[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 8860-8868]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1735, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2016 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       McCain amendment No. 1463, in the nature of a substitute.
       McCain amendment No. 1456 (to amendment No. 1463), to 
     require additional information supporting long-range plans 
     for construction of naval vessels.
       Reed amendment No. 1521 (to amendment No. 1463), to limit 
     the availability of amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     overseas contingency operations pending relief from the 
     spending limits under the Budget Control Act of 2011.
       Cornyn amendment No. 1486 (to amendment No. 1463), to 
     require reporting on energy security issues involving Europe 
     and the Russian Federation, and to express the sense of 
     Congress regarding ways the United States could help 
     vulnerable allies and partners with energy security.
       Vitter amendment No. 1473 (to amendment No. 1463), to limit 
     the retirement of Army combat units.
       Markey amendment No. 1645 (to amendment No. 1463), to 
     express the sense of Congress that exports of crude oil to 
     United States allies and partners should not be determined to 
     be consistent with the national interest if those exports 
     would increase energy prices in the United States for 
     American consumers or businesses or increase the reliance of 
     the United States on imported oil.
       Reed (for Blumenthal) amendment No. 1564 (to amendment No. 
     1463), to increase civil penalties for violations of the 
     Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
       McCain (for Paul) Modified amendment No. 1543 (to amendment 
     No. 1463), to strengthen employee cost savings suggestions 
     programs within the Federal Government.
       Reed (for Durbin) modified amendment No. 1559 (to amendment 
     No. 1463), to prohibit the award of Department of Defense 
     contracts to inverted domestic corporations.
       McCain (for Burr) amendment No. 1569 (to amendment No. 
     1463), to ensure criminal background checks of employees of 
     the military child care system and providers of child care 
     services and youth program services for military dependents.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3 
p.m. will be equally divided between the managers and their designees.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 1521

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we consider the amendment by the 
Senator from Rhode Island, I would like to again remind my colleagues 
that the world is in turmoil. The world has never seen greater crises 
since the end of World War II, according to people as well respected as 
Dr. Kissinger.
  I repeat my assertion that OCO was not the right or best way to do 
business. The worst way to do business is to have an authorization that 
will eliminate our ability to defend this Nation and the men and women 
who serve it.
  I urge my colleagues to read in this weekend's New York Times ``The 
Global Struggle to Respond to the Worst Refugee Crisis in 
Generations.''

       Eleven million people were uprooted by violence last year, 
     most propelled by conflict in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine and 
     Afghanistan. Conflict and extreme poverty have also pushed 
     tens of thousands out of parts of sub-Saharan Africa and 
     Southeast Asia. . . . the worst migration crisis since World 
     War II, according to the United Nations.

  That is what is going on in the world, and we are worried about how 
we are going to defend the Nation with priorities that are dramatically 
strewed and unfair.
  ``Islamic State attacks government office on western fringe of 
Baghdad.'' That was yesterday.

       Three militants disguised in military uniform killed at 
     least eight people in a local government office in Amiriyat 
     al-Falluja in western Iraq on Tuesday, in an attack claimed 
     by Islamic State.
       ``The U.S. Army's main Web site is down--and the Syrian 
     Electronic Army is claiming credit.''
       The Syrian Electronic Army hacked the official Web site for 
     the U.S. Army, a Twitter account apparently associated with 
     the hacktivist group claimed Monday. The site

[[Page 8861]]

     was down in the afternoon, while screenshots posted on the 
     social network by the group purported to show messages of 
     support for beleaguered Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on 
     the site earlier in the day.

  That was from the Washington Post, June 8 at 4:53 p.m.
  The World: ``Islamic State seizes power plant near Libyan city of 
Sirte.''

       Islamic State militants have seized a power plant west of 
     the Libyan city of Sirte which supplies central and western 
     parts of the country with electricity, the group and a 
     military source said on Tuesday.
       ``The plant . . . was taken,'' Islamic State said in a 
     message on social media, adding that the capture of the plant 
     meant that the militants had driven their enemies out of the 
     entire city.

  Libya descending into chaos and ISIS extending its influence.
  The Washington Post, June 6: ``Libyan gains may offer ISIS a base for 
new attacks.''

       Misurata, Libya--As the Islamic State scores new victories 
     in Syria and Iraq, its affiliate in Libya is also on the 
     offensive, consolidating control of Moammar Gaddafi's former 
     home town and staging a bomb attack on a major city, 
     Misurata.
       The Islamic State's growth could further destabilize a 
     country already suffering from a devastating civil war. And 
     Libya could offer the extremists a new base from which to 
     launch attacks elsewhere in North America.

  That was from the Washington Post.
  FOX News, June 9: ``ISIS captures 88 Eritrean Christians in Libya, US 
official confirms.''

       The ISIS terror group kidnapped 88 Eritrean Christians from 
     a people-smugglers' caravan in Libya last week, a U.S. 
     defense official confirmed Monday.

  The Washington Post: ``What is at stake in Ukraine if Russia 
continues its onslaught.''

       Ukraine is fighting a war on two fronts. The one you see on 
     television is taking place in the east of our country, where 
     thousands of Russian troops are engaged in an armed 
     aggression against Ukraine's territorial integrity, including 
     the illegal annexation of Crimea.

  This is a piece that is important, by the Prime Minister of Ukraine, 
Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
  The Wall Street Journal: ``President Obama admits his anti-ISIS 
strategy isn't `complete.'''

       President Obama doesn't give many press conferences at 
     home, so sometimes his most revealing media moments come when 
     he's button-holed abroad. Witness his answer Monday in 
     Austria to a question about Iraq.
       Mr. Obama offered a startling explanation for why the war 
     against Islamic State isn't going so well: His strategy still 
     isn't up and running.

  ``We don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires 
commitments on the part of the Iraqis, as well, about how recruitment 
takes place, how that training takes place. And so the details of that 
are not yet worked out,'' Mr. Obama said.
  We still do not have a strategy to try to counter the Islamic State 
or ISIS.
  The quote continues:

       Wow. Islamic State, or ISIS, took control of Mosul a year 
     ago, and it beheaded two Americans for all the world to see 
     last summer. Mr. Obama announced his anti-ISIS strategy in a 
     September speech, promising to ``degrade'' and ``destroy'' 
     the self-styled caliphate.
       Nine months later here we are: ISIS has overrun Ramadi, a 
     gateway to Baghdad, the grand alliance that Mr. Obama 
     promised barely exists, the Kurds in the north are fretting 
     publicly about the lack of weapons to forestall a major ISIS 
     assault, the U.S. bombing campaign is hesitant, and now Mr. 
     Obama tells us the training of Iraqis is barely under way.

