Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act for Defense, The Global War on Terrror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005 -- Conference Report --Continued

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF ACT, 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her statement with which I agree. This is called an emergency supplemental. It is the nature of an emergency supplemental that it funds things that were unanticipated, such as natural disasters and military operations that we didn't anticipate. That is the nature of an emergency supplemental. Yet, when you look at it, at the real nature of this bill, there is no emergency or unexpected element here. This is funding the third year of a war in Iraq.

Did we expect to be gone from Iraq by this time? I don't think anybody suggested that. Yet the administration continues to bring the funding of our troops into the Congress on an emergency basis. Why would they do that? Why would they not put it through the ordinary appropriations process? There are two good reasons. First, it isn't added to the national debt each year. The President can say, when he presents his budget, that we are close to being in balance. In fact, we are not even close. We have the largest deficit in the history of the United States of America under the Bush administration. You have to add this to it. This is a real cost to the American taxpayers, to our Government. But by putting it in separately, it is a little sleight of hand, so that you don't add the $81 billion to the actual cost.

Secondly, if this went through the ordinary appropriations process, there would be hearings and questions would be raised--questions I would like to raise after I visited Iraq with the Senator from Washington. Why, in a third year of the war, are we still trying to find armor plating for humvees and trucks to protect our troops? Why, in the third year of the war, after giving every dollar the administration asked for, don't we have protective body armor for all of our soldiers? Why, in the third year of the war, don't we have the most modern helmets and firearms that our troops need to be safe, to perform their mission and come home?

Hard questions. I might also like to ask a few questions about some of the major contractors who are being paid for this war. Millions, if not billions, of dollars are going to companies on no-bid contracts. You know the names. Halliburton leads the list. I will tell you this. It is considered entirely inappropriate in Congress to raise the question about whether Halliburton has been paid too much or improperly. You just don't ask those questions around here. Those are things which Congress has no business asking about, according to the Republican majority. Those are questions that would be asked if this appropriations bid went through the regular process.

Instead, it comes to us as an emergency. We don't have time to talk about it or to ask any questions. They say: Come on now, the troops are at risk. Let's pass the bill and get it over with.

That is what we face every year. The majority knows that even those of us who voted against the use of force resolution for the invasion of Iraq have said we are going to vote for the money for the troops. If it were my son or daughter, my brother, or someone in my family whose life is at risk in Iraq, whether I agree with the way we went into the war is irrelevant. I am going to give those soldiers, marines, and our other Armed Forces every penny they need to perform their mission and come home safely. We can debate the policy and whether we are going to make the mistake we made in Vietnam, where our policy debate turned into a debate at the expense of our troops.

And so the administration and the Republican majority take advantage of it. They pushed this bill through on a take-it-or-leave-it emergency basis, and they say do not ask any hard questions. We do not want to talk about armor for humvees. We do not want to talk about Halliburton. Take it or leave it.

That is sad. Yet in their hurry to bring this bill to the floor, they load it up with things that are not related to the war in Iraq. We heard what the Senator from Washington said. There is a major change in the law in this bill about the issuance of driver's licenses in the United States of America. Why in the world is that in this bill, the emergency bill for the troops? I think she has made it clear.

Let me give a little background. If we were fair, we would not call this the emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30; we would call this the Larry Lindsey memorial bill. Why? Because Larry Lindsey happened to be the Budget Director under President Bush who made a big mistake. When we invaded Iraq, Mr. Lindsey predicted the war would cost somewhere between $100 billion and $200 billion. Mr. Lindsey was dismissed from his job as a result of suggesting the war might cost that much money.

And remember Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz? They asked him: How will we pay for the war in Iraq? He assured us in open testimony that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction, and at one remarkable Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld even predicted Iraqi tourism dollars would help finance the new Iraq.

Fast forward to today. With the Senate's passage this week of this bill, American taxpayers would have committed nearly $300 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are still waiting for that tourism money, we are still waiting for that Iraqi oil money, and Mr. Lindsey is now in civilian life for suggesting the war might cost a third of what it has actually cost.

