[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 78 (Monday, June 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           THE DEFENSE BUDGET

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to join the Senator from Iowa 
[Mr. Harkin] in addressing this year's defense budget. Like Senator 
Harkin, I have been distressed by the barrage of statements--including 
that of our President--that we have cut the defense budget as deeply as 
we can. Indeed, I am also disappointed that the Senate Armed Services 
Committee reported a bill this week which authorizes as much for 
defense spending as last year.
  As I have said several times, I came to this body last year with a 
strong personal conviction that is really very simple. If the 
Government does not need to spend money on some project, then it should 
not spend the money. We cannot afford a $4.5-trillion deficit. 
Consequently, I do not believe that there can ever be a magic number, a 
dollar etched in stone, that shields any department or agency budget 
from Congress' careful scrutiny. That is why firewalls designed to 
shield defense spending are bad policy, and frankly, why I believe that 
President Clinton erred in vowing ``No more Defense Cuts'' in this 
year's State of the Union Address. Like all budgets, the defense budget 
should go through the scrutiny of public debate, where hopefully waste 
and nonessential spending will be reduced--just as we do with every 
other bill before Congress. I cannot understand how shielding one 
department from deficit-minded scrutiny of Congress strengthens the 
department or strengthens the country.
  I will focus on why we should further cut the defense budget in a 
moment. But first, I want to address the issue of opening the defense 
budget to extensive debate, and shedding sunshine on the entire 
process.
  One of the first places in which our work receives public scrutiny is 
in the committee process. In some rare cases, part of that committee 
process is classified to protect legitimate secrets from public 
disclosure.
  Last week the Senate conducted two extremely important and concurrent 
committee markup sessions: the Labor Committee considered the Health 
Security Act and the Armed Services Committee considered a military 
security bill. Yet these vital questions where considered in starkly 
different venues. The Labor Committee did its work under the glaring 
lights of C-Span and debated every aspect of the issue in full view of 
the public. It is hard to imagine a wider ranging and more politically 
charged question in the Senate these days than health care.
  Meanwhile, behind closed doors, the Senate Armed Services Committee 
conducted its final deliberations on the DOD bill in secret. In spite 
of the highly classified nature of national security matters, the 
Senate Armed Services Committee managed to file a 323-page report on 
its conclusions. Yet the mark up was not subjected to the sunshine of 
public scrutiny.

  The ERA of paternalistic national security thinking has ended along 
with the reruns of ``Father Knows Best.'' The recent ceremonies in 
Normandy should remind that Americans will make the sacrifices of war 
when our principles are at stake. Our Vietnam experience, though, 
demonstrates that no President will succeed in marshalling the 
necessary level of support without bringing the public along in a full 
discourse in national security. In that regard, I think we are harming 
our national security by hiding essential deliberations on defense 
spending. I believe that, to the contrary, when we find and eliminate 
excesses, we not only strengthen defense, but we also strengthen the 
public confidence in its government.
  I am convinced, Mr. President, that public debate will reveal 
excesses in the Defense budget. Our defense budget is bloated--
particularly as compared to our allies. According to council for a 
livable world, the United States now spends more on our defense budget 
than Japan, England, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, South 
Korea, Taiwan, and Russia do combined. Furthermore, our most 
significant and dangerous threats--North Korea, Libya, Iran, Russia, 
and others--have a combined military budget which is $200 billion less 
than ours. In other words, we will outspend our combined enemies by a 
4-to-1 ratio.
  Like past years, Mr. President, there are debates on the Defense 
budget which should and will occur this year during consideration of 
the bills. One debate will be on legislation I introduced last month to 
cut the Pentagon's largest single fiscal year 1995 procurement request, 
the Navy's nuclear aircraft carrier, the CVN-76. Because of bills such 
as this, we will have an opportunity to debate openly the merits of 
CVN-76, and conclude as a body if this is a wise expenditure or not at 
this point.
  Another debate we certainly need to have is whether the Pentagon is 
preparing the right kind of force for the 21st century. The Pentagon is 
spending billions of dollars for operations today--when the threat is 
very slim--and sparse dollars are not going into essential research and 
development for the future to maintain the U.S. high-technology edge. 
We should ensure that research on next-generation systems continues, 
and that research must yield systems which meet the future threats. We 
cannot affrord to waste our dollars on developing forces for the last 
war.
  I also hope we will discuss burdensharing, a proposal for the United 
States to rely more heavily on our allies and Japan by asking them to 
assume more of the cost of their own defense.
  Other programs we should look at carefully include the Trident II 
missile, Milstar, Seawolf, the C-17 cargo aircraft, and the F-22 
aircraft. And certainly we should not revitalize the B-2 bomber 
program.
  Mr. President, given the atmospherics and rhetoric of the Defense 
budget debate, I unfortunately feel it is necessary to say the obvious: 
To support cuts is not to oppose a strong defense. There are plenty of 
other programs which are critical to our national defense which I and 
others wholeheartedly support. To name a few, training and readiness to 
prepare our forces are clearly essential, and airlift and sealift, so 
that our forces can move rapidly, are also critical.
  One of the major threats the United States has to face today is its 
Federal deficit. The Federal budget is a zero-sum game. Every dollar 
wasted in the Government is a dollar missing from an important need. 
With a Defense budget fraught with questionable and outdated programs, 
it is in our national security interest not to close off any debate on 
reductions in the Defense budget, but rather to publicly and 
aggressively scrutinize it.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________