-9999
Floor Speech
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7900, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.
H.R. 7900 represents a truly bipartisan bill. I thank Chairman Smith for his tremendous leadership and cooperation in helping to fashion it.
Over the last year, we have seen the best of our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and guardians. They performed in the toughest environments and have done so with the greatest level of skill and professionalism. Without a doubt, these men and women are the greatest force for good the world has ever seen.
Providing the authorities and resources our warfighters need to defend our Nation is the greatest responsibility we have in Congress. We fulfilled that responsibility with this NDAA.
We put our servicemembers first, providing a 4.6 percent pay increase and expanding benefits for military spouses and families. To counteract the effects of record inflation on our servicemembers and their families, our bill provides an additional 2.4 percent bonus to enlisted personnel.
It includes an additional $500 million for housing allowances to offset the skyrocketing rents and an additional $750 million to reduce the price of food and other necessities at our military commissaries.
The investments we make in this bill are focused on ensuring our warfighters are the best equipped and trained in the world. We increased funding for readiness, reversing cuts in our military construction and housing projects; expanding training availabilities for servicemembers; and improving the safety of the ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and facilities where our warfighters serve.
To ensure our warfighters prevail on future battlefields, we focused on modernization. That means divesting less capable legacy systems and investing in emerging technologies that will help us stay ahead of our adversaries.
This bill saves the taxpayer over $6 billion by divesting hundreds of older, less capable ships, aircraft, and other legacy systems. We use those savings and more to invest in emerging technologies such as AI, quantum computing, hypersonic weapons, and autonomous systems.
These investments are so critical because China and Russia are rapidly modernizing their militaries.
China is outpacing us with advancements in emerging technologies and weapons systems, and we know China isn't building these capabilities purely for defense. In recent years, we have seen China use its military to push out its borders, threaten our allies, and gain footholds on new continents.
H.R. 7900 is laser-focused on preparing our military to prevail in a conflict with China. It makes critical investments in new systems capable of surviving in contested environments. It includes provisions that will further harden our supply chain and industrial base against infiltration from China. It reaffirms our support to allies in the region, especially Taiwan.
It also strengthens our European alliance as these democracies face grave threats from the unhinged crackpot currently leading Russia.
Threats from adversaries like China and Russia are not the only ones we face. Terrorists continue to plot to destroy our way of life. We must continue to take the fight to them anywhere at any time they threaten us. With strong investments in new capabilities and readiness, this bill enables our warfighters to do just that.
This bill passed out of our committee 57-1, with all Republicans voting for it. It is the definition of a bipartisan bill. It will enhance the congressional oversight of DOD, improve the quality of life for our servicemembers and families, and ensure the military is properly resourced and equipped to defend our Nation and its allies.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama.
This is truly a bipartisan product, and I thank Chairman Smith for his leadership in that effort. I know there will be an effort later today and tomorrow to add extraneous issues to this bill that have nothing to do with the defense of our Nation. It happens every year. But like previous years, we will work through those in conference. We will weed out the ones that don't need to come back to the floor.
Before us today is a critical piece of legislation. It is a good piece of legislation, and I urge its adoption.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
It allows some of the most hardened terrorists in U.S. custody a platform to publicly broadcast their message.
Our military commissions process at Guantanamo Bay has already been substantially delayed. Letting hardened terrorists know there is a public audience for their hate will do far more harm than good.
Federal courts have stuck to their guns against broadcasting major terrorism cases, such as the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, and I see no reason to make an exception for terrorists at Guantanamo Bay.
Mr. Speaker, even the Biden administration has fought against prior versions of this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, again, this amendment undermines the military commissions process and gives hardened terrorists a public platform. The Biden administration has opposed this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment completely undermines the existing contractor debarment processes at DOD. Federal contractors and subcontractors are already required to comply with the National Labor Relations Act.
There are already tools to bring contractors into compliance. This amendment takes the decision out of the hands of the contracting officer to determine whether or not a contractor is responsible. Something as small as a single paperwork violation would prohibit DOD from contracting with a company.
This is an unprecedented prohibition that exists nowhere else in the Federal Government.
It is a departure from the processes we use to prevent contracting with bad actors and would undermine our national security. If enacted, this would severely limit the Department's ability to contract for goods and services needed to support the warfighter and execute critical mission sets around the globe.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this effort. It could stop procurement of critical systems needed to counter China. It could delay construction of military housing projects, and it could stop work on vital programs to improve the safety of ships, aircrafts, and combat vehicles.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad amendment. I urge all Members to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment completely undermines the existing contractor debarment processes at the DOD. Federal contractors and subcontractors are already required to comply with the National Labor Relations Act. There are already tools to bring contractors into compliance. But this amendment takes the decision out of the hands of the contracting officer to determine whether a contractor is responsible.
If enacted, this amendment would limit the Department's ability to receive quality goods and services and drive up costs unnecessarily.
