[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 140 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5909-S5911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I don't think it is any secret that the 
United States is facing a myriad of security threats both here 
domestically and abroad. I have said--and I truly believe--this is the 
most dangerous time our country has experienced since World War II due 
to the axis of autocracies, as they are sometimes called, ranging from 
Iran to Russia, to China, to North Korea.
  But right here at home, we have a huge, gaping national security 
threat called the southern border. We know it is being exploited by 
drug traffickers, human smugglers, and, yes, perhaps, even by 
terrorists. Out of the, roughly, 10 million or so people we estimate 
who have crossed the border during the Biden-Harris administration, 
about 2 million of them are what the Border Patrol calls ``got-aways.'' 
In other words, they are people evading law enforcement and, perhaps, 
for a good reason: either they are carrying drugs; they have criminal 
records; or, heaven forbid, they want to do us harm through some sort 
of terrorist attack.
  But, as we look around the world, we see countries like Israel, our 
close ally in the Middle East, defending its right to exist following a 
brutal and unprovoked attack by the terrorist group Hamas, which is a 
proxy of Iran. Iran and its proxies are even more emboldened than ever 
as they continue to wreak havoc across the region. Oh, by the way, they 
are also enriching uranium in pursuit, perhaps, of a nuclear weapon.
  In Europe, we know that Ukraine continues to defend its sovereignty 
in the wake of Russia's invasion more than 2 years ago, but actually it 
goes back earlier than that. Russia actually invaded Ukraine in 2014 
and basically took over the Crimea, and nobody seemed to do much about 
it, by which Putin thought: OK. I got away with that. I am going to 
come back for another bite.
  Then, following the devastating withdrawal of American and Allied 
troops in Afghanistan 2 years ago--we were just over in the Rotunda, 
honoring the lives of the servicemembers who lost their lives in Kabul 
2 years ago as a result of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. But after 
that, Putin logically thinks: Well, the Taliban got to take over 
Afghanistan without a shot being fired. The United States coughed up 
tens of billions of dollars of equipment, ammunition, and 
transportation, and so maybe, just maybe--this is Putin's thinking--I 
believe, maybe, I can go ahead and invade Ukraine, and I can march on 
Kiev, and not a shot will be fired.
  Well, he underestimated the will of the Ukrainian people, to be sure.
  In the Indo-Pacific, China continues to be aggressive and belligerent 
and to threaten the stability of the region, especially the future of 
Taiwan.
  So there is a lot at stake, and the eyes of the world are on the 
United States.
  I have had a chance, like so many of us, to travel around the world 
and talk to our friends and allies. What I have learned is that no 
one--no nation--can substitute for the leadership of the United States 
of America. If America acts, others will follow. They will join us, 
perhaps, but no one will take the initiative if the United States is 
standing back.
  It is true that terrorists and dictators are watching to see how we 
respond. Vladimir Putin watches what we do. President Xi in China, Kim 
Jong Un in North Korea, and the Supreme Leader in Tehran--they all 
watch what kind of reaction they get when they push. If there is no 
pushback they keep coming.
  So the question is, Will we brush all of this off and try to explain 
it just as regional conflicts; or will we stiffen our spine, lock arms 
with our friends and allies, and commit to defeating evil and 
aggression in all its forms?
  Well, to meet this crucial moment, we need to solidify support for 
our military and our national security. That is the No. 1 job of the 
Federal Government. No local government or State government, no private 
entity can provide for the common defense. That is the No. 1 job of the 
Federal Government. Everything else comes after that, because if you 
don't do that, none of the rest matters.
  We are currently contemplating a short-term spending bill called a 
continuing resolution. But our commanders, the Secretary of Defense--
current and past--will tell you that a continuing resolution is one of 
the worst things you can do to the military because there are no new 
starts, no programs that we have authorized that plan for the future, 
particularly if you are looking at a funding bill of 3 months or 6 
months in duration.
  Even President Biden's own Defense Secretary acknowledges that any 
delay in funding and in the National Defense Authorization Act hampers 
their ability to plan. So it is not just the funding; it is also the 
annual exercise known as the National Defense Authorization Act.
  We know that our committees here in the Senate, the Armed Services 
Committee both in the Senate and in the House, have done a lot of work 
on a bipartisan basis to prepare the National Defense Authorization 
Act. But here in the Senate, this seems to be the last thing on the 
majority leader's schedule and the last thing on his mind.
  We are scheduled to be here roughly 2\1/2\ more weeks before we break 
for the November 5 election. In other words, we won't even be in 
session in October. So then we will come back after the election in the 
so-called lameduck, and one of the must-do bills that we have to pass 
is the National Defense Authorization Act.
  It didn't have to be this way. We could have scheduled--the majority 
leader could have scheduled both an appropriations process that would 
make sure we didn't have to pass short-term continuing resolutions. We 
could have taken up the good bipartisan work of the Armed Services 
Committee and put the National Defense Authorization bill on the floor. 
But the majority leader would have none of that. It is just not a 
priority for him.
  So what are we doing instead? Well, we are taking up judicial 
nominations, which are not insignificant, but they pale in comparison 
to the responsibility that Congress has to provide for the common 
defense. And we do that two ways: One, we pass the National Defense 
Authorization Act each year; and, No. 2, we fund the military and the 
rest of government.
  When we do this, when the majority leader makes this choice, it 
doesn't give our commanders the certainty they need to make decisions 
that will serve both our short-term and long-term interests.
  For our forces to continue the fight wherever necessary around the 
world, they need resources. They need stability. They need 
predictability. And they need to be able to start new, important 
programs like multiyear procurement programs to shore up our industrial 
base to make sure we have the resources we need to deter aggression 
anywhere in the world.
  There is nobody else to do it. It is the responsibility of Congress. 
Nobody can do this for us. We can't say, well, this is too hard, or it 
is inconvenient, or we have to go campaign for reelection.

