[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       CLINTON DEFENSE CUTS ARE RETURNING US TO A HOLLOW MILITARY

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, there is a perception out there that defense 
spending has not been reduced, and that there is plenty of money in the 
defense budget to be tapped for other purposes. Nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  In 1992 candidate Clinton called for $60 billion in additional 
defense cuts beyond the cuts that President Bush had proposed.
  President Clinton has nearly tripled his defense cuts. He is now 
calling for $156 billion in additional cuts. This year's defense budget 
represents the 10th straight year of decreased defense spending. The 
defense budget is 35 percent smaller than in 1985.
  Under the Clinton defense blueprint, by 1999 the defense budget will 
account for only 2.8 percent of gross domestic product. At no time 
since before World War II have we dropped below 4.4 percent of gross 
domestic product.
  During the same time, domestic spending is slated to increase by 12 
percent, entitlements by 38 percent. It is clear that Bill Clinton is 
raiding the defense budget to fund new social spending.
  What effect does this have on our military? Although only 10 percent 
of the Clinton defense cuts have been made, enlistment in the Armed 
Forces is down. The quality of recruits is dropping. The voluntary 
military concept which has worked so well in this country is 
threatened.
  Active duty military personnel has decreased by 32 percent, 45 
percent of our Army divisions are gone, Navy battle force ships are 
down 37 percent, and attack/fighter aircraft are down 40 percent from 
1985 levels.
  Defense cuts means lost jobs. Under the Clinton plan 15,000 soldiers 
and DOD civilian personnel will lose their job every month.
  In the private sector, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that 
the Clinton defense cuts will result in 1.2 million defense-related 
jobs between now and 1997.
  What do these cuts do to our ability to fight and win wars?
  The United States has always maintained a force capable of winning 
two simultaneous wars.
  Last year, the Clinton administration changed that policy to being 
able to win two nearly simultaneous Persian Gulf type wars.
  The Clinton plan calls for maintaining only 10 active Army divisions.
  During Desert Storm, the United States deployed the equivalent of 
eight active Army divisions.
  If we deployed 8 divisions during Desert Storm, how can the United 
States possibly win 2 wars with only 10 divisions?
  Even if the United States deployed every Army division 
simultaneously, which is not only dumb, but also impossible, it could 
not win two nearly simultaneous wars.
  Simply, the Clinton defense numbers do not match the U.S. commitments 
around the globe.
  The Clinton administration has exercised a tentative and inconsistent 
foreign policy, increasing the need for a strong national defense.
  In Somalia, Clinton expanded our role to include nation-building. 
This fuzzy policy not only cost the lives of U.S. soldiers, but sent 
the signal to foreign leaders that U.S. resolve was lacking.
  How about Haiti? In October Clinton sent the U.S.S. Harlan County to 
Haiti; the ship was recalled after being chased away by a small angry 
mob. Candidate Clinton did not support the Bush policy of returning 
Haitian refugees. President Clinton does support this policy, or does 
he? It is a little hard to tell whether he does or not. One day he does 
and the next day he does not. Now Clinton is beating the drums of war 
with Haiti.
  In Neville Chamberlain style, Bill Clinton has appeased North Korea 
on their desire to create a nuclear weapons program. Clinton first held 
firm regarding nuclear inspections; now vacillation has forced our 
retreat from the inspection demand.
  There is no clearer example of the timid Clinton foreign policy than 
in Bosnia. First we support air strikes, then we don't. On again, off 
again. Retreat and appease.
  An inconsistent foreign policy makes it more likely that the United 
States will need to use force. The bullies of the world just won't 
believe in U.S. resolve anymore.
  Ronald Reagan once said, ``If we are forced to fight, we must have 
the means and the determination to prevail or we will not have what it 
takes to secure the peace.'' Under the Clinton defense plan, the United 
States may not have the means to secure the peace.
  Mr. Speaker, I was in the field over this last weekend with a lot of 
young soldiers training in tank commands and doing simulated war 
exercises, and I found them to be dedicated and enthusiastic. I find 
these young people want to be soldiers, want to do their best, want to 
defend their country, but the disturbing part of it was that I also 
found deep in their minds was the concern, does America want us, does 
America support us?
  That is not the kind of attitude we need our young soldiers to have. 
We need to assure them that we do support them, that we do need them, 
that we are behind them, and that we have a resolve to have the 
strongest, best defense system in the world.

                          ____________________