[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4885-S4887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Biden Administration

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, there has been much made in the Biden 
administration about the value of diversity, and I agree that having 
diversity in any organization is positive. You get different 
viewpoints. But diversity encompasses much more than race or gender or 
religious orientation. Those are all important. Diversity actually 
means having people around you with varied experiences. As I mentioned, 
in my mind, that is certainly important, but it is particularly 
important in the Oval Office, particularly important in the White 
House. It is particularly important in the leadership of our Federal 
Government.
  Let's take the example of military experience in this administration. 
You would think the Biden administration would think it is important to 
have members in his Cabinet or senior White House officials who have 
served in the military. After all, he is the Commander in Chief, a very 
important part of his responsibilities. But, in fact, virtually no one 
in this administration, with the exception of Secretary Austin, at the 
highest levels--Cabinet officials, senior White House officials--have 
any significant military experience at all.
  Why does this matter? The President doesn't have it, of course. His 
Secretary of the VA, Chief of Staff, National Security Advisor--just go 
down the list. Nobody has any experience.
  In the Federal Government of the United States, why does this matter? 
It matters because it is obvious by the people this President surrounds 
himself--the people who are giving him advice on big decisions for 
America--that this President doesn't prioritize military, our national 
defense, and our troops and their families. This manifests itself in 
many, many ways.

  First, most importantly, it matters in how we fund our national 
defense. I was on the floor last week, speaking about this very topic. 
This is President Biden's first budget. You can see this here, what he 
proposed. It has the increases through every Federal Agency. This was a 
multitrillion-dollar budget. And it says this is what we are 
prioritizing as the Biden administration. You can see, heck, double-
digits. That is Education and Commerce. And EPA is over 20 percent, and 
Interior over 15 percent--on and on and on, all the green. It is just a 
massive expansion of Federal Agencies, except two Agencies: Department 
of Defense and Homeland Security, the two Agencies that actually 
protect Americans.
  If you look to this line of inflation, which when the Biden 
administration put out their budget last year was about 4.5 percent, 
these are actual inflation-adjusted real cuts by about 2 to 3 percent 
to our military. That was the Biden budget not prioritizing our troops, 
our national security at all. My view is that that is the No. 1 job of 
this government. It is not the President's view, not his team's view.
  In the interim--that was last year's budget--we had a war in Ukraine. 
We had the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense 
testify in front of the Armed Services Committee that we are probably 
seeing the most dangerous time globally in any time in the last 40 
years.
  So what about the Biden budget this year?
  Mr. President, you did it again.
  This is actually EPA, a 25-percent increase--wow.
  But here we go, all the big double-digit increases. When you get down 
to the Department of Defense, with now the 9 percent Biden inflation, 
we are talking a 5-percent real cut to our military. That is not 
prioritizing our military.
  You are starting to see how this inflation and other things are 
really impacting our troops. The Army, last week, in an article, 
suggested that the American military members who are having trouble 
making ends meet because of high levels of inflation should go on food 
stamps. You heard that correct. We are going to give the EPA a 25-
percent raise. We are going to cut defense spending by a 5-percent real 
cut, and if you are a soldier struggling because of high inflation to 
actually put food on the table, you can go get food stamps. That is the 
perfect example of not prioritizing our military.
  I want to unpack this further. The Army is saying that, if our troops 
don't have enough food to eat, they should look at going on food 
stamps. But the President finds it absolutely essential to forgive $560 
billion in student loan debt just a couple of weeks ago. Who are the 
preponderance of Americans who will benefit from that lawless bailout? 
High-earning Americans, the elite--White House staffers, certainly. 
They are going to get a half-trillion-dollar bailout, and our troops 
are being told to go on food stamps. This should shock every single 
American.
  So we know the President and his team don't prioritize the military. 
Look at these budgets or our troops or our national security. But that 
doesn't mean they don't find the military useful. I am going to put up 
a picture of a recent speech that, I will tell you, every time I look 
at it, my blood boils, and so should every American's blood boil.
  It is this picture.
  Now, every President gives partisan speeches. Now, I don't think it 
is wise for every President to give the kind of partisan speech that 
President Biden gave on September 1 in Philadelphia in which he 
vilified millions, tens of millions of his fellow Americans who don't 
agree with his administration's policies. Some of you may have seen 
that speech. The President told the country that many of his fellow 
Americans, all of whom are Republican, don't ``respect the 
Constitution,'' are ``destroying American democracy.'' He gave this 
speech against a blood-red backdrop, fists clenched--look at him--
yelling that millions of his fellow Americans embrace anger--while he 
embraced anger in his speech--and chaos. This President who continually 
issues lawless Executive orders, like shutting down the ANWR in my 
State, his half-a-trillion-dollar student loan bailout, then says that 
Republicans are ``against the rule of law.'' He went on and on--the 
insults, very partisan, somewhat deranged, attacking tens of millions 
of his fellow Americans.
  Now, look, Presidents do that. I don't think it is a good idea. But 
here is the thing about this speech: To make matters worse--look at 
this--he did all this, a clearly partisan speech, while being flanked 
by two Active-Duty marines as his political props. Look at that. Look 
at that--in my view, a sickening abuse of authority from a Commander in 
Chief who has never served in the military--I think he got five Vietnam 
deferments--and knows nothing about the Marine Corps' ethos of honor, 
courage, commitment.
  Remember when General Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs--and 
was Chairman under President Trump as well--released a video where he 
apologized for standing beside the President, then-President Trump, 
when that could have been perceived as political.
  This is what General Milley said:

       I should not have been there. My presence in that moment 
     and in that environment created a perception of the military 
     [being] involved in domestic politics.

  I thought that was a good speech by General Milley. He made a 
mistake; he apologized; and that was the right thing to do.
  This is much worse. This is much worse. These marines, unlike General 
Milley, they are being ordered to stand next to the President of the 
United States while he rants against millions of his own fellow 
Americans.
  The President certainly didn't apologize for this speech. In fact, 
when criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for the 
politicization of the military with these marines propped up next to 
him, the Biden administration actually doubled down in terms of their 
use of these two Active-Duty marines as political props in a very 
partisan speech.
  Here is what the spokesperson at the White House said:

       The presence of [the] Marines at [that] speech was intended 
     to demonstrate the deep and abiding respect the President has 
     for [these servicemembers] . . . [for] the ideals and the 
     unique role our independent military plays in defending our 
     democracy, no matter who is in power.

  This is Orwellian doublespeak. What a bunch of nonsense.
  Here is the fact: The presence of these marines was meant to 
politicize the President's speech and politically benefit from the 
honor and respect the few and the proud have earned in the hearts of 
Americans over decades, over millennium. This should disturb every 
single American, whether you are Democrat or Republican. This was just 
wrong.
  Let me provide another example of the politicization of our military 
by

[[Page S4886]]

