U.S. Congress
U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from all members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate as well as the House and Senate leadership and House and Senate committees.
Featured Stories
Washington Rep. Jayapal to Introduce Anti-Corruption & Public Integrity Act
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington, issued the following news release:Today, Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) introduced H.R. 7140, The Anti-Corruption & Public Integrity Act.
This bill is the House companion of Senator Elizabeth Warren's S. 3357.
This comes on the heels of House Democrats, in their new majority, making ethics reforms and fighting corruption a top priority in the 116th Congress.
"I am so pleased that House Democrats are making anti-corruption a top priority, and that Congresswoman Jayapal is helping lead that conversation with these policies ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington, issued the following news release: Today, Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) introduced H.R. 7140, The Anti-Corruption & Public Integrity Act. This bill is the House companion of Senator Elizabeth Warren's S. 3357. This comes on the heels of House Democrats, in their new majority, making ethics reforms and fighting corruption a top priority in the 116th Congress. "I am so pleased that House Democrats are making anti-corruption a top priority, and that Congresswoman Jayapal is helping lead that conversation with these policiesto reign in corruption and strengthen ethics in Washington," said Senator Warren said yesterday in a joint interview with Representative Jayapal. "The time for real change in Washington has come. People are tired of a government that works only for the rich and powerful. They are demanding a government that works for everyone else and that's what this anti-corruption bill is all about."
"There is a desperate need for a comprehensive plan to change how our democracy works. Senator Warren has put together a very comprehensive bill to do just that, because Americans are tired of the rich and powerful running government," said Representative Jayapal. "That's what the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act does. I'm proud and excited to be introducing this bill into the House."
Sen. Toomey Recognizes 110th Regimental Combat Team
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Sen. Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, issued the following statement, which was published in the Congressional Record on Nov. 15, recognizing the 110th Regimental Combat Team:Mr. President, I rise to bring this Chamber's attention to an overlooked part of our Nation's shining legacy during the Battle of the Ardennes in World War II: the heroic actions of the 110th Regimental Combat Team--RCT--28th Infantry Division from December 15- 19, 1944.
As the last major German offensive on the Western Front, the Ardennes campaign was crucial for both sides. With the stakes high, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Sen. Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, issued the following statement, which was published in the Congressional Record on Nov. 15, recognizing the 110th Regimental Combat Team: Mr. President, I rise to bring this Chamber's attention to an overlooked part of our Nation's shining legacy during the Battle of the Ardennes in World War II: the heroic actions of the 110th Regimental Combat Team--RCT--28th Infantry Division from December 15- 19, 1944. As the last major German offensive on the Western Front, the Ardennes campaign was crucial for both sides. With the stakes high,the 110th RCT valiantly rose to the occasion. At a devastating cost, the 110th was instrumental in the American victory. Despite being thinly extended across the American front on the Luxemburg border, the 110th RCT held back and slowed the advance of nearly four reinforced German divisions. The Americans were outnumbered nearly ten to one, and were vastly outgunned in artillery and armor.
As records have shown, it was not the unit's weapons or numbers that kept them fighting at this critical juncture of the war but sheer bravery and strength of character. The U.S. Army Center for Military History wrote in 1965 that, "without the gallant bargain struck by the 110th Infantry and its allied units--men for time--the German plans for a coup-de-main at Bastogne would have turned to accomplished fact. In the last analysis . . . the final measure of success and failure would be in terms of hours and minutes won by the Americans and lost to the enemy."
While the 101st Airborne and 82nd Airborne raced to entrench at Bastogne, their defense of the city would not have been possible without the delaying actions of the 110th RCT. As the soldiers of the 110th RCT dug into the hillsides and small towns of Luxemburg, holding their position at all costs, the weight of the enemy attack proved deadly. By December 19, the 110th RCT made its last stand at Wiltz with just over 500 soldiers. Following the attack that day, the 110th RCT was effectively destroyed as a fighting force, and the few remaining survivors were sent to fill in other units.
The 4 days that the 110th RCT delayed the Germans proved vital, even as Bastogne was surrounded amid heavy fighting. It was not until nearly a week later, on December 26, when units from Patton's army finally started to break the encirclement and offer relief to the units in Bastogne.
History has shown the 110th RCT to be one of the unsung heroes in the opening days of the Battle of the Bulge, and its gallantry has garnered enthusiastic recommendations from senior leaders, commanding generals, and historians. I am pleased to honor and remember these heroes and provide proper recognition to the lineage of the unit, which resides today within the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.
Sen. Lankford Issues Statement on Budget Reform
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, issued the following statement, which was published in the Congressional Record on Nov. 15, on budget reform:Mr. President, earlier this year, Congress created a bipartisan committee--eight Republicans, eight Democrats, half from the House, half from the Senate. Their mission was to reform the budget process. It was an acknowledgement that our debt is climbing, and there is no structure in place to even address that debt, and any time our debt is addressed, it seems to be somewhat haphazard or accidental or some ad hoc committee is formed ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, issued the following statement, which was published in the Congressional Record on Nov. 15, on budget reform: Mr. President, earlier this year, Congress created a bipartisan committee--eight Republicans, eight Democrats, half from the House, half from the Senate. Their mission was to reform the budget process. It was an acknowledgement that our debt is climbing, and there is no structure in place to even address that debt, and any time our debt is addressed, it seems to be somewhat haphazard or accidental or some ad hoc committee is formedto go after debt every 10 years or so. This is spiraling, and we need to have something done, and it needs to be built into the structure.
