[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 22, 2020)]
[Senate]
[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.

                          ____________________