In the News: Blog

RSS Print

Jul 03 2011

The DC Post: Ron Johnson’s Senate Smackdown

By Tucker Scofield

I’ve been consistent in promoting the need for what I term “conservative hell raisers” in Washington, people who are unafraid to say those things that need to be said and damn the torpedoes. It seems I’ve stumbled across yet another conservative hell raiser, and man, do I like what this guy is threatening to do!

His name is Ron Johnson and he’s a freshman Republican senator from Wisconsin. The 56 year-old Johnson proudly associates himself with the Tea Party, has a degree in accounting, and is the owner of a manufacturing company, PACUR LLC, a polyester and plastics manufacturer located in Oshkosh.

Three things immediately stand out on Johnson’s over-simplified bio: He is a business owner, the business is manufacturing, and that business is located in America’s industrial heartland. These three things immediately qualify Johnson as an excellent spokesperson for both small businesses and the manufacturing sector, a man capable of accurately speaking to the challenges facing modern-day entrepreneurs, and a man capable of offering solutions to jump-starting our clinically dead economy.

Not coincidentally, these three things also mean that Johnson is infinitely more qualified to address these matters than our academia-laden, capitalist-loathing president.

Anyone who has owned a business knows that success does not follow indecisiveness or inactivity, and a mere six months into his tenure Johnson is fed up with Congress’ inactivity surrounding our debt, our deficit, and the budget. He took to the Senate floor this past Tuesday to express his displeasure and in the course of doing so, Johnson made clear what he intends to do to end to the posturing and bloviating creating this gridlock.

“Washington is broken and America is going broke. Our economy is in a coma,” said Johnson. “America hungers for leadership and it’s not getting any; not from President Obama, not from the United States Senate.” He went on to chastise our Democrat-led Congress for not passing a budget in over two years, and our Democrat president for submitting a budget “so unserious” that it did not receive a single vote of support in the Senate.

“Instead of rolling up his shirtsleeves and personally tackling the number one problem facing this nation right from the beginning, President Obama delegated his role in sporadic negotiations to Vice President Biden,” chided Johnson. But now that negotiations have broken down and Obama has engaged in the process, what type of process is it? A “broken process,” a closed-door, hidden-from-view process that Johnson calls “business-as-usual”…a process Johnson feels he was elected to change.

But how does one freshman member from one chamber of Congress change behavior in our leviathan body politic?

Johnson’s solution uses an arcane Senate rule known as “unanimous consent.” Unanimous consent is typically used to push through the countless housekeeping measures that keep the Senate chamber running. It prevents the Senate from being further bogged down by procedure on measures which all members are in agreement.

But all it takes is one member to disagree, one solitary voice of dissent, and things grind to a halt. Johnson intends to be that voice.

“Now I’m pretty new here,” said Johnson. “I don’t pretend to understand everything that makes the Senate work…but I do know the Senate runs on something called unanimous consent. So unless we receive some assurance from the Democrat leadership that we will actually start addressing our budget out in the open, in the bright light of day, I will begin to object. I will begin to withhold my consent,” he said. And with those words, Johnson drew a line in the sand.

Is it really that simple? Could it be that an effective tool for slowing down Obama’s hell-train to socialism has been in place all along and that Johnson is the only Senate member possessing the smarts and/or the guts required to utilize it?? It sounds too good to be true. But oh dear Lord, how much FUN would it be if it worked?? To see Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Senate’s liberal Dems squirming in anguish as they are held hostage by Johnson’s solitary voice of dissent would be priceless! And from a freshman, no less!

Senator Johnson, we here at The DC Post tip our hat to you! It appears you have a simple yet brilliant strategy, and we can hardly wait to see its implementation. We promise to follow this closely and report your victories as they come because it’s not just Wisconsin who cares about this, Senator…it’s all of us.

Now go get ‘em.

Jul 02 2011

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Johnson zeros in on federal spending

A very voluble Ron Johnson is behind his Senate desk - standing, not sitting - warming to the subject that animates him most: the "bankrupting" of America.

"Everybody's in a kind of state of denial right now," says Johnson with a mix of urgency and exasperation. "We really are on the brink! . . . People don't talk about it. People don't listen. We're human beings. We're living our lives. We don't want to hear bad news."

No senator in recent Wisconsin history has come into office so focused on one set of issues, one message and one task: shrinking the federal government.

If Johnson's new job is complicated by his political inexperience, it is simplified by the single-mindedness of his mission.

"That's been my entire focus since I've been here," he says.

