Increased Military Spending Will Spur Economic Growth and Keep Our Nation Safe
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Congressman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Member of the House Armed Services Committee, today offered a Joint Resolution (S.JR10) that will keep this country safe, restore our military to the level of capability and readiness the people of this country demand of them, and provide jobs in almost every state in our country.
Senator Inhofe: "Today, Congressman Trent Franks and I are introducing a Joint Resolution that will keep this country safe, restore our military to the level of capability and readiness the people of this country demand of them, and provide jobs in almost every state in our country. For the past few weeks, this Congress has debated economic stimulus legislation. Defense spending, along with infrastructure investment and tax cuts, have a greater stimulative impact on the economy than anything else the government can do. Our level of defense spending must consider the resources needed to meet current and future threats. In order to provide this stability, Congress needs to guarantee a minimum baseline budget for defense funding, enabling the Pentagon to execute sustained multiyear program investments. Guaranteeing a baseline budget, not including supplemental, that sets a floor based on our GDP is the best way to accomplish this.
"Passage of this Joint Resolution would a send clear signal to our military, our allies, and enemies alike that we are committed to the security of our nation and the preservation of freedom and democracy around the world. Congress must provide the Department of Defense with the certainty and stability that comes with a long-term defense-spending plan. Our national security is the price we pay if we do not get this right.
"Importantly, this will allow our military to develop and build the next generation of weapons and equipment. These weapons and equipment will maintain national security for the next forty years or more, increase our military's capability to fight across the spectrum or warfare, and operate at higher readiness rates at lower costs.
"This legislation also has the benefit of creating jobs across America and sustains our military and industrial base. Investing in our nation's defense provides thousands of sustainable American jobs and provides for our nation's security. Experts estimate that $1B in procurement spending correlates to 6,500 jobs. Major defense procurement programs are all manufactured in the U.S., and our aerospace industry alone employs more than 655,000 workers spread across over most of the nation. Establishing a minimum baseline defense budget will allow the Department of Defense and the Services to plan for and fund acquisition programs based on a minimum known budget through the Future Years Defense Program."
Congressman Franks: "A 'Four Percent for Defense of Freedom' pledge to our armed forces will send a clear message on the part of the American people that we are steadfast in our commitment to the security of this nation.
"Senior Democratic leaders are talking about cutting our defense budget because of our depressed economy. Our economy cannot afford NOT to secure a strong and stable defense. Right now we are all concerned about the freedom and flexibility of businessman to invent and invest. The American businessmen will always take into account the stability of the country before he invests. The American buyer will purchase, only if he or she has faith in the economy. The economy took a hit upwards of $1 trillion on the tragic day of September 11, 2001 and every time we have appeared militarily weak, the enemy has struck and cost us in blood and bounty. It is critical that we ensure a stable environment so our economy can flourish and we can consistently balance our budget.
"Only two decades ago, around 1980, it became widely accepted that the U.S. military had a "hollow force", meaning it looked functional but it was devastatingly under funded.
"It was not a coincidence when Ronald Reagan secured increases in defense spending that the morale of troops skyrocketed, training for warfighters improved, the Department of Defense recapitalized its platforms, America defeated the Soviet Union, and enjoyed peace and economic prosperity afterwards.
"We must learn from history's lessons. As Ronald Reagan said, 'Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.' The best way to propagate peace is through a coherent and principled foreign policy and a strong and robust military capability."
Former Senator Jim Talent, a top defense policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, reacted to the introduction of the joint resolution, saying, "Senator Inhofe and Representative Franks are doing America a tremendous service because the safety of America is literally at stake." To protect the country, he said, "Congress will have to maintain defense spending at the levels established in the Inhofe-Franks resolution." Link to Heritage Release
Sen. Inhofe Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
Mr. President, I am introducing a Joint Resolution in the Senate with Congressman Trent Franks introducing the identical Joint Resolution in the House which sets a minimum baseline for defense spending. By establishing a minimum defense base budget of 4%, this country can achieve two critical needs – national security and economic growth.
For the past few weeks, this Congress has debated economic stimulus legislation. Defense spending, along with infrastructure investment and tax cuts, have a greater stimulative impact on the economy than anything else the government can do.
The greatest trust placed upon Congress by the American people is to provide for their security by maintaining a strong national defense.
It is a trust we cannot betray.
However, we have reached a crossroad…a nexus that will determine America's security for the next several decades.
