[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 37 (Monday, March 5, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2600-S2601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DODD:
  S. 756. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
Defense to address the equipment reset and other equipment needs of the 
National Guard, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, no one has worked harder or sacrificed more 
in the war on terrorism than our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 
Marines.
  Regrettably, they have been tested in unprecedented ways--with too 
few troops in our overall forces, our soldiers are rotating in and out 
of Iraq for year-long stretches. By the beginning of next year, members 
of the 3rd Infantry Division will have spent more time in Iraq than at 
home in a span of five years.
  On top of the physical and psychological strains caused by these 
deployments, our troops are contending with grave equipment shortfalls 
and sparse resources to restock their supplies.
  Congress and the American public were already informed that two-
thirds of the Army's forces in the United States are ``not ready'' for 
combat duty, largely due to these equipment shortfalls.
  But the situation for our National Guard is far worse. In a report 
submitted to Congress last Thursday by the Commission on the National 
Guard and Reserves, we learned that 88 percent of the National Guard 
has been classified as ``not ready'' for duty. Such a statistic seems 
earth-shattering to me--it should drive all of us in Congress to action 
immediately.
  As my colleagues know, the National Guard operates under dual 
authorities: overseas, they become fully integrated into the U.S. Armed 
Forces, serving under the President in a variety of combat missions; at 
home, the National Guard serves under our States' governors, performing 
homeland security functions during local or statewide emergencies, such 
as storms, fires, earthquakes or civil disturbances.
  For years now, however, the administration's foreign policies have 
actually endangered the Guard's abilities to perform either of these 
functions. Under orders by the administration, National Guard troops 
have been forced to leave their State's equipment in Iraq and 
Afghanistan for other troops rotating into combat theaters. Many of 
their military vehicles and aircraft are being worn down and destroyed 
in battle. But any critical equipment that may have survived is simply 
being transferred to other units coming into Iraq or Afghanistan.
  This means that when the National Guard comes home, they are finding 
their stocks of equipment--ranging from humvees to night-vision 
goggles, generators and radios--cleaned out. So today, we face a 
frightening series of questions--what happens when the next Hurricane 
Katrina strikes? Who will help restore order? Who will help provide 
critical emergency response services? And what equipment will they use?
  The National Guard Commission, led by former Senate Armed Services 
Committee Staff Director retired Marine General Arnold Punaro, lays out 
the problems in stark terms. Unless we address this situation 
immediately, we will jeopardize not only our troops' safety but our 
very nation's security.
  That is why today I am introducing legislation to rebuild our 
National Guard and ensure that it can fully perform both its homeland 
security and national defense missions. According to the National Guard 
Bureau at the Pentagon, the President's budget is short $38 billion 
over the next five years. My bill would allocate funding according to 
the needs projected by National Guard Bureau Chief Lieutenant General 
H. Steven Blum.
  Some may suggest that this is not an issue that can simply be fixed 
with more money. As in prior years, the Department of Defense may say 
that the defense industry simply just does not have adequate capacity 
to manufacture all of these new product orders. If that is the case, we 
will need to find ways to expand our nation's defense production. For 
that reason, my bill will also require the Defense Department to 
provide a plan for investing in industry to expand their manufacturing 
capacity.
  This legislation will complement the Leahy-Bond Guard Empowerment Act 
of 2007, legislation that I have proudly cosponsored to elevate 
National Guard leadership at the Department of Defense so that it may 
better contribute to the formulation of key defense policies. But 
without the necessary resources, the National Guard will be unable to 
do its job. That is why my legislation is so important today.
  These conclusions were further confirmed by a January 2007 Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) report which found that our National 
Guard's equipment inventories in the United States have decreased 
largely because of overseas operations. The GAO further found that as 
of November 2006, nondeployed Army National Guard forces nationwide 
only have 64 percent of the total amount of equipment they need.
  Let me be clear about the reasons why my legislation is needed to lay 
out our budget for the next five years. While the administration's 
recent five-year budget projections have sought large increases for 
National Guard equipment, according to the National Guard Commission 
Report data, the administration and Republican-led Congresses have 
repeatedly failed to follow through on such requirements.
  According to the Commission, funding from 1999-2005 has been reduced 
significantly from the amounts identified several years earlier. For 
example, when the administration's first five-year budget was submitted 
to Congress, it showed that the Army planned to fund $1.346 billion in 
Fiscal Year 2004

[[Page S2601]]

for Army National Guard procurement. But in reality, the Army Guard 
actually had only $578.4 million to spend that year. Similarly, the 
Fiscal Year 2005 budget was initially projected to be $1.625 billion 
for the Army National Guard. But when it came time to allocate the 
funding, the Administration and their Congressional allies could only 
come up with $660.9 million for Army National Guard procurement.
  Indeed, while our troops have given their all on the battlefield, the 
administration and United States Congress have not held up their end of 
the bargain. We owe it to our troops to do all that we can to promote 
their wellbeing--whether providing appropriate care at our military and 
VA hospitals or providing the military equipment they need to complete 
their missions safely and effectively.
  Regrettably, the sad and simple fact is that the administration has 
repeatedly come up short in this regard. And these failures are having 
devastating consequences, not only for our troops but for our Nation's 
very defense and homeland security.
  This situation is not new. I have come to the floor to try to address 
lacking resources for our military's essential equipment needs from the 
very first year of the Iraq war. In 2003, the Army identified $322 
million in shortfalls in critical health and safety gear--ranging from 
body armor, camelback hydration systems, and combat helmets to 
equipment for deactivating high-explosives--all priorities that the 
Rumsfeld Pentagon and Bush administration failed to provide for in 
their initial budgets. I offered an amendment to the Emergency 
Appropriations bill to resolve these problems. Unfortunately, the Bush 
administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was defeated 
along party lines.
  In 2004, we tried a different approach--requiring the Department of 
Defense to reimburse military personnel who bought equipment for 
military service in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Rumsfeld Pentagon had 
failed to provide. This time, despite ardent objections of Secretary 
Rumsfeld's Pentagon, Congress approved the legislation. And in October 
2004, President Bush signed the bill into law. We approved similar 
legislation in 2005 to further extend this benefit as troops, their 
families, and their communities continued to dig into their own pockets 
to buy needed lifesaving equipment for use on the battlefield.
  But last year, the difficulties associated with equipment shortfalls 
posed a far more serious problem. Working with Senators Inouye, Reed 
and Stevens, I offered an amendment to address a $17 billion budget 
shortfall to replace and repair thousands of war battered tanks, 
aircraft, and vehicles. Without these additional resources, the Army 
Chief of Staff claimed that U.S. Army readiness would deteriorate even 
further. This provision was approved unanimously and enacted in law. 
But much more remains to be done.
  If Congress and the administration do not finally heed the warnings 
of the U.S. military's top generals, and fully fund our equipment 
needs, the Armed Forces' ability to respond to future challenges to 
America's national security--whether on the Korean Peninsula, the 
Middle East, or elsewhere in the world--could be harmed.
  Moreover, if we do not take the findings of the independent National 
Guard Commission seriously, and fully address the equipment shortfalls 
of our Citizen Soldiers here at home, I am afraid we will further erode 
our states' most pressing emergency response capabilities.
  For the last six years, our troops have unconditionally served in 
Afghanistan, battling Al Qaeda and Taliban forces. And for four years, 
they have bravely followed orders into Iraq, despite the 
administration's ill-defined objectives and faulty intelligence.
  Our troops have served with characteristic honor, dedication, and 
skill. It is high time that we meet our commitments to them--and give 
them the mission-critical gear they need to get their jobs done. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support my legislation.
                                 ______