[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.
____________________