The historic pattern of this nation has been one of a small professional military in peacetime, rapidly supplemented by a mobilization of civilians during war, followed by a rapid demobilization with the war's end. This demobilization or downsizing takes place within a context of balancing risks and threats. The trick is to retain and fund a force of sufficient size and capability to deter or dissuade, and, if necessary, fight and win.
In the late 1970s, the military of the United States was a hollow force – low morale, low pay, outdated equipment, and unable to maintain the equipment it possessed.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan expanded the military budget, increased troops size, re-energized weapons procurement, and revived our intelligence capabilities…returning this country back to its superpower status.
The Cold War officially ended in 1990.
Much of this nation's firepower is a legacy of the Reagan years. With the demise of the Soviet Union, our military was downsized to counter a 'perceived' diminished world threat. However, our crystal ball proved once again cloudy as the global strategic environment became increasingly complex, dynamic, lethal and uncertain.
Many of us here in the Senate and in the House repeated spoke on the floor during the 1990s, warning about the dangers of the massive cuts in personal and procurement that were taking shape.
During this period, our country concluded, as Secretary Gates put it, "that the nature of man and the world had changed for the better, and turned inward, unilaterally disarming and dismantling institutions important to our national security – in the process, giving ourselves a so-called "peace" dividend…"
We were wrong.
During a hearing to the House Armed Services Committee 17 years ago, I was told by a panel member that we would not need a standing army.
He was wrong.
Today, our military is fighting with equipment that is decades old and a force structure that is 40% less than what it was in the 1980s.
The Air Force has 2,500 fewer aircraft, the Navy cut its fleet size in half, and the Army reduced its force to half the number of divisions it had during the first Gulf War.
For the past 17 years, our military has been asked to do more with much less and much older equipment. It is taking a toll on our people and our equipment at sea, on land and in the air.
The United States must build and sustain military capabilities required to respond to possible future threats across the spectrum of conflict.
The next war will not be like the past one or even the one we are in now – history has taught us this. On February 1, 2009, in the Washington Post, there was an article about a note Marine Maj. Gen. Larry Taylor, now in Iraq, wrote to a young Marine, warning him against assuming that the country's next war will be like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He wrote, "You say the next conflict will be a guerrilla conflict. I say, it depends. In my lifetime, we have been in 5 big fights and a bunch of little ones. In only one of those 5 big ones (Desert Storm) had we prepared for the type of war we wound up having to fight. It is one thing to say that a certain type of fight is more or less likely; it is quite another to say it is certain to be one or the other. In war, the only thing certain is uncertainty."
He goes on to say, "It may be that nobody can beat us in a conventional fight today, but what we buy today is what we will have to fight with in 2020. Furthermore, advertising that our focus of effort is on the low-to-mid intensity fights of the future reduces the deterrence that powerful conventional capabilities demonstrate to traditional state actors. Non-state actors, guerrillas, terrorists are not likely to be deterred by our capabilities. Nation-states are. We had better well have the capability to fight the guerrilla and the nation-state, regardless of which of these is more or less likely."
We weren't able to predict the fall of the Soviet Union, the rapid growth of ballistic missile capability of North Korea, or the rise in asymmetric warfare that we are currently engaged in.
It doesn't matter how great our military leaders or intelligence is, our strategic thinking will always be imperfect. Like Maj Gen Taylor correctly stated, there will always be unknowns.
In order to provide stability, America must be able to deter or defeat any threat be it an insurgency or a challenge from a near-peer competitor.
We can no longer afford to kid ourselves that we are still sending our sons and daughters out with the best equipment available. In some cases, we simply can't match the quality of our competitors. In other cases, while we may have developed a superior system, we have restricted the quantity to a point where many of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are forced into battle with the older, inferior equipment. Many other countries are able to buy avionics, airframes, and weapons (often mixed and matched together) to create aircraft that rival our current F-15, F-16, or Navy and Marine F-18, such as Russian Su-30s and 35s, or upgraded MiG-21s and MiG-29s.
We can solve this problem if we decide to make the investment in our F-22 and F-35 programs, and buy the number needed to ensure American air superiority in the future. Some systems in the Army are overmatched by systems sold by other countries. Four other countries have better artillery systems than the US.
The British AS90, the Russian 2S19, the South African G6 and the German PzH 2000 are all superior in rate of fire and range to our Paladin. This will change when we field the Non-Line of Sight Cannon, the first of the FCS Man Ground Vehicles.
