In a call today, military vets, state leaders and budget experts outlined the possible impact of automatic budget cuts on Georgia’s economy and why military and civilian leaders believe U.S. could afford necessary reductions in Pentagon spending.

For Immediate Release:                                                                          Date: August 23, 2012

Contacts:Rachel Wisch, Public Information Officer
Women’s Action for New Directions & Women Legislators’ Lobby
Cell: 202-599-0746 Email: rwisch@wand.org

Sara DuBois, Communications Director
National Security Network
Cell: 202-289-7113 Email: sdubois@nsnetwork.org

Georgia – A Georgia state senator was joined by a local military veteran and experts on national security and the Pentagon budget on a call today to address those fanning fears about automatic budget cuts slated for next year instead of finding a comprehensive, safe and secure alternative budget. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is expected to speak tomorrow morning at the College of Coastal Georgia in Kingsland as part of a series of town hall meetings discussing these automatic “sequestration” cuts.

LISTEN to the call here

In addition to participation in this call, GA Senator Nan Grogan Orrock and Master Sergeant Bob Farquhar (ret.) will also attend Senator Chambliss’ town hall meeting tomorrow and will be available for comment on-site.

State Senator Nan Grogan Orrock (D-GA-36), President for the Women Legislators’ Lobby of Women’s Action for New Directions, delineated the specific devastating impacts ‘sequestration’ would have on nondefense programs, education and veterans. “The sequestration arrangement calls for across-the-board cuts to both Pentagon as well as domestic spending. Now we hear from the contractors that the Pentagon budget should be sacrosanct, that there should be no cuts there. What that of course would mean is that the cuts to the states, to the programs, to the jobs and services would be even deeper.”

Dr. Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration and retired Naval Flight Officer, explained that defense contractors' fear-mongering about the impact on jobs is disingenuous, military bases would not be closed, contracts would not be terminated, and that the Pentagon has ample funds and options to meet 21^st century security challenges. “Even John McCain, who’s opposed to sequester, calls the way the Pentagon manages its weapons systems a scandal and a tragedy… I have to laugh when I see people from companies running around and saying ‘Whoa, if you have these cuts we’re going to have to lay off all these people’…In the last five years, from 2006 to 2011, the defense budget went up by 13%. Lockheed actually had 10% less employees. If the budget goes up and you’re going to lay off people, it’s just really, really absurd.”

Master Sergeant Bob Farquhar (ret.), decorated 24-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force, nuclear policy scholar, resident of Bonaire, GA, described a Cold War nuclear program as one area where spending could be reduced or shifted to the benefit of U.S. security. “There’s a B-61 freefall bomb [defense hawks are] wanting to upgrade at a cost of $10 billion, and this was a bomb from the 1960’s. We have roughly 4-500 of them in our inventory, but… why do we need these things anymore? The Cold War is now over for more than 20 years. There’s no rational reason that I can see or that anyone’s been able to provide to me as to why we need to maintain such a large nuclear force. Nuclear weapons are one way that we can save a considerable amount of money.”

Heather Hurlburt, National Security Network Executive director, former White House and State Department speechwriter and policy planning official, detailed the consensus among military and national security leaders that Pentagon spending should be on the table. “The idea that’s being peddled by some members of Congress that we can somehow solve the defense problem separate from the rest of the sequester problem is just not realistic. In fact, our Pentagon leaders know that, and both the current and former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have asked Congress to come up with a comprehensive solution that funds the domestic economy as well as the military going forward.”

 ####
 

Additional Resources:

-            "Sequestration's Impact on Nondefense Jobs and Services," Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education report, 7/25/12

-            “The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending  Priorities: 2011 Update,” Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 12/11

-            "Spending Even Less, Spending Even Smarter: Recommendations for National Security Savings, FY 2013 to FY 2022--Deficit Reduction: $688 Billion," Project on Government Oversight, 5/8/12

-            “"Execs: Sequestration Hype Could Hurt Firms," William Swanson via Defense News, 7/22/12

-            “"We are only as strong as those three pillars – diplomatic, military and economic – can interrelate," Martin Dempsey, 1/12/12

-            “I have said from the beginning that I think defense has to be on the table," Michael Mullen via Defense News, 7/10/11

-            “Sequester was supposed to be … a trigger so irrational that the prospect of it would … drive the leadership to do what was needed, which was to put together an overall budget package for the nation’s finances that could win wide support, ” Ashton Carter via Washington Times, 5/30/12

-            POLLING ROUND-UP: “Hunt the Hawk,” Slate, 8/1/12

Cutting the Overall Pentagon Budget /Cutting Pentagon Waste

The Good News – One Bipartisan Step Towards Budget Restraint

Thank you to those who made calls urging cuts to excessive Pentagon spending. We do have some positive news to report. The Mulvaney (R-SC) and Frank (D-MA) bipartisan amendment to freeze Pentagon spending at Fiscal Year 2012 levels was adopted 247-167 with 89 Republicans voting for it. This is the first time in more than a decade that Congress has been willing to apply any restraint to the Pentagon budget. While it is fair to note that this freeze amendment is a very modest restraint (in fact the Pentagon is still getting more money than the Administration requested), it is a hopeful first step. As Congress moves towards ever more intense end of the year budget battles, this vote should indicate that a strong majority in Congress is unwilling to exempt the Pentagon from fiscal discipline. See House debate on defense bill spending finds one bit of bipartisan light in the Washington Post.

