[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 119 (Wednesday, July 12, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3220-H3229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2670, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 582 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 582

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2670) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2024 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense and for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their 
     respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 118-10, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in part B of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole.
       (c) All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Armed Services or their respective designees, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment pursuant to this resolution, the Committee of the 
     Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of 
     the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent 
     order of the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), my very good friend and the ranking member of the Committee 
on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 582.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported 
out a rule, House Resolution 582, providing for consideration of H.R. 
2670, the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA as we commonly 
know it, for fiscal year 2024, under a structured rule. It provides for 
1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. It provides the 
Committee on Armed Services with en bloc authority so that the House 
can expeditiously consider hundreds of Member priorities.
  I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the NDAA is one of the most critical pieces of 
legislation the House considers each year. Congress has a 
constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense, and this 
is an obligation I know the House takes very seriously. Each year, the 
NDAA enables Congress to set appropriate defense policies, to provide 
guidance and direction to the armed forces, and above all, to set 
authorization levels for defense funding. Collectively, these efforts 
provide our warfighters with the training, equipment, and strategy 
necessary to meet any challenge around the globe.
  Congress has enacted the NDAA every year for the last 62 years. While 
we have a long road ahead of us, I am confident that we will do so 
again this year, and I am gratified that the House is moving forward 
with consideration of this measure on the floor.
  Last month, the House Armed Services Committee reported out H.R. 2670 
with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 58-1. From a review of the 
bill, it is easy to see why.

                              {time}  1230

  H.R. 2670 authorizes $886 billion for defense programs, an increase 
of $28 billion. This funding level will ensure our men and women in 
uniform are equipped for all threats and are prepared and ready to 
defend freedom all around the globe.
  In proposing this funding level, the Armed Services Committee stayed 
within the parameters of the funding levels set in the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act. Additionally, they identified nearly $40 billion 
that was repurposed to respond to our current national security needs. 
This ensures that the tax dollars of hardworking Americans are being 
used in the most efficient and appropriate way possible.
  H.R. 2670 includes a 5.2 percent pay increase for our servicemembers, 
the largest pay increase in over 20 years. It includes critical 
policies that will counter aggression from the Chinese Communist Party, 
advance investments in tools to counter emerging threats, and bolster 
the reliability of our supply chains. What is more, it includes 
critical oversight measures designed to ensure that defense dollars are 
wisely spent.
  Mr. Speaker, it doesn't stop there. H.R. 2670 also ensures that the 
Biden administration cannot continue to put policies ahead of national 
security. It rejects the Biden administration's efforts to indoctrinate 
our troops with progressive ideology like critical race theory 
training, and instead, ensures that the Pentagon's focus is where it 
should be, on military readiness and preparedness so that our 
warfighters can defeat aggression and defend freedom anywhere in the 
world.
  In drafting H.R. 2670, the Armed Services Committee followed a robust 
bipartisan process. They considered 760 amendments during the markup 
and adopted 731 of them.
  In preparing today's rule, the Rules Committee sought to continue 
this robust, collaborative process. We reviewed over 1,500 amendments, 
a record number. In keeping with our longstanding tradition at the 
Rules Committee, we welcomed any Member who wished to come testify 
about their amendments. Dozens of Members from both parties took part 
and educated the committee on their proposals for this bill, and, 
indeed, we would have welcomed dozens more.

[[Page H3221]]

  In all, today's rule makes in order 290 amendments, reflecting 
substantive ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle and ensuring 
that Members will have an opportunity to present their priorities to 
the House. I look forward to debating these ideas on the floor and to 
full and fair consideration of these proposals before the entire House.
  Mr. Speaker, all in all, H.R. 2670 is a strong bill, and the rule we 
are considering today is an appropriate one for consideration of such 
an important measure. I urge the Members to support both the rule and 
H.R. 2670, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I respect the gentleman, and I 
appreciate his remarks, his commitment to civility and decency and 
fairness. I know that he wants this House to run better and reflect the 
will of the Members. Quite frankly, I just don't believe what is 
happening in this Chamber lives up to the standard that he has set.
  Last night, the Rules Committee met at 11 p.m. to advance a rule, not 
for the whole National Defense Authorization Act, which we were 
supposed to start debating today, but for part of the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  I get it. I have been in the majority before. I understand it is not 
always easy. What is happening today on the floor--not knowing when we 
are coming back to finish the second rule for this bill, or what 
offensive amendments will be included--is not just weird, it is nuts.
  A small group of radical, hard-right Members, the MAGA circus I call 
them, is threatening to take down the NDAA rule unless they get their 
way. The ``unless they get their way'' part is really becoming a theme 
in this Congress.
  I don't envy the gentleman from Oklahoma because what he is dealing 
with is truly bizarre. The MAGA circus wants to load up what could and 
should be a bipartisan bill--a bipartisan bill that passes every single 
year. They want to load it up with every single divisive social issue 
under the sun via the amendment process. Anti-abortion? Check. Anti-
LGBTQ rights? Check. Anti-gun safety? Check.
  It is not just that they are demanding it, it is that Republican 
leadership is probably caving. It is embarrassing, but, quite frankly, 
it is not surprising. This is just the latest example of how Kevin 
McCarthy has ceded control of this body to the most extreme Members of 
his own caucus while hanging everyone else out to dry and cutting 
mainstream Members out of the process. Kevin McCarthy may be the 
ringmaster, Mr. Speaker, but the clowns have taken over the circus.
  This is a group of Members that are so far to the right that they 
have now begun purging Members from their own ranks for not being 
ideologically pure enough. It is honestly kind of scary. That is who is 
trying to write this year's defense bill.
  The party of single-issue bills wants to turn the NDAA into an anti-
abortion, anti-LGBTQ bill that weighs in on every wedge issue and 
culture war from guns to border and beyond.
  Give me a break. If they want to do a single-issue bill, get this 
stuff out of here and pass a bipartisan NDAA bill.
  By the way, I would say that I find some of the amendments that have 
been introduced to this NDAA incredibly offensive. We have Members 
saying they want to get woke out of the military, but they can't even 
define ``woke.''
  Was desegregating the military woke?
  Was allowing women in combat roles woke?
  Was repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell woke?
  That is what I want to ask some of my colleagues. I am pretty sure 
what their answer would be.
  Mr. Speaker, why all the backroom dealing and negotiating with MAGA 
clowns?
  By the way, I say that as somebody who has voted against the NDAA in 
the minority and in the majority because, quite frankly, I am sick and 
tired of sending blank checks to the Pentagon while we nickel and dime 
programs that help everyday people.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish the Republicans luck in trying to solve this 
internal power struggle. I have to say, I don't have a whole lot of 
faith that this is going to work out in a way that will be good for 
this country.
  I don't think it will work out in a way that will be good for most 
people in this country.
  This is an example. I think when people are watching these 
proceedings and are seeing the kind of extortion that the MAGA 
Republicans are exacting from the current leadership, this is what I 
think people look at and say: This is what is wrong with Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I say this with no disrespect to the chairman, who I 
think is an example of what is right in this place. I will be voting 
``no'' on this rule. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
rule. I hope and pray that my Republican friends can get their act 
together so we can actually start doing the people's business.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend. As always, he is a thoughtful 
and reflective speaker, even when we disagree on certain things.
  Mr. Speaker, the process in front of us is undoubtedly going to go 
longer than we originally anticipated. I don't think that is a bad 
thing. I actually think that is a good thing. I suspect we will, in the 
end, have more votes on a whole variety of issues than we might have 
originally had.
  Again, I don't think that is a bad thing. That is broadly allowing 
the House, within the fine parameters, to work its will as we work 
toward a solution. I think we will ultimately get there.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also remind my friend that however a bill 
changes here, it is going to change again. The NDAA by its very nature 
is, at the end of the day on final passage, a bipartisan bill. I would 
just suggest to people to not get too upset or get too worried.
  You are going to see the House very vigorously debating a whole 
variety of issues. That is good for the institution. I think at the end 
of the day, the House will work its will and we will pass an NDAA bill 
out of here. At some point we will sit down and conference it with the 
Senate, and it will come back, and we will have another pretty vigorous 
debate.
  What we are seeing is a pretty robust democracy working its will and 
a pretty robust House of Representatives working its will.
  Mr. Speaker, today will be a bipartisan discussion. Most of the 
amendments, indeed, have been agreed to by both sides, but they need to 
be fully aired and debated. We think that is a good thing. I suspect it 
will be somewhat of a more contentious debate later on in the process, 
but the process will work out.
  At the end of the day, I am confident we will pass an NDAA bill. At 
the end of the day, I am confident that once the bill is worked through 
the Senate and signed by the President, it will, as most NDAA bills 
are, be a bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. I would just say 
for the record that we are not objecting to more amendments being made 
in order.
  I will remind my colleagues that when I was chairman of the Rules 
Committee, we had made 650 amendments in order for the National Defense 
Authorization Act, which is far higher than the 290. We hope that you 
have at least 650, and maybe you can surpass us. That would be 
wonderful.
  We don't object to a process that allows for more amendments to be 
considered or more amendments to be made in order. What we object to is 
the extorting of your leadership by a small group of extremists in this 
House who are trying to force their rightwing and hard-line views on 
Congress and the people of this country.
  We are concerned, quite frankly, that some of these ideas that the 
MAGA circus is proposing couldn't even pass if it were brought up as a 
freestanding amendment. We are worried about a self-executing rule as 
part of the next

