National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008--Continued

Floor Speech

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--Continued -- (Senate - July 10, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a question?

Mr. WEBB. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senator from Virginia first for offering this amendment. For those who are new to this debate, it is the first amendment on the Defense authorization bill, and it is about our troops' readiness to go to battle. There is no better author of this amendment than the Senator from Virginia, as one of only two combat veterans who is here, proud combat veterans, serving in the Senate.

I would like to ask the Senator, if I understand his amendment correctly, it says that if we are going to deploy American soldiers into fields of battle, in Iraq and Afghanistan or NATO missions, that they not be deployed any longer than they are given an equal amount of time for rest or dwell time, as they call it, for training and preparation for returning to battle. So if a soldier is being sent to Iraq for 15 months, then he or she should have at least 15 months back home at the end of that period--or reassigned to a peaceful setting--before they can be deployed again, for Active-Duty soldiers. Is that the gist or substance when it comes to active duty?

Mr. WEBB. First, I would say to the Senator from Illinois just for factual clarification that Senator Hagel and I are the only two ground-combat veterans from Vietnam in the Senate, but I certainly do not want to in any way reduce my respect for the distinguished Senator from Hawaii who won the Congressional Medal of Honor during World War II.

The question the Senator poses is correct. What this basically says is that if you have been gone for a year, you deserve to have a minimum of a year back. And a lot of people misunderstand what dwell time is. Dwell time is not downtime. There is a workup cycle for these units before they go back, which is considerable. So even if we are giving them a 1-to-1 ratio here, this is not equal time down as compared to an equal time deployed. That is why the traditional goal is 2 for 1.

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask, if the Senator from Virginia will yield further, it is my understanding when it comes to Guard and Reserve that he also has some protection for the amount of time they will have after they have served. I have been told there is an implicit understanding, for example, with Guard members that they would serve 1 year, for example, and have 5 years before redeployment. In fact, that has not been the case in my home State of Illinois, where over 80 percent of the Illinois Guard units have been deployed into combat during the course of this war, and many have been deployed repeatedly. So, obviously, the promise that was supposed to be kept hasn't been kept, and I ask the Senator from Virginia, how do you protect Guard and Reserve when it comes to redeployment in terms of the time they have?

Mr. WEBB. I would say first to the Senator that I had the privilege of being the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs for 3 years, where we had oversight of the National Guard and Reserve programs during a very critical time when we were transitioning into what we called the total force concept, and the President's use of the Guard and Reserve is certainly something we were not contemplating in the 1980s.

But this amendment sets a floor for the Guard and Reserve of a 3-to-1 ratio with a goal--a written goal--in the amendment of a 5-to-1 ratio, which is the traditional standard.

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Virginia has not covered it in his floor remarks earlier, what has been the impact of these frequent redeployments on Active Guard and Reserve with regard to retention and recruitment? In other words, if my Guard unit in Illinois knows they are going to be deployed and redeployed within a year or two, it seems to me that for some citizen soldiers it would create a hardship which they couldn't impose on their families for a period of time.

Can the Senator from Virginia point to any specific information he has about retention and recruitment relating to this redeployment?

Mr. REID. Mr. President, may I ask my friend to yield? Senator McConnell and I need to transact some business.

I would ask that the record reflect that we stopped the Senator from Virginia but that he maintain the floor and that the record appear as his having not been interrupted. Will that be okay with the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. WEBB. By all means.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to first thank the Senator from Virginia for his leadership on this amendment, and I am troubled by what just occurred on the floor. What the Democratic majority leader offered was to allow the Webb amendment, an amendment from the Democratic side--which, incidentally, has bipartisan sponsorship with Senator Hagel of Nebraska--that it be an up-or-down vote, a majority vote, on whether we will give our troops an opportunity to rest before they are redeployed back into battle. I think the Senator from Virginia has made a compelling argument that it is in the best interest of our military--certainly our soldiers and their families--to give them this chance for rest and recuperation and retraining before they are redeployed.

The fact is, we know many of these soldiers are being deployed and redeployed repeatedly at great personal hardship. We have reports that come in that trouble us about family difficulties many of these soldiers are going through because of these long periods of separation and the fact they are overseas so often.

