[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3346-S3347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            S. CON. RES. 20

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to explain why I 
felt it necessary to vote against the Gregg resolution on Iraq, S. Con. 
Res. 20, when the Senate considered this and other measures related to 
Iraq on March 15, 2007.
  The Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress 
have been making every effort until recently to avoid any real debate 
on Iraq and have, at each and every step of the way, supported the 
failed stay-the-course strategy by conflating Iraq with the war on 
terrorism and by propagating a false choice concerning Iraq: according 
to their logic, you either support the President or you harm the 
troops.
  I firmly reject this false choice, as I rejected the Gregg resolution 
which was an attempt to validate that false choice.

[[Page S3347]]

  There is no doubt that I and every other Member in this body will do 
all in our power to protect our troops while they are serving so 
bravely in Iraq or wherever else their political leaders decide to send 
them. That is why there was overwhelming Senate support for the Murray 
resolution, S. Res. 107, which we voted on prior to the Gregg 
resolution.
  I would remind our colleagues that I have fought as hard as anyone in 
the Congress to ensure that our troops have the equipment and resources 
they need in Iraq--on some occasions over the objections of the 
administration and their congressional allies, I might add.
  In 2003, the Army identified $322 million in shortfalls in critical 
health and safety gear--ranging from body armor, camelback hydration 
systems, and com-
bat helmets to equipment for deactivating high-explosives--all 
priorities that the Rumsfeld Pentagon and Bush administration failed to 
provide for in their initial budgets. I offered an amendment to the 
emergency appropriations bill to resolve these problems. Unfortunately, 
the Bush administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was 
defeated along party lines with the help of the very same Senators who 
are now claiming to be supporting our troops.
  In 2004, we tried a different approach--requiring the Department of 
Defense to reimburse military personnel who bought equipment with their 
own funds for military service in Iraq and Afghanistan that the 
Rumsfeld Pentagon had failed to provide. This time, despite ardent 
objections of Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon, Congress approved the 
legislation in October 2004, President Bush signed the bill into law. 
We approved similar legislation in 2005 to further extend this benefit 
as troops, their families, and their communities continued to dig into 
their own pockets to buy needed lifesaving equipment for use on the 
battlefield.
  Last year, the difficulties associated with equipment shortfalls 
posed a far more serious problem. I offered an amendment to address a 
$17 billion budget shortfall to replace and repair thousands of war-
battered tanks, aircraft, and vehicles. Without these additional 
resources, the Army Chief of Staff claimed that U.S. Army readiness 
would deteriorate even further.
  That said, still more remains to be done if the men and women on 
active duty, in the Reserves and National Guard are to be fully 
equipped and ready to defend our country. We need to make certain that 
our troops have the resources they need to stay ready to fight wherever 
and whenever duty calls. Regrettably, the war in Iraq is actually 
draining these resources and making us less safe. That is why I am 
going to work to continue restocking our troops' equipment inventories 
to restore their readiness and assure their protection.
  Voting for a resolution expressing support for the troops is not the 
same as making concrete decisions to actually do so. Making sure they 
are fully equipped and that the mission they have been sent to do is 
achievable is a fundamental part of meaningfully supporting the troops. 
For me and many others in this body, our vote in support of the Reid 
resolution, S.J. Res 9, was a vote to support our troops by mandating a 
different direction in the current failed policy in Iraq, namely the 
phased redeployment of our combat troops from Iraq, and a narrowing of 
the mission for those who remain.
  I will continue to stand up for what I believe is a necessary change 
in course in Iraq and in American strategy. I will continue to fight to 
reverse the President's failed policy which has made us less safe, 
which has created a safe haven for extremists and terrorists in Iraq, 
and which has undermined the moral and political standing of the United 
States around the world.
  Most important, I will continue to stand up for our brave men and 
women in uniform. I will continue to fight for increased funding for 
body armor and other critical needs. I will continue to fight for 
funding for our military personnel to keep them safe and effective and 
to ensure they are not forgotten if they come home injured and in need 
of care.
  I will continue to call for meaningful actions in this Congress to 
redirect funding away from major combat operations, while ensuring that 
we have the means and tools necessary to continue vital training and 
equipping of Iraqi security forces, counter terrorism operations, and 
the diplomatic, political, and economic offensive and strategies that 
are the key elements to finding a solution to the crisis in Iraq and in 
the wider region.
  I refuse to be cowed or bullied by false choices. It is long overdue 
that we stand up to unreasonable arguments, conflated logic, attacks 
against dissent and debate, and most important, failed policies which 
are making our country less safe, each and every day.

                          ____________________