[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 21 (Thursday, February 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1149-H1155]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  EXPRESSING CONCERN FOR OUR MILITARY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longely] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honor to be part 
of this historic 104th Congress and to actively participate in one of 
our most sacred and basic responsibilities, insuring that the military 
forces of our country are prepared to fulfill any task, defeat any 
threat, and perform any mission their civilian leadership calls upon 
them to execute.
  While this responsibility falls to every Member of Congress, I am 
especially pleased to have the additional honor of serving on the 
National Security Committee, formerly the Armed Services Committee. 
This committee assignment gives me the unique opportunity to examine 
our military and its overall capabilities to fulfill its missions in 
detail.
  This will be a challenging assignment, but we have the wisdom and the 
very capable leadership of two veterans of this committee to guide us, 
first, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman of 
the full committee, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], the 
chairman of my subcommittee, the Procurement Subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned today for the ability of our military to 
perform the many tasks we require of them, given the drawdown of our 
forces and the precipitous decline in funding over recent years. Any 
inability to perform missions is, I must stress, not for the lack of 
dedicated, professional, capable American men and women in uniform.
  I am concerned that we, as a Nation, and specifically as a Congress, 
have not given our military the tools, the training, the equipment, and 
the support they need in recent years commensurate with the missions we 
have given them.
  That is why I am looking forward to the committee hearing process 
this year. It will give me and my colleagues the opportunity to judge 
exactly the state of readiness that currently exists in our forces and 
that we need to do to restore the level of efficiency and readiness we 
think is desirable.
  In examining the state of readiness of our forces, I think certain 
basic elements are guideposts. First, the quality of life for our 
service men and women and their families must be high, especially since 
we ask them to perform long hours often away from home for months at a 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been privileged to serve as a member of our armed 
services, particularly amongst the first marines and rangers assigned 
to northern Iraq during Operation Provide Comfort in the days in the 
aftermath of Desert Storm, but I am also proud to have served with 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines over a period of time both on 
active duty and as a reserve officer, and I can personally vouch for 
the high quality and standards under which they serve.
  Our forces, No. 2, must have adequate, realistic, comprehensive 
training to professionally meet the many challenges they face in this 
still very dangerous world.
                              {time}  2120

