[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 123 (Tuesday, July 18, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H3645-H3646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CURRENT U.S. MUNITIONS SHORTAGE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Steel). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, until recently, we weren't supposed to 
discuss that indeed the United States does have an ammunition shortage 
for our military here and around the world. But it is so widely 
reported in the press, I guess we really shouldn't ignore it anymore 
and pretend it isn't a problem.
  Recently, with the controversy around cluster bombs, the President 
has defended his decision to send them to Ukraine by announcing the 
U.S. Army ammunition stockpiles are depleted. In other words, 
basically, this is all we have to give them at this point.
  The primary reasons are lack of funds, little focus on production, 
and truly a lack of will to truly ramp up and build our ammunition 
stocks to what they should be.
  The U.S. military's goal decades ago was that we could fight a two-
front war. The United States used to have that might and capability. We 
saw that in World War II with many other allies, of course, around the 
world that we fought side by side with.
  As we know, modern, western military hardware is indeed incredibly 
complex, costly, and difficult to produce at scale. It requires a large 
infrastructure, a well-protected supply chain, and a large workforce of 
skilled labor. These are things that we are capable of as a country. 
Look at all the gadgetry we can build in order to satisfy a market of 
people desiring entertainment.
  Artillery round expenditures we point to in Ukraine really paint a 
dark picture. Ukrainians burn through a year's worth of U.S. artillery 
round production in 1 month. In 1 month, they can burn through a year's 
worth of our production. That is just Ukraine. What does that make our 
own stocks look like?
  We must ramp up production tremendously. If we are going to continue 
in

[[Page H3646]]

some fashion, or not, the controversial backing of Ukraine, we have to 
be able to supply them in order to have them be able to do a credible 
job on the field. If we are going to support that policy, we have to 
build our own stocks.
  What does this mean for us? We are actually foraging shells and 
ammunition from stocks around the world, even from our allies, in order 
to keep the chain going into Ukraine. That is why cluster bombs, right?
  The main concern for American defense really should be what does it 
mean if China's aggression gets much worse? What if they make a move on 
Taiwan that we are obligated and have promised to back up on? What 
about other issues that may happen in NATO? Are we ready?
  We are not near ready for it. We need to produce the bombs and the 
bullets and the other hardware so that we have that as a deterrent and 
not have the idea that we are so weak that they know they can make a 
move on us or our allies. It is really that simple. It is really common 
sense.
  So ramping up these domestic munitions production could run afoul of 
a lot of ideas the Democrats hold: climate, environment, or just a 
philosophy that if we don't produce the ammunition, we don't produce 
these arms, that we just won't have war.
  We are going to have to make some very clear choices here with the 
Democratic policies. Is it about climate? Is it about environment, by 
producing these things and having them ready and available to deter 
war? Do they want to weaken us so much that China and others can make 
any kind of move they want and we just have to sit and watch?
  These munitions are procured on a yearly basis. That is why when we 
have an orderly appropriation process in committees, instead of a last-
minute continuing resolution, throwing last year's spending in the 
hopper, put some duct tape and baling wire on it and kick it out for 
another year or whatever the period is, you can't plan for that. You 
certainly can't plan long-term to up your military needs and fill them 
when we do last-minute things like that. We have to have a better 
process of procuring and planning for it.
  What we saw from the end of the Cold War, we scaled down military. 
Okay, maybe there is a dividend there. We lost one-third of it in 
armament production after the Soviet Union collapsed. Then in the 
global war on terror, procurements and production was indeed focused on 
smaller, low-intensity conflicts, not a wide war.
  Training skilled labor takes time and building the infrastructure to 
do so will take time, but what we have in place we should be running 
24/7 and have the will to do it.
  So what does that mean for our national security? I just said it. 
What are they going to do? Russia is going to continue to be able to 
bully Ukraine if they see us as weak.
  China and Iran can do what they want, and who knows what we will get 
out of North Korea.
  We must be ready. We must get the supply chain going again and 
bolster our military so those who serve in it have everything they need 
in order to do their job and be safe from unnecessary risk.

                          ____________________