[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3898-S3905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 1735, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2016 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
McCain amendment No. 1463, in the nature of a substitute.
McCain amendment No. 1456 (to amendment No. 1463), to
require additional information supporting long-range plans
for construction of naval vessels.
Reed amendment No. 1521 (to amendment No. 1463), to limit
the availability of amounts authorized to be appropriated for
overseas contingency operations pending relief from the
spending limits under the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Cornyn amendment No. 1486 (to amendment No. 1463), to
require reporting on energy security issues involving Europe
and the Russian Federation, and to express the sense of
Congress regarding ways the United States could help
vulnerable allies and partners with energy security.
Vitter amendment No. 1473 (to amendment No. 1463), to limit
the retirement of Army combat units.
Markey amendment No. 1645 (to amendment No. 1463), to
express the sense of Congress that exports of crude oil to
United States allies and partners should not be determined to
be consistent with the national interest if those exports
would increase energy prices in the United States for
American consumers or businesses or increase the reliance of
the United States on imported oil.
Reed (for Blumenthal) amendment No. 1564 (to amendment No.
1463), to increase civil penalties for violations of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
McCain (for Paul) Modified amendment No. 1543 (to amendment
No. 1463), to strengthen employee cost savings suggestions
programs within the Federal Government.
Reed (for Durbin) modified amendment No. 1559 (to amendment
No. 1463), to prohibit the award of Department of Defense
contracts to inverted domestic corporations.
McCain (for Burr) amendment No. 1569 (to amendment No.
1463), to ensure criminal background checks of employees of
the military child care system and providers of child care
services and youth program services for military dependents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3
p.m. will be equally divided between the managers and their designees.
The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 1521
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we consider the amendment by the
Senator from Rhode Island, I would like to again remind my colleagues
that the world is in turmoil. The world has never seen greater crises
since the end of World War II, according to people as well respected as
Dr. Kissinger.
I repeat my assertion that OCO was not the right or best way to do
business. The worst way to do business is to have an authorization that
will eliminate our ability to defend this Nation and the men and women
who serve it.
I urge my colleagues to read in this weekend's New York Times ``The
Global Struggle to Respond to the Worst Refugee Crisis in
Generations.''
Eleven million people were uprooted by violence last year,
most propelled by conflict in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine and
Afghanistan. Conflict and extreme poverty have also pushed
tens of thousands out of parts of sub-Saharan Africa and
Southeast Asia. . . . the worst migration crisis since World
War II, according to the United Nations.
That is what is going on in the world, and we are worried about how
we are going to defend the Nation with priorities that are dramatically
strewed and unfair.
``Islamic State attacks government office on western fringe of
Baghdad.'' That was yesterday.
Three militants disguised in military uniform killed at
least eight people in a local government office in Amiriyat
al-Falluja in western Iraq on Tuesday, in an attack claimed
by Islamic State.
``The U.S. Army's main Web site is down--and the Syrian
Electronic Army is claiming credit.''
The Syrian Electronic Army hacked the official Web site for
the U.S. Army, a Twitter account apparently associated with
the hacktivist group claimed Monday. The site was down in the
afternoon, while screenshots posted on the social network by
the group purported to show messages of support for
beleaguered Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on the site
earlier in the day.
That was from the Washington Post, June 8 at 4:53 p.m.
The World: ``Islamic State seizes power plant near Libyan city of
Sirte.''
Islamic State militants have seized a power plant west of
the Libyan city of Sirte which supplies central and western
parts of the country with electricity, the group and a
military source said on Tuesday.
``The plant . . . was taken,'' Islamic State said in a
message on social media, adding that the capture of the plant
meant that the militants had driven their enemies out of the
entire city.
Libya descending into chaos and ISIS extending its influence.
The Washington Post, June 6: ``Libyan gains may offer ISIS a base for
new attacks.''
Misurata, Libya--As the Islamic State scores new victories
in Syria and Iraq, its affiliate in Libya is also on the
offensive, consolidating control of Moammar Gaddafi's former
home town and staging a bomb attack on a major city,
Misurata.
The Islamic State's growth could further destabilize a
country already suffering from a devastating civil war. And
Libya could offer the extremists a new base from which to
launch attacks elsewhere in North America.
That was from the Washington Post.
FOX News, June 9: ``ISIS captures 88 Eritrean Christians in Libya, US
official confirms.''
The ISIS terror group kidnapped 88 Eritrean Christians from
a people-smugglers' caravan in Libya last week, a U.S.
defense official confirmed Monday.
The Washington Post: ``What is at stake in Ukraine if Russia
continues its onslaught.''
Ukraine is fighting a war on two fronts. The one you see on
television is taking place in the east of our country, where
thousands of Russian troops are engaged in an armed
aggression against Ukraine's territorial integrity, including
the illegal annexation of Crimea.
This is a piece that is important, by the Prime Minister of Ukraine,
Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
The Wall Street Journal: ``President Obama admits his anti-ISIS
strategy isn't `complete.' ''
President Obama doesn't give many press conferences at
home, so sometimes his most revealing media moments come when
he's button-holed abroad. Witness his answer Monday in
Austria to a question about Iraq.
Mr. Obama offered a startling explanation for why the war
against Islamic State isn't going so well: His strategy still
isn't up and running.
``We don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires
commitments on the part of the Iraqis, as well, about how recruitment
takes place, how that training takes place. And so
[[Page S3899]]
the details of that are not yet worked out,'' Mr. Obama said.
We still do not have a strategy to try to counter the Islamic State
or ISIS.
The quote continues:
Wow. Islamic State, or ISIS, took control of Mosul a year
ago, and it beheaded two Americans for all the world to see
last summer. Mr. Obama announced his anti-ISIS strategy in a
September speech, promising to ``degrade'' and ``destroy''
the self-styled caliphate.
Nine months later here we are: ISIS has overrun Ramadi, a
gateway to Baghdad, the grand alliance that Mr. Obama
promised barely exists, the Kurds in the north are fretting
publicly about the lack of weapons to forestall a major ISIS
assault, the U.S. bombing campaign is hesitant, and now Mr.
Obama tells us the training of Iraqis is barely under way.
I will skip through some of these because I know my colleagues are
waiting to speak.
The Associated Press: ``Activists: Syrian air raids kill 49 in
northwestern village.''
