet Cong. Al-Qaida has sworn to destroy us and is committed to bringing their brand of terror to America.
This fact was evidenced recently during testimony by Lieutenant General Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
He testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al-Qaida 6 months ago revealed al-Qaida was planning terrorist operations in the U.S. Anyone willing to go to Iraq to fight Americans is probably willing to travel to America.
Do we pass meaningless resolutions that mandate unconstitutional caps on the number of troops deployed to Iraq?
I am not a military strategist, so I rely on the opinion of experts to educate me.
General Petraeus, the new commander of the Iraqi Multi-National Coalition and author of the Army's new Counter Insurgency Manual, told me that he could not succeed in providing security for the citizens of Baghdad and al Anbar Province without the additional troops called for in the President's plan.
Do we allow the President the ability to adjust those troop numbers in an effort to bring security to Baghdad and al Anbar Province?
From what I see, the President has the only plan on the table that doesn't ensure defeat. It may not be a perfect plan, and it may need to be adjusted in the near term, but it is certainly a change from what we've been doing so far.
One particular area that I believe needs improvement is our reconstruction effort.
According to the Congressional Research Service the United States has spent over $35.6 billion on reconstruction efforts.
We have to stop squandering our resources on reconstruction projects in Iraq that fail to deliver basic security and critical infrastructure.
A recent article in the Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding talked of the need to abandon a scattergun approach to reconstruction which focuses on winning hearts and minds and results in many nonessential projects being started but not completed.
I believe that we need to have what the author called a triage approach to reconstruction. The military calls it SWEAT: sewage, water, electricity and trash.
Let's focus on getting these essential services operating at the level they were before we invaded Iraq. This approach will undoubtedly make our military effort easier.
Our efforts to improve fundamental services up to this point have not received the focus and attention they deserve.
We have fallen short in the area of electricity production. Before we invaded Iraq, electric power was 95,600 megawatt hours; now, it is close to 90,000 megawatt hours. The goal was originally 120,000 megawatt hours.
In Baghdad, Iraqis receive about three fewer hours of electricity than before the war. Outside of Baghdad they do receive more, but we know most of the problems are in Baghdad. CRS notes that of 425 projects planned in the electricity sector, only 300 will be completed.
We have done somewhat better in assistance with water and sanitation.
We have provided clean water to 4.6 million more people and sanitation to 5.1 million more than before the war. But besides water, sanitation, and electricity we know that Iraq needs a functioning oil sector.
Revenues from oil are necessary to fund government services, including security and maintain infrastructure. According to CRS, oil and gas production has remained stagnant and below pre-war levels for some time.
The pre-war level of oil production was 2.5 million barrels per day; it currently stands at 2.0 million barrels per day.
That is far below the 3.0 million barrels per day we were told Iraq was expected to reach by end of 2004. According to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, besides the destruction caused by the insurgents, poor infrastructure, corruption, and difficulty maintaining and operating U.S.-funded projects are challenges faced by the industry.
We are at a pivotal point in this Nation's history.
We face an enemy unlike anything ever witnessed before. We cannot wash our hands of the responsibility incumbent upon us as the leader of the free world.
It is time to join together, forgetting whether we are Republicans, whether we are Democrats, remembering we are Americans. It is time to come together behind our men and women in uniform, figure out what the best strategies are, and move forward together. It used to be said that partisanship stopped at our shore's edge. We need to go back to that spirit of being Americans. We cannot afford to fail in this effort.
I yield the floor.
David Vitter-R (LA)
Mr. Vitter-R, Louisiana - Mr. President, I, too, rise today on the Senate floor to discuss the very serious issue of Iraq and how we move forward there to eventually get our troops home. I have been in the Senate 2 years. Before that, I was in the House for 5 years. That is a relatively short amount of time, but I daresay I believe, as do many of my colleagues who have been here 20 or 30 years, this truly is one of the most important issues we will ever debate and have an impact on. In fact, even for a career that long, it may be the single most important issue we will debate and have an impact on.
I hope all of us take that to heart. Don't say it as a truism but understand what that means and what it demands of us. What it demands of us is that we act responsibly and whatever our feelings and point of view, we put them forward in a responsible way for the good of America.
What do I mean by that? I primarily mean two things. First of all, each of us as Senators has the right to oppose a plan, including the President's plan. I will be the first to say that. I will be the first to defend my colleagues' right to oppose any plan, including the President's plan. But along with that right comes responsibility, and each of us also has a responsibility to be for a plan to move forward in Iraq. It does not need to be the President's plan, but we sure as heck have a responsibility to be for some coherent plan, in some level of detail. How do we move forward in Iraq for the good of the country, for our security, and for stability in the Middle East?
Second, what being responsible means is taking to the Senate floor to impact policy, to take action but not simply to offer words that have no impact in the real world but only serve to undercut the morale and focus of our troops and to embolden the enemy. Some resolutions, which are mere words--they don't constrain any activity of the President or of our troops--I think have that unintended result. They do not limit troops, they do not limit troop numbers, but they sure as heck destroy morale. They certainly embolden the enemy. Don't believe me about that judgment. Turn to very respected military leaders, including GEN David Petraeus, who said that directly, frankly, in his testimony before Senate committees.
I have been guided by that responsibility, to face the issues squarely, to be responsible, to be for some plan--not necessarily the President's but some real, detailed plan; to take action on the Senate floor and not float words which can have negative consequences for our troops and also embolden the enemy.
After a lot of thought and in that context and after a lot of careful study, including many hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on which I sit, I have decided to support the President's plan as a reasonable attempt to move forward--indeed, as a final attempt to stabilize the situation. But I have also decided to do it in the context of three very strong recommendations which I have made many times directly to the President and to other key advisers, such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, such as the President's National Security Adviser, Steve Hadley, and others. Those three strong, clear recommendations are as follows:
No. 1, I do believe, with the Iraq Study Group and others, we need to put even more emphasis on a diplomatic effort and, in my opinion, that should be to encourage and embrace and participate in a regional diplomatic conference that involves all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria. This would be very different from direct bilateral talks with either Iran or Syria. With regard to that push, I disagree with that, including, to some extent, the Iraq Study Group. But I do think a regional conference focussed specifically and exclusively on stabilizing Iraq, promoting democracy in Iraq, would be very positive.
No. 2, I agree with many that we can be even stronger, clearer, firmer about benchmarks for the Iraqi Government and consequences if the Iraqi Government does not meet those benchmarks. President Bush has talked a lot about what are clear benchmarks, but I have encouraged him to go even further, be even more direct and clear, including in public, about those benchmarks. Those would be things such as the Iraqis continuing to take clear, strong action against all who promote violence, whether they are Sunni or Shia or anyone else; things such as an oil revenue law that must be passed in the very near term; things such as major reform of the debaathification process, which has stirred up enormous sectarian conflict and hatred, particularly from the Shia and Sunnis.
Third, I have been very clear in saying over and over and over that we must constantly reexamine these new troop numbers to make sure they can have a meaningful impact on the ground in the short term. I am for trying this as a final attempt, but I am not for throwing too little too late at the effort.
I respect the judgment of military leaders such as GEN David Petraeus. I take them at their word, and I respect their judgment that this additional 21,500, coupled with redeployment and reemphasis of troops already in theater, is enough, but I think we have to constantly examine that to make sure we don't make the mistake we have made in the past, which is underestimating troop need.
There has been a lot of discussion about the Iraq Study Group report, for good reason. A lot of leading citizens contributed very thoughtful analysis to that report. But I think far too much of that discussion has unfairly portrayed the President's plan and different versions of it, like what I am talking about, as in stark contrast to the Iraq Study Group report. In fact, I don't believe that to be the case at all. It is not exactly the Iraq Study Group report. It is different, but it has enormous areas of overlap.
With regard to political solutions that have to happen lead by Iraqis on the ground in Iraq, there is enormous agreement between what I am supporting, what the President is describing, and the Iraq Study Group report. With regard to a diplomatic initiative, there is enormous overlap between what I am pushing in terms of a regional diplomatic conference involving all of Iraq's neighbors and what the Iraq Study Group discusses. Yes, they seem to favor direct bilateral talks with countries such as Iran and Syria. I do not and the President does not. But there is still enormous overlap and agreement on things we can do very proactively and aggressively on the diplomatic front.
Even on the military component there is great overlap and significant agreement. In that regard I would simply point to one very important passage on page 73 which states clearly, discussing military troop levels and numbers:
We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.
Well, of course, the new U.S. commander of Iraq is GEN David Petraeus, and he has suggested and asked for exactly that, which is why it is significant in the President's plan.
So I urge all of my colleagues to give this issue serious thought, to be responsible, to advocate whatever is in their heart and in their mind but to do it responsibly. Support some plan, and do not throw out mere words that have no concrete effect except undermining our troops and emboldening the enemy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
John Cornyn-R (TX)
Mr. Cornyn-R, Texas - Mr. President, I appreciate the comments we have heard this morning from the distinguished Senator from Nevada and the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, and I couldn't agree more with the comments they have made. I would like to add some, perhaps, even more eloquent words--and rest assured they are not mine—to this debate because I think it helps us understand in a way that we might not otherwise understand what is at stake and what the people who are most directly impacted believe is at stake in the war on terror, particularly the conflict in Iraq.
I first want to quote the words of Roy Velez. Roy is from Lubbock, TX, and has lost two sons—one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Recently, Roy Velez said:
- It is not about President Bush. It is not about being a Democrat or a Republican. It is about standing behind a country that we love so much. I know it has cost us a lot in lives, including my two sons, and it has taken a toll on America. But we can't walk away from this war until we're finished.
I don't know anyone who has earned the right to speak so directly to what is at stake, the sacrifices that have been made, and the consequences of our leaving Iraq before it is stabilized and able to govern and defend itself.
Then there is also the story of 2LT Mark J. Daily. Lieutenant Daily was 23 years old from Irvine, CA. He was with the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division out of Fort Bliss, TX. Lieutenant Daily was killed on January 15 when an improvised explosive device exploded and ripped through his vehicle, taking his life and those of three fellow soldiers. Mark had been, as so many of our military have done, keeping in touch with his family via e-mail, and he maintained a blog on the popular My Space Web site. In that blog, Mark specifically explained why he joined, and this is what he wrote:
- Why I joined: This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here. Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Baath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever-present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else who happens to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging area for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
I would say in closing that we can't claim to support the troops and not support their mission. If we don't support the mission, we should not pass nonbinding resolutions. We should do everything within our power to stop it. I do believe that we should support that mission. I do believe we should support our troops. That is why I believe we should send them the message that, yes, we believe you can succeed, and it is important to our national security that you do.
I yield the floor.
Jim DeMint-R (SC)
Mr. DeMint-R, South Carolina - I thank the Senator from Texas, and I would like to add my comments to his. We are certainly discussing probably one of the most deadly serious issues that I have been a part of since being in the Congress. I must start by expressing my respect for the Senators who are proposing this resolution. I know their intent is good. They have heartfelt concerns about what we are doing.
But what I would like to do is remind all of us that our role is a role of being leaders, not just being critics. As elected officials, we know what it is like to have critics second-guess all the decisions we make, but our job as Senators is to be leaders; and to be leaders, we have to make good decisions. If we make good decisions, we have to know what our real choices are. I am afraid those who are proposing this resolution are not considering the real choices because we can keep the status quo, we can withdraw and be defeated, or we can continue until we win and accomplish our goals in Iraq.