Our Navy and Marine Corps are being challenged by a variety of threats ranging from near-peer competitors, to non-state and transnational actors, to rogue nations and pirates. While trying to sustain and recapitalize their ships, submarines, aircraft and ground equipment, they are being challenged across the globe. Russia and China submarines continue to be a threat to our forces with China operating over 60 submarines. China, Japan, Australia, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Singapore, Bangladesh and South and North Korea either now have or are planning to acquire submarines. While most do not pose much of a threat to our more advanced fleet, that dynamic is changing. It is simply unacceptable that we let this country get into this predicament.
Our level of defense spending must consider the resources needed to meet current and future threats.
In order to provide this stability, Congress needs to guarantee a baseline budget in defense funding, enabling the Pentagon to execute sustained multiyear program investments.
Guaranteeing a baseline budget, not including supplemental, that sets a floor based on our GDP is the best way to accomplish this.
Historically, defense spending was 4.6% in 1991 during the Gulf War; 9.5% in 1968 during Vietnam; and 14.2% in 1953 during the Korean War. During the Cold War, 1947 through 1991, defense spending averaged 6.70%. From 1992 through the attacks on 9/11, it averaged 3.46%. Since we began the war on terror, defense spending averaged 3.75%. The FY09 defense base budget include military construction is $513.0 bil lion – approximately 3.6 % of GDP.
There are some who think by cutting unnecessary weapons systems along with reforming DoD's procurement process, we can reduce defense spending and still maintain a military able to engage across the spectrum of warfare.
I agree with them, we must reform our acquisition processes.
Overall budget delays and overruns are staggering - overall we are 8 years late on projects and 150% over budget…and we need to field our systems quicker and on budget. However, this alone will not rebuild our military.
We could eliminate weapons systems that are called 'low hanging fruit.' Sadly, most of the fruit from that tree was picked a decade ago when we took a holiday from procuring new weapons and modernizing many weapons systems. We have been trying to get past a bow wave created in the 1990s when the military budget was cut $313 billion dollars and we push acquisition programs and R&D to the right…right into where we are today. The Pentagon now faces a $100 billion annual shortfall in its procurement and modernization accounts.
I believe we should spend only as much as we need to ensure our national defense -- no more and no less. This Joint Resolution sets minimum baseline for defense spending. By establishing a minimum defense base budget of 4%, this country can achieve two critical needs – national security and economic growth.
Importantly, this will allow our military to develop and build the next generation of weapons and equipment. These weapons and equipment will maintain national security for the next forty years or more, increase our military's capability to fight across the spectrum or warfare, and operate at higher readiness rates at lower costs.
Second, it will create and maintain jobs across America and sustain our military and industrial base. Investing in our nation's defense provides thousands of sustainable American jobs and provides for our nation's security. Experts estimate that $1B in procurement spending correlates to 6,500 jobs. Major defense procurement programs are all manufactured in the US with our aerospace industry alone employing more than 655,000 workers spread across 44 states. The US shipbuilding industry supports more than 400,000 workers in 47 states. Establishing a minimum baseline defense budget will allow the Department of Defense and the Services to plan for and fund acquisition programs based on a minimum known budget through the Future Years Defense Program.
We are no longer able to complete purchases of large acquisition programs in 3 to 5 years…the KC-X will take over 30 years to complete once a contract is actually awarded.
Programming from a known minimum budget for the out years will translate to less reprogramming and more stability for thousands of businesses throughout the United States at decreased costs.
This week I voted against a massive government-spending bill that provided plenty in the way of more wasteful government spending and little in the way of real stimulative opportunities like defense spending.
I offered an amendment that would have increased defense procurement spending to manufacture or acquire vehicles, equipment, ammunition, and materials required to reconstitute military units.
Procurement that would have keep existing jobs going, generate new jobs and enable the Department of Defense to reconstitute military units to an acceptable level of readiness. This funding would have procured aircraft, tracked and non-tracked combat vehicles, missiles, weapons, ammunition, communications equipment, maintenance equipment, naval ships and boats, salvage equipment, riverine equipment, expeditionary material handling equipment, and other expeditionary items.
Today, Congressman Trent Franks and I are simultaneously offering a Joint Resolution that will keep this country safe, restore our military to the level of capability and readiness the people of this country demand of them, and provide sustainable jobs in almost every state in our country.
By voting for this Joint Resolution, you send a clear signal to our military, our allies, and enemies alike that we are committed to the security of our nation and the preservation of freedom and democracy around the world. Congress must provide the Department of Defense with the certainty and stability that comes with a long-term defense-spending plan. Our national security is the price we pay if we do not get this right.
