Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004 - Continued

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004—CONTINUED

AMENDMENT NO. 1264

    Mr. DURBIN. I know the Senator from North Dakota has to leave and will be back tomorrow to discuss his amendment, but doesn't it strike those following this debate as strange that we are considering the appropriation for the Department of Defense for the next year and it includes everything except Iraq and Afghanistan?

    If this is truly an appropriations bill, if the Senate is meeting its responsibility in reviewing the requests of the administration to make certain they are reasonable, how can we, in good conscience, pass a bill without any reference to the costs of the war? That, of course, is a good turn of events for the administration because they do not have to explain how they will pay for it.

    This morning's newspapers across America disclosed we are facing a record-breaking budget deficit. We have gone, over the span of 3 years, from over $200 billion in surplus each year to over $450 billion in deficit. That does not count the Social Security portion which is about another $160 billion. We are facing record-breaking budget deficits. And now as we debate appropriations bills, these bills are not speaking to the reality of official spending under the Bush administration.

    To think we would consider this Department of Defense bill and not include the money necessary for the war in Iraq is to suggest that this bill does not tell the whole story.

    Just last week in the Armed Services Committee, Secretary Rumsfeld, our Secretary of Defense, appeared before the committee and was asked by Senator Byrd of West Virginia, what is the cost of the war in Iraq? Secretary Rumsfeld, in charge of the largest military operation on the face of the Earth, said, I don't know. Senator Byrd said, you better find out. These are questions asked by Congress of Secretaries of Defense through history. So there was a break in the action and Senators came over for a vote and when we returned, Secretary Rumsfeld said, I have been told it will be about $3.9 billion per month, roughly $1 billion a week for Iraq. When asked about Afghanistan, he suggested it would be somewhere in the range of $1 billion a month.

    That means we are going to spend roughly $5 billion a month that is not accounted for in this bill. So we know we are going to spend the money. We are never going to shortchange our men and women in uniform. Why isn't this Bush administration, in all candor and honesty, coming to us with a bill that includes the costs of the war?

    Senator Dorgan, my colleague from North Dakota, asked that obvious question and asked the Senate to vote on it. It will be interesting tomorrow to see if those who believe the Senate has a responsibility for oversight and also believe this administration has a responsibility to be honest about the costs of the war, will, in fact, support the Dorgan amendment. I certainly will. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will, as well.

    This is a tough amendment because it puts the administration on the spot. They have to explain where they are going to come up with a substantial amount of money, but I think that is the burden they asked for when they assumed office. We need to face it squarely, as do they.

    I also say, despite the obvious monetary costs of the war, what I find in traveling back to Illinois is the people are less concerned about the monetary costs than the human costs of this war. It is tough to calculate how many of our great men and women have died since President Bush declared military victory in the first part of May. But we know almost on a daily basis that we are losing some of our finest soldiers, men and women, well trained for military combat, who are now in the position of maintaining peace in Iraq, trying to establish a civil society. It is not an easy task. These men and women, trained with the highest technology, so successful on the battlefield, now find themselves on patrol, guarding college campuses, guarding museums, enforcing curfews, dealing with scuffles and fights in public marketplaces. As they go in to try to quell this violence and bring peace to the situation, sadly, many of them are being attacked by Iraqis. Some are being killed.

    To those who follow this debate, I say we can try in this bill to ignore the dollar costs of this war but, trust me, families across America, the people of this country, know the human costs on a daily basis. They are asking us the hard questions.

    Senator Lugar of Indiana, whom I respect very much, visited Iraq. He came back and said, in all candor, he believed we would be in that country for 5 years. He said he felt that was a minimum. I hope he is wrong. But I respect his judgment and his insight. If we are to be there for 5 years, if 150,000 troops or any portion of those troops will remain for that period of time, it is a massive investment by the United States in Iraq. It calls into question our basic strategy in trying to establish civil order.

    I cannot for the life of me understand why this administration has not gone to the United Nations and asked them to assume responsibility with us for the future of Iraq. Why hasn't this government come to the Senate and asked the same thing? If we could replace American troops in the field, guardsmen and reserves who have been there for long periods of time away from their family, if we could replace them and bring them home by bringing in troops from other countries, that would certainly be very positive.

    In this morning's newspapers Prime Minister Vajpayee of India said the United States requested 17,000 Indian troops and he declined the invitation. He said he might join an effort sponsored by the United Nations. Those are his conditions. I don't know the conditions of other countries.

    What is clear to me now is that though the coalition of the willing was enough to win the military end of the war, the coalition of the willing is incapable of meeting the responsibility today of establishing and maintaining order in Iraq. That coalition has really come down to two major countries, Great Britain and the United States. We are shouldering this burden, not just on the monetary side but on the side of human cost.

    I think this administration should be conscious of the fact that many Americans, supportive of the invasion of Iraq, supportive of eliminating Saddam Hussein, are now raising serious questions about the duration and cost of our occupation of Iraq.

    The same thing can be said, obviously, of Afghanistan. I am a big supporter of Hamid Karzai. I think he has done a remarkable job as the leader in Afghanistan, bringing some order to a country which has known chaos for too many years. But we know he needs help. Too many tribal warlords control portions of the country that should be controlled by some central authority coming out of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. That is not the case.

    The President of Pakistan recently visited the United States. President Musharraf said to President Bush: If you want one piece of advice, send more troops to Afghanistan. We don't have enough people there to maintain order. Our troop strength is estimated to be between 8,500 and 10,000. That points to the need for this bill to be more inclusive on the real cost of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to face this head on.

    For the Department of Defense appropriations bill to speak to national security and ignore 150,000 men and women in uniform in Iraq and the cost to our country, as well as another 8,500 or so in Afghanistan, really misses the point. We need a bill that is complete. The Dorgan amendment will move us in that direction. I will support it tomorrow, and I hope my colleagues will join me.

    I yield the floor.