Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, first of all, thank you for your flexibility at the chair today. Appropriations

Madam President, the purpose for rising today is to advocate on behalf of our military, the men and women who are the bravest in the world. I feel compelled to do so because I can imagine that in these days of hyperpartisan politics, some of them may feel like some of us are abandoning them, and I want them to know for sure that we are not.

We all took an oath to the Constitution, and the highest priority in the Constitution for the Federal Government is, of course, to provide for the Nation's defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues seem to be shirking from this responsibility lately. They are willing to settle for, seemingly, mediocrity, and right now we have excellence, the best. First of all, they are planning to come to this Chamber tomorrow to block the all- important Defense appropriations bill; that is to say, to block the funding for our military; that is to say, to block the largest pay increase for the men and women of our military in over a decade--just to name one topic that is being funded, or would be funded, by this appropriations bill that they are going to block.

Back in July, the House and Senate, on a bipartisan basis--I say to the Presiding Officer, you just gave a wonderful speech about the importance of working together. On a bipartisan basis, we passed a major budget bill. It was a win for our military and a win for our country because it was supposed to provide them with certainty and an important path forward as they chart that path--that strategic path-- for America's superiority.

To echo the House Speaker and the Democratic leader at the time: ``A bipartisan agreement has been reached that will enhance our national security.'' These aren't my words--although I agree with them--these are the words of the Democratic leadership of Congress.

After passage, the Democratic leader went on to say: This deal would ``strengthen our national security and provide our troops with the resources they need.'' I agree with the Democratic leader. Please-- please--change course while you still can and support this important funding bill tomorrow.

I agreed with my colleague from New York then, and I supported that legislation for the exact reason to ``strengthen our national security and provide our troops with the resources they need.''

This deal passed with strong bipartisan support. It was widely applauded. Yet here we are today, this week, with our colleagues preparing to block the funding for our troops for which they were just a couple of months ago patting themselves on the back.

This whole process shouldn't even be this complicated. In fact, I am convinced that the American people are tired of us complicating simple things. We agreed to this 2-year budget agreement just a few months ago. I voted for it. Party leadership pushed for it. The President signed it. Then we voted for a short-term continuing resolution to get in order before getting to the final appropriations deal.

I reluctantly voted for the short-term CR, but the only thing worse than a CR, of course, is a government shutdown. So that was what we were confronted with.

If one asked the military community how they feel about continuing resolutions, they would be quick to tell you they don't work. They don't work at all. They do not provide certainty beyond certainty. They don't allow new programs to be launched. They don't allow the pay increases that our appropriations bill does. So evidently it has not been a priority for our Democratic colleagues, but they do have priorities, as we know.

This impeachment craziness, this obsession with eliminating, getting rid of our Commander in Chief a year before the election of the Commander in Chief is what their priorities are, clearly, not the priorities stated in the Constitution or that they were bragging about a couple of months ago.

Of course, in addition, they are now standing in the way of us passing the reconciled National Defense Authorization Act--the authorization that provides the guidance for these priorities that are also part of our appropriations bill.

We went through all of that, and for what? I didn't agree to the deals we made or take these tough votes just so the Democrats could block Defense appropriations and leave our military stuck with political gridlock that they have imposed on us now.

By failing to pass this appropriations bill, by standing in the way now of reconciling in the conference committee the National Defense Authorization Act, they really are standing in the way of our military. Now there is talk of a ``skinny NDAA''--that is to say, a watered-down skinny version.

For 58 years in a row, we have done what you just talked about and what the previous speakers talked about. We have worked in a bipartisan way to pass an NDAA 58 years in a row.

As the first North Dakotan ever to sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I treated this NDAA with the utmost importance and still do. We made some significant progress, from nuclear deterrence to UAS development, establishing a Space Force, and honoring the sailors of the USS Frank E. Evans--a provision the Democratic leader and his colleague from New York supported, I will add. Both the House and Senate versions of the NDAA advanced important policies for my State, for our country, and really for the world.

We should be working collaboratively to combine these versions and pass the best plan possible for our military. Instead, our work is being sacrificed at the altar of partisan politics, caught up in a partisan impeachment process that makes no sense.

Let's make something clear about this skinny NDAA.

Our chairman is not introducing it with haste or without great consideration. He first warned that this could happen well over a month ago. He said it would happen if our Democratic colleagues proved to be so incapable of setting aside their problems with President Trump that they could not advance the interests of our Nation's military. Ever the optimist, I thought they would. I thought they would.

Now, my Democratic colleagues are balking at any and all forward progress on the NDAA because of their opposition to President Trump and his priorities for border security. They want to limit his authority to transfer anymore funds in order to build physical barriers at our southern border.

So I want to be clear. The President would not need to use that authority to use any military construction funds to build a wall if our Democratic colleagues would simply provide the necessary funding through the normal appropriations process, as they always have and as we always have. I, for one, will not be so unreasonable in negotiating with them. For example, if--and I mean only if--my Democratic colleagues would fund the administration's border security request through the appropriations process, then count me in for limiting the President's transfer authority. I am willing to compromise, but you can't have it both ways. You can't say we are going to take away the President's constitutional authority on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, make sure you don't fund the priorities that he needs to fund, which is, again, the highest priority of our government.

To reiterate my earlier point, I applaud the chairman for his handling of this process. He has been vigilant and focused on completing the NDAA, and I don't blame him for where we are today. No, House Democrats have not been willing partners and have forced the chairman to devise a backup plan for their intransigence.

That is what I find so disappointing. Surely, our Democratic colleagues know the threat that our foreign adversaries pose. For crying out loud, we just came from a classified briefing. If it is not clear enough, I don't know when it will be.

Whether it is the crisis at the southern border or the critical missions that bring terrorists like al-Baghdadi to justice, I am sure my colleagues want to do whatever it takes to keep our country safe. Surely, they are capable of putting partisan politics aside in order to pass the 59th straight National Defense Authority Act. Anything to the contrary would be unprecedented.

Yet here we are. I find it astonishing that with all the wannabe Commanders in Chief right here in the Senate, they are playing politics with the funding and authorities of the troops they hope to lead.

Can you imagine one of these Presidential candidates becoming the Commander in Chief and the first talk they have with the troops is, ``Yeah, I held up your funding and your pay raises.'' It is not a great way to start.

If it were up to our committee, this bill would have already passed. If it were up to our conference, this NDAA would be on its way to the President's desk. But unfortunately, it is not. That is the unfortunate reality we face today.

The Democratic Party is continuing to put their hatred of President Trump and his agenda above the needs of our Nation's military, and, thus, our Nation's defense. It is a dereliction of duty. I find it sickening, and I find it embarrassing. We are better than this. This institution deserves better than this. The American people expect and deserve better than this.

I want to make one last plea before they block tomorrow's vote. Please put our military men and women, our highest priority, ahead of partisan politics.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source