Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor today calling on the President to tell Congress his plan for avoiding additional across-the-board defense cuts early next year:
“We know with some certainty that on January 20th, 2013, regardless of who the President is, he’ll swear to the best of his ability to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, that more than 60,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will remain deployed in Afghanistan, and that our all-volunteer force will stand ready to defend American interests in the Strait of Hormuz, in the Republic of Korea, as well as defend our allies across the globe.
“Our forces will remain committed on that day to denying the Taliban a return to Afghanistan, to denying Al Qaeda a safe haven, to training the Afghan National Security Forces, and to fulfilling the operational plans of our regional commanders. As important, the troops in the training pipeline and the school house, the F-35s in production, and the basic research and development programs in progress, will provide the capabilities to meet future threats.
“What is not certain is whether or not the President who is sworn in on that day will have to attempt to manage the damage done on January 2nd of 2013 by across the board cuts to the Defense Department of nearly $50 billion. But he will if the President and Democrats in Congress fail to act on the cuts to defense that the President has insisted on, but which his own Defense Secretary has said would be ‘devastating.’
“And that’s why I and my Republican colleagues call on the President to make his plans for these cuts clear now.
“The President owes it to our forces around the world and to their families to put a plan on the table for all to see now, rather than waiting until after the November elections pass. To keep these details secret and to leave the defense sequester in place as written would be irresponsible, regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election. Think about it: if Governor Romney is elected, he’ll be responsible for managing $50 billion of programmatic cuts before he or a new Secretary of Defense has even had a chance to conduct a review of the Defense Department’s plans, programs and strategy. And if President Obama is reelected, the arbitrary spending cuts directed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 — that he insisted on — would eviscerate the President’s own defense strategic guidance issued earlier this year.
“No wonder Secretary Panetta has said these cuts would be like ‘shooting ourselves in the head.’
“The weapons systems and capabilities required to provide a dominant presence in the Asia-Pacific theater — attack submarines, amphibious ships, Marines afloat and ashore, the next generation bomber, completing acquisition of the F-35 and the Ford class aircraft carriers — will be required to deter and defeat aggression and to project power. Investments in these capabilities must be made while we continue to combat and pursue Al Qaeda, deploy and equip special operations forces and seek to deter Iran. And that’s why the President should prepare for the possibility of a possible transition of power now, and should do so with the same foresight and concern for our operations that previous administrations have.
“The last two transfers of political power, that from President Clinton to President George W. Bush, and that from President Bush to President Obama are instructive in how past administrations have managed the transition of the Defense Department’s leadership in peace and war.
“Early in 2001, before the Senate majority changed control from that of Republicans to Democrats, before the attacks of September 11, and before an envelope containing anthrax was sent to the Hart building, Donald Rumsfeld assumed his duties as the Secretary of Defense. Secretary Rumsfeld informed the Congress that he would conduct a strategic review of the Department’s plans and programs and submit an amended budget later in the year. That document was ultimately provided to the Congress in June of 2001. Secretary Rumsfeld had months to develop an initial plan, and this was prior to the war on terror, or as we thought it then, during peacetime.
“At the end of the second term of President George W. Bush, Secretary Robert Gates found himself responsible for the first Presidential transition during wartime in 40 years.
“Secretary Gates established a transition staff and briefing process to ensure all incoming Obama administration officials were well prepared during a time of war. He encouraged political appointees to remain in office and help with the new administration, and ultimately he stayed on as Secretary.
“Now just consider the plight of what a President-elect may face in January of 2013. Iran has shown no willingness to end its uranium enrichment effort, a young, inexperienced, untested, leader is in charge of North Korea, the Taliban patiently wait for the United States and NATO to withdraw from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda senior leadership, though weakened, and Al Qaeda and an affiliate remain determined to strike the homeland. Egypt and Libya struggle with forming new governments, the revolt in Syria threatens regional stability, and Al Qaeda affiliates stay active in Mali, North Africa, and Yemen.
“As the next President attempts to have his cabinet secretaries confirmed he will be dealing with managing a disruption in procurement contracts and deliveries — actions that are likely to elevate the costs of weapons systems and lead to lay-offs in the industrial base. Troops preparing for deployment will see training curtailed, permanent change of station orders will likely be delayed, and training and maintenance readiness levels will decline. All of this will occur while a new administration is reviewing war plans in Afghanistan. Think of what this would say to the President-elect: as you are developing your new National Security Strategy, attempting to seat your cabinet, and assessing the war in Afghanistan, the sequester will slash every program under review. Welcome aboard, sir.
