Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee for the great job he has done in moving this bill through the committee process and through the floor, and say to my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, that we have put together an excellent bill. I just want to take a minute, because we have had such a fast run on the House floor that I think it is important to kind of bring this thing back into the context of the total bill, and talk a little bit about what we have done overall. I see the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Curt Weldon, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, and the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Spence, the full committee chairman, who both had as one of their goals to enhance missile defense. I think it is appropriate that we have just had this discussion between the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] who has really been an advocate of missile defense and the cooperative program with Israel, because the administration has now agreed to undertake a program that, for all practical purposes, with the Nautilus missile defense system and the Arrow defense system that we have been building with Israel for some time, that will shoot down incoming missiles that are coming into Tel Aviv or other places. President Clinton has now agreed with the concept that we should defend the people of Israel against enemy missile attacks. Now, that means a couple of things. First, he understands now that the possibility of those missile attacks exist. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] and I wrote a letter some 5 or 6 years ago advising Israel and our then head of SDI that we expected to have missile attacks on Israel at some point in the future using Soviet made rockets, missiles, and that did occur. So President Clinton now agrees that missile attacks may occur in Israel and it is good to defend against them and defend the people, the population, of Israel. Our next job is to drag this President kicking and screaming into the idea that it would also be good to defend the people of the United States against missile attacks. That is the impetus of the language that we have put forward in this bill. We also have the 3-percent pay raise for our troops. We have ammunition, we have the heavy equipment that our troops need to deploy worldwide, and we have enhanced sealift and airlift in this bill. So we have done quality of life and we have done power projection, and I hope that everybody, Democrat and Republican, will vote for this bipartisan defense bill. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for putting this all together, and the subcommittee chairmen, who really worked long and hard on this. I noticed the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] and his counterpart in the O&M subcommittee, put in lots of money so that we will have plenty of capability in ship repair and ordnance repair and equipment repair at our depots. That is an important aspect of being able to move the Marines in short order into a forward deployed area. Mr. Chairman, we have added some $300 plus million, including $96 million for M-16 bullets that the Marines told us they were short in terms of fighting the two-war scenario. This is an excellent bill, Mr. Chairman, and I hope everyone will vote for this bill.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just reiterate the theme that the chairman just elaborated on is, I think, a very important one for all of the Members to understand, and that is that this should not be, this bill should not be, a competition between whether or not we are going to give a pay raise to the troops or we are going to have the right equipment for them to use in a military conflict. It should not be a conflict. It should not be either-or. What we have done in this bill is come up with an additional funding that allows us to have a 3 percent pay raise, it allows us to give the $300 million that the Marines need in ammunition to be able to fight the two war scenario, it enables us to get the 96 million M-16 bullets that they were short under the administration's budget, it enables us to have the theater defense and to start on the national defense just like the one that we are giving the State of Israel. It enables us to do all those things that are important in terms of being able to project American military power and carry out foreign policy. This is a complete package, and the gentleman has done a superlative job in bringing this thing together on the committee level and bringing it to the floor. Let us pass this bill. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. HUNTER. My colleagues, the question is what do we get for what we give? It is $556,000 per student, but we get on the average a 18-year doc for the military. It is $125,000 here if we do strictly scholarships, but we only get about 6 years of service to our country. So we are going to have an experienced doctor corps if we stay with the school. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Let me respond to my friend who says she does not miss the cold war, the war is over, and Nunn-Lugar money is a good way to exit the war. The problem, my colleagues, is that we apparently have not convinced the Russians that the cold war is over. We see a continuing drive to modernize their strategic systems, which costs them billions and billions of dollars, to do other things with respect to chemical systems and biological warfare systems, which again cost them in the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars. And in light of that, in light of that continued expenditure of hard dollars by the Russians, the question we have to ask is does it make sense for us to subsidize the Soviet Union to the tune of some $300 million, which is what the full committee passed, or $327 million, which is what the administration asked for, without requiring certain certifications that the Soviet Union is slowing down this drive to modernize its systems and to build this deep, underground complex, which is bigger, incidentally, than the District of Columbia, and which could be used by the Russians to carry on weapons activities after a nuclear attack. So let me go over some of the concerns we have that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] meets with his amendment. First, a Yamantau Mountain underground complex, something that disturbs all of our war planners, all of our strategic thinkers, because this could be used to continue to weaponize the Soviet Union after a first strike. Why do they have this mindset that somehow a first strike is survivable and could be survived? They are breaking chemical and biological weapons treaties. They are continuing to develop biological weapons at great costs. They are improving the SS-25 ICBM, really building what I call the SS-27 ICBM. It costs them a ton of money. They are building a new nuclear submarine, and they are selling nuclear reactors to Iran. Mr. Chairman, let us send a message to the Soviets, back the Solomon amendment.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the very distinguished gentleman from Alabama is correct in his understanding. The Subcommittee on Military Procurement recommended, as did the full committee, approval of the request for Hellfire II procurement.

Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is correct, and we are grateful to the gentleman for his leadership in this area.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me start off by giving also my congratulations to our chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] who has done a superb job of working on this defense bill, walking us through the hearings that we had to have in rapid fire order, marshaling this great staff that we have got on the majority side and the minority side to put this bill together, answering the tough questions and the tough issues that we had to answer this year in bringing it to the floor. Let me thank him. Let me also thank the ranking member the gentleman from California [Mr. Dullums], and let me tell my colleagues as we go through the debate, and Mr. Dellums reminded us that we have had in the past some long debates on defense issues, I remember the 6-week debate we had on the nuclear freeze that we Republicans enjoyed, quite frankly, and the great times that we have had engaging. I wish myself that we had more time to discuss the top line because I think it is a great debate; I agree with the gentleman that it is an important issue for the country. Let me answer what I think are three important questions that the American people have about this bill. First, do we need this level of spending? And this level of spending is a little over $12 million above what the President has asked for. The answer, I think is yes, and I think our hearings showed that we need this level of spending. When we asked the Secretary of Defense if he wanted to get to $60 billion in modernization spending instead of the $38.9 billion that we have got this year in the President's budget, he said yes. He said I want to get there as soon as possible. General Shalikashvili said, yes, I want to get there as soon as possible. They had recommended initially having that level of spending in 1998, $60 billion in spending instead of $38.9. When President Clinton put his defense budget together 2 years ago in 1995 and said here is what I am going to want in 1997, here is a blueprint, his blueprint for this year was $50 billion. Well, we have gone up from $38.9 billion $6.2 billion. We have added an additional $6.2. We asked the services to come in and tell us what equipment they needed; they gave us a list. This is the uniformed services of the Clinton administration, gave us a list for about $15 billion, and when we decided on the new equipment we were going to put in, the things that we have put in for additions in terms of modernized equipment were 95 percent in commonality with what the services asked for. So if the question is did the services ask for this equipment, the answer is, yes, the services asked for this equipment, and if somebody could throw me down that Marine ammo belt that I have been carrying around for the past couple of days, some people told me that is a silly prop, but I think that is the essence of this defense bill because this Marine ammo belt symbolizes the meeting that I had with the Marines and with the other services, with all of the people who are in charge of ammunition supply for the services. The Marines looked us in the eye and said, Mr. Chairman, Congressman, we cannot fight the two-war scenario that the President has given us the responsibility to fight, and they said we are short of M-16 bullets and a lot of other ammo. We found out they were 96 million M-16 bullets short. That means they run out unless they borrow from somebody else, and if that other service has their minimum requirement, then they are out of ammunition. So we plussed up over $300 million for Marine ammunition. That was the M-16 and mortar rounds and many other things that they needed. So, yes, we do safety upgrade the Marine Harriers, the AV-8B's the crashes. They said that they would like to have those 24 Harriers that the administration did not plan to upgrade safety upgraded to give those pilots a better chance of surviving. We did provide ammunition, and we did help to modernize the forces across the board. We have done the right thing for America. This is a good defense bill, and I ask every Member to support this work that the committee has done.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the most important points that has been made in this debate was the statement by Mr. Weldon, who was a military doctor, to the effect that having the abortions in military hospitals was demoralizing. It was demoralizing to the nurses. It was demoralizing to the doctors. And I would say even if we bring in outside doctors, introducing the specter of abortion in military hospitals is going to demoralize the military. Every great general has talked about the importance of military morale and being fair to soldiers, allowing them to have their own moral code and moral culture. If the gentlewoman says, and I heard her say that stopping abortion is not militarily relevant, I would simply answer to her that abortion itself is not militarily relevant. If we have abortions at the sacrifice of morale, then we have done an injustice to the fighting man. We have done an injustice to the military system. I hope that my colleagues would vote against this amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. We thank the gentleman for his hard work on this program.

