[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 4, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               EXPERTS NOTE IMPORTANCE OF BURDEN SHARING

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 4, 1997

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, rollcall recently put out a 
very useful supplement on the question of America's defense. One of the 
articles, written by two very well informed defense specialists, 
Michael O'Hanlon and William Durch, makes an important point which is 
often left out of discussions of how much America should be spending on 
the military. Much of what America spends on the military is essential 
for our national security. But a significant part--tens of billions per 
year I believe--is spent as an active international charity. That is, 
the United States continues to subsidize our wealthy European and East 
Asian allies, in a pattern which made sense when it began in the late 
1940's after World War II, but no longer has any real justification. In 
the closing paragraphs of their report, the authors note that ``those 
who argue for greater international burden sharing have a point: The 
United States does do more than its fair share today.'' And they go on 
to state, in what should be the central point of our defense budget 
debates, ``it is time to start asking our major allies, especially the 
wealthy and well established democracies of Western Europe, to do their 
fair share.''
  These authors fully understand the importance of a strong national 
defense, and the point they make is that we could make considerable 
savings for the U.S. taxpayers in ways that would have no negative 
effect whatsoever on our national security or international objectives, 
simply by ending the unjustified policy of subsidy of the wealthy which 
is an unfortunate continuing part of our military spending. I am 
inserting the relevant part of their article here:

                               Beyond QDR

       At a more general level, those who argue for greater 
     international burdensharing have a point: The United States 
     does do more than its fair share today.
       Not only in backstopping difficult peace operations, but in 
     maintaining its forces from Korea to the Taiwan Straits to 
     the Persian Gulf to Bosnia, the United States undertakes 
     activities and maintains stability in a way that no other 
     state can rival. It also spends a considerably higher share 
     of its GDP doing so than most allies devote to their 
     militaries--roughly 3.5 percent of the GDP in this country, 
     versus an average of just more than 2 percent among the NATO 
     allies and just over one percent in Japan.
       Some of these costs and risks ought to be reallocated. For 
     starters, US dues for U.N. peacekeeping should be reduced 
     through negotiation with other countries. But that is not 
     enough. Perhaps the most serious flaw of the QDR is that it 
     lets the major allies off the hook. They have no role in US 
     war plans under the Bottom-Up Review, and apparently will 
     have no role under the QDR's assumptions either. That is 
     partly because we cannot dictate political decisions to our 
     allies about when to fight. But it is also because they have 
     not done enough to equip their forces for the types of wars 
     that are most likely in this post-Cold War era.
       It is time to start asking our major allies, especially the 
     wealthy and well-established democracies of Western Europe, 
     to do their fair share. They should buy military airlift and 
     sealift, more logistics capabilities like trucks, and other 
     assets that would help them help us fight the next war in a 
     place like Southwest Asia.
       Though depending heavily on imported oil, they provided 
     only one-tenth as many forces to Desert Storm as the United 
     States--and could probably not do even that well today.
       Overall, the Pentagon, has done a passable job with the 
     defense review. Give the generals and Cohen a solid B. But 
     rough spots remain--and plenty of defense challenges await 
     lawmakers on Capitol Hill in the months and years ahead.
       High on the list are implementing the recommendations of 
     the ODR, further scrutinizing weapons modernization programs, 
     finding money for unforeseeable needs like peace operations, 
     and pressing our wealthy allies to reshape their policies and 
     force structures for the post-Cold War world.

     

                          ____________________