Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (Senate - August 02, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, while I certainly appreciate the efforts last evening of Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye to add roughly $13 billion to this appropriations bill for the readiness of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, it is emergency spending, but it should come as no surprise that it is necessary.

What I find surprising is that apparently the requests by the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, and also the OMB were turned down until it became obvious--and publicly obvious--that the readiness condition of the Army and the Marine Corps is the worst it has been in several decades. The principle is the lack of repaired, rehabilitated, and in certain cases replaced equipment. We are in a difficult situation with threats across the globe, with an Army that is heavily committed and a Marine Corps that is heavily committed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are in a situation now in which our readiness is the worst it has been in three decades. This is a situation which requires not only the remedy of money, but it requires accountability.

How did the Department of Defense and this administration allow our military forces to become so degraded? In the judgment of many people, including former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, myself, and others, two-thirds of the Army's operating force, Active and Reserve is now reporting in as unready. There is not a single non-deployed Army brigade combat team in the United States that is ready to deploy. Our Army currently has no ready strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army's readiness been so degraded.

How did that happen? It is not a surprise. Months ago, in February, I came to this Chamber and proposed an amendment to the tax reconciliation bill which would provide a fund of $50 billion to provide for the reset recapitalization of Army and Marine equipment. I was offsetting that, as I think it is appropriate to do, with the upper income tax breaks that were being voted on in that bill. My measure didn't survive conference, but the tax cuts did. I believe that is an unfortunate paradigm of what is happening here too often.

We are sending soldiers and marines in harm's way, and we are not repairing their equipment. We don't have time to wait until it is too late--until the emergency is upon us. But we have plenty of time to debate tax cuts and estate tax reform.

I can tell you that I served, as so many others did, and in fact, we are privileged to have the chairman and ranking member of this committee as distinguished veterans of the Army Air Corps and U.S. Army. I don't know many soldiers who qualify for the estate tax, but every soldier needs adequate, decent equipment to do their job. Their lives depend upon it.

Yesterday Lieutenant General Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, stated:

I am further behind or in more dire situation than the Active Army.

This is the Reserve National Guard forces. The National Guard is charged not only with assisting in operations such as Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, they are the first line of protection at home. They are the first responders in a hurricane situation. They are in worse shape than our active forces.

At the end of June--again, several weeks ago--at a hearing before the House of Representatives, Congressman Ike Skelton asked the Chief of Staff of the Army:

Are you comfortable with the readiness level for the non-deployed units that are in the continental United States?

General Schoomaker replied: No. The Chief of Staff of the United States Army says in a public hearing he is not comfortable with the readiness condition of our forces in the United States. That is a stunning admission.

Senator Dodd and I were ready to propose an amendment to this Defense bill, along with Senators Lautenberg, Mikulski, Lieberman, and many others, to try to rectify this. We would offer $10.2 billion in emergency spending. I not only support but commend the leadership of this committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, proposing $13.1 billion. The money is necessary. I concur in their judgment and their action.

This is not a situation where suddenly yesterday someone jumped up and said, we need some money. This is a situation that has been recognized for months. Not only was nothing done, but the budget sent here by the White House was inadequate and they knew it

At a time of war when soldiers are committed, at a time of contest and conflict around the globe when we have to respond to threats, they lowballed money for the Army and the Marine Corps. We can give them all the money we want, but we need a little accountability, also. We didn't reach this position overnight. This was not a midnight discovery. This is years in the making.

The Army told those who would listen that for every year of intense operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, they need $12 billion for reset. Last year we only provided a fraction of that, so this year the bill was $17 billion. Some of those funds cannot be used in this year so it will be pushed forward a bit, but basically we know what is happening. It will continue to happen every year. Twelve billion baseline for reset. If we do not make that number, it is rolled over to next year. This is not going to be a one-time affair. It is an emergency, but it is a chronic emergency. We have to understand the Army will need another $12 billion and the Marine Corps will need another $12 billion next year and the next year, as long as we are committed. It is the real course of
Iraq, the course that seldom is found in speeches about ``staying the course,'' or ``when they stand up, we will stand down.'' We have to pay those costs.

Last October, GAO released a report on military readiness. It assessed the state of 30 pieces of equipment, predominantly tanks, vehicles, helicopters, and aircraft. They made several disturbing operation observations last October:

GAO's analysis showed reported readiness rates declined between fiscal years 1999 and 2004 for most of these items. The decline in readiness, which occurred more markedly in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, generally resulted from, 1, the continued high use of equipment to support current operations and 2, maintenance issues caused by the advancing ages and complexity of the systems. Key equipment items--such as Army and Marine Corps trucks, combat vehicles, and rotary wing aircraft--have been used well beyond normal peacetime use during deployments in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let me relate a story. I was in Fallujah about 3 weeks ago with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. They are doing a superb job, as all our forces are. We asked questions about the state of the helicopters. They told us their helicopters are flying 200 percent more than in peacetime. They told us this before we got on the helicopters. We got on anyway because the helicopters are being maintained. But it costs money to maintain those helicopters. It costs money to repair those helicopters. If you fly any helicopter, fixed-wing aircraft, or you drive any military vehicle 200 percent more than its normal allocation, they wear out very quickly. That is what is happening.

