Hearing of the Senate Committee on Appropriations - The President's FY 2008 Supplemental Request for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Statement

Hearing of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee - The Role and Impact of Credit Rating Agencies on the Subprime Credit Markets

SEN. BYRD: Secretary Gates, General Pace, Deputy Secretary Negroponte, thank you for coming here today.

I would like to issue a special welcome to General Pace, who will soon retire as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after 40 years of service in the Marine Corps. Today marks his last appearance in uniform before the Appropriations Committee. General Pace has been a tireless advocate for those serving in harm's way. On behalf of all of the members of the Appropriations Committee, I thank you, General Pace, for your outstanding service in defense of our great nation, and I wish you all the best in your future plans.

The Appropriations Committee meets this afternoon to hear testimony on the president's supplemental appropriations request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Congress has now appropriated over $450 billion for the nefarious infernal war in Iraq. The president has requested another $150 billion as emergency funding for the wars. It is my understanding that the president intends to seek another $45 to $50 billion, bringing the total emergency request for just one year, one year to nearly $200 billion.

I'm disappointed that four days before the new fiscal year we still have not received the president's revised request. I considered postponing this hearing until the president submits his request, but there are so many fundamental flaws in the president's Iraq policy and the execution of that policy that I decided we should proceed with this public airing of the issues.

Today President Bush has not requested one thin dime to fund cost of his so-called surge policy next year. I believe the surge is a fatally failed policy. While our troops continue to operate with professionalism and heroism, the mission that the president has given them is flawed, flawed at its core.

We do not create a democracy at the point of a gun. Sending more guns does not change that reality. And this committee will not -- N- O-T -- not rubber stamp every request that is submitted by the president. (Applause.)

If the Congress were to approve the president's revised budget request, total funding for the war in Iraq will exceed $600 billion. Six hundred billion -- billion -- BILLION dollars. More than 3,800 American deaths. Thirty-eight hundred. More than 27,000 Americans wounded.

Staggering costs, but even those costs fail to include the many indirect costs of this terrible war that will be -- ultimately be borne by whom? Whom? WHOM? The American people. Larger Veterans Administration costs. Interest payments on the additional debt. Higher oil prices. The long-term expense of rebuilding our battleworthy fighting forces. The losses and stresses on our military families. And the incalculable long-term damage inflicted on our image and our good reputation in the world.

All of this for a war -- a war -- a WAR that General Petraeus two weeks ago could not say had made Americans safer. Now we hear the president talking -- yes, talking -- about a 50-year commitment in Iraq. You hear that?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (Off mike.)

SEN. BYRD: Similar to our military involvement in Korea. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that such a long-term presence could cost well in excess of 2 trillion -- 2 trillion -- yes, you heard me -- 2 trillion dollars. That's quite a burden that this president is leaving to our grandchildren, yours and mine. Our grandchildren, whose future will have to be mortgaged to pay for it.

The question is -- and we should have foremost in our minds -- is this question, the one that General Petraeus -- yes, the one that General Petraeus was unable to answer -- is America more secure as a result of this massive, astronomical investment? I believe the answer is crystal clear: We are not! (Cheers, appaluse.)

We are now 4-1/2 years into this war and seven months into the president's surge strategy that sent an additional 30,000 troops, yes, into Iraq. Yes, the charge of the light brigade. In January the president said that this military escalation was a temporary strategy to give the politicians in Baghdad breathing room to forge a political consensus. That rationale vanished as it became clear that no progress on the political front is on the horizon.

The new buzz word is "bottom up," and a vague hope that incremental progress in the provinces will somehow miraculously lead to national reconciliation. The president and his supporters claim that we're now finally on the cusp of progress and that we must continue to stay the course. Huh! I've heard that before. Call me a skeptic, but we have heard this tune before. Yes, haven't we?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes.

SEN. BYRD: Yes, man. Yes! the White House's reasons for our military occupation in Iraq shift with the winds, but the message is always the same; stay the course, continue the calamity.

