Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007--Continued
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007--Continued -- (Senate - September 06, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, the Democrat leader, the Senator from Nevada, is a close friend. I am sad to disagree with him as violently as I do.
I have known Secretary Rumsfeld, Don Rumsfeld, for many years. He came to Washington with Congressman Jerry Ford. He has been in and out of Washington. He has done a great many things, committed a great portion of his life to the service of this country. He is highly intelligent. He is one of the first persons to serve as Secretary of Defense twice. He served previously as Secretary of Defense. He was a person who served in the White House. He has been a very impressive Secretary of Defense.
Since 1981, either Senator Inouye or I have been the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. During that time, we have met with Secretaries of Defense. I met with them prior to that time, and I served in the Eisenhower administration and knew the Secretaries of Defense then and knew them personally. I can think of no one who has worked harder as Secretary of Defense than Don Rumsfeld.
I have been in meetings with him and members of the Joint Chiefs--with all of the Joint Chiefs--with other members of the defense and intelligence establishment. The rapport he has built up among those who serve this country in uniform and serve this country in the intelligence field is overwhelming. I have been to meetings he has held with the Chiefs, just quiet dinner meetings, to discuss basic subjects that were part of our jurisdiction, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee jurisdiction. I have seen the way those people interact with Secretary Rumsfeld.
I know some people say there are dissidents in the Department of Defense. It would be surprising in a country as large as ours, with a Defense Department as large as ours, if there were not some. I do believe he has the support of those who are involved in managing our activities at home and abroad now in the defense area. He has a steady hand. I know he has the trust of the President. I admire the work he has done.
I find it unfortunate that this bill will be held up now for a period of time debating the future of Secretary Rumsfeld. I say categorically that this amendment is nongermane to this bill. It is subject to a point of order. I will make the point of order when the amendment is laid down. Everyone realizes that.
The time we take to discuss this subject is going to delay getting this bill to the President to be signed. I repeat what I have been saying for over a month: it must be to the President and signed and the money ready to be allocated on October 1. The funds are absolutely necessary this time. There will be no bridge for this period. These moneys must be available. I hope Members of the Senate will be brief. I will be reasonably brief in terms of what I am saying about my good friend, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
He has forged close relationships. He has earned senior military leaders' confidence. Just 2 weeks ago, I was in Fairbanks with him when he dedicated the Lend-Lease Memorial, the memorial to those Army Air Corps pilots who flew planes to Fairbanks and the Russian pilots who flew the planes on into Russia, going across the Bering Strait, going across Siberia, going across the Urals and into the area where they could be used in the defense of the Allies against the Nazi challenge to the world. Secretary Rumsfeld was overwhelming.
The interesting thing was our partner at the dinner table was the Secretary of Defense from Russia--a gentleman with a great deal of capability, by the way. He speaks English very well. We had a delightful conversation about the past, about the war.
It was my honor to serve in World War II as an Army Air Corps pilot. I was pleased to see so many of my colleagues. Everyone was delighted with Secretary Rumsfeld and was overwhelmed to have their pictures taken with him.
This man deserves the support of the Senate. He does not deserve the opposition, I am sad to say, in my opinion, on a purely political basis. There may be some on this side of the aisle who have lost confidence, but this Senator has not.
I hope and I pray that Members of the Senate will be reasonably brief in their comments on this proposal.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEVENS. Another speaker on our side is coming. I wish to not make a statement in that queue, so to speak. I just want to speak as a manager of the bill. I was under the impression we would be able to get through this discussion prior to the submission of this resolution and be able to go ahead with the votes we have. We have at least three votes left tonight, and we have assurance that we are going to pass this bill tomorrow, and there are still quite a few other amendments out there.
So I would like to know--can I inquire, may we get a time agreement from the other side of when this bill will pass tomorrow? I would like to know what is going to happen to this bill now? We had the understanding--I agreed we could not finish it on Wednesday, as we initially agreed--that is today--and that we would finish it tomorrow. But we had not anticipated this prolonged discussion about a resolution that hasn't even been introduced yet.
Is the distinguished deputy leader willing to enter into some discussion about this?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against this resolution on the basis of precedent of the Senate of May 17, 2000. It is not appropriate to raise this amendment as a sense of the Senate on this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, since 2005, the Defense Appropriations Committee has required the Department of Defense to report quarterly on the stability and security situation in Iraq. This is the most recent report. It was prepared in August and embargoed until September 1.
Six pages of the bill language is very detailed. Starting on page 233--my colleagues can look in the bill--it requires a comprehensive set of performance indicators and measures for progress and political stability in Iraq. In other words, we continue in our bill already, without the Kennedy amendment, the concept that every quarter the Department reports to us.
The first part of this report describes trends and progress toward meeting goals and political stability. That requirement is contained in section 9010 of our bill.
The second section of this report describes training development and readiness of the Iraqi security forces, including the forces of the Ministry of Defense and police and paramilitary forces of the Ministry of Interior.
The third section describes transfer of security responsibility from coalition forces to the Iraqi Government, including prerequisite conditions and criteria for assessing the readiness of provinces to assume responsibility for security.
As I said, this report is already prepared and was presented on September 1 and is on every desk in the Senate. The current report addresses the prospect of civil war on pages 33, 34, and 35. It is very clear. It has reviewed the concept of ethno-sectarian violence, and that is the greatest threat to security and stability. It also continues with regard to the concepts on page 34 and has a series of incident reports.
I can tell the Senate there is no question that the Department has discussed already in the report the concepts Senator Kennedy wants to have discussed. It says this on page 33:
Notwithstanding this concern, there is no generally agreed upon definition of civil war among academic or defense analysts. Moreover, the conflict in Iraq does not meet the stringent international legal standards for civil war.
