Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (Senate - October 03, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this amendment on this Defense appropriations bill goes to the most important single foreign policy issue facing America: If this is a bill about spending for the military, this may be the most important single amendment we could consider.
Senator Feingold and Senator Harry Reid have brought this amendment to the floor. It has been discussed before. It is an amendment which goes to the very fundamental question: When will we start bringing American troops home from Iraq?
The President, of course, and his administration have been reluctant to even suggest that possibility will come. I think the President went so far as to say that of the 160,000 troops or more in Iraq, perhaps 5,000 or so will be home by Christmas.
At that rate, of course, this President will leave office with almost the same number as we have today, risking their lives in the heat of combat in Iraq. Many of us remember the beginning of this war and how the American people were misled into this war. The American people were told that weapons of mass destruction threatened the United States, threatened our allies such as Israel, threatened the stability in the world.
We were given chapter and verse and detailed descriptions of biological weapons and chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. We were told Saddam Hussein had arsenals of these weapons. He had reached a point where he had so little credibility we would not even send in international observers, we knew it, they were there, and it was time to take him out.
Then obviously we were told about his reign as the leader in Iraq, nothing short of barbaric, gassing his own people, killing innocent people, ruling with an iron fist. All true. There was always the suspicion and the suggestion that somehow or another Saddam Hussein of Iraq had something to do with 9/11, that terrible tragedy we faced in the United States.
What happened? After the invasion, our great military, in a matter of weeks, took control of the country, searched it far and wide to find weapons of mass destruction and found nothing. To this day, the fifth year of this war, no evidence whatsoever of any of those weapons, one of the real main reasons we were told we had to go to war.
Saddam Hussein eventually was arrested, executed by his own people, still not a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with 9/11. The American people were misled into this war. There we sit as a Nation, not only with our reputation in the world at stake and on the line every single day, not only at the expense of allies who stood with us in fighting against the terrorism of 9/11, but more importantly, at the expense of 160,000 American lives of our men and women in uniform who are there at this very moment risking their lives for this President's failed foreign policy.
They are loyal and courageous people. I think we all understand the great debt we will always owe them and their families for what they have done. But what Senator Feingold has said is it is time now for this Senate to stand up and say, unequivocally: These troops need to start coming home in a responsible way. Not all at once. That would be dangerous and foolhardy. Senator Feingold does not suggest that.
What he suggests is that by June 30 of next year we will be in a position to redeploy our troops, keeping troops in the field in Iraq for specific reasons: to fight al-Qaida and other affiliated international terrorist organizations, provide security for Americans and our American Government, to provide training for Iraqi security forces, training equipment and other materials to the members of the U.S. Armed Forces--a much different mission. I will tell you, if you take an honest look at our military today, we have pushed these fine men and women and their families to the absolute limit. It is time for us to start bringing them home.
Three thousand eight hundred and five of our best and bravest have died; 30,000 seriously injured; 10,000 with amputations, traumatic brain injuries, and terribly burns. That will be a burden for a lifetime. That is the reality of this war. That is the reality of this amendment. This is not another idle debate, this debate goes to these men and women and their families and our Nation, a Nation misled into a war, a Nation which will spend three-quarters of a trillion dollars on this war, if the President has his way, a Nation which understands the invasion was brought about by misrepresentations, misrepresentation of reality on the ground.
We owe it to our soldiers, we owe it to our Nation, and we owe it to future generations to start bringing an end to this war. It is time once again for the Iraqis to accept the responsibility for their own future, to put together a government that can govern, a defense force that can defend, and a nation that wants to be a nation.
If they cannot do that, we cannot send enough soldiers to make that happen. It has to be led by the Iraqi people, and they will never accept that responsibility as long as they can lean on the strength, the military strength of the United States.
I hope my colleagues, many of whom have dismissed this kind of amendment and said: We cannot get into this conversation until maybe next spring, we will reflect on the reality by next spring, hundreds more American soldiers will die by next spring, thousands of American soldiers will be seriously injured by next spring, billions of dollars will be spent on this war. It should be spent in America.