  I will skip through some of these because I know my colleagues are 
waiting to speak.
  The Associated Press: ``Activists: Syrian air raids kill 49 in 
northwestern village.''

       Government airstrikes on a northwestern Syrian village 
     Monday killed at least 49 people and left survivors screaming 
     in anguish as they pulled bodies from the rubble, according 
     to activists and videos of the chaotic aftermath.
       The Local Coordination Committees said two air raids on the 
     village of Janoudiyeh in Idlib province killed 60 people and 
     wounded others. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for 
     Human Rights said the air raid killed 49 people, including 
     six children. It said the death toll could rise as some 
     people are still missing.

  The Associated Press June 6 headline: ``Houthi rebels fire Scud 
missile from Yemen into Saudi Arabia.''
  BloombergView, by Eli Lake: ``Iran Spends Billions to Prop Up 
Assad.''

       Iran is spending billions of dollars a year to prop up the 
     Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, according to the U.N.'s 
     envoy to Syria and other outside experts. These estimates are 
     far higher than what the Barack Obama administration, busy 
     negotiating a nuclear deal with the Tehran government, has 
     implied Iran spends on its policy to destabilize the Middle 
     East.

  By the way, I will add to that, Iranians are basically even taking 
over Cabinet positions in the Bashar al-Assad government.
  This is a report dated June 5: ``Report: China Dispatching 
Surveillance Vessels Off Hawaii.''

       China has begun dispatching surveillance vessels off the 
     coast of Hawaii in response to the Navy's monitoring 
     activities of disputed islands in the South China Sea. . . . 
     The purported surveillance comes on the heels of raised 
     tensions between China and the United States late last month. 
     . . .

  This from the June 7 edition of the Financial Times: ``US struggles 
for strategy to contain China's island-building.''

       China's efforts to dredge new land on remote coral atolls 
     in the South China Sea have left the US struggling to come up 
     with a response.
       For Washington, Chinese land-creation has helped make 
     allies of former adversaries now fearful of military 
     domination by an assertive China. The latest example was the 
     trip to Vietnam last week by Ashton Carter, US defence 
     secretary, who pledged US patrol craft to the Vietnamese 
     navy.
       But there is a limit to how far countries in the region are 
     willing to present a united front to China, which has 
     reclaimed 2,000 acres of land in the past 18 months, far 
     outstripping all other claimants combined, according to Mr. 
     Carter. The Obama administration is also unsure about how 
     strongly it should push back against what US officials see as 
     a long-term Chinese plan to control the region's waters.

  Finally, this is an article that is in Politico today:

       Actually, the United States does have a strategy to fight 
     the Islamic State, a State Department spokesman says.
       ``The president was referring yesterday to a specific plan 
     to improve the training and equipping of Iraqi security 
     forces, and the Pentagon is working on that plan right now. 
     But absolutely, we have a strategy,'' Kirby said Tuesday on 
     MSNBC's ``Morning Joe.''

  I would be overjoyed to have a complete strategy and that plan 
presented to Congress and the American people. It would be a wonderful 
event. The fact is they have no strategy or policy and the world is on 
fire, and here we are trying to pass an amendment which would deprive 
the men and women who are serving the means and wherewithal to defend 
this Nation.
  I hope my colleagues will strongly reject the amendment that will be 
pending before this body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Mikulski, Senator Merkley, Senator Udall, Senator Leahy, Senator 
Donnelly, Senator Boxer, Senator Menendez, Senator Booker, Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Cardin, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Peters as 
cosponsors of the Reed amendment No. 1521 to H.R. 1735.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment No. 1521 to 
fence all funding above $50.9 billion in the account for overseas 
contingency operations until budget caps on both defense and nondefense 
have been raised. My amendment specifically recognizes the need for 
these resources, but it objects to the way this OCO fund is being used 
as a way to circumvent the Budget Control Act. It does so, I think, on 
a very sound ground that over the long run will be beneficial to the 
Department of Defense and to everyone who is engaged in the defense of 
the United States.
  We debate and vote on many issues in the Senate. While all of the 
issues are important, occasionally we must face an issue that could 
truly change the course of our Nation because the consequences of our 
actions are often not known for years. The votes may be very difficult 
when they are taken, but they are very important.
  One example of such an issue is Iraq. Thirteen years ago, the 
majority of the body--79 Senators from both parties--

[[Page 8862]]