[[Page H3222]]

rule that will make them part of the base bill. That is what we are 
concerned about.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, we want more amendments in 
order. We think that is a good thing. What we are worried about is what 
this small group of individuals that seems to be engaged in extortion 
on every single major bill that comes to this floor, what they will end 
up winning in this process. What they will win is not reflective of 
what I think the majority of this Chamber believes. That is deeply 
concerning to us.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we 
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to 
provide for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the 
House's sacred responsibility to protect and preserve Social Security 
and Medicare for our future generations and reject any cuts to these 
essential programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Bowman), to discuss that proposal.
  Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we can 
bring up H. Res. 178, an important piece of legislation affirming the 
House's commitment to protecting Social Security and Medicare.
  Protecting Social Security and Medicare must be a front and center 
priority of this Congress. We should be doing everything we can and 
using all of our power to work in a bipartisan way to make sure we 
protect Social Security and Medicare, as opposed to moving forward 
aggressively to raise military spending once again where we already 
spend more on our military and on our military industrial complex than 
the next 10 countries combined.
  The American people need to know the Republican Party is attempting 
to invest more in war than it is in protecting our seniors.

                              {time}  1245

  Some of our seniors--55 million Americans--have been paying into 
Social Security and Medicare for 50 years, and by 2035, 75 million 
Americans will call themselves seniors.
  We must protect our seniors. They have paid into our system. We must 
ensure that they have access to healthcare, to housing, to money in 
their pockets, and to food on the table. We often, particularly my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, seem to continue to 
marginalize and neglect the most vulnerable people in our society--our 
seniors included, our children included, and those who live in poverty 
included.
  I represent New York's 16th Congressional District. It is one of the 
most diverse districts in the country. We have urban, suburban, and 
rural areas. I am constantly in the community talking to my neighbors. 
Never do I hear that we should invest more in the military industrial 
complex than we do in protecting Medicare and Social Security. I never 
hear those words.
  I also want to identify our veterans as another vulnerable group that 
Republicans continue to leave behind, as not one Republican in the 
House voted in support of the PACT Act.
  I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and once again, let 
us do everything in our power to preserve and protect Medicare and 
Social Security. Let's not let the Republican Party cut it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will state for the record that I certainly have no 
objection to defending Social Security and Medicare. As a matter of 
fact, for, I think, six Congresses in a row, I have introduced 
legislation, which was originally drawn up with my good friend John 
Delaney, a former Democratic Member, on doing just that, on trying to 
save Social Security.
  What we proposed is what we did back in 1983 that actually worked, 
that extended the life of Social Security for almost half a century, 
which would be to actually do a commission and make a set of reasonable 
reforms. I would put revenue on the table. Personally, I think that has 
to be part of it. It certainly was then.
  Again, my friends haven't been very serious about reforming Social 
Security, in my view. To be fair, I don't think anybody has been. We 
have been trying to get people to look at this problem for a long time.
  I invite my friend from New York or any of my Democratic colleagues 
to look at what we have proposed--again, originally with a Democratic 
cosponsor. It is the only way we are going to get there. It is going to 
have to be a bipartisan sort of deal.
  That is what Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neill, and Howard Baker did back in 
that timeframe. We should do the same thing.
  To say we are not interested in Medicare and Social Security is 
simply wrong. Again, I am the last guy probably to say that to because 
I have consistently put out a proposal to try and move forward in that 
regard.
  I will say this. In 1983, when they saved it, we were within 2 months 
of it going broke--not going broke but having to make the cuts that you 
make to adjust your outflow to the revenue coming in. We have 10 years. 
We ought to take care of that.
  Unfortunately, nobody or not enough people seem to be interested. 
That includes the President of the United States, who, back in 1983, 
actually voted for that commission to be created and then voted to 
accept its recommendations. The current White House says it doesn't 
want to do any commissions and politicizes the issue.
  I see this on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, where people tell 
us they want to protect Social Security. If you want to protect it, Mr. 
Speaker, then you have to legislate on it because it is steadily 
becoming less solvent over the years.
  Also, to my friend from New York's remark about the focus on military 
spending, I just would point out to the House that the total budget in 
the NDAA that is proposed this year is actually the one the President 
recommended. Personally, I think it is too low. I would have gone 
higher. I will be the first to tell you that, Mr. Speaker.
  The number that the committee chose is the President's number. So, 
for those of my friends who are critical of how much is being spent, I 
would suggest you direct your concerns to the White House because the 
Appropriations Committee took the President's recommended number.
  Again, if my colleagues think we are misfocused, my friend's first 
argument is with the President of the United States and not with your 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the 
Record the Statement of Administration Policy for H.R. 2670.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


   H.R. 2670--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024

               (Rep. Rogers, R-AL, and Rep. Smith, D-WA)

       The Administration strongly supports enactment of a 
     National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for a 63rd 
     consecutive year and is grateful for the strong, bipartisan 
     work of the House Armed Services Committee on behalf of 
     America's national defense.
       The Administration looks forward to continuing to work with 
     the Congress to set appropriate and responsible levels of 
     defense and non-defense spending to support the security of 
     the Nation, consistent with the Fiscal Responsibility Act 
     (FRA). Alongside a strategically sound defense budget, a 
     strong economy and investments in diplomacy, development, and 
     economic statecraft are critical to ensuring that the Nation 
     is positioned to respond to the myriad of national security 
     challenges we face today and in the future.
       The Department of Defense's (DoD) Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 
     budget request was informed by the 2022 National Defense 
     Strategy (NDS), which calls on DoD to advance four key 
     priorities: defend the homeland, deter strategic attacks, 
     deter aggression while being prepared to prevail in conflict 
     when necessary, and build a resilient Joint Force and defense 
     ecosystem.
       This year marks the 50th anniversary of America's All-
     Volunteer Force. It also marks the 75th anniversaries of the 
     military's desegregation and women's integration into the 
     Armed Forces. Taking care of the health, safety, and economic 
     security of