Government airstrikes on a northwestern Syrian village
Monday killed at least 49 people and left survivors screaming
in anguish as they pulled bodies from the rubble, according
to activists and videos of the chaotic aftermath.
The Local Coordination Committees said two air raids on the
village of Janoudiyeh in Idlib province killed 60 people and
wounded others. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for
Human Rights said the air raid killed 49 people, including
six children. It said the death toll could rise as some
people are still missing.
The Associated Press June 6 headline: ``Houthi rebels fire Scud
missile from Yemen into Saudi Arabia.''
BloombergView, by Eli Lake: ``Iran Spends Billions to Prop Up
Assad.''
Iran is spending billions of dollars a year to prop up the
Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, according to the U.N.'s
envoy to Syria and other outside experts. These estimates are
far higher than what the Barack Obama administration, busy
negotiating a nuclear deal with the Tehran government, has
implied Iran spends on its policy to destabilize the Middle
East.
By the way, I will add to that, Iranians are basically even taking
over Cabinet positions in the Bashar al-Assad government.
This is a report dated June 5: ``Report: China Dispatching
Surveillance Vessels Off Hawaii.''
China has begun dispatching surveillance vessels off the
coast of Hawaii in response to the Navy's monitoring
activities of disputed islands in the South China Sea. . . .
The purported surveillance comes on the heels of raised
tensions between China and the United States late last month.
. . .
This from the June 7 edition of the Financial Times: ``US struggles
for strategy to contain China's island-building.''
China's efforts to dredge new land on remote coral atolls
in the South China Sea have left the US struggling to come up
with a response.
For Washington, Chinese land-creation has helped make
allies of former adversaries now fearful of military
domination by an assertive China. The latest example was the
trip to Vietnam last week by Ashton Carter, US defence
secretary, who pledged US patrol craft to the Vietnamese
navy.
But there is a limit to how far countries in the region are
willing to present a united front to China, which has
reclaimed 2,000 acres of land in the past 18 months, far
outstripping all other claimants combined, according to Mr.
Carter. The Obama administration is also unsure about how
strongly it should push back against what US officials see as
a long-term Chinese plan to control the region's waters.
Finally, this is an article that is in Politico today:
Actually, the United States does have a strategy to fight
the Islamic State, a State Department spokesman says.
``The president was referring yesterday to a specific plan
to improve the training and equipping of Iraqi security
forces, and the Pentagon is working on that plan right now.
But absolutely, we have a strategy,'' Kirby said Tuesday on
MSNBC's ``Morning Joe.''
I would be overjoyed to have a complete strategy and that plan
presented to Congress and the American people. It would be a wonderful
event. The fact is they have no strategy or policy and the world is on
fire, and here we are trying to pass an amendment which would deprive
the men and women who are serving the means and wherewithal to defend
this Nation.
I hope my colleagues will strongly reject the amendment that will be
pending before this body.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Mikulski, Senator Merkley, Senator Udall, Senator Leahy, Senator
Donnelly, Senator Boxer, Senator Menendez, Senator Booker, Senator
Feinstein, Senator Cardin, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Peters as
cosponsors of the Reed amendment No. 1521 to H.R. 1735.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment No. 1521 to
fence all funding above $50.9 billion in the account for overseas
contingency operations until budget caps on both defense and nondefense
have been raised. My amendment specifically recognizes the need for
these resources, but it objects to the way this OCO fund is being used
as a way to circumvent the Budget Control Act. It does so, I think, on
a very sound ground that over the long run will be beneficial to the
Department of Defense and to everyone who is engaged in the defense of
the United States.
We debate and vote on many issues in the Senate. While all of the
issues are important, occasionally we must face an issue that could
truly change the course of our Nation because the consequences of our
actions are often not known for years. The votes may be very difficult
when they are taken, but they are very important.
One example of such an issue is Iraq. Thirteen years ago, the
majority of the body--79 Senators from both parties--voted to go to war
in Iraq. I did not vote in favor of the war. In fact, I spoke against
it. I think the outcome could have been very different back then if we
had more of a debate about the true costs and the long-term costs, the
thousands of lives lost, and the countless wounded--some with invisible
scars--if we had thought the United States would be on a war footing
for over a decade and American taxpayers would be on the hook for
trillions of dollars and that we would perhaps even contribute by our
actions to new threats we are facing today.
Back then it was implied and sometimes stated that opposing the Iraq
war meant you didn't support the troops or were weak on national
security. I think the intervening years have shown that to be
inaccurate.
We are hearing echoes of that rhetoric again: If you don't support
this version of the NDAA, then you don't support the troops or terms
like ``taking this bill hostage.'' That is just not the case.
Since 2005, Senate Republicans voted against cloture on the NDAA, the
National Defense Authorization Act, 10 times, and over that same
period, they cast votes against final passage of the NDAA on the Senate
floor 8 times. Sometimes it was because of policy differences, such as
ending ``don't ask, don't tell.'' Other times it was over something
like gas prices at the pump or other issues. But I don't think anyone
has ever done it to be unpatriotic.
We can't change history, but we can certainly learn from it. We can't
see into the future, but we know we must plan for it, and we must pay
for it by making strategic investments today. This debate really boils
down to this: What is the most effective way to provide for our
national defense? I don't think inflating the overseas contingency
operations, OCO, is the way to go because it complicates rather than
helps the Pentagon's budgetary problems. It doesn't allow the military
to effectively plan for the future.
We need to replace the senseless sequester with a balanced approach
that keeps America safe and strong at home and abroad. When it comes to
the defense budget, Congress should adhere to the same standards of
honesty, transparency, and discipline that we demand for our troops.
But right now there is a serious disconnect in the OCO mechanism of
this bill, and Congress needs to step up and fix it.
The President's fiscal year 2016 budget request for defense was $38
billion above the 2011 Budget Control Act, the BCA--their spending
caps. The President requested this $38 billion be authorized and
appropriated as part of the annual base budget so they could be part of
the Defense Department's funding, not just for 1 year, as OCO is, but
in the budget for an indefinite period of time.
The request also contained $50.9 billion for the OCO account, meaning
funding for truly war-related expenses and not enduring base budget
requirements. However, this bill, following the
[[Page S3900]]
lead of the majority's budget resolution, does not address the BCA's
damaging impacts on defense and nondefense. Instead, it turns to a
gimmick.
