FOREIGN POLICY INITIATIVE
DEFENDING DEFENSE
"CHOOSING DECLINE: THE MEANING OF OBAMA'S
DEFENSE GUIDANCE AND BUDGET"
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Diversified Reporting Services, Inc.
(202) 467-9200
2
1
P R O C E E D I N G S
2
MR. FLY:
I want to welcome everyone today
3
for coming out to this Defending Defense event.
4
coalition effort of American Enterprise Institute, the
5
Foreign Policy Initiative, and the Heritage Foundation.
6
7
I'm Jamie Fly.
I'm the executive director of the
Foreign Policy Initiative.
8
9
It's a
We've titled today's event "Choosing Decline:
The Meaning of Obama's Defense Guidance and Budget."
10
And I know it's a somewhat provocative title, but I
11
think the Defending Defense coalition strongly believes
12
that we face a key moment in our country's national
13
security debate right now.
14
presented earlier this week included already around
15
$500 billion worth of cuts over the next 10 years.
And the budget that we saw
16
We have the looming sequestration potential
17
of an additional $500 billion over the next 10 years.
18
And I think those just staggering statistics
19
necessitate the sort of discussion we're going to have
20
today.
21
22
One of the frustrations that I know we've had
is that this Administration has not shown a lot of
3
1
leadership in confronting these challenges, has
2
insisted on going after defense rather than protecting
3
it.
4
of the people who are leading in Washington,
5
particularly members of Congress.
6
great lineup today.
And I think what we wanted to do is highlight some
7
And we've got a
So with that, I'm going to turn it over to
8
former Senator Jim Talent, who's going to be our
9
moderator.
He's in part wearing his Heritage
10
Foundation hat today, but he's also co-chairman of
11
Mercury, a public strategy firm.
12
why don't you take it away.
13
SENATOR TALENT:
So Senator Talent,
Thank you, Jamie.
I'm going
14
to introduce our first speaker.
15
a little housekeeping detail.
16
orange juice and rolls in the back, and if you haven't
17
gotten one, go get it.
18
these people are speaking.
19
Congress or the Senate, and they're used to people not
20
paying attention when they're speaking.
21
bother them.
22
(Laughter.)
Before I do that, just
There is coffee and
And feel free to eat it while
They're all members of
So it won't
4
1
SENATOR TALENT:
There's a lot to pay
2
attention to today.
3
we're hopeful being able to have questions and answers
4
with some or all of the speakers.
5
We do have a very good lineup, and
Our first speaker today is Senator Jon Kyl.
6
He really needs no introduction, but that's what I'm
7
doing here today, so I'm going to do that.
8
is currently serving his third term in the United
9
States Senate after having completed four terms
Senator Kyl
10
representing Arizona's 4th District in the United
11
States House of Representatives.
12
I should say that's where I first met Senator
13
Kyl; he and I served on the House Armed Services
14
Committee together, and he is one of the people that I
15
recognized right away would be a model worth following
16
in my own service in the Congress.
17
Jon was elected unanimously by his colleagues
18
in 2008 to serve as Republican Whip.
19
Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Finance
20
Committee.
21
practiced law at Jennings, Strouss & Salmon in Phoenix.
22
He serves on the
Before his public service, Senator Kyl
Ladies and gentlemen, Senator Jon Kyl.
5
1
(Applause)
2
SENATOR KYL:
Thank you, Jim.
3
much.
4
who not only carried out his strong commitment to
5
national security in the Congress but also in the real
6
world has been my colleague, Jim Talent.
7
you for carrying that on.
8
public service at the end of this year, I hope to be
9
able to do something that will enable me to continue
10
fighting some of these battles, Jim, that I know you
11
and so many of you here in this room have fought.
12
And I want to compliment Jim.
Thanks very
One of the people
And I thank
And when I'm done serving in
Today is a rather propitious time, at the end
13
of a week where two major things occurred, which will
14
be the focus of my remarks here -- one, the President's
15
budget, and I'm going to speak on how that specifically
16
impacts our nuclear modernization program; and
17
secondly, the announcement a couple days ago that the
18
effort was underway to evaluate potential reduction of
19
our nuclear weaponry down to levels that were unheard
20
of, or seem to me to be unthinkable, and that's getting
21
the number of warheads down to a level like 300.
22
we'll talk some more about that.
And
6
1
But I wanted to begin by addressing a subject
2
that I know that Senator Ayotte and Representative
3
McKeon will talk about, so I'm just going to introduce
4
the subject, and then I'm sure they'll do it in a lot
5
more detail.
6
As Senator Talent said -- or Jamie, I guess,
7
said -- we've got a real problem facing us at the very
8
beginning of next year because of the Defense Policy
9
Act, which -- excuse me, the Budget Policy Act, which
10
sets the levels of funding for the next 10 years and
11
provided an automatic sequestration of $1.2 trillion if
12
we weren't able to reach a reduction of that amount in
13
the Joint Select Committee that failed to do so.
14
As a result, each year about one-tenth of
15
that amount, or about $109 billion, will automatically
16
be cut 50/50 across the defense discretionary and
17
non-defense discretionary part of the budget.
18
everyone agrees that the meat axe approach is not the
19
right way to do it, as a result of which, Senator
20
McCain, Senator Ayotte, and a group of other senators
21
have induced legislation that is quite similar to that
22
introduced by Representative McKeon that would, for the
And
7
1
first year of the 10 years, avoid the sequester by
2
reducing by one-tenth the sequester amount, or $109
3
billion.
4
We do that for both defense and non-defense
5
because it's obvious that the people who have primarily
6
a mission to save education funding or transportation
7
funding or whatever it might be are going to be as
8
interested in avoiding the sequester as those of us who
9
are more interested in defense spending.
And most
10
members of Congress care about national defense as
11
well.
12
So the $109 billion would cover the entire
13
amount that would be sequestered in the first year, and
14
essentially the work will have to continue every year
15
thereafter to find about $109 billion either in revenue
16
or in savings, so that by the end of the 10 years, we
17
still get the $1.2 trillion in budget savings but we
18
haven't done it in a meat axe approach.
19
Our approach to fund it simply continues the
20
pay freeze that the President put into effect through
21
June of 2014, and it has a much more -- well, it has an
22
attrition rate of federal employees that is only half
8
1
as much as the Simpson-Bowles called for, so that for
2
every three employees that voluntarily leave government
3
service, you would replace two of them but not three.
4
Simpson-Bowles recommended replacing only one.
5
So we would eventually reduce the workforce
6
by about 5 percent, and I don't know of anybody that
7
doesn't think that can be done.
8
relatively painless way to achieve the $100-plus
9
billion for the first year to avoid sequestration.
10
So this is a
Well, again, that's all I'm going to say on
11
that.
12
Secretary Panetta said that the sequester would do
13
catastrophic damage to our military and its ability to
14
protect the country.
15
I think you all recognize the reason for it.
And what's amazing to me is the President
16
said he would veto any effort to do this.
Now, he's
17
the Commander in Chief.
18
Secretary says it would be catastrophic, it seems to me
19
the President needs to readjust his thinking on that.
And when his own Defense
20
Incidentally, when Lindsey Graham asked
21
Secretary Panetta, "Wouldn't this be kind of like
22
shooting ourselves in the foot?", he said, "No,
9
1
Senator.
2
the head."
3
alternative to the automatic sequester.
4
It would be more like shooting ourselves in
So bottom line is we've got to find an
Now, let me turn to the other two subjects.
5
First of all, the budget was announced this week.
6
I'm going to focus just on that part of the budget that
7
relates to our nuclear weapon program, specifically the
8
modernization program.
9
And
Recall what the big fight was before the new
10
START treaty was voted on in the Senate.
I know
11
because I led the fight.
12
analysis of the necessary modernization program for our
13
nuclear weapons that we knew that it was underfunded in
14
the President's budget.
15
10-year period, it was underfunded by about $10
16
billion, or about a billion dollars a year.
17
And we argued and argued, and the
We had done enough of an
And we argued that, over a
18
Administration finally conceded that we were right.
19
During the Veterans Day recess just before the START
20
treaty was taken up on the Senate floor, General
21
Chilton, head of STRATCOM, a representative of NNSA,
22
and Secretary Jim Miller, Dr. Miller, on behalf of the
10
1
Defense Department, flew out to Phoenix to brief me in
2
a secure facility.
3
And we talked about the size that we would
4
need in terms of the number of warheads.
5
about the Triad, and we talked about the facilities
6
that needed to be rebuilt, the life extension programs
7
that were needed to refurbish our nuclear weapons, and
8
so on.
9
We talked
And in effect, what they said was, you were
10
right, Senator Kyl.
11
this, and we agree that we need to add something around
12
$4-1/2 billion to the 5-year program for modernization.
13
Our analysis was underfunding
And I believe that if we'd carried this out over 10
14
years, it would have reflected another 5.
15
fair to them, they only focused on the fit-up, and
16
therefore just a little under $5 billion for the 5
17
years.
18
But to be
As a result, a revised 1251 -- Section 1251
19
of the law that requires this modernization program to
20
be outlined and costed -- a revised version of the 1251
21
study was presented.
22
Administration reflected the new thinking that added
And to their credit, the
11
1
the 4-plus, $4-1/2 billion, roughly, to the program to
2
ensure that the facilities could be built, the life
3
extension programs could be completed, the surveillance
4
that was necessary, the other work at the labs, and we
5
also focused on the necessary changes in the Triad,
6
given the fact that our Triad is in need of
7
modernization as well.
8
What the budget does is to throw away all of
9
that work and go back on the commitment that was made.
10
It goes right back to where it was before the 1251
11
report revisions.
12
the budget are $372 million, and over the 5-year period
13
that's $4.3 billion, exactly the amount that we knew
14
was going to be needed to upgrade the modernization
15
program to really meet the needs.
16
The cuts for next year called for in
Now, the Administration might say, well,
17
Congress actually reduced the money in the budget by
18
$400 million last year, and therefore we're just
19
following along with what Congress did.
20
the SASC nor the HASC agreed.
21
funding that, to their credit, the Administration had
22
asked for in last year's budget.
Well, neither
They authorized the full
12
1
And it just seems to me that this is more of
2
an excuse than a real reason to reduce the funding in
3
the budget this year because the Administration had
4
committed to me, and committed to all the members of
5
the Senate, that they would request full funding this
6
year, next year, and in the out years, and in fact,
7
that they would try to advance the construction of the
8
CMRR, one of the two main facilities that have to be
9
reconstructed, as quickly as they could.
10
And of
course, this puts the brakes to that.
11
So I think the commitment that was made to us
12
has been broken.
13
premise, namely, that Congress just would never support
14
it.
15
money for Congress to distribute, but they did all they
16
could -- the appropriators did, I think, the best they
17
could -- to fill that hole.
18
And it's been broken on a false
The Budget Act of last year didn't leave enough
And we even were able to get, at the very end
19
of the session, a transfer of funding from the Defense
20
Department to the Department of Energy of roughly $150
21
million, or a little less, to fill the gap for certain
22
key programs that the Department of Defense identified
13
1
as critical, as the customer of the Department of
2
Energy that has the custody of the nuclear weapons and
3
would be responsible for their use.
4
So I think they did everything that they
5
could.
6
I'm not talking about the Defense Department; I'm
7
talking about the Administration -- decided that they
8
would use this as a reason to reduce the funding, and
9
as a result, to go back on the commitment.
10
The Administration, on the other hand -- and
Now, what will the practical effect of this
11
be?
12
the -- or a 2-year delay in the life extension for the
13
B-61 -- that's the one that has to be done like
14
yesterday; a 2-year delay in the W-76 deliveries; at
15
least a 5-year delay in the new uranium processing
16
facility at Los Alamos, the CMRR.
17
uranium facility is at Oak Ridge.
18
Well, there's going to be a 2-year extension in
I'm sorry, the
This facility, by the way, has increased in
19
cost not because of anything that's gone wrong with the
20
calculations but because of the potential for
21
earthquake damage in the region, which has required
22
them to just pour a lot more concrete and steel in it.
14
1
2
So it's not the fault of Los Alamos lab that the cost
of the plutonium facility has gone up some.
3
Now, it also will impact the Triad.