[[Page H3223]]

     the Total Force--including the All-Volunteer Force, their 
     families, and DoD civilian employees and contractors--is 
     vital to ensuring a resilient military today and in the 
     future. It is an Administration priority, and President Biden 
     appreciates support for the 5.2 percent pay raise for 
     military service members.
       In a time of rapidly evolving military activities and 
     capabilities by our competitors--accelerated by emerging 
     technologies and intensified by the potential for new threats 
     to strategic stability--America's network of allies and 
     partners continues to act as a force multiplier in support of 
     U.S. national defense. Investments authorized in the NDAA in 
     support of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and the European 
     Deterrence Initiative will help address the changing global 
     landscape and prepare the country for future challenges and 
     threats.
       The Administration looks forward to working with the 
     Congress to address its concerns, a number of which are 
     outlined below.
       Repeal of Position of Director of Cost Assessment and 
     Program Evaluation (CAPE). The Administration strongly 
     opposes section 902, that would abolish CAPE, the backbone of 
     DoD's analytical workforce. Its independent, unbiased 
     analysis ensures that taxpayer dollars are spent effectively 
     and responsibly, and its cost estimates have helped reduce 
     acquisition program cost breaches from over 6 per year to 
     just over 2 per year, and median cost growth plummeted from 
     27 percent to only 3 percent, since its creation in 2009. The 
     dissolution of CAPE would lead to negative consequences as 
     the Secretary would be left without the analysis necessary to 
     build a strategy-driven budget across the Joint Force. CAPE 
     provides independent, fact-based evaluation of competing 
     resource requests from across the Department and executes 
     critical cross-cutting, joint strategic analysis.
       Enabling Future Capability Transition. The 2022 NDS 
     requires the United States to optimize the Joint Force and 
     invest in capabilities that ensure U.S. warfighters maintain 
     enduring advantages. DoD is committed to investing in 
     equipment that is survivable, lethal, and resilient, and that 
     makes responsible use of taxpayer dollars. This requires DoD 
     to transition from capabilities that would not be survivable, 
     lethal, and resilient in a future fight.
       Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation of 
     Landin Dock Ships and Guided Missile Cruisers. The 
     Administration strongly opposes section 1017, which would 
     limit the Navy's flexibility in exercising authority to 
     decommission ships, including those that are not yet beyond 
     the expected service life. Divesting ships on a case-by-case 
     basis, as current law permits, allows the Navy to prioritize 
     investments.
       Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile. The 
     Administration strongly opposes continued funding for the 
     nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) and its 
     associated warhead. The President's 2022 Nuclear Posture 
     Review concluded that SLCM-N, which would not be delivered 
     before the 2030s, has marginal utility and would impede 
     investment in other priorities. Further, deploying SLCM-N on 
     Navy attack submarines or surface combatants would reduce 
     capacity for conventional strike munitions, create additional 
     burdens on Naval training, maintenance, and operations, and 
     could create additional risks to the Navy's ability to 
     operate in key regions in support of our deterrence and 
     warfighting objectives. The U.S. has sufficient current and 
     planned capabilities for deterring an adversary's limited 
     nuclear use through conventional and nuclear armaments, 
     including the W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched ballistic 
     missile warhead, the current Air-launched Cruise Missile, its 
     successor (the Long-range Standoff weapon), and F-35A dual-
     capable aircraft that can be equipped with B61-12 nuclear 
     gravity bombs. Further investment in SLCM-N would divert 
     resources and focus from higher modernization priorities for 
     the U.S. nuclear enterprise and infrastructure.
       Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD). The Administration 
     strongly opposes the $550.6 million reduction for NGAD which 
     would delay the Engineering and Manufacturing Development 
     contract award, reduce industry staffing on the current 
     contracts, and require deferral of other related efforts 
     planned in FY 2024. Additionally, given the intent to 
     leverage NGAD software development for direct support to the 
     Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program, the proposed 
     reductions to NGAD would increase the risk to and cost of the 
     CCA program.
       Limitation on Availability of Funds for Retirement of B83-1 
     Nuclear Gravity Bombs. The Administration opposes section 
     1639, which would limit availability of funds for retirement 
     of B83-1 nuclear gravity bombs. This would constrain the 
     Department's ability to adequately retire the program. It 
     would also require additional funding to sustain and maintain 
     the program, which would inhibit the Administration's ability 
     to resource other modernization programs, including follow-
     on, modem capabilities that may be better suited for 
     defeating an adversary's hard and deeply buried strategic 
     targets.
       Link Plumeria. The Administration strongly opposes the $1.1 
     billion reduction to Project 2937 that supports the Navy's 
     FIA-XX program. The language makes it impossible for the Navy 
     to satisfy a critical element of the NDS in support of Joint 
     Force priorities. The 70 percent reduction breaks the program 
     and leaves the acquisition strategy unexecutable. 
     Additional details can be provided at higher 
     classification.
       Space National Guard. The Administration continues to 
     strongly oppose the creation of a Space National Guard. 
     Instead, the Administration endorses the Space Force 
     Personnel Management Act (SFPMA) to combine existing space 
     forces efficiently and effectively, and allow part-time 
     service within the Space Force, without the additional 
     overhead and bureaucracy of a separate component. The SFPMA 
     enables unity of command over all Department of the Air Force 
     space forces, maximizes flexibility for organize, train, and 
     equip and operational responsibilities, and ensures access to 
     part-time forces for surge capacity. National security space 
     missions are Federal in nature and global in impact. The 
     existing National Guard space equipment was procured and is 
     sustained with Federal funding. Further, Air National Guard 
     space missions are overwhelmingly housed on Federal land, and 
     are largely maintained by the regular Air and Space Forces. 
     The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress 
     to enact the SFPMA and urges the Congress not to create a new 
     bureaucracy with far-reaching and enduring implications and 
     expense.
       Temporary Extension of Authority to Provide Security for 
     Former Department of Defense Officials. The Administration 
     thanks the committee for including section 1112, which 
     extends current authority to provide security for former and 
     retired DoD officials. However, the elevated risk against 
     former and retired officials requires the additional 
     flexibility over longer periods of time provided by the 
     Administration's legislative proposal. We strongly encourage 
     the Congress to adopt the Administration's requested 
     amendments.
       Shipbuilding. The Administration is disappointed that the 
     committee failed to authorize the Administration's full 
     request for shipbuilding, providing nearly $600 million less 
     than the $32.9 billion requested in the FY 2024 President's 
     Budget. The Administration strongly opposes the $1.5 billion 
     reduction in authorized funding for the Submarine Tender 
     Replacement (AS(X)). Further, the Administration opposes the 
     $750 million in unrequested incremental funding authorized to 
     procure the next San Antonio-class amphibious warfare ship 
     (LPD-33) in FY 2024, especially considering the shipbuilding 
     plan would not require LPD-33 until FY 2025.
       New START Treaty Notifications. The Administration strongly 
     opposes section 1234, which would prohibit the use of certain 
     Department funds from being used to provide the Russian 
     Federation with ``notifications as required by the New START 
     Treaty.'' While the United States has, as of June 1, ceased 
     transmitting New START Treaty notifications to the Russian 
     Federation as a lawful countermeasure to Russia's ongoing 
     violations of the treaty, section 1234 would unduly constrain 
     the ability of the Executive Branch to reverse such 
     countermeasures. The United States continues to send two 
     types of notifications--on ballistic missile launches and on 
     major strategic exercises--required separately under two 
     older agreements (from 1988 and 1989, respectively) that 
     remain in force.
       Missile Defense. The Administration strongly opposes 
     section 1662, which would expand U.S. homeland missile 
     defense policy in a way that would signal intent to develop 
     U.S. homeland missile defenses to counter large 
     intercontinental-range, nuclear missiles threats such as 
     those fielded by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and 
     Russia. Implementing the policy in section 1662 would be both 
     cost prohibitive and not technically executable. Also, 
     establishing such a policy would undermine U.S. strategic 
     deterrence with the PRC and Russia and overturn two decades 
     of well-established missile defense policy. The 
     Administration also strongly opposes section 1663, which 
     would require a program to achieve an initial operational 
     capability for the Glide Phase Interceptor (GPI) by 2029 and 
     full operational capability by 2032. The planned GPI program 
     of the Missile Defense System has undergone multiple reviews 
     by the Department and is currently funded sufficiently to 
     keep pace with new threat-related technology developments. 
     Finally, the Administration opposes section 1668, which would 
     require the Secretary to rescind the memorandum on missile 
     defense governance that serves to reduce risk in missile 
     defense development and promote the effective transfer of 
     programs to the Services.
       Ukraine and Afghanistan Special Inspector Generals. The 
     Administration opposes section 1222, which would establish 
     another inspector general to oversee Ukraine assistance. DoD 
     continues to partner with the DoD Inspector General (IG), the 
     Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the relevant 
     congressional committees to conduct the critical task of 
     ensuring accountability for the assistance that the Congress 
     authorized and appropriated for Ukraine. The DoD IG and GAO 
     are currently undertaking multiple investigations regarding 
     every aspect of this assistance--from assessing the DoD's 
     processes for developing security assistance requirements to 
     evaluating the end-use monitoring processes for delivered 
     assistance--at the request of the Congress. Similarly, the 
     Administration opposes section 1220, which would 
     significantly expand the authority of the Special Inspector 
     General for Afghanistan Reconstruction to conduct oversight 
     of amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for 
     ``assistance for the benefit of the Afghan people.'' This 
     expansion is both unnecessary and unprecedented, as oversight 
     of U.S. assistance for the benefit of a country's people is 
     already provided by the Inspectors General for the Department 
     of State

