March 30, 1994

March 30, 1994 | FYI on

This Is Defense? Non-Defense Spending in the Defense Budget

(Archived document, may contain errors)

March 30,1994

THIS IS DEFENSE? NON-DEFENSE SPENDING IN THE DEFENSE BUDGET

By John Luddy Defense expenditures have fallen steadily since 1986. By 1999, if the "Non-Defense" Spending Is Increasing Rapidly Clinton defense budget for 1995-1999 Due to Congressional Mandates is adopted, America will be spending a little more than half of what it did in Billions of Dollars $4.6 Congress 1986 to defend itself. $5 lorially Directed At the same time that the defense 4 M= N;=n-Congresslorridly Directed spending has been shrinking, more and ------------------- --- more of the defense budget has been 3 $2-3 spent on non-defense items. Expendi- tures on such non-defense activities as 2 $1.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - World Cup Soccer ($9 million), the 1 $.024 $.055 $.054 $.083 Summer Olympics ($2 million), and a Hawaiian Volcano Observatory ($500,000) have been growing dramati- 1990 1991 1992 1993 cally. During last week's Senate budget debate, Senator Tom Harkin (D-1A) Source: General Accounting Office, DOD Budget Department of Defense Support tried to take $513 million from the Pen- for Domestic CWIAaA*m November 1993. tagon's missile defense budget and 2 spend it on domestic drug law enforcement efforts.

The Defense Budget: Domestic Pork? A 1993 General Accounting Office report reveals that from fiscal 1990 through fiscal 1993, the Defense Department spent at least $10.4 billion on non-defense items. 3 But the problem may be worse than that. As the report observes: "This figure ... understates the full amount spent because data on such activities are incomplete. YYI#141-94

I For a full discussion of the Clinton defense budget, see Baker Spring, "Clinton Defense Budget Falls Far Short," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 217, March 15, 1994. 2 Congressional Record, March 22, 1994, p. S342 1. 3 Report to the Ranking Republican, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, "DOD Budget: Department of Defense Support for Domestic Civil Activities," General Accounting Office, November 1993. ected

The Office of the Secretary of As Overall Defense Spending Is Cut, Defense, the military services, Non-Defense Outlays Skyrocket and the defense agencies do not maintain all relevant cost data concerning their participation in Chan e . S ndinr. 1990-1993 these activities. Furthermore, 250% the data they do maintain exist ------------ in a variety of formats, which 200 +238% ------------ complicates any analysis." ISO Because of this lack of ac- ------------ countability, and because it is 100 ------------ easy to hide a few million dol- so -19.8% lars of domestic pork within a defense budget of over $270 bil- 0 lion, legislators often try to con- ceal funding for their favorite -50 Non-Defense Defense Budget programs under the heading of "National Defense." In recent Related Spending Authority years, the percentage of the de- fense budget dedicated to these Source: Department of Ddense. often frivolous expenditures has been climbing. In 1993, the Defense Department spent $4.6 billion on domestic civil activities having nothing to do with the nation's defense. These funds went to programs which, regardless of their inherent value, did nothing to improve or maintain America's ability to fight and win wars. If this money were redirected to the nation's defense, America could: Buy one modern nuclear aircraft carrier. The Clinton Administration plans a force of eleven active carriers, too few to respond to threats to America's worldwide national security interests. In its own review of America's defense requirements after the Cold War, The Heri- tage Foundation recommended a force of twelve carriers.4 The cumulative $4.6 billion spent in 1993 on such non-defense programs as Legacy Research Management ($50 million), Tide- lands for Washington State ($5 million), and Natural Gas Fuel Cell and Cooling Demonstra- tions ($24 million) could buy and maintain an additional aircraft carrier at $4.3 billion. V Maintain two Army divisions. The Clinton Administration's "Bottom-Up Review" of Amer- ica's defense requirements calls for an Army with ten active divisions. Analysts at The Heri- tage Foundation have determined that twelve Army divisions is the minimum required to respond to a major regional conflict anywhere in the world.5 It costs $2 billion a year to train and operate an Army division. The $4.6 billion allocated in the defense budget for such non- defense programs as U.S.-Japan Management Training ($ 10 million) and on the National De-

4 See Kim R. Holmes, ed., A Safe and Prosperous America: A U.S. Foreign and Defense Policy Blueprint (Washington, D.C.: Ile Heritage Foundation, 1993). For a detailed discussion of Navy requirements, see John Luddy,"Charting a Course for the Navy in the 21st Century," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 979, March 9,1994. 5 See Baker Spring, "Building an Army for the Post-Cold War Era," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 956, September 24, 1993, and "Clinton's Defense Budget Falls Far Short," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 217, March 15, 1994.

