[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18574-18576]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 2303

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, over the last month, in a series of 
terrorist attacks around the globe that have killed hundreds of people, 
ISIL has commenced a new phase in its war on the civilized world. We 
have seen attacks in Ankara, Beirut, and Baghdad, the bombing of a 
Russian airliner over Egypt, and, of course, the horrific scenes last 
Friday in Paris, where ISIL gunmen wearing suicide belts attacked 
innocent civilians at restaurants, bars, a soccer stadium, and a 
concert hall, killing, as we know, 129 people and wounding 352 others.
  This evolution in ISIL operations further highlights the threat that 
they pose to countries beyond the Middle East, including the United 
States of America. We cannot and should not wait for ISIL to attack the 
United States before we finally, finally, finally acknowledge that we 
are a nation at war and that we must adopt a new strategy to destroy 
ISIL.
  What we must also acknowledge is that while the threat posed by ISIL 
and our other adversaries is growing, our national security budgets are 
increasingly disconnected from our national security requirements. 
Regardless of what ISIL will do next or how the United States will 
decide to act, our national security budgets through fiscal year 2021 
have been arbitrarily--I emphasize ``arbitrarily''--capped by the 
Budget Control Act.
  To be sure, the recently passed Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 
provides important relief from the sequester-level budget caps for 
fiscal year 2016 and 2017, and I am grateful to the Republican majority 
leader for leading that effort. Our national defense would be in far 
worse shape without that legislation. At the same time, that agreement 
is less optimal for next year and obviously does not seek to address 
the budget caps that continue for the next 4 years. Indeed, under the 
revised Budget Control Act, in constant dollars, we are actually on 
track to spend less on defense next year than this

[[Page 18575]]

