Speeches
|
|
Print this page |
MCCAIN STATEMENT ON 2007 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
September 7, 2006
Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) delivered the following statement on the floor of the Senate regarding the FY 2007 Defense Appropriations Bill:"Mr. President, I want to discuss the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which is one of the most important of the appropriations measures that we consider annually. This legislation will provide critical funding for the men and women in our armed forces who, at this very moment, are in harm's way. We must support them, and, for that reason, I will vote in favor of its passage. But I have serious concerns over the earmarks contained in the Committee Report accompanying this bill.
The bill reported out of Committee appropriates over $453 billion dollars. This is more than $9 billion below the President s request and I am discouraged that it required a $13 billion amendment designated as emergency funding to get back to the President s requested funding level. Also, as is the case with so many of the appropriations bills that come to the floor, the report accompanying it contains hundreds of earmarks that were neither requested nor authorized to the tune of over $4 billion. During a time of war we should be making every effort to support the President's budget request instead of slashing it and then adding earmarks for favored projects.
Every day we ask the brave men and women who fight for freedom on behalf of our great nation to make sacrifices. They sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as several other places around the globe. Our soldiers have sacrificed and their families have sacrificed. And so, we in the Congress should exercise some degree of self-restraint and sacrifice as well.
Let me mention a few of the add-ons that were included in the bill's accompanying report that were not requested in the President's budget and were not on any of the armed services unfunded priority lists -- some of which have next to nothing to do with the Department of Defense or its mission:
$2 million for automotive research, $2 million for Precision Polishing of Large Objects, $3 million for improved shelf-life for Vegetables, $2 million for Brown Tree Snakes, $117 million for an Oceanographic Survey Ship, $75 million for the Allegany Ballistics Lab in West Virginia, $18.5 million for a Air Force C-17 Maintenance Training System in Hawaii, $8 million for the Allen Army Airfield in Alaska, $1.5 million for Fort Detrick in Maryland, $4 million for disposable dental masks, and $3.5 million for Hibernation Genomics.
Once again, there are also many earmarks that may be for worthy causes, such as ovarian cancer research, but there is no compelling national defense reason for these items to be funded through this legislation. These earmarks include:
$115 million for Breast Cancer Research, $80 million for Prostate Cancer Research, $6 million for Integrated Translational Prostate Disease Research, $34 million for the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network, and $15 million for Ovarian Cancer Research.
Mr. President, as we are engaged fully in the global war on terror, it is imperative that we get the most of each and every defense dollar. The money that is being diverted to projects like the ones I have mentioned could instead be used for body armor or other critical needs to protect our troops and help win the War on Terror. The earmarks I have mentioned are just a small sampling of the many, many unrequested earmarks that fill the accompanying report. These earmarks are draining our precious resources and are not vital to our long term national security. I strongly encourage the Federal Agencies affected to use their judgement to ensure they are not allocating resources to projects that are not legislatively mandated or authorized, but rather, are merely the wish lists of the Committee.
Beyond the earmarks contained in the Senate report, this bill contains numerous authorizing provisions, some of which are outside of the scope of defense policy. Some of these provisions include:
Authorizing medical services at Army medical facilities located in Hawaii for civilian patients, authorizing the use of up to $50 million for operational ranges managed by the Air Force in Alaska, and a provision that protects jobs in Hawaii and Alaska
Mr. President, I have no doubt that some of these provisions may be important while others are questionable at best. What is important is that we follow the authorization process and restrain ourselves from using appropriations bills to authorize projects on this bill that have not been requested by the Department of Defense, nor approved by the authorizing committee.
I'd also like to discuss the Buy America restrictions that cost the Department of Defense and the American taxpayers. Like in previous appropriations bills, this year's bill imposes a number of Buy America restrictions.
For example, the bill would prevent the purchase of ball bearings unless domestically produced. It requires that welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain be manufactured in the United States. Another section prohibits the Department of Defense from purchasing supercomputers from a foreign source.
Mr. President, I continue to be very concerned about the potential impact on readiness of our restrictive trade policies with our allies. From a philosophical point of view, I oppose these types of protectionist policies. I believe free trade is an important element in improving relations among all nations and essential to economic growth. From a practical standpoint, "Buy America" restrictions could seriously impair our ability to compete freely in international markets and also could result in the loss of existing business from long-standing trade partners.
Some legislative enactments over the past several years have had the effect of establishing a monopoly for a domestic supplier in certain product lines. This not only adds to the pressure for our allies to "Buy European" but it also raises the costs of procurement for DOD and cuts off access to potential state-of-the-art technologies. DOD should have the ability to make purchases from a second source in an allied country covered by a defense cooperation Memorandum of Understanding when only one domestic source exists. This would ensure both price and product competition.
Defense exports improve interoperability with friendly forces with which we are increasingly likely to operate in coalition warfare or peacekeeping missions. They increase our influence over recipient country actions, and in a worse case scenario, allow the U.S. to terminate support for equipment. Exports lower the unit costs of systems to the U.S. military. In recent years they have kept mature lines open while the U.S. has developed new systems that will go into production around the turn of the century. Finally, these exports provide the same economic benefits to the U.S. as all other exports -- well paying jobs, improved balance of trade, and increased tax revenue. These are really issues of acquisition policy, not appropriations matters.
Mr. President, I would prefer not to criticize this legislation. It is very important to the ultimate success of our ongoing war on terror. Yet, I believe it is important to point out to the American taxpayer where some of their money is going. And some of it is not going to projects that have anything to do with our defense.
I yield the floor."
###
|