Rep. RON DELLUMS (D-CA) [House National Security Committee hearing, 8 February 1995.]: "A nation's budget is its clearest expression of its priorities and its values."

Rep. BOB STUMP (R-AZ): "There are many of us on this committee, Mr. Secretary, that will do at every opportunity we have what we can to increase this defense budget to the maximum extent possible."

ROBERT GREENSTEIN: I think it will be impossible to achieve a balanced budget without further cuts in military spending, particularly if we're talking about an array of tax cuts at the same time.

NARRATOR: Today, on "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," we take you behind the headlines of the hot budget battles in Washington, as we explore "Military Spending, the Congress and You."

Vice Admiral JOHN SHANAHAN: I'm Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, director of the Center for Defense Information. You know, from my very first days in the Pentagon, I had to quickly learn the first commandment: That if we said we needed it, the American people could afford it. We spent very little time rationalizing or justifying our needs. From our program today, you may well conclude that nothing much has changed.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R-GA) (during 1992 election campaign): "...not only put them in writing today, but that they will be in a full page ad in TV Guide, that we encourage every American..."

NARRATOR: The "Contract with America" has received a great deal of attention since it was announced in September of 1994. The Republican majorities in the House and Senate elected in November have been vigorously pursuing their goals of a balanced budge, tax reductions, cuts in social programs, and basic changes in the role of the federal government. The stated objective of the Republican program is to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. The achievement of this goal is complicated by the fact that the "Contract" also seeks to exempt military spending, a big chunk of the federal budget, from any cuts.

ROBERT GREENSTEIN: The contract calls for taking half the budget off the table. Social Security would be off the table. Defense would not be reduced below its current levels. And you cannot mandate reductions in interest payments on the debt; you have to meet your interest obligations. So, if Social Security, defense and interest payments are off the table, that's half the budget off the table.

NARRATOR: Robert Greenstein is the director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an influential Washington-based research organization.

Mr. GREENSTEIN: That leaves the other half of the budget from which you have to get all of the cuts, both to eliminate the deficit and achieve budget balance in seven years, while also paying for these very large tax cuts. That would effectively mean that by the year 2002, the unprotected half of the budget would have to be cut about 30 percent, on average. Now that's the side that has education, environment, economic development, health and safety, Food and Drug Administration, protecting the borders against illegal immigrants, the FBI, running the Social Security offices, lots of these basic -- Meals on Wheels for the elderly, lots of these basic federal services.

NARRATOR: The battle over budget cuts has led to emotional political confrontations. Some informed observers worry whether in the current climate the right decisions will be made.

Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute is one of the nation's leading Congress-watchers.

NORMAN ORNSTEIN: We live in a very strange time and a time where an awful lot is going to be budget-driven, but the budget-driven nature of it may move us away from any real debate on the merits of issues or even the tradeoffs and into a much more mindless cut here or a slash here that isn't going to serve us well.

NARRATOR: The Congress has been rushing to cut domestic federal spending. Robert Greenstein thinks some cuts may be harmful to the country.

Mr. GREENSTEIN: Where the new Congress seems to be heading is actually in cutting some of the basic investments in the areas of education, job training, nutrition programs for children that help them become healthier and learn better at school, the kinds of programs that many economists feel you need in order to have the potential for a better skilled workforce, a better research base, better long-term growth.

NARRATOR: Amid claims that the US military isn't ready for the next war and other attacks on the Clinton administration's military policies, some politicians are pushing to increase military spending.

President BILL CLINTON (State of the Union, January 1994): "We must not cut defense further. I hope the Congress without regard to party will support that position."

NARRATOR: The Clinton administration increased spending on military readiness from its first days in office, but this wasn't enough to appease the critics, according to Congressman Ron Dellums.

Rep. RON DELLUMS (D-CA): I think a number of my colleagues perceive President Clinton to be, A, vulnerable politically, particularly in the area of, quote, "defense and military expenditures," and the issue of downsizing the military budget --which, incidentally, began before the Clinton administration -- this is a place where the partisan political battles, tragically, are being waged. And one vulnerable area that they saw was: "This is a 'hollow force." "We're cutting back too quickly." "America is not ready." I think that that's more political than it is real, certainly in military terms.

NARRATOR: In 1994, a number of events took place that moved the Clinton administration further away from reductions in military spending. In September '94, the Defense Department announced the results of its long-awaited nuclear posture review, which rejected proposals for significant new reductions in nuclear weapons and essentially endorsed the programs of the Bush administration.