Mr. HUNTER. I acknowledge that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has recommended that the modernization of the semiactive laser Hellfire inventory be continued, and I support the Army's proposed procurement to achieve that goal. The gentleman from Alabama has my assurance that the subcommittee will give full consideration to any proposed multiyear plan submitted with the fiscal year 1998 budget.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend but I want to tell her, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, what my jurisdiction includes and what we are adding money for. I want to go through the list, but the most basic one, the one that I charged our staff with first, was to make sure that the troops have enough bullets in their guns to be able to defend the country. That was the first priority that we gave on this $6 billion add-on. To get back to my point, I asked the Marines what it would take to fill their ammunition pouches and to add all the mortar rounds, the howitzer rounds and everything else, starting with basic M-16 bullets for infantrymen. What did they need beyond what President Clinton is providing them in his budget? They said, ``Congressman, we are about 96 million M-16 bullets short. That means we run out. That means our ammo pouches are empty when we get to that point.'' So the first thing we put in this budget was enough money for 96 million M-16 bullets, and we put that in the budget this year. They then gave me a list. I said, ``Give me a list of what it is going to take you to be able to handle the two-war scenario.'' They gave us that list and it came to about $360 million. That was the first addition that we made. We then went to the Chiefs of the respective services, because last year when the Republicans added defense money it was charged, ``You're adding stuff that the President doesn't want, you're adding stuff that the Pentagon doesn't want, that his Chiefs in the services don't want.'' So we asked the Chiefs to come before us. We did that because we got a memorandum from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, that said we need to spend for modernization, that is for new equipment for our soldiers, $60 billion a year. Even President Clinton in 1995 when he was projecting the 1997 defense budget, which is what we are debating today, said ``In fiscal year 1997,'' that is this year's defense budget, ``I want to have almost $50 billion spent on modernization.'' Yet when he came through with the budget, it was $10 billion less than what he said he was going to be asking for a couple of years ago. So it did not even fit the President's blueprint. It was $10 billion under the President's blueprint for defense spending this year. So we asked the service Chiefs to come in. We said, ``What do you need to make sure that the men and women of the services have the best equipment?'' They came up with a list of $15 billion. In the defense bill today we are going to be able to go over those systems and tell the Members exactly what they are. We did improve the safety requirements for the Marines also. We are adding 24 Harrier safety upgrades, in light of the 3 crashes that occurred in the last few months. We will describe this in greater detail in the defense debate.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield briefly to my colleague, although I did not ask her to yield, but go ahead.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that I get a chance to follow my esteemed colleague from Colorado, Mrs. Schroeder, because I want to show her some of what she calls wasteful spending on the part of the Republican majority for defense. I have with me an ammunition pouch. It is an empty ammunition pouch. It was issued by the U.S. Marine Corps and it symbolizes some of the increased defense spending that we are going to be engaged in as we pass this bill through the House. It manifests some of the $12 billion plus in defense spending which, as the gentlewoman said, is a little less than a 5-percent increase over what the Clinton administration asked for. This year I had a meeting with the services, and I had the ranking member, the Democrat, my good colleague from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, the ranking member on the procurement subcommittee that I chair, participate in this meeting with me. We asked the services to come in. We asked the Marine Corps and the Army and the Navy and the Air Force to come in. I had a basic question for them: ``Do you have enough ammunition, basic bullets for your troops, to fight the two-war scenario that we request you to fight, that President Clinton has said you must be able to meet?'' That means if we should have a problem in the Middle East, like Desert Storm, and at the same time perhaps have a problem in the Korean Peninsula, if the North Koreans should take advantage of our being tied up in the Middle East and start moving down the Korean peninsula, and we had to move there and fight basically two contingencies at the same time, would we have enough basic ammo to fight that two-war contingency under the Clinton administration's defense budget? The answer from the Marines--and, incidentally, the Marines are always the most candid, perhaps they are the worst politicians in Washington but they are always the most candid--they said, ``Congressman, we don't have enough bullets to fight the two-war contingency that we are charged with.''