That is the reality, and there is no end in sight. We are not going to delay passage of this bill; there is too much at stake. Mr. President, 150,000 American soldiers rely on our prompt action on this bill, and it will pass here today, as it should.

Let me speak about some elements of this bill I think should be part of the record. Democrats are going to support this bill not only because it helps the troops, because it does fund some true emergencies. There is $900 million in emergency relief for the victims of the South Asia tsunami, one of the greatest natural disasters in modern memory, and $400 million for humanitarian assistance in the Darfur region of Sudan. If this genocide in Darfur is not an emergency, what is? Unfortunately, what is missing from Darfur accountability passed by the Senate is seeking justice and security for the victims of this campaign of murder, rape, and destruction.

I am also going to vote for this bill because it does include a provision which I added on the Senate floor reaffirming America's commitment to not engage in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of prisoners of war or other detainees. I believe reaffirming this longstanding American commitment to this fundamental standard of international law and decency will help restore our credibility and our moral standing in a world which questions what happened at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. As many military experts have told us, it will also reduce the chance that American military personnel, when captured, would be tortured.

The bill contains $5.7 billion to train Iraqi troops. Six or 7 weeks ago when I was in Baghdad, they showed us a handful, a dozen of these troops who were in an exercise. I am not a military expert. I do not know if they were real soldiers. I do not know if they were really trained, but thank goodness there is some effort underway to try to replace American soldiers with Iraqi soldiers.

It also contains crucial requirements that progress and training be monitored and measured, language Senator Kennedy, Senator Levin, Senator Byrd, and I worked hard to preserve. It is not enough for high-ranking administration officials to assure us that 130,000 Iraqi troops have been trained when only a small fraction are actually ready to fight, or when tens of thousands of U.S.-trained Iraqi police officers have gone AWOL. We cannot find them. Knowing how many Iraqi troops are ready to defend the nation will give us a better idea of when we can bring our troops home, and the sooner the better.

I thank the chairman and ranking member for working with us on the troop training and torture amendments, some of the reasons I will vote for this bill.

The final conference report does include other issues that trouble me when it comes to our troops. I have been trying for almost 3 years to make certain that Federal Government employees who are members of the Guard and Reserve and who are activated to serve overseas do not find themselves facing extraordinary financial hardships. In the Pentagon, we go to businesses across America and say: If you want to be a patriotic business, if you want to show your love of America, show your love for the men in the Guard and Reserve, and the women as well, and if they are activated, help their families; cover them with health insurance, if you can; make up the difference in pay, if you can. And many of them have stepped forward and said: We are going to do it. In fact, almost 1,000 different corporations and units of government--State and local--have said we are going to stand behind those Guard and Reserve families. They are making enough of a sacrifice, they are putting their lives on the line, and we will stand behind the families who stay home so that soldier, worried about his life, does not have to
worry about the mortgage payment. We even have a Web site sponsored by our Federal Government saluting these great companies for standing behind our Guard and Reserve, as we should.

But let me let you in on a secret. There is one major employer in America that refuses to stand behind the Guard and Reserve. There is one major employer that employs 10 percent of the Guard and Reserve in America, 1 out of 10, that refuses to make up the difference in pay. Who could that employer be? It is the U.S. Government.

The Federal Government refuses to make up the difference in pay for these soldiers and marines in our country. How can we possibly explain that? We are praising companies and other governments that stand behind their people while we fail to do the same.

So on three different occasions, I offered an amendment on the floor, and it was adopted, which said we will stand behind the Guard and Reserve. We will make up the difference in pay, just as other companies do. Take a look at the companies that have done their patriotic duty. They are big names: Sears and Roebuck, out of my State of Illinois, IBM, General Motors, United Parcel Service, Ford, 24 State governments. But not the U.S. Federal Government. And, Mr. President, do you know what the problem is? Every time we pass it on the floor, so many Members race up here to vote for it, saying: Oh, we are all for the men and women in uniform; God bless them; give me a flag to wave; we are all with them. And then as soon as it gets in conference committee, they strip it. Year after year they take out this protection for Federal employees who are literally risking their lives today in the Guard and Reserve.

