[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 5, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H5374-H5375]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk for just a couple of
minutes following the eulogy and the little memorial discussion that we
had with respect to our old friend Floyd Spence who really represented
the idea that you needed to have a strong national defense to maintain
all of our other freedoms and who dedicated his career as a member of
the Committee on Armed Services and ultimately the chairman of the
committee to national defense.
I thought that the best service we could render to Floyd right now
would be to remind our colleagues that we still have a lot of work to
do with respect to national defense. We are still short on ammunition,
measurably short. We are $3 billion short in terms of the Army's
requirements and several hundred million dollars short with respect to
the Marine Corps. We are still vastly short on ammunition. Spare parts,
we have now cannibalization taking place across the array of front line
aircraft, the front line fighter. I am talking about F-15s, F-15Es and
F-16s. Their mission-capable rates are dropping off the cliff, meaning
that they now are not as ready as they used to be to be able to go out
and do their mission and come back.
We still have personnel problems. We are still some 800-plus pilots
short in the United States Air Force and across the services. We have
lots of personnel shortages.
{time} 1945
So we have a need, Mr. Speaker, to spend about an additional $50
billion per year on top of what we are spending right now. I would
remind my colleagues we are spending roughly $125 billion a year less
than the Reagan administration did in the mid-1980s in real dollars.
So I think that the best service we can do to Floyd's memory is to
carry the flag that he carried, which is to remind our colleagues that
we need to preserve a strong national defense.
I would yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a good
friend, a former member of the Committee on Armed Services, a veteran,
and a veteran of the Gulf War, and a person who believes in defense.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
When the gentleman comes up with his $50 billion number, what he did
not mention, and I ask him to elaborate a little built, is on the
question of deferred maintenance. When one looks at this past decade of
the 1990s, in the post-Reagan buildup, we began to use a lot of the
equipment, use those maintenance facilities, and now the bill is coming
due, is it not?
Mr. HUNTER. That is absolutely right. I think the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is going to speak later on on this trip that
he took across the bases in this country and reviewing all of the
deferred maintenance, the potholes on the runways, the repair on
aircraft, but also the infrastructure maintenance, just keeping our
buildings in good shape, keeping military housing in good shape.
When we would have to go to a mission, let us say to a Bosnia or
another place, another operations area, instead of the administration,
then the Clinton administration, asking for more money from Congress,
they would simply reach into the cash register and take out money that
was going to be used for maintenance.
So having used that money and not replaced it, when the services
looked for money to be able to repair their old buildings, repair their
runways, furnish spare parts, it was not there.
Mr. BUYER. When I look back now at the 1990s, I say as Congress
sought to react to some of the personnel problems, we repealed the
reduction, we reformed the retirement system, we made reforms in the
pay tables, we increased military pay, we addressed the health care, we
addressed the food stamp issue, so we focused a lot on personnel and
people.
Now we need to focus on all that deferred maintenance that is going
to come crashing down upon us. And shame on us if we do not focus on
it, because the gentleman is absolutely right, it is the water lines,
it is the pipes, it is the roofs, it is the equipment, it is the
automobiles, and the list goes on and on. I am most hopeful that it is
something that the administration will be leaning forward on.
Mr. HUNTER. I hope the administration works with the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on
Military Construction in the Committee on Armed Services to come up
with some new ways to buy military housing for military families,
because, as the gentleman knows, a lot of that housing is 20, 30, 40,
50 years old; and in a lot of places around the country our young
families do not have housing available on the bases. There is not
housing. They have to go out on the economy,
[[Page H5375]]
and in places like San Diego you are looking at $1,000, $1,200 a month
for the smallest amounts. So we have some major problems to fix, and
that means money.
Mr. BUYER. The gentleman is bringing a defense bill to the floor next
week. What are the major themes of that defense bill?
Mr. HUNTER. We are going to try to do a lot of things with what we
have, with the $18 billion in extra spending that we anticipate this
year above and beyond what we call the ``Clinton baseline.'' But that
$18 billion, once again, does not come close to solving the equipment
problem, which is about a $30-billion-per-year problem, solving the
ammunition problems, the people problems, the other problems we have
across the board. We are going to do as much as we can.
____________________