[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1014-H1018]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           MILITARY READINESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, one of my favorite speakers is a guy 
named Will Rogers. First of all, he tells stories and he relates to 
people. And my subject tonight is the readiness, the national security 
of this great country.
  We just finished a hearing in San Diego headed up by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Bateman). Our Republican and Democrat colleagues, I 
was very, very proud, they listened. They watched. And they unanimously 
contended that the readiness state of our armed forces in this country 
is at a critical state.
  I think it best relates, as my friend Will Rogers used to relate the 
stories, and it tells about a case of a gentleman that was in an 
accident and he was banged up. His horse was killed. His dog was 
killed.
  And the insurance agent came to the gentleman and said, Well, is it 
true the day of your accident you told the police officer that it was 
the best day of your life and that you had never felt better? And the 
gentleman looked at him and said, Yes, this is right. I did that. He 
said, But you had broken legs and broken arms. He said, Yes, but I 
still said that I never felt better. He said, Can you explain? He said, 
Well, my horse had broken legs and the policeman took out his revolver 
and he shot the horse. My dog was near death, and he reached over and 
shot the dog and the police officer looked at me and said, how do you 
feel? And of course, I replied I never felt better in my life, even 
though I had broken legs and arms.
  Kind of the truth in the same story could be related to our service 
chiefs as they testified before the different committees.

                              {time}  2245

  A four-star General or Admiral will come before the committee and 
state, ``Our readiness state is high, we are well trained, we are well 
prepared.'' And these are the same words that they said in the '70s 
when we were at an all-time low. But we know and they know if they do 
not agree with the President's budget and they say otherwise, the 
President will find someone who will agree. And there is the paradigm.
  If we take a look, the White House budget is a good one. But our 
service chiefs try and give us the information to read between the 
lines. For example, in the President's budget education impact aid has 
been cut. What is education impact aid?
  If a military service person signs up for aid in one State and moves 
to another, and they reside in that State and keep their registration 
there, their State taxes go to that State. And say that they go to 
California, the State that I am from, and their children go to that 
school. Well, they impact that school, but yet there are no State 
funds. Ninety-seven percent of education is paid for, excuse me, 93 
percent, out of State funds, so there is a direct impact on that 
school. Yet the budget is okay, but education impact aid is not in the 
budget.
  The service chiefs testified that 80 percent of the equipment of all 
of our services, 80 percent, is of 1970 vintage. But the budget is 
okay. There is not enough money for modernization, because 
modernization over the past 7 years has been cut 70 percent. So our new 
tanks, our new aircraft, our new weapon systems, our ships cannot be 
built. But yet the system is okay.
  The bottom-up review that was charged by then Secretary of Defense 
Les Aspin pointed out that the Navy was going from 546 ships, but yet 
we needed only 346 to complete two combat zones at one time. They refer 
to it as a two MRC. It would take 346 ships to do that. But yet in the 
budget that we see today, in the outgoing years and this year, we are 
only building three to five ships, which will put us well below 300 
ships. But yet the budget was okay.
  There are limited parts, so bad that many squadrons in the United 
States have but one or two aircraft that will fly because they have had 
to take the parts off of those aircraft and send

[[Page H1015]]

