Defense Appropriations Bill

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senate held another vote on moving to the Defense appropriations bill. This bill was reported from committee by a 30 to nothing vote, and it shows what can be accomplished if we work in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, the Senate majority has taken a turn away from bipartisanship since the bill was drafted.

I will speak more about my concerns with this move toward division and divisiveness in a moment. But first let me commend the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, for his leadership in producing this bill. He has been open to my proposals, and has also made a courageous stand against attempting to relitigate the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.

Among the highlights of the bill include investments that strengthen our technology advantage, restore the readiness of the Armed Forces, and stabilize our defense industrial base.

Most importantly, this bill makes a strong statement in favor of defense medical research. It adds $915 million in addition to the budget request for investigations into new drugs and therapies that could lead to breakthroughs in the treatment of diseases ranging from breast cancer, traumatic brain injury, Alzheimer's, prosthetics, and many other fields. This is an increase of 5 percent real growth compared to last year's bill.

The funding in this bill is small compared to the investments at the National Institutes of Health, but the results of defense medical research have touched the lives of countless numbers of servicemembers, their families, and have even spread into the civilian medical community. This funding makes a big impact in people's lives, and I am proud that our commitment to this research continues to grow each year.

The bill also recognizes the threat posed by ISIS. It fully funds the overseas contingency operations account to provide what our servicemembers need in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in harm's way.

In this way, we disagree strongly with our House counterparts. The House bill provides only a portion of the funds necessary. We believe on a bipartisan basis that there should be no arbitrary cut-off date of funding for this Nation's fight against terrorism.

The U.S. and our allies are working to defeat ISIS on the ground in Iraq and Syria, and dismantle their international terror network. There is real progress on the ground. The President has built a coalition of 66 nations to fight ISIS. The terrorist group has almost half its territory in Iraq, and 20 percent of its territory in Syria. It has lost access to key sources of funds for its activities. The U.S. and its allies have killed tens of thousands of their fighters, as well as over 100 ISIS leaders.

This bill provides $43.3 billion for DOD to fight Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, including $1.78 billion to continue this progress against ISIS by building the capacity of allies in Iraq, Syria, and the broader region.

We also must continue to prevent terrorism here at home through stronger homeland defenses and work with our allies to strengthen theirs--intelligence sharing and all the rest.

We have to have the entire Federal Government in this fight, from the Department of Homeland Security to the FBI, from the State Department to the Treasury Department. It cannot be DOD's fight alone.

People may be asking, since the Defense appropriations bill was approved by a committee vote of 30 to zero in May, why isn't the bill receiving a similar bipartisan vote in July? To find the answer, one need look no further than how the Republican majority has handled funding to combat the Zika virus.

On May 19, the Senate voted overwhelmingly, 68-30, to pass a $1.1 billion package to respond to the threat of Zika. But in conference, a deal was cut without Democrats at the table that completely undermined the compromise proposal that was supported by the Senate.

There are only two explanations for how a bipartisan deal turned out so badly: maybe the negotiators on behalf of the Senate majority did not do a good job of representing the Senate's position. Or this was a case of legislative rope-a-dope, in which there was never an intention to follow through on a bipartisan compromise.

That brings us to the Defense appropriations bill. After the Senate caved once to unreasonable House proposals on the Zika bill, Democrats have sought assurances that we will have fair outcomes to negotiating other appropriations bills.

That simply means that Democrats should be at the table for conference negotiations, that these budget bills will have fair spending levels, and we avoid poison pills inserted by the House, such as cutting off funding for the fight against ISIL after just 6 months.

Sadly, the Republican majority has bristled at the idea of giving assurances that the fair process used in the Appropriations Committee to produce these budget bills will be allowed to continue.

Last year, when Republicans produced one-sided appropriations bills, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter called these ploys a ``road to nowhere.''

Absent a commitment by the Republican leadership to continue in a spirit of bipartisanship and compromise, it seems they have chosen once again to walk down that same road that leads to gridlock and stalemate.

It is disappointing and disheartening that an appropriations process that began on such a good note has taken a turn for the worse.

The Defense appropriations bill is a good bill. Democrats are simply seeking assurances from the Republican Leadership that the same spirt of compromise and bipartisanship that helped draft the bill will be restored after faith was broken with a one-sided, divisive approach to responding to the Zika virus.

I regret that the Republican leadership cannot give those assurances and therefore are putting an end to appropriations work this summer.

It is my sincere hope that, after the election, both Democrats and Republicans can return to working in good faith to produce a budget bill that includes this very good defense bill, as well as the 11 other appropriations bills that need to be passed before the year is done.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source