Tony Thurmond: “I rise to oppose the Wellstone amendment, which would reduce defense spending to below the budget resolution. Let me be…”

“I rise to oppose the Wellstone amendment, which would reduce defense spending to below the budget resolution. Let me be clear, Mr. President. The amendment that has been offered is really a nullification of the Budget Committees' recommended increase to the President's budget request. I believe that the Budget Committee has acted wisely and prudently in recommending an increase to the President's inadequate request for defense. In order to buy the same level of national security in 1997 as we did in 1996, the defense budget would have to be $273 billion. The President's request is $18.6 billion below this. The Budget resolution proposes to increase the budget for defense by $11.2 billion; therefore, we are still $7.4 billion lower than the fiscal year 1996 level of funding in real terms. Does the Senator from Minnesota believe that our Armed Forces will be asked to do less in fiscal year 1997 than they did in fiscal year 1996? The question we should be asking, therefore, is not whether we should be reducing the defense budget even further. Rather the question should be: What additional risks are we taking by not increasing the defense budget to the $273 billion necessary to maintain the fiscal year 1996 level of military capability? Our Nation's top military leaders answer that question.”