July 22, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 129 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 129
(Senate - July 22, 2020)
Text available as:
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 S4363-S4364] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this week, the Senate will pass the 60th annual National Defense Authorization Act. Every year, this legislation lets the Senate make our top priorities for protecting our homeland, our allies, and our global interests into law, and, certainly, the recent behavior of our adversaries world over shows why this task is as urgent as ever. Even as our Nation is focused on fighting the pandemic at home, our servicemembers have contended with dangerous behavior from would-be competitors all around the world. The Russian military has kept probing the bounds of U.S. airspace, and Putin's regime has kept its sights on cyber war and destabilization by proxy. China continues to treat international commercial lanes like its own private pond, choke freedom and autonomy out of Hong Kong, and try to ethnically cleanse Xinjiang. Both countries continue to modernize their military capabilities from sea to space. And Iranian meddling, North Korean saber-rattling, and the persistent violence of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaida demand our attention as well. Amid these threats and many others, the American people and the entire free world look to the men and women of the U.S. military to preserve order and peace. The open and bipartisan process led by Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed has produced strong legislation that will advance their missions. It is the product of intense committee work; it contains more than 200 bipartisan amendments; and it builds on the historic progress which this administration and this Republican Senate have secured over the past 3 years. After years of cuts to our military that weakened readiness, imperiled modernization, and called into question our commitment to preserving our global interests, we have reversed the tide. We have invested in strength. We built a new national defense strategy and are investing in rebuilding and modernizing our military to help achieve it. This legislation will carry the progress even further--more support for defense research and innovation, resources for military housing and healthcare, tools to deepen our commitments with regional partners in Europe and the Pacific. For most Americans, investing in the greatest fighting force in the world is not controversial. It is a no-brainer. But lest we forget, the radical energy [[Page S4364]] on the far left is sparking some truly extraordinary behavior among our Democratic colleagues. Case in point, later today, we will vote on an amendment that was advertised in an opinion essay by the junior Senator from Vermont titled ``Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case.'' This is the junior Senator from Vermont--an essay titled ``Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case.'' You heard correctly. We have moved on from defunding local police to defunding the U.S. Armed Forces. Maybe we will be sending social workers on overseas deployments, when they aren't too busy responding to violent crimes. I am not sure. Senator Sanders' amendment would literally decimate the defense budget. It would rip 10 percent of it right out and pour the money into all the socialist fantasies--free rent, free college, free everything for everyone. Now, in light of the long-held views of our colleague from Vermont, a proposal like this may not be particularly shocking. What is remarkable is that the Democratic leader--the leader of their caucus--felt pressured into endorsing it. Let me say that again: The Democratic leader, who in almost every floor speech tries to accuse this administration of being too soft on America's adversaries, wants to literally decimate our defense budget to finance a socialist spending spree. This turns out to be something of a pattern. On the Democratic side, it sometimes seems like we have hawks when it comes to speeches but chickens when it comes time to make policy. When they are on the sidelines, there is plenty of bark, but whenever they actually call a shot, there is zero bite. Lots of bark, little bite; all hat, no cattle. That is how we end up with spectacles like the Democratic leader play-acting as a Russian hawk, when about a decade ago, he was publicly arguing we should cozy up to Putin, send Russia billions of dollars of cash, pull the plug on NATO missile defense pacts that hurt Putin's feelings, and concede to him, ``Russia's traditional role'' in the Caspian Sea region. That was the Democratic leader in 2008. Pay off Putin, and let him have his sphere of influence. And now today, he wants to decimate defense spending. But in between, he spent years insisting that Democrats want to get tough--want to get tough on foreign policy. You see how the game works: sound like hawks on television, act like chickens when making policy. Defense spending demonstrates our will to defend ourselves and our interests in a dangerous world. Keeping our Nation safe is our foremost constitutional duty. We cannot shirk it. My colleagues who profess concern over Putin's efforts to interfere in our politics, or Xi's efforts to rewrite the rules of the international system, must know that we will never--never be able to deter such behavior if we sell our own soldiers short and surrender our technological edge. I assure you, Beijing and Moscow will be watching this vote. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reject this far-left fantasy. Defeat this amendment. Throughout the Cold War, we maintained a bipartisan commitment to American strength, American alliances, and a global peace built on American values. We will reinforce that stand when we sink--sink the reckless Sanders-Schumer amendment and again when we pass this bipartisan bill. ____________________