Federal contractors and subcontractors are already required to comply with the National Labor Relations Act. Yet this amendment would go further and seek to prefer contract awards based on compliance with labor agreements in a new and unprecedented way regardless of its negative impact on small businesses and national security.
I will note that this amendment is opposed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, as well as the Workplace Policy Institute and the Associated Builders and Contractors.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so at this time, I would just urge adoption of this en bloc package and yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment creates an existential threat to the good order and discipline of the military.
A servicemember may seek an order from the U.S. district court demanding a status update or final action within 180 days after any supervisor or office receives a complaint.
This creates an unprecedented right to sue the commanders and force outcomes of administrative proceedings, some of which could be tied to active law enforcement investigations. An activist district court judge could reverse or set aside the final decision of a commander.
I understand that some of my colleagues wish to do away with the UCMJ altogether. I believe this and other provisions are the first step toward that end.
This provision will not benefit those who need protection the most in the Armed Forces and will undermine the strong bipartisan work that has taken place on sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment demolishes the good order and discipline of the military and should be rejected.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is a misuse of funds and resources on behalf of the DOD. As my colleague from California just referenced, this bill already includes funding increases for a myriad of civilian harm programs. There is already $5 million for the Center of Excellence in Civilian Harm Mitigation and $4 million for the Commission on Civilian Harm.
This amendment diverts critical dollars needed to ensure the readiness of our servicemembers to fulfill unnecessary paperwork requirements. Worst of all, it creates additional bureaucrats throughout the DOD whose job it is to second-guess the judgment of our military commanders.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I would urge opposition to this. This amendment represents an unnecessary waste of taxpayer money and undermines the judgment of our military commanders.
I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would arbitrarily strip $100 billion out of this bill. That is 12 percent of total defense spending it would cut. This amendment would have catastrophic effects on training and readiness. It will endanger the safety of our servicemembers by delaying critical safety upgrades on the ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and facilities where they serve.
It will set back the cleanup and environmental remediation at PFAS and other contaminated sites and put off construction of new military housing, schools, and childcare facilities. It will further postpone critical modernization efforts needed to deter China and other adversaries. The list goes on and on.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this amendment guts the bill. It harms our servicemembers and their families. It severely weakens our ability to defend ourselves and our allies. Given Putin's atrocities in Ukraine and the increasing threats we face in China, Iran, North Korea, and other adversaries, this is the worst time to start slashing defense spending.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, here we have another amendment that would arbitrarily slash defense spending. This time it is $37 billion added by Mr. Golden and Mrs. Luria, two Democrat members of our committee, during our markup.
The amendment before us now would eliminate a 2.4 percent pay bonus for enlisted personnel, people who make less than $45,000 a year. It would erase $500 million in additional housing allowances to counteract skyrocketing rents for low-income servicemembers, and it would delete $750 million we added to reduce the price of groceries and other necessities at military commissaries.
The proponents of this amendment argue that we need to spend less on defense so we can spend more on programs to counteract homelessness, hunger, and poverty. But their amendment would strip out a bipartisan effort to ensure our servicemembers with the lowest incomes don't face those same difficulties. It is hypocrisy at its worst.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I point out that this $37 billion that was added in a bipartisan fashion in the committee does not even meet all the unfunded requirements that were submitted to Congress by the Defense Department.
Like all Americans, our servicemembers and their families are suffering from the harmful effects of record inflation. We worked in a bipartisan manner to address that in this NDAA. This amendment would strike that language from the bill. I don't understand why anyone wants to do that and have that effect on our servicemembers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
This amendment would prohibit Congress from receiving unfunded priority lists from service chiefs and combatant commanders. These are the individuals responsible for executing U.S. military operations around the world.
It is critical that Congress knows what the service chiefs and the combatant commanders need to keep our servicemembers safe and ensure success in their missions.
Here are a couple of examples of FY23 unfunded priorities from General McConville, the Army chief of staff: $67 million to accelerate fielding of body armor for female soldiers; $65 million to acquire cold-weather boots, gloves, and sleeping bags for troops deployed to cold-weather environments.
Neither of these critical needs were funded in the Biden proposal. We funded them in this bill only because they were included on General McConville's unfunded priority list. We likely wouldn't have known about them otherwise.
These are just a couple of examples of why this amendment is misguided. There are hundreds more just like it.
I urge Members to oppose this amendment. I remind Members that the President proposes a budget number that the service chiefs and combatant commanders have to salute and say, ``Yes, sir''--hopefully, one day, ``Yes, ma'am''--``That is our number, and we are going to make it work,'' regardless of what they need.
We have to have that unfunded requirements list so that we can know what they actually need, and we can then act because the fact is the President proposes budgets; we write budgets.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would rob Congress of critical information we need to keep our servicemembers safe.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment would repeal what has been bipartisan consensus since 2018. The United States should not provide funding for a bloated international organization to help bring into force a treaty that the Senate has already rejected. In practical terms, this amendment would allow tens of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to be spent on conferences and junkets in the capitals of Europe to help resurrect a treaty that the U.S. Senate has already rejected.
