H.Res. 441 (112th): Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that further reductions to core national security funding will ...

...cause significant harm to United States interests.

112th Congress, 2011–2013. Text as of Oct 14, 2011 (Introduced).

Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO

IV

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 441

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 14, 2011

(for himself, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Akin, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Turner of Ohio, Mr. Wittman, Mr. West, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Schilling, Mr. Cravaack, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Platts, Mr. Jones, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Heck, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Hunter, Mrs. Roby, Mr. Kline, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Rigell, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, and Mr. Rogers of Alabama) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that further reductions to core national security funding will cause significant harm to United States interests.

Whereas spending on national security did not create the current budget crisis and further cuts to national defense will not solve it;

Whereas spending on national defense only constitutes 19 percent of total budget authority;

Whereas top leaders of the Department of Defense and the United States Armed Forces have continually warned that significant reductions in defense spending pose serious risks to the future security of the United States;

Whereas decisions on future resources for national defense are being made without the necessary foundation of strategy and an assessment of the threats faced by the United States;

Whereas the future of United States national security is being decided based on budgetary pressure, placing a range of United States national security interests at risk;

Whereas over 90 percent of global trade, worth over $14,000,000,000,000, travels by sea;

Whereas 75 percent of the world’s maritime commerce travels through a small handful of international straits and canals, which function as strategic choke points;

Whereas global energy demand is on the rise and a significant portion of future growth is projected to come from maritime nations such as India and China;

Whereas the United States Armed Forces are a vital component of national power and have provided a stabilizing influence for friendly and allied nations around the world;

Whereas the modernization of China's People's Liberation Army appears focused on shifting the military balance in the western Pacific Ocean in a direction unfavorable to United States and regional interests;

Whereas further cuts to national security could make it difficult for the United States to honor security commitments with friends and allies, such as Taiwan and Israel, that could be left undefended against the rise of competitors such as China or Iran;

Whereas a number of the most vital assets to the United States Armed Forces were procured prior to the end of the Cold War and are in desperate need of modernization;

Whereas the force structure of the United States Armed Forces has been in steady decline since the end of the Cold War;

Whereas defense spending as a percentage of total Federal spending is approaching historic lows not seen since before World War II;

Whereas the United States defense industrial base is a vital strategic asset and decisions made in the coming months will affect its strength and viability for decades to come;

Whereas Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated that large defense cuts “will impact our economic strength” and “would seriously cripple our industrial base”;

Whereas Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated that $1,000,000,000,000 in cuts to national defense could cause unemployment to increase by 1 percent;

Whereas if unemployment were to increase by only one-third of this amount, the United States would see an additional 500,000 jobs lost, many of them veterans of 10 years of war; and

Whereas further cuts to national security will have a significant negative impact on members of the United States Armed Forces and their families: Now, therefore, be it

That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1)

further reductions to core national security funding such as those triggered by the sequestration alternative of the Budget Control Act of 2011, may cause irreparable harm to United States interests; and

(2)

decisions on United States national security policy and spending levels should be based on the following key principles—

(A)

security planning should be based on the National Security Strategy and a sequential determination of the threats to the United States and its interests, an analysis of the capabilities needed to deter or defeat the threats, an assessment of the cost to obtain those capabilities and an assessment of the risk associated with not obtaining them;

(B)

a strong economy and a strong national security are inextricably linked; and

(C)

national security is the most important obligation of the Federal Government and should take precedence over other priorities.