[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 64 (Wednesday, May 5, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2779-H2780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPPLEMENTAL DEFENSE BILL NEEDED TO SUPPORT AMERICA'S MILITARY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TALENT. Madam Speaker, tomorrow we have a chance to be true or
false to the interests of our country and the men and women in
America's military service when we consider the supplemental defense
bill to add $7 billion to defense spending this year.
It is about time that we considered such a measure. For the last 10
years we have reduced military spending by 31 percent; by almost a
third. At the same time, the number of engagements we have asked our
men and women in America's military to be involved in has increased by
a factor of three.
We deployed them 10 times during the Cold War around the world. We
have deployed them 26 times in the last 8 years. Essentially, we have
never reduced operational tempo, the business of the force, since
Desert Storm. We have continued to ask them to do more and more with
less and less, and they are at the breaking point.
First, they robbed the future to pay for the present in order to deal
with that. They deferred maintenance. They reduced pay raises and
retirement. They allowed health care to decline in the service. They
postponed military construction and they slashed modernization.
When that was not enough, they robbed parts of the present to pay for
other parts of the present. They sacrificed the important to the
urgent. So now we have a shortage of spare parts. We have reduced
training for our men and women in the military. We have a huge
shortfall in ammunition, and we cannibalize the troops that are
deployed here at home in order to support deployments abroad. We take
people and spare parts and machines away from units that are here in
the United States in order to support units abroad.
It has gotten so bad, Madam Speaker, that at the end of last year the
Joint Chiefs of Staff came and testified before the Senate Committee on
Armed Services that we are $148 billion short over the next 6 years in
what we need to maintain minimal standards of readiness. And tomorrow
we have a chance to make a modest downpayment on what we need to do to
protect America's greatness and to provide for our men and women in the
military.
Nobody disputes these figures, Madam Speaker. The administration does
not. Nobody here will stand up tomorrow and argue that we do not need
to spend this money to maintain readiness. They will have a lot of
excuses why we should not vote for the bill tomorrow, just as we have
had excuses year after year after year.
We heard one of them a little while ago. We cannot pay for this extra
military spending because that would pay for the war in Kosovo. No, it
will not. That is going to pay for the money that otherwise will be
sucked away from the military by the war in Kosovo.
If my colleagues want to stop the war in Kosovo, wait for the
military appropriations bill and put a rider on it that says the money
cannot be used in Kosovo. Do not starve the rest of the military in
order to fund one of the deployments that has caused the military to go
hollow in the first place.
[[Page H2780]]
Another excuse we will hear is that we cannot take the money out of
Social Security. Madam Speaker, by the most conservative estimates we
will have over $800 billion in surpluses over the 10 years, even apart
from the money that comes from Social Security.
My father is 87 years old. He gets Social Security. He fought in the
Navy in the second world war. The generation that saved private Ryan,
my father's generation, is not going to begrudge the men and women of
America's military what they need now to provide for our security,
especially when it does not even affect Social Security.
The excuse I like the most is that we do not have an emergency. That
is why we do not need this supplemental now. Well, whether we have an
emergency kind of depends on one's point of view. Standing here in this
chamber, it is nice and warm and safe, no, we do not have an emergency.
{time} 2000
But if they are in an AWACS unit and they are working 80 hours a week
and they have for years because they need two people in that unit to do
their job and there is only them to do it, maybe they would think there
is an emergency.
If they are on their second tour of duty on an aircraft carrier and
they have been at sea for 9 months and they have not seen their kids
and their wife wants to divorce them, maybe they would think there is
an emergency.
If they are an infantryman in the Korean Peninsula and they know that
if the attack comes they are not going to have the modern anti-tank
weapons they need so they are going to have to stand out there in the
middle of the open, look that tank in the eye and fire, rather than
fire and get back to cover, maybe they would think there is an
emergency.
Mr. Speaker, my first year in the Committee on Armed Services we had
a hearing. A retired military person testified; and he said, ``The
military life is a difficult one. We sacrifice a lot. We are willing to
put our lives on the line. It is not easy, but we are proud to do it.''
Then he looked up at us in the Committee on Armed Services and he said
something that applies to the whole Congress. He said, ``But we count
on you. We count on you to protect us.''
Mr. Speaker, we have let them down year after year after year after
year. Tomorrow we have a chance to stop letting them down. Let us end
the excuses. Let us do what we all admit now we need to do. Let us make
a modest down payment on what we need to do to allow these men and
women to protect us and to protect our families and protect our future.
Vote for the supplemental bill tomorrow.
History is watching. The dictators of the world are watching. And
these men and women who count on us are watching.
____________________