[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1286-H1287]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          COMMONSENSE DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. speaker, we are at a crossroads in American military 
preparedness. Since the Iron Curtain collapsed in 1989, the quantity 
and extent of U.S. military commitments abroad have stretched our 
forces thin. Today, there are signs of a serious weakening in troop 
training readiness. The Pentagon reports that key modernization 
programs have been interrupted to pay for current operations and an 
ailing base infrastructure.
  We have reduced our military too far and too fast. If we continue, by 
the end of the decade we won't have the military power to shape a 
peaceful and prosperous world. Without security, peace, and free trade, 
all Americans lose.
  The erosion in military preparedness disturbs many of our Nation's 
leaders. President Clinton recognized the shortfall in December when he 
added $2 billion to this year's defense budget. Several Members of 
Congress proposed staying at the fiscal year 1995 budget level, 
adjusted for inflation. That amount, about a $14 billion increase, 
would be a major step toward bolstering American military preparedness.
  Some critics argue that defense increases are not needed because 
today's world is less dangerous. They fail to remember that in 1994 the 
United States came close to armed conflict three times. In June, we 
deployed additional forces toward Korea to halt the production of 
nuclear weapons. In September, we sent 22,000 troops to Haiti to 
restore democracy and stop the flow of refugees to our shores. Then, in 
October, we responded to Saddam Hussein's move to imperil the world's 
oil supply. These occurred during ongoing American military commitments 
in the Sinai, Rwanda, Macedonia, Cuba, Bosnia, Turkey, Panama, Okinawa, 
and Western Europe.
  In 1993, the administration outlined our national security strategy 
in the Bottom-Up Review. It reasonably concluded America needed enough 
military forces to fight and win two major regional conflicts, nearly 
simultaneously. Our recent trials with North Korea, Haiti, and Iraq 
affirm this two-war strategy.
  But our experience under the Bottom-Up Review, now approaching 2 
years, suggests that we cannot take our force structure any lower. 
Indeed, modest increases are needed.
  Events in 1994 revealed our military is on the verge of being over-
committed. Our experience in the new security environment also teaches 
that the Bottom-Up Review incorrectly assumed we can withdraw troops 
from peacekeeping and humanitarian relief commitments to fight a major 
regional conflict. Disengagement inflicts high cost.
  Some critics, observing defense officials juggle resources among 
competing demands, suggest we've sacrified modernization for readiness 
and quality of life. They've got it wrong. A serious imbalance does 
exist, but it's because all three are underfunded. Simply put, we are 
not adequately funding our strategy that ensures American security. The 
shortfall is not large, but it is big enough to create disturbing 
imbalances in our current military posture. We cannot allow troop 
morale, training readiness, and force modernization
to get out of balance. Common sense says we should eliminate this 
strategy-resource mismatch to restore our overall military 
preparedness.
  My defense plan for fiscal years 1995-99 which I propose today, 
provides a $44 billion increase to add force structure; pay for 
peacekeeping obligations; and correct the imbalance in readiness, 
modernization, and quality of life. With this prudent investment, we 
can eliminate an over-committed force structure. We can meet out 
military commitments abroad. We can restore a high level of readiness. 
We can provide an adequate quality of life for our deserving service 
personnel. And we can continued to modernize our forces to be prepared 
for future threats. It is right and it is affordable.
  The choice is clear--continued decline or prudent restoration of our 
military preparedness. Will the history books say that American service 
men and women who performed unselfishly 
 [[Page H1287]] in our Armed Forces had the strong support of the 
Congress of the United States? Or, will the record show that the 
Congress chose to leave them unprepared for the difficult trials asked 
of them? Common sense says that a secure and prosperous America can 
afford adequate, fully trained, properly equipped, and highly prepared 
military forces.

                          ____________________