Opening Statement of Senator Carl Levin at Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, General Pace and General Schoomaker

Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our witnesses this morning. I also join you in praising the life of Coretta Scott King and expressing our condolences to the King family. I know Senator Kennedy and Senator Clinton and perhaps others are not here today because they are attending Mrs. King’s funeral.

Today and every day our men and women in uniform are risking their lives representing our nation around the world. We join together in recognizing and commending them for the work that they are doing with such extraordinary bravery and dedication. They have our full support, and we will continue to attempt to provide them with everything they need to succeed.

The situation in Iraq has reached a pivotal point - the next several months are likely to determine whether Iraq will be engulfed in all-out civil war or move towards nationhood. Negotiations are ongoing for the formation of a new Iraqi government, and as soon as the new Iraqi Parliament is seated, it is to appoint a Panel to review and recommend changes to the Iraqi Constitution - a job to which four months have been allotted by that same Constitution.

In testimony before this Committee on September 29 of last year, General George Casey, the Commanding General Multinational Force - Iraq, stated that "We've looked for the constitution to be a national compact, and the perception now is that it's not, particularly among the Sunni." Most other observers have agreed that the new constitution as it stands is a divisive document. The International Crisis Group, a highly respected independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization, in a report released last September wrote: "Without a strong U.S.-led initiative to assuage Sunni Arab concerns, the constitution is likely to fuel rather than dampen the insurgency, encourage ethnic and sectarian violence, and hasten the country's violent break-up."

But the message President Bush has sent undermines the vital effort to get Iraqis to agree on amendments to their constitution. Instead of urging Iraqis to make modifications in the Constitution so as to produce a document which unifies them, the President on December 12 called the Iraqi constitution a "bold constitution that guarantees the rule of law and freedom of assembly, and property rights, and freedom of speech and the press, and women's rights, and the right to vote." The President's effusive praise is the wrong message because it lessens the likelihood that the compromises necessary to change the constitution will be made.

The future of Iraq depends on Iraqis making changes in their constitution to assure fair sharing of power and oil resources and adequate protection of minorities. Yet when the President was asked at a recent press conference, "How hard will you push Iraq's competing political parties to get a government and a constitutional compromise?" he responded, "There is an opportunity to amend the constitution." He did not say that he will push them hard. He didn't even say he would urge them to do so. He would only say what is obvious – they have an "opportunity" to do so.

It is surely true that the U.S. can't amend the Iraqi constitution. Only the Iraqis can do that. But it is also surely true that we have the standing, given the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made and given the other costs of this war to our nation, to tell the Iraqis that they need to take that essential step. If they don’t, the level of our troop strength won’t make a difference – Iraqis will continue to descend into civil war. Having a unifying constitution is critical because, as our military leaders have repeatedly told us, there won't be a military success over the insurgency without a political coming together of the major Iraqi groups.

In a resolution with bipartisan support in November, 79 U.S. Senators agreed that: "The Administration should tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency in Iraq, within the schedule they set for themselves." That language is now incorporated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Failure to heed that congressional advice could contribute to a stalemated negotiation among Iraqi leaders. When the Administration repeats the mantra – “we'll stay in Iraq as long as we are needed”, that open-ended commitment removes pressure on the Iraqis to get their political house in order.

We need to clearly tell the Iraqis factions: “our willingness to commit further lives and resources to your future depends on your willingness to amend your constitution so that there is a future as an Iraqi nation”.

I have no doubt that there will be a significant reduction in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq this year. The question is whether the significant reduction will be in the context of the Iraqis having made the political compromises necessary to move forward toward nationhood and the defeat of the insurgency, or in the context of the Iraqis having failed to do so with the insurgency continuing and all-out civil war waiting to break out.

The need to address the political situation in Iraq is just one of the many issues that require this Committee’s attention and oversight, but there are other important issues as well.

Responsible budgeting means making choices and setting priorities. This budget request fails that test. It understates the true cost of our defense program because it does not fully recognize or pay for the cost of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007. Funds for those will apparently be requested later this year on an emergency, non-paid for, basis. That is not responsible budgeting. Those costs should be planned on and paid for now. Honest budgeting requires no less.

I am also very concerned that maintaining our current troop levels in Iraq is not sustainable over the long term. The grueling operational tempo is wearing down people and wearing out equipment. While re-enlistment rates in the Army and Marine Corps are strong - and are a credit to the dedication and devotion to duty of our soldiers and Marines – some indicators, such as increasing strains on military families, are indicative of a force under stress and give rise to concerns that those re-enlistment rates cannot be maintained. There is also clear evidence that the services are having difficulty in recruiting new first-term soldiers and Marines who are critical to a balanced force across all ranks and grades.

There are numerous other issues that require our attention. For instance, in the area of national missile defense, although we have already deployed 10 Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptors, this operationally configured missile defense system has never had a single successful intercept test. The simple truth is that we do not know if the system will work.

Despite this glaring problem, and despite the facts that the Department has already obtained funds from Congress for building and deploying 30 interceptors, and that the next planned intercept flight test will not occur until the end of this year, the Department is seeking additional funds in this budget request to build and deploy more of these untested and unproven interceptors.

Finally, we have received interim reports from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence regarding the so-called TALON reporting system, which is supposed to collect information relating to possible foreign terrorist threats to defense personnel and facilities, and the review underway to ensure that the rules governing the collection and retention of data are followed. The Department has sent us an interim letter informing us that a small percent of reports were submitted that inappropriately dealt with demonstrations and anti-war activity rather than foreign terrorist threats, and that DOD will soon conclude its review of the program to determine precisely what needs to be done to correct its flaws. It will then issue detailed guidance outlining the proper procedures. The usefulness of congressional oversight has already been demonstrated in this matter. I would hope we would have a briefing for Members once the review is complete. I ask that the interim letter from the Department be made part of the record.

I would also hope, as I previously requested, that the Committee will hold a hearing to inquire into DOD’s National Security Agency's program relating to the surveillance of communications involving U.S. persons. NSA oversight is clearly a responsibility of ours along with the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. I would also note that while we are spending a huge amount of manpower to subject the communications of apparently thousands of Americans to surveillance, known al Qaeda leaders, including one convicted of helping plan and organize the attack on the destroyer USS Cole in 2000, escaped last Friday for the second time from custody in a Yemen prison. I hope the Administration will investigate this fiasco that resulted in the loss of known al Qaeda operatives from custody with the same vigor that it is surveilling Americans.

Mr. Chairman, we have much work to do in our review of the defense program for FY 2007, and in carrying out our oversight responsibilities.

Through no fault of yours surely, we barely got our bill passed last year. You deserve, our troops deserve, the total co-operation of everybody involved to avoid a repeat of the unfortunate series of events delays which plagued our ‘06 bill.

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.