[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 18 (Tuesday, February 14, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E150-E151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  SHORTCHANGING OUR TROOPS: RUMSFELD SPENDS BILLIONS TO FIGHT FICTIVE 
                              SUPERPOWERS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 14, 2006

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce into the Record the 
editorial entitled ``Still Shortchanging the Troops'' which appeared on 
February 10, 2006, in the New York Times. The military industrial 
complex is in your face America, front and center, rewarding corporate 
America, contractors and Halliburton, but shortchanging the troops.
  The New York Times in its lead editorial on February 10, 2006, made a 
scathing criticism of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's recently revealed 
Defense Department budget. As the Times put it: ``It's amazing how 
Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Spending plan can produce a $439 billion and 
still skimp on the one thing the American Military desperately needs: 
expanded ground forces so the weakened and cannibalized Army'' can meet 
the needs of Iraq without hurting its ability to respond to other 
threats.
  I do not believe more ground troops are needed in Iraq. I think this 
editorial is referencing the fact that the troops fighting in Iraq are 
returning two, three and four times and have borne more than their fair 
share of President Bush's Iraq war. I support Congressman Murtha's 
position that our ground troops in Iraq have become the targets in 
Iraq; the one unifying idea for all the splintered factions fighting a 
civil war there is that Americans must get out of their country. 
However, there is much I do agree with in the editorial.
  I agree that it is a disgrace to spend only a small part of its 7 
percent budget increase for increase of pay and recruitment bonuses 
while a ``large chunk of this nearly $30 billion goes to more new 
weapons and postponing overdue cuts in wasteful Air Force and Navy 
projects unrelated to fighting terrorism. This highlights as nothing 
else can the disconnect with what Secretary Rumsfeld says he cares 
about and what he really cares about.
  When the Secretary of Defense is at a press conference or a briefing, 
he consistently talks about this war and the brave men and women 
sacrificing in Iraq to keep us safe. He and President Bush have 
repeatedly expressed the view that we are fighting the terrorists 
``over there, so we don't have to fight them over here.'' Support the 
troops has become the rallying call for those who blindly accept 
platitudes in place of plans and rhetoric instead of substantive 
answers to the many legitimate questions being asked by millions of US. 
citizens. Secretary Rumsfeld misses no opportunity to label Americans 
who do not give unquestioning support to the President's war as 
unpatriotic and worse giving support to terrorists and harming our 
troops in Iraq.
  It is quite obvious to me that neither President Bush nor Secretary 
Rumsfeld support our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. The President 
precipitously sent our troops into battle on false information and with 
no plan for the peace. Iraq has become a haven for terrorists and is 
currently in a civil war in which our troops are caught with nowhere to 
go. Secretary Rumsfe1d sent them into combat without the necessary 
armored trucks and tanks and without the necessary body armor. Even 
from the beginning of the war, there were stories about parents having 
to buy their sons and daughters armor and of parents collecting used 
bullet proof vests from policemen. Even after Rumsfeld was asked when 
he would get his armor, Rumsfeld had nothing but the most unsettling 
reply. You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish you 
had. No, Secretary Rumsfeld, you go to war with a properly equipped 
army and an exit plan to get the troops out of harm's way when the 
mission is accomplished.
  Even after this incident, when Secretary Rumsfeld was questioned by 
Members of Congress about the lack of proper armor, the troops did not 
receive what they needed. A recently released report from the Navy and 
Military pathologist showed that 80 percent of deaths from torso 
injuries could have been prevented if the troops had had the proper 
body armor. The Navy had ordered the armor. As of January 7, the Army 
had not. This indicates a neglect of the troops, not support for the 
troops.
  I am also glad that the Times repeats a truth well worth repeating 
and one I hope the country will finally understand and will not only 
demand Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation but hold him responsible for 
the many unnecessary deaths in Iraq caused by his refusal to listen to 
his own senior generals.
  According to the Times and according to my belief and that of many of 
my Democratic colleagues: ``The prospects of Iraq might have been very 
different today if Mr. Rumsfeld had listened to some of his own senior 
generals and occupation officials and authorized significantly larger 
ground forces from the beginning. The early looting might have been 
contained before it shattered political confidence and vital 
infrastructure. The insurgency might never have gotten such a head 
start. . . . But the obstinate ideologues in Mr. Rumsfeld's Pentagon 
have never accepted the fact that the reality of Iraq did not fit their 
assumptions. The budget and the four-year plan released with it read 
almost as if the current conflict had never happened and could never 
happen again.''
  The budget priorities reveal Mr. Rumsfeld's utter disdain for our 
troops and an almost unbelievable disconnect from what is actually 
happening in Iraq. In his speech before the National Press Club on 
February 3, 2006, Secretary Rumsfeld reiterated his view of the war 
Americans now face, a war he calls a ``generational war.'' This is the 
war both he and the President have variously described as the war on 
fascist Islamic fundamentalists; or against al Qaeda terrorists, or 
ideologues determined to replace our American values with the values of 
those who hate freedom and hate our way of life.
  A very important point made by the Times editorial and the one I want 
to particularly emphasize is the complete disconnect between the 
Pentagon budget and spending plan set out and explained to the National 
Press Club on February 3, 2006, and what Mr. Rumsfeld is spending on in 
2007. The President and Mr. Rumsfeld have told the Nation it will be 
fighting for the next 30 years or perhaps forever a long war against an 
army we can't see because it does not represent a nation state; it may 
not wear a uniform; it could be in any country at any time. But, as the 
Times points out: ``Instead of reallocating resources toward the real 
threat America faces, the military services continue to pour their 
money into fighting fictive superpowers in the wild blue yonder and on 
and below the seven seas. Pentagon budgeters showed themselves so 
pathetically unable to restrain spending on expensive ships and planes 
that they actually cut back, rather than increased the overall size of 
the Army over the next few years to pay for it.
  It would cost about $4 billion to $5 billion a year to give the Army 
30,000 more troops, the minimum it needs to check its alarming slide. 
Instead the Pentagon chose to begin the construction of two unneeded 
new stealth destroyers, which will end up costing $2 billion to $3 
billion each.
  It also decided to splurge on a new nuclear attack submarine for $2.6 
billion and to shell out $5.5 billion for separate Navy and Air Force 
versions of new stealth fighter jets, plus another $5.5 billion for yet 
a third version that either can use. In all the Pentagon is asking for 
$84 billion to buy weapons systems--twice what it got in 1996--and $73 
billion more for research and development.
  This budget would be wasteful even under a worst-case assumption that 
had a second superpower arising within the life span of these weapons, 
turning hostile to America and arming itself to the teeth with the most 
advanced weapons. There's still unnecessary spending that could be used 
to repair the Army, which has been ground down at least as much by 
Pentagon miserliness as by Iraqi insurgents.
  The citizens of this country, all of them care about the troops. 
Disagreeing with the President's policies or lack of them does not mean 
an American does not care about the troops. I would argue those 
questioning the President

