National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source