National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008--Continued
Floor Speech
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008--Continued -- (Senate - July 10, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REED. Madam President, today I wish to speak on the Senate Armed Services Committee bill being considered by the Senate, S. 1547, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. It is, I believe, a very good bill.
I wish to commend the chairman, Senator Levin, and his ranking member, Senator Warner, for their efforts and particularly the staff and all the work they have done which has contributed to this product today. It was reported favorably to the floor of the Senate by a unanimous vote of the committee, which shows its bipartisan support.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have had the privilege of serving as the chairman of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, and I would like to share with my colleagues the highlights of our bill that originated in the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee.
Before I describe those highlights, I also wish to commend and thank Senator Dole, the ranking member of my committee. It was a partnership and a pleasure to work together with her. She certainly gave valuable service, along with her staff, and I appreciate very much her personal contribution and her leadership on this issue.
I would also like to thank staff for their great contribution and their great effort.
By way of background, the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, also known as the ETC subcommittee, is responsible for looking at new and emerging threats and considering appropriate steps we should take to improve our capabilities to enhance our security in the light of these new emerging threats. Two of our committee markup objectives, in preparing the bill, were to improve the ability of the Armed Forces to meet nontraditional threats, including terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; second, to promote the transformation of the Armed Forces to meet the threats of the 21st century.
In a nutshell, that is what the ETC subcommittee should be all about, and I hope this legislation represents the sum of all our efforts in that regard.
This year, there are a number of issues, or themes, that the ETC subcommittee's portion of the bill addresses based on the emerging threats or challenges facing the United States and on capabilities we need to address these challenges. The first thing is the Defense Department's need for improved and alternate sources of energy. The Department is a massive consumer of energy, including for its military vehicles and platforms, and advanced technology may offer improved effectiveness at a reduced cost for our military in the area of energy conservation and energy demands.
The second area relates to the language of cultural challenges facing our military forces operating overseas. We held a very fine hearing on this subject, and there is clearly a need to improve the language and cultural awareness capabilities of the military and to make use of improved technology in this area. This would improve our military effectiveness and our mission success.
The third issue, or theme, is the threat from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the need to improve U.S. efforts to reduce this proliferation risk. We held an excellent hearing with the former Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Richard Lugar, as well as witnesses from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, on these nonproliferation programs, and I think we all must recognize
the debt we collectively owe, not only ourselves but the Nation, to both Senators Nunn and Senator Lugar for their path-breaking work on limiting nuclear proliferation and we commend and thank them for that. Given the potentially catastrophic damage that could result from such proliferation, we must always look for ways to strengthen and improve our nonproliferation programs.
The final and related theme and issue that we discussed is the threat of a terrorist incident within the United States involving a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive device, which is known by the acronym CBRNE, a CBRNE device. The challenge is to be prepared to manage the consequences of such a domestic CBRNE incident and for the Defense Department to have the right capabilities, plans, and equipment to provide support to the civil authorities, if requested.
I will address the committee's action on these issues as I describe the highlights of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee's portion of the bill being considered by the Senate today. Let me start with the area of science and technology.
The bill authorizes increased investment in science and technology programs by over $450 million. These programs perform cutting-edge research that is developing the capabilities that will ensure the effectiveness of our Armed Forces in the future, while strengthening the Nation's high-technology innovation sector.
These additional S&T investments, which reflect military value and technical merit, are intended to enhance Defense Department activities in a number of areas--advanced and alternate energy technologies; new manufacturing capabilities; advanced medical technologies aimed at improving the care of combat casualties; and increased funding for defense-related university research that will provide the foundation for future military capability and, in fact, will probably contribute to our overall economy.
The Armed Services Committee bill authorizes investments of nearly $75 million for advanced energy technologies, including programs to develop fuel cells, hybrid engines, build hydrogen infrastructure such as fueling stations at military bases, and explore the use of biofuels for military systems.