After a quiet start to his Senate career, the freshman Republican is suddenly making waves, just as the issue that got him elected - federal spending - comes to a head in Washington.

Last week he announced a campaign to tie up Senate business over Democrats' failure to pass a budget. He forced a procedural delay in a vote on Libya. He threatened to block the Senate's Fourth of July recess, which was later canceled.

"I have been here for six months, and the U.S. Senate has accomplished virtually nothing," says Johnson.

With a showdown looming over the national debt, he and like-minded spending hawks see a one-time tactical opening to force seismic budget concessions.

"This is really our moment to take a stand," says Johnson.

Elected last year in a tea party tide, the Oshkosh businessman is still a political work in progress, a first-time legislator feeling his way through the institution and filling in the blanks on issues (such as foreign policy) that he isn't used to dealing with or talking about.

"I've never done this before. I'm an accountant. I'm a plastics salesman. I'm a citizen-legislator," Johnson said during a recent conference call with several thousand constituents back home. "It does take a little time to try to get your sea legs underneath you here."

But in his preoccupation with spending, regulation and debt, in his oft-expressed faith in the free market, in his acute alarm about the fiscal future, Johnson is exactly as advertised last fall.

It's what he talks about when he goes on Fox News, CNBC and talk radio, deriding President Barack Obama's role in the budget debate ("He's just phoning it in."), the inertia of Washington ("This place is broken."), the ways of Congress ("The Senate is such a very bizarre place.") and his own party's past failure to enforce austerity.

"Republicans still remember how they got slaughtered back in '95 when they shut down the government for a little while. There are still a lot of people around from back then, and they're scared," Johnson told conservative radio host Vicki McKenna of Madison last month. "That's why elections matter. There are people like me (now). There are people that got elected in 2010 that actually have a backbone. And we're just trying to do as much as we possibly can to inject that spine into the rest of Washington to make a stand."

It's what dominates his encounters with constituents - especially those seeking federal funding.

When a group from the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin came to the senator's office last month to discuss children's health programs, Johnson repeatedly steered the conversation back to belt-tightening, politely informing his guests that his "first task is to save our nation from bankruptcy," even though "people on my side of the aisle . . . get slaughtered" for trying to rein in spending.

Against the grain

When Johnson arrived in the Senate, his party gave him the two committee assignments he wanted most, budget and appropriations. Wisconsin and Illinois are now the only states with two senators on the appropriations panel, historically a plum assignment. In the old days, it would have meant more federal dollars heading back home.

But the 2010 election altered that legislative culture. Johnson joined appropriations not to appropriate but to cut spending. He was one of only four appropriations members to vote against a defense spending bill in April. He was one of only eight senators to oppose a February bill to modernize the air traffic control system. He was the only Republican from a high corn-producing state to vote against ethanol subsidies June 14.

In taking a hard line on spending, Johnson believes he is up against not only much of Congress, but human aversion to hard choices and news media neglect.

"Look at what happens on the national news over and over and over again. (It's) 'What's the horse race in the Republican (presidential) primary?' OK, sure , fine, interesting, blah-blah-blah," said Johnson, during a series of interviews in recent weeks for this story.

"How many people do you think know what the federal government spends in a year?" he asks.

Johnson has made it clear that convincing voters of the dangers of a debt crisis - of the potential for fiscal ruin - is an overriding objective for him. It's a predicate to winning public support for making government smaller.

"What you're going to hear me ask, in hearing after hearing, is what's a debt crisis going to look like for an average individual?" Johnson said in an interview this spring. "I'm not trying to scare people. I wish we weren't in this situation."

On McKenna's show last month, he warned of possible Greece-like riots.

"That's what's ahead of us!" he said.

Firm on debt ceiling

On a personal level, Johnson comes across as even-keeled and at times self-effacing; on a political level, self-certain and unswerving. Republicans back home say he's shown a commitment to conservative causes and a willingness to engage on divisive issues. He taped a robo-call to voters for Justice David Prosser in the April 5 Supreme Court election, defended Gov. Scott Walker's most controversial initiatives and backed Paul Ryan's plan to overhaul Medicare.

Johnson has taken a staunch conservative line on judicial appointments, blocking consideration of two Obama court nominees, Louis Butler and Victoria Nourse, and voting against the president's choices for solicitor general and several judgeships.

With an early August deadline pending for raising the debt ceiling, Johnson has drawn a line in the sand on a defining political issue, vowing to vote no unless "we actually fix the problem" - meaning structural reforms such as spending caps to bring deficits down.

