Foundation Forum

The Honorable Cliff Stearns
U.S. House of Representatives
(R-FL 6^th District)
AFA Air Warfare Symposium (Orlando, FL)

February 5, 1999

"Creating the Military Force for the 21^st Century"

Thank you very much, General Shaud. I am just delighted to be here in Orlando, and it's a pleasure to join you for the Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium.

As a veteran of the United States Air Force, I appreciate your dedication to protecting our nation, and as a former electrical engineer, I realize the importance of aerospace research and understand how difficult your mission is and how wide and expensive it is. And finally, as a member of Congress, I join you in your commitment to the United States Air Force.

Whatever their rank, our people in the military have a difficult job, and that's all I heard in discussions last night, and that's what I hear in Congress.

In fact, last Tuesday, on NBC news there was an expose on the military. And this came at a timely moment because the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Shelton, had recently testified about severe problems in the military.

And in this NBC show, they talked about the Navy and the Air Force and the Army, and they showed an aircraft carrier. It turned out they were 300 personnel short on that aircraft carrier. Overall, the Navy will soon be 22,000 people short. And last year the Army failed to meet its recruitment allotment by 7,000 personnel. Not only are the Services having trouble with recruitment, but retention is also posing a significant problem.

On this NBC show, they mentioned that the Air Force would soon be 2,000 pilots short. Now, obviously, this has a direct impact upon our effectiveness. But consider the heavy investment the taxpayers have made on training these folks, and the cost of replacing them, and the many, many years required to produce capable combat pilots.

As General Shelton pointed out, many critical skill areas are becoming a problem. With high tech systems, retention levels are below sustainment levels, he admitted. In particular, the Navy and the Air Force are experiencing retention gaps with their first, second, and career enlisted members. For example, in the Air Force, second term enlistment rates have dropped 13 percent in the last five years.

Now this message is slowly getting out there. I'm pleased that the President has proposed a 4.1 percent pay raise, and he's talking about increasing the size of the military. Those are good signs. But I tell you, my friends, this morning, that we do have budget caps, and we can't continue to spend on other programs if we intend to support the military.

So it was for that reason and others that many of us decided to form the Congressional Air Force Caucus. It's a bipartisan caucus. We have two new freshmen who came in this year, and we have 17 members. And our mission is, in effect, to ensure that the Air Force remains strong and vibrant and to get the message out that General Shelton talked about, and the NBC news expose was about.

The future of the Air Force is tied to all the other Services, and all the Services deserve our support. But what we have today are severe shortages in parts and the pay needed to support our military, and if the President is as good as his word, perhaps that will change.

Over the past years, our military has seen pay decline. In addition to these budget cuts, the Administration has expanded the demands of our military. For example, in the last five years our military has undertaken 25 deployments. Putting this in perspective, over the previous 10 years there were only 10 major deployments. The President's peace-keeping deployments in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and elsewhere have cost $13 billion, and now we're talking about sending our troops into another country.

And, of course, our last major conflict was the Persian Gulf War, and our armed forces demonstrated their supremacy. At that time, my friends, we had 18 Army divisions, 24 fighter air wings, and 546 naval ships. Only a few years later, we now have 10 Army divisions, 14 fighter air wings, and about 333 ships in the Navy.

Yet here is what has happened to the defense budget since 1990: it has dropped over 10 percent. And this 10 percent is not the real story, because the real story in real dollars amounts to a 26 percent drop. Yet the military has these obligations. The obligations continue.

And frankly, my friends, the idea of gradualism in the foreign policy is, I think, hurting the military. We need to take a stand in a particular country to establish an objective, go in, perform the objective, and leave, but not continue to leave our troops there for long periods of time.

The Congressional Air Force Caucus has another job to do, because with the pattern of decreased military spending, there's less military experience on the Hill. Five years ago, almost 40 percent of the members of Congress and 61 percent of the Senate had military experience. Now the percentage in the House is less than 30 percent, and less than 47 percent in the Senate.

So this really underscores another job for us, another important function of the Air Force Caucus. We need to educate our peers in Congress about the importance of a strong defense and the integral role of the United States Air Force in defending this country.