This resolution is a resolution of defeat and disgrace. There is no other way it could come out. That is the choice they are making. That is the decision they are making because we know if we withdraw and leave this to the Iraqis when they are not ready, we will lose all. Not only will we be disgraced as a nation, but we will have probably the biggest catastrophe—human catastrophe as well as political catastrophe—in the Middle East that is going to occur. We have to discuss the real implications of that choice.
I oppose this resolution because it does not support our mission, it does not support success, and it makes the decision for defeat. Real leaders would come up with a plan of action that they follow through on. And whether we agree with the President or not, he has put a plan on the table and he intends to follow through on it with all the advice he can get from his military people. Our role is not just to criticize that, but if we don't agree, it is to come up with another plan, propose it, and our responsibility is to sell it to the American people—not just to criticize, not to come up with resolutions that don't mean anything, intended to embarrass the President. But what it really does is deteriorate the morale of our troops.
I know we are frustrated with this war, and the fear of failure is all around us. But we cannot digress into being critics in this body. Our job is to lead.
I want to conclude this morning with some comments from the soldiers. I know other Senators have called parents who have soldier sons and daughters who have been killed. I have not had one who told me to get out of Iraq. I have had a lot of them tell me: Win. That is how to honor the sacrifice is to win.
SPC Peter Manna:
- If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything we have done here is all in vain.
We have a number of these, but I don't have time to read them all.
SGT Manuel Sahagun said:
- One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way.
Americans are not against this war; they are against losing. They need to know we can win it.
General Petraeus, the best general that we have, whom we have just approved, confirmed in the Senate, has told us that we can succeed with the President's plan. This is our last best hope to leave Iraq as a free democracy and to help stabilize the Middle East. The other choice is defeat and disgrace.
Mr. President, I call on all of my Senate colleagues not to support this resolution and to act as leaders: to put forward a plan or support the one that the President has put forward.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
Health Care
Ron Wyden-D (OR)
Mr. Wyden-D, Oregon - Mr. President, it is not breaking news that the American health care system is broken, even though our country has scores of dedicated and talented health care providers.
It isn't breaking news that Congress has ducked fixing health care since 1994.
What should be breaking news is that for the first time in decades there is a genuine opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together to fix American health care.
A few days ago in his State of the Union Address, the President put forward a health care reform proposal that focuses on changing the Federal Tax Code. Since then, leading Democratic and Republican economists have joined forces to point out how Federal health care tax rules benefit the most affluent among us, and subsidize inefficiency as well.
For example, right now under the Federal Tax Code, a high-flying CEO can write off the cost on their Federal taxes of going out and getting a designer smile while a hard-working gal in a small hardware store in Montana, Oregon, or anywhere else in the country, gets virtually nothing.
I am of the view that Democrats and Republicans should work together to change this inequity and make sure that all of our citizens have affordable, quality, private health care coverage with private sector choices—the way Members of Congress do.
The Federal Tax Code and its policies have disproportionately rewarded the affluent. They came about because of what happened in the 1940s when there were wage and price controls. These policies might have worked for the 1940s, but they are clearly not right 60 years later. Democrats and Republicans can work together to change the Federal tax rules that grease the system and disproportionally reward the most affluent and subsidize inefficiency.
In return for those on the Democratic side of the aisle supporting a change in Federal health tax rules and coverage through private sector choices, the President and Republicans should join with Democrats and independent health experts of all political philosophies who say to fix health care we have to cover everybody for essential benefits. What is very clear now on health care is if we do not cover everybody—and not for Cadillac coverage, but for the essentials—our country will always have a health care system where those who have no coverage have their costs transferred to people who do have coverage. Every night in Montana, Oregon, and elsewhere in our country we have folks in hospital emergency rooms because they have not been able to get good outpatient health care, and the costs for folks in hospital emergency rooms who cannot pay get transferred to people who can pay. Many health care experts have theorized that perhaps up to 20 percent of the premium paid by people who have coverage is because of the costs for caring for those without coverage.
At this point in the debate, Democrats can say that Federal tax rules are inequitable with respect to health care and we can use private sector choices. My hope is Republicans will say to fix health care we have to have a system that covers everybody. Democrats and Republicans can come together to make that case.
There are other areas where we can find common ground right now between the political parties on health care. For example, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate think we ought to give a broad berth to the States to innovate in the health care area. Surely what works in the State of Montana may not necessarily work in Florida, Iowa, or New York. They say, "Let's give a broad berth to the States to show innovative approaches." Particularly Governor Schwarzenegger and Governor Romney deserve a lot of credit for being willing to lead at the State level. In my State, folks have some innovative ideas, as well. My guess is they do in Montana, elsewhere. We can take steps to promote them. I personally don't think the States can do it all because the States cannot solve problems they did not create. That is why we need to change the Federal health care tax rules. Because of the federal tax rules, the Federal Government is the big spender in health care. The States cannot do a lot about that. But surely, as part of the effort to bring Democrats and Republicans together, we can agree to make changes in the Federal health care tax care rules and we can agree to get everyone covered. We can also agree there is a lot of common ground between Democrats and Republicans, to give States the opportunity to innovate.
Democrats and Republicans, as we look at the possibility of a coalition, can join together so we have health care rather than sick care. We do not do a lot to promote wellness and prevention in this country. Medicare shows that better than anything else. Medicare Part A will pay checks for thousands and thousands of dollars of hospital expenses. Medicare Part B, on the other hand, the part for outpatient services, hardly does anything to reward prevention and wellness. You can not even get a break on your premium—the Part B premium, they call it—if you help to hold down your blood pressure, cholesterol, stop smoking, and that sort of thing. Surely Democrats and Republicans can join hands to do more to promote prevention, and to have incentives for parents, for example, to get their kids involved in wellness.
This would not be some kind of national nanny program where we have the Federal Government saying, we are going to watch the chip bowl, but sensible prevention policies on which Democrats and Republicans can agree.
It also seems to me that Democrats and Republicans can join hands with respect to chronic health care and end of life health care. We know in the Medicare Program close to 5 percent of the people take about 50 percent of the health care dollars because those folks need chronic care and because of spending at the end of life. They need compassionate health care. We have not thought through policies that can bring both Democrats and Republicans together to deal with this area of health care where an enormous amount of the money is going.
For example, to get Medicare's hospice benefits, right now seniors have to choose whether they are going to get curative care or hospice care. That makes no sense at all. Why should a senior have to give up the prospects of getting a cure for their particular illness in order to get hospice benefit? Let's not pit the hospice benefit against curative care. Let's have Democrats and Republicans work together in order to make changes that expand the options available for older people.
The door is open right now. The State of the Union gave new visibility to the health care cause. Democrats, such as myself, who serve on the Committee on Finance, who will say these Federal health care tax rules are inequitable, can join hands with Republicans who will say we need to cover everybody and stop the cost shifting. The door is open right now if Democrats and Republicans will work together in a bipartisan basis.
Some people are saying it can't be done. They are saying there is too much polarization on health care and other big issues. Let's talk about it, once again, when there is a Presidential campaign. I send a clear message on that point, as well. Of course, this country can put off fixing health care once more, as it has done again and again for 60 years—going back to Harry Truman in the 81st Congress. It was 1945 when he began to talk about fixing health care. I guess one can argue, let's put it off again and have another Presidential campaign where people go back and forth on this issue. However, I submit that whoever the new President is in 2009—and I am very excited about our Democratic candidates—no matter who is the new President—should address this issue. However if, heaven forbid, there is a terrorist attack early in the new Administration, health care would get put off once more. Perhaps we would go for several more years without talking about health care reform.
We have had people working to fix health care in this country for years and years, people on both sides of the aisle. On our side of the aisle, we have Senator Kennedy. No one has championed the cause of fixing health care for as many years as passionately as Senator Kennedy. Republicans have worked very hard for health care reform, as well.
I hope this question of health care reform is not somehow deferred once again until 2009. There is a broad consensus of what needs to be done. I outlined four or five areas this morning, starting with changing the Federal health care tax rules and making sure there are good private sector choices for Americans, getting everyone covered, and emphasizing prevention and wellness. That alone would be a good basis for Democrats and Republicans to start in. Clearly, a system that was created in the 1940s ought to be modernized in 2007. As I pointed out, the system that came about in the 1940s was a historical accident. There were wage and price controls and there was no way to get health care to working families other than to say, maybe the employers will cover it.
Today our businesses are up against global competitors that have their governments pick up their health care bill. The combination of the disadvantage our businesses face, the huge escalation of costs, the significant increase in chronic illness, and our rapidly aging population means the current system is not sustainable. It is not sustainable and that is why we need to act.
I am so pleased to see the Presiding Officer in the chair, a new Senator from Montana, who has lots of good ideas on health care and has campaigned on them. I know he and many on both sides of the aisle want to fix the system. That is what we got an election certificate to do, to work together on the most important issues, not put it off for another couple of years and have another Presidential campaign. We need to sort it out right now.
The American people know we ought to have a new focus, on prevention rather than sick care. We can work on that now. The American people know a lot of the States have innovative approaches. We can help them build on it. The American people know the tax system in the health care area disproportionately favors the most affluent and does not give a break to the working person and it ought to be changed. These are the reasons why both sides ought to join hands to do that.
The time to fix health care is now. There are a variety of proposals that have been put before the Congress. I have not even mentioned my legislation this morning, the Healthy Americans Act, based on many of the principles I have discussed today. I am not wedded to every provision or every part of it. It is a piece of legislation that can bring folks together. When I introduced it, Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, 1.8 million members, was there, but so was Steve Burd, the CEO of Safeway, with over 200,000 employees. So was Bob Beall, the CEO of a company with 400 people. So was a member of the National Federation of Independent Businesses who was from Oregon. He spoke for himself, not for the group. He employs eight people. All of these employers said that the legislation would work for them.
Now it is up to us in the Senate. It is up to us, with the door open, to get Democrats and Republicans to come together. I certainly have not agreed with all the details of the President's proposal, but he has given some new visibility to the cause. All sides ought to say, let's get going, let's not wait for another campaign for President to go forward. Let us do our job now. There is much to work with that can bring both political parties together to fix American health care.
I will be spending a lot of my waking hours on that in the days ahead. I look forward to working with both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to get it done.
Alternative Minimum Tax
Chuck Grassley-R (IA)
Mr. Grassley-R, Iowa - Mr. President, next week the President's budget will come to Capitol Hill. In terms of tax issues, no issue is more pressing in the upcoming budget than resolving the alternative minimum tax issue for both the short term as well as the long term.
As many Members know, the so-called patch—the temporary fix we did last year for the alternative minimum tax so no more people would be hit by it than are presently hit by it—ran out at the end of last year. So right now 23 million people in the year 2007 could be hit by the alternative minimum tax, if we do not do something about it. Since we have to offset things such as this, if we patch this up again, it is going to take $50 billion to offset or, if it isn't offset, that means $50 billion that would come into the Federal Treasury under existing law would not come in.
