Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. There are moments when Members of the Senate have to reflect on the responsibility we are given--extraordinary moments, unlike other votes that we cast--because at least part of this important spending bill relates to U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. Reality tells us people will die if there is conflict. Of course we hope it will be the enemy, but we know better. Even some of our people are at risk to die in any military undertaking. So every Member of the Senate should take this vote seriously, and I am sure they do.

I remember October 11, 2002, as if it were yesterday. I was here in the Senate, weeks away from an election, and we were asked to vote on the invasion of Iraq. The buildup to this vote was overwhelming. The President and others--the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the head of the CIA, and a long list--had made the case to the American people that there were weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein; and that if we didn't move in, strike, and stop him, they could threaten our allies, friends, and even the United States. We debated that and voted on it. It was late at night on October 11, 2002.

I remember that vote as if it were yesterday. At the end of that vote, 23 of us had voted no against the invasion of Iraq--one Republican, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, and 22 Democrats.

I went down to the well of this Chamber and there were two of my colleagues there, Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and Kent Conrad of North Dakota. I said to Paul Wellstone, who was up for reelection: I hope this doesn't cost you your seat--because he had voted no as well.

He said: It is all right if it does. This is what I believe, and this is how I am going to vote. I thought to myself: He may not return to the Senate. Tragically, he did not. He was involved in a plane crash just days later that took his life and the life of his wife and a staffer. But it is an indication of the gravity and the importance of this job, of this Chamber, and of this vote.

What we are being asked to do by the President is much different than what we were asked to do in 2002, when it came to the invasion of Iraq. The President has identified a threat to the United States. It is called the Islamic State, ISIL. It is an emerging group that has broken out of extremist groups in the Middle East, and it is on a rampage. It is marching through Syria and Iraq in a way we have not seen extremist groups act. It is capturing territory which extremist groups seldom do, and in capturing territory it is doing several other things. It is taking all of the tangible assets of cities such as Mosul, raiding their banks, breaking into the vaults, taking their money, taking over oil fields and gas fields--producing a small economy and budget which is growing by the day. This is not the typical terrorist group which we have seen in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and, in the process, in their wake, they are killing people right and left.

The butchery, the savagery of this group is really unheard of in modern times. It hearkens back to the barbarism of centuries ago. To behead two innocent Americans--can we imagine to do it with a camera running? It is just unthinkable what those poor families are going through even today as they think about this. That is part of their tactics, to intimidate the United States. Now they have done it to a British captive, and they promise to do even more. They are serious. They want to take over Syria and Iraq. Should we care? Of course we should.

But what did we learn from the invasion of Iraq? What did we learn after spending 8 years there that would bring us back in any way? Well, here is what we learned.

We learned that putting American military on the ground--the best military in the world--is no guarantee of victory. We lost 4,476 American lives in Iraq; over 30,000 came home with serious injuries that still need to be cared for to this day. We added $1 trillion to our national debt because under the previous administration wars weren't paid for, they were just added to the debt. And we have chaos in Iraq today.

Here is what the President is suggesting, and I think he is on the right track. We are not going to put in ground forces and combat troops. Instead, we will rely on the Iraqi Army to fight for the future of Iraq. We will help them, we will support them with logistics, equipment, direction, air support, but they have to be on the frontline risking their lives.

Secondly, he said we are going to put together a coalition.

The United States ought to think twice in this century about how many more Muslim countries we want to be involved in invading, and what the President has said that is my starting point; we will be part of a coalition that includes Arab and Muslim countries that believe, as we do, that ISIL is reprehensible and needs to be fought back.

I think the President's premise is sound. Not putting in combat troops is essential. Putting the burden on the Iraqis is absolutely critical, and I support him in those three efforts.

Then comes our vote today. It is not about Iraq; it is about Syria. What are we going to do in Syria? Syria has just been a free-for-all of violence, terrorism, deceit, and carnage for 3 years. Three million people have been displaced, 300,000 have been killed, and the fighting is so intense it is hard to tell who is on what side. Oh, we know Assad the leader has his army, and he is fighting off all the resistance to his government. We have no use for him, but he has some military power, obviously. He is still there. We also know that, in addition to ISIL, this terrorist group, there are up to 1,500 other militia groups. They have neighborhood militias protecting families and neighborhoods.

