Dan Coats: “The assumption behind the amendment is that defense is overfunded. We talk about the adding of additional billions of…”

“The assumption behind the amendment is that defense is overfunded. We talk about the adding of additional billions of dollars to the defense bill as if the adding was over and above what the defense ought to be and, therefore, is surplus pork barrel, extraneous money. I think it is important to understand that, first of all, defense has been declining, as has been stated, for 12 straight years. Funding, overall, for defense is down 41 percent in real terms since 1985, at 1950 levels of funding; modernization is at 1975 levels of funding, and the budget resolution funds defense at $7.4 billion below last year's defense level in real terms. In fiscal year 1996, the Appropriations Committee appropriated $264.4 billion in spending for defense for fiscal year 1996. That represented the 12th straight year of decline in defense spending in real terms. Now, the Clinton administration came in and said, even though that is a reduction from previous years, we want to reduce it even further. They brought the level down to $254.4, an additional $10 billion cut.”