Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2012
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Madam Chair, this amendment strikes a very dangerous precedent for Congress to somehow micromanage the training processes of military chaplains.
We have military chaplains from diverse faith backgrounds. We have many faiths--in fact, the majority of faiths that, for instance, don't sanctify gay marriage. We have other faiths. The one that I happen to belong to--I am a member of a reformed Jewish faith--and there are many other Christian faiths, including the Episcopalian faith, which do sanction same-sex unions. Likewise, it's an important part of chaplain training that they're allowed to counsel against, for instance, homosexual acts or extramarital heterosexual acts. That's a part of chaplaincy training as well. For Congress to interfere with the military processes of chaplaincy training is absurd and unprecedented.
With regard to this particular training program, I would like to ask my friend from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), if I could just yield a moment to him, if he has read this particular training manual that he is seeking to defund here.
I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Yes, if the gentleman would restate his question.
Mr. POLIS. Has the gentleman from Kansas read the training manual that he is seeking to defund in this case?
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, that is an excellent question.
We tried to obtain a copy of that from the Department of Defense today and they refused to provide a copy. What I do have is an online three-page summary of the manual.
Mr. POLIS. So, reclaiming my time, I think that the straight answer is no. In fact, our ranking member and others have been unable to get that from the Navy Liaison's Office.
Again, I think it's an offense to the military to second-guess their training for chaplains. No doubt those documents could eventually come our way--and should, for oversight activities--but for us to somehow defund the training of chaplains to implement Don't Ask, Don't Tell makes no sense.
Again, chaplains will be worried. For instance, Catholic chaplains will be worried to advise their followers that homosexuality is a sin if that is not included in the training. Those for whom homosexuality is not a sin will also likewise be worried about advising the troops. There will be a void, a huge void--to not train the spiritual advisors to members of our military about the implementation of Don't Ask, Don't Tell? I mean, why not try to not train any of the troops? I mean, again, whether you supported it or not, I think most of us believe that it was better that there was a training process than, let's say, a court has ordered--which has now happened absent a training process and instantaneous change.
With regard to the chaplaincy, to second-guess an internal military training document--again, which they have indicated that they will revise accordingly--is to show a huge lack of judgment of the men and women who run the military, an enormous lack of confidence in the institution of the chaplaincy, an offense to the chaplaincy of the military to somehow deign that Congress is expressing that they should not be trained regarding a major military policy, that they should somehow take the risk on their own, that they should worry about advising members of their faith with regard to, within their faith tradition, whether homosexuality is a sin or not, regarding members of their faith as to whether they can be married or not.
This is a diverse country religiously, and likewise the institution of our military reflects that diversity. And to somehow, again, second-guess a military training document that hasn't even been read by the prime sponsor of this amendment shows a tremendous lack of faith and is a very dangerous precedence for Congress in terms of interfering with the training procedures of the military.
We could, of course, as a body or as individual Members, go through every single training manual and find things we like, find things we don't like. But again, to micromanage the military to that extent, particularly in light of a policy change which has ramifications for the chaplaincy.
The chaplaincy is, by and large, where the rubber meets the road with regard to how individual members are being advised about their sexual orientation, about what behaviors are moral and what behaviors are immoral. And to somehow say that Congress will tell the chaplaincy not to train anybody on implementing this policy change leaves our soldiers in a spiritual lurch. It leaves our Christian soldiers in a spiritual lurch. It leaves our Jewish soldiers in a spiritual lurch, our Muslim soldiers in a spiritual lurch, all of those who take advantage of the good offices of the chaplaincy in the military, just as, of course, we have a chaplain in this fine institution, the United States Congress.
So, again, this is a change that perhaps many members of the chaplaincy were not in favor of--some were; it depends on their faith position, their own political opinions--but they need to be trained in accordance with military protocols, and this amendment would gut that. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. POLIS. Given the ongoing budget negotiations, we need to explore all options for reducing wasteful spending, and I think we have an easy one in front of us in this amendment.
Before we ask the American people to accept painful cuts or accept tax increases, we have an opportunity here to get defense spending under control in a way that does not jeopardize or harm our national security. If we're serious about deficit reduction, we need to do something about the defense budget, and we can do it in a responsible way that doesn't hurt our national security. My amendment would do that.
By reducing some of the 80,000 troops in Europe where they're no longer needed, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars. So what my amendment would do very simply is reduce the total number of troops stationed in Europe from 80,000 to 30,000, which is more than enough to continue to support our ongoing operations in Libya and Iraq and our responsibilities to NATO for those Members who support them. For those who don't, this is not a proxy for those battles. We don't want to cut the troop levels so low we can't support those operations.
It will allow the DOD to save money by closing those bases that are no longer needed. By pulling 50,000 troops out of Western Europe and closing bases, we can save money, reduce our redundant military force, and CBO has scored the savings of this amendment as over $800 million.
On top of the savings produced by reducing our troop level, my amendment would allow us to station troops in the U.S., instead of Europe, where it's 10 to 20 percent less expensive. It would allow the Pentagon to close bases across Europe that, frankly, are relics of World War II and the Cold War.
The U.S. taxpayer didn't sign up to indefinitely defend our wealthy Western European allies from a nonexistent threat. These bases cost U.S. taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. On top of that, they're often unpopular with the local people of the countries they are located in.
Our European allies are some of the richest countries in the world, so why are we subsidizing their defense spending? Our European allies have enjoyed a free ride on the American dime for too long. Today, our European allies spend an average of about 2 percent of GDP on defense, while America spends 4 to 5 percent. That means the average American spends $2,500 on defense; the average European, $500 on defense.
Now, if Europe feels they are under a military threat, first of all, I would like to hear whom it's from. It's not clear who's about to attack France or Germany. But if Europe does feel they're under a threat, they can afford to spend more on defense, and we can be confident that we can spend less on their defense. We cannot afford to subsidize the defense of France and Germany from an unknown and unidentified threat.
This amendment does not signal a weakening in our commitment to NATO. With modern technology, we can move troops and weapons quickly across the globe into theaters of operation. We retain sufficient presence in Europe with 30,000 troops for our joint training responsibilities under NATO. There is simply no need to have nearly 100,000 troops.
It's time to rethink our defense spending. We're not under threat by the Nazis. We're not under threat by the Soviets. Terrorism is a real threat. It's an amorphous threat that's not bound by nations or states, and, in fact, it does not have its main nexus in Western Europe. Maintaining bases in Europe is simply not a sane or rational response to this threat, nor is it fiscally responsible.
Even Donald Rumsfeld thinks it's time for a change of policy. In his recent book, he wrote: ``Of the quarter million troops deployed abroad in 2001, more than 100,000 were in Europe, the vast majority stationed in Germany to fend off an invitation by a Soviet Union that no longer existed.''
These cuts proposed in my amendment are part of the recommendations of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, a bipartisan project. The Sustainable Defense Task Force brought together defense experts from across the ideological spectrum and proposed commonsense recommendations for saving taxpayers' money without jeopardizing our national defense, and that's exactly what this is, common sense.
At a time when we must seriously consider cuts to wasteful government spending, we should not continue to subsidize the defense of wealthy European nations against a nonexistent Nazi threat, a nonexistent Soviet threat. Let's get serious here. We can start by reducing our military presence in Europe, which will save the American people hundreds of millions of dollars while protecting our national security interests.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source