A strong America begins at home. This President, with his war budget, has taken away the vital services, education, health care for our children, medical research. Time and again, we find we cannot do the basics for America because this President is hellbent to stay in this war until January 20, 2009, when he walks out the door on his way back to Crawford, TX. That is unacceptable. I thank Senator Feingold and Senator Reid for giving us this choice today, a choice to change the course once and for all, to change the policy and move America in the right direction in Iraq.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we have all seen recent news reports about security contractors in Iraq, specifically stories about Blackwater, a private company, which is under contract with the Department of Defense and the Department of State, perhaps other agencies, to provide security guards for American personnel and others who are in combat zones. There have been a lot of questions raised about questionable conduct and lack of oversight and a lot of questions about accountability. We need answers.
Last week, Secretary Gates of the Department of Defense, a man whom I respect, testified before the Appropriations Committee about the needs of the Department of Defense. I asked him a series of basic questions about these security contractors: How many contractor personnel are on the ground? Who is there? How long have they been there? What oversight is in place? Who is in charge? I wanted to know who has oversight of these contractors and how the people are authorized to use deadly force, how they are held accountable for their actions. The Secretary's response was he didn't know.
The amendment I filed and hope to offer sets aside funding for the inspector general of the Department of Defense to find some answers. The amendment asks for a report that documents how much we are spending on private security contractors and how many people work for them.
The report also details the Department of Defense oversight role and the scope of authority of military commanders over private security contractors.
Finally, we need to know the basics. What laws govern the conduct of these contractors? What rules of engagement govern their activities? How is it possible we are in the fifth year of this war and still don't have these questions answered? Six years into the war in Afghanistan, and we still don't know for certain what the standards are.
The incident a few weeks ago in which Blackwater employees were involved in the deaths of eight Iraqi civilians raised a lot of questions. In response, let me recount what we have learned.
Since 2005, according to Government investigations, Blackwater has been involved in at least 195 ``escalation of force'' incidents; that is, situations in which Blackwater employees fired shots. That is an average of 1.4 shooting incidents per week.
In over 80 percent of these incidents since 2005, Blackwater's own reports document either casualties or property damage.
We have learned in one case the Iraqi casualty was shot in the head. In another, a Blackwater employee tried to cover up a shooting that killed an innocent bystander.
Perhaps the most disturbing incident that has come to light is the point-blank shooting of a security guard by a Blackwater employee in an off-duty confrontation. The Blackwater employee is reported to have been intoxicated and was fumbling with his weapon after the shooting.
Here is how the New York Times described the company's response:
The acting ambassador at the United States Embassy in Baghdad suggested that Blackwater apologize for the shooting and pay the dead Iraqi man's family $250,000, lest the Iraqi government bar Blackwater from working there, the report said. Blackwater eventually paid the family $15,000, according to the report, after an embassy diplomatic security official complained that the ``crazy sums'' proposed by the ambassador could encourage Iraqis to try to ``get killed by our guys to financially guarantee their family's future.''
So who has oversight of these security contractors? Whom do they answer to in Iraq and Afghanistan? What is their relationship to the military?
The old Coalition Provisional Authority under Mr. Bremer, who received a Gold Medal from President Bush, exempted security contractors from Iraqi law, and whether they are liable under U.S. law is murky at best.
If Blackwater employees are accountable under U.S. law, why hasn't there been one investigation or prosecution? Not a single Blackwater employee has been prosecuted. In fact, in the case of the drunken employee who killed the bodyguard of the Vice President, he was quickly spirited out of the country, apparently with our Government's blessing, to protect him from the Iraqis.
Stories such as these do not make the United States look good in the eyes of the Iraqis, in the eyes of the world, and, frankly, in the eyes of most fairminded American citizens. The number of shootings, the amount of Iraqis killed and wounded, the amount of property damage done--all of it suggests there needs to be a legitimate investigation.
I am not going to castigate every private security contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have met some of them. Many of them are brave, dedicated, professional individuals who risk their lives to protect those whom they are charged to protect. Many are honest and dedicated. But the purpose of the amendment is to demand accountability. Private security contractors have to play by the rules--somebody's rules. If they don't, we as a government have to act.
These private security contractors are part of America's face in Iraq. This is a struggle to win the hearts and minds of those people and to create a peaceful society. Every time there is a reckless or illegitimate shooting of an Iraqi civilian, we take one step back from achieving that important goal.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DURBIN], for himself and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 3129.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make available from Military Personnel $3,000,000 for a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers)
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. (a) Amount for Troops to Nurse Teachers Program From Military Personnel, Army.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by title I under the heading ``Military Personnel, Army'', up to $1,000,000 may be available for a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers.