According to a recent survey made by the Defense Department, 51 percent of the Guard and Reserve members suffer a loss of income during long periods of active duty. Three-quarters of Guard and Reserve members surveyed cited income as one of the major reasons they were leaving the service. We know recruiting is down, retention is under pressure, and yet we refuse to make up the difference in pay for 1 of every 10 Guard and Reserve.

Today, 17,000 Federal employees are activated. To date, 36,000 have been activated and deactivated. So large numbers of men and women are affected by this amendment. And in the darkness of the conference, after the doors are closed, when the press has left, when nobody is watching, they take out this protection for Federal employees.

The lead sponsors of this provision are going to continue the effort with me. Senator BARBARA MIKULSKI of Maryland, and Senator GEORGE ALLEN, a Republican from Virginia, have joined me. Our measure is endorsed by the Reserve Officers Association, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, and the National Guard Association of the United States.

The Congressional Budget Office and the Budget Committee staff studied our plan. They agree it would not add $1 to the budget because the cost of the affected workers' salaries is already included in the budget.

The last time the conferees met, I asked the chairman, Senator Cochran, for his assurance that the Republicans would not do what they have done in the past and kill this amendment without giving us a chance for an up-or-down vote in front of God and the world. I was given that assurance, but sadly it did not happen.

The conference committee recessed and disappeared and, unfortunately, we never had a chance to have an open vote on whether we would stand behind these Guard and Reserve members. That is unfortunate. I had hoped the assurance by the chairman would mean we would get that vote. It did not happen.

It appears the White House overrode anyone's intent to bring this measure up for consideration. Josh Bolton, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, released a letter saying the White House opposed our reservist pay amendment because it would ``increase costs and have a negative impact on morale and unit cohesion.''

Think about that. The argument is that the soldiers under fire worrying from day to day whether they will be alive would compare pay stubs and have a general conversation about how much money are you getting from your employer, how much are you receiving, as if they would care. Those units go into battle together to protect their lives. I do not think they resented that one soldier in that unit had help because he happened to be an employee of Sears, another soldier because he happened to be an employee of one of the 23 State and local governments. They are not going to hold that against their fellow soldiers. That is going to undermine morale? They have to say: You are lucky; I happen to work for the Federal Government, and I get no help. I come here and risk my life, and this amendment is defeated in the darkness of a conference committee every single year.

That argument is just nonsense.

What message are we sending to conscientious employers? Unfortunately, the wrong message: Do as we say, not as we do. Listen to the Federal Government, listen to the Members of Congress with all their patriotic speeches, and then watch as we deep-six this provision year after year. It is an unfortunate message to some of the best men and women in America who risk their lives for our freedom.

We also wanted to push for more veterans health services. Senator Murray of Washington offered a $2 billion amendment, and she said if the war is an emergency, treatment of the veterans of the war should be an emergency. We know that is true. We know these veterans come home with real needs.

I had hearings across my State on posttraumatic stress disorder. I have been around this business for a long time. I have never, ever witnessed what I did then. We had men and women coming in who had served in Iraq and returned, young men and women who risked their lives wearing the uniform of America. They are home now, but the war is still on their mind. For many of them, it is a destructive memory, things they saw and things they did which they cannot get out of their minds. They come back and finally realize they need a helping hand. They are estranged from their families. Their spouses are saying: That is not the same soldier who I sent over there. What happened to him?

