[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 148 (Thursday, September 21, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1832-E1833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            MILITARY EXCESS AND THE PROGRESSIVE ALTERNATIVE

                                 ______


                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 21, 1995

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have addressed this body often to discuss 
America's exorbitant defense spending. As the former chairman of the 
Government Operations Committee and its subcommittee on Legislation and 
National Security, I am intimately familiar with fraud, waste and 
financial self-indulgence in the Pentagon and the military-industrial 
complex at large. The fact that every one of the top 10 military 
contractors has either been convicted of or admitted to procurement 
fraud since 1980 as the Campaign for New Priorities recently pointed 
out, reminds all of us just how deep and pervasive their breach of 
trust with the American taxpayer has been.
  Besides abuse and mismanagement in the private sector though, neglect 
by the Government remains equally of concern. We have funded 
meaningless, unnecessary military programs year after year.
  Today I rise to bring to your attention the work of my distinguished 
colleague from California, Ron Dellums, the ranking member of the House 
National Security Committee, who has articulated an alternative to this 
madness. In the October 2 issue of the The Nation, he outlines a post 
cold war paradigm--at post cold war funding levels. I think this 
article, which I am entering into the Record, demonstrates my 
colleague's years of reflection and expertise on these issues. I 
commend him for his scholarship and I hope you will grant it the 
careful study it deserves.

                   Stealth Bombing, America's Future

                          (By Ronald Dellums)

       The September 7 House of Representatives vote to approve 
     funding for the B-2 bomber--money the Pentagon does not even 
     want--thrust forward the crucial question of the nation's 
     military budget. After World War II, 

