[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 111 (Friday, July 22, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4829-S4832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE BUDGET
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, occasionally, political people say things
they probably wish they hadn't said because they are quite foolish.
It is with great disappointment that I focus on something our
President recently said. I do so not out of disrespect for him but
because what was said is so fundamentally wrong that it deserves to be
put out into the public for discussion and, frankly, to get some
response from the President if he wishes to do that.
According to the National Journal, an article by Rebecca Kaplan, from
July 21, the President said this:
I think what's absolutely true is that core commitments
that we make to the most vulnerable have to be maintained. A
lot of the spending cuts that we are making should be around
areas like defense spending, as opposed to food stamps.
We are in a great debate about how we should figure out a way to end
our deficit spending, get our debt under control. We have to raise the
debt ceiling here in a few days. We have had a
[[Page S4830]]
lot of discussion about the best way to do that. Most people approach
the problem by saying: What are the core functions of government, the
most important things that are critical to America? You build a budget
from that point up. As every family does, you finally get to some
things that are good to have, if you can, but sometimes you cannot
afford them or not in the same way you have been paying--maybe not
going to a movie or going out to dinner.
I think most people would believe that when we all take our oath of
office to defend the country, probably the first obligation the Federal
Government has is to defend the people, provide for our national
security. If we are not able to provide for our national security,
there is not much point in trying to protect anything else. That is why
the defense of the United States has always been pretty well supported
in a bipartisan way, by people in both political parties, in times of
peace and in times of war. That is not to say there haven't been
debates about defense spending, and whether defense spending sometimes
can be cut but, rather, to at least acknowledge that if any function of
the government is a core function or, as the President said, ``core
commitments,'' it surely ought to be providing for the defense of the
American people.
We have also decided over the years that there are ways in which we
can help to take care of American citizens who have trouble meeting
their own needs. We start with people who are very sick and infirm, or
elderly, and we have programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and
the Medicaid Program for those economically less fortunate. Over the
years, we have developed programs to provide other benefits to American
citizens. We provide some housing benefits. We provide what is called
food stamps. There is another name for it in the agriculture budget:
``Nutrition assistance.'' It is known as food stamps for people having
trouble making ends meet. The government will actually provide them an
ability to buy at the grocery store what they need to eat. That is
important.
America got along without food stamps for the first couple centuries
of its existence. Certainly a lot of people endured hardship. When a
country is wealthy enough to be able to afford to do things for its
people, it is certainly an appropriate thing to do. That is certainly
the category of food stamps.
But I find it remarkable that the President would conflate the
obligations of the government for national security and a program such
as the nutritional assistance program the way he has. To describe one
as a core commitment of the country--food stamps--and to say the rest
of it we can go talk about making cuts that should be around areas of
defense spending as opposed to food stamps--I am not trying to pick on
food stamps, but the President is the Commander in Chief. He, among all
Americans, is responsible for our national security. And for him to
suggest that food stamps is a core mission of the government and that
national security is less than that, so that if we need to make cuts we
should take them from national defense, I find remarkable.
Are food stamps close to what is the core of the American people? As
I said, we got along without food stamps for a long time. Churches and
families and others took care of folks. When the government was wealthy
enough to be able to help folks with food stamps, we decided to do it.
We have all been supporters of programs that provide that kind of
assistance. But when you have to begin trimming expenses--and, by the
way, I am not suggesting there is a proposal here on the table to trim
food stamps. What I am saying is that what you don't do is to say there
is one thing we are going to protect above all else, and that is food
stamps, and we can, instead, get our savings from the defense budget.
We have already effectuated enormous savings from the defense budget
over the last 3 years.
I thought it might be useful to quote a few things that our most
recent Secretary of Defense said. He is retired now. For the last 3
years, he acted as Secretary of Defense, and now he has been out of
that job for the last couple of weeks. But at the end of his term as
Secretary of Defense, he gave several speeches, and in each one of
those he stressed the commitment of the United States not only to the
security of the American people but to peace around the world and
reminded us there is evil in the world. There are always those who
would do us harm. And unless there is somebody in the world--a country
such as the United States--willing to stand up to these despots, these
troublemakers, we are likely to end up with trouble on our own shores
sooner or later. He cautioned, therefore, against further reductions in
defense spending, as the President has said.
