Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004-Conference Report

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE AND FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, 2004-CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. President, we are faced with a very difficult vote this afternoon. There are many of us who have questioned the wisdom of our policy in Iraq, dating back to October of last year, no one more eloquently or intelligently than Chairman BYRD, and his speech today echoes that sentiment so well. But for me this is a question of providing the resources necessary to support our soldiers, marines, airmen, and naval personnel in the field. Despite the questions of policy, I do believe we have to render such support, but I have reservations about particular aspects of the bill which I would like to address today.

During the debate on the bill, I offered two amendments. The first was to increase the resources allocated to acquire uparmored Humvees. These are the tactical vehicles that are armored that provide increased protection against the improvised explosive devices being used throughout Iraq. Particularly I was concerned about the exposure of some of our National Guard forces.

The Presiding Officer and myself represent the State of Rhode Island. We have two military police companies. The Presiding Officer supported me and worked with me closely in trying to craft this amendment so we could increase the number of uparmored Humvees.

My original proposal was to increase the number in this bill by 800. I am very pleased to say this bill contains an additional 318 uparmored Humvees.

I thank Senator Stevens particularly because on the floor he not only accepted this amendment, but he did his utmost with his staff to ensure these additional uparmored Humvees would be available to our troops in the field. This is good news to me, but better news for the troops who will use them and the families back here who each day monitor the newspapers and the television and watch and hope their soldiers, their military personnel, have every margin of safety and protection they need.

The second amendment I offered was with respect to the end strength of the active U.S. Army. Unfortunately, this proposal, although it succeeded on the floor of the Senate-it resisted a motion to table by a vote of 52 to 45-was dropped in conference. I believe eliminating this provision is a mistake. We do need additional troops. There are some who argue very strenuously we need additional troops right now in Iraq.

If one considers what has happened with the tragic loss of a Chinook helicopter, with 16 soldiers killed, and others injured, the fact that there are multiple, perhaps hundreds, of ammunition dumps throughout Iraq that are unsecured most of the time and subject to looting, the fact we are continuing to see a stiffening resistance throughout the Sunni triangle around Baghdad, all of that argues to many that we should, in fact, increase the forces on the ground.

Even if you do not concur, even if you believe, as the Secretary of Defense says over and over again, that we have enough American troops on the ground, if we are going to maintain such a deployment over the next several years, we need additional soldiers in our Army for rotation, because otherwise we will wear our Army out, and the first signs of that will be a diminution in the retention of our reservists and National Guard men and women.

The new threat we are facing in Iraq with shoulder-fired missiles is a very ominous one. These are mobile, lightweight, missile systems that can be operated by one person. They can be transported in a vehicle, easily hidden. They can be popped up, made ready to be fired within minutes, and then they can be discarded, and the individual can flee. It is a very effective weapon.

Indeed, one of the ironies of history is we supplied these types of weapons to the Mujahedin in Afghanistan, and they played havoc with Soviet helicopters, Soviet aircraft. It is one of the factors that caused the Soviets to consider their efforts in Afghanistan as futile and to leave.

We have a new threat and that, I think, argues against not only new tactics and strategies but a reconsideration of the forces we have in Iraq and the strength we have there. Again, I point out we have approximately 1 million tons of ammunition unsecured throughout Iraq. There are about 100 of these sensitive sites reported by the New York Times that are guarded around the clock. The rest are guarded intermittently. They are a source, one could infer, for some of the munitions that are being used against our troops. Our convoys have been attacked by improvised explosive devices, by RPGs, and all of this is leading to the casualties we see each day. I think we should be very prudent and very responsible in terms of our end strength in the Army and our forces within Iraq. Both should be increased, I feel, and I am not alone.

James Dobbins, a former Ambassador, who is one of the leading experts on reconstruction, said, in his words:

Everyone agrees that we need more troops on the ground in Iraq; they just can't agree on more of what. Conservatives want more U.S. troops. Liberals want more allied troops. The Pentagon wants more Iraqi troops. My view is that they're probably all right: We're going to need all three.

Frankly, given the current end strength of the Army, we do not have enough to provide additional American forces on the ground on a sustainable rotation basis.

The Pentagon, Secretary Rumsfeld, is focusing on creating Iraqi security forces. That is an important goal. But there seems to be some confusion on the number of troops. This weekend, Secretary Rumsfeld stated that over 100,000 Iraqis were reporting to duty. Just a few days before that, Secretary Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice said it was 80,000 or 90,000. The numbers are unclear.

What is also unclear is the capabilities of these troops. The Iraqi Army was being trained in 8 week courses and is now being trained in about 6 weeks so we can get them into the field. This raises questions of reliability, questions of adaptability, all of these things.

Many suggest that we increase our international component. Frankly, the Turkish troops were apparently willing to come, but the Iraqis objected. It has been reported that Portugal and Bangladesh have decided against contributing troops. South Korea is delaying its decision. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the burden will fall not just in the next few months but in the next few years on the United States forces. As a result, I do believe we need more forces.

We are beginning to see already the stress on our National Guard and Reserves. Currently, more than 130,000 Guard and Reserve soldiers and airmen are deployed. Approximately 29,000 National Guard soldiers are in Iraq and Kuwait. More than 10,000 Reserve forces are in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. We also have National Guard forces in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sinai.

This is tremendous stress. We are seeing, for the first time, reports-although they are still preliminary-that National Guard units are not able to make their recruiting goals.

There was a report on NBC News by Jim Avila, who referred to:

New figures, released this week, show the Army National Guard nearly 10,000 short of its 2003 goal of 62,000 recruits.

Those are the first signs that recruiting and retention are becoming a problem in the Reserve component. They will only be made up, I think, by increasing the number of Active Forces we have.

There is a very difficult challenge for Reserve Forces. They have a career. They have families. They are not full-time soldiers, although they are excellent soldiers, they are professionals. They have taken their missions on with great skill and great patriotism. In fact, we could not perform the missions of the modern military today without the Reserve and National Guard. But they have separate careers and separate lives, and eventually they will have to give some credit and some interest to those separate lives.

I believe very strongly we have to ultimately increase the end strength of our military forces. I regret it is not in this
supplemental. I will endeavor in the future to continue to urge this position. I hope someday we will have it.

In the meantime, I thank, again, the chairman and Senator Byrd for their efforts. Because ultimately this bill is putting resources into the hands of our fighting men and women who are engaged in combat today, I will support the measure.

I yield the floor.