[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4647-4650]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am glad we are discussing this issue. I 
am glad we are on the floor of the Senate to discuss the war in Iraq. I 
think this is an issue that is being discussed across America--over 
coffee pots in offices, in doughnut shops in the morning, at schools, 
in living rooms, and in

[[Page 4648]]

churches. Everybody is thinking about this war, as they should. Those 
of us who are fortunate enough to live in the safety of America know 
full well that we have over 130,000 of our best and bravest sons and 
daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, risking their 
lives at this very moment in Iraq.
  I have listened carefully to my colleagues from the other side of the 
aisle as they have come to the floor, including the last two, Senator 
Cornyn of Texas and Senator Martinez of Florida. I have the highest 
respect for both of my colleagues. I count them as friends. I work with 
them on many issues. I respectfully disagree with them on their views 
on this war.
  Senator Cornyn mentioned earlier he felt there should be a consensus 
among Democrats about what to do with this war, that if we have 50 or 
51 Members on the floor, we ought to have a point of view. I say to the 
Senator from Texas that there are some things we agree on, on this side 
of the aisle. For example, when there was a vote 10 or 11 days ago on 
whether we should escalate the number of troops we are sending to Iraq, 
whether we should follow the President's proposed plan to send anywhere 
from 21,000 to 48,000 more soldiers into harm's way, 49 of 50 Democrats 
voted no.
  We were joined by seven Republicans who crossed the aisle. Is there a 
consensus on the Democratic side on the President's plan? Yes. And it 
isn't just a consensus on the Democratic side; it is a consensus across 
the Nation.
  This morning's Washington Post on the front page has the disclosure 
of an ABC News poll. Some 53 percent of the American people think it is 
time for a deadline for withdrawing forces from Iraq, and an 
overwhelming majority think the President's strategy is wrong.
  To argue that the Democrats don't have a consensus position is not an 
accurate statement. It does not reflect what occurred in a vote that 
just took place a few days ago.
  I am also troubled by the continuing reference to support of our 
troops. May I put that to rest for just a moment. Twenty-three of us in 
the Senate voted against this war in Iraq--1 Republican and 22 
Democrats. But I will tell you, Mr. President, when the President came 
and then asked for funds to support our troops in Iraq, this Senator, 
and the overwhelming majority of those of us who oppose the policy, 
gave the President every penny he asked for. Our thinking was very 
clear: Though we may disagree with the policy, we can't put the burden 
of what we consider bad policy on the backs of our soldiers. We cannot 
shortchange them in any way in battle, even if we disagree with the 
battle plan of the Commander in Chief. So I voted not for $1 billion, 
not for $100 billion, but hundreds of billions of dollars for this war 
that I think is the wrong war. Why? Quite simply, if it were my son or 
daughter in uniform in this war risking his life, I would want him to 
have everything necessary to be safe and to come back home safely.
  So, yes, we support our troops. Whether we disagree with this foreign 
policy or agree with it, Members of the Senate support our troops. But 
one cannot overlook the obvious. When it comes to the support of our 
troops, it goes way beyond a speech on the floor of the Senate.
  On Sunday, February 18, Dana Priest and Anne Hull of the Washington 
Post wrote an article which has seared the conscious of America. It was 
part of a series about a military hospital, Walter Reed. I visited that 
hospital many times to visit our soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors 
who were in recovery. I have been so impressed with the men and women, 
the medical professionals who perform medical miracles for these men 
and women who come home injured from the wars.
  I listen to the soldiers and their families, and they are so grateful 
for what they have received at Walter Reed. As the article says at one 
point, Walter Reed has always been viewed as ``a surgical hospital that 
shines as the crown jewel of military medicine.'' And so it should be. 
Our men and women in uniform who have made the sacrifice deserve the 
very best.
  If that were the message of this series in the Washington Post, it 
wouldn't have been noted or remembered by anyone because it would have 
been repeating the obvious. But, sadly, this series tells us something 
different.
  Just a few minutes' drive away from where we are meeting in this 
Senate Chamber, at Walter Reed Hospital, there are buildings which are 
in deplorable condition. There are veterans and soldiers who are being 
treated in ways that are absolutely unacceptable. Let me quote a few 
words from this series in the Washington Post describing one of the 
buildings at Walter Reed Hospital:

        . . . [P]art of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, 
     weighted down with black mold. . . . Signs of neglect are 
     everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained 
     carpet, cheap mattresses.

