“Madame Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this measure, which will increase domestic spending at the expense of national security. Specifically, the federal government will spend $10 billion for this teacher bailout, paid for in part with a $3.3 billion cut in defense programs. As the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I can assure you that the Department of Defense (DoD) has need for these funds, including unfunded requirements related to our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I say this fully aware of the needs of our educational system, as the former Chairman and Ranking Member of Education and Labor.
“Those in favor of this bill will say that this money was previously identified by the Department of Defense as unspent and available for higher priorities. This includes $683.5 million unspent from last year’s economic stimulus package and $325 million for military construction projects. They will use this argument to convince members that these cuts will not harm the Department and to assure you that this next bailout is fully paid for.
“But this argument misses two larger points. First, as yesterday’s Military Times observed, ‘…diverting money from the defense budget to education programs would eliminate any opportunity for the Defense Department or Congress to take unobligated money from one defense program to spend on another defense program.’ For example, in the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, we used the unobligated balances for military construction projects to fund other more pressing infrastructure needs, such as barracks and armories, and many of the services’ unfunded requirements. Now these funds will no longer be available for these purposes and the services will have outstanding needs go unmet.
“Second, rescissions to the DoD budget this late in the fiscal year are problematic and disruptive to operations. As the Department of Defense Comptroller has told the Armed Services Committee, this rescission will require that DoD restructure or postpone programs. I am confident the Department will try to avoid adverse effects on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when this nation is fighting two wars, Congress should not be pulling the financial rug out from under DoD at the end of the year.
“Moreover, while these funds were identified as ‘unspent’ earlier this year, some of these ‘unspent’ dollars have already been diverted to other defense programs. When we cut the original accounts now, it will mean that some of these accounts no longer have enough money in them. Think about your own checking account—at the beginning of the year, you see that you have $1,000 more than your budget says you’ll need. So you move $800 into another account or give it to one of your children. If the government comes and takes $1,000 from you at the end of the year, your remaining account balance may not be sufficient and you find yourself in an overdraft situation. In the case of government agencies, it is against the law to overdraft an account. We have been told that the Department of Defense may find itself in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act in some accounts.
“Finally, I remain concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. The Secretary of Defense has initiated an ongoing effort to generate $100 billion in savings within the Department of Defense over the next five years. Yesterday he announced a series of spending freezes and closures of organizations within his office and combatant commands. Secretary Gates plans on plowing these savings back into force structure and modernization accounts.
“As elected officials, Members of Congress have a responsibility to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are not wasted on inefficient, wasteful or redundant programs. All of us support efforts to identify and curb such programs. Yet, as Members of the House Armed Services Committee, we are also tasked with the unique responsibility of providing for America’s national defense and meeting the needs of our military services, which is why we will need to receive more information from the Department of Defense so we fully understand the rationale behind each decision and potential impact of every cut.
“My ultimate concern is that these savings will not be reinvested into America’s defense requirements, but will be harvested by Congressional Democrats for new domestic spending and entitlement programs. We see today that this is already happening. Congressional Democrats—with the full support of the White House—are taking critical defense funding to pay for this state bailout. What’s to stop them from taking the other money too?
“At his press conference yesterday Secretary Gates stated, ‘…my greatest fear is that in economic tough times that people will see the defense budget as the place to solve the nation's deficit problems, to find money for other parts of the government…And as I look around the world and see … more failed and failing states, countries that are investing heavily in their militaries…as I look at the new kinds of threats emerging from cyber to precision ballistic and cruise missiles and so on—my greatest worry is that we will do to the defense budget what we have done four times before. And that is, slash it in an effort to find some kind of a dividend to put the money someplace else. I think that would be disastrous in the world environment we see today and what we're likely to see in the years to come.’
“I urge my colleagues to heed the advice of the Secretary in this matter and vote no to a cut in defense spending. Instead of another federal bailout, let’s make sure our men and women in uniform have the resources and equipment they need. Leave this money in the Department of Defense where it belongs.”
#####
| Date | Title |
|---|---|
| 8/10/10 | Current record |