The text of Sen. Cornyn's speech, as released by his office:

It's a pleasure to be here this morning at the American Enterprise Institute. For more than six decades, scholars at AEI have helped us better understand how free enterprise and individual liberty continue to make our country strong -and our world a better place.

Many AEI scholars have helped me and my office turn good ideas into good policies. I'd especially like to thank Gary Schmitt, Tom Donnelly, and Fred Kagan, for their assistance on national security issues.

This morning, I'd like to discuss the Obama Administration's budget priorities for national defense. Our topic could not be more timely.

Today, the Office of Management and Budget is expected to release the first part of the President's detailed budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2010. We will all need time to go through the budget and see what it contains.

But back in February, the President sent Congress a rough budget outline, including top-line amounts.

This outline indicated that the Pentagon expects to spend a little over $533 billion in Fiscal Year 2010 – which represents a 4 percent increase in base funding over what Congress appropriated for the current fiscal year.

The Pentagon plans to spend $664 billion next year if you include support for the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Those numbers sound reasonable at first – but we need to remember that prior to Inauguration Day, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drafted a DoD budget based on their own assessment of our nation's military requirements.

According to news reports, the Joint Chiefs determined that the Pentagon really needs $584 billion in Fiscal Year 2010. The Administration's official budget proposes about $50 billion less than that.

We also need to look at the impact of the Administration's proposals in future years.
Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have both expressed support for national defense spending of no less than 4 percent of our GDP.

Yet when you look at the Administration's blueprints for both the base budget and supplemental, you see that by Fiscal Year 2019 – one decade from now – our defense spending will be only 3 percent of GDP.

We also need to look at the impact of rising personnel costs on the rest of the Pentagon's budget.
Make no mistake: our men and women in uniform are the real key to our nation's security. And I applaud the Administration's efforts to improve the benefits they and their families receive.

But additional personnel costs – including the rising costs of health care – should be added to the topline budget number at DoD. Personnel costs should not squeeze out investments in the cutting-edge weapons systems our troops will need in the years ahead.

The Administration seems to be forcing the Pentagon to make some needlessly tough choices – even as they justify trillions of dollars for domestic spending in the name of economic stimulus.

When the discretionary federal spending will grow by 7.7 percent next year, and defense spending will grow by only 4 percent – while we are fighting two wars – that shows the wrong budget priorities for our country.

In short, it looks like we are about to make the same mistake we made in the 1970's and 1990's.
We are about to cash in a so-called "peace dividend" by growing domestic spending and weakening our defenses.

History has shown that cashing in a "peace dividend" does not make America safer – or the world a more peaceful place.

Cashing in a peace dividend only hollows out our military forces – as our country did in the years before 9/11.

Cashing in a peace dividend only emboldens other nations – as well as non-state actors – to test America's resolve to defend our people and our interests.

Our budget decisions today should draw upon the lessons of history – and for some of us, that includes our family history.

As many of you know, my father was a member of the Greatest Generation – and served in the Army Air Corps in World War II.

Second Lieutenant T.J. Cornyn flew 26 missions as a member of the Jack Rose Crew, in the 303rd bomber group -the Hell's Angels.

My dad flew in a marvel of American engineering: the B-17 bomber. Commissioned by the Army and built by Boeing, the bomber went from design board to flight test in less than 12 months – a procurement timeline that would be unheard of today.

In battle, these bombers became known as "Flying Fortresses." They were legendary for their ability to stay in the air after taking brutal poundings. Sometimes they limped back to their bases after large chunks of the fuselage had been shot off.

The B-17 bomber helped win wars – and bring many pilots safely home to their families – including thousands of airmen like my dad.

What was true in World War II is true today in the War on Terror. When we give our troops the right tools, they can accomplish their missions more effectively – and return home safely to the country they serve.