the Biden administration. Now, this is something that hasn't gotten a 
lot of attention. Some people were like, hey, it wasn't a really big 
deal. I actually think it was a big deal.
  We have some of the best service academies in the world. They are the 
best in the world--the U.S. Naval Academy, West Point, Air Force 
Academy, Coast Guard Academy. Each of our military service academies 
has board members, some of whom are appointed by the President of the 
United States for 3-year terms.
  Now, I am honored to serve on the U.S. Naval Academy Board. I was 
appointed as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Here is the 
tradition in our country that every single President has abided by: 
When they come into office, they let the Board members finish out their 
terms. So, for example, when President Trump was elected, the Obama 
administration officials, who were President Obama's appointees, 
finished out the terms on the Naval Academy Board, the West Point 
Board, and the Air Force Academy Board. That is what we do.
  The point is not to politicize the service academies. That has always 
been the tradition, every single President--except for Joe Biden. When 
President Biden came into office, he looked at West Point, Annapolis, 
the Air Force Academy, and somebody said to him ``You know what, Mr. 
President, let's fire all the Trump appointees. Let's fire them right 
now, all 18 of them'' to clearly politicize the service academies of 
America. So that is what they did--something that had never been done 
before by any President in the history of the country--and they did it 
regardless of qualifications of the current members serving on these 
boards. Let me give you some examples.
  Retired Army LTG H.R. McMaster was fired off the West Point Board. 
Ironically, the same day he was fired by President Biden's White House, 
he was honored by the West Point Association of Graduates as the 
distinguished graduate of the year of West Point. So one President 
fires him, and West Point gives him a great honor. GEN Jack Keane, a 
former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, was fired from the West Point 
Board; retired Army COL Douglas Macgregor; an Afghanistan war veteran, 
clinical psychologist Meaghan Mobbs; a Bronze Star recipient and 
businessman, David Urban; a retired Army lieutenant general, Guy Swan--
18 qualified people, all fired.
  The politicization of the service academies of America was undertaken 
by this administration--the first President, the first White House ever 
to do it, all fired by Joe Biden and not allowed to fulfill their 
terms.
  Of course, the Biden administration loves to use our military to push 
other agendas that have nothing to do with lethality in winning our 
Nation's wars--many, many examples. Let me give you just a couple. From 
the beginning, issuing Executive orders not focused on how we have a 
stronger military but using taxpayer dollars to establish a committee 
within the Pentagon to do what ended up being witch hunts on so-called 
extremists in the military, of which--when they came back with their 
report, they said they had actions of .005 percent. They also issued 
Executive orders to use taxpayer dollars to mandate transgender 
transition surgeries for Active-Duty soldiers. Importantly, they become 
nondeployable when that happens.
  So back to my original point, no one in senior positions in the White 
House or the Cabinet--with the exception of Secretary Austin--has 
significant military experience, and on so many of these issues, there 
is no adult in the room.
  Think about these White House conversations where they are talking 
about, hey, let's cut the defense budget, and we will grow the EPA by 
25 percent. Well, that is a great idea, Mr. President. Let's make sure 
we give a partisan speech at Independence Hall, and, oh yeah, let's 
grab a couple Active-Duty marines to stand right next to the President 
as his props. That is a great idea, Mr. President. Let's come in and 
politicize the service academies and fire all the Trump administration 
appointees--even American heroes like H.R. McMaster, General Keane--
despite the fact that no President had ever done that before. Great 
idea, Mr. President.
  This is really problematic, what we are seeing right now, and that 
lack of prioritization extends here in the U.S. Senate, unfortunately, 
as it relates to our military.
  As we know with regard to defense budget cuts, in the 2020 NDAA, we 
had a debate right here on the Senate floor where my colleague the 
junior Senator from Vermont proposed an amendment to dramatically cut 
our military, almost by 15 percent, across-the-board cuts. He even 
actually wrote an op-ed in POLITICO. Remember, this is when Democrats 
were pushing to defund the police. Here is the op-ed. It is actually 
called ``Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the op-ed ``Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Defund the Pentagon: The Liberal Case

                      (By Senator Bernie Sanders)

       Fifty-three years ago Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. challenged 
     all of us to fight against three major evils: ``the evil of 
     racism, the evil of poverty and the evil of war.'' If there 
     was ever a moment in American history when we needed to 
     respond to Dr. King's clarion call for justice and demand a 
     ``radical revolution of values,'' now is that time.
       Whether it is fighting against systemic racism and police 
     brutality, defeating the deadliest pandemic in more than a 
     hundred years, or putting an end to the worst economic 
     downturn since the Great Depression, now is the time to 
     fundamentally change our national priorities.
       Sadly, instead of responding to any of these unprecedented 
     crises, the Republican Senate is on a two-week vacation. When 
     it comes back, its first order of business will be to pass a 
     military spending authorization that would give the bloated 
     Pentagon $740 billion--an increase of more than $100 billion 
     since Donald Trump became president.
       Let's be clear: As coronavirus infections, hospitalizations 
     and deaths are surging to record levels in states across 
     America, and the lifeline of unemployment benefits keeping 30 
     million people afloat expires at the end of the month, the 
     Republican Senate has decided to provide more funding for the 
     Pentagon than the next 11 nations' military budgets combined.
       Under this legislation, over half of our discretionary 
     budget would go to the Department of Defense at a time when 
     tens of millions of Americans are food insecure and over a 
     half-million Americans are sleeping out on the street. After 
     adjusting for inflation, this bill would spend more money on 
     the Pentagon than we did during the height of the Vietnam War 
     even as up to 22 million Americans are in danger of being 
     evicted from their homes and health workers are still forced 
     to reuse masks, gloves and gowns.
       Moreover, this extraordinary level of military spending 
     comes at a time when the Department of Defense is the only 
     agency of our federal government that has not been able to 
     pass an independent audit, when defense contractors are 
     making enormous profits while paying their CEOs outrageous 
     compensation packages, and when the so-called War on Terror 
     will cost some $6 trillion.
       Let us never forget what Republican President Dwight D. 
     Eisenhower, a former four-star general, said in 1953: ``Every 
     gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired 
     signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger 
     and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.''
       What Eisenhower said was true 67 years ago, and it is true 
     today.
       If the horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught 
     us anything it is that national security means a lot more 
     than building bombs, missiles, nuclear warheads and other 
     weapons of mass destruction. National security also means 
     doing everything we can to improve the lives of tens of 
     millions of people living in desperation who have been 
     abandoned by our government decade after decade.
       That is why I have introduced an amendment to the Defense 
     Authorization Act that the Senate will be voting on during 
     the week of July 20th, and the House will follow suit with a 
     companion effort led by Representatives Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) 
     and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). Our amendment would reduce the 
     military budget by 10 percent and use that $74 billion in 
     savings to invest in communities that have been ravaged by 
     extreme poverty, mass incarceration, decades of neglect and 
     the Covid-19 pandemic.
       Under this amendment, distressed cities and towns in every 
     state in the country would be able to use these funds to 
     create jobs by building affordable housing, schools, 
     childcare facilities, community health centers, public 
     hospitals, libraries and clean drinking water facilities. 
     These communities would also receive federal funding to hire 
     more public school teachers, provide nutritious meals to 
     children and parents and offer free tuition at public 
     colleges, universities or trade schools.
       This amendment gives my Senate colleagues a fundamental 
     choice to make. They can vote to spend more money on endless 
     wars in the Middle East while failing to provide economic 
     security to millions of people

