[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 35 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3071-S3072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        DEFENSE BUDGET AND BRAC

  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise today not only in support of the balanced 
budget amendment, but also to bring the attention of this body to some 
activities and some events in this Government that I find very 
disconcerting.
  As we look at the budgets of the different organizations and programs 
this Government sponsors, and is charged to do so, I am concerned about 
the defense budget. It has been cut far too deeply, far too soon, as we 
have put too much focus, maybe, on some of the domestic issues and are 
too hesitant to look at the future security of this country.
  The defense budget is constantly being raided for unrelated purposes, 
research and development programs are shortchanged, and even the 
procurement of weapons has been neglected. The cost is a collapse of 
near-term readiness and, of course, what I fear probably we are moving 
toward is a hollow force. So far, the administration and the Congress 
have not been willing to spend enough to maintain a well-prepared 
military force.
  Defense advisers to President Clinton acknowledge that the Pentagon 
is some $49 billion short of the amount needed to fund their planned 
force for fiscal years 1996 through 2001. GAO, the General Accounting 
Office, determined the shortfall was actually $150 billion over that 
same period.
   [[Page S3072]] The numbers all point to the same thing--an ill-
trained, underequipped, and demoralized U.S. military force.
  It is time to restore America's military strength and readiness. 
Obviously, Congress needs to look at increased funding for the 
military. But it also has to take a look at U.S. defense policy and how 
those dollars are spent. Congress needs to look at priorities, on how 
it is spent, on what weapons, and where we want this country to be 20 
years from now, and we need to force the administration to stick to 
those policies.
  The administration needs to examine the number and level of military 
commitments that U.S. forces undertake. The U.S. Armed Forces right now 
must have the necessary funds to fulfill the missions that they have 
been given.
  The problem is funds that should be used for readiness have been 
diverted. That GAO study cites that between fiscal 1990 and 1993, $10.4 
billion out of the defense budget was used for such activities as World 
Cup Soccer and the Summer Olympics. In the fiscal years 1990 to 1994, 
total defense spending fell 25 percent, while nondefense spending rose 
361 percent. So it is time to put some of the priorities on how we 
spend those dollars back into the budget.
  Just as alarming is the new trend of raiding the Defense Department's 
budget for ``operations other than war.'' U.S. troops involvement in 
U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world put an immense strain on 
the already tight defense budget.
  President Clinton proposed spending $246 billion for defense for 
fiscal year 1996. It is now up to the Congress to take a serious look 
at the U.S. defense policy and come up with a realistic defense budget.
  After years of cuts in the defense budget and a drawdown of forces, 
we have to look at where we are, where we should be, and where we want 
to be.
  So the Defense Department budget has fallen steadily for 10 years 
since 1985. The procurement amount has fallen 65 percent over the same 
period. The reduction of U.S. Armed Forces generally has been too deep 
and, yes, too fast.
  Over the last 10 years, infrastructure has only been cut 15 percent. 
That is compared to draconian cuts in weapons and equipment 
procurement, research and development, and force structure.
  If the United States had maintained a realistic defense budget, we 
would not be looking at another round of base closings and 
realignments. We would have a fully ready and well-equipped military 
force ready to handle any eventuality.
  The defense budget has been stretched too thin and now it is our 
bases that will pay the price. Bases around the country, bases 
instrumental to our national defense, will be scrutinized and possibly 
closed and given new missions.
  Malmstrom Air Force Base, in my home State of Montana, is one of 
those bases that will be looked at in this round of BRAC. Malmstrom is 
an important cog in the base structure and is an integral part of the 
city of Great Falls, MT, and to the rest of the State.
  It is too bad that we get mixed up in our priorities regarding this 
defense budget, and bases such as Malmstrom could be lost in the 
shuffle.
  Mr. President, with a great deal of concern that I ask my colleagues 
to look closely at our defense policy and where our priorities lie for 
the Defense Department and the U.S. Armed Forces in this coming fiscal 
year.
  Yes, we sit here and debate a balanced budget amendment and we have 
heard all of the-sky-is-falling fears that has come out of this debate. 
It will still make us set our priorities and reevaluate the mission of 
government and what the role of government really should be, especially 
at the Federal level.
  I happen to believe the protection of our shores and a strong 
national defense is very important to the security of this country and, 
yes, those children of the future
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nickles). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is 
recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________