NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 (House of Representatives - June 19, 1997)

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the defense authorization bill and the rule under which it is being considered...
- Change seems to be the buzzword of the upcoming century. Wherever one turns, change is emphasized. Unfortunately, the bill offered by the House National Security Committee neither reflects nor embraces change. This bill focuses on keeping what existed rather than addressing in a serious manner, how U.S. military policy should move forward. The committee simply decided to retain as much of the cold war assumptions within the context of the authorization measure, as much at least as this military budget will allow. For example, H.R. 1119 continues funding for major weapons programs that were specifically designed for use against a military configuration and challenge that collapsed with the dissolution of the Soviet Union...
- H.R. 1119 includes an additional $331 million for advance procurement of the B-2 stealth bomber beyond the 21 aircraft previously authorized. Yet, the Department of Defense's [DOD] 1995 heavy bomber force study concluded that a fleet of only 20 B-2 stealth bombers would be adequate to meet any current or future threats against the United States.
  And both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff support this conclusion, adding that the high cost of additional B-2 bombers will require the retirement of forces with greater overall capability and the misuse of funds to achieve this purpose. Secretary Cohen stated that `the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages of additional B-2s.' Arguments in favor of additional B-2 bombers stress that there will be no substitute for long-range air power in the security environment of tomorrow. I wholeheartedly disagree, and would submit that we are entering an era in which the value of an education and the investment in people has assumed as much or more importance than a weapon. What would make the American people feel safer? Knowing that their government is building additional B-2 bombers and constructing a national defense missile system to thwart an unlikely attack, or knowing that their children will be able to attend college and that their parents will receive the Social Security and Medicare benefits they tirelessly worked for over the years? This bill may increase the likelihood of victory on the battlefields of the 21st century, but is it worth handicapping our chances for success in the classroom? H.R. 1119 simply does not defend our genuine vital interests...
- National security in the next century will not be confined to the national security establishment per se. Accordingly, we must incorporate other elements, such as diplomacy, sound trade policies, and foreign assistance programs in any national security strategy. By pursuing other policies outside the traditional realm of military programs, we can proactively shape our international environment to protect our vital interests. More resources should be diverted to minimizing the risks of the uncertain security environment of the future. Yet, despite the remarkable achievements of the Nunn-Lugar program that has greatly accelerated the safe dismantling, destruction, and storage of thousands of nuclear warheads once pointed at the United States, H.R. 1119 shamefully decreases program funding by $97.5 million.
- We must also make a concerted effort to call on others around the globe that benefit from our military's presence to take on greater responsibility in matters of their own national defense.
```
[Page: H3961]
```