AMENDMENT, AS MODIFIED, OFFERED BY MR. DEFAZIO
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, as modified.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. DeFazio: Page 38, line 18, insert `(a) In General.--' before `Of the amounts'.
Page 38, after line 22, insert the following:
(b) Reduction.--The amounts provided in subsection (a) and in section 201(4) are each hereby reduced by $628,000,000.
(c) National Missile Defense Amount.--Of the amount provided in subsection (a) (as reduced by subsection (b)), $371,000,000 is for the National Missile Defense program.
At the end of title IV (page 161, after line 3), insert the following new section:
There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1996 for military personnel the sum of $628,000,000. Of the amount appropriated pursuant to such authorization--
(1) $150,000,000 (or the full amount appropriated, whichever is less) shall be for increased payments for the Variable Housing Allowance program under section 403a of title 37, United States Code, by reason of the amendments made by section 604; and
(2) any remaining amount shall be allocated, in such manner as the Secretary of Defense prescribes, for payments for the Variable Housing Allowance, the Basic Allowance for Quarters, and the Basic Allowance for Subsistence in such a manner as to minimize the need for enlisted personnel to apply for food stamps.
Page 280, beginning on line 19, strike out `beginning after June 30, 1996' and inserting in lieu thereof `after September 1995'.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
Does the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] seek the time in opposition?
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of arcane debate in the last hour and a half over BMD and TMD and compliance with treaties.
Let us bring the debate back down to Earth for a few minutes. Let us bring the debate back to Earth for a few minutes here and confront some bitter realities.
Yesterday during the debate on the rule, the esteemed gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, said how it used to be a scandal, referred to the bad old days of equipment shortages and days even when members of the military were forced to be on food stamps. Well, unfortunately we have not banished those bad old days. There are an estimated 8,000 to 15,000 families, no one really knows, currently receiving food stamps who are active duty, full-time members of the military.
Now, the committee recognized this was a problem, but the committee only put up one-quarter of the money that was estimated that was needed to take care of this problem. And what I am saying is, we need to get our priorities straight. Do we need a further increase in ballistic missile defense beyond that asked for by the president? The president asked for a 1-year increase, inflation adjusted, of more than 1 percent in ballistic missile defense and fully funded all the requests of the Pentagon for theater missile defense. The committee has gone in and micromanaged the theater missile defense, added more money to ballistic missile defense. And yet after they add $628 million there, they can only find one-quarter of the funds they need to get our young men and women and their families, people serving today full time, enlisted in the military, off of food stamps. That is a scandal.
Let me read briefly from the National Military Family Association, a letter they sent to me.
`The system has become unfair to all military families but to those at the lower end of the income scale it can be devastating. The National Military Family Association is fully aware that the costs of creating a VHA minimum floor,' that is a housing allowance, `are not inconsequential. What price, however, do we put on a family's safety? How can we ask young service members to deploy at a moment's notice when they know their family will be left to fend for themselves in a run-down trailer park with a history of break-ins and robberies?'
The Pentagon itself, officials are deeply troubled by an increasing number of military families turning to food stamps.
[Page: H5952]
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Dellums-DeFazio amendment to cut funding for ballistic missile defense programs.
Mr. Chairman, the proliferation of ballistic missiles, brought home so vividly by Iraq's use of Scud missiles during Operation Desert Storm, warrants an aggressive response to this growing threat. Accordingly, H.R. 1530 adds funds to the most promising theater missile defense [TMD] systems, including for example, the Navy's lower and upper tier systems and the Army's theater high altitude area defense system.
This amendment would cut funds for these programs and delay the date by which advanced theater missile defenses for our troops could be deployed. I don't believe that we should delay adequately defending our troops any longer.
Likewise, the amendment would dramatically cut funding for national missile defense research and development. The practical effect of this would be to ensure that Americans here at home remain unprotected against missile attack for the indefinite future.
Given the on-going strategic modernization efforts of Russia and China, and the likelihood that `rogue regimes' will acquire or develop a capability to attack the United States homeland, I oppose this amemdment.
Therefore, I strongly urge a `no' vote on the Dellums-DeFazio amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, during the debate over the budget resolution, Member after Member came to the House floor to talk about the tough choices we would need to make in order to balance the budget. Now, as I listened to the debate here this afternoon, I wondered just what sort of tough choices the advocates of increased star wars spending had in mind. Did they mean sacrificing SSI for the elderly for SDI for a pork barrel in the sky for the defense contractors in our country? Is that the tough decision?
Did they mean the elderly and those struggling to make ends meet should tighten their belts so that the Government should spend billions of additional dollars on a discredited defense program? Is that what they really mean by tough choices?