Next week I will give a series of speeches in some detail. I am going to look at how we got where we are on the alternative minimum tax. I will examine the history of the alternative minimum tax and the origins of the current problem. In another speech, I am going to discuss the fiscal effects of maintaining, repealing, and replacing the alternative minimum tax. And in the third speech, I will talk about options to remedy the alternative minimum tax problem in the short term and over the long term.
Today, on a preemptive basis, I want to counter a charge that I think is going to be repeated by Democratic-leaning think tanks, maybe by the leadership of the Congress, and, more importantly, by east coast media who tend to be sympathetic to the views of those political organizations. The charge will be that the alternative minimum tax problem we face is a result of the bipartisan tax relief legislation enacted in 2001 and 2003.
Next week, when the President's budget comes out, there is going to be an awful lot of discussion about the alternative minimum tax. I am trying to preempt—in a sense counter—what I think are old arguments that are going to be repeated about that issue. They are going to be coming from leftwing think tanks, and maybe the Democratic leadership in the Congress will pick up on it. For sure, the east coast media, who tend to be sympathetic to the views of these political organizations, is going to be loudly speaking about it. I don't find anything wrong with it being discussed, but I am going to make sure it is discussed in an intellectually honest manner.
The charge is going to be made that the alternative minimum tax problem we face now is a direct result of the bipartisan—I emphasize bipartisan—tax relief legislation that was enacted in 2001 and 2003, which, by the way, Chairman Greenspan has said, both before he left the Fed as well as a private citizen, that these tax relief packages we passed back then are the basis for the economy going very smoothly in the last 3 or 4 years, creating 7.2 million jobs. If that is the argument they are going to make--and I will bet you, although I am not a betting man, that that is what we are going to hear—it is a distortion, plain and simple. So I think I am going to try to correct the record in advance. Maybe next week, if I have done it adequately, there won't be any record to correct. I have been around here long enough to know what is going to be said.
To the extent the Democratic leadership and allies suggest, like others who have looked at this issue, that the bipartisan tax relief packages are responsible for the alternative minimum tax problem, I respond in this way: Most who have reached that conclusion have done so by misusing data, data that is provided by the truly nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, an agency of Congress that you might say wears green eyeshades, looks at things as they are, without a Republican or Democratic bias. These figures of the Joint Committee on Taxation will be used to distort the record on the issue of the alternative minimum tax.
The Joint Committee on Taxation analysis suggests an alternative explanation for the alternative minimum tax problem, and that is the failure of Congress to index the alternative minimum tax for inflation when it was first established 35 years ago. The critics are going to charge that the bipartisan tax relief packages are responsible for this alternative minimum tax problem. This conclusion is reached in error because it is based upon faulty logic. Those who have done similar analyses have based their conclusions on the mistaken assumption that a reduction in Federal receipts should be interpreted as a percentage causation of the alternative minimum tax problem. The Joint Committee on Taxation was asked to project Federal alternative minimum tax revenue, if the bipartisan tax relief provisions were extended but current law hold-harmless provisions were not extended. And what do we get, a $1.1 trillion issue, and a Federal alternative tax revenue, if neither the Bush tax cuts nor the hold-harmless provisions is extended, a $400 billion issue compared to the $1.1 trillion issue.
From that data, some erroneously concluded and publicly represented that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are responsible for 65 percent of the alternative minimum tax problem. In other words, this $1.1 trillion minus the $4 billion divided by $1.1 trillion. And conversely then, that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 tripled the size of the alternative minimum tax problem; again, $1.1 trillion divided by $400 billion. The logic used to reach that conclusion is flawed. That is what I am about to show.
This is because the many variables affecting the alternative minimum tax have overlapping results, and the order in which one analyzes those overlapping variables will directly impact the outcome of the analysis.
In that way, we can use the same Joint Committee on Taxation data in the analysis above to suggest that the failure to index is actually the dominant cause of the alternative minimum tax problem. If one were to first index—and that wasn't done 35 years ago—the current tax system for inflation by permanently extending an indexed version of the current hold-harmless provisions, Federal alternative minimum tax revenue would be reduced from $1.1 trillion to $472 billion over the 10-year period we use to guesstimate taxes coming into the Federal Treasury. Thus, extending and indexing the current hold-harmless provision for future inflation would reduce the alternative minimum tax revenues by 59 percent over the same period referred to in the Joint Committee on Taxation letter dated October 3, 2005, as "percentage of AMT effect attributable to failure to extend and index hold harmless provision."
I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of that entire letter in the 'RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Let's go back to the Joint Committee on Taxation analysis. If we then assume that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are repealed, alternative minimum tax revenue falls by an additional $302 billion, from $472 billion to $169 billion. That second drop attributable to the repeal of the Bush tax cuts reduces Federal revenue by only 27 percent. Thus, one should argue that failure to index is a greater cause of the alternative minimum tax problem—in other words, 59 percent versus 27 percent. If we had indexed, we wouldn't have this problem.
Using logic similar to that undertaken above would also cause us to conclude that failure to index is responsible for 59 percent of the alternative minimum tax problem or, alternatively, that failure to index also nearly triples the size of the AMT problem. But simple logic suggests that the bipartisan tax relief cannot be responsible for 65 percent of the alternative minimum tax problem and failure to index responsible for 59 percent of the problem. The anomaly arises because there is overlap between variables being analyzed. Although the analysis fairly demonstrates the amount of alternative minimum tax revenue saved by making a particular change to the Federal tax system, it is inappropriate to represent that such analysis accurately isolates causation of the alternative minimum tax. Because there is overlap in the variables being analyzed in these examples, indexing and the bipartisan tax relief packages, the order of analysis of those variables is crucial to whatever outcome we have.
The Joint Committee on Taxation acknowledges this point to us in a letter dated October 3, from which I will quote:
- There is, however, interaction between these two contributing factors to the AMT effect. In order to avoid double counting of interactions, a stacking order is imposed. The apportionment of effects to each contributing factor will vary depending on the stacking order, even though the total effect remains constant.
To this point in time, I have not seen anything that accurately suggests that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have worsened the alternative minimum tax problem to date. It is my intention to ensure we continue to honor that commitment.
Proponents of this charge fail to recognize that we addressed the problem for 2001 through 2005 in legislation that most of these organizations opposed. By the way, those hold-harmless alternative minimum tax provisions were the first significant legislative efforts to stem the rise of the alternative minimum tax tide, meaning affecting millions more people who were never intended to be affected by it.
It was, in fact, the Finance Committee that put its money where its mouth was on the alternative minimum tax. Last year's bipartisan tax relief reconciliation did the same thing for the year 2006—in other words, to make sure that the alternative minute tax problem is not worsened. Once again, it was the bipartisan leadership of the Finance Committee that ensured millions of families would not face the alternative minimum tax problem in the tax-filing season this year.
I might say that Republicans, last year, when we were controlling, were willing to add millions of people to it because they didn't want to hold harmless completely, just to some extent. But we in the Senate stuck to our guns, and we got the hold harmless kept in place, as it had been since 2001.
I reiterate the importance of the last sentence in my remarks, where I said that the Finance Committee ensured that millions of families would not face the alternative minimum tax in this tax-filing season that we are in right now. Everyone who supported the tax relief reconciliation bill walked the walk on the alternative minimum tax. A lot of the critics I am referring to have talked that walk on the alternative minimum tax, but if you look at their voting records, they have not walked the walk on the alternative minimum tax. Thank goodness, then, 15 million families were put above politics, or you might say a bipartisan solution saw that they were not harmed because, otherwise, 15 million families would be dealing right now, as they file last year's income tax, with the AMT in their tax returns--in other words, paying the alternative minimum tax because we did not hold harmless.
If they had to deal with that, you know how complex they think the tax forms are already and the tax system is already. Well, if you have to go through that alternative minimum tax exercise, it almost doubles the complexity. Every Member who voted against the bipartisan tax relief reconciliation bill ought to think about that bottom-line reality. If that group, led by—because it tended to be very partisan—the Democratic leadership had prevailed, 15 million families concentrated in the so-called blue States would have been dealing with the alternative minute tax now. It is a fact—because higher income people tend to live in the so-called blue States, according to the results of the last two Presidential elections—they are paying more of this alternative minimum tax. They happen to be represented by people of the other political party who thought that the hold harmless provisions should not have been there. So 15 million people—most of them in those States—would be hit again.
The clock is ticking on the alternative minimum tax problem for this year. In other words, we have to do something before the end of the year or we are going to have 23 million people hit by it. A year from now then, those 23 million people will be working with the complexities of the AMT and paying the alternative minimum tax. They are people who come from those high-income States, more so than the State I come from, although we have people who are hurt by it—or would be hurt by it—but not to the extent of some of the high-income States. On October 15, a taxpayer's first quarter estimated tax payments will be due, and they will have to take this into consideration. Twenty-three million families will have to start dealing with the AMT yet this year on these quarterly estimates.
Last year, Congress acted a few weeks after April 15. Hopefully, this Congress will act before April 15. Mr. President, next week, Congress will be facing the AMT problem as the budget process moves forward. That is what is going to start this demagoguery about the AMT. To get a grip on that problem, we need to examine its history, assess its fiscal impact, and carefully consider our short-term and long-term options. I look forward to these discussions on these three topics next week. Let's use correct data when we discuss the alternative minimum tax. Let's be intellectually honest. Let's discard the partisan fuzzy math and partisan revisionist history.
FISA Court Orders
Patrick Leahy-D (VT)
Mr. Leahy-D, Vermont - I received notice this morning that President Bush has agreed to our bipartisan request for key recent orders from the FISA Court. Let me explain this a little bit. I have been very critical now for some time of the warrantless wiretapping of Americans done, apparently, under the President's order. We have, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which sets up a special court where you can go in secret if you suspect a terrorist is phoning into the United States, and you can get an order to wiretap that call. But according to the press, the administration has not followed that law, has not gone into the court. They have allowed widespread wiretapping of Americans without a court order. This has been troublesome to a lot of people on both sides of the aisle.
So we learned recently—Senator Specter and I—that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had issued orders authorizing NSA's wiretapping program, which meant the President was going back to the court, as he should have, of course, before. We asked the court to make these orders available to the Judiciary Committee. The chief judge of the court approved providing the orders but left the final decision to the executive branch.
I made it clear, when Attorney General Gonzales appeared before us, that we expected to see the orders. After all, we write the law as to how the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is supposed to work, and we have the responsibility to make sure it is followed. The President has made the right decision in changing his previous course of unilaterally authorizing the warrantless surveillance program. He is now going to follow the law in seeking court approval for wiretaps.
Senator Specter and I, on behalf of the Judiciary Committee, will have to look at the contours of the wiretapping program. We have to look at the Court's orders to determine whether the administration reached the proper balance to protect Americans, while following the law and the principles of checks and balances. I hope the administration will eventually allow all members of the Judiciary Committee to look at these orders.
We all want to catch terrorists, but we don't want a country where we have warrantless wiretapping of Americans. If we start down that slope, we all lose the right to privacy and the values this Nation has stood for for more than 200 years. So Senator Specter and I will review the court orders to make sure the law is being followed. I believe in this case, the President has taken the right first step, and I commend him for it.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
Terrorist Surveillance Program
Arlen Specter-R (PA)
Mr. Specter-R, Pennsylvania - Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join Senator Leahy in the acknowledgment that the Attorney General will be turning over to Senator Leahy and me, in our capacities as chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the applications which were filed by the Department of Justice for the change in the terrorist surveillance program and the court orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court establishing a new line of judicial review for that surveillance program.