[[Page S5910]]

There is nobody else to do it. It is up to us.
  For more than 60 years in a row--six decades--Congress has passed an 
annual National Defense Authorization Act. That is in significant 
jeopardy. We are certainly not going to get it done in the next 2\1/2\ 
weeks that the majority leader has scheduled. And he has decided to 
wait until the last minute to even think about it. So in all reality, 
this is going to be an exercise in the lameduck after the election. But 
it is not the only thing we need to do.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, we run out of money at the end of 
this month. It is the end of the annual fiscal year. So we are going to 
have to pass some sort of funding bill because the majority leader did 
not schedule votes on appropriations bills, all twelve appropriations 
bills, like he should have so we don't have to resort to a continuing 
resolution.
  Well, in my home State of Texas alone, there are roughly 225,000 
servicemembers stationed at places like Fort Cavazos, Fort Bliss, Joint 
Base San Antonio, the Red River Army Depot, and Ellington Field.
  Those are the people I think of each year when we take up the Defense 
authorization bill. I think of them, and I think of their families, 
because while a servicemember wears the uniform, families also serve 
our Nation.
  Well, the money and the programs that we should be authorizing under 
the Defense authorization bill include money for training, technology 
and equipment, and the pay and the benefits that families rely on. 
Supporting all of these people and these facilities is a Herculean 
task, and the Defense authorization bill is a very important way that 
we do just that.
  This year's defense bill must also include efforts to strengthen 
military readiness. We know the nature of warfare has changed. It is 
not just tanks and airplanes and aircraft carriers. We are seeing what 
is happening in Ukraine, where the Ukrainians are using drones, 
relatively inexpensive drones, to knock out Russian tanks and armor. So 
this has changed quite a bit. The Houthis in Yemen are using 
inexpensive drones that are now being shot down by $2 million missiles 
launched from Navy ships. So the nature of warfare has changed, and we 
have to keep up with it, not so we can fight wars but so we can deter 
those wars.
  We know that deterrence is the primary objective, and we know that 
war is a whole lot more expensive, both in terms of treasure and blood, 
than keeping the peace by maintaining deterrence.