These kind of technologies will save money and improve war-fighting capabilities, reduce America's dependency on foreign oil, and help DOD lead the way in the widespread droppings of alternative energy technologies.
The bill includes a provision sponsored by Senator Pryor that would enhance the Department's nano technology. research program to reflect the maturation of nano technology. in industry and in universities. It would push the Department to have a greater emphasis on issues such as nanomanufacturing, moving nano technology. into major defense systems, and monitoring international capabilities in nano technology.
Following a recommendation of the Defense Science Board, the bill would require the Defense Department to produce a strategic plan for the development of manufacturing technologies. Advanced manufacturing processes are the key to ensuring that our defense industrial base can respond to the surge of production needs of our deployed forces for items such as body armor, vehicle armor, and jamming devices that are being used to defeat Improvised Explosive Devices. Manufacturing is also one of the keys to our overall global competitiveness.
I am pleased to note the committee bill authorizes nearly $85 million in additional funds for the development of advanced manufacturing technologies to support critical defense production capabilities.
In relation to the threat from proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the bill authorizes additional funding for important nonproliferation programs at the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy. This additional funding includes $100 million for the Cooperative Threat Reduction--CTR--Program and $87 million for nonproliferation programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
The bill also authorizes $50 million to support the International Atomic Energy Agency proposal for an international nuclear fuel bank. This promising idea, if successfully implemented, could remove the incentive for countries, such as Iran, to develop indigenous uranium enrichment programs for nuclear power reactor fuel. This would address the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows uranium enrichment for civilian power purposes to serve as a cover for uranium enrichment for weapons purposes.
In addition, S. 1547 includes a provision that would finally repeal all the precertifications for the CTR Program. These conditions delay the program annually, waste program funds, and have long outlived any usefulness. Senator Lugar has worked for several years now to remove these restrictions, and I am pleased we have been able to include this provision in the bill.
The additional funding for CTR would allow the program to accelerate and expand work into some biological materials and weapons areas that have become an increasing concern, and allow for the first time the CTR Program to address issues outside the former Soviet Union in a planned, nonemergency fashion.
The National Nuclear Security Agency Program has a number of challenges with respect to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, materials, and technology, and much more needs to be done. The North Korea nuclear tests last October highlighted an area where we need a lot of additional work. That is the area of nuclear forensics and attribution. The bill authorizes additional funding to develop new technology to detect and identify the sources of nuclear material and to support the Department of Energy's Office of Intelligence efforts to develop a nuclear material forensic library.
The real challenge we have that faces us, an existential challenge, is the threat that someday a terrorist--not a nation state but a terrorist--might detonate a nuclear device in the United States or in an allied country. They would get that material from some national source. If we can effectively trace materials, and we know and we can identify where such materials come from, that goes a long way in helping remove the incentives for any nation state to provide these types of materials to terrorists. I think this is important research, and I am particularly pleased that we have incorporated this language in the legislation.
In the area of homeland defense there is a concern about the enormous challenge of dealing with the chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosives, the CBRNE incident in the United States. Such an incident could quickly overwhelm local and State emergency response capabilities. The bill contains a provision requiring an advisory panel to address the capabilities of the Department of Defense to provide support for civil authorities for consequence management of a domestic CBRNE incident. The panel would report to Congress with any findings and any particular recommendations.
I thank particularly Senator Dole and her staff for leading the way on this issue.
In the area of chemical and biological matters, the bill adds nearly $70 million for the Defense Department's chemical and biological defense program, including procurement of chemical agent detectives and monitors for the Army National Guard. These systems can be used for overseas deployments or for domestic consequence management initiatives.
The bill also authorizes the restoration of $36 million for the chemical demilitarization program and includes a sense-of-Congress resolution that the United States should do everything practicable to meet our chemical weapons destruction obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention deadline of April 2012, or as soon as possible thereafter. This sense-of-Congress provision includes a number of recommendations made by the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell. I thank him for his contribution.