them to Iraq and Bosnia and our other contingencies on the front line, 
and that means that the aircraft that are left here are down so that 
the pilots here cannot train or cannot fly those aircraft.
  They have to operate a maintenance practice called cannibalization, 
in which they have to take a part off of one aircraft, they have to put 
it on another aircraft, and then take a third part and put it on the 
original airplane, and in many cases that does not work. The load for 
that maintenance worker is three times the amount of work that a normal 
maintenance worker has to work. But the budget is okay.
  Operation tempo. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. The operation tempo 
since the Cold War has increased 300 percent. But yet the budget is 
okay.
  Our men and women are getting out of the service. The retention rate 
is 24 percent. Pilots in the Air Force, they had to give bonuses. It 
was 29 percent, and they were able to boost it up to 33 percent. The 
Navy is similar. What does this mean?
  We interviewed in San Diego our top enlisted, our staff sergeants, 
our gunnies, our master chiefs, our chiefs and enlisted. Most of their 
senior enlisted personnel, because of the time away from home, because 
of the increased tempo, because of three times the workload, because of 
having to deploy and be away from their families, are getting out of 
the service. So we do not have that experience level to man the 
readiness of our equipment, in which in the States we do not have 
because it is being forced on the front lines. But yet the budget is 
okay.
  Older equipment from the 1970s is much more difficult to keep up, Mr. 
Speaker. Cannibalization that does not work, 300 percent increase in op 
tempo, and a budget that is lower than in the 1950s. But yet the budget 
is okay.
  Now, with that 1950s budget, Mr. Speaker, with that 1950s budget for 
our national security, all of the contingencies, Somalia, Haiti, 
Bosnia, there was $16 billion spent for which Congress did not support. 
We did not support the increase and lengthening of Somalia, we did not 
support Haiti, and we did not support going into Bosnia, but the 
President ordered it. It cost $16 billion, which comes out of the 
operations and maintenance funds which our service chiefs, our enlisted 
and our commanders have told us there are no parts. We are not 
maintaining our equipment because it is already coming out of there.
  One thing they said unanimously, the service chiefs. We have a 
supplemental called a defense supplemental coming up, and if they do 
not receive this supplemental, all services will not only go into a 
hollow force, they will be inept. That is the words of our service 
chiefs. And this is critical. Without the supplemental, we will not 
only be in a hollow force but we will be inept.
  With the experience leaving the services, we have a real problem. 
With our groups training, the low level, we have less and less and 
less. Let me talk about the troops getting out with a Will Rogers type 
of story.
  In Vietnam I was fortunate to shoot down a Mig 21 over Southeast 
Asia. When I came back aboard the U.S.S. Constellation, which was the 
same ship we held this hearing on, all 5,000 men on that ship were up 
on the flight deck because no Mig had been shot down in almost 2 years 
of fighting. As I taxied over to the elevator, I looked and there was 
Captain James D. Ward, skipper of the U.S.S. Constellation, Admiral 
Hutch Cooper, who was commander of Task Force 77, and all 5,000 guys 
were there cheering.
  And I looked at my plane captain, his name was Willie Lincoln White. 
Willie Lincoln White, in his enthusiasm, Mr. Speaker, broke through the 
crowd. He knocked over Admiral Cooper, and you do not do that in the 
Navy, and he ran across the flight deck. In his enthusiasm, he ran by 
the tail feathers where the engines were still going and jumped up on 
the port wing. We are trying to get the ejection seat pins in and the 
safety arm for the weapon systems, and Willie White leaned over and 
grabbed my arm and said, ``Lieutenant Cunningham, Lieutenant 
Cunningham, we got our Mig today, didn't we?''
  Well, what was Willie Lincoln White telling me, Mr. Speaker? He felt 
a very important member of a team, and rightfully so. We shot down a 
lot of Migs, but we only deserve about 1/5000th of the credit. And 
those men and women serving in our military feel like they are part of 
the team. But this Congress and the White House is letting down that 
team, Mr. Speaker, because when men and women who are dedicated, 
dedicated to serving this country, are forced out because of a 300 
percent increase, because of cannibalization, because of no parts, 
because they cannot train and that they are kept away from their 
families, that is wrong.
  Let us take a look at the U.S.S. Constellation in port in San Diego 
today. She returned from a 6-month cruise overseas. Now, during the 
months of April, May, June, July and August she has to go up to 
Bremerton. She is an old boat and she has to get repairs. Now, 
Bremerton is not where the families of those men and women serving on 
that ship live. They live back in San Diego. So after a 6-month cruise, 
they are going to have to go up, months away from their family. This is 
supposed to be a time called shore duty on the rotation, 6 months on, 6 
months off, that they have to spend some time with their families, but 
they cannot do that.

  After they get through with this time in Bremerton, they have two 40-
day workup periods. Why? Because the aircraft they have does not have 
any parts. In some cases they do not even have the airplanes. They have 
to get them back from sailors that are coming back off another ship, 
beef up their airplanes, go out and train them, because they have not 
trained their new kids that have just joined the squadron.
  So we have kids that are not trained as well as pilots and aviators. 
And even the weapons people to onload the weapons are new. So they have 
to gear up to that because they could potentially end up in combat. But 
yet the budget's okay.
  Let us take a look at how foreign policy has damaged the readiness of 
our forces in this great country. We went into Somalia with a 
humanitarian message and mission. There was an extension after George 
Bush left and the President took over in the White House. They extended 
Somalia. Most of us voted against that because there was no mission, 
there was no clear time to get out, much like there is in Bosnia today.
  The extension changed from humanitarian. And Mr. Speaker, I think you 
will remember that the mission went after General Aideed. Well, during 
that time there was a humvee, which is a vehicle that our Rangers were 
driving, and they were trapped by the forces there. They were cut in 
four pieces with chainsaws and their remains were drug through the 
streets of Somalia. Our military leaders asked for armor.
  And at the same time the mission changed from humanitarian to going 
after General Aideed, the President drew down our forces, making us 
vulnerable to attack. And so our commanders again asked for armor and 
they were denied.
  There was a helicopter that went down, Mr. Speaker. The same thing. 
Two of the members were killed outright, the one survivor was taken out 
and cut to pieces and his body parts were drug through the streets of 
Mogadishu. And again they asked for armor, because they could not get 
to them through the streets.
  Then we put in a strike going after General Aideed, downtown 
Mogadishu. Our Rangers were trapped. It took 7 hours to get to them 
because they did not have armor, and we lost 22 of our soldiers 
unnecessarily. And another reason that I do not support the United 
Nations is because at that time Boutros Boutros-Ghali could have 
ordered in our tanks from other U.N. nations and did not. We lost 22 
men, Mr. Speaker.
  Let us look at Haiti. Oh, and guess what? In Somalia, General Aideed 
died last year but his son is still there. They still have the same 
corruption. They still have the same poverty. They have the same 
problems that they did for the humanitarian reasons we went there and 
it cost billions of dollars. Now, we take that out of Medicare, we take 
that out of Social Security, we take it out of education, but it is 
dollars that we do not have overseas.
  Let us take a look at Haiti. In my opinion, Haiti could stay there 
for another 200 years and not be a threat militarily or economically to 
this

[[Page H1016]]

country. But yet, on the President's orders, against the will of 
Congress, we went into Haiti. Who did we send in there? A mad dog named 
Aristide, who used Haitian neckties, which is a tire around the neck of 
his opponents filled with gas, and lit them. But yet he was our 
ambassador. He was going to be the head of Haiti, supported by this 
administration.
  Billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker. Aristide is still there, the 
government is still poor, the people are still poor. There are still 
boat people coming from Haiti, and all of the same problems we went 
there for. But yet it cost billions of dollars.
  Let us take a look at Bosnia. In my opinion, if we pulled out of 
Bosnia today, would there be conflict? Yes. Look at Kosova. Look in the 
news today.

                              {time}  2300

  But if we pull out 5 years from now, the fighting is going to be even 
worse because of our failed foreign policy. And let me be explicit. The 
White House sent arms to Izetbegovic, the leader in Sarajevo, head of 
the Muslim forces, to balance out, quote, ``balance out the force.'' We 
are continuing to arm and send our troops to train the Muslims. There 
are between 10 and 12,000 Mujahedin surrounding Izetbegovic and 
essentially trained under Kadafi, and that government is going closer, 
and closer, and closer to Iran and Iraq. And if we pull out in later 
years, it is not going to be the Serbs, it is not going to be the 
Croatians, but it is going to be the fundamentalists, the Mujahadin and 
Hamas that are going to strike a blow, and Iran and Iraq is going to 
have a foothold in former Yugoslavia, and it is going to threaten 
Europe, and it is going to threaten Greece, and it is going to threaten 
the United States of America, Mr. Speaker. And that is wrong.
  The President's budget represents the 14th consecutive year of 
defense spending decline. The President's request represents 3.1 
percent of GDP, down by 50 percent in the mid 1980's. The fiscal year 
1999 request represents the lowest defense budget since before, before 
the Korean War; Bosnia, $7.1 billion; southeast Asia ops, 4.7 billion; 
Haiti Cuban ops, $1.4 billion; Somalia, Rwanda, $1.9 billion; $16 
billion that, again, comes out of an already low defense budget.
  Since 1993, three times more spent on contingency operations than all 
of the United States Marine Corps procurement. Bosnia deployments are 
estimated to have cost an additional 10 to $15 billion when we do not 
pull out this June, as the President said he would a year ago. Air 
Force officials have established 120 days per year as the desired 
maximum number of days an individual should be away from his home 
station.
  Many of our troops are away from their homes over 230 days, and then 
because those critical rate shortages of our senior enlisted getting 
out have got to either cross deck, or go to Air Force units, or turn 
around and go right back to fulfill those voids. And that is another 
reason why retention is so low. It is another reason why our readiness 
is low because experience is leaving. And it is a self-contained 
cesspool, Mr. Speaker.
  Do more with less. Brigadier General William Wallace. Remember 
William Wallace in ``Brave Heart.'' This is Brigadier General William 
Wallace. And I quote, ``We tend to see leaders that are well-educated, 
but not well-practiced.'' Why? Because their quality of experience is 
lacking.
  Before many of us went to Vietnam and even in Desert Storm, we had 
strong training; we had strong control with our leaders. Our leaders 
were war-tested and trained. Now that is fading, Mr. Speaker. We had 
adversary squadrons. We were able to fight against A-4s that simulated 
the MiG-17 and MiG-21. We were able to fight F-5Es and other aircraft 
which simulated MiG-21 and MiG-29. But we do not have any more of those 
adversary squadrons.
  The budget does not allow for those aircraft. I am alive today 
because of the training and the superior equipment I had in combat. And 
our troops are losing that edge.
  Mr. Speaker, did you know that Captain O'Grady, when he was shot down 
in Bosnia that made the news, was not qualified at air combat 
maneuvering, because they are not training here in the States. And when 
you get overseas on the front lines, you are flying these missions, you 
cannot afford an airplane, you cannot afford to fly and train in many 
of the areas because they will not allow us the air space to fight with 
live ordnance on. So you end up drilling holes in the skies. And yes, 
Captain O'Grady was shot down with a sand missile.
  You saw him being picked up by Navy and Marine forces. But he was not 
qualified for air combat when he was shot down. That is a crime that 
this country would send our men and women abroad with the lack of 
training, lack of parts, 70-year-old aircraft, and on and on and on.
  According to Army briefing, 125 infantry squads are unmanned. That is 
equal to five infantry battalions, and they are not even manned because 
we do not have the personnel. And if we did, we do not have the senior 
noncommissioned officers to train them.
  Additionally, there are 134 tank crews and units based in the United 
States which are undermanned and unqualified, more than 40 percent of a 
division of armored fighting power, and this is according to the Army 
itself.
  This briefing also identified 199 crews, Mr. Speaker, of Bradley 
fighting vehicles in the United States that are undermanned or 
unqualified. That is 60 percent of a division's infantry fighting 
power. But yet the budget is okay.
  The widespread belief of trainers interviewed in the NTC, which is 
Naval Training Center, 29 Palms, and U.S. Air Force Air Warfare Center 
at Nellis Air Force Base is that units are arriving less prepared than 
they used to be and not as proficient when they complete their training 
as in the past. Deployed units numbers of overdue training events which 
drives increased workloads in order to catch up is forcing our men and 
women out the service.
  The report states that service secretaries have confirmed that while 
readiness has traditionally fluctuated, meaning it is a moving target, 
depending on where the unit was, either deployed or at home, from all 
the services was at troughs of lower readiness are deeper and longer in 
duration. Many pilots and maintenance personnel interviewed report that 
aircraft are increasingly being stripped of parts as soon as they 
return from deployment in order to support other aircraft that are 
deploying.
  Personnel in an S-3ASW aircraft squadron noted that it had returned 
from recent deployment and had no aircraft to train because the 
aircraft were needed to support the ongoing deployment of aircraft on 
the U.S.S. Kittyhawk. An ES-6 squadron only had one aircraft left. They 
had to get rid of all their airplanes. Fighter squadrons are leaving 
with no parts. Back here in the United States, they cannot fly them so 
they cannot train so that we can support all of these contingencies. 
And I quote, Never before have squadrons come back with no planes to 
train with.
  The Marine Corps: Marine aviation weapons and tactical squadrons 
noted that fixed-wing pilots coming to school used to have 
approximately 1500 hours of flying time in a particular type aircraft. 
Today the average is closer to 400 hours. And these are your pilots 
that are going to go back and train the remaining pilots, and they only 
have 400 hours. They are beginners, Mr. Speaker.
  Helicopter pilot students used to average approximately 12 to 1500 
hours flying time. Now the average is near the minimum, 700 hours. So 
quality, experience. And we can neither accept or tolerate anything 
less than superlative in our air crews and in our men and women who 
maintain those machines.
  Officers expressed their belief that a gradual decline in marine 
tactical air combat readiness was underway due to a combination of 
factors: Reduced experience levels, reduced turnaround time between 
deployments, pilot resignations, degradation of aircraft readiness and 
training, ordnance shortages, and a lack of trained personnel to 
maintain those machines. Approximately 12,000 DOD service members are 
on food stamps and that many others qualify. Is it any wonder, Mr. 
Speaker, that our servicemen and women are leaving? But yet, the budget 
is okay.

  A 1990 survey found that 61 percent of Active enlisted soldiers and 
47 percent of officers were dissatisfied with the

[[Page H1017]]

amount of time that they had to be separated from their families. For 
the last 30 years, Mr. Speaker, the number one reason for a lack of 
retention in our armed services is family separation. And we cannot 
increase an operation tempo by over 300 percent and expect to have any 
kind of retention figures.
  Increased drug and child abuse are attributed to high pace of 
operations within the armed services. In 14 separate studies, 25 
percent of the senior NCOs and officers indicate that they are leaving 
service either earlier than planned or undecided due to downsizing. 
Increase of PERSTEMPO, increased stress, concern about job security, 
declining satisfaction with quality of life, and concern for their 
families. Job satisfaction is down two-thirds, and leaders say 
organizations are working longer hours.
  The force is tired, Mr. Speaker, concerned about the uncertainty of 
their future. Morale is low. The service chiefs will tell you that is 
not true, but just go out and talk to the kids. Morale is low both at 
individual and unit levels. And that is from the commanders of those 
that risk their careers by letting us know these facts.
  Fully one-third of both Active and Reserve Army leaders surveyed 
reported the problems with outdated or aging equipment; 80 percent of 
their equipment is beyond the year 1970. Air Combat Command was 
reporting that F-15Es, the Strike Eagle, had dropped below its mission 
capable standards. Cannibalization of parts and deploying aircraft are 
increasing, overextended maintenance crews.
  Air Force NCOs recently testified before the House National Committee 
that ``higher demand for aging aircraft parts and fewer resources due 
to cutbacks in funding drives us to cannibalization which triples our 
workload. Readiness is reduced to lower numbers of aircraft. Our pilots 
can't train. Fewer available missions capable of aircraft results in 
fewer trained pilots and mission accomplishment.''
  Mr. Speaker, there is another factor that has decreased our 
readiness. In our downsizing, which was important, we had too many 
overseas bases; it drew too much from taxpayers and it drew too much 
from our services. But it has been overdone. Raising both the workloads 
on forces and costs of operations, CONUS-based forces must travel 
farther now and longer to reached deployed areas.
  Of the 674 Army facilities closed worldwide since 1989, 593 were 
overseas. We used to go to those overseas bases. We used to get our 
parts. We used to get maintenance supplements. We used to have our 
aircraft and ships worked on at those overseas bases. But now they are 
closed. So what do you have to do? You have to go to Guam and Japan and 
other places in the Atlantic.
  U.S. Air Force Europe reduced 16 main and 37 minor operating bases to 
six bases. Nine U.S. Air Force fighter wings, totaling 636 aircraft, 
were reduced to three wings, 636 aircraft to 168 aircraft, to do the 
same job. But yet, the increase in tempo is 300 percent and they are 
expected to do the same thing.
  Personnel reductions from 62,000 down to 27,000; post-Cold War 
operations, larger, more intensive, more complex, longer in duration, 
Air Force study describes the context of a new environment of degrading 
readiness. And I quote, ``The increase in demand for U.S. Air Force 
assets and personnel has come to a time when U.S. Air Force and 
inventory personnel, operating locations, and budgets have experienced 
dramatic downsizing. U.S. Air Force aircraft inventory has declined 31 
percent during the last 5 years.''