  No. 3, they must have adequate spare parts and equipment both to 
train realistically and to engage in potentially hostile missions.
  No. 4, we need modern equipment. It is essential, as we cannot afford 
to stop the replacement of equipment to meet the ever sophisticated 
battlefields and threats around the world. We need our equipment ahead 
of time, not in the middle or after the fact because at that point it 
is too late.
  No. 5, we need a sound ability to deploy our troops to crises around 
the world and especially as our force structure declines. It is key 
that we maintain an ability to influence world events through the rapid 
deployment of men, women, material and equipment in situations that 
affect our national interests.
  Our military forces have taken the brunt of budget cutting for too 
long. It is clear that statistics are now indicating that our level of 
defense spending has now reached amongst the lowest level since since 
prior to Pearl Harbor. for a Nation of our size and economic 
significance it is time that we question whether in fact we are 
devoting the resources that we need to the crises that we may be asked 
to confront.
  I think this is not a blank check. I think defense is on the table as 
we look at the budget, along with everything else other than Social 
Security. But I think we have to examine carefully our needs and be 
prepared, if necessary, to devote the budgetary resources necessary to 
insure military success in any contingency.
  Toward that end I look forward to our committee work this year and 
will be working hard especially with my chairman, both the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter] to do what is necessary.
  I think it is also important that we establish the fact that in this 
new Congress defense is going to be receiving the same level of 
scrutiny as any other program in the budget. It is interesting that in 
the last 3 weeks, since this Congress first began to consider 
legislation, that our first major piece was the Congressional Budget 
Accountability Act, which held the Congress to the same standards that 
we hold the rest of the Government and the rest of the private sector.
  Our next major piece of legislation was the balanced budget 
amendment. Just several days ago we passed unfunded mandates 
legislation. Again, in the course of looking at both the balanced 
budget amendment as well as the unfunded mandates legislation we were 
confronted with numerous requests. In fact, in the case of unfunded 
mandates nearly 160 different amendments that sought to carve out 
special exceptions from the unfunded mandate provisions of our 
legislation, the same type of opposition and exception was brought to 
the balanced budget amendment debate.
  I mention that because this afternoon this House defeated an attempt 
to apply special provisions for the Defense Department under the line-
item veto. That provision was defeated.
  [[Page H1150]] As a Congress we intend to stand behind principle, we 
intend to be consistent and we intend to confront the issues that we 
must confront in every area of the budget. It is on that basis that I 
feel very strongly that if we work and look realistically and honestly 
at the issues that confront us and the crises that we may be asked to 
confront, the needs of our defense will be self-evident and evaluated 
on the same basis as every other national priority.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I and a lot of other members of the Committee or Armed 
Services have been looking forward to listening to the gentleman from 
Maine talk about national defense because he has a special background 
of expertise, having been a Marine, having worked in Iraq during the 
post-Desert Storm period. He understands operational requirements and 
problems, he understand systems and he understands people, especially 
the people of the U.S. military. I look forward to listening to him 
tonight.
  I might just say with respect to the dollars that are spent on 
national security, I saw an interesting fact when looking over the 
defense budgets that this House and the other body and the President 
have passed over the last 10 years or so. If you take President 
Clinton's defense plan and look at the 1998 projection and you compare 
that to the 1988 defense budget, the annual budget, and you compare 
them in real dollars; that is, in 1987 hard dollars, so you discount 
inflation, the national defense budget of this country, the annual 
budget in 1998 will be $100 billion less than the budget was in 1988.
  So it is clear that this President has taken most of the budget cuts 
from national security.
  I know the gentleman is a historian of sorts, that he has looked at 
military history and understands that after every conflict in recent 
times, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and finally the closure of the 
Cold War, we have cut deeper and in worse ways than we should have. We 
have cut the wrong systems in many cases, and we have cut too deep and 
too soon.
  I am reminded of General Marshall's words after World War II when he 
was asked how the demobilization was going. He said this is not a 
demobilization, this is a rout.
  A few years later in Korea we were unable to stop a third rate 
military from marching right down the peninsula.
  So I look forward to the gentleman's words. I think they come at a 
very important time in our history.
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Hunter].
  I think the gentleman has made some very important points. I am 
advised now that this fiscal 1995 budget is the tenth consecutive year 
of real cuts in defense spending and that we are approximately 35, as 
much as 40 percent below the level of spending in real dollars than we 
were in the 1986 budgets in the last several years of President 
Reagan's term in office.
  What is very interesting is I am advised under the Bush 
administration that cuts proposed resulted in cuts of personnel of 
approximately 600,000, meaning not only cuts in the military but lost 
jobs in the defense sector, about 600,000, and that when we consider 
the current cuts proposed in the current administration's budget that 
could be 1.2 million jobs in this country.
  You know, jobs are important, not only because of the fact that they 
give productive employment to our citizens, but they also represent 
some of the highest paying jobs in this country. But even going beyond 
that, this is about much more than jobs; it is about making sure that 
we have a strong national defense and that we are applying the 
resources that we need to meet the crises that we may be asked to 
confront.
  Again, I am appreciative of the administration's effort to reinvent 
government. But it might interest our listeners to know that although 
the Department of
 Defense only comprises 40 percent of the civilian work force in this 
government, as much as 75 percent of the cuts in full time equivalent 
positions are occurring in the Defense Department in the area of 
defense.
  I do not think that it is fair that the Defense Department is 
unjustifiably singled out, particularly given the level of commitments 
that we currently maintain.
  There is also a more important point that needs to be made. Our 
defense budget, our resources must be in line with our commitments. 
There is a need for a balance. Our commitments cannot exceed our 
resources and our resources must be adequate to our commitments. But 
they have to be in balance, neither one can be out of line with the 
other because if we do not have the resources we need to cut back on 
the commitments, and by the same token if we make the commitments we 
have to make sure we have committed adequate resources to be able to 
fund our objectives.
  I am advised that based on the administration's own bottom-up review 
two separate analyses of the bottom-up review indicate that the 
strategy that the administration is pursuing, including as it relates 
to the funding, is that there are discrepancies of everywhere. In the 
case of the General Accounting Office, there was an estimate that the 
defense was being underfunded to the tune of $150 billion. By the same 
token, the Congressional Budget Office made a similar estimate of 
between $65 billion and $110 billion underfunding. That means that 
based on the structural needs identified in the bottom-up review, based 
on our national defense strategy and the defense strategy and the 
threats that we could potentially face throughout the world, including 
the need to face two regional crises simultaneously, that we are not 
committing the resources that we need to meet the threats. In fact, 
there is some question not only whether or not we can confront two 
regional crises, but whether in fact we would be able to sustain a 
single major crisis.

                              {time}  2130

  Obviously we have got a level of commitment and dedication in our 
armed forces. I have every confidence that they are highly motivated 
and that they are doing the best to maintain their training and 
readiness, and I know that they are dedicated enough and will meet any 
mission that we might assign to them.
  But again the underfunding, based on the commitments, the level of 
commitments that we seem to be seeing throughout the world, indicate to 
me that it is time for very serious reexamination, and I might mention, 
as I mentioned earlier, we passed the Congressional Accountability Act 
which is applying to the Congress the same standards that we apply to 
the private sector. We passed the balanced budget amendment in this 
House and sent it off to the Senate. Again we passed a clean amendment. 
We have protected no area of the Government from scrutiny that the 
balanced budget amendment will force. At the same time we have got 
unfunded mandates legislation that, in fact, we have specifically 
prevented the opportunity for anyone to carve out specific areas where 
the Congress could fail to have to take responsibility for spending or 
mandates that might be forced on our local and State government, and 
again, as I mentioned this afternoon under the line item veto, we are 
treating defense on the same basis as every other aspect of the 
Government.
  I might mention that 2 days ago the House Committee on National 
Security, formerly the Committee on Armed Services, as I mentioned, 
worked up and marked up for forwarding to the House floor H.R. 7, the 
National Security Revitalization Act, and again it is important to know 
that we are following consistency and principle in the way we address 
these issues. H.R. 7 is an important first step toward restoring United 
States national security to the levels expected by the American people. 
It establishes a policy framework on national security issues, a policy 
framework that is designed to establish the threats that we face and 
provide a framework by which the party, the new Republican majority, 
and the Democrats in the Congress through the normal budget 
authorization appropriation process, can ensure that we are dealing 
adequately with needs of our defense and the resources that it might 
compel. But what is very significant is that this bill passed on a 
bipartisan vote of 41 to 13, again a very 
[[Page H1151]] strong commitment from Members of both political parties 
behind a National Security Revitalization Act.
  Several provisions that are also very important, some that may even 
be controversial or that will compel further public discussion, but we 
supported a requirement to deploy, to develop and deploy, theater and 
national missile defenses, a critical capability long neglected, and 
one of the issues that came up in committee and, I am sure, is going to 
come up on the floor of this House is that we are saying that it is 
time to eliminate much of the distinction, frankly the artificial 
distinction, that has been made between theater antimissile defense and 
national or ballistic missile defense. In fact the technology has 
advanced and accelerated to the point where the technology that we saw 
demonstrated so vividly during Desert Storm in fact can potentially be 
extended to prevent us against threats from intercontinental ballistic 
missiles. I recognize this is going to cause changes in national 
policy, but again it has become evident that the technology exists for 
missiles to be directed at this country, but simultaneously the 
technology also exists for us to find methods by which we can counter 
that
 threat to the innocent men, women and children of this country, and I 
think it is important to understand that.

  I was also somewhat surprised to learn in the course of my studies on 
defense issues in the last several weeks the important role that the 
Aegis destroyer program plays and might potentially play in the 
antimissle defense systems in terms of the role of not only the theater 
antimissile defense systems, but what this technology may represent in 
the future, and again these are issues that I am sure my own 
constituents may not even be aware of, but this type of technology 
needs to move forward, and I think that we are going to see that start 
to happen once the National Security Revitalization Act is moved 
forward and passed, hopefully, in this House.
  We have also established provisions designed to limit the placement 
of the United States troops under United Nations command. We have 
asked, and this legislation will require, congressional prior 
authorization before military forces can be deployed for certain U.N. 
peacekeeping operations.
  And finally, based on the threats that exist to us throughout the 
world, we have established a bipartisan commission that would consist 
of equal Members of both parties, appointed by the Speaker, appointed 
by the leadership in the Senate and by the President, that would be 
instructed to revisit the defense policy blueprint, the bottom-up 
review, to ensure that we adequately identify these threats that we 
face, the strategies that we need to confront those threats, the force 
structure that will be needed to implement the strategy and the 
resources that we will need to make sure that our force structure, 
equipment and readiness are to the standard that the American people 
expect.
  I might mention and it might be appropriate to cover briefly many of 
the different commitments that we have, many of them that are recent in 
nature, and frankly I think that the expectation at the end of the cold 
war was--our experiences proved contrary to what we have actually seen 
in fact.
  As my colleagues know, as I speak on the floor of this House we have 
forces in Cuba handling significant numbers of refugees. We have the 
same commitments in Panama. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am advised that 
between the two different locations we have as many as 20 or 30,000 
refugees being cared for by thousands of American men and women in 
uniform. We have nearly 7 to 10,000 forces in Haiti, and again those 
forces may be withdrawing shortly, but presently they are engaged in a 
very important mission. Some of us may have disagreed as to whether or 
not it was appropriate to commit those forces, but now that they are 
there we are a hundred percent committed to seeing that they have what 
they need to fulfill the mission they have been assigned.
  Furthermore, we have commitments in Bosnia. In addition we have 
commitments in Kuwait in the Persian Gulf, and again the subtleties of 
defense policy are sometimes difficult to articulate, difficult to 
understand, but personally I am of the opinion that one of the reasons 
we were forced to commit forces to Kuwait in the Persian Gulf in the 
latter part of last year was based on the fact that we had undertaken 
commitments in Haiti and the interrelationship, if you will, between 
our military action in one part of the world and what it potentially 
signals to potential adversaries in other parts of the world in terms 
of their estimate of our ability to respond. And again this underlies 
the fact that it is imperative that our national defense be second to 
none and that there be no question in anyone's mind of our commitment 
and our willingness to do what we need to do to defend this great 
country and its interests overseas.
  We are all familiar with what has been happening in North Korea. We 
have commitments in Rwanda in Africa. We still have commitments in 
northern Iraq, a part of the world that I was privileged to serve in. 
We have upcoming commitments in Somalia. I have not even discussed what 
is happening in Russia and the Soviet Union, the threat that 
potentially is represented in the Middle East arising out of the 
Chechnya rebellion, as well as the instability in the Middle East and 
Israel, the real concerns that many people have as to the peace process 
and again our need to project the level of strength in the Middle East 
and around the world that will make it absolutely clear that we will 
not be challenged by any adversary, again a number of serious issues, 
very expensive in nature, and part of the reason that I am very 
concerned that our forces are not only being committed extensively but 
whether we have got and in fact have devoted the resources that are 
going to be necessary to make sure that we maintain the level of 
defense posture around the world that, again, leaves no question in any 
adversary's mind of our ability to defend our vital interests.
  I would like to end and spend the next several minutes not talking 
about abstract issues of defense strategy, or weapons systems, or 
funding, but I would like to talk a little bit about the people, and I 
have been privileged to meet many of our men and women in uniform, 
particularly as a new Member of Congress.
                              {time}  2340

  Most recently, a week or two ago, I had an opportunity to visit at 
the Brunswick Naval Air Station, located at Brunswick, ME, in my 
district. I wanted to visit that installation to learn about the 
important role of the P-3 maritime patrol aircraft, the missions they 
are assuming. I was very surprised to learn in my own district in Maine 
that men and women had been committed overseas, not only in Bosnia. In 
fact, during the day of my visit, one of the squadrons was returning 
from duty in the Adriatic area, again serving our national interests 
and serving the interests as they have been articulated and committed 
to by our Commander in Chief. Not only were they serving in the Bosnia 
region, but in fact they had actually seen service in the Somalia area, 
in the Gulf, in the Middle East and the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. 
That was a surprise to me, even as someone who is a veteran of military 
service, to learn that an installation in my own district was playing 
such a critical role overseas, again helping project the American 
military presence in areas of the world where if was necessary.
  I was privileged to spend some time with Capt. John Rodgers, the 
commanding officer of patrol wing 5, based in Brunswick. In addition, 
with Dave Nelson, the commanding officer of the air station. Both 
gentleman were extremely helpful to me in helping to understand not 
only the important role of the facility and its strategic location 
along the North Atlantic and access to the North Atlantic sea lanes, 
but also the important missions served by the men and women of the P-3 
squadrons in Brunswick and the P-3 squadrons in the U.S. Navy around 
the world, and again how important they are to the Navy's mission and 
to the mission of the American military.
  Again, I had a great opportunity to meet not only some of the men and 
women returning from Bosnia, but particularly Comdr. Frank Munoz, the 
executive officer of patrol squadron 10. I was very surprised to learn 
not only had he just finished a 6-month deployment, he was greeted by 
his wife and children who obviously missed their 
[[Page H1152]] husband and father, but it was actually his second 
deployment in the course of 12 months. Again, a perfect example of the 
level of commitment that our men and women in the armed services have 
to their jobs and to their missions.
  Recently also I had an opportunity to visit the headquarters of the 
commander in chief of the Atlantic Fleet, particularly to spend some 
time with Rear Adm. Vernon Clark, the deputy commander in chief of 
Atlantic Naval Forces, who was kind enough to provide a small 
congressional delegation with a briefing on our threat and forces 
posture in his areas of responsibility.
  Then a surprise, and a pleasant surprise at that, I had an 
opportunity to visit with Vice Adm. George Emery. Much to my surprise I 
learned that the commander of Submarine Forces Atlantic is a native of 
Springvale, ME, again in effect a constituent, certainly a native of 
the great State of Maine. But again, both individuals highly committed 
to their work and very serious in their concern and willingness to 
perform their duty in the interests of this country.
  I also had a chance to spend some time with Comdr. Jack Loye, the 
commanding officer of the U.S.S. Toledo, a new Los Angeles attack 
submarine which will be commissioned shortly. I had an opportunity to 
visit his boat, his submarine, as well as talk with members of his crew 
and to see firsthand the level of pride, dedication, and commitment 
that each of these individuals had to fulfilling their mission in the 
course of serving in the Navy and aboard the U.S.S. Toledo.
  Again, knowing and seeing firsthand, learning how difficult it is to 
perform in our military today, particularly in the case of a submarine 
where you could literally spend months at sea with little or no contact 
with your family.
  I had an opportunity also to visit the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt. 
Again it was a bad weather day, but we flew out to the flight deck, 
landed on the flight deck. The Roosevelt was approximately 200 miles 
out at sea, and despite the bad weather, it was performing its training 
mission prior to upcoming deployments.
  I had an opportunity to spend some time with Rear Adm. Steve Abbott, 
the commander of carrier group 8, a committed admiral and playing a 
very important role with this carrier task force. I also met the 
commanding officer of the ship, Capt. Ron Christiansen, and Comdr. Tank 
Rutherford, the executive officer of the Roosevelt.
  Again there was a special significance for me to visit the Roosevelt 
because during my time in northern Iraq with the marines of the 24 
Marine Expeditionary
 Unit and in serving with the rangers and the sailors and the airmen 
assigned to that part of the world, the Theodore Roosevelt was one of 
the naval vessels that was providing support for our mission.

  I cannot begin to describe the feeling that one has on the ground in 
a hostile area, knowing that the men and women of the Navy and the Air 
Force were in the skies above the area to protect us if necessary on a 
moment's notice.
  But most important, a number of constituents, residents of the State 
of Maine. Capt. Nils Sjostrom, whose parents live in West Southport; 
Lt. Stacy Murch, a young naval aviator and a recent graduate of the 
University of Maine at Orono, again at sea, flying the training 
missions required of his duty. His mother lives in Harrison. Also Cory 
LaPlante of Norridgewock, Stephen Willard of East Baldwin, Edward Hood 
of Caribou, Benjamin Crehore of Westport Island, and Michael Nantkes of 
Lincoln. Again, young men from the State of Maine, some of them from my 
district, doing their duty, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day on a vessel 
of our Navy. Again, this is the type of commitment that we are seeing 
with our young men and women in uniform.
  I might mention not only the young men and women in uniform, but the 
kind of infectious example that they set and the impact that their 
service and their values have on others. I was pleased to have with me 
on the day I was in Brunswick my chief of staff, Floyd Rutherford, and 
he brought his two boys with him, Chip Rutherford and Chris Rutherford. 
And again, those young children, those young men, young boys, were very 
touched by the standards and the professionalism that they saw 
exhibited to the point that they might at some time want to consider 
service in the Navy or in the armed services. And again, that is the 
kind of positive impact that the training and discipline of military 
service has on our men and women, particularly on those civilians and 
those who come in contact with them.
  But I want to end on a final note, and this is something that 
underscores for me what this is really all about, the level of 
commitment of our men and women in uniform. There was a resident of our 
great State, M. Sgt. Gary Gordon, who gave his life in Somalia. And I 
thought that I might end this presentation this evening by reading from 
the citation which by direction of the President under a joint 
resolution of Congress he was awarded the Medal of Honor for 
conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and 
beyond the call of duty. And I don't need to mention that the award was 
made posthumously. But I would like to read the type of situation that 
he confronted, so that people listening tonight can understand again 
how deeply committed the men and women of the armed services are.
  M. Sgt. Gordon was serving in October 1993 in Mogadishu as a sniper 
team leader. His team was providing precision fire from a lead 
helicopter during an assault. I am going to read from the Medal of 
Honor citation exactly the way the official record reflects his duty.
  They were providing covering fire at two helicopter crash sites, and 
while subjected to intense automatic weapon and rocket-propelled 
grenade fire, M. Sgt. Gordon, when he learned that ground forces were 
not immediately available to secure the second crash site, he and 
another sniper unhesitatingly volunteered to be inserted to protect the 
four critically wounded personnel of the two downed helicopters, 
despite being well aware of the growing number of enemy personnel 
closing in on the site.
                              {time}  2150

  I might mention that this young man did not volunteer once, did not 
volunteer twice, he volunteered three times to be inserted to go to the 
aid of those wounded personnel. And as the citation states, ``after his 
third request to be inserted, permission was finally granted. He was 
inserted 100 meters south of the crash site, equipped with only a 
sniper rifle and a pistol,'' and I do not need to mention that those 
were weapons that were not necessarily adequate to the situation he was 
confronting.

       Through pure courage, MSgt. Gordon and his fellow sniper 
     proceeded under intense small arms fire and fought their way 
     to reach the critically injured crew members. MSgt. Gordon 
     immediately pulled the pilot and other crewmembers from the 
     disabled aircraft and established a perimeter which placed 
     him and his fellow sniper in the most vulnerable position. 
     They were there to protect the wounded.
       Despite the fact that Gordon was critically low on 
     ammunition, he provided some of it to the dazed pilot and 
     radioed for help. He then continued to travel the perimeter, 
     protecting the downed crew. After his team member was fatally 
     wounded, and Gordon's own rifle ammunition was exhausted, 
     MSgt. Gordon returned to the wreckage, recovering a rifle 
     with the last five rounds of ammunition and gave it to the 
     pilot with the words, ``good luck.'' Then armed only with his 
     pistol, MSgt. Gordon continued to fight until he was fatally 
     wounded. His actions saved the pilot's life.

  Where, Mr. Speaker, where do we find men of this caliber? This is 
what it is all about. And the irony of this situation, a terrible 
irony, a tragic irony, is that when we do not have the equipment, the 
resources that we need to fulfill the mission, we still have the 
commitment of the American men and women who man our armed services, 
who are willing to give their lives in such situations. And that is 
what this is all about.
  If we are going to commit our forces, we need to do whatever we need 
to do to make sure that they have the equipment, the training, the 
resources, that go along with the commitment. And if there is a final 
irony in the tragic situation that occurred on that October 3, 1993 in 
Mogadishu, is that after this event, the forces there finally received 
the M-60 tanks that they needed, the armored personnel carriers and 
other equipment that if that equipment had been available on that day 
may have 
[[Page H1153]] saved MSgt. Gordon's life, as well as the lives of the 
other 17 men that were killed in that action. That is what this is all 
about.
  Mr. Speaker, when we commit our forces, we do not have the time, it 
is past the time where we can make the funding decisions, where we can 
develop the resources, the equipment, where we can provide the training 
they need. When we commit our forces they are on a moment's notice. 
They have got to be ready at that time. And, Mr. Speaker, that is what 
this is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. And coming from his 
background and as a marine officer, I think that his description of the 
importance of our national security posture and especially his 
description of the people who gave their lives for us in Somalia in 
Mogadishu is especially fitting.
  I thank the gentleman for his expertise, and I look forward to 
working with him this year, because he is on the Committee on Armed 
Services. And we are all going to listen to him, junior member and 
senior members will listen to the gentleman from Maine.
  Let me just add that we passed, in the Committee on Armed Services, a 
few days ago H.R. 7, that is the bill to revitalize the National 
Security Act of the United States. And that was referred by some people 
as a campaign promise that Republicans made and a lot of words but 
lacking in substance and somehow something that did not justify a 
serious debate and serious action.
  Let me just say that in going over all of the findings and 
recommendations and provisions of H.R. 7, I feel that the Republican 
leadership and now a bipartisan majority of the House Committee on 
Armed Services, which endorsed this bill, has taken a step in the right 
direction.
  For those people that said that this was not a factual set of 
findings, that somehow we were overblown with respect to the crash in 
national security, let me just go through a few of the statistics.
  We said that there have been, between 1993 and 1999, budget plans for 
American defense that has cut defense spending by $156 billion. That is 
absolutely accurate. President Bush cut defense spending by in excess 
of $50 billion, conferring then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, and others.
  President Clinton came along and cut national security $127 billion 
below the level that President Bush cut.
  So the facts that are laid out in H.R. 7, the National Security 
Revitalization Act, are absolutely accurate on that point.
  It also states that during the fiscal year 1995, we are reducing DOD 
by about 182,000 people. That is a rate of over 15,000 per month or 
over 500 people per day. That is absolutely accurate. And further the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 1.2 million defense-related 
private sector jobs will be lost by 1997. That is accurate.
  The bill goes on to state and define that in missions involving U.S. 
peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts involved in the fiscal year of 
1994, over 70,000 U.S. personnel--I think it was mentioned by one of 
our experts that the Bosnian airlift has gone on for longer than the 
Berlin airlift--United Nations' assessments to the United States for 
peacekeeping missions totaled $1.5 billion. We pay 31.7 percent of all 
the peacekeeping costs that the United Nations incurs.
  At the same time the United States of America undertakes unilaterally 
its own military missions like airlift missions in Africa, in Bosnia, 
and other places. And we pay for that ourselves. The French do not help 
us. The British do not help us. We know the Japanese do not help us. 
They are tight with their dollars. So we pay for our unilateral efforts 
and then we also pay the lion's share of the contribution to the United 
Nations operations.
  Let me tell you what happens. The gentleman well knows that when we 
are involved in these pacekeeping efforts, we do what people in the 
military call ``taking expenses out of hide.''
  Taking expenses out of hide means that because we are paying for 
these peacekeeping operations in Rwanda, Haiti, Bosnia, and other 
places, troops are going untrained. That means, as the gentleman from 
San Diego, my seat mate, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham], says, top gun does not get to go through its exercises. As 
he says, pilots fight like they train. The way you keep your pilots 
alive in combat is to train them well. But they do not get that 
training because we are taking those readiness dollars, those dollars 
that maintain their combat readiness, and we are spending those on 
peacekeeping operations.
  I would challenge any Member of the House who wants to utter 
derogatory words with respect to the facts that are in H.R. 7, I would 
challenge any of them, as I challenged the Secretary of Defense to find 
any factual mistakes in the findings that we made in this bill.
  Further, the bill goes on to say that a return to the hollow forces 
of the 1970's has already begun. The Secretary of Defense took issue 
with that. He said, that is not true. We are by far the most ready and 
the best military in the world.
  Well, that is true. We are, as of right now, the most ready military 
in the world.
  But we say that a return to the hollow forces has begun. And let me 
tell you some of the symptoms.
  In 1994, one third of the units in the Army contingency force and all 
of the forward-deployed and follow-on Army divisions were reporting a 
reduced state of military readiness. During fiscal year 1994, training 
readiness declined for the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific Fleets. Funding 
shortfalls for that fiscal year resulted in grounding of Navy and 
Marine Corps aircraft squadrons and cancellation and curtailment of 
Army training exercises.
  Those are symptoms of a return to a hollow military.
  As of January 1, 1995, military pay is approximately 12.8 percent 
below comparable civilian levels. As a result, it is estimated that 
close to 17,000 junior enlisted personnel are having to take food 
stamps.
                              {time}  2200