Back on December 16, 2005, the New York Times broke a major story disclosing that there had been a secret wiretapping program, electronic surveillance without the customary judicial review. The customary approach is to have a law enforcement official apply for a warrant showing an affidavit of probable cause to justify a search and seizure for a wiretap which is a facet of the search and seizure, and that disclosure back on December 16 was quite a revelation. As a matter of fact, we were in the midst of debating the PATRIOT Act at that time, trying to get that through on reauthorization, and it was a major bone of contention, with some Senators saying they had been disposed to vote for the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act and wouldn't do so now with the disclosure of that program.
Through a good bit of last year, the Judiciary Committee worked on efforts, through legislation, to have judicial review of that program, and, in fact, at one point an agreement was reached with the White House on a legislative package to move forward. Ultimately, that legislative effort was unsuccessful and the program continued to have these wiretaps without judicial approval. Then, on January 17—earlier this month—the Attorney General announced there had been a change in programming and there would be application made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Board under procedures which the Department of Justice had established with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
I received a lengthy briefing on the nature of the program, but it fell short of the necessary disclosure because I did not know what the applications, the affidavits provided, nor did I know what the court had said. And there was an issue as to whether there was a blanket approval for the program or whether there were individualized warrants, and in order to meet the traditional safeguards for establishment of probable cause, there would have to be individual warrants.
Senator Leahy and I then pressed the Attorney General for access to these documents which would give us a fuller understanding of what was happening. I was pleased to learn earlier today that the Attorney General has consented to make those disclosures to Senator Leahy and myself, and we will be reviewing those documents. They will not be made public. Until I have had a chance to see them, I wouldn't have any judgment as to whether they ought to be made public. My own view is there ought to be the maximum disclosure to the public consistent with national security procedures. The Attorney General has represented that there is classified information here which ought not to be made public, and I will reserve judgment until I have had an opportunity to see those documents.
I know Senator Leahy was on the floor a little earlier today, within the past half hour or so, and I wanted to join him in thanking the President for this action. We have seen an expansion of Executive authority which I have spoken about on this Senate floor in a number of situations with the signing statements, where the President signs legislation but expresses reservations. There is a real question in my mind as to the constitutionality of that. The Constitution provides that Congress passes legislation and the President either signs it or vetoes it. I have introduced legislation to give Congress standing to challenge those signing statements or limitations therein in court and other examples of the expansion of Executive authority.
So I think this is a significant step forward, and I commend the President and the Department of Justice for taking this stand. I am going to reserve judgment on the program itself, obviously, until I have had a chance to review it. But I did want to acquaint my colleagues in the Senate with what is happening and acquaint the American people too because there has been considerable concern about the protection of civil rights, and obviously our war on terrorism has to be fought in a vigorous and tenacious manner, because it is a real threat to our national security and the safety of the American people, but at the same time have the balancing of protecting civil liberties. This is a significant step forward, and I am anxious to see the details to be able to report further on it.
Simplifying the Tax Code
Craig Thomas-R (WY)
Mr. Thomas-R, Wyoming - Madam President, although it is unrelated to what we are doing, I wish to talk a little bit about general tax reform.
The amendments are very important, and we are dealing with the issue, of course, of the minimum wage and offsetting some of those costs to small businesses. I support that idea. But I wanted to say that I hope we soon give more attention to reforming of the overall tax forms. We are getting into a position where every time there is an issue, every time there is something we want to accomplish, we have some tax relief for this section of the economy and for that section of the economy. It has become so complex and so shortchanged in terms of the time, the exchanges that we have. I think we have to have some overall tax reform.
I understand it is not easy because all of these issues are different. On the other hand, we can simplify the Tax Code, if we take the time. I mentioned it this morning in the Finance Committee. I realize we are not going to be able to address it in a short time, but I think we ought to set it as a long-term goal and begin to deal with simplifying the Tax Code. As each of us moves into our own taxes this year, it becomes obvious how detailed these taxes are. If you happen to be involved in a business, even a small business, the Tax Code is so difficult. I don't think we ought to be managing the behavior of this country through taxes. Taxes ought to be set in a general and long-term way so that people can understand, over time, what the tax situation is, and we can make it attractive enough that we don't have to change it for every issue that comes up.
Again, I certainly am supportive of what we are doing now. But in the longer view of things, I urge that we give consideration to reforming the Tax Code, to making it simpler, understandable, longer term, and to avoid setting up the situation where each time there is some issue affecting anyone in this country, we don't, as a secondary action, change the Tax Code to encourage a particular outcome. It should not be the purpose of taxes to regulate behavior.
I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.
Cloned Food Labeling Act
Barbara Mikulski-D (MD)
Mr. Mikulski-D, Maryland - Thank you very much, Madam President. I rise today to talk about a bill I introduced last week. It is called the Cloned Food Labeling Act.
My colleagues would be shocked to realize that the FDA has announced that meat and milk products from cloned animals are safe for human consumption. My bill will require the Government to label any food that comes from a cloned animal or its progeny. My colleagues need to know I am strongly opposed to the FDA approving meat and milk products from cloned animals entering into our food supply, and I am not the only one. Most Americans actively oppose it, and scientists say we should monitor it. But the FDA decided food from cloned animals is safe to eat. And since the FDA decided it is safe, the FDA will not require it to be labeled as coming from a cloned animal or its progeny.
Now, the American people don't want it. They find it repugnant. Gallup polls report over 60 percent of Americans think it is immoral to clone animals, and the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology found a similar percentage say that, despite FDA approval, they won't buy cloned milk. But what troubles me is not only what public opinion says but what the National Academy of Sciences says. They reported that—so far—studies show no problems with food from cloned animals. But they also admit it is a brand-new science. What about the unintended consequences? They caution the Federal Government and recommend this technology be monitored for potential health effects and urge diligent post-market surveillance. Well, you can't do post-market surveillance if the food is not labeled. How do you know where the cloned food is?
So the FDA tells us once they determine it is safe, they will allow the food to enter the market, unidentified, unlabeled, and unbeknownst to us, and I find it unacceptable. Consumers would not be able to tell which food came from a cloned animal. So, here we have a picture of Dolly—the first cloned animal. Hello, Dolly! We say: Hello, Dolly. You have been approved for our food supply. Hello, Dolly. Welcome to the world of the Dolly burger. Hello, Dolly. Welcome home to Dolly in a glass.
Hello, Dolly. Welcome to this plate of special cloned lamb chops when you are celebrating the 25th anniversary for your wife. I say: Goodbye, Dolly, the FDA's approval was baa, baa, baa.
I can't stop this from being approved by FDA, but I want an informed public to know what they have before them. Most Americans do not want this. They should not be required to eat it. I don't think they should be required to eat it without knowing what it is. Therefore, my legislation says any cloned food or its progeny would have to be labeled at the wholesale level, at the retail level, and at the restaurant level. This would ensure informed consent. To help the American public make this informed decision, I introduced a bill to require that all food which comes from a cloned animal or its progeny be labeled. This legislation will require the FDA and the Department of Agriculture to label all food that comes from a cloned animal. The label simply would read, "THIS PRODUCT IS FROM A CLONED ANIMAL OR ITS PROGENY." The public would be able to decide which food they want to buy—and I mean all food, not just packages in a supermarket but also the meals they choose from a menu.
Now, the FDA has responsibility to guarantee the safety of our food. Although many aspects of food safety are beyond their control, this is not. Scientists and the American people have the right to know. Consumers need to know which food is cloned and the scientists need to be able to monitor it. We don't know the long-term effect of cloned animals in our food supply.
What factors influenced the decision to deem food from cloned animals safe? Are they allowing an eager industry to force questionable science on an unknowing public? I am not so sure.
The FDA used to be the gold standard, but we have heard "it is safe" for too long. What if they are wrong? We were told asbestos was safe. Do you want asbestos in your home? We were told DDT was safe. Do you want to be sprayed with DDT? We were told thalidomide was safe. No pregnant woman today would take it. We were told Vioxx was safe. Does anyone with a heart condition or high cholesterol want to take it? I don't think so. We have been down this road before regarding the safety of products.
When it is so unclear and so uncertain, I am saying let's take our time. If America doesn't keep track of this from the very beginning with clear and dependable labeling, our entire food supply could be contaminated. I worry about what happens to the consumer. I worry about it being eaten by ordinary folks. I worry about it being in our school lunch program. I worry about it because we do not know enough.
In Europe, they call this type of stuff "Frankenfood." I worry, then, that because it will be unlabeled, more of our exports will be banned. My State depends on the export of food--whether it is seafood or chicken or other products. I don't want to hear one more thing coming out of the EU about not wanting to buy our beef or our lamb because they are worried that it is Frankenfood. We need to be able to export our food. If it is labeled, we will be able to do that.
At the end of the day, I want our consumers to have informed consent, scientists to be able to monitor this, and Congress to be able to provide FDA oversight. I reject the notion that FDA or anyone else should allow this to go forward without some type of declaration about what it really is.
Please, when we see this creature, Dolly, in this photograph—I don't know its purpose; I don't know what it accomplishes. We do not have a shortage of food in our country; we don't have a shortage of milk in our country. For those people who want to produce Dolly, we can't stop it, but I do think we should stop the FDA from putting this into our food supply without labeling and without an informed consent.
I say bah, bah, bah to those who want to bring this into our food supply.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
SEC investigation findings
Chuck Grassley-R (IA)
Mr. Grassley-R, Iowa - Mr. President, I am very happy to be on the floor with my colleague Senator Specter on something we have worked on together over a long period of time, and it falls very much into the category of congressional oversight. I am not going to go into the details now because I have a statement I want to use as a basis for our cooperation, and then you will hear from Senator Specter. I want to say how great it was to work with Senator Specter.
We are here to update the Senate on the interim Finance Committee findings of the joint investigation into the Securities and Exchange Commission that was conducted by the Finance Committee on the one hand, and the Judiciary Committee on the other, during the 109th Congress.
Before I go into details, there is another person I would thank for his cooperation. I want to take this opportunity to thank Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox for his cooperation in providing access to thousands of pages of documents, as well as interviews with the staff at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Chairman Cox's cooperation was very essential to our ability to conduct our constitutionally mandated oversight of Federal agencies.
That said, I hope Chairman Cox takes today's findings to heart and will work to implement recommendations Senator Specter and I plan to put forth into the forthcoming final report.
Today, we want to update the Senate on some of the details of our investigation, which began early last year when allegations were presented to our staffs by former Securities and Exchange Commission attorney Gary Aguirre. Mr. Aguirre described the roadblocks he faced in pursuing an insider trading investigation while he was employed as a senior enforcement attorney at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Specifically, he alleged his supervisor prevented him from taking the testimony of a prominent Wall Street figure because of his "political clout," which obviously should not be ignored if an agency is doing the job they should be doing.
Well, after Mr. Aguirre complained about that sort of preferential treatment given to somebody with "political clout," his supervisors terminated him from the SEC while he was on vacation.
