May 21, 2008
Statement
Floor Statement on the Supplemental Spending Bill
Mr. REED. Mr. President, this is an opportunity for me to speak about the supplemental appropriations bill, but I would be remiss if I did not recognize the extraordinary life and service of President Lyndon Baines Johnson.
I can remember graphically, as a high school student at La Salle Academy in Providence, RI, going down to, at that time recently named, Kennedy Plaza in Providence to see President Johnson in a motorcade on his way to Brown University to deliver a major policy address with, at that time, the senior Senator John O. Pastore. They were both celebrating tremendous legislative accomplishments in education, health care, and civil rights, none of which would have been wrought except by the vision and work of Lyndon Johnson.
We are commemorating an extraordinary President, an extraordinary gentleman, someone truly larger than life whose contribution and whose influence is with us today. In fact, many days on this Senate floor, I think our tact is to live up to his ideals and his accomplishments and to make them fresh again in both the heart and spirit of
Mr. President, I wish to focus my remaining remarks on the supplemental appropriations bill which is pending before the Senate. We passed a supplemental appropriations bill out of the Appropriations Committee, which I serve on, last week. This bill contains $168.9 billion for funding operations in
It includes funds for LIHEAP. At a time when oil is topping $130 a barrel, the drain on low-income Americans and seniors particularly, simply to pay heating prices, and in the Southwest and South of our country, cooling prices this summer are extraordinary. It is a burden. It is a huge burden. We have incorporated some funds for that situation.
We also have moneys for unemployment insurance, not only necessary to sustain families in a time of economic crisis but also one of the most effective stimulus devices. The money from unemployment insurance goes quickly from the recipient to the local market, to all the needs of a family struggling in this economy to get by. It is a tremendous way to stimulate our economy. So it has both individual benefits and economic benefits for the country as a whole.
I must also point out that included in these domestic provisions is extraordinary legislation by Senator Webb, my colleague from
This responsibility is, I think, one of the most paramount we face, and his legislation goes right to the concerns of so many returning veterans: How will I get back to education? How will I fund my education? How will I be similar to my predecessors, the generation of my father--when so many had the opportunity to go to college, and then not only did they contribute to their own family's well-being, they helped build an economic powerhouse we have seen in America since World War II.
This is a program, again, which I think is extraordinarily important. I commend Senator Webb for his vision, for his persistence, and for his passion. I hope we include it in the final version of the supplemental appropriations bill.
As I mentioned before, we are putting funds in for LIHEAP. I offered an amendment to include $1 billion. It is so necessary. In places such as
We have seen a 162-percent increase in energy costs since 2000. It is extraordinary. There is no paycheck for working Americans that has gone up 162 percent, but their energy bills have. We have seen heating oil prices in the last year increase 35 percent. So this is something that is absolutely critical, just as unemployment insurance, just as so many aspects of this legislation.
There are also included provisions not requested by the President. There is some assistance for the global food crisis and for the terrible natural disasters in
We also include, as another aspect of the legislation, something that is absolutely, I believe, critical, and that is conditions on our policy with respect to
These conditions, I think, are terribly important. One would, for example, ensure the readiness of our troops, who are being stretched to the limit, ensure they are ready when they are deployed. That is something I hope no one is arguing with.
Another provision directs the Government to negotiate cost sharing for fuel and troop training with the Iraqis. The Iraqi Government has accumulated upward of $10 billion or more because of the surging oil prices. Very little, if any, of those funds is being devoted to their own people or to the joint effort we have undertaken with them to stabilize the country. It is only fair that they should begin to pay their fair share, particularly since they are sitting on a significant amount of money resulting from high energy prices. That money should be devoted to stabilizing their country and helping their people, much more so than they are doing today.
Then there is another provision which is something Senator Levin and I have been stressing for many months now, and that is to begin a transition of the missions our military forces and diplomatic forces are performing in Iraq, particularly our military forces, instead of an open-ended mission, and we have seen this mission from the President's standpoint change dramatically.
As you will recall, the first mission was to find and destroy the weapons of mass destruction, a very difficult mission, since there were no weapons of mass destruction. Then there was the mission of creating a democratic oasis in the
We have to focus not on these globalized missions which are more dogmatic and ideological, but on things the military should be doing for our protection in the context of redeploying forces out of
The essence of the Levin-Reed amendment has been to move from the open-ended missions of today to these discrete missions and, in so doing, begin a deliberate, consistent disengagement of our forces and a reduction of our forces in
I think the reluctance of the administration to entertain any conditions whatsoever over the last several years has undermined, in the long run, our ability to influence the Government of Iraq and also to reassure the American public we are not into an open-ended, unlimited commitment, stretching years and decades and beyond, that our mission is discrete, that our mission in terms of military presence is coming down and will not reverse itself, and that we are doing all we can in that context to save lives in Iraq.
On 9/11, this country was struck by terrorists. The
But rather than consolidating our gains after that successful operation and pursuing al-Qaida in
They thought
Because we were pursuing not a strategic necessity but an ideological obsession, it was not a mission that was well advised or well planned for. There was more hope than planning involved, more ideology than practical commonsense application of force to a threatening situation in the world. One of the unfortunate ironies of this is that as we have been obsessed and committed in
The other thing that has happened unwittingly is that
Also in that time period, we stood by as the North Koreans overthrew the agreed framework, seized the plutonium that was in the reactors around Yongbyan and took it away. Now we are trying desperately to put together another agreement with the North Koreans, but after years in which they not only tested longer range missiles but also detonated a nuclear device. They crossed a threshold that had never been crossed before, they detonated a nuclear device, and our reaction was, I think necessarily perhaps because of our engagement in
It has also greatly diminished our standing in the international community. This is not just a nice thing to have. An essential attribute of national power is the respect, the esteem, the cooperation, the good wishes, the goodwill, and the political and diplomatic support of other nations, because in this world most of the great challenges cannot be met alone. That was contrary, I think, to the unilateralism that abounded in this administration; that if in fact we are going to do something significant, longstanding and sustainable, it requires a multinational approach and the foundation of that approach is the goodwill and good wishes of the people of the world. This administration has squandered much of that.
It also is contributing, and we can debate how much, to this faltering economy. Oil today is $130 a barrel. Some of that is attributable to the instability in the gulf region; the fact that
Another aspect of this policy is that we have stretched our military, our land forces, to the brink, if you will. They have seen significant deployments consistently time and time again and the toll is adding up on our military forces. We are now left, and the next administration is left, and this Congress and the American people, with dealing with the consequences of this flawed strategy. I believe we have to begin to recognize and realistically assess the political and military situation in
We have to also reorganize our civilian resources to deal with the ongoing threats in the world. That is something this administration has yet to do effectively--to develop a complementary power of our State Department officials, our agriculture officials, and all those people who must be part of this approach to a kind of warfare that is, in many cases, less about firepower and more about reaching people with economic progress and educational reform, and water systems. Those are more potent weapons sometimes than any precision-guided missile we might deploy.
I think our first step in all of this is passing this supplemental appropriations bill, with conditioned funding for our forces, with reasonable conditions about the mission and the responsibilities the Iraqi Government should have, and also once again beginning to invest in the American people, investing in keeping them warm in the winter through LIHEAP and keeping them cool through LIHEAP in the summertime; giving them a chance, if they lose their job, to at least keep looking for some support with extended unemployment benefits, and so many other things we have included in this. I think that is critical.
Now, I mentioned before I have felt since 2002 that the strategy of the administration toward
I think this has been one of the tremendous flaws of the President's concept of the mission. As a result, we started off with, obviously, I think, an ill-conceived mission of eliminating weapons of mass destruction in a country in which it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction. People forget that the United Nations put inspectors on the ground, and that it was this administration who hastened their departure, rather than using these inspectors over time to establish whether there were weapons or whether there were no weapons, or at least to do it in a way in which subsequent military action would be legitimized by either noncooperation of the Iraqis or the fact that the questions couldn't be established or answered. But they quickly rushed to a military option, and I think that option has had unfortunate consequences for the
One of the principal consequences, and I mentioned this in my introductory comments, is the fact that al-Qaida, the existential threat to this country, as evidenced by 9/11, has in fact reconstituted itself, not only in the border regions of Afghanistan, to a degree, but much more particularly in Pakistan, in the federally administered tribal areas. These are poor tribal areas ill governed by the Government of Pakistan. In fact, there are provisions in their organic laws which limit their real access to these areas. It has a population of 3 million people, and in that 3 million people al-Qaida, bin Laden, and al Zawahiri have found sanctuary and a safe haven, that continues today.
In a sobering report released last month by the Government Accountability Office, they stated:
The
And this is 7 years after 9/11.
Since 2002, the
Now, I thought the point of our national strategy after 9/11 was to destroy al-Qaida and to eliminate any possibility of a safe haven anywhere in the world. And according to these documents, our embassy, our Defense officials, our national intelligence agency, al-Qaida has reestablished itself and has found safe haven. I would suggest that is, I think, a stunning indictment of the strategy of this administration over the last several years; again, I think an unfortunate consequence of the obsession that they have chosen to pursue in
An even more disturbing finding of GAO is:
No comprehensive plan comprised of diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military efforts for meeting U.S. National security goals in the FATA has been developed.
