[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7070-7071]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Today, the House will debate the Defense 
Authorization Act for the next fiscal year. While nothing is more 
important than protecting America while keeping our men and women in 
uniform safe, the authorization before us today wastes too much of our 
Nation's precious wealth and represents yet another missed opportunity 
for badly-needed reform.
  H.R. 4310, unfortunately, highlights Congress's inability to make 
hard choices on defense spending. It opts for an all-of-the-above 
strategy and puts the funding of an already bloated military budget 
ahead of any semblance of fiscal responsibilities. If passed, the 
authorization would represent 57 percent of our total discretionary 
budget.
  It's clear to most people outside Congress that we can no longer 
separate national security from fiscal responsibility. Congress needs 
to get that message. Our constituents certainly understand.
  Last week, a Stimson Center poll showed that, on average, Americans 
feel that the defense budget should be reduced by 18 percent next year. 
Instead, this bill will decrease spending by less than one-half of 1 
percent after 13 consecutive years of increase.
  While budget hawks and military experts agree we need to cut defense 
spending, this year's defense authorization provides $8 billion more 
than the cap for the defense budget set by the Budget Control Act, 
which both parties supported and enacted into law to solve last 
summer's manufactured debt ceiling crisis.

[[Page 7071]]

  Many supporting the bill will raise a false choice between defending 
America or rebuilding and renewing America, its infrastructure, and our 
economy. We can and we must do both. Spending too much for the wrong 
people to do the wrong things will undermine the very security at home 
we seek to buy through more military spending. Crumbling bridges and 
roads, failing schools, and a massive national debt all pose a greater 
national threat to America's power abroad than right-sized defense 
spending.
  We know how to do this. We have had a cascade of plans, ranging from 
the Cato Institute to the Bowles-Simpson to progressive think-tanks. 
All would meet our 21st century need for national defense while keeping 
promises to future generations here at home.
  In addition to ending the war in Afghanistan more quickly, there are 
many ways to decrease defense spending. Increased efficiency in naval 
deployment can reduce the need for battleships. We don't need a growing 
supercarrier fleet. The United States' 11 aircraft carriers add up to 
more than the rest of the world combined, and many of the countries 
that have aircraft carriers are our allies.
  The current level of investment in our nuclear arsenal with 
capabilities that correspond to no real military challenge makes no 
sense and wastes hundreds of billions of dollars.

                              {time}  1010

  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership either can't or doesn't want 
to work towards a balanced approach to reduce defense spending. This 
was illustrated by the response to an amendment I offered in the Budget 
Committee last week. Instead of making tough choices on defense 
spending, our Republican colleagues decided to give the Pentagon even 
more than they asked for and provide them this funding in part by 
eliminating food stamp benefits for 2 million people, reducing benefits 
for 44 million more, curtailing Meals on Wheels, and eliminating school 
lunches for 280,000 children.
  The level of spending in today's defense authorization is absurd. But 
more shocking is what Americans are being forced to give up to continue 
funding the Pentagon at this level.
  Congress needs to show some leadership and ability to make difficult 
choices. That's why I'm leading, along with Representatives Lee and 
Frank, an amendment to cut defense spending for the next fiscal year by 
the $8 billion that would align the bill with the level already 
authorized and written into law last fall.
  We can and should go further, but at the very least most should be 
able to agree that Congress ought to play by the rules we created, not 
sidestepping them at the expense of struggling families, disadvantaged 
school children, and our seniors. Unless we are able to fix this bill, 
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

                          ____________________