[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 194 (Thursday, November 4, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7763-S7765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Government Funding

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, we are now 4 weeks into the fiscal year. 
The Federal Government--the most powerful nation on Earth--is running 
on autopilot, and we only have 4 weeks until the government shuts down 
unless Congress takes action.
  And it is not a theoretical exercise. The actions we take, or don't 
take, in this Chamber with respect to the fiscal year 2022 
appropriations bills affect people's lives and also the direction of 
this Nation.
  These bills provide for our national defense, help educate our 
Nation's children, provide medical care for our veterans, ensure that 
we have clean air and water, invest in science, and provide a social 
safety net for our Nation's most vulnerable populations.
  Now, we can, and we should, do our job and finish these bills in the 
coming weeks, and we should be ready to go. I mean, 2 weeks ago, I made 
public nine Senate appropriations bills. When you combine this with the 
three bills the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up way back in 
August, all 12 bills have been released. The House has marked up all of 
their bills, and all but three of them have already passed the House.
  But in order to finish our work, we need to have an agreed-upon top 
line that has been worked out in a bipartisan and bicameral basis--
something that has been done so many times in the past. We can't 
finalize bills until we know how much we are able to spend. And I have 
been calling for these negotiations for months. But we need all the 
party to come to the table. It takes both Republicans and Democrats to 
strike a deal.
  Now, Democrats have already made a fair offer. My Republican 
colleagues made clear to us that they believed the President's proposal 
for a 1.7-percent increase for defense programs was inadequate. I 
thought it struck the right balance, as did many of my colleagues.
  But this institution is built on compromise. So in the Senate posted 
bill, I included a 5-percent increase for defense instead of the 1.7 
percent the administration had proposed. The 5-percent increase is 
based on the funding level included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act, NDAA.
  Now, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted on that. Do you know 
what the vote was?--25 to 1, in favor of that 5-percent increase. Every 
single Senate Republican on the Committee supported this level of 
funding. The House bill contains the same 5-percent increase, and it 
passed the House Chamber, 316 to 113.
  In order to increase the defense number and stay within the top line 
established in the FY 2022 budget resolution, I reduced the amount for 
nondefense programs from President Biden's proposed 16-percent 
increase, which I would have preferred--but I reduced it to a 13-
percent increase. That is how negotiations work. Each side has to give 
something.
  Now, having offered the Republican-endorsed spending level for 
defense, have they taken yes for an answer?
  No.
  Have they taken time for a counteroffer?

[[Page S7764]]