A report of the GAO went on to say:

Until the DOD ensures that condition issues for key equipment are addressed, DOD risks a continued decline in readiness trends, which could threaten its ability to continue meeting mission requirements. The military services have not fully identified near and long-term program strategies and funding plans to ensure that all the 30 selected equipment items can meet defense requirements.

Another GAO report released last October assessed the readiness of the Army National Guard. It found:

To meet the demand for certain types of equipment for continuing operations, the Army has required the Army National Guard units to leave behind many items for use by follow-on forces. The Army Guard estimates that since 2003 it has left more than 64,000 items, valued at more than $1.2 billion, overseas to support operations. Without a completed and implemented plan to replace all Guard equipment left overseas, Army Guard units will likely face growing equipment shortages and challenges in regaining readiness for future missions.

Again, this is the Army National Guard. These are the people we expect in the next few weeks to respond to a hurricane if it strikes the gulf coast, the Atlantic coast. These are the folks we expect to respond to earthquakes and to other problems any place in this country. They have left a great deal of their equipment overseas. They need help, also.

In April of this year, still 3 months before the markup of this Defense appropriations bill, the Lexington Institute and the Center for American Progress jointly released the report called ``Army Equipment After Iraq.'' This report clearly stated:

High utilization rates and harsh conditions have greatly accelerated the aging of equipment. A significant amount of equipment is being destroyed due to both combat losses and the wear associated with constant use. Equipment readiness in deployed units has shown a gradual erosion as the service struggles to keep up with maintenance and replacement needs. Readiness in nondeployed units has plummeted as equipment is transferred to deploying units or left behind when troops depart Iraq.

Again, warning bells were sounded, but the administration was deaf. The Army knew the situation was growing increasingly difficult--indeed, perilous. They always knew that there would be a reset bill. Last November, as I suggested, they said it would cost $12 billion a year for each year of ongoing operations until 2 years after that. The Marines estimated at that time that they needed $11.7 billion over a 5-year-period for reset. These figures were confirmed by our March GAO report, entitled ``Preliminary Observations on Equipment Reset Challenges and Issues for the Army and the Marine Corps.'' Again, these pleas for help were ignored.

However, when the Army and Marine Corps submitted their reset needs to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Management and Budget, these requirements, the requirements of the commanders in the field, were slashed. The Army's request was reportedly cut by $4.9 billion and the commanders in the field were not able to submit a rebuttal argument as they have in other administrations. Our military leaders were told what they would get by the budget experts and that was the end of the discussion until it became so painfully obvious and publicly obvious that we are not ready to deploy significant forces that are here in the United States.

In February, the President's budget request was submitted to Congress. The shortfall for reset was obvious. Again, I recognized this, as others did. That is why in February I submitted my amendment to the reconciliation bill to provide a fund of $50 billion over the next several years so we could deal with this readiness problem, not through emergency spending but through an offset where we would use proposed tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans to buy equipment for our soldiers and marines in the field. This amendment was rejected and the tax cuts went through. The equipment remained unrepaired.

As early as 2005, information on the state of Army and Marine Corps readiness was readily available for all who were willing to pay attention. Billions of dollars would be needed to solve this problem. Now here we are in August of 2006. We are debating the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill and until last night there was only $2.5 billion in this bill for the Army for their reset needs.

Again, we all must commend and thank the chairman and ranking member for taking the action they did last night. But we have to ask serious questions about an administration that would allow this situation to develop, that would tell commanders that they were not going to get the money they needed to provide for the equipment and troops in the field.

This administration has tried to run a serious war on the cheap. They have tried gimmicks. They have hidden costs. They have failed to admit staggering costs that are involved already. It goes not only to the equipment, but having just returned from Iraq, having observed reconstruction that has produced very little after $30 billion, having listened to Prime Minister Maliki in his speech ask for further reconstruction aid, if we are ever going to make a difference there, we would have to complement our military effort with renewed reconstruction. That is a multibillion dollar proposition. Where are we going to get the money?

I am pleased the Army and Marine Corps will receive this $13.1 billion, but that is just an installment payment. As long as we are committed, we will continue to see this type of expenditure go on and on and on. We have to provide for it, not on an emergency basis, not suddenly with the expression of surprise. We have to understand this will happen again and again and again. Anyone who goes to Iraq or Afghanistan, anyone who has the privilege of being with soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, knows the extraordinary sacrifices they make. Anyone who has ever been around a military unit knows one of the quickest ways to undermine morale, undermine the spirit of these troops, is to give them lousy equipment and not repair their equipment. They know their life depends upon the equipment. They also know that it is not the speeches, not the parades, not the flag pins in the lapel that say what you mean about troops; you have to give them what they need to fight. Last evening, we did that.

This administration has to be accountable. I don't understand how we can have both an administration and a Secretary of Defense who would see the readiness numbers that are presented today and deny money, forcing Congress to put it in. There is a gross lack of accountability bordering on dereliction.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov