Nomination of Robert M. Gates

NOMINATION OF ROBERT M. GATES--Continued -- (Senate - December 06, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for Dr. Robert Gates to be the next Secretary of Defense. Dr. Gates is poised to take an extraordinarily difficult job at one of the most dangerous times in U.S. history. He will face a number of pressing problems. Clearly, the most pressing problem facing Dr. Gates is determining the next step of U.S. operations in Iraq.

Today the Iraq Study Group released its report. It begins:

The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating [and] there is no path that can guarantee success.

The study group makes a series of recommendations that are strikingly similar to the Levin-Reed amendment that was offered last June. These recommendations include engaging Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, encouraging the Iraqi Government to increase their efforts to bring security to their people, reconciliation and governance reforms to their nation, and the transition of the mission of our troops from combat operations to training; also, the recommendation that there be a complete redeployment of most of these combat forces by the beginning of 2008.

These recommendations are realistic but they are also very difficult and, I presume, not well liked--at least initially--by this administration. Evaluating and implementing these recommendations will be the daunting but necessary task of Dr. Gates.

Dr. Gates also needs to focus his attention on Afghanistan, the initial and proper focus on the war on terror. Reports make it increasingly clear that we are losing ground. The Taliban has regrouped and rearmed. This spring, they mounted the toughest resistance since 2001. Suicide attacks, which were once unknown in Afghanistan, have more than doubled this year. Lieutenant General Eikenberry, formerly the commanding general of Combined Forces Command Afghanistan, believes the fiercest fighting yet will be next spring.

NATO'S International Security Assistance Force has assumed control of forces in Afghanistan, but this force is only at 85 percent strength. Almost 5 years after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, only half of the money pledged by the international community to rebuild Afghanistan has been delivered and spent. Sixty percent of the country is still without electricity, 80 percent without potable water, and the unemployment rate is 40 percent. Without viable alternatives, residents of Afghanistan return to what ensures they will survive and, unfortunately, in many cases, that is growing poppies.

Last week, the U.N. and World Bank released a report stating that poppy cultivation increased 59 percent and opium production by 49 percent over the last year. It concludes that international efforts to combat opium production, which includes $400 million in U.S. counternarcotics funding, have failed. Dr. Gates will have to pay immediate attention to these issues in Afghanistan, a linchpin in our war against terror.

One of the unintended consequences of U.S. operations in Iraq is the enhanced strategic position of Iran. With the election of Iranian President Ahmadinezhad, the nation has become increasingly belligerent to the United States and Israel, a key ally of the United States. The Iranians continue to press for what they describe as a nonmilitary nuclear program. Despite the threat of international sanctions, they are developing their ability to enrich uranium, a necessary step for both a civilian nuclear program and a military weapon. The fear, which I believe is justified, is that with access to enriched uranium in the context of a nuclear power program, the Iranians would be unable or unwilling to avoid the temptation to use this material to construct a nuclear device.

Then there is North Korea, the actions of which have also become increasingly belligerent over the last 2 years. They have walked away from the agreed upon framework, ejected international inspectors, and now likely have enough plutonium to build 10 nuclear weapons. On the 4th of July they provocatively tested a long-range missile. The test was a failure, but it underscored their determination to challenge the international community. Finally, on October 9, they tested a nuclear device.

I argue that Iranian and North Korean nuclear aspirations raise the most serious strategic issues we face today. If these countries are not checked, then there is a significant probability of a regional arms race.

All of these international engagements, all of these international challenges, are creating enormous strains on our military, particularly our ground forces. Recent studies have shown that two-thirds of our Active-Duty Army and more than two-thirds of the National Guard are rated as ``nondeployable'' ``noncombat ready'' principally because of equipment shortages. This is a shocking and scandalous record.

This administration has allowed two-thirds of our Army forces to essentially be denied the equipment--in some cases, the personnel--to be fully represented for combat. Virtually every active brigade not currently deployed is not prepared to meet its mission if called upon.

One of the reasons these brigades are not ready is because of equipment shortages. Over a year ago, the Army estimated that in order to reset equipment being used in theaters of operation, it will require approximately $12 billion in funding every year of ongoing operations until 2 years after operations cease in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Marines have been slowly coming back from a $16 billion reset, but they still need $3 billion to draw even and will still incur annual operating costs.

