Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, when we head to the Senate floor, we make choices. We first choose how to get here--whether to take the subway or walk. We choose whether to stop and talk to a colleague or two along the way. We also choose whether to speak to the press, and normally there are plenty of reporters available to speak to. I and many of my colleagues are often picky about who we talk to. I like talking to reporters just fine, but my staff gets a little nervous.

Last week, after coming out of the secure briefing on the situation in the Middle East, I went up to the first reporter I saw, because in that briefing no one asked how much this war with ISIL would cost or how we were going to pay for it. At the end of the briefing I asked those questions myself. But it is telling that no one up to that point and time had voiced their concerns about costs, which leads me to ask: Are we putting another war in the Middle East on a credit card? Will it be added to our debt? Will our grandchildren once again have to pay for our choices today?

I also asked what domestic programs will be cut if this war is an unpaid war. Will they cut improvements to our highways, Head Start, Violence Against Women Act funding?

We are not having a real debate. We will be voting on whether to authorize the training of moderate Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State.

Earlier this year the President told us this would cost about $500 million. We can say this bill contains no specific dollar amount, but that is what this administration is going to spend, and that is just a start. This discussion will take less than half a day. We need more information. We have had some briefings and some of the committees up here have had some hearings, but the Senate needs a real debate on the extent of our involvement in Iraq and Syria and with ISIL. We need more information, and that is why I am speaking today and why I spoke to the press last week. After all, $500 million is a lot of money. That would go a long way in a State such as Montana where we need to upgrade our roads, bridges, fund pre-kindergarten education, and take care of our public lands.

This week the President said he will spend up to $1 billion to combat the threat of Ebola in West Africa. I am not going to argue that there is a strong case for these requests. ISIL and Ebola are terrible in their own rights, and no one would think twice if we wiped them from the face of the Earth.

But I do have questions about how we pay for these kinds of actions and what our long-term strategy is.

The President requested $58 billion for additional defense spending for the 2015 fiscal year. That is spending on top of the $490 billion that is just a part of the normal Defense Department's budget.

But the bill we are voting on today puts the defense budget on auto pilot. There is no chance to find other places to cut spending. There are no chances to raise revenue so we don't just put this new spending on the credit card and on the backs of our grandchildren.

Folks will say this bill is only for 2 months. They will say that on December 11, when this bill expires, we can pursue the defense budget to cut programs that aren't working to pay for this new military action. But we all know that is a heavy lift in a city where it is easier to spend than it is to save, especially when we are already dipping our hands into the pot to fight ISIL and Ebola.

Over a decade ago we sent American servicemembers to Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Americans lost sons and daughters, husbands and wives. Families made great personal sacrifices, but our government never asked us to sacrifice as a whole. We didn't raise taxes. We didn't cut spending. We didn't set aside money to take care of our veterans who returned from the battlefield with wounds both seen and unseen. As a result, combined with massive tax cuts, our deficit and our debt exploded.

Now $500 million is a far cry from the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent in Iraq over the last decade, but this is just a start. We must stop putting wars on credit cards. I wonder if once we start an overseas conflict, do we know when and where it will stop? Do we know what our spending will achieve?

Over the last 5 years, we have actually had some progress on deficit reduction. We reduced the deficit by two-thirds. But all that is at risk with the beginning of a new conflict.

We simply have too many unanswered questions.

The President says we are backed by a coalition of nations ready to join our fight against ISIS, but will it be a real coalition? Violent extremists are threats to peace-loving societies no matter where they are, and I agree with the President that we need to contain and destroy ISIL before it gets stronger. But only a real coalition, one that includes strong commitments of money, equipment, and manpower from Middle Eastern, Asian, South American, and European nations will lead to a long-term stability in that region.

These allies should be footing their share of the bill. As I mentioned, Americans--whether today's taxpayers or tomorrow's--should not shoulder a disproportionate burden of the cost. After all, if countries such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey feel the growth of ISIL, they should make real commitments to this war-fighting effort. That is what happened during the first gulf war. In that war, members of the coalition contributed more than 80 percent of that war's costs. Because if ISIL is truly a worldwide problem, then there should be a worldwide response and commitment to addressing that problem. If ISIL is threatening to upset the balance of power in the Middle East, then Middle Eastern nations must step up. If terrorists and ISIL are a worldwide threat, then the world must step up. Anything else is unacceptable.

Some say that in order to ensure world peace, America must be a world leader. They say no other country is prepared to be the world's policeman. World peace is important, but true peace stems from our ability to rally other nations to our cause. When we convince someone of the merit of our argument, when we form strong alliances that stand the test of time, when we act in concert with other nations, our word and our acts become stronger, and the world's respect grows.

We are told today that other countries will respond, that other folks are joining the fight. But actions speak louder than words. I, for one, would like to see more of it before I vote to commit America's taxpayers' money to this fight.

Eleven years ago, we invaded Iraq without a real coalition, and we built our argument on false pretenses. Moving forward, we must have a real debate, a sound strategy, and an end game.

This body is historically the world's greatest deliberative body. It was here that men such as Daniel Webster and Henry Clay deliberated. We are not having that kind of debate today. We are not gathering more information. There were committee hearings this week, but the die is cast, the wheels are in motion. As we say in Montana, the horse is out of the barn, the cows are out to pasture.

There are 1,600 American troops in Iraq right now who deserve a real debate. Many of them have husbands, wives, children, families. I do not know that I can say with certainty to them: Don't worry, we are training the right people to fight on the ground in Syria. If America is wrong about who we train and who we arm in Syria, my fear is that these 1,600 servicemembers will be joined again by tens of thousands more. For their sake and the sake of the American taxpayer, we need a fuller debate that will have a real impact on the decisionmaking process here in this Senate, and more of that debate should have happened before now.

I serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee. I know we must fund the government and prevent a shutdown. That is the responsible thing to do. The cost of last year's shutdown on Montana business was extraordinary and unnecessary, and I do not want to repeat that fiasco. That is why I will be voting for that continuing resolution later today.

I know some folks are opposed to this continuing resolution because they think we should pass appropriations bills individually. I appreciate that and I agree. But the fact is, the Appropriations Committee--under the chairmanship of Chairwoman Mikulski, who is on the floor right now, and Senator Shelby--has worked hard and worked in a bipartisan way to try to make that happen. They have tried to reinvigorate this committee and make sure the Senate fulfills our constitutional responsibility to make the hard choices about how we spend taxpayers' money.

Ironically, some of the folks who have said they don't like passing the CR are the very same folks who have made it harder to pass the bipartisan bills that come out of that Appropriations Committee. Talk about playing down to the American people's already low expectations for Congress.

So we have no choice other than to pass the CR today. But I am tired of spending without a plan. I am tired of getting caught up in fighting wars in the Middle East, performing the same actions and expecting a different result. I am tired of repeating history without learning its lessons.

We can do better. And for the sake of our troops, for the sake of our taxpayers, for the sake of our kids, for the fate of our Nation and the world, we must.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source