The
4
follow-on nuclear ballistic missile submarine has now
5
been delayed by 2 years; that will not only affect our
6
program, but also the British program.
7
funding for a new strategic bomber, but it's basically
8
just on the drawing boards, and there's no commitment
9
that it will be nuclear certified.
There is
And there's no
10
clear plan for a new ICBM or an air-launched cruise
11
missile.
12
I spoke about the fact that the President had
13
made the commitment to us.
14
the fact that these commitments were one of the reasons
15
the START treaty was adopted.
16
modernization program was very carefully worked out
17
between ourselves and the Department of Energy, and
18
frankly, where we came out on that played a fairly
19
significant role in the willingness of the Senate to
20
ratify the new START agreement."
21
22
Secretary Gates reflected
He told Congress, "This
So those senators who voted for the new START
agreement, I think, are going to want to carefully
15
1
reflect on the promises that were made to them, much of
2
which was the basis for their agreement to vote for
3
START.
4
In his message to us, here's what the
5
President said he would do.
6
are his words -- "to accelerate, to the extent
7
possible, the design and engineering phase of the
8
CMRR," that I spoke of; instead, now we're going to
9
have a 5-year delay -- and "to request full funding,
10
including on a multi-year basis," and of course that
11
wasn't done; instead it's cut back.
12
He promised -- and these
So the impact of the budget on the nuclear
13
modernization program is going to take us right back to
14
where we were before all of the work that was done
15
pre-START, and Congress is going to have to address
16
that.
17
There are a couple of ways we can do it.
One
18
way is to build on some legislation that the House got
19
passed, which was to connect up the funding for the
20
reductions in nuclear warheads called for by new START
21
to adequate funding for modernization.
22
modernize what we've got, then it's more difficult to
If you can't
16
1
get rid of some of the weapons we have and still have
2
the same degree of deterrent.
3
wants to help out here in reducing the number of
4
warheads, they can help us get the funding across the
5
board for modernization.
6
So if the Administration
Now let me turn to the other subject, the
7
reports that the Administration is evaluating a
8
reduction in nuclear warheads by up to 80 percent.
9
What's the proper number?
We talked to a lot of people
10
before the START treaty, and I mentioned General
11
Chilton before.
12
numbers that were identified in new START.
13
Here's what he said with regard to the
He said this:
"I think the arsenal that we
14
have is exactly what is needed today to provide the
15
deterrent.
16
both against technical failures in the current deployed
17
arsenal and any geopolitical concerns that might cause
18
us to need more weapons."
19
It is sized to be able to allow us to hedge
So what are some of the implications of going
20
below those numbers that the former head of STRATCOM
21
said were necessary?
22
said you might be able to reduce the number of
Well, first, some people have
17
1
warheads, but only if we have a robust missile defense
2
system and we build up our conventional capabilities.
3
And in the budget, both of those items are dramatically
4
reduced, and this Administration has no commitment,
5
serious commitment, to either one.
6
How would cheating affect strategic balance?
7
If you've got a thousand or 1500 warheads, you can do
8
a whole lot better if the other side cheats than if you
9
get down to what is deemed to be a bare minimum.
10
How about the peer competitors?
A 300 number
11
would take us down -- the Chinese would have more than
12
we have.
13
wanted to could build up to that number and be a peer
14
with the United States.
15
deterrent is to have so much and so great a capability
16
that nobody ever messes with you.
17
doctrine of peace through strength.
18
enough that nobody is tempted to try to get what you
19
have and cause trouble.
20
I mean, this is a number where anybody that
The whole point of nuclear
It's the Reagan
You're strong
What about the allies that depend on our
21
nuclear umbrella?
Are they going to be satisfied?
22
What about the fact that if we get down to that level
18
1
and you start having more countries beyond North Korea
2
and Iran and countries like that develop the
3
capability, you're just going to proliferate.
4
can only look to the Middle East to see the countries
5
that would be interested in acquiring their own
6
capability.
7
And one
Finally, for my friends who agree with the
8
President that we should significantly reduce the
9
number of warheads, think about one of the doctrinal
10
changes that usually accompanies that determination.
11
Instead of holding military assets at risk, which takes
12
quite a few nuclear warheads, if you just have a few,
13
your deterrent is essentially to hold civilians at
14
risk, innocent civilians in cities, because that's all
15
the weapons you have to put against targets.
16
I don't think that's a doctrine the United
17
States wants to engage in, and I don't think that's
18
what proponents of lower numbers of weapons support,
19
either.
20
in doctrine were we to get down to that low.
21
22
So we would have to have significant changes
In addition, you have to look at the threat.
And I know some people believe that the Administration
19
1
has picked out a number first and then they want to get
2
a study that rationalizes that number by determining
3
that the threat wasn't nearly as great as we thought it
4
was.
5
and then size your force to meet that threat.
6
the case for military doctrine, whether it's nuclear or
7
conventional.
8
You start with a proper analysis of the threat
That's
You don't start with how much money you think
9
you want to spend, or a level of the number of tanks
10
that you're going to build, or the number of nuclear
11
weapons you're going to have, and then develop a
12
strategy based upon that.
13
being able to deter aggression.
14
That's a sure path to not
And what's going on around the world today?
15
Well, actually, Russia is placing more emphasis on its
16
nuclear forces, not less.
17
Defense Minister said recently, "I do not rule out that
18
under certain circumstances we will have to boost, not
19
cut, our nuclear arsenal."
20
And in fact, the Deputy
So I wonder how the President thinks he's
21
going to get the Russians to agree to lower even below
22
where they are today.
Remember, under the START
20
1
treaty, we had to lower the number of weapons in our
2
inventory.
3
one out because they were already at that level.
4
now they're talking about boosting, not lowering.
5
The Russians didn't have to take a single
And
So how is the President going to negotiate a
6
new treaty with the Russians on that?
7
gotten to the point where their doctrine now includes
8
the use of nuclear weapons in the event of an attack,
9
in the event of a conventional attack.
10
So China.
China is modernizing its forces to
11
a point that is pretty incredible.
12
about that.
13
14
15
Pakistan?
18
Just enough said
Pakistan is about to overtake
Great Britain in the number of nuclear weapons it has.
Not exactly the most stable place in the world.
16
17
They've even
Iran, we all understand what's going on
there.
And then here's something interesting.
At
19
the very point in time that we should be emphasizing
20
nonproliferation and demanding conditions on countries
21
that want to "go nuclear" that prevent them from
22
developing weapons-grade material, the Administration
21
1
is weakening the requirements, the former gold standard
2
that we had applied to countries, in our nuclear
3
cooperation agreements.
4
In the agreements proposed with Jordan and
5
Vietnam, we would not require those countries to
6
relinquish their right to enrichment, something that,
7
of course, we're asking Iran to do and we had asked
8
other countries to do.
9
So what's this about?
I mean, if you're
10
going to have a strategy against other countries
11
proliferating nuclear weapons, you don't get your
12
number down to the point where they feel they have to
13
and change our standards for nuclear cooperation
14
agreements in ways that would permit them to develop
15
the material.
16
So I'll just conclude on this point.
If the
17
President is suggesting we need to get down to 300 to
18
save money, it doesn't save money.
19
he believes we need to do that to set a moral example
20
in the world because then other countries will reduce
21
their stockpiles or will agree not to go forward, I
22
ask, okay, and we did that with START; how is that
It's like BRAC.
If
22
1
working out in terms of other countries reducing their
2
arsenals or foregoing their weapons?
3
Russia, the object of our relationship, our
4
reset relationship, is now talking about raising, not
5
lowering, their number of warheads.
6
certainly hasn't impressed countries like Iran, North
7
Korea.
8
9
Our moral example
The bottom line is that these are not
arguments for going to a lower number.
I recognize
10
this is the President's vision.
11
without nuclear weapons.
12
this is not the way to advance that idealistic goal.
13
He wants a world
But this is not the time and
I'll just finish with, again, the point I
14
made earlier.
15
be strong enough that nobody wants to be tempted to
16
cause trouble.
17
strength, and a key component of that doctrine is our
18
nuclear deterrent.
19
the point that it doesn't achieve the reason why we
20
have it.
21
22
The best way to deter aggression is to
It is the doctrine of peace through
We must not let it deteriorate to
Thank you very much for the opportunity to
speak to you, and if there's nobody else here to speak,
23
1
I'd take a question or two or a comment.
2
SENATOR TALENT:
3
SENATOR KYL:
Thank you so much.
I voted your comment about the
4
rolls, and as long as they're not hard rolls, it'll
5
work out okay.
6
7
SENATOR TALENT:
indulging, in the audience, coffee and otherwise.
8
9
Feel free to continue
Tom Donnelly had a question, and then we'll
go to the audience.
10
MR. DONNELLY:
Sir, at the very end of your
11
presentation, you talked a bit about proliferation
12
around the world.
13
approach has always been, essentially, to compare
14
ourselves to the Soviet Union and then to the Russians.
15
Our arms control negotiating
But as other nations build up their nuclear
16
inventories and we reduce ours, it changes the
17
equation.
18
two-sided negotiation but a multi-player game.
19
It's not just a two-sided game or a
I'd be interested to know what you think the
20
world would look like if the American nuclear arsenal
21
is functionally no larger than the Chinese arsenal or
22
the Indian arsenal or the Pakistani arsenal or what
24
1
have you.
2
like to you?
3
What does a multi-polar nuclear world look
SENATOR KYL:
Right, Tom.
This raises,
4
obviously, a very important point.
5
ourselves against the Soviet Union -- did we have
6
enough to deter them?
7
We used to measure
And then the Chinese came along.
They weren't that capable, but we wanted to make sure
8
we had enough of a hedge there, in the event that we
9
needed to cover two countries, that we could.
10
Well, then the Bush Administration, after the
11
Soviet Union's demise, voluntarily unilaterally reduced
12
our nuclear weapons and essentially said, look.
13
are costly.
14
These
We're going to get rid of a bunch of them.
And to the Russians at that point, if you want to
15
reduce yours, do so, too.
16
own self-interest, but not because we had a big treaty.
17
And they did, out of their
So that's where it stood until, I would say,
18
a few years ago, when Russia decided it had to get back
19
in the nuclear game in a really big way, developing new
20
nuclear weapons, new types of nuclear weapons, new
21
delivery systems, and a doctrine that actually called
22
for the use of those weapons, at the same time that our
25
1
intelligence demonstrates that we have new threats from
2
the Chinese to potentially be worried about in the
3
event of a conflict with them, and potentially the need
4
to cover some additional targets as well.
5
So with new START, we get down to a level
6
that our experts said are just about right, certainly
7
not too many, to deal with the threat from Russia.
8
you noticed, in general, Chilton's testimony, he also
9
said, "and potential technical problems with our own
10
11
And
weapons."
The bottom line is, you can't necessarily
12
count on 100 percent of your weapons working exactly as
13
you intend them to work, so you've got to be careful
14
that you've got enough of a hedge there.
15
have a production capacity like the Russians do, so
16
what we have is what we got.
17
able to build any more.
And we don't
We're not going to be
18
If you have more and more countries coming on
19
line that you may need to deter, you've pretty soon run
20
out of numbers to cover all of those targets.
21
can't count on, let's say, a Russia being very benign
22
while somebody else is creating a problem for us.
And you
26
1
So in the guidance doctrine that develops the
2
weapons to fit the threat, you have to take all of
3
these things into consideration:
4
weaponry and what kind of a hedge you have to have; the
5
fact that we don't have a nuclear production capacity
6
any more, we just have to fix up the old ones that we
7
have -- Russia does have such a capacity; the fact that
8
our allies are essentially going down in their ability
9
to help us -- I'm talking about Great Britain and
the quality of your
10
France here; 32 countries depend on us; other countries
11
are proliferating.
12
Are we still going to have the numbers we
13
need?
14
we don't have a new production capability, as I said,
15
like the Russians and Chinese do.
16
important factor to take into account.
17
Once our weapons are gone, they're gone, because
So this is a very
I notice that the chairman of the
18
all-powerful House Armed Services Committee is here,
19
and we're going to count on him to further discuss the
20
issues of the general decline in things like missile
21
defense, in conventional capability as well as all of
22
the things associated with our nuclear capability.