Secondly, we know many of the soldiers who return after the stress of battle need to sit down and talk to some people, go through some counseling to make sure they are dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder and other issues which in previous wars had never been mentioned and we know now to be very important.

So the Senator from Virginia is saying: For goodness' sakes, don't we owe it to our troops to give them a period of rest before we send them back into battle? So he wanted a vote on his amendment, a majority vote, up or down.

We said to the other side, the Republican side: Do you have an approach you would like to use on this same issue?

They said: Senator Graham of South Carolina has an amendment on the same issue; we would like that to be offered.

So the Democratic majority leader said: Fine, we will treat both amendments exactly the same way--have a limited debate, 4 hours, split up, and then we will vote on them, a majority vote, up or down.

But there was an objection, an objection because the Republican leader now says: For the amendments, even those dealing with the readiness of our troops, we need an extraordinary majority, we want 60 votes, even on an amendment about the readiness of soldiers where we have offered both sides the same opportunity.

What it tells us is that when it comes to the issue of the war in Iraq, I am afraid that the minority--the Republican leader--has made it clear that they are going to filibuster every amendment. They are going to do their best to slow down and stop this debate on the war in Iraq. Instead of coming to the issue in a straightforward and honest way, for an up-or-down vote, they prefer to drag this out, drag it out as long as they can, try to put off the inevitable. We can't put off the inevitable, and the inevitable is this: This is a costly, deadly war. As our debate winds on day after day and week after week, American soldiers are still in the line of fire.

Some of our best and bravest will be falling in battle as we stand and debate. That really is not acceptable.

We owe it to our men and women in uniform to do our duty, and our duty is fair deliberation, open debate, and then an up-or-down vote, and move to the next issue. But according to the Republican side of the aisle, that is not the way it will be. They want to filibuster this debate on the war in Iraq--everything they can do to slow it down. That is unfortunate, and I will tell you something. If they were paying attention to the people back in their home States, the people have lost their patience with Congress caught up in this kind of procedural slowdown. They want us to act, and act decisively; make a decision one way or the other; decide whether an amendment is good or bad, but don't drag it out in this kind of parliamentary maneuver over an amendment which on its face is easily understood, which I think is eminently reasonable, and where the other side, the Republican side, has ample opportunity to put their own idea up for a vote at the same time.

It could not be any more fair, and yet the Republican leader objects. I hope he will reconsider. Now we are going to move from this amendment, the Webb amendment, and the Graham amendment, to substantive important amendments on timetables about bringing American soldiers home--doing it in a reasonable way but to start redeploying our troops out of harm's way. It appears now the strategy on the other side of the aisle is, in every respect, to try to slow this down, delay the ultimate decision.

I think Senator Reid, the majority leader, has made it clear. We are going to stay here until our job is done. We are committed to making this national debate on Iraq a meaningful debate, and no use of any procedural tool or tactic is going to stop us from the ultimate decision this Senate has to make. It should be done in an open, honest, courteous, and civilized way. When we made that offer, I am afraid to say the Republican leader objected. I hope we can return to the substance of this debate.

I would like to say that Senator Webb's amendment is not about the politics of the Iraq war, and it is not about whether we should be there or not be there. It is not about a Republican or Democratic view of the war. It simply is about taking care of our troops. We are going to spend a lot of hours in debate over the next several weeks debating the war policy, but one thing we should not debate is the welfare and safety of our troops.

I believe I can safely say every Senator in this body would agree that no matter what else we do, our first duty is to ensure the welfare and safety of those who are fighting, sacrificing, and even dying in this struggle. This is exactly what the Webb amendment does. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have performed their duties gallantly over the past 4-plus years. They have not complained and returned time and time again into battle. We owe them and their families gratitude that no single Member of the Senate could properly express.

