• Forum
• SITREP
• Military
• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security

• Space

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Public Eye

Sen. LIEBERMAN: The public sees the Congress as the puppet of special interests, and Congress is criticized--rightly so, in many instances--for not being able or willing to make the hard decisions.

Recent polls show that 72 percent of Americans believe that the Federal Government wastes--and I quote--`a great deal.' Let me repeat that statistic: 72 percent of the American public believes that the Federal Government spending involves a great deal of waste. Only 2 percent believe that the Federal Government does not waste very much. And that's less than the 3 percent who are not even sure.

The polls also find that the average respondent pegged the amount of Government waste in the Federal budget at 37 percent. That's an incredible number, 37 percent. It's more than the entire defense budget. More than all medical spending. More than all that we spend on Social Security or on all domestic spending. Clearly, the pundits have created some impressions that are not entirely true, but by the same token, there's enough wrong to recognize a need for an overhaul.

So, it's time for us to step up to the plate and make some hard choices. This bill makes a responsible effort. Many of the programs I propose eliminating or curtailing were put in place four or five decades ago. Since then, the world changed, needs have shifted, yesterday's policy justifications are no longer applicable, but most of the programs remain.

It is irresponsible for us not to look at every program 20 or 30 years old and ask, What is its mission? Has it accomplished it mission? Do we still need it? Is there a better way?

For each item in this legislation, I asked those questions, and determined that the original intent no longer applies, that the need no longer exists, or that there is a better way to accomplish the intended mission.

I suppose what surprised me the most about the process of preparing this legislation was discovering how many of our spending programs were born before many of us in this Chamber could even vote. I question how many of us would support many of these same programs if they were to be introduced today as new legislation. Yet, entrenched as they are, we continue to support them year after year on the grounds that if they were necessary decades ago, they must still be necessary today. It's time to clean house and weed the garden. We know that. We simply need the collective political courage to do it.

When I started this detailed review of various budgetary items earlier this year, my list was somewhat longer, but the Reconciliation Act contained approximately $40 billion in spending cuts I was intending to include in this bill. Even so, this legislation proposes more than $100 billion in deficit reduction. Vice President Gore's NPR recommendations could, according to estimates, result in Federal Government savings of an additional $108 billion. I am very supportive of that process and look forward to participating in implementing as many of those proposals as possible. The American voter has demanded and deserves no less.

I invite my colleagues to join me and the American people in this quest for a better, more responsive government.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[Page: S13554]

Summary of Lieberman Deficit Reduction Program

This summary of the provisions contained in Senator Lieberman's Federal Spending and Deficit Reduction Act of 1933 contains estimates of cost savings. Those estimates are based upon estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office in February, 1993 in its annual compilation of spending and revenue options as required by P.L. 93-344. In several cases the savings do not match precisely with the original CBO estimates because this legislation itself varies somewhat from the CBO suggestions. In addition, various provisions contained in the original draft passed the Congress while this bill was being prepared, so those sections are not included in this final bill.

All estimated savings are approximations based upon CBO baselines.

Sec. 101. Focus Missile Defense Efforts on Theater Defenses and limit SDI primarily to R&D (5-year savings: Approximately $38 Bil).

President Bush's SDI program was intended to provide comprehensive coverage of the US from intercontinental missile attacks by 1997 at an anticipated cost of $39.4 billion over the next five years. That initiative would have abrogated the 1972 ABM treaty, requiring renegotiation. This proposal would reduce funding for 1994-1998 to $3.3 billion per year (or approximately $18 billion over five years) and would provide funds for the development of theater defenses, R&D of ABM -compliant SDI, and related overhead and R&D. It would comply with the ABM treaty, be ready within approximately 10 years, and save more than $20 billion.

The second aspect of this provision would focus most funding for ballistic missile defenses on theater (less-than-inter-continental range) missiles. This option would not reduce the budget for theater missiles but would decrease the total budget for the National Missile Defenses (NMD) program from $39 billion to $22 billion over five years. This option would limit the NMD program to research, effectively delaying deployment of a national missile defense system until the middle of the next decade.

Sec. 102. Scale back DOE's weapons production and maintenance activities to support an arsenal of 4,000 warheads (5-year savings: Approximately $5.5 Bil).

Reducing the US nuclear arsenal to 4,000 warheads would save more than $2 billion per year. With this inventory limit, DOE would satisfy START while being able to economize its operations. This would reduce warhead production by two-thirds and also would permit DOE to shut down certain unneeded reactors resulting in an immediate savings alone of $200 million.