  The article goes on to say:

       The common perception of Walter Reed is as a surgical 
     hospital that shines as the crown jewel of military medicine. 
     But 5\1/2\ years of sustained combat have transformed the 
     venerable 113-acre institution into something else entirely--
     a holding ground for physically and psychologically damaged 
     outpatients. Almost 700 of them--the majority soldiers, but 
     some Marines--have been released from hospital beds but still 
     need treatment or are awaiting bureaucratic decisions before 
     being discharged or returned to active duty.
       They suffer from brain injuries, severed arms and legs, 
     organ and back damage, and various degrees of post-traumatic 
     stress. Their legions have grown so exponentially--they 
     outnumber hospital patients at Walter Reed 17 to 1--that they 
     take up every available bed on post and spill into dozens of 
     nearby hotels and apartments leased by the Army. The average 
     stay is 10 months, but some have been stuck there for as long 
     as two years.
       Disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and 
     overworked case managers fumble with simple needs: feeding 
     soldiers' families who are close to poverty, replacing a 
     uniform ripped off by medics in the desert sand or helping a 
     brain-damaged soldier remember his next appointment.

  Here is a quote from Marine SGT Ryan Groves, 26 years old, an amputee 
who lived at Walter Reed for 16 months. Here is what he says:

       We've done our duty. We fought the war. We came home 
     wounded. Fine. But whoever the people are back here who are 
     supposed to give us the easy transition should be doing it. . 
     . . We don't know what to do. The people who are supposed to 
     know don't have the answers. It's a nonstop process of 
     stalling.

  Walter Reed Hospital, the crown jewel of medical care for our 
soldiers who are giving everything in Iraq.
  So now let's ask the question: Who is working to support our troops? 
Who is working at Walter Reed to support our troops? Rhetoric is easy 
on the floor of the Senate, but for these troops and for the families, 
it will take more than words of loyalty and respect.
  I can recall when this debate started. As a Senator, I faced the 
toughest vote any Senator can face--a vote on a war. You know at the 
end of the day, if you go forward with the war, people will die--not 
just the enemy but our brave soldiers, as well as many innocent people. 
It is the kind of vote that costs you sleep, and it should.
  I remember it so well. It was October 11, 2002, within weeks of the 
election. We had been subjected to a steady barrage of statements from 
the President and the administration about why this war was necessary. 
We had been told of weapons of mass destruction which not only 
threatened the region but even threatened the United States. We had 
been told of a ruthless dictator in Saddam Hussein who had gassed and 
killed his own innocent people. We had been told there was a connection 
between Saddam Hussein and the terrible events of 9/11 in the United 
States. We had been told even of nuclear weapons and the possibility of 
mushroom-shaped clouds if we didn't respond, and quickly, in Iraq.
  But what we were told turned out not to be true. What we were told as 
the reason for the war turned out to be wrong. I was a member of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, and I sat behind closed doors at 
confidential hearings and heard disputed evidence about statements 
being made by the administration. I was sworn to secrecy. I couldn't 
walk outside the room and say: Wait a minute, this morning's headline 
about mushroom-shaped clouds is about nuclear weapons that

[[Page 4649]]