[[Page H3224]]

     and United States Agency for International Development.
       Reprioritization of Military Construction Funding to 
     Unrequested Projects. The Administration opposes the bill's 
     realignment of military construction funding from priority 
     projects to other projects. Contrary to the Administration's 
     fiscally responsible policy to fully fund executable 
     projects, the bill proposes to fund 24 military construction 
     projects incrementally. This would effectively create an 
     unfunded obligation of almost $2.5 billion needed to 
     successfully execute these projects over time, would divert 
     those funds to projects that either are not executable in FY 
     2024 or were not higher priorities than the requested 
     projects, and would make that amount unavailable for other 
     defense requirements by encumbering that amount in future 
     fiscal year toplines.
       Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP). The 
     Administration strongly opposes the authorization of $588.4 
     million for the technological maturation and risk reduction 
     of the AETP. There are currently no plans to transition AETP 
     engines to a program of record. The F135 ECU and F-35 cooling 
     enhancements are more affordable and a common solution across 
     all three F-35 variants. Continued funding for AETP would 
     defer the transition of a skilled workforce to the Next 
     Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program. This, in turn, 
     would increase the risk that NGAP prototype test results 
     would not be available in time for the NGAD programs and that 
     future NGAD platform capability would be compromised by 
     legacy propulsion constraints.
       Modification of Vetting Procedures and Monitoring 
     Requirements for Certain Military Training. The 
     Administration strongly opposes section 1043 because it would 
     limit the Secretary's ability to grant exemptions based on 
     functional equivalence exclusively to the nationals of North 
     Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member nations. The 
     Department hosts many foreign nationals outside the NATO 
     alliance and excluding key allies and partners places DoD in 
     the undesirable situation of having lists of favored 
     countries, which creates foreign policy challenges and 
     concerns.
       Provisions Related to the COVID-19 Vaccine. The 
     Administration opposes an exemption from the requirement to 
     repay tuition at military Service Academies for those who 
     refused to receive a vaccination against COVID-19. Section 
     564 sets a dangerous precedent that not following lawful 
     orders is an option for service members, which will be 
     deleterious to good order and discipline as well as unit 
     cohesion. This exemption also would have a negative budgetary 
     impact. The Administration similarly objects to section 525, 
     Protections for Members of Certain Armed Forces Who Refuse to 
     Receive Vaccinations Against COVID-19, for the same reasons. 
     Additionally, the proposed language would prevent the 
     Secretary from taking appropriate action in the future should 
     a new strain of COVID-19 again require vaccination for force 
     health protection. Furthermore, the Administration objects to 
     section 526, Reviews of Characterization of Administrative 
     Discharges of Certain Members on the Basis of Failure to 
     Receive COVID-19 Vaccine, because it would place the review 
     of petitions concerning the characterization of discharge for 
     persons who failed to receive the vaccine above the 
     consideration of all other Boards of Correction of Military 
     Records actions, which could include pressing issues related 
     to military sexual trauma, PTSD related to military service, 
     and matters related to pay and benefits.
       Diversity Equity, Inclusion, Access (DEIA) and other 
     Relevant Provisions. The Administration strongly opposes the 
     House's sweeping attempts (sections 364, 523, 566, 595, 596, 
     598, 904, and 1046) to eliminate the Department's 
     longstanding DEIA efforts and related initiatives to promote 
     a cohesive and inclusive force. As articulated in the 2022 
     NDS, one of the Department's top priorities is building a 
     resilient Joint Force and defense enterprise. DoD's strategic 
     advantage in a complex global security environment is the 
     diverse and dynamic talent pool from which we draw. We rely 
     on diverse perspectives, experiences, and skillsets to remain 
     a global leader, deter war, and keep our nation secure. 
     Moreover, DoD is committed to developing and maintaining a 
     dignified, respectful, and safe workplace. Legislation that 
     reduces DoD's ability to create a positive work environment 
     and fully leverage the best our nation has to offer puts the 
     Department at a strategic disadvantage.
       Certain Disclosure Requirements for University Research 
     Funded by the Department of Defense. The Administration 
     strongly opposes Section 214 which would impose a significant 
     increase in disclosure requirements for university research 
     funded by DoD. Disclosure requests in this provision are 
     duplicative of current law and require additional information 
     from all research performers. Section 214 would make public 
     detailed information on all Department research performers 
     that could create an inadvertent national security risk. The 
     Department employs rigorous security and data control 
     standards to protect research security without harming the 
     Department's access to top talent and innovations or 
     introducing additional administrative burden on research 
     institutions. Section 214 could jeopardize the Department's 
     ability to fund universities in States with nondiscrimination 
     laws that prohibit citizenship and nationality reporting. 
     Section 214 could also deter the ability to attract the best 
     and brightest foreign scientists from working with the 
     Department.
       Pilot Program on Cardiac Screenings for Military 
     Accessions. The Administration strongly opposes section 528, 
     which would increase the cost of and time needed for 
     screening individuals entering military service by 
     establishing a pilot program to provide mandatory 
     electrocardiograms during the accessions process. The 
     requirement may restrict the ability to effectively screen 
     and process applicants at Military Entrance Processing 
     Stations and establishes reporting and screening requirements 
     that are unnecessary for the target age of the recruiting 
     population.
       Treatment of Certain Records of Criminal Investigation & 
     Military Justice Matters. While the Administration welcomes 
     section 532(c), which would give the military services' 
     Offices of Special Trial Counsel the discretion to consider 
     cases for certain covered offenses involving incidents 
     alleged to have taken place before December 27, 2023, the 
     Administration strongly opposes section 533 on two bases. 
     First, its implementation would upend military criminal 
     investigation practices and diverge sharply from civilian 
     practice, harming information sharing with other Federal and 
     State law enforcement agencies. The section's language is 
     inconsistent with the distinction between ``titling'' and 
     ``indexing'' as discrete investigative actions, complicating 
     criminal record-keeping along with DoD contributions to 
     Federal law enforcement databases, some of which are based on 
     probable cause, not convictions. The resulting constraints on 
     recording and sharing this information would endanger public 
     safety. Second, the section would interfere with 
     accountability efforts, including those recommended by the 
     Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the 
     Military, by imposing new, unwise, or incorrect restrictions 
     on administrative separations. For example, the provision 
     would prevent an offense addressed through non-judicial 
     punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice from being used to establish a pattern of behavior 
     and subsequently to support involuntary separation, making it 
     easier for repeat minor offenders to remain in the military.
       Establishment of Major Force Program (MFP) for Nuclear 
     Command, Control, and Communications Programs (NC3). The 
     Administration opposes section 1631, which would require 
     establishment of an MFP for NC3. This would be 
     administratively burdensome and disruptive to the current 
     programming and execution of NC3 modernization programs. 
     Performing a complicated extraction of hundreds of embedded 
     program elements and budget lines from across multiple MFPs 
     would incur administrative burden, break existing processes, 
     and most importantly delay ongoing modernization and 
     improvement efforts.
       Modification of Authority to Purchase Used Vessels Under 
     the National Defense Sealift Fund. The Administration remains 
     committed to immediate recapitalization of the sealift fleet 
     to project power by delivering Army and Marine Corps 
     equipment using the most cost-effective strategy of procuring 
     used commercial ships. The Administration strongly urges 
     support to provide the Secretary with the discretionary 
     authority to purchase foreign-built, used vessels without 
     limitation on the number of vessels in order to purchase 
     vessels at the rate required to recapitalize the Ready 
     Reserve Force.
       Significant Foreign Assistance and Policy Provisions. The 
     Administration is concerned that sections such as 1201, 1242, 
     1316, 1804, and 2808 do not include a requirement for 
     Secretary of State concurrence and so would provide 
     insufficient means for the Secretary of State to provide 
     input to ensure foreign assistance or engagement is carried 
     out in a manner consistent with foreign policy priorities.
       Prohibition on Funding for the Global Engagement Center. 
     The Administration opposes the provision in section 1243 
     which prohibits DoD from making funds available for the 
     Global Engagement Center. DoD funding, including occasional 
     transfers to GEC, has previously proven crucial at promoting 
     government efforts to combat foreign propaganda and 
     disinformation overseas.
       Domestic Content Requirements. The Administration 
     appreciates section 869, which supports the President's 
     executive order signed in 2021 that directed the increase of 
     domestic content thresholds for government procurement, 
     including major defense acquisition programs, ramping up to a 
     final target of 75 percent in 2029.
       Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility (GTMO) Prohibitions. The 
     Administration strongly opposes sections 1031, 1032, and 
     1033, which respectively would extend the prohibitions on the 
     use of funds to: transfer GTMO detainees to the United 
     States; construct or modify facilities in the United States 
     to house transferred GTMO detainees; and transfer GTMO 
     detainees to certain countries. These provisions would 
     interfere with the President's ability to determine the 
     appropriate disposition of GTMO detainees and to make 
     important foreign policy and national security determinations 
     regarding whether and under what circumstances to transfer 
     detainees to the custody or effective control of foreign 
     countries.
       Afghanistan Special Immigrant Visas (SIV). The 
     Administration remains steadfast in its commitment to 
     resettle Afghans who have supported our mission in 
     Afghanistan for the past two decades. Since the Congress 
     passed the Afghan Allies Protection Act in 2009, the U.S. 
     Government has used the Afghan SIV