“More important is what this will say to every soldier and Marine still fighting in regional Command East, despite the outcome of the election: you may still be fighting the Taliban, attempting to train and mentor an Afghan soldier, conducting a drawdown of forces and handing off operational responsibilities. At the same time the funding for your operational training, weapons maintenance and operations of your base child care center is being slashed. If you are wounded, the funding for the Defense Health Program and care you receive will also be cut.
“And that’s why allowing the sequester to go into effect as written, and as demanded by the President, would break faith with the forces we have sent abroad. To confront a new President with this level of disruption as he transitions to wartime command would be deeply irresponsible. We must deal with defense sequestration prior to the election.
“The sequester should be equally concerning to President Obama. In January of this year the Department of Defense released strategic guidance that entails a rebalancing of our forces with an emphasis on a growing presence in the Asia-Pacific theatre. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the counterinsurgency strategy used in both campaigns required an expansion of our Marine Corps and Army ground forces. President Obama has announced plans to reduce the Army by 72,000 soldiers between 2012 and 2017, and the Marine Corps by 20,000 between 2012 and 2017. Yet the force structure required to conduct counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan is far different from that required to convince friend and foe alike that our presence in Asia is significant and sustainable. We must invest in a new generation of war fighting capability.
“The President’s budget insufficiently funds his new strategy, and that’s before sequestration. This year’s budget request delayed construction of a large deck amphibious ship, a new Virginia class submarine, and announced the early retirement of other ships. These reductions are envisioned without those related to sequestration. Naval, air and forced entry capabilities to combat anti-access weapons are the capabilities required under the new strategy, and they are underfunded in the President’s budget. This comes at a time when military expenditures in Asia are outpacing those in Europe. Let me be clear: The failure of the administration to match his budget request to his new strategy is not an argument for growing the defense topline, it is emblematic of the difficulty our regional commanders will have in fulfilling current operational plans prior to the sequester.
“Although the administration has emphasized that the rebalancing of our forces in Asia is not a strategy to confront the growth of China’s military, if we fail to match our commitment to Asia with the requisite force structure, China’s influence, military posture and sphere of influence will expand. As the Pentagon’s own Annual Report to Congress makes clear, China is committed to annual military spending increases of roughly 12 percent, and has undertaken a broad based effort to expand the capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army.
“Both Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey have made clear that the ability of our Armed Forces to execute the new strategy under sequestration would be at risk. As General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has stated, under sequestration, ‘it’s coming out of three places…equipment and modernization, that’s one. It’s coming out of maintenance, and it’s coming out of training. And then we’ve hollowed out the force.’
“In his new strategic guidance, President Obama articulated a commitment to our enduring national security interests: the security of our Nation, allies and partners; the prosperity that flows from an open and free international system and, a sustainable international order. Needless to say, those interests will be extremely difficult to maintain with a hollow force.
“Just as the next President will take the oath on inauguration day, we too take an oath as Senators. We have the responsibility to raise and support Armies and provide and maintain a Navy. If we let sequestration as currently written go forward and do not act we will have failed. And that’s why I am so disappointed with the President’s failure of leadership on this issue, and that of Senate Democrats.
“Both House and Senate Republicans have offered proposals to replace the savings from sequestration with more thoughtful and targeted spending cuts. Both of those proposals also either eliminated or reduced the sequester on non-defense programs.
“Last week, Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Senator Kyl, and I sent a letter to the President asking him to work with us to find a bipartisan solution before the end of the fiscal year. With a $3.6 trillion annual budget, clearly there is a smarter, more thoughtful way to achieve at least $110 billion in savings.
“It is simply outrageous that this President and Senate Democrats are missing in action on this issue. We are committed to finding a solution on this before we recess for the election. Are they? Or are they committed to jeopardizing our national security? When will they sit down and work with us to find a solution?
“The House overwhelmingly passed the Sequestration Transparency Act today by a vote of 414 to 2. Modeled after a Thune-Sessions bill, it asks the President’s Office of Management and Budget to submit a report to Congress on the impact of sequestration on both defense and non-defense programs.
“Every Democrat in the Budget Committee supported it.
“Will that bill die here in Senate because Democrats not only do not want to address sequestration, they want to hide the ball on the impact of sequestration until after the November election? If they resist this effort to get more information on sequestration out in the open it is clear they wish Congress to be both blind and mute when it comes to our national defense, and the fate of those who’ve volunteered to defend us.
“We need President Obama to tell this Congress his plan for avoiding this sequester, for preventing the gutting of his strategy, for responsibly transitioning to a new Commander in Chief, and for keeping faith with the warriors we have sent into combat. And in all this, our overriding objective, our duty, should be to work with the president to achieve the level of savings called for in the Budget Control Act without doing harm to our national security or military.”