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to respond just briefly to my friend from California. I believe in having substantive debates, and we have had a ton of substantive debates over the last many years. One thing that I have noticed is generally not substantive, is when somebody comes to the floor not with a programmatic cut, not saying the missile defense is wrong or I want to cut the tank program or the helicopter program, but just saying I think we can take $3 billion out of the defense budget because it looks right and it feels good. And we end up with Members rushing to the floor saying is this a good one? And we have literally thousands of programs, and we have a $3 or $4 billion cut across the board. I agree with the gentleman that the Members should be allowed to answer the tough questions. But I would say that generally the across- the-board cuts are the least substantive debates that we have in this House when they are not specific programs that those cuts are offered in the context of.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for the great job that he has done as chairman of the Committee on Rules because he puts together this rule not only with an understanding of the parliamentary mechanics that go with that job, but also as somebody who really understands national security, and I want to thank him for that job and thank our full committee chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] for the input that he has. Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues who maybe did not get an amendment made in order, I did not get one of my amendments made in order, and I offered a couple of them, and yet I support this rule, and let me tell my colleagues why I do. First, we did add to this year's defense request, but it was done because the military wanted that additional money. In fact, we asked the service Chiefs this year, and the genius of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] this year was to bring in the service Chiefs and ask them to tell us what they really wanted beyond President Clinton's defense budget. They asked for $15 billion in added modernization and equipment. They asked for $15 billion more. We gave them about $7 billion more. If we look at President Clinton's defense budget, his 5-year defense plan in 1995, do my colleagues know what he asked for modernization this year? Almost $50 billion. do my colleagues know what he asked for when he actually got to the year-end question this year? Went down to $38.9 billion, and after his own chiefs came in and said we need this, then we acted and we gave them about half of what they requested, of the additional add-on they requested, and the total bill, when we put it together, was still about $4 billion less than President Clinton said in 1995 we would need for this year. So the first question is, Did the military want this? And the answer is, ``Absolutely, yes.'' Second, do they need it? I think the best symbol of whether or not they need it is a meeting that the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], the ranking member, and I had with the U.S. Marine Corps and other service groups, specifically the ammunition experts when we asked them, ``Can you fight two wars? If your infantry men have to fight the 2 MRC scenario, will they have enough bullets in their ammo pouches to fight two wars?'' They said ``no.'' Marines are always candid. The marines said they do not have enough ammo to fight two wars; they are 96 million M-16 bullets short. These ammo pouches, like the one I am holding here, will be empty if our marines are caught up in that two-war scenario. So, yes, we added ammunition for the marines, and they added a lot of other ammunition in the marine account, too. Howitzers, tank ammunition, and down the line, we put in everybody dime of ammo that they needed, and one of the gentlemen who complained about the top line was a Member who joined in letters asking for about $300 million in add-ons. Now, that is not bad because I think that he too realizes that this defense budget is coming apart at the seams. The Clinton defense plan is coming apart at the seams. It results in not enough ammunition for the troops, it results in not making the safety upgrades for 24 Aviate Marine jumpjets, and the marine aviators told us it would become 50 percent safer if they got those upgrades. It is very expensive to do the upgrades, but we put the money in to do that. So, yes. The second question, Do they need it? Answer is, ``Absolutely, yes.'' In fact, according to the Clinton administration 2 years ago and the service Chiefs themselves, they need more, they need more than the top line we gave them. Mr. Speaker, finally let me just say that the first obligation that we have is to defend this country, and for those Members who have talked about social needs and the need to balance this budget with social needs, it is balanced with social needs, it meets the most basic obligation; that is, to defend America. This is an excellent bill, and the Committee on Rules has done a good job in putting this rule to the floor, and, yes, we do not have the first ever in history open rule on the defense bill, but the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and I have engaged in a couple of 5- and 6-week defense bills at one time, and we did enjoy that debate, and I like to have as much time as possible, but