voted to go to war in Iraq. I did not vote in favor of the war. In 
fact, I spoke against it. I think the outcome could have been very 
different back then if we had more of a debate about the true costs and 
the long-term costs, the thousands of lives lost, and the countless 
wounded--some with invisible scars--if we had thought the United States 
would be on a war footing for over a decade and American taxpayers 
would be on the hook for trillions of dollars and that we would perhaps 
even contribute by our actions to new threats we are facing today.
  Back then it was implied and sometimes stated that opposing the Iraq 
war meant you didn't support the troops or were weak on national 
security. I think the intervening years have shown that to be 
inaccurate.
  We are hearing echoes of that rhetoric again: If you don't support 
this version of the NDAA, then you don't support the troops or terms 
like ``taking this bill hostage.'' That is just not the case.
  Since 2005, Senate Republicans voted against cloture on the NDAA, the 
National Defense Authorization Act, 10 times, and over that same 
period, they cast votes against final passage of the NDAA on the Senate 
floor 8 times. Sometimes it was because of policy differences, such as 
ending ``don't ask, don't tell.'' Other times it was over something 
like gas prices at the pump or other issues. But I don't think anyone 
has ever done it to be unpatriotic.
  We can't change history, but we can certainly learn from it. We can't 
see into the future, but we know we must plan for it, and we must pay 
for it by making strategic investments today. This debate really boils 
down to this: What is the most effective way to provide for our 
national defense? I don't think inflating the overseas contingency 
operations, OCO, is the way to go because it complicates rather than 
helps the Pentagon's budgetary problems. It doesn't allow the military 
to effectively plan for the future.
  We need to replace the senseless sequester with a balanced approach 
that keeps America safe and strong at home and abroad. When it comes to 
the defense budget, Congress should adhere to the same standards of 
honesty, transparency, and discipline that we demand for our troops. 
But right now there is a serious disconnect in the OCO mechanism of 
this bill, and Congress needs to step up and fix it.
  The President's fiscal year 2016 budget request for defense was $38 
billion above the 2011 Budget Control Act, the BCA--their spending 
caps. The President requested this $38 billion be authorized and 
appropriated as part of the annual base budget so they could be part of 
the Defense Department's funding, not just for 1 year, as OCO is, but 
in the budget for an indefinite period of time.
  The request also contained $50.9 billion for the OCO account, meaning 
funding for truly war-related expenses and not enduring base budget 
requirements. However, this bill, following the lead of the majority's 
budget resolution, does not address the BCA's damaging impacts on 
defense and nondefense. Instead, it turns to a gimmick.
  This bill initially transferred $39 billion from the base budget 
request by the President to the OCO budget, leaving a base budget 
conveniently below the BCA levels in order to avoid triggering 
automatic reductions for sequestration. The funding shifted to OCO is 
for enduring requirements of military services, not direct war-related 
costs and not those costs generated in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 
elsewhere. It includes flying hours for aircraft, steaming days for 
ships and submarines, and all training that supports the ``National 
Military Strategy.'' These are not appropriate OCO expenses. These are 
the expenses of the Department of Defense facing the long-term 
challenges and maintaining the long-term capabilities of the U.S. 
defense forces.
  Some have said we should avoid subjecting defense spending to the 
budget control caps through this OCO approach for a year while a deal 
to revise or eliminate the BCA caps is negotiated. I couldn't disagree 
more, because if we used this approach--this gimmick--for 1 year, it 
would be easier to do it next year and the year after and the year 
after that, ensuring an enduring imbalance between security and 
domestic spending. Using OCO in this way is completely counter to the 
intent of the BCA, the Budget Control Act.
  The BCA imposed steep cuts to defense and nondefense spending to 
force a bipartisan compromise. This approach unilaterally reneges on 
that bipartisan approach. Rather than generating momentum for a 
permanent solution to sequestration, this approach essentially exempts 
defense spending from the BCA caps and releases all pressure to find a 
solution that provides similarly for domestic spending priorities.
  The President's defense budget request placed the needed funding in 
the base where it should be and provided for the OCO funds for 
contingencies overseas that exist today. The budget resolution and the 
bill before us met the President's request for overall funding. This is 
not a question of whether the President asked for a certain amount of 
money and my Republican colleagues are asking for more. What they did 
is essentially say: We are not going to technically--and I emphasize 
``technically''--violate the BCA account. We are just going to move 
more money into OCO. So we can stand up with a straight face and say: 
Well, BCA applies across the whole board. Every government agency is 
subject to the same tight limits that the Budget Control Act imposes. 
But, of course, the truth is that through the use of OCO those limits 
don't apply to the Department of Defense.
  It is particularly startling when you look at the President's request 
for domestic agencies. He asks for $37 billion for all of the other 
domestic agencies above the BCA cap. Without that money they are going 
to have a very difficult--indeed, perhaps impossible--challenge of 
meeting the basic needs of the American public--needs that every 
colleague in this Chamber recognizes. Some might disagree with them, 
but they recognize that we need to support education, as we have done 
for decades through the Title I Program. We need to support people--our 
seniors, particularly--through senior housing programs. In every State, 
in every community, that has to be done. But if we follow this path, it 
will be harder and harder for nondefense agencies to do this.
  What we have created is a huge loophole through the BCA for defense. 
Again, let me remind you, the President and my colleagues on the other 
side are not arguing about the resources necessary for defense. They 
have picked the same number. But what they have done on the other side 
is funded that--not straightforwardly, not recognizing that we have to 
deal with this--instead by using this gimmick.
  If it remains in the bill, I believe this approach will be a magnet 
for nondefense spending in future years. Not only will we become 
addicted to OCO spending, many interesting things will find their way 
into the OCO account.
  For example, in fiscal year 1992 Congress added funds to the Defense 
bill for breast cancer research. At the time, spending was subject to 
statutory caps under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. This is the 
follow-on to the Graham-Rudman-Hollings act of 1985. What we had done 
was to establish caps on discretionary domestic spending, but there 
were no similar caps on the other side. That is precisely what the 
effect of this proposal is today.
  The initial funding led to the establishment of the Congressionally 
Directed Medical Research Programs or CDMRP. Every Senator is familiar 
with this important program. I would suspect every Senator has stood 
and said: Yes, that research on breast cancer is so important; that 
research on other diseases is so critical and so important. It has 
strong bipartisan support.
  Each fiscal year Congress authorizes and appropriates hundreds of 
millions of dollars to the CDMRP for cutting-edge and critically 
essential medical research areas. In fact, since 1992, CDMRP funding 
has received over $13 billion. While this program is funded

[[Page 8863]]

through the Defense bill, and the program is managed by the Army, the 
Department of Defense does not execute any of the money itself. It is a 
competitive grant process, and proposals are subjected to stringent 
peer and programmatic review criteria. DOD acts as a passthrough 
because, back then, the only way you could get this done was because 
there were no caps effectively on defense spending. I would suggest 
that is going to repeat itself over and over if we start on this path.
  That is why we can look today and say we have these pressing crises 
all across the globe, and it is true. But if we go down this path, we 
will see these types of developments. Again, I am a strong supporter of 
medical research. These programs have saved countless lives. I will 
support the funding in this bill. I think it is a way that we have 
established to deal with these programs. But we should recognize that 
it came about not because it was the most logical place to put medical 
research funding, but it was a budgetary precedent, just like this 
approach today, and it will be replicated.
  Looking forward 10 years, I would suggest that you will see lots of 
meritorious programs that bear less and less connectivity to our 
overseas operations included in OCO, if that is the way we choose to 
get around the BCA. And that is what this bill is doing.
  There is another point I would like to add. Moving this funding from 
the base budget to OCO has no impact on reducing the deficit. OCO and 
emergency funding are outside budget caps for a reason. They are for 
the costs of ongoing military operations or responding to other 
unforeseen events such as natural disasters. To suddenly ignore the 
true purpose of OCO and to treat it as a budgetary gimmick or slush 
fund to skirt the BCA is an unacceptable use for this important tool 
for our warfighters.
  Just to highlight how this OCO approach skews defense spending, 
consider the amount of OCO in relation to the number of deployed 
troops. You can ask someone on the street: Are these overseas funds 
used to support our forces overseas? There has to be some relationship 
between the number of our forces overseas and our OCO spending. Well, 
let's see. In 2008, at the height of our Nation's troop commitments in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, there were 187,000 troops deployed. We spent 
approximately $1 million in OCO funding for every servicemember 
deployed to those countries. Under this bill, we would expend 
approximately $9 million in OCO for every servicemember who served in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly 9,930 military personnel. We are doing a 
lot more than spending for OCO in this bill--deliberately a lot more. 
We are doing what we used to do and what we should do in the base 
budget of the Department of Defense.
  It circumvents the law, the BCA. It is not fiscally responsible, and 
it is not an honest accounting to the American public. If years ago, 
with 187,000 troops, our OCO costs were about $1 million per troop and 
now we are at $9 million, something is askew.
  Adding the funds to OCO does not solve--and in some cases 
complicates--the DOD's budgetary problems.
  As Army Chief of Staff General Odierno said:

       OCO has limits and it has restrictions and it has very 
     strict rules that have to be followed. And so if we're 
     inhibited by that, it might not help us. What might happen at 
     the end of the year, we have a bunch of money we hand back 
     because we are not able to spend it.

