[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 107 (Monday, July 18, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1346-E1347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012, H.R. 2219

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 18, 2011

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, since the start of the new Congress in 
January, the Tea Party Republican majority has been telling the 
American people our country is ``broke.'' During debate over the 
Federal budget, the majority has argued the unprecedented fiscal crisis 
facing Congress demands huge spending cuts to programs our constituents 
need and to investments that make our communities and country strong. 
Then, starting with H.R. 1, Republicans voted overwhelmingly for 
massive cuts to food safety, public safety, schools, life-saving health 
research, roads and bridges, clean energy alternatives, and nutrition 
for hungry children and nursing mothers.
  Cut $650 million from emergency nutrition assistance for hungry 
infants and mothers? Republicans said yes.
  Cut $35 million from food safety and food inspectors that keep 
families healthy and safe? Republicans said yes.
  Cut $1.3 billion from community health centers for the poor? 
Republicans said yes.
  But now that the $649 billion Pentagon funding bill for Fiscal Year 
2012 (H.R. 2219) has reached the House floor, Republicans' dire fiscal 
warnings and collective eagerness to cut government spending are going 
out the window, and the spending spigot is being turned on full blast.

[[Page E1347]]

  The numbers tell the story. The Republican majority is proposing a 
$17 billion increase to the defense budget while slashing funding in 
every other appropriations bill. At $649 billion, the Pentagon's budget 
amounts to more government spending than all other Federal agencies 
combined and accounts for over 50 percent of all discretionary spending 
in the Federal budget. The party that lectures endlessly about deficit 
reduction, cutting government spending and shrinking the size of 
government is increasing the Federal Government's largest spending 
category.
  Republicans claim these increases in defense spending are essential 
for national security. But Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
Admiral Mike Mullen doesn't agree. In fact, Admiral Mullen is making 
the opposite argument, saying the Pentagon has not been forced to cut 
unnecessary or ineffective spending. In an April 28, 2011 speech in 
Washington, he said: ``with the increasing defense budget, which is 
almost double, it hasn't forced us to make the hard trades. It hasn't 
forced us to prioritize. It hasn't forced us to do the analysis. And it 
hasn't forced us to limit ourselves . . .''
  Since 2001, the Pentagon's budget has increased by seventy percent. 
The enormous size and rapid growth of the defense budget means that any 
Member of Congress who is not working to cut the defense budget is not 
serious about deficit reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I am serious about confronting the fiscal crisis facing 
America. And, as an appropriator, I take seriously my job of 
eliminating unnecessary spending and ineffective programs in every 
appropriations bill and every Federal agency--including the Department 
of Defense.
  That is why I reviewed the 2012 defense budget to identify spending 
cuts that would promote fiscal responsibility without compromising 
national security. During debate on H.R. 2219, I offered three 
amendments to accomplish this goal. The first of these amendments cuts 
$124.8 million from the Pentagon's $324.8 million budget for military 
bands. The second cuts $150 million for the military's Task Force for 
Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan which supports 
business development, not a core function of the Defense Department, 
including such initiatives as sourcing cashmere for New York fashion 
designer Kate Spade. Finally, my third amendment limits taxpayer 
dollars being spent by the military to sponsor NASCAR, the National Hot 
Rod Association, and other motorsports racing teams to $20 million, 
down from an estimated $63 million.
  Military music. Mission creep. Corporate handouts. That is what my 
amendments target for cuts. The dollar savings from my amendments are 
modest by Pentagon standards. Still, in the midst of a fiscal crisis, I 
feel a responsibility to cut spending that is not central to the 
military's core mission of protecting the American people. Based on all 
the anti-spending rhetoric from House Republicans, the American people 
may expect strong bipartisan support for these ideas. Instead, with 
America watching, Republicans fiercely opposed my common-sense spending 
reductions.
  My Republican colleagues argued that limiting spending on military 
bands to $200 million next year would be ``highly detrimental to our 
armed forces.'' Republican Members claimed my amendment to limit 
taxpayer subsidies for NASCAR to $20 million ``may result in thousands 
of young Americans missing out on the chance to serve our nation in 
uniform, earn G.I. Bill benefits and ultimately attain a college 
degree.'' These wildly inflated claims have no relationship with 
reality or national security.
  Most disappointing, some House Republicans dismissed my amendments as 
insignificant reductions in the context of the overall budget. But that 
is not the ``every dollar counts'' approach they took when slashing 
funding for domestic agencies. Republicans justified their $35 million 
cut to food safety by arguing it was imperative for deficit reduction. 
My $124.8 million savings in the military band budget is much larger--
and it won't put America's children at increased risk of food-borne 
illness.
  Representative Barney Frank offered House Republicans the opportunity 
to vote for the significant budget savings they claimed to seek. The 
Frank amendment cut the proposed increase in the Pentagon budget by 
half. I strongly supported this amendment to save taxpayers 
approximately $8 billion and force the Pentagon to do what Admiral 
Mullen has not yet been asked to do: analyze, prioritize and make tough 
choices in a time of fiscal crisis. But Republicans overwhelmingly 
voted to defeat the Frank amendment when it failed 181-244.
  The debate on the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Appropriations bill (H.R. 
2219) should be a wake up call for America about Republican hypocrisy. 
The Republicans' fight to protect wasteful subsidies in defense while 
cutting programs that protect American families from deadly outbreaks 
reveals they are not opposed to government spending--only the spending 
they don't like. The opposition to deficit reducing amendments that I 
and other Democrats offered shows House Republicans aren't opposed to 
growing the size of government--as long as that growth occurs at the 
Pentagon, in the tax code, and other areas they support.
  Seventy-three amendments were offered to H.R. 2219. Only one 
amendment to reduce spending in this $649 billion bill was approved by 
the House--my amendment to cut $124.8 million from the military band 
budget. Some of my colleagues called it a symbolic victory. I see it as 
a symbol of a much bigger problem.
  Staring in 2001, wasteful tax cuts and two wars gave America the 
fiscal crisis we face today. Admiral Mullen has testified to Congress 
the nation's dire financial outlook is ``our biggest national security 
threat.'' America finds itself confronting a strange reality of needing 
to cut the Pentagon to secure the country.
  Without Republican support for cuts to defense spending, it will be 
almost impossible to put the country back on a sustainable fiscal 
course. But if my Republican colleagues will fight to protect $324.8 
million for military bands it is unlikely Congress will have the votes 
to make much harder choices on Pentagon reforms that produce 
significant deficit reduction, such as repositioning our forces in 
Europe, cutting failed weapons programs, or updating our nuclear 
weapons strategy. And if the Tea Party-controlled House rejects my 
attempt to limit taxpayer spending on racecar decals and drivers to $20 
million, Americans should question the Republican majority's commitment 
to deficit reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 2219.

                          ____________________