It's a high-risk game of chicken for both parties. The debt ceiling is the legal cap on the amount of money the government can borrow. The need to raise it is the product of steps Congress has already taken - spending hikes and tax cuts.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says failing to lift the debt ceiling is a "self-defeating" tool for reducing the debt, predicting it would spook the markets and as a result drive up interest rates, thereby boosting deficits.

Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf calls it a "dangerous gamble."

Johnson has repeatedly argued in recent weeks that those warnings are overblown.

"We don't have to fear not increasing the debt ceiling," he said on Fox recently.

If Democrats say it's irresponsible for Republicans to vote no on the debt ceiling, Johnson says it's irresponsible for the White House not to plan for that contingency. He got 22 GOP colleagues to sign a letter to the president urging him to do just that.

"To assume you're going to get an increase in the debt ceiling - I'm talking to people. I think it's a bad assumption," Johnson says.

In recent weeks, the senator has promoted what he calls a "debt-ceiling" budget, arguing that even with a halt to borrowing, the government could still use its general revenues to pay its core obligations - interest on the debt, Social Security benefits, military operations - and temporarily forgo a lot of other spending.

"I'm the only one talking about actually operating under a debt-ceiling budget," says Johnson, who likens the impact on federal spending to a company "losing a customer that's 30% of your business. It happens to business all the time. . . . Why is government immune from that?"

'Ticking time bombs'

Senate Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois contends a debt-ceiling budget would be "disastrous."

At his news conference last week, Obama scoffed at the idea.

"This is the equivalent of me saying, 'You know what, I will choose to pay my mortgage, but I'm not going to pay my car note' . . . Now, a lot of people in really tough situations are having to make those tough decisions. But for the U.S. government to start picking and choosing like that is not going to inspire a lot of confidence," the president said. "Which bills, which obligations, are we going to say we don't have to pay?"

Johnson asserts it's Democrats who are "playing with fire" by not doing more to curb spending, including health care entitlements such as Medicare, which he calls "ticking time bombs."

"I'd rather have a few payments skipped and actually have the (spending) problem solved versus never having the payments skipped and have this problem kicked down the road," says Johnson.

Johnson says he still hopes a deal can be reached. And he has so far declined to sign a conservative pledge, promoted by South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint, to oppose any debt ceiling deal that isn't coupled with a balanced budget amendment.

Johnson says the pledge is too restrictive, preventing lawmakers from backing any "grand bargain" on spending cuts that lacks a balanced budget requirement.

"It kind of takes you out of the solution," says Johnson.

His mentor in the Senate, fiscal hawk Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, says the institution can be an exasperating place for someone like Johnson.

"Look, he's highly frustrated," Coburn says of his colleague. "The Senate isn't a fulfilling place if you want to try to get things done to fix the country. (But) you have two options. You try to change things or you go home."

Coburn says Johnson's non-political background makes him an effective opponent of spending because it frees him from the election calculus that drives most members. Johnson calls it "liberating."

Wisconsin Democrats, meanwhile, already question Johnson's effectiveness, calling his legislative profile this year minimal.

"He's the invisible man," said Democratic chair Mike Tate, before Johnson's attention-getting talk last week.

Johnson says he deliberately kept his head down when he took office because he wanted to listen and learn.

"This is . . . the major leagues here. You do have to take a few moments to sort of learn the system, understand the players, build relationships. If I come out of the blocks . . . a fire-breathing dragon, I'm just going to be dismissed," says Johnson. "You have to first start gaining the respect of your colleagues as a thoughtful individual, someone who's not going to just blather on (about) whatever you hear on talk radio."

The senator says it's "game time" now and his issues are on the table. He has stepped up his TV appearances (Fox News is his most frequent destination), begun to do more local and national press, and is now using the potent parliamentary tools an individual senator has to make himself heard.

Last month, Johnson was hosting his fourth in a series of telephone "town halls" - mass conference calls with voters in different regions of the state, publicized through automated phone calls to people's homes.

The first call he fielded was from a self-described conservative complaining that Republicans weren't tough enough in the budget debate.

"Why don't they fight back?" the caller complained. "Don't roll over and play dead!"

Johnson told him not to worry.

"I have no intention of rolling over and playing dead," he said.

View Original Article

Jul 01 2011

Green Bay Press Gazette: Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson blocks Senate action on Libya

By Larry Bivins

Freshman Sen. Ron Johnson blocked Senate action on a Libya resolution Thursday in an effort to pressure Democratic leaders to craft a budget proposal that addresses debt reduction.