On several occasions, Secretary Gates said defense had already had
cut as much as was advisable. So the question is, Why should we
automatically be assuming it is easy to cut another $400 billion out of
defense, for example; that our key mission here is to protect the core
mission, as the President put it, such as food stamps?
I am going to select a few things Secretary Gates has said and then I
will ask to have printed in the Record a couple of the pieces.
On May 24, Secretary Gates made some remarks to the American
Enterprise Institute, and here is a sampling of what he said. In this
first quote he is talking about the inventory of military weapons in
our arsenal:
The current inventory is getting old and worn down from
Iraq and Afghanistan. Some equipment can be refurbished with
life-extension programs, but there is no getting around the
fact that others must be replaced. When it comes to our
military modernization accounts, the proverbial ``low hanging
fruit''--those weapons and other programs considered most
questionable--have not only been plucked, they have been
stomped and crushed. What remains are much-needed
capabilities--relating to air superiority and mobility, long-
range strike, nuclear deterrence, maritime access, space and
cyber warfare, ground forces, intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance--that our nation's civilian and military
leadership deem absolutely critical.
He gave examples of a new tanker. He noted the ones we have are twice
as old as many of the pilots who are flying them. A new generation
strike fighter, the F-35. He said we have to build more ships. The size
of the Navy has sunk to the lowest number since prior to World War II.
The Army and Marines are doing the bulk of our fighting on the ground.
Their combat vehicles and helicopters are worn down after a decade of
war. He points out that, at some point, we have to replace our aging
ballistic missile submarines, and he calls that a program that
illustrates the modernization dilemmas we face.
He said this--again at the speech he gave at AEI:
So as we move forward, unless our country's political
leadership envisions a dramatically diminished global
security war for the United States, it is vitally important
to protect the military modernization accounts--in absolute
terms, and as a share of the defense budget.
Let me quote once more from his speech at AEI, and then I wish to
move to some remarks he made at some commencement addresses.
One thing Secretary Gates noted is that when we decide we want to
reduce defense spending, we have to remember our potential enemies
always have a vote. We can assume certain things are of a low
probability to happen around the globe, but we can't always be sure
that some despot isn't going to try to create trouble somewhere. Here
is how he concluded this speech to AEI:
If we are going to reduce the resources and the size of the
U.S. military, people need to make conscious choices about
what the implications are for the security of the country, as
well as for the variety of military operations we have around
the world if lower priority missions are scaled back or
eliminated. They need to understand what it could mean for a
smaller pool of troops and their families if America is
forced into a protracted land war again--yes, the kind no
defense secretary should recommend any time soon, but one we
may not be able to avoid. To shirk this discussion of risks
and consequences--and the hard decisions that must follow--I
would regard as managerial cowardice.
Then he said this:
In closing, while I have spent a good deal of time on
programmatic particulars, the tough choices ahead are really
about the kind of role the American people--accustomed to
unquestioned military dominance for the past two decades--
want their country to play in the world.
That is a serious and sobering reminder by the Secretary of Defense
that the American people expect the leaders of the country to
understand that when we need our military, it is
[[Page S4831]]
there, it is capable; that we are being fair with people we have put
into harm's way; and that we have given them the very best training and
equipment possible.
By the way, my colleague from Arizona, John McCain, has visited Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other places where our military men and women have
been fighting for many years. One of the thoughts that always strikes
me most about his observations when he returns is the quality of our
fighting force--the quality of their equipment and their training. They
are, clearly, the best military force ever fielded.
We expect that. We have come to expect it. But it doesn't happen
automatically. It requires stewardship, and we here in the Congress, as
well as the Presidents, are stewards of our national security and all
of those who provide it. That is a lesson we can't forget, even in the
context of a deficit and debt debate where we are trying desperately to
find more ways we can achieve savings.
