Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, my colleagues from Virginia and Rhode Island, for whom I have a lot of respect, have been on the floor talking about an important issue--what my colleague from Virginia called a ``today issue.'' Well, I would also like to talk about a today issue as well, and one that I think certainly the American public is interested in.

In the past week we have had a lot of today issues. As a matter of fact, in the last week there have been new developments globally relating to our national security, the defense of the United States, and the importance of our military in ways that are pretty dramatic. I would like to list some of these, and this is literally in the last 7 days.

Today, Secretary Carter announced from Iraq, where he is right now, that the United States will be deploying another 560 troops in our fight against ISIS. A lot of us support additional troops, and the Secretary announced that. On Friday, at the NATO summit, President Obama announced that the United States will be deploying 1,000 U.S. troops and a separate brigade headquarters to Poland as part of an effort by NATO to strengthen its eastern flank against Russian aggression. The President was actually quoted in the Financial Times extensively. He stated: ``This may be the most important moment for our transatlantic alliance since the end of the Cold War.''

Then he talked about all the different national security crises-- ISIS, the terrorist attacks in Orlando, Paris, and Brussels, conflicts from Africa to Syria, and Russia's aggression in Ukraine. This is the President speaking to the Financial Times. These are today issues. I also call them today issues.

On Saturday, North Korea launched another submarine-based ballistic missile off the country's eastern coast. It didn't go that far, but they are learning. Madam President, you and I were over there recently. They are learning. That is a continuing threat.

Then, last Wednesday, before the President went to the NATO summit-- which, by the way was a successful summit, and I applaud the President and Secretary Carter for that summit--the President announced that he plans to leave 8,400 American troops in Afghanistan, more than he originally planned to keep, to combat the Taliban. Again, a lot of us applauded that decision. It could have been more, but it certainly is better than the trajectory he was going on, which was to go to zero.

During an Armed Services Committee hearing last week, former NATO Ambassador Nicholas Burns and the former Supreme Allied Commander, Marine Gen. James Jones discussed the report that was coauthored by the Atlantic Council, again talking about the importance of NATO's building up our military forces not only on the eastern flank but in the Arctic--an area in which, as Alaska's Senator, I am very interested-- where the Russians have dramatically expanded their military footprint in exercises.

Over the weekend, in the Wall Street Journal, it was reported that even after reaching the Iran nuclear deal, Iran continued trying to illegally procure nuclear equipment from Germany. So we have the Iranian threat, which definitely is not going away after the ill-gotten and misguided nuclear deal by the President.

Tomorrow morning, there is going to be big news. There is expected to be a tribunal ruling on what is going on in the South China Sea. Again, the Chair and I were there recently, in that region of the world, in Singapore, for the Shangri-La Dialogue. To Secretary Carter's credit and Admiral Harris' credit, we have had two carrier battle groups out there recently--two. That is very important.

So this is what has happened in a week. This is what our military is facing in 1 week. So what did this body do? What did the Senate do as it relates to actions in terms of our military and dealing with all these threats of just 1 week? What did we do? Led by the Senate minority leader and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we filibustered spending for our troops. That is what the Senate did. We filibustered spending for our troops. That is right. We blocked funding for our military, which has to deal with all these issues.

Now, I know it was in the dead of the night. I think it took place around midnight. I am sure some of my colleagues were hoping nobody saw it. But this is not like an anomaly. As a matter of fact, this was the fourth time the minority leader led my colleagues on the other side of the aisle into filibustering the Defense appropriations bill that funds our troops and keeps our Nation safe. Let me repeat that. This bill has been filibustered not once, not twice, not three times but four times in the last year.

This is the bill the minority leader likes to filibuster more than anything, and this is despite the fact that when this bill came out of the Committee on Appropriations, it had huge bipartisan support. I think only three members of the committee voted against it. This year it came out of the committee unanimously.

So what does this bill do? We just talked about the threats that everybody agrees exist. I will just cover a few of the highlights. First, and very importantly, it is actually consistent with the bipartisan budget agreement of 2015. So any discussion of how it is not fitting what we agreed to is not true. It is consistent with that.

Readiness. We all know we need readiness for our military. It funds $212 billion in terms of base operations and maintenance accounts, training--enormously important--and shipbuilding. A significant portion goes to shipbuilding to make sure we have a strong navy. It is similar with regard to aircraft procurement to have a strong Air Force-- significant billions of dollars of funding for our Air Force. It even has, for the first time, funding for an icebreaker, which more and more of my colleagues in the Congress are recognizing as critical to our national security.

Missile defense. With the growing threat from North Korea and Iran, there is significant funding for missile defense and the National Guard and Reserve equipment account. The Presiding Officer has been a leader in the National Guard and Reserve. There is almost $1 billion for the National Guard and Reserve equipment account, which is lacking.

Of course, there is military pay. The Defense appropriations bill fully funds an Active-Duty end strength of 1.2 million members of the military and a Reserve component end strength of 800,000, and it funds a 1.6 percent pay raise.

Those are some of the highlights of the bill we need, and some of the highlights of the bill that was filibustered in the wee hours of the evening last Thursday night.

