Liberated Text -> Congressional Record -> Nine Senators of Shame
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, I salute the Senator from Oklahoma. We have been in Iraq for over 3 years. We have been asking for investigations of these no-bid contracts to these large companies. We have to have Congress accept its responsibility with oversight hearings. More oversight hearings have been held by party caucuses in the Senate than by actual committees looking at these same companies we think are profiteering and ripping off taxpayers.
Congress has a responsibility, too, not just the Department of Defense. We have a responsibility in the Senate. We ought to bring this message to both of our caucuses and say, When are we going to have oversight hearings on those contracting with the Pentagon and making millions of dollars and not making us stronger as a nation?
I salute the Senator from Oklahoma. It is a delicate subject. He has the courage to bring it before us.
Iraq
Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about Iraq as well. I come each and every week. The reason I came the first week was that back home in Illinois someone said: I watch a lot of C- SPAN. Why don't you talk about the war in Iraq? Why doesn't anybody come to the floor and talk about the men and women dying over there? Shouldn't that be brought up every day in the Senate--our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, the bravest and best are dying every day in Iraq?
I thought to myself: How can we be in the middle of a war and go about business as usual on Capitol Hill? We should be talking about this every single day because the war goes on every single day.
This morning, the Pentagon released these figures as of 10 o'clock: 1,942 Americans have been killed in Iraq; 14,902 have been wounded. I have been to these hospitals--Walter Reed, the veterans hospitals back in the Midwest--and I have seen these brave men and women who have come home wounded and, trust me, many of those wounds are extremely serious. They have come home with amputations, serious head injuries, and psychological scars.
Since the Iraqi elections last January, which were greeted by all of us with a great deal of praise for the bravery of the Iraqi people, since those elections took place, 507 of these American soldiers have died, 507 funerals in America. The numbers keep climbing. Some days it is one at a time. Other terrible days it is five or six. Mr. President, 1,942 Americans killed in Iraq; almost 15,000 wounded.
So I will keep coming to the floor to address this issue, to make sure we never forget these men and women and the sacrifice that they, their families, and people who love them make every single day.
I don't want to pretend for a moment this was brought up to me over the weekend. I don't want to pretend for a moment this is the only death and suffering in Iraq. There are innocent Iraqi people who die every day as well. We cannot even put a number on it. I said to my staff: Go to the United Nations, go to the Red Cross, go to some group and tell me how many Iraqis have died since our invasion of Iraq.
They cannot come up with a number. Some estimates are very different. The Brookings Institution, which is recognized as a nonpartisan research organization, puts the estimate between 14,000 and 24,000 Iraqis who have been killed since the start of the war. Others have estimates that go much higher. We don't know. We don't know how many innocent people have died as a result of this war or how many died because of criminal violence.
Iraqis still die every day. Just this last week, we had three coordinated car suicide bombs that went off in a single marketplace. You have seen the photos. You have seen the people, crushed with grief--the mothers, the friends, and fathers, standing next to the mutilated corpses of these victims. These bombs that were detonated recently were staggered to explode at different times so they killed as many innocent people as possible. This is a tactic we have seen over and over again in Israel. Now it has come to pass in Iraq on a regular basis. It is despicable, it is depraved conduct. It is an example of inhumane cruelty.
These attacks on American soldiers and on the innocent Iraqis underline the importance of our mission there and the need for us to be prepared to bring this to the right conclusion. We need to have better training and equipment of the Iraqi security forces and Iraqi police. They must not only have the capability to defend themselves, they must have the will to defend themselves.
Last week, General Abizaid, Commander of the Central Command, and General Casey, Commander of United States and coalition forces in Iraq, testified before Congress. They disclosed a piece of information that had been classified for a long period of time, but they finally brought it out to the American people, and we can speak to it on the floor. It is a piece of information we have known from our classified briefings for some time, and it is this: Of over 100 battalions of Iraqi Army forces in existence today in Iraq, exactly 1 battalion is ready to fight independently--1 out of over 100. That is an incredible number. Billions of dollars that we put in there, promises to the American people that Iraqi soldiers will stand and fight so our soldiers can come home, and as of last week, these two generals testified in open session that one battalion is combat ready as an independent force.