But as this war stretches on, it takes its toll. All of us have met with Guard units being deployed, other units that are returning. We know what they have been through, just vicariously, by talking with their families and hearing their stories. Many have returned for second, third, and fourth deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our soldiers spend 12 months of time in theater, and now they are going to be spending 15 months, by the latest decision of the Pentagon. Is it unreasonable to allow them to spend at least that much time at home before they again put themselves in harm's way? I don't think so. These short turnaround times affect our men and women in uniform professionally and personally. After 15 months in battle we ask them to turn around and be ready to leave again in less than a year. That is just not enough time. Under normal conditions, the preparations and training for deployment can take up to a year. After 15 months in the desert, there are going to be significant tasks our soldiers will have to accomplish to get themselves and their equipment back in fighting condition. After so long away from home base, many individual and unit qualifications and training standards have lapsed. It will take time to correct it, but how can they possibly accomplish these tasks if as soon as they get home they have to begin preparing for the next deployment?

Without a doubt we have the finest military in the world, capable of doing great things. But are we really being fair to them? Are we really preparing them for battle as we should, by squeezing so much into such a short period of time? Are we shortchanging valuable training that will help to keep them alive?

This effect is not limited to their professional performance because, certainly, with this kind of burden at work over such a short amount of time, you can be sure that 12 months at home is really not 12 months at home. Our soldiers don't complain and always put mission accomplishment above all else. So rather than spending time at home with the spouse and children, building the strong families necessary to sustain long separations and deployment, they will spend longer and longer hours at work training.

All we are asking with the Webb amendment is to remember the sacrifices of our soldiers and their families. Soldiers deploy. That is what they do. They know when they sign up. A soldier's family is strong. They persevere and adapt to ever-changing schedules. But the strain these families have been put under in the past few years and will have to face in the future is too much. We are seeing divorce rates skyrocket, and rates of alcohol abuse have been increasing in the military. Pressures of these long deployments and short stays at home are taking their toll, as they would in most every circumstance. It is not fair to ask them to continue to make this kind of sacrifice.

There are many out there who say our Army is near the breaking point. I can't answer whether it is or not. But I certainly can speak for families from Illinois and the families with whom I have spoken, and they are courageous without a doubt, but they are being pushed to the limit. We hear all the time about supporting our troops. What does it mean? Many people say the phrase but do not really know what it means. This amendment is exactly what it means. Our military personnel and their families have borne almost the entire burden of the struggle our Nation has undertaken since September 11, 2001. They have done it spectacularly.

One of the critiques I have heard that I think is fair is, after 9/11 our country was ready to move together. I can't recall a period of greater national unity. Had the President made an appeal for shared sacrifice to fight this war on terrorism, I am certain he would have received resounding support from both sides of the aisle all across the Nation.

But, sadly, that appeal was not made. He has asked for sacrifice from our military and their families, and they have certainly gone above and beyond the call of duty. For the rest of us, life is all but normal every single day. There is hardly any sacrifice because of this war on terror or war in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is it too much to ask in the Webb amendment to at least acknowledge the sacrifices already being made by our soldiers before we push them back into the danger of battle?

There will be an amendment offered by Senator Graham. I read the amendment. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Graham, but in all fairness there are two obvious omissions. First, there is no reference at all in his amendment to the National Guard. I think that is an important consideration, not just Active military and Reserve, but the sacrifice being made by our National Guard. Second, taken in its entirety, the Graham amendment is just a sense of the Senate. It is a little note that is being passed around. It has no impact of law, as the Webb amendment would. A sense of the Senate is not enough. We owe our fighting men and women so much more.

Our soldiers have not asked us to do this, but Senator Webb, Senator Hagel, and those who have been in battle, as Senator McCain has been, understand we need to stand up and speak for them even when duty keeps them quiet, when they do not come forward to ask for this helping hand.

I encourage my colleagues to support the Webb amendment. I hope the Republican leadership will reconsider its position and allow these amendments to be voted up or down and get on with this debate after a reasonable period so we can complete this important bill on the Senate floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. REID. I will be glad to answer a question of my distinguished friend from Illinois.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would say to the Senate majority leader that this afternoon, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations for Financial Services, we reported out of subcommittee a bill, and that bill, page by page, specifies every earmark from the White House, earmarks for Members of the Senate, and goes into detail as to each one and the specific name of the Senator or Senators requesting them, which I think complies with everything that has been asked for by those who were asking for earmark reform.

So I would say to the Senator from Nevada that if the Senator on the Republican side who has been objecting to our conference on this ethics bill would take some time to look at the appropriations bills, he would understand we have already accepted this reform. We already are making this change.