  The defense budget needs to be based on a long-term military 
strategy, which requires the DOD to focus on at least 5 years in the 
future. A 1-year plus-up to OCO does not provide DOD with the certainty 
and stability it needs when building a 5-year budget. As General 
Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified, ``we need 
to fix the base budget . . . we won't have the certainty we need,'' if 
there is a year-by-year OCO fix. Defense Secretary Carter added that 
raising OCO does not allow the Department of Defense to plan 
``efficiently or strategically.''
  Adding funds to OCO is a managerially unsound approach to what should 
be a multiyear budget process. As the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army 
General Allyn said:

       The current restrictions on the employment of OCO will not 
     allow it to be a gap-filler that is currently being proffered 
     to offset the reduction in our base budget that is driven by 
     the current proposals that are before Congress. In order to 
     meet the needs of our Army, it must have greater flexibility 
     . . . it must be less restrictive and must enable us to 
     sustain and modernize as we go forward.

  This instability undermines the morale of our troops and their 
families, who want to know their futures are planned for more than 1 
year at a time, and the confidence of the defense industry partners 
that we want to rely on to provide the best technologies available to 
our troops.
  Abuse of OCO in this massive way risks undermining support for a 
critical mechanism used to fund the incremental increased costs of 
overseas conflicts. We have to have a disciplined system for estimating 
the cost and funding the employment of a trained and ready force.
  The administration has indicated that legislation implementing the 
majority's budget framework will be subject to veto. As Secretary 
Carter has said, this approach is ``clearly a road to nowhere. I say 
this because President Obama has already made clear that he won't 
accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward, as this 
approach does, and he won't accept a budget that severs the vital link 
between our national security and our economic security.''
  When we talk about national security, true national security requires 
that non-DOD departments and agencies also receive relief from BCA 
caps. The Pentagon simply cannot meet the complex set of national 
security challenges without the help of other government departments 
and agencies, including State, Justice and Homeland Security. In the 
Armed Services Committee, we have heard testimony on the essential role 
of other government agencies in ensuring that our national defense 
remains strong. The Defense Department's share of the burden would 
surely grow if these agencies are not adequately funded as well.
  There is a symbiotic relationship between the Department of Defense 
and other civilian departments and agencies that contribute to our 
national security. It has to be recognized that a truly whole-of-
government approach requires more than just a strong DOD.
  The BCA caps are based on a misnomer--that discretionary spending is 
divided into security and nonsecurity spending. But Members need to be 
clear: Essential national security functions are performed by 
government agencies and departments other than the Defense Department.
  According to the Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, General 
Kelly:

       We do not and cannot do this mission alone. Our strong 
     partnerships with the U.S. interagency--especially with the 
     Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Coast Guard, the 
     Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, and the Departments of Treasury and State--are 
     integral to our efforts to ensure the forward defense of the 
     U.S. homeland.

  Retired Marine Corps General Mattis said: ``If you don't fund the 
State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.'' General 
Mattis' point is perhaps best illustrated in the administration's nine 
lines of effort to counter the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the 
Levant, or ISIL, which 83 percent of Americans think is the No. 1 
threat to the United States. Of the administration's nine lines of 
effort, only two--which are security and intelligence--fall squarely 
within the responsibilities of the Department of Defense and 
intelligence community. The remaining seven elements of our counter-
ISIL strategy rely heavily on civilian departments and agencies.
  For example, No. 1 is supporting effective governance in Iraq. No 
amount of military assistance to the Government of Iraq will be 
effective in countering the ISIL threat in Iraq if the Abadi government 
does not govern in a more transparent and inclusive manner that gives 
Sunnis hope that they will participate politically in Iraq's future. We 
need our diplomatic and political

[[Page 8864]]