President Bush has said over and over: As Iraqi forces stand up, we will stand down. There is only one Iraqi battalion. That is about 1,000 soldiers. Only 1 battalion standing up; 146,000 American soldiers standing up. They are trying to bring peace to a country that is obviously not ready to defend itself and may not be for a long time.
Many Members on this side of the aisle and the other side are stating very clearly that we need assessments, not platitudes, when it comes to the situation in Iraq. We need to know how many Iraqi forces must be trained so we can start bringing home American troops. We need to know when this administration expects we will reach that number. The fact is over the last 6 months, despite all the promises that have been made, still only one battalion is ready to fight, and the American people need to know the cost, not just in these graphic human terms, but in terms of dollars being spent: $5 billion a month in Iraq. We appropriated $18 billion for the reconstruction of war-torn Iraq, and I remind my colleagues that when we debated that, I don't recall a single Senator coming to the floor and saying: We have to cut spending in some other area before we rebuild Iraq. No, they save that argument for the rebuilding of America after Hurricane Katrina. But we put the $18 billion in place.
Yet when you read the press accounts of the average families in Iraq today, they tell you that life is so much worse than it was a few years ago--no electricity, no sewage, no regular water, no security on the streets, fears that their children will be kidnapped on the way to school. They are trying to leave if they can find a way out. That is the real situation in Iraq on the ground today despite the heroic efforts of our men and women in uniform. Our men and women in uniform have not failed; the political leaders have failed--failed to come up with a plan which said after Saddam Hussein is gone, this is how we will end this war. Sadly, we were not prepared to answer that question, and our soldiers have paid the price.
I am told the President this week will be giving a speech to America about Iraq. It is time for some answers, specific answers, and it is time for accountability. Let's get beyond the generalities. We are talking about real human lives--our sons and daughters--and we need specific answers.
I respectfully suggest the President ought to address four issues: First, how many Iraqi forces must be capable of operating on their own before we can start bringing American soldiers back home, and how soon will we reach those goals?
Second, what specific measures will the Bush administration take before and after the October 15 constitutional referendum to forge the necessary political consensus and reconcile the growing sectarian and religious differences?
Three, what efforts has President Bush made or will he make to bring in broader international support? The coalition of the willing has been shrinking ever since the invasion of Iraq. It is American soldiers and some British soldiers and a few others willing to stand and fight and secure this country. What is this administration doing, if anything, to bring in Muslim forces so we can blunt the criticism that we are somehow a force of occupation, unwelcome in this Muslim country?
Fourth, how should the American people assess the progress in reconstructing Iraq? What are the tangible results of the billions of dollars American taxpayers have provided for Iraq? How is this money being accounted for?
I made the point earlier to the Senator from Oklahoma that we have yet to have a serious oversight hearing about the no-bid contracts in Iraq. Haliburton, all of the names we have heard over and over again, multimillion and billion-dollar contracts, and we won't even ask the hard questions as to whether the money is being well spent. We are shirking our responsibility, our congressional oversight responsibility.
I hope the President goes beyond generalities in his speech. Let's get down to specifics. Let's say to the American people and the soldiers they love: This is our plan for bringing our troops home from Iraq.
I hope this speech is an announcement that we have a new strategy, a strategy for success, a strategy for our soldiers to come home. Staying the course is not a new strategy. I hope on Thursday the President speaks truth to the American people. I hope he offers honest and realistic assessments of what we face.
On October 15, the people of Iraq will vote on a constitution. If it passes, there will be parliamentary elections in December. If it is rejected, the constitutional process will start all over again in December.
There is a lot of speculation about what might happen. A constitution alone is not going to stop the violence, but if the constitution can lead to a unified country or the notion of nationhood making any sense, then that constitution is a step in the right direction.
