Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S5583-S5584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, Senate Democrats blocked this year's
funding for our national defense. They voted it down. We can't move the
legislation forward.
Democrats blocked the funding our commanders need to keep pace with
Russia and China. Democrats blocked money for the tools and training
that our men and women in uniform badly need while our adversaries
continually pour money into new weapons and technology. The Democrats
even voted against a pay raise--a pay raise--for our servicemembers.
All but two Democrats voted to filibuster all of this and kept the
Senate from even considering the legislation.
Never mind that before we adjourned in August the Democrats in the
House and Senate all agreed to a carefully negotiated framework to keep
our appropriations process on track. In fact, the Speaker of the House
and the Democratic leader in the Senate publicly agreed to the exact
dollar figure for the Defense bill they just voted down yesterday. They
publicly agreed to the number in the Defense bill they just voted down
yesterday.
We all agreed in the caps agreement that poison pills, new policy
riders, or any changes to Presidential transfer authorities were off
the table--off the table--unless both sides were on board.
So the appropriations process, including at the committee level with
Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy, appeared to be going pretty
smoothly, but, as we have seen a number of other times in the recent
past, the Democratic leadership seemed to have a change of heart.
Perhaps it sunk in that actually meeting President Trump and
Republicans halfway, as divided government obviously requires, might
have earned some criticism from the far left. But whatever the reason,
our Democratic friends turned on a dime, reneged on the bipartisan
agreement, and began demanding exactly the kinds of poison pills and
partisan policy changes that we all promised not to do.
That is how we get to a spectacle like what happened yesterday. That
is how we get to a place where 42 Senate Democrats vote to filibuster
defense funding and obstruct a pay raise for our servicemembers, for
all the world to see, because Democratic leadership decided they saw
more of a political upside in picking new fights with the President
than in keeping their word and investing in our men and women in
uniform.
In fact, I understand that just yesterday, our Democratic leaders
were offered even more money for the Labor-HHS bill, but they declined
it. So it is not about the money. It is not about compromising and
getting to yes. It is about not wanting to take yes for an answer.
[[Page S5584]]
I have great respect for our Democratic friends, but I think this
episode has to go down as a new high-water mark for the policy
consequences of what some people call ``Trump derangement syndrome.''
We are at a point where 42 Senate Democrats would decline to fund the
U.S. Armed Forces essentially just to spite the occupant of the White
House. If you ask me, that is one heck of a price to pay to put on a
show for ``the resistance.''
But yesterday's vote is now a matter of record. It is in the past. I
really am hopeful that we can get back on track with the kind of
appropriations process my Democratic colleagues have already pledged
they would support. They had already pledged to support it.
When the good work that takes place in committees is allowed to
proceed without this top-down partisan maneuvering, it tends to yield
pretty good results. I think we were all pleased with the bipartisan
funding bill that Chairman Shelby and Senator Leahy produced together
last year. I understand this morning's appropriations markup is
expected to be bipartisan as well.
For example, I am proud the Financial Services and General Government
bill would include a bipartisan amendment providing another $250
million for the administration and security of elections, to help
States improve their defenses and shore up their voting systems.
I am proud to have helped develop this amendment and to cosponsor it
in committee. That would bring our total allocation for election
security to more than $600 million since fiscal 2008.
It is a crucial issue. The Trump administration has made enormous
strides to help States secure their elections without giving Washington
new power to push the States around. That is how we continue the
progress we saw in 2018, and that is exactly what we are doing.
This is exactly the kind of positive outcome that is possible when we
stop posturing for the press and let Chairman Shelby and Senator Leahy
conduct a bipartisan committee process.
As time grows shorter before the end of September, I hope the
critical defense funding that Democrats blocked yesterday will soon
earn the same kind of productive treatment, because I don't think the
American people will have much patience with the notion that Democrats'
first responsibility is irritating the White House and funding the
Department of Defense coming second.
I hope we can reboot this process and move forward for the sake of
our Senate process, for the sake of stable funding for our government,
and for the sake of our Nation's security.
____________________