So in March, I and 14 other senators wrote Secretary Gates and asked him to give us more information on the strategic assumptions behind the Pentagon's budget deliberations. While we appreciate the information he's given us so far – both in next year's budget and the current year's supplemental that we will take up soon in the Senate – we are still looking for the rationale behind these recommendations.

Congress would benefit from the risk assessments by our regional combatant commanders and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

We need to know what threats they see, and the kinds of capabilities we will need to deter and defeat them.

We also need the strategic documents that can help inform our budget decisions.

These documents include the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review – which is underway now and due in 2010 – and an updated National Security Strategy from the White House.

These documents help us understand how this Administration sees the world, and how it intends to meet the various security challenges in every region.

These legally-mandated documents typically require a lot of thought and energy from the Administration – and should be completed before they pursue sweeping changes to our force structure and major weapons programs.

These documents focus on the bigger strategic picture – which we must see clearly before we can make sense of the Pentagon's budget proposals.

So this morning I would like to focus on that bigger strategic picture – which Congress must see clearly as we undertake our own responsibilities. And that picture that includes four very different kinds of threats.

First, our nation is in the middle of two wars.

In Afghanistan, the President has outlined a new strategy that I strongly support. It is a "surge" strategy that owes a lot to the success of our surge in Iraq.

The President has renewed America's long-term commitment to succeed in Afghanistan. He's committed more troops, more trainers, and more development aid – and even more resources may be necessary before this war is won.

In Pakistan, the Administration sees a conflict that is part of the war in Afghanistan – and that judgment is correct. General David Petraeus has said that these two weeks are critical for the Pakistani government, as insurgents are less than 100 miles from Islamabad.

Yet Pakistan is not just a regional challenge – because it is a nuclear power.

Pakistan has dozens of nuclear weapons according to various reports. And Secretary Clinton testified a few weeks ago that these weapons are widely dispersed across the country.
The United States must do whatever it takes to prevent Pakistan's nuclear arsenal from falling into the hands of extremists.

In Iraq, the Obama Administration still plans to withdraw thousands of U.S. troops and massive amounts of military equipment as quickly as possible.

Withdrawal will be a tremendous logistical undertaking – and the recent spike in violence in Iraq reminds us that insurgents remain very dangerous.

It is clear that a robust U.S. troop presence may be necessary for many years to come.
Second, threats from rogue states continue to escalate.

In North Korea, the regime continues to deny international inspectors full access to its nuclear programs – and last month they tested one of their long-range missiles.

This Taepo Dong-2 missile has the potential capability to strike Hawaii, Alaska, and possibly the West Coast of the United States.

Americans can be grateful for the limited missile defenses we've deployed this decade – but as the threat grows, so must our capabilities.

In Iran, the regime continues to pursue a suspected nuclear weapons program … support Hezbollah and other terrorist groups … and intimidate its neighbors along the Persian Gulf.

Iran's President continues to deny the Holocaust and call for the destruction of the State of Israel.

And this week we learned that Iran has launched air strikes on Iraqi villages.

Third, other great powers are increasing their military capabilities.

In China, we see a nation that has doubled its official budget for the People's Liberation Army since 2000 -and that's just the official budget we know about.

Many of China's new capabilities are disruptive or unconventional technologies – such as those for waging cyberwarfare.

But China is also investing in a blue-water navy and other conventional capabilities. China clearly wants the capabilities to project military power in the future to regions where they have strategic energy interests today.

In Russia, the Kremlin's defense budget will rise next year to a post-Cold War record. Following their invasion of Georgia last year, Russia seems intent on re-establishing a "sphere of influence" along its post-Soviet frontier. Russia continues to attempt to intimidate its weaker neighbors through military power and its richer ones through manipulation of energy supplies.

Like the Soviet Union during the Cold War, China and Russia are also using some of their growing military strength to arm like-minded regimes all over the globe -including Venezuela.

Hugo Chavez has bought mobile military radar systems from China – and fighter-bombers, attack helicopters, and submarines from Russia. Venezuela is building a factory to produce AK-47-style assault rifles.
The message we should send through our own defense budget must be clear: we seek an arms race with no nation – but if any nation seeks an arms race with the United States, we intend to win it.