The interim findings we released today outlined the three primary concerns shared by Senator Specter and me. First, the SEC's investigation into Pequot Capital Management was plagued with problems from its beginning to its abrupt conclusion. Second, the termination of Mr. Aguirre by the SEC was highly suspect given the timing and the circumstances. Thirdly, the original investigation conducted by the SEC Office of Inspector General was both seriously and fatally flawed. The inspector general's failure required our committees to take a more thorough look at Mr. Aguirre's allegations and examine this matter closely. Taken together, these findings paint a picture of a troubled agency that faces serious questions about public confidence, the integrity of its investigations, and its ability to protect all investors, large and small, with an even hand.
The SEC should have taken Mr. Aguirre's allegations more seriously and very seriously. Instead, it does like too many agencies do when under fire: it circled the wagons and it shot a whistleblower—an all too familiar practice in Washington, DC. As we know, whistleblowers are about as welcome as a skunk at a picnic.
There is more information to follow and more details that need to come to light. Senator Specter and I together plan on releasing a comprehensive report in the near future. For now, I hope these interim findings will spur the SEC to consider meaningful reforms. I urge all my colleagues to read these important interim findings and to read the final report when it is made available.
I yield the floor.
Arlen Specter-R (PA)
Mr. Specter-R, Pennsylvania - Mr. President, I would like to begin by thanking my distinguished colleague, Senator Grassley, for his outstanding work on the issues which he has just addressed. Senator Grassley and I have a long record of working together. We were elected together in November 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan. There were 16 members of the incoming class of Republican Senators at that time. Two Democrats were elected.
In the intervening years, Senator Grassley and I have become the sole survivors, and we have done a great deal of work together.
We sit together on the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Grassley has had a very distinguished record as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee during the 109th Congress, and I chaired the Judiciary Committee during the 109th Congress. We are making a presentation today of interim findings on the investigation into potential abuse of authority at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
I join Senator Grassley in commending the Chairman of the SEC, Christopher Cox, for his cooperation, and I also join Senator Grassley in urging Chairman Cox and the SEC to do more. The oversight which our two committees undertook constituted a review of over 9,000 pages of documents and the interviewing of 19 witnesses over the course of 24 interviews.
The Judiciary Committee, on which we both serve, held a series of three public hearings regarding this matter, most recently on December 5, 2006, when the committee heard detailed sworn testimony from current and former SEC employees involved in the so-called Pequot investigation.
Based upon our review of the evidence, we have serious concerns, which are documented in a lengthy report, which we will make a part of the record, plus supplemental documents. Our investigation has raised concerns about, first, the SEC's mishandling of the Pequot investigation before, during, and after the firing of Mr. Gary Aguirre; secondly, the circumstances under which Mr. Aguirre was terminated; and third, the manner in which the SEC's Inspector General's Office handled Mr. Aguirre's allegations after he was fired.
Viewing these concerns as a whole, we believe a very troubling picture evolves. At best, the picture shows extraordinarily lax enforcement by the SEC, and it may even indicate a coverup by the SEC. We are concerned, first of all, as detailed in this report, that the SEC failed to act on the GE/Heller trades for years. We are concerned about the suggestions of political power which was present in the investigation, which has all of the earmarks of a possible obstruction of justice.
There is sworn testimony by Mr. Gary Aguirre that he was told in a face-to-face meeting with his immediate supervisor, Branch Chief Robert Hanson, that he could not take the testimony of Mr. John Mack, who was thought to have leaked confidential information. Mr. Aguirre testified that Mr. Hanson refused to allow the taking of testimony, as Mr. Aguirre pointed out, because of Mr. Mack's "powerful political contacts."
Now, Mr. Hanson denied to the SEC inspector general and to the committee that he ever said that, but we have contemporaneous e-mails, for example, where Mr. Hanson admitted to a very similar statement when he wrote to Mr. Aguirre on August 24, 2005, "Most importantly, the political clout I mentioned to you was a reason to keep Paul," referring to a man named Paul Berger, "and possibly Linda," referring to a woman named Linda Thomsen, "in the loop on the testimony." Now, that is conclusive proof of the political clout or at least what Mr. Hanson thought was political clout when the SEC made a decision not to permit the taking of key testimony, the testimony of Mr. Mack.
Mr. Hanson submitted a written statement to the committee concluding that it was "highly suspect and illogical" to link Mr. Mack as the tipper, but in his prior writings he said, in written form, "Mack is another bad guy."
The rationale used by the SEC officials who denied Mr. Aguirre's request to take the testimony of Mr. Mack was that they wanted to get "their ducks in a row." But the overwhelming evidence in the matter showed that the testimony should have been taken at a much earlier stage. There is no problem with taking testimony again if necessary at a later stage.
A key SEC investigator, Mr. Hilton Foster, with knowledge of the Pequot matter, said, "As the SEC expert on insider trading, if people had asked me, 'When do you take his testimony,' I would have said take it yesterday."
Mr. Joseph Cella, Chief of the SEC's Market Surveillance Commission, told committee investigators, "it seemed to me that it was a reasonable thing to do to bring Mack in and have him testify," and "in my mind there was no down side."
Mr. Mack's testimony was taken 5 days after the statute of limitations expired. But let me point out at this juncture that even though the statute of limitations has expired, there is injunctive relief and other action that can yet be taken by the SEC.
The problems with the Pequot investigation are amplified by the suspect termination of Mr. Aguirre. On June 1, 2005, in a performance plan and evaluation, Mr. Aguirre was given an acceptable rating, and Mr. Hanson, on June 29, 2005, noted Mr. Aguirre's "unmatched dedication" to the Pequot investigation and "contributions of high quality." These evaluations were submitted to the SEC's Compensation Committee, which later approved Mr. Hanson's recommendation on July 18. Despite these favorable reviews, Aguirre's supervisors wrote a so-called supplemental evaluation on August 1, and this reevaluation on August 1 occurred 5 days after Mr. Aguirre sent supervisor Berger an e-mail saying that he believed the Pequot investigation was being halted because of Mr. Mack's political power.
There was an investigation by the inspector general of the SEC, and in my years in the Senate and hearing many inspectors general testify, I can't recall hearing an inspector general who said less, did less, and was more thoroughly inadequate in the investigation. For example, the inspector general's staff said, "we don't second guess management's decisions. We don't second guess why employees are terminated." Well, that is precisely the purpose of having an inspector general. The purpose of having an inspector general is to review those kinds of decisions.
The inspector general testified that he was given advice by the Department of Justice, which made absolutely no sense. This appears in some detail in the record.
Then the inspector general initiated an attempt to take what was really punitive action against Mr. Aguirre by seeking enforcement of a subpoena for documents which were involving Mr. Aguirre's communications with Congress. Now, how can an individual communicate, talk to an oversight committee, such as the Judiciary Committee or the Finance Committee, if those communications are going to be subject to a subpoena by the SEC, by the inspector general? It is just preposterous. We have constitutional oversight responsibilities, and we obviously cannot conduct those responsibilities if the information we glean is going to be subject to somebody else's review.
The subpoena wasn't pursued, but the lack of judgment--and it is hard to find a strong enough word which is not insensitive to describe the inspector general's conduct in trying to subpoena the records of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Finance Committee. It just made absolutely no sense.
We hope that the SEC will reopen its investigation even though the statute of limitations has run on criminal penalties. It has run because of the inaction of the SEC waiting so long to start the investigation, then not taking Mr. Mack's testimony until 5 days after the statute of limitations had expired. Notwithstanding that, there are other remedies, such as disgorgement, which still may be pursued.
The oversight function of Congress, as we all know, is very important. Pursuing an investigation of this sort is highly technical, but we have done so, so far, in a preliminary manner. We believe this matter is of sufficient importance so that Senator Grassley and I have come to the floor jointly today to make a statement.
On behalf of Senator Grassley and myself, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the interim findings on the investigation of potential abuse of authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission be printed in the Record, together with extensive documentation which supports the findings.
Again, we acknowledge the cooperation of Chairman Cox and the SEC, and we ask that further investigation be undertaken there. It is a matter of continuing oversight concern to Senator Grassley and myself and the respective committees where we now serve as ranking members.
Mr. President, I ask Senator Grassley, what did I leave out?
Mr. Grassley-R, Iowa - You didn't leave anything out, but we did ask unanimous consent that this be put in.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Mr. Specter - In the absence of any Senator on the floor seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Iraq
John Warner-R (VA)
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - Madam President, about a week ago, I think it was on the 23rd, my colleagues, the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Ben Nelson, and the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and I, together with several cosponsors, put into the Record a resolution—I underline put into the Record—so that all could have the benefit of studying it.
We three have continued to do a good deal of work. We have been in consultation with our eight other cosponsors on this resolution, and we are going to put in tonight, into the Record—the same procedures we followed before—another resolution which tracks very closely the one that is of record. But it has several provisions we believe should be considered by the Senate in the course of the debate. How that debate will occur and when it will occur. I cannot advise the Senate, but I do hope it is expeditious. I understand there is a cloture motion that could well begin the debate, depending upon how it is acted upon.
We have also had a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee last Friday. We had a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee again this morning. Friday was in open session. The session this morning was in closed session. The three of us, as members of the Armed Services Committee, have learned a good deal more about this subject and, I say with great respect, the plan as laid down by the President on the 10th of January. We believed we should make some additions to our resolution.
We have not had the opportunity, given the hour, to circulate this among all of our cosponsors so at this time it will not bind them, but subsequently, tomorrow, I hope to contact all of them, together with my two colleagues, and determine their concurrence to go on this one. I am optimistic they will all stay.
But let me give the Senate several examples of what we think is important in the course of the debate—that these subjects be raised. We put it before the Senate now in the form of filing this resolution, such that all can see it and have the benefit, to the extent it is reproduced and placed into the public domain.
Because the three of us are still open for suggestions, and we will continue to have receptivity to suggestions as this critical and very important subject is deliberated by the Senate.
Our objective is to hope that somehow through our efforts and the efforts of others, a truly bipartisan statement—I don't know in what form it may be made—a truly bipartisan statement can evolve from the debate and the procedure that will ensue in the coming days, and I presume into next week. We feel very strongly that we want to see our Armed Forces succeed in Iraq to help bring about greater stability to that country, greater security to that country, so that the current elected government, through a series of free elections--the current elected government can take a firmer and firmer hand on the reins of sovereignty. We believe if for political reasons all Members of the Senate go over to vote with their party, and the others go over to vote with their party, we will have lost and failed to provide the leadership I believe this Chamber can provide to the American people so they can better understand the new strategy, and that the President can take into consideration our resolution hasn't been changed.
We say to the President: We urge that you take into consideration the options that we put forth, the strategy that we sort of lay out, in the hopes that it will be stronger and better understood by the people in this country. Their support, together with a strong level of bipartisan support in the Congress for the President's plan, hopefully as slightly modified, can be successful. We want success, Madam President. We want success.
So that is the reason we come this evening. I am going to speak to one or two provisions, and my colleagues can address others.
First, the unity of command. We have a time-honored tradition with American forces that wherever possible, there be a unity of command from an American commander, whatever rank that may be, down to the private, and that our forces can best operate with that unity of command and provide the best security possible to all members of the Armed Forces that are engaged in carrying out such mission as that command is entrusted to perform.