The sooner we destroy the stockpile, the sooner we will remove the risks to the communities around the stockpile sites throughout the United States.
Let me turn also to the area of special operations forces, and in particular language issues. The bill contains additional funding for the Special Operations Command, SOCOM, to meet critical language and cultural awareness training requirements, and for various SOCOM technology and training programs. All told, the bill authorizes more than $20 million additional funding to improve the foreign language and cultural awareness capabilities of our military forces.
The bill also contains a provision creating a National Foreign Language Coordination Council, an initiative proposed by Senator Akaka of Hawaii, and I thank him for this contribution. This council will ensure that the initial steps that the administration has taken will develop into an organized and concerted effort to improve the Nation's foreign language capabilities.
S. 1547 includes, in addition, a provision that would require the Government Accountability Office to review the ongoing reorganization of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The committee has expressed strong reservations about this reorganization, especially as it pertains to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. The study would examine some of the specific committee concerns.
The bill also authorizes an additional $124 million to cover unfunded requirements of the Special Operations Command to procure Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, or MRAP, vehicles. This is part of a committee-wide $4 billion increase to ensure that U.S. military personnel in Iraq receive the best protection available against improvised explosive devices, the primary cause of injury and death to our personnel.
I might add, I just returned yesterday from Iraq. One of the points that was raised by Major General Mixon, Commander of the 25th Division, was the need for these MRAP vehicles. I communicated that directly to the Secretary of Defense. I must commend Secretary Gates for his aggressive leadership to ensure that these MRAP vehicles are being produced and being sent overseas to our forces, particularly our forces in Iraq. His leadership on this point is very much appreciated.
Finally, in the area of counter terrorism and counterdrug policy, the committee took a number of actions. On counter terrorism, the committee authorized the Department of Defense to provide increased rewards for assistance in counter terrorism operations. This is intended to provide additional incentives for others to help us find and defeat terrorists. The committee also funded the Department's ``train and equip'' program to build the capacity of partner nations to conduct counter terrorism operations and to operate with U.S. forces in military or stability operations. The committee has authorized funding for this program, also known as section 1206, at the level authorized last year for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Congress has given the Defense Department this authority as a pilot program to the end of this fiscal year, at which time Congress can evaluate the program's effectiveness.
On counterdrug policy, the committee authorized the Department to provide counterdrug training and equipping assistance to Mexico and the Dominican Republic. This would expand a list of countries to which we provide such assistance to these neighbors who are facing serious drug challenges. With regard to funding, the committee authorized an additional $22.5 million to boost drug interdiction efforts, especially in the U.S. Southern Command's area of responsibility.
Madam President, that is a summary of the highlights of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee portion of the Armed Services Committee bill. I urge the Senate to support the entire bill, as the subcommittee does.
Now I would like to turn my attention to the matter pending before the Senate, and that is the amendment proposed by my colleague, Senator Webb of Virginia.
I rise to commend him. I think this is an important amendment that underscores and highlights the strain that our troops are under, given the operational demands of efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan and many places in the world. No one in this Senate--and particularly in this caucus, this Democratic caucus--understands on a firsthand basis the strain that soldiers, marines, and airmen and sailors live under constantly more than our colleague from Virginia, Senator Webb, who is a distinguished and heroic veteran of the conflict in Vietnam and someone to whom we look for his insight and leadership, particularly with respect to the welfare and the safekeeping of our military personnel.
Since 2003, the United States has maintained an average of 138,700 troops in Iraq. Today we know we are at a level approaching 160,000. At the same time, there are approximately 25,500 military personnel in Afghanistan and an additional 175,000 military personnel performing missions in 130 countries around the world. Nearly every nondeployed combat brigade in the Active-Duty Army has reported that they are not ready to complete their assigned war missions.
