Schumer, Ernst, Sanders

The NDAA (H.R. 5515)

Senator Schumer: (10:36 a.m.)

  • Spoke in tribute to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
    • "Before I begin my remarks, I want to congratulate our Republican leader on becoming the longest serving Republican leader in the Senate. My friend, Leader McConnell, reached that milestone today. It's no secret we disagree on a whole lot of issues, both political and philosophical, but that doesn't mean we can't or don't work together or that I don't admire the qualities that have helped make him the longest serving Republican leader. He understands his caucus and represents them well."
  • Spoke on North Korea.
    • "Now, on North Korea, in the early hours of the morning, President Trump and Chairman Kim met in Singapore for the first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and the leader of North Korea. It was a welcome improvement to see the two of them having a dialogue rather than engaging in name calling and saber rattling. Certainly, Americans feel better about talking than name calling and threats of war, which had characterized the relationship up until now. Though we are all rooting for diplomacy to succeed, we must be clear-eyed about what a diplomatic success with North Korea looks like."


Senator Ernst: (10:45 a.m.)

  • Spoke on the NDAA.
    • "I'm calling on my colleagues across the aisle to clear this bill or else I will fight for a vote on it in the NDAA. My legislation, the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act, would establish a cap on former president's monetary allowances which are currently unlimited and fund resources like office space, staff salaries, cellphone bills, and more. It would then reduce the allowance dollar for dollar by each dollar of income a former president earns in excess of $400,000. The national debt is over $20 trillion. We cannot afford to generously subsidize the perks of former presidents to the tune of millions of dollars."


Senator Sanders: (11:02 a.m.)

  • Spoke on the NDAA.
    • "This morning, I want to say a few words about why I am voting no, to talk about the number of amendments that I have offered to this bill, and to express my very serious concerns about our nation's bloated military budget, particularly in light of the many unmet needs we face as a nation. Also, I must express a very serious objection to the fact that we are dealing with a $716 billion piece of legislation that is more than half of the discretionary budget, and yet we will in all likelihood not have a process which allows for amendments to be debated. $716 billion at a time when in Louisiana, as I understand it, they are now going to be cutting food stamps for hungry children, where schools throughout this country don't have enough money for books or for teachers' salaries."