  Well, this Defense authorization bill should have a focus on 
reforming our procurement process so we can quickly replenish our 
defense stockpiles. This has been a major problem because the Pentagon 
is probably the world's biggest bureaucracy; and because of layers and 
layers of redtape and difficult processes, it is hard for innovators 
and creators and startups to do business with the Pentagon and with the 
Federal Government. So we are literally denied access to the latest and 
greatest technology because the Pentagon simply isn't postured to deal 
with that.
  So what you have to do, in the case of companies like Palantir and 
SpaceX and Anduril, for example--just to name a few--well, SpaceX had 
to sue the Air Force so they can compete in space because the Air Force 
wouldn't allow them to compete for those projects. Now SpaceX, 
headquartered in Texas, launches the vast majority of payloads into 
space.
  And, in fact, Boeing, whose spaceship went to the International Space 
Station, can't safely bring two of those astronauts back, so SpaceX is 
going to have to go get them sometime in February.
  But the point is, we have a lot of heavy lifting to do, a lot of hard 
work to do when it comes to our national security. And the way that the 
majority leader has decided to schedule the Senate is a disservice, not 
only to the men and women in uniform, but it is, frankly, dangerous 
because it doesn't allow us to maintain maximum readiness and 
deterrence, which is so critical.
  One of the things that I think should be part of the Defense 
authorization bill is something called the PAID OFF Act. This is 
critical legislation that will prevent foreign agents acting on behalf 
of our adversaries from influencing U.S. policymakers.
  I know it is no surprise to anybody who follows the news here in 
Washington, DC, but foreign countries come in, and they hire lobbyists. 
And unbeknownst to Members of Congress, those lobbyists are working on 
behalf--sometimes--of foreign governments, not the American people. Yet 
because of a failure of the Foreign Agents Registration Act--we need to 
reform that legislation--there needs to be more transparency and 
disclosure so we know for sure who we are talking to and whose 
constituency they represent.
  But it is not just the PAID OFF Act that needs to be part of this 
NDAA. I am hopeful that this bill, ultimately, in the lameduck session, 
will include key outbound investment measures to help the United States 
gather more information needed to better evaluate our national security 
vulnerabilities, as well as confront threats from our adversaries, and 
remain competitive on the global stage.
  These are important goals that are becoming more and more urgent with 
each passing day.
  But despite all of this, we have yet to formally begin the process of 
considering the national defense authorization bill, again, because 
this is, apparently, not a priority of the majority or the majority 
leader.
  In a rational world, this would already be done. At the very least, 
this legislation should reach the President's desk before the end of 
this month. But, as I said earlier, Senator Schumer has only scheduled 
about 11 more days between now and the time we break before the 
election. The election actually isn't for 8 weeks, but the Senate is 
going to be in session 11 days? I think that is not doing our job.
  The only person who can schedule the Senate agenda is the majority 
leader. I can't do it; the other 98 Senators can't do it, only the 
majority leader, and he refuses to do it.
  Well, unfortunately, this has become standard operating procedure. We 
have lurched from one potential shutdown to the next. We passed 
continuing resolutions which tie the hands of our military commanders 
and the Pentagon, and it just makes it impossible for government to 
operate as efficiently as it should. So this has become standard 
operating procedure in a dysfunctional Democrat-led Senate. We spend 
weeks voting on President Biden's controversial nominees, like we are 
doing today, many of whom are unqualified for the jobs that they have 
been nominated to fill.
  But the majority knows, the Democratic majority knows that if they 
lose the majority, they won't be able to get those people confirmed; 
so, of course, they are trying to move as many of them as they can when 
they can. But what that means is national security is kicked to the 
back seat and is no longer a priority.
  In addition to spending time on nominations when we should be 
spending time on national defense, we will cap off the vote of the week 
with a controversial bill that stands no chance of becoming law. That 
is what we call a show vote around here. It is designed to embarrass. 
It is designed for political advantage. It is certainly not designed in 
order to accomplish the goal of passing legislation and getting it 
signed into law.
  We saw these same sorts of show votes used primarily to try to gain 
political advantage in the upcoming election. We saw this on proposed 
legislation on the border, on contraception, on abortion, on in vitro 
fertilization, and on tax policy. In each instance, these were not 
efforts to try to work out differences and build consensus; this was 
designed to fail. That was the point: to have a show vote and then be 
able to have a TV ad or use it in some campaign. That is my definition 
of partisan gamesmanship, and it is a waste of the Senate's time, 
especially when so many priorities remain unaddressed, like the Defense 
authorization bill and the appropriation bills.

  Again, all of this could have been avoided, but, by design, it was 
not. The majority leader has given us precious little time to do our 
job this year, and he has wasted a lot of time on partisan show votes. 
As a result, one of our most important responsibilities is outstanding.
  Just to remind everybody, the Defense authorization bill was 
completed by the Armed Services Committee

[[Page S5911]]

more than 2 months ago. They did their job in a bipartisan way. That, 
in and of itself, is a miracle. But it should have been brought to the 
floor and opened for debate and votes and passage.
  I want to commend Senator Reed of Rhode Island, the chairman; Ranking 
Member Wicker; and all of our colleagues on the Armed Services 
Committee for doing their job. Now, the majority leader needs to do his 
job so that we can do our job. It is long past time for Senator Schumer 
to bring this vital legislation to the floor. We are playing with fire, 
I believe, at a time when the national security threats loom so large, 
and I hope we will soon get a chance to debate and to vote on this 
bill.
  Given the great power of competition and the fact that conflicts have 
unfolded in Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific, the NDAA 
should be a top priority. It is regrettable that the majority leader 
doesn't see it as a priority.
  Well, Mr. President, when you can't plan, you can't get ready, and so 
it is no exaggeration to say we now find ourselves in a true readiness 
crisis. We can't delay consideration of the Defense authorization bill. 
We can delay it, but we can't postpone our problems, and our 
adversaries are not acting on Majority Leader Schumer's timeline.
  America's strength and leadership are vital to global security and 
equally vital to protecting our homeland. So the Democratic-led Senate 
should not ignore its responsibility to bolster our readiness and 
certainly should not stand in the way of the rest of us who are 
interested in addressing these challenges.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

                          ____________________