Let me repeat that. Nearly every nondeployed combat brigade, those not in Iraq and Afghanistan, are reporting they are not ready in terms of personnel or equipment to complete their assigned war missions. We all know if they are ordered to, they will go into the fight and they will do well. But they are not going in with the same level of personnel, equipment, and in many cases training that we expected of them just a few short years ago. This is as a result, a direct consequence of the strategy being pursued by the President in Afghanistan and Iraq and the size limitations on our military forces.
Such a sustained operational demand has had a significant effect on our ground forces' ability to train, deploy, and conduct their missions effectively. The way we measure our military's ability to perform effectively is called their readiness. Readiness is composed of three elements: personnel, equipment, and training.
First let's look at the personnel issues. Since 2002, 1.4 million military troops have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The standard ratio the U.S. military likes to use for deployments is 1 to 2--meaning for every year deployed, 2 years back at the home duty station for recuperation, retraining--all those things you need to restore the professional skill and a high degree of spirit and morale necessary for successful military forces.
Since the beginning of the Iraq war, however, Army brigade combat teams have been on a 1-to-1 ratio: 1 year deployed, 1 year back. That puts a huge strain on not only soldiers but the families of those soldiers. This ratio was further strained on April 11, 2007, when the Pentagon announced that all Active-Duty Army units in the Central Command area of responsibility, principally Iraq and Afghanistan, would be extended to 15-month tours. The Marine Corps has also moved to a 1-to-1 ratio: 7 months deployed, 7 months at home station.
There is another aspect to this, and that is known as stop-loss. It has been imposed on 50,000 troops. What this means is that an individual is eligible, having served out their enlisted time, to leave the military forces, but they are involuntarily held behind in order to meet the missions of the Army because of this huge personnel crunch.
That stop-loss is affecting 50,000 individuals who have served honorably and well, who have made plans to return to civilian life. Those plans are on hold now. That is another manifestation of this strain our land forces are under at this moment.
The reality of this operational tempo is that many Active-Duty soldiers and marines are on their third or even fourth tour of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq. Of the Army's Active 44 combat brigades, all but the 1st Brigade of the Second Infantry Division, which is permanently based in South Korea, have served at least one term in Iraq or Afghanistan. Breaking that down further, 12 brigades of Army have had 1 tour, 20 have had to 2 tours, 9 have had 3 tours, and 2 brigades are on their fourth tour. This is an extraordinarily aggressive operational tempo to subject any force to.
Although the deployment for our special operations forces are classified, it is known that the average weekly deployment for special operations forces was 61 percent higher in 2005 than in 2000. Every aspect of our Active Force and many of our Reserve components are being stressed with extraordinary contributions to the operations today that are worldwide.
This strain extends to our National Guard and Reserve. More than 417,000 National Guard and Reserve, or about 80 percent of the members of the Guard and Reserve, have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan with an average of 18 months per mobilization. Of these, more than 84,200, or 20 percent, have been deployed more than once. Presently, the Army National Guard has 34 brigades; 16 are considered an ``enhanced brigade,'' which means they are supposed to be fully manned, equipped, and able to deploy rapidly.
Since 2001, every enhanced brigade has been deployed overseas at least once, and two have already been deployed twice.
When the President announced the surge, the Pentagon was forced to recall to active duty several thousand Guard and Reserve personnel who had already served in Iraq and Afghanistan. In order to do this, the Pentagon had to revise its rules that limited the callup time of Guard members to no more than 24 months every 5 years.
With respect to this decision, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve recently concluded:
Overall, if the reserve component, including the National Guard, continues its high operational tempo, current indicators cast considerable doubt on the future sustainability of recruiting and retention, even if financial incentives continue to increase. There is a real cost to this operational tempo.
The cost is not only in the immediate near term but also in the longer one. Our current policies overseas have overstretched our military. The burdens of the past few years will have consequences for years to come. We risk rendering our military a weakened force, and we want to do all we can to avoid it.
We are already seeing indications of the stress that is being borne by our military forces, and they are manifested in many different ways.
