-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Madam President, our Nation exists today in a time of relative peace, with limited and manageable active hostilities threatening U.S. national security.

On the horizon, the United States faces a militarily ambitious and formidable but not yet insurmountable opponent in China and in its quest for regional dominance in the Pacific.

Yet in the face of this new age of great power competition, U.S. grand strategy continues to operate with outdated goals and across all regions of the globe, lacking prioritization and desperately needing scale.

After the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan and the corresponding diplomatic, military, and humanitarian disaster, one would think the instinct would be to jettison decades of military-industrial groupthink.

One would think the American people, and certainly our men and women in uniform, deserve a thorough, exhaustive review of what is working and the huge swaths of what is failing in our military and defense strategy, infrastructure, and planning.

One would think that Congress would reclaim powers assigned to it by the Constitution to make serious reforms to protect the security and prosperity of the United States.

One would think we would reform our procurement process and trim the bloated, perversely incentivized military-industrial complex.

One would think we would prioritize resources toward the largest and most imminently looming threats to U.S. national security.

One would think we would burden share with our allies where our security interests align.

One would think we, here in the U.S. Senate, would take specific steps to make sure that failures like the withdrawal from Afghanistan don't happen again, whether in the Middle East or in any other emerging theater of conflict.

Unfortunately, this year's National Defense Authorization Act fails to put the interests of U.S. citizens first. This is not the introspective or retrospective bill that the American people should be able to expect and largely continues the failed--the failed--policies of many decades past. The American people and the brave men and women of our military deserve better.

We are, thank heavens, in a time of peace, with limited active hostilities. Despite that, we remain intimately entangled in the affairs of too many nations abroad. Our troops and equipment scatter every region of the globe. We spend billions of dollars supporting, supplying, and training allies who, in many cases, contribute little to their own self-defense, let alone ours.

We face an ambitious opponent in China, as it seeks military dominance in the Indo-Pacific region. There is no question that while Xi Jinping remains in power, the PLA and the PRC will not shy away from bold moves and the quest for regional hegemony. But the U.S. strategy should not presume unrestrained, offensive intervention; rather, targeted and scaled deterrence should frame the mission set across all U.S. forces postured in the region. Further, the United States should accordingly rescale resources in the war zones of yesteryear to appropriately prioritize protecting the U.S. homeland and military personnel from tomorrow's threats.

Congress is responsible for raising and supporting armies, of making war, and of ratifying treaties. This bill neglects those responsibilities.

Regarding Afghanistan, the NDAA includes funding and new authorities for the nonexistent Afghan security forces, along with reimbursements to coalition partners for supporting U.S. operations and a sense of the Senate on future U.S. counterterrorism posture postwithdrawal, with little eye toward reforming or removing outdated and overbroad authorizations for the use of military force.

Perpetuating funding and authority to support a nonexisting defense force is as much bad foreign policy as it is bad fiscal responsibility. We must do better. The American people expect and deserve for us to do better.

Additionally, this NDAA fundamentally changes the purpose and the scope of the military draft. The new purpose is greatly expanded to ``ensure a requisite number of personnel with the necessary capabilities to meet the diverse mobilization needs of the Department of Defense during a national emergency.''

Instead of being a seldom-used tool only for the most extreme cases of compelling national defense, the draft could be morphed into compulsory national service in the face of any emergency.

Even more troubling is the mandatory registration of women for the draft. Look, all are immensely grateful for the incredible contribution women make to our Armed Forces, but that participation should never be forced. This bill paves that dangerous road without due consideration given to its impact on young families and single parents.

Further, the policy provides no guarantee that women would not be sent directly to the frontlines of combat, alongside and simultaneously with able-bodied men.

While I am opposed to all of the NDAA's changes to the draft, at the very least, this body should consider a reasonable amendment, a few reasonable amendments on this front, including one of mine that would prohibit the disturbing scenario of mothers and fathers being conscripted simultaneously out of the same family, leaving their children stranded without either parent. It also provides a similar exemption for single parents.

I hope this body will consider and pass this amendment in the near future. I also hope that the body will make that unnecessary by, first, passing an amendment striking that provision altogether. We don't need to be expanding the draft, and we shouldn't be making the draft applicable to women.

This bill further reduces our military end strength by over 7,000 servicemembers. Troublingly, the biggest cuts come from the Marine Corps and the Air Force. And in the face of an aggressive China, the Navy also faces reduction in Active Forces when it arguably should be the first contender for an increase in end strength, not a cut.

As we pivot toward the Indo-Pacific, our naval and our air superiority are both vital. We need them. Our withdrawal from the Middle East should reduce the level of Active-Duty Army personnel deployed overseas, and yet the Army faced a less than 1-percent reduction in that specific category.

This bill places us on a dangerous footing regarding future mutual defense commitments. This bill would provide a vague, near- authorization for the use of military force to defend Taiwan against an invasion from China. The question of war deserves here, as always, its own debate by Congress, rather than a haphazard statement of policy that may be abused by the executive branch in order to bring us into a new conflict, into a new conflict without the people's duly elected representatives whose job it is to decide whether we go to war to make that decision under the light of day and with full debate that the American people can witness.

