[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 114 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Page S5138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate held another vote on moving to 
the Defense appropriations bill. This bill was reported from committee 
by a 30 to nothing vote, and it shows what can be accomplished if we 
work in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, the Senate majority has 
taken a turn away from bipartisanship since the bill was drafted.
  I will speak more about my concerns with this move toward division 
and divisiveness in a moment. But first let me commend the chairman of 
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, for his 
leadership in producing this bill. He has been open to my proposals, 
and has also made a courageous stand against attempting to relitigate 
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.
  Among the highlights of the bill include investments that strengthen 
our technology advantage, restore the readiness of the Armed Forces, 
and stabilize our defense industrial base.
  Most importantly, this bill makes a strong statement in favor of 
defense medical research. It adds $915 million in addition to the 
budget request for investigations into new drugs and therapies that 
could lead to breakthroughs in the treatment of diseases ranging from 
breast cancer, traumatic brain injury, Alzheimer's, prosthetics, and 
many other fields. This is an increase of 5 percent real growth 
compared to last year's bill.
  The funding in this bill is small compared to the investments at the 
National Institutes of Health, but the results of defense medical 
research have touched the lives of countless numbers of servicemembers, 
their families, and have even spread into the civilian medical 
community. This funding makes a big impact in people's lives, and I am 
proud that our commitment to this research continues to grow each year.
  The bill also recognizes the threat posed by ISIS. It fully funds the 
overseas contingency operations account to provide what our 
servicemembers need in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in harm's way.
  In this way, we disagree strongly with our House counterparts. The 
House bill provides only a portion of the funds necessary. We believe 
on a bipartisan basis that there should be no arbitrary cut-off date of 
funding for this Nation's fight against terrorism.
  The U.S. and our allies are working to defeat ISIS on the ground in 
Iraq and Syria, and dismantle their international terror network. There 
is real progress on the ground. The President has built a coalition of 
66 nations to fight ISIS. The terrorist group has almost half its 
territory in Iraq, and 20 percent of its territory in Syria. It has 
lost access to key sources of funds for its activities. The U.S. and 
its allies have killed tens of thousands of their fighters, as well as 
over 100 ISIS leaders.
  This bill provides $43.3 billion for DOD to fight Al Qaeda, the 
Taliban, and ISIS, including $1.78 billion to continue this progress 
against ISIS by building the capacity of allies in Iraq, Syria, and the 
broader region.
  We also must continue to prevent terrorism here at home through 
stronger homeland defenses and work with our allies to strengthen 
theirs--intelligence sharing and all the rest.
  We have to have the entire Federal Government in this fight, from the 
Department of Homeland Security to the FBI, from the State Department 
to the Treasury Department. It cannot be DOD's fight alone.
  People may be asking, since the Defense appropriations bill was 
approved by a committee vote of 30 to zero in May, why isn't the bill 
receiving a similar bipartisan vote in July? To find the answer, one 
need look no further than how the Republican majority has handled 
funding to combat the Zika virus.
  On May 19, the Senate voted overwhelmingly, 68-30, to pass a $1.1 
billion package to respond to the threat of Zika. But in conference, a 
deal was cut without Democrats at the table that completely undermined 
the compromise proposal that was supported by the Senate.
  There are only two explanations for how a bipartisan deal turned out 
so badly: maybe the negotiators on behalf of the Senate majority did 
not do a good job of representing the Senate's position. Or this was a 
case of legislative rope-a-dope, in which there was never an intention 
to follow through on a bipartisan compromise.
  That brings us to the Defense appropriations bill. After the Senate 
caved once to unreasonable House proposals on the Zika bill, Democrats 
have sought assurances that we will have fair outcomes to negotiating 
other appropriations bills.
  That simply means that Democrats should be at the table for 
conference negotiations, that these budget bills will have fair 
spending levels, and we avoid poison pills inserted by the House, such 
as cutting off funding for the fight against ISIL after just 6 months.
  Sadly, the Republican majority has bristled at the idea of giving 
assurances that the fair process used in the Appropriations Committee 
to produce these budget bills will be allowed to continue.
  Last year, when Republicans produced one-sided appropriations bills, 
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter called these ploys a ``road to 
nowhere.''
  Absent a commitment by the Republican leadership to continue in a 
spirit of bipartisanship and compromise, it seems they have chosen once 
again to walk down that same road that leads to gridlock and stalemate.
  It is disappointing and disheartening that an appropriations process 
that began on such a good note has taken a turn for the worse.
  The Defense appropriations bill is a good bill. Democrats are simply 
seeking assurances from the Republican Leadership that the same spirt 
of compromise and bipartisanship that helped draft the bill will be 
restored after faith was broken with a one-sided, divisive approach to 
responding to the Zika virus.
  I regret that the Republican leadership cannot give those assurances 
and therefore are putting an end to appropriations work this summer.
  It is my sincere hope that, after the election, both Democrats and 
Republicans can return to working in good faith to produce a budget 
bill that includes this very good defense bill, as well as the 11 other 
appropriations bills that need to be passed before the year is done.

                          ____________________