Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the budget resolution offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This budget charts the wrong path for our Nation. It does not spur economic growth or help the middle class because it does not focus on creating high-quality jobs, boosting wages, or reducing inequality. It fails to address the cuts to government investments, which threatens our Nation's economic and national security. Instead, this budget stacks the deck against middle-class families by slashing government investments. It stacks the deck in favor of special interests by paving the way for huge tax giveaways to powerful special interests and the wealthiest Americans.

In order to claim the budget will balance in 10 years, it relies on accounting gimmicks and $5.8 trillion in draconian cuts. It kicks millions off the health insurance rolls and dismantles health care reform. But, ironically, it takes credit for the savings that are part and parcel of the Affordable Care Act, all the while setting the stage for massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

It would also put powerful special interests ahead of seniors by forcing Medicare recipients to pay more for prescription drugs and preventive care. It does not provide adequate safeguards for Social Security and Medicare. By saying no to closing egregious tax loopholes, it only increases the pressure to cut programs for seniors and others.

You know, frankly, we have been talking for years here in Washington about the deficit. But, this budget proposed by my colleagues has a credibility deficit. So I think most of the observers and commentators are looking and saying: Well, that is impossible. No one is going to believe that you can repeal the Affordable Care Act but keep the savings. No one is going to believe you can do all of those things and still continue to keep a straight face.

So I think the credibility of the budget is highly questionable.

We should have engaged in a balanced approach to growing our economy and towards fiscal responsibility. A balanced approach requires not only making wise reductions in spending, but it also requires raising revenue. That is the way most government entities operate. Mayors and Governors have to do it, and they do it, but here, we are avoiding very difficult, tough choices.

It is obvious there are things that have to be done. They cannot be wished away. Look at our crumbling infrastructure. As I drive around Rhode Island and the Northeast after a series of storms, I see the worst highway situation I think I recall in perhaps my lifetime, but at least in a long time. Potholes and disruptions are all over our roads. Americans expect it will be fixed, but you cannot fix it simply by wishing, you have to have the resources and the investment to make those corrections.

As we go forward, it is important to go ahead and deal with all of these issues in a balanced way--not through creative accounting techniques but by making difficult choices. Programs that are not working should be cut back. Revenue should be provided for investment in this country. That is what I think we should and we must do.

I have been particularly active with my colleague Senator McCain on the Armed Services Committee because the Defense Department is facing serious financial challenges. All of our service sectors have warned that if sequestration remains in place, if the Budget Control Act remains in place, together they will not provide the resources necessary to adequately fund the readiness, the modernization of our forces and the welfare of our forces.

Admiral Gortney, for example, who is the commander of NORTHCOM, has made this point along with everyone else, but he also went further to make the point that I think is critical when we are talking about defense and nondefense spending. You cannot draw this bright line between the Department of Defense and everybody else in terms of our national security. NORTHCOM, which is responsible for our security in the United States, depends upon border control agents at our border. They depend upon the Department of Homeland Security. If that agency is not adequately funded, if they are suffering through sequestration and the BCA levels, then we will not have the kind of national security we need. If it translates to further cuts in TSA agents at our airports, that will undermine our security.

So this notion that we can draw a nice neat line between the Department of Defense and give them some more money through different techniques but ignore the other side of the equation does not work.

One of the most significant examples comes from General John Kelly of Southern Command. They have the capability of, through satellite imagery, through other intelligence means, identifying these fast boats coming out of South America that have drugs and might have human cargo, possibly terrorists. Knowing where they are and where they are headed is fine, but unless you have Coast Guard cutters to intercept them, you will not interdict this traffic. As a result, what we will have is a hole in our national security. The Coast Guard cutters come from the Department of Homeland Security.

So I know there has been an effort to use the Overseas Contingency Operation Fund. Senator Graham, in particular, has been very, very aggressive with that. But I will try to explain later, if not now: There are limitations. This fund is directed at our operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban under the authorization for the use of military force. To try to stretch this to build facilities in Alaska for missile defense--that is quite a stretch. That is not what OCO was designed for.

I think it has become a valiant effort to put more money in, but the reality is, we have to face up, as Senator McCain and I suggested in our letter to the Budget Committee, and raise the baseline number for the Department of Defense to a total--at least to a total that avoids sequestration or beyond. That is a realistic way to do it, and revenue is a way to pay for it. And I don't think the cuts should come out of nondefense to fund defense. This is an issue--again, are you going to shortchange Homeland Security? Are you going to shortchange other agencies that are critical to the defense of the United States? Are you going to shortchange the people of the United States? I do not think we should.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source