National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise in support of the national defense authorization bill and would point out to my colleagues that this is a piece of legislation which for half a century has enjoyed bipartisan support--during Republican administrations, Democratic administrations, and during times of majority on the Democratic side and on the Republican side.

Regrettably, last year this Chamber did not take up the NDAA until December--months after it had been approved in committee. I commend Senator Levin, the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for reporting the bill out of his committee during Democratic majorities, and if he had his way, we would have taken up the bill much earlier.

I also want to commend Senator McCain, our current Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee for again, in a timely way, reporting this bipartisan bill. And then I think commendation is due to the new leadership of this Senate for taking up this bill in a timely fashion in June rather than waiting until December.

It has been said by the distinguished minority leader that taking up this bill is a waste of time because the President has said he would veto this bill. It is curious that he would say so because this bill funds national security at the amount requested by the President of the United States. I think to people out there listening in the public, it is curious the President would say ``I am going to veto a bill'' that actually funds security items at the administration's requested level.

I would also point out to my colleagues that this is not the first time the President has issued a veto threat. This happened on the Iran nuclear negotiations bill, where at first the President said: If the House and Senate send me such a bill, I will veto it. But the more we talked about it and the more we brought the American people into the discussion and the more the light was shown on the issue and the American public opinion began to be known, the more popular the idea became in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

At the end of the day, it was unanimous or virtually unanimous in the Foreign Relations Committee that the Senate and the House should be heard on the issue of any negotiations this administration has, as the Secretary of State might have with the Iranian leadership. At the end of the day, it passed overwhelmingly, and the President actually changed his mind. Having said he would veto that Iranian nuclear bill, he changed his mind and sent word that he would, in fact, sign it.

I hope the same thing will happen in this situation. I hope the President will rescind his veto threat and, after we have worked our will and after this bill has gone over to a conference committee with the House of Representatives and we have come up with a compromise between the House and the Senate, I hope the President will, in fact, change his mind and change his position as he did on the Iranian bill and sign it. I do not think it is a waste of time. I think it is critical that we do this.

It is often that we start off on a partisan basis. I have the highest regard for the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. He and I served together in the House of Representatives. It has been my privilege to serve on the committee with the distinguished ranking member for some time. I think he would acknowledge that we started off the defense markup with all Republicans saying they were going to vote for it and with all Democrats saying they would be a ``no'' vote. But the more we got into that issue and the more Senator McCain began to work with Members on both sides of the aisle and amendments were offered and debate was held, that opposition began to melt away.

At the end of the day, on this bill that is before us today, there were eight Democrats who voted aye in the committee and only four Democrats who voted no. As I recall, all of the Republicans on the committee voted yes. It was an overwhelmingly bipartisan support of something that started off dividing us, Republicans versus Democrats.

It is important that we continue to do that. The focus should be on our national security priorities. The focus should be on the troops. This bill funds the troops in a very meaningful and a very reform-oriented way. This is necessary under the current times.

I want to quote from an earlier Armed Services hearing we had, wherein Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned the committee. I will quote the Director of National Intelligence. He said that ``unpredictable instability is the new normal.'' ``Unpredictable instability is the new normal.''

He pointed out that ``last year was the most lethal year for global terrorism in 45 years.'' It so happens that we have only been keeping statistics on the lethal degree of terrorism for 45 years. In the recorded 45-year history of keeping tabs on this, this is the most lethal year, this past year--tough times, dangerous times.

This was underscored by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, when he testified at a hearing before the committee earlier this year. He said that ``the United States has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the Second World War.''

This is a dangerous world. This is a dangerous time. We have a bill that addresses these times, and I think we should move forward with it. The Obama administration may be unwilling to admit that the world is less safe, but there is no denying the extraordinary challenges. I think Members on both sides of the aisle would acknowledge this: ISIS or ISIL, the newly resurgent and aggressive Russia and what they have done in invading Crimea and eastern Ukraine, the havoc across the Middle East in nations such as Yemen and Syria, nations that are collapsing into chaos. These are serious times.

Yet our President said, on the European Continent yesterday, that ``we don't have a complete strategy'' for dealing with ISIS in Iraq.

This is not a time to block resources our military needs. As a matter of fact, it is a time for us to act as Americans and not as partisans. There are several reasons why passing this bill this month should not be controversial:

First, it would authorize the same amount of funding as requested by the President.

Second, it contains one of the most substantive defense reforms we have seen in years. It would adopt $10 billion worth of efficiencies that would pave the way for long-term savings at the Department of Defense.

Third, the bill champions greater efficiency by reducing bureaucracy at the Pentagon and reforming the weapons acquisition system. Just because we need to spend more money for defense does not mean we need to spend more money to hire bureaucrats and staffers at the Pentagon.

Fourth, it is very important to point out the reforms in this bill make sure that the men and women who fight for our country, including those who are wounded or who have retired, have the quality of life, health care and support they deserve.

Fifth, this bill would modernize the military retirement system. Something that has been recommended to us by experts in the military and by retired military people. It would not only extend benefits to more servicemembers, but also give them more value. It would give our servicemembers more choice in their retirement system. Too many of our members are being excluded from the current system. Maintaining our All-Volunteer Force requires taking care of those who have chosen to serve.

Let me give a big shout-out and thank-you to Senator Mazie Hirono, my ranking member on the Seapower Subcommittee. We have worked closely in the Seapower mark of this legislation. As a matter of fact, I regret that Senator Hirono and I could not do our two speeches on this bill together. That was our intent, for me to speak as chair and for her to speak as ranking member because we have cooperated so much in our Seapower title.

Our title in the bill addresses shortfalls in the Navy's ability to meet requirements. We have 30 ships and our Navy's amphibious fleet is much smaller than the Marine Corps tells us is required. Last year, the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Jonathan Greenert, said that more like 50 ships are required if we want to do everything the military is being asked to do. We need to address this and at least move from 30 ships toward that goal of 50 that Admiral Greenert suggested.

This year's NDAA would authorize $199 million for an additional American-class amphibious assault ship as well as $80 million in research and development. This sends a powerful message to anyone who would be our adversary. These ships are known as the ``Swiss Army Knives'' of the sea because they are so versatile and because they respond to so many of the threats, including counterterrorism, piracy, combat missions, and humanitarian crises.

We also recognize the need to modernize our submarine fleet. Again, thank you to Senator Hirono, the ranking member, for working with us on this. The Seapower Subcommittee is preparing for the eventual construction of the Ohio-class replacement submarine program. This is an expensive program. It is necessary. It is expensive. We are about the business of providing the necessary funds to mitigate higher costs for the submarine program on our shipbuilding budget.

I am so pleased we addressed these Seapower needs. In addition, we do our best to meet the needs of the National Guard, to support a modern fleet for the Army, for mental health services for our troops and veterans, and the protection for our servicemembers' religious convictions. It is a comprehensive reform bill that ought to have the same sort of bipartisan support we have had for last 50 years.

We need a bill, in conclusion, that takes an honest look at our current challenges and implements necessary reforms. I am pleased to say this bill does so, and I hope we move forward, get past this moment of suiting up in a partisan fashion, and send this bill with an overwhelming vote from the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source