What the President has called for is a challenge: Find moderate opposition forces who do not align with Assad that are willing to fight ISIL and stop them in Syria. That is our vote. That is what the title 10 authorization does. It allows the United States to train and equip moderate opposition in Syria to fight these forces. We have some pretty strict language in here--I just took a look at it again and I have read through it a couple of times now--about reporting back to committees: Let us know your progress.

So this is where we are. This continuing resolution will be the law of the land, if it passes, until December 11, if I am not mistaken--the Appropriations Committee chair, Senator Mikulski, nods in the affirmative--until December 11.

So what we are doing now is setting up a course of action in Syria to work with the moderate opposition to train and equip them to fight off this ISIL group. We will be back. After the elections we will back. We will be able to measure the progress that has been made.

Then, come December 11, we have a much larger question to ask: What do we do from that point forward? Will we continue the strategy? Assuming we do, I believe--and many of my colleagues share the belief--we have a special responsibility given to us by the Constitution that says the American people declare war--not the President--and the American people do it through Members of Congress.

So we will come back and start the debate on what is known as an authorization for the use of military force--a modern version, a new version applying to this situation--and it will be through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee.

It is a debate that is long overdue. The President has invited us to do this. He believes he has the authority to go forward, but he said to Congress: If you want to be part of this, I welcome your participation.

Well, let's accept that challenge. So I will be supporting this continuing resolution. I will be supporting the title 10 authorization until December 11 to start seeing if we can form a force of moderate opposition groups in Syria to fight back on ISIL while we are working in Iraq to do the same. I think we have no choice but to do this--but to do it thoughtfully, without combat troops, with clear accountability and reports, and behind a coalition that has many Arab and Muslim nations that agree with us that ISIL is reprehensible.

Secretary of State John Kerry told us yesterday they have had meetings with the Russians, with the Chinese, and with the Iranians who have spoken up and said: We have to stop this group. They are going to destroy the Middle East. I think we have to take that seriously, and that is why I will be supporting this effort.

I know some of my colleagues disagree. I remember my thinking on that October night in 2002, that we should hold back and not get involved in Iraq, and I think I was right. I think history proved me right. That is why I have looked at this with a critical eye and with the understanding that this is not the end of the debate, this is not the end of the conversation. This is our step forward in ridding the world of this savage group that is killing so many innocent people, and we are going to do it as part of a coalition and alliance. That to me is the thoughtful and sensible way to address this.

We will have time to review our decision on a regular basis, as we should, to hold this President and any President accountable as we move forward. But this is something we absolutely must do as a Nation at this moment in time.

So I will be supporting this resolution, H.J. Res. 124, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

How much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. I also wish to say a word about Secretary Kerry, who has been working night and day since he left the Senate, as Secretary of State, and he testified yesterday. I know what he is trying to achieve. I salute him for that and of course the President as well.

Let me hope that one thing emerges from this. I remember serving in the House of Representatives, and we voted on the invasion of Kuwait under President George H.W. Bush. I had my questions about that. I voted no. The House voted yes to go forward with that foreign policy. The Speaker of the House, Tom Foley, if I am not mistaken, followed that vote, where we decided to go forward with the invasion of Kuwait, with a resolution saying that now the foreign policy had been decided by this country, we should stand together in a bipartisan fashion to support our men and women in uniform who were engaged in this conflict. That happened, and we all voted for it--even those of us who disagreed with the policy.

Even after this vote on Iraq where 23 of us had voted no, virtually all of us voted for the resources that our military needed. My thinking was: DURBIN, even if you disagree with the Iraqi invasion, what if that were your son over there? Wouldn't you want him to have everything he needs to come home safe? You bet.

What I hope will emerge, even after the heat of debate over this whole question of ISIL and how we deal with them, is this coming together--a bipartisan coming together behind our troops, behind our pilots, behind those advisers on the ground. Let us show them solidarity behind their effort if we decide to vote to go forward. There is too much partisan division, and it certainly ought to stop at the water's edge when it involves support for our men and women in uniform.

So at the end of this vote today, I hope we will see emerging a bipartisan consensus that we are going to work as a Nation to accomplish our goal to end this terrorism as best we can or slow it down in this part of the world and stand behind the men and women of our Nation who are willing to risk their lives in service to that cause.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source