[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 135 (Friday, September 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1300
 
                           MILITARY SPENDING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Farr of California). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, this morning's Washington Post contained 
some headlines that truly are troubling about the future and, for that 
matter, current state of affairs in regard to the funding difficulties 
that our U.S. military is beginning to experience.
  On the headlines in the Washington Post today, ``Money Shortage 
Forces Navy to Curtail Training of Reserve Forces.''
  I would like to read the first paragraph.

       The Navy has canceled training and drills for thousands of 
     reservists for the rest of this month because the naval 
     reserve ran our of money, the Navy announced yesterday.

  Well, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the funding levels of the 
Pentagon and when it comes to the execution of foreign policy, that is 
clearly the time to put aside partisan differences and to operate in 
this Congress with an America first policy. But I must say that over 
the course of the last several years, there has been a debate about 
whether we do, in fact, have adequate resources planned for the 
effective operation of our U.S. forces.
  Two years ago, during the debate on the budget, members of the Budget 
Committee, Republican members of the Budget Committee argued 
vociferously that the level of funding over the 5 years, as illustrated 
in the 5-year defense plan of the President's, simply was not going to 
be enough, that in fact we would find ourselves in a situation where 
systems would be jeopardized, systems that would be necessary for 
enabling our soldiers to effectively carry out their mission, that 
difficulties with pay would begin to arise. And, in fact, the goal of a 
ready military could be brought into question.
  We have begun to see events unfold over the period of the last couple 
months that begin to underscore our problems.
  Just several months ago, Mr. Deutch, from the Pentagon, put out a 
memo where he began to think out loud about the difficulties we are 
going to have being able to acquire some of the advanced weapons 
systems that the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, felt we needed to 
acquire in order to have an effective and strong military.
  Now, we cannot say that those systems are going to be canceled, but 
that memo is particularly troubling because it begins to indicate that 
systems like the F-22, the new advanced fighter program that clearly is 
necessary if we are going to maintain air superiority, programs like 
that are being brought into question.
  One of the things that the Congress likes to do, whenever it finds 
itself in a shortage of money, is to essentially stretch out programs. 
And when you stretch out programs, you create great turbulence in those 
programs. You drive up the cost of those programs, and we begin to go 
back to the debate that started all the way back in the 1960's and 
1970's about programs that do not work, that cost too much in the 
Department of Defense.
  The Congress always figures out a way to stretch these programs out 
when there are money shortages, but clearly that is not the solution to 
our financial problems as they relate to the Department of Defense. But 
equally troubling is the idea that we will begin to raid the readiness 
accounts of this country.
  One of the reasons why weapons systems tend to be spread out rather 
than canceled, if necessary, is because there is always a constituency 
for the funding of weapons systems. There are always money to be made 
in the area of weapons systems. But when it comes to the area of 
readiness, it is kind of a nebulous area.
  Is the soldier getting enough flying hours? Is the soldier getting 
enough steaming hours? Is there enough ammunition? This readiness is 
the building block of an effective military. But all too many times it 
is easy to cut the readiness accounts, to save money quickly, to do it 
on the cheap. And without a constituency howling out there about the 
negative impact of reducing readiness, readiness tends to be cut; 
systems tend to survive, although they are stretched out. And we find 
ourselves in a situation of developing a hollow military force.
  When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 and came to town in 1981, he 
declared the military to be on the edge of being hollow. And on a 
bipartisan basis the Congress moved to try to restore the cuts that had 
been made to the military, with dramatic increases in spending. And 
whether it is the military or whether it is any other part of a problem 
that the Federal Government wants to address, if you throw massive 
amounts of money at any program, we all know that there is inevitably 
waste.
  So what we have been arguing about here during this Clinton 
administration, these boom and bust cycles of pumping up defense and 
then cutting it to the bone is not the way to do it. It lends itself to 
waste. It also means that we begin to enter a phase where our military 
is simply not as effective and as efficient as it ought to be.

                          ____________________