27
1
Thank you very much.
2
(Applause)
3
SENATOR TALENT:
Thank you, Senator Kyl.
In
4
view of the fact that Chairman McKeon is here, we'll go
5
right to his statement and then hope to have some time
6
for questions afterwards.
7
Congressman Howard "Buck" McKeon represents
8
the 25th District of California in the House of
9
Representatives.
In June of 2009, he was named the
10
ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee,
11
and he now serves as the committee's chairman in the
12
112th Congress.
13
on the HASC, Congressman McKeon was the top Republican
14
on the Education & the Workforce Committee for close to
15
3 years.
Prior to serving as the ranking member
16
Ladies and gentlemen, Buck McKeon.
17
(Applause)
18
CONGRESSMAN McKEON:
19
be with you.
20
Talent and I, in 1992.
21
Education and Armed Services?
22
Good morning.
Good to
We came to Congress together, Senator
And we served together on
SENATOR TALENT:
Were you on --
Yes.
28
1
2
CONGRESSMAN McKEON:
So I feel like we're
kind of joined at the hip.
3
Thank you for having me here today.
There's
4
one thing I would like to talk about, and that is cuts
5
to the defense of our nation.
6
up on the first round of cuts.
7
the -- what did we call that? -- Deficit Control Act,
8
and we cut almost a trillion out of our discretionary
9
spending.
10
I've pretty much given
Last year we voted for
Defense accounts for 20 percent of our
11
national budget, but it made up 50 percent of the
12
savings in that first go-around.
13
that's been presented to us by the President this week.
14
That is the budget
We're in the process now of hearings.
Yesterday we
15
had Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey.
16
be talking to Secretary of the Navy Mabus, and tomorrow
17
will be the Army, and we're going through that process
18
now.
19
Today we'll
And I know that those cuts are pretty well
20
locked in.
There might be little changes around the
21
fringe, but we are going to have about $50 billion a
22
year for the next 5 years cut from defense.
That
29
1
budget should be passed; we'll pass our budget on the
2
House side.
3
don't pass budgets over here.
4
I realize we're on the Senate side and we
But there will be some effort to try to plan
5
for spending for the next year.
6
in a CR.
7
we'll go through dealing with those problems probably
8
when we get into January.
9
It'll probably result
And then we go through the election, and then
Where I'm really going to focus my efforts
10
for the rest of this year is the second part of the
11
Deficit Reduction Act, and that is the sequestration
12
part, where we cut another 1.1, $1.2 billion out of
13
discretionary spending, half of that out of defense,
14
and about -- it will be about like 5-, $600 billion a
15
year that kicks in next January.
16
Now, I've heard people say, well, we'll get
17
that fixed.
18
sequestration would never happen.
19
onerous that we would be responsible enough to make
20
sure that that didn't happen.
21
22
In fact, I was promised that the
We would make it so
We had the super-committee that was set up to
address that second trillion-plus on the entitlement
30
1
side, and we all know what happened there.
2
weren't able to complete that.
3
this hanging over us that kicks in next January.
4
They
And so we're left with
I heard a member saying, that cut is supposed
5
to be just across-the-board even-handed.
The cuts that
6
we're dealing with in this year's budget, the $487
7
billion, the defense chiefs have had six, eight months
8
that they've been working on this.
9
A lot of planning.
A lot of thought.
They've changed the strategy,
10
revised a lot of things, and really put a lot of work
11
into it.
12
The sequestration is just an automatic cut
13
across the board.
14
last week, we had Dr. Carter, Admiral Winnefeld, and
15
the service secretaries and chiefs.
16
members asked Dr. Carter what planning, what were they
17
doing to prepare for the sequestration cuts in January?
18
And in fact, when we had a briefing
And one of our
And he says, "We don't have to plan for that.
Let's
19
just draw out the budget, take every line item, and cut
20
a certain percentage off."
21
22
No thought whatsoever.
To me, it looks like what we're facing is
total chaos next January.
I heard a member saying,
31
1
"Well, we don't have to do it that way.
2
it."
3
work around here, or don't.
We can fix
4
Let me just kind of go through how things really
We have an election in November.
There's
5
talk that the Senate might change.
The leadership
6
might change.
7
House.
8
presidential election.
9
be probably some fairly uncertain times between the
No telling what will happen in the
No telling what's going to happen in the
But I predict that there will
10
election and when we're -- what do we do? -- sworn in
11
in January for the next Congress.
12
Sequestration starts January 1st.
The new
13
Congress isn't sworn in until after that.
14
don't fix this problem before December 31st, it
15
automatically starts.
16
So if we
We have hundreds of contracts out in the
17
Defense Department that would all have to be rewritten.
18
When you go down that line by line on the budget and
19
just take a percentage off, 8 percent, 9 percent, 12
20
percent, whatever it works out, that will happen.
21
22
And all of the contracts that have been let
-- I was thinking about this.
I think about it a lot.
32
1
And say I'm a small -- I have a friend at home who has
2
a small machinist shop.
3
does, they do by contract, and so he gets contracts to
4
make so many parts that then go to Northrop, Lockheed,
5
some company, to go into a plane or a ship or whatever
6
they're building.
7
Everything the government
He has, I think, six employees.
So all of a
8
sudden he's going to get cut.
9
contract that says, we're going to pay you so much to
10
build so much.
11
those contracts.
12
He's left with a
That's just one out of hundreds of
Is he going to just say, go ahead and rewrite
13
it; I'll be happy with whatever you give me, and I'll
14
just let two of my employees go?
15
maybe say, I have some rights in this; I'm going to
16
talk to an attorney and I'm going to take this to
17
court?
18
chaos that we're going to be facing next January.
19
Or is he going to
Multiply that times hundreds.
Think of the
And so what I've tried to do is bring this to
20
the attention of my colleagues to say, the prudent
21
thing, the responsible thing, is to fix this before
22
that calamity hits or that chaos hits.
33
1
So we introduced a bill that says, we will
2
pay for the first year of sequestration, for all
3
sequestration, not just defense, but all of the
4
discretionary spending.
5
year to move it back, to give us some breathing room.
6
I mean, we're going to have some very serious problems
7
dealing with the cuts that are coming in this year's
8
budget that are supposed to kick in next October that
9
probably will be going into a CR that we'll still be
10
dealing with in January, let alone the sequestration
11
chaos on top of that.
12
We'll pay for it the first
So if we could pay for that first year and
13
move it back a year, it would give us some kind of
14
breathing room to really work through these problems
15
that we'll be confronting.
16
year by reducing the federal workforce by 10 percent
17
through attrition.
18
So we pay for that first
So if we have -- three of us work in the same
19
department and I quit, they can't hire me, can't
20
replace me, until you both quit.
21
replace one person.
22
will realize the money to pay for that one-year cost.
And then they can
And over a 10-year period, that
34
1
That's a criticism; it takes 10 years to pay to get the
2
one year of benefit.
3
seriousness of the problems that we're going to be
4
facing in January if we don't do that.
5
I think that it far offsets the
The Senate, Senator Kyl, Senator McCain, have
6
introduced a similar bill on the Senate side.
7
little difference.
8
percent of the workforce, and a freeze of federal pay
9
up till 2014.
As I understand it, their cut is 5
Those things we could work out very
10
easily in conference.
11
is very similar.
12
Very
I have no -- I just see the bill
The main thing is to fix the problem.
So that's what I'm going to be focused on
13
24/7 for the next year because I've talked to some of
14
the leaders of industry.
15
plans.
16
because they know that the law says that this kicks in
17
January 1st.
18
start realizing the savings that they need to do next
19
January 1st.
20
They are already making
They are already laying people off this year
So they cannot wait till December 31st to
If by some chance we were able to fix this in
21
December, that means all of the layoffs that they do
22
between now and then were needless, but they can't wait
35
1
for us.
2
think we need to step up and get it resolved.
3
So do you want to do any questions?
4
SENATOR TALENT:
5
You know, it's just a serious problem, and I
audience first.
Yes.
Let's go to the
Any questions for the chairman?
6
CONGRESSMAN McKEON:
7
MR. WOLF:
8
Yesterday you wrote to President Obama about
9
10
11
12
13
Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, Jim Wolf, Reuters.
the plan to cut U.S. aid to Israel for missile defense.
Can you elaborate on your concerns there?
SENATOR TALENT:
Yes, the question was about
planned cuts in missile defense aid to Israel.
CONGRESSMAN McKEON:
It just seems to me that
14
this is a very precarious time for Israel.
15
the saber rattling that's going on in Iran, with the
16
Autumn (phonetic) Spring and all the unrest in the
17
Middle East, why would we be cutting our strongest ally
18
in the area, one that we've been with forever that we
19
have a special relation with; why would we at this
20
point be cutting their missile defense?
21
increasing it.
22
SENATOR TALENT:
Why would
We should be
Other questions?
And we
36
1
have microphones if we can get them to the people who
2
have questions, and that way we can all hear them.
3
Yes, sir.
4
AUDIENCE QUESTION:
5
are --
6
7
Mr. Chairman, there
SENATOR TALENT:
Just a second.
on?
8
AUDIENCE QUESTION:
9
SENATOR TALENT:
Looking for it.
We really try and stump
10
people with microphones that have no --
11
AUDIENCE QUESTION:
12
SENATOR TALENT:
Thank you, and maybe we can
try and fix the mic.
15
16
Perhaps it would better
if you stand we would be better able to hear you.
13
14
Is the mic
AUDIENCE QUESTION:
-- from the Center for
Military Readiness.
17
My question, Mr. Chairman, is in the debate
18
over the issue of defense cuts, we're hearing a lot
19
from people who are on fiscal issues rather than keep
20
their focus that fits on the table with everything
21
else.
22
confidence that at some level in our public education
Now, I'm publicly educated, and I have a lot of
37
1
system we are not on the Education Committee, but my
2
math says that we're somewhere in the neighborhood of
3
$800 billion of cuts already in this administration
4
alone.
5
that over and above what's been done prior.
6
I'm sure Tom Donnelly can tell us more about
So my question is:
what would you say to
7
folks who say at this stage the guns are already in
8
place.
9
needs to be on the table?
10
Sequestration is in the offing.
CONGRESSMAN McKEON:
Defense still
You know, I'm a strong
11
supporter of defense.
12
sound fiscal policy.
13
building up for years.
14
have, very serious, and it's escalating the last few
15
years and not all because of President Obama.
16
because of various reasons, but one is that 10,000 of
17
us are going onto the Medicare and Social Security
18
rolls every day now, the Baby Boomers, and that's why
19
it has just gotten out of sight the last few years.
20
I'm also a strong supporter of a
My concern is that we've been
We've spent money we don't
It's
I have real difference with the President on
21
spending and priorities, but I think he could have in
22
the stimulus bill, could have put some money into
38
1
defense, didn't, and as you said, we've had all these
2
cuts.
3
have on the Defense Department, over $600 billion, if
4
we can't find some savings, shame on us.
I think that out of a budget the size that we
5
So I think we should be at the table like
6
everybody else, but I think we've gone overboard.
7
I say that the Defense Department accounts for 20
8
percent of overall spending, yet they took just out of
9
the first tranche 50 percent of the savings out of
10
defense.
11
sequestration.
12
13
14
15
When
I think that is plenty, and that's before the
So I think we've just really gone overboard.
Now, I've seen this in my history.
I've been around a
lot longer than you, and we cut back after World War I.
I wasn't here then.
16
(Laughter.)
17
CONGRESSMAN McKEON:
We cut back after World
18
War II, after Korea, after Vietnam.
19
in our DNA to cut back so that we won't be prepared for
20
the next confrontation, and that leads to the next
21
confrontation.
22
It seems like it's
I was at a meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld a
39
1
few months ago.
2
committee, and he said, "On 9/11 I was sitting in the
3
Pentagon.
4
Services Committee for breakfast," and he said, "I told
5
them because we had just had the rundown from the
6
Clinton-Bush or Bush-Clinton drawdown," and he said, "I
7
told those members that something bad was going to
8
happen.
9
later they hit the tower."