A number of Senators, in the course of the hearing on Friday and the hearing this morning, raised questions about this serious issue of unity of command. I say serious issue because the President, in his remarks, described--and this is on January 10—described how there will be an Iraqi commander, and that we will have embedded forces with the Iraqi troops. Well, we are currently embedding forces, but I think the plan—and that is what I refer to, the President's announcement on January 10 in the generic sense as the plan—will require perhaps a larger number of embedded forces. But the plan envisions an Iraqi chain of command. The Iraqis indicated, in working with the President, this plan in many respects tracks the exchange of thoughts that the President and the Prime Minister have had through a series of meetings and telephonic conversations. So the plan embraces the goals of the Prime Minister of Iraq, the goals of our President.
But this is a unique situation where the Iraqis have a complete chain of command, from a senior officer in each of the nine districts in Baghdad, and the United States likewise will have a chain of command in that same district or such segments of this plan as the military finally put together—each will have a chain of command, the Iraqi forces and the United States forces.
In the course of the testimony that we received, particularly testimony from the retired Vice Chief of the U.S. Army on Friday afternoon, he was concerned, as a number of Senators are concerned—and our provision literally flags this, and flags it in such a way that we call upon the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to look at that plan and to bring such clarification forward as may be necessary, and to do it in a way that will secure the safety of our forces, the protection of our forces, and yet go forward with this idea of a greater sharing of the command responsibility in the operations to take place in Baghdad. So we simply call on the administration to bring such clarification and specificity to the Congress and the people of the United States to ensure the protection of our force and that this command structure will work because I believe it doesn't have—I am trying to find a precedent where we have operated like this. I have asked the expert witnesses in hearings, and thus far those witnesses have not been able to explain the command structure that we have conceived, the concept of the plan of January 10, just how it will work.
Likewise, we put in a very important paragraph which says that nothing in this resolution should be construed as indicating that there is going to be a cutoff of funds. Given the complexity of this situation, there has been a lot of press written on the subject of our resolution. Colleagues have come up to me and said: Well, can you assure me that this doesn't provide a cutoff of funds.
Now, the cutoff of funds is the specific power given under the Constitution to the Congress of the United States. I personally think that power should not be exercised, certainly not given the facts and the circumstances today where this plan—which I hope in some manner will succeed and we are working better with the Prime Minister and his forces. So at this point in time I think it is important that our resolution carry language as follows:
The Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.
So I think that very clearly eliminates any consideration there.
At this time I would like to yield the floor so that my colleagues can speak, and maybe I will have some concluding remarks.
I yield the floor.
Mr. Levin-D, Michigan - Madam President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for a unanimous consent request.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. Warner - Madam President, I really feel, if we could more fully----
Mr. Levin - It is just a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Warner - Does it affect what we are trying to lay down in any way?
Mr. Levin - I was just going to ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of the resolution.
Mr. Warner - That is fine. I didn't realize that was coming to pass. It is late in the day, and I suppose we could anticipate a lot of things. But anyway I thank the Senator.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. Levin - As I understand, the resolution has not yet been sent to the desk.
Mr. Warner - It momentarily will be.
Mr. Levin - I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to the resolution.
The Presiding Officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Levin - I thank my friend from Nebraska.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. Nelson-D, Nebraska -Madam President, tonight I believe we have seen the introduction of a resolution which not only has had bipartisan support in its prior form but will receive very strong bipartisan support in its current form, as amended.
I rise to support this resolution for a number of reasons. I think it is important that we continue to support our troops in the field and those who support the troops across the world. I think it is important that we thank them for their service and that we make it very clear that this resolution does not impair their ability to move forward in their command.
It is also important to point out that while some of the cosponsors haven't had the opportunity to review this, it is being circulated to them so that they do have the opportunity to review it. And I am sure they will become cosponsors with the new resolution.
It is important to point out that in this resolution, benchmarks are included that I believe will help break the cycle of dependence in Iraq by empowering and requiring the authority of the Iraqi Government and the responsibility of the Iraqi Government to take a greater role in the battle in Iraq, particularly as it relates to Baghdad. We generally believe that it is inappropriate for our troops to intercede in the battle between the Sunnis and the Shias on a sectarian basis in battles that are of a similar nature that certainly do involve sectarian violence. There is a greater role for the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi military. This resolution in its present form will assure the assuming of that greater role, that greater responsibility by the Iraqi Government and certainly by the Iraqi Army.
It is a pleasure for me to introduce and thank our cosponsor, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. Collin-R, Maine - Madam President, first let me thank Senator Warner and Senator Nelson for their continuing hard work in refining the language of this very important resolution, a resolution that I hope will garner widespread bipartisan support when it is brought to the Senate floor and debated next week.
Since we first introduced our resolution last week, we have had the benefit of further consultations with experts. We have had the benefit of conversations with our colleagues. We have had the benefit of alternative resolutions that have been proposed by other Senators, and we have had the benefit, most of all, of additional hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee, including a classified briefing today. All of this activity has confirmed my belief that our resolution as originally proposed was on precisely the right track, but the benefit of these hearings, briefings, conversations and consultations has led us to improve our resolution by making four modifications that the distinguished Senators have just explained.
Let me, for the benefit of our colleagues, run through them one more time.
First, the resolution now makes very clear that nothing in it is to be construed as advocating any lessening of financial support for our troops. Indeed, it goes firmly on record as being opposed to cutting off funds that would be needed by our troops in Iraq. The language is very clear on that.
Second, there has been a great deal of discussion about the need for the Iraqis to meet certain benchmarks—benchmarks that in the past they have not met. So we include language in this resolution that makes very clear that we expect the Iraqi Prime Minister to agree to certain benchmarks; for example, to agree to work for the passage and achieve the passage of legislation that would ensure an equitable distribution of oil revenues. That is a very important issue in Iraq.
It also includes a benchmark that the Iraqis are going to produce the troops they have promised, and that they are going to operate according to the military rules of engagement without regard to the sectarian information or the sect of the people involved in the fighting. In other words, it doesn't matter whether an insurgent is a Sunni or a Shiite; if he is violating the law, engaging in violence, the Iraqi troops and our troops would be able to arrest and detain or otherwise battle these individuals.
It clarifies the language regarding the troop increase that the President has proposed, and as the Senator from Virginia has explained to our colleagues, it calls for a clarification of the command and control structure so that we don't have a dual line of command. We want to have a very clear chain of command, and we call for that. That isn't the case now, and if you ask any military officer, he or she will tell you that having a clear chain of command, a unity of command, is absolutely essential.
We have made these four changes in our legislation, in the resolution. We hope our colleagues will take a close look at it. I look forward to debating it more fully when we get on this issue next week.
Again, I commend the distinguished Senators with whom I have been very privileged to work on this: Senator Warner, the former chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, my colleague, Senator Nelson, also a member of the Committee on Armed Services. All three of us serve on that committee. We have brought to bear our experience and what we have learned in the last week as we continue to study this very important issue, perhaps the most vital issue facing our country.
Mr. Warner - Madam President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Maine.
It has been a hard work in progress, but we reiterate, perhaps Members want to offer their own resolutions. We are open to suggestions. We are not trying to grab votes, just make ours stronger.
I bring to the attention of my colleague, this is not to be construed as saying, Mr. President, you cannot do anything; we suggest you look at openings by which we could, hopefully, have substantially less United States involvement of troops in what we foresee as a bitter struggle of sectarian violence.
The American GI, in my judgment, has sacrificed greatly, and their families, in giving sovereignty to this Nation. Now we see it is in the grip of extraordinary sectarian violence. Sunni upon Shia, Shia upon Sunni. I am not trying to ascribe which is more guilty than the other, but why should they proceed to try and destabilize the very government that gives all Iraqis a tremendous measure of freedom, free from tyranny and from Saddam Hussein. Why should the American GI, who does not have a language proficiency, who does not have a full understanding of the culture giving rise to these enormous animosities and hatreds that precipitate the killings and other actions--why should not that be left to the Iraqi forces?
We have trained upwards of 200,000. We have reason to believe today there are 60,000 to 70,000 who are tested—in many respects they have been participating in a number of military operations, together with our forces. Let elements of that group be the principals to take the lead, as they proudly say, give them the lead, and go into the sectarian violence. That would enable our commanders, our President, to send fewer than 20,500 into that area.
On the other hand, we support the President with respect to his options regarding the Anbar Province and the additional forces.
Am I not correct in that?
Ms. Collins - If the Senator will yield on that point.
Mr. Warner - Yes.
Ms. Collins - The resolution we drafted very carefully distinguishes between the sectarian violence engulfing Baghdad, where the Senator and Senator Nelson believe it would be a huge mistake for additional American troops to be in the midst of that, versus a very different situation in Anbar Province.
In Anbar, the violence is not sectarian; the battle is with al-Qaida and with foreign fighters, the Sunni insurgencies, so we have Sunni versus Sunni. It is not sectarian. And what is more, local tribal leaders have recently joined with the coalition forces to fight al-Qaida. It is a completely different situation in Anbar. I do support the addition of more troops in Anbar. Indeed, the one American commander whom I met with in December who called for more troops in Anbar was General Kilmer.
Mr. Warner - You refer to the one commander you met. I wonder if the Senator would reference your trip in December and what others told you about the addition of United States forces. I think that is important for the Record.
Ms. Collins - Madam President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
Mr. Warner - Yes.
Ms. Collins - It was a very illuminating trip with other Senators. It has shaped my views on the issues before the Senate.
One American commander in Baghdad told me a jobs program would do more good than additional American troops in quelling the sectarian violence. He told me many Iraqi men were joining the militias or planting roadside bombs simply because they had been unemployed for so long they were desperate for money and would do anything to support their families. This was an American commander who told me this.
Prime Minister Maliki, in mid-December, made very clear he did not welcome the presence of additional American troops and, indeed, that he chafed at the restrictions on his control of the Iraqi troops. So I didn't hear it from Iraqi leaders, either.
The only place where I heard a request for more troops was in Anbar Province where the situation, as we have discussed, is totally different than the sectarian violence plaguing Baghdad.
Mr. Warner - Madam President, I thank my colleague.
In my trip in the October timeframe, I would see much the same expression from military and civilian. Our codel visited, and it was following my trip that I came back and said in a press conference, this situation is moving sideways.
My observations, together with the observations of others—some in our Government, some in the private sector—induced the administration—I am not suggesting we were the triggering cause, but we may have contributed—to go to an absolutely, as you say in the Navy, "general quarters" to study every aspect of the strategy which then was in place, and which now is clearly stated as late as yesterday by the admiral who will be the CENTCOM commander, wasn't working.
I commend the President for taking the study and inviting a number of consultants. That whole process was very thorough.
The point the Senator is making, as late as December—mine in October, yours in December—we both gained the same impressions that no one was asking for additional United States troops at that time.
Ms. Collins - If the Senator will yield on that point, since the Senator was the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, as well, I would also share with our colleagues that the Senator presided over a hearing in mid-November at which General Abizaid, the central command general, testified before our committee that more American troops were not needed. He reported he had consulted widely with generals on the ground in Iraq, including General Casey, in reaching that conclusion.
I say to our colleagues that I think the record is clear. If you look at the findings of your trip from October, the testimony before the Committee on Armed Services from General Abizaid in November, what I heard in mid-December, I have to say, respectfully, I do not believe the President's plan with regard to Baghdad--not Anbar but Baghdad--is consistent with what we were told.