Yesterday the U.S. Army announced it fell short of its active-duty recruiting goal by 15 percent. It is the second month in a row that the Army's enlistment efforts have fallen short. This is in the context of a belated attempt, I would argue, by the administration to increase the overall end strength in the Army.
You have a situation now where the Army is under huge pressure. There is an attempt to increase the numbers overall. That attempt is being, at least seems to be being frustrated by the inability to recruit new personnel into the Army.
The Army expressed concern but repeats the fact that the Army has met its recruiting goals for the past 2 years. Technically, that is true. But a closer look shows there are some disturbing trends that may have long-term negative consequences. In order to meet the demands of today, the Army is drawing heavily on its delayed entry program, or pool of future recruits, which will leave it empty handed in the future as they try to enlist more soldiers.
The Army has also begun to lower standards in order to meet recruiting goals. The Army granted approximately 8,500 ``moral waivers'' to recruits in 2006, as compared to 2,260 of these moral waivers given in 1996. These waivers cover misconduct and minor criminal offenses. Again, the trend is not less but more in terms of trying to achieve recruiting goals by waiving some incidents that otherwise would disqualify a person from joining the Army. Waivers for recruits who committed felonies, for example, were up 30 percent in 2006 from the year before.
Last year, 82 percent of Army recruits had high school diplomas. That is the lowest level since 1981. Only 61 percent of Army recruits scored above average on the service's aptitude test last year. That is the lowest score since 1985.
Last year, the Army would not have met its recruiting goals without lowering its weight standards and increasing the acceptable recruiting age to 42 years old. Frankly, you know, thinking back, not long ago the idea of actually trying to recruit people who were 42 years old, might have physical problems, who might have minor criminal violations, was considered anathema by the military as they prided themselves on the ability with each succeeding quarter to indeed try to raise the standards. But the pressure on personnel has produced these results.
Despite these lower standards, basic training graduation rates have increased from 82 percent in 2005 to 94 percent in 2006, leaving one to wonder whether the training program standards are also being modified so that these individuals can get through and get into the brigades that need support. That would have long-term, unfortunate consequences for the overall effectiveness of our military forces.
The Army is also using some extraordinary means to maintain retention rates. There are problems recruiting, but also they are making special efforts to keep those soldiers they have. The biggest incentive, of course, for retention is providing financial compensation to those who decide to extend. However, the level of funding we are putting toward keeping soldiers simply cannot be sustained. In the past 4 years the Army has increased the amount spent on retention bonuses from $85 million to $735 million.
At the same time, the cost of supporting each soldier has increased from $75,000 in 2001 to $120,000 in 2006, because of the inducements, pay benefits that are appropriate but very expensive, and again raise the question of: How long they can be sustained?
Despite the increases in pay, the Army is still having difficulties with retention, particularly retaining officers. Last year the active Army was short 3,000 officers and it is projected this shortage will increase to 3,500 officers this year. The Guard and Reserve are facing a shortfall of almost 7,500 officers.
Army reenlistment rates for mid-grade soldiers dropped 12 percent in the past 2 years. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible moment, after completing their 5-year obligations.
For Special Forces, recruitment and retention are most difficult. For the past 6 years, 82 percent of the active-duty Special Forces specialties were underfilled, many with shortfalls over 10 percent.
I had a chance to sit down and have lunch with three soldiers at a patrol base which had only been in operation for 3 weeks, just about 2 days ago in Iraq. All three of those soldiers were on their second or third tour. Two had already decided they were getting out, and a third had not yet decided. They have served their country magnificently. They have done it with great dedication, and for many different reasons are leaving. That is a very imprecise scientific sample, I would admit, but still it suggests that because of operational stress, because of the demands on soldiers who are performing magnificently, they are also thinking about their future and thinking about leaving the force rather than staying on for extended periods of time.
The soldiers recruited today define the quality of our Army in the future. Focusing on filling slots today without regard for maintaining high standards can have dire consequences down the road. We have serious challenges before us as a nation.