  The Secretary of Defense may not like that fact, but that is the 
fact. They came out of his Pentagon.
  Mr. Speaker, farther, and one factor that really influenced at least 
the Republican leadership's decision to sponsor H.R. 7, the National 
Security Revitalization Act, we looked at what President Clinton wanted 
in terms of force structure. He decided he wanted to take our Army 
divisions from 18 to 10. He decided he wanted to take our air wings 
from 24 to 14. He decided on our reductions in Navy ships that were 
fairly massive. He decided on making a number of cancellations of 
weapon systems.
  But even to support that constrained, reduced force structure, the 
General Accounting Office found that the President's budget, the amount 
of money that he made available to us to support the forces of Army and 
Navy and Marines that we wanted, was $150 billion short. He did not 
give us enough money to do what he told us to do.
  That is according to the General Accounting Office. The Congressional 
Budget Office came up with a figure that was less than $150 billion, 
but nonetheless a very substantial figure, many tens of billions of 
dollars.
  So we were faced with a situation in which the President apparently, 
according to our analysts, is not giving enough money so that the 
people that the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley] spoke about so 
poignantly, our fighting soldiers, will have the right equipment, the 
best equipment to carry out very dangerous missions.
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just propose a question. I 
would be very interested in any thoughts the gentleman has on this.
  Could the gentleman address the issue of what the underfunding does 
to the leadership in terms of the types of decisions that they need to 
make, the day-to-day decisions based on the financial necessities of 
maintaining the forces, particularly the high levels of operation and 
high levels of deployment, and how that has an insidious effect on our 
military structure?
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to tell the gentleman that 
when you are forced to use your money for the peacekeeping operations, 
if that is what the gentleman is talking about, these new missions the 
President gives 
[[Page H1154]] you--for example, when our marines came back from 
Bosnia, my understanding is they were given 12 days with their families 
after being away for many months, and sent immediately into the Haiti 
theater.
  When that happens, and when the military has to use its money for 
operations, that means that they have to stop training exercises in 
many cases. That is why three Army divisions, three of our top Army 
divisions, were given C ratings that were less than combat ready. That 
means that they do not have enough money for training. That means that 
they do not have ammunition for training, perhaps. That means that 
their equipment is not kept up to speed.
  Last year we did about 64 percent of what we required in terms of 
depot-level maintenance. That means our big equipment that we needed to 
take into the shop and get fixed so we could take it out on the next 
operation, we only did about 64 percent of what we had to do. That 
means that some equipment was 64 percent ready, and that means, in 
shorthand, if you had 100 tanks, you fixed 64 of them, not 100 of them.
  What it does is make our military less ready to be able to respond to 
a national emergency. That is bad.
  Does that answer the gentleman's question?
  Mr. LONGLEY. It does, Mr. Speaker.
  Could the gentleman address the issues relating to the base closing 
process? Are we really reconsolidating and realigning our facilities?
  Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the base closing 
process, to answer the gentleman, was supposed to be a process in which 
we cut military infrastructure. By cutting down the overhead in the 
rear, just like a business, if you have a lot of people out there 
making products and you have a lot of people in the back offices who 
are executives, if you close down some of your overhead, that is all 
the white collar workers, then you become more efficient and you are 
able to make more products for the amount of money invested.
  The idea with our base closure was, in pulling down this massive 
force structure that won the cold war for us and won Desert Storm for 
us, by reducing divisions from 18 to 10, by reducing our fighter air 
wings from 24 to 14, and on down the line, that what we needed to do at 
the same time was reduce a lot of these bases in the United States 
because we did not need all that overhead, just like a company does not
 need a lot of overhead if it reduces its operations.