10
He met with some of the members of our
I invited some of the members of the Armed
I didn't know when or where, and few hours
It's just as you run down your ability, your
11
strength, somebody is always going to be out there to
12
take advantage of it, and I think I've seen us do that
13
time and time again.
14
we're at war.
15
drawdown when we've actually got troops going outside
16
the wire every day in harm's way.
17
I've never seen us do it when
This is the first time I've seen us do a
But I'm a realist.
It's crazy.
I understand that that's
18
a budget that we're dealing with right now, but like I
19
say, I don't think we're going to see a lot of change
20
in that, but we can stop the sequestration, and that
21
definitely needs to be done.
22
SENATOR TALENT:
Tom, a brief comment and
40
1
then, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Forbes is here.
2
CONGRESSMAN McKEON:
3
SENATOR TALENT:
4
further duty with our great thanks.
5
6
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
8
SENATOR TALENT:
10
I saw him.
-- we can excuse you from
CONGRESSMAN McKEON:
7
9
So --
I'll introduce Congressman
Forbes and while he is thinking about his remarks just
make a brief comment.
11
I wrote a few years ago at the beginning of
12
this latest iteration of the debt crisis that one of
13
the challenges that we were going to see the federal
14
government begin to act more and more like panic
15
distressed borrowers act.
16
familiar with that kind of a situation in either the
17
private sector or the nonprofit world or even a local
18
government level knows that the two big dangers are,
19
one, that they won't cut or increase revenue where they
20
should, and the other is that they will cut where they
21
shouldn't.
22
Anybody who has ever been
I mean there are core functions of every
41
1
organization that have to be performed notwithstanding
2
the budget situation, and if you're a farmer, you have
3
to have gasoline for the combine, and we're seeing that
4
exactly now.
5
this late concern about the deficit, and so all you
6
have got to do is look at budget numbers to see what
7
the problem is.
8
mismatch between the revenue being collected for the
9
entitlement programs and the amount that they're
10
costing.
11
I mean, Defense is bearing the burden of
There is a mismatch, an enormous
That's as neutral a way as I can state it.
So you have got to solve it either by
12
increasing revenue or reducing the cost or both, and if
13
they do that, they'll solve the deficit problem.
14
they don't do that, slashing Defense is not going to
15
keep the government from going bankrupt.
16
reality.
17
and deal with it and increasing amounts of energy are
18
being spent on not recognizing reality either in the
19
defense situation or in the budget situation, which is
20
why we are where we're at.
If
That's just
But the town first has to recognize reality
21
The main advantage of being a moderator is
22
you can insert editorial comments like that when you
42
1
want to, but now we have a real speaker, Congressman
2
Randy Forbes, who represents the 4th District of
3
Virginia in the United States House of Representatives.
4
Randy was elected to Congress in 2001.
He's
5
the Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee in the House
6
Armed Services Committee.
7
with Congressman Forbes, and there really isn't anybody
8
here, maybe the Chairman excepted, who understands the
9
situation as well as he does and is as urgently
I've spoken and dealt often
10
concerned about it as he is.
11
grateful for his work and for his presence here.
12
Congressman Forbes.
13
(Applause.)
14
CONGRESSMAN FORBES:
15
16
And so we're very
Well, thank you,
Senator.
And let me honestly say a lot of places we go
17
to talk and we say, "I thank you so much for what
18
you're doing."
19
you both for being such experts on this field, for the
20
advice you're always willing to give to us, and thank
21
you all for what you're doing because we're not seeing
22
it happening in many other venues.
Today I sincerely mean that.
I thank
43
1
I want to start this morning by saying that
2
I'm going to try to be brief and hit it from kind of an
3
aerial view because I love the questions that you're
4
asking, and I hope I get to respond to some of those,
5
but I want to start by telling you that we're living in
6
a world now where we have a new strategy to defend the
7
free world, and this is it.
8
pages of a new strategy to defend the world.
9
want to tell you, for those of you who have studied
It's eight pages, eight
And I
10
this and read this, and I'll tell you I may step on a
11
few toes today, including mine, but forgive me, but
12
it's just what you asked me to do.
This strategy is
13
not the strategy of a super power.
This is a menu for
14
mediocrity, and if we buy into the fact that this is a
15
strategy for a super power, woe to us.
16
Now, the salesman of this new strategy would
17
try to convince us.
They have a new term now it's
18
called "acceptable risk."
19
acceptable risk out, you're talking about really
20
acceptable chances, and what you see us doing now with
21
this new strategy is we're talking about the defense of
22
this country pretty much as if it was some kind of game
In fact, if you extrapolate
44
1
at a table in a Vegas casino, and it's not, as you
2
know.
3
I had an ambassador in my office not too long
4
ago.
5
fact that their country had made some cuts to defense,
6
and he said it wasn't the end of the world.
7
didn't fall apart.
8
He was sitting down, and he was talking about the
Everything
I reached over and put my hand on his
9
shoulder, and I said, "Mr. Ambassador, if you made a
10
mistake, if you miscalculated, if something happened
11
and you were wrong, who was your backstop?"
12
And he looked to me and he said, "You."
13
And I said, "That's right."
I said, "But if
14
we make a mistake, if we miscalculate, we have no
15
backstop because we're the backstop of freedom in all
16
the world," and we've got to remember that and we can't
17
forget that.
18
Now, what's so amazing to me, as you and I
19
sit around and we look at some of this stuff that's
20
happening with just these eight pages that we have,
21
we're actually looking back sometimes, and if we're
22
careful or not careful, we're going to see the
45
1
dismantling of the greatest military the world has ever
2
done, not by some Goliath that rose up in some other
3
part of the world, but by the thousand cuts that we sat
4
back and just let take place.
5
If we're just quiet and we listen, we're
6
hearing literally the clanking as we're taking it apart
7
bolt by bolt now, but what's amazing to me is not that
8
that's happening.
9
deafening silence that's out there by so many people.
What's amazing to me is the
10
(Applause.)
11
CONGRESSMAN FORBES:
You know, I am just
12
waiting.
13
you know, for again stepping on these toes, but it's
14
amazing to me.
15
admirals that are going to come up to the table and
16
pound on the table and say, "You can't destroy my
17
Navy."
18
I'm waiting for this, and look.
Forgive me,
I keep wanting to see where are the
Where are the general that are going to come
19
and start pounding on the table and say, "You're not
20
going to destroy the force structure that I have"?
21
22
Where are the Marines that are going to come
there and say, "We can't do away with all our
46
1
prepositioned stocks that we have"?
2
And I keep listening and it's quiet.
And
3
then I listen to members of Congress and let me tell
4
you they're just as guilty.
5
listening and saying, "Where's the leadership stepping
6
up to the plate and saying, 'We're not going here'?"
7
I'm sitting there
And you know why they're not going there?
8
Because they put these blinders on as they walk down,
9
and look.
They're good guys.
I'm not pointing
10
fingers.
You know, I'm just saying.
And they got led
11
down to this Budget Control Act where we had $487
12
billion of cuts, and you don't hear them saying, "My
13
gosh, look at what these cuts are going to do."
14
Everybody is just talking about sequestration.
15
I'm not at sequestration.
I want to come
16
back to these $487 billion of cuts and say we can't
17
afford to do those.
18
Panetta the other day to my questions, I asked him.
19
said, "Is this the number you would have picked?"
20
He said, "No, it's too much."
21
And yet we've got those kind of cuts that are
22
And it's not just me.
Secretary
going quietly into the night, and we're not hearing.
I
47
1
And then the other thing is where are the employers
2
around the country that are saying -- you know, if we
3
have these kind of cuts that come in place and if they
4
are just a third of what they estimate, they will equal
5
cuts that would be the same as all of the current
6
unemployed people in West Virginia, New Mexico, Maine,
7
Nebraska, Montana, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Delaware,
8
Alaska, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming and North Dakota
9
combined.
10
That's a big deal thing, and it's this
11
deafening silence that we are hearing out there.
12
where is the public that's sitting back there and
13
saying, "My gosh, we're looking at this rise of China
14
right now.
15
like we've never seen before."
16
And
They're building up military capability
Iran today as you and I are sitting in here
17
is trying to get the capacity to hit every geographical
18
area in the United States with a nuclear weapon, and
19
Lord only knows what we see happening with Iran, and
20
what are we doing?
21
an eight-page new strategy that says that we can cut
22
$487 billion.
We're saying, "No, no.
Let's have
We can cut another half a trillion
48
1
dollars, and we have a couple rounds of BRACs and we're
2
going to make the world a lot safer," and that
3
frightens me.
4
Now, the reality of this here when somebody
5
asked about the economic situation we're at, the
6
administration essentially spent the military's future
7
on an $800 billion stimulus package, and then what
8
they're trying to now convince us is this:
9
somehow there's some grand but unexplainable new world
10
strategy which means that having fewer ships than your
11
potential adversary, having potentially fewer warheads
12
than your potential enemy, having fewer planes than you
13
need and a drastic reduced force structure will somehow
14
make us all safer and make us better.
15
that
And you and I both know that's not true.
16
Now, we all know this.
Going back to Basic 101 on
17
defense planning, it's pretty simple.
18
do is to develop your strategy first by looking at the
19
risk and the threat assessment you have, the resources
20
that you need to comply with that strategy, and then
21
you develop a budget from that.
22
place.
What you have to
That is not what took
49
1
What took place by all the testimony
2
everybody knows is we gave $487 billion of cuts, and we
3
said, "Now, you develop a strategy that will fit within
4
the parameters of those budget cuts," and that's what
5
they did.
6
And so all of a sudden we now have truly a
7
strategy that's being driven by the budget, not a
8
budget that's being driven by the strategy, and that's
9
a dangerous, dangerous formula for us as the free world
10
to be buying into.
11
Now, the other thing I want to just point out
12
to you is this.
13
take a snapshot of the Navy.
14
panel reviewing the QDR, bipartisan, best experts we
15
had, Republican, Democrat, everybody said they could
16
never agree on anything.
17
and made a recommendation.
18
The result of that is that we just
We know an independent
Here's what they agreed on
You need a minimum of at least 346 ships in
19
our Navy.
The Navy says, "No, no, no, they're wrong.
20
We only need 313."
21
hearing 313 is the absolute floor.
22
need.
So for years you and I have been
That's what we
Bumped it up to 328 one year, but now they're
50
1
coming back and all of a sudden we've got this new
2
strategy that we don't use computers anymore.
3
pencil with an eraser, and we come in and say, "Ut-oh,
4
we were just wrong.
5
need 328.
6
We didn't need 346.
We didn't need 313.
We use a
We didn't
All we need now is 285.
We're good to go for the next five years."
7
And you and I know while we're doing that the
8
Chinese are saying, "Okay.
We've got more ships in our
9
navy now than you've got in your navy, and we're going
10
to keep building while you're reducing."
11
sense.
12
Doesn't make
Prepositioned stocks, we've always based a
13
Marine Corps on being able to get someplace quick and
14
be able to stay for 30 days, and we're going to say
15
now, "No, no.
16
prepositioned.
17
takes us nine months to reposition them.
18
because we're going to have a nine-month lead time on
19
any conflict we have in the world."
20
one.
21
22
That's okay.
We don't need them
Let's pull them back here even if it
It's okay
Good luck on that
The Air Force came back, you know, a few
months ago.
We heard let's cut out the F-22 and cut
51
1
out the 240 planes, but that's the floor.
2
going below that.
3
another 300 planes, and the Army is going to cut out
4
80,000 of our men and women in uniform, but we're going
5
to all be safer.
6
Now we hear we're going to cut out
Now, let me just say this.
7
to do?
8
what I think we need to do.
9
We're not
What do we need
And where do we need to go from here?
Here's
You and I can't go quietly into the night.
10
You know, I look at even our military folks when I
11
speak around the country, and there's a glaze there
12
because they're afraid to speak up.
13
a done deal.
14
their jobs.
15
They think this is
They're concerned that they could lose
These guys stand up for us every single day
16
to defend this country.
We've got to speak out for
17
them, and the great news is this.
18
the op-ed pieces we want.
19
like this, but unless we change this debate across the
20
country, it's not going to change.
We can write all of
We can have great forums
21
So we're beginning --
22
(Applause.)