Like NDAAs of old, this bill appropriates more funds to procurement than anywhere else, with no reforms to the bureaucratic barriers that make procurement so costly and so inefficient.

Finally, this NDAA does not sufficiently bolster our defensive position in this hemisphere. The goals outlined by this bill are vague and equate to an abdication of Congress's responsibility to give the Defense Department instructions for a strategic approach to the Western Hemisphere.

It provides blank check authority for the Department of Defense to support programs and activities for purposes including institution- building to countercorruption and to serve humanitarian infrastructure needs. This attempt at nation-building is misguided, and it will not be helpful to us in our efforts to deter China.

Thankfully, there are a few positives in this bill for U.S. national defense and for the security of the people of Utah.

This bill continues to support the development of fifth-generation air power capabilities in the F-35 Program, continuing a critical investment in our air defense--something that is also becoming even more important.

This bill also fully funds the modernization of our ground-based nuclear deterrent, protecting the U.S. homeland for generations to come. This important work will largely be done by the people of Utah and our dedicated servicemembers at Hill Air Force Base.

The House version of the NDAA also includes my Military Spouse Licensing Relief Act. It is important to note here that one in four military spouses currently face unemployment or are actively seeking work largely because of frequent moves due to their spouse's military orders, which keep them moving from place to place on a pretty routine basis. This provision in the House version of the bill would also allow spouses of our military servicemembers to work in their chosen profession, wherever military orders may take them in the United States, without having to navigate the complicated requirements of State occupational licensing.

My State, the State of Utah, led the way with this commonsense type of reform that makes life and achieving prosperity easier for those families who serve our Nation. It should become law. We need it. Our military families need it. Our military and the American people generally would be much better off with it.

We could have done more. This National Defense Authorization Act could be a pivot point where we reexamine our defensive stance in the world and reclaim our constitutional arrangement here at home.

This NDAA could have been a turning point in which we in Congress reasserted our authority over war-making powers. My National Security Powers Act that I have introduced with Senator Murphy and Senator Sanders would clarify and update and modernize the War Powers Resolution.

The bill would also restore congressional authority over arms exports. It would additionally require congressional approval of emergency declarations and prevent the President from misusing emergency powers.

The National Security Powers Act would rein in Presidential abuses of the war power and make our Nation safer and more aligned with the Constitution. It is bipartisan. It is exactly the type of reform that belongs in the NDAA.

We must also make reforms to our emergency war spending. Though President Biden thankfully didn't request, and Congress didn't provide, the OCO slush fund in this bill, there is much that needs to be done to restore Congress's power of the purse in the defense environment specifically.

The Cost of War Project estimates that post-9/11 war spending totals $8 trillion from 2001 to 2022. Of the $8 trillion, OCO and interest on OCO funds accounts for $3.3 trillion. That is real money, and a lot of it.

My Restraining Emergency War Spending Act would define emergency war funding and require the Department of Defense and Congress to limit spending set aside for emergencies to the purpose for which it was authorized.

We also need to return accountability to our defense alliances by requiring wealthy and capable Nations to contribute their fair share of their defense. In the NATO alliance alone, only 11 of the 13 NATO member countries meet the 2 percent defense spending requirement.

This means that 63 percent of the alliance shown here in red consists of countries that don't foot their share of the bill. They are not holding up their end of the agreement.

So my Allied Burden Sharing Report Act would help us know just how much or just how little our allies are contributing. Now, this report used to be published annually. It should be still. This NDAA would have been an ideal venue in which to legislate the return of that report.

We also must use these legislative opportunities to prepare the Department of Defense for future defense focused on the technology, the reforms, and the regions of the future.

Our defensive position regarding China and in the Indo-Pacific should focus on deterrence. Spreading our forces and our expensive equipment to the ports and the shores of allies in the region is ineffective and could prove more of a vulnerability than an advantage against Chinese strike capabilities. A deterrent posture would combine defensive strategy and operations to fend off possible attacks from a position of strength and limit risk to U.S. personnel and assets.

Further, we must prioritize recruitment and retention for the future fight. We need to provide a suitable and welcoming environment for those in uniform and for their families. We need to end the President's sweeping vaccine mandate and give our servicemembers the respect they deserve.

After a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and the end of our Nation's longest war, this NDAA could have been--should have been--an opportunity to debate, rethink, and reform our Nation's defenses.

The National Defense Authorization Act--U.S. defense and security broadly--is one of the few items this body regularly considers that is explicitly, unambiguously within the enumerated powers of Congress. Consequently, it is something that deserves due consideration and significant debate on the floor in order for Members to be able to raise issues like those that I have described today.

Yesterday, this body attempted to close debate on this bill without consideration of a single amendment--not a single one.

While this bill does make key progress in limited areas, it does not get to the heart of many of our national defense problems. It does not restore Congress's role in our national defense. It does not provide a holistic strategy to defend the United States and the people of Utah-- or the people of any other State.

This bill and the floor process yet remain missed opportunities, and I am going to continue to fight for both necessary policy reforms and for an open process generally on the floor. Anything less, particularly in this critical area, amounts to an abdication of the duties of this body to the detriment of the citizens we serve. We can and we must do better.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source