[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 106 (Thursday, July 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8152-S8154]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 REDUCE THE DEFICIT WHILE PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY: ELIMINATE 
        WASTEFUL MILITARY SPENDING NOT REQUESTED BY THE PENTAGON

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I rise in opposition to the FY 
1997 Defense Appropriation bill. Once again Senate Republicans have 
sought to include over $10 billion extra dollars on military projects 
not requested by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Quite frankly, it is fiscally 
irresponsible to spend more than is needed on wasteful military 
programs at a time when many domestic programs are being reduced 
substantially in order to balance the budget.
  At the request of the Republican leadership, the Appropriations 
Committee has authorized $10.1 billion more than was requested. That's 
right. The majority wants to spend $10.1 billion more than the Pentagon 
has requested, or than they have indicated they will be able to 
responsibly use, next year. Much of that figure was not even included 
in the Pentagon's 5-year plan, or on so-called wish lists that were 
solicited by congressional defense committees. The Pentagon has said 
clearly: They don't need these funds now, the projects are not in their 
5-year plan, and they're not even on their wish lists.
  Mr. President, there is no question that there is waste in the 
Pentagon. In fact, about a year ago, the Pentagon's own spending 
watchdog, its Comptroller General John Hamre, conceded that DOD could 
not account for over $13 billion in spending. It's just been lost in 
the ocean of paperwork at the Pentagon, and likely won't ever be sorted 
out. In fact, the Comptroller has all but given up on trying to find 
out what happened to most of the money, arguing it would be more 
expensive than it would be worth to account for these funds. It is 
particularly outrageous that the Appropriations Committee has proposed 
these hefty increases at the same time that the Defense Department is 
being called to task for not being able to account for billions of 
dollars in its own spending.
  Waste, possible fraud in Pentagon spending, certainly egregious 
abuses of basic accounting rules--this is a serious problem, and no one 
seems to be doing very much about it. Indeed, instead of vigorously 
overseeing spending in this budget, we are trying to foist off on the 
Pentagon an extra $10.1 billion in military hardware, new weapons 
systems, planes and ships, and other spending they have not even 
requested so that certain Senators can protect jobs in their States 
that depend on continued high levels of defense spending.
  If we pass this bill, my Minnesota constituents will continue to pay 
their taxes to bolster the treasuries of bloated defense contractors, 
who are building ships and planes and weapons systems that we don't 
need, and can't use, and that won't make our Nation any more secure. So 
that there is no mistake, let me repeat that for those who are 
listening. We are considering today a defense spending bill that spends 
a full $10.1 billion more than the President requested in his budget. 
We are doing this despite the fact that there is no sudden, 
extraordinary threat to justify such an increase. And many of those in 
this body who are pressing for such a huge increase are precisely the 
same people who are out here on this floor, day after day, week after 
week, month after month, howling about how we simply must get the 
deficit under control.
  They are doing this while at the same time larding defense bills with 
billions in spending for their local shipyard, or weapons contractor, 
or plane manufacturer. Have we no shame, Mr. President? Is there no 
sense of limits in this body when it comes to wasteful and unnecessary 
weapons programs? Now, controlling the deficit is important, and I have 
supported responsible, fairminded deficit reduction proposals totaling 
hundreds of billions of dollars. We heard yesterday that the deficit 
has dropped from about $290 billion to an estimated $117 billion this 
year, due largely to the President's fiscal policies. And now we again 
are faced with outrageous overspending on military programs that are 
not even supported by the Pentagon.
  For the past couple of years, we've heard from many of our Republican 
colleagues who have sought to look like they were reducing the Federal 
deficit through various schemes and non-specific formulas. And even 
when they have offered something specific, they tend to first go after 
funding for education, Medicare and Medicaid; programs for those who 
cannot help themselves; programs which protect our air, lakes and 
rivers, and on and on.

