[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 112 (Thursday, July 23, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7946-S7947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           DEBT AND SECURITY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, earlier this year I came to the 
Senate floor and outlined a number of foreign policy principles that 
have served our Nation well in the past and which I believe would serve 
us well in the future. In doing so, it was my hope that these 
principles would serve as the basis of steady bipartisan cooperation 
between the Senate and the new administration. These principles 
transcend party; they are time-tested; and they can be summed up in a 
single sentence: the cornerstone of U.S. National security policy lies 
in maintaining a strong and ready defense and in keeping our alliances 
strong.
  As the Senate continues to debate the Defense authorization bill, I 
would like to take the opportunity to reiterate the importance of this 
fundamental principle of action and to highlight something that 
seriously endangers our ability to uphold it. I am referring to our 
Nation's staggering National debt.
  The national debt threatens our way of life; it threatens the value 
of our national currency; and it threatens our ability to pay for 
entitlements that millions of Americans depend on. Yet, just as 
importantly, the national debt also endangers our position in the 
world, the long term capabilities of our military, and the long-term 
viability of the all-volunteer force that is currently serving us so 
ably and courageously in two very challenging wars. And that is why it 
is increasingly urgent that we focus on this growing threat and do 
something about it.
  Let us put the current situation in context. The story of the 
American military over the past century reflects what historians have 
described as a feast or famine approach to defense. The pattern goes 
back at least as far as our entry into World War I and extends through 
our involvement in World War II, the Korean war, and Vietnam. In every 
case, the U.S. military underwent an abrupt expansion of manpower and 
armaments only to be followed by calls for a drawdown in the size of 
our force and a reduction in defense spending. This pattern, though not 
always well-advised, may have been understandable in some cases in the 
past. But the nature of our current threats and position in the world 
makes it indefensible today.
  With developments in weapons technology, America no longer has the 
luxury of isolation. And September 11 showed us that we can no longer 
leave ungoverned territories unwatched. The demands on today's military 
are constant. We are either on offense, or we are at risk. Feast or 
famine and isolationism no longer work.
  And this is why our ever-growing national debt is so perilous--
because even those who believe as I do that a strong and ready defense 
is the cornerstone of our security will not be able to guarantee it if 
current fiscal trends persist. Put simply: if we do nothing to pay down 
this debt and address the needs of Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid, then America risks finding itself so weakened financially 
that some day in the not-too-distant future we just will not have the 
resources we need to equip and maintain our forces in the places they 
are needed most.
  Consider the fact that the Federal Government is now spending an 
average of $100 million a day just to pay the interest on a single 
piece of legislation, the $1 trillion stimulus bill that Congress 
passed earlier this year. Or that it is estimated we will pay $347 
billion in interest on just this one bill over the next 10 years. At 
current rates of spending, that is enough to provide health care for 
our Nation's veterans for more than 5 years. It is enough to cover the 
salaries and benefits of all our active-duty and reserve forces for 
2\1/2\ years. Or it is nearly $350 billion we could put back into the 
pockets of the American people at a time when they could really use it.
  And that is just one piece of legislation. Now imagine what it costs 
to finance our entire national debt. By the end of the decade, it is 
estimated that under the President's budget we will spend nearly $800 
billion a year just to cover the interest on the national credit card--
not reducing what we owe, but just keeping the creditors from knocking 
on the door. Here is the frightening part of where we are: by 2017, the 
amount of money we are expected to spend on interest alone will exceed 
the amount of money we are expected to spend that year on all of 
defense.
  The implications of this for our national security are clear. More 
and more, our ability to deploy forces with state-of- the-art weaponry 
is in competition with our financial obligation to the countries that 
hold our debt, and we get closer to the day when countries that hold 
large amounts of U.S. debt, such as China and Saudi Arabia, could 
directly influence the foreign policy decisions of a future President.
  We also get closer to the day when our allies and partners will 
rethink the value of a relationship with the United States.
  Sooner or later, we will have to face the fact that we are on a path 
that leads to some very unpleasant choices. Either we default on our 
debts, which we will not do, print more money to cover those debts and 
tempt a massive inflationary spiral, or be forced to withdraw from our 
security commitments, just as Great Britain did at the end of the 
Second World War.
  America's all-volunteer force costs a lot of money to maintain. 
Indeed, one of the major reasons we have been able to avoid 
conscription in this country since the Vietnam war has been our ability 
to maintain recruiting and retention policies through an attractive 
retirement system, recruiting bonuses, incentive pay and sensible 
housing allowances. In current dollars, military personnel costs have 
increased from $69 billion to $131 billion a year over the past decade.
  But these necessary expenses will soon be crowded out by the growing 
cost of long-term entitlements and the growing principal and higher and 
higher interest payments on our debt. And spending increases we now 
regard as necessary may no longer be possible. The choice is clear: in 
order to provide for the common defense, we must reform entitlement 
programs that are consuming a larger and larger share of our budget and 
reduce the national debt.
  Cutting $100 million here or there in discretionary costs will not do 
the trick. In 1965, discretionary spending accounted for 62 percent of 
the budget. Today, it accounts for just 38 percent. As discretionary 
spending has become a smaller and smaller part of the pie, mandatory 
spending on entitlements and debt has become a bigger and bigger part 
of the pie. In 1965, mandatory spending and interest accounted for 38 
percent of the budget. Today, they account for 62 percent or nearly 
two-thirds of the entire budget.
  This means that in order to face our problem head on, we will have to 
address the problem of entitlement spending. And the only serious 
option on the table is the Conrad-Gregg proposal which would provide a 
clear pathway for fixing these long-term challenges by forcing us to 
get debt and spending under control.
  I have had a number of good conversations about this proposal with 
the President. Based on those conversations, I am hopeful it will be 
given serious attention. For the safety and security of our Nation, the 
Conrad-Gregg proposal deserves broad bipartisan support.
  Every Secretary of Defense must confront the tension between 
America's near-term readiness and future investment. But some future 
Defense Secretary will no longer be able to make

[[Page S7947]]

either choice if we do nothing to address the problem of long-term 
debt. Regardless of the global threats we face, we will be forced to 
field a smaller and less capable force. The money will not be there.
  When most Americans think about threats to our security, they come up 
with a standard list. But few people include our growing national debt. 
They should--because it is real and it is serious.
  Based on current trends, it is quite possible to imagine some future 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff walking into the Oval Office one 
day and informing the Commander in Chief that he has no choice: he can 
either protect the sealanes in the Persian Gulf or he can protect the 
sealanes in the Sea of Japan, but he cannot do both. On that day the 
United States of America will no longer be the guarantor of the 
international trading system, sea lines of communication, the security 
of our allies, or even our own independence.
  All of this should matter to Members of the Senate. Americans trust 
our Nation's intelligence and uniformed personnel to protect them from 
distant threats. But it is incumbent upon the men and women of this 
body--those of us who control the purse strings--to make sure the 
Nation's resources are managed in a way that enables these forces to do 
their work. The men and women of the Senate must look beyond the narrow 
demands of a single political term in office or the next election to 
the long-term security of our Nation and, indeed, the world. No one 
else can protect the American people from the diminishment of power and 
capability that come with our dangerous and ever-increasing national 
debt.

                          ____________________