Department of Defense Appropriations Act

Mr. DURBIN. Let me say initially that I am sure during the course of the debate there will be many raising the question of whether we should spend this time on this debate. The fact that we might spend 4 hours on the debate over a war we are now facing for our fourth year indicates that it truly is appropriate.

What we would like to do is ask unanimous consent that

the following Democratic Senators be recognized in the order as stated with the understanding that if a Republican Senator seeks recognition, they would be recognized in alternating fashion.

I will read the list of Democratic Senators in the order in which they will speak: Senators Schumer, Durbin, Levin, Reed of Rhode Island, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy, Harkin, Boxer, Dayton, Carper, Dorgan, Murray, and Mikulski.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this point in time, I reserve, with the understanding that I encourage it be agreed to, but the distinguished Senator from Texas, the Senator from Alaska, and others are going to work on the sequencing over here, so I wonder if we could just informally say we will follow that until such time as one of these two come over and agree.

Mr. DURBIN. In response to the Senator from Virginia, this only reflects the order of the Democratic speakers, but if the Senator would like to withhold the agreement of this until the Senator has his complete list----

Mr. WARNER. A list, thank you.

Mr. DURBIN.--I am happy to do that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator from South Carolina is still on the Senate floor because I want to make clear that debating the war in Iraq is not a performance. It is part of our responsibility. This is the world's, maybe the Nation's, greatest deliberative body. And if we do not take a few hours to address the policies and strategies in Iraq, then we are not living up to our responsibility.

The Senator from South Carolina went on to say that we tried to stop the PATRIOT Act. The Senator was not here when the PATRIOT Act was considered. He was still a Member of the House, and he may not know what happened. But with the exception of one Member on our side of the aisle, every Senator voted for the passage of the PATRIOT Act. It was a strong bipartisan vote. Also, for the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, it was a strong bipartisan vote.

When it came to obstructing the President's efforts in Iraq, I will concede I was 1 of 23 Senators who voted against the authorization of force. But I have voted for every penny this President has asked for to wage this war in Iraq. On a bipartisan basis, we have provided this President with every resource. So this version of the past which the Senator from South Carolina has recounted, I think, is deficient in many respects. I hope when he reviews the record he will realize that.

I will also tell you that I believe this is an important debate today, and it is, of course, focused on the Secretary of Defense but, more importantly, focused on our strategy in Iraq. The Democratic side of the aisle believes we need a strategy for success. We need to make certain that when we do leave Iraq, it is with our mission truly accomplished. And that means, of course, changing direction on our policies in Iraq.

As we pass this bill, which will add to the nearly $300 billion in our national security effort, we continue to make a great investment in Iraq--no greater investment than the human lives that have been lost by our brave American soldiers who have served there. Yet it is our responsibility, in fact I think it is our constitutional responsibility, to question the policies of the administration when we disagree with them.

Retired GEN Wesley Clark stated yesterday that our Nation made a strategic mistake in invading Iraq.

We went into that war on the basis of poor intelligence, with too few troops, and without the necessary equipment. Our troops paid a heavy price for those decisions.

[Page: S9002]

Today, we face a situation in Iraq which the Pentagon told us last week is dangerously close to civil war. We cannot continue along this same pattern. Our soldiers deserve better.

If we are to change policy in Iraq, we need new leadership at the Department of Defense. We need a fresh start. We need a new team. We need a new direction when it comes to our strategy in Iraq.

Our Armed Forces have shown extraordinary courage. They have done everything we have asked of them. With courage and with dedication they have adapted to conditions on the ground with enormous skill and ingenuity. But decisions by the leadership at the highest levels of the Government--at the White House and at the Department of Defense--have

magnified the challenges our troops face.

I listened as the Senator from South Carolina talked about nuclear weapons in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. I am sure he did not mean to state that we found those weapons of mass destruction because, despite the best efforts of our Government, we have found no evidence of the weapons of mass destruction we were told were the reason we had to invade this country. We have found no evidence of the nuclear weapons program which we were told threatened the United States with mushroom clouds.

So to suggest today, as some still do, that there really were weapons of mass destruction when we invaded Iraq, we have never found them, and it is an indication that the American people were misled, misled from the highest levels of our Government as to the true threat against the United States. That is, indeed, unfortunate. And it is unfortunate, as well, that the President, the Vice President, as well as the Secretary of Defense, and others, made statements that misled us into believing that there were threats in Iraq that clearly did not exist.

But when we talk of the record of the Secretary of Defense, even beyond the misleading statements which led to our war, the fact is that at a moment in time the Secretary of Defense said to the President: We are ready to go to war.

We know now we were not ready to go to war.

Do you recall on February 25, 2003, Army Chief of Staff GEN Eric Shinseki testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee? He stated that, in an invasion of Iraq, ``any postwar occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems.''

He was asked how many troops were needed. General Shinseki said:

Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers.

And he added:

Assistance from friends and allies would be helpful.

For his candor and his honesty, he was replaced. Instead of sending the necessary troops to make sure we lived up to the Powell doctrine with overwhelming force and responded to the possibilities that were ahead of us after Saddam Hussein was deposed, for his candor and honesty General Shinseki's command was replaced.

The administration was not about to stand still for someone in uniform telling them the stark, honest truth: that without enough soldiers, the ones we sent to war would be in danger.

So we invaded with too few troops to secure the peace. As a result of that decision, and the decision to disband the Iraqi Army, the initial insurgency took hold in Iraq. The miscalculation by the planners and the leaders made life more dangerous for our soldiers on the ground in Iraq.

