[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 48 (Thursday, March 13, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1730-S1731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Government Funding

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the House continuing 
resolution that will be before this body over the next couple of days, 
and I want to begin by talking about a Senate Armed Services Committee 
meeting that we had yesterday morning at 9:30 a.m.
  So if we are all paying attention, the House acted on a continuing 
resolution on Tuesday night. The budget deadline is at the end of the 
day Friday. And it takes two Houses to do a budget, but what happened 
is when the House acted on their portion of it, they decided to leave 
town.
  They thought it would just be great if they just left town before the 
budget was even done, and they sent us a ``continuing resolution'' that 
would be unprecedented because it would mean that the Government of the 
United States would have operated not under a traditional 
appropriations bill but, instead, under a CR for the entire year.
  To those who don't do the Washington speak, what is the difference 
between a CR and a real appropriations budget? The way I describe it is 
this: If you are driving a vehicle, you want to drive by looking 
through the windshield, where you are going. That is what the budget 
does. You budget for the year ahead of you, based upon the facts on the 
ground, the realities in the world, the priorities that you have 
embraced, the challenges that you will face. That is what a budget is 
supposed to do.
  When you operate under a continuing resolution, you are driving by 
looking in the rearview mirror. You are instead embracing decisions 
that were made a while ago and just saying: Well, we can't even reach 
an accord about going forward. So let's instead just--let's do what we 
did last month. Let's do what we did last year because we are unable to 
reach an agreement.
  A continuing resolution has been somewhat normal for a couple of 
months. If we don't reach a budget deal by September 30, it is pretty 
normal that we do a CR through the end of the calendar year. But in 
every year that I have been here, Congress has been able to, at some 
point, find not the backward-looking CR but the forward-looking 
appropriations bill and put it in place so that we are spending money 
based on the priorities that are important right now.
  What is pending before the Senate now is not that forward-looking 
budget. Instead, it is this vehicle that has come over from the House 
that would, for the first time, have us not budgeting based on the 
windshield but, instead, driving by what is in the rearview mirror.
  We had an Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, and it was a 
hearing that was called by the Readiness Subcommittee, on which I sit. 
Readiness looks at this very important metric: How ready are the 
different branches of the American military to fight tomorrow, if we 
need to?
  And we have this hearing every year, and we usually invite to the 
hearing the vice service chiefs of each of the service branches--so 
instead of the service chief of the Navy, the deputy, Vice Admiral 
Kilby. We will invite the deputies of all the branches, and they come 
and talk to us about how they measure readiness and where we stand. And 
they were all before us, yesterday, in a hearing that was chaired by 
Alaska Senator Sullivan, with the ranking member, Hawaii Senator 
Hirono, and a number of others there at the hearing.
  Now, remember, it had just been 12 hours before that the House had 
passed the continuing resolution, and so folks were aware of what was 
on the table in this hearing yesterday morning. And what did our 
military leadership say to us about the continuing resolution that we 
were going to be asked to vote on in the next day or so?
  Well, let me just read a couple of quotes from the military leaders.
  Admiral Kilby:

       Consistent and predictable funding is foundational to our 
     improvement efforts. The Navy will need to make hard choices 
     this year if we are operating under a full-year continuing 
     resolution.

  And so I asked him this question. I am just going to read the 
exchange that I had with him:

       Admiral Kilby, I think you testified in your open testimony 
     that under a CR one-fifth of our ships will miss their 
     maintenance schedule, did I hear that right?

  Admiral Kilby said:

       Specifically eleven ships, those maintenance availabilities 
     are at risk.
  I followed up:

       OK, so we want to get to 80% ready on ships and subs, where 
     are we now?

  Admiral Kilby said:


[[Page S1731]]


  

       Depending on the day, around 67%.

  I then said:

       What will one-fifth of ships missing their maintenance 
     schedule under the CR, what will that do to our quest to get 
     to 80% readiness for ships and subs?

  Admiral Kilby:

       It'll certainly be a setback, we'll take a penalty there.