  No.
  Instead, they seem intent on driving us toward a full-year continuing 
resolution.
  If I had been here a long time and was a cynical person, which I am 
not, I would be worried that delay was a political calculation to tie 
the hands of the Biden administration and thwart his agenda--governing 
under a long-term continuing resolution is difficult, and they know it. 
But this Vermonter tries not to be cynical.
  But I would remind, from a practical point of view, the stakes are 
too high to play politics with the practical budget. This is not 
something we should play politics with because the consequences for the 
American people are too great. The impacts of a full-year CR are too 
onerous for the country to bear. That is unquestionably true for those 
who claim to care about defense programs and national security. And you 
would think that fact all by itself would bring all parties to the 
negotiating table.
  A full-year CR would not only reduce the defense spending by $37 
billion compared to the Senate bill I posted, it would actually cut 
defense spending below last year's levels. Since a CR freezes programs 
at last year's level, certain programs would be overfunded and others 
would be underfunded. The Department of Defense would be unable to 
shift enough money around within their transfer authority to correct 
the imbalances, resulting in billions of unspent dollars and even more 
unmet priorities. And you can only imagine the waste and confusion that 
would occur.
  With money tied up in outdated priorities, the United States will 
struggle to meet the challenges and threats of today. While the U.S. is 
no longer in Afghanistan, a CR would revive the Overseas Contingency 
Operations, OCO, to the tune of $69 billion at DOD. And that is the 
account, of course, meant to fund wartime activities. It would also 
provide--just think of this for a moment--$3.3 billion to train and arm 
the now-defunct Afghan security forces. In other words, a continuing 
resolution would have $3.3 billion to train and arm a no longer 
existing Afghan security force.
  Now, while we are paying for a war we are not actually fighting, DOD 
may be forced to reduce the end-strength of our military just so they 
can pay our troops and civilian personnel the 2.7-percent pay raise 
they so rightly deserve, that is set to go into effect on January 1, 
2022. In other words, the Pentagon may have to lay off soldiers to find 
the money for a pay raise under a continuing resolution, while money is 
tied up on a war we are not even fighting. That makes no sense. That 
makes no sense.
  Just think of this: We lay off soldiers so we can pay for a pay 
raise, because we have our money tied up in a war that we are not 
fighting. I mean, Kafka couldn't think of something this crazy.
  Now, most Members in this Chamber would agree that China is one of 
our biggest threats. Reflecting that reality, the President proposed 
over $66 billion in military investments to counter the growing 
influence of China. None of the new capabilities included in the 
defense appropriations bill would be funded under a continuing 
resolution.
  So we can say, boy, we are going to gear up with China; however, the 
Senate can't get around to vote on it.
  Now, many Senators have come to the floor in recent weeks to ask that 
we provide an additional $1 billion for Iron Dome. I wonder if they are 
aware that if we have a CR, Iron Dome doesn't get a billion dollars; it 
gets $73 million.
  Given these facts--and these are only a few of many examples--I am 
mystified why there doesn't seem to be any urgency on the other side to 
solve these problems. Republican Members have been quick to criticize 
Democratic leadership for not bringing the NDAA to the Senate floor for 
consideration more quickly, but that is an authorizing bill. And when 
it comes to actually funding the Defense--not just authorizing, but 
actually putting the money there--they won't even come to the table. 
Yet, on the very same day, I was told that the Republican leadership 
wants to have a full-year continuing resolution that would cut defense 
funding.
  They are out here saying, Why aren't you passing an increase in the 
Defense spending--but, oh, by the way, we want a bill that would cut 
the Defense funding?
  So I would ask them, which is it? Is one aim for the TV soundbites? 
But if rhetoric doesn't match the reality, start being honest with the 
American people.
  If we fail to get a deal on full-year appropriations bills, our 
veterans also lose out. Due to increased demands for community care, 
under a continuing resolution, the VA will not have sufficient funds to 
cover medical care for veterans. These are men and women who served our 
country. Think of all the praise we have had, all the greetings as the 
great men and women come back from wars, many suffering all kinds of 
injuries. ``We will never forget our veterans.'' Oh, yes, we will 
because we won't stand up and pass the money they need. Veterans 
deserve better than this.
  Our domestic priorities will also suffer under a continuing 
resolution. The fiscal year 2022 Senate bills include historic 
increases to care for and educate our Nation's children, combat climate 
change, build and renovate affordable housing, improve our 
infrastructure, and continue to combat the pandemic, which is still 
with us. None of these increases--none of them--will occur under a 
full-year CR. We will be forced to operate at last year's levels in a 
country that now has been transformed by a global pandemic. How 
irresponsible is that?
  For example, in our bill, we provide critical funding increases for 
mental health and substance abuse. These funds are desperately needed 
in every State in this country as rates of anxiety and depression have 
soared during the COVID-19 pandemic. Drug overdose deaths are expected 
to reach their highest levels to date. But in a continuing resolution, 
we say: Tough. You are on your own. We don't have the money.
  Under a continuing resolution, funding at the National Institutes of 
Health will stagnate, leaving us behind in critical advancements in 
medical research at a time I think we need it more than anytime in my 
life.
  The fiscal year 2022 Senate bills include critical investments to 
combat climate change. That would disappear under a CR. A CR says we 
will have complacency, not bold action.
  The next few days and weeks are critical. I hope the American people 
realize what is at stake. I ask our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to join us in negotiating a path forward.
  It is not an exaggeration to say that the choice we face with these 
appropriations bills goes to the very heart of why we are here. We can 
either come together the way we used to, the way democracy is supposed 
to, and make our government work for the American people or we can 
become the branch of government where, instead of governing, the 
minority party defines its role as preventing the Congress from doing 
its job so it can then falsely blame the majority party.
  There have been around 2,000 Senators who have had the privilege of 
serving this country since it began. I served with over 400 of them--
more than 20 percent of all the Senators in the Nation's history. I 
remember Republicans and Democrats could work together, not for their 
party's interest but for the country's interest.
  There are only 100 of us. We should be the conscience of the Nation. 
We should be working together to protect the Nation. But I fear that we 
have political gamesmanship, and it is not just about these bills but 
the relevance of Congress itself today and for the future, whichever 
party is in the minority. If that becomes the norm, it is going to be 
impossible to turn the clock back.
  We need a top-line deal. Republicans need to come to the table and 
make a comprehensive offer. Those of us on this side of the aisle are 
ready to work on behalf of the American people. I ask our Republican 
colleagues to join us in working for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to join Chairman Leahy in calling 
on our Republican colleagues to negotiate a final agreement on fiscal 
year 2022 appropriations bills. Just as we need to complete work on the 
National Defense Authorization Act--a position I have