Starting in April, these 16 Members of Congress started to meet, with these instructions: "to significantly reform the budget and appropriations process"--significantly reform the process. The idea was simple. We are getting a bad budget product; we probably need to look at the budget process and be able to find out what is happening with the process.
You see, this process that we have was started in 1974. Right after Watergate, Congress created this new process with a budget, with a President's budget, with authorizing bills, with appropriating bills, and they would all work together for great transparency. It was a great plan on paper, but since 1974, it has worked only four times--four times.
Year after year, Americans keep saying the same thing: Why isn't the budget working again? Why is everything climbing? And every year, Congress says the same thing: We will fix it next year, next year, next year, next year. At some point, we have to admit it is a bad process, and we are not going to get a better product out of it. We have to fix that process, so we started meeting.
Today, we had our first set of votes on how we are going to significantly reform the budget process. We started meeting at about 10:30 this morning, and after 15 amendments and debate, the hearing was suspended at lunch for a week because a few of the Members wanted to fly home early for Thanksgiving, so now we will have to finish that work next week. It signaled me again that we don't seem to be serious in this body about dealing with debt and deficits, that even the groups selected to reform the process couldn't finish debate without breaking early for Thanksgiving.
So far, the only agreements to do significant reform--remember, that is the mandate; the only agreements that have been set so far have been to do budgets every 2 years rather than every year but still keep reconciliation and appropriations every year, change the membership of the Senate Budget Committee, and then to add a new, optional, bipartisan budget pathway in case some future Congress has lightning strike and they want to be able to try it. Those are the only agreements we have had so far. I don't know if that sounds like significant budget reform to you, but it doesn't to me. That sounds like just shifting things around.
For months we have researched the history of the budget process. We have identified different options that are out there. We have tried to figure out how we have gotten into this unworkable spot of budget deficits that we are in and how to fix it. For months we have worked on this. Then, as we got to this point, suddenly everyone started backing up to the status quo and saying: We will just try harder again.
It will not work just to try harder. The process has to change.
You see, we met with the leadership of the Congressional Budget Office and asked some very blunt questions about our debt and deficit that Americans inherently know the answer to. They can just feel it. We asked for simple, straightforward numbers. The Congressional Budget Office reported back to us that if we want to get back to the historic levels of debt and deficit that we have had for the past 50 years, if we want to get just to that level, we will have to start cutting or taxing $630 billion every year, starting in 2019, just to get back to the historic levels we have been at. If we want to stay just at this level of debt to GDP, just remain in this position that we are in right now of overwhelming debt, we will have to cut or tax an additional $400 billion every single year just to tread water. The reason for that is our interest rates are continuing to go up, and on $21 trillion in total debt right now, as our interest rates tick back up, we will soon be approaching $1 trillion in interest payments each year. That is more than all of our discretionary spending combined.
People ask the question: Why is the debt increasing suddenly? They look at things like the tax bill and ask: Is that the tax bill? No, it is not the tax bill from last year. In fact, after the tax bill from last year and the tax changes that were made for this year, there is actually more revenue coming into the Federal Treasury this year, after the tax changes, than there were last year. Let me run that by you again. Everyone seems to want to blame the tax bill for the increasing debt and deficit. There is more revenue coming into the Treasury this year than last year, even after the tax cuts, because the tax cuts spurred economic activity. More people have jobs, more people are paying taxes, more people are making money, so they are paying additional taxes. So even with the cut, more revenue is coming in. It is not about the tax cut; it is about skyrocketing interest on a $21 trillion debt, and there is nothing we can do about that other than begin to address it seriously.
It has been predictable. CBO has seen it for years, and it is here. The simple mandate of the Budget Reform Committee was to bring out a significant reform in the process so that we can address this together, but so far this has been one of the most frustrating processes that I have had in my short time here in the Senate because most don't want to solve it because the decisions will be hard.
Let me lay out some of the options I think do fix this. What are some of the hard choices? The first thing I have heard over and over again in this budget reform process is that we need to get to a bipartisan process. I agree. Republicans and Democrats alike are going to have to look at the debt and deficit and say: We have to be able to work together. There seem to be all of these different gimmicks for how we are going to try to work together when we are avoiding the one simple way. There is one simple way to make sure we do things in a bipartisan manner; it is called passing the law.
Right now, the budget, as it is done every year, is not law. The Senate writes a budget, the House writes a budget, neither of them are actually passed as law.
The President never signs them. The President creates a budget, the House creates a budget, the Senate creates a budget, and then everyone kind of debates for a year, and then we get to appropriations and fight over appropriations at the end of the year because those are actually law.
Well, here is the simple solution. If you want to avoid government shutdowns, if you want to end all of the end-of-the-year fighting, if you want to make budgeting an actually bipartisan process, there is a simple solution: Make the budget the law. I know that may sound overly simplistic to people who are outside of this Senate body, and many people may think the budget is already a law, but it is not. It is not a law, because without a law, you can create partisan documents and debate it and hash it around for a full year and then go fight at the very end of the year before the government shutdown happens, when there is lots of pressure.
