[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 102 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1285-E1286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 23, 2011

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2219) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes:

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  I thank the majority for allowing the House to work its will in a 
completely open fashion on this bill. It was a refreshing change. I 
only wish the outcome had been a bill that reflected better the 
international security and economic realities we are facing today.
  To be sure, there are many things in this bill that I strongly 
support. The 1.6 percent pay increase for our troops is important and 
necessary. The additional $1.5 billion for Guard and Reserve equipment 
modernization is badly needed. The $2.3 billion for family support and 
advocacy programs will help military families cope while their loved 
ones are away and help our troops reintegrate when they come home. And 
the bill also includes a critical suicide prevention amendment I 
offered.
  My amendment would give the Defense Department $20 million to 
initiate suicide prevention and counseling calls to help prevent these 
reservists from taking their own lives, as Coleman Bean, my 
constituent, tragically did in September 2008. For reservists like 
Coleman Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey--those in the IRR, 
Individual Mobilization Augmentees, and Inactive National Guard 
members--there remains no dedicated suicide prevention programs to help 
them cope with the war-time experiences. These reservists need our 
help, and I'm pleased my amendment was accepted.
  Unfortunately, the good provisions in this bill are vastly outweighed 
by the absolute failure of the majority to make the Pentagon subject to 
the same kind of budget reductions they are so eagerly imposing on 
every other federal agency.
  Since the year began, we've heard constantly from the majority that 
our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. If they 
really believed that, they would have supported the $70 billion in cuts 
to the budget that I voted for during the debate on this bill. Instead, 
the only true cut they supported to this bloated, $650 billion defense 
budget is a $125 million reduction in funding for military bands.
  The majority's message is clear: we will continue down the path of 
trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the disabled, 
school children, and seniors. The Pentagon budget--which now funds a 
weakly justified war in Libya, a continued occupation of Iraq, and a 
military quagmire in Afghanistan--remains as the great sacred cow in 
the federal budget. There is no greater example today of our upside-
down priorities than this budget.
  This bill will provide nearly $13 billion for an Afghan security 
force that is riddled with corruption, Taliban sympathizers, and drug 
traffickers. The bill continues to fund our presence in Iraq--tens of 
thousands of American troops remain in that country, and as we've seen 
they remain targets, with still more killed and wounded this year.
  So much of this bill continues to be devoted to spending tens of 
billions of dollars on weapons systems that were designed to meet a 
Soviet threat that vanished 20 years ago. This week, a colleague from 
Vermont, Mr. Welch, offered an amendment to this bill that would have 
eliminated funding for a next-generation nuclear bomber, a bomber to 
replace the B-2. Why in the world do we need such a platform in the 
first place? It was not a B-2 bomber that killed Osama bin Laden, but a 
U.S. Special Operations Forces team working with our intelligence 
community that eliminated the al Qaeda leader. Buying new nuclear 
bombers would simply be a form of defense-sector corporate welfare to 
protect against a threat that does not exist. Yet Mr. Welch's amendment 
was defeated, and so we will continue to fund the development of an 
airplane we don't need.
  I offered an amendment with several of my colleagues that would have 
simply cut the rate of increase in Pentagon spending. Instead of 
allowing a $17 billion increase over last year's Pentagon budget, it 
would cap the increase at $8.5 billion without impacting military pay 
or benefits. That amendment was also defeated--and its defeat only 
proved what I suspected: the majority is not serious about reigning in 
government spending.
  Most of the attention this week was directed toward spending more for 
the military than we even have, spending more that the rest of the 
world--all together--and more than we can afford, even as so many 
people are calling for austerity measures to cut college aid, bridges 
and trains, environmental protection, and even Medicare. Yet the 
majority did not hesitate to deny training to military chaplains for 
implementing the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'', or to prevent the 
Defense Department from

[[Page E1286]]

buying more fuel efficient vehicles, or to prevent taxpayers from 
finding out about political contributions by defense contractors. For 
all of these reasons, I am voting against this bill.

                          ____________________