[[Page S7765]]

been urging repeatedly on our leadership--we need to complete work on 
the appropriations bills. They are complementary, to say the least, and 
they have to be done.
  Under Chairman Leahy's leadership, Democrats have put forth a 
responsible top-line number and subcommittee allocations that address 
our defense and nondefense funding needs alike. The defense funding 
levels in the appropriations bills are consistent with the bipartisan 
National Defense Authorization Act bill that we passed in the Armed 
Services Committee in July.
  I would like to point out that the defense spending level in the 
Senate NDAA bill, which is pending floor action, was set by an 
amendment offered by my colleague, the ranking member, Jim Inhofe of 
Oklahoma, and supported by every Republican on the Armed Services 
Committee. I was pleased to work with Senator Inhofe and to cosponsor 
the amendment, which provides an additional $25 billion in funding for 
specific items, most of which are unfunded requirements submitted by 
the services and the combatant commands.
  But Republicans put all this good work and all this good will we 
built up and established in the NDAA process in jeopardy if they force 
us into a yearlong continuing resolution by refusing to negotiate on 
the 12 appropriations bills.
  A yearlong CR would be shortsighted and damaging to our national 
defense.
  First, defense spending will be about $36 billion lower than the 
levels set out in the Senate's NDAA and appropriations bills.
  I must also point out that, following our lead, the House Armed 
Services Committee passed a bill with the same top line--an additional 
$25 billion. That was brought to the floor of the House. It passed. 
In fact, an amendment to reduce the funding was defeated.

  So there is a strong bipartisan commitment to vigorously fund the 
Department of Defense, and if we do not do that, if we fall into the 
trap of a CR, as I have indicated, we will be taking money away from 
the Department of Defense.
  Second, we will be tied, as Senator Leahy pointed out, to funding 
priorities from a year ago even though circumstances have changed 
remarkably. As he pointed out, we have funding in last year's 
legislation that would provide support to Afghan forces who have been 
dissipated by the events of August. We would have a situation where 
there were significant amounts of money intended to assist Afghan 
security concerns that could not be effectively used and would detract 
from the current needs that we have.
  Third, a CR would prevent DOD from effectively modernizing and 
reinventing and reinvesting in its programs. Since new starts--new 
programs--aren't allowed under a CR, DOD could be forced into funding 
legacy systems that are outdated and inefficient, and that is simply 
congressionally mandated waste. Meanwhile, important new initiatives 
and acquisitions could be delayed. For example, we may not have the 
ability to fund the three additional ships and the seven more Joint 
Strike Fighters in the Navy's 2022 budget. As we shift our focus to the 
Pacific, as we deal with potential contingencies involving Taiwan and 
other areas, it becomes a shift in the Navy. They need these platforms. 
They need them as soon as we can get them, and they won't be able to 
get them if we are stuck with a CR.
  CRs are also terribly disruptive just to the normal operation of the 
Department of Defense and also to their partners in the private sector 
and academia, since CRs inject uncertainty, instability, and cost to 
the R&D and acquisition processes.
  The impact is not just felt on the defense side of the ledger, as 
Chairman Leahy pointed out. Nondefense priorities have been neglected 
for over a decade. This year, we finally have a chance to make up for 
lost time.
  For example, we have a chance to double the Federal commitment to 
public education under the title I program and make important 
investments in adult education and job training.
  At a time when the American people are clamoring for more mental 
health service, particularly for children, we have funding to help 
train more pediatric mental health specialists.
  We also have funding to help establish a national suicide prevention 
lifeline and a three-digit phone number that Congress approved last 
year. We are in the midst, sadly, of an epidemic of suicides throughout 
this country, and they particularly affect, as we pointed out, veterans 
who have served their country with great valor and sacrifice and yet 
are plagued by mental health problems.
  As the chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, I will note 
that we have funding to help the Capitol Police, who have been 
stretched to their limits in the aftermath of the January 6 assault on 
this Capitol. In the Senate bill, we have funding for new officers, 
overtime and retention payments, as well as resources for officer 
wellness and mental health support. After what they have done for us, 
literally saving us, we owe it to the men and women of the Capitol 
Police to provide this assistance. It cannot be done under a continuing 
resolution.
  Chairman Leahy has bent over backwards to engage our Republican 
colleagues, and we have to engage. We have to move forward. He is 
willing to do that, but we have not seen a comparable response from the 
other side. It is time to get down to business, the business of the 
American people. It is time to provide our military with the resources 
and the priorities for today, not for last year. It is time to 
recognize the emerging problems in this country of this moment, not of 
the past.
  We need our colleagues on the Republican side to come to the table, 
not with preconditions and redlines but a willingness to negotiate on 
behalf of all the American people. Otherwise, we will risk a continuing 
resolution that will harm everyone, all the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chair of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee for his comments.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________