Or did they mean sacrificing students loans and cutting back student loans which is what the Republican budget does for the sake of star wars? Is that the tough choice they made, swapping educational grants for working-class kids to go to college so that we can have a star-wars-in-the-sky project that does not work? Or do they mean the tough choice of cutting back hot lunch programs for kids so that we can finance a program like this that has no mission, does not work, has never been put in place and we know is only a drain on our economy?
Let me tell you something, a lot of things have changed in the last 15 years, the music, the fashion in this country, but one thing has not changed, SDI still stands for `same dumb idea' that it did in 1983, when it was introduced. And you are going to change it now to BMD, ballistic missile defense, but BMD really stands for `big money drain,' out of programs for the elderly, out of programs for the kids in this country.
Let us just keep a few simple facts in mind. The cold war is over. The Russians are having a hard time controlling the Chechens, much less attacking the United States or launching a brand new missile program. It is time for us to support the DeFazio-Dellums amendment and its proper prioritization of money in this country.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, it seems that some Members in this body are still living in the period of 15 years ago, and they are using the SDR rhetoric, that is the `same dumb rhetoric.'
The fact is that times have changed. We can no longer depend on mutually assured destruction to prevent a holocaust of our citizenry if a nuclear missile lands in a city in the United States of America.
When we had one enemy or two enemies, yes, mutually assured destruction worked. Today missile proliferation and nuclear proliferation means that in a few years we could face the scenario where a missile would be launched by an Iran or a Libya or some other country, maybe Afghanistan. Some people in Afghanistan will get their hands on a surplus Soviet missile and we could do nothing but sit back and listen to the same dumb rhetoric about hot school lunches and tell our people, well, I am sorry, we gave in to people who are more concerned about school lunches at the moment than we were about protecting our country against a holocaust that would cost millions of American lives.
SDI is not what it was 15 years ago. Now, for just a few billion dollars, we could actually implement a system that will protect us with the Aegis cruiser system from a missile attack from Iran. We should do that. That is what we should do. It is not time to defend SDI; it is time to implement it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the previous speaker, it certainly is not what it was 15 years ago. We have spent $36 billion and the result is one faked missile test over the Pacific. They did not even shoot down that one incoming warhead. They had to blow it up with detonators that were on board. No, it is not what is was 15 years ago. It has wasted $36 billion and now they want to waste more.
[TIME: 1515]
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to the Dellums-DeFazio amendment to this defense bill. The Constitution makes clear that it is the responsibility of Congress to provide for the defense of this Nation. Indeed, 6 of the 18 powers granted to Congress by article I, section 8, deal with the Congress' role in providing for national security. This, my friends, is the first and most important role of government. To me then, the question concerning ballistic missile defenses must be, `Are such defenses necessary for the protection of our people?' The hearings I have participated in the past 5 months allow me to state, with no reservation, that the answer is yes.
According to the March 9, 1995, testimony of Gen. Malcolm O'Neill, the director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, more than 25 countries possess or may be developing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Today, more than 15 nations have ballistic missiles. By the year 2000, perhaps 20 nations will have them. Given our inability to guarantee that these missiles and weapons of mass destruction will be in safe, sane, hands, we have no choice but to deploy defenses against them.
And the question that ultimately arises is this--`But Congressman, what does it cost?' My answer is, what is it worth to protect us from global blackmail, terrorism, or a missile accident? What can we say to the next generation when they are held hostage by a foreign nation who claims to have a missile aimed at New York City or Evansville, IN? How can we live with ourselves if Oakland, CA, or Sumter, SC, are blown away by the accidental launch of an ICBM?
We have no choice. Our consciences and our constitutional duty demand that we defend America from missile threats as soon as is practical. Folks, the technology is there, it is up to us to use it. I urge the defeat of the Dellums amendment.
[Page: H5953]
Remember, Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon asked for $2.9 billion. They asked for full funding plus an increase of 1 percent over inflation for BMD. They got it. They have gotten an increase from $1.65 billion to $2.18 billion in theater missile defense and a 65-percent increase for other TMD programs. They have gotten all they ask for and more. Now the committee wants to add on top of that.
This is not needed, according to the Pentagon. We say it is needed to feed the troops and their families. We can prove that by the 15,000 families receiving food stamps. That is a scandal. That is a readiness problem. We should be dealing with that and get our priorities straight.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], a member of our committee.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dellums amendment. I would say to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Chairman, that this is a time when we have to make tough choices. I would say that we are here in part, at least, because we have collectively cut the defense budget every year for the last 9 years.
I appreciate and understand the gentleman's willingness to want to build houses for military families with this money. It is important. However, those who would cut the funding of the ballistic missile defense see the world a far safer, friendlier place than the events in Korea, Iraq, China, or Russia could ever justify.
