[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H1681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to speak to the issue 
of what the minority talked about as far as the majority not supporting 
national defense. I can remember being on this floor, Mr. Speaker, when 
the majority, or the now-minority, turned their backs on our men and 
women in Desert Storm, would not support them, and yet we had debate on 
that issue.
  I can remember the first event that they brought up was homosexuals 
in the military, when the majority of military folks do not want 
homosexuals in the military.
  I remember that most of that same leadership, all of the leadership, 
voting for Clinton's tax bill, which cut defense $177 billion, and then 
also put the highest tax that they had ever had on the American people. 
They had increased the marginal tax rate of the middle-income taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, I can look, and when Colin Powell and Dick Cheney and 
then-candidate Clinton said that anything below $50 billion would put 
us into a hollow force, but yet these same Members that are now saying 
that they are hawks cut defense $177 billion. Not a single Democrat at 
the Democratic White House fundraiser put a foot down when military men 
and women in uniform were serving as waiters. It would have happened at 
our fundraiser, I guarantee you.
  I can remember at the extension of Somalia, we then in the minority 
voted against it, saying it would cost billions of dollars. Then I also 
look at how the policy was changed toward General Aideed. General 
Aideed is still there, by the way. Then we weakened our strength. Then 
they denied armor, and then we lost 22 Rangers and 77 wounded. Why? 
Because the Democratic leadership would not support our troops.
  Now they say that we are weakening national security. Twenty-two 
killed and seventy-seven wounded, with the father of one of those 
killed that received the Medal of Honor chastising the President.
  Mr. Hunter. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I also thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], who is one of our experts on missile 
defense.
  The gentleman is talking about H.R. 7, the Defense Revitalization 
Act, part of the Contract with America that is coming up in a day or 2 
on the House floor. He is one of the few Members of this House, Mr. 
Speaker, who has had the experience of being shot down by an enemy 
missile in his illustrious career in serving in Hanoi.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know if it is illustrious, being shot down.
  Mr. HUNTER. But he managed to get five MiG's before they got him.
  I guest I would ask my friend, he has seen the language that places 
us square in the middle of the missile age. That is, it mandates that 
we develop theater defense against missiles, and we develop a national 
defense against missiles.
  I would asked the gentleman, what is your feeling with respect to our 
timing? Do you think we are coming too early, too late? What is your 
opinion with respect to missile defense?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say to my friend, the gentleman from 
California, my first concern is yes, I believe looking at Desert Storm 
and the other, that we need to support missile defense. However, I want 
to tell the gentleman from California, which may not be the position 
that he wants, I look at the Air Force. They want the C-17, they want 
the B-12, they want the F-22, and they want F-15's, and the Navy wants 
to upgrade F-14's and the Air Force F-115's.
  We need to take a balanced look and see how much money is available 
without taking from the other services. I support missile defense, but 
I think we have to be real careful with the funds available, and we are 
cutting down everything.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  With respect to national missile defense, what is the gentleman's 
feeling with respect to what the former Soviet States are doing, and 
with respect to what China and North Korea are doing?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the liberal side of 
the Democratic leadership would tell us that there is no threat from 
Russia, but yet the Soviet dropped five nuclear-class Typhoon 
submarines last year, that is five nuclear submarines, when we gave 
them $1 billion to dismantle nuclear weapons.
  They built a MiG 35, which is superior to the SU-27, which is 
superior to our F-14's and F-15's. They have an AA-10 missile which is 
superior to our Amram missile, so they are investing in those kinds of 
weapon systems, while ours are going down.
  Mr. Speaker, if we look at what they are doing in pushing out the 
joint airplane, they are pushing out beyond the year 2010, when we have 
no chance of building up even to a Bottom-Up Review level.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  

                          ____________________