Our Nation needs this bill. Our troops certainly need this bill. Our allies need this bill. We have held hearings in the Committee on Armed Services. The Chair will remember when Secretary Kissinger came and testified that the United States has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of World War II. Even the President, last week in the Financial Times, stated that this is possibly the most important moment in terms of the security of the transatlantic alliance since the Cold War.

The Presiding Officer and I actually had the honor of recently going to see the new Secretary of the Army review the troops and review the Old Guard. She and I proudly represented the Senate. We have a new Secretary of the Army who is going to do a great job. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Milley, spoke during that. He said one of the most important things the Senate and the Congress can do in the next 5 weeks is to make sure there is a budget for the U.S. military and for the U.S. Army. That is what he said. So he certainly laid out what he thought was important.

As a matter of fact, serving together on the Committee on Armed Services, the Presiding Officer and I hear this from every single admiral and general, including Secretary Carter: Fund the troops-- certainty.

But the minority leader thinks it is fine to block funding for our troops. Maybe he knows more than Secretary Carter. Maybe he knows more than General Milley. Unfortunately, he has made a habit out of doing this. In my short time in the Senate--1\1/2\ years--this is the bill the minority leader has decided to filibuster more than any other bill. Since I have been here, he has done that four times. Think about that.

I hope the American people are watching. Four times in a year the bill that gets picked on more than any other bill is the one that funds the troops and our national security, and it happened again in the wee hours of the night last week.

So why does he do this? I have no earthly idea why he does this. If you asked Americans back home in Iowa, Alaska, or in any State-- Democrats or Republicans; it doesn't matter the party--the people would say that national defense and funding our troops is probably the most important thing we do. It is certainly one of the top one or two. But the minority leader last year said the Defense appropriations bill is ``a waste of time.'' Last week he put out a statement saying he needed a commitment that this bill abides by the bipartisan budget deal.

Well, guess what. The bill does abide by the bipartisan budget deal. There is no one making the argument that it doesn't. So I have no idea. I have no idea why he singles out funding for our brave men and women in uniform, thousands of whom, by the way, are serving overseas in combat--yes, in combat, right now. We are not going to fund them, though. We will filibuster that. Maybe he can come down and explain it.

Here is something else I really don't understand. I mean, I really don't understand this. Why is it that so many of my colleagues follow his lead on this--to filibuster funding for America's military not once, not twice, not three times but four times? Why are my colleagues following his lead? I don't know why. But what I do know is that we should not be heading out on a 2-month recess without voting again on funding our troops--without voting to fund our troops--especially given all the challenges I just listed here. We know they are there. The President was talking about them. We talk about them. But we don't want to fund the troops?

We owe it to the American people and to our troops to have a vote on this Defense appropriations bill again. Let my colleagues come to the floor and explain why they are going to vote to filibuster this bill again, because when we bring it up again--and I certainly hope we do so this week--if they vote to filibuster it again, that will become the fifth time inside of a year.

What we need to do is to bring back a longstanding tradition that used to exist in the Senate, which was the bipartisan funding of our military. That is certainly what we are all focused on. That is what we thought we were going to do when we got the budget deal. That is what we thought we were going to do when we saw these very big bipartisan numbers coming out of the Appropriations Committee. Yet, every time we try to bring this bill to the floor--this year and last year--the minority leader filibusters it. The American people are watching. The American people are watching.

A recent Politico article talked about this. A defense analyst from the Heritage Foundation said:

I think this is pretty disappointing, but sadly not surprising. . . . There used to be a bipartisan consensus that defense was a priority, but sadly I think that consensus no longer exists. . . . With the Senate Democrats stopping DOD [appropriations], the Pentagon will at least have to wait until after the election for its budget, and maybe even into the next calendar year [to get its budget].

That is because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are filibustering this bill. How does that help our troops? How does that help the national defense of the United States? Somebody please come down here and explain this to me. I agree with this analyst where he said this is sad.

I hope we will bring this bill to the floor again and drop what has been happening, which is playing politics with our troops and funding our military.

I will conclude by saying that after the Vietnam war, the Democratic Party gained a reputation as the anti-military party of America, and they struggled for years to shed that reputation. I don't think having any of America's major political parties being viewed as anti-military is good for us as a nation.

Support for our military should never be a partisan issue, and I proudly serve--with the Presiding Officer and others--on the Armed Services Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I know for a fact that my colleagues on those very bipartisan committees--Democrats and Republicans--support our troops, support national defense, and support the military. And I know many of my colleagues in this body--many on the other side of the aisle--have served with distinction in the military for decades and are strong supporters of our men and women in uniform. I have seen it. I have seen it my entire short time in the Senate. But four filibusters blocking funding for our troops inside of a year certainly makes one wonder what is going on with the leadership of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when it comes to supporting our troops. I hope they come down and explain it this week.

What we need to do this week is vote again on the Defense appropriations bill and do the right thing. We all know what the right thing is and the American people know what the right thing is. We need to fund our troops, we need to keep them safe, and we need to keep our country safe.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source