[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11788-11791]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 11789]]

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 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

[[Page 11790]]

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 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

[[Page 11791]]

     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.

                          ____________________