[[Page H3225]]

     Program to resettle over 100,000 Afghans and their family 
     members in the U.S. In bipartisan support of this effort, the 
     Congress has continued to increase the Afghan SIV cap 
     annually. However, despite the Administration's request to 
     further increase the SIV cap in FY 2024 by 20,000 and to 
     extend the SIV program beyond December 31, 2024, the 
     Committee-reported NDAA bill does not provide for such an 
     increase or extension. The Administration strongly urges the 
     Congress to continue to demonstrate our commitment to our 
     Afghan partners by extending the program beyond 2024 and by 
     increasing the Afghan SIV cap in the final FY 2024 NDAA to 
     ensure a sufficient number of visas are available as 
     processing throughput increases.
       Prohibition On Computers or Printer Acquisitions Involving 
     Entities Owned or Controlled by China. While the 
     Administration appreciates the focus on acquisition security 
     in section 832, this provision would put in place an undue 
     burden on the Department. The Administration is confident in 
     its ability to apply a whole-of-government risk-based 
     approach to IT Federal purchases.
       Federal Contractor Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 
     The Administration opposes section 1822, which prohibits use 
     of funds authorized to be appropriated to be used to 
     recommend or require submission of certain emissions and 
     climate data for Federal contract offers. The provision 
     prevents DoD from exercising due diligence in assessing risks 
     to potential contract awardees, counter to the interests of 
     U.S. taxpayers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the administration supports this bill as 
it is written, but the statement also notes several concerns that the 
administration has with the bill, which they hope Congress will work 
with them to address.
  House Democrats are going to do what we can to fight against any 
attempts to push the bill to the extreme MAGA fringes.
  As I was saying earlier, we have no objection to making more 
amendments in order. Again, when I was chairman of the Rules Committee, 
we made a lot of amendments in order to the defense authorization bill.
  Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, about some of the people who 
are not thinking in reality here.
  Last night, we had a Republican Member come up and testify about an 
amendment to withdraw us totally from NATO, a critical alliance between 
Europe and North America created after World War II that provides 
massive social, economic, and political benefits to its members in the 
face of an aggressive adversary.
  My Republican friends have their heads in the sand if this is the 
kind of thing that they think will make our country more safe, and this 
is exactly the kind of amendment that the fringe elements of the MAGA 
circus are supporting.
  By the way, the author of this amendment isn't extreme enough for the 
Freedom Caucus. They want her out of the Freedom Caucus because she is 
not pure enough or not extreme enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
article from Foreign Policy titled: ``Why Americans Still Need NATO.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                  [From Foreign Policy, June 28, 2022]

                     Why Americans Still Need NATO

                        (By Kathleen J. McInnis)

       As NATO meets in Madrid this week, the question inevitably 
     arises: Why does the United States need the alliance in the 
     first place? Why is it worth risking New York to save Vilnius 
     or Warsaw, capitals of faraway countries separated from the 
     United States by a wide ocean? The answer lies in the way 
     NATO has worked, as amply demonstrated in practice, for the 
     simultaneous advancement of both American and European 
     interests.
       Although the U.S. security guarantee for its NATO allies 
     has been at the heart of the alliance's political-military 
     framework, and the United States has spent considerable sums 
     on the maintenance of defense capabilities as a result, this 
     has never been a one-way bargain. These treaty relationships 
     have afforded the United States a position of strategic 
     leadership. As a result of America's central role in trans-
     Atlantic and international relations that NATO cemented, 
     Americans have enjoyed enormous economic prosperity and 
     freedom.
       Put more bluntly: Successive American governments have been 
     afforded privileged status when it has come to issues 
     including trade partnerships and access to bases in large 
     part because of the outsized role that the United States 
     plays in the defense of its allies. Nor would the United 
     States have been able to sustain its significant portfolio of 
     foreign military sales and defense technology cooperation 
     activities without the strategic foundation laid by its role 
     as NATO's primary security guarantor for seven decades.
       This position of leadership--manifested in its overseas 
     presence--also allows the United States to set the 
     international security agenda in both political and practical 
     ways. America would not have been able to, for example, 
     prosecute expeditionary and counterterrorism operations in 
     the Middle East and Africa were it not for the bases and pre-
     positioned equipment that the United States has been able to 
     maintain on allied soil in Europe.
       Coalition operations to stabilize the Balkans or conduct 
     anti-piracy missions off the Horn of Africa would not be as 
     comparatively straightforward (or maybe even possible) 
     without the decades of interoperability standardization 
     agreements, multinational training exercises, or the 
     International Military Staff through which allies can 
     collectively plan for and integrate their military 
     operations. NATO's structures also afford U.S. military 
     leaders direct experience of the complexities of commanding 
     multilateral military operations.
       Another long-standing reason for U.S. engagement in the 
     European theater is to enable U.S. strategic depth. Labeled 
     ``defense in depth'' by security practitioners, military 
     technological developments and adversary operations during 
     the world wars demonstrated that the United States was no 
     longer protected by the two oceans off of its shores. As a 
     result, it was deemed strategically prudent to station U.S. 
     forces overseas in order to be able to contend with adversary 
     aggression--if not outright conflict--far away from the 
     American homeland.
       Not only did this make the American homeland less 
     vulnerable to outright war, but forward presence was also 
     viewed as relatively cost-effective--especially given the 
     potentially enormous social, political, and economic costs of 
     a war on the American continent. The advent of the nuclear 
     age changed that calculation somewhat--intercontinental 
     ballistic missiles made the American homeland vulnerable--but 
     given that even a nuclear war with the Soviet Union would 
     also likely involve combined arms combat in the European 
     theater, the logic of defense in depth held.
       Over the decades, that rationale has endured even as the 
     strategic context changed. For example, a primary reason for 
     U.S. counterterrorism operations in the Middle East after the 
     9/11 attacks was to tackle the root sources of violent 
     extremist groups before they could again build sufficient 
     capability and capacity to conduct terrorist attacks against 
     the U.S. homeland. The war in Ukraine, along with the 
     attendant concerns about the security and defense on the 
     European continent that are now heightened, once again 
     underscore the importance--and relative cost effectiveness--
     of forward military presence. Moreover, the global political 
     significance of the United States' track record when it comes 
     to maintaining these alliances over the long haul can 
     arguably give the United States another kind of depth: 
     credibility.
       While the United States' reliability as a security partner 
     is frequently called into question in response to day-to-day 
     events, taking a step back it is quite remarkable that U.S. 
     commitments to its allies in Europe have weathered any number 
     of geopolitical storms. The daily management of alliance 
     relationships is a complicated business, of course. But in 
     constructing and recalibrating security relationships with 
     other states, including critical ties in Asia, the U.S. 
     record of building and maintaining a long-standing alliance 
     helps build credibility with others.
       More broadly, NATO affords its members an extraordinary--
     and extraordinarily important--degree of strategic 
     flexibility. NATO has proved capable of reinvention, as its 
     post-Cold War experience showed. From the late 1990s until 
     approximately 2014--and largely as a result of U.S. 
     prompting--NATO was primarily focused on collective security 
     and crisis management in Europe's near abroad and the Middle 
     East. Security interests were framed in terms of promoting 
     global stability and prosperity--including through countering 
     and dismantling terrorist groups outside NATO allied borders. 
     In other words, contrary to expectations in the early 1990s, 
     NATO endured and evolved to contend with myriad security 
     challenges absent an overwhelming threat. And, by the way, 
     against this backdrop, U.S.-European trade remained strong.
       In 2014, as Russia annexed Crimea and began waging a proxy 
     war in Ukraine, old adversarial geopolitics came rushing 
     back. NATO's role as a bulwark against an expansionist and 
     revisionist power immediately gained renewed salience, 
     although today the front line is considerably farther 
     eastward than during the Cold War. Further complicating 
     matters, despite any number of assurances by Brussels, Russia 
     has made clear that it views NATO's eastward expansion as 
     counter to its own interests, and it views the existence of 
     the alliance itself as a threat. Yet NATO is managing to both 
     address the challenge of a revanchist Russia and tackle a 
     broader array of security challenges to the alliance, 
     including China, climate change, and advanced disruptive 
     technologies.
       More broadly, the lines between foreign and domestic 
     policy, war and peace, civilian and military, public and 
     private are all being blurred, calling long-standing 
     approaches to contending with security and defense challenges 
     into question. Nontraditional security challenges including 
     disinformation operations, pandemic response, migration, and 
     terrorism have put significant stress on the