Johnson, R-Oshkosh, who is emerging as a deficit hawk, has been vocal all week on the need to deal with the nation's $14.3 trillion debt. Republicans say until President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders come up with an effective plan to cut spending, they will reject any proposal to raise the debt limit.

"We're bankrupting America," Johnson said in an interview. "The United States Senate hasn't done anything to address that fact."

Earlier, Johnson objected to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's call to take up a resolution authored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., that would allow the U.S. to continue its military support of the NATO-led effort against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

He also thwarted the Senate Finance Committee's attempt to meet Thursday on trade agreements. And on Tuesday, he blocked a request for unanimous consent to let senators speak without a quorum call.

In a floor statement, Johnson said the debt is "the single most important issue facing this nation" and the economy "is in a coma" because lawmakers have failed to tackle the issue.

"Unless we receive some assurance from the Democratic leadership that we will actually start addressing our budget out in the open, in the bright light of day, I will begin to object," Johnson told colleagues. "I will begin to withhold my unanimous consent."

Unanimous consent is often used in the Senate to move things along, and rarely draws objections.

Johnson complained the Senate has accomplished little in his first six months on the job and said Democratic leaders have been negligent in failing to produce a budget proposal.

But by objecting to unanimous consent, he would effectively shut down the Senate.

"Sometimes in order to get things in motion, you have to take action," Johnson said. "So I've put the Senate on notice. I'm hoping the American people will put pressure on the president and the Senate to start taking action."

James Simmons, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, said Johnson came to Washington with one mission — to get government spending and debt under control.

"If your priority in coming to Washington is downsizing government and cutting spending, these other matters aren't terribly important," Simmons said. "In fact, they get in the way of your goal."

Simmons said the recent increase in Johnson's focus on the deficit could be an attempt to divert attention from a $10 million salary payment he received from his plastics company, Pacur. Johnson reported the payment on his recent 2011 personal financial disclosure form.

Johnson, who a year earlier reported receiving a $650,000 salary from Pacur, loaned his Senate campaign $9 million.

Liberal groups are questioning whether he violated campaign finance regulations, noting he has received two loans from the company — in 2004 and 2007 — totaling $10 million.

View Original Article

Jun 30 2011

WisPolitics: Johnson praises decision to cancel holiday recess

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson today lauded news that the Senate will return Tuesday after an abbreviated break for the Fourth of July.

Johnson, R-Oshkosh, vowed Wednesday to oppose any effort to recess while negotiations over raising the nation's debt limit remain ongoing.

“I’m happy to hear that Senator Reid and President Obama agree with the point that Senator Sessions and I made earlier in the week -- that it’s important for the Senate to stay in session over the Fourth of July recess to address our nation’s looming fiscal crisis," Johnson said in a statement. "It’s also important that we don’t waste this time -- that we stay and work to seriously address the root cause of this crisis -- Washington’s excess of spending."

View Original Article

Jun 29 2011

NASDAQ: Republicans Seek To Work Through Holiday On Budget Deal

By Corey Boles

A group of Republicans pledged to block any attempt to recess the Senate for the July 4 holiday weekend in an attempt to compel a budget deal. The GOP seeks to engage the majority Democrats in a debate on spending cuts that would be attached to a measure increasing the country's $ 14.29 trillion debt ceiling.

Saying they were taking up President Barack Obama's challenge, the group of largely freshmen Republican lawmakers said they would object to any attempt by the Democratic majority to recess the Senate next week for the July 4 break.

"Our country is going bankrupt, we shouldn't be going home on a holiday," Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) said at a press conference.

Johnson was echoed by other Republicans who urged the president to deliver his proposal for reining in the federal budget deficit rather than continuing to negotiate a deal behind closed doors.

At a press conference at the White House earlier Wednesday, Obama said that lawmakers shouldn't leave town at the end of the week unless significant progress toward a debt deal had been accomplished.

"If by the end of this week we have not seen substantial progress, then I think members of Congress need to understand we are going to, you know, start having to cancel things and stay here until we get it done," Obama said.

Several of the group said that in the six months since they had arrived in the Senate, they had found the lack of progress on approving a budget astonishing.

Senate Democrats are convening shortly to get a briefing following a meeting at the White House with Democratic leaders. According to a Senate Democratic leadership aide, the lawmakers will also consider whether or not to cancel next week's recess.

Johnson did indicate that he is willing to consider closing business tax deductions as part of a budget deal, although he, like other Republicans said he would prefer to do so as part of a wider effort at overhauling the corporate tax overhaul.

"I would like to do away with special tax breaks, but not legitimate business deductions," Johnson said.

