Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes today to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual policy bill for the Department of Defense. Let me start by noting that Senator Carl Levin, who is Chairman of the committee that put this agreement together, will be retiring after this year. This bill carries Senator Levin's name on it in what I think will be a fitting tribute to his legacy here. I have appreciated his wisdom on so many issues over the years, and I know I am in good company when I say to Senator Levin that his leadership will be missed in the United States Senate.

Passing a defense authorization bill is one of Congress' most important annual tasks, and it has been for decades. I have supported some of these bills throughout my time here and given the number of security concerns facing this country--the continued presence of ISIL in Iraq and Syria, Russia's ongoing efforts to destabilize Ukraine, the Ebola outbreak in West Africa--I hoped to be able to support this bill as well. Regrettably, however, I am forced to vote against this defense bill.

Most Americans may not know this, but the United States is still spending as much on defense as it spent at the height of the Cold War. This bill before us today would authorize nearly $600 billion in total defense spending--including more than $60 billion in war funding. That really ought to raise more questions about how that money is being spent and whether the American people are getting their money's worth for each dollar they spend on defense. But what I find most concerning is that my Senate colleagues and I are being asked to approve this mammoth bill without being given the opportunity to vote on any substantive amendments. I am sure that if Senators were given that chance, we could consider amendments regarding sexual assault in the military or greater transparency within the intelligence community, for example.

One issue in particular that would have benefitted from more debate is the Guantanamo Bay detention center. When the Senate Armed Services Committee passed its version of this defense bill in June, it included provisions allowing the Department of Defense to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United States ``for detention, trial and incarceration.'' My position on the Guantanamo Bay detention center has long been to shut it down and prosecute as many detainees as possible in the federal court system--where the United States has a strong record of winning convictions. I felt that the earlier Armed Services Committee language would have made progress toward these goals, and I am disappointed that the agreement before us today maintains the prohibition on transferring any detainees to the United States to stand trial.

I also want to take a few minutes to express my deep concerns about the lands package included in this defense authorization agreement. This package contains some laudable bills for our Nation's environment like wilderness and new parks supported by many members of Congress. This lands package also includes, however, a number of extraordinarily controversial provisions that will do serious and long-lasting environmental damage.

Take the provision that represents an unprecedented giveaway of public lands to benefit a foreign corporation. It will destroy a recreational oasis, disturb a sacred Indian site, and cast aside recreational, environmental, and cultural concerns in favor of big mining and big money. Neither the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee nor the House of Representatives has approved that provision this Congress, yet it is being jammed into this defense bill today without debate.

In addition several important pieces of legislation with bipartisan support were simply left out of this lands package. I am disappointed that this package does not include legislation to modernize and increase forest management on the Oregon and California Grant Lands, better known as the O&C Lands, for example. This lands package also does not include legislation that would resolve long-standing issues regarding water resources in the Klamath Basin.

Additionally, I am disappointed that the lands package does virtually nothing to help rural counties: it fails to renew the bipartisan Secure Rural Schools program that funds critical services in more than 700 counties in over forty States. The assistance it provides to fund the another significant rural aid program known as Payments in Lieu of Taxes is not enough to fully fund the program in the absence of Secure Rural Schools funding. These programs are lifelines for cash-strapped rural counties that struggle to fund basic law enforcement, infrastructure improvements, and other public services.

Finally, I am extremely disappointed that the lands package did not include reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that opens up our Nation's public lands and wilderness areas for recreation and enjoyment, while providing tremendous economic benefits to rural communities.

This lands package is unbalanced. It does not reflect bipartisan compromises reached in the committees of jurisdiction. Lastly, in the crucial days, when decisions were being made about the public lands bills that did not make it into this package, most Senators were kept in the dark about issues of great importance to their constituents.

So, I return to the notion that Senators and the people they represent must be heard on legislation this consequential. It is unfortunate that after a full Congress of hard work, a number of good proposals will simply be left on the cutting room floor.

I want to repeat that this bill before us today authorizes more than half of the discretionary budget for the U.S. Government, almost $600 billion in defense spending, including more than $60 billion in war funding.

Because of that, I regret that I must oppose this defense authorization bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source