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 S4414-S4415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VOTE EXPLANATION
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I voted in support of S. Amdt. 1788,
which would reduce defense spending by 10 percent and invest that money
into healthcare, education, and poverty reduction in communities with a
poverty rate of 25 percent or more. To govern is to choose, and as we
face unprecedented challenges at home, this defense budget is out of
step with the values, priorities, and needs of the American people.
The unchecked growth in the defense budget is unsustainable, and the
Trump administration has exacerbated these challenges. We have a duty
to ensure the readiness of our forces, and I have supported efforts to
rebuild our Armed Forces after years of costly overseas engagements.
But massive spending increases without clear strategic direction do not
make us safer. We need to be thoughtful about our spending choices,
recognizing that every dollar spent on defense is a dollar not spent on
healthcare, education, workforce training, and other critical areas of
need.
The National Defense Authorization Act as it is currently written
would spend $740.5 billion on defense. This represents 53 percent of
total Federal discretionary spending and exceeds the defense budgets of
the next 11 nations combined, including our allies in Australia, South
Korea, Germany, Japan, France, and the United Kingdom. It is more than
twice the combined defense expenditures of China and Russia. Topline
defense spending has risen by more than $100 billion since President
Trump took office; after the $74 billion cut proposed in this
amendment, defense spending would still be above the fiscal year 2017
level.
Some of my colleagues have expressed unease about the across-the-
board nature of these cuts, and I agree that a targeted approach is
preferable. But I have seen the consequences of delaying difficult
decisions and believe we can no longer wait to have difficult
conversations about our defense budget. In addition, the National
Defense Authorization Act is not an appropriations bill, and this
amendment simply reduces the total amount of money authorized to be
spent on defense in the upcoming fiscal year. The Appropriations
Committee, on which I serve, will still have the task of making
thoughtful, targeted reductions in areas of lower priority, while
preserving funding for high-priority items. I encourage my colleagues
to confront these challenges for the good of our country and make
adjustments as needed during conference negotiations with the House
while remaining under the cap set by this amendment.
I am glad that this amendment protects salaries and healthcare from
cuts, and would have preferred that it go further in making targeted
cuts in order
[[Page S4415]]
to reduce the impact elsewhere in the defense budget. In particular, we
should have taken this opportunity to scale back our country's
trillion-dollar nuclear modernization efforts. Modernizing our nuclear
weapons in a manner that makes them easier to use in more scenarios
while abrogating our treaty responsibilities and doing nothing to bring
Russia back to the nuclear negotiating table is a recipe for disaster.
However, my concerns with the particulars of this amendment do not
change the plain fact that our national defense budget has grown out of
control. In the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great
Depression, a pandemic that has taken the lives of more than 143,000 of
our fellow Americans and shows no signs of slowing down, and the
impending crises of homelessness and joblessness that we face if the
Congress fails to provide relief, we simply cannot afford to continue
this level of overinvestment in defense at the expense of other
critical national priorities. For that reason, I supported this
amendment.
____________________