Besides equipment, the Army and Marines must worry about their personnel. The present Active-Duty Army end strength is approximately 504,000. About 400,000 soldiers have done one tour of combat duty, and a third have deployed twice. In order to meet recruiting goals, the Army has increased the maximum age for enlistment and lowered the physical, academic, and ethical standards. To meet retention goals, the Army has implemented stop loss measures and offered increasingly large reenlistment bonuses. There are presently 184,952 Active and Reserve Marines on duty. Over the past 4 years, 169,558 have been deployed, a significant number of Active and Reserve Marines. This operational tempo simply cannot be sustained. Again, Dr. Gates will have to address this issue or risk the future health of the Army and Marine Corps.

Dr. Gates also faces extraordinary budget challenges. The fiscal year 2007 Defense Appropriations Act was $366 billion, the largest Defense bill in history. Still, it is not enough. The Army's share of the fiscal year 2007 budget was $98.2 billion. Secretary Rumsfeld set the Army's fiscal year 2008 budget at $114 billion, an increase but insufficient. In response, Army Chief of Staff GEN Peter Schoomaker took the unprecedented step of refusing to submit the 2008 budget plan by the August 15 deadline. General Schoomaker has determined in fiscal year 2008 the Army needs $138.8 billion just to continue to operate. Again, it is an unprecedented step in which a Chief of Staff, a uniformed officer, would not submit his budget to the Secretary of Defense.

The Navy, which is not significantly involved in the Iraqi and Afghanistan theaters, is still key to our foreign presence around the world. Today's Navy fleet numbers 278 ships. The Chief of Naval Operations' 5-year shipbuilding plan calls for new ship construction with necessary funding of $14.1 billion beginning in fiscal year 2008 and rising to $19.1 billion in fiscal year 2012. This is a huge number, but without this critical funding our fleet will be in jeopardy. And, again, the Secretary of Defense has to respond to this request by the Chief of Naval Operations.

All of this is in the context of the regular budget. But as we all know, we have been funding operations in Afghanistan and in Iraq through supplementals. To date, $495 billion has been appropriated through these supplementals for our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Press reports indicate that the Pentagon is preparing a new supplemental. The request is in the range of $127 to $150 billion just for an additional year of operations in these theaters of war.

There are several problems with these supplementals. They contribute directly to our Nation's deficit, which is $248 trillion. They do not allow the military to effectively and efficiently plan for the maintenance of troops, equipment, and operations because none of this spending can be counted upon in terms of the exact number and the timing of the passage of the supplemental. The supplementals, as large as they are, still are insufficient. The Army, even with supplementals, is citing billions of dollars in shortfalls, particularly with respect to equipment resets. They will not last forever, since I can anticipate, we all can anticipate, the reaction of the American public to another request for $100 billion or more.

Finally, when the supplementals do cease, either totally or in significant numbers of dollars, the Army and Marine Corps will still have troops and equipment in the field, with no funding. They will face a precipice, if you will: They still have a responsibility, they still have the personnel, they still have the equipment, but where is the funding? These are extraordinary problems that Dr. Gates is facing, most of them a direct result of poor decisions made by the administration and the Department of Defense.

Most of these issues were raised with Dr. Gates in yesterday's confirmation hearing. Although there were some issues that Dr. Gates did not yet have in-depth knowledge of, he was frank in his responses and open to the ideas and open to the advice of all who asked him questions.

For months, I and many of my colleagues have called for a change in our course in Iraq and in the rest of our foreign policy. I believe that Dr. Gates is a signal of that change. I do not believe that he is invested in the decisions, many of them bad, that have been made in the Department of Defense over the last 5 years. I also believe he will have a completely different management style from Secretary Rumsfeld, allowing civilians and military personnel to speak more freely. I believe these differences will allow honest, albeit difficult, discussions to take place and changes to be made.

I have had the opportunity to get to know Dr. Gates over the past 5 years. I have found that he is a thoughtful, experienced, and realistic voice on foreign policy. He is a good listener, and I think he will draw on a cross-section of views when making decisions. I commend him for leaving private life and a job he clearly loved to take on a very public job that will be thanklessly demanding.

Perhaps the most difficult task that Dr. Gates faces is bringing unvarnished reports of bad news to a President and inner circle who do not like to hear such things. However, I believe that Dr. Gates has the stature and the wherewithal and the will to do what needs to be done.

The months ahead are going to be difficult, not only for Bob Gates but also for our military. However, I have confidence that Dr. Gates will be an able leader and, therefore, I will support his nomination and wish him well in a very daunting task.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/