The simple way to resolve this at the beginning is to make the fight about the budget at the beginning of the year--long before there is a discussion of government shutdowns. Make the budget itself a law. Push the House and the Senate and the White House to sit down early in the year--before May 31--resolve how we are going to spend, what we are going to do, what is the plan, what are we going to save, and then pass it as a law. When that happens, then all of the work can happen after that. Then you do all of the appropriations bills. Then you talk about what you are going to save. Then you fight through all the details of it. But you have established the big deal that takes away the fight at the end and moves the fight to the beginning. But, for some reason, most everyone on this committee is fighting with the one simple, obvious answer: Make the budget a law instead of a partisan political document every year. That has not worked.
Let's fight it out early. We are going to have budget fights. We have disagreements in this body. Fine, let's have our disagreements, but let's have them early rather than holding the entire country hostage at the end of the year right as we approach a government shutdown. Let's lay out in the budget debt-to-GDP targets. Then we look at the gross domestic product--that is GDP. What do we produce in total as a country? What is the total amount of debt we can handle as a country?
Let's create a plan and then, throughout the course of the year, actually execute that plan. That is what every family and what every business does. They look at the revenue that is coming in. If they have debt, such as their mortgage or cars, they plan and allot for that. We don't. The budget is a political document, and then we make up spending as we go through the year without a significant plan. Let's make the budget a law, create our debt-to-GDP targets in it, and then execute those throughout the course of the year.
Most Americans have heard something about appropriations bills. They have heard that on some news report or something. The 1921 Budget and Accounting Act requires that we do a certain number of appropriations bills. Right now, 12 bills are required. It breaks up the major parts of government spending into 12 little spots.
Basically, we have 12 different bills set aside for spending. We never have a single bill set aside for saving. Let me run that past my colleagues again. There is no plan for a bill that is set aside for savings. So one of the things I have recommended, in addition to making the budget a law to force everyone to actually have the fight early rather than late, is to add a 13th bill, to do our 12 appropriations bills, and the 13th bill will be a bill that is set aside every session of Congress that is focused on what we are going to save, forcing Congress every session to have to stop and have the debate. How are we going to save money? What are we going to do? Each Congress can decide how much they want to save, but every Congress has to work a little bit on this.
Currently, every time we fight debt--it may be once a decade that we have a big meeting on debt. We are never going to get ahold of $21 trillion trying to fight it once a decade; we are going to have to do it little by little by little and chip it away.
This Congress, just like the last Congress, just like the one before, didn't do significant work on debt reduction because there was no deadline and the work is hard. If I know anything about this Congress from the short time I have been here, it is that it will not do anything until it has to. So if we created in law a requirement that every session of Congress, there has to be this what I call the 13th bill--this bill that is designed to say that Congress has to debate how much they are going to save and where they are going to save--it would at least force that moment where we have to resolve things.
There has been no dialogue so far on how we really reform the debt limit. The debt limit is only an American invention. It was designed to control our spending and control our debt, but I can assure you it has not worked since 78 times we have raised the debt limit. The debt limit has become a debt cliff and a big fight rather than something that actually controls our spending.
If we would put in place something to actually cause Congress to have a vote on debt, I would be glad to deal with the debt limit--it is drama every time--and substitute it for something that is really going to reduce our debt burden. But that is not the discussion. The discussion in the committee is not about trying to actively reduce our debt or to put into a plan a way to reduce our debt; it is just, what can we do to take out the debt ceiling vote entirely because it is tricky. That doesn't help us. That is not significant reform, just removing something because it is tricky. Significant reform on our budget process is when we replace it with something that is effective.
Every year, the President of the United States since 1921 has submitted something called the President's budget. Millions of dollars are spent compiling this big, giant document that no one reads. It becomes a big political document. Every single President has put one out every year since 1921, and not a single one of them has ever passed--not one--but lots of time and attention is spent on the "President's budget".
There is a simpler way to do this. Have the President turn over their priorities, turn over the agency issues that they see on spending. It is perfectly acceptable for the President to do that. But don't create this big pomp-and-circumstance, expensive process of having this giant President's budget that really means nothing.
How about shifting our budgeting and our whole process to the calendar year rather than the fiscal year? Many Americans don't know that Congress runs from October 1 until September 30. Guess what. It is the middle of November right now. Our appropriations are not done for this year. They are not done for last year. We have carried them over on something called a continuing resolution--what we hear people refer to as a CR--just like was done the year before, just like was done the year before, and just like was done the year before.
Congress actually functions on the calendar year, but we pretend to function on a fiscal year. That just guarantees that every October, November, and December, we have budget chaos as we try to figure out how to run the system. How about this for a simple solution: Why don't we actually run it on a calendar year, because that is how we actually do it, including this year. That would mean we would actually plan and structure for that. That is significant budget reform. But currently the conversation in the budget reform committee is, no, we will try it again next year, and we will see if we can make September 30 work. It won't, by the way, but no one wants to actually make the shift.
There has been a lot of debate about something called reconciliation. Reconciliation is a process that is intensely broken. It was designed by the Budget Act to be something to really focus on debt and deficit, but it has become a fight with our Parliamentarian and with each other about how to stick in something that is not debt and deficit related.
