National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we will have a vote around 11:30 a.m. on my amendment that would increase funding under OCO to address the consequences of an $18 billion shortfall from last year. All the reports we hear from the military are that sequestration is killing them. The mismatch of what we are now seeing in the world as compared with a continued $150 billion less than fiscal year 2011 is putting the lives of the men and women who are serving this Nation in danger.
I am told there will be a lot of people who will vote against this increase to bring it up just to last year's number--an increase of $18 billion. I say to my colleagues: If you vote no on this amendment, the consequences will be on your conscience. If you ask any leader in uniform today, they will tell you that the lives of the men and women who are serving this Nation in uniform are at risk. I think we have a greater obligation, and that is the men and women who are serving in the military.
The Chief of Staff of the United States Army said: We are putting the lives of the men and women serving in uniform at greater risk. That didn't come from John McCain or Lindsey Graham. Talk to any military leader in uniform, and they will tell you that sequestration is killing them. Planes can't fly; parts of the military can't train and equip. Only two of our brigade combat teams are fully ready to fight. Look at the world in 2011 when we started this idiotic sequestration and look at the world today.
My colleague serves on the Armed Services Committee and spent about 33 years as a member of the United States military and has been a regular visitor to Kabul and Baghdad. I think he understands that what we are doing with sequestration and voting against this amendment, in my view, is putting the lives of the men and women who are serving in danger. Have no doubt about it. There will be further attacks in Europe, and there will be further attacks in the United States of America. We won't be ready, and the responsibility for it will be on those who vote no on this amendment.
I recognize my colleague.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. May I ask my colleague whether he is aware that, at a hearing, General Milley, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, testified that the Army risked not having ready forces available to provide flexible options to our national leadership and, most importantly, risked incurring significantly increased U.S. casualties.
I say to my colleagues who are going to vote against this, you are taking on a heavy burden of responsibility of incurring significantly increased U.S. casualties in case of an emergency. The military is not ready. We are at $100 billion less than we were in 2011 when sequestration began, and the world has changed dramatically.
I can't tell you my disappointment to hear that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee--I don't know if my colleague knows this--said he is going to vote against it, using some rationale that they are increasing it by some $7 billion. That is insane. That is not only insane, it is irresponsible, and most importantly, it is out of touch. I say to my colleague and the chairman of the subcommittee, you are out of touch with what is going on in the world and in the U.S. military. You better get in touch.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCAIN. I also point out to my colleague that, as a sign of priorities around this place, yesterday we had a vote on medical research--nearly $1 billion that had nothing to do with the military but was a place where the Willy Sutton syndrome took place, and it was a 5-percent increase. The appropriators could increase by 5 percent medical research which has nothing to do with the military, but they won't add money that the military could use to defend this Nation. There is no greater example of the priorities around this place.
I see my colleagues are waiting. I just want to point out what voting no means.
Voting no would be a vote in favor of another year where the pay for our troops doesn't keep pace with inflation or private sector advocates. For the fourth year in a row, the military will receive less of a pay raise than the rate of inflation. If you vote no, that is what you are doing.
If you vote no, it would be a vote in favor of cutting more soldiers and more U.S. marines at a time when the operational requirements for our Nation's land forces for the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Asia are growing. Every time you turn around, you will see that there are more troops deployed in more places, whether it be Iraq, Syria, Libya, the European Reassurance Initiative. Every time you turn around, there is more deployment--more deployments in the Far East and the Asian- Pacific regions. Every time you turn around, there are more obligations that we ask of the military, albeit incrementally. Yet we are going to cut the funding while we increase the commitments we have. So you would be voting in favor of cutting more soldiers and marines at a time when the operational requirements of our Nation's land forces are growing.
Voting no would be a vote in favor of continuing to shrink the number of aircraft that are available to the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps at a time when they are already too small to perform their current missions and are being forced to cannibalize.
We have people who are having to go to the boneyard in Tucson, AZ, and take parts from planes that haven't been operational for years. That is how bad the system has become thanks to sequestration. Our maintainers--these incredible enlisted people--are working 16 to 18 hours a day trying to keep these planes in the air.
When an Air Force squadron came back, of their 20 airplanes, 6 were flyable.
There was a piece on FOX News the other day about how, down in Beaufort, SC, the F-18 squadron--they are having to have a plane in the hangar that they can take parts from so that they can keep other planes flying. They are exhausted. They are exhausted, these young marines. And by the way, don't think they are going to stay in when they are subjected to this kind of work environment.
Voting no would be a vote in favor of shrinking the number of aircraft. They are too small, and their current missions are being forced to cannibalize their own fleets.
Voting no would be a vote in favor of letting arbitrary budget caps set the timeline for our mission in Afghanistan instead of giving our troops and our Afghan partners a fighting chance at victory.
Voting no is a vote in favor of continuing to ask our men and women in uniform to perform more and more tasks with inadequate readiness, inadequate equipment, inadequate numbers of people, and unacceptable levels of risk in the missions themselves. It is unfair to them. It is wrong. It is wrong.
For the sake of the men and women in the military who put their lives on the line as we seek to defend this Nation, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will make the right choice. For 5 years we have let politics, not strategy, determine what resources we give our military servicemembers. Our military commanders have warned us that we risk sending young Americans into a conflict for which they are not prepared.
I know that the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the mistakes of the past 5 years in creating this danger. This is a reality. This is the reality our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are facing. So I say it doesn't have to be this way. It doesn't have to be this way. And if you vote no, as my colleague from South Carolina said, don't say you are in favor of the military. Don't be that hypocritical. Just say that you are continuing to put the lives of these men and women who are serving in the military, in the words of the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, ``in greater danger.'' That is your responsibility. But just don't say-- don't go home and say how much you appreciate the men and women in the military, because when you vote no, you are depriving them of the ability to defend this Nation and themselves.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source