[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 43 (Wednesday, April 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3512-S3513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     AMENDMENT NO. 356 TO H.R. 1268

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be added as cosponsors to my amendment: Senators Kerry, 
Landrieu, Sarbanes, Leahy, Lincoln and Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for those who are following the business 
of the Senate, after morning business we hope to move to closure of 
debate on my amendment. It is my understanding that Senator Stevens is 
returning from the White House and would like to speak on the 
amendment, and we will have a formal unanimous consent request but it 
is my intent to protect his right to speak for up to 5 minutes and to 
protect my right to close for up to 5 minutes. Otherwise, our goal is 
to try to have a vote at 12:15 on this amendment. I say that even 
though there has not been a formal consent agreed to, but that is what 
the discussion leads to.
  For those who are following this debate, this is an important bill 
that is before us. It is the supplemental appropriations bill. The 
President has come to Congress and asked for money to wage the war in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. What we find curious is that this amount is not 
being included in the President's budget. In fact, he is arguing he is 
moving toward a balanced budget but fails to include the cost of the 
war.
  It is my understanding, and I think I am close on this number, with 
this additional $81 billion, we will have allocated and spent $210 
billion on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The President refuses to 
include this in his budget. If he did, we would have a much deeper 
deficit than currently stated.
  Those of us who believe in at least honesty in accounting cannot 
understand why we are doing this separately. Why do we have a 
supplemental bill for this war in Iraq and Afghanistan when we are 
clearly going to be there for a period of time? I hope for a short 
period of time but at least for some period of time.
  That budget argument aside, I will go to the merits of what we are 
discussing. The $81 billion for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a 
figure that I will support. I was one of the Senators who joined my 
great friend and leader Senator Robert Byrd in voting against the 
resolution to authorize the President to use force in this war in Iraq.
  Mr. BYRD. Right.
  Mr. DURBIN. There were 23 of us on the Senate floor who did that. I 
believe it was the right vote not because I am making any excuses for 
Saddam Hussein, a tyrant, a dictator, a man I am glad is out of power, 
but many of us, particularly those of us sitting on the Intelligence 
Committee at the time, felt there were representations being made to 
the American people about the nature of this threat that were just 
plain wrong.

  I listened in the Intelligence Committee as they described the 
evidence of weapons of mass destruction and was puzzled. I could not 
understand the statements from the administration which were coming out 
about all of these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that threatened 
us in the Middle East and around the world; the evidence was not there. 
The people that we needed on the ground to confirm the evidence were 
not there.
  In addition, there was a lot of speculation about nuclear weapons 
that Saddam Hussein was developing with aluminum tubes to be used in 
centrifuges. As we listened to the agencies of our own Government in 
hot debate over whether or not these tubes had anything to do with 
nuclear weapons, I was puzzled as to how some of the leaders in this 
administration could be talking about mushroom clouds because Saddam 
Hussein is going to detonate a nuclear weapon. They talked about some 
connection between the terrible tragedy of 9/11 on America and Saddam 
Hussein, and yet there was no evidence--and there still is absolutely 
no evidence--connecting Saddam Hussein to that terrible tragedy that 
occurred on 9/11.
  As this evidence accumulated, Senator Byrd, myself, and many others 
said the case that the administration is making for the invasion of 
Iraq is not there. The evidence is not there. I personally feel one of 
the worst things that can happen in a democracy is when the leadership 
of a democratic government misleads the American people into believing 
there is a threat that does not exist.
  I am not arguing that they deliberately misled us. It could have been 
a sin of omission. I do not know the answer to that. But the fact is 
those of us who voted against the use of force had serious questions as 
to the justification for the war, and I might add serious questions 
about our readiness for that war. Trust me and other Senators, if we 
needed to call on any military force in the world to perform a mission, 
I want to dial 911 and find the United States on the other end of the 
line. We have the very best military in the world. I knew they would 
acquit themselves very well once the invasion was under way, and I knew 
they would be successful.
  I could not predict how long it would take, and thank goodness it was 
short-lived. But the military aspects of the war and the success 
notwithstanding, it is clear that this administration was not prepared 
for waging the peace that followed. They were unprepared in terms of 
the number of men and women on the field, in terms of the equipment 
that is available, such as armor for humvees and body armor for 
soldiers. We were not prepared for it. Here we are, more than 2 years 
later in Iraq, in