Mr. Warner - I thank my colleague.
We should add an important reference to work done by the Baker-Hamilton commission. They have made similar findings. They mention a slight surge, but in my study of that one sentence in that report, I don't think they ever envisioned a surge of the magnitude that is here.
They can best speak for themselves and, indeed, yesterday there was testimony taken from two senior members of that commission, but I don't know whether they were speaking for the entire commission, and whether, in their remarks, they may wish to amend portions of their report. I wasn't present for that testimony.
I hope someone in the Foreign Relations Committee can make that clear. Were they speaking for the entire commission? Did they wish to have their remarks amend their report which we followed? It was one of the guideposts we used, the important work of that group.
Again, we are doing what we think is constructive to help the Senate in preparing for its deliberations, to invite other colleagues to make suggestions. We stand open to consider other options that may come before the Senate.
At this point in time, our resolution is the same form as the resolution we filed here a week or so ago. We are not changing any of the procedures by which the Senate takes into consideration our points. Whether we will be able to utilize this as a substitute should other amendments be called upon the floor, the rules are quite complex on that matter, and I will not bring all of that into the record at this point. But there are certain impediments procedurally as to how this specific resolution could ever be actually used for the purposes of a substitute.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer - The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Warner - I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Warner - Madam President, in the colloquy I participated in with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Ben Nelson of Kansas and Senator Collins of Maine—and I take responsibility—somehow we had a misunderstanding about the status. We wish to send to the desk and ask that this be numbered a new S. Con. Res. and, therefore, have the same status as the current S. Con. Res. we had submitted a week ago.
Order of Procedure
Harry Reid-D (NV), Majority leader
Mr. Harry Reid-D, (NV) Majority Leader - Madam President, I have already apologized to staff and others for having to wait around so long, but sometimes it takes a long time to get from here to there.
I, first of all, want to acknowledge the hard work of so many different people that allowed us to get where we are today, which certainly isn't the finish line, but it is a starting point.
People have heard me on other occasions, on other matters, talk about the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. In my 25 years in the Congress—and I say this without any reservation—I have not had dealings with anyone who better represents, in my mind, what a Senator should be. Not only does he look the part and act the part, but he is truly what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they talked about this deliberative body.
So I appreciate very much the bipartisan work of the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. He has worked with other Senators—I don't know who he has worked with, but some I am aware of because I have read about them: Senators Collins, Hagel, Ben Nelson, Snowe, Biden, Coleman, and I am sure there are others.
Today Senator Warner and others submitted a new version of his concurrent resolution regarding the increase of troop levels in Iraq.
Senator Levin has taken that language, and tonight we will introduce it as a bill. It will be introduced as a bill because that is the only way we can arrive at a point where we can start a deliberate debate on this most important issue. We will introduce this as a bill which will begin the rule XIV process in order to get it to the calendar and allow the Senate to move to Senator Warner's legislation. We would prefer to do it as a concurrent resolution; however, that would only be the case if it would be open to complete substitute amendments, for obvious reasons.
In order to permit the Senate to consider amendments which are appropriate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senator Warner's concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 7, on Monday, February 5, at 12 noon, and that the entire concurrent resolution be open to amendments and that a cloture motion with respect to S. Con. Res. 2 be vitiated.
The Presiding Officer - Is there objection?
Mr. Mitch McConnell-R, (KY) Minority Leader - Reserving the right to object, I would say to my friend, the majority leader, about a week ago, the distinguished majority leader indicated that we were going to follow the regular order, that the Biden resolution coming out of the Foreign Relations Committee would be the vehicle for our debate, and I gather, in listening to the distinguished majority leader—if I might ask, without losing my right to the floor, what is the status of the Biden resolution that came out of the Foreign Relations Committee?
Mr. Reid - A motion to invoke cloture was filed on that. After we complete work on the minimum wage bill, automatically we will vote on that. I say to my distinguished friend, cloture will not be invoked on that. What I would like is unanimous consent that we not have to vote cloture, that we just vitiate that vote and move to the Warner resolution and do that Monday. But, as I know, the distinguished Republican leader has only seen what I have given him, the last little bit, not because I didn't want to give it to him but I didn't have it. I certainly want the leader to think about this during the night. I think it would be an expeditious way to get to this.
It has taken a lot of time. I haven't been involved in any of the negotiations. It was tempting, but I thought I would do more harm than good. I haven't been involved in any of the negotiations with the Senators whom I have mentioned here. I think it would be to the best interests of the Senate, majority and minority, to start Monday, as I have suggested, and allow Senators—I will say, at a subsequent time, when the distinguished Republican leader yields the floor, I am going to say that I want to work with the Republican leader in setting up a process for making sure people have the ability to offer reasonable amendments to this S. Con. Res. 7. That is my feeling. That is where we are with the Biden-Hagel-Snowe-Levin resolution that is before the Senate, or will be.
The Presiding Officer - Is there objection to the request of the majority leader?
Mr. McConnell - Reclaiming the floor, reserving the right to object, so the Biden proposal which came out of the Foreign Relations Committee—I hear the majority leader—is no longer in consideration. If I understand the process correctly, it, too, could have been called up and an effort could have been made to turn it into a bill as well. If we were to stay in bill status, would it be the intent of the majority leader to fill up the tree?
Mr. Reid - I will work with the Republican leader to take any suggestion the Republican leader would have as to how we can begin a debate. I would say in response to the statement, the reason I didn't put the Biden-Hagel matter in a rule XIV posture is that is not what we want to start debate on. There is a bipartisan group of Senators who believe the more appropriate matter is the Warner amendment. I don't know what happened in your caucus yesterday. In my caucus, there was near unanimity for the Warner resolution.
The Presiding Officer - Is there objection?
Mr. McConnell - Reserving the right to object, Madam President, Senator Warner has been working diligently on this issue and cares deeply about it. We have had some discussions, but I had not seen Senator Warner's proposal until just tonight. I am not complaining about that, but the text of it is new to me as well as to the Democratic leader.
It is still my hope that we could, as we discussed over the last couple of weeks in anticipation of this debate, enter into a consent agreement under which we would have had several different proposals in their entirety, realizing the difficulty of amending a concurrent resolution—several different proposals in their entirety that the Senate could consider. Maybe this is a better way to go, but it occurred to me that was probably the best way to go forward with this important debate.
Given the lateness of the hour and the newness of all of this, I am going to be constrained to object and will consider—I know we will continue this conversation in the morning in hopes of reaching some agreement that is mutually acceptable.
The Presiding Officer - Objection is heard.
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - Will the Senator yield to me for a minute?
Mr. Reid - I will yield to the Senator from Virginia, just making one brief statement. I hope we can still do that. We still would like to do that. I think this will be, as I said, a good place to start. I also want the record to reflect tonight that the mere fact that this is in bill form is as a result of meeting the very stringent rules of the Senate to get it to the floor so we can have a vote on this matter on Monday; that at any time we would agree to take this not being bill language and would be strictly a concurrent resolution language. We can do that anytime. The reasons for that are quite obvious. We don't want this—a concurrent resolution, the President doesn't have to sign it, whatever happens on it. We will be happy to work on that, too.
I yield to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner - I thank both leaders.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner - I join my leader in the objection because I do hope we can work it out, that we do not have to resort to a bill status. Everybody knows what the rules are and how that would then involve the President in a bill status. This should be a matter handled by the Senate and the other body, should they so desire.
I say to my distinguished leader, I did mention this afternoon that I was going to take these steps—basically the changes from the original one, which we filed a week ago. Senator Nelson, Senator Collins, and myself are still there.
There is no major significant changes. We added a provision regarding the serious problem I and other Senators see—and we learned of it in the open session on Friday in the Armed Services Committee and again this morning in closed session—of the need to clarify this question of how a dual command can take place in each of the nine provinces of Baghdad between the Iraqi military and the U.S. military. And, General Keane, on Friday, said he is going to urge General Petraeus to try to work with that. I think that can be handled, but it has to be clarified.
The other thing is that some colleagues thought maybe we were laying the foundation of this body of the constitutional right of curtailing funds. That was never the intention, and that is made quite clear. The rest of it are changes that I believe are not ones that in any way affect basically the thrust of the original resolution, which was to try to put before the Senate as an institution the viewpoints of a bipartisan group--now 11 in number and others I think desiring to join—such that if the Senate speaks in some way on this eventually, after a debate, it represents to the American public the best efforts of this institution to reach a degree of bipartisanship on an issue which I think is one of the most important that I have visited in my now 29th year in the Senate.
So I thank both leaders, and I join my distinguished leader at this time in the objection because I do hope we do not have to resort to legislative need of a bill.
The Presiding Officer - The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. Reid - Mr. President, if we can't get such consent, then we will have to have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Senator Levin's bill on Monday at 12 noon. As for consideration of an amendment, as I stated in our colloquy, and I state now to the Chair, we will work with the Republican leader on an orderly process. He is an experienced legislator, as we all are, working on this bill. The problem we have is a narrow window of time because of the absolute requirement—absolute requirement to finish the continuing appropriations resolution by February 15 to avoid a total closure of the Federal Government—a total closure of the Federal Government. There would be more time to debate amendments, and I know the distinguished Republican leader is looking at this legislation tonight.
We didn't have to go through the cloture process on the motion to proceed to Senator Warner's legislation. We simply want the Senate's will for the American people. I know that is what the minority wants, that is what the majority wants, and we have to figure out a process to do that. I am open to suggestions, but all I know, as I have told my two friends, there is no other way to get to the Warner resolution than how we have done it tonight. If during the night we can work out something to move forward to a debate starting Monday, I think it would be to the betterment of the Senate and the American people.
I repeat: It is done in bill form for the simple reason it is the only way to get it to the floor. I repeat now for the second time in front of the American people, at any time, either by unanimous consent or by a vote of the Democratic caucus, joining in with, I am sure, many Republicans, we will strip that language so it doesn't have to go to the President. We want this to be a resolution. This is something that is business within the family, the congressional family. The President doesn't have to be involved in this—only indirectly.
The Presiding Officer - The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. McConnell - Mr. President, just briefly, I got the Warner resolution language about 7 o'clock. There are others on our side of the aisle, including Senator McCain, Senator Graham, Senator Cornyn, and others, who are deeply involved in this issue and interested in how it is going to be disposed of. Senator Warner has done his usual thoughtful job. He is probably the Senate expert on our side of the aisle in these matters, and his views of which way the Senate should proceed carry a lot of weight in the Senate. But I cannot at this late hour agree to this proposal tonight.
Having said that—and these will be my last thoughts, I believe, for the evening—I do think there ought to be a way to work this out. We have made considerable progress on our side of the aisle in narrowing down the proposals that we might want to offer. And I still think the preferred way to do it—and I think the majority leader believes this as well—is to have a number of different concurrent resolutions in the queue. The distinguished Senator from Virginia has made it clear that he is very uncomfortable, as he just expressed himself a moment ago, with taking the bill approach to this. The majority leader has indicated that is not his preference either. I think the message is: Let's see if we can't craft a unanimous consent agreement that is fair to both sides so that we can have this important debate on this exceedingly important issue next week.
