National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005-CONTINUED

AMENDMENT NO. 3352

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have an amendment numbered 3352.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are set aside and the clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. REED], for himself, Mr. Hagel, Mr. McCain, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Akaka and Mr. Biden proposes an amendment numbered 3352.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase the end strength for active duty personnel of the Army for fiscal year 2005 by 20,000 to 502,400)

On page 59, line 7, strike "482,400" and insert "502,400".

Mr. REED. Mr. President, it is my intention this evening to spend a few minutes to lay the amendment down and then I presume at the end of the evening, with unanimous consent, I will be given at least an hour of debate tomorrow which I will share with Senators MCCAIN, HAGEL, and others. That is my understanding. I ask the Senator from Virginia if that understanding is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will work that out along those lines.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand from the chairman that he will offer a second-degree amendment at the appropriate time. At this juncture, I would like to briefly explain the amendment and then have the opportunity to discuss it in more detail tomorrow with my colleague.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand it is in order to forward a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. My amendment will increase the end strength of the Army to meet the incredible mission that has been thrust upon them in the wake of the war on terror and the operations in Afghanistan and the operations in Iraq. I believe it is incumbent that we formally increase the end strength of the Army and we incorporate within the Army budget the requirements for these additional soldiers.

At this juncture, the Army is being increased on an emergency basis through supplemental appropriations. I think that is not the appropriate way to do it. I think we have to recognize that the struggles we are engaged in are long term; they are not temporary. We have to have an end strength within the authorization bill that reflects that long-term effort we are engaged in.

I also believe we have to have within the Army budget the baseline established so that if a supplemental is delayed or is not sufficient to cover these additional troops, the Army does not have to go among its own programs and root about and find moneys to pay for these troops.

These troops are necessary. It is expedient that we should in fact engage and correct this discrepancy between the missions and the men and women who are serving our Army so well.

This is a quick glimpse of our soldiers who are committed throughout the world: 310,000 soldiers in 120 countries. The most significant, of course, are operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq. There are 13,000 in Afghanistan and 126,000 in Iraq. There are soldiers all across the globe and I think we all understand the stresses of these operations are wearing our Army down rapidly.

Some of the indications that we have too few troops can be cited very quickly. First, literally a few days ago the Army announced a stop-loss policy that would prevent soldiers from leaving the Army 90 days before their unit deploys into Iraq. We are essentially telling volunteers that they cannot leave at the end of their enlistment. That is an obvious indication we have too few troops.

Second, we are withdrawing troops from Korea. There might be strategic reasons to pull troops out of Korea. There might be logistical reasons. Technology might be aiding them. But, frankly, this is an indication of, again, the shortage of troops within the Army, because we have huge risks in North Korea. This is a regime that has announced they have nuclear weapons. This is a regime that has been involved in on-and-off negotiations with us for a matter of many months to see if we can resolve the situation peacefully.

The signal we are sending to the North Koreans, albeit unwittingly, is this is not a major priority; we are actually taking troops away.

When troops are taken away, we may still have the ability to deter the North Koreans from attacking South Korea but, frankly, our mission over there is no longer just deterrence, it is disarmament, and that requires diplomacy backed up by force. We hope diplomacy works, but we are weakening our hand.

One of the most interesting and insightful indications of the shortage of troops is we are actually beginning to take apart the training infrastructure of the U.S. Army. Recently it was announced that troops from our training centers, the 11th Army Cavalry Regiment, which serves as the op force, the enemy force, in training our units, is being notified for deployment overseas. In addition to that, the 1st Battalion of the 509th Infantry, which acts as the opposition force to train our troops at Fort Polk, LA, is also on notice.

What can be more demonstrative of the shortage of troops than the fact we are, in a sense, dismantling our training structure? That in the long term is going to do great harm to the service. We need more troops.

I am sure those who are opposed to the amendment will say we have authorized in this bill again access to emergency authorization and supplemental funding, but that is not doing it the right way, doing it up front, doing it in a straightforward manner, increasing end strength statutorily, and putting this into the regular budget process.

I hope tomorrow we can debate this bill. I am unaware of the second-degree amendment. I will get with the chairman to see what his language is. I feel very strongly that this is the way to do it, and I am joined in that by my colleagues Senators MCCAIN, HAGEL, CORZINE, AKAKA, BIDEN, and many others who feel very strongly this is the way to do it and it should be done. I hope it will be done tomorrow.

With the expectation and the understanding that we will have at least an hour tomorrow on my side to engage in debate on this issue, at this point I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Rhode Island that this has been an issue he has expressed concern about for better than a year or more in the course of our hearings in the Armed Services Committee, where my colleague is a very valuable member. He also draws on his own experience as a distinguished West Point graduate and Army officer himself. He speaks against a background of experience and knowledge.

Yes, the bill at the moment has a provision in it which gives the flexibility to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and others to increase on a temporary basis-actually we go up to 30,000 if they need it, whereas the Senator from Rhode Island does 20,000. We will work this out tomorrow. But I express two concerns tonight, as we lay down the preliminary record. I pose this question to the Senator from Rhode Island. You do not provide in your amendment any means by which to pay for it; am I not correct?

Mr. REED. The Senator is correct.

Mr. WARNER. Then my next question would be, you know from your experience on the committee that the Department of the Army primarily-it could be it comes from other areas of the defense budget, but the Department of the Army might have to get over $2 billion out of its current budget to meet these added costs. Would that not be correct?

Mr. REED. If I may respond to the chairman, he is quite right about the offset. I have some ideas from where the money could come. It is my feeling it should come from funds outside the Army. I think what we have done is we have increased it, but we haven't offset it by Army programs. So there is the possibility-I hope the likelihood-the offset would come from other programs.

Mr. WARNER. As I think the Senator will see-I think I have sent a copy of my amendment over to him. It is very brief. It just specifies that the funding will come from areas other than the Department of the Army budget or elsewhere in the defense budget. Has the Senator had an opportunity to look at the amendment?

Mr. REED. I have had an opportunity to read the amendment. It seems, in keeping with the Senator's commitment to be constructive and helpful, to be very constructive and very helpful, on first examination.

Mr. WARNER. We will work on this tomorrow. But I think for the purposes of tomorrow's debate, we framed the parameters in which the debate is likely to occur. I am optimistic that we can work this out together. I commend the Senator. He has been a lead, with Senator McCain and others, from the very beginning.

At this point in time, the leadership, tonight, in consultation with Senator Levin and myself, will work out the sequence of events tomorrow. The Senator believes he needs a full hour on his side?

Mr. REED. Yes. Myself, Senator Hagel, and Senator McCain wish to speak.