The issue of whether the budget compromise should include the closure of any tax breaks available to business groups has become a crucial stumbling block in the talks. Democrats have insisted the deal must not just include spending cuts, while most Republicans have said it shouldn't raise taxes on businesses as the economy recovers.

Johnson is the latest in a growing number of Senate Republicans who have expressed a willingness to at least consider closing some of these deductions as part of a deal.

View Original Article

Jun 28 2011

Politico: Ron Johnson threatens to tie up Senate

By Jonathan Allen

Sen. Ron Johnson’s new to the Senate, but he’s starting to understand the power of one senator to stand in the way of the chamber’s business.

The freshman Wisconsin Republican, a favorite of tea party activists, threatened Tuesday to delay Senate business if Democrats don’t move forward with a budget plan.

“I will begin to object,” Johnson said in a brief Tuesday afternoon floor speech. “I will begin to withhold my consent.”

He later backed down and let the Senate go ahead with its business.

But Johnson had once again shown that a single senator can tie up the legislative process by refusing to agree to routine “unanimous consent” agreements that quickly dispense with complex Senate procedures. Those objections can be overcome by 60-vote supermajorities, but a senator determined to stand in the way of all business can effectively grind the chamber nearly to a halt by forcing all actions to undergo the rigorous cloture process.

Democrats, who are defending 23 seats in next November’s election, have not drafted a budget resolution for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, and Republicans are hitting them on the campaign trail for failing to govern.

But the political price of a full-on budget debate could be worse than the gridlock Johnson is threatening. A budget resolution would draw an endless string of Republican amendment votes designed to expose fault lines within the Democratic Party, and there’s no guarantee that politically vulnerable Democrats would vote for their own party’s budget at the end of the process — meaning party leaders might expose their rank and file to tough votes only to watch the resolution fail on the floor.

“Business as usual is bankrupting America,” Johnson said.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) tried to make a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon, but Johnson objected to his unanimous consent request, forcing a full quorum of the Senate to be present.

Later, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to schedule votes for Wednesday on issues unrelated to Johnson’s concerns, the freshman backed off his promised blockade and said for now, all he wanted was 10 minutes to speak.

“It certainly is not addressing the primary problem facing our nation today, and that’s the fact that we’re bankrupting the nation,” he said. “We need to start actually addressing that here in the United States Senate, but I realize that the managers have worked hard on this bill. I realize that there are some good amendments that the Senate really needs to debate and that we should vote on. That’s the way the Senate should work.”

View Original Article

Jun 27 2011

Talk Radio News Service: Senate Republican Wants "Open" Deficit Talks With Obama

By Geoff Holtzman

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is scolding President Obama for holding closed-door meetings today with Senate leaders to negotiate a deficit reduction package.

In a statement, Johnson suggested that the President’s participation in the negotiations falls below the standards of transparency that he set for himself and his administration when he took office back in 2009.

“Although I’m glad the President has finally decided to get personally involved in addressing this nation’s severe economic and budgetary problems, it would be far better if that discussion and debate occurred in the open where the American people can see and hear the results,” Johnson said.

Johnson was elected this past November, defeating Democrat Russ Feingold, who made government transparency one of his chief issues.

Obama met this morning at the White House with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and will meet later this afternoon with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Vice President Joe Biden was also scheduled to take part in both meetings, which are closed to the press.

On Friday, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) also criticized Obama for holding private talks on the issue.

“I believe Majority Leader [Harry] Reid and the president desperately are working not to have to reveal their vision for the future, financially,” Sessions told The Hill newspaper. “Their vision will include, from what glimpses we’ve seen, an advocacy for more taxes and less spending cuts.”

Obama decided to become involved in talks after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) both withdrew late last week from negotiations, which until now have been led by Biden. The two Republicans said that they refused to continue negotiating until Democrats dropped their demand for increased tax revenues to be part of a deal to reduce the deficit.

According to Treasury officials, Congress has until August 2 to reach a deal on raising the federal borrowing limit, or else risk the chance that the government could default.

View Original Article

Jun 24 2011

WKOW: Sen. Johnson offers comments ahead of President's speech

President Barack Obama will deliver a speech at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh today.

In his comments, he is expected to highlight the importance of manufacturing to the U.S. economy, and steps the government, private sector and universities should take together to create new industries and new jobs.

Republican U.S. Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin issued the following comments Friday morning ahead of the President's speech:

Today the President is traveling to Pittsburgh to talk about manufacturing. As a person who spent 31 years building a successful manufacturing company, I am curious what President Obama might say about manufacturing.  He has little personal experience in manufacturing or business.  He has very few members within his administration with success in manufacturing or the private sector.