52
1
CONGRESSMAN FORBES:
We're going to start a
2
speak up tour for members of the Armed Services
3
Committee to go around this country, and we hope it's
4
going to be the most comprehensive opportunity we've
5
had yet to give the public an opportunity to come out
6
and say what they think about these defense cuts and
7
where they are.
8
change this debate in the hearts and the minds of the
9
people in this country because what we need to
I think it's an opportunity for us to
10
do -- somebody asked earlier how we balance this with
11
the cuts and what we need to do to the deficit.
12
just say this.
13
Let me
The question we need to be asking is, one,
14
how much can we afford to spend, but we're not asking
15
the corollary question that needs to go with that, and
16
that is:
17
States of America takes if we don't supply these?
18
what is the price tag and the risk the United
That's what we need to be telling the
19
American people, and I'm convinced if America knows
20
that, they're going to respond and say, "We don't want
21
to go down this path.
22
greatest military the world has ever known."
We want to continue to have the
53
1
2
Thank you very much for letting me be with
you to talk today.
3
(Applause.)
4
SENATOR TALENT:
5
Thank you, Mr. Forbes, for
saying that.
6
I especially appreciated your comments to the
7
effect that we have devised a strategy after deciding
8
what we wanted to spend, and I'll just point out that
9
in the budget the administration submitted a year ago,
10
the number that they projected, that Secretary Gates
11
projected that he would need for Fiscal Year '13, the
12
upcoming, was $595 billion, and now all of a sudden the
13
number they say they need is $50 billion less than
14
that.
15
So the question that ought to be asked is:
16
well, when were you wrong?
17
about the number you say you need, then why did you
18
think you needed $50 billion more than that a year ago?
19
Because you're right now
As Congressman Forbes said, this is not
20
policy.
This is a confession that policy is no longer
21
being made.
22
to short-term political impulses in both the executive
These decisions are being made in response
54
1
and the legislative branch.
2
We have another great speaker, Congresswoman
3
Marsha Blackburn who represents the 7th District of
4
Tennessee.
5
bipartisan leader and a policy expert on
6
telecommunications issues and intellectual property
7
rights.
8
Committee.
9
Oversight, and she serves on two other critical Energy
She has earned a special reputation as a
She serves in the Energy and Commerce
She's Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on
10
and Commerce Subcommittees, Health and Communications
11
and Technology.
12
Congresswoman Blackburn.
13
CONGRESSWOMAN BLACKBURN:
14
(Applause.)
15
CONGRESSWOMAN BLACKBURN:
16
And I am absolutely thrilled to be here with
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator.
17
you today, and indeed, hearing from Congressman Forbes,
18
who has been one of the great leaders for our men and
19
women in military, and I appreciate that because one of
20
the great honors that I have in my service is having
21
the opportunity to represent the men and women at Fort
22
Campbell.
55
1
Now, as many of you know, Fort Campbell,
2
Kentucky is actually primarily located in Tennessee,
3
and many of those men and women who call Fort Campbell
4
home actually live on the Tennessee side of that line.
5
And you know these troops, the 101st Airborne, the 5th
6
Special Forces, and the Army's 160th Special Operations
7
Aviation Regiment, and they're the ones that piloted
8
Navy Seal Team 6 in the raid on Osama bin Laden, and
9
every soldier that has called Fort Campbell home has
10
undergone some of the most intensive physical and
11
mental training, and it's amazing to me to see the
12
dedication that they bring to the fight.
13
And we know that these men and women have
14
really earned the right, the right to be a part of this
15
nation's military and to carry out the mission that is
16
given them in the fight against global terrorism.
17
However, despite all of the bravery, the
18
sacrifice, the perseverance, and being one of the most
19
deployed units over the past decade, which the 101st
20
has been, many soldiers that I represent are currently
21
facing a lot of uncertainty, and as we visit, we talk
22
about that uncertainty.
56
1
They are not only uncertain about the status
2
of their missions abroad, but sadly, on top of the
3
stress of combat, they have to worry about the status
4
of their own employment.
5
farfetched or out of the realm of possibility.
6
7
8
9
These fears are by no means
These are well trained men and women who are
trained as soldiers, and they face an uncertain future.
If anyone in this room had read only the headlines,
just the headlines in the lead-up to President Obama's
10
2013 budget, you would have been greeted with great
11
reassurances such as these.
12
"A budget strategy that courts disaster.
13
Obama's Defense budget, broken promises.
14
budget that erodes America's military power and no
15
super power here."
16
what our men and women in uniform were greeted with,
17
that type uncertainty.
18
A Defense
Those were the headlines.
That is
Unfortunately, these perilous warnings have
19
not slowed down the President's biding determination to
20
move forward with Defense cuts with the same zeal that
21
helped him push through Obamacare.
22
to realize that not all change is good change, and the
The President fails
57
1
only hope his budget provides are reassurances to
2
people who are not our friends.
3
all who would like nothing more than to see the U.S.
4
surrender its position as the world's sole super power.
5
They are our enemies,
Most astonishingly, however, is that under
6
his budget proposal President Obama has decidedly
7
looked into the future and predicted that the U.S. will
8
never again have to fight a major ground war.
9
amazing, the decisions that he arrived at.
It is
His budget
10
also makes a bold prediction that our future enemies
11
are going to be gracious and accommodating to our
12
military and diplomacy needs to ensure that we will not
13
be forced into waging two simultaneous wars in
14
different regions of the globe.
15
I make that assessment because of past.
The
16
President's proposal would do this, and Congressman
17
Forbes just spoke to this, and I'm sure that Chairman
18
McKeon has done likewise.
19
But these numbers are frightening to those of
20
us that are concerned about our nation's security.
It
21
would slash 487 billion from the military over the next
22
ten years.
Our military could most likely survive one
58
1
cut of that magnitude, but you've got that 487 billion.
2
That is in addition to the 330 billion which was cut
3
through 2010 and a potential $500 billion that would
4
occur later this year through sequestration.
5
So all total, you're looking at $1.3 trillion
6
that would be cut to our nation's defense when they are
7
already operating on razor thin levels.
8
trillion.
9
That's $1.3
That's the size of the cut.
Last month in a speech at the Pentagon, the
10
President pledged, and I'm quoting him, "to keep faith
11
with those who serve by making sure our troops have the
12
equipment and capabilities they need to succeed and by
13
prioritizing efforts that focus on wounded warriors'
14
mental health and the well-being of our military
15
families," end quote.
16
I am afraid that President Obama and I have
17
very, very different interpretations of what it means
18
to keep faith with our troops, with our military
19
families, with our veterans.
20
definition is to give out pink slips to 80,000
21
soldiers, 80,000 well trained, dedicated, focused men
22
and women, 20,000 Marines, cut military pay, and
The President's
59
1
increase the cost of Tricare making it more difficult
2
for our veterans to receive the military medical
3
benefits and treatment that they deserve.
4
In addition, the President's budget will
5
eliminate six Air Force tactical squadrons, 27 C-5As,
6
65 C-130s, which as you know that is the workhorse when
7
it comes to moving troops and material around the
8
globe, and nearly halt the acquisition of the F-35s,
9
which are greatly needed to contain China and keep our
10
11
allies in the Asia Pacific safe from attack.
However, if some of you are thinking that the
12
Navy has been left out of this esteemed discussion, I
13
would encourage you to have no fear.
14
budget is an equal opportunity force eliminator that
15
cuts every single branch of the military.
16
Naval fleet, which is already operating at its smallest
17
level -- can you believe that? -- smallest level since
18
the beginning of the 20th Century, will be forced to
19
retire seven cruisers, eliminate two literal combat
20
ships, and slow down work on amphibious ships and
21
attack submarines.
22
I'll take the opportunity to quote you here, kind sir,
The President's
Our U.S.
In the words of Tom Donnelly, and
60
1
and I'm quoting, "The Obama administration isn't just
2
seeking a rebalancing of U.S. strategy.
3
make a permanent retreat by removing the military means
4
of mischief.
5
temptation to fight wars just because we can," end
6
quote.
7
It intends to
With a smaller force we resist the
In other words, this President believes that
8
the U.S. is addicted to the use of military force.
9
is seizing upon the opportunity of deficit reduction
He
10
and is not letting it go to waste by handicapping our
11
future ability to engage in military conflicts, similar
12
to how a drug addict undergoing treatment seeks to
13
eliminate their source of addiction once and for all.
14
This elimination would strategically benefit
15
a passive President by reducing the number of tough
16
choices when it comes to military engagements and give
17
them the convenient excuse that there is nothing we can
18
do to intervene.
19
Those of us mothers call that avoidance.
20
After a final review of the President's
21
budget, my biggest disappointment is that it fails to
22
place any value in the power of human capital and
61
1
experience.
If you take the President's words at face
2
value, you must acknowledge that he seeks a bold shift
3
towards strengthening our presence in the Asia Pacific.
4
However, based on the budget, just as Mr. Forbes said,
5
this goal is already doomed from the start.
Any
6
successful presence in the Asia Pacific will require
7
more than the use of Special Operations Forces, drones
8
and 2,500 Marines based in Northern Australia.
9
These valued resources should only be used to
10
supplement our military force and not act as a de facto
11
replacement.
12
Furthermore, the latest drone or military
13
system can always be accelerated into development to
14
meet the latest demands of war.
15
cannot be said for our military leadership.
16
time to properly recruit and develop our next class of
17
military leaders.
18
It takes endurance and dedication.
19
The same, however,
It takes time.
It takes
It takes patience.
So while we may rapidly recruit, train,
20
deploy entire divisions, much as what we did in World
21
War II where we had to rapidly recruit, train and
22
deploy World War II, as Fred Kagan has rightfully
62
1
pointed out regarding World War II, it all came at a
2
very high price in the number of U.S. lives that were
3
lost.
4
So thank you for allowing me to come spend a
5
few moments with you this morning.
6
forward to continuing the conversation.
7
appreciative of the leadership that you all are
8
bringing and the attention that you are bringing to
9
this issue.
10
I am looking
I am deeply
Our men and women in uniform appreciate and
11
need your dedication and focus.
12
(Applause.)
13
SENATOR TALENT:
Thank you.
The Congresswoman says she
14
needs to go and I don't see Senator -- she's coming?
15
Senator Ayotte here.
16
quoting Tom Donnelly because when you quote Tom or me,
17
it spares us having to quote ourselves which we were
18
arranging to do at one time or another.
19
So, by the way, I appreciate your
So the bad news is that the Senator is a
20
little bit late, the good news from our standpoint is
21
that it gives us a chance to insert a few comments.
22
So, Tom, you have any comments on what's been
63
1
said so far and then we can take questions, too.
2
know I do, but I'll try and play off whatever it is you
3
have to say.
4
MR. DONNELLY:
I
Well, on the other hand, being
5
quite by -- Mrs. Blackburn takes away one of my talking
6
points but it's very flattering.
7
I just would quickly try to observe and
8
summarize what we've heard this morning which I think
9
is pretty remarkable.
You have a wide variety of
10
conservative politicians, all of whom are, you know,
11
deeply committed to try to -- trying to get the
12
Government's finances in order over the last couple
13
years, but, as Chairman McKeon said, none of them ever
14
thought that it would result in the decimation of
15
American military power.
16
The conundrum that the Congress finds itself
17
in, in some ways as a result of its own making, was
18
because nobody could agree that the defense of this
19
country was the highest priority of the Government and
20
people are waking up to the consequences of what's
21
happening and they don't like it and they're going to
22
try, as Chairman McKeon said, very hard over the next
64
1
year to try to come to a deal that will prevent the
2
worst consequences from happening.
3
The other thing I would observe, again
4
playing off Mrs. Blackburn, is that the cuts that have
5
already taken place are reason enough to worry.
6
only is what we've seen in the President's budget in
7
the program and force strength cuts bad enough in and
8
of themselves but it's almost certainly the case that
9
there's still a big gap between what the budget will
10
Not
actually pay for and what the force will be.
11
So I think there still remains a big gap
12
between what's programmed in terms of weapons and
13
forces and things like that and the budget.
14
in this budget that there's intended to be $60 billion
15
of efficiencies, unallocated efficiencies.
16
the past, those end up turning out to be efficiencies
17
that don't materialize and result in deeper cuts.