The American public was sold on this war. Yes, it was. Yes, it was sold on this war with metaphors about mushroom clouds. I heard all those. And fanciful visions, yes, of our troops being greeted as liberators. I heard that. And I saw that, yes.

The fear tactics and half-truths continue as the president suggests that terrorists will follow us here -- have you heard that before?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes.

SEN. BYRD: -- if we withdraw from Iraq. And the administration grasps at every straw to demonstrate progress on the ground.

As Mark Twain -- Mark Twain -- Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Are we really seeking progress toward a stable, secured Iraq? Are we? Is our continuing occupation encouraging the Iraqi people to step up and take responsibility for their own? Is it? Is it? Are Iraq's leaders doing the hard work necessary to build a political consensus? Ah! How about it?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Off mike.)

SEN. BYRD: What do we mean when we say, "support the troops"?

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (Off mike.)

SEN. BYRD: Oh! What do we mean? What do we mean? Our brave fighting men and women have been given a near-impossible task, which they have preformed with dedication, with professionalism, with courage and with honor. And the Congress has provided everything that the generals have asked for and more, at times going beyond the president's budget to supply body armor and mine-resistant vehicles for our soldiers.

The president has taken that support for our men and our women in uniform to imply support and even with validation of his policy; now he talks about some sort of indefinite occupation of Iraq. How appalling! How appalling that this president, who started his administration by saying that he would never allow our troops to be under the control of another government, now holds our troops in Iraq hostage to an Iraqi government that cannot govern.

In the fifth year of this terrible, misguided conflict, this senator -- yeah, this man from the hill country -- believes that it is time for a thorough evaluation of the Bush war in Iraq. If we're serious about supporting our troops, we owe them nothing less. I look forward to your testimony. (Cheers, applause.)

(Strikes gavel.)

Senator Cochran.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. BYRD: Thank you, Senator.

Secretary Gates, what did the president mean when he referred to a possible 50-year -- 50-year -- American presence in Iraq? It sounds like "Mission Accomplished" has turned into a commitment to have our grandchildren patrolling Baghdad into the middle of the century. Has the president discussed this with you? Has he?

SEC. GATES: Yes, sir, he has, and we have talked about what the ongoing requirement or need might be for U.S. forces in the future. I think that what the president is referring to is our pursuing a long- term strategic agreement with the Iraqis; the number of forces that would be included would be considered under that agreement.

I would tell you that the number of troops would be a small fraction of those that are in the country today. And I think no one really knows what the duration of their presence there would be. It would depend, I suspect, both on the nature of the Iraqi government and on conditions in the region -- what the Iranians are trying to do and others in the region.

The purpose of that kind of a longer-term presence, should it be agreed, would be, first of all, to continue to fight against al Qaeda in Iraq, to help prevent foreign intervention in Iraq, and to continue to train and equip the Iraqi forces. So it would be a very different kind of mission than our troops have today.

SEN. BYRD: Are you aware of operational plans for the long-term presence of U.S. troops?

SEC. GATES: I am not -- I may defer to General Pace on this. I am not aware of any plans at this point for a long-term presence. This has been largely a subject of discussion, but I don't think there's been any detailed planning.

General?

GEN. PACE: Sir, there has been no detailed planning for that.

SEN. BYRD: Wouldn't you agree that there are significant differences between the situation in South Korea and Iraq?

SEC. GATES: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. And I think that what people have had in mind when they refer to a parallel with the Koreans is simply an ongoing partnership between the United States and another country in which we have a relatively small presence in that country as part of a security relationship.

SEN. BYRD: Don't you think Congress and future administrations must be integral to such a far-reaching decision?

SEC. GATES: I think the Congress has to be involved in that, yes, sir.

