[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 25998-25999]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  GUARD AND RESERVE FAMILIES AMENDMENT

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for accepting my 
amendment to support the families of those National Guard and Reserve 
individuals serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I thank Senator Levin and 
Senator McCain for their support and assistance in including it as part 
of the National Defense Authorization Act, on which we will be voting 
on final passage later today.
  This is a new era for our National Guard and Reserves. They are 
shouldering a huge share of the combat burden in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
plus a stepped-up role here in homeland security. It speaks volumes 
that more than four times as many Guard members have been killed in 
Iraq as during the entire Vietnam war.
  With many Guard and Reserve members on their third or even fourth 
deployment, and with some deployments being stretched to at least 16 
months, the stresses on their families are acute. Their children are at 
greater risk for depression, behavioral disorders, and academic 
problems. Long family separations often result in financial 
difficulties and troubled marriages.
  Earlier this year, I introduced the Coming Together for National 
Guard and Reserve Families Act, which is the heart of this amendment. 
That amendment was accepted by the majority and the minority. The 
amendment does a number of things: It strengthens the family assistance 
program to ensure there are adequate resources for Guard and Reserve 
families throughout the deployment cycle. It provides special attention 
for the children of deployed servicemembers, who often react to 
parental separation with acting-out behaviors, anxiety, and depression. 
Finally, the amendment ensures that Guard and Reserve families receive 
appropriately timed information about the psychological symptoms that 
can appear long after coming home--such as anger, depression, alcohol 
abuse, or post-traumatic stress disorder--to help them take advantage 
of the services and support they may need.
  Shortly after introducing the bill, I received a letter from the 
fiance of an Iowa Guard member deployed in Iraq. It was one of many 
letters I received. I cannot read them all. I thought this portion of 
it summed it up:

       I received a letter from you today about the S. 902 bill 
     that would help National Guard families, and I just wanted to 
     say thank you. I cried when I first read this; for the first 
     time in 2 years I feel like someone heard me. I hope this 
     bill is passed and carried out. My fiance is in Iraq with the 
     133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard. He was due home in 
     March but now will be there until August. To say the least, I 
     was devastated when I heard that he was extended, and 
     honestly believe that it is such a terrible thing. Since he 
     has been extended, many of his friends in the unit have tried 
     to commit suicide and even more are deeply depressed. More 
     times than not, I hear him saying how he wishes he could just 
     have his life back. And I ask that you keep fighting for this 
     because our soldiers' lives are hanging in the balance. My 
     soldier and I will have to deal with the long-term 
     consequences of his being in a war zone for so long for the 
     rest of our lives, and we have to stop this before our 
     children and grandchildren have to deal with this as well. . 
     . . I am proud to live in the United States of America. 
     However, my fiance has done his part; he has protected this 
     country for 22 months and he has been away from my side for 
     that long. Let him come home, give us our lives back.

  Mr. President, one happy result is that the brave men and women of 
the 1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard--the 
same soldiers who inspired this amendment--returned home in July after 
serving as part of the longest continuous deployment of the Iraq war, 
spending nearly 2 years in active duty and 17 months in Iraq.
  Senator Grassley and I passed a resolution earlier honoring the 
service and sacrifices made by these brave soldiers and their families. 
But there is more we can do. Of course, I am working with my colleagues 
on this side of the aisle, and others, to begin the long, overdue 
process of redeploying our troops out of the civil war in Iraq. I hope 
we can make real progress on this in the coming weeks.
  Until we are able to accomplish that, we must do everything we can to 
make sure the loved ones and family members of our deployed soldiers 
receive the support they need and deserve.
  These families, many of whom are just starting their lives together, 
are dealing with tremendous stress. They include many small children 
who have grown up while their mothers or fathers were away.
  Mr. President, this is a quiet crisis that we don't read about in the 
morning newspaper, but it is a crisis nonetheless. This amendment 
addresses that crisis by strengthening family assistance programs and 
doing outreach to parents and professionals who serve children--
including mental health counselors and teachers--to alert them to the 
special needs of kids in military families, especially those with a 
parent in a war zone.
  This amendment also ensures that families receive support after 
soldiers come home. The amendment ensures that families receive mental 
health information for up to 6 months post deployment so they can have 
access to the services and support they need.
  Again, why is the amendment necessary? It became clear, after 
visiting with families of these National Guard troops and reservists 
who were overseas in Iraq that we have one set of family services and 
intervention and support for families of regular military personnel in 
the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force, but don't have the same support 
services for National Guard and Reserves. Many times in our small towns 
and communities you have 1 or 2 families who have a husband or a father 
overseas in the National Guard for an extended time, but those families 
don't get the same support and services as a family with a loved one in 
the regular Armed Forces, either throughout the deployment or when the 
soldier returns. Perhaps this made sense in the past. But the line 
between the Reserves and National Guard and the regular forces has 
become very blurred with the war in Iraq. So we see the National Guard 
carrying out what normally would have been done by the Active-Duty 
military. That is why this amendment, providing Guard and Reserve 
families with this support, is so important.
  On a final note, the benefits of this amendment will apply to all 
Guard and Reserve troops, as well as their families--and I might point 
out, even those who disagree with President Bush and Vice President 
Cheney. They can disagree and this amendment will still apply to them. 
I feel obliged to say this because a prominent conservative leader, 
Rush Limbaugh, of radio infamy, said men and women in uniform over in 
Iraq who oppose the war are ``phony soldiers,'' and are presumably 
unworthy of the American people's support.
  Earlier today, I was here and I heard Senator Reid, our majority 
leader, speak about this. This statement is outrageous and despicable. 
Our men and women in uniform in Iraq have made extraordinary 
sacrifices. 3,800 have been killed and nearly 28,000 have been wounded, 
many with amputations and brain injuries they will live with for the 
rest of their lives. Our troops live in constant danger. Meanwhile, 
their families at home have had to cope with repeated separations and 
with the constant dread of bad news from Iraq. The very thought of Rush 
Limbaugh sitting in his air-conditioned broadcast studio and ranting 
about ``phony soldiers'' in Iraq who dare to speak their mind is just 
shameful. Perhaps in Mr. Limbaugh's case the correct word is 
``shameless.''
  I realize he and some other extremists on the right hold the view 
that you are either with us or you are against us; you are either a 
good American or a bad American, depending upon whether you agree with 
the conservative Republican line. But that is not the way most 
Americans think. We respect disagreement. We value dissent. We don't 
resort to name-calling when our fellow Americans--especially those in 
uniform--express a differing point of view.
  For the record, by labeling as ``phony soldiers'' those who disagree 
with the