fense Center for Environmental Ex- "'Non-Defense" Defense Spending: cellence ($20 mil- What Could be Bought with the Money lion) -an Amy-funded pro- Army Divisions Navy Carriers gram in Johnstown, Penn- 12 4C, 10 12 sylvania, in the dis- 10 e e 11 trict of A A Representative --- John Murtha, the Chairman of the Defense Appro- 2A ,A priations Subcom- mittee-would be better spent on 999 maintaining an Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Army large Budget Budget with Budget Budget with enough to defend Non-Defense Non-Defense America. Spending Cuts Spending Cuts Build a defense Source: Heritage calculations, based on GAO and DoD figures. for America against ballistic missiles. The U.S territory is defenseless against long-range (strategic) mis- sile attack. Former Secretary of Defense Les Aspin identified "new nuclear dangers" as one of the most dangerous post-Cold War threats that U.S defense policy needs to address. This threat specifically includes nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. In a speech before the National War College in March of 1993, Aspin described the "new nuclear danger" as "no more than a handful of nuclear warheads in the hands of terrorists, terrorist states, and other organiza- tions." Aspin went on to call for "...protection for the United States or its troops ... and that means SDI [strategic defenses] or some restructuring of SDI .... 996 President Bush's last de- fense budget requested $5.4 billion for strategic missile defense. 7 Congress provided only $3.8 billion for missile defense for fiscal 1993. Yet during the same year, Congress spent $4.6 billion of "defense" dollars for the World Cup and World University Games, the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, the Texas Regional Institute for Environmental Studies, and other pro- jects. Tell It Like It Is. The American people entered the post-Cold War era expecting a "'peace divi- dend." The fall of the Soviet Union and collapse of worldwide communism implied that vast sav- ings could now be gleaned from the defense budget. Liberal lawmakers and pundits railed against the "bloated" Pentagon budget. With the election of President Clinton, they saw an opportunity to re-

6 Les Aspin, speech to the National War College, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C., March 25, 1993. 7 Ile Bush Administration's fiscal 1992 request was sufficient to keep the U.S. strategic program on track for full deployment of ballistic missile defenses by 2002, which The Heritage Foundation has recommended. See Baker Spring, "A Plan for Preserving America's Military Strength:' Heritage Foundation Memo To: President-Elect Clinton No. 4, December 28,1992.

duce defense spending in order to fund-to use the President's word-greater "investment" in do- mestic spending programs. Today, as the Clinton Administration's defense cuts begin to take hold, many Americans are con- cemed that the readiness and quality of U.S. armed forces are deteriorating. Indeed, indicators in a number of areas-the quality of new recruits, the maintenance levels of military equipment, and the dramatic reduction in acquisition of new weapons and technology-show clearly that such large cuts are taking place too quickly. 8 As U.S. forces are stretched thin by continuing security commit- ments around the globe, the time has come to end the use of defense dollars to fund civilian priori- ties like medical research and a host of pet congressional projects. Funding for these programs should be debated and provided in the domestic budget categories where they belong, not hidden within the defense budget.

8 For a discussion of the decline in American military readiness, see John Luddy, "Stop the Slide Toward a Hollow Military," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 209, January 14, 1994, and Baker Spring, "Clinton's Defense Budget Falls Far Short," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Update No. 217, March 15, 1994.

APPENDIX Some Non-Defense-Related Programs Funded by the Defense Department, 1993

National Guard Civilian Youth Opportunities Pilot Program $30,000,000 National Guard Civilian Youth Program $14,000,000 National Guard Outreach Los Angeles $10,000,000 Urban Youth Program $3,000,000 STARBASE Youth Education Program $2,256,000 Defense Conversion $472,000,000

Active Forces Transition Enhancements $254,000,000

Disaster Relief $70,000,000

Disaster Relief Efforts $50,000,000 Philadelphia Naval Shipyard Economic Conversion $50,000,000 Legacy Resource Management $50,000,000 Guard and Reserve Transition Initiatives $40,000,000 Civilian Community Corps $40,000,000 Presidio of San Francisco $27,000,000 Disaster Relief Planning $10,000,000 World Cup USA $9,000,000 Environmental Impact on Indian Lands $8,000,000 World University Games $6,000,000 Defense Conversion Commission $5,000,000

National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice $2,700,000 Summer Olympics $2,000,000 National Guard Health Care to Communities $1,500,000 Hawaiian Volcano Observatory $500,000 Breast Cancer Research $210,000,000

AIDS Research $56,891,000

National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence $20,000,000 Synaptic Transmission Research $3,000,000 Prostate Disease Research $2,000,000

National Center for Advanced Gear Manufacturing $5,000,000 Strategic Environmental Research and Developernent Program $180,000,000 Sernatech Research $100,000,000 Dual-Use Critical Technology Partnerships $100,000,000 Regional Technology Alliances Assistance Program $100,000,000 Manufacturing Extension Programs $100,000,000 Defense Dual-Use Assistance Extension Program $100,000,000 University Research Grants $171,450,000 Multiuse High-Performance Computing $68,600,000 High-Temperature Superconductor/Diamond materials $65,000,000 Commercial-Military Integration Partnerships $50,000,000 Multi-Chip Modules $46,200,000 Advanced Materials Synthesis and Processing $30,000,000 Manufacturing Engineering Education Programs $30,000,000 Agile Manufacturing and Enterprise Integration $30,000,000 Rapid Prototyping of Application Specific Signal Processors $26,000,000 Defense Advanced Manufacturing Technology Partnerships $25,000,000 Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage $20,000,000 Medical Free Electron Laser $20,000,000 Historically Black Colleges and Universities $15,000,000 Infrared Focal Plane Array Technology $15,000,000 Multifunction Self-Aligned Gate Technology $10,000,000 U.S.-Japan Management Training $10,000,000 Texas Regional Institute for Environmental Studies $5,000,000 Coal Utilization Center $5,000,000 Acoustic Charge Transport $5,000,000 Assistance to Local Educational Agencies $50,000,000 Tidelands for Washington State $5,000,000 Natural Gas Fuel Cell Demonstration $18,000,000 Natural Gas Cooling Demonstration $6,000,000

Source: General Accounting Office.

About the Author