[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 24, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY

                                 ______


                          HON. JOHN P. MURTHA

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 24, 1995
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, on January 10, the Defense Department 
testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the balanced budget 
amendment. The Defense Department's testimony should set off alarm 
bells for anyone who cares about America's Armed Forces.
  According to the Defense Department's Comptroller, a balanced budget 
amendment which all but ends the congressional ability to even modestly 
increase revenues would force defense spending cuts over the next 7 
years of between $220 billion in the best case to $520 billion in the 
worst case. The $220 billion reduction is projected if entitlements are 
not exempt from cuts. But if Social Security and Medicare are shielded 
from reductions, the defense share of necessary spending cuts grows 
close to the half trillion dollar figure.
  To put the magnitude of these cuts into perspective, the GAO tells us 
we are already $150 billion short over the next 5 years in paying for 
the severely downsized force structure and modernization plan set in 
place by President Clinton. What does it mean for America's security if 
we are to double, treble, or even quadruple the size of this problem? 
How will we come up with an additional quarter or half trillion dollars 
in domestic program cuts just to maintain our current force? What if we 
can't?
  Defense Department officials say life under the cuts this version of 
the balanced budget amendment would mandate would be characterized by a 
hollow, demoralized force which cannot be modernized and which quickly 
loses its technological edge. It would mean further base closings, 
further personnel cuts, and further hardships on our remaining troops. 
It would certainly change our ability to project force globally and 
would leave a potentially dangerous vacuum around the world.
  Everyone agrees we must move toward a balanced budget and proceed 
with deficit reduction. We can and we must do this through careful 
thought-out proposals that are fully debated in Congress. But to force 
further draconian cuts on our Armed Forces through an inflexible 
balanced budget amendment risks our troops' ability to defend our 
Nation, risks our standing in global affairs, and risks the entire 
defense structure of the United States.
  During my 20 years in Congress I've consistently worked with Members 
on both sides of the aisle to make sure we didn't have a hollow force.
  My advice now is to slow down and think carefully about what the 
balanced budget amendment will do to our national security.
  At the very least, the impact of a balanced budget amendment on the 
Armed Forces should receive full hearings in the House National 
Security Committee and House Budget Committee. But if we vote before 
these hearings take place, I hope every Member of the House will 
carefully consider how the implementation of a balanced budget 
amendment would affect our Armed Forces and the most important duty we 
have as Members of Congress--protecting the national security of the 
United States.


                          ____________________