[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 10 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S389-S390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


       DEFENSE AND PRISON SPENDING DURING THE BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

   Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in the past few weeks, budget 
negotiations have ground to a halt. Unfortunately, both Republicans and 
Democrats have focused their budget-cutting attentions too narrowly on 
certain parts of the total budget pie, while ignoring other large 
portions of the budget. While both sides have offered to put everything 
on the table, two areas of enormous Federal spending have not been on 
the table: national defense and prisons.
  I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to a recent 
Chicago Sun-Times column, written by William Rentschler, entitled 
``Sacred Cows of Arms, Prisons Are Milking the U.S. Budget.'' The 
column describes the irrationality of giving billions of tax dollars to 
the military-industrial complex and the prison industry with virtually 
no congressional debate, as we simultaneously scrutinize other programs 
in the difficult quest to balance the budget.
  As the column suggests, current budget proposals insulate significant 
parts of the budget from any reductions. Instead of making cuts in all 
areas of Federal spending, current budget proposals target programs 
such as Medicare, Medicaid, child nutrition, and Head Start, which 
provide essential services for the elderly, children and the poor, or 
education and training initiatives that make the American dream 
possible for many ordinary citizens. In fact, the budget reconciliation 
plan passed by the Republicans would establish budget firewalls that 
allow defense spending in the next 7 years to increase by $33 billion 
over the request by the Department of Defense.
  For 15 years, I have fought for a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. I have done so in the firm belief that persistent budget 
deficits pose a grave threat to the future prosperity and vitality of 
the Nation. However, my support for the goal of a balanced budget does 
not mean that I support cutting deeply into only certain parts of the 
budget, while leaving other parts of the budget completely untouched.
  I urge my colleagues to read the column and to work with me toward 
balancing the budget in a way that is sensible and fair.
  I ask that the Chicago Sun-Times column be printed in the Record.
  The column follows:

            [From the Chicago Sun-Times, December 25, 1995]

        Sacred Cows of Arms, Prisons Are Milking the U.S. Budget

                        (By William Rentschler)

       Ordinary cows are generally placid and quite harmless. But 
     sacred cows can be downright fearsome, even a danger to the 
     well-being of a nation.
       It is two monstrous sacred cows, snorting and stomping and 
     emitting mushroom clouds of gaseous propaganda, that stand in 
     the way of a rational balanced budget that is fair to both 
     the poor and the powerful.
       Most politicians on both sides of the aisle--including 
     President Clinton and his Republican adversaries--cringe at 
     the thought of bringing to heel these voracious gobblers of 
     vast feedlots of tax dollars.
       Sacred Cow No. 1 is the ``military/industrial complex,'' 
     which Dwight D. Eisenhower, career military hero, warned 
     against when he left the presidency in 1960.
       If Clinton, Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole had the backbones to 
     curb the bloated appetite of the military and its handmaidens 
     in Congress, there would be no budget impasse, no shutdown of 
     government, no need to balance the budget on the backs of the 
     poor and infirm, no need to devastate the environment, 
     education, workplace and food safety, drug prevention/
     treatment, and a host of other social programs.
       The most credible critic of outlandish defense spending in 
     the wake of the Cold War is the Washington-based Center for 
     Defense Information, a think tank run not by what Gingrich 
     and Rush Limbaugh would berate as mushy-minded liberals, but 
     by three retired U.S. Navy admirals.
       CDI's triad of flag officers brands as ``scandalous'' and 
     ``outrageous'' today's defense budget, which represents 47 
     percent of all discretionary federal spending. That's nearly 
     half of all discretionary tax dollars to feed the ultimate 
     sacred cow in peacetime.
       The admirals state unequivocally that we could reduce 
     military spending by more than $500 billion over the next 
     seven years ``without jeopardizing America's status as the 
     preeminent military power in the world.'' This, they say, 
     would preclude draconian cuts proposed by Republicans in 
     Congress ``to vital domestic programs.''
       Sacred Cow No. 2--not yet as fat but equally formidable in 
     its stranglehold on Congress and state legislatures--is the 
     ``prison/industrial complex'' or the ``punishment industry,'' 
     as it is described by sociologists J. Robert Lilly and 
     Mathieu Deflem.
       The U.S. incarceration rate is the highest in the world. On 
     any day more than 1.5 million people are locked up. The 
     reasons are clear. The prison propagandists, who profit from 
     punishment extremes, have terrified the public, rigged 
     sentencing statutes to assure an ever-increasing demand for 
     more cells, and conned politicians into throwing tax dollars 
     mindlessly into prison building, stuffing and staffing.
       Both sacred cows are classic examples of free enterprise 
     run amok. We implement unsound policy and practice driven by 
     greed and the almighty buck. Billions are at stake as 
     companies elbow each other to supply the ``punishment 
     industry.'' The prison-builders get ever-fatter as they graze 
     unrestrained in the backyards of taxpayers. The prize, 
     according to Lilly and Deflem, is $22 billion in annual sales 
     divided among about 300 private firms.
       What politicians--there are a few--will risk having the 
     demagogues, lobbyists and editorial writers call them 
     ``soft'' on national security or crime? Or will turn their 
     backs on the cornucopia of dollars poured into their campaign 
     coffers by these free-spending, yet sacrosanct, bovines?
       So there is no rational debate on the merits, and we 
     continue to squander billions on unneeded weapons and 
     prisons. CDI reports that the House devoted exactly 32 
     minutes to its approval of the $240 billion military budget 
     in 1994. That's $7.5 billion per minute!
       Sad, isn't it, that we the people allow ourselves to be 
     hoodwinked to this extent year after year.
       Republicans in Congress, especially Gingrich and the hot-
     eyed freshmen, speak grandly about balancing the budget to 
     protect our 

[[Page S390]]
     children and grandchildren. In truth, the future will be assured for 
     some children and grandchildren--those whose parents and 
     grandparents are members of Congress or otherwise comfortably 
     fixed. Far greater numbers will be cast adrift in the new 
     century.

                          ____________________