Currently, 12 developing countries have Scud-class or better missile systems. North Korea has successfully flight-tested a ballistic missile with a range of 620 miles, and recent reports have cited the Koreans as possessing a missile with a possible range of as much as 5,600 miles. I would once again point out that on January 18 of this year, the acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Adm. William Studeman, said these words. He said that, `The missiles will be able to reach us,' in his opinion, `toward the end of this decade or the beginning of the next.' This is not a choice that we like to make, this is a choice that we must make. This is an amendment which must be defeated in order to propel us in the correct direction.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, how many times is this Congress going to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the professionals at the Pentagon? Yes, there are problems at the Pentagon, but one problem they do not have at the Pentagon is not asking for enough money to accomplish the needed goals to defend this country.
We have had scandal after scandal where we have overexpended funds, where we have had cost overruns. This is a case where we have fully funded the request of the Pentagon in the President's budget, $2.9 billion. That is an increase in ballistic missile defense, and we are up to $2.18 billion for theater missile defense. That is up by, that is almost $600 million in a mere 2 fiscal years. The funding is more than adequate.
What we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, is adding money into the budget the Pentagon did not ask for, and micromanaging the theater missile defense program, one of the most successful programs in the Pentagon. Do not mess with it.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley].
Mr. LONGLEY. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to listen to the rhetoric. It has not changed in 20 years, and refuses to acknowledge the tremendous progress that we have made in the area of antimissile defenses.
I would call the attention of this chamber to the article recently published by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney, and specifically where he points to the progress that we have made with the Aegis Destroyer missile program. In fact, he suggests that many of our missile programs have resulted in costing more than they need to, and being deliberately made less effective than they could be.
We have spent nearly $50 billion in an infrastructure that can be rapidly adapted to kill ballistic missiles; namely, the Aegis anti-air missile defense system. We have scores of cruisers, thousands of vertical launching tubes, tremendously sophisticated radars, all of which are capable of potentially knocking down incoming ballistic missiles, and these ships could be equipped as early as 2 and 3 years ahead of time.
I think it is imperative that we continue to make the progress and build on the progress that we have made, because we are closer than ever to being able to implement an effective, workable, antimissile defense program, and the Aegis Destroyer is at the heart of it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are hearing a lot about the increase of $600 million over what the Pentagon asked for, but I do not hear the other side responding to the fact that they did not fund the problem we have with 15,000 GI families on food stamps, living below the poverty level, living in unsafe conditions. They are not addressing that problem.
The committee dealt with it in a cursory manner. They recognized the problem. They said it should be dealt with. Then they said they could only afford 25 percent of the funds. With this amendment, we could afford more than 100 percent of the funds to bring our GI's and their families up above the poverty level.
It is a scandal, when the greatest Nation on Earth has members of its military and their families dependent upon food stamps, and living in unsafe and unwholesome conditions, and then we are going to ask those young men and women to go overseas and forget about the suffering of their families back home, forget about the food stamps, forget about the crummy place they are living.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to my friend and first say that the Republican budget, and that is this defense budget, adds money to housing, so I hope the gentleman is dissatisfied with President Clinton's budget, because that is the budget that we increased with respect to housing.
Second, Mr. Chairman, Israel has housing shortages, but Israel devotes far more money to missile defense per capita than the United States does. That is because they live in a real world in which they have been threatened by missiles, they have been impacted by incoming missiles. It is that reality that is pressing us and compelling us to put forth the mark that we have. Missile defense is very important to our people in uniform.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, they still have not responded to the fact that yesterday the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Rules stood on the floor and said it would be a scandal to go back to the days when Members of the military and their families were on food stamps. Those days never went away. They are still here. We cannot ignore that reality.
Yes, I have been critical of the President on a number of things. Yes, his budget was not adequate to lift those families above the poverty level. Does that mean we should stay in the past? The committee only put up 25 percent of the money it estimates, which I believe is a lowball number, is necessary to get those families off food stamps. Which one-quarter of those people are we going to take off food stamps and which three-quarters are we going to leave on food stamps?
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask, we have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is correct.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, first of all, in terms of why we put 25 percent of the funding in, if the gentleman would have checked with DOD, it is because it is going to take them the first three-quarters of the next fiscal year to come up with the guidelines to implement the program. Why throw money when it cannot even be spent wisely, according to the gentleman's own administration's DOD leadership? Look at the facts.
Where was the gentleman when we fought 2 years ago to put a pay raise in for the military that the gentleman's President and his side did not want? We put it in at the committee level because we care about the troops.
In terms of BMD requests, it was General O'Neill who works at the Pentagon who said he would like to have $1.2 billion. We gave him $800 million, so it was not some number we came up with, it was the gentleman's administration's leader on missile defense that we sought to assist and help. Let us get our facts straight in this debate. Oppose this ridiculous amendment.
