GOP Stakeout Following the Senate Luncheons
Federal News Service
HEADLINE: GOP STAKEOUT FOLLOWING THE SENATE POLICY LUNCHEONS
SPEAKERS: SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST (R-TN); SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R-TX); SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-PA); SENATOR JOHN W. WARNER (R-VA)
LOCATION: THE OHIO CLOCK CORRIDOR, THE CAPITOL WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
SEN. SANTORUM: Good afternoon, everybody. We're rounding up our troops. We had a little late conference today, and as a result we had-a couple members have to go to the floor to get a few things done before they could come back out.
Just let say we had a very good discussion. One of the things we focused on today was to make sure that this authorization bill gets done in a timely fashion and that it is not bogged down with political amendments. This is a bill that should be focused on, first and foremost, as our troops are in harm's way overseas, must be focused on issues of national security, and amendments should be relevant amendments and germane to the issue. We've heard talk that there is a-there may be a move to make some members dwell of issues that are, quote, "message amendments" that have nothing to do with defense. That will not be met with conciliation. This is a-this is a very serious bill at a very serious time. And political-presidential politics have no room on this bill. This bill is about funding our troops and funding the systems they need to do their job. And we're going to do our best to make sure that that is done in a fashion that befits the importance of this bill and that those who suggest that we use this as an opportunity for presidential candidates to get their record in order is-I think are going to find themselves without the opportunity to get votes anytime soon.
So we're going to work and try to get this bill done. And we're hopeful that we're going to get cooperation in doing so. And (I'll) turn it over to Kay Hutchison.
Kay?
SEN. HUTCHISON: Thank you.
The leader is coming out as soon as the vote is vitiated. But it is so important that we try to pass this very important bill that funds our armed services at a time when we have our troops in harm's way. This is a bill that has a 3.5 percent pay raise for our military personnel.
It has higher combat pay, higher pay for those who are taken away from their families. And I can't even imagine that anyone would want to play politics with this bill.
Putting something like unemployment compensation into an armed services bill just doesn't make sense. That's an issue that has been taken up, there's been a vote on it, and we need to move on.
So I do hope that we can focus on our troops, focus on the very important issue. Our troops know that we are trying to pass this bill, and I just don't think this is the time to be sending a mixed message. So it is my hope that we can have a clean armed services defense appropriation authorization that can move forward through Congress and be signed by the president so that there's no question that our war and our troops are fully funded.
SEN. WARNER: I've been asked to comment with regard to members of the House of Representatives, speaking on their agenda with regard to hearings and other interviews connected with the prison crisis in Iraq. I'll tell you exactly what I have recommended to our leadership and to our members, but I do not wish to comment on the House.
When this situation broke, I felt it was the responsibility of the Congress, a co-equal branch of government, to start hearings. I consulted our leaders and we scheduled the hearings last week. This week our bill is on the floor, but in consultation with Senator Levin and members of the committee-I convened them yesterday-it was decided we'd go forward with the hearing tomorrow, and our witnesses will be General Abizaid and two others.
Now, the question arises as to exactly how we decided on the schedule and the witnesses. And momentarily, I'll release-I'm going to have it handed to me; it's coming over now-a letter in which I said to the secretary of Defense last week the need to go forward with additional hearings, making clear that we would schedule those hearings dependent upon the availability of witnesses. And explicitly, I addressed the combatant commanders, saying that given their assignments, we would await the recommendation of the department as to how best to have them as a part of the hearing. May 18, 2004 15:00 ET .EOF
And I also went to-in the letter explained that I would explore teleconferencing, given that they're overseas at their posts.
Yesterday I learned from the department that General Abizaid had been in town for several days. He was here for a commanders conference, so he could be available. The other two were en route for various conferences and work that they were going to do over here in consultation with department officials. And so to me, it was a very orderly way into which to schedule this hearing.
I think the letter speaks for itself, and any moment I'll have it and it will be distributed.
Q Chairman Warner, Chairman Hunter, though, said that by taking the generals out of the field that you basically will be taking their eye off the broader war. How would you react to that?
SEN. WARNER: I would suggest he put that comment to the secretary of Defense and allow him to answer it.
