[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 105 (Wednesday, August 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                            THE MARINE CORPS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Becerra). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] is recognized for 15 minutes as the 
designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, since the end of the cold war there has 
been a continuing debate over the size and purpose of our Armed Forces. 
No one questioned the need for cuts after the Soviet Union's collapse. 
Rather, the debate has focused what to cut and by how much.
  We conducted ``bottom-up reviews'' and ``top-down reviews'' and 
``sideways inside-out reviews.'' These reviews seem to have produced a 
defense strategy that is little more than a scaled-back cold war 
budget. That approach does not cut it * * * no pun intended.
  We do not need to build more submarines or long range missile 
systems. In the post-cold-war world America needs to maximize its 
ability to project power and safeguard itself from the threat of 
nuclear attack. Long-range transport and bomber aircraft which can 
operate from U.S. bases should be a priority. We should scrap the ABM 
treaty and vigorously develop space-bassed antimissile defense systems. 
We need to maintain our special operations forces and look for ways to 
improve our intelligence capabilities, especially in the Third World.
  Finally, we should insure that we have a strong Navy and a strong 
Marine Corps which can project power anywhere in the world at any time 
our Nation's interests are threatened. Mr. Speaker, it is this last 
piece of the defense equation that I would like to address in detail 
today.
  As I said earlier, reducing defense spending was justified. Totally 
unjustified, however, has been treatment, budgetary and otherwise, of 
the U.S. Marine Corps. The Marines are threatened by ``death by a 
thousand cuts,'' even as their mission has expanded. The rationale for 
trimming our defense budget has been the demise of the Soviet Union. 
However, it was never the Marines' mission to confront the Red army. 
The Marines' job was and is to provide an ever-ready force which can be 
rapidly deployed and capable of dealing with everything from major 
hostilities to low-intensity conflict, and from rescue missions to 
showing the flag. Why, then, are we cutting the Marines' budget?
  In the post-cold-war world, the Nation needs a more capable Marine 
Corps, not a smaller, weaker Corps. As we close overseas bases, the 
Marines' budget should be increased, not reduced. We need one more 
Marine brigade, not one less. In an ill-conceived effort to spread 
reductions evenly among all the services, we are cutting back on the 
exact forces we need to handle small regional conflicts, the mission 
which has been elevated by the end of the cold war.
  Let us face it, by the time we have to make a decision on who to send 
to a troublespot, the Marines are already there. Because they 
are forward deployed on ships, we have to practically go out of our way 
to use units from the other services in many situations. They just do 
not have the mobility, flexibility, and most important, the logistics, 
capability to do what the Marines are organized to do. Since the gulf 
war the Marines have been called on to deal with some 20 crises. The 
Marines have been more active over the last 4 years than during most of 
the cold war.

  Five years ago when the Berlin Wall came down, we didn't know what 
kind of forces we would need to deal with the new global realities. Now 
we know. We need Marines.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of strengthening the corps, we are cutting it 
back. Since 1990 we have cut 20,000 marines from the active force, and 
there are rumors of deeper cuts. The Marines' new amphibious ship, the 
LHD-7, is now in question. It seems the Navy, which has been selling 
its budget to Congress with their ``from the sea'' strategy, may now 
want to delay acquisition of new amphibs for the Marines until the year 
2000. That will increase the price of the new ship by over $615 
million. The Navy is apparently more interested spending billions to 
maintain the submarine industrial base, rather than providing the 
appropriate naval forces our military challenges require. Maybe their 
new strategy should be called, from the pork barrel instead of from the 
sea.
  Meanwhile, the Marines aren't being given the weapons equipment they 
need to do their job. The Marines are short 172 tanks. The Army has 
1,500 too many tanks. Rather than transfer these extra tanks to the 
Marines, who need them now, the Army is trying to send these tanks to 
the Army National Guard. The marines may be landed in a troublespot 
tomorrow, and the lives of those leathernecks hang in the balance. Do 
we give tanks to those now on the frontline or send them to people who 
may, someday, be called up?
  And in the event of a major conflict and a callup of the reserves, 
those tanks will be well used. The Marines are usually the first in, 
holding ground till reinforcements arrive.
  One of the secrets of the Marines success has been the Maritime 
Preposition Ships [MPS] Program. This forward positioning of weapons 
and equipment enables the Marines to be the ``911'' service for our 
country. After the gulf war, Navy and Marine planners determined that 
the MPS Program could be maximized with the addition of three MPS 
ships. The Marines have been battling for the $330 million needed for 
these ships without much success--$330 million, less than the money we 
are planning to spend in Rwanda, would not only enable us to project 
more force, but would also make humanitarian operations more feasible 
and cost effective.