They find themselves despondent, angry, unable to cope with ordinary life, turning on members of their family in anger, and they need help. Sadly, too many of them need help they cannot find at the veterans hospitals. So if we promise these men and women when they serve our country that we will stand behind them, should not the Veterans' Administration, the hospitals and clinics, be ready to stand behind them, when they come home, for their injuries, for this posttraumatic stress disorder? Is it too much to ask that we have family therapists who will work with spouses and children who have seen a different father or a different mother come home? I believe it is only reasonable.

Senator Murray led the way. She asked for $2 billion to be put in as an emergency for veterans hospitals and clinics. It was turned down on the Senate floor.

I am glad that the death gratuity is increased. Twelve thousand dollars for your life in service of your country? I am glad we have raised that to $100,000 tax free for spouses and children of those who die in service. It also increases from $250,000 to $400,000 the life insurance benefits that are available. There is one catch. In the Senate, we voted to increase these benefits for the families of all Active-Duty service members, but behind the closed doors of this conference committee which met in private and in secret, the Republicans changed the rules. They decided on their own, without a vote, without a discussion, to restrict the new death benefits and the new life insurance benefits only to families of service members who die in a combat zone. That simple geographical distinction, ``in a combat zone,'' could disqualify about half of all families who have lost a loved one serving on active duty since the start of the war in Afghanistan. These families will not be eligible for the new benefits because the husbands and fathers, wives and mothers died outside of what is technically classified a combat zone. That is arbitrary, that is wrong, it is unfair. Whether a soldier dies in Iraq or training to go to Iraq, his sacrifice is equally great, the loss to his family equally devastating, and our Government owes an equal debt to his wife and children.

We have had testimony from those uniformed officials who appear before the Armed Services Committee and we ask them about this. Admiral John Nathman, Vice Chief of Naval Operations for the Navy, said: ``They can't make that distinction. I don't think we should, either,'' in terms of who is dying in a combat zone and who is not.

General T. Michael Moseley, Air Force Vice Chief, said:

I believe a death is a death, and I believe this should be treated that way. .....

Sadly, these people were not listened to and, unfortunately, this bill does not provide the protection which our soldiers truly need and deserve.

Senator DeWine and I, on a bipartisan basis, are lead sponsors of a bill to change that benefit and to make it fair. I certainly hope we can.

This bill also shortchanges our first front-line troops at home, the first responders. All across America, police, fire departments, and EMT squads are stretched thin. Many lack equipment. Many of them are not getting the HAZMAT and other specialized training they need. This bill does not contain one dollar, not one dime for first responders.

We have so few Border Patrol agents that vigilante groups such as the armed Minutemen have decided to take it upon themselves to patrol the borders of the United States. Yet this bill contains funds to hire only 500 new Border Patrol agents--not enough to do the job. New York City has 40,000 police officers. We have 10,000 border agents to secure the entire U.S.-Canadian and U.S.-Mexican borders, even with the new agents in this bill. The Republicans have argued we can afford to give a $35,000 tax break to a person who is earning over $1 million a year, but we cannot afford to hire 500 Border Patrol agents. Their priorities speak for themselves. Homeland security is not a job for armed volunteers; it is a job for professionals, and it ought to be a priority for this Congress.

Now let me speak for a moment to this REAL ID bill. This is a serious problem. If one is going to use a driver's license to prove their identity, wherever it may be--stopped by a highway patrolman or getting on an airplane--we need to make sure that driver's license is authentic.

We have 50 States with different standards for establishing one's identity. It is a serious problem, serious enough that when the 9/11 Commission report came out and we put together a bipartisan bill to respond to it, we included a provision in that bill that required the Federal Government and State governments to work together to come up with realistic, operable standards to prove identity for those who were applying for driver's licenses. We passed that bill overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. I was happy to be one of the cosponsors of that legislation and glad that the President signed it. Then Members of the House said: We do not agree with that cooperative process. We want to establish the standards on our own. We want to write them into law. And they created something called the REAL ID Act.

