Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, it is not uncommon for me when I am at home in Oklahoma to have a mom approach me at a townhall meeting or in conversations or even at a store or restaurant. What she will want to talk to me about is very interesting. Almost always the moms who approach me lately want to talk to me about national security. They want to talk to me about the fear they have that the world is spinning out of control, and they are very concerned about their kids. They are concerned about terrorism coming to the United States. With a lot of moms in Oklahoma, there is a sense of a loss of trust that this is a safe world and a safe place.

I can't say that is isolated. As I have talked to other Members in this body, I seem to find the same theme coming up over and over again. As I talk to people at home, they want to know: Is the American government performing its primary responsibility of maintaining security and protecting American citizens around the world?

I would love to be able to tell them yes, but quite frankly this has become a very chaotic world, and the challenges we face need clear messaging about what we plan to do and our intent to actually follow up on that plan. We need to have a national policy plan for defense, and then we need to follow through on that.

That seems straightforward and simple. Well, the national defense authorization is one of those areas where Congress and the President have for decades agreed on a national policy for defense. They have laid out that perspective, and then it is the President's responsibility as Commander in Chief to fulfill. That is the primary responsibility of the U.S. Government. The challenge is, our world is in utter turmoil and that primary responsibility is not being fulfilled.

Passage today of the National Defense Authorization Act by 70 to 27--which is a rare vote in the Senate, to have that much bipartisan agreement on something--is a significant next step. It has passed the House already, it has now passed the Senate with a veto-proof majority, and it is headed to the President's desk, and he has threatened a veto, of all things, for a national plan for defense.

There is a sentiment, an emotion from Americans: Please get a clear national policy. We feel like the world is on fire, and somebody needs to provide a clear path. That is what this is, and I am astounded by the conversation about a possible veto threat from the President of the United States, even when it passes the Senate by a veto-proof majority.

Where are we and what is really going on right now? Let's take a look at the world and what is happening in real time. The Middle East is absolutely rocked to its core with violence, and there is this perception that the United States is disconnected from it. I would say that is untrue. We are just not providing clarity in the plan.

At a time when we have men and women in harm's way across the entire Middle East, I am astounded that the President is talking about a veto, which will provide even more instability. Let me give an example. When I talk about men and women in harm's way, there are many Americans who don't hear about the ongoing battle happening now in Iraq and Syria and how our sons and daughters are already very engaged in what is happening there. There is this belief--I believe fostered by the President--that we are really not there because we never talk about it.

So let's talk about yesterday. This is yesterday over Iraq and Syria and what happened. Near Abu Kamal, there were three strikes from the Americans on two separate ISIL crude oil collection points. That was in Syria yesterday. In Iraq, one strike destroyed two ISIL rocket rails. Near Kirkuk, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL fighting position. Near Kisik, three strikes suppressed two ISIL rocket positions, an ISIL mortar position, and an ISIL sniper position. Near Makhmur, one strike suppressed an ISIL heavy machine gun position. Near Mosul, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed three ISIL heavy machine guns and three ISIL fighting positions and suppressed an ISIL rocket position and an ISIL mortar position. Near Ramadi, five strikes struck four separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed three ISIL fighting positions, three ISIL weapons caches, two ISIL buildings, an ISIL bunker, and denied ISIL access to terrain they were pursuing. Near Sinjar, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun and two ISIL fighting positions. Near Sultan Abdallah, one strike suppressed an ISIL rocket position. Near Tal Afar, two strikes destroyed an ISIL fighting position, an ISIL trench, and an ISIL berm, and suppressed an ISIL mortar position. Near Tikrit, one strike destroyed four ISIL obstacles. That was yesterday.

Americans have this belief that we are disconnected. We are a nation that is engaged, but the challenge is that there is no clear plan, there is no end game that is being laid out. In a moment when we have this many strikes that are happening in Syria and in Iraq--and I can go on and on about what is happening with our Special Forces in Afghanistan and across the rest of the region, as I will describe in a moment, but at this moment, with this going on, the President is going to veto a national defense authorization with this kind of bipartisan support, when the whole Nation is saying: Give us a plan because we feel insecure.

Currently, we are trying and failing to train and equip moderate opposition forces against ISIL in Syria. Currently, we are trying to give Kurds all the equipment they need to hold the line against ISIL. There are millions of displaced people who are fleeing across Europe, who are trying to find some place of respite.

In Yemen, we are supporting the Saudi-led coalition as the Iranians are causing a coup to become a reality in Yemen by the Houthi rebels.

In Libya, there is still an unbelievable vacuum left by the incomplete campaign, which resulted in ISIS getting a foothold in Libya and a bloody civil war in a very divided Libya. They have not been able to form a central government in several years now.

Egypt is facing a growing terrorist threat in Sinai. There are all kinds of tit-for-tat violence happening right now in Israel between the Palestinians and Israelis.

In Africa, we are still hunting Joseph Kony--a despicable madman--but with no success. AFRICOM is also trying to assist forces working to kick al-Shabaab out of Somalia. Bloody sectarian violence is breaking out in the Central African Republic. South Sudan has an extremely fragile peace agreement. Boko Haram continues to rapidly grow in West Africa.

In Mexico and other parts of Latin America, drug thugs are running rampant, and they are pushing drugs into the United States in record amounts, destabilizing many of our cities.

In Afghanistan, a new offensive by the Taliban threatens to roll back the progress we have made.