This bill initially transferred $39 billion from the base budget
request by the President to the OCO budget, leaving a base budget
conveniently below the BCA levels in order to avoid triggering
automatic reductions for sequestration. The funding shifted to OCO is
for enduring requirements of military services, not direct war-related
costs and not those costs generated in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere. It includes flying hours for aircraft, steaming days for
ships and submarines, and all training that supports the ``National
Military Strategy.'' These are not appropriate OCO expenses. These are
the expenses of the Department of Defense facing the long-term
challenges and maintaining the long-term capabilities of the U.S.
defense forces.
Some have said we should avoid subjecting defense spending to the
budget control caps through this OCO approach for a year while a deal
to revise or eliminate the BCA caps is negotiated. I couldn't disagree
more, because if we used this approach--this gimmick--for 1 year, it
would be easier to do it next year and the year after and the year
after that, ensuring an enduring imbalance between security and
domestic spending. Using OCO in this way is completely counter to the
intent of the BCA, the Budget Control Act.
The BCA imposed steep cuts to defense and nondefense spending to
force a bipartisan compromise. This approach unilaterally reneges on
that bipartisan approach. Rather than generating momentum for a
permanent solution to sequestration, this approach essentially exempts
defense spending from the BCA caps and releases all pressure to find a
solution that provides similarly for domestic spending priorities.
The President's defense budget request placed the needed funding in
the base where it should be and provided for the OCO funds for
contingencies overseas that exist today. The budget resolution and the
bill before us met the President's request for overall funding. This is
not a question of whether the President asked for a certain amount of
money and my Republican colleagues are asking for more. What they did
is essentially say: We are not going to technically--and I emphasize
``technically''--violate the BCA account. We are just going to move
more money into OCO. So we can stand up with a straight face and say:
Well, BCA applies across the whole board. Every government agency is
subject to the same tight limits that the Budget Control Act imposes.
But, of course, the truth is that through the use of OCO those limits
don't apply to the Department of Defense.
It is particularly startling when you look at the President's request
for domestic agencies. He asks for $37 billion for all of the other
domestic agencies above the BCA cap. Without that money they are going
to have a very difficult--indeed, perhaps impossible--challenge of
meeting the basic needs of the American public--needs that every
colleague in this Chamber recognizes. Some might disagree with them,
but they recognize that we need to support education, as we have done
for decades through the Title I Program. We need to support people--our
seniors, particularly--through senior housing programs. In every State,
in every community, that has to be done. But if we follow this path, it
will be harder and harder for nondefense agencies to do this.
What we have created is a huge loophole through the BCA for defense.
Again, let me remind you, the President and my colleagues on the other
side are not arguing about the resources necessary for defense. They
have picked the same number. But what they have done on the other side
is funded that--not straightforwardly, not recognizing that we have to
deal with this--instead by using this gimmick.
If it remains in the bill, I believe this approach will be a magnet
for nondefense spending in future years. Not only will we become
addicted to OCO spending, many interesting things will find their way
into the OCO account.
For example, in fiscal year 1992 Congress added funds to the Defense
bill for breast cancer research. At the time, spending was subject to
statutory caps under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. This is the
follow-on to the Graham-Rudman-Hollings act of 1985. What we had done
was to establish caps on discretionary domestic spending, but there
were no similar caps on the other side. That is precisely what the
effect of this proposal is today.
The initial funding led to the establishment of the Congressionally
Directed Medical Research Programs or CDMRP. Every Senator is familiar
with this important program. I would suspect every Senator has stood
and said: Yes, that research on breast cancer is so important; that
research on other diseases is so critical and so important. It has
strong bipartisan support.
Each fiscal year Congress authorizes and appropriates hundreds of
millions of dollars to the CDMRP for cutting-edge and critically
essential medical research areas. In fact, since 1992, CDMRP funding
has received over $13 billion. While this program is funded through the
Defense bill, and the program is managed by the Army, the Department of
Defense does not execute any of the money itself. It is a competitive
grant process, and proposals are subjected to stringent peer and
programmatic review criteria. DOD acts as a passthrough because, back
then, the only way you could get this done was because there were no
caps effectively on defense spending. I would suggest that is going to
repeat itself over and over if we start on this path.
That is why we can look today and say we have these pressing crises
all across the globe, and it is true. But if we go down this path, we
will see these types of developments. Again, I am a strong supporter of
medical research. These programs have saved countless lives. I will
support the funding in this bill. I think it is a way that we have
established to deal with these programs. But we should recognize that
it came about not because it was the most logical place to put medical
research funding, but it was a budgetary precedent, just like this
approach today, and it will be replicated.
Looking forward 10 years, I would suggest that you will see lots of
meritorious programs that bear less and less connectivity to our
overseas operations included in OCO, if that is the way we choose to
get around the BCA. And that is what this bill is doing.
There is another point I would like to add. Moving this funding from
the base budget to OCO has no impact on reducing the deficit. OCO and
emergency funding are outside budget caps for a reason. They are for
the costs of ongoing military operations or responding to other
unforeseen events such as natural disasters. To suddenly ignore the
true purpose of OCO and to treat it as a budgetary gimmick or slush
fund to skirt the BCA is an unacceptable use for this important tool
for our warfighters.
Just to highlight how this OCO approach skews defense spending,
consider the amount of OCO in relation to the number of deployed
troops. You can ask someone on the street: Are these overseas funds
used to support our forces overseas? There has to be some relationship
between the number of our forces overseas and our OCO spending. Well,
let's see. In 2008, at the height of our Nation's troop commitments in
Iraq and Afghanistan, there were 187,000 troops deployed. We spent
approximately $1 million in OCO funding for every servicemember
deployed to those countries. Under this bill, we would expend
approximately $9 million in OCO for every servicemember who served in
Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly 9,930 military personnel. We are doing a
lot more than spending for OCO in this bill--deliberately a lot more.
We are doing what we used to do and what we should do in the base
budget of the Department of Defense.
It circumvents the law, the BCA. It is not fiscally responsible, and
it is not an honest accounting to the American public. If years ago,
with 187,000 troops, our OCO costs were about $1 million per troop and
now we are at $9 million, something is askew.