Sadly, this nation of Iraq is a nation of many different groups who have yet to show us they can come together, and until they do, it is unlikely we can bring our troops home.
There were 23 of us in the Senate who voted against the use-of-force resolution; 23 of us--1 Republican and 22 Democrats who had serious questions about this decision by this administration to invade Iraq. Many of us felt we needed a broader alliance. Many of us felt the information given to the American people prior to the invasion was misleading about weapons of mass destruction, nuclear threats, and alliances with al-Qaida.
Sadly, in the 3 years since, we found that information was just plain wrong. Information given to the American people to ask them to give their sons and daughters in combat was just plain wrong. And here we stand today.
Iraq is a diverse place. The war has made the differences among religious and ethnic groups so much more than they were even before our invasion. To add to these internal tensions, I know there are many neighbors of Iraq who don't want to see that nation succeed. It is a mean neighborhood, no question. Syria, Iran, and others clearly are fomenting trouble, making a terrible situation even worse.
The enemies of Iraqi progress in unity would like to see this division and chaos continue. The Sunnis, the Shi'as, the Kurds, and 24 other recognized groups have the future of Iraq in their hands. The question is whether they believe they have the possibility of becoming a nation and defending themselves.
Many Sunnis did not participate in the last election to choose those who wrote the constitution. We have been told as late as today that they are rewriting the constitution 10 days before the election in the hopes of winning Sunni support.
It is hard to believe this is going to result in what we hope for, but I pray it will. A stable Iraq, moving forward, controlling its own destiny, is the best thing for that country and the best thing for America.
There are a lot of reasons why the Sunnis oppose the constitution. They represent 20 percent of the population, but they represent about 90 percent of these insurgents who are causing these attacks every day, killing innocent Iraqis and our men and women in uniform. Most Sunnis are not insurgents; they are peace-loving people. But they are being overrun by forces they cannot control.
There is a fight over oil. The oil is primarily in Shi'a and Kurdish territory. The Sunnis resent that fact. They want to make certain the riches of that country are shared.
The constitution postpones a lot of critical decisions to a later date, but this constitution is the fundamental underlying law that could guide Iraq in its future.
I am told that when we take a look at the militias and forces in Iraq, we find they are basically split into different factions. Only one battalion combines Iraqis. The others are Kurdish battalions and Shi'a battalions and Sunni battalions. It does not give a positive feeling about this nation moving forward toward one common country.
I hope we can see the changes that are being proposed in this constitution result in its passage and support by all of the different forces that can make Iraq a nation on its own feet.
Secretary of State Colin Powell told President Bush before the war: You break it, you buy it. That is not entirely true. We may well have broken Iraq from what it once was, but we cannot and do not own it. We are unwelcome tenants at this moment in that country, but we need to start thinking about when we will return, and we need to have the hope and the aspirations of the people of Iraq in our minds and be prepared to accept them.
President Bush has a chance tomorrow to tell us that there is a new course, a course that will stop the killing of innocent American soldiers, a course which will avoid those who are wounded and suffering as a result of this war in Iraq, and a course which will bring to an end quickly the insurgency which kills so many innocent Iraqis.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn): The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. Stevens: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 7:30 today, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the following amendments in the order listed, provided further that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the votes. The first is the Warner amendment No. 1955, which is defense of germaneness; the second is Bayh amendment 1933; the next is McCain amendment 1977. Provided further that there be 6 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each of the above ordered votes.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Stevens: I thank the Senator from Illinois.
(Several Senators addressed the Chair.)
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Warner: If I might just make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. Our distinguished colleague from Connecticut has been waiting for a period of time. I wish to respect that, but I ask following his remarks if the Senator from Virginia could be recognized for the purposes of a colloquy with the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. Durbin: I am not sure if I still have the floor. I say to my colleague from Connecticut that I will speak for about 10 or 12 minutes and then will yield the floor.
Mr. Dodd: I ask unanimous consent that I follow my distinguished colleague from Illinois.
