The Clinton administration's defense budget request of $265.3 billion for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 represents a 2 percent real decrease from current (FY 1997) spending. As such, it continues a 13-year-long trend of real defense spending decline and it marks a 38 percent real reduction in spending from defense budgets in the mid-l98Os. The FY 1998 defense budget request represents 3.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, down more than 50 percent from the 1985 level of 6.4 percent. The FY 1998 defense budget request, when measured in constant dollars, represents the smallest defense budget since 1950.

The Clinton administration's defense budget request of $265.3 billion for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 represents a 2 percent real decrease from current (FY 1997) spending. As such, it continues a 13-year-long trend of real defense spending decline and it marks a 38 percent real reduction in spending from defense budgets in the mid-l98Os. The FY 1998 defense budget request represents 3.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, down more than 50 percent from the 1985 level of 6.4 percent. The FY 1998 defense budget request, when measured in constant dollars, represents the smallest defense budget since 1950.

Comments concerning the United States Defense Budget is presented.

President Clinton's defense budget request of $270.6 billion for fiscal year (FY) 1999 represents a real decline of 1.1 percent from current spending levels and continues a 14-year trend of real decline in defense spending - over 39 percent decline from rnid-1980s levels. It also represents a continuation of the defense budget "status quo"--Much-needed, long-term investment to recapitalize the U.S. armed services are being mortgaged to pay for short-term underfunded operating and sustainment needs. The FY 1999 defense budget request represents approximately 3.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, down by more than 50 percent from the mid-1980s level of 6.3 percent. Continuing a downward trend, the FY 1999 defense budget request, when measured in constant dollars, represents the smallest defense budget since the beginning of the Korean War in 1950. These downward trends will continue, and indeed be exacerbated by the proposed growth in domestic spending in the President's federal budget request.

On May 15, the Defense Department is scheduled to submit to Congress the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the blueprint that is intended to shape American military strategy and determine the structure of U.S. forces in the future. Though the final version of the QDR has yet to be released extensive press accounts and other sources reveal the scope of the review and the course it is taking. The likelihood of worsening mismatches between military strategy and resources under the QDR has caused many, including a number of senior military officers, to conclude that the prime goal of the review has been rationalizing smaller defense budgets rather than actually tailoring U.S. military forces and budgets to the strategic needs of the post-Cold War world. The artificial constraint of limited defense budgets led one senior general to conclude that "we still have dollars driving THE QDR instead of strategy," Similarly, the report of the National Defense Panel, the independent board of outside experts mandated by Congress to assess the QDR, is expected to emphasize the strategy-resources mismatch in its report accompanying the QDR, which is to be submitted to the Secretary of Defense December 1, 1997. "The QDR

On May 15, the Defense Department is scheduled to submit to Congress the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the blueprint that is intended to shape American military strategy and determine the structure of U.S. forces in the future. Though the final version of the QDR has yet to be released extensive press accounts and other sources reveal the scope of the review and the course it is taking. The likelihood of worsening mismatches between military strategy and resources under the QDR has caused many, including a number of senior military officers, to conclude that the prime goal of the review has been rationalizing smaller defense budgets rather than actually tailoring U.S. military forces and budgets to the strategic needs of the post-Cold War world. The artificial constraint of limited defense budgets led one senior general to conclude that "we still have dollars driving THE QDR instead of strategy," Similarly, the report of the National Defense Panel, the independent board of outside experts mandated by Congress to assess the QDR, is expected to emphasize the strategy-resources mismatch in its report accompanying the QDR, which is to be submitted to the Secretary of Defense December 1, 1997. "The QDR talks the talk' when it comes to strategy," said one panel member, "but doesn't seem to walk the walk' when it comes to budgets."

On May 15, the Defense Department is scheduled to submit to Congress the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the blueprint that is intended to shape American military strategy and determine the structure of U.S. forces in the future. Though the final version of the QDR has yet to be released, extensive press accounts and other sources reveal the scope of the review and the course it is taking. From the outset, the review's one fixed variable has been the size of the defense budget. Despite vows by senior Department of Defense civilian and military officials that "everything is on the table," the underlying premise of the QDR is the assumption that the defense budget cannot be increased. For several months, Secretary of Defense William Cohen has maintained that "the QDR is not, in essence, a budget-driven exercise ... What we're doing in this QDR is trying to find the right mix of strategy, programs, and resources." But Cohen also has said, "Just as we have to be realistic about the many threats that we face in the world today, we have to be realistic about the kind of environment that we re operating in as far as fiscal restraint.

On February 1st, President Clinton delivered his defense budget to Congress, officially beginning the fiscal year 2000 defense budget cycle. Although U.S. military forces continue to confront a series of worsening problems, the President's admission last fall that the services are facing serious quality of life, readiness and modernization shortfalls, and his recognition that increased defense spending will be necessary to address them, marked an important milestone in the defense debate.