even this administration is not agreed on. I couldn't say it because of 
my oath of loyalty to make certain I didn't disclose classified 
information. But I knew when it came time to vote that giving the 
President the authority to start this war was a bad decision, and that 
is why I voted against it. I think it was the worst foreign policy 
decision in my time in Congress. It is one that will haunt us for years 
to come.
  Iraq has not become the last battle in the war on terrorism. Sadly, 
it has become a proving ground, a testing ground, a preparation place 
for training even more terrorists. Those are not my conclusions; those 
are the conclusions of our intelligence agencies.
  When I listen to the Members on the other side say what we need to do 
in Iraq is send more Americans into that battleground, I ask myself: To 
what end? We were asked to do several things by this President, and we 
did them and did them well. We deposed that dictator, dug him out of a 
hole in the ground and held him accountable in the courts of his own 
nation. We searched high and low for weapons of mass destruction to 
destroy and could find none. We gave to the Iraqi people a chance for a 
free election, something they never had in their history. Our soldiers 
stood guard at the polling places so the Iraqi people could finally 
have their own voice and their own future. We let them choose their own 
leaders. We let their leaders form their own Government. We gave them 
more opportunities at the cost of American lives, American blood, and 
American treasure than any nation has ever given to Iraq in its 
history. We have achieved those things. We should be proud of those 
successes. But, unfortunately, despite all we have done, the Iraqis 
have not faced their own political responsibilities. After all of the 
years, after all of the money, after all of the training, and all of 
the time, they still don't have a police force that can stand up and 
defend the people of Iraq in the streets of Baghdad. If there is a 
threat of terrorism anywhere in the world, it isn't the army that has 
the major responsibility, it is the police force.
  What do we know of the Iraqi police force in this surge, in this 
escalation? The press report over the weekend was troubling. We are 
sending American soldiers into the meanest streets and toughest 
neighborhoods of Baghdad where death is at every corner, death is at 
every door. They are searching these houses to try to find the 
insurgents who are causing the civil war. They are looking for weapons. 
They are looking for evidence of these bombs that are being set off and 
blowing through our humvees and armored vehicles, killing and disabling 
our soldiers. That is what our American soldiers are doing now, house 
by house, street by street, in this dangerous part of Baghdad, and they 
are accompanied by Iraqi policemen.
  It sounds like a good thing until one hears the details. The details 
are that the Iraqi police are preceding American soldiers to the homes, 
warning the people in the homes to hide their weapons because the 
Americans are right behind them. We know this because our translators 
are telling our soldiers the Iraqi police are not helping. The Iraqi 
police are trying to cover up the insurgents' tracks.
  So one wonders why some of us believe it is time for the American 
soldiers to start to come home? I think it is past time, it is long 
overdue. It is time for the Iraqis to stand up and defend their own 
country, to put their lives on the line, the lives of their policemen 
and their soldiers, to make the political decisions that need to be 
made that Iraq can someday stand on its own. As long as the Iraqis 
believe they can dial 9-1-1 and order up American soldiers to come and 
stand and fight and die in their streets, they will not accept their 
own responsibility for their own future.
  Those on the other side say give this plan a chance. I regret to say 
we have given this plan a chance three different times. This is the 
fourth time the Bush administration has proposed sending more American 
troops in for a surge to end the war. I think there is reason to be 
skeptical, particularly when it is at the risk of more American lives.
  Incidentally, when they make reference to the Iraq Study Group, this 
bipartisan group headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and 
former Congressman Lee Hamilton, when they talk about their proposal 
for a surge or escalation of troops, they forget to add the one 
important or two important elements: That was part of a surge in 
diplomacy, something this administration is loath to enter into. See, 
they believe we should be sitting down as a nation with nations in the 
region and trying to work out some stable resolution to this conflict 
in Iraq. The Bush administration has been reluctant to do that, but the 
study group called for it and, yes, they did call for the possibility 
of a surge in troops but only if we are bringing our troops out as of 
the end of March in 2008. They had a definite timetable for the removal 
of most American troops from this theater. The other side doesn't talk 
about that point, and certainly the President doesn't either.
  One of the Senators came to the floor and said those of us who are 
critical of the President's policy are micromanaging the war. Somebody 
needs to manage this war. Somebody needs to manage a war which, as of 
this morning, has claimed 3,154 American lives.
  We have been losing about three American soldiers every single day 
while we have been debating this war. I looked through this morning's 
list of soldiers, and I watch it on the newscast, and it is 
heartbreaking:

       Specialist Christopher Boone, 34 years old, of Augusta, 
     Georgia; Sergeant Richard L. Ford, 40 years old, of East 
     Hartford, Connecticut; Specialist Louis Kim, 19 years old, of 
     West Covina, California; Staff Sergeant David R. Berry, 37 
     years old, Wichita, Kansas; PFC Travis Buford, 23 years old, 
     Galveston, Texas; Staff Sergeant Joshua Hager, 29 years old, 
     of Broomfield, Colorado; and PFC Rowan D. Walter, 25, of 
     Winnetka, California.

