[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 72 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2567-S2569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
U.S. Military Readiness
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, our military and our intelligence
community grapple with intersecting issues that aren't wholly unique to
this day and age. Our national security has always been imperiled by
foreign threats, from the Revolutionary War to two World Wars, and we
previously faced a seemingly unsurmountable debt burden following World
War II.
The challenge seems to be, as it always is in a democracy, that
people of different views differ on the sense of urgency on priorities
and the means to address both those threats and our financial house in
order to be able to pay for what it takes to keep America safe. What is
unique is the range and complexity of the problems we face and their
scale.
I am reminded of a sobering quote from the former Director of
National Intelligence during a hearing just last year, former Director
James Clapper, who served 50 years in the U.S. intelligence community.
He said: ``In my time in the intelligence business, I don't recall a
time when we have been confronted with a more diverse array of
threats.'' I agree with him.
On top of that diverse array of threats, never before has our country
been at war for such an extended period of time since 9/11, and never
before have we done so much with an all-volunteer military force
stressed by repeated deployments, while at the same time defense
spending has been cut by nearly 15 percent over the last 8 years.
So the United States is at a crossroads when it comes to meeting the
diverse threats we face today, while simultaneously preparing for the
ever-evolving future threats headed our way tomorrow.
I wish to first provide a little bit of context about our lack of
readiness to meet those threats by framing the challenges our military
and our Nation faces, and then I wish to offer some thoughts about how
we can rise to meet these challenges and maintain our military
preeminence and leadership in the world.
First, there are the challenges abroad. We face a range of
adversaries unlike any other in our history. In the Middle East, even
as ISIS forces are pushed back in Iraq, their ideology spreads like a
contagion through their so-called cyber caliphate, and it continues to
permeate the West and attract the vulnerable and the disillusioned. FBI
Director Comey has said that his agency has open investigations into
home-grown jihadists in all 50 States.
Iran, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, is a breakout
nuclear threat and remains the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the
world. At the same time, it is rapidly growing its ballistic missile
arsenal and has regained much of its financial strength following
sanctions relief under the JCPOA.
Then there is Syria. Since the Syrian civil war began, 400,000 have
died in a bloody civil war, while Bashar al-Assad, a brutal dictator
known to repeatedly use chemical weapons on his own people despite
redlines drawn, enjoys Russian and Iranian support and protection.
In addition to its meddling in the Middle East, Russia has invaded
eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea. It routinely threatens NATO member
states and has ramped up its use of ``active measures''--a program of
both overt and covert action that leverages propaganda, cyber
espionage, social media, and a sometimes gullible mainstream media both
here and abroad--to influence and undermine public confidence in the
very foundation of our democracies, which are our free and fair
elections.
In the Pacific, China seeks to advance its regional dominance by
making claims to former sandbars and reefs
[[Page S2568]]
that it has now built into strategic military bases--complete with a
10,000 foot runway--in the South China Sea.
Finally, as we learned more about yesterday at the White House in the
briefing from the President's national security advisers, North Korea
continues to develop and test its nuclear and ballistic missile
capabilities with the threat of soon being able to combine the two to
threaten the continental United States and wreak death and destruction.
Many before me have observed that American strength on the world
stage is a deterrent and a stabilizing influence, while weakness is an
invitation to our adversaries and inherently destabilizing. I think
that proposition has never been more evident than it is today.
But to address these threats--to maintain the peace and fight, if we
must--we need a capable, ready, and modern military force. But the
truth is we are not ready. While I believe America will always rise to
the challenges once roused from our national complacency, it makes a
dangerous world even more dangerous.
U.S. military readiness and modernization--already under great stress
and stretched thin around the world--has suffered 15 years of continued
operations and simultaneous budgetary restrictions and deferred
maintenance and investment. That has led to some very real consequences
for our military. Let me just illustrate a few of those consequences.
According to General Walters, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine
Corps, more than half of all Marine Corps fixed- and rotary-wing
aircraft were unable to fly at the end of 2016. Let me say that again.
That is a shocking statistic. More than half of the Marine Corps'
fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft were unable to fly by the end of 2016.
These aircraft are in constant operation overseas and are absolutely
necessary to continue the fight against ISIS and terrorism, yet half of
them are unable to take off.
The Navy fleet currently stands at 275 of the 350 ship requirement.
Law mandates an inventory of 11 aircraft carriers and has a stated
force level goal of 12. But today, the Navy requires a waiver in order
to operate just 10, currently. As we all know, these carrier strike
groups deploy worldwide, and, as the Navy likes to say, they act as
``100,000 tons of diplomacy that doesn't need a permission slip.''
Of our 58 Army brigade and combat teams, only three are considered
fully ready for combat. These are the main building blocks of the Army
that support the majority of Army operations, and only three are fully
ready. Keep in mind, too, that our Army is smaller than at any time
since before World War II, as a result of draconian cuts in defense
spending.
Finally, when it comes to our Air Force, General Wilson, the Air
Force Vice Chief of Staff, recently testified: ``Sustained global
commitments and funding reductions have eroded our Air Force to the
point where we have become one of the smallest, oldest equipped, and
least ready forces across the full-spectrum of operations in our
service history.'' The Air Force currently has 5,500 aircraft in its
inventory. That is down from 8,600 since 1991. The average aircraft in
the U.S. Air Force is 27 years old. For example, I was at Dyess Air
Force Base in Abilene, TX, just last week, viewing some of their B-1
bombers, which is a plane first flown in 1974.
