[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 81 (Monday, May 23, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3047-S3048]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017--MOTION TO
PROCEED
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 469,
S. 2943.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 469, S. 2943, a bill to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 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.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 469, S. 2943, a bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2017 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.
John McCain, Thad Cochran, Lindsey Graham, Joni Ernst,
James M. Inhofe, Tom Cotton, Kelly Ayotte, Richard
Burr, Cory Gardner, Jeff Sessions, Thom Tillis, Mike
Rounds, Dan Sullivan, Orrin G. Hatch, Tim Scott, John
Cornyn, Mitch McConnell.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call
be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am sure that all of our colleagues made
note of the latest tragedy, which is most likely a terrorist attack,
and that is the airliner that disappeared, and now they are finding
pieces of that airliner. We don't know positively what happened, but it
has all the earmarks of a terrorist attack.
I know that many of my colleagues know that the Director of National
Intelligence, General Clapper, testified before our committee and said
that there are most likely going to be additional attacks in Europe and
in the United States, either the type that took place in San Bernardino
or attacks that--Mr. Baghdadi has sent his people into the refugee flow
to commit attacks on the United States of America.
We just finished up a couple weeks ago--a few days ago a defense
authorization bill. That bill is a very large bill, and it contains
reforms and changes in the way we do business. It changes a whole lot
of things. It also takes care of the men and women who are serving in
the military. It provides them with greater capability to fight this
virus of radical terrorist Islam, which is threatening the United
States of America in a way that has been unprecedented in 70 years.
We are subject to attacks like San Bernardino, like what we just saw
with the airliner, which is most likely--I am not positive, but it has
all the earmarks. I have seen enough to know that this is most likely a
terrorist attack. Meanwhile, ISIS is metastasizing Libya. It is
committing attacks in Baghdad which are killing hundreds of people. We
see the terrible atrocities committed by ISIS or Daesh--whichever one
you call it--all over the world, in Africa and other parts.
So we need this legislation. We need this legislation for the men and
women who are serving. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Dempsey, said that what we are doing now puts us on the
``ragged edge'' of being able to defend this Nation. The Commandant of
the U.S. Marine Corps said the same thing. The Chief of Staff of the
United States Army said: ``We are putting the men and women in the
military at greater risk.'' Those are his exact words. ``We are putting
the men and women in the military at greater risk.''
So what are we doing here? We are not moving forward with the bill.
For some reason, the majority leader is having to file cloture, and
then we wait a number of days, and then we take up the bill, and then
maybe we don't finish the bill while we go into recess. Don't we owe
the men and women in the military better than that? Shouldn't we take
up this bill and dispense with it, do a conference with the House and
send it to the President's desk so that the President of the United
States will sign it and the men and women in the military will be
better equipped, better trained, better able to defend themselves and
this Nation, or are we going to go through some kind of foolishness of
having the majority leader having to file cloture and then we wait 48
hours? It is being totally divorced from the reality of what is
happening in the world. Just a few days ago, a brave young SEAL was
killed in Syria, a young man named Keating. I happen to know his family
very well.
The President of the United States still will not say we are in
combat, but the fact is, we are dramatically increasing our presence,
both in Syria and Iraq and now Libya. These men and women need
equipment to fight with. They need to have a military that is the best
we can provide them with. So why shouldn't we do it now? Why should we
wait a couple of days? There is no justification for not moving to this
bill right now.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration--the immediate consideration--of Calendar No. 469, S.
2943, the National Defense Authorization Act.
[[Page S3048]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I have
stated on the record many times, I have great admiration for the
Senator from Arizona. We came together to the House, came together to
the Senate. But I have to say, it is obvious my friend has a short
memory. These bills take a long time. That is traditionally how it has
worked around here. For weeks, we work on these bills.
I understand the bill as reported complies with the budget agreement.
I appreciate that. But the Senator from Arizona, I have been told,
wants to offer an amendment to expand military spending without doing
anything to address the middle class. The fight against terrorism, the
fight for security in our country is more than bombs and bullets; it is
the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security; it is what we are doing
to fight the scourge of drugs. All of those things are important for
the security of this Nation.
There is nothing being done in this bill to fight ZIKA. Is that a
security issue? Yes, it is. There is nothing being done to fight
opioids. Is that a security issue? It sure is. During the time we have
had this little exchange, there will be a number of people who will die
across America as a result of the overuse of opioids. Flint, MI, has
been going on for months. Those poor people have been ravaged with lead
in the water.
So I would have to say that my friend, as I have indicated, has a
very short memory. I don't know how many times he has voted not to
proceed to a piece of legislation. We need to address those issues that
I have talked about.
I think the people of Arizona, the people of this country, want us to
do our jobs. You would think that one thing we could do is look at this
bill. This bill is not 64 pages long, not 164 pages long; it is 1,664
pages long. What makes it even more concerning to me and my colleagues
is the fact that it was basically done in secret. It was a closed
hearing.
So for heaven's sake, let's be brought back to reality. We have been
very clear. We think we should take care of the middle class as we take
care of the military. We are obligated to do both. The President will
veto any bill that violates that principle.
So before we begin consideration of this bill, it wouldn't be bad if
we read it. It wouldn't be bad if we had a chance to study this. It
wouldn't be a bad idea if we had our staff give us some information on
this bill of 1,664 pages.
So, without any question, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me just say, the bill was reported
from the committee by a vote of 24 to 3. So what the Democratic leader
is saying is that because we don't fund the IRS, we then should not
proceed with defending this Nation. That is a remarkable statement.
If the Democratic leader is interested in money for the FBI, Homeland
Security, and others, I would be more than happy to consider that, to
authorize some additional funding for those agencies of government that
protect the government.
But what my colleagues have just heard is that we will not move
forward to provide for the well-being of the men and women who are
serving, their ability to defend us, take them out of risk as much as
possible by providing them what they need--which, by the way, 95
percent is input and requests from the executive branch, the Defense
Department. So we are not going to move forward on this because we
don't include the other agencies of government. That is now putting our
Nation's security and other functions of government on exactly the same
plane and totally disregards the fact that we are being attacked. We
are being attacked by cyber. There are plans to attack the United
States of America. The Director of National Intelligence said there
will be attacks on the United States of America. Where is the
Democratic leader? What is he thinking? What could he be thinking?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Arizona has
expired.
Mr. McCAIN. We need to move forward with this legislation. We need to
move forward with it now for the sake of the men and women who are
serving and defending this Nation and putting their lives on the line.
This is disgraceful.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to.
Mr. McCONNELL. How many Democratic Senators on the Armed Services
Committee voted against this bill?
Mr. McCAIN. None. I am unhappy to say that the three votes against
happened to be on this side of the aisle.
____________________