[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 1829]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         THE BUDGET FOR DEFENSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, for the most part, Congress looks at 
national defense with a bipartisan eye. I am proud to say that I have 
served with five chairmen of the Committee on Armed Services of both 
parties and of various viewpoints. The number of substantive 
disagreements on matters of national security have been rewardingly 
few.
  That is why so many of my colleagues and I were encouraged to see 
both candidates for President urging increases in funding for national 
defense. That is why President Bush and Vice President Cheney's 
declaration that help is on the way sounded welcome to many 
congressional ears.
  That is also why it does not sit too well with us to hear that the 
President has now decided that no increase is needed, either for next 
year's budget or to pay the bills already clogging the Pentagon's in-
box. I have to say that it probably does not sit too well with a lot of 
the military officers who broke tradition to publicly endorse the 
President, either.
  But the issue is not ``I told you so.'' It is, instead, about how are 
we going to get our parents, siblings, and children who are in uniform 
the resources they need to do their jobs.
  The world is an unstable place, and the United States cannot afford 
to ignore any part of it. That is why our military is working so hard. 
That is why the cost of keeping our people trained, fed, and properly 
equipped is so high. We do not get good people by neglecting their 
needs.
  An immediate supplemental appropriation to cover last year's activity 
and a responsive budget to meet the Nation's needs in the year ahead 
are both part of the price of American leadership. Delay paying that 
bill and training stops, ammunition runs out, and good people decide to 
say good-bye to the service.
  Already, the Army reports that it is essentially out of 9-millimeter 
ammunition used in personal sidearms, and they have cut training 
because of it. Our commander in Europe, General Ralston, recently told 
me he has received word to curtail training because the money is 
running out.
  Just this week, a new report indicates that the Navy's top fighters 
cannot meet their wartime schedules, again because of insufficient 
resources. In Washington, resources is spelled ``m-o-n-e-y.''
  Troops that cannot train, planes that cannot fly, and an army out of 
bullets, if that does not justify supplemental funding, I am not sure 
what does. I do not believe we can afford any of those consequences. If 
the President wants to reconsider some of the high-cost programs that 
interfere with our ability to take care of America's soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and marines, that is his prerogative. He has announced a review 
to do so.
  But it is not realistic for him to say, stop the world, America wants 
to get off. The world will not wait for our strategic review. Neither 
will the creditors, the men and women in uniform to whom the bills are 
owed. Without the support that it deserves and that was promised, our 
military cannot do its job. That, Mr. Speaker, makes nobody proud.
  It is not partisan to say that we are disappointed. I know the 
Members on both sides of the aisle would applaud if the President were 
to reconsider his decision and make our service people whole. That is 
not only making good on a promise, it is just the right thing to do.

                          ____________________