  While I have serious concerns even about some of the President's 
underlying defense spending assumptions which require, for example, 
fighting two major regional conflicts at one time without help from our 
allies, at least his budget focuses on research and development, 
maintaining a high level of readiness, and improving the quality of 
life of our Armed Forces. We can meet our defense needs fully and 
responsibly. My question is, Why aren't we applying the same standards 
to wasteful military spending that are being applied to domestic 
programs that millions of average Americans rely on?
  There are three arguments that I want to make to counter Republican 
assertions that the President's defense request is too low. First, the 
appropriations bill provides more to defense, in dollar terms, than 
last year. This is in stark contrast to the fact that nondefense 
discretionary spending as a whole is frozen or declining precipitously 
in many areas.
  Second, Republicans are claiming that defense spending in the bill 
declines in real terms and as such their budget recommendation is 
actually a cut from last year. Think about that argument--defense 
spending is declining in real terms. Now contrast it with the 
Republican arguments as they seek to dismantle domestic spending 
programs. Do they ever seek to portray their domestic cuts in real 
terms? Or do they consistently recite that they are spending the same 
or more in the current year than they did last year. They can't have it 
both ways. Pick one methodology and stick with it, I say.
  Third, the administration estimates that due to lower inflation 
estimates over the next few years, we can buy as much for our defense 
dollar as we had planned, but spend about $46 billion less for it than 
was requested last year. By this calculation, the President's budget 
request actually represents a long-term increase over last year's 
defense program.
  The bottom line is this: The President's defense budget maintains a 
strong defense, no matter how the Republicans choose to craft their 
argument. It takes into account all of our

[[Page S8153]]

current and future defense needs, and makes tough choices. Adding 
billions in additional pork barrel spending is unnecessary, wasteful, 
and wrong.
  Even if one acknowledges that defense spending has decreased by some 
measures since the mid-1980's, and that the administration's request 
continues that trend, it must be placed into context. That is, much has 
changed since the end of the cold war. And our country's priorities 
must change accordingly--we must maintain a strong defense, but 
accommodate increasing concerns for better education, health care, 
crime prevention, economy and the environment.
  Maintain a strong defense, but do it by increasing burden-sharing by 
our allies, imposing cost and accountability controls called for by 
GAO, eliminating unnecessary weapons programs. We must also re-assess 
the fundamental assumptions which continue to drive continued high 
defense spending, like the requirement that we be able to fight two 
major wars at once, without the help or support of our allies.
  We already spend vastly more on the military than all our potential 
major enemies combined--40 percent of the world's total military 
budget. Along with our allies, we spend about $510 billion on defense 
of our interests worldwide. All our major potential enemies combined 
spend about $140 billion per year.
  The billions spent on star wars, the Trident, the B-2 bomber, and the 
600-ship Navy are but a few of the reasons why our deficit rose so 
dramatically during the 1980's. This administration however, has sought 
to maintain a strong defense while addressing critical domestic needs 
and reducing the deficit as well. But while the President has made 
tough choices, the Republicans have refused to stare down military 
contractors clamoring for even more than the Pentagon has said it 
needs. If Members are so concerned about a looming procurement problem, 
then maybe we ought to make some tough decisions about the size of our 
military forces, and their dispersion around the world, and scale back 
here. Instead, we are bolstering funding on fantastically expensive 
weapons programs, while we underfund key peacekeeping programs and the 
dual-use applications program that will benefit U.S. industry.

  I recognize that there are still real dangers out there for which we 
must prepare, including nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The need 
to combat weapons proliferation to rogue states poses new problems for 
the United States, and must be addressed forcefully and directly. But 
we can do that now. We have the largest and strongest military in the 
world, and there is nothing in the administration's request that does 
anything to diminish that fact. To the contrary, the administration's 
budget improves an already strong defense establishment.
  So why do the Republicans persist in adding to the Pentagon's 
request? Do they perceive some previously unidentified emerging threat 
that the intelligence or national security community has disregarded? 
No. I think at its worst it is simply their desire to pour billions 
more dollars into spending for large weapons programs, ships, fighters 
and the like built in the States of defense committee members. At best 
it is a misplaced desire to save jobs. Mr. President, we cannot afford 
these kinds of pet projects.
  How should we reduce wasteful military spending? I'll start with what 
arguably must be the most difficult problem to attack--the Pentagon 
bureaucracy. Several of my colleagues have recently railed against the 
Department of Energy, the Departments of Education, Commerce and 
others--but I hear a deafening silence on their part when it comes to 
the Department of Defense, the largest and most wasteful bureaucracy in 
the world. The same tough accountability standards should be applied to 
all Federal agencies, if we are to root out waste, abuse, and program 
duplication.
  Let me give a few examples of the size and scope of the defense waste 
we're talking about. The General Accounting Office, in a 1995 report on 
the Defense travel process, concluded that the Pentagon could save 
hundreds of millions of dollars in travel processing costs simply by 
following the examples of leading companies. This 1995 study identified 
a myriad of travel agents, voucher processing centers, and over 1,300 
pages of regulations. DOD reported $3.5 billion in expenditures for 
travel and perhaps as much as $1.0 billion more in processing costs. 
Clearly, efforts to reform and streamline this process, and bring it 
into control, is urgently needed.
  I've already discussed the billions lost due to inadequate Pentagon 
accounting, so I won't rehash that here. But let's take a look at over 
$3.0 billion extra of procurement add-ons that were not even included 
in the Pentagon's 5-year plan. These items include procurement of four 
additional F-16 fighters for the Air Force at a cost of over $107 
million. These were not even on the Air Force wish list.
  The Army gets an additional $120 million to purchase 12 more UH-60 
Blackhawk helicopters than the Pentagon asked for. In true share-the-
wealth tradition, the Navy receives an astounding $489 million in 
additional funding for the F/A-18C/D Hornet. The list goes on and on.
  The additional construction funds provided for the new attack 
submarine comes at a time when we're already building the Seawolf, 
after fierce fights by its opponents over the wisdom of building more 
of these. Why then, are we financing an additional $700 million for 
advance procurement of the new attack submarine, which is less capable 
than the Seawolf and only slightly less expensive? To top it off, as 
directed under the Defense authorization bill, the purchase has 
preempted any pretense of competition between shipyards by directing 
these submarines be built in both Connecticut and Virginia.
  At the same time that advance and unnecessary procurement costs are 
added, the bill seeks to reduce by $150 million funding for the Dual-
Use Applications Program that supports development of technologies that 
can be applied to both commercial and defense systems, thereby reducing 
the cost of defense systems. Full funding of this initiative would have 
moved the Nation in the right direction as we seek to reduce Government 
spending and reliance on single source industries.