President Obama needs to change his way of thinking. He needs to realize that government doesn't create jobs, it creates debt.  It is the private sector that creates long term, self-sustaining jobs.

America is an economic and debt crisis. What kind of leadership can America expect from a President who lacks the background and experience to know how the American economy works? He recently blamed inventions like the ATM, for unemployment.  This is a depressing display of economic ignorance.

Milton Friedman once visited China and saw workers digging a canal with shovels.  When he asked, "why not use bulldozers?", he was told because digging with shovels, created more jobs.  Friedman replied, "Then why not use spoons, instead of shovels?"

Technological innovations create jobs.  They drive our economy forward, by helping workers be more productive. That raises everyone's living standards.

There is a reason the United States holds 5% of the world's population, yet produces 25% of the world's goods and services.  It is because of Freedom, the free market system, and the marvelous innovations, that have been the result of that system.

President Obama's own Chief of Staff, and his nominee for Commerce Secretary, have acknowledged, that this Administration's economic policies, are backward. His agencies seem to be trying to regulate America back to the Stone Age. This has created the uncertainty, that is keeping investment capital on the sidelines, and stifling job creation. If the President truly recognizes the importance of manufacturing, he needs to learn something about ATMs, the innovation they represent, and America's free market system.

View Original Article

Jun 23 2011

WTMJ: Wisconsin congressmen respond to President's Afghanistan plans

Many of Wisconsin's congressional delegation have given their response to President Barack Obama's plans for troop drawdowns in Afghanistan.

"The Afghan people are like folks everywhere," said Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson.

"They want peace. They want freedom.   At some point, they have to fight for it, and I am very encouraged that so many are willing to do so."

"We've been in Afghanistan for longer than any war in our history," explained Democratic Senator Herb Kohl  "Our troops have made outstanding progress.  It's time to bring our people home and rebuild our country."

"The President's announcement puts in doubt whether the commanders on the ground will have the forces they need to accomplish America's long-standing goals in Afghanistan," explained Janesville Republican Congressman Paul Ryan.

View Original Article

Jun 22 2011

The Washington Post: Capitol Hill reaction to Obama's Afghanistan address swift, varied

By Felicia Sonmez

President Obama on Wednesday night delivered his highly-anticipated address on the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and the reaction from members of Congress was swift and varied. Below is a cross-section of statements from Capitol Hill to Obama’s announcement that 33,000 surge troops will be out of Afghanistan by the end of next year.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio):

“Succeeding in Afghanistan – and preventing al Qaeda and the Taliban from using the country as a safe haven from which to launch attacks on the U.S. and our allies – is critically important to the safety and security of our country. While the conditions remain difficult, the counterinsurgency strategy implemented by General Petraeus has made significant improvements in security on the ground and allowed the Afghan government to start making progress in meeting the needs of the Afghan people. We all want to bring our troops home as quickly as possible, but we must ensure that the gains we’ve made are not jeopardized.”

“I am pleased the President recognizes that success in Afghanistan is paramount. Continuing to degrade al Qaeda’s capabilities in Afghanistan and the surrounding region must take priority over any calendar dates. It’s important that we retain the flexibility necessary to reconsider troop levels and respond to changes in the security environment should circumstances on the ground warrant. It is my hope that the President will continue to listen to our commanders on the ground as we move forward. Congress will hold the Administration accountable for ensuring that the pace and scope of the drawdown does not undermine the progress we’ve made thus far.”

“There is no doubt this conflict has tested the resolve of our nation, and I want to express gratitude to the American people for their faithful commitment to our troops and their mission. As this operation enters its next phase, it is imperative that our Commander-in-Chief continues to explain why seeing it through to a successful conclusion is vital to our national interests. Lastly, I want to reiterate how much we appreciate the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform, our diplomats, and their families are making every day. We can never forget their service to our country.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.):

“The President’s plan to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan is a critical step in the right direction. I commend the many brave members of our Armed Forces who have served there and thank them for their sacrifice. I look forward to the day when all of our courageous fighting men and women are safely home. Under the President’s leadership we have made substantial progress toward achieving many of our major strategic goals in the region, including bringing Osama bin Laden to justice and significantly weakening al Qaeda’s terrorist capabilities.”