  That is true in many cases. We had bases in this country that were 
designed to hold off attacks from the Apache Indians. Those bases just 
managed to stay around because, even after peace was entered into 
between native Americans and our Federal Government, there was a good 
old Congressman there who wanted to keep that bastion of Federal 
soldiers with that payroll in his district, so we did have bases that 
did not perform a strong military mission. We did need to close those.
  However, what we have done now is we have gone beyond closing those 
bases that are truly useless. We have started closing bases which have 
a real military requirement, but beyond that, we are not closing the 
bases effectively.
  What has happened is that in closing bases, we have bought ourselves 
massive environmental problems and massive environmental costs, and we 
now see that it is costing us a ton of money to close the bases, much 
more than we ever anticipated.
  What that means is like an uncle who has a string of condominiums. He 
just wants to give them away to his nephews, but his nephews tell him, 
``Uncle, before you give those condominiums to us, free of charge,'' 
like we want to give a lot of our bases away to States and counties and 
cities, ``we want to charge you $1 million apiece to clean them up.''
  So we are spending a lot of our military money paying lawyers who are 
involved in lawsuits and administration of environmental laws with 
respect to our bases. We are not moving a lot of dirt, we are not 
really doing a lot of real substantial cleanup work. We are basically 
paying now a massive bureaucracy which shoves paper back and forth to 
its various members and gets paid for it, and at the same time keeps 
the bases from totally closing, and all that money comes out of the 
military budget.
  I would say to the gentleman now that instead of spending as much 
money as we should on fuel, on flying time, on steaming time, on 
ammunition, we are now spending an extraordinary amount of money with 
lawyers and environmental regulators in the base closure business, so 
we have become ensnarled in a massive bureaucracy. We are going to have 
to cut off some of those environmental costs. I think we are going to 
have to defer them to a later time and simply, in some cases, put a 
padlock on those bases that we have closed, but stop spending our 
readiness money that keeps our troops ready to fight.
  Does that answer the gentleman's questions?
  Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's answer.
  Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman continue to yield, Mr. Speaker,?
  Mr. LONGLEY. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention one other thing that the 
Republican leadership placed in this National Security Revitalization 
Act, H.R. 7, that is related to the safety of the American people. We 
stated in this act that we shall deploy national ballistic missile 
defense systems and theater missile defense systems.
  We live in an age of missiles. Dozens of countries now are developing 
ballistic missiles. We cannot avoid that, we cannot deny it. We cannot 
say, ``That is war in the heavens, and we are not going to 
participate,'' because those missiles go up into the sky but they come 
down and they land in cities, they land on military bases, they land in 
the theaters where our young people in uniform serve.
  We live in an age of missiles. We have to realize that, just like our 
forebears learned at the start of the century that we had entered the 
age of machineguns and we had entered the age of tanks and armor, and 
we had to adapt to that.
  We still had a few old generals who wanted to keep the cavalry 
because they loved the cavalry. We had cavalry training operations up 
into the 1930's. Some of them said, ``Boys, we just want to get faster 
horses, that is the answer.'' But that was not the answer.
  The Democrat leadership has been reluctant to acknowledge that we 
live in an age of missiles. I will never forget watching Walter Mondale 
standing at the Democrat Presidential nomination convention in San 
Francisco and saying of the Republican idea of defending ourselves 
against incoming nuclear missiles, ``That is war in the heavens, and I 
will never participate in that.''
  I cannot help but think, because Mr. Mondale is a fine gentleman, 
that if he was watching CNN and watched American Patriot missiles 
shooting down incoming Scud ballistic missiles--that is a slow 
ballistic missile, but a ballistic missile nonetheless, made by the 
Soviet Union--I am sure that when Mr. Mondale saw that incoming Scud 
coming
 into an American troop concentration, young men and women from the 
United States stationed in Saudi Arabia, and he saw a Patriot missile 
shoot up just like a bullet hitting a bullet and destroying that Scud, 
I am sure Walter Mondale, who said ``I will never participate in war in 
the heavens,'' probably said ``Thank heavens.''

  On that line, we now have to come together, Democrat and Republican, 
and concede that we live in an age of missiles and we have to do two 
things. We are going to have to have a capability of shooting down Scud 
missiles, the new missiles that North Korea is building and 
proliferating in the Middle East, Soviet missiles that are being sold 
by out-of-work generals in the former Soviet Union to Middle Eastern 
clients, to terrorist nations, and we have to have the ability to shoot 
those missiles down when they come into our troop concentrations in the 
Middle East or elsewhere.
  Those are called theater ballistic missiles. They are kind of like 
the Models T's of missiles. They crank along a little bit slower than 
ICBM's.

                              {time}  2210

  Second, we have to be able to shoot down ICBM's, because other 
nations than the former Soviet Union are making ICBM's. Red China is 
making ICBM's. Those are missiles that can 
[[Page H1155]] travel from China to the United States of America. North 
Korea is making ICBM's. They are trying to develop ICBM's that will be 
able to reach initially at least Alaska and later on other parts of the 
United States.
  So we have to have a system that can deter, can beat, just like that 
Patriot missile going up and shooting down that Model T ballistic 
missile, the Scud, we have to have a system that can go up and shoot 
down one of those Cadillac ICBM's made by the former Soviet Union, made 
by red China, made by North Korea. And as our intelligence leaders have 
told you, the people we pay in our intelligence agencies, all of these 
nations, some of them led by very unstable leaders who want to get a 
piece of the action, who want to be superpowers, who want to have 
leverage in world affairs, are using as their weapon of choice, they 
envision their weapon of choice to be the intercontinental ballistic 
missile.
  So we have to embark on a program to develop a national missile 
defense and a theater missile defense and this H.R. 7, the National 
Security Revitalization Act that was passed by the House Committee on 
Armed Services, and I probably say, passed by about 40 some votes to 
18, I think, Democrats and Republicans passed this act.
  This act says it shall be the policy of the United States to develop 
and deploy a national missile defense and a theater missile defense. 
That is the first time a body in either House has made such a strong 
commitment.
  I am proud of my colleagues who joined with us, myself, the gentleman 
from Maine; our great chairman of the House Committee on Armed 
Services, Floyd Spence, who led that bill through the markup process. I 
am glad so many Members of the other side of the aisle joined with us 
to see to it that American is well-defended. You cannot defend America 
if you do not defend against missiles.
  Mr. LONGLEY. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the strong note that is important that the 
public understands and the Members of this House understand is the very 
strong bipartisan commitment, not only in the other pieces of 
legislation that have been proceeding through this House in the last 3 
weeks, but we have had strong cores in each party who have been 
aggressively working together to try to address issues of concern to 
the national interest.
  As we move through the next several weeks, particularly as we hear 
more about the National Security Revitalization Act, I think that the 
public is going to recognize the strong bipartisan, nonpartisan 
commitment to defending this great country against the threats that she 
faces as we move into the future.
  I welcome the opportunity to work with the chairman of the 
subcommittee and with the members of the committee as we address these 
very important issues.


                          ____________________