[[Page H3226]]

     governments of allies on both sides of the Atlantic. None of 
     these challenges can be tackled by one state alone, not even 
     by the United States. And in these blurry spaces, NATO can--
     and has--played an important role in catalyzing solutions for 
     these complex problems. For example, NATO played a key role 
     in facilitating the international community's response to the 
     rise of the Islamic State, plans formed in the margins of the 
     2014 summit in Wales.
       Strategic leadership, strategic depth, and strategic 
     flexibility are why NATO's value is difficult to overstate. 
     It is a political-military arrangement that has proved 
     remarkably resilient over decades and has consistently 
     demonstrated its value to its members on both sides of the 
     Atlantic. This is arguably why Vladimir Putin's Russia is so 
     intent on undermining it.
       The strategic conundrum for the United States--and for its 
     NATO allies--is therefore how to keep intact the alliance 
     system that serves as the bedrock for myriad social, 
     economic, and political benefits to its members in the face 
     of an aggressive adversary. But defend its old and new allies 
     alike the United States must. Otherwise it risks losing a 
     leadership position and benefits that have become a central, 
     if overlooked, aspect of American prosperity. In a very real 
     way, the security of NATO allies is inextricably linked with 
     American interests.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we are really worried about where this is 
headed. The amendments that are contained in this first rule--most of 
them, I think, if not all of them--will probably pass with bipartisan 
support. Many of them are not controversial at all. It is what is 
coming next that has us concerned.
  What will the MAGA wing of the Republican Party extort from this 
leadership? What are the horrific policy items that they are going to 
demand to be put into this bill in order to get it through the House?
  Those are the things we are worried about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, a strong military is certainly essential at 
a time when we face so many threats, from Russia's war crimes in 
Ukraine to threats from the People's Republic of China and North Korea 
to constant cyberattacks.
  Paying for this security is very costly. It accounts for almost one-
half of every dollar discretionarywise that we approve each year in the 
Congress. Of those dollars, almost one-half of the defense dollars goes 
to defense contractors--billions and billions of dollars.
  While designed to ensure that we get more national security, this 
national defense authorization should also be doing more to provide 
taxpayer security--security from being ripped off by price gouging and 
by war profiteering.
  As currently written, this bill provides insufficient protection for 
taxpayers regarding the private defense industry, which can too often 
extract monopoly prices and demand basically a blank check for weapons 
and military supplies that are essential to our servicemembers.
  An industry that is basically self-policing itself without much 
competition and without much of a watchdog inevitably leads to 
overcharging. Since the 1990s, there has been massive consolidation of 
defense contractors, and at the same time, the Pentagon has cut tens of 
thousands of contract negotiators and watchdogs, leading to less 
oversight, less transparency, and too little accountability.
  Overpricing for our military can impact the readiness of our Armed 
Forces, the well-being of our servicemen and -women, and certainly the 
resources of American taxpayers.
  Let me give you just a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker. A woodruff 
key, which is a one-half inch semicircular disk that is used to connect 
machine parts to rotating shafts, is available at Walmart or you can go 
online to Amazon and buy one for about 10 cents a key. The Department 
of Defense recently bought some of these for $300 per key.
  The Pentagon paid over $10,000 for an oil switch when a commercial 
equivalent was available for about $300. It has spent over $32,000 for 
an oil pump kit when one was commercially available for about $3,600.
  These prices just keep soaring. Decades ago, the original price of a 
Stinger missile was $25,000. Now it is up to over $400,000.
  I have submitted two modest amendments to try to rein in some of the 
waste and abuse and to, quite literally, provide our military more bang 
for the buck. Both of these have been endorsed by the Project On 
Government Oversight, by the R Street Institute, and by Taxpayers for 
Common Sense.
  One would simply establish a panel to review major contracts to 
determine whether fair and reasonable prices were paid and make 
recommendations to better ensure that the Pentagon gets the best 
possible deal. The second would strengthen transparency and provide 
government contracting officers access to sales data that they need to 
make informed, reasonable decisions in negotiating fair prices.
  Both result from the excellent report that ``60 Minutes'' did in May 
that highlighted price gouging by some of the giant corporations that 
just happen to be enjoying record profits.
  For Republicans who are always telling us that we need to fight 
waste, fraud, and abuse, now is the time to do something about it in 
the biggest appropriations bill and authorization that we have before 
this Congress. Because they have thus far refused to approve these 
taxpayer protection amendments, I think that we are not getting at the 
waste in Pentagon procurement.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and remain hopeful that eventually 
these amendments to do something to protect taxpayers along with our 
military readiness will be approved.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his thoughtful remarks and helpful 
suggestions, and I will point out a couple of things quickly in 
response.
  The House Armed Services Committee has actually done a good job on 
doing what my friend wants to do. They have repurposed over $40 billion 
in the bill and redirected it more efficiently.
  This has been a bipartisan, collaborative process between Chairman 
Rogers and Ranking Member Smith, who, frankly, have worked quite well 
together whether one was in the majority or the minority.
  I think, as an alum of this distinguished committee that I once 
served on, it is actually doing a pretty good job of trying to find the 
savings that I know my friend sincerely wants to find and redirect.
  I wouldn't say I disagree, but I would put some things in perspective 
when we talk about spending. I have been around this stuff for a long 
time. My dad was a career military guy at the height of the Cold War. 
At the height of the Cold War, the United States spent 50 percent of 
its entire budget on defense and spent almost 9 percent of its gross 
national product because it thought that was what the threat was.
  Then, as the Cold War waned, we came down a little bit. We had the 
great Reagan defense buildup. At that point, defense was about one-
third of the total Federal budget, not half. It had already come down, 
and it was about 6 percent of the gross national product. Currently, it 
is less than 4 percent, around 3.5, 3.7 percent. I would say that is 
probably too low. It is only 15 percent of the entire budget.
  What has driven spending around here--and we all know it--is really 
not the discretionary budget. It is the entitlement budget. It is 
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is about 60 percent of 
all Federal spending. Throw in interest on the debt and the Federal 
retirement system, and we are around 70, 71, 72 percent.
  So, I am all for saving money, and there is certainly money to be 
saved in defense. If Congress wants to get serious about this, then 
let's talk about where the money is and sit down in a bipartisan way, 
maybe in the framework that our former colleague Mr. Delaney and I 
offered, and get serious about it. This is not where we spend most of 
the country's money, and frankly, this is an area where we are 
underspending.
  Again, for my friends who are concerned--and efficiency suggestions 
are always welcomed--the number we have is the President's number. If 
we are overspending here, then it is probably good for my friends to 
have a conversation with the President of the United States because, 
honestly, our colleagues in the majority would prefer, for the most 
part, to be at a higher number. I know that is true for Chairman 
Rogers, and I suspect it is true for the majority of the committee's 
Republican members.
  Again, concerns about spending are always appropriate. There is waste 
in