Why don't we simplify the language? Why don't we clean up the reconciliation process? Why don't we make it what it was designed to be and make sure it is clear so that reconciliation is used by every Congress to deal with debt and deficit? It is a doable task. We have laid out multiple different proposals for how to do that. So far, they have all been turned down.
We have to figure out a way to get better numbers. If we can't get better numbers, we are not going to get better results. We have to get real numbers from the Congressional Budget Office and from Joint Tax. We have to allow Joint Tax and other groups to do dynamic scoring so we get a predictive way to look at the spending and the tax and see what happens.
We have to have real consequences if Congress doesn't do a budget. Americans know if Congress doesn't do a budget, they just leave town and say: We didn't get it done this year. How about this for a simple idea that would be effective even today, if we were doing it. There is a set deadline in statute, in law, when the budget has to be completed, when the appropriations bills have to be completed, and when they have to be signed. If those milestones or deadlines are not hit, Congress cannot adjourn, cannot leave town. I don't care if Thanksgiving is approaching--you set a deadline, and if it is not completed by that deadline, Congress has to be in session every day, including weekends, until it is done. That is a simple solution.
If Congress is in session every single day, at some point, they will say: I want to go home and see my family, so we need to get this resolved. I would agree. There is not a pressure point better than forcing Congress to stay in town and stay in session until the work is done. We will see if that is actually added to the proposal, but so far, that is trending away from just saying to Congress in the future and now, no, we will try to get that done, but I am not sure we really will.
If we want to end government shutdowns, then keep Congress in session. If we want to end long continuing resolutions, keep Congress in session until it is done. It is a pretty straightforward process. It would benefit our economy. It would benefit this Congress.
Even simple things--it is fascinating to me. There is an internal process called vote-arama. It is awful. If you are ever here in the Senate watching it or around it, it is terrible. It is around the budget process, and it is an endless debate/vote, but none of the votes actually count. They are all messaging votes. They don't actually do anything. But anyone can bring up anything at any time, and we go through this endless series of messaging votes, trying to make each other look bad politically. It is a terrible process.
It is fixable. In fact, we brought up an amendment today in the process--one of those 15 amendments that were debated before people left early for Thanksgiving--we brought up an amendment today to fix the vote-arama, and it failed because folks on the other side wanted to have messaging votes just in case it came up.
In the last vote-arama that happened--an all-night, perpetual, meaningless vote series--the last vote in the vote-arama was a messaging vote: Should we end vote-aramas or not? It passed unanimously. Everyone in this Chamber says they hate it, but when there was a real option to get rid of it, they kept it because the status quo is easier than change.
Significant budget reform was the mandate. That has not happened so far--not even small budget reform has happened so far. We will come back after Thanksgiving. We will have another series of amendments. We have an opportunity to get this right and to fix a very broken process. I will pray that over Thanksgiving, Members of this body and of the House determine that $21 trillion worth of debt needs significant reform, not just tweaks around the edges, and that when we come back after Thanksgiving, people will actually approach this seriously instead of the flippant way it has been approached so far. We have to get this done. I commend us to get it done.
I yield the floor.
Sen. Kyl Issues Statement on National Defense Strategy Commission Report
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, issued the following statement, which was published in the Congressional Record on Nov. 15, on the National Defense Strategy Commission report:Madam President, yesterday the National Defense Strategy Commission released its report after about a year of study for the defense needs of the United States and our future requirements for defense strategy and funding of that strategy. I had the honor of serving on that commission during the time that preceded my current presence in the U.S. Senate.
The Commission was appointed by the chairmen and ranking ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, issued the following statement, which was published in the Congressional Record on Nov. 15, on the National Defense Strategy Commission report: Madam President, yesterday the National Defense Strategy Commission released its report after about a year of study for the defense needs of the United States and our future requirements for defense strategy and funding of that strategy. I had the honor of serving on that commission during the time that preceded my current presence in the U.S. Senate. The Commission was appointed by the chairmen and rankingmembers of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee. There were six appointed from each of the two bodies, so a total of 12, and it was a division equally between Republicans and Democrats. I was privileged to have been appointed by my predecessor, Senator John McCain.
The commission is chaired by Ambassador Eric Edelman and Admiral Gary Roughead, Retired, and it included defense experts who had served in Congress, who had served in the intelligence community, the diplomatic community, and the military. There was one former political person-- myself. As I said, we were tasked with the job of studying our National Defense Strategy and providing recommendations to the Secretary of Defense and to the Congress about our future courses of action.
The Commission worked very hard to review all of the pertinent information related to the formation of the Trump administration National Defense Strategy, which had been issued earlier in the year. This effort included examining the assumptions, the missions, the force posture, the structure, as well as strategic and military risks associated with the execution of that National Defense Strategy.
The Commission particularly focused on threats to the United States and the size and shape of the force required to deter and, if necessary, defeat these threats. It focused on the readiness of our force, the posture and capabilities of the force, and the allocation of resources. It also examined the strategic and military risks that informed the development of both the National Defense Strategy and the National Security Strategy.