                              {time}  2315

  Procurement, Mr. Speaker, has declined in the last 7 years by 70 
percent. We need these new aircraft to survive. Since the fall of the 
Berlin Wall in 1989, America has committed forces to nearly 40 crises. 
Deployments have increased, as I said, 300 percent since the Cold War, 
but yet funding below World War II levels.
  The combined result of a smaller size and increased activity is 
illustrated by the Air Force which deployed 28,900 of its 441,000 
personnel in 1996. The figures rose to 63,000 deployed. The previous 
figure deployed was 29,000. This year 63,000 had to deploy.
  Army, General Reimer, the Army reduced manpower by 36 percent while 
increasing deployment 300 percent, increased the workload by 625 
percent, with a decrease in force. Is it any wonder that our kids are 
getting out?
  The U.S. Air Force requires 13 of its 20 air wing equivalents to 
support current operations, or 65 percent of the combat fighter force.
  An average 50 percent of the Navy ships are out of home port. Roughly 
30 percent are deployed.
  A good example. We are funded for 50.4 hours per quarter steaming in 
the Navy. But yet with increased contingencies, those hours have gone 
up to over 75 hours, the increases there.
  But the budget is okay, Mr. Speaker.
  Reserve forces are fairly cheap, until you actually use them. When 
you have to send them to Iraq, when you have to send them to Bosnia, 
when you have to send them to South Korea because North Korea rattles 
its sword, then you have to pay them and, Mr. Speaker, that is not in 
the President's budget. But it is okay. And there are no replacements.
  And op tempo continues to grow. In FY 1997 only 32 percent of the 
eligible Air Force aviators accepted a pilot's bonus to continue 
service. Our experience is leaving, our war fighters are leaving, our 
trigger pullers are leaving. Yet your service chiefs will stand up and 
say we are well trained, we are well equipped and we can go. But what 
can we go with, Mr. Speaker? We cannot fight a 2 MRC.
  The Army's MA2A tank, they are only upgrading one-third of them. It 
is one of the finest tanks in the world, but their only new tank does 
not come out until 2020, 25 years from now, Mr. Speaker. A lot can 
happen in that time frame.
  Let us talk about the threat and why we need these new aircraft. 
General Shalikashvili, for whom I have a lot of respect, he was 
appointed by the President, but yet he pushed the envelope, Mr. 
Speaker. He knew his troops needed more. They needed more of the 
assets. And he said we need $60 billion for modernization or we are 
going to go into a hollow force. The President's budget does not come 
anywhere close to that. But yet we need the F-22, we need the F-18E/F, 
we need the B-2, we need the V-22 for special ops. Why? Why do we need 
these aircraft? Why is it so important? First our equipment is from 
1970.
  This chart that I have, Mr. Speaker, points out that the Russians 
today, the threat, they have aircraft, one called the MiG-29 which we 
have parity with it with our F-14s and our F-15s and our F-16s, but 
they have the SU-35 and the SU-37 which outmaneuver our aircraft. They 
have an AA-10 and an AA-12 missile. On the left side it shows the F-22, 
you can put an F-18E/F in the same position, but if you had an F-15 or 
an F-14 there and the SU-35, say, on this side shot or the SU-37 fired 
its missile, its AA-10 or AA-12 and we fired our AMRAM from an F-14 or 
an F-15, we die. It is a better missile. They have better radar and 
they can see farther, and our kids die. With the F-18E/F, the stealth 
characteristics built in those airplanes, instead of shooting each at 
the same time, we actually get closer before the Russian aircraft can 
see us. We are able to fire and leave and the enemy pilot dies. Yes, we 
need those aircraft, and they are expensive. But they give us increased 
range, they give us increased stealthiness, they give us increased 
capability. But yet that money is not in the budget to replace those 
aircraft in the numbers that we need them to continue with a 2 MRC. It 
is more intensive, it is more critical as we go.
  George C. Wilson, contributing editor to the Washington Post, is a 
former national defense correspondent for the Washington Post. He says, 
`` `We're having all we can do to fight no wars,' a flag officer told 
me ruefully, complaining that current commitments and force cuts have 
mooted 2 MRCs even though Clinton and Cohen won't admit it. The numbers 
bear him out.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up the whole hour, but I would 
also like to show this chart. It shows mandatory outlays in all other 
spending has increased by 35 percent. Domestic discretionary outlays 
have increased 15 percent. Defense discretionary outlays have decreased 
33 percent. And procurement of new systems, like the F-22 that the Air 
Force needs as its number one priority, the Army's helicopter,

[[Page H1018]]

the Marine Corps V-22 and even the Joint Strike Fighter is not there.
  Mr. Speaker, I was proud of the Republicans and Democrats on the 
National Security Committee and on the House Appropriations Committee, 
because they came to the defense hearing, our service chiefs gave as 
much between the lines as they could without losing their jobs, and I 
am very, very proud of them. Our commanders of the units in all forces 
got up and gave us these between-the-line instances that I have just 
given during these last few moments, Mr. Speaker. Our noncommissioned 
officers, our master sergeants, our chiefs, our gunnies said it the 
best. They said, ``Mr. Chairman,'' to the chairman of the committee, 
``We cannot continue as men and women in the Armed Forces with the lack 
of readiness and the lack of support that this Nation is giving us.''

                          ____________________