[[Page H3227]]

every part of government, including defense, but I would tell you, Mr. 
Speaker, broadly speaking, the country certainly is not overspending on 
defense in this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, ``A Pentagon study released earlier this 
year found major defense contractors flush with, `cash beyond their 
needs for operations or investment.' They have tens of billions of 
excess cash from Pentagon business to hand out to shareholders.''
  I think it is outrageous that Republicans will happily line the 
pockets of these ultra wealthy contractors but pinch pennies when it 
comes to the American people.
  As I said earlier, we are talking about nearly a trillion-dollar 
Pentagon budget here. At the same time, appropriators led by 
Republicans are cutting programs like WIC and Meals on Wheels.
  Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
article from CBS News titled, ``How the Pentagon falls victim to price 
gouging by military contractors.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                     [From CBS News, May 21, 2023]

 How The Pentagon Falls Victim to Price Gouging by Military Contractors

                           (By Aliza Chasan)

       Military contractors overcharge the Pentagon on almost 
     everything the Department of Defense buys each year, experts 
     told 60 Minutes over the course of a six-month investigation 
     into price gouging.
       In March, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks announced 
     the largest Pentagon budget ever: $842 billion. Almost half 
     will go to defense contractors.
       Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, who 
     spent his career overseeing the purchase of some of the 
     country's most critical weapons systems, said there's an 
     inherent conflict between the Pentagon and defense 
     contractors.
       ``They are companies that have to survive, make profit. The 
     Department of Defense, on the other hand, wants the best 
     weapon systems it can have as quickly as possible and as 
     inexpensively as possible. Those are opposite ends of the 
     spectrum.''
       Perhaps no one understands the problem better than Shay 
     Assad, now retired after four decades negotiating weapons 
     deals. In the 1990s, he was executive vice president and 
     chief contract negotiator for defense giant Raytheon. Then he 
     switched sides and rose to become the Defense Department's 
     most senior and awarded contract negotiator. He put his 
     former colleagues in the defense industry under intense 
     scrutiny.
       ``They need to be held accountable,'' he said. ``No matter 
     who they are, no matter what company it is, they need to be 
     held accountable. And right now that accountability system is 
     broken in the Department of Defense.''
       It wasn't always like this, he said. The roots of the 
     problem can be traced to 1993, when the Pentagon, looking to 
     reduce costs, urged defense companies to merge and 51 major 
     contractors consolidated to five giants.
       ``The landscape has totally changed,'' Assad said. ``In the 
     '80s, there was intense competition amongst a number of 
     companies. And so the government had choices. They had 
     leverage. We have limited leverage now.''
       The problem was compounded in the early 2000s when the 
     Pentagon, in another cost-saving move, cut 130,000 employees 
     whose jobs were to negotiate and oversee defense contracts.
       ``They were convinced that they could rely on the companies 
     to do what was in the best interests of the war fighters and 
     the taxpayers,'' Assad said.
       The Pentagon granted companies unprecedented leeway to 
     monitor themselves. Instead of saving money, Assad said the 
     price of almost everything began to rise.
       In the competitive environment before the companies 
     consolidated, a shoulder-fired stinger missile cost $25,000 
     in 1991. With Raytheon, Assad's former employer, now the sole 
     supplier, it costs more than $400,000 to replace each missile 
     sent to Ukraine. Even accounting for inflation and some 
     improvements, that's a seven-fold increase.
       ``For many of these weapons that are being sent over to 
     Ukraine right now, there's only one supplier. And the 
     companies know it,'' Assad said.
       Army negotiators also caught Raytheon making what they 
     called ``unacceptable profits'' from the Patriot missile 
     defense system by dramatically exaggerating the cost and 
     hours it took to build the radar and ground equipment.
       The company told 60 Minutes it's working to ``equitably 
     resolve'' the matter. In 2021, CEO Gregory Hayes informed 
     investors that the company would set aside $290 million for 
     probable liability.
       A Pentagon study released last month found major 
     contractors flush with ``cash beyond their needs for 
     operations or investment.'' They have tens of billions of 
     excess cash from Pentagon business to hand out to 
     shareholders.
       ``We have to have a financially healthy defense industrial 
     base. We all want that,'' Assad said. ``But what we don't 
     want to do is get taken advantage of and hoodwinked.''
       In 2015, Assad ordered a review and army negotiators 
     discovered Lockheed Martin and its subcontractor, Boeing, 
     were grossly overcharging the Pentagon and U.S. allies by 
     hundreds of millions of dollars for the Patriot's PAC-3 
     missiles.
       Pentagon analysts found the total profits approached 40 
     percent.
       Boeing declined to comment, but Lockheed said: ``We 
     negotiate with the government in good faith on all our 
     programs.''
       After the review, the Pentagon negotiated a new contract 
     with Lockheed, saving American taxpayers $550 million.
       Bogdan pointed to another Lockheed Martin contract with 
     problems. In 2012, he was tapped to take the reins of the 
     troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program; it was seven 
     years behind schedule and $90 billion over the original 
     estimate. Bogdan said the biggest costs are yet to come for 
     support and maintenance, which could end up costing taxpayers 
     $1.3 trillion.
       The Pentagon had ceded control of the program to Lockheed 
     Martin. The contractor is delivering the aircraft the 
     Pentagon paid to design and build, but under the contract, 
     Lockheed and its suppliers retained control of the design and 
     repair data, the proprietary information needed to fix and 
     upgrade the plane.
       ``The weapon system belongs to the department, but the data 
     underlying the design of the airplane does not,'' Bogdan 
     said.
       When a part breaks, the Department of Defense can't fix or 
     replace it itself. That's likely to come from a 
     subcontractor, like TransDigm, a fast-growing company led by 
     Nick Howley. He has made a fortune taking over companies that 
     make spare parts for the military.
       Last year, Howley was called before Congress a second time 
     over accusations of price gouging. Assad's review team found 
     the government will pay TransDigm $119 million for parts that 
     should cost $28 million.
       TransDigm told 60 Minutes that the company follows the law 
     and charges market prices. While contract spending is going 
     up, Pentagon oversight is going down because of cuts and 
     attrition. Recently retired auditors Julie Smith and Mark 
     Owen and contracting officer Kathryn Foresman were part of 
     the oversight organizations that were victims of downsizing. 
     They said with less oversight and with Assad gone, the 
     Pentagon is losing the battle to hold down prices.
       ``We don't have another source for a lot of the spares that 
     they provide right now,'' Smith said when asked about 
     TransDigm. ``They are literally the only game in town in 
     order to make an aircraft fly. So we're at their mercy.''
       They said it's not a true capitalistic market, but more of 
     a monopoly. It's very concerning for Foresman, who said 
     military contractors are the ones holding the power.
       The Department of Defense declined to have anyone speak on 
     camera about price gouging.
       ``If you're happy with companies gouging you and just 
     looking you right in the eye and say, `I'm gonna keep gouging 
     you because I know you don't have the guts to do anything 
     about it,' then I guess we should just keep doing what we're 
     doing,'' Assad said.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
  Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the House Committee on Armed 
Services and the Representative for critical military installations in 
Alabama, I take very seriously my responsibility to ensure that our 
servicemen and -women get the tools and support that they need to keep 
our Nation safe.
  This year's NDAA, as it is currently written, does just that. The 
bill will help modernize Alabama's Air National Guard facilities and 
support leadership training at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, 
Alabama.
  It also includes record funding to support research at HBCUs and 
makes significant investments in the health and well-being of our 
servicemen and -women and their families.
  While I voted to pass the NDAA out of committee last month, I remain 
very concerned that my Republican colleagues are trying to push poison 
pill amendments--amendments focused on culture wars; not unity, but 
division, and not Social Security or Medicaid or our national security.
  For 61 years, Congress has passed the NDAA with bipartisan support. I 
implore my colleagues across the aisle to not break this tradition of 
national importance.
  Mr. Speaker, every year since I came to Congress, I have been proud 
to vote for the NDAA. I am not sure that I can vote in favor of it this 
year if those poison pills are included.