The Presiding Officer: That is the understanding of the Chair.
Mr. Warner: Did we understand that the Senator from Illinois wants another 15 minutes?
Mr. Durbin: That is right.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator had the floor and has that right.
Mr. Warner: Yes, of course, I recognize that. I was just trying to be informed as to how the rest of us can plan our schedules. The Senator from Connecticut might well desire what period of time?
Mr. Dodd: I would say to my colleague, I hope maybe it is 15 minutes or so. Depending upon the reaction of the chairman and the ranking member of the committee, maybe even less time than that. I will try to be brief because I know the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan are interested in having a colloquy.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, in the interest of keeping business moving, I am going to yield the floor at this point and return at a later moment. I will let the Senator from Connecticut take the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Amendment No. 1970
Mr. Dodd: Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his graciousness. I thank my colleague from Virginia as well for his consideration, and I will try to be brief.
I call up amendment No. 1970 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an amendment numbered 1970.
Mr. Dodd: 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 improve the authority for reimbursement for protective, safety, and health equipment purchased for members of the Armed Forces deployed in Iraq and Central Asia)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Reimbursement for Certain Protective, Safety, or Health Equipment Purchased by or for Members of the Armed Forces for Deployment in Operations in Iraq and Central Asia.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsections (d) and (e), the Secretary of Defense shall reimburse a member of the Armed Forces, or a person or entity referred to in paragraph (2), for the cost (including shipping cost) of any protective, safety, or health equipment that was purchased by such member, or such person or entity on behalf of such member, before or during the deployment of such member in Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom for the use of such member in connection with such operation if the unit commander of such member certifies that such equipment was critical to the protection, safety, or health of such member.
(2) Covered persons and entities.--A person or entity referred to in this paragraph is a family member or relative of a member of the Armed Forces, a non-profit organization, or a community group.
(3) Regulations not required for reimbursement.-- Reimbursements may be made under this subsection in advance of the promulgation by the Secretary of Defense of regulations, if any, relating to the administration of this section.
(b) Protective Equipment Reimbursement Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--There is hereby established an account to be known as the "Protective Equipment Reimbursement Fund" (in this subsection referred to as the "Fund").
(2) Elements.--The Fund shall consist of amounts deposited in the Fund from amounts available for the Fund under subsection (f).
(3) Availability.--Amounts in the Fund shall be available directly to the unit commanders of members of the Armed Forces for the making of reimbursements for protective, safety, and health equipment under subsection (a).
(4) Documentation.--Each person seeking reimbursement under subsection (a) for protective, safety, or health equipment purchased by or on behalf of a member of the Armed Forces shall submit to the unit commander of such member such documentation as is necessary to establish each of the following:
(A) The nature of such equipment, including whether or not such equipment qualifies as protective, safety, or health equipment under subsection (c).
(B) The cost of such equipment.
(c) Covered Protective, Safety, and Health Equipment.-- Protective, safety, and health equipment for which reimbursement shall be made under subsection (a) shall include personal body armor, collective armor or protective equipment (including armor or protective equipment for high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles), and items provided through the Rapid Fielding Initiative of the Army, or equivalent programs of the other Armed Forces, such as the advanced (on-the-move) hydration system, the advanced combat helmet, the close combat optics system, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver, a gun scope and a soldier intercommunication device.
(d) Limitation Regarding Amount of Reimbursement.--The amount of reimbursement provided under subsection (a) per item of protective, safety, and health equipment purchased by or on behalf of any given member of the Armed Forces may not exceed the lesser of--
(1) the cost of such equipment (including shipping cost);
or
(2) $1,100.(e) Ownership of Equipment.--The Secretary shall identify the circumstances, if any, under which the United States shall assume title or ownership of protective, safety, or health equipment for which reimbursement is provided under subsection (a).
(f) Funding.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), amounts for reimbursements under subsection (a) shall be derived from any amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act.
(2) Exception.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act and available for the procurement of equipment for members of the Armed Forces deployed, or to be deployed, to Iraq or Afghanistan may not be utilized for reimbursements under subsection (a).
