Providing for Consideration of H.R. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I am prepared to close.
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 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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
The previous question was ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source