[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E25-E26]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                THE DEFENSE BUDGET AND MILITARY READINESS

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 4, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, November 23, 1994, into the Congressional Record.
               The Defense Budget and Military Readiness

       The commitment of U.S. forces to Haiti and Kuwait has 
     raised concerns about the ``thinning out'' of the U.S. 
     military since the end of the Cold War. Defense spending has 
     declined by 11% since the 1989 peak of $303 billion, 
     following a decade of massive increases. The defense budget 
     edged up this year to $264 billion, and is projected to stay 
     near current levels over the next four years. The question 
     now is whether defense spending is sufficient to meet the new 
     and emerging threats to our interests here and abroad.


                         new global environment

       There is no doubt that the United States is more secure 
     today than it was when thousands of Soviet nuclear warheads 
     targeted American cities. Today there is no comparable direct 
     military threat to the United States. The U.S. is the 
     strongest military power in the world today, and has the best 
     trained and equipped fighting force.
       Yet, the world remains a dangerous place. The collapse of 
     the Soviet empire has resulted in increasing instability in 
     many parts of the world. Despite the desire of Americans to 
     pay more attention to solving our own problems, we continue 
     to have global interests that we must defend. Much of the 
     world is threatened with chaos--full of civil wars, 
     escalating ethnic and religious conflicts, and massive surges 
     of refugees. Such instability can hurt the U.S. economy, 
     limit our access to vital resources, including oil, and 
     produce an international environment hostile to our interests 
     and values.
       The post Cold-War world is not peaceful, but the U.S. 
     cannot afford to intervene everywhere. The challenge today is 
     to identify the interests we are prepared to defend by force 
     and ensure that our armed forces have the tools they need to 
     do the job we ask of them. This challenge becomes even more 
     critical as we plan for an uncertain future, since defense 
     budget decisions we make today will determine the kind of 
     armed forces we will have several years down the road.


                          threat-based defense

       Our defense spending should be based on threats to our 
     national security. During the Cold War, the threat was the 
     Soviet Union, and our spending on defense was designed to 
     meet that threat. Our task is to reorient our defense to 
     respond to new threats in the post-Cold War world. Those 
     threats include: the proliferation of nuclear weapons and 
     other weapons of mass destruction; the threat of large-scale 
     aggression by major regional powers such as Iraq; the threats 
     to democracy and reform movements in the former Soviet Union, 
     particularly Russia; and economic dangers to our security if 
     we fail to build a competitive and growing economy here at 
     home. The bottom line is that it will cost the U.S. less to 
     respond to these new threats than it cost us to meet the 
     Soviet threat.
       The Pentagon has developed a defense plan that responds to 
     the changed international environment. The so-called bottom-
     up review concludes that the U.S. must maintain a force 
     capable of fighting and winning two nearly simultaneous 
     regional wars, such as another Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and a 
     North Korean invasion of South Korea. The Administration says 
     that it has fully budgeted for its planned force structure, 
     but that changes in inflation rates could change future 
     funding needs. Others argue the budget crunch will be more 
     severe as new procurement programs swell funding 
     requirements. The Pentagon acknowledges it cannot fund all 
     the new weapons programs now in development, and is assessing 
     which programs to fund and which to cancel.
                               Readiness

       After the end of the Vietnam War in the mid-1970s, rapid 
     cuts in the defense budget and the loss of skilled personnel 
     eroded the U.S. military's combat readiness. Some critics say 
     that we are now facing a similar problem of a ``hollow 
     military.'' They say the costs of operations in Somalia, 
     Rwanda and now in Haiti are placing an excessive 
     [[Page E26]] burden on the defense budget. They say these 
     costs detract from our ability to respond effectively to more 
     serious potential threats from Iraq and North Korea. Some 
     even suggest the U.S. no longer has the capability to face 
     down another Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
       While I believe the combat readiness of our armed forces 
     needs improvement, I think comments about a ``hollow 
     military'' are overstated. Military operations abroad have 
     led to low readiness ratings in three of the Army's 12 
     divisions and placed strains on other elements of the force, 
     such as airlift. These trends must be promptly reversed. Even 
     so, we still have by far the best-equipped and best-trained 
     military in the world. The transition to a more mobile force 
     is involving painful adjustments in personnel, base closings 
     and cancellations of new weapons systems. Yet, a recent 
     report authored by a former Army Chief of Staff concluded 
     that readiness is acceptable in most areas.
       Improving the readiness of U.S. forces should be the top 
     budget priority for defense spending. Congress, with my 
     support, has taken several steps this year toward this 
     objective. These steps include: protecting military pay 
     raises to ensure retention of high quality personnel; 
     increasing overall spending on operations and maintenance, 
     the key Pentagon account for readiness; increasing spending 
     on airlift and sealift capabilities, which allow our forces 
     to respond quickly to overseas threats in the Persian Gulf 
     and elsewhere; boosting training support for battalion-sized 
     units; promoting ``interservice'' cooperation in combat and 
     other missions, as evidenced by the joint Army-Navy effort in 
     Haiti; and enhancing battlefield weapons systems. I will 
     continue to support efforts to maintain our readiness. I 
     think the military's humanitarian and peacekeeping operations 
     must not be permitted to bleed the Pentagon's budget.


                               Conclusion

       The U.S. must be careful about picking and choosing its 
     military missions, so that U.S. forces do not become 
     overextended. We cannot and should not commit U.S. forces to 
     every trouble spot in the world. The key test is whether U.S. 
     interests are threatened. Maintaining the readiness and 
     morale of our military requires that we identify the 
     interests we are prepared to defend by force, while using 
     other means, including coalitions with our friends and 
     allies, to deal with lesser threats to the U.S. national 
     interest. A combat ready American military is essential to 
     our national security.
     

                          ____________________