In October '94, the Defense Department had a chance to flex its military muscle against Saddam Hussein. There's nothing like a good crisis to concentrate support for military spending.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, pointed to this exercise, one of many recent US military actions, as validation of the Pentagon's military policies and needs when he testified in support of the new military budget request before Congress.

GEN JOHN SHALIKASHVILI (before House National Security Committee, 8 Feb. '95): We are in an era in which we are going to have to retain a powerful and, yes, a very ready military force. Only four months ago, at a time when we were only three weeks into our operation in Haiti, several of Saddam Hussein's readiest divisions bolted very suddenly from their garrisons and began a very threatening movement to the south toward Kuwait's borders. A rapid decision was made to order our forces to deploy to the region to position themselves to block yet another attack on our Gulf ally.

"No sooner had our forces begun arriving when we watched Saddam Hussein's divisions, first slow, then halt, and then turn back to the north to return to their garrisons. I think the warning was clear. What stood between Iraq's divisions and our ally was the readiness of our forces, readiness to deploy so rapidly."

NARRATOR: This deployment of some 11,000 US troops, code named "Vigilant Warrior," cost $462 million, part of which was paid for by Kuwait. While some military officials sought to portray this operation as proof of the need for the US military to remain vigilant around the world, subsequent information cast doubt on the need for this expensive demonstration of force.

The authoritative magazine, Aviation Week and Space Technology, reported that on more careful examination, it was likely that the Iraqi military had no intention of invading Kuwait at the time and their movements had been misinterpreted. According to Aviation Week, "US field commanders in Saudi Arabia say they now suspect Iraq never intended to invade Kuwait."

Additional pressure for military spending increases was provided by the sudden emergence in November of 1994 of a major news story about three allegedly unready Army divisions. Newspaper and television coverage across the nation focussed on the allegation that cuts in military spending had led to three Army divisions being designated unready for combat for the first time in many years. The Clinton administration found itself under attack by supporters of increased military spending.

It was only months later that it was revealed that there was no crisis of readiness for these Army divisions. Two of the divisions were simply on the way to retirement as the Army implemented long-standing plans for reducing from 18 to 10 active divisions. The other division was soon back up to snuff after completing some temporarily postponed training.

WILLIAM PERRY, Secretary of Defense (before Senate Appropriations Committee, 14 March '95):"Two of those divisions were the divisions which were scheduled for disestablishment. And so, they are on the way out altogether."

Senator SHELBY: "Phase out"

Secretary PERRY: "Phase out. So we will not be restoring the readiness of those two divisions. They will be disappearing."

NARRATOR: Defense Department officials didn't even draw attention to this fact until early 1995, after President Clinton, under the glare of publicity about the three Army divisions, in December announced that he was going to be adding $25 billion to military spending over the next six years, spending even more money on the politically hot issue of readiness.

President BILL CLINTON (1 Dec. '94 press conference): "Secretary Perry and I have repeatedly stated that our number one commitment is to the readiness and well-being of our men and women in uniform."

NARRATOR: When Defense Secretary Perry came before the Congress in March 1995, Senator Dale Bumpers expressed his skepticism.

Senator DALE BUMPERS (D-AR) (Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, 14 March '95): "Mr. Secretary, let me just give you one small piece of advice, which is probably superfluous and redundant. But at anytime in the future you need money, all you have to do is just downgrade a couple of divisions and announce publicly that you've got two or three that are not quite up to C-5 and this place will run all over itself giving you all the money you want. ...You'd have thought the sky was falling around here."

NARRATOR: The administration's new military spending plans were put together at the end of 1994 in the wake of headlines about deterring Saddam Hussein and the need to remedy a so-called dangerous readiness gap. In February '95, the Clinton administration presented its Fiscal 1996 budget request to Congress, asking for $258 billion for military spending in the next year and a total of $1.6 trillion over the next six years.

A few facts about the US military budget may help to put these numbers in a more understandable context: Since the end of the Cold War with the now-defunct Soviet Union, military spending has declined from the peaks of the late 1980s, but the Defense Department's annual budget remains at or above pre-Reagan Cold War levels.

Senator CARL LEVIN (D-MI) (Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, 9 Feb. '95): "Actually, we're spending more in constant dollars than we were doing during most of the 1970s."

NARRATOR: The focus of concern for the US military used to be the Soviet Union. Most of our military budget was directed at preparing for war with them and their allies. Preparing for war in Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact cost the United States about $170 billion a year in the mid-1980s. At the same time, the US was paying about $70 billion a year to buy and maintain military forces for a possible nuclear war with the Soviets. Those two missions for the US military no longer exist, but yearly defense spending has declined by only about $32 billion since the peak of $304 billion in 1989.

