[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6529-S6530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Defense Appropriations

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, we just celebrated Veterans Day here in 
the Senate, back home, and across our great country in the States that 
all of us represent. Everybody was celebrating our troops, our 
military, and supporting their families.
  You hear that word ``support'' a lot when it comes to Veterans Day 
and our military and their families, but I am going to talk a little 
bit about that rhetoric. That is great. Senators talk a lot. But that 
is very disconnected from what actually is going on in the Senate right 
now and what is happening in terms of the action of supporting our 
troops.
  I came to the floor a couple of weeks ago to talk about this. I was 
pretty fired up. I am someone who is very collegial with my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle, but the one thing I have noticed is that 
there is talk on supporting troops and then there is action. The 
rhetoric, particularly with my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, doesn't always match what is actually happening.

  I would like to explain to my constituents at home, the American 
people, and anyone watching what is happening right now with regard to 
supporting our troops--the action, not rhetoric--the action. Two weeks 
ago, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibustered the 
Defense appropriations bill. That is the bill that funds our troops. We 
had a big budget deal. We all agreed to it.
  It is hard to vote for it. I voted for it because it actually 
supports rebuilding our military pretty significantly after the Obama-
era cuts. I voted for that.
  We are starting to bring up these minibus appropriations. We had one 
a couple of weeks ago. We debated and voted on it. The plan was to 
bring up the Defense approps bill. What did my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle do? They filibustered it. It was the ninth time since 
I have been in the Senate that my colleagues decided to filibuster the 
spending for our troops. There is no other bill in the body of the 
Senate that the Democrats filibuster more than the bill that funds our 
troops. They don't want you to know that. They don't go home and brag 
about it because they should be ashamed about it, but that is what they 
did.
  Despite this budget deal and despite all of this great support for 
our troops, right now, my colleagues, for the ninth time since I have 
been a Senator, which is 5 years--nine times they filibustered the 
spending for the men and women who serve in the military. I ask the 
leaders to come out and explain that to the American people. Explain 
that to the press. Explain that to the people watching on TV. They 
don't. I think most of my colleagues don't want to do it, but they are 
told to do it because their leadership wants another priority. That is 
what is happening.
  They talk about supporting our troops, but then the action is that we

[[Page S6530]]