experts in the State Department to engage with Shia, Sunni, Kurd, and 
minority communities in Iraq to promote and build reconciliation in 
Iraq and build the political unity among the Iraqi people needed to 
defeat ISIL. That is not strictly a Defense Department issue.
  No. 2, we have to build partner capacity. The coalition is building 
the capabilities and capacity of our foreign partners in the region to 
wage a long-term campaign against ISIL. While the efforts to build the 
capacity of the Iraqi security forces and some other foreign partners 
are funded by the Defense Department, the State Department and USAID 
are also responsible for billions of dollars in similar activities and 
across a broader spectrum of activities. Under the Republican plan, 
none of the State and USAID programs will be plussed-up. Their 
unwillingness to address this gap is a threat to our Nation's efforts 
to combat ISIL.
  No. 3, we have to disrupt ISIL's finances. ISIL's expansion has given 
it access to significant and diverse sources of funding. Countering 
ISIL's financing will require the State Department and the Treasury 
Department to work with their foreign partners and the banking sector 
to ensure that our counter-ISIL sanctions regime is implemented and 
enforced. These State Department and Treasury Department efforts are 
deemed to be nonsecurity activities under the BCA caps and, under the 
Republican approach, our efforts to disrupt the finances of ISIL may be 
hampered. It is also notable that the Office of Foreign Assets Control 
and the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence in the Treasury 
Department are also characterized as nonsecurity activities under the 
BCA caps.
  The Republican funding strategy not only means that our counter-ISIL 
efforts will be hampered, so too will our efforts to impose effective 
sanctions against Iran, Sudan, and individuals who support their 
illicit activities also be affected.
  We have to continually expose the true and brutal nature of ISIL. Our 
strategic communication plan against ISIL requires a truly whole 
government effort, including the State Department, Voice of America, 
and USAID. The Republican approach to funding our strategic 
communication strategy is a part-of-government plan, not a whole-of-
government plan.
  We have to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters. They are the 
lifeblood of ISIL. Yet key components of the Department of Homeland 
Security would be facing cuts under the Republican budget proposal, 
undermining efforts to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters to Syria 
and Iraq. Without the efforts of our diplomats prodding our foreign 
partners to pass laws or more effectively enforce the laws on their 
books, the efforts of the coalition to stem the flow of foreign 
fighters will never be successful.
  My colleague Senator McCain pointed out the huge refugee crisis. 
Again, our first agency typically to respond to refugees is USAID--the 
United States Agency for International Development--and other State 
Department agencies. We will not be able to effectively deal with that 
issue if those budget caps are imposed on USAID and other agencies. 
Those refugee camps are one of the breeding grounds for the foreign 
fighters who flow back into the conflict zone.
  Unless we adopt a much broader approach, unless we do something other 
than simply plus-up defense, we will not achieve true national 
security. Of course we have to protect the homeland. While a small 
portion of the Department of Homeland Security is considered security 
related, under the BCA, the vast majority of the Department falls under 
the nonsecurity BCA cap. This further demonstrates that the Republican 
plan is a misnomer. It is an effort to play a game of smoke and mirrors 
with the American public. The agents at the Department of Homeland 
Security who are on guard, the DEA agents who pick up intelligence 
about threats to the Nation--all of them vitally contribute to our 
national security, but they will be treated distinctly different than 
our military if we adopt the approach that is included in this Defense 
authorization bill.
  I talked about the refugee crisis. Virtually none of the activities 
that support our humanitarian efforts in the region are considered 
security activities. Military commanders routinely tell us that the 
efforts of State, USAID, the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance are 
critical to our broader security efforts. This is particularly true 
from a counter-ISIL campaign.
  Again, those refugees who are flooding into the countries adjacent to 
Syria and to Iraq have to be dealt with not only on humanitarian 
grounds but also as potential sources of foreign fighters. That is 
going to require a whole-of-government approach, not simply using OCO 
to beef up our defense spending. Taken together, the Republican plan 
could compromise our broader campaign against ISIL and deprive 
significant elements of our government of the resources needed to do 
the job to protect the American people.
  The men and women of our military volunteer to protect this Nation 
and are overseas fighting for our ideals, including good education, 
economic opportunity, and safe communities. Efforts to support all of 
those goals will be hampered unless civilian departments and agencies 
also receive relief from the BCA caps.
  I had the privilege of commanding a paratrooper company at Fort 
Bragg, NC. We fought for many reasons, including to give people a 
chance in this country--not just to protect them from a foreign threat 
but to give them real opportunities here.
  By the way, our servicemembers and their families rely on many of the 
services provided by non-DOD departments and agencies. For example, the 
Department of Education administers Impact Aid to local school 
districts, where children of servicemembers go to learn. The Department 
of Agriculture supports the School Lunch Program, from which troops and 
their children and their families benefit. The National Institutes of 
Health supports lifesaving medical research, including by contributing 
to advanced efforts on traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress, 
and suicide prevention. The Department of Health and Human Services 
runs Medicare, which provides health care for retirees and disabled 
individuals, and Medicaid, which provides services to parents, 
including military parents with children with special needs.
  Failing to provide BCA cap relief to non-DOD departments and agencies 
would also shortchange veterans who receive employment services, 
transition assistance, and housing and homelessness support.
  Not only does this approach fail to support, potentially, our 
servicemen through schooling and through other aspects, our national 
security is also inherently tied to our economic security. Secretary 
Carter made this very clear. He said the approach that is being 
proposed disregards ``the enduring, long-term connection between our 
nation's security and many other factors. Factors like scientific R&D 
to keep our technological edge, education of a future all-volunteer 
military force, and the general economic strength of our country.''
  Where will we get the soldiers of the future who have the skills and 
the training and the expertise if we are underinvesting in the basic 
education for all of our citizens?
  My amendment would keep the pressure on for a permanent solution to 
the BCA caps and sequestration by requiring that the BCA caps be 
eliminated
or increased in proportionally equal amounts for both security and 
nonsecurity spending before the additional OCO funds are available for 
obligation or expenditure.
  Let me again emphasize that we are not taking away these funds. We 
simply say what I think makes a great deal of sense: Until we develop 
an approach to BCA that allows us to provide for a comprehensive 
defense of the Nation and to invest in the economic health of the 
Nation, then these funds will be reserved. Once we do that, then 
automatically all of the funding that is included in this bill will 
become available to the Department of Defense.

[[Page 8865]]