SEN. BYRD: Secretary Gates, the president has made much of the fanciful notion that the U.S. effort in Iraq is supported by a "coalition of the willing." In fact, over 93 percent of the troops in Iraq are U.S. troops. The 165,000 thousand U.S. troops in Iraq are supported by only 12,279 troops from the "coalition of the willing."

The untold story is that the principal support for U.S. personnel in Iraq is reported at over 125,000 employees of private contractors, including over 30,000 employees of private security companies. Instead of a "coalition of the willing," what we really have is a coalition of contractors.

What message does it send to our allies and the people of Iraq that instead of a significant presence of our major allies in support of the war effort, the United States sends contractors with no accountability, no rules for conduct, and total exemption from prosecution?

SEC. GATES: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the contractors are not immune from prosecution. They do have rules. The concern that we have is to ensure that we are enforcing the rules that we've asked them to abide by, and that's what we're looking at right now.

I would say your numbers are quite accurate. There are about 12,000 coalition troops in Iraq, representing 33 countries. And I would tell you that some of them make, in a modest way, a very important contribution. Clearly, the British have played a significant role in the southern part of the country and -- in the Basra area and so on. Many of them it represents as much as anything a political commitment to cooperate and to support with the -- to support the United States.

SEN. BYRD: Secretary Gates, the latest National Intelligence Estimate points out that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 have rebuilt and established a safe haven in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 trained in Afghanistan, not Iraq. How, then, is our overwhelming commitment of blood and treasure to Iraq making us safer?

SEC. GATES: Well, sir, I think whatever the circumstances were in 2003, I think there's little question in terms of that national estimate or the generally accepted view that al Qaeda is very active and aggressive in Iraq today. And I know very few people who believe that, were we to leave precipitously, that al Qaeda would not reengage, continue and reescalate their violence in Iraq itself.

And I think that most of the intelligence experts would believe that the next target would be the neighbors, perhaps Jordan and others, and eventually the creation of a space in which they could prepare in Iraq perhaps to attack European or even American targets.

SEN. BYRD: Secretary Gates and Secretary Negroponte, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, it may cost the U.S. government more to hire a private security contractor than an American GI. Some of these contractors are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to do jobs that we used to ask our soldiers to do. What does that do for the morale of our regular-duty soldiers, who get paid a fraction of that? Is this wholesale outsourcing of our military serving our interests? Is it?

SEC. GATES: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the reason we have had to rely on these contractors is because, as I indicated earlier, of the significant reduction in the size of our military forces over the past 15 years. And we, frankly, just don't -- if we're to have a serious combat capability, we don't have the manpower to be able to perform a lot of these tasks. Again, for us, the security part of the contracting business is a very small percentage. Perhaps 5 percent of the contractors that the Department of Defense has are involved in security.

I would go beyond that, though, and say that my personal concern about some of these security contracts is that I worry that sometimes the salaries that they are able to pay in fact lure some of our soldiers out of the service to go to work for them. And one of the things that I've asked our lawyers to work for, one of the things that's pretty common in the corporate world and elsewhere, are non- compete clauses in contracts, and see if there's some way we can put some limits on the ability of these contractors to lure highly trained soldiers out of our forces and to work for them.

SEN. BYRD: Senator Specter?

SEC. GATES: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, General Pace had a brief opening comment; if it pleases the chairman to let General Pace offer those comments?

SEN. BYRD: Yes. Go ahead, Senator Pace -- General Pace.

GEN. PACE: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Senator Cochran, members of the committee, Mr. Secretary, thank you.

SEN. BYRD: Excuse me.

GEN. PACE: I will keep my remarks brief, sir, but I would be remiss if I did not take this one last opportunity to say thank you in many ways; first to you, sir, for your very kind opening words about my service to the country. It has been an incredible honor to serve in the military of the United States of America, and one which I will take to my grade -- grave with great pride.

Second, to all the members of this committee and to the Congress as a whole. Despite the dialogue, Congress has always provided for provision of the troops in the field. And we know that, and we appreciate that.

