I must reluctantly vote against the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense Authorization Act because I am troubled by a number of aspects of the bill. First and foremost, the overall spending level is too high. While I appreciate that the bill seeks to address a number of shortcomings in the President's defense budget, too much additional spending has been added to the bill. Our Nation's legitimate defense needs must be met, but if we are to succeed in the critical and ongoing effort to balance the budget, the defense budget cannot be exempt from spending reductions. This year's authorization level is $2 billion over last year's level, probably significantly higher than required to meet the essential military aspects of our national security. Furthermore, I disagree with the decision to prevent amendments to the bill that might allow for a rational debate on program funding levels and some reasonable reductions. Most of the additional funds authorized in this year's plan were for procurement--about $8 billion. This is too generous an increase over the budget request.
On the recordMay 15, 1996
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Opposing the fiscal year 1997 Department of Defense Authorization Act due to concerns over spending levels.
Share
More from Michael Castle
Jun 2, 2009
We should be the regulators. We shouldn't be tying the hands of the regulator.
May 11, 2009
At a time when students need higher levels of education and workforce training to succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy, the number of students leaving high school without a diploma is alarming.
Jul 8, 2009
I happen to agree with Mr. Paul. Mr. Paul and I don't always agree, but I happen to agree with him with respect to his legislation and with the idea that we do need more transparency from the Fed.
May 11, 2009
I am a strong supporter of No Child Left Behind, at least conceptually, that we passed in 2001 to address the achievement gap.