  Make no mistake: the post-cold-war defense budget is becoming less 
and less focused on our real national security needs, and more and more 
on the needs of particular members of Congress to sustain jobs in their 
home States. American taxpayers are paying for costly, obsolete, 
fantastically expensive cold-war-era weapons systems that are no longer 
justifiable, basically to help preserve the political health of certain 
Members of Congress. That is the sad, unvarnished truth. Many of the 
weapons systems we are still paying for were initiated during the 
1980's defense build-up, and have little or no relation to the changed 
strategic situation we now face in the post cold-war-era. And yet we 
continue to fund them, terrified that scaling this spending back 
modestly will cost jobs in our States. This, despite the fact that 
under the authorization bill we accepted a proposal by Senator 
Lieberman that calls for a new study to determine the threat as we 
enter the 21st century. This study will go a long way to determining 
the weapons systems we will need to address the threat. I'll bet many 
of the weapons systems we are providing advanced funding for will be 
deemed obsolete as the results of the study are released.
  I believe that at a time when we are slashing budgets for hundreds of 
social programs that protect the vulnerable; protect our lakes and 
streams; provide health care for the vulnerable elderly, and create 
expanded opportunities for the broad middle class--such as student 
loans and job retraining--it is wrong to provide vastly more military 
spending than the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff have 
requested. We have dramatically reduced or frozen funding for many 
other non-defense programs, and yet we're pouring even more dollars 
than the Department of Defense can use into expensive weapons systems.
  In defense, as elsewhere in the Federal budget, there are responsible 
ways to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending; by cutting 
obsolete cold war weapons systems, imposing money-saving reforms within 
the bureaucracy, and streamlining procurement policy to make the system 
more efficient and more cost-effective. Over and over, in recent 
months, I have offered or cosponsored amendments to address this 
problem. These attempts have either

[[Page S8154]]

been voted down here on the Senate floor, or the bills to accomplish 
these ends have been bottled up in committee.
  In the end, there is little Pentagon streamlining, little elimination 
of waste provided for in this bill. Instead, when faced with difficult 
choices between competing weapons systems, basic housing improvements 
for our troops, and other readiness requirements, the committee decided 
simply to appropriate funds to buy all of the big weapons systems, 
ships, and planes that $10.1 billion could buy, larding the bill with 
special interest funding for defense contractors, and accelerating 
purchases not scheduled to be made for many years, if at all.
  I believe this bill in its current form spends vastly more on defense 
than we can afford. The Joint Chiefs and the President agree with me. 
At a time when we are asked to spend billions less on education, health 
care, our children and our elderly, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against these huge and unwarranted increases in defense spending. If it 
passes, as I'm sure it will, I hope the President will veto it, and 
then require Congress to come to the negotiating table to more fairly 
distribute the burden of deficit reduction, eliminating defense pork 
while preserving our national security.

                          ____________________