Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the budget conference report before us today charts the wrong course for our country and threatens our economic and national security.

During the consideration of the Republican Senate budget a few weeks ago, I laid out concerns about its most alarming aspects and my reasons for opposing it. My concerns and opposition have not changed because this Republican budget conference report doesn't deviate from the Senate budget's construct.

Indeed, the Republican budget stacks the deck in favor of special interests and makes it harder for middle-class families to get ahead. For example, their budget would eliminate the estate tax, giving the wealthiest 0.2 percent of Americans a $269 billion tax cut over 10 years. It would pave the way to cut millionaire's top marginal tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. At the same time, it would raise taxes on 16 million middle-class families by ending the expansion of the earned income tax credit and child tax credit. These choices by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are clear and stand in stark contrast to policies my Democratic colleagues and I fight for that help middle-class families and grow the economy from the middle out.

The Republican budget would also keep the sequester in place, which puts unworkable caps on nondefense and defense spending. Both sides of the ledger need relief from the sequester for our Nation's economic and national security. But it seems that my colleagues on the other side are only willing to use the overseas contingency operations, OCO, account to provide relief to defense spending despite what we have heard from our military leaders on the need to address both sides of the ledger and that using OCO in this manner has its own serious shortcomings.

The Pentagon simply cannot meet the complex set of national security challenges without the help of other government departments and agencies--including State, Justice, Homeland Security, and the intelligence community. In the Armed Services Committee, we have heard compelling testimony on the essential role of other government agencies in ensuring our Nation remains safe and strong. The Department of Defense's share of the burden would surely grow if these agencies were not adequately funded as well.

Adding funds to OCO does not solve the Defense Department's problems. As Army Chief of Staff General Odierno said, ``OCO has limits and it has restrictions and it has very strict rules that have to be followed. And so if we're inhibited by that, it might not help us. What might happen at the end of the year, we have a bunch of money we hand back because we are not able to spend it.''

Making a 1-year plus up to OCO also does not help the Defense Department with the certainty and stability it needs when building its 5-year budget. As General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified, ``we need to fix the base budget ..... we won't have the certainty we need'' if there is a year by year OCO fix. Defense Secretary Carter added that raising OCO does not allow the Defense Department to plan ``efficiently or strategically.''

While adding funds to OCO would provide some relief to the Defense Department, it is to defense alone, leaving domestic agencies at sequestration levels. And the truth is that the Defense Department cannot do its job without other departments. As General Mattis said, ``If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.'' And in recent testimony, the commanders of Northern Command and Southern Command stated they could not accomplish their mission of protecting this country without the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, DEA, and the intelligence community.

Moving beyond the needs we have to keep the Nation safe, there is a whole list of needs that ensure Americans and our economy stays healthy and thrives. I would like to bring attention to one such need--addressing lead poisoning, a preventable tragedy that dramatically impacts a child's health and ability to learn. This budget would mean cuts to programs that help keep kids healthy like the lead poisoning prevention program. The kinds of physical health issues and developmental delays that stem from lead poisoning have long term effects on our children, our communities, and our economy. Indeed, educational system costs are estimated at $38,000 over 3 years per child with special education needs due to lead poisoning.

The impact is especially pronounced in low-income and minority neighborhoods and populations in cities like Providence or as the Nation has recently seen in the dramatic events unfolding in Baltimore. These lead poisoning prevention programs are the kinds of initiatives that help put disadvantaged communities on an even playing field and, ultimately, work to ensure that our children can grow up to contribute to their families and their communities.

I have mentioned several shortsighed provisions, but this budget is replete with them. We cannot short-change our Nation's investments in the middle class, in our children, and our national security and expect long-term prosperity. That is why I will vote no and urge my colleagues to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source