[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 87 (Friday, July 1, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          THANKS TO THE STAFF

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, before I on behalf of the leader ask certain 
unanimous-consent requests and wrapup matters, I want to again thank 
the staff on the majority side and the minority side for superb work. I 
want to particularly note on the majority side P. T. Henry, Dick Combs, 
Danny Ginsberg, Creighton Greene, Rick Finn, Madelyn Creedon, Kathy 
Bognovitz, Arnold Punaro, and John Douglass, Richard DeBobes, Andrew 
Effron, William Hoehn, Julie Kemp, David Lyles, Kirk McConnell, Michael 
McCord, and Frank Norton.
  They are all here on the Chamber, and I am very grateful to each of 
them; also to those who are back in the offices working very 
diligently. We thank them also.
  I express my appreciation to Dick Reynard, and Les Brownlee, and the 
entire staff on the minority side. They are true professionals, and 
they are a pleasure to work with. We are grateful to all of you. You do 
a great job. We appreciate it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate has just voted to approve the 
fiscal year 1995 Defense Authorization bill. I oppose this bill for the 
following reasons.
  I fear that we are cutting defense too fast and too deep. This year 
is the tenth consecutive year of declining defense budgets. I agree 
that reductions in defense spending were appropriate following the 
collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. But since 1985, 
defense spending has declined 35 percent, with another 10 percent 
reduction planned by 1999 under the Clinton budget. The magnitude of 
the reductions in budget and force structure contained in this bill are 
a matter of grave concern.
  In addition, the Clinton Administration has not provided adequate 
resources to fund the force levels required to support the forces or 
the strategy which underlie this bill. The Secretary of Defense has 
testified that a shortfall of $20 billion exists in the 5 year defense 
plan because of underfunded inflation costs. Many other analysts agree 
that defense is underfunded by at least $60 billion; some estimate that 
figure is closer to $100 billion. This bill does nothing to redress 
these budgetary shortfalls.
  Mr. President, lack of adequate funding means that military 
commanders must make difficult choices between combat training or 
vehicle maintenance, between operations or modernization, between 
readiness and quality-of-life for our military men and women. Training 
foregone cannot be recovered without additional funding. Lowered morale 
is difficult to restore. Without adequate funding, these deficiencies 
combine to adversely affect readiness.
  The readiness problems of the hollow force of the 1970's were caused 
primarily by the fact that the nation broke faith with its military. A 
similar breach of faith is occurring today. Active duty and retiree pay 
is underfunded. The services are not receiving the training necessary 
to preserve the combat edge they had when they went into Desert Storm. 
There is no depth to logistics support now, and there is no indication 
this situation will improve. The exceptional force of dedicated 
professionals, which we all worked so hard to rebuild from the hollow 
force, is again in a downward spiral. I object to permitting the 
dismantling of our military force.
  One of the most objectionable portions of this bill is that which 
deals with military construction. Included in this bill are nearly $800 
million in authorizations for military construction projects which were 
not included in the President's budget request. These projects were 
requested by Members of the Senate. They were not subjected to the 
scrutiny of the Senate Armed Services Committee during its review of 
such projects, and they were not therefore assessed in relation to 
other military construction projects or other defense spending areas. 
These projects were added merely because a Senator requested funding 
for them. This is a glaring example of Congressional pork barrel 
spending.

  Mr. President, there are many programs and policies contained in this 
bill which I support. In particular, I applaud the efforts of the 
Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, Senator Glenn, to tighten up 
the Committee's review of military construction add-ons, and his 
efforts to direct budgetary savings to high-priority readiness accounts 
like real property maintenance and depot level maintenance. I also 
thank the Committee members for including expedited procedures to 
ensure that conveyances of federal land are reviewed under GSA's 
standards. The vast majority of the programs authorized in this bill 
are meritorious programs which will serve to enhance our national 
security.
  Yet I cannot support a bill which essentially endorses the continued 
decline in defense spending. I cannot vote in favor of a bill which 
allows the military readiness of our Armed Forces to be sacrificed for 
pork barrel spending.
  Therefore, I register my vote in opposition to the fiscal year 1995 
Defense Authorization bill. I will continue to work to ensure that 
scarce defense dollars are spent wisely and for the programs which most 
effectively meet our national security needs.

                          ____________________