(g) Repeal of Superseded Authority.--Section 351 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375; 118. Stat. 1857) is repealed.
Mr. Dodd: Mr. President, this is old business in the sense of what I am bringing up was a matter considered a little over a year ago on similar legislation. I regret that I have to come back again this year. My colleagues voted unanimously a year ago to adopt this amendment or an amendment very much like it. The other body as well agreed to this amendment during conference between the two bodies. It became the law of the land.
The amendment basically said that for those men and women in uniform serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who purchased--or family members, neighbors, or others--essential equipment that they needed in their role as service men and women, it would be reimbursed up to a maximum amount of $1,100 over a relatively limited period of time. The amendment was straightforward, clear-cut, and enjoyed the strong support, I might add, of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, as well as others who believed this was the right thing to do.
At the time, the Pentagon objected to the amendment, offered talking points against it, and said it was unmanageable to have a reimbursement program for equipment that our service men and women were having to either buy themselves or having bought for them by family members or others.
Over the last year and almost a half, I have had some 15 or 16 exchanges and correspondence with the leadership of the Pentagon. Up until today, and I mean literally this afternoon, there had been almost no response to this requirement of law. As of today--and I will get to this in a minute--they have decided to issue some regulations. It is not a coincidence that they are offering those proposed regulations the very day I am offering the amendment again on the floor. There is an old expression, "I was born at night but not last night," and I would love to believe that this was strictly a matter of timing, but I am concerned that basically there is still a resistance to the idea that our service men and women ought to be receiving the kind of equipment they need, particularly in a war zone.
As we all know, and again I am stating the obvious, we are at war. The safety and protection of our troops in the field could not be a more serious issue for every single one of us. So why is it that the Pentagon has repeatedly failed to adequately equip these men and women? As far back as June of 2003, the military was regularly reporting that up to a quarter of the troops deployed to Iraq were short of critical body armor needed to protect themselves from shrapnel and AK-47 fire.
Just this last June, the Marine Corps Inspector General estimated that 30,000 marines in Iraq needed twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to perform their operations successfully than they were getting. Let me repeat: 30,000 marines in Iraq need twice as much heavy equipment in some areas as they are getting.
The Army has had so many troubles mass-producing body armor that it eventually lost as many as 10,000 armored plates as reported by the Army Inspector General's Office.
Most frustrating of all is that as casualties mounted due to roadside bombs or, in DOD parlance, the improvised explosive devices, IEDs, we found that the Pentagon had gravely underestimated the necessary armor needed to protect Army and Marine ground vehicles.
At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in March of 2004, Acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee--a good friend of mine, I might add-- testified that the Army had not made fortifications of humvees a priority, saying:
We simply were not prepared for that kind of counterinsurgency that attacked our convoys.
As a result of all of these failures, our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen and marines, were forced to take matters into their own hands in far too many cases.
As early as 2003, the Army's own Soldier Systems Command reported that soldiers, particularly infantrymen, were paying an average of $400 each out of their own pockets for their equipment that their civilian leaders had failed to provide them. Again, the Soldier Systems Command reported those statistics and that the figure did not even include personal body armor that was being purchased. Because they saw the Pentagon failing our troops, servicemembers and their families have all pitched in to pay for protective gear, even vehicle armor, so they did not have to see their own people going off to war without the equipment they need to keep safe.
Things seemed to come to a head when in December of 2004 a soldier asked Secretary Rumsfeld about having to sift through garbage dumps for scrap metal for Army vehicle armor. The Defense Secretary cavalierly replied:
You have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.
Of course, we all recall the reaction of the public to that statement. It was very negative, to put it mildly.
Two weeks ago, my office received a call from a constituent I will call Gordon, his first name. Gordon is a good American. He is a former mayor of a small town in Connecticut and a Vietnam veteran. He asked that he be identified only by his first name because he is afraid of retribution against his son. His only son is a lance corporal, recently deployed in Iraq, in the U.S. Marine Corps.
