[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S11187]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      CRITICAL DEFENSE SHORTFALLS

 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the Senate Armed Services Committee 
held a hearing yesterday that resulted in a bipartisan call to address 
the readiness crisis in our armed forces. Senators charged the Joint 
Chiefs with warming over the critical defense shortfalls in a previous 
hearing last February in order to defend the President's Budget.
  Many of us in Congress have been expressing to the Administration for 
years our concerns regarding the deep cuts in personnel, equipment, and 
training. Senator McCain offered these warnings in a report he 
commissioned entitled ``Going Hollow'' as far back as 1993. I have 
written repeatedly on the subject of military readiness. In fact, last 
May I wrote that ``the hollow state of readiness so many have warned 
about has arrived.''
  I am pleased the President and the Joint Chiefs have finally decided 
to abandon the shell game and address the serious weaknesses in our 
defense force structure. At this stage, placing blame is far less 
important than solving the problem. The more candid responses from the 
Joint Chiefs in yesertday's hearing are the first step in that process. 
Mr. President, I ask that two columns I have written on the subject of 
military readiness be printed in the Record.
  The material follows:

                  Unacceptable Risk to American Lives

                      (By U.S. Senator Bill Frist)

       ``Unacceptable risk,'' is the blunt assessment by Army 
     four-star General David A. Bramlett describing his troops' 
     ability to accomplish its mission.
       In a disturbing memo to the Army's Chief-of-Staff, General 
     Bramlett methodically describes the nearly insurmountable 
     challenges facing Forces Command, for which he is 
     responsible. ``Funding has fallen below a survival level in 
     FY99. The commanders are concerned that they can not meet the 
     daily challenges of the three imperatives of readiness: 
     training, quality of life and infrastructure.''
       General Bramlett's warning is only the latest evidence the 
     Clinton Administration has failed to lead and maintain a 
     ready fighting force. Consider a few other shocking examples 
     of the damage caused by the Administration's extreme defense 
     cuts:
       In Cecil Naval Air Station, Florida, a commander reports 
     having 43 aircraft assigned to him but only 20 operational. 
     One new aircraft had its landing gear damaged in a botched 
     landing. Three years later, that F/A18, after only 10 hours 
     use, still sits idle because of the lack of spare parts.
       Admiral Clemins, the Commander of the Pacific Fleet, 
     reports that the Navy is 18,000 sailors short and is forced 
     to send warships out of port inadequately manned.
       Then Major General Marvin Esmond testified that his 
     command, the Air Warfare Center at Nellis Air Force Base in 
     Nevada, has experienced a six-month delay in skill 
     improvement for airmen due to delays in specialized training. 
     This shortage of properly trained personnel has forced other 
     airmen to routinely work 70-hour weeks of 12-hour shifts.
       Our forces are some 45 percent smaller than in 1989. We 
     have traditionally maintained the ability to execute at least 
     two major regional conflicts, each approximately the size of 
     the Gulf War. Today, most analysts agree we would have 
     difficulty executing even one Gulf War-sized conflict.
       This weakness may well explain the Clinton Administration's 
     recent efforts to avoid confrontation with Iraq over weapons 
     inspections.
       Our lack of vigilance has serious consequences for our 
     troops, our nation and even for our enemies. Only eight years 
     ago our nation went to war in the Persian Gulf with the most 
     ready force we have ever enjoyed. In short order we won a 
     clear and decisive victory against one of the largest 
     standing armies in the world.
       For an armed conflict of this magnitude, there was an 
     amazingly small loss of life for allied troops--and even for 
     the Iraqis. Most surrendered rather than face our 
     overwhelming forces and certain defeat. Today, America's 
     military continues to do their duty and more, but politicians 
     have a duty as well. We must meet our responsibility to equip 
     and train our military so that they can not only survive, but 
     win on the battlefield.
       The Clinton Administration's platitudes about ``leaner and 
     meaner'' betray this responsibility. The typical Marine, for 
     example, is no less courageous today than he was in 1989. But 
     he is less well trained, and there are far fewer Marines to 
     back him up and ensure he can accomplish his mission.
       As the President prepares a defense budget for the 
     millennium, it's time to stop the erosion of our defenses. 
     Our enemies of today are less predictable and more likely to 
     attempt to attack at the first sign of any weakness.
       Tennesseans are justly famous as volunteers in the defense 
     of our nation. For their sake, and for the sake of all 
     American volunteers in military service, Washington must do 
     its duty to ensure our fighting men and women are better 
     trained and better equipped than they are today. The price of 
     an ill-prepared force is measured in blood, not in dollars.
                                  ____


                          Our Hollow Military

                      (By U.S. Senator Bill Frist)

       Nearly six years of neglect and foreign-policy overreach 
     have taken their toll in the Department of Defense. Make no 
     mistake: The hollow state of readiness so many have warned 
     about has already arrived. The Commander-in-Chief has allowed 
     America's military preparedness to sink to the disgraceful 
     levels of the Carter era. This administration is more 
     concerned about the social engineering of the military's 
     culture than the training, modernization, and maintenance 
     that will keep our troops alive on the battlefield.
       Inattention to readiness issues is reaching crisis 
     proportions. A visiting pilot at Luke Air Force Base recently 
     counted nearly forty F-16 fighters parked near the runway 
     without engines. These aircraft were literally ``hollow.'' In 
     a recent interview, even secretary of Defense Bill Cohen 
     acknowledged that ``it does trouble us.'' Yet, this 
     administration has plunged ahead with more overseas military 
     commitments, not fewer, stretching our defenses ever thinner.
       From 1993 to the present, the Clinton Pentagon has spent an 
     average of $2 billion every year on ``Operations Other Than 
     War'' like those in Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia. Indeed 
     Congress just passed ``emergency'' funding to cover more than 
     $1.8 billion for the Iraq mobilization and continued Bosnia 
     ``peacekeeping'' operations this year. Yet, our armed forces 
     have been in Bosnia almost three years. Without this 
     injection of money, the ongoing expense of these operations 
     would endanger our ability to respond to a national crisis.
       Today our forces are more than 40 percent smaller than at 
     the end of the Cold War, yet deployments have increased by 
     300 to 400 percent. The Pentagon counties to play a shell 
     game with defense dollars earmarked for the modernization and 
     training that will keep troops alive in future conflicts. 
     Meanwhile, the administration's feel-good foreign policies 
     attempt to turn our servicemen and women into global 
     caretakers.
       The most important measure of military efficiency is the 
     number of American lives lost to attain a military objective. 
     This dangerous foreign policy reduces America's ability to 
     defend her interests and endangers the most valuable piece of 
     our foreign policy--our men and women in uniform. As a 
     nation, we cannot afford to continue paying lip service to 
     abstractions like ``readiness' and ``modernization'' without 
     backing them up.
       Recent incidents show how closely peacetime training is 
     linked to life and death in times of war. Last October, 
     Defense News reported that a Russian submarine shadowed the 
     nuclear submarine USS Coronado for several days without being 
     detected. A year earlier, a Chilean submarine moved 
     undetected for several days within the perimeter of a U.S. 
     battle group during a training exercise. In both cases, the 
     foreign submarines could have fired upon our ships at any 
     time. Fortunately for those American crews, we aren't at war. 
     But as one senior Navy official observed, ``it is only in 
     training that a diminished capability is evident.''
       More recently, I toured our operations in Bosnia. While 
     deployments to hot spots like Bosnia have clearly been made 
     with noble intentions, too often they have been undertaken 
     with questionable rationales and undefined mission goals. 
     Unrealistic deadlines have been substituted for exit 
     strategies. In Bosnia, for instance, our entanglement is now 
     well into its third year. This would not be so troubling 
     except for the administration's original promises that all 
     mission objectives were achievable in one year. When 
     Secretary Cohen pushes for further cuts in military 
     installations as a cost saving measure, it's worth reminding 
     him that the Bosnia operation alone is a moneypit that has 
     cost the American taxpayer close to $7 billion.
       Shifting goals are questionable to begin with. But to pay 
     for them with dollars intended to maintain the nation's 
     military readiness is simply inexcusable. These ``Operations 
     Other Than War'' distract the military from its primary 
     mission: to fight and win wars where real American interests 
     are at stake. The more our forces stray from that mission, 
     the less they'll be able to accomplish it, especially with 
     minimal loss of life.
       As we're asking a small military to do more with less, 
     Washington must be disciplined in our use of shrinking 
     defense resources. In this era of balanced budgets and 
     relative peace, we neglect national defense at our own 
     peril--and the peril of those Americans who put their lives 
     on the line to protect the national interest.

                          ____________________