When Secretary Gates spoke to the Notre Dame graduates on May 22,
here are a few of the things he said:
The lessons of history tell us we must not diminish our
ability or our determination to deal with the threats and the
challenges on the horizon, because ultimately they will need
to be confronted. If history--and religion--teach us
anything, it is that there will always be evil in the world,
people bent on aggression, oppression, satisfying their greed
for wealth and power and territory, or determined to impose
an ideology based on the subjugation of others and the denial
of liberty to men and women.
He continued:
. . . make no mistake, the ultimate guarantee against the
success of aggressors, dictators, and terrorists in the 21st
century, as in the 20th, is hard power--the size, strength,
and global reach of the United States military.
He also discussed what we are doing around the world, and he said
this:
All of these things happen mostly out of sight and out of
mind to the average American, and thus are taken for granted.
But they all depend on a properly armed, trained and funded
American military, which cannot be taken for granted.
He concluded those remarks by saying:
Throughout this process we should keep in mind historian
Donald Kagan's observation that the preservation of peace
depends upon those states seeking that goal having both
the preponderant power and the will to accept the burdens
and responsibilities required to achieve it. And we must
not forget what Winston Churchill once said, that ``the
price of greatness is responsibility . . . and the people
of the United States cannot escape world responsibility.''
Another way of saying this was one of Ronald Reagan's famous
sayings--that the best way to preserve peace was to have strength.
``Peace through strength.'' That is, when you become weaker, you tempt
the despots around the world to see whether they can gain some
territory or some advantage, and to make trouble. You are then playing
catchup, having to fight a problem that could have been avoided,
perhaps, if that despot knew you had the strength and will to defeat
him if he had made any kind of aggressive move. Having the ability to
deter is at least as important as the ability to win if the fight
occurs because you can avoid a lot of trouble, expense, casualties, and
problems if you deter aggression in the first place.
At North Dakota State University, in another commencement speech on
May 14, Secretary Gates said this:
. . . while I don't foresee a repeat of the Cold War days--
when we faced off against another military superpower--I
believe there is a growing competition underway for global
leadership and influence.
It was part of the same message he had spoken of earlier about the
importance to be prepared and why we should not just look to the
defense budget for savings; that we had to keep our priorities in mind.
One of those priorities was our role and responsibility around the
world, confirming again what he said, which was:
If the political leadership of this country decides that it
must reduce the investment in defense by hundreds of billions
of dollars, then I don't think we can afford to have anything
that is off the table.
It would seem to me that would include something such as food stamps.
Again, what Secretary Gates said was that ``defense had already cut as
much as was advisable.''
All right. I get back to my original point. Maybe I am making too
much of a casual observation of the President here, but when the
President of the United States describes a core commitment as food
stamps and says that, instead, the cuts we are making should be around
areas such as defense spending, it tells me the President has his
priorities turned around, that they are wrong. His first responsibility
is to the American people as Commander in Chief, and our first
responsibility in the Congress is exactly the same--for the security of
our country.
We are not going to be a strong country if we are bankrupt. One of
the key components to a strong defense is a strong economy so we can
generate the wealth we need to produce the kind of military equipment
and to field the kind of forces we need to protect our interests. That
is why we are focusing so much on the deficit, on spending, and the
like. But when we talk about areas that need to be cut, let's remember
what the former Secretary of Defense said--defense has been cut enough
already. If we are going to keep our commitments around the world, we
have to prioritize our spending. I submit that putting food stamps on a
higher level of commitment than the national security of the United
States is to grossly misplace our priorities. So I hope the President
and others within the House and the Senate, in getting about the
serious business of finding where we can make cuts--and we surely have
to do that--will help to prioritize those things that are absolutely
critical and essential to the core of the United States; and those
things where, if we have the wealth to do them, we definitely should;
and where we can make cuts, we need to; but that the end result of that
equation, those tradeoffs, will mean the first priority is the security
of the United States.
As we make our decisions here going forward, I will be speaking more
about the areas in which we have already slashed defense spending and
the areas in which, as Secretary Gates noted, defense spending is going
to have to be enhanced if we are going to have the kind of force the
American people have come to rely upon.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
two publications. One is from the Weekly Standard, dated July 18, by
Max Boot; and the other is a piece by Jamie Fly, posted on July 8 on
National Review Online.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From weeklystandard.com, July 18, 2011]
Grand Old Doves?