[[Page E 1833]]
     the United States rejected opportunities to utilize most effectively a 
     newly established international architecture for conflict 
     resolution and economic development. An enormous financial 
     and human price ensued during the five-decade cold war, with 
     its nuclear and conventional arms races, numerous surrogate 
     wars and potential for cataclysmic confrontation. Now, early 
     in a post-cold war era, Congressional leaders and the Clinton 
     Administration are spurning similar opportunities to avert 
     future arms races and restrain potential conflicts.
       By maintaining the current extraordinary levels of military 
     spending in order to support a ``go it alone'' armed force 
     capable of continuing worldwide intervention, U.S. policy-
     makers are once again seeking long-term security in short-
     term military superiority rather than in enduring 
     international stability. Such a course significantly risks 
     rekindling the threatening environment that existed during 
     that now-fading era. And because other nations will undertake 
     military modernization in part due to their reaction to any 
     U.S. drive for improved capacity, long-range U.S. security 
     interests will be better served by restraint in our own 
     programs.
       The Clinton Administration's military plan--known as the 
     ``bottom-up review''--maintains too much of the cold war 
     force structure and fails to respond optimally to emerging 
     security challenges. I reject the B.U.R.'s conclusion that 
     the United States should maintain military forces sufficient 
     to fight two major regional wars simultaneously without 
     allied assistance, and with the type and size of military 
     forces with which the allies fought Desert Storm. This 
     implausible ``worst case'' assessment has provided the 
     principal rationale for the stall in military force 
     reductions that started after the fall of the Berlin wall. 
     The B.U.R. mandates the perpetuation of old habits--such as 
     routine deployments of aircraft carriers in three oceans--
     that then rationalize excessive peacetime acquisition 
     programs and needlessly consume billions of dollars.
       If the Administration is too cautious, members of 
     the Republican Congressional majority will pursue a 
     powerfully destabilizing and dangerous set of policies. 
     They will rekindle a nuclear arms race by reconstituting 
     Star Wars, abrogating the A.B.M. treaty and abandoning the 
     START II agreement that is designed to secure substantial 
     reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons arsenals. 
     They are on a wild buying spree of major weapons systems. 
     They needlessly pursue confrontational relationships with 
     former adversaries and reject foreign policy initiatives 
     that could lead to regional stability. They reject 
     peacekeeping and engagement with the United Nations. Both 
     the Administration and Republican policies unjustifiably 
     divert scarce national resources from urgent domestic 
     requirements, enhancing the potential for social 
     instability and civil strife.
       What alternative view--critical and constructive--do 
     progressives in the Congress offer? Any alternative must 
     begin with the three elements of a truly progressive national 
     security policy: a right-sized military, an engaged foreign 
     policy and a determined effort to rebuild our nation's 
     communities.
       A right-sized military: The nation could further reduce our 
     aircraft carrier groups from twelve to as low as eight, and 
     still accommodate the war-fighting requirements of the 
     bottom-up review. Despite 30 percent reductions in land 
     forces, there are still 50,000 soldiers that the Army does 
     not plan to employ under the scenarios emerging from the 
     B.U.R. More of our air forces can be demobilized or placed 
     into reserve status.
       Those of us who reject the B.U.R. see that even greater 
     reductions and smart reorganization can occur. We seek a 
     force structure sufficient for defense of U.S. interests 
     through participation in allied or multinational efforts to 
     halt aggression, undertake peacekeeping operations and meet 
     humanitarian operations requirements. Such a realignment 
     would present a very different picture of U.S. intentions to 
     the world from what emerges either from the Administration or 
     Republican plans.
       One need not now declare a ``steady state'' number of 
     divisions, aircraft or naval forces to know that we can 
     safely make these substantial additional reductions without 
     harm to national security, and that we will be able to make 
     follow-on reductions in the future as other nations respond 
     to our initiatives. My proposal to the House Budget Committee 
     placed us back on the path of additional force reductions and 
     canceled cold war-based weapons programs, resulting in $82.5 
     billion in savings in just five years.
       Under my plan, the United States would also commit to 
     prompt, significant reductions in our nuclear weapons arsenal 
     in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (N.P.T.), 
     coupled with a continuing commitment to the prompt 
     elimination of other weapons of mass destruction. This would 
     lead to a minimum sufficient deterrent force of only several 
     hundred weapons, significantly below START II limits of 3,500 
     strategic warheads, and we would work to secure a Russian 
     commitment to a similar reduction. (The Senate Armed Services 
     Committee bill contains an absurd requirements to retain the 
     nuclear arsenal at much higher START I levels.) Such an 
     arsenal would ease the current pressure to find a production 
     source for tritium, and would place us more squarely on a 
     path to eventual nuclear disarmament as is called for in the 
     N.P.T., and which is stated U.S. policy.
       What we should seek to acquire for the military are the 
     logistics capabilities, intelligence assets and personnel 
     training that will allow U.S. forces to participate 
     effectively and to lead, where appropriate, in peace 
     operations and coalition efforts to stanch genocide or to 
     meet humanitarian crises. Such a program would less likely be 
     perceived as hostile by other nations, and would not as 
     readily trigger reactive military buildups or arms 
     acquisition programs.
       Preventive engagement: Active U.S. engagement with the U.N. 
     and regional organizations to solve local conflicts can help 
     to avert serious crises before they arise, and will increase 
     international confidence in U.S. intentions. Funding a fairer 
     share of international development efforts can help to 
     enhance stability in various regions. Engaged and imaginative 
     diplomacy, the use of good offices in conflict resolution and 
     international peacekeeping mechanisms can help to defuse--or 
     constrain when necessary--ethnic, religious, sectarian, 
     racial or transnational conflict. Vigorous pursuit of further 
     arms control agreements governing weapons of mass destruction 
     and conventional armaments will effectively complement these 
     commitments.
       Social investment: The third element of a progressive 
     national security policy is investment in education 
     infrastructure, and the strengthening of other institutions 
     essential to enhancing community and individual well-being.
       Throughout the 1980s domestic programs were ravaged by a 
     costly arms buildup. President Reagan transferred $50 billion 
     from domestic accounts to military programs in his first 
     budget, and continued such transfers throughout his tenure. 
     Our communities have never recovered.
       Republican Congressional budget planners are now shifting 
     additional tens of billions from domestic accounts to the 
     military, and slashing billions more for deficit reduction.
       The nation is at a critical crossroads; the income gap 
     between rich and poor is growing. Many of our children do not 
     enjoy access to, much less training in, the technology that 
     will drive the economy of the future. Our infrastructure--
     civic and industrial--is in desperate need of serious 
     investment. Our citizens see their quality of life eroding, 
     yet the answers from Washington are more tax breaks for the 
     rich, environmental degradation and global economic 
     strategies that benefit those with capital at the expense of 
     those who must work for their livelihood.
       These distorted priorities are a recipe for disaster. 
     During the Vietnam War, Dr. King observed that the bombs 
     being dropped in Vietnam were exploding in the ghettos and 
     barrios of America--the diversion of resources to fight an 
     unjust war was killing our children and their future. His 
     metaphor for that time is just as grimly appropriate for 
     assessing the domestic impact of today's excessive and 
     unwarranted military spending.