[Page: H5954]
For the gentleman to say it would take 9 months to figure out a program to help lift those 15,000 families and tens of thousands of others above the poverty level and the near poverty level, I believe that the Pentagon that could deploy a rescue mission within 4 hours to Bosnia can figure out a way to compensate our GI's, men and women serving today, to compensate them adequately, so their families are lifted above the poverty level, and they are no longer eligible and dependent upon food stamps and living in substandard conditions. That cannot take 9 months, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe that could take 9 months. It is a specious argument.
The priorities on the Republican side were to throw more money at ballistic missile defense, despite the $36 billion spent so far, which has yielded nothing except for one faked successful test over the Pacific Ocean, and to ignore the needs of those tens of thousands of GI's and their families. That is not a proper set of priorities.
What is it that is the military might of America, the enlisted men and women, or pie-in-the-sky? I say food on their tables and adequate housing for their families come before pie-in-the-sky.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has expired.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to address my colleagues in the context of this amendment. I would preface my remarks by saying that I take some issue with my colleague who characterized this amendment as a ridiculous amendment.
I am prepared to intellectually and politically address any Member of this Congress on the wide range of issues with as much dignity and as much respect that I can accord another human being. If Members disagree with the amendment, that is one thing, but to characterize it, it seems to me, does not speak to the highest and the best in any of us here.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, let us come back to the reality of what we are talking about. The American people need to know that over the past several years we have spent over $35 billion, billion, of their taxpayers' dollars. The amendment before us simply says this. The administration requested, the Pentagon requested, $2.9 billion.
[TIME: 1530]
This amendment funds the administration request of $2.9 billion, roughly $2.5 billion for theater missile defense, so we fund theater missile defense at the level the military asked.
Then there is $400 million for national missile defense funded in this amendment, what the administration asked.
What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the context of the markup did was to add $628 million to that. So the issue is not that one side wants to do something that the other side did not want to do. The issue is, do you want to do it at that level?
So now we are at $3.5 plus billion. What the gentleman and this gentleman are attempting to do in this amendment is not to cut theater missile defense whatever, but to take the $628 million that was added over and above the request.
What do we want to do with this? I am having some difficulty understanding the debate here. We say that missile defense is important. We give the administration request.
We then say that our troops are important, the
quality of their lives, their dignity as people is important. If it is, then you should embrace this amendment, because what we do in this amendment is take that plus-up of $628 million and we take our young people off food stamps.
My colleagues, you know why American military people are serving this country and they are on food stamps? Because the housing that is available to them off base is too expensive for junior enlisted people, so they end up on food stamps. So not only are they serving our country but they have to pay out of their pocket to serve our country. They are on food stamps, the very same young people that we walk into the well of the House in support of day in and day out.
Yet when it comes to their human dignity, when it comes to the quality of their lives, it is more important, it seems to me, to put $628 million into a technology that we have already spent $35 billion for, and nearly $3 billion per year for the last few years for this function. It is disingenuous to communicate that we are not doing that, but we are simply taking this $628 million, $150 million of it for veritable housing allowances.
You ought to be for that proposition. You pat these young people on the back when you visit them. Put the rest of the money into getting these young people off of food stamps. You go out there and visit them. You talk about how wonderful they are. You give them the old salute. You pat them on the back. You tell them how great they are.
But when it comes down to putting the rubber to the road, Mr. Chairman, it is more important to put something in space than it is to deal with these young people suffering on the ground, on food stamps, do not have adequate housing.
If your question to me is, am I pleased that you put a few more dollars in housing, you are right. My vote was with you, but that is not enough. You still have got thousands of young families here on food stamps, thousands of kids who cannot afford to live off base, but they are wearing the uniform, and we keep patting them on the back. We trot them out there in harm's way.
This is quality of life. Put your money where your mouth is. You keep talking about quality of life. This amendment is for the troops. Get out of space and get back here on the ground where our kids are living and dying.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I also have the right to strike the last word?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. SPENCE. But I hesitate to do that. Unless the gentleman would like some more time, I will yield to him.
Mr. DELLUMS. I appreciate my colleague's generosity. I have made my statement, and I cannot amplify further. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SPENCE. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I will not ask for my additional 5 minutes, but I would like to close in the 1 minute I have.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, sometimes I think we go far afield and miss the point of just how serious this business of missile defense is. You do not have to be a superpower in this new world that we are living in to wage the horrors of mass destruction warfare on the rest of the world.
Indeed, a Third World country or a rouge nation can in a low-technology, inexpensive way produce weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical warfare weapons. Witness Oklahoma City and the subways of Tokyo.
These warheads can be affixed to cruise missiles with the proliferation of cruise missiles in the world today. They can be put on merchant ships, on airplanes, on submarines, and hit anywhere in this world. It is not just theater missiles that we are worried about anymore, because they can, in this way, reach any place in the world and bring the horrors of warfare to everyone. We are trying to defend against this threat in this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
[Page: H5955]
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 178, noes 250, not voting 6, as follows:
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