Let's be clear: This amendment has nothing to do with U.S. nuclear testing. Since the early 1980s, every administration, both Republican and Democrat, has stated that we do not need to conduct underground nuclear testing. Nothing has changed, and this bill provides billions of dollars to ensure that it doesn't.
My suggestion to the sponsors of this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is if you really want to change the policy, then go run for the Senate. There you can attempt to resurrect the rotting corpse which is the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would prohibit funding for the W-87-1 nuclear warhead and attempt to life extend the Minuteman ICBM. In practical terms, this amendment is a backdoor attempt to kill the U.S. ICBM program.
We have heard time and again from the U.S. Air Force, STRATCOM, and GAO that the Minuteman ICBM cannot be life extended. The parts simply don't exist, and we need this new capability.
This would also fly in the face of the decision made by President Biden in his nuclear posture review to continue retiring the Minuteman III and replacing it with Sentinel ICBM. This was the same decision President Trump and President Obama came to when they were reviewing this data.
Adopting this amendment would also send a terrible signal to our allies. Allies around the world rely on the protection provided by the U.S. nuclear umbrella which reduces the incentive for those nations to pursue nuclear programs of their own. Extending the nuclear guarantee underwrites the security of over 30 formal treaty allies including NATO, Japan, Australia, and South Korea. This amendment is akin to unilateral disarmament and would be a huge win for Russia and China.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama.
I will say this for my good friend from California: He is persistent. I hope that this year he is not going to be successful, like he hasn't been in the past.
This amendment guts a decade and a half of consensus on nuclear modernization. It would appease foreign dictators and undermine our alliances. It is opposed by the Pentagon.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed. Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Tlaib
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would repeal what was unanimously inserted into the NDAA during this year's markup.
The underlying bill currently contains a floor of 400 deployed ICBMs. This is the minimum STRATCOM says it needs to deter both Russia and China. That is how we got that number, by trusting our military commanders.
China is building and filling ICBM fields at an unprecedented rate. Russia is deploying a new heavy Sarmat ICBM. Yet, we are taking time to debate whether the U.S. should maintain at least 400 ICBMs.
The debate is simple. If you support going lower than the number of ICBMs that STRATCOM says it needs to deter Russia and China, then you should support the Tlaib amendment. If you think that 400 is the right number, and you trust our military commanders in their assessment, then you should oppose the Tlaib amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would repeal the statutory requirement to maintain at least 400 ICBMs. That would completely undermine our strategic deterrent. I urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment offers vague language about how the DOD and VA should plan to address the spread of so-called disinformation in DOD and veteran communities.
It defines ``malign disinformation'' to include anything harmful to the good order and discipline or related to vaccinations.
Supporters of this amendment should think long and hard about what behavior they envision being investigated and criminalized in this report.
Implying that all who question or all who disagree with COVID vaccinations are somehow the victims of disinformation is also an absurd view of reality. I find it insulting to our servicemembers and veterans.
This body should not support any language that endorses mass censorship campaigns based on political beliefs or loose concepts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is Orwellian and insulting to servicemembers. I urge all Members to oppose it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed. Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Schneider
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment lays the groundwork for massive new monitoring programs in the name of preventing extremism.
The amendment would implement verbatim the recommendations of DOD bureaucrats and political appointees who wrote the two reports.
These reports, which are shoddy and devoid of actual data, recommend massive expansions of so-called vetting of DOD civilians and servicemembers.
These recommendations, if implemented, lay the groundwork for new social media and online activity monitoring, new screening questions about group and political affiliations, and so-called behavioral analysis.
The amendment is so poorly drafted that it may require DOD to share information about extremist activity in the DOD with foreign countries. It doesn't prohibit the sharing of servicemember information or include any mention of privacy protections. We can't even say for sure what the amendment will do.
It asks the DOD to pick six recommendations from a list of 27 policy ideas. There is a reason we don't implement departmental reports as law without due consideration. The options range from updating a PowerPoint to collecting servicemembers' social media data to extremism databases.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment is an abdication of legislative responsibility and will likely lead to massive civil liberty infringements at the DOD. I strongly urge its rejection, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes unnecessary changes to section 333 security cooperation reporting requirements and places needless certification on programs within the Northern Triangle.
The additional reporting requirements are overly burdensome. Furthermore, requiring additional certification for Northern Triangle countries is entirely misplaced and not something done for any other group of countries for security cooperation programs.
It is critically important to maintain, not turn our backs on, partners in the SOUTHCOM region. Turning our backs on partners only creates a vacuum for China and Russia to create a greater foothold in the region.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, this amendment weakens our partnerships in the SOUTHCOM region and helps China to continue their malign efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this amendment and a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source