I am also reminded that last year we got behind the gun and we finished our defense bill after the first of the year. I like this rule. I think we are doing what the American people want. Mr. Speaker, lastly let me make my last point to people that say these add-ons were not requested by the service. They were special add- ons that the members of Congress put in for pork in their district. That was the cry last year. We did a calculation, and with respect to the additional requirements that we met in this bill with the Army, those requirements that we put in were 98 percent requested by the service. With the Navy it was 86 percent requested by the service. With the Marines it was 99 percent requested by the service. With the Air Force it was 95 percent requested by the service. And I thank our full committee chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] for making sure we put those numbers down this time and set the story straight. This is a good defense bill. Let us pass the rule and let us pass the bill.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the remarkable dedication and accomplishments of a constituent in my district, Mr. Jimmie Cannon of El Centro, CA. Jimmie has been the band teacher at Central Union High School for the past 30 years. He is soon retiring and I would like to take a moment to commend his devoted service to his job and to the students he has touched with his spirit and gift for teaching. A native of Oklahoma, Jimmie joined the Army in 1952. He attended college at Philander Smith in Little Rock, AR where he met and married Maxine Sutton. After moving to Mahaska, KS, Jimmie began teaching music to children from the kindergarten to 12th grade level. In 1964, the Cannon's moved to El Centro, CA, where Jimmie taught music at Wilson Junior High School until the fall of 1966 at which time he began teaching at Central Union High with the ``Great Spartan Band.'' The Great Spartan Band has been very active in the community by performing annually at a number of the local schools in the Imperial Valley area. The band has also been an important participant at a great number of local charity organization events, while at the same time, committing to annual performances at such events as the Brawley Cattle Call Parade, American Heart Association, Red Ribbon Awareness Fair and the Special Olympics. Since Jimmie's time with the Great Spartan Band, they have received letters of commendation from such individuals as former Mexican President Louis Echeverria, Governor Ronald Reagan, and Brig. Gen. Harry Mendelson. The Great Spartan Band has also received special honors from a variety of national organizations including the Hawaii Invitational Music Festival, U.S.C. Concert of the Bands, Holiday Bowl Music Festival, Mardi Gras, Disneyland Parade and Concert, and Disneyworld Magic Kingdom. In an era when our children have become less interested in their education, our Nation's teachers have become more vital in influencing the lives and future of their students. It is encouraging to know that teachers like Jimmie still endure. For the past 30 years, Jimmie has been able to share his love and appreciation of music with many students who will long remember his spirit and talent that touched so many of their lives. I would like to join these many grateful students in thanking and wishing Jimmie Cannon great happiness in all his future endeavors.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I am telling my friend the story gets worse. We are $30 million short on basic bullets, that is M-16 ammo for the riflemen. Total, we are about $365 million short on ammunition, if we count the mortar rounds we are short, the howitzer rounds and all the other types of ammunition that go into a Marine amphibious force.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I have here in my hands a Marine ammo pouch. This is the type of a pouch that the Marine Corps infantryman uses to put his M-16 rounds of 5.56 millimeter rounds in for combat operations. This empty Marine ammo pouch represents yet another symbol, really, of the Clinton Defense budget coming apart at the seams. Pursuant to conversations and briefings that we had with the Marine Corps and other services, when I asked as the chairman of the Procurement Subcommittee on National Security if they had enough ammunition to fight two regional conflicts, which is what we want our Marines and our Army to be able to fight, the Marines said candidly, no, Congressman, we do not. And we said, well, how short are you of ammunition? And they sent over a list of the ammunition that they were short; included in it is $30 million in basic M-16 bullets. That is 96 million bullets that the Marine Corps infantrymen are short, should they have to fight two regional conflicts. That means if we got into a fight in the Persian Gulf, like the one we had with Saddam Hussein, and then at the same time, we saw the North Koreans moving down the Korean Peninsula and we had to stop them with Marines, with soft bodies, those Marines would not have enough ammunition to do their job and protect themselves because this administration has come up millions of dollars short in ammunition. Now, last week we had a hearing on safety, aviation safety, after the F-14s crashed. We had three F-14 crashes before the hearing, one right after the hearing. At the same time, we had three of the Harrier