“We have also helped put the Afghan government in a position to begin to take responsibility for its own security in a growing number of key areas. As we withdraw our troops, the Afghans must continue to step up and take responsibility for their own country. In the meantime, we must capitalize on the progress we’ve made in Afghanistan to finish the job and ensure al Qaeda’s long-term, strategic defeat. The President’s plan will allow us to do that, while beginning the important transfer of security and governance responsibilities to the Afghan people.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.):

“Tonight, President Obama made it clear: we are now beginning the process of bringing our troops home and ending the war in Afghanistan. It has been the hope of many in Congress and across the country that the full drawdown of U.S. forces would happen sooner than the President laid out – and we will continue to press for a better outcome. Concluding this war will enable us to reduce the deficit and focus fuller attention on the priorities of the American people: creating jobs and investing in our nation’s future by building a strong, thriving economy for our children.”

“Congress will continue to perform the oversight responsibilities critical to ensuring a successful withdrawal as soon as possible. We will maintain our commitment and gratitude to our men and women in uniform and their families, who have done everything asked of them with courage and patriotism.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.):

“I am concerned that the withdrawal plan that President Obama announced tonight poses an unnecessary risk to the hard-won gains that our troops have made thus far in Afghanistan and to the decisive progress that must still be made. This is not the ‘modest’ withdrawal that I and others had hoped for and advocated.”

“Though we have been fighting in Afghanistan for a decade, it has only been in the past 18 months that we have had the right leadership, the right strategy, and the right level of resources. As a result, our brave men and women in uniform are taking strategically important territory away from the enemy. They are decimating Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And they are training Afghan security forces that are increasingly capable of leading this fight on their own. President Obama deserves a lot of credit for our recent progress in Afghanistan, but as our military commanders have repeatedly said, this progress remains fragile.”

“Though I disagree with the President’s withdrawal plan, I nonetheless believe that America’s interests in Afghanistan are far too important for us to give up the fight and walk away, as many in Congress and elsewhere now advocate. I know that Americans are war-weary and fed up with our unsustainable national debt. But what our country can least afford is the cost of failure in Afghanistan. It remains a vital national interest for the United States to succeed.”

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.):

“The President’s announcement that we will withdraw 30,000 of our 100,000 troops from Afghanistan by next summer is a step towards the end of this long war. We invaded Afghanistan to end al Qaeda and with the killing of Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, we have accomplished our goal. Over the coming months, I’ll continue to press for a swift and substantial withdrawal of our combat forces from Afghanistan. Ten years, hundreds of billions of dollars and the loss of over 1,600 American service members later, it’s time for our fighting men and women to come home.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.):

“The president’s decision represents a positive development, although in my view the conditions on the ground justify an even larger drawdown of U.S. troops this year than the president announced tonight. I will continue to advocate for an accelerated drawdown in the months ahead, and for enhanced training and partnering with Afghan forces, because only they can provide durable security for their nation. The conditions justifying a larger drawdown include the progress U.S. and Afghan troops and our allies have made to improve security in Afghanistan; the faster than expected growth of the Afghan security forces; the death of Osama bin Laden and the decreasing number of al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan; and the need to transition as quickly as possible to Afghan responsibility for Afghanistan’s security to increase the chances for long-term success of the mission there.”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.):

“America has been an exceptional force for good in this world and we should never apologize for it. At the same time, we are running a $1.5 trillion deficit, and we must re-think our spending in all areas. We have to re-evaluate, but we have to do it in a sensible manner. What gains have been made in Afghanistan – as tenuous as they may be – have been paid with a very high price, in terms of the sacrifice of the finest among us. We have to make sure those gains are consolidated, and not lost. The Afghan people are like folks everywhere. They want peace. They want freedom. At some point, they have to fight for it, and I am very encouraged that so many are willing to do so.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.):

“For almost a decade, American troops have served bravely in Afghanistan. Their efforts have helped lead to the death of Osama bin Laden and the destruction, to a great degree, of al-Qaeda’s capability to plan and launch attacks against Americans from Afghanistan. These were our original objectives in Afghanistan, and they have been largely achieved. Our struggle against terrorists who would do Americans harm is certainly not over. But now is a time to consider how the threats against Americans have changed, and how we can most effectively defeat the terrorists behind those threats. That’s why this matter needs to be under continuing review as we work toward the Afghan people and government taking responsibility for their nation’s security and stability. It is crucial that we fight global terrorism both smarter and harder, and I will continue to advocate for an Afghanistan policy that helps us do so.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.):

“Many of us had high expectations for the President’s speech tonight. I had hoped he would clearly explain to the American people his long-term strategy for success in Afghanistan, and remind all of us why this mission is deserving of the sacrifice in American blood and treasure. Instead, he seems preoccupied with troop levels and when to start his withdrawal based on political considerations and not what will best serve U.S. national security. I am increasingly concerned by the lagging public support for the mission, and it was disappointing that the President failed to bring more clarity to the situation.”

