McConnell On U.S. Hard and Soft Power at Senate Appropriations Hearing w/ OMB Director Vought

Washington, D.C.
–
U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and a senior member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, participated in today’s full committee hearing where he questioned Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Russell Vought
about
spending on defense and foreign assistance
:
“I’ll start by associating myself with the comments Chair Collins made about the importance of American soft power:
“Interestingly enough, over my years in the Senate, the biggest supporters of soft power I have run into have been the military – generals – who are fully aware of how much more costly it is to have a war than to prevent one. And it's at a very low cost to our country, built some pretty good relationships, particularly in countries in the Middle East that certainly wouldn't be described as democratic.
“Reforming the way we invest in peace and stability is certainly worthwhile. And there’s plenty of absolute nonsense masquerading as American aid that shouldn’t receive another bit of taxpayer funding.
“But the Administration’s attempt to root it out has been unnecessarily chaotic. In critical corners of the globe, instead of creating efficiencies, you’ve created vacuums for adversaries like China to fill.
“Responsible investments in soft power prevent conflict, preserve American influence, and save countless lives at the same time for pennies on the dollar.
“So if we’re concerned about spending and we should be, it’s important to remember what wars cost. At the height of world war II, 37% of our GDP was spent on defense. In Korea, 13%. In Vietnam 9%. The Reagan buildup, only 6%. Obviously
peace through strength
means more than just saying it. It means actually demonstrating it.
“So, that’s just a fact: that soft power at very little expense goes a long way.
“And tellingly, some of the folks who talk most open about the importance of soft power, as I just indicated, are the military as they know exactly what I’ve already said about the cost of already having one.
“I welcomed the President’s intention to restore American hard power. His repeated commitments to strengthen the military signaled that he understood this, like President Reagan, that peace through strength really has to be more than a slogan.
“Likewise, his authorization of this weekend’s strikes, over the objections of isolationists who downplay the threat of a nuclear Iran, was another indication in the right direction.
“But the Administration’s approach to funding the Department of Defense calls into question the ability to keep those campaign promises:
“A continuing resolution that forces the Department to meet today’s requirements with yesterday’s dollars…
“A base budget request that fails to keep pace with inflation, let alone with the “pacing threat” of China…
“And a reconciliation lump-sum crowded with priorities that require stable, annual appropriations.
“Our colleague, Chairman Wicker, and his House counterpart had hoped that reconciliation would be a one-time injection on top of a growing base budget, not a shell-game to avoid making the sort of annual investments we begged your Democratic predecessors to make.
“I share this concern: we need sustained annual growth to meet the growing threats facing our country.
“At your confirmation hearing earlier this year, you said “we have to use taxpayer dollars wisely.”
“I couldn’t agree more. I want to get the most out of every dollar the Department of Defense requires to keep America safe and advance our global interests.
“But providing for the common defense is our most fundamental obligation.
“Dividing funding for major existing bipartisan priorities between base budget and reconciliation isn’t just counterintuitive – it’s actually counterproductive.
“And asking Congress to fund a budget that defines our strategy, rather than using strategy to define the budget, is dangerous.
“So help me understand a few things:
“Why haven’t we received the Administration’s analysis of the future year impacts of major reconciliation in investments like Golden Dome?
“How do you propose to pay for them without significant increases to future base budgets?
“Why has the Administration taken programs with broad and longstanding bipartisan support, like the Virginia-class submarines, and put them in a partisan reconciliation bill?
“Finally, do you even believe we need sustained growth above inflation in our defense budget?
“Or should we expect annual cuts from this Administration like we got from the Biden Administration?”
###