  That is this morning's list. Sadly, every morning there is a list.
  If there is a sense of impatience on this side of the aisle, if there 
is a sense of impatience across this land, it is because we know each 
and every one of those lives is so valuable to their families and to 
every single one of us. We want the day to come when soon these 
soldiers who are serving us so nobly and gallantly in Iraq can come 
home safely to the hero's welcome they deserve for serving their 
country so well.
  Those of us who question this policy are being criticized because we 
are trying to micromanage this war. I wish I could. I wish I had the 
power. I do have the power, as a Senator, to speak up on this floor, to 
appeal to my colleagues to stand up, to ask them on a bipartisan basis 
to reach a compromise which will start to bring these troops home.
  It is true we only have one Commander in Chief, but we also only have 
one constitution, and the Constitution makes it clear that the 
President, despite all of his power, doesn't have all the power in this 
town or this Nation. His power is shared, shared with the American 
people through their elected representatives in Congress, and that 
power gives us the authority to stand and debate.
  Much has been said about Senator Carl Levin, who spoke on a 
television show, ``Meet the Press,'' this last Sunday. I watched that 
show, and I couldn't have been prouder of my colleague from Michigan. I 
respect Carl Levin so much. As chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, he takes his job so seriously. I don't know of a more 
conscientious Member, carefully weighing every word of every bill, 
trying to make the right judgment not just for the moment but for the 
Nation. When he spoke on that bill about reauthorizing, about 
questioning the authority given to the President in October of 2002, I 
think he was right. I know what that resolution said. We passed it in 
October of 2002. It addressed two challenges and two threats that no 
longer exist. There is no Saddam Hussein and there were no weapons of 
mass destruction.
  I think it is appropriate that we address this issue again and that 
we try to decide what we are going to do to move forward; first, 
revoking any authority given in a previous resolution that no longer 
exists; and, second, carefully defining the way we will bring our 
troops home, making certain

[[Page 4650]]

we understand the assignments and responsibilities they will have into 
the future.
  This is an awesome responsibility to discuss this war, to debate it 
on the floor of the Senate, and to do it in a constructive and positive 
way. I sincerely hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
those who are loyal to the President and those who are loyal to the 
President's policy, will encourage this debate, that they won't stop us 
with procedural obstacles, that they will allow the Senate to speak, to 
debate, and to express its will. We have tried before unsuccessfully, 
but we are going to try again. I believe this is an extremely important 
priority, perhaps the highest we face.
  Having said that, the first bill that is likely to come up tomorrow, 
maybe later today, is on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The 9/11 
Commission, my colleagues will recall, was an effort to assess 
America's vulnerabilities after the attack on 9/11. That commission 
published a report that was widely read and applauded because of the 
leadership of Republican Governor Kean of New Jersey and Congressman 
Lee Hamilton, a Democrat of Indiana. They cochaired a panel, a very 
distinguished bipartisan panel, which came up with recommendations to 
make America safer.
  Some several years later, we have not lived up to their 
recommendations and we haven't carried out their agenda. There is much 
we can do to make this country safer and we want to move immediately to 
considering their recommendations and implementing them, whether it is 
port security, whether it is a communication system in Illinois or 
other States that allows the police, firefighters, first responders, 
and the medical community to communicate quickly in the midst of an 
emergency, whether it is a matter of mass evacuation drills, which I 
have been asking for and which are included in this legislation. There 
are many things we can do, and specific things.
  There are many who think we should move immediately to the debate on 
the war. We are only going to postpone it long enough to discuss these 
9/11 Commission recommendations. The families of the survivors of 9/11 
have appealed to us to make this a high priority. For that reason, and 
for that reason only, we may set aside the Iraq debate for a few days 
but not indefinitely. This debate needs to take place for the very 
simple reason that as we debate on the floor of the Senate, 
unfortunately, our sons and daughters are still in peril in Iraq. They 
are still caught in the crossfire of a civil war, and we are still 
losing too many good American lives every single day because of this 
confrontation taking place in Iraq.
  In the meantime, we will be stepping forward to do something about 
Walter Reed Hospital, but we won't stop there. Walter Reed has to meet 
its obligation not just for inpatients, where they do a magnificent, an 
excellent job, but for those who are outpatients as well. We have to 
take this issue to the veterans hospitals and we have to ask the hard 
questions about whether the veterans of this war and all of our wars 
are being treated with the dignity and respect and care they deserve.
  I salute the Washington Post and those who wrote these articles. I am 
sure they will receive recognition for bringing this to our attention. 
This will be a clear example and a clear opportunity for those of us 
who stand on the floor and give speeches about supporting our troops to 
prove we mean it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________