year. It has not taken long for world events, yet again, to show the 
inadequacy of this exercise. At roughly the same time we were locking 
in next year's defense budget caps, ISIL began demonstrating its 
capability to strike targets outside of Iraq and Syria and now at the 
very center of the western world.
  Indeed, since the Budget Control Act of 2011 capped defense and other 
discretionary spending for the subsequent 10 years, absent any 
consideration of changing global threats or national requirements, 
let's consider what has transpired since 2011. Any semblance of order 
in the Middle East has collapsed. We are all tragically familiar with 
the carnage in Syria and Iraq, but Libya has also deteriorated into 
anarchy and safe havens for ISIL and its affiliates. Yemen has become 
the scene of a proxy war between Iran and the gulf Arab nations. 
General David Petraeus testified to the Armed Services Committee: 
``Almost every Middle Eastern country is now a battleground or a 
combatant in one or more wars.''
  From the outset, the Obama administration's policy was to withdraw 
from the Middle East. The President pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq 
and put us on the path to do the same in Afghanistan, but as we 
expected, and as I predicted, evil forces have moved in to fill the 
vacuums that we have left behind. ISIL has captured large swaths of 
territories in Syria and Iraq and has spread across the region to 
Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, and other countries.
  As a result, we now have thousands of troops back in Iraq. The U.S. 
military has conducted over 6,000 airstrikes in Syria and Iraq to 
combat ISIL. We are increasing counterterrorism operations in North 
Africa and providing military assistance to Saudi Arabia and our gulf 
partners fighting in Yemen. The situation in Afghanistan has driven the 
President to further delay the drawdown of U.S. troops. The 
effectiveness of these policies is questionable, but their cost is not.
  In Europe, we have seen Russian forces invade Crimea and intervene 
militarily in Ukraine. This is the first time since World War II that 
one government has invaded and sought to annex the territory of another 
sovereign territory in Europe. Since then, Vladimir Putin has grown 
bolder. He continues to modernize Russia's military. And most recently, 
of course, he has deployed Russian forces into Syria to prop up the 
Assad regime, even firing cruise missiles into the region from outside 
of it, as far away as nearly 1,000 miles.
  Russia's actions have now forced the administration to bring back to 
Europe on a rotational basis one of the two brigade combat teams that 
it withdrew. As Russia continues its aggression in Europe and increases 
its involvement in the Middle East, the Secretary of Defense 
acknowledges that we need an entirely new strategy to counter Russia. 
All of this requires proper funding--all of it. All of it requires 
proper funding levels, but our defense agencies have not gotten that, 
even as they have been asked to do more to counter Russia.
  The situation isn't limited to Russia and Europe. China is growing 
more assertive as well. It has built several land features in the South 
China Sea, equipped with military buildings, fort facilities, and even 
runways, all in an effort to expand Chinese territorial claims in the 
area. In addition to harassing other regional states, five Chinese navy 
ships were spotted in the Bering Sea off of Alaska during President 
Obama's recent trip to Alaska. Meanwhile, hackers in China continue to 
conduct cyber espionage and cyber attacks against our government and 
critical sectors of our economy. Russia, Iran, and North Korea are 
doing so as well, all in the past year.
  Again and again, national security requirements have materialized 
after the Budget Control Act was passed, but we forced our military to 
tackle a growing set of missions with arbitrary and insufficient budget 
levels, revised periodically with whatever additional resources the 
Congress is able to scare up. The results speak for themselves. Since 
2011, as worldwide threats have been increasing, we have cut our 
defense spending by almost 25 percent in annual spending. Not only has 
annual spending decreased, but so have the long-term budget plans of 
the Department of Defense. Each year the Department releases a 5-year 
budget. However, each year it has reduced its 5-year plan in an effort 
to closer align its spending to the Budget Control Act. As a result, 
while the short-term effects of these arbitrary budget caps are bad 
enough, the long-term harm they are doing is arguably worse. Our 
military is raiding its own future readiness, modernization, and 
research and development spending to pay its present bills and meet 
present needs. We are not making the kinds of investments in our future 
warfighting capability to remain technologically superior to 
adversaries that are closing the gap with us.
  What is even more troubling is that even as we made these reductions, 
our national security and defense strategies have stayed essentially 
the same. Day-to-day requirements for the military have not been 
reduced to match declining budgets. Independent analysis by defense 
experts at places such as the Center for Strategic and Budgetary 
Assessments and the RAND Corporation have all pointed out that current 
budget levels and even the President's budget are insufficient to pay 
for our national security strategy given the current threat 
environment.
  All of this applies equally to our other national security agencies 
beyond the Department of Defense. Protecting our Nation is not just the 
job of the U.S. military; it also depends on a strong and properly 
resourced intelligence community, Federal law enforcement, and homeland 
security agencies, and a diplomatic presence overseas that can project 
American leadership and resolve problems before they become threats to 
our people and our interests. Yet these other national security 
agencies have been dealing with the same fiscal challenges under the 
same worsening threat environment and with the same effects as our 
military. Not just our military, but the NSA, the CIA, the State 
Department, FBI--all of these agencies are unable to function 
effectively because of the effects of these budget cuts.
  To continue on this way, especially after Paris, is not only absurd, 
it is dangerous. If we are serious about national security, if we are 
serious about meeting our highest constitutional responsibility of 
providing for the common defense, and if we are serious about heeding 
the frequent and urgent warnings of our Nation's most respected 
national security and foreign policy leaders, then we must change 
course immediately. We cannot continue to prioritize deficit reduction 
over national defense, allowing arbitrary budget caps to determine our 
national security needs.
  This process ought to be simple. We must identify what we need to be 
safe, define those requirements clearly, and provide budgets to 
resource them. The two can't be disconnected. If we choose not to fight 
ISIL or deter Russian aggression in Europe or uphold freedom of the 
seas in Asia, then we can justify the cuts to the budget. But neither 
the Congress nor the administration wants to do that, nor should we. 
The only responsible thing to do, then, is to spend the money that is 
necessary to meet the national security requirements we have set for 
ourselves. And with the threats to our homeland growing closer, we 
can't afford to delay any longer.
  That is why I have introduced commonsense legislation that is long 
overdue. Its goal is simple: to exempt national security spending from 
sequestration under the Budget Control Act. This exemption would not 
just apply to the Department of Defense; it would also include the 
security-related functions of our intelligence agencies, the Department 
of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the National Nuclear 
Security Administration. By doing so, we will enable the President and 
Congress to build national security budgets based on national security 
requirements instead of arbitrary caps that entail greater risk to our 
Nation.
  I know that some will express concern about the impact of this 
legislation on national deficits and the debt. I will match my record 
as a fiscal conservative with anybody's. I have spent

[[Page 18576]]

