[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E391-E392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             RESTORING SANITY TO FEDERAL BUDGET PRIORITIES

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 22, 2000

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues' 
attention and submit for the Record an opinion piece included in the 
March 22, 2000, edition of the Washington Post. It was written by Doug 
Bandow, a Senior

[[Page E392]]

Fellow at the CATO Institute and former special assistant to President 
Reagan. The article makes a persuasive case for reducing the Pentagon 
budget and deflates the over-heated rhetoric of my colleagues about the 
need for over $300 billion in military spending. As Mr. Bandow writes, 
``To suggest that America is weak, let alone as weak as before Pearl 
Harbor, is nonsense.''
  Fortunately, there is an alternative. The Congressional Progressive 
Caucus budget proposal I offered makes sensible, realistic reductions 
in the Pentagon budget in order to more adequately fund education, 
health care, housing, veterans, nutrition and social service programs. 
Budgets are about priorities. Unfortunately, as this opinion piece from 
a former Reagan Administration official makes clear, our current budget 
priorities are ``nonsense.''

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 22, 2000]

                     Scaling Down in a Safer World

                            (By Doug Bandow)

       In political debates, America is often portrayed as a 
     beleaguered isle of freedom in a world threatened with a new 
     Dark Ages. Yet the truth is that the United States is safer 
     today than it has been at any time in the past half-century. 
     It's time for Washington to cut military outlays sharply.
       While Al Gore and Bill Bradley were sparring over health 
     care in the primary campaigns, the leading Republican 
     candidates pushed to ``strengthen'' the military. For 
     instance, Texas Gov. George W. Bush complains that ``not 
     since the years before Pearl Harbor has our investment in 
     national defense been so low as a percentage of GNP.'' Sen. 
     John McCain (R-Ariz.) sounded like an echo when he warned 
     that ``the last time we spent so little on defense was 1940--
     the year before Pearl Harbor.''
       Even more apocalyptic is conservative radio personality 
     Rush Limbaugh, who warns that ``we cannot survive more 
     liberalism'' at home or abroad. After all, he explains, ``the 
     world is far more dangerous than the day Ronald Reagan left 
     office.''
       It is unclear, however, in what world they believe 
     Americans to be living.
       True, the percentage of GNP devoted to defense, about 3.2 
     percent, is lower than at any time since before World War II. 
     Although that number fell to 3.5 percent in 1948, it climbed 
     sharply with the onset of the Cold War and the very hot 
     Korean War. One must go back to 1940, when military outlays 
     ran about 1.7 percent of GNP, to find a lower ratio.
       But so what? America's GNP then was $96.5 billion, or about 
     $1.2 trillion in today's dollars. That compares with a GNP of 
     more than $8.7 trillion in 1999. In short, one percent of GNP 
     today means eight times as much spending as in 1940.
       Moreover, the United States was a
       Today Washington dominates the globe. It accounts for more 
     than a third of the globe's defense outlays. It possesses the 
     strongest military on earth: a well-trained force of 1.4 
     million employing the most advanced weapons. The United 
     States spends as much on the military as the next seven 
     nations combined, five of which are close allies.
       In short, to suggest that America is weak, let alone as 
     weak as before Pearl Harbor, is nonsense.
       No less silly is the contention that the United States 
     faces greater threats today than a decade ago. The world is 
     messy, yes, and the end of the Cold War unleashed a series of 
     small conflicts in the Balkans. But most of the globe's nasty 
     little wars--such as in Angola, Kashmir, Sri Lanka and 
     Sudan--began well before 1989. And none of these conflicts 
     threatens the United States as did the struggle with the 
     Soviet Union.
       Moreover, virtually every pairing today favors America's 
     friends. The Europeans spend more on the military than does 
     Russia; Japan's outlays exceed those of China; South Korea 
     vastly outspends North Korea. America's implacable enemies 
     are few and pitiful: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and 
     Serbia collectively spend $12 billion to $13 billion on the 
     military, less than such U.S. Allies as Israel and Taiwan.
       A decade ago was not so rosy. Not only did the Soviet Union 
     spend more than twice as much as does Russia, but it formally 
     confronted America. The Warsaw Pact states spent as much as 
     NATO's eight
       Except in one form--terrorism. Although foreign 
     governments, facing the threat of massive retaliation, are 
     unlikely to strike America, ethnic, ideological and religious 
     groups might not be so hesitant. But they are unlikely to do 
     so out of abstract hatred of the United States. To the 
     contrary, most acts of violence, such as those perpetrated by 
     Osama bin Laden, are in response to U.S. intervention abroad. 
     Terrorism is the weapon of choice of the relatively powerless 
     against meddling by the globe's sole superpower.
       In this case, America's strength, its global pervasive 
     presence, is America's weakness. The solution is not more 
     military spending but greater military caution. The risk of 
     terrorism must be added to the other costs of intervening in 
     foreign quarrels with little relevance to U.S. security.
       Should America's military be strengthened? Yes: Problems 
     with readiness, recruiting and retention should be addressed, 
     and missile defenses should be constructed. But outlays could 
     still be slashed by shrinking force levels to match today's 
     more benign threat environment. The world is less, not more 
     dangerous, than a decade ago. America is relatively stronger 
     today than ever before, notwithstanding the misguided claims 
     of Messrs. Bush and McCain.

     

                          ____________________