Fourth, we may face more threats in the near future from weak and failing states.

We know that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups gravitate toward regions of instability – so they can establish radical Islamic rule by force – and build safe havens from which to attack America and other free nations.

Pirates also thrive where governance is weak. Earlier this year we saw Somali pirates hold an American ship captain at gunpoint for days.

Finally, the global financial crisis could undermine the stability of governments throughout the developing world – and create even more areas where terrorism, piracy, drug trafficking, and other transnational threats can flourish.

We simply cannot know all the contingencies our troops may have to face in the coming years – so we will need to develop and deploy the full spectrum of capabilities to meet emerging threats.
So the overall strategic picture is not good.

Virtually every category of security threat is growing – or could grow very rapidly without warning.

True, America's list of friends is growing too – as democracy has expanded in every region of the world.

Our alliances in East Asia and the Pacific are as strong as ever.

The United States has a new strategic partnership with India – the world's largest democracy.
We have many new friendships in Africa and across the developing world – thanks largely to President Bush's efforts to help fight disease, poverty, and corruption.

Iraq and Afghanistan can still become democratic counterweights to religious extremism in the broader Middle East.

And NATO is a larger and more capable alliance.

Yet all our friends – old and new – still expect America to shoulder the lion's share of the costs and risks of keeping us all secure.

President Obama told us last year that he'd get our NATO allies to increase their contributions to Afghanistan.

After one trip to Europe, the President is now practicing what Bob Kagan has called "the soft unilateralism of low expectations."

It's clear that the Administration has begun the "Americanization" of the Afghan war – which I think is necessary to succeed.

It's also clear that America will continue to need the military forces that can deter and defeat any threat to our interests, values, and friends.

I do not believe the defense budget proposed by the Administration meets that standard. Yet I do want to credit President Obama and Secretary Gates for making several sound decisions.
First, they have committed the United States to succeed in Afghanistan, as I have mentioned.

Second, Secretary Gates is working to institutionalize our military's expanded capabilities in counterinsurgency.

As we all know, American counterinsurgency doctrine has evolved significantly based on lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan – and on the intellectual work of General Petraeus when he commanded the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth.

Now is the time to ensure that counterinsurgency remains one of the missions that Army and Marine combat units can carry out successfully.

Third, Secretary Gates has prioritized the upgrade of our cyberwarfare capabilities.
As reported last month, Chinese hackers are suspected of breaching the security of our Joint Strike Fighter program, one of our most important and sensitive modernization efforts.
I strongly support the Pentagon's plans to improve our defensive and offensive cyberwarfare capabilities.

More personnel, better training, and a new U.S. Cyber Command can all be major steps toward meeting this evolving threat.

Fourth, Secretary Gates has addressed our nation's longstanding need for Acquisition and Procurement Reform.

I agree with him that we must do a much better job of bringing new tools to our troops quickly – and get a handle on ever-increasing development costs.

Secretary Gates showed how the system is supposed to work through his leadership on Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles – or MRAPs.

These vehicles have greatly reduced casualties from roadside bombs and other Improvised Explosive Devices – or IED's.

The first MRAP reached the battlefield in Iraq in April 2007. Less than two years later, 10,000 of them were on the ground protecting our troops and denying success to insurgents.

Now Secretary Gates wants 9,000 more acquisition professionals to help taxpayers get the most for their money with every defense procurement – and I think he should get them.

Finally, President Obama made the right decision to keep Secretary Gates at the Pentagon – and General David Petraeus at U.S. Central Command.

The simple truth is that personnel is policy.

By keeping President Bush's top civilian leader at the Pentagon as well as his CENTCOM commander, President Obama has ensured continuity in wartime.

Secretary Gates and General Petraeus – and the teams they lead – have earned the trust of Congress and the admiration of all Americans.

