NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020--Resumed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JONES. Madam President, I approach to say how much I appreciate my colleagues, Senator Merkley and Senator Kaine, for their eloquent thoughts on an important issue of our time.

Let me also now rise in total frustration on a completely different issue--but total frustration, bafflement, and, quite frankly, just angry and disappointed in this body. I am angry because we have turned our back for over 40 years on military families. We have turned our backs on the widows of the very men and women who have given their lives to protect this country, to uphold our democratic ideals, and to make possible the very work that we are doing in the Senate and the very work that we, as Members of the Senate and as Members of Congress, are charged to do every day on behalf of the American people and, particularly, on behalf of veterans and their families.

I am talking about this body's refusal to bring up the Military Widow's Tax Elimination Act--the refusal to bring it up for a single floor vote--despite the fact that we have 75 cosponsors--75 cosponsors of this bill. It is the most bipartisan legislation, except for the robocall bill, which everybody could agree on. And we can't get that to a vote in this body?

Where have we gone wrong? Where have the rules of the body--the rules that the leadership of both parties are operating under--gone off the rails that we can't bring this to a vote, to just get a simple up-or- down vote, on a process that is ripe, and that is the NDAA?

In my 17 or 18 months--I forget how many now in this body--I have had some frustrating moments, as I know all of my colleagues who have been here for a long time have had a lot of frustrating moments. We have shut down this government three times since I have been a U.S. Senator--three times. I have seen disaster relief held up for 5 or 6 months, with farmers and others needing that relief, needing that money, needing that help, and we held it up for political reasons so that someone can score a point because everything is seen through the eyes of a political gamesmanship. That is how we are operating today, and it is incredibly frustrating for those of us who want to make sure we go forward with things when we see bipartisan efforts.

In this situation, we are talking about military families who are getting ripped off by us. You can call it the government if you want to, but at the end of the day, they are getting ripped off by every single Member of this body and the House of Representatives, and they have had it. It is no wonder that the American people think that Congress and Washington, in general, are just completely broken. If we can't fight for military widows and spouses, who are having their survivor benefits shortchanged, then, for whom are we going to fight? For whom are we going to stand up?

We always talk about standing up for the least of these. I have people wanting to stand up for the immigrants coming across the border. I have people wanting to stand up for corporations and to make sure that they are paying their share of the taxes, as opposed to overburden. I have people standing up for people every day, but here we have a chance to stand up for people who have given their lives for this country, and we are not doing it. We are not doing it.

If we can't do the right thing on this, with 75 cosponsors, how can we possibly tackle immigration reform? How can we possibly tackle healthcare reform or education in this country if we can't come to some agreement and one simple vote when we have 75 cosponsors?

How can we not fight for people like Cathy Milford, a retired schoolteacher from Mobile, AL, whose husband passed away unexpectedly 25 years ago from a service-connected illness just months after his retirement from the Coast Guard? Instead of a long and happy retirement together, Cathy has been fighting to right this wrong for all of the some 65,000 military spouses who are hurt by the current law.

During a recent visit here to Capitol Hill, she said: ``Every time I talk about this''--and she is up here a lot talking about elimination of the military widow's tax--``I have to dig up my husband and bury him all over again.''

Just think about that. Let that just sink in a minute: a military widow, one of many of thousands, who had to return to lobby Congress year after year at their own expense, saying she feels like she is digging up and burying her husband all over again when she has to talk about this issue. That is not only sad, it is shameful.

We have tried to pass this legislation. The Senate has, in some form, repeatedly over the last almost 20 years. It has been included in the NDAA numerous times only to be stripped out during conference. It has been included without an immediate pay-for to offset the budget issues that everybody kind of falls back on and hangs their hat on. We don't have that immediate pay-for.

It has passed before. It has passed before in this body with bipartisan support, but for some reason it just hasn't been able to get across the finish line. For some reason, even though the bill today has historic levels of cosponsorship, we are not allowed to bring it up for a vote as an amendment to this NDAA. Frankly, that is the frustration.