[[Page S3513]]

a position where we need to stay and finish, and we are still arguing 
over the basics.
  I visited Iraq 3 weeks ago, went there after first going to Kuwait 
and visiting with our troops. I met with the 1644th Illinois National 
Guard unit, a transport unit that moves humvees and trucks back and 
forth between Baghdad and Kuwait City every single day at great danger 
to the men and women driving those vehicles. The first thing they 
wanted to show me was: get in the truck, sit here and look how cramped 
it is as we sit here for hours and look around. There is no armored 
protection for us as we are driving back and forth through these 
dangerous zones. Two years after the invasion, we still do not have the 
adequate equipment that our troops need.

  This bill will come before us, and I will support it. I had 
misgivings, and still do, about the initiation of the invasion of Iraq 
but I do not have any misgivings about providing our soldiers, our 
marines, our airmen and our sailors the very best equipment and all the 
resources they need to perform their mission and come home safely.
  Look at some other aspect of this war that is equally important. This 
is a different war than we have ever waged. This is a war that depends 
on an American fighting force that is largely, or at least to a great 
extent, composed of men and women in the National Guard and Reserves. 
We have not done this before, but we have to do it now. Were it not for 
the 40 percent of the 157,000 or 160,000 men and women in Iraq from 
Guard and Reserve units, we would not be able to send our soldiers in 
the field to fight. Thank goodness those Guard and Reserve units are 
there.
  Understand that unlike the Active-Duty military, the Guard and 
Reserve military come in under different personal and family 
circumstances. Here is a man or woman in a Guard unit in Illinois or 
virtually any State who signed up to serve his or her country looking 
for perhaps some scholarship assistance to go to school, ready to 
respond to a natural disaster or to be called up for a few weeks at a 
time, and they are being activated for lengthy periods, for a year to a 
year and a half and sometimes more. It is creating a terrible hardship 
for the families of these Guard and Reserve unit members.
  The amendment that is pending before us is very basic. We have said 
to employers across America, if one of their employees is in the Guard 
or Reserve, and that employee is activated, do your best to stand 
behind that employee and his family; make certain, if they can, they 
keep their health insurance in place, if necessary; try to make up the 
differential in pay between what the military pays and what they were 
making in the private sector so that soldier who is off risking his 
life is not worried about the family back home.
  And guess what. Almost 1,000 American businesses have stepped forward 
and said: We accept the challenge. We believe in these men and women. 
We believe in America. We are going to stand behind them. So when they 
are activated, these companies step up, as well as units of local 
government, and make up the difference in pay, giving them the peace of 
mind to know that even though they are separated from their family 
while away overseas, they are going to have enough money coming in to 
make the mortgage payments, pay the utility bills, and all the basics 
of life.
  When it comes to employers, there is one employer that does not meet 
that obligation; there is one employer in America, the largest single 
employer of Guard and Reserve soldiers in America, that refuses to make 
up the difference in pay. There is one employer in America which has 
said for 2 straight years now, We will not protect the Guard and 
Reserve soldiers' families while they are overseas fighting. There is 
one employer in America that coincidentally is praising all of these 
private-sector employers for standing behind their soldiers and yet 
refusing to cover their own employees. What is that employer? It is the 
United States Government. Our Federal Government refuses to make up the 
pay differential for activated Federal employees who go into the Guard 
and Reserve. It turns out that some 51 percent of those who are serving 
overseas today have seen a dramatic cutback in their pay. How can we 
have Web sites and speeches praising all of the employers across 
America, the businesses that stand behind their soldiers, while the 
Federal Government does not?
  So for the third time since the invasion of Iraq, I am offering this 
amendment. It is called the Reservist Pay Security Act, and it says the 
Federal Government will meet the obligation private sector employers 
are meeting every day and make up the pay differential for Federal 
employees who go overseas in the Guard and Reserve. It is not a radical 
suggestion. It is a commonsense suggestion that we would stand behind 
these employees and soldiers as we ask others to do.
  I see some of my other colleagues are in the Chamber, and I am going 
to yield the floor at this moment. We are hoping for a vote at around 
12:15 or so, but we are going to accommodate the schedules of the 
Senators and try to ask for a unanimous consent.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________