Q Would you consider bringing the secretary of Defense back again as a witness, considering what is-some of the allegations that have surfaced in the press --
SEN. WARNER: That issue I discussed with Senator Frist this morning. The secretary has been most cooperative, I assure you, in the scheduling of our hearings, in the availability of the witnesses. And I think that the leadership is deciding that he would come up here, rather than at a hearing, and appear in S-407, making him available to all senators. So at this point in time, I think that's the preferential course of action.
Q Not a public hearing?
SEN. WARNER: No. Well, it's just not possible to do a public hearing, I guess, with all the senators present.
Q Do you know when that would be?
SEN. WARNER: Beg your pardon?
Q Do you know when that -- (off mike)?
SEN. WARNER: I think we're looking at either Wednesday or Thursday. It hasn't been scheduled yet.
Q Wednesday or Thursday of next week?
SEN. WARNER: No, this --
Q Of this week?
SEN. WARNER: Mm-hmm. (Affirmative response.)
Q Senator, have you considered subpoenaing documents as part of --
SEN. WARNER: I beg your pardon?
Q Have you considered subpoenaing any documents --
SEN. WARNER: The question is, have I considered subpoenaing documents. No, because the department has been very forthcoming on witnesses and all documents that are needed.
Thank you very much. I'll have that letter in your hands just as fast as it can be reproduced. Thank you.
Q Senator Frist, could you take a question on judicial nominations?
SEN. FRIST: I'll be happy to.
Q Has the White House signed-off on the agreement for no recess appointments?
SEN. FRIST: Senator Daschle and the representative from the White House and I met earlier this morning.
An agreement has been reached, and within a few minutes I will be (initiating ?) the cloture vote, and we will be voting on Marcia Cooke. The agreement, in essence, is that the Democrats will allow an up-or-down vote on 25 judges that are currently on the calendar and they will do that between now and the July 4th recess. And the administration has agreed not to do any recess appointments in the near future, between now and the remainder of this year. That's the agreement and it's fair. It's balanced. We've worked on it for days, and both sides are satisfied. I'll be making that announcement in a few minutes, and I've said we'll move on to the first of those series of 25 votes, which will be carried out over the next several weeks.
Q What about the the transportation --
Q You said in the "near future," so there's no time --
SEN. FRIST: It'll be over the rest of this year.
Q Can you talk about the transportation --
SEN. FRIST: Yes. Excuse me?
Q Can you talk more about why the seven -- (off mike)?
SEN. FRIST: The judges that there have been repeated cloture votes on, that they have obstructed, the ones that they're actively filibustering now we will not be bringing up between now and the end of the summer for repeat cloture votes. Anybody who comes out of committee, and I assume that there will be a lot of people coming out of committee-nominees-we will handle in the standard process. And they have the right under this agreement to filibuster them. I hope that they won't. I hope that they'll allow each of them an up- or-down vote.
Q So these are all noncontroversial nominees, correct? I mean, why wouldn't the White House go ahead and have a recess appointment?
SEN. FRIST: Well, I'm not sure why the other side of the aisle is demanding even up-or-down votes. Traditionally we've been able to do a lot of these by voice. They come out of committee unanimously. Not all of these, but we'll be able to have an up-or-down vote, again, on these 25, and that's fair.
Q When will the transportation bill go to --
Q Senator -- (off mike) -- giving in to the any recess appointments demand on the Democratic part would be -- (infringe ?) on the constitutional power of the president, why did you agree -- (off mike)?
SEN. FRIST: The administration made that decision that they, at this juncture, have no plans to use that constitutional opportunity and right, and therefore are willing to put that on the table in order to have 25 judges that otherwise it sounds like would be obstructed; would not be allowed to fill the vacancies that are out there.
Q Senator?
SEN. FRIST: Louisa (sp).
Q I had a question about the transportation bill. When is it going to go to conference?
SEN. FRIST: Transportation bill, working closely with the other side of the aisle. They have obstructed us going to conference. The Senate has passed a bill, a public transportation/highways bill. The House has passed a bill. To date, the Democrats have obstructed us going to conference, which is the normal process. Given, that is their right to do. I think it is not the right thing to do, nor is it in the best interest of the American people.
But given that that is the stand they are taking, we are working with them, and I'm very hopeful that in the next several days we'll be able to come to the floor and work out an agreement that will get this bill to conference.