So as we prepare to enter the 21^st century, we must ensure that the Air Force is ready for the missions in the new millennium, and this means expanding air mobility, upgrading our conventional bombers, continuing with fighter modernization, and developing new aerospace capabilities. And frankly, in my opinion, this also includes a missile defense system.

The bombing of our embassies in Africa, the missile tests by North Korea, and tensions between India and Pakistan underscore the fact that this world remains a dangerous area. America must be prepared to defend her interests at home and abroad, and that means paying for the manpower, the training, and the equipment for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, and we need to help them fulfill their mission.

But just as important as that, we must also enhance the quality of life for the men and women who choose to wear the uniform, and that includes pay, pensions, and spare parts, and, of course, health care.

I understand military pay is now about 13.5 percent below the private sector. With an all volunteer force, we must be prepared to compete with the private sector with better pay and better benefits, and that also means supporting strong retirement systems and providing enhanced health care.

I had the opportunity to be chairman of the Veteran's Health Subcommittee, so I understand the importance of health care, and I'm also serving on the Health Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee. So I can assure you that we'll work hard to try to bring more funding for health care for our military.

Frankly, I support the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, and I feel strongly about this. I feel that if we have airmen and other military people in remote areas of this country who are part of TriCare, why can't we make them part of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program?

So surely if we have a Hill staffer in Washington that has the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, surely an airman serving in a missile silo should also have the same quality health care as a staff employee.

So I think this quality of life issue is extremely important. Sixty-five percent of the personnel in the military are married. It's important to them and to us that their families have access to quality health care, and this is what the government promised.

Remember those promises? Let me give you one of those promises. "Health care is provided to you and your family members when you are in the Service and for the rest of your life if you serve a minimum of 20 years in active Service." Remember those words from that recruiter? He told those men and women that they had nothing to worry about: just serve your time, and all your needs will be taken care of for the rest of your life.

My friends, unfortunately, some of those promises are not being fulfilled. And this is why many of us dropped a bill just last week called HR-119, “The Military Retirement Health Care Task Force.” And you know what this task force is going to do? It's going to look at all the promises and representations made to members of the armed Services, and we're going to submit a report to Congress with remedies to fulfill these promises made by these recruiters so, in the end, all the promises made will be promises kept.

We cannot go back to the hollowed out forces of the '70s, or the lack of preparedness preceding World War II. When I entered the Air Force in 1963, just out of college, it was with great excitement, a great sense of patriotism. I didn’t look at it as a job, and I didn’t care what I got paid. I took an oath to defend my country. Fortunately, I didn’t go to Vietnam. But I played four years of football with two individuals who did. John Knowles was a left end on my high school football team and Bruce Green was a right side tackle. Both of these men joined the Army after college. And both of these individuals were killed in Vietnam. I had the opportunity to go to their funerals. I didn’t have to go to Vietnam, but they did. They gave their lives for their country by defending it -- by protecting this great Bill of Rights, this Constitution and this free government. Allowing free men and women to own property and to say what they want. It is a moral imperative that we maintain a strong national defense.

And this quality of life issue is extremely important. Back in his first inaugural address, George Washington mentioned an important fact when he said, “to be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving the peace.” It was as true back then as it is today.

So in conclusion, we can not and will not forget the Bruce Greens or John Knowles who gave their lives for this country. And we cannot and will not allow our brethren in the military to languish in an inferior operation. So today we come together. We make a stand. We make a stand that we will ensure that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines have the pay, the pension, the parts, and the health care that they need so that they can continue to make this great country free. With your commitment this morning, let's move forward to do that in the next session of Congress.

God bless you, and God bless America.

Gen. Shaud: Sir, I think we could spend the rest of the morning with you in asking you questions. Let me pick just a few that came forward.

The first is, sir, could you develop the idea of the Air Force Caucus a little further? There is also the Air Power Caucus. Could you draw the distinction for us, please?

Representative Stearns: Sure. Duke Cunningham, a Navy pilot, started the Air Power Caucus. I joined that. The Air Power Caucus was focused on all the Services in trying to understand how to continue to keep us competitive in that area. The Congressional Air Force Caucus, though, is more particularly oriented towards the Air Force.

Many of us understand that the mission of the Air Force extends to aerospace technology and to research, and this is a huge area of expense. With the possibility of the Air Force having all these engagements and not having the money to do the aerospace research properly, our job is to say: Listen, the Air Force is the newest Service, and it has a mission which is awesome, and to keep it able to accomplish that, we've got to have the dollars. And so our job is to come on the House floor and speak and to talk to other members to make the case for the Air Force.

