[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16759-16760]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 16760]]

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.

                          ____________________