Adding the funds to OCO does not solve--and in some cases
complicates--the DOD's budgetary problems.
As Army Chief of Staff General Odierno said:
OCO has limits and it has restrictions and it has very
strict rules that have to be followed. And so if we're
inhibited by that, it
[[Page S3901]]
might not help us. What might happen at the end of the year,
we have a bunch of money we hand back because we are not able
to spend it.
The defense budget needs to be based on a long-term military
strategy, which requires the DOD to focus on at least 5 years in the
future. A 1-year plus-up to OCO does not provide DOD with the certainty
and stability it needs when building a 5-year budget. As General
Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified, ``we need
to fix the base budget . . . we won't have the certainty we need,'' if
there is a year-by-year OCO fix. Defense Secretary Carter added that
raising OCO does not allow the Department of Defense to plan
``efficiently or strategically.''
Adding funds to OCO is a managerially unsound approach to what should
be a multiyear budget process. As the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army
General Allyn said:
The current restrictions on the employment of OCO will not
allow it to be a gap-filler that is currently being proffered
to offset the reduction in our base budget that is driven by
the current proposals that are before Congress. In order to
meet the needs of our Army, it must have greater flexibility
. . . it must be less restrictive and must enable us to
sustain and modernize as we go forward.
This instability undermines the morale of our troops and their
families, who want to know their futures are planned for more than 1
year at a time, and the confidence of the defense industry partners
that we want to rely on to provide the best technologies available to
our troops.
Abuse of OCO in this massive way risks undermining support for a
critical mechanism used to fund the incremental increased costs of
overseas conflicts. We have to have a disciplined system for estimating
the cost and funding the employment of a trained and ready force.
The administration has indicated that legislation implementing the
majority's budget framework will be subject to veto. As Secretary
Carter has said, this approach is ``clearly a road to nowhere. I say
this because President Obama has already made clear that he won't
accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward, as this
approach does, and he won't accept a budget that severs the vital link
between our national security and our economic security.''
When we talk about national security, true national security requires
that non-DOD departments and agencies also receive relief from BCA
caps. The Pentagon simply cannot meet the complex set of national
security challenges without the help of other government departments
and agencies, including State, Justice and Homeland Security. In the
Armed Services Committee, we have heard testimony on the essential role
of other government agencies in ensuring that our national defense
remains strong. The Defense Department's share of the burden would
surely grow if these agencies are not adequately funded as well.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the Department of Defense
and other civilian departments and agencies that contribute to our
national security. It has to be recognized that a truly whole-of-
government approach requires more than just a strong DOD.
The BCA caps are based on a misnomer--that discretionary spending is
divided into security and nonsecurity spending. But Members need to be
clear: Essential national security functions are performed by
government agencies and departments other than the Defense Department.
According to the Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, General
Kelly:
We do not and cannot do this mission alone. Our strong
partnerships with the U.S. interagency--especially with the
Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Coast Guard, the
Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and the Departments of Treasury and State--are
integral to our efforts to ensure the forward defense of the
U.S. homeland.
Retired Marine Corps General Mattis said: ``If you don't fund the
State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.'' General
Mattis' point is perhaps best illustrated in the administration's nine
lines of effort to counter the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant, or ISIL, which 83 percent of Americans think is the No. 1
threat to the United States. Of the administration's nine lines of
effort, only two--which are security and intelligence--fall squarely
within the responsibilities of the Department of Defense and
intelligence community. The remaining seven elements of our counter-
ISIL strategy rely heavily on civilian departments and agencies.
For example, No. 1 is supporting effective governance in Iraq. No
amount of military assistance to the Government of Iraq will be
effective in countering the ISIL threat in Iraq if the Abadi government
does not govern in a more transparent and inclusive manner that gives
Sunnis hope that they will participate politically in Iraq's future. We
need our diplomatic and political experts in the State Department to
engage with Shia, Sunni, Kurd, and minority communities in Iraq to
promote and build reconciliation in Iraq and build the political unity
among the Iraqi people needed to defeat ISIL. That is not strictly a
Defense Department issue.
No. 2, we have to build partner capacity. The coalition is building
the capabilities and capacity of our foreign partners in the region to
wage a long-term campaign against ISIL. While the efforts to build the
capacity of the Iraqi security forces and some other foreign partners
are funded by the Defense Department, the State Department and USAID
are also responsible for billions of dollars in similar activities and
across a broader spectrum of activities. Under the Republican plan,
none of the State and USAID programs will be plussed-up. Their
unwillingness to address this gap is a threat to our Nation's efforts
to combat ISIL.
No. 3, we have to disrupt ISIL's finances. ISIL's expansion has given
it access to significant and diverse sources of funding. Countering
ISIL's financing will require the State Department and the Treasury
Department to work with their foreign partners and the banking sector
to ensure that our counter-ISIL sanctions regime is implemented and
enforced. These State Department and Treasury Department efforts are
deemed to be nonsecurity activities under the BCA caps and, under the
Republican approach, our efforts to disrupt the finances of ISIL may be
hampered. It is also notable that the Office of Foreign Assets Control
and the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in the Treasury
Department are also characterized as nonsecurity activities under the
BCA caps.
The Republican funding strategy not only means that our counter-ISIL
efforts will be hampered, so too will our efforts to impose effective
sanctions against Iran, Sudan, and individuals who support their
illicit activities also be affected.
We have to continually expose the true and brutal nature of ISIL. Our
strategic communication plan against ISIL requires a truly whole
government effort, including the State Department, Voice of America,
and USAID. The Republican approach to funding our strategic
communication strategy is a part-of-government plan, not a whole-of-
government plan.
We have to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters. They are the
lifeblood of ISIL. Yet key components of the Department of Homeland
Security would be facing cuts under the Republican budget proposal,
undermining efforts to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters to Syria
and Iraq. Without the efforts of our diplomats prodding our foreign
partners to pass laws or more effectively enforce the laws on their
books, the efforts of the coalition to stem the flow of foreign
fighters will never be successful.
My colleague Senator McCain pointed out the huge refugee crisis.
Again, our first agency typically to respond to refugees is USAID--the
United States Agency for International Development--and other State
Department agencies. We will not be able to effectively deal with that
issue if those budget caps are imposed on USAID and other agencies.