Another way of looking at the US military budget is to compare it with military spending around the world, as has Senator Bumpers, a long time member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Senator BUMPERS (Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, 14 March '95): "I think about the fact that our defense budget is more than all the non-NATO world combined, by far. It is twice as much as the eight most likely adversaries we'll ever face, including China, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Russia."

NARRATOR: Another important fact about US military spending is that it comprises nearly 50 percent of the discretionary spending of the federal government. Discretionary spending is the money the president and Congress must decide to spend each year. Other federal spending is less controllable from year to year and includes entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, as well as interest payments on the national debt. Cutting government spending over the few years in order to balance the budget or finding funds for needed domestic programs becomes much more difficult if cuts in military forces are excluded.

The Clinton administration military spending plans already call for increased budgets later in the decade. But some on Capitol Hill are calling for bigger military budgets now.

Rep. BOB STUMP (R-AZ) (House National Security Committee hearing, 8 Feb.'95): "There are many on this committee that are seriously concerned about the declining defense budget, both in manpower and force structure. I personally don't believe that the Soviet Union has suddenly been rendered impotent. I think the threat is still there. I think the threat of China and Korea is going to grow stronger and stronger all the time.

"And I guess what I want to say is that I think there are many of us on this committee, Mr. Secretary, that will do at every opportunity we have what we can to increase this defense budget to the maximum extent possible."

Rep. FLOYD SPENCE (R-SC) (same hearing): "We will cut non-defense spending, not to be malicious, but because we simply have no choice.

"Unlike any other executive agency, addressing some of the defense budget shortfalls and shortcomings will require a commitment to sustain over time a higher level of spending."

NARRATOR: There are other members of Congress who believe that the United States is spending too much money on the military. At a press conference in January of '95, Senator Bumpers and four colleagues announced their plans to introduce amendments to cut seven questionable programs, including the C-17 transport aircraft, the F-22 fighter, and the Trident submarine missile.

Senator BUMPERS (5 Jan. '95 press conference): "You can't have it both ways. In 1981, you were told you could cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget. I hate to keep pounding on that, but you know Ronald Reagan said something I agree with: 'There's no such thing as a free lunch.' And yet we continue to act as though there was.

"I don't know where the votes are going to be on this. All I'm saying is here's an opportunity to save 33 billion in five years and a 114 billion over 15 years and not make a dent in our strategic capability or our readiness.

NARRATOR: Some Republicans are also concerned about the push to spend more money on the military. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, a senior member of the Budget Committee, has for many years monitored Pentagon spending. He calls himself a "frugal hawk." In a series of recent speeches on the Senate floor, he drew attention to a pattern of wasteful military spending and incompetent financial management. Senator Grassley worries about repeating the pattern of the Reagan era of throwing money at the military.

Senator CHARLES GRASSLEY (23 March '95, Senate speech): "My Republican friends seem bound and determined to start up that slippery slope that we did during the Reagan years towards higher defense budgets. They want to repeat the mistakes of the 1980s. They want to rip open the national money sacks at both ends and get out the big scoop shovel there on the steps of the Pentagon. But why? And for what?

"Remember, the Soviet military threat is gone. The Cold War is over. And there is without a doubt a bipartisan consensus of the need to balance the budget. And the Department of Defense's finance and accounting operation is flat busted."

Mr. ORNSTEIN: We've got a large number of other Republicans who basically say we use one standard for judging domestic spending and a completely different standard for judging defense. And that debate is going to be one of the most interesting ones of the next few years. My guess is that in the end, because you can't have everything and you can't say give defense whatever they want and we'll just take it all out on domestic, it's just not going to work in the context of balanced budget amendments and the other changes. That we're going to have to get down to careful, tough scrutiny of every program and that probably will not be a bad thing for the defense budget.

NARRATOR: A number of observers have noted that today's mammoth federal government is not so much the product of the New Deal or the War on Poverty, but of the massive power assembled in Washington to wage World War II and the Cold War. President John Kennedy spoke to the enlarged world role of the American military in his famous inaugural address.

President JOHN F. KENNEDY (20 January 1963): "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

NARRATOR: President Kennedy was talking about the burden of waging the Cold War, but the US military still seems to be paying any price and bearing any burden. General Colin Powell, when chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1992, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the victory over Iraq, hailed the worldwide prestige of the American military and said history demanded keeping military forces all around the world."

