[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 10293]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 7, 2000

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4205) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military 
     activities of the Department of Defense and for military 
     construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
     fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal 2001. I believe that a strong 
and effective defense system is vital to the future of this country. I 
believe that we must do all we can to identify potential threats in 
this new post-Cold War environment and to prepare for the possibility 
that these threats might require a military response. But I question 
the price that this bill is asking us to pay to achieve these goals.
  My concerns about this bill have to do with priorities. By that, I 
mean I think the priorities among the programs funded in the bill are 
wrong. But, even more importantly, I think the sheer size of the bill 
reflects an imbalance between military spending and other important 
priorities.
  First, the big picture: At $15.8 billion over FY2000 appropriated 
levels, the President's budget request for defense programs in FY2001 
indicates the importance of defense spending for this Administration. 
But--not content with a bill to meet the President's request for $60 
billion in weapons procurement as well as to fully fund missile defense 
and other major weapons systems--the Republicans want more.
  The bill we will vote on today appropriates $4 billion more than the 
budget request, and $22.4 billion more than last year's appropriated 
levels. Along with defense funds provided in the recently passed 
Military Construction Appropriations bill and funds expected to be 
provided in the FY2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, total 
defense appropriations this year come to about $310 billion--more than 
$4.5 billion over this year's budget request.
  With this defense bill alone appropriating more than half of the 
discretionary funds available to Congress, it is clear to me that 
something is wrong with our priorities. The President's budget balanced 
increases in defense with increases in funding for education, health 
care, national parks, science, environmental protection, and other non-
defense programs. What the Republicans have done is to increase defense 
spending even more, all at the expense of domestic programs that are so 
important to the citizen of this country.
  Second, there are the bill's own priorities: Not only would this bill 
provide too much, but it also would provide too much of the wrong 
thing.
  I can't support funding F-22 production when the Appropriations 
Committee's own Survey and Investigations staff reported that a 
December 2000 date for beginning production is premature, and when the 
GAO recommended that six, not ten, planes be built, which could save as 
much as $828 million.
  Nor can I support funding for national missile defense procurement 
until the technology has been proven and until we've come to some 
agreement with our allies as to how to proceed. We must not view 
national missile defense as a substitute for arms control efforts. I 
believe Congress should primarily be encouraging further reductions in 
global nuclear weapons, while examining the need for, timing of, and 
feasibility of national missile defense within a global arms-control 
context. I don't believe that we should be doing anything more than 
examining these questions at this time.
  There are some good things about the bill. For example, I'm pleased 
that the measure provides a 3.7 percent pay increase for military 
personnel, and that the bill includes important provisions to revamp 
the military health care system, including restoring access for all 
Medicare-eligible military retirees and creating a plan to implement a 
permanent health care program for military retirees over 65.
  But Mr. Speaker, this bill does not provide a balance between our 
domestic and international responsibilities. We may be more secure than 
ever before, but I question whether the country wouldn't be better off 
if we were to invest more in education, health care, and the needs of 
our children. We must remember that this nation's strength comes not 
just from military preparedness, but also from its citizens. Adequate 
investments in them are just as important as protection for them.




                          ____________________