  All of the other vice service chiefs said the same thing on behalf of 
the Marines and the Air Force and the Space Force and the Army: 
Operating under a full-year CR will hurt readiness, will hurt our 
national security.
  This is what the Pentagon is telling us about the bill we are going 
to be voting on in the next day or so. But it wasn't just the military 
leaders who said that. The chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, 
Senator Sullivan, said: The CR--from a readiness standpoint, I think 
that none of this is helpful. He described the frequent use of CRs as 
``a failure on the part of Congress.''
  Then my friend and colleague who was the chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, Senator Wicker--here is what he said about the bill 
we are going to vote on in the next couple of days:

       I will say this about the fact that this is the first year-
     long CR for the Department of Defense. . . . This is a shame 
     on our process and it is not in keeping with what the 
     Founders intended.

  This is the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Service 
Committee's opinion about what a yearlong CR will do to our national 
security.
  So why are we going to vote for it? Why are we taking it up and 
rushing to pass it? When our military leadership says it is a bad idea 
and when the chairman of the Armed Services Committee says it a bad 
idea, why would we contemplate it?
  Well, Senator Sullivan sort of hinted at it when he said it is better 
than a shutdown. But those are not the options. This was a hearing 
Wednesday morning at 9:30 in the morning. The budget deadline is not 
until the end of the day Friday. We don't have to accept that it is 
either a security-damaging continuing resolution or a shutdown because 
we are the Senate of the United States.
  There is an attitude among Senators here that because the House came 
up with a partisan bill and sent it to us and then decided to skip town 
Tuesday night, that we just have to go along. I thought the Senate was 
an independent branch of Congress. I thought the Senate was the 
greatest deliberative body in the world.
  I don't think the Speaker of the House is the czar of the Senate, and 
when he sends us a continuing resolution 3 days before a budget 
deadline and then leaves town, I don't think the Senate of the United 
States is bound to follow his wishes. Instead, we should do our own 
jobs and do the right thing for the country.
  If the Armed Services chair says that this hurts defense, then let's 
get it right. If the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee says that 
the CR hurts defense, then let's get it right.
  The good news is that we have an opportunity to get it right. It is 
not completely clear as I stand on the floor, but it looks likely that 
there could be a vote today or tomorrow on an alternative that I will 
call the getting-it-right alternative.
  What is the getting-it-right alternative? We would extend the current 
spending level for 30 days and then finish the budget. We would decide 
we don't want to drive looking in the rearview mirror; we want to drive 
looking in the windshield. We would get an appropriations deal that 
wouldn't hurt our readiness.
  I am just talking about one priority. I could have other colleagues 
stand here and talk about how this CR hurts education priorities, 
health priorities, mental health priorities, transportation priorities, 
emergency response. We don't have to accept that, and frankly, to earn 
the label ``U.S. Senator,'' we shouldn't accept it. We should do the 
get-it-right alternative, and the get-it-right alternative, which has 
been proposed by Senator Murray and others, is to do a simple, 30-day 
extension of existing spending--no amendments, no adjustments, no 
anomalies, no quirks for 30 days--and then get an appropriations deal 
done that can pass this body and pass the House.
  We can do it. We are very, very close. I am not on the Appropriations 
Committee, but in my discussions with appropriators, they say: We are 
extremely close; we can do this. We should.
  So I will just urge my colleagues, as you contemplate a vote on this 
House CR that, in my view, does great damage to many priorities, you 
don't just have to go along with the House work product, especially 
when they show disrespect to the Senate by skipping town Tuesday night, 
thinking that they could jam us by doing so. You don't have to go along 
with the work product that even the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee says hurts our national readiness. You don't have to go along 
with a work product when Pentagon officials who have made this their 
lives look at us and tell us this will hurt national security. There is 
a better strategy, and we should embrace it.

  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S1731, March 13, 2025, second column, the following 
appears: Mr. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: Ms. HIRONO. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


 ========================= END NOTE =========================