  In 1990, in the middle of Operation Desert Shield, the Marines were 
called upon to evacuate personnel from our embassy in Mogadishu. Almost 
immediately, the daring rescue was launched from ships in the Persian 
Gulf. Covering thousands of miles at night, refueling in flight, the 
Marine task force, flying in helicopters built before they were born, 
rescued United States and foreign diplomats just as Somali militiamen 
came over the walls of the embassy compound.
  Two years later, in 1992, the Marines came ashore again in Somalia 
and the Marines are still in Somalia. Even though the situation is as 
bad as it has ever been, with technical vehicles and warlords 
dominating the scene, over 50 Marines remain deployed to Somalia. Their 
job is to protect the embassy. In an ill-conceived effort to lend 
credibility to the United Nations effort in Somalia, these 50 Marines 
are serving without plausible backup from any United States units.
  Everyone remembers the Marines taking Kuwait City, but don't forget 
the humanitarian operations in Bangladesh, months in Liberia, emergency 
assistance when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines, hurricane 
relief in south Florida and Guam, and policing role during the LA riot.
  Today, a battalion of Marines is in Cuba processing Haitian refugees. 
Other Marine units are in Port Au Prince protecting the embassy, and 
thousands of Marines were offshore, poised for invasion if needed. Two 
battalions of Marines are fighting fires in the Northwest United States 
and other units are off the coasts of Korea and Bosnia. They are in the 
Indian Ocean and fighting the drug war in Latin America.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. Speaker, I submit an article by Steven Walsh for the Record. It 
details the heroic efforts made by individual marines today:

              [From the Pittsburgh Gazette, July 20, 1994]

                         Marines, Not Magicians

                          (By Steven L. Walsh)

       Washington.--After being away six months, Marines in the 
     24th Marine Expeditionary Unit were home only two weeks when 
     they deployed again for Haiti. It is only the latest in a 
     long line of recent crises Marines have responded to, all of 
     which now blur in memory.
       Clearly, Marines are America's force-of-choice in an 
     increasingly unstable and uncertain post-Cold War world. But, 
     while the demands grow, Marines are having to meet them with 
     less resources and greater personal sacrifice.
       During the Cold War, Marines responded to crises about 
     three to four times a year, depending upon what was counted. 
     Since Desert Storm, they have been called on to meet some 20 
     crises--about six times annually. The increase reflects a 
     greater reliance on Navy and Marines aboard ships, as 
     overseas bases diminish. To meet such crises, three Marine 
     Expeditionary units--each with 2,000 Marines embarked aboard 
     ships--are routinely deployed throughout the globe. Today, 
     however, the world situation finds five Marine Expenditionary 
     Units on the high seas. These 10,000 Marines afloat as well 
     as 17,500 in Japan are away from their families for six to 12 
     months at a time.
       Marines have made these contributions with a 
     disproportionately small amount of resources. Historically, 
     Marines received 5 percent of the Defense Budget. Seventy-
     five percent of the Marines budget is devoted to manpower. 
     But, in an era of defense downsizing, Marines find themselves 
     stretched between growing demands on the one hand and 
     declining budgets on the other. Marine pilots now fly 
     helicopters older than they are and badly in need of 
     replacement. Funds used to repair their equipment and 
     facilities are being diverted to pay for unscheduled 
     operations, like Haiti, Somalia and others. Today, Marines 
     number 174,000--20,000 less than 10 years ago.
       For the sake of accomplishing the mission--their Holy 
     Grail--Marines have had to do more to compensate for 
     shortages. Fewer Marines means they are away from home more 
     often. In 1993, Marines in the operating forces spent 43 to 
     45 percent of their time deployed. Before they deployed, they 
     spent 8.6 months out a three year period in the field 
     developing the requisite teamwork and expertise, time also 
     away from families. While working in their home base they 
     averaged a 52-hour work week.
       The individual Marine has been the elasticity in this 
     equation. But, if the gap between requirements and resources 
     widens further, a breaking point will be reached. Good 
     Marines and their families will not stay if their separation 
     time goes beyond reasonable expectations and if their quality 
     of life continues to erode. Nor can they successfully meet 
     operational challenges with less than adequate equipment.
       While big-ticket defense items gain attention in the 
     Washington arena, the less costly aspects of defense often 
     get the most use--such is the case for the Marine Corps. 
     Their primary concern was never a now-defunct Soviet threat 
     on which defense cuts are now based. In addition to 
     participating in all-out war, they also handle those 
     troublesome little crises that are so much a part of the 
     international scene. For Marines, there has been no shortage 
     of crises in today's environment, only a shortage of 
     resources. It is a situation all too familiar to Marines off 
     the coast of Haiti.

  Mr. Speaker, the real price of our lack of a coherent foreign policy 
is being paid by the individual Marine. In another article which 
appeared in a local paper it was noted that:

       The Marine Corps has no fat left to cut--only muscle. 
     Moreover, it has become commonplace for Marines to repeatedly 
     go in harms way on foreign shores and defray a fair amount of 
     the cost to the taxpayer through personal sacrifice.

  Mr. Speaker, I submit this article by Thomas Linn for the Record.