The Obama Administration has made several good decisions on national security – but several others that are deeply troubling.

Despite so many security threats emerging or growing – the Administration envisions a military that will have less strength to meet them.

The Administration is planning for fewer Brigade Combat Teams in the Army.
The Bush Administration proposed growing the Army to 48 brigade combat teams – and increasing our total number of active-duty soldiers by nearly 75,000.

I appreciate that the Administration still plans to add the personnel. And I agree that every Brigade Combat Team should be fully staffed.

Yet I disagree with the Pentagon's plan to scale back the number of Brigade Combat Teams to 45. The truth is we need both more Brigade Combat Teams and more troops to man them.

The Administration also plans to cancel major components of Future Combat Systems – or FCS.

FCS is the Army's flagship modernization program – and it has already delivered "spinout" capabilities to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These spinout capabilities include small ground robots called "Packbots" as well as small "Micro Air Vehicles" that fit in a backpack. They are helping our troops spot IEDs before they kill or injure anyone.

FCS can deliver even more capabilities if we fund them – and we should.

The Administration is also planning for a Navy that will be half the size that it was in Reagan's day.

They intend to slow the Navy's ship acquisition plan – which will reduce the number of carrier battle groups to ten.

This could mean longer deployments for our sailors – and less strategic depth in the event of a crisis.

The Administration is also planning for reduced capabilities that the Air Force needs to maintain air superiority.

They plan to limit the production of F-22 fighters to 187 total planes. Remember that these are the most capable fighters in the world – the very best for penetrating deep into enemy territory to take out radars without ever being detected … evading attacks from the newest and most dangerous surface-to-air missiles … and prevailing in air-to-air combat.

They also plan to end production of the C-17, the only active U.S. production line for airlifters – even as we surge forces into Afghanistan and begin withdrawing the majority of our troops from Iraq – both of which will depend on modern, reliable airlift capability.

They have also ended development of our Next Generation Bomber. With our B-52 fleet aging rapidly and our fleet of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers very small, we must develop new strategic bombing capabilities. If we do not, the U.S. may not be able to carry out long-range missions where it has to take out large numbers of enemy targets in a mature threat environment.

The Administration is also eliminating key programs in missile defense.

This makes no sense – and not only because North Korea tested a ballistic missile last month. The Missile Defense Agency reports that at least 24 nations have some ballistic missile capability.
One American capability the Administration wants to cut is the Airborne Laser Program (ABL) – which is the most promising technology in development to destroy missiles in the critical "boost" phase of flight.

Overall they want to cut funding for missile defense by nearly $1.5 billion – or about 15 percent.

These are only some of the defense cuts the Administration has proposed. And like many of my colleagues, I am very concerned about what they might mean for our long-term national security.

Many of us have tried to improve the Administration's budget proposals.

For example, Senator Lieberman and I introduced an amendment to the budget resolution that would have increased the size of the active-duty Army by an additional 30,000 troops.

But it's really hard to improve the defense budget when we still do not have access to the strategic logic behind the Adminstration's proposals.

That's the level at which we need to have a debate.

Until then, we are just nibbling around the edges of the budget, and doing what Congress does best – which is protect local constituencies.

Given the threats we face, now is not the time to cash in a peace dividend.

But don't take my word for it. Secretary Gates said it best just a few weeks ago: He said:
"Every time we have come to an end of a conflict, somehow we have persuaded ourselves that the nature of mankind and the nature of the world has changed on an enduring basis, and so we have dismantled both our military and intelligence capabilities."

I share the Secretary's concerns. The only difference this time is that the Obama Administration wants to cash in a peace dividend well in advance of the end of the conflict.

This time, America will begin to lower our defenses even while U.S. troops are in the field, fighting two wars against dangerous and determined enemies.

This approach will not make America safer.

I hope that Congress can work with the Administration to ensure that America remains strong enough to deter conflicts … protect our interests … and help more people live in freedom and peace.

Source:  Dallas News