[[Page E151]]

care more about the troops than the President. In the same way, 
Secretary Rumsfeld, preparing for wars with fictive superpowers while 
still ignoring the very real need of the troops in Iraq, reveals a 
chilling lack of concern for the troops.

                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 3, 2006]

               Army Pledges No Cutbacks in National Guard

                          (By Ann Scott Tyson)

       Facing pressure from both parties in Congress and state 
     National Guard leaders, the Army yesterday committed to 
     keeping the National Guard's authorized manpower at 350,000 
     and promised to fund it up to that level.
       ``If they recruit 350,000, the funding's there. Their 
     authorization remains 350,000,'' Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the 
     Army's chief of staff, said at a Pentagon news conference 
     yesterday.
       Because of recruiting shortfalls, the Guard has about 
     333,000 soldiers on the rolls, but Guard leaders say they are 
     confident of reaching the goal of 350,000 this year. ``We are 
     on a glide path to get to 350,000,'' said Lt. Gen. Clyde 
     Vaughn, director of the Army National Guard, who appeared at 
     the briefing with Schoomaker.
       The Army had proposed cutting the budgeted Guard strength 
     by about 17,000 positions, in part by replacing six combat 
     brigades that each have 3,500 to 4,000 slots with brigade 
     headquarters that have only a few hundred, said Maj. Gen. 
     Roger P. Lempke, president of the Adjutants General 
     Association of the United States.
       The National Guard, which represents about 38 percent of 
     the U.S. military's force structure, has served heavily in 
     Iraq, deploying seven combat brigades as well as headquarters 
     and other units with tens of thousands of troops since the 
     war began. Last fall, it surged 50,000 troops to respond to 
     hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
       ``There's a very strong sense out there among our political 
     leadership that the Guard should not be reduced in any way 
     right now,'' Lempke said yesterday. ``We don't know where the 
     war is going. We're very heavily deployed'' and the suggested 
     cuts ``didn't set well,'' said Lempke, whose association 
     represents the senior leaders of the Army and Air National 
     Guard in the 54 states, territories and the District of 
     Columbia.
       A bipartisan group of 75 U.S. senators yesterday sent 
     Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld a letter stating they 
     ``strongly oppose'' reported proposals by the Pentagon to cut 
     National Guard force levels.
       ``We respectfully oppose proposals to cut the end-strength 
     of the National Guard,'' said the letter from Sen. Chrstopher 
     S. Bond (R-Mo.) and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), co-chairs 
     of the Senate's National Guard Caucus. The letter signed by 
     73 other senators.
       Lempke said he welcomed the Army's commitment to keep end 
     strength at 350,000, which he said will help ensure budget 
     money is allocated for the necessary training and 
     recruitment.
       Schoomaker said the Army would progress with a plan to cut 
     the number of National Guard combat brigades from 34 to 28, 
     but reiterated a plan to replace them with six support 
     brigades. One reason for the reduction in combat brigades, he 
     said, was that many of the units were not fully manned or 
     equipped, a situation worsened when soldiers and gear were 
     shifted to units deploying for Iraq--a process the Army calls 
     ``cross-leveling.''
       ``We've used 34 brigades all over the world, and we've had 
     to cross-level big time since 9/11 to make that happen,'' 
     Vaughn said.
       The Army plan calls for ensuring the 28 remaining combat 
     brigades will be fully manned, trained and equipped to be 
     ready to deploy, Schoomaker said. Toward this goal, the Army 
     has budgeted about $21 billion from 2005 to 2011 to modernize 
     equipment for the National Guard, which he said was a 
     fourfold increase over funding levels in 1999.
       ``This is a tremendous investment,'' Schoomaker said. 
     ``This is not taking things down; this is building wholeness 
     up.''
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Feb. 10, 2006]

