National Defense Authorization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I come down to the Chamber today to talk a little bit and highlight the vast differences in the priorities between the two Chambers in the U.S. Congress today.

Several of my colleagues will be down here a little later today to talk about and to encourage the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act--a bill, by the way, that passed the Senate in a very strong bipartisan way, reflective of strong bipartisan input, in a vote of 86 to 8. The House also passed their version of the National Defense Authorization Act on more of a party-line vote.

The point being, both Chambers have passed it; the reconciliation of the two bills has begun; the negotiations have begun, but they have been stalled. I think it is a strong reflection of the differences between the two Chambers.

First, I will talk a little bit about why it is important that we do this job. First of all, there have been 58 years in a row that the NDAA has passed the House and the Senate and signed into law. Why? Well, because it is the highest priority of the government--of all the bills we do every year, apart from and very close to appropriations, would be authorization of our national defense programs. That is why it has happened 58 years in a row.

It is important for a number of reasons. One of the things that both the House version and the Senate version of the NDAA does is highlight the importance of space with the creation of a Space Force, as we call it the Senate, and Space Corps, as they call it in the House. Nonetheless, it is similar, and it represents and recognizes the importance of space domain as a warfighting domain going forward, a priority that our near-peer allies have already recognized in their policies.

Without NDAA passing, that goes by the wayside for at least another year. It also fully funds several national priorities, not the least of which is, of course, the largest pay increase in 10 years for our men and women who wear the uniform.

On a more local level for me, it authorizes the modernization of our nuclear fleet, including the ground-based missiles known as the ICBMs that we have 150 of in North Dakota at Minot. It modernizes this system, which is several decades old. If we need anything, we need to modernize our weapons systems again to keep pace with our near-peer adversaries.

It also authorizes millions of dollars in funds to the national Global Hawk mission, which is headquartered in Grand Forks, another very important Air Force base in my State. It authorizes funds for the MQ-9 program. MQ-9s are flown by North Dakota Air National Guardsmen in Fargo's Happy Hooligans. It also advances the mission of the Cavalier Air Force Station in Cavalier, ND, one of the very few space radar stations, and it ensures that the needs of all our Guard operations are met.

The House bill, by the way, also does something that is very important to me. It is a bill I have introduced, along with my colleagues from New York, that honors the 74 sailors who lost their lives in the Frank E. Evans 50 years ago during the Vietnam war. These sailors' names have been left off the Vietnam Memorial Wall over a minor technicality, a technicality that probably shouldn't be in the rules to begin with, but certainly it has been waived in many other circumstances and needs to be waived in this NDAA. I would love to get that House language into the final bill.

None of these priorities are going to be met if House Democrats--and I focus on House Democrats--if they don't come to the table and act in good faith and negotiate in good faith. Senate Democrats have had a major part in this, and I welcome every bit of involvement they provide.

One of the joys of being on the Armed Services Committee for me has been being able to see a functioning committee that works well across party lines. Obviously, Senate Republicans are all on board. House Republicans are all on board. For some reason, the House leadership on the Democratic side is focused on other priorities, and the contrast could not be more clear.

While we have been working hard in the Senate on appropriations, as well as the Defense authorization, our chairman has used his voice-- Chairman Inhofe--and used his incredible work ethic and his wisdom in working with Senator Reed, the ranking Democrat, on getting these priorities to the forefront. I can't think of a better tandem than those two gentlemen.

Chairman Inhofe is truly one of the hardest working, most decent, and honorable people I have ever worked with. Chairman Smith, the chairman in the House committee, could learn a few things from him.

Again, while we passed the bill with overwhelming bipartisan support, the House bill was a much more partisan exercise. We want to prevent a government shutdown. We want to prevent a continuing resolution. So along with the NDAA, of course, is the Defense appropriations bill, and we have to get both of them done. We want to give our military a win- win situation, where they get the pay raises, where they get the modernization they need, where new programs can be launched, and where we can provide long-term certainty.

While we are trying to provide at least a win for our military, Democrats in the House are focused on trying to win the 2016 Presidential election, not even thinking so much about the next one. They are involved in a kangaroo court over there. I watched a half hour of it today, and I could hardly believe what I was seeing. Today's political theater in the House is unnecessary, and 3 years into it, it is an outward demonstration of the inward motivation of a party that is trying to undo the Presidency of Donald Trump.

Instead of prioritizing our constitutional responsibilities, they are engaged in political theater in a kangaroo court. I am pleading, once again, with my colleagues across the aisle and especially across the Capitol, in these last couple of days, while the negotiators are together trying to figure out a path forward, please come to the table, please act in good conscience. Please, please, please look for opportunities where we can compromise, and, for Pete's sake, let's at least pass the things we all agree on.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source