This Commission has demonstrated that, even in Washington, DC, it is possible to get a genuinely bipartisan consensus on something--in this case, our consensus on United States' national security. We agreed that, for example, budget-driven strategies that assume too much risk will cost us more in the long run than properly funded strategies based on the realistic assessment of the current strategic environment. That is kind of a long way of saying that what this bipartisan commission concluded, on a consensus basis--no dissenting views at all--was that we risk more by proceeding with the rebuilding of our military constrained by budget requirements than if we were to increase the budget for defense spending and eliminate the impediments to sensible acquisition, such as the continuing resolution and the sequestration requirements that Congress has been engaged in over the past several years.
What this Commission said, in stark headlines, is that the United States faces a national emergency. It concluded, in very stark terms, that we might lose a war with China or Russia, and that the only way to avoid this is to adequately fund the strategy that the Secretary of Defense has set out. His prioritization, the Commission concluded, is exactly right: We have to change from focusing solely or primarily on fighting a war in the Middle East or conflicts with terrorists, and instead change to focusing on the threats that are posed by potential adversaries--Russia and China. If we have the capability of dealing with those threats by deterring them or, if necessary, defeating them, then we should also have the ability to deal with terrorism, to deal with North Korea and deal with Iran, but our first priority needs to be to focus on China and on Russia.
The NDS Commission report argues:
The U.S. military could suffer unacceptably high casualties and loss of major capital assets in its next conflict. It might struggle to win, or perhaps lose a war against China or Russia. The United States is particularly at risk of being overwhelmed should its military forces be required to fight on two or more fronts simultaneously.
Some might oppose such strong wording, but the Commission believed we had to be able to talk honestly about the state of our military preparedness and our national security.
As Ambassador Edelman, Chairman of the Commission, stated, "It is probably more dangerous to tell ourselves and other people that we're going to be able to do these things when, in fact, we aren't able to do them because we're not paying for them."
The object of a strong military is to deter conflict from ever occurring. You do that by demonstrating you are able to prevail in a conflict if necessary. You have to have the capability of defeating any adversary you might face. If you have that capability, those adversaries are less likely to miscalculate, to assume they might be able to advance their parochial interests without a pushback from the United States, NATO, or our other allies, and they come to this belief if they examine their capabilities against ours and determine we are lacking in the ability to stop them.
What this report says is that we have to get serious about rebuilding our military, or we run the risk of bad actors in the world deciding they can take a chance that we will not respond.
Let me summarize what this report says. Again, I can't emphasize this too much. I know it is Washington, DC. I know we are talking about difficult issues here, but these 12 Democrats and Republicans, equally divided, reached a conclusion, a consensus, about what we need to do, and we are willing to speak very strongly about it. It is possible for Democrats and Republicans to get together on something in this city, and I am hoping my colleagues in the House and in the Senate will approach the issues in the same bipartisan spirit that characterized the deliberations of the Commission.
Here is the summary:
First, we are in a state of national emergency. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the United States is at risk of losing a war against these peer competitors--that is a euphemism for China and Russia.
Second, there is a bipartisan consensus that Congress must provide predictable and sufficient funding for the Department of Defense to execute the strategy it has developed--the National Defense Strategy. This means Congress must undo sequestration, which is the provision in law that says that if we don't meet certain budget requirements, all Departments of the government, including the Department of Defense, have to cut right off the top an equal percentage of funding in order to get back to those budget levels. For the Defense Department, it is impossible to both provide for our national security and comply with that requirement, so sequestration has to end.
We have to return to the regular order of appropriating funding for the Department of Defense on an annual basis at the beginning of each fiscal year so the Pentagon can do the planning necessary and the people who provide the weaponry and other products to the Defense Department can plan adequately for the development and production of these items on a sensible basis, on a basis that enables them to calculate in the future how much money they will have over the period of time they need. We can't do that if, instead, we continue to operate on what are called continuing resolutions, where Congress throws up its hands sometime in the late summer and says: We are never going to agree on how much to fund the various Departments of government, including the Department of Defense. Let's just agree to continue to do the same amount of spending we did last year on the same things.
Think about that in your family budget. Each year, instead of trying to figure out what you are going to need this year--and it is going to be a little different from last year--you say: We will just spend the same amount we spent last year on the same things. It is a very illogical way and it is a very detrimental way for us to provide for our national defense.
The third thing the Commission recommended is that we have to increase the top line or the total amount of money spent on defense over the next several years if we are going to truly rebuild our military. Last year, a deal was struck in which we agreed to a 2-year funding for the Department of Defense that staunched the flow of blood from the inadequate funding of years previous. All it did was to temporarily provide funds, primarily to increase our readiness. It did not provide enough to rebuild our military. It provided enough to start the journey, which may take us 15 or 20 years, but that is how long, with increased funding, it will take to do the job.
We concluded that we ignore the issues at our peril, that today our adversaries undermine U.S. goals on a daily basis and that continued neglect of our defense capabilities puts our Nation at risk.
What are the specific conclusions? This report reports that America's military superiority has "eroded to a dangerous degree" and that the United States is in a "crisis of national security." It says that "the United States is particularly at risk of being overwhelmed should its military be forced to fight on two or more fronts simultaneously."