It is a frustration that goes beyond just this bill. It is a frustration that we can't debate on the floor of the Senate anymore. We can't bring up amendments. I think we have brought up one amendment in legislation in this Congress because of the rule between the leader and minority leader. There are all these deals going on. You have to have a Republican package; you have to have a Democratic package; you have to play one against the other. We are constantly playing the political games in this body when we should be working for the American people as a whole.

That is why today, at this time, I am once again calling for our bill to eliminate the military widow's tax, to pass it or get it voted on and bring it to the floor and pass it on unanimous consent. Every one of my colleagues would do well to remember that we are the ones who should be fighting for these spouses. We are the ones. We are the only people they can turn to. This can't be fixed on the streets. It can't be fixed at the Department of Defense or the Veterans' Administration. The legislature, the Congress of the United States, is the only one that can do it, and we are the ones who should be fighting for these military spouses, the widows and widowers whose loved ones gave their lives for this country, the widows and widowers whose lives are forever changed because of their family's selfless service to this country.

Caring for military families has long been part of the foundation of our government. In President Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address, he spoke in no uncertain terms on this obligation. In the midst of the Civil War, he addressed a nation that had sustained unimaginable loss--unimaginable loss--in order to preserve the Union we so cherish.

The country was then more divided than it ever had been, and God help us if it ever gets that divided again, but the values Lincoln asserted during that speech were so fundamental that, even at war with itself, it could agree on the importance.

He said this:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan, to do all which we may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Let me repeat that critical phrase today: `` . . . to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.''

This is the promise we have made to those who raise their hand in service to our Nation. This is the contract, the solemn contract, that we have made to those who have raised their hand in service to this Nation; that we will honor and support them and care for their families if tragedy occurs.

President Lincoln was assassinated just over a month after he issued this appeal, but the weight of his words still resonate today. In some ways, on this issue, they resonate more because in those days you could count on the fact that the legislative body, the Congress of the United States, heeded those words and took care of those families.

It has been 154 years since President Lincoln spoke those words; yet the Government of the United States, the Members of this body, the Members of the House have yet to fulfill that promise. It has been 154 years, and we still get caught up in the deals that are made as to what gets on the floor and what does not get on the floor, the political deals that have to be jockeyed, where we give and take, and it is one over the other. We need to fix that today.

We need to fix it in a broader sense and let this body get back to its real work and be the great deliberative body it is supposed to be. We are not doing that, but that is a different issue for a different time.

Let's start today and stand up and exhibit just a fraction, a small fraction--a small, small fraction--of the courage that these military spouses did on our behalf. Let's let our actions speak louder than words simply ever could. Let's put the issue to rest and give these widows some peace.

Let us do our duty.

It was Atticus Finch, who told the jury in ``To Kill a Mockingbird,'' as he closed out, knowing what the outcome was going to be, as I do here--knowing what the outcome was going to be, it was Atticus Finch, who said: ``In the name of God, do your duty.''

I say that to this body. I say that to the leadership. In the name of God, let's do our duty to these people. Let's get behind the political deals and let's do our duty, once and for all. Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 269 be considered and agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JONES. I thank my friend and colleague Chairman Inhofe, and let me say I know where he has been on this issue. I have seen his speeches from years past on this issue, and I do appreciate that, and I appreciate the fact that he is a cosponsor.

I also know this has been put on an NDAA before in this body without a pay-for, without an offset, in order to have a sense of the Senate and to go on record, and that is what I think we should do. I understand we are not there this year for whatever reason. I still believe, in part, that it is a procedural issue that ought to be put aside for this, but that is an argument for another day.

I do so very much appreciate the chairman's remarks. I have enjoyed working with him, Senator Reed, and others on the NDAA. That has been an effort. I told folks back home and across the country where I have spoken that I wish people could have actually seen what happened in that markup behind closed doors and the bipartisanship that the chairman showed and the other Senators showed. I wish people could have seen it because we don't get to see it. I don't think if we opened it up that we would have seen it, but it was remarkable.

So we are where we are in the Senate. I understand that, and I knew that coming in here. I will simply say this. The House of Representatives is also going to take up the NDAA, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the wonderful Capitol are listening. Put it in. It is not in the committee bill. Put it in. Bring it to conference because, if it gets to conference, I am going to continue to have this in this NDAA, and let's get this done, once and for all.

Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, and thank you, Mr. President.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source