Then, of course, there is the grandpa of our aircraft fleet, the B-
52--that is still in operation--first introduced in the 1950s.
The Air Force is also experiencing a pilot shortage crisis due to the
pressure on the force, including quality of life issues and, of course,
increased demand and competition from the airline industry.
So our military faces these internal issues as well. No one would
argue that in order to keep the peace and to protect our national vital
interests, we must have a credible and modern force. But the hard truth
is that we don't currently meet that standard, and we can't afford to
ignore the problems.
So why, I ask, do we continue to do so? More importantly, the
question is this: Where do we go from here? How can we assure that our
military can maintain its competitive edge and ensure it is ready to
meet these and future challenges? I have a few suggestions.
First, we must fund our military to meet the threat environment, not
do what we can to meet the threat environment with what we funded for
the military. In other words, the threat should determine the resources
necessary to meet that threat. So I would suggest we should start by
eliminating sequestration of Department of Defense funding under the
2011 Budget Control Act. The truth is that the Budget Control Act was
never meant to cut military spending. It was meant to spur action.
Remember the supercommittee and the hoped-for grand bargain? Instead,
the BCA took a meat ax to our defense budget. Allowing the Budget
Control Act to keep making automatic cuts to our military until 2021
does not serve the national security interests of the United States. It
does the opposite. These cuts add risk not just to our national
security but also to our servicemembers and their families--who, as I
said, have been fighting the longest war in our Nation's history--and
it does so by undermining their training, readiness, and modernization.
At a time when our growing national security threats require greater
investment in technology, we are tying the hands of our military and
simply hoping for the best. So if we want to return to a strong
American military after years of stress and inadequate funding, we need
to start with ending the Department of Defense sequestration.
Of course, the next logical question becomes this: If we do away with
the defense portions of the Budget Control Act, how do we control
overspending, deficits, and unsustainable national debt, which is a
serious problem?
That brings me to my second point. A bipartisan Congress and the
Trump administration must address our budget priorities by looking at
and addressing all government spending, not just the 30 percent or so
represented by discretionary spending. Right now, about 70 percent of
Federal spending isn't even appropriated by the Congress. It simply
runs on autopilot, and it grew last year at the rate of 5.5 percent,
while discretionary spending has remained relatively flat. Until we
have the political courage on a bipartisan basis to tackle our
structural financial problems, we will never adequately fund the
military or our other national priorities.
We also need a bipartisan commitment to ending continuing resolutions
and the self-destructive drama and narrative of potential government
shutdowns.
Most importantly, perhaps, the Defense Department needs to be able to
plan, not just for the duration of the next continuing resolution, but
it needs to be able to plan long term and to spend the money that is
appropriated to it in an efficient way.
The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Goldfein, captured the
point well 2 months ago, when he said: ``There is no enemy on the
planet that can do more to damage the United States Air Force than us
not getting a budget.'' This sentiment is shared by all the service
chiefs, and I wholeheartedly agree.
In a Department as big, as large, and as unwieldy as the Department
of Defense, there is no doubt that there is room to streamline, improve
efficiencies, and reduce duplication. We can all agree on that. But the
truth is we need to take a hard, strategic look at our budgetary and
fiscal needs across the Federal Government. Endless continuing
resolutions aren't the answer. Continuing resolutions actually limit an
agency's ability to be efficient and flexible, and they prevent the
establishment of new programs and the retiring of the old and obsolete
programs.
At the end of the day, the only way we can rein in spending, get a
handle on our debt, and ensure our military stays ready for the threats
facing it every day is to clearly articulate our country's needs and
how we plan to meet them. That way, we can restore constitutional
oversight responsibilities to Congress.
Finally, Congress has a tremendous opportunity, working with the
Trump administration, to propose a strategy to modernize our military
and prepare for the next generation of warfighting. Both readiness and
modernization have been encumbered by the lack of a coherent national
security and foreign
[[Page S2569]]
policy strategy in recent years, in addition to the blanket
restrictions placed on defense spending.
Too frequently, modernization has simply been pushed aside by myopic
views of how to deal with our financial challenges, which place greater
risk on the warfighter and our collective security. You had better
believe that, not hamstrung by redtape and regulations or continuing
resolutions or deep cuts in defense spending or national security
spending, our enemies take full advantage of our reluctance to deal
with our challenges on a bipartisan basis. All the while, the United
States operates on platforms engineered decades ago to fight the last
generation's wars.
I can't think of a better example than our nuclear weapons program.
This is the preeminent deterrent to war. Our country is the leading
pioneer in science and technology, but instead of modernizing our
nuclear weapons to provide a safe, reliable, and dependable deterrent,
we, in effect, merely extend the service life of outdated and ancient
weapons.
Clearly, we need a coherent national security strategy from President
Trump and his Cabinet to do that. I know Congress is committed to
working with them to make that happen.
By doing away with the Budget Control Act, putting the Pentagon on a
dependable and predictable budget and developing a coherent national
security strategy, we can maintain our status as the top military in
the world. Along the way, we can deter our enemies and reassure our
allies. We don't need to rewrite the playbook. We need to go back to
the basics of government, providing for our national defense and
keeping our fiscal house in order, all in light of the challenges and
threats these times present.
My hope is that we will get out of the rut we have been in the Senate
and in the Congress for the last few years and we will actually
capitalize on this moment--and rally around a bipartisan commitment
that a strong, modern, and ready military is really a nonnegotiable
item--to lay the foundation for a modern military that will continue to
keep our Nation safe for generations. I am committed to working with
the administration and all of my colleagues in order to accomplish
these goals.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.