Source: United States Senator for Oklahoma James Inhofe
U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today criticized Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) management of the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act after Sen. Schumer delayed consideration of the bill and restricted amendment votes.
The NDAA authorizes funding levels and provides key authorities for the U.S. military and other defense priorities. Congress has enacted this critical legislation for 60 years in a row, but only five times in history has the Senate begun consideration of this bill in November or later. In the absence of this bill, important authorities — including the ability to issue special pay for our troops — will expire on January 1. The Senate Armed Services Committee advanced the bill on July 21 by a vote of 23-3.
As Prepared for Delivery:
Every year, when the Senate turns to the NDAA, we call it a “must-pass bill,” and it really is.
It’s must-pass because it gives our troops the pay they’ve earned, and the tools and training they need to fight and win against our enemies.
That’s why we’ve passed an NDAA every year for 60 years straight. This year will be 61.
This is pretty much the only authorization bill that gets done the way it should, year after year. In fact, it’s pretty much the only bill, period, that Congress does every single year without fail.
However, no matter how important it is, that doesn’t mean we will accept the fact that Sen. Schumer wants to jam it through the Senate without adequate consideration.
Let me be clear – Sen. Schumer has put us in this position today. He waited more than two months after we filed the NDAA to bring it to the floor.
He tried to tack on his unrelated legislation — just as many of us, including my Democratic colleague in the House, Adam Smith, guessed he would.
And now, he wants a floor vote on this bill — the most important bill we do all year — to be enough, despite the fact he isn’t giving us ample time to debate the bill, and he certainly hasn’t been willing to entertain an open amendment process.
I think Americans back home are smart enough to understand that our service members deserve more. They deserve to be our priority in the Senate, and we need to show them that by providing a robust and open debate on the annual defense bill.
We’re in this place now because Sen. Schumer won’t prioritize national defense and fund our troops.
Because the Majority Leader mismanaged the Senate schedule, he won’t allow votes on bipartisan amendments that make our country more secure.
These include an amendment that would inflict sanctions against Russia to stop its power grab over European energy supplies — which simply builds on previous bipartisan NDAAs and aligns with the House version of the NDAA.
Another amendment that Sen. Schumer wouldn’t give a vote would tighten import restrictions on China to ensure goods sold in the U.S. aren’t made by Uygher forced labor. This already passed the Senate — by voice vote!
Good amendments like these shouldn’t fall victim to the Majority Leader’s failed leadership.
We all understand how important this bill is. It shouldn’t be a partisan thing. This is the most important bill we do each year. It’s even more important now, because we’re in the most threatened position of our lifetimes.
I echo the Minority Leader’s frustration. I understand the frustration from my colleagues who wanted real time to debate this bill. We wouldn’t be in this position if the Majority Leader had brought this bill up earlier.
And while I want to be clear that we are in this position because of Sen. Schumer and he is forcing this unfortunate action, I also want to be equally clear that I’m still very supportive of this bill, and I hope we pass it soon.
But I stand with my colleagues who are voting against the Majority Leader’s irresponsible management of this bill.
We’ve got to get it done. We can’t rush it, and that is why I will be voting no on cloture. That’s not an easy thing for me to do, but I believe we can get this bill in better shape. My vote is against the process — not the bill itself.
We’re not delaying national security — no. This is the opposite. We are demanding that we show, through open and robust debate, that our men and women in uniform are our priority.