18
has been the case as long as I've been in this
19
business.
20
We noted
Always in
This
So we are staring down a very challenging
21
situation and it's not just the attempt to avoid the
22
disastrous consequences that would come from
65
1
sequestration but again a realization that maybe we've
2
gone too far already.
3
4
SENATOR TALENT:
Well, I think Senator Ayotte
is here and she'll be in in just a minute.
5
I'm going to make a comment about history in
6
part because Buck McKeon mentioned he and I both came
7
in 1992 which was in the aftermath of the Reagan
8
buildup.
9
I think President Reagan was the last
10
president who really understood that defense policy is
11
at a very fundamental level foreign policy and no
12
matter what foreign policy you want to follow, it has a
13
better chance of success if you're perceived as doing
14
it from a platform of strength.
15
increased American power in the '80s which contributed
16
directly to winning the Cold War.
17
So he greatly
Then in the '90s, of course, we cut that back
18
in the budget cuts of those years.
19
this in just a minute.
20
I'll get back to
The point I wanted to make is force structure
21
was cut in the 1990s down to a level that people
22
perceived as being more appropriate in the post-Cold
66
1
War era.
2
1990s a little better than we've done it sometimes in
3
the past, except with regard to the Army.
4
I actually think we did the drawdown in the
It was believed at the time that the United
5
States was not going to be involved in a major land war
6
and so the Army was cut very low.
7
problem is if you cut the capabilities, that doesn't
8
eliminate the risk and the threats for which you need
9
the capabilities and, in fact, we were within a short
Well, of course, the
10
period of time involved in two very major ground
11
engagements and you'll notice that we had to fight the
12
Iraq War while we were holding in Afghanistan and that
13
was largely because the Army was not big enough.
14
It was not able to prosecute both engagements
15
at the same time as vigorous as we should which caused
16
the Afghanistan engagement to last several years longer
17
than it should have, even assuming we're able to get
18
out and create a stable situation, which costs hundreds
19
of billions of dollars, dwarfing any savings that were
20
achieved in the '90s.
21
22
Anybody who believes that these cuts that are
now underway are going to save the American Government
67
1
money over the long run simply has not understood the
2
lessons of history.
3
do at a certain point, probably in the intermediate, at
4
least in the intermediate future but maybe in the very
5
near future, is engage in a huge buildup, throwing
6
money at the situation, just as we're going to do with
7
the MREPs, because we didn't have that capability.
What it's going to require us to
8
Well, how much does that program cost?
9
MR. DONNELLY:
10
SENATOR TALENT:
$30 billion.
Yeah.
$30 billion.
Because
11
if you were an Assistant Secretary of the Army in the
12
late 1990s with modernization budgets that had been
13
shrunk more than the force structure budgets and you
14
were asked to figure what you would need and you were
15
-- you had to prioritize so narrowly because we didn't
16
have enough money, you would not have figured because
17
the doctrine was we're not going to put a lot of -- a
18
large land force in on the ground anyway, you would not
19
have built up armored humvees and they didn't and so
20
when we did have to build it, it cost us billions and
21
billions more than we would have spent if we'd
22
anticipated and honestly budgeted and planned.
68
1
All right.
I've given you enough time to
2
collect your thoughts, Senator, also allowed me to
3
"cathart" a little bit here.
4
Senator Kelly Ayotte represents the state of
5
New Hampshire in the United States Senate.
She was a
6
prosecutor and is a prosecutor at heart.
7
first woman to serve as a state's attorney general,
8
appointed to that position in 2004.
9
reappointed by a Democratic governor and she was
She was the
She was twice
10
elected to the United States Senate in 2010 with 60
11
percent of the vote.
12
I'd have a chance to work with the Senator
13
and she's one of the bright new crop of Senators and
14
members who give one real hope for the future of this
15
body and the future of the country.
16
Ladies and gentlemen, Senator Ayotte.
17
(Applause.)
18
SENATOR AYOTTE:
19
you.
20
great to be here with you.
21
22
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Jim.
Great to see
I appreciate it.
It's
I certainly want to thank AEI and the
Heritage Foundation, their Foreign Policy Institute,
69
1
for putting together this important event today and
2
it's really an honor to be here with my other
3
colleagues that you've heard speak.
4
I want to start with a quote today.
I just
5
came from a SASC hearing with Director Clapper and
6
General Burgess talking about the threats we face and
7
we face many challenges right now, but let me start
8
with this quote.
9
"What seems to have been lost in all this
10
debate is the simple truth of how a defense budget is
11
arrived at.
12
certain number of dollars.
13
what must be done to maintain peace and review all the
14
possible threats against our security.
15
logical way that you can say let's spend X billion
16
dollars less.
17
defense measures do we believe we can do without and
18
still have security against all contingencies.
19
in Congress who advocates a percentage or a specific
20
dollar cut in defense spending should be made to say
21
what part of our defenses he would eliminate and he
22
should be candid enough to acknowledge that his cuts
It isn't done by deciding to spend a
We start by considering
There is no
You can only say which part of our
Anyone
70
1
mean cutting our commitments to allies or inviting
2
greater risk or both.
3
order to deter and defend against aggression, to
4
preserve freedom and peace.
5
this:
6
attacking the United States or our allies or our vital
7
interests concludes that the risks to him outweigh any
8
potential gains.
9
attack.
10
11
We maintain our strength in
Deterrence means simply
making sure any adversary who thinks about
Once he understands that he won't
We maintain the peace through our strength.
Weakness only invites aggression."
These comments couldn't be more relevant
12
today, yet they were made 30 years ago on March 23rd of
13
1983, by President Ronald Reagan.
14
to have a president in the Oval Office today who spoke
15
again like that about the importance of maintaining
16
American military supremacy and the importance in
17
understanding that the best way to preserve peace is to
18
prepare for war unfortunately but that's been the truth
19
and the reality of it and President Ronald Reagan
20
understood that.
21
22
Wouldn't it be nice
To be fair, this President certainly deserves
some credit for the bin Laden raids.
He deserves some
71
1
credit for his willingness to use drone strikes, but if
2
you look overall strategically of what he has done, I
3
think it's been woefully inadequate.
4
It started with when he apologized for
5
America and when he failed to stand up for the Iranians
6
that were in the street asking for what we take for
7
granted in this country, basic rights and democracy,
8
when he looked the other way, thinking that he could
9
negotiate with that regime.
10
We've seen time and time again where he's
11
actually unfortunately put political considerations
12
above what needs to be done for the interests of our
13
national security and that of our allies.
14
we've seen it in Iraq, in failing to keep a follow-on
15
force there and the power vacuum that has created and
16
the loss of security in Iraq which didn't have to
17
happen, yet we see it now with greater influence from
18
Iran.
I think
19
We saw it with his decision in Afghanistan,
20
unfortunately, and one need only look at his decision
21
to withdraw 23,000 of the surge troops in the middle of
22
the fighting season in Afghanistan rather than waiting
72
1
at least a couple of months to put our troops in the
2
unenvitable position of having to withdraw while
3
they're fighting the Taliban during the fighting
4
season.
5
That was not recommended by any of his top
6
commanders and, frankly, I've asked them in the Armed
7
Services Committee whether they could offer me any
8
strategic reason why you would withdraw those 23,000
9
troops in the middle of the fighting season and not one
10
could give me a strategic reason why you would do that,
11
but we do know one thing.
12
November and if you take the 23,000 troops out by
13
October, you can certainly say before your election
14
that you've done that, but that is putting political
15
considerations above what is right for our national
16
security and, frankly, what is right for our troops
17
when we're asking them to do two things at once.
18
There's an election in
Unfortunately, I see somewhat of the same
19
pattern with where we are right now with the defense
20
budget, defense spending.
21
hanging over defense spending with sequestration and
22
yet we have a president actually who, I think, has just
We have the sort of Damocles
73
1
stepped aside, has not taken the leadership a
2
commander-in-chief should take to say directly to the
3
American people I won't undermine your national
4
security, I won't hollow out our force, I won't let
5
that happen because I have the courage to take on the
6
entire drivers of our debt, because I look at where we
7
are today and I think about the initial $487 billion
8
that is going to be reduced from the Department of
9
Defense as reflected in the 2013 Budget and it really
10
begs the question.
11
The question is this.
Where did that number
12
come from?
Isn't it just an arbitrary number that we
13
came up with here, that the President signed off on?
14
It actually has no relationship to a strategy and no
15
relationship to actually what we need.
16
what the number is.
17
face a fiscal crisis in this country that we have to
18
address the debt.
I don't know
I certainly understand that we
19
I appreciate Admiral Mullins' comments when
20
he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in terms
21
of the debt being the greatest threat to our national
22
security, but to come up with an arbitrary number
74
1
doesn't tell us what type of risk we are taking on and
2
we heard from Secretary Panetta the other day in the
3
Senate Armed Services Committee when he said to us very
4
clearly when you cut a half trillion dollars from the
5
Department of Defense, you are taking on additional
6
risk.
7
So what is it?
What are we taking on in
8
terms of additional risk?
Well, General Dempsey, who's
9
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by
10
Ranking Member McCain, "Have you submitted a risk
11
assessment to Congress?"
12
The answer was no.
So here's where we are.
We have a number
13
that was come up with really on an arbitrary basis to
14
cut the Department of Defense $487 billion.
15
are taking on additional risk.
16
risk assessment from the Administration.
17
don't know fully what risks and what choices we are
18
making in terms of the security of the American people
19
and our allies, and I will tell you that I don't think
20
that we should take one action on the defense budget
21
until we get that risk assessment and know exactly what
22
we're getting into and that will be my position.
We know we
We have not received a
So we really
75
1
I don't think we should do a defense
2
authorization without a risk assessment.
3
that our appropriators should decide to sign on to $487
4
billion in reduction until we can look the American
5
people in the eye and let them know what choices are
6
being made here and what risk we are putting them at
7
but that's where we are right now.
8
9
I don't think
And I think we find ourselves here because,
if you look at that Budget Control Act, and, boy, I'll
10
tell you, I'm so glad I voted against it for so many
11
reasons, but if you look at it, we left 60 percent of
12
our overall spending on the table.
13
table because the deal itself, the cuts that were going
14
to come forward were, frankly, insufficient to deal
15
with our debt crisis.
16
on the chopping block isn't going to address this debt
17
crisis in the way we need to.
18
We left it on the
Putting our Defense Department
We left the mandatory spending piece of our
19
entitlements of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
20
other mandatory programs on the table.
21
up at the end of the day with, if, for some reason, God
22
forbid, we go forward with sequestration, which would,
So what you end
76
1
of course, be devastating to our national security,
2
basically 15 to 20 percent of our budget taking 50
3
percent of the hit and a portion of our budget, let's
4
not forget, the fundamental purpose of why we have a
5
government, enumerated in our Constitution, think about
6
all the other things we do around here that weren't
7
identified by our founding fathers, that aren't in our
8
Constitution.
9
If we don't have security, we don't have
10
anything else, you all know that, because not only the
11
devastating sacrifice of life that came from 9/11 but
12
look at the impact on our economy that came from 9/11,
13
and that's where we find ourselves because around here
14
we haven't shown the courage to take on the real
15
drivers of our debt.
16
arbitrarily put our Department of Defense on the
17
chopping block without a risk assessment to know what
18
choices we are making as Congress.
19
Instead, we're just going to
So I for one am not going to allow that to
20
happen and I certainly am going to continue to make
21
sure that we know exactly what will happen if we go
22
forward with this $487 billion.
77
1
2
3
Let me point out a couple of areas that I
already see real concerns with.
The Chief of Naval Operations said in March,
4
last March, that our Navy requires a minimum of 313
5
ships to meet operational requirements globally.
6
Currently, the Navy has 285 ships and, rather than
7
correct this shortcoming, the Administration proposes
8
retiring seven cruisers early, slipping a large deck
9
amphibious ship by one year, holding back the
10
production of a Virginia class submarine outside the
11
FIDEP, and reducing by two the Littoral Combat Ship
12
during the FIDEP, reducing by eight the Joint
13
High-Speed Vessel Buy-in in the FIDEP, and retiring two
14
smaller amphibious ships early and deferring their
15
replacement.