Those refugee camps are one of the breeding grounds for the foreign
fighters who flow back into the conflict zone.
Unless we adopt a much broader approach, unless we do something other
than simply plus-up defense, we will not achieve true national
security. Of course we have to protect the homeland. While a small
portion of the Department of Homeland Security is considered security
related, under the BCA, the vast majority of the Department falls under
the nonsecurity BCA
[[Page S3902]]
cap. This further demonstrates that the Republican plan is a misnomer.
It is an effort to play a game of smoke and mirrors with the American
public. The agents at the Department of Homeland Security who are on
guard, the DEA agents who pick up intelligence about threats to the
Nation--all of them vitally contribute to our national security, but
they will be treated distinctly different than our military if we adopt
the approach that is included in this Defense authorization bill.
I talked about the refugee crisis. Virtually none of the activities
that support our humanitarian efforts in the region are considered
security activities. Military commanders routinely tell us that the
efforts of State, USAID, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance are
critical to our broader security efforts. This is particularly true
from a counter-ISIL campaign.
Again, those refugees who are flooding into the countries adjacent to
Syria and to Iraq have to be dealt with not only on humanitarian
grounds but also as potential sources of foreign fighters. That is
going to require a whole-of-government approach, not simply using OCO
to beef up our defense spending. Taken together, the Republican plan
could compromise our broader campaign against ISIL and deprive
significant elements of our government of the resources needed to do
the job to protect the American people.
The men and women of our military volunteer to protect this Nation
and are overseas fighting for our ideals, including good education,
economic opportunity, and safe communities. Efforts to support all of
those goals will be hampered unless civilian departments and agencies
also receive relief from the BCA caps.
I had the privilege of commanding a paratrooper company at Fort
Bragg, NC. We fought for many reasons, including to give people a
chance in this country--not just to protect them from a foreign threat
but to give them real opportunities here.
By the way, our servicemembers and their families rely on many of the
services provided by non-DOD departments and agencies. For example, the
Department of Education administers Impact Aid to local school
districts, where children of servicemembers go to learn. The Department
of Agriculture supports the School Lunch Program, from which troops and
their children and their families benefit. The National Institutes of
Health supports lifesaving medical research, including by contributing
to advanced efforts on traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress,
and suicide prevention. The Department of Health and Human Services
runs Medicare, which provides health care for retirees and disabled
individuals, and Medicaid, which provides services to parents,
including military parents with children with special needs.
Failing to provide BCA cap relief to non-DOD departments and agencies
would also shortchange veterans who receive employment services,
transition assistance, and housing and homelessness support.
Not only does this approach fail to support, potentially, our
servicemen through schooling and through other aspects, our national
security is also inherently tied to our economic security. Secretary
Carter made this very clear. He said the approach that is being
proposed disregards ``the enduring, long-term connection between our
nation's security and many other factors. Factors like scientific R&D
to keep our technological edge, education of a future all-volunteer
military force, and the general economic strength of our country.''
Where will we get the soldiers of the future who have the skills and
the training and the expertise if we are underinvesting in the basic
education for all of our citizens?
My amendment would keep the pressure on for a permanent solution to
the BCA caps and sequestration by requiring that the BCA caps be
eliminated or increased in proportionally equal amounts for both
security and nonsecurity spending before the additional OCO funds are
available for obligation or expenditure.
Let me again emphasize that we are not taking away these funds. We
simply say what I think makes a great deal of sense: Until we develop
an approach to BCA that allows us to provide for a comprehensive
defense of the Nation and to invest in the economic health of the
Nation, then these funds will be reserved. Once we do that, then
automatically all of the funding that is included in this bill will
become available to the Department of Defense.
We have heard colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk for years
now about the need to resolve the BCA, to end sequestration. Every
uniformed servicemember who came forward, every chief of service said
their No. 1 priority was to end sequestration, end the BCA. This bill
does not do it; it sidesteps the issue. We can no longer sidestep the
issue. We have to engage on this issue. I think we have to move
promptly and thoroughly and thoughtfully forward to resolve the BCA.
The legislation I have proposed recognizes the need for these
resources but also recognizes the overarching issue: Unless we are able
to effectively modify or eliminate the BCA, our comprehensive national
security will be threatened, our economic progress will be threatened,
and our aspirations for the country could be thwarted.
My amendment seeks to implement, by the way, a sense-of-the Senate
that is already in the bill, and it clearly states that sequestration
relief should include equal defense and nondefense relief. We have
made--and I commend the chairman for this--a statement--without an
effective means of implementation. It is a statement, an aspirational
goal, that we should fix BCA and relieve defense and nondefense
spending. I think that is an important statement, but my amendment
makes sure we go further and provide an action to do this.
I believe very strongly in this amendment. I believe it is relevant
to the consideration of this bill. I believe it goes to the heart of
the most important questions we face in the country today: How do we
provide for the comprehensive defense of the Nation? How do we invest
in our people so that we will continue to be strong? I think if we do
not provide this type of mechanism to start this discussion on the BCA
and hopefully promptly complete it, then we will be missing not only a
historic opportunity, we will be locking ourselves into a road that
will leave us less secure in the future, less productive, and less
strong as a nation.
Let me remind people that the stated purpose of the bill is ``to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities
of the Department of Defense.'' We have to begin this appropriations
process by recognizing that the BCA will not help us going forward, and
we must move to modify or repeal it.
With that, I will close simply by saying again that if we continue
these caps going forward, it will harm our military readiness. Our
national defense should be based upon long-term needs. They should be
reflected in a transparent, forthright budget that puts the money in
the base, provides contingency funds for true contingencies overseas
but does not turn things upside down and make our contingency funding
really the heart of the bill in so many respects.
We have to work together. We have to make sure every Federal agency
can benefit because every Federal agency contributes to the country. So
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, to begin this
dialogue, and to move forward, the sooner the better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, how does the budget fund defense? That is
what we are talking about. The balanced budget resolution recently
approved by Congress recognizes the responsibility that the Federal
Government has to defend the Nation while recognizing the threats our
overspending and growing debt pose to our national security. That is
why the balanced budget approved by Congress last month makes national
defense a priority and provides for the maximum allowable defense
funding under current law.