  We have heard colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk for years 
now about the need to resolve the BCA, to end sequestration. Every 
uniformed servicemember who came forward, every chief of service said 
their No. 1 priority was to end sequestration, end the BCA. This bill 
does not do it; it sidesteps the issue. We can no longer sidestep the 
issue. We have to engage on this issue. I think we have to move 
promptly and thoroughly and thoughtfully forward to resolve the BCA.
  The legislation I have proposed recognizes the need for these 
resources but also recognizes the overarching issue: Unless we are able 
to effectively modify or eliminate the BCA, our comprehensive national 
security will be threatened, our economic progress will be threatened, 
and our aspirations for the country could be thwarted.
  My amendment seeks to implement, by the way, a sense-of-the Senate 
that is already in the bill, and it clearly states that sequestration 
relief should include equal defense and nondefense relief. We have 
made--and I commend the chairman for this--a statement--without an 
effective means of implementation. It is a statement, an aspirational 
goal, that we should fix BCA and relieve defense and nondefense 
spending. I think that is an important statement, but my amendment 
makes sure we go further and provide an action to do this.
  I believe very strongly in this amendment. I believe it is relevant 
to the consideration of this bill. I believe it goes to the heart of 
the most important questions we face in the country today: How do we 
provide for the comprehensive defense of the Nation? How do we invest 
in our people so that we will continue to be strong? I think if we do 
not provide this type of mechanism to start this discussion on the BCA 
and hopefully promptly complete it, then we will be missing not only a 
historic opportunity, we will be locking ourselves into a road that 
will leave us less secure in the future, less productive, and less 
strong as a nation.
  Let me remind people that the stated purpose of the bill is ``to 
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities 
of the Department of Defense.'' We have to begin this appropriations 
process by recognizing that the BCA will not help us going forward, and 
we must move to modify or repeal it.
  With that, I will close simply by saying again that if we continue 
these caps going forward, it will harm our military readiness. Our 
national defense should be based upon long-term needs. They should be 
reflected in a transparent, forthright budget that puts the money in 
the base, provides contingency funds for true contingencies overseas 
but does not turn things upside down and make our contingency funding 
really the heart of the bill in so many respects.
  We have to work together. We have to make sure every Federal agency 
can benefit because every Federal agency contributes to the country. So 
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, to begin this 
dialogue, and to move forward, the sooner the better.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, how does the budget fund defense? That is 
what we are talking about. The balanced budget resolution recently 
approved by Congress recognizes the responsibility that the Federal 
Government has to defend the Nation while recognizing the threats our 
overspending and growing debt pose to our national security. That is 
why the balanced budget approved by Congress last month makes national 
defense a priority and provides for the maximum allowable defense 
funding under current law.
  Let me say that again. The budget provides for the maximum allowable 
defense funding under current law. That current law is a law which was 
signed by this President and provides vital support for our military 
personnel and their families, the readiness of our Armed Forces, and 
the modernization of critical platforms.
  Does anybody deny that this is a critical time? With the increasing 
number of threats around the world, our total defense spending level 
should reflect our commitment to keeping America safe and ensuring that 
our military personnel are prepared to tackle all challenges. While we 
have troops in harm's way, we need to do all we can to protect them. 
Given the global threat environment, the funding approach taken by the 
Senator from Arizona and the Armed Services Committee, which was 
bipartisan, ensures that the men and women of our Armed Forces have the 
resources they need to confront an increasingly complex and dangerous 
security environment.
  Is sequestration a threat to our military? If appropriated at the 
levels provided by the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, 
the defense budget would not face indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts 
known as sequestration, while it provides for the needs we are 
reviewing right now. People have a chance to amend the needs right now. 
If they think there is something in there that is not needed, they can 
amend it--they can try to amend it. There should be justification for 
what they want.
  This bill puts us on a path to spend $612 billion on defense this 
year. This is the same overall amount that was requested by the 
President earlier this year. Numerous officials at the Pentagon have 
made it clear that they see this funding level as the bare minimum 
budget needed to execute our defense strategy. So why are some Senators 
concerned about the level of budgetary resources this bill provides to 
the Department of Defense? They simply do not like the use of the 
overseas contingency operations funding, the OCO.
  It is important to note that those not familiar with the Budget 
Control Act--that is not the budget; that is the Budget Control Act. It 
was passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by President 
Obama back in August of 2011. It established a discretionary spending 
cap, but it also allowed for certain cap adjustments. The BCA caps can 
be adjusted for emergencies, disasters, program integrity initiatives, 
and OCO.
  Yes. That is in the Budget Control Act, the Budget Control Act passed 
August 2011 and signed by President Obama. Those are the four ways you 
can adjust the budget caps without forcing sequestration. Now, in the 
case of OCO--overseas contingency operations--funding, both Congress 
and the President have to agree that the funding should be designated 
in that manner. Therefore, the OCO funding in this bill will only occur 
if Congress appropriates it and the President agrees to it in the 
future. I would hope that when the President and his advisers said this 
is the overall level of funding they needed for defense, they meant it. 
But only time and the appropriations process will tell.
  Did the budget account for OCO spending? While there is no 
requirement to offset OCO spending, when we addressed the issue in our 
budget resolution, we accounted for every single dollar of OCO we 
assumed would be spent. Even with these OCO levels, the budget 
resolution still met its overall goal of balancing within 10 years. Let 
me repeat that. We accounted for every single dollar of OCO that we 
assumed would be spent. Even with these OCO levels, the budget 
resolution still met its overall goal of balancing within 10 years.
  It is good to see my colleague so concerned about the deficit, and I 
look forward to working with him to fully implement our balanced 
budget. This will ensure that we can get our Nation's fiscal house in 
order while providing resources needed for our national defense.
  Unfortunately, the concern expressed over providing OCO funding 
doesn't seem to be centered on the fiscal concerns because even most 
critics support the need for more defense money. No, their concerns are 
based on the demand to increase nondefense discretionary spending on a 
dollar-for-dollar basis with defense spending. But the only way to do 
this in the short term is by raising taxes on hard-working American 
families. Defense is making its case and has made its case. Nondefense 
has not.
  Do we really need to increase the caps? If we want to increase 
nondefense

[[Page 8866]]

spending, Congress should take a closer look at what we are actually 
funding. Last year, we provided nearly $293.5 billion for more than 260 
authorizations that have expired. Yes, we have 260 authorizations. That 
is where Congress says this is what we ought to be spending our money 
on.
  They expired, and we are still spending money on them--$293.5 billion 
a year. Usually, we talk about over 10 years here. That would 
practically balance the budget by itself over a 10-year period. Those 
are programs we need to take a look at. Those are programs that have 
expired. Some of those programs expired as long ago as 1983, but we are 
still spending money on them every year. That means we have been paying 
for some of these expired programs for more than 30 years, and it is 
not just the length of time these programs have overstayed their 
welcome, the funds we allocated to them every year are more than what 
the law called for in those authorizations when passed. In some cases, 
that means we are spending as much as four times what the bill allowed.
  Savings usually are found in the spending details, but Congress 
hasn't examined the details in some time, except on defense. We do the 
Defense authorization every year. These others, well, I mentioned one 
of them expired in 1983, some in 1987. I mentioned it is 260 
authorizations. It affects 1,200 programs. Do you think in 1,200 
programs for $293 billion a year we couldn't find $38 billion to match 
what we are doing in defense? We ought to be ashamed if we can't.
  It is time for Congress to take a look at these programs and decide 
if they are even worth funding anymore. After all, a project not worth 
doing well should not be worth doing at that time all. But how would 
committees know if they haven't looked at these programs in years? How 
would they know if they don't have a way to measure how well the 
programs are working?
  Were defense and nondefense spending treated equally under the BCA 
under the budget caps? The insistence that any change to the 
discretionary changes be based on dollar limits for both categories of 
spending fails to take into account the different treatment each took 
under the budget caps, the BCA.
  Defense spending, which makes up less than one-fifth of all 
government spending, received less than half of the reductions in the 
BCA. Defense spending also faced more budgetary pressure than 
nondefense spending because it is largely discretionary. Nondefense 
spending was able to distribute its BCA reductions over a larger amount 
of accounts and over a larger portion of mandatory programs. That 
provides a fudge factor.
  The continued insistence on tying both defense and nondefense 
spending together has left only the approach taken by this bill to fund 
the defense at the President's level.
  We know from the administration that the President's advisers are 
recommending he veto this bill. We also know some of my colleagues are 
considering blocking appropriations bills this year to force a 
government shutdown.
  Every bill should stand on its own for justification. No one is 
arguing the need for national defense. What they are actually arguing 
is the need for the nondefense increases. This is an attempt to 
leverage defense programming to get nondefense, which I mentioned the 
260 programs, $293.5 billion a year that has expired--so they want this 
OCO to be replaced with a deal.
  What we are supposed to do in Congress is legislate, not deal make. 
But that is what is being proposed. Let's make a deal. Now, if they 
step back and look at the facts laid out today, hopefully, they can 
move away from this brinkmanship and realize the path they are on only 
leads to more uncertainty for the men and women in our Armed Forces. 
Strengthening our national defense and providing for the brave men and 
women of our military should be something both sides agree on.
  So what is the future of the BCA caps? It is time both parties get 
serious about addressing our Nation's chronic overspending. We know 
some on both sides want the caps from the Budget Control Act changed--
but at what price for our Nation and the hard-working taxpayers? 
Without any changes to the BCA structure, just raising these budget 
caps without increasing the debt in the short-term would require 
increasing taxes. That is why we asked for the extra year to be able to 
work on this whole thing.
  If Congress is serious about addressing the challenges of the Budget 
Control Act, it has to first start by tackling its addiction to 
overspending and once again become good fiscal stewards of the taxes 
paid by each and every hard-working American.
  Of course, if the administration would stop overregulating, the 
economy would grow, and in a short time we would have more revenue 
without raising taxes. Yes, that is what both the Congressional Budget 
Office and the Office of Management and Budget--one works for Congress 
and one works for the President--said; that if we could just raise the 
economy by 1 percent a year, CBO says that would provide $300 billion. 
The President's office says that would provide $400 billion in taxes.
  We are receiving more tax revenue right now than we have in the 
history of the United States, but we spend more than that. Of the 
amounts that we get to make a decision on, we are spending almost 50 
percent more than what we take in. We can't continue to do that. We 
can't continue to afford the interest on the debt if we keep doing 
that.
  Americans are working harder than everyone to make ends meet. 
Shouldn't their elected officials be doing the same thing? By tackling 
these issues honestly and directly, we can help ensure that our Nation 
is safe and secure by investing in America's Armed Forces while also 
maintaining fiscal discipline.
  On a related note, the Senate Budget Committee has produced an 
indepth analysis of defense spending and the OCO funding provision as 
part of our June budget bulletin, which was published today. People 
interested in learning more can do so by going to our Web site: 
budget.senate.gov or contact on twitter@budgetbulletin.
  I close with some words from today's paper from the Casper Star-
Tribune editorial:

       Many of the servicemen and servicewomen returning from 
     faraway battlefields--Vietnam or any other place of 
     conflict--have seen horrible, unspeakable things. They've 
     been courageous in the face of death and destruction. Some 
     gave up a relatively easy, safe life to travel far from home 
     and fight for what we as a nation believe the world should 
     be, or could be, someday. That kind of commitment doesn't 
     come without pain or sacrifice--immense pain and sacrifice, 
     in some cases.
       None of that has anything to do with politics. Politics is 
     the arena of our elected leaders, not our troops, and it's 
     both necessary and patriotic for us as voters to evaluate 
     those leaders' decisions and actions and speak out against 
     the ones we disagree with. That's democracy and dissent.
       But our troops are our representatives on the ground. We 
     must not use our vaunted system of democracy as a tool to 
     inflict pain on this brave group of people. They're not 
     obligated to support our leaders' political ideologies any 
     more than the rest of us, but uniquely, they have made it 
     their responsibility to represent our treasured way of life 
     at home and abroad in pursuit of a better, more peaceful 
     world. And after they do that, they deserve the thanks of a 
     grateful nation.
       That's how it should have been in the 1970s. That's how it 
     is now. We must make it our responsibility to ensure that 
     this is how it will always be.

  We have a crucial decision to make on funding our national defense. I 
don't think it should be held hostage to other budget concerns. Each of 
those should stand on their own. Each of those should review all of the 
things under their jurisdiction. I ask for you to defeat the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. First, I thank my friend from Wyoming for his remarks. I 
don't always agree with him, but he is sincere, thoughtful, and puts 
every effort into coming up with a decision he believes is right, so we 
appreciate that very much.
  I also thank my colleague from Rhode Island, our ranking member on

[[Page 8867]]

