National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chair, I agree with Chairman Rogers. This is a very strong bipartisan bill and it reflects the process that we go through every year in passing the National Defense Authorization Act. We had a great markup in committee. It was a bipartisan process. We considered at least a thousand different amendments and ideas that were brought to us by members from across the committee. We had very good debates in those amendments, and we came out with what I think is an excellent bipartisan product.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Rogers in his first year as chairman. He has done an outstanding job of being inclusive of all of us and producing a great bill.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the staff. The members sort of throw the ideas out there and the staff are the ones that have to sort through them and turn them into amendments and negotiate to try to get it done. We are blessed with an outstanding staff on the Armed Services Committee. I very much appreciate their support.
Mr. Chairman, I will start by emphasizing one of the last points that Chairman Rogers made on accountability and efficiency within the military.
The Department of Defense is a very large bureaucracy. We will never completely eliminate any wasteful decision, but we are absolutely focused on doing the best we can, and this bill reflects that to try to make sure that we are getting our money's worth for the systems and programs that we are funding. I think the chairman has done a great job of leading on that.
Mr. Chairman, we are working toward getting a full audit of the Pentagon. We are auditing piece by piece and empowering the Inspector General to make sure that we do a better job of spending the taxpayers' dollars.
Overall, the NDAA weaves three basic things into it. Number one, and most importantly, is support for the men and women who serve in our military and their families. Without this bill, crucial programs will be lost that provide that support. We offer bonuses and other incentive pay. We increased the basic housing allowance. There are all kinds of issues that go toward the basic necessities that men and women in the military and their families need to support them that doesn't happen without this legislation.
We have mentioned, and I mention again, the importance of recruitment and retention. That is one of the biggest issues. Are we supporting the servicemembers and their families?
This bill is the opportunity that we, as Members of Congress, have to make sure that we are doing that as a body.
The second big issue is modernizing the military. The chairman mentioned this, as well. On the modern battlefield, technology and new innovations are crucial. It is changing constantly and needs to be updated. The Pentagon historically has not been great at fielding new technologies quickly. We put a variety of different provisions in there to help incentivize that and move them toward doing that.
The modern battlefield is about information systems, missiles, missile defense, drone, and counter drone. We need to have the best in all of that. We need to innovate, and this bill helps get us there.
Lastly, the bill recognizes the threat environment that we face. They recognize the threat from China, the threat from Russia, and others to make sure that we have adequate deterrence.
We continue the Indo-Pacific Defense Initiative to help offer that deterrence to China, and, crucially, we continue to support Ukraine. I want to emphasize that last point. You cannot be legitimately concerned about the threat that China poses and not be willing to support Ukraine.
If Putin and Russia are able to do what they want to do in Ukraine, that gives a green light to President Xi and China to do the same thing elsewhere. Russia must be defeated in Ukraine. A sovereign, democratic Ukraine must survive for our country's vision of what national security should be for the globe. You can't do one without the other, and I hope we will do both.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very strong bill. I support the bill as it is currently before us. The amendments that are in front of us are going to be debated one way or the other, and I will still support the bill after that.
As we all know, that is not the end of the story here. There is a second rule allegedly coming. I sincerely hope that the majority prioritizes getting this bill done over the certain views of a small number of extreme Members. We have a good bill. Let's pass it. Let's not mess it up.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the ranking member of the Readiness Subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), who is the ranking member on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), who is the ranking member of the Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation Subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, first of all, amen to Mr. Gallagher's comments. I appreciate that impassioned speech.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kim), who is the ranking member on the Military Personnel Subcommittee.
Mr. KIM of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I believe you can tell a lot about the values of a nation based on how they treat and care for those who step up and are entrusted with defending the nation. If we are honest with ourselves, we don't always keep our promises, and we don't always do enough for them.
We have servicemembers who are struggling with food insecurity and mental health challenges. We have military families struggling with rising costs and prices, issues that we can better deal with, whether childcare or others.
To have the best and strongest military, we need to be the best and strongest employer. This NDAA is our chance to do better.
So far, this NDAA takes some important steps to improve the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families. It gives a needed pay raise, and it takes action to address suicide and childcare needs. There is more that we need to do, but these are important steps forward.
I have also seen and heard of provisions and amendments, though, that would make it harder for servicemembers to get access to the care that they need or to know and feel that they are welcome and supported by our military and our country.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose efforts that would do that and that would jeopardize some of the gains for our military families that are in this NDAA and make it harder for us to recruit for our all-volunteer force, a force that is the most diverse fighting force on this planet.
As mentioned, I do believe that the last place that partisan politics belongs is in our national security. That is something that we should fiercely protect when we are talking about this NDAA. Our military families deserve better, and this is our opportunity to show them that they are our top priority.
This is our chance to pay tribute to the anniversary of our all- volunteer force by creating support for our servicemembers that can be sustained for the next 50 years.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the ranking member on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the ranking member on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan), the vice ranking member of the full committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I think we have heard during the course of this debate exactly why this is such an important bill, why it is such a good bill, and the effort that went into the process.
You have heard a bipartisan group of people, and people wide-ranging on the political spectrum, from left to right, describe the process that we go through to produce this product and why it is so important that we pass it.
We face a very complex threat environment. Now I happen to be of the opinion that it is not just military strength that is going to help us negotiate that threat environment. For one thing, I very much applaud the Biden administration opening up high-level discussions with China. We need diplomacy. We need development. We need partners and allies throughout the globe.
We also absolutely need a credible deterrent to deal with China and Russia, and also, by the way, Iran and North Korea, as well as various other transnational threats.
We are doing this I think in a responsible way, and we have put together a good bill that will continue to support that process going forward.
