[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 10287]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    DEBATE ON DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. EARL BLUMENAUER

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, June 8, 2000

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the Defense 
Appropriations bill last night because of its pricetag that is 
unprecedented in peacetime and unjustified by the threat, and the 
misplaced priorities within the bill.
  Representative DeFazio's amendment was a step in a more rational 
direction. It would have reduced the next two years' purchases of F-22 
fighter aircraft, as recommended by the General Accounting Office, and 
redirected the savings to readiness and quality of life accounts.
  It was a modest amendment, and it did not cut money from the defense 
budget. It just spent it on higher-priority issues at a time when the 
F-22 continues to experience technical problems and we already have the 
world's most advanced fighter, the F-15.
  The $930 million saved would have been spent instead on items that 
were not funded at the level requested by the Department of Defense, or 
were included on the Pentagon's unfunded ``wish list.'' Those items 
include additional funding for troops on food stamps, nuclear threat 
reduction, bonus payments to sailors on sea duty, facilities 
maintenance, spare parts, and recruiting.
  I want to also speak to the larger issues of the bill. We made some 
gains this year on the issue of military retirees' health care. Most 
important is this bill's provision of $94 million for a pharmacy 
benefit for all Medicare-eligible military retirees and eligible family 
members. This set an important precedent for us to eventually provide 
prescription drug coverage to all Medicare recipients. Those who have 
served in our military are a well-deserving group with which to start.
  This bill continues various health care demonstration projects--
including Medicare subvention and the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Plan. Another important aspect of military retiree health care included 
in this bill is the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan. These are 
locally-run, community-based HMOs that provide military retirees 
another choice. I look forward to the findings of the independent 
oversight panel funded in this bill which will present recommendations 
to Congress on a permanent military health care program for the 
Medicare-eligible.
  Unfortunately, there continue to be unmet needs. The Department of 
Defense Comptroller has just done a study that shows that the military 
health care system for active-duty and retirees up to age 65 as 
currently structured is underfunded over the next 6 years by $9 
billion.
  In addition to taking care of its people, our military has an 
important role to play in taking care of the environment, Congress 
needs to make clear that cleaning up after itself is a cost of doing 
business for our military just as it is for any other polluter.
  DOD is responsible for environmental cleanup at thousands of what are 
known as Formerly-Used Defense Sites. At many of these properties, 
owned by private parties and state, local, and tribal governments, the 
public may come into contact with residual contamination. The cost of 
completing this cleanup is estimated at over $7 billion by the Army 
Corps of Engineers, yet funding in this bill is less than $200 million.
  Another danger to communities is unexploded ordnance, old bombs and 
shells that could kill or injure people who encounter them. The cost of 
clearing these bombs is estimated at $15 billion by the Defense Science 
Board. The consistent underfunding of this challenge could begin to be 
addressed if it had its own line item in the defense budget. I call 
upon the Administration to create this line item in the request it is 
preparing now for submission to Congress for FY02 funding.
  More than a decade after the Soviet Union collapsed, our investment 
in national defense has returned to cold-war levels. During the cold 
war, the United States spent an average of $325 billion in current year 
dollars on the military. This year's budget resolution gave the 
Pentagon $310 billion--95 percent of cold-war levels and 52 percent of 
discretionary spending.
  And now Monday's Washington Post has a front-page story stating that, 
starting now, the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan to submit budget requests 
that call for additional spending of more than $30 billion a year 
through most of this decade.
  There is no reason to continue our reliance on a cold-war economy. 
Our massive investments in weapons and bases could be replaced with 
massive investments in education and health care and the other things 
that make for livable communities. While we are first in military 
expenditures among industrialized countries, we are 17th in low-
birthweight rates, 21st in eighth-grade math scores and 22nd in infant 
mortality.
  The defense budget is large, certainly large enough to fund the 
programs that are needed for the people who serve and have served us 
and for the environment. Instead, it spends too much on duplicative 
weapons systems and questionable technologies at a time when we lead 
the world many times over in military might. We need to get our 
priorities right.

                          ____________________