[[Page 25999]]

war or the President's comments, that denigrates many thousands of our 
Armed Forces serving in Iraq. Listen to this. A December 2006 poll 
conducted by the Military Times found that fully 42 percent of 
servicemembers disapproved of President Bush's handling of the war, 
while just 35 percent supported it.
  In other words, our men and women in uniform are not much different 
from the rest of the American people, the majority of whom also 
disagree with Mr. Bush's conduct of the war. Frankly, it increases my 
respect for those soldiers' professionalism and sense of duty. They 
disagree with their Commander in Chief, but they continue to perform 
their jobs with enormous courage, confidence, and commitment. That is 
cause for admiration and praise, not name-calling and denigration.
  I must add, as a veteran, I find it offensive that Rush Limbaugh, who 
never put on the uniform of this country, would attack the patriotism 
or dedication of any soldier fighting in Iraq. I have often said about 
someone like that, before they drape themselves in the flag of this 
country, they ought to put on the uniform first to defend it. In 
Limbaugh's case, he would not do that.
  Well, I also find it disturbing that his offensive comments have not 
been condemned by our Republican colleagues, or by the Commander in 
Chief, all of whom were so quick to condemn a similar personal attack 
on General Petraeus several weeks ago.
  The Boxer-Levin-Durbin Amendment to the Defense authorization bill 
said the Senate ``strongly condemns all attacks on the honor, 
integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving in the Armed 
Services.'' I just point out that all but two Republican Senators voted 
against this amendment. Will any one of them stand up and be brave 
enough to take on Rush Limbaugh? Will anybody on that side of the aisle 
take on Rush Limbaugh for this statement? We have not heard anything 
yet, but I hope they do.
  The silence from President Bush and the Republican leadership is 
simply deafening. Is this because they agree with Mr. Limbaugh, or they 
don't want to risk angering such a prominent conservative by taking him 
to task.
  Mr. President, in August, seven soldiers published an op-ed in the 
New York Times criticizing the current strategy in Iraq. Tragically, 
two of those soldiers were subsequently killed in action, making the 
ultimate sacrifice for their country.
  I only can assume by Mr. Limbaugh's definition that they, too, were 
phony soldiers. What is most despicable, Rush Limbaugh says these 
provocative things to make more money. So he castigates our soldiers. 
This makes more news. It becomes the news, more people tune in, he 
makes more money.
  I don't know, maybe he was high on his drugs again. I don't know if 
he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know. That shouldn't be an 
excuse.
  I wish to make it clear that I respect Mr. Limbaugh's right to say 
whatever he wants, but we also have a right. We have a right not to 
listen to him.
  So I think the best thing to do for him is to tune him out, tune out 
Rush Limbaugh and listen to more responsible talk show hosts in this 
country.
  I think that it is time, again, for us to stand up for our troops, as 
we have, I think, in the past, to give them every bit of support and 
give their families support. That is what my amendment does. I am 
pleased this amendment has been included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act, because it is an important step toward ensuring that 
our National Guard and Reserve families receive the kind of support the 
families of our regular forces also receive.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________