A loyal Republican, Gordon is not looking for Government handouts or to be challenging the President of the United States. He just wants his son to be safe. That is why last month he contacted the online store Diamond Back Tactical and ordered combat gear for his son totaling $683.36. His purchase included lower back double-plated body armor, CAT NAPP body armor for the lower torso and pelvis area. He willingly paid for the order in full, as would any parent, I suggest. But why is it that this family had to place a purchase order on their own? And how can we bear to let good Americans such as Gordon pay this price when there should be regulations on the books providing reimbursements for these kinds of purchases if we are not going to make them on behalf of these young men and women ourselves?
Last week, I met another marine, SGT Todd Bowers, now a reservist attending George Washington University, who has already pulled two tours in Iraq. On his last deployment, Sergeant Bowers said he was fired on by a sniper. It was not the gear provided by the Marine Corps that saved his life but, rather, a $600 rifle scope that his father had just purchased at a gun show in Arizona and a pair of goggles he himself bought for $100. The bullet from the insurgent's gun lodged into Sergeant Bowers' scope rather than his skull, and the goggles guarded his eyes from scattering shrapnel. Thank goodness Sergeant Bowers' father made these purchases. But why is it these concerned parents had to make these purchases on their own? And what about the hundreds of military families without the resources to buy these items? Are we going to allow these sons and daughters, husbands and wives in uniform to go without the battlefield equipment that is essential for their safety?
This is not a new issue. In fact, we have been sounding the alarm to Secretary Rumsfeld and the Pentagon's leadership for several years now. To address inadequate equipment supplies, in 2003, I proposed an amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to resolve $322 million in shortfalls in critical health and safety gear, identified by the Army itself, including body armor, camelback hydration systems, and combat helmets. Unfortunately, the administration opposed this legislation, and the amendment was defeated along party lines.
Last year, we tried a different approach--requiring the Pentagon to reimburse military personnel, their families, and charities that bought equipment for military servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fortunately, in June of 2004, despite ardent objections, I might add, of the Department of Defense, this body approved that amendment 91 to 0.
On October 9, 2004, this body approved the final version of that bill, and the President signed it into law, including a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to implement a reimbursement program by February 25 of this year. It is now October 5, 2005, nearly a year after this provision became the law of the land, over 7 months after the Defense Department was required by law to set up a system for the troops to receive compensation for the protective gear they purchase for use in combat, equipment they bought because the Government failed to provide it. All of this time has passed and still the administration has failed to comply with the law.
My office has made dozens of contacts to the Pentagon, both in phone calls and in letters, and still we heard nothing back and still little action has been taken. Maybe they thought they could just ignore the law or that I might just go away. Instead, under pressure from renewed press interest on this issue, the Defense Department finally issued early guidelines--guess when. Today--for implementing the reimbursement program just over 7 months late.
The regulations are incomplete, with provisions for reimbursement for only a select few items. If one needs any proof that DOD is once again coming up short, all one needs to do is look at the list of reimbursement items. It does not include the gun scope that saved Todd Bowers' life. It does not include the gear that Gordon bought for his son. It does not even include items that were purchased in an attempt to protect humvees with what has been called "hillbilly armor," as depicted by this New York Times story in May of 2004.
In this story, a community in New Jersey went out as a community and bought a lot of this body armor to use on the floor of humvees to protect the young men and women from their own State from those problems, such as bombs going off that were taking so many lives. This goes back to that date. They would not be included in the list provided by the Pentagon.
As I understand it, there are still no plans for each of the military services to actually enforce these regulations. The Pentagon's leadership has done everything in its power, unfortunately, to stop this measure from being implemented, either by circulating talking points against my amendment last year or merely failing to implement the statute as it was enacted a year ago. Why should they stop now, I ask?
In their talking points to Congress last year, the Department of Defense actually said that it "set an unmanageable precedent," and that it would actually "encourage servicemembers and their loved ones to purchase equipment on their own."