[[Page S4887]]

     in the United States. Or they can vote to spend less money on 
     nuclear weapons and cost overruns, and more to rebuild 
     struggling communities in their home states.
       In Dr. King's 1967 speech, he warned that ``a nation that 
     continues year after year to spend more money on military 
     defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching 
     spiritual death.''
       He was right. At a time when half of our people are 
     struggling paycheck to paycheck, when over 40 million 
     Americans are living in poverty, and when 87 million lack 
     health insurance or are underinsured, we are approaching 
     spiritual death.
       At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood 
     poverty of almost any major country on Earth, and when 
     millions of Americans are in danger of going hungry, we are 
     approaching spiritual death.
       At a time when we have no national testing program, no 
     adequate production of protective gear and no commitment to a 
     free vaccine, while remaining the only major country where 
     infections spiral out of control, we are approaching 
     spiritual death.
       At a time when over 60,000 Americans die each year because 
     they can't afford to get to a doctor on time, and one out of 
     five Americans can't afford the prescription drugs their 
     doctors prescribe, we are approaching spiritual death.
       Now, at this unprecedented moment in American history, it 
     is time to rethink what we value as a society and to 
     fundamentally transform our national priorities. Cutting the 
     military budget by 10 percent and investing that money in 
     human needs is a modest way to begin that process. Let's get 
     it done.

  Mr. SULLIVAN. So that was the liberal case, defund the Pentagon. The 
junior Senator from Vermont wrote that. The majority leader put out a 
tweet saying he was a proud supporter of the defund the Pentagon 
amendment. That was right here on the Senate floor.
  Of course, there is the National Defense Authorization Act, the No. 1 
bill that focuses on national defense for our Nation. That passed out 
of committee, the Armed Services Committee, in June in a very strong 
bipartisan vote, 23 to 3. It passed the House in July. We will have pay 
raises for our troops so the Army doesn't have to tell them go line up 
for food stamps because they are hungry. And we need to bring it to the 
floor right here.
  So what are we doing? As far as I can tell, the majority leader 
doesn't want to bring up the Defense Authorization Act until December--
December. That is why I joined a letter led by Senator Tuberville, with 
whom I serve on the Armed Services Committee, signed by 20 of my 
colleagues, to say to the majority leader: Mr. Majority Leader, we have 
a dangerous world right now. Bring the NDAA to the floor. It is going 
to pass. It has great support.
  By the way, I know the Democrat Senators feel this way, too, on this 
topic.
  So we need to get this body back to what is important for our 
country--bolstering our economy, fighting inflation, bringing down 
energy costs, unleashing American energy, and definitely passing the 
legislation that funds our military, that provides pay raises for our 
troops during this very dangerous time.
  So I again ask the majority leader to bring the NDAA to the floor. We 
need it.
  I call on the President and his administration--the President of the 
United States, the Commander in Chief--to truly prioritize our military 
and their families, and that begins with putting an end to using them 
in a disgraceful way as political props for your partisan agenda.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________