In other words, we are in a state of national emergency, and this country is at risk of actually being defeated by Russia or China should we find ourselves in conflict with them. Nobody is predicting a war today or even tomorrow, but we have seen the nationalistic designs that China has in its region of the world, and we have seen repeated efforts by Vladimir Putin's Russia to advance its sphere of influence, particularly in Eastern Europe--the taking of Crimea, the invasion of Ukraine, the shooting down of a civilian airliner, the use of chemical agents--prohibited by treaties, by the way--on foreign soil to deal with people with whom it disagrees. Somebody has likened Vladimir Putin to the burglar in a hotel who walks down the hallway pushing on each door until he finds one that is not locked so he can go in and burglarize. He is an opportunist who takes advantage of weakness. The last thing we want to do is to suggest to him that we would not or could not respond to actions he takes. In other words, to prevent him from miscalculating, we have to deter conduct that could lead to conflict.
The way the Russian military doctrine works these days is, it starts with a hybrid war. It is not a fighting war to begin with. It is done through cyber attacks, through propaganda, through actions that perhaps utilize contractors rather than the Russian military to go into another country so that they have plausible deniability until they have achieved their initial goals and then have the Russian military move into the area and even potentially, according to Russian doctrine, use nuclear weapons. They would do this on a tactical basis to do what they call escalate to deescalate--in other words, to suggest to NATO, the United States, and other allies that our responding to that attack could lead to a nuclear conflagration.
The Russians have the tactical weapons. They have 10 times more than we do, so they can use them on a battlefield and then say: Look, we have taken the territory we want to take. We are done for now, and you just need to leave us alone rather than getting involved in this conflict.
That is the kind of way we could be drawn into a conflict even though there is not a big army attack or air attack to begin such a conflict. It is the escalation ladder where tactical nuclear weapons might be used, and then it is up to the United States to decide what to do next.
This is the kind of thing in which miscalculation can occur. The United States has to persuade countries like Russia and China that they shouldn't begin the process of calculating whether they could defeat us with the assumption that we wouldn't or couldn't respond. That is what deterrence is all about. Nobody wants war, but you prevent war by demonstrating to the aggressor that it is not worth it for that aggressor to start the conflict, that he is going to lose more than he can potentially gain.
We don't get to define whether we have adequate deterrence; that is defined by our potential adversary. What do they think we can do? In the past several years, both the Chinese and Russians have gone to school on the United States and the way we conduct our military activities, for example, in the Middle East, in Afghanistan. They understand our strengths and weaknesses. They have been spending a lot of money on research and development and readiness and weapon acquisition and doctrine to take advantage of our weaknesses in an asymmetrical way in order to defeat us if there should ever be a conflict between us.
The Chinese have put a lot, for example, into their space-based capabilities, trying to knock the United States out of space so that our satellites can't tell our weapons where to fire or tell our troops how to get where they need to go.
The Russians are very good in cyber activity. They would like to be able to deny us the ability to communicate with each other and to do the other things we rely upon through cyber space. They have developed very capable modern technology and weaponry that in some cases is much better than ours. They have the ability to deny us access to battlefields through their long-range air defenses, for example. The United States no longer has superiority in all military fields. We can expect not to have air superiority, for example, in a conflict with Russia.
These are problems that have to be remedied, and they can't be remedied overnight. What our Commission concluded is that we have to recognize the potential threat. The reason our adversaries have developed the kinds of weapons and doctrine they have is because they want to be prepared in the event of conflict between us. We are not going to start a conflict, but we want to make sure they don't miscalculate and start one, and that starts with having a military that they understand is sufficient to defeat them. That is what real deterrence is all about.
This report should not be understood as a criticism of the Secretary of Defense or of the Defense Department. It is true that we say there are areas that need improvement, but Secretary Mattis knows as well as anyone what the nature of this threat is. He is able to say "I will make do with what the Congress gives us," but I don't think he is able to say "I know in my heart that will be sufficient." In fact, earlier this year, he warned us that "our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare--air, land, sea, space, and cyber. The combination of rapidly changing technology, the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuous period of combat in our Nation's history, and a prolonged period of unpredictable and insufficient funding, created an overstretched and under-resourced military." He has recognized the problem.
I think it is up to the Congress to respond to his recognition of the problem and to the report of this bipartisan Commission. We have all heard plenty about the results of this underfunding. We have seen aircraft that aren't able to fly or they crash. We have seen Navy ships that collide with each other and other kinds of catastrophes that have befallen our military. Today, our military is the smallest it has been since 1940, since before World War II. We face munition shortages. We obviously need to refresh our wornout troops and equipment. There are urgent requirements to modernize our nuclear deterrent--the deterrent that says to the Russians or the Chinese, for example, and in the future North Korea and perhaps Iran: Don't even think about a nuclear conflict with us. We have the ability to destroy you. We are in the process of modernizing that, and it is going to take a long time and a lot of money to do that.
Defense spending is near historic lows. We think that because last year we made a deal to slightly increase it for a 2-year period of time that we solved the problem. That is not true. As a share of the Federal budget and the national economy, we are spending at near historic lows on defense. We now have enough evidence to know that mindless spending cuts, as would be required by sequestration, for example, don't make the Department of Defense more efficient. There are always savings to be had in the Department of Defense, but that is not the way to achieve them. In fact, informing the larger drivers of the Pentagon's budget would actually require legislative changes that the Congress has been unwilling to make. So let's put the burden where it lies, and that is on Congress, to fix a lot of these problems.