Congressional Women Stars Shine, But Congress Doesn’t Follow the Light

We applaud the women in Congress who offered a number of amendments to make deeper cuts to overall Pentagon spending, or cut wasteful unnecessary programs, or even just require an audit of the Pentagon. Unfortunately, all of these amendments failed and showed a steep partisan divide:

Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment, co-sponsored by Chris Van Hollen (D-MD and Ranking Member on the Budget Committee) and Adam Smith (D-WA and Ranking Member on the House Armed Services Committee), to reduce the overall spending in the bill by $7.6 billion, would have brought spending in line with budget caps that Congress agreed to last year. It was rejected 171-243, July 19, 2012. Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment to reduce the overall spending in the bill by $19.2 billion was rejected 87-326, July 19, 2012.

Lynn Woolsey’s (D-CA) three amendments to cut Pentagon spending by specific amounts were all rejected: 114 - 302 (Roll Call # 481), 106 - 311 (Roll Call # 483), and 91 - 328 (Roll Call # 484), July 18, 2012. (Rep. Lynn Woolsey is retiring this year and noted that this was her last opportunity to offer amendments to cut excessive military spending and shift budget priorities.)

Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Jan Schakowsky’s (D-IL) amendment to withhold a portion of Department of Defense spending until the Pentagon is able to pass an audit fell by a point of order.

Betty McCollum’s (D-MN) amendment to cut funds for military bands, a reduction of $188 million, was rejected 166-250, July 18, 2012.

(And some good amendments to cut offered by men in Congress – also failed …)

Jack Kingston’s (R-GA) amendment, supported by Betty McCollum (D-MN) to cut funds for the military to advertise at NASCAR races was rejected 202-216, July 18, 2012.

Mike Quigley’s (D-IL) amendment to reduce funding for one DDG-151 Destroyer by $998 million was rejected 60-359, July 18, 2012.

Mike Coffman’s (R-CO) amendment to ensure that the President's proposal to remove two Army brigades from Europe and replace them on a rotational basis is upheld, which would limit funding for the continued permanent deployment of the 170th and 172nd infantry brigades in Europe, was rejected 123-292, July 19, 2012.

Cold War Time Warp

When it comes to nuclear weapons and related missile defense spending, it seems that Congress is firmly stuck in a time warp. Common sense amendments to cut back on Cold War era weapons system expenses failed. On top of that, retro amendments to restrict arms control efforts and block nuclear weapons reductions were adopted.

Ed Markey’s (D-MA) amendment to reduce funding for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile defense system by $75 million, bringing the funding level back to the President’s request, was rejected 150-268, July 18, 2012.

Ed Markey’s (D-MA) amendment to limit the fleet of land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) to 300 (currently there are 450 Minuteman III ICBMs) was rejected 136-283, July 18, 2012.

Michael Turner’s (R-OH) amendment to prohibit funds from being used to reduce U.S. nuclear forces to implement the Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study, modify the Secretary of Defense Guidance for Employment of Force, or the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, was adopted 235-178, July 19, 2012. 

Rick Berg’s (R-ND) amendment to prohibit use of funds to reduce the number of the nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of the United States including (1) Heavy bomber aircraft, (2) Air-launched cruise missiles, (3) Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, (4) Submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and (5) Intercontinental ballistic missiles, was adopted 232-183, July 19, 2012.

Mo Brooks’ (R-AL) amendment to prohibit funds from being used to share classified information about missile defense systems with Russia was agreed to by voice vote, July 19, 2012.

Afghanistan

While amendments to accelerate ending the war and bring home troops failed, other amendments to cut Afghanistan and Pakistan aid were successful. This confused approach indicates a bumpy road ahead for Afghanistan. Pushing a failed military solution will not work, and the funding and support for a transition doesn’t seem to be forthcoming. We note that Congress should put its focus on supporting a transition towards developing a sustainable peace and Afghan women should play a leading role.

Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment to cut $21 billion from war funding to end the U.S. involvement in the Afghanistan war safely and responsibly, which would limit funding to bringing the troops home, was rejected 107-312, July 18, 2012. 

John Garamendi’s (D-CA) amendment to cut $12.6 billion for the war accounts due to the “steady drawdown” of troops after the surge troops are withdraw in 2012 was rejected 137-278, July 19, 2012.

Walter Jones’s (R-NC) amendment to reduce funding for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund by $412,287,000 was agreed to by voice vote, July 18, 2012.

Ted Poe’s (R-TX) amendments to eliminate the entire $1.3 billion in aid to Pakistan under the coalition support fund program was withdrawn, but a second amendment to cut the account by $650 million was agreed to by voice vote, July 18, 2012.

Steve Cohen’s (D-TN) amendment to reduce the Afghanistan Infrastructure fund by $175 million was adopted 228-191, July 18, 2012.

David Cicilline’s (D-RI) amendment to strike the $375 million in funding for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund was rejected 149-270, July 18, 2012.

In addition to these amendments, on Wednesday, July 18^th, fifteen members of Congress spoke on the costs of the continuing war in Afghanistan and the need to bring the troops home now. The bipartisan effort, led by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC), included statements by four Republicans and 11 Democrats: Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Rep Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY), Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA). See excerpts on YouTube.

-Kathy Crandall Robinson, Public Policy Director