[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H5361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             DEFENSE ISSUES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, while the cold war may be over, U.S. security 
interests endure. Unfortunately, many Americans do not fully appreciate 
this new dynamic. Indeed it is difficult to understand how emerging 
threats, may challenge future U.S. global interests.
  Some examples are very clear: China's rise to power is increasingly 
marked by military posturing and coercive diplomacy in the Pacific rim. 
An unstable and fragmented Russia turns to aggressive nationalism to 
hold itself together. Economic ruin, ethnic violence, terrorism, and 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction pose serious threats 
to international stability.
  We have asked our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines to protect 
our country and its vital national security interests, in this evolving 
international environment. Our military is our first, and often our 
last line of defense and we must be prepared to provide it with the 
technological edge to defeat any enemy on any battlefield.
  I must remind my colleagues that the battlefield of the future has 
little resemblance to the battlefield of the past. Information warfare, 
wide availability of commercial off-the-shelf technology, and the 
proliferation of highly capable weapons systems, all contribute to a 
rapid evolution, in military tactics and doctrine.
  Understanding how these new conflicts and demands are burdening our 
services is difficult to do from an arms length distance here in 
Washington.
  So last Friday I went down to my district and spent time at Camp 
Lejeune. It was an opportunity to see how the tremendous efforts our 
men and women in the Marine Corps can and will be increased with the 
support of adequate defense dollars.
  Just last week, the House made a step in the right direction by 
passing H.R. 3230, the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997. 
The bill stems the tide of the administration cuts that would have 
weakened our national security, and placed our men and women in uniform 
at increased risk. I would like to commend Chairman Spence for 
carefully crafting a bipartisan bill that achieves four fundamental 
goals:
  First, we promised to improve the quality of life for our military 
personnel and their families. A number of critically important 
provisions in this bill such as the 3 percent pay raise, the increase 
in military housing allowance by 50 percent over the President's 
budget, the funding of troop barracks and child care centers, goes a 
long way to maintain a decent quality of life, for our all-volunteer 
military.
  Second, we promised to sustain short and long-term readiness. Despite 
funds added by Congress last year to maintain minimum readiness levels, 
and the high pace of ongoing military operations around the world, the 
President suggested reductions in a variety of readiness accounts, 
below current spending levels. Despite the administration's proposed 
cuts, H.R. 3230 has recommended an increase of $1.6 billion in key 
readiness accounts to ensure U.S. military preparedness.
  Third, the National Security Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 
addresses the growing modernization shortfalls that have resulted from 
a decade-long, 80 percent decline in real dollars in procurement 
spending. The President's fiscal year 1997 procurement budget is the 
lowest in 50 years, and is a frightening $5 billion lower than the 
Pentagon planned just one year ago. This bill therefore devotes the 
bulk of the spending increases recommended in H.R. 3230 to procurement. 
This will shore-up a dramatically downsized industrial base, by adding 
funds to a number of under- and unfunded programs.
  And fourth, we have continued our efforts to create a more agile and 
competitive defense management structure, by continuing to reorganize 
and reduce our defense bureaucracy.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is consistent with the Contract With America. 
It is consistent with our goals of achieving a balanced budget by 2002; 
and we can do it the right way--not on the backs of the men and women 
who serve in our military.

                          ____________________