Between the fiscal years 2012 and 2019, the Department of Defense will have sustained $539 billion in cuts over the budget plan proposed by Secretary Gates in the year 2010. So Secretary Gates said: Here is our 20-year plan, and we are almost half way through that plan, and we have already suffered almost half a trillion dollars in cuts over what he said we would need. If defense spending continues at the planned rate through 2021, it will take another 19 years to reverse all of the Budget Act cuts that occurred as a result of sequestration. Obviously, we have work to do.
I have talked about the threat. Let me just mention a couple of other points that we made in the report. We commented on the Defense Department's national security report--the National Defense Strategy, which was published in 2017--and it actually helped to make this case for us. It argued that we face "an extraordinarily dangerous world," and that threats "have intensified in recent years." We face a world where "China and Russia challenge American power," where "the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions," and where transnational threat groups "are actively trying to harm Americans."
So when I speak to China and Russia, I don't mean to demean the threats posed by other actors like North Korea and Iran or the terrorists who continue to threaten us. I am simply noting the most serious threat should conflict arise. This focus on China and Russia, I think, is prudent because both countries, as I said, have extensively modernized their forces, including their nuclear weapons arsenals, and they have routinely taken actions that threaten, coerce, and intimidate others in the region.
For the last 17 years most of our forces have been organized, manned, trained, and equipped to fight smaller scale wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think in the meantime some of our planners have forgotten how to plan and operationalize large-scale military conflicts. This we have to relearn while we still have time.
Our adversaries are not waiting, as I said. They don't face similar fiscal constraints as we do. I was asked the other evening: Well, isn't it true that we spend a lot more in our military than Russia and China do? The answer is that this isn't even an apples-and-oranges comparison. We are honest about our budget and transparent. We put out in the public what our intelligence community topline budget is. The Russians and Chinese don't do that. They hide as much as they can. They don't pay their forces the way we do, and 70 percent of our defense budget is for our forces--our manpower--in the pay and benefits and healthcare they need. We don't have the combined industrial base with the military that the Chinese do, for example, and that the Russians do. What we spend is all out there. They can hide a lot of their spending in the activities of their industrial companies that are doing the work of the Chinese army, for example. So that is not a valid comparison.
I will just conclude this way. I was in the Congress for 26 years. I served on the House Armed Services Committee. I came to the Senate and served on numerous commissions and task forces--in the Intelligence Committee, for example, for 8 years, which looked into the threats that we face and what we need to do about those threats. I led efforts dealing with our strategic deterrent, our nuclear modernization effort, and I was sobered by the evidence that we received as a member of the National Defense Strategy Commission. I was taken aback. I had not been in the Senate for 5 years. I hadn't had the advantage of classified briefings on the status of our adversaries' efforts and our own, and I was shocked at the degree to which we have lost the advantage that we used to have. I shared the concerns with my colleagues that this could lead potential adversaries to miscalculate, to think that they could make moves that wouldn't be resisted by the United States because we don't have the capability any more to do that. That has to change if we are to avoid war.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues in the days and weeks to come to review this Commission report, to think about it in terms of a consensus document between Republicans and Democrats, who unanimously agreed that it was critical to tell the American people the truth--that we have a severe crisis in this country--and to recognize that we, the Congress--the House and the Senate--have the first obligation to do something about this by setting the policy through our National Defense Authorization Acts and then funding those policies adequately through a series of eliminating sequestration, funding through the regular order appropriation process, rather than continuing resolutions, and increasing the topline budget for the military enough to make up the gap that we discuss in this report here.
That effort will begin with an administration in the development of its budget, which is underway right now and will be submitted to the Congress in the early spring. I urge the administration, as well, to recognize that its leadership in this effort will have a lot to do with the success of Congress stepping up to do its job to fund that budget adequately.
So to my colleagues who are concerned about our national security-- and who isn't--and to those who said during the last campaign that we want to work across the aisle to solve problems that confront the American people, well, I can't think of a more serious problem than this. This is a great opportunity to roll up our sleeves and work together. I pledge to work with my colleagues to do exactly that and commend to them this report of the National Defense Strategy Commission to review during the Thanksgiving break we are going to have here and to come back ready to do work.
Rep. Wittman Recognizes Service of NCIS Deputy Assistant Director Haskett
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Rep. Robert J. Wittman, R-Virginia, issued the following speech, which was published in the Congressional Record on Nov. 16, recognizing the service of Mark Haskett, deputy assistant director at the Naval Criminal Investigative Service:Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the service of Deputy Assistant Director Mark Haskett on the occasion of his retirement from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. Deputy Assistant Director Haskett has honored our country with 42 years of professional service, first as a United States Marine, and then as a member of the Naval ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Rep. Robert J. Wittman, R-Virginia, issued the following speech, which was published in the Congressional Record on Nov. 16, recognizing the service of Mark Haskett, deputy assistant director at the Naval Criminal Investigative Service: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the service of Deputy Assistant Director Mark Haskett on the occasion of his retirement from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. Deputy Assistant Director Haskett has honored our country with 42 years of professional service, first as a United States Marine, and then as a member of the NavalCriminal Investigative Service, reflecting his enduring commitment to the wellbeing of our nation.
Before his career in public service began, Mr. Haskett grew up in the small town of Union, Michigan and graduated from Constantine High School in 1972.