16
Okay.
In January, the Administration
17
announced that they were going to have a new
18
rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific Region.
19
in the Asia-Pacific Region?
20
have the Chief of Naval Operations saying in order to
21
meet all of our duties globally, we need 313 ships.
22
What matters
A strong Navy.
Here we
The proposal we just got from DoD is not
78
1
going to meet that.
In fact, it's going to hold back
2
production and so when we had the recent nominee who's
3
going to serve as the commander of Pacific Command
4
before the Armed Services Committee, I asked him what
5
was the strategic reason for holding back the
6
production of our ships in the defense budget, he
7
couldn't answer me, couldn't answer me because there
8
really doesn't appear to be any strategic reason.
9
just budget-driven but it doesn't match up with our
It's
10
strategy, and there's no question we see the rise of
11
China in the Asia-Pacific.
12
I recently returned from a trip with Senator
13
McCain and Senator Lieberman to the Philippines,
14
Thailand, Burma, and Vietnam, and certainly when you
15
talk to our allies in that region, they will tell you
16
about China's aggression in the South China Sea.
17
this is a real issue for us, an example of where the
18
budget doesn't match our strategic realities.
19
So
One other area I really have serious
20
questions about is this idea of reducing our ground
21
forces.
22
proposed cutting the Army by 72,000 troops and our
The Administration and the President have
79
1
Marine Corps by 20,000.
2
My staff was at a briefing yesterday about
3
the 2013 Budget and, rightly so, the question was
4
raised to the Army, what's your plan to reduce the
5
72,000?
6
don't have an answer to that yet, and we have seen
7
historically what happens when we reduce our forces.
8
We certainly previously in this country have taken a
9
similar view in the '30s, in 1946, in 1989, and in
How are you going to do it?
No plan.
They
10
2000, and we have a perfect record in predicting future
11
conflicts.
12
We've been perfectly wrong every time.
So this notion that we are going to have a
13
robust enough ground force to meet future conflicts and
14
contingencies, I seriously question, and again it
15
brings me back to is budget driving this or an
16
arbitrary number or is our national security interest
17
driving this?
18
So I want to get back to Reagan because I
19
think many of us long for the leadership of President
20
Reagan and Secretary Panetta the other day said to us
21
in the Armed Services Committee, he said, "Let me be
22
clear.
You can't take a half trillion dollars out of
80
1
the defense budget and not occur additional risks.
2
There is no margin for error."
3
But as Reagan said when we slashed defense
4
spending, we invite risk.
We invite the risk that we
5
see around the world right now and the risk has not
6
been diminished.
7
I just came from the Armed Services Committee
8
and we had a very robust discussion about the risk that
9
Iran poses to our national security and to the national
10
11
security of our allies.
When you think about what is happening in the
12
Middle East right now, does that pose additional risk?
13
I don't think we know the answer to that in terms of
14
where we are going.
15
China and the investment they are making in the
16
military forces and we could go on and on, but there's
17
no question that the risks to our country have not
18
diminished and so when I hear our Secretary of Defense
19
say you can't take a half trillion dollars out of the
20
defense budget and not incur additional risk, yet we
21
haven't been told what those risks are, and there's no
22
margin for error, I think no margin for error, is that
When you think about the rise of
81
1
what we want to tell the Iranians in terms of our
2
investment in our national security?
3
want to tell the North Koreans?
4
our allies in the Asia-Pacific Region to hear?
5
that what we want al-Qaeda to use as a recruiting tool
6
in terms of the strength of the United States of
7
America?
Is that what we
Is that what we want
And is
8
Let me conclude where I began.
In 1983,
9
President Ronald Reagan said we must make sure any
10
adversary who thinks about attacking the United States
11
or our allies or our vital interests concludes that the
12
risks to him outweigh any potential benefits.
13
The question for us is, and the question for
14
this Administration is very clear, does the defense
15
budget make us safer?
16
the risks that face us?
17
when the risks have been diminished?
18
answer's no, we're not.
19
Does the defense budget address
Are we making cuts at a time
I think the
I appreciate your having me here today.
This
20
is a challenging time for our country, but I firmly
21
believe that we should not put a national security
22
crisis on top of an already-existing fiscal crisis in
82
1
how we address obviously the $15 trillion of debt that
2
needs to be addressed, but we can address it by
3
thinking we're going to cut our defense and put our
4
country at risk.
5
We need to show the political courage to take
6
on the entire budget and we need a president who is
7
willing to do that, as well.
8
Thank you for having me today.
9
(Applause.)
10
SENATOR AYOTTE:
Thank you.
11
SENATOR TALENT:
Thank you, Senator, and we
12
are waiting for Senator Graham, who is at the Armed
13
Services Committee hearing that I gather Senator Ayotte
14
left.
15
16
17
Any questions?
I sprung that on you.
Yes,
in the back.
AUDIENCE QUESTION:
I just have a question
18
with reference to a remark that the Senator just made
19
and Congressman Randy Forbes made earlier.
20
Could you explain to me the wisdom of making
21
China the enemy in this argument?
I think there's a
22
terrific argument that you're all making beautifully
83
1
and which I agree with a thousand percent, that this
2
situation with cutting defense, cutting the defense
3
budget is absolutely terrible.
4
to the Reagan "peace through strength, deterrence,"
5
etcetera.
6
7
8
9
I completely subscribe
What is the wisdom of bringing China into
this -SENATOR TALENT:
I would answer this way.
I
mean, to be precise about it, the idea is to prevent
10
China from becoming an enemy.
11
growing and China's asserting herself, reasserting
12
herself in Asia and on the international stage which is
13
a natural and normal, you know, thing.
14
I mean, China's power is
The issue is are China's ambitions for
15
herself going to be channeled in a peaceful direction
16
or is there a danger of aggression or that expressing
17
itself in a way that threatens America's allies or
18
America's enduring national interests?
19
Of course, we went through all this in the
20
1920s and '30s with the different Asian power and, you
21
know, the lesson that we learned after the Second World
22
War is that if you walk softly but carry a big stick.
84
1
In other words, if you maintain a deterrent power while
2
treating the rising power with respect and not
3
provoking her, that's the best way to channel the
4
Chinese into the level of peaceful competition.
5
SENATOR AYOTTE:
I have to go to Budget
6
Committee and question Secretary Geithner, which should
7
be a lot of fun, but I do want to follow up on your
8
question about China and the idea is not -- I don't
9
think -- me personally, I'm not saying China is an
10
enemy of our country but we're in a position where we
11
need the strength to be the counterbalance to China and
12
the Asia-Pacific Region and there's no question about
13
it in the sense that not only in terms of national
14
security interests but also our economic interests.
15
When you hear, for example, when I recently
16
went to Vietnam, went to the Philippines, they've been
17
incredibly aggressive in the South China Sea, you know.
18
They cut a cable of a Vietnamese ship.
19
asserted -- have many assertions with the Filipinos
20
about it and it's all about natural resources in that
21
area and they will take over that whole area, no doubt,
22
unless we have a very strong naval presence there.
They also have
85
1
But there are things that they are doing that
2
are hostile to our country, particularly in the cyber
3
area.
4
cyber attacks against our country and I view that as a
5
hostile act.
6
We have very strong economic interests in Asia and we
7
also need to make sure that those waterways are free
8
not only because of our allies but because of our own
9
economic and trade interests in that area.
10
So I wouldn't -- I don't want to
There's no question that China has been making
That doesn't mean that they're our enemy.
11
mischaracterize and think that I'm saying that they're
12
an enemy but it's very, very important that they
13
understand our strength because we will have a better
14
relationship with them and be able to assert ourselves
15
if we are strong.
16
will be very much more aggressive and those that are
17
our allies in that area of the ASEAN nations, they have
18
passive-aggressive behavior, China, and so the weakness
19
of America empowers that type of behavior rather than
20
resolving these disputes peacefully.
21
it.
22
If they perceive us to be weak, they
SENATOR TALENT:
That's my take on
Said much better than I
86
1
could have.
2
What is at stake underlying this really is
3
relitigating the decision that was made at the end of
4
the Second World War.
5
history, the United States really up until that point
6
was never an isolationist power but outside of the
7
Western Hemisphere played a secondary role in the rest
8
of the world and did including through the first half
9
of the 20th Century, and a bipartisan group of American
If I can go back a little bit in
10
policy leaders decided at the end of World War II that
11
that policy had not been a success.
12
World Wars, the death of tens of millions of people,
13
because we had not aggressively managed the risks to
14
our vital national interests around the world, and so
15
they made a decision at that point to adopt a policy of
16
engagement and involvement and to sustain the
17
capabilities, military and diplomatic, necessary to do
18
that.
19
It had led to two
Now what's happening is we're de facto
20
repealing that decision by allowing the capabilities to
21
decline to the point where we can't maintain that
22
policy anymore and one of my arguments is that the
87
1
worst thing in the world to do is to repeal the policy
2
that way.
3
I mean, if you really want to rethink and
4
re-envision America's role in the world and do it
5
differently than we've done on a bipartisan basis since
6
the late 1940s, maybe that would work, but rethink the
7
policy and the strategy before you change the
8
capabilities because what's going to happen is you're
9
going to get drawn into engagements based on your
10
traditional commitments and your traditional view of
11
your responsibilities around the world without the
12
capabilities necessary either to deter or control them
13
or to win them quickly and this has happened to us
14
before and it's really terrible to watch us gradually
15
declining into that by default, not as a result of a
16
conscious policy because, as several of the speakers
17
said, we're not making policy in Washington.
18
reacting to controversies abroad and we're making
19
defense and foreign policy on a budget-driven basis.
20
It's almost certain to fail.
We're
It's typical of
21
this institution choosing the one policy that almost
22
certainly has to be wrong.
We cannot be right to
88
1
believe a year ago that you needed to spend $595
2
billion on the nation's defense.
3
considered decision, and then the same establishment to
4
turn around and say we only need to spend $545 billion.
5
There's no coherent view of defense policy by
6
which that can be defended and yet that is exactly what
7
is happening and if I may say with both ends of
8
Pennsylvania Avenue at least as of now with some signal
9
exceptions supporting it.
10
This year the
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to reduce -- I
11
want to introduce -- reduce -- I'm not reducing you,
12
Lindsey.
13
I'm introducing you.
Senator Lindsey Graham represents the state
14
of South Carolina in the United States Senate.
15
widely viewed as one of the strongest proponents of a
16
robust national defense and he's considered a loyal
17
friend to our men and women serving in uniform, not
18
just considered, he is.
19
He's
I have a long paragraph here which I could
20
give to you but it's really not necessary to introduce
21
Senator Graham.
22
over a number of years, sometimes alone and sometimes
He has fought in different capacities
89
1
on a bipartisan basis, for a strong America and he's
2
here to talk about those issues today.
3
Senator Graham.
4
SENATOR GRAHAM:
5
myself, sometimes, the more I talk.
I do a good job of reducing
6
Jim, thanks.
7
I've known Jim for a very long time.
We came
8
to Congress together, and you know, just really a solid
9
citizen, and I hope, in the future, you have a
10
11
12
prominent role in our national defense infrastructure.
That depends what happens in November, but I am
pulling -- pulling for that outcome.
13
What I thought I'd talk about is a Republican
14
party that's against sequestration, but what are we
15
for?
16
military, which I hope a lot of people would be -- be
17
against, but what do we see in terms of reshaping our
18
defense capabilities?
19
It's one thing to be against devastating the
Are we going to be against BRAC?
I think
20
there's going to be bipartisan opposition to BRAC.
The
21
jury may be out as to whether or not BRAC is
22
cost-effective, but the reason I think we should look
90
1
at another round of a BRAC is to make the reality of
2
what we're trying to do more known to our citizens as a
3
whole.
4
There is nothing like getting a stated ginned
5
up when it comes to protecting the defense budget when
6
you talk about losing your base, and when that topic is
7
not being discussed, most people just kind of tune out.
8
9
So, if you're really going to reduce defense
spending by 400-plus billion over the next decade, I
10
think Congress should have skin in the game, and I do
11
believe that looking at our bases anew in light of the
12
goal of reducing spending by over 400 billion makes
13
sense.
14
A Republican party, to be viable, has to be
15
for things, not just against things.