Sec. 103. Reduce DOE's nuclear research and development (5-year savings: Approximately $1.2 Bil).

Nearly $2 billion of the DOE's funding goes to weapons RD&T. A 10-percent reduction in RD&T through 1996 and a 40-percent reduction beginning in 1997 would save $700 million a year. This option is consistent with the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1993 which mandates a temporary ban on nuclear testing.

Sec. 104. Use early retirement incentives to reduce military personnel (5-year savings: Approximately $2.9 Bil).

Accelerating the drawdown of the armed services' use of early retirement incentive for those with 15-19 years of service produces savings in long-term retirement costs. Otherwise, those personnel would wait several years until they were eligible for normal retirement and slow the promotion of more junior personnel. This program would expire in 1995 to avoid an entrenched view of retirement after 15 years.

Sec. 105. Revamp military family housing. (5-year savings: Savings could reach $2.3 Bil, but are not included in these totals. Requires study.)

DOD provided housing costs $11,000 per year which is more expensive than cash housing allowances which average $7,000 per year. The percentage seeking housing is expected to increase from 30 to 35 percent over the next four years. Most DOD housing is almost 50 years old, much of which soon will require replacement or revitalization. This option requires the Secretary of Defense to examine options for reducing the cost of military family housing because private sector costs appear to be lower than government costs. Depending upon the Secretary's decisions, savings could total $2.3 billion.

Sec. 106. Reduce and reshape DOD civilian work force (5-year savings: Approximately $11.4 Bil).

Since 1982, the Department of Defense the ratio of military personnel to civilian personnel has dropped from 2.1 military employees for each civilian employee to 1.9 to 1. The current trend indicates that the ratio is expected to decline further to 1.8 to 1 by 1994. During that same time, pay scales have increased one full grade level. Savings would accrue if the ratio returned to 2.0 to 1 and if the grade creep were reversed through atttrition and a partial hiring freeze. This provision anticipates that the 2.0 to 1 ratio can be achieved by September 30, 1997.

Sec. 107. Consolidate and downsize DoD's recruiting process (5-year savings: Approximately $1.3 Bil).

DOD spends $2 billion and devotes 30,000 work-years at 6,600 recruiting stations, resulting in an average of 10 active recruits and 21 reserve recruits per recruiter. This proposal requires the Defense Department to introduce efficiencies to operate its recruiting effort to achieve the same level as the 1984-89 level when the average was 14 active recruits and 27 reserve recruits per recruiter.

Sec. 108. Reduce federal subsidies for non-necessity merchandise (5-year savings: Approximately $2.1 Bil).

The merchandise sales system, originally established to assure access to merchandise at remote bases and now available to a wide range of beneficiaries, currently provides an average price reduction of 25 percent compared with civilian prices. Savings would result from a gradual reduction of approximately one-quarter the benefit with subsidy reductions directed at non-necessities. Various protections built into this provision give the Secretary the authority to assure that these subsidy reductions cause no hardship.

Sec. 109. Assign additional peacetime duties to military personnel (5-year savings: Approximately $ 1.8 Bil).

Approximately 250,000 civilian and 190,000 military personnel provide operating support (medical, engineering, maintenance) at military bases. Savings would result from shifting 10,000, or 4 percent, of the civilian positions to military personnel. The Secretary has the discretion to assure that any changes do not detract from the military skills required of military personnel.

Sec. 110. Increase support of U.S. forces by host nations (5-year savings: Approximately $ 5.0 Bil).

In 1991, the U.S. entered burden sharing agreements with Japan (75 percent of costs excluding salaries) and South Korea (33 percent of costs excluding salaries). This provision anticipates similar savings by applying a similar model, based upon burden sharing range achieved with other host nations, subject to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to other countries where U.S. armed forces are stationed.

Sec. 201. Eliminate redundant foreign affairs activities in State Department (5-year savings: Approximately $ 0.7 Bil).

Various new, small subagencies have evolved at the State Department. Given the end of the Cold War, many of these subagencies and their missions may not be as critical in the new world order. This provision gives the Secretary of State the authority to assess the real needs of the State Department, to consolidate those subagencies along harmonized lines of authority, and to eliminate funding for redundant and no longer necessary subagencies and activities. This would return funding of State Department activities to the 1984 level, during the middle of the Cold War before costs began creeping upward, after adjusting for inflation. This provision would save tax dollars while making State Department operations more efficient. This estimate assumes half the savings that CBO indicated were possible.