After five years of education and work experience, Mr. Haskett enlisted in the Marine Corps, reporting to Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego on August 1, 1977. He served as a field wireman at Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, attaining the rank of sergeant before his selection for the Enlisted Commissioning Program.
On July 1, 1979, Mr. Haskett was commissioned a second lieutenant, and assigned the military occupation specialty of Combat Engineer Officer. Ultimately reaching the rank of lieutenant colonel, Mr. Haskett held many posts over his 27-year Marine Corps career from Deputy Camp Commander at Camp Schwab in Okinawa, Japan, to Director of Installations and Logistics for the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Barstow, California.
During his Headquarters Marine Corps tour, he demonstrated his capability, proving instrumental in fielding the Assault Breacher Vehicle which saw combat service.
In 2004, Mr. Haskett retired from the Marine Corps and was hired by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. In his service as Deputy Assistant Director, he administered internal security programs and provided facility and support for special agents and professional staff operating from nearly two hundred facilities.
Mr. Haskett proved his determination and leadership as an instrumental NCIS principal involved in the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure decision to move the Agency's headquarters from the Washington Navy Yard to Marine Corps Base Quantico in Stafford County, Virginia in order to collocate it with four other defense investigative partner agencies.
The 719,000 square foot Russell-Knox Building was designed and built for this purpose, and the collocation took place during the summer of 2011.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in recognizing Deputy Assistant Director Mark Haskett's lifetime of accomplishment and dedication. An admirable example of leadership and service, and a proud and outstanding member of our community, may God bless Mr. Haskett and his family as they begin a new chapter in life. On behalf of America's First District, we say thank you.
Rep. Raskin Recognizes Pulmonary Hypertension Awareness Month
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, issued the following speech, which was published in the Congressional Record on Nov. 16, recognizing Pulmonary Hypertension Awareness Month:Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Pulmonary Hypertension (PH) Awareness Month and the outstanding work of the Pulmonary Hypertension Association in the fight against this rare and debilitating disease.
PH is a type of high blood pressure that occurs in the arteries of the lungs. It reflects the pressure the heart must apply to pump blood from the heart through the arteries of the lungs. As with ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, issued the following speech, which was published in the Congressional Record on Nov. 16, recognizing Pulmonary Hypertension Awareness Month: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Pulmonary Hypertension (PH) Awareness Month and the outstanding work of the Pulmonary Hypertension Association in the fight against this rare and debilitating disease. PH is a type of high blood pressure that occurs in the arteries of the lungs. It reflects the pressure the heart must apply to pump blood from the heart through the arteries of the lungs. As witha tangled hose, pressure builds up and backs up, forcing the heart to work harder and less oxygen to reach the body. PH symptoms generally include fatigue, dizziness, and shortness of breath with the severity of the disease correlating with its progression. If left undiagnosed or untreated it can lead to heat failure and death.
When individuals are diagnosed with PH quickly and begin appropriate therapy, their prognosis and life-expectancy improve dramatically. However, it currently takes an average of 2.5 years to receive a diagnosis and three quarters of patients have severe PH when they are finally diagnosed. Without treatment, historical studies have shown a mean survival time of 2.8 years after diagnosis for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Patients with advanced PH cannot benefit as greatly from available therapies and often face dramatic and costly medical interventions, including 24-hour IV infused medication, increased risk for hospitalization and in some cases heart-lung transplantation.
I am proud to represent the Pulmonary Hypertension Association, which is headquartered in my district in Silver Spring, Maryland. The Association is dedicated to extending and improving the life of those affected by PH and was the first organization in the world dedicated to providing comprehensive PH patient and caregiver support, medical education, specialty care services that improve patients' quality of life, and research funding. Thanks in large part to the Pulmonary Hypertension Association's advocacy for continued investment in medical research and sustained scientific progress, there are 14 Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted treatment options for two forms of PH. Additionally, their efforts to establish a PH Program at the CDC focusing on education, awareness, and epidemiology activities that promote early and accurate diagnosis and quality care for PH are to be commended.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in recognizing November as Pulmonary Hypertension Awareness Month and to continue supporting federal activities that improve the lives of those with PH, including research programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Rep. Messer Honors Henry County Republican Party Chairman Hiday
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Rep. Luke Messer, R-Indiana, issued the following speech, which was published in the Congressional Record on Nov. 15, honoring Todd Hiday, chairman of the Henry County Republican Party:Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of the entire 6th Congressional District of Indiana, to recognize Todd Hiday for his contribution to our state and Henry County.
Todd has served two stints as the County Chairman in Henry County. His leadership and vision have helped advance Republican principles and make the County a better place. He is also someone I could count on for honest and candid ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 -- Rep. Luke Messer, R-Indiana, issued the following speech, which was published in the Congressional Record on Nov. 15, honoring Todd Hiday, chairman of the Henry County Republican Party: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on behalf of the entire 6th Congressional District of Indiana, to recognize Todd Hiday for his contribution to our state and Henry County. Todd has served two stints as the County Chairman in Henry County. His leadership and vision have helped advance Republican principles and make the County a better place. He is also someone I could count on for honest and candidadvice. Our state is better off today because of Todd's extraordinary leadership and service.
On a personal note, Todd was among my earliest and most vocal supporters. He is a loyal friend and wise adviser. I want to thank him for his friendship and support of my work in Congress and wish him continued success in all that God has planned for him and his family.