2011 Agreement Cuts Military Spending | Additional Defense Cuts Would Be “Devastating”
| Modernizing Our Nuclear Deterrent | Defending Against Ballistic Missile Threats | Overseas Military Operations
The federal government’s first and foremost responsibility is to defend the security of our nation, and that requires a strong military – second to none – robust intelligence networks capable of identifying and neutralizing threats before they arise, and superior homeland security. These responsibilities are particularly important in light of the 21st century threats of international terrorism and the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction around the world.
At a time of annual budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion, it’s incumbent upon Congress and the President to scrutinize every program, department and agency for savings, including the Defense Department. But ultimately, we have to spend whatever it takes to defend the nation and secure our interests around the world. Defense spending should be based on the threats facing our nation, not on arbitrary budget constraints.
Legislation that Congress passed in August 2011 – the Budget Control Act – will begin to rein in budget deficits by cutting federal spending by $917 billion over the next decade. More than half of those savings – $487 billion – will come from defense and will have a dramatic effect on our military. These cuts in spending will force the Department of Defense to reduce its strength by 22,000 soldiers next year, with a total reduction of 100,000 soldiers by 2017. The President’s FY2013 budget also includes billions of dollars in cuts to procurement, which will force the military to delay, defer, or cancel plans to modernize key weapons systems.
I am concerned that the reductions in manpower and disruption to modernization plans may expose the United States to undue risk.
In addition to the $917 billion in cuts required by the Budget Control Act – with $487 billion of that to occur in defense alone – the act established a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to find an additional $1.2 trillion in savings over the next decade. The law further provided that if the committee could not reach an agreement, the savings would still be achieved through automatic across-the-board spending cuts, divided evenly between defense and non-defense programs. In other words, unless Congress and the president agree to a plan that achieves the required savings by the end of 2012, defense will be subject to additional, automatic and arbitrary cuts of about $500 billion over the next ten years. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has warned that the additional reductions “would have devastating effects on our national defense.”
In a November 14, 2011 letter to Senator John McCain, Secretary Panetta warned that these across-the-board cuts would lead to:
- The smallest ground force since 1940;
- A fleet of fewer than 230 ships, the smallest level since 1915;
- The smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force;
- Reductions of 20 percent in civilian personnel; and
- Terminations of critical systems, including the Joint Strike Fighter; the next generation ballistic missile submarine; all ground combat vehicle modernization programs; major space initiatives; European missile defense; unmanned Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems; and the elimination of the ICBM leg of the Triad.
I share Secretary Panetta’s concern and believe Congress must identify alternative savings to avoid putting our national security at risk. With that in mind, I joined Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, Kelly Ayotte, and Marco Rubio as a cosponsor of the Down Payment to Protect National Security Act. It would replace the approximately $110 billion in arbitrary, across-the-board cuts slated to take effect next year with savings derived from a federal employee pay freeze and employee attrition.
The President’s FY2013 budget request also reneges on his commitment to modernize our aging nuclear weapons complex.
Our national security and the security of our allies depend on the strength of our nation’s nuclear deterrent. Yet, the United States is the only major nuclear power without a nuclear weapons modernization program to ensure the deterrent’s continuing safety, reliability, and credibility. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained the need for modernization this way: “Sensitive parts [of our nuclear arsenal] do not last . . . To be blunt, there is absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program.” No other nuclear state has constrained itself in that way.
The United States has not conducted a nuclear-weapons test since 1992, has not designed a new warhead since the 1980s, and has not built a new one since the 1990s. Moreover, funding for the national laboratories that maintain our nuclear weapons has been both inconsistent and inadequate for many years.
I believe the United States must invest in a revitalized program to modernize these aging weapons and their delivery systems, rebuild our nuclear facilities – some of which were constructed during the Manhattan Project era – and ensure we have the highly-skilled scientists and technicians needed to drive this program forward.
Such a modernization program becomes even more important as the United States enters into agreements, like New START, which commits the United States to further reductions in its nuclear weapons stockpile. Unless we ensure that the weapons that remain in our arsenal are effective and reliable, the credibility of our deterrent will be jeopardized.
Unfortunately, the President’s budget for FY2013 would reduce funding for nuclear modernization efforts by $372 million and defer important facilities and refurbishment efforts by years. I intend to fight these reductions and provide our nuclear complex with the necessary resources to bring it into the 21st century.
The proliferation of ballistic missiles, which can carry nuclear, chemical, or biological payloads, is a serious concern. Roughly two dozen countries, including North Korea and Iran, now have or are developing such weapons.
Iran and North Korea have successfully tested medium-range ballistic missiles, which can reach many of our allies and U.S. soldiers deployed overseas, and are working on longer-range systems that could strike the United States. According to the Secretary of Defense, North Korea could possess a missile capable of striking the United States within five years. Likewise, U.S. intelligence agencies believe Iran is pursuing long-range missile capabilities through its existing space program. China has also developed advanced ballistic missiles that are specifically designed to destroy U.S. aircraft carriers – the primary instrument of U.S. military power in Asia and the Pacific regions. The United States must be prepared for these threats, including with a robust missile defense system that can protect American forces, our citizens, and our allies from attack.
I support the development of missile defenses, and great strides in that direction have been made in recent years. The Missile Defense Agency, for example, developed, deployed, and integrated ground- and sea-based interceptors, Patriot units, and sensors based on land, at sea and in space.
Regrettably, these gains are now at risk under the budgets that President Obama has proposed. President Obama has reduced funding for missile defense by about $4 billion compared to the previous Administration’s plans; eliminated advanced projects like the Kinetic Energy Interceptor and Air-Borne Laser; and drastically altered U.S. agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic, which would have deployed missile defenses for the protection of the United States. Moreover, he has completely overlooked space-based missile defense, which could substantially reduce the threat posed by ballistic missiles. It is imperative that we provide sufficient funding to ensure a robust and effective missile defense.
For information about the drawdown of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, please visit the Foreign Policy page of my website, or click here.