Since then, sectarian violence has exploded, creating conditions that now approach civil war. And every one of us recalls the situation involving the equipment given our troops. I remember my first visit to Walter Reed Hospital, meeting a National Guardsman from Ohio who lost his right leg at the knee. He said:

I was in one of those humvees that just had canvas on the side. A bomb went off and I lost my leg. You have to do more to protect those soldiers.

He wanted to go back, even with his amputation, just to show his commitment to our Nation. The leadership under Secretary Rumsfeld didn't show the same commitment when it came to protecting our troops as they road in humvees. I recall a friend of mine whose son is a member of the military police with the U.S. Army. He told me he and his wife went out to buy the body armor that his son wasn't given when he went to Iraq. Have we reached that point, spending billions of dollars, as we have, when individual families have to take up collections at churches or reach into their savings accounts to provide the most basic equipment?

The fact is that that happened, and it happened under the watch of Secretary Rumsfeld. Today, we know the situation with our military. Brave men and women are still willing to serve, but we understand that readiness is a serious issue. Bonuses are being given for those who will join the military or stay in uniform. We understand that the standards have changed because of the difficulty meeting enlistment goals. But these are reality. We know that the National Guard across the United States has 34 percent of the equipment they need to do their job.

Let me remind everybody that the decision to invade was the decision of this administration and this Secretary of Defense. They picked the date, the time, and they established when readiness would be adequate. Sadly, they were wrong. The administration chose to invade Iraq but failed to plan for its aftermath. You have heard about the generals who spoke out, calling for a change in the leadership at the Department of Defense, calling for Secretary Rumsfeld to go. As Senator Reid said earlier, these generals were under his command. Many of them had important responsibilities and saw up close this Secretary in action.

I thought one of the most dramatic statements was made by retired LTG Gregory Newbold, a Marine Corps general. He said:

We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach. The troops in the Middle East have performed their duty. Now we need people in Washington who can construct a unified strategy worthy of them. It is time to send a signal to our Nation, our forces and the world that we are uncompromising on our security but are prepared to rethink how we achieve it.

General Newbold went on to say, in some of the most touching and dramatic words I have read:

The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. ..... They must be absolutely sure [speaking of our soldiers] that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice.

Here is what Lieutenant General Newbold of the Marine Corps said in closing:

My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with the casualness and a swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results.

He is not alone in this assessment, nor is he alone calling for a change in leadership at the Pentagon. For those who stand before us and say that any time we are critical of the policy of this administration we are somehow not standing behind the troops, I will tell you these are words spoken by troops, by soldiers and marines who have been there, paid the price for swearing to stand by our Nation.

Now we have a report from the Pentagon that the situation on the ground in Iraq is deteriorating--a grim portrait last week of Iraq--saying violence has reached its highest level in the last 2 years, with executions, kidnappings, bombings, and torture killings of more than 3,000 Iraqis a month. Ninety percent of the bodies coming into the Baghdad morgue are execution victims. Many were gruesomely tortured before being killed.

According to that assessment, the number of attacks in Iraq over the last 4 months is up 15 percent, and the number of civilian casualties in the last 4 months is up 51 percent. Over 137,000 people have been internally displaced in Iraq since last February, pushed out of their homes. We know it is because of rising sectarian strife and violence. The report from the Pentagon, for the first time, concedes that ``conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq.''

Today, we have about 140,000 troops in Iraq, and 2,657

brave Americans have given their lives in that conflict as of September 5. We owe it to those who gave their lives and who still serve, and their families who stay behind and pray for their safety, to make sure they have the right leadership.

[Page: S9003]

This is not a question of will. This is a question of leadership and mission. Our soldiers deserve better. They deserve leadership from the Pentagon that will provide them with the equipment they need, the direction they need to make certain that they truly come home with their mission accomplished. We need to change the leadership in the Department of Defense, and we need to change the leadership of this Secretary.

The Pentagon's report makes it clear:

Since the last report, the core conflict in Iraq has changed into a struggle between Sunni and Shia extremists. .....

Is that something we bargained for when we voted for this? Did we bargain for the fact that our soldiers are standing in the crossfire of a civil war today? How many times have we been promised that the Iraqis will come to the rescue? We are spending billions to train them and replace our troops. It is not a credible statement until American soldiers start coming home.

Many of us believe that the Iraqis will not stand and fight and defend their own country as long as they believe the American soldiers will do the job. The best military in the world is there to protect them at no expense. We have to let the Iraqis know that this is their responsibility.

I will close by saying this debate makes one thing very clear to the people of America. Neither this Republican President nor this Republican Congress will challenge, nor will they change a policy that has cost us too many brave American lives, 2,657 sons and daughters, husbands and wives, cousins and friends--the people we love who have given their lives so far. Sadly, last week, 18 were added to that list. More were added yesterday.

We have now spent over $300 billion. We are in the fourth year of this fight. There is no end in sight. Suggesting a change in leadership so we can start to move forward in a new direction toward a real victory is long overdue.

Change may not take place in this Republican-controlled Senate. We have been told they will object to even taking a vote on this issue about whether we are confident in the leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld. But even if change will not take place in this Chamber, the American people will still have the last word on November 7.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I made an earlier unanimous consent request that we were going to alternate. I could read the list that we currently have subject, of course, to the arrival of Senators. But it is our hope that we would have Senator Kerry followed by Senator Kennedy, and then Senators Jack Reed and Hillary Clinton, followed by Senators Harkin, Boxer, Dayton, Carper, Dorgan, Murray, Mikulski, and Lautenberg.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT