[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 71 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E964]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E964]]
FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                     HON. MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD

                           of south carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 7, 2000

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4205) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
     construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
     fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes.

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a strong 
national defense, but in reluctant opposition to the FY 2001 Department 
of Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 4576). A strong defense is not 
simply a function of how much we spend, but also of how intelligently 
we spend it. Depending on who's counting, the United States spends as 
much on defense as the next six or seven highest countries combined. 
The 281 billion that the United States spent on defense in 1998 was 
more than all of our NATO allies combined and accounted for more than a 
third of all world military spending. Yet today, our military faces 
serious problems in training, recruiting, retention, and readiness.
  One reason for this situation is the lack of a coherent national 
strategy. Our men and women in uniform have been dispatched across the 
globe in operations that are not in the national interest. This wears 
out our soldiers and equipment, and leaves the military less prepared 
to defend real national interests. The common lament I hear is that we 
are ``spreading ourselves too thin''. The lion's share of 
responsibility for this problem lies with the Administration.
  But we're spreading ourselves too thin in the defense budget process 
as well, and responsibility for that falls on Congress. Congress 
continues to spend critical defense dollars on items that the Pentagon 
does not want or need.
  For example:
  1.  F-15 aircraft--The Air Force requested no funds for additional F-
15 aircraft, but the House passed $400 million for 5 addition F-15E's. 
The Air Force has difficulty getting spare parts for the planes it 
already has. Building more unrequested planes only aggravates that 
problem.
  2.  Cold Weather Equipment--Congress added $24 million for Gore-Tex 
cold weather gear that the Pentagon did not request, at the request of 
a Congressman whose constituents manufacture the gear. With the 
recruiting problems the military has, it has difficulty getting enough 
soldiers just to fill out the gear it already has.
  3.  Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge--The Army requested no funds for 
the Wolverine heavy assault bridge. In fact, although the Army received 
$82 million for the Wolverine for FY 2000, it did not intend to spend 
it on the bridge. H.R. 4576 commands the Army to spend the $82 million 
on the Wolverine, as well as an additional $15 million. In short, 
Congress is forcing the Army to spend $97 million on a bridge that it 
doesn't need.
  4.  Medical Research--The Administration requested $16.5 million for 
medical research in the defense bill. The Appropriations Committee 
reported out $252.2 million in H.R. 4576, including: $6 million for 
laser vision correction research, $3.7 million for nutrition research, 
$10 million for ovarian cancer research, $15 million for HIV research, 
$3 million for chronic fatigue research, and $7 million for alcoholism 
research.
  Now, some of these programs may be valid, but they are non-defense 
items. We have a Labor/Health and Human Services Appropriations bill 
that is more suitable for these programs. Hiding these items within 
H.R. 4576 is unfair to our taxpayers.
  In addition, H.R. 4576 skirted two important issues with profound 
budget and readiness implications:
  Base Realignment and Closure Commission--H.R. 4576 does not include 
funding for two new BRAC rounds, despite the fact that the Pentagon has 
estimated it has an excess base capacity of 23%. CBO estimates that two 
new BRAC rounds would save the Defense Department $4.7 billion by 2010, 
and that after completion in 2012, DOD could realize recurring savings 
of about $4 billion per year. Congress' inaction means that the 
Pentagon must continue to waste billions of taxpayer dollars 
maintaining obsolete bases.
  Aircraft--H.R. 4576 includes billions for research, development and 
procurement of three different fighter planes (the Navy's F-18 E/F, The 
Air Force F-22, and the Navy & Air Force Joint Strike Fighter) when 
there is not a strong consensus that all three fighters are necessary. 
Some defense experts say the military needs the F-18 & F-22. Some say 
it needs the JSF instead. Congress' answer is simply to fund all of the 
fighter planes in question. Now, Congress is forging ahead with funding 
the production of 10 F-22 Aircraft when there are indications that the 
program is not ready for production. In doing so, Congress takes away 
from aircraft (specifically bombers and unmanned aerial aircraft 
[UAVs]) that, while less glamorous, are a more pressing need for the 
military.
  I agree that the Congress should fund a military that is second to 
none. And H.R.  4576 does include several important items I support, 
like funding for domestic terrorism response, more decent enlisted pay, 
and missile defense. But it is also weighed down with too many items 
that are unnecessary for, and in fact, counterproductive to, our 
national defense. Therefore, I reluctantly oppose the bill.

                          ____________________