We did not have public hearings on the REAL ID Act. We did not invite in the Governors. We did not invite the State motor vehicle agencies. We did not have a conversation about an honest and realistic way to approach it. We were given this on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

The American people deserve to know what they can look forward to under this REAL ID Act, which is part of this emergency supplemental. Some say that it is just simply going to keep illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses. If that were the case, it would be a much different and much smaller bill.

Under this law, to get a driver's license in any State in America, one will need to present several pieces of identification. One has to provide a photo ID document or a non-photo document containing both the individual's full legal name and date of birth; and documentation of the individual's date of birth, Social Security number or the individual's non-eligibility for a Social Security number, and the name and address of the individual's principal residence.

Now there is a catch to this. One has to come into that driver's license station with that proof. What is it going to be? Well, they at least need a birth certificate, that is for sure, or something like it. They are also going to need some proof of their Social Security number. They are also going to need some proof of their residence. Now when they bring those documents in for their driver's license, the State employee whom they face, who is issuing the driver's license, cannot just accept them at face value; they have to take the documents and verify them with the agency that issued them. Until they verify them, a person cannot receive a driver's license.

Imagine if one is a naturalized American citizen who was born in the former Yugoslavia. You present your birth certificate to the clerk at the Department of Motor Vehicles. There are two big problems.

How is that clerk in Springfield, IL, at secretary of state Jesse White's motor vehicle facility, going to verify the authenticity of documents issued by a government that no longer exists? Good question. I do not know the answer.

There is another problem. The REAL ID Act says that the State cannot accept any foreign document other than an official passport. So, even if the clerk could verify the birth certificate, he cannot accept it.

Imagine you are the person behind the counter.

What are you going to do? With whom do you check? Whom do you call? And what do you do about the people standing in line waiting for their turn to put more documents on the desk?

If you think a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles is a bad experience today, wait until the REAL ID takes effect. This is not necessarily going to make America any safer. It will make States poorer. The estimates are it will cost States about $500 million to $700 million, another unfunded mandate, and in return for this massive cost and inconvenience we will get, at best, marginal increases in security.

The States have 3 years to put this in place and, incidentally, if we find States that don't have it in place in 3 years, an interesting thing happens. No one's driver's license from a State that hasn't been certified to be in compliance can be used for Federal identification. And if it turns out the State of Illinois, at the end of 3 years, still does not have this together, what is going to happen? It means myself, as a resident from Illinois, presenting a driver's license at the airport, will be turned away. Illinois licenses are not accepted. That is what this bill says--without 1 minute of hearing in the Senate, without 1 minute of debate on the floor of the Senate.

This is an unworkable and unfunded mandate.

In a conference committee, I said to the chairman: I think we need a vote on this. I think members ought to be asked to stand up and explain why they are going to support this without any hearing, without any deliberation. I want to debate it, and I would like to have an official vote so we know where the Members of the Senate and the House stand on this proposal.

I believed that I had an assurance that I would receive it, but I didn't. Ultimately, the committee recessed. No votes were taken. It comes to us now as part of this funding for the troops on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That is not a good way to legislate.

Let me also say I think this REAL ID is going to create hardships that are totally unnecessary. We can ascertain the identity, and we should, of the people applying for driver's licenses. But the way this was written is sadly not going to achieve that in the most efficient way. The REAL ID Act is another provision on which I wanted a vote, wanted a discussion, and wanted an open debate. Unfortunately, it did not occur.

Many Democrats, despite this provision, will still support this bill because we have said from the start we are going to stand behind our troops. I think the administration, the Republican leadership in Congress, is testing us. How many things can they load into this bill to force us to vote for something we are troubled with, and that is what it is all about. We all know this is not the way to pay for a war and it is not the way for Congress to operate. The late Larry Lindsey--I say ``late'' because he is no longer in public service--was fired for saying the war might cost $200 billion. Now we are up to $300 billion and counting. Sadly, too many of the important decisions on funding this war are still being made by one party behind closed doors.

We will pass this bill, Democrats will support it, but this has to be the end of it. We need to fix this broken process. The American people deserve better.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/