Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009

Floor Speech

DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I rise in support of the Spratt amendment. A reasoned and objective approach is needed for analyzing and assessing the serious issues surrounding the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran. The current bill language couples military readiness and contingency response planning with report elements that are inherently intelligence-related and dependent on the full spectrum of intelligence sources and methods.

The amendment appropriately shifts the burden of assessment regarding Iran's nuclear weapons capacity and/or intentions from the Secretary of Defense to the Director of National Intelligence. Why reinvent the wheel? Precedent and institutional knowledge specific to the issue already exist. The appropriate vehicle for perpetuating objective analysis of the situation is an updated NIE, with further updates regularly to follow, not an independent and parallel effort on the part of the DOD.

Renewing demand for products of the proven method of consolidating analysis through a centralized NIE process also discourages the temptation for some to ``forum shop,'' I assure you, among national security agencies for favorable or dissenting views, depending on the circumstance. We are all well aware of the Douglas Feith-led, Dick Cheney-originated cabal that was a major instigator of the war in Iraq.

A disassociated DOD effort would undermine a widely considered and properly vetted approach to nuclear proliferation and other high priority national security issues.

The amendment substantially reflects many of the points of inquiry from the report elements in the bill's existing language, but it centers the focus on an updated NIE analysis on the near and mid-term implications rather than on the speculative far-term projections, and does not rush to associate U.S. military response as a presupposition.

On that basis, Madam Chairman, I think this amendment deserves our favorable attention, and I thank you for the time allotted to me.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I oppose this amendment because it cuts funding to our troops and their families. The defense bill's purpose is to ensure that troops and their families needs are put first as they struggle to fight two wars.

The needs of the Army are shortchanged in this amendment. The needs of the Army should be put first as the service carrying the heaviest burdens in the wars in progress. Readiness above all.

Putting troops first involves making choices. As President Eisenhower said about ``the clearly necessary.''

This amendment decreases pay benefits, health care for troops and their families, benefits that are clearly necessary by any measure, and puts hundreds of millions of dollars into corporate overhead.

Hear me. Understand. You vote for this amendment, you're voting to cut funds for the troops and their health care and their families' to put it in corporate overhead accounts, and you're going to be held to account for it come November, guaranteed.

The defense bill already provides $3.3 billion for this program. No more is needed for corporate overhead. The 5 percent reduction in the program that this amendment seeks to roll back has been reallocated. We reallocated funds for serious equipment shortfalls in the Army, National Guard, and Reserve. The equipment readiness needs of the Army, Guard, and Reserve take priority over corporate overhead any day. Understand, to pay for this amendment, you cut military pay, benefits, health care, and equipment for the National Guard and Reserve in multiple deployments.

The choice could not be more clear. You are going to take funding from the troops and their families and give it to defense contractors who have already received over $15 billion. Defense contractors are well paid for their services. They do not come and their profits don't come before military families.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source