[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2246-S2248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S.J. Res. 10. A joint resolution supporting a base Defense Budget 
that at the very minimum matches 4 percent of gross domestic product; 
to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am introducing today a joint resolution, 
S.J. Res. 10, with Congressman Trent Franks introducing the identical 
joint resolution in the House, which sets a minimum baseline for 
defense spending.
  By establishing a minimum defense base budget of 4 percent, this 
country can achieve two critical needs--national security and economic 
growth.
  For the past few weeks, this Congress has been debating an economic 
stimulus plan. Defense spending, along with infrastructure spending and 
tax cuts, has a greater stimulative impact on the economy than some of 
the provisions in there. In fact, I had amendments, which I will 
describe in a minute, that would have increased the percentage in this 
huge bill, so that you would have maybe up to 10 percent for 
transportation infrastructure and then defense--I will explain that in 
more detail later.
  Our level of defense spending must consider the resources needed to 
meet current and future needs. In order to provide this stability, 
Congress needs to guarantee a not less than baseline in defense 
funding, enabling the Pentagon to execute sustained multiyear program 
investments. Guaranteeing a

[[Page S2247]]

baseline budget, not including supplemental, that sets the floor based 
on our GDP is the best way to accomplish this.
  At this point, I acknowledge that I had an experience back during the 
first hearing we had for the confirmation of then-Defense Secretary 
Rumsfeld. I asked the question at that time: We have serious problems. 
We don't know what our future needs are going to be. We may think we 
know what they are going to be today--and we have a lot of smart 
generals who will tell us, but they are going to be wrong. I remember 
at that time I said that in 1994 someone testified and said in 10 years 
we would no longer need to have a ground force, that everything would 
be done from the air in a precision, clean way. That would be awfully 
nice, but that is not the way it happened. I said, recognizing that we 
need to have the best of everything, what would be your recommendation? 
He said that he made a study of this--it was not his, but he said that 
if you will go back and study it over the last 100 years, the average 
amount of defense spending has been 5.7 percent of GDP. That was all 
during the 20th century, for 100 years.
  Now, we went down at the end of the 1990 to as low as 2.9 percent, 
and now we are at 3.6 percent. The problem is the predictability. It is 
not there. We don't know in these systems what we can rely on. We know 
the cost of closing down a manufacturing line, but we don't have the 
predictability we need.
  There are some who think by cutting unnecessary weapons systems along 
with reforming DOD's procurement process, we can reduce defense 
spending and still maintain a military level that could defend our 
Nation and reach the minimum expectations of the American people. The 
problem with that is that it doesn't happen that way. Yes, we need 
acquisition reform, I agree. But the overall budget outlays and the 
problems we have--this alone will not rebuild our military.
  We could eliminate weapons systems that are called low-hanging fruit. 
That has already been done several years ago. I think we all remember--
and some would rather forget--that after the Cold War, there were so 
many in this Chamber who said we were in a position then where we did 
not need the military because the Cold War was over. We talked about 
all kinds of schemes that would transfer previous military spending 
into current spending for social programs. This is the way people were 
thinking at that time, that the Cold War is over. They had this 
euphoric attitude that we didn't need to continue a strong defense.
  We have been trying to get past a bow wave created in the 1990s. As a 
result, the amount of defense spending actually appropriated during 
that 8 years, the 1990s, was $412 billion above the budget request. In 
other words, the budget request was $412 billion below what was 
sustained at the beginning of that 8-year period. This is what we are 
paying for now. Little did we know at that time that 9/11 would come, 
and that while we are trying to rebuild our military in terms of 
modernization, force strength, we would be attacked and have to start 
defending America and prosecuting a war.
  I believe we should spend only as much as we need to ensure our 
national defense--no more, no less. This joint resolution sets a 
minimum baseline for defense spending. By establishing a minimum 
defense budget of 4 percent, this country can achieve two critical 
needs--national security and economic health.
  First, it will allow our military to develop and build the next 
generation of weapons and equipment. This is something we have been 
concerned about--weapons and equipment that will be needed to maintain 
our national security over the next 40 years or more. The age of the 
last KC-135R, when it retires, will be 70 years old, and the B-52 will 
be even older than that. We are still doing this. We need this 
contribution for more heavy equipment. Right now, we have gotten into a 
problem of not developing them. They say the old KC-135R--we have a few 
more years on that. If we started today on a new lift vehicle to 
replace that, it would be several years before we would be able to have 
these replaced.
  The second thing is it will create and maintain jobs across America 
and sustain our military industrial base. Investing in our Nation's 
defense provides thousands of sustainable American jobs and provides 
for our national security at the same time. Experts estimate that each 
$1 billion in procurement spending correlates to 6,500 jobs.
  Major defense procurement programs are all manufactured in the United 
States with our aerospace industry alone employing 655,000 workers 
spread across 44 States. The U.S. shipbuilding industry supports more 
than 400,000 workers in 47 States.
  Establishing a minimum baseline defense budget will allow the 
Department of Defense and the services to plan for and fund acquisition 
programs based on a minimum known budget through what we call our FYDP 
program.
  We are no longer able to complete purchases of large acquisition 
programs in 3 to 5 years. The KC-X will take over 30 years to complete 
once its contract is awarded. We will still be flying these up until 
that time.
  Programming from a known minimum budget for the outyears will 
translate to less programming and more stability for thousands of 
businesses throughout the United States at decreased costs.
  This week, I voted against this massive Government spending bill that 
provided plenty in the way of more wasteful Government spending and 
little in the way of stimulative opportunities such as defense 
spending.
  I offered two amendments. One would have increased defense spending, 
and without changing the top line of the bill that was before us, it 
would change within it to have more defense spending and provide jobs. 
At the same time, in this entire $900 billion--or whatever it ends up 
being--bill that we are prepared to vote on out of conference, only $27 
billion was in roads, bridges, and the things that Americans know we 
need.
  If we had that along with the additional amount or percentage that 
would go to defense spending, it would equate to an increase of an 
additional 4 million jobs. This is what we have heard President Obama 
talking about for quite some time. That is one way to do it. At the 
same time, we have something that is lasting.
  We--and certainly the Chair knows this because she sits on the same 
committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee--we are going to 
be doing a reauthorization of the highway bill. There is more we could 
have done in this particular bill that is totally inadequate in terms 
of putting people to work. The amendments we offered were defeated.
  Today Congressman Trent Franks and I are simultaneously offering a 
joint resolution to keep this country safe, restore our military to the 
level of capability and readiness the people of this country demand, 
and provide for sustainable jobs in almost every State in the country.
  By voting for this joint resolution, we send a clear signal to our 
military, to our allies, to our enemies--all alike--that we are 
committed to the security of this Nation and that we will not have to 
go through something like we went through during the nineties.
  One of the great heroes of our time is GEN John Jumper. Before he was 
Chief of the Air Force, he stood in 1998 and made a very courageous 
statement. He said now the Russians are cranking out through their SU-
30s, SU-35s, a strike vehicle better than anything we have in this 
country. The best ones at that time were the F-15 and F-16. Had it not 
been for his statement as a wakeup call to the American people, China, 
that bought a bunch of SU vehicles from Russia would have better 
vehicles than we were sending up with our fliers in potential combat. 
All of a sudden, we were able to turn around and start programs such as 
the F-22 and F-35 so we could be No. 1.
  The American people assume all the time we are No. 1, and obviously 
we are not. When the American people find out the best artillery piece 
we have right now, which is called Paladin--it is World War II 
technology. You have to get out and swab the breach after every shot. 
It is outrageous. Prospective enemies in the field would have better 
equipment than we would have.
  The best way to do this and ensure this in the future is to have a 
baseline. I am hoping we will get the support of enough Senators to get 
this passed in both the House and the Senate since it is a joint 
resolution.
  Lastly, let me address some of the points that were said by the 
Senator