(By Max Boot)
Opinion polls consistently show that the U.S. military is
the most trusted institution in America. Republicans have
benefited indirectly from that hard-won reputation because
since the 1970s they have been seen as the strong, hawkish
party, while Democrats have had to fight the stigma that they
are weak and dovish. Republicans wouldn't throw away that
aura--one of their strongest electoral assets--just to reach
a budget deal with President Obama. Or would they?
There are persistent and worrisome reports that they might.
The Hill newspaper, for instance, claims that Republican
budget negotiators have been discussing cutting defense by
$600 billion to $700 billion--considerably more than the
already indefensible $400 billion in cuts that Obama has said
he would like to see over the next decade.
Obama's proposed cuts are bad enough; as former Defense
Secretary Robert Gates implicitly warned before leaving
office, such deep reductions would seriously impair the
military's ability to meet its global commitments. Going
beyond what Obama has proposed is simply suicidal--on both
substantive and political grounds.
Start with substance: The defense budget did experience a
rapid increase during the past decade because of the post-9/
11 wars. But the budget is already shrinking--down from $708
billion this fiscal year to $670 billion in the next fiscal
year. That's a $38 billion cut, and the budget will decline
even more as troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan.
Already the military is feeling the strain of maintaining
all of its commitments, including a new war in Libya. Those
who suggest, with a straight face, paring back a whopping
$700 billion more--even over the course of a number of
years--should be forced to explain which missions currently
performed by the U.S. armed forces they are willing to
sacrifice.
Should we completely pull out of Afghanistan? Even with the
overly hasty withdrawal of surge forces ordered by Obama, we
still will have 70,000 troops there at the end of next year,
costing at least $70 billion. Pulling out troops even faster
risks giving jihadists their biggest victory since 9/11.
Perhaps we should stop fighting pirates off the coast of
Africa? Stop fighting in Libya so
[[Page S4832]]
that arch-terrorist Muammar Qaddafi can claim a victory over
the West? Stop targeting al Qaeda in Pakistan and Yemen and
elsewhere? Stop deterring China, North Korea, or Iran? Stop
patrolling the Persian Gulf through which much of the world's
oil flows? Stop fighting cyberattacks emanating from China
and Russia? Stop developing missile defenses to protect the
American homeland? Stop supporting Mexico and Colombia in
their fights against narcotraffickers? Stop holding military
exercises with friendly armed forces from Egypt to the
Philippines--exercises that allow us to exert soft power at
low cost?
Maybe advocates of budget cuts think we should continue
performing all, or most, of those missions with less
resources. But that's a cop-out. It's a recipe for stinting
on training and personnel, thus creating a ``hollow force''
of the kind that we last saw in the late 1970s.
The reality is that there is no way the armed forces can
perform all, or even most, of their current missions with
less money. In fact, despite the growing spending of the past
decade for contingency operations, the military has already
cancelled a number of important procurement programs. These
include the Army's Future Combat System and the Air Force's
F-22, the best-in-the-world stealth fighter that was canceled
just before China unveiled its own stealth fighter.
For the most part, the armed forces remain reliant on
weapons systems designed in the 1960s and 1970s and procured
in the 1980s: aircraft such as the A-10, F-15, and F-16,
helicopters such as the Apache and Black Hawk, warships such
as Los Angeles-class submarines and Ticonderoga-class
cruisers, and armored vehicles such as Abrams tanks and
Bradley Fighting Vehicles. These are all superb weapons, but
they are rapidly aging--and are either being overtaken, or
soon will be, by competing models produced abroad that are
certain to fall into the hands of our enemies.
Moreover, competing powers such as China and Russia are
designing weapons such as computer bugs and antisatellite
missiles that could render much of our current equipment
useless. We will have to develop defenses. And that won't be
cheap.