[[Page H3228]]

  Mr. Speaker, I implore my Republican colleagues to keep the NDAA 
intact as it was from the committee. I will vote against the rule, but 
I hope to be able to vote in favor of the bill.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I am 
prepared to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is more ridiculous Republican infighting and 
wasting more time. That is what this is. They are bickering on 
everything, from spending levels to whose bill gets on the floor when. 
It distracts from the other very real work that Congress has the 
opportunity to do here.
  We should also be working to protect our constituents from gun 
violence. There were more than 17 mass shootings this past Fourth of 
July weekend that killed dozens of Americans, but Republicans are too 
busy fighting with Republicans.
  We should also pass bills to keep pollutants from clogging up our air 
and toxins from ruining our water, but Republicans are too busy 
fighting with Republicans.
  We should also do more to stop the opioid crisis and provide support 
for those struggling with their mental health, but Republicans are too 
busy fighting with Republicans.
  We should also make sure that every American has access to quality 
healthcare, the chance to receive a good education, or even the basic 
rights to housing and food, but Republicans are too busy fighting with 
Republicans.
  There is so, so much we should be doing, including passing this 
bipartisan defense budget, but Republican leadership is busy trying to 
cater to every whim of the MAGA circus.
  I will say it again, Kevin McCarthy may be the ringleader, but the 
clowns have taken over. It is no way to govern, and it continues to set 
a deeply dangerous precedent for how this body conducts business moving 
forward, including with the appropriations process.
  Mr. Speaker, let me explain why we are here right now, and why we are 
in this situation.
  We have passed a defense bill by huge margins every year for the past 
63 years. Yet here we are with this stalling of moving the full bill 
forward because a small group of people who call themselves the Freedom 
Caucus have basically said that they will block passage of this bill if 
the Republican leadership doesn't cave to every one of their demands.
  They call themselves the Freedom Caucus. That seems like a strange 
name. I mean, are they for the freedom for people to read whatever 
books they want in the library? No.
  Are they for the freedom of women to be able to control their own 
bodies? No.
  Are they for the freedom for people to love who they want in this 
country? No.
  Are they for the freedom to protect people from gun violence in this 
country as we see the number of incidents involving guns in this 
country rise at this alarming rate? No.
  I think the only thing they are pro-freedom about is the freedom to 
harass the Republican leadership, the freedom to extort the leadership 
to cave to their ideas that, by the way, are deeply unpopular not only 
in this Chamber, that is sadly controlled by the Republicans, but views 
and ideas that are deeply unpopular throughout this country.
  Mr. Speaker, and I get it. They threaten the Speaker by saying that 
we will move to vacate the Chair. We will move to oust you as Speaker 
if you don't do everything we say. When they say jump, they want the 
Speaker to respond by saying, how high. This is a bad way to run this 
Congress. This is not what the American people expect from the House of 
Representatives. They certainly don't want ideas that are so extreme, 
so to the fringe, being shoved down their throats.
  At some point, the Speaker has to stand up to these people. At some 
point, he has to say no. At some point, he has to make it clear that 
what they are asking is beyond the pale. It is not only not good 
policy, but it is bad for this institution, and it is bad for this 
country. That is why we are here.
  We don't know when the Rules Committee will meet again. We don't know 
whether we are going to meet again this afternoon, tonight, tomorrow. 
We had one member of the Freedom Caucus say: Well, we can meet in 
August-- or after August.

  So this notion of everything being held hostage because of a small 
group of rightwing extremists just has to stop.
  Mr. Speaker, we are about to approach appropriations season. I don't 
know how the hell you are going to get appropriation bills through here 
with some of the stuff that is being forced onto those bills and some 
of the cuts that are being forced.
  As I said earlier, cuts in programs like WIC, Women, Infants and 
Children's program; Meals on Wheels. I mean, really? Those are the 
priorities of this Republican majority? This has to stop. This has to 
stop.
  So stay tuned, everybody, for how this all plays out. We don't know 
whether we are going to finish this bill this week or next week or 
sometime into the future, but this is not the way Congress should be 
run.
  Certainly, I would urge the Speaker to stand up to this small group 
of fringe lawmakers who are trying to extort unreasonable demands from 
him that are not in the interest of the people of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question because I 
believe it is important that we make it clear we don't want cuts in 
Social Security and Medicare. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Again, I hope and pray that my friends can get their act together in 
the very near future so we can actually move forward with a debate and 
a final determination on where people stand on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would thank my friend, as always, for a 
thoughtful and robust debate. We covered a lot of ground. A lot of it 
didn't have a lot to do with defense. We talked about Social Security 
for a while, and I am delighted to see my friends are worried about the 
state of the Republican majority. I think it will do fine.
  While the process as always in Congress can look from the outside as 
chaotic or sometimes contradictory, the rally is we tend to work 
towards things, and we have gotten this bill done for 62 years in a row 
for a reason. It didn't matter who was the majority and who was the 
minority or what the administration was. I suspect the same thing is 
going to happen again this time.
  Along the course of that, we will have a robust debate. Today, we 
will mostly be talking about things we agree on, as we know, and that 
is a good thing.
  There will be things that we disagree on, and that is fine, too. I 
will remind my friends on my side of the aisle that winning here isn't 
necessarily winning. It just gets you to the next stage of the contest.
  The Senate will be moving on its version of the NDAA. We will sit 
down in conference, and then we will see what the real final product 
is. Some of the things that we are watching today, to me, again, are 
just the normal process and policy working out.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also in closing, urge my colleagues to support 
this resolution. H.R. 2670, the NDAA for fiscal year 2024 is a strong, 
strong bill. It fulfills Congress' constitutional responsibility to 
provide for the common defense while also ensuring that we are 
carefully and wisely spending the American people's hard-earned tax 
dollars.
  It will set appropriate policies for the Armed Services to ensure our 
warfighters have the equipment, the training, and the resources they 
need to confront aggression anywhere around the world at any time.
  It requires the Pentagon to maintain a laser focus on readiness, and 
it ensures appropriate oversight of our investments both at home and 
abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, this is unfortunately a dangerous time in the world. 
American adversaries are on the march, threatening global stability and 
territorial integrity of our friends and our allies.
  These threats range from Russia's invasion of Ukraine to communist 
China's continued pressure on Taiwan and our Pacific allies to Iran's 
quest for nuclear weapons and to North Korea's

[[Page H3229]]

continued testing of intercontinental missiles.
  The United States does not seek armed conflict, but we will be 
prepared to meet it should it seek us out.
  I would remind this House of the words of Ronald Reagan. `` . . . 
peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet 
peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage 
to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations.''
  In taking up H.R. 2670, we are continuing that tradition. We are 
continuing to build our Armed Forces to meet and confront any foe at 
any time anywhere in the world, and it is my hope that in doing so, we 
will be building a military that is strong enough to deter aggression.
  We will, as people have committed throughout our history, achieve 
peace through strength.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, during consideration of H.R. 2670 pursuant to 
     this resolution, it shall not be in order to consider 
     amendment number 60 printed in part B of House Report 118-
     141.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the resolution, as amended.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 582 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.

  Mr. COLE Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move 
the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________