Reps. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.):

“On March 16, 2011, the four Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Task Force on Peace and Security and 76 other Members of Congress sent a letter to the President asking him to move swiftly to end America’s longest war, the war in Afghanistan.”

“Since then, the Co-Chairs have continued to call on the Administration to move towards a significant, swift and sizeable reduction in our troops in Afghanistan, meeting or exceeding the number of troops on the ground before the escalation. Similarly, the Democratic National Committee called for a ‘sizeable and significant’ drawdown beginning in July. This week, the U.S. Conference of Mayors called for an end to the Afghanistan war. In poll after poll, the majority of Americans are consistently calling for an end to this war. ... The Co-Chairs of the CPC Task Force on Peace and Security believe that a significant, swift and sizeable troop reduction in Afghanistan is necessary. Anything less hurts our nation’s future and is unacceptable.”

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.):

“It’s time to bring the surge troops home, and I wish the president had laid out a more aggressive plan today. After discussing this issue at length with senior military leaders, diplomats, and many experts with years of service in Afghanistan, I think we could safely withdraw 15,000 troops this year without jeopardizing the gains that our men and women in uniform have achieved.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.):

“Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It is about the bigger fight against Al Qaeda and radical Islamic terrorism. After a decade of fighting, the American people are weary of war. Facing massive unemployment and a growing national debt, they are weary of the effort’s cost. So am I. But the answer to a bad situation is not to make it worse. And I have always believed that a troop withdrawal plan based not on progress towards our ultimate goal, but rather on a desire to hit certain numbers, would be a tragic mistake. Yes, American troops need to leave Afghanistan, but they should do so pursuant to a plan that accomplishes our vital goal. I hope that in the days to come, the President will more clearly articulate how his troop withdrawal plan does that.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.):

“I want to thank President Obama for speaking directly to the American people tonight about the ongoing war in Afghanistan. However, I believe that we must step back and review our Afghanistan policy in the context of our overall national security. Shifting brigades alone is not the answer.”

“Ending the surge in 2012 with a disappointing 10,000 combat troops coming home this year is not good enough. As I have advocated for months, it is time to shift course in Afghanistan to a counter-terrorism mission, with an aggressive drawdown of combat troops. In the decade since the start of this war, al Qaeda has metastasized, expanding and strengthening its influence across the globe. We have seen that counter-terrorism works best in countering al Qaeda.”

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee:

“President Obama made it clear early on in his campaign for the Presidency that he understood the severity of the threat emanating from Afghanistan. Upon taking office, he acted on his campaign pledge and made Afghanistan a priority. That focus has since paid dividends and we have seen significant progress over the last year and a half. The gains we have seen are real and substantial and the men and women of our Armed Forces should be commended for these achievements. However, the cost of our efforts in Afghanistan – in terms of money and lives – is a significant strain on our nation and we must begin to responsibly reduce our commitments.”

“Leading up to the President’s speech tonight I believe there is one certainty: our men and women in uniform have bravely implemented a strategy that has yielded significant progress and we can now begin to bring them home. I look forward to hearing more from the President this evening.”

House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.):

“I want to commend President Obama. Over the last 18 months we’ve had some great successes in the war on terror - capped with the truly historic mission that succeeded in bringing Osama bin Laden to justice - that now allow us to begin drawing our operations in Afghanistan to a close. While I recognize that it is in our own best interest to ensure that the region remains stable, after nearly a decade, with thousands of American lives and billions of dollars invested, it’s time to ask the Afghan government to stand on its own. We have too many important issues to address here at home to do anything less.”

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.):

“The counterinsurgency strategy implemented by General David Petraeus and other military leadership continues to show results in Afghanistan. Marines and service members have performed remarkably to advance the mission under difficult circumstances. I applaud their efforts and look forward to their safe return home.”

“Like many Americans, I want to see the prompt return of our troops and the successful completion of their mission. Unfortunately, their progress is being undermined by corruption in Kabul. We have yet to see the necessary leadership from President Karzai and from President Obama to address this pervasive problem within the Afghan government. Establishing the confidence of the Afghan people in their government is an essential component in achieving our objective of handing over a stable and secure Afghanistan. President Obama could do far more to advance our ultimate success and timely return of our forces by engaging President Karzai to root out corruption in the Kabul government. I hope that the speech tonight is not more lip service and that President Obama commits himself to the task.”

View Original Article