[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 157 (Wednesday, November 6, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7870-S7871]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SEQUESTRATION IMPACT
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the impact of
sequestration on our national security and the economy.
As a Nation, our military strength is directly supported by our
economic strength, and sequestration has done substantial harm to both.
This senseless policy has put our military in a very bad position and
undermines or national security strategies.
In fiscal year 2013, the Defense Department's budget was reduced by
approximately $43 billion due to sequestration, or a roughly 8 percent
cut to each defense account. These cuts have undermined our military's
readiness and reduced necessary maintenance. They have also undermined
long-term investments in modernizing our force.
Our military leadership has been clear about the impact of
sequestration at numerous hearings before Congress. All of the services
have raised concerns about the Budget Control Act's sequestration and
the post-sequester budget caps. In particular, we have heard how these
cuts undermine their ability to carry out the 2012 Defense Strategic
Guidance or DSG.
The DSG outlines the strategic priorities of the Department of
Defense. The DSG reflects the input of a wide range of military
stakeholders. The DSG describes the security challenges we are likely
to face as well as the resources needed to meet key mission
requirements.
The 2012 DSG sets as a central goal the transition of a U.S. defense
enterprise from an emphasis on today's wars to preparing for future
challenges. The cuts due to the Budget Control Act undermine that goal.
As a result, the services will have to reduce personnel levels, delay
or scrap necessary equipment modernization and acquisition, and reduce
training and readiness activities.
In recent testimony before the House of Representatives, Army GEN Ray
Odierno noted the Army's personnel will shrink by 18 percent in the
next 7 years. This includes a 26 percent reduction in Active Army
personnel, 12 percent reduction in Army National Guard, and a 9 percent
reduction in the Army Reserve.
In discussing these reductions, General Odierno said:
In my view, these reductions will put at substantial risk
our ability to conduct even one sustained major combat
operation.
While I hope we will not have to engage in such an operation in the
near future, this reduction in our capacity to do so is very troubling.
In addition, Navy ADM Jonathan Greenert expressed serious concern
about cuts to operations and maintenance and investment accounts. These
cuts threaten the Navy's readiness. He explained that the Navy would
likely have to cancel necessary maintenance, which reduces the useful
life of ships and aircraft. In addition, the Navy's shipbuilding
program could be seriously affected. This means a submarine, a littoral
combat ship, and an
[[Page S7871]]
afloat forward-staging base could be on the chopping block.
Hawaii is home to the Pacific Command. Its responsibility encompasses
half the globe. This enormous area of responsibility is home to some of
the most dynamic and fastest growing economies in the world. The Asia-
Pacific nations are huge markets with growing middle classes of
consumers for American goods and services. However, it is also home to
some of the most serious security threats we face. It is an area where
U.S. economic, strategic, and security interests face many challenges,
but also many opportunities.
As part of our Nation's recognition that we need to engage more in
this region, President Obama has committed to a rebalance of our
strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
General Dempsey, described the Asia-Pacific rebalance by saying:
It's about ``Three Mores''--more interest, more engagement,
and from the military perspective more quality assets and
quality interaction.
For the Asia-Pacific rebalance to provide the long-term benefits to
our Nation, we need to be fully committed. This requires the
transition, training, and support of U.S. military personnel and assets
to the region. However, this important initiative is undermined by the
budget cuts our military is facing. We cannot support regional peace
and stability with insufficient resources and personnel. Yet this is
the reality if we fail to address planned budget cuts.
These are just some examples of how our ability to effectively
protect U.S. interests and security are being impacted by the Budget
Control Act. We also know that reductions in defense spending impact
the Nation's economy. For example, Department of Defense employees
across the country, including thousands in Hawaii, have faced furloughs
this year. This is a pay cut for many families at a time when they can
least afford them.
Some will argue that all we need to do is to give the Department of
Defense the authority to transfer funds between accounts. I strongly
disagree. Congress can address these cuts to national security while
also strengthening our overall economy. How can we do this? By simply
eliminating sequester and funding the whole government at the level
assumed by the Senate's budget resolution.
Sequestration, like the recent government shutdown, results in self-
inflicted wounds to our economy. The shutdown was like a sudden
economic heart attack. But sequestration is like death by a thousand
cuts to our national defense, our science and research enterprise, and
programs which our communities rely upon.
I have spoken a great deal about the impact of sequestration on our
military. However, the substantial cuts sustained by our education,
research and development, and infrastructure are equally as damaging.
These are programs that support an educated and productive workforce,
improve the flow of commerce and support those in our communities in
the greatest need. Just as a hollowed-out force will struggle to meet
mission requirements, a hollowed-out workforce will struggle to compete
in the global economy. These two are tightly linked. That is why I urge
my colleagues to support eliminating sequestration for both military
and nondefense programs.
The Financial Times recently reported that U.S. public investment has
dropped to 3.6 percent of GDP. This is well below the 5 percent we have
averaged since World War II. These cuts not only undermine our long-
term national security strategy but also our long-term competitiveness
and economic growth. Without a strong economy, we cannot sustain the
investments we need and a strong national defense.
According to Macroeconomic Advisers, spending cuts enacted since 2010
have reduced GDP by 0.7 percentage points. This reduction in our
economy has raised unemployment by 0.8 percent, or 1.2 million jobs.
The Congressional Budget Office--CBO--recently reported we could give
our economy a significant boost by eliminating sequestration. In fact,
CBO found that if Congress had enacted legislation last summer to
cancel the 2013 and 2014 sequester, the economy would have nearly 1
million more jobs by next year. Our economy would also grow nearly a
full percentage point faster.
To put this in perspective, without sequestration, our economy would
be nearly back on track to where it was before the great recession.
We all recognize a strong economy is the backbone of our strength as
a Nation. In order to get back to full strength, we need to get more
people back to work. The more people who are working, the more
productive our economy is. This is not rocket science. The more
productive our economy, the more opportunity there is for people to
achieve the American Dream.
Getting people back to work also means less people have to rely on
safety net programs and more tax revenues coming in without raising any
tax rates. By reducing spending and increasing revenue this way, we are
helping to stabilize our fiscal situation.
A robust economy ensures that our Nation has the capacity to meet our
commitments and support our vital priorities. This means we don't have
to choose between a strong national defense and investment in
education, infrastructure, and innovation. We can, and must, do both.
The place to start is with ending sequestration and revising the
Budget Control Act caps. This modest policy change will pay dividends
for our economy and, in turn, will strengthen our national security.
I yield the floor.
____________________