are actually not supporting our troops at all. We are keeping funding 
away from them because we are trying to leverage the desire to support 
our military and a Defense appropriations bill for other political 
goals. This has happened nine times.
  There is no other bill since I have been elected to the Senate that 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibuster more. When they 
want leverage on a nonmilitary issue, they filibuster spending for the 
troops. I would welcome some of my colleagues to come and explain why 
they do that. That is one issue.
  Another issue is not my colleagues in the Senate, but it is certainly 
the Democrats on the other side of Capitol Hill. We are now debating 
the National Defense Authorization Act--the NDAA, as we call it. This 
is the heartbeat of the Congress. Why? It has passed this body 58 years 
in a row. That is the closest thing we have to a guarantee in this 
body. Members--Democrats and Republicans--come together, and we set 
forward--coming out of the Armed Services Committee, on which I sit--
the NDAA, which oversees, reforms, and authorizes important programs 
for our national defense and sets spending authorization for the entire 
military. Again, this process is normally very bipartisan, and it has 
been and continues to be in the Senate.
  I give Chairman Inhofe, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
my good friend from Oklahoma, and Senator Reed from Rhode Island, the 
ranking member, enormous credit for getting a bill that came out of 
committee 25 to 2. That is very bipartisan. Then, when it came to the 
Senate floor, it was 86 to 8. OK. That is the Senate saying: Hey, this 
is really important. We are going to take care of our military. We are 
going to lay out the policies and the topline numbers for rebuilding 
our military after the massive cuts from 2010 to 2015. So that is 
positive.
  Why am I complaining about it? Well, that bill right now on the House 
side, as we have gone into conference, is stuck. It is stuck. Many of 
the more extreme Members on the House side, who really aren't big 
supporters of the military--let's call a spade a spade--are now not 
allowing us to move forward on any kind of compromise in the broader 
NDAA as we move into conference.
  There are provisions that are very important to the military that 
this body strongly supported in a bipartisan way, but right now, 
because of what is going on in the House--the leadership in the House, 
which seems to be a lot more focused on other issues and not the 
national security of our Nation, is not moving forward on any 
compromise. Who does this benefit? Well, it certainly doesn't help our 
troops. It certainly doesn't help our military. It certainly doesn't 
help their families. I can guarantee you, whether it is our adversaries 
or potential adversaries--Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran--as they 
are watching the stalemate on the NDAA, they are very pleased.
  This is something we need to come together and address. I am asking 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee over on the House side, 
Chairman Adam Smith, and others to work with the Senate, work with 
Chairman Inhofe, work with Senator Reed on getting to the compromises 
we all know we need to move this bill for the fifth year in a row to 
support our military. We think that should be based on the Senate bill.
  When you have 86 Senators vote for something--a superbipartisan 
majority--that should be the basis for compromise. But it is stalled. 
The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Inhofe, has done 
a great job. He is a very patient man. He and Senator Reed, the ranking 
member on the Armed Services Committee, are frustrated. We are 
frustrated. The troops are frustrated. We don't have much time to 
waste.
  Again, I would like to conclude by saying that there is a lot of 
rhetoric here. There is a lot of rhetoric about supporting our troops. 
But what we need is action. By the way, I think a lot of times my 
colleagues are like, well, you know the men and women in the military 
are not really watching this. They don't really know that my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have filibustered the funding for what 
they need nine times in the last 4\1/2\ years--nine times. It is 
disgraceful, in my view. People think, well, they are not really 
watching what is going on with the NDAA, how the extreme elements of 
the Democratic Party and the House side are making sure there is no 
compromise so that we can't move this bill. Guess what. They are 
watching. They know this.
  When they don't get support from the Congress of the United States, 
it is a problem for our military, not just in terms of the resources 
they need but in terms of morale. I am going to ask my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle: The next time you go home and give speeches 
about supporting our troops, supporting our families, do me a favor. 
Don't come back to this body and filibuster their spending or, for the 
Members of the House, don't stake out such obstinate positions that you 
know there is going to be no compromise on an NDAA bill that is really 
important to our military and has strong bipartisan support in this 
body.
  I know some of my other colleagues are going to be on the floor 
talking about this NDAA issue, talking about the Defense appropriations 
issue. Again, let's match the rhetoric we all talked about with regard 
to Veterans Day--about supporting our troops--with action on the floor, 
not just hot air and words.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am here to speak about the topic of 
healthcare, but while my friend from Alaska is on the floor, I hope we 
can bridge the policy disagreements we have right now over the Defense 
appropriations bill, the appropriations process and the authorization 
bill.
  I have been in Congress long enough to have heard this argument be 
trotted out over and over again that if you vote against a defense 
bill, then you aren't supporting the troops, even if you have a 
legitimate policy disagreement you are trying to work out. I have heard 
that enough to know that it just doesn't match up with reality.
  I was told that because I opposed the Iraq war, I didn't support the 
troops. People in the 1970s were told that if they didn't support the 
Vietnam war, they were opposing the troops. The fact is, we have a 
legitimate policy disagreement that we are trying to figure out. 
Democrats don't think we should be taking money from defense 
construction projects that are housing and protecting our troops to be 
used to build a border wall with Mexico that doesn't do anything, in 
our opinion, to protect the United States compared to the benefit of 
the spending on military construction projects. We think that, 
ultimately, we are serving our troops by making sure those military 
construction projects get funded instead of this wall that doesn't make 
sense if not for the President's campaign speeches.
  So we have some policy disagreements over the budget. I would hope 
that my colleagues wouldn't try to use this tired argument that if 
anyone here ever votes against a defense budget, then they somehow are 
opposing the troops. That is just irresponsible and disingenuous 
rhetoric.