               [From the Washington Post, June 17, 1994]

                          How Lean the Marines

                          (By Thomas C. Linn)

       Marines in Fighter Squadron 224 flying missions over Bosnia 
     live in tents. They eat in mess halls and watch videos in 
     tents (at Aviano Air Base in Italy). Their counterparts in 
     other services live in hotels and dine at restaurants--all at 
     government expense.
       Marines wouldn't trade places, either. They wear frugality 
     like a badge of honor. It sets them apart, as well as 
     providing taxpayer savings. Unfortunately, however, this 
     distinguishing virtue is beginning to look like the Marine 
     Corps' greatest weakness.
       The Marines are notorious for being tight-fisted. The Corps 
     gets five cents of every defense dollar and provides in 
     return 18 percent of the nation's active ground divisions, 15 
     percent of its tactical aircraft and 11 percent of its 
     reserve divisions. As Rep. Carl Vinson used to say, Marines 
     give the nation ``more fight for the dollar than anybody 
     else.''
       The Marine Corps bargain lies in keeping its overhead as 
     low as possible. It is by no means a top-heavy organization. 
     For every one officer, the Corps has nine enlisted Marines, 
     the lowest ratio of the services. Seventy-two percent of its 
     officers are in the junior grades--lieutenants and captains--
     while 50 percent of enlisted Marines are privates and lance 
     corporals. Of the 470 military installations in the United 
     States, the Marine Corps maintains only 15 major bases. 
     Without question the Marine Corps is the leanest service.
       Ironically, a prominent retired Army general has called 
     Marines ``an antique luxury'' and asserted that ``resources 
     devoted to them could be used far more effectively 
     elsewhere.'' But in fact, the Marine Corps has done a lot 
     over the years with little in the way of resources. Since 
     1945, Marines have been used in some 200 crises--about four 
     times annually--from disaster relief in Bangladesh to 
     rescuing Americans in Liberia. And in the Vietnam and gulf 
     wars, Marines deployed the largest percentage of their forces 
     of any service.
       The Marine Corps' frugality, however, may be its greatest 
     vulnerability. Marines cannot help feeling the impact of even 
     modest budget cuts. All too vivid in institutional memory is 
     a Marine Corps left emaciated by indiscriminate cuts 
     following World War II and Vietnam. Now budget cuts are the 
     order of the day, and Marines are taking their ``fair 
     share.'' But treating everyone the same is not equality if 
     they are different as Aristotle once said. Unless its 
     distinction is recognized, an already lean Marine Corps faces 
     the possibility of death by a thousand cuts in the near 
     future.
       Marines also differ from the rest of defense in one very 
     important respect--their purpose. The Marine Corps' primary 
     focus was never the Soviet threat, the demise of which is the 
     reason for reducing defense. Its congressional mandate is to 
     serve as ``a national force-in-readiness * * * capable of 
     suppressing minor international disturbances'' * * * and 
     ``hold[ing] a full scale aggression at bay while the nation 
     mobilized.'' The need for such a force has been constant, if 
     not increasing, in American defense, and the Marine Corps 
     meets that need.
       The Marine Corps has no fat left to cut--only muscle. 
     Moreover, it has become commonplace for Marines to repeatedly 
     go in harm's way on foreign shores and defray a fair amount 
     of the cost to the taxpayer through personal sacrifice. In 
     doing so, they shouldn't have to scrounge for money on the 
     banks of the Potomac. Being good, cheap, and in demand ought 
     to count for something in defense.

  Mr. Speaker, sacrifice is the hallmark of the Marines. But today it 
is going beyond the pale. The Marines are overtasked and underfunded, 
and individual marines are spending more time separated from their 
families than they are with them. One married marine who spent only 30 
days in the United States last year captured the essence of it when he 
said, ``The United States? It's a decent liberty port, hope I get to 
come back someday.''
  The Marines esprit de corps is still strong but we could well end up 
losing our best people. Throw in all the social experiments that social 
engineers in the White House dream up, and you can imagine the dismay 
of our country's courageous defenders.
  On shore and off, the Marines have been there. At home and overseas, 
the Marines have always been on duty and continuously faithful to 
America. On call 24 hours a day, the Marines are ready whenever 
Americans lives are at risk, or our strategic interests are threatened.
  Mr. Speaker, my father retired after a career as a marine pilot and I 
know that the Marines are good at what they do. And what they do best 
is fight for their country and their fellow countrymen. They are asked 
to be flexible, and they comply. They are asked to deploy on a moment's 
notice, and they do. How long can we expect a force of 174,000 Marines 
to do the work of 225,000 on a budget for 135,000.
  Honest people have disagreed about how to cut our defense spending. 
But everyone should understand, by now, that we need to stop whittling 
away our Marine Corps, and start giving serious consideration to 
expanding the size and budget of the corps.
  Finally, let me salute General Mundy and all the Marines by 
acknowledging that it is our responsibility in Congress to see to it 
that when Marines put their lives on the line, that they have the 
weapons and equipment they need to complete the mission and come home 
safely to their families. Calvin Coolidge said, ``The nation that 
forgets its defenders will someday itself be forgotten.''
  We owe it to those dedicated and courageous Marines who put 
themselves in harm's way for us. They are doing their duty, and they 
are relying on us to do ours, Semper Fi.

                          ____________________