The leadership in the Air Force sometimes cannot make the case that a member of Congress can. I'm hopeful that I can be a spokesman for these folks in a way that they can’t.

So, General, I think what I can do is provide an extra voice, a voice that perhaps is needed in the wilderness here, and to make a case not only for increased spending for quality of life programs, but also talk about the nuances between the Services and this huge mission that the Air Force has with aerospace research.

Gen. Shaud: Sir, we have represented in our audience, aerospace industry, and this next question obviously comes from them. What will be the primary issues of the Air Force Caucus, and can you think, specifically, how industry could help?

Representative Stearns: I had the opportunity to talk to Secretary Peters, who is doing a great job, and I have great respect for him, and I think all my colleagues do, too, in both parties.

You know, he touched on the four major issues that perhaps we're going to dwell on, and that's, of course, the pay scale, pensions, health care, and spare parts. And after talking to some of the folks from industry, I realize that there are a lot of engines that are being used in our planes that are 25 years old, and so getting the spare parts for them is crucial to morale and to training. And to me, health care is extremely important. So I think those are four major issues, and that’s in addition to a continuing concern about funding for the Air Force and its mission above and beyond pay, parts, pensions, and health care.

Gen. Shaud: Sir, the next question has to do with the BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure Commission). What are the chances that Congress and the President will agree on more base closures?

Representative Stearns: Well, General, I think, at this point, there's probably little that's going to be done with base closure. I think many of us would make the political investment -- I know I would -- to sponsor another base closure round. I think the Navy would like to shut down some more facilities, perhaps in the southeast. I would not be in favor of that, but I would respect the Navy's opinion.

In the upper portion of my congressional district in Jacksonville. I have Cecil Field, which has been shut down, a master Navy jet base, Jacksonville Naval Air Station, and, of course, Mayport, on the east coast.

But I and other members of Congress understand that a further round of base closures will occur. It will not occur in this session of the 106^th Congress because the two parties are very close in numbers, and with so few people willing to make the political investment in a very tight political process, I think nothing will happen.

And I think the Air Force is wise not to talk about base closure and to have any particular lists, because if any list gets out, you're going to see all hell break loose from members of Congress who are in swing districts, and so the Air Force would be put in a very precarious position if it had a list out there. And I know the Navy has such a list, and that list got out there, and it made some members just go through the roof, and they have to protect those particular bases, no matter what, because of the politics.

Gen. Shaud: The last question, sir, has to do with peace-keeping. The pay for peacekeeping missions comes out of DoD coffers at the expense of other programmed and budgeted initiatives. Is Congress willing to step up and change this system so these operations overseas do not continue to eat away at basic operations and needed upgrades?

Representative Stearns: I wish I could say we will do that, but I don’t think we will. We continue to have on the House floor emergency appropriations and supplemental appropriations for these operations. That is the bad news. The good news is that it forces each member of Congress to vote on each deployment.

I think this goes to the heart of what we see in our foreign policy. It is this idea that we will send our military in harm’s way in an initial stage. Then it continues. The longer that they are there, the longer they stay. I urge Secretary Peters to reverse the gradualism of this policy. It is causing the deterioration of the military because you are spending the money that you could have for parts, for pay, for pensions, and for health care. And I think the United States government must say that we are strong enough and we are powerful enough and we have the technology. Just tell us what the problem is so we can go in and solve it and pull our troops out. But they are not going to stay there and have this gradual deterioration of spending which forces the Air Force and the other Services to take their emergency funds and use them.

So I think it's a crucial issue. This question is perhaps one of the most important questions that has been asked this morning, and I hope the Secretary will make that case to the President and to the executive branch, how important it is not to continue to deploy the Services, but to make a stated objective, come to the American people and say: “We are going to do this over this period of time, and when we're done, we're going to leave and bring our troops back, and if another occurrence is needed, we'll debate that and bring the troops forward.”

Gen. Shaud: Sir, I can't thank you enough for being with us this morning. Thank you.

Representative Stearns: It's my pleasure, General. Thanks.

Return to the Air Warfare Symposium Page