decades targeting wasteful government spending, and I believe we must 
tackle our debt problem before it overwhelms generations. But we cannot 
afford to put the lives of our men and women in uniform as well as 
those of our citizens at greater risk, which everyone--all of our 
senior military leaders--has said we are doing. By holding to these 
budget caps, we are putting the lives of the men and women serving in 
the military today at greater risk. Don't we have an obligation to 
these young men and women who are serving in the military in uniform? 
Just because of arbitrary caps, are we going to put their lives in 
greater danger? Of course the world has become more dangerous. Of 
course there have been tremendous upheavals. And we are asking them to 
do the job with less than they need in order to do it most effectively 
and at the very risk of their own lives. This is disgraceful. This is 
disgraceful, that we should neglect the view of every national security 
expert and every one of our uniformed leaders. They have all said the 
same thing in testimony before the Armed Services Committee.
  I have asked them: Does sequestration and the effects of 
sequestration put the lives of our young men and women in uniform at 
greater risk?
  Answer: Yes.
  History does not repeat itself, but I do remember in the 1970s when 
we slashed defense spending and the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army 
came over and said we had a hollow Army. We are now not approaching the 
hollow Army, but we certainly are approaching a point where we are 
unable to meet the new challenges that I just articulated in these 
comments, and we are putting the lives of the men and women in the 
military in greater danger. That is not what we are supposed to be all 
about.
  We can't persist with the illusion that we will somehow balance the 
Federal budget and meaningfully cut the debt on the back of 
discretionary spending alone. Our defense and national security budgets 
are not the root of our spending problem. The real problem is rising 
entitlement costs and mandatory spending.
  A Heritage Foundation report found that 85 percent of projected 
growth and spending is due to entitlement programs and interest on the 
debt. Reducing our debt will only be possible with real entitlement 
reform. Cuts to discretionary spending will not have a major long-term 
impact, but for years we have gone to that well because it is 
politically easier than reforming entitlement programs.
  So the major sources of the debt are three: Medicare, Social 
Security, and interest on the debt. That is the problem we face. So we 
enacted arbitrary cuts on our Nation's national security capabilities 
in somehow trying to convince people that therefore we will reduce the 
debt. That is a lie. We don't have the guts to stand up here and do the 
right thing, which is entitlement reform. Instead, we continue on this 
mindless sequestration--mindless because it is a meat ax.
  I am happy to say that we have identified $11 billion in this 
National Defense Authorization Act. As chairman of the committee, I 
have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle. We have identified 
$11 billion in savings and lots more to come. We can trim from the 
defense budget a lot of the waste and inefficiencies that are there, 
but to do it with a meat ax is the wrong way to do it. I encourage 
other committees to use their authorization processes to reform 
government and eliminate wasteful spending. However, to purposefully 
shortchange our national security agencies is obviously penny-wise and 
pound-foolish.
  Just last week, all of us went home and celebrated Veterans Day. 
There is probably not an event that is quite like it in all of the 
things we do in this Nation. To spend time with our veterans and to see 
our Nation honor them is a remarkable experience and incredibly 
uplifting. It seems to me that year after year, there are more and more 
Americans who are applauding and appreciating the service and sacrifice 
of our veterans. We are reminded that what makes America great is the 
men and women who serve it, and those who have served we honor. These 
volunteers sacrifice their personal comfort, their families, and 
sometimes their lives for this country. They always put the mission 
first, and it is time we do the same. We must fully resource national 
security so that those who work to keep us safe day in and day out have 
what they need to accomplish what we have asked of them. If their 
mission is worth the ultimate sacrifice, what other policy agenda could 
be more important?
  These young men and women are putting their lives on the line as we 
speak, and what are we doing? We are mindlessly cutting defense and 
their ability to defend this Nation and themselves. It is a shameful 
chapter. It is a shameful chapter and an abrogation of our 
responsibilities to these men and women.
  So the next time Members are home in their home States and they meet 
these men and women in uniform and they support the sequestration, look 
the other way because they are not taking care of those men and women 
who are willing to sacrifice.
  I am sorry if my words sound harsh, but in this world we are in 
today, to continue this mindless sequestration is an abrogation of our 
responsibility as their elected leaders.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the 
Budget be discharged from further consideration of S. 2303 and the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I further ask consent 
that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  What this is, for the benefit of my colleagues, is the elimination of 
sequestration for not only defense but all of our national security 
requirements and agencies of government that are suffering under this 
mindless sequestration.
  I see my colleague from Rhode Island is going to object. All I can 
say to my colleague from Rhode Island is I am deeply, deeply, deeply 
disappointed in his objecting to doing the right thing for the men and 
women who are serving in the military.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REED. Madam President, reserving my right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I think Chairman McCain is headed in exactly the right 
direction, which is trying to eliminate sequestration. The real answer 
is to repeal the Budget Control Act because the scope of relief offered 
by the chairman is certainly broader than just the Department of 
Defense, but it doesn't include all the agencies that actually protect 
us and interfere with our opponents. For example, the Department of 
Treasury, in terms of trying to suppress terrorist financing, would be 
subject to sequestration in this legislation; the CDC would be subject 
to sequestration, even if there were a biological attack--and 
unfortunately our opponents, particularly terrorists, have talked about 
such an attack.
  It is not really the issue of sequestration; it is limiting the scope 
of relief. I think we should, as my colleague suggests, stand up and 
say we can repeal the BCA. Then we can talk about budgeting according 
to the demands, according to our total national security picture.
  Longer term, national security in this country is certainly bolstered 
immediately by the Department of Defense, Department of Treasury, State 
Department, et cetera; but without education, without many other 
efforts in our government, we will not be able to truly defend the 
Nation. So for that reason, Mr. President, I with great reluctance 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Objection is heard.

                          ____________________