I have spent time talking about personnel because at the heart of Senator Webb's amendment is the recognition that ultimately a military force is about people--the soldiers, the marines, the sailors, the airmen, and their families. And if we keep this operational tempo, if we do not provide the respite, time for recuperation, what he is suggesting, at least an equal time out of the war zone as you spend in a war zone, then these personnel issues become more and more acute and become more damaging to the overall capability of our military force.
There is another aspect, too, of readiness. That is equipment. In order to meet the equipment needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army requires that active and reserve units leave behind certain essential items that are in short supply, including up-armored humvees and long-range surveillance and communications systems.
This system ensures that incoming soldiers can receive 100 percent of the equipment, and it reduces transportation costs. But there is a downside. As the GAO pointed out, while this equipment approach has helped meet current operational needs, it has continued the cycle of reducing the pool of equipment available to nondeployed forces for responding to contingencies and training.
Forty percent of the marines' ground equipment has been deployed in Iraq over the past 3 years and is being used at nine times its planned rate. I can recall last year being in Iraq and was told just before we got on the helicopter that it was flying at many more times the number of hours that it was planned to fly in a peacetime environment. They assured us, of course--and they are right--that it was very well maintained. But the stress on the equipment is just as telling as the stress on personnel. We are using this equipment and overusing this equipment as we operate in all of those theatres of conflict.
According to Lieutenant General Blum, the Army National Guard presently has on hand only 30 percent of its essential equipment here at home, while 88 percent of the Army National Guard that is in the U.S. is very poorly equipped. Nearly 9 out of every 10 Army National Guard units in Iraq and Afghanistan have less than half the equipment needed to respond to a domestic crisis, and less than 45 percent of the Air National Guard units have the equipment they need. Again, one of the other major missions of the National Guard is responding to domestic contingencies. They are severely constrained in that regard. Lieutenant General Blum, who is the chief of our National Guard, states:
This is the first time such a shortfall in equipment readiness has occurred in the past 35 years.
He estimates that the total cost of the shortfall is about $36 billion. In March 2007, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves reported that nearly 90 percent of National Guard units are not ready to respond to crises at home or abroad.
The chairman of the Commission on the National Guard summed it up:
We cannot sustain the National Guard and Reserves on the course we are on.
Again, the military is doing not only everything they are asked but much more. But we need to ensure that they have the opportunity to rest and to refit. We have to ensure they have equipment that is well maintained and not overly used.
There is a huge shortfall in equipment. The Marine Corps has a $12 billion equipment shortfall in 2007. The Army estimates it will need $12 billion annually for as long as the Iraq war continues, and for 2 years thereafter. These significant costs will have to be borne, but the biggest cost, I believe, is the one that is being borne today for our soldiers, marines particularly, and the fact that they are operating in a war zone, coming back, and all too shortly thereafter being required to go back.
There is another effect. It has an effect on training. We pride ourselves, as we should, as the best trained military force in the world, perhaps of all time. But that training cannot operate if there is insufficient time back at home station to do it. And that, I think, also is the heart of Senator Webb's amendment. He understands that one of the great factors that holds a unit together is the sense of skill, the sense that they not only know how to do the job, but they practice that job time and time again. They are ready for any contingency, any eventuality. That readiness, that sense of confidence does not come without spending the time at home station training. That, too, is being sacrificed.
I commend Senator Webb. I think from his heart and from his essence as a marine, he understands that our soldiers, marines, airmen deserve the time to prepare, to train, to regroup before they go back again. At a minimum, his amendment is calling for equal time at home station that equates to time deployed in a war zone as the minimum that we should provide these brave young men and women.
I hope we can support this amendment. I hope we can do it, get it back and send a message to our troops: We know what you are doing for us. We appreciate it. After serving with distinction with courage and great sacrifice, you deserve time to come home, to see family, to retrain, to rest, and to prepare again to defend the Nation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source