                     Still Shortchanging the Troops

       It's amazing how Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department can 
     produce a $439 billion spending plan and still skimp on the 
     one thing the American military desperately needs: expanded 
     ground forces so the weakened and cannibalized Army can meet 
     the requirements of Iraq without hurting its ability to 
     respond to other threats.
       While the Pentagon intends to increase pay and recruitment 
     bonuses, no part of its nearly 7 percent budget increase is 
     aimed at raising overall troop strength. Instead, a large 
     chunk of this nearly $30 billion bonanza goes to buying more 
     new weapons and postponing overdue cuts in wasteful Air Force 
     and Navy projects unrelated to fighting terrorism.
       The prospects for Iraq might be very different today if Mr. 
     Rumsfeld had listened to some of his own senior generals and 
     occupation officials and authorized significantly larger 
     ground forces from the beginning. The early looting might 
     have been contained before it shattered political confidence 
     and vital infrastructure. The insurgency might never have 
     gotten such a head start. The incineration tactics of Falluja 
     and the Abu Ghraib nightmare might have been avoided. And the 
     Army's downward spiral of readiness, recruitment and morale 
     might never have begun. But the obstinate ideologues in Mr. 
     Rumsfeld's Pentagon have never accepted the fact that the 
     reality of Iraq did not fit their assumptions. The budget and 
     the four-year plan released with it read almost as if the 
     current conflict had never happened and could never happen 
     again.
       Instead of reallocating resources toward the real threats 
     America faces, the military services continue to pour their 
     money into fighting fictive superpowers in the wild blue 
     yonder and on and below the seven seas. Pentagon budgeters 
     showed themselves so pathetically unable to restrain spending 
     on expensive ships and planes that they actually cut back, 
     rather than increased, the overall size of the Army over the 
     next few years to pay for it.
       It would cost about $4 billion to $5 billion a year to give 
     the Army 30,000 more troops, the minimum it needs to check 
     its alarming slide. Instead the Pentagon chose to begin the 
     construction of two unneeded new stealth destroyers, which 
     will end up costing $2 billion to $3 billion each.
       It also decided to splurge on a new nuclear attack 
     submarine for $2.6 billion and to shell out $5.5 billion for 
     separate Navy and Air Force versions of new stealth fighter 
     jets, plus another $5.5 billion for yet a third version that 
     either can use. In all, the Pentagon is asking for $84 
     billion to buy weapons systems (twice what it got in 1996) 
     and $73 billion more for research and development.
       This budget would be wasteful even under a worst-case 
     assumption that had a second superpower arising within the 
     lifespan of these weapons, turning hostile to America and 
     arming itself to the teeth with the most advanced weapons. 
     There's still unnecessary spending that could be used to 
     repair the Army, which has been ground down at least as much 
     by Pentagon miserliness as by Iraqi insurgents.
       The military contractors are doing just fine. It's the 
     troops in Iraq who need help from Washington.

                          ____________________