Again, I would emphasize what Representative Gallagher very articulately said. This is how this process is supposed to work. This is why we are effective Members of Congress. It is an example of how this body should function, and we need more examples of that. We need to pass this bill to continue that process.
It is regular order, working it through the committee, giving everybody a voice, having debates, winning some, losing some. I don't think there has ever been an NDAA that was everything that any one person wanted.
Republicans liked a lot of things in it; didn't like others. Democrats liked a lot of things in it; didn't like others.
That is what we have put together here.
The issue that is holding us up at the moment is around the issue of basically recruitment and diversity. What I hope folks understand is that what the Pentagon is trying to do is they are trying to effectively recruit from across the country.
What a minority of the majority party wants to do is to torpedo this entire bill to push a radical antidiversity agenda. We need to recruit everybody, and we haven't always had the best record on this.
The reason there is a diversity equity inclusion portion in the military is they recognize it is necessary to be able to effectively recruit within certain groups of people who have been historically discriminated against and marginalized.
Just to give you one of the most blatant examples:
Don't Ask, Don't Tell basically barred gay people from serving within the military, and 13 years ago, we repealed that to allow gay people to serve openly in the military. Every single Republican voted against that bill because of that issue, because we were allowing gay people to serve in the military.
Well, as we look at our needs right now in recruitment and retention, can anyone credibly say that we would be better off if we barred gay people from serving in the military?
That didn't happen by accident. We actually affirmatively went out and recruited. Same for trans people; we had multiple efforts to ban them from serving in the military. That doesn't help us. It, in fact, undermines us.
We have had a long history of it being very difficult for women to integrate in the military. I hate to keep citing the story, but hearing the one woman who serves in our community talk about her experience, that it was okay because she just knew that she had to work twice as hard as the men in order to succeed illustrates the problem.
We have by and large done a decent job of recruiting people of color, particularly Black people. When you look at the leadership in our military, it is very, very White. So if you are a person of color, if you are a woman, if you are gay, if you are trans, and you are thinking about joining the military, can anyone credibly say that it isn't a legitimate question to ask: Well, okay, but am I going to get a fair shot? Am I going to be rewarded for my efforts? Am I going to be promoted when I do a good job? Am I going to face discrimination and bigotry?
For the Department of Defense to spend at least a little bit of time going out in those communities and saying, we hear you and we are going to give you a fair shot, we are not going to discriminate against you, we are going to have conversations about this; certain Members of the other side lose their damn minds at the concept of that conversation even happening.
They want to pretend like that sort of bigotry doesn't exist. It is like we are making it up, and why are we worrying about it. Well, if it didn't exist it wouldn't be a problem. I would grant them that.
Again, the history is right there. It needs to be addressed if we are going to recruit and retain.
We are an increasingly diverse country. Do we really want to take huge chunks of that country and say, we are not going to use your talents? We are going to put those resources on the side, and we are not going to bring them forward.
Now, as I said in the Rules Committee, bad DEI programs are bad DEI programs, and I am sure it happens. I haven't seen a program that doesn't have some examples of working well and some examples of not working well.
If we want to regulate that, if we want to say: Look, you are doing this. We don't think you are doing that right; let's talk about it, that could be a conversation we have. But the conversation that we engaged in, and as Mr. Gaetz pointed out, there are provisions in this bill that, frankly, I don't like, that restricts some of this already. I am not fond of those.
That isn't enough for the radical rightwing MAGA Republicans. They want to kill this bill because it doesn't discriminate enough against people in this country, and that is just absurd.
This is a good, strong bill. It should go forward on its own merits regardless of where you come down on that debate. To say that we need to kill this good, strong bill because it needs to be more discriminatory against people is something that I would hope that the overwhelming majority of this body would reject.
Mr. Chair, let me just close by saying that we have five en bloc amendments here; a whole lot of good things in there. Once we get through those five en bloc amendments, we will have a very strong bill, which will be bipartisan amended.
If we were to go right from the end of that debate, put that bill up for final passage, it would get at least 350 votes--an overwhelmingly bipartisan, strongly supported bill that the majority at the moment is refusing to allow us to have a vote on as we try to negotiate that extreme agenda that I just discussed.
Okay, if you want to debate with them, you don't want to talk, that is fine. At the end of that process, I would hope that we would have the courage to say, yeah, we hear you, you don't like it, vote ``no.''
That is a democracy, okay?
Vote ``no.'' Vote ``no,'' send out your press releases, do your whole Facebook thing. You will raise a lot of money. We will pass a bill. We will take care of the country. You will get on TV a lot. You will raise a lot of money. Everybody is happy.
I don't see why we can't get to that conclusion. That is the real worrisome thing here. They don't just support their agenda. The one agenda they don't support is democracy. It is the idea that people ought to have a vote, and if you lose, you lose.
No, if they lose, they are going to tear this place down, and they are going to take everybody they can with them.
Gosh, I hope we don't let them do that. I hope we find a way to pass this bill and work our way through the process and, for the 63rd consecutive year, pass a National Defense Authorization Act that supports the men and women of our military and shows that democracy works just fine and we ought to continue to support it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I don't have any speakers. I am very pleased to dispose of this quickly, if you would like. I would just say I think it is an outstanding amendment, and we ought to vote for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I understand we have one speaker on the way, but they can catch the next one.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I would inquire if the gentleman has more speakers. I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I once again urge support for this en bloc amendment and thank the Rules Committee for putting it together.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers either so, once again, I will urge support for the en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers, and I urge my colleagues to vote for the en bloc amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I, too, have no speakers. I urge adoption of the en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I once again urge adoption of en bloc package No. 5, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source