Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016 -- Continued
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, since its founding in 1948, Israel has
been a strong and steadfast ally to the United States in the Middle
East, a region characterized by instability and violence.
The U.S.-Israel relationship is built on mutual respect for common
values, including a commitment to democracy, the rule of law,
individual liberty, and ethnic and religious diversity.
Last week, President Obama and other administration officials
suggested a fundamental rethinking of this alliance, citing Prime
Minister Netanyahu's simple restatement of fact that there can be no
Palestinian State until conditions change. The Palestinian Authority
must, at a minimum, eject Hamas from its governing coalition, reclaim
control of the Gaza Strip, accept a demilitarized eastern border, and
recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State.
Further, Prime Minister Netanyahu recently reiterated these points
and his support for a two-state solution in principle. In this light,
any suggestion that the United States may reconsider our support for
Israel--especially our support at the United Nations--is wrongheaded
and shortsighted, because the United Nations, regrettably, has
consistently employed a double standard in its treatment of Israel,
making false allegations against Israel while, even worse, ignoring
even worse behavior by other countries.
The U.N. has often questioned Israel's legitimacy----
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COTTON. The U.N. Human Rights Council has focused obsessively on
Israel. The U.N. General Assembly has adopted 21 resolutions singling
out Israel.
Because of this regrettable history, my amendment lays the groundwork
for a restriction of funding to the United Nations should it take
unfair and discriminatory action against Israel or attempt to impose a
final settlement on Israel and the P.A.
My hope is this will not be necessary, but this Congress should be
prepared to take actions to defend the U.S.-Israel alliance.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida. I am
pleased to offer this amendment with him. I do agree that it is
critical we have this debate on what we should be spending on our
military. While I respect the work of the Budget Committee, I also call
attention to the views of the chairman and the ranking member of the
Armed Services Committee on which I sit, that they would spend $577
billion on defense next year, which would eliminate sequestration.
I suggest, as the Senator from Florida did, that we need to look to
the views of the National Defense Panel, which did draw from Secretary
Gates' fiscal year 2012 budget, projecting into fiscal year 2016. While
Secretary Gates had a reputation as a reformer, he had already found
$450 billion of savings in the Department of Defense at that time. It
is hard to say there is much fat left.
Second, as the Senator from Florida pointed out, that was the last
time the Department of Defense engaged in what we should do in this
body, which is the budgeting for the military based on the threats we
face and the strategy we need, not having a strategy that is driven by
the budget.
But that is not enough. As the National Defense Panel said itself, at
$611 billion, that projection is not enough. Why is it not enough? Some
of the threats the Senator from Florida identified. In the last 4
years, what have we seen? The Islamic State on the rise, rampaging
across Iraq and Syria. Iran racing toward a nuclear weapon even as it
asserts greater control and dominance over Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut,
and now Sanaa.
We have seen Russian revisionism, invading a sovereign country in the
heart of Europe, shooting a civilian airliner out of the sky in the
heart of Europe, and China on the rise, developing military
capabilities that are quite clearly directed against the United States
and our allies in the first island chain. That is why we need this
debate. That is why we need the military budget the Senator from
Florida and I are proposing, because the eyes of the world are upon us,
not just our enemies, but our allies as well, wondering if America will
not only have the resolve to stand by its commitment but if it will
have the capabilities to stand by those commitments, whoever the
Commander in Chief may be.
But there is one final important group whose eyes are on this
institution this week. It is our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and
our marines, who are wondering if the elected representatives of the
people will stand with them, will provide them the resources they need
to be ready, to be trained, equipped, and ready to fight our Nation's
wars so they do not have to fight them in the first place.
Earlier today, I had the great benefit of being able to meet with a
group of Army majors and captains, the mid-career officers, just like
the mid-career noncommissioned officers who are the backbone of our
military. Two of those men I started officer candidate school with at
Fort Benning 10 years ago this coming Friday, one of whom has been
seriously injured.
To a person, they all said that training is down, families are
strained, operations are stressed, equipment is overused, and they
wanted to know, will the Congress of the United States give them the
tools they need to fight and win our country's wars? That is why I am
proud to stand here with the Senator from Florida to offer this
amendment and say that, yes, we will stand by them. Yes, we will make
sure they are ready to fight and win our wars so they do not have to
fight them in the first place.
I yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source