[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 24 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1774-S1776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to move to another topic and say 
for anyone who has followed the debate this week on Iraq, it has been a 
frustration. We came to the Senate with the clear direction of the 
American people to change course in Iraq. Unfortunately, the minority--
the Republican minority--decided it was more important to change the 
subject than to change course. So they defeated our efforts to bring 
this issue of our policy in Iraq to a debate on Monday.
  In the Senate, it takes 60 votes to do anything that is important or 
controversial. And so we needed help from the Republican side of the 
aisle because we only have 51 when we are at full complement, and with 
Senator Johnson recuperating, we only had 50. We needed 10 of their 
stalwarts to join us, to move forward and say: Let's have this debate 
on Iraq.
  I was hopeful we would have that many. At least seven or eight 
Republican Senators said they disapprove of President Bush's plan to 
escalate this war. I thought that was a good starting point, and maybe 
others will join in to make sure there is a real debate.
  Come time for the vote on Monday, we fell short. The Democrats came 
and voted, with all but one exception, to move forward on the debate, 
but our Republican friends would not join us. So the debate on Iraq 
stopped in its tracks. Efforts were made over the next day or two, with 
no success whatever, to try to revive this debate on Iraq. Now we find 
ourselves in a position where we moved to the next stage.
  That debate was about the Warner resolution, a Republican from 
Virginia, with bipartisan sponsorship that we agreed on the Democratic 
side would be the vote. I don't know how more accommodating the 
majority could be to

[[Page S1775]]

say to the minority, in this case the Republicans: We will let one of 
your own write the resolution that we will debate. That is what we said 
on the Warner resolution. We went further and said to the Republican 
minority: And then the countervailing resolution, the one in opposition 
to Warner, write that as well. And they did. That was the resolution of 
Senator John McCain of Arizona. So we had two competing Republican 
resolutions in a Senate with a Democratic majority.
  To argue we are playing politics with this issue, I think, fails on 
its face. I don't know how we could be more accommodating, but 
obviously we didn't reach enough on the other side to get the debate 
started.
  Interestingly enough, I happened to turn on the television last night 
in my office and here Senator John Warner came to the floor to try to 
explain what happened when seven or eight Republican Senators who said 
they opposed the President's plan, some who openly supported Senator 
Warner's resolution and Senator Warner himself, all voted not to debate 
his resolution. It is hard to explain to most people who try to follow 
the arcane procedures of the Senate.
  Having said that, the debate is not over. The debate will continue, 
maybe not on the Senate floor for the next few days. But all across 
America, in grocery stores, in offices, in churches, all across 
America, people are talking about this war. When I am contacted by 
people back in my hometown of Springfield, IL, or Chicago, people are 
saying this has to change. I understand what they are thinking about in 
terms of their own children, in terms of the brave soldiers who are 
there, and in terms of the families who are waiting patiently for their 
loved ones to return.
  We will return to this debate, but the next stage is not going to be 
a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The next stage is going to be much 
more serious. As I said on the floor before, the Warner resolution was 
a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which is merely an expression of 
sentiment. Important as it is, it is still very thin soup compared to 
an actual amendment or bill which could make some change in the way we 
wage this war. That is the next stage. The House may take it up before 
us because we have to pass the spending bill, and then we are going to 
return to it.

  Senator Reid, our majority leader, has made it clear. The Republicans 
will not prevail when it comes to stopping this debate on Iraq. We 
believe the last election was very clear. The American people want us 
to change the policy in Iraq. We change it by deliberating and debating 
and reaching the best consensus we can, and that is what we will try to 
do.
  I hope enough Republicans will join us in this debate. This is 
critically important. If they are loyal to the President and loyal to 
his policies, then so be it; stand on the floor and defend them. If 
they agree with us that there has to be a change, that this escalation 
of the war moves us in the wrong direction, they will also have a 
chance to have their voice on the floor. But to try to shut down the 
debate time and again will not ultimately work. The American people 
want us to face this issue and face the reality of this war and what it 
means to us.
  The National Intelligence Estimate, just recently released, paints a 
very bleak picture in Iraq about a civil war that is complicated by an 
insurgency that is being fought by both Iraqis and foreign al-Qaida 
fighters, along with widespread violent crime. There have been 2 
million refugees in Iraq so far, by the estimate of major international 
agencies. Some 34,000 Iraqi civilians were killed last year. Another 
1,000 died last week alone--Iraqi civilians. These are not the 
insurgents and terrorists. Many of these are innocent people--men, 
women, and children--who happened to go to the market or school on the 
day a bomb was detonated.
  We have lost more than 3,100 soldiers as of today. In this month of 
February, 8 days into this month, we have lost 26 American soldiers, 
more than 3 a day. As we postpone this debate for days and weeks, 
American soldiers continue to die and continue to be injured. That is 
the reality. We have to understand the urgency of this debate and the 
urgency to get it right.
  The President says he needs 21,500 troops more in Baghdad and Iraq. 
Certainly now the CBO tells us the real number could be 35,000 or 
48,000 because those 21,500 are ground troops, combat troops. They need 
support troops as well, and many of them will be in harm's way.
  When asked how much this new escalation of the war will cost, the 
President estimates $5.6 billion over 8 months. The Congressional 
Budget Office takes a look and says: No, you are wrong; $27 billion 
over 12 months.
  Some of us remember a man named Lawrence Lindsey, head of the White 
House's National Economic Council, who made the fatal political error 
in 2002 of saying that he thought the war in Iraq could cost us between 
$100 billion and $200 billion. For his estimate, for his candor, Mr. 
Lindsey was canned. He was fired. Secretary Rumsfeld got on television 
and said: I think the war might cost us $50 billion. That is on the 
record. The record shows us he was wrong.
  To date, the American taxpayers have paid over $350 billion for this 
war. With the new request, it will go to over $500 billion.
  Imagine the debate we just had between Senator Alexander and myself 
about $200 million to improve teachers and schools across America that 
we cannot afford because we are spending $2.5 billion a week on this 
war in Iraq. We cannot afford to improve the quality of our teachers in 
America's schools because of the money we have committed to a war in 
Iraq, a war which, sadly, has no end in sight and a war which is being 
escalated by this President.
  Some argue--I heard it on the floor repeatedly--that any debate about 
the President's policy is going to hurt the morale of the troops.
  This is a copy of The Washington Times, a newspaper which I don't 
frequently read, but this morning's newspaper says: ``War foes will not 
hurt morale,'' contradicting the statement made by some that if we 
express opposition to the President's war policy, we are going to hurt 
morale. Who was it who said that war foes--those who question the 
President's policy--will not hurt morale? It turns out to be none other 
than GEN Peter Pace of the U.S. Marine Corps, who is, of course, 
Chairman of our Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said it. I want to quote it. 
I thought this was excellent:

       From the standpoint of the troops, I believe that they 
     understand how our legislature works and that they understand 
     that there's going to be this kind of debate. They understand 
democracy. They understand you can disagree with the President without 
being disloyal to the men and women in uniform. They understand you can 
question whether we have enough troops, whether they are adequately 
armored, whether they are adequately trained, and question those 
policies of the President without in any way reflecting on our 
admiration for the troops and their service to our country.

  We are fighting for a democracy in Iraq. That is what we say. A 
democracy has open debate and disagreement with leadership. If we can't 
have the same open debate and disagreement with the leadership in 
America, then we are not exercising the powers of our own democracy.
  Finally, I would say, Mr. President, that a friend of mine and 
colleague in the Senate, Senator Ensign of Nevada, came to the floor 
yesterday and quoted me. Unfortunately, Senator Ensign's statement was 
not accurate. He quoted me as saying recently that:

       If we need initially some troops in Baghdad, for example, 
     to quiet the situation, make it more peaceful so that our 
     soldiers start coming home, then I--myself--would accept it.

  Well, he used this as evidence that many Democrats, including myself, 
had said, well, they are for increasing the number of troops. Here is 
what I was saying. If we need some additional troops to quiet the 
situation in Baghdad, then I would be open to it. If there was truly a 
plan to exit this untenable situation, where a short-term shift in 
troops to Baghdad could make a difference, I would happily entertain 
it.
  But the fact is that this is not a short-term proposal, it is not 
part of a plan that clearly brings our troops home, and putting more 
troops in the heart of a civil war does not quiet the situation. Our 
troops have achieved what is achievable in Iraq. As the new

[[Page S1776]]

NIE states, Iraq is now in a civil war and worse. That is not a battle 
that U.S. troops can win. Only the Iraqis can. The President's plan 
clearly is not designed to bring our troops home. Nor is he being 
honest about its costs or the numbers of men and women who will be sent 
to Iraq in this escalation.
  My respect for Senator Ensign is not diminished by this 
misunderstanding.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am very concerned that the continuing 
resolution does not adequately support our Armed Forces at this 
critical time. Our military commanders tell me that the resolution 
passed by the House of Representatives could deprive our bases of $3.1 
billion of crucial Federal funding. I am particularly concerned about 
the nearly $375 million of BRAC funding that is supposed to go to Fort 
Leavenworth and Fort Riley. As a member of the Military Construction 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I support the Hutchinson-Inhofe amendment 
to reinstate the $3.1 billion for BRAC that will be lost in the current 
version of the continuing resolution.
  Several of Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth's projects are in jeopardy 
unless full funding is restored, including: the Regional Correctional 
Facility at Fort Leavenworth, the Battle Command Training Center at 
Fort Riley, the Child Development Center at Fort Riley, Fort Riley's 
Consolidated Soldier and Family Medical Clinic, Fort Riley runway 
improvements, phase I of the Combat Aviation Brigade complex, and the 
increment 2 of the First Division headquarters construction.
  Unless we correct this problem in the continuing resolution, it will 
have a domino effect on future BRAC funding, which will be detrimental 
to our operations around the world. Fort Riley is a good example. First 
Division soldiers from Fort Riley continue to deploy in support of 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Fort Riley trains the soldiers who will embed 
with both Afghan and Iraqi forces. Right now, Fort Riley has enough 
soldiers deployed overseas that it can manage base operations. But as 
one Fort Riley official put it a few weeks ago, world peace is Fort 
Riley's worst nightmare: if all the soldiers come home, there is no 
place to house them all. We need to fund BRAC priorities to stay on 
schedule and make sure the appropriations process in the Senate does 
not adversely affect the ability of our Armed Forces to execute their 
missions.
  We cannot afford to play games with military construction funds. We 
worked hard last year to write good legislation that funded key 
priorities. That funding should be restored. All of us come to the 
floor pledging to support the men and women of our Armed Forces. Our 
promises of support will ring hollow if we fail to turn our words into 
action. We need to restore full funding to military construction in 
this continuing resolution.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. We are 
still in morning business, I believe.

                          ____________________