[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 56 (Monday, May 5, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E824-E825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       EXCESS DEFENSE SPENDING DISTORTS BUDGET BALANCING PROCESS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 1, 1997

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, as budget negotiations go 
forward, it is clear that the insistence on the part of many in both 
Congress and the executive branch on maintaining a military budget far 
beyond what is genuinely needed for American security threatens severe 
social hardship within the United States, and elsewhere in the world. 
The price of exempting the Pentagon from the budget discipline that is 
necessary to reach a balanced budget in the year 2002 is devastating 
cuts in the whole range of civilian programs--from health care and 
environmental protection within the United States through aid for local 
law enforcement in our communities onto economic assistance to fight 
poverty disease and nuclear proliferation overseas.
  The New York Times editorial on April 30 addresses this issue in a 
forceful, lucid and persuasive fashion. I am inserting this editorial 
here:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 30, 1997]

                    A Chance to Shrink the Pentagon

       With foreign military threats receding and pressure to 
     balance the budget building, the Clinton Administration and 
     Congress have a rare opportunity to reduce Pentagon spending 
     to more reasonable levels. Maintaining American military 
     superiority is vital, but it does not require an annual 
     Pentagon budget of $250 billion.
       Making reductions must begin with recognition that cold-war 
     benchmarks are misleading. Arguing that a 1998 Pentagon 
     budget of $250 billion is dangerously diminished because it 
     falls 40 percent below the 1985 level

[[Page E825]]

     is tomfoolery. It dodges the essential point that most 
     defense spending from 1947 to 1992 was devoted to dealing 
     with the Soviet Union and its allies, a threat that no longer 
     exists.
       Politicians should also recognize that Pentagon spending is 
     a significant force only in communities with large defense 
     manufacturers or military bases. Pentagon spending is not the 
     flywheel of prosperity in a $7 trillion national economy.
       Certainly, the United States cannot be complacent about its 
     security. Iraq remains a threat to American interests in the 
     Persian Gulf region. North Korea, strained by famine and 
     heavily armed, could seek relief by renewing hostilities on 
     the Korean Peninsula. China aims to be a military power in 
     the decades ahead. Terrorism is a constant danger, and the 
     need to send American troops abroad in peacekeeping roles is 
     likely to grow. But no current or near-term peril comes 
     anywhere close to the former Soviet threat.
       The Pentagon is examining military requirements as part of 
     its Quadrennial Defense Review, but do not expect much 
     creative thinking from this exercise. The generals should be 
     redesigning the American military to meet the threats of a 
     new era, an exercise that might well slash budgets and 
     discard the principle that America be able to fight two 
     regional wars simultaneously.
       That principle has justified an Army of 495,000 active-duty 
     troops and a Navy with 12 aircraft carriers, just one less 
     than the cold-war fleet. Scaling back to a more realistic 
     one-war doctrine, plus sufficient air power to pin down an 
     enemy elsewhere, would save $10 billion to $20 billion a 
     year, even with more spending on stealth aircraft. Closing 
     and consolidating bases and other support operations would 
     produce additional savings.
       Instead of looking seriously at these options, the generals 
     are trying to determine how little they can cut within the 
     Administration's five-year budget plan for the Pentagon. 
     Under that plan, the budget would grow steadily, reaching 
     $278 billion in 2002. It includes a whopping 40 percent 
     increase in spending for new weapons.
       It would be interesting to see where planning would lead if 
     it were not governed by the Clinton Administration's 
     escalating Pentagon budgets and the military's exaggerated 
     threat assessments. It is not unreasonable to believe that 
     American security can be adequately protected for 
     considerably less than $240 billion a year.

     

                          ____________________