[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 102 (Monday, June 17, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Page S4101]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            NATIONAL DEFENSE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, last week, the Armed Services 
Committee voted to recommend a $25 billion increase to topline defense 
spending.
  In overwhelming bipartisan fashion, our colleagues rejected a fourth 
straight budget request from the Biden administration that failed to 
keep pace with inflation, much less the threat of China.
  If this major investment is actually appropriated, it will be an 
overdue step toward equipping America's Armed Forces to meet an 
increasingly dangerous world.
  But shortly after the committee's action, senior Senate Democrats 
shattered any expectation that they were ready to start taking the 
requirements of national defense seriously. They began with myths about 
the past.
  The Democratic leader suggested in a statement that ``Democrats have 
led the way in ensuring our military is the best trained and best 
equipped fighting force in the world.''
  Really? Guess again. Every year, Republicans have led efforts to 
secure defense spending beyond President Biden's meager requests.
  When the administration initially wanted the Pentagon to pay for 
increasing operational costs in Europe out of hide, without backfill, 
it took Republicans demanding additional appropriations to buy new 
weapons to replace the older ones we were providing Ukraine.
  For his part, our colleague from New York blocked an amendment to the 
infrastructure bill in 2021 that would have made an historic investment 
in the defense industrial base, and this was actually before the 
Russian escalation. And then Senate Democrats voted in lockstep to 
block a similar one during budget reconciliation.

  All around the world, America's adversaries are offering clear and 
alarming reminders of how rapidly modern warfare is changing. The 
battlefields of Ukraine have become a laboratory for fast-evolving 
concepts like unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic warfare, and air 
defenses. Iran's war on Israel, America, and international shipping 
highlights the growing importance of long-range weapons and air and 
missile defense. And China's military modernization, from its strategic 
rocket force to its navy, underscores the stakes of neglecting our own 
defense in bold, red ink.
  These threats offer us essential lessons about the deficiencies of 
our own capabilities; that is, if we choose to act on them. America is 
literally years behind in building the sort of production capacity we 
need to sustain effective deterrence or win decisively if war actually 
comes.
  The administration deserves credit for taking production of 155-
millimeter artillery shells seriously, but they haven't directed the 
same urgency to critical air and missile defense interceptors or long-
range weapons. Republicans fought to include hundreds of millions of 
dollars for these priorities in the supplemental, but it is long past 
time to put critical requirements like these in our base budget.
  If the administration doesn't prioritize this procurement in its 
budgeting and contracting, we shouldn't be surprised when producers 
hesitate to invest in new production lines or new workers. We have to 
take the requirements of our national defense more seriously. What on 
Earth should the rest of the world conclude if we don't?
  Next month, dozens of America's allies will arrive here in Washington 
for a summit of the most successful military alliance in world history. 
In the face of growing threats, they will have much to celebrate: the 
addition of two new allies in Finland and Sweden; greater cooperation 
with allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific, several of whom will be 
in attendance; and the more than 20 NATO member states who now meet or 
exceed the alliance's 2 percent spending target.
  It is encouraging that so many of America's friends have taken long 
overdue steps toward stronger defense in response to Russia's 
aggression. But America cannot afford to be reactive. Threats to our 
interests are too great to wait for our adversaries to actually strike.
  What example will we set? I know the one I would like to set. I know 
the message Ranking Member Wicker and the overwhelming majority of 
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee would like to send to the 
world. But it will take a great deal more seriousness from leading 
Senate Democrats for the promise of American strength and leadership to 
carry any weight. They could start by bringing the NDAA to the floor 
without delay.

                          ____________________