At the same time, the Department of Defense must take care
of its people--our most precious asset. There are 1.5 million
active-duty military personnel, 750,000 civilian Defense
Department employees, and 1.5 million personnel in the
Reserves and National Guard. We already spend more on
personnel costs ($157 billion this year) than on weapons
procurement ($151 billion) and the imbalance is likely to
grow in future years, thereby making it even harder to
increase our power-projection capabilities. Yet Congress
rebuffed Gates's attempts to institute modest co-payments for
the fiscally unsustainable Tricare medical system. That was
deemed too politically sensitive.
This is part of a pattern: Congress finds it difficult or
impossible to cut specific defense programs because they all
have powerful constituencies. But mandating ``top-line'' cuts
may be politically palatable as part of a budget deal because
lawmakers won't have to make tough choices about which
programs to eliminate and which areas of the world to leave
undefended.
Cutting defense won't solve our budget woes. The ``core''
defense budget, $553 billion, is small as a percentage of GDP
(3.7 percent) and of the federal budget (15 percent). Nor is
it the reason why we are piling up so much debt. To reduce
the deficit, lawmakers will have to do something about out-
of-control entitlement programs.
If Republicans acquiesce in ruinous cuts to the defense
budget, they will cease to be known as Ronald Reagan's heirs.
Instead they will be remembered as the party of William E.
Borah, Hamilton Fish III, and Gerald Nye. Remember those GOP
giants of the 1930s? They thought a strong defense was
unaffordable and unnecessary. But their reputations collapsed
on December 7, 1941, when we learned (not for the last time)
the price of unreadiness. That is a lesson today's
Republicans should remember as they negotiate over the
budget.
____
[From nationalreview.com]
Short-Sightedness on Defense Cuts
(By Jamie M. Fly)
As the debt-limit talks enter their final stages, reports
are emerging that significant defense cuts may be part of the
negotiated package. President Obama, for his part, already
proposed cutting $400 billion in security spending over 12
years in his April 13 speech on fiscal policy. The White
House is now apparently trying not just to lock that
proposal in, but possibly convince Republicans to even go
beyond it via the debt-limit negotiations.
Now that Secretary of Defense Gates--who had warned of the
implications of the $400 billion in cuts--has left the
Pentagon, the White House is increasingly highlighting
defense as a potential source of significant savings.
On Wednesday, at his ``Twitter Town Hall,'' Obama said,
``the nice thing about the defense budget is it's so big,
it's so huge, that a one percent reduction is the equivalent
of the education budget. Not--I'm exaggerating, but it's so
big that you can make relatively modest changes to defense
that end up giving you a lot of head room to fund things like
basic research or student loans or things like that.''
Obama's statement was very misleading. One percent of the
president's proposed defense budget for 2012 equals only a
fraction of his $77.4 billion education budget request--that
is, 7.1. percent. Also, the Obama administration has
significantly increased education funding (by more than 50
percent), over the course of its three budgets, while defense
spending increases have barely matched the rate of inflation.
Indeed, defense has been targeted by the White House Office
of Management and Budget each year as the administration
compiled its budget requests. It has not been spared the axe
by the appropriators on Capitol Hill, who have consistently
funded defense at levels less than those requested by the
president. In fact, projected defense spending over the next
ten years in the current House budget resolution is already
$315 billion less than the amounts the Obama administration
projected in its FY2011 request.
All of this is despite the fact that the defense budget is
not the source of America's current fiscal woes.
Unfortunately, it appears that in the debt-limit talks, both
Republicans and Democrats are tempted to avoid the difficult
choices posed by significant entitlement reform. Instead,
they are contemplating going after defense spending, perhaps
assuming there is not a constituency to defend the defense
budget at a time when the nation is weary of overseas
commitments and many Americans want a renewed focus at home.
This short-sightedness is not a surprise coming from the
White House. It is, however, sad to see Republicans heading
down this path.
Congressional Republicans should ask themselves whether
they want to enter 2012 by surrendering the GOP's traditional
credibility on national security. If they endorse Obama's
ridiculous $400 billion in defense cuts--or even worse, agree
to deeper cuts--Republicans risk assisting the president's
management of American decline, just as the United States
enters a very turbulent and uncertain period.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________