[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 113 (Tuesday, July 26, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4905-S4906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFENSE CUTS
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record a piece from Politico by my colleagues in the House,
Chairman Forbes, Chairman Turner, Congressman Bishop, and Congressman
Conaway.
I fundamentally disagree with the President when he said in a recent
interview with NPR:
A lot of the spending cuts that we're making should be
around areas like defense spending as opposed to food stamps.
I wish the President would listen to the advice of Secretary Gates,
who said in his AEI speech this May:
I revisit this history because it leads to an important
point for the future: 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 on 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.
My colleagues in the House are absolutely right when they wrote:
The time to draw a line in the sand, and go on the offense
to support national security must be now.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Politico, July 25, 2011]
On the Offense Over Defense Cuts
(By Representatives J. Randy Forbes, Michael Turner, Rob Bishop, and
Mike Conaway)
America's all-volunteer military is the most well-trained,
well-equipped fighting force the world has ever seen. But the
strength of our armed forces should not be taken for granted.
Without sustained investments in our troops and their
equipment, the military power our nation now wields in
defense of our security--including our economic security--
will slowly be hollowed out. The result is likely to be an
America that can go fewer places and do fewer things in
defense of its global interests.
While that may sound good to those who remain uncomfortable
with America's leadership role in the world, starving the
military will not make us any safer, given the global demands
on our security interests.
The U.S. military confronts readiness shortfalls and a
growing array of risks and security challenges. That is why I
am deeply concerned about the avalanche of military spending
cuts being discussed--from President Barack Obama's $400
billion proposal to the Senate's Gang of Six proposal that
could cut up to $886 billion.
The time to draw a line in the sand, and go on the offense
to support national security must be now.
Let's be clear: Defense spending is not what put us in this
position, and gutting the defense budget to pay the bills is
unlikely to get us out of it. As a percentage of our gross
domestic product, the defense budget remains just 3.6
percent. This figure is low by all historical standards.
Even if we start slashing major portions of the budget--say
$50 billion each year over the next decade--that figure would
still only add up to a fraction of the nation's debt. Yet the
additional risk to the nation could be substantial.
Today's military is worn out from a decade of operations
that have pushed already aging platforms to the edge. More
than half the Navy's deployed aircraft are not fully combat
ready, as we recently discovered at a House Armed Services
Readiness Subcommittee hearing, and approximately one in five
of our Navy ships are deemed unsatisfactory or mission
degraded.
With known shortfalls in the Navy maintenance accounts, the
Defense Department would be severely challenged to meet the
expected service life of its equipment. Even more concerning
are the assessments from our Combatant Commanders in the
unclassified portion of the Quarterly Readiness Report to
Congress. This paints a distressing picture of a military
stretched thin by nearly 10 years of war and a sustained lack
of resources.
Even as our forces have been aged rapidly by the high tempo
of operations in the past decade, the president has cancelled
a generation of weapons programs in just the last two years.
While much of the nation has smart phones and iPads, the Army
is still operating on an Atari-like system.
With readiness shortfalls and pressure to modernize aging
platforms, how can we pretend we can defend the country with
even more defense cuts? Our national defense planning must be
based on an open and objective review of the threats we face
and the resources required to meet them. Unfortunately, we
now have that process in reverse.
In many ways, it's like a family who is about to purchase a
new home. The correct course would be to have an inspector
look at the house and tell the family what the problems are
and what they will cost to fix. What if, instead, that family
told the inspector that they only had $1,000, and they wanted
the inspector to go through and identify only $1,000 worth of
problems to fix?
This is analogous to the way the Defense Department and the
Obama administration expect Congress to approach national
defense. They dictate how much we will spend on defense
without fully and objectively detailing the risks we face, or
the choices we must make.
This wouldn't be a sensible course for the new homeowners.
So why does it pass as acceptable for managing our national
security?
[[Page S4906]]
In the past two years, the administration has executed two
rounds of defense cuts, with the masthead of another likely
on the way as part of an agreement to lift the debt ceiling.
With growing readiness problems and a generation of military
modernization either cut or on the chopping-block, we are now
facing a $400-$900 billion defense cut looming over the
horizon.
While our armed forces are charged with defending our
national security, it is the Congress' responsibility to
provide them with the resources to accomplish the tasks we
set for them. Our men and woman in uniform diligently execute
these tasks.
It is time for the Congress to do its job and provide
adequately for the common defense.
____________________