DNI Clapper testified that the world is still facing an emerging and rapidly growing cyber threat. It is not just a cyber threat to the American Government, it is a threat to every American citizen, as many American citizens have personally experienced in recent days.

Let's look to the future and some of the plans that are ongoing.

Iran. We heard from Secretary Kerry and this administration that a nuclear deal with Iran would lead to a more peaceful Middle East. Since the agreement was announced, we have seen Iran continue to arm the Houthi rebels in Yemen, continue to support Hezbollah and their expansion, and continue to aggressively prop up the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Some of us have stated quite blatantly our suspicion that this deal would make the region less stable. Indeed, in just 5 years Iran could begin importing large amounts of conventional weapons under this deal. So an Iran that is already supporting large amounts of terrorism will only become better equipped in the days to come.

China. They had a state visit here recently with lots of broad promises about cooperation. Meanwhile, we know that much of the cyber threat emanates from China. They are building islands in disputed waters--airfields capable of hosting military assets there. They are beginning to build a world-class navy that could threaten our closest allies in the region. China continues to be one of the world's leaders in human rights violations.

Russia. We have heard several of our top military commanders say there is a long list of threats, but the threat they are most concerned about is a growing Russia. Putin walked into Crimea, and the world watched. He continues to threaten eastern Ukraine, and the world watches. He is now expanding Russian adventures into the Middle East, supporting Iranian-backed Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and attacking the moderate opposition forces attempting to defend their own families. This is not a new vanguard against terrorism; this is an expansion of the ``Russian Bear.''

So what are we doing about it? We are trying to actually put out a clear plan. Where are we going in national defense? What are we going to do to stop terrorism and the expansion of terrorists around the world? Instead of the White House cooperating with us, they are threatening to veto the NDAA. It is unbelievable. It is astounding that the White House is spending more time trying to make a deal with Iran than they are trying to actually support our own military. What does this do? What does this agreement really accomplish?

For those who aren't familiar with the national defense authorization, let me share a few things that are in this national defense authorization that the President is now saying he is going to veto.

Here is one: personal carry of firearms. Post commanders are empowered to permit a member of the Armed Forces to carry appropriate firearms on our posts or bases. After the attack that happened in Chattanooga, this is something the American people have called out for. It is included in this bill, to allow it.

It provides for stronger cyber operations capabilities and looks to safeguard our technological superiority.

It ensures that military intelligence analysis remains a priority at the national level.

The NDAA extends vital authorities for our forces in Afghanistan as we try to deal with what is happening on the ground there. It authorizes the Iran military power report for 10 additional years, reflecting Congress's view that Iran's illicit pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability and its malign military activities constitute a grave threat to regional stability and U.S. national security interests. The NDAA reinforces the mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL.

Congress authorizes through this the European Reassurance Initiative to address Russia's employment of conventional and unconventional warfare methods to counter U.S. and Western interests, whether it be in the Ukraine or across the area--bicameral, bipartisan efforts to provide assistance and sustainment for the military forces in Ukraine.

The NDAA allocates $30 million for DOD-unique capabilities to address the threatening levels of violence, instability, illicit trafficking of drugs, and transnational organized crime in Central America.

Dealing with the Pacific region, this conference remains concerned about America's strategy in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, and the NDAA requires the President to make a clear strategy for this ``pivot to Asia.''

The Defense Department has also placed greater emphasis--under this agreement, the NDAA--on security cooperation with all parts of the world to make sure we have a consistent strategy.

If we want to talk about individual members of the military, this NDAA changes how retirement is done. Now, 83 percent of the individuals who serve in our military don't receive any kind of retirement at the end. This allows those individuals to actually be able to participate in retirement benefits, in their retirement from the military, even if they don't make it all the way to 20 years. This is a dramatic shift not only in supporting the warfighter but in actually setting a strategy for where we need to go to provide some clarity to individuals at home and to our troops in the field.

The President's statement that he is going to veto this has come under two areas. He said he is going to veto this because the funding mechanism comes from the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund, OCO. Because the funding is coming from OCO, he is going to veto it. The second thing he said: I am going to veto it because I don't like what it says about Gitmo--about Guantanamo--and keeping those individuals who are terrorists who have attacked our Nation at Guantanamo.

The ironic part is that when I started to pull this to be able to look at the figures--let me just give the last several years. In 2013, the OCO funding was $89 billion. The President signed that. In 2014, OCO funding was $81 billion. The President signed that. In 2015, OCO funding was $64 billion. The President signed that. This year's OCO funding is $89 billion, which is right there in the same range as the previous 4 years, but this year he is saying: I can't sign it; it has OCO funding. Can somebody tell me the difference on this? This is very similar to what has been done the last 4 years.

His statement about Guantanamo Bay and preventing funding--moving the terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to the United States--I can tell you that in my State people are adamantly opposed to moving the terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to the United States. Going all the way back, let's say, to 2011, that NDAA prevented moving prisoners from Guantanamo; 2012, prevented it; 2013, prevented it; 2014, prevented it; 2015, prevented it. All of those, the President signed, but for some strange reason, this year the President has said: It has OCO funds and it deals with Guantanamo--just like every other year in the past.

This is the season when we need to bring clear voices and a clear mission, not politics. This is the primary mission we have as a federal government: Take care of our national defense and provide a clear messaging.

I am proud of this Senate for finishing the conference report on the NDAA and sending it to the President's desk. Now I would ask the Commander in Chief to stand with the troops, to sign this, and let's get on to providing some clarity in the days ahead.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source