I would ask the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, right now, what is stopping us from going to conference to pass these changes in ethics laws, these historic changes in ethics laws, so that once and for all we can have the kind of reform and changes that are needed here in Washington?

Mr. REID. I say to my friend, it is this. It is the Republicans who are stopping us from going to conference on this bill. They may send one person out, and it could be a rotating person, but they are stopping us from going forward. The ploy of the day is they want to take the work we have done in this bill dealing with earmarking out of the bill and set it up as a Senate rule.

This is what conferences are all about. We want to do all these things I have enumerated in this legislation. We want disclosure of bundling, bans on gifts from lobbyists and corporations, no more corporate jets, major limits on privately paid travel, significantly improved disclosure of lobbying activities, disclosure of stealth coalitions, slow the revolving door of former Members of Congress, put an end to the pay-to-play K Street Project. That is what is being held up, and it is being held up by the Republicans.

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for a further question, today on this Defense authorization bill, while we are debating the war in Iraq and good treatment for our soldiers, the Republican leader comes to the floor and insists they cannot bring up for a vote the amendment that is pending by Senator Webb of Virginia even though you offered a Republican amendment to be voted on at the same time. The Republican leader has said: No, we want to delay this. We want to delay this until tomorrow and then perhaps another 2 days beyond and to filibuster it during that period of time.

It would seem there is a pattern emerging, a very clear pattern where it comes to the important business. Whether it is ethics reform or changing the policy in Iraq, the Republican position is to stop the process, slow down the process, throw in every obstacle they can find.

I ask the majority leader if this pattern has been evidenced in terms of, for example, filibusters, delaying tactics on the part of the Republicans?

Mr. REID. I say to my friend, everything we have done for the past 7 months has been in spite of the roadblocks, the obstruction tactics the Republicans have put up. We have done it in spite of that. We have to this point 43 different cloture motions--43. We have never done that before, 43.

I say to my friend, on a Defense authorization bill--the bill that takes care of our troops around the world, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the work we are doing with NATO forces, to get pay increases, get them the right equipment, the right medical care--this is being held up.

I would also, in a way of response, ask my friend, what has happened in the past dealing with Defense authorization bills? Has there ever been anything like this that you can imagine?

Mr. DURBIN. I say to the majority leader, for those who are trying to follow this debate and are not familiar with a cloture motion, what a cloture motion means is that those who are opposing a vote on an issue delay it as long as possible and then try to create a higher vote total that you need to bring this amendment to passage or defeat. So it is a delay tactic to slow down the Senate, slow down deliberation.

Today, when the Democratic majority leader offered to the Republicans that we would call up Senator Webb's amendment to make sure our troops are rested and ready before they go into battle and allow Senator Graham, a Republican Senator, to have his similar amendment up at the same time with the same vote, it was rejected. The Republicans rejected it. Then one of the Senators came to the floor and said that is the way it has always been around here. It has always been this way, this is not unusual. It takes 60 votes to agree to these amendments. Now we know what it is going to take.

We did a little research, I might say to the majority leader. We looked at the last two Defense authorization bills which were called up and considered in this Senate. Not a single amendment required a cloture vote, required this delay tactic, required the 60-vote margin, even those amendments specifically relating to the war in Iraq. What the Republican leadership is doing now has not happened in the last 2 years on this same bill. They have come up with a new slowdown, a new delay tactic, a new obstacle they have tossed in our path.

I think it is very clear. The Senator from Nevada will recall that the last time the Defense authorization bill was up, there were two very important amendments on the war on Iraq, one by Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and another by Senators LEVIN and REID. Both related to when the troops would come home. In each instance, cloture was not necessary, 60 votes were not required; the amendments were called on a simple majority vote.

So I say to the Senator from Nevada, it is very clear, the strategy the Republicans in the Senate are using. They are trying to avoid facing the tough issues America wants us to face. We were sent here to deal with cleaning up the mess in Washington, the culture of corruption. We were sent here to deal with the war in Iraq. Instead, day in and day out, week in and week out, every month for 43 different times now they have tossed an obstacle in front of us to stop the debate. The American people can see this, and today they can see it very graphically.

Source