General COLIN POWELL (from "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR" program, "Who Should We Defend"): "We have to remain engaged. It's expected of us. It's the role that history has given us as a superpower. And so, we have to keep forces in Europe, in the Pacific, in Southwest Asia, in the Mediterranean."

NARRATOR: In 1995, even after some reductions in military spending and in troops overseas, US military forces are still present all over the world. Defense Secretary PERRY (before Senate Armed Services Committee, 9 Feb. '95): "This week, we have 300,000 of our military personnel deployed overseas and our budget sustains that very high level of overseas presence."

NARRATOR: Some members of Congress are beginning to question the current military strategy set forth in the Bottom-Up Review completed in 1993, calling for maintaining forces to fight two major regional conflicts nearly simultaneously, without allies if necessary. Current levels of military spending are based on this ambitious strategy.

But does the United States really need to prepare to fight two wars nearly simultaneously? Defense Secretary Perry has himself stated that it's implausible that we would ever have to fight two wars at once.

The Center for Defense Information has calculated that the annual cost of a US military force in 1999 that planned on fighting only one major war at a time would be about $175 billion a year, about $90 billion less than planned levels of military spending. This alternative plan acknowledges that the threats to US security have significantly diminished after the Cold War. It relies more on the reserves and supports an active military force of about one million compared to the one and a half million force envisioned by the Clinton administration.

The US would still have a military budget far above any other country in the world. Being prepared to fight big wars from home is certainly a very expensive proposition.

Defense Secretary PERRY (before Senate Appropriations Committee, 14 March '95): "We could have a much smaller Army, a much smaller military force, a much less expensive military force if our only objective was to protect our borders from attack. Since we don't have substantial threats either from Canada or Mexico, that would be an easy requirement to meet. "But once we take on the task of projecting force to protect South Korea, to deter or to fight Iraq, if necessary, if they go into Kuwait again, if we take on those tasks, then this -- the force structure we have and the budget we're presenting is our best estimate of what it takes to meet those tasks."

NARRATOR: US military spending remains high in large part because of the very ambitious two-war strategy of the US military. But other factors having little or nothing to do with questions of military strategy also help to keep spending high. Members of Congress are reluctant to stop buying weapons or close military bases that bring jobs to their districts, and defense contractors have increasingly played to this concern.

Mr. ORNSTEIN: Let's face it, defense contractors are not dummies. And they have tried to develop an economic base in as many districts of the country as they can, so that when consideration of the weapons systems that they have worked on come up before Congress, more and more members are sensitive to the direct economic implications for their own districts.

NARRATOR: When members of congressional committees hold hearings on the military budget, much of the questioning is directed at protecting weapons programs and military facilities in their home districts.

Rep. JANE HARMAN (D-CA) (House National Security Committee, 8 Feb. '95): "And I represent the aerospace center of the universe."

Rep. DELLUMS (House National Security Committee, 8 Feb. '95): "A nation's budget is its clearest expression of its priorities and its values."

Mr. GREENSTEIN: National security I think is really the integration of effective military capability in defense and taking the steps the economy needs to have an economy that is strong today, but that also will grow in a fashion in which it's strong in the future and be able to support it.

NARRATOR: The decisions about spending priorities being made in Washington today will affect the lives of all Americans for better or worse. Robert Greenstein worries that today's hurried budget choices may actually damage America's true national security.

Mr. GREENSTEIN: Where we may be heading is towards some very sharp changes in which the federal government withdraws to a significant degree from the role it's played in areas from assisting poor children, protecting health and safety and various elements of the environment, but at the same time ceases downsizing the military and actually keeps it at the current level, even with the end of the Cold War, while other parts of the federal government may be reduced a fifth, a third, a quarter as the next five or ten years go by.

Rep. DELLUMS (House National Security Committee, 22 Feb. '95): "Question: Given those realities of a rapidly changing world, why can't the American people rather than a discussion of significant increases in the military budget, envision the possibility of commensurate significant decreases in our military expenditures given that juxtaposition?"

NARRATOR: Members of Congress by their votes will be providing their answers to this questions. Taxpayers will be watching.

Admiral SHANAHAN: Ladies and gentlemen, members of Congress are back in Washington and the defense budget debate is about to begin in earnest. I urge you to watch it carefully for what's at stake is a minimum of $258 billion of your hard earned money for just next year. That works out to be $5 billion a week. Or to put it another way, five really big ones week-in and week-out. You may wish to make your views known to your elected representatives as this debate unfolds, particularly when you discover the devastating effect continued excessive and unnecessary military spending will have on the domestic well-being of this country.

For "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," I am Jack Shanahan.