jump jets, those are vertical takeoff jets, that the Marines use. And the Marine aviation leaders told us that the Clinton administration does not intend to make the safety upgrades to 24 of those Marine Harrier jump jets. They further told us that those safety upgrades that they make the aircraft 40 percent safer for the pilot flying it. Now, when you consider that about 30 percent of our Harrier jump jets have crashed, that is a pretty big safety margin and a penny-wise and pound-foolish move for the Clinton administration to make, to cut safety upgrade money out of the budget. But this is a result of these massive defense cuts that the Clinton administration is administering to the men and women who serve in the Armed Services. Well, once again the cavalry is coming to the rescue and under the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina, Floyd Spence, the chairman of the Committee on National Security, we have put in today in the procurement markup enough money for every one of those 93 million bullets that the Marine Corps is short under the Clinton administration's budget. We have also put into the budget today enough money to make every one of those 24 upgrades, safety upgrades, for the Harrier jump jets so our Marine pilots will be able to fly them in a condition which is 50 percent safer than the condition the Clinton administration would have them flying in.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct, but the Republicans are coming to the rescue and we are going to have enough ammo for those Marines to be fully equipped in wartime, and a lot of other equipment.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I announced, along with the chairman of the Committee on National Security, that we were going to address a shortfall in funding under the Clinton administration budget that seriously impeded the capability of our pilots to operate their aircraft effectively and safely. That was done on the heels of the hearing in which we talked about the three, now four, F-14 crashes since the first of January and the three AV-8B Harrier Marine Corps jet aircraft crashes since the first of January. We talked about the fact that the Clinton administration is not going to spend the money to make the safety upgrades to 24 of the Marine aircraft that are going to be piloted by young Americans. The chairman of the full committee, my friend Floyd Spence and I made the decision that we would commit to spend the money that was necessary to upgrade those aircraft so that they are 50 percent safer than they would otherwise be, and we also made the commitment to make the $83 million in safety upgrades to the F-14 aircraft. It was an indication to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Clinton administration's defense budget, which has been slashed in excess of $150 billion below the budget put together by Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell, it was another indication to me that this budget is coming apart at the seams. Today I have the duty of reporting to my colleagues and to the American people that there is another indicator that the Clinton defense budget is coming apart at the seams. That indicator is that we now have examined the ammunition supplies that the U.S. Marine Corps will depend on in the two major regional conflict scenarios. That means if they should get involved in a conflict in the Middle East and at the same time be involved in a conflict on the Korean peninsula, would they have the ammunition to carry out both of those operations, which is a requirement that the President of the United States has told the American people the Marines will be able to meet. The answer, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately is no. The Marines do not have the basic ammunition load necessary to carry out two major regional contingencies. Their ammo pouches in those contingencies will at some point be empty, and they will be empty because the Clinton administration is not willing to spend the money to put that ammo in their ammo pouches. I have received now from the Marines a list of ammo that they need to be able to fight those contingencies for the American people, and that ammo list comes to $369 million. I have talked this over with the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from South Carolina, Floyd Spence, and we have agreed that we are going to commit today to fund that full ammunition load for the U.S. Marine Corps. It makes no sense, and it certainly is greatly lacking in compassion and consideration for our military people to suit them up and move them around the world to project American power and protect American interests and freedom, and not give them the doggone ammunition that they need to get the job done. So once again the Clinton defense budget has come up this time $369 million short in the area of ammunition. We were first apprised of this when we saw the GAO report, the initial informal report that said that the Marines did not have the ammo to fight two wars. We examined it. We talked to people. We finally got the list of exactly what they need to have full ammunition pouches. So the Republicans are riding to the rescue of America's fighting people. We are going to see to it that they have the right equipment and the right ammunition to get the job done, and we are committing today to spend the money that is necessary to do that.