[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 114 (Friday, July 30, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          DOD AND DEBT/DEFICIT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MIKE QUIGLEY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 30, 2010

  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today because we can no longer 
afford to ignore defense spending as our deficit rises.
  The unprecedented federal stimulus package and two wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan have put the FY 2009 federal deficit at 10 percent of GDP, 
its highest level since 1945.
  As the federal deficit grows and we look for places to cut, we must 
be able to scrutinize every part of the federal budget--including 
defense spending.
  Defense spending has more than doubled since September 11, 2001, and 
at $719 billion, the current defense budget, is the highest it has been 
since World War II.
  Our discretionary spending has also grown by $583 billion since 2001, 
and defense spending accounts for 65 percent of that growth.
  Accounting for close to 20 percent of the federal budget, defense 
spending simply cannot be ignored as we look for places to cut.
  For too long we have followed policies that assume more spending 
automatically means more safety and more power.
  But new critics of this unquestioned defense spending argue cuts to 
the defense budget can and should be made; and these cuts can be done 
without comprising our safety.
  A new report by the Sustainable Defense Task Force, comprising 
security experts from across the country, finds that we could save up 
to $960 billion over the next ten years, without jeopardizing our 
national security.
  The report outlines a whole menu of reform options ranging from 
reducing our oversized nuclear stockpiles to cutting our bloated force 
structure in Europe and Asia--all of which are possible due to the 
U.S.'s current security posture: We no longer face the traditional 
opponents we once did.
  We still operate as if we are at war with an opponent as powerful as 
the former Soviet Union; but today the U.S. does not face a threat that 
even remotely compares to the Soviet Union.
  Not even China, which spends barely one-fifth as much on military as 
the U.S., can compete.
  The U.S. spends more on research and development than Russia does on 
its whole military.
  Today, the U.S. spends more than two and half times as much on its 
military as the group of potential opponents, including Russia and 
China.
  In other words, the U.S. could cut its defense spending in half and 
we would still be spending more than our current and potential 
adversaries.
  As the Task Force points out in its report, our military strength far 
out-weighs any threat from our adversaries, and can easily be reduced 
while still maintaining our military superiority.
  However, while we are building up our capacity to fight traditional 
opponents, such as China, we are failing to build a defense force 
capable of combating nontraditional opponents such as Al Qaeda.
  We have spent $1 trillion and lost 5,500 American lives on large-
scale military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with little progress 
to show for it.
  As Benjamin Friedman, of the Cato Institute, points out, our 
principal enemy Al Qaeda ``has no army, no air force and no navy.''
  And the military assets most useful for counterterrorism are 
relatively inexpensive such as surveillance technologies, special 
operations forces and drones.
  As the threats to America evolve, so too must our military structure.
  But over the years, rather than realigning our military to meet 
current threats, we have simply added more requirements to our 
military, growing our defense budget by 9 percent on average every 
year.
  There has never been a better time to reinvent our defense budget.
  We are facing a growing deficit, forcing us to make cuts, and we have 
a defense budget ripe for reform.
  Now all we need is the political will to make tough choices.
  With limited resources we must choose, because the real ramification 
of overspending on defense is not simply that we will have too many 
unnecessary ships, aircrafts or missiles--but that we won't have enough 
resources to support vital domestic investments such as health care, 
education, and infrastructure needed to remain a superpower.
  Military power is not simply about spending more than our 
adversaries.
  Real military power, argues Kori Schake, a top foreign policy advisor 
for John McCain, is ``fundamentally premised on the solvency of the 
American government and the vibrancy of the U.S. economy.''
  But in order to maintain that vibrancy we must get our fiscal house 
in order, and in doing so reexamine our defense spending and make cuts 
and reforms where necessary.
  Secretary Gates said it best while paraphrasing President Eisenhower, 
``The United States should spend as much as necessary on national 
defense, but not one penny more.''
  Let's hold him to his word. Let's reinvent the defense budget.

                          ____________________