[[Page S2248]]

from Florida. I agree with all his comments. He is a little nicer about 
it than I am, I guess. Don't lose sight of the fact that this is 
supposed to be a stimulus bill, not a spending bill. But it is a 
spending bill.
  We had people analyze what in this bill will stimulat the economy. 
There are two things that can do it: the right types of tax relief. We 
know this is true. We remember what happened during President Kennedy's 
term and the recommendation he made when he said we have to have more 
revenues to run our Great Society programs. The best way to increase 
revenue is decrease marginal rates. He decreased marginal rates. 
Between the years 1961 and 1968, our revenues increased by 62 percent. 
Unbelievable.
  In the year 1980, the total amount of money that came from marginal 
rates was $244 billion. In 1990, it was $466 billion. It almost doubled 
in the decade when we had the greatest reductions in capital gains 
rates, in marginal rates, inheritance tax rates.
  There are only two very minor items in this bill that address the tax 
situation. One has to do with accelerated depreciation. Another is with 
loss carryback, increasing it from 2 years to 5 years, I believe it is. 
If you add that together in terms of the cost that is in the bill, this 
$900 billion bill we are going to be passing, we have to keep in mind 
that is a very small part. It amounts to about 3\1/3\ percent. The 
other way you can stimulate is to increase jobs.
  I mentioned we had an amendment to increase jobs. It is outrageous 
that there is only $27 billion worth of highway construction, road 
construction, and bridge construction that we desperately need in this 
country in this bill.
  We have right now $64 billion worth of shovel-ready jobs that we 
could actually produce in this country, and all we have is 3\1/3\ 
percent of the entire amount of $900 billion going to that type of 
program. That is where I come up with the conclusion that this bill is 
7 percent stimulus and 93 percent spending.
  I have to tell you, back when the first $700 billion program came 
along in October, yes, that came from our administration, a Republican 
administration, a Republican Secretary of the Treasury. But also the 
Democrats were all very enthusiastically behind it. I opposed it at 
that time and said there are two problems with it. No. 1, this amount 
of money, $700 billion, is more money, it is the largest expenditure, 
largest authorization in the history of the world, and we are giving 
it, No. 2, to a guy with no guidelines, without any kind of oversight.
  We have seen now that has not worked. Now we have the second half of 
that, and we find out yesterday the current Secretary of the Treasury 
is going to use it any way he wants. Again, no oversight. This was a 
horrible mistake. That was the $700 billion last October.
  Now we are faced with something far greater than that. I know it is 
going to go through. It is a Democratic bill. It is not a bipartisan 
bill. It is not a compromise. It is a Democratic bill. They took the 
House bill and the Senate bill and something will come from that. 
Whether it is closer to the House bill or the Senate bill, it does not 
matter. It is going to be close to $900 billion, something we should 
not have had.
  We are thinking in new terms now. I used to say back during the $700 
billion, if you take the total number of families in America who are 
filing tax returns and do your math, it comes to $5,000 a family. That 
was bad enough. This bill comes to $17,400 a family over a 10-year 
period. That is what we have to start thinking about.
  I am hoping the American people will look at this bill and realize 
this gigantic spending bill follows a philosophy that you can spend 
your way out of a recession. It has never happened before. It is not 
going to happen with this bill.
  We want to do the very best we can. I know President Obama did not 
want to go as far this way. I think the House and the Senate have 
steered this into a bigger spending bill than he would have liked. I 
think he would have liked more stimulants in this bill.
  Let's do the best we can with it and then let's get busy and try the 
things we know have worked in the past and will work in the future.

                          ____________________