Mr. Warner - Mr. President, I join in that because I think the operative phrase is to let the Senate work its will. Those are the first words I used in connection with this resolution when I laid it down last week. It is essential. This is one of the most important historic debates, as the distinguished leade—both leaders—have said. We should let this body work its will.
The Presiding Officer - The assistant majority leader.
Mr. Durbin-D, Illinois - Mr. President, first let me commend the Senator from Virginia for his leadership and the contribution he has made to this historic debate, both for the Senate and for our Nation. Thank you because I think what you have presented in good faith is an effort to engage in a very important and historic debate. I thank you for that. The fact that you have drawn so much support from both sides of the aisle is a testament to the fine work you have done, and I am glad that you are here this evening in an effort to continue that work.
I would say to the minority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, it is understandable that having been given this language and this information at this late hour that he wants a little more time to reflect on it, and I hope in the morning that we can come to the agreement that we all want. But to reiterate what the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, has said, what we are seeking to do is what the minority leader has expressed, and that is to create the appropriate forum and the appropriate vehicle for the debate on this issue.
We struggle because the procedures in the Senate make it difficult to take resolutions and amendments. It is clumsy, it is awkward, it is difficult to do. So what the majority leader has suggested is to treat this resolution as a bill for the purpose of amendment but then to remove that bill status so that there is no question as to whether it is going to the President. That gives us a chance to work our will, as the Senator from Virginia has said, using the bill-like approach to amendment and gives the majority and minority leaders a chance to work together to find a reasonable number of reasonable amendments so that we can, in fact, express our will on this critically important issue.
But I say to the minority leader from Kentucky, there is no guile in this proposal. It is an effort to find a reasonable way for both sides of the aisle to address this historic debate.
Iraq
Russ Feingold-D (WI)
Mr. Feingold-D, Wisconsin - Mr. President, I have listened intently over the past few weeks as the President, members of his Cabinet, and Members of this Chamber have discussed Iraq, the war on terror, and ways to strengthen our national security.
For years, now, I have opposed this administration's policies in Iraq as a diversion from the fight against terrorism. But I have never been so sure of the fact that this administration misunderstands the nature of the threats that face our country. I am also surer than ever—and it gives me no pleasure to say this—that this President is incapable of developing and executing a national security strategy that will make our country safer.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, because of our disproportionate focus on Iraq, we are not using enough of our military and intelligence capabilities for defeating al-Qaida and other terrorist networks around the world, nor are we focusing sufficient attention on challenges we face with countries such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, or even China.
While we have been distracted in Iraq, terrorist networks have developed new capabilities and found new sources of support throughout the world. We have seen terrorist attacks in India, Morocco, Turkey, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Spain, Great Britain, and elsewhere. The administration has failed to adequately address the terrorist safe haven that has existed for years in Somalia or the recent instability that has threatened to destabilize the region. And resurgent Taliban forces are contributing to growing levels of instability in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, the U.S. presence in Iraq is being used as a recruiting tool for terrorist organizations from around the world. We heard the testimony of Dr. Paul Pillar, former lead CIA analyst for the Middle-East, a few weeks ago in front of the Foreign Relations Committee. He said, and I quote:
The effects of the war in Iraq on international terrorism were aptly summarized in the National Intelligence Estimate on international terrorism that was partially declassified last fall. In the words of the estimators, the war in Iraq has become a ``cause celebre for jihadists, is ``shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives, is one of the major factors fueling the spread of the global jihadist movement, and is being exploited by Al-Qa'ida ``to attract new recruits and donors. I concur with those judgments, as I believe would almost any other serious student of international terrorism. [January 10th, 2007]
Retired senior military officers have also weighed in against the President's handling of this war. Retired commander of Central Command, General Hoar, testified in front of the Foreign Relations Committee last week. This is what the general said:
Sadly, the new strategy, a deeply flawed solution to our current situation, reflects the continuing and chronic inability of the administration to get it right. The courageous men and women of our Armed Forces have been superb. They have met all the challenges of this difficult war. Unfortunately, they have not been well served by the civilian leadership.
If we escalate our involvement in Iraq or continue the President's course, that means keeping large numbers of U.S. military personnel in Iraq indefinitely. It means continuing to ask our brave servicemembers to somehow provide a military solution to a political problem, one that will require the will of the Iraqi people to resolve.
Escalating our involvement in Iraq also means that our military's readiness levels will continue to deteriorate.
It means that a disproportionate level of our military resources will continue to be focused on Iraq while terrorist networks strengthen their efforts worldwide. The fight against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, too, will continue to suffer, as it has since we invaded Iraq. If we escalate our involvement in Iraq, we won't be able to finish the job in Afghanistan.
Finally, the safety of our country would be uncertain, at best. Terrorist organizations and insurgencies around the world will continue to use our presence in Iraq as a rallying cry and recruiting slogan. Terrorist networks will continue to increase their sophistication and reach as our military capabilities are strained in Iraq.
These are only some of the costs of this ongoing war in Iraq. I have not addressed the most fundamental cost of this war the loss of the lives of our Nation's finest men and women, and the grief and suffering that accompanies their sacrifice by their families. We have lost 3,075 men and women in uniform, and that number continues to rise.
These losses, and the damaging consequences to our national security, are not justified, in my mind, because the war in Iraq was, and remains, a war of choice. Some in this body, even those who have questioned the initial rationale for the war, suggest that we have no choice but to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Some here in this Chamber suggest that there is no choice than to continue to give the President deference, even when the result is damaging to our national security. Some argue it isn't the role of Congress to even debate bringing an end to this war.
That argument is mistaken. Congress has a choice, and a responsibility, to determine whether we continue to allow this President to devote so much of our resources to Iraq or whether we listen to the American public and put an end to this war, begin repairing our military, and devote our resources to waging a global campaign against al-Qaida and its allies. We cannot do both. The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power "[to] declare War," "[t]o raise and support Armies," "[t]o provide and maintain a Navy," and "[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." In addition, under article I, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the administration talk, it is as if these provisions were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the Founders of our Republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define, and ultimately, to end a war.
Our Founders wisely kept the power to fund a war separate from the power to conduct a war. In their brilliant design of our system of government, Congress got the power of the purse, and the President got the power of the sword. As James Madison wrote, "Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded."
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 for nearly 4 years, and now by proceeding despite the opposition of the Congress and the American people to put 21,500 more American troops into harm's way.
If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the Founding Fathers defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our Nation.
There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election and 2 months of study and supposed consultation—during which experts and Members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy—the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: "Frankly, that's not their responsibility."
Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the nonbinding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the President from escalating the war. He replied: "It's not going to stop us."
In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the President. It is Congress's responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the country opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the administration's policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying "your policy is mistaken." And we can't stand idly by and tell ourselves that it is the President's job to fix the mess he made. It is our job to fix the mess, and if we don't do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.
I have just introduced legislation, cosponsored by Senator Boxer, which will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq 6 months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm's way.
This legislation will allow the President adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted coun�ter�ter�ror�ism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way—they will continue receiving their equipment, training, and salaries. It will simply prevent the President from continuing to deploy them to Iraq and will provide a hard deadline for bringing them home. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.
There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict. Just yesterday, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing entitled "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War."
Without exception, every witness--those called by the majority and the minority—did not challenge the constitutionality of Congress's authority to use the power of the purse to end a war. A number of the witnesses went further and said that Congress has not only the authority but the obligation to take specific actions that are in the interest of the nation.
I would like to read one quote by Mr. Lou Fisher of the Library of Congress. He said, and I quote:
In debating whether to adopt statutory restrictions on the Iraq War, Members of Congress want to be assured that legislative limitations do not jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. forces. Understandably, every Member wants to respect and honor the performance of dedicated American soldiers. However, the overarching issue for lawmakers is always this: Is a military operation in the nation's interest? If not, placing more U.S. soldiers in harm's way is not a proper response. Members of the House and the Senate cannot avoid the question or defer to the President. Lawmakers always decide the scope of military operations, either by accepting the commitment as it is or by altering its direction and purpose. Decision legitimately and constitutionally resides in Congress.
There are significant historical precedents for this type of legislation that I have introduced today.
In late December 1970, Congress prohibited the use of funds to finance the introduction of ground combat troops into Cambodia or to provide United States advisors to or for Cambodian military forces in Cambodia.
In late June 1973, Congress set a date to cut off funds for combat activities in South East Asia. The provision read, and I quote:
None of the funds herein appropriated under this act may be expended to support directly or indirectly combat activities in or over Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam by United States forces, and after August 15, 1973, no other funds heretofore appropriated under any other act may be expended for such purpose.
More recently, President Clinton signed into law language that prohibited funding after March 31, 1994, for military operations in Somalia, with certain limited exceptions. And in 1998, Congress passed legislation including a provision that prohibited funding for Bosnia after June 30, 1998, unless the President made certain assurances.
Many Members of this body are well aware of this history. Unfortunately, many Members of the Congress are still concerned that any effort to limit the President's damaging policies in Iraq would have adverse consequences.
Let me dispel a few myths that have been generated as a result of the discussion about the use of the power of the purse.
Some have suggested that if Congress uses the power of the purse, our brave troops in the field will somehow suffer or be hung out to dry. This is completely false. Congress has the power to end funding for the President's failed Iraq policy and force him to bring our troops home. Nothing--nothing--will prevent the troops from receiving the body armor, ammunition, and other resources they need to keep them safe before, during, and after their redeployment. By forcing the President to safely bring our forces out of Iraq, we will protect them, not harm them.
Others have suggested that using the power of the purse is micromanaging the war. Not so. It makes no sense to argue that once Congress has authorized a war it cannot take steps to limit or end that war. Setting a clear policy is not micromanaging; it is exactly what the Constitution contemplates, as we have heard today. Congress has had to use its power many times before, often when the executive branch was ignoring the will of the American people. It has done so without micromanaging and without endangering our soldiers.
Some have argued that cutting off funding would send the wrong message to the troops. Our new Defense Secretary even made this argument last week with respect to the nonbinding resolution now under consideration. These claims are offensive and self-serving.
Congress has the responsibility in our constitutional system to stand up to the President when he is using our military in a way that is contrary to our national interest. If anything, Congress's failure to act when the American people have lost confidence in the President's policy would send a more dangerous and demoralizing message to our troops—that Congress is willing to allow the President to pursue damaging policies that are a threat to our national security and that place them at risk.
Any effort to end funding for the war must ensure that our troops are not put in even more danger and that important coun�ter�ter�ror�ism missions are still carried out. Every Member of this body, without exception, wants to protect our troops, and our country. But we can do that while at the same time living up to our responsibility to stop the President's ill-advised, ill-conceived, and poorly executed policies, which are taking a devastating toll on our military and on our national security. It is up to Congress to do what is right for our troops and for our national security, which has been badly damaged by diverting so many resources into Iraq.
As long as this President goes unchecked by Congress, our troops will remain needlessly at risk, and our national security will be compromised. Congress has the duty to stand up and use its power to stop him. If Congress doesn't stop this war, it is not because it doesn't have the power; It is because it doesn't have the will.
Legislative Session
The legislative session of the Senate for January 31, 2007 can be found here.
![[Main Page]](../../../../upload/banner-blue-135.jpg)