The one thing that seems to be consistent about the administration is they do not do much planning. There was no plan for
A key part of the plan that must be developed in
That has been recognized by, I think, many experts. But the senior U.S. Embassy officials in
As a result, in March, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Hayden, described al-Qaida's safe haven as a ``clear and present danger to the
If I were going to pick the next attack to hit the
Now, let us be clear. It is not out of
The resurgence of the FATA now poses a preeminent threat to the
The problems of the FATA are being highlighted by deteriorating conditions in
What we have seen from the initial success in
In 2003, the Taliban, the former government, and their followers, who have continued to try to assert their will in
We have a NATO contingent there, but frankly NATO has not been able to fulfill all of its obligations, putting more pressure on our military alliance forces. I think we have to urge NATO to be more helpful. Hopefully, they will. But, as a result, we have sent additional forces in there, about 4,300 troops. We are prepared to send more. This is adding additional stress and strain on our military forces.
As I look, we are seeing a situation in which the principal objective in response to 9/11, the principal place where our enemies were, has now been relegated to the third page of the paper, as the headlines are dominated by
We have another consequence of our operations in
We are finding a steady supply of IEDs which our military authorities trace to
We also know, on another track, the Iranians are attempting to develop a nuclear fuel cycle. The IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Administration, has been spending decades trying to track the developmental work of the Iranian Government. In 2006 there were documents found of possible nuclear dimension to their program in
All that is happening in the context of our energies and our attention being overwhelmingly devoted to
As I mentioned earlier, while we have been focused so strenuously on
On October 9, 2006, the North Koreans conducted a nuclear test--crossed a red line they had never done before, detonated a nuclear device. Fortunately, over the last several months the administration has reinstituted serious negotiations with the North Koreans. Under the able leadership of Ambassador Christopher Hill, they have begun to identify and work with the North Koreans to identify where the plutonium might be, where there are other nuclear materials, nuclear technologies, and they are beginning to walk back where we were, ironically, in the year 2000 and provide some sense of a diplomatic solution to a very pressing problem.
But I would argue this would be a very different situation if we were not so decisively involved and engaged in
I mentioned also, in the course of these last several years, our involvement in
In a poll conducted by the BBC just last month, 47 percent of citizens in 25 countries said the
Last month, Zogby and the
One of the keys we know of prevailing in this struggle is to challenge and rally the forces of moderation and democracy through the Arab world, of getting the people of the Arab world to understand that we are trying to assist them. That is not working, unfortunately.
Then, as I mentioned, we have the economic consequences of the war. In December 31, 2002, the New York Times reported:
The administration's top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with
Then OMB Director--
Mitch Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said the administration was budgeting for both, and earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in
To date we have approved $526 billion for operations in
Now, to gain some perspective on the $500-plus billion that we have committed to
We have also piled up huge contingency costs as we go forward. The direct costs are significant, but the indirect costs and the future costs are also important to note. We have to repair and replace the military equipment that is being used. We have spent money to increase recruitment and retention, and we have to do that for many years. We have had economic disruptions caused by deployment of the National Guard and Reserve troops who have to leave their jobs to go into the military.
According to a November 2007 report compiled by the Joint Economic Committee, the impact of the war on the
Those costs continue. One of the critical costs we are going to face is the cost going forward of helping our veterans. I was very pleased last year to act as the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs while Senator Johnson recovered, and now I am equally pleased to know that he is chairing that subcommittee and doing a remarkable job. But we were able to pass a significant increase in spending for our veterans.
But the real challenge for us is will we do that 5 years from now? 7 years from now? 8 years from now? 20 years from now, when these veterans still need the help but time has passed? I hope we will. That would be a test--and if I am here, I hope I will be able to remind people that the test is each year not 1 year or 2 years.
As Professor Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate, pointed out, this cost, when you aggregate it all, is in the trillions of dollars going forward, looking at the consequential costs today, looking at the direct spending.
That is taking its toll on the economy of this country.
Another place where the toll is being taken is on our Army and Marine Corps, particularly; our military in general, but particularly our Army and Marine Corps.
I recall, as so many of us do, years ago, August 3, 2000, to be precise when Governor Bush stated: Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called upon by the Commander in Chief today, two entire divisions of the Army will have to report ``Not ready for duty, sir.''.