And your visits to the hospitals and your visits to the troops in the field send a very strong signal of desire to understand what is really happening and support for the troops.

SEN. BYRD: Thank you.

GEN. PACE: I am filled with pride in the incredible accomplishments of our young men and women. They freely give more than anyone could ever demand. And it's humbling to have the opportunity to serve beside them and to represent them.

Many of them, as you know, sir, are members of the Guard and Reserve, and we owe their employers a debt of gratitude for letting their very prized employees serve their nation.

And most important, we owe our families a debt of gratitude. They sit at home and pray for our safe return. They don't know when we're in danger. They worry about us all the time.

When we come home and we get awards and promotions, they pretend that they had nothing to do with it. They stand in the background.

When we get tired, they dust us off and put us back in the fight.

Our families serve this nation as well as anybody who's ever worn the uniform, and I would like to go on record to say thank you to them.

Lastly, sir, for a kid from New Jersey whose dad was born in Italy, to participate in this process has been a privilege. I cannot look you in the eye and tell you that I look forward to sitting here and answering all your questions. I can look you in the eye as a citizen of the United States and tell you what a true privilege it is to be part of this democracy, to be part of this dialogue and to try to contribute the truth as I know it to the ongoing discussion.

Thank you, sir.

SEN. BYRD: (Inaudible) -- General Pace, thank you for your dedication to duty, your unstinting loyalty and dedication, and your commitment to valor and honor.

GEN. PACE: Thank you, sir.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. BYRD: I think that what many people came away from with respect to the study groups report was that there should be a major diplomatic effort to include all the nations surrounding Iraq in a common mission to stabilize and to see that the country begins to pull out of its chaos. And I don't think that's happened to any extent worth noting thus far. Isn't that true?

SEC. GATES: Well, I think I would defer to Ambassador Negroponte on this, but my impression is that the neighbor's conferences that have included as I recall both the Syrians and the Iranians have been directed toward that end. And my impression is that those conferences have produced some positive results.

MR. NEGROPONTE: And that is an area of diplomatic effort that we want to continue, Senator.

SEN. BYRD: Secretary Gates, again, there's a perception that we're involved in an open-ended commitment, military commitment in Iraq. General Petraeus said that we would continue what we are doing now into next spring and if things don't improve then we may have to continue to do what we're doing, militarily.

Now to many people that represents a sort of a blank check. Aren't we saying -- or couldn't we be interpreted as saying that we will be there indefinitely putting our troops in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war until at some point the Iraqis decide to put their guns down? And if that is something like the road that we're walking down, it appears that we've lost control of the situation and we're just being pulled along by what is going on with respect to their sectarian differences in Iraq with no end in sight.

SEC. GATES: Well, Senator, I think that the, first of all, the plan to -- first of all, we've already not replaced the Marine Expeditionary Unit that was in Anbar. We will begin pulling down a brigade about every 45 days, thereabouts -- this -- General Petraeus' plan through July. He stated when he testified up here that it was his expectation that the drawdowns would continue after July although the pace might be determined by what was going on -- would be determined to a considerable extent by what was going on on the ground.

I think he would not have made these recommendations and the recommendations would not have been supported by the senior military leadership if it were not their expectation that the events would continue to move in the direction that they've been moving in the last three months or so -- in a positive direction.

The truth of the matter is some of the most positive things that are happening in Iraq are things we didn't anticipate. The turn in Anbar by the sheikhs who saw where al Qaeda basically overplayed their hand and killed too many Sunnis and the sheikhs also saw them competing for power and economic control and came together against al Qaeda that has created some of the opportunities there. Same thing may be happening in the Shi'a area because the Jaish al Madhi has overplayed their hand by killing two governors and so on.

So I think that, I mean the path that we're on is a path toward drawing down the number of U.S. forces and the beginning of a transition in mission to a very different kind of role for the United States. I think the real issue that most of us have -- the debate is about the pace of those drawdowns.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source