June 19, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 103 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Page S3810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Madam President, thank you to Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed 
and their staff for their work to produce the Fiscal Year 2020 defense 
authorization bill. The Senate has spent very little time actually 
working on legislation this Congress so I look forward to considering 
this bipartisan bill and debating amendments.
  This bill that the Senate is expected to consider soon authorizes 
$750 billion for defense--far higher than last year's amount of $716 
billion, and far higher than the House version of $733 billion. This is 
because we are all committed to a strong national defense and for the 
protection of our men and women in uniform. But we also must make 
critical investments in other parts of the federal government that also 
contribute to a strong national defense.
  Before becoming Secretary of Defense, then-General Mattis was fond of 
noting that if Congress doesn't fund the State Department then he'd 
need to buy more bullets.
  We cannot hope to compete against China and Russia if we are not 
making critical federal investments here at home in everything from 
medical and science research to affordable, quality education.
  So while this defense authorization bill is an important step, we 
must reach an agreement on budget negotiations so that we can begin 
working on appropriations bills as soon as possible.
  Now let me mention a few key issues in this bill.
  There is widespread agreement about the importance of space and the 
seriousness of the threats posed to our assets in space. We also all 
agree that the Defense Department needs to ensure that it prioritizes 
space personnel and equipment so that the issue doesn't get lost among 
many important defense concerns. But many of us were openly skeptical 
about the Department's proposal for a significant $2 billion ``Space 
Force'' bureaucracy.
  Should we spend $2 billion on bureaucracy, or should we invest it in 
new, real space capabilities? The NDAA reaches a reasonable compromise 
on this subject. It elevates U.S. Space Command as a co-equal combatant 
command. It places more focus on space at the Secretary of Defense 
level, and it does not impose a large bureaucracy on the Air Force.
  I appreciate this compromise, and I look forward to continuing to 
work with the chairman and ranking member to ensure that we are focused 
on providing clear organization and emphasizing real capabilities over 
more bureaucracy.
  Another area we need to focus on is the process--the painfully long 
process--that the Department of Defense has for developing and fielding 
new weapons systems.
  One of the most illuminating--and frustrating--hearings this year in 
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was with DOD's head of 
research, Dr. Griffin.
  It is clear from our conversation that the Pentagon is not moving at 
the speed of relevance in terms of deciding on new weapons systems and 
delivering them in reasonable timeframes. Dr. Griffin noted that the 
most advanced aircraft ever built--the SR-71 Blackbird--was designed, 
built, and flown in less time than it takes some parts of the 
bureaucracy these days to decide what to do next.
  This has to improve. So I thank the chairman and ranking member for 
incorporating a reform I have proposed to speed up the process that the 
Pentagon goes through to conduct its initial analysis of alternatives. 
We know that this analysis of alternatives has dragged on for 18 months 
. . . 24 months . . . 27 months, in some cases. It is unconscionable. I 
hope this amendment can limit this nonsense and get the Department 
moving again.
  I also appreciate the chairman and ranking member working with me to 
extend lease authorities for depots and arsenals such as Rock Island 
Arsenal in Illinois and on the honorary promotion of Tuskegee Airman 
Colonel Charles McGee, a true American hero.
  I also hope that we can debate two other amendments I have 
introduced, which go to the heart of Congress's constitutional duties.
  The first is the need for Congress to stop abdicating its 
responsibility on matters of war and peace. Article I of the 
Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to declare war. I voted 
for the war in Afghanistan, but I never imagined that we would still be 
there 18 years later, or that the bill I voted for back in 2001 would 
still be on the books, unchanged.
  My amendment would sunset all authorizations for the use of force 
after 10 years so that Congress can take up the issue and engage in its 
constitutional duties.
  I have also cosponsored an amendment led by Senator Udall making 
clear that Congress has not given the executive branch any authority 
whatsoever to go to war against Iran.
  These are matters of war and peace which demand this Chamber's 
attention. Think of the places around the globe currently justified 
under the 2001 AUMF voted on 18 years ago. Think of how dangerous and 
destabilizing a third war in the Middle East would be. I fear that we 
are drifting in that direction. Congress must step in.
  My other amendment deals with this President's unbelievable decision 
to take money from our military so that our servicemembers could pay 
for his medieval wall on the southwest border.
  It used to be that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Remember 
that? The President boasted about that more than 200 times on the 
campaign trail and in the Oval Office. But in February, he announced 
instead that he would take $6.1 billion from the troops and put it 
toward building a wall.
  We need a robust debate on the proper, effective way to respond to 
the humanitarian crisis at our border. But taking money from our men 
and women in uniform is not the way to do it. I hope we can debate this 
more.
  Madam President, I hope that we may be able to debate these issues 
during floor consideration of this authorization bill. In the meantime, 
I reiterate my thanks to Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed for 
their work on this bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.