[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 39 (Thursday, March 22, 2001)]
[House]
[Page H1089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    REGARDING THE BUDGET FOR DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is quite familiar to me to stand here 
and address the subject of military budgets. For many years, under 
administrations of both parties, I have pointed out where we believe 
the House as a body and America as a Nation were failing to set 
appropriate priorities in the defense budget. Often, indeed far too 
often, I and other Members noted that we were trying to do too much 
with too little. In fact, last year I asked the Budget Committee to add 
$12 billion for the Department of Defense.
  That is why I was glad to see both candidates for President advocate 
increases in the defense budget. It was good news. That is the right 
step, regardless of one's party. If we can keep our promises to the 
troops and maintain an effective defense, I do not care if the money 
comes from Democrats, Republicans or Martians.
  That is why I have to say I am disappointed with the result. 
President Bush's defense budget for 2002 provides about $325 billion 
for national security activities, nearly $311 billion of that for the 
Department of Defense. That is a whole lot of money, to be sure. But 
then you have to take out the retiree health care provisions that the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie) and I initiated and which were passed into law last year; 
and then you have to adjust for inflation. When you do that, guess 
what? The actual increase in the defense budget is $100 million from 
what President Clinton proposed. $100 million.
  If any of us won that much in a lottery, we would be rich. But in the 
Department of Defense, what does $100 million do? $100 million is a pay 
increase for every soldier of $1.85 per pay period. Or it is one-forty-
fifth of an aircraft carrier. Or it fixes the gymnasium at West Point. 
Or it runs the ballistic missile defense program for 6 days. Or it is 
1\1/2\ F-15 fighters. You pick whichever you like, because for that 
money you get only one. A $100 million increase in the defense budget 
is not really too much to write home about. When the President during 
his campaign said that help is on the way, he must have meant spiritual 
help, because $1.85 does not help anybody very much.
  But let us be fair. President Bush wants to increase pay by more than 
$1.85. On February 12, he told soldiers at Fort Stewart that he would 
increase pay by $400 million and add in other benefits for a total of 
$5.7 billion. And there is $100 million to pay for that.

                              {time}  1445

  Well, let us not forget the budget included a $2.6 billion increase 
in research and development. Not a bad idea, as such. But add that to 
the pay increase of $5.7 billion, and that is $8.3 billion; and you 
have to get that out of a $100 million stone.
  I am just a country lawyer, but it seems to me if you increase 
spending by $8.3 billion, but have only $100 million more to do it, you 
have to cut something else to make the numbers work out. We do not know 
what is going to get cut yet. The department has not finished the first 
of a series of defense reviews. But what do the choices look like?
  You could cut procurement, if you can find a way to keep planes 
designed in the 1960s and built in the 1970s in the air safely; and if 
you are willing to let the Navy slide below 300 ships; and if you are 
ready to stop the Army's acquisition of armored vehicles for its 
current dismounted infantry. I am not willing to do any of these 
things, and I hope the Pentagon is not either.
  How about operations and maintenance costs? Well, if you are willing 
to train even less, and let your ammunition shortages grow, and cut 
flying hours more, and stop repairing the U.S.S. Cole, and live with 
the health care shortfalls, then you could cut operations and 
maintenance. I do not want to be the one to tell the troops that they 
are not going to get help to get them off food stamps, and I hope none 
of my colleagues would either.
  Then you could cut military construction. You could, if you were 
ready to give up on repairing dilapidated military housing, and stop 
adding protection against terrorist strikes. You get the idea. There 
just are not any easy choices when you have only $100 million to pay a 
$8.3 billion bill.
  That is before our tax cut. That is before increasing the budget for 
missile defense.
  It seems to me that part of the solution would be to enact a 
supplemental spending bill that recognizes just how hard our troops 
have been working. It would at least help close the gap. But that, too, 
has been ruled off the table for now.
  Mr. Speaker, I will admit, I was one of those who believed that 
whoever won the Presidency, the military would begin to get the relief 
it needs; and I know some of my Republican friends believed the same. I 
am sorry to say that it looks as if we were given false hope.

                          ____________________