Let me say that again. The budget provides for the maximum allowable
defense funding under current law. That current law is a law which was
signed by this President and provides vital support for our military
personnel and their families, the readiness of our Armed Forces, and
the modernization of critical platforms.
Does anybody deny that this is a critical time? With the increasing
number
[[Page S3903]]
of threats around the world, our total defense spending level should
reflect our commitment to keeping America safe and ensuring that our
military personnel are prepared to tackle all challenges. While we have
troops in harm's way, we need to do all we can to protect them. Given
the global threat environment, the funding approach taken by the
Senator from Arizona and the Armed Services Committee, which was
bipartisan, ensures that the men and women of our Armed Forces have the
resources they need to confront an increasingly complex and dangerous
security environment.
Is sequestration a threat to our military? If appropriated at the
levels provided by the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act,
the defense budget would not face indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts
known as sequestration, while it provides for the needs we are
reviewing right now. People have a chance to amend the needs right now.
If they think there is something in there that is not needed, they can
amend it--they can try to amend it. There should be justification for
what they want.
This bill puts us on a path to spend $612 billion on defense this
year. This is the same overall amount that was requested by the
President earlier this year. Numerous officials at the Pentagon have
made it clear that they see this funding level as the bare minimum
budget needed to execute our defense strategy. So why are some Senators
concerned about the level of budgetary resources this bill provides to
the Department of Defense? They simply do not like the use of the
overseas contingency operations funding, the OCO.
It is important to note that those not familiar with the Budget
Control Act--that is not the budget; that is the Budget Control Act. It
was passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by President
Obama back in August of 2011. It established a discretionary spending
cap, but it also allowed for certain cap adjustments. The BCA caps can
be adjusted for emergencies, disasters, program integrity initiatives,
and OCO.
Yes. That is in the Budget Control Act, the Budget Control Act passed
August 2011 and signed by President Obama. Those are the four ways you
can adjust the budget caps without forcing sequestration. Now, in the
case of OCO--overseas contingency operations--funding, both Congress
and the President have to agree that the funding should be designated
in that manner. Therefore, the OCO funding in this bill will only occur
if Congress appropriates it and the President agrees to it in the
future. I would hope that when the President and his advisers said this
is the overall level of funding they needed for defense, they meant it.
But only time and the appropriations process will tell.
Did the budget account for OCO spending? While there is no
requirement to offset OCO spending, when we addressed the issue in our
budget resolution, we accounted for every single dollar of OCO we
assumed would be spent. Even with these OCO levels, the budget
resolution still met its overall goal of balancing within 10 years. Let
me repeat that. We accounted for every single dollar of OCO that we
assumed would be spent. Even with these OCO levels, the budget
resolution still met its overall goal of balancing within 10 years.
It is good to see my colleague so concerned about the deficit, and I
look forward to working with him to fully implement our balanced
budget. This will ensure that we can get our Nation's fiscal house in
order while providing resources needed for our national defense.
Unfortunately, the concern expressed over providing OCO funding
doesn't seem to be centered on the fiscal concerns because even most
critics support the need for more defense money. No, their concerns are
based on the demand to increase nondefense discretionary spending on a
dollar-for-dollar basis with defense spending. But the only way to do
this in the short term is by raising taxes on hard-working American
families. Defense is making its case and has made its case. Nondefense
has not.
Do we really need to increase the caps? If we want to increase
nondefense spending, Congress should take a closer look at what we are
actually funding. Last year, we provided nearly $293.5 billion for more
than 260 authorizations that have expired. Yes, we have 260
authorizations. That is where Congress says this is what we ought to be
spending our money on.
They expired, and we are still spending money on them--$293.5 billion
a year. Usually, we talk about over 10 years here. That would
practically balance the budget by itself over a 10-year period. Those
are programs we need to take a look at. Those are programs that have
expired. Some of those programs expired as long ago as 1983, but we are
still spending money on them every year. That means we have been paying
for some of these expired programs for more than 30 years, and it is
not just the length of time these programs have overstayed their
welcome, the funds we allocated to them every year are more than what
the law called for in those authorizations when passed. In some cases,
that means we are spending as much as four times what the bill allowed.
Savings usually are found in the spending details, but Congress
hasn't examined the details in some time, except on defense. We do the
Defense authorization every year. These others, well, I mentioned one
of them expired in 1983, some in 1987. I mentioned it is 260
authorizations. It affects 1,200 programs. Do you think in 1,200
programs for $293 billion a year we couldn't find $38 billion to match
what we are doing in defense? We ought to be ashamed if we can't.
It is time for Congress to take a look at these programs and decide
if they are even worth funding anymore. After all, a project not worth
doing well should not be worth doing at that time all. But how would
committees know if they haven't looked at these programs in years? How
would they know if they don't have a way to measure how well the
programs are working?
Were defense and nondefense spending treated equally under the BCA
under the budget caps? The insistence that any change to the
discretionary changes be based on dollar limits for both categories of
spending fails to take into account the different treatment each took
under the budget caps, the BCA.
Defense spending, which makes up less than one-fifth of all
government spending, received less than half of the reductions in the
BCA. Defense spending also faced more budgetary pressure than
nondefense spending because it is largely discretionary. Nondefense
spending was able to distribute its BCA reductions over a larger amount
of accounts and over a larger portion of mandatory programs. That
provides a fudge factor.
The continued insistence on tying both defense and nondefense
spending together has left only the approach taken by this bill to fund
the defense at the President's level.
We know from the administration that the President's advisers are
recommending he veto this bill. We also know some of my colleagues are
considering blocking appropriations bills this year to force a
government shutdown.
Every bill should stand on its own for justification. No one is
arguing the need for national defense. What they are actually arguing
is the need for the nondefense increases. This is an attempt to
leverage defense programming to get nondefense, which I mentioned the
260 programs, $293.5 billion a year that has expired--so they want this
OCO to be replaced with a deal.
What we are supposed to do in Congress is legislate, not deal make.
But that is what is being proposed. Let's make a deal. Now, if they
step back and look at the facts laid out today, hopefully, they can
move away from this brinkmanship and realize the path they are on only
leads to more uncertainty for the men and women in our Armed Forces.
Strengthening our national defense and providing for the brave men and
women of our military should be something both sides agree on.
