[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 9, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H1023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FUNDING FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bliley). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 19, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) 
is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on a subject 
that is very important to me and our Nation. This subject is funding 
for our national defense. When the Clinton administration's budget was 
released, we heard a lot of talk that the President had finally been 
convinced about the need to increase defense spending. This was 
significant because his previous six budgets have fallen short of 
meeting our defense requirements despite the fact that the military 
deployments and operations tempo were increasing under this 
administration. However, as we examine the President's budget request 
more closely, we find once again that the increase which he had 
promised is failing to materialize. While the President is proposing a 
slight increase in procurement accounts, research and development 
accounts are being cut. Furthermore, military construction spending is 
being slashed by over 35 percent. This is particularly disturbing for 
two reasons: One, because we are still paying money to finish the base 
closure process; two, our armed services are having difficulties 
retaining men and women who are currently serving. As the military-
civilian pay gap increases, we cannot expect to retain military 
personnel while at the same time expecting them to live in 1940 and 
1950 era housing while working in outdated facilities. Two weeks ago in 
the Committee on Armed Services the four service chiefs testified about 
an $8.7 billion shortfall that they are facing in the next fiscal year. 
The actual shortfall is greater because the President is relying on 
favorable economic assumptions and changes in budget rules to make his 
defense numbers look better than they really are. For example, the 
Secretary of Defense testified last month before the Committee on Armed 
Services that low inflation and fuel costs were being factored into the 
fiscal year 2000 budget. Now, we know that gasoline costs are down. But 
I was reading in the paper yesterday that they are projecting a 25 
percent increase this year. What happens if in the President's budget 
where he is proposing that we pick up $8 billion because gasoline and 
oil prices are dropping that in reality they turn around and increase?
  Apart from the obvious problems of relying on economic assumptions, 
it was revealed last week that the Senate is planning on using the 
projected economic savings as an offset for the fiscal year 1999 
supplemental appropriations bill. If these assumptions are used to 
offset the supplemental bill, then the fiscal year 2000 defense budget 
will be stretched even thinner. This will make it even more difficult 
to address shortfalls in research and development, military 
construction and readiness accounts and will further delay 
congressional initiatives to improve pay and retirement benefits for 
active duty military personnel as well as for our veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Committee on Armed Services and 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I look forward to working with 
other Members to truly address the needs of those who are providing for 
the defense of this country.

                          ____________________