Such arguments seem absolutely appalling to me. It is the Pentagon's failure to equip our soldiers that is causing servicemembers to go out and buy equipment, not legislation promoting reimbursement for gear that should have been provided anyway. If only the Defense Department's leadership had kept its commitment to protect our troops, I would not be taking the measures I am taking today.
I regret to say I am telling only part of the story. It seems not only the Pentagon miscalculated what the needs are of our troops, but it also underestimated the need to fix the problem in short order. At the time I originally introduced my amendment, in June of 2004, the Pentagon leadership pledged they would have all the equipment needs addressed by July 31, 2004. All troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan would have adequate protective gear, they claimed. All appropriate vehicles would have the necessary body armor, they said. And according to the Pentagon, all our deployed soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines could rest assured that their equipment needs would be met. We therefore crafted our amendment to reimburse troops for purchases only made between September 11, 2001, and July 31, 2004.
But, as many military members and their family members such as Gordon or Todd Bowers will tell you, private purchases of critical gear are still occurring every day. We owe it to our troops to make sure that they are adequately compensated for these purchases. For all of those reasons, I introduced this additional legislation that I hope will move this Government into action.
Let me briefly describe what it does. First, since Secretary Rumsfeld has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to comply with the law, we take out of his hands the requirement to devise the reimbursement program, and instead we leave it up to the individual troops' unit commanders to decide which equipment need is worthy of reimbursement. If the unit commander thinks it is necessary, they can say reimburse for it. If they say no, you don't get reimbursed. Leave it to your unit commanders. No one knows the needs of our troops better than the commanders deploying alongside our fighting men and women.
Rather than waiting for some bureaucrat at the Pentagon to decide what kind of armor our soldiers and marines should be entitled to, it is far more appropriate, in my view, to leave that up to their company commanders or squadron leaders.
My colleagues should have no objections to this requirement, since they endorsed the unit commanders' discretion in the original version of the amendment that was unanimously passed by this body in 2004.
Second, as I have already stated, in spite of the Pentagon's assurances, the military has not yet met the troops' armor and equipment needs so the legislation I am offering today will allow reimbursement for equipment purchases made at any time in support of operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom, not just the period between September 11, 2001, and June 31, 2004, as originally recommended by the Department of Defense.
Words cannot adequately express this Senator's frustration that in the year 2005, the most powerful nation on Earth cannot even see to it that its military personnel have the safety equipment they need while deployed in harm's way. I believe we owe it to our troops to do the right thing and to pass this measure. This legislation has already received the endorsement of several national military organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Officers Association of America, National Guard Association of the United States, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard.
I particularly thank Retired Brigadier General Green for his strong endorsement of this bill, along with Retired Master Sergeant Kline of the Enlisted Association of the National Guard for their strong endorsement. They appeared with me a few days ago at a press conference in which I announced I was going to offer this amendment and gave very strong statements in support of this effort.
Again, I do not want to take up a lot of time. We have already adopted this amendment a year ago, virtually the same amendment. I regret I am back again more than a year later urging similar action. But, again, I point out it has taken far too long for some response to this. Again, if the problem were over with, if it were not ongoing, I would not offer the amendment. I would be disappointed the administration or Pentagon did not comply with last year's law but, as I testified, we have problems every single day in this area. The Pentagon needs to get to business on this.
Today they have all of a sudden come up with a proposed set of regulations, but I point out no gun scopes, no humvee protection, no GPS receivers, no radios. These and other items that are being purchased by our troops are included on our list. It is a step in the right direction but occurring on the very day I am offering the amendment is not mere coincidence, in my view. I thank them for their action today, but we need to do more.
I urge the adoption of this amendment. I hope my colleagues will make this a unanimous vote here to support the amendment.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner: I commend my colleague from Connecticut.
Mr. Stevens: Will the Senator yield for a procedural matter?
Mr. Warner: I yield the floor.
Mr. Stevens: Just to correct an error to the Record.
Mr. Warner: Certainly.