(b) Amount for Troops to Nurse Teachers Program From Military Personnel, Navy.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by title I under the heading ``Military Personnel, Navy'', up to $1,000,000 may be available for a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers.
(c) Amount for Troops to Nurse Teachers Program From Military Personnel, Air Force.--Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by title I under the heading ``Military Personnel, Air Force'', up to $1,000,000 may be available for a pilot program on troops to nurse teachers.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are engaged in one of the longest conflicts in American history, and the need for qualified nurses in military medical facilities is increasing.
Unfortunately, the military faces the same difficulty recruiting and retaining nurses that civilian medical facilities are facing.
Neither the Army nor the Air Force has met nurse recruitment goals since the 1990s. In 2004, the Navy Nurse Corps fell 32 percent below its recruitment target, while the Air Force missed its nurse recruitment target by 30 percent.
The Army, Navy and Air Force each have a 10 percent shortage of nurses, with shortages reaching nearly 40 percent in some critical specialties.
Civilian hospitals face similar challenges. According to the American College of Healthcare Executives, 72 percent of hospitals experienced a nursing shortage in 2004.
In 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, HHS, found that this country was 110,000 nurses short of the number necessary to adequately provide quality health care for both the civilian and military sector. By 2005, the shortage had doubled to 219,000. By 2020, we will be more than 1 million nurses short of what we need for quality health care--a grave problem for military health care as well as the nation at large.
One of the major factors contributing to the nursing shortage is the shortage of teachers at schools of nursing. According to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, last year nursing schools across the nation denied admission to over 40,000 qualified applicants primarily because there were not enough faculty members to teach the students. Just in Illinois, 2,000 qualified student applicants were turned away from schools of nursing because there were not enough teachers.
The American Association of Colleges of Nursing surveyed more than 400 schools of nursing last year.
Mr. President, 71 percent of the schools reported vacancies on their faculty. An additional 15 percent said they were fully staffed, but still needed more faculty to handle the number of students who want to be trained.
The military recruits nurses from the same source as doctors and hospitals: civilian nursing schools. Unless we address the lack of faculty, the shortage of nurses will only worsen.
My amendment to the Defense appropriations bill provides $3 million to begin a Troops to Nurse Teachers program that will help develop nurse faculty to address this national shortage.
My proposal is based on a successful Department of Defense program called ``Troops to Teachers,'' which helps address the shortages of math, science and special education teachers in high-poverty schools, and helps military personnel transition to second careers in teaching.
Today, Troops to Teachers is operating in 30 States and has supplied more than 8,000 new educators since the program's inception in 1995.
The Troops to Nurse Teachers Program seeks to address the nursing shortage in the different branches of the military while tapping into the existing knowledge and expertise of military nurses.
The goals of the Troops to Nurse Teachers program are twofold. First, the program will increase the number of nurse faculty members so nursing schools can expand enrollment and ease the ongoing shortage. both in the civilian and military sectors. Second, the Troops to Nurse Teachers program will help military personnel make successful transitions to second careers in teaching, similar to Troops to Teachers.
The program offers incentives to nurses transitioning from the military to become full-time nurse faculty members, while providing the military a new recruitment tool and advertising agent.
For service members who already hold a master's or Ph.D. in nursing or a related field, the military will provide career placement ass1stance, transitional stipends, and educational training from accredited schools of nursing to expedite their transition.
Officers who have been involved in nursing during their military service are eligible for scholarships to become nurse educators. In exchange, recipients of scholarships agree to teach at a school of nursing for 3 years.
Active military nurses can complete a 2-year tour of duty at a civilian using school to train the next generation of nurses. In exchange, the nurse officer can agree to serve longer in the military or the College of Nursing can offer scholarships to nursing students who commit to enlisting in the military.
Retired nurse officers can accept appointments as full-time faculty at accredited school of nursing, without giving up their full retired pay.
This amendment is supported by 20 nursing organizations, including: American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American Organization of Nurse Executives, American Nurses Association, National League for Nursing, American College of Nurse Practitioners, and the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense, both Personnel and Recruitment and Health Affairs, support the program, as do the Nurse Corps of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
With the aging of the baby boom generation and the long-term needs of our growing number of wounded veterans, the military and civilian health care systems will need qualified nurses more than ever.
The Troops to Nurse Teacher program will help to alleviate the shortage of nurse faculty and ultimately help make more nurses available for both civilian and military medical facilities.
Source