In other words, they have already reported to us, as Senator Kennedy would require. But Senator Kennedy wants to add additional requirements now. The question he asks, for example, in section (G), subparagraph 3: is the strategy of the United States Government to ensure that the United States Armed Forces will not take sides in the event of a civil war in Iraq?
It may be that we are already taking sides. We are supporting the Government if the insurrection is there. We need to help the elected Government against the al-Qaida attacks. There is no question that should be done. But the Kennedy proposal presumes the United States must not take sides. In other words, he would prevent what we are doing right now.
The question for the strategy of the United States in taking sides is repeated in section 6 of Senator Kennedy's amendment. I do not believe it is appropriate to direct foreign policy or military strategy through a reporting requirement on an appropriations bill.
Senator Kennedy and Senator Warner sit on the Armed Services Committee. That is where policy is discussed. I do not think this is the way the Senate should do business.
We are in a situation tonight where having had this discussion at length on the other matter, I think too many Members of the Senate have not heard this debate and probably will come and say: What's going on?
The clear answer has to be that we should not dictate policy--particularly military policy--in an appropriations bill. We provide the funding for whatever policies are already established by law, by regulation, by the Commander in Chief. This is something that requires the determination of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the President to set military policy.
There is a constitutional question involved here, in my opinion, in terms of what Senator Kennedy wants to do. He wants to set up a situation whereby the Department of Defense has to decide if there is a civil war going on and if there is, then it has a set of procedures that must be followed. If they decide a civil war is not going on, there is another set of procedures that must be followed.
As a practical matter, what he is saying is reports such as this should come to the Senate quarterly and they should tell us in advance what are they going to do for the next quarter. In terms of military strategy and what we are doing over there, for those of us who have been there repeatedly, it is not possible to do that.
I certainly believe Senator Warner outlined the whole concept of civil war very clearly. You can call it a civil war if you want, but the question is, when you put it into an amendment that demands we have a report to assess a finding by the Department, which it must make whether or not there is a civil war going on, and then give it instructions based on how it makes that decision, I think, is micromanaging the Defense Department. If there is one thing we should not do on an appropriations bill is try to micromanage the Defense Department.
I urge the Senate not to support this amendment. I do believe the reports we are getting right now give us some measurement of what is going on, and on the basis of that let's make judgments which we should make. For instance, this bill measures progress toward a democratic Iraq.
It describes the obstacles toward political progress, and it gives us a comparison of the situation in individual Iraqi homes.
It tells us about the black market in Iraq and how it might affect what we are doing over there.
It discusses the al-Qaida influence in Iraq and the recent developments in the security environment.
This is a very extensive report. Like a lot of reports, it comes to us quarterly, Mr. President, but not a lot of people pay attention to it. We do. If you look at our bill, we prepared, on the basis of the last report, a continuation of the concept of what they should do in terms of improving these reports for the coming period.
I do hope the Senate will support our position that this is not the way to go, that this is not the thing to do.
Has my time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 1/2 minutes remaining.
Mr. STEVENS. I yield to my friend.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I disagree. This amendment is about changing the report requirements we have had in the past and that we have in this bill now. And we have had a satisfactory report.
If one looks at the report, there is no question there are attitudes in Iraq that indicate this may turn into a civil war. There is no question that is one of the major problems facing us today. To put on the Secretary of Defense the burden of deciding if there is a civil war and giving instructions whether there is or not, changing the basis of things we require that are serving us right now--I urge Senators to look at this report. There are graphs in the report. Are you very or somewhat concerned that a civil war might break out? There is great worry that it might. We should have that worry. But to force the Department of Defense to decide when it has turned into a civil war and give specific instructions in case they do make that decision, and if they don't make the decision--of course, that is not what the Senator from Massachusetts wants. He wants the decision that there is a civil war, obviously, because that would force a withdrawal.
This is very much connected with the debate we just had about the amendment that was considered to be not in order.
I urge the Senate to reject the Senator's amendment. I move to table his amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. Time is up, is it not, Mr. President?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I normally would agree with the Senator from Maryland, but the comments that were made are really not correct.
This has been reviewed by third-party entities, including the Government Accountability Office. We received a final report on May 30, 2006. The Department of Defense strongly opposes the amendment. If the language prevails, it will undermine the competitive sourcing program.
They have learned a lot about using A-76 on an enormous entity like the Walter Reed Hospital, but this amendment would preclude the Army from implementing a contract which has been reviewed three times and has been agreed to by the GAO.
Ms. MIKULSKI. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 2 minutes.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Let's talk about taxpayers, since this is supposed to inherently do something or other, saving money to fight terrorism.
This started in 2000, as Senator Sarbanes said. The Army spent $7 million to defeat their own Federal employees. They spent $7 million in 6 years. Boy, how about that? These are the little people, the landscapers. Thank God they had the AFGE behind them.
Then, after spending $7 million and changing the rules--and with the last set of specs, they had 1,500 amendments; imagine if we had 1,500 amendments--what we now find is they are going to have to spend another $5 million to implement the savings. So they are going to spend $12 million when the original goal was to save $7 million. Come on. If we are fighting terrorism and saving money, let's leave Walter Reed alone. It is going to be closed in a couple years because of BRAC. Let the landscapers do their job. Let the doctors and nurses do their job. Let's do our job and pass the Mikulski-Sarbanes amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. The delay in this matter really came about--there is no question there is a serious delay--as it was reviewed and upheld on two occasions. These are third-party entities that did the review, including the GAO. We should not upset a process that has taken so long and is finalized now.
I yield back the remainder of my time and move to table the Senator's amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/