Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Congressional pork ravages U.S. military and vets

Thursday, May 28, 1998 | 10:51 a.m.

DESPITE EFFORTS of Nevada's Sens. Harry Reid and Richard Bryan, Congress cut into the medical provisions for a segment of military veterans. The medical funds were directed by a Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., amendment into the largest transportation funding bill in the history of our nation.

The same Congress voted to expand NATO and did nothing to decrease the number of missions expected of the military. During this period of time, the members of Congress are aware of the deteriorating military strength of the world's most powerful nation.

Three weeks ago, Congress answered a Pentagon plea to close some more unnecessary bases to save $20 billion to be spent on modern weapons systems. The Senate Armed Services Committee responded by refusing to honor the request made by Secretary of Defense William Cohen.

Navy Secretary John H. Dalton went so far as making his feelings known in a newspaper editorial. Dalton wrote: "Many Americans take for granted the U.S.'s high level of military readiness. But our defenses are imperiled unless we can find new funding for the armed forces. Closing bases we do not need would be a good starting point.

"In the past 10 years, the defense budget has dropped by 40 percent and the size of our armed forces has been reduced by 36 percent. Yet even after four rounds of base closures, we have reduced the military's infrastructure by only 21 percent. We simply have too much overhead."

Dalton went on to write: "Most important, the Department of Defense is saving $5.6 billion a year from the first four rounds of base closings. An additional two rounds promise to save us another $3 billion per year. Those savings can go a long way to restoring the important balance between readiness, quality of life for our men and women in uniform and modernization of the armed forces."

The pleas of top military brass and their civilian leaders fell on deaf ears. This is more politics than good sense, because too many congressmen value using local bases as economic pork and really don't show any concern about the big picture. The big picture concerns you and me and the safety of our nation. It also can, in the long run, determine if our family and friends serving in the military come home safely when they again must confront an enemy.

Don't believe that members of Congress don't know the serious situation they are ignoring. They know, but local pork and re-election are more important to them. Early this year, they heard combat veteran Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., lay out the facts of military life today. In sarcastic tones, Cunningham said, "The service chiefs testified that 80 percent of the equipment of all of our services, 80 percent, is of 1970 vintage. But the budget is OK. There is not enough money for modernization, because modernization over the past seven years has been cut 70 percent. So our new tanks, our new aircraft, our new weapon systems, our ships cannot be built. But yet the system is OK. ..."

After Congress rejected another round of base closing, the Los Angeles Times noted that "the Pentagon has repeatedly warned that keeping unneeded military bases open steals resources urgently needed for equipment and troops. The warning continues to fall on deaf ears in Congress. The Senate Armed Services Committee has rejected a compromise plan for one further round of base closings, to begin in 2001. That leaves the Defense Department with the unpleasant choice of watching the nation's military effectiveness decline or using a form of guerrilla warfare to try to shift funds away from the redundant bases. For now the odds seem to favor the latter course."

Refusing to close unnecessary bases, spending military dollars on non-military projects, reducing the dollars and time needed for combat training and increasing the worldwide mission demands on the U.S. military forces can only result in the repetition of past tragedies our nation has suffered when caught short by a challenger or challengers.

When will we produce leaders who learn from past mistakes and have the foresight and courage needed to prevent them from being repeated?