Well, Army readiness is worse today than it was in 2000, and if that is the metric to measure the success of the Commander in Chief, I would argue that that metric has failed. If we look at readiness today, while we have a situation which our brigade combat teams that are deployed or are preparing to deploy are considered ready, the Army has only one ready brigade combat team in reserve for any other contingency in the world. Strategically our flexibility has been constrained almost to the vanishing point. That is a consequence of
On February 26, the Army Chief of Staff, General Casey, said before the Senate Armed Services Committee:
The cumulative effects of the last 6 plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do properly, sustain our all-volunteer force, and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future.
He added:
We are consuming readiness as fast as we build it.
I would ask, rhetorically, I wonder if General Casey had to report how many divisions are not ready today, it would probably be more than two, if you aggregated all of the brigades, that for reasons of training, equipping, and personnel are not at 100 percent.
On April 8, General Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on readiness:
I have been doing this for 6 years. As you know I was at G-3 of the Army and vice chief now for almost 4 years. And I have never seen our lack of strategic depth where it is today.
We have 162,400 troops serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. There are 33,000 troops in
This is a pace that cannot be sustained. It is a pace that is taking a tremendous toll on our troops and their families, and it is a toll again that cannot be indefinitely sustained.
For our reservists, we have had many of those who have had at least 1 tour, 97,000; 9,000 have had 2 or more tours; and the notices that went out this week to mobilize and alert roughly 42,000 troops include significant Reserve and National Guard deployments, brigade combat teams in the National Guard that will go again. I suspect for many of them it will be at least their second tour and perhaps for some their third. So we have had tremendous turbulence in terms of deployment of our land forces. Our military personnel are dedicated. They are doing a superb job. But they cannot keep up this pace. That is one aspect of it, personnel.
The other aspect is equipment. We have fought tirelessly here in this Congress to give our forces the equipment they need. I can recall returning in 2003 from
I contacted the military authorities. I came to the floor of the Senate, proposed we increase the funding for armored humvees, and that was an initiative that started with my colleagues here in the Senate and the House, reluctantly agreed to, I think, from my perspective, by the administration. It took us many months to begin to get sufficient armored vehicles into
Similarly we are now on a second and third generation with MRAP, the mine resistant vehicles. That too was a result of many efforts here in the Congress to get that equipment out to our troops.
I believe, I hope, they have everything they need, the latest technology. That is something that is absolutely essential. But all of this equipment is being used and overused. Roughly 30 percent of the Marine Corps' ground equipment and half of the Army's ground equipment is in
It is a harsh, hard environment. The operational tempo is wearing out this equipment. I recall being out in
So we expect, the Army expects, to need $12 to $13 billion per year to reset the forces. The Marine Corps estimates it will need $15.6 billion for reset over the next several years when the operations begin to wind down. The Army National Guard has little more than half of its required equipment and they will need $22 billion for the next 5 years to build the equipment up to 75 percent of authorized levels. So we have a tremendous impact on our Army because of our operations in
The other aspect of readiness is training. Because the time back home of Army forces has been reduced effectively to 12 months, they cannot do the same type and the same level of training they had been doing previous to
Their training is being pressured. Some of the equipment they need to train is not there. It is already overseas and it remains over there. There is this increasing concern that the only mission they are training for is counter insurgency and urban combat, because
Another aspect of readiness is recruiting, and this high operational tempo has led the Army in some cases to miss their recruiting goals. Recently, they have been achieving those goals, but it is not without lowering standards, it is not without huge incentives or significant incentives. It is something that over the course of the next several months and years will show increasing strain and stress on the military force, their ability to recruit, their ability to retain.
In 2005 the Army missed its active-duty recruiting targets by 8 percent. That was the first time they had ever missed recruiting targets since 1999, and by a margin not seen since 1979, in the early years of the volunteer Army. Since 2006 the Army has met its yearly recruiting goals, but only by taking some extraordinary measures. In 2007, more than 20 percent of the new Army recruits needed waivers; 57 percent for conduct, 36 percent for medical reasons, and 7 percent for substance abuse. There was a time prior to
There is another similar picture with respect to retention. The number of officers the Army needs grew by 8,000 as we increased the size of the Army, with 58 percent of this group in captains and majors. As the Army grows, they have to retain more and more of these captains and majors. While the overall officer loss rate for fiscal year 2007 equaled the 10-year average of 8.5 percent, this loss rate must drop to 5 percent in order to maintain this increased size of the Army at these critical positions of captains and majors.
What is happening is that the tempo of operations, the limited time with family, the cycling in and out of
###