Stop automatic defense cuts, Panetta urges Congress

WASHINGTON Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:08pm EST

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testifies during a hearing held by the Senate Armed Services Committee on security issues relating to Iraq on Capitol Hill in Washington November 15, 2011.  REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testifies during a hearing held by the Senate Armed Services Committee on security issues relating to Iraq on Capitol Hill in Washington November 15, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

Related Video

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Automatic spending cuts that could result from a special congressional committee's failure to reach a deficit-reduction agreement could "tear a seam" in defense, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Monday.

The so-called super committee's failure on Monday to agree on $1.2 trillion in deficit-cutting measures triggers up to $600 billion in additional defense cuts over 10 years beginning in 2013.

"If Congress fails to act over the next year, the Department of Defense will face devastating, automatic, across-the-board cuts that will tear a seam in the nation's defense," Panetta said in a statement.

"The half-trillion in additional cuts demanded by sequester would lead to a hollow force incapable of sustaining the missions it is assigned."

Republicans have vowed to prevent automatic cuts from hitting the military. Republican Representative Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, announced on Monday he would introduce legislation to prevent the military cuts from taking effect.

President Barack Obama, accusing Republicans of scuttling the committee's efforts by refusing to consider tax increases on the wealthy, said he would veto any effort to bypass the automatic trigger.

Panetta said he backed Obama's "call for Congress to avoid an easy way out of this crisis. Congress cannot simply turn off the sequester mechanism, but instead must pass deficit reduction at least equal to the $1.2 trillion it was charged to pass."

During the months the super committee deliberated, Panetta consistently urged lawmakers not to reduce national security spending beyond the more than $450 billion already approved by Congress in August.

Panetta said he had made clear the Pentagon had a responsibility to help the United States get its fiscal house in order, but added his primary responsibility as secretary of defense "is to protect the security of the nation."

The Pentagon's ability to provide benefits and support for U.S. troops and their families also would be jeopardized if the automatic cuts are allowed to go into effect, he said.

"Our troops deserve better, and our nation demands better," Panetta said.

(Reporting by JoAnne Allen; Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
spolly123 wrote:
Wouldn’t the automatic cuts result “from” the super committee’s failure, not “in?” Failure would result in cuts, not the other way around

Nov 21, 2011 9:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
actnow wrote:
So Mr. Panetta….how much can be cut? How about the tens of billions of dollars that disappeared in Iraq, or every major defense program that always comes in vastly over budget? I’m sure that the Pentagon will always justify the need for more, but it’s time to live like the rest of us.

Nov 21, 2011 11:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
codder wrote:
Hey Leon, get a grip. Your budget is at least 6 times the entire rest of the world’s combined! And you can’t even account for where it is all going FCS! One month in Iraq would have paid for healthcare for every American for a year!

Nov 22, 2011 5:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.