Q Do you have a figure with the White House yet on how much the bill is going to be?
SEN. FRIST: There's no predetermined figures going into this conference. And I made it very clear that we cannot or should not predetermine the outcome of this conference before going into it.
Q Are you still looking at cloture?
(Cross talk.)
SEN. FRIST: Excuse me.
Q Are you still looking at cloture on the motion to go to conference?
SEN. FRIST: I will use every tool that we possibly can. It's important for the American people. This is a jobs-creating bill, a bill that helps the economy, that stimulates in terms of the construction and reconstruction of infrastructure, and I will use every procedural move I can to get it to conference. I hope that we can work out something the next several days, and I'm pretty confident that we can.
Q If you can't finish it by June 30th, is the need for a multi-month or a longer extension?
SEN. FRIST: We will have to have an extension if we don't finish the bill. And hopefully we'll be in conference and we'll have an end in sight.
Q On the record-high gas prices --
SEN. FRIST: I think we can finish this bill. We should finish this bill and have a bill to the president that he can sign this year.
Q On record-high gas prices, the Democrats today have called for the release of a million barrels a day for 30 days out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. What's your position on that?
SEN. FRIST: Well, the question is on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And I think it's ironic that at a time we're at war in a part of the world where national security, international security is at stake, that an entity that was specifically set up to, in the event there is catastrophe, in the event that war would so dictate that we have appropriate reserves, under that sort of emergency, and to tie one's hand behind the back by depleting or spending that off because, unfortunately, gas prices are high is the wrong thing to do, especially at a time we're at war.
The SPRO is a-the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a national security facility, and to drain that down for what we all find disheartening-and that is high gas prices-that's most important.
Second, last time it was done, in 2000, and we started drawing back, it did have a small effect on gas prices, maybe a penny. And to put at risk national security, from a national security standpoint, is absurd, in order to accomplish that tiny reduction, even in the best of all worlds???
Q What about continuing to fill it, though? Do we fill it 94 percent full right now? Do we still have to keep putting more in?
SEN. FRIST: Let me go back. The other thing-we need to pass an energy bill. And that would be the way that we as a legislative body should respond.
We have passed one bill; it has been filibustered. We're going to continue to try to pass an energy bill.
Should we continue to fill it? I believe we should continue to fill it. It's a national-national security facility. And we are at war in a part of the world where something-you know, I pray that nothing happens; something could happen that could put our national security at risk. So why would we think of either, A, depleting, or B, not completing that national security facility?
Q So you have no intention of letting the-of allowing the Schumer resolution come to the floor.
SEN. FRIST: Well, I'm-I'm against the Schumer resolution. I-I will work with the other side because I want to make sure we proceed with the amendments. I'm not going to make any commitment either way. I am adamantly opposed, I will fight it, and I will use everything we can to defeat it if it does come to the floor.
Q And you're not concerned that politically gas prices in an election year --
SEN. FRIST: We're at war. You know, we're at war. We're at war. And unless we are a hundred percent behind our national security, whether it's facilities of interest or direction or our leaders, I think we're jeopardizing the great freedoms and democracy that we have here. It's as simple as that.
Q Senator Warner, how do yo -- (off mike)?
SEN. FRIST: Yeah. Just step in here.
SEN. SANTORUM: Yes. He wants to --
SEN. WARNER: Yeah. I just have gotten this letter, and I'd like to read two paragraphs, three, and then give it to you.
"Dear Mr. Secretary"-this is May 13th, last week-"Thank you for your participation and assistance in facilitating the recent hearings before the Senate Armed Service Committee concerning the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by certain members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The committee has held two important hearings to date, but the complexity of this issue requires that more hearings be held to establish a body of facts needed for oversight by the Senate. The committee fully understands that the availability of some witnesses and material is affected by the conduct and completion of ongoing investigations as well as operational requirements in Iraq." I list the people. "To date, in scheduling, the committee has tried to meet your requirements, and we hope to continue such cooperation in arranging the earliest possible date for appearance of these witnesses. Given that some witnesses may need to remain in Iraq for operational reasons, we are open to exploring the option of video teleconferences for some of the hearings." It's all laid out very clearly in here.
I have no comment as to what Duncan Hunter said. Thank you very much.
SEN. SANTORUM: Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.