So what is the future of the BCA caps? It is time both parties get
serious about addressing our Nation's chronic overspending. We know
some on both sides want the caps from the Budget Control Act changed--
but at what price for our Nation and the hard-working taxpayers?
Without any changes to the BCA structure, just raising these budget
caps without increasing the debt in the short-term
[[Page S3904]]
would require increasing taxes. That is why we asked for the extra year
to be able to work on this whole thing.
If Congress is serious about addressing the challenges of the Budget
Control Act, it has to first start by tackling its addiction to
overspending and once again become good fiscal stewards of the taxes
paid by each and every hard-working American.
Of course, if the administration would stop overregulating, the
economy would grow, and in a short time we would have more revenue
without raising taxes. Yes, that is what both the Congressional Budget
Office and the Office of Management and Budget--one works for Congress
and one works for the President--said; that if we could just raise the
economy by 1 percent a year, CBO says that would provide $300 billion.
The President's office says that would provide $400 billion in taxes.
We are receiving more tax revenue right now than we have in the
history of the United States, but we spend more than that. Of the
amounts that we get to make a decision on, we are spending almost 50
percent more than what we take in. We can't continue to do that. We
can't continue to afford the interest on the debt if we keep doing
that.
Americans are working harder than everyone to make ends meet.
Shouldn't their elected officials be doing the same thing? By tackling
these issues honestly and directly, we can help ensure that our Nation
is safe and secure by investing in America's Armed Forces while also
maintaining fiscal discipline.
On a related note, the Senate Budget Committee has produced an
indepth analysis of defense spending and the OCO funding provision as
part of our June budget bulletin, which was published today. People
interested in learning more can do so by going to our Web site:
budget.senate.gov or contact on twitter@budgetbulletin.
I close with some words from today's paper from the Casper Star-
Tribune editorial:
Many of the servicemen and servicewomen returning from
faraway battlefields--Vietnam or any other place of
conflict--have seen horrible, unspeakable things. They've
been courageous in the face of death and destruction. Some
gave up a relatively easy, safe life to travel far from home
and fight for what we as a nation believe the world should
be, or could be, someday. That kind of commitment doesn't
come without pain or sacrifice--immense pain and sacrifice,
in some cases.
None of that has anything to do with politics. Politics is
the arena of our elected leaders, not our troops, and it's
both necessary and patriotic for us as voters to evaluate
those leaders' decisions and actions and speak out against
the ones we disagree with. That's democracy and dissent.
But our troops are our representatives on the ground. We
must not use our vaunted system of democracy as a tool to
inflict pain on this brave group of people. They're not
obligated to support our leaders' political ideologies any
more than the rest of us, but uniquely, they have made it
their responsibility to represent our treasured way of life
at home and abroad in pursuit of a better, more peaceful
world. And after they do that, they deserve the thanks of a
grateful nation.
That's how it should have been in the 1970s. That's how it
is now. We must make it our responsibility to ensure that
this is how it will always be.
We have a crucial decision to make on funding our national defense. I
don't think it should be held hostage to other budget concerns. Each of
those should stand on their own. Each of those should review all of the
things under their jurisdiction. I ask for you to defeat the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. First, I thank my friend from Wyoming for his remarks. I
don't always agree with him, but he is sincere, thoughtful, and puts
every effort into coming up with a decision he believes is right, so we
appreciate that very much.
I also thank my colleague from Rhode Island, our ranking member on
Armed Services, who has laid out in very careful terms why the
amendment, the Reed amendment, is so important. I thank him. He has
also, like my friend from Wyoming, been assiduous, diligent, and
careful in his work on the Armed Services Committee, and I thank him
for offering this amendment.
We have come to the floor with a very simple message for our
Republican colleagues, and it is articulated in this amendment. If you
want to make America strong by replacing the harsh and arbitrary
automatic cuts in this budget as we do, then you have to do it in a way
that makes sure we will have a strong military abroad and the things we
need to be strong and secure at home as well.
That means equally replacing cuts to both defense and domestic
budgets--$1 for defense, $1 for the middle class--in the hopes that
they can raise their income levels, and it can be easier for others who
are not yet in the middle class to reach. That is what the amendment
would require.
The truth is, the way the Republicans have put this bill together
signals a poor approach to both major areas of our budget. It locks in
the sequester cuts for our men and women in uniform, instead using the
OCO, essentially a wartime account, as a one-time gimmick to make up
for shortfalls. That is a bad idea.
Using the OCO account to pay for our troops, maintain and operate our
military or purchase weapons that will keep us safe is a terrible
mistake. Why is that? It is 1-year funding. You have to do a plan for 3
years. You have to build a submarine that takes 4 or 5 years.
I talk to defense contractors. I talk to military leaders. They can't
do it 1 year at a time. It doesn't make sense. Our military families
need stability and support. They need to know that programs that
benefit them--suicide prevention, sexual assault--will be fully funded
when other defense priorities come back into the base budget for future
years. Under OCO, these things could get squeezed out. Our military
brass needs to know that the weapons systems they are relying on 4
years from now--but being paid out of OCO this year--can be funded and
finished. So our military doesn't deserve budget gimmicks, they deserve
real support.
What my friends on the other side of the aisle have done with this
OCO increase is a budgetary sleight of hand--a half-hearted attempt to
fund the Defense Department while leaving key, middle-class programs
behind. Our Defense Department gets budget work-arounds and exceptions,
while hard-working families must continue to feel the harsh cuts
imposed by sequestration. That is a double standard because we need
both for a strong America. We need a strong military, and we need a
strong middle class. To choose one over the other--and do it by
budgetary sleight of hand--is nothing anyone can be proud of, in my
opinion.
So regardless of what happens with NDAA this month, one thing should
be absolutely clear to my Republican friends--and I see our ranking
member of Appropriations who has led this fight on the floor. Democrats
will not vote to put a defense appropriations bill on the floor that
uses accounting trickery or budgetary gimmicks to fund our troops. We
will not vote to proceed to the Defense appropriations bill or any
appropriations bill until our colleagues from the other side of the
aisle have sat down at the table and figured out with us how we are
going to properly fund the Defense Department and the key priorities
that help families, fuel economic growth--in short, keeping us safe and
strong both at home and abroad.
