[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3079-S3080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Manchester Attack

  Before I begin, I want to express that I strongly condemn yesterday's 
heartbreaking attack in Manchester. I want to express my sincere 
condolences to the families of those who lost loved ones, especially 
the innocent and defenseless children who were brutally killed. As a 
father and grandfather, I mourn with them, and I am praying for the 
recovery of the injured.
  The United States stands in firm solidarity with our friends in the 
United Kingdom. The United States will provide the necessary assistance 
as British authorities work to bring those responsible to justice. I 
know I speak for all my colleagues in the Senate in our solidarity with 
our friends in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. President, in regard to Mr. Sullivan's nomination to be Deputy 
Secretary of State, he is well qualified for that position. He served 
in the Justice Department and in the private practice of law. He served 
as Deputy General Counsel at the Department of Defense. He also has 
been involved in the Department of Commerce, where he was General 
Counsel and Deputy Secretary. He is well familiar with government. He 
served in public positions and also brings private experience as a 
lawyer to the position of Deputy Secretary of State.
  I do want to point out--as I pointed out to Mr. Sullivan and as most 
members of our committee did--that he will find himself home alone for 
a period of time, in that the Trump administration has not submitted to 
Congress nominees for important positions at the Department of State. 
Yes, I have confidence in the career people at the Department of State, 
but there are times that we have to have a confirmed person in control 
in order to advance policies. So it is important--from embassy 
security, to fighting terrorism, to helping with the humanitarian 
challenges we have around the world and the administration of our 
missions in all the countries around the world--that we have a team in 
place. The Trump administration has been slow in providing us with 
qualified individuals to fill these positions. Thus far, the 
administration has decided to treat the State Department as an 
inconvenience rather than as a critical national security asset.
  Secondly, I want to express my concern about something that will make 
Mr. Sullivan's job a lot more difficult--the international affairs 
budget for fiscal year 2018 that the administration is unveiling today. 
Although we are still receiving details, as I look at the massive 
spending cuts to vital national security, it is impossible to conclude 
this is anything but an ``America alone'' budget--one that, if enacted, 
will have disastrous effects on our standing in the world.
  Let me repeat one more time that the money we spend on development 
assistance, on diplomacy, and that we spend in regard to helping our 
allies around the world and countries around the world is part of our 
national security budget. It is part of our national security budget, 
and yet the President's fiscal year 2018 budget would compromise 
national security.
  As Secretary Mattis has said--often quoted on this floor--if you 
don't give the Secretary of State and the State Department the 
resources they need, you better be prepared to give them more 
ammunition and more soldiers because it is going to be more costly for 
them to defend.
  It is very disappointing that the budget slashes critical support to 
our allies in their efforts to defeat terrorism, including zeroing out 
counterinsurgency support in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. It will 
slash funds to support the defense needs of countless foreign partner 
countries and offer them the unpalatable option of going into debt to 
the United States to get the defense equipment and support they need. 
This is certain to damage our security, counterterrorism, and security 
interests with these countries and prove a golden opportunity for 
Russia and China to take the place of the United States. This is 
serious business. If we don't help countries that are part of our 
coalition against terrorism, if we don't give them the resources to 
help us, then, quite clearly, our enemies will move in. As we know, 
Russia has done many things against U.S. interests. The voids will be 
quickly picked up by Russia and China.
  This is a budget proposal that cuts support to European allies to 
counter Russia's aggression--precisely when Russia's assault on our 
democracy and the democracies of our European democracies has reached a 
fever pitch. At a time when the United States should be standing up for 
our allies and partners in Europe, this budget zeros out the Assistance 
for Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia--AEECA--account and eliminates the 
European Reassurance Initiative altogether. This was an initiative that 
was set up to counter Russia's influence in Europe, and we are going to 
zero that out?
  This is a budget proposal that walks away from the promotion of 
democratic values. It slashes funding for human rights and democracy 
programs abroad and hollows out the ideas, initiatives, and 
institutions on which U.S. leadership and international order rests, 
like the United Nations Peacekeeping.
  In his remarks in Saudi Arabia this past weekend, President Trump 
applauded Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon for their role in hosting 
refugees. Yet draconian humanitarian funding cuts would harm these very 
friends and allies who are hosting millions of refugees. What an 
inconsistent message. It also eliminates the U.N. emergency food aid 
program at a time of famine in Africa and the Middle East. If these 
budget cuts are implemented, many people around the world will die as a 
result of diminished resources and support that would result. We can't 
let that happen.
  It is a budget proposal that undermines our ability to deal with 
pressing national security challenges, including development 
assistance, humanitarian aid, and climate change. The administration's 
budget proposal slashes more than 30 percent from our foreign 
assistance budget and dramatically cuts support for critical programs 
to save the lives of mothers in childbirth, feed hungry children, 
educate young people, train farmers, and the like. These programs 
exemplify U.S. values and promote the power of democracy and the 
importance of protecting human rights.

[[Page S3080]]

  America's trademark is its values, what we stand for, our leadership 
globally, and this budget would compromise our ability to promote 
American values.
  This is a penny wise, pound foolish budget, as the security 
challenges that will grow from these humanitarian catastrophes will 
dwarf the cost of helping to address the challenges before they 
metastasize into failed states and havens for extremism. If we don't 
help, we will have to pay on the other end.
  When we fail to help countries provide the stability they need to 
take care of their population, they become a breeding ground for 
terrorists. We then have to respond with the use of our military, and 
it is much more costly. It costs people their lives.
  Climate change--perhaps the most pressing national security challenge 
that faces the globe in the 21st century--receives less than just 
neglect; this is a budget that actively provides a catastrophic effect 
on climate-induced instability. We will not be able to respond to our 
international obligations in regard to climate change.
  I understand that for Mr. Sullivan, if confirmed, this is the budget 
proposal he has to accept and defend; however, both he and Secretary 
Tillerson should be put on notice that I--and I think I speak for a 
number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--consider this 
budget dead on arrival. I would call on him to consider how, if 
confirmed, he will work with the Senate to develop a more serious 
budget proposal over the coming months that safeguards and promotes 
American interests in the world, that deepens our partnerships and 
alliances, that is sufficient to meet the challenges of an increasingly 
aggressive Russia and increasingly assertive China on the world stage, 
that provides our Nation the tools it needs to address the pressing 
humanitarian crises and challenges, and that supports and defends our 
universal values in the best tradition of our Nation.
  That is what we need to do as a Congress. We are the ones who will 
pass the budget. We are the ones who have the responsibility to make 
sure our budget speaks to our priorities, our values, and our national 
interests. Yet it is very disappointing to see the President of the 
United States submit a budget that is just the opposite of what it 
should be in regard to putting money toward American values and 
national security. We will be looking upon Mr. Sullivan, if he is 
confirmed, to work with us so we can develop a budget that really 
speaks to American values and American interests.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.