Armed Services, who has laid out in very careful terms why the 
amendment, the Reed amendment, is so important. I thank him. He has 
also, like my friend from Wyoming, been assiduous, diligent, and 
careful in his work on the Armed Services Committee, and I thank him 
for offering this amendment.
  We have come to the floor with a very simple message for our 
Republican colleagues, and it is articulated in this amendment. If you 
want to make America strong by replacing the harsh and arbitrary 
automatic cuts in this budget as we do, then you have to do it in a way 
that makes sure we will have a strong military abroad and the things we 
need to be strong and secure at home as well.
  That means equally replacing cuts to both defense and domestic 
budgets--$1 for defense, $1 for the middle class--in the hopes that 
they can raise their income levels, and it can be easier for others who 
are not yet in the middle class to reach. That is what the amendment 
would require.
  The truth is, the way the Republicans have put this bill together 
signals a poor approach to both major areas of our budget. It locks in 
the sequester cuts for our men and women in uniform, instead using the 
OCO, essentially a wartime account, as a one-time gimmick to make up 
for shortfalls. That is a bad idea.
  Using the OCO account to pay for our troops, maintain and operate our 
military or purchase weapons that will keep us safe is a terrible 
mistake. Why is that? It is 1-year funding. You have to do a plan for 3 
years. You have to build a submarine that takes 4 or 5 years.
  I talk to defense contractors. I talk to military leaders. They can't 
do it 1 year at a time. It doesn't make sense. Our military families 
need stability and support. They need to know that programs that 
benefit them--suicide prevention, sexual assault--will be fully funded 
when other defense priorities come back into the base budget for future 
years. Under OCO, these things could get squeezed out. Our military 
brass needs to know that the weapons systems they are relying on 4 
years from now--but being paid out of OCO this year--can be funded and 
finished. So our military doesn't deserve budget gimmicks, they deserve 
real support.
  What my friends on the other side of the aisle have done with this 
OCO increase is a budgetary sleight of hand--a half-hearted attempt to 
fund the Defense Department while leaving key, middle-class programs 
behind. Our Defense Department gets budget work-arounds and exceptions, 
while hard-working families must continue to feel the harsh cuts 
imposed by sequestration. That is a double standard because we need 
both for a strong America. We need a strong military, and we need a 
strong middle class. To choose one over the other--and do it by 
budgetary sleight of hand--is nothing anyone can be proud of, in my 
opinion.
  So regardless of what happens with NDAA this month, one thing should 
be absolutely clear to my Republican friends--and I see our ranking 
member of Appropriations who has led this fight on the floor. Democrats 
will not vote to put a defense appropriations bill on the floor that 
uses accounting trickery or budgetary gimmicks to fund our troops. We 
will not vote to proceed to the Defense appropriations bill or any 
appropriations bill until our colleagues from the other side of the 
aisle have sat down at the table and figured out with us how we are 
going to properly fund the Defense Department and the key priorities 
that help families, fuel economic growth--in short, keeping us safe and 
strong both at home and abroad.
  We simply cannot and will not move forward with one acceptable bill 
at a time on the appropriations side until we are able to sit down and 
reach an agreement that replaces cuts equally for our military and our 
domestic needs.
  This amendment requires that balance. That is why I salute the 
Senator from Rhode Island, my dear friend, the ranking member of the 
Committee on Armed Services for putting it together. It says that the 
extra money in OCO cannot be used unless we give equal or greater 
relief to domestic programs that help the middle class.
  If my friends on the other side of the aisle are serious about 
escaping the senseless, obtuse budget cuts imposed by the sequester and 
their use of OCO, admittedly a gimmick--they are admitting that is the 
case, that we have to do more and go above sequestration for military 
and average families--they will wholeheartedly support the Jack Reed 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed. Characteristic of 
him, it is a thoughtful solution to a very serious problem related to 
the funding of our national security needs.
  I would like to support and salute Senator Reed for his outstanding 
job. Many don't realize that Senator Jack Reed is a graduate of West 
Point. He served in the U.S. military, bringing that breadth of his 
considerable background to additional public service, both in the House 
and now in the Senate. He is the ranking member on the defense 
authorization committee and also serves in great capacity on the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Now, let us talk about the Reed amendment and the funding for the 
Department of Defense. I want to be very clear. I do want to support 
funding for the national security of the United States of America. We 
take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and 
domestic, and we must uphold that oath not only with lip service but 
with real money in the real Federal checkbook. We need to do it in a 
way that doesn't use gimmicks or smoke and mirrors to end sequester or 
to finesse or do a shell deal behind the budget caps.
  Remember, we passed a bill that does have significant budget caps. 
But the way to deal with that problem is not to cap the Department of 
Defense but to be honest about what it takes to fund national security. 
The Reed amendment does that. It makes clear that the Department of 
Defense should receive $38 billion, but in its base budget to take care 
of the troops, to protect the troops while they protect us, to make 
sure they have the right gear, the right equipment, the right 
technology, and also the right intelligence to be able to do their job. 
The Reed amendment also looks out for military families. It does what 
we need to do.
  Only when there is a new budget agreement that increases the defense 
budget as well as the budget for domestic programs will we be able to 
solve the problem that is facing us.
  Now, what our generals have told us is we cannot meet our defense 
needs with the current budget caps. They also say: Senator--this is 
General Dempsey, and this is General Odierno, who spoke so well at the 
funeral of the Vice President's son on Saturday; these men have devoted 
their lives to the defense of our country and to have the best military 
in the world--don't give us sequester. Instead of figuring out how to 
fight terrorism, we have to figure out how to fight the stupidity of 
Congress.
  Now, they do not use those words; I am using those words. When we 
instituted sequester, it was a technique to force us to make the tough 
decisions. We keep hiding behind the technique. We need to change that. 
The bill we have now raises funding for something called the overseas 
contingency fund by $38 billion, but it uses it to fund activities that 
should be in the base bill rather than the war cost it was intended 
for. Essentially, it is a budget gimmick.
  What is the overseas contingency fund? It was meant to be a line item 
where we could actually see what war costs us. In Afghanistan and Iraq 
it was kind of commingled through a lot of the other items related to 
defense, but we didn't know the actual cost of the war. OCO is meant 
for war. It is not meant to be a way to avoid the budget caps. Instead 
of just raising the caps and funding DOD at the needed level, this bill 
uses this gimmick, so nothing about it is really in the national 
interest.

[[Page 8868]]

  Our military leaders tell us: No. 1, get rid of sequester. No. 2, you 
must increase the base bill.
  Defense budgeting cannot be done on a year-to-year basis. It must be 
multiyear because it is for the planning of procurement for them to 
have the best weapons systems. It is recruitment and training and 
sustaining of the military and their personnel needs.
  Defense Secretary Ash Carter said: ``Our defense industry partners, 
too, need stability and longer-term plans, not end-of-year crises.'' 
GEN Dan Allyn, Army Vice Chief of Staff, said: ``OCO does not give you 
the predictable funding to be able to plan the force we are going to 
need.''
  I want to make another point. The defense of the United States 
doesn't lie only with DOD. That is our warfighting machine. But we have 
other programs that are related to national security that come out of 
domestic discretionary spending that are shortchanged and are shrinking 
and, quite frankly, I am concerned about it.
  What am I talking about? In order to have national security, you need 
to have a State Department. You need to have a State Department to do 
the kind of work that involves diplomacy. That involves working with 
nations around the world and the needs of these nations and also to 
engage in important negotiations such as we have now ongoing on the 
Iran nuclear. That is not done by generals. That is done by diplomats. 
You need to have a Department of State. Look at what happened in 
Benghazi, where there is so much focus on this. While they are 
focusing--and we should focus--on Benghazi, we appropriators are 
focusing on embassy security. Embassy security is funded through the 
Department of State and funded by discretionary spending. If you want 
to protect Americans overseas, you have to have embassy security. You 
have to have a Department of State.
  Then we have the Department of Homeland Security. Look at all the 
cyber attacks on us right at this minute. We need to have a cyber 
component to defense, but we need to have the cyber defense strategy at 
the Department of Homeland Security. Even our military is being hacked. 
Insurance programs are being hacked. People in the United States are 
having important information about their health records, their Social 
Security numbers, and so on being stolen. We need to have a robust 
Department of Homeland Security. They have a program called Einstein 
that is supposed to do it, but we don't have to be Einsteins to know 
that in order to protect America we also have to protect the Department 
of Homeland Security.
  Then of course there are the promises made and promises kept. There 
is the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and 
Related Agencies. We must fund our promises made to our veterans. That 
is out of discretionary spending. That is not out of defense. But the 
infrastructure for our military, our military bases here in our own 
country, come out of military construction.
  I don't want to sound as if I am defending government programs. That 
is not what I am here to do. I am here to defend the Nation and defend 
it the right way. We need to be able to put money in the Federal 
checkbook that funds our Department of Defense without gimmicks, 
without sleight of hand, without finessing or playing dodge ball. We 
have to play hard ball with the terrorists and others who have 
predatory intent against the United States.
  We have to be Team U.S.A. not only on the sports field but on this 
playing field right here on the floor of Congress. Let us work 
together. Let us get a new budget agreement. Let us solve the problems. 
Let us end sequester. Let us work together to be able to do it. I 
believe a big step forward would be supporting the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed. I ask, in the interest of 
national security, that we vote for the Reed amendment and that we go 
to the budget. Let's go to the negotiating table and come up with a 
real framework to fund the compelling needs of our Nation, and let's do 
it, Team U.S.A.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________