So, I am a
16
Republican who believes in Ronald Reagan, peace through
17
strength, but I'm also a Republican who believes the
18
Pentagon is not the most efficient organization in
19
America.
20
I'm a Republican who believes that the longer
21
it takes to develop a weapons system, the more it cost,
22
the more the contractor makes, is probably not the
91
1
right formula, that it's no accident that the F-35 has
2
run over in cost and taken longer.
3
Department of Defense, changing the requirements.
4
of it is just the contractor and contractors not really
5
being pushed to get it done on time, because fixed
6
price contracting is not widely adopted.
7
Part of it's the
Part
So, count me in the camp of a Republican who
8
wants to fundamentally change the way we procure big
9
weapons systems.
Count me in the camp of a Republican
10
who sees the need to deal with the mandatory side of
11
Department of Defense spending.
12
martialed in the next couple of years, I'll be eligible
13
for my military retirement when I turn 60 as a
14
reservist.
If I don't get court
15
We have not adjusted Tricare premiums for the
16
retired force since 1995, and if we don't deal with the
17
health care benefits that are offered to the retired
18
force, and mandatory spending, in general, in the next
19
15 or 20 years, 15 percent of the Department of Defense
20
budget is going to be in that arena, competing with
21
weapons systems and operational needs.
22
So, I am a Republican who believes that you
92
1
need to treat those in uniform who have served and are
2
in uniform generously, because they do so much and have
3
done so much, but they can't be taken out of the mix
4
when it comes to getting $15 trillion out of debt.
5
So, I will fight with my last ounce of
6
political being to make sure we don't go down the
7
sequestration road, because it will destroy America's
8
defense, but I will work with this administration,
9
Republicans and Democrats, to reform the way we
10
11
appropriate and buy weapons systems.
I will put on the table premium adjustments
12
for Tricare.
13
could not pay more for my Tricare benefits, and if you
14
get some retired E-6 or E-7 who is having devastating
15
medical problems, we will not increase their premiums,
16
but we need to look at a sustainable health care
17
footprint in the Department of Defense budget.
18
There is no reason in the world that I
I am willing to look at a smaller Army and a
19
smaller Marine Corps, but I've got to be convinced that
20
the threats we face justify those reductions right now.
21
22
487 is probably a bridge too far for me.
Two
brigades being taken out of Europe rather than one is
93
1
2
probably where I'll go.
I'll take one rather than two.
But at the end of the day, the Republican party has to
3
be for defense reform and reductions, because our
4
nation cannot get out of $15 trillion worth of debt
5
without everything being on the table.
6
Now, as you look out into the future, what
7
are the international organizations construct today,
8
the United Nations and NATO.
9
our defense spending by 400-plus billion dollars over
If we're going to reduce
10
the next decade, don't you think it's smart to look at
11
what your allies are doing?
12
American people need to absorb.
13
spending by NATO nations on their defense is going to
14
be at a all-time low.
15
And here's the news the
In the next decade,
This year, it was 1.7 percent of GDP.
Only
16
four countries spent over 2 percent of GDP on defense,
17
and one of them was Greece.
18
friends, but they're more worried about Turkey than
19
they are Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan or Libya, and the
20
air campaign in Libya was a success by NATO, but what
21
did we learn?
22
I appreciate our Greek
We learned if it went on much longer, the
94
1
ability to support air operations in Afghanistan by
2
NATO nations would be severely compromised.
3
we learn?
4
came from two countries.
5
6
What did
That 50 percent of the targets hit in Libya
Norway and Denmark.
What were the two countries?
They had F-16s.
The Mirage is a great jet, but it did not
7
have the ability to use the precision guided munitions
8
you want to use in a campaign like Libya, and we were
9
running out of precision guided munitions.
10
So, when you look at NATO as an organization
11
to take the fight to potential foes in the future,
12
we're going to have to be honest with ourselves as
13
Americans and say if NATO doesn't invest more and it
14
doesn't modernize and we don't learn the lessons from
15
Libya, not just the good ones but also the warning
16
signs, then the next American president, 10 years from
17
now, whoever he or she may be, is going to be less able
18
to count on NATO.
19
20
21
22
If NATO stays on the trajectory they're
going, they're going to have less capability, not more.
What does that mean for America?
It means that those security gaps have to be
95
1
picked up by somebody.
2
not less.
3
It puts more pressure on us,
The United Nations, as a platform to control
4
dictators -- how many people feel good the United
5
Nations is well equipped to do this?
6
Nations is a peacekeeping entity, mixed reviews at
7
best, right?
8
9
The United
Sometimes good, sometimes not so good.
Sustainability.
campaign in Afghanistan?
What did we learn in NATO
Appreciate every person that
10
was there, every country that supplied troops, but I
11
was a military lawyer doing my reserve duty in
12
Afghanistan.
13
behind me to understand the rules of engagement.
14
You need a chart as big as the wall
The Germans, for a while, couldn't go outside
15
the wire at night.
16
Taliban if you can't leave the base at night.
17
changed the rules of engagement and became a very
18
effective fighting force, but the idea of getting
19
permission from a capital to fly a helicopter to a
20
wounded soldier is probably not the best way to go to
21
war.
22
Makes it very hard to suppress the
They
So, when we look at NATO, not only do we have
96
1
to look at sustainable budgets that give it more
2
capability, we have to knock down some of these
3
political barriers that made NATO not as effective
4
fighting force as it should have been.
5
caveats, different rules of engagement became a
6
nightmare.
7
National
So, my message to AEI is that if America
8
doesn't look inside herself in terms of trying to find
9
a way to get out of $15 trillion worth of debt,
10
includes Defense Department, I know what I'm against,
11
but I have to be for reform and less spending over time
12
to get the country on track.
13
When I look at NATO, I am worried.
14
worried that the commitment by our allies is lessening
15
and they're under economic siege.
16
believe the Euro will survive as it is today 10 years
17
from now?
18
it is today 10 years from now?
19
defense capabilities of NATO.
20
does.
21
22
I am
How many people
How many people believe it won't survive as
Does that matter to the
You better believe it
So, this puzzle that we're trying to put
together to defend our values in this country, you have
97
1
to think about where the put is going to be, not where
2
it's at.
3
So, I would argue that we should make a full
4
court press of our NATO allies to tell them not only
5
are we going to not destroy our military, we will
6
reduce spending, we expect you to do the same, but
7
you've got to man up here and have 2 percent of GDP
8
spending, because if you go below that, we can't get
9
there, and we're going to have 4 or 5 when it's all
10
said and done.
11
We need to insist on that, and we need to
12
have a deep dive into the way NATO goes to war so that
13
we can fully utilize the troops that are on the
14
battlefield and come up with a better command and
15
control system.
16
Regarding the United Nations, Syria, Iran,
17
what are the two impediments to rallying the
18
international community to decisively engage Syria at a
19
time when it would matter?
20
and China.
21
dictatorship is not really into freeing people?
22
any surprise that a autocratic regime, corrupt to its
What two countries?
Russia
Is it any great surprise that a Communist
Is it
98
1
core, run in Russia by Putin, is less than enamored
2
with the idea of replacing Assad?
3
which we live in.
4
That's the world in
So, we have to do a couple of things.
We
5
have to expose them for what they are.
Dictatorial
6
regimes on the wrong side of history.
7
Clinton has been a marvelous Secretary of State in many
8
ways.
9
operations.
Secretary
She rallied the U.N. to get behind the Libyan
We made it across the finish line with
10
NATO, but we need to learn the limits of those
11
operations.
12
13
Libya is not a robust air defense capable
nation.
What about the next fight?
14
So, the Arab League -- how many people, a
15
year ago, thought the Arab League would be a force for
16
change in the Mideast?
17
of your time.
18
Oh, good.
You were way ahead
I would not have been in that camp.
So, we now have a realignment of
19
organizations here.
It doesn't matter, in South
20
Carolina, we say, why you found religion, just as long
21
as you do.
22
found political religion, because if they don't get on
I would argue that the Arab League has
99
1
the right side of history, they're toast.
2
So, what we have to do is sit down as a
3
nation and figure out how to deal with the United
4
Nations.
5
because of Russia and China, to impede what needs to be
6
done from our own national security interest, and how
7
can we get it to change?
8
Russia and China to become different or to create
9
systems outside the United Nations that will get us to
10
How long will we allow this organization,
We need a strategy to get
where we want to go.
11
How do we engage the Arab League at a time
12
when they're willing to embrace value changes that all
13
of us agree with, knowing that we're just about as
14
popular as dirt in the Arab world?
15
this out?
16
it, and you get people at AEI to start writing about
17
it, to help people like me, who are doing 15 things
18
every 10 minutes, and really, time is precious.
19
How do you figure
I think you figure it out by talking about
So, my challenge to this organization is tell
20
the Congress what we should be for when it comes to
21
defense reform, not just the fact that we can't cut at
22
a certain level.
Give your view to the Congress about
100
1
the viability of the United Nations in terms of
2
regulating dictators, and how could we change that
3
dynamic to make it more effective, and if you can't use
4
it, what are smart strategies to go around the United
5
Nations?
6
So, I hope that, as we go into the
7
presidential season, that we will have a long overdue
8
discussion about who we are as a people, and this
9
debate been going on in my party between sort of an
10
isolationist disengagement wing and the Ronald Reagan
11
wing needs to continue.
12
My view, it is the destiny of the United
13
States and her people to lead the free world and to be
14
that shining light that Ronald Reagan described.
15
is not something I run away from, it's something I
16
embrace.
17
it alone all the time, but you've got to inventory
18
where your assets are and where your liabilities exist.
19
That
You have to do it smartly, and you can't go
So, I hope in this campaign the Republican
20
nominee for President will tell the American people
21
that I will go to the U.N. to try to find consensus,
22
but I will not let two dictatorships, one autocratic,
101
1
one truly a Communist dictatorship, stop the progress
2
of the free world.
3
will look at our NATO allies and say we need you now
4
more than ever but you've got to be capable.
5
I hope the presidential nominee
I hope the next -- our nominee for President
6
of the United States will make the case that the cost
7
of disengaging the world and not shaping it as Ronald
8
Reagan believed is greater in terms of blood and
9
treasure than trying to shape it even though sometimes
10
you fail.
11
I hope our nominee will say that when we
12
leave Afghanistan, we will be judged by what we left
13
behind, by not the day we left, then if I become
14
Commander in Chief, I'm going to listen to my
15
commanders.
16
calendar.
17
I'm not going to look at the political
And finally, I hope our nominee for President
18
of the United States will tell the American people why
19
it is so important to not allow the theocracy in Iran
20
to develop a nuclear capability.
21
22
If they do develop a nuclear capability, the
world changes in a way that is unimaginable for me.
If
102
1
you have to use military force, you do open Pandora's
2
box.
3
box.
If they get a nuclear weapon, you empty Pandora's
4
So, I hope that our nominee for President
5
will have an honest, candid conversation with the
6
American people about the challenges we face and will
7
turn to President Obama and say, well done regarding
8
Bin Laden, tough call, you made the right call.
9
job with the drone program on the Afghanistan-Pakistan
Good
10
border.
11
was shortsighted and would haunt us for decades.
12
insistence in bringing home the surge forces in
13
September of this year puts General Allen in an
14
untenable spot, and your constant talk about leaving is
15
making those who fight with us uncertain and is making
16
those who wish us ill more emboldened.
17
President Obama, your decision to leave Iraq
Your
To AEI, political leadership is yearning for
18
information and guidance.
19
2012 to have your thoughts expressed, and I am one of
20
many people who would love to get your work product.
21
God bless you.
22
(Applause.)
You have an opportunity in
Thank you.
103
1
MR. DONNELLY:
Well, as the AEI
2
representative, I'm happy to be part of a coalition
3
with carriage in the Foreign Policy Institute, because
4
the tasks that Senator Graham has given us are numerous
5
and great.
6
This concludes the proceedings, unless
7
anybody wants to ask any further questions.
8
hanging around for another couple of minutes.
9
So, feel free to grab us by the lapels, and
10
we'll be at your service.
11
continued.
12
13
We'll be
Thanks for coming.
To be
(Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the meeting was
concluded.)