We simply cannot and will not move forward with one acceptable bill
at a time on the appropriations side until we are able to sit down and
reach an agreement that replaces cuts equally for our military and our
domestic needs.
This amendment requires that balance. That is why I salute the
Senator from Rhode Island, my dear friend, the ranking member of the
Committee on Armed Services for putting it together. It says that the
extra money in OCO cannot be used unless we give equal or greater
relief to domestic programs that help the middle class.
If my friends on the other side of the aisle are serious about
escaping the senseless, obtuse budget cuts imposed by the sequester and
their use of OCO, admittedly a gimmick--they are admitting that is the
case, that we have to do more and go above sequestration for military
and average families--they will wholeheartedly support the Jack Reed
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
[[Page S3905]]
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed. Characteristic of
him, it is a thoughtful solution to a very serious problem related to
the funding of our national security needs.
I would like to support and salute Senator Reed for his outstanding
job. Many don't realize that Senator Jack Reed is a graduate of West
Point. He served in the U.S. military, bringing that breadth of his
considerable background to additional public service, both in the House
and now in the Senate. He is the ranking member on the defense
authorization committee and also serves in great capacity on the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
Now, let us talk about the Reed amendment and the funding for the
Department of Defense. I want to be very clear. I do want to support
funding for the national security of the United States of America. We
take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and
domestic, and we must uphold that oath not only with lip service but
with real money in the real Federal checkbook. We need to do it in a
way that doesn't use gimmicks or smoke and mirrors to end sequester or
to finesse or do a shell deal behind the budget caps.
Remember, we passed a bill that does have significant budget caps.
But the way to deal with that problem is not to cap the Department of
Defense but to be honest about what it takes to fund national security.
The Reed amendment does that. It makes clear that the Department of
Defense should receive $38 billion, but in its base budget to take care
of the troops, to protect the troops while they protect us, to make
sure they have the right gear, the right equipment, the right
technology, and also the right intelligence to be able to do their job.
The Reed amendment also looks out for military families. It does what
we need to do.
Only when there is a new budget agreement that increases the defense
budget as well as the budget for domestic programs will we be able to
solve the problem that is facing us.
Now, what our generals have told us is we cannot meet our defense
needs with the current budget caps. They also say: Senator--this is
General Dempsey, and this is General Odierno, who spoke so well at the
funeral of the Vice President's son on Saturday; these men have devoted
their lives to the defense of our country and to have the best military
in the world--don't give us sequester. Instead of figuring out how to
fight terrorism, we have to figure out how to fight the stupidity of
Congress.
Now, they do not use those words; I am using those words. When we
instituted sequester, it was a technique to force us to make the tough
decisions. We keep hiding behind the technique. We need to change that.
The bill we have now raises funding for something called the overseas
contingency fund by $38 billion, but it uses it to fund activities that
should be in the base bill rather than the war cost it was intended
for. Essentially, it is a budget gimmick.
What is the overseas contingency fund? It was meant to be a line item
where we could actually see what war costs us. In Afghanistan and Iraq
it was kind of commingled through a lot of the other items related to
defense, but we didn't know the actual cost of the war. OCO is meant
for war. It is not meant to be a way to avoid the budget caps. Instead
of just raising the caps and funding DOD at the needed level, this bill
uses this gimmick, so nothing about it is really in the national
interest.
Our military leaders tell us: No. 1, get rid of sequester. No. 2, you
must increase the base bill.
Defense budgeting cannot be done on a year-to-year basis. It must be
multiyear because it is for the planning of procurement for them to
have the best weapons systems. It is recruitment and training and
sustaining of the military and their personnel needs.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter said: ``Our defense industry partners,
too, need stability and longer-term plans, not end-of-year crises.''
GEN Dan Allyn, Army Vice Chief of Staff, said: ``OCO does not give you
the predictable funding to be able to plan the force we are going to
need.''
I want to make another point. The defense of the United States
doesn't lie only with DOD. That is our warfighting machine. But we have
other programs that are related to national security that come out of
domestic discretionary spending that are shortchanged and are shrinking
and, quite frankly, I am concerned about it.
What am I talking about? In order to have national security, you need
to have a State Department. You need to have a State Department to do
the kind of work that involves diplomacy. That involves working with
nations around the world and the needs of these nations and also to
engage in important negotiations such as we have now ongoing on the
Iran nuclear. That is not done by generals. That is done by diplomats.
You need to have a Department of State. Look at what happened in
Benghazi, where there is so much focus on this. While they are
focusing--and we should focus--on Benghazi, we appropriators are
focusing on embassy security. Embassy security is funded through the
Department of State and funded by discretionary spending. If you want
to protect Americans overseas, you have to have embassy security. You
have to have a Department of State.
Then we have the Department of Homeland Security. Look at all the
cyber attacks on us right at this minute. We need to have a cyber
component to defense, but we need to have the cyber defense strategy at
the Department of Homeland Security. Even our military is being hacked.
Insurance programs are being hacked. People in the United States are
having important information about their health records, their Social
Security numbers, and so on being stolen. We need to have a robust
Department of Homeland Security. They have a program called Einstein
that is supposed to do it, but we don't have to be Einsteins to know
that in order to protect America we also have to protect the Department
of Homeland Security.
Then of course there are the promises made and promises kept. There
is the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies. We must fund our promises made to our veterans. That
is out of discretionary spending. That is not out of defense. But the
infrastructure for our military, our military bases here in our own
country, come out of military construction.
I don't want to sound as if I am defending government programs. That
is not what I am here to do. I am here to defend the Nation and defend
it the right way. We need to be able to put money in the Federal
checkbook that funds our Department of Defense without gimmicks,
without sleight of hand, without finessing or playing dodge ball. We
have to play hard ball with the terrorists and others who have
predatory intent against the United States.
We have to be Team U.S.A. not only on the sports field but on this
playing field right here on the floor of Congress. Let us work
together. Let us get a new budget agreement. Let us solve the problems.
Let us end sequester. Let us work together to be able to do it. I
believe a big step forward would be supporting the amendment offered by
the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed. I ask, in the interest of
national security, that we vote for the Reed amendment and that we go
to the budget. Let's go to the negotiating table and come up with a
real framework to fund the compelling needs of our Nation, and let's do
it, Team U.S.A.
I yield the floor.
____________________